[1] _The Music of the Most Ancient Nations_, fig. 75, p. 227.
CYNEGILS (d. 643), king of the West Saxons, succeeded his uncle King
Ceolwulf in 611. With his son Cwichelm (d. 636), he defeated the
advancing Britons at Bampton in Oxfordshire in 614, and Cwichelm sought
to arrest the growing power of the Northumbrian king Eadwine by
procuring his assassination; the attempt, however, failed, and in 626
the West Saxons were defeated in battle and forced to own Eadwine's
supremacy. Cynegils' next struggle was with Penda of Mercia, and here
again he was worsted, the battle being fought in 628 at Cirencester, and
was probably compelled to surrender part of his kingdom to Mercia.
Cynegils was converted to Christianity through the preaching of Birinus,
and was baptized in 635 at Dorchester in Oxfordshire, where he founded a
bishopric. He was succeeded as king by his son Cenwalh.
CYNEWULF (d. 785), king of Wessex, succeeded to the throne in 757 on the
deposition of Sigeberht. He was constantly at war with the Welsh. In 779
Offa of Mercia defeated him and took Bensington. In 785 he was surprised
and killed, with all his thegns present, at Marten, Wilts (Merantune),
by Cyneheard, brother of the deposed Sigeberht.
See Earle and Plummer's edition of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 755,
779 (Oxford, 1892).
CYNEWULF, the only Old-English vernacular poet, known by name, of whom
any undisputed writings are extant. He is the author of four poems
preserved in two MSS., the _Exeter Book_ and the _Vercelli Book_, both
of the early 11th century. An epilogue to each poem contains the runic
characters answering to the letters _c_, _y_, _n_ (_e_), _w_, _u_, _l_,
_f_. The runes are to be read as the words that served as their names;
these words enter into the metre of the verse, and (except in one poem)
are significant in their context. The poems thus signed are the
following. (1) A meditation on _The Ascension_, which stands in the
_Exeter Book_ between two similar poems on the Incarnation and the Last
Judgment. The three are commonly known as _Cynewulf's Christ_, but the
runic signature attests only the second. (2) A version of the legend of
the martyr _St Juliana_, also in the _Exeter Book_. (3) _Elene_, in the
_Vercelli Book_, on the story of the empress Helena and the "Invention
of the Cross." (4) A short poem on _The Fates of the Apostles_, in the
same MS. The page containing the signature to this poem was first
discovered by Professor A. S. Napier in 1888, so that the piece is not
included in earlier enumerations of the poet's signed works.
In _Juliana_ and _Elene_ the name is spelt Cynewulf; in _The Ascension_
the form is Cynwulf. In _The Fates of the Apostles_ the page is defaced,
but the spelling Cynwulf is almost certain. The absence of the E in
_The Ascension_ can hardly be due to a scribal omission, for the name of
this letter (meaning "horse") would not suit the context; this, was
perhaps the motive for the choice of the shorter form. The orthography
(authenticated as the poet's own by the nature of his device) has
chronological significance. If the poems had been written before 740,
the spelling would almost certainly have been Cyniwulf. If it were safe
to judge from the scanty extant evidence, we should conclude that the
form Cynwulf came in about 800; and presumably the poet would not vary
his accustomed signature until the new form had become common. In
_Elene_ Cynewulf speaks of himself as an old man; and the presence of
the runic signature in the four works suggests that they are not far
apart in date. They may therefore be referred provisionally to the
beginning of the 9th century, any lower date being for linguistic and
metrical reasons improbable.
The MSS. of the poems are in the West-Saxon dialect, with occasional
peculiarities that indicate transcription from Northumbrian or Mercian.
Professor E. Sievers's arguments for a Northumbrian original have
considerable weight; for the Mercian theory no linguistic arguments have
been adduced, but it has been advocated on grounds of historical
probability which seem to be of little value.
Cynewulf's unquestioned poems show that he was a scholar, familiar with
Latin and with religious literature, and they display much metrical
skill and felicity in the use of traditional poetic language; but of the
higher qualities of poetry they give little evidence. There are pleasing
passages in _Elene_, but the clumsy and tasteless narration of the Latin
original is faithfully reproduced, and the added descriptions of battles
and voyages are strings of conventional phrases, with no real
imagination. In _The Ascension_ the genuine religious fervour imparts a
higher tone to the poetry; the piece has real but not extraordinary
merit. Of the other two poems no critic has much to say in praise. If
Cynewulf is to be allowed high poetic rank, it must be on the ground of
his authorship of other works than those which he has signed. At one
time or other nearly the whole body of extant Old English poetry
(including _Beowulf_) has been conjecturally assigned to him. Some of
the attributed works show many striking resemblances in style and
diction to his authentic writings. But it is impossible to determine
with certainty how far the similarities may be due to imitation or to
the following of a common tradition.
Until recently, it was commonly thought that Cynewulf's authorship of
the Riddles (q.v.) in the _Exeter Book_ was beyond dispute. The
monodramatic lyric _Wulf and Eadwacer_, imagined to be the first of
these Riddles, was in 1857 interpreted by Heinrich Leo as a charade on
the name Cynewulf. This absurd fancy was for about thirty years
generally accepted as a fact, but is now abandoned. Some of the Riddles
have been shown by Professor E. Sievers to be older than Cynewulf's
time; that he may have written some of the rest remains a bare
possibility.
The similarity of tone in the three poems known as the _Christ_ affords
some presumption of common authorship, which the counter arguments that
have been urged seem insufficient to set aside. Both _The Incarnation_
and _The Last Judgment_ contain many passages of remarkable power and
beauty. It is unlikely that the author regarded the three as forming one
work. The _Christ_ is followed in the MS. by two poems on _Saint
Guthlac_, the second of which is generally, and with much probability,
assigned to Cynewulf. The first Guthlac poem is almost universally
believed to be by another hand. Cynewulf's celebration of a midland
saint is the strongest of the arguments that have been urged against his
Northumbrian origin; but this consideration is insufficient to outweigh
the probability derived from the linguistic evidence.
Cynewulf's reputation can gain little by the attribution to him of
_Guthlac_, which is far inferior even to _Juliana_. Very different would
be the effect of the establishment of his much disputed claim to
_Andreas_, a picturesque version of the legend of the Apostle Andrew.
The poem abounds to an astonishing extent in "Cynewulfian" phrases, but
it is contended that these are due to imitation. If the author of
_Andreas_ imitated _Elene_ and _Juliana_, he bettered his model. The
question whether Cynewulf may not have been the imitator has apparently
never been discussed. The poem (so far agreeing with _The Fates of the
Apostles_) copies the style of the old heroic poetry.
Cynewulf's authorship has been asserted by some scholars for _The Dream
of the Rood_, the noblest example of Old English religious poetry. But
an extract from this poem is carved on the Ruthwell Cross; and,
notwithstanding the arguments of Prof. A. S. Cook, the language of the
inscription seems too early for Cynewulf's date. The similarities
between the _Dream_ and _Elene_ are therefore probably due to Cynewulf's
acquaintance with the older poem.
The only remaining attribution that deserves notice is that of the
_Phoenix_. The author of this fine poem was, like Cynewulf, a scholar,
and uses many of his turns of expression, but he was a man of greater
genius than is shown in Cynewulf's signed compositions.
Professor M. Trautmann, following J. Grimm and F. Dietrich, would
identify the poet with Cynewulf, bishop of Lindisfarne, who died in 783.
This speculation conflicts with the chronology suggested in this
article, and is destitute of evidence. Cynewulf was indeed probably a
Northumbrian churchman, but it is unlikely that there were not many
Northumbrian churchmen bearing this common name; and as the bishop is
not recorded to have written anything, the identification is at best an
unsupported possibility. Professor A. S. Cook has suggested that our
Cynewulf may have been the "Cynulf," priest of Dunwich, whose name is
among those appended to a decree of the council of Clofesho in 803, and
of whom nothing else is known. This conjecture suits the probable date
of Cynewulf, but otherwise there is nothing in its favour.
For the older literature relating to Cynewulf, see R. Wulker,
_Grundriss der angelsachsischen Litteratur_ (1885). References to the
most important later discussions will be found in M. Trautmann,
_Kynewulf, der Bischof und Dichter_ (1898), and the introductions and
notes to the editions of _Cynewulf's Christ_, by I. Gollancz (1892)
and A. S. Cook (1900). For the arguments for Cynewulf's authorship of
_Andreas_, see F. Ramhorst, _Andreas und Cynewulf_ (1885). (H. Br.)
CYNICS, a small but influential school of ancient philosophers. Their
name is variously derived from the building in Athens called Cynosarges,
the earliest home of the school, and from the Greek word for a dog
([Greek: kyon]), in contemptuous allusion to the uncouth and aggressive
manners adopted by the members of the school. Whichever of these
explanations is correct, it is noticeable that the Cynics agreed in
taking a dog as their common badge or symbol (see DIOGENES). From a
popular conception of the intellectual characteristics of the school
comes the modern sense of "cynic," implying a sneering disposition to
disbelieve in the goodness of human motives and a contemptuous feeling
of superiority.
As regards the members of the school, the separate articles on
ANTISTHENES, CRATES, DIOGENES and DEMETRIUS contain all biographical
information. We are here concerned only to examine the general
principles of the school in its internal and external relations as
forming a definite philosophic unit. The importance of these principles
lies not only in their intrinsic value as an ethical system, but also in
the fact that they form the link between Socrates and the Stoics,
between the essentially Greek philosophy of the 4th century B.C. and a
system of thought which has exercised a profound and far-reaching
influence on medieval and modern ethics. From the time of Socrates in
unbroken succession up to the reign of Hadrian, the school was
represented by men of strong individuality. The leading earlier Cynics
were Antisthenes, Diogenes of Sinope, Crates of Thebes, and Zeno; in the
later Roman period, the chief names are Demetrius (the friend of
Seneca), Oenomaus and Demonax. All these men adhered steadfastly to the
principles laid down by Antisthenes.
Antisthenes was a pupil of Socrates, from whom he imbibed the
fundamental ethical precept that virtue, not pleasure, is the end of
existence. He was, therefore, in the forefront of that intellectual
revolution in the course of which speculation ceased to move in the
realms of the physical[1] and focused itself upon human reason in its
application to the practical conduct of life. "Virtue," says Socrates,
"is knowledge": in the ultimate harmony of morality with reason is to be
found the only true existence of man. Antisthenes adopted this principle
in its most literal sense, and proceeded to explain "knowledge" in the
narrowest terms of practical action and decision, excluding from the
conception everything except the problem of individual will realizing
itself in the sphere of ordinary existence. Just as in logic the
inevitable result was the purest nominalism, so in ethics he was driven
to individualism, to the denial of social and national relations, to the
exclusion of scientific study and of almost all that the Greeks
understood by education. This individualism he and his followers carried
to its logical conclusion. The ordinary pleasures of life were for them
not merely negligible but positively harmful inasmuch as they
interrupted the operation of the will. Wealth, popularity and power tend
to dethrone the authority of reason and to pervert the soul from the
natural to the artificial. Man exists for and in himself alone; his
highest end is self-knowledge and self-realization in conformity with
the dictates of his reason, apart altogether from the state and society.
For this end, disrepute and poverty are advantageous, in so far as they
drive back the man upon himself, increasing his self-control and
purifying his intellect from the dross of the external. The good man
(i.e. the wise man) wants nothing: like the gods, he is [Greek:
autarkes] (self-sufficing); "let men gain wisdom--or buy a rope"; he is
a citizen of the world, not of a particular country (cf. Diogenes
Laertius vi. 11 [Greek: monen te orthen politeian einai ten, en kosmo]).
It is not surprising that the pioneers of such a system were criticized
and ridiculed by their fellows, and this by no means unjustly. We learn
that Diogenes and Crates sought to force their principles upon their
fellows in an obtrusive, tactless manner. The very essence of their
philosophy was the negation of the graces of social courtesy; it was
impossible to "return to nature" in the midst of a society clothed in
the accumulated artificiality of evolved convention without shocking the
ingrained sensibilities of its members. Nor is it unjust to infer that
the sense of opposition provoked some of the Cynics to an overweening
display of superiority. At the same time, it is absurd to regard the
eccentricities of a few as the characteristics of the school, still more
as a condemnation of the views which they held.
In logic Antisthenes was troubled by the problem of the One and the
Many. A nominalist to the core, he held that definition and predication
are either false or tautological. Ideas do not exist save for the
consciousness which thinks them. "A horse," said Antisthenes, "I can
see, but horsehood I cannot see." Definition is merely a circuitous
method of stating an identity: "a tree is a vegetable growth" is
logically no more than "a tree is a tree."
Cynicism appears to have had a considerable vogue in Rome in the 1st and
2nd centuries A.D. Demetrius (q.v.) and Demonax are highly eulogized by
Seneca and Lucian respectively. It is probable that these later Cynics
adapted themselves somewhat to the times in which they lived and avoided
the crude extravagance of Diogenes and others. But they undoubtedly
maintained the spirit of Antisthenes unimpaired and held an honourable
place in Roman thought. This very popularity had the effect of
attracting into their ranks charlatans of the worst type. So that in
Rome also Cynicism was partly the butt of the satirist and partly the
ideal of the thinker.
Disregarding all the accidental excrescences of the doctrine, Cynicism
must be regarded as a most valuable development and as a real asset in
the sum of ethical speculation. With all its defective psychology, its
barren logic, its immature technique, it emphasized two great and
necessary truths, firstly, the absolute responsibility of the individual
as the moral unit, and, secondly, the autocracy of the will. These two
principles are sufficient ground for our gratitude to these "athletes of
righteousness" (as Epictetus calls them). Furthermore they are
profoundly important as the precursors of Stoicism. The closeness of
the connexion is illustrated by Juvenal's epigram that a Cynic differed
from a Stoic only by his cloak. Zeno was a pupil of Crates, from whom he
learned the moral worth of self-control and indifference to sensual
indulgence (see STOICS).
Finally it is necessary to point out two flaws in the Cynic philosophy.
In the first place, the content of the word "knowledge" is never
properly developed. "Virtue is knowledge"; knowledge of what? and how is
that knowledge related to the will? These questions were never properly
answered by them. Secondly they fell into the natural error of
emphasizing the purely animal side of the "nature," which was their
ethical criterion. Avoiding the artificial restraints of civilization,
they were prone to fall back into animalism pure and simple. Many of
them upheld the principle of community of wives (see Diogenes Laertius
vi. 11); some of them are said to have outraged the dictates of public
decency. It was left to the Stoics to separate the wheat from the chaff,
and to assign to the words "knowledge" and "nature" a saner and more
comprehensive meaning.
For relation of Cynicism to contemporary thought, compare CYRENAICS,
MEGARIAN SCHOOL. See also ASCETICISM.
See F. W. Mullach, _Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum_ (Paris, 1867),
ii. 261-438; H. Ritter and L. Preller, _Hist. phil. Graec. et Rom._
ch. v.; histories of ancient philosophy, and specially Ed. Zeller,
_Socrates and the Socratic Schools_, Eng. trans., O. J. Reichel (1868,
2nd ed. 1877); Th. Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, Eng. trans., vol. ii.,
G. G. Berry (1905); E. Caird, _Evolution of Theology in the Greek
Philosophers_ (1904), ii. 44 seq., 55 seq., 62 seq.; arts. STOICS and
SOCRATES.