Saturday, March 16, 2024

St. Maximus of Turin: On the Forty-Day Fast I (Homily 37)

 Introduction

Little is known of St. Maximus, besides his writings and the fact that he was Bishop of Turin. It is thought he was a native of Rhaetia, in modern northern Italy, possibly born in the town of Vercelli. Some think he is the same Maximus who attended a few local synods and councils—the Synod of Milan in 451 and the Council of Rome in 465 (thus giving him a much longer life), but there is no certainty. What has truly cemented his legacy is a large collection of homilies and sermons, along with a few treatises.

This homily is the first in a series of 8 on "the Forty-Day Fast" (De jejunio Quadragesimæ), that is, Lent.  I have previously translated his Sermon on the Nativity II (Sermon 4), and his Sermon on Epiphany (Sermon 7).  It should be noted that Maximus' "sermons" and "homilies" are two complete separate sets of writings, with separate numberings.  Paragraph divisions below are my own; the Latin text I used prints the whole homily in one block.


Homily XXXVII

On the Forty-Day Fast I

You have heard, beloved, as the evangelical trumpet sounds it, that our Lord and Redeemer, against the temptations of the devil, indeed fought with words, but strove with the spirit; for He waged the struggle in speech, but He executed victory in majesty. Nor should we deem the conflict to be without a great mystery in this way, the conflict in which either the approaching devil overcomes in words, or the Lord of things, nevertheless, deigns to respond to His tempter with words. But in all this things, our salvation is the reason. For us the Savior went hungry; for us He spoke; we conquered in Him, since we were the cause of His fighting. For who would doubt that the Only-Begotten of the Father, Whom no creature could oppose, took up the struggle on behalf of those in whose flesh He dressed Himself? Therefore, the form of the human body persuaded the shrewdest enemy to approach, whom the true Son of God confused through a true man’s response. Because of which, wandering and uncertain, the tempter seeks out tender and terrible temptations, for, since he beheld the appearance of fleshly man in Christ, yet the presence of His divinity was hidden, he took up arms against He Who is more than man. Therefore, the feminine birth-giving animated him to presume sexual congress, but the virginity of the birth-giver terrified him, since Mary—certainly Eve’s daughter—gave birth to Christ, yet she did not conceive from Adam.

Therefore, when the enemy saw God’s Son procreated through such a miracle, he turned back on himself, so that he would deliberate, and, wondering, he said, “Who is this who, without my knowledge, entered this world? For I know that he is born of a woman, but I don’t know whence he was conceived. Behold, the mother is present, but I can’t figure out the father. I see the birth, but I don’t know the one who is born; and—what increases my stupor—the mother, though she has given forth a son, exults like a virgin, which is not customary to the law of birth-giving. The little one lies in swaddling clothes, he soaks the swaddle with his tears, and he seems to be like mortals in his cries, and, though nothing of infancy is lacking n him, yet no corruption is in him, as in an infant. Bound up, he soils the rags, but heaven smiles at him with the ray of a more joyful star, and angels run between the stars and the lands in his honor, ministering to him, and, exulting, they announce a newness I don’t understand. What is this miracle? I see what I can’t turn away from, I hear what I can’t bear: that a new-born man is honored as God. Never, from the ages, have I encountered this, that someone is born a man and has nothing of human vices. What is this so new and powerful generation? Born among sinners and impious men, and coming forth from a mortal mother, he appears, to me, more purified than all those who are born and purer than heaven itself. No root of avarice rises up in him, no envy beats upon his heart, his tongue does not know lies, his eyes accept no concupiscence, neither ear is softened by lust; certainly, luxury, through which I subjected the human race to me, cannot penetrated his breast; no boasting is in him, no malice. And what more? I find in him nothing which delights me; he casts out all of my urges. What will I do? To whom shall I turn? I feel something stronger; I think he wants to reign in my kingdom—perhaps this is God, Whom no offense can stain. But if it is God, how does he bear the indignities of a woman’s birth-giving? How is content in cradles and rags? Who could believe an infant’s cry in God? To what listener is it not ridiculous that God would be nourished by a woman’s milk? Behold, after everyt8ing, he is hungry, when, certainly, no reason would persuade God to go hungry.”

The devil was excessively ignorant, since the fact that Christ preferred an infant’s food, and that He was hungry like a man, was not due to the body’s weakness, but to the sacrament of heavenly grace. For God’s Son, Whom timeless eternity befits, alongside the sempiternal Father, Who, with His begetter, naturally impassible, reigns in the incorrupt empire, performs the saving mystery in our flesh; and, for this reason, He submits to the common passion of mortals, so that He would triumph over the enemy of the human race in a contest, wherefore that reckless one, blinded by his rage, said to the Lord, If you are the Son of God, speak, so that this stones would become bread (Mt 4:3). Most stupid and empty is this ambush of his: through bread he means to tempt Him Who is bread, thinking that He would work for food-money, He Who preferred voluntary hunger! To which the Lord responded: It is written: “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word of God” (Mt 4:4; Dt 8:3). That is to say: “In vain, devil, do you again strive to supplant through food; it was sufficient for you to persuade Adam with illicit foods in paradise for him to be deceived by you. Hunger does not conquer me, nor do I yield to your persuasions, for the will of God is My food: the word of God is my perfect refection.” Beaten back by this sentence, again, so I think, the devil said: “What is this thing? I see him hungering, and I don’t find a need for eating; he suffers everything like a man, and he conquers everything like God. That Adam, certainly made by God’s hands, once yield to my snares; this one, born of a women, is not bowed by his needs nor does he acquiesce to my counsels; I overcame that one by the serpent’s mouth, this one condemns me even when I myself speak.” Again, setting the Lord upon the pinnacle of the temple, he said: If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down (Mt 4:6). Troubled, he spoke these things to Him Whom he thought he could persuade to a fall, Him Whom no bread could convince. To which Christ responded, It is written: “You shall not tempt the Lord your God” (Mt 4:7; Dt 6:16). That is, “what you are suggesting, devil, is the presumption of temptation, not the counsel of sanity, the vanity of leaping forth, not the example of virtue; for empty is every miracle which is not performed for the purpose of man’s salvation.” And, foiled by this response of the Lord, he showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their honors, saying: All these things I will give you, if, falling down, you adore me (Mt 4:9). To which, again, He responded: It is written: “You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve” (Mt 4:10; Dt 6:13). That is, “he who adores you, devil, is not owed kingdoms, but hell. For to adore the true God and to serve Him is the prerogative of ruling; but you, who promise the honors of the world in exchange for the expected transgression, you do not know how to give yourself rule.” Behold, tempter, now a three-fold interrogation has profited nothing; uncertain he came, more uncertain he returned; he assaulted so to prove, reproved, he drew back.

Therefore, now, beloved brethren, since, having recalled the victories of the Lord’s fasting, we have come to know the triumph of our salvation, let us sanctify our fast with religious services. But what else is “sanctifying the fast” but wanting to fast for a holy cause, doing just deeds, avoiding iniquities? He sanctifies the fast whose heart the adulation of powerful friends and the graces of relatives, and the little and great gift-lefts of clients do not turn away from the right path. He sanctifies his fast whose heart does not revile justice. He sanctifies the fast who extinguishes the flames of ferocious wrath with the placability of a meek mind. He sanctifies the fast who turns lusting eyes away form the filthy sight through the reins of chastity. He sanctifies the fast who scatters the darts of revilers, beating them back with the shield of patience. He sanctifies the fast who calms the tumult of lawyers with speech of peaceful sanity and a tongue of more prudent art. He sanctifies the fast who cuts out the thorns of vain thoughts rising up within him, throwing them up with the plough of the Gospel, like some ploughman of his own breast. He sanctifies the fast who aids the poverty of the needy according to the amount of his goods, with a hand of pitying humanity. He most of all sanctifies the fast who, focused on the precepts of the divine law, spits the diabolical temptations out of his heart. And, therefore, beloved brethren, if we want to show God an appeasing fast, let us be strong in heart, just in judgments, faithful in friendship, patient in injuries, moderate in contentions, let us flee foul speech, standing against iniquities, sober in feasts, simple in charity, cautious among crafty, consoling the mournful, resisting arrogance, sparing in suspicions, hold-tongued among ill-speakers, coequal among the humble. If we want to sanctify our fast through such virtues, giving tribute to the Lord, we will come to the festival of Paschal grace and to the joys of the heavenly promises with undoubting trust and a more joyful conscience.

 

Source: PL 57:303D-308B.

Translation ©2024 Brandon P. Otto.  Licensed via CC BY-NC.  Feel free to redistribute non-commercially, as long as credit is given to the translator.


Tuesday, March 5, 2024

St. John of Ávila: Sermon 65.1 on the Annunciation / Treatise 1 on Mary: Part II

 For an introduction to St. John and this text, as well as Part I of the text, see my previous post here: https://thesaurostesekklesias.blogspot.com/2024/01/st-john-of-avila-sermon-651-on.html


What Bush Is This, Which Burns and Is Not Consumed?


Who will speak?1 Who will speak the powerful deeds of the Lord (Ps 106:2)? Who will understand His mercies? Have you encountered any book in which you have read the mercies of God? Have you seen a book which tells them?

Moses wandered, pasturing his herd, and set it there in the deepest part of the desert, and, wandering, he, very careless, saw a bramble which burned and was not consumed; he was frightened at how it burned and was not consumed. “Certainly, I have to go there and see this great marvel.” Is there not more, Moses? Is there not more? He goes there, and, as soon as he draws near, he finds that God was in the bramble. See, through your life, he who saw God in the bramble, and [God] spoke to him from there: “Moses, do not come here; you are coming very close; see how the earth where you are is holy.” Is there nothing more except coming to see? “Unshod yourself.” Was he holier by becoming unshod? “Unshod yourself, do not bring your sense, nor your reason, nor your force, nor your knowledge; set aside what avails nothing; you have need of another spirit, another force, another understanding: unshod yourself; you are nothing, you avail nothing; did you think that there would not be more? Glean that you are near God, near Him at Whose Majesty the angels tremble.” God speaks from the bramble: Ego sum Deus Abraham, Deus Isaac, Deus Jacob [I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob] (Ex 3:6). “Marvelous God, and you are in the bramble? What does Your Majesty command?” “I have ears to hear and eyes to see the pains which My people suffer: I have heard the voices which they make to Me in Egypt: I have seen their affliction, and, come what may, I have descended here to free them. Glean that I command you to go to Pharaoh, and tell him this, and this on My behalf.” Admirable is the vision, certainly, but marvelous is its completion. Who will understand the mercies of the Lord (Ps 107:43)? Who His counsel? What is this? What is this? If we enter into the desert, if we take our sheep to the most secret [place], if we retreat to the deepest interior of our hearts, we will see the vision of God, that He is near, that He burns and is not consumed, that our eyes see a pregnant maiden; God is in her, and she is not consumed; she is pregnant and a maiden: if we do not approach to see this mystery, they will say that we go about like fools; remove your reasons and natures, unshod yourselves of your shoes of animal leather, set aside the knowledge and understanding of flesh: Go forth, daughters of Sion, and you will see King Solomon crowned with the crown, with which his mother crowned him on the day of his betrothal (Sgs 3:11). Let us ask our Lady for the grace to know how to receive, and to delight in, and to understand something of this mystery.

Do not come with a profane and dishonest heart: denude your reason, come with feet unshod, untrusting in yourself, separated from yourself, closer to and asking help from God. What is this? Approach a little: what does this Maiden have? What fire is this which she has within her? They will respond to you: “Not an angel nor an angel, but the Lord Himself Who is in her.”2 “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, God of Jacob.” O blessed be You, Lord, and glorified forever, and may the angels adore and revere You forever! What does the great God do, enclosed in a maiden? The name of the city of God: Dominus ibidem [the Lord is there] (Ez 48:35): the name of the Son of the Virgin and of God: Emmanuel (Is 7:14). You call the city, you come to the Virgin thinking that there is nothing more; God will respond to you in her: “Behold.” What are You doing, Lord, here, in a maiden? “I saw the work and pains of My people, and the labors and anguishes which they suffer, and I have descended to free them Myself.” O marvelous God! Men and the Prophets, give voices, so that He Who is to come would come already!

The world was captive to the power of the demon, and in great anguish; great were the forces of the demon, and great sorrow was it to see what sin worked in the hearts of men, with efficacy. “There is no other remedy,” says God, “I know what My people suffer, I know their anguishes, I have had compassion on men, on the Holy Fathers in limbo, on the seats which are to be repaired: I have descended and come to free them.” O, glorified be You, Lord, Who comes from one to the other! He sent Moses over there so that His people would be freed by him from their captivity by Pharaoh, and God remained Himself without costing Himself anything: is He here in the same way? No. Descendi ut liberarem populum meum [I descended so that I might liberate My people] (Ex 3:8). “I descended to liberate My people.” What will it cost You? When Moses liberated Your people, You threw many plagues at Pharaoh: You throw dog flies at him, then frogs, then other things which give them great pain and labor: but what must it cost You? What thing is this, Lord? Propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendit de cœlis, et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est [For us men, and for our salvation, He descended from the heavens, and He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit from Mary the Virgin, and became man].3 Men, there is a reason to no longer have a heart of stones instead of flesh (Ez 36:26), since the Word of God is become flesh for us men, and for our salvation. God incarnated and became man: over there He remains in the bramble, and they do not touch Him; here, He descends from the heavens, and has become man.


There Is No More; It Was a Marriage For Love


What does God have [in common] with man? Join those extremes for me.

Give me the desire today (if it were not [already] with him who knows so much) to say to Him: “Lord, do You know what You are doing?” What thing is higher than God? What thing lower than man? God and man! Since Adam sinned, “man” is a name of dishonor, since man and sinner are one and the same thing. And when Saint Paul wants to rebuke someone, he calls him “man”:4 Non ne homines estis [Are you not men]? (1 Cor 3:4). And the Psalmist: Ut sciant gentes, quoniam homines sunt [That the nations may know that they are men] (Ps 9:20). May they know that they are men, that they are sinners, and miserable. Who could ever think such a thing? That heaven is with the ground? That the high is with the low? That the rich is with the poor? That the pure is with the dirty? That the gold is with the mud of man? What is this, Lord, that you have so truly joined with man? Erunt duo in carne una [The two will be one flesh] (Mk 10:8). What is it to become man? He becomes man, and He does not leave off being God; two natures and one person; in such a manner that He is called God, God man, and man God, and that which is said of the one, is said of the other. They are married. O mira Dei usque ad hominem exinanitio! O mira hominis usque ad Deum exaltatio! [O marvelous emptying of God towards man! O marvelous exaltation of man towards God!]5 God descends unto becoming man, and raises man towards God: how low, and how high!

So that you might know how much God and His goodness can do, God is abased to become man, as far as joining with humanity, and [as far as] giving it the hypostasis6 and personality of God, and there are not two hypostaseis, but two natures joined, human and divine nature; and the human is impersonal, it is hypostasized and joined to the divine Word, not two persons, but one, in order to make you understand that the goodness of God could, without any reward, raise that humanity to hypostasize it in God, and to adorn it with so many excellences and graces; and that He Who had goodness for this, will have it to raise you yourself from the dung, so that you might be a son of God by participation; that He did this for this [reason], so that you would see in the head that which was to pass in the members. That, as He thus came to it without rewards, so He will come to you yourself without yours: Præclarissimum nobis proponitur exemplar prædestinationis nostræ Dominus Jesus [The Lord Jesus is proposed to us as a clearest exemplar of our predestination].7 The example of predestination—if you are predestined, if God calls you—is justifying and saving, because it is predestined by grace.

Today the Word is wedded with that holy soul and body. Wedded, Lord? For this reason He said [it], so that I would tell it to you if you did not know it: “wedded.” Take that equality away from me! Are there those here who understand marriage? Take that equality away from me in the manner of lineage! Are they equal in one? What goes from lineage to lineage? From knowledge to knowledge? From riches to riches? A greatest difference, which all the angels are terrified to hear of. Who sees God descend today and abase Himself? (I say God abases Himself, not by changing place, but rather, I mean to say, by taking that humanity.) It was an unequal thing; but, to the end, that soul and body were most clean and holy: Your love, Lord, undergoes all of it, suffers all of it, enriches all of it in exchange for performing mercies. O great good, O great honor! Do you think that there is nothing else [to do] except wedding Yourself with that humanity? O my King, even the relatives of the Spouse are very unequal, poor and disobedient! If one would come from the Indies with much money, if they knew that he gave alms, what would the poor relatives do in order to demand it and take it from him! Then see, Lord, that Your Spouse owes nothing, never sinned, was most clean in her conception: then see how much we, the relatives, owe, how weighted with debts we are, how infirm, exiled, condemned to death, unraveled, and enemies of God, with a thousand debts and traps, and all would be laid upon You. If You were not, Lord, Who You are, I would tell You: “Lord, do You know what You are doing? All the sins of men would be laid upon Your shoulders: You would have to pay it, upon You would all fall, since nothing would be remitted You.

“Do You know with whom You are wedded? Do You not dishonor Yourself with the relatives of the betrothed? Son of the Father, so rich in heaven, do You come here, to earth, to wed Yourself, and to live among so poor a people? If You were, Lord, some avaricious man whom the needs of others would not move, there would not be much in it; but, being Yourself, Lord, so amorous, so merciful, and You Who gives Your heart8to him whom You see in need, how do You place Yourself among such poor men? What have You done? That the needs of all would be laid upon Your shoulders, and that which the other sinned in his flesh, and that which the other sinned in his madness, and the other in his adulterizing and in his blaspheming. What have You done, Lord? I have to say it, Lord. Blessing the heavens and the earth: I will do it, since You love the ugly, and he appears handsome to You.” There is nothing more; it was a wedding for love, the Father well loved, so that He gave even the Son to us in such a marriage: Sic Deus dilexit mundum, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret [God so loved the world, that He would give His only-begotten Son] (Jn 3:16). The Father well loved us, the Son well loved us, He Who consented to such, the Holy Spirit well loved us, He Who ordered such. Why did the Father give Him? So that He would die and they would skin Him, so that they would wed Him with the slave. Here I am, the slave of the Lord. He who is born of a slave woman is a slave, although He be the son of a free man, because birth follows the womb. Is it not so? The Virgin calls herself a slave, and He Who is born of her calls Himself a slave: O Domine quia ego servus tuus sum, et filius ancillæ tuæ [O Lord, for I am Your servant, and the son of Your handmaid] (Ps 116:16). O Father, I am Your slave, and the son of Your slave! You were a slave, Lord; who shackled You to that cross with nails? The Son of God did not come to be served, but to serve (cf. Mt 20:28). You were a slave of men, since You served them, and they want to thank You for it with hard pains.

O blessed [be] Your goodness, and cursed our illness! That God would send His Son to the world to heal men! What was it, Lord, which moved You? Quæ te vicit clementia, ut ferres nostra crimina ]What clemency conquered You, that You would bear our crimes]?9 Would it not be enough to send a Moses? Non angelus, non legatus, ego feci, ego feram, ego portabo, ego salvabo [Not an angel, not a legate, I Myself did, I will bear, I will carry, I will save] (cf. Is 63:9, 46:4).10 “Hear Me, My people, those whom I bring, reared in My womb,” says the Lord: “I did, I will suffer you, I will carry you, I will save you, I will carry you between My shoulders; because I made You, I will carry you, and I will save you unto old age, unto your canes I will give you hope.” Blessed be You, Lord, since He Who made the vase came to solder it, and He in Whose mold it was made, He Himself came to remedy and mold it! “I want to descend,” says God—what was this? God guard you with love! The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit well loved us. This matter is all love. You do not ask for equality, You do not place Yourself in that work, You do not ask a reason for love: it is love; will there be eyes to see this, that, because of the grand love which He had, He abased Himself and enclosed Himself in the womb of the Virgin, determined to pay and suffer and die for men, and to pay all his debts, even though it costs Him His life?

1Here the “treatise” version of this sermon cuts out numerous lines. The original sermon reads: “Ecce ancilla Domini, etc. ubi supra [Behold the handmaid of the Lord, etc., as above]. The words which, through the mediation of divine favor, will give our sermon a base, the holy Gospel says them in the Mass that is said today, as you have heard. Quis loquetur potentias Domini, auditas faciet omnes laudes eius; quis sapiens custodiet hoc [Who will tell the powerful deeds of the Lord, will make all of His praises heard; which wise man will guard this]? (cf. Ps 106:2)”

2 This line is based on Is 63:9, as found in the Septuagint, which reads (in part), “Not an elder nor an angel, but the Lord Himself saved them.”

3 A quote from the Nicene (Niceno-Constantinopolitan) Creed.

4The sermon version adds another Pauline quote: “Contentiones et rixae [Contentions and strifes] (Gal 5:20), etc.”

5 See St. Thomas of Villanova, Conferences on the Lord’s Natal Day IV.12, in St. Thomas of Villanova, Opera Omnia, Volume IV, Conciones Omnes in D.N. Jesuchristi ac B.V. Mariæ Festa Complectens (Manila: Amigos del Pais, 1883), 47: “Marvelous emptying of God towards flesh, marvelous, too, exaltation of flesh towards God.”

6 In this paragraph, St. John seems to use the word supuesto as a literal translation of the Greek hypostasis, with the related verb supositar meaning “to hypostasize.” Among the older Fathers, the term was used to refer to a nature, substance, or essence, but it later developed the meaning of “person”; where the older Fathers might have spoken of two hypostaseis, the later ones would speak of two ousiai (singular ousia, “essence”), with a single hypostasis, hence the term “hypostatic union.” Since hypostasis literally means “standing” (stasis) “beneath” (hypo), it lent itself to the understanding of the base substance, essence, or nature, but that meaning was changed; it is the later meaning, equivalent to “individual” or “person,” which St. John is referring to with his translation of supuesto (from the Latin suppositus, literally “placed” (positus) “under” (sub), etymologically identical to hypostasis). The DRAE gives a philosophical meaning of supuesto as “every being which is the principle of its own actions,” which also applies to a hypostasis in the later sense. See Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la lengua española, 22nd ed. (Madrid: Espasa Calpe, S.A., 2001), 2112. “Hypostasize” means, at least here, “to unite with a hypostasis,” or “to form a hypostatic union.”

7 See St. Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, XV.30 (PL 44:981): Est etiam præclarissimum lumen prædestinationis et gratiæ, ipse Salvator, ipse Mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus [For a clearest light of predestination and grace is the Savior Himself, the Mediator of God and men Himself, the man Christ Jesus]. See also St. Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance XXIV.67 (PL 45:1033): “There is no more illustrious example of predestination than Jesus Himself, wherefore I also argued this in the first book, and I have decided to recall it at the end of this one: there is, I say, no more illustrious example of predestination than the Mediator Himself.”

8 Literally “innards” (entrañas).

9 Two lines from the hymn Jesu, nostra redemptio, the Office Hymn for the Feast of the Ascension, dating from the 9th or 10th century.

10 See n. 6 above on the quote from Is 63:9.

 

 

Sources: Tercera parte de las obras del padre maestro Juan de Ávila... (Madrid: Pedro Madrigal, 1596), II:161-185.
Obras completas del B. Mtro. Juan de Ávila, ed. Luis Sala Balust (Madrid: La Editorial Católica, S.A., 1953), II:1004-1019.

(References given are for the full sermon.)


Translation and Notes ©2024 Brandon P. Otto.  Licensed via CC BY-NC.  Feel free to redistribute non-commercially, as long as credit is given to the translator.

Monday, February 19, 2024

Hymn: Longest Night of Earthly Vigil

Here is another Lenten hymn, to pair with my recent setting of my old hymn text "When Time Had Come for Christ to Die."  Whereas that hymn is fitting for commemorating Christ's death on Good Friday, this hymn is a hymn of the myrrh-bearers, who came to anoint Christ's tomb.  It is a hymn of abandonment, a hymn of Holy Saturday.  I first wrote it almost a decade ago, with some adjustments throughout the years, and I'm happy to finally share it.

The tune is "Picardy," a French carol tune.  It is best-known through Ralph Vaughan Williams' arrangement of "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence."  That is certainly the inspiration for my use of it here, as the text of that hymn is used as the Cherubikon for Holy Saturday.

Have a blessed Fast.


Longest Night of Earthly Vigil by Brandon P. Otto on Scribd


Scribd link:https://www.scribd.com/document/706723610/Longest-Night-of-Earthly-Vigil

Internet Archive mirror: https://archive.org/details/longest-night-of-earthly-vigil


Text:

1. Longest night of earthly vigil,
'fore the rock now keeps the Bride.
Taken from the bloody sigil
In the Tomb He'll e'er abide.

R: Christ the Lord to earth descended,
O black earth, release Him now!

2.  Rank on rank the hosts of heaven
Took their leave so silently.
Hast Thou lost that holy leaven
Which would raise Thee gloriously?

3. Moon and stars of night are fading
And the sun no more will rise.
Yet, departing, some faint shading
In the darkness piques our eyes.

4. All the night we've kept in sorrow,
Yet the dark has just begun.
Return shall we on the morrow
And each night till time has run.

5. On the morrow we anoint Thee
If the rock will bend away.
For myrrh makes the dead smell sweetly
But can God redeem death's prey?

6. Farewell, O our Friend and Master!
Now we take our bitter leave!
Farewell, O our wolf-maimed Pastor!
At the blood of dawn, we grieve!


Lyrics ©2023 Brandon P. Otto.  Licensed via CC BY-NC.  Feel free to redistribute non-commercially, as long as credit is given to the lyricist.



On Sampling and Scripture

The front matter of my Vulgate for pleasure-reading—the Colunga-Turrado edition from the Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos series—includes a selection of Magisterial documents relating to Sacred Scripture. One section includes the responses and declarations of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (or, as it was once known, “the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Things,” Pontifica Commissio de Re Biblica), instituted by Pope Leo XIII on October 30, 1902. A number of the early responses are considered infamous in exegetical circles for their rejection of historical-critical methods of exegesis; such methods later received an allowance in Pope Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943).

Amidst the more famous responses, such as “On the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch” (1906), and “On the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis” (1909), I noticed one I hadn’t heard of before, the very first response given by the Commission, which I translate below (Latin original here):



Regarding Implicit Citations Contained in Sacred Scripture

(February 13, 1905)

Acta Sanctae Sedis 37 (1904-1905), p. 666


When, in order to have a directive norm for those studying Sacred Scripture, the following question was proposed to the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Things, namely:


Whether, in order to clarify the difficulties which occur in some texts of Sacred Scripture, which are seen to refer to historical facts, it is permitted for the Catholic exegete to assert that one is dealing, in these [texts], with tacit or implicit citations of documents written by an un-inspired author, all of whose assertions the inspired author by no means intends to approve or make his own, which, therefore, cannot be held to be immune from error?


The aforesaid Commission, in response, decreed:


Negative, except in the case in which, the sense and judgment of the Church being preserved, it is proved by solid arguments: 1) that the sacred writer has truly cited the sayings or documents of another; and 2) that he did not approve or make them his own, wherefore it is lawfully decreed that he did not speak in his own name.



What interested me about this response is how it relates to the modern idea of the “remix” or “mashup.” I recently read Lawrence Lessig’s Remix, which discusses this concept and how remix creators should be legally protected from copyright strikes. What Lessig has in mind is something like the music sampling, as used (most prominently) in hip-hop music. Typically, in sampling, the source of the sample, or citation, is obvious. Think of how Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby” sampled the bass line of the David Bowie and Queen collaboration “Under Pressure,” or how M.C. Hammer’s “U Can’t Touch This” sampled the riff of Rick James’ “Super Freak.” Theoretically, a musical sample need not be so obvious: Lessig gives the example of a sampler plucking out the particular playing of a single chord in a unique orchestral recording—quite subtle, if used on its own. A short enough sample, or a heavy enough layering of samples, can make it hard to pick out sources. So it is in the album Paul’s Boutique, by the Beastie Boys and the Dust Brothers, or in the work of Lessig’s particular favorite, the mash-up artist Girl Talk. Such heavy sampling is often done without copyright clearance (thus being a form of “plunderphonics,” to use John Oswald’s term).

But what I am focused on here is not the copyright issues, but the concept of sampling or citation in itself. As I said, in modern sampling or mash-ups, the original source is often quite easily distinguishable. This is because modern audio technology makes it very easy to sample, not just the rhythm or melody of chords, but the original recording itself.

Sampling need not be so obvious, though: one can sample the structure of the word, the script, and not just the performance itself. This has long been the case in music: classical music has often sample folk melodies, such as the Shaker tune “Simple Gifts” found in Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring, or most of the melodies from Johannes Brahms’ Hungarian Dances. A particular favorite of mine is Ralph Vaughan Williams’ Five Variants of Dives and Lazarus, based on a melody best-known for its pairing with the hymn, “I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say.” These are clear-cut examples: others are less so. Did Antonin Dvořák actually sample the melodies of African-American spirituals in Symphony No. 9, or was he simply inspired by their rhythm and melodical tendencies, as in his Slavonic Dances? Even in the cases where melodical samplings are obvious, there is still an abstraction here compared to modern digital sampling. It is easier to incorporate a textual citation (and I consider sheet music a text) than a recorded citation, a performance: it is easier to make the former one’s own.

And, of course, citations like this go far beyond music. Visual art can cite and sample, sometimes by including literal copies of an entire artwork (Van Gogh included miniatures of some of his portraits in his Bedroom at Arles), sometimes by incorporating fragments of a work, or color schemes, or shapes and framing (as in some of Kehinde Wiley’s paintings, replicating the stance and arrangement of famous portraits, often regal or noble). And, in text, sampling is even more prevalent. Think of the poets’ proverb: “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.” (This is T.S. Eliot’s version, though many others have their own spin on it, often applying to artists in general, not just poets in particular.)

Text is (typically) clearly structured and laid out; it is easy to dissect, to cut up, sometimes literally, as William S. Burroughs did. A clear example is seen in Raymond Queneau’s A Hundred Thousand Billion Poems: ten sonnets with each line printed on separate strips, and each line having the same ending rhyme, so that any fourteen lines, from any source sonnet, can be rearranged into a new sonnet, with the title of the work giving the possible number of permutations (1014). Most textual sampling is more judicious, though, with the writer writing much of his own material, and then garnishing it with select quotations; even if the quotations are more integral to the core of the work, it is typical for the majority of the writing to be original to the writer.

Yet even this “original” writing is not free from sampling. Every writer unknowingly samples as he writes: as he reads and listens to those around him, his mind unwittingly snips phrases and sayings and hides them away in the treasure-house of the mind. When he pulls them out later, in the course of his writing, he often doesn’t even know he’s doing it. Unconscious plagiarism is commonplace. And when we broaden beyond mere identical strings of words to structures, to arrangements of phrases, the borrowing becomes even more frequent.

But is sampling—voluntary or involuntary—merely plagiarization, a copying of another’s work and claiming it as one’s own? Absolutely not.

When the “mature poet steals,” he is not doing so in order to pawn off stolen goods. He is no mere forger. (Though some would even argue that forgery can be artistic and original: see the interesting discussions in Byung-Chul Han’s Shanzai: Deconstruction in Chinese.) Where a mature artist steals a jewel, he does so to put it in his own setting; even if he stole the setting as well, by selecting those two distinct pieces and joining them together, he has made his own piece of art. That selection is itself an artistic process. That is why Francis Palgrave’s Golden Treasury is more than just a pile of stolen poems: it is a curated treasury, and that curation is itself an original work. (Whether Palgrave’s curation was good or not is a separate issue.)

The citing artist is thus making the citation part of his work. If the citation is clearly framed, he could be using it as a counterpoint, and not necessarily part of his own view; if the citation is subtler, maybe even unwitting, then the citer is often making it his own.

Thus, after this journey of a thousand steps, we are back to the stodgy Vatican document with which I began. For the question that was asked of the Commission was—reworded—this: “When the sacred author cites, do the words become his own, or do they remain another’s?” The Commission declares that the presumption should be, “The words are his own”: “owned until proven quoted.” The sacred authors were men: we do not believe in dictated inspiration, the Holy Spirit whispering the exact words in the author’s ear, as He does with chant in many icons of St. Gregory the Great. We believe in dual authorship: Scripture is truly God-inspired and God-written, but it was written by (or through, as Scripture itself often says) the human authors as well. These men wrote in their own, distinct ways (hence why Julius Wellhausen and his descendants have some rationale for their attempts to divide up the Pentateuch by various author); they used their own wits to write. This means that, like all writers, they will have some citations, voluntary or involuntary. The Book of Proverbs, for instance, has many passages that are startlingly close to an ancient Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope (c. 13th-11th centuries BC). Did the sacred author (traditionally Solomon) knowingly copy down parts of this text, thinking them worthy of Godly wisdom? Or did these old proverbs he’d heard in his youth hide in his mind and come forth when he began to write out proverbs of his own?

The Commission says that citations can only be considered as citations proper if they are 1) directly known to be the words of another and 2) set in contradistinction by the sacred author. Nietzsche says, “God is dead.” My citation makes it clear that the words belong to another (#1); but have I made the contradistinction clear? The Commission said that “it must be proved...that [the author] did not approve or make them his own (sua facere).” An unwitting citation is a case where the author “makes them his own”; if he declares the author that he’s citing from, then we should generally assume the words have not “been made his own.” Yet that is not enough to exempt them from inerrancy: if the sacred author cites without disapproving, then the citations are covered under inerrancy. Jude’s Epistle references some apocryphal work discussing a debate between Michael the Archangel and the devil over the body of Moses (v. 9): though St. Jude is clearly citing someone else (“Michael the archangel...said”), thus fulfilling #1, and, since the citation is distinct, I would say he is clearly not making the words his own (#2.2), yet there is no indication that he disapproves (#2.1); thus, per the Commission’s criteria, it seems this quotation would still fall under inerrancy.

(Interestingly, scholars aren’t sure which apocryphal book Jude is citing: Origen said he was quoting the Assumption of Moses, but we only have a partial Latin translation of the work. Other scholars think he is conflating or misremembering episodes from the Apocalypse of Moses, the Book of Enoch, or Zechariah 3.)

To try to wrap all this up, I think the Commission’s response translated above is a recognition of the ubiquity of sampling, of citation, in artistry. (And Scripture is a collection of sacred artworks.) The artist often so merges the sample—frequently through unwittingness—into his work that he truly “makes it his own”: the sample becomes part of his own artwork. Even a clear, distinct sample, though, is not because of that a negation of artistry. The Commission says that if the author does not clearly disapprove of a sample, then it is such a part of the artwork that it acquires the work’s inerrancy. Inerrancy is what the Commission is focused on, so, if a sample is distinct and disapproved, then the sample in itself is not inerrant. Yet that does not exempt it from being part of the artwork. The disapproval itself is incorporated into the work; the oppositional structure is part of the artist’s artistry. The manifesto of the ungodly men in Wis 2 is part of the artwork; it is included so that it can be refuted: “Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls” (Wis 2:21-22 RSV-CE). A similar case is found in the friends’ speeches in the Book of Job; so, too, is the nihilism found in much of the Book of Ecclesiastes.

Sampling is not always approval, but sampling is always artistry, in the secular as in the Scriptural.

 

Note: Fr. E.F. Sutcliffe's English translations of the early responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission can be found at Catholic Apologetics Information

Text ©2024 Brandon P. Otto.  Licensed via CC BY-NC.  Feel free to redistribute non-commercially, as long as credit is given to the author.