 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture O GLORIOSA FEMINA The second part of our hymn (Quem terra, pontus, aethera) is used as the hymn for Lauds on the same feast. It first verse runs as follows: O gloriosa femina excelsa super sidera qui te creavit provide lactas sacrato ubere. A translation of this is found in the English Hymnal, no. 215. This version is not by J.M. Neale, but by Percy Dearmer: O glorious Maid, exalted far Beyond the light of burning star, From Him who made thee thou hast won Grace to be Mother of his Son. The breviaries have ‘domina’ instead of ‘femina’. I would take ‘femina’ to be the original, not only because Raby prints it so, but because we see a familar process whereby the breviaries tend to tart up the original poems, making them politer, more classical, more ‘correct’. ‘Domina’ is a rather more polite title for Mary – we still talk of ‘Our Lady’ rather than ‘Our Woman.’ I find it difficult to construe lines three and four. They begin, ‘He who made you, providently’ – He, that is, God, being the subject; but then concludes ‘you suckle from your consecrated breast.’ So far as I can see, the relative should be in the accusative, ‘Quem’; or else a passive verb should be used in the final line: ‘is suckled.’ It’s a pretty elementary error; I remember making a similar one, aged 12, and getting a right telling-off from my teacher. I find it hard to believe that such an accomplished author would make such a blunder, or that if he had, it would not have been corrected in the breviaries, so anxious to improve on and polish up their originals. Putting that aside, note the physicality of the image, so carefully avoided in the English translation. The attention has moved from Mary’s womb to her breast, but still the hymn celebrates the intimate union between Mary’s flesh and God’s flesh. Quod Eva tristis abstulit tu reddis almo germine, intrent ut astra flebiles, caeli fenestra facta es. Dearmer: That which was lost in hapless Eve Thy holy Scion did retrieve; the tear-worn sons of Adam’s race Through thee have seen the heavenly place. Note again the comparison between Mary and Eve. ‘Scion’ is a reasonable enough translation for ‘germen’, which can mean ‘bud’ or ‘graft’ but also means an unborn child. There is perhaps a suggestion of Isaiah 11:1 ‘Et egredietur virga de radice Iesse’ though Isaiah does not actually use the word ‘germen.’ Note that the English slightly tones down Mary’s role. More literally, ‘What unhappy Eve lost, you give back through your bountiful scion.’ The English does not leave Mary as the subject. Note that Mary is called ‘caeli fenestra’ ‘the window of heaven.’ Marian literature abounds with images of Mary as the gateway, portal, window or whatever opening one may devise, through which God enters the created universe and his creatures enter heaven. Think of the line from ‘Angelus ad virginem’: ‘Tu, porta caeli facta.’ This idea occurs a couple more times in the final verse: Tu regis alti ianua et porta lucis fulgida; vitam datam per virginem, gentes redemptae, plaudite. Dearmer: Thou wast the gate of Heaven’s high Lord, the door through which the light hath poured. Christians rejoice, for through a Maid To all mankind is life conveyed. Or if you want a more literal translation, ‘You are the gate of the high king, and the shining door of light; redeemed peoples, applaud the life given through the Virgin.’ We see again the images gate, door, and in the preposition ‘per’ the idea that the Virgin is the channel through which life passes to us. The idea of light (especially in close association with life, vita) passing through this door perhaps suggests John 1:4-5 In ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum: Et lux in tenebris lucet . . . The idea of uncreated light breaking through into the created universe may lie behind the rather curious responsory for Matins on the feast of the Annunciation: ‘The angel Gabriel Gabriel was sent to announce the word to Mary, a virgin betrothed to Joseph, and she began to fear the light.’ (Latin: expavescit virgo de lumine.) Luke’s account of the Annunciation (Luke 1:26-38) makes no mention of light, though it does say that Mary was disturbed by his words (turbata est in sermone eius). Eamonn O Carragain, in Ritual and the Rood, note 46 on page 113, mentions a theory that the phrase may originally have read ‘de numine’ (because of the divinity) rather than ‘de lumine’. Without having seen the article he mentions, I find the suggestion rather improbable; ‘light’ fits far better into the cluster of ideas associated with the Annunciation. A beam of light often appears in pictures of the Annunciation, but I do not know of any early enough to have influenced the responsory. No doubt others can remedy my ignorance. A doxology appears in the breviaries, but it need not detain us. Bill. --------------------------------- All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html