New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-15
CAEDMON AND MILTON.
A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE ANuhO'
SAXON AND THE ENGLISH POET


tive study of Caedmon. Dante ana T M Pm Si
s. Humphreys Gurteen NJ A. Lie A. ~ 49,
lie G.. p. Putnam's sons
In spi,e Of DR.. Gurteens announcement .""'
his purpose was solely literary coi"p"'
"a .he ,mncat,on that he expects his critics
70 discuss his work within the lines sPe0,"9'
q must still be said that he should not nave
m.,,,,d hys work so narrowly and that, even as
49,. y. has left sentences which betray a WIDER
,,,,,o,r an his own part than he has allowed 10
his readers But he has no sooner give"
-,,,,,rs. 10 some rarely explored field OF learn
d., than no turns back to his chosen task. Now
g., tho nresent state Of knowledge. widely diuuseo
- sor,e,imes superficial. the world is wen
sua with nersons who make literary coih-
nartsons more or less judicous. But those WIN
can translate Caedmon are not SO Hah'' ~
still fewer are those who can give al W
~ the sources which Caedmon, or the -A"s
saxon who used that name, drew upo" ''' ms
material To many difference pe'"ee" poe'''
saw Caedmon and Milton. appears as n'e''
Question of individual skill or genus III "u
teen seems to confine himself TO 'hat VIC" Va
the matter in many instances. he translates
into English passage from Caedmon' ana SHOWS
h.ro :, is more poetical or less so than the cor
responding passage from Mlltou Dun - w
uxoro;nes these passages one finds that the In
f1fd
ment-and often not the most important-amohs
,.r,, that entered into the production or the
,,orses In the youth of English criticism TINS
oarara, discussion OF style and beauty ana all
that SORT Of thing was we'll enough But TOT
tho very reason that the literature Is ruii vi
It. criticism now to be permanent must be more
minnie and at the same time must reach rur'her
for it's dicta.
Uben DR. GtIrteen remarks almost casually
that Caedmon's material must have oeen drawn
from rabbinicai lore he touches point mat - Oh
great interest Those who remember what SUI
was created among scholars by 'Quarteriy es
say On the Talrnud in the early seventies VIII "o'
need TO be told that the scantiest ana most rag
mentary department of English literature IS 'ha'
which deals with the irnaginings on meoiae'ai
and antique Jewry. II there IS any aoequ"'e
,.,-k or any eroup OF works that gives more than
the scrapplest knowledge oil the Ia'"iuu anu "a
,,a mass Of writings which grew up about the
Talmud II ought TO be pointed OUT Iheie "ie
collections Of stories from these writings; occa-
sonalIv n poen or two has been translated from
ualevv or some other of his kind there are
enothegms in quantities there are histories iho'e
or less meagre But upon the relations OF ms
,o,,c "a bbinical literature to other iiteratures
,hsre are in English only hints here and there. II
Caedr,on was a rabbinist by imitation, now ola
ia oonoe in touch with rabbinism? Here again
Dr G,rrteen is suggestive and at the same lime
,rovokinp He evidently believes that the early
.ry,oSaxon scholars were more learned than Is
,.u.l,v sunposed Bede, he says, for example
had knowledge of Hebrew. Sucn KNOWLEDGE
,ben moro or less accurate and comprehensive
might have been quite common among the let
tered Anglo Saxons. This is not the pface "
ouestion the fact But. If Bede was knowing III
Hebrew. who taught him? II he learned II iio'ii
the Roman missionaries. then there VIII nave "
be some revision of opinions as 10 the euuoa'
of the Latin clergy in the time OF uresoiS '"'
Great Moreover. Caedmon got all mis- learning
bv word Of mouth Thus Bede and MS contempt
raries must Ia We been not only able 10 reau ne
brew. but must have been deeply saturated win
rabbini,al lore in order to teach their unlearhed
but poetcal brothers
Study of Dr. Gurteens translation OF Caeomoh
added to this volume suggests that where lie
has used the word "rabbincal' the more gen.
ora, word Oriental would have been at least
a., good Aside from the material tfat can DC
,raced IN the Bible, most of the ideas IN the
poem were such as not confined 10 the
rabbns. And this leads to another phase OF the
subject Just as the Arthur epic IN IT'S COM
pIete form raises questions of saracen influence
and narticularlv emphasizes opportune an in
c,dent az the translatng Of the Koran by an
Erelishman lust before Walter Mapes and Geof-
f,ev Of Monmouth and the Cymric Jegehus
emerge into the light Of history, so does work
ike Caedmon's. full of Eastern fancy, link itself
IN the orientalism in the civilization which the
Ane]o-Saxons displaced. British England had
no liking for Rome. 1t appears to have got not
oniy its religion but much Of its literary IN
spiration from the Eas.. A Saxon 'scop with
his harm who managed to secure welcome
among the throngs OF monks in place IKE
Bangor would have heard more orlentailsr- III
an evening than Bede could have spelled out for
him from a Hebrew book in months OF study.
Resides If At happened that Bede and his IKE
never knew any Hebrew. the Celtic monks would
he the only means left to account for Caedmons
noem. Thus. without going into the details OF
the nerennial controversy over the rituals of st.
1obr and ST Peter and the Syrian char
acteristics Of Celtic monasticism, 1t is Still Cd
,,,,us that the problem which Dr. Grrteen passes
with q word is one far less trite than the other
10 which he insists on combining himself ana MS
critics The very reasonable theory that Milton
was acquainted in substance with Caedmon
mem IL not more valuable as an indlcaton OF
Puritan afinities for the old Anglo-Saxon Church-
renship than the proof would be OF Caedmohs
own intimacy with the traditions and possibly
the literature of his Celtic contemporaries DR..
Curteen is TO be thanked for such hints as he
has given His literary study is an admirable
ono and the illustrations Of his book, copied
from an Anelo-Saxon manuscript are highly at
tractive TO any who have a taste for antiquity