Part 6

What then was the original function of our legend of the Assumption? The _evangelium_ and the homily, as we have seen, still retained their places, in part at least, in the _temporal_, where the Assumption would belong, but were supplemented by legendary anecdotes, or even by entire legends. Was our poem originally intended for a place in the religious service, or was it rather a lyrico-romantic production with a sacred theme? What was the original purpose of the poem, it is not easy to determine. In actual use, however, it seems to have played a double role. In two of the six MSS. in which the present version of the story is preserved (viz. the Chetham MS. and Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2.), the legend is associated with romances, and we must infer that it is the romantic quality of the legend that has appealed to the collectors. (Cf. also the slightly different version in the Auchinleck MS.) In the other four MSS., however, the associations, as will be seen later, are distinctly religious, though Harl. MS. 2382 seems rather a literary collection than one designed for church use. In all of the MSS. the poem is referred to as a tale (cf. Harl. MS. 2253, near the end, where occurs the line, _This tale y haue tolde wit mouthe_), and as a _lesson_, that is to say a ‘reading,’ and if we may judge by the general tone of the different versions, the place for this ‘reading’ was quite likely the church. Even if the reading was not confined to the church, it usually was of a professionally religious character as we must judge from the remarkable conclusion in Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036:

We biseche þee for alle þat hereþ þis vie Off oure ladi seynt marie, That Ih{es}u schelde hem fram g{ra}me Fro dedly synne {and} fro schame, Ne mysauenture schal bi falle þ{a}t man That þis a vie here can. Ne no womman þat ilke dai, That of oure ladi hereþ þis lai, Dien ne schal of hure childe; For oure ladi hure schal be mylde. Ne noone mys-auenture schall be-falle, In felde, in strete, ne in halle, In stede þer þis vie is rad, For oure ladi hure sone it bad, And þe archibisshop, seynt Edmou{n}d, Haþ g{ra}unted xl. daies to p{ar}dou{n} To alle þat þis vie wol here, Or with good wille wol lere. vv. 879-896.

§ 5. ORIGIN.

The legend of the Assumption, according to ten Brink (Geschichte der engl. Litt. I, p. 331), had its origin in the second half of the 4th century. Tischendorf (Act. Apocr. p. xxxiv, Leipzig, 1866) believes a still earlier origin to be not impossible. The story had a wide circulation in the East. Besides the Greek versions we know (cf. F. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, pp. pp. 1-33) of three Syriac, one Arabic, and one Sahidic version. Even in Ethiopia there exists a similar tale (Journ. of Sacr. Lit. and Bibl. Rec., Jan. 1865, p. 48). From the orient the legend spread into the literatures of western Christendom. Tischendorf (as above, p. xliii.) gives a list of a dozen Latin manuscripts of the legend, and from these he offers critical editions of two versions, which, with Gierth, we may indicate as: (1) _Transitus Mariae_, #A# (Tischendorf, pp. 113 ff.) in Latin prose; (2) _Transitus Mariae_, #B#, a fuller version differing from #A# in some respects, notably in the absence of the scene in which Thomas appears.

Other Latin versions are those published by Th. Graesse: (1) The section, _De assumtione beatae Mariae virginis in Jacobi a Voragine Legenda Aurea_,[I-23] ed. Th. Graesse, _Dresdae et Lipsiae_, 1846, pp. 504 ff., (2) _De modo assumtionis beatae Mariae_, published by Graesse, as above, pp. 517 ff.

In French may be mentioned the version by Wace (_L’Établissement de la fête de la conception Nôtre-Dame dite la fête aux Normands_. Caen, 1842, or, in another edition, _Vie de la vierge Marie_, Tours, 1859). For account of other unpublished French versions cf. E. Stengel, _Mittheilungen aus franz. hss._, etc., Halle, 1873, pp. 20 ff.

In German we may mention the version by Conrad v. Heimesfurt, about 1200 (HZ. viii, pp. 150 ff.).

Our story in its present form seems to have made its first appearance in England in the French version, above mentioned, by Wace, in the second quarter of the 12th century. (Cf. however, _Assumptio sanctae Mariae virginis_, Blickling Homilies, E.E.T.S. 58, 63, 73.) Of an English version of the present form of the legend, for English hearers, we have no trace before the middle of the following century, from which it seems we are to infer that the legend remained the property of the French clericals about a century before coming into general circulation in the English-speaking world. This earliest English version of the story is the one of the present edition in short riming couplets.

What then was the source of this earliest English version? Was it derived from Wace, or does it rest on one of the Latin versions? Wace’s poem consists of three parts (cf. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, p. 6): (1) the institution of the feast of the Conception of Mary, (2) her birth, rearing and marriage, (3) her death and burial. For the first part his source seems to have been the _Miraculum de conceptione sanctae Mariae_; for the second part, the _Evangelium de nativitate Sanctae Mariae_. About these two works, which he has followed almost word for word, Wace grouped a number of minor anecdotes and commentary notes from Anselm, Eadmer, and other of the church writers of the 11th and 12th centuries. For part (3) Wace seems certainly to have used the Latin version of the story, designated by Tischendorf as _Transitus Mariae_, #B#.

The English version has in common with Wace’s poem some traits that in the other versions are wanting. For instance, only in these two versions is it related that Mary cared for and instructed the maidens in the temple. (Engl. vv. 60 ff.) Another feature in common is contained in the speech of Christ to his mother shortly before her death, in which he promises her, _La porte d’aidier auras A trestous ceus que tu vorras_ (Wace, p. 71, vv. 6, 7), which the English poet seems to have expanded into a number of verses, in which is promised pardon to every sinner who will betake himself to Mary.

On the other hand, in several instances the English agrees more closely with the Latin, where Wace has considerably abridged, and in these instances the French cannot have been the original of the English poem. A Latin original seems much more probable. The first two-thirds of the English poem corresponds almost exactly with the Tischendorf Latin #B# version. On the other hand, the introduction of Thomas in the last one-third of the poem is a feature of the Latin #A# version, but is foreign to #B#. In other respects the English poem corresponds more closely to a third Latin version from which Tischendorf quotes variants, the _Codex Laurentius_. The English has in common with the _Legenda Aurea_ the peculiar trait of making no mention of the miraculous transit of John from Ephesus. Again, some traits in Latin #B# do not appear in the English version, and, on the other hand, the English version contains a few traits not to be found in any of the other versions spoken of.

From the above we must conclude either that the English version rests on a very composite version of which we do not know, or that the composer of the English version was very eclectic, and selected his material from very different sources. The latter explanation seems the more probable one. In this connection it is important to note an observation first made by Zarncke and afterwards corroborated by Kölbing (Engl. Stud. ii, pp. 281-2) that the different prose versions of legends influence each other reciprocally, producing mixed or composite forms of the legend (_mischredactionen_) whose exact descent it is impossible to trace. It is here that the learned element makes itself felt and differentiates the tradition of a legend from the tradition of a romance or of a song. The influence of this learned element we must probably assume in explaining the tradition of our legend of the Assumption, which seems to be a _mischredaction_.

[Footnote I-23: A legend cycle composed in Latin prose by the Italian Jacobus a Voragine, Bishop of Genoa.]

§ 6. OTHER ENGLISH VERSIONS.

The story of the Assumption seems to have circulated, as we have seen, both as a romantic story and as a devout legend. It must have been in the first of these two _rôles_ that it was admitted to the famous collection of romances in the Auchinleck MS. Here the story appears in a new dress, composed in six-line strophes, with _rime couée_, probably under the influence of the ballad singers. The content of this version (cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Stud. viii, pp. 428 ff.) seems to be substantially that of the earlier version of the present volume. The first stanza of this version is,--

Who so bereȝ palm, þe tokne is þis, Þat in clene lif he is; Þat is to vnderstonde: Hit is tokning of loue, Þat god him haueȝ wraththe forȝoue, Þat bereȝ palm on honde.

The Assumption also forms a member of the Southern cycle of legends, which go to form a legendary. In this _rôle_ it appears in Harl. MS. 2277, “a parchment book in a long 4to, imperfect at the beginning and elsewhere; which formerly contained the legends of the Saints, etc., according to the course of the year, written in very old English verse.... The handwriting of this MS. seems to be older than that year” (1320). The MS. contains 69 legends, of which number 38 is _Assumpcio S. Marie_, in 246 long riming lines, the first two of which are,--

Seinte marie godes moder : f{ra}m þaposteles nas noȝt Þo þe holi gost a wit sonedai : among hem was ibroȝt.

This version seems to rest on the _Legenda Aurea_[I-24] as an original, although the incident of the tardy arrival of Thomas, which is contained in the Latin, is wanting in this version.

This same version appears in a later MS., Bodl. 779,[I-25] of the 16th century. In this MS. the legend cycle is greatly extended by the addition of a whole new series of legends. The number of legends in this MS. reaches the number of 135, of which the version of the Assumption is number 57.

Another version of our legend is that belonging to the Northern legend cycle, and preserved in two MSS.: Harl. 4196 and Cott. Tiber. E. VII,[I-26] of which the latter is the older, but the former the more complete. These two texts correspond word for word, and apart from possible scribal blunder, letter for letter, abbreviation for abbreviation. Harl. MS. 4196 is a large folio on parchment, evidently of about the middle of the 14th century, and written in a beautiful large hand of the Northern type. It has 258 double-columned leaves, and contains (1) several parts of the gospel in verse, which end at fol. 132 _a_, then after a blank page, (2) collection of legends in verse, with special title and an introduction of eight verses (folios 133-205), then as a sort of appendix, (3) a metrical gospel of Nicodemus (folios 206-215 _a_), and (4) the Prick of Conscience in verse. This version, which appears as number 8 in the second division, the legend collection of the Harl. MS., and whose text is identical in the two MSS. above mentioned, opens as follows,--

Of mari milde now will I mene Þat of all heuyns es corond quene And lady of all erth to tell And also Emp{er}ise of hell.

Another version belonging to the Southern cycle is that contained in the younger MS. of this cycle, Lambeth MS. 223, a 4to parchment from the beginning of the 15th century. (Cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xlvii. and Notes.) In this MS. the Assumption appears, not in the legendary itself, but as the fifth and last division in the _temporal_, which is prefixed to the Southern cycle of legends. This version has frequent rimes within the verse, and the last half verse has four stresses. The version agrees in many respects with the Northern one just described and also with the earlier Southern version, the one of our present volume. The opening lines are as follows,--

Herkkenes alle gode men, ȝif ȝe ben wise and slye And I wole to ȝow rede þe assumpcioun of Marie How she was from erþe taken into heuen on hegh And þere she shal euer wone and sitte Ihesu negh.

Another English version of our legend is that incorporated into the Cursor Mundi (vv. 19993-20064). This version is translated into a Northern dialect from a Southern English poem. (Cf. Cursor Mundi, ed. by R. Morris, Introduction by Dr. Haenisch, pp. 42 ff.)

And sant edmund o ponteni Dais o pardun þam gis tuenti In a writt þis ilk i fand, He-self it wroght, ic understand. In sotherin englis was it draun And turnd it haue i till our aun Langage o northrin lede, Þat can nan oþer englis rede. vv. 20057-64.

The poet of Cursor Mundi follows the Southern author nearly line for line, so that there cannot be the slightest doubt that he refers to the Southern English version of the present volume. But now and then he has made additions, for some of which Haenisch finds no source. (Horstmann believes this version to have been translated from Wace.)

The fact that the poet of Cursor Mundi “attributes his original to Edmund of Pontenay was caused by a misunderstanding of the lines 893-96 of the SE. Assumption” (Haenisch).

Cursor Mundi, vv. 20057-60.

And sant edmund o ponteni Dais o pardun þam gis tuenti; In a writt þis ilk i fand He self it wroght, ic understand.

Assumption, vv. 893-6.

And þe archibisshop seynt Edmound Haþ graunted xl. daies to pardoun To alle þat þis vie wol here Or with good wille wol lere.

Still another version, which formed part of a work by Barbour, the author of the Scotch collection of legends, is mentioned in his prologue, but, along with the rest of this work referred to, is unfortunately lost.

Still further deserving of mention are (1) the prose version contained in the ‘Festial’ of Johannes Mirkus (Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. cix. ff.), a collection of sermons, derived for the most part from the _Legenda Aurea_ and written about 1400 for the festivals of the church, Festae Christi and Saints’ days;[I-27] and (2) that contained in the English translation of the _Legenda Aurea_ (cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. cxxx ff.). “The Assumption of oure ladi” stands 111 in Harl. MS. 4775.

The above enumeration of versions of our legend will demonstrate effectively its popularity in England, also its use in the service of the church. Further investigation is needed to determine more exactly the interrelations of the various versions, though it is doubtful if such an investigation would produce any very conclusive results, since, as suggested above, many versions of the legends were probably mixed versions (_mischredactionen_).

[Footnote I-24: Cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Studien, viii, pp. 461 ff. But cf. ten Brink, I, p. 336; Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xxxix.]

[Footnote I-25: Cf. C. Horstmann, Altengl. Legenden, p. xxxiv, Paderborn, 1875.]

[Footnote I-26: Cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, pp. lxxviii ff., Text, pp. 112 ff.]

[Footnote I-27: The sermons are arranged according to the calendar, so that here the book of homilies and the legendary are at length completely formed into one. In the oldest and best MS., Cott. Claud. A. II, the Assumption is number 52.]

§ 7. MANUSCRIPTS.

The earliest English version, the one of the present volume, is known to exist in six manuscripts.

1. Cambr. Univ. MS. Gg. 4. 27. 2. (For description cf. introduction to King Horn, p. xxviii.) This fragmentary text (240 lines) is printed in the present volume.

2. Chetham MS. 8009, Manchester, a collection of romances and legends. (For description cf. Engl. Stud. vii, 195 ff., viii, pp. 1 ff.)

3. Cambr. Univ. MS. Dd. 1. 1., a long narrow MS. from about the middle of the 14th century and written in a large, informal, very legible hand. The content of the MS. is the Northern collection of _Evangelia dominicalia_, with which is included, in addition to the sermons with legends attached for the festivals of John and Peter and Paul, also our Southern legend poem of the Assumption, which is perhaps to be attributed to the scribe (named Staundon), who is Southern. (For a full account of this MS. cf. Horstmann, Neue Folge, p. xxvi. and pp. lxvii. ff.) This text of 544 verses has not been printed.

4. Cambr. Univ. MS. Ff. 2. 38, a paper MS. in an informal but legible hand by a Southern scribe. It contains miscellaneous religious writings, the list of which I neglected to copy. Our poem is followed by “þe lyfe of seynt Kateryn.” This text of 770 verses has not been printed.

5. Harl. MS. 2382, a paper book in 4to, in an informal hand, and containing nine miscellaneous theological poems by Lydgate, Chaucer, etc. Poem number 1 is Lydgate’s Life of the Virgin Mary, four books at the end of which stands this note, _Explicit quartus liber de sancta Maria_. The second poem is our present version of the Assumption, evidently the end of a sequel to Lydgate’s poem, for at the end stands the note, _Explicit Sextus liber Sancte Marie_, which shows that two other books were added to the original four of Lydgate, written in stanzas, to King Henry V. The other contents of this MS. seem also to be literary, and are as follows: 3. _Oracio ad Sanctam Mariam_, 4. _The Testament of Dan Johan Lydgate_, 5. _Fabula Mornalis de Sancta Maria_, Chaucer’s Prioress’s Tale, 6. _Vita Sancte Cecilie_, Chaucer’s Second Nonne’s Tale, 7. _De Sancto Erasmo Martire_, 8. _Testamentum Cristi_, 9. _The Childe of Bristow_. This text of 710 verses is in part reprinted in the present volume.

6. Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036, a small parchment volume (about 8 × 4) of 100 folios, written in black letter, perhaps in the second half of the 14th century, and containing a miscellaneous religious collection: (1) History of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian (ff. 1-61), (2) The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (ff. 62-80), (3) A question of the peynes of helle (prose, ff. 81-84), (4) Here bigynneth the thre arowis that God schal schete at domys-dais apon hem that schullen be dampned (prose, ff. 85-91), (5) The seven petitions in the Pater Noster (prose, ff. 91-94), (6) Ave Maria, Pardons and Indulgences for repeating (prose, f. 94), (7) Ten Commandments trans. and expl. (prose, ff. 94-96), (8) The 51st Psalm, _Miserere mei_, trans. into English verse (96-100). This text, in 904 verses, is printed in the present volume.

If for the sake of conformity with the German investigations, we designate Cambr. MS. Gg. 9. 27. 2. as #A#, Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 10036 as #B#, Harl. MS. 2382 as #C#, Cambr. MS. Dd. 1. 1. as #D#, Cambr. MS. Ff. 2. 38. as #E#, and Chetham MS. as #Ch.#, then the interrelations of the different texts of this version are about as follows (F. Gierth, Engl. Stud. vii, pp. 1 ff.). #A# and #B# form a special group as opposed to #C#, #D#, #E#, on the one hand, and to #Ch.# alone, on the other. No one of these versions is the direct source of any other. The different texts may be characterized somewhat as follows:

#A# offers the best text as far as it goes.

#B# introduces many important changes, and seems to be somewhat confused in the order of events, but in the passages preserved intact, preserves the text and the rime better than do #C#, #D#, or #E#.

#C# gives best the true course of the story, but often alters the rime, in particular, individual rime words.

#D# has many gaps, and is particularly defective after the entrance on the scene of Thomas.

#E# stands in closer relation to #D# than to #C#, and often takes an intermediate position between #C# and #D#. #Ch.# (cf. M. Schwarz, Engl. Stud. viii, p. 460) we must regard as a compilation of different MSS., and owes its origin perhaps to oral tradition. In the case of #Ch.#, as in the case of the other texts of this version, it will be safer not to set up any diagram representing the interrelations of MSS., since these MSS. are no doubt all of them influenced by written as well as by oral tradition, and, as has been pointed out above, there is at least a possibility, as in the case of #Ch.#, of mixed versions. In dealing with legend, even less than in dealing with romance, does one have to do with a purely epic growth.

§ 8. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.

We have already seen that the author of Cursor Mundi attributes the authorship of this version of the Assumption to Edmund of Pontenay (pp. liii, liv, above). But we have also seen the probable source of his error. In one thing the Northern writer is no doubt right, when he says (v. 20061), “In sotherin englis was it draun.” The poem is undoubtedly Southern in origin. To gain more definite knowledge is not easy. The rimes, our usual guide in such cases, in this poem are very uncertain. The writer’s ear seems to have been not a delicate one. He does not distinguish carefully open _ę̨̄_ and close _ẹ̄_, e.g. _here_ : _lere_ 4 Add., _wel_ : _del_ 212 C, 206 D, 218 Add., 256 C, 262 Add., _were_ : _here_ 716 Add., etc.

In a similar way he does not distinguish carefully open _ǭ_ and close _ọ̄_, e.g. _gone_ : _done_ 86 Add., 594 H, _done_ : _one_ 416 Add., 562 H, 588 H, 750 Add., _anon_ : _done_ 530 Add., _sloo_ : _doo_ 508 H, _þo_ : _do_ 262 D, etc. In consequence we are not able to apply the _-wǭ-_, _-wọ̄-_ test with any degree of certainty. OE. _-wā_ rimes, now with _ǭ_, now with _ọ̄_, e.g. _fro_ : _so_ 342 Add., 324 D, _so_ : _fo_ 374 Add., _tho_ : _so_ 278 H, _also_ : _mo_ 17 C, etc.; but _so_ : _to_ 179 C, 184 Add., 214 C, 296 C, 300 Add., 314 H, 344 Add., 718 Add., 904 Add., _atwo_ : _do_ 280 H, _whom_ : _come_ 306 F (_wham_ : _cam_ 336 Add.), etc.

In the same way OE. _æ_, and shortened OE. _ǣ_, rimes now with _a_, now with _e_, e.g. _was_ : _gracias_ 310 Add., 774 Add., _Thomas_ : _was_ 656 C, _Iosephas_ : _was_ 582 H; but _fless_ : _was_ 34 C, _best_ : _lest_ 392 H, _fed_ : _bed_ 124 C, 132 A, _les_ : _wes_ 566 D.

In the same way OE. _y_ rimes now with _e_, now with _i_, e.g. _stede_ : _dude_ 57 C, 62 Add., 88 Add., 800 Add., 82 C, 624 Add., _kyng_ : _geng_ 220 C, _him_ (= ‘them’) : _kyn_ 642 Add.; but _mankyne_ : _pyne_ 426 A, _Inne_ : _kynne_ 430 A, 478 A, 360 H, 338 D, 346 D, _it_ : _pytt_ 506 H, _þerynne_ : _synne_ 604 H, _blisse_ : _gladnesse_ 384 H, etc.

In the same way in the 3rd plur. pres. indic., the ending is sometimes _-eþ_, sometimes _-n_, e.g. _listneþ_ 8 C, _serueþ_ 418 H, _goth_ 476 H, 593 A, _buþ_ 22 C, 26 C, etc.; but _ben_ 25 A, _beon_ 141 C, 149 A, etc., and the rime _kenesmen_ : _ben_ 122 C, 130 A.

Details may be multiplied indefinitely to show the general Southern character of the language, _e.g._ the verbal endings in _-i_ or _-y_, as _blessi_ : _herkni_ 7, 8 C, _loky_ 47 C, _gladie_ 75 C, etc.; the infinitive preserving its final _-n_, as _quene_ : _bene_ 6 Add., _bene_ : _ysene_ 40 A, _gon_ : _on_ 140 C, _quen_ : _ben_ 98 C, 104 A, 114 C, 120 A, etc.; but _beo_ : _gleo_ 10 C, etc.; the present participle in _-and_, as _lepand_ : _hande_ 614 A, etc.; the use of the palatalized consonants, as in _yyeue_ 566 H, _ayene_ 597 H, etc.

The dialect then certainly is of the Southern part of England; but the rimes do not enable one to locate the dialect more exactly. The composition is undoubtedly that of a scholar in whom one might expect a wider range in pronunciation. Doubtless both Southern and Midland dialects were familiar to him. The pronunciation, however, of OE. _y_ as _e_ and of OE. _æ_ as _e_ belongs to the East Southern, and we shall probably be safe in calling the dialect a compromise between East Southern and East Midland.

The time of composition was probably not later than 1250. The OE. _ā_ had regularly changed to _ǭ_ (if we neglect an isolated instance like _thomas_ : _ras_ 822 A); but I find no certain instance of lengthening in open syllables, and further, the oldest MS. (C) is not much later than 1250, as we have seen. It preserves the unmonophthonged _eo_, e.g. _weop_ 29, _treo_ 35, _heo_ 36, _beo_ 37, _iseo_ 38, etc.