De Sancto Dagoberto Martyre Prosa
Analysis by Luigi Oliviero
Notes on the received text
I received the text into an electronic format (page 1 was a jpg image; page 2 a gif image of a word processor file) so I was not able to see the original document nor able to make any palaeographic consideration about it. As a consequence of this fact, I cannot be sure if an eventual typo was made by an ancient copyist, by a modern one or even by an OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software. The only addition (marked between square parenthesis) I made, is a final “s” on line 56 to the word celebri[s] as the assonance’s scheme suggests. So, except for the above mentioned addition, my study refers to the text as it arrived to me, even if I suspect further corruptions happened during its tradition. One for all: on line 61, hunc orat pro requie seems to be a corruption for Nunc ora pro requie made by a copyist who misread H for N (possible in some medieval handwritings but also by an OCR software) and, as a consequence, we find a final “t” to ora, as grammar requires. Anyway nothing can be sure without seeing the original document.
I know I have this big limit but, nevertheless I will try to make an attempt to date this writing.
To achieve this goal I’ll be able to use elements taken from the style, metrics, lexicon and the history of literature only.
Structure and metrics
The Dagobert’s prose seems to be composed of five sections: section 1 (1 – 16), section 2 (17 – 28), section 3 (29 – 48), section 4 [lines 49 – 63 (or 68)] and section 5 [lines (64) 69 – end].
The overall composition shows a particular care for the endings of the lines, so we should ask ourselves whether there is a rhyme or assonance or classic metrics. At first sight, we see regnòrum rhyming with mundanòrum but at lines 49 and 50 we find cùpiens / gràdiens with tonic accents on different vowels (which implies atonic assonance in -iens) .
Is the composer always caring for syllables’ quantities? (long, short).
My answer is no. In fact, in all the Prose, (lines 49 – 68 excluded) the base meter is a 4-foot trochaic acatalectic line (two, three or four lines) followed by a trochaic dimeter catalectic in sillabam, that is to say:
— ∪ — X | — ∪ — ∪ (acatalectic lines)
+
∪ — X | — ∪∪ (catalectic line)
syllable: — = long, accented; ∪ = short, without accent; X = indifferent; ∪ = ancipital
Whilst we can be sure that metrically on line 13 the quantities of the syllables on the first word are “ērŭdītūs” (the 2nd syllable is short, following the meter) on line 2, “Vēl dēlīctī” (the 2nd syllable is long), does not follows the meter and so is on many lines.
To cut a long story short, my opinion is that these lines are accentuative (rhythmic) and not quantitative. What is really followed here, is the accents’ scheme of the meter I proposed above and that was pretty common in medieval poetry.
These lines, were probably read as a paroxytone octosyllabic line (the acatalectic one) and as a proparoxytone six syllables line (the catalectic one).
So, for example, lines have likely to be read:
line 1: Hìc est còntemptòr regnòrum (Paroxytone octosyllaabic line)
and
line 48: Cùm magnà laetìtia (Proparoxytone six syllables line)
It is very difficult to apply this scheme to line 9 – 11 as they would receive the very improbable pronounce of: àd Calè monàsterìa, tràditùr ab ìnfantìa and èrudìtur scìentìa. It is remarkable that this unlikely Latin pronounce of monasteria and infantia, is very close to the actual pronounce of the English words “monastery” and “infancy”. This wrong pronounce is good a point in favour of an English mother language forger making.
In depth analysis of Section 1 (lines 1 – 16)
This section is composed of four verses each one composed of three rhythmic rhyming lines plus a final proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following three verses. Lines 9 – 11 are inexplicably not in rhyme but just in atonic assonance and moreover, there is a very dubious and unlikely use of the meter scheme (see above).
Scheme: AAAb – CCCb – D*D*D*b – EEEb (* indicates line with anomalies)
[capitals: 8-syllables lines – lower cases: proparoxytone 6 (+1) -syllables ones]
The word “Cale” at line 9 is used as an indeclinable noun but the sense indicates to interpret it as a genitive. It is probably the monastery of Chelles named by its Frank language name.
In depth analysis of Section 2 (lines 17 – 28)
This section is composed of four verses each one composed of two rhythmic rhyming lines plus a final proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following three verses.
Scheme: FFg – HHg – IIg – JJg
In depth analysis of Section 3 (lines 29 – 48)
This section is composed of four verses each one composed of four rhythmic rhyming lines (as regards ejicit/ejecit see further) plus a final proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following three verses. Even if ululatus / ligatus / duplicatus (lines 40 – 42) had to be written as ululatus / ligatos / duplicatos they are to be considered in rhyme as they, at this stage, were already pronounced as ululato / ligato / duplicato
Scheme: K*KKK l* - MMMM l - NNN*N l – OOO*O* l (* indicates line with anomalies)
At line 30, there’s the word feodo (instead of the correct Latin feudo) showing the confusion between the spoken language (vernacular) and the written one (Latin). We have a date of the first appearance of this word (feudo) into a written document: it is the year 884.
For the moment, we can fix year 884 as a “terminus post quem”.
Line 29 has nine syllables: an “unicum” in this Prose.
It is a sign of “live” performance as performers (minstrels, jokers) during their exhibitions, would probably hide this anomaly spelling:
Rò – tho – mià – gum
instead of
Ro – tho – mi – a – gum.
The word judicium at line 33 can easily emended in judicia (plural of judicium) as the overall scheme suggests.
The word ejicit (instead of the correct eiēcit) shows the influence of the vernacular language as the long “e” becomes “i” by the metaphonic influence of the following “i” and by the vicinity of a palatal consonant ( the palatalized “c”).
The fact that ejicit/eiēcit is put in rhyme with gèrit, fèrit and qærit (æ is accented) shows:
that who wrote or copied it, did not feel the difference among the short “ĕ” of fĕrit and gĕrit, the long “ē” of eiēcit and the diphthong “æ” of qærit : they all sounded simply “e” for him.
The fact that ejicit/eiēcit is put in rhyme with gèrit, fèrit and qærit can also mean three other things, one excluding the others:
1) Ejicit / eiēcit is a corruption of a now missing word.
2) The articulation of the “r” is so weak that the rhyme was felt good.
3) Unlike the other rhyming lines, this subgroup has simply an assonance.
I think that the second case is the most probable.
Lines from 34 – 43 are a little tricky. In fact, differently from all the other verses, there is a strong use of the enjambment and moreover, due to the influence of the spoken vernacular language, there’s a confusion among the terminations in –us/-os in ululatus, ligatus and duplicatus that probably were already pronounced simply as an “o”: as I said above, ululatus is right but “ligatus” and “duplicatus”, according to the Latin grammar had to be written ululatos and duplicatos. On the contrary, ferri stricti (line42) have to be intended as ferris strictis (see also “final considerations”).
In depth analysis of Section 4 [lines 49 – 63 (or 68)]
This section is very important and completely different: it comprises the nucleus of Dagobert II’s murder story and is composed, with no interruption, of just six (+1) syllables lines, in atonic assonance all in the same meter (proparoxytone six syllables lines).
This meter starts at line 49 and ends at line 68. Line 69 in fact, has eight syllables and is paroxytone. In my opinion this is a relic of the most ancient part of the Prose that was probably inspired by an exemplum, chronicle, record, account or life of the Saint written in “proximity” of Dagobert II’s death. At the beginning, I was inclined to divide this section in six verses of three lines each, with a close of two lines but,
A more audacious philological hypothesis is even possible.
As you can see line 64 is an almost perfect repetition of line 54 whilst line 61, especially if we have to read it as nunc ora pro requie (now pray for [his] rest), seems really out of place. Moreover this part seems to not follow the metrical regularity shown up to this point. Expunging line 64 and rearranging the lines’ order, we finally have a perfect sequence that follows the sense and the scheme:
Scheme: ppq – rrq – sst – uut – vvw – xxw + close
Analysis by Luigi Oliviero
Notes on the received text
I received the text into an electronic format (page 1 was a jpg image; page 2 a gif image of a word processor file) so I was not able to see the original document nor able to make any palaeographic consideration about it. As a consequence of this fact, I cannot be sure if an eventual typo was made by an ancient copyist, by a modern one or even by an OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software. The only addition (marked between square parenthesis) I made, is a final “s” on line 56 to the word celebri[s] as the assonance’s scheme suggests. So, except for the above mentioned addition, my study refers to the text as it arrived to me, even if I suspect further corruptions happened during its tradition. One for all: on line 61, hunc orat pro requie seems to be a corruption for Nunc ora pro requie made by a copyist who misread H for N (possible in some medieval handwritings but also by an OCR software) and, as a consequence, we find a final “t” to ora, as grammar requires. Anyway nothing can be sure without seeing the original document.
I know I have this big limit but, nevertheless I will try to make an attempt to date this writing.
To achieve this goal I’ll be able to use elements taken from the style, metrics, lexicon and the history of literature only.
Structure and metrics
The Dagobert’s prose seems to be composed of five sections: section 1 (1 – 16), section 2 (17 – 28), section 3 (29 – 48), section 4 [lines 49 – 63 (or 68)] and section 5 [lines (64) 69 – end].
The overall composition shows a particular care for the endings of the lines, so we should ask ourselves whether there is a rhyme or assonance or classic metrics. At first sight, we see regnòrum rhyming with mundanòrum but at lines 49 and 50 we find cùpiens / gràdiens with tonic accents on different vowels (which implies atonic assonance in -iens) .
Is the composer always caring for syllables’ quantities? (long, short).
My answer is no. In fact, in all the Prose, (lines 49 – 68 excluded) the base meter is a 4-foot trochaic acatalectic line (two, three or four lines) followed by a trochaic dimeter catalectic in sillabam, that is to say:
— ∪ — X | — ∪ — ∪ (acatalectic lines)
+
∪ — X | — ∪∪ (catalectic line)
syllable: — = long, accented; ∪ = short, without accent; X = indifferent; ∪ = ancipital
Whilst we can be sure that metrically on line 13 the quantities of the syllables on the first word are “ērŭdītūs” (the 2nd syllable is short, following the meter) on line 2, “Vēl dēlīctī” (the 2nd syllable is long), does not follows the meter and so is on many lines.
To cut a long story short, my opinion is that these lines are accentuative (rhythmic) and not quantitative. What is really followed here, is the accents’ scheme of the meter I proposed above and that was pretty common in medieval poetry.
These lines, were probably read as a paroxytone octosyllabic line (the acatalectic one) and as a proparoxytone six syllables line (the catalectic one).
So, for example, lines have likely to be read:
line 1: Hìc est còntemptòr regnòrum (Paroxytone octosyllaabic line)
and
line 48: Cùm magnà laetìtia (Proparoxytone six syllables line)
It is very difficult to apply this scheme to line 9 – 11 as they would receive the very improbable pronounce of: àd Calè monàsterìa, tràditùr ab ìnfantìa and èrudìtur scìentìa. It is remarkable that this unlikely Latin pronounce of monasteria and infantia, is very close to the actual pronounce of the English words “monastery” and “infancy”. This wrong pronounce is good a point in favour of an English mother language forger making.
In depth analysis of Section 1 (lines 1 – 16)
This section is composed of four verses each one composed of three rhythmic rhyming lines plus a final proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following three verses. Lines 9 – 11 are inexplicably not in rhyme but just in atonic assonance and moreover, there is a very dubious and unlikely use of the meter scheme (see above).
Scheme: AAAb – CCCb – D*D*D*b – EEEb (* indicates line with anomalies)
[capitals: 8-syllables lines – lower cases: proparoxytone 6 (+1) -syllables ones]
The word “Cale” at line 9 is used as an indeclinable noun but the sense indicates to interpret it as a genitive. It is probably the monastery of Chelles named by its Frank language name.
In depth analysis of Section 2 (lines 17 – 28)
This section is composed of four verses each one composed of two rhythmic rhyming lines plus a final proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following three verses.
Scheme: FFg – HHg – IIg – JJg
In depth analysis of Section 3 (lines 29 – 48)
This section is composed of four verses each one composed of four rhythmic rhyming lines (as regards ejicit/ejecit see further) plus a final proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following three verses. Even if ululatus / ligatus / duplicatus (lines 40 – 42) had to be written as ululatus / ligatos / duplicatos they are to be considered in rhyme as they, at this stage, were already pronounced as ululato / ligato / duplicato
Scheme: K*KKK l* - MMMM l - NNN*N l – OOO*O* l (* indicates line with anomalies)
At line 30, there’s the word feodo (instead of the correct Latin feudo) showing the confusion between the spoken language (vernacular) and the written one (Latin). We have a date of the first appearance of this word (feudo) into a written document: it is the year 884.
For the moment, we can fix year 884 as a “terminus post quem”.
Line 29 has nine syllables: an “unicum” in this Prose.
It is a sign of “live” performance as performers (minstrels, jokers) during their exhibitions, would probably hide this anomaly spelling:
Rò – tho – mià – gum
instead of
Ro – tho – mi – a – gum.
The word judicium at line 33 can easily emended in judicia (plural of judicium) as the overall scheme suggests.
The word ejicit (instead of the correct eiēcit) shows the influence of the vernacular language as the long “e” becomes “i” by the metaphonic influence of the following “i” and by the vicinity of a palatal consonant ( the palatalized “c”).
The fact that ejicit/eiēcit is put in rhyme with gèrit, fèrit and qærit (æ is accented) shows:
that who wrote or copied it, did not feel the difference among the short “ĕ” of fĕrit and gĕrit, the long “ē” of eiēcit and the diphthong “æ” of qærit : they all sounded simply “e” for him.
The fact that ejicit/eiēcit is put in rhyme with gèrit, fèrit and qærit can also mean three other things, one excluding the others:
1) Ejicit / eiēcit is a corruption of a now missing word.
2) The articulation of the “r” is so weak that the rhyme was felt good.
3) Unlike the other rhyming lines, this subgroup has simply an assonance.
I think that the second case is the most probable.
Lines from 34 – 43 are a little tricky. In fact, differently from all the other verses, there is a strong use of the enjambment and moreover, due to the influence of the spoken vernacular language, there’s a confusion among the terminations in –us/-os in ululatus, ligatus and duplicatus that probably were already pronounced simply as an “o”: as I said above, ululatus is right but “ligatus” and “duplicatus”, according to the Latin grammar had to be written ululatos and duplicatos. On the contrary, ferri stricti (line42) have to be intended as ferris strictis (see also “final considerations”).
In depth analysis of Section 4 [lines 49 – 63 (or 68)]
This section is very important and completely different: it comprises the nucleus of Dagobert II’s murder story and is composed, with no interruption, of just six (+1) syllables lines, in atonic assonance all in the same meter (proparoxytone six syllables lines).
This meter starts at line 49 and ends at line 68. Line 69 in fact, has eight syllables and is paroxytone. In my opinion this is a relic of the most ancient part of the Prose that was probably inspired by an exemplum, chronicle, record, account or life of the Saint written in “proximity” of Dagobert II’s death. At the beginning, I was inclined to divide this section in six verses of three lines each, with a close of two lines but,
A more audacious philological hypothesis is even possible.
As you can see line 64 is an almost perfect repetition of line 54 whilst line 61, especially if we have to read it as nunc ora pro requie (now pray for [his] rest), seems really out of place. Moreover this part seems to not follow the metrical regularity shown up to this point. Expunging line 64 and rearranging the lines’ order, we finally have a perfect sequence that follows the sense and the scheme:
Scheme: ppq – rrq – sst – uut – vvw – xxw + close
This could have been the very end of an older poem or record that, eventually, could have been expanded when King Dagobert II was declared “Saint” by a metropolitan synod (872) almost two centuries after his death or when his sanctity was certified by the Pope (1159). Anyway, almost all the elements I have put to your attention up to this point, indicate that this version of the Prose we have, is not earlier than the 2nd half of the XII century although this section could be a little earlier. We’ll speak better about it in the final considerations.
In depth analysis of Section 5 [lines (64) 69 – end]
After what I have said before, we can say that this last section comprises three verses each one composed of three rhythmic rhyming lines plus a proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following two verses. In the end there’s a closing line.
Scheme: YYYz – A2 A2 A2z – B2 B2 B2z + closing line
Final considerations
I am very sorry for the fact I have not seen the original document (if it ever existed) but, for the sake of this article, just as an hypothesis, let’s assume that the document exists or better, that it existed and this transcription is all that is left. This assumption, makes possible some considerations of mine.
What this prose seems to me is a patchwork. There is no doubt that different layers were added to an original core that I identify in lines 49 – 68. This part is strongly rhythmic and structured all in the same meter, six verses formed by two proparoxytone six syllables lines in atonic assonance plus a 3rd line in the same meter but with a different ending that connects the verses two by two.
Here you are the atonic assonance scheme:
aab – ccb – dde – ffe – ggh – iih + closing line (coda/tail)
Here you are the accent sequence repeated in each verse:
Réx venári cúpiens,
Sílvam pétit grádiens,
Quǽ vocátur Wépria
The elements considered for an attempt to date this portion of text are:
Regularity of the structure
Regularity of the syllable number
Regularity of tonic accents
The use of tonic/atonic assonance/rhyme
Comparison with existent texts of which we know the date of composition
1) Regularity of the structure
After very little emendations, there is no doubt that the structure is strongly regular.
Six verses enchained two by two by the atonic assonance of their 3rd line: -ia (1st & 2nd verse), -itur (3rd & 4th verse) and –ium (5th & 6th verse). Each verse has a structure of two lines in atonic assonance plus a 3rd line in atonic assonance with the 3rd line of the following verse.
Here you are the scheme of the first two verses:
-iens
-iens
-ia
-vuli
-vuli
-ia
So all the 18 lines are warped just like a cloth.
2) Regularity of the syllable number
This is just mathematics: all lines are formed by 7 syllables (6+1). This, along with a strong ability in finely interlacing the lines, is a point against the oral composition of a jongleur and in favour of a literary written composition process.
3) Regularity of tonic accents
The accents are always regular and moreover while their position on 1st, 3rd and 5th syllable is natural in prosody on lines like Réx venári cúpiens, the same accents on a line like Cóngaudéns pecúniae has their reason just according to the metric laws as in prose it has to be read “Congáudens pecúniae” so, the shifting of the accent on the first syllable, shows that probably the composer still has notions of Latin poetry metrics.
4) The use of atonic/tonic assonance/rhyme
All lines are rhythmic and interlaced on an atonic assonance base, there is no rhyme nor tonic assonance.
5) Comparison with existent texts of which we know the date of composition
After some rhythmic lines of Saint Ambrogius (339 d.C.-397 d.C.) showing full confidence with Latin poetry metrics:
Aetèrne rèrum cònditor
noctèm dièmque quì regis
et tèmporùm das tèmpora
ut àdlevès fastìdium
Here you are some from the Chanson de Roland (XI century):
«Oëz, seignurs, quel pecchet nus encumbret:
Li emper[er]es Carles de France dulce
En cest païs nos est venuz cunfundre.
Jo nen ai ost qui bataille li dunne,
Ne n'ai tel gent ki la sue derumpet.
Cunseilez mei cume mi savie hume,
Si m(e) guarisez e de mort et de hunte.»
N'i ad paien ki un sul mot respundet,
Fors Blancandrins de Castel de Valfunde.
some from Alan de Lille (c. 1128–1202):
Nóstrum státum píngit rósa,
nóstri státus décens glósa,
nóstrae vítae léctio
Quǽ dum prímo máne flóret,
déflorátus flós efflóret
véspertíno sénio.
And some lines taken from the XII/XIII century “Goliards” (medieval university students):
Vínum bónum ét suáve,
bónis bónus právi práve,
cúnctis dúlcis sápor, áve,
mundána laetítia !
Áve, félix créatúra
quám prodúxit vítis púra,
ómnis ménsa fít secúra
in túa praeséntia
For what I’ve shown above, we can say that lines 49 – 68 have a strong influence from the vernacular versification, for its employing of accents and assonances (and not syllable quantity!) as an element of unity and structure, just like the Chanson de Roland but, on the contrary, it differs from it by the extreme regularity as regards the number of lines contained in each verse (lassa) and the number of syllable for each line. It is somehow similar to the versification of Alan de Lille, although this part of Dagobert prose, never uses rhymes, as we find in the vernacular versification of the late XII/ beginning of the XIII century and in coeval Latin writings that, in this period were influenced by the romance languages (see the Goliards). Other markings of the influence of the romance languages are the confusion among the terminations in –us/-os in ululatus, ligatus and duplicatus (lines 40 – 42) that implies that they were already pronounced simply as an “o” (ululatus is ok but “ligatus” and “duplicatus” has to be written ululatos and duplicatos) moreover, when we find latebris / celebri (without a final-s) at the end of two adjacent lines, it is a sign that they were pronounced as “latebri” and “celebri”. On the contrary, ferri stricti of line 42, must be intended as ferris strictis. This is a clear sign that, as in the vernacular the final-s was already lost, the composer of the poem doesn’t know where it is correct to put it.
Things are completely different for the remaining verses of the Dagobert prose, in which you can find rhymes anywhere. They are more similar to the compositions of the “Goliards” I have chosen as an example. In this part you can also find sections of verses differing in the number of lines according the formulas: 3+1 (lines 1 – 16), 2+1 (lines 17 – 28), 4+1 (lines 29 – 48) and again 3+1 (lines 69 – end). This difference, in my opinion, can also show the differences related to different chronologic layers of composition or even different sources (or the lack of skills and knowledge of a forger, of course).
The last part (69 – end) seems to have been composed to celebrate a special event, e. g. an exhumation of the corpse: it is an explanation about why the body of the Saint is just in Stenay.
It also seems to have strong links with lines 1 – 8 as regards the celebrative intent. This circumstance, along with the date that we can assume (by the style, the use of the rhymes etc…) for this part of the prose, matches perfectly with the period after the official sanctification of Dagobert by the Pope in 1159.
So, in the end, these are the dates I propose for the Prose of S. Dagobert’s parts:
First half of the XII century for lines 49 – 68 and end of XII/beginning of XIII for the rest, although it seems that also this one, is composed of different chronologic layers/expansions.
In no way can this prose can be as early as the murder of Dagobert II (679).
The reference to a prose of S. Dagobert is made in “Holy Blood Holy Grail” by Lincoln et al in “The Long Haired Kings” chapter (p. 287 of the Italian de luxe edition), where it is said that it was found in the XIX century in the Abbey of Orval and that it is composed of 21 lines.
So, how comes that this one is composed of 81 lines? Does it come from a different (and chronologically layered) but true source? Is it a fake? Are just lines 49 – 68 original and all the rest fake? Are we talking about the same Prose mentioned by Lincoln et al.?
So many questions are left but, having not seen the original document, nor the Prose mentioned in “Holy Blood Holy Grail” my task has come to an end. I cannot go further. Even this article is based on the assumption that this text really existed, or still exists. Unfortunately, at the moment, we cannot be sure of this assumption, I just tried to perform a careful study, on what the researcher Sandy Hamblett kindly sent to me by e-mail. Thank you for your attention and patience.
Comments are welcome: feel free to contact me via Rhedesium magazine.
Luigi Oliviero
In depth analysis of Section 5 [lines (64) 69 – end]
After what I have said before, we can say that this last section comprises three verses each one composed of three rhythmic rhyming lines plus a proparoxytone six syllables one, in atonic assonance with the last line of the following two verses. In the end there’s a closing line.
Scheme: YYYz – A2 A2 A2z – B2 B2 B2z + closing line
Final considerations
I am very sorry for the fact I have not seen the original document (if it ever existed) but, for the sake of this article, just as an hypothesis, let’s assume that the document exists or better, that it existed and this transcription is all that is left. This assumption, makes possible some considerations of mine.
What this prose seems to me is a patchwork. There is no doubt that different layers were added to an original core that I identify in lines 49 – 68. This part is strongly rhythmic and structured all in the same meter, six verses formed by two proparoxytone six syllables lines in atonic assonance plus a 3rd line in the same meter but with a different ending that connects the verses two by two.
Here you are the atonic assonance scheme:
aab – ccb – dde – ffe – ggh – iih + closing line (coda/tail)
Here you are the accent sequence repeated in each verse:
Réx venári cúpiens,
Sílvam pétit grádiens,
Quǽ vocátur Wépria
The elements considered for an attempt to date this portion of text are:
Regularity of the structure
Regularity of the syllable number
Regularity of tonic accents
The use of tonic/atonic assonance/rhyme
Comparison with existent texts of which we know the date of composition
1) Regularity of the structure
After very little emendations, there is no doubt that the structure is strongly regular.
Six verses enchained two by two by the atonic assonance of their 3rd line: -ia (1st & 2nd verse), -itur (3rd & 4th verse) and –ium (5th & 6th verse). Each verse has a structure of two lines in atonic assonance plus a 3rd line in atonic assonance with the 3rd line of the following verse.
Here you are the scheme of the first two verses:
-iens
-iens
-ia
-vuli
-vuli
-ia
So all the 18 lines are warped just like a cloth.
2) Regularity of the syllable number
This is just mathematics: all lines are formed by 7 syllables (6+1). This, along with a strong ability in finely interlacing the lines, is a point against the oral composition of a jongleur and in favour of a literary written composition process.
3) Regularity of tonic accents
The accents are always regular and moreover while their position on 1st, 3rd and 5th syllable is natural in prosody on lines like Réx venári cúpiens, the same accents on a line like Cóngaudéns pecúniae has their reason just according to the metric laws as in prose it has to be read “Congáudens pecúniae” so, the shifting of the accent on the first syllable, shows that probably the composer still has notions of Latin poetry metrics.
4) The use of atonic/tonic assonance/rhyme
All lines are rhythmic and interlaced on an atonic assonance base, there is no rhyme nor tonic assonance.
5) Comparison with existent texts of which we know the date of composition
After some rhythmic lines of Saint Ambrogius (339 d.C.-397 d.C.) showing full confidence with Latin poetry metrics:
Aetèrne rèrum cònditor
noctèm dièmque quì regis
et tèmporùm das tèmpora
ut àdlevès fastìdium
Here you are some from the Chanson de Roland (XI century):
«Oëz, seignurs, quel pecchet nus encumbret:
Li emper[er]es Carles de France dulce
En cest païs nos est venuz cunfundre.
Jo nen ai ost qui bataille li dunne,
Ne n'ai tel gent ki la sue derumpet.
Cunseilez mei cume mi savie hume,
Si m(e) guarisez e de mort et de hunte.»
N'i ad paien ki un sul mot respundet,
Fors Blancandrins de Castel de Valfunde.
some from Alan de Lille (c. 1128–1202):
Nóstrum státum píngit rósa,
nóstri státus décens glósa,
nóstrae vítae léctio
Quǽ dum prímo máne flóret,
déflorátus flós efflóret
véspertíno sénio.
And some lines taken from the XII/XIII century “Goliards” (medieval university students):
Vínum bónum ét suáve,
bónis bónus právi práve,
cúnctis dúlcis sápor, áve,
mundána laetítia !
Áve, félix créatúra
quám prodúxit vítis púra,
ómnis ménsa fít secúra
in túa praeséntia
For what I’ve shown above, we can say that lines 49 – 68 have a strong influence from the vernacular versification, for its employing of accents and assonances (and not syllable quantity!) as an element of unity and structure, just like the Chanson de Roland but, on the contrary, it differs from it by the extreme regularity as regards the number of lines contained in each verse (lassa) and the number of syllable for each line. It is somehow similar to the versification of Alan de Lille, although this part of Dagobert prose, never uses rhymes, as we find in the vernacular versification of the late XII/ beginning of the XIII century and in coeval Latin writings that, in this period were influenced by the romance languages (see the Goliards). Other markings of the influence of the romance languages are the confusion among the terminations in –us/-os in ululatus, ligatus and duplicatus (lines 40 – 42) that implies that they were already pronounced simply as an “o” (ululatus is ok but “ligatus” and “duplicatus” has to be written ululatos and duplicatos) moreover, when we find latebris / celebri (without a final-s) at the end of two adjacent lines, it is a sign that they were pronounced as “latebri” and “celebri”. On the contrary, ferri stricti of line 42, must be intended as ferris strictis. This is a clear sign that, as in the vernacular the final-s was already lost, the composer of the poem doesn’t know where it is correct to put it.
Things are completely different for the remaining verses of the Dagobert prose, in which you can find rhymes anywhere. They are more similar to the compositions of the “Goliards” I have chosen as an example. In this part you can also find sections of verses differing in the number of lines according the formulas: 3+1 (lines 1 – 16), 2+1 (lines 17 – 28), 4+1 (lines 29 – 48) and again 3+1 (lines 69 – end). This difference, in my opinion, can also show the differences related to different chronologic layers of composition or even different sources (or the lack of skills and knowledge of a forger, of course).
The last part (69 – end) seems to have been composed to celebrate a special event, e. g. an exhumation of the corpse: it is an explanation about why the body of the Saint is just in Stenay.
It also seems to have strong links with lines 1 – 8 as regards the celebrative intent. This circumstance, along with the date that we can assume (by the style, the use of the rhymes etc…) for this part of the prose, matches perfectly with the period after the official sanctification of Dagobert by the Pope in 1159.
So, in the end, these are the dates I propose for the Prose of S. Dagobert’s parts:
First half of the XII century for lines 49 – 68 and end of XII/beginning of XIII for the rest, although it seems that also this one, is composed of different chronologic layers/expansions.
In no way can this prose can be as early as the murder of Dagobert II (679).
The reference to a prose of S. Dagobert is made in “Holy Blood Holy Grail” by Lincoln et al in “The Long Haired Kings” chapter (p. 287 of the Italian de luxe edition), where it is said that it was found in the XIX century in the Abbey of Orval and that it is composed of 21 lines.
So, how comes that this one is composed of 81 lines? Does it come from a different (and chronologically layered) but true source? Is it a fake? Are just lines 49 – 68 original and all the rest fake? Are we talking about the same Prose mentioned by Lincoln et al.?
So many questions are left but, having not seen the original document, nor the Prose mentioned in “Holy Blood Holy Grail” my task has come to an end. I cannot go further. Even this article is based on the assumption that this text really existed, or still exists. Unfortunately, at the moment, we cannot be sure of this assumption, I just tried to perform a careful study, on what the researcher Sandy Hamblett kindly sent to me by e-mail. Thank you for your attention and patience.
Comments are welcome: feel free to contact me via Rhedesium magazine.
Luigi Oliviero