.

c) Miracles:

That our author did not belong to the small number of “liberal” theologians, represented by the Northumbrian Alcuin and by Bishop Agobard of Lyons, a Spaniard, to a lesser degree by Altfrid of Münster in Westfalia, becomes evident when we study his position in regard to miracles. He knew that Christians of his time could not live without miracles, such as were experienced all around them, or were found in every biography of Saints, Martyrs, Missionaries and other prominent confessors of the faith. To fight against this veritable craze, of which an endless number of examples could be given, would have been hopeless, even dangerous, and would have shaken the unstable faith of the people to its weak foundation. Besides, there were few willing or able to oppose this craze, because almost every one was infected by the same malady. Indeed, nobody doubted the possibility, and even reality, of all kinds of miracles. Even those few who hesitated somewhat in accepting all. miracle stories did this only because “signa plerumque diabolico instinctu fiunt.”

We refer to the introductory remarks to this paper, where we named as one of the almost unsolvable problems of the Carolingian epoch the fact that so many otherwise intelligent and sincere men of highest position in Church and State and literature were hopelessly enmeshed in this epidemic. Any particles of alleged bodies or clothes of so-called Saints, even splinters of wood in any way connected with them, performed monstrous miracles, especially during the frequent so-called “translations,” that is, the transfer of relics from one place to another, usually to a monastery or church. As an example may be cited the “ tabernacle” or rather tent which Christ's disciple, St. Peter, proposed to erect on the Mount of Transfiguration for his master. This “skēnē” (as called in the Greek original of Matth. 17, 4) was exhibited and its authenticity not doubted; even Hraban, the “praeceptor Germaniae," believed in this “skēnē”, and was, in spite of his learning, very anxious to secure certain relics for his own cloister, Fulda. Karl the Great and Alcuin opposed this whole cult of relics, particularly the “ translations ”; but the latter became only too frequent during the reign of the pious Louis, that is, at the time of the Heliand.

Living in this atmosphere of miracles, and filled with it himself, our author found in his sources the following words of Christ:

John 4, 48 " Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe."

Matthew 12, 39 “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.”—as a rebuke to certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees saying to Jesus: “Master, we would see a sign from thee."

What could he do with such sayings in the face of the miraclemad people and a miracle-creating clergy? Certainly, he could not risk inserting them.

But, on the other hand, when he came to the story of the dream koy which Pilate’s consort was frightened, a dream reported only by St. Matthew (chapter 27) and discharged in one verse, he was only too glad to be able to tell such a miracle. How much he delighted in this story and how sure he was of pleasing his readers by it, is apparent from the fact that he composed 37 verses on this topic, going far beyond the biblical report, as seen in the following passage:

. . Satanas giuuêt im thuo, thar thes heritogen

hiuuiski uuas
an thero burg innan. Hie thero is brûdi bigann,
thera idis opanlico unhiuri fiond
uuunder tôgian, that sia an uuordhelpon
Criste uuâri, that hie muosti quicc libbian,
drohtin manno- hie uuas iu than te dode giscerid-
uuissa that te uuaron, that hie im scoldi thia giuuald biniman,
that hie sia obar thesan middilgard sô mikila ni habdi,
obar uuida uuerold. That uuif uuarð thuo an forahton,
suido an sorogon,

thuo iru thiu gisiuni quâmun
thuru thes dernien dad an dages liohte,
an heliðhelme bihelid.

H 5440 5452 a.

All this removing of dangerous passages as well as this inserting of pastoral additions of his own was done with an astonishing liberty towards his biblical source, with an audacity unthinkable for a layman of that time, who felt himself too inferior to replace the sacred passages of the inspired Scriptures with his own words and to whom the changing of utterances of Christ or his disciples would have seemed sacrilege. A Catholic priest, however, feels at liberty even today to place tradition and Church doctrine above the Bible whenever he deems it necessary for the winning of unbelievers, the protection of weak brethren, in short, for the salvation of souls. This same soul-saving spirit permeates the whole Heliand. Its purpose is not, as is that of an epic, to entertain, or even to tell a story with a moral, but to win souls for Christ,

just as was that, a short time later, of Otfrid's Krist. Both remove, inspired by the same pastoral anxiety and missionary zeal, all real or imaginary obstacles which could arise out of mistaken passages of the Gospels. The two are not antipodes, not different as Protestant and Catholic, but like brother and sister,—the Heliand more manly, vigorous, objective, joyful, optimistic, a lover of the beautiful on earth, appreciating "uuerold endi uuunnia," (cf. H 3265, 4287, 2356; also 2358-9 that berhte lioht sinscôni, 3125 berhte sunne, 3134, 3575-8 etc.) the Krist more womanly, sentimental, subjective, pessimistic, ascetic; the Heliand representing the bright side of earthly life, Krist the gloomy aspect; the Heliand full of light, the Krist full of shade. An excellent example of the characteristic style and spirit of the two poets is furnished for us in the way they interpreted the Lord's Prayer. This prayer, the embodiment of all that is holy and venerable for Christians of all times, offered, so to speak, a challenge to the two poets to show their mastership, or at least to do their very best in delivering to the Saxons or Franconians this priceless jewel in an adequate form. Our comparison of the two renditions will become even more interesting and instructive if we assume that Otfrid knew the Heliand and its setting of the Lord's Prayer, and that he placed his own conception deliberately besides the latter.

In order to enable the reader to compare word by word the rendition in the two poems, one from Northeastern Germany in about 830 A. D., the other from Southwestern Germany in about 860 A. D., we give in parallel columns the two versions Heliand and Krist, the latter quoted from Piper's edition, I 240), each part being preceded by the official Latin form found in the "Vulgata" and its contemporary translation into East Franconian, accomplished about 830 A. D. in the same monastery at Fulda where the author of Krist lived and studied, and with which the author of the Heliand might have had closer relations than we know of.

VULGATA (Matthew 6, 9-13) and
HELIAND (V. 1600-1612)

V. Pater noster qui es in caelis

H. Fadar ûsa, firiho barno,

thu bist an them hohon himila
rîkea,

TATIAN (chapter 34) and KRIST (book II, 21)

T. Fater unser thu thar bist in himile

K. Fater unser guato, bist druhtin thu ginuato

in himilon io hoher

H. Uuerda thin uuilleo obar thesa
uuerold alla,

So sama an erðo, so thar
uppa ist

an them hôhon himilo rîkea.

V. Panem nostrum supersubstan

tialem da nobis hodie

thaz hoha himilrichi

thara wir zua io gingen,

ioh emmizigen thingen

T. Si thin uuillo, so her in himilo ist, so si her in erdu

T. Unsar brot tagalihhaz gib uns hiutu

H. Gef ûs dago gehuuilikes råd, K. Thia dagalichun zuhti

V. Sed libera nos a malo
H. Ac help ûs uuidar allun ubi-
lon dadiun.

bread ” has been slightly but meaningly changed in a very fine manner to “Give us on every day advice” (or “gain ”), and

) enlarged by the addition, “thy holy help,” which reveals the same tendency of practical popularization which we have noticed so often before, and, at the same time, a fine spirit of sincere religion, depending confidently on God's advice and help. 3. Altogether different is the last addition “ bad demons” to the words, “let not mislead us." Here we have a new and striking instance of our author's sharing of the superstitious fear of demons which, as we saw before, was so common among the clergy and laity of his time and which formed one of the foundations for the miracle craze. At the same time, it furnishes again an example of the liberty with which the poet treated the sacred texts, not even sparing the most solemn words of Christ, as represented by the Lord's Prayer.

B. Political Reasons. In the same manner in which the “ deviations ” under the head “Ecclesiastical Reasons” could be, and were, used in this paper to furnish the key to the personality of the author, that is to say, to give an answer to the question, “ Was the author of the Heliand a layman or a cleric?”,—in the same manner the deviations which I have collected under the head, “ Political Reasons,” can furnish the key to the solution of another problem which is, or should be, of interest and importance to Heliand scholars, namely, the question, "Did there exist any connection, and which, between the author and the imperial court, especially the emperor himself ?”

But to go into the same detail of explanation and illustration here would transgress by far the limits set to this paper, particularly because there would be necessary an elaborate description of the whole reign of Louis the Pious, of his family life and strife with its plots and counterplots, of the different parties which fought one the other with all kinds of weapons, militaristic and diplomatic, honest and dishonest, through decades, with everchanging fortune. Again we must say: in such an atmosphere was our Heliand composed; and again we must declare, that a more interesting, even fascinating, topic can hardly be found than this study of the “ Zeitgeist ” and “Umwelt” of the Heliand. Very reluctantly, therefore, we restrict ourselves to the following short