UC-NRLF 
 
 $B S7 420 
 
 THE DEPENDENCE OF 
 
 PA IT I OF CYNEWULPS CHRIST 
 
 Upon 
 
 THE ANTIPHONARY 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD tBURGERT, O. S. B. 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 Siihmitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic University 
 
 of America in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements 
 
 for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 1931 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/dependenceofpartOOburgrich 
 
THE DEPENDENCE OF 
 
 PART I OF CYNEWULFS CHRIST 
 
 Upon 
 
 THE ANTIPHONARY 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD iBURGERT, O. S. B. 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 Submitted to the Faculty of Letters of the Catholic University 
 
 of America in Partial fulfillment of the Requirements 
 
 for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 1921 
 
Copyriffht. 1921 
 by 
 ;• ; '..' EDWARD BURGERT 
 
 • •••.•• • by 
 
 • !•••* •••• • 
 
 BKCHA^f€ig: 
 
 J. D. Milan* & Sons. Printers 
 Wa»hington, D. C. 
 
FOREWORD /y)/?//^ 
 
 The following dissertation, being restricted to a study of Part 
 I of Cynewulf's Christ, will carry an especial interest only for 
 students of Old English Literature. Yet the writer hopes that, 
 in the main general content, its perusal may interest liturgiolo- 
 gists and lovers of our early native Christian Poetry to the 
 extent, at least, of according a welcome to the first contribution 
 of its kind from a student of Cynewulf so near to him in both 
 Church tradition and station in life. If it were necessary to 
 offer an explanation or even am apology for this hazardous 
 venture by a beginner in Old English, and for his selection of 
 a subject considered by many, even in our day of ripe scholarship, 
 as unpractical and effete, the consideration indicated above would 
 be amply sufficient. "* 
 
 Though the writer is deeply conscious of the imperfections in 
 his work, he was determined to carry it out to the best of his 
 ability, especially after he had received the encouragement of 
 Professor Albert S. Cook, whose position as the foremost 
 authority on The Christ of Cynewulf in this country, if not in 
 the world, is universally accepted. Professor Cook wrote to 
 him, in a letter of December 4, 1920, "I have long wondered that 
 your Church, and especially your Order, should not have bestowed 
 more attention upon Old English Literature. It is a hopeful sign 
 that you are going into this matter so carefully." 
 
 Indeed, this field of our glorious Literature has been too long 
 neglected by those whose heritage it principally is. Wherefore 
 the writer entertains the hope that his modest beginning may 
 break the way to a more intense study and a deeper appreciation 
 of the Catholic Literature in Old England on the part of Catholic 
 students in the English speaking world. 
 
 The indebtedness of the writer for the help and encouragement 
 received on all sides is manifold. He wishes to express his 
 gratitude to Dr. Karl Young of the University of Wisconsin, to 
 Rev. F. G. Holweck, editor of the Pastoral-Blatt of St. Louis, 
 and to Msgr. Henry, Litt. D., of the Catholic University of 
 America, for various services rendered ; but chiefly to Dr. Francis 
 J. Hemelt, who not only gave him the inspiration for his work, 
 
 352 
 
4 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 but assisted him at the cost of many personal sacrifices, and to 
 Dr. P. J. Lennox, under whose patient and scholarly guidance 
 the work was completed. 
 
 The text followed is that of Professor Cook in his edition of 
 The Christ of Cynewulf, second impression, 1909. The additions 
 that have accrued in the bibliography of Christ I, in as far as 
 they bear upon the subject of the study presented, are noted in 
 their proper places. The Patrologia Latina, edited by Migne, is 
 quoted as P. L. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 I. Introduction 7 
 
 II. The Sources as forming the Bases for the Divisions 15 
 
 1. The Divisions in Christ 1 15 
 
 2. The Sources of the twelve Divisions 22 
 
 Divis'ion I 23 
 
 Division II 23 
 
 Division III 25 
 
 Division IV 25 
 
 Division V 26 
 
 Division VI 26 
 
 Division VII .....' 27 
 
 Division VIII 29 
 
 Division IX 32 
 
 Division X 33 
 
 Division XI 43 
 
 Division XII 45 
 
 3. The Sources of the Lost Portion 48 
 
 III. The Sources as found in actual Church Use 53 
 
 1. General Observations 53 
 
 2. The Seven Universal O's 61 
 
 3. The Added or Monastic O's 66 
 
 4. The Remaining Sources 76 
 
 IV. Conclusion 81 
 
 1. The Dependence of Christ I upon the Antiphonary 81 
 
 2. Corollary "A" : Further dependence upon the Antiphonary. . . 86 
 
 3. Corollary "B" : The Working Methods of Cynewulf and the 
 
 Unity of the Christ 89 
 
 4. Corollary "C" : The Sources of the Christ and the Poet 93 
 
 5. Conclusion 99 
 
 V. Bibliography 101 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The first part of Cynewulf's Christ, the Advent, or Christ // is 
 contained in the 439 lines appearing in the beginning of the 
 Exeter Book. This portion of the Christ had long been a puzzle 
 to students, until, in his edition of 1900,^ Professor Albert S. Cook 
 solved the mystery surrounding the sources upon which it is 
 based, and thus opened the way to a better understanding of this 
 portion of the poem. For the knowledge, that Christ I is based 
 chiefly on the Great Antiphons of Advent, called the Advent O's, 
 aided in determining more precisely the character of the poem, 
 in detecting more minutely the divisions in it, and, above all, in 
 realizing more fully the spirit of deep religious fervor out of 
 which it was born. As an aid in directing students and lovers of 
 the Christ to a proper appreciation of all these phases of the 
 poem, the scholarly edition of Professor Cook merits a distinction 
 never before achieved in the presentation of an Old English text. 
 
 With all the diligent research and painstaking labor which 
 Professor Cook has bestowed upon the study of the Christ, he is 
 aware of the need of further investigation in the matter of certain 
 problems still clamoring for a solution. That such problems 
 exist, no serious student of Cynewulf will deny. 
 
 After a more detailed study of the Christ, and in particular of 
 Part I, the conviction grew upon me that the attention given on 
 the part of investigators to what appeared to me the true and 
 full relation of Christ I to its sources was inadequate. For, with 
 all the deeper and more accurate knowledge that we now have 
 of Part I of the Christ, the belief apparently still prevails among 
 scholars that this portion of the poem presents in its composition 
 a more or less meaningless jumble of lyrical outbursts, illustrative 
 of the disjecta membra, rudis indigestaque moles of Ovid. That 
 the poet maintains no orderly treatment of the subjects within 
 this section of the Christ, seems to be a foregone conclusion. 
 
 ^ This terminology, employed chiefly by European scholars, will be here 
 adopted for the sake of brevity and convenience. 
 
 ' The Christ of Cynewulf, edited with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, 
 by Albert S. Cook. Boston, 1900. The Albion Series. 
 
 7 
 
^8Ls • c . . ^. t THE DEPKNDEJNCK OF CHRIST I. 
 
 . .Th^at-titude thus taken towards the scheme or plan of Christ I 
 ^is assumed to be the natural one, flowing from the very character 
 of the poem and the nature of its sources. Perhaps this is partly 
 the reason why so little attention was hitherto given to a detailed 
 study of the larger construction in Christ I. 
 
 In defining the task which is here proposed as a step towards 
 acquiring a better understanding of the relation which the smaller 
 divisions of Christ I, until now but disjecta membra, bear to the 
 sources upon which they are based, and to the plan of construc- 
 tion in the poem, the precise attitude of previous investigators 
 towards this phase of Christ I must first be ascertained. 
 
 Cook,^ in speaking of the faults of construction in the Christ, 
 
 says: 
 
 The fault of Cynewulf is in harmony with the tendency 
 of the Old English poets in general, a tendency to dwell too 
 much upon details, and neglect the architectonics, the per- 
 spective of the whole. The more intensely a poet feels, the 
 greater is this danger, especially if a sufficient outline has 
 not been provided for him by an author on whom he is 
 dependent. Thus it is that the construction of Parts I and 
 II of the Christ is better than that of Part III : the two 
 together are not much longer than the third, and the originals 
 selected were in each of those two cases sufficient to provide 
 the framework of the division, while in Part III, notwith- 
 standing the preponderance of the Latin Judgment Hymn 
 as a source, much material, not greatly inferior in extent 
 and interest, is drawn from other authors. It is true that 
 Part I, being based upon a series of Antiphons, is essentially 
 lyrical in character, and the only unity demanded is that 
 secured through the character of the Advent season to which 
 the Antiphons belong. 
 
 Cook grants to Parts I and II of the Christ a better form of 
 construction than to Part III, inasmuch as the Latin originals 
 for these two parts provided the poet with a framework. Yet, 
 as affecting particularly Part I, this framework is evidently not 
 considered as contributing anything definite towards a closer 
 unity of construction in that part, for we are told that the only 
 unity demanded, in this essentially lyrical part of the Christ, is 
 that secured through the character of the Advent season. Thus 
 Cook appears to have stated a problem without himself seeing 
 the value of it. He admits the dependence of the poet upon a 
 
 ' Pp. xc. f . 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 9 
 
 framework, but, at the same time, he does not expect the poem 
 to derive any unity of construction from that dependence. He 
 does not see beyond a lyrical unity. 
 
 Another student of the Christ, who has taken up the question 
 of the construction in the poem, is George A. Smithson. In his 
 study of the plot technique of the Christ* he presents a more 
 detailed investigation of the unity of the poem as a whole, as 
 well as of the unity in each of its three parts. He there ' under- 
 takes to define more precisely the unity which should exist in the 
 Christ as a whole, saying : 
 
 In the Christ we may not look for the unity that lies in 
 a single action with its beginning, its middle, and its end. 
 Since the Christ is not narrative, since it does not arouse in 
 us the feeling of suspense as to the event or outcome of the 
 whole, we can look for the lyric unity alone. This is the 
 unity of mood that is more easily felt than formulated. That 
 the poem as a whole has this unity cannot be doubted. Its 
 one predominating mood is the spirit of Advent, of the 
 three-fold coming of Christ to men, through the Virgin birth, 
 through the faith of the believer, and through the final 
 judgment. That the general unity of the whole has not 
 always been recognized, that the three main parts of the poem 
 have been regarded as separate entities, can be due only to 
 the fact that students have failed to recognize the existence 
 or the force of that unity which is of mood alone. 
 
 Though the chief interest of the present study is confined to 
 the unity seen in Part I of the Christ, this general characterization 
 of the lyric unity in the poem as a whole cannot remain un- 
 challenged, since its purpose is to strengthen the theory of lyric 
 unity in each of the three parts, thus affecting also the larger 
 construction of Part I. 
 
 I am not prepared to admit that there is a necessary unity of 
 mood throughout the poem as a whole, based on the threefold 
 coming of Christ to men, through the Virgin birth, the faith of 
 the believer, and the final judgment. In the first place, the idea 
 of a threefold coming of Christ was plainly foreign to the mind 
 of Cynewulf. He nowhere expresses it; he nowhere seems to 
 
 * The Old English Christian Epic. A Study in the Plot Technique of 
 the Juliana, the Elene, the Andreas, and the Christ, in comparison with 
 the Beowulf and with the Latin Literature of the Middle Ages, by George 
 Arnold Smithson. University of California, 1910. 
 
 *Ibid., 325. 
 
30 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 imply it. As the only proof for this unity, Smithson gives the 
 words of 'St. Bernard:® Triplicem enim ejus adventum novimus: 
 ad homines, in homines, contra homines. In passing, it might be 
 noted that St. Bernard died A.D. 1153, at least three centuries 
 after Cynewulf. Thus it is quite natural for students to fail to 
 recognize the existence of a unity based on St. Bernard's words. 
 When therefore Smithson says : ^ 
 
 The division of the Christ into three main parts was prob- 
 ably due to the church's recognition of a three-fold advent 
 of Christ, 
 his argument is inadequate. 
 
 It would be futile to question the recognition of a threefold 
 advent in the mediaeval Church. But, to all appearances, the 
 idea of a threefold coming of Christ, as expressed by St. Bernard, 
 was a development of the later Middle Ages when mysticism was 
 in flower. It will be noted in this connection that St. Bernard 
 represented the peak of that age of mysticism, being himself 
 often referred to as the "mystic of the mystics." Though mystical 
 interpretations, as aiTecting the liturgy of the Church, had been 
 current at the time of Cynewulf, a specific instance in which this 
 particular reference to a threefold coming of Christ can be found 
 appears to be lacking. Cook, who so diligently searched for all 
 possible references, is silent on the subject. He, indeed, quotes 
 the words of St. Bernard above, yet only in illustration of the 
 spirit of Advent. He does not apply them to the three main parts 
 of the Christ. 
 
 In fact, the Patrologia Latina, edited by Migne, contains no 
 record of an expression equivalent to that of St. Bernard before 
 the eleventh century. In previous works of the Fathers and 
 ecclesiastical writers the interpretation of the coming of Christ 
 to men was apparently restricted to the two advents expressed 
 in the liturgy of the Advent season, the coming of the Son of 
 God in the Incarnation, and His final coming at the Last Judg- 
 ment. Thus Tertullian * of the third century, and Maximus • 
 of the fifth century. 
 
 * Third Advent Sermon, Migne, P. L., 183, 45; cf. Smithson, 343; quoted 
 also in Cook, xxvii f. 
 
 ' The Old English Christian Epic, 342. 
 
 /See his Liber Apologeticus adversus Gentes, Migne, P. L., 1, 400; and 
 his Liber IIL adversus Marcionem, ibid., 2, 329. 
 
 'See his Homilia IL, Migne, P. L., 57, 225.— Trautmann therefore 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 31 
 
 The thought of Christ's coming to the soul of the believer is 
 naturally implied in the preparation for the feast of the Nativity 
 which constitutes the special object of the Advent season. As 
 such it is contained in the longings and expectations expressed 
 so abundantly throughout the Advent liturgy, and in particular 
 in the Greater Antiphons. As such it also appears in the lyrical 
 paraphrases of Christ I. But this thought of the spiritual advent 
 of Christ apparently found no outward expression, in the sense 
 of St. Bernard's words, until a later time. Wherefore, the argu- 
 ment taken from the Church's recognition of a threefold advent, 
 as affecting the division of the Christ into three main parts, 
 appears decidedly defective. 
 
 In the second place, Part II of the Christ is simply not a coming 
 in faith to the believer, however much we may strive to give it 
 this interpretation. Cook is loath to call the second part a com- 
 ing at all. He says ^^ of the opinion which Dietrich held con- 
 cerning this : 
 
 * * * it verges on the absurd when he (Dietrich) declines 
 to call the Ascension a departure from earth, or a return to 
 heaven, and designates it as an arrival — a coming — into glory. 
 
 If the Ascension (Part II of the Christ), as treated by Cyne- 
 wulf, represents a departure from earth, and not a coming into 
 glory, it can much less be made to represent that phase of Christ's 
 coming which St. Bernard designates as the adventus in homines. 
 Indeed, the coming of Christ in faith to the believer can hardly 
 be brought in connection with his departure from earth, and it 
 would be extremely difficult to show that such a connection 
 exists in the second part of the Christ. It thus appears that too 
 much is being made of an argument not only invalidated by its 
 anachronism, but also highly doubtful in its appHcation to Part 
 II of the Christ. If a lyric unity really prevails in the poem as 
 a whole, it must be sought in a predominating mood other than 
 the spirit of Advent as embodied in the threefold coming of 
 Christ to men. 
 
 The unity of the Christ, despite Smithson's efforts to establish 
 
 it securely, still constitutes a problem in Old English Literature. 
 
 Although it is not within the purpose of my study to enter upon 
 
 a full discussion of this unity in the Christ, a suggestion which 
 
 seemed to be right when he said that the threefold coming of Christ has 
 not been found in any other author (before Cynewulf) ; cf. Cook, xix. 
 ''P. xvii. 
 
IJ^ THE DEPENDENCE O^ CHRIST 1. 
 
 tends to throw some light upon the problem may be of service 
 to future investigators. 
 
 Since the connection between Parts II and III of the Christ is 
 more easily discernible than the connection between Parts I and 
 II, the unity of the two latter is frequently called into question, 
 some scholars even refusing to admit the authorship of Cyne- 
 wulf in Part I. The relation^ however, which the theme of Part 
 I bears to the theme of Part II, may have been suggested to the 
 poet by the lines of the fifth stanza of the well-known Advent 
 hymn, Veni, redemptor gentium}'^ The lines in question are : 
 
 Egressus ejus a Patre, 
 Regressus ejus ad Patrem, 
 Excursus usque ad inferos, 
 Recursus ad sedem Dei. 
 
 An analysis of this stanza will show the parallelism between 
 lines 1 and 3, and between lines 2 and 4, the two together being 
 placed in opposition to each other: 
 
 Egressus ejus a Patre — Excursus usque ad inferos, 
 Regressus ejus ad Patrem — Recursus ad sedem Dtei. 
 
 The parallel thoughts complement each other, in the first case 
 by adding to the terminus a quo, "Egressus ejus a Patre," the 
 terminus ad quem, "Excursus usque ad inferos"; in the second 
 case by a mere synonymous expression. 
 
 Parts I and II of the Christ, in their general themes, bear out 
 very strikingly the two thoughts contained in this stanza of the 
 Veni, redemptor gentium, that is, the two extreme points in the 
 temporal or human life of the Son of God, his Incarnation and 
 his Ascension, his advent among men and his departure from 
 them. What is more, the poet appears to develop the first thought 
 in its completeness by laying a peculiar stress not only upon the 
 terminus a quo, but also upon the terminus ad quem of Christ's 
 advent. For the frequent recurrence, in Christ I, oi the theme 
 of Christ's coexistence with the Father ("egressus ejus a Patre") 
 and the motive drawn from the harrowing of Hell ("excursus 
 usque ad inferos") has been pointed out by all scholars dealing 
 with the Christ. 
 
 The thoughts, then, expressed in the fifth stanza of this Advent 
 hymn, would seem to furnish a more plausible basis for a unity 
 Christ than the thought of Christ's advent ad homines and in 
 of mood, or a lyric unity, in the first and second part of the 
 homines can give. The theme of Part III of the Christ follows 
 
 " Duffield, Latin Hymns, p. 56. — cf. also, Mone, Lateinische Hymncn des 
 Mittelalters, i. 42; The Hymner (of the Sarum Breviary), p. 4. — This hymn 
 is by St. Ambrose (died 397). In the Leofric Collectar it appears in the 
 Matins of Advent, while the Aberdeen Breviary of 1508 assigns it to the 
 Vigil of the Nativity. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 13 
 
 naturally from that of Part 11/^ and thus the desired unity in 
 the poem as a whole would not be destroyed. In Christ I Christ 
 can be considered as beginning his work of Redemption, in 
 Christ II, as completing the work and receiving his personal re- 
 ward from the Father, while in Christ III, as demanding the 
 fruits of the Redemption from the whole human race. 
 
 While Smithson is a firm believer in the lyric unity existing 
 in the structure of the Christ as a whole (yet his argument was 
 seen to be too weak for establishing this theory), he denies all 
 unity within each of the three parts, though, in his opinion, the 
 smaller divisions of the three parts themselves again show an 
 excellent coherence within their own individual limits. In other 
 words, the divisions within the three parts of the Christ are want- 
 ing in all unity among themselves, inasmuch as they show a 
 distinct lack of coherence in their relation to one another. Speak- 
 ing in particular of Part I, he says : ^^ 
 
 * * * the author of the Christ shows the ability to con- 
 ceive the smaller scene as a whole with the proper relation 
 of its parts. Now, when we turn to the larger scale, we see 
 forthwith that he does not show the ability to view the 
 smaller scenes as related parts of a larger whole. A cursory 
 examination shows that Part I is a series of lyric outbursts 
 thrown together at random. * * * The fourth division 
 and the ninth are addressed directly to the Virgin Mary. 
 Between them the fifth, sixth, and eighth are addressed to 
 Christ, while the seventh is the colloquy of Joseph and Mary. 
 The third addresses the Holy Jerusalem, and the eleventh 
 the Trinity. Moreover, the divisions are not arranged as 
 they have to do with the material coming of Christ or the 
 spiritual. The first, fifth, eighth, and eleventh refer specially 
 to the spiritual coming. Such arrangement could have been 
 determined by nothing but chance. 
 
 Part I, then, shows an absolute lack of the sense for larger 
 coherence, of the restraint in the midst of lyric fervor which 
 determines the structural plan of the whole. 
 From these words it is seen that the position taken by Cook 
 in demanding of Part I of the Christ merely a "unity that is 
 secured through the character of the Advent season," is carried 
 by Smithson to its ultimate conclusion. If no other but a lyric 
 unity, or unity of mood, is demanded, it must be because all other 
 unity is lacking in the poem. Consequently there is no unity of 
 construction, not even a sense for a larger coherence in Part I 
 of the Christ. Smithson then goes on to show just in what man- 
 ner the twelve divisions are "thrown together at random." Thus 
 even the framework derived from the Latin originals, and ad- 
 mitted by Cook, vanishes completely from the plan of the poem. 
 
 "See especially lines 523-526. 
 
 " The Old English Christian Epic, 335 f . 
 
14 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 And because no connection whatever is seen between the smaller 
 divisions, it is plain that such arrangement could have been de- 
 termined by nothing but chance. The lyric fervor of the poet 
 alone determines the structural plan of the whole. 
 
 Fortunately for subsequent students of the Christ, the con- 
 clusions at which Smithson thus arrives are admittedly the result 
 of a mere cursory examination of the contents and sources of 
 Part I. A more detailed study of this particular question of 
 structural unity in Christ I is therefore still needed, and it should 
 not remain a fruitless endeavor. For, if the impression has gained 
 general currency that the Christ is "essentially the work of a 
 poet, though of a poet untrained in composition," ^* is this not 
 principally due to an imperfect understanding of the influences 
 which the sources themselves have had upon the arrangement 
 of material in the poem? Have we ever seriously striven to 
 acquire a better and more detailed knowledge of the framework 
 which Cynewulf is supposed to have derived from his Latin 
 originals ? 
 
 It is true, the investigations devoted to problems in the Christ 
 have been few and well scattered since the appearance of Cook's 
 edition of that poem. The reason for this, no doubt, lies partly 
 in the small number of students who devote their labors to the 
 field of Old English Poetry, and partly in the specific liturgical 
 research necessarily connected with problems affecting the con- 
 tents of the Christ. Perhaps also the very completeness of 
 Cook's edition of the Christ, and the copiousness of his Notes,^^ 
 have caused the impression among students that whatever prob- 
 lems still lie unsolved in the Christ are of minor importance and, 
 in as far as they can be solved, not worth the efiforts of extended 
 research. 
 
 If therefore an investigation of the structural plan of Christ I 
 and of the arrangement of material therein is here undertaken, 
 it is only from a conviction that the full relation of the poem to 
 its sources has heretofore not been satisfactorily disclosed, and 
 that these sources are unjustly held responsible for the apparent 
 lack of a systematic treatment of the subjects chosen by the poet. 
 A closer examination of the sources which form the bases for the 
 individual paraphrases in Christ I as they are found in the actual 
 Church use of the early Middle Ages will, I believe, reveal more 
 fully their influence upon the succession of smaller divisions in 
 the poem. And thus, I trust, will Cynewulf's dependence upon 
 the Antiphonary appear in a clearer light, for it will be seen not 
 merely as confining itself to the themes derived from that source- 
 book, but as extending to the very plan of construction in Part I 
 of the Christ. 
 
 "Stopford Brooke, History of Early English Literature (1892), 391. 
 *'A further discussion of this will be found in the concluding chapter 
 of this study, under Corollary "C." — see pp. 95 f. below. 
 
II 
 
 THE SOURCES AS FORMING THE BASES FOR THE 
 
 DIVISIONS 
 
 1. The Divisions in Christ I 
 
 Some divisions were always made in the text by editors and 
 commentators of the Christ, but it was not until the sources of 
 Part I were discovered by Cook that a proper distribution of the 
 text of Christ I was achieved. Previous to that discovery, the 
 evidences of division found in the manuscript itself ^ were mostly 
 taken as the basis for an apportionment of the lines into various 
 sections, though some scholars, in consequence of a better under- 
 standing of the poem, gradually saw the need of more accurate 
 divisions. 
 
 Thus Wanley and GoUancz adhered strictly to the manuscript 
 divisions, which mark off the following five sections in Christ I: 
 
 1. Lines 1-70. 
 
 2. Lines 71-163. 
 
 3. Lines 164-274. 
 
 4. Lines 276-377. 
 
 5. Lines 378-439.2 
 
 Thorpe and Dietrich added one division at line 416. Grein 
 and Wiilker increased them to eleven, making additional divisions 
 at lines 50, 104, 130, 214, and 348. The discovery of the sources 
 made necessary only one addition to the divisions accepted by 
 Grein and Wiilker, namely, at line 18. Thus we have the fol- 
 lowing twelve smaller divisions in Christ I: 
 
 (1) lines 1-17; (2) lines 18-49; (3) lines 50-70; (4) lines 
 71-103; (5) lines 104-129; (6) lines 130-163; (7) lines 
 164-213; (8) lines 214-274; (9) lines 275-347; (10) lines 
 348-377; (11) lines 378-415; (12) lines 416-439. 
 
 * The Christ of Cynewulf appears at the beginning of the Codex Exoni- 
 ensis, or Exeter Book, which is accepted as dating from the early eleventh 
 century, though our poem, from internal evidences of language and metre, 
 is assigned to the end of the eighth, or beginning of the ninth century. 
 For a complete description of the manuscript see Cook, pp. xiii-xvi, 
 
 " The division marks in the manuscript, as affecting Christ I, consist of 
 a one-line space between the text, and additional signs, like : 7 , or : — . 
 This is the case in all the instances given here, except at line 275, where 
 the space between this line and the preceding line has only the value of 
 about a third of a line. — See Cook, pp. 70 f. 
 
 15 
 
16 THE DE:pENDE:NCE of CHRIST I. 
 
 Each of these twelve divisions appears in the poem as a sep- 
 arate entity, and, except the first in which the beginning is lost, 
 opens with the word eala.^ These individual sections, moreover, 
 are independent of each other in such a manner as to mark no 
 progression of thought or development of plot. They are distinct 
 and separate lays. 
 
 The sources upon which Cook found these independent portions 
 of Christ I to be based are classified by him as follows : * 
 
 (a) The Greater Antiphons of Advent, sometimes called 
 
 the O's ; 
 
 (b) Four Antiphons included by certain mediaeval churches 
 
 among the Greater Antiphons, or associated with 
 them; 
 
 (c) Two of the Antiphons for Lauds on Trinity Sunday 
 
 (here counted as one) according to the Sarum Use. 
 
 The last section of Christ I, lines 416-439, was regarded by 
 Cook as a sort of climax, or rather a resumptive dictated by 
 what had preceded. It was his opinion ^ that "we shall hardly 
 look for a specific source of these reflections" contained in the 
 closing lines of Part I. In 1914, however, Professor Samuel 
 Moore ® completed the discovery of the sources by determining 
 the basis even for this final section of Christ I. He observed that 
 this last portion of the poem is based on the Antiphon O admir- 
 abile commercium. 
 
 The investigations of Cook, supplemented by those of Moore, 
 have resulted in the following sources for the twelve smaller 
 divisions of Christ I: 
 
 I Lines 1-17 : Based on O Rex gentium 
 II Lines 18-49 : Based on O Clavis David 
 
 III Lines 50-70 : Based on O Hierusalem 
 
 IV Lines 71-103: Based on O Virgo virginum 
 V Lines 104-129: Based on O Oriens 
 
 VI Lines 130-163: Based on O Emmanuel 
 VII Lines 164-213 : The Passus. 
 
 Bala IS interpreted by Cook as an interjection equivalent to our "O," 
 "Lo," "Alas"! It is thus apparent that the text of the manuscript itself 
 gave a sufficiently noticeable clue for the proper divisions in the poem, 
 which, no doubt, aided in directing Cook to the sources. 
 
 *P. 71. 
 
 " P. 113. 
 
 " In Modern Language Notes, xxix, 226 f . 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 17 
 
 VIII Lines 214-274: Based on 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 treat- 
 ing a separate and definite theme. There was, moreover, a reason 
 for making the divisions which, save one, Grein and Wiilker 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 : 
 
 1 O Rex gentium 
 I 2 O Clavis David 
 3 O Hierusalem 
 1 O Virgo virginum 
 II 2 O Oriens 
 3 O Emmanuel 
 
 - The Passus, or Dialogue 
 
 1 O Rex Pacifice 
 
 III 2 O mundi Domina 
 3 O Radix (?) 
 
 IV - The Doxology 
 
 - O admirable commercium ^ 
 
 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. 
 
18 THE DEPE:NDE:NCE of CHRIST I. 
 
 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 comniercium 
 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 Dbx- 
 ology. 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 0-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 follow- 
 ing at least the broader structural plan of the usual Church hymn 
 in the organization of the smaller members of his poetical com- 
 position. 
 
 The theory which would credit the poet with a hymnic plan of 
 this kind when arranging the paraphrases within the poem, re- 
 ceives 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 Ettmiiller.^ In his brief characterization of Part 
 
 *Cf. Cook, 67 f. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 19 
 
 I of the Christ Alois Brandl ^ says : Christ I besteht aus Hymnen, 
 Gebeten, und einem Dialog. Stopford Brooke ^° 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.^^ 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 ^^ writes : 
 
 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," con- 
 sequently, hymnody is "religious lyric" in distinction from 
 epic and didactic poetry and in contradistinction to profane 
 lyric poetry. 
 
 ^ Englische Literatur, in Paul's Grundriss, IP, 1035. 
 
 " History of Early English Literature, 390. 
 
 " Wiilker, 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, Wiilker, 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." 
 
 " "Hymns," in Catholic Encyclopcedia, vii, 595. 
 
20 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 It can hardly be denied that Christ / 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 con- 
 sisting of three O-paraphrases. In its broader application, there- 
 fore, 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 Antiph- 
 onary 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,^^ in 
 which ail 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 
 or bis angelorum}* 
 
 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- 
 
 ^^ Antiphonaire du Hartker, in Paleographie Musicale, ser. II. i. 209-215. 
 The editor, Dom Mocquereau, assigns it to the late tenth century. It is- 
 the St. Gall MS. 390-391, and is there reproduced in facsimile. 
 
 "Mone, Lateinische Hyw^nen des Mittelalters, i. 131, 438. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 21 
 
 merit 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 Passtis 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 con- 
 struction of the whole division is unlike that of the other para- 
 phrases. 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, re- 
 marked in his Anglo-Saxon lectures at Oxford : ^** 
 
 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 cer- 
 tainly 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 tlie 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 admirihle commerdum, is 
 removed in the Divine Office of the Church by one week from 
 
 ^*^ Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon Poetry (1826), 201. — edited by his 
 brother, W. D. Conybeare, and quoted in Cook, 96. 
 
22 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 the source of the last division preceding the Doxology. Yet, 
 though from its pecuHar 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 him- 
 self, Christ I appears in a new beauty which reflects the beauty 
 of the Divine Office itself with its Hymns and rhythmical Anti- 
 phons. 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 mo- 
 ment the possible influence of the manuscript divisions on the 
 structural plan of Part I of the Christ, m 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.^' 
 
 See the quotation from Smithson, page 13 above. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 23 
 
 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 de- 
 pendent. Was their selection arbitrary ? Or was the poet guided 
 by an external influence in choosing the subjects for his succes- 
 sive paraphrases ? The answer to these questions will determine 
 whether or not Christ I presents a definite arrangement of ma- 
 terial, 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 par- 
 ticular. 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 com- 
 plete account of the sources as they appear in the poem may 
 be had. 
 
 Division I : Lines 1-17 ^* 
 
 is based on the Great Antiphon of Advent : 
 
 O Rex Gentium et desideratus earum, lapisque angulaiis 
 qui facis utraque unum: veni, et salva hominem quern de 
 limo formasti. 
 
 Division II: Lines 18-49 
 
 is based on the Great Antiphon of Advent : 
 
 "The beginning of this division is lost, the manuscript of the Christ in 
 the Exeter Book opening on folio 8' with the word Cyninge, "to the 
 King." 
 
24 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 O Clavis I^avid, 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 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 O 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 ^^ 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 sav- 
 ing. Yet, if we follow the reading proposed by Professor Bright 
 in line 30,^^ the thought-connection between the two parts becomes 
 clearer and appears less strained. He interprets the words 
 
 * * * /?e he to wuldre forlet (line 30^) 
 as meaning "whom he hath (denied) shut out from glory." The 
 particular glory implied here seems to be that of Paradise}^ Such 
 an interpretation would agree with the lines immediately fol- 
 lowing, 
 
 /?a we heanlice hweorfan sceoldan 
 
 to p\s enge lond, e^le 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 
 
 " The Old English Christian Epic, 334 f . 
 
 "See Cook, 78. 
 
 "In the Germanic languages the word wuldor refers to the glory of 
 "heaven." It is possible that C5mewulf, for the lack of a suitable word 
 for "paradise," employed it here in this sense. If, however, this inter- 
 pretation 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. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 25 
 
 promise of the Redeemer as a result of the divine mercy ,2° where- 
 fore the poet continues : 
 
 FoTpon secgan mseg se Se s6^ sprice^ 
 
 pd£t he ahredde, pa. forhwyrfed waes, 
 
 frumcyn fira. (lines 33-35') 
 
 Immediately there rises before the mind of the poet the picture 
 of that wonderful woman mentioned to our first parents before 
 the sentence pronounced over them and their offspring was 
 carried out: that woman who was to crush the serpent's head 
 and through whom the promised Redeemer was to come. Conse- 
 quently, the remaining portion of this division describes Mary, 
 the mother of the Savior. 
 
 Thus the two parts of Division II become one in the poetical 
 completion of the theme suggested by the Antiphon, which glorifies 
 the Key that closed eternal life to mankind after the transgression 
 in Paradise, and again opened it in the Incarnation and subse- 
 quent Redemption. 
 
 Division III : Lines 50-70 
 is based on the Great Antiphon : 
 
 O Hierusalem, civitas Dei summi : leva in circuitu oculos 
 tuos, et vide Dominum tuum, quia jam veniet solvere te a 
 vinculis. 
 
 In his paraphrase of this Antiphon the poet intermingles ref- 
 erences to the city of Jerusalem in Palestine and to the heavenly 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 Division IV : Lines 71-103 
 
 is based on the Great Antiphon : 
 
 O Virgo virginum, quomodo fiet istud, quia nee primam 
 similem visa es nee habere sequentem. Filiae Jerusalem, quid 
 me admiramini? Divinum est mysterium hoc quod cernitis. 
 
 *** Gen. ili. 15. The interpretation of this verse as carrying a promise of 
 the Redeemer was universal in the ancient Church even as it is today. 
 
26 THE DEPENDENCE 0? CHRIST I. 
 
 As suggested by the Antiphon, the passage forms a dialogue 
 between the daughters of Jerusalem and the Virgin Mary.^^ 
 
 Division V: Lines 104-129 
 
 is based on the Great Antiphon : 
 
 O Oriens, splendor lucis aeternae 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. 
 
 '^Cook remarks (p. 87) that line 90 "seems inappropriate to the con- 
 text." Yet, upon closer examination this does not appear to be the case. 
 Lines 78-85 paraphrase the quia nee primam siniilem, visa es, nee 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 beam 
 
 sorgum sawa^ (conceive), swa eft ripa^ (bear), — 
 
 cenna^ to cwealme. (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 
 
 Hwaet is ^eos wundrung pe ge wafia(?, (line 89) 
 
 but also 
 
 ond geomrende gehpum msena^, 
 
 sunu Solimae somod his dohtor? (lines 90, 91) 
 The following lines then explain the mystery of the disparity in the 
 motherhood of Mary and of those addressed. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 27 
 
 Division VII: Lines 164-213 
 
 This section of Christ I constitutes what scholars call a Passus. 
 It is a dialogue between the Virgin Mary and her spouse St. 
 Joseph, and is not based on an Advent Antiphon. For its unique 
 position in the poem, especially in the scheme or plan of Christ I, 
 and for the theory of regarding these lines as a possible inter- 
 polation by some later author or scribe, see page 21 above. 
 
 No direct source for this passage has been discovered, and it 
 is very probable that such a source will never be found. How- 
 ever, if Cynewulf is the originator of this dialogue between Mary 
 and Joseph, he did have a source for the conception of it in the 
 Gospel extract assigned to the Vigil of the Nativity, Matth. i. 
 18-21. The theme of this Gospel passage is reserved in the 
 liturgy of the Church for the immediate preparation for the Birth 
 of Christ, and not only do the Gospel and the Homilies read on 
 the Vigil of Christmas treat of the predicament in which Joseph 
 found himself with regard to his spotless spouse, but the Antiph- 
 onary echoes the same thoughts in the Office for that day.^^ 
 
 But, unlike the Gospel passage, in which an angel appears to 
 Joseph for the purpose of allaying his fears and instructing him 
 in the true mystery, Cynewulf allows the Virgin Mary herself 
 to impart this revelation to her troubled spouse. The very form 
 of the dialogue demands this treatment by the poet. 
 
 Cook did not determine any Latin original as the basis for 
 this division of Christ I. In a later study,^^ however, he brings 
 the whole passage containing the dialogue into relation with 
 certain homiletical expansions, four of which are found in the 
 Greek Fathers, and one in the Latin. These homilies are by 
 (Pseudo-) Athanasius, (Pseudo-) Chrysostom, (Pseudo-) Proc- 
 lus, Germanus, and (Pseudo-) Augustine, and contain dialogues 
 similar in character and content to the dialogue presented by 
 Cynewulf. In summing up the result of his study. Cook says : 
 
 ^ Thus, in the Antiphonary of Hartker (Paleographie Musicale, ser. 
 II, i. 7), of the tenth century, one of the Antiphons for the Vigil of 
 Christmas reads, Cum esset desponsata mater iesu maria ioseph ante 
 quam conuenirent inuenta est in utero hahens, quod enim in ea natum est 
 de spiritu sancto est. Another Antiphon (p. 43) for the same day touches 
 still closer the problem treated in our dialogue, Joseph Uli dauid noli timbre 
 accipcre muriam coniugem tuan\ quod enim in ea natum est de spiritu 
 sancto est. 
 
 ^ "A Remote Analogue to the Miracle Play," in the Journal of Germanic 
 Philology, iv. 421-451. 
 
28 THIS DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 The dialogue in Cynewulf s Christ, which had been looked 
 upon as an early precursor of the miracle plays, is itself 
 anticipated by dialogues composed by certain Greek Fathers 
 as a homiletical feature, and are due to a tendency to 
 Hellenize Jewish history which may antedate the time of 
 Christ, and which is strongly marked as early as the fourth 
 century of our era. 
 
 In a subsequent paper,^"* Cook proved that the dramatic ten- 
 dency in question did exist in the fourth century. He finds in- 
 vented addresses in a sermon of Ephraem Syrus (died 373), which 
 he quotes in its Latin translation. Yet, because it seems doubtful 
 whether or not Ephraem was acquainted with Greek, Cook is 
 willing to modify his previous statement that "this method of 
 animating a discourse by the introduction of dramatic elements 
 is undoubtedly due to Hellenic influence." 
 
 Latin originals for this dialogue in Christ I, or other originals 
 known early in a Latin translation, are thus seen to have existed 
 at the time of Cynewulf. It would be difficult to assume that 
 he proceeded to compose the Passus without any knowledge of 
 one or more of these homilies, or at least of a source in which 
 they were employed. Such a knowledge need not necessarily 
 have been acquired by the poet outside the readings of the 
 Divine Office, for the number of Lectionaries and Homiliaries 
 preserved from the eighth and ninth centuries is too small to 
 justify the inference that such homilies as discovered by Cook 
 were not then in use. 
 
 Thus, for example, in the HomiUary of Paul the Deacon,^^ 
 composed by order of Charlemange, two homilies are assigned 
 to each Sunday and the Ember days of Advent, while the Christ- 
 mas Office has as many as eleven. Of the twenty-eight homilies 
 which the Carolingian Homiliary lists for the season of Advent 
 including Christmas I>ay, only nine are still in use at the present 
 time. No doubt, selections were made from this large number 
 of excerpts from the Fathers, so that not all the homilies indi- 
 cated were read on the respective days. The particular selection 
 must necessarily have depended largely upon the books or codices 
 in possession of the individual monastery or cathedral church 
 at the time. For this same reason St. Benedict leaves the choice 
 
 ** "A Dramatic Tendency in the Fathers," ibid., v. 62-4. 
 
 ** Homiliarius Pauli Winfridi Diaconi, in Migne, P. L-, 95, 1160-69. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 29 
 
 of the readings in the Divine Office to the discretion of the 
 Abbot, though he has not neglected to lay down in minute details 
 all particulars relating to the recitation of the Office. In his 
 Rule ^® he determines the number of Lessons for each Nocturn, 
 but he specifies no author in particular, saying : 
 
 Let the divinely inspired books, both of the Old and New 
 Testaments, be read at the Night-Office, and also the com- 
 mentaries upon them written by the most renowned, ortho- 
 dox, and Catholic Fathers. 
 
 These rich homiliaries of the early Church consequently 
 afforded the monks and ecclesiastics of those days a wide rang^ 
 of patristic reading, so much so that we are astonished at their 
 extensive knowledge of the various Church writers. The possi- 
 bility is therefore not excluded that Cynewulf had a knowledge 
 of one or all of the five homilies indicated by Cook, or that by 
 his time a compilation of these had existed in some other sermon 
 or writing of a later author, which itself could have furnished 
 the poet with a source for the dialogue in Division VII of Christ 
 I. If the whole Passus should be an interpolation of a later 
 century or author, the question of a possible source in one or 
 more of these homilies remains the same as in the case of 
 Cynewulf's authorship, and the observations made here will find 
 their application to any supposed writer of the dialogue in 
 Christ I. 
 
 While the direct source for the Passus must still remain in 
 doubt, it is plain from what has been said that the material 
 therein contained is in essence the material reserved by the 
 Church for the liturgical service of the Vigil of the Nativity. 
 In the case of this division therefore we must, for the present, 
 be content with the proper placing of the subject matter into its 
 liturgical setting in the service of the Church. Whatever the 
 source for Cynewulf's poetical expansion of this subject matter 
 may have been, it is most likely that it likewise belonged to the 
 celebration of the Vigil of Christmas. 
 
 Division VIII : Lines 214-274 
 is based on the Great Antiphon : 
 
 O Rex Pacifice, tu ante saecula nate : per auream egredere 
 
 *• Chapter ix. ed. by Dom Oswald Hunter-BIair, 1906, p. 59. 
 
30 THE DEPENDE:NCE of CHRIST I. 
 
 portam, redemptos tiios visita, et eos illuc revoca unde 
 ruerunt per culpam. 
 
 After the address which follows that of the Antiphon, the poet 
 interpolates a lengthy expository development of the theme sug- 
 gested by the words tu ante saecida note, lines 224-243'. This 
 portion introduces the story of the creation of light,^^ which is 
 the first creative act of God mentioned in the Bible. By bringing 
 the idea conveyed by the tu ante saecula nate into comparison 
 with the first external creative work the poet emphasizes the co- 
 existence of the Son with the Father from all eternity. 
 
 In a note to lines 239-240, Cook ^s thinks that these two lines 
 may possibly have some reference to the Great Antiphon of 
 Advent, O Sapientia; but he warns that the connection, if it 
 exists, is very slight, and is suggested only by the existence of 
 these Antiphons in one series. He adds : '*It is just possible 
 that the section based upon this Antiphon is in the part de- 
 stroyed." Yet, in the list of sources attached to the beginning of 
 his Notes,^^ Cook definitely assigns the Antiphon O Sapientia 
 to the ninth place. 
 
 The lines of the Christ referred to are : 
 pn eart seo Snyttro pt /?as sTdan gesceaft, 
 mid p\ Waldende, worhtes ealle. 
 
 The Antiphon in question is : 
 
 O Sapientia, quae ex ore altissimi prodiisti, attingens a 
 fine usque ad finem, fortiter suaviterque disponens omnia: 
 veni ad docendum nos viam prudentiae. 
 
 It must be admitted that there is a slight connection between 
 the words of the O Sapientia and lines 239-240 of the Christ. 
 But it would seem unfair to assume that Cynewulf intended these 
 two lines as a reproduction of the Antiphon in question. The O 
 Sapientia is the first of the series of Advent Antiphons known 
 as the Great O's. The position it thus takes among the Greater 
 Antiphons would seem to require a treatment more adequate and 
 a position more prominent than lines 239-240 can give it. Fur- 
 thermore, the fact that it is the first of the O-Antiphons creates 
 a strong presumption in favor of its appearance in the lost portion 
 
 =" Gen. i. 1-5. 
 
 ^ P. 101. 
 
 '" P. 71 ; cf . pp. 72 f. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 31 
 
 of the poem, that is, at the beginning of the Christ. Indeed, 
 what Cook declares to be "just possible" seems to be demanded 
 by the importance of the Antiphon. A further discussion of 
 this will follow below.^** 
 
 Lines 239-240, in their context, seem rather to be an epitomized 
 recount of the passage in the Book of Proverbs,^^ in which the 
 excellence of Wisdom is set forth. We note these salient pas- 
 sages ; 
 
 Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam 
 quidquam faceret a principio. * * ♦ Ab aeterno ordinata 
 sum, et ex antiquis antequam terra fieret * * * quando 
 appendebat fundamenta terrae cum eo eram cuncta com- 
 ponens. 
 
 This passage may in fact have suggested to the poet his story 
 of the creation of light, in the words antequam quidquam faceret 
 and antequam terra fieret, for, as has been observed, the creation 
 of light was the beginning of the visible creation. Indeed, the 
 poet seems to allude expressly to these words of Proverbs in 
 line 238, 
 
 2er/?on oht />isses aefre gewurde. 
 
 The phrase cum eo eram cuncta componens is reproduced al- 
 most verbally in lines 239-240 : 
 
 pu eart seo Snyttro /?e p3.s sidan gesceaft, 
 mid pi Waldende, worhtes ealle. 
 
 The reference taken here from the Book of Proverbs has been 
 made quite familiar by its frequent use in the Office of the Blessed 
 Virgin Mary, and in this use it must have been so well known to 
 Cynewulf as to suggest itself at once in the development of the 
 theme connected with the eternal co-existence of the Son with 
 the Father. Though it must be considered as only a subsidiary 
 influence in this division of Christ I, it makes unnecessary our 
 recourse to the Great Antiphon O Sapientia as a basis for lines 
 239-240. Thus the division based on the O Rex Pacifice does 
 not a'ppear to admit any other of the Greater Antiphons as a 
 source for its lines. 
 
 '" See pages 48 ff. below. 
 " Prov. viii. 22-31. 
 
32 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 Division IX: Lines 275-347 
 
 is based on the Great Antiphon : 
 
 mundi Domina, regio ex semine orta: ex tuo jam Chris- 
 tus processit alvo, tanquam sponsus de thalamo; hie jacet in 
 praesepio qui et sidera regit. 
 
 Much of the Antiphon is not utilized by the poet in this section. 
 In the opening lines of the division, lines 275-^94', he dwells at 
 length on the appellation domina, with additional thoughts on 
 the title sponsa (in lines 280, 292) probably suggested by the 
 Antiphon. 
 
 The middle portion of the Antiphon does not seem to be rep- 
 resented in this division of Christ I, except that it may have led 
 the poet to insert his long exposition dealing with the Vision of 
 the prophet Ezekiel in lines 301-334. 
 
 After this digression, however, he returns to the thoughts of 
 the Antiphon in his final petition to the Virgin Mary, lines 335- 
 347, when in answer to the request 
 
 Iowa us nu />a are pe se engel pG, 
 
 Codes spelboda, Gabriel, brohte. 
 
 Huru p3£S bidda^ burgsittende 
 
 p3et du p3. fro f re f oleum cy^e, 
 
 pmre sylfre Sunu. (lines 335-339') 
 
 he announces joyfully that 
 
 nu we on pxt beam foran breostum staria^, (line 431), 
 
 in agreement with the words of the Antiphon, hie jacet in 
 praesepio. 
 
 In the concluding lines of the petition the poet asks for admis- 
 sion into the Father's kingdom — in Feeder rice — which points to 
 the last phrase of the Antiphon, qui et sidera regit. 
 
 In an article on The Great Antiphons: Heralds of Christmas,^^ 
 Herbert Thurston remarks, 
 
 1 cannot help thinking that it (the Antiphon Gabriel) 
 has suggested in part the passage in the Christ about the wall 
 and gate, lines 307, seq. 
 
 The Antiphon suggested by Thurston is the following: 
 
 O Gabriel, nuntius coelorum, qui januis clausis ad me 
 intrasti, et Verbum nuntiasti : Concipies et paries, Emmanuel 
 vocabitur. 
 
 ^In The Month (London), vol. 106, p. 620, note. (December, 1905.) 
 
ON THE ANTIPHGNARY. 33 
 
 However, since the whole passage following line 307 unmis- 
 takabljPrefers to the wonderful entrance beheld in miraculous 
 vision by the prophet Ezekiel, it would rather seem to be con- 
 nected with the phrase per auream egredere portam of the An- 
 tiphon O Rex Pacifice. In fact, when dealing with that Antiphon 
 in the preceding division, the poet alludes to the "golden gate" 
 in lines 251-253. But he reserves this subject for ampler treat- 
 ment in the present division. 
 
 The Antiphon O Gabriel can hardly be interpreted as a ref- 
 erence to this vision of Ezekiel, for with no stretch of the 
 imagination can the words qui januis clausis ad me intrasti, spoken 
 of the angel Gabriel, be made to apply to the virginal birth of 
 Christ and the perpetual virginity of His mother as implied in 
 the "golden gate." The archangel Gabriel is twice mentioned in 
 Christ I, in line 201, and in line 336. Both of these instances 
 refer to the message brought by the archangel into the humble 
 chamber of the Virgin in Nazareth, as described in the Antiphon 
 O Gabriel. Wherefore these two lines might be brought in con- 
 nection with the Antiphon O Gabriel more readily than lines 307 
 flF. of our division. 
 
 Still, as a basis for any section in Christ I, the O Gabriel 
 Antiphon must drop out of consideration. With Cook ^^ we may 
 relegate this Antiphon to the lost portion of the Christ. 
 
 Division X: Lines 348-377. 
 
 No investigator has been able to ascertain with any degree of 
 certainty the basis for this portion of Christ I. As a possible 
 basis for the lines of this division Cook gives the Great Antiphon : 
 O Radix Jesse, qui stas in signum populorum, super quern 
 continebunt reges os suum, quem gentes deprecabuntur : veni 
 ad liberandum nos, jam noli tardare. 
 Yet, he admits ^* that a great part of this section has no obvious 
 relation to this Antiphon, explaining that there may be "contam- 
 ination" with the next, as well as with some of the preceding 
 portion. 
 
 Upon a close examination it will be seen that only two phrases 
 of the Antiphon O Radix find an echo in lines 348-377, the veni 
 ad liberandum nos, and the jam noli tardare. Of this and of the 
 
 ^ P. 73. 
 "Cook, p. 107. 
 
34 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 exclusion of the Radix Antiphon as a basis for this division, 
 the following discussion will treat more fully. 
 
 In offering an emendation to Cook's theory, Alfred A. May ^^ 
 advances the belief that Cynewulf, in composing the passage 
 constituting Division X, had in mind the Great Antiphon O 
 Sapientia, but that he did not use the text of this Antiphon itself 
 for the basis of his lines, being influenced by the passage in 
 Ecclus. xxiv. 5, primogenta ante omnem creaturam, upon which 
 the Sapientia is partly based. In this opinion, Cynewulf took 
 not the Antiphon but its Scriptural source as the basis for his 
 poetic comment. Another argument for accepting the Antiphon 
 Sapientia as at least the indirect basis for this division, May 
 finds in the two expressions ne lata to lange of line 373 of the 
 Christ, and pcet pu us ahredde of line 374. He explains in the 
 following manner : ^® 
 
 This passage (lines 372''-374') resembles, as has already 
 been mentioned, the vem ad liherandum nos, jam, noli tardare, 
 which is the petition in Radix. But at the head of the 
 list of the Greater Antiphons in the Sarum Use (and hence 
 immediately preceding O Sapientia, the first of the group), 
 appears this versicle and response : 
 
 Festina, ne tardaveris, D amine: et libera populum tuum. 
 
 Veni, domine, et noli tardare: relaxa facinora plebi tuae. 
 This versicle, the gloss states, is always sung before the 
 antiphon ("ad initium hujus antiphonae"). The association 
 in Cynewulf's mind of the versicle with O Sapientia is thus 
 natural and almost inevitable; and the similarity between 
 his words and the words of the versicle is quite evident. 
 
 Before we enter upon a discussion of this emendation pre- 
 sented by May, it may be said that, if his conclusions are accepted, 
 they shed considerable light upon the lost portion of the poem. 
 For, if Cynewulf had in mind the Antiphon O Sapientia but re- 
 fused to employ it as the direct basis for this section of his poem, 
 turning instead on the one hand to the Biblical source of the 
 Antiphon itself, and on the other to the liturgical matter immedi- 
 ately preceding the O's in the Antiphonary, his procedure can be 
 explained only by the fact that he had already made use of the 
 O Sapientia in another portion of the poem. That portion, again, 
 
 ""A Source for Christ, 11, 348-377," in Modern Language Notes, xxiv. 
 158 f. 
 '^Ihid. 159. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 35 
 
 must be the one lost from the manuscript, for it was seen that 
 lines 239-240 can hardly be accepted as forming the paraphrase 
 of this Antiphon. Furthermore, granting that the O Sapientia 
 stood at the beginning of Christ I, and that this last division pre- 
 ceding the Doxology is reminiscent of the same Antiphon, the 
 whole of Part I of the Christ is knit more firmly together into 
 one complete unit. 
 
 Still, the emendations thus offered to the theory of Cook seem 
 to drive us from Scylla merely to Charybdis. For if much of 
 Division X has no obvious relation to the Antiphon Radix, the 
 same must be said of its direct, and in a lesser degree of its 
 indirect, relation to the O Sapientia. Thus we are not brought 
 nearer to a probable source for the whole of Division X. 
 
 Indeed, the aptness of the emendations offered by May is 
 doubtful. These refer to the two sections in Division X, to the 
 address (lines 348-358") and to the petition (lines 358''-377). 
 
 If the content of the address is compared with the suggestions 
 made by May, his observations indeed carry some weight. For 
 this portion does glorify the co-eternity of the Son with the 
 Father, and might have been suggested by the words primogenita 
 ante omnem creaturam (Ecclus. xxiv. 5). But to infer that 
 Cynewulf looked at the text of the O Sapientia in the Antiphon- 
 ary, in order to be reminded of the verse in Ecclesiasticus, is 
 straining the situation just a little. While it may be futile to 
 deny the poet an exact knowledge of the Biblical passage upon 
 which the respective Antiphons were based,^^ no other instance 
 in Christ I reveals a conscious turning on his part to these sources, 
 for poetic comment on the Antiphons themselves. 
 
 The suggestion of May in relation to the words ne lata to lange 
 and pcet pu us dhredde of the petition appears even less happy 
 than his first emendation. For it is not necessary to turn to the 
 versicle preceding the Greater Antiphons in the Antiphonary in 
 order to find expressions equivalent to the words in the Christ. 
 Such phrases, as contained in the versicle referred to, are of com- 
 mon occurrence in the Advent Office. They were also incor- 
 porated into the Antiphons. For instance, in the Antiphonary of 
 
 ^' Apparently the custom of indicating the Scriptural sources after the 
 text of the O-Antiphons is of quite recent date. An example may be 
 found in the Paris Breviary of 1736 : cf. Breviarium Parisiense, anno 1736, 
 pars hiemalis, p. 207 f. 
 
36 THE de;pendence of christ i. 
 
 Hartker,^^ one of the Antiphons used on the Monday of the last 
 week in Advent is : Convertere Domine aliquantulum et ne tardes 
 venire ad servos tuos. Another for the Tuesday of the last week 
 is : ^® Veni domine et noli tardare, relaxa facinora plebis tuae 
 israhel. In the same Antiphonary,**' the Antiphon appended to 
 the Hst of Great O's, and thus classed in importance with the 
 Greater Antiphons themselves, is : Qui venturus est veniet et non 
 tardoMt; jam non erit timor in finibus nostris. 
 
 Likewise do we find the thought for pcet pu us dhredde in more 
 than one of the Greater Antiphons themselves. Thus, apart from 
 the O Radix which was considered as a possible basis for Division 
 X, the O Adonai has the petition : veni ad redimendum nos; and 
 the O Emmanuel, veni ad salvandum nos. 
 
 But if recourse must be had to the versicle preceding the 
 Greater Antiphons in the Sarum Use for a connection of Division 
 X with the Antiphon O Sapientia, the argument does not appear 
 well chosen. For the statement of the "gloss" is, I fear, not 
 rightly interpreted when the versicle and response are made to 
 precede in actual Church use the O Sapientia alone. It is plain 
 from the Antiphonary of Hartker, for instance, that the versicle 
 in question, together with its response, was used on each day of 
 the last week before the Nativity, and thus preceded each of the 
 Greater Antiphons.*^ The constant use of this versicle in the 
 last week of Advent, therefore, brings it into the same relation 
 with each of the O-Antiphons, and renders the argument deduced 
 from it doubtful. 
 
 To recapitulate: the words veni ad liberandum nos, and jam 
 noli tardare, being the only source for Division X offered by the 
 Antiphon O Radix, are in themselves not sufficient evidence for 
 the dependence of the poet upon this Antiphon, for they are 
 found scattered throughout the Advent Office. For the same 
 reason, the somewhat far-fetched recourse to the response and 
 versicle preceding the Greater Antiphons in the Sarum Use 
 appears to exclude any connection of Division X with the Anti- 
 phon O Sapientia. In like manner, the Scriptural source of the 
 O Sapientia, Ecclus. xxiv. 5, though proper in its application to 
 the address of this division, constitutes a doubtful source for the 
 
 ^ P. 38. 
 '" P. 39. 
 *' P. 41. 
 
 " P. 34. — It is not an ordinary response, but what is termed a Respon- 
 sorium breve, sung with "Gloria Patri," etc. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 2(1 
 
 poet, since the forced relation implied in this suggestion causes the 
 argument derived from it to appear strained and in contradiction 
 to the recognized working methods of Cynewulf . 
 
 It would appear, then, that the investigations made by both 
 Cook and May have given results too vague and indefinite to 
 establish a source for the whole of Division X of Christ I. The 
 various suggestions offered show in themselves that it is difficult 
 to determine such a source. Further attempts at a proper in- 
 terpretation of this section of the poem will, therefore, be wel- 
 come. For our purpose it is necessary that a more definite source 
 be established, and if this task is essayed in the following pages, 
 it is with the hope that future investigators may improve and 
 correct the interpretation here given. 
 
 Since the source for Division X is not clear, it might be 
 thought that the lines comprising it (lines 348-377) are after all 
 not intended as a separate division of the poem. But it is almost 
 certain that we are here dealing with an independent portion of 
 Christ I. For, like the other divisions, it begins with eala; like 
 the others, it presents an individual paraphrase, being addressed 
 to Christ, while the preceding portion was addressed to Mary 
 and the following lines refer to the Holy Trinity. It has the same 
 structure to which we have been accustomed in the preceding 
 paraphrases, being complete in its address and petition. All this 
 would point to the use of an O-Antiphon as a basis for this 
 section, even as the similarly constructed paraphrases of the 
 other divisions are based on one or the other of the Greater 
 Antiphons. 
 
 If the O Radix and the O Sapientia are excluded as probable 
 sources for Division X, and none of the other known Greater 
 Antiphons bears any trace of connection with it, the inference 
 lies near that the poet employed in this portion of Christ I an 
 O-Antiphon unknown to us at the present time. An Advent 
 Antiphon of this kind may still be discovered; yet, with the 
 existing knowledge of ancient Antiphonaries and Church books 
 of every description, and with the diligent search made by vari- 
 ous scholars and investigators, such a discovery is very problemat- 
 ical and ind eed unlikely.*^ 
 
 " Dr. Karl Young of the University of Wisconsin, in a letter to the 
 writer dated December 6, 1920, declared that, during his sojourn in Euro- 
 pean libraries, he had paid considerable attention to the "O" Antiphons 
 in liturgical manuscripts, expecting to find additional "O's" in them. But 
 he does not recall having found any that were not known to Professor 
 Cook and other investigators. 
 
38 THE DEPENDENCE 01? CHRIST I. 
 
 In default of any knowledge pertaining to Greater Antiphons 
 hitherto unknown to scholars in the Christ, another suggestion 
 in explanation of Division X would seem appropriate. The sug- 
 gestion is this, that the lines constituting this division be con- 
 sidered as the poet's own final "O." The whole section comes as 
 a sort of climax to a finished work, the petition being marked 
 by an intensity of feeling and a personal note seldom, if ever, 
 equalled in any of the preceding divisions of Christ I. It would 
 seem but natural that Cynewulf, after having paraphrased the 
 last of the Greater Antiphons, should lay this personal tribute 
 at the feet of Him whose advent he had so eloquently glorified 
 and so earnestly implored in his immortal verse. And again, in 
 relation to the contents of his own OAparaphrase, what would be 
 more natural than that he should revert to his favorite theme 
 of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father, and reiterate in 
 the petition his own intense longing for deliverance from per- 
 sonal guilt and for the grace of converting his will to the ways 
 of God? What an apt refrain all this presents to the poet's song 
 on the Advent of Christ the Redeemer ! 
 
 In confirmation of this theory we might point also to the 
 symmetry which Cynewulf maintained in the structural outline 
 of his Christ I. It was seen *^ that he places three O-Antiphons 
 in each of his larger divisions of the poem. Since the last of 
 these contained only the O Rex Pacifice and the O mundi Domina, 
 and the complete set of Greater Antiphons had been employed 
 before,** the need of an additional "O" was felt for the sake of 
 maintaining the symmetrical proportions of the poem as a whole, 
 and consequently the poet proceeded to compose one of his own 
 as the final paraphrase of O's in this last larger division of Christ 
 I, in the last group or "stanza" of O's. 
 
 But the probable source or sources for Division X are still 
 to be ascertained. Whence did the poet derive the material for 
 his own final O-paraphrase? The contents of this portion of 
 Christ I were seen to be largely a repetition of themes already 
 
 *^ See page 17 above. 
 
 "Of the three Greater Antiphons (O Sapientia, O Adonai, O Radix) 
 not treated in the preceding nine divisions of Christ J, two were seen to 
 be inappropriate as sources for the present division, and the third (O 
 Adonai) cannot even enter the list of probable sources in this portion of 
 the poem. In the following section of this chapter the place of these 
 three Antiphons in the Christ will be discussed. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 39 
 
 treated. In the address (lines 348-358*) the principal theme is 
 the co-existence of the Son with the Father from all eternity, his 
 eternal generation from the Father; while in the petition (lines 
 358''-377) the poet asks for deliverance from the temptations of 
 sin. Still the thoughts developed here show these themes in a 
 different light than heretofore in the poem. We are given new 
 aspects of the poet's favorite subjects. 
 
 In his treatment of the eternal generation of the Son, the poet 
 goes a step farther than he did on a previous occasion, in lines 
 224-243'.*^ There he introduced the story of the creation of 
 light, the first creative act of God in the visible world, in order 
 to emphasize the existence of the Son before anything had been 
 created. In this division of the poem he stresses the eternal gen- 
 eration of the Son by bringing it into relation with the first 
 creative act of God in the spirit, or invisible, world, viz., the 
 creation of the angels (lines 351-355).*® He furthermore intro- 
 duces the co-existence of the Holy Spirit. It is the first instance 
 (lines 357''-358'') in which the Holy Trinity is mentioned in the 
 Christ, and the Doxology immediately following thus receives 
 here its first intonation. 
 
 An analysis of the petition will likewise show a new develop- 
 ment in oft-repeated thoughts. The idea of the Christian soul 
 being a captive in this world, is not a new one in Christ I. Yet 
 here (in lines 358*'-377) the captivity of sin in which the soul 
 is held is more fully specified as (a) the concupiscence of the 
 flesh, in 
 
 hu we sind geswencte /?urh ure sylfra gewill. (line 362) 
 and 
 
 * * * we fseh/)o wi^ pec 
 
 purh firena lust gefremed haebben. (lines 368^ 369) 
 
 and (b) the power which the evil spirits exert upon us, in 
 
 Habba^ wraecmaecgas wergan gaestas 
 
 ******** 
 
 gebunden bealorapum. (lines 363-365') 
 
 *" See pages 30 f . above. 
 
 ** Scholars have found the frequent repetitions in the Christ one of the 
 marring features of Cynewulf's poetry with a disastrous effect upon the 
 unity and orderly development of plot (cf., for example, Smithson. The 
 Old English Christian Epic, 376). In many cases, as in the present one, 
 a closer examination might reveal new phases and new developments in 
 the recurring theme. 
 
46 THE DEPENDENCE 0^ CHRIST I. 
 
 The poet seems to have had in mind the threefold temptation 
 which surrounds the soul of the believer in this life : the tempta- 
 tion proceeding from the world, the flesh, and the devil, though 
 he makes particular mention of the two last only. But these 
 reduce men to a miserable plight which causes the poet to exclaim : 
 
 hu we tealtriga^ tydran mode, 
 
 hwearfia^ heanllce. (lines 371-372*) 
 
 From these woes he asks to be delivered, in order to be able to 
 do pa sellan ping (line 376), that is, God's holy will. 
 
 While the material presented in Division X is thus largely a 
 repetition of former themes, it is nevertheless cast into a new 
 shape by the new and distinct treatment which it receives. The 
 poet, accordingly, must have had a new and distinct source for 
 the thoughts developed in this division. The regular channel 
 for supplying his material the poet finds throughout the former 
 divisions of Christ I in the Divine Office of the Advent season. 
 Since the last of the Advent O's, the O mundi Domina, was 
 paraphrased in the ninth division, this tenth division would prop- 
 erly find its material in a Christmas theme, being the final division 
 before the Doxology. 
 
 And such we indeed find to be the case. The subject of the 
 address in Division X is the eternal generation of the Son. This 
 is plainly the special theme in the liturgy of the Church for the 
 feast of the Nativity, or Christmas day itself. Where three 
 Masses were celebrated on that day the first of these was com- 
 monly interpreted as commemorating the eternal birth of Christ 
 from the Father, whatever applications were made for the two 
 remaining Masses. Wherefore, the thought of the eternal gen- 
 eration of the Son is made the underlying thought of the Proper 
 of the first or midnight-Mass. The Introit is : 
 
 Dominus dixit ad me : Filius mens es tu, ego hodie, genui te. 
 The Gradual of the same Mass is: 
 
 Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanc- 
 torum, ex utero ante luciferum genui te. 
 
 The Verse with Alleluja after the Gradual repeats the very words 
 of the Introit, while the Communion anthem repeats the words 
 of the Gradual. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 41 
 
 But it is to the Preface of this midnight-Mass that we must 
 turn for the most probable source of Division X. We quote the 
 Preface for the Mass In Vigilia Domini in Nocte,*'^ from the 
 Sacramentary of St. Gregory the Great : *^ 
 
 Vere dignum et justum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi 
 semper et ubique gratias agere, Domine sancte, Pater onini- 
 potens, aeterne Deus, Per Christum Dominum nostrum. 
 Cujus divinae Nativitatis potentiam ingenita virtutis tuae 
 genuit magnitude. Quem semper FiHum, et ante tempora 
 aeterna genitum, quia tibi pleno atque perfecto aeterni Patris 
 nomen non defuit, praedicamus, et honore, majestate atque 
 virtute aequalem tibi cum Spiritu sancto confitemur, et in 
 trino vocabulo unicam credimus Majestalem. Et ideo cum 
 angeUs, et archangehs, cum thronis, et dominationibus, cum- 
 que omni militia coelestis exercitus, hymnum gloriae tuae 
 canimus sine fine dicentes : 
 
 In this Preface we seem to have the suggestion for the poet's 
 own O-paraphrase in Division X. It is devoted, like Cynewulf's 
 address, to a glorification of the eternal generation of the Son 
 of God. It speaks of his divina Nativitas as the work of the 
 Father's ingenita magnitude. He was always His Son, ante 
 tempora aeterna genitus (note the parallelism with tu ante saecula 
 nate), and with the Father he is equal to the Holy Spirit in honor, 
 majesty and power. While Cynewulf expresses the thoughts 
 conveyed in the Preface principally by instituting a comparison 
 ^between the generation of the Son and the creation of the angels, 
 the influence of the Preface appears to be clear. Not only is 
 the theme of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father provided 
 here, but the third Person in the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, 
 is expressly mentioned as co-equal with the Father and the Son, 
 and the angels are invited to join in our praise of God. 
 
 This brings us to the real connection which seems to exist be- 
 
 " This does not refer to what we now call the Vigil of the Nativity on 
 December 24, but to the Holy Night itself. The Mass here is plainly the 
 first of the three Masses assigned by the Sacramentary of St. Gregory to 
 the feast of Christmas. 
 
 ^^ Liber Sacramento rum Si. Gregorii Magni, in Migne, P. L., 78, 30. 
 This Preface is also found among the "Praefationes Antiquae per anni 
 circulum," in the Liturgica Latinorum of Jacobus Pamelius, Coloniae 
 Agrippinae, 1571, ii. 550. Pamelius attributes it to the Gelasian Sacra- 
 mentary, in which it also appears for the midnight-Mass of the Nativity. 
 He also gives it among the Prefaces of the Ambrosian rite, ibid., i. 441, 
 where it is assigned, however, to the fifth Sunday of Advent. — cf. also M. 
 Gerbert, Monumenta Veteris Liturgiae Alemmanicae, i. 209. 
 
42 THIi DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 tween the Preface of the midnight-Mass and Division X of 
 Christ I. The Preface is always the prelude to the Sanctus or 
 **Trisagion" of the Mass.*^ In like manner is Division X immedi- 
 ately followed by the Doxology, a hymn of praise to the Holy 
 Trinity, which (in lines 403-415) contains a faithful paraphrase 
 of the Sanctus of the Mass. Of this Doxology I will presently 
 treat in greater detail. It is sufficient here to direct attention to 
 the admirable connection which exists both in Christ I and in the 
 Christmas Preface between the theme of the eternal generation 
 of the Son and the hymn of praise in honor of the Trinity im- 
 mediately following. Accordingly, it appears highly probable 
 that Cynewulf received his suggestion or inspiration for Division 
 X from the Preface of the midnight-Mass on Christmas, so that 
 this Preface might be considered the direct source for this portion 
 of the poem. 
 
 While we are thus led to look upon the Preface in question as 
 the source of Division X, other influences in the lines composing 
 it cannot be denied. This is especially apparent in the second half 
 of the division, the petition in Hnes 358*'-377. Here the material 
 does not seem to be taken from the Christmas service in the 
 same degree as in the address. But we must remember that the 
 clue to the sources upon which Cynewulf relied is always more 
 evident from the address than from the petition, in which the 
 personal emotions of the poet hold larger sway. If this division 
 of Christ I should represent the poet's own *'0," he would a 
 fortiori be at liberty to develop his own thoughts in accordance 
 with his personal feelings at the time of writing. 
 
 Nevertheless, the central thought of the petition, that of our 
 captivity, appears to be taken again from the Christmas Office. 
 The Prayer of the third Mass and of all parts of the Office for 
 Christmas day is as follows : 
 
 Concede, quaesumus omnipotens Deus : ut nos Unigeniti 
 tui nova per carnem Nativitas liberet, quos sub peccati jugo 
 vetusta servitus tenet. Per Dominum nostrum Jesum 
 Christum. * * * 
 
 It is for the deliverance from the "ancient slavery under the 
 subjection of sin" that the Church prays in her official Prayer 
 for the feast of the Nativity. This slavery implies just what 
 
 "For a full explanation of the Sanctus in the Mass see Cook, 111 f. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 43 
 
 Cynewulf expresses in the petition of Division X, our subjection 
 to the lusts of the flesh and to the influences of the evil spirit.^^ 
 
 Another Prayer on which the poet may have partly relied is 
 the Prayer for the Ember Saturday of Advent, which is the 
 Saturday preceding the last Sunday of Advent It is the follow- 
 ing: 
 
 Deus, qui conspicis, quia ex nostra pravitate affligimur: 
 concede propitius ; ut ex tua visitatione consolemur, Qui vivis 
 et regnas, etc. 
 
 The phrase quia ex nostra pravitate affligimur seems to find its 
 counterpart in line 362 of the Christ, 
 
 hu we sind geswencte /?urh ure sylfra gewill. 
 and the phrase ut ex tua visitatione consolemur, in lines SGT^-SBS', 
 
 * * * /?3et pin hidercyme 
 
 afrefre feasceafte. * * * 
 Our conclusion with regard to Division X of Christ I is there- 
 fore this : In default of any existing Greater Antiphon which can 
 safely be determined as constituting the source for this division, 
 these lines may appropriately be considered as representing the 
 poet's own "O," and the material incorporated in this portion of 
 the poem is taken from the Christmas service, the chief source 
 being the Preface of the midnight-Mass. 
 
 Division XI : Lines 378-415 
 
 This division of Christ I Cook bases on "two of the Antiphons 
 for Lauds on Trinity Sunday, according to the Sarum Use."'^^ 
 They are, 
 
 O Beata et Benedicta et Gloriosa Trinitas, Pater et Filius 
 et Spiritus Sanctus. 
 
 Te jure laudant, Te adorant, Te glorificant omnes creaturae 
 tuae, O Beata Trinitas. 
 
 Just why these two Antiphons should be restricted to the 
 Sarum Use is not quite clear. Since the Added or Monastic O's 
 used by Cynewulf are not contained in the Sarum Use, it would 
 seem more natural to seek the Antiphons in question in an 
 Antiphonary containing all the O-Antiphons employed in Christ 
 I. Such is the Antiphonary of Hartker, in which we find the two 
 
 '"For an analysis of the petition see pages 39 f. above. 
 "Cook, p. 108. 
 
44 THE DEPEINDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 Trinity Antiphons in the Lauds of the Office called Ystoria de 
 sea. Trinitate,^^ which follows the Sundays and ferias between 
 Epiphany and the Sunday Septuagesima. In the Leofric Col- 
 lectar ^^ these Antiphons to the Holy Trinity appear immediately 
 after the feast of the Epiphany for Sunday use. The "Trinity 
 Sunday" of which Cook speaks was not kept; as a special feast in 
 the days of Cynewulf, each Sunday of the year being consecrated 
 to the memory of the Holy Trinity. Whenever it was a common 
 Sunday, that is, when no feast of our Lord or other great solem- 
 nity fell on a Sunday, the Antiphons of the Trinity were used. 
 When speaking of the sources for Division XI, we should there- 
 fore refer to these two Antiphons as taken from the "Sunday 
 service." From this it is clear that the Antiphons here employed 
 by Cynewulf lay much nearer as a source than their use on the 
 feast of the Trinity ^* would imply. 
 
 The two Antiphons in honor of the Trinity come into question 
 as a source for Division XI of Christ I only as far as line 402. 
 Lines 403-415 constitute the heavenly chorus of the angels, and 
 are a faithful transcription of the Sanctus or "Trisagion" of the 
 Mass, which is : 
 
 Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus : Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni 
 sunt coeli et terra gloria tua. Hosanna in excelsis! Bene- 
 dictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis ! 
 
 It was seen above that the Doxology in Christ I thus presents 
 a counterpart of the Angelic hymn following the chanting of the 
 Preface in the Mass. And since the preceding portion of the 
 poem appears to be based on the Christmas Preface, the connec- 
 tion here is natural and plain. The first part of this division 
 (lines 378-402), therefore, may be looked upon as an introduction 
 to this Angelic hymn, just as in the Preface of the Mass the 
 Sanctus is introduced after the glorification of the respective 
 mystery or feast, which in our case is the eternal generation of the 
 Son of God. 
 
 Though the poet follows his sources rather closely in Division 
 XI, the unifying element for the whole division appears to have 
 
 ^^ Antiphonary of Hartker, p. 104. 
 
 ^^The Leofric Collectar, Harl. MS. 2961; ed. by E. S. Dewick, London, 
 1914, Henry Bradshaw Society, vol, 45.— cf. fol. 32''-33'. 
 
 "The feast of the Holy Trinity is observed on the Sunday after the 
 feast of Pentecost or Whitsunday. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 45 
 
 been furnished by another Antiphon which is now used in the 
 Votive Office of the Angels. It is the following: 
 
 Laudemus Dominum, quern laudant Angeli, quern Cheru- 
 bim et Seraphim Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus proclamant. 
 
 It will be observed that both the Antiphon here given and the 
 Doxology of Cynewulf show three parts. The thoughts of the 
 Antiphon are disposed as follows: (a) Laudemus Dominum; 
 (b) quern laudant Angeli; (c) qu£m Cherubim et Seraphim 
 Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus proclamant. 
 
 Division XI of Christ I gives the same disposition of thoughts 
 in its three parts as follows : 
 
 (a) Lines 378-384 develop, the thought contained in the first 
 member of the Antiphon, Laudemus Dominum. It is we who 
 praise the Lord : 
 
 * ^ * reordberende, 
 
 earme eor^ware, ealle maegene 
 
 hergan healice. * * * (lines SSl^-SSS') 
 
 (b) Lines 385-402 paraphrase the second member of the An- 
 tiphon, quern laudant Angeli (quem Cherubim et Seraphim pro- 
 clamant). This whole part is devoted to the angels, to their 
 ministries and sports before the throne of heaven, and to their 
 manner of song. 
 
 (c) Lines 403-415 finally expand the third member of the 
 Antiphon so as to produce the whole of that Angelic hymn which 
 is merely intoned in this Antiphon. 
 
 Thus the Doxology of Christ I appears to have been carefully 
 planned by the poet both in its construction and in the position 
 which it holds in the poem. It completes the extensive hymn 
 of praise which Cynewulf so skilfully wrought from the Greater 
 Antiphons of the Advent season. 
 
 Division XII : Lines 416-439 
 is based on the Antiphon used on the Octave of Christmas : 
 
 O admirabile commercium, Creator generis humani ani- 
 matum corpus sumens, de Virgine nasci dignatus est : et pro- 
 cedens homo sine semine, largitus est nobis suam deltatem 
 In 1914 Professor Samuel Moore ^^ published his discovery of 
 
 In Modern Language Notes, xxix. 226 f. 
 
46 TH^ DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 this source. While he quoted only lines 416-421* as being based 
 on this Antiphon, a closer examination will show that the influence 
 of the Antiphon extends at least to line 428. 
 
 It is true, lines 421*'-425 appear to be an interpolation. Yet the 
 thought connection seems to be this: if 
 
 ne /7urh ssed ne cwom sigores agend 
 
 monnes ofer moldan; (lines 420-421') 
 
 then how did the Son of God come? Mary had herself asked 
 this question of the angel Gabriel when he announced to her 
 God's design to choose her as the mother of His Son. She had 
 said, quomodo fiet istudf The angel replied, virtus Altissimi 
 obumbrabit tibi,^^ and this answer is made the burden of the 
 interpolated lines 421M25 : 
 
 * * * ac pxt waes ma(ra) craeft 
 
 ponne hit eor^buend ealle cu^an 
 
 puvh geryne, hu he, rodera prim, 
 
 heofona Heahfrea, helpe gefremede 
 
 monna cynne purh. his modor hrif. (lines 421'*-425) 
 
 Note the connection between virtus and crceft, between Altissimi 
 and Heahfrea, and between obumbrabit tibi and his modor hrif 
 which implies the same thought. 
 
 After this short interpolation explaining the manner of Christ's 
 coming, the poet returns to the antiphonal passage : et procedens 
 * * * largitus est nobis suam deitatem as follows : 
 
 Ond, swa for^ gongende, folca Nergend 
 
 his forgifnesse gumum to helpe 
 
 daele^ dogra gehwam, Dryhten weoroda. (lines 426-8) ^'^ 
 
 This analysis shows conclusively, I think, that the Antiphon 
 O admirabile commercium forms the basis for lines 416-428, thus 
 extending farther in its influence than to line 421'. 
 
 The remaining portion of this division, lines 429-439, is given 
 over to a final exhortation by the poet to the praise and adoration 
 of God. That, he says, is the true wisdom of life, for onfy 
 through the love of his God can man hope to reach that eternal 
 
 ■"Luke, i. 35. 
 
 " Whitman, The Christ of Cyneivulf, Boston, 1900, p. 16, translates line 
 426, "So continually the Savior of mankind." It should rather be, "And 
 thus going forth, the Savior of mankind," in agreement with the Antiphon. 
 Whitman's translation, it is well to observe, preceded the discovery of 
 this source by Moore. — Cook (p. 245) explains forgiefnes as "bounty," 
 "largess." This agrees well with the largitus est of the Antiphon. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 47 
 
 reward "in the country where as yet he hath not come, in the 
 joy of the land of the Hving, where he shall dwell blessed for 
 evermore, there henceforth abiding world without end. Amen." ^® 
 
 This last section of Christ I was regarded by Cook ^^ as a 
 climactic or resumptive portion leading to the conclusion of the 
 great theme of Christ's advent to men. From the knowledge 
 that we now have of its source, however, this concluding division 
 is seen to paraphrase an Antiphon belonging in Church use to the 
 Octave of the feast of the Nativity. This fact would suggest 
 that Cynewulf composed lines 416-439 some time after the Dtox- 
 ology had been written, for in the following chapter it will be 
 seen how the poet followed precisely the Church use of his sources. 
 Thus Division XII partakes of the nature of an addition or 
 appendage to the theme proper of the Advent, especially since 
 the symmetrical disposition of the O-paraphrases in Christ I seems 
 to exclude it from the original plan of the poem. 
 
 My examination of the sources which form the bases for the 
 twelve separate divisions in Christ I has given this result : 
 
 The sources determined by Cook are clear in all the divisions 
 of the poem, except in Divisions VII, X, and XII. Though the 
 direct source for Division VII, or the Passus, must remain unde- 
 termined, the material which has suggested its composition be- 
 longs to the Vigil of the Nativity, the ultimate source being the 
 Gospel passage of that day, Matth., i. 18-21. Because the Passus 
 appears out of place in the symmetrical scheme apparent in 
 Christ / as a whole, it might be looked upon as an interpolation 
 by a later writer. The source at which I have arrived in Division 
 X is the Preface sung in the midnight-Mass on Christmas. Espe- 
 cially has the connection between this division and the following 
 Doxology influenced the acceptance of this Preface as the source 
 of Division X. The source for Division XII, discovered by 
 Moore, has been extended to include lines 416-428. 
 
 In addition to the closer determination of these sources, atten- 
 tion was directed to various points of dispute connected with 
 them. The unity of Division II was more fully established. The 
 O Sapientia was eliminated as a source for lines 239-240, and 
 for Division X. The O Gabriel was likewise excluded from 
 Division IX, and the Radix from Division X. The sources 
 
 '« Whitman, I.e., p. 16. 
 '• P. 113. 
 
48 THS DEiPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 of the Doxology, Division XI, as far as lines 378-402 are affected, 
 were shown to be derived from the common Sunday Office, and 
 thus to have been in closer proximity to the feast of Christmas 
 than they are at the present time in their use on Trinity Sunday. 
 But before a final estimate of the sources in Christ I can be 
 had, an account must be rendered of the possible sources in the 
 lost portion of the Christ, in order to arrive at a more accurate 
 knowledge of the precise plan or scheme followed by Cynewulf 
 in the construction of his poem. 
 
 3. The Sources of the Lost Portion 
 
 The poem of the Christ forms the very beginning of the manu- 
 script in the Exeter Library, called the Bxeter Book. Of this 
 manuscript the first seven folios or fourteen pages have been 
 destroyed, our poem continuing on folio 8' with the word Cyninge 
 ("to the King"), thus launching immediately into the first division 
 which is based on the Great Antiphon O Rex gentium, the first 
 lines of which even are missing.^** How many of the seven lost 
 leaves of the manuscript were devoted to the subject of Christ I 
 will, of course, always remain more or less a matter of conjecture. 
 
 A review of existing treatises on the Christ of Cynewulf reveals 
 a considerable lack of attention to this portion lost at the be- 
 ginning of the poem. It is true, there is very little definite 
 information, if any, at hand concerning the lost leaves, and all 
 that can be said about them must be more or less the result of 
 speculation. Still the preserved portions of the Christ, and 
 especially those of Christ I, should not be altogether devoid of 
 some tangible clue concerning the probable content of the missing 
 lines. 
 
 It is particularly when we are striving to ascertain the complete 
 number of sources employed by Cynewulf in Christ I that the 
 lacuna appearing at the beginning of the manuscript is most 
 keenly felt. For the sources of the existing twelve divisions, if 
 taken in their ensemble, present the same lacuna. And strangely, 
 this lacuna appears in the same place as in the manuscript, at 
 the beginning. Such a coincidence should give us almost definite 
 
 ^ Cook (p. 73) says that what is lost of this first division must cover 
 the words O Rex gentium, et desideratus earum of the Antiphon, and 
 thus can scarcely have exceeded a dozen lines, at most. — For a full de- 
 scription and general account of the Exeter Book see Cook, pp. xiii-xvi. 
 
" ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 49 
 
 information about the content of the lost portion. But a closer 
 examination of the question will make the point clearer. 
 
 In the study above of the sources which constitute the bases 
 for the smaller divisions of Christ I it was seen that eight of 
 them, i.e., all except Divisions VII, X, XI, and XII, are based 
 upon one or the other of the Greater Antiphons of Advent. The 
 respective Antiphons are: O Rex gentium; O Clavis David; O 
 Hierusalem ; O Virgo virginum ; O Oriens ; O Emmanuel ; O Rex 
 Pacifice; and O mundi Domina. 
 
 But how does this list of Greater Antiphons compare with the 
 lists found in the Antiphonaries and Breviaries ? To any student 
 of the liturgy of the Roman Church the Cynewulfian set of 
 Greater Antiphons must appear defective. For the absence of 
 three Great O's, of the O Sapientia, the O Adonai, and the 
 Radix, finds no precedent in the history of the liturgy. It is well 
 known that the first seven Greater Antiphons of St. Gregory's 
 Liher Responsalis ^^ have become from his time the standard 
 set of Advent O's used in the Roman Church. With the excep- 
 tion of a single Antiphonary, the Vatican MS. B 79 as published 
 by Tommasi,^^ all the Antiphonaries of the Roman Use contain 
 the seven Greater Antiphons that take the first place in the Liber 
 Responsalis of St. Gregory. They are : O Sapientia, O Adonai, 
 O Radix, O Clavis David, O Oriens, O Rex gentium, and O 
 Emmanuel.^^ 
 
 Because these seven Antiphons were accepted in all the churches 
 following the Roman Use, they formed in each case the nucleus 
 around which the added O's were in the course of time assembled 
 wherever such additional Antiphons came into use. These addi- 
 tional O's were never allowed to replace or supersede the seven 
 Great O's. In the treatises of all liturgiologists these seven O's 
 are taken as the point of departure. Their list was considered 
 so familiar, that they were often referred to as merely "The 
 Seven O's" (Septem O). When Pope Pius V. (1566-1572) 
 undertook a thorough reform of the Roman Breviary, he re- 
 
 " In Migne, P. L-, 78, 732 f . 
 
 *"Tommasi, Opera Omnia, -ed. Vezzosi, Rome, 1749, iv. 28. 
 
 " Outside the Roman Use, as in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Brevi- 
 aries, no Great O's appear. So also in the first edition of Cardinal 
 Quingon's Breviary of 1535; in later editions of the latter the three last 
 O's in the Roman list were sometimes used; cf. Everard Green, "On the 
 words O Sapientia in the Kalendar," in Archceologia, xlix, 236. 
 
50 THX DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 scinded all Advent O's that had been added to the customary 
 number here and there, and retained the seven Great O's alone. 
 
 T|he absence of three of these seven O's in Christ I is conse- 
 quently a striking feature of the poem. The three Antiphons 
 not treated by Cynewulf, the O Sapientia, O Adonai, and 
 Radix, take the precedence in all the lists of O-Antiphons,** and 
 it would be difficult to assume that Cynewulf did not include them 
 in the scheme of his poem. 
 
 I realize, however, that it is necessary to obviate two objections 
 that might be raised at this point. In the first place, it might be 
 pointed out that Cynewulf was at liberty to choose his themes 
 and exclude from his treatment of the Advent of Christ any 
 number of specific sources. But the existing portion of the 
 Christ seems to argue against this position. In it the poet is 
 seen to employ as sources for his paraphrases all the additional 
 O-Antiphons ^^ that are found in the most complete Antiphonary 
 of his time. From this procedure on the part of the poet it seems 
 evident that he wished to present the full number of the original 
 O's at least. Wherefore, such a degree of arbitrariness as the 
 conscious omission of the three first Greater Antiphons would 
 imply can hardly be imputed to him. 
 
 In the second place, the omission of all three O's in question 
 might be denied on the ground that the O Sapientia and the O 
 Radix at least are represented in lines 239-240, and lines 348-377, 
 respectively. Yet the examination which I have made of these 
 portions of Christ I ^® leads me to believe that the lines in ques- 
 tion do not warrant the acceptance of these two Antiphons as 
 constituting the sources for them intended by the poet. Besides, 
 these two Antiphons appear too important to assign such sec- 
 ondary places to them in Christ I. 
 
 From all this it appears that the three missing O's can safely 
 be placed in the missing portion of the Christ. The one lacuna 
 covers the other. Because the three O's wanting in Christ I are 
 just the three first of the Advent Antiphons, their proper place 
 is at the beginning of the poem. It will not be denied by any 
 
 " The only exception recorded is that of the Antiphonary of Metz as 
 reported by Amalarius ; cf. Amalarius, De Ordine Antiphonarii, in Migne, 
 P. L., 105, 1266-69 ; cf . also Cook, p. 85. 
 
 '* With the possible exception of the O Gabriel, for it seems to be absent 
 from Christ 1. Cook (p. 73) would put it also in the lost portion of the 
 poem. 
 
 ^ See pages 30, 33 above. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 51 
 
 Student of the Christ that some part of the poem is missing in 
 the manuscript as preserved. The poet must certainly have 
 treated one or more definite themes in that lost portion, and judg- 
 ing from the opening theme of the preserved portion, those 
 themes must have been paraphrases of Greater Antiphons similar 
 to the O Rex gentium paraphrase of lines 1-17. 
 
 With the O Sapientia, the O Adonai, and the Radix in the 
 first larger division of Christ I, moreover, the symmetrical pro- 
 portions apparent in the preserved manuscript for Part I of the 
 Christ would find their perfection. For the practical purpose 
 of this study, therefore, the lost portion of Christ I will be accept- 
 ed as containing at least the three Great O's not found in the 
 remaining divisions, the O Sapientia, the Adonai, and the 
 Radix. 
 
 The sources arrived at in the preceding study of the contents 
 of Christ I, in conjunction with the results of the investigations 
 previously carried on by Cook and Moore, are brought together 
 in the following table, which, by retaining the larger divisions 
 marked in the manuscript, except for Division VII which is not 
 based on an O-Antiphon, shows how the symmetry of the poem 
 is maintained in the lost portion: 
 
 - (Lost Portion) O Sapientia 
 
 - " " O Adonai 
 
 - " " O Radix 
 based on O Rex gentium 
 
 " O Clavis David 
 " " O Hierusalem 
 " " O Virgo virginum 
 " " O Oriens 
 " " O Emmanuel 
 
 Matth. i. 18-21. Passus 
 " O Rex Pacifice 
 " " O mundi Domina 
 " " Poet's own "O" : Christmas 
 
 Preface 
 " " Trinity Antiphons. Doxology 
 " " O admirabile commercium 
 With the sources of Christ I as they appear here the subsequent 
 discussion will have to deal. Since the purpose of this study is 
 
 I. 
 
 Lines 
 
 1-17 
 
 II. 
 
 (( 
 
 18-49 
 
 III. 
 
 (( 
 
 50-70 
 
 IV. 
 
 " 
 
 71-103 
 
 V. 
 
 (( 
 
 104-129 
 
 VI. 
 
 « 
 
 130-163 
 
 VII. 
 
 a 
 
 164-213 
 
 /III. 
 
 (( 
 
 214-274 
 
 IX. 
 
 a 
 
 275-347 
 
 X. 
 
 t( 
 
 348-377 
 
 XL 
 
 <( 
 
 378-415 
 
 XII. 
 
 i( 
 
 416-439 
 
52 THi: DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 to investigate the influence of these sources upon the peculiar 
 arrangement of material in the poem, to ascertain the relation 
 which the smaller divisions bear to each other and to the larger 
 outline of Christ I, it was first necessary to establish as nearly as 
 possible the precise succession of sources as a working basis for 
 that investigation. Such a basis, I believe, was reached in the 
 foregoing study. 
 
Ill 
 
 THE SOURCES AS FOUND IN ACTUAL CHURCH USE 
 
 1. G^NERAiv Observations 
 
 With the more definite knowledge of the sources of the twelve 
 divisions of Christ I which Cook first made current to students of 
 the Christ, a better understanding of Cynewulf's poem has since 
 prevailed. Not only have the complexities that marred earHer 
 investigations been cleared away, but a way was broken into the 
 comprehension of that spirit of religious fervor with which the 
 whole poem is pervaded. Only through a deeper knowledge of 
 the influences of the Greater Antiphons and the celebration of 
 Advent in the mediaeval Church upon the poet, can we arrive at 
 a true valuation of his work and find spiritual enjoyment in the 
 study of such a masterpiece as the Christ represents. 
 
 The addition to the knowledge of the sources of Christ I made 
 by Moore, and the further discoveries by myself, as pointed out 
 in the last chapter, give us a wider field in which to extend our 
 knowledge of the true relation existing between the Christ and 
 the sources employed in it. 
 
 If an appreciation of the spiritual meaning of the sources and 
 of their influence in the life of the Church reveals to us the 
 spirit out of which the poetic version of those sources was born, 
 does the connection between sources and poem end there? Is 
 there not perhaps a connection also between the very external 
 structure or plan of Christ I and the Latin originals as Cynewulf 
 found them? That is precisely the field still lying unexplored. 
 For a mere knowledge of the text of the O-Antiphons and other 
 sources in Christ I can lead us no farther than to regard them 
 simply as the bases of the individual paraphrases in the poem, 
 and nothing more. The plan of the poem will still retain its 
 chaotic structure. Cynewulf will still be considered arbitrary 
 in the use of his material, disdaining to follow an outline oflFered 
 in the very book from which he drew most of his sources. 
 
 Hence, in order to arrive at an appreciation of the full relation 
 existing between the sources of Christ I and the poem itself, it 
 is not sufficient to regard these sources merely as the well of 
 
 53 
 
54 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 inspiration for the poet, or even as the mere storehouse of that 
 definite material through which the poetic inspiration was to 
 function. Their influence certainly must lie deeper. Indeed, 
 Cook ^ seems to intimate as much, when he says : 
 
 * * * it is apparent that we must conceive of Cynewulf 
 as so thrilled by the szveet and solemn chanting of the Greater 
 Antiphons of Advent, and so imbued with their spirit 
 through reflection upon their rich devotional and doctrinal 
 contents, that he gladly yielded to the impulse to reproduce 
 them in English under the form of variation.^ 
 
 It is, accordingly, only in harmony with the knowledge we have 
 of Cynewulf as a man and a poet that we conceive of him as 
 attending in person the chanting of the O-Antiphons in the 
 Divine Office, and thus receiving the inspiration for the suc- 
 ceeding portions of Christ I. This view precludes the assumption 
 that Cynewulf had the Antiphonary at his elbow when composing 
 his poem, and that he selected from the list of Greater Antiphons 
 appearing there the respective O's as his fancy would dictate. 
 On the contrary, the sources became for him, as it were, living 
 themes, and he proceeded to paraphrase them as living thoughts 
 of his own inner self, stamped with his own religious views and 
 emotions. The very order in which these paraphrases appear 
 in the poem must then be a natural one without any forced 
 positions. They must flow, not indeed from a lifeless and cold 
 list contained in any one book, but from the very life which 
 the distinct members of that list receive in their proper liturgical 
 setting in the Divine Office. 
 
 To ascertain their proper setting will be the task of the 
 present chapter. For this purpose it will be necessary to study 
 the sources of Christ I as they were actually used by the mediaeval 
 Church in her service, for only through a knowledge of that use 
 will the liturgical setting of these sources appear and permit a 
 comparison of their order of succession with the arrangement 
 of material in the poem of Cynewulf. 
 
 The first step towards a proper appreciation of the Church use 
 of the sources employed by Cynewulf in Christ I must be the 
 adjustment of any false impressions which the customary me- 
 chanical tabulation of these sources in the service books of the 
 
 ' P. xlii. . 
 
 ' The italics are mine. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 55 
 
 Church might create. Since the principal sources of our poem are 
 the Greater Antiphons of Advent, this applies more specifically 
 to the list of these O-Antiphons in the Antiphonary. 
 
 An examination of almost any Antiphonary or Breviary will 
 show that the Greater Antiphons of Advent are assembled at one 
 place in the book or codex, though they are to be used on various 
 daiys. The place assigned to them in these books is usually 
 before the fourth Sunday in Advent,^ or immediately preceding 
 the Office for the Vigil of the Nativity.* In more modern 
 Breviaries the date of the month on which they are to be used 
 is attached, but in the ancient Antiphonaries this is not the case. 
 Why, it will be asked, were the O-Antiphons assembled in a list 
 in the Church books, and not distributed over the days on which 
 they were chanted ? It was for the following practical reason. 
 
 The Advent season is a preparation for the feast of the Nativity 
 or Christmas. It comprises four weeks,^ and the Office of Advent 
 is' accordingly arranged in weeks, not in days of the month. Be- 
 cause Christmas is attached to a fixed day of the month, December 
 25, and the Office is arranged in four full weeks, the last week 
 of Advent (in which the O-Antiphons are being chanted) is 
 constantly shifting, as the day of Christmas shifts iFrom one 
 day of the week to the other. If December 25 falls on a Mon- 
 day, the day preceding will be the fourth Sunday in Advent, but 
 this fourth Sunday will then be without its ferial or week-days, 
 though in the Office books the fourth week appears complete. 
 
 The chanting of the O's is attached to fixed days of the month, 
 like the Christmas festival; but they must find their place in an 
 Office arranged according to weeks and days of the week., Thus 
 it is necessary to assemble them into one convenient place, where 
 they can be referred to on the days when they are used. If, 
 for instance, the Antiphon Sapientia is to be sung on December 
 17, where should this Antiphon find its proper place in the 
 Antiphonary? It does not register an Office for December 17, 
 
 ^ In the Breviary of today they precede even the ferias or weekdays of 
 the third week in Advent, that is, they follow the Office of the third 
 Sunday. 
 
 * Thus in the Antiphonary of Hartker, pp. 40 f . 
 
 ' The number of Advent weeks varied in the early Church. The Gelasian 
 Sacramentary has five, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites have six weeks, 
 cf . Binterim, Denkwiirdigkeiten, v. 167 ; Dom Cabrol, "L'Avent Liturgique," 
 in Revue Benedictine, xxii, 484 ff ; Grotefend, Zeitrechnung, i. 3. 
 
56 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 for it runs with the days of this or that week of Advent. But 
 when December 17 comes, the chanters will turn to the list of 
 O's and look there for the particular Antiphon to be sung on 
 that day. 
 
 Whatever place the list of O-Antiphons occupied in the service 
 books of the Church, it found its adaptation in agreement with 
 various local usages. For this reason a certain order in the 
 arrangement of the list does not necessarily point to the same 
 order in the chanting of the Antiphons. From the Antiphonaries 
 of the early Middle Ages it would appear that a definite order 
 was mostly accepted in the list of the O's, the order derived from 
 St. Gregory the Great. But local variant customs in the use of 
 these Antiphons did exist, and these sometimes called for a 
 slight re-arrangement of the O's. But from the lists in the 
 Antiphonaries themselves, these variant customs often do not 
 appear. 
 
 A clue to the divergent uses of the O-Antiphons, in the face 
 of the standard arrangement of the list, can sometimes be found 
 in the directions given at various places in the Antiphonary. An 
 example of this is found in the Antiphonary of Hartker, the 
 earliest known Antiphonary containing all the O's employed by 
 Cynewulf. In this Antiphonary (pp. 40 f.) the list of Greater 
 Antiphons is given in its usual order, but the rubrics* which 
 refer to various O-Antiphons within the last week of Advent 
 appear to run counter to the established order of O's in the list. 
 
 The Greater Antiphons are listed as follows in the Antiphonary 
 of Hartker:^ (1) O Sapientia; (2) O Adonai; (3) O Radix 
 Jesse; (4) O Clavis David; (5) O Oriens; (6) O Rex gentium; 
 (7) O Emmanuel; (8) O Virgo virginum; (9) O Gabriel; (10) 
 O Rex Pacifice; (11) O mundi Domina; (12) O Hierusalem. 
 
 This is the customary order maintained in presenting the 
 Greater Antiphons. It might be called the standard or conven- 
 tional order. The first eight Antiphons of this list have the same 
 place in the Liber Responsalis of St. Gregory,® and this order 
 
 " The rubrics in the Breviary are the. rules laid down for the recitation 
 of the Divine Office, as well as any directions or references placed between 
 the text. They are usually printed in red, hence the name. Cf : Dom 
 Cabrol, in Catholic Bncyclopcedia, xiii. 216 — May calls the rubric a "gloss," 
 see page 34 above. 
 
 ^ Pp. 40 f . — but in it the Antiphons are not numbered. 
 
 » Migne, P. L-, 78, 732. 
 
OxN THE ANTIPHONARY. 57 
 
 was faithfully kept in the transcription of the Antiphonaries. 
 These eight O's are followed by four Antiphons which came into 
 use in the course of time. The four additional O's would in no 
 case be inserted between the others in the list, because of their 
 later adoption and of the respect in which the original O's were 
 held. Yet in their use they could be taken before the eight were 
 finished, that is, they could be used along with the other Great 
 O's for special services, according to the custom which prevailed. 
 
 That this list of Greater Antiphons was adapted in various 
 ways appears to be clear from the same Antiphonary of Hartker. 
 Within the last week of Advent and the Christmas week this 
 Antiphonary contains rubrical directions implying a use of the 
 O's differing from that suggested by the list of these Antiphons 
 on pages 40 f. The following directions pertain to the manner 
 in which the O's were to be used : 
 
 On page 31 the rubric for the Antiphon of the Magnificat on 
 Saturday preceding the last Sunday of Advent is, Ant. O Sap., 
 vel alia de illis sicut evenerit. 
 
 On page 34, for the Antiphon of the Magnificat on the last 
 Sunday of Advent (i.e., the day following the rubric above), 
 Ant. O Oriens. 
 
 Again on page 34, for the Antiphon of the Magnificat in the 
 week preceding the Nativity, A7it. O Sapientia. 
 
 On page 44, for the Antiphon ad crucem in the Vespers of the 
 Vigil of the Nativity, Hierusalem civitas. 
 
 On page 52, for the Antiphon ad crucem in the Vespers of 
 Christmas day. Ant. mundi Domina. 
 
 On page 69, for the Antiphon ad crucem on the feast of the 
 Holy Innocents (December 28), Ant. O Virgo virginum. 
 
 From these directions it would appear that the Antiphon O 
 Oriens is affixed to the last Sunday of Advent, while the rubric 
 of page 31 apparently directs that the Antiphons should be taken 
 in their regular order laid down in the list on page 40. The 
 remark on page 34, which assigns the Antiphon O Sapientia 
 to the Vespers in the week preceding Christmas, seems to apply 
 to all the O's in their respective turn, and not to the first of these 
 alone. The O Hierusalem, the O mundi Domina, and the O Virgo 
 virginum are assigned indiscriminately to the service ad crucem,^ 
 which consisted of the "memorials" after the Magnificat. In 
 
 'A fuller discussion of this service follows below. 
 
58 THE de:pe:nde:nck^ of CHRIST I. 
 
 this use, moreover, they are not taken in the order which they 
 hold in the Hst of 0-Antiphons on page 40. There they follow 
 thus: O Virgo virginum, (O Gabriel), (O Rex Pacifice), O 
 mundi Domina, O Hierusalem. Here the order is inverted: O 
 Hierusalem, O mundi Domina, O Virgo virginum. And what 
 disposition was made of the O Gabriel and the O Rex Pacifice? 
 The Antiphonary is silent regarding them. 
 
 Thus it appears that the list of 0-Antiphons in an Antiphonary 
 was variously adapted in actual use, that this list is merely a 
 list for the sake of convenience, and perhaps also for the sake 
 of preserving the traditional order in.it. The example given here 
 of Hartker's Antiphonary could no doubt be multiplied from 
 similar rubrics in various other Antiphonaries, but for our 
 purpose this instance is sufficient to show that the actual Church 
 use of the Antiphons in question can be ascertained only through 
 an interpretation of the directions given in the service books for 
 the celebration of the Divine Office and for the various uses 
 connected with it. The mechanical tabulation of these Cyne- 
 wulfian sources in the Antiphonary must not lead us into the 
 error of jumping too hastily at conclusions not justified by actual 
 Church use. 
 
 The various adaptations which the Greater Antiphons undoubt- 
 edly received in the various churches of mediaeval Christianity 
 lead us to the second consideration in our endeavor to ascertain 
 the actual Church use of these Antiphons. In dealing with the 
 liturgical practices of the early Middle Ages, we must divest 
 ourselves of the notions which the present-day well-established 
 conformity and uniformity have created. In those early days 
 there was as yet no definite ordo prescribed for all the churches 
 of Christendom. The epoch to which Cynewulf belongs presents 
 that stage in the history of the liturgy, in which the minor details 
 surrounding the official functions and prayers of the Church 
 blossomed forth into a wonderful profuseness and variety of 
 forms. The intense religious fervor of those ages found its 
 expression in the many additions that were constantly being made 
 in various localities to the existing formulas for worship pre- 
 scribed by the Church. 
 
 Far from disapproving these accretions to the devotional con- 
 tent of her liturgy, the Church encouraged them by granting 
 the widest liberties in adapting and increasing the previously 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 59 
 
 sanctioned forms of her ceremonial. It may not be amiss to 
 call attention, for instance, to the observations made by Amalarius, 
 who is perhaps the most distinguished liturgical writer of the 
 early Middle Ages and a close contemporary of Cynewulf him- 
 self .^° In presenting the O-Antiphons in the order followed at 
 Metz in his time, Amalarius points to the divergence which his 
 Antiphonary showed from that of the Roman Use. He was 
 astonished at the wide discrepancy in liturgical matters between 
 mother and daughter church (Rome and Metz), saying :^^ 
 
 Quae memorata volumina contuli cum nostris Antiphon- 
 ariis, invenique ea discrepare a nostris non solum in ordine, 
 verum etiam in verbis et multitudine responsoriorum et 
 antiphonarum, quas nos non cantamus. Nam in multis 
 rationabilius statuta reperi nostra volumina quam essent ilia 
 Mirabar quomodo factum sit quod mater et filia tantum a se 
 discreparent. 
 
 The same early liturgiologist records documentary proof of the 
 liberties granted in particular to the English Church. For, as a 
 justification of the liberties which he had himself taken in ar- 
 ranging the Antiphonary for the cathedral church of Metz, he 
 quotes the famous correspondence between Pope Gregory the 
 Great and Augustine of England.^^ St. Augustine inquired of 
 the PontiflF : 
 
 Cum una sit fides sunt Ecclesiarum diversae consuetudines, 
 et altera consuetudo missarum in Romana Ecclesia, atque 
 altera in Gallia tenetur. 
 
 Pope Gregory replied: 
 
 Novit fraternitas tua Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudinem 
 in qua se meminit nutritam; sed mihi placet ut sive in 
 Romana, sive in Galliarum, seu in qualibet Ecclesia aliquid 
 invenisti quod plus omnipotenti Deo possit placere, sollicite 
 eligas, et in Anglorum Ecclesia, quae adhuc ad fidem nova 
 est, institutione praecipua, quae de multis Ecclesiis colligere 
 potuisti, infundas ; non enim pro locis res, sed pro bonis 
 rebus loca amanda sunt. Ex singulis ergo quibusque Ecclesiis 
 quae pia, quae religiosa, quae recta sunt elige, et haec quasi 
 in fasciculum collecta, apud Anglorum mentes in consuetud- 
 inem depone. 
 
 ^''Amalarius wrote in 820. 
 
 "£>£> Ordine Antiphonarii, in Migne. P. L., 105, 1243. 
 
 " Ibid., 1244 f . — This correspondence is said by Amalarius to be recorded 
 in the Historic Anglorum, book i. chapter v. Just what history is here 
 meant has apparently never been ascertained. 
 
60 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 By the time that Cynewulf as a monk or a priest had become 
 acquainted with the liturgy of the English Church, such indults 
 granted by the Pope could have resulted in a specifically English 
 Antiphonary as rich and varied in content as any contained in the 
 churches of the Continent. For it is remarkable that in his early 
 day Cynewulf shows a knowledge of all the Greater Antiphons 
 (except perhaps of the Gabriel) that are found in the An- 
 tiphonary of Hartker, a manuscript of the monastery of St. 
 Gall, which is assigned by Dom Mocquereau to the late tenth 
 or early eleventh century.^^ Yet, the "consuetudo" which Pope 
 Gregory wished to see established in England may easily account 
 for variations in the minor details of the Office, such as a slight 
 difference in the order of the O-Antiphons would imply. Even 
 if the Antiphonaries of the Continent were faithfully copied in 
 the monasteries and cathedral churches of England, their own 
 "consuetudo" might justify any local adaptations of the copied 
 books as more suitable to their needs and customs. 
 
 While these few general observations on the adaptability of 
 the antiphonal list of Greater Antiphons for local use, and on the 
 wide liberties enjoyed in liturgical matters by the mediaeval 
 Church, would seem to modify to a great extent the charge of 
 wilfulness (or is it a compliment to his originality?) on the 
 part of Cynewulf in the employment of his sources, a more 
 detailed account of the particular sources used by him should 
 lead us to more definite conclusions. The sources of the twelve 
 divisions in Christ I fall into three classes, the seven Great O's, 
 the Added or Monastic O's, and the other sources which do not 
 belong to any set of Greater Antiphons. This distinction in the 
 sources will aid in acquiring a clearer conception of their dis- 
 tinctive uses in the service of the Church, and render their com- 
 parison with the material in Christ I more fruitful. 
 
 . " Liturgical writers of the present day unfortunately do not take suf- 
 ficient account of the evidences furnished by the study of the literary 
 remains of Old England. In many instances they still rely solely upon 
 the inaccurate statements so often found in mediaeval writers. Thus, for 
 example, they continue to dispute over the possible date of the mundi 
 Domma, when as early as the eighth century Cynewulf is known to have 
 used it. The common error of placing the O Thomu Didyme in date of 
 composition in the thirteenth century, is persistently carried on, though 
 this Antiphon is referred to on page 7 of Hartker's Antiphonary of the 
 tenth century. (Cf. for this error, Dom Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, 
 "Advent," p. 508; Everard Green, in Archceologia, xlix. 227; Cook, p. 
 xxxvii; and others.) 
 
on the antiphonary. 6] 
 
 2. The Seven Universal O's 
 
 By the ''Seven Universal O's" we mean the seven Greater 
 Antiphons which have always been in universal use in the Church, 
 wherever the Roman Use was followed. They are first found 
 in the Liber Responsalis ^* of St. Gregory the Great, and are now 
 alone retained in the Roman Breviary as reformed by Pope Pius 
 V. and enjoined in his Bull Quod a nobis postulat of July 9, 1568. 
 In the Breviary of today these seven O's follow in the order in 
 which they are found in the Liber Responsalis, and they are : O 
 Sapientia, O Adonai, O Radix Jesse, O Clavis David, O Oriens, 
 O Rex gentium, and O Emmanuel. 
 
 These have accordingly been called the "O's of the Pian 
 Breviary," ^^ but it is not quite correct to refer to them as the 
 "Seven Gregorian O's," for St. Gregory, in his Liber Responsalis, 
 clearly enumerates eight Antiphons beginning with "O," viz., the 
 seven now retained as mentioned above, and the O Virgo vir- 
 ginmn}^ It is true that after the time of Gregory we find these 
 mentioned as contained in the Antiphonary of Metz ; ^^ they are 
 the first eight in the Antiphonary of Hartker, in the Codices 
 Forojulienses,^^ in the Antiphonaries of Lucca and Toledo of 
 the twelfth century ^* (but with a slightly different order), in the 
 Sarum Use,^^ in the Aberdeen Breviary of 1508,^^ in the Leofric 
 Collectar,^^ etc. 
 
 " In Migne, P. L., 78, 732 f . 
 
 " Cf. Green, Archcsologia, xlix, 221. 
 
 "Migne, P. L., 78, 732. — Odericus {Ordo Officiorum Bed. Senensis, ed. 
 Trombelli, pp. 19; f.), writing in 1213, states that the seven O's alone are 
 found in the Antiphonary of St. Gregory, has tantutn septem posuit 
 Gregorius in antiphonario. Either he had in mind an Antiphonary 
 different from the one that has come down to us, or he committed an 
 error. If it is an error, writers have certainly been persistent in propa- 
 gating it. — In the present Breviary the O Virgo virginum is; omitted from 
 the list of Advent O's, but retained ^or the feast of The Expectation of 
 the Delivery of the Virgin Mary, December 18, wherever this feast is 
 observed, 
 eight O's in almost all Antiphonaries and Breviaries. They are 
 
 " Amalarius, De Ordine Aptiphonarii, Migne, P. L., 105, 1267 ff. 
 
 "De Rubeis, Dissertationes Duae, Venice, 1754, p. 453; quoted by Green 
 in ArchcBologia, xHx, 225. 
 
 " Published in Paleographie Musicale, ix. 27. 
 
 ^ Breviarium ad Usum Sarum, ed. by Proctor and Wordsworth, 1882. 
 
 ^ Breuiariutn Aberdonense, ed. by W. Blew for the Maitland Club, 
 London, 1854, vol. ii. 
 
 *^ The Leofric Collectar, ed. by E. S- Dewick for the Bradshaw Society, 
 London, 1914, i. fol. lOV 
 
62 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 We should therefore speak of the ''Eight Gregorian O's," for 
 they seem to have come into general use after the time of Greg- 
 ory. Yet, since the O Virgo virginum was always used more or 
 less distinctly as an ''additional O," ^^ sometimes only on the feast 
 of the Annunciation and subsequently on the feast of the Expec- 
 tation, we shall assign it to the following discussion of the Added 
 or Monastic O's. Nevertheless, it stands as a "Gregorian O" 
 from the time of St. Gregory to the reform of Pius V. In adopt- 
 ing for the seven Great O's the collective term "The Seven 
 Universal O's," we do not feel guilty of violating justice towards 
 the great Pope St. Gregory, for we have no evidence that these 
 seven Greater Antiphons originated with him, though he appears 
 to have been the first to give them official sanction by receiving 
 them into his Antiphonary. They may be of more ancient date 
 than we would suspect. 
 
 The order which the seven Universal O's most commonly 
 take in the various Antiphonaries is the one given them by St. 
 Gregory and retained in the Pian Breviary. There seems to be 
 no inherent reason for this particular order. Just what deter- 
 mined it we do not know. But some vigilant observers have 
 pointed out that the seven O's in the Gregorian order form an 
 acrostic if taken inversely. That is, if the initial letters of the 
 titles following the word "O" are read upward, we obtain the 
 words Ero eras. Everard Green 2* remarks that this acrostic 
 gives no little coloring to the words eras and erastina which occur 
 eighteen times in the services for the Vigil of Christmas in the 
 Roman Breviary. And Thurston ^^ says in answer to the question 
 whether or not this acrostic can be considered intentional : 
 
 Considering the popularity of all kinds of acrostics with 
 such early ecclesiastical writers as Ennodius, Sedulius, and 
 other poets, I am tempted to believe that the effect may very 
 probably have been designed, and seeing that the Roman 
 Liher Responsalis and Breviary have always preserved this 
 order, the coincidence ought to count for something in favor 
 of the hypothesis that the antiphons are of Roman origin 
 and early date. 
 
 It cannot be denied that such tricks of language as shown in 
 the acrostic connected with the O's are in keeping with the spirit 
 
 ^Amalarius expressly calls it an "added" O; cf. Migne, P. L., 105, 1269. 
 
 ^ Archcsdiogia, xlix. 223, note. 
 
 ^ "The Great Antiphons : Heralds of Christmas," in The Month, cvi. 625. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 63 
 
 of the early Middle Ages, and that their influence was carried 
 even into the liturgy of the Church. But no ecclesiastical writer 
 of that age is known to have pointed out the acrostic in question. 
 Still, allowing for the possibility of such an influence in the 
 present arrangement of the Greater x\ntiphons, it proves all the 
 more clearly that there was no deeper and inherent foundation 
 for the order of succession given to them in the Antiphonary. 
 If that order had depended merely upon such external coinci- 
 dences as an acrostic,^^ the various churches could more freely 
 follow their own customs in re-arranging the list of O's in their 
 actual chanting to suit the peculiar local exigencies. 
 
 Another influence upon the arrangement of the Advent O's in 
 the Antiphonary might be sought in the mystical interpretations 
 that were commonly put upon them in the Middle Ages. It is 
 found that, again in the spirit of the age, a symbolical meaning 
 was usually attached to nearly everything connected with the 
 liturgy, extending, in the matter of the O's, to their number as 
 well as to their order of succession and the manner in which 
 they were to be chanted and intoned in the Office. But in every 
 case, I believe, it will be found that these interpretations were a 
 later introduction, and that they followed after the particular 
 number, order, or manner of Church use had been determined 
 in the various localities. Thus Amalarius,^^ after giving the 
 variant order in use at Metz, brings the seven Universal O's in 
 connection with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, as enumerated 
 in Isaias, xi. 2, 3. Honorius of Autun,^® writing in the twelfth 
 century, follows the usual Gregorian order, but he, too, makes the 
 seven O's agree with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit in the 
 order given by Isaias. In either case the application appears 
 strained and was plainly made to cover an existing arrangement 
 in the order of the Advent O's. 
 
 ^ In explanation of the peculiar order of the sources in Christ I it might 
 be thought that Cynewulf himself had possibly been influenced by a desire 
 to form a similar acrostic with the opening words of his paraphrases. In 
 this connection it may be mentioned that the six divisions preceding the 
 Passus give the acrostic gewyrc thus: Cyninge (line 1), ^eccend (line 
 18), Ferusalem (for Hierusalem, line 50), PFifa wynn (line 71), Earendel 
 (line 104), Csesta (jod (line 130). It is not clear, however, what the poet 
 could imply by gewyrc, unless the missing portion of the poem offered an 
 illuminating addition to the word. 
 
 "Migne, P. L., 105, 1267. 
 
 ^ Gemma Animae, in Migne, P. L., 172, 644. 
 
64 th:e dependence of christ i. 
 
 But the actual Church use of the Greater Antiphons is gathered 
 more definitely from the Antiphonaries themselves. On page 57 
 above I have pointed out an instance in the Antiphonary of 
 Hartker,. in which the Antiphon Oriens seems to be attached 
 to the last Sunday of Advent, despite the strict order of suc- 
 cession given in the list of the O's in the same Antiphonary. 
 Yet we have two Antiphonaries, at least, in which even the list 
 of the seven Universal O's is slightly different from that of the 
 Liber Responsalis. They are the Antiphonaries of Lucca and 
 Toledo, both of the twelfth century. ^^ In these two manuscripts ^® 
 the order of the Advent O's is as follows: (1) O Sapientia; (2) 
 O Adonai; (3) O Radix Jesse; (4) O Clavis David; (5) O Rex 
 gentium; (6) O Emmanuel; (7) O Oriens; (8) O Virgo vir- 
 ginum; (9) In natali Si. Thomae apostoli, O Thoma Didyme. 
 
 Here we have two cases of Continental Benedictine use, in 
 which one of the seven Universal O's was taken out of its 
 customary place. It is the Antiphon O Oriens which, instead of 
 preceding the O Rex gentium and the O Emmanuel, follows them. 
 Whether this practice of permitting variations in the order of 
 the O-Antiphons was multiplied throughout the vast Benedictine 
 Order of those days, we have no means of knowing. Perhaps, 
 with the publication of further hidden codices, new evidences of 
 such a procedure will be brought to light. At any rate, these 
 two instances show that, besides the classical inversion of the 
 Gregorian order in the O 's reported by Amalarius from Metz, 
 evidences of occasional minor changes in the succession of Ad- 
 vent O's are not altogether wanting. Indeed, such a radical 
 difference as the Antiphonary of Metz discloses may never be 
 found in England ; but customs affecting minor differences in 
 the use and order of the O-Antiphons may easily have found 
 their way from the monasteries of Italy, Spain, or Austria, into 
 Northumbria. 
 
 If we compare the order of the seven Universal O's as found 
 in Christ I with the order laid down in the Liher Responsalis, 
 that is, with the standard order of O's, we observe that Cynewulf 
 
 ^ Antiphonaire Monastique (XIP siecle) : Codex 601 de la Biblio- 
 theque Capitulaire de Lucques. Published in Paleographie Musicale, vol. 
 ix. (1906).— The Antiphonary of Toledo ("Codex 48.14 Bibl. de la 
 Cathedrale de Tolede") is identical with that of Lucca, being also of Italian 
 
 origin. 
 »" P. 27. 
 
ON the: antiphonary. 65 
 
 allows merely a slight inversion, such as the Antiphonaries of 
 Lucca and Toledo disclose. In Christ I only one of the seven 
 Universal O's is wrenched from its fixed place in Gregory's 
 Antiphonary. It is the Antiphon O Rex gentium which, instead 
 of following the O Clavis and O Oriens, precedes them. In the 
 following table the various arrangements of the seven Universal 
 O's are placed side by side : 
 
 Liher Responsalis. Amalarius. Lucca & Toledo. Christ L 
 
 I. O Sapientia O Sapientia O Sapientia O Sapientia 
 
 II. O Adonai O Clavis O Adonai O Adonai 
 
 III. O Radix O Emmanuel O Radix O Radix 
 
 IV. O Clavis O Radix O Clavis O Rex gentium 
 V. O Oriens O Oriens O Rex gentium O Clavis 
 
 VI. O Rex gentium O Adonai O Emmanuel O Oriens 
 
 VII. O Emmanuel O Rex gentium O Oriens O Emmanuel 
 
 With the acrostic ero eras in mind, it will be easy to detect the 
 differences in the order maintained by Amalarius, the Antiphon- 
 aries of Lucca and Toledo, and Christ I. While the order given 
 by Amalarius is helter-skelter in comparison with the standard 
 order of the Liber Responsalis, that of both the Antiphonaries of 
 Lucca and Toledo and Christ I needs the adjustment of but a 
 single Antiphon. In the first instance it is the O Oriens, in the 
 latter the Rex gentium. Wherefore, we cannot avoid a strong 
 suspicion that Cynewulf knew and used an Antiphonary with 
 just a slight disarrangement in the Advent O's, such as the 
 Antiphonaries of Lucca and Toledo display. The possible objec- 
 tion, that four centuries intervened between Cynewulf and the 
 two Continental Antiphonaries here adduced, loses much of its 
 weight when we bear in mind that at least two centuries also 
 separate the Liber Responsalis from the writing of the Christ. 
 There was ample time for the introduction of minor changes in 
 the liturgy. Moreover, if the monastic use in Italy shows varia- 
 tions in the order of the O-Antiphons, the monastic use in Eng- 
 land could do the same. It is now well established that the mon- 
 asteries of Northern England stood in lively communication with 
 those of the Continent, including Italy. 
 
 It is not within the scope of my study to inquire into the full 
 Church use connected with the Greater Antiphons of Advent, as 
 manifested in their particular number, their day of inception in 
 
66 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 the Divine Office, their manner of being intoned by various 
 Church dignitaries, and similar phases of the subject. This 
 Church use is here considered solely from the viewpoint of the 
 order of succession in which the O's were taken. And while, 
 even in this particular as affecting especially the seven Universal 
 O's, the Antiphonaries present but limited evidence, the evidence 
 at hand does point out some definite facts bearing on the use of 
 the seven O's in the Office of the Church. It shows that the list 
 of O-Antiphons was adapted to various uses; that the directions 
 given in the Antiphonaries themselves apparently contradict the 
 strict sequence of Antiphons maintained in the list (as in the 
 case of the O Oriens in the Antiphonary of Hartker) ; that slight 
 variations in the order of the seven Universal O's themselves did 
 exist (as shown by the Antiphonaries of Lucca and Toledo). 
 There does not appear to be any inherent reason for the par- 
 ticular order given in the Liber Responsalis, and nowhere is an 
 official statement found commanding any particular order in the 
 use of the Greater Antiphons. 
 
 From all this it would appear to verge on presumption, if we 
 denied the possibility of a knowledge, on the part of Cynewulf, 
 of any but the standard order of O's found in Gregory's An- 
 tiphonary. He may well have known and used an Antiphonary 
 that presented the Universal O's in the very order of their suc- 
 cession in Christ I. In fact, his order in the poem might even 
 argue for the Antiphonary constructed on the same plan. But 
 had he followed the standard Antiphonary of the Roman use, 
 the customs prevailing in his particular church or monastery 
 could still account for a slight difference in the actual chanting 
 of the O's. That Cynewulf appears rather to have used his 
 sources, not as they are contained in the service books, but as 
 they are taken in the Divine Office, will become clearer in the 
 discussion of the Added O's and other sources of Christ I. 
 
 3. The Added or Monastic O's 
 
 In addition to the seven Universal O's, other Antiphons, con- 
 structed on the same plan as these, came into use from very 
 early times, as the poem of the Christ itself shows. Of these 
 additional O-Antiphons Tommasi ^^ says : An Monachorum sint 
 " Opera omnia, ed. Vezzosi. iv. 182, note 1. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 67 
 
 additamenta, ignoro, and Cook ^^ remarks on this that, in the 
 opinion of the best authorities, they are of monastic origin, 
 adding : 
 
 This is quite in consonance with the historic fact that the 
 development of the Hturgy was in large measure due to the 
 monks (see Batififol, chaps, i and ii). The arch-cantor John, 
 whom Benedict Biscop brought into England, was, it will 
 be remembered, abbot of St. Martin's monastery at Rome 
 (Bede 4. 18). We shall not be far astray, I believe, if we 
 suppose these four Antiphons to be of Benedictine origin. 
 
 We have therefore called these Antiphons the Added or Mon- 
 astic O's, in contrast to the seven Universal O's. Cook "^ also 
 uses the term "occasional Antiphons" to designate these O's. 
 This is quite apt, for, as distinguished from the Universal O's, 
 they were limited in their use to individual churches, mostly 
 monastic, and even in the Office itself, it will be seen presently, 
 they were often employed for special occasions only, not being 
 assigned to certain fixed days as were the seven Universal O's. 
 
 If we examine the lists of the Advent O's in the Antiphonaries, 
 we observe that wherever any Antiphons were used in addition 
 to the seven Universal O's, these were invariably treated as ad- 
 ditions. That means, they always followed the seven O's, no 
 matter how many of them were added. In this respect they 
 appear to have the same fixed order as the seven Universal O's 
 present. But it would not be in harmony with actual Church use, 
 if we were to infer that the Added or Monastic O's were always 
 chanted after the seven Universal O's had been finished in the 
 Divine Office. No doubt they were thus used in some churches 
 in which the singing of the Advent O's began early enough to 
 allow each of the Added O's a separate day in the kalendar.^* 
 
 But in the majority of cases the chanting of the Advent O's 
 did not begin until eight days or an Octave before Christmas, 
 even though as many as twelve O's might be assigned to the 
 Office of that preparatory week. Thus the Antiphonary of 
 
 " P. xxxix f., note 6. 
 
 ^ Pp. 81, 100, 103, and passim. 
 
 '* Thus, according to Green (Archceologia, xlix. 221), the singing of the 
 Greater Antiphons began as early as December 13 at Cividale del Friuli, 
 Aquileia, Siena, Liege, Salzburg, Ratisbon, Bamberg, Augsburg, Constance, 
 and Freising. To this list Grotefend (Zeitrechnung, i. 140) adds Cammin 
 and Gnesen. 
 
68 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHfclST I. 
 
 Hartker,^^ which has twelve Greater Antiphons, puts them all 
 in the last week preceding the feast of the Nativity : In proxima 
 Bbdomada Nat. Dni. ad Uesp. This would leave room only for 
 the seven Universal O's as Antiphons of the Magnificat. We 
 must conclude from this that the Added or Monastic O's were 
 used extensively for purposes other than the Antiphons proper 
 of the Magnificat in Vespers, that they must have found a place 
 outside the strictly liturgical Office as Antiphons for special 
 services or occasions. 
 
 Indeed, the Antiphonary of Hartker itself gives us a clue to 
 the practices surrounding the use of the Added O's in the medi- 
 aeval Church. On page 57 above we have reproduced several 
 directions found in this Antiphonary and relating to the Antiphons 
 O Hierusalem, mundi Domina, and Virgo virginum. In 
 each case it will be seen that they were used for a service other 
 than that indicated for the seven Universal O's, being assigned 
 to the service following the Magnificat and its regular appointed 
 Antiphon. This service is here referred to as ad crucem. As a 
 rule, the seven Universal O's were not assigned to this service.^® 
 On the other hand, the Added O's were plainly suited for this 
 purpose. In fact, it is quite possible that they have originated 
 in the service designated ad crucem. But before we proceed in 
 our discussion, a word of explanation regarding the rubric ad 
 crucem is necessary. 
 
 The rubric ad crucem in the Antiphonary of Hartker refers 
 to the commemorations made in Lauds after the Bene diet us, and 
 in Vespers after the Magnificat. In the English use these An- 
 tiphons with accompanying prayers are called "memorials," and 
 
 ^'P. 40.— Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, "Advent," pp. 508-531, ar- 
 ranges twelve O-Antiphons for the last week preceding Christmas. But 
 in his distribution of these Antiphons he merely inserts the Added O's in 
 their regular order between the seven Universal O's, yet forgets the O 
 mundi Domina in his scheme. His arrangement is not intended as a 
 definitely established one, serving merely the purpose of a devotional 
 treatise. He himself says (page 514) that details belonging strictly to the 
 archaeology of Liturgy do not enter into the plan of his work. 
 
 ^® Green (Archceologia, xlix, 227), in a note, refers to Thomasius's 
 Psalterium cum Canticis, ed. Blanchinius, i. 518-521, where the seven 
 Universal O's are said to be incorporated into the "Preces ad adorandam 
 Crucem" of a MS. in the Vatican. The heading there is said to be: 
 "Incipiunt Orationes ad Adorandam Crucem ; sive ad deposcenda suffragia 
 omnium Sanctorum." This MS., in the opinion of Edmund Bishop, was 
 written in the great Benedictine Abbey of Reichenau, on the Lake of 
 Constance. Apparently, this is the only instance in which even the seven 
 Universal O's are assigned to the service ad crucem. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 69 
 
 they were always chanted after the regular Antiphon and Prayer 
 of the day or feast. The memorials were sometimes called 
 suffragia omnium sanctorum, as appears from the reference in 
 the Vatican manuscript quoted above, or simply suffragia. In 
 the present Roman Breviary they are called commemorationes 
 communes, or commemoratio de cruce. The term ad crucem, 
 and also de cruce, is derived from the fact that a memorial of 
 the Holy Cross usually preceded the other memorials in honor 
 of Mary, the Apostles, the Patron of the particular church, and 
 for the peace of the universal Church. In the Easter time, the 
 period from Easter Sunday to Trinity Sunday, this memorial of 
 the Cross alone is made in the Office as we have it today. Appar- 
 ently it was also the custom in some mediaeval churches to per- 
 form these memorials before an image of the Cross, whither 
 those attending the choir proceeded after the Prayer of the day. 
 This practice is indicated in the Ordo of Bernard of Cluny,*^ 
 as follows : 
 
 Commemoratio s. Crucis tunc (sc. in Adventu) dimittitur 
 * * * unde et post Vesperos regulares non ad sanctam 
 Crucem, sed ad sanctam Mariam processio agitur, ad quam 
 R. "Ave Maria" cantatur, et post Matutinum R. "Ecce 
 Virgo." * * * sicut per totum Adventum. 
 
 But even if, as here directed, the ordinary commemoration of 
 the Cross was omitted in the Advent time, and a special memoriall 
 in honor of the Virgin Mary taken in its stead, the term ad 
 crucem was still retained for this service in some of the codices. 
 A witness to this is the Antiphonary of Hartker as quoted above. 
 
 Yet, even in the Antiphonary of Hartker, there seiem to be no 
 memorials during the Advent season, that is, before the Vigil 
 of Christmas. In^this respect customs must have differed widely. 
 
 The Antiphonary of Lucca adds, after the Antiphons in 
 Bvangelio on the first Sunday of Advent, an Antiphon ad honorem 
 S. Mariae. The editor of this Antiphonary,^^ in the Introduction 
 to the photographic facsimile, declares that the Antiphon ad 
 honorem S. Mariae must evidently have served for the whole of 
 Advent. In this connection he calls attention to the Roman 
 Antiphonary of St. Peter's ^* and to the Ordo Romanus XI,*^ 
 
 ^ Ordo Cluniac, ed. Hergott ; pars ii. cap. i. 283. — cf . also Consue- 
 tudines Farfenses, ed. B. Albers, 1900; Paleogr. Musicale, ix. 23. 
 " In Paleographie Musicale, ix. Intro. 23. 
 *• In Tommasi, Opera Omnia, iv. 22. 
 ^'Ed. Migne, P. L., 78, 1028. 
 
70 THE) DEPENDENCE O^ CHRIST I. 
 
 which both have a commemoration of the same kind, but for the 
 ferial or weekdays of Advent only. 
 
 In some places, however, the usual memorials seem to have 
 been retained even during the season of Advent, and even during 
 the period in which the O-Antiphons were chanted. Archbishop 
 John of Rouen (eleventh century) gives the custom of the Church 
 of the Canons Regular of St. Laud at Rouen thus : ^^ 
 
 Nonnulli postquam has antiphonas incoeperint, prostra- 
 tiones et preces in Vesperis dimittunt; a nobis vero non 
 dimittuntur, sed solitum cursum exsequimur. 
 
 In the directions for the Cathedral Church of Rouen, the same 
 author is more explicit when he says : *^ 
 
 Nono die nativitatem Dbmini praecedenti cantari incipi- 
 antur antiphonae quae per "O" inchoant, quas preces non 
 subsequantur, non tamen commemorationes dimittantur. 
 
 It appears from all this that the memorial service was not a 
 universally established part of the Divine Office for the Advent 
 season, and wherever they were admitted to the Advent Office 
 as usual, allowances must still be made for the manner in which 
 they were performed. A memorial in honor of the Virgin Mary 
 seems to have been most prevalent. But the one thing whi^h 
 draws our interest most to these services termed ad crucem, 
 commemorationes, or in honorem S. Mariae, is the fact that the 
 Added O's found their employment in this part of the Divine 
 Office. Hence, in endeavoring to understand the positions of 
 these Added O's in Christ I, we must allow for an individual use 
 of the Antiphons in question by the church service which Cyne- 
 wulf is supposed to have followed. Whatever that use may have 
 been cannot be determined with accuracy; yet it is plain that 
 the Added O's were more liable to shifting and to individual 
 re-arrangement than even the seven Universal O's. And if, 
 consequently, we find them in a certain order in Christ I. the 
 poet need not necessarily have chosen such an order himself. 
 He may well have followed merely the particular order in which 
 he was acquainted with them. 
 
 "Joannis Archiep. Rothomagensis Ordinarium, in Migne, P. L-, 147, 159. 
 "Joannis Archiep. Rothomagensis Fragmenia Quacdam, Migne, P. L., 
 147, 123. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 71 
 
 The four Added or Monastic O's employed by Cynewulf in 
 Christ I are : O Hierusalem, O Virgo virginum, O Rex Pacifice. 
 and O mtmdi Domina. Some customs surrounding these O's 
 individually may be noted in order to shed additional light upon 
 the possible order in which they were employed in the mediaeval 
 Church. 
 
 (1) The Added Antiphon O Hierusalem appears to be a purely 
 monastic "O," for it is found only where the complete set of 
 twelve Greater Antiphons was used. It is contained in the tenth 
 century manuscript of St. Gall, the Antiphonary of Hartker and, 
 according to Green,*^ also in the Codices Forojulienses. In the 
 Antiphonary of Hartker it is restricted to the service ad crucem, 
 being assigned therein to the Vigil of the Nativity. It is the 
 only mention of the O Hierusalem made in this Antiphonary; it 
 is the only rubric which I could find anywhere relating to this 
 Antiphon. 
 
 In connection with the Antiphon O Hierusalem it might be 
 well to recall that one of the Advent Sundays, usually the second,** 
 was devoted particularly to the praise of Jerusalem, the holy city 
 of God's chosen people. This may have led to the singing on 
 this Sunday, or on some other day in Advent, of a separate 
 Great Antiphon to the civitas Dei summi. The use of this Added 
 O is therefore indefinite and was undoubtedly a matter of indi- 
 vidual choice. 
 
 (2) The Antiphon Virgo virginum is the earliest of the 
 Added O's. St. Gregory the Great gives it the eighth place 
 among the Advent O's in his Liher Responsalis.*^ ■ This place it 
 has with few exceptions kept wherever it was included in the 
 list of Greater Antiphons.*^ Amalarius *'' treats of it and calls 
 
 " ArchcEologia, xlix, 225. — Green quotes De Rubeis, Dissertationes Duae, 
 Venice, 1754, p. 453. 
 
 "In the Antiphonary of Hartker (pp. 21-23) the Office of the third 
 Advent Sunday celebrates the city of Jerusalem. — cf. also Cook, pp. 
 xxxiii f. 
 
 "When therefore Green (ArchcBologia, xlix, 224) says that "at Rome, 
 the O Virgo virginum does not seem to have found a place in her 
 antiphonary until after 1286, as Durandus makes no mention of it," he 
 places an erroneous deduction from the omission of Durandus above the 
 evidence of the Liber Responsalis. 
 
 *^0f this Antiphon Grotefend (Zeitrechnung, i. 140) says: "H?.r.figer 
 gesellte sich ihnen (d.h., den sieben Antiphonen), theils am Anfang (so 
 in Besangon), theils am 18. (so in Spanien am Feste der "Annunciatio 
 Marie de la O"), theils am Schluss (so in Schwerin) die Antiphone O 
 Virgo virginum zu." 
 
 *' In Migne, P. L-, 105, 1269. 
 
^2 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 it an *'added'' O. Of the widespread use of this Antiphon we 
 have spoken above. The manner in which it was used is perhaps 
 the most varied of any connected with the Added O's. 
 
 In the beginning the O Virgo virginum was probably used as 
 a regular Great "O" of Advent, taking the last place of these and 
 thus falling either on the Vigil of Christmas itself (December 
 24) or on the *'super-vigil" (December 23). But later it was 
 used for the feast of the Annunciation on March 25, as attested 
 by the Antiphonaries of Lucca and Toledo of the twelfth cen- 
 tury.*® From this feast it was then naturally transferred to the 
 feast of the Bxpectatio Partus or Commemoratio de la O of De- 
 cember 18. Yet the early Antiphonaries do not have the O Virgo 
 virginum for the feast of the Annunciation,*^ and the feast of the 
 Expectation was then as yet absent from the kalendar of the 
 Church. At that early time the O Virgo virginum was apparently 
 limited to the "commemoration" of the Virgin Mary in the Advent 
 Office, or to the memorials. In the Antiphonary of Hartker it 
 is placed as a memorial Antiphon in the Vespers of the feast of 
 the Holy Innocents (December 28), and this is the only disposi- 
 tion made of it in this Antiphonary. 
 
 Another use of the Virgo virginum is pointed out by Green. 
 He informs us ^^ that, in the Dominican Breviary, this Antiphon 
 occurs in the Officium Parvum and in the Saturday Votive Office 
 of the Blessed Virgin for the whole season of Advent. In the 
 Roman and Benedictine Breviaries of today this Antiphon does 
 not appear in this service, nor do we find it in the "Horae Beatae 
 Mariae Virginis secundum Usum Sarum," or the English 
 "Prymer." " 
 
 Grancolas ^^ puts the O Virgo virginum in the Office of De- 
 cember 23, and mentions these ceremonies connected with its 
 chanting : 
 
 **P. 348.— cf. also the York Breviary, ed. Lawley, ii. 243. 
 
 " The O Virgo virginum is not contained in the Mozarabic Rite for 
 December 18 (see Migne, P. L., 86, 1290), nor is it found in the "Proprium 
 Ss. Tolet. Eccl." of 1819. For this information I am indebted to Rev. 
 F. G. Holweck, who is of the opinion that the Antiphon i^ not of Spanish 
 but of Frankish origin. If the twelfth century MS. of Toledo (Paleogr. 
 Musicale, vol. ix) contains this Antiphon, it must be remembered that this 
 Antiphonary of Toledo is of Italian origin and identical with that of 
 Lucca. 
 
 '" Arch(£ologia, xlix, 225, note. 
 
 " Cf. Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, vol. ii. 
 
 " C ommentarius historicus in Breviariuw, Romanum, Venice, 1734, lib. 
 ii. cap. xii. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 73 
 
 In pluribus Ecclesiis Natalis supervigilio, scilicet 23 De- 
 cembris, Vesperae solemnes erant propter Antiphonam "O 
 Virgo virginum." Campanae praeterea omnes pulsabantur, 
 albae vestes, et incensum adhibebantur. 
 
 Whatever the various uses connected with the Antiphon O 
 Virgo virginum may have been in the course of centuries, at 
 the time of Cynewulf it seems to have been restricted to its regu- 
 lar place among the Advent O's, being in many cases sung on 
 December 23.^^ Yet, that the service ad crucem had already at 
 an early time claimed a special place for this Antiphon is borne 
 out by the Antiphonary of Hartker which, it must again be 
 recalled, is the earliest known Antiphonary containing all the 
 O-Antiphons employed in Christ I. Since in those days the O 
 Virgo virginum was not attached to any special feast, as the 
 Annunciation or the Expectation, a greater freedom in its use 
 was but natural. In the particular use with which Cynewulf 
 was acquainted, it may have well been chanted on any day pre- 
 ceding or immediately following Christmas day as the Antiphon 
 for a memorial. 
 
 (3) The Antiphon O Rex Pacifice is as obscure as the O 
 Hierusalem, or even more so. It was apparently likewise re- 
 stricted to purely monastic use. The Antiphonary of Hartker, 
 in which it takes the tenth place in the list of Advent O's, makes 
 no further mention of it, and still the general directions given 
 therein imply that all the Greater Antiphons were to be sung 
 within the last week of Advent.^* This makes it necessary for 
 the O Rex Pacifice to find* its place somewhere as an additional 
 **0," as for instance in the memorial service ad crucem. 
 
 The address of the Antiphon would seem to point to its use in 
 the first Vespers of Christmas (December 24), or in a special 
 service connected with these Vespers. The Antiphonary assigns 
 the following Antiphons to the Vesper service on Christmas 
 Eve : =5 
 
 "Cook (p. 84) assigns the Virgo virginum to December 24. but he 
 nowhere shows an instance in which it was used on that day (of. p. xxxix). 
 
 " The first reference in the Antiphonary of Hartker relating to the 
 Greater Antiphons is thej rubric on page 31, Ant. O Sap. vel de illis sicut 
 evenerit for the Magnificat of the Saturday preceding the last Sunday 
 before Christmas. The Antiphons are thus placed within the last week 
 of Advent. 
 
 "Antiphonary of Hartker, pp. 43 f. — c^. The Antiphonaries of Lucca 
 and Toledo, p. 31. 
 
74 TH^ DEPENDENCE O^ CHRIST I. 
 
 Ant. Scitote quia prope est regnum dei, amen dico vobis quia 
 
 non tardabit. (first Antiphon). 
 Ant. Rex pacificus magnificatus est cuius vultum desiderat 
 
 universa terra (second Antiphon). 
 Ant. Magnificatus est rtx pacificus super omnes reges uni- 
 
 versae terrae (third Antiphon). 
 Ant. Dum ortus fuerit sol de coelo videbitis regem regum 
 
 procedentem a matre (sic!) tanquam sponsum de 
 
 thalamo suo. (the Antiphon for the Magnificat). 
 
 In this Vesper service, it will be seen, Christ is glorified in a 
 special manner as the King of Peace, two Antiphons being de- 
 voted to this title alone. Another Antiphon speaks of the king- 
 dom of God, while the Antiphon for the Magnificat pictures Him 
 as the King of Kings, proceeding in his temporal birth from the 
 hallowed womb of his Virgin Mother. 
 
 It is therefore not improbable that the Antiphon Rex Pacifice 
 was used in the service ad crucem following the solemn Vespers 
 on December 24, or some other time on the Vigil of Christmas, 
 as the peculiar custom may have determined. 
 
 (4) The last Added *'0" employed by Cynewulf is the O 
 mundi Domina. In Hartker's Antiphonary ^'® this Antiphon is 
 assigned to the service ad crucem for the Vespers of Christmas 
 day. In other uses it was chanted on the Vigil, or Christmas 
 Eve. Thus the Leof ric Collectar ^^ makes it the Antiphon proper 
 of the Magnificat on the Vigil of the Nativity. But it was also 
 used on this day outside the Office of the Vespers. This is shov/n 
 by the following information gathered by Green ^^ in his paper 
 on the O-Antiphons : 
 
 As regards the O mundi Domina, which was sung on 
 Christmas Eve, called in most Celtic languages the ''Night 
 of Mary," ^^ the old rubric at Cividale del Friuli in Italy 
 is as follows: ''Exeat Sacerdos paratus de Sacristia, can- 
 tantibus pueris, et ascendat ad imperium, et cantet Evan- 
 gelium, scilicet "Liber Generationis." Completo Evangelio 
 dicitur antiph. "O mundi Domina." Finita ant. dicitur statim 
 "Te Deum laudamus." ®^ This was also the custom at the 
 Benedictine Abbeys of S. Germain des Pres, S. Vandrille or 
 Fontenelle, and S. Pierre-sur-Dive.^^ In place, however, of 
 
 ''.F. 52. 
 
 " Fol. 11*. 
 
 ''^ Archceologia, xlix, 226 f. 
 
 ^^ Neale, Essays on Liturgiology, 1867, p. 511. 
 
 ^° De Rubeis, Dissertationes Duae, Venice, 1754, p. 478. 
 
 "" Martene, De Antiquis Monachorum Ritihus, lib. ii. cap. iv. paragr. v. 
 
01^ THE ANTIPHONARY. 75 
 
 the "O mundi Domina," the antiphon at Bee, Lyre, Cluny, 
 and Corbie, and from the days of Lanfranc at Canterbury, 
 and by all those "qui statuta Lanfranci tenebant," was "O 
 Beata Infantia." ^^ 
 
 From all that has been said of the Antiphon O mundi Domina 
 it appears that this, the last of the O's, found its use in the 
 immediate preparation for the feast of Christmas. The cere- 
 monial followed at Cividale del Friuli, at S. Germain des Pres, 
 at Fontenelle and S. Pierre-sur-Dive, places it in a special service 
 connected with the solemn Matins of Christmas. This custom 
 must have been more prevalent than indicated by liturgical writers, 
 perhaps even spreading over to England and becoming established 
 here and there before the time of Lanfranc (1089). 
 
 From the records we have of these Added or Monastic O's 
 employed by Cynewulf, therefore, it is apparent that they were 
 used in various ways by the different churches of mediaeval 
 Christianity. The outstanding fact is that they are additional 
 O's, and the various uses show that they were always employed 
 as such, with the exception perhaps of the O V-irgo virginum. 
 Being chanted in various services not strictly liturgical, and on 
 special occasions, local variations in their use were even more 
 marked than in the matter of the seven Universal O's. 
 
 But here again, as in the case of the seven Universal O's, we 
 observe only one displacement of the regular order in Cynewulf's 
 poem. Since the Added O's employed in Christ I are first found 
 in the Antiphonary of Hartker of the tenth century, a comparison 
 of their order of succession in that Antiphonary with the order 
 maintained in Christ I is not out of place : 
 
 Antiphonary of Hartker. Christ I. 
 
 1. O Virgo virginum 1. O Hierusalem 
 (O Gabriel) 
 
 2. O Rex Pacifice 2. O Virgo virginum 
 
 3. O mundi Domina 3. O Rex Pacifice 
 
 4. O Hierusalem 4. O mundi Domina. 
 
 By omitting the O Gabriel (which is not found in the preserved 
 portion of Christ I), it is apparent that Cynewulf allowed only 
 one change in the position of his Added O's. The O Hierusalem, 
 instead of appearing last, is taken first. Again, as in the case 
 
 "Wilkins, Concilia, i. 331. — The quotations are all Green's. 
 
76 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 of the seven Universal O's, it is here possible that the poet knew 
 and used an Antiphonary with the O Hierusalem in the first 
 place; or he used the usual Monastic Antiphonary known to us, 
 with a slight variant application in his particular church. 
 
 4. The Remaining Sources 
 
 Of the twelve divisions in Christ I four are not based upon any 
 of the Greater Antiphons of Advent as we know them today. 
 They are Divisions VII, X, XI, and XII. Division VII contains 
 the dialogue between Mary and Joseph and is commonly referred 
 to as the Passus I of the Christ, or simply the Passus when speak- 
 ing of Christ I. Division X is, as we have seen in discussing its 
 possible source, either based upon an unknown Greater Antiphon 
 (which can hardly be assumed), or must be looked upon as 
 forming the poet's own final O-paraphrase. Division XI is the 
 Doxology. Division XII is based upon an Antiphon of the 
 Christmas Octave, the O Admirabile commercium. The sources 
 of these four divisions will here be considered with a view to 
 establishing the precise time at which they followed in the cele- 
 bration of the Divine Office, or in other liturgical functions. 
 
 (1) The Passus or dialogue between Mary and Joseph was 
 seen to hold a unique place in Christ I. Not only is the source 
 for it foreign to the Greater Antiphons, but the whole construc- 
 tion of the division forming it is different from that of the other 
 divisions preceding the Doxology. The direct and immediate 
 source upon which the poet may have relied for the construction 
 of this dialogue is not known to investigators at the present 
 time. Yet, in its general theme, the Passus undoubtedly belongs 
 to the Vigil of Christmas. The Gospel extract of that day, 
 Matth. i. 18-21, is the ultimate source of the dialogue in Christ I, 
 for it treats exclusively of the perplexities which confronted St. 
 Joseph when he found Mary to be with child. It was shown 
 above that even the Antiphonary contains allusions to this Gospel 
 theme. It is moreover possible that, through the Office in use 
 in his day and country, Cynewulf was acquainted with one or 
 the other of the five Homilies from the Fathers ^^ which treat the 
 Gospel extract of the Vigil in the very form of a dialogue similar 
 
 "^ Cook, "A Remote Analogue to the Miracle Play," in Journal of Ger- 
 manic Philology, iv. 421-451. 
 
ON THIC ANTIPHONARY. 77 
 
 to that of Christ I. If these homihes were unknown to the poet, 
 a later compilation of them may have furnished the source for 
 the Passus. 
 
 In Church use, therefore, the source of Division VII belongs 
 to the Office chanted on the Vigil of Christmas (December 24), 
 more definitely to the Matins, or possibly Lauds, of that day. 
 
 (2) Although the direct source for Division X has hitherto 
 been unknown, I believe this to be found in the Preface sung in 
 the midnight Mass of Christmas. The first part or address of 
 this division treats specifically of the eternal generation of the 
 Son from the Father. This is the exclusive theme of the Preface 
 in question. Moreover, the close connection of Division X with 
 the Doxology immediately following it confirms the theory which 
 accepts the Christmas Preface as its source. Although the 
 second part or the petition of this division does not seem to treat 
 exclusively a theme distinctly connected with the feast of Christ- 
 mas, the central thought underlying it, the captivity of the soul, 
 is found in the Prayer used in the third Mass and throughout the 
 Divine Office of Christmas day. It must be remembered that 
 the petition in Cynewulf's paraphrases is commonly built upon 
 his own personal reflections and often does not give a clear 
 indication of the principal source employed in the respective 
 portion of the poem. The place which Division X holds in the 
 Church use is, however, plainly that of Christmas day itself. 
 
 (3) The Doxology, or Division XI, in its first portion (lines 
 378-402, is based upon two Antiphons to the Holy Trinity, except 
 perhaps lines 385-402 which can be looked upon as an expansion 
 of the omnes creaturae tuae of the second Antiphon. It was but 
 natural for the poet to turn to the Office of the Holy Trinity for 
 the sources of his Doxology, no matter how far removed this 
 Office may have been from the Christmas Office in the Antiphon- 
 ary. Yet, in the days of Cynewulf there was no special feast of 
 the Holy Trinity as we have it today. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the feast of the Trinity was not extended 
 to the whole Church until the pontificate of Pope John XXII 
 (1316-1334), although it had been observed in local churches 
 before that time. Bishop Stephen of Li^ge (903-920) composed 
 an Office of the Holy Trinity, and the Micrologies *^* written 
 
 Migne, P. L., 151, 1020. 
 
78 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 during the pontificate of Gregory VII (1073-1085) refer to this 
 Office of Bishop Stephen, though they themselves have no feast 
 in honor of the Trinity.^^ Still, even in the early Church, canti- 
 cles, responses, a Preface and hymns were being recited on the 
 Sundays of the year in honor of the Blessed Trinity from the 
 time when the Arian heresy began to spread. Such prayers and 
 a Preface are found in the Sacramentary of St. Gregory the 
 Great,^^ and must have spread to England soon after Gregory's 
 time, if not with St. Augustine himself. It is not said that the 
 Office composed by Bishop Stephen of Liege was the first of its 
 kind in use. 
 
 The Antiphonary of Hartker ^^ has an Office after the Sundays 
 and ferias post Theophaniam, and it is there called Ystoria de sea. 
 Trinitate. The two Antiphons used by Cynewulf are contained 
 in this Office, being the first and fifth Antiphon respectively of 
 Lauds.^^ The Leof ric Collectar ®^ likewise has the two Antiphons 
 used by Cynewulf. In it they are assigned to the Sundays after 
 the feast of the Epiphany, being used for Prime and None re- 
 spectively. 
 
 Cynewulf therefore found the sources for the first half of the 
 Doxology much nearer to the Christmas Office than they are in 
 the Breviary used today. He did not need to turn many leaves 
 to find them. 
 
 The second half of the Doxology (lines 403-415) was seen 
 to be a faithful transcription of the Angelic hymn Sanctus, 
 Sanctus, Sanctus which, in the Mass, follows the Preface and is 
 introduced by it. In Church use this part of the Doxology con- 
 sequently belongs to the same Preface upon which the preceding 
 division (Division X) is based. 
 
 (4) The final division, Division XII, of Christ I is based upon 
 the Antiphon O admirabile commercium. This is not an Advent 
 "O," and as such would have been out of place after the Doxology. 
 It is the outstanding Antiphons in the Office of the Octave of 
 the Nativity, now commonly called the feast of the Circumcision. 
 In this place we find it in the Antiphonary of Hartker, in the 
 
 ®' Cf. Catholic Bncyclopcedia, xv. 58. 
 
 '' Migne, P. L., 78, 116. 
 
 "Pp. 101-105. 
 
 •''P. 104. 
 
 *» Folia 32^-33". 
 
ON the: antiphonary. 79 
 
 Antiphonaries of Lucca and Toledo, in the Leofric Collectar, and 
 many others. In later times, the use of the O admirahile com- 
 mercium was extended to the feast of the Purification on Feb- 
 ruary 2, as well as to the Saturday Votive Office and the Officium 
 Parvum (or "Horae,' "Book of Hours," "English Prymer") of 
 the Blessed Virgin. ^° 
 
 Division XII of Christ I accordingly represents in Church use 
 the Octave of Christmas and, as being a paraphrase of the prin- 
 cipal Antiphon of that Octave, it might well be considered a 
 later addition to the poem. This does not mean that Cynewulf 
 did not himself compose this portion of Christ I, but some time 
 must have intervened between its composition and the writing 
 of the last lines of the Doxology. Since lines 416-439 do not 
 fit well into the scheme of Christ I, and since their source is re- 
 moved by one week from the sources of the other O-paraphrases, 
 a theory of this kind does not seem altogether wanting in evi- 
 dence. Yet, with the- O admirahile commercium as its basis, this 
 final paraphrase, even if a later addition, fittingly closes the 
 great theme carried out in Part I of Cynewulf's Christ, for it is 
 with the Octave of Christmas to which the source belongs, that 
 the Christmas Office finds its close. 
 
 The foregoing outline of the sources of Christ I as found in 
 actual Church use was necessarily limited to those practices in 
 the mediaeval Church which promised to give a better under- 
 standing of the order of succession taken by these sources in the 
 Divine Office of that time. A comprehensive survey of those 
 sources was not attempted and did not come within the purview 
 of my study. 
 
 It was found that a proper estimate of the sources employed 
 by Cynewulf requires a detachment from the verbal setting of 
 these sources in the Church books, and a corresponding regard 
 for their liturgical setting in the actual chanting of the Divine 
 Office. Mindful of the wide liberties enjoyed in liturgical mat- 
 ters by the Church of the early Middle Ages, and of the adapta- 
 bility of the conventional list of Advent O's to the practices and 
 
 '"Thus in the "English Prymer" ("Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis se- 
 cundum usum Sarum," ca. 1410), the Antiphon for Lauds and Prime is: 
 "O the wondirful marchaundise (or: exchaunge), the maker of mankynde 
 takynge a bodi with a soule of a maide, fouchide saaf to be born, and so 
 goyn forth man withoute seed gaf to us his godhede." — cf. Maskell, Monu- 
 menta Ritualia, ii. 15, 23, 44. 
 
80 the: dependence of CHRIST I. 
 
 "consuetudines" of the individual churches, the single dislocation 
 which Cynewulf allows both in the seven Universal O's and in 
 the Added or Monastic O's can be readily accounted for by the 
 particular Church use which he may have known and followed. 
 Indeed, the slightly changed order of O-Antiphons in Christ I 
 might even be considered proof of the existence of an Antiphon- 
 ary containing the same order of Greater Antiphons. 
 
 Tfhe material of the Passus was seen to belong specifically to 
 the Vigil of Christmas. The sources of the divisions following 
 the dialogue progress with the Divine Office from the Matins of 
 the Vigil to the Octave of Christmas. The Rex Pacifice falls 
 to the Vesper service of Christmas Eve, the O mundi Domina to 
 the celebration of the solemn Christmas Matins, the Preface of 
 Division X to the midnight-Mass immediately following the 
 chanting of Matins. The Doxology appears as the conclusion 
 of the preceding Preface as well as of the great poetic hymn of 
 O's in praise of the coming of Christ to mankind. The appended 
 paraphrase of the admirabile commercium represents the 
 Octave of Christmas which closes the narrower celebration of 
 Christ's Nativity. 
 
 The result of this study of the sources of Christ I should throw 
 some light upon the plan or outline maintained in the poem. We 
 can therefore proceed to bring these sources as found in actual 
 Church use into relation with the twelve divisions of Christ I. 
 
IV 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 1. The Dependence of Christ I upon the Antiphonary 
 
 In the preliminary to this study we have seen that the manu- 
 script divisions of Christ I, which have latterly been largely dis- 
 regarded, retain their significance in regard to the construction 
 of the poem. In the new valuation given them above they support 
 a theory of structural unity which I have called the hymnic unity, 
 since the whole of Christ I, with the exception of the Passus and 
 of the last section, bears a striking analogy to the structure of 
 some of the most common Church hymns. If the theory of 
 structural unity is thus given secure probability, this probability, 
 in the later discussion of the sources of Christ I, is raised to 
 what seems to me almost a certainty. My review of the sources 
 of Christ I as found in actual Church use, moreover, proves that 
 the poet's method of securing structural unity was one of close 
 adherence to the sourcebooks from which he drew his material, 
 provided this material is not taken from its proper setting in the 
 Divine Office of the Church. For, if the material upon which 
 the twelve divisions are based is collated with that part of the 
 Advent and Christmas Office from which it is taken, the order 
 of sequence found in Christ I will be seen to conform closely to 
 the service of the mediaeval Church as Cynewulf is most likely 
 to have known it. 
 
 In order to facilitate a summary survey of the whole subject 
 as outlined in this study, the following table is appended : 
 
 Based on Based on Based on The Sources in 
 
 Universal O. Added O. Other Sources. Church Use. 
 
 - O Sapientia (I) The week before 
 
 A. - O Adonai (II) Christmas. 
 -O Radix (III) 
 I O Rex gentium (VI) 
 
 B. II OClavis(IV) 
 
 III O Hierusalem (4) 
 
 IV O Virgo virg. (1) 
 
 C. V O Oriens (V) 
 VI O Emmanuel (VII) December 23. 
 
 81 
 
82 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 D.' VII (The Passus) Matth.i.18-21 Vigil, Matins. 
 
 VIII O Rex Pacifice (2) Dec. 24, Vespers. 
 
 D.^ IX O mundi Domina (3) Christmas Matins. 
 
 X (Unknown, Poet's own) Preface Midnight Mass. 
 
 E.' XI (Doxology) Trinity Ant. Sunday Office. 
 
 Sanctus. Mass. 
 
 E.^ XII O adm. Commercium Octave of 
 
 Christmas. 
 
 The Roman numerals from I to XII in the second column 
 represent the source-divisions in Christ I, based either upon an 
 Advent "O" (Universal or Added), or upon some other source 
 indicated. The last column gives the succession of the sources 
 in the Divine Office and service of the Church. 
 
 The one-line spaces in the manuscript mark off the smaller 
 divisions into the groups B, C, D, and E. I have placed the 
 Passus, as well as the last section into a separate subdivided 
 group, because their status in the poem is not quite clear and 
 they actually mar the symmetrical proportions otherwise main- 
 tained in Christ I. 
 
 Group A represents what I conceive to have been the content 
 of the lost portion of the Christ at the beginning of the manu- 
 script. It was shown that the three Greater Antiphons placed 
 there must be accounted for, since no other portion of the poem 
 treats them commensurately with their importance and position 
 in the Antiphonary. 
 
 Groups B and C represent in the liturgy the week before 
 Christmas, in which the Greater Antiphons of Advent were being 
 chanted. With the supposition of group A, all seven Universal 
 O's are thus accounted for in Christ I, in an order, it is true, 
 slightly different from that found in most of the Antiphonaries 
 that have come down to us, but not unlike that of the Antiphon- 
 aries of Lucca and Toledo of the twelfth century. With regard 
 to the insertion of two Added O's in Groups B and C, it was 
 pointed out that the customs surrounding the chanting of the 
 Added or Monastic O's in the mediaeval Church would sanction 
 this procedure on the part of the poet. Being used for the 
 "memorials" or the service ad crucem, these additional O's had 
 no fixed place in actual Church use, though they commonly 
 followed a conventional order in the list of Advent O's. Besides, 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 83 
 
 Cynewulf allowed only a slight change of even the conventional 
 order, by merely taking the O Hierusalem first instead of last. 
 
 The Roman numerals after the seven Universal O's show 
 their enumeration in the Antiphonary of Hartker. In like man- 
 ner the Arabic numerals after the Added O's. It is apparent that 
 only No. VI of the former, and No. 4 of the latter are disar- 
 ranged in Christ I. 
 
 Group D\ or the Passus, marks a larger division in the content 
 of the poem. The several Universal O's have now all been para- 
 phrased. The Vigil of Christmas is at hand, and the Gospel 
 extract read on that Vigil forms the ultimate source for the 
 dialogue contained in this division. Henceforth the poetic para- 
 phrases become more elaborate (Divisions VIII and IX being the 
 longest in Christ I, with 61 and 73 lines respectively), the inter- 
 polations of extraneous or at least not closely connected material 
 become more extensive (in Division VIII the account of the 
 creation of light in lines 224-235 ; in Division IX the vision of 
 Ezekiel in lines 301-334), and the longing for the Redeemer is 
 more intense. All this is in keeping with the spirit of the Church 
 displayed in her Office of the Vigil of the Nativity. If the 
 Passus should be by a later hand, the proper place which, accord- 
 ing to its theme, it should occupy in the poem was rightly felt, 
 and in this respect it does not mar the sequence of subjects in 
 Christ I. 
 
 Group D^ represents the Christmas Office: Division VIII be- 
 ing taken from the first Vespers of the Nativity on December 
 24 or from a special service connected with these Vespers, Di- 
 vision IX, from the O mundi Domina service following the 
 solemn chanting of Matins on the Eve of Christmas and itself 
 immediately followed by the midnight-Mass, and Division X, from 
 the Preface of that midnight-Mass of Christmas, thus leading to 
 the theme of the Doxology which follows in the poem. 
 
 Group E^ constitutes the Doxology and probably was at first 
 designed to mark the completion of the O-paraphrases. The 
 material for this Doxology is not taken from the Advent An- 
 tiphonary. Yet it was seen that the sources of it lay much nearer 
 to the Christmas Office in the days of Cynewulf than in our own 
 day. The sources for the first half, the two Trinity Antiphons, 
 are found in the common Sunday Office, while the source for the 
 
84 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 second half, the Angelic hymn Sanctus, is even more immediate 
 in its sequence upon the Preface of the Mass which forms the 
 basis for the preceding division. 
 
 Group E^ finally represents the Octave of Christmas which is 
 the completion of the Christmas festival proper, though the entire 
 Christmas season extends to the feast of the Purification on 
 February 2. From the nature of the source upon which it is 
 based, this closing section of Christ I might be considered a later 
 appendage to the poem, so that Cynewulf may be credited with 
 its composition at the time when the Octave of Christmas was 
 actually being celebrated. 
 
 With a disposition of the material in Christ I as seen here, the 
 absolute arbitrariness of the poet in arranging his subjects seems 
 reduced to a mere fantasy. There is method, there is coherence, 
 there is unity, a unity not merely of mood but of structure. If 
 the progression of subjects presented in the twelve divisions of 
 Christ I is not dependent upon logic nor upon an orderly develop- 
 ment of thought, the fault lies with the source-books employed, 
 and not with the poet. Indeed, the character of the sources de- 
 termines the unity of the poem, but it is not merely a lyrical 
 unity which the sources determine. It is a Unity of plan or ex- 
 ternal construction evident in the close adherence of the poet to 
 the order in which his sources appear in the Church use. 
 
 From the manner in which Cynewulf follows the Church use 
 in arranging the material of Christ I it appears that his inspiration 
 for the successive paraphrases was not derived so much from 
 the service books themselves as from an actual attendance at the 
 Divine Office. In other words, the sources of Christ I must not 
 be taken out of their proper environment, that is, from their 
 liturgical setting in the actual chanting of the Divine Office; for 
 only in that essential atmosphere do they receive that life and 
 that spirit which warmed the emotions and stimulated the power 
 of song in Cynewulf. Only in that life which they live in the 
 liturgy of the Church can their true influence upon the structural 
 plan of Christ I be measured. 
 
 While thus the Antiphonary as a book would be excluded as 
 the immediate source of inspiration for the poet, it nevertheless 
 constitutes for the practical purposes of study and investigation 
 the chief sourcebook for Part I of the Christ. With the excep- 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 
 
 85 
 
 tion of D)i visions VII and X, the smaller divisions of Christ I 
 are all based on material contained in the Antiphonary. Conse- 
 quently the result of my investigation affects in a special manner 
 this chief source-book of Cynewulf. And it affects in particular 
 the question, in what relation does Christ I structurally stand to 
 the Antiphonary? 
 
 From all that has been said it seems to follow that the structural 
 relation of Christ I to the Antiphonary is one of almost complete 
 dependence. With a proper interpretation of the liturgical prac- 
 tices followed by the mediaeval Church, the slight disarrangement 
 in the seven Universal O's as well as in the Added O's apparent 
 in Christ I does not destroy the conclusion thus arrived at. Nor 
 does the insertion of two Added O's between the seven Universal 
 O's, as Divisions III and IV disclose, militate against the theory 
 of the poet's dependence upon the Antiphonary for the order in 
 which he places his themes. In these smaller adjustments of his 
 material, the poet must be conceived as merely following an 
 individually adapted Antiphonary of his own church. 
 
 In fact, a reconstructed Antiphonary on the plan of Christ I 
 could not be considered as presenting an unaccustomed anomaly. 
 If Cynewulf had known and used a book of this kind, the list 
 of Greater Antiphons appearing in it would compare with that 
 of Hartker's Antiphonary and the Antiphonaries of Lucca and 
 Toledo in the following manner : 
 
 //ar/i^^r (St. Gall MS) Cynewulf. 
 
 O Sapientia 
 
 O Adonai 
 
 O Radix Jesse 
 
 O Clavis David 
 O Oriens 
 O Rex gentium 
 O Emmanuel 
 
 O Virgo virginum 
 O Gabriel 
 O Rex Pacifice 
 O mundi Domina 
 O Hierusalem 
 
 O Sapientia 
 O Adonai 
 O Radix Jesse 
 O Rex gentium 
 O Clavis David 
 O Oriens 
 
 O Emmanuel 
 O Hierusalem 
 O Virgo virginum 
 (O Gabriel?) 
 O Rex Pacifice 
 O mundi Domina 
 
 Lucca & Toledo. 
 O Sapientia 
 O Adonai 
 O Radix Jesse 
 
 O Clavis David 
 
 O Rex gentium 
 O Emmanuel 
 O Oriens 
 
86 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 Indeed, a Cynewulf-Antiphonary seems plausible enough. The 
 very order which Cynewulf maintains in his sources in Christ I 
 might argue in favor of such an Antiphonary, though its ex- 
 istence is unknown to us. Tf, however, the poet followed the 
 Antiphonary in use at St. Gall and preserved for us in the rich 
 library of that monastery, local adaptations prevailing in the 
 monasteries of England will have to account for the slight dif- 
 ferences which exist in the arrangement of material in Christ I 
 as compared with the St. Gall manuscript. 
 
 The plan or outline, therefore, which Cynewulf followed in 
 the construction of Christ I is derived from the Antiphonary 
 correctly interpreted for all the paraphrases of the poem based 
 on antiphonal matter. The dependence of the poet upon this 
 source-book is consequently not confined to the material taken 
 therefrom, but extends to the very arrangement or sequence of 
 the smaller divisions based on that material. It is a dependence 
 which furnishes the unifying element in the poem. Yes, Cyne- 
 wulf is mindful and careful of the ''architectonics and the per- 
 spective" of the whole; he does show his "ability to view the 
 smaller scenes as related parts of a larger whole," and this ability 
 is the fruit of his dependence upon the Antiphonary. 
 
 2. COROLIvARY "A" 
 
 Further Dependence upon the Antiphonary 
 
 For the purpose of this investigation, viz., to determine Cyne- 
 wulf's dependence upon the Antiphonary in the construction of 
 Christ I, that antiphonal matter alone was considered which 
 forms the basis for the individual paraphrases as such. Yet, 
 from the very dependence of the poet upon the Antiphonary for 
 the succession of his themes, as pointed out in my study, the 
 inference of a further dependence upon that very source-book 
 easily suggests itself. It is true, Cynewulf introduces into the 
 smaller divisions of Christ I a large amount of material derived 
 from other service books used in the Divine Office. Still, I 
 believe, the full influence of the Antiphonary itself even upon 
 the subsidiary material of the paraphrases, as standing apart 
 from the material furnished by the Greater Antiphons, has not 
 been adequately determined. 
 
 Though the subject is well worth the effort of more extended 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 87 
 
 research, a few suggestions relating to this further influence of 
 the Antiphonary in Christ I may not be out of place. 
 
 To line 2"" ff. — Cook (p. 73) refers for the thoughts here de- 
 veloped to Psalm 118. 22 (in the Vulgate text, Psalm 117. 22). 
 This is undoubtedly the ultimate source of the passage, and even 
 as such was surely known to Cynewulf through the chanting of 
 the Psalms in the Office, Still the Antiphonary brings this verse 
 of Psalm 118 in direct connection with the coming Savior in the 
 Christmas Office. Wherefore Cynewulf would seem to have 
 relied more immediately for this text upon the Antiphonary. A 
 Response in the Office for Christmas day is : ^ 
 
 Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Deus Dominus 
 et illuxit nobis. V. Lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedifi- 
 cantes, hie factus est in caput anguli. A Domino factum 
 est istud, et est mirabile in oculis nostris. 
 
 To line lop: God of Code. — Cook says in his Notes (p. 91) : 
 "This can only come from the Nicene Creed." An Antiphon 
 for Christmas day is as follows : ^ 
 
 Natus est nobis deus de deo, lumen de lumine, quod erat 
 in principio. 
 To lines 130 ff. — The division based on the Great Antiphon of 
 Advent, O Emmanuel, begins as follows : 
 
 Eala gaesta God, hu pn gleawlice 
 
 mid noman ryhte nemned waere 
 
 Emmanuhel, swa hit engel gecwae^ 
 
 merest on Ebresc; (lines 130-133") 
 
 Cynewulf here confuses the angel with the prophet Isaias, for 
 it was not the former but the latter who first announced in the 
 Hebrew tongue the name to be given to the coming Redeemer 
 as that of ''Emmanuel" (Is. vii. 14). The only name given by 
 the angel to the Son of God was that of "Jesus" (Matth. i. 21). 
 
 The error thus made seems to have been carried over by the 
 poet from the Antiphonary, for we find the following versicle in 
 the Office of the Vigil of the Nativity in Hartker's Antiphonary : ^ 
 
 Nascitur mundo oriens gabrihel quem angelus vocavit 
 emmanuhel nobiscum deus. 
 
 * Antiphonary of Hartker, p. 49. 
 ^Ihid., p. 53. 
 •P. 8. 
 
88 The; dependence of christ i. 
 
 This instance, though an isolated one, tends to show that 
 Cynewulf reHed not so much upon a direct knowledge of the 
 Holy Scriptures as upon the information he had acquired 
 through his attendance at the Divine Office. For the versicle 
 in question was probably chanted as written, and the error may 
 have been copied time and again unnoticed. The MS. of St. Gall 
 shows no trace of a later erasure and correction, and the neums 
 placed over the word "angelus" are plainly composed for that 
 word. It is most likely that Cynewulf himself never saw this 
 versicle in the written codex, but heard it repeatedly from the 
 lips of the chanters. At any rate, this strange coincidence seems 
 to strengthen the theory of a greater influence of the Antiphonary 
 in the composition of Christ I than is being granted by students 
 of the Christ. 
 
 To line 138. — The introduction of Melchisedech as a prototype 
 of Christ is current in the liturgy of the Church. Yet, the Advent 
 Office contains the same reference to Melchisedech in a Re- 
 sponse sung in the week preceding Christmas : * 
 
 Praecursor pro nobis ingreditur agnus sine macula secun- 
 dum ordinem Melchisedech Pontifex factus in aeternum et 
 in saeculum saeculi. 
 To lines 145 ff. — The motive drawn from the Harrowing of 
 Hell may have been partly suggested by the Response in the 
 Office of the Vigil of Christmas : ^ 
 
 Constantes estote, videbitis auxilium Domini super vos ; 
 ludaea et Hierusalem, nolite timere, eras egrediemini et 
 Dominus erit vobiscum. V. Vos qui in pulvere estis, exper- 
 giscimini, et laudate ecce Dominus veniet cum salute.^ 
 
 To lines jo6 ff. — In reference to the "golden gate" the Re- 
 sponse in the Office of the week proceding Christmas may be 
 noted : ^ 
 
 * Antiphonary of Hartker, p. 35. 
 
 "Ibid., p. 42. 
 
 ' For the motive drawn from the Harrowing of Hell see also Serm/) III 
 attributed to St. Augustine (Migne, P. L., 47, 1153 ff.), in which the 
 "captive souls" in Limbo address Christ. Possibly an influence can also 
 be sought in the remarkable hymn by Bede, "De Passione sancti Joannis 
 Baptistae," (Migne, P. L., 94, 630 f.), in which St. John the Baptist, after 
 his own death, is described as announcing the advent of the Redeemer to 
 the just souls in Limbo, even as he had announced His coming to the 
 living while on earth. In this hymn, moreover, the departed among whom 
 John has come, address him and Christ. To the Redeemer they exclaim: 
 "Descende, Jesu, et eripe." 
 
 ^The Antiphonary of Hartker, p. 36. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 89 
 
 Adnuntiatum est per gabrihelem archangelum mariae 
 virgin! de introitu regis et ingressus est per splendidam 
 regionem aurem virginis visitare palatium uteri et egressus 
 est per auream portam virginis. 
 
 From the few instances shown here it is apparent that Cyne- 
 wulf was influenced by the Antiphonary not only in his selection 
 of the O-Antiphons as the themes upon which his paraphrases 
 are built, but also for some of his subsidiary or "interpolated" 
 matter. Nevertheless, the principal dependence of the poet upon 
 the Antiphonary will remain restricted to the general sources 
 for the smaller sections of Christ I and to the order of succession 
 in which these follow in the poem. But the Antiphonary thus 
 relied upon by Cynewulf must be interpreted in the light of its 
 actual use in the Divine Office, for the sequence of themes in 
 Christ I shows that the poet took not the ''written" but the 
 "chanted" sources as a basis for his poem. The one great source 
 of Christ I, I believe, is the Divine Office as celebrated in the 
 Advent season. Though it would not be an easy matter to show 
 in what degree even the "interpolated" matter of the poem is 
 taken from the Divine Office for the lack of existing Lectionaries 
 and Homiliaries dating from the time of Cynewulf, still the knowl- 
 edge we now have of Christ I creates a strong presumption in 
 favor of such a theory. 
 
 3. Corollary "B" 
 
 The Working Methods of Cynewulf and the Unity of the Christ 
 
 It would naturally be expected that the methods which Cyne- 
 wulf is seen to follow in the composition of Part I of the Christ 
 should throw some light upon Parts II and III in their relation 
 to the first part. In other words, should not the theory as to the 
 manner in which the poet uses his sources in Christ I lead to 
 some conclusion regarding the authorship of this poem as com- 
 pared with the authorship of Parts II and III? Surely, it will 
 be said, the definite working method of the poet apparent in 
 Part I should be reflected in the other two parts, if these are by 
 the same author. If the method in Part I is dififerent from that 
 of Parts II and III, should this not speak against the common 
 authorship of the three parts and against the unity of the Christ? 
 
 Yet, it is doubtful if the peculiar method of following the 
 sources in Christ I can be made to argue either for or against 
 
90 THE DE:pENDE:nCE of CHRIST I. 
 
 the common authorship of the three parts, for the difiference of 
 sources as well as of the general theme in the three parts of the 
 Christ will always stand in the way of a definite conclusion in 
 this matter. 
 
 In defining the sources for Parts II and III of the Christ, 
 Cook ^ gives as the primary source of Part II the Ascension 
 sermon of Pope Gregory the Great, and as the secondary source 
 the Ascension hymn attributed to Bede. For Part III he estab- 
 lishes the chief source in the Alphabetical Hymn quoted by Bede 
 in his De Arte Metrica. The other influences in this part he 
 determines as follows: 
 
 * * * for the suggestion of the Sign of the Son of Man 
 to the vision of Constantine, a passage in Ephraem Syrus, 
 or one doubtfully attributed to Augustine ; for the mourning 
 of the universe at Christ's death, to Gregory ; for the bloody 
 sap of the trees, to the Apocrypha ; for Christ's address to 
 the sinner, to Caesarius of Aries, or, more ultimately, 
 Ephraem Syrus ; for the sword of victory in the hand of the 
 Judge, to Prudentius ; and for the account of the joys of 
 the blessed, to Gregory and Augustine. 
 In this comparative unity of sources in the Christ, Cook ^ finds 
 an argument for the unity of the poem. He says : 
 
 The sources of I are from the Breviary; so, too, is Greg- 
 ory's homily, the most important source of II, and perhaps 
 also the Ascension hymn, or at least part of it, since, as it 
 is found in the Surtees Hymns, it may have existed in the 
 Breviary of the period. 
 
 The secondary source of II is a hymn ascribed to Bede ; the 
 chief source of III is a hymn first quoted by Bede. 
 
 Not only is Gregory the author of the principal source of 
 II, but he furnishes important subsidiary sources for III. 
 
 The sources of the Christ, it is true, appear to be derived almost 
 uniformly from the "Breviary," the only exception being the 
 Alphabetical Hymn quoted by Bede, for we have no assurance 
 that this hymn or any part of it was ever used in the Divine 
 Office, (and possibly also the Ascension hymn in Part II). But 
 the term "Breviary," as denoting the depository of these sources 
 is, I believe, somewhat misapplied. In the days of Cynewulf 
 the various portions constituting the Divine Office of the Church 
 had not as yet been collected into one single book. 
 
 ' Pp. xliii-xlv. 
 » P. xxii. 
 
ON TH^ ANTIPHONARY. 91 
 
 Among the books bequeathed by Bishop Leofric to the cathe- 
 dral of Exeter (and the *'mycel EngHsc boc" containing the 
 Christ was among them) we find mention of the mass-book, 
 collectaneum, epistle-book, antiphonary, **ad te levavi," troper, 
 psalter, hymnar, blessing-book, martyrology, lectionary, and 
 Gospel-book.^^ All of those books here mentioned which were 
 used in the celebration of the Divine Office would now be col- 
 lected into the one service-book called the ^'Breviary." If thus in 
 the days of Cynewulf the various parts to be chanted or recited 
 in the Office were scattered in various codices, the sources of the 
 Christ would be more appropriately designated as derived from 
 the ''celebration of the Divine Office." 
 
 With this distinction of the various service-books in mind, 
 it will be observed that the sources of the Christ, while in general 
 derived from the common liturgical celebration of the Divine 
 Office, are yet different in their immediate source-books embody- 
 ing the various parts of that Office. Thus the sources of Part I 
 of the Christ are taken principally from the Antiphonary, while 
 those of Parts II and III are derived from the lectionaries, 
 homiliaries, and hymnars. In Part I the poet bases his para- 
 phrases upon sources that were ''chanted" in the Office ; in Parts 
 II and III he follows to a great extent sermons that were merely 
 "recited" or read in an elevated tone. In Part I, moreover, the 
 sources appear as individually separate smaller pieces, while those 
 of the other two parts represent a continued theme. 
 
 In attempting a comparison of the working methods pursued 
 
 by the poet in the three parts of the Christ, the differences in the 
 
 sources must necessarily be taken into consideration. The sources 
 
 derived from the Antiphonary may have influenced Cynewulf 
 
 in a greater degree than the sources derived from lectionaries. 
 
 He may himself have been one of the chanters, and as such 
 
 derived a fuller inspiration from the majestic and sweet music 
 
 of the O's than from the sermon of a Father. On the other 
 
 hand, if he was not a chanter, his devout attention during the 
 
 singing of the Antiphons filled his mind with pious and fervent 
 
 reflections which themselves clamored for utterance in a song 
 
 of praise. At any rate, we can well imagine that the influence of 
 
 chanted Antiphons was different from that conveyed by recited 
 
 '"Cf. Kemble, Cod. Dipl. Anglo-Sax., iv. 275; Daniel Rock, Church of 
 our Fathers, ed. Hart and Frere, 1904, iv. 18. 
 
92 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 homilies and sermons. As to the arrangement of the O-para- 
 phrases in the poem, he would take them in the order in which 
 the Antiphons upon which they are based were chanted in the 
 Office, for the Greater Antiphons of Advent were taken on cer- 
 tain days and were distributed over the last week of Advent. 
 
 The working methods of the poet in Parts II and III of the 
 Christ had to adapt themselves to the peculiarity of the sources 
 employed there. The source-books for these parts, the lection- 
 aries, homiliaries, and hymnars were certainly more easily acces- 
 sible than the antiphonary and thus lent themselves more readily 
 to private study and to the labor of collecting as well as selecting 
 suitable material. For the books containing the sermons and 
 writings of the Fathers were not confined to their use in the 
 Office ; they were read and studied by the monk in his cell. They 
 were to be had from the library of the monastery, while the 
 single copy of the Antiphonary remained in the church. More- 
 over, a sermon or hymn is one complete composition presenting 
 a continued theme, while the O-Antiphons are detached pieces 
 individually celebrating one of the Scriptural titles given to the 
 coming Redeemer. These Antiphons are spread over a whole 
 week in the Divine Office, while the sermons and homilies of the 
 Fathers as well as the hymns were read or sung, in their largest 
 portion at least, at one time. In the readings of the Office there 
 was no specified number of lines or pages ; the reader continued 
 until the sign for terminating the selection was given by the 
 Superior. In the sources for Parts II and III of the Christ, 
 therefore, the order in which they appear in the Office does not 
 affect the working methods of the poet in the same degree as 
 the order of succession in the O-Antiphons. When paraphrasing 
 the Greater Antiphons, the poet had to deal with sources that 
 came in a certain sequence; when paraphrasing or utilizing a 
 sermon or hymn, he had this before him in its entirety without 
 successive parts. 
 
 If the smaller divisions of Part I in themselves are considered, 
 the poet's method does not materially differ in the three parts 
 of the Christ. Wherefore, the chief contrast between the work- 
 ing methods pursued in Part I and those followed in Parts II 
 and III lies in the arrangement of material, and this contrast 
 was seen to flow from the nature of the sources employed. 
 Consequently the question of the unity of the Christ does not 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 93 
 
 appear to be materially affected by the result of my study as to 
 the construction of Christ I. The real difficulty in accepting a 
 common authorship of the three parts of the Christ seems to 
 lie in 'the difference of the sources themselves. If the author of 
 Part I selects a series of Antiphons as the basis of his poem, 
 why does the author of Part II not also base his poem upon the 
 Antiphons of the Ascension Office? Again, if the poet takes the 
 Gospel narrative with homilies and sermons written upon it as 
 the basis for Parts II and III, why does he not follow the 
 Gospel narrative with corresponding homiletical expansions in 
 his treatment of the Advent of Christ in the Incarnation? This 
 difficulty, of course, is mitigated by the fact that the Divine 
 Office which celebrates the Ascension and the Doomsday does 
 not contain such an admirable set of Antiphons embodying the 
 pith and marrow of the theme as does the Advent Office. 
 
 While the unity of the Christ has as yet not been established 
 to the satisfaction of all inquirers, the presumptions in favor of 
 it do not seem to be lessened by the working methods of the 
 poet apparent in his construction of Part I of the poem. 
 
 4. Corollary "C" 
 
 The Sources of the Christ and the Poet 
 
 In the study presented above it was seen that the poet's de- 
 pendence upon the Antiphonary extends to the arrangement of 
 the smaller divisions of Christ I in the successive order which the 
 sources hold in the actual use of the Antiphonary at the Divine 
 Office. Cynewulf is thus conceived as deriving his inspiration 
 and material for Part I of the Christ not so much from a copy 
 of the Antiphonary before him, as from a "living" Antiphonary 
 in actual use in the Church service. The construction of Christ I 
 therefore points to the poet's personal attendance at the Divine 
 Office. This then becomes the well of inspiration for him in the 
 composition of his poem. The sources of Parts II and III of 
 the Christ likewise show the poet's dependence upon the Divine 
 Office for the inspiration and material which gave rise to his 
 poetical version of the Ascension and the Doomsday. Although 
 we are left largely to our own surmises in regard to the actual 
 content of the various lectionaries, homiliaries, hymnars, and 
 other Office-books at the time of Cynewulf, there can be no 
 
94 THE DEPENDKNCi; OF CHRIST I. 
 
 doubt of the dependence of the poet, even in Parts II and III of 
 the Christ, upon the sources available in the celebration of the 
 Divine Office. 
 
 In making an investigation of the sources of the Christ, it 
 would therefore seem but natural to seek those sources in the 
 first instance in the Divine Office, which furnishes the principal 
 material of the poem. And when a particular source has been 
 discovered, say a homily of one of the Fathers, it should, accord- 
 ing to our present knowledge of the Christ, be brought into re- 
 lation with the Divine Office of Cynewulf's time whenever pos- 
 sible. For a study of the Christ tends to show that the one great 
 source upon which the poet relied was the Divine Office of the 
 Church, and our investigations are likely to yield more immediate 
 and direct results if this fact is borne in mind. 
 
 Yet the practice followed by some students of the Christ ap- 
 pears to be a different one. They seem to proceed in their task 
 of investigation from the supposition that Cynewulf knew and 
 used all the Christian writings extant in his day, but that his 
 knowledge of the Divine Office with all it contained was negligible. 
 Consequently, in their quest for sources and influences, they 
 roam far and wide over all the domains of literature, with little 
 or no attention to the one great source with which the poet shows 
 the most intimate familiarity, the Office of the Church. 
 
 Allen W. Porterfield ^^ has once remarked that "the ultimate 
 determining of sources is an ungrateful theme," because, in the 
 last analysis, it is hard to say just "who copied from whom." 
 This remark appears to strike home in the case of Cynewulf. 
 The fact that he is removed by so many centuries from our 
 day makes it difficult, indeed, to determine in each case the 
 particular source which should have influenced him in the com- 
 position of his poems. Wherefore it appears all the more neces- 
 sary to reduce as far as possible the various influences surround- 
 ing the poet to one comprehensive medium, and that medium is 
 the Divine Office. If, for instance, a thought is detected in the 
 Christ which reflects a similar thought expressed by St. Gregory 
 in his M or alia, does that make Cynewulf at once familiar with 
 all the writings of Gregory or even with the entire book in 
 question? Did this thought perhaps not appear time and again 
 
 " "Graf von Loeben and the Legend of the Lorelei," in Modern Phil- 
 ology, xiii, 326, note 2. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 95 
 
 in the readings of the Divine Office ?^^ Thus it happens that 
 Cynewulf is credited with an erudition which he perhaps never 
 acquired even in his old age when he found the "power of song 
 released from his breast" {Blene, line 1251). 
 
 In presenting a full and helpful edition of Cynewulf's writings, 
 it is no doubt profitable to trace the thoughts expressed by the 
 poet to their ultimate source, and to illustrate a theological doc- 
 trine or opinion by references from other authors. Still, it 
 would appear even more helpful to a student, if the proper dis- 
 tinction were carefully made between mere references for the 
 sake of enlightenment and excerpts that are considered as sources 
 influencing the mind of the poet. Unfortunately, the task of 
 satisfactorily annotating the text of the Christ seems to have 
 led Cook slightly astray in his endeavor to do full justice to the 
 content as well as the religious spirit of the poem. For we find 
 in his edition of the Christ an accumulation of material which 
 cannot always serve as a positive help to inquiring minds. In 
 saying this there is, of course, no desire to underestimate the 
 value of the scholarly work embodied by Cook in his Notes, nor 
 even to hint at the idea that such methods do not serve a useful 
 purpose of dispelHng the dense clouds of earlier misconceptions 
 and consequent erroneous deductions that have hitherto obscured 
 the full grandeur and majesty of this early luminary in the sky 
 of our native religious poetry. 
 
 Yet, frankly, we cannot entirely rid ourselves of the opinion 
 that such an elaborate apparatus as appears from the copiousiiess 
 of the Notes in question has the tendency to conceal some r'^al 
 problems still confronting us, and to blur the true picture which 
 our mind should be forming of the poet himself. It is no v/onder 
 that the impression is gained that Cynewulf was rather a savant 
 than a humble and fervent poet. Cook ^^ ascribes to him a 
 "mastery of patristic, hymnic, and liturgical literature," and adds, 
 "his reading was so extensive, and, what is more to the purpose, 
 so perfectly assimilated, that it is inconceivable that he should 
 have been ignorant of letters until late in life." At another place 
 
 " It is quite common to hear a modern preacher proclaim : "St. Bernard 
 said this and this * * * ," when we know from personal acquaintance 
 that the preacher in question is by no means a student of the works of 
 Bernard, but has acquired his information solelv from the reading of the 
 Office. 
 
 " P. Ixxxii. 
 
96 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 Cook ^* says of Cynewulf : "He was a zealous student of the 
 Bible ; of the poetry or poetical prose of Bede, Gregory the Great, 
 Jerome, Augustine, Prudentius, Caesarius of Aries, and Alcuin ; 
 of the creeds, the antiphons, and the hymns of the church. So 
 familiar does he become with Latin that words from that language 
 slip unobserved, as it were, into his lines." 
 
 It cannot be denied that all the influences mentioned above are 
 detected in the Christ, but that does not necessarily stamp Cyne- 
 wulf as a "zealous student" of all the sources employed. The 
 study of the Christ, indeed, reveals the truth of the poet't own 
 autobiographical note in which he says, ic * * * zvundrum 
 Ices; ^^ yet the field of knowledge from which he gathered so 
 -wondrously need not be unnecessarily extended. From the nature 
 of the sources in the Christ, this field could even be limited to 
 the information which the poet gained in his attendance at the 
 Divine Office. If he was a monk, an additional medium of in- 
 formation may have been furnished by the readings conducted in 
 the monastery. 
 
 But can Cynewulf be conceived as having embraced the mon- 
 astic calling? Cook says: '^^ "Whether or not he became a monk 
 we have no means of knowing ; but we do know that the monastic 
 life was the natural resort of the elect souls of that age, and 
 that the Antiphons which he loved bear traces of monastic in- 
 fluence." In the study of the O-Antiphons above, it was seen 
 that at least three of the Antiphons which Cynewulf paraphrased 
 in Christ I, the O Hierusalem, the O Rex Pacifice, and the O 
 mundi Domina, are found only in the monastic Antiphonary. It 
 appears that the suggestion of Cook is strong evidence of Cyne- 
 wulf's monastic life. 
 
 Cynewulf himself has left us some autobiographical data, but 
 these have been interpreted in more than one meaning. They 
 are contained in the closing Hnes of his Blene (lines 1237-1277)," 
 and might throw some light upon the subject under discussion. 
 
 Apparently the words of Cynewulf in these lines have created 
 the widespread impression of the poet's conversion from pagan- 
 ism to Christianity towards the close of his life. In the first 
 
 " P. Ixxxix. 
 
 " Elene, line 1238. 
 
 *'P. xcvi. 
 
 " The Blene, C. W. Kent. Boston, 1889. We quote from this edition. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 97 
 
 place, the poet nowhere gives an intimation justifying such a 
 conclusion. He indeed says: 
 
 * * * ic waes weorcum fah, 
 
 synnum asseled, sorgum gewaeled, 
 
 bitrum gebunden, bisgum be/?rungen, 
 
 aer me lare onlag purh leohtne had 
 
 gamelum to geoce * * * (lines 1243''-1247') 
 
 but he nowhere speaks of previous infidelity. The anxieties, the 
 bitterness and the tribulations which he experienced are set down 
 as the consequences of his misdeeds and sins. Though the leoht 
 had could be interpreted as the grace of holy baptism in which he 
 received gife unscyndc (line 1247), and in which the mcegencyning 
 bancofan onband, breostlocan onwand, (line 1250) 
 
 still he says expressly concerning the holy rood : 
 
 * * ♦ Nysse ic gearwe 
 be ^aere (rode) riht, aer me rumran ge/?eaht 
 purh. da. maeran miht on modes peaht, 
 wisdom, onwrah. (lines 1240'*-1243') 
 
 This seems to imply that the poet already possessed some knowl- 
 edge of the Cross before "wisdom revealed a larger view into 
 the cogitation of my heart," which would hardly have been the 
 case had he been reared in paganism. 
 
 The wisdom of which the poet speaks here seems to coincide 
 with the tare * * ♦ purh leohtne had of line 1246. The 
 leoht hdd itself might be applied to the monastic profession, which 
 was, in its effect, considered a new baptism. That it should bring 
 illumination to the mind and soul of the newly professed is ex- 
 pressed in the words and ceremonies of the act of profession, as 
 carried out in some Benedictine monasteries even today. After 
 the vows have been pronounced by the candidate, he prostrates 
 himself upon the floor of the sanctuary, is covered with a pall 
 and surrounded by six lighted candles, while the choir chants the 
 Miserere and the bell is tolled. This ceremony indicates the new 
 monk's death to the secular life. His rising to a new life of 
 religion is then symbolized by the removing of the tapers and 
 the pall, and by the chanting of the words : Surge qui dormis, et 
 exsurge a mortuis, et illuminabit te Christus}^ From the death- 
 
 " For a transcript of the ceremonies accompanying the act of profession 
 I am indebted to the members of the novitiate in New Subiaco Abbey 
 (Ark.). 
 
98 THK DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 sleep of sin and worldly vanities the newly professed monk 
 awakens to a new day of grace and spiritual life, and the light 
 of that day is Christ. In this new light a new vista of religious 
 knowledge and experience opens before the mind and soul of the 
 monk, and the experiences of which Cynewulf speaks in the 
 closing lines of the Blene might all be referred to this change 
 which came over him after he had embraced the monastic life. 
 
 While the words of Cynewulf therefore cannot be safely in- 
 terpreted as implying a conversion from paganism to Christianity, 
 they seem to find an application to the conversion from the secu- 
 lar to the religious or monastic life. 
 
 It is well known to students of monachism that the entrance 
 into a monastic order is considered a conversion.^^ It is a con- 
 version, not of faith or doctrinal belief, but of morals, a con- 
 versio morum. When pronouncing their monastic vows, the 
 Benedictine monks explicitly add to the three customary vows 
 of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a vow of stability in the 
 order and a vow of the conversion of their morals, as prescribed 
 by the Rule of St. Benedict. The holy founder of that Order 
 directs as follows : ^^ Suscipiendus autem in Oratorio coram 
 omnibus promittat de stabilitate sua, et conversione morum 
 suorum, et ohedientia, coram Deo et Sanctis ejus.^^ 
 
 If Cynewulf was a monk, and many facts seem to point to this 
 conclusion, the sources upon which he could draw were not con- 
 fined to the chanting and reciting of the Divine Office with its 
 rich Biblical, patristic, hagiographic and liturgical content, but 
 they included also the wide and extensive readings which were 
 conducted in the monastery outside the Divine Office itself. 
 
 In his Rule,22 St. Benedict devotes much attention to the read- 
 ing of the monks. He prescribes it at table and. enjoins deep 
 silence at the meals in order to stimulate the attention of the 
 hearers. He sets aside a certain portion of the day for private 
 reading and study, especially after the meals, after the perform- 
 
 " Of. Thesaurus linguae latinae, iv. 855 ff, 
 ^Rule of St. Benedict, ed. Hunter-Blair, cap. Iviii. p. 154. 
 , " For a full discussion of the conversio morum see Matthaus Rothen- 
 hausler, "Zur Aufnahmeordnung der Regula S- Benedicti" ; and Ildefons 
 Herwegen, "Geschichte der Benediktinischen Prof essf ormel," both pub- 
 lished in Beitr'dge zur Geschichte des Alien Monchtum^s und des Bene- 
 diktinerordens, Miinster, 1912. Heft 3. 
 " Cf. chapters xxxviii, xlii, xlviii. 
 
ON THE ANTIPHONARY. 99 
 
 ance of the manual labors of the day, and before the Compline 
 service. The material of which the reading is to consist is not 
 specified minutely, this being largely dependent upon the books 
 and codices at hand, yet he mentions in particular "the Con- 
 ferences (of Cassian), the lives of the Fathers, or something else 
 which may edify the hearers." 
 
 Cynewulf may have been a Northumbrian, he may have been 
 a Mercian ; it is possible that he graced the episcopal throne of 
 Winchester or Lindisfarne, it is again possible that he attached 
 his signature as a simple priest to a decree enacted at the Synod 
 of Clovesho (803) : not one of these suppositions has been estab- 
 lished to the satisfaction of all inquirers, and perhaps will never 
 be so established. 
 
 Yet, from the nature of his works which he has bequeathed to 
 us, and from the incidents which he himself recorded of his life 
 and religious experience, the inference that he was a monk is 
 not to be dismissed as untenable. In striving to estimate as 
 nearly as possible in our day the influences which must have 
 borne upon Cynewulf, the probability of his monastic profession, 
 I believe, should be given its due share of consideration. 
 
 Wherefore, the influences surrounding our poet should be 
 read from his life and position rather than read into them. The 
 sources upon which Cynewulf relied in the first instance are those 
 with which his daily life brought him into the closest contact: 
 the Divine Office embracing the liturgical content of the Antiphon- 
 ary, of the homiliaries and lectionaries, of the hymnars and 
 psalters ; the readings of the monastery extending to the lives of 
 the Saints, the writings of the Fathers, and also the classical 
 writers and poets. That he must have been a deep student of 
 all or any of these, is not a necessary conclusion. He himself 
 tells us that he "gathered wondrously," but the gathering was 
 done within his own calling and station in lif^. Yet, what he 
 gathered was made the object of deep personal reflection, and in 
 our day constitutes the study and delight of all lovers of Old 
 English Christian Poetry. 
 
 5. Conclusion 
 
 The conclusion at which we have arrived in the study here 
 presented is that the position taken by scholars in regard to the 
 arrangement of the material in Christ I needs modification. Cer- 
 
100 THE DEPENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 tainly, the theory that Cynewulf threw the twelve divisions of 
 the poem together at random seems untenable in view of the 
 close dependence, which he is seen to disclose in the poem, upon 
 the Antiphonary in the succession of his paraphrases. Cynewulf 
 does appear to have bestowed some attention upon the "archi- 
 tectonics," the "perspective" of his poem, for the sources upon 
 which he based the various sections of Christ I give to the poem 
 not merely a lyrical unity, or a unity of mood secured through 
 the character of the Advent season, but also a unity of structure. 
 
 Indeed, Christ I is not a narrative poem and cannot therefore 
 be expected to present a well developed plot with its beginning, 
 middle, and end. It stands apart from the usual literary compo- 
 sition because of the unusual character of its sources. But in 
 following his sources the poet was faithful to the outline or plan 
 which these themselves offered. If taken in their actual Church 
 use, the sources of Christ I noti only furnish the material for the 
 poetic version of the Advent of Christ, but also give this version 
 of the Advent theme a unity and completeness which would seem 
 to destroy the charge that Cynewulf was "a poet indeed, but a 
 poet untrained in composition." 
 
 This faithful adherence to the sources is not only what we 
 would expect from an Old English poet like Cynewulf, but in 
 the light of a better understanding both of Christ I and of its 
 sources in the Church use of the time, it seems a conclusion worthy 
 of some consideration. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY * 
 
 Amalarius, De Ordine Antiphonarii (Migne, P. L., vol, 105). 
 Antiphonaire Monastique (XIP siecle) : Codex 601 de la Bibliotheque 
 
 Capitulaire de Lucques (et Codex 48.18 de la Cathedrale de Tolede), 
 
 in Paleographie Musicale, vol. ix Tournai, 1906. 
 Antiphonale Officii Monastici, ecrit par le B. Hartker: Codex No. 
 
 390-391 de la Bibliotheque de Saint-Gall, in Paleographie Musicale, 
 
 ii series, vol. i. Solesmes, 1900. 
 Binterim, Anton Joseph, Die vorsiiglichsten Denkwiirdigkeiten der 
 
 Christ-Katholischen Kirche aus den ersten, tnittlem, und letzten 
 
 Zeiten. Mainz, 1829, vol. v. 
 Blume, Clemens, Hymnody (Catholic Encyclopaedia, vii. 595). 
 Brandl, Alois, Bnglische Literatur (in Paul's Grundriss, IV. 1035 ff.). 
 Breuiarium Aberdonense, ed. W. Blew, The Maitland Club (No. 70), 
 
 London, 1854, vol. ii. (This is the Aberdeen Breviary of 1508.) 
 Breviarium ad Usum Sarum, ed. Proctor and Wordsworth, Cambridge, 
 
 1879-1886. 
 Breviarium Parisiense, anno 1736. Paris, pars hiemalis. 
 Brooke, Stopford A., The History of Early English Literature. New 
 
 York, 1892. 
 Cabrol, Dom F., "L'Avent Liturgique," ini Revue Benedictine, xxii. 484 ff. 
 Cook, A. S., The Christ of Cynewulf. Boston, 1900 (second impression, 
 
 1909). 
 
 "A Remote Analogue to the Miracle Play," in Journal of Germanic 
 
 Philology, iv. 421-451. 
 
 "A Dramatic Tendency in the Fathers," in Journal of Germanic 
 
 Philology, v. 62-64. 
 Duffield, S. W., The Latin Hymn-Writers and their Hymns, ed. Prof. 
 
 R. E. Thompson. New York, 1889. 
 Grancolas, J., Commentarius Historicus in Romanum Breviarium, Venice. 
 
 1734. 
 Green, Everard, "On the Words O SAPIENTIA in the Kalendar," in 
 
 ArchcBologia, vol. xlix, part i. 219-241. 
 Gregory, St., the Great, Liher Responsalis sive Antiphonarius (Migne, 
 
 P. L., vol. 78). 
 
 Liber Sacramentorum (Migne, P. L., vol. 78). 
 Gueranger, D. Prosper, The Liturgical Year: Advent. I^ranslated by 
 
 Rev. Dom Laurence Shepherd. Dublin, 1883. 
 Hunter-Blair, D. Oswald, The Rule of St. Benedict. Fort-Augustus, 
 
 1906. 
 
 *The Bibliography is limited to those works which have been used in 
 the preparation of this study. 
 
 101 
 
102 : • . ^ ^' TECt 'DK^ENDENCE OF CHRIST I. 
 
 Hc;Np}<ius;QJ"AyTUN, Gtnima Animae (Migne, P. L., vol. 172). 
 Joannes Rothomagensis, Fragmenta Quaedam (Migne, P. L., vol. 147). 
 
 Ordinarium (Migne, P. L., vol. 147). 
 Kent, C. W., Cynewulfs Blene. Boston, 1889. 
 Leofric Coi.i,Ectar: Harl. MS. 2961, ed. by E. S. Dewick. The Henry 
 
 Bradshaw Society (vol. 45). London, 1914. 
 Martene, Edmund, De Antiquis Monachorutn Ritihus. Lyons, 1706. lib. ii. 
 Maskeli,, William, Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglicanae. London, 
 
 1846. vol. ii. 
 Maximus, Hom^lia II (Migne, P. L., vol. 57). 
 May, Alfred A., "A Source for Christ, 11. 348-377," in Modern Language 
 
 Notes, xxiv. 158 f. 
 MonE, F. J., Lateinische Hymen des Mittelalters. Freiburg-i-Br. 1853. 
 
 vol. i. 
 Moore, Samuel, "The Source of Christ 416 ff.," in Modern Language 
 
 Notes, xxix, 226 f. 
 NealE, J. M., Essays on Liturgiology and Church History. London, 3863. 
 Pamelius, Iacobus, Liturgica Latinorum. Coloniae Agrippinae. 1571. 
 
 vol. i. 
 Paulus Diaconus, Hotniliarius (Migne, P. L., vol. 95). 
 Smithson, George Arnold, The Old English Christian Epic. University 
 
 of California Publications in Modern Philology, i. No. 4. Berkeley, 
 
 1910. 
 Tertullian, Liber Apologeticus adversus Gentes (Migne, P. L., vol. 1). 
 
 Liber III adversus Marcionem (Migne, P. L., vol. 2). 
 Thurston, Herbert, "The Great Antiphons: Heralds of Christmas," in 
 
 The Month, London, vol. 106. 
 Tommasi, Opera Omnia, ed. A. F. Vezzosi. Rome, 1749, vol. iv. 
 Whitman, C. H., The Christ of Cynewulf. A Translation. Boston, 1900. 
 WuLKER, Richakd PauL, "Dtamatische Bestrebungen der Angelsachsen," 
 
 in his Grundriss zur Geschichie der angelsdchsischen Literatur. Leip- 
 zig, 1885. 
 York Breviary, ed. Lawley. vol. ii. 
 
VITA 
 
 The writer of this dissertation, Edward Burgert, was bom in 
 Paris, Arkansas, on October 15, 1887. He attended the parochial 
 school in Morrison's Bluff and Little Rock, Arkansas, and subse- 
 quently Subiaco College, Subiaco, Arkansas, where he com- 
 pleted the high school, college and seminary courses, and, in 
 1905, received the degree of Bachelor of Arts. He entered the 
 Order of St. Benedict in the fall of 1906, and was ordained to 
 the priesthood on June 24, 1911. For seven years he was in- 
 structor in Subiaco College. After attending, in 1918, the First 
 Summer Session of Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, Indi- 
 ana, he spent three years, from 1918 to 1921, in the Catholic 
 University of America, Washington, D. C, where he followed 
 courses in English under Drs. P. J. Lennox and F. J. Hemelt, in 
 Germanic Philology under Dr. Paul Gleis, in General Linguistics 
 under Rev. James A. Geary, and in Mediaeval Institutions under 
 Dr. Paschal Robinson, O. F. M. 
 
UNIVEESITY OF OALIFOB' 
 
 14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 RENEWALS ONLY — ^TEL. NO. 642-3405 
 
 This book is dae on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 umv OF 
 
 
 A/£ i^M J /C^/}d 
 
 
 INTER-LlflRAR1C 
 
 
 LDAN^ . 
 
 
 JUN 4 1970 
 
 1 
 
 i)ae; 
 
 1 
 
 ONE MONTH ARER RECblPI 
 
 
 *. 
 
 
 ^^ ■ UCLA 
 
 
 INTERLIBRARY LO 
 
 AN 
 
 AUG 2 197'1 
 
 <.f 
 
 DAVIS 
 INTEPLia^ARY L( 
 
 )AN 
 
 DEC 20 197 
 
 6"' 
 
 tfaci^ JAN 18 77 
 
 
 (N5382sl0)476-A-32 U*"^^"gJ,£^l^^°'*"= 
 
VC lA22i 
 
 CDHbtma?^