Voice in the Dramas of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim Tara A

Home , Canoness, Gandersheim Abbey, Hrotsvitha, Marie de France, Prefaces

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2014 Voice in the Dramas of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim Tara A. Bonds

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

VOICE IN THE DRAMAS OF

HROTSVIT OF GANDERSHEIM

TARA A. BONDS

A Dissertation submitted to the Program in Interdisciplinary Humanities in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2014

Tara A. Bonds defended this dissertation on October 9, 2014. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Laurel Fulkerson Professor Directing Dissertation

Tim Stover University Representative

Martin Kavka Committee Member

David Johnson Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... iv

CHAPTER ONE - Hrotsvit’s Background and Project Outline ...... 1

CHAPTER TWO - Hrotsvit’s Relationship with Terence; History of Scholarly Perception of Hrotsvit; and the Rhetoric of the Humility Topos ...... 26

CHAPTER THREE - Hrotsvit’s Interplay with Terence: The Themes of Female Subjectivity and Voice, Marriage, Disguise and Parental Figures ...... 58

CHAPTER FOUR - Hrotsvit’s Female Subjectivity and Voice versus the Hagiographical Sources; The Unspoken Challenge ...... 96

EPILOGUE ...... 126

APPENDICES ...... 131 A.Timeline of Authors ...... 131 B.Important Events in the Ottonian Empire and Gandersheim Abbey ...... 132 C.List of Manuscripts...... 133 D.The Plots of Terence’s Plays ...... 135 E.Hrotsvit’s Writings ...... 137 F.Hrotsvit’s Latin Passages for Chapter 4 ...... 138

REFERENCES ...... 143

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 148

iii

ABSTRACT

This doctoral thesis studies the life and writings of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim, a 10th century Saxon canoness within the Ottonian Empire. Hrotsvit’s decision to write, and thus enter the male-dominated literary realm, places her within a unique category. This canoness’ writings explore her perceptions of the worth of the Christian female in subjectivity and voice. Although her stated purpose for her dramas was to compete with the Roman poet, Terence, she also sought to provide female characters with strengths and choices not given to other female characters in either the Classical or medieval tradition. This project aims to study Hrotsvit’s six dramas, as compared with Terence’s six plays, in terms of the canoness’ interplay with thematic inversion and subversion. This paper will delve into Hrotsvit’s background in order to hypothesize as to her ambitions and goals. It will also analyze the canoness’ forms of inversion and subversion within both writers’ prologues, focusing on the humility topos as understood in Classical times and medieval times. This thesis also will study the themes of female subjectivity and voice within the literary structures of disguise, marriage, and parental figures. Lastly, this dissertation will analyze the themes of female subjectivity and voice within Hrotsvit’s dramas as compared to the hagiographical sources she used as her source material, in order to posit that the canoness not only openly challenged Terence, but also obliquely challenged the representation of women from the hagiographical literature.

CHAPTER 1 HROTSVIT’S BACKGROUND & PROJECT OUTLINE

During the latter half of the tenth century, within the Ottonian Empire there existed a royal abbey called Gandersheim. Housed within the walls of the abbey, a Benedictine canoness lived. She came from nobility, and knew a sheltered life. From Gandersheim, the canoness had access to the royal Ottonian court, a place of intellectual enlightenment on the one hand, and brutal war campaigns on the other. Yet it was here and within the library walls of Gandersheim that the canoness discovered knowledge of Classical authors alongside the teachings of the Church and stories of its saints. She might have had access to books and teachings that only a few select female contemporaries would have shared.1 But, this woman felt compelled to do more than just read, more than just satiate her own desire for knowledge. This canoness believed it was her duty to accept her God-given talent and use it to aid fellow Christians in their faith and understanding. Stepping outside the acceptable boundaries of her female role, she chose to express her religious beliefs in writing as only a few other women before her, a jurisdiction of rights that fell within the realm of the male sphere. She covered her decision with a mantle of Christian obligation and asserted her own female unworthiness. The former she truly believed in, if we take her writings and prologues at face value. The latter she did not actually believe in, again, if her writings and prologues are taken as fact, since she subverts her claims to inferiority in a number of ways. She used her intelligence to step into a male regime, and by employing a clever dual approach to any resistance to her writings and utilizing the rhetoric of Christianity, she proactively diminished the possibility of criticism and/or punition for her unorthodox actions. Had the canoness just written tales about saints, like other hagiographers of the time, she still would have stood out based on the fact that as a writing woman, she challenged the status quo. She, however, did not just write standard stories. She demanded a great deal more from herself than just replicating the same forms of literary characters as presented by male writers. Rather, she chose to challenge the presentation of fellow women in literature, a huge

1 At the time of Hrotsvit’s writings, women did not have the same privileges as men. We have very few instances of western women writers in the periods preceding Hrotsvit. Dhuoda wrote a century before Hrotsvit, indicating that certain wealthy women did have access to education, but her Liber Manualis was albeitly written for her oldest son, not for a wider assimilation. 1 undertaking. Women’s roles in literature, both from Classical sources and hagiographical sources were simple and static. Women were objects: whether they were Christian saints or pagan sinners, it did not matter.2 So, she decided to write stories wherein the women had meaning, purpose and the right to decide their own fates. And, she brilliantly managed to pull off this coup by playing within the strictures of genre. She did not create female characters whose strength was an affront to men; instead she crafted female characters whose strength derived from their chastity and Christian faith. In this, she is likely to have built upon hints present in the sources (such as the powerful female Christian martyr St. Perpetua), but also she knew women who, in their own spheres, exerted power. But focusing on martyrs and saints meant that her characters could only be accused of being strong in Christ, which was an unlikely accusation in the context of the spread of Christianity in Europe at this time. Even here, however, the canoness from Gandersheim did more than just trespass into the near-exclusively male club of writing. She went beyond mimicking the expected passivity of literary female characters and opened a door to a new representation of women as subjects. Beyond these two significant breaks in the status quo, she decided to challenge one of the best- known Roman authors in his own arena. Understanding that a pagan Roman author’s plays about lascivious and immoral characters intrigued many contemporary Christians, she decided to supplant him. She would write plays in his style and in meter, and within them twist and turn the Roman poet’s plots and unsavory characters into the opposite: she provided an offer of salvation and a cast of proper Christians. Engaging in a multi-layered contest with the playwright, Publius Terentius Afer, the canoness sought, and perhaps even achieved, victory over her opponent. Her plays told of holy women who overcame all earthly obstacles to maintain their own beliefs, and reach heavenly grace and salvation. This was truly an extraordinary individual. Her name was Hrotsvit.

2 There do exist a small handful of instances wherein women were not presented as objects, such as the The Passion of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas and their Companions. Although there is some debate as to whether Perpetua actually wrote the narrative, most scholars do believe that the 3rd century martyr did write it. From her first person perspective, Perpetua subjectively tells of her imprisonment and vision. 2

Introduction This project, a doctoral dissertation, targets those interested in women’s history as its audience. This paper will study Hrotsvit’s campaign against Terence as discerned through a few thematic filters, and her treatment of female literary representation as it existed in both the pagan and the Christian literary traditions to that point. Hrotsvit of Gandersheim is a truly fascinating object of study, a woman stepping outside the boundaries of her social strictures in order to create a literary form not seen since antiquity and not to be seen again until the 15th century. We have scant evidence about Hrotsvit, but her ambition and vision, especially considering the time in which she lived, demands further analysis. Those interested in women’s studies would benefit from the study of Hrotsvit, so that they might try to understand why she chose to write and why she chose to write what she did. Her culture, both centered within the Ottonian Empire in large, and within Gandersheim Abbey must be taken into account when trying to discover more about the canoness’ ambitious decisions. Women’s studies need to further analyze Hrotsvit and her writings, in my opinion. She is still a very important person for modern society to study. Hrotsvit offers us a lens through which we can view one Germanic 10th century woman’s thought about the worthiness of Christian women. Through her contest with Terence’s female characters and her departures from the saints’ lives in her presentations of the same characters, Hrotsvit provides modern audiences with her personal opinions on the value of her own gender. She attempted to demonstrate the strength of women, in character and speech, and to show that through their relationship with the Christian God, they were much more than normally depicted. Hrotsvit proffered female characters that denied the role of objectied pawn and instead stood as focus of each drama. With this audience in mind, all of Hrotsvit’s writings are given first in the Latin, and then translated into English. For these Latin translations, I used Katarina Wilson’s translations since they are widely accepted and cited by other Hrotsvit scholars. For Terence’s plays, I used Peter Brown’s and John Barbsy’s translations.

Who was this Medieval Rarity?

“Hrotswitha was… the first medieval poet who made a conscious attempt to remold the image of women found in ancient literary depictions. It has continued to amaze her critics and commentators that a woman of her background, education, and religious situation would have the ingenuity, creativity, and boldness to try to provide a human and humane

characterization of women within a Christian theological context. In her plays, she was able to mediate with marvelous facility among the generic and aesthetic demands of her dramas, the strictures of her religious life, and the historical reality of the legends upon which her plays are based and, at the same time, to use these plays as a vehicle for a redefinition of women’s qualities, characters, and motivations”3

Hrotsvit of Gandersheim is a figure shrouded in mystery. A tenth century Benedictine canoness from Saxony, Hrotsvit intrigues modern scholars a millennium after her life and death. Hrotsvit existed in a patriarchal world where her biological designation as a woman made her a person of perceived inferior status and ability. Yet Hrotsvit decided to venture beyond her social boundaries. Modern scholarship is fascinated with this woman for a variety of reasons; first among these are her writings. Like Dhuoda before her and Hildegard of Bingen after her, Hrotsvit sought to enter the strictly masculine realm of literature. Hrotsvit wrote legends, plays and historical writings that sought to refashion liturgical and pagan literature in order to transform the female characters’ negative aspects into positive ones, and to position the value of Christian thought in regards to chastity and martyrdom above that of Roman pagan treatment. This proto-feministic feature of her work calls attention to Hrotsvit primarily due to the fact that such writings were an anomaly during her time within the High Middle Ages. Whether her dramas were performed or not,4 Hrotsvit’s plays represent a forgotten link between Roman dramas and the morality plays of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is no surprise to find her characterized as “the most remarkable woman of her time,” indeed; she makes history in a number of ways, being both the earliest known German poet and the first to write drama after the collapse of the ancient world.5 The fact that she, a woman, wrote them, adds to the interest modern academics have about this canoness.

3 Gold, 1997, 42. 4 More recent scholarship on Hrotsvit focuses on the issue of the possible performance of her works for audiences. Many scholars believe that Hrotsvit should be recognized as a playwright as well as a writer, and that certain portions of her writings indicate stage directions. If so, this would place Hrotsvit as the first female playwright since Roman times. The possibility of performance opens up many different avenues for study. If her dramas were performed at Gandersheim, all the players would likely have been women. This would have created the exact opposite acting of Terence’s plays, as all his actors would have been men. This possibility would drastically alter a performance of say, Dulcitius. For information on the performance possibilities of Hrotsvit’s plays, see Peter Dronke’s Women Writers of the Middle Ages, 1984. 5 Haight, 1965, 3. 4

Her writings, although unique and unprecedented for the Middle Ages, do not seem to have influenced later writers in any real, noticeable way. From the time of her death, around 1002, until her rediscovery by Conrad Celtes in 1493, Hrotsvit’s writings passed into near- obscurity. At the same time, the existence of a handful of medieval manuscripts containing fragments of Hrotsvit’s writings attests to the fact that she was not completely forgotten. Nevertheless, Celtes’ discovery of the Emmeram Munich Codex reintroduced Hrotsvit to scholarly notice. Scholars across the world accepted Hrotsvit as a literary phenomenon of the tenth century. Then, in 1867, Joseph Aschback of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna argued that Hrotsvit’s writings were actually forgeries of Celtes, a German Humanist and Neo- Latin poet.6 Many renowned nineteenth century scholars did not believe the accusations, and wrote defenses of the Saxon canoness. Aschbach’s allegations died down within a few years, but were revisited in 1945 by Zoltán Haraszti. His accusations of mass duplicity were responded to best by Edwin H. Zeydel in 1946: “Such a series of forgeries, frauds, and hoaxes…extending over a period of 425 years and involving many hands of perhaps sixteen generations, is so fantastic that the whole structure would have to topple under its own weight.”7 Once accusations of forgery were finally dismissed, scholarship on Hrotsvit began in earnest in the mid-twentieth century. Hrotsvit and her anomalous writings have garnered a great deal of interest in regards to their dramatic performance intent, and because of their feminist tendencies. Sholars no longer debate the authenticityof the dramas; the matter has been relegated to the status of an interesting footnote in the history of the suppression of women’s writing. We know very little about Hrotsvit herself, beyond a few brief biographical suppositions and the limited information she gave about herself in the prefaces to her work. Although likely appreciated at Gandersheim and the royal Ottonian court, Hrotsvit’s writings did not continue to be read in the centuries after her death. Because of this obscurity, further analysis and

6 As a German humanist, Celtis lauded early German literature; a fact that likely influenced Aschbach’s accusations. “In order to understand the excitement of the German humanists over the Hrotsvit discovery, one needs to recall the strongly patriotic nature of early German humanism. Celtis, the leading spirit of the early phases of northern humanism, expressed his ideas in his oration at Ingolstadt. He maintained that German men of letters – as political heirs to the Holy Roman Empire – must bear a cultural responsibility also. Thus, he emphasized the importance of the study and conscious awareness of his native history, geography, and literature. It was in the light of this emphasis that Celtis held up the Hrotsvit manuscript as an illustrious example of the Teutonic past” Wilson, 1984, 46. 7 Zeydel, 1946, 54-55. 5 appreciation of the canoness’ writings did not take place until she was rediscovered in the late 15th century. Thus, no contemporaneous study of Hrotsvit that we know of took place, and so, for future generations, she was only a name, if even that. Knowing that Hrotsvit did not affect future women writers makes her case study that much more captivating. It makes us wonder what advances in women’s literature would have taken place had Hrotsvit’s writings been known in the periods following her death, and how others would have built upon her Christian pre- morality dramas. Would morality plays have been written prior to the 15th century had others had access to Hrotsvit’s dramas? Although the reasons for the lack of knowledge of Hrotsvit’s writings are unknown, the fact that she wrote dramas and plays that may have been performed within the walls of Gandersheim during her life would make her one of the first female playwrights in Europe.8 The compelling story of Hrotsvit’s desire to write begs the question of what made her want to write; what her motivations and goals were and why they impelled her to traverse the bounds of her gender to become an author. This analysis cannot answer all such questions, considering our lack of information about Hrotsvit. All we can do is study her writings in terms of her goals, both stated and unstated. This paper will seek to analyze Hrotsvit’s artful stratagem in terms of her insistence on female subjectivity, her adroit use of thematic inversions and subversions, and analysis and commentary on what these studies say to her possible literary motives and desires. In this way, I will present an interpretation of Hrotsvit’s literary ambitions and goals as ascertained through her prologues and dramas.

Social Standing and Gandersheim Abbey

“Undo ego Clamor Validus Gandeshemensis non recusavi illum imitari dictando dum alii colunt legendo quo eodem dictationis genere quo turpia lascivarum incesta feminarum recitabantur laudabilis sacrarum castimonia virginum iuxta mei facultatem ingenioli celebraretur”

8 According to Wimple, however, Hrotsvit was not completely forgotten or ignored by posterity: “Some of her plays were reproduced several times in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, and one of her plays was furnished with state setting. Moreover, the only manuscript of her writings was copied in the late eleventh or twelfth century and was preserved at St. Emmeran in Regensburg, the monastery where Gerberga II was raised. This manuscript was discovered with great excitement in 1493 by the humanist, Conrad Celtis. We must therefore assume that from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries her works were forgotten” Wimple, 1987, 47. 6

“Therefore I, the Strong Voice of Gandersheim, have not refused to imitate him in writing whom others laud in reading, so that in that selfsame form of composition in which the shameless acts of lascivious women were phrased the laudable chastity of sacred virgins be praised within the limits of my little talent”9

The decision to write, and thus enter the realm of men, places Hrotsvit in a very unique category: a 10th century woman who dared to challenge the status quo of a patriarchal society. It begs the question of Hrotsvit’s background and character; what made a woman of this era have such faith in herself? Was it a parent or a mentor who instilled in Hrotsvit a sense of self? Was she, like many others at Gandersheim, sent to the Abbey by a father to avoid any matrimonial prospects and consequently, protect the family’s political and economic interests? Or was it her choice to enter the Abbey? We do not have sufficient information to know for certain, but this latter option would have been unlikely; such choices were normally made by a father. But, did she want to come to Gandersheim, a place that would enable her to speak out from within the safety of its walls? Our actual information on the canoness is scant, and can only be derived from brief statements within her prefaces and the letters she wrote to her patrons. We can surmise some information based on the time in which she lived, the understanding we have of the Ottonian royal court and information we have about Gandersheim Abbey. But we can only conjecture the woman behind the pen from her writings, and seek to understand what compelled her to self- proclaim herself as a strong voice when women of her time didn’t even have a voice.10 Hrotsvit was likely born sometime in the 930’s, and died somewhere around 1000. Her entrance into Gandersheim Abbey indicates that she was of noble Saxon heritage,11 and her

9 Wilson, 1998, 2. For the Latin translation of Hrotsvit’s works I will employ Katharina Wilson’s well-known translations, unless I am advocating a different interpretation of Hrotsvit’s Latin. 10 “’Clamor Validus,’ however, is both an interpretation of, and a pun on, Hrotsvit’s name – one that she chose to represent her poetic program as well as her poetic purpose. It is not merely, a Latinization of ‘Hrotsvit’ but, more important, an interpretation of it and an explanation of her self and of her earthly mission as suggested by her name. Seen as allegorization of her name, ‘Clamor Validus’ could be best rendered as ‘Forceful Testimony’ (that is, for God), or ‘Vigorous (valid) Attestation’ (that is of Christian truth)” Wilson, 1998, 6. 11 “That she was of noble descent is almost certain, since only daughters of the aristocracy were admitted to Gandersheim, a foundation of the Liudolf dynasty in lower Saxony on the slopes of the Harz mountains, on the border between the dioceses of Hildesheim and Mainz” Wilson, 1998, 5. 7 freedom of movement from the Abbey argues to her role as a canoness.12 Within her last epic, Primorida, she states that Otto I died long before her birth and that she was older than her abbess and friend, Gerberga. This does not provide us with her actual date of birth, but places it well after 912 and sometime before 940.13 Her position at Gandersheim placed her within the influence of the royal court of the Ottonian Empire. As successor to the Carolingian empire, the Ottonian Empire prided itself upon its artistic and cultural values. Still maintaining the Carolingian fascination with Classical ideals, the Ottonian Empire added a Byzantine flavor to their religious aspirations of becoming the new center of Christian faith and kingship, carrying on Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire.14 Hrotsvit’s Saxon heritage would have been very influential on her and her family, as Otto I was of Saxon origin and such a shared lineage promoted favor with the court and emperor.15 We do not know how old she was when she entered the Abbey, but she was likely in her early twenties.16 But however it happened,

12 The office of the canoness began in the eighth century, closely following the role of the masculine canons. As such, a canoness’ only vows would have been chastity and obedience, and her duties would include the education of the young (primarily of noble families) and were under the guidance of abbesses. Like the canons, there were canonesses regular, who followed the Rule of St Augustine, and secular canonesses, who did not follow any monastic Rule. Hrotsvit’s role as a secular canoness is uncontested by academics. 13 “She says in the Primordia (525) that she was born “longo tempore” after the death of Otto of Saxony (died November 30, 912) and that she was older than her Abbess Gerberga (born c. 940)” Wilson, 1998, 2. 14 Otto II’s Byzantine wife, Theophano, brought with her many influences to the Ottonian court. “It was through Theophano that the great culture of Byzantium came directly to Saxony. In addition to transmitting Greek arts and custom, Theophano also introduced many refinements from the court of Constantinople, such as wearing silks and taking baths. She many have been, as Frank Dӧlger argues, an important factor in the new conception of Imperial majesty at the Saxon court… In addition to visiting Gandersheim frequently, Theophano also sent her daughter Sophia there to be educated” Wilson, 1998, 6. 14 Wilson, 1998, 7-8. 15 “Her noble Saxon heritage is also seen in her name, as she was likely related to a previous abbess of Gandershiem (Hrotsvitha I), and thus she was likely distantly related to the royal house” Dronke, 1984, 55-6. 16 Most scholars adhere to Dronke’s assumption that Hrotsvit entered Gandersheim in the 950’s (somewhere in her twenties). He bases this assumption on two premises: first, he finds “Ratherian rings” in her longer sentences and rhymes. Rather, a well-regarded scholar of the period, spent time at Otto I’s court starting in 952. Secondly, Hrotsvit’s version of Pelagius is based on an eye-witness account of the martyrdom. According to Dronke, this eye-witness could only have been one of Abd ar-Rahman III’s embassies, who visited Otto the Great’s court in 950 and 955. Although one could argue that Hrotsvit might have had access to the Ottonian court 8

Hrotsvit’s acceptance into Gandersheim Abbey presented her with the opportunity, education, and sources with which to find her voice and employ it for her own religious and social ambitions. Gandersheim Abbey was unlike the majority of other medieval convents. Since it’s founding in 852 by Duke Liudolf (the great-grandfather of Otto I), Gandersheim knew special royal privilege.17 The Abbey housed noble and royal women, and through these familial connections, rose from an aristocratic and royal structure to one of an independent principality.18 The first four abbesses were the daughters and niece of Duke Liudolf, but another daughter married King Louis the Younger, creating royal ties for the Abbey. Through Louis the Younger, the Abbey attained immunity, royal protection and the rights for a free election of abbesses (from among the Liudolf line), creating the principality. Later, Otto I provided the Abbey with a charter which freed it from local jurisdiction, along with a papal privilege of protection he had obtained from Pope John XIII, freeing Gandersheim from the Episcopal title.19 Inhabited by women of the noble and royal houses, Gandersheim Abbey existed not only as an independent principality; it was a place of intellectualism.20 It also acted as a school, hospital, library, political center and pilgrimage site, as Duke Liudolf and his wife Oda went on a pilgrimage to Rome when seeking permission to establish the Abbey and obtained the relics of the saints Anastasius and Innocent for it.21 The canonesses were highly educated, and acted as the educators for noble daughters.

from her own noble standing, scholarship accepts Dronke’s version of events, wherein her access to the royal court derived from her entrance to Gandersheim Abbey. See Dronke, pp.56-7. 17 “The Liudolf dynasty showed a predilection for establishing religious houses, especially for daughters of the aristocracy. That some of these convents and abbeys became centers of learning and culture is hardly surprising, given the illustrious history of female monasticism” Wilson, 1998, 5. 18“Gandersheim was from its beginnings a high aristocratic, then royal and imperial, foundation. Its abbesses were members of the reigning family. When Otto I, in 947, invested the abbess of Gandersheim with supreme authority, she became the ruler of a small autonomous princedom” Dronke, 1984, 55. 19 Wemple, 1987, 46. 20 “Particularly illuminating, within the mainstream of tenth century civilization, is the cultural and intellectual milieu associated with the duchy of Saxony, in which territory was located the Abbey of Gandersheim, the Cloister where Hrotswitha received her early religious and cultural education. The ascension of the three famous Ottos to the Saxony line – Otto I (962-973), Otto II (973-83), Otto III (983-1002) – to the headship of the Holy Roman Empire, made of Saxony a center of enlightenment and learning” Sticca, 1982, 117-8. 21 Wilson, 1998, 7. 9

They also often acted as hosts to the royal family, as records exist of such visits. Enjoying such rare freedom for their gender, the women at Gandersheim embraced the intellectual ideals of the Ottonian renaissance.22 These women were granted access to the very center of intellectualism in the tenth century, and through this conduit Hrotsvit became a participant in the Ottonian renaissance.23 Thus, Hrotsvit was fortunate enough to be granted entrance to a place of female autonomy, royal privilege, and intellectual enlightenment, all of which provided her with the opportunity to develop her mind and express her thoughts in literary form. Although scholars yearn to know what the current contents of the library at Gandersheim were during Hrotsvit’s time, the actual books held within the Abbey during Hrotsvit’s life there are unknown to us. The cathedral and surrounding areas were lost in a fire around 971. The present abbey was built during the early 12th century, one hundred years after the canoness died, with the remains of the previous structure amalgamated into it.

Hrotsvit and the Ottonian court The Ottonian court was the successor to the Carolingian Renaissance. As the Carolingian Empire crumbled, the Ottonian Empire grew to take its place. Henry I’s rise to power brought the political and cultural center of the Carolingian monarchy to Saxony. Henry was distantly related to Charlemagne through his mother, and succeeded his father, the Duke of Saxony, into power. Later, the Franconian and Saxon nobles elected him king. Through a series of campaigns, Henry

22 The medieval period was a time wherein very few women had any type of power or control over their own lives. Women married only by their father’s consent, and once married were under the rule of their husbands. Except for those of the upper echelons of society, women did not own property unless they were widows, and could only inherit land if they did not have male siblings. Women, if they did work, earned less than men and normally were not allowed to own businesses. Skilled jobs usually required entry into guilds, but many guilds would not accept women. Although it was their job to educate their children, women’s education was usually based on running the household, so very few received formal education. Further, as male heirs inherited everything, female children were held in low esteem. With societal emphasis on producing male offspring, women often underwent numerous childbirths; a serious health risk during this period. Women such as Hrotsvit and her fellows at Gandersheim were among the very select, and their lives were drastically different from the majority of women in the middle ages. 23 “She [Hrotsvit] was not cut off from the imperial renovatio by belonging to Gandersheim: on the contrary, this put her in a position to play a key part among the elite who shared that renovatio” Dronke, 1984, 59.

10 brought the other duchies under his control and by his death in 936, he left his son Otto I a united German kingdom. Otto I followed Charlemagne’s example and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 962. He continued his father’s quest to expand the empire and additionally began placing his family members into important positions of power to counteract the status of the various dukes of the realm. Creating a powerful dynasty, Otto and his successors continued to grow in political power. They also gained religious clout and founded several new abbeys. Like the Carolingian Empire before them, the Ottonian court sought a cultural renaissance. With Otto II’s marriage to the Byzantine princess, Theophano, the Ottonian court became a place of cultural fervor alongside its constant impetus to gain territories and additional power. Due to these factors, Hrotsvit existed within the sphere of royal privilege which included within it a desire for culture, learning and Christian might. As a canoness at Gandersheim, Hrotsvit would have had greater freedom than the nuns at the Abbey. The strict monastic vows that bound the nuns did not apply to a canoness, who could have retained her own private monies, owned personal books, had servants, entertained guests and even come and go from the Abbey without any real constraint.24 These facts, combined with the nobility of her birth, lend themselves to the supposition that Hrotsvit visited, or at least had ties with, the royal Ottonian court. Many scholars support the idea of Hrotsvit’s interaction with the royal court. Katharina Wilson posits that Hrotsvit knew and regularly interacted with Theophano, through the Empress’ daughter and possibly also by the fact that Gerberga knew Greek and thus, that Theophano often visited Gandersheim.25 The proposition that Hrotsvit spent time at court can be supported by a few further factors. First, Hrotsvit’s abbess, Gerberga II, maintained close familial ties with the royal court. Scholars believe a close bond existed between Hrotsvit and Gerberga, whose uncles were the Emperor and Archbishop of Cologne. Such close relationships placed Gerberga in close contact with the royal court and all its cultural grandeur.26 Bruno was the most powerful man in Germany, after his brother, but whereas Otto I

24 Canonesses, unlike nuns, lived within abbeys or monasteries without taking any vows. They lived their lives within religious houses and followed the moralities of such institutions, but were free from vows of poverty or celibacy. They were free to leave the houses whenever they wished, even to marry. The religious houses provided them with safety, education, and companionship while they remained there. 25 Wilson, 1998, 8-9. 26 “Hrotsvitha’s abbess, and (we can safely say, despite her many formulaic self-deprecations) close friend, Gerberga II, was the emperor’s niece…she maintained close relations with the 11 sought military might, Bruno, Archbishop of Cologne was known for his intellectual and artistic interests. This Ottonian Renaissance included an appreciation of Classical literature. Dronke, following Ruotger’s biography, argues that Bruno not only was involved with Gandersheim Abbey, but that he had “enthusiasm for ‘the unseemly jest and mimetic matter (scurrilia et mimica) that, in comedies and tragedies, was presented by various personages: while some people react to these noisily, shaking with endless laughter, he always used to read them frequently and seriously; he set least store by the content, and most by what was exemplary in the style’. The reference (as a passage in Thietmar of Merseburg’s Chronicon II 16, confirms) is clearly to Roman comedies and tragedies, and the scurrilia alluded to must be first and foremost those of Terence.”27 (This argument would clearly explain Hrotsvit’s own sentiments in her Prologue to the dramas, wherein she states that many Catholics are guilty of reading “pagan artifice,” and specifically Terence, for his eloquence of style.) Further, Bruno, possibly due to his close relationship with his niece, brought other learned men who were influential in the Ottonian Renaissance to the Abbey. Hrotsvit would have interacted with these intellectual thinkers of the time, within the walls of her own abbey.28 Secondly, in Hrotsvit’s first set of stories, the legends, she only once veers from written sources to include the tale of Pelagius. Her source for this tale was an eye-witness from the city of Cordova (the site of Pelagius’ martyrdom) who assured the canoness that his account was true.29 It is unlikely that Hrotsvit met such a man at Gandersheim (unless, of course, he was brought there by Bruno), which points to a meeting at the royal Ottonian court as the more likely possibility. Scholarship on the Ottonian court points to one of two times embassies were sent from Cordova, about five years apart in the mid-tenth century. Hrotsvit defended this source who

imperial court, and especially with the emperor’s younger brother, Bruno, the court’s chancellor and chaplain, who Bezzola has called ‘the soul of the Ottonian intellectual Renaissance’” Dronke, 1984, 56. 27 Dronke, 1984, 57. 28 “Bruno brought many scholars to Gandersheim, where they contributed to the atmosphere of learning and literary activity which surrounded Hroswitha.” Haight, 1965, 9. 29 Hrotsvit gives this information in her epilogue to the legends: “cuius seriem martirii quidam eiusdem in qua passus est indigena civitatis mihi exposuit qui ipsum pulcherrimum virorum se vidisse et exitum rei attestatus est veraciter agnovisse. Berschin, ed., 2001, 131. “The order of events leadings to the martyrdom of Pelagius was told to me by a certain main, a native of the city where Pelagius suffered, who assured me that he had seen that fairest of men and had true knowledge of the outcome of the matter” For further discussion, see Dronke, 1984, 57. 12 very likely shared not only the tale with the canoness, but also some descriptive information about the taifa of Cordova, and its Muslim ways.30 Dronke also believes that Otto I invited Rather of Verona to his court and through this connection, that Hrotsvit received tutorage from this renowned scholar, as well. Dronke bases this supposition of Hrotsvit’s time at court with Rather upon similarities within Rather’s and Hrotsvit’s prose.31 Thirdly, Hrotsvit’s fascination with the world of ancient Rome could have been influenced by time spent at the Ottonian court. The Ottonian dynasty wanted to perceive itself, and be perceived, as the political and cultural heir of the Roman Empire. Receiving the title of Holy Roman Emperor is only one example of this. The three Ottos appeared to believe that their imperium needed not only military power behind it, but also required a redefining of the pagan Roman emperor and his court to one of a Christian mold. The Ottonian court held many ceremonies fashioned from the Classical exempla.32 Viewing the Classical grandeur depicted and portrayed within the Ottonian court, Hrotsvit must have seen the fascination that the court had with the Roman world. The men of authority to whom she allotted respect seemed irrevocably drawn towards the allure of pagan cultures of old. Although her writings show her own preoccupation with Roman culture, a separate side of her acknowledged that the powerful and dangerous pull of Rome’s pagan ways needed a Christian response.33 In all probability, witnessing the sway that Roman grandeur had over people of her high status, Hrotsvit at some point made a decision to offer a similar exemplar of Roman style and grace but presented within a holy Christian mode. All of Hrotsvit’s writings, the legends, dramas and epic poems, speak to

30 “This native of Cordova can only have been a member of one of Abd ar-Rāhman III’s two embassies to Otto the Great (950 and 955/6)… She [Hrotsvit] must indeed have spoken with him sufficiently long and often to receive not only the account of Pelagius but some detailed related information about the life of Christians in Cordova under Moslem rule” Dronke, 1984, 57. 31 “… ostensibly he came to give Bruno some advanced literary teaching; but the fact that Rather cultivated a distinctive style of rhymed prose, which has notable parallels in Hrotsvitha, makes it tempting to suppose that, in Rather’s years with Otto, Hrotsvitha too received instruction from him, and then tried to model some of her mannerisms on his” Dronke, 1984, 56. 32 “Something of this emerges in the resplendent Ottonian miniatures that survive: men and women are portrayed with grave refinement; the high and low – kings and shepherds – are subtly differentiated in their looks; gestures are stylized and hieratic; costumes and settings often deliberately classicizing” Dronke, 1984, 59. 33 Hrotsvit seemed to follow Augustine’s line of reasoning that argued for putting Christian use to non-Christian matter. Both felt that pagan tools, literature in this case, could be appropriated for Christian use. 13 her true belief in Christianity. Hrotsvit’s religious sentiments appear sincere, although her view of Christianity is definitely flavored by her noble and royal surroundings. As Hrotsvit was fortunate enough to know security and privilege, she presented women who spoke out with the same secure confidence, even as they faced martyrdom.

Hrotsvit’s Education Education in Europe during the tenth century was based on reforms from the Carolingian empire. The clergy controlled education in this time. Young boys were primarily taught in monasteries, continuing on Charlemagne’s visions: “Let there be schools in each monastery or bishopric for teaching the boys the Psalms, notation, singing, computation, and grammar.”34 Beyond this basic beginning, students with potential moved further into the study of the seven liberal arts. Grammar was the major focus of the liberal arts, acting as the cornerstone of knowledge. After students became accomplished in grammar, those who again showed intellectual ability advanced to the studies of rhetoric and dialectic, often times encountering Classical authors in their efforts. The trivium was more widely studied than the quadrivium,35 with its focus on grammar seen as useful for enabling people to understand Scripture. “The major textbooks for rhetoric included Alcuin, Martianus Capella, Quintilian and Cicero. Dialectic, which was clearly the least important component of the trivium in the tenth century, was defined as ‘the discipline of inquiring rationally, of defining and examining, and the power of discerning the true from the false.’ The major texts were Alcuin’s Didascalica and Boethius’ translations and commentaries on the Categories and On Interpretations of Aristotle and the Isagoge of Porphyry.”36 And while most schools taught the arts of the trivium in some form, the quadrivium was only available at a few select schools. Newell also states that in addition to the texts and authors normally studied for the trivium and quadrivium, Horace, Juvenal, Lucan, Persius, Statius and Virgil were established writers of medieval literary studies.37 It was in the tenth century that Terence was rediscovered. Studies of Terence became very popular in this period. Although other Classical authors may have been studied in certain monasteries, the lack of

34 Charlemagne’s capitulary of 789. Newell, 1987, 128. 35 The medieval trivium consisted of grammar, logic and rhetoric; the quadrivium consisted of geometry, arithmetic, astronomy and music. Students needed to prove their ability with the disciplines of the trivium in order to progress to the quadrivium. 36 Newell, 1987, 130. 37 Newell, 1987, 131. 14 records from the tenth century makes it difficult to know this with any certainty. What can be seen is that these schools were primarily for male students. Certain nunneries did educate young women, but the vast majority of students in the tenth century were male. It was a rarity for women to be educated in all seven liberal arts. Here again, Hrotsvit was among a very elite group of tenth century women. Hrostvit’s education at Gandersheim was extensive and her time there was one of rich learning.38 Her writings, by themselves, attest to an educated author. Her legends, dramas and epics are cycles of interlocked themes and display Hrotsvit’s knowledge of the trivium and quadrivium.39 In several of her works, Hrotsvit wrote detailed dialogue not only showcasing the education and intelligence of her female characters, but also showcasing her own knowledge of the seven disciplines of the Classical era, and later the Ottonian Empire. Hrotsvit actively sought to showcase her education in all of her writings. Joan Cadden, in her scholarship on Hrotsvit’s uses of astrology within her legend Dionysius, posits that the canoness had a political purpose for the inclusion of a science that was negatively viewed by the church at that time.40 Cadden’s reasoning is that Hrotsvit challenged the predominant view of astrology with her knowledge of the quadrivium (with its inclusion of astronomy) to present the science as a natural (and thus, God-granted and acceptable) knowledge of heavenly motion. Hrotsvit “placed astrology at the service of the general, classicizing cultural movement that tied the imperial regime to their Carolingian predecessors and ultimately to ancient Rome; second, in the hands of Hrotsvit and others, the mathematical sciences, including astrology, exercised particular functions in this Ottonian renaissance; and, finally, Hrotsvit’s astrological references had specific utility in the more local context of East Saxony.”41 Within

38 “During the reign of Abbess Gerberga II, Gandersheim was renowned for its scholastic, cultural, and religious activities” 38 Wilson, 1998, 7. 39 “The organization of the three books in this manner shows Hrotsvit’s mastery of symmetry and balance, in its complex pattern of the themes of divine grace and eternal justice with it interwoven connections: thematic, structural, and verbal. The themes and main ideas of the first book are repeated in a different generic form in the second and many of them are transferred from hagiography to an historical context in the third” 39 Wilson, 1989, xv. 40 The focus of Cadden’s article, “Hrotvit Von Gandersheim and the Political Uses of Astrology” is that one dimension of Hrotsvit’s intent with the legend Dionysius is “the legitimation of the Ottonian dynasty that controlled the Holy Roman Empire from 962 to 1024.” Cadden writes that within the medieval religious life, astronomy became tied into the concept of divination, a tool utilized by the Ottonian court to promote the idea of celestial powers and meanings. Cadden, 2005, 12. 41 Cadden, 2001, 23. 15 her drama Pafnutius, Hrotsvit displays her knowledge of mathematics, music and astronomy, and sends a message of “a sort of transcendent authority to those who defined and interpreted measure ratio, and harmony.”42 Hrotsvit also incorporated astrological references in one of her epic works, granting the founding of Gandersheim divine provenance as the site was determined by interpretations of celestial lights. By doing so, Hrotsvit seemed to be seeking to fuse pagan and Christian knowledge, as well as literature. From her perspective, pagan knowledge and arts could be appropriated for Christian purposes, whether in political, astronomical, mathematical or literary realms. Within her drama Sapientia, Hrotsvit presents a lesson in arithmetic and “her Boethian exposition of numerical values.”43 Not only does she show her knowledge of Boethius, but whereas he only mentioned the first three perfect numbers known during antiquity, Hrotsvit’s Sapientia goes one step further and lists all four of the perfect numbers. “…She links arithmetical knowledge to God’s praise and to God’s mighty power that invariably triumphs at the end… which… emphasizes mathematical learning as a tool for scriptural exegesis.”44 Wilson argues further, “Her conscious awareness of numeric allegoresis applies to the conception of the whole opus and underscores her patterning, ordering activity in the compositional intricacy of her texts.”45 Hrotsvit’s writings indicate not only knowledge of the trivium and quadrivium, but of many years of Latin study and a substantial knowledge of Classical and religious literature. Anne Lyon Haight argues that Hrotsvit’s reading list included Virgil’s Aeneid, Georgics, and Eclogues, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Terence’s comedies, Prudentius, Venantius Fortunatus and Beothius.46 Other scholars attribute additional learning to Hrotsvit in her knowledge of Augustinian theories.47 (Hrotsvit’s use of Augustinian concepts will be studied in Chapter 3). “Hrotsvit’s virtuosity in adorning her works with diverse rhetorical ornaments (she uses, as I have argued elsewhere, almost all of the figures and tropes discussed by Donatus, Isidore, and

42 Cadden, 2001, 17. 43 Wilson, 1998, 11. 44 Wilson, 1988, 99. 45 Wilson, 1988, 22. 46 Haight, 1965, 12. 47 “Hrotsvit’s conception of world order, of the nature of good and evil, and of the manifestation of that supernatural struggle on earth are essentially Augustinian, as is her strong belief in the fundamental goodness of creation” Wilson, 1989, xxii. 16 the Venerable Bede), as well as the etymologia, arithmetica, and musica lessons incorporated into her plays, bear eloquent testimony to her training in, and respect for, the artes.”48 Scholarship on Hrotsvit’s education clearly illustrates that she was an extremely well-educated woman. She mentions two of her teachers in her Preface to the Legends: “I was first taught by Riccardis, the wisest and kindest of teachers, and by others thereafter, who continued my education and then, finally, by my lady of high station, Gerberga of royal blood, my merciful abbess, under whose rule I now live.”49 Hrotsvit’s knowledge of the seven canonical Classical studies, as well as many Classical writers, is explained through an understanding of the educational system of the time, and her unique place within an imperial abbey, and all the additional educational benefits that entailed. Even so, her knowledge of Terence is also fully comprehensible in the milieu of the middle ages. St. Gregory the Great began the humanistic approach to Classical authors early in the sixth century by allowing for the studies of other works beyond the Scriptures, as useful tools for reading and understanding the word of God.50 This school of thought was further championed by Isidore of Seville, who argued that the study of the Classical authors enhanced the teaching and learning of grammar. Isidore, though, also noted the dangers inherent in doing so, in that the seductive charm and aesthetic pleasure found within such authors could be spiritually damaging; he focused especially on Plautus and Terence as sources of danger.51

Writings Hrotsvit’s writings consist of three sets. Her first writings were eight legends, all but one from hagiographical stories, and each supporting her overall interest in the theme of virginity: “the exaltation of the virtue of steadfast, obedient, and, therefore, triumphant and life-giving

48 Wilson, 1998, 7. 49 Wilson, 1998, 19. “Primo sapientissime atque benignissime Rikkardis magistre aliarumque suae vicis instruente magisterio deinde prona favente clementia regie indolis Gerberge cuius nunc subdor domino abbatisse” Berschin, ed., 2001, 2. 50 “St. Gregory emphasized that the spiritual experience acquired through contact with the Scriptures can make of secular erudition a means of better understanding the World of God” Sticca, 1982, 122. 51“Isidore, however, goes much further than the enunciation of an aesthetic casuality, for in his Etymologiae, he actually identifies the two classical authors who, through the beauty and elegance of their idiom, were most likely to seduce Christian readers, namely, Plautus and Terrence” Sticca, 1982, 123. 17 virginity.”52 Book I begins with a dedication to Gerberga II, and follows with Hrotsvit’s slant on the stories of Maria, the Ascensio, Gongolf, Pelagius, Basilius, Theophilus, Dionysius and St. Agnes. Maria is the story of the Virgin Mary, from the apocryphal source, the Pseudo- Evangelium of Mattheus.53 The Ascensio concerns Christ’s ascension, based on a Greek source.54 For the Gongolf legend, she draws upon the Passio Sancti Gongolfi Martiris from Prudentius’ Peristephanon 3.25.55 Her next legend, Pelagius, is the only one for which she did not use “ancient books written by named authors”,56 but instead based it on an eye-witness account. According to the letter Hrotsvit placed after the legends, she heard of the story from a native of the city of Cordova, where the legend began. In each of her next two legends, Hrotsvit based her stories on the vitae of Greek saints. These two legends also see Hrotsvit playing with the Faustian tradition. “The fifth and sixth legends are the first literary treatments of the Faust theme in Germany and deal with the Greek saints Basilius and Theophilus;57 both concern men who made a pact with the devil and sold their immortal souls for mortal gain.”58 Her seventh legend, Dionysius, and her eighth, St. Agnes, detail the stories of early Christian martyrs. She employed Hilduin’s faulty version of the Life of Saint Denis of France as her source for the Pseudo- Dionysius legend, and utilized the Passion of St. Agnes attributed to St. Ambrose for her last legend.59 The canoness did not randomly pick her saints, but carefully chose saints’ legends that had particular significance for herself and her immediate audience. Hrotsvit’s specific choices of her legends “situates her legends and plays in the gray area of sacred historiography, and links Ottonian history more tightly to the history of the Roman Empire and Christianity’s presence in it. Hrotsvit’s saints are in one way or another tied to the Ottonian house, whether through the transfer of relics to Ottonian territory, the building of a new church in honor of a saint, or other

52 Wilson, 1998, 9. 53 Wilson, 1998, 9. 54 Wilson, 1998, 9. 55 O’Sullivan, 2004, 17. O’Sullivan also states that Hrotsvit drew on this same source for the Passio Sancti Pelagii from Peristephanon 5.27. 56 “Huius omnem materiam sicut et prioris opusculi sumsi ab antiquis libris sub certis auctorum nominibus conscriptis” Berschin, ed., 2001, 131. 57 Here Hrotsvit used the Latin translation of the Greek legend, translated by Paulus Diaconus. Wilson, 1989, xxxiv. 58 Wilson, 1998, 10. 59 Duckett, 1967, 259. 18 recent events.”60 In this manner, as in others, scholars are able to see clear intertwining themes running through Hrotsvit’s works. Her legends can be analyzed through by number as they relatie to the dramas (i.e. Maria from the legends and Gallicanus from the dramas), and combined with her epics; all demonstrate an overlying theme of the importance and justified might of the Ottonian Empire. The canoness planned each component of her writings carefully to educate her readers and/or spectators, as well as support her mighty benefactors in such a way as to promote her own views on Christian virtue and female objectivity. Hrotsvit’s second collection consisted of her six dramas. Whereas she wrote all of her legends except one in leonine hexameters (Gongolf was the only exception, as she wrote that legend in elegiac distichs), she wrote her dramas in rhymed, rhythmic prose.61 Her first drama, Gallicanus, details the story of the conversion and martyrdom of a Roman general, and derives from the martyrologies associated with the feast days of Saints John and Paul.62 The second play Dulcitius, tells of the three martyred young women named Agape, Chionia and Irene, whose legend Hrotsvit knew from the Acta Santorum.63 Callimachus, Hrotsvit’s third play, is about the sin and conversion of the title character and was known through the pseudo- Abdias, the Latin version of the Acts of the Apostles.64 Paphnutius, the fourth play, and Abraham, the fifth play, focus on the fall and conversion of two female harlots. Paphnutius tells the story of St. Thaïs of Egypt, originating in form in the Apophthegmata Patrum (Sayings of the Desert Fathers). The play Abraham is often referred to as The Fall and Repentance of Mary, as its theme is again the redemptive powers of the Christian faith. Hrotsvit’s source for this legend was the Vita Sanctae Marie. 65 Her sixth and last play was Sapientia, which tells of the martyrdom of three allegorical young virgin women, Fides, Spes and Karitas.66 Like Dulcitius, Sapientia is set in antiquity, pitting Christian females against pagan Roman men of power. “Book two concludes with a poem of thirty-four hexameters on Saint John’s Apocalypse which

60 Wiethaus, 2004, 117. 61 Wilson, 1998, 9-10. 62 Wilson, 1998, 10. 63 Wilson, 1989, xxxiv. 64 Wilson, 1989, xxxiv. 65 Evitt, 2007, 29. 66 “The origins of the legend are somewhat difficult to pin down, since the “facts” do not fit historically. For that reason, the legend has been viewed with a great deal of skepticism; even the editors of the entry in the Acta Sanctorum discuss the difficulties of the legend in its varied versions and encourage readers to understand the legend as an allegory” Scheck, 2008, 160. 19 is believed to have been intended for inscription under the twelve murals of Gandersheim.”67 Whereas Hrotsvit placed a letter at the end of Book I, stating that with the exception of one, all her sources were from ancient sources of known authors, Book II begins with the canoness referencing only one author: Terence. She writes her preface, within which she states that she is writing specifically to usurp the popularity of Terence, along with a letter to her patrons. She does not mention her sources beyond Terence, although all her dramas roughly fit into the hagiographical source pool, as noted above. This fact lends credence to Wilson’s analysis of overlapping themes within the canoness’ work. “Linkage exists on the literal, metaphoric, and thematic levels; it occurs between lines and segments of the same work, between works of the same group (that is, legends or dramas), and between works of different groups. The more pronounced correspondences exist between groups of works dealing with similar themes: the legends and the dramas, both utilizing the hagiographic plots, on the one hand, and the epics dealing with historical subject matter on the others.”68 Hrotsvit’s final book consists of two leonine hexameter epics, the Carmen de Gestis Oddonis Imperatoris and the Primordia Coenobii Gandeshemensis. The Gesta tells the exploits of Otto the Great, depicted by Hrotsvit as an ideal Christian ruler. Within the Gesta, Otto I was chosen by God as the protector of their Christian nation, who ruled with strength and kindness and never suffered defeat unless it was the fault of someone else: “Nec solum gentes frenis moderat bonitatis, Que prius imperio patris dederant sua colla, Sed multo plures certe sibi vindicat ipse Subdens gentiles Christi servis nations, Quo pax ecclesie fieret stabilita sacratae. Ad bellum certe quoties processerat ipse, Non fuerat populous quamvis virtute superbus, Ledere qui posset vel exsuperare valeret Ipsum celestas fultum solamine regis; Eius nec cessit telis exercitus ullis, Ni sua spernendo forsan regalia iussa Illic pugnaret, quo rex idem prohiberet”

“Mildly Otto ruled not only those people Who had bowed their necks under his father’s rule before. No, he also conquered many pagan tribes

67 Wilson, 1998, 11. 68 Wilson, 1998, 13. 20

Whom he then made subject to the soldiers of Christ In order to strengthen the peace of holy Church. Regardless of how often he rode forth in battle Never did his foes win, no matter how brave, Never couth they would him or gain victory in battle Protected as he was by the heavenly King’s hand. His army never succumbed to the weapons of his foe, Except, perhaps, at times when men went to battle Against the king’s orders on forbidden land”69

Hrotsvit’s fulsome praise of Otto the Great in all his endeavors, including those of war against “pagan tribes”, definitively places her within the milieu of Saxon nobility. She does not speak out against war, either in the Gesta or within any of her legends and dramas, as long as the enemy is perceived as a threat to Christendom. Although the antagonists in several of her dramas are emperors, like Otto the Great, they are only faulty in their worldly perceptions (i.e. not followers of Christ), not in their role as rulers. Hrotsvit’s second epic, the Primordia, presents the history of Gandersheim Abbey, again demonstrating divine favor for the Ottonian house. Primordia, much like the Gesta before it, seeks to praise the divinely-sanctioned lineage and deeds of the Luidolfs in establishing the abbey. Although the canoness extolled the virtues of the king within her previous poem, her exaltation for Luidolf and his wife Oda centers on their efforts to bestow autonomy on the abbey, removing it from the grasp of earthly powers. They sought and received the approval of both king and pope for Gandersheim to hold its own legal rights to protect its property. A link does exist, though, between the two epics in respect to the royal family. If the epics are taken as halves of a whole, they provide one royal family and one religious family that converge on Gandersheim Abbey.70 This linkage from Gandersheim to the Ottonian royal court held great significance to Hrotsvit, and her third book illustrates her pride and support of the royal ‘cousin’ of her beloved abbey. Thus, although her first two books speak to earthly powers experiencing defeat, primarily against young Christian women, her last book demonstrates Hrotsvit’s belief in earthly powers, as long as they supported Christian ideals.

69 Berschin, ed., 2001, 280-1. Carmen de Gestis Ottonis Imperatoris, trans., Wilson, 1998, 104. 70“Interestingly, the effect of Hrotsvit’s Primordia, according to Thomas Head, was to celebrate the inseparable linkage of the Luidulfings and Gandersheim, ‘two lineages, or families,’ one royal, the other religious, and both noble” Kline, 2004, 78.

Outline of Chapters As a 10th century noble Ottonian woman, Hrotsvit would have been witness to Otto I’s and II’s religious and political campaigns. She would have seen the power of the Church in the Ottonian Renaissance, as well as the power bestowed upon the royal Ottonian women, likely a result of the Byzantine influence brought to the court by Otto II’s wife, Theophanu. Even with the significance of the royal Ottonian women, Hrotsvit would have also observed the political alliances which took place via arranged marriages, wherein women were little more than passive pawns within the highly ambitious and competitive royal and noble circles. Her abbess, Gerberga II, daughter to Henry, Duke of Bavaria, niece to Otto I and cousin to Otto II, held considerable clout, as Gandersheim Abbey was an independent principality. Thus, Hrotsvit’s world-view was flavored by living within a strongly patristic society that primarily placed women in a dependent status with a few prominent examples of women who could and did act as persons of high capability (e.g. Empress Theophanu in her role as regent to Otto III and Gerberga as Abbess and ruler of Gandersheim). These influences are evident in Hrotsvit’s works, and they speak to her overall presentations of gender within her writings. She focused on women as characters who controlled their own decisions, even to the point of death. The main emphasis of this project is a dual approach. First, I seek to study Hrotsvit’s goals within her contest with the Roman poet, Terence in her dramas. Her approach to overcoming Terence’s sweet wiles is a multi-layered method, incorporating the favored tactics of inversion and subversion. Finding Terence unacceptable for consumption due to his decidedly pagan and humanistic approach to the world, Hrotsvit intertwines a variety of thematic motifs found within Terence’s plays into her dramas. Although she is fully aware of Terence’s eloquence of style, she still attempts to sway his medieval readers away from such temptation to moral turpitude. In response to his eloquence, she remarks in her prologue to the dramas that although she might be unable to best Terence in terms of grandiloquence, she will surpass him in content, even as she writes the dramas in rhymed rhythmic prose. The continued overlapping interplay between and among Hrotsvit’s three works, although interesting and the focal point of many scholars research on Hrotsvit, will not be addressed in this project. The focus herein will remain the forms of inversion and subversion that the canoness uses in her conflict with Terence, and how those forms affect her presentation of hagiographical matter. The fact that the subject matter within her dramas derives from hagiographical literature, creates a secondary, unspoken

22 contest within Hrotsvit’s dramas: the contemporary versions of saints’ lives. This is the second component of this paper. Hrotsvit not only challenged Terence for the immorality she found in his plays, she challenged the representation of women in Classical and hagiographical literature. Hrotsvit plied her skills at inverting and subverting many of the characteristics normally applied to women in Terence’s literature; she also challenged many of the same characteristics found within hagiographical literature. Her secondary goal of presenting women who actively participated in their own fates provides readers with female subjectivity.71 Chapter Two of this paper concentrates on Hrotsvit’s views of Terence and her initial response to him within her preface. Prior to probing into my own analysis of the canoness’ sentiments, Hrotsvit’s debts to Terence must be considered. Before the reaffirmation of Hrotsvit in the 20th century, some scholars denounced any relation of Hrotsvit’s work to Terence’s at all. They claimed her writings lacked any discernible literary similarity to the Roman playwright. Later scholarship endeavored to re-examine the relationship between the canoness and her pagan predecessor. This chapter will summarize previous scholarship on Hrotsvit in order to understand the evolution of thought regarding the canoness. One of the main arguments into which recent scholarship has delved is whether or not Hrotsvit’s use of Terence was a form of imitation or aemulatio. After summarizing this critical discussion which has a bearing upon our understanding her goals in writing, I will argue that her approach is best characterized as aemulatio. Further, it is the opinion of this author that Hrotsvit painstakingly studied Terence’s prefaces to his six plays in order to begin her own preface by utilizing transposition of the Roman poet’s own exordia. To support this point, this chapter will then examine Terence’s prologues and compare them to Hrotsvit’s prologues. Hrotsvit’s proems play off of the well- worn humility topos while simultaneously inverting Terence’s vindictive tirades. This humility topos will also be analyzed in terms of its Classical tradition and its use as a Medieval rhetorical device. Additionally, I will analyze Hrotsvit’s claiming of the title of “thief” as another inversion

71 For this entire project, my usage of the term subjectivity is to be understood from a grammatical viewpoint. Subjectivity here means acting as the subject and performing the verb function, versus acting as the object (or being objectified). This definition differs from, and should not be confused with, the idea of how a person experiences things through their mind. Here, it should only be seen as how certain people (women) act as the guide and focal point of the story. 23 of Terence’s prologues. As Terence staunchly defended himself of the accusation of literary thievery, Hrotsvit professed herself a literary thief, even as she adamantly defended her use of sources. Chapter Three delves into the canoness’ treatment of the female voice and female subjectivity, specifically as compared to that found in Terence. Terence’s plays revolve around female characters, who normally serve as the source of the problem between the stock characters of the young man sowing his wild oats and his worried father. The female characters are the crux of the storyline, yet they basically remain silent as their fates unwind, having no choice in their own lives. Hrotsvit turned this theme upside down, and instead granted her female characters not only the center position in their own dramas, but also great eloquence of voice. They use these voices to make their own decisions and often to show their holy Christian superiority over pagans who happen to be primarily male characters. By analyzing the female characters in Terence’s six plays against Hrotvit’s female characters, I will argue that in a contest between the two opposing groups, Terence’s females didn’t stand a chance against Hrotsvit’s rhetorically powerful women of knowledge and determination. In terms of her most likely audience, the women at Gandersheim, Hrotsvit’s female characters offered a substantial growth in endowment over Terence’s less fortunate counterparts. The growing female subjectivity found in Hrotsvit’s works can also be traced through her subversion of additional themes. Hrotsvit subverted three additional themes taken from Terence’s plays which she found offensive. First, the theme of marriage within Terence’s plays is normally used as the happy ending, wherein all the misunderstandings of identity have been cleared up and the female character has been passed on to her new husband. Hrotsvit’s plays take the theme of marriage into the realm of Augustine Christianity: Hrotsvit’s heroines seek a higher match with a celestial bridegroom, taking their martyred virginity with them. A second theme Hrotsvit subverts is that of disguise. Terence employed this motif for his character’s devious means, as a way for the young suitor to gain access to a virginal young woman whom he plans on seducing/raping. Hrotsvit instead used it as a means for the holy man to gain access to a fallen woman, bringing her back into the Christian fold. Hrotsvit’s blatant reversal of scene and character elements in this motif definitively argues for her desire to challenge Terence. The last theme studied in reference to Terence is that of the father-son relationship. Terence’s plays are all based on this theme. The relationship between the philandering young

24 man and his father create the crux of the problems in Terence’s plays, and it is their resolution (normally involving the marriage of the young man to a woman whose identity has been revealed as suitable) that completes the play. Hrotsvit’s treatment of this theme is not as succinct as her other inversions. Here she replaces the father-son focus with a variety of other themes. The young men are normally replaced with young women (although there are exceptions), and the fathers are instead men either seeking to steal the young women’s virtue or the complete opposite: seeking to redeem a fallen woman. In her drama, Sapientia, the core relationship is diametrically altered to present a loving mother and her young obedient daughters, saving the most elaborate form of subverted opposition to Terence’s male-centered focus for last. As stated earlier, one cannot study Hrotsvit’s contest with Terence, in her play of opposing themes, without recognizing that the canoness was simultaneously silently challenging the representation of women in hagiographical texts. Chapter Four will delve into Hrotsvit’s treatment of her saint’s lives as opposed to the sources from which she acquired her characters. By placing the power of eloquence due to holy chastity and Christian strength from virtue, Hrotsvit altered, at the very least, the typical notion of passive femininity found within the literature describing the lives of saints. This chapter will argue that she not only recognized her actions as clearly inverting and subverting the female role within these saints’ tales, but that she chose to allow this challenge to remain unspoken. Her departure from the form of female passivity will be analyzed in similar terms as found in Chapter Three, focusing on themes of female subjectivity and the female voice.

CHAPTER 2 HROTSVIT’S RELATIONSHIP WITH TERENCE; HISTORY OF SCHOLARLY PERCEPTION OF HROTSVIT; AND THE RHETORIC OF THE HUMILITY TOPOS

Introduction In any analysis of Hrotsvit’s challenge to Terence, one must first look to the reasons why Hrotsvit found Terence so offensive in content. Of all the Classical writers accessible to readers of the tenth century, Hrotsvit singled out Terence alone as her opponent. Her reasons for choosing Terence are likely based on his popularity at that time and in that culture. Hrotsvit must have felt utter contempt that a writer of clandestine lovers and deceitful sinners could find such acceptance within the environment of the new Holy Roman Empire. This chapter delves into this issue, to offer suppositions as to Hrotsvit’s perceptions of Terence and the goals that she herself had in regards to her competition with him. It is also important that we review the academic discourse on Hrotsvit’s relationship with Terence, as it has altered greatly in the last century. Since her writings were basically unknown in the centuries following her death, it wasn’t until much later that scholars became aware of Hrotsvit. After the accusations of forgery were disproved, scholars still painted the canoness as a poor imitation, perpetuating the negative perception of her. Slowly, academics began looking again at Hrotsvit with a newer appreciation of her accomplishments, and in her role as a woman stepping into a male realm. I will provide a synopsis of the history of academic opinion on Hrotsvit’s challenge to Terence, and denote my own perception of this scholarly journey as an evolution of thought in women’s studies. Further, I will synopsize the argument of whether Hrotsvit’s use of Terence falls into the imitatio or the aemulatio category, and state my own opinions on this debate. This chapter also delves into the rhetorical devices used by Hrotsvit, in response to Terence’s prologues. Whereas Chapter 3 studies the interplay between Terence’s plays and Hrotsvit’s dramas, this chapter looks at the prologues of both authors. Hrotsvit began her contest with Terence from the very beginning of her works. The topos of literary humility is a very well- known device that might have seemed the most logical choice for the canoness, and thus over- looked. I will argue that Hrotsvit’s use of this rhetorical device is not only designed to adhere to the expected forms of the time, but was also implemented specifically to showcase the

26 differences between herself and her chosen opponent. By looking at the history and growth of the humility topos from its Classical to its Christian forms, I will show how Terence and Hrotsvit both indicated their clear knowledge of this device and then the manner in which they chose to address it. I believe that in order to appreciate how exactly Hrotsvit honed and manipulated her prologues, one must understand her major vehicle of rhetoric, and how its implementation offered her yet another form of contest with Terence.

Why Challenge Terence? “Hrotsvit thus faces the dilemma also experienced by later Christian writers such as Dante and Spenser, who desired to reconcile their admiration of classical culture with their Christian belief. Their solution was to find in classical literature and myth the expression of Christian truth, veiled to the pagan mind but discernible through Christian exegesis. I contend that Hrotsvit anticipates these writers with a similar solution when she exploits in her plays the secular patterns of Terentian drama for their Christian meanings. Her plays become, in effect, an allegorical rereading of Terence”72

Hrotsvit employed many sources to enhance her writing, showcase her knowledge and arête, and promote her authorial prestige, but she had much more specific intentions regarding one particular source: Terence. Terence represented to her the dangers of all pagan writers, but his literary artfulness made him more treacherous than his Classical counterparts. Read in court settings, Terence was well known in the 10th century and was likely familiar to Hrotsvit from Otto II’s royal court. In Hrotsvit’s opinion, Terence combined great eloquence with salacious characters, characters that represented Greek and Roman society of bygone eras. Specifically, Terence’s female characters embodied the traits of Roman patriarchical thought, valuing their chastity and virginity only as characteristics which might assist them with the possibility of a good marriage, or in the case of courtesans, to obtain wealthy benefactors. In Hrostvit’s medieval perception, Terence’s male characters embodied standard pagan evils: they sought to debase women for their own sexual desires, unhindered by the Christian concept of piety which had a significantly broader scope than its pagan counterpart.73 Such characters did not illustrate the

72 Talbot, 2004, 148-9. 73 The Roman concept of piety differed in many ways from the Christian concept. For Romans, piety involved civic duties. Although it was used for religious purposes, in one’s correct behavior towards the gods, its form was that of what was proper the Roman state. Thus, piety encompasses a Roman’s religious attitude, familial relationships, and duty for the fatherland. In 27 morality of thought Hrotsvit valued. By reading Terence, Hrotsvit thought Christians of her time were endangering their immortal souls, as the Roman poet’s words could bring degradation to the mind and soul through their dissemblance; this is, as noted above, an opinion she shared with Isidore of Seville.74 Publius Terentius Afer was a Roman playwright of the 2nd century B.C.E., well known in his own time for six plays, all of which still survive today. Terence was one of two comic playwrights from whom we have complete plays.75 Both wrote comedies that preserved the culture of their Greek originals while still finding popularity with Roman audiences. Terence borrowed heavily from the Hellenistic playwright Menander, inter-splicing bits from various plays in his treatment of Menander’s comedies; as he notes in his prologues, this resulted in accusations of literary theft.76 He also wrote in a more vernacular manner than Menander or Plautus, employing a Latin style that would later be seen in the works and letters of Catullus and Cicero.77 One of the features modern scholars often focus on is Terence’s incorporation of sympathetic humanitas to his characters’ plights, primarily in his treatment of the relationship between fathers and sons in his plays.78 But for the 10th century canoness, Terence’s humanitas did not exonerate his faults, as he sought enlightenment through mankind and not through the Christian God.79

contrast to this secular form, the Christians’ religious form of piety dealt more so with the value of the chastity of society and its members (especially women). 74 Within his Etymologiae, Isidore identifies Plautus and Terence as the two Classical authors most likely to seduce Christian readers with their elegant style. 75 The other was Titus Maccius Plautus. 76 The accusation of literary theft against Terence is an important one to Hrotsvit, who toys with this concept in her own prologues. This point will be addressed in a footnote later in this chapter. 77 For Cicero’s use of Terence in his letters, see Robert Y. Tyrrell’s and Louis C. Purser’s The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero: Arranged According to Its Chronological Order (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, & Co., Ltd, 1906), lxix. For Catullus’s use of Terence and Plautus in adapting his Hellenistic models to Roman audiences, see R. Maltby’s “The Language of Early Latin Epigram”. In Sandalion 20, (1997), 43-56. 78 Gilmartin states that Terence consistently shows a mutual dependence amongst human beings, and that the Eunuchus is a comic study of the basic human need to belong. Further, Judith Tarr also focuses on the basic opposition between Terence’s world and Hrotsvit’s Christian one as Divinitas vs. Humanitas. Terence’s concentration on mankind and the peripheral roles of the gods would have been a “severe failing; the world with its center left out” for Hrotsvit’s mind. Tarr, 1987, 57. 79 As Katharina Wilson explains, “The true center of existence in Terence’s plays is man; a universe which for Hrotsvit, as it was for Tertullian and Augustine, was devoid of meaning 28

Hrotsvit took great umbrage with Terence’s themes, finding them base and contemptible, as we can see from her prologues.80 Hrotsvit’s condemnation of Terence stood upon his view of a world without the Christian God, whether or not he created understanding characters who learned from their errors.81 Hrotsvit acknowledged Terence’s literary skill openly in her prefaces and also more importantly in her choice of his plays, above all others, as foils for her writing ambitions. But her vision of Terence was of a talented writer whose pagan beliefs held moral peril for his readers. Her goal was to employ his style of writing to promote holy Christian value and to reform the female characters she found into women of virtue with Christian empowerment. “Hrotsvit’s aim in imitation, like those of Saints Jerome and Augustine, is not synthesis but subordination: the popular form made the vehicle of eternal truth.”82 She states her case and reasoning at the beginning of her Preface to the Dramas:

“Many Catholics one may find, and we are also guilty of charges of this kind, who for the beauty of their eloquent style, prefer the uselessness of pagan guile to the usefulness of sacred scripture. There are also others, who, devoted to sacred readings and scorning the works of other pagans, yet frequently read Terence's fiction, and as they delight in the sweetness of his style and diction, they are stained by learning of wicked things in his depiction. Therefore I, the strong voice of Gandersheim, have not refused to imitate him in writing whom others honor in reading, so that in that selfsame form of composition in which the shameless acts of lascivious women were phrased the laudable chastity of sacred virgins be praised within the limits of my little talent”83

Terence’s popularity in Hrotsvit’s time is well attested. On an educational level, Terence’s rediscovery in the tenth century placed him in the ranks of Horace, Juvenal, Lucan, Persius, Statius, and Virgil as an author for the study of the arts of the trivium and quadrivium.84 Prior to the tenth century, there appears to be no medieval knowledge of Terence. Scholars argue

because it was a world with its center totally misplaced. Terence’s humanitas only has a place at the margins of her world occupied by its rightful center of divinitas” Wilson, 1998, 118. 80 “However, while Terence’s comedies appear harmless enough to us today, the patristic and, later, ecclesiastic condemnation of the theater as sinful and pagan entertainment, not fit for Christians kept even the most innocent of comedies in ill repute” Wilson, 1988, 104. 81 Tarr, in her treatment of the relationship between Hrotsvit and Terence wrote: “She [Hrotsvit] is intent not only upon countering the vain sweetness of Terence’s style or the lasciviousness of his heroines; she finds him more deeply subversive as well, subversive in his whole view of the world and of man, and particularly of man’s relationship to God” Tarr, 1987, 57. 82 Wilson, 1988, 65. 83 Wilson, 1998, 41. 84 Newell, 1987, 127-142. 29 that four commentaries of Terence’s works reached the Carolingian empire shortly after the reign of Charlemagne, beginning the advent of Terence’s medieval popularity.85 This popularity grew rapidly, a fact attested to by the reproduction of the Terentius cum picturis text copied approximately eight hundred times in the monastery of Corbie in the fifty years before Hrotsvit’s birth.86 She probably encountered Terence in the Ottonian royal court. Bruno’s active intellectualism likely favored readings of the extremely fashionable Terence, as ascertained by contemporaneous descriptions.87 Hence, Hrotsvit would presumably have confronted Terence in her studies as well as in her cultural surroundings.

The History of Scholarly Opinions on Hrotsvit’s Use of Terence Academic analysis of Hrotsvit’s works indicates trends in modern scholarship which have influenced interpretations of Hrotsvit’s works. Before the reaffirmation of Hrtosvit in the 20th century, some scholars denounced any relation of Hrotsvit’s work to Terence’s. They claimed her writings lacked any discernible literary similarity to the Roman playwright. These authors presumably represent echoes of the accusations of forgery first instigated by Aschbach in the late 19th century. Although groups of scholars had successfully defended Hrotsvit against these allegations, some scholars still perceived the canoness as amateurish and denied Hrotsvit any resemblance to Terence. Arthur J. Roberts, writing in 1901, presented a shallow analysis of the relationship between Hrotsvit and Terence saying that Terence wrote in verse and Hrotsvit wrote in prose, (even falling into “rude German in rimes” at times), that Terence usually respected the canonical Aristotelian unity of time while Hrotsvit disregarded it, and that Terence’s plots were frivolous but intricate whereas Hrotsvit’s were important but simple. Roberts tersely dismissed any relationship between Hrotsvit and Terence, clearly perceiving

85 “Critical editions of Com. Br. [Commentum Brusianum], Com. Mon. [Commentum Monacense], and the Expositio, the determination of the class of Terentian MSS for which they were written, analysis of the material they offer, comparison with the Carolingian scholia on other Latin poets cannot fail to throw light on the text of Terence and on the transmission of his plays in the early Middle Ages” Rand, 1909, 389. 86 Sticca, 1982, 123. 87 Newell supports Ruotger of Cologne’s description of Bruno as “assiduously studying pagan writings even to the extent of reading tragedies and comedies may well refer to the reading of Terence as well” Newell, 1987, 131-2.

Hrotsvit as failing in her endeavor to “imitate” Terence.88 Other scholars of the early 20th century also doubted any real imitation of Terence by Hrotsvit. Cornelia C. Coulter, often cited by more modern authors, wrote in 1929 that she discerned a “faint hint” of Terentian themes in the importance of the courtesan’s roles, the prominence of the element of love as the force of action, the disguise-motif with the little twist of motive, but most specifically in the tricks of vocabulary and phrasing. Coulter still obviously perceived Hrotsvit’s writings within the limited concept of clear imitation (see immediately below).89 As scholarship on the canoness continued into the later 20th century, more and more scholars perceived Terentian elements layered within Hrotsvit’s writings. As later scholarship endeavored to re-examine the relationship between the canoness and her pagan predecessor in matters of form, style, subject matter, perspective and plot elements, reflections of Terence were clearly found in Hrotsvit.90 Katharina Wilson, one of the foremost scholars on Hrotsvit, states, “…the history of critical thinking about the poetic and dramatic merits of Hrotsvit’s works has oscillated between the poles of euphoric praise and fastidious disparagement.”91 I believe that scholarly appreciation of Hrotsvit grew in correspondence with the field of Women’s Studies. Prior to the birth of this discipline, academics did not give consideration to women’s historical endeavors. I think the ridicule of accusations of forgery and dismissals of her literary achievements was due to her gender, in a time before feminist thought had gained acceptance. By around the mid-twentieth century, feminist thought and acknowledgment of women’s place in history had opened the door to Women’s Studies. It was within this milieu, I believe, that scholars looked upon Hrotsvit again, but with appreciation for her endeavors especially as a woman.

88 “Terence and Hrotswitha both wrote plays, each wrote six, and there the similarity ends.” 88 Strangely enough, it is the lack of Terentian elements in Hrotsvit’s plays that Roberts claims argues against the forgery theory. He posited that when Hrotsvit wrote that she was imitating Terence, she meant only in form and thus, only as a dramatic literary form. If Hrotsvit’s writings had been a fraud, contested Roberts, then they would have been by some literary person endeavoring to prove that Terence was a major influence during the “midnight of the dark ages.” From this, Roberts stated “There is no Terence in these plays, and there certainly would have been had they been written for the purpose just described” Roberts, 1901, 480. 89 “Clearly there is little in these six plays which, from our point of view, can justly be called Terentian” Coulter, 1929, 526-7. 90“Scholars have come to agree that Hrotsvit’s relationship to Terence goes considerably deeper than a similarity of number and genre” Tarr, 1987, 55. 91 Wilson, 1988, vii. 31

Now that academia acknowledges Hrotsvit’s relationship with Terence, one of the main arguments of recent scholarship is whether or not Hrotsvit’s use of Terence was a form of imitatio or aemulatio. Any study of Hrotsvit’s relationship to Terence must address this issue, as it clarifies the projected perception Hrotsvit had of her self-appointed task and thus, is one of the cornerstones from which modern scholarship develops theories on the canoness and her literary agendas. The modern concept of imitation derives directly from the Latin form of imitatio, whereas the concept of aemulatio did not descend into modern English as such. The word can be defined as loosely as ‘imitation’, but essentially it represents more of a rivalry or competition, in the sense of ‘emulation’ wherein one endeavors to equal or excel another. Robert Talbot writes: “Today it is still widely accepted that Hrotsvit refers primarily to matter of form and style when she claims to write in a Terentian mode.”92 Judith Tarr argues for both forms, but that the concept of aemulatio was the more important of the two, as Hrotsvit’s relationship to Terence was one ‘of rivalry, of “one-upmanship” wherein she sought to present a series of dramatic works that could challenge Terence’s themes and characters. “This is Hrotsvit’s own avowed purpose, to provide an “antidote” to the seductions of the pagan poet; a series of dramatic works centering upon Christian themes and characters.”93 Sandro Sticca argues that Hrotsvit’s “imitation” of Terence is limited to form and style although she does employ them in a different manner. “Hrotswitha’s imitation of Terence must not be looked upon in terms of the traditional concept of aemulatio which referred exclusively to content but rather as a limited kind of imitatio which outwardly expressed itself in the number of plays and the use of dialogue in them.”94 Sticca broached the subject again five years later broadening his argument of Hrotsvit’s imitation being limited to form and style, but within the limitations of the tenth-century concepts of imitatio and aemulatio.95 Nevertheless, Sticca perceives Hrotsvit’s efforts as historically significant.96

92 Talbot, 2004, 147. 93 Tarr, 1987, 55. 94 Sticca, 1982, 125. 95 “For her concept of aemulatio and imitatio is more manifestly Jeromian than Augustinian; in fact, whereas in the Middle Ages the lovers of the literary heritage of antiquity found in St. Augustine the propounder and defender of their thesis, the anti-humanists claimed St. Jerome as their patron in the fight against pagan authors” Sticca, 1987, 1. 96 “From a historical viewpoint, her imitation of Terence and the insertion of comic scenes in her religious plays amply demonstrate that Hrotswitha, an author of the tenth century, was not only 32

Helene Homeyer does not perceive a great amount of Terentian influence in Hrotsvit’s works. She feels that Hrotsvit’s borrowing of Terentian elements “beschränkt sich auf affektische und formelhafte Prägungen aus der literarisch gestalteten Umgangssprache, also auf Ausrufe, Partikel, elliptische Kurzsätze, Fragen und dgl. Sie sind besonders an den Übergangen und kritischen Höhepunkten der Handlung eingeschaltet, um die Dialogführung lebendig zu gestalten, die Handlung vorwärtszutreiben und Gemütsbewegungen wid Freude, Schrecken, Aufregung, Überraschung und Zorn anzudeuten”97. Like Sticca, Homeyer praises Hrotsvit’s writings not for their Terentian style, but rather for what the canoness created in her attempts to compete with Terence.98 Wilson’s treatment of the debate as to Hrotsvit’s indebtedness and in what form are more extensive than any other scholar. Particularly in her 1989 Ethics of Authorial Stance, Wilson dives into the debate with very detailed analysis. Wilson doesn’t focus on the term aemulatio as much as other scholars, but she does define Hrotsvit’s main use of imitatio as one based on form over content. She argues that Hrotsvit employed Terence’s dramatic form in order to share a different type of story than the Roman playwright offered. Terence’s form and capable of correctly classifying Terence's dramas in the genus dramaticum but possessed, moreover, the necessary mental capacities to engage herself in this literary genre which will find its greatest illustration in the twelfth century in the "comoedia elegiaca" and the mimetic tradition. As such, the gentle nun of Gandersheim remains the first Christian dramatic writer to have rediscovered classical dramaturgy and created in the process a new literary form, the plays in rhymed prose” Sticca, 1982, 138. 97 “limited itself to affective and formulaic impressions from the literary formed colloquial language, also on interjections/exclamations, particles, elliptical shortened sentences, questions and such. They are especially (evident) in the translations and critical highlights of the action going on in order to fashion the lively dialogue-command, the action makes forward progress and indicates emotion like joy, fright, excitement, surprise and anger” Homeyer, 1968, 975. 98 Homeyer’s vision of Hrotsvit’s use of Terence has been widely quoted: “Das blosse Kopieren und gelegentliche Einfügen sprachlicher Elemente aus der Komödie war die kleinere Aufgabe. Die sprachlichen Entlehnungen -fast immer w6rtlich übernommen – sind kühn in eine fremde Stilumgebung versetzt. Der Stilumgebung versetzt. Der Stilkontrast wird gemildert durch die geschickt gehandhabte Dialogführung – eine erstaunliche Leistung, wenn man bedenkt, dass Hrotsvitha durch eine Welt von dem römischen Dichter getrennt war. Der Wunsch, das Vorbild zu überbieten -wobei die aemulatio sich ausschliesslich auf den Inhalt bezog -hat in den Dramen von nachschaffenden imitatio zu neuen Schöpfungen geführt.” “The bare and occasional insertion of linguistic elements from the comedy was a smaller task. The linguistic borrowings – almost always word-for-word excess – are boldly transferred into a foreign stylistic milieu. The stylistic constrast becomes moderated through her skillfully handled command of dialogue– an amazing achievement, when one considers that Hrotsvit was a world away from the Roman poet. The wish, the model to surpass – in which the aemulatio covered itself from the contents – has in the dramas from the adoption of technique led to new creations/inventions” Homeyer, 1968, 977. 33 the popularity of that form were what Hrotsvit imitated, but with the ambition to use the sweetness of his style to tell her own stories – ones that turned Terence’s lascivious females into women of Christian virtue. “Like Jerome and Augustine, she [Hrotsvit] uses the pagan literary tradition for apologetic and instructive purposes – as weapons to defeat an opponent on his own grounds and to arrest the interest of her audience by the form they seem to like best, while imparting the useful instruction of her Christian ideals.”99 Utilizing the terms scholars have grafted onto this argument, Wilson supports the aemulatio argument in her descriptions of imitatio. The dates that these various articles were published are interesting and lead to another strand of thought. Homeyer’s article was published in 1968, followed by Sticca’s ‘Sacred Drama and Comic Realism’ in 1982, and his ‘The Hagiographical and Monastic Content’ in 1987. Tarr’s article was published in 1987, Wilson’s ‘Plays’ and ‘Ethics of Authorial Stance’ were both published in 1989 and her ‘Florilegium’ followed in 1998, and finally Talbot’s article was published in 2004. Homeyer and Sticca both were likely influenced by the scholarship of the first half of the twentieth century, when accusations of forgery still echoed in the writings of such scholars as Roberts and Coulter. Both scholars argue against strong similarities between Hrotsvit and Terence, basing their theories on their definition of imitatio. As the century came to a close, most modern scholars argued against their perceptions of Hrotsvit’s use of Terence, newly defining the concepts of imitatio and aemulatio to represent certain, specific types of similarities between Hrotsvit and Terence. One can easily hypothesize that the definitions employed to describe the relatively new appreciation of Hrotsvit’s treatment of Terence grew in context as modern scholars sought to represent the goals and actions performed by a 10th century canoness without either precedents or followers. Hrotsvit’s ambitions were very extraordinary for her lack of exempla in seeking to write dramas that challenged the status quo of the position of women, as well as using Classical form and techniques to surpass her chosen model, in terms of worthiness, if not style. For these reasons, modern scholars face a difficult task in trying to determine how to analyze Hrotsvit’s works, and this, in turn, explains the academic controversy in sorting the Saxon canoness into a recognizable literary category. Within this inter-referencing currently employed by modern scholarship, where did the canoness place herself in regards to her relationship with Terence? Hrotsvit herself uses the term

99 Wilson, 1988, 65. 34

“imitate.” “Unde ego Clamor Validus Gandeshemensis. non recusavi ilium imitari dictando….”100 But she only denotes that her “imitation” is set within the large context of “form” (eodem dictationis genere 101). This vague description of her use of Terence has bothered scholars since serious research began on Hrotsvit. Although she says “imitation,” recent analysis of her use of Terentian elements speaks to the approach of aemulatio, instead. By Hrotsvit’s own words, she seeks to use the same form of Terence so that she may praise something actually praise-worthy to her mind, versus the libidinous representations presented in his plays “quo eodem dictationis genere quo turpia lascivarum incesta feminarum recitabantur laudabilis sacrarum castimonia virginum iuxta mei facultatem ingenioli celebraretur.”102 She is not just writing to glorify God and bespeak of Christian morality, nor is she just imitating Terence to place her messages within a pleasing format. Hrotsvit is stating her intention to provide writing that is superior to Terence’s in its message, if not its eloquence. And for Hrotsvit, the message far outweighs the vehicle with which it is transmitted.103 Indeed, as Peter Dronke points out, Hrotsvit implies that it is her God-given duty to write these plays as a counterpart to Terence’s writings:104

“This alone I strive for with humble and devoted heart! Even if aptitude is lacking on my part - that I may return the gift I received to its Giver again. For I am not such a lover of myself nor so vain that in order to avoid censure I would refrain from preaching Christ's glory and strength as it works through His saints to the extent He grants me the ability to do so”105

Thus, Hrotsvit challenges Terence: his world of lewdness and depravity versus her world of God-given righteousness. Perhaps Wilson sums up the concepts of imitatio and aemulatio in the case of Hrotsvit the best:

100 “Therefore I, the Strong Voice of Gandersheim, have not refused to imitate him in writing…” Preface to the Dramas. Wilson, 1998, 41. 101 “in that selfsame form of composition” Preface to the Dramas. Wilson, 1998, 41. 102 “…so that in that selfsame form of composition in which the shameless acts of lascivious women were phrased, the laudable chastity of sacred virgins be praised…” Preface to the Dramas. Wilson, 1998, 41. 103 As Tarr states: “This is Hrotsvit's own avowed purpose, to provide an "antidote" to the seductions of the pagan poet: a series of dramatic works centering upon Christian themes and characters”103 Tarr, 1987, 56. 104 “She even intimates that writing chaste, Christian plays in the Terentian genre, and thereby redeeming the genre, was a kind of prophetic mission she took on” Dronke, 1984, 70. 105 Preface to the Dramas. Wilson, 1998, 42. 35

“Imitari clearly is the key term here-imitari so that she can successfully praedicare [to praise]. Imitari, quite common in Hrotsvit’s texts, usually refers to emulation of desired behavior, presented by the examples of the virtuous. Here, however, imitation or emulation explicitly refers to genre and form (dictando and stilo officio), not to subject matter. The providing of the subject matter to give themes for the formal imitations is praedicare, to give testimony, for Christ. In this she aims at a sort of reversed mimesis, the appropriation of the form so that she may reconstitute the subject matter and invert the effect; the reproducing of the form in order to produce her didactic program; the imitating of the form so that the ideals it will contain may be imitated-formal imitatio (providing pleasure and recognition) placed in the service of moral didacticism (providing cognitive pleasure derived from usefulness). Her purpose of imitating Terence is quite different from her didactic aim of providing models for imitation for her Christian readers; indeed, imitari, while invariably referring to the process of assimilation or appropriation, bears two connotations depending on whether it refers to a literary process or a moral practice. In the prefatory reference, it could perhaps be best glossed as the identification and subsequent appropriation of the form; in the narrative occurrences of the term, on the other hand, imitari is identification with and subsequent emulation of the hagiographic ideals depicted by Hrotsvit. This is Hrotvit’s specific and personal reason for wishing to compose in the dramatic form: Terence was read and enjoyed; she wanted to substitute for that reading and enjoying, mutatis mutandis, Christian and morally good subject matter”106

In my opinion, Hrotsvit offers a challenge and a rivalry to Terence with clear intentions to replace him as the writer of choice for the Catholics of her time. So, although as Wilson argues, Hrotsvit’s intention was imitari, it was only in reference to genre and form. In regards to subject matter, Hrotsvit’s intent was praedicare through inversion of effect. In other words, she sought to replace Terence’s program with one of Christian morality, i.e. via mutatis mutandis. This contest of content clearly fits within the concept of aemulatio. Hrotsvit perceived Terence as her opponent, and she aimed to use his own vehicle of form and style to surpass him in content and reader appreciation. This fact is interesting in itself, as Terence also sought to utilize previous authors, such as Menander, yet to exceed their writings with his own. This is one of the only examples of similarity between the canoness and the playwright. The concept of aemulatio within Hrotsvit’s challenge to Terence is a multi-layered challenge. She seeks to write like Terence in style and in the literary form, but she also equally seeks to replace “the shameless acts of lascivious women” with the “laudable chastity of sacred virgins”. This alone is a major feat that has drawn the attention of modern scholars. Current research does ascribe to Hrotsvit the purposeful inversion of female literary characters, both from

106 Wilson, 1988, 15. 36

Terence’s plays as well as from hagiographical sources. Scholars such as Phyllis Brown, Sue- Ellen Case, Amy Oden, Elizabeth Alvilda Petroff, Helene Scheck and Robert Talbot have all commented upon Hrotsvit’s inversion of female objectivity to subjectivity. Chapter Three will delve into Hrotsvit’s treatment of this issue within the plays and dramas. Hrotsvit’s inversions and subversions of Terence’s themes are found not only in her characters, but also in the mockery of his literary topoi. Hrotsvit begins her game of inversion and subversion at the very start, with Terence’s own voice – his prologues. Terence used his prologues as a means to vent a vindictive tirade against his critics, specifically in the charge of literary thievery. Hrotsvit adroitly employs a humility topos in her prologues to her potential critics while simultaneously modestly acknowledging herself as a literary thief.107 Because Terence’s endings concluded with resolutions that do not challenge the existing conditions, they left their viewers/readers with a feeling of the status quo reestablished. Hrotsvit sought to leave her readers with feelings of optimism and righteousness. Her characters overcome their obstacles, and instead of falling back into the regular circumstances of life, they instead climb to a higher existence, into paradise itself. As Katharina Wilson posits: “This is precisely Hrotsvit's intent in experimenting with the dramatic form: to defeat Terence on his own ground and to create a Christian drama which does not pose grave moral danger to its readers; instead, she depicts paradigmatic examples of Christian virtue and asceticism so that the mind might be stirred to reflection, the heart to love, and the soul to moral improvement.”108

The Humility Topos and the Themes of Ethos and Pathos in Antiquity Since all of Terence’s prologues feature tirades against his critics, it was important to the canoness to draw a distinction; the prologues to her legends and dramas and her letter to her patrons therefore all utilize the humility topos. Her approach not only offered a clear inversion tactic from the very beginning of her campaign, it also distinctly cast Terence as a very arrogant person as well as depicting Hrotsvit by contrast as a modest Christian. Thus, her usage of the humility topos illustrated her proper Christian attitude and simultaneously began the contest of

107 Although we can only surmise, it seems likely that Hrotsvit was also aware that the theme of literary thievery was another ancient topos. Such a twist on Terence via the intertwining of ancient literary devices suited Hrotsvit’s ambitions and showcased her education. 108 Wilson, 1989, xii. 37 aemulatio with Terence. This literary theme was not new to the medieval period. The humility topos was very popular in the Classical era. It was a familiar rhetorical device wherein the writer or speaker, pretending to be less intelligent than he actually is, would portray himself as humble due to his ignorance or inexperience. This literary device was commonplace in antiquity, and can be seen as early as Plato’s Socratic dialogues wherein Socrates would feign ignorance in order to trap his dialectic opponent in a contradiction. The humility topos offered Hrotsvit several attractive benefits including methods of argument (in order to purposefully be underestimated by opponents) to express naivety, to create compassion and disarm readers/viewers, and to win the favor of the audience. This specific tool is a rhetorical device, and as such it serves to affect the decision-making of its intended audience. The Greeks and Romans were very concerned with the concept of how the audience relates to the writer/speaker. Aristotle’s Rhetoric defined the Greek concept of rhetoric and its uses, particularly in the terms of ethos and pathos. These two concepts acted as a balance for one another. The concept of ethos tied into the idea of rationality; the audience’s belief in the reliability of the writer/speaker and the information they are presenting. Because Aristotle’s notion of ethos was based in rationality and reliability, it lacked emotional content by definition. For this deficiency, Aristotle offered the notion of pathos wherein all the audience’s emotions resided.109 Cicero, arguably the best orator of Western culture, formed an alternate approach to the concepts of ethos and pathos110. Although Cicero lived later than Terence, his discussions on rhetorical devices clearly explained the Classical view of such techniques during the Roman era. For the Roman politician, the concept of ethos encompassed the audience’s response to the speaker/writer in a similar fashion to Aristotle’s, but it was also concerned with the entirety of the speaker’s/writer’s persona or character. More importantly, it factored in the notion of the audience’s good will towards the speaker/writer. This in turn, required an evocation of certain emotions, even if in the mildest sense. Thus, whereas Socrates used this topos as a tool, Cicero

109 Aristotle’s On Rhetoric 110 It is unknown whether or not Cicero was aware of his variation on Aristotle’s notions. May & Wisse, Cicero, 35. 38 saw this affectation of emotion in formulaic terms: he did not consider the favor of the audience as a goal itself, but as one of the components necessary within a successful body of work.111 Cicero additionally denoted other qualities that were desirable in the speaker/writer. He encouraged signs of generosity, mildness, dutifulness, gratitude and a lack of desire and greed.112 With the goodwill of the audience obtained, the speaker/writer has already won the favor of the audience to his cause.113 The humility topos obviously offers value, as it produces pity for the speaker/writer. The pity this rhetorical device promotes is for the author and his/her literary endeavors. This convention is employed especially in prefaces, falling into one of two distinct types according to Cicero and Quintilian: proemium or insinuatio.114 Both types sought the goodwill of the reader, one directly and the other by some surprising turn. The writers could then seek goodwill by in personis nostris, disceptatorum, adversariorum and e rebus. Terence wrote before Cicero’s time, but the Hellenistic rhetorical texts Cicero studied would have been available to Terence and their literary devices well known to the Roman playwright. It is important to note that Terence did not follow this commonplace practice in the prologues to his plays. Although this does not set Terence apart since the humility topos was not universally used by all ancient authors, his decision not to use this device allowed the canoness to launch another form of erudite aemulatio against his writings. Terence chose not to employ the modest and humble approach to his audience nor did he seek to disarm them with protestations of his inability or inexperience. Instead, he focused attention upon himself and spoke frankly and disparagingly of his critics. For Hrostvit, as well as many modern scholars, Terence’s use of prologues was strictly based on his own arrogance and was his own

111 “The character, the customs, the deeds, and the life, both of those who do the pleading and of those on whose behalf they plead, make a very important contribution to winning a case. These should be approved of, and the corresponding elements in the opponents should meet with disapproval, and the minds of the audience should, as much as possible, be won over to fell goodwill towards the orator as well as toward his client” Cicero, De oratore, 2.182. 112 “Actually all qualities typical of people who are decent and unassuming, not severe, not obstinate, not litigious, not harsh, really win goodwill, and alienate the audience from those who do not possess them” Cicero, De oratore, 2.182. 113 Cicero specifically mentioned the emotion of pity for its rhetorical usefulness: “Why should I speak about appeals to pity? I employed more of these in my orations…I have generally employed it so passionately that I have even held a baby in my arms during the peroration…” Cicero, De oratore, 2.194. 114 Cicero, Ad Herennium, 1.4; Quintilian, Inst. Or 4.1.2. 39 innovation.115 In this way, his vehemence and tirade stood out for their disregard of the standard topos, and his verbal attacks assaulted the senses of his audience, at least those of the medieval period.116 By referring back to Cicero’s instructions for successful rhetoric, we can see Terence’s knowledge of the Classical expectations in a prologue (“When the playwright first turned his mind to writing, he believed that his only problem was to ensure that the plays he had created would win the approval of the public.”) as well as his disavowal of this practice in favor of a diatribe. He stated first that his initial intention in writing was to win the approval of the audience (“He now realizes that the reality is quite different. He is wasting his time writing prologues, not to explain the plot but to respond to the slanders of a malicious old playwright.”), a statement that indicates his knowledge of the rules of ethos. Terence declared that writing a winsome prologue was a waste of his time when he should be countering the accusations of slander. This incorporates the pathos stage of evoking strong emotion and demonstrates

115 “These prologues cannot represent anything that Terence found in his Greek originals, since they are entirely concerned with Terence himself and the Roman theatre of his day: he defends himself against criticisms made by a rival, attacks that rival in his turn, and pleads for a fair hearing of his own plays” Brown, trans., 2006, xvii. Nevertheless, Terence’s tirades could represent something completely different, and instead demonstrated his imitation of Old Greek Comedy, situating himself specifically as a comic playwright. His vendetta against Luscius could be his version of imitatio of Aristophanes’ feud with Cleon from the plays Babylonians and Knights. 116 “When the playwright first turned his mind to writing, he believed that his only problem was to ensure that the plays he had created would win the approval of the public. He now realizes that the reality is quite different. He is wasting his time writing prologues, not to explain the plot but to respond to the slanders of a malicious old playwright. Now please pay attention while I explain the substance of his criticisms. Menander wrote a “Woman of Andros" and a "Woman of Perinthos." If you know one. you know them both, since the plots are not very different, though they are written in a different language and style. Our author confesses that he has transferred anything suitable from the "Woman of Perinthos" to the "Woman of Andros" and made free use of it. His critics abuse him for doing this, arguing that it is not right to contaminate plays in this way. But isn't their cleverness making them obtuse? In criticizing our author, they are actually criticizing Naevius. Plautus, and Ennius, whom he takes as his models, preferring to imitate their carelessness in this respect rather than the critics' own dreary pedantry. So I am warning them from now on to hold their tongues and stop their slanders, or they will be forced to acknowledge their own shortcomings. Give us your support, listen with open minds, and come to a decision. It is for you to determine what hope our author has, whether the new comedies he writes in the future are to gain an audience or be driven off the stage without a hearing” Barsby, The Woman of Andros of Terence 2001a, 51-3. 40

Aristotle’s dual model of rhetoric. Terence was primarily responding to the critic Luscius of Lanuvium (according to Donatus), who denounced Terence for the practice of “contamination.” Terence had openly borrowed from the plays of Menander, basing many of his themes and characters on the Greek New Comedy style of Menander. Neither the Greeks nor Romans considered this a form of plagiarism, but even so, they did apply certain rules to such borrowings. When Terence included material of Menander’s Women of Perinthos to his version of The Woman of Andros (also a play by Menander), his critics accused him of contaminating the plays. He responded by insulting these critics, calling them obtuse and pretentious, and warning them to cease their slanders or be shown their own faults. “He admits to the practice of contaminatio regarding his use of Greek plots, and justifies his use of imitatio concerning his occasional stylistic and verbal borrowings from talented men by presenting them as worthy of imitation.”117 He ended the prologue to The Woman of Andros by asking the audience to decide if his innovations were acceptable for future use. Terence wrote The Woman of Andros in 166 B.C.E., The Mother-in-Law next in 165 B.C.E., and The Self-Tormentor in 163 B.C.E. His second play, The Mother-in-Law (Hecyra) was first perfomed at the Megalensian Games in 165 and then at the Funeral Games for Aemilius Paullus in 160. Neither performance was completed (seemingly because of interruptions), nor did the prologue from the first performance survive118. In The Self-Tormenter, Terence again spoke to his critic(s) within his prologue, this time he did so through an actor who appeared as the playwright’s advocate. The actor explained that the playwright had turned this issue over to the audience, speaking as a lawyer would address a courtroom.119 The “malicious old playwright”

117 Wilson, 1988, 15 118 Brown, 2006, 61-2. 119 “Malicious people have spread rumors to the effect that the playwright has contaminated many Greek plays while creating new Latin ones. He does not deny that this is so; he does not regret it and he declares that he will do the same again. He has good writers as a precedent, and he reckons that with them as a precedent he is permitted to do what they did. The malicious old playwright further asserts that our author has taken up the dramatic art rather suddenly, relying on the talent of his friends and not on his natural ability. This is a matter for your judgment; you shall decide the issue. I should like you all to be persuaded not to let biased arguments have more weight than unbiased ones. Make sure that you are fair, and give those writers a chance to flourish who give you the chance to see new plays not marred by faults. The playwright who recently portrayed a crowd making way for a running slave in the street should not imagine that I am including him in this: why should anyone defend a madman? Our author will have more to say about his failings when 41 was Luscius again, who apparently did not desist in his criticisms of Terence’s plays. Luscius’ own plays did not survive antiquity, but Terence’s rejoinders to him indicated that Luscius valued adherence to the Greek originals. Again, Terence referred to his sources, claiming their authenticity in determining literary styles and stipulations. He encouraged his viewers to judge his works fairly, as he was providing them with new plays “not marred by faults”. After this oblique reference to Luscius, Terence made one more jab at his adversary without any intentions of subtlety. “The playwright who recently portrayed a crowd making way for a running slave in the street should not imagine that I am including him in this: why should anyone defend a madman?”120 The running slave must have been from one of Luscius’ plays, but the reference is tricky. According to Barsby, the running slave was a standard commonplace in Roman comedy, and was employed four times by Terence himself as well as being a standard component of Plautus’ plays.121 Terence was likely denoting the commonality of Luscius’ last play in contrast to his ‘new’ play with its inventive style. Still Terence was not satisfied with his harangue and added the insult of calling Luscius a lunatic (insano). He left the situation in much the same fashion as the prologue from The Woman of Andros, warning Luscius to discontinue his aspersions. Terence’s fourth play, The Eunuch was also based on a play of Menander’s by the same name. Produced in 161 B.C.E., it came quickly after The Self-Tormentor and again addressed the issue of “contamination”. Terence continued in his treatment of Menander’s plays wherein he would bring characters over from other of Menander’s plays. In The Eunuch, Terence pulled two characters from Menander’s The Flatterer, combining the two to create his most successful play.122 Terence addressed the accusations of “plagiarism” (furtum) clearly, after speaking out

he writes other new plays, if he doesn't put an end to his slanders” Barsy, The Self-Tormentor of Terence 2001b, 183. 120 Barsy, 2001b, 183. 121 Barsy, 2001b, 183. 122 “If' there’re any who are eager to please as many worthy citizens as possible and to offend as few as possible, the playwright wishes to enroll in their number.

Further, if there's anyone who believes that he has been attacked with undue harshness, let him also believe that this is a response not an attack: he struck the first blow. By translating well but at the same time writing poorly he has made bad Latin plays out of good Greek ones… From now on, in case he deludes himself and imagines that he is done with this and I have nothing more to say, I warn him not to misjudge the situation or continue to provoke me. I have many other charges which he shall be spared for the moment, but they will be brought up later if 42 against Luscius of Lanuvium again. He commented that Luscius’ talent in translating Greek denoted ability but his poor writing turned his versions of Greek plays into trifling Latin reproductions. Terence threw down his typical gauntlet; that Luscius halt his provocations or he (Terence) would be forced to bring up charges of some form of literary insignificance. Then Terence mentioned a separate critic, an unnamed official who accused the playwright of literary theft. Although allegedly accused by Luscius several times for basically the same crime, Terence here actively explains his literary practices for the first time. Perhaps this was due to the fact that in two of his previous three plays, he was addressing the charge of contamination (contaminari, and contaminasse) whereas in his fourth play he was responding to the accusation of theft/plagiarism (furtum). The difference between the two accusations pivots on how one is permitted to borrow from Greek literature. The contamination of presenting a Latin version of a Greek comedy came from including parts from another Greek comedy. The charge of theft and plagiarism arose when a Roman writer borrowed elements from a Roman play. This was unacceptable, as it was stealing from a fellow Roman. Once Terence declared his ‘innocence’, he made one more challenge, this one apparently to the viewer in general. He argued that every writer must acknowledge a certain lack of originality, as nothing can be written or said now that has not been uttered before.

he persists in attacking me as he has set out to do. The play which we are about to perform is Menander's "Eunuch." After the aediles purchased it, he contrived for himself an opportunity to examine the play, and, when the official arrived, the performance began. He shouted that the play was the work of a thief, not a playwright, but that the attempt to deceive had not worked. There was, he claimed, a "Flatterer" by Naevius and an old play by Plautus and the character of the parasite and the soldier had been stolen from these. If that was an offence, the offence was due to the inadvertence of the playwright; he had no intention of committing plagiarism. You can judge the truth of this for yourselves. There is a “Flatterer” of Menander, in which there is a flattering parasite and a swaggering soldier. The playwright does not deny that he has imported these characters into his "Eunuch" from the Greek play. But he does most definitely deny any knowledge of the prior existence of the Latin versions. But in any case, if he is not permitted to use the same characters again, how is it any more permissible to present a running slave or good matrons or wicked courtesans or a greedy parasite or a boastful soldier or babies being substituted or an old man being deceived by his slave or love or hate or suspicions? In the end nothing is said now which has not been said before. So it's only fair that you should examine the facts and pardon the new playwrights if they do what the old have always done. Pay attention and listen carefully in silence, so that you may understand what “The Eunuch” has to say” Barsby, The Eunuch of Terence, 2001c, 317-9. 43

In his fifth play, Phormio, also written in 161 B.C.E., Terence returned again to his vendetta against “a certain old author” (Luscius). Terence did not specifically defend this play by citing his sources but instead kept his remarks general and although he didn’t employ any type of humility topos, he did try to engage the sympathy of his audience by pointing out that his actions are strictly in response to Luscius’ accusations.123 By the time he wrote The Brothers, Terence’s sixth play, the Roman playwright seemed almost curt in his response to the continued criticisms he faced. In this, his last play, he praised his noble patrons, while arguing that the criticisms of receiving constant aid from his patrons could be logically aimed against many others. Further, others who had received similar assistance and support were not deemed arrogant. 124

123 “Since a certain old author is unable to hold our author back from his vocation and force him into retirement, he’s trying to frighten him off from writing by abusing him: he keeps saying that the plays he’s written previously are thin in their language and lightweight in their writing- because he’s never written about a young madman having visions of a hind in flight and dogs pursuing her, and the hind crying and begging him to help her! But if he realized that when his play was very first put on and held its ground it did so thanks to his director’s efforts rather than his own, he’d be far less brazenly offensive than he is now (and the plays he’s written would enjoy more success). Now if there’s anyone who says or thinks as follows: ‘If the old author hadn’t provoked him first, the new one wouldn’t be able to find a prologue to speak, if he didn’t have someone to abuse’-he can have this as his reply: the prizes are available for everyone who practices the art of poetry; he has tried to drive the author away from his vocation and into starvation; the author wanted to reply, not to provoke him; if he’d made it a contest of compliments, he’d have had compliments paid to him; he can regard this as a return of his own contribution” Brown, Phormio of Terence, 2006a, 209. 124 Since the author has observed that his writings are subjected to scrutiny by hostile men, and that his enemies are casting aspersions on the play that we’re about to act, he will give evidence on his own behalf, you will be the judges of whether what he’s done should be praised or criticized. There’s a comedy by Diphilus called (in Greek) Comrades in Death; Plautus turned it into a play with the same title in Latin. In the Greek version there’s a boy who steals a prostitute from a pimp early in the play; Plautus left that scene out altogether, and this author has taken it up for his Brothers and produced a word-for-word translation of it. That is the play we’re about to act, a new one: study it and see whether you think a theft has been committed or whether he’s retained a scene that had been omitted through carelessness. And as for what those malicious people say, that members of the nobility help him and constantly collaborate with him in his writing, they think this is a strong criticism, but he regards it as the height of praise that he has found favor with men who have themselves found favor with all of you and with the people, men whose help in war, in peace, and in daily business everyone on some occasion has relied on without seeming arrogant. Next, don’t expect me to tell you the plot of the play: the old men who come on first will disclose part of it and show part of it in action. See that your fair-mindedness reinforces the author’s efforts at writing” Brown, The Brothers of Terence, 2006b, 263. 44

Terence’s nod to his patrons is slight, occurring only in two of his plays, The Woman of Andros and The Brothers. He mentioned his sources as a means of defense only. As it was the custom of Roman authors to borrow from Greek originals, the main emphasis on sources was based on whether or not one borrowed too heavily from previous Roman authors.125 Terence’s concern for his sources only goes as far as he needed to prove his Greek sources to defend himself against the Roman idea of plagiarism. Taken in their totality, Terence’s prologues portray a playwright whose main concern is to be taken as a serious writer of comedy. He appears brash in his use of his prologues, believing the audience would find his combative skirmishes with another playwright more interesting than the typical approach of humility or explicative of the impending play. The fierceness of his self-defense does not speak to a mild- mannered or humble person. Further, he feels completely justified in his counter-attack, pointing out that had Luscius engaged him in a battle of compliments instead of insults, he would have responded in kind. Rather than appealing to his audience for pity or sympathy in order to ensure their kind disposition towards him and his plays, Terence assumed that the defense of his artistry would be more important. His self-image presumably took precedence over following traditional literary devices.126 To Hrotsvit, Terence must have indeed seemed quite arrogant, heedless of those he offended and consumed with his own vanity and self-worth. For Hrotsvit’s medieval Christian mindset, Terence’s eloquence did not ameliorate his pagan faults of content matter in his plays and his arrogance within his prologues must have created in the canoness a strong

Considering the patron/client system so prevalent in ancient Rome, Terence was correct in stating that criticizing someone for having supportive patrons was problematic if not hypocritical. Interesting, though, that he defended these people against the accusation of arrogance, as such a popular social custom would not have necessarily garnered arrogance in the client. Thus, it is a logical supposition to consider that Terence’s supposed arrogance really had less to do with his patrons than to his personal traits. 125 A great deal of scholarly discussion has gone into Terence’s contaminatio. For further research, see W. Beare, W.R. Chalmers or . Kujrę. 126 Again, there is an argument to be made that Terence was in fact imitating Aristophanes in the manner of Old Greek Comedy. Aristophanes also attacked a rival in two of his plays, first within the parabasis, and then by depicting Cleon as villainous character within another play. Cleon, an Athenian politician, had impeached Aristophanes for his play Babylonians, for which the playwright had promised the retaliation he fulfilled in The Knights. This argument would position Terence’s prologues as engaging in literary polemic; we do not, of course, know that Hrotsvit would have been aware of this convention. 45 desire to symbolically overturn him. Thus, Hrotsvit’s approach to her prologues becomes very clear when compared to Terence’s.

The Humility Topos in the Medieval Period & Hrotsvit’s Use of It The medieval period inherited the Classical tradition of the humility topos, with a heavy dose of Christianity thrown in. “The authors of Christian sermons drew on the rhetorical tradition that pervaded the ancient world and spoke in the forms to which their audience was accustomed…”127 Early Christian apologists spoke from this literary convention, imbuing it with tones of morality and duty, and indeed, viewing it as a “sign” of the modesty appropriate to the Christian spirit. St. Augustine recognized the need for the use of rhetoric in sermons, believing that it would be “absurd” to use such weapons of eloquence only for pagan teachings and not for the eternal truth of Christianity.128 Further, he followed the guidelines given by Cicero in his three traditional levels of style (the sublime, the intermediate, and the lowly), but perceived all things dealing with Christ as sublime, so instead he based the three levels on the author’s specific purpose. He preached that humility was a virtue, proffering a new perspective for early Christians as opposed to their pagan Roman counterparts. Whereas Cicero, Horace, Propertius, Seneca, Quintilian, both Plinys and many other late rhetoricians used the “lowly” level of humilis, humiliter and humilitas in this sense, the Christian rhetoric used it on a much broader basis. For Christians, “humilis became the most important adjective characterizing the Incarnation; in all Christian literature written in Latin it came to express the atmosphere and level of Christ’s life and suffering.”129 Augustine expressed his thoughts on humility hermeneutics several times:

“Therefore in every temptation it is humility which guards us; for we ascend from the valley of tears while singing the Song of Steps, and the Lord watches over the entrance so that we may enter in all security”130 Homily on Psalm 120.14

127 Auerbach, 1965, 31. For clarification purposes, a sermon is normally a lecture in religious instruction, whereas a homily is moreso a reflection on religious life. The two are often considered interchangeable, though. 128 Augustine discussed this theme in his De doctrina Christiana. 129 Auerbach, 1965, 40. 130 Clark, trans., Augustine of Hippo; Selected Writings, 1984, 184. 46

“As pride presumes, so does humility confess. Just as there is presumption in the one who wishes to appear what he is not, so is he a confessor who does not wish that to be seen which he himself is and loves that which He is”131 Homily on Psalm 121.8

“When we believe that God was made man to be for us an example of humility and to demonstrate God’s love for us, our thought is formed by this knowledge. It is good for us to believe and to keep steadfastly unshaken in our hearts that the humility whereby God was born of a woman and shamefully brought by mortal men to death is the supreme medicine to heal the swelling of our pride and the exalted mystery that can loose the shackles of sin”132 On the Trinity, Bk. 8, Chp.5

Augustine’s works influenced many other Christian writers, fashioning the humility topos into a device that not only validated the writer’s good standing as a Christian but also continued to offer its Classical benefits. Prudentius, living in the same period as Augustine, provides a good example of the practice of combining the two styles. Anne-Marie Palmer in her studies of Prudentius and his treatment of martyrdom writes, “His adaptation of the commonplaces of the classical exordium, for example, informs the husk of rhetorical prescription with the rich meaning of Christian intentions. It was conventional for the poet to obtain the reader’s sympathy (captatio benevolentiae) by a profession of modesty, and to explain his undertaking (causa scribendi). The latter regularly became a dedication to God in the Christian poets. The effect of ‘spiritualization’ is seen even better in the substitution of humility for false modesty (moestia affectata) in the captatio benevolentiae; this produces a mixture of rhetorical vocabulary and moral intent.”133 The Christian writers now compared themselves and their works to God and God’s works, and naturally, came in imperfect and inferior. But, as virtuous believers, they still must write of God’s superiority and their corresponding inadequacy. As Palmer enunciates: “The poet’s pose of humility may well reflect genuine religious feeling, a true awareness of the subordination of his art to its message of salvation, but should also be seen in the light of new Christian tenets of style developed against the background of the sermo humilis of the Bible as judged by Late Antiquity, which saw a new form of sublimity in its lowly didactic style, and transferred the spirit of this at least to its embryonic Christian literature.”134 Examples from

131 Clark, 1984, 186. 132 Clark, 1984, 241. 133 Palmer, 1989, 90. 134 Palmer, 1989, 90. 47

Prudentius, St. John Chrysostom and Gregory the Great all point to this new incarnation of the Classical rhetorical device of humility.

“Romanus, stout defender of the divine Christ, grant thy favour and stir up the tongue within my speechless mouth, bountifully bestow graceful song on the mutest of men and enable me to sing the wonders of they glory; for thou knowest, thyself too, that the dumb can speak”135 Prudentius, Peristephanon X, 1-5.

“Scorn a flashy and meretricious lifestyle, and aim instead for one that is lowly and unpretentious, provided you wish to be illustrious and great”136 St. John Chrysostom on Psalm 110.7

“But it is very wonderful, when humility of manners reigns in the hearts of the lofty. Whence we must consider, that whenever powerful persons think humbly, they attain to an eminence of strange, and, as it were, far distant virtue: and they rightly appease the Lord, the more readily, with this virtue, because they humbly offer Him that sacrifice, which the powerful can scarcely meet with”137 St. Gregory the Great, Moralia 26.26.48

The medieval tradition grew from this Christian perspective, and the literature of the early Middle Ages reflected this phenomenon. By Hrotsvit’s time, the humility topos was no longer a strictly rhetorical device but instead an expected component of any literary project. Further, the primary writers of this time were religious clergy. The vast majority of literary works were religious in nature, and to be considered a worthy author required a show of humility. This would be especially vital to a woman writer in the 10th century. Although few early medieval writers were women, Hrotsvit was not the first women to face these concerns; others, such as Dhuoda, came before her. Dhuoda, a female author of the Carolingian age, wrote her Manual in the mid 9th century. She, like Hrotsvit, also incorporated the humility formula in her prologue, stating that as a woman she could not write without God’s help.138 Women such as Dhuoda and Hrotsvit did not just employ the humility topoi to follow the standard formulas of

135 “Romane, Christi fortis assertor Dei, Elinguis oris organum fautor move: Largire comtum Carmen infantissimo: Fac ut tuarum mira laudum concinam: Nam scis et ipse, posse mutos eloqui” Aurelii Pruudentii Clementis, 1824, 306. 136 Hall, trans., 2004, 111. 137 St. Gregory the Pope, Moralia XXVI. 138 Marchand, 1984, 4. 48 the early medieval period, but also in their attempts to enter the ranks of serious writers, an all- male fraternity. Hrotsvit’s prologues to her legends and dramas, and her letter to her patrons all employed this much-worn humility topos. “All of Hrotsvit’s prefaces are of the proemium type; all attempt to make the reader benevolum, docilem, and attentum, although the main emphasis on either goodwill (ex personis) or attention (ex rebus) differs from prologue to prologue.”139 The Saxon canoness needed to show her proper humility first as a Christian, and then as a woman. She was putting herself on display by acting as a writer, and before anyone (outside the abbey) would be willing to read her legends and plays, they needed to believe in her modesty and humility which was contradictory to her desire to find an audience for her literary efforts. Hrotsvit responded by illustrating her “humility” throughout her prefaces; she did not just humbly apologize for having written her works and then move on to the next component of her introduction. Instead she interwove her “humility” through each section of her prologues, maintaining a seemingly modest request for approval.

“I offer this little book small in stylistic merits…” Preface to the Legends, l.1

“I do confess/ that my failings are rather more than less in the handling of meter, style, and diction, and that there is much in these works warranting correction…” Preface/Legends, l.5

“As it is, I am in dire need for the support and help of many indeed! Especially because I lacked all confidence and strength when I first started and these verses crafted, as I was neither mature in years nor sufficient in learning. Neither did I dare consult the discerning and how my drafts to the wise or ask them for advice, so as not to be prohibited from writing on account of my rusticity” Preface/Legends, l.16

“However difficult and arduous and complex metrical composition may appear for the fragile female sex…” Preface/Legends, l.35

139 Wilson, 1988, 4. 49

Hrotsvit repeatedly offered tokens of humility to her readers, acknowledging her inexperience and lack of skills, and her weakness of her gender. Yet, this Saxon canoness did not seem to actually believe in her own inferiority, as least in regards to her writing attempts and her role as a woman. Each time she apologized for some defect, she promptly defended said “defect”, twisting the humility topos to her own needs and uses. Looking back on each instance listed above, wherein Hrotsvit humbly sought the approval of her readers, her own responses to her requests are stated immediately afterwards.

“I offer this little book small in stylistic merits, but not small in the efforts it took…” Preface to the Legends, l.1

In this instance, Hrotsvit utilized the rhetorical device of downplaying her own work, similar to other Classical writers. She immediately defended this “little book” by declaring that although the book may be small in size and stylistic merit, the efforts she as the author invested were decidedly not small. Thus, although her final product may or may not be worthwhile, she, as a good Christian, put forth such effort into her aspirations that it showed her to be actively working for God. In this way, her humility was twofold: she admitted the work might not be up to the standard of some others; and she simultaneously pointed out that regardless of how the work might be judged, she worked diligently to praise God, as a good Christian would.

“I do confess that my failings are rather more than less in the handling of meter, style, and diction, and that there is much in these works warranting correction. Yet, the one admitting openly her failing should find forgiveness prevailing and her mistakes deserve kind help” Preface/Legends, l.5

Here, Hrotsvit “confesses” to her faults, denoting her literary inexperience with meter, style and diction. After acknowledging her short-comings openly, indicating her Christian humility, she immediately declared the expected response from fellow Christians. These readers are obliged by her admission to grant her kindness as she has shown herself humble. The interesting part here is that Hrotsvit turned the tables on the humility topos by blatantly stating that since she had shown the proper spirit of humility, it was the responsibility of the readers to accede to her proper attitude and to show her Christian kindness in return. In essence, Hrotsvit is acting the similarly to Terence, but because she is basing her merits on a different value system, her paralleling of

50 him is acceptable, even corrective. This is Cicero’s instruction to seek the pity and goodwill of the audience combined together with the Christian directive to show benevolence to those demonstrating humility.

“As it is, I am in dire need for the support and help of many indeed! Especially because I lacked all confidence and strength when I first started, and these verses crafted as I was neither mature in years nor sufficient in learning. Neither did I dare consult the discerning and how my drafts to the wise or ask them for advice, as not to be prohibited from writing on account of my rusticity. Thus, I first began to compose in secret140, all along, struggling to write, then destroying what was poorly done, trying to the best of my ability, and with all my might to put together a text – be its merit ever so slight – using the writings I was able to gather here, in our Gandersheim Abbey” Preface/Legends, l.16

This sample demonstrates again Hrotsvit’s arduous efforts in creating this work. She toyed with the humility topos, disputing her need for assistance and referring to herself as a “rustic” (i.e. unlearned in the finer arts). She did show herself a bit more in this section. Here she admitted that she did not seek “the support and help” of the many discerning and wise people while she was actually writing, only afterwards. Although housed within traditional humility devices, Hrotsvit demonstrated a certain vanity and stubbornness in these lines in confessing that she did not seek help because she feared that she would be forbidden to write – and she had every intention of writing. Here again, Hrotsvit is demonstrating similar characteristics to Terence, whom she admires and abhors simultaneously. She interwove her desire to write and the efforts she put into this along with the standard forms of the humility tradition. So, whether this grand effort achieved by Hrotsvit, alone and struggling had merit or not, she was not going to be told she could not write. In essence, she refused to subject her art to those who had the power and authority to thwart her efforts. Her indirect defiance to submit to male figures of authority was remarkably bold. Because her efforts could have been interpreted as insubordinate, invoking sympathy with her audience while simultaneously justifying her willfulness required her to craft

140 It is here that Hrotsvit relates herself and her task to thievery. When she began to compose, she did so in secret (quasi furtim), hidden and afraid of discovery. It must have suited the canoness to place herself in the form of thief, as Terence sought to defend himself against such an accusation. Although not a major component of her prologue, it offers yet another subtle subversion of Terence, wherein Hrotsvit once again positioned herself with her cloak of Christian as superior and took the title Terence avoided proudly upon herself and her self- proclaimed mission. 51 a defense based on a more celestial judgment.

“However difficult and arduous and complex metrical composition may appear for the fragile female sex, I, persisting with no one assisting still put together my poems in this little work, not relying on my own powers and talents as a clerk, but always trusting in heavenly grace’s aid for which I prayed, and I chose to sing them in the dactylic mode so that my talent, however tiny, should not erode, that it should not lie dormant in my heart’s recesses and be destroyed by slothful neglect’s corrosion, but that, struck by the mallet of eager devotion, it bring forth a tiny little sound of divine praise and, thus, if for no other purpose but for this case, it may be transformed into an instrument of some utility regardless of the limits of my ability” Preface/Legends, l.35

To the casual reader, this section may not seem exceptionally clever, nor deviating from traditional literary standards of the medieval period. Nevertheless, it does incorporate the humility topos within Hrotsvit’s justification for her ambitions to write. Considering her female gender, Hrotsvit had to position herself as worthy of writing while acquiescing to her inferior status as a female. This she did by positioning her goals as obedience to a divine calling. Further, she argued that to ignore her God-given talent, “however tiny” would be slothful (torpens) and neglectful (neglegentie), thus, for her not to write would be sinful.141 In her attempts to gain the goodwill of her readers, Hrotsvit uses “repeated attestations of stylistic inadequacy, wherein the humility formulae feminei sexu predominate.”142

“Therefore, reader, whoever you may be, if you live rightly and are wise in God, don't withhold the favor of your benign goodwill from these flawed pages that are not built on the authorities of precedent or the wisdom of sages. If, by chance, you find here something well wrought, give all credit to God’s grafting, but for all the flaws, assign the blame to my poor crafting. Do this, however, not by viciously attacking or by begrudging, but by indulgently judging, because the force of the censoring lance is broken when, at the onset, humble words of confession are spoken” Preface/Legends, l.45

Here again, Hrotsvit reminded her readers that it was their Christian duty to show kindness to her and her literary attempts, as she had spoken the “humble words of confession” (intervenit

141 This particular argument was not used by Hrotsvit alone. We find it again in the writings of 12th century Marie de France. In her prologue to the Lais, she wrote: “Whoever has received knowledge and eloquence in speech from God should not be silent or conceal it, but demonstrate it willingly” Ferrante, trans., 1984, 65. 142 Wilson, 1988, 4. 52 humilitas confessionis). She points out that her efforts were not based on precedent, but by her “poor crafting” (neglegentie). If, therefore, her readers had criticisms of her work, they were reminded that they must be lenient in their judgment and that they should not attack harshly or begrudge her. To do so would be inappropriate to their status as good Christians. Thus, whereas Terence might have threatened his critics with promises of retaliation in similar attacks, Hrotsvit disarmed her possible critics by abiding by the Christian form of the humility tradition which, in turn, demanded a specific response from her readers. In the prologue to her dramas, Hrotsvit returned to the humility tradition after stating her claims for providing writings as alternatives to Terence’s lures. She stated Terence’s attraction for many Christians, and her desire to proffer writings that compared to Terence in compositional form while presenting stories of women who were devoted to Christ as opposed to Terence’s scurrilous females. “In terms of style and expression (dictatio, sententiae) she knows herself to be inferior to her model; in her source of inspiration, her subject matter and her themes, on the other hand, she sees herself as Terence’s superior.”143 She professed again her “little” talent, even as she named herself the Strong Voice of Gandersheim.144 She then addressed her possible critics:

“Doubtlessly some will berate the worthlessness of this composition as much inferior, much humbler, on a much smaller scale, and not even comparable to the language of him whom I set forth to imitate. I concede to that; but I say this to my critics: they cannot in fairness reprehend me for considering myself presumptuously yearning to be the equal of those who by far are my betters in learning. For I am not such a braggart nor so presumptuous as to compare myself to the least of these scholars’ pupils; this alone I strive for with humble and devoted heart – even if aptitude is lacking on my part – that I may return the gift I received to it Giver again. For I am not such a lover of myself nor so vain that in order to avoid censure I would refrain from preaching Christ’s glory and strength as it works through His saints to the extent He grants me the ability to do so. If my pious gift pleases anyone, I am glad; if, on the other hand, it pleases no one, either because of my own worthlessness or the rusticity of my inelegant style, then it was still worth the effort for me because while I wrote down the trifling efforts of my other works (revealing my lack of knowledge) in the heroic meter’s norm, here I joined them in the dramatic form, always trying to avoid the perilous fetter and the dangerous allurement of pagan subject matter” Preface to the Dramas, l.25-44.

143 Wilson, 1988, 15. 144 This seeming discrepancy illustrates the overall theme of her prologue wherein with every claim to inferiority she makes, she promptly contradicts it when describing her deeds. 53

She informed her critics that they could not admonish her for yearning to reach the levels of her superiors. Her yearning, as she denoted, was not to become the equal of these scholars, or even their students, but that she may praise God. As Wilson clarifies: “Disciple of the Pauline tradition, she [Hrotsvit] emphasizes Christ’s mandate to preach, the importance of divine grace for persuasive discourse, and her overriding concern for the audience’s welfare rather than her own authorial success.”145 What we can surmise is that Hrotsvit sought to show herself Terence’s superior in terms of content, and specifically in the depictions of female characters. Rather than be tempted by the “shameless acts” performed by Terence’s characters, Hrotsvit offered her readers stories of women empowered by their Christian beliefs who triumphed over worldly temptations normally offered by powerful men. She attempted to proffer pleasurable reading that surpassed her model in content and intent: to provide female characters of purity and chastity, who through their tales, illustrated true bliss in joining with the holy bridegroom versus the sinful allures of non-Christian males. Hrotsvit adopted Terence’s form as a vehicle for a holy message of eternal truth, one that would carry her own message pleasingly to her readers. In this way and by her terms of aemulatio, Hrotsvit has defeated Terence. She has managed to copy him in form and style, while making him seem churlish and arrogant, and appealed to her audience on the moral grounds of content. Thus, Hrotsvit has made it less acceptable to read and enjoy Terence now that there was a more saporific alternative, even if it was less technically proficient. This was the key component of the competition: to choose to read Terence’s plays over Hrotsvit’s Christian offerings would mark the reader as preferring unseemly pleasure over enlightenment and moral virtue.

Concluding Thoughts Within Chapter 1, we looked at Hrotsvit’s background, placing her right in the middle of the Ottonian Renaissance from her vantage point of membership at Gandersheim. Taking the facts of her noble status, the religious importance of the tenth century, her place at Gandersheim, and her connections to court all at face value, one can easily perceive Hrotsvit as an educated woman focused on an overlay of Christian thought and values onto all aspects of her world. She perceived all things through the lens of Christian philosophy. From this vantage point, Hrotsvit’s view of the danger of Terence’s works seems very logical. For this canoness, the appreciation of

145 Wilson, 1988, 76. 54

Terence by other Christians and at the Ottonian court must have seemed truly alarming. His content was filled with characters whose concerns seemed debased and wickedly sinful, but the eloquence of his style disguised these faults enough that Christians around Hrotsvit took pleasure in reading him. Terence’s popularity in the tenth century and within the Ottonian society is likely the reason that Hrotsvit first came to perceive him as a danger to the souls of good Christians, but it went beyond just that. Not only were his characters salacious and wicked, the entire society that Terence’s characters represented offended her. Hrotsvit’s perceptions of Terence’s works illustrate the flaws of the pagan world-view as a whole. Terence’s characters did not seek God, his holiness, chastity, virtue or humility. Their focus on life was based on humanity, not divinity, and this fault was so blaring in Hrotsvit’s perception that she took affront to all the themes and plots she found in Terence’s popular verse, choosing not to see the humanitias Terence gave his characters as desirous or acceptable in any way. It is at this point that Hrotsvit’s strengths stand out, for she decided to usurp Terence’s writings versus just writing commentaries that spoke of the evils that awaited to ensnare his readers. This approach would have seemed more logical for a woman of the tenth century. Hrotsvit could have easily just written commentaries on the faults she found within Terence and shared these thoughts with the library at Gandersheim and her fellows there. Such a manual would have been completely acceptable, especially within the walls of Gandersheim Abbey where she shared a close friendship with the abbess. But Hrotsvit had an active, intelligent mind that sought a way to cause much greater damage to the reputation of Terence. If she could write plays that offered a lesser degree of eloquence, but a much higher level of moral content, she felt that she might be able to more effectively displace Terence from his place of honor. Also, she must have recognized that many of the readers of Terence would have been men considered her superior, and as such she would not have had the option to chastise or correct them for their reading choices. Instead she took on a more ambitious task, attempting to replace Terence’s writings with her own, demonstrating within her writings the Christian beliefs that were lacking in Terence’s plays. Once she had decided on this course of action, Hrotsvit created a multi- layered approach to her challenge to Terence. She determined that she would defeat Terence in terms of content, and play a game of interwoven inversion and subversion of his themes and plots, and by doing so she would prove to her prestigious readers that her writings were clever, intricate and worthy of being read over Terence.

This chapter also endeavored to synopsize the history of academic perceptions of Hrotsvit. Hrotsvit’s contest with Terence was forgotten for several centuries, buried away within a few scant manuscripts. Once she was rediscovered, she had to prove herself again to a new set of educated readers. It has only been within the last century that Hrotsvit’s writings have garnered positive academic attention, coinciding with the interest in women’s studies. I believe that the current appreciation of Hrotsvit’s works in academics owes its position to the advances in women’s studies. For although we have no proof that Hrotsvit influenced any other medieval writers, the fact that she wrote what she did when she did is of great interest in the history of women’s studies. As appreciation for women’s studies grows, academics now acknowledge and praise Hrotsvit for her ambitions, endeavors, and literary skills, after centuries of misogynistic depreciation. Further, once academics started looking more deeply into the canoness’ writings, they realized that her contest with Terence was much more involved than had been previously acknowledged. By implementing imitatio and aemulatio to differentiate the type of relationship between Hrotsvit’s approaches to Terence’s writings, modern scholars have debated how much Hrotsvit borrowed from Terence and in what manner. I argue that Hrotsvit’s use of Terence falls into the aemulatio category, finding connections with Terence’s plays in a wide spectrum of inversions and subversions of content over form. To further support this contention, I delved into Hrotsvit’s interplay with Terence within their prologues. I think it is important to understand the rhetorical devices used by both authors and in what stage of evolution these devices were in during each writer’s era. In order to appreciate how Hrotsvit manipulates both her patrons and readers and Terence’s prologues at the same time, one must delve into the rhetorical functions of her chosen vehicle of humility. But, in order to understand this literary device, the Classical origins of the humility topos need to be understood. Illustrating the purposes of the humility topos from its Classical usage through its medieval uses shows how the same tool had different meanings at different times even as it was employed to earn the favorable opinion of readers/audiences. The fact that this device was very standard in Terence’s time and that he chose not to use it provided Hrotsvit the opportunity to showcase her own knowledge of its medieval form and its beneficial implementation. I believe that Hrotsvit was not just adhering to a standard form of Christian prologues, but was actively choosing to put forward a strong antithesis to Terence’s prologues. And even as she defends

56 herself from possible critics, she does so in such an artful way as to deter such criticism. This is a direct contrast to Terence’s defense of his critics, indicating, I believe, what she perceived as her triumph in accomplishing much the same thing but within the boundaries of the expected literary approach.

CHAPTER 3 HROTSVIT’S INTERPLAY WITH TERENCE: THE THEMES OF FEMALE SUBJECTIVITY AND VOICE, MARRIAGE, DISGUISE AND PARENTAL FIGURES

Introduction Hrotsvit’s challenge to Terence, then, was a multi-layered stratagem. She not only took his form from him, she also continued her exercise of inversion and subversion with certain of his themes. Her treatment of his non-traditional prologues could be attributed to her adherence to standard rhetorical devices. One could argue that her prologues simply served as expected topoi, and did not actually respond to Terence’s models. However, considering the other transpositions she placed within her writings as I go on to show, a strong argument for an overall program of inversion and subversion is very persuasive. She did not just want to play literary games with Terence, but sought to rob him of more than just his genre: she aspired to take his readers from him. And given her agenda, her foremost efforts in the battle against Terence concerned his treatment of female characters. The characterizations of women in literature in Hrotsvit’s time were limited. Female characters from both Classical texts and medieval hagiographical tales held the position of passive objects within the story. Whether their characters were good or evil, rich or poor, beautiful or not, literary females had but one use: they were the objects of men. This prevalent depiction of the weaker sex offered female characters few options. Terence’s plays, incredibly popular in antiquity as well as in the medieval period, contained women of all stations; slaves, flute-players and courtesans, young virginal maidens, and matronly Athenian citizens. Yet Terence’s entire cast of female characters served as objects possessed by men, whether as owner or pimp, father or husband. His literary females had little to no autonomy. Much scholarship has delved into the study of Terence’s female characters and Hrotsvit’s literary response. There is, however, considerably less scholarship on the hagiographical models Hrotsvit had at her disposal. The female characters of this genre, although saintly, also endured the ignominy of literary objectification. Hrotsvit employs many of the same inversions and subversions for her treatment of hagiographical characters as she does for handling Terence’s characters. This subject will be addressed in Chapter Four.

In her preface to the dramas, Hrotsvit announced her intentions toward the female characters she encountered in Terence’s plays. Terence, writing with “pagan guile,” delights readers with his “sweetness of style and diction.” However, the content about which he writes is dangerous to the Christian soul. Hrotsvit’s attempts to write were therefore “always trying to avoid the perilous fetter and the dangerous allurement of pagan subject matter.” She accuses Terence of writing of “that detestable madness of unlawful lovers and their evil flattery,” subjects that “we are not permitted even to hear.” Terence’s vehicles for these episodes are often the “shameless acts of lascivious women,”146 a feature of his dramas which seems to particularly offend Hrotsvit. At the same time, her own reading, both hagiographical literature and Classical, did not give her many other options: women depicted in previous literature were primarily victims, whether of a pagan suitor or a pagan executioner. For a woman who perceived herself as a strong person, even proclaiming herself the “Strong Voice of Gandersheim”, these portrayals likely seemed intolerable and perhaps even insulting. So, Hrotsvit decided to write literature of a completely different type, wherein women were strong in the face of their male opponents; she refashions the Christian world in which women, although still defined as victims in that they are corporally destroyed by their pagan enemies, were victorious in the larger struggle of eternal life. Herein, I will analyze Hrotsvit’s introduction of female subjectivity in response to the objectified females presented by Terence. She sought to present women of strength in their virtue and self-autonomy. I believe that amongst the many other forms of interplay with Terence’s works, Hrotsvit engaged with each of Terence’s plays thematically. Within this chapter, I will analyze some of the major themes of each of Terence’s plays as compared to Hrotsvit’s numerical equivalent in terms of objectivity versus female subjectivity.147 Further, I will review the current scholarship on Hrotsvit’s use of female subjectivity, to present the current academic perception of this literary treatment and to support my own views of her treatment. This chapter will also study Hrotsvit’s literary gift of voice to her female characters. The concept of voice was important to Hrotsvit, as her self-proclaimed title “the Strong Voice of

146 All seven of these quotes are taken from Hrotsvit’s Preface to the Dramas, in Wilson, 1998, 3. 147 Although we know that Terence was very popular in the medieval period and that numerous manuscripts existed of his work, we do not know exactly which manuscript(s) Hrotsvit accessed. If Terence’s plays were presented in chronological order, then Hrotsvit would have encountered Terence’s plays as we do. Thus, my supposition is that Hrotsvt was responding to each of Terence’s plays in this order. 59

Gandersheim” indicates. Considering her gender and the era that she lived and wrote in, Hrotsvit could be said to have stolen her own voice: a woman who considered voice such an important right is likely to provide the same rights to her female characters. In this way, Hrotsvit demonstrates that even if a righteous person is subjugated or defeated (by an enemy or by the laws of a patriarchal society), they still can speak out with the truth of Christianity. I will additionally show how Hrotsvit takes this concept a step further, and gives not only voice to her female heroines, but great eloquence of voice. Her female martyrs display their righteous holiness in speech, and to the detriment of their tormentors. I will argue the importance of this literary gift, unique in literature of the 10th century. Additionally, Chapter 3 will study Hrotsvit’s treatment of the marriage theme as compared to Terence’s form. I will argue that Hrotsvit employs Augustine ideals in her answer to Terence’s mundane version of marriage. For Hrotsvit, and her sisters at Gandersheim, the concept of marriage was altered with the addition of the Christian notion of the “celestial marriage.” To compete with Terence, whose preferred resolution was marriage between social equals, I will argue that Hrotsvit chose instead to provide her characters an alternative to worldly marriage. In my opinion, Hrotsvit takes the theme of marriage outside of the human world, and places it within a holy context that she must have felt was its superior. The last two themes I will address in Chapter 3 are that of disguise and parental figures. When Terence employed the literary device of disguise, the outcome was a comedic approach to the act of rape. We can only assume that this scene caused Hrotsvit great offense. She responded by utilizing the same theme to tell a story of the redemption of fallen women. She uses this theme not once, but twice, both times providing a pious father figure who seeks to rescue a fallen woman through the use of disguise. I will analyze Hrotsvit’s responsive use of this device as another form of inversion in her contest of aemulatio with Terence. The theme of fathers and sons is prevalent in all of Terence’s works. Here, I argue, Hrotsvit uses subversions of this theme to surpass Terence. Four of her dramas deal with parental figures who seek to aid their daughter- figures in pursuing the path of Christian glory. I posit that Hrotsvit saw Terence’s father and son characters as deceitful and implicit in the sinful deeds (mostly perpetuated on women) rendered therein, and that her response was to offer wholesome, caring, and righteous alternatives.

Female Subjectivity

“Therefore I, the Strong Voice of Gandersheim, have not refused to imitate him in writing who others laud in reading, so that in the selfsame form of composition in which the shameless acts of lascivious women were phrased, the laudable chastity of sacred virgins be praised within the limits of my little talent. Not infrequently this caused me to blush and brought to my cheeks a scarlet flush, because being forced by the conventions of this composition I had to contemplate and give a rendition of that detestable madness of unlawful lovers and of their evil flattery, which we are not permitted even to hear. But had I omitted this out of modesty, I would not have fulfilled my intent; neither would I have rendered the praise of the innocent as well as I could, because the more seductive the unlawful flatteries of those who have lost their sense, the greater the Heavenly Helper’s munificence and the more glorious the victories of triumphant innocence are shown to be, especially when female weakness triumphs in conclusion.”148

Hrotsvit’s inversion of Terence’s female characters is not a complete reversal of roles. They do not become aggressors or even more powerful than their adversaries. Indeed, her female characters often choose to die for their Christian beliefs. But although in some ways they remain passive, the female characters’ choices and decisions are their own. Hrotsvit’s characters do not just stand by idly while their fates are being decided. Unlike Terence’s women or the saints of hagiographical literature, her female characters are not mute victims to their destiny. Instead, they are women of intelligence, strength of character and eloquent speech. These female characters do suffer martyrdom, but the choice is theirs to make, and in spite of the maneuvering of their male opposition, they win each battle. Not only do they portray great virtue and chastity, steadfastness and faith, they make the entire story revolve around them and their holy battles against evil. Clearly, Hrotsvit challenges the objectification of women, even while writing within the context of her time.149 Hrotsvit’s treatment of female subjectivity was without precedents. In what appears to be her own approach, Hrotsvit endeavored to create a literary form that suited her goals, and she found Terence’s genre and style suited to her ambitions. Presumably, too, his popularity helped with her choice. So, Hrotsvit delved into Terence’s plays of “unlawful lovers” and “lascivious

148 Wilson, 1989, 3. 149 “Hrotsvit replicates conventional attitudes and values, her emphasis on virginity and renunciation of the world seeks to put women in control of their bodies, removing them from the scope of the male gaze and female objectification endemic to the sexualized economies of marriage and prostitution and encouraging instead self-knowledge and inner spiritual growth Scheck, 2008, 129-30. 61 women” which “not infrequently… caused me to blush and brought to my cheeks a scarlet flush”.150 In his first play, The Woman of Andros, Hrotsvit encountered a premarital affair wherein the woman gave birth out of wedlock. In The Self-Tormenter, illicit love was presented in the form of a wealthy courtesan. In The Eunuch, Hrotsvit read a story of rape, with the perpetrator defending his act as being condoned by the gods, themselves. In The Mother-In-Law, the plot includes both a rape (which takes place before the action starts) and a separate illicit affair with a courtesan. In the Phormio, Hrotsvit would have discovered two separate love affairs accompanied by bigamists, slave girls and pimps. And in The Brothers, the love affairs of two brothers were entangled with the seduction of innocent maidens, and some poor nameless slave girl whose life was not her own. Hrotsvit read these plays, and saw only female wantonness and weakness. The female characters were only spoken of or to, and often did not even speak. These women could not, in any way, offer Hrotsvit and her fellows at Gandersheim any type of encouraging reading; indeed, as she stated in her own prologue "we are not permitted even to hear."151 These voiceless female characters were violated, seduced or enslaved. Hrotsvit must have looked at these depictions of women and felt utter revulsion, not only for their acts but also in their treatment by their male counterparts and their creator himself. Thus, Hrotsvit decided to provide female characters that she and the other women at Gandersheim could admire, women who were still victimized by men because of their physical weakness, but who retained their strength of virtue through their Christian holiness. These female characters fought to maintain their innocence, gloriously triumphing over male dominance that ultimately “succumbs in confusion.”152 In response to Terence's six plays, Hrotsvit wrote six plays. Whereas in Terence’s first play, The Woman of Andros, the main storyline revolves around an angry father and his lovesick son who has a pregnant mistress, Hrotsvit responded with a considerate father and a loving daughter who maintains her chastity in the canoness’ first play, Gallicanus. While Terence’s The Self Tormenter presents fathers and sons deceiving one another, and a woman whose substantial wealth was acquired through her skills as a courtesan, Hrotsvit's Dulcitius revolves around three loving sisters whose staunch virtue, intelligence and eloquence are displayed alongside their

150 All three of these quotes are taken from Hrotsvit’s Preface to the Dramas, in Wilson, 1989, 3. 151 Wilson, 1989, 3. 152 Wilson, 1989, 3. 62 devotion to one another. Terence's third play, The Eunuch, deals with a young man who defends his actions of disguise and rape of a young woman as an inspiration from the gods; Hrotsvit’s third play, Calimachus, tells the story of Drusiana, a virtuous woman whose holiness defends her against rape, even in death.153 Hrotsvit answered the themes of rape and an illicit sexual affair found in Terence's fourth play, The Mother-In-Law, with the tale of a woman who, after being deceived by a man pretending to be a holy man and losing her virginity, is redeemed from her subsequent life of a courtesan to the Christian fold, in Abraham. The slave girls, pimps, bigamists and parasitical lechers of young, defenseless women found in Terence’s Phormio face the challenge of Hrotsvit’s conversion of Thaïs, the greedy and beautiful courtesan into a woman so penitent and contrite that she acquired sainthood after death.154 In The Brothers by Terence, the tale follows two brothers’ antics with the women they desire while actively trying to conceal their love affairs from their fathers; one of the women is an innocent maiden who loses her virginity to one of the brothers, and the other is a music girl owned by a pimp, who is bought as a possession for the other brother. Hrotsvit’s last play, Sapientia, tells a completely different story of a loving mother who, along with her three daughters, defies an emperor and ridicules his ignorance. Although her daughters die martyrs’ deaths, they each demonstrate a woman’s strength and intelligence through holiness in contrast with the sinful desires of pagan men. Although the two sets of six plays do not act as mirrored inversions of one another, Hrotsvit's plays do respond to many of Terence's themes through supplanting weak female characters or misguided young males with strong, virtuous, Christian women.155 Her strongest characteristic in these contests is her insistence on female subjectivity within her dramas.156

153 Perhaps in response to the horrific act of rape, presented in such a droll manner by Terence, Hrotsvit turned her would-be rapist into a villainous fiend capable of necrophilia. In Hrotsvit's version, the would-be rapist does not escape punishment, but instead pays for his perverse intentions with his very life. In Hrotsvit's version, not only was the heroine brought back to life, in true Christian spirit, she implores St. John the Apostle (who had brought her back to life through his holy prayers) to also bring Calimachus back to life and converts him to a life in Christ. 154 Saint Thaïs of Egypt. 155 “The key to the recognition of Terentian elements within Hrotsvit is to notice the way she transposes them” Talbot, 2004, 148. 156 Again, I remind my readers that my use of the term subjectivity is based on a grammatical construction. Subjectivity in this project reflects the subject of any given situation as the actor or one performing some action, and is the complete grammatical and conceptual opposite of objectivity wherein one is acted upon. 63

Scholarship on the issue of female subjectivity in Hrotsvit’s writings began about thirty years ago. Within the modern environment of Women’s Studies, Hrotsvit’s treatment of female subjectivity drew attention. Obviously, a certain amount of the attention revolved around Hrotsvit herself, a woman writer of the tenth century. However, it is her inversion of the objectivity of female characters, primarily those found within Terence and her selected hagiographical stories, that specifically interests this project. Hrotsvit created a new approach in writings dealing with female victims, an approach that although it did not act as a guide for later writers, did for a short window of time provide women readers, such as those as Gandersheim, with models of feminine strength. Hrotsvit’s contemporary readers were introduced to women of self-empowerment whose battles against physical onslaught and moral turpitude were won through Godly-inspired fortitude. Her goal of supplanting literary women disadvantaged by weakness with women of might and tenacity was a far-reaching ambition and her approach to this objective was novel and anomalous. She couldn’t reconstruct human physicality to recreate women’s bodies as physically stronger than men’s, so she had to contrive a different method for her female characters to overcome their oppressors. She accomplished this feat by changing the focus of the reader’s perception: the female victims” became victors in their contests through holiness. They might have lost the battle, but they won the war. Their victory gained them everlasting paradise, although they might have lost their corporal beings in the campaign.157 To this accomplishment, Hrotsvit added the component lacking in other forms of hagiographical literature, the right of the victor to give the victory speech. Hrotsvit’s avant-garde treatment of literary females diverged from the Classical and hagiographical traditions of female subjectivity. Even as she actively challenged Terence’s female figures, she also deviated from the norm of female characterizations in most other genres. Sue-Ellen Case points out that although it was within Hrotsvit’s agenda to change the female roles from negative ones to positive ones, literary scholarship has focused on the Christian context of her writings and mostly ignored the feminist aspect of her work.158 In her analysis of the plots of three of Terence’s plays (The Girl From Andros, The Self Tormentor, and Eunuchus), Case examines the basic roles and accompanying social concerns Hrotsvit amended in her

157 Readers of hagiographical literature can argue that such victories are found within traditional stories of saints’ lives. Hrotsvit added a new twist by providing her victors with voice. 158 Case, 1983, 535. 64 writings.159 “From these three plays, one can summarize the Classical inheritance Hrotsvit received for women on the stage: they are relatively invisible, their responses are rarely dramatized and most often reported by men, they are manipulated as use value among men in the plot situation and their best possible ending is marriage – with or without consent.”160 Whereas the plays of Terence found the resolution of female objectivity to be a natural concept, Hrostvit aimed to show the female objectification required by patriarchal desire as something perverse and unholy. As Case demonstrates, Hrotsvit provided an alternative to patriarchal possession via the vow of chastity. By providing the weapon of chastity against the onslaught of the patriarchal convention of desire, Hrotsvit created an “entirely new dramatic dynamic.”161 More recently, scholar Helene Scheck studied Hrotsvit’s writing in terms of female subjectivity within the broader context of Hrotsvit’s “vision of an egalitarian cosmology”.162 Scheck examines Hrotsvit’s choice of female subjectivity to posit that Hrotsvit sought to map out “an ideal sociopolitical matrix in which men and women support each other in the secular and spiritual realms.”163 This project does not seek to address Scheck’s argument in regards to Hrotsvit’s alleged aims of equitable gender roles, but Scheck’s analysis of the female subjectivity Hrotsvit employed is invaluable. Scheck points out that although Hrotsvit was indeed a product of the 10th century’s patriarchal paradigms, her depictions of beautiful virgins, fallen virgins, and virgins in danger of rape does not promote or support patriarchal order and objectifications of women, but instead, such depictions actually challenge the objectification. “Hrotsvit replicates conventional attitudes and values, her emphasis on virginity and renunciation of the world seeks to put women in control of their bodies, removing them from the scope of the male gaze and female objectification endemic to the sexualized economies of marriage and prostitution and encouraging instead self-knowledge and inner spiritual growth.”164 Hrotsvit’s wealth, status, intelligence, education and environment allowed her, and even prompted her to write stories of

159 Case’s based this analysis on the characters within three Terentian plays including a drunken midwife and slave girl from The Girl From Andros, a courtesan and a helpless young girl in The Self Tormentor, and another courtesan and helpless young girl (this one is the victim of rape at the hands of one of the main characters) in Eunuchus. 160 Case,1983, 536. 161 Case, 1983, 537. 162 Scheck, 2008,125. 163 Scheck, 2008, 125. 164 Scheck, 2008, 129-30. 65 women for women, stories that placed female characters in charge of their own decisions and fates. Although the canoness states that she writes for all Catholics who are drawn to the treacherous writings of Terence, one must hypothesize that she especially sought to write these plays for her fellow women at Gandersheim, to provide them with material that raised their feelings of self-worth and personal esteem. No longer did they only have a choice of reading literature that objectified females, but instead they were given the opportunity to read plays that gave the female characters the lead parts in tales about their very lives.165 This gift to the women at Gandersheim might well be Hrotsvit’s greatest accomplishment; for although her words might not have influenced Western literary culture, they did for the first time offer women reading that celebrated their gender.

The Female Voice Terence’s plays revolved around the female character, normally the source of the problem between the stock characters of the young man sowing his wild oats and his worried father. Terence's plays tell the story of a man's world. His female characters did nothing more than provide a source of contention between the male characters.166 And, accordingly, the resolution of the play’s drama was the reconciliation of the male characters. Terence’s female characters’ lives were altered to suit the needs of the male characters. This could not have been pleasing to a woman like Hrotsvit. For an educated and strong willed woman whose self identity was based on the strength of her voice, these examples of mute female characters might well have been offensive. Thus, Hrotsvit turned this literary theme upside down, and instead granted her female characters not only the center position in their own dramas, but also great eloquence of voice. They use these voices to make their own decisions and often to show their holy Christian superiority over pagans, who happen to be primarily male. The option of speech and self expression was vitally important to Hrotsvit, the “Strong Voice of Gandersheim”. She, too, lived in a man's world but within the wealthy and influential walls of Gandersheim Abbey, wherein she and the other women had a voice. And whereas

165 It is not very likely that all the women at Gandersheim were reading Terence. This seems to have been more so a consideration for the Ottonian court. Nevertheless, the women at Gandersheim would have read the hagiographical literature of their time, which also placed the female characters in objectified positions. 166 This presentation of females is a logical component of Greek (and thus) Roman plays. Hesiod’s religious cosmology claimed that women were created as an evil to punish men. 66

Hrotsvit felt the need to defend using her voice within the preface to her dramas (“For I am not such a lover of myself nor so vain that in order to avoid censure I would refrain from preaching Christ’s glory and strength as it works through His saints to the extent He grants me the ability to do so”167), she neither apologized for nor sought to give an excuse for her female characters’ eloquence. In the war against sin, Hrotsvit endowed her female characters with the weapon of voice to employ against their immoral adversaries. She must have felt that even her strongest critics could not castigate her female characters’ eloquence when exercised against evil non- believers. Thus, Hrotsvit exerted her own strong voice through her female characters. “Hrotswitha clearly proclaims a feminine perspective in several different places in her works, both overtly, in a semi-personalized narrative, and indirectly, through identification with the female heroes in her dramas. By creating a three-way link among the presentation of herself, the characters in her dramas, and her female audience, she constructs an ideal feminine self that is slowly revealed through the masks that she creates for herself and for her characters. This ideal female figure is, in part, a literary construction and is created through language, largely through the verbal links that she creates between herself and her characters. But this figure is also historicized, since Hrotswitha’s constructions (both her characters, and her self-presentation) reflect the social practices in which they are enmeshed. The characters in her dramas are shown in social and historical contexts that would have resonated with Hrotswitha’s female audience, who held beliefs similar to those of her characters. I would maintain that, if we read though the personal narratives and dramas together, we receive from Hrotswitha what might be called an autobiography”168

The clearest difference between Terence's female characters and Hrotsvit's female characters lies in their speech, or lack thereof. The two main female characters of Terence’s The Woman of Andros, Glycerium (the pregnant mistress) and Philumena (the betrothed), are unseen characters whose thoughts and feelings are relayed by other stock characters, the maid and the midwife.169 By contrast, the main female character in Gallicanus is Constantia, a character of virtue, steadfastness and intelligence who advises her father, the Emperor, with eloquent words of wisdom which offer him comfort: “Oh daughter, oh daughter, how your sweet speech has sweetened the bitterness of your father’s despair, so much so, that all my worries I now forswear.”170 Terence's The Self-Tormentor includes three female characters (a courtesan, a

167 Wilson, 1998, 42. 168 Gold, 1997, 45. 169 Both the maid, Mysis, and the midwife, Lesbia, are stock characters whose lower social statuses places their roles as stereotypical secondary characters. 170 Wilson, 1989, 13. 67 young woman, and the wife/mother of one of the father/son relationships that Terence’s plays always incorporated). The dialogue given to these three characters is relatively little (there are a total of two dialogues of this type), although the wife (Sostrata) is a woman whose small role does not necessarily detract from her value as a thinking and sympathetic character.171 Terence grants Bacchis, the courtesan, the gift of speech once while addressing Antiphila about the options given to women. Bacchis is praising Antiphila for her loyalty to her lover, Clinia: “And now, when I ponder your life and the lives of all of you who shun common lovers, I don't wonder you are the way you are and we aren’t. It's in your interest to be good, but our clients don't allow us to. Lovers cultivate us because they are attracted by our beauty; once that's faded, they take their affections elsewhere; and, unless we have meanwhile made some provision for the future, we're left to live on our own”172

These women accepted their lot in life as possessions of men, whether a courtesan, a young beloved or a wife. Nevertheless, these female characters (especially the willful courtesan and young woman embroiled in a romance out of wedlock) probably did not instill feelings of affinity for the women of Gandersheim, or Hrotsvit, in particular. In response, she provided a second play revolving around three young women who do not succumb to the ease of wealth in return for their sexual favors. Hrotvit’s three female characters (sisters) fought verbally against the men demanding their virtue and remained steadfast all the way to martyrdom. Agape, Chionia and Hirena refuse Diocletian’s offer of marriage to the foremost men of his court, if they would deny their faith in Christ. Unlike Bacchis or Antiphila, these holy virgins eschew handing over their chastity and autonomy to men: “Be free of care, don't trouble yourself to prepare our wedding because we cannot be compelled under any duress to betray Christ's holy name, which we must confess, nor to stain our virginity.”173 .

171 The young woman, Antiphila, is actually the long lost child of Chremes and Sostrata. At her birth, Chremes had instructed that the child be exposed, but his wife disobeyed him and secreted the child away. Sostrata, upon realizing that Antiphila is her child, eventually confesses her deceit to her husband. Although the audience would feel sympathy and joy for Sostrata’s actions (the discovery of Antiphila’s true parentage provides one of the resolutions of the play, as Antiphila is now considered worthy of marriage), the juxtaposition of the parental genders in reference to the offspring’s’ genders is still very patriarchical (Clitipho becomes his mother’s child in his error, and Antiphila becomes the ‘true’ child of the father). 172 Barsby, 2001b, 219. 173 Wilson, “1998, 45. 68

In Terence’s Eunuchus, Chaerea rapes the young maiden, Pamphila. The scene is described by a gloating Chaerea, himself, to his friend after the fact. Chaerea disguises himself as a eunuch, enters into the girl’s bedroom and after looking at a painting depicting Jupiter deceiving Danae, decides to follow the same path: “Was I, a mere mortal, not to do the same? I did just that - and gladly.”174 Terence's resolution of this situation is the marriage of Chaerea to Pamphila. Pamphila’s distress over her assault is relayed by her servant, and her betrothal to Chaerea is decided for her. Her character does not speak for herself, nor is she ever seen. Her trauma is downplayed by her “salvation” of marriage to the man who stole her virginity175. One can only imagine how such a story affected the canoness.176 If she wrote her third play with Terence’s unjust treatment of some poor maiden in mind, the intended rapist of Calimachus reaped his just rewards. Further, instead of just telling the tale of the sinful nature of non- believers redeemed by the grace of God, Hrotsvit provided a sense of defense against rape for her audience. In her character Drusiana, Hrotsvit sculpted a woman so holy that her virtue could not even be stolen from her corpse. Drusiana, in contrast to Pamphila, does speak out against her would-be attacker when he first confesses his feelings for her. Her words are not those of a frightened victim, but those born of the strength of her Christian beliefs: “You insane fool, why do you deceive yourself? Why do you delude yourself with an empty dream? By what token, through what insanity extreme, do you believe that I would ever yield to your frivolity’s crime, I who have abstained from visiting the bed even of my lawfully wedded husband for a long time.”177 Far from being victimized, Drusiana, through divine will, is saved from necrophilia, resurrected from the grave, and in an act of true Christian spirit, begs for a second chance for Fortunatus. In Hrotsvit’s third play, the female character saves her attacker from eternal

174 Barsby, 2001c, 380-1. 175This was a standard Roman perception, as the woman would not otherwise be marriageable as sullied goods, and so it was for her (the victim’s) own good. According to Katerina Philippides, Chaerea conforms to the expectations of an ephebus/adulescentulus in Roman comedy. Such characters progress from youth to man by abiding by certain rules of the genre: falling in love with a girl; undergoing a series of adventures; and finally marrying her. Terence’s Chaerea fulfills these criteria and thus, “it is wrong to consider him as a “callous rapist” or assume that his actions would have disturbed Terence’s audience, since there are many elements which cancel out such claims” Philippides, 1995, 284. 176 As previously mentioned in Chapter One, many women in Hrotsvit’s time entered the church in order to avoid marriage. Women such as Hrotsvit and her fellows at Gandersheim were among the few who had the protection of a religious house from situations similar to this. 177 Wilson, 1998, 57. 69 damnation and maintains her chastity. Hrotsvit seems to clearly be speaking to the injustice of Terence’s version of rape, through a holy and chaste Christian woman’s victory over the lustful yearnings of a sinful man. “Virginity/chastity, vulnerability to rape, sensuality, and beauty are all refocused in Hrotsvit's specular economy so that, having rescripted and re-created the scene in which physically weak but intellectually complex and competent women triumphed over their brutish male opponents, female subjects emerge at the center.”178 The subject of rape and violence against women is again broached in Terence’s fourth play, The Mother-In-Law. Again, a young woman is raped by the man who would become her future husband, which Terence (and his Roman audiences) felt offered a resolution to the act of violation.179 Hrotsvit's fourth play, Abraham, also dealt with the loss of virginity. Mary, a young maiden raised by her kind and holy uncle, falls from grace and, in shame for her lascivious deeds, runs away. Her uncle, Abraham, searches for her for years, and once she has been found, he disguises himself as a lover in order to gain access to her. He then reveals himself, and leads her back to her life as a repentant Christian. Mary's fall from grace was due to a deceiver disguised as a monk. Her Christian recovery was due to a monk (her uncle, Abraham) disguised as a lover. Her return to her faith is built upon her sincere remorse and penance. This former courtesan destroys all wealth and goods received from her impurity. She humbly thanks Abraham and with eloquence accepts her absolution. “Mary: What shall I say? How shall I ever repay your kindness? You do not force me, miserable wretch, with threats, but exhort me to do penance with kindness. Abraham: I ask nothing of you, except that you remain intent upon spending the rest of your life in God's service. Mary: Out of my own free will I shall remain contrite, I shall persist in my penance with all my might, and even if I lose the ability to perform the act, the will to do it shall never lack”180

In contrast to Terence’s courtesans, whose lives and reputations are beyond redemption, Hrotsvit’s fallen women return to chastity and redemption. This is yet another example of

178 Scheck, 2008, 26. 179 Susan Lape argues that the response of marriage to an act of rape, within Greek comedies (and the Roman comedies that emulated the Greek originals), reinforced Athenian law in regards to legitimate marriages. To acquire citizen status in Athens, one had to be born of two Athenian citizens. Thus, the fathers in Terence’s play experience constant concern about the women in their sons’ lives, and whether they are “acceptable” based on their parentage and civic status. 180 Wilson, 1998, 78. 70

Hrotsvit's treatment of subversion in regards to Terence’s writing. Terence's courtesans remain people outside the fold of respectable society, regardless of whether or not they display sympathetic characters. Terence does paint his harlots with certain compassion; his prostitutes often show kindness to young innocent maidens while maintaining their own realism towards society’s rigid structure and their place outside of it. Terence's courtesans must take care of themselves, as there is no to which they can haven for them to return to. Their status as fallen, impure women prevents them from hoping to find respectability ever again. Hrotsvit’s reading of Terence must have incited her to write a different ending for these disgraced women. Instead of presenting these characters as unredeemable, she offers them the chance of atonement and forgiveness. From Hrotsvit’s Christian viewpoint, her harlots have the possibility of climbing back out of the depths of depravity to sanctity through faith and penance. Further, she takes the familiar topic of rape and/or ruin and twists it to illustrate the divine grace of God. Even shameful women, like those often found in Terence, are granted the option of salvation and a return to sanctification. This is another example of Hrotsvit’s contest with Terence: her penitent prostitutes find forgiveness and acceptance back into the fold, whereas Terence’s do not. Carole Newlands posits that Hrotsvit added Terentian themes and motifs to the story as found in the Vita Patrum that provided her greater literary movement in her representation of Maria. Hrotsvit’s Maria actively chooses to strive to be the bride only of Christ before her rape (the theme of marriage was not a part of the prose vita, but it is a stock theme of Terence’s plays) and thus becomes an active participant in her own life, unlike the Terentian models. Thus, Newlands argues, Hrotsvit’s fallen virgin actively seeks to change her own destiny, whereas Terence’s fallen virgin’s fate still lies in the hands of others.181 So although the women of Hrotsvit’s time were as susceptible to rape as the women of Terence’s time, Hrotsvit decided to present the stories of women who had suffered such violations, and yet through grace found redemption and salvation. Hrotsvit provided a representation of the reality of rape wherein the victim overcame their circumstances and gained back control of their lives. Terence's fourth play, Phormio, dabbles in pimps, slave girls and bigamy. The main storyline is about the reconciliation of fathers and sons, as is normal for Terentian plays. This play ends with one marriage, one newly acquired slave girl, and forgiveness for the bigamist by his (legal) wife. The marriage and forgiveness might have been acceptable to Hrotsvit, but the

181 Newlands, 1986, 86. 71 sale of the slave girl to her new paramour probably was not. And again, Terence gives the women in Phormio little opportunity to express themselves. The one exception to this is Nausistrata, the wife of the bigamist, Chremes. Terence allows her to lament her woes, which are considerable, when learning of her husband’s polygamy.182 In the face of the cast of such licentious characters, Hrotsvit again turned to the story of a fallen woman. Her fifth play details the conversion of Thaïs, a harlot redeemed through the efforts of a hermit, Pafnutius. Pafnutius, like Abraham in the previous play, disguised himself as a lover in order to deal with the shameless woman who ensnared all men with her beauty, leading them to perdition. When Pafnutius reaches Thaïs, he is thrilled to discover that the fatal beauty speaks of her belief in the true God, although she does not follow his teachings. Pafnutius tells her of her future punishment in hell, spurring her to repent. Thaïs shows contrition with eloquence: “Thaïs: How can there be a place for appalling lust in my heart now, when it is filled entirely with the bitter pangs of sorrow, and the new awareness of guilt, fear, and pain. Pafnutius: I hope that when the thorns of your vice are destroyed at the root, the winestock of penitence may then bring forth fruit. Thaïs: If only you believed or had the slightest hope that I who am so stained, with thousands and thousands of sin enchained, could expiate my sins, or could perform due penance in order to gain forgiveness!”183

Again, Hrotsvit offers her female characters a voice with which to express themselves, even the fallen, as Thaïs does shortly before her death: “Therefore praise Him, all the company of Heaven, and on Earth the least little sprout or bush, not only all living features, but even the waterfall’s rush, because He not only suffers men to live in sinful ways, but rewards the penitent with the gift of grace.”184 Like Hrotsvit herself, these female characters felt justified and entitled,

182 “Demipho: Nausistrata, I don't deny that in this matter he has been deserving of censure; but still, it may be pardoned. Demipho: For he did this neither through neglect or aversion to yourself. About fifteen years since, and a drunken fit, he had an intrigue with this poor woman, of whom this girl was born, nor did he ever touch her afterward. She is dead and gone: the only difficulty that remained in this matter. Wherefore, I do beg if you, that, as in other things, you'll bear this with patience. Nausistrata: Why should I with patience? I could wish, afflicted as I am, that there were an end of this matter. But how can I hope? Am I to suppose that, at his age, he will not offend in future? Was he not an old man then, if old age makes people behave themselves decently? Are my looks and my age more attractive now, Demipho? What do you advance to me, to make me expect or hope that this will not happen any more?” Brown, 2006, 3. 183 Wilson, 1989, 108. 184 Wilson, 1989, 121. 72 even, to express themselves verbally regarding their praise of God. Hrotsvit seemed to be arguing that each Christian had the right to praise the glory of God with their voice, whether a man or a woman. Terence’s last play, The Brothers, again follows the standard pattern for Greek and Roman comedy: the tangled web of lies and deceit that go along with secret love affairs and disapproving fathers. The comedy revolves around two brothers, the fathers of two brothers. 185 One father is very strict, while one is less so. The basis of the story is the love affairs the sons hide from their fathers, with each set of brothers “aiding” each other. One son is enamored of a music girl who belongs to her pimp, and the other son has already seduced a poor (i.e. socially unacceptable) young woman who is deep into her pregnancy. After a series of intrigues, the play ends with the slave girl now belonging to the one son, and other marrying the young woman he had debauched. The ruined young woman, Pamphila, is not seen throughout the play, and only has one line in the play wherein she cries out in the pangs of childbirth from offstage. The music girl is not seen, not heard, and not even given a name. Her fate is decided at the very end of the play, when the strict father concedes and allows his son to keep the slave girl: “I consent. Let him have his mistress: with her let him make an end of his follies.”186 One can only imagine how such liaisons affected Hrotsvit, and indeed, she specifically mentions the scarlet blush that stained her cheeks when reading Terence. The women in this play, and in all of Terence’s plays, are victims of the actions of men and lack any type of voice with which to express how they feel about their own lives and situations. Hrotsvit’s final play, the Martyrdom of the Holy Virgins Fides, Spes, and Karitas (Sapientia) tackles Terence’s fathers and sons motif with a story of mothers and daughters. She exchanges the sexual escapades of the immoral young men of Terence (to Hrotsvit’s medieval mind, at least) for the tale of Fides, Spes and Karitas, all personified as the holy virginal daughters of Sapientia.187 In Hrotsvit’s play, the storyline centers on the martyrdom of these three young women, with their mother (personifying Wisdom) by their side. With this play, Hrotsvit offers her clearest challenge to Terence: here, praiseworthy virtuous young women verbally defeat their masculine pagan foes. Granted, as the title indicates, this is a play about

185 Demea has two sons, one of which he raises (Ctesipho) and the other (Aeschinus) he gives to his brother (Micio) to adopt and raise. 186 Brown, trans., 2006b, 5.9. 187 Faith, Hope and Charity, respectively. 73 martyrdom. Nevertheless, these righteous virgins, along with their mother, exemplify Christian heroes in their martyrdom and verbal eloquence.188 The holy quartet’s foil is the Emperor Hadrian, accompanied by his advisor, Antioch. Hadrian is worried about the arrival of Sapientia and her daughters into the city, as Sapientia is exhorting the people to turn away from pagan ritual and instead, follow the Christian path. Her success in converting people leads to (Christian) women neither sleeping nor eating with their (pagan) husbands. Perceived as a threat to the state, Sapientia is brought before the Emperor. From the very onset, Sapientia is presented as a fearless Christian heroine who neither fears nor respects Hadrian or Antioch. The character of Sapientia allows Hrotsvit to invert known patterns of women denoting folly and sexuality, and turning them instead into the voice and physical representation of holiness and chastity. “Though the eagerness for torture and death that Hrotsvit's Christian martyrs enact may seem excessive to twenty-first century readers, the Epistle of St. Peter urges precisely that attitude to the earliest Christians. By the time Hrotsvit is writing, martyrdom was a less real option. Virginity and chastity may have become aesthetic substitutes for martyrdom; they certainly were politically significant in light of the Ottonian policy of endowing monastic houses for the noblewomen who might otherwise confuse dynastic plans by their childbearing.”189 Immediately upon her introduction, Sapientia’s eloquence becomes evident, as well as her contempt for her pagan enemies: “Antioch: Foreign woman, what's your name? Sapientia: Sapientia. Antioch: Emperor Hadrian orders you to come to court and appear before him. Sapientia: I do not fear to enter the palace in the noble company of my daughters, nor do I fear looking upon the emperor’s threatening face. Antioch: This hateful Christian race is always bent on spurning our ruler’s authority. Sapientia: The Ruler of the Universe, who never can be conquered, will not permit the fiend to overcome His people”190

Antioch’s hatred for Christians and Hadrian's grand ineptitude provide ample opportunity for Sapientia and her daughters to show their vast superiority over their tormentors. “Faith, Hope and Charity highlights the intelligence of women at the expense of the slow wits and thick

188 “Hrotsvit's Sapientia, thereby stages a series of oppositions: youth and age, child and emperor, male and female, Christian and pagan, verbal license and physical mastery” Kline, 2004, 77. 189 Brown, 2004, 169. 190 Wilson, 1998, 82. 74 tongues of the men who persecute them … Hrotsvitha consistently works to shift the emphasis of the narrative from the pathos of the martyrs to the intellectual and argumentative victories of her heroines and the complete humiliation of the villains.”191 This humiliation comes with Sapientia’s lesson to Hadrian in advanced mathematics. Not only does this section demonstrate Hrotsvit’s own high level of education, but it also speaks volumes to the intelligence of women (i.e. Christian ones) over non-believers (who happen to be all men). Not only does Sapientia take the Emperor and his advisor to task, so, too, do Fides, Spes and Karitas. After Sapientia belittles Hadrian with her lesson in mathematics, at Antioch’s urging Hadrian instead turns to trying to change the minds of the three young girls: “Hadrian: Fides, look with respect upon the venerable image of a great Diana and bring offerings to the holy goddess so that you may possess her favor. Fides: O, what a foolish Imperial command; worthy of nothing but contempt! Hadrian: What are you mumbling in derision; whom are you mocking with your wry expression? Fides: It’s your foolishness. I deride, and I mock your stupidity. Hadrian: My stupidity? Fides: Yes. Antioch: The Emperor’s? Fides: Yes, his! Antioch: This is abominable! Fides: For what is more foolish, what can seem more stupid than your command to show contempt for the Creator of all and venerate base metal instead? Antioch: Fides, you are mad! Fides: Antioch, you lie! Antioch: Isn’t it the sign of great insanity and of severe madness when you call the ruler of the world a fool? Fides: I have called him a fool, I now call him a fool and I shall call him a fool as long as I live”192

After this dialogue, Hadrian orders his soldiers to torture Fides with several different torments. Fides continues to taunt Hadrian throughout all his persecutions: “Hadrian: Have her thrown on a fiery hot grill so that the glowing coals will make her still. Antioch: She deserves to die miserably, she who did not fear to scorn you. Fides: Whatever you plan for my pain becomes the calm of joyful gain; so I rest comfortably on the grill, as if I were on a peaceful ship.

191 McInerney, 2002, 101. 192 Wilson, 1998, 88-9. 75

Hadrian: Prepare a pot full of wax and pitch; place it on the pyre and cast this rebel into the boiling mire! Fides: I’ll jump into it out of my free volition. Hadrian: Go ahead, with my permission! Fides: Where are your threats now? Look! Unhurt I frolic and swim in the boiling stew, and I feel the cool of the early morning dew”193

Hadrian finally orders Fides’ head chopped off, but even so, her sisters do not cower and end up also being martyred by the Emperor. The martyrdom of early Christians provided Hrotsvit with a vehicle with which to show not only the mental superiority of her Chrisitan females, but also the physical duress they could withstand through their faith. Hrotsvit’s Hadrian is made a fool of by one woman and three mere girls. Not only do they ridicule the most powerful man of their time, they show themselves his superior in every way. “The representation of childhood offers insight into the didactic aims of the play and the ideological effects of the representation of age, for it is upon the bodies of the virginal young that Hrotsvit inscribes a hagiographical discourse of youthful resistance to aged power, feminine opposition to masculine domination, and Christian triumph over secular authority. In short, Sapientia elucidates the ideological effects created in a specific historical and cultural context by representation of age in relation to gender and power.”194

The Theme of Marriage In addition to the growing female subjectivity found in Hrotsvit’s works, she also utilized the tools of inversion within the theme of marriage. The theme of marriage within Terence’s plays is normally used as the happy ending, wherein all the misunderstandings of identity have been cleared up and the female character has been passed on to her new husband. With the exception of the courtesans of Terence’s plays, the wronged females (those women whose mistaken status or unknown identity places them in the category of unsuitable for proper marriage, but who act as the love interest for the wayward young men) are redeemed through marriage to the men who either seduced the maidens or actually raped them.195 This is a standard topos for Greek and Roman comedies. The comedic factor comes into play with the comedy of

193 Wilson, 1998, 89. 194 Kline, 2004, 79. 195 The courtesans in Terence’s plays find no redemption for their fallen status, as discussed above. 76 errors, as each young man must hide his love interest from a disapproving father, only to find out at the conclusion of the play that the girl is actually socially acceptable for marriage. Terence, Plautus and Menander all employed this literary tool, and their audiences knew that such a resolution would resolve the romantic dilemmas. (These were, after all, comedies. As such, there were no abandoned, ruined women left stranded at the end of the story, as might be the case in a drama.) The element of love drives all of Terence’s plays: the love of a young man for a woman in contest with the young man’s love for his father. Terence sought to reconcile these two often opposing forces, in a humanistic acknowledgement of the emotions and growing maturity of the young men. His focus is clearly on the young men and their path to adulthood and responsibility. Often times, the questionable love interest of the youth turns out to be the hidden offspring of one of the fathers in opposition to the young man, indicating their own youthful folly. The wild antics of these young men act as a catalyst to their new roles as responsible husbands and fathers. Terence shows understanding and sympathy for these characters, illustrating their growth from irresponsible youths to accountable members of society. His benevolence and considerate treatment of these young male characters created plays that offered a gracious humanitas to human transgressions, illustrating personal growth within his (male) characters. Not only did the wild young men show advancement in maturity, often the strict fathers of his plays also evolved into more benign characters. As the young men of Terence grew into respectable adults, they crossed the liminal threshold of matrimony, and took the responsibility of a wife (and often a child already born). Thus, for Terence’s plays, the resolution of all the romantic intrigue was logically a suitable marriage, denoting acceptance of a position of responsibility. The young women who became the brides of the focal characters had no other purpose in Terence’s plays but to act as the catalyst between the young man and his father, who sought to ensure that his beloved son was pursuing a proper course in society and life, in general. Whether through consent or not (as in the case of the two rape victims), the loss of maidenhood for women of this time period was a sentence of ostracization from society. Women who were unmarried and pregnant were shunned and often this was the path that led to prostitution, as no man would consider them for a proper wife. Thus, marriage to the man who took their virginity was the only socially acceptable resolution. For the characters such as Glycerium of The Woman of Andros or Pamphila of The Brothers, who were

77 already pregnant at the onset of the play, marriage to their lovers was the desired outcome. For the rape victims (Pamphila of Eunuchus and Philumena of The Mother-In-Law), marriage to their rapists was still the only real alternative to a life of shame and abandonment.196 In a patriarchal society, women moved from their fathers’ houses to the houses of their new husbands. The young women of Terence follow this accepted path, whether they chose their betrothed, or had no other option (outside of ostracization or prostitution) but to marry their attackers. For the women of Hrotvit’s time, the choices for young women had not changed much. They too left their fathers’ homes to live under the roof of a new spouse, and they too faced disgrace were they to lose their virginity before marriage. Their only other option was a religious house. Not all tenth-century women had this option, but it was feasible for a select few. For women such as Hrotsvit, the option of choosing not to marry was something their ancient Greek and Roman predecessors were not given, unless they were fortunate enough to be vestal virgins.197 Although history does not detail for us Hrotsvit’s own reasons for entering Gandersheim, the Abbey itself was a wealthy one where the most prestigious families of the Ottonian Empire sent some of their daughters. All we can surmise from Hrotsvit’s writings is that she saw Terence’s females as lacking choices in their own lives. Foremost among her concerns seems to be the stolen virtue of the females of Terence’s plays, and that their only recourse was physical marriage to men, whether by consent or not. To challenge Terence again, Hrotsvit’s plays take the theme of marriage into the realm of Augustinian Christianity. Hrotsvit’s heroines seek a higher match with a celestial bridegroom, taking their (often times martyred) virginity with them. For Hrostvit and possibly many of the other women at Gandersheim, the idea of a forced marriage and the subsequent (or possibly prior) loss of virginity was grievous, especially if it was lost by force. To counter such instances in Terence’s plays, Hrotsvit writes of women who turn away from the option of marriage or the marriage bed (even those who were legally married). Instead, they seek a higher consummation as a bride of Christ. “To her, however the striving for moral perfection and the quest for a union with the Heavenly Bridegroom are motivations as attractive and as powerful as the themes of

196 For Antiphila of The Self-Tormentor and Phanium,the daughter of bigamist Chremes in Phormio, marriage is the desired outcome, as the former loves Clinia and the latter is alone in the world, without parents (to her knowledge) to look out for her well-being. 197 Obviously, in some cases, women of the tenth century were sent to religious houses against their will, to ensure the lack of heirs to a family’s wealth. 78 love, inheritance, reconciliation, and social acceptability are for Terence.”198 Caroline Walker Bynum’s work on the concept of the individual in the twelfth century is pertinent to this analysis, although the phenomena she outlines come from a slightly later date. “The twelfth-century thinker explored himself in a direction and for a purpose. The development of the self was toward God. One might say, to simplify a little, that to the ancients the goal of development is the adult human being, for which one finds a model in the great works of the past; to the twelfth century the goal of development is likeness to God, built on the image of God found in ‘the inner man…’”199 Hrotsvit’s writings indicate strong Augustinian ideologies, as is logical considering her era, her adherence to Christian doctrine, and her program of using Classical texts for the promotion of Christian ideals.200 Hrotsvit had already used Augustinian ideals when she first began her contest with Terence. “Saint Augustine, as Curtius observes, also used allegorical exegesis to comment on the relationship between pagan learning and Christian truth, or between form and content. Commenting on Exodus 3:22 and 12:35 (when they went out of Egypt, the Israelites took gold and silver vessels with them), he remarks that in the very same manner the Christian must rid pagan learning of what is superfluous and pernicious, of the ‘gentilium…perniciosas’ (compare Hrostvit’s reference to the ‘perniciosas gentilium’ she intends to avoid), so that he may then place it in the service of truth (De doctrina 2.60).”201 Hrotsvit’s Preface to the dramas clearly illustrates this plan, as she chose to use pagan matter (i.e. Terence’s plays) as the basis for her Christian program, and her Augustinnian word play provides strong evidence for viewing Augustine as a pliable source for the canoness. Augustine’s argument within the De civitate Dei posits that as Satan and his representatives seek to tempt men to act with pride and disobedience to God’s will, and that the Christian must fight back against these dangerous notions.202

198 Wilson, 1988, 63. 199 Bynum, 1982, 87. 200 “Hrotsvit’s conception of world order, of the nature of good and evil, and of the manifestation of that supernatural struggle on earth finds their basis in Augustinian philosophy, as is her strong belief in the fundamental goodness of creation” Wilson, 1989, xxii. 201 Wilson, 1988, 63. 202 “Man’s free submission to God’s will is the cause for the jealousy of the Devil, who is intent upon enslaving men to his will; therefore, Satan and his cohorts (iniqui, perverse, iniusti, superbi) are constantly trying to do harm to Christ’s flock (iusti, humiles, boni); but without the 79

Further, Augustine ideals on the institution of marriage echo throughout Hrotsvit’s plays. Augustine thought that marriage was a sin, only made pardonable by the strict awareness and practice of sexual relations as a means of procreation.203 Hrotsvit certainly seems to be adhering to this perception of marriage, as her only married heroine (Drusiana) denounces the bed of her legal husband. To Hrotsvit, this indicated the character’s true chastity, and through this exalted form of virtue, her ability to escape the victimization of necrophilia. As Augustine believed that for the soul to remain chaste the body must not experience lust, even within the bounds of marriage, Hrotsvit followed these notions of marital righteousness. Augustine also wrote The City of God in the fifth century CE, delving into a philosophy of a spiritual kingdom as opposed to a kingdom built by human hands, clearly reflecting the empire of late Rome. Augustine’s first ten books of The City of God sought to solve the serious accusation that the fall of Rome in 410 CE was primarily due to the lack of support of Rome’s traditional pantheon for the new Christian God. In the second half of The City of God, Augustine presents his two cities, the heavenly city versus the worldly city. He created a clear dichotomy between earthly and heavenly virtues, delineating the history of both cities, as well as their futures. In his presentation, the denizens of the heavenly city were those people destined for Heaven and eternal bliss, those who had practiced a virtuous life and followed the teachings of Christian doctrine. His treatise sought to teach Christians to aspire to a heavenly kingdom, versus an earthy kingdom termed the City of the World. He populated his heavenly city with people

individual freely willing to be recruited among Satan’s followers, they can do only external, physical harm. The Christian, Augustine maintains, bears a divine obligation to combat the work of the Devil – the bellum iustum, he terms it – and fight against pagans, rebels, and other enemies of the civitas dei” Wilson, 1989, xxiii. 203 “In like manner, therefore, the marriage of believers converts to the use of righteousness that carnal concupiscence by which "the flesh lusteth against the Spirit." For they entertain the firm purpose of generating offspring to be regenerated--that the children who are born of them as "children of the world" may be born again and become "sons of God." Wherefore all parents who do not beget children with this intention, this will this purpose, of transferring them from being members of the first man into being members of Christ, but boast as unbelieving parents over unbelieving children, - however circumspect they be in their cohabitation, studiously limiting it to the begetting of children, - really have no conjugal chastity in themselves. For inasmuch as chastity is a virtue, hating unchastity as its contrary vice, and as all the virtues (even those whose operation is by means of the body) have their seat in the soul, how can the body be in any true sense said to be chaste, when the soul itself is committing fornication against the true God?” Dods, trans., Saint Augustine’s On Marriage and Concupiscence, 2010, Book I, Chp. V. 80 who looked to a spiritual existence, forsaking the pleasures of the actual world in which they lived.204 Clearly, Hrotsvit intertwines both Augustine ideologies within her six plays. Although she does not specifically mention Augustine as she does Terence, as a source for her works, her borrowing of such teachings as the use of pagan writings for Christian exegesis and his views of marriage as a necessary evil, both point to a strong contention for Hrotsvit’s Augustine treatment of the theme of marriage. Constantia of Gallicanus, a devoted follower of Christ, made a holy vow of chastity to God. When offered marriage to the noble Prince Gallicanus, Constantia agrees with her father to pretend to agree to the marriage (for political reasons) while sending her two chamberlains with her “betrothed” for Christian tutorage, relying on God to convert Gallicanus so that he too would embrace the life of celibacy. Her schemes come to fruition, as Gallicanus turns to Christianity and chooses to live celibately, and Constantia’s vow of chastity is preserved. Her aversion to marriage is clear, as she first states: “I would rather die.”205 Dulcitius begins with the Emperor Diocletian declaring to Agape, Chionia and Hirena: “The renown of your free and noble descent and the brightness of your beauty demand that you be married to one of the foremost men of my court. This will be done according to our command if you deny Christ and comply by bringing offerings to our gods.”206 Their response was ridicule, mockery and the choice of holy martyrdom over marriage to the most prestigious men in the Roman court. Both Agape and Chionia are burned alive, yet their chastity is not threatened. Hirena, as the last of the three, faces the additional threat of being sent to a brothel, wherein she would face defilement. Hirena’s reply also has Augustinian echoes, as she states: “Hirena: It is better that the body be dirtied with any stain than that the soul be polluted with idolatry. Sissinus: If you are so polluted in the company of harlots, you can no longer be counted among the virginal choir.

204 “In this book, then, I shall speak, as God permits, not of those first judgments, nor of these intervening judgments of God, but of the last judgment, when Christ is to come from heaven to judge the quick and the dead. For that day is properly called the day of judgment, because in it there shall be no room left for the ignorant questioning why this wicked person is happy and that righteous man unhappy. In that day true and full happiness shall be the lot of none but the good, while deserved and supreme misery shall be the portion of the wicked, and of them only” Dods, Saint Augustin’s City of God, Book XX, Chp. I. 205 Wilson, 1989, 12. 206 Wilson, 1998, 45. 81

Hirena: Lust deserves punishment, but forced compliance the crown. With neither is one considered guilty, unless the soul consents freely”207

Hrotsvit’s Calimachus demonstrates Augustinian ideals within the character of Drusiana. Calimachus’ desire for Drusiana manifested itself during her life and into her death as well. Drusiana, although married to Lord Andronicus who is also a Christian, adheres to the teachings of Saint John the Apostle to devote oneself entirely to God and even shuns the bed of her husband.208 As such a pious woman, when Calimachus makes his feelings known to her, she is clearly repulsed by his feelings, calling him a fool and stating that she abstained from even her marriage bed. Calimachus’ desire is so great that he does not heed her words which forces Drusiana to pray for her own death in order to avoid becoming the reason for Calimachus’ eternal damnation. Although her prayers are answered, Calimachus’ sinful ardor is not dampened, and he makes plans to defile her corpse. Drusiana’s chaste holiness protects her even in death, so that Calimachus and his helper both die before he is able to debase her corpse. As mentioned earlier, Hrotvit’s play Sapientia sees the title character and her daughters brought before the emperor because of her teachings, which cause Roman women to disdain the beds of their husbands. Before their actual torture, the four are imprisoned and here Sapientia exhorts her daughters to be brave in the face of what is to come: “Sapientia: That is what I pray for incessantly, that is what I ask for and request earnestly; that you persevere in your faith, which, from your early childhood on, I tried to instill in your mind without any rest. Karitas: We will never forget what we learned in our cradle suckling at your breast. Sapientia: It was for this that I nursed you with my milk flowing free; it was for this that I carefully reared you three; that I may espouse you to a heavenly, not an earthly bridegroom and may deserve to be called the mother-in-law of the Eternal King thereby. Fides: For the love of that Bridegroom we are prepared to die”209

207 Wilson, 1998, 51. Further, Augustine’s writings specifically address the issue of violation: “Let this, therefore, in the first place, be laid down as an unassailable position, that the virtue which makes the life good has its throne in the soul, and thence rules the members of the body, which becomes holy in virtue of the holiness of the will; and that while the will remains firm and unshaken, nothing that another person does with the body, or upon the body, is any fault of the person who suffers it, so long as he cannot escape it without sin” Dods, trans., Saint Augustin’s City of God, Book I, Chp. XVI. 208 Hebrews XIII, iv states: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.” 209 Wilson, 1998, 87. 82

This play clearly demonstrates Hrotsvit’s Augustine ideals on marriage and the dichotomy of heavenly versus earthly, that her daughters die as virgin martyrs for their faith so that they may know a heavenly bridegroom. They choose the City of God over the City of the World, and it is their ability to make a choice that speaks to Hrotsvit’s intent. Her heroines are not left without alternatives, but instead they can choose to deny the Emperor’s decrees on whom they should marry. Although facing torture and death, their choice of martyrdom is a choice Hrotsvit gives them. Fides, Spes and Karitas have the option of deciding their own fates, and they choose a heavenly marriage.

The Theme of Disguise Classical authors, Terence included, often utilized the theme of disguise for their romantic intrigues. Indeed, a great deal of Classical mythology incorporates this theme. Many myths involve one of the Greco-Roman gods using disguise in order to achieve intimacy with mortal women. Zeus is renowned for this particular ploy, and Terence acknowledges this in one of his plays, as an excuse for one of his wayward sons to ravage a young maiden.210 For Classical authors, this was a tried and true topos, a literary trick to provide one of their characters with entry to a place of security for a young virginal victim. Terence utilized it in his play Eunuchus, to allow Chaerea access to Pamphila. As mentioned previously, Chaerea brags of his deeds after the fact, pointing out that a portrait of Zeus with Danae prompted his actions.211 Pamphila’s distress over her rape is downplayed, although she does not speak for herself but instead a servant tells of her despair. Hrotsvit’s feelings towards this component of Terence’s Eunuchus cannot be known, but her treatment of the theme of disguise does speak to her indignant displeasure of the scene. If Terence (and other Classical writers) could employ the theme of disguise for his own purposes, surely Hrotsvit could as well. That she would even incorporate such an element speaks to the rancor she likely felt towards the kind of violation twice depicted in the Eunuchus. Both Chaerea’s and Zeus’ actions must have seemed abhorrent to the canoness, for she incorporates the theme of disguise in two of her plays, but alters its function.

210 Zeus’ disguises, to name a few, include a swan, a bull, a golden shower, an eagle, and various husbands. 211 Zeus’ disguise in this particular episode is that of a golden shower, pouring into the tower in which Danae was imprisoned. 83

Hrotsvit’s cycle of inversion and subversion found yet another vehicle in her two plays, Abraham and Pafnutius. If the sweet style of Terence corrupted Catholics with stories of treachery and debauchery, why couldn’t trickery be used for good? Hrotsvit must have asked herself such questions, for she inverted yet another topos found in Terence to teach Christian redemption. In these two plays, Hrotsvit not only subverted the disguise topos, it is only within these two plays that Hrotsvit’s inverted her female characters, providing heroines for fallen women. Within Abraham and Pafnutius, Hrotsvit presented two prostitutes, Mary and Thaïs. Thaïs was first introduced in Pafnutius as a woman whose sexual practices presented moral danger to men. Mary, on the other hand, began her life as a chaste virgin who endeavored to maintain her purity for a heavenly bridegroom. Her downfall began at the hands of a deceiver who practicing the guile of disguise, came to her as a monk and led her astray. In shame, Mary fled her home and began a life of prostitution. Both Mary and Thaïs represent Hrotsvit’s detour from virgin martyrs, and both presented the canoness with the opportunity to employ the theme of disguise. Mary’s initial downfall came about from a deceiver, much like Terence’s Chaerea, who utilized the theme of disguise to gain entry to her secure sanctuary. After her loss of chastity and the promise of a heavenly bridegroom, Mary felt such shame that she fell into desperation and left her uncle’s haven for worldly lodgings. Her Uncle Abraham set out to find his niece and bring her back to the fold. When Abraham discovered her whereabouts, he realized that to gain access to Mary, working as a prostitute, he must disguise himself as a potential customer. Once Abraham finds Mary, and they are alone, he removes his disguise and reveals himself to her. Mary, contrite, returns with Abraham to his home and spends the rest of her life in penance for her sins.212 Similarly, Thaïs is a prostitute who endangers the souls of men with her beauty and charms. Perceived as a moral danger, the hermit Pafnutius decides to visit Thaïs to try and redeem her from her sinful existence. Like Abraham, Pafnutius recognizes the fact that he will

212 “The plot of the Abraham is unusually neat in its construction. There are two scenes of successful attack against Maria, first by the lover disguised as a monk, who lures her from her cell, and then by the monk Abraham, disguised as a lover, who leads Maria back to her cell. Hrotswitha places these scenes at equal distance from the beginning and the end of the play (Act Three and Act Seven out of a total of nine). Moreover, through the common motif of disguise, she is able to emphasize that the hermit’s infiltration of the tavern sub specie amatoris (4.5) is an ironically redemptive mirror image of the real lover’s infiltration monachich … habitu (2.4)” Newland, 1986, 376. 84 not be able to gain entry to Thaïs as a holy man, and must instead disguise himself as a yearning lover. Both Abraham and Pafnutius request privacy with the women, ensuring that they are secure behind locked doors before revealing their true identities and purpose. Thaïs, like Mary before her, renounces her sinful ways and returns with Pafnutius to a cloister of his choosing, where she remains in penance for the remainder of her life. Hrotsvit’s treatment of the theme of disguise three times within these two plays indicates her desire to prove her Christian content far superior to Terence’s pagan subject matter.213 The plays Abraham and Pafnutius not only allowed her to illustrate God’s compassion for those women who had fallen prey to sin, but they also presented her with the chance to use a familiar pagan topos for Christian purposes. Thus in her mind, in two separate ways, Hrotsvit was able to surpass Terence: in form and content. As she clearly stated her intent to best Terence in her preface, utilizing a favored literary theme to show God’s benevolence must have greatly appealed to her. “Hrotswitha therefore enriches her hagiographical source with several stock themes and characters from Terence’s comedies: the thwarted marriage; the lover in disguise; the matching scenes of attack; and the innocent virgo. She thereby adjusts the problems of Terence’s social world to a Christian one in which there is no moral compromise for the female victim.”214 Again, Hrotsvit also shows her Augustinnian leanings in utilizing a familiar pagan topos for the glorification of Christian practices, ridding the disguise theme of its “superfluous and pernicious” practices and instead employing it in the “service of truth.”

Fathers and Sons/Parents and Children Hrotsvit’s desire to overcome Terence’s lure to Catholics through an agon of inversion and subversion is distinct in her themes of marriage and disguise. Her further ambition to replace female objectivity with subjectivity is also evident. In the last study of her inversions, the interaction of parents and children, Hrotsvit did not present such clear transpositions of Terence’s themes. All of Terence’s plays were based on the father-son relationship. Hrotsvit’s dramas centered on women, and thus she had to create a new and different approach to her

213 “Hrotsvit’s technique here is aptly stated by de Luca who finds the disguise theme to represent a ‘deliberate “reverse imitation” of Terence,’ as a salacious plot element is reworked by Hrotsvit to glorify chastity” Talbot, 2004, 155. 214 Newland, 1986, 378. 85 storylines.215 Not wanting to place the spotlight on sons (one assumes that the sisters at Gandersheim would have had more sympathetic enjoyment of stories about young women); Hrotsvit instead based four of her six stories on young women who were aided by a parent or pseudo-parent in their contest against sin and evil. Hrotsvit’s first drama, Gallicanus, features Constantia, a chaste young woman whose wisdom and maturity aid her father, the Emperor Constantinus. Pressured by his highest-ranking nobles, Constantinus must consider Gallicanus’ petition to marry Constantia. Constantinus’ dismay and anxiety are evident to his daughter, and she seeks to comfort him. Once she realizes his dilemma, she endeavors to alleviate her father’s angst while maintaining her vow: “Constantia: It was with your consent and with your permission that I took the vow of chastity to serve God forever. Constantinus: I remember. Constantia: Therefore, I can never be compelled to violate my sacred vow. Constantinus: And rightly so. But now I am sorely pressed because if I allow that you persevere in your vow (which is what I should do as your father), then I will suffer great harm in public affairs. If however, God forbid, I force you to marry, I will have to undergo eternal punishment. Constantia: How greatly I would have to suffer if ever I despaired of Heaven’s aid! Constantinus: Truthfully said. Constantia: But in the hearts of those who rely on God’s grace, despair and sadness have no valid place. Constantinus: My Constantia, you speak very well. Constantia: If you deign to take my advice, I shall show you how to avoid both dangers”216

Gallicanus represents Hrotsvit’s first approach to the parents and children theme. Instead of a wayward young man, and an over-bearing father, Hrotsvit substitutes a dutiful daughter and a loving father. Constantinus gave his consent and permission for Constantia to take a vow of chastity, and when he thought he might need to ask her to break that vow, he was greatly saddened. Further, this father/daughter duo work together to resolve their issues, unlike Terence’s plays wherein the young men often seek to deceive their fathers in regards to their activities. Hrotsvit provides a distinctly different approach to parents and children in Gallicanus, showing a loving, open relationship with both parties endeavoring to bring about the same end.

215 This is only the case with Hrotsvit’s dramas. In her legends, she did deal with fathers and sons, as in the case of Pelagius. 216 Wilson, 1989, 12-3. 86

Neither Hrotsvit’s second or third plays, Dulcitius nor Calimachus, deal with the parents and children theme. Her fourth and fifth plays, Abraham and Pafnutius, do not incorporate a true parent/child relationship, but instead both plays subsume a pseudo parent figure. Abraham and Pafnutius both deal with the theme of a fallen woman, and in both cases the erring prostitute is returned from the brink of damnation by a father figure. These hermets, Abraham and Pafnutius, would have had an additional attraction for the women at Gandersheim. In the medieval era, the martyrdom of the early Christians (and the sanctity associated with it) changed into the concept of hermitry wherein the act of living in religious seclusion substituted for actual martyrdom. Hrotsvit’s substitution of real father figures for the pinnacles of contemporary religious sanctity very likely gave her female audience a stronger appeal for such male characters. Hrotsvit’s father figures sought only to lead their female charges onto a righteous path to eternal salvation, versus alliances for political and social power which would have been more familiar to the noble women living at the abbey. Robert Talbot has studied this theme in Hrotsvit’s dramas further: “Another indication of Hrotsvit’s adaptability is her exploration of alternative figural significations for Terentian family drama in her two conversion plays Abraham and Pafnutius. In these plays, the demands of the father figures are not associated with the pull of the carnal world on the life of the Christian, as they are in Dulcitius and Sapientia. Rather, in these plays, Hrotsvit extracts from the solicitousness of Terence’s fathers for their sons an image of the divine guidance of a loving Heavenly Father. In their conscientious upbringing of their charges, in their salvific hopes for the prostitutes, Mary and Thaïs, in the lengths to which they go to bring their charges into a life of Christian practice and belief, and in Abrahams’s familial status as Mary’s compassionate uncle, Abraham and Pafnutius express positive fatherly attributes unlike Hrotsvit’s Roman emperors.”217 Additionally, Hrotsvit’s inclusion of two prostitutes adds another layer onto her pattern of inversion and subversion. The youthful sons in Terence’s plays seek sexual intrigues, emoting little beyond concern about their fathers’ reactions. Hrotsvit obviously did not perceive such dalliances in the same manner. What was little more than the stereotypical frolicking of young men to Terence was not only sinful to the canoness but also detestable. It was the epitome of the wicked pleasures of the world, and should be forsaken by the righteous. When Mary and Thaïs pursue lives of prostitution, Hrotsvit transforms the passion of Terence’s sons into the actions

217 Talbot, 2004, 153-4. 87 and feelings of wayward sinners in the grip of illicit desire.218 Abraham is already a father figure to his niece, Mary, at the onset of the drama. As a holy hermit, Abraham along with his brother hermit (Effrem) seek to instill in Mary a desire for a chaste life.219 After Mary’s fall from grace, the hermit Abraham leaves his solitude to journey out into the world in search of his wayward niece. Once Abraham, disguised as a lover, is alone with Mary he reveals his true identity and the dialogue between the two emphasizes the father/daughter relationship they share: “Abraham: Oh, my adoptive daughter, oh part of my soul, Mary, don’t you recognize me, the old man who raised you like a father and who pledged you with a ring to the only begotten Son of the Heavenly King? Mary: Woe to me! It is my father and teacher Abraham who speaks! Abraham: What happened to you, my daughter Mary? Mary: Tremendous misery. *** Abraham: Dawn arrives; the day breaks. Let us return! Mary: You, beloved father, must lead the way as the good shepherd leads the sheep gone astray; and I, advancing in your footsteps, will follow your lead”220

Hrotsvit’s Abraham not only represents her wish to show God’s redemptive powers for fallen women, it also illustrates a different type of parental affection than Terence’s examples. Although the fathers in Terence’s plays love their sons, they are often harsh in chastising their erring sons. Abraham’s treatment of Mary indicates a loving, forgiving father figure who seeks to offer solace to the bereaving Mary. Mary, in turn, shows great respect to Abraham, and yearns to follow his wise counsel. Also, whereas Terence’s humanitas manifests itself in the wisdom gained by the fathers of his plays, Hrotsvit’s Abraham is wise via his holiness throughout the play, not requiring additional growth. Hrotsvit likely felt that esteemed holy men such as hermits did not need to exhibit emotional growth, as they already held such a revered status.

218 “By doing so, she glorifies God’s grace, since both plays conclude with the women in a state of grace” Talbot, 2004, 153-4. 219 “Effrem: For if you remain uncorrupt and a virgin, you will become the equal of God’s angels; surrounded by them, when you have cast off the burden of your body, you will traverse the sky, rising above the ether high, and journey through the circle of the zodiac, not slowing down or delaying your flight until you have reached great delight in the arms of the virgin’s Son and are embraced by Him in the luminous wedding chamber of His mother. Mary: Whoever undervalues this is no other but a donkey. Therefore I renounce the world and deny myself to that I may deserve to be bequeathed the joys of such great felicity” Wilson, trans., 1998, 68-9. 220 Wilson, 1998, 76-8. 88

In Pafnutius, the title character is again a hermit who seeks to bring the harlot Thaïs to redemption. After he disguises himself as a lover to gain entry to Thaïs, he convinces her to leave her sinful life behind and to seek penance. Thaïs agrees, and returns with Pafnutius to a tiny cell wherein she will live for the remainder of her life. Once Pafnutius is sure she has safely made it to her cloistered cell, he returns to his students. After three years, Pafnutius decides it is time to check on Thaïs. Again, as in the previous play, the dialogue between the repentant Thaïs and the hermit Pafnutius reflects a father/daughter relationship, as does Thaïs’s devoted adherence to Pafnutius’s dictates: “Thaïs: Whatever your fatherly concern prescribes for my reform, my wretched self does not refuse to perform; but in this dwelling there is one unsuitable thing which would be difficult for my weak nature to bear. Pafnutius: What is this cause of care? Thaïs: I am embarrassed to speak. Pafnutius: Don’t be embarrassed, but speak! Thaïs: What could be more unsuitable, what could be more uncomfortable, than that I would have to perform all necessary functions of the body in the very same room? I am sure that it will soon be uninhabitable because of the stench. Pafnutius: Fear rather the eternal tortures of Hell, and not the transitory inconveniences of your cell. Thaïs: My frailty makes me afraid. Pafnutius: It is only right that you expiate the evil sweetness of alluring delight by enduring this terrible smell. Thaïs: And so I shall. I, filthy myself, do not refuse to dwell in a filthy befouled cell – this is my just due. *** Pafnutius: Thaïs, my adoptive daughter, open your window so I may see you and rejoice. Thaïs: Who speaks? Whose is this voice? Pafnutius: It is Pafnutius, your father. Thaïs: To what do I owe the bliss of such great joy that you deign to visit me, poor sinful soul? Pafnutius: Even though I was absent in body for three years, yet I was constantly concerned about how you would achieve your goal. Thaïs: I do no doubt that”221

Pafnutius did not raise Thaïs, nor did she ever seek to deceive him. Although not truly father and daughter, once they had met, Thaïs put herself solely in Pafnutius’s care and obeyed all his commands. She followed his orders faithfully and without complaint, and illustrated genuine obedience to her adopted father. Hrotsvit did not employ a direct inversion of Terence’s fathers

221 Wilson, 1989, 114-5, 120. 89 and sons theme in this play, but she did incorporate a transposition of the parental relationship shown in Terence’s plays. Here, a father and daughter find each other in adulthood, and here, their relationship is open and honest. Thaïs, a whore, finds salvation through following the teachings of Pafnutius and upon her death obtains sainthood, as does her adoptive father. Hrotsvit replaced Terence’s father/son relationship with its emphasis on proper marriage with a story of redemption from sin and the power of parental love. Further, Hrotsvit includes a Christian marriage theme within Thaïs’s story, as Pafnutius discovers when he decides to visit her after her three years of penance. He speaks with his co-hermit, Antonius, and the latter’s disciple, Paul: “Antonius: Look, the Gospel’s promise is fulfilled in us. Pafnutius: What promise? Antonius: The one that promises that communal prayer can achieve all. Pafnutius: What did befall? Antonius: A vision was granted to my disciple, Paul. Pafnutius: Call him! Antonius: Come hither, Paul, and tell Pafnutius what you saw. Paul: in my vision of Heaven, I saw a bed with white linen beautifully spread surrounded by four resplendent maidens who stood as if guarding the bed. And when I beheld the beauty of this marvelous brightness I said to myself: This glory belongs to no one more than to my father and my lord Antonius. Antonius: I am not worthy to soar to such beatitude. Paul: After I spoke, a divine voice replied: “This glory is not as you hope for, Antonius, but is meant for Thaïs the whore.” Pafnutius: Praised by Thy sweet mercy, O Christ, only begotten Son of God, for Thou has deigned to deliver me from my sadness’ plight”222

Hrotsvit’s last drama, Sapientia, shows the canoness’ most overt treatment of the parents and children theme. Gone are Terence’s overbearing fathers and deceitful sons. Indeed, the fact that fathers have disappeared altogether from her later plays could lead to the presumption that Hrotsvit had moved beyond these males roles entirely. There are no subterfuges between parent and offspring her last play. Sapientia represents the clearest transposition of Terence’s formulaic father/son discord. Hrotsvit replaces Terence’s bemoaning fathers with a steadfast, confident mother. She also replaces the trickery of Terence’s sons against their father’s wishes with daughters who whole-heartedly follow their mother’s teachings.223 Even the fact that Sapientia’s

222 Wilson, 1989,119. 223 “She delineates her characters according to the decorum of age, station in life, costume and religion. Fathers, mothers, and older people are clearly distinguished from the generation of their 90 name means wisdom indicates the worthiness of this parental figure. Hrotsvit could not have more clearly challenged the theme of offspring seeking to delude their parents more than in this play. Sapientia leads her daughters in their Christian faith, even to their martyrdom, reminding her girls of the reward that awaits them in Heaven. Her daughters do not seek to deceive, disobey or even question their mother’s wisdom. Instead, they adhere to her instruction without qualm.224 “While physical martyrdom flows from Hadrian to the girls, Christian teaching moves from the mother to her daughters: each daughter comforts the mother; the mother exhorts each child; and finally, each daughter urges the next to remain faithful to the death. These words of fidelity to a mother’s teachings extend beyond the dramatic context into the audience at Gandersheim and particularly to the girls of the audience – oblates, novitiates, pupils, and daughters all.”225 The sentiments expressed between the Sapientia and her daughters would have appealed greatly to the women at Gandersheim.226 These women likely related to a loving mother figure (much like an abbess) guiding her daughters towards eternal salvation and a heavenly bridegroom. We can presume that for Hrostvit and the other women at Gandersheim, this last play presented the clearest analogy for the majority of them, since it echoed relationships and values they encountered in their lives daily. children by their wisdom (Sapientia) or authority (Constantinus) and children speak to their parents with docility (Constantia/Constantinus)” Wilson, 1988, 68. 224 “Fides: O, venerable mother, say your last farewell to your child; give a kiss to your firstborn; expel sadness from your heart because I am on my way to eternal rewards. Sapientia: O my child, my child, I am not disturbed. I fell no sadness, but I say farewell exulting in you and I kiss your mouth and eyes with tears of joy praying that you preserve the holy mystery of your name, even as you fall under the executioner’s blow. Fides: O my sisters, born of the same mother, give me a kiss of peace, and prepare yourselves to bear the impending strife. Spes: Help us with your constant prayers so that we may deserve to follow you to everlasting life. Fides: Obey the admonitions of our saintly parent who has always exhorted us to despise this present world so that we may deserve to attain the Eternal Kingdom. Karitas: Gladly we obey our mother’s admonitions so that we may reap eternal bliss” Wilson, 1998, 90. 225 Kline, 2004, 91. 226 “Like the Christian ideal propagated by institutions like Gandersheim, Sapientia’s ‘parenting towards death’ has taught her children not to value the pleasures of the material world; rather, as she instructs Karitas toward the end of the play, ‘sperne presens utile quo pervenias ad gaudium interminabile quo tui germane fulgent coronis illibate virginitatis’ (V.29), ‘Spurn the comfort of this life/so that you may reach never-ending joy, where your sisters already sparkle, radiant with the crowns of untouched virginity’” (Wilson, Florilegium, 93). Kline, 2004, 83-4. 91

Concluding Thoughts Hrotsvit’s challenge to Terence was an audacious one. Although an intelligent, educated woman, Hrotsvit was not a proven writer.227 Furthermore, she was a woman. Thus, that she actively challenged a famous writer of great distinction was extremely daring. She did not just write to try and interest her contemporaries, she wrote to surpass a renowned Roman author. She named her opponent and clarified in what ways she planned to supplant him. This required the canoness to apply all of her knowledge and strengths to the contest. Had she challenged Terence’s writings and presented poor imitations, she knew she would have shoved her way onto a stage and was unable to perform competently. I believe this is why Hrotsvit sought to incorporate many disparate literary attacks. She wanted to showcase her talents in as many different ways as she could. She sought to make her dramas more palatable to her contemporaries, but within an erudite atmosphere of sophisticated literary transpositions. Within Chapter 3 I have sought to analyze several themes Hrotsvit commandeered from Terence. The major focus of this chapter was to demonstrate how Hrotsvit manipulated her dramas to respond to Terence’s plays. Her first and most obvious alteration is the focus on the female characters as subjects. One of Hrotsvit’s major complaints about Terence was the type of female characters he incorporated. Hrotsvit strongly disliked these characters, denouncing them within her prologue. She stated her intention to offer instead women of virtue and chastity. Further, she presented her female characters as the focus of their own stories. I believe that observing appreciation for the type of females Terence depicted truly offended Hrotsvit. She and her sisters at Gandersheim must have found it very difficult to commiserate with Terence’s female characters. To combat this, it was vital that Hrotsvit provide females she found worthy to stand central in their own story. For every debauched female found in Terence’s plays, Hrotsvit attempted to provide a virtuous female. Hrotsvit and the women of her time and environment were expected to be virtuous and chaste, so it must have seemed very important to Hrotsvit that they have laudable models, and that they be the focus of each drama. In this fashion, the canoness was able to offer stories for young women about other young women who gained victory in their battle against sin and evil.

227 Scholarship places the order of Hrotsvit’s writings as the legends first, then the dramas with the two epic poems last. 92

I believe that Hrotsvit placed each of her dramas to correspond to Terence’s plays numerically. I do not think that her treatment was strict mirroring, but that she chose saints’ lives that offered some form of transposition of Terence’s characters. Thematically, if Terence offered a quarrelsome familial relationship, Hrotsvit offered a harmonious one. If Terence spoke of unpunished rape, Hrotsvit wrote of unsuccessful rape attempts and punishment. Her contests with Terence were large and small, overt and subtle, and intertwined through all of her dramas. Again, it was very important that several layers of inversions and subversions exist within Hrotsvit’s treatment. Her challenge was such a daring one that she had to try to prove herself deserving in the contest. I argue that she attempted to respond to Terence thematically, play for play, within the notion of aemulatio, in content. This chapter also delved into Hrotsvit’s gift of voice to her female characters. Hrotsvit herself considered the gift of voice very important. She proclaimed her own voice and argued for her right of speech (i.e. to write). In the same manner, Hrotsvit gave her female characters voice. In her contest with Terence, she saw that his female characters had no voice. Her characters instead were given center-stage and voice with which to express their worthy thoughts. Hrotsvit must have believed that such characters would be much more enticing to women of her own time. Within the female community at Gandersheim, the women surely must have appreciated stories of strong Christian females. And Hrotsvit must have felt that she was truly successful in offering more appealing literary characters. I posit that she felt very adamantly that virtuous Christian females earned the right of speech (in expressing their Christians thoughts, at least). If Hrotsvit was only seeking to offer something more gratifying for Catholics of her era to read, she had to analyze what things Terence’s characters denied their medieval readers that she instead could provide. I believe that in terms of female voice and its importance to her readers, she must have perceived herself the victor, very much in the same way that her female characters won their verbal exchanges with pagan men. And as her female characters won their verbal exchanges with pagan men, Hrotsvit perceived that she won this contest against her male pagan opponent. Since Terence is the only source Hrotsvit mentions by name, it is difficult to try to determine what other sources she employed. I have argued in this chapter that to respond to Terence’s theme of marriage, Hrotsvit presents the theme of marriage within an Augustinian ideology. I believe that Hrotsvit’s position with the Abbey of Gandersheim provided her with not only the literary and educational tools with which to counter Terence, but that it also imprinted

93 upon her a mindset that didn’t focus on marriage, as well as clear access to Augustine literature. Whereas Terence offered no other recourse to the female characters in his plays beyond physical marriage, Hrotsvit wanted to give her female characters a higher reward. Further, I posit that Hrotsvit did not even hold the concept of marriage in particularly high regards. Only one of her female character is married, and that character eschews the carnal nature of the institution. The remaining female characters all shun earthly marriage for the celestial bridegroom. Hrotsvit’s presentation of martyred virgins seeking heavenly nuptials echoes with Augustinian ideals. I believe that by incorporating these ideals, Hrotsvit thought she had clearly offered a better option to her female characters and simultaneously, her female readers. The next theme I analyzed in this chapter was that of disguise. I have hypothesized that the rape scenes within Terence’s plays must have struck a strong chord within the canoness. Terence employed the theme of disguise in this scene. In the clearest transposition possible, Hrotsvit responds to Terence’s use of disguise with ones of her own wherein Christianity wins out over sin. Twice Hrotsvit depicted a trusted man disguising himself as a lover (the complete opposite of Terence’s lover disguising himself as a person of trust), in order to lead a fallen woman back to the Christian fold. The concept of rape is such a disturbing one that Hrotsvit used her reversal of the theme twice, indicating her strong response to Terence’s example. Furthermore, I believe her employment of the theme of disguise indicates again her appropriation of Augustinian ideals. Lastly, I addressed Hrotsvit’s approach to the fathers and sons characters upon which Terence based all of his plays. With the exception of two dramas, Hrotsvit incorporates a parental figure into her stories. But, these characters are not always parents. Hrotsvit did not follow a strict pattern of inversion in her treatment of parents and children. Nevertheless, she did present relationships that expressed true parental concern for the Christian welfare of the children. She wrote of two parents who work with their offspring to resolve conflicts against Christian non-believers. In two other plays, she substituted holy men as father figures trying to save the souls of fallen young people. In contrast to Terence’s emphasis on fathers struggling to control their offspring, Hrotsvit offered parent-figures who do not have a contentious relationship with their children. I also detailed how Hrotsvit replaced the young men of Terence’s plays with young women in her dramas. Hrotsvit systematically removed the sexual

94 exploits of Terence’s young men and offered instead young women, all of whom displayed virtuous holiness by the end of their stories.

CHAPTER FOUR HROTSVIT’S FEMALE SUBJECTIVITY AND VOICE VERSUS THE HAGIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES; THE UNSPOKEN CHALLENGE

Introduction Thus far, this paper has addressed the topics concerning Hrotsvit that scholars have acknowledged and analyzed. That Hrotsvit wanted to challenge Terence in order to win over his medieval readers is uncontested, as she states such a goal in her preface to the dramas. Scholars have debated the issue of how Hrotsvit endeavored to fulfill such an undertaking, arguing either imitatio or aemulatio, for female subjectivity and voice, and the treatment of the themes of marriage, disguise, and replacing the focal relationship of the father and son. Modern scholars recognize all of these components within Hrotsvit’s works, while echoes of denying any relationship between Hrotsvit and Terence have faded with the end of the twentieth century. All of these aspects of the scholarship on Hrotsvit now comprise the manner in which current academics view the canoness. In Chapters 2 and 3 of this project, I have illustrated Hrotsvit’s play of opposing themes in her treatment of Terence. I’ve argued that Hrotsvit placed her female characters as the focus of her dramas, moving them from the background, where they had been in Terence. She gave her females a center position in the plot and more importantly, she gifted them with voice. Her female characters not only demonstrated strength in character, they spoke with conviction and righteousness. These literary females were unafraid to express themselves with authority and conviction.228 I have posited that the reversal of her characterization of women was in direct response to Terence’s lascivious women, wherein she, in contrast, provided literary women whose “female weakness triumphs in conclusion.” Hrotsvit proclaims to all her contemporary and future readers that she wants to surpass Terence and his disadvantaged female characters. What Hrotsvit doesn’t announce is her simultaneous challenge to the characterization of women in hagiographical literature, an aspect that scholarship has not yet given much consideration.

228 A trait the canoness obviously admired, since she called herself the Strong Voice of Gandersheim.

Whereas Chapter 3 analyzed Hrotvit’s use of female subjectivity in response to the objectified females she found in Terence’s plays, Chapter 4 will look at this same topic in terms of the hagiographical literature. Hrotsvit chose her six dramas from a vast anthology of saints’ lives. Hagiographical literature provided the canoness with a wide selection of options. In Chapter 1, I provided the hagiographical sources scholars believe Hrotsvit used as her literary vehicles. In this chapter, I will compare Hrotsvit’s treatment of the same story as compared to the source chronicle, in terms of female subjectivity and female voice. I will show how the canoness altered the legends in order to provide female characters of substance that act as their own agents and thus acquire subjectivity. I will also clarify how the gift of voice she provided her female characters varied from the earlier sources in order to provide stronger models of female worthiness. Each of Hrotsvit’s versions of the martyrologies indicates that she actively changed the female characters found in the hagiographical versions to positions of authority and gravitas.

Female Subjectivity If it were not for her gender, no one in the tenth century would have considered it unseemly that an educated Christian sought to challenge the writings of a pagan poet. Indeed, as shown in Chapter 3, St Augustine encouraged Christians to utilize pagan learning in the service of truth. Thus, Hrotsvit’s contest with Terence was understandable and acceptable. So when the canoness actively challenged the objectified portrayal of females as found in Terence, her actions would have been lauded.229 But, how did Hrotsvit’s female characters compare with their hagiographical counterparts? Did Hrotsvit have a secondary, unspoken challenge? Did her versions of saints’ lives challenge the hagiographical literature of her time? By analyzing the source tale in terms of female subjectivity, I posit that Hrotsvit did indeed challenge the roles of women in hagiographical literature. Hrotsvit’s first drama is Gallicanus, based on the martyrology of a famous Roman general during the 4th century. According to his Acta, Gallicanus was a general during conflicts with the Persians, and that he acted as consul in 333. He converted to Christianity, founded a hospital and endowed a church under the reign of Constantine I. He was later banished to Egypt under Julian and was there martyred in 363.230 Beyond this brief description, the Acta provides

229 By her fellows at Gandersheim, at least. 230 Acta SS., June, VII, 31. 97 very little additional information. Hrotsvit took this saint’s tale, and instead of focusing on just Gallicanus, she employed a large cast of characters to relate this story. In her account, Gallicanus seeks Constantinus’ daughter in marriage, and due to Gallicanus’ preeminence in the court, Constantinus feels pressured to concede. Hrotsvit first provides the character of Constantia, and then presents her as a devout and virtuous Christian woman who is additionally blessed with intelligence and authority. It is Constantia who develops the idea that drives the entire storyline of Gallicanus’ conversion to Christianity. The emperor relies on her advice in the situation, believes in the wisdom of her speech, and even asks her what actions he should pursue.231 “Constantinus: My Constantia, you speak very well. Constantia: If you deign to take my advice, I shall show you how to avoid both dangers. Constantinus: What am I to do? Constantia: Pretend prudently that you will fulfill his wish after he wins the war, and, so that he believes that I agreed to his plea, suggest to him that as pledges of his love, he let his two daughters Attica and Artemia live at court with me, while he accepts my chamberlains, John and Paul, in his retinue. Constantinus: And if he returns triumphant, what am I to do? Constantia: I believe that we must pray as is meet and God the Father of all entreat that He change Gallicanus’s mind”232

Constantia’s plan succeeds, and each Christian character receives that which they sought: Constantia maintains her holy chastity, and brings others into the Christian fold; Constantinus’ armies are victorious under the converted general and he was not forced to break his word to his daughter; and Gallicanus wins his battle through God’s aid and pursues a life of virtue until his martyr’s death.233 In this her first drama, Hrotsvit places the emperor’s daughter as the center of the action, the director of the action and the instigator of the plot. She employs a mock engagement to allow for the existence of a chaste, virginal Christian, and then places her in the role of heroine. The focus of her entire first drama shifts from the actual conversion of the title character to the Christian female leader, and the heart of the entire story. Hrotsvit’s second drama, Agape, Chionia and Hirena (Dulcitius) is also from the Acta Sanctorum. Dulcitius was a Roman governor under Diocletian, known in literature for his persecution of Christian women in the early 4th century. Similar to her first drama, Hrotsvit’s

231 For all of Hrotsvit’s Latin passages, see Appendix V. 232 Wilson, 1989, 13. 233 “Gallicanus: Therefore, I will leave this town and as an exile for Christ’s renown, I will go to Alexandra, where I hope to receive the martyr’s crown” Wilson, trans., 1989, 29. 98 focus is upon the Christian virgin(s) whose chastity is threatened by a pagan male.234 This play revolves around the three sisters, Agape, Chionia and Hirena. When Diocletian offers the three sisters (of noble birth) marriage to the foremost men of his court if they would renounce their religion, he is ridiculed and rejected by the virtuous girls. Finally, they are imprisoned by Governor Dulcitius in the kitchen pantry, to allow him easy access to them. He enters the kitchen at night, planning to enjoy their embraces. The three girls hear strange noises from their positions locked in the pantry, and by peeking through a crack in the wall they observe Dulcitius acting in a very peculiar way. Mistaking the pots and pans for the tender virgins, Dulcitius fondles the cookware and in so doing, becomes blackened to the point of non-recognition. The scene, although describing the actions of Dulcitius, entails the three sisters discussing the governor’s actions. Agape, Chionia and Hirena remain the focus of the play, even when the action is being performed by a separate character. Unable to best the girls due to their holy protection, Dulcitius hands the sisters over to Sisinnius, whose duty it is to punish the girls. Sisinnius is also ridiculed and mocked by the trio, and although he does put them to death, each sister joyously embraces her martyrdom. Each sister speaks out in turn, expressing themselves and maintaining the focus of the entire drama. Hrotsvit twice addresses threatened rape in this drama, and yet she clearly preserves the female perspective through the strong characters that defeat their opponents with God’s aid. The emperor, the governor and the high-ranking officer all act as supportive cast for the three chaste virgins. Hrotsvit’s version of this story differs from the Acta Sanctorum in a few ways that are significant for this study. The Acta relates the arrest of the three sisters early in the 4th century, under the order of Diocletian. The girls were arrested in Thessalonica, the province Dulcitius governed. It was Dulcitius who questions the girls, imprisons them, and orders their execution. Dulcitius is the arrogant pagan who martyrs the three sisters, but he is not a buffoon and does not try to take advantage of them. Hrotsvit’s version of this character is very different from the Acta. Her Dulcitius is lustful and manipulative, and she turns him into the object of derision for the sisters within the play, and the readers of the play. Hrotsvit wanted to excel in her attempts to tell this story, and I believe that she thought that the sisters’ tale would be improved if they took on an emperor versus just a governor. In her version, it is Diocletian who orders Dulcitius to imprison the girls. Dulcitius not only loses the role of inquisitor, he also becomes an underling

234 Hrotsvit does not depict Gallicanus so much a “pagan” male as a non-believing male. 99 following someone else’s orders. This the one of two times Hrotsvit employs an emperor as the pagan antagonist in her dramas.235 Hrotsvit must have felt that her heroines deserved adversaries worthy of their esteemed virtue and chastity, and decided that a mere governor did not merit.

Additionally, Hrotsvit’s presentation of the tale is much livelier than the Acta. The most obvious example is the kitchen humor scene.236 Dulcitius’ romantic interlude with the pots and pans helps set the mood of the entire story. The brisk dialogue creates a lively pace, because the characters do not have long speeches, or discourses on learning. The characters within the play describe the action scenes to keep the narrative fresh and nimble. In the Acta, the sisters’ martyrdom is presented as a forthright account wherein Dulcitius asks questions, and the sisters respond simply.237 In the canoness’ version, the three sisters’ responses are more elaborate and expressive.238 Beyond the dialogue, the martyrs’ tale is presented factually and impersonally. Although medieval readers would have been accustomed to similar hagiographical narratives, Hrotsvit decided to create a play-like format for her representation. Her heroines shine from center stage as their stories unfold. The martyrdom belonged to the sisters, and Hrotsvit allowed their story to be overshadowed neither by other (male) characters nor by a mundane recounting. I believe Hrotsvit wanted to offer something that made the heroines’ story alive and pertinent to her readers (again, I think of her fellows at Gandersheim), something the Acta did not offer. She wanted to give her readers an inspiring tale told from the viewpoint of the virgin martyrs, instead of a tale about the martyrs. Her insistence on female subjectivity gave her readers an understanding of the heroines’ feelings, thoughts and words. Through this approach, Hrotsvit

235 Hadrian in Sapientia. 236 “This instance of typical medieval kitchen humor is an excellent example of the concretization and visualization of Hrotsvit’s hagiographic themes; external appearance is a reflection of the internal state. Dulcitius, whose soul is possessed by the devil, appears as the imago Diablo in body” Wilson, 1998, 11. 237 “Dulcetius: “Have you not some books, papers, or other writings, relating to the religion of the impious Christians”? Chionia: “We have none: the emperors now reigning have taken them all from us.” Ducetius: “Who drew you into this persuasion?” Chionia: “Almighty God.” Dulcetius: “Who induced you to embrace this folly?” Chionia: “Almighty God, and his only Son our Lord Jesus Christ” SS Agape, Chionia, and Irene 238 The theme of female voice will be addressed later in this chapter. 100 managed to create a deeper appreciation of the women involved in hagiographical literature due to a greater empathy with the female characters. Hrotsvit’s third drama was Calimachus. This play reported the depravity and subsequent conversion of the title character, as known through the Latin version of the Acts of the Apostles. Similar to Gallicanus, Calimachus is about the conversion of a pagan male to Christianity. And like Gallicanus, Calimachus is Hrotsvit’s version of how a strong Christian woman’s actions bring about the conversion of the titular character. The hagiographical version of this story is from the pseudo-Abdias, a Latin version of the Acts of the Apostles, specifically within the Acts of St John. Hrostvit’s version is not as dissimilar to the pseudo-Abdias version as her treatment of other hagiographical tales. The pseudo-Abdias version tells the same story line as Hrotsvit’s play, following the action of the tale and the list of characters. The story relates how Calimachus, a young nobleman, develops a burning passion for Drusiana, a devoutly Christian woman. The pseudo-Abdias and Hrotsvit both include the recollections of characters who relate that Drusiana shunned her legal husband’s bed due to her religious chastity. Both versions relate how Drusiana, learning of Calimachus’ illicit desire for her, prays for death in order to avoid acting as the catalyst for the damnation of the young man’s soul. Her prayers are answered, but soon after her body is taken to her tomb, Calimachus breaks in to defile her corpse. Calimachus and the servant he paid to gain entrance to the tomb both die before any harm befalls Drusiana’s corpse. Drusiana’s body is protected by a holy guardian (an angel in the pseudo-Abdias, and God in the form of a beautiful youth in Hrotsvit’s version). The guardian has a venomous snake bite the servant (Fortunatus), who promptly dies. Calimachus hears the guardian speak to him, telling him he must die in order to live, wherein the young man also expires. Andronicus, Drusiana’s Christian husband, and St John come to the tomb, finding the holy guardian standing watch. He tells them he is guarding Drusiana’s body and that St John must raise her from the dead, and then he departs. The two men enter the tomb and find the three bodies. To understand what took place, St John raises Calimachus from the dead first. Calimachus explains his plans to defile Drusiana’s corpse, and his and Fortunatus’ subsequent deaths. Repentant for his past deeds and desires, Calimachus converts to Christianity with St John’s guidance. St John next prays that Drusiana might return from the dead, fulfilling the orders of the holy guardian. Drusiana rejoices to discover that Calimachus has found salvation, and also seeks to give Fortunatus the same opportunity. Once Fortunatus is revived, he rejects the offer of salvation out of fear of this new

101 religion’s power and grace. The offer rejected, Fortunatus’ wound abruptly festers and he dies again. The story ends with St John leading the others in giving thanks for Calimachus’ conversion and Drusiana’s resurrection. Considering how similar the two versions are in their account, for this study we must analyze Drusiana’s role. The pseudo-Abdias does name her as the catalyst for the entire story, as she is the focus of the title character’s impiety. The pseudo-Abdias also provides Drusiana with a few spoken lines. But, the emphases of this version are St John’s deeds and his stewardship of the early Christians. Hrotsvit does not detract from the importance of the apostle, but she does lend more consequence to the role of Drusiana. It is Drusiana who rejects the advances of young Calimachus, who prays for her own death versus the damnation of his soul, whose body is still the focal point of the action, and whose holiness is so profound as to lead to the death and subsequent conversion of title character. It is her holiness that prompts St John to aid her husband in finding out what almost befell her corpse. Drusiana and her body (both living and dead) are the central components of Hrotsvit’s retelling. Hrotsvit also diminishes several of St John’s speeches, while increasing Drusiana’s spoken dialogue. The canoness wanted to keep the focus on Drusiana, and how her virtue and chastity affected all of those around her: her husband, the young admirer, the servant, the holy guardian and even the apostle, St. John. Although not as obvious in female subjectivity as her renderings of other female hagiographical characters, Hrotsvit’s third play still places a much higher importance on the center female figure of Drusiana. Hrotsvit’s next play, Abraham, tells a story of the redemption of fallen sinner. The hagiographical source for this play was the Vita Sanctae Marie, often called The Fall and Repentance of Mary. Again, the play’s title is the name of one of the main male characters, but again the story is about a female character. In this play, the harlot Mary repents and seeks penance through the aid of her uncle, the hermit Abraham. Whereas Gallicanus and Calimachus focus on the conversions of men through the actions of pious women, Abraham tells the story of the redemption of a woman through the actions of pious men. To the medieval mind, a hermit’s status was just below that of martyrs. With the end of the persecutions against Christians in the fourth century, the opportunities for martyrdom grew scarce. Lacking the chance to earn special status in heaven through martyrdom, medieval Christians often perceived hermits as the closest alternative, since they renounced even the simplest pleasure in life and sought harsh

102 environments within which to pray and seek wisdom. Thus, for Hrotsvit and her contemporaries, the status of a character such as Abraham would have been very highly esteemed. Again, as in Dulcitius, Hrotsvit is drawn to male characters of high standing, whether they represent the epitome of evil pagans or the devout holiness of hermits.239 Hrotsvit’s version remains very close to the hagiographical version of the story of Mary. The hagiographical tale is ascribed to Ephraem, deacon of Edessa, who relates the story of the blessed Abraham and his search for his beloved niece. The Vita begins with St Ephraem speaking to his brethren about the holy hermit Abraham, and throughout the story Ephraem inter- splices didactic character and theological analyses. In the Vita, Ephraem often interrupts the narrative with homilies demonstrated by Abraham’s actions.240 Hrotsvit’s version moves forward more along the lines of a play than a narrative. Abraham’s worries at the beginning of the play are provided via quick dialogue between himself and his fellow hermit, Ephrem.241 After deciding that he will raise his orphaned niece Mary in the cell next to his, Abraham with Ephrem’s help, seeks to instill in the young girl a desire only for a chaste, virtuous life. Mary agrees to renounce the world and live in a cell, pledged to a heavenly bridegroom. The next scene depicts Abraham sharing his grief over Mary’s fall from grace and rapid departure after twenty years of living in her cell.242 Abraham, with Ephrem’s blessings, heads out to try and retrieve Mary from her sinful existence. He disguises himself as a potential lover to gain entrance to the beautiful harlot. Once he has gained entry, he reveals himself to his niece who

239 Hrotsvit’s first two plays incorporate emperors (Constantius and Diocletian); her third play has two noble men (Andronicus and Calimachus) and her fourth play now employs a hermit. She would repeat this hermit/harlot idea again in her fifth play and another emperor (Hadrian) in her sixth play. 240 “Anyone who ventures into any foreign country or city always assumes the dress of that country so that he won’t be noticed; just so did Abraham wear aggressive clothing, to frighten off any possible attacker. Take a lesson, my beloved brothers, from this second Abraham. Just as the first Abraham went forth to do battle with kings and struck them down in order to rescue his nephew Lot, so did this second Abraham sally forth to do battle with the devil, to conquer him and bring back his niece in triumph” Vita Sanctae Marie, Chp. V. 241 This is another departure from the hagiographical version. In Hrotsvit’s version, Ephrem is a character in the play versus the narrator. 242 The Vita maintains the chronological time line, explaining how Mary was tricked into losing her virginity and in shame for her deed, ran away to a brothel. Hrotsvit’s version jumps ahead to Abraham explaining his discovery of Mary’s secret departure and the events that led to it. 103 immediately responds with penitent despair.243 Abraham leads Mary back to her cell to humbly seek penance. The dialogue between Abraham and Mary in Hrotsvit’s play not only remains quick and lively, but it also provides a nuanced version of their relationship. Hrotsvit’s Mary is immediately repentant upon recognizing her uncle, and responds to Abraham’s questions with honesty and remorse. In the Vita, once Abraham reveals himself, he allows his tears and words to flow into a prolonged lament.244 In the earlier version, Mary doesn’t respond right away to Abraham’s questions, leading the hermit into an extended soliloquy of remonstrance. Further, Mary’s continued silence in the face of Abraham’s tormented barrage positions her in a less- favorable light. She seems unsure as whether she should confess her reasons for leaving her chaste existence within her cell. Once she does finally speak, she is still hesitant to explain herself to Abraham. In Hrotsvit’s version, Mary is a much more sympathetic character because of her immediate acknowledgment of both her uncle and her transgressions. Further, Hrotsvit’s version employs dialogue between the two characters (instead of Abraham’s protracted languishing) which creates a quicker pace and thus develops a more emotional impact.245

243 The pace of this scene provides an immediate impact. Mary does not stand dumbfounded, as in the hagiographical version, but instead displays a instantaneous shock and horror: “Abraham: Now the time has come to remove my hat and reveal who I am. Oh my adoptive daughter, oh part of my soul, Mary, don’t you recognize me, the old man who raised you like a father and who pledged you with a ring to the only begotten Son of a Heavenly King? Mary: Woe is me! It is my father and teacher Abraham who speaks!” Wilson, 1998, 76. 244 “Mary, my daughter,” he said, “don’t you recognize me? You are my own flesh and blood. Wasn’t it I who brought you up? O my daughter, what has become of you? Who has destroyed you? Where is the clothing of angels that you used to wear? Where is your continence, your tears, your vigils, your sleeping on the group? How did you come to fall into this pit after swelling in the heights of heaven, my daughter? If you had sinned, why didn’t you tell me? Why didn’t you immediately let me help? My beloved brother Ephream and I would gladly have done penance for you. Why have you behaved the way you have? Why desert me and plunge me into such grief? After all, is there anyone who hasn’t sinned, except God?”As he was saying all this, and much more besides, she remained in his grip as still as a stone, transfixed as much by fear as confusion. But the blessed man kept on talking to her through his tears. “O Mary, my daughter, haven’t you got anything to say to me? Flesh of my flesh, can you not speak? Haven’t I come all this way especially for your sake? Let your sin rest upon my shoulders, my daughter, that in the day of judgment I may stand in your place before God and make satisfaction to God for your sin.” He went on till midnight pricking her conscience with such words and overwhelming her with his life-giving tears. Little by little she began to regain a little confidence, and answered him through her tears” Vita Sanctae Marie, Chp. IX. 245 “She [Hrotsvit] is particularly talented in creating a sense of tension and urgency in her terse and stichomythic verbal duels. Her stichomythic passages, frequent in all the plays and 104

Through these small nuanced alterations, Hrotsvit presents a version of The Fall and Repentance of Mary that focuses less on Abraham the Hermit, and more on the sinner herself. The canoness again sought to make the female character of this story more sympathetic and active in her own redemption. The play Paphnutius, Hrotsvit’s fifth play retells the story of St Thaïs of Egypt, from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, which was later assimilated into the Vitae Patrum.246 But, her version is more than four times longer than the earlier version. The canoness greatly expanded the dialogue, and again maintained a lively pace by having the characters describe all the action. A wealthy courtesan in 4th century Egypt, Thaïs is a woman of such allure that young men fall into ruin and bloody quarrels over her favors. Such was her infamy that the monk Paphnutius heard accounts of her (Paphnutius is an abba in the Vitae Patrum and a hermit in Hrotvit’s play). The Vita relates that Paphnutius donned secular clothing and went to visit the harlot in the guise of a customer. Once she accepted him into her room, the two discuss God and Thaïs repents. Following the hermit’s instructions, Thaïs burns all her worldly goods and leaves with him. Paphnutius leaves Thaïs sealed in a small cell in a monastery of virgins. After three years, Paphnutius seeks the counsel of fellow hermit, Antony, whether or not Thaïs’ sins are yet forgiven. Praying together with their disciples, God reveals the answer to one of the students, saying that He had prepared a throne in heaven for Thaïs. Paphnutius returns to release Thais from her cell, telling her that God had forgiven her sins. Thaïs leaves her cell to live with the nuns, and dies fifteen days later. Once again, Hrotsvit employs a hermit as the holy man seeking to help a fallen woman seek salvation. Like her previous play, the plot of Paphnutius is one of redemption. Unlike her previous representation of the hermit/harlot theme, Hrotsvit includes more than just dialogue to her rendition of this story. Hrotsvit’s version begins with a mathematical lesson in musical

occurring, almost invariably, in situations of confrontation, temptation, or danger, are wrought with elliptic one-word sentences, syntactic and verbal repetitions, and antithetical construction, all conveying in their staccato breathlessness a feeling of urgency, anticipation, or emotional stress” Wilson, 1998, xxvii. 246 Apophthegmata Patrum. It is also interesting to note that they were several possible versions of this saint’s life. She is often paired with Pelagia, who shared similar circumstances. Greek menologies and Latin martyrologies often provide different details on her story. 105 arrangements of harmonies as metaphors for living a life harmonious to God’s plan.247 This addition was strictly Hrotsvit’s, and is not represented in any way within the Vita.248 The next section Hrotsvit expanded through dialogue was when Paphnutius encounters Thaïs. In the Vita, the hermit and the harlot have a quick conversation wherein within five comments Thaïs is ready to leave her sinful life behind. The quickness of her decision to leave with a complete stranger robs the scene of some of its emotional impact, as provided by Hrotsvit. In her longer version, the conversation between the learned hermit (as proven by his previous music lesson) and Thaïs showcases the harlot’s own intelligence and knowledge of God.249 Hrotsvit’s use of female subjectivity is very evident in her treatment of Thaïs. In the Vita, when Thaïs burns all her worldly goods gained from her sordid way of life, she goes into the city for all to see.250 The Vita claimed the worth of her possession was forty pounds of gold. In Hrotsvit’s version, Thaïs has a long dialogue with her lovers, telling them why she is burning her goods (to prevent them from ever hoping that she would again return and yield to their lust) and that her life of sin is over.251 Her public renouncement of her former lovers creates a greater impact than the description within the Vita. Hrotsvit’s Thaïs is more strident in her renunciation of her past life. Hrotsvit included a small scene after Thaïs burns her goods wherein she catches up with Paphnutius who had been waiting for her. He says that he had been very worried about her delay, thinking perhaps that she had returned to her worldly life. Thaïs responds to his concern with strength and determination, maintaining the full focus of the story.252

247 “The Prologue introduces Boethian ideas and images that recur abundantly, though often implicitly, in the rest of the play and create a brilliantly unified whole. The actions show Pafnutius, in a series of scenes with different “musical” implications, bringing the discordant sinner Thaïs back to the norms of concord or musica humana that are established in the Prologue” Chamberlain, 1980, 321. 248 For analysis of Hrotsvit’s mathematical musical lesson, see Chamberlain, 1980. 249 Thaïs’ knowledge of the Christian God will be discussed later in the chapter. 250 “Gather round, all you people who have sinned with me,” she cried. “See, I am burning everything you have given me” Vitae Patrum 21, Chp.1. 251 In harmony with Hrotsvit’s expansion of this story, she has one of Thais lovers estimate the worth of her possessions at four hundred pounds. 252 “Do not fear; I had different things planned; namely to dispose of my possessions according to my wishes and to renounce my lovers publicly” Wilson, 1998, 111. Here, Hrotsvit illustrates Thaïs’ strength of character and determination. Paphnutius was concerned that perhaps Thaïs was not sincere in her desire to seek penance. She comforts him and demonstrates her own agency and autonomy by fulfilling her plans in regards to her renunciation of her past life. 106

Hrotsvit’s expands Thaïs’ entrance to her sealed cell, incorporating a virtuous and maternal abbess into the scene. Paphnutius explains to Thaïs what her life will be like, and what she must do for her penance. Hrotsvit’s Paphnutius is more understanding and gentle than the character in the Vita, and again, Thaïs is given the opportunity to express her fervent desire to repent. In the final scene in Hrotsvit’s version, Paphnutius returns to release Thaïs from her cell and remains with her through her death shortly thereafter. Thaïs tells Paphnutius that she is not worthy to leave when offered freedom from her putrid cell. Her great remorse makes her character seem more penitent than the hagiographical version. The expansion of dialogue creates a focal character in Thaïs, a factor not as evident in the Vita. Sapientia was Hrotsvit’s sixth and last drama. It tells the story of three virgins, Fides, Spes and Caritas (Faith, Hope and Charity). The mother of the three virgins is the title character, representing the incarnation of wisdom. The three virgin martyrs and their mother represent a tale of female solidarity. In this play more than any other; Hrotsvit casts her female characters in the center of all the play’s action. The tale relates how a wise mother leads her chaste daughters over the pitfalls of pagan temptation to the glory of their martyrdom. The Acta Sanctorum is very sparse in the details of these saints, and even the editors of the entry encourage readers to understand this legend as allegorical.253 The Greek menologies and Latin martyrologies provide different details for this legend, creating discrepancies between the two tales. Scholars regard these martyrs as personifications of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, since the historical facts of legend are difficult to determine. Hrotsvit choose this legend, with its vague details, not to focus on the martyrs or their allegorical representations per se, but to present a story that centered on female intelligence and strength. Her version of this story greatly expanded the tale. She not only lengthened the dialogue greatly, she also included another lesson in Boethian mathematics. Sapientia represents a play about the intelligence of women, the solidarity of women, the endurance of women and the virtue of women. Unlike Abraham and Paphnutius, there are no virtuous men in this last play. Herein is Hrotsvit’s most female subjective play, with all the attention given to the female characters who are deserving due to their Christian piety.

253 “Augustine’s De Fide, Spe et Caritate explicitly connects those three virtues to sapientia; his De Trinitate distinguishes between sapientia and scientia and connects the three other virtues, fides, spes and caritas, to sapientia” Scheck, 2008, 161. 107

Hrotsvit’s version begins with the Emperor Hadrian discussing the safety of state with Antiochus who tells the emperor about a current threat to the empire. A woman has come to Rome with her three young daughters, exhorting Roman citizens to relinquish their traditional religion and convert to Christianity. Antiochus’ proof of their disruptive influence is based on the fact that newly converted Roman women are rejecting their marriage beds.254 Hadrian sees the potential danger and orders Sapientia brought to him. Sapientia and her daughters meet with Antiochus and Hadrian, the latter who is overwhelmed by the beauty of the three daughters. Antiochus has to prompt Hadrian to address the situation, and to try to force the girls into religious compliance. Hadrian, still enamored, decides to try flattery first since as Antiochus states, women are prone to yielding to such ploys. Sapientia shows no inclination to yield to Hadrian’s flattery, and encourages her daughters to remain steady to such devilish tricks. Next, Sapientia decides to ridicule the emperor for her daughters’ amusement with a lesson in mathematics.255 She provides the girls’ ages in mathematics based on portions of Boethius’ De Institutio Arithmetica, and in so doing, completely befuddles Hadrian. Still refusing to worship the pagan gods, Sapientia and her daughters are placed in a cell, during which time she counsels the girls to be strong in the face of impending torture. With Antiochus’ encouragement, Hadrian orders each of the girls to be tortured until they yield. Yet, as each sister takes their turn, they stand firm in their faith and derision of Hadrian and all he represents. Feeling no pain, Fides, Spes and Caritas all joyously embrace their martyrs’ deaths. Immediately following Caritas’ death, Sapientia prepares to bury her daughters with the help of the Roman matrons she had helped convert to Christianity. Hrotsvit’s version ends with Sapientia’s prayer for reunion with her holy daughters in Heaven and her immediate demise. Hrotsvit did not alter the details of this story as much as she embellished the story, broadening the tale with additional characters (Antiochus and matrons) and dialogue. As in Paphnutius, the canoness incorporated a lesson into this play, illustrating again her arête. The mathematical lesson she employed lent her titular character a depth of knowledge that

254 “Hadrian: “Do her exhortations succeed?” Antiochus: “They do so, indeed! Our wives despise us so that they refuse to eat with us, or even more to sleep with us” Wilson, 1998, 82. 255 “Sapientia: “Would it please you, children, if I fatigued this fool with a lesson in arithmetical rule?” Fides: “Yes, mother, it would please us greatly, and we too would hear it gladly” Wilson, 1998, 84. 108 confounded an emperor, also maintaining the theme of female strength and worthiness in the writer, herself. Hadrian, on the other hand, comes across as lecherous (Antiochus chastises him since he couldn’t take his eyes off of the beauty of the three young girls), ignorant (his inability to understand Sapientia’s lesson and his adherence to pagan ideals), evil (his pagan beliefs make him devilish) and cruel (as each form of torture proves unsuccessful, Hadrian comes up with more extreme forms). Throughout the play, Sapientia and the three girls all mock Hadrian, calling him foolish, stupid and impotent. And although Hadrian rails at their insults, he cannot overcome the girls, making their accusations true. By relating the tale so that the martyrs felt no pain, each girl was able to continue to mock Hadrian and Antioch throughout their prolonged tortures. In a play wherein all the male characters are depicted as evil and debase while all female characters are shown as intelligent, strong, loyal and virtuous, the female subjectivity is undeniable. Even while the girls’ bodies are being tortured, their words and actions (as described by the aghast Antiochus and Hadrian) prevent objectification.256 Hrotsvit employed female subjectivity in all six of her plays, albeit by different means. She chose her stories from the hagiographical literature of her times to emphasize the saints important to the Ottonian empire and Gandersheim Abbey, as well as to compliment her choice of legends.257 Once chosen, the canoness adroitly maneuvered the telling of each tale to enhance the subjectivity of the female characters. Hrotsvit incorporated the invention of Constantia’s “engagement”, and the focal centrality of Agape, Chionia, Hirena, Drusiana, Mary, Thaïs, Sapientia, Fides, Spes and Karitas. Although she does handle each drama differently, she also incorporates certain themes throughout her second book. Evident in all six of her dramas is the theme of powerful men acting either as the superlative of evil or as the epitome of holiness. The canoness also utilizes erudite lessons in musicality and mathematics in two of her plays to express the worthiness of respect due to the characters giving the instruction (Paphnutius and Sapientia). Hrotsvit additionally uses the non-literary tool of stichometric prose, creating

256 “Hadrian: “Have her nipples cut off, Antiochus, so that through shame at last she may be coerced to relent.” … Fides: “You have wounded my chaste breasts, but you have not hurt me. Look, instead of blood, milk gushes forth.” Hadrian: “Have her thrown on a fiery hot grill so that the glowing coals will make her still.” … Fides: “Whatever you plan for my pain becomes the calm of joyful gain; so I rest comfortably on the grill, as if I were on a peaceful ship” Wilson, 1998, 89. 257 For the relationships between Hrotsvit’s legends and the dramas, see Wilson, 1989. 109 dialogue that evokes emotional tension. Her other use of dialogue, the gift of voice, demonstrated yet another form of female subjectivity.

The Female Voice The concept of voice was very important to the canoness. Chapter 3 analyzed how Hrotsvit provided voice to her characters in response to Terence’s portrayal of female characters. This chapter now looks at how Hrotsvit’s gift of voice altered the hagiographical sources from which she acquired her stories. She saw that Terence often did not give her female characters any form of voice. I’ve argued in the previous chapter that Hrotsvit actively responded to each of Terence’s plays, bringing the female characters from the background onto center stage and endowing them with eloquent speech. In her treatment of the saints’ lives, I posit that Hrotsvit did seek to alter the representations of the female characters, but only to emphasize their status as holy Christians with the rights of speech versus challenging the actual hagiographical source. In Gallicanus, Hrotsvit emphasized the character of Constantia to create a focal female upon which all the drama centers. Once Hrostvit’s version establishes Constantia as the instigator of Gallicanus’ conversion, the canoness was free to mold this character to embody the traits she wished promoted in female characterization. Thus, Constantia is a dutiful Christian daughter whose wisdom is sought by the emperor, whose status infatuates the famous general and whose manipulations and suggestions are enacted by the Saints Paul and John. Further, Hrotsvit gave Constantia participation and control of several verbal passages. The first of these passages illustrate Constantia’s constancy, intelligence and strength, when told by her father that Gallicanus desired her hand in marriage: “Constantia: “I would rather die.” Constantius: “I knew that would be your reply.” Constantia: “No wonder you did, because it was with your consent and with your permission that I took the vow of chastity to serve God forever.” Constantius: “I remember.” Constantia: “Therefore, I can never be compelled to violate my sacred vow”258

In this scene, Constantia reminds her father that she is already committed to her vow of chastity, taken with his permission. This shows that she is a faithful daughter in that she sought her father’s consent, but that she is also faithful to her vow (stating that she can never be compelled

258 Wilson, 1989, 12. 110 to give up her promise). She demonstrates steadfastness in her vow, intelligence in stating her refusal in such a way as to remind the emperor of his part in her vow, and strength in the conviction of her stance. Further in this same scene, Constantia advises her father on how proceed with her plans for Gallicanus’ conversion through the fake engagement. Once Constantia’s plans are in action, Hrotsvit again provides an opportunity for Constantia to demonstrate her intelligence and eloquence. When Gallicanus’ daughters are brought to her, Constantia first speaks a lengthy prayer that God change Gallicanus’ mind and instill in his daughters a desire for chastity. The length of the speech (the longest in the play) along with the righteousness of Constantia’s requests creates a vital component to the drama as it spotlights Constantia’s virtue and holiness. “Constantia: “…I implore Thee, true wisdom, coeternal with the Father by whom all things were made, and by whose plan the Universe was created, ordered and weighed, that Thou revoke Gallicanus’s intent, to try to quench my love for Thee, and call him to Thee. May thou also find his daughters worthy to be Thy brides, worthy of Thy trust. Instill into their thoughts the sweetness of Thy love, so that despising carnal lust they may become worthy of joining the company of sacred virgins”259

Hrotsvit displays Constantia’s steadfast strength in one other passage. Before Gallicanus leaves on his military campaign, Constantia instructs the Saints Paul and John as to her bidding: “Constantia: “Summon John and Paul!” John: “Here we are, lady; you called.” Constantia: “Go, join Gallicanus and stay by his side. Instruct him in the mysteries of our faith; be his guide! Perhaps God will deign to claim him through you.” Paul: “May God grant us His aid. We shall exhort him frequently, just as you bade”260

That Constantia is revered enough in her chastity and virtue that the Saints Paul and John obey her commands is very significant. Hrotsvit not only provides eloquence of voice for Constantia, she also provides great authority of voice (so great as to give commands to apostles). In Dulcitius, Hrotsvit engages in a theme she uses again in Sapientia, that of the three young girls verbally mocking the emperor of ancient Rome. This play is considered a comedic telling of the martyrdom of the three virgins.261 The scenes of Dulcitius’ fondling the pots and

259 Wilson, 1989, 16. 260 Wilson, 1989, 18. 261 Although a comedic version of a martyrs tale may seem peculiar and out of place to the modern perspective, medieval martyrologies did incorporate forms of humor (i.e. kitchen humor). 111 pans, and becoming so blackened that he is unrecognizable and consequently his identity is mistaken by the guards who beat him attest to the comic nature of this version. Hrotsvit presented another form of comedic interpretation in the sisters’ verbal bombardment of Diocletian. “Diocletian: “What madness possesses you? What rage drives you three?” Agape: “What signs of madness do you see?” Diocletian: “An obvious and great display.” Agape: “In what way?” Diocletian: “Chiefly in that renouncing the practices of ancient religion you follow the useless, new-fangled ways of the Christian superstition.” Agape: “Heedlessly you offend the majesty of the omnipotent God. That is dangerous…” Diocletian: “Dangerous to whom?” Agape: “To you and to the state you rule.” Diocletian: “She is mad; remove the fool!” Chionia: “My sister is not mad; she rightly reprehended your folly.” Diocletian: “She rages even more madly; remove her from our sight and arraign the third girl.” Hirena: “You will find the third, too, a rebel and resisting you forever.” Diocletian: “Hirena, although you are younger in birth, be greater in worth!” … Hirena: “Let those worship idols, Sire, who wish to incur God’s ire. But I won’t defile my head, anointed with royal unguent by debasing myself at the idols’ feet”262

The gift of voice in this scene denotes equality. Each sister, in turn, speaks firmly and with conviction to the emperor, abusing his ideas and words. The sisters also mock and ridicule Dulcitius, as they watch his absurd charade in the kitchen. Hrotsvit grants the description of Dulcitius’ liaison with the kitchen utensils to the three girls, turning the objectification onto Dulcitius. As the governor sought to objectify the girls, he is in turn the one objectified. “Hirena: “Look, the fool, the madman base, he thinks he is enjoying our embrace.” Agape: “What is he doing?” Hirena: “Into his lap he pulls the utensils, he embraces the pots and pans, giving them tender kisses.” Chionia: “Ridiculous!” Hirena: “His face, his hands, his clothes, are so soiled so filthy, that with all the soot that clings to him, he looks like an Ethiopian.” Agape: It is only right that he should appear in body the way he is in his mind: possessed by the Devil.” Hirena: “Wait! He prepares to leave. Let us watch how he is greeted, and how he is treated by the soldiers who wait for him”263

262 Wilson, 1998, 45-6. 263 Wilson, 1998, 48. 112

Later in the drama, each of the sisters speak out again as they face death. Their last speeches embody the eloquence Hrotsvit sought to instill in her heroines. As their martyrdom approaches, the sisters welcome the reward that awaits them in Heaven, and deprive their executioners of any feeling of success.264 As stated earlier in this chapter, Hrotsvit’s version of the conversion of Calimachus differs from the pseudo-Abdias in its greater emphasis on the characters of the story over the significance paid to St John in the hagiographical account. Drusiana’s character is the same in both stories, but the canoness added more attention and detail to her character. In the earlier version, Calimachus sends word to Drusiana, telling her of his feelings for her. Her response was swift and her death immediately followed her words.265 Hrotsvit, adding the stichometric style to her dialogue, presented a version that lent more emotion and eloquence to Drusiana’s plight. She not only adamantly refuses Calimachus’ advances, calling him an insane fool; she informs him that she will never change her mind.266 Later, Drusiana prays for her death in a much more poignant prayer than found in the hagiographical text: “Alas, my Lord Jesus Christ, what is the good of the vow of chastity I swore if this madman is crazed on my beauty’s score? Oh, Lord, look upon my fear, look upon the pain I bear! I don’t know what to do; if I denounce him, there will be public scandal on my account, I’m afraid; if I keep it secret, I cannot avoid falling into these devilish snares without Thy aid. Help me, O Christ, therefore, with my plan and permit me to die so that I won’t become the ruin of that charming young man”267

264 “Agape: “O Lord, nothing is impossible for Thee; even the fire forgets its nature and obeys Thee; but we are weary of delay; therefore, dissolve the earthly bonds that hold our souls, we pray, so that as our earthly bodies die, our souls may sing your praise in Heaven.” Soldiers: “Oh, marvel, oh stupendous miracle! Behold their souls are no longer bound to their bodies, yet no traces of injury can be found; neither their hair, nor their clothes are burnt by the fire, and their bodies are not at all harmed by the pyre” Wilson, 1998, 50. 265 “Oh, if I only had not come back to my native city where I have become a stumbling-block to a man who believes not in the worship of God! For if he were filled with God’s word, he would not fall into such a passion. Therefore, O Lord, since I have become accessory to a blow which struck an ignorant soul, deliver me from this prison and take me soon to you!” Pseudo-Abdias, 266 Drusiana: “Out of my sight, out of my sight, you vile seducer; I blush to speak with you for even a short while, for I perceive you to be full of diabolical guile.” Calimachus: “My Drusiana, do not repel him who loves you, who with the passion of all his heart adores you, but return my love!” Drusiana: “I am not in the least touched by your seductive art; I abhor your lust and despise you will all my heart” Wilson, 1998, 56-7. 267 Wilson, 1998, 57. 113

Towards the end of the play, three characters are brought back to life. St John brings back Calimachus and then Drusiana, both times issuing brief commands that they rise.268 When Drusiana raises Fortunatus from the dead, her speech is more expressive: “O Divine Substance, who alone art truly without material form, Thou who has made me in Thy own image and breathed life into Thy creation, grant that warmth many return to Fortunatus’s earthly form so that he may become a living being once again, and that our triple resurrection may be turned into the praise of the Venerable Trinity!”269

Hrotsvit definitely imbued Drusiana’s character with the gift of grandiloquent speech, altering the character from the pseudo-Abdias into a substantial figure of respect and holiness. Drusiana’s ability to speak ardently outshone the former version of this character, while maintaining her spiritual function as the model of chastity. In the play Abraham, Hrotsvit altered the dialogue from the earlier version in a few different ways. Since the hagiographical version did provide Mary with a voice (a lengthy one, at times), we must study Hrotsvit representation of Mary to try and determine why she made the changes she did. If Hrotsvit were only interested in providing her female characters with voice, why did she lessen the amount of dialogue for her Mary? I believe that although the Vita provided Mary’s character with voice, Hrotsvit felt that she could offer a more appealing Mary through her choice of dialogue. Although the storyline is basically the same in both versions, Hrotsvit altered not only the style of story but she also amended the length of several essential speeches and dialogues.270 Even taking into consideration that Hrotsvit was a woman of the medieval period and was writing for her contemporaries, I believe that her changes to the characters of Abraham and Mary were for the purpose of making Mary a stronger and more appealing character. The speeches and dialogues that Hrotsvit altered created a character less inclined to plaintive passivity. The Vita’s version of the tale incorporates a long speech of woe from Mary after she is despoiled.271

268 “Calimachus, rise in Christ’s name and confess all that has happened. Tell us, however vile the vice, so that nothing is hidden; only the full truth will suffice” and “Drusiana, may our Lord Jesus Christ resurrect you!” Wilson, 1998, 60 and 62. 269 Wilson, 1998, 63. 270 The Vita is basically in a narrative format, with dialogue interspersed within the tale. Hrotsvit’s version is strictly dialogue. 271 “Her anxiety oppressed her like a dead weight, in her mental storm she could not see the prospects of any harbor, her fevered thoughts flew backwards and forwards and she bewailed her fate unceasingly. “This feels like a wound unto death,” she cried. “The labor of my days and my 114

Whereas this speech takes up the majority of the chapter in the Vita, Hrotsvit completed deleted the scene from her rendition. Instead, Abraham tells Ephrem about Mary’s absence and what happened to her that led to her departure. This does not, though, create a lack of female subjectivity in Hrotsvit’s version. I believe that in fact, the lack of Mary’s woeful soliloquy allowed the canoness to present a stronger character. Her faults are described charitably by the two hermits, and the character is not required to portray her feebleness of thought (her fall from grace) into words. Hrotsvit altered the length of a few other dialogues that created a different interpretation of the characters involved. Abraham’s long tearful speech when he confronts Mary as her uncle is curtailed in Hrotsvit’s version, and turned instead into a dialogue between both characters. This again, I believe, portrayed Mary in a stronger light. Hrotsvit’s Mary responds to every one of Abraham’s questions with honest remorse. This creates a Mary who speaks up, acknowledging her wrongs and demonstrating her eager willingness to respond to Abraham’s wisdom. One other example of Hrotsvit altering the nuances of Mary’s character is found in Mary’s agreement to return with Abraham to perform penance. In the Vita, after Abraham pleads with Mary to give up her sinful existence and to seek forgiveness for her trespasses, her response is almost business-like, as if a deal has been struck: “If you are sure that I can do penance, and that God will accept my reparations,” she said, “then, see, I am going to do what you say.”272 In Hrotsvit’s version, Mary’s response is similar, but the subtly of her words creates a more repentant sinner. “If I had any hope of receiving forgiveness, my eagerness to do penance would burst forth.”273Mary, in the earlier version, seems to be bargaining with Abraham for his

abstinence have gone for nothing, the work of my prayers, tears and vigils has been rendered completely worthless. I have grievously offended my God and have destroyed myself. What a miserable wretch I am, drowning myself in tears! I have inflicted the most bitter sorrow upon my holy uncle, my soul is burdened with guilt, and I have simply become a bit of sport for the devil. What point is there in prolonging my miserable existence any further? Alas, what have I done? Alas, what shall I do now? Alas, what evils have I brought upon myself? Alas, how could I have ever sunk so low? How did my mind come to be so darkened? I could not see that I was doing wrong, I did not realize I was being despoiled, I cannot understand how my heart came to be hidden in a cloud of darkness. How is it that I did not realize what I was doing? Where can I hide myself? Where can I go? Where is there some ravine I can throw myself into?...” Vita Sanctae Marie, Chp. III. 272 Vita Sanctae Marie, Chp. IX. 273 Wilson, 1998, 77. 115 assurance that God would indeed forgive her. Hrotsvit’s Mary does not appear to be bartering for forgiveness, but instead showing her willingness to seek forgiveness whole-heartedly. Hrotsvit’s altered dialogue within Abraham indicates that she had specific goals for her female characters. Her gift of voice was not in generic form. She did not seek only to put words in the mouths of her female characters, but to offer them eloquence and gravitas. We can gauge her wishes to a certain extent by looking closely at the two versions of this play. Hrotsvit chose to present Mary in a different way, a way that she must have thought preferable to her readers (or else why bother changing the dialogue?). Her version of Mary disdained the piteous laments, indecisiveness and haggling. I posit that Hrotsvit sought to provide a Mary whose words indicated her proper remorse and strength of conviction. In Hrotsvit’s fifth play Paphnutius, she again is dealing with a story already incorporating the female voice. Thaïs, in the Vita version does speak. Nevertheless, Hrotsvit again altered the dialogue of the character of Thaïs, creating a saint whose knowledge of God is forefront and whose repentance is profound. The clearest view of the changes Hrotsvit incorporated come from comparing three specific scenes from both sources. The first scene of the Vita relates Paphnutius’ visit to Thaïs. Seeking privacy for their conversation, Paphnutius asks Thaïs if there were a more private chamber they could use. Thaïs assures him that their current room offers the needed privacy, but that he cannot hide from the eyes of God. This leads Paphnutius to question the harlot about her religious beliefs and knowledge of the Christian God.274 The Vita’s version of Thaïs does show her as knowledgeable of God and the kingdom of heaven, and her desire for penance. Hrotsvit’s version of this scene is much more emotional: “Paphnutius: “Isn’t there another room where we can converse more privately, one that is hidden away?” Thaïs: “There is one so hidden, so secret that no one besides me knows it, except for God.” Paphnutius: “What God?” Thaïs: “The true God.” Paphnutius: “Do you believe He knows what we do?”

274 “Paphnutius: “You believe in God then?” Thaïs: “Yes, I have heard about God and the kingdom of the world to come and the torments laid up for sinners.” Paphnutius: “If you know this, why have you brought so many souls to ruin? Don’t you know that you will have to give an account not only of your own sins but also for theirs?” Thaïs fell at the feet of Paphnutius and monk and besought him with tears to give her some penance to perform” Vitae Patrum 21, Chp.1. 116

Thaïs: “I know that nothing is hidden from His view.” Paphnutius: “Do you believe that He overlooks the deeds of the wicked or that He metes out justice as is due?” Thaïs: “I believe that He weights the merits of each person justly in His scale and that each according to his desserts receives reward or punishment from Him.” … Thaïs: “How can there be a place for appalling lust in my heart now when it is filled entirely with the bitter pangs of sorrow and the new awareness of guilt, fear, and pain.” Paphnutius: “I hope that when the thorns of your vice are destroyed at the root, the winestock of penitence may then bring forth fruit.” Thaïs: “If only you believed or had the slightest hope that I who am so stained with thousands and thousands of sins enchained, could expiate my sins or could perform due penance in order to gain forgiveness!”275

Thaïs’ voice in this scene is more authoritative than the earlier version. It is Thaïs who brings up God first, demonstrating her knowledge and her agency. When asked to which god she is referring, she responds “the true God” versus the vague response from the Vita (“I have heard about God…”). In the Vita, Paphnutius asks Thaïs if she knows that she will have to account for her sins as well as her lovers’ sins. Hrotsvit allows her Thaïs to know and present this information (“I believe that He weights the merits of each person…”). And, whereas in the hagiographical version, Thaïs’ despair is narrated, Hrotsvit again allows Thaïs to express her own repentant sentiments. The second scene Hrotsvit expands Thaïs’ dialogue is when Paphnutius brings her to her tiny cell. In the Vita, Thaïs asks what type of prayers she should offer to God. Paphnutius tells her she is not fit enough to talk about God (a change from their discussion when in her chambers).276 The hagiographical tale immediately shifts from Paphnutius’ response to three years later when the hermit determines that Thaïs’ sins had been forgiven. Hrotsvit not only presents a kinder Paphntius, she altered Thaïs’s dialogue to illustrate her eloquence in speech and her desire to understand her penance: “Thaïs: “…I, filthy myself, do not refuse to dwell in a filthy befouled cell – this is my just due. But it pains me deeply that there is not one spot left, dignified and pure, where I could invoke the name of God’s majesty.”

275 Wilson, 1998, 106-8. 276 “You are not fit to talk about God. The name of God is not fit to be heard coming from your lips, nor should you life up your hands to heaven, for your lips are full of iniquity and your hands are stained with iniquity. All you may do is to sit facing the East and repeat over and over, ‘You who have molded me, have mercy on me” Vitae Patrum 21, Chp.2. 117

Paphnutius: “And how can you have such great confidence that you would presume to utter the name of the unpolluted Divinity with your polluted lips?” Thaïs: “But how can I hope for grace, how can I be saved by His mercy if I am not allowed to invoke Him, against whom alone I sinned, and to whom alone I should offer my devotion and prayer?” Paphnutius: “Clearly you should pray not with words but with tears; not with your tinkling voice’s melodious art but with the bursting of your penitent heart.” Thaïs: “But if I am prohibited from praying with words, how can I ever hope for forgiveness?” Paphnutius: “The more perfectly you humiliate yourself, the faster you will earn forgiveness. Say only: Thou who created me, have mercy upon me!”277

This version of Thaïs is more in control of her life, asking questions and endeavoring to understand. Her autonomy is evident in this scene, as she seeks alone to seek repentance. She does allow Paphnutius to guide her, and does not deviate from his counsel.278 Nevertheless, she comes to her penitence on her own terms. The questions Thaïs asks Paphnutius indicate her strong desire to repent, as well as her need to intellectually understand the tasks that she alone must perform. The third scene that denotes the changes in Hrotsvit’s gift of voice to Thaïs compared to the earlier source is the last scene of the story wherein Paphnutius releases Thaïs from her cell with her sins forgiven. Once Paphnutius opens the door and calls Thaïs to come out, she responds, “I call God as witness that since the moment I came in here I have kept all my sins in view as a great burden. My sins have not diminished, I have kept them all continually in remembrance.”279 In Hrotsvit’s version, Thaïs also states that she has focused on her iniquities.280 This Thaïs is also more penitent, telling Paphnutius that she didn’t deserve the right to leave her cell.281 Further, Hrotsvit’s version of the saint gives a prayer of thanks and praise for her forgiveness, a speech added by the canoness: “Therefore praise Him all the company of Heaven, and on Earth the least little sprout or bush, not only all living creatures but even the waterfall’s

277 Wilson, 1998, 115. 278 “Whatever your fatherly concern prescribes for my reform, my wretched self does not refuse to perform…” Wilson, 1998, 114. 279 Vitae Patrum 21, Chp.3. 280 “I enumerated my manifold sins and wickedness and gathered them as in a bundle of crime. Then I continuously went over them in my mind, so that just as the nauseating smell here never left my nostrils, so the fear of Hell never departed from my heart’s eyes” Wilson, 1998, 120. 281 “Venerable Father, do not take me, stained and foul wretch, from this filth; let me remain in this place appropriate for my sinful ways” Wilson, 1998, 120. 118 rush, because He not only suffers men to live in sinful ways but rewards the penitent with the gift of grace.”282 These three scenes demonstrate Hrotsvit’s vision of Thaïs as an eloquent speaker, penitent sinner and autonomous woman. Thaïs’ speeches display her intelligence as well as her remorse. Although once a sinner, Thaïs gains sainthood, and through Hrotsvit’s telling her sincerity becomes much more evident that the hagiographical version. Hrotsvit’s changes to this story, I believe, were to create a version of the saint that she and other women could respect. Hrotsvit’s Thaïs speaks with the eloquence and strength of a repentant soul, and by doing so, builds a sense of poignancy that the Vita lacks. In Hrotsvit’s last play, the female voice is at its strongest. Sapientia, Fides, Spes and Caritas all speak with forthright candor, from their position of Christian strength and surety. As previously mentioned, the Acta Sanctorum provides us very few details about these martyrs, preferring to view this story as an allegory. Thus, for an analysis of female voice in this play, we must focus completely on Hrotsvit’s version to theorize about her agenda. Since the components of this hagiographical tale were so meager, the canoness had a great amount of freedom in how she chose to approach this martyrology. She incorporated elements she had previously used in the other plays in this last drama. Her overall approach to the story of the three sisters is very similar to her telling of the sisters Agape, Chionia and Hirena in Dulcitius. She also employed another scene of Boethian learning, as she did in Paphnutius. Again, she utilized a Roman emperor as her pagan antagonist like her play Dulcitius. But, for the first time, Hrotsvit’s choice of hagiographical stories included a maternal parent. The character Sapientia represents Wisdom. For Hrotsvit to tackle such a character, she must have felt that it was vital that her Sapientia show true acumen. Her inclusion of the lesson in mathematics could easily be explained by a desire to show Sapientia as extremely knowledgeable and educated. Sapientia’s eminence is also emphasized in the fact that as a foreign woman, she exhorts Roman citizens and develops a following. The very fact that Antiochus and Hadrian perceive her as a threat to the empire demonstrates her impact on society, her importance in early Christianity, and her position of authority in the burgeoning church. But, her most significant expression of wisdom is as a mother to three chaste and Christian daughters. Her admonitions to her daughters indicate a parent whose teachings have been embraced by their

282 Wilson, 1998, 121. 119 offspring, and who works to see her daughters acquire the highest goal possible. Knowing that the path she leads her daughters on will likely end with their tortuous death, the strength Sapientia must show is immense and crucial. With this onus understand, the reassurances she offers her daughters as they face death are poignant and articulate. When they are first imprisoned and awaiting torture, Sapientia encourages her daughters to remain steadfast in their faith during the events to come. Her exhortations identify her as a holy woman, seeking to lead her daughters in chaste, virtuous lives and deaths. One must assume that as a woman preaching Christianity during the period of persecutions, Sapientia and her daughters had already faced the likely possibility of corporal punishment. The dialogue between Sapientia and her daughters in this scene definitely points to their understanding of this fact, as Sapientia and her daughters prepare themselves for long-awaited martyrdom.283 The strength of Sapientia is evident: she does not weep for her daughters, but instead remains true to her vision of virgin martyrdom for her daughters.284 This type of parental strength, wherein a parent must be willing to sacrifice the lives of their children exemplifies the paradigm figures found within Christian typology.285 By representing Sapientia as a female parent who fits the typology of God as Father, Hrotsvit proffered a decisive statement on the holy authority given to this woman. And although Hrotsvit told of a saint whose deeds liken her to God the Father, she still kept the

283 “Sapientia: “That is what I pray for incessantly, that is what I ask for and request earnestly; that you persevere in your faith, which, from your early childhood on, I tried to instill in your mind without any rest.” Karitas: “We will never forget what we learned in our cradle suckling at your breast.” Sapientia: “It was for this that I nursed you with my milk flowing free; it was for this that I carefully reared you three; that I may espouse you to a heavenly, not an earthly bridegroom and may deserve to be called the mother-in-law of the Eternal King thereby.” Fides: “For the love of that Bridegroom we are prepared to die.” Sapientia: “Your decision delights me more than the sweet taste of nectar, my dears.” Spes: “Lead us to the judges and you shall promptly see how our love for Him overcomes our fears.” Sapientia: “My only wish is this: that by your virginity I may be crowned and by your martyrdom renowned” Wilson, 1998, 87. 284 Again, we must remember that martyrdom was the crowning glory for Christians, and if the martyr still remained virginal, their reward was that much greater as a bride of Christ. That a mother seeks these things for her children might seem strange to the modern perspective, but would not have been perceived the same by ancient and medieval Christians. 285 I.e. Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Issac and God’s sacrifice of His own Son. 120 drama’s emphasis on Sapientia as a female parent. Sapientia speaks of nursing her daughters, and makes references to carrying her daughters in pregnancy.286 Once Sapientia has shown her wisdom through her lesson in mathematics and through her exhortations to her daughters, interspersed throughout the drama, one last speech remains with which to illustrate her arête and eloquence. In the final speech of the play, Sapientia has interred her daughter’s remains, and prays for their reception and her own death so that she might join them in heaven. Here Hrotsvit must provide an impactful speech to end the martryology with the appropriate level of gravitas as well as end the final play of her set of dramas. Sapientia’s speech had to demonstrate the best and wisest voice Hrotsvit could provide: “Adonai Emmanuel, whom before all times God, the Father of all, created and whom in our own time the Virgin Mother bore; one Christ, of two natures but the duality of natures not dividing the unity of the one person, and the unity of the person not lessening the diversity of Thy two natures. Let the lovely angels’ choir their voices raise and may the sweet harmony of the stars exult Thee in jubilant praise; let all that is knowable through science praise Thee, and all that is made of the material of the four elements exult Thee, because Thou alone with the Father and Holy Ghost are made form without matter, begotten by the Father with the Holy Ghost. Thou didst not scorn to become man, capable of human suffering, while Thy divinity remained oblivious to suffering, so that all who believe in Thee should not perish in eternal strife, but have the joy of everlasting life; Thou has not refused to taste death for us, only to destroy it by rising again from the dead. Very God and very man, I know that Thou hast said that Thou wilt reward a hundredfold all of those who gave up the hold of worldly possessions and earthly love for the worship of Thy name, and Thou hast promised to the same to bestow upon them the gift of life everlasting. Inspired by the hope of his promise, I followed Thy command, freely offering up the children I bore. Therefore do not Thou delay any more to keep Thy promise, and free me quickly from the fetters of my earthly body, so that I may rejoice in the heavenly reception of my daughters, whose sacrifice I didn’t prolong, and exult in their now joyful lauding song as they follow the Paschal Lamb in the midst of other maidens. And even though I cannot join them in chanting the canticles of virginal maidens, yet may I be permitted to join them in their eternal praise of Thee, who art not the Father, but art of the same substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, sole Lord of the Universe, sole King of the upper, mid and lower regions, Thou who reignest and art Lord forever and ever”287

Sapientia’s speech references again the mother figure Sapientia embodies. Her prayer begins by acknowledging Christ’s dual nature of divine and human. Within this section, she points out that Christ’s human nature derives from his human birth from Mary (“…the Virgin Mary bore;…”),

286 “O Caritas, my hope, my darling child, single one left of my womb…”, and “I commit to you, Earth, the flowers of my womb” Wilson, 1998, 93-5. 287 Wilson, 1998, 96-7. 121 again referencing a mother’s singular role. Later in the prayer, she speaks of following Christ’s dictates and going beyond in surrendering her children and thus relinquishing her greatest achievements (“…freely offering up the children I bore”). Sapientia, above all else, is a mother and Hrotsvit openly and obliquely references that fact repeatedly. Hrotsvit also references again that Sapientia illustrates the typology of God as the Father who sacrifices his only Son. Sapientia not only speaks of offering up her children, but that she did not delay in her ultimate sacrifice (“…whose sacrifice I didn’t prolong,”). This portion of her prayer emphasizes Sapientia’s piety and strength, for even Abraham hesitated in sacrificing his child. Sapientia remains true to her course, and follows Christ’s edicts without qualms. She watches as all three of her daughters are tortured and killed, and yet never bewails their fate, having full confidence in her belief in Christ’s promises. Hrotsvit even incorporates references back to Paphnutius’s Boethian lesson from the previous play (“…and may the sweet harmony of the stars…”), referring back to the holy harmony of the universe. The eloquence of Sapientia’s speech, with its inferences and references, definitely illustrates Hrotsvit’s gift of voice for her Sapientia. She provides this maternal parent with authority, knowledge, commitment, piety and strength through the affecting speeches put within the mouth of Sapientia. This play demonstrates the gift of feminine voice in not only the character of Sapientia, but also in the characters of her daughters. Fides, Spes and Caritas all speak for themselves, as each one is brought in before Hadrian. In order, each sister denies Hadrian’s demands and enunciates her choice of martyrdom. Each sister mocks Hadrian and Antiochus before and during their ineffective tortures. None of the sisters feels the pain of their tortures, allowing them to continue in their haranguing of the emperor and his henchman. When Hadrian orders Fides to make offerings to Diana, the eldest daughter scorns his suggestion and derides the emperor himself.288 When it is the second daughter’s turn to turn down Hadrian’s command, she too

288 “Fides: “O, what a foolish Imperial command; worthy of nothing but contempt!” Hadrian: “What are you mumbling in derision; whom are you mocking with your wry expression?” Fides: “It’s your foolishness I deride, and I mock your stupidity.” Hadrian: “My stupidity?” Fides: “Yes.” Antiochus: “The Emperor’s?” Fides: “Yes, his!” Antiochus: “This is abominable!” 122 insults the emperor with complete fearlessness. Further, Hadrian offers to act as a father to Spes, if she acknowledges the Roman gods. Spes adamantly responds that she doesn’t want the Roman emperor as her parent, emphasizing her loyalty to her maternal parent.289 The third sister, Caritas, follows in her sisters’ footsteps as she refuses Hadrian’s offer of leniency if she will only address Diana. Caritas, as the youngest, still possesses a volubility of voice belying her years.290 The three young virgins also speak to their mother before they are executed. Each sister lovingly acknowledges Sapientia, and then her remaining sister(s).291 Hrotsvit continues to accentuate the theme of female solidarity throughout the drama, maintaining a steady and true relationship between the four females while disrespecting the powerful male characters. As the last of her dramas, Hrotsvit put forth great effort to create a play that would strongly resound with women, especially, I believe, the women at Gandersheim. Her stress on the mental and

Fides: “For what is more foolish, what can seem more stupid than your command to show contempt for the Creator of all and venerate base metal instead?” Wilson, 1998, 88. 289 Hadrian: “Lay aside this callousness of heart and relent; bring incense to the great Diana. Then I will adopt you as my own child and cherish you with all my heart.” Spes: “I don’t want you for my father; I have no desire for your favors; therefore, you chase after empty dreams if you think that I shall ever yield to you.” Hadrian: “Watch your speech or you’ll feel my ire!” Spes: I do not care. Be irate Sire!” Antiochus: “I wonder, my lord, why you let yourself be scorned by this worthless little girl. I myself am bursting with rage as I hear her bark at your so fearlessly” Wilson, 1998, 91. 290 Caritas: “…I am born of the same parents as my sisters, imbued by the same sacraments, strengthened by the same firmness of faith. Know, therefore, that we are one and the same in what we want, what we fell and what we think. In nothing will I differ from them.” Hadrian: “How insulting to be held in contempt by a mere child!” Caritas: “I may be young in years, yet I am expert enough to confound you in argument” Wilson, 1998, 93. 291 “Fides: “O, venerable mother, say your last farewell to your child; give a kiss to your firstborn; expel sadness from your heart because I am on my way to eternal rewards… O my sisters, born of the same mother, give me a kiss of peace and prepare yourselves to bear the impending strife.” *** Spes: “O beloved Caritas, O, my only sister! Do not fear the tyrant’s threat, and do not dread his punishments. Follow in firm faith the example of your sisters, who precede you to Heaven’s palace… Rejoice, good mother, be glad, and do not feel sad in maternal concern; have hope instead of grief as you see me die for Christ.” *** Caritas: “Give me a kiss, Mother, and commend my departing soul which He breathed into you from Heaven” Wilson, 1998, 91-5.

123 emotional strength of Sapientia, Fides, Spes and Caritas creates a story in which all that is positive and valued finds representation in women. This martyrology celebrates the relationships between mothers and daughters in such as way as to speak to the women of orders within the Church. The mother figure relates to the abbess, and each virginal martyr represents the women who took vows for their faith. I believe Hrotsvit sought to end her selection of dramas on the strong note of female voice and subjectivity. In this way, her unspoken challenge to the representation of women in hagiographical literature did not resound stridently, but nevertheless, did seek to place much greater importance on the positive roles of females.

Concluding Thoughts In each of the six dramas Hrotsvit wrote, she brought the female characters to the forefront. Constantia becomes the mastermind of the story’s plot and a character whose savvy wisdom advises an emperor and two apostles. Hrotsvit turns Agape, Chionia and Hirena from the object of the male gaze to the lens through which an evil male character becomes objectified. Further, each sister chooses their fate and exults in their martyrdom, placing agency within their grasp. Hrotsvit develops Drusiana as the entire focus of the story of the conversion of Calimachus; she is the goal of the titular character, and the emotional center of a story previously concerned with St John’s character and deeds. Mary shifts into a stronger character whose repentance appears more honest and sought after than earlier version. Thaïs becomes more active in her renunciation of her past life, and more penitent in her humiliation of herself. Sapientia, Fides, Spes and Caritas all emerge as more decisive in their actions, beliefs and words as they seek heavenly rewards for following Christ’s dictates. Hrotsvit altered all six of these hagiographical tales in their depictions of female characters. She likely wrote for mostly a female audience, and thus endeavored to create versions of saints’ lives that offered her audience models that spoke to them, metaphorically and literally. Each female character Hrotsvit crafted stood as the exemplar of virtue, chastity and strength. The canoness presented different emphases than the original versions of the stories in order to position the female characters as characters of importance and due reverence. No longer in the background, these female depictions celebrated the strength of holy women not through physical vigor but through steadfast virtue and chastity. These alterations are obvious, but do not seek to challenge the premise of each story. Hrotsvit did not seek to challenge the message of each

124 hagiographical tale; instead she attempted to provide representations of women that act in heroic fashion and offer themselves as mentors and models. Considering how Hrotsvit changed the emphasis of each hagiographical tale to focus on the strength of female characters, the alterations speak to the canoness’ desire to change the literary presentation of women. Her first task was to surpass Terence’s female characters. Those females had very little autonomy, so she employed characters who maintained their independence even as they often acted as victims. The canoness’ second task was to present female saints as characters whose strengths overcame their adversaries. To do this, Hrotsvit had to adjust the characterizations of women in literature. The female characters Hrotsvit crafted were as anomalous as she herself. For in her handling of their stories, Hrotsvit gave them substance. Her representations of female saints differed from other presentations wherein the women were objects controlled by outside sources. I believe that as a woman of determination and veracity, she desired to create characters similar to herself, providing them with the importance and respect due to them. Hrostvit’s renditions of female characters definitely challenged the literary status quo. Although the saints’ lives of her characters did display the females as holy, they did not grant these characters the subjectivity to argue their own feelings. By expanding the characters, their importance and their speech, Hrotsvit’s versions did challenge the hagiographical sources. I believe that the canoness was well aware of this fact, but chose not to call attention to it. Hrotsvit was still a woman, lacking many of the rights given to the men of her time. She had already stepped outside her accepted gender role when she decided to become a writer. I posit that she believed that her presentations of female characters were more egalitarian, but that verbally acknowledging her challenge of hagiographical literature was unwise. She knew she had competed with the earlier accounts, but such a competition need never be enunciated. She could challenge a pagan writer and hope to receive acceptance for her work, but to challenge the literature of the Catholic Church would be neither prudent nor approved. I believe that Hrotsvit recognized her actions as subverting the female characterizations within hagiographical literature, but that she chose to allow this challenge to remain unspoken.

125

EPILOGUE

The purpose of this project has been to analyze the life and writings of Hrotsvit of Gandersheimin in order to hypothesize her goals and agenda, and thereby, her thoughts and opinions. Understanding this historical figure is important due to her uniqueness. The canoness was singular in her ambitions, considering her gender and the time in which she lived. She stepped out of her accepted role in her society, and sought rights and privileges denied to her gender. She offered a few women (those at Gandersheim) stories that gave the female characters the lead roles in tales of their own lives. What I have sought to answer is how and why she chose to assume a role outside the proper boundaries of her society. The reasons why this woman felt so strongly about her rights to attempt to surpass a renowned male writer and present different representations of literary females presents a compelling analysis. We can only hypothesize what her motives were and why they were so critical to Hrotsvit by studying what we know of her life and her actual writings. Hrotsvit’s circumstances were very fortunate. She was a woman of the noble class, living within an abbey endowed as an autonomous princedom. She knew freedoms other women of her age did not. Her fellows at Gandersheim were Saxon nobility mixed with Ottonian royalty. The influence of the women at Gandersheim granted the canoness access to the royal court. Between the rich libraries at Gandersheim and the culture of the Ottonian court, Hrotsvit gained access to knowledge very few shared. The canoness garnered the knowledge surrounding her, and decided to use her erudite intellect for a purpose. With a retinue of strong women as her sisters, Hrotsvit seized the opportunity to create works of literature that spoke to women about women. Introduced to Terence at court, Hrotsvit took umbrage at the poet’s themes and characters. She felt that such depictions tainted the Christian mind and spirit. She also felt that Terence’s female characters represented women in a poor light, painting them as lascivious and passive. Feeling her own sense of pride in her gender, Hrotsvit decided to offer better models of female behavior. She appointed herself the task of challenging Terence for his readers by changing his representation of women. Her agenda for such a contest was vast and intricate, playing on a series of levels. I’ve focused on her emphasis of female subjectivity, believing that the canoness saw her challenge as a gendered one from the very onset; her versus Terence.

126

Hrotsvit knew when she stepped out onto this literary stage she was entering an all-male realm. She had to tread carefully within this exclusive men’s club. So, she cleverly employed the stereotypical characteristics of her gender within her letter of intent (i.e. her prologues and letters to editors). Since she understood the nuances of her society, likely learned from her social upbringing and time at court, Hrotsvit lithely danced around the expectations of the female gender. She claimed fragility of mind and spirit due to her gender, acting the role of an ingénue. Yet, her voice rings out with confidence and righteousness. She appears to apologize for her weaknesses, but turns around and defends herself based on each and every weakness she previously listed. Even before she actually begins her contest with Terence, Hrotsvit is playing games of subversion within her preambles in order to earn the right (which she had already taken) to challenge this male poet. To me, this speaks to Hrotsvit’s own personal feelings about her gender. She lived the majority of her life as a member of an autonomous all-female family. She and her sisters at Gandersheim knew great personal freedom and this is evident in Hrotsvit’s emblazoned act of authorship. Hrotsvit began her challenge to Terence with her prologue and letter to her editors. Since Terence’s prologues purposefully ignored the standard humility topos, Hrotsvit merrily employed it. She presented herself as lowly and unworthy, and her works as unfledged. But she belies her words of humility with the strong resonance of her voice in stating why she felt she had the right to challenge this misogynistic pagan. She stridently proclaims herself up to the challenge of supplanting the stories of this sinful pagan, stating her righteous reasons. Then she promptly employs another reference to her female weakness, in order to offer a defense for her actions. Hrotsvit deftly switches back and forth between strongly claiming her rights to speak as a woman, and defending her decision based on the stereotypical weaknesses of women. No sooner does she speak with strength than she defends herself with the very misperceptions she challenges in her dramas (i.e. feebleness of spirit, female unworthiness, fragility, etc.). I believe that she strongly felt that her gender was underestimated and under valued. Her writings speak to a woman who saw women enlightened by Christianity as deserving of greater appreciation. The canoness chose to tell stories of virtue to compete with Terence, utilizing saints’ lives for her repertoire of tales. The tales she chose allowed her to battle with Terence on many different levels. She wanted to present women in the opposite light to Terence’s models. Whereas the Roman poet placed female characters in the background, the canoness pulled them

127 into the foreground. Even in her stories of the conversion of men, Hrotsvit focused on the women in the tale. She wanted to present stories that she hoped women of her time would want to read; stories of women they could admire. By changing the focus of men in each of Terence’s six plays to the importance of virtuous female characters in her six dramas, Hrotsvit rendered stories with female subjectivity. Her female characters were the polar opposites of their counterparts in Terence’s plays; they knew autonomy of spirit, righteous confidence in their words and deeds, and due respect paid to their thoughts and opinions (even if such respect was uttered in disbelief by the antagonists). Because the right of speech was so important to Hrotsvit, she gifted her female characters with that freedom. These virtuous women of strength decide their own fates and express their thoughts and beliefs openly. Hrotsvit felt that women of Christian spirit and learning earned the right to express their own religious sentiments, especially women of such arête that hagiographical literature told of their deeds. Such must have been the imaginings of Hrotsvit, that had she and her fellows at Gandersheim lived during the Christian persecutions, they too would have spoken out with righteous virtue at their martyrdom. Such characters would be the heroines of the women at Gandersheim, and Hrotsvit was not going to deny these characters the opportunity to illustrate female worthiness championing over pagan ignorance. Within the safety of the walls at Gandersheim, Hrotsvit and the other women could read and relish stories of female victory over male inability expressed with confidence and eloquence. I’ve analyzed how Hrotsvit also challenged Terence in three additional themes to showcase the Christian superiority of content over pagan matter. Hrotsvit wanted to show that Christian women had greater options than did non-Christian women. For Terence and his audience, a marriage between social equals solved all dilemmas. The woman in each of these nuptials lacked any agency. Hrotsvit took this theme and offered her female characters the right to choose a heavenly spouse over an earthly one. Hrostvit’s brides could maintain their chastity and gain acclaim in heaven. For the women at Gandersheim, who lived lives of celibacy, these characters would offer virtuous models for their own chaste lives. This project has also looked at Hrotsvit’s contest with the theme of disguise. When Terence utilized this theme, he depicted an innocent maiden’s rape at the hands of a callous young man who defends his actions by referencing pagan gods. I believe that this particular scene greatly offended the canoness. That the scene was described in a jocular fashion must have

128 also seriously aggrieved Hrotsvit, for she responded twice to this theme. And whereas in Terence’s use of disguise a woman is sullied, in Hrotsvit’s versions women who were previously sullied were saved. Terence’s male in this situation claims Zeus as his mentor. Hrotsvit presented two holy hermits acting for God. Terence’s female victim does not even bemoan her own fate, as another character describes her violation and emotional distress. Both of Hrotsvit’s sullied women make their own decisions to follow a holy man into penitence, denoting an option not offered to their pagan counterparts. Hrotsvit clearly responds to Terence’s theme of disguise, again turning it into a vehicle of Christian superiority. The male-centric focus of Terence’s plays is best exemplified by his theme of fathers and sons. A typical format for Greek and Roman comedy, the relationship between the paternal parent and his young son(s) often acted as a metaphor for society in general. By the end of each of Terence’s plays, the father and son relationship has been mended with the son adhering to his father’s concerns. For Hrotsvit and the women of Gandersheim, the tales of fathers and sons offered little relevance to their lives. Instead, Hrotsvit wrote about fathers and daughters, father- figures and adopted daughters, and a mother and daughters. The only thing missing from the canoness’ tales are sons. Hrosvit instead presented stories of parental guidance directing the young women towards virtue and Christian piety. Hrotsvit’s parental figures sought more than socially suitable marriage contracts. These wise characters led their obedient charges in paths of Augustine chastity. And the young women, the virgin martyrs and the penitent harlots, all adhered to their mentors’ wisdom with sincere deference. The theme of female subjectivity and voice gave Hrotsvit an easy victory over Terence’s almost silent females. It also allowed the canoness the chance to retell hagiographical tales in such a way as to recast the spotlight onto females of substance. The entire time Hrotsvit was altering the presentation of women so as to challenge Terence’s female characterizations she was also silently challenging the depictions of the women from hagiographical literature. I believe that considering the multiplicity of Hrotsvit’s challenge to Terence, the canoness had to have recognized that she was indeed altering the females of Christian literature. And even as I believe that Hrotsvit ? under the bit of misogyny in her own time, she did not want to actively confront the institution of hagiographical literature. She knew that she was already defying her gender role by acting as an author. She shielded her choice based on her righteous indignation of

129

Terence’s subject matter and characters. However, she could not defend any decision to attack Christian literature and expect to receive acceptance or encouragement. The theme of female autonomy and subjectivity underlies this entire project. Hrotsvit took it upon herself to write when such an option was withheld from women. As Hrotsvit claimed her voice, she claimed authority for herself as a woman writing about women. She stepped outside the box by presenting women characters that did the same. She wrote stories that spanned the gap between the plays of the Roman period to the medieval mystery plays a millennium later. A strong voice in the wilderness, Hrotsvit offered not only the lost link between literature of the Roman period and the High Middle Ages, she also presented female subjectivity. It is this emphasis that drives the study of Hrotsvit. She wrote ahead of her time, creating agency and autonomy for women in literature. The irony of the fact that the canoness’ works were lost to most for centuries adds to her interest. Hrotsvit was an anomaly in her endeavors to proffer female characters of strength and agency, but her attempts to bring greater respect and appreciation for women in literature (and in general) did not succeed in any discernible way. One has to wonder if outside the liberal walls of Gandersheim, the canoness’ proto-feminist sentiments were not appreciated. Since such a question is unanswerable, scholarship will have to continue to surmise the reasons her works were not disseminated.

130

APPENDIX A TIMELINE OF AUTHORS

Martianus Capella, Virgil, 70-19 BCE. 5th century CE

Terence, c. 185- Paulus Diaconus, 159 BCE St. Perpetua, 3rd Venantiusc. 720-799 CE century CE Fortunatus, c. 530- Ovid, 43 BCE-17 600/609 CE CE Prudentius, c. 348- 405/413 CE Hildegard of Quintilian, c. 35- Venerable Bede, c. Bingen, c. 1098- 100 CE 672-735 CE 1179 CE Donatus, mid 4th Alcuin, c. 735-804 Statius, 45-96 CE century CE CE

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Juvenal, late 1st- Boethius, c. 480- early 2nd centuries 524 CE CE Isidore of Seville, c. Lucan, 39-65 CE. 560-636 CE Augustine of Hippo, Dhuoda, c. 800- 354-430 CE 843 CE Persius, 34-62 CE

St. Ambrose, c. Rather of Verona, Horace, 65-27 BCE 340-397 CE c. 887-974

Cicero, 106-43 Hilduin, c. 775-840 BCE. CE

131

APPENDIX B IMPORTANT EVENTS IN THE OTTONIAN EMPIRE AND GANDERSHEIM ABBEY

Founding of Defeat of Magyars Gandersheim under Otto I Abbey Gandersheim Embassies from becomes a Abd ar-Rahman III principality under of Cordova Louis the Younger Death of Otto III Kingdom of Italy conquered by Otto I

Death of Henry I Fall of Ottonian Death of Otto II the Fowler Empire

Otto II's marriage to Birth of Hrotsvit Theophano

850 900 950 1000 1050 Rather of Verona comes to Ottonian court

Death of Henry II Death of Bruno I, Archbishop of Beginning of Cologne Ottonian Dynasty Death of Otto I the Great Fall of the Otto I receives Carolingian Empire papal privilege of protection from Death of Liudolf, Pope John XIII for Duke of Saxony Gandersheim Abbey

132

APPENDIX C LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS

Manuscript Dates 1. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Clm 14485: c. 980 CE

Formerly the Emmeram Munich mss. Contains Maria, Ascensio, Gongolfus, Pealius, Theophilus, Basilius, Dionysius, and Agnes; Gallicanus, Dulcitius, Calimachus, Abraham, Pafnutius, and Sapientia; Vision of St. John; Gesta Oddonis. Its origins are likely Gandersheim Abbey, and moved to St. Emmeram monastery where it remained until 1803. Conrad Celtes borrowed this manuscript from St. Emmeram for his writings on the canoness. 2. Cologne, Historisches, Archiv W 101: c. late 1300’s CE

Contains Gallicanus, Dulcitius, Calimachus and Abraham. Although a later manuscript, it does not derive from Clm 14485. It lacks any introductory matter, leading discoverer Goswin Frenken to believe that it was copied from any early prototype that Hrotsvit send to one of the scholars she was imploring to evaluate her work. It was discovered by Frenken in 1922 in Cologne. 3. Klagenfurt, Austria Studienbibliothek Ms 44: c. early 1400’s CE

Contains fragments of Maria and Sapientia. Discovered in 1925 by Hermann Menhardt. 4. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Clm 2552: c. early 1400’s CE

Contains Gallicanus and other texts. 5. Pommersfelden Castle, Library of Count Schoenborn Ms 2883: c. late 1400’s CE

Contains the Gesta Oddonis, dramas and poems. It was copied from No. 1, but not with the same order as the original. Two different scripts comprise this manuscript.

6. Gandersheim Abbey, Lost Manuscript 1531 CE

Contained Primordia; and the Vitae paparum SS Ana… et Innocentii. This manuscript, although now lost, was lent to Henirich Bodo for his history of Gandersheim and Klus. Bodo refers to the Hrotsvit manuscript, and attests to the canoness’ biographies of Gandersheim’s two patron saints. The borrowed manuscript was lost.

7. Hildesheim, Behrens Collection, Lost Manuscript: 1706 CE

Contained Primordia. Johann Georg Leuckfeld was the first to publish a complete Primordia. 8. Nordkirchen Castle, Library of Count Plettenberg, Lost Manuscript: 1725 CE

133

9. Coburg, Library of the former Ducal Castle, Lost Manuscript: 1841 CE

Contained Primordia. Hanover, former Royal Library )Bibl. Meibom No. 64), c. 16th cent. CE Lost Manuscript, Contained Primordia. Last seen in 1842.

134

APPENDIX D THE PLOTS OF TERENCE’S PLAYS

The Woman of Andros While Pamphilus, an Athenian youth, is involved in a love affair with Glycerium, his father Simo has arranged for Pamphilus to marry his neighbor’s daughter, Philumena. Although his neighbor, Chremes, calls off the engagement when he discovers Pamphilus’ affair, Simo continues to push ahead with the marriage in part to test his son’s loyalty and partly in hopes that Chremes will relent. Simo’s slave, Davus, tells Pamphilus that he thinks Simo is bluffing and that he should pretend to agree to his father’s plan. Pamphilus does so, but this subterfuge goes awry when Simo successfully convinces Chremes to reconsider the wedding plans. As Glycerium is giving birth to Pamphilus’ son, further insinuating Pamplilus’ unreliability, Simo and Chremes discover that Glycerium is actually Chremes’ own long-lost daughter. Once the fathers realize Glycerium’s true identity, all is forgiven and the wedding is back on but with Pamphilus and Glycerium.

The Self-Tormentor This play incorporates two sets of fathers and sons, each acting as foils for their counterparts. One father, Menedemus, laments that his harshness with Clinia, his son, regarding his love affair with the poor girl Antiphila that drove his son away. His neighbor, Chremes, believes himself to be a better father than Menedemus as he is more lenient with his own son. The inevitable plot twists arise when Clinia returns and it is discovered that Antiphila is actually Chremes long-lost daughter. Chremes’ son, Clitipho, on the other hand has been having a secret affair with Bacchis, a greedy and demanding courtesan, demonstrating that Chremes was no better a father than Menedemus. The resolutions come with Clinia’s marriage to Antiphila, and Clitipho’s agreement to forsake Bacchis and marry a suitable woman.

The Eunuch This story centers on the love affairs to two brothers, Phaedria and Chaerea. Phaedria is involved with Thais, a courtesan who seeks to buy a slave girl from Thraso, the soldier. The slave girl, Pamphila, was raised by Thais’ family and Thais believes her to be from an Athenian family. Thais hopes to find the family, thus providing protection for Pamphila as well as Thais, as the person who restored her to her family. While Thais is dealing with Thraso, Chaerea sees Pamphila and disguises himself as a Eunuch to gain entry to her. Thais discovers that Chaerea raped Pamphila, forcing her to change her plans. Pamphila’s Athenian heritage is revaled, and Chaerea marries her. Phaedria’s relationship with Thais continues, but in a strange twist, as Phaedria agrees to share Thais with Thraso.

The Mother-In-Law A young man, Pamphilus, angered by his prostitute girlfriend Bacchis, attacks another woman named Philumena. After he rapes her, Pamphilus steals a ring from her finger and then gives to Baccis. Later, Pamphilus agrees to an arranged marriage. His bride turns out to be Philumena, who has kept the attack on her secret for fear of disgrace. She cannot identify her attacker, so she does not recognize Pamphilus. Pamphilus is out of the city when Philumena discovers her pregnancy and tries to hide it from her new mother-in-law, Sostra. Pamphilus returns as the baby

135 is born and unaware that she was his victim, rejects Philumena. Philumena’s ring is discovered which proves to Pamphilus that the child is his. This revelation resolves the issues in the play, providing the Roman happily-ever-after ending.

Phormio This play focuses on two fathers (brothers) and their sons. While the brothers are away, their two sons become embroiled in secret relationships. Demipho’s son Antipho falls in love with an orphan girl. He pretends to be her next of kin in order to marry her, prompted by the parasite Phormio. Phaedria, Chremes’ son is enamored of a lute-player owned by a local pimp. When the brothers return, their sons amorous deeds come to light. Phormio steps in and offers to take Antipho away in exchange for payment. Demipho complies, and Phormio gives the money to Phaedria to purchase the slave girl. The brothers discover that Antipho’s bride is actually Chremes’ daughter through a bigamous marriage. Although Chremes tries to keep this secret from his legitimate wife, he is exposed. His wife accepts her husband’s misdeeds in the end, Antipho and his wife are recognized by their fathers, and Phaedria gets to keep his slave girl.

The Brothers Demea is a farmer with two sons, Aeschinus and Ctesipho. Demea gives Aeschinus to his brother, Micio, to raise in the city. Demea and Micio raise the two boys very differently, with Demea believing in a strict upbringing and Micio using a carefree cosmopolitan approach. Aeschinus is a wild young man who has impregnated a poor Athenian girl. He agrees to marry her, all the while helping his brother from the country in his own pursuits. Ctesipho is involved with a music girl, and Aeschinus tries to assist Ctesipho by abducting the music girl. The fathers find out about their sons’ affair when the mother of the impoverished Athenian girl hears of Aeschinus’ deeds and believes he is renouncing his decision to marry her daughter. In the end, not only does Aeschinus get to marry his Athenian girlfriend, his adopted father Micio marries his new mother-in-law. Demea, coming to believe that he has been too harsh in his parenting, allows Ctesipho to bring his music girl back with him to the far.

136

APPENDIX E HROTSVIT’S WRITINGS

Liber Primus Introduction Dedication Legends Maria: The story of the Virgin Mary from the Pseudo-Evangelium of Mattheus. Ascensio: The story of Christ’s ascension from a Greek source. Gongolf: The martyrdom of St. Gongolf from Passio Sancti Gongolfi Martiris from Prudentius’ Peristephanon. Pelagius: The martyrdom of St. Pelagius from an eye-witness account. Basilius: The Faustinian tale of Proterius selling his soul to the devil, but saved by intercession of Bishop Basilius from Ursus’ translation of the Greek vita. Theophilus: The Faustinian story of Theophilus’ deal with the devil and subsequent redemption with assistance from the Virgin Mary from Paulus Diaconus. Dionysius: The martyrdom of Dionysius, first bishop of Paris, from the Life of Saint Denis of France. St. Agnes: The martyrdom of St. Agnes from St. Ambrose’s Passion of St. Agnes. Liber Secundus Introduction Letter to Patrons Dramas Gallicanus: The martyrdom of Gallicanus from the martyrologies of the feast days of Saint John and Saint Paul. Dulcitius: The martyrdom of Agape, Chionia and Irene from the Acta Santorum. Calimachus: The resurrection and redemption of Calimachus from the Acts of the Apostles. Pafnutius: The redemption of the courtesan St. Thais from the Apophthegmara Patrum. Abraham: The redemption of the prostitute Mary from Vita Sanctae Marie. Sapientia: the martyrdom of the allegorical virgins Fides, Spes and Karitas from De Fide, Spe et Caritate. Poem on Saint John’s Apocalypse Liber Tertius Introduction Dedication Epics Gestis Oddonis Imperatoris: The deeds of Otto the Great in leonine hexameter. Primordia Coenobii Gandeshemensis: The history of Gandersheim Abbey in leonine hexameter.

137

APPENDIX F HROTSVIT’S LATIN PASSAGES FOR CHAPTER 4

FN 231 Constantius: Quam bene dicis mea Constantia. Consstantia: Si meum digneris captare consilium praemonstrabo qualiter utrumque evader possis damnum. Constantius: O utinam. Constantia: Simula prudenter peracta expedicione ipsius votis te satisfacturum esse. Et ut meum concordari credit belle suade quo suas interim filias Atticam ac Artemiam velut pro solidandi pignore amoris mecum mansum ire meosque primicerios Iohannem et Paulum secum faciat iter arreptum ire. Constantius: Et quid si victor revertetur mihi erit agendum? Constantia: Reor omnipatrem prius esse invocandum quo ab huiusmodi intentione Gallicani revocet animum. FN 232 Gallicanus: Undo patriam desero et exul pro Christo Alexandriam peto optans ibidem coronary martirio. FN 243 Abraham: Tempus ablato capitis velamine quis simaperire. O adoptive filia, o mea pars anime Maria agnoscisne me senem qui te paterno more nutrivi qui te celestas regis unigenito desponsavi? Mary: Ei mihi pater et magister meus Abraham est qui loquitur. FN 252 Ne id vereare quia multo aliud mihi versatur in mente, nam res familiares iuxta velle meum disposui meisque amasionibus publice abrenuntiavi. FN 254 Hadrian: Num prevalent hortamentum? Antiochus: Nimium, nam nostre coniuges fastidiendo nos contempnunt adeo ut dedignantur nobiscum comedere quanto minus dormire. FN 255 Sapientia: Placetne vobis of filie ut hunc stultum aritmetica fatigem disputatione? Fides: Placet mater nosque auditum prebemus libenter. FN 256 Hadrian: Fac Antioche ut gemelle pectoris particule abscidantur quo saltim rubore coerceatur. Fides: Inviolatum pectus vulnerasti sed me non lesisti. En pro fonte sanguinis unda prorumpit lactis. Hadrian: In craticulam substratis ignibus assanda onatur quo vi vaporis enecetur. Fides: Omne quod paras ad dolorem mihi vertitur in quietem unde commode pauso in craticula ceu in tranquilia navicula. FN 258 Constantia: Malim mori. Constantius: Prescivi. Constantia: Nec mirum quia tuo consensus tuo permissu servandam deo virginitatem devovi. Constantius: Memini.

138

Constantia: Nullis enim suppliciis umquam potero compelli quin inviolatum custodiam sacramentum propositi. FN 259 Constantia: Te veram et coeternam patris sapientiam per quam facta sunt omnia et cuius disposition consistent et moderantur universa suppliciter exoro ut Gallicanum qui tui in me amorem surripiendo conatur extinguere post te trahendo ab iniusta intentione revocare suique filias digneris tibi assignare sponsas et instilla cogitationibus earum tui amoris dulcedinem quatinus execrantes carnale constorium pervenire mereantur ad sacrarum societatem virginum. FN 260 Constantia: Advocentur Iohannes et Paulus. Iohannes: Presto sumus hera quid vocasti? Constantia: Ite citi ad Gallicanum et inherentes eius lateri suadete illi paulatim mysterium nostre fidei si forsan illum deus dignetur per vos lucrari. Paulus: Deus det prventum nos adhibemus frequentationes hortamentorum. FN 262 Diocletian: Quid sibi vult ista que vos agitat fatuitas? Agape: Quod signum fatuitatis nobis inesse deprehendis? Diocletian: Evidens magnumque. Agape: In quo? Diocletian: In hoc precipue quod relicta vetuste observantia religionis inutilem christiane novitatem sequimini supersticionis. Agape: Temere calumpniaris statum dei omnipotentis Periculum. Diocletian: Cuius? Agape: Tui reique publice quam gubernas. Diocletian: Ista insanity amoveatur. Chionia: Mea germane non insanity sed tui stulticiam iuste reprehendit. Diocletian: Ista inclementius bachatur unde nostris conspectibus aeque subtrahatur et tercia discutiatur. Hirena: Terciam rebellem tibique penitus probabis renitentem. Diocletian: Hirena cum sis minor aetate fito major dignitate. *** Hirena: Conquiniscant idolis qui velint incurrere iram celsitonantis, ego quidem caput regali unguento delibutum non dehonestabo pedibus simulachrorum submittendo. FN 263 Hirena: Ecce iste stultus mente alienates estimate se nostris uti amplexibus. Agape: Quid facit? Hirena: Nunc ollas molli fovet gremio, nunc sartagines et caccabos amplectitur mitia libans oscula. Chionia: Ridiculum. Hirena: Nam facies manus ad vestimenta adeo sordidata adeo coinquinata ut nigredo que inhesit similitudinem Aethiopis exprimat. Agape: Decet ut talis appareat corpora quails a diabolo possidetur in mente. Hirena: En parat egredi. Intendamus quid illo egrediente agant milites pro boribus expectantes? FN 264

139

Agape: Non tibi domine non tibi hec potential insolita ut ignis vim virtutis sue obliviscatur tibi obtemperando. Sed taedet nos morarum ideo rogamus solvi retinacula animarum quo extinctis corporibus tecum plaudant in aethere nostri spiritus. Soldiers: O novum, o stupendum miraculum. Ecce anime egresse sunt corpora et nulla laestionis repperiuntur vestigial sed nec capilli, nec vestimenta ab igne sunt ambusta quo minus corpora. FN 266 Drusiana: Discede discede leno nefande confundor enim duitius tecum verba miscere quem sentio plenum diabolica deceptione. Calimachus: Mea Drusiana, ne repellas te amantem quoque amore cordetenus inherentem sed impende amori vicem. Drusiana: Lenocinia tua parvi pendo tuique lasciviam fastitdio sed te ipsum penitus sperno. FN 268 Iohannes: Calilmache, surge in Chrsiti nomine et utcumque se res habeat confitere sed et quantislibet obnoxious sis vitiis proferas ne nos vel in modico lateat veritas. *** Iohannes: Drusiana resuscitet te dominus Iesus Christus. FN 269 Drusiana: Divina substantia que vere et singulariter es sine material forma que hominem ad tui imaginem plasmasti et plasmato spiraculum vite inspirasti iube material corpus Fortunati reducto calore in viventem animam iterum reformari quo trina nostril resuscitacio tibi in laudem vertatur trinitas veneranda. FN 273 Mary: Si ulla promerendae spes veniae inesset stadium poenitendi minime deesset. FN 275 Paphnutius: Estne hic aliud penicius in quo possimus colloqui secretius? Thaïs: Est etenim aliud (tam) occultum tam secretum ut eius penetral mulli preter nisi deo sit cognitum. Paphnutius: Cui deo? Thaïs: Vero. Paphnutius: Credis illum aliquid scire? Thaïs: Non nescio illum nihil latere. Paphnutius: Utrumne reris illum facta pravorum meglegere an sui aequitatem servare? Thaïs: Estimo ipsius aequitatis lance singulorum merita pensari et unicuique prout gessit sive supplicium sive premium servari. *** Thaïs: Et quis post hec locus pestifere delectation in meo corde potest relinqui ubi solum intestine meroris amaritudo consciique reatus nova dominator formido? Paphnutius: Hoc opto quo resectis vitiorum spinis emergere posit vinum conpunctionis. Thaïs: O si crederes, O si sperares me sordidulam milies millenis sordium oblitam offuscationibus ullatenus posse expiari seu ullo conpunctionis modo veniam promereri. FN 277 Thaïs: Non recuso non nego me sordidam non iniuria fedo sordidoque habitatum ire in tugurio sed hoc dolet vehementius quod nullus est relictus locus in quo apte et caste possim tremende nomen maiestatis invocare. Paphnutius: Et unde tibi tanta fiducia ut pollutes labiis praesumas proferre nomen inpollute divintatis?

140

Thaïs: Et a quo veniam sperare suiusve salvari possum miseratione si ipsum prohibeor invocare cui soli deliqui et cui uni devotion orationem debet offerri? Paphnutius: Debes plane orare non verbis sed lacrimis non sonoritate tinnule vocis sed conpuncti rugitu cordis. Thaïs: Et si vetar drum verbis orare quomodo possum veniam sperare? Paphnutius: tanto celeries mereberis quanto perfectius humiliaberis. Dic tantum ‘Qui me plasmasti miserere mei’. FN 278 Thaïs: Quod iubet tua paternitas non recusat subitum ire me vilitas… FN 280 Thaïs: Numerositatem meorum scelerum intra conscientiam quasi in fasciculum college et pertractando mente simper inspexi quo sicut naribus numquam molestia foetoris ita formido gehenne non abesset visibus cordis. FN 281 Thaïs: Noli pater venerande, noli sordidulam his inmundiciis abstrahere, sed sine in loco meis meritis condigno mansum ire. FN 282 Thaïs: Unde laudet illum celi concentus omnisque terre surculus necnon universe animalis species atque confuse aquarum gurgites quia non solum peccantes patitur sed etiam penitentibus premia gratis largitur. FN 283 Sapientia: Hoc indesinenter exoro hoc effagito ut perseveretis in fide quam inter ipsa crepupndia vestries sensibus non desistebam instillasse. Karitas: Quod sugentes ubera in cunabulis didicimus nullatenus oblivisci quibimus. Sapientia: Ad noc vos materno lacte affluenter alui ad hoc delicate nutrivi ut vos celesti non terreno sponso traderem quo vestry causa cocrus aeterni regis dici meruissem. Fides: Prop ipsius amore sponsi promte sumus mori. Sapienita: Delector ex vestra racione magis quam nectaree dulcedinis gustamine. Spes: Premitte nos ante tribunal iudicis et experieris quantum eius amore nobis attulit termeritatis. Sapientia: Hoc exopto ut vestra virginitate coroner ut vestro martirio glorificer. FN 286 Sapientia: O Caritas suboles inclita spes uteri mei unica… *** Sapientia: Flosculos uteri meti tibi terra servandos committo. FN 287 Sapientia: Adonay Emmanuel quem retro tempora divinitas edidit omniparentis et in tempore virginitas genuit matris qui ex duabus naturis unus Christus mirifice consistis nec diversitate naturarum unitatem persone dividens nec unitate persone diversitatem naturarum confundes tibi iubilet iocunda serenitas angelorum dulcisque armonia syderum te quoque collaudet totius scibilis rei scientia onmeque quod ex elementorum formatur material quia to qui solus cum patre et spiritu sancto es forma sine material ex patris voluntate et spiritus sancti cooperation non respuisti fiery homo passibilis humanitate salva divinitatis inpassibilitate et ut nullus in te credentium periret sed omnis fidelis aeternaliter vivert mortem nostrum non dedignatus es gustare tuaque resurrecttione consumere. Te etiam perfectum deum hominemque verum recolo promisisse omnibus qui pro tui nominis veneration vel terrene usum possessionis relinquerent vel

141 carnalium affectum propinquorum postponerent centene vicissitudinem mercedis recompensari et eterne bravium vite debere donari. Huius spe animate promissi feci quod iussisti sponte omittens suboles quas peperi. Unde tu pie promissa solver ne moreris sed fac me quantocius absolutam corporeis vinculis ex reception filiarum letificari quas pro te mactandas obtulisse non distuli quo te illus agnum virginibus sequentibus et novum canticum modulantibus ego oicunder audiendo illarumque letificer Gloria et quanvis non possim canticum virginitatis dicere te tamen cum illis merear aeternaliter laudare qui non ipse qui pater sed idem es quod pater cum quo et spiritu sancto unus dominus universitatis unusque rex summe et medie atque ime rationis regnas et dominaris per interminabilia immortalis evi saecula. FN 288 Fides: O stultum imperatoris preceptum omni contempt dignum. Hadrian: Quid murmuras subsannando? Quen irrides fronte rugosa? Fides: Tui stullticiam irrideo tui insipientiam subsanno. Hadrian: Mei? Fides: Tui. Antiochus: Imperatoris? Fides: Ipsius. Antiochus: O nefas. Fides: Quid enim stultius quid insipientius videri potest quam quod hortatur nos contempt creatore universitatis venerationem inferre metallic? FN 289 Hadrian: Depone callum pectoris et conquinisce turificando magne Diane et ego te proprie prolis vice excolo atque extollo omni dilectione. Spes: Paternitatem tuam repudio tua benefitia minime desidero quapropter vacua spe deciperis si me tibi cedere reris. Hadrian: Loquere parcius ne irascar. Spes: Irascere nec solicitor. Antiochus: Miror auguste quod ab hac vili puellula tam diu calumniari pateris ego quidem disrumpor pre furore quia illam audio tam temere in te latrare. FN 290 Caritas: Ego quidem et sorores meae eisdem parentibus genitae eisdem sacramentis imbutae sumus una eademque fidei Constantia roborate quapropter scito nostrum velle nostrum sentire nostrum sapere unum idemque esse nec me in ullo umquam illis dissidere. Hadrian: O iniuria quod a tantilla etiam contempnor homullula. Caritas: Licet tenella sim aetate tamen gnara sum te argumentose confundere. FN 291 Fides: O materr veneranda dic vale ultimum tue filie liba osculum tue primogenite nec afficiare ullo merore cordis quia tendo ad bravium aeternitatis. *** Spes: O Caritas dilecta, o soror unica ne formides tyranny minas ne trepides ad poenas nitere constant fide imitari sorores ad celli palatium precedents. *** Spes: Euge mater illustris gaude nec tangaris de mei passion materni affectus dolore sed prefer spem merori cum me videas pro Christo mori. *** Caritas: Inprime mihi mater osculum et commenda iturum Christo spiritum.

142

REFERENCES

Barsby John, trans. The Eunuch of Terence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Barsby John, trans. The Self-Tormentor of Terence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Barsby John, trans. The Woman of Andros of Terence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Berschin, Walter, ed., Hrotsvit: Opera Omnia. Munich/Leipzig: Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, 2001.

Black, Jonathan. “The Use of Liturgical Texts in Hrotsvit’s Works.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 165-182. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Brown, Peter, trans. Terence; The Comedies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Brown, Phyllis R. “Hrotsvit’s Sapientia as A Foreign Woman.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Contexts, Identities, Affinities and Performances, edited by Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin, and Katharina Wilson, 160-176. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2004.

Bynum, Carolie Walker. “Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Individual?” In Jesus as Mother; Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages, 82-109. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

Cadden, Joan. “Hrotsvit Von Gandersheim and the Political Uses of Astrology.” In Medieval Constructions in Gender and Identity, edited by Teodolinda Barolini, 11-28. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2005.

Carlson, Marla. “Impassive Bodies: Hrotsvit Stages Martyrdom.” Theatre Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec. 1998), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068590.

Case, Sue-Ellen. “Re-Viewing Hrotsvit.” Theatre Journal, Vol. 35, No. 4 (1983), http://www.jstor/org/stable/3207334.

Cole, Douglas. “Hrotsvitha’s Most “Comic” Play: “Dulcitius”. Studies in Philology, Vol 57, No. 4 (1960), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4173324.

Coulter, Cornelia C. “The “Terentian” Comedies of a Tenth-Century Nun”, The Classical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 7 (1929), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3289343.

Dods, Marcus, trans. Saint Augustine’s On Marriage and Concupiscense. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.v.html.

143

Dronke, Peter. Women Writers of the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Death and Life in the Tenth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1967.

Evitt, Regula Meyer. “Incest Disguised: Ottonian Influence at Gandersheim and Hrotsvit’s Abraham.” Comparative Drama, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Fall 2007), http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23238659.

Fanthan, Elaine. “Sex, Status, and Survival in Hellenistic Athens: A Study of Women of New Comedy.” Phoenix, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring 1975), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1087583.

Ferrante, Joan M., trans. “The French Courtly Poet: Marie de France.” Medieval Women Writers, edited by Katharina M. Wilson. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1984.

Gilmartin, Kristine. “The Thraso-Gnatho Subplot in Terence’s Eunuchus.” The Classical World, Vol. 69, No. 4 (1975/76), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4348420.

Gold, Barbara K. “Hrotswitha Writes Herself: Clamor Validus Gandeshemensis.” In Sex and Gender in Medieval and Renaissance Texts, edited by Barbara K. Gold, Paul Allen Miller and Charles Platter, 41-70. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Haight, Anne Lyon, Hroswitha of Gandersheim; Her Life, Times, and Works, and A Comprehensive Bibliography. New York: The Hroswitha Club, 1965.

Hall, Robert Charles, trans. St John Chrysostom; Spiritual Gems from the Books of Psalms. Boston: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2004.

Hughes, Eril. “Augustian Elements in Hrotsvit’s Plays”. In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 63-70. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Hulme, Wm. H. “Hrotswitha and Terence.” Modern Language Notes, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1903), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2918126.

Kline, Daniel T. “Kids Say the Darndest Things: Irascible Children in Hrotsvit’s Sapientia.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Contexts, Identities, Affinities and Performances, edited by Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin, and Katharina Wilson, 77-95. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2004.

Konstan, David. “Love in Terence’s Eunuch: The Origins of Erotic Subjectivity.” The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 107, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), http://www.jstor.org/stable/294693.

144

Levine, Robert. “Prudentius’ Romanus: The Rhetorician as Hero, Martyr, Satirist, and Saint,” Rhetorica, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1991), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20135280.

Lowe, J.C.B. “The Eunuchus: Terence and Menander.” The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 33, No., 2 (1983), http://www.jstor.org/stable/638786.

Marchand, James. “The Frankish Mother: Dhuoda.” Medieval Women Writers, edited by Katharina M.Wilson, 4. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1984.

Newland, Carole E. “Hroswitha’s Debt to Terence.” Transactions of the American Philological Association Vol. 116 (1986), http://www.jstor.org/stable/283926.

Newell, John. “Education And Classical Culture In the Tenth Century: Age of Iron Or Revival of Learning?” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 127-142. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Newman, Florence. “Violence and Virginity in Hrotsvit’s Dramas.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Contexts, Identities, Affinities and Performances, edited by Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin, and Katharina Wilson, 59-76. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2004.

Oden, Amy, “Hrotsvit of Gandersheim, Dulcitius.” In In Her Words: Women’s Writings in the History of Christian Thought, 99-106. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.

O’Sullivan, Sinéad. Early Medieval Glosses on Prudentius’ Psychomachia: The Weitz Tradition. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004.

Petroff, Elizabeth Alvilda, “Eloquence and Heroic Virginity in Hrotsvit’s Verse Legends.” In Body and Soul: Essays on Medieval Women and Mysticism, 83-96. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Philippides, Katerina. “Terence’s “Eunuchus”: Elements of the Marriage Ritual in the Rape Scene.” Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 48, Fasc. 3 (1995), http://www.jstor.org/stable/4432502.

Rand, Edward Kennard. “Early Medieval Commentaries on Terence.” Classical Philology, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1909), http://www.jstor.org/stable/262366.

Rand, Edward Kennard. “The Art of Terence’s Eunuchus.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 63 (1932), http://www.jstor.org/stable/283206.

Roberts, Arthur J. “Did Hrostvit Imitate Terence?” Modern Language Notes, Vol. 16, No. 8 (1901), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2917196.

145

Scheck, Helene. “Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: Claiming Her Voice.” In Reform and Resistance; Formations of Female Subjectivity in Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Culture, 121-141. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.

Scheck, Helene. “Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: Recasting Female Subjectivities.” In Reform and Resistance; Formations of Female Subjectivity in Early Medieval Ecclesiastical Culture, 143-165. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008.

St Gregory the Pope. Moralia XXVI. Lectionary Central, http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book26.html.

Sticca, Sandro. “The Hagiographical and Monastic Context of Hrotswitha’s Plays.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 1-34. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Sticca, Sandro, “Sacred Drama and Comic Realism in the Plays of Hrotswitha of Gandersheim,” Acta VI; The Early Middle Ages (1982): 117-43.

Stottlemyer, Ronald. “The Construction of the Desiring Subject in Hrotsvit’s Pelagius and Agnes.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Contexts, Identities, Affinities and Performances, edited by Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin, and Katharina Wilson, 96-124. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2004.

Talbot, Robert. “Hrotsvit’s Dramas: Is There a Roman in These Texts?” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Contexts, Identities, Affinities and Performances, edited by Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin, and Katharina Wilson, 147-159. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2004.

Tarr, Judith. “Terentian Elements in Hrotsvit”. In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 55-62. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Thompson, Charlotte. “Paphnutius And The Cultural Vision.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 113-125. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Wailes, Stephen L. “Beyond Virginity: Flesh and Spirit in the Plays of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim.” Speculum Vol. 76, No. 1 (2001): 1-27.

Walker Bynum, Caroline. Fragmentation and Redemption; Essays on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion. New York: Zone Books, 1992.

Ward, John O. “Quintilian and the Rhetorical Revolution of the Middle Ages.” Rhetorica, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20135460.

146

Wemple, Suzanne Fonay. “Monastic Life of Women From the Merovingians to the Ottonians.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Rara Avis in Saxonia?, edited by Katharina M. Wilson, 35- 54. Ann Arbor: Marc Publishing Co, 1987.

Wiethaus, Ulrike. “Body and Empire in the Works of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 34, No. 1 (Winter 2004), http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/journals/journal of medieval and early modern studies/v034/34.1wiethaus.html.

Wiethaus, Ulrike. “Pulchrum Signum? Sexuality and the Politics of Religion in the Works of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim Composed between 963 and 973.” In Hrotsvit of Gandersheim; Contexts, Identities, Affinities and Performances, edited by Phyllis R. Brown, Linda A. McMillin, and Katharina Wilson, 125-143. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2004.

Witt, Elizabeth Ann. “Canonizing the Canoness: Anthologizing Hrotsvit.” College Literature, Vol. 28, No. 2 (2001), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25112584.

Wilson, Katharina. “Antonomasia as a Means of Character: Definition in the Works of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim.” Rhetorica Vol 2, No. 1 (1984), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20135014.

Wilson, Katharina, trans. The Plays of Hrotsvit of Gandersheim. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1989.

Wilson, Katharina, Hrotsvit of Gandersheim: A Florilegium of her Works. Rochester: D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 1998.

Zeydel, Edwin H. “ Ego Clamor Validus”. Modern Language Notes, Vol. 61, No. 4 (1946), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2909599.

Zeydel, Edwin H. “On the Two Minor Poems in the Hrotsvitha Codex.” Modern Language Notes, Vol. 60, No. 6 (1945), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2911377.

Zeydel, Edwin H. “The Authenticity of Hrotsvitha’s Works.” Modern Language Notes, Vol. 61, No. 1 (1946), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2910258.

147

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Tara A. Bonds received two Bachelors of Arts from University of South Florida in history and Classics in 2002. She earned her Master of Arts in Classics and her Museum Studies certification from Florida State University in 2005. She began her doctoral studies in 2006 in the field of Interdisplinary Humanities at Florida State University, focusing on Roman and early medieval culture. She participated in the archaeological excavation of Tektas Burnu in the summer of 2000, furthering her understanding and appreciation of Classical societies. Dr. Bonds has taught at Florida State Universtiy as a graduate student and was appointed as the Humanities Program Core Course Coordinator in 2010-2011. She also taught Humanities courses at Tallahassee Community College in 2011.

148