California State University, Northridge the Middle

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PEARL: A TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English by Anne Elaine Kellenberger August, 1982 The Thesis of Anne Elaine Kellenberger is approved: David M. Andersen III, Chairman California State University, Northridge .ii FOR THE DANDIEST OF ALL iii CONTENTS Dedication . iii Abstract . v Historical and Critical Background 1 A Note on Pearl's Form .. 10 A Personal Interpretation: Kynde in Pearl 16 A Note on the Translation. 24 Text of Pearl. 29 Commentary 80 Notes . 113 Bibliography • 118 iv ABSTRACT THE MIDDLE ENGLISH PEARL: A TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY by Anne Elaine Kellenberger Master of Arts in English Pearl, a twelve hundred line poem, is recognized as one of the most important products of the Alliterative Revival which took place in England during the fourteenth century. Yet, its obscure dialect and the changes that have occurred in the English language over the intervening six hundred years make the poem unavailable to an un trained modern reader. This paper is a translation into Modern English of the Middle English Pearl, with a critical introduction and commentary. The opening essay and the commentary serve as an introduction to the critical and linguistic issues that make up the large body of scholarship on the poem. Questions concerning the nature of Pearl, the significance of its imagery, its relationship to other poems, and the identity and orthodoxy of its author have been raised and debated since Pearl was first published in 1864. The commentary in particular addresses textual matters such as v the derivation of a debatable word or the effect a particu lar passage has on the interpretation of the poem as a whole. The guiding principle in making the translation it self was that it should be as true to the original as possible, both in meaning and structure, while eliminating archaic diction and syntax which might hamper a modern reader's enjoyment or understanding of the poem. The twelve-line stanza, four-beat rhythm, and some of the alliteration have been preserved, but much of the beauty of the language has been lost. Still, the poem's radiance and strength shine through and identify Pearl, in any translation, as the masterpiece it is. Vl HISTORICAL AND CRITICAL BACKGROUND Pearl is one of four Middle English alliterative poems bound in a unique manuscript housed in the British Museum. The quarto volume is small (about five by seven inches) but thick, for Pearl, Cleanness, Patience, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are bound together with other, unrelated works. All four poems are illustrated in red, blue, green, and yellow, and some of the long spiky capital letters are drawn in red and blue ink. The Gothic script suggests the manuscript was copied in the late fourteenth century. The first record of its existence, however, is in the catalogue of Henry Savile, a Yorkshire book collector who lived during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The manuscript was later acquired by Sir Robert Cotton who included it in his library. Cotton's method of cataloguing was to store his collection in cases, filing the cases under the busts of twelve Roman Emperors (plus Cleopatra and Faustina), whence the name the manuscript still bears, Cotton Nero A.x. In 1700, Cotton's collection was given to Great Britain and in 1753 moved to the British Museum. In 1864, Richard Morris became Pearl's first publisher: Patience, Purity (or Cleanness) and Pearl appeared as the first of the Early English Text Society's publications under the 1 2 title Early English Alliterative Poems. Morris, in his introduction, gave the poem its first modern elegiac interpretation: "In the first poem, entitled by me 'The Pearl,' the author evidently gives expression to his own sorrow for the loss of his infant 1 child." The idea of the poet-father persisted into the early twentieth century; Sir Israel Gollancz adopted this idea in constructing a hypothetical life of the poet: an unhappy marriage, the death of his infant daughter, a turning away from life to the strict religiosity of 2 Patience and Cleanness. The probl~m with such specula- tions, as W. A. Davenport notes, is that it "is a game anyone can play." He playfully suggested the poet was a serious young cleric (Cleanness) , who abandoned his calling for marriage, lost his child (Pearl), was deserted by his wife (Patience), but finally found happiness in wine, 3 sport, and merriment (Gawain) . Others have tried to un- cover the poet's identity by connecting Pearl with works which have similarities in content or possible sources and 4 whose authors are known. Oscar Cargill and Margaret Schlauch went about solving the problem by identifying the 5 girl instead. None of these attempts has proved satis- factory. In 1904, Carleton F. Brown's article "The Author of the Pearl in the Light of his Theological Opinions" raised 6 the question of the poem's orthodoxy. Briefly, Brown hoped 3 to demonstrate that the poet was a cleric, and was guilty of the heresy of Jovinian, a fourth century heretic who asserted the exact equality of heavenly rewards, basing his arguments on a literal reading of the Parable of the 7 Vineyard. Jefferson B. Fletcher denied this accusation 8 in 1921 and was echoed in 1933 by Rene Wellek9 and in 10 1950 by D. W. Robertson. Fletcher saw that the poet did indeed recognize rank in heaven, pointing to the reference in line 888 to "alderman" and noting, as did Wellek and Robertson, that the Parable had been reconciled to Christian doctrine long ago. Robertson cited part of St. Augustine's Sermo LXXXVII on the Vineyard Parable as an analogue to the maiden's "each man is paid alike I whether 11 little or great be his reward." Augustine wrote: "For that penny is eternal life, and all will be equal in eternal life. Although they will be radiant with a diver- sity of merits, one more one less . eternal life will 12 be equal to all." The abundance of counter-evidence quieted the heresy controversy. Another, more persistent, controversy began in that same year, 1904, when W. H. Schofield published "The 13 Nature and Fabric of the Pearl." Schofield noted that nothing within the text of the poem directly states the pearl-maiden is the poet's daughter nor is her treatment of the dreamer as tender as one might expect from a daughter. Pearl is not, Schofield asserts, an "ineffective" 4 elegy, but an allegory, and the maiden an imaginary allegorical device representing "clean maidenhood." Schofield's thesis generated some opposition from those who thought the 14 poem c 1 ear 1 y e 1 eg1ac,. b ut muc h o f t h e react1on. to this seminal article came from critics defending the allegorical perspective while criticizing Schofield's interpretation of it. R. M. Garrett suggested the pearl stood not for virginity, but for the Eucharist, the "Elevated Host 15 in the hands of the Priest." Sister Mary Madeleva saw the pearl as a representation of the "poet's own soul" 16 and its loss as a "case of the spiritual 'blues'." Sister Mary Vincent Hillman believed the pearl symbolizes earthly treasure but the maiden represents the poet's 17 sou1. Osgood replied briefly to Schofield's article in the introduction to his 1906 edition of Pearl, reasserting the poem was primarily an elegy and noting that the pearl 18 symbol had more than one meaning. Fletcher, while sug- gesting another allegorical interpretation ("lost innocence"), made a point later followed up in detail by Wellek--the elegiac and allegorical interpretations need 19 not conflict. Wellek dealt with both Osgood's and Fletcher's points. After identifying and dismissing inferences about the child not supported in the text (i.e., that her name was Margery or that she was illegiti- mate), he pointed to passages supporting the elegy theory, 5 noting the "essential truth of the personal interpretation." Yet this is only the ''starting point" of the poem whose real purpose is "contained in the lesson which the 20 beatified child is giving to the poet." The pearl symbol has no simple key such as purity of the poet's soul, but instead shifts as the poem progresses, a process Wellek found "simple and completely in agreement with 21 traditional symbolism." Such multi-level approaches to the poem soon flourished. D. W. Robertson based his reading on St. Thomas Aquinas' four levels of patristic exegesis: the literal, allegorical (allegory proper), tropological (moral), and anagogical (final, i.e., the meaning which is related to the life hereafter). Thus "pearl" is a "gem," the "perfectly innocent," the "soul that attains innocence through penance," and "the life of innocence in 22 the Celestial City." A. C. Spearing disagreed: the poet did not leave it to the reader to interpret the symbolism, but made "the pearl-Maiden herself provide exegesis wherever exegesis is necessary," as in a medieval 23 sermon. He traced the "dynamic" pearl symbol through its occurrences in the poem, arguing it was a single but multi-layered and constantly evolving symbol. Part of such studies was research into the meaning the pearl symbol would have had for the author. Pearl was not only thought of as the "pearl of great price" mentioned 6 by the maiden, but was associated with all saints, the kingdom of God, Christ, grace, wisdom, holy church, or 24 the virgin. These findings led to further investigation into Pearl's precious gem imagery through the medieval lapidaries which link gemstones to virtues: jasper is faith, sapphire is hope, chalcedony is good works, etc.

Load more