The Hymn of the Pearl or The Hymn of the Soul

The Trouble with Titles

 

The “Hymn of the Pearl” is called a “hymn” quite properly, having been written in the strophic form that is often found in Semitic verse structures, even though it lacks rhyme or other typical indicia of lyrical composition.[1]  Still, even in translation from the Greek or the Syriac, it still betrays to even a casual reader a tone, a style that seems consistent with a fabulistic narrative lyric.  This very structure indicates that there is no pretext that this narrative is to be taken as factual revelation account, but rather, that the truths to which it attests, are meant to be taken in a poetical or mythic sense.

The fact that it is to be taken in a mythic or allegorical fashion is suggested within the text, itself, when the narrator explicitly links the restoration of his jeweled cloak with self-remembrance.[2]  However, none of the other symbols are so explicitly laid out, with the result that a number of different approaches have been offered for this material.  The most standard seems to be the allegorical, where each of the major items or characters has a direct symbolic reference to something else.  However, different interpreters identify different elements as being the key to decoding the allegory.

Hans Jonas, for one, argues for the centrality of the symbolic importance of the pearl as being the key to the narrative.  His analysis comes in response to a colleague who suggested that the Hymn of the Pearl may be derived from the Parable of the Pearl in Mathew 13:45-46.  Jonas counters this idea by reference to two extra-textual sources.  One of these is a quote from Hippolytus, who quotes the Naassenes, in turn, using the image of a pearl as an explicit symbol for the element of divinity, the Formless one, in the lowered context of formation.[3]

Second, he refers to an analogous Manichean allegory whose essential narrative and symbolic correspondences may be rendered paradigmatically thus:

 

 

From these observations, Jonas argues that either both the “Hymn of the Pearl” and the “Parable of the Pearl” are reflections of a “fuller symbolism already abroad at the time” or that the similarity may be a “mere coincidence of metaphor, seeing that the pearl is after all a thing of prized value and beauty”.[5]  After all, in the Gospel parable, there is no “suggestion that the pearl is where it should not be, that it got there by some inimical fate and must be rescued hence and restored to its right place and owners” … in the parable, the merchant’s “own salvation is the issue”.[6]

Similarly, Jonas observes in The Gnostic Religion that “(t)he Pearl is an entity in its own right; it fell into the power of Darkness prior to the sending out of the Prince”.  And, consequently, “(w)e can confidently take the King’s Son to be the Savior, a definite divine figure, and not just the personification of the human soul in general.”[7]  In short, for Jonas, the pearl symbolizes the lost, enfleshed, human soul, and the prince the divine figure sent to redeem the soul.

Bentley Layton, however, gives another analysis of the symbolism, within the context of the Thomistic school of Gnosticism, which may, once again, be rendered paradigmatically:

 

 

In his exegesis of the Hymn, the point of the story is the individual soul, as the narrator, who being embodied and enmeshed in matter, thereby forgets its true nature, until awakened by a personified message – which acts as a savior, awakening the narrator.  This message is what saves the narrator, who then completes his mission and returns back to his native realm.  Significantly, Layton’s exegesis focuses upon the Prince and his series of transformations, and on the messenger, and makes no mention at all to the pearl as an important symbol.[9]

This raises the question, then – what is the nexus of the story?   Is the “Hymn of the Pearl”, (which  has, after all, an alternative title “The Hymn of the Soul”), about the Prince or about the pearl?  Who or what in the story is lost, and then found, and by whom ?

A.F.J. Klijn, in “The So-Called Hymn of the Pearl” calls into question the centrality of the pearl as a symbol in this work.  Although acknowledging that the pearl “is considered to be … the soul lying in the darkness of the human body” and the “principle person is supposed to be the soul or sometimes a redeemer.[10]  However, Klijn proceeds to question whether the subject of the Hymn is really redemption, citing three reasons:  First, “(n)owhere (are) the word(s) ‘redemption’, ‘redeemer’, or ‘to redeem’ … met.  [internal quotes mine].  Second, nothing is said to indicate that the situation of the pearl is somehow miserable.  And third, once the pearl is obtained, no further mention is made of it until it is offered to the father.[11]  Rather, Klijn observes “The hymn is dealing in the first place with the principal person, his adventure and his reward … The meaning of the parable is that ‘it is with the kingdom as with a man finding the one pearl’.  The same idea is found in the hymn.  To fetch the one pearl means partaking in the kingdom.  The hymn adds a great deal mythological and theological matter, but the structure of the parable is clearly seen.”[12]  -- Interestingly, Klijn cites the Mathew Parable of the Pearl as support for his interpretation, whereas for Jonas, the Parable of the Pearl is, at best “a faint and vestigial echo” of the Hymn of the Pearl.[13]

 

            So, which is it? Is the “Hymn of the Pearl” about the Pearl, or is the alternate title, the “Hymn of the Soul” truly more accurate?  Is it a story of redemption, or a story of self-realization?   If it is about the pearl, which, after all, is per se incapable of action, then the implication would seem to be that there must be a passive faith in the coming of a redeemer.  However, if the Hymn is about the narrator, the Prince, as the symbol of the individual soul, then this would imply a substantially different relationship between the individual and the divine:  The Prince, after all, is given a charge to accomplish, and when he falls into forgetfulness, he has to listen to the message that is sent to him, take action, and finally, he has to complete his charge before he can return.  The Prince, therefore, though fallible (the fall into forgetfulness) is responsible, and is called upon not only to listen to wisdom,  but also, once it has been heard, to take action within the material plain.

       Whether the former or the latter is more consistent with the Gnostic worldview in general, and the Thomas school in particular is, as yet, beyond the purview of this writer.  However, an application of a standard supplied by Hans Jonas to what is found within the text may be indicative.  As cited earlier, Jonas  argues that the “Parable of the Pearl” may be derivative from the “Hymn of the Pearl” partially because the role or importance of the pearl mentioned in the parable is so slight:  there is no “suggestion that the pearl is where it should not be, that it got there by some inimical fate and must be rescued hence and restored to its right place and owners” … in the parable, the merchant’s “own salvation is the issue”.[14]  But if this is an argument against the centrality of the pearl in the Parable, how does it apply to the Hymn?  Is there any suggestion that the pearl in the “Hymn of the Pearl” is 1. not where it should be, 2.that it got there by an inimical fate and that it 3. must be rescued hence and restored to its right place?

       First, is there any indication that the pearl is not already where it should be?  Pouring over the text, (admittedly, in translation), there is nothing to suggest that the pearl was taken from, or fell from, the heavenly realm, into Egypt.  Second, there is no suggestion of an inimical fate putting the pearl in its position – nothing is said of a theft, or of the pearl, itself, being in any way disadvantaged by being a prized treasure.  Third, does the pearl need to be rescued and restored?  Something cannot be rescued if its position is not inimical and it cannot be restored only if it came from someplace else originally – of which, there is no indication in the text.  In fine, the “pearl” seems to occupy something of the role of the Golden Fleece – not so much a lost object to be redeemed but a treasure to be won – both of which, interestingly, guarded by dragons.

       What, then, if we apply Jonas’ own test to some object other than pearl – perhaps, say, the Prince?  First, is the Prince not where he should be?  This question does not permit of a direct answer – he enters into Egypt, after all, as part of an agreement he has made with his parents, that if he obtains the pearl, he shall be made a herald of his parent’s kingdom.  However, when he becomes entrapped in forgetfulness under the influence of the Egyptian food, it is decided “that in my case I should not be left in Egypt”[15]  This clearly suggests that Egypt is not a place where the Prince should be – at least, not once he has accomplished his mission.  Second, has the Prince come to be in Egypt by an inimical fate?  Not exactly – he volunteered for the mission upon expectation of a given reward.  That being said, though, his state of deep sleep, forgetfulness, and heaviness is brought about because of “a mixture of cunning and treachery”[16]  Therefore, his state of forgetfulness could be taken to be the result of inimical fate.  And finally, does the Prince need to be rescued and restored?  As cited above, it is determined that he “should not be left in Egypt”[17] and the result of the subsequent events is that he is restored to his father’s realm.

Therefore, in accordance with Jonas’ own standard, I am inclined to the views of   Klijn, that the focus of the “Hymn of the Pearl”, is the figure of the Prince, representing the individual soul and that, in Klijn’s words “we may read here the adventures of a soul from its pre-existance with God till its coming back again to God.  Between these two periods the soul has to fulfill a heavenly charge.  He is able to fulfill it, but not without a reminder from God.”[18]