Parodic Elements:

The Archpoet and CC 27

Stephen L. Cain

May 21, 1996

ENGL 466-058

Despite being separated by two centuries, "The Archpoet’s Confession" and poem 27 from the Cambridge Songs have some striking similarities in their parody of parts of the Catholic faith, especially the Eucharist. CC 27 is a carnival version of the Mass, while the Archpoet mocks Confession, monasticism and the Eucharist. While CC 27, as a parody, is part of Bakhtin’s lower culture, the Archpoet blends both levels together in a wonderful collation.

However, care must be taken when applying Bakhtin’s ideas to these poems. According to Gurevich, Bakhtin’s sources are from the later middle ages, the rise of towns and his popular culture of laughter is distinctly urban (178). Fitting the Archpoet to this model isn’t all that difficult, since his tavern seems to be an urban fixture and he discusses the "tumultus fori" (15.2) and the "rixa publica" (15.2). However, the tenth century convivial song doesn’t fall into a late-middle ages urban carnival attitude although it is parodic and seems to be an inversion of clerical thought (Gurevich 178-179).

The liturgical elements in CC 27 are parodied, especially since they are directed at sexual gratification, rather than salvation. Assuming that stanzas six through eight are the feminine voice and the rest are the masculine seducer, we get a strong sense of the Mass being mutated to another purpose. The mock liturgy is connecting the fake components of the Mass with the goal of sex, thereby attaching a baseness to it. These same components make "The Archpoet’s Confession" into a link between a fake confession and Eucharist and the production of poetry. This makes for both an abasement of the poetry the Archpoet writes and an elevation.

The mock-Mass aspects of CC 27 are quite extensive, ranging from the church-like atmosphere to the food and the music. The young man invites her into his chamber, with the "sedilia" (2.1) there and the walls hung with tapestries ("velis," 2.1) and adorned with all sorts of "ornamentis" (1.4). "Flores" and "herbe" scent the air (2.3-2.4) delicately. Taken as a whole, an ornamented room with seats and wall decorations sound like a church with pews, liturgical objects like censers, reliquaries and the like, and paintings on the walls showing scenes of specific Scriptural import while the sacred smoke wafts through the area. The young man has arranged his banquet in a specific manner that happens to appear similar to a church setting.

Wine and food, specifically bread, are the items of the Eucharist, yet are altered by the poet to make the feasting a parody of that sacrament. The phrase the poet uses is "clarum vinum" (3.3) and makes the parodic connection. According to Ziolkowski, The Dictionary of Medieval Latin says that the adjective clarus, when referring to drinks, usually takes on the meaning of "clear" or "light" (258). "Clarus" can also indicate "fame" and "noteworthiness," as the wine would certainly have as the blood of Christ. In the poem, it serves to wash down the food.

Moreover, the attendants bring the various drinks in "paterae" (5.3). According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, these are shallow flat bowls, especially for libations (1308). Here again is a frolicsome reversal of the liturgical element: The blood of Christ is delivered by servants in a bowl of the type used for Classical pagan offerings to the gods.

The next element of the mock-Mass is the music. Rather than plainsong, a boy and a girl play instruments and sing to the target of his seduction (4.3-4.4), rather than to God as in a hymn. The embellishments of the cithern and lyre further secularize the music. In hymns, the piece would probably have been sung by boys, not girls, so the statement would have been "docti pueri" rather than a "docta puella," (4.3).The poet is definitely creating a carnival atmosphere in the spirit of the liturgy.

The reply to his overtures that comes out of the shift in tense of stanzas six through eight suggests he is making his pitch to a sequestered woman. Furthering the analogy of parodying the mass, it may be that he is seducing a nun. As to her solitude, stanza six is wholly about her embracing the "silva" (6.1) and the "loca secreta" (6.2) while rejecting the "turba" (6.3). Although the next line is partial, context indicates that she is also rejecting or fleeing the "plebis cateruam" (6.4). Similarly the next damaged stanza has no verbs, yet the theme continues with "silenti" in the first half of the stanza and statements about the noisy masses in the second half. If it follows a pattern like the sixth stanza, then it may be simply reiteration of the sixth stanza. While this appears redundant, two stanzas with the very same theme and structure seem to be the style of the second speaker: repetition for emphasis. Stanza eight does the same thing, repeating the sentiment from the first half again in the second half of the stanza.

Ziolkowski says that Bulst (via Dronke) suggests "the verse implies the woman to be a pastorela--a shepherdess," (258). However, there is no evidence of her occupation other than her desire for solitude in the forests and dispensing with the formalities of the banquet. The fragmentary stanza probably doesn’t say anything about the subject, either. To continue with the theme of the mock liturgy, this pastorela stands for a nun in the parodic aspect of a solitary peasant portraying a sequestered nun. This makes the parody all the more complete: the mock priest in his made-up church invites a pastorela nun to gorge on the Eucharist, she refuses to take it, but instead engages him in sexual intercourse. So, rather than following the Fathers and retaining virginity of both soul and body, she refuses the Eucharistic offering of wine and instead takes the sex, voiding the purity of either body or soul.

As to her refusal of the Eucharist, she says in stanza eight that the "convivium" (8.1) isn't as pleasing to her as the "colloquium" (8.2). If the feast is parodying the Eucharist, she doesn’t like it as much as the interaction. This is surprising given her professed desire for seclusion. She also rejects the "ubertas" (8.3), perhaps a reference to the "ornamentus" of 1.4, in favor of "cara familiaritas" (8.4).

As a stark contrast to the girl, the Archpoet is appreciative of feasting and alcoholic consumption, particularly as a facilitation of the creative and compositional process. He, too makes a reversal of Christian ritual and a parody on the Eucharist. Moreover, the Archpoet is detailing his lifestyle in a mock-confession to the "presul discretissime" (6.1). Rather than being contrite about it, as he ostensibly says, the sense of the poem seems to be a celebration of his earthly ways instead of a repentance.

The Archpoet rejects both the poets who live in a monastic lifestyle and that lifestyle. These people who shun the "loca publica" (14.1) and hide themselves in "secretum" (14.2) and who fast (jeiuno 15.1), abstain (abstineo 15.1), avoid the "rixa publica" and the "tumultus fori" (15.2) rarely produce "clarum opus" (14.4). Apparently the Archpoet doesn’t think very highly of the Benedictine rule, temperance or solitude. In fact, he denigrates the poetry he produces while fasting as "nihil valent penitus" (18.3).

Using consumption of food and drink for a compositional aid seems to be the Archpoet’s primary method. As the opposite of the cloistered and abstemious poets, he takes the tavern-style Eucharist and consumes so that his stomach is "satur" (19.2). Drunkenness is another requirement for quality composition: Bacchus "dominatur" (19.3) his mind and Phoebus "fatur miranda" (19.4). He even claims to outdo Ovid "post calices" (18.4). After taking mass quantities of the wine and bread, the Archpoet produces marvels. Cups of wine "accenditur animi lucerna" (13.1) and make his heart "volat ad superna" (13.2), producing a spiritual elevation. At the same time, taking all the mock-Eucharist is sanctifying his poetry: he’s getting a surfeit of holiness and should be able to produce a "clarus opus."

Both of theses poems use the parodies of the liturgy and the Eucharist to accomplish their ends, whether sex or poetic composition. However, coupling the goal with ingestion as a method of attainment is both a lowering and a raising of the goal, as well as an equation of the two. By linking both items with eating, they are lowered to the level of the digestive tract, obscenity, and the obvious result of ingestion. Here, poetry and sex are pieces of the carnival aspect of Bakhtin’s two-part model. This is all the more potent an association with the Archpoet, since he is attaching poetic composition to mass consumption and carnival in a Confession poem. The Archpoet’s carnival is inverting the ideas of monastic life, Confession and the Eucharist. As in Bakhtin’s model, the clerical serious culture embodied in sacraments of the church is rolled down to the lower strata into drinking and poetry.

However, by discussing eating and drinking and connecting them with the body and blood, a second facet of the poem is revealed: his methods of composition involve taking large quantities of the Eucharist, as if being imbued with the stuff of Christ makes his poetry flourish. Similarly, the Archpoet’s dig at the failures of the monastic poets can be seen from this direction: the monkish poets aren’t taking the Eucharist like the Archpoet and thus can’t make poetry. This holds true for CC 27, since it also has a Eucharist. By feeding the girl lots of food and wine, filling up on the Eucharist, the young man makes his bid for passion a sanctified thing.

The pieces of the Catholic faith in these two poems are carefully placed in a multifaceted item linking the carnival aspect of the poems with the faith in a cultural dynamic like Bakhtin suggests (quoted in Gurevich 178), but they lend themselves to multiple interpretations, not all completely linked to the parody or carnival.

Works Cited