Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:39:59.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heinrici Augustensis Planctus Evae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Marvin L. Colker
Marvin L. Colker*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Fundamental to Christianity is the belief in the redemptive death of Christ. But not always has there been complete agreement among theologians as to the precise reason or reasons for Christ's death. For centuries the soteriology of the Church may be said to have been in large part demonocentric. The devil had certain rights over fallen man, rights which could not be violated, still less taken away. If his dominion over man was to be destroyed, it must be done not by any arbitrary exercise of the divine Omnipotence, but in a manner reasonable and just. Some theologians even spoke of Christ's death as a ransom paid to the devil for man's release. With varying nuance such ideas as these were dominant from the days of St. Irenaeus of Lyons' until the very end of the eleventh century, when St. Anselm of Canterbury struck out upon entirely new lines of thought. In his Cur Deus Homo new concepts were introduced into the discussion of the problem. By sin man had offended the infinite majesty of God: God's rights had been violated. Satisfaction must be made, and that by man, for it was he who had sinned. But since the infinite offence which we call sin could not really be atoned for by a finite creature, the necessary satisfaction called for a God-man.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 12 , 1956 , pp. 149 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘ Cette vieille sotériologie démonocentrique, à laquelle tant de Pères de l ’Église gardèrent un fidèle crédit’ (Jean Rivière, ‘Le Dogme de la Rédemption au xiie siècle d'après les dernières publications,’ Revue du Moyen Age latin 2 [1946] 102).Google Scholar

2 The opinion of so orthodox a theologian as Rivière is interesting: ‘le schéma fondé sur les droits du démon n'a que la signification d'une “excroissance doctrinale” ’ (DThC 13.1942), a phrase which would seem to go back to the Protestant theologian, Grétillat, A. (Rivière, Le Dogme de la Rédemption: Essai d’étude historique [Paris 1905] 485–486; English translation, The Doctrine of the Atonement [London and St. Louis 1909] II 239–240).Google Scholar

3 Rivière, , Le Dogme 373–394; English trans. II 111–135.Google Scholar

4 Rivière, , Le Dogme de la Rédemption : Etudes et critiques (Louvain 1931) 95–145.Google Scholar

5 ‘Historiens et théologiens de tous les bords sont unanimes à reconnaître que le Cur Deus Homo fait époque’ (DThC 13.1942). Google Scholar

6 Boso, Anselm's interlocutor, admits himself convinced of this in Book I, chapter 25 (the best critical edition of the work now is that of Francis de Sales Schmitt, O.S.B., S. Anselmi Opera Omnia II [Edinburgh 1946] 42–133). Google Scholar

7 Rivière would seem at one time to have considered the process a fairly rapid one (Le D. de la R. au début du Moyen Age [Paris 1934] 131–221), but see now his survey of the recent literature cited in note 1 supra; also De E. Clerck, O. S. B., ‘Questions de sotériologie médiévale,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 13 (1946) 150–184; 'Droits du démon et necessité de la Rédemption,’ ibid. 14 (1947) 32–64.Google Scholar

8 After 1125 (DThC 13.1944) and certainly before the Council of Sens (1140), which condemned Abelard's doctrines for the second time. Google Scholar

9 Petri Abelardi Opera . ed. Cousin, V., II (Paris 1859) 207; PL 178.836 A.Google Scholar

10 ed Cousin, loc. cit.; PL 178.836B. Google Scholar

11 But see Rivi, ère, Le Dogme de la Rédemption: Essai (see note 2 supra) 324–345 (ch. xix: Crise rationaliste et Réaction orthodoxe); English translation, II 54–78; also the lengthy discussion In the same author's work cited at the beginning of note 7 supra. Google Scholar

12 Lines 2159–2163. Google Scholar

13 There is nothing on the Planctus Euae or on Henry of Augsburg in the two works of Raby, F. J. E., A History of Christian Latin Poetry from the Beginnings to the Close of the Middle Ages (Oxford 1927; 2nd ed. 1953) and A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages (Oxford 1934), in Fridericus Stegmüller, Repertorium biblicum medii aeui (Madrid 1950–1955, 5 vols.), in Robbins, F. E., The Hexaemeral Literature: A Study of the Greek and Latin Commentaries on Genesis (diss., Chicago 1912). On the work and author see Huemer, Johann. Zur Geschichte der mittellateinischen Dichtung: Heinrici Augustensis Planctus Evae (Jahresbericht über das k. k. Staatsgymnasium im II. Bezirke in Wien für das Schuljahr 1890/91; Vienna 1891) 1–8. This rare Programm is the chief source for Max Manitius in his Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters II (Munich 1923) 615–618 and for Karl Langosch in Stammler, W. - Langosch, K., Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters; Verfasserlexikon II (Berlin and Leipzig 1936) 248–251.Google Scholar

14 Annales Augustani an. 1077 (ed. Pertz, G. H., MGH, SS 3.129).Google Scholar

15 Ibid . an. 1083 (130 Pertz.) Huemer (Mittellatein. Dichtung 1, 5–6) was the first to link the poet Henry of Augsburg with the passages quoted from the Annales Augustani. Google Scholar

16 See Wagenseil, C. J., Vollständige Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg von ihrem Ursprunge an (Augsburg 1871) 17–18 and Hugo Steiger, Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg (Munich and Berlin 1941) 51–52.Google Scholar

17 See the following paragraph. Google Scholar

18 In the explicit of the Planctus Euae; see infra on line 2066. Google Scholar

19 See the following two paragraphs. Google Scholar

20 Leuze, Otto, Das Augsburger Domkapitel im Mittelalter (diss., Augsburg 1908) 1 and Langosch, Verfasserlexikon II 248.Google Scholar

21 See Manitius, , Gesch. III (1931) 61–67 and Langosch, Verfasser lexikon III (1943) 1022–1040.Google Scholar

22 On the Bamberg codex see Leitschuh, Friedrich, Katalog der Handschriften der königlichen Bibliothek zu Bamberg I 1 (Bamberg 1895–1906) 150–151 and Bernhard Bischoff, ‘Zur Kritik der Heerwagenschen Ausgabe von Bedas Werken (Basel 1563),’ Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens 51 (1933) 175 n. 10.Google Scholar

23 Described in Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter Graecos et Orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asseruatorum I (Vienna 1864) 7. I have examlned the manuscript directly. Google Scholar

24 Described in Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis II 2 (Munich 1876) 183. Google Scholar

25 Ibid. II 3 (1878) 183–184.Google Scholar

26 By Huemer, Mittellatein. Dichtung 4.Google Scholar

27 Described in Tabulae I 187–188. Google Scholar

28 Ibid. I 60.Google Scholar

29 See the apparatus criticus, where it may be noted that the main scribe of V, correcting himself, gives the correct reading in four of the instances. Google Scholar

30 Cf. Manitius, , Gesch. II 617.Google Scholar

31 Verfasserlexikon , II 251.Google Scholar

32 See Werner, J. as cited infra on verses 500–501; also Mohlberg, C., O.S.B., Katalog der Handschriften der Zentralbibliothek Zürich I (1932) 31f.Google Scholar

33 ‘Man wird kaum fehl gehen, wenn man als Urheber der Hs. einen deutschen Kleriker betrachtet, der auf französischen Schulen, z.B. Orléans und Paris, studierte und diese Blätter gewissermassen als Frucht seiner wiederholten Studien nach Deutschland heimbrachte’ (Werner, Beitr ge 1); Mohlberg, loc. cit., reports that the book was copied by a single hand. According to Lehmann, P., Mittelalterliche Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz I (Munich 1918) 64.58, the copybook came to Zurich from St. Gall.Google Scholar

34 The same conclusion is suggested by the fact that the initial letters at these three places in V are of a large size not found elsewhere in the manuscript. Google Scholar

35 PL 91.9–190, see Stegmüller, , Repertorium II 174–175. For the possibility of an indirect use of Bede, see infra n. 42.Google Scholar

36 When, of certain works that treat of the subject matter of Genesis — the poems of Sedulius, Proba, Alcimus Avitus; the Hexaemeron of Ambrose and Bede's comentary on Genesis — Huemer observes (Mittellatein. Dichtung 7f.) ‘keines dieser Werke kann als directes Vorbild des Augsburger Magisters Heinrich bezeichnet werden,’ he fails to indicate the special importance of the work of Bede. Google Scholar

37 Manitius, , Gesch. II 615, exaggerates the remarks of Huemer.Google Scholar

38 Verfasserlexikon II 251, where once more no indication is given of the extensive borrowings from Bede.Google Scholar

39 Laistner, M. L. W. and King, H. H., A Handlist of Bede Manuscripts (Ithaca 1943) 41f.Google Scholar

40 PL 91.189–286; see Stegm, üller, Repertorium II 186–187.Google Scholar

41 See infra, on verses 603–604 (cf. n. on 2170–2174). Google Scholar

42 For Augustine and Ambrose see the references given in the Index, infra p. 230.Google Scholar

Henry's source for the legend of Jubal and the two columns — infra, verses 1839–1842 — has yet to be exactly determined. Of the versions given by Miss Lutz in Medievalia et Humanistica 10.47–49, those of Hrabanus Maurus (PL 107.508) and Walafrid Strabo (PL 113. 101), together with that found in a Genesis commentary ascribed to Remigius of Auxerre (PL 131.71), all or any one, seem possible as sources. In regard to Hrabanus Maurus it may be said, in passing, that his In Genesim embraces not a little of Bede's Hexaemeron and could, then, have been Henry's source in some instances rather than Bede's work itself. Thorough comparisons must be made before a final decision can be voiced.

Of line 1622 Huemer reported (Mittellatein. Dichtung 7 n. 1) that it appears ‘im Cod. Paris. 241 s. IX, f. 223a,’ but MS Paris, B.N. lat. 241 is not of the ninth century and does not contain as many as 223 leaves. —Consequently, the nature of the borrowing that Huemer implied in the case of this line can only be determined when his inexact reference is clarified.

43 Obinde has been reported as having the meaning of the French en in a document of 1057 in the Cartulary of San Vicente of Oviedo (ed. Serrano, L. [Madrid 1929] 64): so Jennings, A. C., A Linguistic Study of the Cartulario de San Vicente de Oviedo (diss., New York 1940) 307; but in the passage in question it appears that there too obinde may instead be equivalent to idcirco, this time resumptive of a preceding causal clause.Google Scholar

44 Denis, Michael, Codices manuscripti theologici Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis latini I 1 (Vienna 1793) 390–394.Google Scholar

45 Mittellatein. Dichtung (see supra n. 1).Google Scholar

46 Ibid. 6–7.Google Scholar

47 Ibid. 8.Google Scholar

48 Gesch. II 617f.Google Scholar

49 In both parts of the apparatus and throughout this study, lines of the Planctus Euae are cited, in unparenthesized numbers, according to the verse arrangement in F; parenthesized numbers are used only when reference must be made to lines found in V but wanting in F. Google Scholar