Gesammelte Aufsätze zur romanischen Philologie

Dante’s prayer to the Virgin [Paradiso, XXXIII]Lobrede and earlier eulogies (1949/50)1

In memoriam Eduard NordenNorden, E.

I

The structure of DanteDante’s famous text is very similar to a classical form of prayerLobrede, described by Eduard Norden in his book Agnostos Theos2 as der Du-Stil der Prädikation.3 DanteDante’s text begins with an invocation composed of several members:

Vergine madre, figlia del tuo figlio,

umile ed alta più che creatura

termine fisso d’eterno consiglio;

it continues with an enumeration of Mary’s accomplishments and virtues; this enumeration was called in Greek tradition aretalogyAretalogie or eulogy, in Christian usage doxologyDoxologie. It is constructed in an anaphoricalAnapher form with ‘thou’:

Tu sei colei che l’umana natura

nobilitasti sì, che il suo fattore

non disdegnò di farsi sua fattura.

Nel ventre tuo si raccese l’amore

per lo cui caldo nell’eterna pace

così è germinato questo fiore.

Qui sei per noi meridiana face

di caritade, e giuso intra i mortali

sei di speranza fontana vivace.

Donna, sei tanto grande e tanto vali,

che qual vuol grazia ed a te non ricorre,

sua desianza vuol volar senza ali.

La tua benignità non pur socorre

a chi domanda, ma spesse fiate

liberamente al domandar precorre.

In te misericordia, in te pietate,

in te magnificenza; in te s’aduna,

quantunque in creatura è di bontate.

Then follows the supplicatiosupplicatio, the petition for help in a particular emergency.

This scheme corresponds exactly to the form described by NordenNorden, E.. It occurs in Greek poetry; many examples are found in Latin literature. There are some other forms of the eulogy besides the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher; one of the most widespread is the eulogy with relative clauses which, too, has been analysed in Norden’s book. Both forms are combined in one of the earliest and most beautiful Latin eulogies we possess, the prooemium of Lucretius’ De rerum natura:

Aeneadum genitrix, hominum divomque voluptas,

Alma Venus! caeli subter labentia signa

Quae mare navigerum, quae terras frugiferentes

Concelebras; per te quoniam genus omne animantum

Concipitur, visitque exortum lumina solis.

Te, Dea, te fugiunt venti, te nubila caeli

Adventumque tuum; tibi suavis Daedala tellus

Submittit flores; tibi rident aequora ponti

Placatumque nitet diffuso lumine caelum …

Te sociam studeo scribundis versibus esse …

Among the other examples4 several were certainly known to DanteDante; as he was, consciously and unconsciously, open to the influence of classical patterns of style, one may be tempted to draw the conclusion that he had been inspired by his ancient masters – VergilVergil, OvidOvid, StatiusStatius – to give to the prayerLobrede a classical form, in spite of its Christian substance. But this conclusion would prove hasty. Obviously, such forms of prayerMittelalterLobrede im MA are very old; the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher and similar forms of eulogy occur also in Jewish and early Christian texts. In the VulgateVulgata, DanteDante could find several passages such as David’s benediction, I Paralipomenon 29, 10ff.:5

Benedictus es Domine Deus Israel patris nostri ab aeterno in aeternum. Tua est Domine magnificentia, et potentia et gloria atque victoria: et tibi laus: cuncta enim quae in caelo sunt et in terra, tua sunt; tuum Domine regnum, et tu es super omnes principes. Tuae divitiae, et tua est gloria: tu dominaris omnium, in manu tua virtus et potentia: in manu tua magnitudo, et imperium omnium … Domine Deus Abraham et Isaac et Israel patrum nostrorum, custodi …

There is, however, a difference between the Biblical and the classical eulogies, in spite of the almost complete identity of structure; the difference is instinctively felt by the reader. For its exact analysis, we are again indebted to Eduard NordenNorden, E.; he has shown that the particular form of the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher which begins with ‘thou art’6 and corresponds to God’s own words ‘I am’,7 is decidedly and exclusively Jewish,8 not Hellenic or Roman. None of the examples taken from classical literature contains this form; in Greek or Latin, it appears only late, through Christian and similar influences. As DanteDante’s anaphorasAnapher are mostly of this pattern (tu sei, sei), or of the closely similar ‘in Thee is’ or ‘Thine is’,9 he seems to follow the Jewish and Biblical rather than the classical tradition.

In analyzing the difference between classical and Biblical patterns of the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher we may, inspired by Norden’sNorden, E. observations, go somewhat further than he did. The classical eulogies normally enumerate the deeds and accomplishments of the gods and heroes, or their spheres of power, their qualities, and attitudes; in the Jewish forms (‘Thou art’ or ‘Thine is’ followed either by an abstract tetra or by names of parts of the universe), the expression of the essence of the divinity or of its omnipotence prevails. Even in almost identical statements (HoraceHoraz, Carmina, II, xix: tu flectis amnes, tu mare barbarum; Ps. 88, 10: tu dominaris potestati maris) the context makes the difference obvious: HoraceHoraz means a very definite and limited sphere of influence, and statements such as his are mostly based on mythical tradition;10 in the Psalm, the statement is a partial expression of God’s omnipotence. The Jewish attributes, even if they are concerned with particulars, are always aimed at the whole of the worshipped object, God. The Jewish God is not involved in earthly occurrences, he has no shape or attitude on earth; he is indeed connected with history by the promise made to Abraham,11 but he himself does not participate in earthly events, nor does he appear in an earthly landscape and in human-like form, as does Venus in Lucretius’ prooemium or the other objects of Greek or Roman worship, who all have a mythical history, an earthly appearance, and earthly residences. Their accomplishments and appearances, sometimes also their residences, are described in the eulogies, for example in VergilVergil’s praise of Hercules:12

… qui carmine laudes

Herculeas et facta ferunt: ut prima novercae

Monstra manu geminosque premens eliserit angues;

Ut bello egregias idem diiecerit urbes

Troiam Oechaliamque; ut duros mille labores

Pertulerit. Tu nubigenas, invicte, bimembris

Hylaeum Photumque manu, tu Cresia mactas

Prodigia et vastum Nemea sub rupe leonem.

Te Stygii tremuere lacus, te ianitor Orci

Ossa super recubans antro semesa cruento;

Nec te ulla facies, non terruit ipse Tyrtaeus

Arduus, arma tenens; non te rationis egentem

Lernaeus turba capitum circumstetit anguis.

Salve vera Iovis proles, decus addite divis,

Et nos et tua dexter adi pede sacra secundo.

Other examples are offered in the texts referred to in our note 4. Each member of such eulogies represents something concrete and limited, distinctly different from the preceding and the following, whereas the Jewish eulogies, the benediction of David, and the passages in the Psalms paraphrase in all their members, again and again, the same idea: God’s essence, omnipotence, and omnipresence.

II

In the first centuries of the Christian era, with the growing influence of the new religious movements, and especially of Christianity, several important changes can be observed in the form of prayersLobrede and eulogies.

(a) In the classical examples, the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher, as far as I know, was used exclusively in eulogies. Now, it appears in other contexts, very often in the supplicatiosupplicatio, as in PrudentiusPrudentius’ hymnHymne ‘Ales diei nuntius’:13

Tu, Christe, somnum disice,

Tu rumpe noctis vincula,

Tu solve peccatum vetus,

Novumque lumen ingere.

This use continued during the Middle Ages; as an example I quote some verses from Thomas AquinasThomas v. Aquin’ ‘LaudaLauden, Sion, Salvatorem’:14

Tu nos pasce, nos tuere,

Tu nos bona fac videre …

As further evidence that the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher has enlarged its function there appears a new form, unknown to the Greek and Roman tradition; its characteristic feature is the expression of convergent adoration, emanating either from different organs of a single human being, or from a community, or else from all rational beings. The following example of the first case is taken from St. Ambrose’sAmbrosius, hl. hymn ‘Deus creator omnium’:15

Te cordis ima concinant,

Te vox sonora concrepet,

Te diligat castus amor,

Te mens adoret sobria …

Of the second case, the repeated expression of convergent adoration of a community, the most famous example is the beginning of the ‘Gloria’ of the mass: Laudamus te, benedicimus te, adoramus te … I found another very early example in a prayeLobreder recorded by Lactantius;16 it is the hymnHymne which Emperor LiciniusLicinius (Kaiser) ordered his troops to sing before the battle against Maximinus DaiaMaximinus Daia (A. D. 313):

Summe Deus, te rogamus,

Sancte Deus, te rogamus,

Omnem iustitiam tibi commendamus,

Salutem nostram tibi commendamus,

Imperium nostrum tibi commendamus;

Per te vivimus,

Per te victores et felices existimus;

Summe sancte Deus,

Preces nostras exaudi;

Bracchia nostra ad te tendimus.

The hymnHymne ‘Te Deum laudamus’ presents a transfition from this second form to the third, in which the entire creation or the entire Christian universe joins in the adoration:

Te Deum laudamus, te dominum confitemur,

Te aeternum patrem omnis terra veneratur,

Tibi omnes angeli, tibi caeli et universae potestates,

Tibi Cherubim et Seraphim incessabili voce proclamant:

Sanctus sanctus sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth;

Pieni sunt caeli et terra maiestatis gloriae tuae;

Te gloriosus apostolorum chorus,

Te prophetarum laudabilis numerus,

Te martyrum candidatus exercitus,

Te per orbem sancta confitetur ecclesia …

The various forms of this ‘convergent adoration’ survived in the Middle Ages;17 it has an invocational rather than a eulogistic character. True, similar forms exist in classical eulogies such as HoraceHoraz’s ode to AugustusAugustus18 in which the conquered peoples are mentioned as adoring the emperor (compositis venerantur armis). It is, however, an enumeration of certain peoples, with others excluded, and it probably has its origins in the mention of sanctuaries and residences of the divinity concerned; this kind of enumeration is widespread in classical eulogies,19 but its function is clearly distinct from the convergent universal adoration of the subsequent Christian examples.

(b) Another change concerns not the form, but the substance of all kinds of eulogies, not only those introduced by the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher. Greek philosophy and rhetoricRhetorik fused with the very intense and manifold religious movements of the first centuries after Christ; the eulogies became abstract and metaphoricalMetapher; they reflect the dogmatic controversies and the refinements of Greek figures of speech and thinking. ApuleiusApuleius’ prayeLobreder to Isis20 is purely rhetorical; NordenNorden, E. quotes the following (NeoplatonicNeuplatonismus) verses of TiberianusTiberianus (fourth century):

Tu genus omne deum, tu rerum causa vigorque,

Tu natura omnis, deus innumerabilis unus …21

This is a play with the antitheticAntithese concepts ‘one’ and ‘all’, presented in identically constructed members of sentences. In Christian poetry, the antithetic parallelism of Greek rhetoricRhetorik serves to express the fundamental paradoxes of faith: three and one, God and man, creator and creature, logos and flesh, sublime and humble, passion and glory, death and resurrection, mother and virgin, and so on. Indeed, there are dogmatic passages in the eulogies without antithetic turns of expression, such as the following:22

Tu lumen, tu splendor patris,

Tu spes perennis omnium.

Yet this same hymnHymne contains some antithetic statement in the invocation ante principium natus). The following verses of PrudentiusPrudentius23 are antithetic, but lacking in paradoxes:

Tu lux vera oculis, lux quoque sensibus,

Intus tu speculum, tu speculum foris …

A typical example of a hymnHymne with paradoxical antitheses occurs in Ausionius’Ausonius Ephemeris, where the eulogy has the pattern of a series of relative clauses:24

… generatus in illo

tempore quo tempus nondum fuit …

quo sine nil actum, per quem facta omnia …

The best specimen for our purpose is offered by ‘Laus Christi’ attributed to Claudianus.25 Here, the first part of a long eulogy is composed in relative clauses, the second with tu anaphorasAnaphertu-Anapher. The first part contains almost nothing but antitheticAntithese formulas; the most striking ones appear in italics:

Proles vera Dei cunctisque antiquior annis,

Nunc genitus qui semper eras, lucisque repertor

Ante tuae matrisque parens: quem misit ab astris

Aequaevus genitor verbumque in semina fusum

Virgineos habitare sinus et corporis arti

Iussit inire vias parvaque in sede morari

Quem sedes non ulla capit; qui lumine primo

Vidisti quidquid mundo nascente crearas;

Ipse opifex, opus ipse tui, dignatus iniquas

Aetatis sentire vices, et corporis huius

Dissimiles perferre modos hominemque subire

Ut possis monstrare deum, ne lubricus error

Et decepta diu varii sollertia mundi

Pectora tam multis sineret mortalia saeclis

Auctorem nescire suum …

This fusion of Greek antitheticAntithese rhetoricRhetorik with the paradoxes of the Christian faith has become one of the basic elements not only of mediaeval Christian poetry, but of the entire poetical language in Europe. In DanteDante’s prayerLobrede, some of the formulas of the Laus Christi appear almost verbatim: figlia del suo figlio, suo fattore non disdegnò di farsi sua fattura.

(c) A third important change in the content of the eulogies is revealed in the continuation of the same ‘Laus Christi’; this second part is composed in tu anaphorasAnaphertu-Anapher:

Te conscia partus

Mater et attoniti pecudum sensere timores.

Te nova sollicito lustrantes sidera visu

In caelo videre prius, lumenque secuti

Invenere magi. Tu noxia pectora solvis

Elapsasque animas in corpora functa reducis

Et vitam remeare iubes. Te lege recepti

Muneris ad Manes penetras mortisque latebras

Immortalis adis. Nasci tibi non fuit uni

Principium finisque mori, sed nocte refusa

In caelum patremque redis rursusque perenni

Ordine purgatis adimis contagia terris.

Tu solus patrisque comes, tu spiritus insons,

Et toties unus triplicique in nomine simplex.

Some verses of this text seem to be much nearer to the mythical eulogies of Greek and Latin poetry, not only on account of the hexameters, but because there are events to be recorded. In sharp opposition to the Jewish God, Christ, by his incarnation, has an earthly history; so have the Virgin, the Apostles, and the Saints. The poet of ‘Laus Christi’ rather summarily records the most important features of Christ’s history: the nativity (with the adoration of the Magi), miracles, descent to Hell, and resurrection. He could have made a eulogy of Hercules in almost the same style.

The historical and human character imparted to Christian eulogies by the earthly history of Christ was of great importance in the poetry of the Middle Ages, especially in the vernacular languages. In early Latin hymnsHymne, however, detailed and complete records of Christ’s life are not frequent. One may think of the ‘Hymnus de Vita Christi’, by SeduliusSedulius;26 but it is an abecedarius, not a eulogy in a prayerLobrede. In most ancient eulogies, the events of Christ’s life are not related in a coherent narrative fashion; rather are certain basic facts chosen for a dogmatic purpose; this is the case in the above quoted ‘Laus Christi’ or in the following lines taken from the ‘Te Deum’:

Tu rex gloriae Christus,

Tu patris sempiternus es filius,

Tu ad liberandum suscepisti hominem,

Nec horruisti Virginis uterum;

Tu devicto mortis aculeo aperuisti credentibus regna coelorum …

Very often, the link between the historical events and the dogma is expressed in a symbolic manner; the events are recorded in a concrete and, sometimes, even realistic formRealismus, but within a symbolic context. The following stanzasStanze from the Ambrosian hymnHymneAmbrosius, hl. ‘De adventu Domini’27 offer an early example of the absorption of realistically presented events by dogmatic symbolism. It is a eulogy in narrative form, without anaphoras:

From Christ’s stay in his mother’s body and from his birth, there is a direct symbolic link to the dogmatic meaning of incarnation; history is abandoned, and only at the end reappears the praesepePraesepium, praesepe, just as an effulgent symbol.

(d) The symbolism of the Ambrosian text is expressed by allusions to passages of the Bible; this gives to the eulogy a figurative or typological aspect; figuralism is another new phenomenon in the eulogies, introduced by Christian influence.

Christ as the sponsor procedens de thalamo suo28 and as a giant who ‘runs a race’ (VV. 13–16) is an allusion to Ps. 18, 6; through the attribute geminae substantiae this giant becomes connected with the Gigantes in Gen. 6, 1–4, the offspring of the sons of God who took wives the daughters of men; these giants were, consequently, of dual nature; thus, they were considered as prefiguration (or figures, or types) of Christ. The egressus-regressus imageegressus–regressus-Bild (vv. 17–18) refers to v. 7 of the same Psalm, connecting it with JohnJohannes (Evangelist) 16, 5 and 16, 16, and alluding also to passages such as Is. 11, 1, or 51, 5, or Hab. 3, 13.29

Long before St. Ambrose, the figurative interpretationFiguraldeutung which appears in these lines had changed the entire Old TestamentAltes Testament into a series of prefigurations of Christ, his incarnation and passion, and of the Church. It developed in the earliest periods of Christianity; its growth was so rapid that the whole system including almost all its details was already familiar to the Christian writers of the second and early third centuries, e. g. to TertullianTertullian. However, the consistent use of the figurative interpretation is infrequent in hymnsHymne of the patristic period. There are many figurative allusions, especially in the hymns of FortunatusVenantius Fortunatus; but the long series of figures which appear in the Middle Ages do not yet occur.

III

In the Middle Ages, the consistent use of typological or figurative interpretationFiguraldeutung gives to the hymnic eulogies a very specific aspect; the history of salvation through Christ’s incarnation becomes the leitmotif of the providential harmony of world history. In the flowering period of mediaeval Latin hymnology, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the metaphors furnished by the figurative interpretation are fused, in a high developed technique, with another kind of figures: plays on rhymes and sounds which, in numerous particular cases and seen as a whole, also have a symbolic meaning. This confers upon the hymns a very characteristic form of witticism, unique at its level of style, although it may be possible to find some parallels in certain later periods of poetry.30 We shall try to analyse several specimens, beginning with one of the sequences of Notker BalbulusNotker Balbulus († 912), the inventor of the sequence form. He uses the tu anaphoraAnaphertu-Anapher in several of his works; I have chosen the sequence ‘In Purificatione Beatae Mariae’:31

The eulogy which runs from the second stanzaStanze to the eleventh is introduced partly by tu anaphorasAnaphertu-Anapher, partly by imperatives followed by relative clauses (Laetare … quae; Laetare, quam; Exsulta, cui); not all its parts are purely figurative, but there is in almost every stanza some figurative allusion fused with the historical and dogmatic content. We shall begin by explaining several of these allusions.

Second stanzaStanze: the designation of the Virgin as filia generosi Abrahae contains an allusion to Christ as high priest secundum ordinem Melchisedek, Hebr. 7 and Gen. 14, 18ff.32 Fifth stanza: the words ut promisit Deus Abrahae refer to Gen. 22, 18 (et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae), i. e., to the sacrifice of Isaac; the blood of the ram offered instead of Isaac is figura sanguinis Christi.

Sixth stanza: the virga arida Aaron (Num. 17, 8) is explained by the following lines. This is one of the most recurrent of the figurative combinations symbolizing the conception of Christ; it was supported by another even more famous passage: et egredietur virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice eius ascendet (Is. 11, 1). Later on, there are many puns on the words virgo and virga. Mary is called virgo virga salutaris in a hymn of the twelfth century,33 and St. Bernard designates Christ as virga virgo virgine generatus.34

Seventh stanzaStanze: The porta iugiter serrata belongs to the same group of figures of the conception; it refers to Ezek. 44, 2: porta haec clausa erit, et non aperietur, et vir non transibit per eam; quoniam Dominus Deus Israel ingressus est per eam. We shall discuss this figure later.

Eighth stanza: The mother of the virtues is humilitashumilitas, opposed to superbiasuperbia; Mary’s humility is an important motif in her eulogy (DanteDante: umile … più che creatura), based, in the tradition, on Luke 1, 38ff.; it is opposed to Eve’s superbia (DanteDante, Purgatorio, xxix, 25–27). The words subisti remedium etc. and the following stanza refer to Luke 2, 22–24, cf. Lev. 12, 6–8.35

Eleventh stanzaStanze: the theme of laughter (cui parvus arrisit tunc) is very widespread, but there is some variation concerning the person who is laughing; in a sequence of the twelfth century, to be analysed later (‘Candor surgens ut aurora’), it is Mary’s mother Anne: matris risus te signavit (fourth stanza); in another of the same period, ‘De sancta Maria Aegyptiaca,’36 Christ is called noster risus; Adam de Saint-VictorAdam v. St. Victor, ‘In Resurrtiecone Domini Sequentia’37 designates Christ as

puer nostri forma risus,

pro quo vervex est occisus.

This last quotation explains the meaning: it is again Isaac as figura Christi with an allusion to Isaac’s name and Sarah’s words referring to it: risum fecit mihi Dominus (Gen. 21, 6); it is the joy caused by the birth of the long awaited miraculous child, who may laugh too, and be called noster risus, the gaudium magnum of Luke 2, 10. I am inclined to assume that VergilVergil’s Fourth Eclogue38 has also contributed to this figure; the mediaeval interpretation of VergilVergil’s text as a prophecy of Christ is well known.

Notker’s sequence has no rhymes, its figures of speech are infrequent,39 and they are simple in comparison with what is offered by subsequent texts. The figures of interpretation are not dense enough to veil the facts which they interpret; Mary in her actual story is present in every stanzaStanze, except in stanzas 6 and 7; these are almost entirely figurative, but they still contain the link with Mary’s real life by the formulas Te … praefigurat, Maria and Tu … Maria … esse crederis.

In the sequences of the eleventh century, the progress of the figurative style is evident; there are stanzas and even series of stanzas where the figures completely conceal the story. The following stanza, taken from the sequence ‘In Assumptione Beatae Mariae’40 attributed to Herimannus ContractusHerimannus Contractus:

with its allusions to Ezek. 44, 2, Mal. 4,2, and JohnJohannes (Evangelist) 1, 1–16, is only one in a series of similar paraphrases of Christ’s birth, in which the event disappears, concealed by its symbols; here are two more stanzaStanzes which contain very intricate figurative images:

Strophe 6 is based on Is. 16, 1; strophe 7 on Is. 27, 1; there is probably, too, in the figure of Leviathan an allusion to Job 40, 20 and to the current interpretations of these passages;41 these consider Christ’s incarnation as the bait and his divine nature as the hook by which Leviathan, the devil, is captured.42

In the twelfth century, with the full development of rhyme and the growing smoothness of versification, this figurative style reached its perfection; figures of interpretation were fused with figures of speech and sound; both covered sacred history with some sort of rhetorical and mystical embroidery.43 We begin with a eulogy from Adam de Saint-Victor’sAdam v. St. Victor sequence ‘In assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis’ (‘Gratulemur in hac die’):

This is still a comparatively unsophisticated example, for Adam describes the method he follows (vv. 35–36), and several lines (45, 47–48, 57) recall it; there is not a complete fusion between figuring and figured object. Besides the play of the rhyme, the figures of speech and sound are not too striking. Yet the typological allusions need some commentary.