Ælfrician Homilies and Varia: Editions, Translations, and Commentary. Vol. 1-2 [1-2] 184384544X, 9781843845447, 9781800103689

Citation preview

About the pagination of this eBook This eBook contains a multi-volume set. To navigate the front matter of this eBook by page number, you will need to use the volume number and the page number, separated by a hyphen. For example, to go to page v of volume 1, type “1-v” in the Go box at the bottom of the screen and click "Go." To go to page v of volume 2, type “2-v”… and so forth.

Anglo-Saxon Texts 13

ÆLFRICIAN HOMILIES AND VARIA

Anglo-Saxon Texts ISSN 1463-6948 Editorial Board

MICHAEL LAPIDGE MARY CLAYTON LESLIE LOCKETT RICHARD MARSDEN ANDY ORCHARD

Anglo-Saxon Texts is a series of scholarly editions (with parallel translations) of important texts from Anglo-Saxon England, whether written in Latin or in Old English. The series aims to offer critical texts with suitable apparatus and accurate modern English translations, together with informative general introductions and full historical and literary commentaries.

Previously published volumes in the series are listed at the back of volume II

ÆLFRICIAN HOMILIES AND VARIA EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS, AND COMMENTARY

Volume I

AARON J KLEIST and ROBERT K. UPCHURCH

D. S. BREWER

© Aaron J Kleist and Robert K. Upchurch 2022 All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2022 D. S. Brewer, Cambridge ISBN 978 1 84384 544 7 hardback ISBN 978 1 80010 368 9 ePDF

D. S. Brewer is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate

Cover image: ‘De uirginitate’, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 419, p. 347, Old English Homilies. With thanks to The Parker Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Typeset by www.thewordservice.com

Contents

VOLUME I Preface viii Acknowledgements

xii

Abbreviations

xiii

Sigla for Cited Ælfrician Manuscripts

xiv

Dates for Cited Ælfrician Works

xvi

Editorial Conventions

xx

Conventions Used in the Commentaries

xxii

Homilies The Proper of the Season 1. Christmas: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (‘A Sermon on the Lord’s Nativity and the Nature of the Soul’) 2. Christmas: In natali Domini (‘On the Lord’s Nativity’)

3. Friday after the Fourth Sunday in Lent: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (‘There was a certain sick man, Lazarus’ [John 11.1–45])

3 105 209

Lazarus I

215

Lazarus II

253

Lazarus III

281

4. Friday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent: Collegerunt ergo pontifices (‘The Chief Priests Therefore Gathered’ [John 11.47–54])

293

5. Third Sunday after Easter: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (‘A Little While and then You Will Not See Me’ [John 16.16–22])

323

6. Third Sunday after Easter: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (‘Concerning the Sevenfold Evil Gifts’)

353

The Proper of the Saints 7. Assumption of Mary (15 August): De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis (‘Concerning Holy Virginity, or Concerning the Three Orders of Chastity’)

375

8. Nativity of Mary (8 September): Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (‘The Nativity of the Holy Virgin Mary’)

423

Opening to De creatore et creatura (AH II.14); London, British Library, Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2 [MS Xd], fol. 149r.

Preface The pages that follow convey and comment on works by Ælfric of Eynsham, the most prolific, erudite, and influential author writing in English before Chaucer. The principal aim of this edition is to edit, translate, and comment on fifteen homilies and nine shorter texts arguably written by Ælfric that do not appear in the editions of his work by Peter Clemoes (Catholic Homilies: The First Series), Malcom Godden (Catholic Homilies: The Second Series), John Pope (Supplemental Homilies), Mary Clayton and Janet Mullins (Lives of Saints [formerly edited by W. W. Skeat]), Susan Irvine (Homilies from Bodley 343), and Samuel Crawford (Hexameron). Among the homilies edited below,1 nine, to our knowledge, appear in print for the first time.2 Six belong to the Proper of the Season: two for Christmas (one Latin, AH I.1, and one vernacular, I.2), two for Lent (AH I.3 in three versions and I.4), and two for Easter (AH I.5–6). The homilies for Mary’s Assumption and Nativity (AH I.7–8) belong to the Proper of the Saints, and those for the feast-day of a confessor (AH II.9) and the dedication of a church (AH II.10) to the Common of the Saints. The remaining five are for unspecified occasions (AH II.11–15). Multiple versions of AH I.3 (three versions) and II.12 (two versions) bring the number of Ælfrician homilies edited to nineteen. Fifteen of the homilies are, or almost certainly are, by Ælfric.3 Four others might be.4 And in view of such certainties, near certainties, and clear uncertainties, we thus use ‘Ælfrician’ in the title to characterize the works edited here. Although Ælfric composed the component parts of AH I.6–7 and II.13, we cannot say for certain that he was responsible for compiling the whole of these three composite homilies. The fourth homily is a third version of his homily on the raising of Lazarus (AH I.3 [Lazarus III]). If Lazarus III is not by Ælfric, then it is at least ultimately and demonstrably connected to him and ‘attests to dynamic, fluid processes of composition, revision, and amalgamation both by [him] and others’.5 Other homilies edited below bear witness to his personal involvement in such processes. In one instance, for example, he interpolates a portion of a short tract on thinking, De cogitatione (AH II.18), into the revised version of a homily (AH I.3 [Lazarus II]). In another example, he adds a revised version of a sermon for an

1

2

3 4 5

Defined as such by Clemoes (‘Chronology’, pp. 31–5), Pope (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 137–42), and Kleist (Chronology and Canon, pp. 67–8 and 71–118). As Jones aptly notes, of course, ‘dividing [Ælfric’s] works into generic categor[ies is] a largely artificial exercise’ (‘Medieval Latin Author’, p. 18). The nine homilies are: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (AH I.1); Erat quidam languens Lazarus I and II (AH I.3); Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6); Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11); Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12); Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12, Appendix 1); Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2); and De uirginitate (AH II.13). AH I.1–2, I.3 (Lazarus I–II), I.4–5, I.8, II.9–12, II.12 Appendices 1–2, and II.14–15, with AH I.1 and II.11 being the possible exceptions. AH I.3 (Lazarus III), I.6–7, and II.13. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 29.

viii

Preface unspecified occasion (AH II.12) to one composed decades earlier for the First Sunday in Advent, thereby creating a new composite sermon for the same occasion to be used in a later collection (AH II.12, Appendix 2). Whether Ælfric’s hand is obvious or not, all these homilies are called ‘Ælfrician’, therefore, because of a demonstrable connection to their ultimate author, even if they are descendants at some remove. The nine shorter texts under ‘Varia’ are all by Ælfric, and all are independent, non-homiletic works closely yet diversely connected to his homilies. For example, he appended his Latin and Old English tracts on the sevenfold attributes of the Holy Spirit and the devil (AH II.16–17) to an earlier homily he reissued in a later collection. And, as mentioned above, he excerpted a passage from De cogitatione (AH II.18) for homiletic use. The final six items (AH II.19–24) appear together as a set of instructional materials for priests to teach that Ælfric appended to an early copy of the Catholic Homilies assembled under his supervision. They include a treatise on penance during Lent (AH II.19), an admonition to the laity about proper behavior (AH II.20), prayers in English (AH II.21), the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds (AH II.22–3), and the Lord’s Prayer (AH II.24). Since anonymous authors repurposed the penitential treatise in a confessional formula and two sermons (AH II.19, Appendices 1–3),6 we have edited them to show the movement of the treatise out of Ælfric’s scriptorium into the different pastoral contexts of private confession and public delivery. The dates of composition for the edited works span the last two decades of Ælfric’s life, which began ca 950 and ended ca 1010.7 He was a monk at Cerne when, soon after issuing the Catholic Homilies, he wrote his Latin sermon for Christmas (AH I.1) around 990. He was abbot of Eynsham when he wrote seven, possibly eight, more of the homilies between about 1006 and 1010 (AH I.3 [Lazarus II (possibly) and III], 5, and 7; AH II.9, 11, 12, and 12, Appendix 2). By about the year 998,8 Ælfric had begun consistently to use a distinctive prose style generally marked by four-stress lines made up of two, two-stress phrases that usually alliterate and often occur as a syntactical unit.9 Like Clayton and Mullins,10 Irvine,11 and Pope,12 we print Ælfric’s alliterative prose in discrete lines and his ordinary prose in continuous ones to show the distinctiveness of each style as well as his willingness to mix them.13

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

These items, to our knowledge, also appear in print for the first time. For a recent account of which, see Hill, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’. For ca 998 as a terminus ante quem for Ælfric’s regular prose compositions, see below, AH II.12, vol. II, p. 641 n. 4. With the point about syntax from Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 122, as cited by Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. xxvi. The standard, most detailed account remains that by Pope (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 105–36), but the debate about whether Ælfric should be considered a poet or prose stylist continues, for which see the following studies cited by Clayton and Mullins (Lives, vol. I, p. xxxii n 51): Bredehoft, Early English Metre (2005) and ‘Ælfric and Late Old English Verse’ (2014); Pascual, ‘Ælfric’s Rhythmical Prose’ (2014); and Bredehoft’s response to Pascual, ‘Rereading Ælfric’ (2014), to which we might add Bredehoft’s ‘Confessio et Oratio’ (2016) and Updegraff, ‘Ælfric, Alliterative Linking, and the Idea of a Vernacular Verse’ (2018). Lives, vol. I, pp. xxv–vi. Homilies, p. xvi. Homilies, vol. I, pp. 135–6. See, for example, AH II.12–13, and Pope’s observation to this effect (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 116–17).

ix

Preface Each edited text is accompanied by an introduction, a translation, and commentary. If in the introductions to chapters Upchurch seeks to distill what is most needed into succinct, digestible summaries and overviews of the composition and circulation of each work, Kleist provides more comprehensive commentary.14 While ultimately offering but a starting place on which others might build, the notes trace Ælfric’s role in the history of ideas particularly in terms of theological and linguistic matters. Considering in detail his faithfulness to and departure from his forebears, for example, they examine his relationship to over 100 classical, patristic, and medieval sources, as well as quotations from or allusions to over 1,000 passages from the Bible. Tracking the development of his thinking across the whole of his corpus, they compare the thirty-one edited writings in these volumes to nearly 200 other Ælfrician works, supplying thousands of cross-references along the way. And through careful analysis of verbal and conceptual borrowing among these texts, they seek further to establish their authorship, dating, and order of composition. For the dating and compositional order of the edited works, and for the dating and summary descriptions of the manuscripts wherein they are preserved, we rely on Kleist’s Chronology and Canon.15 We have not provided stand-alone descriptions of the thirty manuscripts that contain copies of the edited works.16 Rather, details about physical descriptions and contents have been integrated into the introductions of individual chapters in hopes of showing the significance that a particular work in a particular collection may have had for Ælfric and others. We have also, when possible, used the dating, origin, and provenance of a manuscript to envision real-world contexts for the circulation of Ælfric’s works in specific places and among particular groups of people or individuals. Our debt in this regard is deep, particularly to the scholars who have untangled the complex relationships among the surviving copies of the texts edited here and to those who have examined the manufacture and use of the manuscripts that preserve them.17 Readers should note that Kleist’s Chronology and Canon referred to the works edited here as ‘UK 1–24’, in the expectation that, in honor of his future co-author, the volumes would read ‘[Robert K.] Upchurch and [Aaron J] Kleist’. This is an arm-wrestling match that to Kleist’s regret he ultimately lost. Instead, the items 14

15 16

17

If read straight through, it should be warned, the stultifying logorrhea of these notes might bring even Byrhtwold to his knees. For readers seeking insight into particular textual details, however, one hopes that the commentary will yield satisfaction. Kleist’s work includes individual entries for the twenty-four works listed in the table of contents; for his guide to the manuscripts containing works by Ælfric, see Chronology and Canon, pp. 208–68. With some overlap, Clemoes (First Series, p. 1–64), Godden (Second Series, pp. xxv–lxxiv), and Pope (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 6–93) provide descriptions of twenty-five of the thirty manuscripts in which the edited works appear. Ker describes Xb, Xh, Xj, and Y17, and Gneuss and Lapidge Y4. Y4 is the only manuscript of the thirty that Ker does not describe, and his Catalogue remains essential for consulting the contents of the manuscripts in full, though Kleist’s entries in Chronology and Canon point readers to more recent descriptions and studies. Summaries, lists of contents, physical descriptions, histories, and bibliography for twenty of the thirty manuscripts considered here are available online through The Production and Use of English Manuscripts website (excluding A, F, H, Q, R, V1a, Xb, Xh, Xj, and Y4). In addition to the editors mentioned earlier, Joyce Hill, Elaine Treharne, and Jonathan Wilcox deserve special mention in this regard.

x

Preface are named in keeping with other collections: AH for Ælfrician Homilies, like CH for Catholic Homilies, SH for Supplementary Homilies, and TH for Temporale Homilies.18

18

Note that the entries in Chronology and Canon for Ælfric’s Be þam Halgan Gaste (UK 16) and its companion piece De septiformi spiritu (UK 17) have been renumbered and thus reordered. In Ælfrician Homilies and Varia, De septiformi spiritu (AH II.16) precedes Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), as is the case in the manuscripts wherein the works accompany each other.

xi

Acknowledgements Twenty years ago, this project was born. A newly-minted Ph.D. came to the British Library as part of a NEH Summer Seminar with Tim Graham and †Paul Szarmach, and beheld the ravaged glories of the page that graces this frontispiece – the unpublished opening to De creatore et creatura (now AH II.14). Though all too often pushed aside by other tasks, the endeavor was nurtured along the way by generous support from many sides: Hughes Hall, Clare Hall, and the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge; the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Fulbright Specialist program; the Research and Development Committee, Department of English, and Melissa Schubert, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at Biola University; and the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and Department of English, especially the Chair, Jacqueline Vanhoutte, at the University of North Texas. Colleagues graciously lent their expertise to knotty issues: Tom Bredehoft, Mary Clayton, Rob Fulk, Tom Hall, Joyce Hill, Susan Irvine, Drew Jones, Winfried Rudolf, Charlie Wright, and the anonymous reviewers at Boydell and Brewer, among others. Teams of humblingly cheerful souls helped with proofreading and indexing: Megan Brady, Rachel Brown, Robert Brown, Emily Finnell, Sidney Gardner, Joseph Hartono, Moriah Lee, Alyse Mgrdichian, Emaline Miller, Rita Lynn Randazzo, Sarah Stangeland, Eric Waschak, Elizabeth Waschak, and Carla Wright made Herculean labors light. The production team at Boydell and Brewer and their associates also engaged in much heavy lifting under the sure editorial direction of Caroline Palmer: Emily Champion, Nick Bingham, Judith Everard, and Humphrey Barber. For Upchurch, Karen’s constant companionship made for deep comfort, and Gabriela and Olivia brought much joy and delight as COVID made us ‘colleagues’. Even now he marvels at Kleist’s generous invitation to edit and translate and at Kleist’s patience with his ‘iterative’ processes that rivalled Ælfric’s in spirit if, unfortunately, not in speed. Likewise, for Kleist, honor and gratitude are trebly due: to Chayila and Ransom, who have never known their father without the shadow of this labor; to Amanda, who walked unwaveringly with her husband to the finish; and to Robert, who seven years ago came to the aid of Sisyphus that together they might ascend the summit.

xii

Abbreviations ACMRS AH ASE ASMMF AST EETS CCCM CCSL CH I CH II CSASE CSEL DOML GCS KJV LS

LSE MGH N&Q PL SH TH

Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies Ælfrician Homilies [Kleist, Aaron J and Robert K. Upchurch, ed., Ælfrician Homilies and Varia, Anglo-Saxon Texts 13–14, 2 vols. (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2021)] Anglo-Saxon England Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile Anglo-Saxon Texts Early English Text Society e.s. extra series o.s. occasional series s.s. supplementary series Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Catholic Homilies, First Series [Clemoes, Peter, ed., Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies, The First Series: Text, EETS s.s. 17 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997)] Catholic Homilies, Second Series [Godden, Malcolm R., ed., Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: The Second Series, Text, EETS s.s. 5 (London: Oxford UP, 1979)] Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte King James Version [of the Bible] Lives of Saints [Clayton, Mary, and Juliet Mullins, ed., Old English Lives of Saints: Volumes I–III: Ælfric, DOML 58–60 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2019); previously ed. Walter W. Skeat, Ælfric’s Lives of Saints, EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94, and 114, 2 vols (1881–1900; London: Oxford UP, 1966)] Leeds Studies in English Monumenta Germaniae Historica Notes and Queries Patrologia Latina, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–64) Supplemental Homilies [Pope, John C., ed., Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection, 2 vols, EETS o.s. 259 and 260 (London: Oxford UP, 1967–68)] Temporale Homilies

xiii

Sigla for Cited Ælfrician Manuscripts

1

A

London, British Library, Royal 7 C. xii, fols 4r–218r

B

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 (2406)

C D

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 [D1] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 340 (2404); and [D2] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 342 (2405) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 198 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, Part I, pp. 1–138 and 161–564 [see also R2]

E F G

London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xiv, fols 4r–169v

H

London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v

J

[J1] London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii; and [J2] London, Lambeth Palace 489

K

Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28

N

London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix

O P

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 302 [P1] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 (5135) (formerly Junius 23); and [P2] Lawrence, Kansas, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, Pryce C2:2 (formerly Y 104) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188

Q R S T

U V 1

AH II.12 [App 2] and II.19 [App 1] AH I.2, I.3 [III], II.9, II.16, II.17, and II.19 [App 3] AH I.3 [I] and 8 AH II.19 [App 2] AH I.3 [I] and 4

AH I.3 [I and II], I.7, I.8, and II.18 AH II.22 and 24 AH II.10 and 19 [App 1] AH II.19 [App 1 and 2], 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 AH I.4, I.6, and II.17 AH I.4 AH II.12, 16, 17, 18, and 20 AH II.9

AH I.8, II.9, and II.12 [App 2] [R1] Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178, Part I, pp. 1–270; and AH II.9 and 12 [R2] Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, Part II, pp. 139–60 [see also F] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116 (5136) (formerly Junius 24) AH I.8, II.9, II.16, II.17, and II.18 [T1] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113 (5210) (formerly Junius AH II.16 99); [T2] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 114 (5134) (formerly Junius AH II.9, 10, and 23 22); and [T3] Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 (5232) AH II.11 and 12 Cambridge, Trinity College B. 15. 34 (369) AH I.5, II.16, and II.17 [V1a] Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 419; AH II.19 [App 1] For an explanation of the categories of sigla below, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. ix–x.

xiv

Sigla for Cited Ælfrician Manuscripts

W Za Xa Xb Xd Xe Xf Xh Xj fk [Y1 [Y2 Y4 Y7 Y17 Y28 Y29 Tr6

2 3

[V1b] Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421, pp. 1 and 2; and [V2] Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 421, pp. 3–354 London, British Library, Cotton Julius E. vii Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509 (942) Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 190 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 320, fols 117r–170r London, British Library, Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2 London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii, fols 2r–173v London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. vi London, British Library, Harley 3271 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 943 London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. xvii, fols 4r–92v (formerly fols ‘23r–234v’2) Alba Iulia, Bibliotheca Batthyányana 35 (R.I.35)]3 Alba Iulia, Bibliotheca Batthyányana 242 (R.II.82)] Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque Municipale 63 (70) Cambridge, Pembroke College 25 London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. i, fols 43r–203r Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale 26 (A.292) Rouen, Bibliothèque Municipale 1382 (U.109), fols 173r–198v London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. vii, fols 10r–12r

See Ker, Catalogue, p. 293. For Y1 and Y2, see the opening notes to AH II.10.

xv

AH II.19 [App 3] AH II.14 and 15 AH II.16 and 17 AH II.17 AH II.10 AH II.9

AH I.1 AH II.22 and 24

Dates for Cited Ælfrician Works By Title • Admonitio ad filium spiritualem (ca 998 × 1002) • Beati Hieronimi excerpta de episcopis*3 • (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991) • Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17) (ca 998 × 1002) • Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa* (AH I.6) (between [A] • 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) • CH I.1–40 (989) [completion of initial composition] • CH I.17 [augmented] (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) • CH II.1, 3–20, 22–3, and 25–40 (9911/2–9921/2) [completion of initial composition] • CH II.8, 23a [lines 1–125], and 25–6 [revised] (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • CH II.28 [augmented with SH II.26 and SH II.30, lines 75–114]* (ca 1009 – ca 1010) • De cogitatione (AH II.18) (ca 998 × 1002) • Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4) (later in the period ca 993 × ca 998) • Colloquy (earlier in ca 993 × ca 998) • De creatore et creatura (AH II.14) (ca 1006) • Decalogus Moysi (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991) • De duodecim abusiuis (ca 995 × ca 998) • Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3) (later in the period ca 993 × ca 998) • Erat quidam languens Lazarus II (AH I.3) (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005 [or possibly ca 1006–9 x 1010]) • Erat quidam languens Lazarus III (AH I.3) (ca 1006–9 × 1010) • Erat quidam regulus cuius filius infirmabatur Capharnaum (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • Esther (ca 998 × 1002) • Esto consentiens aduersario* (AH II.11) (late in ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010])

1

2 3

1

By Date2 (ca 964 × 970) – 987 • Primus igitur homo 989 • CH I.1–40 [completion of initial composition] (ca 964 × 970) – 9911/2 • Isidori de sacerdotibus* • De septem gradibus ecclesiasticis* • Beati Hieronimi excerpta de episcopis* • Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1) • Decalogus Moysi • De officiis atque orationibus canonicarum horarum* 9911/2–9922/2 • CH II.1, 3–20, 22–3, and 25–40 [completion of initial composition] • De temporibus anni • Pater noster (AH II.24) • Se Læssa Creda (AH II.22) • Mæsse Creda (AH II.23) • Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21) • De penitentia (AH II.19) • Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (AH II.20) • • • • • • • •

9922/2 × ca 998 De sancta Maria Grammar Glossary Genesis Prefatio to Genesis Colloquy Interrogationes Sigewulfi Letter for Wulfsige

The following represents a simplified version of the information detailed in Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 276–89 et passim. Dates given for texts are suggestions rather than absolutes, reflecting what may be the most likely of the dates posited for texts’ initial composition. Texts are listed in broadly chronological order within approximate periods. Asterisks indicate texts associated with Ælfric whose authorship is still debated.

xvi

Dates for Cited Ælfrician Works • Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2) (early in the period ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010] [CH I Phase ε4a]) • First Latin Letter for Wulfstan (ca 1005) • First Old English Letter for Wulfstan (ca 1006) • Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21) (9922/2) • Genesis (earlier in ca 993 × ca 998) • Glossary (earlier in ca 993 × ca 998) • Grammar (earlier in ca 993 × ca 998) • Her is Geleafa (ca 993 – ca 998) • Hexameron (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • In natali Domini (AH I.2) (ca 998 × 1002) • De infantibus (ca 998 × 1002) [perhaps] • Interrogationes Sigewulfi (earlier in ca 993 × ca 998) • Isidori de sacerdotibus (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991) • Judith (ca 998 × 1002) • Se Læssa Creda (AH II.22) (9922/2) • Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (AH II.20) (9922/2) • Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12, Appendix 1) (1002 × 1005 [CH I Phase ε1]) • Letter for Wulfsige (ca 993 × ca 995) • Letter to Brother Edward (995 × 1000) • Letter to Sigefyrth (ca 1005–6) • Letter to Sigeweard (ca 1005–6) • Letter to the Monks of Eynsham (ca 1005) • Letter to Wulfgeat (ca 1005–6) • LS I.1 (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.2 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.3 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.5 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.6 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.7 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.8 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.9 [Skeat I.10] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS I.10 [Skeat I.11] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.11 [Skeat I.12] (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.12 [Skeat I.13] (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.13 [Skeat I.14] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.14 [Skeat I.15] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.16 [Skeat I.17] (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.17 [Skeat I.18] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.18 [Skeat I.19] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.20 [Skeat I.21] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.21 [Skeat I.22] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.22 [Skeat I.24] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS II.23 [Skeat I.25] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS III.24 [Skeat II.26] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS III.25 [Skeat II.27] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • LS III.26 [Skeat II.28] (later in ca 993 × ca 998)

4

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

LS I.1 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] LS II.16 [Skeat I.17] SH II.19, lines 1–130 SH II.25 SH II.29, lines 36–128 [perhaps] SH II.30, lines 75–114 SH II.21 LS II.11 [Skeat I.12] LS II.12 [Skeat I.13] SH I.4 SH I.2 SH I.3 SH I.5 Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3) Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4) LS II.17 [Skeat I.18] Her is Geleafa Quomodo Acitofel De duodecim abusiuis LS I.2, I.3, I.5, I.6, I.7, I.8, I.9 [Skeat I.10], I.10 [Skeat I.11], II.13 [Skeat I.14], II.14 [Skeat I.15], II.18 [Skeat I.19], II.20 [Skeat I.21], II.21 [Skeat II.22], II.22 [Skeat II.24], II.23 [Skeat II.25], III.24 [Skeat II.26], III.25 [Skeat II.27], III.26 [Skeat II.28], III.27 [Skeat II.29], III.30 [Skeat II.34], III.31 [Skeat II.35], III.32 [Skeat II.36], and III.33 [Skeat II.37]4 • SH II.19 • De tribus ordinibus saeculi • Hexameron 995 × 1000 • Letter to Brother Edward • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

ca 998 × 1002 De infantibus [perhaps] Esther Judith SH II.20 Nisi granum frumenti Admonitio ad filium spiritualem Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10) SH II.18 De septiformi spiritu (AH II.16) Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17) SH II.22 De cogitatione (AH II.18) In natali Domini (AH I.2)

All published together in the initial dissemination of the Lives of Saints.

xvii

Dates for Cited Ælfrician Works • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

LS III.27 [Skeat II.29] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) LS III.30 [Skeat II.34] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) LS III.31 [Skeat II.35] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) LS III.32 [Skeat II.36] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) LS III.33 [Skeat II.37] (later in ca 993 × ca 998) Mæsse Creda (AH II.23) (9922/2) Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12) (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010] [CH I Phase ε4b]) Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5) (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8) (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) Nisi granum frumenti (ca 998 × 1002) De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) De officiis atque orationibus canonicarum horarum* (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991) Pater noster (AH II.24) (9922/2) De penitentia (AH II.19) (9922/2) Prefatio to Genesis (earlier in ca 993 × ca 998) Primus igitur homo ([ca 964 × 970] – ca 987) Quomodo Acitofel (later in ca 993 × ca 998) De sancta Maria (between [A] 992, after January × June and [B] ca 993 × ca 995) De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) Second Latin Letter for Wulfstan (ca 1005) Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan (ca 1006) Secundum Iohannem (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) De septem gradibus ecclesiasticis* (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991) De septiformi spiritu (AH II.16) (ca 998 × 1002) Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10) (ca 998 × 1002) Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1) (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991) Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9) (early in the period between [A] late 1006 to 1007 and [B] 1012 to 10131/2) De sex etatibus (AH II.15) (ca 1006) Simile est regnum celorum homini regi (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) SH I.1 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) SH I.2 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) SH I.3 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) SH I.4 (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) SH I.5 (later in ca 993 × ca 998) SH I.7 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) SH I.7 [augmented] (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) SH I.8 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005)

xviii

1002 × 1005 • Secundum Iohannem [perhaps] • Erat quidam languens Lazarus II (AH I.3) [or possibly ca 1006–9 x 1010] • CH I.17 [augmented] • SH I.7 • SH I.8 • SH I.9 • SH I.10 • SH I.12 • Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12, Appendix 1) [CH I Phase ε3] • Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa* (AH I.6) • SH I.11 ca 1005 – ca 1006 First Latin Letter for Wulfstan Second Latin Letter for Wulfstan Letter to the Monks of Eynsham Letter to Sigeweard Letter to Sigefyrth Letter to Wulfgeat Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8) De uirginitate* (AH II.13) First Old English Letter for Wulfstan Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan • De creatore et creatura (AH II.14) • De sex etatibus (AH II.15) • • • • • • • • • •

Between [A] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005 and [B] ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) • SH II.28 ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) • SH I.1 • CH II.8 [revised] • Erat quidam languens Lazarus III (AH I.3) • CH I.15 [slightly revised] • Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5) • SH I.7 [augmented] • SH II.29 • CH II.23a [lines 1–125] [revised] • SH II.13 • SH II.14 • SH II.15 • CH II.25 [revised] • CH II.26 [revised] • SH II.16 • SH II.26

Dates for Cited Ælfrician Works • SH I.9 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) • SH I.10 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) • SH I.11 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) • SH I.11a* (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH I.12 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) • SH II.13 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.14 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010] [as late as 1009 × 1010]) • SH II.15 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.16 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.17 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.18 (ca 998 × 1002) • SH II.19, lines 1–130 (middle of the period ca 993 × ca 998) • SH II.19 (later in the period ca 993 × ca 998) • SH II.20 (ca 998 × 1002) • SH II.21 (middle of ca 993 × ca 998) • SH II.22 (ca 998 × 1002) • SH II.25 (middle of the period ca 993 × ca 998 [included in augmented CH II.22 ca 1009 – ca 1010]) • SH II.26 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.27 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010])SH II.28 (between [A] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005 and [B] ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.29, lines 36–128 (middle of the period ca 993 × ca 998) [perhaps] • SH II.29 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010] [or perhaps later in the period 1006–10]) • SH II.30, lines 1–74 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]) • SH II.30, lines 75–114 (middle of the period ca 993 × ca 998 [included with SH II.26 in augmented CH II.28* ca 1009 – ca 1010]) • De temporibus anni (9911/2–9921/2) • De tribus ordinibus saeculi (later in ca 993 × ca 998) • De uirginitate* (AH II.13) (ca 1005–6)

xix

• SH II.17 • SH II.27 • Erat quidam regulus cuius filius infirmabatur Capharnaum • Simile est regnum celorum homini regi • Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2) [CH I Phase ε4a] • Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12) [CH I Phase ε4b] • Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9) • SH I.11a* • De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis • SH II.30, lines 1–74 • De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) • Esto consentiens aduersario* (AH II.11) • CH II.22 [augmented with SH II.25] • CH II.28 [augmented with SH II.26 and SH II.30, lines 75–114]*

Editorial Conventions Punctuation and capitalization are modern, and quotation marks are used for direct discourse. The spelling and word-order of the manuscripts are generally retained, and departures from the manuscript, whether by omission, addition, or substitution, are clearly signaled in the main text and explained in the apparatus. Abbreviations are silently expanded. In both Latin and Old English words, e caudata (ę) has been silently expanded to ae, and in Latin words, final æ is written as ae. Word-divisions and paragraphing are editorial, as is the metrical lineation of Ælfric’s alliterative prose. Metrical lineation is retained when Ælfric mixes alliterative and ordinary prose. In natali Domini (AH I.2) and Lazarus III (AH I.3) deserve special mention because the texts are printed from a unique copy of the sermons found in a late-twelfth-century manuscript whose spellings do not exhibit the standard features of Ælfric’s late West Saxon. Rather than rewrite the sermons into late West Saxon, we print the early Middle English versions because they reflect the extant evidence. The following signs are used in the main text: < > Angle brackets enclose letters, words, or passages added to the text from a parallel source or by conjecture. / \ Slashes enclose insertions by scribes. [ ] Square brackets enclose letters, words, or passages lost through damage to the manuscript. | Vertical bars indicate change in manuscript foliation or pagination. : Colons indicate the approximate number of missing or illegible letters. In four texts edited from extensively damaged manuscripts, we depart from standard practice to improve readability (Erat quidam languens Lazarus II [AH I.3]; De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis [AH I.7]; De creatore et creatura [AH II.14]; and De sex etatibus huius seculi [AH II.15]). To reduce the risk of producing a cluttered text, we put square brackets around whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. We supply details in the apparatus regarding readings from the damaged manuscript and readings supplied from a parallel source or sources, or by conjecture. In the apparatus, only substantive variants are included. Glosses are not reported. Common minor variants in spelling are excluded. Examples are: þ/ð; the doubling of final consonants such as –l (eal/eall), –n (man/mann), and –s (–nys/–nyss), and of medial consonants such as –c (miclum/micclum), –n (nytenys/nytennys), and –s (þisum/ þissum); the interchange of i/y in bið/byð, gif/gyf, hi/hy, hine/hyne, his/hys, hit/hyt, is/ xx

Editorial Conventions ys, micel/mycel, and þis/þys; and o/e medially as in heofonum/heofenum, hetela/hetola, and seofonfeald/seofenfeald; and the interchange of þam, þan, þon, and butan/buton; pronomial variations such as hi, hy, heo for the nominative and accusative plural, and him/heom; verbal variations such as ig/i medially as in elcigendum/elciendum, geendigan/ geendian, and hiwigon/hiwion; –an, –on, –en in preterite plural; and –ade/–ode, –edon/– odon, and –ad/–od in preterite and past-participial forms of class II weak verbs. Leveled inflectional endings of late spellings are treated selectively, but late spellings appear when additions, omissions, and differences in word-order are reported. Unless noted otherwise, manuscript information in the headnote to the apparatus summarizes that found in Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 207–68.

xxi

Conventions Used in the Commentaries In the commentaries below, in tables that compare multiple versions of texts, texts are arranged from left to right in chronological order. Texts are compared with their predecessor to their immediate left, with variations in word choice and spelling highlighted in gray and rearrangements in word order indicated by underlining. Text in the left-most column is sometimes highlighted for specific points of comparison. Lists of Ælfrician writings are given in chronological order; for dates, see the table of ‘Dates of Cited Ælfrician Works’ above. When treating language or concepts that appear elsewhere in Ælfric’s corpus, totals are given when there are more than ten examples (e.g., ‘some twenty-five times’ or ‘on nearly 230 occasions’); otherwise, specific references are provided. Information about such analogues shows not just where Ælfric employs particular vocabulary or addresses certain ideas, but [1] how often he does so, [2] at what points in his career they are of interest, and – when a text’s authorship is disputed – [3] the extent to which the text’s vocabulary is characteristically Ælfrician. For the sake of convenience, information about dates of composition, source references, and cross-references is provided in multiple locations (introductions, headnotes to the apparatus, translation footnotes, and commentary).

xxii

HOMILIES

the proper of the season

1

SERMO IN NATALE DOMINI ET DE RATIONE ANIME The Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (‘A Sermon on the Lord’s Nativity and the Nature of the Soul’) is one of six sermons that Ælfric wrote for Christmas Day over the course of his career.1 It is the only Latin sermon among them and was second in order of composition, having been composed after Ælfric completed the First Series of Catholic Homilies in 989 but before he sent the series to Sigeric, archbishop of Canterbury, in 991.2 Rather than expound the Gospel story of the Nativity as he did in the First Series (CH I.2), however, Ælfric offers spiritual instruction concerning the fundamental tenets of an orthodox faith. The first part of the Sermo deals largely with the Trinity and the nature of the Creator [lines 1–99], while the second discusses the nature of the created soul [lines 100–205]. The instruction in part one initially sounds an admonitory note, addressing the antitrinitarian belief that the Son is not coeternal with the Father and is thus inferior to him [lines 5–17]. This error prompts a defense of the coeternality and consubstantiality of the Trinity, and a warning to the audience not to search too high for things that exceed human reason [lines 18–30]. Ælfric does not suggest, however, that Christians should not think. Rather he puts within reach a knowledge of the Trinity whose distinctiveness as a Creator without beginning and end can be comprehended in the orders of created beings [lines 31–62], all of whom have a beginning and some of whom – angels and humans – have no end [lines 31–48]. The Sermo argues that humans, as rational beings who walk upright, ought to think on heavenly things lest they become like animals that take no notice of God and fight among themselves [lines 62–70]. Taking the Eucharist, says Ælfric, prompts Christians to take notice of Christ, who was born once in humanity but is repeatedly incarnated in the hearts of those who love truth and strive for peace [lines 71–99]. From orthodoxy and comportment, Ælfric turns in part two to a consideration of the soul, a knowledge of which explains human existence, one’s purpose and ultimate end [lines 100–2]. There is nothing, he asserts, more necessary for Christians to know. They must understand that God created the soul in his image [lines 105–15] with a tripartite capacity for desire, anger, and reason [lines 116–26], a Trinitarian likeness with memory, understanding, and will [lines 127–35], four cardinal virtues of wisdom, 1

2

The six, in chronological order, are: CH I.2 (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 190–7); Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (AH I.1); CH II.1 (Godden, Second Series, pp. 3–11); LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 22–40; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, pp. 10–24); In natali Domini (AH I.2, pp. 110–30); and SH I.1 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 196–216). See below, commentary on line 1 (p. 33).

3

Introduction: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime righteousness, moderation, and steadfastness [lines 161–7], and an ability to govern the body as it animates, contemplates, senses, discerns, consents, and remembers [lines 177–88]. Believers who exercise the soul’s faculties will know what they ought to do and do what they know, and thus be truly wise in the ways of God [lines 198–202]. The homily concludes by equating zeal for wisdom with the soul’s beauty and beatitude in this life and the one to come. Evidence for Ælfric’s authorship of the Sermo is three-fold, and his use of it as a source for two other sermons is sure. First, the sermon survives in a manuscript (see below) that preserves a copy of a commonplace collection of Latin texts that he assembled.3 Thirteen of its fourteen items show some connection to Ælfric,4 and he definitively authored one of its texts, two if we count the Sermo, and compiled as many as five others.5 Second, the Sermo preserves features of Ælfric’s characteristic methods of abridging Latin texts.6 Third, the Sermo’s idiosyncratic selection of biblical passages points to Ælfric as the author. The selection is without parallel among his predecessors and contemporaries writing either in Latin or the vernacular, and nearly all of the quotations can be documented elsewhere in his work, and some only in his work.7 Considered holistically, the evidence supports the conclusion that Ælfric composed the Latin sermon he used as a source for the Christmas homily in the Lives of Saints (LS 1) around 993–88 and for his revision of it, In natali Domini (AH I.2), between about 998 and 1002.9 It is important to understand that Ælfric had not polished the Sermo for public consumption as he had the Old English sermons adapted from it. His compositional approaches to the two parts of the sermon differ starkly, and his close dependence on a single source in the second part reveals the unpolished state of the text most clearly. The Sermo is a composite homily, whose first half Ælfric freely composes, though patristic, primarily Augustinian, influences are discernible, as is his occasional use of the Old English Boethius. For the second half of the Sermo, he relies solely on the De ratione animae, Alcuin’s treatise on the nature of the soul. Even as he abridges and reworks the treatise into a composition of his own, Ælfric derives nearly every word from Alcuin and leaves exposed ‘the seams among excerpted passages and rewoven sentences’.10 Rather than rise in formality to the level of a work prepared for public consumption, the 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

10

Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, p. 34. Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, pp. 33–4. Jones, ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 18, where the Sermo is included among the works that might be attributed to Ælfric. Ælfric did write the Latin Letter to Wulfstan, and Jones’ assessment tips the balance in favor of Ælfric’s authorship or compilation of the following works: (1) an epitome of Julian of Toledo’s Prognosticum futuri saeculi; (2) Decalogus Moysi; (3) De septem gradibus ecclesiasticis (an excerpt); (4) Isidori de sacerdotibus (an excerpt); and (5) Beati Hieronimi excerpta de episcopis (an excerpt). Jones, ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, pp. 45–51. See below, Introduction to lines 1–99 in the notes. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 136. The revision of the Christmas sermon in the Lives (LS 1) is edited in the following chapter as In natali Domini (AH I.2), for the dating of which see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 136. On the order of composition, see the notes below (Introduction to lines 100–205), where we point out that if the Sermo is not by Ælfric, then it would qualify as an anonymous intermediate source that influenced his composition of LS 1 and AH I.2. Jones, ‘Medieval Latin Author’, p. 38.

4

Introduction: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime abridgement constitutes ‘a grammatically tolerable approximation, whose textual and interpretative shortcomings might only have emerged later, in the more deeply analytical process of translation’.11 What we have in the Sermo, then, is a kind of working draft from which Ælfric was to develop two vernacular sermons, both of which avoid repeating errors he introduced or reproduced in the Latin homily.12 The Sermo survives uniquely in the copy of Ælfric’s commonplace collection preserved in Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque municipale 63, fols 1r–34v [Y4],13 a manuscript written in England in the second third of the eleventh century. It is thus a copy at some remove from Ælfric. Y4 must, however, represent the state of the collection around 1002–05 when Ælfric included in it a copy of his Latin Letter to Wulfstan.14 In the letter, frater (‘brother’) Ælfric, who would be promoted to the abbacy of Eynsham around 1005, greets archepiscopus (‘archbishop’) Wulfstan, who had acceded to the archiepiscopal see of York in 1002.15 While Y4 contains this letter that Ælfric wrote in the last decade of his life, it also contains what appears to be his earliest datable work, an epitome of Julian of Toledo’s Prognosticon futuri saeculi, a compilation of patristic eschatological teachings. Ælfric must have written the epitome before completing and organizing the First Series in 989 because he uses it as a source in his homily for the feast-day of St Paul (CH I.27).16 Within two years, Ælfric was at work on his Latin Sermo, a composition that would become the earliest known witness to Alcuin’s De ratione animae in England17 and the source of two vernacular Christmas homilies distinguished by their theological complexity and doctrinal content.

11 12 13 14

15 16

17

Jones, ‘Medieval Latin Author’, p. 48. Leinbaugh, ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, pp. 206–10; for an analysis of the passages in question, see the commentary on AH I.2, lines 237–42, 271–4, and 297–346. [Not in Ker;] Gneuss and Lapidge §800; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 250. Gatch, ‘Boulogne-sur-Mer 63’, p. 489. Lapidge’s analysis of a copy of Ælfric’s ‘hagiographical commonplace-book’ preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 5632 suggests that around the time he was adapting the Sermo, he had in hand other Latin works that he had copied, excerpted, and epitomized (Cult of St Swithun, pp. 555–7). Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 300 n. 193. Ælfric used the epitome as a source for CH I.27 (St Paul), so it must have existed prior to the completion of the series in 989 (Gatch, ‘Boulogne-sur-Mer 63’, p. 488, and also Godden, Commentary, p. 222). On Ælfric as the epitomizer, see Jones, ‘Medieval Latin Author’, pp. 41–5. Szarmach, ‘Alcuin’s De ratione animae’, p. 399.

5

sermo in natale domini et de ratione anime

a sermon on the lord ’ s nativity and the nature of the soul

SERMO IN NATALE DOMINI ET DE RATIONE ANIME

Incipit sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime.

5

10

15

20

Quondam diximus uobis, fratres, quomodo saluator noster Iesus Christus hac ipsa die natus sit uera humanitate de sancta Maria uirgine pro salute mundi, sed tamen uolumus pro huius diei sollempnitate uestras mentes aliqua spiritali doctrina spiritaliter letificare et in fide catholica confirmare. Fuerunt namque quidam heretici demonico spiritu decepti in tantum ut dicerent Christum Filium Dei non permanere apud Patrem semper in diuinitate sed esset aliquod | tempus antequam natus esset ex Patre. Audiamus nunc sanctum euuangelium quomodo tales heb/e\tes superat et stultitiam eorum facile confundit. Iudei namque interrogauerunt Christum dicentes, ‘“Tu quis es?”’ Ille respondit, ‘“Principium, qui et loquor uobis”’. Audistis, fratres, quam breuis responsio et quam profunda sit. Ergo Pater est Principium, et Filius, qui ex Patre natus est, Principium est, et Spiritus Sanctus, qui est Caritas amborum, Principium est. Non tamen ipsi tria Principia sed unum Principium, sicut unus Deus in una deitate semper permanens, non inceptus, nec finitus. Sed ille homo insanus est qui quaerit aliquid ante Principium, quia sancta Trinitas ineffabili potentia et una deitate omnes creaturas fecit, et non est creatura nec tempus permanens quod sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, non creauerit. Credite hoc, fratres carissimi, quia propheta dicit, ‘Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis’. Item scriptum est, ‘Altiora te ne quaesieris’. Et ualde altiora se quaerit, qui uechors perscrutando transscendere uult Christum, Filium Dei coeternum Patri, qui est Virtus et Sapientia Dei. Si aliquis modo uellet erigere altam scalam sibi et ascendere per gradus eius usque ad sumitatem illius, ualde uechors esset si sine gradibus altius adhuc ascendere uellet, quia tanto grauior casus ei eueniret quanto altius ascenderet. Sed adhuc est dementior qui modica ratione meditando conatur transscendere Creatorem suum. Dicit denique Dominus ad Moysen, ‘“Non ascendas per gradus ad altare meum”’.

Text from: Y4 Boulogne-sur-Mer, Bibliothèque municipale, 63, fols 1r–34v, at fols 13r–18r (s. xi1 or xi2/3, England; provenance Saint-Bertin) 8 heb/e\tes] with ‘e’ above ‘a’ of ‘habetes’ Y4  21 sumitatem] sumitatem Y4 

8

13v

A SERMON ON THE LORD’S NATIVITY AND THE NATURE OF THE SOUL Here begins a sermon on the Lord’s Nativity and the nature of the soul.

5

10

15

20

Previously we related to you, fellow Christians, how our Savior Jesus Christ was born on this very day in true humanity from the holy virgin Mary for the salvation of the world, but nevertheless we desire, on account of the solemnity of this day, to gladden your minds spiritually with some spiritual instruction and to strengthen them in the orthodox faith. For truly there have been certain heretics deceived by the evil spirit to such an extent that they said that Christ the Son of God did not always dwell with the Father in divinity but that there was some period of time before he was begotten of the Father. Let us now hear how the holy Gospel overcomes such dolts and easily confounds their foolishness. For indeed, the Jews questioned Christ saying, ‘“Who are you?”’ He answered, ‘“The Beginning, who likewise speaks to you”’.1 You have heard, fellow Christians, how brief the response and how profound it is. Therefore the Father is the Beginning, and the Son, who was begotten of the Father, is the Beginning, and the Holy Spirit, who is the Love of both, is the Beginning. Nevertheless, they are themselves not three Beginnings but one Beginning, just as there is one God ever existing in one Godhead, not begun, not ended. But mad is that person who searches for something prior to the Beginning, because the holy Trinity exists in unspeakable power and made all created things as one Godhead, and there is no creature or age remaining that the holy Trinity, one God, will not have created. Believe this, dearest fellow Christians, because through the prophet he says, ‘Unless you believe, you will not understand’.2 Likewise it is written, ‘Do not search for things too high for you’.3 And he searches for things exceedingly high, who, being foolish, wishes by means of investigating to transcend Christ, the Son of God coeternal with the Father, who is the Strength and Wisdom of God. If anyone would desire just now to scale a high ladder by himself and to ascend its steps to its highest point, he would be exceedingly foolish if he would desire to ascend still higher without steps, because the higher he ascended, the more painful the fall would turn out for him. But he is yet more demented who tries to transcend his Creator by thinking with ordinary reason. The Lord in fact says to Moses, ‘“Do not go 1

2 3

Compare John 8.25: ‘Dicebant ergo ei, “Tu quis es?” Dixit eis Iesus, “Principium quia et loquor uobis”’ (‘They said therefore to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “The beginning, that also is speaking to you”’). Isaiah 7.9 (Vetus Latina): ‘Unless you believe, you will not understand’. A variant version of Sirach 3.22, which in the Vulgate reads: ‘Altiora te ne scrutaueris’ (‘Do not search into things that are higher than you’).

9

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 25

30

35

40

45

50

55

‘Altare’ namque in hoc loco ipsum Deum significat, sicut psalmista testatur. Cum diceret, ‘Introibo ad altare Dei’, statim adiunxit, ‘ad Deum, qui letificat iuuentutem meam’. Et bene altare significat Deum quo nichil est altius, ad quem non debemus ascendere per gradus ut credamus Filium esse inferiorem Patre aut Spiritum Sanctum minorem ambobus,  |  quia quicquid minor est Deo non est Deus. Et quicquid incepit non potest habere omnipotentiam. Audite, fratres, nemo ascendat altius nec cadat in infima. Numquam incepit Pater sed semper erat; numquam incepit Filius sed semper erat Sapientia natus ex sapiente Patre; numquam incepit Spiritus Sanctus sed semper erat Caritas Patris et Filii coeternus et consubstantialis ipsis in una deitate. In creaturis sunt quaedam temporalia, quaedam aeterna. Temporalia uero sunt ut pecora, pisces, uolatilia, quae anima carent, quae habent utrumque initium et finem, quae inceperunt quando creata sunt, et iterum morte finiantur et ad nichilum redigantur. Alia sunt æterna, ita ut habeant initium sed non habent finem. Initium habent quia creata sunt, sed carent fine quia numquam desinunt esse, sicut angeli et anime hominum. Nam Creator omnium sic aeternus est, ut non habeat initium nec finem sed ipse est Initium et Finis, carens tamen initio et fine. Nullum timet quia non habet potentiorem se nec saltem similem. Semper dat et numquam sua minuit nec aliquo indiget. Semper est omnipotens, semper uult bene, numquam male. Sed odit eos qui operantur iniquitatem et perdit omnes qui loquuntur mendacium. Ipse non est factus nec creatus quia nichil erat exsistens ante illum. Et si factus esset, numquam esset omnipotens Deus. Et si aliquis insanus existimat quod Deus seipsum fecisset, tunc interrogemus quomodo se ipsum fecisset si ante non esset. Sed erat semper, et est, et erit. Et ipse solus habet semper esse in se et per se. Illum possumus admirari, sed nequimus de eo digne nec cogitare nec loqui quia est inscrutabilis et ineffabilis, et angelis et hominibus. Trinitas est Deus noster: Pater ex quo omnia, Filius per quem omnia, Spiritus Sanctus  |  in quo omnia. Sed Filius solus incarnatus est et hodie natus sine terreno patre, qui ex Patre semper natus est sine matre. Non habet initium in diuinitate et cepit esse in tempor ex matre uirgine, sed eius incarnatio erat predestinata eterno consilio Patris. Ipse enim est perfectus Deus et perfectus homo, in duabus naturis Dei et hominis existens una persona in tantum ut idem sit Filius Dei qui Filius Hominis, et Filius Hominis qui Filius Dei, unus Christus. Creaturae uero quas unus Creator creauit multiplices sunt, et uariae figurae, et non uno modo uiuunt. Ex quibus quaedam sunt incorporalia et inuisibilia, ut angeli in caelo nullo terreno cibo utentes. Alia namque corporalia sunt ratione carentia et toto corpore in terra reptantia, sicut uermes. Quaedam uero ambulant duobus pedibus, quedam quattuor. Quaedam pennis uolant in aere; quaedam etiam

52 tempor] temporae Y4 

10

14r

14v

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 25

30

35

40

45

50

55

up by the steps to my altar”’.4 For certainly ‘altar’ in this passage signifies God himself, just as the Psalmist attests. When he said, ‘I will go to the altar of God’, immediately he added ‘to God, who gives joy to my youth’.5 And rightly the altar signifies God next to whom nothing is higher, to whom we ought not ascend by steps so that we believe the Son to be inferior to the Father or the Holy Spirit inferior to both, because whatever is inferior to God is not God. And whatever has a beginning cannot have omnipotence. Listen, fellow Christians, let no one ascend too high or fall into the depths. The Father never began to exist but always existed; the Son never began to exist but always was the Wisdom begotten of the wise Father; the Holy Spirit never began to exist but was always the Love of the Father and the Son, coeternal and consubstantial among themselves in one Godhead. Among created things some are temporal, some eternal. Certainly, there are temporal creatures such as cattle, fish, [and] birds, that lack a soul, have both a beginning and an end, began to exist when they were created, and in turn will come to an end in death and be reduced to nothing. Others are eternal, so that they have a beginning but do not have an end. They have a beginning because they were created, but they do not have an end because they never cease to exist, like angels and the souls of human beings. But the Creator of all things is eternal in that he has no beginning or end but is himself the Beginning and the End, though without beginning and end. He fears no one because there is none more powerful than he nor even similar. He always gives and never diminishes his possessions nor needs anything. He is always all powerful, always means well, never ill. But he hates those who do evil and destroys all who tell a lie. He was not made nor created because nothing existed before him. And if he had been made, he would never be almighty God. And if anyone insane supposes that God had made himself, then let us ask how he had made himself if he did not earlier exist. On the contrary, he always was, and is, and will be. And he alone is able always to exist in himself and through himself. We can wonder at him, but we cannot think or speak worthily about Him because he is unfathomable and too great for words, both for angels and for human beings. Our God is Trinity: the Father, from whom are all things; the Son, through whom are all things; the Holy Spirit, in whom are all things. But the Son alone was made flesh and today was born without an earthly father, he who was always begotten of the Father without a mother. He has no beginning in the Godhead and began to exist in time from a virgin mother, but his incarnation had been predestined by the eternal plan of the Father. For he himself is fully God and fully man, existing in the dual natures of God and man as one person to such an extent that the same Son of God who is the Son of Man, and the Son of Man who is the Son of God, is the one Christ. However, the creations that the one Creator made are manifold, and have different forms, and do not live according to a single manner. Among them are certain incorporeal and invisible ones, such as angels in heaven who consume no earthly food. Others, for instance, are corporeal, lacking reason and crawling along the ground with the whole body, such as worms. But some walk on

4 5

Compare Exodus 20.26: ‘“Non ascendes per gradus ad altare meum ne reueletur turpitudo tua”’ (‘“You will not go up by steps to my altar, lest your shame should be uncovered”’). Psalms 43.4 [Vulgate 42.4]: ‘Et introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat iuuentutem meam’ (‘And I will go in to the altar of God, to God who gives joy to my youth’).

11

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 60

65

70

75

80

85

90

natatilia sunt, ut pissces in mari, et in amne uagantia; quae sine aquis uiuere nequeunt, et nos in aquis suffocamur. Omnia tamen ad terram inclinantur de qua alimenta sumunt et quicquid desiderant uel indigent. Sed homo solus recta statura ambulat, qui ad imaginem Dei creatus est et proprio incessu significat quod debet plus de celestibus meditari quam de terrenis, plus de eternis quam de infimis, ne forte mens eius fiat inferior corpore. Ergo ille homo qui semper inheret infimis de caducis cogitans nonne est quasi uermis qui toto corpore serpit? Nolite, fratres, esse serpentes uenenati, nocentes inuicem. Iterum nolite incurui incedere ut iumenta solam terram aspicientes, ne forte dicat uobis psalmista: ‘Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsa eorum semper incurua’. Erigite capita uestra, ambulate ut homines  |  rationabiles. ‘State in fide, uirilter agite, et confortamini; omnia uestra cum caritate fiant’. Nolite esse bruta animalia: intelligite quia serpens terram comedit cunctis diebus uitae suae et bos herbis pascitur, uobis autem dedit Deus panem ad uescendum. Et non solum panem terrenis dapibus preparatum sed etiam panem angelorum qui de celo descendit, qui hodie natus est nobis ex inmaculata uirgine Maria, qui dixit, ‘“Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi. Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi uita”’. Istum panem denique manducamus cum ad sacrificium Christi cum fide accedimus. Nam hodie debent Christiani accedere ad sacrificium Christi, quia ualde raro cmmunicat qui semel in anno communicat, cum canones dignum doce/a\nt excommunicatione qui tres dominicas dies peragit sine communione. Semel uero natus est Christus in humanitate sed nascitur in corde credentium frequenter per fidem. Nascatur et in nobis uera fide, qui ideo hodie natus est ex matre humanitus ut nos ad se perduceret diuinitus. Agamus illi gratias, fratres, ex intimo corde quia uocat nos ad eternam uitam, in qua cum illo et omnibus sanctis eius æternaliter manebius si in hac mortali uita recta fide et bona operatione eum nobis placabimus. Rogo uos, fratres, nolite decipere uosmet ipsos inuicem fraudibus aut furtis, quia tu hodie illum decipis et animam tuam perdis, et ille te cras decipit et perdit animam suam. Tunc eritis ambo perditi, carentes substantiis. Nonne esset melius et sapientius ut tu diligeres proximum tuum sicut Deus precepit et ipse diligeret te quam tu perderes eum et ipse te decipiendo? Duo namque uerba precepit Deus omnibus Christianis custodienda, | breuiter quidem dicta sed ualde utiliter, hoc est, ‘“Pacem et ueritatem diligite”, dicit Dominus Deus omnipotens’. Qui pacem diligit et ueritatem Deum placat

78 cmmunicat] cummunicat Y4  84 manebius] manebibus Y4 

12

15r

15v

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 60

65

70

75

80

85

90

two feet, some on four. Some with feathers fly in the air; there are also some that swim, such as fish in the sea, and that range in the river; some cannot live apart from water, and we are suffocated in water. All, however, are bent down toward the ground from which they take food and whatever they desire or need. But man alone walks with an upright stature, he who was made in the image of God and by his own gait signifies that he ought to think more on heavenly matters than earthly ones, more on eternal things than the basest ones, lest by chance his mind become lower than his body. Thus is not that person who always gazes on the basest things while thinking about transitory matters like the worm that crawls along with its whole body? Fellow Christians, do not be venomous snakes, harming each other. Again, do not walk bent downward like beasts of burden looking only at the ground, lest perchance the psalmist say of you: ‘Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and let their backs forever be bent’.6 Raise your heads, walk like rational men. ‘Stand firm in the faith, act manfully, and be strengthened; let all your deeds be done with love’.7 Do not be irrational animals: understand that a snake eats dirt all the days of its life and the ox grazes on plants, but God has given you bread to eat. And not only bread prepared for earthly feasts but also the Bread of Angels who descended from heaven, who today was born to us of the immaculate virgin Mary, [he] who said, ‘“I am the living bread who has come down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my body for the life of the world”’.8 Accordingly, we eat that bread when we come with faith to the sacrifice of Christ. Now today Christians ought to come to the sacrifice of Christ, because very rarely does he take Communion who communicates but once a year, though the canons teach that he is worthy of excommunication who goes three Sundays without Communion. Truly Christ was born but once in humanity but is born frequently in the heart of believers through faith. Let him be born in us too by true faith, he who today was born humanly of a mother to lead us divinely to himself. Let us give him thanks, fellow Christians, from our innermost heart because he calls us to everlasting life, in which we may remain eternally with him and all of his saints if in this mortal life we will reconcile him to us with proper faith and good work. Fellow Christians, I ask you not to deceive each other with tricks and deceptions, because today you deceive him and lose your soul, and tomorrow he deceives you and loses his soul. Then you both will be lost, deprived of your lives. Is it not better and wiser to love your neighbor as God commanded and for him to love you than to destroy him with deception and he you? For truly God commanded all Christians to heed two words, briefly to be sure but very usefully put, that is, ‘“Love peace and truth”, says the Lord God Almighty’.9 He who loves peace and truth pleases God for himself and does 6

7

8 9

Compare Psalms 69.23 [Vulgate 68.24]: ‘Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsum illorum semper incurua’ (‘Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and let their backs forever be bent’). Compare 1 Corinthians 16.13–14: ‘Vigilate, state in fide, uiriliter agite, et confortamini; omnia uestra in caritate fiant’ (‘Be watchful, stand [firm] in the faith, act manfully, and be strengthened; let all your deeds be done with love’). John 6.51–2. Compare Zechariah 8.19: ‘Haec dicit Dominus exercituum: “Ieiunium quarti et ieiunium quinti et ieiunium septimi et ieiunium decimi erit domui Iuda in gaudium et in laetitiam et in sollemnitates praeclaras; ueritatem tantum et pacem diligite”’ (‘Thus says the Lord of hosts: “The fast of the

13

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

95

100

105

110

115

sibimet ipsi et homines non offendit nec aliquem decipit. Qui lites et discordiam amat filius diaboli est. Qui mendacium et fraudem amat diabolum sequitur qui est mendax et pater mendacii et nihil agit nisi decipit quos potest. Nam de pacificis ait Dominus, ‘“Beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei uocabuntur”’. Et homo qui ueritatem diligit Christum sequitur, qui dixit, ‘“Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita”’. Breuiter nunc dicimus quia nemo sine pace et sine ueritate uiuens in hoc mundo habebit mansionem nisi cum diabulo et angelis eius in eterno igne. Et hoc scitote, fratres, quia nichil est tam necesse homini Christiano scire in hac uita quam ut sciat Deum omnipotentem uera fide et anima ipsius ut intellegat cur ipse sit homo natus in terra, ad qui creatus, et ad qui perueniat in fine. Sed quia sepius iam diximus uobis de Deo est de fide catholica habundanter, uolumus modo uobis dicere de humana anima, breuiter si possumus. Nichil aliquid magis homini in hac mortali/t\ate uiuenti necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam. Naturale denique homini est bonum amare. Quid est bonum nisi Deus, qui solus summum bonum est, sine quo bono nil boni quisquam habere poterit? Amor huius boni non nisi in anima esse poterit. Et haec sola anima nobilis est, quae illum amat a quo est quod est, qui illam talem creauit ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam et digna Dei esset habitatione. Omnes enim catholici scriptores in hoc consentiunt: quod anima a Deo sit condita, nec partem eam esse Dei naturae, quia si ex Dei esset natura assumpta, peccare non posset. Unde ait Salomon, ‘Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum  |  qui dedit illum’. Et Dominus loquitur per prophetam, ‘Omnem flatum ego feci’. Et iterum scriptum est, ‘Qui fingit spiritum hominis in ipso’. Et apostolus Paulus, ‘Et ipse det omnibus uitam et spiritum’. Triplex est enim animae, ut philosophi uolunt, natura. Est in ea quaedam pars concupicibilis, alia rationabilis, tertia irascibilis. Duas enim habent harum partes nobiscum bestiae et animalia communes, id est concupiscentiam et iram. Homo solus inter inrationabiles ratione uiget, consilio ualet, intellegentia antecellit. Concupiscentia data

102 qui1,2] quit Y4  117 concupicibilis] concupisscibilis Y4 

14

16r

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 95

100

105

110

115

120

not offend people or deceive another person. He who loves quarrels and discord is a son of the devil. He who loves lying and fraud follows the devil who is the author and father of lying and does nothing except deceive those whom he can. Now about peacemakers the Lord said, ‘“Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God”’.10 And a person who loves truth follows Christ, who said, ‘“I am the way and the truth and the life”’.11 We now say concisely that no one living in this world without peace and without truth will have a mansion unless with the devil and his angels in everlasting fire. And know this, fellow Christians, that there is nothing so necessary for the Christian to know in this life as to know almighty God in true faith and to understand in his own soul why man was born on earth, for what he was created, and to what he may attain at the end. But because we already have more often spoken abundantly to you about God and about the orthodox faith, we wish now to speak to you about the human soul, briefly if we can. For a person living in this mortal existence, nothing is more necessary to understand than God and the soul. Indeed, it is natural for a person to love the good. What is good if not God, who alone is the highest good, without whom no one can possess any good? Love of this good cannot exist except in the soul. And the only noble soul is that which loves Him by whom it is what it is, namely, the One who thus created it to have His own image and likeness impressed upon its understanding and to be a worthy dwelling place of God. In fact, all orthodox writers agree in this: that the soul was made by God, that it is not part of God’s nature, because if it had been taken from God’s nature, it would not be able to sin. Whence Solomon said, ‘The dust returns to its ground whence it belonged, and the spirit returns to God who gave it’.12 And the Lord says through a prophet, ‘I have made every soul’.13 And again it is written, ‘He forms the spirit of a person within him’.14 And the apostle Paul [has written], ‘And He gives life and the spirit to all’.15 In fact, the nature of the soul is tripartite, just as the philosophers maintain. A certain part within it is desirous, another rational, a third prone to anger. To be sure, wild beasts and animals have two of these parts in common with us, that is, desire and anger. A human being alone lives by reason among the irrational beings, is capable of judgment, excels in understanding. Desire has been given to people to wish for things that are

10 11 12 13

14

15

fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth will be a matter of joy and rejoicing and magnificent celebrations for the house of Judah; only love truth and peace”’). Matthew 5.9. John 14.6a. Ecclesiastes 12.7. Compare Isaiah 57.16: ‘“Non enim in sempiternum litigabo neque usque ad finem irascar, quia spiritus a facie mea egredietur et flatus ego faciam”’ (‘“For I will not contend forever, neither will I be angry unto the end, because the spirit shall go forth from my face and breathings [i.e. souls] I will make”’). Compare Zechariah 12.1: ‘Onus uerbi Domini super Israhel: dixit Dominus, extendens caelum et fundans terram et fingens spiritum hominis in eo’ (‘The burden of the word of the Lord upon Israel: [thus] says the Lord, who stretches forth the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms a person’s spirit within him’). Compare Acts 17.25: ‘Nec manibus humanis colitur indigens aliquo cum ipse det omnibus uitam et inspirationem et omnia’ (‘Nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all life and breath and everything else’).

15

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 120

125

130

135

140

145

150

est homini ad cupiscenda quae sunt utilia et quae sibi ad salutem proficiant sempiternam. Si uero corrumpitur, nascitur ex ea gastrimargia, fornicatio, et philargiria. Ira data est ad uitia cohibenda, ne impiis, id est peccatis, homo seruiat dominis, quia iuxta Domini uocem, ‘“Qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati”’. Ex qua corrupta procedit tristitia et accidia. Ratio data est, ut diximus, omnem hominis uitam regere et gubernare. Ex qua, si corrumpitur, oritur superbia, et caenodoxia. Paruulis enim ratio crescit non anima, et proficiendo ad uirtutem non maior fit sed melior, nec corporalem recipit quantitatem. Habet igitur anima in sua natura, ut diximus, imaginem sanctae Trinitatis, in eo quod intellegentiam, uoluntatem, et memoriam habet. Una est enim anima, quae mens dicitur, una uita, et una substantia, quae haec tria habet in se, sed haec tria non sunt tres uitae sed una uita. Nec tres substantiae sed una. Quod uero anima uel mens uel uita uel substantia dicitur, ad seipsam dicitur. Quod uero memoria uel intellegentia uel uoluntas dicitur, ad aliquid relatiue dicitur. Nam in his tribus unitas quaedam est, quia quicquid ad seipsa singula dicuntur, etiam simul, non pluraliter sed singulariter dicuntur. | Intellego me intellegere, uelle, et meminisse. Et uolo me intellegere et meminisse et uelle. Et intellegere uel uelle uel meminisse. Et sic in singulis singula capiuntur. Consideremus autem miram uelocitatem animae in formandis rebus quae percipit per carnales sensus, a quibus, quasi per quosdam nuntios, quicquid rerum uisibilium cognitarum uel incognitarum percipit, mox in seipsa earum ineffabili celeritate format figuras formatasque in suo thesauro memoriae recondit. Sicut enim qui Romam quondam uidit, iterum cum nomen audierit, Romam fingit in animo suo et format qualis sit. Et adhuc mirabilius est quod incognitae res si lectae uel auditae erunt in auribus animae, statim format figuram ignotae rei. Ex notis enim speciebus fingit ignota. Ex qua uelocitate animae, quo in se sic omnia fingit audita aut uisa aut sensa aut odorata aut gustata, iterum inuenta recognoscit siue curando siue non curando. Et tante mobilitatis est ut nec cum sopita est conquiescat. Tantae celeritatis ut uno temporis puncto cælum conlustret si uelit. Maria peruolat, terras et urbes peragret, omnia in conspectu sibi cogitando constituens. Sed cum de Roma cogitat, non eo momento de Hierusalem potest cogitare. Vel cum de qualibet una re meditatur, non potest eo momento de pluribus meditari, sed hoc unum illi tunc presens est donec uel citius uel tardius haec cogitatio recedat et alia superueniat. At Dei omnipotentis naturae et ineffabili cognitioni omnia simul sunt presentia et semper presentia et numquam recedentia, et hoc est quod dicitur quod Deus ubique totus est, quia quae sunt, uel fuerunt, uel quae futura sunt, simul omnia non semel sed semper  |  presentia habet.

134–5 ] minime Y4 

16

16v

17r

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

125

130

135

140

145

150

beneficial and useful to them for eternal salvation. But if corrupted, from it are born gluttony, fornication, and love of money. Anger has been given to restrain sins, lest a person be subservient to wicked lords, that is, sins, because according to the voice of the Lord, ‘“Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”’.16 From corrupted [anger] arise sadness and sloth. Reason has been given, as we have said, to rule and govern a person’s entire existence. If it is corrupted, pride and vainglory arise from it. Reason, in fact, grows in children not the soul, and in making progress toward virtue, [the soul] does not become larger but better, nor does it take on physical size. The soul, then, bears in its nature, as we have said, the image of the holy Trinity because it has in it understanding, will, and memory. For there is one soul, which is called mind, one life, and one substance, that has these three within itself, but these three are not three lives but one life. They are not three substances but one. Indeed, what is called soul or mind or life or substance is spoken of with respect to itself. But what is called memory, understanding, or will is spoken of in relation to something else. For among these three there is a certain unity, because whatever the individual elements are called in themselves, even together, they are spoken of not in the plural but in the singular. I understand that I understand, will, and remember. And I want to understand and remember and will. And I remember that I understand or will or remember. And so the individual elements are employed in individual cases. But let us consider the amazing speed of the soul in the forming of things that it perceives through the bodily senses, by which – as if through certain messengers – it perceives something about visible things, known and unknown, then forms images of them within itself with indescribable speed and stores up the formed images in its storehouse of memory. Just like one who once saw Rome, when he hears the name again, he fashions Rome in his mind and forms it as it is. And it is yet more remarkable that if unknown things have been read or heard through the ears of the soul, it immediately forms an image of the unfamiliar thing. In fact, from familiar forms it constructs unfamiliar ones. On account of the soul’s speed, by which it thus conceives in itself everything heard or seen or felt or smelled or tasted, it recognizes the discoveries again, whether looking or not looking for them. And it is so active that it does not rest when it has been overcome with sleep. It is so fast that in an instant it may survey heaven if it wishes. It may wing its way across the seas, traverse countries and cities, forming everything in its view by thinking. But while it thinks about Rome, it cannot think about Jerusalem at that moment. Or, while it thinks about one thing as it pleases, it cannot at that moment think about many things, but that one thing is then present to it until that thought sooner or later recedes and another arrives. But to the nature of almighty God and his indescribable knowledge all things are at once present and are forever present and never vanish, and this is why it is said that God is all things everywhere, because the things that are, or were, or will be, he has in view all at once, not at one point in time but forever.

16

Compare John 8.34: ‘Respondit eis Iesus, “Amen amen dico uobis quia omnis qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati”’ (‘Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you that everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”’).

17

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

Anima namque corporis uita est, anime uero uita Deus est. Dum anima corpus deserit, moritur. Animae uero mors est dum eam Deus deserit dono suae gratiae, et ob magnitudinem scelerum moritur meliore sui parte et erit semiuiua. Et hoc erit si concupiscentia uel ira plus dominabitur in homine quam ratio, in qua sola precellit animantibus. Duabus uero dignitatibus a Creatore anima in sua natura glorificata est, id est aeternitate et beatitudine. Sed cum libero arbitrio maligno spiritu instigante deprauata est, beatitudinem perdidit; aeternitatem perdere non potuit. Cuius pulchritudo uirtus est et eius deformitas uitium. Cuius excellentiores uirtutes quattuor esse manifestum est: id est, prudentia, quae Deum intellegit amandum et agenda uel non agenda discernit; iustitia, qua Deus colitur et amatur et recte uiuitur; temperantia, qua concupiscentiam uel iram gubernat; fortitudo, qua pro Dei amore fortiter omnia aduersa huius uitae constanti animo tolerat. Et hae quattuor uirtutes uno caritatis diademate ornantur. Haec est enim animae summa beatitudo: eum diligere a quo est, et socias suae beatitudinis diligere animas, et illis prodesse in quantum ualeat. Hoc modo anima definiri potest iuxta suae proprietatem naturae. Anima est spiritus intellectualis, rationalis, semper in mot, semper uiuens, bonae maleque uoluntatis capax, sed /Domini\ benignitate Creatoris libero arbitrio nobilitata, sua uoluntate uitiata, Dei gratia liberata in quibus ipse Dominus uoluit, ad regendum motus carnis creata, inuisibilis, incorporalis, sine pondere, sine colore, circumscripta in singulis suae carnis membris tota  |  in qua est imago Conditoris spiritaliter inpressa, non habens in se potestatem exeundi de carne et redeundi iterum in eam sed eius arbitrio qui fecit eam carnique inmisit. In qua est amor naturaliter, qui amor intellectu discernendus est et ratione, ut inlicitas delectationes deuitet et ea amet quae amanda sunt. Secundum officium operis sui uariis nunccupatur nominibus: anima est dum uiuificat; dum contemplatur, spiritus est; dum sentit, sensus est; dum sapit, animus est; dum intellegit, mens est; dum discernit, ratio est; dum consentit, uoluntas est; dum recordatur, memoria est. Non tamen haec diuidentur in substantia quia haec omnia una est anima. Inter spiritum et animam huiusmodi potest differentia esse, quod omnis anima spiritus est, non tamen omnis spiritus anima. Sed et Paulus apostolus mirabiliter discernit inter spiritum et mentem, dicens ‘Psallam spiritu; psallam et mente’. Spiritu psallit, qui rerum obscuras significationes non intellegens ore profert; psallit mente, qui easdem significationes mentis efficacia intellegit. Regit enim anima corpus per quinque sensus quasi de sede regalis culminis; quam decet considerare diligenter, quasi dominam, quid cuique membro imperet faciendum, quid cuique consentiat in desiderio suae naturae, ne quid ind/e\cens fiat in officio suae carnis alicubi. Sicut enim Deus omnem creaturam, sic anima omnem corpoream creaturam naturae dignitate precellit. Quae etiam per lucem et /a\erem, quae sunt excellentiora mundi

168 in mot] inmota Y4  169 /Domini\] interlined over erasure Y4  188 ind/e\cens] with ‘e’ above ‘o’ of ‘indocens’ Y4

18

17v

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

Now the soul is the life of the body, but the life of the soul is God. When the soul leaves the body, it dies. But the death of the soul occurs when God withdraws from it with the gift of his grace, and it dies in its better part due to a magnitude of sins and will be half-dead. And this will occur if desire or anger has more dominion in a person than reason, the only aspect in which he is superior to animals. Moreover the soul was glorified in its nature by the Creator with two marks of worth, that is, with immortality and blessedness. But since it was corrupted by free will at the urging of the malign spirit, it lost its blessedness; it was not able to lose its immortality. The soul’s beauty is virtue and its deformity sin. It is evident that it has four superior virtues: that is, discretion, which understands God is to be loved and discerns what ought to be done and not done; righteousness, by which God is worshipped and loved and lived for rightly; temperance, by which [the soul] governs desire and anger; fortitude, by which it, for the love of God, bravely endures all the adversity of this life with a stable mind. And these four virtues are adorned with the single crown of love. For the soul’s greatest blessedness is to love Him by whom it exists, and to love the souls sharing in its blessedness, and to do good for them in so far as it is able. In this way the soul can be defined according to the special character of its nature. The soul is a comprehending spirit, rational, always active, always alive, capable of good and evil intention, but by the kindness of the Lord, the Creator, ennobled with free will, corrupted by its own will, freed by God’s grace in those whom the Lord himself has chosen, created to govern the impulses of the flesh, invisible, incorporeal, without weight, without color, completely enclosed in each member of its body in which the image of the Creator has been spiritually imprinted, having in itself no power of leaving the flesh and returning to it again except by the will of him who made it and sent it into the flesh. Love is inherently in it, a love that must be guided by understanding and reason in order for it to avoid illicit pleasures and love those things that ought to be loved. It is called by various names according to the function of its work: it is soul when it enlivens; when it contemplates, spirit; when it perceives, sense; when it knows, intellect; when it comprehends, mind; when it discerns, reason; when it consents, will; when it recollects, memory. However, these are not distinguished by substance because they all are one soul. Between spirit and soul there can be a difference of this kind: each soul is a spirit, yet not every spirit is a soul. But the apostle Paul also astonishingly makes a distinction between spirit and mind, saying, ‘I will sing with [my] spirit; I will also sing with [my] mind’.17 He sings with [his] spirit who with his mouth declares the hidden meanings of things not comprehending them; he sings with [his] mind who comprehends the same meanings with the power of his mind. For the soul governs the body through the five senses as if from a throne of regal eminence; it is fitting for it to consider diligently, like a queen, what it should order each member to do, what it should allow each [member] in accordance with the desire of its own nature, lest something improper be done somewhere relative to its bodily function. For just as God [surpasses] every creature, so the soul surpasses every corporeal creature in natural worth. It also governs its body by means of light and air, which are 17

Compare 1 Corinthians 14.15: ‘Quid ergo est? Orabo spiritu orabo et mente; psallam spiritu psallam et mente’ (‘What then? I will pray with the spirit; I will pray also with the mind. I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the mind’).

19

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

195

200

205

corpora, corpus amministrat suum. Omnium rerum species lux animae adnuntiat, quas ipsa in se acceptas specificat, specificatasque recondit. Sepe etiam in tantum affectata erit qualibet cogitatione, ut quamuis apertos habeat oculos, quae presto sunt non uidit,  |  nec sonantem uocem intellegit, nec tangentem corpus sentit. Modo corporis doloribus condolet, modo letitia hilarescit, modo cognita recogitat, modo incognita scire quaerit, alia uult, alia non uult. Humane uero animae pulchritudo est et decus sapientiae studium, non illa quae in terrenis solet occupari negotiis, sed illa magis qua Deus colitur et amatur. Ergo uera est sapientia nosse quae debeas et nota perficere. Haec in Virgiliacis non inuenietur mendaciis sed in euuangelii affluenter repperitur ueritate. De uera scilicet sapientia dicitur, ‘Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est’. Proinde omnis qui secundum Deum sapiens est beatus est. Unde in Iob dicitur, ‘Sapientia hominis est pietas, recedere autem a malo scientia’. Vera est scilicet sapientia ueram toto corde diligere uitam et totis uiribus intendere, ut ad eam peruenire mereatur, ad quam perducat nos Christus, qui est uera Sapientia ueraque Vita, qui uiuit cum coeterno Patre in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus sine initio et nunc et sine fine, Amen.

20

18r

Text: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

195

200

205

the higher substances of the universe. Light makes known to the soul the forms of all things, which it classifies once they have been received and stores up once classified. Often it will have been affected by some thought to such an extent that, although it may have open eyes, it does not see what is in front of it, nor understand a voice speaking to it, nor feel a body touching it. Sometimes it suffers with bodily pains, sometimes it grows cheerful with joy, at one moment thinks over known things, at another seeks to understand unknown ones, wills some things, does not will others. But the beauty and glory of the human soul is a desire for wisdom, not that which is wont to be occupied in worldly affairs, but rather that by which God is worshipped and loved. Thus it is true wisdom to know what you ought to do and to do what you have learned. This [wisdom] will not be discovered among Virgilian fictions but is found abundantly in the truth of the Gospel. Of course, concerning true wisdom it is said, ‘All wisdom is from the Lord God’.18 Therefore everyone who is wise in accordance with God is blessed. Whence in Job it is said, ‘Man’s wisdom is piety, but to depart from evil is knowledge’.19 Without a doubt, true wisdom is to love the true life with one’s whole heart and to extend it to all people, so that one may deserve to attain [that life], to which may Christ lead us, he who is true Wisdom and true Life, who lives with the coeternal Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God without beginning both now and forever, Amen.

18 19

Sirach 1.1. Compare Job 28.28: ‘Et dixit homini, “Ecce timor Domini ipsa est sapientia, et recedere a malo intellegentia”’ (‘And he said to man, “Behold, the fear of the Lord is wisdom itself, and to withdraw from evil is understanding”’).

21

SERMO IN NATALE DOMINI ET DE RATIONE ANIME

COMMENTARY Composed between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991,1 Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (AH I.1) survives only in Y4, fols 13r–18r. The only previous edition is found in Leinbaugh’s unpublished 1980 dissertation.2

Introduction to lines 1–99 [Incipit sermo … in eterno igne]: Ælfric’s Sermo in natale Domini is a homily in two halves. The first part [lines 1–99] deals largely with the Trinity; the second [lines 100–205] deals primarily with the soul. Both parts quote or allude to a variety of Scriptural passages (though the first has twice as many3), and both parts Ælfric reuses in both LS I.1 and AH I.2. Where the second half (as we will see) draws much of its language directly from Alcuin’s De animae ratione, however, extracting, reordering, and knitting phrases afresh, the first takes a strikingly different approach: though it reveals patristic (and largely Augustinian) influences (see for example notes to lines 2–17), and does make use at points of the Old English Boethius [lines 33–6, 36–8, 38–40, 40–3, 55–66, 116–19, and 161–76 below; see notes to AH I.2, lines 110–15], in the main its language is Ælfric’s own. Ælfric’s independence from immediate sources in the first half of the homily may broadly be seen in his biblical references (each of which will be treated in more detail hereafter). In treating a liturgical occasion like Christmas, one might expect Ælfric to discuss Scriptural passages associated with the day. While Chavasse lists no passages for Christmas in his edition of the Gelasian Sacramentary,4 the official Roman list of pericopes from about 700,5 and while Christmas is not included in the eleventh-century Missal of the New Minster, Winchester, a text ‘invaluable as an indication of [which Gospel readings] would have been familiar to Ælfric’,6 Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, on 1 2 3

4 5 6

Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 105, 277, and 290 n. 8. ‘Liturgical Homilies’, 109–29. The first part includes nine quotations and seven allusions, while the second quotes five passages and alludes to three others; see ‘Scriptural Quotations in AH I.1’ and ‘Scriptural Allusions in AH I.1’ in the Introduction to lines 1–99 below. See Chavasse, Sacramentaire Gélasien, p. 243. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293 n. 27. The Missal’s temporale material runs only from the Friday after Easter through the Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost: see Turner, Missal of the New Minster, p. vi.

22

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime which Ælfric draws heavily for his Catholic Homilies,7 has homilies for Christmas that treat Luke 2.1–7, Luke 2.15, and John 1.1–38 – passages which Ælfric does indeed treat in other Christmas homilies.9 These verses do not appear in AH I.1, however. Instead, one finds sixteen direct quotations and some thirteen allusions that – apart from a couple outliers such as John 8.25 in lines 8–10, and Psalms 5.4a*10 [Vulgate 5.5b] and 5.5b* [5.7a] in lines 42–3 – appear in six clusters as follows: 1. Isaiah 7.9 [line 17], Sirach 3.22 [line 18], and 1 Corinthians 1.24* [lines 19–20]; 2. Exodus 20.26 [line 24] and Psalms 43.4 [Vulgate 42.4] [lines 25–6]; 3. Revelation 21.6a* [lines 38–9] and Psalms 5.4a* and 5.5b [lines 42–3]; 4. Galatians 5.15* [line 67], Psalms 69.23 [Vulgate 68.24] [lines 68–9], 1 Corinthians 16.13–14 [lines 71–2], and Genesis 3.14b [lines 71–2]; 5. Psalms 78.25a* [Vulgate 77.25a] [line 73], Wisdom 16.20a* [line 73], and John 6.51–2 [lines 74–6]; and 6. Matthew 22.39b* [lines 88–9],11 Zechariah 8.19* [lines 91–2], John 8.44* [line 95], Matthew 5.9 [line 96], and John 14.6a [line 97]. Were Ælfric to rely for these lines on one or more sources, one might expect a search of the Patrologia Latina to reveal texts where these verses appear in some proximity – within, say, a thousand words. In fact, however, the combinations here are not only uncommon, but sometimes unique. The first cluster has the most potential parallels. Isaiah 7.9 – using the wording of AH I.1; see notes to lines 2–17 below – and Sirach 3.22 are found together in •

Paschasius Radbertus’ De fide, spe, et charitate;12

Sirach 3.22 and 1 Corinthians 1.24 appear in • 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

Pseudo-Ambrose’s De Trinitate seu tractatus in symbolum apostolorum,13

See for example Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manuscript’; and Godden, Commentary, p. xli. The homilies are by Gregory, Bede, and Bede, respectively: see Grégoire, Homéliaires, p. 80.  Luke 2.1–7, Luke 2.15, and John 1.1 serve as immediate or ultimate sources for CH I.2 (Godden, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.1.3.001.01’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.1.3.015.01’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.1.3.028.01’, and ‘Source Details: C.B.1.1.3.029.02’; see also his Commentary, pp. 15–21), while John 1.1–3 is an immediate or ultimate source for SH I.1 (see Jayatilaka, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.4.1.005.01’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.4.1.006.01’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.4.1.015.01’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.4.1.016.04’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.4.1.017.01’, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.4.1.019.03’, and ‘Source Summary for Anglo-Saxon Text Supplementary Homilies 1’; see also Pope, Homilies, vol. I, apparatus to pp. 196–216). CH II.1 and LS I.1, two other Christmas homilies, include none of these passages: see Godden, ‘Source Summary for Anglo-Saxon Text Catholic Homilies 2.1’ and ‘Source Summary for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1 (Nativity of Christ)’. Asterisks here indicate what we will be calling allusions to rather than quotations from Scripture. Matthew 22.39b here stands for the variety of New Testament verses that quote the command to ‘love your neighbor’ (ultimately derived from Leviticus 19.18b); see notes to lines 86–99 below. See De fide I.8.1 (PL 120.1407D) and I.8.2 (PL 120.1408C). De Trinitate 10 (PL 17.521C) and 3 (PL 17.512A).

23

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime • •

Alcuin’s Expositio in Euangelium Iohannis,14 and Hrabanus Maurus’ Commentarius in librum Sapientiae;15

while Isaiah 7.9 and 1 Corinthians 1.24 are used in •

•

seven works by Augustine: * De agone Christiano,16 * Enarrationes in Psalmos 817 and 118,18 * Epistulae 120,19 * De fide et symbolo,20 * De libero arbitrio,21 * Sermones II.212,22 and * De Trinitate;23 and Cassiodorus’ Expositio sancti Pauli epistulae ad Romanos.24

Most temptingly, all three verses, as well as John 8.25 (quoted shortly before in AH I.1), are to be found in •

Augustine’s Contra Maximinum haereticum Arianorum Episcoporum.25

Of these texts, eight are known to have been present in England before 1100: Alcuin’s Expositio and Augustine’s De agone Christiano, Enarrationes in Psalmos, Epistulae, De fide et symbolo, De libero arbitrio, Sermones, and De Trinitate.26 At least three have been identified as possible sources not just for Anglo-Saxon texts,27 but for Ælfric:28

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28

Expositio V.31 (PL 100.918C and 919C). Commentarius II.6 (PL 109.715B and 714B). De agone Christiano 13.14 (CSEL 41, p. 118, lines 12–13) and 17.19 (CSEL 41, p. 120, lines 12–13). Enarrationes 8.6 (CCSL 38, p. 51, lines 14–15 and 24). Enarrationes 118.18.1 (CCSL 40, p. 1723, lines 17–18) and 118.18.3 (CCSL 40, p. 1724, lines 35–6). Epistulae 120.1.3 (CSEL 34.2, p. 706, lines 26–7) and 120.1.6 (CSEL 34.2, p. 709, line 11). De fide et symbolo 1.1 (CSEL 41, p. 4, lines 110–11) and 2.3 (CSEL 41, p. 6, line 16). De libero arbitrio I.2.4.11 (CCSL 29, p. 213, lines 13–14) and I.2.5.13 (CCSL 29, p. 213, line 33). Sermones II.212.1 (PL 38.1058–9). De Trinitate XV.2.2 (CCSL 50A, p. 461, line 28) and XV.3.5 (CCSL 50A, p. 464, lines 35–6 and 47–8). Ad Corinthios epistola prima 1 (PL 68.509B). See Contra Maximinum II.10.2 (PL 42.765) for Isaiah 7.9, II.11 (PL 42.766) for Sirach 3.22, II.17.2 (PL 42.784) for 1 Corinthians 1.24, and II.17.4 (PL 42.784) for John 8.25. See Gneuss and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 925 (Paschasius), 892 (Pseudo-Ambrose), 890 (Alcuin), 914 (Hrabanus Maurus), 894–5 (Augustine), and 902 (Cassiodorus). See ‘Titles by Source Author PASCH.RAD.’, ‘Titles by Source Author ANON.PS.AMBR.’, ‘Records for Source Title Comm.Ioan.’ (Alcuin), ‘Titles by Source Author HRAB.MAVR.’, ‘Titles by Source Author AVG.’, ‘Records for Source Title Enarr.psalm.’ (Augustine), ‘Records for Source Title Trin.’ (Augustine), and ‘Titles by Source Author CASS.’. See ‘Records for Source Title Comm.Ioan.’, ‘Records for Source Title Enarr.psalm.’, and ‘Records for Source Title Trin.’; as well as Godden, Commentary, pp. xlvi–xlix.

24

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Alcuin’s Expositio, and Augustine’s Enarrationes and De Trinitate. In none of the texts, however, is their Scriptural commentary close linguistically to AH I.1, particularly as regards those terms that the homily repeats: ualde (‘exceedingly’ [lines 18 and 21]), uec[h]ors (‘foolish’ [lines 18 and 21]), and transscendere (‘transcend’ [lines 19 and 23]; see notes to lines 18–30 below). The remaining passages are somewhat less complex. The verses in the second cluster (Exodus 20.26 and Psalms 43.4) are not found closely together in the Patrologia Latina. Neither are those in the third (Revelation 21.6a and Psalms 5.4a plus 5.5b)29 or various combinations of those in the fourth (Galatians 5.15, Psalms 69.23 [Vulgate 68.24], 1 Corinthians 16.13–14, and Genesis 3.14b). Two of the verses of the fifth cluster (Psalms 78.25 [Vulgate 77.25] and John 6.51) immediately follow one another in three texts: • • •

Fulgentius’ Contra Arianos (in reverse order),30 Charlemagne’s Contra synodum,31 and Andreas Agnellus’ Liber pontificalis;32

while three other works cite them at some slight remove: • • •

liturgy for the feast of Corpus Christi,33 Florus of Lyon’s Aduersus Amalarium,34 and Remigius of Auxerre’s Enarrationes in Psalmos.35

None of them, however, quote John 6.52. None make mention of oxen eating grass (bo[ues] and herb[a] [line 72]) or ‘earthly feasts’ (terren[ae] dap[es] [line 73]). Only Fulgentius, furthermore, also quotes Wisdom 16.20a.36 These would not appear to be sources on which AH I.1 draws. The sixth cluster brings together five Scriptural passages: Matthew 22.39b,37 Zechariah 8.19, John 8.44, Matthew 5.9, and John 14.6a. Searching pair by pair, one finds that 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37

Revelation 21.6a (Ego sum α et ω, initium et finis) and part of Psalms 5.5b [Vulgate 5.7a] (Perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium) are found in somewhat close proximity in Haymo of Auxerre’s Expositio in Apocalypsin VII.21 [PL 117.1195A and 1196C], but without a quotation or adaptation of Psalms 5.5b. CCSL 91, p. 80, lines 387–9. Contra synodum I.15 (PL 98.1037C). Vita sancti Ursicini 2 (PL 106.598A). PL 86.1318A and 1318C. Aduersus Amalarium 2.7 (PL 119.85C and 86C). Enarrationes 77 (PL 131.551D and 553B). CCSL 91, p. 80, lines 381–2. Of these texts, Fulgentius is also the only one (much later in Contra Arianos) to speak of Mary [line 71] (CCSL 91, p. 91, line 803). In his apparatus to the analogous passage in SH II.20, Pope also points to Isidore’s Quaestiones in uetus Testamentum, In Exodum 23, which speaks of Christ as panis uiuus de coelo descendit (‘the living bread [which] descended from heaven’, quoting from John 6.51) and as the panis coeli, et uerus cibus angelorum (‘bread of heaven, and true food of angels’ [PL 83.298AB]); while the latter phrase approximates both Psalms 78.25a and Wisdom 16.20a, however, it is not as close to these verses as AH I.1 and 2 are: see notes to lines 72–85 below. Or analogous passages; see notes to lines 86–99 below. The search here is for diliges (‘love’) within five words of proximum (‘neighbor’).

25

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime • • •

Matthew 22.39b appears with a possible echo of Zechariah 8.19 in Zosimus, Epistulae;38 Matthew 22.39b and John 8.44 do not appear in close proximity; Matthew 22.39b and Matthew 5.9 appear in * * * * * * * * * * *

•

Matthew 22.39b and John 14.6a appear in * * * * * *

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Agobard of Lyon, De diuinis sententiis digestus,39 Alcuin, Epistulae,40 Alcuin, De uirtutibus et uitiis,41 Augustine, Speculum,42 Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani,43 Boniface of Mainz, Sermones,44 Charlemagne, Capitularia,45 Eusebius of Vercelli, Euangelium secundum Matthaeum,46 Hrabanus Maurus, Commentarius in Epistulas Pauli,47 Jerome, Commentarii in quattuor epistulas Paulinas,48 and Pseudo-Jerome, Euangelium secundum Matthaeum;49

Augustine, Sermones,50 Augustine, Enchiridion ad Laurentium,51 Pseudo-Augustine, De uisitatione infirmorum,52 Pseudo-Augustine, Sermones inediti,53 Bede, De tabernaculo,54 and Eugippius, Thesaurus ex sancti Augustini operibus;55

Epistula 3 (PL 20.657D–658A), quoting the alternate version of Matthew 22.39b found in Mark 12.31a. PL 104.255A and 255C, quoting the alternate version found in Matthew 5.43. Epistula 14 (PL 100.162C and 153A). De uirtutibus et uitiis 3 (PL 100.615C) and 6 (PL 100.617B). Speculum 25 (CSEL 12, p. 155, lines 5–6, and p. 157, lines 20–1), quoting the alternate version found in Matthew 5.43. Contra litteras Petiliani II.68.154 (CSEL 52, p. 100, lines 4 and 25). Sermo 8 (PL 89.858D and 859C). Capitula suprascripta et eorum textus 59 (PL 97.515A; see also PL 97.791A–791B). PL 12.162 and 170, quoting the alternate version found in Matthew 5.43. Commentarius XVI.5 (PL 112.358C and 359C). Ad Galatas III.22 (PL 26.418D and 419C). Secundum Matthaeum 5 (PL 29.545D and 547A). Sermonum classes quattuor I.128.1.1 (PL 38.714) and I.128.3.5 (PL 38.715). Enchiridion 19.74 (CCSL 46, p. 89, line 69) and 76 (CCSL 46, p. 91, line 46). De uisitatione I.2 (PL 40.1148) and I.3 (PL 40.1149), quoting the alternate version found in Romans 13.9. Sermo 17.5 (PL 46.878) and 17.6 (PL 46.879). De tabernaculo I.6 (CCSL 119A, p. 24, line 758, and p. 25, lines 809–10) Thesaurus 256 (PL 62.940A and 940B) and 257 (PL 62.941C).

26

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime • •

Zechariah 8.19 and John 8.44 appear only in Ratherius’ Sermones (in reverse order);56 Zechariah 8.19 and Matthew 5.9 appear in * Jerome’s Commentarii in Zachariam prophetam (in reverse order),57 * Alcuin’s De uirtutibus et uitiis (in reverse order),58 and * Hrabanus Maurus’ Homiliae;59

• • • •

Zechariah 8.19 and John 14.6a appear only in Ratherius’ Sermones (in reverse order);60 John 8.44 and Matthew 5.9 do not appear in close proximity; John 8.44 and John 14.6a appear only in Ratherius’ Sermones (in a different order);61 and Matthew 5.9 and and John 14.6a appear in * Bede, Sermones,62 * Charlemagne, Capitularia,63 and * Alcuin, Interpretationes nominum Hebraicorum.64

When commenting on these passages, however, none of the texts uses the language of AH I.1, saying that •

• • • •

56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

anyone who loves peace and truth Deum placat sibimet (‘reconciles God to himself’ [lines 92–3]), and homines non offendit (‘does not offend men’ [line 93]), nec aliquem decipit (‘nor does he deceive another’ [line 93]); or anyone who lites et discordiam amat (‘loves quarrels and discord’ [line 93]) is a child of the devil; or anyone who mendacium et fraudem amat (‘loves lying and fraud’ [line 94]) follows the devil; or anyone who loves truth Christum sequitur (‘follows Christ’ [lines 96–7]); or no one sine pace et sine ueritate uiuens (‘living without peace and without truth’ [line 98]) will have a mansionem (‘mansion’ [line 98]) with God in heaven.

Sermones 2.27 (PL 136.704C) and 2.26 (PL 136.704A). Commentarii in Zachariam II.8.16–17 (CCSL 76A, p. 818, lines 471–2) and II.8.18–19 (CCSL 76A, p. 819, lines 502–6). De uirtutibus 6 (PL 101.617B and 617C). Homiliae I.52 (PL 110.95A and 96A) [= Pseudo-Augustine’s Sermones I.98.1 and I.98.2 (PL 39.1933); see Dekkers, Clavis, p. 138]. Sermones 2.27 (PL 136.704C). Sermones 2.26 (PL 136.704A) and 2.27 (PL 136.704C). Sermones spurii III.55 (PL 94.417A and 94.417C); see Dekkers, Clavis, p. 451. Capitulare ecclesiasticum 789 (PL 97.171B and 172B). PL 100.730B and 731A.

27

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime And while certain works like Ratherius’ Sermones contain up to three of these passages, none of them cite all five like Ælfric. The treatment of biblical passages in the first part of the Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1) thus reveals a distinct independence from immediate sources, both in its combination of verses and the language it uses to comment on them. The point is important to establish given the homily’s close reliance on a single source thereafter. In compositional approach as well as content, this is indeed a homily in two halves. In both parts, however, whether drawing on Latinate precursors or not, AH I.1’s selection of biblical passages is idiosyncratic compared with the Anglo-Saxon corpus overall. As such, it offers a telling clue for the larger question of authorship. Not only is Ælfric’s combination of Scriptural references in AH I.1 unusual compared with patristic and continental sources; few other writers from this period pay attention to the majority of the verses found here. While an exhaustive treatment of the subject must await another study, some sense of the particularly ‘Ælfrician’ nature of these passages may be gleaned from the Fontes Anglo-Saxonici database, which lists sources for some 1,150 Anglo-Saxon texts. Remarkably, Ælfric’s recurring and in some cases unique interest in these verses is shown not only in those he quotes more-or-less verbatim, but even in those to which he simply alludes. Scriptural Quotations in AH I.1 Passage

Other Quotations by Ælfric

1. John 8.25 [lines 8–10]65

• Prefatio to Genesis [MA1] • Interrogationes Sigewulfi [M1a] • LS I.1 [S1] • SH I.1 [SA1]67 • [Now add:] • AH I.2

2. Isaiah 7.9 [line 17]70

• CH I.20 [SA1] • [Now add:] • AH I.2

65 66 67 68 69 70 71

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] • Anon (Latin), Vita S. Rumwoldi [S1]68 • Bede, Commentarius in Genesim [S1]69

• Bede, Explanatio Apocalypsis [S1] • Bede, Commentarius in Genesim [S1]

3. Sirach 3.22 [line • [Now add:] 18]71 • AH I.2 [Sirach 3.20]

Quotations by Other Authors 66

• CH I.13 [S1] • AH I.8 [SA1]

• Wulfstan Cantor, Vita S. Æthelwoldi [S1]

See ‘Records for Source Title Io’. Does not include first part of verse. Does not include first part of verse. Does not include first part of verse. Does not include first part of verse. See ‘Records for Source Title Is’. See ‘Records for Source Title Sir’.

28

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 4. Exodus 20.26 [line 24]72

• SH II.20 [S1]73

5. Psalms 43.4 [Vulgate 42.4] [lines 25–6]75

• [Now add:] • AH I.2

• [Anon (OE), Old English Heptateuch [S1]74]

6. Psalms 69.23 [Vulgate 68.24] [lines 68–9]76

• Alfred, Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care [SA1]

7. 1 Corinthians 16.13–14 [lines 70–1]77

• Boniface, Letter 18 [S1] • Boniface, Letter 19 [S1]

[1 Corinthians 16.13]

• CH I.12 [SA1]

• Bede, Explanatio Apocalypsis [S1] • Bede, Vita S. Cuthberti (OE) [S1]

8. Genesis 3.14b [lines 71–2]78

• LS I.1 [S3] • Interrogationes Sigewulfi [S1] • [Now add:] • AH I.2

• Alfred, Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care [SA1] • Anon (OE), Genesis A [S1] • Bede, Explanatio Apocalypsis [S1] • Bede, Commentarius in Genesim [S1]

9. John 6.51–2 [lines 74–6]79

• CH II.15 [M1] • [Now add:] • AH I.2

[Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]]

10. Matthew 5.9 [line 96]80

• • • • • •

CH I.39 [S1] [Now add:] CH I.36 [twice] De duodecim abusiuis AH I.8 De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis • AH I.7

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] • Alcuin, Sermo de transitu S. Martini [S1] • Alfred, Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care [SA1] • Anon (OE), Vercelli Homily 5 [S1] • Anon (OE), Vercelli Homily 17 [S1] • Boniface, Letter 21 [S1]

11. John 14.6a [line 97]81

• CH I.10 [SA1] • CH I.32 [SA1] • SH I.1 [SA1]

• • • • • •

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

[Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] Alfred, Augustine’s Soliloquies [S1] Anon (OE), Blickling Homily 2 [SA1] Bede, Explanatio Apocalypsis [S1] Bede, Historia ecclesiastica [SA1] Byrhtferth, Vita S. Oswaldi [S1]

See ‘Records for Source Title Ex’. While cited by Fontes, however, this passage only refers generally to the Ten Commandments, not to the injunction regarding the altar itself. Ælfric did not likely compose the Exodus section of the Heptateuch; see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 134. See ‘Records for Source Title Gn’. See ‘Records for Source Title Ps’. See ‘Records for Source Title 1 Cor’. See ‘Records for Source Title Ps’. See ‘Records for Source Title Io’. See ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. See ‘Records for Source Title Io’.

29

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 12. Ecclesiastes 12.7 [lines 112–13]82

• [Now add:] • AH I.2

13. Acts 17.25 [lines 114–15]83

• [Now add:] • AH I.2

14. John 8.34 [line 123]84

• • • • •

15. 1 Corinthians 14.15b [line 183]85

• LS I.1 [SA1] • [Now add:] • AH I.2

16. Sirach 1.1 [line • 200]86 • • • KEY:87

S1 S2 S3 SA1

CH II.13 [S1] LS I.1 [SA1] Irvine 3 [SA1] [Now add:] AH I.2

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels (John) 8.34 [S1]] • Anon (OE), Homily for Easter Day [S1]

LS I.1 [SA1] SH I.1 [SA1] [Now add:] AH II.17

= certain source = probable source = possible source = certain antecedent [i.e., ultimate, not immediate] source

• Anon (Lat), Charter S472 [S1] • Anon (Lat), Charter S549 [S1]

M1 M1a M3o MA1

= = = =

one one one one

of of of of

multiple certain sources multiple certain sources, used together multiple possible source options multiple certain antecedent sources

True, in half of the examples above, Ælfric is not the only writer to draw on the passage in question. Setting actual translations such as the Old English Gospels and the Heptateuch aside, Ælfric shares items 10 and 11 with four other authors; 1, 7, and 16 with two authors; and 3, 6, and 14 with one. Such figures tell only part of the story, however. In the majority of these cases, Ælfric quotes the verse as many [3, 6, 8] or more times [1, 10, 14, 16] than the other writers combined. Sirach 3.22 [3] he quotes twice, as does Bede; in two other works, however, he refers to Sirach 3.20, another exhortation to humility that elsewhere is quoted only by Wulfstan Cantor. Psalms 69.23 [6] he quotes directly, while for the Alfredian Pastoral Care the verse serves but as an ultimate source. Ælfric cites Genesis 3.14 [4] in four works – as many as the Pastoral Care, Genesis A, and Bede’s two writings combined. John 8.25 [1] Bede and an anonymous hagiographer cite but once, and then only mentioning the last part of the verse; Ælfric, however, quotes it in six different texts, uniquely reproducing the first part on four of these occasions. Matthew 5.9 [10], cited by five non-Ælfrician texts, appears nine times in Ælfric. John 8.34 [14] and Sirach 1.1 [16], which elsewhere appear all told but thrice, Ælfric quotes a total of ten times. Even where Ælfric is outnumbered by the rest of the Anglo-Saxon

82 83 84 85 86 87

See ‘Records for Source Title Ecl’. See ‘Records for Source Title Act’. See ‘Records for Source Title Io’. See ‘Records for Source Title 1 Cor’. See ‘Records for Source Title Sir’. Drawn from ‘Guidelines for Contributors’, §9 [‘Sigla’].

30

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime corpus [7 and 11], it is not by much: 1 Corinthians 16.13 [7] he quotes twice, as do Boniface and Bede, while John 14.6a [11] he quotes four times, as against once apiece by five other authors. In seven instances [2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 15], moreover, his are the only works outside the Old English Gospels or Heptateuch that cite these passages. Consistently, therefore, it may be observed that the Scriptures quoted in AH I.1 are ones to which Ælfric elsewhere pays attention, with an interest that often is not just recurring, but among his peers, unique. Remarkably, the same pattern may be observed with biblical passages to which AH I.1 alludes rather than quotes verbatim: Scriptural Allusions in AH I.1 Passage

Other Quotations by Ælfric

1. 1 Corinthians 1.24 [lines 19–20]88

• CH I.35 [SA1] • SH I.1 [S1] • Prefatio to Genesis [MA3]

2. Revelation 21.6a [lines 38–9]89

• • • • •

• Anon (Lat), Vita S. Rumwoldi [S1]

[Now add:] CH I.1 LS I.1 AH I.2 AH II.14

3. Psalms 5.4a • SH II.22 [Psalms 5.5b] [S1] [Vulgate 5.5b] and 5.5b • [Now add:] [Vulgate 5.7a] • LS I.1 [lines 42–3]90 • AH I.2 • AH II.14 4. Galatians 5.15 [line 67]91

• [Now add:] • AH I.2

5. Psalms 78.25a [Vulgate 77.25a] [line 73]92

• SH II.20 [M1a]

6. Wisdom 16.20a [line 73]93

• SH II.20 [M1a] [twice]

7. Matthew 22.39 [lines 88–9]94

• • • • •

88 89 90 91 92 93 94

See See See See See See See

‘Records ‘Records ‘Records ‘Records ‘Records ‘Records ‘Records

for for for for for for for

Quotations by Other Authors

CH II.19 [S1] CH II.20 [SA1] [Now add:] CH I.16 [or Mark 12.31] CH I.22 [or Mark 12.31]

Source Title 1 Cor’. Source Title Apc’. Source Title Ps’. Source Title Gal’. Source Title Ps’. Source Title Sap’. Source Title Mt’.

31

• Byrhtferth, Vita S. Ecgwini [S1] [Psalms 5.7]

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] • Anon (OE), Bede’s History of the English Church [SA1] • Anon (OE), Assmann 11 [SA1]

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Matthew 19.1995

• [Now add:] • CH II.25

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] • Anon (Lat), Charter S67 [S1] • Bede, Historia ecclesiastica [SA1]

Mark 12.3196

• [see above under Matthew 22.39]

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] • Æthelwold, Benedict’s Regula [SA1]

[Mark 12.3397]

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]] • Bede, Commentarius in Genesim [S1]

Luke 10.2798

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]]

Romans 13.999 • Goscelin, Vita S. Edithe [S1]

Galatians 5.14100 James 2.8

101

[Matthew 5.43102]

• CH I.35 [SA1] • CH II.12 [S1]

[verse uncertain]

• • • •

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels [S1]]

[Now add:] (AH I.1) Letter to Wulfgeat Esto consentiens aduersario

8. Zechariah 8.19 [lines 91–2]103 9. John 8.44 [line 95]104 • CH II.13 [M1a] 10. Genesis 1.26 [lines 108–9]105

• [Anon (OE), Old English Gospels (John) [S1]]

• CH I.20 [M1a] • Prefatio to Genesis [MA1] • Interrogationes Sigewulfi [M1a] • [Now add:] • CH I.1 • Genesis • Hexameron • AH I.2

See ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. See ‘Records for Source Title Mc’. 97 See ‘Records for Source Title Mc’. 98 See ‘Records for Source Title Lc’. 99 See ‘Records for Source Title Rm’. 100 See ‘Records for Source Title Gal’. 101 See ‘Records for Source Title Iac’. 102 See ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. 103 See ‘Records for Source Title Za’. 104 See ‘Records for Source Title Io’. 105 See ‘Records for Source Title Gn’. 95 96

32

• • • • • •

Alfred, Augustine’s Soliloquies Anon (Lat), Charter S478 Anon (Lat), Charter S761 Anon (Lat), Charter S953 Anon (Lat), Charter S954 Bede, Commentarius in Genesim [thrice]

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 11. Isaiah 57.16 [line 113]106

• [Now add:] • AH I.2

12. Zechariah 12.1 [line 114]107

• [Now add:] • AH I.2

13. Job 28.28 [lines 201–2]108

• LS I.1 [SA1] • [Now add:] • AH I.2

With verses to which Ælfric alludes rather than quotes in full or in the main, the idiosyncratic nature of his choices is even more evident. Of eleven to which we might point (see table above), four [items 2, 3, 7, and 10] he uses more times than the other entries in Fontes combined. Revelation 21.6a [2] he uses five times, where the anonymous Vita S. Rumwoldi employs it but once. The combination of Psalms 5.4a and 5.5b [3] appears uniquely in four Ælfrician texts (with part of 5.5b occurring in another), while 5.7 otherwise occurs only in Byrhtferth. Item 7 is complex (see notes to lines 86–99 below), as the command to ‘love your neighbor’ appears in a number of places in Scripture, but Ælfric quotes it in one way or another on ten occasions, as against seven texts besides the Old English Gospels that refer to this command. What is more, the remaining eight passages are used by Ælfric alone, and repeatedly: 1 he cites in four different texts, 13 he cites in three, and 4, 5, 6, 9,109 11, and 12 he cites in two. In short, the selection of biblical passages in the Sermo in natale Domini – idiosyncratic not just compared with Latinate precursors, but with the Anglo-Saxon corpus as a whole – thus serves as telling evidence regarding the question of authorship, tying the homily yet more firmly to Ælfric himself. Line 1 [Incipit sermo … de ratione anime]: The Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1) is one of six Christmas homilies that span nearly the whole of Ælfric’s career: CH I.2 (989), AH I.1 (between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991), CH II.1 (between [A] January × June 991 and [B] January × June 992), LS I.1 (middle of the period ca 993 × ca 998), AH I.2 (late in the period ca 998 × 1002), and SH I.1 (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]).110 In the case of AH I.1, this dating can be narrowed still further, as the text begins by alluding to a former Christmas composition – ‘Quondam diximus uobis, fratres, quomodo saluator noster Iesus Christus hac ipsa die natus sit’ (‘Previously we related to you, brothers, how our Savior Jesus Christ was born on this very day’ [lines 2–3]) – which most likely is CH I.2. Accepting Jones’ argument that the Sermo in natale Domini predates the prefaces to the First Series111 would then place AH I.1 between 989 (the completion of composition and first organization of CH I) and the first half of 991

106 See

‘Records for Source Title Is’. ‘Records for Source Title Za’. 108 See ‘Records for Source Title Iob’. 109 Again, excluding the Old English Gospels, which quote John 8.44 as it were by necessity. 110 Or possibly between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005; for these dates, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 285, 290 n. 8, 293 n. 82, 297 n. 135, and 304 n. 242. 111 ‘Medieval Latin Author’, p. 18. 107 See

33

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (the composition of CH I’s Latin and Old English prefaces to accompany the copy sent to Sigeric). [See notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64 for another argument that reaches the same conclusion.] AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2 are closely interconnected, as our notes for AH I.1 and 2 show; they also share Scriptural references with SH I.1 and commentary with De creatore et creatura (AH II.14). Furthermore, they repeatedly treat at least two prominent Ælfrician concerns: the Trinity, present in all seven texts (including AH II.14),112 and the soul, addressed in all but the two Catholic Homilies. This dual focus stems from and gives insight into Ælfric’s doctrinal and pedagogical priorities: as he says in AH I.1, ‘Nichil … necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam’ (‘Nothing … is more necessary to understand than God and the soul’ [lines 104–5]). The soul, as noted above, will be the focus of the second part of AH I.1 [lines 100–205]; the first part, however, will revolve around the nature of God. Though Ælfric emphasizes that seeking to understand God in full is folly [lines 18–24], he also sets forth aspects of God’s character that humans may confidently affirm with faith. Given the importance of the subject in Ælfric’s mind, and his habit of reusing his own material (as for example our comparison of AH I.1, LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14 will show), it is unsurprising that the language and concepts here are ones to which Ælfric will return time and time again over the course of his career. Attributes of God that Ælfric addresses include: God’s Eternality. One aspect of the divine nature that recurs in Ælfric’s discussions of the topic is God’s eternal existence: as he states here in AH I.1 regarding the Father, Son, and Spirit, ‘Numquam incepit [Deus,] sed semper erat’ (‘[God] never began to exist, but always existed’ [line 31; see also LS I.1;113 AH I.2, lines 96–101; and AH II.14, lines 13–18]). Ælfric variously teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit ‘ealle þry synden an angin’ (‘are all three one Beginning’ [LS I.1114]); that God exists æfre unbegunnen (‘eternally without a beginning’ [SH II.21115]); that Christ ‘wæs æfre wunigende ær anginne mid [ðam Fæder]’ (‘was ever dwelling before the beginning with [the Father]’ [SH I.11a116]); and that God ‘æfre þurhwunode buton ælcum anginne’ (‘abides continuously without any beginning’ [Letter to Sigeweard117]). Analogous remarks appear in CH I.1,118 CH I.8,119 CH I.15,120

CH I.2 and CH II.1 focus on the Incarnation rather than the nature of all three Persons. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, lines 1 (Se fæder) – 2 (is angin); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 33–5. 114 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §3, p. 22, line 1 (Se fæder) – p. 24, line 4 (and ungeændod) [see also p. 26, §8, lines 1 (Ealle) – 3 (ne geworht)]; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, line 14 – p. 12, line 16 [see also p. 14, lines 61–3]. 115 Pope, Homilies, vol. 2, p. 677, line 21. On the term unbegunnen, see notes to De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 73–7. 116 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 471, line 203; see also lines 199 (he is) – 200 (and ende); authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). 117 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 201, line 33 (Næs þeos) – p. 202, line 34 (ælcum anginne). 118 Clemoes, First Series, p. 178, lines 6 (An angin) – 8 (æfre ungeendod). 119 Clemoes, First Series, p. 248, line 210 (æfre wuniende … and end). 120 Clemoes, First Series, p. 306, line 183 (Ac uton … buton anginne). 112 Though

113 Clayton

34

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime CH I.20,121 CH II.13,122 De penitentia (AH II.19),123 Lazarus II (AH I.3),124 and his Letter to Sigeweard125 and Letter to Wulfgeat.126 The Son’s Eternality. In addition to describing the Trinity as a whole, Ælfric also speaks specifically about the eternality of the Son: as he puts it in LS I.1, Christ is æfre of þam Fæder acenned (‘eternally begotten of the Father’;127 see also AH I.2, lines 97–8; and AH II.14, lines 14–15). Many of these references occur in the Catholic Homilies: Ælfric variously explains that Jesus has no beginning (CH I.2,128 CH I.13,129 CH I.20,130 CH I.30,131 and CH II.38132), that he is the beginning and the end (CH I.36),133 and that his divine nature has no beginning while his humanity did (CH I.31,134 CH II.1,135 and CH II.22136) – but he makes similar points as well in the Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin,137 the Hexameron,138 Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10),139 Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8),140 and SH I.1.141 Two biblical verses in particular prompt such discussions: John 8.58, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that ‘antequam Abraham fieret ego sum’ (‘“Before Abraham was, I am”’),142 and John 1.1, which declares that ‘In principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum’ (‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’).143 The former is found, for example, in CH II.13,144 while the latter appears in CH I.2145 and SH I.1.146 In the Interrogationes, moreover, First Series, p. 338, line 92 (Æfre wæs … buton anginne); and p. 339, line 128 (God næfð nan angin). 122 Godden, Second Series, p. 134, line 213 ([God] is ana … and ende). 123 Line 42 (God … anginne). 124 Lines 236 (Fæder is æfre unbegunnen) and 260 (ælmihtig God æfre unbegunnen). 125 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, lines 41 (Se ælmihtiga) – 43 (anginne acenned). 126 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 1, line 18 (se ðe ne ongan næfre). 127 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, line 2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, line 34. 128 Clemoes, First Series, p. 195, line 167 (þæs word) – 168 (butan anginne). 129 Clemoes, First Series, p. 285, line 117 (he wæs … buton anginne). 130 Clemoes, First Series, p. 337, lines 73 (se sunu) – 74 (anginne). 131 Clemoes, First Series, p. 438, lines 269 (se þe) – 270 (anginne). 132 Godden, Second Series, p. 326, lines 245 (Sy lof) – 246 (anginne). 133 Clemoes, First Series, p. 496, line 290 (se is angin and ende). 134 Clemoes, First Series, p. 441, line 77 (And he) – p. 442, line 79 (angyn). 135 Godden, Second Series, p. 3, lines 5 (He is) – 11 (meder). 136 Godden, Second Series, p. 210, lines 123 (Næfde se) – 125 (god wære). 137 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 236, line 556 (se wæs … mid him); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 516–17. 138 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 37, line 54. 139 Lines 164 (He is mannes) – 168 (and gehælan). 140 Lines 24 (And eac) – 29 (weres gemanan). 141 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 198, line 30 (Ðis wæs … ælmihtigan Gode). 142 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1675; see CH II.13.106 (Drihten) – 213 (and ende) (Godden, Second Series, p. 134). 143 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1658; see CH I.2.167 (Word bið) – 169 (wisan fæder) (Clemoes, First Series, p. 195) and CH I.4.185 (In principio) – 193 (bec setton) (First Series, pp. 212–13). 144 Godden, Second Series, p. 134, line 213 ([God] is ana … and ende). 145 Clemoes, First Series, p. 195, line 166 (on frymðe) – 167 (wæs God). Ælfric also treats the verse in CH I.25 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 384, line 142 [On frymðe] – 143 [wæs God]), but without reference to Christ’s eternality. 146 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 198, lines 27 (In principio) – 29 (wæs God); p. 199, line 64 (þæt Word) 121 Clemoes,

35

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Ælfric discusses John 8.25 (on which, see notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17) – a passage slightly earlier in Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees, where he declares: ‘principium quia et loquor uobis’ (‘“I who speak to you am the Beginning”’147) – along with Genesis 1.1 (‘In principio creauit Deus caelum et terram’ [‘“In the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth”’148]). The Father, Ælfric explains, created all things ‘þurh þæt angina, þæt is þurh þone Sunu’ (‘through that Beginning, that is, through the Son’).149 Finally, toward the end of his career, Ælfric ties it all together, as in SH I.1 he refers to John 1.1, John 8.25, and Genesis 1.1 (on which connection, see notes to AH I.2, lines 57–71). The link for Ælfric once again is clear: ‘Þæt anginn is his ancenneda Sunu’ (‘That beginning is [the Father’s] only-begotten Son’).150 The Son as Strength/Wisdom; the Spirit as Love/Will. A number of other elements in the Sermo in natale Domini’s treatment of the Trinity also recur elsewhere. Ælfric speaks repeatedly, for example, of the Son as God’s Strength and/or Wisdom and of the Holy Spirit as their Love and/or Will [lines 19–20, 33, and 11–12; see also LS I.1151; AH I.2, lines 46, 99–100, 51, and 55; and AH II.14, lines 16–18, 54–5, and 58]: see CH I.8,152 CH I.13,153 CH I.15,154 CH I.20,155 CH I.22,156 CH I.33,157 CH II.3,158 CH II.4,159 De penitentia (AH II.19),160 the Interrogationes,161 SH II.21,162 the Hexameron,163 SH I.7,164 – p. 200, line 67 (is anginn); p. 203, lines 148 (On anginne) – 150 (ælmihtigan Gode); and p. 204, lines 155 (On anginne) – 156 (wæs God). 147 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1673. 148 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 4. 149 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 121, lines 159 (Hu is) – 166 (eorþan geworhte); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 16, lines 227–9; see also notes to De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), line 73. 150 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 200, line 73. 151 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, lines 4–6 [see also p. 28, §9, lines 5–6]; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 36–8 [and p. 14, line 76]. 152 Clemoes, First Series, p. 248, lines 208 (his sunu) – 209 (and willa). 153 Clemoes, First Series, p. 281, lines 4 (Ure se) – 5 (willan geliffæste), speaking of the Almighty creating everything through his Wisdom and Will (here not explicitly connected to the second and third persons of the Trinity); and p. 284, lines 94 (he is) – 95 (þæs suna), speaking of the Spirit as Will and Love. 154 Clemoes, First Series, p. 306, lines 183 (Ac uton) – 187 (suna). 155 Clemoes, First Series, p. 337, line 54 (he is … his miht); p. 337, lines 74 (he is) – 76 (þæs suna); and p. 338, lines 93 (he is) – 94 (and lufu) and 96 (he is) – 98 (þæs suna). 156 Clemoes, First Series, p. 362, lines 203 (his sunu) – 204 (and willa). 157 Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, lines 144 (Se sunu) – 146 (and willa). 158 Godden, Second Series, p. 22, lines 123 (he is) – 125 (þæs suna). 159 Godden, Second Series, p. 31, lines 73 (ða halgan) – 78 (him bam) omits mention of the Son as the Father’s Wisdom. 160 Lines 42 (Se Sunu) – 44 (and Lufu); and lines 47 (Se Wisdom) – 50 (wisan Fæder). 161 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, lines 559 (he is) – 564 (him bam), corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 519–23; Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 238, line 567 (lufu and willa), corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, line 526; and Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 574 (heora begra … seo lufu), corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 56, lines 532–3. 162 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 677, lines 17 (Se Halga) – 20 (his wisdom). 163 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 37, lines 55 (he is) – 56 (mycele miht); p. 38, lines 60 (he soðlice) – 61 (begra Lufu); and p. 39, lines 73 (mycel is) – 76 (begra Lufu). 164 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 349, line 210 (He is) – 211 (þæs Suna). The text here speaks of the Spirit

36

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime SH I.8,165 SH I.9,166 SH I.10,167 Lazarus II (AH I.3),168 Letter to Sigeweard,169 Letter to Wulfgeat,170 SH I.1,171 and SH I.11a.172 On the Spirit as Love and Will, see also notes to lines 2–17 below. The Son and Spirit in Relation to the Father. On some of these occasions, Ælfric carefully distinguishes between the Son and Spirit in their relationship to the Father: the Father gestrynde (‘begot’) the Son, who is semper … natus ex … Patre (‘eternally … begotten of … the Father’ [lines 31–2; see also LS I.1;173 AH I.2, line 98; and AH II.14, lines 14–15]) while the Spirit is ‘æfre of þam Fæder and of þam Sunu, na acenned ac forð-stæppende’ (‘not begotten, but eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son’ [LS I.1;174 see also AH I.1, lines 31–2]);175 see CH I.15,176 CH I.20,177 CH I.33,178 CH II.3,179 De penitentia (AH II.19),180

as Love and Will, but not the Son as Wisdom, though immediately before it does describe the Trinity as on anre godcundnysse (‘in one divine nature’, line 209) – on which term, see below. 165 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 365, line 188 (him bam) – 189 (him bam), speaking of the Spirit as Love. The text also describes the Trinity having an godcundnysse (‘one divine nature’, p. 365, line 187; and p. 366, line 195), as well as an mægenþrymnys (‘one majestic power’) – on which terms, see below. 166 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 383, line 112 (se Frofergast) – 113 (begra Lufu), speaking of the Spirit as Love. 167 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 398, lines 41 (heora begra) – 42 (Halga Gast); and p. 400, line 92 (he sylf … Godes lufu), twice speaking of the Spirit as Love. 168 Lines 238 (se Halga Gast … and Lufu), 248 (his halgan Wisdon… Sune is), and 250 (ðone Halgan Gast … begra Lufu). 169 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, lines 41 (se micla) – 42 (wisan fæder), 44 (heora begra lufu), and 51 (he ys) – 52 (þæs Suna). 170 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 1, line 11 (se wisdom … hælend Crist); and p. 1, line 17 (Se is) – p. 2, line 19 (agen willa). 171 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 202, line 109 (þæs halgan … wundorlice miht), speaking of the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and Strength. 172 Perhaps unsurprisingly for a homily titled De sancta Trinitate (‘On the Holy Trinity’), references herein to trinitarian language are multifarious. For the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and/or Strength, see Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 463, lines 3 (his soðan) – 4 (his Sunu); and p. 471, lines 206 (he is) – 207 (mihtigan Fæder). For the Spirit and the Will and Love of the Father and Son, see p. 463, line 11 (Se is) – p. 464, line 13 (begra willa); p. 471, lines 209 (ðone lyfigendan) – 210 (and Lufu); p.471, lines 213 (he cymð) – 214 (and willa); and p. 471, lines 221 (heora begra) – 222 (Lufu heora). Authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). 173 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, line 2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, line 34. 174 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, lines 3–4; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 35–6. 175 CH II.22 adds that the Spirit is efenedwistlic (‘consubstantial’) with both the Father and Son (Godden, Second Series, p. 208, line 73) – a related term, though not one that appears in De creatore. 176 Clemoes, First Series, p. 306, line 184, speaking of the Son as acenned (‘begotten’). 177 Clemoes, First Series, p. 337, lines 53 (the Father gestruynde [‘begot’] the Son) and 56 (the Son is acenned [‘begotten’]); and p. 338, line 80 (the Spirit is forðstæppende, þæt is ofgangende [‘proceeding, that is, deriving’] from the Father and the Son). 178 Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, lines 141 (On eallum) – 147 (forðstæppend): the Father gestrynde (‘begot’) the Son; the Son is acenned (‘begotten’) of the Father; the Spirit is forðstæppende (‘proceeding’) from them both. 179 Godden, Second Series, p. 22, line 123: the Son is acenned (‘begotten’). 180 Lines 39 (the Father gestrynde [‘begot’] the Son), 40 (the Son is acenned [‘begotten’]), 41 (the Spirit is forðstæppende [‘proceeding’]), and 49 (Næs se) – 50 (wisan Fæder [the Son, not the Father, is acenned (‘begotten’)]).

37

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime the Interrogationes,181 SH II.21,182 SH I.9,183 Lazarus II (AH I.3),184 Letter to Sigeweard,185 Letter to Wulfgeat,186 and SH I.11a.187 The Trinity’s One Nature and Indivisibility. In some of these passages, moreover, Ælfric speaks of the persons of the Trinity being consubstantiales (‘of the same substance’ [AH I.1, line 33] or having an cynd (‘one nature’ [AH I.2, line 103; see also AH II.14, line 21]): CH I.20,188 the Interrogationes,189 the Hexameron,190 SH I.8,191 Lazarus II (AH I.3),192 Letter to Wulfgeat,193 and SH I.11a.194 In AH I.2 and II.14, furthermore, the term is followed immediately by the assertion that these persons are untodæledlic (‘indivisible’ [lines 103 and 21, respectively]) – a term Ælfric appears to reserve almost exclusively for the Godhead.195 Ælfric likewise discusses the trait in CH I.9,196 CH I.13,197 CH I.15,198 CH

‘Critical Edition’, p. 236, line 555 (the Father gestrynde [‘begot’] the anum acennedne [‘only-begotten’] Son; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 515–16); Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 566 (the Spirit is na acenned [‘not begotten’]; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, line 525); and Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 239, line 580 (the Son is acenned [‘begotten’]; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 56, line 538). 182 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 677, lines 12 (the Father gestrynde [‘begot’] the Son) and 17 (the Spirit is na acenned [‘not begotten’]). 183 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 383, lines 111 and 112 (the Spirit forðstæpð [‘proceeds’] from the Father and the Son). 184 Lines 233 and 237 (the Son is acenned [‘begotten’]). 185 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, line 43 (the Son is acenned [‘begotten’]). 186 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, line 22 (the Son is ancenned [‘only-begotten’]). 187 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, line 16 (the Son is ancenned [‘only-begotten’]; see also p. 465, line 54); p. 471, line 202 (the Father gestrynde [‘begot’] the an acenned [‘only-begotten’] Son); and p. 471, line 213 (the Spirit is na acenned, ac he cymð of him bam [‘not begotten, but he comes from them both’]). 188 Clemoes, First Series, p. 336, line 41; and p. 340, line 137. 189 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 565; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, line 525. 190 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 38, line 62. 191 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 366, line 196. 192 Line 252. 193 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, line 25. 194 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, line 19; and p. 471, line 212. 195 Perhaps the only exception being his discussion in the Grammar of individual letters as the basic building blocks of language (Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 4, line 19; and p. 5, line 3). 196 Clemoes, First Series, p. 256, line 234. 197 Clemoes, First Series, p. 284, lines 96–7 and 98; and p. 286, line 159. 198 Clemoes, First Series, p. 306, line 187. 181 Stoneman,

38

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime I.18,199 CH I.20,200 CH I.22,201 CH I.26,202 CH I.33,203 CH II.3,204 CH II.13,205 CH II.22,206 LS I.9 [Skeat I.10],207 SH II.21,208 and Lazarus II (AH I.3).209 The Trinity’s Divine Nature and Majestic Power. Ælfric often accompanies references to the Godhead’s an cynd and untodæledlic nature (either seamlessly or in close proximity) with two expressions that follow in AH I.2: an Godcundnys (‘one divine nature’ [line 104; see also AH II.14, line 21]) and an mægenðrym[nys] (‘one majestic power’ [line 104; see also AH II.14, line 21]). For the former, see CH I.13,210 CH I.15,211 CH I.20,212 CH I.22,213 CH I.33,214 CH II.3,215 CH II.13,216 CH II.22,217 De penitentia (AH II.19),218 the Interrogationes,219 the Hexameron,220 SH I.8,221 Lazarus II (AH I.3),222 his Letter to Wulfgeat,223 and SH I.11a.224 For the latter, see CH I.20,225 the Interrogationes,226 the Hexameron,227 SH I.8,228 Lazarus II (AH I.3),229 Letter to Wulfgeat,230 and SH I.11a.231 First Series, p. 319, line 67. First Series, p. 336, line 30; p. 339, line 125; p. 341, line 191; and p. 342, lines 202 and 208. 201 Clemoes, First Series, p. 362, line 205; and p. 363, line 236. 202 Clemoes, First Series, p. 390, line 51. 203 Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, line 137; and p. 464, lines 149 and 161. 204 Godden, Second Series, p. 22, lines 121 and 124. 205 Godden, Second Series, p. 133, line 189. 206 Godden, Second Series, p. 211, lines 170 and 171. 207 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 286, line 108; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 226, line 108. 208 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 677, line 23. 209 Line 251. 210 Clemoes, First Series, p. 284, line 98; see also p. 286, line 158. 211 Clemoes, First Series, p. 306, line 187. 212 Clemoes, First Series, p. 336, lines 30–1, 32, 36, and 41; p. 339, line 130; p. 340, line 137; p. 342, line 210; and p. 344, line 256. 213 Clemoes, First Series, p. 362, line 205; and p. 363, line 236. 214 Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, line 139. 215 Godden, Second Series, p. 22, line 125. 216 Godden, Second Series, p. 133, lines 188–9. 217 Godden, Second Series, p. 211, line 172. 218 Lines 43 and 46. 219 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 564, and p. 238, line 570; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 524 and 529 (see also Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 239, line 578; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 56, lines 535–6). 220 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 38, lines 63. 221 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 366, line 195. 222 Line 252. 223 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, line 24. 224 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, line 18; and p. 471, line 217 (see also p. 218, line 224); authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). 225 Clemoes, First Series, p. 336, line 33; and p. 340, line 138. 226 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 565; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, line 524 (see also Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 238, line 575; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 56, lines 533–4). 227 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 38, lines 63. 228 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 366, line 195. 229 Line 253. 230 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, line 25. 231 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, line 19; and p. 471, line 212 (see also line 222). 199 Clemoes, 200 Clemoes,

39

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Omnipotence and Eternality are Synonymous with Divinity. Last, parallels to Ælfric’s affirmation that nothing can be divine that is less than God or that comes into being after God [AH I.2, lines 106–8; AH II.14, lines 23–6] may be found in CH I.15232 and CH I.20.233 Lines 2–17 [Quondam diximus uobis … nisi credideritis, non intellegitis]: Fehr once suggested that the Sermo in natale Domini discusses doctrine ‘in Augustinischem Sinne’ (‘in an Augustinian sense’),234 and to an extent this may well be true: even if the language of this section of the homily reveals an independence from immediate sources (as noted above), certain phrases may have Augustinian echoes, at least one biblical quotation is Augustinian in wording, and a key term used to describe the Holy Spirit may ultimately be Augustinian in nature. First, in terms of echoes, one might point, for example, to Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis, where Augustine remarks, ‘Audistis, fratres, propositam quaestionem, nempe quam profunda sit cernitis’ (‘You have heard, brothers, the question placed before us; assuredly you perceive how profound it is’).235 The language is similar to Ælfric’s statement that ‘Audistis, fratres, quam breuis responsio et quam profunda sit’ (‘You have heard, brothers, how brief the response and how profound it is’ [line 10]), and comes somewhat before a quotation from Sirach 3.22, likewise found in AH I.1, line 18. Augustine’s remark, however, is in reference to Romans 11.7–8, while Ælfric’s comment has John 8.25 in view [lines 8–10]. Alternatively, one might consider De Trinitate, where Augustine does discuss John 8.25, where Christ calls himself Principium (‘the Beginning’). Here, like Ælfric [lines 11–12], Augustine immediately dismisses the notion that the Son might have created the Father or Spirit: all three together are ‘the beginning’.236 The parallel is more conceptual than linguistic, however: where Augustine concludes, ‘Unum ergo principium ad creaturam dicitur Deus, non duo uel tria principia’ (‘Thus God is called one Beginning, not two or three Beginnings, with reference to creation’),237 Ælfric states that ‘Non tamen ipsi tria Principia sed unum Principium, sicut unus Deus in una deitate semper permanens, non inceptus, nec finitus’ (‘Nevertheless they are themselves not three Beginnings but one Beginning, just as there is one God ever existing in one Godhead, not begun, not ended’ [lines 12–14]).238 First Series, p. 306, lines 188 (for ðon) – 189 (na God). First Series, p. 339, lines 126 (for ðan) – 128 (nan angin). 234 Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. xi. The passage he adduces as proof is from the second half of the homily (‘Habet igitur anima … et memoriam habet’ [AH I.1, lines 127–8]) and actually comes from Alcuin (see Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 101); as we will see, however, the homily does reveal points of possible indebtedness to Augustine, at least as an ultimate source. 235 Tractatus 53.6 (CCSL 36, p. 454, lines 1–2); for Sirach 3.22, see Tractatus 53.7 (CCSL 36, p. 455, lines 7–8). 236 De Trinitate V.13.14 (CCSL 50, p. 221, lines 7–15). 237 De Trinitate V.13.14 (CCSL 50, p. 222, lines 33–4). 238 Similarly, for Ælfric’s subsequent statement that ‘ille homo insanus est qui quaerit aliquid ante Principium’ (‘mad is that man who searches for something prior to the Beginning’ [line 14]), Fontes cites Pseudo-Augustine’s Sermo 118 as a probable source [S2]: ‘Insanit qui aliquid quaerit ante principium’ (‘Mad is the one who searches for something prior to the beginning’ [PL 38.672; Jayatilaka, ‘Source Details: C.B.1.3.2.004.01’). The ‘beginning’ Pseudo-Augustine has in view, 232 Clemoes, 233 Clemoes,

40

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime One other intriguing option might be Augustine’s De fide et symbolo, where Augustine condemns heretics that would deny Christ’s divine eternality, alludes to John 8.25 (on which, see below), and speaks of the Spirit as the ‘Love’ of the Father and the Son [cf. AH I.1, lines 5–7, 8–10, and 11–12]. Again, however, the language is only occasionally close. Ælfric speaks of ‘quidam heretici demonico spiritu decepti in tantum ut dicerent … esset aliquod tempus antequam natus esset ex Patre’ (‘certain heretics deceived by the evil spirit to such an extent that they said that … there was some period of time before [Christ] was born from the Father’ [lines 5–7]), while Augustine describes those who ‘putarent eum non aequalem Patri, nec eiusdem esse substantiae’ (‘have supposed him to be neither equal with the Father nor of the same substance’).239 Ælfric recounts John 8.25 in full – ‘Principium qui et loquor uobis’ ([I am] the beginning, who likewise speaks to you”’ [lines 9–10] – while Augustine affirms simply that ‘Christus principium, sed non Patris’ (‘Christ [is] the beginning, but not of the Father’).240 And while Ælfric’s description of the Spirit as caritas amborum (‘the love both [the Father and Son]’ [line 12]) is similar to Augustine’s dilectionem … amborum charitatemque (‘the love … and charity of both’),241 Augustine’s immediate focus is on the debate over homoousianism – whether the Spirit is of the same ‘substance’ (substantia) and thus equal to the other members of the Trinity, as affirmed by the Nicene Creed (on which, see Mæsse Creda (AH II.23) below). While the parallels in none of these texts are close enough to suggest Ælfric used them as immediate sources, intriguing echoes nevertheless remain. Second, there are the two biblical quotations in this section, one of which is Augustinian in wording. The first considers a question quite germane to a homily for the Nativity: in what sense may one speak of Christ having an origin? Ælfric is quick to point out that while Jesus’ earthly, human existence commenced at a historical moment, his divinity had no beginning [lines 5–7]. Those who would deny Christ’s eternal nature are heretici (‘heretics’ [line 5]) – chief among whom, in Ælfric’s thinking, must surely be Arius, whom he excoriates for example in Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 199–206 (for further references, see notes to AH II.9, lines 172–216). As Jesus puts it in John 8, Ælfric observes, far from having a beginning, he is the origin of all created things [lines 8–10, echoing John 1.1 and Genesis 1.1242]. The verse is one Ælfric quotes on at least seven occasions, as follows:

however, is John 1.1 (In principio erat Verbum [‘In the beginning was the Word’]), which he quotes immediately after, whereas Ælfric quotes John 8.25 [lines 8–10] and Isaiah 7.9 [line 17]. 239 De fide et symbolo 9.18 (PL 40.190). 240 De fide et symbolo 9.18 (PL 40.190). 241 De fide et symbolo 9.19 (PL 40.191). 242 On which combination, see further in SH I.1 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 200, line 73), as well as notes to AH I.2, lines 96–109; and Griffith, ‘Ælfric’s Use of his Sources’, pp. 137–8.

41

Iudei namque interrogauerunt Christum dicentes, ‘“Tu quis es?”’ Ille respondit, ‘“Principium, qui et loquor uobis”’.

For indeed the Jews questioned Christ saying, ‘“Who are you?”’ He answered, ‘“The Beginning, who likewise speaks to you”’.

John 8.25

Dicebant ergo ei, ‘Tu quis es?’ Dixit eis Iesus, ‘Principium quia et loquor uobis’.

They said therefore to him, ‘Who are you?’ Jesus said to them, ‘The beginning, that also is speaking to you’. [that beginning is Christ, even as he himself said to the Jews:] ‘“I am the beginning who is speaking to with you”’.

[þæt anginn ys Crist, swa swa he sylf cwæþ to þam Iudeiscum:] ‘“Ic eom angin þe eow to spræce.”’

Prefatio to Genesis243

[That beginning is Christ, God’s Son, even [as] he himself said in his Gospel to the Jews, when they asked him who he was. He said:] ‘“I am the beginning who is speaking to with you”’.

[Þæt angin is Crist, Godes Sunu, swa [swa] he sylf cwæð on his godspelle to þam Iudeiscum, þa þa he axodon hwæt he wære. He cwæð:] ‘“Ic eom angin þe eow to spræce.”’

Interrogationes Sigewulfi244

[The Jews asked Christ who he was. Then he answered them thus:] ‘“Ego sum principium, qui et loquor uobis”’,248 ‘“I am the beginning who is speaking to with you”’.

[Þa Iudeiscan axodon Crist hwæt he wære. Ða andwyrde he him þus:] ‘“Ego sum principium, qui et loquor uobis”’, ‘“Ic eom anginn, þe eow to spræce”’.

LS I.1245

[that beginning, spiritually understood, is the Almighty Son of God, even as the Gospel tells us:] ‘“Ego principium qui et loquor uobis.”’249 This the Savior said in his holy Gospel: ‘“I myself am the beginning, who is speaking to you”’.

[ðæt angin is ðæs ælmihtigan Godes Sunu on gastlicum andgite, swa swa ðæt godspell us segð:] ‘“Ego principium qui et loquor uobis”’, ðis cwæð se Hælend on his halgan godspelle: ‘“Ic sylf eom angin ðe eow to sprece.”’

Hexameron246

[the Savior replied to the wicked Jews who later killed him when they asked him with ill-will and said,] ‘“Tell us, then, what are you?” And he replied to them in this way, “ Principium qui et loquor uobis”,250 “I myself am the beginning who is speaking with you”’.

[þe Hælend andswerede þam arlease Iudeis þe him syððan acwaldon þa ða heo him axodon mid onde and cwæden,] ‘“Sæge us, la, hwæt eart ðu?” And he heom andswarede þus, “Principium qui et loquor uobis”, “Ic me seolf eam angen þe wið eow speke”’.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 29–34

244 Stoneman,

243 Marsden,

Heptateuch, p. 5, lines 53–4. ‘Critical Edition’, p. 121, lines 161–3; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 16, lines 147–50. 245 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §2, lines 5–7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 10–11. 246 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 37, lines 49–53. 247 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 200, lines 67–9. 248 ‘“I am the beginning, who also is speaking to you”’. 249 ‘“I [am] the beginning, who also is speaking to you”’. 250 ‘“[I am] the beginning, who also is speaking to you”’. 251 ‘“I [am] the beginning, who also is speaking to you”’.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 8–10

[that Word is the beginning, even as he said thereafter,] ‘“Ego principium qui et loquor uobis”’,251 ‘“I myself am the beginning, I who am speaking to you”’.

[þæt Word is anginn, swa swa he eft sæde,] ‘“Ego principium qui et loquor uobis”, “Ic sylf eom anginn, ic ðe to eow sprece”’.

SH I.1247

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Ælfric’s language is fairly consistent across these interations, and while he does make changes to the Latin and Old English, they are minor. Ælfric quotes at least part of the Latin, to begin with, in all but his earliest two vernacular texts. In LS I.1, the Hexameron, and SH I.1, he supplies the opening implied word(s) Ego [sum] (‘I [am]’). In all five Latin quotations, moreover, instead of quia (‘that’), he uses qui (‘who’) – a Vulgate variant252 that may gently emphasize the personal nature of the speaker (‘“I myself am [he who speaks]”’, as Ælfric’s last three texts have it) rather than the impersonal ‘“beginning [that speaks]”’. In his vernacular translations, Ælfric also supplies the implied Ic eom (‘I am’); the indeclinable particle þe which he uses as a relative pronoun, however, may be translated either ‘who’ or ‘that’. For all the ways in which he introduces the verse, however, it is only the Sermo in natale Domini and In natali Domini that directly quote the Jews’ opening question. Here, too, Ælfric’s changes are nominal. In AH I.1, he supplies proper nouns (Iudei and Christum) and replaces the Vulgate’s dicere (‘say’) with respondere (‘answer’) and the somewhat more pointed interrogare (‘question’). In AH I.2, he transitions between the speakers with and (‘and’), uses multiple verbs for the exchange (secgan [‘tell’] and andswarian [‘answer’] rather than the Vulgate’s repeated dicere), and refers to Jesus not by name, but by a pronoun (he [‘he’]) that points back to Ælfric’s triple references to the Hælend (‘Savior’ [lines 24, 28, and 29]) – one of Ælfric’s favorite terms for the Son that appears over 1,400 times in his works. Ælfric thus stays close to the biblical original both in his Latin and Old English, despite the minor differences between his texts. Transitioning to his second passage from Scripture, Ælfric makes at least four points, all of which he amplifies later in the homily: Christ is not the ‘beginning’ of the other members of the Trinity [lines 10–12; see also 38–40 and 204–5], the Godhead exists in one divine nature [lines 13 and 15; see also 33], God created all things [lines 14–16; see also lines 38 and 49–50], and the one who imagines that anything could exist before the beginning is mad (insanus [line 14] or hebes [‘doltish’, line 8; see also 44–6]). At the same time, Ælfric recognizes that the full reality of such truths is beyond human grasp: ultimately, one must believe [lines 16–17]. To underscore the importance of faith – in God’s creative power, for example (see e.g., Hebrews 11.3) – he draws on a verse from Isaiah 7, possibly brought to mind by Christ’s statement immediately before in John that ‘si … non credideritis quia ego sum, moriemini in peccato uestro’ (‘if … you will not believe that I am, you will die in your sin’ [John 8.24, emphasis ours]). Quoting the verse thrice in his works, Ælfric states: Isaiah 7.9 ‘Si non credideritis, non permanebitis’.

252 Weber,

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 17 ‘Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis’.

CH I.20

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 70–1

‘“Buton ge hit gelyfon, Nisi credideritis, non ne mage ge hit intelligitis, ‘Buton ge understandan”’. hit ilefæn, ne mage ge hit understanden’.

Biblia sacra, p. 1673, apparatus.

43

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime ‘If you will not believe, you shall not endure’.

‘Unless you believe, you will not understand’.

‘“Unless you believe it, you will not be able to understand it”’.

‘Unless you believe, you will not understand’, ‘Unless you believe it, you will not be able to understand it’.

It is not the Vulgate or a Vulgate variant that Ælfric cites, however. The Vulgate closes with the word permanebitis, paralleling the Hebrew ‫( תֵ ָאמֵ ֽנּו‬here, ‘endure’ or ‘last’). In this part of Isaiah, God is sending the prophet to exhort King Ahaz of Judah not to fear the kings of Aram and Israel who oppose him: God’s followers must stand firm in their faith, or they will not stand at all. Ælfric, however, reproduces a Vetus Latina reading (Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis) based on the Septuagint, which reads ‘ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσητε οὐδὲ μὴ συνῆτε’ (‘If you will not believe, neither will you understand’). It may well be to Augustine again that Ælfric is ultimately indebted: writing when Jerome’s translation ‘had not yet displaced the variegated and venerated [Vetus Latina] tradition’,253 Augustine cites the Vetus Latina version some forty-four times (against but one passage with the Vulgate’s non permanebitis, offered as an ‘interpretation’ of non intelligetis254), seeding subsequent accounts of the verse. Ælfric too uses nisi instead of the synonymous si non (‘if … not’), but employs variants of Augustine’s intelligetis (the future tense of intelligere): intelligitis (present tense) in AH I.2 and intellegitis (present tense of intellegere, a variant of intelligere also meaning ‘to understand’) in AH I.1.255 Even so, in both cases, the Vetus Latina is still in view. In his vernacular translations, Ælfric follows this version fairly closely as well, though he does use a pronoun (hit [‘it’]) to supply the implied object in each clause. In both CH I.20 and In natali Domini, that ‘it’ refers to the doctrine of the Trinity, a subject beyond human comprehension that requires faith in order to gain insight. As Ælfric puts it in the First Series, ‘Se þe understandan ne mæg, he hit sceal gelyfan þæt he hit understandan mæge’ (‘He who cannot understand it must believe it, so that he may understand it’).256 Third, there is one term in this section that may ultimately be Augustinian in nature: Ælfric’s description of the Holy Spirit as the caritas (‘Love’) of the Father and Son [line 12]. Strikingly, Ælfric here describes the Spirit only as Love and not ‘Love and Will’, though the latter phrase is one he uses pervasively of the Spirit elsewhere: in CH I.8,257

253 Menzies,

‘Isaiah 7.9b’, p. 114. cites both non permanebitis and non intelligetis twice in close proximity in De doctrina christiana II.12.17 (CCSL 32, p. 43, lines 20 and 32). One is uncertain when in his career Augustine made this entry, however, as he composed De doctrina between 395–8 and 426 (Brown, Augustine, p. 184). 255 Lewis and Short actually describe intelligere (which Augustine also uses) as a ‘less correct’ form of intellegere (Dictionary, p. 974). 256 CH I.20 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 337, lines 69–71). 257 Clemoes, First Series, p. 248, lines 208–9. 254 Augustine

44

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime CH I.13,258 CH I.15,259 CH I.20,260 CH I.22,261 CH I.33,262 CH II.3,263 CH II.4,264 CH II.22,265 De penitentia (AH II.19),266 Interrogationes,267 LS I.1,268 SH II.21,269 In natali Domini (AH I.2),270 Lazarus II (AH I.3),271 SH I.7,272 the Letter to Sigeweard,273 Letter to Wulfgeat,274 Lazarus III (AH I.3),275 and SH I.11a.276 In some of these texts – CH II.22,277 In natali Domini (AH I.2),278 Lazarus II (AH I.3),279 SH I.7,280 the Letter to Sigeweard,281 and Lazarus III (AH I.3)282 – Ælfric does speak of the Spirit simply as Love, but only while describing the Spirit as ‘will’ as well. The two-term formula is so characteristic of Ælfric, in fact, that one might be tempted to see the reference here in AH I.1 as further evidence for the homily’s early date. While such is possible, however, there are later instances when Ælfric uses the term Love but not Will: in the Hexameron,283 SH I.8,284 and SH I.10.285 Whence does Ælfric derive this language for the Spirit? Remarkably, for all their excellent scholarship, none of the editors of the above texts – Assmann,286 Belfour,287

First Series, p. 284, lines 93–4. First Series, p. 306, line 186. 260 Clemoes, First Series, p. 337, lines 75–6, and p. 338, lines 93–4. 261 Clemoes, First Series, p. 362, line 204. 262 Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, lines 134–6 and 145–6. 263 Godden, Second Series, p. 22, line 125. 264 Godden, Second Series, p. 31, lines 75–8. 265 Godden, Second Series, p. 208, lines 71–3. 266 Lines 44 and 51. 267 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, lines 562–3, and p. 238, line 567; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 521–2 and 526. 268 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, lines 5–6; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 37–8. 269 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 677, lines 17–18. 270 Line 55. 271 Line 238. 272 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 349, lines 208–11. 273 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, lines 44–5. 274 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 1, line 12 – p. 2, line 19. 275 Line 63. 276 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 471, lines 209–10 and 213–14. 277 Godden, Second Series, p. 211, lines 167–8, versus p. 208, lines 71–3. 278 Cf. lines 51 and 55. 279 Cf. lines 238 and 250. 280 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 350, line 224, versus p. 349, lines 208–11. 281 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, line 51 versus lines 44–5. 282 Cf. lines 51 and 63. 283 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 38, lines 59–61 (later in ca 993 × ca 998); for this and subsequent dates, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon. 284 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 365, lines 188–9. 285 Homilies, p. 398, lines 41–2. 286 See Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 1–2, for Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 12–19. 287 Homilies, p. 80, for lines 6–7 or 4 (now In natali Domini [AH I.2], lines 55 and 51); p. 82, for line 4 (now In natali Domini [AH I.2], line 100); and p. 138, for lines 2 and 10–11 (now Lazarus III [AH I.3], lines 28 and 34–5). 258 Clemoes, 259 Clemoes,

45

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Clayton and Mullins,288 Crawford,289 Godden,290 Marsden,291 Pope,292 Skeat,293 or Stoneman294 – suggest sources for the lines in question. Godden, for example, describes passages in the Catholic Homilies variously as ‘a general statement of trinitarian doctrine and the redemption, which probably had no direct source’, or ‘a characteristic excursus on the Trinity for which Ælfric seldom needed sources’,295 while Pope says that ‘Ælfric substitutes much from his own habitual statements about the Trinity’ or is ‘independent in expression’.296 It could be that Ælfric draws his understanding of the Spirit as Love directly from Scripture. On one occasion, when Ælfric treats the subject in SH I.10,297 Pope cites a passage from Haymo’s Homiliae de tempore 100298 that, while not directly describing the Spirit in these terms, does include part of Romans 5.5: ‘caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est nobis’ (‘the love of God is poured forth into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who is given to us’). Pope notes that Haymo’s homily draws on Augustine’s Tractatus 76–9 and Gregory’s Homiliae xl in Euangelia II.30,299 but Romans 5.5 does not appear in these precursors, and Haymo’s language here does not have clear parallels elsewhere. The note does point, however, to a biblical passage that may ultimately have inspired Ælfric, as well as forebears such as Augustine. ‘Will’,

288 Lives,

vol. I, pp. 341–3 (regarding LS I.1). Hexameron, p. 38, apparatus, for lines 59–61. 290 See Commentary, p. 68, on CH I.8 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 248, lines 208–9); p. 105, on CH I.13 (First Series, p. 284, lines 93–4); p. 127, on CH I.15 (First Series, p. 306, line 186); p. 162, on CH I.20 (First Series, p. 337, lines 75–6 and 93–4); p. 181, on CH I.22 (First Series, p. 362, line 204); p. 280 (which does cite a passage in Augustine’s Sermones 71, though it makes no mention of ‘love’ or ‘will’), on CH I.33 (First Series, p. 463, lines 134–6 and 145–6); p. 367, on CH II.3 (Godden, Second Series, p. 22, line 125); and p. 548 (which does cite passages in Augustine’s Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 106 and 107, though they too make no mention of ‘love’ or ‘will’), on CH II.22 (Second Series, p. 208, lines 71–3, and p. 211, lines 167–8). 291 See Heptateuch, p. 202, for Letter to Sigeweard, lines 44–5 and 51. 292 In SH I.6 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 323, line 234), Pope cites Augustine’s Sermones 71 as a possible source, but the quotation does not refer to ‘love’ or ‘will’ (p. 322, apparatus); he offers no source, furthermore, for line 246. In SH I.7 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 349, lines 208–11, and p. 350, line 224), Pope cites Alcuin’s Expositio in Euangelium Iohannis, which draws on Augustine’s Tractatus, but again the quoted passages do not speak of ‘love’ or ‘will’ (pp. 349 and 350, apparatus). For the relevant sections of SH I.8 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 365, lines 188–9), SH I.11a (Homilies, vol. I, p. 471, lines 209–10 and 213–14), and SH II.21 (Homilies, vol. II, p. 677, lines 17–18), finally, Pope gives no source whatsoever: see apparatus to vol. I, p. 365; vol. I, p. 471; and vol. II, p. 677, respectively. 293 Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 37–8 (regarding LS I.1); see also Godden, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1’. 294 Stoneman mentions no sources in ‘Critical Edition’, pp. 286–7 – nor does MacLean in ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1883), pp. 471–2, or ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1883), p. 54 – Interrogationes, lines 562–3 and 567–210 (Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, pp. 237–8; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 54, lines 521–2 and 526). 295 Commentary, pp. 127 and 280. 296 Homilies, vol. I, pp. 323 and 350, apparatus. 297 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 398, lines 41–2. 298 PL 118.556D–557A. For Ælfric’s knowledge of this work, see Godden, Commentary, pp. liv–lv; and Smetana, ‘Early Medieval Homiliary’ and ‘Haymo’. 299 Homilies, vol. I, p. 393. 289 See

46

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime on the other hand – willa, which LS I.1300 and In natali Domini301 explicitly equate with uoluntas – is another matter, as one is pressed to find Scripture that describes the Spirit in such terms. If the ‘Love and Will’ formula is not original to Ælfric – and it is difficult to imagine him inventing such theological language in his own right – other sources must likely still be sought. The key to the puzzle may be found in parts – and Augustinian parts, at that. First, Augustine teaches that the Spirit is the love of the Father and the Son. As he explains in De Trinitate, ‘manifestum est quod [Spiritus sanctus est] … quo genitus a gignente diligatur, generatoremque suum diligat; … quae si amicitia conuenienter dici potest, dicatur; sed aptius dicitur charitas’ (‘it is clear that [the Holy Spirit is] … that by which the Begotten [the Son] is loved by the Begetter [the Father] and loves the Begetter in turn; … let this be called friendship, if it can thus be termed properly, but more fittingly it is called love’).302 Second, Augustine associates ‘love’ with ‘will’. In Enarrationes in Psalmos, for example, considering the Psalmist’s observation that the wicked borrow but do not repay (Psalms 37.21 [Vulgate 36.21]), he instructs Christians to be generous in helping others (cf. James 2.15–17): ‘Habet semper unde det, cui plenum pectus est charitatis. Ipsa est charitas, quae dicitur et uoluntas bona’ (‘The person whose heart is full of love always has something to give. Love is the very thing that is also called good will’).303 Finally, Augustine describes the Spirit as the will of God. Back in De Trinitate – a work present in Anglo-Saxon England, though not definitively known to Ælfric304 – he states: ‘uoluntas Dei si et proprie dicenda est aliqua in Trinitate persona, magis hoc nomen Spiritui sancto competit, sicut charitas. Nam quid est aliud charitas, quam uoluntas?’ (‘if any person in the Trinity is particularly to be called the will of God, this name, like “love”, becomes the Holy Spirit more [than the others]. What else after all is love but the will?’)305 From such passages, or intermediate texts based on them,306 Ælfric would have concluded that the Spirit is the Love and Will of the Father and the Son. His contribution was to combine these elements in formulas such as heora begra lufu and willa (‘the Love and Will of them both’) which he then used consistently through his career. In short, even if the language in this section of the homily in general may not derive from immediate sources, there are echoes, biblical wording, and key theological terms that ultimately may be called Augustinian in nature. In their overall linguistic independence from sources, therefore (as compared, as we will see, to the last half of the homily), their careful use of Scripture, and their theological debt to writers such as Augustine, the opening lines of the Sermo in natale Domini set a pattern for the eighty-odd lines to come. There will be exceptions, such as his use of the and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 36, §29, line 8; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, line 187. I.2, line 356. 302 De Trinitate VI.5.7 (CCSL 50, p. 235, lines 4–6 and 18–19). 303 Enarrationes 36.2.13 (CCSL 38, p. 356, lines 32–4). 304 See Gneuss and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, p. 895; and Godden, Commentary, p. xlix. 305 De Trinitate XV.20.38 (CCSL 50A, p. 516, lines 36–9). 306 Augustine speaks of the Spirit as the substantia uoluntatis amborum (‘substance of the will of both [the Father and Son]’), for example, in Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 111.1 (CCSL 36, p. 628, line 39), published slightly after De Trinitate (Brown, Augustine, p. 282). Pseudo-Bede picks up the expression in In Ioannis euangelium expositio 17 (PL 92.891D); see also Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum opposita Romanam ecclesiam infamantium II.5 (PL 121.263BC). 300 Clayton 301 AH

47

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Old English Boethius [lines 33–6, 36–8, 38–40, 40–3, 55–66, 116–19, and 161–76 below; see notes to AH I.2, lines 110–15], but in large part Ælfric brings a fresh articulation to issues that he nonetheless seeks to ground in doctrinal orthodoxy: the divine nature [lines 5–16, 19–20, 28–9, 31–3, and 38–46], the limits of human knowledge [16–20 and 47–8], the dangers of intellectual hubris [18–19 and 30], the Incarnation and dual nature of Christ [50–5 and 80–2], the categories of creation [55–62], physical posture and spiritual probity [62–72], Christian devotional practice [72–85], and God’s command to pursue charity and peace [86–99]. As subsequent chapters will show, Ælfric will revise and reuse this language in multiple works over the course of his career. Many of his seminal thoughts on these subjects, however, begin here in AH I.1. On Sermo in natale Domini’s relationship to CH I.1 (‘Quondam diximus uobis’ [‘Formerly we related to you …’, line 2]), and its impact on our dating of the former, see notes to AH I.2, lines 1–22. For a detailed comparison of lines 2–5, 5–10, and 10–17 of the Sermo with analogous passages in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 1–22, 23–34, 35–56, and 57–71, respectively. Lines 18–30 [Item scriptum est … cadat in infima]: Ælfric continues his call to humility in the face of divine ineffability [lines 5–7 and 14–17] by quoting (or alluding) to four verses that speak metaphorically or literally of ‘ascending’, and that thus frame his metaphor of the ladder [lines 20–4]. The first quotation stems from the apocryphal book of Sirach, a collection of proverbial apothegms that in chapter 3 commend submission to one’s parents (3.1–18) and meekness of mind and spirit (3.19–26). It says: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 18–20

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 73–8

Altiora te ne scrutaueris, et fortiora te ne exquisieris, sed quae praecepit tibi Deus illa cogita semper et in pluribus operibus eius ne fueris curiosus.

‘Altiora te ne quaesieris’. Et ualde altiora se quaerit, qui uechors perscrutando transscendere uult Christum, Filium Dei coeternum Patri, qui est Virtus et Sapientia Dei.

Altiora te ne quesieris, ‘Ne ongin þu to asmeagene ofer þine meðe embe þa mycele deopnesse’, ne hure embe þone þe alle þing iscop, ac ilef on him for ðan þe he is soð Lif, for þi læs ðe þu dweolie on þine þriste smeagunge for þan ðe ðu ne miht.

Do not search into things that are higher than you, and do not meditate on things that are beyond your ability, but think always about those things which God has commanded you, and do not be inquisitive about his many works.

‘Do not search for things too high for you’. And he searches for things exceedingly high, who being foolish wishes by means of investigating to transcend Christ, the Son of God coeternal with the Father, who is the Strength and Wisdom of God.

Do not inquire into things that are higher than you, ‘Do not begin to think beyond your ability about the great mystery’, certainly not about him who created all things, but believe in him because he is true life, lest you err in your presumptuous thinking because you are unable [to comprehend him].

Sirach 3.22

Ælfric addresses the verse in two stages. First, he quotes and translates the opening injunction. For the Latin, Ælfric uses a Vulgate variant,307 quaesieris (‘inquire into’), 307 Weber,

Biblia sacra, p. 1033, apparatus.

48

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime for scrutaueris (‘search into’) – the root of which AH I.1 subsequently echoes with perscrutando (‘investigating’) – but the meaning is largely the same. Similarly, in his AH I.2 translation, though he intensifies the command somewhat (‘do not even begin [ongin] to consider these things’), and glosses altiora te (‘things higher than you’) as mycele deepness (‘great profundities’) that are ofer þine meðe (‘beyond your ability [to comprehend]’), the result closely resembles the original. Next, however, Ælfric loosely paraphrases the remainder of the verse, or at least allows parts thereof to inspire his commentary. Certain phrases flesh out what is meant by altiora (‘higher things’): where the Vulgate chides those who would inquire in pluribus operibus [Dei] (‘into the many works [of God]’), Ælfric warns against trying to comprehend ‘Christum … coeternum Patri … uirtus et sapientia Dei’ (‘Christ … coeternal with the Father … the strength and wisdom of God [1 Corinthians 1.24]’), that is, ‘þone þe alle þing iscop’ (‘him who created all things’). Other remarks address the limits of human capacity: where the Vulgate speaks of fortiora (‘things beyond [your] ability’), Ælfric describes ‘þa mycele deopnesse’ that is ‘ofer þine meðe’ (‘the great profundities … beyond your ability’). Still other expressions set forth the realm of licit cogitation: where the Vulgate exhorts people to quae praecepit tibi Deus illa cogita (‘think about those things which God has commanded you’), Ælfric adjures them to ilef on him for ðan þe he is soð lif (‘believe on him because he is true life’). And other terms point to vices against which one must guard: being curiosus (‘inquisitive’), as the Vulgate has it, or uecors (‘foolish’) or þriste (‘presumptuous’) in Ælfric’s words. Ælfric thus reproduces the spirit of the verse, if not always the letter, and is closer to the original in his Latin than in the Old English that follows. Following his use of Sirach, Ælfric alludes in passing to 1 Corinthians 1.24 [lines 19–20]. The verse is an important one for Ælfric, as he turns to it in nine different works:308

308 Setting

aside the many instances where Ælfric speaks of the Son as Wisdom; see ‘The Son as Strength/Wisdom’ in the commentary on AH I.1, line 1.

49

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime 1 Corinthians 1.[23–]4309

CH I.35312

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 19–20

CH I.15310

CH I.20311

[Nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum: Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam,] ipsis autem uocatis, Iudaeis atque Graecis, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam.

‘he is se wisdom and miht þe se Fæder ealle gesceafta þurh gesceop’

‘he is þæs Fæder wisdom and his word and his miht þurh ðone se Fæder gesceop ealle þing’

‘Paulus se apostol ‘[Christus] cwæð þæt Crist is est Virtus et Godes miht and Sapientia Dei’ Godes wisdom’

[But we preach Christ crucified: to Jews indeed a stumbling block, and foolishness to the Greeks,] but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ the Strength of God and the Wisdom of God.

‘he is the Wisdom and Strength through whom the Father created all creatures’

‘he is the Father’s Wisdom, and his Word, and his Strength, through whom the Father created all things’

‘Paul the apostle said that Christ is the Strength of God and the Wisdom of God’

‘[Christ] is the Strength and Wisdom of God’

While a case could be made for calling the extract in AH I.1 a ‘quotation’ rather than an ‘allusion’, in nearly all cases outside of AH II.10 (on which anon) Ælfric’s focus is on the bare terms of 1 Corinthians 1.24: Christ, wisdom, and power. The way he conveys these terms differs widely from text to text. In CH I.15, he reverses ‘wisdom’ and ‘power’ and defines the latter as the force employed in the Father’s creation of the universe. CH I.20 likewise speaks of the Father and creation, but modifies his language for them and adds a third attribute or appellation to the Son: he is the Word. CH I.35 mentions only ‘power’ and ‘wisdom’, reversing the terms to parallel the Vulgate and speaking of ‘God’ rather than ‘the Father’. AH I.1, one of only two texts to incorporate the Vulgate’s Latin, is if anything even more succinct, omitting even the redoubled ‘God’ of the Vulgate and CH I.35.

Biblia sacra, p. 1770. First Series, p. 306, lines 184–5. 311 Clemoes, First Series, p. 337, lines 54–5. 312 Clemoes, First Series, p. 477, lines 31–2. 309 Weber,

310 Clemoes,

50

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Interrogationes Sigewulfi313

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 71–6

SH I.1316

SH I.11a314

Hexameron315

‘he is wisdom of þam wisan Fæder and seo micele miht of þam mihtigan Feder þurh þone þe he gedihte þone deopan cræft’

‘he is se wisdom of þam wisan Fæder, and seo micele miht of ðam mihtigan Fæder, ðurh ðone þe he gedihte ðone deopan cræft’

‘he is soð wisdom of ðam wisan Fæder, and seo mycele miht ðe he mid geworhte ða wundorlican gesceaftu’

‘Be þam cwæþ se apostol Paulus, Nos autem predicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis, Iud[a]eis atque gentibus, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam; he cwæþ, “We bodiaþ Crist þe wæs on rode ahaggen. Nu þincþ hit Iudeiscum mannum tallic and hæþenum hit þincþ dyslic, ac þa þe synd geleaffulle on Gode of Iudeiscre þeode and of hæþenum leodum þam þincð þæt Crist is Godes Miht and Godes Wisdom”’.

‘Paulus se apostol eac on his pistole awrat be urum Hælende [Criste and] cwæð þæt he wære þæs halgan Fæder wisdom and his wundorlice miht’

‘he is the Wisdom of the wise Father, and the great Strength of the mighty Father, through whom he directed the mysterious work [of creation]’

‘he is the Wisdom of the wise Father, and the great Strength of the mighty Father, through whom he directed the mysterious work [of creation]’

‘he is the true Wisdom of the wise Father, and the great Strength with which he made the wonderful creatures’

‘About that the apostle Paul said, But we preach Christ crucified: to Jews indeed a stumbling block, and foolishness to the Greeks, but truly to those who are called in truth, Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; he said, “We preach Christ who was hanged on the cross. Now Jewish people think it reprehensible and pagans think is foolish, but those who from among the Jewish nation and pagan peoples are believers in God think that Christ is the Strength of God and the Wisdom of God.”’

‘Paul the apostle also in his epistle wrote about our Savior [Christ, and] said that he was the Wisdom of the holy Father and his wonderful Strength’

313 Stoneman,

‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, lines 559–61; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 519–21. 314 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 471, lines 206–8. SH I.11a.197–234 may possibly have been originally included in Interrogationes Sigewulfi; see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 88, 91, 119 n. 158, 279, 289, 293 n. 79, and 305–6 n. 280. 315 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 37, lines 55–7. 316 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 202, lines 107–9.

51

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Returning to the vernacular, the Interrogationes and SH I.11a – the latter forming part either of the original or an augmented form of the former317 – are more expansive than AH I.1, following CH I.15 and 20 in reversing ‘wisdom’ and ‘power’ and associating ‘power’ with God’s act of creation. The Hexameron, using yet another phrase for creation (ða wundorlican gesceaftu [‘wonderful creatures’] rather than ealle gesceafta [‘all creatures’, CH I.15], ealle þing [‘all things’, CH I.20], or þone deopan cræft [‘the mysterious work [of creation]’, Interrogationes and SH I.11a]), does the same. SH I.1, finally, while slightly more prolix than the Hexameron (noting as it does the Pauline origins of the passage), follows the Interrogationes, SH I.11a, and the Hexameron in speaking of ‘the Father’ rather than ‘God’ and placing ‘wisdom’ before ‘power’, both in contrast to the Vulgate. The exception to the selections above is obviously AH II.10, which breaks the pattern completely by quoting not just 1 Corinthians 1.24 but 1.23 in both Latin and Old English. Ælfric’s Latin is practically verbatim: the only differences are his use of uero (‘[but] truly’) for autem (‘but’) – the former being an attested variant of the latter318 – and his description of non-Jews as gent[es] (‘Gentiles’) instead of as gent[es] and Graec[i] (‘Greeks’), both departures reflecting the language of his Bedan source.319 Ælfric’s translation is nuanced at points, but likewise stays close to its source: for crucifixum (‘crucified’), he uses not rodehengene, a term appearing ten times in his writings, but on rode aha[n]gen, a slightly more common phrase;320 scandalum (‘stumbling block’), not attested elsewhere in his works, he describes as something the Jews þincþ … tallic (‘think … reprehensible [or “blameworthy”]’); and the verb he supplies to Paul’s somewhat laconic sentence is þencan (‘[believers] think [that Christ is the power and wisdom of God]’) rather than some form of praedicere (‘[we] preach [Christ, the power and wisdom of God]’). Even with such personal color, however, the result is still a linguistically and theologically conservative translation of the biblical text. Moving on in the Sermo in natale Domini, Sirach’s mention of altiora (‘higher things’) in line 18 sets up a metaphor of a ladder that one seeks to climb beyond the available number of rungs, leading to a painful fall [lines 20–2]. The passage appears to be original to Ælfric: when Ælfric reuses the image in LS I.1 (as he will in In natali Domini and De creatore et creatura; see notes for AH I.2, lines 84–95), for example, Godden identifies sources only for the surrounding lines.321 Here in AH I.1, however, it flows directly from Ælfric’s commentary on Sirach 3.22. The climber is ualde (‘exceedingly’ [line 21]) unwise, even as that which is beyond him is ualde high [line 18]. He is uechors (‘foolish’ [line 21]), just like the one who seeks to investigate Christ’s origin [line 18]. And both climber and investigator try to transscendere (‘transcend’ [lines 23 and 19]) their Creator, surpassing their limits in an attempt to determine his. Such images of intellectual and physical ascent recall for Ælfric a pair of verses related to altars. The first is from Exodus 20, where after delivering the Ten Commandments

Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 88, 91, 119 n. 158, 279, 289, 293 n. 79, and 305–6 n. 280. Biblia sacra, p. 1770, apparatus. 319 See notes to Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 66–76. 320 He employs it some fourteen times in his writings, including again in AH II.10 [lines 73–4]. 321 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §3, lines 4–6, and §4, lines 1–9 / Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 16–18 and 25–32; see Godden, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1’. 317 See

318 Weber,

52

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (Exodus 20.2–17) God instructs Moses how the Israelites should worship him. Altars, God says, should be humble, made of earth or rough stones, not crafted with tools or built high, lest (given the flowing nature of Middle Eastern male robes) worshippers’ private parts should be exposed. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 24

Exodus 20.26 Non ascendes per gradus ad altare meum ne reueletur turpitudo tua.

‘Non ascendas per gradus ad altare meum’.

You will not go up by steps to my altar, lest your shame should be uncovered.

‘You shall not go up by steps to my altar’.

Ælfric omits the euphemistic (and potentially confusing) latter half of the verse, and replaces the Vulgate’s future indicative ascendes with the present subjunctive ascendas; otherwise, however, the quotation is straightforward. His exegesis, however, is somewhat surprising, as he interprets this altar as God. For support, he turns to the Psalms: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 25–6

Psalms 43.4–5 [Vulgate 42.4–5] Et introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat iuuentutem meam; confitebor tibi in cithara Deus Deus meus.

Cum diceret, ‘Introibo ad altare Dei’, statim adiunxit, ‘ad Deum, qui letificat iuuentutem meam’.

And I will go in to the altar of God, to God who When he said, ‘I will go in to the altar of God’, gives joy to my youth; I will give praise to you immediately he added ‘to God, who gives joy to on the harp, O God, my God. my youth’.

Ælfric does not use the Iuxta Hebraicum Psalter, Jerome’s third translation of the Psalms (this time ‘according to the Hebrew’), but this is not surprising; while the ‘Hebrew’ Psalter was initially used in copies of the Vulgate, Alcuin of York (735–804) substituted the Gallican Psalter – Jerome’s second translation, influenced by Septuagint Greek readings in the Hexapla Bible – into Carolingian liturgy, with such effect that the Gallican Psalter became the standard for Anglo-Saxon England after the late tenth century following the Benedictine Reform.322 Prior to the Reform, the Roman Psalter – Jerome’s first translation, a ‘cursory revision’ of the Vetus Latina from the Septuagint – had been dominant in England, with the exception of Bede, who championed the ‘Hebrew’ Psalter.323 The change was not absolute; the Gallican Psalter was known in England long before, and the Roman version continued to be copied in England thereafter.324 Ælfric may have encountered variant readings in his sources, moreover, such as the commentaries of Cassiodorus (ca 490 – ca 585), who used the Roman Psalter, or of Augustine, who drew on Vetus Latina version(s) of the Psalms that predated Jerome’s work and were otherwise rare in Anglo-Saxon England.325 In the case of Psalms 43.4, Harris, ‘Happiness and the Psalms’, pp. 295–6; Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, pp. 7, 10, and 27–8; Gretsch, Intellectual Foundations, pp. 6–41; and Weber, Biblia sacra, p. xxx. 323 Harris, ‘Happiness and the Psalms’, pp. 296–7. 324 Gretsch, Intellectual Foundations, p. 23; and Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, p. 28. 325 Marsden, Text of the Old Testament, pp. 53, 70, and 137; Harris, ‘Happiness and the Psalms’, p. 295.

322 See

53

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime the Vetus Latina,326 Roman,327 and Gallican Psalters328 are identical, but the influence of the last in Ælfric’s time makes it the likely source. Ælfric offers Psalms 43.4 as a gloss to Exodus 20.26, quoting the first part of the verse verbatim. One might read the second reference to Deus (‘God’) as appositional to the first: ‘I will go to [the altar of] God, to God who gives joy’. Augustine, for example, treats the verse this way in his Enarrationes in Psalmos: believers ‘go in to God’s altar’, he says, when they draw near to God, who causes them to rejoice.329 Ælfric, however, takes the second Deus as an interpretation of the ‘altar [of God]’: ‘bene altare significat Deum quo nichil est altius’ (‘rightly the altar signifies God, than whom nothing is higher’ [line 27]). Such seemingly-original exegesis allows him to connect back to his metaphor of the ladder and his discussion of the Trinity: ‘Ad quem non debemus ascendere per gradus ut credamus Filium esse inferiorem Patre’ (‘To [God] we ought not to ascend by steps so that we believe the Son to be inferior to the Father’ [lines 27–8]). Regrettably, how Ælfric might have translated Exodus 20.26 and Psalms 43.4 into Old English is unknown, as the verses are among the ten or so that he does not incorporate into LS I.1 and/or AH I.2; nor do the two verses appear elsewhere in his works. For a detailed comparison of lines 18–20 and 20–2 of the Sermo with analogous passages in LS I.1, In natali Domini (AH I.2), and De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), see notes to AH I.2, lines 72–83 and 84–95, respectively. Lines 22–30 [Sed adhuc est … cadat in infima] appear to be unique to AH I.1 and not repeated elsewhere. Lines 31–3 [Numquam incepit Pater … in una deitate]: For a detailed comparison of these lines with analogous passages in In natali Domini (AH I.2) and De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), see notes to AH I.2, lines 96–109. Lines 33–6 [In creaturis sunt … ad nichilum redigantur]: See notes to AH I.2, lines 110–15 for a detailed comparison of these lines with analogous passages in the Old English Boethius, LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14. Lines 36–8 [Alia sunt æterna … et anime hominum]: See notes to AH I.2, lines 116–26. Lines 38–43 [Nam Creator omnium … qui loquuntur mendacium]: See notes to AH I.2, lines 127–38. Ælfric in this section draws on two passages of Scripture. His description of the Almighty as Initium et Finis (‘Beginning and End’ [line 39]), first of all, likely stems from Revelation:

Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones, p. 87, in the absence of Bauer’s forthcoming edition. 327 See Biblia Sacra Vulgatæ editionis, p. 507 and Clementine Vulgate, ‘Liber Psalmorum’. 328 Weber, Biblia sacra, pp. 820 and 822. 329 Enarrationes 42.5 (CCSL 38, p. 477, lines 10–14). 326 See

54

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

Revelation 21.6a330

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 38–40

CH I.1331

LS I.1332

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 127–30

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 43–5

‘Ego sum Alpha et Omega initium et finis’.

Nam Creator omnium sic aeternus est, ut non habeat initium nec finem sed ipse est Initium et Finis, carens tamen initio et fine.

An angin is ealra þina þ[æt] is God ælmihtig, he is Ordfruma and Ende; He is Ordfruma for ði þe he wæs æfre; he is Ende buton ælcere geendunge, for ðon þe he bið æfre ungeendod.

Ðridde þing is ece, swa þæt hit næfð naðor ne ordfruman ne ende; þæt is se Ana Ælmihtiga God on þrynnesse and on annysse, æfre wuniende unasmeagendlic and unasæcgendlic.

Nu is þe almihtig Scuppend þe alle þing iscop ane swa ece þæt he nafeð nan angin ne he nafæð nenne ende, ac he him sylf is ægþer Ordfrume and Ende, ealwealdend God.

Nu is se ælmihtiga Scyppend þe ealle þing gesceop ana swa ece þæt he nan angin næfð, ac he sylf is ægðer Ordfruma and Ende, eallwealdend God.

‘“I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.”’

For the Creator of all is eternal in this way so that he has no beginning or end but is himself the Beginning and the End, though being without beginning and end.

There is one origin of all things: God Almighty. He is the Beginning and the End. He is the Beginning, because he always existed; he is the End without any ending, because he remains unending forever.

The third thing is eternal, so that it has neither beginning nor end; such is the One Almighty God in Trinity and Unity, who continues ever unsearchable and unspeakable.

Now the almighty Creator who created all things is alone so eternal that he has no beginning nor any end, but he himself is both Beginning and the End, the all-ruling God.

Now the almighty Creator who created all things is alone so eternal that he has no beginning , but he himself is both Beginning and the End, the all-ruling God.

Most of these texts allude to Revelation rather than quote it directly; they could equally, moreover, be drawing on Revelation 1.8 and 22.13, where God similarly describes himself as ‘Beginning and End’.333 These passages, however, use principium et finis rather than initium et finis for this phrase, and Ælfric specifically cites the latter here in AH I.1.

Biblia sacra, p. 1903. First Series, p. 178, lines 6–8. 332 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §4, lines 7–10; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 31–3. 333 Ælfric quotes the former in full in LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 88, §1.1, line 1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 336, preceding line 1), even reproducing the Greek terms in his quotation – though he omits them in his (otherwise faithful) vernacular rendition. 330 Weber,

331 Clemoes,

55

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Second, his description of God’s righteous will and opposition to the wicked stems from Psalms 5: Psalms 5.4a [Vulgate 5.5b] and 5.5b [Vulgate 7a]334

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 41–3

Non Deus uolens iniquitatem tu es … odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem; perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium.

Semper uult bene, numquam male. Sed odit eos qui operantur iniquitatem et perdit omnes qui loquuntur mendacium.

You are not a God who wills evil … you hate all who do evil; you destroy all who tell a lie.

He always wills what is good, never what is wicked. But he hates those who do evil and destroys all who tell a lie.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 135–8

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 50–3

Perdes omnes he symble qui loquuntur wyle god and næfre nan yfel, mendacium. ac he hatað þa yfelwyrcendan and þa unrihtwisan.

Æfre he wule wæl. Nyle he næfre nan ufel, ac he hatæð soðlice þa ðe unriht wurceæð and eac þa fordeþ ðe leasungæ specæð mid unleaffulnesse.

Efre he wyle wel. Nele he næfre nan ufell, ac he hatæð soðlice þa ðe unriht wyrceað and eac þa fordeð þe leasungæ specað mid unleafulnysse.

You destroy he always all who tell wills what a lie. is good and never any evil, but he hates those who do evil and the unrighteous.

He always wills good. He never wills any evil, but he truly hates those who do wickedness and also destroys those who tell lies with unbelief.

He always wills good. He never wills any evil, but he truly hates those who do wickedness and also destroys those who tell lies with unbelief.

LS I.1335

SH II.22336

The quotation in SH II.22 is the most straightforward, as the vernacular homily reproduces part of Psalms 5.5b verbatim. It does lack an accompanying translation, oddly enough, though such may simply have been lost: Pope posits that SH II.22 was ‘excerpted from some larger composition’.337 Ælfric’s other texts, however, adapt both biblical verses. All four appear indebted to Psalms 5.4a for their assertion that God does not will evil: AH I.1’s uult (‘he wills’, translated therafter as wyle) reflects the Vulgate’s uolens (‘[God] who wills’), while the vernacular texts’ yfel (‘evil’, paralleled in AH I.1 by the adverb male [literally, ‘[he wills] evilly’]) directly correspond to the Vulgate’s iniquitatem. All four also state the obverse, however: God also always wills what is good (god in LS I.1, paralleled elsewhere by the adverbial bene/wel [‘[he wills] well’]). Less license is taken by the texts other than SH II.22 when it comes to Psalms 5.5b: all four employ the third person rather than the second, AH I.1 says eos qui (‘those who’) rather than omnes qui (‘all who’), and LS I.1 use þa yfelwyrcendan (‘those who do evil’, reflecting yfel earlier in the verse) for the Vulgate’s qui operantur iniquitatem, while AH I.2 and II.14 use þa Biblia sacra, p. 773. For Ælfric’s use of the Septuagint-influenced Gallican Psalter, see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30, regarding Psalms 43.4 [Vulgate 42.4]. 335 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §6, lines 7–9; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, line 47 – p. 14, line 49. 336 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 732, line 103. 337 Homilies, vol. II, p. 725. 334 Weber,

56

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime ðe unriht wurceæð (‘those who do wickedness’). Otherwise, however, the core of the verse remains: God hates those who do evil. With Psalms 5.5b, on the other hand, we see greater adaptation again. LS I.1 replaces omnes qui loquuntur mendacium (‘all who tell a lie’) with þa unrihtwisan (‘the unrighteous’, unriht being incorporated later into AH I.2 and II.14), while the last two texts interpret the wellspring of lies as un[ge]leaffulnes (‘unbelief’). In all the above, LS I.1 looks to but modifies AH I.1, while AH I.2 and II.14 do the same to both AH I.1 and LS I.1. For a further comparison of lines 38–40 and 40–3 with analogous sections of the Old English Boethius, LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14, see notes to AH I.2, lines 127–30 and 131–8. Lines 43–8 [Ipse non est … angelis et hominibus]: At this point, AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2 no longer proceed in step. The next few lines in AH I.1 are not reproduced in AH I.2, but are taken and expanded some dozen lines later in LS I.1338 as follows: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 43–8

LS I.1339

Ipse non est factus nec creatus quia nichil erat exsistens ante illum. Et si factus esset, numquam esset omnipotens Deus. Et si aliquis insanus existimat quod Deus seipsum fecisset, tunc interrogemus quomodo se ipsum fecisset si ante non esset. Sed erat semper, et est, et erit. Et ipse solus habet semper esse in se et per se. Illum possumus admirari, sed nequimus de eo digne nec cogitare nec loqui quia est inscrutabilis et ineffabilis, et angelis et hominibus.

Ealle þas gesceafta habbað anginn, and sume eac ende swa swa we ær cwædon, ac se soða scyppend næfð nan angin, forðan þe he is him sylf angin na gesceapen ne geworht. Se geworhte ealle þing and wunað a on æcnysse. Hine ne mihte nan þing gewyrcean, for ðon þe nan þing næs ær he, and gif he geworht wære ne wurde he næfre ælmihtig god. Æft gif hwylc gewytleas man wenð þæt he hine sylfne geworhte, þonne axie we hu he mihte hine sylfne gewyrcean gif he ær nes. He wæs æfre ungeworht, and æfre wunað ungeendod. His we magon wundrian, and we ne magon ne ne motan na furðor embe þis smeagan, gif we nellað us sylfe forpæran.

He was not made nor created because nothing existed before him. And if he had been made, he would never be almighty God. And if anyone insane supposes that God had made himself, then let us ask how he had made himself if did not earlier exist. On the contrary, he always was, and is, and will be. And he alone is able always to exist in himself and through himself. We can wonder at him, but we cannot think or speak worthily about him because he is unfathomable and too great for words, both for angels and for men.

All these creatures have a beginning, and some also [have] an end, just as we said before. But the true Creator has no beginning, because he is himself the Beginning, neither created nor made. He made all things, and he continues forever and ever. Nothing could make him, because nothing existed before him, and if if had been made, he would never be almighty God. Again, if any insane person thinks that [God] made himself, then we ask him how he could have made himself if he did not previously exist? He was always uncreated, and continues forever without end. We can wonder at him, but we cannot and must not inquire further about this, if we do not wish to destroy ourselves.

from Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §6, line 9 (unrihtwisan) to §8, line 1 (Ealle); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, line 49 to line 61. 339 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §8, p. 26, line 1 – p. 28, line 11; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 61–71. 338 Skipping

57

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime The passage in LS I.1 opens with material of its own. It begins by repeating assertions already made: that all creatures [animals, humans, and angels] have a beginning, but the existence of some [animals, who lack souls] comes to an end;340 that God, the Beginning, is eternal and was not made;341 and that God made all things.342 Immediately following this passage, moreover, it adds an image adapted from CH I.20 (for the relevance of which, see notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64) and/or De penitentia: the sun as a metaphor for the Trinity (see notes to AH II.19, lines 54–62). In between, however, LS I.1 and AH I.1 make a number of points in common: no one made God nor existed before him;343 had he been created, he would not be God;344 one would be mad (insanus or gewytleas) to think that God could have created himself;345 God eternally was, is, and shall exist;346 and while humans may marvel at God’s supernal attributes, they may not inquire too deeply into them.347 Characteristically, Ælfric also makes changes from one to the other. Moving from Latin to the vernacular, he renders the pluperfect subjunctive fecisset (‘he had made’) and imperfect subjunctive esset (‘he existed’) using the preterit indicative geworhte (‘he made’) and preterit indicative + indicative mihte gewyrcean (‘could have made’). He changes the tripartite erat / est / erit (‘he was / is / will be’) to the dual æfre ungeworht / æfre wunað (‘[He was] always uncreated / [he] continues forever’). He omits the earlier affirmation that God uniquely exists in se et per se (‘in himself and through himself’). And he turns praise of divine transcendence (est inscrutabilis et ineffabilis [‘he is unfathomable and too great for words’]) into another warning against probing too far into divine mysteries (‘ne motan na furðor embe þis smeagan, gif we nellað us sylfe forpæran’ [‘we must not inquire further about this, if we do not wish to destroy ourselves’]). Again, however, whether differing or in common, much of this material replicates teaching earlier in the homilies, which may be why in future years Ælfric omits this section from AH I.2. Lines 49–55 [Trinitas est Deus … unus Christus]: Having acknowledged that God ultimately surpasses human ability to describe him, Ælfric goes on in a passage unique to AH I.1 to make some general observations about the Godhead: •

All things are from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit [lines 49–50].

in AH I.1, lines 34–8; see notes to AH I.2, lines 110–15 and 116–26. in AH I.1, lines 8–14 and 38–40; see notes to line 1 above under ‘God’s Eternality’; and to AH I.2, lines 1–22, 57–71, and 127–30. For LS I.1’s statement that God is na gesceapen ne geworht (‘neither created nor made’ [Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §8, line 3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, line 63]), Godden points as a possible source to a line in the anonymous Athanasian Creed: ‘Pater a nullo est factus aut creatus aut genitus’ (‘The Father was not made or created or begotten by anyone’ [Denzinger et al., Kompendium, p. 51 [no. 75–6, §21]; see Godden, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1 (Nativity of Christ)’]). 342 As in AH I.1, lines 15–16 and 38; see notes to AH I.2, lines 57–71 and 127–30. 343 As in AH I.1, lines 8–14 and 38–40; see notes to line 1 above under ‘God’s Eternality’; and to AH I.2, lines 1–22, 57–71, and 127–30. 344 See AH I.2, lines 106–9; and notes to AH I.1, line 1, under ‘Omnipotence and Eternality are Synonymous with Divinity’. 345 As in AH I.1, lines 20–4; see notes to AH I.2, lines 84–95. 346 As in Revelation 1.4 and 1.8. 347 As in AH I.1, lines 18–20; and AH I.2, lines 72–83. 340 As 341 As

58

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

•

• •

The statement in question (‘Pater ex quo omnia, Filius per quem omnia, Spiritus Sanctus in quo omnia’), clearly formulaic in nature, is perhaps first found in Eucherius, bishop of Lyon in Gaul (ca 380 – ca 449), who points to Paul’s doxology in Romans as support: ‘ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso omnia’ (‘from [God] and through him and in him are all things’ [Romans 11.36]).348 A variation appears in Pseudo-Ambrose’s De Trinitate:349 ‘Unus est Deus et Pater, ex quo omnia; et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia; et unus Spiritus Sanctus, in quo omnia’ (‘There is one God and Father, from whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things; and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things’).350 The statement appears to be an extension of 1 Corinthians 8.6, which Pseudo-Ambrose cites as his source: ‘Nobis … unus Deus Pater ex quo omnia … et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia’ (‘To us … there is one God the Father, from whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things’). Pseudo-Ambrose’s formula appears nearly verbatim in the Second Council of Constantinople in 553,351 while the Byzantine emperor who convened the Council, Justinian I (527–565), repeats it using unus unigenitus Filius (‘one only-begotten Son’) for unus Dominus Iesus Christus (‘one Lord Jesus Christ’) in his Aduersus Origenem.352 The Trinitarian formula is likely one, therefore, that Ælfric reproduces from elsewhere, though whether from Gallic sources, Church Councils, or ultimately Scripture is uncertain. Christ became flesh ‘today’, that is, Christmas [line 50],353 having been born of a virgin [lines 51–2].354 On the Incarnation, see for example notes to In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 1–22; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 11–29; Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 4–25; and Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), lines 15–17 (Gebed V). At the same time, Christ had no beginning [line 51],355 but was begotten of the Father [lines 50–1].356 The Father predestined the Son’s incarnation [line 52].357

348 Instructionum

I.1 (CSEL 31, p. 67, lines 13–16). text which also cites Sirach 3.22 and 1 Corinthians 1.24, as in AH I.1, lines 18 and 19–20 (see notes to lines 1–99 above). 350 PL 17.551D. 351 Denzinger et al., Kompendium, p. 194 [no. 421–38, §421]. 352 PL 69.227B. 353 See also lines 2–3 above; LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1, lines 1–2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 1–2); and AH I.2, line 4. 354 See also lines 74, 80–1, and 81–2 below; LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1, lines 2–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 2–3); and AH I.2, lines 4 and 5. 355 See also lines 9–10 and 11 above, as well as notes to line 1, under ‘The Son’s Eternality’; LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §3, lines 5–6 and 12–13; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 10–12); and AH I.2, lines 32–4 and 48. 356 See also lines 11 and 31 above; LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1, line 2; §2, lines 2–4; p. 24, §5, lines 1–2; p. 28, §9, line 5; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 2 and 7; p. 12, line 34; and p 14, line 75); and AH I.2, lines 6–7, 26, 45–6, and 53–4. 357 See also CH II.22 (Godden, Second Series, p. 209, lines 106–8, quoting Romans 1.4). On predestination, 349 A

59

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime •

Christ has a dual nature, being fully God and fully human [lines 53–5].358

Lines 55–66 [Creaturae uero quas … toto corpore serpit]: For a detailed comparison of this passage with analogous passages in the Old English Boethius, LS I.1, and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64. Lines 67–72 [Nolite, fratres, esse … bos herbis pascitur]: Having described the person who focuses on earthly things as a worm that crawls (serpit) on the ground [lines 64–6], Ælfric warns believers not to be snakes (serpentes) that harm one another. His language echoes Paul’s warning in Galatians 5: Galatians 5.15

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 67

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 165–6

Quod si inuicem mordetis et Nolite, fratres, esse serpentes comeditis, uidete ne ab inuicem uenenati, nocentes inuicem. consumamini.

Ne beo ge na attre swa swa ða yfelæ neddræ, terende eow bitweonen and teone wyrcende.

But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

Do not be poisonous like the evil serpents, biting among yourselves and causing injury.

Do not, brothers, be venomous snakes, harming each other.

At first blush, the connection seems to be tenuous: the context in Galatians does not refer to snakes, and the only word actually shared with AH I.1 is inuicem (‘one another’). Ælfric’s vernacular adaptation, however, replaces nocentes (‘harming’) with terende (‘tearing’ or ‘biting’, the latter being more relevant to this serpentine simile), which hearkens back to mordeo (‘to bite’) in Galatians. In natale Domini also uses two verbs to describe the injurious actions being prohibited, as Galatians does. While the allusion is light, therefore, in both Ælfrician works it is likely present nonetheless. Next, having contrasted the upright gait of humans with the earthbound stance of animals [lines 61–4], Ælfric exhorts believers not to emulate them in their focus [lines 67–8]. For support, he quotes three more passages of Scripture: Psalms 69.23, 1 Corinthians 16.13–14, and Genesis 3.14. The Psalm, to begin with, is a malediction on the believer’s adversaries: Psalms 69.23 [Vulgate 68.24]359

Romans 11.10

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 68–9

Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsum illorum semper incurua.

‘Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsum illorum semper incurua’.

‘Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsa eorum semper incurua’.

Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and let their backs forever be bent.

‘Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and let their backs forever be bent’.

‘Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and let their backs forever be bent’.

see notes to Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 107–27; notes to De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 214–34; and Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 7, 32, 169, 183, 211, and 216. 358 On which subject, see notes to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 56–70; and to Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 94–127. 359 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 853. For Ælfric’s use of the Septuagint-influenced Gallican Psalter, see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30, regarding Psalms 43.4 [Vulgate 42.4].

60

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Paul quotes the verse in Romans regarding Jews who reject Christ,360 but Ælfric makes it clear that it is the psalmista he is citing [line 68]. This appears to be the only occasion where Ælfric uses the verse, but he reproduces it verbatim. The same is not quite true with 1 Corinthians 16.13–14, the first part of which he also addresses in the First Series. 1 Corinthians 16.13–14 [16.13] Vigilate, state in fide, uiriliter agite, et confortamini; [16.14] omnia uestra in caritate fiant.

CH I.12361

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 70–1

‘Beoð wacole, and standað on ‘State in fide, uiriliter agite, geleafan, and onginnað werlice, et confortamini; omnia uestra and beoð gehyrte’. cum caritate fiant’.

[16.13] Be watchful, stand ‘Be watchful, and stand [firm] in the faith, act manfully, [firm] in the faith, and strive and be strengthened; [16.14] manfully, and be stouthearted’. let all your deeds be done with love.

‘Stand [firm] in the faith, act manfully, and be strengthened; let all your deeds be done with love’.

Ælfric includes the whole of 16.13 in his First Series homily, including Paul’s admonition to ‘Be watchful’ (see also Colossians 4.2, as well as Matthew 24.42–4 and 1 Peter 4.7 and 5.8). In AH I.1, however, with human (physical and moral) uprightness in view, he begins with Paul’s command to stand firm in the faith. The resolve implied by State / standað is spelled out in the subsequent commands to ‘act manfully’ – being resolute in doing God’s will, to which CH I.12 exhorts both genders362 – and to ‘be strengthened’ (confortamini) or ‘be stouthearted’ (beoð gehyrte, which might also be translated ‘be high-minded’, a meaning that would not have been out of place in AH I.1). In the Sermo in natale Domini, furthermore, perhaps having thought further about how such calls to action might be taken by his Anglo-Saxon audience, he adds Paul’s corollary in 16.14: ‘Let all your deeds be done with love’. In contrast to the upright human, Ælfric speaks again of animals focused on earthly food [lines 68–9, echoing 58–9]. One creature he mentions is the dirt-eating serpent, a reference to Genesis 3.14b that also appears in Ælfric’s Interrogationes Sigewulfi. Genesis 3.14 Et ait Dominus Deus ad serpentem, ‘Quia fecisti hoc maledictus es inter omnia animantia et bestias terrae. Super pectus tuum gradieris et terram comedes cunctis diebus uitae tuae’.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 71–2 intelligite quia serpens terram comedit cunctis diebus uitae suae

360 In

Interrogationes Sigewulfi363 cwæð God [næddran] to, ‘Þu bist awyrged, and þu scealt gan on þinum breoste, and þu ytst þa eorþan allum dagum þines lifes’.

Acts 1.20, Peter also quotes from a verse slightly later in the passage (Psalms 69.25 [Vulgate 68.26]), applying it to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. 361 Clemoes, First Series, p. 279, lines 114–15. 362 Clemoes, First Series, p. 279, lines 115–17. 363 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 161, lines 274–6; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 26, lines 246–8.

61

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime And the Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this [deceived Eve], you are cursed among all living things and beasts of the earth. Upon your breast you shall go, and earth you shall eat all the days of your life’.

understand that a snake eats dirt all the days of its life

God said to [the serpent], ‘You are cursed, and you shall go on your breast, and you will eat the earth all the days of your life’.

In the Interrogationes, Ælfric includes five elements from the biblical verse: the divine speaker, the curse’s recipient (identified earlier in the sentence as the serpent, controlled by the devil364), the fact of the curse, and two aspects of the curse – crawling and eating the dust. Sermo in natale Domini mentions only the last, but – aside from shifting from the second to third person – quotes this part of the verse (3.14b) verbatim. Ælfric does speak of crawling elsewhere in AH I.1 [lines 58 and 66], as well as in the analogous passages in LS I.1 and AH I.2 (see notes for AH I.2, lines 139–64); Ælfric’s vocabulary there is different, however (e.g., toto corpore reptantia / serpit [‘crawl[ing] with its whole body’] as opposed to super pectus tuum gradieris [‘upon your breast you shall go’]), deriving ultimately from the Old English Boethius rather than Scripture. None of these verses appear in LS I.1 or AH I.2; for a comparison of the passage overall with its counterpart in AH I.2, however, see notes to In natali Domini, lines 165–8. Lines 72–85 [uobis autem dedit … eum nobis placabimus]: Switching back from earth-focused animals to upright humans, Ælfric discusses believers’ proper sustenance: the panem angelorum (‘bread of angels’ [line 73]). Psalms 78.25a [Vulgate 77.25]365 Panem angelorum manducauit homo; cibaria misit eis in abundantiam.

Wisdom 16.20a366 Pro quibus, angelorum esca nutristi populum tuum, et paratum panem e caelo praestitisti illis sine labore, omne delectamentum in se habentem et omnis saporis suauitatem.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 73 [Vobis dedit Deus] non solum panem terrenis dapibus preparatum sed etiam panem angelorum …

364 Stoneman,

SH II.20367 Se heofonlica mete hæfde þa getacnunge ures Hælendes Cristes, þe com of heofonum to us, þe is engla bigleofa and ealra manna lif þe on hine gelyfað, and hine nu lufiað.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 169–71 Soðlice ure Scuppend us geaf to bileofenæn igearcnodne laf of eorðlice tylunge and eac þone arwurðæ laf þe engles brucæð

‘Critical Edition’, p. 161, lines 273–4; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 26, lines 244–5. 365 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 866. For Ælfric’s use of the Septuagint-influenced Gallican Psalter, see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30, regarding Psalms 43.4 [Vulgate 42.4]. 366 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1023. 367 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 646, line 128 – p. 647, line 131.

62

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Man ate the bread of angels; he sent them food in abundance.

Instead of which things, you fed your people with the food of angels, and gave to them bread from heaven, prepared without labor, having in it everything delightful and the sweetness of every taste.

[To you God has given] not only bread prepared for earthly feasts, but also the bread of angels …

The heavenly food symbolized our Savior Christ, who came from heaven to us, who is the food of angels and the life of all those who believe in him and now love him.

Certainly, our Creator gave us for food bread prepared from earthly labour and also the venerable bread that angels partake of

Panem angelorum refers ultimately to the manna God provides the Israelites in the desert (Exodus 16), as does a similar phrase in Wisdom 16: angelorum esca (‘the food of angels’) – ‘food’ perhaps encompassing not only manna, but the meat of quails that God sends in response to the Israelites’ grumbling (Exodus 16.13 and Numbers 11.31–4). AH I.1 may allude to both biblical passages: not only does it speak of panem (‘bread’) rather than esca (‘food’), as in the Psalm; in addition, in contrast to the heavenly bread paratum … sine labore (‘prepared … without labor’) in Wisdom, it speaks of bread terrenis dapibus preparatum (‘prepared for earthly feasts’) – or, as AH I.2 puts it, igearcnodne … of eorðlice tylunge (‘prepared … from earthly labor’). The same is less true of SH II.20, written between AH I.1 and 2:368 having discussed the meat that the Israelites’ craved, it speaks of engla bigleofa (‘the food of angels’), making it closer to Wisdom than the Psalm.369 AH I.2, however, follows AH I.1 in drawing on both: in addition to its inversion of Wisdom’s food ‘prepared without labor’, it points to the Psalm by lauding ‘þone arwurðæ laf þe engles brucæð’ (‘the venerable bread that angels partake of’). All this said, Psalms and Wisdom are only stepping stones to Ælfric’s ultimate destination: Christ’s encounter with the crowds after his feeding of the five thousand (John 6.1–15), where he admonishes them to seek not perishable food, but the food that yields eternal life (6.27) – namely, himself. The precise verses he quotes are ones he has also cited in the First and Second Series:

Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 281, 105, and 91. cites Psalms 78.24b–25a [Vulgate 77.24b–25a] and John 6.32–3 and 35 as sources for SH II.20 (Homilies, vol. II, pp. 646–7, apparatus to lines 128–38), and Jayatilaka suggests Exodus 16.3 and Wisdom 16.20–1 as ‘certain’ sources [M1a] (‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Supplementary Homilies 20’), and Ælfric certainly could have had both Psalms and Wisdom in mind; nevertheless, his language here is closer to the latter than the former.

368 See

369 Pope

63

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

John 6.51–2

CH I.2370

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 74–6

CH II.12371

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 177–81

[6.51] ‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de caelo descendi. [6.52] Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi uita’.

‘“Ic eom se liflica hlaf þe of heofenum astah; and se ðe of ðam hlafe geet ne swylt he on ecnysse”’.

‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi. Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi uita’.

‘“Ic eom se liflica hlaf þe of heofenum astah; and swa hwa swa of ðam hlafe geett, he leofað on ecnysse, and se hlaf ðe ic sylle for middaneardes life is min lichama”’.

‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi’, ‘“Ic eom þe liflice laf þe of heofene astah, and þe þe of þam lafe æet, he leofæð on ecnesse, and þe laf þe Ic sulle is soðlice mi licame for middaneardes life monne to alysednesse”’.

[6.51] “‘I am the living bread who descended from heaven. [6.52] If anyone should eat of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my body for the life of the world”’.

‘“I am the living bread who descended from heaven, and he who eats of that bread will never die”’.

‘“I am the living bread who descended from heaven. If anyone should eat of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my body for the life of the world”’.

‘“I am the living bread who descended from heaven, and whosoever eats of that bread, he will live eternally, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my body”’.

‘I am the living bread who descended from heaven’, ‘“I am the living bread who descended from heaven, and he who eats of that bread, he will live eternally, and the bread that I will give is truly my body for the life of the world, for people’s redemption”’.

AH I.1 reproduces both Latin verses verbatim, while AH I.2 does the same for John 6.51. Ælfric’s Old English, on the other hand, varies somewhat in scope and content. CH I.2 translates John 6.51–2a, while CH II.12 and AH I.2 translate the verses in full. The last two follow John 6.52 in saying that the believer will live forever, while the first echoes John 6.50’s statement that ‘si quis ex [panis de caelo descendens] manducauerit non moriatur’ (‘if anyone should eat from [the bread who descended from heaven], he shall not die’). The first and last versions replace the Vulgate’s si quid (‘if anyone’) with se þe or þe þe (‘he who’), while CH II.12 uses swa hwa swa (‘whosoever’). CH II.12 also reverses the phrases ‘for the life of the world’ and ‘is my body’, while In natali Domini restores the Vulgate’s order. It is In natali Domini, however, that makes the most significant interpretive change: in addition to adding the intensifier soðlice (‘truly’), it explains Christ’s sacrifice ‘for the life of the world’ as being monne to alysedness (‘for people’s redemption’). First Series, p. 192, line 82 – p. 193, line 83. Second Series, p. 116, lines 210–12; see also CH II.15 (p. 152, lines 70 [Soð soð] – 76 [ecnysse]) where Ælfric translates the semantically-similar John 6.53–8.

370 Clemoes, 371 Godden,

64

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime For a detailed comparison of lines 67–72 and 72–85 with analogous passages in In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to lines 165–8 and 169–90, respectively, in the latter. Lines 86–99 [Rogo uos, fratres … in eterno igne]: In this passage, unique to the Sermo in natale Domini, Ælfric returns to the earlier exhortation not to harm others [line 67], admonishing his hearers not decipere uosmet ipsos inuicem fraudibus aut furtis (‘to deceive each other with tricks and deceptions’ [line 86]),372 to love their neighbors [line 89], to love peace and truth [lines 91–2 and 95–8],373 not to offend or deceive374 others [lines 92–3], and not to love quarrels, discord, lying, and fraud375 [lines 93–5]. By doing all such things, Ælfric affirms, people Deum placat sibimet (‘reconcile God to themselves’ [lines 92–3; cf. lines 84–5]).376 Ælfric draws upon at least five verses as Scriptural evidence for these injunctions: Matthew 22.39b (and its associated passages), Zechariah 8.19, John 8.44, Matthew 5.9, and John 14.6a. The first is what Jesus identifies as the second great commandment, following loving God himself (Matthew 22.37–9). It appears frequently in Scripture, but with slight variations. Matthew 19.19b and 22.39b, Galatians 5.14b, James 2.8b

Mark 12.31a [cf. 12.33b] and Romans 13.9

Diliges amicum tuum sicut temet ipsum.

Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum.

Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum.

Diliges [Dominum et] proximum tuum sicut te ipsum.

Audistis quia dictum est: ‘Diliges proximum tuum, et odio habebis inimicum tuum’.

‘You shall love your friend as yourself.’

‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

You shall love your neighbor just as yourself.

You shall love [the Lord and] your neighbor as yourself.

‘You have heard that it was said: “Love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.”’

Leviticus 19.18b

Luke 10.27

Matthew 5.43

The original commandment comes from Leviticus 19, which speaks of loving one’s ‫ע‬ ַ ‫ֵר‬ (‘friend’). Where the Vulgate employs amicus (‘friend’) to translate the Old Testament 372 A

line evocative of God’s charge to the Israelites that ‘Non facietis furtum. Non mentiemini. Nec decipiet unusquisque proximum suum’ (‘You shall not steal [or “deceive”]. You shall not lie. Nor shall a person deceive his neighbour’ [Leviticus 19.11]), though the shared use of furtum (‘theft [or “deceit”]’) and decipere (‘to deceive’) is insufficient for the line to be judged a Levitical allusion. 373 ‘Peace’ and ‘truth’, the core of Ælfric’s quotation of Zechariah 8.19 (on which, see below), are apparently the ‘words’ Ælfric has in mind when he says, ‘Duo … uerba precepit Deus omnibus Christianis custodienda’(‘God commanded all Christians to heed two words’ [lines 90–1]). 374 Again using decipere [line 93; cf. line 86]. 375 Again using fraus [line 94; cf. line 86]. 376 Though the concept would seem the opposite of Paul’s description of God’s work to reconcile human beings to himself through Christ (Romans 5.10, 2 Corinthians 5.18–19, Ephesians 2.16, and Colossians 1.20 and 1.22), it may be in keeping with Paul’s exhortation to reconciliamini Deo (‘be reconciled to God’ [2 Corinthians 5.20]). Linguistically, however, the connection is not clear, as all these verses in the Vulgate use reconciliare (‘to reconcile’) rather than placere, as here.

65

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime word, the Septuagint renders it as πλησίον (‘neighbor’ or ‘friend’), and all eight quotations of the verse in the Greek New Testament use πλησίον likely in consequence – as does the partial quotation in Matthew 5.43. The Vulgate, in turn, translates the New Testament passages using proximum (‘neighbor’), and this word duly appears in AH I.1. Generally, this is the meaning Ælfric conveys elsewhere as well: on the nine occasions when Ælfric refers to the commandment in the vernacular, he uses variations of nexta (‘neighbor’) – though in one case [CH I.35], he uses freond (‘friend’) instead, harkening back to Leviticus 19. These may be considered (five at a time) as follows: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 88–9 [verse uncertain]

CH I.16377 [Matthew 22.39b / Mark 12.31a]

CH I.22378 [Matthew 22.39b / Mark 12.31a]

… ælc cristen mann sceal lufian his nehstan swa swa hyne sylfne …

… ealle cristene menn sceolon lufian heora nextan swa swa hi sylfe.

Hit is þus awriten on þære ealdan æ: ‘Lufa þinne freond and hata ðinne feond’.

Nonne esset melius et sapientius ut tu diligeres proximum tuum sicut Deus precepit … ?

‘Ge gehyrdon hwæt gecweden wæs ðam ealdum mannum on Moyses æ: “Lufa ðinne nextan and hata ðinne feond.”’

… every Christian must love his neighbor even as himself …

… all Christians must love their neighbor even as themselves.

It is thus written in the old Law: ‘Love your friend and hate your enemy’.

Is it not better and wiser to love your neighbor as God commanded …?

‘You have heard what was said to people long ago in Moses’ Law: “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy”’.

CH I.35379 [Matthew 5.43]

CH II.12380 [Matthew 5.43]

In these passages, Ælfric uses similar language to the command to love one’s neighbor; even so, in all but two cases, the verse in question can roughly be deduced. •

•

CH I.16 cites the need to love one’s neighbor as a general maxim, speaking about Christians individually in the third person. CH I.22 does the same, but in the plural. Both texts, drawing on Gregory,381 have the verse only indirectly in view: Jesus gave the Spirit to his disciples on earth (John 20.22), Ælfric says, to help them love their neighbor; he later sent the Spirit from heaven (Acts 2.2–4) to help them love God. According to Jesus in Matthew 22.37–9 and Mark 12.29–31, loving God and one’s neighbor are the two greatest commandments; Matthew 22.39b and/or Mark 12.31a are thus likely the verses in view. If CH I.16 and 22 cite the command indirectly, CH I.35 touches on it from an even greater remove. Expositing Christ’s parable of the Wedding Banquet (Matthew 22.1–14), Ælfric asserts that the Mosaic Law taught

First Series, p. 309, lines 57–8. First Series, p. 362, lines 219–20. 379 Clemoes, First Series, p. 478, lines 56–7. 380 Godden, Second Series, p. 122, line 443 – p. 123, line 445. 381 Godden, Commentary, pp. 130 and 182. 377 Clemoes, 378 Clemoes,

66

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

•

•

one to love one’s friend. For support, however, he cites not the Old Testament itself, but Christ’s reference thereto in Matthew 5.43, the language of which he amends (as we have noted) from ‘neighbor’ to ‘friend’, as in Leviticus 19.18b. These three allusions in the First Series, general though they be, may at least be tied to some variation of the verse in the New Testament. The reference in AH I.1, by contrast, is by no means certain: in the course of admonishing Christians not to deceive one another, he asks rhetorically, ‘Is it not better to love our neighbor as God commanded?’ No particular form of the verse does Ælfric appear to have in mind. CH II.12 follows CH I.35 in citing Matthew 5.43, though this time Ælfric attributes the statement to Jesus explicitly: crist sylf to his leorningcnihtum cwæð … (‘Christ himself said to his disciples …’).382

CH II.19383 [Matthew 22.39b]

•

•

CH II.20384 [Matthew 22.39b]

CH II.25385 [Matthew 19.19b]

Letter to Wulfgeat386 [verse uncertain]

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), line 99 [verse uncertain]

‘Lufa ðinne nextan swa swa ðe sylfne’.

‘Hit is awriten, “Lufa ðinne nextan swa swa ðe sylfne”’.

‘“… lufa ðinne nextan swa swa ðe sylfne”’.

Godes lar bebyt us þæt we lufion ure nextan …

Godes lar bebyt us þæt we lufian ure nextan …

‘Love your neighbor even as yourself’.

‘It is written, “Love your neighbor even as yourself”’.

‘“… love your God’s law neighbor even commands us as yourself”’. to love our neighbor …

God’s law commands us to love our neighbor …

The language in CH II.19 could comport with a number of verses, but forms part of an explicit quotation from Matthew 22.35–40. The same words – placed, ironically, in the mouth of a demon seeking to condemn a soul – occur in CH II.20, and again might derive from a number of places; Ælfric’s immediate source here, however, is the anonymous Vita Fursei,387 which renders the verse as Diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum, the form found in Matthew 22.39b (and its counterparts). The same words appear again in CH II.25, but in relation to another passage entirely. Here, Ælfric is recounting the episode of the Rich Man and the Kingdom of God: a man comes to Jesus and asks what he must do to gain eternal life; Jesus responds by recounting a list of commandments, including ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, before telling the man to sell

Second Series, p. 122, line 443. Second Series, p. 180, lines 6–7. 384 Godden, Second Series, p. 194, lines 134–5. 385 Godden, Second Series, p. 233, lines 89–90. 386 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 7, line 178. 387 Godden, Commentary, p. 534. 382 Godden, 383 Godden,

67

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

•

his possessions and follow him. Certain details Ælfric gleans from Mark 10.17–22:388 the man falls at Jesus’ feet, and Jesus responds to him by saying, ‘“One thing you lack”’. The list of commands, however, Ælfric draws from Matthew 19.18–19. Finally, there is the Letter to Wulfgeat and the corresponding section in Esto consentiens aduersario. As in AH I.1, the particular antecedent is unclear, as Ælfric refers generally to God’s command to love one’s neighbor. Like AH I.1, moreover, Ælfric condemns those who would deceive one another.389 Unlike AH I.1, however, Ælfric’s immediate point in these later texts is that one must first love oneself (by obeying God’s law) before one can love one’s neighbors (by directing them toward obedience).390

Remarkably, then, despite the similarity of language across these passages, and the number of similar verses which ultimately derive from Leviticus 19.18b, in nearly all cases the verse in question can be deduced. It is unfortunate for our analysis here that one such mystery is found here in AH I.1. Following the command to love one’s neighbor, the second verse on which Ælfric draws in this section is Zechariah 8.19. The context is a promise of blessing by God to Israel after the Babylonian exile – blessing that is contingent on obedience to God’s commands. Having been asked by the Israelites whether or not they should continue to mourn and fast, God states through the prophet Zechariah: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 91–2

Zechariah 8.19 Haec dicit Dominus exercituum: Ieiunium quarti et ieiunium quinti et ieiunium septimi et ieiunium decimi erit domui Iuda in gaudium et in laetitiam et in sollemnitates praeclaras; ueritatem tantum et pacem diligite.

‘“Pacem et ueritatem diligite”, dicit Dominus Deus omnipotens’.

Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth will be a matter of joy and rejoicing and magnificent celebrations for the house of Judah; only love truth and peace’.

‘“Love peace and truth”, says the Lord God Almighty’.

Ælfric omits most of the verse, and rearranges the remaining words (‘says the Lord’, ‘truth’, and ‘peace’) in ways not attested as Vulgate variants.391 The fact that he quotes from Zechariah at all, however, is distinctive, if not idiosyncratic: the Fontes database, for example,392 contains no entry for Zechariah 8.19, and lists only thirteen references to the book as a whole, four of them by Ælfric.393 noted by Godden, Commentary, p. 568. notes to AH II.11, lines 76–94. 390 See notes to AH II.11, lines 95–113a. 391 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1423, apparatus. 392 See notes to lines 1–99 above. 393 Fontes (‘Records for Source Title Za’) lists Zechariah 2.8 as a certain antecedent source [SA1] for CH I.34 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 473, lines 238 [Se þe] – 240 [eagan seo]); Zechariah 2.18 388 As

389 See

68

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime In contrast to the obedient souls who love peace and truth, Ælfric says, there are people who offend others, deceive them, and delight in contention and strife [lines 88–91]. Alluding to Jesus’ condemnation of those seeking to kill him in John 8, Ælfric calls the latter ‘children of the father of lies’: John 8.44

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 93–5

CH II.13394

‘Vos ex patre diabolo estis et desideria patris uestri uultis facere. Ille homicida erat ab initio et in ueritate non stetit, quia non est ueritas in eo. Cum loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia mendax est et pater eius’.

Qui lites et discordiam amat filius diaboli est. Qui mendacium et fraudem amat diabolum sequitur qui est mendax et pater mendacii et nihil agit nisi decipit quos potest.

‘Ge sind deofles bearn, and ge willað eoweres fæder willan wyrcan. He wæs manslaga fram frymðe, and he ne wunode on soðfæstnysse, for ðan ðe nan soðfæstnys nis on him’.

‘You are from your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and he did not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him. When he tells a lie, he says what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of [lies]’.

He who loves quarrels and discord is a child of the devil. He who loves lying and fraud follows the devil who is the author and father of lies and does nothing except deceive those whom he can.

‘You are children of the devil, and you wish to do your father’s will. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he did not abide in truth, because there is no truth in him’.

Two elements in AH I.1 echo the biblical passage: the description of the disobedient person as a filius diaboli (‘child of the devil’) – language consonant not only with Christ’s statement here that ex patre diabolo estis (‘you are from your father, the devil’), but with his denial just before that they are true [that is, obedient] filii Abrahae (‘children of Abraham’ [John 8.39]) – and the description of the devil as the pater mendacii (‘father of lies’). Ælfric’s subsequent version in CH II.13, by contrast, is far closer to the original, translating all but the last sentence directly. Even so, while AH I.1 does not mention murder – a deed associated by Jesus with harming another with one’s tongue (Matthew 5.21–2) – both AH I.1 and CH II.13 condemn lies. As the latter immediately goes on to say, Christ’s opponents would not listen to him ‘for ðan ðe hi wæron afyllede mid heora fæder yfelnysse and leasunge’ (‘because they were filled with the evilness and deceit of their father’).395 Turning from the negative exemplum back to the positive, Ælfric cites two verses in sequence to illustrate what it means to love peace and truth (his exhortation from Zechariah in lines 87–8). For the first, he turns to the Beatitudes (Matthew 5.3–10; see notes to AH I.7, lines 235–81), where Jesus praises the peaceable:

as a certain source [S1] for CH 1.27 (p. 403, lines 82 [Se þe] – 83 [eagan]); and Zechariah 9.9 as a certain antecedent source [SA1] for CH I.14 (p. 290, lines 16 [Ðis gewitegode] – 18 [ridende]) and as a possible antecedent source [SA3] for CH II.1 (Godden, Second Series, p. 7, lines 143 [Eft Ezechiel] – 145 [geedstaðelað þe]). 394 Godden, Second Series, p. 129, lines 54–7. 395 Godden, Second Series, p. 129, lines 58–9.

69

Christ said about peace-loving people that they are called children of God.

‘Blessed are the peace-loving, because they will be called children of God’.

‘Blessed are the peace-makers, because they will be called children of God’. Now about peace-makers the Lord said, ‘Blessed are the peace-makers, because they will be called children of God’.

Nam de pacificis ait Dominus, ‘Beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei uocabuntur’.

397 Clemoes,

396 Clemoes,

Eadige beoð þa gesibsuman, for þan ðe hi synd Godes bearn.

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), line 568 He cwæð eac on his godspelle þæt þa beoð Godes bearn þa þe gesibsume beoð and sace ne astyriað … þa gesibbsuman beoð soðlice Godes bearn.

De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis399

[Christ] also Blessed are the [Christ] also said in his peace-loving, said in his Gospel that because they are Gospel that they are God’s children of they are God’s children who God. children who are peaceful are peaceful and do not stir and do not stir up strife … the up strife … the peace-loving are peace-loving are truly children of truly children of God. God.

He cwæð eac on his godspelle þæt þa beoð Godes bearn þa ðe gesibsume beoð and sace ne astyriað … þa gesibsuman beoð soðlice Godes bearn.

De duodecim abusiuis398

First Series, p. 491, lines 162–3; and p. 493, line 227 – p. 494, line 228. First Series, p. 523, lines 85–6. 398 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 124, lines 94–5. 399 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 164, lines 183–4.

Crist cwæð be gesibsumum mannum þæt hi sind Godes bearn gecigede.

CH I.39397

‘Eadige beoð ða gesibsuman, for þan ðe hi beoð Godes bearn gecigede’. [subsequently repeated verbatim]

CH I.36 [twice]396

‘Beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei uoca -buntur’.

Matthew 5.9

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 95–6

‘Blessed are the peace-loving, because they are children of God’.

‘Eadige beoð þa gesibsuman for þan þe hi synd Godes bearn’.

De sancta uirginit -ate (AH I.7), line 275

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Ælfric is fairly consistent in reproducing the verse, though differences do appear. CH I.39, De duodecim abusiuis, and De octo uitiis use indirect speech (‘Christ said that …’), where the rest either quote Christ directly or repeat his words without explicit attribution (AH I.8). In the three earliest versions (CH I.36, CH I.39, and AH I.1), the peaceable are ‘called’ God’s children, as in the Vulgate, where in other texts they simply ‘are’ children of God. CH I.39, AH I.8, and AH I.7 omit the Vulgate’s depiction of the peaceable as eadige (‘blessed’). And these texts use the present-tense sind for the second verb (‘they are [children of God]’), where the other vernacular versions employ beoð – either (likely) with present force (‘they are’), as in De duodecim abusiuis and De octo uitiis, or reflecting the future of uocabuntur (‘will be called’) in the Vulgate.400 All the vernacular versions, however, use gesibsuman – a term meaning both ‘peace-loving’ and ‘peaceful’, in keeping with pacifici (‘peace-making’ or ‘peaceful’) – and agree that such people are Godes bearn (‘God’s children’). Having commended the love of peace, Ælfric again draws on Scripture to commend the love of truth – particularly in the person of Jesus, who in John 14 calls himself ‘the truth’:

400 On

the future force of beoð as opposed to sind, see Mitchell and Robinson, Guide, p. 102.

71

[Se blinda mann] sæt wið þone wæig, and Crist cwæð on his godspelle, ‘Ic eom weig and soðfæstness and liif ’.

[The blind man] sat beside the way, and Christ said in his Gospel, ‘I am the way and truth and life ’.

Dicit ei Iesus, ‘Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita; nemo uenit ad Patrem nisi per me’.

Jesus says to him, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me’. Christ himself said , ‘I am the truth ’.

Crist sylf cwæð , ‘Ic eom soðfæst -nyss ’.

CH I.32402

402 Clemoes,

401 Clemoes,

First Series, p. 260, lines 61–2. First Series, p. 456, line 147. 403 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 136, lines 171–4. 404 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 216, lines 461–3. 405 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 176, lines 260–3.

CH I.10401

John 14.6a

[Christ] said, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’.

[Christus] dixit, ‘Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita’.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 97

Christ himself is the way, just as he said about himself: I am the way and the truth and the life; ‘I myself am the way and truth and life. No one comes to my heavenly Father except through me’.

Crist sylf is se weg, swa swa he sæde be him: Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita; ‘Ic sylf eom se weg and soðfæstnys and lif. Nan man ne mæg becuman to minum heofonlican Fæder buton þurh me’.

De duodecim abusiuis403

Truth he possesses, as he himself said: I am the way, and the truth, and the life: ‘I myself am the way, and truth, and life. ’

Soðfæst -nysse he hæfð, swa he sylf sæde: Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita; ‘Ic sylf eom se weg, and soðfæstnyss, and lif. ’

SH I.1404

Christ himself is the way, just as he said about himself: I am the way and the truth and the life; ‘I myself am the way and truth and life. No one comes to my heavenly Father except through me’.

Crist sylf is se weg, swa swa he sæde be him: Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita; ‘Ic sylf eom se weg, and soðfæstnys, and lif. Nan man ne mæg becuman to minum heofonlican Fæder buton þurh me’.

De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis405

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Ælfric translates the first part of the verse six times in his works; the last three times, he reproduces the Latin as well. There are idiosyncrasies along the way: the last half of the verse appears uniquely in De duodecim abusiuis and De octo uitiis, its counterpart; and CH I.32 concentrates solely on Christ as soðfæstnys (‘truth’). Overall, however, similarities outweigh the differences. All the passages use similar language: weg, soðfæstnys, and lif in the vernacular; uia, ueritas, and uita in the Latin. All of them introduce Christ’s words with the preterit (cwæð, dixit, or sæde [‘he said’]) rather than keep the immediacy of the narratorial present (dicit [‘he says’]). All omit mention to the apostle Thomas, to whom Jesus originally responds dicit ei (‘he said to him’). And all but CH I.10 and AH I.1 are self-referential, affirming that Jesus sylf (‘himself’) said be him (‘about himself’) that ‘Ic sylf eom … soðfæstnys’ (‘“I myself am … truth”’). When Ælfric has cause to speak about a ‘way’, as in CH I.10, De duodecim abusiuis, and De octo uitiis; or the ‘truth’, as in CH I.32, SH I.1, or here in AH I.1, John 14.6a is a go-to verse. With these five Scriptural allusions and quotations – Matthew 22.39b (and ‘love your neighbor’ variants), Zechariah 8.19, John 8.44, Matthew 5.9, and John 14.6a – and one final warning to those lacking peace and truth [lines 92–4], the first half of Ælfric’s homily comes to an end. Ælfric’s focus now turns from the Trinity – the nature of the Creator, as opposed to the created – to the soul.

Introduction to lines 100–205 [Et hoc scitote … sine fine, Amen]: If the first half of the Sermo in natale Domini is for the most part original to Ælfric, in the second half he takes a dramatically different compositional approach. Though he selects, rearranges, and assembles phrases and sentences to produce a unique narrative of his own, nearly all words therein derive directly from one source: Alcuin’s De animae ratione liber ad Eulaliam uirginem. This ‘treatise in the form of a letter’, written between ca 801 and 804 to ‘Eulalia’ – that is, Gundrada, sister of Adelhard of Corbie – explains the soul’s ‘tripartite structure, its existence as an image of the Trinity, its activities and immortality, its relation to the body, its origins, and its duties’, treating along the way such ‘familiar Alcuinian themes’ as ‘the four cardinal virtues (in the life of the soul)’.406 The letter was not merely an apt source for Ælfric’s discussion of the soul or mind, however: it was arguably the quintessential authority. As Godden states, ‘The psychological literature of the Christian Middle Ages is said to begin with Alcuin’s De animae ratione’.407 In describing this treatise as ‘psychological’, Godden points to a key way in which Alcuin differs from Augustine. For the latter, ‘the mind is only the better part of the human soul, which also has lesser parts which are shared with the animals. The soul is for him more a life-spirit than an intellectual spirit’.408 Alcuin, however, equates the soul with the mind, and Ælfric’s homily follows suit: anima … mens dicitur (‘the soul … is called “mind”’ [line 128]), it says. At the same time, De anima ratione is very much

‘Alcuin’s De ratione animae’, p. 397. For further introductions to the text, see Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 1–4; and Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, pp. 281–2. 407 ‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, pp. 271–2. 408 ‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, p. 272. 406 Szarmach,

73

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime theological, making a doctrinal connection for example between the Trinity and the soul. Lockett explains: Early medieval homilies and didactic materials rarely focused on the characterization of the soul as an entity in the natural world. Too esoteric to be wholly germane to the daily pursuit of Christian virtue, this topic was more the domain of philosophers than of preachers and teachers. Alcuin did not subscribe to this view. In [De anime ratione], he teaches Gundrada that she can only love God as well as she knows God, and the best way for her to know God is to understand the nature of the soul, since God created the soul in his own image and likeness.409 Alcuin’s rationale follows the example of Augustine’s De Trinitate, in that he teaches Gundrada to know the Trinity through the coexistence of memory, will, and understanding in the indivisible soul, but Alcuin also extends this principle to other characteristics of the soul, resulting in a work that directs natural philosophy toward the service of theology, to an extent not undertaken in Christian psychology since Cassiodorus’s De anima in the mid-sixth century.410

For Ælfric, as for Alcuin, consideration of the soul is anything but an esoteric matter for philosophers. It is a matter of life and death. Ælfric’s concern is for the temporal and eternal well-being of his audience. Their salvation depends on understanding God’s character and emulating it by following God’s law. Understanding the nature of the soul can help one understand the nature of God. Following Alcuin, Ælfric thus concludes: ‘Nichil … necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam’ (‘Nothing … is more necessary to understand than God and the soul’ [lines 104–5]). And to these subjects in tandem Ælfric will return again and again.411 Not all scholars, it should be noted, agree that Alcuin served as a direct source for Ælfric. Citing studies by Godden in 1985 and Leinbaugh in 1994, for example, Leslie Lockett notes that ‘though quotations from [De anime ratione] appear in the OE Boethius and (AH I.2), it remains debatable whether Alfred and Ælfric knew the work directly’.412 The issue in question is not whether AH I.1 draws on De anime ratione, however – as will become evident, the connections between the texts are manifold and pervasive – but whether AH I.1 is by Ælfric at all: if so, he most likely knew Alcuin directly; if not, AH I.1 would be an anonymous intermediate source that influenced Ælfric’s composition of texts like AH I.2. The history of the controversy may be summarized as follows. In 1957, a seminal article by Enid Raynes examined the contents of Y4, the sole manuscript in which AH I.1 appears.413 In her study, she proposed not only that AH I.1 was the main source of LS I.1, but that the personal introduction with which both texts begin – Quondam diximus Alcuin, De animae ratione 1–2, and AH I.1, lines 104–9, below. Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, pp. 283–4. For Ælfric’s possible knowledge of Cassiodorus’ De anima, see notes to lines 119–20 below. 411 See notes to line 1 above. 412 Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, pp. 220–1 and 420; citing Godden, ‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, pp. 296–8; and Leinbaugh, ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I and the Boulogne Sermon’, pp. 193–7. 413 Noting that most if not all the items therein were written by Ælfric, served as source material, or echo themes present in his work, Raynes concluded that Y4 descended from a Commonplace Book ‘which Ælfric kept for his personal use and in which he entered Latin sermons for translation and 409 See

410 Lockett,

74

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime uobis and hwilon ær we sædon eow (‘Formerly we have said to you’) – ‘perhaps suggests that Ælfric wrote or compiled (AH I.1) himself, but this cannot be certain’.414 That same year, Neil Ker concurred: inventorying Y4 in his Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon, he posited that AH I.1 ‘is perhaps Ælfric’s own’.415 Two years later, without mentioning AH I.1, Peter Clemoes spoke of the relative composition of three Ælfrician works related to the Latin homily: ‘[LS I.]1 was rewritten as (AH I.2) before De creatore et creatura (AH II.14) drew on the latter’.416 In 1966, Milton Gatch reiterated Raynes’s view that LS I.1 drew on AH I.1, but cautioned that a decision on Ælfric’s authorship ‘must await an exhaustive study of the texts’.417 The following year, John Pope indicated that while he was inclined to agree with Raynes and Ker’s assessment, and though he included the piece ‘tentatively’ in his overview of Ælfric’s canon, a warning of caution from Clemoes had led him to suspend judgment on the matter: ‘Whether (AH I.1) is actually a piece of Ælfric’s composition, as indeed it appears to be, can hardly be satisfactorily determined without a thorough study of its relation, not only to the Christmas homily just mentioned, but also to the partially rewritten version of (AH I.2)’.418 In 1969, speaking of AH I.1 simply as ‘a Latin homily’, Clemoes described LS I.1 and AH I.2 as ‘variant rendering[s]’ thereof and identified Alcuin’s De animae ratione as the source for the homily’s latter half.419 Thus matters stood until 1985, when Malcolm Godden offered a complex new hypothesis: Ælfric adapted De animae ratione to compose the last half of AH I.1, which he then translated as the last part of LS I.1 and AH I.2; before completing AH I.2, moreover, he translated the first part of LS I.1 into Latin and joined it to his adaptation of De animae ratione to produce AH I.1 in its final form. He reasoned thus: first, the ‘very close verbal agreement’ between Alcuin and the last half of AH I.1 ‘shows that no English version could have intervened between them’; at an early stage, then, Ælfric made a Latin abridgement of Alcuin’s treatise. Second, comparing a passage from the Old English Boethius (prose 41) and LS I.1 [lines 49–61], he argued that the latter directly adapts and expands the former; Ælfric thus composed the first part of LS I.1 by combining his own original material with selections from Boethius. Third, comparing the passage in LS I.1 with its counterpart in AH I.1 [lines 55–66], he suggested that the latter translates and expands the former; called upon to produce a Latin version of LS I.1, therefore, ‘perhaps for a different readership’, Ælfric apparently composed the first half of AH I.1 and added it to his earlier adaptation of De animae ratione [AH I.1, part 2]. Finally, comparing AH I.1 [lines 55–66] with AH I.2 [lines 139–61], he stated that ‘the complete absence of significant verbal similarities between the two Old English versions [LS 1 and AH I.2] suggests that (AH I.2) is a retranslation of (AH I.1), not an intermediary between [LS I.1 and AH I.1]’; consequently, prompted later on to issue a other items of interest’, a conclusion with which later scholars concurred (‘Boulogne-sur-Mer 63’, p. 73; on which subject, see Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, pp. 33–4). 414 ‘Boulogne-sur-Mer’, pp. 67–8. 415 §162.4, p. 207. 416 ‘Chronology’, p. 52; see also pp. 56–7. For the portions of In natali Domini that Ælfric incorporates into AH II.14, see notes to AH I.2, lines 84–5, 96–109, 110–15, 116–26, 127–30, and 131–8. 417 ‘Boulogne-sur-Mer’, p. 489 and n. 32. 418 Homilies, vol. I, pp. 408, 137, 4, and 4 n. 3. 419 ‘Mens absentia cogitans’, p. 63 n. 2.

75

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime new form of the vernacular sermon, Ælfric must have composed AH I.2, drawing on the new portion of AH I.1 for the first half and the second half of LS I.1 for the rest.420 Another view, however, had been proposed by Theodore Leinbaugh in his 1980 Harvard doctoral thesis. Comparing De animae ratione, AH I.1, LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14, Leinbaugh argued that AH I.2 is a rhythmical revision of the ordinary prose of LS I.1 ‘in order to make it stylistically compatible with the other writings of his middle and later career’;421 that AH II.14 drew directly on AH I.2 (not LS I.1 or AH I.1) a few years later;422 and that AH I.1 served as a common source for all three texts: sometimes LS I.1 drew on AH I.1 for material not in AH I.2,423 sometimes AH I.2 drew on AH I.1 for material not in LS I.1,424 sometimes both Old English texts omitted the same passages in AH I.1,425 and sometimes both Old English texts translated the Latin.426 Put another way, he said, Ælfric must have used (AH I.1) as a source for Lives of Saints 1 relatively early in his career, before he turned to the use of rhythmical prose and doubtless before he had issued the Lives of Saints as a set. Ælfric later revised the Christmas homily [LS 1], writing a substantial portion of it in rhythmical prose and following the general contours of Lives of Saints 1. He also consulted his original Latin source (AH I.1), making more exact translations of several passages for the first time.427

420 ‘Anglo-Saxons

on the Mind’, p. 298. Godden reiterated his view in 2000, saying: ‘(AH I.1) as a whole, if by Ælfric, is probably a late composition, since the first part is almost certainly a translation of the corresponding part of LS I.1, which refers back to CH I. But it is possible that Ælfric had made the Latin adaptation of Alcuin at an earlier stage, prior to the CH, and added the introductory section to form a sermon subsequently’ (Commentary, p. xlvi). 421 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 30 and 25–6. 422 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 35 and 26. 423 Leinbaugh proffers the following examples: [1] LS I.1, line 1 (Men ða … sædon eow [Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10]) parallels AH I.1, line 2 (Quondam diximus uobis, fratres); and [2] LS I.1, lines 3 (Nu wylle) – 5 (þurh god) (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10) parallel AH I.1, lines 3 (sed tamen) – 4 (letificare) (‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 32–3). 424 [1] AH I.2, lines 173 (þe liflice) – 174 (clæne mædene) parallel AH I.1, lines 73 (qui de) – 75 (panis uiuus); [2] AH I.2, line 35 (Her … deoplic) parallels AH I.1, line 10 (quam breuis … sit); [3] AH I.2, line 70 (Nisi credideritis, non intelligitis) parallels AH I.1, line 17 (Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis); [4] AH I.2, line 73 (Altiora te ne quesieris) parallels AH I.1, line 18 (Altiora te ne quaesieris); and [5] AH I.2, lines 161 (for þi læs) – 185 (accennednesse) parallel AH I.1, lines 64 (Ergo ille) – 78 (sacrificium Christi) (‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 32–4). Some of these word breaks are approximations where Leinbaugh gives only line references. 425 [1] AH I.1, lines 22 (Sed adhuc) – 57 (cibo utentes); and [2] AH I.1, lines 77 (Nam hodie) – 99 (igne) (‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 33). Some of these word breaks are approximations where Leinbaugh gives only line references. 426 [1] LS I.1, lines 2 (on þisum) – 3 (marian [Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10]), and AH I.2, lines 4 (nu todæg) – 5 (mæden) parallel AH I.1, lines 2 (hac ipsa) – 3 (uirgine); and [2] LS I.1, §4, lines 2 (nytenu) – 3 (sawullease þing [Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §2–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 26–7]), and AH I.2, line 114 (nytene and fiscsæs and fugelas) parallel AH I.1, line 34 (pecora, pisces, uolatilia) (‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 33–4). Commenting on the latter example, Leinbaugh suggests that when the two vernacular texts translate the Latin somewhat differently, ‘[AH I.2] usually shows greater affinity with the Latin source’ (33). 427 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 34.

76

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Furthermore, analyzing AH I.1’s use of De animae ratione, Leinbaugh cautioned that the former may not have been written by Ælfric. Pointing to three ‘errors’ in AH I.1 that ‘give poor sense’, ‘disrupt Alcuin’s precise formulation’, or ‘fails to reproduce the correct reading’,428 he concluded that the evidence ‘weighs slightly against’ Ælfric’s authorship.429 In 1994, having considered Godden’s view with what Christopher Jones calls ‘laudable thoroughness and caution’,430 Leinbaugh defended his earlier position. Reexamining the passages from the Old English Boethius, LS I.1, AH I.1, and AH I.2 analyzed by Godden (treated in detail below in notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64), Leinbaugh argued that while the first half of AH I.1 might have been translated from LS I.1, the opposite might also be true: LS I.1 drew on AH I.1 which drew material from Boethius.431 Comparing a new set of passages from De animae ratione, Boethius, AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2, moreover (treated in detail in notes to AH I.2, lines 237–42), he concluded that ‘it is indisputable’ that the last half of AH I.1 derives from Alcuin, and that the last part of LS I.1 derives from AH I.1.432 Leinbaugh accepted, in other words, ‘the sequence of composition put forward by Godden for the second [part of LS I.1]’; he simply contended that ‘this same sequence might well apply to the first part [of LS I.1]’. Why, after all, would Ælfric be called upon to produce a Latin version of LS I.1 ‘perhaps for a different readership’? Would such a readership, learned and skilled in reading Latin, have required a Latin translation of an Old English sermon? Under what circumstances would such a Latin sermon have been delivered, read, or recited? Other [Latin] texts in [Y4] have been documented as sources for Ælfric’s Old English writings; why would this text have been treated in a different manner? There may be reasonably plausible answers to these and similar questions, but it is a great rarity to find Ælfric translating a sermon from Old English into Latin: the reverse generally holds true.433

As to AH I.1’s authorship, Leinbaugh underscored that the evidence warrants caution: reproducing what he viewed as the three ‘errors’ in AH I.1, he concluded, ‘Ælfric may have been the author of (AH I.1), but … [the question] remains a matter of conjecture’.434 In 1998, Jones revisited the question of AH I.1 in a larger treatment of Ælfric’s Latin compositional methods. The methods Ælfric uses and the skill he shows, Jones warned, when composing vernacular works from Latin sources, may look very different when Ælfric culls Latin from Latin. Indeed, he affirmed, ‘Some of the doubts raised about Ælfric’s authorship of (AH I.1) reflect an unwillingness to believe that he could have made a mess of cutting and pasting from his Latin sources, or that his abridgements might ever have been anything less than worthy of one dubbed “the Grammarian”’.435 Reviewing the three ‘errors’ adduced by Leinbaugh, he posited that they might reflect an 428 ‘Liturgical

Homilies’, pp. 37, 39, and 43; for an analysis of the readings or passages in question, see notes to AH I.2, lines 237–42, 269–74, and 297–346. 429 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 36. 430 ‘Medieval Latin Author’, p. 46. 431 ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, pp. 195–9. 432 ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, pp. 200–4. 433 ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, p. 204. 434 ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, pp. 206–10, at p. 210. 435 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, pp. 12–13, at p. 13.

77

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime occasional ‘shaky’ grasp of De animae ratione, or be ‘the very sort of shortcomings we have observed in our other [Ælfrician] texts – that is, flaws that resulted from a compiler’s imperfect execution of a cutting-and-splicing method’.436 ‘It is not so implausible’, he stated, that Ælfric could have compiled (AH I.1) suo more by cutting, shifting, and re-inserting words to yield a grammatically tolerable approximation, whose textual and interpretative shortcomings might only have emerged later, in the more deeply analytical process of translation. This was possible because his methods of Latin-to-Latin and Latin-toOld English composition differed in kind.437

In short, while he noted that ‘doubts will linger’ about AH I.1’s authorship, Jones argued that Leinbaugh’s objections ‘should perhaps not be overvalued as evidence against Ælfric’s authorship’.438 Finally, in 2003 Michael Lapidge briefly reviewed the work of Raynes, Godden, Leinbaugh, and Jones as part of his consideration of Y29 as an Ælfrician Commonplace Book.439 Based on their work, he concluded that AH I.1 served as ‘the source’ for LS I.1 and ‘was arguably compiled by [Ælfric]’.440 Our analysis in these first two chapters will examine in detail not just the passages mentioned in the studies above, but every passage in AH I.1 and 2: how they adapt their sources, how they relate to one another, and how they influence later works by Ælfric. Our conclusion, however, is that Ælfric composed AH I.1, drawing on the Old English Boethius and Alcuin’s De anime ratione, and that AH I.1 influenced LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14 in turn. The discussion of these issues may be summarized as follows: Scholarship

Ælfric Composed AH I.1

Raynes 1957

maybe

Ker 1957

maybe

Proposed Order of Composition AH I.1

LS I.1 LS I.1

Clemoes 1959 AH I.1

Gatch 1966

maybe

Pope 1967–8

maybe

Clemoes 1969

maybe not DAR

AH I.12

Leinbaugh 1980 maybe not DAR

AH I.12

AH I.2

AH II.14

LS I.1

LS I.1

AH I.2

sed et rustica’, pp. 46 and 48. sed et rustica’, p. 48. 438 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, pp. 51 and 48. See also notes to lines 169–80 and to AH I.2, lines 237–42 and 269–74. 439 On which subject, see now Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, pp. 35–8. 440 Cult of St Swithun, p. 555. 436 ‘Meatim 437 ‘Meatim

78

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Godden 1985

OEB

Yes DAR

AH I.1

Leinbaugh 1994 maybe not DAR

AH I.1

2

LS I.11

AH I.11

AH I.21

LS I.1

[+AH I.12]

AH I.22

LS I.1

AH I.2 AH I.2

Jones 1998

maybe

AH I.1

LS I.1

Lapidge 2003

Yes

AH I.1

LS I.1

AH I.1

LS I.1

Kleist/Upchurch Yes

DAR

OEB

2

AH I.2

AH II.14

AH II.14

DAR = Alcuin, De animae ratione; LS I.11 [or 2] = first [or second] part of LS I.1; OEB = Old English Boethius; AH I.11 [or 2] = first [or second] half of AH I.1

Lines 100–4 [Et hoc scitote … breuiter si possumus]: For a discussion of this segue into the last half of the homily, original to Ælfric, see notes to AH I.2, lines 191–7. Lines 104–9 [Nichil aliquid magis … Dei esset habitatione]: Having underscored the importance of understanding the nature of God (the central subject of the first part of the homily) and the nature of the soul (the controlling subject hereafter) [lines 101–2], Ælfric does so again, this time using language from the opening sections of De animae ratione. Alcuin, De animae ratione 1–2441

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 104–9

Nec aliquid magis homini in hac mortalitate uiuenti necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam. Quantum enim quisque Deum agnoscit in tantum diligit: qui minus agnoscit minus diligit. Ergo naturale est omni homini Deum amare. Si naturale est homini bonum amare, naturale est etiam Deum amare, quia Deus summum bonum est sine quo bono, nil boni quisquam habere poterit. Ille est indeficiens bonum, plena pulchritudo, totius felicitatis abundantia. Amor uero huius boni non nisi in anima esse poterit. Et hoc animae excellens bonum est, illud amare bonum in quo solo et a quo et per quem quidquid boni est in ulla creatura bonum est. Et haec sola anima nobilis est si illum amat a quo est quod est, qui illam talem creauit, ut in se sui ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet impressam, et digna Dei esset habitatione, secundum modum, quem quaelibet creatura in se Creatorem habere possit.

Nichil aliquid magis homini in hac mortalitate uiuenti necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam. Naturale denique homini est bonum amare. Quid est bonum nisi Deus, qui solus summum bonum est, sine quo bono nil boni quisquam habere poterit? Amor huius boni non nisi in anima esse poterit. Et haec sola anima nobilis est, quae illum amat a quo est quod est, qui illam talem creauit ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam et digna Dei esset habitatione .

441 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 39–41; cf. PL 101.639A–639C.

79

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime For a person living in this mortal existence nothing is more necessary to understand than God and the soul. For each one loves God to the extent that one knows him: he who knows him less loves him less. Therefore, it is natural for all people to love God. If it is natural for a person to love the good, it is also natural to love God, because God is the highest good, without whom no one can possess any good. He is the unfailing good, the fullness of beauty, the abundance of complete happiness. Truly, love of this good cannot exist except in the soul. And this noble virtue of the soul is to love that good in which, from which, and through which alone whatever good is in any creature is good. And this soul is noble only if it loves him by whom it is what it is, who created it such that it might have in itself the impress of his own image and likeness and to be a worthy dwelling place of God – to the degree that any creature may have its Creator in itself.

For a person living in this mortal existence nothing is more necessary to understand than God and the soul. Indeed, it is natural for a person to love the good. What is good if not God, who alone is the highest good, without whom no one can possess any good? Love of this good cannot exist except in the soul. And this soul alone is noble: the one which loves him by whom it is what it is, namely, who thus created it to have his own image and likeness impressed upon its understanding and to be a worthy dwelling place of God.

Ælfric’s primary approach to his source here is abridgement: he cuts Alcuin’s equation of knowing and loving God; abbreviates his association of loving good with loving God; omits his description of God as good, beauty, and happiness; avoids the somewhat complex statement about loving the source of all good (‘in which, from which, and through which’ it comes); and passes over the question of how the Creature may indwell one of his created beings. The result is simpler and more succinct. One element Ælfric does keep is the logical connection Alcuin provides between God and the soul, supplying a transition between the two halves of Ælfric’s homily: as Lockett paraphrases it, ‘the best way for [one] to know God is to understand the nature of the soul, since God created the soul in his own image and likeness’.442 The reference to God’s imaginem et similitudinem (‘image and likeness’) is an allusion to Genesis 1.26, a verse Ælfric references at least eight times in his writings: Genesis 1.26 Et ait, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostrum.

CH I.1443 … he cwæð, ‘Uton gewyrcan mannan to ure anlicnysse ’.

CH I.20444 He cwæð, ‘Uton gewyrcan mannan to ure anlicnysse’.

442 Anglo-Saxon

Psychologies, p. 283. First Series, p. 182, lines 111–12. 444 Clemoes, First Series, p. 342, lines 192–3. 443 Clemoes,

80

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 107–9 Et haec sola anima nobilis est, quae illum amat a quo est quod est, qui illam talem creauit ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam et digna Dei esset habitatione.

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime And [God] said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image and likeness’.

… [God] said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image ’.

[God] said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image’.

And this soul alone is noble: it loves him by whom it is what it is, namely, the One who thus created it to have the impress of his own image and likeness and to be a worthy dwelling place of God.

The two First Series homilies quote most of the verse verbatim, though they speak only of God’s ‘image’; AH I.1, by contrast, omits most of the verse, but does speak both of ‘image’ and ‘likeness’. Genesis 1.26445

Prefatio to Genesis446

Interrogationes Sigewulfi447

Hexameron448

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 210–13

[God] cwæð: ‘Uton wircean man to andlicnisse and to ure gelicnisse’.

… God cwæþ: ‘Uton wircean mannan to ure anlicnisse ’.

Hwi is gecweden þæt God cwæde, ‘Uton wyrcan mannan to ure anlicnyssa’? … Seo halige þrynnys is undergiten on þam worde ‘Uton wyrcan’, and seo soðe annyss is understandan on þam worde ‘to ure anlicnysse’.

And God sylf cwæð ða swa swa us segð ðeos boc: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram, et reliqua; ðæt is on Englisre spræce: ‘Uton gewyrcan mannan to ure anlicnysse and to ure gelicnysse’.

And þeo sawlæ ane is isæli and æþelboren þeo ðe ðenne lufæð þe hyre swylc isceop þæt heo on hyre andgite hafeð Godes anlicnes gif heo ileafful biþ.

[God] said, ‘Let us make humanity in [our] image and in our likeness’.

… God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image ’.

Why is it said that God said, ‘Let us make humanity in our image’? … The holy Trinity is to be perceived in the words ‘Let us make’, and the true Unity is to be understood in the words ‘in our image’.

And God himself then said, even as this book says: Let us make humanity in our image, and so on; that is in English, ‘Let us make humanity in our image and in our likeness’.

And only that soul is blessed and of noble birth who then loves him who created it so as to have God’s image in its understanding if it be faithful.

Ælfric’s translation of Genesis follows the Vulgate fairly closely, though where the latter frames ‘image and likeness’ with ad (‘in’) and nostrum (our’), Genesis creates

Heptateuch, p. 9. Heptateuch, p. 5, lines 66–7. 447 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 129, lines 185–91; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 18, lines 169–74. 448 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 58, lines 330–2. 445 Marsden, 446 Marsden,

81

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime parallel phrases with to [ure] andlicnisse (‘in [our] image’) and to ure gelicnisse (‘in our likeness’). The Prefatio to Genesis is similar but returns to the pattern of the First Series, omitting ‘likeness’. The Interrogationes does the same, though embedding the verse in a question and answer. The Hexameron quotes the verse in Latin through imaginem (‘image’), but goes on to translate the whole, including gelicnysse (‘likeness’). And AH I.2, translating AH I.1, alludes to the verse at an even greater remove, speaking only of Godes anlicnes (‘God’s image’). AH I.1 does not simply mention imaginem et similitudinem, however. It states that God created the soul ‘ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam et digna Dei esset habitatione’ (‘to have his own image and likeness impressed upon its understanding and to be a worthy dwelling place of God’). Various observations may be made about this line. In sensu (‘upon [its] understanding’), first of all, appears either to be a corruption in the surviving copy of the homily or evidence of corruption in Ælfric’s copy of De animae ratione, as the latter reads in se sui (‘in itself’). Either way, humans are to have the impressa (‘imprint’ or ‘impress’) of God’s image and likeness, an image reminiscent of the Bible’s description of Christ as the χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ (‘exact representation of [God’s] nature’ [Hebrews 1.3]) – χαρακτὴρ being the imprint or impression left by a stamp, a nuance not as well conveyed by the Vulgate’s figura substantiae eius (‘form of his essence’). That God made the soul to be his dwelling place, moreover, echoes the teaching for example of 1 Corinthians 3.16 and 6.19, 2 Corinthians 6.16, Ephesians 2.22, and Romans 8.9. Lines 104–5 (Nichil … animam) are unique to AH I.1; for a detailed comparison of lines 105–9 with analogous passages in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), however, see notes to AH I.2, lines 206–15. Lines 110–15 [Omnes enim catholici … uitam et spiritum]: If Genesis teaches that God made humans in his image and likeness, say Alcuin and Ælfric, this does not mean that humans share God’s nature: if they did, they would not be able to sin. Alcuin, De animae ratione 13449

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 110–15

In hoc enim omnes consentiunt catholici scriptores: quod anima a Deo sit condita, nec partem eam esse Dei naturae, quia si ex Dei esset natura assumpta, peccare non posset.

Omnes enim catholici scriptores in hoc consentiunt: quod anima a Deo sit condita, nec partem eam esse Dei naturae, quia si ex Dei esset natura assumpta, peccare non posset. Unde ait Salomon, ‘Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum’. Et Dominus loquitur per prophetam, ‘Omnem flatum ego feci’. Et iterum scriptum est, ‘Qui fingit spiritum hominis in ipso’. Et apostolus Paulus, ‘Et ipse det omnibus uitam et spiritum’.

In fact, in this all orthodox writers agree: that the soul was made by God, that it is not part of the nature of God, because if it had been taken from the nature of God, it would not be able to sin.

In fact, all orthodox writers agree in this: that the soul was made by God, that it is not part of the nature of God, because if it had been taken from the nature of God, it would not be able to sin. Whence Solomon said, ‘The dust returns to its ground whence it belonged, and the spirit returns to God who gave it’. And the Lord says through the prophet, ‘I have made every soul’. And again it is written, ‘He forms the spirit of man within him’. And the apostle Paul [has written], ‘And He gives life and the spirit to all’.

449 PL

101.645C.

82

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime At this point, Ælfric supplements De animae ratione with four biblical quotations or allusions that he also includes in AH I.2. For these lines, he may well draw on one if not two Augustinian works on the subject: Epistula 190 and De natura et origine animae. The former Augustine had written in 418 to Optatus, bishop of Milevis, regarding the origin of human souls: does God create new souls for newborn individuals, or does he derive them from the soul of Adam as he derives bodies from their progenitor? The Bible, he concluded, gives no definitive answer. On receiving complaints about his ‘professed ignorance’, however, Augustine followed up the year after with his four-book De natura et origine animae (also called De anime et eius origine).450 Three of the verses quoted by Ælfric here appear together uniquely in Epistula 190; the fourth may well be drawn from De natura. First, Ælfric quotes from the final chapter of Ecclesiastes, where the writer admonishes people to be mindful of God even in their youth, before the faculties of the body fail and ultimately return to dust. Ecclesiastes 12.7

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 112–13

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 218–22

[Memento creatoris tui antequam] reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum.

Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum.

Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum: ‘Gewende þæt dust, þæt is þe lichame, into þare eorðan þe he ær of com, and wende þe gast to Gode þe hine ær sende’.

[Remember your Creator before] the dust should return to its earth, whence it came, and the spirit should return to God who gave it.

The dust returns to its ground whence it came, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

The dust returns to its ground whence it belonged, and the spirit returns to God who gave it; ‘The dust, that is the body, returns into the earth from which it earlier came, and the spirit returns to God who previously sent it’.

Ælfric reproduces the Latin verbatim, but shorn of this larger context, as evidence that God creates souls – or ‘sends’ them (sendan) rather than ‘gives’ or ‘bestows’ them (dare), as the Vulgate has it. For those who might not understand what he means by ‘dust’, moreover, Ælfric glosses the term as þe lichame (‘the body’). The verse is evocative of Genesis 3.19, which Ælfric quotes in CH I.21451 and LS II.12 [Skeat I.12],452 as well as Job 34.15, Psalms 104.29 [Vulgate 103.29], and Ecclesiastes 3.20. Ecclesiastes 12.7 appears some seventeen times in Patrologia Latina texts before the tenth century, including Augustine’s Epistula 190.453 Next, Ælfric cites a specific form of a verse from Isaiah in which God promises mercy to the humble and penitent.

‘Introduction’, p. 263; see also Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 284. First Series, p. 348, lines 84–5. 452 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 4, §1, lines 22–5; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 262, lines 23–6. 453 Epistulae 190.5.17 (CSEL 57, p. 152, lines 12–14). 450 Teske,

451 Clemoes,

83

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Isaiah 57.16 Non enim in sempiternum litigabo neque usque ad finem irascar, quia spiritus a facie mea egredietur et flatus ego faciam.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 113 Et Dominus loquitur per prophetam, ‘Omnem flatum ego feci’.

For I will not strive [with And the Lord says through a humans] forever, nor will I be prophet, ‘I have made every angry unto the end, because soul’. the spirit shall go forth from my face, and souls [literally, “breaths [of life]”] I will make.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 223–5 [Eft God sylf cwæð þurh sumne witegæ,] Omnem flatum feci ego, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Ælcne gast Ic wrohte’. [Likewise God himself said through a certain prophet,] I have made every soul, that is in English, ‘I made every soul’.

The version here may not follow the Vulgate, but it is a commonplace in Augustine: he repeats the expression on some fourteen occasions, referring explicitly to Isaiah on three occasions454 and to ‘a prophet’ (as Ælfric has it here) on one other: Epistulae 190.455 Cassiodorus456 and Hrabanus Maurus,457 perhaps influenced by Augustine, quote this form of the verse in immediate proximity to Ecclesiastes 12.7, as does Eugippius in an anthology of Augustine’s works;458 only Epistulae 190, however, also includes Zechariah 12.1. The opening of Zechariah 12 speaks of the power of the God who inspires the prophecy that there follows. Ælfric’s focus here, however, is not on God’s creative power in general (as it is for example in lines 14–16, 37, and 53), but in God’s power to create human souls. Zechariah 12.1

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 114

In natali Domini (AH I.2), line 227

Onus uerbi Domini super Israhel: dixit Dominus, extendens caelum et fundans terram et fingens spiritum hominis in eo.

Qui fingit spiritum hominis in ipso.

God scea

æþ þæs monnes sawle on him.

The burden of the word of the Lord upon Israel: [thus] says the Lord, who stretches forth the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms a person’s spirit within him.

He forms the spirit of a person within him.

God creates a person’s soul within him.

454 De

ciuitate Dei XIII.24 (CCSL 48, p. 410, lines 80–1); Epistulae 205.4.19 (CSEL 57, p. 339, lines 7–8); and De Genesi ad litteram X.6 (CSEL 28.1, p. 302, lines 12–13). 455 Epistulae 190.5.16 (CSEL 57, p. 151, lines 4–5). 456 De anima 4 (CCSL 96, p. 538, line 20). 457 De anima 1 (PL 110.1110D–1111A). 458 Thesaurus 345 (PL 62.1073B–1074B).

84

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime The scribe’s sceawæþ is an error for scea[p]æþ (scepeð [‘creates’]), a version of which Ælfric has used to make a similar statement just before [AH I.2, line 216; see also notes to AH I.2, lines 231–4] and which he lists in his Grammar as a synonym for fingere.459 For Ælfric or his immediate source, Augustine’s use of Zechariah 12.1 in both Epistula 190 and De natura seems to have drawn the writer’s attention to the latter, in which a particular form of another verse appears: Acts 17.25, where Paul in the Areopagus describes to the Athenians the God of heaven and earth: Acts 17.25

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 114–15

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 229–30

Nec manibus humanis colitur Et ipse det omnibus uitam et indigens aliquo cum ipse det spiritum. omnibus uitam et inspirationem et omnia.

Ipse deus dabit omnibus uitam et spiritum, þæt is, ‘God sylf gyfæð alle monnum lif and gast’.

Nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all life and breath and everything else.

God himself will give to all life and spirit, that is, ‘God himself gives to all people life and spirit’.

He himself also gives life and spirit to all.

The passage seems to have been cited rarely in patristic writings, but only in De natura does one find inspirationem et omnia (‘breath and everything else’) replaced by spiritum (‘spirit’) – not just once, but thrice.460 In AH I.2, Ælfric supplies the subject (Deus [‘God’]) and changes the present subjunctive det to a future indicative dabit, but otherwise follows this version closely both in Latin and Old English. It is possible that Ælfric encountered Epistula 190 and De natura in their entirety: we know of three copies of De natura from Anglo-Saxon England before 1100, for example, as well as fourteen at least partial copies of Augustine’s letters.461 The close proximity in Epistula 190 of Ælfric’s first three quotations also suggests that he encountered the letter in some form. It is certainly not beyond Ælfric, moreover, to have brought the four verses together, having encountered elsewhere De natura’s rendition of Acts 17.25. It is also possible, however, that he found the set in a compilation of quotations on the soul. For a detailed comparison of lines 110–15 of the Sermo with the analogous passage in In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 216–30. Lines 116–19 [Triplex est enim … intellegentia antecellit]: For the interrelationship of De animae ratione, the Old English Boethius, AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2 at this point, and associated arguments over dating and authorship, see notes to In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 237–42. Lines 119–25 [Concupiscentia data est … superbia et caenodoxia]: Save for one verbal variant (cupiscenda for concupiscenda [both ‘for the purpose of desiring’]) and three incidental spelling differences (philargiria [‘love of money’] for philargyria, accidia [‘laziness’] for Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 174, lines 13–14. natura I.16.26 and 17.28 (twice) (CSEL 60, p. 325, line 8; p. 328, lines 12–13; and p. 329, lines 23–4). 461 Gneuss and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 894–5. 459 Zupitza, 460 De

85

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime acedia, and caenodoxia [‘vainglory’] for cenodoxia), this passage is identical to Alcuin, De animae ratione 2 [PL 4].462 To support his point that the soul should control its desires rather than be controlled by them, Ælfric returns to John 8, which he had cited before in lines 9–10. The verse is another old standby for Ælfric, which he cites half a dozen times in his writings.

John 8.34

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 122–3

CH II.13

LS I.1463

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 249–50

Secundum Iohannem [Irvine 3]464

Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan465

Respondit eis Iesus,  ‘“Amen amen dico uobis quia omnis qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati”’.

… iuxta Domini uocem, ‘“Qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati”’.

Drihten cwæð on ðyssere ylcan rædinge her wiðufan to ðam Iudeiscum, ‘“Soð soð ic eow secge, ælc ðæra ðe synne wyrcð, he bið þonne ðære synne ðeow”’.

… Crist cwæð , ‘“ Ælc þæra þe synna wyrcð is þæra synna ðeow”’.

… Crist cwæð, ‘“Ylc þære þe sunnæ wurcæð is þare sunne ðeow”’.

Swa swa Crist seolf cwæð on sumne godspelle, ‘Omnis qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati’, ‘“Ælc ðare þe synnæ gewyrcæð is ðare synne ðeow”’.

… se hælend cwæþ on his halgan godspelle, ‘Omnis qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati’; ‘“Ælc þara ðe sinna gewyrcð, is ðara sinna ðeow.”’

Jesus answered them, ‘“Truly, truly, I say to you that everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”’.

… according to the voice of the Lord, ‘“Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”’.

The Lord said in this same passage here above to the Jews, ‘“Truly, truly I say to you, each of those who commits sin, he shall then be a slave of that sin”’.

… Christ said , ‘“ Each of those who commits sins is a slave of those sins”’.

… Christ said, ‘“Each one who commits sin is a slave of that sin”’.

Just as Christ himself said in a certain Gospel, ‘Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin’, ‘“Each one who commits sin is a slave of that sin”’.

… the Savior said in his holy Gospel, ‘Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin’, ‘“Each of those who commits sins is a slave of those sins”’.

Most of the time, Ælfric quotes the verse in the vernacular, though he adds the Latin as well in Irvine 3 and the Second Old English Letter. He introduces the quotation in various ways, usually without reference to the immediate context in John 8 where ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 44; PL 101.640C–640D. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 30, §11, lines 10–11; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, lines 105–6. 464 Irvine, Homilies, p. 71, lines 282–4. 465 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 195–6, §127. 462 Curry,

463 Clayton

86

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Jesus interacts with Jewish interlocutors (whom he does mention in CH II.13). Save for CH II.13, he also tends to omit Christ’s opening words (‘Truly, truly, I say to you’), a formula Jesus uses with slight variations some seventy-five times in the Gospels, and which elsewhere Ælfric quotes twice in Latin466 and ten times in Old English. CH II.13 is also idiosyncratic in adding he (‘he’) and þonne (‘then’) as slight intensifiers. Other homilies show variation in details such as the presence and number of demonstrative pronouns (‘that/those sin[s]’), an issue complicated further by late readings in B (AH I.2 and Irvine 3). Otherwise, however, Ælfric’s translations of the verse are straightforward. For a comparison of lines 119–26 with their counterparts in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 243–60. Lines 125–6 [Paruulis enim ratio … corporalem recipit quantitatem]: Godden suggests that this sentence, which does not appear in Alcuin, combines phrases from two of De animae ratione’s intellectual predecessors: Cassiodorus’ De anima and its source, Augustine’s De quantitate animae.467 Augustine, De quantitate animae 16.28468 Proficiendo enim ad uirtutem peruenit … quicquid anima cum aetate proficit, composque rationis fit, non mihi uidetur fieri maior, sed melior. 

Cassiodorus, De anima 7469 Paruulis enim ratio crescit longa meditatione, non anima.

For in making progress toward Reason, in fact, grows in virtue, it arrives … whichever children with long practice, not soul makes progress with age, the soul. and becomes master of reason, does not seem to me to become larger, but better .

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 125–6 Paruulis enim ratio crescit non anima, et proficiendo ad uirtutem non maior fit sed melior, nec corporalem recipit quantitatem. Reason, in fact, grows in children not the soul, and in making progress toward virtue, it does not become larger but better, nor does it take on physical size.

Ælfric may make this interjection, Godden astutely suggests, to forestall a concern that the soul may vary according to one’s intellect, with which he has partly associated the soul in lines 116–19. ‘This may be one reason’, he further observes, why Ælfric ‘seems to shun an actual identification of soul with mind’.470 In the same vein, Ælfric clarifies that the soul does not ‘grow’ like bodies do: rather, it becomes better (melior) as it progresses in virtue. For a comparison of lines 119–25 with analogous passages in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 243–60. Lines 127–32 [Habet igitur anima … aliquid relatiue dicitur]: This passage follows

SH I.8, regarding John 16.2 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 358, line 27) and in Nisi granum frumenti [Irvine 4], regarding John 12.24 (Irvine, Homilies, p. 111, line 284). 467 ‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, p. 282; and ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1’. For Ælfric’s possible use of Cassiodorus’ De anima [3.1–2] in CH I.1, see Godden, Commentary, p. 10. 468 CSEL 89, p. 165, lines 14–15 and 17–19. 469 CCSL 96, p. 550, lines 57–8. 470 ‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, p. 282. 466 In

87

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Alcuin’s De animae ratione 4 [PL 6]471 verbatim, save for one sentence that Ælfric simplifies: where Alcuin states, ‘Nec tres mentes, sed una mens: consequenter utique, nec tres substantiae sunt, sed una substantia’ (‘They are not three minds, but one mind: consequently, they are certainly not three substances, but one substance’), Ælfric says simply, ‘Nec tres substantiae sed una’ (‘They are not three substances but one’ [line 130]). For a comparison of lines 127–32 with LS I.1 and AH I.2, see notes to the latter, lines 261–70. Lines 132–5 [Nam in his … singulis singula capiuntur]: See notes to AH I.2, lines 271–4. Lines 136–53 [Consideremus autem miram … semper presentia habet]: From his complex discussion of the parts and whole of the soul, Alcuin turns to the perhaps more accessible topics of thought and memory. Alcuin, De animae ratione 4 [PL 7]472

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 136–42

Nunc autem consideremus miram uelocitatem animae in formandis rebus quae percipit per carnales sensus, a quibus, quasi per quosdam nuntios, quidquid rerum sensibilium cognitarum uel incognitarum percipit, mox in seipsa earum ineffabili celeritate format figuras informatasque in suae thesauro memoriae recondit. Sicut enim qui Romam uidit, Romam enim fingit in animo suo et format qualis sit. Et dum nomen audierit uel rememorat Romae, statim recurrit animus illius ad memoriam, ubi conditam habet formam illius, et ibi recognoscit eam, ubi recondidit illam. Et adhuc mirabilius est quod incognitarum rerum si lectae uel auditae erunt in auribus animae, statim format figuram ignotae rei.

Consideremus autem miram uelocitatem animae in formandis rebus quae percipit per carnales sensus, a quibus, quasi per quosdam nuntios, quicquid rerum uisibilium cognitarum uel incognitarum percipit, mox in seipsa earum ineffabili celeritate format figuras formatasque in suo thesauro memoriae recondit. Sicut enim qui Romam quondam uidit, iterum cum nomen audierit, Romam fingit in animo suo et format qualis sit. Et adhuc mirabilius est quod incognitae res si lectae uel auditae erunt in auribus animae, statim format figuram ignotae rei.

But now let us consider the amazing speed of the soul in the forming of things that it perceives through the bodily senses, by which – as if through certain messengers – it perceives something about visible things, known and unknown, then forms images of them within itself with indescribable speed and stores up the formed images in the storehouse of its memory. Just like one who has seen Rome: for he fashions Rome in his mind and forms it as it is. And while he hears or recalls the name of Rome, immediately his mind turns to the memory, where he has the likeness of Rome stored, and there, where he has stored it, he calls [Rome] to mind. And it is yet more remarkable that if unknown things have been read or heard through the ears of the soul, it immediately forms an image of the unfamiliar thing.

But let us consider the amazing speed of the soul in the forming of things that it perceives through the bodily senses, by which – as if through certain messengers – it perceives something about visible things, known and unknown, then forms images of them within itself with indescribable speed and stores up the formed images in its storehouse of memory. Just like one who once saw Rome: when he hears the name again, he fashions Rome in his mind and forms it as it is. And it is yet more remarkable that if unknown things have been read or heard through the ears of the soul, it immediately forms an image of the unfamiliar thing.

471 Curry, 472 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 47; PL 101.641C–641D. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 48; PL 101.642A–642B.

88

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Alcuin here reflects on the soul’s remarkable ability to perceive aspects of the world around it, whether previously known or not, to form images (figuras) or likenesses (formae) of the perceived things, to recreate them mentally from memory, and to imagine that which it has not seen. Broken down, the process is striking, and Ælfric preserves it largely intact. He does, however, simplify Alcuin’s central example somewhat, clarifying its temporal progression (‘when [cum] one who once [quondam] saw Rome hears the name again [iterum]’) and cutting its step-by-step description of remembering. Alcuin gives two additional examples of what one might imagine: Jerusalem and Abraham.473 The subjects are not ones from which Ælfric shies away elsewhere – he mentions Jerusalem nearly 100 times in his writings and Abram/Abraham over 160 – but for his present purposes, all he keeps from this section is the single statement ‘Ex notis enim speciebus fingit ignota’ (‘In fact, from familiar forms it constructs unfamiliar ones’ [line 142]). He then jumps forward a few sentences to steal another line – ‘Ex qua uelocitate animae, quo in se sic omnia fingit audita, aut uisa, aut sensa, aut odorata, aut gustata, iterum inuenta recognoscit’ (‘On account of the soul’s speed, by which it thus conceives in itself everything heard or seen or felt or smelled or tasted, it recognizes the discoveries again’ [lines 142–4])474 – which he completes with a phrase from the passage he had skipped: ‘siue curando siue non curando’ (‘whether looking or not looking for them’ [line 144]).475 Having touched on imagination, then (the construction of the unknown from the known), Ælfric turns back to memory, the intentional or involuntary reconstruction of the known. Continuing on in De animae ratione, Alcuin and Ælfric then turn to dreams: Alcuin, De animae ratione 4 [PL 8]476

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 144–7

Nec etiam aliquis potest satis admirari, quod sensus ille uiuus atque coelestis qui mens uel animus nuncupatur tantae mobilitatis est, ut ne tum quidem, cum sopitus est, conquiescat. Tantae celeritatis ut uno temporis puncto caelum collustret si uelit. Maria peruolet, terras et urbes peragret, omnia denique, quae libuerit, quamuis longe lateque submota sint, in conspectu sibi ipse cogitando constituat.

Et tante mobilitatis est ut nec cum sopita est conquiescat. Tantae celeritatis ut uno temporis puncto cælum conlustret si uelit. Maria peruolat, terras et urbes peragret, omnia in conspectu sibi cogitando constituens.

forte Ierusalem … aedificia ciuitatibus consueta’ (De animae ratione 4 [PL 7] [Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 49; PL 101.642B]). 474 De animae ratione 4 [PL 8] (Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 50; PL 101.642C). 475 De animae ratione 4 [PL 7] (Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 50; PL 101.642C). Jones points to this passage as an example of ‘minor lapses in [AH I.1’s author’s] ability to construe and recast Alcuin’s language, with unsatisfying results’. Specifically, speaking of ‘Ex qua uelocitate … siue non curando’ [AH I.1, lines 142–4], Jones observes: ‘In Alcuin’s original the main clause follows recognoscit: “… mira Dei potentia et naturae efficacia utcunque cognosci poterit” … (AH I.1) is not wholly ungrammatical, but the lack of an expressed subject and the wrenching of recognoscit from its original function as a parallel verb in the subordinate clause (quo in se … fingit … recognoscit) complicate rather than clarify the sense. [AH I.1’s author] appears to have chopped off the end of this sentence in order to avoid Alcuin’s comparison between the human mind and God’s ubiquitous intelligence. When the point is allowed in shortly hereafter [lines 150–3] [AH I.1’s author] focuses only on the contrast between human and divine intellect, not their analogical similarities’ (‘Medieval Latin Author’, p. 49 and n. 190). 476 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 51; PL 101.642D–643A. 473 ‘Sicut

89

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Nor also can one sufficiently appreciate that the living and heavenly faculty which is called mind or intellect is so active that not even then does it rest, when it has been overcome with sleep. It is so fast that in an instant it may survey heaven if it wishes. It may wing its way across the seas, traverse countries and cities, and then form in its sight everything that pleases it, however far and wide removed they might be, by thinking.

And it is so active that it does not rest when it has been overcome with sleep. It is so fast that in an instant it may survey heaven if it wishes. It may wing its way across the seas, traverse countries and cities, forming everything in its sight by thinking.

Ælfric condenses the passage in part by eliminating phrases: Alcuin’s call to wonder (‘Nec etiam aliquis potest satis admirari …’ [‘No one can sufficiently appreciate …’]), the theologically-complicated description of the mind as coelestis (‘heavenly’), and the sweeping but redundant imagery of ‘[omnia] quamuis longe lateque submota sint’ (‘[all things] however far and wide removed they might be’), for example. Other phrases he simplifies, rendering for instance ne tum quidem cum (‘not even then, when’) as nec cum (‘not when’). He changes sopitus (‘overcome with sleep’) from masculine to feminine so that it might modify anima (‘the soul’ [line 143]) rather than animus (‘the intellect’), as in Alcuin’s original. He also replaces a present subjunctive (constituat [‘it may form’]) with a participle (constituens [‘forming’]), using the last verb not as one in a series (‘it may wing / traverse / form’), but as an encompassing explanation of means (‘by forming everything [through thought], it may wing / traverse’). Even with such modifications, however, the resulting text clearly reflects its source. Ælfric next backtracks a few sentences to ones he had skipped, in order to consider the mind’s limitations. Alcuin, De animae ratione 4 [PL 8]477

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 147–50

Dum de Ierusalem cogito, non eo momento de Roma possum cogitare. Vel cum de qualibet una recogito, non possum eo momento de pluribus cogitare, sed hoc unum mihi tunc praesens est in anima, quod tunc cogito, donec uel citius, uel tardius haec cogitatio recedat, et alia superueniat.

Sed cum de Roma cogitat, non eo momento de Hierusalem potest cogitare. Vel cum de qualibet una re meditatur, non potest eo momento de pluribus meditari, sed hoc unum illi tunc presens est donec uel citius uel tardius haec cogitatio recedat et alia superueniat.

While I think about Jerusalem, I cannot think about Rome at that moment. Or, while I think about one thing as it pleases [me], I cannot at that moment think about many things, but that one thing is then present to me in my mind, about which I then think, until that thought sooner or later recedes and another arrives.

But when it thinks about Rome, it cannot think about Jerusalem at that moment. Or, while it thinks about one thing as it pleases, it cannot at that moment think about many things, but that one thing is then present to it until that thought sooner or later recedes and another arrives.

Because Ælfric had omitted Alcuin’s previous discussion of Jerusalem, the last city mentioned in AH I.1 is Rome; Ælfric thus switches the two cities that the passage might flow smoothly from what comes before. Keeping anima (‘the soul’) as the subject, moreover, he shifts Alcuin’s verbs from the first person to the third. He also replaces (re)cogitare with meditare (both meaning ‘to think [over]’ or ‘consider’), perhaps to avoid using cogitare or cogitatio four times in quick succession. Furthermore, he omits 477 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 50; PL 101.642D.

90

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime a phrase (in anima, quod tunc cogito [‘in my mind, about which I then think’]) which he presumably finds redundant. Even so, the result still markedly resembles the original. Ælfric closes this part of the homily by quoting nearly verbatim the next two sentences from Alcuin.478 Unlike humans, he says, God’s omniscience means that present, past, and future things are simultaneously in God’s view [lines 150–3] – language reminiscent of Boethius’ depiction of divine foreknowledge and its implications for human will.479 For a comparison of lines 136–53 with analogous passages in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 275–96. Lines 154–60 [Anima namque corporis … perdere not potuit]: Moving slightly forward in De animae ratione, Alcuin considers the source of life for the body and soul, and the corresponding reason for their death. Alcuin, De animae ratione 5 [PL 9]480

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 154–6

Sicut corporis uita anima est, ita animae uita Deus est. Dum anima deserit corpus, moritur corpus, et mortuum recte dicitur quia insensibile est; est tamen corpus – corruptio quaedam ex carnis natura – quamuis non uiuificetur ab anima. Animae uero mors est, dum eam Deus deserit dono suae gratiae, ob magnitudinem scelerum, moritur meliore sui parte …

Anima namque corporis uita est, anime uero uita Deus est. Dum anima corpus deserit, moritur . Animae uero mors est dum eam Deus deserit dono suae gratiae, et ob magnitudinem scelerum moritur meliore sui parte …

Just as the soul is the life of the body, so the life of the soul is God. When the soul leaves the body, the body dies. It is rightly said to be dead because it cannot perceive with the senses; nevertheless, it is still a body – a certain corruption of the nature of flesh – although it is not made alive by the soul. But the death of the soul occurs when God withdraws from it with the gift of his grace, and it dies in its better part because of a magnitude of sins …

Now the soul is the life of the body, but the life of the soul is God. When the soul leaves the body, it dies . But the death of the soul occurs when God withdraws from it with the gift of his grace, and it dies in its better part because of a magnitude of sins …

Alcuin, De animae ratione 5 [PL 9]481

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 156

Semiuiua erit anima …

… et erit semiuiua.

The soul will be half-dead …

… and will be half-dead.

Ælfric rewords his opening sentence, creating linguistic parallelism with the reduplication of anima … est. He may also introduce a measure of conceptual contrast with namque … uero (‘now … but in truth’) in keeping with the distinction he goes on to draw between the death of the body and soul: while the former occurs ‘naturally’ as a result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 2.17 and Romans 5.12), the latter is the result of personal sinful choices Dei omnipotentis … semper praesentia habet’ (De animae ratione 4 [PL 8] [Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 50–1; PL 101.642D]). Ælfric transitions into the passage using at (‘but’) rather than Alcuin’s nam (‘for’), and speaks only of quae sunt (‘things that are’ [line 152]) rather than omnia quae sunt (‘all things that are’) – the latter reading being restored by LS I.1 and AH I.2, as Leinbaugh notes (see notes to AH I.2, lines 275–96). 479 See Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 90–1 and 115–20. 480 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 52; PL 101.643B. 481 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 53; PL 101.643C.

478 ‘Nam

91

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime that lead God to withdraw his grace.482 Most prominent, however, is Ælfric’s excision of Alcuin’s elaboration of physical demise: cutting to the chase, he says simply moritur (‘it dies’). The last phrase, drawn from later in the passage, is addressed below. At this point, Ælfric skips ahead somewhat in De animae ratione 5 [PL 9]483 to reproduce a line that harkens back to his discussion of the tripartite nature of the soul [lines 116–19] and the difference between humans and beasts [lines 57–61]: ‘Et hoc erit si concupiscentia uel ira plus dominabitur in homine quam ratio, in qua sola precellit animantibus’ (‘And [the soul’s death] will occur if desire or anger has more dominion in a person than reason, the only aspect in which he is superior to animals’ [lines 156–8]). He then returns to where he left off in De animae ratione 5 [PL 9]484 to affirm that God did not make humans sinful and mortal from the beginning: rather, he says, ‘Duabus uero dignitatibus a Creatore anima in sua natura glorificata est, id est aeternitate et beatitudine’ (‘the soul in truth was glorified in its nature by the Creator with two marks of worth, that is, with immortality and blessedness’ [lines 158–9]). Jumping back and forward in De animae ratione 5 again, Ælfric now combines phrases to create a new sentence regarding the Fall: Alcuin, De animae ratione 5 [PL 9]485 Sciendum est certissime, animam, si in ea nobilitate permansisset qua condita est a Creatore, omnimodis immortalem esse, sicut sanctorum animae sunt; sed dum libero arbitrio spiritu instigante maligno deprauata est, partim mortalis ex immortali facta est, sed non tota.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 159–60 Sed cum libero arbitrio maligno spiritu instigante deprauata est …

We must decidedly understand that the soul, if But since it was corrupted by free will at the it had remained in that noble state in which it urging of the malign spirit … was made by the Creator, would be immortal in every way, just as the souls of the saints are. But since it was corrupted by free will at the urging of the malign spirit, it has become mortal instead of immortal – in part, but not entirely. Alcuin, De animae ratione 5 [PL 9]486

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 160

Semiuiua erit anima si propter uitia et iniquitates beatitudinem uisionis et habitationis Dei perdiderit. Ad quam creata est, aeternitatem perdere non potest.

… beatitudinem perdidit; aeternitatem perdere non potuit.

The soul will be half-dead if because of its vices and sins it has lost the blessedness of the vision and dwelling of God. It cannot lose the immortality into which it was created.

… it lost its blessedness; it was not able to lose its immortality.

Ælfric’s understanding of grace, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 169, 171, 173, 175–85, 188–91, 194–5, 197–200, and 202–12. 483 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 53; PL 101.643D. 484 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 52; PL 101.643B. 485 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 52; PL 101.643A–643B. 486 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 53; PL 101.643C–643D. 482 On

92

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Ælfric greatly condenses Alcuin’s explanation of semiuiua (‘half-dead’). Without this context, Ælfric’s previous, passing use of the term [line 149] may appear to refer to sinners who are still alive: while ambulatory, they have died meliore parte (‘in [their] better part’ [line 156]). In the composite sentence here, however, Ælfric explains that though he has said that human souls, like angels, do not come to an end [lines 37–8], sin causes souls to lose the beatitudo (‘blessedness’) with which they were created [lines 159–60]. For Alcuin, this means that unredeemed sinners ‘perish’ in that they can no longer see God (cf. Exodus 33.20 and 1 John 3.6) or dwell with him, whether in Eden in the past (Genesis 3.23–4) or heaven in the future (Matthew 25.41–6 and Revelation 20.15). Saints, Alcuin adds, do not perish in this fashion – a detail Ælfric declines to include, perhaps because it conflicts with Scripture regarding humans’ universal state of sin (Psalms 14.3 [Vulgate 13.3] and Romans 3.23). Lines 160–7 [Cuius pulchritudo uirtus … in quantum ualeat]: Ælfric now jumps forward to steal a line from De animae ratione 7 before stitching together snippets from De animae ratione 2 and 3 to discuss various virtues by which the soul is adorned. Alcuin, De animae ratione 7 [PL 12]487 Hoc itaque absque dubitatione sciendum est, quod animae pulchritudo uirtus est, et eius deformitas uitium.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 160–1 Cuius pulchritudo uirtus est et eius deformitas uitium.

This therefore must be known without doubt, [The soul’s] beauty is virtue and its deformity that the soul’s beauty is virtue, and its deformity [is] sin. [is] sin. Alcuin, De animae ratione 2 [PL 3–4]488

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 161–5

[1] Cuius excellentiores uirtutes quatuor esse manifestum est: id est, prudentia, qua489 [2] agenda uel non agenda discernit; et iustitia, qua Deus colitur et amatur et recte uiuitur inter consocias animas; temperantia, quae concupiscentiam uel iram gubernat, ne definitos honestatis terminos transgrediantur; fortitudo, qua [3] aduersa huius uitae quaecunque contingant constanti animo tolerat. Et haec quattuor, si caritate perfecta fiunt in anima efficiunt eam Deo proximam. Quia nihil aliud est optimum hominis cui haerere beatissimum sit nisi Deus cui haerere certe non ualemus nisi dilectione. [4] Proinde hae quattuor uirtutes uno caritatis diademate ornantur. Quae est uera sapientia nisi [5] Deum intellegere amandum? Quae iustitia nisi eum colere a quo est et quicquid habet boni ab eo habet? Quid temperantia nisi integrum se praebeat in perfectione uitae ei quem amat? Quid fortitudo nisi [6] pro amore Dei fortiter omnia tolerare aduersa?

[1] Cuius excellentiores uirtutes quattuor esse manifestum est: id est, prudentia, quae [5] Deum intellegit amandum et [2] agenda uel non agenda discernit; iustitia, qua Deus colitur et amatur et recte uiuitur ; temperantia, qua concupiscentiam uel iram gubernat ; fortitudo, qua [6] pro Dei amore fortiter omnia [3] aduersa huius uitae constanti animo tolerat. [4] Et hae quattuor uirtutes uno caritatis diademate ornantur.

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 56; PL 101.644D. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 42–3; PL 101.640A–640B. 489 Quae being an attested variant (PL 101.640A). 487 Curry, 488 Curry,

93

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime [1] It is evident that it has four superior virtues: that is, discretion, by which [2] one discerns what ought to be done and not done; and righteousness, by which God is worshipped and loved and rightly lived for among fellow souls; temperance, which governs desire and anger, lest they should go beyond the set limits of rectitude; fortitude, by which [3] one endures whatever adversities of this life may arrive with a stable mind. And these four virtues, if they are perfected by love in the soul, bring it very close to God. For there is nothing else that is best for humans [than God], to whom it is most blessed to cling, [which] certainly we cannot do without love. Therefore, these four virtues are adorned with the one crown of love. What is true wisdom but [4] to understand that God must be loved? What is righteousness, but to worship him by whom one exists and from whom one has whatever good one possesses? What is temperance, but to offer oneself whole in perfection of life to him whom one loves? What is fortitude, but [5] for the love of God to endure all adversity bravely?

[1] It is evident that it has four superior virtues: that is, discretion, which [4] understands God is to be loved and [2] discerns what ought to be done and not done; righteousness, by which God is worshipped and loved and rightly lived for ; temperance, by which [the soul] governs desire and anger ; fortitude, by which [5] for the love of God it bravely endures all [3] the adversity of this life with a stable mind.

Alcuin, De animae ratione 3 [PL 5]490

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 165–7

Quia haec est animae summa beatitudo: eum diligere a quo est, et socias suae beatitudinis diligere animas, et illis prodesse uel carnis officio, uel mentis beneficio, ut bona illis optet, et quantum ualeat, faciat.

Haec est enim animae summa beatitudo: eum diligere a quo est, et socias suae beatitudinis diligere animas, et illis prodesse in quantum ualeat .

Because this is the soul’s greatest blessedness: to love him by whom it exists, and to love the souls sharing in its blessedness, and to do good to them either with service to the body or aid to the mind, so that it wishes good things for them and, as far as it is able, does [them].

For this is the soul’s greatest blessedness: to love him by whom it exists, and to love the souls sharing in its blessedness, and to do good to them in so far as it is able .

Where Alcuin treats each virtue twice, first setting it forth and then expounding on the concept, Ælfric weaves phrases from both sections into a succinct new whole. Other than cutting and rearranging, the changes he makes are actually slight. He switches quae (‘which’) and qua (‘by which’) – assuming these are not cases of textual corruption – so that the virtue serves as the subject (e.g., prudentia, quae intellegit [‘discretion, which understands’]) rather than the means (e.g., prudentia, qua discernit [‘discretion, by which the soul [or “one”] understands’]), or vice versa. He changes the infinitive intellegere (‘to understand’) to a present indicative (intellegit) to match the parallel verb (discernit). He inverts the order of two words (amore [‘love’] and Dei [‘of God’]). He prefers to say in quantum (‘in so far as’) rather than simply quantum (‘as far as’). The effect, however, is to streamline Alcuin’s double discussion of the four virtues 490 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 46; PL 101.641C.

94

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime and their individual relationship to love, neatly listing the former and setting the latter above them all. For the relationship of these passages to the Old English Boethius, LS I.1, and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 314–30. Lines 167–76 [Hoc modo anima … quae amanda sunt]: Ælfric follows this list of virtues that adorn the soul with what Lockett calls ‘a thorough and pithy definition of the anima’ drawn from De animae ratione 6.491 While this definition may not be well integrated with the passage before, supplying additional information about the soul rather than connecting directly to the aforementioned virtues, Ælfric does connect the definition with love, which Alcuin has called the crown of these virtues (De animae ratione 2 above). Ælfric begins with the start of the section, making but minor changes to his source material. Alcuin, De animae ratione 6 [PL 10]492

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 167–74

Hoc modo anima definiri potest iuxta suae proprietatem naturae. Anima seu animus est spiritus intellectualis, rationalis, semper in motu, semper uiuens, bonae malaeque uoluntatis capax; secundum benignitatem Creatoris libero arbitrio nobilitatus, sua uoluntate uitiatus, Dei gratia liberatus in quibus Deus ipse uoluit; ad regendum carnis motus creatus, inuisibilis, incorporalis, sine pondere, sine colore, circumscriptus, in singulis suae carnis membris totus; in quo est imago Conditoris spiritaliter primitiua creatione impressa, sicut superius ostendimus. Quamuis sit misera dum a Conditore in seipsam delabitur, tamen aeternitatem imaginemque dignitatis suae perdere non poterit, non habens in se potestatem exeundi de carne, et redeundi iterum in eam, sed eius arbitrio qui fecit eam carnique immisit.

Hoc modo anima definiri potest iuxta suae proprietatem naturae. Anima est spiritus intellectualis, rationalis, semper in mot,493 semper uiuens, bonae maleque uoluntatis capax, sed Domini benignitate Creatoris libero arbitrio nobilitata, sua uoluntate uitiata, Dei gratia liberata in quibus ipse Dominus uoluit, ad regendum motus carnis creata, inuisibilis, incorporalis, sine pondere, sine colore, circumscripta in singulis suae carnis membris tota in qua est imago Conditoris spiritaliter inpressa, non habens in se potestatem exeundi de carne et redeundi iterum in eam sed eius arbitrio qui fecit eam carnique inmisit.

Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 287. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 54; PL 101.643D–644A. 493 Y4 reads inmota (‘immovable’ or ‘motionless’), a sense in direct contrast to Alcuin’s semper in motu (‘always in motion’). Leinbaugh points to the phrase, which Ælfric does not translate in LS I.1 or AH I.2, as evidence that AH I.1 is not by Ælfric; rather, in his vernacular texts, Ælfric ‘studiously avoids the errors of (AH I.1) not through his fidelity to the original source in Alcuin but rather through what appears to be shrewd improvisation stimulated by the defects in [Y4]’ (‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, p. 209; see also ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 42–3). As Leinbaugh himself notes, however, the preserved reading could be simply due to scribal error: ‘A scribe or Ælfric himself could easily have slipped in erroneously writing a final a in place of u (or writing a poorly formed u that was taken as an a)’ (‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, p. 209; ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 42). 491 Lockett, 492 Curry,

95

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime In this way the soul can be defined according to the special character of its nature. The soul or intellect is a comprehending spirit, rational, always active, always alive, capable of good and evil intention; according to the kindness of the Creator, ennobled with free will, corrupted by its own will; freed by God’s grace in those whom God himself has willed it, created to govern the impulses of the flesh, invisible, incorporeal, without weight, without color, completely enclosed in each member of its body in which the image of the Creator has been spiritually imprinted in the first creation, just as we have shown above. However wretched it may be when it falls from the Creator into itself, nevertheless it cannot lose the eternity and image of its worth, having in itself no power of leaving the flesh and returning to it again except by the will of him who made it and sent it into the flesh.

In this way the soul can be defined according to the special character of its nature. The soul is a comprehending spirit, rational, always active, always alive, capable of good and evil intention, but by the kindness of the Lord, the Creator, ennobled with free will, corrupted by its own will, freed by God’s grace in those whom the Lord himself has willed it, created to govern the impulses of the flesh, invisible, incorporeal, without weight, without color, completely enclosed in each member of its body in which the image of the Creator has been spiritually imprinted, having in itself no power of leaving the flesh and returning to it again except by the will of him who made it and sent it into the flesh.

Behind certain changes, Ælfric’s rationale may be glimpsed. He omits, for example, Alcuin’s conflation of anima (‘soul’) and animus (‘intellect’), and changes seven masculine endings that had agreed with the latter (nobilitatus, uitiatus, liberatus, and so on) so as to correspond to the former. As Ælfric will soon be distinguishing anima and animus as different ‘functions’ of the soul [lines 177–8], the alterations work to prevent confusion later. Ælfric also characteristically shortens the passage, cutting material that he may have found unnecessary (such as Alcuin’s internal reference sicut superius ostendimus [‘as we have shown above’]), confusing and problematic (the Neoplatonic dum a Conditore in seipsam delabitur [‘when it falls from the Creator into itself’]), or redundant (aeternitatem imaginemque dignitatis suae [‘the eternity and image of its worth’], echoing the previously-discussed dignitati [‘marks of worth’] of the soul, namely aeternitas et beatitudo [‘immortality and blessedness’, line 159]). Other changes, however, are more opaque, perhaps reflecting stylistic choices (such as Ælfric’s decision to replace secundum [‘according to’] and Deus [‘God’] with reduplicated forms of Dominus [‘Lord’]) or textual corruption (such as the inversion of D[e]us ipse [‘God himself’] and carnis motus [‘impulses of the flesh’]). Whatever Ælfric’s motives, the results still clearly show their textual indebtedness to their source. Preserving words, however, is not necessarily the same as preserving meaning. Just as a pressed flower only hints at the living environment that produced it, so this extract likely lacks Alcuin’s conscious engagement as a Christian with Platonic notions of the soul. Lockett describes the original thus: This definition begins with characteristics that the Platonic tradition ascribed to the soul before the Christian era: intellect and reason, ceaseless motion, and immortality. Alcuin then carefully adds Christian tenets that insulate him from any heterodoxy: the soul, being free to choose good or evil, is responsible for its own corruption and is utterly dependent on God for its salvation … Alcuin also carefully specifies that the soul is circumscribed but nonetheless whole in every part of the body. In other words,

96

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime the soul is neither diffused throughout the universe as God is or as a world-soul would be, nor is it distributed throughout a space in such a way that it can be divided.494

While for Alcuin De animae ratione furnishes terms that allow him subtly to navigate between the theologically biblical and the philosophically heterodox, for Ælfric it may simply have offered authoritative language to describe intangible complexities. Setting aside the extent to which Ælfric himself understood the ideological tensions between Christianity and Neoplatonism, as mediated for example by the Old English Boethius or De animae ratione – and Jones’ assessment suggests that Ælfric struggled at points with the latter495 – Ælfric selected material with a view to what his audience could comprehend, particularly in the vernacular. In AH I.1, for example, Ælfric may preserve Alcuin’s statement that the soul is ‘circumscripta in singulis suae carnis membris tota’ (‘completely enclosed in every member of its body’ [line 172]). Alcuin, however, here seeks to differentiate ‘the individual soul from the neoplatonic world-soul and from the pneuma of the Stoic tradition’ – a concept, Lockett suggests, that ‘was not a meaningful philosophical distinction for Ælfric’s audience’.496 Ælfric thus uses the phrase simply to convey, as he puts it in LS I.1 and AH I.2, that the soul is ‘on alle limæ wuniende’ (‘dwelling in every limb’ [line 345]). ‘It would not be fair’, Lockett observes, ‘to say that Ælfric “dumbs down” the content of his source text for the sake of his audience, but he does choose his battles carefully’.497 If the extract from Alcuin does not engage the intellectual battles of the original, that does not mean that Ælfric was unaware of the contemporary resistance it might encounter. In describing the soul, for example, as ‘circumscripta in singulis suae carnis membris tota’ (‘completely enclosed [but] whole in each member of its body’), Ælfric ‘directly challenged the cardiocentric localization of the soul that was typical of the vernacular tradition’.498 Later in LS I.1, Lockett notes, Ælfric even confirms that cardiocentrism was current among his audience and that he regards cardiocentrism as erroneous. ‘Nis seo orþung þe we ut blawaþ and in ateoð oþþe ure sawul, ac is seo lyft þe ealle lichamlice þing on lybbað, butan fixum anum þe on flodum lybbað’ [‘Nor is the breath that we exhale and inhale our soul, but [our breath] is the air in which all bodily creatures live, save fish alone that live in water’], he observes, in a remark that has no parallel in Alcuin’s De ratione animae.499

Controversial or not, Ælfric is not content to let this definition of the soul stand awkwardly next to the list of virtues that precede it. Jumping ahead several sentences in De animae ratione 6, he draws on a comment about love that connects the passage to what Alcuin had called the crown of the virtues.

494 Anglo-Saxon

Psychologies, p. 288; see also p. 230. notes to AH I.2, lines 269–74, regarding AH I.1, lines 132–5. 496 Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 413. 497 Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 413. 498 Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 413. 499 Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 413 and n. 124, quoting Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 38, §22, lines 1–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, lines 214–16. 495 See

97

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Alcuin, De animae ratione 6 [PL 10]500

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 174–6

In quo est amor naturaliter, qui amor intellectu discernendus est et ratione ab illicitis delectationibus cohibendus ut ea amet quae amanda sunt.

In qua est amor naturaliter, qui amor intellectu discernendus est et ratione, ut inlicitas delectationes deuitet et ea amet quae amanda sunt.

Love is inherently in [the intellect], a love that must be determined [i.e., guided] by understanding and restrained by reason from illicit pleasures so that it may love those things that ought to be loved.

Love is inherently in [the soul], a love that must be determined [i.e., guided] by understanding and reason so that it may avoid illicit pleasures and love those things that ought to be loved.

The linguistic changes Ælfric makes – altering qua (‘[in] which’) to correspond to anima (‘soul’) rather than animus (‘intellect’), replacing the second gerundive (cohibendus [est] [‘must be restrained’]) with a subjunctive (deuitet [‘may avoid’]), moving ut (‘so that’) forward to govern deuitet as well as amet (‘may love’) – simplify the point: where Alcuin speaks of understanding ‘guiding’ and reason ‘restraining’ love – here evocative of the concupiscentia (‘desire’) discussed in lines 110–15 and 149–50 – Ælfric simply says that understanding and reason must work together. In doing so, he echoes his earlier point that God gave humans reason (ratio), judgment (consilio), and understanding (intellegentia) in order to direct their desire aright [line 119]. For a detailed comparison of lines 154–76 with analogous passages in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 297–46. Lines 177–88 [Secundum officium operis … suae carnis alicubi]: At this point, Alcuin and Ælfric introduce a new movement in their treatment of the soul, speaking of its names and functions.501 The passage, however, actually follows directly after the lines above: while our edition marks the transition with a new paragraph, and the Patrologia Latina has a new section number, in Curry’s edition, the text continues without a break as part of De animae ratione 6 [PL 11].502 The first four sentences or so Ælfric quotes verbatim, save for the opening atque (‘and’) and one phrase (sicut in nominibus [‘as they are in name’]503) which Leinbaugh suggests Y4 might simply lack through scribal error.504 The soul has various names, Ælfric says, depending on the function about which one speaks, such as its power to contemplate, discern, consent, and so on [lines 177–80].505 These are aspects of a single, unitary entity, however [line 180], rather than different substances or (as Lockett puts it regarding the corresponding passage in LS I.1) ‘the impersonal and flaccid creature

500 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 54; PL 101.644B. notes that Alcuin adapts the list of names from Isidore (Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 286

501 Lockett

n. 15).

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 55; PL 101.644B–644C. here explains that ‘spirit’, ‘intellect’, ‘mind’, and so on are parts of the same entity, the soul, not different in substance ‘as they are [different] in name’ (Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 56; PL 101.644C). 504 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 44. 505 This list of names and functions Alcuin draws from Isidore’s De differentiis uerborum and Etymologiae (Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 286 n. 15; see also p. 209 and Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, apparatus to pp. 55–6). 502 Curry,

503 Alcuin

98

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime that the Old English poets and anonymous homilists envisioned inhabiting the body’.506 Spirits (spiriti) and souls (animae), on the other hand, are related, but different: each soul is a spirit [in keeping with lines 168–9], yet not every spirit is a soul [lines 181–2] – an assertion, present in LS I.1 but dropped from AH I.2, that raises the question of what spirits (angels?) are not souls. And Paul ‘astonishingly’ (mirabiliter) distinguishes between the spirit and mind in 1 Corinthians 14.15, where he contrasts those who ‘sing in the spirit’ – explaining hidden things without understanding them – with those who ‘sing in the mind’, comprehending what they utter [lines 182–5]. The passage which Alcuin quotes is not one apparently found in Old English aside from the passages Ælfric translates from AH I.1. Paul’s concern in the chapter in question regards spiritual gifts in the Church. Those who speak in tongues, he says, may well praise God in spirit; unless they interpret what they say, however, they do not edify their fellow believers. He urges them, therefore, to pray and sing with spirit and mind alike.

1 Corinthians 14.15

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 183

Quid ergo est? Orabo ‘Psallam spiritu; spiritu orabo et mente; psallam et mente’. psallam spiritu psallam et mente. What then? I will pray with the spirit; I will pray also with the mind. I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the mind.

‘I will sing in the spirit; I will also sing in the mind’.

LS I.1507

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 359–60

Psallam spiritu psallam et mente, þæt is on ænglisc, Ic singe mid gaste, and ic singe mid mode.

Psallam spiritu et psallam mente, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Ic singe mid gast, and Ic singe mid mode’.

I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the mind. That is in English, ‘I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind’.

I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the mind. That is in English, ‘I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind’.

At this point, however, Ælfric jumps forward and then back in De animae ratione in a way that again divides scholars regarding the question of authorship. Alcuin, De animae ratione 7 [PL 12]508

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 185

Regit enim corpus per quinque sensus, quae horum Regit enim anima corpus per quinque nihil est. sensus … For [the soul] governs the body through the five senses, but is not one of them.

For the soul governs the body through the five senses …

506 Anglo-Saxon 507 Clayton

Psychologies, p. 417. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 36, §19, lines 12–13; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, lines

190–2. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 57; PL 101.644D.

508 Curry,

99

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime Alcuin, De animae ratione 1 [PL 2]509

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 186–8

Proinde igitur, quia melior pars est hominis anima, decet eam dominam esse, et quasi de sede regalis culminis imperare quid, per quae, uel quando, uel ubi, uel quomodo faciat membra, et considerare diligenter quid cui510 membro imperet faciendum, quid cuique consentiat in desiderio suae naturae; et haec omnia rationabili mentis intuitu oportet eam discernere, ne quid indecens fiat in officio suae carnis alicubi.

quasi de sede regalis culminis; quam decet considerare diligenter, quasi dominam, quid cuique membro imperet faciendum, quid cuique consentiat in desiderio suae naturae, ne quid indecens fiat in officio suae carnis alicubi.

Hence, then, since the soul is the better part of a human being, it befits [the soul] to be a queen, and as if from a throne of regal eminence to command what, through what, or when, or where, or how it should do with the members [of the body], and to consider diligently what it should order each member to do, [and] what should suit each according to the desire of its own nature; and it behooves the soul to determine all these things by the consideration of the mind, lest something improper be done somewhere relative to its bodily function.

as if from a throne of regal eminence; it is fitting for it to consider diligently, like a queen, what it should order each member to do, what should suit each according to the desire of its own nature, lest something improper be done somewhere relative to its bodily function.

Remarkably, Ælfric uses De animae ratione 7 and 1 to interpret 1 Corinthians 14.15: while the apostle may distinguish between spirit and mind, both are still to be understood as aspects of the soul, which governs them like a queen. It is likely this regnal image that leads Ælfric to connect De animae ratione 7 and 1: as Jones observes, ‘Perhaps the verb regit [“governs”] recalled the earlier image to the compiler’s [i.e., Ælfric’s] mind, although such abrupt turns do occur frequently in (AH I.1) and, in many cases, cannot be explained by such obvious cues’.511 For Leinbaugh, however, ‘the slight clumsiness of the amended syntax (decet eam, formerly part of the main clause, is now subordinated in the relative quam decet, etc., and the nearest antecedent for the relative prounoun quam is no longer anima, but sedes)’512 does not show Ælfric’s characteristic linguistic facility or proclivity to massage his source material: ‘one might speculate that Ælfric would have exercised greater freedom in the handling of his source, amplifying some passages, condensing others, and using his own phrasing to ease the transitions between topics’.513 Jones, on the other hand, once again questions whether characteristics of Ælfric’s vernacular adaptations should be sought in works like AH I.1: ‘on what basis may we assume that Ælfric “would have exercised greater freedom” in rewriting a source in Latin? … Clearly, our notions of what we can expect from Ælfric as a Latin author have been deeply and not always appropriately influenced by his expansive and well polished methods of working in Old English’.514 Again, the occasionally rough-hewn nature of AH I.1 should not necessarily be taken as evidence against Ælfric’s authorship (see Introduction to lines 100–205 above as well as notes to AH I.2, lines 237–42 and 269–74).

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 41; PL 101.639C. lists quid cuique, the reading in AH I.1, as an attested variant (PL 101.639C). 511 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 50. 512 Again, using the description of Jones, ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 50. 513 Leinbaugh, ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 105. 514 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 51. 509 Curry,

510 Migne

100

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime For a detailed comparison of lines 177–88 with analogous passages in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (AH I.2), see notes to AH I.2, lines 347–75. Lines 189–203 [Sicut enim Deus … eam peruenire mereatur]: Having begun to describe how the soul governs the body [lines 185–8], Ælfric continues in this vein, stitching together selections from De animae ratione 7, 6, and 9. While the result forms a conclusion to the Sermo, the subjects covered are of such complexity that the wonder is not that Ælfric rewrites the passage to some extent in LS I.1 and In natali Domini (see notes to AH I.2, lines 413–24), but that he keeps so much of the material at all. The first three sentences in this passage Ælfric takes verbatim from De animae ratione 7 [PL 12]:515 souls are greater than bodies even as God is greater than his creatures; souls govern bodies by means of light and air; and light reveals the appearance of things to souls, which put them into categories and store them away in memory [lines 189–92]. One is hard pressed to know what Ælfric’s audience, however Latinate and educated, would have made of these lines, as they obscurely address the question of how incorporeal souls can interact with bodies. Lockett observes that Alcuin’s ‘rather vague account’, drawn from Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram, points to light and air as mediating agents, being ‘entities that the grammarians sometimes placed at intermediate positions along the spectrum between bodies and true incorporeals’; ultimately, however, ‘This explanation raises more questions than it answers’.516 Next, Ælfric takes another sentence verbatim from a bit earlier in De animae ratione 7 [PL 12]:517 sometimes, he notes, the soul may be so caught up in thought that it withdraws from and no longer processes input from the senses [lines 192–4]. Alcuin’s discussion of this state, called exstasis, ‘only compounds the difficulty’ of understanding the relationship of soul and body, according to Lockett: ‘Alcuin reminds the reader that the soul itself is not one of the five senses, as if this fact were enough to explain how the soul can detach itself from the recognition of sensory stimuli; however, the question of how the soul was connected to those stimuli in the first place has not yet been answered’.518 For his next sentence, again drawn verbatim from Alcuin, Ælfric jumps back to De animae ratione 6 [PL 10]:519 the soul, he says, variously suffers modo corporis doloribus (‘with bodily pains’) or is filled with joy, recalls things it knows or seeks to understand others, and fluctuates in its desires [lines 194–6]. Such a depiction of human alteration might seem straightforward enough, but the temporal setting of these spiritual vacillations is somewhat in doubt. Immediately before, Alcuin affirms that the soul must leave the body, face divine judgment, enter the place appropriate to its spiritual merit, and wait for the judgment of the last day (ultimi diei iudicium), where it will be reunited with its body.520 In describing the changing feelings, thoughts, and desires of the soul, does Alcuin still have this period between death and final judgment in mind? Perhaps not:

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 57; PL 101.645A. Psychologies, p. 294 and n. 34. 517 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 57; PL 101.644D. 518 Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, pp. 294–5. 519 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 55; PL 101.644B. 520 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 55; PL 101.644B. 515 Curry,

516 Anglo-Saxon

101

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime the reference to dolores corporis seems to refer to the time before death, when body and soul both feel the pains of fallen existence. If so, then perhaps Ælfric inserts the line as a contrast to exstasis: if at points the soul contemplates matters at some remove from the senses, at other times it is occupied with physical concerns. From this point, Ælfric draws seven sentences verbatim from De animae ratione 9 [PL 14]. The first, from the start of the section,521 moves from the various desires of the soul [lines 194–6] to the desire that is best: for the wisdom that leads one to worship and love God, adorning the soul with beauty as a result [lines 196–7]. The second, jumping several sentences ahead,522 further defines wisdom as knowing and doing what is right [line 198]. Two pairs of sentences, taken from earlier in the section,523 then quote or allude to two passages of Scripture to contrast ‘true wisdom’ – that is, the truth of the Gospel – with ‘Virgilian fictions’ [lines 198–202]. Finally, leapfrogging nearly to the end of the section,524 the last additionally defines ‘true wisdom’ as wholeheartedly loving the ‘true life’ – comprised both of righteousness on earth and blessedness in heaven – and making it known to others [lines 202–3]. In the process, as noted, Ælfric (following Alcuin) cites two verses from the Bible. The first is a quotation from the prologue to Sirach that he also uses on four other occasions.

Sirach 1.1

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 200

LS I.1525

Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), line 51

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 411–12 Omnis sapiencia a Domino Deo est, ‘Ylc wisdom is of Gode’.

Omnis sapientia a Deo Domino est.

‘Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est’.

Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est: ælc wisdom is of Gode.

Ælc wisdom is of Gode …

All wisdom is from the Lord God.

‘All wisdom is from the Lord God’.

All wisdom is from the Lord God: ‘All wisdom is from God’.

All wisdom is All wisdom is from God … from the Lord God, ‘All wisdom is from God’.

SH I.1526 … ælc wisdom is of Gode sylfum … … all wisdom is from God himself …

Ælfric’s renditions stay close to their source. AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2 invert Domino and Deo – an attested variant for the verse527 – and Ælfric omits ‘Lord’ from his vernacular translations, but otherwise the only departure is the addition of sylfum (‘himself’) in SH I.1, written a few years after In natali Domini.528 The second biblical citation is an allusion to Job. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 61; PL 101.646B. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 62; PL 101.646C–646D. 523 Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 61; PL 101.646B–646C. 524 That is, the prose part of De ratione animae 9: Curry, ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 64; PL 101.647A–647B. 525 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 40, §23, lines 8–9; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, lines 225–42. 526 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 210, line 334. 527 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1029, apparatus. 528 Ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010), or possibly between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 521 Curry, 522 Curry,

102

Commentary: Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime

Job 28.28

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 201–2

LS I.1529

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 416–17

‘Ecce timor Domini ipsa est sapientia et recedere a malo intellegentia’.

‘ Sapientia hominis est pietas, recedere autem a malo scientia’.

‘“þæs mannes wisdom is arfæstnys, and soð ingehyd þæt heo yfel forbuge”’.

‘“Þæs monnes wisdom is arfestnes, and soð ingehyd þæt he yfel forbuge”’.

‘“Behold, the fear of the Lord is wisdom itself, and to withdraw from evil is understanding”’.

‘“ The wisdom of humans is piety, but to depart from evil is knowledge”’.

‘“The wisdom of humans is piety, and to shun evil is true knowledge”’.

‘“The wisdom of humans is piety, and to shun evil is true knowledge”’.

This version of the verse seems to be unique to De animae ratione, though the phrase sapientia hominis est pietas (‘the wisdom of humans is piety’) also appears in the anonymous De spiritu et anima.530 In this formulation, pietas (‘piety’) would seem to correspond to timor Domini (‘the fear of the Lord’), while scientia (‘knowledge’) stands in for intellegentia (‘understanding’). Ælfric’s vernacular translations reproduce the Latin fairly closely, though they switch the order of ingehyd (‘knowledge’) and yfel forbuge (‘shun evil’), and add the intensifier soð (‘true’): arfæstnys (‘piety’) neatly translates pietas, as in Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), line 9; while ingehyd encompasses both senses of ‘understanding’ and ‘knowledge’. For another reference to timor Domini, see Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), line 10. Lines 203–5 [ad quam perducat … sine fine, Amen]: Alcuin’s discussion of uera sapientia (‘true wisdom’) and ueram uitam (‘the true life’) [line 202] sets Ælfric up nicely for his concluding formula: to this life, he prays, may Christ lead us – he who is the true Wisdom [lines 20 and 31–2], coeternal with the Father [lines 19 and 33], and without beginning [lines 38–40 and 51]. In these final lines, Ælfric thus recaps important themes from the first half of the homily, again tying together his discussions of the Trinity and the soul.

November 1005, as opposed to late in the period ca 998 × 1002 for In natali Domini (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 90 and 105). 529 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 40, §23, lines 12–13; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, lines 236–7. 530 De spiritu 11 (PL 40.786).

103

2

IN NATALI DOMINI In natali Domini is the fifth of six sermons Ælfric wrote for Christmas over the course of his career, and its treatment of the natures of the triune Creator and the human soul constitutes the fullest tandem treatment of these doctrines in his corpus.1 He had taken up these topics in Christmas sermons written at roughly five-year intervals beginning around 990 with his Latin Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (AH I.1), then in Old English in the Lives of Saints (LS I.1), and again in the vernacular in In natali Domini.2 The celebration of Christ’s incarnation provided Ælfric with an opportunity to discuss the nature of not only the Son but the Father and Holy Spirit as well, and their coeternality and consubstantiality lead him to consider the eternality of the soul. As he says in In natali Domini, the Incarnation set in motion Christ’s redemption of a great company of souls to dwell with him in heaven [lines 1–22], so it is essential that humans think on heavenly things. For Ælfric, a proper understanding of the Trinity [lines 23–109], the orders of created beings [lines 110–90], and the soul [lines 191–424] contributes to the proper exercise of one’s faculties. To that end, he teaches about the soul’s creation in God’s image [lines 191–230], its capacities (desire, anger, reason [lines 231–60]), Trinitarian likeness (it has memory, understanding, will [lines 261–313]), virtues (wisdom, righteousness, moderation, steadfastness [lines 314–38]), and work (as soul, spirit, understanding, mind [lines 347–75]). It is, above all, invested with dignity [lines 376–400], and heavenly wisdom its highest desire [lines 401–20]. Ultimately, Ælfric argues that the rational soul exhibits true wisdom when it desires salvation, the true life in heaven people earn by loving, honoring, and learning the things that are of God and pleasing to him. The sermon’s final soteriological turn serves as a reminder that for all its theological abstractness, the work is chiefly pastoral. On the day Christ came into the world, Ælfric asks the audience to consider their inevitable departure from it. Rather than a new composition, In natali Domini is a rewriting of the Christmas sermon Ælfric had composed for the Lives of Saints (LS I.1) between 993 and 998.3 1

2

3

The six, in chronological order, are: CH I.2 (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 190–7); Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime (AH I.1); CH II.1 (Godden, Second Series, pp. 3–11); LS 1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 22–40; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, pp. 10–24); In natali Domini (AH I.2); and SH I.1 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 196–216). He had expounded the Gospel story of the Nativity in the First Series (CH I.2), the prophecies of Christ in the Second (CH II.1), and would later treat the Gospel reading for Christmas Day (John 1.1–14) in a pericope homily he wrote around 1006–10, the final Christmas homily of his career (SH I.1). This paragraph relies heavily on Leinbaugh, ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, pp. 192–5. For the dating,

105

Introduction: In natali Domini It is unclear what prompted him to return to the homily between 998 and 1002.4 But when he did, he not only updated its prose to his by-then standard alliterative style;5 he also expanded it by composing new material, recycling old material from the Catholic Homilies, and returning to the main source of LS I.1, the Sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime edited in the previous chapter (AH I.1). Ælfric’s rewriting suggests that he returned to his earlier composition with a clearer eschatological through-line and a more distinct pastoral purpose in mind. The bulk of his expansions occur in the first half of In natali Domini and give greater emphasis to the necessity for people to consider the nature and fate of their souls. In LS I.1, for instance, he loosely follows the Sermo and uses the symbolism of man’s upright gait to segue from a discussion of the created orders to a consideration of the nature of the Creator and Trinity, heavenly things the upright ought to consider. In In natali Domini, he returns to the Sermo for an additional (negative) comparison and (positive) example. He compares an earthly-minded person with the serpent that crawls along the ground and the beast that eats from it,6 and then contrasts taking no notice of God with the taking of Communion, which reminds people of the salvific significance of the Incarnation for their souls.7 These augmentations prepare for a point new to In natali Domini: the soul will leave the body, the body will return to the dust from which it was made, and body and soul will be reunited on the Last Day to receive their due reward.8 The added references to death, judgment, heaven, and hell strengthen the sermon’s coherence because for Ælfric, self-recognition as God’s image-bearer defines what it means to be human and the contemplation of the fate of one’s soul what it means to be wise. 9 He was sufficiently satisfied with the results to use portions of In natali Domini in his doctrinal exposition of the nature of the Trinity in his sermon De creatore et creatura (AH II.14).10 In natali Domini survives in a unique copy found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 [B],11 a manuscript written between about 1150 and 117512 probably in the West Midlands near Worcester.13 B’s copy of In natali Domini thus does not exhibit

4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 135. For the dating, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 105. Leinbaugh suggests that ‘stylistic compatibility’ motivated Ælfric to revise LS I.1 from ordinary into rhythmical prose (‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, p. 195), but Ælfric may have been thinking of using In natali Domini as the Christmas sermon in his first collection of temporale homilies (Clemoes, First Series, pp.78–9), which would take shape ca 1002–5 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 27–8). For ca 998 as a terminus ante quem for Ælfric’s regular prose compositions, see AH II.12, vol. II, p. 641 n. 4. See below, notes on lines 139–64. See below, notes on lines 165–8. See below, notes on lines 198–205. See AH I.2, lines 8–13 (Crist wearð … weron), lines 121–6 (Ðæh … worlde), and lines 299–302 (And gif … pine) where Ælfric adds that the soul that dies does so ‘on þam swartan dæle’ (in dark hell). These additions complement the references to the devil to that Ælfric added to LS I.1 when adapting the Sermo (compare LS I.1, lines 167 and 174 [Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 34, §17 and 36, §18; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 20]), and AH I.1, lines 164–5 and 169–70). See below, notes on lines 84–138 and AH II.14, lines 1–53. Ker §310.77; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 208–10. Irvine, Homilies, p. lv. Irvine, Homilies, pp. lii–iii. A Hereford provenance is another possibility (Conti and Da Rold, ‘Bodley 343’).

106

Introduction: In natali Domini the standard features of late West Saxon. Rather, it preserves late Old English in a state of transition to early Middle English.14 Departures from Ælfric’s typical spellings are pronounced and arise from the intermingling of late West Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and possibly Latin forms, shifts in pronunciation, and the scribe’s own (West Midland) dialect.15 Rather than rewrite the sermon into late West Saxon, however, we print the early Middle English version because it reflects the extant evidence. Though of a late date and written in early Middle English, Bodley 343 comprises a ‘substantial collection of works from the pre-Conquest period’, and represents ‘an extreme manifestation of an important phenomenon, the copying and collection of Old English texts up to two centuries after their original composition’.16 Susan Irvine surmises that the collection provided ‘devotional reading material in English and a secondary resource for preaching at a time when composition in English had temporarily come to a virtual standstill’.17 The majority of its texts are homilies in Latin and Old English arranged in no discernible order, and there are several theological texts related to the duties of bishops. In natali Domini heads the last of the manuscript’s seven main sections, and the scribe seems to have included the sermon as part a run of seven homilies on general themes.18 None of the seven has a title linking it to a specific occasion (ours is editorial), and Irvine speculates that the scribe ‘was sifting through an already existing, perhaps larger, quando volueris [‘whenever you wish’] collection, picking out the items not already included in the manuscript’.19 The scribe had already copied Ælfric’s First Series homily for Christmas Day (CH I.2), which focuses on Christ’s birth and the shepherds’ visit to Bethlehem.20 Perhaps the doctrinal discussions of the soul and Trinity that make In natali Domini stand out among Ælfric’s Nativity sermons stood out to the compiler as well.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Irvine, Homilies, p. lv. Irvine, Homilies, p. lv, where an in-depth analysis of the language of the homilies begins and runs to p. lxxvii. Irvine, Homilies, pp. xviii and xx, respectively. Irvine, Homilies, p. liv. Catechetical Latin dialogues on the Lord’s Prayer and Creed are interposed between the fourth and fifth homilies in this section (Irvine, Homilies, pp. xlvii–xlviii). Irvine, Homilies, p. l. CH I.2 appears in Bodley 343, item 34, fols 67v–72r (Irvine, Homilies, p. xxxviii).

107

in natali domini

on the lord ’ s nativity

IN NATALI DOMINI

5

10

15

20

25

A la, gebroðræ, aræreð eowre heorte to ðam heofenlice Gode mid soðe ileafe for ðisse halgæ dæge, and lufiæð eowre Hælend, þe mid eadmodnesse to us com nu todæg on soðe menniscnesse acenned of Mariæ þet halige mæden. And heo ane is mæden and moder buton wæres imane swa nan oþer ne bið næfre on ecnesse. Crist wearð akenned of þam clene mæden on sawle and on lichame, soð mon and soð God, for ure alysednesse and eac for ure lufe, and he alysde us mid his agene life fram hellice pine and walde us habben to him to þære heofenlice blisse þe we to isceapene weron. He wyle mucel habbæn of þissen middenearde of al moncynne to his mycele blisse and to his heofenlice hired mid his halgen englum, for þan ðe hit birisæð ure Drihten þæt he mid mucele weorode on his riche blissie and þæt he mucel hirod habbe on his rice biforen alle oðre kynges, for þon ðe he ane is God and allre kynges Kyng and alre lafordæ Laford a on ecnesse rixiende mid alle his halgen. Nu weron summe dwolmen mid deofles gaste ifulled þe nolden ilyfæn þæt þe lyfigende Hælend wære æfre ær þysre weorlde angin wuniende mid his heofenlice Fæder, of him soðlice acenned, Text from: B Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343, fols 155r–158r (s. xii2) Variants from: W London, British Library, Cotton Julius E. vii, fols 5v–9v (s. xiin, S. England; provenance Bury St Edmunds) as edited by Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 22–40, and Skeat, Lives, pp. 10–24: the Christmas homily Ælfric revised as In natali Domini. So extensive were Ælfric’s revisions to his Christmas homily in the Lives (LS 1) that variant readings are reported very selectively. The commentary guides readers to corresponding passages in B and W. Xd for lines 84–138, London, British Library Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2, fols 151v–152v and 154rv (s. xiin, SW England?; provenance Worcester): Ælfric’s De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), where In natali Domini has been excerpted for lines 1–52.

110

ON THE LORD’S NATIVITY

5

10

15

20

25

Always then, fellow-Christians, lift up your hearts to the heavenly God with true faith on account of this holy day, and love your Savior, who with humility came to us now on this day in true humanity born of Mary the holy virgin. And she alone is virgin and mother without intercourse with a man as none other will ever be for eternity. Christ was born of that pure virgin in soul and body, true man and true God, for the sake of our redemption and also because of [his] love for us, and he redeemed us with his own life from hellish torment and desired to have us for himself in the heavenly bliss for which we were created. He desires to have many from this world from all mankind in his great bliss and in his heavenly retinue with his holy angels, because it is fitting for our Lord to rejoice with a great troop in his kingdom and to have in his kingdom a great retinue superior to all other kings, for he alone is God and King of all kings and Lord of all lords, reigning always for eternity with all his saints. Now there were certain heretics filled with the spirit of the devil who did not want to believe that the living Savior always existed before the beginning of this world dwelling with his heavenly Father, truly born of him,

111

Text: In natali Domini

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

ac bi þon þe heo sædon sum timæ sceolde beon ær þam þe ðe Hælend wære þe alle þing iwrohte. Nu mage ge ihyren hu þe Hælend andswerede þam arlease Iudeis, þe him syððan acwaldon, þa ða heo him axodon mid onde and cwæden, ‘“Sæge us, la, hwæt eart ðu?”’ And he heom andswarede þus, ‘Principium qui et loquor uobis’, ‘“Ic me seolf eam Angen, þe wið eow speke”’. Her is sceortlic andsware ant swiðe deoplic. Gif æni þing wære wuniende ær þene God, þenne nære he Angin ne Ordfrumæ alræ isceaftæ, ac he soðlice is an almihtig God effre unbigunnen, and he alle isceaftæ isceop swa swa he wolde, summe to engles, summe eac to monen, and on monie wise he worhte iscefta. And nes nan timæ ne nefræ, nane tide, ne nan oðre gesceaft þe he ane ne isceop. Se almihtig Fæder þe alle þing isceop, he streonde ænne Sune of him sylfum acenned buton wifes imanan, and þe is his Wisdom, of þam wise Fæder na iwroht ne isceapen, ac he wæs effre almihtig Sune of þam almihtig Fæder. Þurh ðone he isceop alle gesceaftæ and heom alle lif bifeste þurh ðone lifiende Gaste, þe is heora begræ Lufe, of ham bam e/a\fre. Na, swa ðeah, acenned, ne he nis na sunu, ne he næfre ne ongon, ac he wæs æfre God of þam almihtig Fæder and of [h]is acennede Sune, heoræ begre Lufe and Willæ, on ane Godcundnesse æfre wuniende. Nu is þe Fæder Angin, and þe Sune Angin, and þe Halga Gast Angin – þæt is, Ordfrumæ. Na þreo Angin, ne þreo Ordfrumæ, ac heo, | alle þreo on ane Godcundnesse, beoð an Angin and an almihti God, us unasegenlic and unasmeagenlic. Ac þe mon goffæð and sottæð þe wule habben ænig þing ætforæn þam Anginne ðe alle þing isceop. Þeo halige Ðrymnesse mid unasegenlicræ mihte wæs æfre wunigende and wrohte alle þing, and nis nan gesceaft þe heo ne scopen ne nan tid ne wunæð þe heo ne wrohten.

54 [h]is] is, with erasure of preceding letter B  61 almihti] almihtit B; almihtig W 

112

155v

Text: In natali Domini

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

but about that they said there must be some time before which the Savior who made all things existed. Now you may hear how the Savior replied to the wicked Jews, who later killed him, when they asked him with ill-will and said, ‘“Tell us, then, what are you?”’ And he replied to them in this way, ‘Principium qui et loquor uobis’,1 ‘“I myself am the Beginning, who is speaking with you”’. Here is a short and very profound answer. If anything had existed before God, then he was never the Beginning or the Source of all created things, but he truly is one almighty God eternally without a beginning, and he made all created things just as he wished, some as angels, some also as humans, and he made creatures in many forms. And there was never any time, or any season, or any other created being that he alone did not create. The almighty Father who created all things begot a Son born of himself without intercourse with a woman, and he is his Wisdom, not made or created from the wise Father, but he was eternally the almighty Son of the almighty Father. Through [the Son], [the Father] created all created things and gave them all life by means of the living Spirit, who is the Love of them both, from them both eternally. However, not having been born, [the Spirit] is in no way a son, nor did he ever have a beginning, but he was eternally God from the almighty Father and from his begotten Son, the Love and Will of them both, eternally existing in one Godhead. Now the Father is the Beginning, and the Son is the Beginning, and the Holy Spirit is the Beginning – that is, the Source. There are not three Beginnings, not three Sources, but they, all three in one Godhead, are one Beginning and one almighty God, indescribable and unimaginable to us. But that person speaks frivolously and is foolish who desires to have anything before the Beginning who created all things. The holy Trinity with indescribable power has always existed and made all things, and there is no created being that it did not create nor any age that exists that it did not make. 1

Compare John 8.25: ‘Dicebant ergo ei, “Tu quis es?” Dixit eis Iesus, “Principium quia et loquor uobis”’ (‘They said therefore to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “The beginning, that also is speaking to you”’).

113

Text: In natali Domini 70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

Ðis ge sceolen ilyfen, swa swa us læreð þe witega, Nisi credideritis, non intelligitis: ‘Buton ge hit ilefæn, ne mage ge hit understanden’. Nu is eft awriton on oðre stowe þus, Altiora te ne quesieris: ‘Ne ongin þu to asmeagene ofer þine meðe embe þa mycele deopnesse’, ne hure embe þone þe alle þing iscop, ac ilef on him for ðan þe he is soð Lif, for þi læs ðe þu dweolie on þine þriste smeagunge for þan ðe ðu ne miht. Ne forðen engles ne magen næfre asmegen embe heoræ Scuppend, buton þæt he æfre wæs unongunnen Wurhtæ and he æfre þurhwunæð on ecnesse an God. Gif he angin hæfde oðer he ongunne to beon, þenne nere he næfre almihtig Wealdend. Gif nu sum sot wæneð þæt he wrohte hine sylfne, þenne axie we him hu þe heofenlice God hine sylfen wrohte gif he himsylf ær nes, oðer hwa wurcæð ænig þing buton he ær wære and wununge hæfde þæt he wyrcen mihte. Þe ðe furðor smeað þæt he fandie God, he bið ilic þam men þe summe læddræ aræreð and astihð þonne uppon þære læddre stæfæ a þæt he up cume to þære læddre ende and wule þonne stigan ufor butan stafæ, þonne fællæð he stedeleas for his stuntnesse, swa mucele wyrsse swa /he\ forðor stow. Ne ongon næfre þe almihtig God, Fæder, ac he wæs æfre God; and his ancennedæ Sunæ, æfre of him acenned, allswa mihtig swa he, he is Miht and Wisdom of þam wise Fæder; and þe Halga Gast, heoræ beigræ Lufæ, ne ongan næfre, ac he wæs æfre God, heo ðreo an God, wunigende on ane cynde, untodæledlic on ane mægenðrymme and on ane Godcundnesse, iliche mihtige, nan læsse þene oðer. Swa hwæt swa bið læsse ðone God, þæt ne bið na God. Þæt þæt lator bið þone God þæt hæfeð angin and ne bið na God. God næfð nan angin, ac he wæs æfre and wunæð a on ecnesse. 90 summe] þonne Xd  91 uppon] upp b[e] Xd stæfæ] stæpum Xd  93 ufor butan stafæ] buton stapum ufe[r] Xd  94 fællæð he stedeleas] s[teadleas he fylþ] Xd  95 swa mucele wyrsse] [mid] mycclan [wy]rs[a]n fylle Xd  96 God] omitted Xd  102 ] omitted B; æfr[e] Xd  103 cynde] godcundnsse Xd  106 bið læsse] le[sse] bid Xd 

114

Text: In natali Domini 70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

You ought to believe this, just as the prophet teaches us, Nisi credideritis, non intelligitis:2 ‘Unless you believe it, you will not be able to understand it’. Now it is likewise written again in another place, Altiora te ne quesieris:3 ‘Do not begin to think beyond your ability about the great mystery’, certainly not about him who created all things, but believe in him because he is the true Life, lest you err in your rash thinking because you are unable [to do it]. Not even angels are ever able to think about their Creator, except that he was eternally the Maker without beginning and eternally remains one God forever. If he had a beginning or began to exist, then he was not ever the almighty Ruler. Now if some fool believes that [God] made himself, then we ask him how the heavenly God made himself if he did not previously exist, or who makes anything unless he previously existed and had lived so as to be able to make [it]. He who further thinks to test God is like a person who raises a ladder and then climbs up the ladder’s steps until he approaches the end of the ladder and then desires to ascend higher without steps. Then unstable, he falls on account of his foolishness, so much the worse as he climbed farther. The almighty God, the Father, never had a beginning, but he was eternally God; and his only-begotten Son, eternally born of him, just as powerful as he, he is the Power and Wisdom of the wise Father; and the Holy Spirit, the Love of them both, never had a beginning, but he was eternally God, the three one God, eternally dwelling in one nature, indivisible in one majesty and in one Godhead, equally powerful, none less than another. Whatever is less than God is not God at all. That which exists after God has a beginning and is not God. God has no beginning, but he has eternally existed and will exist forever. 2 3

Isaiah 7.9 (Vetus Latina): ‘Unless you believe, you will not understand’, on which, see AH I.1, notes on line 17. A variant version of Sirach 3.22, which in the Vulgate reads: ‘Altiora te ne scrutaueris’ (‘Do not search into things that are higher than you’).

115

Text: In natali Domini 110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

Nu beoð summe isceaftæ þurh God swa isceapene þæt heo habbæð angin and eac endæð and to nohte iwurðæþ for þam þe heo nabbæð nane sawle. Heo beoð hwilwendlice swa þæt heo beoð summe hwile; þæt beoð nytene and fiscsæs and fugelas. Heo weron iscapene þurh God, and heo iwurðæþ to nohte. Nu beoð oðre isceaftæ þur Gode swa iscapene þæt heo habbæþ angin and nænne ende and beoþ æce on þam æft/r\an dæle; þæt beoð englæs and monne sawle. Heo ne endiæð næfre, þeah heo ær ongunnon. Ðæh ðes monnes lichame swælte – oðer he on watere adrynce oðer he wurðe forbernd – ne mæg næfre his sawle endiæn, ac beo heo ufel, beo heo god, heo bið æfre swa swa engles beoð æfre þurhwuniende on ece worlde. Nu is þe almihtig Scuppend þe alle þing iscop ane swa ece þæt he nafeð nan angin ne he nafæð nenne ende, ac he him sylf is ægþer Ordfrume and Ende, | ealwealdend God. Ne ondred he him nænne for þan ðe nan oðer nis mihtigræ þonne he ne forðon him ilic. Æfre he bið gyfende his gyfæ þam ðe he wyle, ac he his þing ne wonæð. Ne he nanes þinges ne bihofæð. Æfre he bið almihtig, and æfre he wule wæl. Nyle he næfre nan ufel, ac he hatæð soðlice þa ðe unriht wurceæð and eac þa fordeþ ðe leasungæ specæð mid unleaffulnesse. Nu beoð þa gesceaftæ þe þe an Scyppend iscop mislice heowes and monifealdes cyndes, and heo alle ne libbæð na on ane wisæ. Summe heo beoð unlichamlice and eac unsegenlice swa beoð englæs. Heo nabbæð nænne lichame, and heo libbæð on heofene, swiðe bliþful on Godes isihðe, and heo eorðlice mætes næfre ne brucæð. Summe heo beoð lichamlice and unsceadwise, and mid alle lichame on eorðe creopað, þæt is all wyrmcyn, swa swa eow ful cuð is. Summe gað on twam fotum. Summe beoð feowerfote. 110 þurh God swa isceapene] sw[a] gesc[eapen]e þurh God Xd  116 þur Gode swa iscapene] sw[a] [isc] apene þurh God Xd  117 nænne ende] nabbað nenne ende Xd  119 monne] eac manna Xd  121 Ðæh ðes monnes lichames swælte] Ne meg þes annes sawul, þeah ðe se [lich]ama swelte Xd  123–5 ne mæg næfre his sawle endiæn, ac beo heo ufel, beo heo god, he bið æfre swa swa engles beoð] nefre geendian, ac heo bið æfre–[b]e[o heo u]fel beo god–swa swa englas beoð Xd  128 nafeð nan angin] nan angin næfð Xd  129 ne he nafæð nenne ende] omitted Xd   131 him] omitted Xd  134 þinges] omitted Xd 

116

156r

Text: In natali Domini 110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

Now certain creatures are thus created by God to have a beginning and also die and to become nothing because they have no soul. They are transitory so that they exist for a certain time; these are animals and fish and birds. They were created by God, and they become nothing. Now other created beings are thus created by God to have a beginning and no end and to be eternal with respect to [their] future; these are angels and the souls of humans. They never die, although they earlier had a beginning. Though a person’s body dies – whether it drowns in water or is burned to death – his soul cannot ever die, but be it evil, be it good, it will exist eternally just as the angels will be living eternally in the everlasting world. Now the almighty Creator who created all things is alone so eternal that he has no beginning nor any end, but he himself is both Beginning and End, the all-ruling God. He fears none because none other is more powerful than he nor even equal to him. He is continually giving his gifts to whom he desires, but he does not diminish his possessions. He needs nothing. He is eternally almighty, and he always has good will. He never intends any evil, but he truly hates those who work injustice and also destroys those who tell lies with unbelief. Now the created beings that the one Creator created are of various species and diverse kinds, and they do not all live in one manner. Some are incorporeal and also invisible as angels are. They have no body, and they live in heaven, very joyous in the sight of God, and they never partake of earthly food. Some are corporeal and without reason, and creep along the ground with the whole body, which is every kind of serpent, as is well known to you. Some walk on two feet. Some are four-footed.

117

Text: In natali Domini 150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

Summe swimmað on flode. Summe fleoð geont þas lyft. Þa fixas nabbæþ nan lif buton wætere, ne we ne magon libban noht longe on watere. Ealle heo beoþ alytene and lybbæþ bi þare eorþan, ac þe mon ane hæfð uprihtne geong for þam þe he is isceapen to his Scyppendes anlicnesse. He is on sawle liffæst mid gesceadwisnesse, and his geong bitacnæð, þenne he uprihtes gæð, þæt he sceal smeagen embe God and embe þa heofenlice þing swiðor þenne embe ða eorðlice þing, swiðor embe þa ecan þonne embe þa ateoriendlice, for þi læs ðe his mod beo bineoðan his lichame. Þe mon þe æfre smeað embe þas eorðlican and witendlicen þing, he bið ilic þam wyrme þe mid alle lichame creopæð on ðare eorðæ. Ne beo ge na att/r\e swa swa ða yfelæ neddræ, terende eow bitweonen and teone wyrcende, ne ge ne gan lytende swa swa ða nytene gað þe libbæþ bi gres and heo Godes ne gemeþ. Soðlice ure Scuppend us geaf to bileofenæn igearcnodne laf of eorðlice tylunge and eac þone arwurðæ laf þe engles brucæð, þæt is þe Hælend Crist, þe is heoræ lif and uræ. He is þe liflice laf þe of heofene astah and nu todæg wærð acenned of þam clæne mædene; he is engle life and ure þurh geleafe. He cwæð bi him sylfum on his godspelle, ‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi’: ‘“Ic eom þe liflice laf þe of heofene astah, and þe þe of þam lafe æet, he leofæð on ecnesse, and þe laf þe Ic sulle is soðlice mi licame for middaneardes life monne to alysednesse”’. Ðesne laf we æteð þonne we mid bileafan gað to halige husle ure Hælendes lichame. And nu todæg for þisse symbledæge and for Cristes accennednesse, men sceoldon underfon Cristes lichame on þam halgæ husle þam Hælende to wurðmente þe us neahlæcede mid his acennednesse. And gif ge þaræ gode cyðon, ge sceolden ilome gan to þam halge husle eowre sawle to hæle, swa swa mon deþ gehwær þær ðe me wæl halt þone Cristendom. Ge men sceolen witen and wislice understonden forhwi oðer forhwon ge beoð isceapene on þisse sceorte life, oððe tohwan ge wurðæþ iwende æfter þissum life. 190 me] for ‘man, mon’ B 

118

Text: In natali Domini 150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

Some swim in water. Some fly through the air. Fish have no life except in water, nor are we able to live long in water. They all are bent down and live off the ground, but a person alone has an upright gait because he is created in his Creator’s likeness. He is endowed with life in [his] soul through rationality, and his gait signifies, when he walks upright, that he ought to think about God and about heavenly things rather than about earthly things, rather about the eternal than the transitory, lest his mind be beneath his body. The person who always thinks about earthly and transitory things is like the serpent that creeps on the ground with his entire body. Do not be poisonous like evil serpents, biting among yourselves and causing injury, nor walk bent down as do the animals that live on grass and do not heed God. Certainly, our Creator gave us for food bread prepared from earthly labor and also the venerable bread that angels enjoy, which is the Savior Christ, who is their life and ours. He is the living bread who descended from heaven and now on this day was born of the pure virgin; he is the angels’ life and ours through faith. He said about himself in his Gospel, ‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi’:4 ‘“I am the living bread who descended from heaven, and he who eats of that bread, he will live eternally, and the bread that I will give for the life of the world as the redemption for mankind is truly my body”’. We eat this bread when we go with faith to the holy Eucharist of our Savior’s body. And now today on account of this feast-day and Christ’s birth, people ought to take Christ’s body in the holy Eucharist in honor of the Savior who drew near to us by means of his birth. And if you have known these good [truths], you ought to go frequently to the holy Eucharist for the salvation of your soul, just as one does everywhere where Christianity is observed well. You people ought to know and wisely understand for what reason or purpose you have been created for this short life, or into what you will be changed after this life. 4

John 6.51: “‘I am the living bread who descended from heaven”’.

119

Text: In natali Domini 195

200

205

210

215

220

225

Eow is mucel neod þæt ge on eowre mode icnawæn þone | lifigende God and on him ilefæn þæt ge eac smeagen embe eowre agene sawle þæt ge sum þing cynnon bi hire cynd. Heo is unsegenlic, and heo sylf beræð all þone lichame and him liffæst þa hwile þe heo bið on þam buce wunigende. And þone heo ut gæð, he went al to stence and to þam ylce duste þe of isceapen wæs. He sceal, swa ðeah, arisan soðlice to life togeanes his Drihtine on þam endenextæ dæge and ædlean underfon alre his dæda. Þam mon is icundelic þæt he lufie god. Hwæt is nu god buton God ane? He is healic godnes, and we sceolon him lufien. We nabbæð nane godnesse buton hit us cume of Gode. And þeo sawlæ ane is isæli and æþelboren þeo ðe ðenne lufæð þe hyre swylc isceop þæt heo on hyre andgite hafeð Godes anlicnes gif heo ileafful biþ. And God on hire wunæð þurh his gastlice gyfæ, and heo bið iwurðod mid his onwununge and Godes temple soðlice þurh ða gastlice mihte. Ðe almihtig Scyppend gescepeð alle sawle, swa Salomon wrat bi sawlæ and bi lichame, Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum: ‘Gewende þæt dust, þæt is þe lichame, into þare eorðan þe he ær of com, and wende þe gast to Gode þe hine ær sende’. Eft God sylf cwæð þurh sumne witegæ, Omnem flatum feci ego, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Æl/c\ne gast Ic wrohte’. Eft is iwriten bi þam ylce þus, ‘God scea

æþ þæs monnes sawle on him’, and Paulus þe apostol wrat on his pistole, Ipse deus dabit omnibus uitam et spiritum,

227 scea

æþ] sceawæþ B

120

156v

Text: In natali Domini 195

200

205

210

215

220

225

You have a great need to understand the living God in your mind and believe in him so that you may also think about your own soul to understand something about its nature. It is invisible, and it supports the whole body and enlivens it while it dwells in the body. And when [the soul] goes out, [the body] turns entirely into a stench and the same dust from which was created. It must certainly, however, rise alive to meet its Lord on the last day and receive a reward for all its deeds. It is innate for a person to love good. Now what is good except God alone? He is the supreme goodness, and we ought to love him. We have no goodness except it come to us from God. And only that soul is blessed and of noble birth who thus loves him who created it so as to have God’s image in its understanding if it be faithful. And God dwells in it by means of his spiritual grace, and it is honored by his indwelling and [is] truly God’s temple by means of that spiritual power. The almighty Creator creates every soul, just as Solomon wrote about the soul and body, Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum:5 ‘The dust, that is the body, returns to the earth from which it earlier came, and the spirit returns to God who previously sent it’. Likewise, God himself said through a certain prophet, Omnem flatum feci ego,6 which is in English, ‘I made every soul’. Again it is written about the same [subject] in this way, ‘God creates a person’s soul within him’, and Paul the apostle wrote in his epistle, Ipse deus dabit omnibus uitam et spiritum,7 5

6

7

Compare Ecclesiastes 12.7: ‘Memento creatoris tui antequam reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum’ (‘Remember your Creator before the dust should return to its earth, whence it came, and the spirit should return to God who gave it’). Compare Isaiah 57.16: ‘“Non enim in sempiternum litigabo neque usque ad finem irascar, quia spiritus a facie mea egredietur et flatus ego faciam”’ (‘“For I will not contend forever, neither will I be angry unto the end, because the spirit shall go forth from my face and breathings [i.e. souls] I will make”’). Compare Acts 17.25: ‘Nec manibus humanis colitur indigens aliquo cum ipse det omnibus uitam et inspirationem et omnia’ (‘Nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives to all life and breath and everything else’).

121

Text: In natali Domini 230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

þæt is, ‘God sylf gyfæð alle monnum lif and gast’. Alle þe leafulle fæderæs ðe Godes lare writon untwylice sædon and gehwær lærdon on þam halige Circean þæt God scea

æþ ælces monnes sawlæ and þeo sawle nis na of agenes icynde. Gif heo wære of Godes agene cynde inumæn, witerlice ne mihte heo sunegien. Uðwiten þæt beoð wisæ lareowæs secgæð þæt ðare sawle gecunde is þreofeald: an dæl on hire is wilnigendlic, oðræ sceadwislic. Twegen þisseræ dæle habbæð deor and nyten mid us, þæt is, wilnunge and yrre. Þe mon ane hæfæð gescead and ræd and andgit. Wilnung is þam men igefæn to wilnigenne þa þing þe him fremiæð to nytwurðon þingæ and to æce hæle. Þonne gif þeo wilnung miswent, þonne acenneð heo gifernesse and forliges and gitsunge. Urre and wræþdæ is þare sawlæ geigefan for þi þæt heo sceal ursien and wræðþiæn agean sunnæn and ne beon na sunnen underþeod, for þon ðe Crist cwæð, ‘“Ylc þære þe sunnæ wurcæð is þare sunne ðeow”’. Gif þæt urre bið on yfel iwend, þonne cymeð of þam unrodnesse and æmelnes. Gescead is igefan þare sawle to wissigenne and to steorene hire agene lif and alle hire dæda. O þam gesceadæ gif hit miswend, þonne cymeð þerof modignes and idelgylp. Gescead wæxæð on cildrum, na þeo sawlæ, ac þeo sawlæ ðihð on megenum and ne bið na mare þonne heo æt frummen wæs, ac bið bætere, ne heo ne underfehð lichamlice mucelnesse. Đeo sawle hafeð, swa wæ ær sædon, on hyre cunde þare halgæ Þrymme anlicness, on þam heo hæfð gemynd and angit and willæn. An sawul is, and an lif, and an edwist, þe ðas ðreo þing hæfð on hyre, | and þas ðreo þing ne beoð na ðreo lif ac an, ne þreo ædwist ac an. Þeo sawle oððe þæt lif oððe þeo edwist beoð icwædene to hyre sylfne; and þæt mynd oððe þæt angit oððe þe willæ beoð icwædene to summe þingæ edlesienlice; and þas ðreo þing habbæð annesse bitweonan heom. 233 scea

æþ] sceawæþ B; gescypð W  239 oðræ sceadwislic] oðræ sceadwislic B; oðer yrsigendlic þrydde gesceadwislic W  255 O] On B; Of W  257 na þeo sawlæ] ‘on’ interlined between ‘na’ and ‘þeo’, but ‘on’ and ‘þeo’ (f.sg.nom) do not agree B

122

157r

Text: In natali Domini 230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

270

that is, ‘God gives to all people life and spirit’. All the faithful fathers who wrote God’s teaching undoubtedly said and everywhere taught in the holy Church that God creates each person’s soul and [that] the soul is not of [His] own nature. If it were taken from God’s own nature, it would certainly not be able to sin. Philosophers who are wise teachers say that the nature of the soul is threefold: one part of it is desirous, another capable of anger, a third rational. Two of these parts wild and tame animals possess along with us, that is, desire and anger. A human alone has reason and judgment and understanding. Desire is given to people to desire those things that help them toward profitable ends and toward eternal salvation. Therefore, if desire turns to wrong ends, then it brings forth gluttony and fornication and greed. Anger and rage are given to the soul because it ought to be angry and rage against sins and not be subjected to sins, for Christ said, ‘“Each one who commits sin is a slave of that sin”’. If anger is turned into evil, then from that come unhappiness and sloth. Reason is given to the soul to guide and direct its own life and all its actions. If it turns away from reason to wrong ends, then pride and idle boasting come thereof. Reason increases in children, not the soul, but the soul grows in virtues and will not become larger than it was at the beginning, but it will be better, nor does it take on physical size. The soul, as we said earlier, bears in its nature the image of the holy Trinity, in respect to which it has memory and understanding and will. There is one soul, and one life, and one substance, which has these three traits in it, and these three traits are not three lives but one, not three substances but one. The soul or life or substance are spoken of with respect to [the soul] itself; and memory and understanding and will are spoken of relative to something else; and these three functions have unity among themselves.

123

Text: In natali Domini

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

Ic undergite þæt Ic wulle undergyten and þencean, and Ic wulle þæt Ic undergite and mun. Ðer ðe þæt imynd bið, þær bið þæt angit and þe willæ. Uton nu bihealden þa wunderlice swiftnesse þare sawlæ. Heo hafæð swa mycele swiftnesse þæt heo on ane tide, gif heo wyle, bisceawiæð heofenum and ofer sæ flyhð, lond and burga geond faræð. And alle þas þing mid þohte on hire sihðe isett, and swa raðe swa heo iheræð þare burge name þe heo ær cuðe, swa ræðe heo mæg þa burh on hire þohte sceawiæn, hwylc heo bið. All swa bi geylce þinge þe heo ær cuðe oðer ne cuðe, /h\eo mæg on hire mode sceawiæn þonne heo hereð bi þam specæn, and swa styriende is þe sawle þæt heo forþam on slepe ne stilð. Ac þenne heo smeað bi ane þinge, and ne mæg heo þa hwile bi oðre þingum smeagen ac bið ibysgad mid þam anum þingum oððet þæt ðoht ewite and oðer cume. Witorlice God almihtig wat alle þing togædere, and alle he hafð on his andwealdnesse, þæt is ætforen his isihðe, and heo beoþ æfre ætforen his isihðe and næfre him uncuðe. And þis is ðet icwædon is: þæt God is æghwær all, for þam ðe alle þa þing þe æfre wæron, oððe nu beoð, oððe þa ðe towarde beoð, alle heo beoð on Godes sihðe andwearde, na æne ac æfre. Þeo sawle soðlice is þæs lichames lif, and þare sawle lif is God. Gif ðeo sawle forlete þone lichame, þone swelt þe lichame. And gif God forlet þa sawle, þonne swelt heo on þam swartan dæle swa ðet heo bið forloren þam ece life and swa ðeah nefre ne endæþ on þam ece pine. Ðes dæþ hire ilympeð gif heo let rixiæn on hire þa wilnunge and þæt yrre swiðor þonne þæt gescead, þe hire wissiæn sceal to weldede a. Þurh þæt gescead ane we beoð sæligre þonne þa ungesceadwise nytene. Mid twam wurðscipe wurðgode þe almihtigæ Scyppend þæs monnes sawle, þæt is mid eccenesse and eadinesse, ac heo forleas þa eadignesse þa ða heo gylte, and heo ne mihte þa eccenesse forleosen for þam þe heo ne endæþ næfræ. Ðare sawle wlite is þæt heo habbe þa mihte swa þæt heo sunne forbuge, and for þi heo bið atelic þurh sunne gif heo him underlið. Þaræ sawle mihtæ beoð þas feower þing, 273 mun] munen B; gemune W  283 geylce] geylce B; gehwylcum W  289 ewite] tewite B; gewyte W 

124

Text: In natali Domini

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

310

I understand that I desire to know and remember, and I desire to know and remember. Where there is memory, there is understanding and desire. Let us now consider the marvelous speed of the soul. It has such great speed that in a moment, if it wishes, it looks at the heavens and flies over the sea, travels throughout lands and cities. And it sets all these things in its sight by thinking, and as quickly as it hears the name of a city that it previously knew, it can just as quickly picture the city in its thought, whichever one it is. Likewise, concerning all things that it previously knew or did not know, it can consider [them] in its mind when it hears them spoken about, and the soul is so active that it does not stop during sleep. But when it thinks about one thing, it cannot at the same time think about other things but is occupied with the one thing until that thought passes and another arrives. Certainly God Almighty knows all things at the same time, and he has everything in his power, that is, before his sight, and they are ever before his sight and never unknown to him. And this is what is said: that God is all things everywhere, because all things that ever were, or now are, or are destined to come, they are all present in God’s sight, not once but forever. The soul is truly the life of the body, and the life of the soul is God. If the soul deserts the body, then the body dies. And if God deserts the soul, then it dies in dark hell so to be deprived of everlasting life and yet never ceases [to be] in everlasting torment. This death befalls [the soul] if it allows desire and anger to reign in it more than reason, which ought always to guide it to good deeds. Through reason alone, we are more blessed than the irrational animals. The almighty Creator exalted the human soul with two honors, that is, with immortality and blessedness, but it lost blessedness when it sinned and was not able to lose immortality because it never dies. The beauty of the soul is that it has the power to avoid sin, and thus it is deformed through sins if it gives way to them. There are four virtues of the soul,

125

Text: In natali Domini 315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

þæt is, prudencia, iusticia, temperantia, fortitudo. Prudentia, þæt is snoternes, þurh þam heo sceal hire Scyppend understonden, and him lufian, and tosceadan god fram yfele. Oþer mægen is iusticia, þæt is rihtwisnesse, þurh þam heo sceal God wurðian and rihtlice libban. Þæt ðridde mægen is temperantia, þæt is metegung, mid þare sceal þeo sawle alle þing metegiæn þæt hit ne beo to swiðe ne to hwonlice, for þam hit is iwriten, Omnia nimia nocent, þæt is, ‘Alle oferdone þing derigæð’. Witerlice metegung | is alræ mægene moder. Þæt feorðe mægen is fortitudo, þæt is strenhðe oððe anrednesse, þurh þam sceal þeo sawlæ forbæren arfnesse mid anrede mode for Godes lufe and næfre deofle abugen to forwyrde. Ðas feower mægenæ habbæð ænne kynehelm, þæt is ðeo soðe Godes lufæ and monne, for þam ðe þeo sawle is iselig þe lufæð þone Scyppend þe hire iscop and hyre iferan, and wyle him fremiæn swa heo fyrmest mæg. Þeo sawle is isceadwis gast, æfre quic, and mæg underfon ægðer godne willæ and yfele æfter hyre agene cure. Þe wælwillendæ Scyppend let hyre habban hire agene cyres geweald; þa wearð heo bi hyre agene willæ iwemmed þurh deofles lare. Ac heo wearð æft alysed þurh Godes gifu, gif heo Gode hyrsumæð. Heo is unsegenlic and unlichamlic, buton hefæ and buton bleo, mid þam lichame bifangen, and on alle limæ wuniende; ne heo ne mæg bi hyre agene mihte of þam lichame faren. Heo is on boce monigfealdlice inemnod bi hire weorces þeignungum. Hyre nomæ is anima, þæt is sawul, and þe nomæ bilimpæð to hyre lyfe, and spiritus, gast, belimpæð to hyre ymbwlatunge. Heo is sensus, þæt is andgit oððe felnes, þonne heo fælæð. Heo is animus, þæt is mod, þonne heo wat. Heo is mens, þæt is eac mod, þonne heo understont. Heo is memoria, þæt is gemund, þonne heo imynæð. Heo is ratio, þæt is gescead, þonne heo tosceat. Heo is uoluntas, þæt is willæ, þonne heo hwæt wyle. Ac swa ðeah alle þæs nomen beoð an sawle.

328 arfnesse] arforðnesse B; earfoðnysse W 

126

157v

Text: In natali Domini 315

320

325

330

335

340

345

350

355

that is, prudencia, iusticia, temperantia, fortitudo. Prudentia is wisdom, by which [the soul] ought to understand its Creator, and love him, and distinguish good from evil. The second virtue is iusticia, that is righteousness, through which it ought to honor God and live rightly. The third virtue is temperantia, that is moderation, with which the soul ought to moderate all things not to be too strong or too slight, for it is written, Omnia nimia nocent,8 that is, ‘All excessive things are harmful’. Certainly, moderation is the mother of all virtues. The fourth virtue is fortitudo, that is strength or steadfastness, through which the soul ought to endure hardship with a steadfast mind for God’s sake and [ought] never to yield to the devil to [its] damnation. These four virtues have one crown, which is true love of God and men, because the soul is blessed who loves the Creator who created it and its companions, and desires to benefit them as it is best able. The soul is a rational spirit, always alive, and can take up either a good desire or an evil [one] according to its own free choice. The benevolent Creator allowed it to have the power of its own free choice; then it was defiled by its own desire through the devil’s instruction. But thereafter it is redeemed by God’s grace, if it obeys God. It is invisible and incorporeal, without weight and without color, clothed with the body, and dwelling in every limb; it cannot leave the body by its own power. In books, it is named variously according to the function of its work. Its name is anima, that is soul, and the name refers to its life, and spiritus, spirit, refers to its contemplation. It is sensus, that is understanding or feeling, when it perceives with the senses. It is animus, that is mind, when it knows. It is mens, which is also mind, when it understands. It is memoria, that is memory, when it remembers. It is ratio, that is reason, when it reasons. It is uoluntas, that is will, when it desires something. But all these names, nevertheless, are one soul.

8

This proverbial statement is unattributed; see the commentary on lines 314–30.

127

Text: In natali Domini

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

Þe apostol Paulus todælde þæs gastes nomen and þæs modes, þus cwæðende, Psallam spiritu et psallam mente, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Ic singe mid gast, and Ic singe mid mode’. He singæð mid gaste þe ðe cleopað þa word mid muðe and ne understont þæs angites tacnunge, and þe sin mid mode þe þe þæs angites tacnunge undestont. Þeo sawle is þæ lichames læfdi, and heo wissæþ ða fif angite þæs lichames swa swa of kynesetle. Ða angite beoð þus ihaten: uisus, þæt is sihð; auditus, þæt is lust; gustus, fondung on þam muðe; odoratus, þæt is stenc on þære neosæ; tactus, repung oðer grapung on alle limæn and þæh gewunelycost on þam hondæm. Ða fif angite wissæð þa sawle to hire willæ, and hire gedafenæð þæt heo, swa swa læfdi, geornlice foresceawie hwæt heo gehwylcum limum iþafige on wilnunge his icyndes þæt ðær nan þing unþeawlices ne bilimpe on nanes limes þeignunge. Swa swa God almihtig oferstihð alle sceaftæ, swa oferstihð þeo sawle alle lichamlice sceaftæ mid wurðfulnesse hyre cyndes, and nan lichamlic sceaft ne mæg beon wið hyre imeten. We cwædon ær þæt heo wære buton bleo for þam þe heo nis na lichamlic. On lichame bið bleo, and þeo sawle bið iwlitegod swa heo on worlde ærnode. Be þam cwæð Crist on his godspelle, ‘Tunc fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno Patris mei’, þæt is on Englisc, ‘“Þonne scinæð þa rihtwise swa swa sunne on heore Fæder rice”’. Witerlice þa sunfulle beoð heoræ yfele weorce ilice. Nis þeo eorðung þe we ut blawæð and in ateoð ure sawle ac is þeo luft þe alle lichamlice þing on libbæð. Oft bið þeo sawle on ane þinge oððe on ane þohte swa bisig þæt heo ne gemeð hwa hyre gehende byð | þeah heo on lokie, ne ðeah heo summe stefne ihyre heo hit ne understont, ne þeah hire hwa rine heo hit ne fæleð. Hwylon heo bisoregæð hire lichames sarnesse; hwilon heo glædeþ on gode limpum; hwilon heo þenchæð þa ðing ðe /heo\ ær cuðe; hwilon heo wyle witan þa ðing þe heo ær ne cuðe.

363 sin] sinhg, but see ‘singæð’ [line 361] B; singð W undestont] undestont B; understænt W  364 þæ] þæd B; þæs W  393 rine] uel reppe interlined B; hreppe W 

128

158r

Text: In natali Domini

360

365

370

375

380

385

390

395

The apostle Paul distinguished between the names of the spirit and of the mind, thus saying, Psallam spiritu et psallam mente,9 which is in English, ‘I will sing with [my] spirit, and I will sing with [my] mind’. He who sings with [his] spirit speaks words with [his] mouth but does not understand the signification of [their] meaning, and he who sings with [his] mind understands the signification of [their] meaning. The soul is the queen of the body, and she guides the body’s five senses as from a throne. The senses are named in this way: uisus, which is sight; auditus, which is hearing; gustus, the sense of taste with the mouth; odoratus, which is the sense of smell with the nose; tactus, the sense of touch or feeling with all the limbs but most commonly that in the hands. The soul guides these five senses according to its desire, and it is fitting that, as a queen, intently it pays heed to what it will permit each limb [to do] in accordance with its natural desire so that nothing sinful occurs with respect to the use of any limb. Just as God Almighty excels all created things, so the soul excels all physical creations in the dignity of its nature, and no physical creation may be compared with it. We said earlier that it is without color because it is not corporeal. Color exists in the body, and the soul will be made beautiful as it deserved in this life. Christ said about this in his Gospel, ‘Tunc fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno Patris mei’,10 which is in English, ‘“Then the righteous will shine like the sun in their Father’s kingdom”’. Truly, the sinful will be like their evil works. The breath that we blow out and draw in is not our soul but the air on which all corporeal things live. Often the soul is so occupied in one matter or in one thought that it does not take notice of who is near it though it may be looking on, nor understand [what is said] though it hear some voice, nor feel it though someone touch it. Sometimes it is troubled about the body’s pain; sometimes it rejoices in prosperity; sometimes it thinks about things that it knew before; sometimes it desires to know things that it did not know before. 9

10

Compare 1 Corinthians 14.15: ‘Quid ergo est? Orabo spiritu orabo et mente; psallam spiritu psallam et mente’ (‘What then? I will pray with the spirit; I will pray also with the mind. I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the mind’). Compare Matthew 13.43a: ‘“Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum”’ (‘“Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father”’).

129

Text: In natali Domini

400

405

410

415

420

Sum þing heo wyle, sum ðing heo nyle, and alle lichamlice heow heo mæg on hire sylfæn hiwæn and swa iheowed on hyre mode healden. Þare sawle wille is þæt heo wisdom lufige, na þene eorðlice wisdom be þam ðe is iwritæn, Sapientia huius mundi stulticia est apud Deum, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Þisses middaneardes wisdom is stuntnesse ætforen Gode’, ac þene wisdom heo sceal leornigen þæt heo lufie God, and hine æfre wurðie on alle hire weorcum, and þa þing leornie þe Gode liciæð, and þa ðing forlæten þe him laðæ beoð. Þes wisdom is iwriten on halige bocum, and þus is icwæðon, Omnis sapiencia a Domino Deo est: ‘Ylc wisdom is of Gode’. Forþi ylc mon is nu eadig and sælig þe for Gode wis bið and gif he his weorc mid wisdome wurceð. Be þam cwæð þe eadig Iob, ‘“Þæs monnes wisdom is arfestnes, and soð ingehyd þæt he yfel forbuge”’. Witerlice þæt is soð wisdom þæt mon wilnige þæt soðe lif on þam þe he mæg æfre libban on murhðe mid Gode gif he hit on þissere worlde ærnæð. To þam us læde þe leofæ Drihten Crist, þe þe is soð Wisdom and sawle Lif, þe ðe mid his ece Fæder and mid þam Halgæ Gaste leofæð and rixæð a on ecenesse, Amen.

401 wille] wlyte W

130

Text: In natali Domini

400

405

410

415

420

Some things it desires, some things it does not desire, and it is able to envision all physical forms within itself and to retain them thus envisioned within its mind. The desire of the soul is to love wisdom, not the earthly wisdom about which it is written, Sapientia huius mundi stulticia est apud Deum,11 which is in English, ‘This world’s wisdom is foolishness before God’, but the wisdom it ought to learn so that it may love God, and always honor him in all its actions, and learn the things that are pleasing to God, and forsake the things that are hateful to him. This wisdom is written of in holy books, and thus it is said, Omnis sapiencia a Domino Deo est:12 ‘All wisdom is from God’. Therefore, every person is now blessed and happy who is wise in the sight of God and if he carries out his actions with wisdom. About this the blessed Job said, ‘“A person’s wisdom is piety, and to shun evil is true knowledge”’. Indeed, it is true wisdom to desire the true life in which one is always able to live in joy with God if he earns it in this world. To that [life] may the beloved Lord Christ lead us, he who is true Wisdom and the Life of the soul, who with his eternal Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns forever, Amen.

11 12

Compare 1 Corinthians 3.19: ‘Sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum’ (‘For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God’). Sirach 1.1: ‘All wisdom is from the Lord God’.

131

IN NATALI DOMINI

COMMENTARY Composed late in the period ca 998 × 1002,1 In natali Domini (AH I.2) survives in a single manuscript: B, fols 155r–158r [Ker §310.77]. It was previously edited by Belfour in 19002 and by Leinbaugh in his unpublished 1980 dissertation.3 Title [In natali Domini]: The name of the homily comes not from the manuscript, as it begins without title or rubric (though with a large, decorated capital) in B, fol. 155r; rather, Belfour supplied the generic description in brackets at the start of his edition.4 The three other Ælfrician texts to which In natali Domini is chiefly related – the Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), LS I.1, and De creatore et creatura (AH II.14) – offer little assistance in this regard, as all begin differently in their unique manuscript copies. The Sermo opens in Y4 with the rubric ‘Incipit sermo in natale Domini et de ratione anime’ (‘[Here] begins a sermon on the Lord’s Nativity and about the nature of the soul’ [see notes to AH I.1 Introduction to lines 1–99]); LS I.1 commences in W with ‘VIII kalendas ianuarii, natiuitas Domini nostri Iesu Christi’ (‘The eighth of the Kalends of January [25 December], the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ’);5 and De creatore in Xd is acephalous (see AH II.14, lines 1–5). Lines 1–22 [A la, gebroðræ … alle his halgen]: Like the Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), In natali Domini is part of a series of six Ælfrician compositions for Christmas: CH I.2, AH I.1, CH II.1, LS I.1, AH I.2, and SH I.1, written arguably in this order. While AH I.1 alludes to CH I.1, saying ‘Quondam diximus uobis’ (‘Formerly we related to you …’ [see notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17, even a quick scan reveals that AH I.1 and its Catholic Homilies counterparts are distinctly different texts. The same is by no means true for AH I.1 and the next two homilies in the Christmas series, LS I.1 and AH I.2, written at perhaps five-year intervals: they, by contrast, are closely related from the start.6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 105, 136, 281, and 297 n. 135. Belfour 9 (Twelfth-Century Homilies, pp. 78–96). ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 49–87. Homilies, p. 78. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10. For the independence of AH I.1 (and thus AH I.2) from traditional Christmas pericopes, see Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), Introduction to lines 1–99.

132

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 2–5

LS I.17

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 1–5

Quondam diximus uobis, fratres, quomodo saluator noster Iesus Christus hac ipsa die natus sit uera humanitate de sancta Maria uirgine pro salute mundi, sed tamen uolumus pro huius diei sollempnitate uestras mentes aliqua spiritali doctrina spiritaliter letificare et in fide catholica confirmare.

Men ða leofestan hwilon ær we sædon eow hu ure hælend crist on þisum dæge on soðre menniscnysse acenned wæs of þæm halgan mædene Marian. Nu wylle we swa þeah for ðyses dæges mærðe eower mod mid þære gastlican lare onbryrdan eow to blisse þurh god.

A la, gebroðræ, aræreð eowre heorte to ðam heofenlice Gode mid soðe ileafe for ðisse halgæ dæge, and lufiæð eowre Hælend, þe mid eadmodnesse to us com nu todæg on soðe menniscnesse acenned of Mariæ þet halige mæden.

Previously we told you, brothers, how our Savior Jesus Christ was born on this very day in true humanity from the holy virgin Mary for the salvation of the world, but nevertheless we desire, on account of the solemnity of this day, to gladden your minds spiritually with some spiritual instruction and to strengthen them in the orthodox faith.

Beloved men, some time before we told you how our Savior Christ was born on this day in true humanity of the holy Virgin Mary. Nevertheless, for the honor of this day, we now want to inspire your minds with spiritual teaching for your joy by God[’s grace].

Always then, fellow-Christians, lift up your hearts to the heavenly God with true faith on account of this holy day, and love your Savior, who with humility came to us now on this day in true humanity born of Mary the holy virgin.

LS 1, to begin with, translates AH I.1 carefully, if with certain changes. Some expressions are straightforward: quondam diximus uobis (‘formerly we told you’) becomes hwilon ær we sædon eow (‘some time before we told you’), for example. Others may appear to differ in nuance but are likely equivalents: pro huius diei sollempnitate (‘on account of the solemnity [or “celebration”] of this day’) becomes for ðyses dæges mærðe (‘for the honor of this day’). At times, LS I.1 expands AH I.1’s language somewhat, saying not ‘uestras mentes … [uolumus] letificare’ (‘[we desire] to gladden … your minds’), but ‘eower mod … [wylle we] onbryrdan eow to blisse’ (‘[we want] to inspire your minds … for your joy’). Certain terms Ælfric changes, using men ða leofestan (‘beloved men’) for fratres (‘brothers’), for instance – though he returns to gebroðræ (‘brothers’) in AH I.2 and likely means ‘fellow Christians’ by all three terms regardless.8 Some phrases he reverses, putting ‘in true humanity’ before ‘was born’. Still other phrases he omits, such as pro salute mundi (‘for the salvation of the world’) and in fide catholica confirmare (‘to strengthen [your minds] in the orthodox faith’), while he adds þurh god (‘by means of God’) as an acknowledgement of divine grace.9 Even with such changes, however, Ælfric obviously begins LS I.1 with the intention of reproducing Sermo in natale Domini in the vernacular. By the time Ælfric revisits the text of LS I.1 in AH I.2, another five years or so have passed. Bishop Wulfsige’s death is near, Wulfstan the Homilist is on the verge of becoming archbishop of York, and Ælfric is within three years of moving to Eynsham. 7 8 9

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §1, lines 1–5; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 1–5. See, for example, Getz and Pelle, Dictionary, under ‘ge·brōþor’, definition 2.e. For Ælfric’s theology regarding which, see for example Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 169, 171, 173, 175–85, 188–91, 194–5, 197–200, and 202–12.

133

Commentary: In natali Domini Four Christmas homilies are under his belt. With demand for his writings now well established, he turns to this important liturgical occasion again, perhaps having begun to envision the compilation of TH I, his first collection of temporale homilies that could have included LS I.1 or AH I.2.10 This time, however, he is moving not from Latin to Old English, but from one vernacular account to another. While he preserves much of the content of LS I.1, therefore, Ælfric rewords the account considerably. He speaks not of his intent eower mod … onbryrdan (‘to inspire … your minds’), but charges his audience directly to aræreð eowre heorte (‘lift up your hearts’). He does not leave implications of the Incarnation implicit, but calls his audience to lufiæð eowre Hælend (‘love your Savior’) because of Christ’s eadmodnesse (‘humility’). At the same time, he reproduces language that by this point has become characteristic: Hælend (‘Savior’), for example, a favorite term for the Son for Ælfric, appearing over 1,400 times in his works; or on soðre menniscnysse (‘in true humanity’), a phrase he uses verbatim on seventeen occasions.11 If in translating AH I.1 to LS I.1 Ælfric is close but not mechanical, with AH I.2 he is decidedly freer in his approach – as the remainder of his introduction shows. Lines 6–22 (And heo … alle his halgen) have no direct equivalent either in AH I.1 or LS I.1. Ælfric discusses • • • • • • •

10 11

12 13 14

the uniqueness of Mary’s virgin maternal state [lines 6–8], a topic on which he expands in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 164–75 and 198–225; Christ’s dual nature [line 9], on which he touches in Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 53–5 (see also notes to AH I.8, lines 56–70); Christ’s humanity in conjunction with redemption (alysednys [line 10], see notes to AH I.8, lines 11–29) and love (lufu [line 10]), two terms used in conjunction also in CH I.212 and SH II.30;13 believers’ redemption from hell-torment (alys[ednes] … fram hellice pine [lines 11–12]), as he does in Secundum Iohannem (Irvine 3);14 Christ’s desire ‘habben to him to þære heofenlice blisse’ (‘to have us for himself in heavenly bliss’ [lines 12–13]), an expression seemingly unique to Ælfric here; believers’ future heavenly bliss with the angels [lines 14–16], whose number (he teaches in De creatore et creatura [AH II.14]) believers will replenish – see notes to AH II.14, lines 102–9; the ‘great troop’ and ‘retinue’ (mucele weorode and hirod [lines 18–19]) that it ‘befits’ (birisæð [line 17]) God to have in his kingdom – language again unique to Ælfric here, though evocative of his affirmation in

Clemoes, First Series, pp. 78–9. Including Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), line 7; see notes to AH II.9, lines 5–25; Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), lines 15–17 (Gebed V); and Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 11–29. Clemoes, First Series, p. 197, lines 221–2. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 804, line 3. Irvine, Homilies, p. 66, line 161.

134

Commentary: In natali Domini

•

• •

CH II.5 that as great a host (micel werod) of people will ascend to the heavenly kingdom as the number of unfallen angels;15 the uniqueness of God’s divinity (he ane is God [‘he alone is God’, line 20]) – a phrase repeated with slight variations some two dozen times in Ælfric’s writings; cf. De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 160 and 312; God’s supremacy as King of Kings and Lord of Lords [line 21] (1 Timothy 6.15; Revelation 17.14 and 19.16; cf. Deuteronomy 10.17), titles Ælfric uses in similar conjunction in CH I.1;16 and not just the eternal reign of God ([a] on ecnesse rixiende [‘reigning [always] for eternity’, line 22] – a phrase appearing twenty-seven times in Ælfric’s writings, five including a and twelve in closing formulas), but God’s eternal reign with his saints [line 22], language reminiscent of Revelation 5.10, 20.4b, and 20.6; and 2 Timothy 2.12, but apparently unique for Ælfric here.

Lines 23–34 [Nu weron summe … wið eow speke]: Ælfric follows his introductory comments regarding Jesus with condemnation of those who would deny his divine eternality, adapting analogous passages from AH I.1 and LS I.1: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 5–10

LS I.117

Fuerunt namque quidam heretici demonico spiritu decepti in tantum ut dicerent Christum Filium Dei non permanere apud Patrem semper in diuinitate, sed esset aliquod tempus antequam natus esset ex Patre. Audiamus nunc sanctum euuangelium quomodo tales hebetes superat et stultitiam eorum facile confundit. Iudei namque interrogauerunt Christum dicentes, ‘“Tu quis es?” Ille respondit, “Principium, qui et loquor uobis”’.

Sume gedwolmenn wæron þuruh deoful beswicane swa þæt hi cwædon þæt Crist Godes Sunu nære æfre mid þam halgan Fæder wuniende , ac wære sum tima ær þan þe he acenned wære , ac þæt halige godspell hæfð oferswiðod swylcera gedwolena andgit foroft. Þa Iudeiscan axodon Crist hwæt he wære . Ða andwyrde he him þus, ‘Ego sum principium, qui et loquor uobis’. ‘“Ic eom anginn, þe eow to spræce”’.

15 16 17

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 23–34 Nu weron summe dwolmen mid deofles gaste ifulled þe nolden ilyfæn þæt þe lyfigende Hælend wære æfre ær þysre weorlde angin wuniende mid his heofenlice Fæder, of him soðlice acenned, ac bi þon þe heo sædon sum timæ sceolde beon ær þam þe ðe Hælend wære þe alle þing iwrohte. Nu mage ge ihyren hu þe Hælend andswerede þam arlease Iudeis, þe him syððan acwaldon, þa ða heo him axodon mid onde and cwæden, ‘Sæge us, la, hwæt eart ðu?’ And he heom andswarede þus, ‘ Principium qui et loquor uobis’, ‘“Ic me seolf eam Angen, þe wið eow speke”’.

Godden, Second Series, p. 47, line 188 – p. 48, line 191. Clemoes, First Series, p. 178, lines 8–9. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §2, lines 1–7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 5–11.

135

Commentary: In natali Domini For truly there have been certain heretics deceived by the spirit of the devil to such an extent that they said that Christ the Son of God did not always dwell with the Father in divinity but that there was some period of time before he was born of the Father. Let us now hear how the holy Gospel overcomes such dolts and easily confounds their foolishness. For indeed the Jews questioned Christ saying, ‘“Who are you?”’ He answered, ‘“The Beginning, who likewise speaks to you”’.

There were certain heretics deceived by the devil, to such an extent that they said that Christ the Son of God had not always existed, dwelling with the Holy Father , but there was a certain period before he was born ; but the holy Gospel has overcome the understanding of such heretics on numerous occasions. The Jews asked Christ who he was . Then he answered them as follows: ‘Ego sum principium qui et loquor uobis’:18 ‘“I am the beginning, who speaks to you”’.

Now there were certain heretics filled with the spirit of the devil who did not wish to believe that the living Savior always existed before the beginning of this world dwelling with his heavenly Father, truly born of him, but concerning that they said there must be some time before which the Savior who made all things existed. Now you may hear how the Savior replied to the wicked Jews, who later killed him, when they asked him with ill-will and said, ‘“Tell us, then, what are you?” And he replied to them in this way, “ Principium qui et loquor uobis”,19 “I myself am the beginning, who speaks with you”’.

While Ælfric’s exegesis of the Scriptural passage here, John 8.25,20 is treated in detail in the notes for AH I.1, lines 2–17, some observations may be made regarding Ælfric’s changes to the passages above. LS I.1, to begin with, follows AH I.1 closely, if not slavishly. It rearranges words (as with ‘there were’ and ‘certain heretics’), omits some (e.g., in diuinitate [‘in divinity’] and Audiamus nunc [‘Now let us hear’]), adds others (andgit [‘understanding’] and foroft [‘on numerous occasions’]), and phrases the Jews’ direct question indirectly (‘axodon Crist hwæt he wære’ [‘they asked him who he was’]). Such changes are minor, however, compared with AH I.2, the differences in which are far more pronounced. The heretics here are not deceived (beswicane), but filled (ifulled) with the devil. Jesus is not titled Crist Godes sunu (‘Christ the Son of God’), but þe lyfigende Hælend (‘the living Savior’). Christ dwells eternally not just with his Father, but before the beginning of the world (ær þysre weorlde angin) – and so on. Some of Ælfric’s changes in AH I.2, however, actually bring his text closer to AH I.1 than LS I.1. Mid deofles gaste (‘with the spirit of the devil’) reflects demonico spiritu (‘by the spirit of the devil’); the Son is said to be of [his Fæder] soðlice acenned (‘truly born of [his Father]’), paralleling AH I.1’s [natus esset] ex Patre (‘[born] of the Father’); and AH I.2 reproduces the Jews’ direct question even as AH I.1 does. The three texts are obviously interrelated, even if the degree of change differs and the alterations are often subtle. In speaking of dwolmen (‘heretics’ [line 23]) who would deny Christ’s eternal nature, Ælfric surely has Arius chiefly in mind, for references to whom, see notes to AH II.9, lines 172–216. For Ælfric’s condemnation of such figures in AH I.1, see notes to lines 2–17 therein. 18 19 20

‘“I am the beginning, who likewise speaks to you”’. ‘“[I am] the beginning, who likewise speaks to you”’. For another use of John 8 in AH I.2, see line 250.

136

Commentary: In natali Domini Lines 35–56 [Her is sceortlic … Godcundnesse æfre wuniende]: Ælfric’s quotation of John 8.25 leads to further reflection on the weighty mystery of Christ’s nature and role. Here, however, while his discussion initially draws on AH I.1 and LS I.1, it then goes far beyond them. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 10

LS I.121

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 35–56

Audistis, fratres, quam breuis responsio et quam profunda sit.

Nu ge habbað gehered hu se hælend be him sylfum spræc, þæt he is Ordfruma and Angin ealra þinga mid his heofonlican fæder and mid þam halgan gaste.

Her is sceortlic andsware ant swiðe deoplic. Gif æni þing wære wuniende ær þene God, þenne nære he Angin ne Ordfrumæ alræ isceaftæ, ac he soðlice is an almihtig God effre unbigunnen, and he alle isceaftæ isceop swa swa he wolde, summe to engles, summe eac to monen, and on monie wise he worhte iscefta. And nes nan timæ ne nefræ, nane tide, ne nan oðre gesceaft þe he ane ne isceop. Se almihtig Fæder þe alle þing isceop, he streonde ænne Sune of him sylfum acenned buton wifes imanan, and þe is his Wisdom, of þam wise Fæder na iwroht ne isceapen, ac he wæs effre almihtig Sune of þam almihtig Fæder. Þurh ðone he isceop alle gesceaftæ and heom alle lif bifeste þurh ðone lifiende Gaste, þe is heora begræ Lufe, of ham bam e/a\fre. Na, swa ðeah, acenned, ne he nis na sunu, ne he næfre ne ongon, ac he wæs æfre God of þam almihtig Fæder and of [h]is acennede Sune, heoræ begre Lufe and Willæ, on ane Godcundnesse æfre wuniende.

You have heard, brothers, how brief the response and how profound it is.

Now you have heard how the Savior spoke about himself, that He is the Source and Beginning of all things, [along] with his heavenly Father and with the Holy Spirit.

Here is a short and very profound answer. If anything had existed before God, then he would not have been the Beginning or the Source of all created things, but he truly is one almighty God eternally without a beginning, and he made all created things just as he desired, some as angels, some also as humans, and he made creatures in many forms. And there was never any time, or any season, or any other created being that he alone did not create. The almighty Father who created all things begot a Son born of himself without intercourse with a woman, and he is his Wisdom, not made or created from the wise Father, but he was eternally the almighty Son of the almighty Father. Through [the Son], [the Father] created all created things and gave them all life by means of the living Spirit, who is the Love of them both, from them both eternally. However, not having been born, [the Spirit] is in no way a son, nor did he ever have a beginning, but he was eternally God from the almighty Father and from his begotten Son, the Love and Will of them both, eternally existing in one Godhead.

From AH I.1, AH I.2 draws its reverent meditation on the succinct and sublime nature of Christ’s rejoinder to the Jews [line 35]. From LS I.1, it draws its description of Jesus as anginn and ordfruma (‘beginning’ and ‘source’ – the order of which terms he reverses [line 37]). The terms are important ones in the first third of the homily, with anginn recurring in relation to the Father [line 57], Son [line 57], Spirit [line 58], and triune

21

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §2, lines 8–10; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 11–13.

137

Commentary: In natali Domini Godhead as a whole [lines 59, 61, 64, 108, and 128]; and ordfruma appearing as a synonym [lines 58, 59 and 130]. In its additions, moreover, In natali Domini affirms • •

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

the folly of thinking that anything could exist before the Beginning [lines 36–7], a sentiment he will reiterate in lines 63–4; God’s omnipotence [line 38], an attribute he will repeatedly associate with the Father [lines 44, 48, 54, and 96], the Son [line 48], and the Godhead either in general [lines 61, 135, 290, and 376] or in God’s role as Creator (Scyppend [lines 127, 216, and 308]) or Ruler (Wealdend [line 83]); that God existed eternally (æfre [line 38; on which subject see notes to AH I.1, line 1]) – Father [lines 97 and 423 (ece [‘eternal’])], Son [lines 48, 98, and 424 (on ecenesse [‘forever’])], and Spirit [lines 51, 53, and 101] as God [lines 80, 81, 83, 109, 128 (ece [‘eternal’]), and 135] in triune divinity [lines 56 and 66]; that God is without beginning (unbegunnen [line 38; see also lines 80 ([God] wæs unongunnen [‘[God] was without beginning’]), 96 ([Se Fæder] ne ongon næfre [‘[The Father] never had a beginning’]), and 53 ([þe Halga Gast] næfre ne ongon [‘[The Holy Spirit] never had a beginning’])]); God – the Trinity [lines 65–8], and specifically the Father [line 44] through the Son [line 49] – created all things [lines 39 and 42–3; see also 75, 116–18, 127, 139, 216, and 333–87], giving animate beings life through the Spirit [line 50]; God created angels and humans [lines 39–40], whom he will discuss further in lines 116–26, 139–45, and 156–61; and on monie wise … iscefta (‘creatures … in many forms’ [line 41]), which he will consider in lines 110–15 and 142–52; the Father’s immaculate begetting of the Son [lines 45–8; see ‘The Son’s Eternality’ and ‘The Son … in Relation to the Father’ in notes to AH I.1, line 1]; that the Son is the Wisdom of the Father [lines 46 and 99; see further notes to AH I.1, line 1], a subject treated slightly later in the analogous section of AH I.1 [lines 19–20, alluding to 1 Corinthians 1.24; see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30]; that the Son is not a being the Father created [line 48], an Arian heresy to which Ælfric has already alluded (see notes to lines 23–34); that the Spirit is the Love [lines 51 and 55] and Will [line 55] of the Father and the Son, the first of which terms appears slightly later in the analogous section of AH I.1 [lines 11–12 and 33; see notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17]; that the Spirit is not begotten of the Father like the Son, but proceeds eternally from them both [line 51], on which doctrine see notes to AH I.1, line 1, and opening notes to AH II.23. 138

Commentary: In natali Domini For further discussion of the opening of this passage, see notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17. Lines 57–71 [Nu is þe Fæder … ge hit understanden]: Following this augmented treatment of Trinitarian matters in AH I.2, Ælfric returns in AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2 to his exegesis of Christ’s description of himself as ‘the Beginning’ in John 8.25: Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 11–17

LS I.122

Ergo Pater est Principium, et Filius, qui ex Patre natus est, Principium est, et Spiritus Sanctus, qui est Caritas amborum, Principium est. Non tamen ipsi tria Principia sed unum Principium, sicut unus Deus in una deitate semper permanens, non inceptus, nec finitus. Sed ille homo insanus est qui quaerit aliquid ante Principium, quia sancta Trinitas ineffabili potentia et una deitate omnes creaturas fecit, et non est creatura nec tempus permanens quod sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, non creauerit. Credite hoc, fratres carissimi, quia propheta dicit, Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis.

Se Fæder is Angin, and se Sunu is Angin, and se Halga Gast is Angin; ac hi ne synd na þreo anginnu, ac hi ealle þry synden an Angin and an ælmihtig God, æfre unbegunnen and ungeændod. Ac se man wet þe wyle habban ænig þincg ær anginne, forþan ðe seo halige Trynnes is anginn and an Scyppend ealra gesceafta and nan þing næs ne nys wuniende þe se an Wyrhta ne gesceope .

Nu is þe Fæder Angin, and þe Sune Angin, and þe Halga Gast Angin – þæt is, Ordfrumæ. Na þreo Angin, ne þreo Ordfrumæ, ac heo alle þreo on ane Godcundnesse beoð, an Angin, and an almihti God, us unasegenlic and unasmeagenlic. Ac þe mon goffæð and sottæð þe wule habben ænig þing ætforæn þam Anginne ðe alle þing isceop. Þeo halige Ðrymnesse mid unasegenlicræ mihte wæs æfre wunigende and wrohte alle þing, and nis nan gesceaft þe heo ne scopen ne nan tid ne wunæð þe heo ne wrohten. Ðis ge sceolen ilyfen, swa swa us læreð þe witega, Nisi credideritis, non intelligitis, ‘Buton ge hit ilefæn, ne mage ge hit understanden’.

Therefore the Father is the Beginning, and the Son, who was born of the Father, is the Beginning, and the Holy Spirit, who is the Love of both, is the Beginning. Nevertheless they are themselves not three Beginnings but one Beginning, just as there is one God ever existing in one divine nature, not begun, not ended. But that person is mad who searches for something prior to the beginning, because the holy Trinity with unspeakable power and as one Godhead made all created things, and there is no creature or age remaining that the holy Trinity, one God, will not have created. Believe this, dearest brothers, because through the prophet he says, Unless you believe, you will not understand.

The Father is the Beginning, and the Son is the Beginning, and the Holy Spirit is the Beginning; they are not three beginnings, but all three of them are one Beginning and one almighty God, eternally without beginning or end. But the person is mad who desires to have anything before the beginning, because the holy Trinity is the Beginning and the one Creator of all creatures, and there is nothing that was nor is living that the one Maker did not create .

Now the Father is the Beginning, and the Son is the Beginning, and the Holy Spirit is the Beginning – that is, the Source. There are not three beginnings, not three sources, but all three of them exist in one Godhead, one Beginning, and one almighty God, indescribable and unimaginable to us. But that person speaks frivolously and is foolish who desires to have anything before the Beginning who created all things. The holy Trinity with indescribable power existed always and made all things, and there is no created being that it did not create nor any age that exists that it did not make. You ought to believe this, just as the prophet teaches us, Nisi credideritis, non intelligitis, ‘Unless you believe it, you will not be able to understand it’.

22

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 57–71

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §3, p. 22, line 1 – p. 24, line 7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, line 14 – p. 12, line 19.

139

Commentary: In natali Domini LS 1 follows its predecessor fairly closely, while adding certain elements (depicting God as ælmihtig [‘Almighty’] and an Wyrhta [‘the one Maker’], for example) and omitting others: the appositional descriptions of the Son as begotten of the Father (qui ex Patre natus est; see ‘The Son’s Eternality’ and ‘The Son … in Relation to the Father’ in notes to AH I.1, line 1) and the Spirit as their Love (qui est caritas amborum; see notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17, and ‘The … Spirit in Relation to the Father’ in notes to AH I.1, line 1); the imagery of God’s act of creation ineffabili potentia et una deitate (‘with unspeakable power and as one Godhead’); and the admonition, rooted in Isaiah 7.9 (or a version thereof; see AH I.1, lines 2–17), to believe. AH I.2 goes a couple of steps further, drawing not only on its immediate predecessor, LS I.1, but on AH I.1 and on its own augmentation in lines 35–56 just before. From LS I.1, first of all, In natali Domini takes selective Old English language: the names of the Trinitarian Persons, the reference to them as Angin (‘the Beginning’), the discussion of them as almihtig God (‘almighty God’) and halige Ðrymnesse (‘holy Trinity’), and so on. From AH I.1, it takes the image of God creating mid unasegenlicræ mihte (‘with indescribable power’), perhaps the affirmation that the Trinity exists on ane Godcundnesse (‘in one Godhead’, paralleling the later una deitate), the assertion that there is nan tid (‘no season [or “time”]’) that God did not create, and the idiosyncratic Latin rendering of Isaiah 7.9. And from its earlier augmentation, it takes the term ordfruma (‘Source’ [lines 37 and 58–9]) as a synonym for angin. It also adds unique details of its own, describing God as unasegenlic and unasmeagenlic (‘indescribable and unimaginable’) [echoing mid unasegenlicræ mihte later on], warning that he who doubts God’s eternality goffæð and sottæð (‘is vain and foolish’), and reiterates that God wæs æfre wunigende (‘existed always’). LS I.1, in short, may be a condensed version of AH I.1, but AH I.2 is an adaptation of both. Godden notes that LS I.1 (and thus for us, AH I.1 and 2 as well) may possibly draw on Alcuin’s Expositio in Euangelium Iohannis’ exegesis of John 8.25, where Jesus describes himself as principium (‘the Beginning’, on which, see notes for lines 23–34 above and AH I.1, lines 2–17).23 The connection is not without justification. Alcuin’s commentary is one on which Ælfric draws elsewhere.24 When it treats John 8.25, it describes all three Trinitarian Persons as principium, as does AH I.1.25 It also describes the Son as sapientia (‘wisdom’), as AH I.1 does slightly further on [lines 20 and 32] and AH I.2 (using Wisdom) does [lines 46 and 99]. Furthermore, it quotes this version of Isaiah 7.9 (Nisi credideritis, non intelligitis) not once but four times. Even so, doubt remains as to whether Ælfric used the Expositio in this case. The passage reads as follows:

23 24 25

‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1’. See ‘Records for Source Title Comm.Ioan.’ PL 100.863D–864C.

140

Commentary: In natali Domini Alcuin, Expositio in Euangelium Iohannis IV.2126

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 11–17

Quare se dicit Dominus Iesus principium? Quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt, sicut Psalmus dicit: Omnia in sapientia fecisti. Si igitur omnia in sapientia fecit Deus, id est, in Filio suo coaeterno sibi et consubstantiali, Filius utique omnium principium est. Nunquid et Pater potest dici principium? Utique recte dicitur et Pater principium, et Filius principium; non tamen duo principia. Sicut Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, non tamen duo dii, sed unus Deus dicendus est; sic Pater principium, et Filius principium, non tamen duo principia, sed unum principium fatendum est. Ergo et Spiritus sanctus principium est, non tamen tria principia, Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, sed unum principium; sicut Pater Deus, Filius Deus, Spiritus sanctus Deus, non tamen tres dii, sed unus Deus. Pater omnipotens, Filius omnipotens, Spiritus sanctus omnipotens, non tamen tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens.

Ergo Pater est Principium, et Filius , qui ex Patre natus est, Principium est, et Spiritus Sanctus, qui est Caritas amborum, Principium est. Non tamen ipsi tria Principia sed unum Principium, sicut unus Deus in una deitate semper permanens, non inceptus, nec finitus. Sed ille homo insanus est qui quaerit aliquid ante Principium, quia sancta Trinitas ineffabili potentia et una deitate omnes creaturas fecit, et non est creatura nec tempus permanens quod sancta Trinitas, unus Deus, non creauerit. Credite hoc, fratres carissimi, quia propheta dicit, Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis.

Why does the Lord Jesus call himself ‘the Beginning’? Because all things were made through him, just as the Psalm says: ‘You made all things in wisdom’. If therefore God made all things in wisdom – that is, through his own Son, equally eternal and of the same essence as him – assuredly the Son is the Beginning of all things. And is not the Father to be called the Beginning? Assuredly it is rightly said both that the Father is the Beginning and the Son is the Beginning; even so, they are not two beginnings. Just as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and nevertheless they are not two gods, but must be called one God; so the Father is the Beginning, and the Son is the Beginning, and nevertheless they are not two beginnings, but must be acknowleged to be one Beginning. Therefore the Holy Spirit is also the Beginning, and nevertheless they are not three beginnings, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, but one Beginning; just as the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, and nevertheless they are not three gods, but one God. The Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Spirit is almighty; nevertheless, they are not three almighty persons, but one Almighty.

Therefore the Father is the Beginning, and the Son , who was born of the Father, is the Beginning, and the Holy Spirit, who is the Love of both, is the Beginning. Nevertheless they are themselves not three Beginnings but one Beginning, just as there is one God ever existing in one divine nature, not begun, not ended. But that person is mad who searches for something prior to the Beginning, because the holy Trinity with unspeakable power and as one Godhead made all created things, and there is no creature or age remaining that the holy Trinity, one God, will not have created. Believe this, dearest brothers, because through the prophet he says, Unless you believe, you will not understand.

The two texts share a number of phrases in common (Pater/Filius/Spiritus principium [‘the Father/Son/Spirit is the Beginning’], non tamen tria principia … sed unum principium 26

PL 100.864B–864C.

141

Commentary: In natali Domini [‘nevertheless, they are not three beginnings … but one Beginning’], and so on), though the authors could have reached for such language independently in answering basic questions about John’s passage – namely, does Christ’s statement imply that he is the only ‘beginning’, or that the Persons of the Trinity are unequal in origin? Ælfric differs from Alcuin, moreover, in treating all three Persons together rather than starting with a discussion of the Father and Son. The verses cited by the texts differ as well: Alcuin speaks of sapientia in relation to Psalms 104.24 [Vulgate 103.24] (Omnia in sapientia fecisti), while Ælfric quotes Isaiah 7.9 (Nisi credideritis, non intellegitis) – a passage also mentioned by the Expositio, as we have noted, but only in references to other verses.27 Another clue to the puzzle, however, may be offered by Mark Griffith in his analysis of an analogous passage in Ælfric’s Prefatio to Genesis, which is worth quoting in full: Heo onginð þus: In principio creauit Deus celum et terram. Þæt ys on Englisc, ‘On annginne gesceop God heofenan and eorþan’. Hit wæs soðlice swa gedon þæt God ælmihig geworhte on anginne, þa þa he wolde, gesceafta. Ac swa þeah, æfter gastllicum andgite, þæt anginn ys crist, swa swa he sylf cwæþ to þam Iudeiscum: ‘Ic eom angin þe to eow sprece’. Þurh þis angina worhte God fæder heofenan and eorþan, for þan þe he gesceop ealle gesceafta þurh þone sunu, se þe was æfre of him accenned, wisdom of þam wisan fæder. [The Bible] begins as follows: In the beginning, God created heaven and earth [Genesis 1.1]. That is in English, ‘In the beginning, God created heaven and earth’. It truly transpired so, that God Almighty made creatures in the beginning, when he chose. But nevertheless, in a spiritual sense, that beginning is Christ, even as he himself said to the Jews: ‘I am the Beginning, who speaks to you’ [John 8.25]. Through this Beginning, God the Father made heaven and earth, because he created all creatures through the Son, he who was eternally begotten of him, Wisdom of the wise Father.28

The Prefatio is not the only time Ælfric explicitly links Genesis 1.1 and John 8.25: the verses appear, for example, in the Interrogationes Sigewulfi,29 Hexameron,30 and SH I.1.31 Such should come as no surprise: as Griffith states, ‘Because it provided the symbolic explanation for the words in principio, John 8.25 became a near obligatory twin for Genesis 1.1 in patristic literature on Genesis (whilst commentaries on John, though they associate Christ’s answer to the Jews in 8.25 with his role in the creation, do not quote Genesis 1:1)’.32 Griffith surveys various sources proposed for the passages in the Prefatio, Interrogationes, Hexameron, and SH I.1 before noting that another element is present in the Prefatio and Hexameron: Ælfric’s description of the Son as Wisdom. Intriguingly, Griffith suggests that the link between the Son, Wisdom, and creation may 27 28 29 30 31 32

Specifically, John 4.20–1 (Expositio I.7 [PL 100.797D]), 6.65 (III.16 [PL 100.839A]), 7.16 (IV.17 [PL 100.844B]), and 7.17 (IV.17 [PL 100.844C]). Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 5, lines 49–57. Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 121, lines 159–63; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 16, lines 146–50. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 36, line 31, and p. 37, line 51. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 200, lines 68 and 71. The verses are used, moreover, in conjunction with John 1.1 (p. 198, line 27). ‘Ælfric’s Use of his Sources’, p. 137.

142

Commentary: In natali Domini stem from Psalms 104.24 [Vulgate 103.24], Omnia in sapientia fecisti (‘You made all things in wisdom’). Speaking of the passage from the Prefatio above, he states: Ælfric does not quote this psalm verse, but one can see that it lies behind the unexplained and abrupt transition in the preface from the statement that all creation was formed through the Son [… he gesceop ealle gesceafta þurh þone Sunu] to the immediately following identification of the Son as wisdom [… se þe wæs æfre of him a[c]cenned, wisdom of þam wisan Fæder], for the psalm verse yokes these two ideas together. Ælfric’s remarks on Genesis 1.1, therefore, are not a slavish copying, or even a free paraphrase, of any one of these related sources but rather a compilation of material from several of them.33

It could be, of course, that Ælfric had other verses in mind. His characteristic description of the Son as the Wisdom of God is likely rooted in 1 Corinthians 1.24 (see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30), while his discussion of the Son’s role in creation may reflect such passages as John 1.3 (‘Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est’ [‘All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made’]), Hebrews 1.2 (‘per [Filium, Pater] fecit et saecula’ [‘through [the Son, the Father] also made the world’]), and Colossians 1.16 (‘in ipso condita sunt uniuersa in caelis et in terra uisibilia et inuisibilia … omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt’ [‘in him all things were founded in heaven and earth, visible and invisible … all things were created through him and in him’]). The last, with its mention of things ‘visible and invisible’, seems particularly relevant to AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2, given the treatment therein of categories of creation, including physical beings and angelic spirits. At the same time, that Psalms 104.24 was (or at least came to be) associated in Ælfric’s mind with these matters is evidenced by SH I.1, where he quotes the verse in full somewhat after citing John 8.25 and Genesis 1.1, and just before speaking of the Son as Wisdom.34 Griffith points to three sources that speak of Genesis 1.1, John 8.25, and Psalms 104.24, identifying Wisdom as the Son: a sermon by Augustine,35 a commentary on John by Pseudo-Bede,36 and the passage from Alcuin’s Expositio quoted above.37 Of the three, it is the last that linguistically is closest to AH I.1. It may have been a variety of sources, as Griffith suggests, that inspired Ælfric to associate Genesis 1.1, John 8.25, and notions of the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and agent of creation. If so, the Expositio may well have been among them. What is more, if AH I.1 and its related texts are any indication, that influence occurred early in Ælfric’s career and persisted to its end.38 Lines 72–83 [Nu is eft … næfre almihtig Wealdend]: Having quoted one passage (Isaiah 7.9) in AH I.1 and 2, but not LS I.1, Ælfric does the same for another (Sirach 3.22). This

33 34 35 36 37 38

‘Ælfric’s Use of his Sources’, pp. 137–8. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 201, lines 99–101. Sermones post Maurinos reperti, pp. 12 (In principio) – 13 (super aquas). In S. Ioannis Euangelium expositio 2 (Respondit dicentibus … principium est [PL 92.745A]). Griffith, ‘Ælfric’s Use of his Sources’, p. 138; see also his ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Preface to Genesis’. Placing AH I.1 to the period between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991, and SH I.1, for example, to ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010); see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 105 and 90.

143

Commentary: In natali Domini time, moreover, he expounds upon the passage in ways that not only are absent from LS I.1, but different from one another. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 18–20

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 72–83

Item scriptum est, Altiora te ne quaesieris. Et ualde altiora se quaerit, qui uechors perscrutando transscendere uult Christum, Filium Dei coeternum Patri, qui est Virtus et Sapientia Dei.

Nu is eft awriton on oðre stowe þus, Altiora te ne quesieris, ‘Ne ongin þu to asmeagene ofer þine meðe embe þa mycele deopnesse’, ne hure embe þone þe alle þing iscop, ac ilef on him for ðan þe he is soð Lif, for þi læs ðe þu dweolie on þine þriste smeagunge for þan ðe ðu ne miht. Ne forðen engles ne magen næfre asmegen embe heoræ Scuppend, buton þæt he æfre wæs unongunnen Wurhtæ and he æfre þurhwunæð on ecnesse an God. Gif he angin hæfde oðer he ongunne to beon, þenne nere he næfre almihtig Wealdend.

Likewise it is written, Do not search for things too high for you. And he searches for things too high, who being foolish wishes by means of investigating to transcend Christ, the Son of God coeternal with the Father, who is the strength and wisdom of God.

Now it is likewise written again in another place, Do not search for things too high for you, ‘Do not begin to think beyond your ability about the great mystery’, certainly not about him who created all things, but believe in him because he is true life, lest you err in your rash thinking because you are unable [to do it]. Not even angels are ever able to think about their Creator, except that he was eternally the Maker without beginning and eternally remains one God forever. If he had a beginning or began to exist, then he was not ever the almighty Ruler.

In AH I.1, having quoted Sirach 3.22 (Altiora te ne quaesieris, for an analysis of which, see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30), Ælfric focuses on the Son: his eternality and relationship with the Father are beyond the ability of humans to comprehend. In the process, Ælfric alludes to 1 Corinthians 1.24, describing Christ as uirtus et sapientia Dei (‘the strength and wisdom of God’; again, see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30). In AH I.2, on the other hand, the mycele deopnesse (‘great mystery’) in question is the nature and eternality of God in general: the Creator and Maker whom Ælfric has already identified as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [AH I.2, lines 49–51]. Ælfric makes no mention of 1 Corinthians 1.24, but simply reiterates that God created all things, existed eternally, and would not be absolute were he limited in time (see notes to lines 35–55 for cross-references to these subjects). Such matters, Ælfric affirms, are beyond even the ability of angels to contemplate – perhaps echoing Peter’s statement that angels long to look into divine mysteries (in quae desiderant angeli prospicere [1 Peter 1.12]). Lines 84–95 [Gif nu sum … he forðor stow]: Ælfric illustrates the folly of inquiring excessively into such mysteries through an image that appears to be original to him: climbing a ladder.39 The metaphor is one Ælfric first develops in the Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1) and incorporates decades later into the beginning of De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), the opening of which draws a number of lines from In natale Domini.

39

Godden, for example, treating the passage in LS I.1, identifies sources only for the surrounding lines (LS I.1.16–18 and 25 [beginning Ðreo þing] – 32; see Godden, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1’).

144

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 20–2

LS I.140

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 84–95

Si aliquis modo uellet erigere altam scalam sibi et ascendere per gradus eius usque ad sumitatem illius, ualde uechors esset si sine gradibus altius adhuc ascendere uellet, quia tanto grauior casus ei eueniret quanto altius ascenderet.

Gif hwylc gedwola. oððe awoffod man. wyle furðor smeagen and þæt anginn oferstigan. mid dysilicere dyrstignesse. þonne bið he þam men gelic þe arærþ sume heage hlæddre. and stihð be þære hlæddre stapum. oðþæt he to ðæm ænde becume. and wylle þonne git stigan ufor. astihð þonne buton stapum. oð þæt he stedeleas fylþ mid mycclum wyrsan fylle swa he furðor stáh.

Gif nu sum sot wæneð þæt he wrohte hine sylfne, þenne axie we him hu þe heofenlice God hine sylfen wrohte gif he himsylf ær nes, oðer hwa wurcæð ænig þing buton he ær wære and wununge hæfde þæt he wyrcen mihte. Þe ðe furðor smeað þæt he fandie God, he bið ilic þam men þe summe læddræ aræreð and astihð þonne uppon þære læddre stæfæ a þæt he up cume to þære læddre ende, and wule þonne stigan ufor butan stafæ, þonne fællæð he stedeleas for his stuntnesse, swa mucele wyrsse swa /he\ forðor stow.

If anyone were desiring just now to scale a high ladder by himself and to ascend its steps to its highest point, he would be exceedingly foolish if he were desiring to ascend still higher without steps, because the higher he ascended, the more painful the fall would turn out for him.

If some heretic or insane person wants to explore further and climb over the beginning with foolish presumption, then he is like the person who raises a high ladder and climbs using the ladder’s steps until he comes to its end, and then wishes to ascend it higher: he then climbs up without steps until, unstable, he falls with so much worse a fall the higher he had climbed.

Now if some fool believes that [God] made himself, then we ask him how the heavenly God made himself if he did not previously exist, or who makes anything unless he previously existed and had lived so that he might create. He who further thinks that he may test God he is like a person who raises a ladder and then climbs on the ladder’s rungs until he comes up to the ladder’s end, and then wishes to ascend higher without rungs: then, unstable, he falls on account of his foolishness, so much the worse the higher he had climbed.

40

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 4–12 [beginning acephalously]

… oðer hwa wyrcæð ænig þing buton he ær wære, and wununge hæfde þæt he wyrcean mihte. Þe ðe furðor smeað þæt he fandige Godes, se bið gelic þam men þe þonne hladdre arerð and astihð þonne upp be þære hladdre stæpum oð þæt he upp cymð to ende þære læddre and wyle þonne stigan buton stæpum ufer. Þonne stedeleas he fylþ for his stuntnesse mid mycclan wyrsan fylle swa he furðor stah.

… or who makes anything unless he previously lived and had existence so that he might create. He who further thinks that he may test God, he is like a person who raises a ladder and then climbs up the ladder’s steps until he comes up to the ladder’s end, and then wishes to ascend higher without steps: then, unstable, he falls on account of his foolishness, with so much worse a fall the higher he had climbed.

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §3, lines 7–13; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 19–25.

145

Commentary: In natali Domini While in each case the metaphor remains essentially the same, Ælfric tweaks his language as time goes on. In AH I.1, he cuts straight to the image: if one wanted to climb a ladder, it would be foolish not to stop at the top. In LS I.1, he leads in to the analogy: if one wanted to þæt anginn oferstigan (‘climb over the beginning’) – an intriguing though potentially confusing verbal picture – it would be like climbing a ladder beyond its top rung. In AH I.2, he jettisons the phrase above and tries to be clearer: if one – a sot (‘fool’) rather than a gedwola oððe awoffod man (‘heretic or insane person’), in this case – were foolish enough to think that God made himself, or that the Creator had a beginning, it would be like climbing a ladder beyond its top. As for AH II.14, while for the most part it reproduces In natali Domini’s language verbatim – save for minor spelling variations (e.g., wurcæð/wurcð, wyrcen/wyrcean, ilic/gelic) and word rearrangement (þære hlæddre / ende, ufor / buton stigan, fællæð / stedeleas) in the extant copies – it also follows LS I.1 in certain details: speaking of stæpas (‘steps’) rather than stæfas (here, ‘rungs’), putting stedeleas (‘unstable’) before fylþ (‘falls’), and using the phrase mid mycclan wyrsan fylle (‘with much worse a fall’) instead of swa mucele wyrsse (‘so much the worse’). Whatever the precise formulation, in each case Ælfric affirms that when it comes to comprehending infinity, human intellect can only go so far. Lines 96–109 [Ne ongon næfre … a on ecnesse]: If it is folly for humans to seek to understand God’s nature in full, what aspects of his character may they confidently affirm with faith? In the next few lines, Ælfric succinctly sets forth a number of divine attributes that, using similar language and concepts, he will return to time and time again over the course of his career (on which, see further notes to AH I.1, line 1).

146

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 31–3 Numquam incepit Pater sed semper erat; numquam incepit Filius sed semper erat Sapientia natus ex sapiente Patre; numquam incepit Spiritus Sanctus sed semper erat Caritas Patris et Filii coeternus et consubstantialis ipsis in una deitate.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 96–109 Ne ongon næfre þe almihtig God, Fæder, ac he wæs æfre God; and his ancennedæ Sunæ, æfre of him acenned, allswa mihtig swa he, he is Miht and Wisdom of þam wise Fæder; and þe Halga Gast, heoræ beigræ Lufæ, ne ongan næfre ac he wæs æfre God, heo ðreo an God, wunigende on ane cynde, untodæledlic on ane mægenðrymme and on ane Godcundnesse, iliche mihtige, nan læsse þene oðer. Swa hwæt swa bið læsse ðone God, þæt ne bið na God. Þæt þæt lator bið þone God þæt hæfeð angin and ne bið na God. God næfð nan angin, ac he wæs æfre and wunæð a on ecnesse. The Father The Father is The almighty God, the Father, never began the Beginning, never had a beginning, but he to exist but [born] of no other; was eternally God; and his always existed; and the Son is only-begotten Son, eternally the Son never the Beginning, born of him, just as powerful began to exist eternally begotten as he, he is the Strength and but always was of the Father; and Wisdom of the wise Father; the Wisdom the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit, the begotten of the is the Beginning, Love of them both, never wise Father; not begotten but had a beginning but he was the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding eternally God, the three one never began from the Father God, eternally dwelling in but always was and the Son. For one nature, indivisible in one the Love of the the Son is the majesty and in one Godhead, Father and the Father’s Wisdom, equally powerful, none less Son, coeternal [begotten] of him than another. Whatever is less and consubstan- and [abiding] with than God is not God at all. tial among him; and the Holy That which exists after God themselves Spirit is the Will and has a beginning and is not in one divine the Love of them God. God has no beginning, nature. both, [proceeding] but he has eternally existed from them both and and will exist forever. [abiding] with them both.

41

LS I.141 Se Fæder is Angin of nanum oðrum, and se Sunu is Angin æfre of þam Fæder acenned, and se Halga Gast is Angin æfre of þam Fæder and of þam Sunu, na acenned ac forð-stæppende for ðan þe se Sunu is þæs Fæder Wisdom of him and mid him, and se Halga Gast is heora begra Wylle and Lufu of him bam and mid him bam.

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 13–26 Ne ongan næfre þe ælmihtiga Fæder, ac he wæs æfre God; and his ancennedæ Sunu, æfre of him acennedd, eallswa mihtig swa he, he is Miht and Wisdom of þam wisan Fæder; and þe Halga Gast, heora begra Lufe, nes nefre ongan, ac wæs God æfre, hi ðry an God, æfre wunigende on anre Godcundnysse, untodæledlice on anum mægenþrymme and on anre godcunnysse, gelice mihtige, nan læsse þonne oðer. Swa hwæt swa lesse bið þonne God, þæt ne bið na God. Þæt þæt later bið þone God þæt hæfð angin and ne bið na God. God nefð nan anginn, ac he wæs efre and wunæð a on ecnesse. The almighty Father never had a beginning, but he was eternally God; and his only-begotten Son, eternally born of him, entirely as powerful as he, he is the Strength and Wisdom of the wise Father; and the Holy Spirit, the Love of them both, never had a beginning, but was eternally God, the three one God, eternally dwelling in one Godhead, indivisible in one majesty and in one divine nature, equally powerful, none less than another. Whatever is less than God is not God at all. That which exists after God has a beginning and is not God. God has no beginning, but he has eternally existed and will exist forever.

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, lines 1–6; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 33–8. The passage may be original to Ælfric, as Godden identifies sources only for the surrounding lines (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §4, lines 1–9, and p. 26, §6, lines 1–8; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 25–32 and 41 – p. 14, line 48; see ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Lives 1’).

147

Commentary: In natali Domini While the four texts are similar, in some ways LS I.1 seems the odd one out. Where the others say that the Trinity never had a beginning, LS I.1 describes its members as the Beginning. Where all four describe the Spirit as the Love of the Father and the Son, LS I.1 also depicts him as their Will (Wylle; see notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17). Where the others note that the Spirit is ‘of the Father and the Son’, LS I.1 emphasizes that he is ‘na acenned ac forð-stæppende [of him bam]’ (‘not begotten but eternally proceeding [from them both]’), affirming the double procession of the Spirit and thus the Filioque clause of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (see below and notes to AH II.23, lines 2–3). LS I.1 does not simply add material, however: it also omits and rearranges. It lacks, for example, AH I.1’s description of the Persons as consubstantiales (‘consubstantial’, also echoing the Creed [see opening notes to AH II.23]), which AH I.2 and AH II.14 appear to render as ‘untodæledlic on ane mægenðrymme and on ane Godcundnesse’ (‘indivisible in one majesty and in one Godhead’). Furthermore, instead of treating each Person in turn, LS I.1 speaks first of their eternal origin and relationship (existing, begotten, proceeding), and then adds their titles (Wisdom, Will/Love) while reiterating their relationship. While AH I.2 and the nearly-verbatim AH II.14 seem to translate AH I.1 more directly than LS I.1, however, these last two texts also include material of their own. Where all four speak of the Son as eternally born or begotten (natus/acenned), AH I.2 and AH II.14 add that he is the only-begotten (ancenned). Where all four describe him as the Wisdom of the Father, AH I.2 and AH II.14 also call him the Father’s Strength (Miht, from 1 Corinthians 1.24; see AH I.1, lines 19–20 and notes to lines 18–30). Where the first two stop after individually treating the Persons, AH I.2 and AH II.14 continue with general comments: the Persons must be equal, or they would not be God; they must be coeternal, or they would not be equal; and, being God, they are together without beginning or end. Lines 110–15 [Nu beoð summe … iwurðæþ to nohte]: In our notes to the Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), we have discussed biblical and ecclesiastical Latin sources that influenced the Sermo and texts downstream of it, such as AH I.2. At points, however, a vernacular source also seeded Ælfric’s thought: the Old English Boethius, a twofold translation of De consolatione Philosophiae (‘On the Consolation of Philosophy’) by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca 480 – ca 526).42 Between ca 880 × 885 and ca 950, two Old English versions of De consolatio were produced that have traditionally been associated with the court of Alfred the Great (king from 871–899). The first adapted the prose and verse of the Latin original, turning the whole into prose. The second, composed not long afterward, was prosimetrical: taking its vernacular precursor, it rendered into verse those sections that originally had been verse in Latin, while retaining those sections that had been translated from prose.43 Ælfric’s debt to the Old English Boethius has long been known, particularly in relationship to LS I.1 and II.16 [Skeat I.1 and I.17].44 Less clear, perhaps, is Ælfric’s knowledge and use of Boethius early in his career – namely, in AH I.1 – and his subsequent reuse of such material thereafter. 42 43 44

On whom (and which), see for example Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 84–8. Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), pp. ix–xl, and Boethius (2009), p. 8; see also Discenza, ‘Old English Boethius’, pp. 200–5. See for example Bolton, ‘The Alfredian Boethius’; Szarmach, ‘Boethius’s Influence’, pp. 236–43;

148

Commentary: In natali Domini Correspondences to the Old English Boethius in AH I.1, AH I.2, and related texts may be summarized as follows:45 Old English Boethius [prose]

Old English Boethius [prosimetric]

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1)

In natali Domini (AH I.2)

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14)

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 380, lines 13–16

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), p. 396, §2

lines 33–6

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §4, lines 1–3

lines 110–15

lines 27–32

p. 380, line 15 – p. 381, line 18

p. 396, §2

lines 36–8

p. 24, §4, lines 4–7

lines 116–26

lines 33–42

p. 381, lines 18–19

p. 396, §2

lines 38–40

p. 24, §4, lines 7–10

lines 127–30

lines 43–5

p. 381, lines 26–34

p. 398, §§3–4

lines 40–3

p. 26, §6, lines 1–9

lines 131–8

lines 46–53

p. 379, line 163 – p. 380, line 172

[NA]46

lines 55–66

p. 26, §7, lines 1–14

lines 139–64

[na]

p. 317, lines 217–23

[NA]

lines 116–26

p. 30, §11, lines 1–5

lines 237–42

[na]

p. 298, lines 47–9

p. 160, §5

lines 161–76

p. 34, §17, lines 1–13

lines 314–30

[na]

LS I.1

For the passages in question, the prose and prosimetric versions of the Old English Boethius – the ‘B’ text, found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 180; and the ‘C’ text, found in London, British Library, Cotton Otho A. vi, respectively – are identical save for slight variations of spelling; as such, only the prose version will be quoted in the analysis below. The first Boethian passage found in AH I.2 sets up a distinction between mortal and immortal creatures. The former, existing only as physical beings, have no soul.

45

46

and Godden, ‘Alfredian Precedents’, pp. 147–60. For a full discussion of Ælfrician passages drawn from the Old English Boethius, including those in LS II.16 [Skeat I.17], see Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, pp. 207–9 and 545–7; and Discenza, ‘The Old English Boethius’, pp. 223–5. As Godden and Irvine state, ‘it is clear here that Ælfric was using a prose version similar to B rather than the prosimetrical version represented by C’ (Boethius [2009], vol. I, pp. 207–8).

149

Commentary: In Natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 33–6

Wast þu þæt þrio þing sindon on þis middangearde? An is hwilendlic þæt hæfð ægþer ge fruman ge ende, and nat þeah nanwuht þæs ðe hwilendlic is nauðer ne his fruman ne his ende.

In creaturis sunt quaedam temporalia, quaedam aeterna. Temporalia uero sunt ut pecora, pisces, uolatilia, quae anima carent, quae habent utrumque initium et finem, quae inceperunt quando creata sunt, et iterum morte finiantur et ad nichilum redigantur.

Ðreo þing synd on middanearde: an is hwilwendlic, þe hæfð ægðer ge ordfrumman ge ende; þæt synd nytenu and ealle sawullease þing þe ongunnan þa þa hi God gesceop, and æft geændiað and to nahte gewurðaþ.

Nu beoð summe isceaftæ þurh God swa isceapene þæt heo habbæð angin and eac endæð and to nohte iwurðæþ for þam þe heo nabbæð nane sawle. Heo beoð hwilwendlice swa þæt heo beoð summe hwile; þæt beoð nytene and fiscsæs and fugelas. Heo weron iscapene þurh God, and heo iwurðæþ to nohte.

Nu synd sume gesceafta swa gesceapene þurh God þæt hi hæbbæð angin and eac geendiæð and to nohte iwurðæð for þam ðe hi nabbæð nane sawle. Hi syndon hwilwendlice, swa þæt heo beoð sume hwile; þæt beoð nytene and fisces and fugeles. Hi weron gesceapene þurh God, and hi iwurðað to nohte.

Do you know that there are three things in this world? One is transitory: it has both a beginning and an end, and yet nothing that is transitory knows either its beginning or its end.

Among created things some are temporal, some eternal. Certainly there are temporal creatures such as cattle, fish (and) birds, that lack a soul, have both a beginning and an end, began to exist when they were created, and in turn will both come to an end in death and be reduced to nothing.

Three things there are in this world: one is transitory, that has both a beginning and an end; those are cattle [or ‘beasts’] and all soulless things that began when God created them and [that] afterward come to an end and become nothing.

Now certain creatures are thus created by God to have a beginning and also die and to become nothing because they have no soul. They are transitory so that they exist for a certain time; these are cattle and fish and birds. They were created by God, and they become nothing.

Now certain creatures are thus created by God to have a beginning and also die and to become nothing because they have no soul. They are transitory so that they exist for a certain time; these are cattle and fish and birds. They were created by God, and they become nothing.

LS I.148

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 110–15

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 27–32

Old English Boethius [prose] 4247

The first category the five texts treat, then, is that of ‘transitory’ or ‘temporal’ creatures whose existence comes to an end. Ælfric expands on Boethius by giving examples – birds, fish, and cattle (pecora or nietenu, which may include all flightless land-based 47 48

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 380, lines 13–16; for the prosimetrical version (identical save for minor spelling variations), see Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), p. 396, §2. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §4, lines 1–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 25–8.

150

Commentary: In natali Domini animals, and which LS I.1 may use sweepingly to refer to ‘beasts’); by reiterating that such beings are created and come to nothing – comments attached to the end of this passage in AH I.1 and LS I.1, but moved to the beginning in AH I.2 and II.14 (which texts twice also identify God as the Creator); and by setting up his next category by affirming that animals lack souls – an assertion Ælfric makes often elsewhere: see CH I.1,49 CH I.6,50 CH I.20,51 CH I.21,52 CH II.19,53 Interrogationes,54 Hexameron,55 the Letter to Wulfgeat,56 and the corresponding passage in AH II.11.57 LS 1 here seems to draw on both Boethius and AH I.1, staying closer to the former in its first half and to the latter in the second. AH I.2 and II.14 are at a further remove yet, drawing far more on AH I.1 and LS I.1 than Boethius, and paraphrasing and rearranging that previous Ælfrician material. Lines 116–26 [Nu beoð oðre isceaftæ … on ece worlde]: The second Boethian passage in AH I.2 considers created immortal beings:

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Clemoes, First Series, p. 182, lines 108 (ac he) – 10 (ealle geendode); see also p. 182, lines 112 (and he) – 115 (geendað næfre). Clemoes, First Series, p. 227, lines 97 (witodlice se) – 99 (ne þrowað). Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, lines 13 (Nytenu and) – 14 (buton sawle). Clemoes, First Series, p. 349, lines 125 (Nytenu lybbað) – 127 (sind sawullease). Godden, Second Series, p. 185, lines 178 (Se mann) – 179 (sindon sawullease). Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 145, lines 234 (Hwi sægð) – 237 (he ana); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 22, lines 209–12. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 59, lines 341 (On ðæs) – 343 (agenne Scyppend). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 12, lines 294 (nan lichamlic) – 295 (man ana). Lines 215–16.

151

Others are eternal, so that they have a beginning but do not have an end. They have a beginning because they were created, but they do not have an end because they never cease to exist, like angels and human souls.

The second thing is eternal: it has a beginning and has no end, and knows when it begins, and knows that it will never end; those are angels and human souls.

59

The second thing is eternal, so that it has a beginning and has no end; those are angels and human souls, which began when God created them, but they never come to an end .

Oðer þing is ece, swa þæt hit hæfð ordfruman and næfð nenne ende; þæt synd ænglas and manna saula, þe ongunnen ða þa hi god gesceop, ac hi ne geendiað næfre .

LS I.159

Now there are other creatures by God thus created to have a beginning and no end and to be eternal with respect to their future; these are angels and human souls. They never come to an end, although they earlier had a beginning. Though a person’s body dies – whether it drowns in water or is burned to death – his soul cannot die, but be it evil, be it good, it will exist eternally just as the angels will be living eternally in the everlasting world.

Nu beoð oðre isceaftæ þur Gode swa iscapene þæt heo habbæþ angin and nænne ende and beoþ æce on þam æft/r\ an dæle; þæt beoð englæs and monne sawle. Heo ne endiæð næfre, þeah heo ær ongunnon. Ðæh ðes monnes lichame swælte – oðer he on watere adrynce oðer he wurðe forbernd – ne mæg næfre his sawle endiæn, ac beo heo ufel beo heo god, heo bið æfre swa swa engles beoð æfre þurhwuniende on ece worlde.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 116–26

Now there are other creatures thus created by God to have a beginning and not to have an end and to be eternal with respect to their future; these are angels also and human souls. They never come to an end, although they earlier had a beginning. The soul of a person cannot, though his body dies – whether it drowns in water or is burned to death – ever die, but it will exist eternally – be it evil, be [it] good – just as the angels will be living eternally in the everlasting world.

Nu synd oþre gesceafta swa iscapene þurh God þæt heo habbað anginn and nabbað nenne ende and syndon ece on þam eftram dæle; þæt syndon englas and eac manna sawle. Hi ne geendiað næfre, þeah ðe hi ær ongunnon. Ne meg þes mannes sawul, þeah ðe se lichama swelte – oðþe he on wætere adrynce oððe he wurþe forbærned – nefre geendian, ac heo bið æfre – beo heo ufel, beo god – swa swa englas beoð æfre þurhwuniende on ece worlde.

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 33–42

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 380, line 15 – p. 381, line 18; for the prosimetrical version (identical save for minor spelling variations), see Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), p. 396, §2. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §4, lines 4–7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 28–30.

Alia sunt æterna, ita ut habeant initium sed non habent finem. Initium habent quia creata sunt, sed carent fine quia numquam desinunt esse, sicut angeli et anime hominum.

Oðer þing is ece þæt hæfð fruman and næfð nenne ende, and wat hwonne hit onginnð and wat þæt hit næfre ne geendað, þæt sint englas and monna sawla.

58

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 36–8

Old English Boethius [prose] 4258

Commentary: In natali Domini In all four cases, Ælfric omits Boethius’ observation regarding angels’ and human souls’ knowledge of their created, immortal state; otherwise, however, his adaptation varies. AH I.1 expands upon the meaning of ‘beginning but no end’, as it had in the preceding passage. LS I.1 does the same, but identifies God as creator and moves ‘angels and human souls’ to the middle rather than the end. AH I.2 and II.14 add to this material further by distinguishing between human bodies, which can perish in various ways, and their souls, which will share an eternal future with the angels. In these comments, as with the passage before, LS I.1 linguistically parallels Boethius in its first half while translating content from AH I.1 in the second, while AH I.2 and II.14 seem to draw generally on the earlier Ælfrician texts while paraphrasing and rearranging their content. Discenza points to a similar passage earlier in the Old English Boethius 41 – ‘he gesceop two gescedwisan gesceafta frio, englas and men’ (‘He created two rational creatures [to be] free: angels and human beings’)60 – as a source alongside Alcuin’s De Genesim for Ælfric’s exchange in Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin: ‘Hu fela gesceadwisa gesceafta gesceop God? Twa. Englas and men’ (‘How many rational creatures did God create? Two: angels and human beings’).61 For further comments by Ælfric regarding angels and human souls, see CH I.2062 and the notes to AH II.14, lines 78–81. Lines 127–30 [Nu is þe almihtig … ealwealdend God]: The third Boethian passage in AH I.2 turns from temporal and eternal creatures to the Creator himself: Old English Boethius [prose] 4263 Ðridde þing is ece buton ende and buton anginne, þæt is God.

60 61 62 63 64

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 38–40 Nam Creator omnium sic aeternus est, ut non habeat initium nec finem sed ipse est Initium et Finis, carens tamen initio et fine.

LS I.164 Ðridde þing is ece, swa þæt hit næfð naðor ne ordfruman ne ende; þæt is se Ana Ælmihtiga God on þrynnesse and on annysse, æfre wuniende unasmeagendlic and unasæcgendlic.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 127–30

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 43–5

Nu is þe almihtig Scuppend þe alle þing iscop ane swa ece þæt he nafeð nan angin ne he nafæð nenne ende, ac he him sylf is ægþer Ordfrume and Ende, ealwealdend God.

Nu is se ælmihtiga Scyppend þe ealle þing gesceop ane swa ece þæt he nan angin næfð, ac he sylf is ægðer Ordfruma and Ende, eallwealdend God.

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), vol. I, p. 375, lines 25–6. On the (initial) freedom of angels and humans, see for example Kleist, Striving with Grace, p. 183. Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 85, lines 28–9; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 4, lines 24–5. Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, lines 12 (Englas he) – 13 (mid lichaman). Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 381, lines 18–19; for the prosimetrical version (identical save for minor spelling variations), see Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), p. 396, §2. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §4, lines 7–10; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 31–3.

153

Commentary: In natali Domini The third thing is eternal without an end and without a beginning: that is God.

For the Creator of all is eternal in this way so that he has no beginning or end but is himself the Beginning and the End, though being without beginning and end.

The third thing is eternal, so that it has neither beginning nor end; such is the One Almighty God in Trinity and Unity, who continues ever unsearchable and unspeakable.

Now the almighty Creator who created all things is alone so eternal that he has no beginning nor any end, but he himself is both Beginning and the End, the all-ruling God.

Now the almighty Creator who created all things is alone so eternal that he has no beginning , but he himself is both Beginning and the End, the all-ruling God.

AH I.1 preserves but augments the Boethian line: God is not simply eternal; he is the Creator of all. God is not just without beginning or end; he is the Beginning and End. LS I.1 draws first from Boethius (‘Ðridde þing is ece’), then translates part of AH I.1 (‘swa þæt hit næfð naðor ne ordfruman ne ende’ for ‘ut non habeat initium nec finem’), and then expands upon their comments considerably. Not only does Ælfric speak of God’s þrynnes and annys (‘Trinity and Unity’) – language he uses in CH I.8,65 CH I.20,66 CH I.22,67 LS III.30 [Skeat II.34],68 SH I.9,69 and the Interrogationes;70 see also ‘Nature and Indivisibility’ under AH I.1, line 1 above – but he describes God as unasmeagendlic and unasæcgendlic (‘unsearchable and unspeakable’), a phrase he apparently uses only here, and applies the principle of divine origin to each Person of the Godhead: ‘Se fæder is angin of nanum oðrum, and se sunu is angin æfre of þam fæder acenned, and se halga gast is angin æfre of þam fæder and of þam sunu, na acenned ac forðstæppende’ (‘The Father is the Beginning, of none other; and the Son is the Beginning, eternally begotten of the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the Beginning, eternally of the Father and of the Son, not begotten, but proceeding’).71 AH I.2 and II.14 omit this last extended discussion, preserve bits from LS I.1 such as the description of God as almihtig (‘almighty’), and add the appellation ealwealdend God (‘all-ruling God’), but otherwise largely follow AH I.1. For Ælfric’s description of the Almighty as Initium et Finis (‘Beginning and End’ [line 38, drawing on Revelation 21.6a]), see notes to AH I.1, lines 38–43. Lines 131–8 [Ne ondred he … specæð mid unleaffulnesse]: The fourth Boethian passage in AH I.2 teases out the implications of God’s limitlessness for his abilities and character:

65 66 67 68 69 70 71

Clemoes, First Series, p. 248, line 207. Clemoes, First Series, p. 336, lines 30 and 39–40; p. 342, lines 208–9; and p. 344, line 256. Clemoes, First Series, p. 363, lines 234–5. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 218, line 165; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 364, line 165. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 383, line 107. Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 129, line 188, corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 18, lines 171–2. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §5, lines 1–4; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 33–6.

154

73

This one Creator knows all things and sees that which has happened, that which now is, and that which is to come; he forgets nothing, and nothing can escape him. He is not afraid of anything, because he has no one more powerful than he, nor any even like him. He is always giving, and nevertheless he does not diminish any of his posessions, nor does he need anything. He is ever Almighty God, because he always wills what is good and never any evil, but he hates those who do evil and the unrighteous.

Þæs an scyppend wat ealle þing and gesihð ge þæt gedon is, ge þæt þe nu is, ge þæt ðe toweard is; ne he nan þing ne forgit, ne him nan þing ætfleon ne mæg. Ne ondret he him nanes þinges, for ðan þe he næfð nenne riccran, ne furðon nanne him gelicne. Symble he bið gyfende, and he ne wanað swaþæh nan þing his, ne him nanes þinges nis neodþearf. Symble he bið Ælmihtig God, forðan ðe he symble wyle god and næfre nan yfel, ac he hatað þa yfelwyrcendan and þa unrihtwisan.

LS I.173

He fears no one, because none other is more powerful than he, nor even like him. He is continually giving his gifts to whom he desires, but he does not diminish his possessions. He needs nothing. He is eternally almighty , and he always wills good. He never wills any evil, but he truly hates those who do wickedness and also destroys those who tell lies with unbelief.

Ne ondred he him nænne , for þan ðe nan oðer nis mihtigræ þonne he, ne forðon him ilic. Æfre he bið gyfende his gyfæ þam ðe he wyle, ac he his þing ne wonæð. Ne he nanes þinges ne bihofæð. Æfre he bið almihtig , and æfre he wule wæl. Nyle he næfre nan ufel, ac he hatæð soðlice þa ðe unriht wurceæð and eac þa fordeþ ðe leasungæ specæð mid unleaffulnesse.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 131–8

He fears no one, because none other is more powerful than he, nor even like him. He is continually giving his gifts to whom he desires, but he does not diminish his possessions. He needs nothing. He is eternally almighty, and he always wills good. He never wills any evil, but he truly hates those who do wickedness and also destroys those who tell lies with unbelief.

Ne ondræt he nenne, for þan ðe nan oðer nis mihtigræ þonne he ne furþon him gelic. Efre he bið gifende his gifa þam ðe he wyle ac his þing ne waniað, ne he nanes ne behofað. Efre he bið ælmihtig, and efre he wyle wel. Nele he næfre nan ufell, ac he hatæð soðlice þa ðe unriht wyrceað and eac þa fordeð þe leasungæ specað mid | unleafulnysse.

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 46–53

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 381, lines 26–34; for the prosimetrical version (identical save for minor spelling variations), see Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), p. 398, §§3–4. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §6, lines 1–9; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, line 41 – p. 14, line 49.

He fears no one because he has no one more powerful than he, nor even one like him. He always gives and never diminishes his possessions nor needs anything. He is always almighty, always wills what is good, never what is wicked. But he hates those who do evil and destroys all who tell a lie.

But everything is present to him: both that which happened previously, and that which is now, and that which will come after us; it is all present to him. His wealth never increases, nor does it ever grow less. He never remembers anything because he never forgot anything. He seeks nothing nor deliberates, because he knows it all. He seeks nothing because he lost nothing. He pursues nothing because nothing can escape him. He fears nothing because he has no one more powerful than he, nor any even like him. He is always giving and never diminishes his possessions at all. He is always almighty because he always wills what is good and never any evil.

72

Nullum timet quia non habet potentiorem se, nec saltem similem. Semper dat et numquam sua minuit nec aliquo indiget. Semper est omnipotens, semper uult bene numquam male. Sed odit eos qui operantur iniquitatem et perdit omnes qui loquuntur mendacium.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 40–3

Ac him is eall andweard, ge þætte ær wæs ge þætte nu is ge þætte æfter us bið; eall hit is him andweard. Ne wexð his wela na, ne eac næfre ne wanað. Ne ofman he næfre nanwuht forþam næfre nauht he ne forgeat. Ne secð he nanwuht ne ne smeað forþam he hit wat eall. Ne secð he nanwuht forþam he nanwuht ne forleas. Ne eht he nanre wuhte forþi hine nanwuht ne mæg flion. Ne ondræt he nanwuht forþam he næfð nænne ricran, ne furþum nanne gelican. Simle he bið gifende and ne wanað hys næfre nauht. Simle he bið ælmihtig forþam he simle wile god and næfre nan yfel.

Old English Boethius [prose] 4272

Commentary: In natali Domini LS 1 is the only version that includes elements from the first half of the Boethian passage: God simultaneously apprehends the past, present, and future – the key in De consolatione and the Old English Boethius to the problem of foreknowledge and free will;74 he forgets nothing; and nothing escapes from him. Other details LS I.1 edits or omits: rather than speaking in Boethian terms of divine omniscience in the present (andweard), Ælfric says simply that God knows and sees everything; rather than speaking in both negative and positive terms (‘God never remembers because he never forgets’), Ælfric simply chooses the latter of the pair (‘he forgets nothing’); and rather than speaking of God’s wealth (wela) or seeking (secan, used both mentally [as in ‘seek the answer to’] and physically [as in ‘seek out what is lost’]), Ælfric simply relies on later comments in Boethius (‘ne wanað hys næfre nauht’ [he never diminishes his possessions’] and ‘Ne eht he nanre wuhte’ [‘He pursues nothing’]) to make the point. All four versions, on the other hand, include elements from the second half of Boethius: God does not fear, he always gives, he is almighty, and he wills good rather than evil. All four also modify these elements somewhat: AH I.1, I.2, and II.14 say God fears ‘no one’ rather than ‘nothing’; AH I.1 adds the phrase nec aliquo indiget (‘nor does [God] need anything’); and AH I.2 and II.14 specify that God gives his gyfæ þam ðe he wyle (‘his gifts to whom he desires’), for example. All four, moreover, go beyond Boethius in their conclusion: not only do they affirm that God wills good, but uniquely in the Old English corpus adapt Psalms 5.5b and 5.7a to describe God’s righteous will and opposition to the wicked (on which, see notes to AH I.1, lines 38–43). In the passages above, as elsewhere in these texts, LS I.1 draws on and adapts both Boethius (for its preliminary comments) and AH I.1 (for its concluding sentence), while AH I.2 and II.14 do the same to AH I.1 and LS I.1. Lines 139–64 [Nu beoð þa gesceaftæ … on ðare eorðæ]: The fifth Boethian passage turns from the Creator to the created, distinguishing between the spiritual and incarnate and between animals and human beings.

74

See Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 88 and 115–20, especially at 119.

156

76

Ða gesceafta þe þæs an Scyppend gesceop synden mænigfealde and mislices hiwes and ungelice farað . Sume sindon ungesewenlice gastas butan lichoman swa swa synd ænglas on heofonum . Sume syndan creopende on eorðan mid eallum lichoman, swa swa wurmas doð. Sume gað on twam fotum, sume on feower fotum. Sume fleoð mid fyðerum , sume on flodum swimmað , and hi ealle swaþæh alotene beoð to þære eorðan weard and þider wilniað oððe þæs þe him lyst oððe þæs þe hi beþurfon; ac se man ana gæð uprihte, þæt getacnað þæt he sceall ma þæncan upp þonne nyðer, þelæs þe þæt mod sy neoðer þonne se lichoma and he sceal smeagen embe þæt æce lif þe he to gesceapen wæs swiðor þonne embe þa eorðlican þing, swa swa his wæstm him gebicnað.

LS I.176

Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 379, line 163 – p. 380, line 172. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §7, lines 1–14; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 49–61.

Creaturae uero quas unus Creator creauit multiplices sunt, et uariae figurae, et non uno modo uiuunt. Ex quibus quaedam sunt incorporalia et inuisibilia, ut angeli in caelo nullo terreno cibo utentes. Alia namque corporalia sunt ratione carentia et toto corpore in terra reptantia, sicut uermes. Quaedam uero ambulant duobus pedibus, quedam quattuor. Quaedam pennis uolant in aere; quaedam etiam natatilia sunt, ut pissces in mari, et in amne uagantia; quae sine aquis uiuere nequeunt, et nos in aquis suffocamur. Omnia tamen ad terram inclinantur de qua alimenta sumunt et quicquid desiderant uel indigent. Sed homo solus recta statura ambulat, qui ad imaginem Dei creatus est et proprio incessu significat quod debet plus de celestibus meditari quam de terrenis, plus de eternis quam de infimis, ne forte mens eius fiat inferior corpore. Ergo ille homo qui semper inheret infimis de caducis cogitans, nonne est quasi uermis qui toto corpore serpit?

Ða se wisdom þa þis spell asæd hæfde, þa ongan he singan and þus cwæð: Hwæt, þu miht ongitan þæt manig wyht is mistlice ferende geond eorþan, and sint swiðe ungelices hiwes, and ungelice farað. Sume licgað mid eallon lichoman on eorþan, and swa snicende farað þæt him nauþer ne fet ne fiðeras ne fultumað. And sume bið twiofete, sume fiowerfete, sume fleogende, and ealle þeah bioð ofdune healde wið þære eorðan, and þider willniað, oððe þæs þe hi lyst oððe þæs þe hi beþurfon. Ac se mann ana gæþ uprihte; þæt tacnað þæt he sceal ma þencan up þonne nyðer, þi læs þæt mod sie nioðoror þonne ðe lichoma.

75

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 55–66

Old English Boethius [prose] 4175

Nu beoð þa gesceaftæ þe þe an Scyppend iscop mislice heowes and monifealdes cyndes, and heo alle ne libbæð na on ane wisæ. Summe heo beoð unlichamlice and eac unsegenlice swa beoð englæs . Heo nabbæð nænne lichame, and heo libbæð on heofene, swiðe bliþful on Godes isihðe, and heo eorðlice mætes næfre ne brucæð. Summe heo beoð lichamlice and unsceadwise, and mid alle lichame on eorðe creopað , þæt is all wyrmcyn , swa swa eow ful cuð is. Summe gað on twam fotum. Summe beoð feowerfote. Summe swimmað on flode. Summe fleoð geont þas lyft. Þa fixas nabbæþ nan lif buton wætere, ne we ne magon libban noht longe on watere. Ealle heo beoþ alytene and lybbæþ bi þare eorþan, ac þe mon ane hæfð uprihtne geong for þam þe he is isceapen to his Scyppendes anlicnesse. He is on sawle liffæst mid gesceadwisnesse, and his geong bitacnæð, þenne he uprihtes gæð, þæt he sceal smeagen embe God and embe þa heofenlice þing swiðor þenne embe ða eorðlice þing, swiðor embe þa ecan þonne embe þa ateoriendlice, for þi læs ðe his mod beo bineoðan his lichame. Þe mon þe æfre smeað embe þas eorðlican and witendlicen þing, he bið ilic þam wyrme þe mid alle lichame creopæð on ðare eorðæ.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 139–64

When Wisdom had spoken these words, then he began to sing and said as follows: ‘Behold, you can see that many a creature moves in various ways over the earth, and they are of very different shapes and move in different ways. Some lie with their whole body on the earth and go about creeping so that neither feet nor wings support them. And some are two-footed, some four-footed, some flying, and all nevertheless are bent down toward the earth and seek there what they desire or need. But humanity alone walks upright; which signifies that he should direct his thoughts more upwards than down, lest the mind be lower than the body’.

However, the created beings that the one Creator created are diverse, and have different shapes, and do not live according to a single manner, and among them are certain incorporeal and invisible ones, such as angels in heaven who consume no earthly food. For indeed there are other corporeal ones lacking reason and crawling with their whole body on the ground, such as worms. But some walk on two feet, some on four. Some with feathers fly in the air; some also are swimming things, such as fish in the sea, and range in the river; some cannot live apart from water, and we suffocate in water. All, however, are bent down toward the earth from which they take food and whatever they desire or need. But humanity alone walks with an upright stature, he who was made in the image of God and by his own gait signifies that he ought to think more on heavenly matters than earthly ones, more on eternal things than the basest ones, lest by chance his mind become lower than his body. Thus is not that person who always gazes on the basest things while thinking about transitory matters like the worm that crawls along with the whole body?

The created beings that this one Creator created are diverse, and of various shapes, and move in different ways. Some are invisible spirits without bodies, even as the angels in heaven are. Some are creeping along the ground with their whole body, even as worms do. Some walk on two feet; some on four feet. Some fly with wings , some swim in water, and all these nevertheless are bent down toward the earth , and seek there what they desire or need. But humanity alone walks upright, which signifies that he should direct his thoughts more upward than down, lest the mind be lower than the body; and that he ought to think about the eternal life for which he was created rather than about earthly things, even as his form signifies to him.

Now the created beings that the one Creator created are of various shapes and diverse kinds, and they do not all live in one manner. Some are incorporeal and also invisible as angels are . They have no body, and they live in heaven, very joyous in the sight of God, and they never partake of earthly food. Some are corporeal and without reason, and creep along the ground with their whole body, which is every kind of serpent , as is well known to you. Some walk on two feet. Some are four-footed. Some swim in water. Some fly through the air. Fish have no life except in water, nor are we able to live long in water. They all are bent down and live off the earth, but humanity alone has an upright gait because he is created in his Creator’s likeness. He is endowed with life in [his] soul through rationality, and his gait signifies, when he walks upright, that he ought to think about God and about heavenly things rather than about earthly things, rather about the eternal than the transitory, lest his mind be beneath his body. The person who always thinks about earthly and transitory things is like the worm that creeps on the ground with his entire body.

Commentary: In natali Domini A number of elements appear in common above. Creatures are diverse, the texts affirm: they variously crawl, walk (on two feet or four), fly, or swim. God made humans to stand upright, however, to show that they should think about higher matters, lest their minds become baser (inferior or variants of nioðoror [‘lower’]) than their bodies. This said, such clear points of connection do not keep Ælfric from tinkering with his language along the way. AH I.1, to begin with, expands upon Boethius considerably: while it drops the Boethian speaker, it explicitly acknowledges the Creator, includes angels among his list of creatures, distinguishes these incorporeal spirits from embodied animals and humans (who respectively lack and possess souls, as he has previously said [see notes to lines 110–26 above]), adds details to his description of animals (worms crawl; feathered birds fly in the air; river creatures, unlike humans, need water to breathe), connects humans’ upright stature to their creation in God’s image (Genesis 1.26), urges his audience to think about eternal matters rather than ‘basest things’ (infim[a]), and, coming nearly full circle, describes those focusing on earthly thoughts as worms crawling on the ground. LS 1, while shorter, draws on both its precedessors while adding elements of its own. Sometimes it takes language directly from Boethius: creatures ungelice farað (‘move in different ways’), for example, rather than non uno modo uiuunt (‘do not live according to a single manner’), as in AH I.1. At other times, it adapts material solely from the Sermo in natale Domini, as when it speaks of angels and fish: the former, it says, are ‘ungesewenlice gastas butan lichoman’ (‘invisible spirits without bodies’), a phrase that reverses AH I.1’s incorporalia et inuisibilia (‘incorporeal and invisible’), adds gastas (‘spirits’), and omits nullo terreno cibo utentes (‘who consume no earthly food’); while the latter are corporeal beings that on flodum swimmað (‘swim in water’), a phrase that omits AH I.1’s specific reference to pissces in mari (‘fish in the sea’).77 And sometimes it draws from both texts, speaking, for instance, of creatures ‘creopende on eorðan mid eallum lichoman, swa swa wurmas doð’ (‘creeping along the ground with their whole body, even as worms do’), which combines AH I.1’s reptantia, sicut uermes (‘crawling, like worms’) with Boethius’ ‘mid eallon lichoman on eorþan’ (‘with their whole body on the earth’), even as it reverses the order of the phrases on eorðan and mid eallum lichoman and omits additional descriptors in AH I.1 (corporalia [‘corporeal’] and ratione carentia [‘lacking reason’]). AH I.2 employs similar techniques in relation to its predecessors. One detail finds a parallel (by design or happenstance) only in Boethius: the statement that some animals beoð feowerfote (‘are four-footers’) rather than ambulant … quattuor (‘walk … on four feet’), as in AH I.1, or gað … on feower fotum (‘go … on four feet’), as in AH I.2. Some details come straight from AH I.1: angels live in heaven and eat no earthly food; animals lack reason; fish, unlike humans, cannot survive outside of water; and humans who focus on earthly things are like worms crawling on the ground. Other details adapt material from both AH I.1 and LS I.1: in saying that God created beings ‘mislice heowes and monifealdes cyndes, and heo alle ne libbæð na on ane wisæ’ (‘of various shapes and diverse kinds, and they do not all live in one manner’), for example, AH I.2 reverses LS I.1’s mænigfealde and mislices hiwes (‘diverse and of various shapes’), adds cyndes 77

See below for the analyses of Godden and Leinbaugh, who use the presence or absence of these phrases to argue for the order of composition of AH I.1 and LS I.1.

159

Commentary: In natali Domini (‘kinds’), drops ungelice farað (‘move in different ways’, a phrase from Boethius), and follows AH I.1’s non uno modo uiuunt (‘they do not live according to a single manner’) in its final phrase. And still other details are unique to AH I.2: the angels rejoice in seeing God; all kinds of worms creep along, swa swa eow ful cuð is (‘as is well known to you’); and God created humans with reason. Some combinations of terms (however spelled) Ælfric uses only in these passages: mænigfealde and mislices hiwes (‘diverse’ and ‘of various shapes’); un[ge]se[w]enlice, butan lichoman / unlichamlice, and ænglas (‘invisible’, ‘incorporeal’, and ‘angels’); mid alle lichame, on eorðe, and creopað (‘with their whole body’, ‘on earth’, and ‘creep’); Sum[m]e, swimmað, on flode, and fleoð (‘Some’, ‘swim’, ‘in water’, and ‘fly’); beoþ alytene, þare eorþan, and uprihtne (‘are bent down’, ‘the earth’, and ‘upright’); and he sceal smeagen embe, swiðor þenne, and eorðlice þing (‘he ought to think about’, ‘rather than’, and ‘earthly things’). As noted above (see notes under AH I.1, introduction to lines 100–205), the connections between these four passages caught the attention of Malcolm Godden, who in 1985 used them to argue that the Old English Boethius, LS I.1, AH I.1, and AH I.2 had been composed in this order. Examining the passages, he concluded that Ælfric adapts and expands [the Old English Boethius] in LS [I.1], while retaining many close verbal parallels that attest the directness of the debt; [AH I.1], resembling LS [I.1] rather than [Boethius], but expanding the references to angels and fish which Ælfric had added in recasting [Boethius], must be a translation and expansion of the LS [I.1] passage; [AH I.2] very closely resembles [AH I.1] rather than LS [I.1], and the complete absence of significant verbal similarities between the two Old English versions suggests that [AH I.2] is a retranslation of [AH I.1], not an intermediary between LS [I.1] and [AH I.1].78

In 1994, however, Leinbaugh reinterpreted the evidence to suggest that AH I.1, not LS I.1, might be the earlier text. Godden, he notes, claims that the first part of AH I.1 must have been written after LS I.1 because the Latin text apparently expands the references to angels and fish found in LS I.1.79 It seems theoretically possible, however, that the reverse is true: Ælfric may have condensed the references to angels and fish found in [AH I.1] when translating it into Old English. Godden has also surmised that LS I.1 must precede [AH I.1] because LS I.1 apparently borrows several Old English sentences directly from Alfred’s Boethius. This seems a logical sequence, and yet it is still conceivable that [AH I.1] was composed first. It seems possible that while translating [AH I.1], Ælfric could have spotted several key passages that reminded him of quite similar passages in Alfred’s Boethius, which he appropriated for his own translation.80

In short, Leinbaugh affirmed the possibility that the order of composition may well 78 79 80

‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, p. 298. E.g., nullo terreno cibo utentes (‘who consume no earthly food’ [AH I.1, line 57]) and ut pissces in mari (‘such as fish in the sea’ [AH I.1, line 60]), respectively. ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, p. 197.

160

Commentary: In natali Domini be that proposed here: AH I.1, LS I.1, and then AH I.2. To summarize these various positions, one may distill the more extended treatment of the matter above (in the introduction to AH I.1, lines 100–205) as follows: Scholarship Godden 1985

Ælfric Composed AH I.1 Yes

Leinbaugh 1994

Maybe not

Kleist/Upchurch

Yes

Proposed Order of Composition OEB

LS I.11

OEB

AH I.11

AH I.21

AH I.1

LS I.1

AH I.2

AH I.1

LS I.1

AH I.2

LS 11 = first part of LS I.1; OEB = Old English Boethius; AH I.11 = first half of AH I.1

One other text bears mention in relation to Ælfric’s teaching here regarding the categories of creatures and their difference from their Creator: CH I.20. At the beginning of the homily, after announcing that ‘nu we wyllað secgan eow þone geleafan þe on þam credan stent’ (‘we will now tell you the doctrine that stands in the [Niceno-Constantinopolitan] Creed’),81 Ælfric offers the following passage,82 which has numerous parallels to the material above in AH I.1, LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14. While further theological analysis is offered in our consideration of Ælfric’s Mæsse Creda (see notes to AH II.23, lines 2–3), cross-references to the texts above are given here. An Scyppend is ealra þinga,83 gesewenlicra and ungesewenlicra.84 And we sceolon on hine gelyfan,85 for þan ðe he is soð God,86 and an Ælmihtig,87 se þe næfre ne ongan ne angin næfde;88 ac he sylf is Anginn,89 and he eallum gesceaftum anginn and ordfruman forgeaf þæt hi beon mihton,90 and þæt hi hæfdon agen gecynd,91 swa swa hit ðære godcundlican fadunge gelicode.92 Englas he worhte, þa sind gastas, and nabbað nænne lichaman.93 Men he gescop mid gaste and mid lichaman.94 Nytenu and deor, fixas and 81 82 83 84

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

94

Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, lines 5–6. Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, lines 7–16. See cross-references regarding ‘God … created all things’ under notes to lines 35–56 above. See Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 56–7; LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §7, lines 1–4; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 49–52); In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 139–46; see notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64. See discussion of Isaiah 7.9 in notes to AH I.1, lines 2–17. See AH I.2, line 9. See cross-references regarding ‘God’s omnipotence’ under notes to lines 35–56 above. See cross-references regarding ‘God existed eternally’ and ‘God is without beginning’ under notes to lines 35–56 above. AH I.1, lines 9–12; LS I.1, §§2–3 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 22 and 24; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, line 10 – p. 12, line 18); and AH I.2, lines 34–7 and 57–68. AH I.1, lines 36–8; LS I.1, §4 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 28–30); AH I.2, lines 116–26; and De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 33–42. AH I.1, lines 56–7; LS I.1, §7 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 49–50); and In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 139–41. A unique phrase in Ælfric’s works. AH I.1, lines 36–8 and 56–7; LS I.1, §4 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 28–30, and p. 14, lines 51–2); AH I.2, lines 116–26 and 142; and AH II.14, lines 33–42. AH I.1, lines 36–8 and 62–3; LS I.1, §§4 and 7 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 24 and 26;

161

Commentary: In natali Domini fugelas he gesceop on flæsce buton sawle.95 Mannum he sealde uprihtne gang; þa nytenu he let gan alotene.96 Mannum he forgeaf hlaf to bigleofan, and þam nytenum gærs.97 There is one Creator of all things, visible and invisible. And we should believe in him, because he is the true God, alone Almighty, who never began nor had a beginning; rather, he himself is the Beginning, and he gave beginning and origin to all creatures so that they might exist, and so that they might have their own nature, even as it pleased the divine dispensation. Angels he made, which are spirits, and have no body. Humans he created with spirit and with body. Cattle and deer, fish and birds he created with flesh, but without a soul. To humans he gave upright movement; the animals he made to move bending down. To humans he gave bread for nourishment, and grass to the cattle.

At this point, CH I.20 teases out the differences between God and the created order still further, touching on a number of the points already made, and ending with an assertion echoed later in AH I.2 and II.14. Nu mage ge, broðru, understandan gif ge willað þæt twa þing sindon: an is Scyppend; oðer is gesceaft. He is Scyppend se ðe gesceop and geworhte ealle ðing of nahte. Ðæt is gesceaft þæt se soþa Scyppend gesceop. Þæt sind ærest heofenas and englas þe on heofenum wuniað, and syððan þeos eorðe mid eallum ðam ðe hire on eardiað, and sæ mid eallum þam ðe hire on swymmað. Nu ealle ðas þing sind mid anum naman genemnode, ‘gesceaft’. Hi næron æfre wuniende, ac God hi gesceop. Ða gesceafta sind fela; an is se Scyppend þe hi ealle gesceop. Se ana is ælmihtig God. He wæs æfre, and æfre he bið þurhwuniende on him sylfum and þurh hine sylfne. Gif he ongunne and angin hæfde, buton twyn ne mihte he beon ælmihtig God. Soðlice þæt gesceaft þe ongan and gesceapen is næfð nane godcundnysse;98 for þi ælc edwist þætte God nis, þæt is gesceaft; and þæt ðe gesceaft nis, þæt is God.99 Now, fellow believers, you may understand, if you will, that there are two things: one is the Creator; the other is the creature. He is the Creator who created and made all things from nothing. The creature is that which the true Creator created. [Created things] are, first of all, heaven and angels, who dwell in heaven; and afterward, the earth with all that inhabit it and the sea with all that swim in it. Now all these things are called by one name, ‘creature’. They did not always exist, but God created them. The creatures are many; the Creator, who created them all, is one. He alone is almighty God. He always existed, and he always will continue eternally in himself and through himself. If he began and had a beginning, without doubt he could not be almighty God. Truly, that creature that began and is created has no divinity; therefore, every being that is not God is a creature, and that which is not a creature is God.

95 96 97 98 99

Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 28–30, and p. 14, line 57); AH I.2, lines 116–26 and 153–5; and AH II.14, lines 33–42. AH I.1, lines 33–6; LS I.1, §4 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 25–8); AH I.2, lines 110–15; and AH II.14, lines 27–32; see notes to AH I.2, lines 110–15. AH I.1, lines 61–2; LS I.1, §7 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 55–7); and AH I.2, lines 153–7. AH I.1, lines 71–2; and AH I.2, lines 169–72. AH I.2, lines 106–8; and AH II.14, lines 23–6. Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, line 17 – p. 336, line 29.

162

Commentary: In natali Domini While the passage addresses a number of matters in AH I.1 and its related texts, and uses similar language to them at a number of points, it is not close to them linguistically in the way LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14 are to one another. The presence of such a passage in the First Series thus raises a question regarding the dating of AH I.1, which is currently situated between [A] ca 964 × 970 and [B] January × June 991 – that is, prior to Ælfric’s composition of the prefaces of CH I.100 Were AH I.1 written prior to the First Series, why would CH I.20 not incorporate or adapt material from that earlier work, as he does in LS I.1, AH I.2, and AH II.14? Were Ælfric to have (re)discovered the relevant passages in the Old English Boethius after writing CH I.20, by contrast, that might have influenced his treatment of these subjects thereafter. If so, we might date AH I.1 to the years between Ælfric’s completion of composition and first organization of the First Series in 989 and the composition of the prefaces in January × June 991. [See notes to AH I.1, line 1 for another argument that reaches the same conclusion.] Lines 165–8 [Ne beo ge … Godes ne gemeþ]: Having spoken of uermes (‘worms’) in AH I.1 [line 58] and wurmas (‘worms’ or ‘serpents’) in LS I.1,101 Ælfric in AH I.2 makes his language explicitly broad by referring to all wyrmcyn (‘every kind of serpent’ [line 148]). Combined with his description of earthly-minded people as wyrm[as] (‘worms’ or ‘serpents’ [line 163]), such terms lay the groundwork for Ælfric’s admonition not to be like neddræ (‘serpents’ [line 165]): Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 67–72

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 165–8

Nolite, fratres, esse serpentes uenenati, nocentes inuicem. Iterum nolite incurui incedere ut iumenta solam terram aspicientes, ne forte dicat uobis psalmista: ‘Obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsa eorum semper incurua’. Erigite capita uestra, ambulate ut homines rationabiles. ‘State in fide, uiriliter agite, et confortamini; omnia uestra cum caritate fiant’. Nolite esse bruta animalia: intelligite quia serpens terram comedit cunctis diebus uitae suae et bos herbis pascitur …

Ne beo ge na att/r\e swa swa ða yfelæ neddræ, terende eow bitweonen and teone wyrcende, ne ge ne gan lytende swa swa ða nytene gað þe libbæþ bi gres and heo Godes ne gemeþ.

Do not, fellow Christians, be venomous snakes, harming each other. Again, do not walk bent downward like beasts of burden looking only at the ground, lest perchance the psalmist say of you: ‘Let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see, and let their backs forever be bent’. Raise your heads, walk like rational men. ‘Stand firm in the faith, act manfully, and be strengthened; let all your deeds be done with love’. Do not be irrational animals: understand that a snake eats dirt all the days of its life and the ox grazes on grass …

Do not be poisonous like the evil serpents, biting among yourselves and causing injury, nor walk bent down as do the animals that live on grass and do not heed God.

Chronology and Canon, p. 277. I.1, §7 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, line 53).

100 Kleist, 101 LS

163

Commentary: In natali Domini In natale Domini follows but adapts the Sermo, dropping fratres (‘fellow Christians’), turning a metaphor into a simile with swa swa (‘even as’ or ‘like’), adding the descriptor yfelæ (‘evil’), and speaks not just of nocentes (‘harming’) but of terende (‘biting’) and teone wyrcende (‘causing injury’) – language that makes it clearer that Ælfric likely has Galatians 5.15 in mind (see notes to AH I.1, lines 67–72). Next, returning to his contrast between the upright gait of humans and the earthbound stance of animals [lines 153–61], Ælfric exhorts believers not to ‘walk bent down’, focusing on earthly rather than heavenly matters. He develops this thought differently in the two texts, however. In AH I.1, he cites three verses related to bent versus upright posture (Psalms 69.23 [Vulgate 68.24], 1 Corinthians 16.13–14, and Genesis 3.14, on which again see notes to AH I.1, lines 67–72). Using different language – describing animals as bruta (‘irrational’ [line 68]), for example, as opposed to creatures that Godes ne gemeþ (‘do not heed God’ [line 168]) – both homilies then point to animals’ earthly subsistence and spiritual insensitivity [AH I.1, lines 72–80; AH I.2, lines 169–90], nicely setting up Ælfric’s next comments regarding Christ, heavenly bread, and Communion. Neither these lines nor those that follow [169–90] have corresponding sections in LS I.1; rather, having followed AH I.1 and 2 in exhorting upright humans to think of heavenly things (see notes to lines 139–64 above), LS I.1 continues on the subject of creatures and the Creator (see notes to AH I.1, lines 43–8) before transitioning with AH I.1 and 2 to consider the soul (see notes to lines 192–9 below). Lines 169–90 [Soðlice ure Scuppend … halt þone cristendom]: If God made cattle to eat grass, Ælfric says, in keeping with their earth-bent posture, not so did he create humans: rather, he feeds them bread – physical bread for their bodies, and spiritual bread for their souls. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 72–85

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 169–90

… uobis autem dedit Deus panem ad uescendum. Et non solum panem terrenis dapibus preparatum sed etiam Panem angelorum qui de celo descendit, qui hodie natus est nobis ex inmaculata uirgine Maria, qui dixit, ‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi. Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi uita ’. Istum panem denique manducamus cum ad sacrificium Christi cum fide accedimus. Nam hodie debent Christiani accedere ad sacrificium Christi, quia ualde raro cmmunicat qui semel in anno communicat, cum canones dignum doceant excommunicatione qui tres dominicas dies peragit sine communione. Semel uero natus est Christus in humanitate sed nascitur in corde credentium frequenter per fidem. Nascatur et in nobis uera fide, qui ideo hodie natus est ex matre humanitus ut nos ad se perduceret diuinitus. Agamus illi gratias, fratres, ex intimo corde quia uocat nos ad eternam uitam, in qua cum illo et omnibus sanctis eius aeternaliter manebius si in hac mortali uita recta fide et bona operatione eum nobis placabimus.

Soðlice ure Scuppend us geaf to bileofenæn igearcnodne laf of eorðlice tylunge and eac þone arwurðæ laf þe engles brucæð, þæt is þe Hælend Crist, þe is heoræ lif and uræ. He is þe liflice laf þe of heofene astah and nu todæg wærð acenned of þam clæne mædene; he is engle life and ure þurh geleafe. He cwæð bi him sylfum on his godspelle, ‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de celo descendi’, ‘“Ic eom þe liflice laf þe of heofene astah, and þe þe of þam lafe æet, he leofæð on ecnesse, and þe laf þe Ic sulle is soðlice mi licame for middaneardes life monne to alysednesse”’. Ðesne laf we æteð þonne we mid bileafan gað to halige husle ure Hælendes lichame. And nu todæg for þisse symbledæge and for Cristes accennednesse, men sceoldon underfon Cristes lichame on þam halgæ husle þam Hælende to wurðmente þe us neahlæcede mid his acennednesse. And gif ge þaræ gode cyðon, ge sceolden ilome gan to þam halge husle eowre sawle to hæle, swa swa mon deþ gehwær þær ðe me wæl halt þone Cristendom.

164

Commentary: In natali Domini … but God gave you bread to eat. And not only bread prepared for earthly feasts but also the bread of angels who descended from heaven, who on this day was born to us from the pure virgin Mary , [he] who said, ‘I am the living bread who descended from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever, and the bread that I will give is my body for the life of the world ’. Accordingly, we eat that bread when we come with faith to the sacrifice of Christ. For today Christians ought to come to the sacrifice of Christ because very rarely does he communicate who communicates but once a year, although the canons teach that he is worthy of excommunication who goes three Sundays without Communion. Truly Christ was born but once in humanity but is born frequently in the heart of believers through faith; he may be born in us by true faith; and therefore on this day was he born humanly of a mother so that he might divinely lead us to himself. Let us give thanks to him, brothers, from the innermost heart because he calls us to eternal life, in which we may remain eternally with him and all of his saints if in this mortal life we will reconcile him to us with proper faith and good work.

Certainly, our Creator gave us for food bread prepared from earthly labour and also the venerable bread that angels partake of, which is Jesus Christ, who is their life and ours. He is the living bread who descended from heaven and now on this day was born of the pure virgin; he is the angels’ life and ours through faith. He said about himself in his Gospel, ‘I am the living bread who descended from heaven’, ‘“I am the living bread who descended from heaven, and he who eats of that bread, he will live eternally, and the bread that I will give is truly my body for the life of the world, for people’s redemption”’. We eat this bread when we go with faith to the holy Eucharist of our Savior’s body. And now today on account of this feast-day and Christ’s birth, people ought to take Christ’s body in the holy Eucharist in honor of the Savior who drew near to us by means of his birth. And if you have confessed102 these good [truths], you ought to go frequently to the holy Eucharist for the salvation of your soul, just as people do everywhere where Christianity is observed well.

Once again, AH I.2 keeps some elements of AH I.1 while adapting others. Both state that God gives bread to humans as food.103 Both refer not just to common earthly bread but the bread of angels, alluding to Psalms 78.25a [Vulgate 77.25a] and Wisdom 16.20a (on which, see notes to AH I.1, lines 72–85). Both note that it is ‘on this day’ – namely, Christmas – that the ‘pure virgin’ gave him birth. Both quote John 6.51–2, where Jesus describes himself as the heavenly bread that people should eat (again, see notes to AH I.1, lines 72–85). And both associate the eating of this bread not just with faith, but with frequent celebration of the Eucharist. At the same time, the vernacular text replaces AH I.1’s concluding comments about frequent Communion with others. The Latin, on the one hand, condemns those who take Communion only annually, notes that skipping even three weeks’ Communion warrants excommunication, contrasts Christ’s unique physical birth with his recurring ‘birth’ in believers (and perhaps specifically communicants) through faith, calls Christians to wholehearted appreciation of their salvation in Christ, and exhorts believers to ‘reconcile’ God to themselves.104 In natali Domini, on the other hand, smoothly associates the 102 Or

‘known’: see for example Irvine 1 (Homilies, p. 25, line 190).

103 The phrase used in AH I.1, panem ad uescendum (‘bread to eat’ [line 72]), appears also in Genesis 28.20

where Jacob promises that the Lord will be his God if the latter keeps him safe and gives him ‘bread to eat’; neither AH I.1 nor AH I.2 give indications, however, that Ælfric has this particular context in mind. Nor do the homilies speak of ‘daily bread’, which would put one in mind of the Lord’s Prayer (‘Panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie’ [‘Give us today our essential bread’, Matthew 6.11] or ‘Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie’ [‘Give us each day our daily bread’, Luke 11.3]). Ælfric’s statement here thus seems to be a straightforward one rather than a biblical allusion. 104 On which, see note to AH I.1, line 92, under lines 86–99.

165

Commentary: In natali Domini celebrations of Christ’s body in Communion (recalling his death and resurrection) and at Christmas (recalling his birth), calls believers to draw near to the Savior who drew near to them, and affirms that those who thus behave join the ranks of the orthodox everywhere. When Ælfric distinguishes between Christ’s physical and spiritual birth (as in AH I.1), or speaks in tandem of Christ’s physical body and the Eucharist (as in AH I.2), what does he have in mind regarding the Eucharistic elements? Not only in these passages is the subject less than clear, but Ælfric’s views on transubstantiation generally have been the subject of some debate. Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury (1559–1575), argued that Ælfric understood the bread of Communion to be Christ’s body in a spiritual rather than physical sense, thus supporting the Protestant view and testifying to a continuity of English thought on such matters.105 Other writers thereafter, however, have been less than certain either that Parker represents Ælfric accurately or that Ælfric’s views may be determined decisively.106 All that can be said here is that on Christmas, and regularly during the rest of the year as well, Ælfric would have his audience take Communion [heora] sawl[a] to hæle (‘for the salvation of [their] soul[s]’). Lines 191–7 [Ge men sceolen … bi hire cynd]: Here the second half of the homily begins. Though AH I.1, LS I [Skeat I.1], and AH I.2 have for a time gone their own ways – lines 169–90 of AH I.2 corresponding to AH I.1 [lines 67–85], but not to LS I.1; and AH I.1, lines 86–99 corresponding to nothing at all – all three here transition generally from considering the Trinity (the nature of the Creator, as opposed to the created) to considering the soul. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 100–5 Et hoc scitote, fratres, quia nichil est tam necesse homini Christiano scire in hac uita quam ut sciat Deum omnipotentem uera fide et anima ipsius ut intellegat cur ipse sit homo natus in terra, ad qui creatus, et ad qui perueniat in fine. Sed quia sepius iam diximus uobis de Deo et de fide catholica habundanter, uolumus modo uobis dicere de humana anima, breuiter si possumus. Nichil aliquid magis homini in hac mortalitate uiuenti necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam.

LS I.1107

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 191–7

Nis nanum menn on ðisum deadlican life libbendum nanes þinges swa mycel neod swa him biþ þæt he cunne þonne ælmihtigan god mid geleafan, and siþþan his agene sawle. We habbað eow oft gesæd eowerne geleafan be þære halgan Ðrynnysse. Nu wylle we eow sum þing be eowre sawle sæccgan sceortlice gif we magon.

Ge men sceolen witen and wislice understonden forhwi oðer forhwon ge beoð isceapene on þisse sceorte life, oððe tohwan ge wurðæþ iwende æfter þissum life. Eow is mucel neod þæt ge on eowre mode icnawæn þone | lifigende God and on him ilefæn þæt ge eac smeagen embe eowre agene sawle þæt ge sum þing cynnon bi hire cynd.

105 See

for example Kleist, ‘Monks, Marriage, and Manuscripts’, p. 315; and ‘Matthew Parker’, pp. 115 and 124. 106 For a survey of various positions on the subject, see Leinbaugh, ‘Sources for Ælfric’s Easter Sermon’, as well as his ‘Ælfric’s Sermo de Sacrificio’ and Grundy, ‘Ælfric’s Sermo de Sacrificio’. 107 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 28, §10, lines 1–6; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, line 79 – p. 16, line 84.

166

Commentary: In natali Domini And know this, brothers, that there is nothing so necessary for the Christian to know in this life as to know the almighty God by true faith and in his own soul to understand why he himself was born on earth, for what he was created, and to what he may attain at the end, but because we already have more often spoken abundantly to you about God and about the orthodox faith, we wish now to speak to you about the human soul, briefly if we can. For a person living in this mortal existence nothing is more necessary to understand than God and the soul.

There is nothing so necessary to any person living in this mortal life as that he should know the almighty God by faith, and afterwards [know] his own soul. We have often spoken to you of your faith concerning the holy Trinity. Now we will briefly tell you something about your own soul, if we can.

You people ought to know and wisely understand for what reason or purpose you have been created for this short life, or into what you will be changed after this life. You have a great need to understand the living God in your mind and believe in him so that you may also think about your own soul to understand something about its nature.

One concern is common to all three passages: people have mucel neod (‘great need’) to understand the nature of God and their soul. At least one portion is unique to AH I.1: Ælfric’s concluding reiteration that understanding God and the soul is vital. Certain elements drawn from AH I.1 appear in LS I.1 but not in AH I.2: the knowledge in question is what one most needs to know; it is the almighty God and his own soul he needs to know; and this knowledge of God comes by faith. Other details appear in AH I.2 but not in LS I.1, such as Ælfric’s explanation of what ‘the soul’ entails – namely, its purpose on Earth and future hereafter. And one pronoun is common to the last two texts but not the first, as they speak about eowre sawle (‘your soul’) rather than just humana anima (‘the human soul’). Lines 198–205 [Heo is unsegenlic … alre his dæda]: In a passage not found in AH I.1 or LS I.1, In natali Domini briefly discusses the relationship of the soul to the body, particularly in relationship to death and the Last Judgment. While Ælfric’s comments are general in nature, echoing teaching found for example in CH I.14,108 De penitentia (AH II.19),109 and SH I.2,110 they do bear some similarity to a passage from Alcuin’s De animae ratione, Ælfric’s chief source for the last half of AH I.1.

First Series, p. 297, line 210 (Synfulra) – p. 298, line 217 (ecan life). 72–9. 110 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 235, lines 105–10. 108 Clemoes, 109 Lines

167

Commentary: In natali Domini Alcuin, De animae ratione 6 [PL 10]111

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 198–205

Exiet enim quamuis noles praesentandus iudicio Dei Deoque iudicante locum intrabit suis meritis condignum spectare ultimi diei iudicium ut accipiat carnem in qua in hoc saeculo uiuebat.

Heo is unsegenlic, and heo sylf beræð all þone lichame and him liffæst þa hwile þe heo bið on þam buce wunigende. And þone heo ut gæð, he went al to stence and to þam ylce duste þe of isceapen wæs. He sceal, swa ðeah, arisan soðlice to life togeanes his Drihtine on þam endenextæ dæge and ædlean underfon alre his dæda.

For [the soul] will go forth, however unwillingly, to face the divine judgment; and when God has judged it, it will enter the place fitting its deserts to await the judgment of the last day, when it will again receive the flesh in which it lived in this world.

It is invisible, and it supports the whole body and enlivens it while it dwells in the bodily frame. And when [the soul] goes out, [the body] turns entirely into a stench and the same dust from which was created. It must certainly, however, rise alive to meet its Lord on the last day and receive a reward for all its deeds.

For the most part, the passages differ in their language, save for the soul ‘going forth’ from the body and the reference to the ‘last day’. Indeed, where AH I.1 has the soul in view, AH I.2 considers also the fate of the body. At the same time, they also have concepts in common: death, resurrection, judgment, and recompense. If Ælfric is in fact drawing directly on Alcuin here, as opposed to the abridgement of De animae ratione in AH I.1 (or its further adaption in LS I.1), that would be an exception to his compositional approach in this homily. It is more likely, perhaps, that Ælfric here inserts theological commonplaces as he transitions from his previous meditations on Christ’s body [lines 182–7] to his quotation, for example, of Ecclesiastes 12.7 regarding the body and the soul [lines 218–22]. Lines 206–15 [Þam mon is icundelic … ða gastlice mihte]: Following this original passge, and having omitted AH I.1’s reiteration (drawn from Alcuin) that ‘Nichil aliquid magis homini in hac mortalitate uiuenti necessarium est nosse quam Deum et animam’ (‘For a person living in this mortal existence nothing is more necessary to understand than God and the soul’ [AH I.1, lines 104–5]), In natali Domini returns to paralleling the Sermo in natale Domini – though not LS I.1. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 105–9

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 206–15

Naturale denique homini est bonum amare. Quid est bonum nisi Deus qui solus summum bonum est, sine quo bono nil boni quisquam habere poterit? Amor huius boni non nisi in anima esse poterit. Et haec sola anima nobilis est, quae illum amat a quo est, quod est qui illam talem creauit ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam et digna Dei esset habitatione .

Þam mon is icundelic þæt he lufie god. Hwæt is nu god buton God ane? He is healic godnes, and we sceolon him lufien. We nabbæð nane godnesse buton hit us cume of Gode. And þeo sawlæ ane is isæli and æþelboren þeo ðe ðenne lufæð þe hyre swylc isceop þæt heo on hyre andgite hafeð Godes anlicnes gif heo ileafful biþ. And God on hire wunæð þurh his gastlice gyfæ, and heo bið iwurðod mid his onwununge and Godes temple soðlice þurh ða gastlice mihte.

111 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 55; PL 101.644A–644B.

168

Commentary: In natali Domini Indeed, it is natural for a person to love good. What is good if not God, who alone is the highest good, without whom no one can possess any good? Love of this good cannot exist except in the soul. And this soul alone is noble: it loves him by whom it is what it is, namely, who thus created it to have his own image and likeness impressed upon its understanding and to be a worthy dwelling place of God .

It is innate for a person to love good. Now what is good except God alone? He is the supreme goodness, and we ought to love him. We have no goodness except it come to us from God. And only that soul is blessed and of noble birth who then loves him who created it so as to have God’s image in its understanding if it be faithful. And God dwells in it by means of his spiritual grace, and it is honored by his indwelling and [is] truly God’s temple by means of that spiritual power.

Ælfric’s vernacular homily both condenses and expands the Latin. He omits AH I.1’s localization of ‘love of the good’ in the soul, judging it perhaps as unnecessarily complex for his vernacular audience. At the same time, he underscores in plain terms that humans should love God. He translates nobilis (‘noble’) both as æþelboren (‘of noble birth’) and isæli (‘blessed’), interpreting it as a spiritual quality rather than a matter of physical descent. He affirms both human responsibility (the need for people to be ‘faithful’) and divine grace. And he shifts the emphasis from the worthiness of the soul in which God dwells to the honor bestowed on the soul through that indwelling. Ælfric’s logic here proceeds in three movements as follows. First, he says, • • •

It is natural (gecundelic) for people to love what [they think] is good [AH I.2, line 206]; in fact, only God is good (Mark 10.18 and Luke 18.19) – indeed, he is healic godnisse (‘supreme goodness’ [LS I.1]112) [line 208]; therefore, we should love him [line 208].

Next, • • • •

The only goodness humans have is that which God gives (James 1.17) [line 209]; one way God has given what is good is by creating humans in his likeness (Genesis 1.26), giving understanding (andgiet) to their souls [line 212]; the evidence that a soul is æþelboren (‘of noble birth’) – that is, that it is gesælig (‘blessed’), having received good from God – is that it loves God (1 John 4.7) [line 210]; such a soul shows love for God by being geleafful – ‘faithful’ or ‘obedient’ (see Deuteronomy 11.1, John 14.23, James 2.14–26, and 1 John 2.5) or ‘believing’, that is, full of faith (Genesis 15.6 and 1 John 5.1) and orthodox belief113 [line 213].

Finally, and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 28, §10, line 13; Skeat, Lives, p. 16, line 90. against gedwyld (theological error): see for example Prefatio to CH I (Clemoes, First Series, p. 174, line 51); Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 7, 102, and 323; Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), line 74; and Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), lines 18, 34, and 45.

112 Clayton 113 As

169

Commentary: In natali Domini •

God dwells spiritually in the souls of his faithful, making them his temple (1 Corinthians 3.16 and 6.19, and Ephesians 2.22) [lines 213–15].

Ælfric’s statement that the soul ‘on hyre andgite hafeð Godes anlicnes’ (‘has in its understanding the likeness of God’ [line 212]) bears some explanation. The phrase derives from AH I.1’s affirmation that God created the soul ‘ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam’ (‘to have his own image and likeness impressed upon its understanding’), which seems to be a corruption of Alcuin’s ‘ut in sensu ipsius imaginem et similitudinem haberet inpressam’ (‘to have in itself the impress of his own image and likeness’ – see the discussion under notes to AH I.1, lines 104–9, at 108–9). In all three cases, the initiative is God’s: as Ælfric puts it in similar accounts of the soul in CH I.20,114 LS I.1,115 and the Interrogationes Sigewulfi,116 God made humans in his likeness not in body, but in soul – a soul that reflects its triune creator in being comprised of memory (gemynd), understanding (andgiet), and will (willa). That understanding then calls for a human response: to love God – in part, by having an understanding of God’s nature, the very subject Ælfric has just been at pains to explain [lines 32–109, 127–38, and 173–81]). Characteristically emphasizing both the primacy of grace and the importance of human obedience, then,117 Ælfric teaches that the soul is blessed, noble, and faithful to the extent that it acts on and grows in its understanding of God who made it, thereby showing love to him. Lines 216–30 [Ðe almihtig Scyppend … lif and gast]: At this point, following Alcuin’s De animae ratione (see notes to AH I.1, lines 110–15), Ælfric’s Latin homily explains that human souls, though created by God, do not share his nature, which is sinless and unable to sin. In the vernacular, Ælfric translates this sentence later [lines 231–7 below], stating here only that God creates souls. Both texts, however, adduce as evidence four quotations from or allusions to Scripture – Ecclesiastes 12.7, Isaiah 57.16, Zechariah 12.1, and Acts 17.25 – that Ælfric may draw from Augustine’s Epistula 190 and De natura et origine animae.

First Series, p. 342, lines 192–7. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 30, §12, lines 1–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, lines 112–14. 116 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 131, lines 192–5; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ 1884, p. 18, line 174 – p. 20, line 177). 117 See Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 172–205. 114 Clemoes, 115 Clayton

170

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 110–15

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 216–30

Omnes enim catholici scriptores in hoc consentiunt: quod anima a Deo sit condita, nec partem eam esse Dei naturae, quia si ex Dei esset natura assumpta, peccare non posset. Unde ait Salomon , Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum . Et Dominus loquitur per prophetam, ‘Omnem flatum ego feci’ . Et iterum scriptum est , Qui fingit spiritum hominis in ipso. Et apostolus Paulus, Et ipse det omnibus uitam et spiritum .

Ðe almihtig Scyppend gescepeð alle sawle, swa Salomon wrat bi sawlæ and bi lichame, Reuertatur puluis in terram suam unde erat, et spiritus redeat ad Deum qui dedit illum, ‘Gewende þæt dust, þæt is þe lichame, into þare eorðan þe he ær of com, and wende þe gast to Gode þe hine ær sende’. Eft God sylf cwæð þurh sumne witegæ, Omnem flatum feci ego, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Æl/c\ne gast Ic wrohte’. Eft is iwriten bi þam ylce þus, ‘God scea

æþ þæs monnes sawle on him’, and Paulus þe apostol wrat on his pistole, Ipse deus dabit omnibus uitam et spiritum, þæt is, ‘God sylf gyfæð alle monnum lif and gast’.

For all the orthodox writers agree in this: that the soul was made by God, not that it is part of the nature of God, because if (its) nature had been taken from God, it would not be able to sin. Whence Solomon said , ‘The dust returns to its ground whence it belonged, and the spirit returns to God who gave it’ . And the Lord says through a prophet, ‘I have made every soul’ . And again it is written , ‘He forms the spirit of a person within him’. And the apostle Paul [has written], ‘He himself also gives life and spirit to all’ .

The almighty Creator creates every soul, just as Solomon wrote about the soul and body, The dust returns to its ground whence it belonged, and the spirit returns to God who gave it; ‘The dust, that is the body, returns to the earth from which it earlier came, and the spirit returns to God who previously sent it’. Likewise God himself said through a certain prophet, I have made every soul, that is in English, ‘I made every soul’. Again it is written about the same [subject] in this way, ‘God creates a person’s soul within him’, and Paul the apostle wrote in his epistle, God himself gives life and spirit to all, that is, ‘God gives to all people life and spirit’.

While Ælfric’s use of these sources and adaptation of these verses has already been discussed – see again notes to AH I.1, lines 110–15 – one additional observation may be made concerning Ælfric’s terminology for humans’ immaterial nature. Ælfric’s Glossary translates anima (‘soul’) as sawul and spiritus (‘spirit’) as gast,118 as do LS I.1 and In natali Domini later on (see notes to AH I.2, lines 347–75). The passage here follows this pattern in its introduction (anima becoming sawle) and vernacular translation of the first and four verse (spiritum becoming gast), but renders spiritus as sawle – by accident? for poetic variation? – when translating the third verse, Zechariah 12.1. In the second verse, the Augustinian adaptation of Isaiah 57.16, Ælfric conveys the sense of the Vulgate’s flatus – literally, ‘breaths [of life]’ – using gast rather than, say, blædas [‘breaths’ or ‘spirits’], but as the verse does not appear to be translated elsewhere in Old English, he may here simply be making a linguistic judgment call. Lines 231–6 [Alle þe leafulle … ne mihte heo sunegien]: Following these Scriptural references, Ælfric returns to AH I.1’s argument (drawn from Alcuin) that humans do not share God’s sinless nature.

118 Zupitza,

Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 306, line 1.

171

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 110–11

LS I.1119

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 231–6

Omnes enim catholici scriptores in hoc consentiunt: quod anima a Deo sit condita, nec partem eam esse Dei naturae, quia si ex Dei esset natura assumpta, peccare non posset.

Ealle þa geleaffullan fæderas þe Godes lare awriton sædon untwylice and geþwærlehton on þam anum: þæt God gescypð ælces mannes sawle and seo sawl nis na of Godes agenum gecynde. Gif heo wære of Godes gecynde genumen, witodlice ne mihte heo singian.

Alle þe leafulle fæderæs ðe Godes lare writon untwylice sædon and gehwær lærdon on þam halige circean þæt God scea

æþ ælces monnes sawlæ and þeo sawle nis na of agenes icynde. Gif heo wære of Godes agene cynde inumæn, witerlice ne mihte heo sunegien.

For all the orthodox writers agree in this: that the soul was made by God, not that it is part of the nature of God, because if [its] nature had been taken from God, it would not be able to sin.

All the faithful fathers who wrote of God’s doctrine undoubtedly said and agreed in this one [thing]: that God creates each person’s soul and [that] the soul is not of God’s own nature. If it were taken from God’s nature, it would certainly not be able to sin.

All the faithful fathers who wrote of God’s doctrine undoubtedly said and everywhere taught in the holy Church that God creates each person’s soul and [that] the soul is not of [His] own nature. If it were taken from God’s own nature, it would certainly not be able to sin.

LS 1 here stays close to AH I.1, though it expands on certain words (speaking of ‘faithful [or “orthodox”] fathers’ þe Godes lare awriton [‘who wrote of God’s doctrine’], and who sædon untwylice [‘undoubtedly said’] and ‘agreed’), changes a passive voice to active (God gescypð ælces mannes sawle [‘God creates each person’s soul’]), supplies nouns for pronouns or vice versa (seo sawl [‘the soul’] for eam [‘it’] and heo [‘it’] for natura [‘nature’]), and adds the emphatic witodlice (‘certainly’). AH I.2 by and large preserves these changes, drawing directly on LS I.1 rather than on AH I.1. Three readings in AH I.2, however, may be the result of textual corruption in the late B (s. xii2): gehwær lærdon (‘everywhere taught’) for LS I.1’s geþwærlehton (‘agreed’), halige circean (‘holy Church’) for anum (‘one [thing]’), and sceawæþ (‘looks at’) for gescypð (‘creates’). The first may be a case of scribal error or confusion, as geþwærlæcan is a comparatively rarer verb, appearing some thirty-four times in Old English as against nearly 1,000 uses of (ge)hwær and over 2,500 uses of læran. The second emendation continues the thought while explaining a potentially ambiguous pronoun: rather than saying that ecclesiastical authorities ‘agreed in this one [thing]’ (geþwærlehton on þam anum, translating in hoc consentiunt), it states that they ‘everywhere taught in the holy Church’ (gehwær lærdon on þam halige circean). The third case, moreover, echoes a prior confusion in line 230 when AH I.2 has sceawæþ (‘looks at’) instead of scepeð (‘creates’), which would better correspond to AH I.1’s fingit (language drawn from Zechariah 12.1; see notes to AH I.1, lines 110–15, at 114). Ælfric’s point here, as AH I.1 and LS I.1 make clear, and as AH I.2 itself has stated in line 216, is that God creates souls: sceawæþ (‘looks at’) is thus likely a scribal error for gescypð or gescepeð (‘creates’). While Ælfric could certainly have made these changes in his later vernacular text, the continuity between the three passages otherwise suggests that the changes were not authorial. 119 Clayton

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 28, §10, lines 6–11; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, lines 84–96.

172

Commentary: In natali Domini Lines 237–42 [Uðwiten þæt beoð … ræd and andgit]: Next, one comes to a passage that served as a lynchpin of Leinbaugh’s argument against Godden regarding the authorship of AH I.1 and the compositional order of its related texts. As discussed above (see introductory notes to lines 100–205 of AH I.1, and notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64), Godden had argued that Ælfric composed both halves of AH I.1, but at different times. The second half of AH I.1 came first, having been adapted from parts of Alcuin’s De animae ratione: this portion Ælfric then translated to form the last part of LS I.1 and AH I.2. The first half of AH I.1 came later, being translated from the first part of LS I.1, which incorporated selections from the Old English Boethius. The first half of AH I.2 then translated back into the vernacular the first half of AH I.1, while the last half of AH I.2 reproduced the last part of LS I.1. Thus: Scholarship

Ælfric Composed AH I.1

Godden

Yes

Proposed Order of Composition OEB AH I.1

DAR

2

LS I.11

AH I.11

AH I.21

LS I.1

[+AH I.1 ]

AH I.22

2

2

DAR = Alcuin, De animae ratione; LS I.11 [or 2] = first [or second] part of LS I.1; OEB = Old English Boethius; AH I.11 [or 2] = first [or second] half of AH I.1

As we have noted, however (notes to lines 110–15 above), there are points of correspondence between [1] the Old English Boethius and [2] AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2 not just in the first part of Ælfric’s homilies (on five occasions), but in the second part (twice). The passages below constitute the first parallel to Boethius in the latter part of these texts. The subject at hand is the tripartite division of the soul into concupiscent, irascible, and rational parts, a concept ultimately stemming from Book IV of Plato’s Republic.120

(Republic, ed. Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, pp. 404–26; Platonis Rempublicam, ed. Slings, pp. 156–65); see Godden, ‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, p. 272, and notes to lines 320–34 below.

120 §§436b–441c

173

For þi ic cwæð þæt sio sawul wære þriofeald forþam þe uðwitan secgað þæt hio hæbbe þrio gecynd. An ðara gecynda is þæt heo bið wilnigende, oðer þæt hio bið irsiende, þridde þæt hio bið gesceadwis. Twa þara gecyndu habbað netenu swa same swa men; oðer þara is willnung, oðer is irsung. Ac se mon ana hæfð gesceadwisnesse, nalles nan oðru gesceaft; forði he hæfð oferþungen ealle þa eorðlican gesceafta mid geðeahte and mid andgite. For this reason I said that the soul was threefold, because philosophers say that it has three natures. One of those natures is capable of desire, the second of anger, the third of reason. Animals have two of these natures, in the same manner as human beings: one of those is desire; the other is anger. But humans alone have reason, not any of the other creatures; therefore they have surpassed all the other earthly creatures with thought and understanding.

Triplex est enim animae, ut philosophi uolunt, natura. Est in ea quaedam pars concupiscibilis, alia rationabilis,124 tertia irascibilis. Duas enim habent harum partes nobiscum bestiae et animalia communes, id est, concupiscentiam et iram. Homo solus inter mortales ratione uiget, consilio ualet, intelligentia antecellit.

In fact the nature of the soul is tripartite, just as the philosophers maintain. A certain part within it is desirous, another rational, a third irascible. To be sure, wild beasts and animals have two of these parts in common with us, that is, desire and anger. Man alone lives by reason among mortal beings, is capable of judgment, excels in understanding.

Philosophers say that the soul’s nature is threefold: one part in her is capable of desire, the second of anger, the third of reason. Two of these parts wild and tame animals possess along with us, that is, desire and anger. Humans alone have reason and judgment and understanding .

Uþwytan sæcgað þæt þære sawle gecynd is ðryfeald: an dæl is on hire gewylnigendlic, oðer yrsigendlic, þrydde gesceadwislic. Twægen þissera dæla habbað deor and nytenu mid us, þæt is gewylnunge and yrre. Se man ana hæfð gescead and ræd and andgit .

LS I.1123

122 Godden

121 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 41; PL 101.639D–640A. and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 317, lines 217–23. 123 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 30, §11, lines 1–5; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, lines 96–100. 124 Migne prints rationalis with rationabilis as an attested variant (PL 101.639D).

In fact the nature of the soul is tripartite, just as the philosophers maintain. A certain part within it is desirous, another rational, a third irascible. Certainly wild beasts and animals have two of these parts in common with us, that is, desire and anger. Man alone lives by reason among the irrational beings, is capable of judgment, excels in understanding.

Triplex est enim animae, ut philosophi uolunt, natura. Est in ea quaedam pars concupicibilis, alia rationabilis, tertia irascibilis. Duas enim habent harum partes nobiscum bestiae et animalia communes, id est concupiscentiam et iram. Homo solus inter inrationabiles ratione uiget, consilio ualet, intellegentia antecellit.

Old English Boethius [prose] 33122 Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 116–19

Alcuin, De animae ratione 2 [PL 3]121

Philosophers who are wise teachers say that the nature of the soul is threefold: one part of it is desirous, another capable of anger, a third rational. Two of these parts wild and tame animals possess along with us, that is, desire and anger. Humans alone have reason and judgment and understanding.

Uðwiten þæt beoð wisæ lareowæs secgæð þæt ðare sawle gecunde is þreofeald: an dæl on hire is wilnigendlic, oðræ sceadwislic. Twegen þisseræ dæle habbæð deor and nyten mid us, þæt is, wilnunge and yrre. Þe mon ane hæfæð gescead and ræd and andgit.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 237–42

Commentary: In natali Domini Looking at these passages, Leinbaugh argued that ‘it is indisputable that (AH I.1) copies Alcuin’s text … verbatim and that the direct source for LS I.1 would clearly seem to be (AH I.1) instead of Alfred’s Boethius’.125 Their order of composition would thus be that set forth from left to right here. At the same time, Leinbaugh points to inrationabiles in AH I.1 as one of three ‘errors’ that cause him to doubt whether Ælfric authored the Latin homily at all.126 The reading makes ‘no sense’, he says: as Alcuin’s original makes clear, the text should say that humans alone among mortals (‘mortal beings’) live by reason. While inrationabiles could reflect textual corruption in Ælfric’s copy of Alcuin or in the extant copy of AH I.1, he concludes: ‘It is easier to suppose that Ælfric encountered this misreading in a Latin compilation not of his own making and then prudently condensed his Old English translations in order to eliminate the error’.127 In sum: Scholarship

Ælfric Composed AH I.1

Leinbaugh

maybe not

Proposed Order of Composition DAR

OEB

AH I.1

LS 1

AH I.2

In a careful evaluation of Leinbaugh’s argument, however, while generally accepting the proposed order of AH I.1, LS I.1, and AH I.2, Jones concluded that these ‘errors’ ‘should perhaps not be overvalued as evidence against Ælfric’s authorship’.128 Inrationabiles in particular, he says, ‘does not seem as problematic to me as it does to him’.129 He states: The reading is a corruption of Alcuin’s preferable mortales, and evidence of scribal interference makes the locus even more problematic (according to Leinbaugh, in is followed by an erasure of three of four letters, then rationabiles); but I would suggest that inrationabiles is not wholly nonsensical in the context, where man is being distinguished from other creatures that do not possess reason. Inter, especially when qualified by solus, as here, could mean ‘among’ or ‘in the midst of’ a certain group without denoting membership in that group. Even so, Leinbaugh’s point that, for whatever reason, Ælfric chose to include neither idea in his Old English version is well taken.130

Our arguments for Ælfric’s authorship of AH I.1, such as its idiosyncratic selection of biblical passages, may be found elsewhere (see introductory notes to AH I.1, lines 1–99). In general, however, our analysis of the textual interrelationship of the passages above would affirm Leinbaugh’s understanding of their compositional order. Boethius reflects De animae ratione’s understanding of the threefold nature of the soul, and likely draws on it directly.131 AH I.1 repeats De animae ratione’s order of concupiscent, rational, and irascible parts. LS I.1 and AH I.2 follow AH I.1 in speaking of the ‘nature’ Lives of Saints I’, p. 201. a discussion of the other two ‘errors’, see notes to AH I.1, lines 126–35 and 154–76. 127 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 37–8. 128 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, pp. 12 and 48. 129 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 48 n. 189. 130 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, pp. 48–9 n. 189. 131 Speaking specifically of these passages in Alcuin’s De animae ratione and the Old English Boethius, Godden says that ‘It is possible that the passage reached Alfred via a commentary or gloss, but no such commentary has yet been found, and in any case Alcuin’s work was certainly available in England at a later date. It seems likely, therefore, that Alfred knew the whole work. His treatment 125 ‘Ælfric’s 126 For

175

Commentary: In natali Domini (gecynd/natura) of the soul, distinguishing between deor/bestiae and nytenu/animalia (perhaps ‘wild’ versus ‘domesticated’ animals, as he describes in Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), line 296), and delineating humans’ gescead/ratio (‘reason’), ræd/ consilio (‘judgment’), and andgit/intellegentia (‘understanding’). Such borrowings, however, do not mean that Ælfric did not consult Boethius as well. LS I.1 and AH I.2 do in fact set forth the divisions of the soul following the order in Boethius. True, the order is not unique to Boethius: Leinbaugh calls it the ‘traditional sequence’ that proceeds ‘in ascending order from the lowest to the highest functions of the soul’.132 Still, as the first half of the homilies show, LS I.1 does directly draw on Boethius at times,133 and AH I.2 perhaps does at one point as well.134 While weaving together such sources could have been made easier by Ælfric’s use of Commonplace Books,135 and while at points he may have drawn from memory, the active interplay of these passages suggests that his desk would have been a full one. Lines 243–60 [Wilnung is þam … underfehð lichamlice mucelnesse]: Having outlined the three parts of the soul – concupiscent, irascible, and rational – Ælfric proceeds to discuss them in turn.

of the soul and mind in his translation of Boethius shows distinct similarities to Alcuin’s ideas.’ (‘Anglo-Saxons on the Mind’, pp. 274–5). 132 Leinbaugh, ‘Ælfric’s Lives of Saints I’, p. 202. 133 See notes to AH I.2, lines 110–15, 116–26, 127–30, 131–8, and 139–64. 134 See notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64. 135 On which, see Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’.

176

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 243–60

Desire is given to people to desire those things that help them toward profitable ends and toward eternal salvation. Therefore, if desire turns to wrong ends, then it brings forth gluttony and fornication and greed. Anger and rage are given to the soul because it ought to be angry and rage against sins and not be subjected to sins, for Christ said, ‘“Each one who commits sin is a slave of that sin”’. If anger is turned into evil, then from that come unhappiness and sloth. Reason is given to the soul to guide and direct its own life and all its actions. With respect to reason, if it turns to wrong ends, then pride and idle boasting come thereof. Reason increases in children, not the soul, but the soul grows in virtues and will not be larger than it was at the beginning, but it will be better, nor does it take on physical size.

Wilnung is þam men igefæn to wilnigenne þa þing þe him fremiæð to nytwurðon þingæ and to æce hæle. Þonne gif þeo wilnung miswent, þonne acenneð heo gifernesse and forliges and gitsunge. Urre and wræþðæ is þare sawlæ geigefan for þi þæt heo sceal ursien and wræðþiæn agean sunnæn and ne beon na sunnen underþeod, for þon ðe Crist cwæð, ‘“Ylc þære þe sunnæ wurcæð is þare sunne ðeow”’. Gif þæt urre bið on yfel iwend, þonne cymeð of þam unrodnesse and æmelnes. Gescead is igefan þare sawle to wissigenne and to steorene hire agene lif and alle hire dæda. O þam gesceadæ, gif hit miswend, þonne cymeð þerof modignes and idelgylp. Gescead wæxæð on cildrum, na þeo sawlæ, ac þeo sawlæ ðihð on megenum and ne bið na mare þonne heo æt frummen wæs, ac bið bætere, ne heo ne underfehð lichamlice mucelnesse.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 30, §11, lines 5–18; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, lines 100–12.

Desire is given to people to desire those things that help them toward profitable ends and toward eternal salvation. Therefore, if desire turns to wrong ends, then it brings forth gluttony and fornication and greed. Anger is given to the soul to the end that it may be angry against vices and not be subjected to sins, for Christ said, ‘“Each of those who commits sins is a slave of those sins”’. If anger is turned into evil, then from that come unhappiness and sloth. Reason is given to the soul to guide and direct its own life and all its actions. With respect to reason, if it turns to wrong ends, pride and idle boasting come . Reason increases in children, not the soul, and the soul grows in virtues and will not be larger than it was at the beginning, but it will be better, nor does it take on physical size.

Desire is given to people to wish for things that are beneficial and useful to them for eternal salvation. But if corrupted, from it are born gluttony, fornication, and love of money. Anger is given to restrain sins, lest man be subservient to wicked lords, that is, sins, because according to the voice of the Lord, ‘“Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”’. From corrupted [anger] arise sadness and sloth. Reason is given, as we have said, to rule and govern man’s entire existence. If is it corrupted, pride and vainglory arise from it. Reason, in fact, grows in children not the soul, and in making progress toward virtue, it does not become larger but better, nor does it take on physical size.

136 Clayton

Gewylnung is þam menn forgifen to gewilnienne þa ðing þe him fremiað to nitwyrðum þingum and to þære ecan hæle. Þonne gif seo gewylnung miswent, þonne acenð he gyfernesse and forlygr and gitsunge. Yrre is ðære sawle forgifen to ðy þæt heo yrsige ongean leahtres, and ne beo na synnum underþeodd, for þan ðe Crist cwæð, ‘“Ælc þæra þe synna wyrcð is þæra synna ðeow”’. Gif þæt yrre bið on yfel awend, þonne cymð of þam unrotnisse and æmylnysse. Gescead is ðære sawle forgifen to gewyssienne and to styrenne hire agen lif and ealle hire dæda. Of þam gesceade, gif hit miswænt, cymð modignysse and ydel gylp . Gescead wexð on cildrum, na seo sawul, and seo sawul þihþ on mægenum and ne bið namare þonne heo æt fruman wæs, ac bið betere, ne heo ne underfæhð lichomlice mycelnysse.

LS I.1136

Concupiscentia data est homini ad cupiscenda quae sunt utilia et quae sibi ad salutem proficiant sempiternam. Si uero corrumpitur, nascitur ex ea gastrimargia, fornicatio, et philargiria. Ira data est ad uitia cohibenda, ne impiis, id est peccatis, homo seruiat dominis, quia iuxta Domini uocem, ‘“Qui facit peccatum seruus est peccati”’. Ex qua corrupta procedit tristitia et accidia. Ratio data est, ut diximus, omnem hominis uitam regere et gubernare. Ex qua, si corrumpitur, oritur superbia, et caenodoxia. Paruulis enim ratio crescit non anima, et proficiendo ad uirtutem non maior fit sed melior, nec corporalem recipit quantitatem.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 119–26

Commentary: In natali Domini As our analysis of the Sermo in natale Domini observed, Ælfric closely follows Alcuin’s De animae ratione for this section up to the final sentence, which may combine phrases from Cassiodorus’ De anima and Augustine’s De quantitate animae (see notes to AH I.1, lines 119–25 and 125–6). Ælfric’s vernacular translations of his Latin homily stay fairly close in turn. LS I.1 at points adds clarifying language (anger and reason are given ðære sawle [‘to the soul’], for example) or positive rationale (anger is given not just to restrain sin, but to oppose it); AH I.2 uses two terms for anger (urre and wræþþæ), though the distinction if any is unclear. Otherwise, the texts proceed in parallel. On Ælfric’s use of John 8.34 [line 250], see notes to AH I.1, lines 119–25). Lines 261–70 [Ðeo sawle hafeð … summe þingæ edlesienlice]: Ælfric has already associated one’s understanding of God with one’s understanding of the soul [lines 191–7], and described the soul’s nature as tripartite [lines 237–9]; alluding to these points, he now explicitly says that the soul reflects the Trinity. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 127–32 Habet igitur anima in sua natura, ut diximus, imaginem sanctae Trinitatis, in eo quod intellegentiam, uoluntatem, et memoriam habet. Una est enim anima, quae mens dicitur, una uita, et una substantia, quae haec tria habet in se, sed haec tria non sunt tres uitae sed una uita. Nec tres substantiae sed una. Quod uero anima uel mens uel uita uel substantia dicitur, ad seipsam dicitur. Quod uero memoria uel intellegentia uel uoluntas dicitur, ad aliquid relatiue dicitur.

LS I.1137 Seo sawul hæfð, swa swa we ær cwædon, on hire gecynde þære halgan Þrynnysse anlicnysse, on þan þe heo hæfð gemynd and andgit and wyllan. An sawul is, and an lif, and an edwist, þe þas ðreo þing hæfð on hire, and þas ðreo þing na synd na ðreo lif ac an , ne þreo ædwiste ac an. Seo sawul oððe þæt lif oððe seo edwist synd gecwædene to hyre sylfra. And þæt gemynd oððe þæt andgit oþþe seo wylla beoð gecwædene to sumum þinga edlesendlice …

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 261–70 Đeo sawle hafeð, swa wæ ær sædon, on hyre cunde þare halgæ Þrymme anlicness, on þam heo hæfð gemynd and angit and willæn. An sawul is, and an lif, and an edwist, þe ðas ðreo þing hæfð on hyre, and þas ðreo þing ne beoð na ðreo lif ac an, ne þreo ædwist ac an. Þeo sawle oððe þæt life oððe þeo edwist beoð icwædene to hyre sylfne. And þæt mynd oððe þæt angit oððe þe willæ beoð icwædene to summe þingæ edlesienlice …

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 30, §12, lines 1–8; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, line 112 – p. 18, line 122.

137 Clayton

178

Commentary: In natali Domini The soul, then, bears in its nature, as we have said, the image of the holy Trinity because it has in it understanding, will, and memory. For there is one soul, which is called mind, one life, and one substance, which has these three within itself, but these three are not three lives but one life. They are not three substances but one. Indeed, what is called soul or mind or life or substance is spoken of in relation to itself. But what is called memory, understanding, or will is spoken of in relation to something else.

The soul, as we said earlier, bears in its nature the image of the holy Trinity, in respect to which it has memory and understanding and will. There is one soul, and one life, and one substance, which has these three traits in it, and these three traits are not three lives but one , not three substances but one. The soul or life or substance are spoken of with respect to [the soul] itself. And memory and understanding and will are spoken of relative to something else …

The soul, as we said earlier, bears in its nature the image of the holy Trinity, in respect to which it has memory and understanding and will. There is one soul, and one life, and one substance, which has these three traits in it, and these three traits are not three lives but one, not three substances but one. The soul or life or substance are spoken of with respect to [the soul] itself. And memory and understanding and will are spoken of relative to something else …

Ælfric’s three accounts are fairly consistent across the board, though the vernacular homilies rearrange ‘memory’, ‘understanding’, and ‘will’, and omit AH I.1’s identification (drawn from Alcuin) of ‘soul’ with ‘mind’. The rearrangement, however, actually tidies the passage somewhat: where AH I.1, following Alcuin, had spoken first of intellegentia / uoluntas / memoria and then memoria / intellegentia / uoluntas, LS I.1 and AH I.2 put both sets in the same order. Unfortunately, this does not match the flow of the subsequent passage, where all four texts successively consider ‘understanding’, ‘desire’, and ‘memory’. Lines 271–4 [and þas ðreo … and þe willæ]: As Ælfric dives further into the three aspects of the soul, attention needs to be paid to the process of editing and translation not just across the three homilies, but the source of the Sermo in natale Domini as well, as one reading in this passage for Leinbaugh draws into question the authorship of AH I.1.

179

… and these three functions have unity among themselves. I understand that I desire to know and remember, and I desire to know and remember. Where there is memory, there is understanding and desire .

… and þas ðreo þing habbað annysse him betwynan. Ic undergyte þæt ic wylle undergytan and gemunan, and ic wylle þæt ic undergyte and gemune . Þær þær þæt gemynd bið, þær bið þæt andgyt and se wylla .

LS I.1139

139 Clayton

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 47–8; PL 101.641D–642A. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §12, p. 30, line 8 – p. 32, line 12; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, line 112 – p. 18, line 122.

For [2] among these three there is a certain unity, because [1] whatever the individual elements are called in themselves, even together, they are spoken of not in the plural but in the singular. [3] I understand that I understand, desire, and remember. And I desire that I understand and remember and desire. And I remember that I understand or desire or remember. And so the individual elements are taken up in individual cases.

Therefore these three are one in this [sense], in that [they are] one life, one mind, one substance (and [1] whatever the individual elements are called in themselves, even together, they are spoken of not in the plural but in the singular) but they are three in this [sense], in that we recall them each in turn. For memory is the memory of something, and understanding is the understanding of something, and will is the willing of something, and we recall these things each in turn. But [2] among these three there is a certain unity: [3] I understand that I understand, desire, and remember; and I desire that I understand and remember and desire; and I remember that I understand and desire and remember. And so the individual elements are taken up in individual cases.

138 Curry,

Nam [2] in his tribus unitas quaedam est, quia [1] quicquid ad seipsa singula dicuntur, etiam simul, non pluraliter sed singulariter dicuntur. [3] Intellego me intellegere, uelle, et meminisse. Et uolo me intellegere, et meminisse, et uelle. Et intellegere, uel uelle, uel meminisse. Et sic in singulis singula capiuntur .

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 132–5

Proinde haec tria eo sunt unum, quo una uita, una mens, una est substantia (et [1] quidquid aliud ad seipsa singula dicuntur etiam simul, non pluraliter sed singulariter dicuntur) eo uero tria, quo ad se inuicem referuntur. Nam memoria alicuius est memoria, et intelligentia alicuius est intelligentia, et uoluntas alicuius est uoluntas, et haec ad se inuicem referuntur. Sed [2] in his tribus unitas quaedam est: [3] intelligo me intelligere, uelle, et meminisse; et uolo me intelligere, et meminisse, et uelle, et memini me intelligere, et uelle, et meminisse. Et sic in singulis singula capiuntur.

Alcuin, De animae ratione 4 [PL 6]138

… and these three functions have unity among themselves. I understand that I desire to know and remember, and I desire to know and remember. Where there is memory, there is understanding and desire.

… and þas ðreo þing habbæð annesse bitweonan heom. Ic undergite þæt Ic wulle undergyten and þencean, and Ic wulle þæt Ic undergite and mun. Ðer ðe þæt imynd bið, þær bið þæt angit and þe willæ.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 271–4

Commentary: In natali Domini Alcuin argues, like Ælfric after him, that the soul reflects God’s triune nature in that it has understanding, will, and memory. These parts exist not independently of the soul – which he also calls ‘mind’, ‘life’, or ‘substance’ – but only in relation to it. The soul is one; its individual parts are ‘one’ when spoken of collectively. They are unified, moreover, in their relationship to one another: individuals understand desire and memory, desire understanding and memory, and remember understanding and desire. These parts may be considered individually; they are always, however, part of the whole. Ælfric first tackles this complex passage through abridging and rearrangement. Having already followed Alcuin in equating soul and mind [line 128], AH I.1 chooses not to complicate matters further by introducing ‘life’ and ‘substance’. Where Alcuin explains generally that each part relates to something, AH I.1 is happy simply to state that each part relates to the others. To make the abridgement flow, Ælfric steals a line from the middle of the passage (in his tribus unitas quaedam est [‘among these three there is a certain unity’]) as an introduction to the whole. But at one point in particular the results are problematic: the reading in Y4 of minime (‘least of all’) for memini me (‘I remember [that] I [understand]’) – a haplographic corruption that makes the end of the sentence ‘nearly untranslatable’.140 For Leinbaugh, the result is unworthy of Ælfric: if Ælfric was the author, ‘he either an error when working with Alcuin’s text or copied a faulty text of Alcuin with the zeal of an amateur’.141 Furthermore, Leinbaugh suggests, the fact that the vernacular homilies do not follow Alcuin’s careful parallelism (intelligo / uolo / memini [‘I understand’ / ‘I desire’ / ‘I remember’]) with similar verbs (ic undergyte / ic wylle / ic gemune), but break the pattern with ‘Þær þær þæt gemynd bið, þær bið þæt andgyt and se wylla’ (‘Where there is memory, there is understanding and desire’), makes it likely that ‘Ælfric recognized an irregularity in his Latin source (AH I.1), a compilation not of his own making, and attempted to correct it in his Old English translations’.142 Jones, indeed, notes that the problems begin even earlier. In his analysis of Leinbaugh’s arguments and the original evidence, he states: Questions about the final clause aside, the vernacular versions show that in the first clause Ælfric construed uelle as a modal in indirect discourse with intellegere and meminisse, rather than as a third infinitive to be taken with the accusative subject me.143 The second clause also fails to translate what the Latin actually says, and again reduces three complementary infinitives to two. The Old English is at most, therefore, only an approximate rendering of the Latin anyway, and suggests that Ælfric was (understandably) puzzled by the subtleties of Alcuin’s teaching.144

Rather than concluding that the error in AH I.1 reduces the possibility of Ælfric’s authorship, however, Jones points to the passage (along with other evidence) to argue that Ælfric was simply not as skilled in Latin as in Old English – a possibility, he notes, ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 47 n. 185. Lives of Saints I’, p. 208. 142 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 41. 143 Jones notes that the correct translation would be ‘Ic undergyte þæt ic wylle, undergyte, and gemune’ (‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 48 n. 187). 144 ‘Meatim sed et rustica’, p. 48. 140 Jones,

141 ‘Ælfric’s

181

Commentary: In natali Domini at odds with previous scholarship that had seen deft handling of language as a hallmark of Ælfric’s style. Here in particular, Jones observes, ‘Any attempt to condense teaching as subtle as Alcuin’s would have been hazardous, but to do so successfully would have been impossible if the abbreviator was not absolutely confident in his understanding of the source’; consequently, the ‘errors’ to which Leinbaugh points – see notes to lines 237–42 and 297–346. One may note in passing that Ælfric’s choice of concluding terms in LS I.1 and AH I.2 – gemynd (‘memory’), andgiet (‘understanding’), and willa (‘will’) – may well have been influenced not only by their presence twice in the previous passage (see notes to lines 261–70), but by his use elsewhere of these terms in this order in CH I.20,145 LS I.1,146 and the Interrogationes Sigewulfi.147 Lines 275–96 [Uton nu bihealden … æne ac æfre]: From the conceptually challenging subject of the soul’s tripartite nature, Ælfric moves to topics perhaps more within his audience’s experience – human thought, memory, imagination, and dreams – before contrasting the perspective of human beings with that of God.

First Series, p. 342, line 197. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 30, §12, line 3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 16, line 114. 147 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 131, lines 194–5; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ 1884, p. 20, line 177. 145 Clemoes, 146 Clayton

182

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 275–96 Uton nu bihealden þa wunderlice swiftnesse þare sawlæ. Heo hafæð swa mycele swiftnesse þæt heo on ane tide, gif heo wyle, bisceawiæð heofenum and ofer sæ flyhð, lond and burga geond faræð. And alle þas þing mid þohte on hire sihðe isett, and swa raðe swa heo iheræð þare burge name þe heo ær cuðe, swa ræðe heo mæg þa burh on hire þohte sceawiæn hwylc heo bið. All swa bi geylce þinge þe heo ær cuðe oðer ne cuðe, /h\eo mæg on hire mode sceawiæn þonne heo hereð bi þam specæn, and swa styriende is þe sawle þæt heo forþam on slepe ne stilð. Ac þenne heo smeað bi ane þinge, and ne mæg heo þa hwile bi oðre þingum smeagen ac bið ibysgad mid þam anum þingum oððet þæt ðoht ewite and oðer cume. Witorlice God almihtig wat alle þing togædere, and alle he hafð on his andwealdnesse, þæt is ætforen his isihðe, and heo beoþ æfre ætforen his isihðe and næfre him uncuðe. And þis is ðet icwædon is: þæt God is æghwær all, for þam ðe alle þa þing þe æfre wæron, oððe nu beoð, oððe þa ðe towarde beoð, alle heo beoð on Godes sihðe andwearde, na æne ac æfre.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 32, §13, line 1 – §14, line 6; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 18, lines 122–41.

[1] Uton nu behealden þa wundorlican swyftnysse þære sawle . [5] Heo hæfð swa mycele swyftnysse þæt heo on anre tide, gif heo swa wyle, besceawað heofonan and ofer sæ flyhð, land and burga geondfærð. And ealle þas þing mid geþohte on hire sihðe gesæt, [2] and swa hraðe swa heo gehyrð þære burge naman þe heo ær cuðe, swa hraðe heo mæg þa burh on hire geþohte gescyppan hwylc heo bið. [3] Ealswa be gehwylcum oðrum þingum þe heo ær cuðe oððe ne cuðe, heo mæg on hire mode gescyppan þonne heo gehyrð be þam spræcan, [4] and swa styrigende is seo sawul þæt heo furðon on slæpe ne gestylþ. [6] Ac ðonne he smeað be Romebyrig, ne mæg heo þa hwile smeagen be Hierusalem, oððe þonne heo smeað be anum þing , ne mæg heo þa hwyle be oðrum þinge smeagen, ac biþ gebysgod mid þam anum ðinge oðþæt þæt geþoht gewyte and oðer cume. [7] Witodlice God ælmihtig wat ealle þing togædere, and ealle þing hæfð on his andwerdnysse, and hi æfre beoþ on his gesihþe and næfre him uncuþe. And þis is þæt gecwæden is: þæt God is æghwær eall, forðan ðe ealle þing þe æfre wæron, oððe nu synd, oþþe ða þe towearde synd, ealle hi synd on Godes gesihðe anwearde, na æne ac æfre.

[1] Consideremus autem miram uelocitatem animae in formandis rebus quae percipit per carnales sensus, a quibus, quasi per quosdam nuntios, quicquid rerum uisibilium cognitarum uel incognitarum percipit, mox in seipsa earum ineffabili celeritate format figuras formatasque in suo thesauro memoriae recondit. [2] Sicut enim qui Romam quondam uidit: iterum cum nomen audierit, Romam fingit in animo suo et format qualis sit. [3] Et adhuc mirabilius est quod incognitae res si lectae uel auditae erunt in auribus animae, statim format figuram ignotae rei. Ex notis enim speciebus fingit ignota. Ex qua uelocitate animae, quo in se sic omnia fingit audita aut uisa aut sensa aut odorata aut gustata, iterum inuenta recognoscit siue curando siue non curando. [4] Et tante mobilitatis est ut nec cum sopita est conquiescat. [5] Tantae celeritatis ut uno temporis puncto cælum conlustret si uelit. Maria peruolat, terras et urbes peragret, omnia in conspectu sibi cogitando constituens. [6] Sed cum de Roma cogitat, non eo momento de Hierusalem potest cogitare. Vel cum de qualibet una re meditatur, non potest eo momento de pluribus meditari, sed hoc unum illi tunc presens est donec uel citius uel tardius haec cogitatio recedat et alia superueniat. [7] At Dei omnipotentis naturae et ineffabili cognitioni omnia simul sunt presentia et semper presentia et numquam recedentia, et hoc est quod dicitur quod Deus ubique totus est, quia quae sunt, uel fuerunt, uel quae futura sunt, simul omnia non semel sed semper presentia habet.

148 Clayton

LS I.1148

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 136–53

[1] But let us consider the amazing speed of the soul in the forming of things that it perceives through the bodily senses, by which – as if through certain messengers – it perceives something about visible things, known and unknown, then forms images of them within itself with indescribable speed and stores up the formed images in its storehouse of memory. [2] Just like one who once saw Rome: when he hears the name again, he fashions Rome in his mind and forms it as it is. [3] And it is yet more remarkable that if unknown things have been read or heard through the ears of the soul, it immediately forms an image of the unfamiliar thing. In fact, from familiar forms it constructs unfamiliar ones. On account of the soul’s speed, by which it thus conceives in itself everything heard or seen or felt or smelled or tasted, it recognizes the discoveries again, whether looking or not looking for them. [4] And it is so active that it does not rest when it has been overcome with sleep. [5] It is so fast that in an instant it may survey heaven if it wishes. It may wing its way across the seas, traverse countries and cities, forming everything in its view by thinking. [6] But while it thinks about Rome, it cannot think about Jerusalem at that moment. Or, while it thinks about one thing as it pleases, it cannot at that moment think about many things, but that one thing is then present to it until that thought sooner or later recedes and another arrives. [7] But to the nature of almighty God and his indescribable knowledge all things are at once present and are forever present and never vanish, and this is why it is said that God is all things everywhere, because the things that are, or were, or will be, he has in view all at once, not at one point in time but forever.

[1] Let us now consider the marvelous speed of the soul . [5] It has such great speed that in a moment, if it wishes, it looks at the heavens and flies over the sea, and travels throughout lands and cities. And it sets all these things in its sight by thinking, [2] and as quickly as it hears the name of a city that it previously knew, it can just as quickly create the city in its thought, whichever one it is. [3] Likewise, concerning all things that it previously knew or did not know, it can create [images of them] in its mind when it hears them spoken about, [4] and the soul is so active that it does not stop during sleep. [6] But when it thinks about the city of Rome, it cannot at the same time think about Jerusalem, or when it thinks about one thing , it cannot at the same time think about other things but is occupied with the one thing until that thought passes and another arrives. [7] Certainly God Almighty knows all things at the same time, and he has everything present to him, and they are ever in his sight, and never unknown to him. And this is what is said: that God is all things everywhere, because all things that ever were, or now are, or are destined to come, they are all present in God’s sight, not once but forever.

Let us now consider the marvelous speed of the soul. It has such great speed that in a moment, if it wishes, it looks at the heavens and flies over the sea, and travels throughout lands and cities. And it sets all these things in its sight by thinking, and as quickly as it hears the name of a city that it previously knew, it can just as quickly picture the city in its thought, whichever one it is. Likewise, concerning all things that it previously knew or did not know, it can consider [them] in its mind when it hears them spoken about, and the soul is so active that it does not stop during sleep. But when it thinks about one thing, it cannot at the same time think about other things but is occupied with the one thing until that thought passes and another arrives. Certainly God Almighty knows all things at the same time, and he has everything in his power, that is, before his sight, and they are ever before his sight and never unknown to him. And this is what is said: that God is all things everywhere, because all things that ever were, or now are, or are destined to come, they are all present in God’s sight, not once but forever.

Commentary: In natali Domini Ælfric had skipped back and forth when crafting AH I.1 from Alcuin’s De animae ratione (see notes to AH I.1, lines 136–53), and he uses a similar approach when translating AH I.1 into the vernacular. This is not to say that LS I.1 restores Alcuin’s original order: rather, it edits AH I.1 into something new. Leinbaugh does observe that LS I.1 speaks of ealle þing þe … synd (‘all things that … are’ [cf. AH I.2, lines 294–5], a phrase more in keeping with Alcuin’s omnia quae sunt (‘all things that are’) than AH I.1’s quae sunt (‘things that are’); rather than suggesting that LS I.1 looks directly back to Alcuin here, however, he posits that AH I.1 originally followed Alcuin, and that the copy in Y4 is corrupt.149 Whether omnia is missing in AH I.1 through corruption or intentional variation – like Alcuin, Ælfric uses the term immediately before and after [lines 150 and 152] – one agrees that in general LS I.1 has AH I.1, not Alcuin, in view. First, LS I.1 condenses AH I.1, eliminating in particular two somewhat more complex passages regarding perception and memory (‘in formandis rebus … thesauro memoriae recondit’ [lines 136–9]) and imagination and memory (‘Ex notis enim … siue non curando’ [lines 142–4]). Next, it rearranges material, moving the vivid image of thought traversing the earth (section [5]) nearer the front, and reordering ‘were’ and ‘are’ toward the end. Then, along the way, it smooths out passages to make them arguably more accessible to the audience, changing ‘Romam fingit in animo suo et format qualis sit’ (‘he fashions Rome in his mind and forms it as it is’), for example, to ‘[seo sawul] mæg þa burh on hire geþohte gescyppan, hwylc heo bið’ (‘[the soul] can create the city in its thought, whichever one it is’). AH I.2 then follows LS I.1 carefully, save for a few details: it twice uses sceawian (‘to see’) instead of gescieppan (‘to create’) to describe perhaps more easily the process of imagination; it omits mentions of Rome and Jerusalem (‘ðonne he smeað … be Hierusalem, oððe’), as it had already given the example of a burg (‘town’ [line 280]); and it says not that God has all things on his andwerdnysse (‘in his present’ – that is, seeing all of time at once, as Boethius would have it150), but on his andwealdnesse (‘in his power’), glossing andwealdnes as ætforen his isihðe (‘before his sight’). Lines 297–313 [Þeo sawle soðlice … heo him underlið]: From the life of the mind, Ælfric turns to consider the death of the soul.

149 ‘Liturgical 150 See

Homilies’, p. 44–5. See also notes to lines 347–75 below. notes to AH I.1, lines 136–53.

185

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 297–313

The soul is truly the life of the body, and the life of the soul is God. If the soul deserts the body, then the body dies. And if God deserts the soul , then it dies in the dark region [hell] so to be deprived of everlasting life and yet never ceases [to be] in everlasting torment. This death befalls [the soul] if it allows desire and anger to reign in it more than reason, which ought always to guide it to good deeds. Through reason alone we are more blessed than the irrational animals. The almighty Creator exalted the human soul with two honors, that is, with immortality and blessedness, but it lost blessedness when it sinned and was not able to lose immortality because it never dies. The beauty of the soul is that it has the power to avoid sin, and thus it is deformed through sins if it gives way to them.

Þeo sawle soðlice is þæs licahmes lif, and þare sawle lif is God. Gif ðeo sawle forlete þone lichame, þone swelt þe lichame. And gif God forlet þa sawle , þonne swelt heo on þam swartan dæle swa ðet heo bið forloren þam ece life and swa ðeah nefre ne endæþ on þam ece pine. Ðes dæþ hire ilympeð gif heo let rixiæn on hire þa wilnunge and þæt yrre swiðor þonne þæt gescead, þe hire wissiæn sceal to weldede a. Þurh þæt gescead ane we beoð sæligre þonne þa ungesceadwise nytene. Mid twam wurðscipe wurðgode þe almihtigæ Scyppend þæs monnes sawle, þæt is mid eccenesse and eadinesse, ac heo forleas þa eadignesse þa ða heo gylte, and heo ne mihte þa eccenesse forleosen for þam þe heo ne endæþ næfræ. Ðare sawle wlite is þæt heo habbe þa mihte swa þæt heo sunne forbuge, and for þi heo bið atelic þurh sunne gif heo him underlið.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 32, §15, line 1– p. 32, §16, line 7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 18, line 141 – p. 20, line 155.

The soul is truly the life of the body, and the life of the soul is God. If the soul deserts the body, then the body dies. And if God deserts the soul because of grievous sins, then it dies in in its better part so to be deprived of everlasting life and yet never ceases [to be] in everlasting torments. This death befalls [the soul] if it allows desire and anger to reign in it more than reason, which ought always to guide it to good deeds. Through reason alone we are more blessed than the irrational animals. The almighty Creator adorned the human soul with two honors, that is, with immortality and blessedness, but it lost blessedness when it sinned and was not able to lose immortality because it never dies. The beauty of the soul is that it has the power to avoid vice, and it is deformed through vices if it gives way to them.

Now the soul is the life of the body, but the life of the soul is God. When the soul leaves the body, it dies. But the death of the soul occurs when God withdraws from it with the gift of his grace, and it dies in its better part because of a magnitude of sins and will be half-dead. And this will occur if desire or anger has more dominion in a person than reason, the only aspect in which he is superior to animals. Moreover the soul was glorified in its nature by the Creator with two marks of worth, that is, with immortality and blessedness. But since it was corrupted by free will at the urging of the malign spirit, it lost its blessedness; it was not able to lose its immortality. The soul’s beauty is virtue and its deformity sin.

151 Clayton

Seo sawul soðlice is þæs lic-homan lif, and þære sawle lif is God. Gif seo sawul forlæt þonne lic-homan, þonne swælt seo lic-homa. And gif God forlæt þa sawle for ormættum synnum, þonne swælt heo on þam sælran dæle swa þæt heo bið forloren þam ecan life and swa þeah næfre ne geendað on þam ecum wytum. Þes dæð hire gelimpð gif heo læt rixian on hire þa gewilnunge and þæt yrre swiðor þonne þæt gescead, þe hi gewysigen sceall to wel-dædum a. Ðuruh þæt gescead ana we synd sælran þonne þa ungesceadwysan nytenu. Mid twam wurðscipum geglængde se ælmihtiga Scyppend þæs mannes sawle, þæt is mid eccnysse and eadignysse, ac heo forleas þa eadignysse þa ða he agylte, and heo ne mihte þa ecnysse forleosan forðan þe heo ne geendað næfre. Þære sawle wlyte is þæt heo hæbbe mihte swa þæt heo leahtres forbuge, and heo bið atelic þurh leahtras gif he him underlið.

LS I.1151

Anima namque corporis uita est, anime uero uita Deus est. Dum anima corpus deserit, moritur. Animae uero mors est dum eam Deus deserit dono suae gratiae, et ob magnitudinem scelerum moritur meliore sui parte et erit semiuiua. Et hoc erit si concupiscentia uel ira plus dominabitur in homine quam ratio, in qua sola precellit animantibus. Duabus uero dignitatibus a Creatore anima in sua natura glorificata est, id est aeternitate et beatitudine. Sed cum libero arbitrio, maligno spiritu instigante, deprauata est, beatidtudinem perdidit; aeternitatem perdere non potuit. Cuius pulchritudo uirtus est, et eius deformitas uitium.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 154–61

Commentary: In natali Domini Ælfric’s first task in these passages is to explain how the soul, which he has said ‘ne mæg næfre … endiæn’ (‘can never … come to an end’ [line 123]), can ‘die’. Such a death occurs, he says, when God ‘abandons’ it (deserit and forlæt) – by removing the donum suae gratiae (‘gift of his grace’), AH I.1 further explains – in response to sin of which (by implication) a person has not repented. Following Alcuin verbatim (see notes to AH I.1, lines 154–60), Ælfric describes this process as the soul dying ‘in its better part’ (meliore sui parte / on þam sælran dæle), which AH I.2 renders as on þam swartan dæle (‘in the dark region’ – hell, one assumes), likely through scribal confusion and association with the ece pine (‘eternal torment’) described immediately after. In addition, AH I.1 describes this state as semiuiua (‘half-dead’), a term he again draws from Alcuin, though he omits much of his source’s explanation of the term. LS I.1 and AH I.2 omit the term altogether, explaning instead that the condemned soul is dead to heaven, as it were, but horribly alive in torment forever. LS 1 follows AH I.1 save for certain details. Besides the changes above, LS I.1 adds that reason ‘hi gewysigen sceall to wel-dædum a’ (‘ought always to guide [the soul] to good deeds’); simplifies AH I.1’s discussion of corruption, free will, and demonic temptation to the bare he agylte (‘[the soul] sinned’); redoubles its explanation that the soul cannot literally perish ‘for ðan þe heo ne geendað næfre’ (‘because it never dies’); and emphasizes the importance of human volition by describing virtue and moral deformity as the result of avoiding or succumbing to sin. AH I.2 follows LS I.1 more closely still. Besides spelling variations and the alteration of sælran to swartan noted above, the primary differences are the use of synonyms: pine for wite (‘torment’), wurðgode (‘exalted’) for geglængde (‘adorned’), and sunn for leahtor (‘sin’). Lines 314–30 [Þaræ sawle mihtæ … abugen to forwyrde]: The seventh and last ‘Boethian’ passage found in AH I.2 (see lines 110–15 above) discusses the four virtues or sawle mihtæ (‘powers of the soul’ [line 314]). Early on, Bolton had pointed out the similarity here between the Old English Boethius and LS I.1, though he called the connection ‘remote and open to challenge’,152 ‘evidently’ – as Szarmach notes – ‘not considering the Ælfric close enough to Alfred and implicitly leaving open the possibility of another source for this commonplace’.153 ‘Commonplace’ is a good term for this notion of the cardinal virtues: prudentia (‘prudence’ or ‘discretion’), iustitia (‘justice’ or ‘righteousness’), temperantia (‘temperance’ or ‘moderation’), and fortitudo (‘fortitude’ or ‘strength’) appear in close proximity hundreds of times in the Patrologia Latina, while the same terms appear with their Old English counterparts – snotornes (‘wisdom’ or ‘prudence’), rihtwisnes (‘righteousness’ or ‘justice’), [ge]metgung (‘temperance’ or ‘moderation’), and strenhð (‘strength’) [which Ælfric uses along with anrædnes (‘constancy’ or ‘diligence’)] – in

152 ‘The

Alfredian Boethius’, p. 407. Influence’, p. 240.

153 ‘Boethius’s

187

Commentary: In natali Domini Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion154 and Napier 49,155 with a careful treatment of the vernacular terms also appearing in Vercelli 20.156 The last, Szarmach argues, directly parallels part of Cambridge, Pembroke College 25, which contains a homiletic redaction of Alcuin’s Liber de uirtutibus et uitiis, ‘without doubt Alcuin’s major treatment’ of the subject.157 Far from originating in the Old English Boethius, which adds the terms to De consolatione Philosophiae’s general account of power and virtue,158 or in Alcuin’s De animae ratione, which AH I.1 clearly follows, the concept of the cardinal virtues may ultimately stem from Plato’s Republic. In Book IV, Socrates associates these qualities first with the city and then with the soul: just as the ideal state will be ‘σοφή … καὶ ἀνδρεία καὶ σώφρων καὶ δικαία’ (‘wise, courageous, temperate, and just’), he says, ‘τὸν ἕνα ἄρα … οὕτως ἀξιώσομεν, τὰ αὐτὰ  ταῦτα εἴδη ἐν τῇ αὑτοῦ ψυχῇ ἔχοντα … τῶν αὐτῶν ὀνομάτων ὀρθῶς ἀξιοῦσθαι’ (‘so … we will expect the individual, having these same qualities in his soul, rightly to be deemed worthy of the same names’).159 Such virtues appear in De animae ratione, the Old English Boethius, and the Ælfrician texts as follows:

and Lapidge, Byrhtferth’s Enchiridon, p. 198, lines 37–9, and see the commentary on Byrhtferth’s treatment of the Four Cardinal Virtues at pp. 340–1, with reference to the discussion of Alcuin by Mähl, Quadriga Virtutum, pp. 83–125. 155 Napier, Wulfstan, p. 247, lines 13–16. 156 Scragg, Vercelli Homilies, p. 340, line 150 – p. 342, line 179; on which, see Szarmach, ‘Alfred’s Boethius’. 157 Szarmach, ‘Alfred’s Boethius’, pp. 230–3, at 230. 158 Compare Old English Boethius [prose] 27 (Godden and Irvine, Boethius [2009], vol. I, p. 298, lines 47–9) with De consolatione III pr. 4 (CCSL 94, pp. 42–4); see Szamarch, ‘Boethius’s Influence’, p. 240. Szarmach notes that the cardinal virtues do appear in glosses to two later passages, De consolatione IV pr. 7.17–21 (CCSL 94, pp. 86–7) and IV m. 7 (CCSL 94, pp. 87–8), in manuscripts ranging from the late ninth to early eleventh century (‘Alfred’s Boethius’, pp. 225–9). 159 §§427e and 435c (Republic, ed. Emlyn-Jones and Preddy, pp. 372 and 400; Platonis Rempublicam, ed. Slings, pp. 144 and 155). For another debt to Book IV in Alcuin, see lines 240–6 above. 154 Baker

188

Swa swa wisdom is se hehsta cræft and se hæfð on him feower oðre cræftas; þara is an wærscipe, oðer metgung, ðridde is ellen, feorðe rihtwisnes.

Old English Boethius [prose] 27161 Cuius excellentiores uirtutes quattuor esse manifestum est: id est, prudentia, quae Deum intellegit amandum et agenda uel non agenda discernit; iustitia, qua Deus colitur et amatur et recte uiuitur; temperantia, qua concupiscentiam uel iram gubernat; fortitudo, qua pro Dei amore fortiter omnia aduersa huius uitae constanti animo tolerat.

Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 161–5 Ðære sawle mihta syndon þas feower fyrmestan and sælestan; prudentia, þæt is snoternysse, þurh þa heo sceal hyre Scippend understandan and hine lufian, and tosceaden god fram yfele. Oðer mægen is iustitia, þæt is rihtwisnys, þurh þa heo sceal God wurðigan and rihtlice libban. Þæt ðrydde mægen is temperantia, þæt is gemetegung, mid þære sceall seo sawul ealle þing gemætegian, þæt hit to swiþe ne sy, ne to hwonlice, forðan þe hit is awryten, Omnia nimia nocent, þæt is, ‘Ealle oferdone þing dæriað’. Witodlice gemetegung is eallra mægena modor. Þæt feorðe mægen is fortitudo, þæt is strængð oððe anrednyss, þurh þa sceal seo sawul forbæran earfoðnysse mid anrædum mode for Godes lufan, and næfre þam deofle ne abugan to forwyrde.

LS I.1162

Þaræ sawle mihtæ beoð þas feower þing, þæt is, prudencia, iusticia, temperantia, fortitudo. Prudentia, þæt is snoternes, þurh þam heo sceal hire Scyppend understonden, and him lufian, and tosceadan god fram yfele. Oþer mægen is iusticia, þæt is rihtwisnesse, þurh þam heo sceal God wurðian and rihtlice libban. Þæt ðridde mægen is temperantia, þæt is metegung, mid þare sceal þeo sawle alle þing metegiæn þæt hit ne beo to swiðe ne to hwonlice, for þam hit is iwriten, Omnia nimia nocent, þæt is, ‘Alle oferdone þing derigæð’. Witerlice metegung is alræ mægene moder. Þæt feorðe mægen is fortitudo, þæt is strenhðe oððe anrednesse, þurh þam sceal þeo sawlæ forbæren arfnesse mid anrede mode for Godes lufe and næfre deofle abugen to forwyrde.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 314–30

161 Godden

160 Curry,

‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, pp. 42–3; PL 101.640A–640B. and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 298, lines 47–9; for the prosimetrical version (identical save for minor spelling variations), see Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2012), p. 160, §5. Somewhat similar language is found in Prose 20 (‘Þonne is … swelce cræftas’ [Godden and Irvine, Boethius (2009), vol. I, p. 474, line 132 – p. 475, line 135]); Szarmach, however, concludes that ‘it is not readily clear that this passage is not a different string of virtues that happens to include within it some virtues that are numbered in the basic four’ (‘Alfred’s Boethius’, p. 224 n. 5). 162 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 34, §17, lines 1–13; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 20, lines 155–67. 163 Quae being an attested variant (PL 101.640A).

Cuius excellentiores uirtutes quatuor esse manifestum est: id est, prudentia, qua163 agenda uel non agenda discernit; et iustitia, qua Deus colitur et amatur et recte uiuitur … ; temperantia, quae concupiscentiam uel iram gubernat … ; fortitudo, qua aduersa huius uitae quaecunque contingant constanti animo tolerat … Quae est uera sapientia nisi Deum intellegere amandum? … Quid fortitudo nisi pro amore Dei fortiter omnia tolerare aduersa?

Alcuin, De animae ratione 2 [PL 3–4]160

It is evident that it has four superior virtues: that is, discretion, by which one discerns what ought to be done and not done; and righteousness, by which God is worshipped and loved and rightly lived … ; temperance, which governs desire and anger … ; fortitude, by which one endures whatever adversities of this life may arrive with a stable mind … What is true wisdom but to understand that God must be loved? … What is fortitude, but for the love of God to endure all adversity bravely?

Even so, wisdom is the highest virtue, and it has in it four other virtues. One of those is prudence, the second temperance, the third courage [or ‘fortitude’], the fourth righteousness [or ‘justice’].

Of its most excellent virtues there are shown to be four: that is, discretion, which understands that God is to be loved and discerns what ought to be done and not done; righteousness, by which God is worshipped and loved and rightly lived for; temperance, by which it governs strong desire and anger; strength, by which for the love of God it bravely endures all the adversity of this life with a stable mind.

There are four foremost and best powers of the soul; prudentia, that is wisdom, by which it [the soul] must understand its Creator and love him, and distinguish good from evil. The second virtue is iustitia, that is, righteousness, through which it ought to honor God and live uprightly. The third virtue is temperantia, that is moderation, with which the soul ought to moderate all things, not to be too strong or too slight, for it is written, All excessive things are harmful, ‘All things overdone injure’. Certainly, moderation is the mother of all virtues. The fourth virtue is fortitudo, that is strength or steadfastness, through which the soul ought to endure hardship with a steadfast mind on account of God’s love, and [ought] never to yield to the devil to [its] own damnation.

There are four powers of the soul, that is, prudencia, iusticia, temperantia, fortitudo. Prudentia is wisdom, by which it [the soul] ought to understand its Creator, and love him, and distinguish good from evil. The second virtue is iusticia, that is righteousness, through which it ought to honor God and live rightly. The third virtue is temperantia, that is moderation, with which the soul ought to moderate all things not to be too strong or too slight, for it is written, All excessive things are harmful, that is, ‘All things overdone injure’. Certainly, moderation is the mother of all virtues. The fourth virtue is fortitudo, that is strength or steadfastness, through which the soul ought to endure hardship with a steadfast mind on account of God’s love and [ought] never to yield to the devil to [its] damnation.

Commentary: In natali Domini Despite the common theme present in all five passages, it is evident at a glance that the Old English Boethius is not the source of the vernacular homilies. Not only does Boethius furnish simply a bare list of attributes, but it translates prudentia as wærscipe (‘prudence’ or ‘caution’) and fortitudo as ellen (‘strength’ or ‘courage’). LS I.1 and AH I.2, by contrast, use snoternysse (‘wisdom’) for the former and strængð oððe anrednyss (‘strength or steadfastness’) for the latter.164 LS I.1 and AH I.2 also include the Latin names of the virtues, treating them in the order and with much of the commentary found in AH I.1, which draws nearly all of its language from Alcuin (see notes to AH I.1, lines 160–7). Not everything in the vernacular homilies comes from AH I.1, however: LS I.1 and AH I.2 also add two significant passages. On the one hand, at the end [line 330], Ælfric notes that fortitude should cause individuals never to yield to the devil’s temptations and thus bring about their spiritual ruin. On the other hand, somewhat before [lines 324–6], Ælfric supplements his notes on temperantia with the saying Omnia nimia nocent (‘All excessive things are harmful’), to which he adds the affirmation that gemetegung is eallra mægena modor (‘moderation is the mother of all virtues’). Ælfric pairs the two sayings again in De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis, written several years after AH I.2:165 ‘Omnia nimia nocent et temperantia mater uirtutum dicitur, þæt is on englisc, ealle oferdone þingc deriað, and seo gemetegung is ealra mægna modor’ (‘All excessive things are harmful, and moderation is said [to be] the mother of virtues, that is in English, all excessive things are harmful, and moderation is the mother of all virtues’).166 Godden notes that Omnia nimia nocent ‘has the air of a proverb’,167 but it seems to have been peculiar to Ælfric if so, as neither it nor gemetegung is ealra mægna modor are found elsewhere in Old English. A Carolingian influence may be at work, as Omnia nimia nocent appears in the canons of Abbo of Fleury (ca 945 – 1004), Hugh Capet (ca 938 – 996), and Robert II of France (972–1031),168 and Omne nocet nimium (‘Everything in excess is harmful’) is found in the Dialogus de musica arte domini Ottonis,169 though Thomas Dale describes the latter as an eleventh-century work that has been ‘wrongly attributed to Odo of Cluny [ca 878 – 942]’.170 Ælfric may also have drawn it from Alcuin, however, in whose Ars grammatica the phrase Omnia nimia nocent features.171 The origins of temperantia mater uirtutum, on the other hand, are even more uncertain, as the Patrologia Latina lists no uses of the phrase before Ælfric. It may be that Ælfric here adapts the far more common expression discretio matris uirtutum (‘discretion [is] the mother of all virtues’), which was popularized (if not penned) by Benedict of Nursia in his Rule.172 At any rate, the addition of these proverbs, combined with his closing statement about fortitude and list of virtues in both Latin and Old English, considerably Ælfric’s use of mægen [lines 319–31] instead of Boethius’ cræft, see Clemoes, ‘King Alfred’s Debt’; Discenza, ‘Alfred’s “Cræft”’; and Szarmach, ‘Boethius’s Influence’, p. 240. 165 That is, ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) for De octo uitiis versus later in the period ca 998 × 1002 for In natali Domini; see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 105 and 120. 166 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 142, lines 2–3. 167 Referring to the phrase in Alcuin’s Ars grammatica (‘Source Details: C.B.1.3.2.039.01’). 168 Excerpta de aliis canonibus 6 (PL 139.480B). 169 De musica (PL 133.786A). 170 Relics, Prayer, and Politics, p. 133 n. 42. 171 PL 101.850D. 172 Benedicti regula 64 (CSEL 75, p. 166, line 19). 164 For

191

Commentary: In natali Domini lengthen the vernacular homilies, expanding the neat summary that AH I.1 had made of Alcuin. Lines 331–46 [Ðas feower mægenæ … þam lichame faren]: From the four cardinal virtues, Ælfric transitions to other characteristics of the soul, such as its capacity to love, its rationality, its free will, and its incorporeality. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 165–76

LS I.1173

Et hae quattuor uirtutes uno caritatis diademate ornantur. Haec est enim animae summa beatitudo: eum diligere a quo est, et socias suae beatitudinis diligere animas, et illis prodesse in quantum ualeat. Hoc modo anima definiri potest iuxta suae proprietatem naturae. Anima est spiritus intellectualis, rationalis, semper in mot, semper uiuens, bonae maleque uoluntatis capax, sed Domini benignitate Creatoris libero arbitrio nobilitata, sua uoluntate uitiata, Dei gratia liberata in quibus ipse Dominus uoluit, ad regendum motus carnis creata, inuisibilis, incorporalis, sine pondere, sine colore, circumscripta in singulis suae carnis membris tota in qua est imago Conditoris spiritaliter inpressa, non habens in se potestatem exeundi de carne et redeundi iterum in eam sed eius arbitrio qui fecit eam carnique inmisit. In qua est amor naturaliter, qui amor intellectu discernendus est et ratione, ut inlicitas delectationes deuitet et ea amet quae amanda sunt.

Ðas feower mægenu habbað ænne kyne-helm, þæt is seo soðe lufu Godes and manna, forðan þe seo sawul is gesælig ðe þonne Scyppend lufað þe hi gesceop and hire gefæran and wile him fremian swa heo fyrmest mæge. Seo sawul is gesceadwis gast, æfre cucu, and mæg underfon ge godne wyllan and yfelne, æfter agenum cyre. Se wel-willende Scyppend læt hi habben agenes cyres geweald; þa wearð heo be agenum wyllan gewæmmed þurh þæs deofles lare. Heo wærð æft alysad þuruh Godes gife , gif heo Gode gehyrsumað. Heo is ungesæwenlic and unlic-homlice, butan hæfe and butan bleo, mid þam lic-haman befangen and on eallum limum wunigende. Ne heo ne mæg be hyre agenre mihte of þam lic-homan gewytan, ne æft ongean cyrran, butan se wylle þe hi geworhte and on þonne lic-haman asænde .

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 331–46 Ðas feower mægenæ habbæð ænne kynehelm, þæt is ðeo soðe Godes lufæ and monne, for þam ðe þeo sawle is iselig þe lufæð þone Scyppend þe hire iscop and hyre iferan, and wyle him fremiæn swa heo fyrmest mæg. Þeo sawle is isceadwis gast, æfre quic, and mæg underfon ægðer godne willæ and yfele æfter hyre agene cure. Þe wælwillendæ Scyppend let hyre habban hire agene cyres geweald; þa wearð heo bi hyre agene willæ iwemmed þurh deofles lare. Ac heo wearð æft alysed þurh Godes gifu, gif heo Gode hyrsumæð. Heo is unsegenlic and unlichamlic, buton hefæ and buton bleo, mid þam lichame bifangen, and on alle limæ wuniende; ne heo ne mæg bi hyre agene mihte of þam lichame faren.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 34, §17, line 13 – p. 36, §18, line 11); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 20, lines 167–80.

173 Clayton

192

Commentary: In natali Domini And these four virtues are adorned with the single crown of love. For the soul’s greatest blessedness is to love Him by whom it exists, and to love the souls sharing in its blessedness, and to do good to those in so far as it is able. In this way the soul can be defined according to its own nature. The soul is a comprehending spirit, rational, always active, always alive, capable of good and evil intention, but by the kindness of the Lord, the Creator, ennobled with free will, corrupted by its own will, freed by God’s grace in those whom the Lord himself has chosen, created to govern the impulses of the flesh, invisible, incorporeal, without weight, without color, completely enclosed in every member of its body in which the image of the Creator has been spiritually imprinted, having in itself no power of leaving the flesh and returning to it again except by the will of Him who made it and sent it into the flesh. In it there is naturally love, a love which must be guided by understanding and reason in order that it may avoid illicit pleasures and love those things that ought to be loved.

These four virtues have one crown, which is true love of God and men, because the soul is blessed who loves the Creator who created it and its companions, and desires to benefit them as it is best able. The soul is a rational spirit, always alive, and is able to take up either a good desire or an evil [one] according to [its] own free choice. The benevolent Creator allowed it to have the power of [its] own free choice; then it was defiled by its own desire through the devil’s instruction. But it was later redeemed by God’s grace , if it obeys God. It is invisible and incorporeal, without weight and without color, clothed with the body, and dwelling in every limb; it cannot depart from the body by its own power, nor return again thereafter, unless he who made and sent it into the body should wish it .

These four virtues have one crown, which is true love of God and men, because the soul is blessed who loves the Creator who created it and its companions, and desires to benefit them as it is best able. The soul is a rational spirit, always alive, and is able to take up either a good desire or an evil [one] according to its own free choice. The benevolent Creator allowed it to have the power of its own free choice; then it was defiled by its own desire through the devil’s instruction. But it was later redeemed by God’s grace, if it obeys God. It is invisible and incorporeal, without weight and without color, clothed with the body, and dwelling in every limb; it cannot leave the body by its own power .

The three passages are close to one another. LS I.1, to begin with, omits certain elements in AH I.1, either for the sake of clarity (eliminating potentially confusing statements like ‘anima definiri potest iuxta suae proprietatem naturae’ [‘the soul can be defined according to its own nature’] and ‘in qua est imago Conditoris spiritaliter inpressa’ [‘in [the soul] the image of the Creator has been spiritually imprinted’]), for succinctness (reducing the number of descriptors, for example, of the soul [as intellectualis (‘comprehending’) and semper in mot[u] (‘always active’)] or of God [as Dominus (‘Lord’) as well as Creator (‘Maker’)]), or for both (as with the final discussion of the relationship between love, understanding, and reason). Other phrases LS I.1 alters, focusing on human responsibility (it is the soul that Gode gehyrsumað [‘obeys God’] that is redeemed) rather than divine election174 (God’s grace works in quibus ipse Dominus uoluit [‘in those whom the Lord himself has chosen’]), and describing the soul as on alle limæ wuniende (‘dwelling in every limb’) rather than ‘circumscripta in singulis suae carnis membris tota’ (‘completely enclosed in every member of its body’ [on which distinction, see notes to AH I.1, lines 167–76]). Such omissions and alterations condense this section 174 On

which subject, see for example Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 200 and 202.

193

Commentary: In natali Domini significantly, and AH I.2 shortens it further by cutting the final mention of souls returning to the body – a topic Ælfric is happy to address elsewhere (see for example notes to AH I.3, lines 162–71), but one which might distract from his focus here. AH I.2 otherwise reproduces this part of LS I.1 practically verbatim. Leinbaugh rightly observes that the description in Y4 of the soul as inmota (‘immovable’ [AH I.1, line 168) is at odds with Ælfric’s previous comments about the soul’s miram uelocitatem / wunderlice swiftnesse (‘amazing speed’ [see notes to lines 275–96 above]). While he views the reading as evidence that Ælfric did not compose AH I.1, however, suggesting that Ælfric fixes an error in his anonymous Latin source (AH I.1) by omitting it in his vernacular homilies [LS I.2 and AH I.2], he also notes that inmota instead of in motu (as Alcuin has it) could simply be a scribal error in Y4.175 We therefore simply emend the reading to in mot[u]. Lines 347–75 [Heo is on boce … nanes limes þeignunge]: From considering characteristics of the soul, Ælfric turns to different names related to the soul, as well as its relationship to the body’s five senses.

175 ‘Ælfric’s

Lives of Saints I’, pp. 208–9; and ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 42–3.

194

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 177–88 Secundum officium operis sui uariis nunccupatur nominibus: anima est dum uiuificat; dum contemplatur, spiritus est; dum sentit, sensus est; dum sapit, animus est; dum intellegit, mens est; dum discernit, ratio est; dum consentit, uoluntas est; dum recordatur, memoria est. Non tamen haec diuidentur in substantia quia haec omnia una est anima. Inter spiritum et animam huius modi potest differentia esse quod omnis anima spiritus est, non tamen omnis spiritus anima. Sed et Paulus apostolus mirabiliter discernit inter spiritum et mentem, dicens ‘Psallam spiritu; psallam et mente’. Spiritu psallit, qui rerum obscuras significationes non intellegens ore profert; psallit mente, qui easdem significationes mentis efficacia intellegit. Regit enim anima corpus per quinque sensus quasi de sede regalis culminis, quam decet considerare diligenter, quasi dominam, quid cuique membro imperet faciendum, quid cuique consentiat in desiderio suae naturae, ne quid indecens fiat in officio suae carnis alicubi.

LS I.1176 Heo is on bocum manegum naman gecyged be hyre weorces þenungum. Hyre nama is anima, þæt is sawul, and seo nama gelympð to hire life, and spiritus, gast, belimpð to hire ymbwlatunge. Heo is sensus, þæt is andgit oððe felnyss, þonne heo gefret. Heo is animus, þæt is mod, þonne heo wat. Heo is mens, þæt is mod þonne heo understent. Heo is memoria, þæt is gemynd, þonne heo gemanð. Heo is ratio, þæt is gescead, þonne heo toscæt. Heo is uoluntas, þæt is wylla, þonne heo hwæt wyle. Ac swa þeah ealle þas naman syndon sawul; ælc sawul is gast ac swa þeah nis na ælc gast sawul. Se apostol Paulus totwæmde þæs gastes naman and þæs modes, þus cwæðende, Psallam spiritu; psallam et mente. Þæt is on Ænglisc, ‘Ic singe mid gaste and ic singe mid mode’. Se singð mid gaste se ðe clypað þa word mid muðe and ne understænt þæs andgites getacnunge, and se singð mid mode se ðe þæs andgites getacnunge understænt. Seo sawul is þæs lic-homan hlæfdige, and heo gewissað þa fif andgitu þæs lic-haman swa swa of cyne-sætle . Þa andgitu sint gehatene þus: uisus, þæt is gesihð; auditus, hlyst; gustus, swæc on þam muðe, odoratus, stænc on þæra nosa; tactus, hrepung oððe grapung on eallum limum ac þeah gewunelicost on þam handum. Ðas fif andgitu gewissæð seo sawul to hire wyllan, and hyre gedafnað þæt heo, swa swa hlæfdige, geornlice foresceawige hwæt heo gehwylcum lime bebeode to donne, oððe hwæt heo gehwylcum lime geþafige on gewylnunge his gecyndes þæt þær nan þing unþæslice ne gelympe on nanes limes þenunge.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 347–75 Heo is on boce monigfealdlice inemnod bi hire weorces þeignungum. Hyre nomæ is anima, þæt is sawul, and þe nomæ bilimpæð to hyre lyfe, and spiritus, gast, belimpæð to hyre ymbwlatunge. Heo is sensus, þæt is andgit oððe felnes, þonne heo fælæð. Heo is animus, þæt is mod, þonne heo wat. Heo is mens, þæt is eac mod, þonne heo understont. Heo is memoria, þæt is gemund, þonne heo imynæð. Heo is ratio, þæt is gescead, þonne heo tosceat. Heo is uoluntas, þæt is willæ, þonne heo hwæt wyle. Ac swa ðeah alle þæs nomen beoð an sawle . Þe apostol Paulus todælde þæs gastes nomen and þæs modes, þus cwæðende, Psallam spiritu et psallam mente, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Ic singe mid gast, and Ic singe mid mode’. He singæð mid gaste þe ðe cleopað þa word mid muðe and ne understont þæs angites tacnunge, and þe sin mid mode þe þe þæs angites tacnunge undestont. Þeo sawle is þæ lichames læfdi, and heo wissæþ ða fif angite þæs lichames swa swa of kynesetle. Ða angite beoð þus ihaten: uisus, þæt is sihð; auditus, þæt is lust; gustus, fondung on þam muðe; odoratus, þæt is stenc on þære neosæ; tactus, repung oðer grapung on alle limæn and þæh gewunelycost on þam hondæm. Ða fif angite wissæð þa sawle to hire willæ, and hire gedafenæð þæt heo, swa swa læfdi, geornlice foresceawie hwæt heo gehwylcum limum iþafige on wilnunge his icyndes þæt ðær nan þing unþeawlices ne bilimpe on nanes limes þeignunge.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 36, §19, line 1 – p. 38, §20, line 11; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 20, line 180 – p. 22, line 205.

176 Clayton

195

Commentary: In natali Domini It is called by various names according to the function of its work: it is soul when it enlivens; when it contemplates, spirit; when it perceives, sense; when it knows, intellect; when it comprehends, mind; when it discerns, reason; when it consents, will; when it recollects, memory. However, these are not distinguished by substance because they all are one soul. Between spirit and soul there can be a difference of this kind: each soul is a spirit, yet not every spirit is a soul. But the apostle Paul also astonishingly makes a distinction between spirit and mind, saying, ‘I will sing with [my] spirit; I will also sing with [my] mind’. He sings with [his] spirit who with his mouth declares the hidden meanings of things not comprehending them; he sings with [his] mind who comprehends the same meanings with the power of his mind. For the soul governs the body through the five senses as if from a throne of regal eminence; it is fitting for it to consider diligently, like a queen, what it should order each member to do, what it should allow each [member] according to the desire of its own nature, lest something improper be done somewhere relative to its bodily function.

In books it is called by many names according to the function of its work. Its name is soul, that is soul, and the name refers to its life, and spirit, spirit, refers to its contemplation. It is sense, that is understanding or feeling, when it perceives. It is intellect, that is mind, when it knows. It is mind, which is mind, when it understands. It is memory, that is memory, when it remembers. It is reason, that is reason, when it reasons. It is will, that is will, when it desires something. But all these names, nevertheless, are one soul. Each soul is a spirit; nevertheless, not every spirit is a soul. The apostle Paul distinguished between the names of the spirit and of the mind, thus saying, I will sing with [my] spirit; I will also sing with [my] mind, that is in English, ‘I will sing with [my] spirit, and I will sing with [my] mind’. He sings with the spirit who speaks the words with [his] mouth and does not understand the signification of [their] meaning, and he sings with the mind who understands the signification of [their] meaning. The soul is the queen of the body, and she guides the body’s five senses as from a throne . The senses are named in this way: sight, which is sight; hearing, which is hearing; taste, flavour in the mouth; smell, the sense of smell with the nose; touch, the sense of touch or feeling with all the limbs but most commonly that in the hands. The soul guides these five senses according to its desire, and it is fitting that, as a queen, it intently pays heed to what it will command each limb to do, or what it will permit each limb [to do] in accordance with its natural desire so that nothing occurs unsuitably with respect to the use of any limb.

196

In books it is named variously according to the function of its work. Its name is soul, that is soul, and the name refers to its life, and spirit, spirit, refers to its contemplation. It is sense, that is understanding or feeling, when it feels. It is intellect, that is mind, when it knows. It is mind, which is also mind, when it understands. It is memory, that is memory, when it remembers. It is reason, that is reason, when it reasons. It is will, that is will, when it desires something. But all these names, nevertheless, are one soul. The apostle Paul distinguished between the names of the spirit and of the mind, thus saying, I will sing with [my] spirit, and I will sing with [my] mind, that is in English, ‘I will sing with [my] spirit, and I will sing with [my] mind’. He sings with the spirit who speaks the words with [his] mouth and does not understand the signification of [their] meaning, and he sings with the mind who understands the signification of [their] meaning. The soul is the queen of the body, and she guides the body’s five senses as from a throne. The senses are named in this way: sight, which is sight; hearing, which is hearing; taste, taste in the mouth; smell, which is the sense of smell with the nose; touch, the sense of touch or feeling with all the limbs but most commonly that in the hands. The soul guides these five senses according to its desire, and it is fitting that, as a queen, it intently pays heed to what it will permit each limb [to do] in accordance with its natural desire so that nothing sinful occurs with respect to the use of any limb.

Commentary: In natali Domini In the main, Ælfric is consistent in his treatment of the eight names of the soul, save that he reorders the list slightly in the vernacular, ending with reason and will rather than memory. Some of the terms might be considered fairly straightforward (linguistically if not philosophically): anima (‘[the breath of] life’), ratio (‘reason’), uoluntas (‘will’ or ‘desire’), and memoria (‘memory’). For others, however, Ælfric’s choice of Old English terms sheds light on his understanding of the Latin terms inherited from Alcuin177 – insight that otherwise would be difficult to acquire given the subtle shades of nuance and complex meanings of these words. Sensus (‘sense’), for example, may describe a variety of faculties, as in modern English: physical ‘sensation’, mental ‘understanding’, emotional ‘feeling’, and so on.178 Ælfric uses two Anglo-Saxon words to define it: andgit, meaning either physical ‘sense’ – a connotation he will employ later in the passage when discussing the five senses – or ‘understanding’, and felnyss, meaning ‘feeling’.179 Likewise, animus might mean ‘intellect’, ‘reason’, ‘memory’, ‘spirit’, and ‘will’, among other things:180 Alcuin (and thus AH I.1) associates it with the verb sapere, but this term too has multiple shades of meaning: ‘to have sense’, ‘to be wise’, ‘to understand’, or ‘to know’.181 LS I.1 and AH I.2 use the word mod, a term that might encompass ‘spirit’, ‘heart’, and ‘mind’, as well as ‘courage’ and ‘arrogance’;182 and they pair it with witan, meaning variously ‘to know’, ‘to feel’ [that is, ‘know emotion’], or ‘to be wise’.183 Such would not seem to be helpful, particularly given that they also use mod as a synonym for mens, meaning either feelings of the heart of faculties of the mind.184 They also associate these terms with understandan (‘to understand’), however, a verb which, like intellegere in AH I.1, denotes a level of comprehension beyond mere knowledge. Spiritus also seems to be bound up with the processing of ideas: meaning ‘breathed air’, ‘[the breath of] life’, ‘spirit’, ‘soul’, or ‘mind’,185 the term is one Ælfric translates as gast, a word encompassing a similar array of senses,186 but which Ælfric here links with ymbwlatung (‘contemplation’). For Ælfric, therefore, at least when he comes to write the vernacular homilies, sensus (andgit or felnyss) is to be understood as mental and emotional perception, animus (mod) as the apprehension of knowledge; spiritus (gast) as contemplation; and mens (mod) as understanding. At this point, Ælfric skips over a couple of challenging ideas when writing for his vernacular audience. First, there is AH I.1’s statement that the soul is non … diuidentur in substantia (‘not … distinguished by substance’). Ælfric has already addressed the subject when talking about gemynd and angit and willæn (‘memory and understanding and will’ [line 263]): these are ne þreo ædwist ac an (‘not three substances, but one’ [line 266]) – not different types of souls, but traits of a single soul. Despite the complexity of such concepts, Ælfric apparently felt the explanation was worth including there, since his in turn draws them from Isidore: see Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 286 n. 15. et al., Dictionary, pp. 1670–1. 179 Bosworth and Toller, Dictionary, pp. 40 and 275. 180 Lewis et al., Dictionary, pp. 123–4. 181 Lewis et al., Dictionary, p. 1629. 182 Bosworth and Toller, Dictionary, p. 693. 183 Bosworth and Toller, Dictionary, pp. 1243–5. 184 Lewis et al., Dictionary, p. 1132. 185 Lewis et al., Dictionary, p. 1743. 186 Bosworth and Toller, Dictionary, p. 362. 177 Who

178 Lewis

197

Commentary: In natali Domini larger point was about the nature of God: just as the soul might be described as tripartite, so the Trinity is consubstantial [cf. AH I.1, line 33]. Here, however, such an explanation might not only distract from the already-complex discussion of the eight names, but potentially confuse the matter further by reminding the audience of Ælfric’s previous ‘division’ of the soul not into eight but into three. LS I.1 and AH I.2 avoid the issue by simply omitting the reference to substantia. Second, there is the affirmation in both AH I.1 and LS I.1 that each soul is a spirit, but not every spirit is a soul. Ælfric has taught the first part of this maxim elsewhere, stating in CH II.31 that ‘seo sawul is gast’ (‘the soul is a spirit’)187 and in LS I.1 and AH I.2 just above that ‘Þeo sawle is isceadwis gast’ (‘the soul is a rational spirit’ [AH I.2, line 336]). While Ælfric initially repeats Alcuin’s corollary that not every spirit is a soul, however, he offers no explanation, and ultimately omits the reference altogether in AH I.2. This said, LS I.1 and AH I.2 do include one element not present in AH I.1 – what Leinbaugh sees as ‘a glancing reference’ to a phrase originally in Alcuin: ‘Non tamen haec ita dividentur in substantia sicut in nominibus, quia haec omnia una est anima’ (‘However, these are not distinguished by substance as they are in name, because they all are one soul’).188 While skipping over the reference to different spiritual ‘substances’ (as noted above), they do affirm that ‘swa ðeah alle þæs nomen beoð an sawle’ (‘all these names, nevertheless, are one soul’). Leinbaugh plausibly suggests that scribal error in Y4 may be responsible for AH I.1’s lack of the relevant phrase, and that the reading in the vernacular homilies reflects Ælfric’s original Latin version.189 Alternatively, the absence of sicut in nominibus in AH I.1 may be the first example of Ælfric’s desire, seen increasingly across these homilies, to simplify by omission at this point in the narrative. Having discussed the eight names and (at least initially) the distinction between spirit and soul, Ælfric follows Alcuin again by turning to Scripture. Paul, Ælfric notes, distinguishes between the spirit (spiritus) and the mind (mens) when teaching about spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians. There, Paul explains that through the ability to speak in tongues – other languages, that is, as given by the Holy Spirit for example at Pentecost (Acts 2.1–12) – God may well be praised, but others will not be edified unless they understand what is being said. For that reason, Paul instructs, ‘qui loquitur lingua oret ut interpretetur, nam si orem lingua, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea sine fructu est’ (‘let the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret, for if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful’ [1 Corinthians 14.13–14]). Both spirit and mind should thus act in concert: 1 Corinthians 14.15 Quid ergo est? Orabo spiritu orabo et mente. Psallam spiritu psallam et mente.

LS I.1190 ‘Psallam spiritu; psallam et mente. Þæt is on Ænglisc, “Ic singe mid gaste and ic singe mid mode.”’

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 359–60 Psallam spiritu et psallam mente, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Ic singe mid gast, and Ic singe mid mode’.

Second Series, p. 269, line 45. ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 56; PL 101.644C. 189 ‘Liturgical Homilies’, p. 44. 190 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 36, §19, lines 12–13; Skeat, Lives, p. 22, lines 190–2. 187 Godden, 188 Curry,

198

Commentary: In natali Domini What then [shall I do]? I will pray with the spirit; I will pray also with the mind. I will sing with the spirit; I will sing also with the mind.

‘I will sing with [my] spirit; I will also sing with [my] mind; that is in English, “I will sing with [my] spirit and I will sing with [my] mind.”’

I will sing with [my] spirit and will sing with [my] mind, that is in English, ‘I will sing with [my] spirit, and I will sing with [my] mind’.

Ælfric’s Latin and Old English cleave closely to the Vulgate, save for the progressive reordering (in the vernacular in LS I.1, and then in both languages in AH I.2) of ‘and’ and the second ‘will sing’. Ælfric explains ‘singing with the spirit’ as speaking words which one does not understand, and ‘singing with the mind’ as speaking with understanding [lines 361–3]. For a regular monk, for whom singing the Hours comprised so much of daily life, it would be difficult for psallere not to evoke images of chanting in Latin191 – comprehension of which tongue posed some challenge for those such as the inscientes (‘ignorant’) oblates for whom Ælfric writes his Grammar,192 who might say with the pupils of Ælfric’s Colloquy, ‘ungelærede we syndon and gewæmmodlice we sprecaþ’ (‘we are unlearned and we speak badly’).193 Whether monk or laity, certainly some in Ælfric’s audience would have needed the foreign language translated, as In natali Domini spends so much time explaining Latin phrases and terms, such as the aspects of the soul just above [lines 347–57] or the five senses just below [lines 366–70]. On one level, therefore, 1 Corinthians 14.15 illustrates Ælfric’s point about spirit and mind, while on another level it articulates a principle which Ælfric himself follows as he speaks in a tongue that he then makes clear. AH I.1 concludes this section with an image also taken up by LS I.1 and AH I.2: the soul governing the body like a queen on a throne. In the vernacular, Ælfric pauses in the midst of this image to delineate and describe the five bodily senses, a topic that seems to concern him primarily in the early part of his career. Beyond the three homilies here, he treats the matter five times in the Catholic Homilies: in CH I.9,194 CH II.23 (at some length),195 CH II.38 (twice),196 and CH II.39.197 ‘Swa swa we eow oft sædon’ (‘as we have told you often’), he says in the last, the five senses consist of gesihð (sight), hylst (hearing), swæcc (taste), stenc (smell), and hrepung (touch) – these being the terms he uses consistently in this order across all seven texts.198 Having made the point for the ignorant in the audience, LS I.1 returns to the image of the queen to make a series of statements about the soul: it guides the senses to hire wyllan (‘according to its desire’ or ‘in keeping with its will’), it considers what it will bebeode or geþafige (‘command’ or ‘permit’) the limbs to do, and it seeks to ensure that the body does not act unþæslice (‘unsuitably’). Depending on how one interprets AH I.1’s source, such a depiction may represent a slight departure from Alcuin. De animae 191 Lewis

and Short indeed cite 1 Corinthians 14.15 as an example in ecclesiastical Latin of ‘sing[ing] the Psalms of David’ (Latin Dictionary, p. 1483). 192 Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 1, line 12. 193 Garmonsway, Ælfric’s Colloquy, p. 18. On the role of oblates in liturgical chants, see for example Alexander, History, pp. 237–8. 194 Clemoes, First Series, p. 251, lines 68–9. 195 Godden, Second Series, p. 214, line 44 – p. 215, line 53. 196 Godden, Second Series, p. 319, lines 47–8, and p. 322, line 139 – p. 323, line 140. 197 Godden, Second Series, p. 328, lines 34–7. 198 Godden, Second Series, p. 328, lines 35–7.

199

Commentary: In natali Domini ratione (and thus AH I.1) say that the soul should consider ‘quid cuique membro imperet faciendum, quid cuique consentiat in desiderio suae naturae’. In his doctoral study of De animae ratione, Curry takes the soul to be the subject of the first verb, and the member or limb to be the subject of the second: it befits the soul, he says, to ponder carefully ‘what [the soul] shall bid each member do and what may suit each [member] in the wants of its own nature’.199 The point would be that each part of the body has its own function: the soul should not command the eye to smell, nor the nose to see. The Latin phrases, however, are parallel in structure, using quid cuique + a third singular present active subjunctive verb taking a dative, and both are governed by the same introductory statement: decet [anima] considerare diligenter (‘it is fitting for [the soul] to consider diligently’). It would make sense, therefore, for the soul to be the subject of both phrases: ‘[the soul should consider] what it should order … [and] what it should agree to’. Such is how Ælfric in fact understands the sentence, saying ‘[seo sawul foresceawige] hwæt heo gehwylcum lime bebeode to donne, oððe hwæt heo gehwylcum lime geþafige’ (‘[the soul pays heed to] what it will command each limb to do, or what it will permit each limb [to do]’). The final phrase, however, may be another matter. Suus ‘is used only as a reflexive, referring to the subject’;200 when Alcuin speaks of what the soul should allow each limb in desiderio suae naturae, therefore, one might assume he has the soul’s nature and desire in view. Curry, however, understands suae naturae as referring to the nature of each bodily part: the soul should consider ‘what may suit each [member] in the wants of its – that is, the member’s – own nature’.201 At least in the vernacular, this is how Ælfric translates Alcuin’s language as well: having previously stated that ‘Ðas fif andgitu gewissæð seo sawul to hire wyllan’ (‘The soul guides these five senses according to its desire’) – the singular feminine hire referring to the soul, not the senses – he now speaks of what the soul permits each limb to do on gewylnunge his gecyndes (‘in accordance with the desire of its nature’), the neuter his indicating that Ælfric has the limb’s nature and desire in view. Perhaps because of the complexity of the passage, Ælfric condenses it somewhat in AH I.2, eliminating the reference to the soul ‘commanding’ the body (bebeode to donne, oððe hwæt heo gehwylcum lime). He also makes clear what he meant by indecens (‘improper’) and unþæslice (‘unsuitably’): the soul governs the body, he says, so that nothing unþeawlices (‘sinful’) occurs. For a comparison of this section of Sermo in natale Domini with Alcuin’s De animae ratione, see notes to AH I.1, lines 167–76. Lines 376–400 [Swa swa God … hyre mode healden]: At this point, AH I.2 turns from discussing the soul’s royal guidance of the senses to various other of its qualities: the beauty (though not color) of the soul, the distinction between soul and air, its potential to be insensate, and its capacity for desire and imagination.

De ratione animae’, p. 74. opposed to eius (Greenough et al., New Latin Grammar, p. 65 [§145]). 201 ‘Alcuin, De ratione animae’, p. 74.

199 ‘Alcuin, 200 As

200

Commentary: In natali Domini Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 189–98 Sicut enim Deus omnem creaturam, sic anima omnem corpoream creaturam naturae dignitate precellit. Quae etiam per lucem et aerem, quae sunt excellentiora mundi corpora, corpus amministrat suum. Omnium rerum species lux animae adnuntiat, quas ipsa in se acceptas specificat, specificatasque recondit. Sepe etiam in tantum affectata erit qualibet cogitatione, ut quamuis apertos habeat oculos, quae presto sunt non uidit, nec sonantem uocem intellegit, nec tangentem corpus sentit. Modo corporis doloribus condolet, modo letitia hilarescit, modo cognita recogitat, modo incognita scire quaerit, alia uult, alia non uult. Humane uero animae pulchritudo est et decus sapientiae studium, non illa quae in terrenis solet occupari negotiis, sed illa magis qua Deus colitur et amatur. Ergo uera est sapientia nosse quae debeas et nota perficere.

LS I.1202 Swa swa God ælmihtig oferstihð ealle gesceafta, swa oferstihð seo sawul ealle lic-hamlice gesceafta mid wurðfulnysse hyre gecyndes, and nan lic-hamlic gesceaft ne mæg beon hyre wiðmeten. We cwæden ær þæt heo wære butan bleo, forþan ðe heo nis na lic-hamlic. On lic-haman bið bleoh, and seo sawul bið swa gewlitegod swa heo on worulde geearnode. Be þam cwæþ Crist on his god-spelle, ‘Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum’. Þæt ys on Ænglisc, ‘“Þonne scinað þa rihtwisan swa swa sunne on heora Fæder rice”’. Witodlice þa arleasan beoð heora yfelum weorcum gelice. Nis seo orþung þe we ut blawaþ and in ateoð oþþe ure sawul, ac is seo lyft þe ealle lic-hamlice þing on lybbað butan fixum anum þe on flodum lybbað. Oft bið seo sawul on anum þinge oððe on anum geþohte swa bysig þæt heo ne gymð hwa hyre gehende bið, þeah ðe heo onlocie; ne þeah heo sume stemne gehyre, heo hit ne understent; ne þeah hi hwa hreppe, heo hit ne gefret. Hwilon heo besargað hyre lic-homan sarnissa; hwilon heo gladað on godum gelimpum; hwilon heo þæncð þa ðing þe heo ær cuðe; hwilon heo wyle wytan þa ðing þe heo ær ne cuðe. Sume þing heo wyle, sume ðing heo nele, and ealle lic-hamlicra þinga hiw heo mæg on hyre sylfre gehiwian, and swa gehiwode on hyre mode gehealden.

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 376–400 Swa swa God almihtig oferstihð alle sceaftæ, swa oferstihð þeo sawle alle lichamlice sceaftæ mid wurðfulnesse hyre cyndes, and nan lichamlic sceaft ne mæg beon wið hyre imeten. We cwædon ær þæt heo wære buton bleo for þam þe heo nis na lichamlic. On lichame bið bleo, and þeo sawle bið iwlitegod swa heo on worlde ærnode. Be þam cwæð Crist on his godspelle, ‘Tunc fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno Patris mei’, þæt is on Englisc, ‘“Þonne scinæð þa rihtwise swa swa sunne on heore Fæder rice”’. Witerlice þa sunfulle beoð heoræ yfele weorce ilice. Nis þeo eorðung þe we ut blawæð and in ateoð ure sawle ac is þeo luft þe alle lichamlice þing on libbæð. Oft bið þeo sawle on ane þinge oððe on ane þohte swa bisig þæt heo ne gemeð hwa hyre gehende byð þeah heo on lokie, ne ðeah heo summe stefne ihyre heo hit ne understont, ne þeah hire hwa rine heo hit ne fæleð. Hwylon heo bisoregæð hire lichames sarnesse; hwilon heo glædeþ on gode limpum; hwilon heo þenchæð þa ðing ðe /heo\ ær cuðe; hwilon heo wyle witan þa ðing þe heo ær ne cuðe. Sum þing heo wyle, sum ðing heo nyle, and alle lichamlice heow heo mæg on hire sylfæn hiwæn and swa iheowed on hyre mode healden.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 38, §21, line 1 – §22, line 12; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, line 205 – p. 24, line 225.

202 Clayton

201

Commentary: In natali Domini For just as God [surpasses] every creature, so the soul surpasses every corporeal creature in natural worth. It also governs its body by means of light and air, which are the higher substances of the universe. Light makes known to the soul the forms of all things, which it classifies once they have been received and stores up once classified. Often it will have been affected by some thought to such an extent that, although it may have open eyes, it does not see what is in front of it, nor understand a voice speaking to it, nor feel a body touching it. Sometimes it suffers with bodily pains, sometimes it grows cheerful with joy, at one moment thinks over known things, at another seeks to understand unknown ones, desires some things, does not desire others. But the beauty and glory of the human soul is a desire for wisdom, not that which is wont to be occupied in worldly affairs, but rather that by which God is worshipped and loved. Thus it is true wisdom to know what you ought to do and to do what you have learned.

Just as God Almighty excels all created things, so the soul excels all physical creations in the dignity of its nature, and no physical creation may be compared with it. We said earlier that it is without color because it is not corporeal. Color exists in the body, and the soul will be made as beautiful as it deserved in this life. Christ spoke about this is his Gospel, ‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in their Father’s kingdom’, that is in English, ‘“Then will shine the righteous like the sun in their Father’s kingdom”’. Truly the wicked will be like their evil works. The breath that we blow out and draw in is not our soul but the air on which all corporeal things live, save only for fishes that live in water. Often the soul is so occupied in one matter or in one thought that it does not take notice of who is near it though it may be looking on, nor understand though it hear some voice, nor feel it though someone touch it. Sometimes it is troubled about the body’s pain; sometimes it rejoices in prosperity; sometimes it thinks about things that it knew before; sometimes it desires to know things that it did not know before. Some things it desires, some things it does not desire, and it is able to envision all physical forms within itself and to retain them thus envisioned within its mind.

Just as God Almighty excels all created things, so the soul excels all physical creations in the dignity of its nature, and no physical creation may be compared with it. We said earlier that it is without color because it is not corporeal. Color exists in the body, and the soul will be made beautiful as it deserved in this life. Christ spoke about this is his Gospel, ‘Then will shine the righteous like the sun in my Father’s kingdom’, that is in English, ‘“Then the righteous will shine like the sun in their Father’s kingdom”’. Truly the sinful will be like their evil works. The breath that we blow out and draw in is not our soul but the air on which all corporeal things live . Often the soul is so occupied in one matter or in one thought that it does not take notice of who is near it though it may be looking on, nor understand though it hear some voice, nor feel it though someone touch it. Sometimes it is troubled about the body’s pain; sometimes it rejoices in prosperity; sometimes it thinks about things that it knew before; sometimes it desires to know things that it did not know before. Some things it desires, some things it does not desire, and it is able to envision all physical forms within itself and to retain them thus envisioned within its mind.

AH I.2 largely follows LS I.1, save in certain details: thrice it employs synonyms (sunfulle for arleasan [‘sinful’ or ‘wicked’]), rine for hreppe [‘touch’], and fæleð for gefret [‘feel’]), one phrase it omits (regarding fishes, treated below), and the Gospel passage it tweaks somewhat (on which below). The differences between the vernacular homilies are minor, however, compared with those between the vernacular and the Latin. When he moves from AH I.1 to LS I.1 and AH I.2, Ælfric deletes two major passages and adds two others in their place. First, drawing on Alcuin, AH I.1 offers what Lockett calls ‘a rather vague account of how light and air mediate between soul and body and allow the former to govern the latter’ – an explanation that ‘raises more questions than 202

Commentary: In natali Domini it answers’.203 Writing in Old English for a presumably less-educated audience, Ælfric understandably omits the passage. In its place, he inserts two new points of instruction: the future beauty of the soul and the difference between soul and breath. To begin with, Ælfric reiterates that the soul is buton bleo (‘without color’ [see AH I.2, line 344 above]), and affirms nonetheless that it will be made ‘iwlitegod swa heo on worlde ærnode’ (‘[as] beautiful as it deserved in this life’).204 Such teaching represents an advance over his earlier affirmation that ‘Ðare sawle wlite is þæt heo habbe þa mihte swa þæt heo sunne forbuge’ (‘The beauty of the soul is that is has the power to avoid sin’ [AH I.2, lines 311–12]). There, the emphasis was on the soul’s capacity for moral choice; here, the soul’s reward for its choices is in view. Ælfric makes this connection between merit and spiritual beauty elsewhere as well: Christlike love, he says, beautifies (wlitegað) the soul;205 the wise should beautify their souls with goodness;206 and the love of wisdom is the soul’s beauty.207 As Scriptural support for this connection, Ælfric turns to Christ’s interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds (Matthew 13.24–9), which he had also quoted in the First Series. In it, the Son of Man sows good seed, the devil sows weeds, and at the Judgment the latter are thrown into fire, while the former ‘shine’ in heaven. Matthew 13.43

CH I.14208

LS I.1209

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 384–6

Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum. Qui habet aures, audiat.

‘“Þonne scinað þa rihtwisan swa swa sunne on heora Fæder rice.”’

‘Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum; þæt ys on ænglisc, “Þonne scinað þa rihtwisan swa swa sunne on heora Fæder rice.”’

‘Tunc fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno Patris mei’, þæt is on Englisc, ‘“Þonne scinæð þa rihtwise swa swa sunne on heore Fæder rice”’.

Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

‘“Then will shine the righteous like the sun in their Father’s kingdom”’.

‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in their Father’s kingdom’, that is in English, ‘“Then will shine the righteous like the sun in their Father’s kingdom”’.

‘Then will shine the righteous like the sun in my Father’s kingdom’, that is in English, ‘“Then will shine the righteous like the sun in their Father’s kingdom”’.

Ælfric’s Latin and Old English stay close to the original except in two particulars: the vernacular texts reverse the order of ‘the righteous’ and ‘shine’ – a pattern AH I.2 follows etiam … specificatasque recondit’ [AH I.1, lines 190–2]; Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 294. 204 Hall insightfully compares Ælfric’s teaching in this regard with that of other Anglo-Saxon authors and sources known to them in his ‘Psychedelic Transmogrification of the Soul’, especially pp. 316–18. 205 CH I.35 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 481, lines 156–8, at 157). 206 Admonitio 8 (Norman, Admonitio, p. 53; see also p. 50). 207 LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 38, §23, lines 1–2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, lines 225–6). AH I.2 modifies this reference to the soul’s beauty (wlyte) to the soul’s desire (wille); see notes to lines 402–21 below. 208 Clemoes, First Series, p. 298, lines 218–19. 209 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 38, §21, lines 7–10; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, lines 211–13. 203 ‘Quae

203

Commentary: In natali Domini in the Latin as well – and the Latin in AH I.2 speaks surprisingly of ‘my’ rather than ‘their’ Father’s kingdom.210 Next, having treated the future beauty of the soul, Ælfric briefly differentiates between soul and breath. Linguistically, the matter is deserving of some explanation: spiritus in Latin (like ‫ נֶפֶׁש‬in Hebrew or πνεῦμα in Greek) can denote either, as can gast in Old English (see notes to AH I.2, lines 347–75 above). It may be, however, that Ælfric’s concern here is more conceptual: how does what you breathe differ from what causes you to breathe? To this end, he uses far less ambiguous terms: orþung (‘breath’), sawul (‘soul’), and lyft (‘air’).211 The last, he says, sustains the life of physical creatures – ‘butan fixum anum þe on flodum lybbað’ (‘save only for fishes that live in water’), LS I.1 points out. While the phrase may simply be a logical afterthought – all creatures breathe air, except fish – ironically it adds to LS I.1 a detail which the homily had earlier omitted from AH I.1: ‘pissces in mari … sine aquis uiuere nequeunt’ (‘fish in the sea … cannot live apart from water’ [AH I.1, line 60; see notes to AH I.2, lines 139–64]). The notion is one on which Ælfric touches repeatedly early in his career, as similar language may be found in De temporibus anni, written between AH I.1 and LS I.1.212 By AH I.2, however, he has chosen to drop the phrase, simplifying the point to ‘air is what corporeal things breathe’. The passages above are not the only ones Ælfric omits or adds when moving from the Latin to the vernacular. At the end of this section, AH I.1 speaks of ‘true wisdom’, which consists of focusing not on worldly matters, but on what is right, leading to the love and worship of God; such wisdom, Ælfric says, is the beauty of the soul (animae pulchritudo). While, as we have seen, Ælfric takes up the matter of the soul’s beauty in LS I.1 and AH I.2, he omits this concluding passage in favor of additional comments on the activities (or capacities) of the soul. Following AH I.1 (and Alcuin before it), the vernacular texts observe how the soul variously suffers, rejoices, reflects, learns, and desires certain things. Echoing his previous comments regarding thought, imagination, and memory (see notes to AH I.2, lines 275–96), however, LS I.1 and AH I.2 also make mention of the soul’s ‘mental’ ability to envision and remember – or, as Ælfric puts it earlier, ofer sæ fl[eon] (‘to fly over the sea’ [AH I.2, line 278]). While Ælfric does not make the connection explicit here, as Lockett comments regarding the earlier passage in Ælfric’s source, ‘the purpose of introducing the “flight of the mind” topos, as used by … Alcuin, is to establish an analogy between the soul and God: if the mind is capable of surveying all of creation even though it cannot leave the walls of the body, God’s power to survey all of creation must be infinitely greater, since bodily boundaries cannot hem him in’.213 As Ælfric underscores at the beginning of this passage, ‘Swa swa God almihtig oferstihð … swa oferstihð þeo sawle’ (‘Just as God Almighty excels … so the soul excels’ [AH I.2, lines 376–7; see also lines 194–7, 237–9, and 261–2]). Once again, Ælfric seeks by surveying the soul to point people to God. does not list mei as a variant for Matthew 13.43 (Biblia sacra, p. 1546, apparatus). and Toller, Dictionary, pp. 767, 818–19, and 650. 212 Blake, De temporibus anni, p. 92, lines 392 (Nis na) – 395 (lyfte bedæled); for the dating of these texts, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 105, 125, 277, and 281. 213 Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 291. 210 Weber

211 Bosworth

204

Commentary: In natali Domini Lines 401–20 [Þare sawle wille … þissere worlde ærnæð]: In this vein, as In natali Domini draws to a close, Ælfric exhorts his audience to desire godly rather than earthly wisdom. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 198–203 Haec in Virgiliacis non inuenietur mendaciis sed in euuangelii affluenter repperitur ueritate. De uera scilicet sapientia dicitur, ‘Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est’. Proinde omnis qui secundum Deum sapiens est beatus est. Unde in Iob dicitur, ‘Sapientia hominis est pietas, recedere autem a malo scientia’. Vera est scilicet sapientia ueram toto corde diligere uitam et totis uiribus intendere, ut ad eam peruenire mereatur …

214 Clayton

225–39.

LS I.1214

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 401–20

Ðære sawle wlyte is þæt heo wisdom lufie, na ðone eorðlican wisdom be þam þe þus awriten is, Sapientia huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum: ‘Þysses middan-eardes wysdom is stuntnis ætforan Gode’. Ac þonne wisdom heo sceal leornian: þæt heo lufie God, and hine æfre wurðige on eallum hyre weorcum, and þa þing leornige þe Gode liciað, and þa þing forlæte þe him laðe syndon. Þæs wisdom is awryten on halgum bocum and be ðam is þus gecwæden, Omnis sapientia a Domino Deo est: ‘Ælc wisdom is of Gode’. Is nu forðy ælc man eadig and gesælig se ðe for Gode wis bið, and gif he his weorc mid wisdome gefadað. Be þæm cwæð se ædiga Iob: ‘Þæs mannes wisdom is arfæstnys, and soð in-gehyd þæt heo yfel forbuge’. Witodlice þæt is soþ wysdom, þæt man gewylnige þæt soðe lif, on þam þe he æfre lybban mæg mid Gode on wuldre, gif he hit on þyssere worulde geearnað.

Þare sawle wille is þæt heo wisdom lufige, na þene eorðlice wisdom be þam ðe is iwritæn, Sapientia huius mundi stulticia est apud Deum, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Þisses middaneardes wisdom is stuntnesse ætforen Gode’, ac þene wisdom heo sceal leornigen þæt heo lufie God, and hine æfre wurðie on alle hire weorcum, and þa þing leornie þe Gode liciæð, and þa ðing forlæten þe him laðæ beoð. Þes wisdom is iwriten on halige bocum, and þus is icwæðon, Omnis sapiencia a Domino Deo est, ‘Ylc wisdom is of Gode’. Forþi ylc mon is nu eadig and sælig þe for Gode wis bið and gif he his weorc mid wisdome wurceð. Be þam cwæð þe eadig Iob, ‘“Þæs monnes wisdom is arfestnes, and soð ingehyd þæt he yfel forbuge”’. Witerlice þæt is soð wisdom þæt mon wilnige þæt soðe lif on þam þe he mæg æfre libban on murhðe mid Gode gif he hit on þissere worlde ærnæð.

and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §23, p. 38, line 1 – p. 40, line 15; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, lines

205

Commentary: In natali Domini This [wisdom] will not be discovered among Virgilian fictions but is found abundantly in the truth of the Gospel. Of course, concerning true wisdom it is said, ‘All wisdom is from the Lord God’. Therefore everyone who is wise in accordance with God is blessed. Whence in Job it is said, ‘The wisdom of man is piety, but to depart from evil is knowledge’. Without a doubt true wisdom is to love the true life with one’s whole heart and to extend it to all men, so that one may deserve to attain [that life] …

The beauty of the soul is to love wisdom, not the earthly wisdom about which it is written thus, The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God: ‘This world’s wisdom is foolishness before God’, but the wisdom it ought to learn so that it may love God, and always honor him in all its actions, and learn the things that are pleasing to God, and forsake the things that are hateful to him. This wisdom is written of in holy books, and about it thus is it said, All wisdom is from the Lord God, ‘All wisdom is from God’. Therefore, every person is now blessed and happy who is wise before God, and if he orders his actions with wisdom. About this the blessed Job said, ‘“Man’s wisdom is piety, and to shun evil is true knowledge”’. Indeed it is true wisdom to desire the true life in which one is always able to live in glory with God if he earns it in this world.

The desire of the soul is to love wisdom, not the earthly wisdom about which it is written, Sapientia huius mundi stulticia est apud Deum, that is in English, ‘This world’s wisdom is foolishness before God’, but the wisdom it ought to learn so that it may love God, and always honor him in all its actions, and learn the things that are pleasing to God, and forsake the things that are hateful to him. This wisdom is written of in holy books, and thus is it said, Omnis sapiencia a Domino Deo est, ‘All wisdom is from God’. Therefore, every person is now blessed and happy who is wise in the sight of God and if he carries out his actions with wisdom. About this the blessed Job said, ‘“Man’s wisdom is piety, and to shun evil is true knowledge”’. Indeed it is true wisdom to desire the true life in which one is always able to live in joy with God if he earns it in this world.

While all three texts dismiss worldly errors, in the vernacular Ælfric prefers to speak of eorðlican wisdom (‘earthly wisdom’) rather than Virgiliaca mendacia (‘Virgilian fictions’). He contrasts such errors, moreover, with a passage on godly wisdom found in 1 Corinthians. Here, Paul admonishes those who consider themselves ‘wise’ – jealously preferring, for example, one church leader to another (1 Corinthians 3.3–6) – to embrace rather the seeming foolishness of the Gospel.

206

Commentary: In natali Domini 1 Corinthians 3.19

CH I.17215

LS I.1216

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 403–5

SH II.16217

Sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum. Scriptum est enim, ‘Conprehendam sapientes in astutia eorum’.

Sapientia huius mundi stultitia est apud deum; þæt is, [hit is awriten on bocum] þæt se woruldlica wisdom is dysignyss geteald ætforan urum drihtne.

Sapientia huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum: ‘Þysses middaneardes wysdom is stuntnis ætforan Gode’.

Sapientia huius mundi stulticia est apud Deum, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Þisses middaneardes wisdom is stuntnesse ætforen Gode’.

Sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est apud Deum: ‘Þissere worlde wisdom is stuntnyss ætforan Gode’.

‘For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “I will catch the wise in their cunning.”’

The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God; that is, [it is written in books] that worldly wisdom is considered folly before our Lord.

The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God: ‘This world’s wisdom is foolishness before God’.

The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God, that is in English, ‘This world’s wisdom is foolishness before God’.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God: ‘This world’s wisdom is foolishness before God’.

Ælfric’s various renditions of the verse generally stay close to the original, with some variation in his vernacular translations. The earliest version is the most unique: it introduces the passage indirectly (‘[it is written] that …’), speaks of woruldlica wisdom (‘worldly wisdom’), uses dysignyss (‘folly’) to translate stultitia (‘foolishness’), and concludes with urum drihtne (‘our Lord’) rather than Deum (‘God’). The latter three translations are largely the same, save that In natali Domini adds the transitional þæt is on englisc (‘that is in English’), while SH II.16, written a few years after,218 replaces the masculine middaneard with the feminine woruld. None of the versions include the second part of 1 Corinthians 3.19, which quotes from Job 5.13. For the next two quotations, used in all three homilies, see notes to AH I.1, lines 189–203 regarding Sirach 1.1 and Job 28.28. AH I.2 stays close to LS I.1 save for minor variations: it speaks, for example, of the wille (‘desire’) rather than the wlyte (‘beauty’) of the soul, of the person who wurceð (‘carries out’) rather than gefadað (‘orders’) his deeds wisely, and of the murhðe (‘joy’) rather than the wuldre (‘glory’) which believers will experience eternally with God. Lines 421–4 [To þam us … a on ecenesse, Amen]: While in general the homily’s final

First Series, Appendix B, p. 540, lines 179–81. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §23, p. 38, line 2 – p. 40, line 4; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, lines

215 Clemoes, 216 Clayton

227–8. Homilies, vol. II, p. 556, lines 221–2. 218 Ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) as opposed to In natali Domini, written late in the period ca 998 × 1002 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 91, 287, and 305 n. 264). 217 Pope,

207

Commentary: In natali Domini lines resemble other Ælfrician concluding formulas,219 certain details are particularly germane to the content he has just covered. Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 203–5

LS I.1220

In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 421–4

… ad quam [uitam] perducat nos Christus, qui est uera Sapientia ueraque Vita, qui uiuit cum coeterno Patre in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus sine initio et nunc et sine fine, Amen.

To þam us gelæde seo leofa Drihten Crist, se ðe is soð wysdom and sawla lif, se ðe mid his ecan Fæder and mid þam Halgan Gaste a on ecnysse leofað. Amen.

To þam us læde þe leofæ Drihten Crist, þe þe is soð Wisdom and sawle Lif, þe ðe mid his ece Fæder and mid þam Halgæ Gaste leofæð and rixæð a on ecenesse. AMEN.

… to which [life] may Christ lead us, he who is true Wisdom and true Life, who lives with the coeternal Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God without beginning both now and forever, Amen.

To that [life] may the beloved Lord Christ lead us, he who is true Wisdom and the Life of the soul, who with his eternal Father and the Holy Spirit lives forever, Amen.

To that [life] may the beloved Lord Christ lead us, he who is true Wisdom and the Life of the soul, who with his eternal Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns forever, Amen.

‘True wisdom’, to begin with, Ælfric has mentioned immediately before in AH I.1 in reference to the knowledge and practice of righteousness which come from God [line 198]. Such wisdom all three homilies have also discussed in reference to prudentia (‘prudence’ or ‘discretion’; see notes to AH I.2, lines 314–30). Furthermore, the homilies all have spoken of Christ as the Wisdom of God (see notes to AH I.2, lines 96–109; see also notes on AH I.1, lines 18–30, and on ‘The Son as … Wisdom’ under AH I.1, line 1). Similarly, AH I.2 has described Christ as the ‘true Life’ (see notes to lines 72–83), even as AH I.1 has spoken of him as ‘the life’ as per Christ’s own words in John 14.6a (see notes to AH I.1, lines 86–99). Finally, the homilies end by pointing to the Trinity, the primary focus of the first part of these texts. The homilies do differ slightly in detail. LS I.1 and AH I.2, first of all, depart at points from AH I.1: the Latin refers to Christ as the ‘true Life’ where the Old English speaks of ‘the beloved Lord’; the Latin underscores the coeternal relationship of the Divine Persons (a subject treated elsewhere by all three homilies; see notes to AH I.2, lines 96–109) where the Old English uses ‘eternal’ as a modifier for the Father; and the Latin reminds us that God had no beginning (another shared point of teaching; see notes to AH I.2, lines 96–109) where the Old English does not. AH I.2, furthermore, departs somewhat from its vernacular forebear, switching ‘lives’ and ‘forever’ back to the order found in AH I.1, and affirming that God both ‘leofæð and rixæð’ (‘lives and reigns’) – a favorite benedictional pairing for Ælfric (see for example notes to AH II.14, lines 306–12). In the end, however, the differences are small. Like its precursors, AH I.2 ends with that with which it began: a renewed call to focus on God.

for example notes to AH I.2, lines 6–22 and 421–4; AH I.3 [Lazarus I], line 292; AH I.6, lines 110–11; AH I.7, line 306; AH II.12, lines 67; AH II.13, lines 175–6; AH II.14, lines 310–12; AH II.19, lines 79–80; and AH II.21, lines 9–10 (Gebed III), and 24–5 (Gebed VII). 220 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 40, §23, lines 15–18; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, lines 225–42. 219 See

208

3

ERAT QUIDAM LANGUENS LAZARUS Like the first two sermons, Erat quidam languens Lazarus (‘There was a certain sick man, Lazarus’) is a homily for the Proper of the Season, specifically the Friday of the fourth week of Lent. Our editorial title is taken from the incipit of John 11.1 because the gripping story of Jesus’ raising of Lazarus recounted in John 11.1–45 was the pericope, the portion of Gospel appointed to be read at Mass, for that Friday.1 It was a story that held Ælfric’s attention over a decade and would lead him to compose two, possibly three, versions of the sermon, each of which we print here in full as Lazarus I, II, and III. Ælfric composed Lazarus I between 993 and 9982 after issuing the Catholic Homilies and before he issued the Lives of Saints. It apparently formed part of his initial efforts to provide pericope homilies for occasions not commemorated in the Catholic Homilies.3 He began with a sermon for the Third Sunday in Lent (his fifth for those five Sundays)4 and five sermons for the consecutive Fridays in Lent before Good Friday.5 In addition to the alliterative style characteristic of Ælfric’s later works, the six homilies are united by ecclesiastical season and the series of five Friday homilies by a particular day. He does not, however, develop for the series an overarching theme, but the Friday homilies broadly cohere because they anticipate Christ’s Passion.6 Ælfric begins Lazarus I with a close translation of John 11.1–45 [lines 1–112]. Guided by Augustine’s exposition of this same passage in his Tractates on the Gospel of John, he then turns to consider more broadly the general resurrection on the Last Day [lines 113–61] and the soul’s spiritual death from sin [lines 162–210]. In the section on the soul’s death, he rewrites material he used earlier in the Catholic Homilies when 1 2 3

4

5

6

Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 315 (no. 93). Kleist dates Lazarus I to ‘Later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 107). Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, pp. 42–3, and Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 280. These initial efforts would eventually result in Ælfric’s development of a series known as Temporale Homilies I (TH I) that he assembled between 1002 and 1005, and that may have included Lazarus II, which he revised from Lazarus I, and the other Friday and Sunday homilies listed in the following two notes (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 97–100). For the third Sunday, see Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 264–80 (SH I.4), and for the first, second, fourth, and fifth Sundays in Lent, see CH I.11 and CH II.7 (1st); CH II.8 (2nd); CH I.12, CH II.12, and LS II.12 [Skeat I.13] (4th), and CH II.13 (5th). See Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 230–42 (SH I.2) (1st Friday), pp. 248–56 (SH I.3) (2nd), pp. 288–300 (SH I.5) (3rd), AH I.3 (formerly SH I.6) (4th), and AH I.4 (formerly Assmann 5, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 65–72) (5th). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 227.

209

Introduction: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) discussing Christ’s resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7.11–16) in his sermon for the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost (CH I.33).7 Ælfric had originally relied on Bede, but in Lazarus I, he follows Augustine to interpret in spiritual terms the deaths of the three people Jesus raised and to illustrate the hope of forgiveness through repentance with the story of the sinful woman’s anointing of Jesus’ feet [lines 211–36]. Ælfric likewise looks to Augustine for his final points about the sufficiency, necessity, and soteriology of the miraculous raising of Lazarus [lines 237–85]. Having completed Lazarus I and the other Friday homilies, Ælfric seems to have issued them as a set, perhaps before finishing the Lives of Saints around 998.8 Between 1002 and 1010,9 Ælfric returns to Lazarus I to create Lazarus II by expanding his original version by nearly a third (Lazarus II, lines 212–95). Though we do not know what prompted him to revise the sermon, it is fascinating to note that he picks up where he left off adapting material from his sermon for the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost (CH I.33). As noted above, in Lazarus I he transitions from the interpretation of three kinds of spiritual death [lines 162–210] to the story of the sinful woman, which illustrates that no one, no matter how sinful, should lose the hope of forgiveness. In Lazarus II, however, just as in CH I.33, Ælfric pivots from spiritual death to penance and to a consideration of the fact that no sin is so severe as to be unforgivable except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [lines 212–31], for which he takes his cues from another sermon of Augustine on the subject.10 Jesus’ declaration that one could blaspheme against him and be forgiven but not the Holy Spirit [lines 228–31] prompts an excursus on the nature of the Trinity [lines 232–72], one of Ælfric’s chief theological concerns. But whereas in CH I.33 the Trinity’s power to forgive all but the one sin leads Ælfric to conclude with Trinitarian praise,11 in Lazarus II, it leads him to exhort Christians to pray to the Trinity for forgiveness and protection from the devil [lines 282–7]. This new train of thought prompts Ælfric to turn to a short treatise on temptation to evil thoughts known as De cogitatione that he had written after completing Lazarus I.12 He excerpts his assertion that believers can reject the evil thoughts the devil sends to drive them to despair [lines 288–95] and thus transitions seamlessly back to the discussion of the hope of repentance from Lazarus I [lines 211–36; Lazarus II, lines 296–322]. From that point to the end [lines 296–378], Lazarus II reproduces the text of the original homily almost verbatim. We cannot say for certain if Ælfric or someone intimately familiar with his work excerpted Lazarus II to make Lazarus III, a standalone, seemingly unfinished homily on forgiveness and redemption. But given the possibility that Ælfric may have been

7 8

9 10 11 12

See below, the notes on lines 162–236. Pope, following Clemoes, suggests a date prior to the completion of the Lives (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 226–7), which Kleist dates to ‘Later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 135). Kleist dates Lazarus II to ‘Between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005; or possibly ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010)’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 107). PL 38.445–67 (Sermo 71), as identified and cited by Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 306 and 322–25, apparatus. See below, the notes on Lazarus II, lines 273–87. Kleist dates De cogitatione to ‘ca 998 × 1002’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 188), and we edit the treatise below as AH II.18, of which Ælfric excerpts lines 1–8 for Lazarus II, lines 288–95.

210

Introduction: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) ultimately responsible for undertaking the revision between about 1006 and 1010,13 we edit it here. The reviser excerpted lines 173–287 of Lazarus II, which contain the discussion of three kinds of spiritual death, the possibility for forgiveness of all sins except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity’s role in the believer’s redemption, forgiveness, and protection from the devil. The reviser reorders, abridges, and rewrites some of this material, particularly in the opening section [lines 1–26], to produce a concise, streamlined text whose dozen mentions of penance, repentance, and forgiveness make the soul’s resurrection and redemption from sin the homily’s prominent theme. The focus, style, and vocabulary of Lazarus III argue for Ælfric’s authorship.14 Yet John Pope was sufficiently troubled by occasional lapses in the alliterative style to surmise that the work belonged not to Ælfric but one familiar enough with his work to approximate it.15 If, however, Ælfric authored Lazarus III, then its lack of a closing formula typical for him suggests that he did not finish the sermon in what were likely the last years of his life. Lazarus III thus survives as a serviceable but unpolished sermon for an unspecified occasion. Lazarus I survives in three copies: two self-contained copies and a third from which Lazarus II was made. We base our edition of Lazarus I on the copy in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162 [F], a collection of homilies written in the south east, possibly at Canterbury in the monastery of St Augustine, at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century during Ælfric’s lifetime.16 By the mid-eleventh century, F had been transferred to Rochester where it appears to have furnished the exemplar for the copy of Lazarus I in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 [C],17 a homiliary almost certainly written in the monastic cathedral priory toward the middle of the twelfth century.18 Judging by the large size and careful layout of F, Elaine Treharne surmises that it was designed as a ‘public reading book’ used ‘for reading aloud to an assembled congregation of indeterminable constituents’ and for use by educated readers ‘within the refectory of the monastery or cathedral (since it is of Canterbury origin and Rochester provenance); within the body of the church itself; or within the scriptorium or library of these institutions’.19 Such communities provide a context to imagine congregations assembling to observe mass and hear the temporale homilies for the more than forty 13 14 15

16 17

18 19

Kleist dates Lazarus III to ‘ca 1006–9 × 1010’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 107). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 308. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 309, where the weakening of the alliterative patterns and minor disturbances in line balance make him doubt Ælfric’s authorship. Pope also raises the possibility that a later redactor distorted Ælfric’s original by abridging it. However, the ‘essentially rather mechanical piece of excerption and revision’ leads him to prefer the explanation that the work was carried out by ‘one who was familiar enough with Ælfric work to approximate its vocabulary and style at the few points where he chose to rewrite it, but was content for the most part to copy what lay before him, and was not much troubled if his little abridgements (almost entirely confined to the first [fourteen lines of Lazarus III]) weakened the metrical form of the original’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 309). Ker §38; Gneuss and Lapidge §50; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 215. Ker §57; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 210–11. Treharne asserts that F served as the exemplar for C (‘Making their Presence Felt’, p. 408). For the debate over the relationship of between F and C (and D, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 340 and 342), see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 221 (Notes). Treharne, ‘Corpus Christi College, 303’. Treharne, ‘Making their Presence Felt’, pp. 407–8.

211

Introduction: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Sundays and moveable feast days linked to Easter commemorated in F. Such a context helps us to understand the inclusion of homilies like Lazarus I and those for the four other Fridays in Lent whose relatively limited circulation may otherwise reflect their ‘relatively minor usefulness’ in other ecclesiastical settings.20 Lazarus I was the only Friday homily copied from F into C at Rochester in the mid-twelfth century,21 and it is the only homily for a Friday in Lent in that collection of nearly forty temporale homilies.22 Although C is nearly equal in size to F, the tight word spacing, frequent abbreviations, and relative lack of interlinear space suggest that C was designed primarily for private rather than public reading. The third extant copy of Lazarus I, like that in F, dates to the turn of the millennium, but the homily was subsequently altered in the first half of the eleventh century to create Lazarus II. Along with the four other homilies for Friday in Lent, Lazarus I was appended to the copy of the First Series of Catholic Homilies in London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v [H], very soon after the manuscript was initially written at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.23 Sometime during the first half of the eleventh century, perhaps in the first twenty or thirty years,24 an interpolator inserted seventeen homilies of Ælfric into the First Series and altered the beginnings, middles, and ends of eleven other sermons.25 One of those eleven was Lazarus I. Working from Ælfric’s revised version of the homily that no longer survives, the interpolator interleaved a single folio comprising lines 212–95 of our edition into the pages of Lazarus I to create Lazarus II. The copy in H is the only one known to survive.26 The medieval provenance of the now fragmentary, fire-damaged manuscript is unknown,27 but the final item in the interpolator’s table of contents offers a tantalizing clue to a context in which the book might have been used. After Ælfric’s homily for 20

21

22

23

24 25

26

27

Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, p. 43. The sequence of the five homilies for the Fridays in Lent appears only in F (in full, non-consecutively: Ker §38.17, 20, 22, 24, 26) and H (now incomplete, in consecutive order: Ker §220.63–66). In the same century, the eleventh-century copy of Lazarus I in F was revised, seemingly for live performance to a ‘broad, public audience’ assembled during Lent ‘when all Christians were meant to renew their relationship to God, repent of their sins, and prepare for Communion at Easter’ (Treharne, ‘Making their Presence Felt’, pp. 411–13, at p. 411). Treharne’s analysis of the reviser’s work is masterful. In C, a sanctorale collection of pieces for saints’ feast-days celebrated on set days (pp. 76–202) is interposed between two temporale sequences (pp. 1–75 and 211–90) (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 210). Ker §220.63–6; Gneuss and Lapidge §403.63–6; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 217–19. The end of Lazarus I is now missing [line 357 after leofaþ], as is the homily for the fifth Friday in Lent. The interpolator discussed below added a table of contents wherein the homily for the fifth Friday in Lent is listed (Ker §220, pp. 285–6). We edit that homily, Collegerunt ergo pontifices, as AH I.4. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 28. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 26–30. See also Wilcox, ‘Cotton Vitellius C. v’, in Homilies by Ælfric, p. 23, noting that items 14, 37, and 45 [Ker §220.47] were replacement copies, not additions, for which the interpolator was responsible. Wilcox notes that the portion of the manuscript for which the interpolator was responsible ‘has distinctive punctuation as it contains many hyphens and regularly punctuates with a point at the middle or end of one of Ælfric’s rhythmical lines’ (‘Cotton Vitellius C. v’, in Homilies by Ælfric, p. 23), so the interpolator may have worked under the assumption that H was to be used as a book for public reading. Ker offers Tavistock as a possibility (§220 [Catalogue, p. 291]).

212

Introduction: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) the fifth Friday of Lent, the interpolator lists a ‘bishop’s sermon’ related to the book of Ezekiel.28 We cannot know whether the sermo episcopi was part of the appendix added at the turn of the millennium or was a later addition by the interpolator. Nor is it clear if the sermon was by a bishop, for a bishop, or both. But if it were intended for a bishop,29 then we might imagine H being used in a see where the monks or canons that staffed the cathedral priory publicly heard and privately read Lazarus II in the course of their communal life, pastoral ministry, or personal study. The only surviving copy of Lazarus III was copied in the third quarter of the twelfth century into Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 [B],30 a collection of Latin and Old English homilies and several theological texts related to episcopal duties arranged in no discernible overarching order.31 Lazarus III belongs to a run of seven homilies on general themes that comprises the manuscript’s final section, including two others we edit, In natali Domini (AH I.2) and Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9). Since none is tied to a specific occasion, Susan Irvine speculates that the scribe may have been choosing sermons on subjects not previously covered in the manuscript from a quando uolueris set, a collection of general sermons not tied to specific days and thus to be delivered ‘whenever you wish’.32 She does not, however, consider B to have been produced primarily as a public reading book like F, but rather as a private reading book suitable for devotional reading by monks or nuns or for perusal by members of the secular clergy who could have adapted its materials for preaching.33 Because Lazarus II survives uniquely in a damaged manuscript, we have departed from standard practice in our edition to improve its readability. To reduce the risk of producing a cluttered text, we put square brackets around whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended, and supply details in the apparatus for readings from H and those supplied from parallel sources or by conjecture. To remain consistent in our reliance on extant evidence, we have not normalized late spellings supplied from B since they are not overly intrusive and do not impede comprehension. We likewise print Lazarus III from B even though the text does not exhibit the standard features of late West Saxon but rather preserves the language in a state of transition to early Middle 28 29

30 31 32 33

Ker §220 (Catalogue, p. 286): Sermo episcopi […] ezechiele propheta. Perhaps taking his cue from Pope, who noted that this homily ‘was certainly not a part of the series [of Friday homilies] and very likely not by Ælfric’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 227), Wilcox plausibly suggests as a possibility for the sermo episcopi Wulfstan’s short homily on the duty of priests to preach, ‘Verba Ezechiel Prophete de pigris aut timidis uel neglegentibus pastoribus’ (‘The Words of Ezekiel the Prophet Concerning Lazy or Timid or Negligent Pastors’ [Bethurum 16b]) (Homilies by Ælfric, p. 24). Given the fact that the manuscript contains only works of Ælfric and that the interpolator has access to Ælfric’s late work (ca 1005, according to Pope [Homilies, vol. I, p. 32]), another possibility for the sermo episcopi is Ælfric’s augmented homily for the Second Sunday after Easter (CH I.17) or perhaps even just the new portion of the homily (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 535–42), which features Ezekiel 34.5–16 in its denunciation of a negligent clergy and could serve as a standalone sermon. Both would have been suitable for a bishop to preach (Upchurch, ‘Big Dog Barks’, pp. 524–32). It should be noted that H includes a copy of Ælfric’s original version of CH I.17 (Ker §220.22), which the interpolator does not alter. Ker §310; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 208–10. A portion of B is loosely ordered from Advent to the Common of the Saints (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 208). Irvine, Homilies, p. l. Irvine, Homilies, p. liii.

213

Introduction: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) English.34 Its departures from Ælfric’s typical spellings are pronounced and arise from the intermingling of late West Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and possibly Latin forms, shifts in pronunciation, and the scribe’s own (West Midland) dialect.35

34 35

For the features of late West Saxon, see Hogg, Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. I, pp. 67–167. Irvine, Homilies, p. lv, where an in-depth analysis of the language of the homilies begins and runs to p. lxxvii.

214

lazarus i

ERAT QUIDAM LANGUENS LAZARUS LAZARUS I Feria vi in quarta ebdomada quadragesimæ Erat quidam languens Lazarus, et reliqua.

5

10

15

On þam halgan godspelle þe ge gehyrdon nu rædan, us segð be Lazare þe seoc læg þa he wæs on Bethania wic wuniende [þa], [and] wæs Marðan broðor and Marian [soðlice], | and þæt wæs seo Maria þe mid micelre arwurðnysse mid deorwurðre sealfe urne Drihten smyrode and mid hyre fexe wipode hys fet. ‘Þa ða he seoc læg, þa sændon his geswustra to þam Hælende sona, secgende [m]id [sar]nysse, “La leof Hlaford, þo[n]e þe þu luf[ast] ys nu geuntrumod”. He him andwyrde and cwæð, “Nis þeos untrumnyss na to deaðe, ac for Godes wuldre þæt Godes Sunu sy Text from: F Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, pp. 274–84 (xex or xiin, SE England, probably Canterbury or Rochester, perhaps St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury) Original readings that remain visible despite the erasures, underscoring, cancellations, and substitutions of a twelfth-century reviser are reported without comment. Variants and illegible or missing text from: C Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303, pp. 38–43 (s. xii1 or s. xiimed, probably Rochester) Readings from C have been used primarily to confirm readings from the base text in F, and C’s twelfth-century spellings are not as a rule reported. H London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v, fols 250r [line 1] – 253r [line 2], and fols 254r [line 1, at And ne] – 254v [ending imperfectly] (s. x/xi, SW England) [edited below as Lazarus II (lines 1–211 and 296–378)] 1–2 Feria…reliqua] Ewangelium de Lazaro in Quadragesima. Secundum Iohannem. Erat quidam languens Lazarus, et reliqua C; Þis spe[l gebyrað on þone feorþan frigedæg on Lencten. Euangelium.] Erat quidam [longuens Lazarus, et reliqua.] H (with bracketed text as reported in Ker §220.66)  5 [þa]] erased F; þa CH  6 [and]] erased F; and CH [soðlice]] erased F; soðlice C; no reading H  9 wipode hys fet] his fet wipode H  11 [m]id [sar]nysse] mid sarnysse CH  12 þo[n]e] þone CH luf[ast]] lufodest FC; lufast H 

216

p. 275

THERE WAS A CERTAIN SICK MAN, LAZARUS LAZARUS I Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent ‘There was a certain sick man Lazarus’, and so on.1

5

10

15

In the holy Gospel that you now heard read, it tells us about Lazarus who lay sick when he was living at the time in the town of Bethania, and [who] was actually the brother of Martha and Mary, and that was the Mary who with much honor anointed our Lord with precious salve and wiped his feet with her hair. When he lay sick, his sisters then immediately sent a message to the Savior, saying with sorrow, “O dear Lord, he whom you have loved is now ill”. He replied to them and said, “This illness is not unto death but for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be

1

John 11.1: ‘Erat autem quidem languens, Lazarus, a Bethania, de castello Mariae et Marthae, sororis eius’ (‘Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, of the town of Mary and Martha her sister’). Lines 1–112 closely follow verses 1–45, which are quoted in the commentary.

217

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

gewuldrod þurh hine”. Se Hælend lufode soðlice Marthan and Marian hire swuster and Lazarum heora broþur, and þa þa he geaxode be him þæt he geuntrumod wæs, þa wunode he twegen dagas on þære yclan stowe, and æfter þam cwæð to his leorningcnihtum, ‘“Uton faran nu eft to Iudea lande”’. Þa cwædon hir leorningcnihtas, “La le[of] la[reo]w, nu for feawum dagum sohton þa Iudeiscan þe to stænenne, and þu eft nu wylt þyder ongean faran?” And he him andwyrde, “La hu næfð se dæg twelf tid/a\ on him? And se ðe gæð on dæg, se ne ætsprnð na for þam ðe he gesicð þises middaneardes leoht. Se ðe gæð on niht, se soþlice ætspyrnð for þam þe leoht nis on him”. And he eft þa cwæð, “Lazarus ure freond liþ nu and slæpð, ac Ic wille faran þyder þæt Ic hine awecce”. Þa cwædon hys discipuli, “Drihten, gyf he slæpð, he byð gehealden”. And se Hælend sæde be Lazares deaðe þe læg þa forðfaren. | Hi wendon soþlice þæt he be slæpe sæde. /He cwæð þa openlice [oðre word him to]\, “Lazarus is forðfaren, and Ic for eow blissige, þæt ge gelyfon for ðam þe Ic næs þær. Ac uton faran to him”. And Thomas cwæð þa, þæs tona[ma] w[æs Didimu]s, to hys geferum, “Uton we eac faran, þæt we swelton mid him”. Se Hælend þa ferde, and hi forð mid him and comon on þone feorðan dæg þæs þe he bebyrged wæs /to Bethanian [wic] þær he bebyrged wæs\ – þanon wæron to Ierusalem fiftene furlang. Manega þa com/on\ of þam Iudeiscum to Marþan and Marian, and mid him wæron þæt hi hi gefrefrodan for heora broður deaðe. Martha þa gehyrde þæt se Hælend wæs cumen, and eode him togeanes, and Maria sæt æt ham. Þa cwæð Martha sona swa heo geseah þone Hælend, “Hlafurd, gyf þu her wære, nære min broþur dead. Ac Ic swa ðeah wat þæt God þe getiþað 16–7 lufode soðlice] soðlice lufode C  23 le[of] la[reo]w] leof lareow C; [leof lar]eow H  26 faran] omitted C  28 ætsprnð] ætspryrnð F; ætspyrnþ H; ætspyrnð C  33 awecce] awrecce H  34 discipuli] leorningcnihtas C  38 /He cwæð…[oðre word him to]\] added in the original hand F; [oðre word him to] erased F; oðre word him to C; oðre word him [to] H  40 þæt] þæt þæt C  42 þæs tona[ma] w[æs Didimu]s] erased with reported letters visible in F; tonama (toname C) wæs didimus CH  46 /to Bethanian [wic]…wæs\] added in the original hand F; [wic] erased F; wic CH

218

p. 276

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

glorified through it”. The Savior truly loved Martha and Mary her sister and Lazarus their brother, and when he learned from them that he was sick, he then remained two days in the same place and later said to his disciples, “Let us go now again to the land of the Jews”. Then his disciples said, “O dear teacher, for a few days now the Jews have sought to stone you, and you now desire to go back again to that place?” And he answered them, “Does not the day have twelve hours in it? And he who walks during the day does not stumble at all because he sees the light of this world. He who walks during the night certainly stumbles because the light is not in him”. And he then said in turn, “Lazarus our friend now lies down and sleeps, but I desire to go to that place to wake him”. Then his disciples said, “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will be preserved”. And yet the Savior spoke about the death of Lazarus who at that time lay dead. They in fact believed that he spoke about sleep. He then plainly spoke another word to them, “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for you so that you may believe because I was not there. But let us go to him”. And then Thomas, whose surname was Didimus, said to his companions, “Let us go too so that we may die with him”. The Savior then set out, and they [set] forth with him and arrived on the fourth day after [Lazarus] was buried in the town of Bethania where he was buried (from there it was fifteen furlongs to Jerusalem). Many of the Jewish people came to Martha and Mary and were with them to comfort them on account of their brother’s death. Martha then heard that the Savior had arrived and went to him, and Mary stayed at home. Then Martha, as soon as she saw the Savior, said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. But I know nevertheless that God will grant you

219

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

swa hwæs swa þu hine bitst”. And se Hælend cwæð, “Þin broþur arist”. And Martha him cwæð to, “Ic wat þæt he arist on þam æriste, on þam endenextan dæge”. Hyre andwyrde se Hælend, “Ic eom ærist and lif. Se ðe gelyfð on me, þeah þe he dead si, he leofað swa þeah; and ælc þæra þe leofað and on me gelyfð, ne swylt he on ecnysse. Gelyfst þu þis, Martha?” Heo andwyrde and cwæð, “Witudlice, Hlafurd, Ic gelyfe þæt þu eart Crist, Godes Sunu, þe on þysne middaneard to mannum come”. He/o\ eode þa sona, syððan heo þys cwæð, and clypode hyre swuster mid [swigan] cwe|þende, “Se l[areo]w ys her, and he þe clypað”. Heo aras þa sona and eode to him, and se Hælend þa gyt wæs on þære yclan stowe þær Martha him spræc to oð ðæt Maria com. Þa eodon þa Iudei æfter Marian for þan ðe hi gesawon þæt heo swa raðe aras cwædon þæt heo wolde wepan æt þære byrgenne. Maria þa sona swa heo þone Hælend geseah, þa feoll heo to hys fotum and him þus cwæð to, “Hlaford, gyf þu hær wære, nære min broður dead”. Þa ða se Hælend geseah hi sarlice wepan and þa Iudeiscan wepende þe hire mid comon, þa g[rymette] he on gaste, and hyne sylfne gedrefde, and cwæð, “Hwær lede ge hine?” [And] hi cwædon him to, “Hlafurd, cum and geseoh”. And þa weop se Hælend. Þa sædon þa Iudeiscan, “Gesixst þu, hu he hine lufode”. Sume of him sædon, “La hu ne mihte [se] don, [se] ðe þone blindan gehælde, þæt þes eac ne swulte?” Se Hælend eft grymetende com to ðære byrgenne and cwæð to þam ymbstandendum, “Doð him of þone stan”. Martha cwæð to Criste, “Hlaford [leof], he stincð for ðam ðe feower dagas synt syððan he bebyrged wæs”. Se Hælend hyre cwæð to, “La hu ne sæd Ic þe þæt gyf þu gelyfst, þu gesihst Godes wuldor?” Hi ahofon þæt hlid þa of þære þryh raðe, and se Hælend cwæð, upahafenum eagum, “Fæder, Ic þancige þe for ðam ðe þu me gehyrdest. Ic soðlice wat þæt þu me symle gehyrst, 68 [swigan]] erased F; swigan CH   69 l[areo]w] erased F; lareow CH  75 ] Tironian et erased F; omitted C; no reading H heo wolde] hi woldon C  81 g[rymette]] grymmette H; grimette C he] omitted C  82 [And]] erased F; and CH  84 Gesixst þu] gehu C  85 [se]] erased F; se CH  86 [se]] erased F; se CH þes] þe C  89 cwæð] cwæþ þa H [leof]] erased F; leof CH  91 sæd] sæd F; sæde C; no reading H  92 wuldor] wundor C  93 þæt hlid þa] omitted C; no reading H

220

p. 277

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

whatever you ask him”. And the Savior said, “Your brother will rise”. And Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise at the resurrection on the last day”. The Savior replied to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he be dead, will yet live; and each one of those who lives and believes in me will not die for eternity. Do you believe this, Martha?” She answered and said, “Truly, Lord, I believe that you are Christ, God’s Son, who has come into this world for humanity”. She then went immediately, after she said this, and called her sister quietly saying, ‘“The teacher is here, and he is calling for you”. She then arose immediately and went to him, and the Savior was still in the same place where Martha spoke to him until Mary came. Then the Jews followed Mary because they saw that she rose quickly and said that she wished to weep at the tomb. As soon as Mary saw the Savior, she then fell to his feet and spoke to him in this way, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead”. When the Lord saw her weeping sorrowfully and the Jews weeping who had come with her, he then raged in spirit and stirred himself and said, “Where did you lay him?” And they said to him, “Lord, come and see”. And then the Savior wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him”. Some of them said, “Cannot he who healed the blind also cause this one not to die?” The Savior raging once more approached the tomb and said to those standing nearby, “Take the stone away from him”. Martha said to Christ, “Dear Lord, he stinks because it has been four days since he was buried”. The Savior said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see God’s glory?” Then they quickly lifted the cover off the tomb, and the Savior, with eyes lifted upwards, said, “Father, I thank you because you have heard me. I know truly that you always hear me,

221

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

| ac for ðam folce Ic sæde þe her onbutan stent, þæt hi gelyfon þæt þu me asendest”. Þa þa he þis cwæð, þa clypode he hlude, “Lazare, ueni foras!” “Lazarus cum hider ut!” And he forðstop sona, se ðe forðfaren wæs, bewunden, swa þeah swa swa hit gewunelic wæs, handum and fotum, and his heafud wæs befangen mid swatclaðe, swa swa he geled wæs. Þa cwæð se Hælend to ðam ymbstandendum, “Tolysað hys bendas and lætað hine gan”. And he þa leofode lange syððan halre þonne he ær wæs þurh þæs Hælendes mihte. Manega þa eornostlice of þam Iudeiscum þe comon to Marian and Marthan hire swuster and gesawon hu se Hælend heora broþur arærde gelyfdon on hyne for þam liflican tacne’. Betwux eallum þam wundrum þe ure Hælend worhte ys þyss miccle wundor mærlicost geþuht – þæt he þone stincendan Lazarum to life arærde. Ac gyf we behealdað hwa hyne arærde, þonne mage we blissian swiðor þonne wundrian. Se arærde þone man se ðe man geworhte. He ys se ancenneda Sunu þæs ælmihtigan Fæder þurh þone synd gesceapene ealle gesceafta, and la, hwilc wudor is, þeah þe to life arise an mann þurh hyne, þonne ælce dæge beoð manega acennede þurh | hys mihte on worulde? Micel/e\ mare miht ys menn to [ge]scippenne þonne to arærenne þone þe ær wæs. He gemedemode swa þeah þæt he menn gesceope, and eac þæt he arærde hi eft of deaðe. He gesceop ealle menn and sume arærde, se ðe eaðe mihte /ealle gif he wolde deade aræran þurh his drihtlican mihte.\ Ac he heold witodlice þæt weorc him sylfum oð ða geendunge þysre worulde swa he sylf sæde on sumon godspelle: þæt ‘“Se tima cymð þonne ealle þa deadan þe on byrgenum beoð gehyrað swutellice Godes Sunu stefne and gað of heora byrgenum – to lifes æriste þa ðe god worhton, to genyðerunge æriste þa ðe yfel worhton”’. Is swa þeah oðer ærist on urum sawlum, 121 wudor] wuldor F; wundor CH  124 menn] man C; no reading H [ge]scippenne] scippenne F; [g]escippenne H; gesceppenne C  130 drihtlican] drihtenlicen CH  136 stefne] stemne H

222

p. 278

p. 279

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

but I spoke on account of the people standing around here so that they may believe that you sent me”. When he said this, he then cried out loudly, “Lazare, ueni foras!”, “Lazarus, come out here!” And immediately he who had been dead came forth, still wrapped hand and foot as was customary, and his head was encircled with a small cloth just as it had been placed. Then the Savior said to those standing nearby, “Loosen his bonds and let him go”. And he then lived a long time afterwards more healthy than he had been before by means of the Savior’s power. Then consequently many of the Jews who had come to Mary and Martha her sister and saw how the Savior resurrected their brother believed in him on account of that living sign’. Among all the miracles that our Savior worked, this great miracle is considered the most glorious – that he raised the stinking Lazarus to life. But if we consider who raised him, then we can rejoice rather than wonder. He raised the man who made the man. He is the only-begotten Son of the almighty Father through whom all created things are created, and how surprising it it, though one man rise to life through him, when each day many are born through his power into the world? It is a much greater power to create human beings than to raise a person who already existed. He nevertheless thought fit to make people and also to raise them again from death. He created all people and raised some, he who could easily raise all the dead through his divine power if he desired. But he has assuredly saved that work for himself until the end of this world, as he himself said in a certain Gospel: ‘“The time is coming when all the dead who are in the graves will clearly hear the voice of God’s Son and will leave their tombs – those who did good to the resurrection of life, those who did evil to the resurrection of condemnation”’. There is nevertheless another resurrection in our souls,

223

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) 140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

þe ure Hælend deð dæghwamlice on mannum þonne seo sawul arist of ðære synna deaðe, for ðam se ðe syngað, hys sawul ne leofað, buton heo þurh andetnysse eft acucige, and þurh dædbote hyre Drihten gladige. Ælc man ondræd him deaðes tocyme, and feawa him ondrædað þære sawle deað. For ðæs lichaman life, þe langsum beon ne mæg, swincað menn swiðe on sæ and on lande þæt hi deaðe ætbærston, and beoð swa þeah deade on sumne timan, þeah þe h/i\ [su]me hwile ætfleon. And hi nellað swincan þæt hi ne singian þæt heora sawla lybban on þam ecan life buton geswince. And byð se | lichama æfter Domesdæge to ðam ylcan gebroht on sawle geliffæst syðða aa to worulde. Ondræde swa þu ondræde, se deað þe cymð to. Ys forþi wislicor þæt þu warnige georne þæt þu yfele ne swelte, on synnum geendod, and syððan ecelice on sawle and on lichaman æfre cwylmige on endeleasum witum, and sweltan ne mage swa ðeah næfre. We willað secgan eow nu be þære sawle deaðe, þæt ys þreora cynna, þeah þe hit eow cuð ne si. Se þe yfel geþengð and yfel don wile, him ys se deað wiðinnan digollice on his sawle. And se þe yfel wile and þæt yfel gefremað, he byð þonne openlice yfele dead. Se ðe gewunolice and unforwandodlice singað and hys yfel gewidmærsað þurh yfelne hlisan, se ys bebyrged on his manfullum leahtrum, and he fule þonne stincð on his fracodum dædum. Nu segð us seo Cristes boc þæt Crist ure Hælend þry men arærde of deaðe to life, and þa þry getacnodon þone þryfealdan deað þære synfullan sawle þe syngað on þreo wisan: on yfe/lre\ geþafunge oððe yfelum geþohte, on yfelre fremminge, and on yfelum gewunan. Ure Drihten arærde anes ealdormannes dohtor, seo ðe læg dead digellice on his huse, and næs þa gyt geferod forð openlice. And heo soðlice getacnode | þære sawle deað 149 ætbærston] ne ætbærson, with ne erased F; ætberstan H  150 h/i\] he, with ‘i’ superscripted over ‘e’ F [su]me] sume H; suma C  155 syðða] syððam F; syþþan CH aa] omitted H; a C  157 warnige] warnige þe C  162 secgan eow nu] eow nu secgan C  163 ys] he is CH  170 manfullum] bismærfullum C; bis(merful)lum H  175 þe] þe þe C

224

p. 280

p. 281

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) 140

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

which our Savior effects daily in people when the soul rises from the death of its sins, because the soul of he who sins will not live unless it comes to life again through confession and through penance appeases its Lord. Every person fears the arrival of death, and yet few fear the death of the soul. On account of the life of the body, which may not be long, people work hard at sea and on land to escape death, and though they will be dead at some point, they may yet escape for a while. And still they do not want to work not to sin so that their souls might live in the everlasting life without work. And the body will be brought to the same after Judgment Day, forever afterwards quickened by the soul. May you fear [the soul’s death] as you fear the death that will come to you. It is therefore wiser for you to eagerly take heed not to perish wickedly, brought to an end in sins, and [not] eternally afterwards to suffer repeatedly in soul and body with endless torments and yet not ever be able to die. We desire to speak to you now about the death of the soul, of which there are three kinds, although that is not known to you. For him who thinks about evil and desires to do evil, death is within, secretly in his soul. And he who desires evil and carries out that evil will then be patently dead from evil. He who habitually and without hesitation sins and publicizes his evil through a wicked rumor is buried in his evil sins and then stinks foully in his wicked deeds. Now Christ’s book says to us that Christ our Savior raised three people from death to life, and these three signified the three-fold death of the sinful soul that sins in three ways: by evil consent or evil thought, by evil action, and by evil habit. Our Lord raised a nobleman’s daughter who lay dead hidden in his house and had not as yet been openly carried out. And certainly she signified the death of the soul

225

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

þe byð wiðinnan hyre þurh þæt yfele geþanc, and ne bið geopenod þurh yfele fremmincge. He arærde anne cniht þa þa he com to anre byrig Naim gehaten and he wæs geferod on þæs folces gesihþe and him folgode seo modor dreorig wepende. Ac ur/e\ Drihten sona hi swæslice gefrefrode, and hyre suna arærde, and betæhte þære meder, swa swa he mildheort wæs. Þes deada getacnode þære sawle deað þe syngað openlice, swilce heo ferige on folces gesihþe hyre deadan on bære, and byð þonne cuð hyre synfulla deað þurh þa openan synna. Gyf þu syngodest, þu hit soðlice behreoswa, and Crist arærð þe þæt þu cucu byst on Gode and betæcð þe þinre meder, þæt ys, /þære\ Gelaþung/e\ on þære þu wære gefullod and on þære þu scealt geþeon. Se þridda deada [wæs] þe ure Drihten arærde Lazarus se [Iudeisca], se læg bebyrged fule þa stincende, swa swa we ær beforan sædon. And he hæfde getacnunge þæs synfullan mannes þe hæfð him on gewunan hys yfelan dæda, and stincð þurh unhlisan and yfelne gewunan. Swylcra ys to fela þe on synnum licgað, forlorene on þeahwum and ofhrorene mid leahtrum, and nellað gehyran þa halgan lare. And þincð him æþryt þæt he embe þæt þence hu he arise of þam reocendan meoxe. Is him leofre to licganne on his lichaman lustum þonne he ænig þing swince and hys softnys/e\ forleose. Ne sceal nan man | swa ðeah, þeah he synfull si, geortruwian hyne sylfne for hys synna micelnysse. Ne se goda man ne sceal for hys godnysse /gedyrstlæcan to swiðe, ne dyslice\ hyne ahebban, ne þone synfullan forseon, for þam hit [swa] getimað foroft þæt se synfulla mann his mandæde behreowsað, and hyne Drihten arærð swa swa he dyde Lazarum, and he leofað þonne bet on his lifes rihtinge þonne þa lybbon þe his lif ær tældon. Be swilcum we rædað on sumum godspelle: þæt an synful wif wæs swiðe fordon mann, and heo ofaxode þa þæt ure Hælend /wæs\ 183 geopenod] geopenod /þa gyt\ H  194 behreowsa] bet and bet and bhreosa C  196 /þære\ Gelaþung/e\] his gelaþung CH  198 [wæs]] erased F; wæs HC  199 [Iudeisca]] erased F; Iudeisca C; no reading H  200 ær] her C  209 leofre] leofra to lifra C  210–11 forleose. Ne sceal] between ‘forleose’ and ‘Ne sceal’, H interpolates an 83-line passage (AH I.3, Lazarus II, lines 212–95)   211 Ne] And ne H   215 [swa]] erased F; swa CH getimað foroft] oft getimað H

226

p. 282

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

that occurs within on account of an evil thought and has not been made manifest by evil action. He raised one young man when he came to a town called Nain and [the young man] was being carried in the sight of the people and the grief-stricken mother followed him weeping. But our Lord at once gently comforted her, and raised her son, and entrusted [him] to [his] mother, as he was merciful. This dead man signified the death of the soul that sins openly, as if it carries its dead on a bier in the people’s sight, and its sinful death is then made known by [its] open sins. If you have sinned, truly repent of it, and Christ will raise you to be alive in God and will give you to your mother, that is, the Church into which you were baptized and in which you ought to flourish. The third dead person our Lord raised was Lazarus the Jew, who lay buried stinking foully at that time, as we said earlier. And he signified the sinful person who makes a habit of his evil deeds and stinks on account of ill repute and evil habit. There are too many such people who lie in sin, lost in [their] habits and overwhelmed with vices, and do not wish to hear the holy teaching. And it seems wearisome to him to think about how he might rise from the reeking dung. It pleases him more to wallow in the desires of his body than to work at anything and be deprived of his ease. Yet no one, though he be sinful, ought to despair of himself on account of the magnitude of his sins. Nor ought a good person on account of his goodness presume too greatly, nor foolishly exalt himself, nor despise the sinful, because it thus often happens that the sinful person repents of his evil deeds, and the Lord raises him just as he did Lazarus, and he then lives better in the governance of his life than those may live who earlier censured his life. We read about such people in a certain Gospel: there was a sinful woman, a very corrupted person, and when she learned that our Savior was

227

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

mid anum Sunderhalgum, se hatte Simon, þa com þæt wif þyder and to Criste genealæhte, licgende æt his fotum gelomlice wepende, and mid hyre tearum hys fet aþwoh, and mid hyre fexe hi fo[rh]tlice wipode, and mid deorwurðre sealfe hi syððan smyrode, swa swa hyt gewunelic wæs on Iudeiscre þeode. Þa cwæð se Hælend be hyre þæt hyre wæron forgyfene manega synna for ðam þe heo micclum lufode. Se mann þe ortruwað, and endeleaslice syngað, and on his heardheortnysse his lif geendað, se byð gewislice dead þam wyrstan deaðe for ðam þe he færð of þysum frecenfullan life to ðam ecan deaðe for hys endeleasum synnum. Be þrym deadum we rædað þe ure Drihten arærde, ac hys wundra næron awritene ealle. Ac þa ane man wrat þe mihton genihtsumian mannum | to hæle and to heora geleafan, and þa ðe hæfdon healice getacnunge, þe wurdon geopenode eft þurh þone Hælend. Hys apostoli arærdon and heora æftergengan manega menn of deaðe, ac se ylca Drihten dyde [þæt] þurh hi, swa swa he dyde ær þurh hyne sylfne on hys andweardnysse. Þa geswustra cyddon Criste be Lazare þæt he licgende wæs, and he wunode swa ðeah on þære ylcan stowe, anbidigende swa lange oððæt he forðfaren wæs, and ferde syððan to him. He nolde hine gehælan ac wolde hine aræran and þurh þæt miccle wundor his mihta geswutelian. His leorningcnihtas woldon gelettan þone Hælend, þæt he ne ferde to ðære frecednysse þær þa Iudeiscan woldon hyne berædan and he forþi þanon ær siþode. Þa halgan apostoli woldon þam Hælende þone ræd tæcan þæt he ne þorfte sweltan, se þe sylfwilles com þæt he sweltan wolde þæt hi sylfe ne swulton, ne we eac soðlice, þam yfelan deaðe þe he us of alysde. Se Hælend cwæð þa to him, ‘“Se dæg hæfð twelf tida, and se ðe færð on dæg, hys fot ne ætspyrnð for þam ðe he [þæt] leoht gesihþ þyses middaneardes”’. 227 fo[rh]tlice] erased F; forhtlice C; forhtlic(e) H  232 Se mann] And for þi swa swa we ær sædon se mann H  234 þam wyrstan deaðe] written twice with first instance erased F  245 [þæt]] crossed ‘þ’ erased F; þæt CH  256 þanon ær] ær þanon H; ær þonen C  262 to him] heom to C  264 [þæt]] omitted F; þæt CH 

228

p. 283

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I)

225

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

with a Pharisee named Simon, the woman then came to that place and drew near to Christ, lying at his feet weeping continually, and with her tears washed his feet, and timidly wiped them with her hair, and afterwards anointed them with precious salve, as was customary among the Jewish people. Then the Savior said about her that many sins had been forgiven her because she loved him greatly. The person who despairs and sins endlessly and reaches the end of his life in his hardheartedness will certainly die the worst death because he will go from this perilous life to everlasting death on account of his unending sins. We read about the three dead people whom our Lord raised, but his miracles were not all written down. However, one man wrote down those that are able to suffice for the salvation of humanity and for their faith, and those that had special significance, which were later made manifest by the Savior. His apostles and their successors raised many people from death, but the same Lord did that through them as he earlier had done through himself when he was present. The sisters told Christ about Lazarus, that he was lying sick, and he nevertheless stayed in the same place, waiting for a very long time until he was dead, and afterwards went to him. He did not wish to heal him but to raise him and through that great miracle to reveal his power. His disciples wanted to stop the Savior from going into danger where the Jews wished to lie in wait for him and whence he had, moreover, journeyed earlier. The holy apostles wanted to enjoin the Savior that he need not die, he who willingly came intending to die so that they, and indeed we too, might not die the evil death from which he redeemed us. The Savior then said to them, “The day has twelve hours, and he who walks during the day, his foot does not stumble because he sees the light of this world”.

229

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) 265

270

275

280

285

290

He is se soða dæg and þæt soðe leoht ealles middaneardes, and se man þe him filigð, ne gæð he na on þeostrum ac hæfð lifes leoht. His twelf apostoli synt þa twelf tida þe ðam dæge folgiað Drihtne Hælende, þeah þe se swicola Iudas þe hyne syððan | belæwde of þam wurðmynte afeolle. Ac þær feng oðer to, Mathias se eadmoda, and wearð eft gefylled þæt twelffealde getel on þam twelf apostolum. Se Hælend cwæð to Marthan Lazares swuster, ‘“Ic eom ærist and lif. Se ðe gelyfð on me, þeah þe he dead si, he leofað swa þeah; and ælc þæra þe leofað and on me gelyfð, ne swylt he on ecnysse”’. And he sæde on oðre stowe, ‘Ego sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob’: ‘“Ic eom Abrahames God and Isaaces and Iacobes. Nis na God deadra manna, ac is libbendra”’. Ealle menn him lybbað. þe on hine gelyf, þeah þe he dead si, he sceal libban swa þeah, and se ðe ne gelyfð on hyne, þeah þe he lifes si, he ys dead swa þeah þam yfelan deaðe. We ne durran gelencgan na leng þysne traht ne eow geswencan na swiðor mid þam, þe læs þe eower sum ceorige on mode. Ac uton biddan ealle ur/n\e Drihten Crist þæt ure sawla fram synnum arære and us þæt ece lif on ende forgyfe. Þam si wuldor and lof a to worulde, Amen.

272 gefylled] afylled C  276 leofað] H ends   281 Nis] Næs C   282 þe on hine gelyf] following Pope (SH I.6, line 363); þe on hine gelyfað FC  286 gelencgan] længan C  290 ] omitted F; he C

230

p. 284

Text: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) 265

270

275

280

285

290

He is the true day and the true light of the whole world, and the one who follows him does not walk in darkness but has the light of life. His twelve apostles are the twelve hours that follow the Lord Savior during the day, though the treacherous Judas who later betrayed him fell from that honor. But another succeeded to that place, Matthias the humble, and that twelvefold number was again made complete among the twelve apostles. The Savior said to Martha, Lazarus’ sister, ‘“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he be dead, will yet live; and each one of those who lives and believes in me will not die for eternity”’. And he said in another place, ‘Ego sum Deus Abraham and Deus Isaac and Deus Iacob’:2 ‘“I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. He is not the God of dead people, but is [the God] of the living”’. All people will live in him. He who believes in him, though he be dead, shall yet live, and he who does not believe in him, though he be alive, will yet be dead in that evil death. We dare not lengthen this sermon nor tire you more with it, lest some of you complain in [your] mind. But let us all pray to our Lord Christ to raise our souls from sins and give us everlasting life in the end. To him be glory and praise forever, Amen.

2

Matthew 22.32: ‘“I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”’.

231

LAZARUS I

COMMENTARY Three versions of Erat quidam languens Lazarus (AH I.3) exist. The first, datable to later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998, is found in MSS C, pp. 38–43 [Ker §57.11]; F, pp. 274–84 [Ker §38.24]; and H, fols 250r, line 1 – 253r, line 2, and fols 254r, line 1 [starting with And ne] – 254v [Ker §220.66], ending imperfectly. H [Ker §220.66 again] also preserves the second version, written between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005. The scribe responsible for numerous interpolations in the manuscript introduced lines 209–91 on an additional leaf (fol. 253rv) from a now-lost exemplar, ‘erasing and copying just enough of the original text to join new and old neatly together into a continuous whole’;1 fols 250r–254v thus both serve as a partial witness to the first version and constitute the sole copy of the second. Furthermore, the last eight lines of the interpolation [Lazarus II, lines 288–95]2 also form the opening to De cogitatione [AH II.18, lines 1–8] in P1 and S. The third version, composed ca 1006–9 × 1010, appears in B, fols 166v–167v [Ker §310.83]. This piece contains an excerpt from the second version that draws both on the original version and the interpolation. The excerpt corresponds roughly to lines 172–210, ‘but with considerable rearrangement and rewriting’, followed by lines 211–85 ‘without substantial alteration’, with lines 320–9 serving as the final paragraph.3 Belfour prints the third version of the homily,4 while Pope prints the first version as SH I.6, lines 1–208 and 292–373; inserts the interpolation of the second version at SH I.6, lines 209–91; and collates all but the first nineteen lines of Belfour’s text (the revised part of the third version, which may draw on CH I.33, lines 76–104) for SH I.6, lines 209–83 and 318–27. Line 2 [Erat quidam languens Lazarus]: Though the homily may more descriptively be called ‘Ða ðreo deade men þe ure Drihten arerde’ (‘These three dead people whom our Lord raised’ [Lazarus III, line 12]), this beginning to John 11.1–45, the pericope for the Friday after the Fourth Sunday in Lent,5 heads the versions in MSS C, F, and H [with 1 2 3 4 5

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 303. Also corresponding to SH I.6, lines 284–91 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 325). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 304; see also p. 505. Belfour 14 (Twelfth-Century Homilies, pp. 136–40). While this association of pericope and liturgical occasion is traditional (see for example Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 314, no. 93), the Friday after the Fourth Sunday in Lent is not in the Gelasian Sacramentary (Chavasse, Sacramentaire Gélasien); the Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (the Temporale material for which runs only from the Friday after Easter through the

232

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) longuens for languens]. The revised introduction in B begins ‘Us sægð þeo halige cristes boc …’ (‘Christ’s holy book tells us …’ [Lazarus III, line 1]). Lines 3–112 [On þam halgan godspelle … for þam liflican tacne]: The first third or so of this homily, with which Lazarus II also begins [lines 4–113], is a close translation of the Raising of Lazarus from John 11. John 11.1–45

Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 3–112

Erat autem quidam languens Lazarus a Bethania de castello Mariae et Marthae sororis eius. Maria autem erat quae unxit Dominum unguento et extersit pedes eius capillis suis cuius frater Lazarus infirmabatur. Miserunt ergo sorores ad eum dicentes Domine ecce quem amas infirmatur. Audiens autem Iesus dixit eis infirmitas haec non est ad mortem sed pro gloria Dei ut glorificetur Filius Dei per eam.

On þam halgan godspelle þe ge gehyrdon nu rædan us segð be Lazare, þe seoc læg [5] þa he wæs on Bethaniawic wuniende þa, and wæs Marðan broðor and Marian soðlice, and þæt wæs seo Maria þe mid micelre arwurðnysse mid deorwurðre sealfe urne Drihten smyrode, and mid hyre fexe wipode hys fet. [10] ‘Þa ða he seoc læg, þa sændon his geswustra to þam Hælende sona, secgende mid sarnysse, “La leof hlaford, þone þe þu lufast ys nu geuntrumod”. He him andwyrde and cwæð: “Nis þeos untrumnyss na to deaðe, [15] ac for Godes wuldre, þæt Godes Sunu sy gewuldrod þurh hine”.

Now there was a certain sick man named Lazarus, from Bethania [Bethany], from the town of Mary and of Martha her sister. (This Mary, whose brother was ill, was the one who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair.) Therefore the sisters sent for him, saying, ‘Lord, behold, the one whom you love is ill’. When he heard it, Jesus said to them, ‘This illness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it’.

In the holy Gospel that you now heard read, it tells us about Lazarus who lay sick when he was dwelling then in the town of Bethania, and indeed he was the brother of Martha and Mary, and that was the Mary who with much honor anointed our Lord with precious salve and wiped his feet with her hair. ‘When he lay sick, his sisters then immediately sent a message to the Savior saying with sorrow, “O dear Lord, the one whom you love is now ill”. He replied to them and said, “This illness is not unto death but for the glory of God so that God’s Son may be glorified through it”.

Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost [Turner, Missal, p. vi]); nor Paul the Deacon’s homiliary (Grégoire, Homéliaires, p. 80). For these sources, see Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), Introduction to lines 1–99.

233

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Diligebat autem Iesus Martham et sororem eius Mariam et Lazarum. Ut ergo audiuit quia infirmabatur tunc quidem mansit in eodem loco duobus diebus. Deinde post haec dicit discipulis suis eamus in Iudaeam iterum. Dicunt ei discipuli rabbi nunc quaerebant te Iudaei lapidare et iterum uadis illuc. Respondit Iesus nonne duodecim horae sunt diei si quis ambulauerit in die non offendit quia lucem huius mundi uidet. Si autem ambulauerit nocte offendit quia lux non est in eo.

[16] Se Hælend lufode soðlice Marthan, and Marian hire swuster, and Lazarum heora broþur, and þa þa he geaxode be him þæt he geuntrumod wæs, þa wunode he [20] twegen dagas on þære ylcan stowe, and æfter þam cwæð to his leorningcnihtum, “Uton faran nu eft to Iudea lande”. Þa cwædon his leorningcnihtas, “La leof lareow, nu for feawum dagum sohton þa Iudeiscan [25] þe to stænenne, and þu eft nu wylt þyder ongean faran?” And he him andwyrde, “La hu næfð se dæg twelf tida on him? And se ðe gæð on dæg, se ne ætspyrnð na, for þam ðe he gesicð þises middaneardes leoht. [30] Se ðe gæð on niht, se soþlice ætspyrnð, for þam þe leoht nis on him”.

Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister Mary and Lazarus. Therefore, when he heard that he was ill, then truly he remained in the same place for two days. Then, after that, he said to his disciples, ‘Let us go into Judea again’. The disciples said to him, ‘Rabbi, the Jews were just trying to stone you, and you are going there again?’ Jesus answered: ‘Are there not twelve hours in the day? If someone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees by the light of this world. But if he walks at night, he does stumble, because the light is not in him’.

The Savior truly loved Martha and Mary her sister and Lazarus their brother, and when he learned from them that he was sick, he then remained two days in the same place and after said to his disciples, “Let us go now again to the land of the Jews”. Then his disciples said, “O dear teacher, for a few days now the Jews sought to stone you, and you now desire to go back again to that place?” And he answered them, “It is not true that the day has twelve hours in it? And he who walks during the day, he does not stumble at all because he sees the light of this world. He who walks during the night, he certainly stumbles because the light is not in him”.

Haec ait et post hoc dicit eis Lazarus amicus noster dormit sed uado ut a somno exsuscitem eum. Dixerunt ergo discipuli eius Domine si dormit saluus erit. Dixerat autem Iesus de morte eius illi autem putauerunt quia de dormitione somni diceret. Tunc ergo dixit eis Iesus manifeste Lazarus mortuus est. Et gaudeo propter uos ut credatis quoniam non eram ibi sed eamus ad eum. Dixit ergo Thomas qui dicitur Didymus ad condiscipulos eamus et nos ut moriamur cum eo.

[31] And he eft þa cwæð, “Lazarus ure freond liþ nu and slæpð, ac Ic wille faran þyder, þæt Ic hine awecce”. þa cwædon hys discipuli, “Drihten, gyf he slæpð, [35] he byð gehealden”. And se Hælend sæde be Lazares deaðe, þe læg þa forðfaren. Hi wendon soþlice þæt he be slæpe sæde. He cwæð þa openlice oðre word him to: “Lazarus is forðfaren, and Ic for eow blissige, [40] þæt ge gelyfon, for ðam þe Ic næs þær; ac uton faran to him”. And Thomas cwæð þa, þæs tonama wæs Didimus, to hys geferum, “Uton we eac faran, þæt we swelton mid him”.

234

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) These things he spoke, and afterward said to them: ‘Lazarus our friend sleeps, but I go to wake him from sleep’. His disciples therefore said, ‘Lord, if he sleeps, he will get well’. Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that he was speaking about the rest of sleep. Therefore Jesus then said to them plainly, ‘Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. But let us go to him’. Therefore Thomas, who is called Didymus, said to his fellow disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with him’.

And he then said afterwards, “Lazarus our friend now lies and sleeps, but I desire to go to that place so that I may awaken him”. Then his disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will be preserved”. And the Savior spoke about the death of Lazarus, who at that time lay dead. They truly believed that he spoke about sleep. He then plainly spoke another word to them, “Lazarus is dead, and I am happy for you so that you may believe because I was not there. Let us go to him”. And Thomas, whose surname was Didimus, then said to his companions, “Let us go too so that we may die with him”.

Uenit itaque Iesus et inuenit eum quattuor dies iam in monumento habentem. Erat autem Bethania iuxta Hierosolyma quasi stadiis quindecim. Multi autem ex Iudaeis uenerant ad Martham et Mariam ut consolarentur eas de fratre suo. Martha ergo ut audiuit quia Iesus uenit occurrit illi Maria autem domi sedebat.

Se Hælend þa ferde, and hi forð mid him, [45] and comon on þone feorðan dæg þæs þe he bebyrged wæs to Bethanian wic, þær he bebyrged wæs, þanon wæron to Ierusalem fiftene furlang. Manega þa comon of þam Iudeiscum to Marþan and Marian, and mid him wæron, [50] þæt hi hi gefrefrodon for heora broður deaðe. Martha þa gehyrde þæt se Hælend wæs cumen, and eode him togeanes, and Maria sæt æt ham.

Jesus accordingly came, and found that by then he had been in the grave for four days. (Now Bethania was near Jerusalem, about fifteen stadii [1.72 miles] away.) Many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them about their brother. Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus had come, ran out to meet him. Mary, however, sat at home.

The Savior then went, and they went with him and came on the fourth day after he was buried to the town of Bethania where he was buried, fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem. Many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary and were with them to comfort them on account of their brother’s death. Martha then heard that the Savior had come and went to him, and Mary stayed at home.

Dixit ergo Martha ad Iesum Domine si fuisses hic frater meus non fuisset mortuus. Sed et nunc scio quia quaecumque poposceris a Deo dabit tibi Deus. Dicit illi Iesus resurget frater tuus. Dicit ei Martha scio quia resurget in resurrectione in nouissima die. Dixit ei Iesus ego sum resurrectio et uita qui credit in me et si mortuus fuerit uiuet. Et omnis qui uiuit et credit in me non morietur in aeternum. Credis hoc? Ait illi utique Domine ego credidi quia tu es Christus Filius Dei qui in mundum uenisti.

[53] Þa cwæð Martha sona swa heo geseah þone Hælend, “Hlafurd, gyf þu her wære, nære min broþur dead. [55] Ac Ic swa ðeah wat þæt God þe getiþað swa hwæs swa þu hine bitst”. And se Hælend cwæð, “Þin broþur arist”. And Martha him cwæð to, “Ic wat þæt he arist on þam æriste, on þam endenextan dæge”. Hyre andwyrde se Hælend, [60] “Ic eom ærist and lif. Se ðe gelyfð on me, þeah þe he dead si, he leofað swa þeah; and ælc þæra þe leofað and on me gelyfð, ne swylt he on ecnysse; gelyfst þu þis, Martha?” Heo andwyrde and cwæð, “Witudlice, hlafurd, [65] Ic gelyfe þæt þu eart Crist, Godes Sunu, þe on þysne middaneard to mannum come”.

235

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Martha then said to Jesus: ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him’. Jesus said to her: ‘Your brother will arise’. Martha said to him: ‘I know that he will arise in the resurrection on the last day’. Jesus said to her: ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even if he is dead, and all who live and believe in me will never die. Do you believe this?’ She said to him: ‘Assuredly, Lord, I have believed that you are Christ, the Son of God, who has come into the world’.

Then Martha, as soon as she saw the Savior, said, “Lord, if you were here, my brother would not be dead, but I know nevertheless that God will grant you whatsoever you ask him”. And the Savior said, “Your brother will return to life”. And Martha said to him, “I know that he will return to life at the resurrection on the last day”. The Savior answered her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, although he be dead, he will nevertheless live, and each one of those who lives and believes in me will not die for eternity. Do you believe this, Martha?” She answered and said, “Truly, Lord, I believe that you are Christ, God’s Son, who in this world has come for humanity”.

Et cum haec dixisset abiit et uocauit Mariam sororem suam silentio dicens magister adest et uocat te. Illa ut audiuit surgit cito et uenit ad eum. Nondum enim uenerat Iesus in castellum sed erat adhuc in illo loco ubi occurrerat ei Martha. Iudaei igitur qui erant cum ea in domo et consolabantur eam cum uidissent Mariam quia cito surrexit et exiit secuti sunt eam dicentes quia uadit ad monumentum ut ploret ibi. Maria ergo cum uenisset ubi erat Iesus uidens eum cecidit ad pedes eius et dixit ei Domine si fuisses hic non esset mortuus frater meus.

[67] Heo eode þa sona, syððan heo þys cwæð, and clypode hyre swuster, mid swigan cweþende, “Se lareow ys her, and he þe clypað”. [70] Heo aras þa sona and eode to him, and se Hælend þa gyt wæs on þære ylcan stowe þær Martha him spræc to, oððæt Maria com. Þa eodon þa Iudei æfter Marian, for þan ðe hi gesawon þæt heo swa raðe aras, [75] and cwædon þæt heo wolde wepan æt þære byrgenne. Maria þa sona swa heo þone Hælend geseah, þa feoll heo to hys fotum, and him þus cwæð to, “Hlaford, gyf þu hær wære, nære min broður dead”.

When she had said these things, she went and called her sister Mary quietly, saying, ‘The master has come and is calling for you’. As soon as she heard this, she rose quickly and came to him. For Jesus had not yet come into the town, but was still in the place where Martha had run to meet him. Therefore the Jews who were with her, when they saw that Mary rose quickly and departed, followed her, saying, ‘She is going to the grave to weep there’. Then, when Mary had come where Jesus was and saw him, she fell down at his feet and said to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died’.

She then went immediately after she said this and called her sister silently saying, “The teacher is here, and he calls you”. She arose then immediately and went to him. And the Savior was still in the same place where Martha spoke to him until Mary came. Then the Jews went after Mary because they saw that she arose quickly and said that she wished to weep at the tomb. Mary, as soon as she saw the Savior, fell to his feet and spoke to him in this way, “Lord, if you were here, my brother would not be dead”.

Iesus ergo ut uidit eam plorantem et Iudaeos qui uenerant cum ea plorantes fremuit spiritu et turbauit se ipsum. Et dixit ubi posuistis eum? Dicunt ei Domine ueni et uide. Et lacrimatus est Iesus. Dixerunt ergo Iudaei ecce quomodo amabat eum. Quidam autem dixerunt ex ipsis non poterat hic qui aperuit oculos caeci facere ut et hic non moreretur.

Þa ða se Hælend geseah hi sarlice wepan, [80] and þa Iudeiscan wepende þe hire mid comon, þa grymette he on gaste, and hyne sylfne gedrefde, and cwæð, “Hwær lede ge hine?” And hi cwædon him to, “Hlafurd, cum and geseoh”. And þa weop se Hælend. Þa sædon þa Iudeiscan, “Gesixst þu, hu he hine lufode”. [85] Sume of him sædon, “La hu ne mihte se don, se ðe þone blindan gehælde, þæt þes eac ne swulte?”

236

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Then Jesus, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her weeping, he raged in spirit and was troubled within. And he said: ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him: ‘Lord, come and see’. And Jesus wept. Therefore the Jews said: ‘Look how he loved him’. But some of them said: ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have made this man not die?’

When the Savior saw her weeping sorrowfully and the Jews weeping who had come with her, then he raged in spirit and troubled himself and said, “Where did you lay him?” And they said to him, “Lord, come and see”. And the Savior wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him”. Some of them said, “Is it not true that he who healed the blind cannot cause this one not to die?”

Iesus ergo rursum fremens in semet ipso uenit ad monumentum erat autem spelunca et lapis superpositus erat ei. Ait Iesus tollite lapidem dicit ei Martha soror eius qui mortuus fuerat Domine iam fetet quadriduanus enim est. Dicit ei Iesus nonne dixi tibi quoniam si credideris uidebis gloriam Dei.

[87] Se Hælend eft grymetende com to ðære byrgenne, and cwæð to þam ymbstandendum, “Doð him of þone stan”. Martha cwæð to Criste, “Hlaford leof, he stincð, [90] for ðam ðe feower dagas synt syððan he bebyrged wæs”. Se Hælend hyre cwæð to, “La hu ne sæde Ic þe þæt gyf þu gelyfst, þu gesihst Godes wuldor?”

Then Jesus, raging again within, came to the grave. Now it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it. Jesus said: ‘Take away the stone’. Martha, the sister of the dead man, said: ‘Lord, by this time he stinks, for it has been four days’. Jesus said to her: ‘Did I not say to you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’

The Savior roaring (in spirit) again came to the tomb and said to those standing nearby, “Take off the stone from him”. Martha then said to Christ, “Dear Lord, he stinks because it has been four days since he was buried”. The Savior said to her, “Is it not true I said to you that if you believe, you will see God’s glory?”

Tulerunt ergo lapidem Iesus autem eleuatis sursum oculis dixit Pater gratias ago tibi quoniam audisti me. Ego autem sciebam quia semper me audis sed propter populum qui circumstat dixi ut credant quia tu me misisti.

Hi ahofon þæt hlid þa of þære þryh raðe, and se Hælend cwæð, upahafenum eagum, [95] “Fæder, Ic þancige þe, for ðam ðe þu me gehyrdest; Ic soðlice wat þæt þu me symle gehyrst, ac for ðam folce Ic sæde þe her onbutan stent, þæt hi gelyfon þæt þu me asendest”.

Therefore, they took the stone away. With uplifted eyes, Jesus said: ‘Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this because of the people standing around, that they may believe that you have sent me’.

Then they quickly lifted the cover off the tomb, and the Savior with eyes lifted upwards said, “Father, I thank you because you have heard me. I know truly that you alway hear me, but I spoke on account of the people who stand around here so that they may believe that you sent me”.

Haec cum dixisset uoce magna clamauit Lazare ueni foras. Et statim prodiit qui fuerat mortuus ligatus pedes et manus institis et facies illius sudario erat ligata dicit Iesus eis soluite eum et sinite abire.

Þa þa he þis cwæð, þa clypode he hlude, [100] “Lazare, ueni foras!” “Lazarus, cum hider ut”. And he forð stop sona, se ðe forðfaren wæs, bewunden swa þeah, swa swa hit gewunelic wæs, handum and fotum, and his heafud wæs befangen mid swatclaðe, swa swa he geled wæs. [105] Þa cwæð se Hælend to ðam ymbstandendum, “Tolysað hys bendas, and lætað hine gan”.

237

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice: ‘Lazarus, come forth!’ Immediately, the one who had been dead came out, bound hand and feet with winding bands, and his face was bound with a cloth. Jesus said to them: ‘Unbind him and let him go’.

When he said this, he then cried out loudly, “Lazare ueni foras!” “Lazarus come out here!” And immediately he stepped forth, although bound hand and foot as it was customary, and his head was wrapped with a small cloth just as it had been placed. Then the Savior said to those standing nearby, “Loosen his bonds and let him go”.

Multi ergo ex Iudaeis qui uenerant ad Mariam et [107] And he þa leofode lange syððan, halre uiderant quae fecit crediderunt in eum. þonne he ær wæs, þurh þæs Hælendes mihte. Manega þa eornostlice of þam Iudeiscum [110] þe comon to Marian and Marthan hire swuster and gesawon hu se Hælend heora broþur arærde gelyfdon on hyne for þam liflican tacne. Therefore, many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and seen the things he did, believed in him.

And he (Lazarus) lived a long time afterwards more healthy than he had been before by means of the Savior’s power. Then indeed many of the Jews who came to Mary and Martha her sister and saw how the Savior resurrected their brother believed in him on account of the living sign.

Apart from transitions at the start and end of the passage, Ælfric’s changes are minimal – perhaps because he recognizes the gripping nature of the account, and wants it (at least initially) to stand on its own. His introductory words [line 3] simply note the liturgical setting: the Gospel for the occasion, the Friday after the Fourth Sunday in Lent, Ælfric says, has just been read aloud in Latin [line 3] – though the text naturally would also have been appropriate for devotional reading. His closing sentences, however, expand the biblical source (John 1.45) in a variety of ways. Ælfric suggests that after his resurrection, Lazarus not only lived for a long time, but was ‘halre þonne he ær wæs’ (‘healthier than he had been before’ [line 108]) – perhaps implying not merely an end to illness, but an infusion of health surpassing what Lazarus had normally experienced. Ælfric also specifies that the Jews had come to see not only Mary, but Martha as well [line 110], a point made explicitly in John 11.19. He elaborates, furthermore, on two additional details, explaining that the Jews believe because they saw Jesus raise Lazarus [line 111] (not just quae fecit [‘the things [Jesus] did’]), and they believed in Jesus for þam liflican tacne (‘on account of the living sign’ [line 112]) – that is, Lazarus himself. Finally, not uncharacteristically for Ælfric – see for example notes to Se Læssa Creda (AH II.22), line 3, in the table’s introduction – he refers to Christ not as Iesus (‘Jesus’), eium (‘him’), or even the implied subject of a verb, as here, but as se Hælend (‘the Savior’ [line 111]), a title he uses eighteen times in this section. In between these bracketing sentences, Ælfric sticks closely to the original. He not only follows the narrative overall, but reproduces linguistic constructions and preserves striking details along the way as well. The one who believes in Christ, he says, ‘ne swylt he on ecnysse’ (literally, ‘will not die for eternity’ [line 63], paralleling ‘non morietur in aeternum’ (John 11.26) rather than paraphrasing it (for example) as ‘ne swylt he næfre’ (‘will never die’). Martha alerts her sister of the Lord’s call mid swigan (‘with silence’ [line 68] – perhaps meaning ‘quietly’), corresponding to silentio (John 11.28). He speaks of Jesus grymetende (‘roaring’ or ‘raging’ [lines 79 and 85]) in spirit, directly conveying 238

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) the verb fremens (John 11.33 and 38). He describes Jesus as praying upahafenum eagum (‘with uplifted eyes’ [line 94]), mirroring the ablative phrase eleuatis sursum oculis (John 11.41). And he literally renders the sudarium (‘cloth for wiping off perspiration’ [John 11.44]) covering Lazarus’ eyes as a swatclað (‘handkerchief’ or ‘sweat-cloth’ [line 104]). Other details that Ælfric adds or omits again are slight. He says that it was mid micelre awurðnysse (‘with great honor’ [line 7]) that Mary anointed Jesus’ feet (John 12.3). The sisters sona and mid sarnysse (‘immediately’ and ‘with sorrow’ [line 11]) send for Jesus’ help. In John, Jesus responds audiens (‘when he heard [their request]’ [11.4]). Ælfric condenses ‘Haec ait et post hoc dicit’ (‘These things he spoke, and afterward said’ [John 11.11]) to ‘he eft þa cwæð’ (‘he then said afterward’ [line 31]), only to expand ‘Lazarus … dormit’ (‘Lazarus … sleeps’ [John 11.11]) to ‘Lazarus … liþ nu and slæpð’ (‘Lazarus … now lies and sleeps’ [line 32]). He adds that the disciples forð mid him (‘went with [Jesus]’ [line 44]), and then omits that Jesus inuenit (‘found’ [John 11.17]) that Lazarus had been dead four days. He suggests that Martha addresses Christ ‘sona swa heo geseah þone Hælend’ (‘as soon as she saw the Savior’ [line 53]), while skipping over John’s description of Lazarus’ grave (‘erat autem spelunca et lapis superpositus erat ei’ [‘Now it was a cave, and a stone was laid over it’ [11.38]). Finally, Ælfric states that the Jews raðe (‘quickly’ [line 93]) remove the stone from the tomb, explains that Lazarus had been bound with winding bands ‘swa swa hit gewunelic wæs’ (‘as it was customary’ [line 102]), and stipulates that it is ðam ymbstandendum (‘to those standing nearby’ [line 105]) that Jesus says, ‘Unbind him and let him go’ (John 11.44). Only one detail omitted by Ælfric may arguably be of theological significance in the biblical account: John states that it is because Jesus loves the three siblings that he waits to answer their call for help (‘Diligebat … ut ergo audiuit … mansit’ [‘he loved [them] … Therefore, when he heard … he remained’ (11.5–6, emphasis ours)]). Ælfric may not place undue emphasis on the word, however, because elsewhere in the Lazarus account it serves simply as a transition: having noted that many Jews had come to comfort the sisters, for example, John says that ‘Martha ergo ut audiuit quia Iesus uenit occurrit illi’ (‘Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus had come, ran out to meet him’ [11.20, emphasis ours]). Ælfric treats aspects of Lazarus’ story elsewhere as well. In Primus igitur homo, the earliest example, he affirms that the faith of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in God’s ability to deliver them from the fiery furnace (Daniel 3.17) is fulfilled in Christ’s promise that ‘Qui credit in me, etiamsi mortuus fuerit, uiuet; id est, qui credit in me, etiamsi mortuus fuerit ad tempus in carne, uiuit in anima donec resurgat et caro numquam postea moritura’ (‘“He who believes in me will live, even though he may have died” [John 11.25]; that is, he who believes in me, even though he may have died for a time in the flesh, lives in spirit until the time he rises, and [his] flesh will never die thereafter’).6 In CH I.8, he praises the faith of Martha and Mary in saying that, had Jesus been present, their brother would not have died (John 11.21 and 32).7 In CH I.16, he equates those who hide their sins with Lazarus rotting in the grave, and teachers who forgive the repentant

6 7

Gatch, Preaching and Theology, p. 135, lines 44–6. Clemoes, First Series, p. 246, lines 147–9.

239

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) with Christ saying, ‘Unbind him and let him go’ (John 11.44).8 In CH I.33 (of which more anon), having noted that Lazarus decayed over four days (John 11.17 and 39), he offers this summary of the finale: ‘Drihten þa ða he lazarum stincendne arærde. þa gedrefde he hine sylfne and tearas ageat. and mid micelre stemne clypode. lazare ga forð’ (‘The Lord, when he raised the stinking [body of] Lazarus, was troubled within and shed tears, and with a loud voice called out, “Lazarus, come forth”’ [John 11.17, 33, 35, 39, and 43]).9 In LS I.10 [Skeat I.11], he cites John 11.25 again, with God himself affirming that the one who believes in the Father, Son, and Spirit ‘þeah þe he dead beo, he bið swa þeah cucu’ (‘though he be dead, nevertheless shall live’).10 Finally, in Erat quidam regulus cuius filius infirmabatur Capharnaum, expositing Christ’s healing of the ruler’s son (John 4.46–53), he teaches that the ruler should have believed that Jesus could heal even the dead, ‘Forþan ðe Lazarus læg on burigene feower niht fule þa stincende; ac he forð stop sonæ þa ðe ure Hælend hæt hine forþgan, and he syððan leofede longe mid monnum’ (‘because Lazarus lay buried, foully stinking for four days; but he emerged at once when our Savior commanded him to come forth [John 11.17, 39, and 43–4], and he lived thereafter among people a long time’) – Ælfric’s last comment on Lazarus’ longevity repeating his statement here in line 107.11 Lines 113–61 [Betwux eallum þam wundrum … ne mage swa ðeah næfre]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 114–62. Ælfric’s source for this passage in Augustine’s Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis,12 a work Ælfric seems to have consulted ‘as a matter of course when commenting on John’s Gospel’.13 The practice was one he continued over the course of his career, likely reaching for this source for example in CH I.1, 4, 8, 12, and 17; CH II.3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, and 35; SH II.25, SH I.2, SH I.5, Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), Nisi granum frumenti, Secundum Iohannem, SH I.7, SH I.8, SH I.10, SH I.12, Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8), and SH I.1.14 As with his translation of the biblical account, Ælfric begins by following his source closely.15 He draws directly on the Tractatus to affirm that the raising of Lazarus is thought to be Christ’s most glorious miracle [lines 113–15], that such resurrection was a small thing for the One who creates all people [lines 116–25], that Christ condescended both to make and raise human beings to life [lines 126–7], and that he could raise all the dead and will do so on the Day of Judgment [lines 128–38, quoting John 5.28–916]. Ælfric then makes an observation of his own: Christ repeatedly ‘resurrects’ believers from spiritual death when they repent [lines 139–44]. The transition sets up his next point 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Clemoes, First Series, p. 310, lines 81 (Crist) – 90 (alysdon). Clemoes, First Series, p. 462, lines 100–1, and p. 462, line 117 – p. 463, line 118. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 310, lines 125; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 246, line 125. Irvine, Homilies, p. 22, lines 95–8. For these references, see ‘Records for Source Title Io’. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 317–18, apparatus. Godden, Commentary, p. xlviii. ‘Records for Source Title Tract.euang.Ioan’. For the corresponding quotations from Ælfric’s source, see Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 317–18, apparatus. Pope notes that Ælfric seems to follow the Vulgate directly for his quotation in lines 132–6 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 318, apparatus).

240

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) from Augustine nicely, namely that humans dread and work hard to avoid physical death, but ironically show little care for the health of their soul [lines 145–53]. Elaborating on the matter,17 Ælfric closes this section by emphasizing the coming reality of death, judgment, and eternal punishment for the impenitent [lines 153–61]. On Christ as the ‘ancenneda Sunu þæs ælmihtigan Fæder, þurh þone synd gesceapene ealle gesceafta’ (‘only-begotten Son of the almighty Father, through whom all created things are created’ [lines 119–20]), see De creatore (AH II.14), lines 14, 43–4, and 159–60. Lines 162–71 [We willað secgan eow … his fracodum dædum]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 163–72. While Augustine will later distinguish between inward and external spiritual death through sinful thought and action, respectively,18 Ælfric here sets up his exegesis of the three individuals raised to life by Christ (the ruler’s daughter, the widow’s son, and Lazarus) by describing three kinds of spiritual death: that which comes through evil desires and thoughts, which are hidden [lines 164–5], through the execution of evil plans, done openly [lines 166–7], and through evil habits, which stink of putrefaction [lines 168–72]. The one parallel in Ælfric’s writings to the material that follows is found in CH I.33. This First Series homily treats the Gospel for the day, Christ’s raising of the widow’s son at Nain19 (Luke 7.11–16), while Lazarus I focuses on the resurrection of Lazarus, but both take the opportunity to discuss these scenes alongside the healing of the ruler’s daughter (Matthew 9.18–19 and 23–6), interpreting their deaths in spiritual terms. Indeed, Godden suggests, in Lazarus I Ælfric ‘seems to have been in large part rewriting the earlier material’,20 turning primarily to Augustine’s Tractatus where in CH I.33 he had relied on Bede’s In Lucae Euangelium expositio along with either Smaragdus or Hericus.21 Lines 172–210 [Nu segð us … hys softnyse forleose]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 173–211; Lazarus III, lines 1–26 adapts the material as well. Lazarus I departs from CH I.33 in certain particulars while paralleling it in others. CH I.33 says that the three resurrections in question represent the threefold resurrection of the sinful soul;22 Lazarus I speaks rather about the soul’s threefold death [lines 174–5]. CH I.33 describes this death as evil geþafung (‘consent’), weorc (‘action’), and gewuna (‘habit’);23 Lazarus I uses the terms geþafunge oððe geþohte (‘consent or thought’), fremminge (‘effect’), and gewunan (‘habit’) [lines 176–7]. Both explain the daughter, whose body lies within the ruler’s house, as someone with diegol (‘secret’) 17 18 19 20 21

22 23

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 319, apparatus. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 319, apparatus. Modern-day Nein, or Ναΐν in the Greek of Luke 7.11, is rendered as Naim in the Vulgate and by Ælfric [line 183]. Commentary, p. 276. See Godden, Commentary, p. 276; Godden, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Catholic Homilies 1.33’; Hill, ‘Ælfric and Smaragdus’, pp. 211–14; and Jayatilaka, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Supplementary Homilies 6’. Clemoes, First Series, p. 461, line 80 (þyssera) – 81 (sawla). Clemoes, First Series, p. 461, lines 81–2.

241

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) inward sin on which he has not yet acted.24 Both associate the widow’s son, whom Jesus restores to his mother, with one who sins openly and needs to be restored to the Church through repentance.25 Both affirm that Lazarus, stinking in the grave, corresponds to those habituated to evil.26 Lazarus I, however, ends by lamenting that more are wont wiðmærsian (‘to celebrate’) their wickedness than arisan of þam reocendan meoxe (‘to arise from the reeking dung’) [lines 169 and 208]. After line 210, the additional material in Lazarus II [lines 212–95] commences. Lines 211–36 [Ne sceal nan man … hys endeleasum synnum]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 296–322. Ælfric begins this section, as he does the additional material in Lazarus II, with his thoughts still on his earlier work in CH I.33. In all three cases, having spoken of the threefold death of the sinful soul, he assures his hearers that no one should lose hope [lines 211–12]: no sin is too great that forgiveness may not be attained through penitence.27 Where CH I.33 and Lazarus II go on to reflect on the unforgivable sin and the nature of the Trinity, however (see notes to Lazarus II, lines 212–31, 232–72, and 273–87), Lazarus I considers additional corollaries to the reality of human wickedness: no one should presume (gedyrstlæcan) too much on one’s own virtue [lines 213–14] or despise (forseon) others for their vices [lines 215–16]. The same sentiment, also using the verb gedyrstlæcan, appears in CH I.35: ‘Nu sceal gehwa hine micclum ondrædan, þeah ðe he gode drohtnunge hæbbe, and nateshwon be him sylfum gedyrstlæcan, for þan ðe he nat hwæþer he wyrðe is into þam ecan rice. Ne he ne sceal be oþrum geortruwian, þeah þe he on leahtrum befealle, for þan ðe he nat þa menigfealdan welan godes mildheortnysse’ (‘Now everyone should have reverent fear, even though he may live righteously, and by no means presume on himself, for he does not know whether he is worthy [to enter] the eternal Kingdom. Nor should one despair of another person, even though he may fall into sins, for he does not know the manifold riches of God’s mercy’).28 Hope, Ælfric continues, is warranted on two counts: the sinner may his mandæde behreowsað (‘repent of his sins’ [line 216]) – variants of which phrase also appear in CH I.28,29 CH I.33 (twice),30 and SH II.1931 – and hyne Drihten arærð (‘the Lord [may] raise him up’ [line 217]) – a phrase appearing for example in the Letter for Wulfsige,32 where it translates James 5.15. As an example, he recounts the anointing of Jesus by the sinful woman in Luke 7.36–50 [lines 220–31]. The same episode appears in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8) and the Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10); the latter is the outlier, however, as it closely translates the whole of Luke 7.36–50, while Lazarus I and AH I.8 focus on Luke 7.37–8 and 47–8. The various texts may be compared as follows. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Lazarus I, lines 176–81, at line 177; CH I.33, lines 87 (ðis) –88 (digelice), at line 88 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 462). Lazarus I, lines 182–91; CH I.33, lines 92 (Nu) – 97 (gelaðunge) (Clemoes, First Series, p. 462). Lazarus I, lines 196–201; CH I.33, lines 98–101 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 462). Lazarus II, lines 216–19 and CH I.33, lines 121–3 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 463). Clemoes, First Series, p. 483, lines 214–18. Clemoes, First Series, p. 411, lines 24–5. Clemoes, First Series, p. 462, lines 115–16; and p. 464, lines 150–1. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 630, lines 142–3. Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 214, §88.

242

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) The introductory verse, to begin with, is found only in AH II.10. Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 100–1

Luke 7.36 Rogabat autem illum quidam de Pharisaeis ut manducaret cum illo et ingressus domum Pharisaei discubuit.

Sum Iudeisc Sundorhalga wæs gehaten Simon, se gelaþode þone Hælend to his gereorde and he swa gelaðod þider com.

Now a certain member of the Pharisees was inviting [Jesus] to eat with him, and entering into the Pharisee’s house, he reclined [at the dinner table].

There was a certain Jewish Pharisee named Simon, who invited the Savior to his feast and thus invited he came to that place.

While AH II.10 follows the Vulgate in the main, Ælfric does add various clarifying details: the Pharisees (of whom Ælfric speaks, for example, in Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 3–10) are Iudesic (‘Jewish’); the one who invites Jesus (not named in the biblical account until Luke 7.40) is Simon; and the verb discumbere, describing the Greco-Roman practice of reclining at a table for a meal, is explained by the phrase to his gereorde (‘[he invited him] to his feast’). AH I.3 and 8 join AH II.10 in picking up the story in the next two verses.

Luke 7.37–8 Et ecce mulier quae erat in ciuitate peccatrix ut cognouit quod accubuit in domo Pharisaei adtulit alabastrum unguenti. Et stans retro secus pedes eius lacrimis coepit rigare pedes eius et capillis capitis sui tergebat et osculabatur pedes eius et unguento unguebat.

33

Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 220–9 [= SH I.6, lines 301–1033] Be swilcum we rædað on sumum godspelle, þæt an synful wif wæs swiðe fordon mann, and heo ofaxode þa þæt ure Hælend wæs mid anum Sunderhalgum, se hatte Simon. Þa com þæt wif þyder, and to Criste genealæhte, licgende æt his fotum, gelomlice wepende, and mid hyre tearum hys fet aþwoh, and mid hyre fexe hi forhtlice wipode, and mid deorwurðre sealfe hi syððan smyrode, swa swa hyt gewunelic wæs on Iudeiscre þeode.

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 101–6

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8), lines 436–41

Þa wæs þær on þære byrig Hierusalem sum sinful wif swiþlice forscyldgod on forligere, and heo þa geaxode þæt se Hælend wæs æt þæs Sundorhalgan huse, and brohte þyder hyre sealfbox mid deorwyrþre sealfe, and stod æt þæs Hælendes fortum bewepende hyre synna swa þæt heo aþwoh his fet mid hyre tearum, and mid hyre fexe adrigde, and gelome his fet cyste, and mid þære deorwyrþan sealfe gesmyrede swa swa heora gewuna wæs .

Sum synful wif iu, swa swa þæt godspel us segð, gesohte Cristes fet and mid swiðlicum wope his fet aþwoh and mid hyre fexe wipode and gelome hi cyste licgende æt his fotum, and mid deorwyrðre sealfe syððan smyrode, swa swa hit þeawlic wæs on ðæra þeode.

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 326.

243

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) And behold, a woman who was in the city, a sinner, when she knew that he reclined in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of perfume. And standing behind [him] by his feet, she began to wet his feet with tears and was wiping them with the hair of her head and was kissing his feet and was anointing them with the ointment.

Concerning such, we read in one Gospel that there was a sinful woman who was very immoral, and when she discovered our Savior was with a certain Pharisee called Simon, she went there and drew near to Christ; and she lay at his feet and wept without ceasing. She washed his feet with her tears, and she wiped them with her hair, trembling. And then she anointed them with precious ointment, as was customary among the Jewish people.

At that time there was in the city of Jerusalem a certain sinful woman made very guilty by means of adultery, and she then discovered that the Savior was at the Pharisee’s house, and brought her box of ointment with [its] precious salve to that place, and stood at the Savior’s feet weeping over her sin so that she washed his feet with her tears, and dried [them] with her hair, and constantly kissed his feet, and anointed [them] with the precious ointment as was their custom .

A certain sinful woman of old, just as the Gospel says to us, sought Christ’s feet and with much weeping washed his feet and wiped them with her hair and kissed them repeatedly lying at his feet and afterwards anointed [them] with a precious ointment, as was customary among that nation.

A number of details are common to all these accounts. The repentant person is a wynful wif (‘sinful woman’, translating the Vulgate’s mulier peccatrix). Weeping (wepende / bewepende / mid wope), she lies or stands near Jesus’ feet (reflecting the Vulgate’s stans retro secus pedes eius [‘standing behind [him], by his feet’]). Having hys fet aþwoh (‘washed his feet’) with her tears and mid hyre fexe wipode or adrigde (‘wiped [or “dried” them] with her hair’), she mid deorwurðre sealfe [hi] smyrode (‘with the precious ointment anointed [them]’), even as was customary (swa swa hyt gewunelic wæs / heora gewuna wæs / þeawlic wæs) among the Jews. And no mention is made of reclining at the table (accumbere; see comments on discumbere above). A few other details are shared by but two of these texts. Lazarus I and AH II.10 (earlier in the passage) identify the setting as the home of Simon the Pharisee. AH I.8 and AH II.10 add that the woman gelome [hys fet] cyste [‘frequently kissed [his feet]’]. Lazarus I and AH II.10 (later in the passage) describe the woman as acting forhtlice (‘timidly’ or ‘tremblingly’). And Lazarus I and AH I.8 omit the Vulgate’s reference to the alabaster (‘a box for unguents or perfumes’), which appears in Ælfric’s Second Latin Letter for Wulfstan.34 In AH II.10, moreover, one finds further additions still: Ælfric suggests that the synful wif is guilty on forligere (‘of sexual immorality’) – a detail possibly implied but not explicit in the text – and affirms that the woman kisses Jesus’ feet gelome (‘frequently’), a description consonant with Christ’s later statement that ‘ex quo intrauit non cessauit osculari pedes meos’ (‘from the time she entered, she has not stopped kissing my feet’ [Luke 7.45]). In the main, however, none of the vernacular versions veer too far from the biblical story. 34

§§44 and 48 (Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 62 and 63). The referent may be slightly different, however, as Ælfric translates it as husel box (‘container for the Eucharist’) in his Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan §86 (Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 178).

244

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) The next few verses appear only in AH II.10. Luke 7.39–46

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 106–20

Videns autem Pharisaeus qui uocauerat eum ait intra se dicens, ‘Hic si esset propheta sciret utique quae et qualis mulier quae tangit eum, quia peccatrix est’. Et respondens Iesus dixit ad illum, ‘Simon, habeo tibi aliquid dicere’. At ille ait, ‘Magister, dic’. ‘Duo debitores erant cuidam feneratori: unus debebat denarios quingentos; alius quinquaginta. Non habentibus illis unde redderent, donauit utrisque. Quis ergo eum plus diliget?’ Respondens Simon dixit, ‘Aestimo quia is cui plus donauit’. At ille dixit ei, ‘Recte iudicasti’. Et conversus ad mulierem dixit Simoni, ‘Vides hanc mulierem? Intraui in domum tuam. Aquam pedibus meis non dedisti haec autem lacrimis rigauit pedes meos et capillis suis tersit. Osculum mihi non dedisti haec autem ex quo intrauit non cessauit osculari pedes meos. Oleo caput meum non unxisti haec autem unguento unxit pedes meos.

‘Þa geseah se Sundorhalga þæt þe hine gelaþode and cwæþ on his geþance þus, “Gif þes lareow witiga wære, þonne wiste he to soþan hwylc and hu sinful þæt wif is þæt hine hrepað”. Se Hælend þa andwyrde his geþance þus cweðende, “Simon, Ic hæbbe þe sum þing to secgenne”. And he cwæð, “La leof lareow, sege”. Se Hældend cwæð him to, “Twegen gafolgylderas wæron feoh scyldige sumum massere, se an him sceolde fifhund penega and se oðer fiftig. Þa næfde heora naþor þone andfeng þæt hi him þæt feoh forguldon, and he þa mildheortlice him bam þæt feoh forgeaf. Hwæt þincð þe nu, Simon, hwæþer heora lufode hine swiþor?” Þa andwyrde Simon and cwæð, “Ic wene þæt se hine lufode swiðor þam þe he mare forgeaf.” Him andwyrde se Hælend and cwæð, “Rihtlice þu demdest.” He beseah þa to þam wife and cwæð to Simone, “Simon, gesyhst þu þis wif? Ic com into þinum huse, and þu ne bude me furþon to minum fotum wæter, and þis wif aþwoh mine fet forhtlice mid hire tearum and mid hire fexe drigde. Þu noldest me cyssan, and þis wif, syþþan heo in com, ne geswac mine fet to cyssanne. Þu ne smyredest min heafod mid ele, and heo smyrede mine fet mid deorwurðre sealfe”’.

But the Pharisee who had invited him, on seeing [this], thought [lit. “said”] to himself, saying, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would assuredly know who and what sort of woman this is that is touching him – that she is a sinner’. And Jesus answered and said to him: ‘Simon, I have something to say to you’. And he said, ‘Teacher, speak’. ‘A certain money-lender had two debtors: the one owed five hundred denarii; the other [owed] fifty. Since they could not repay [him], he forgave the debt of both. Which of them therefore will love him more?’ Answering, Simon said, ‘I suppose the one to whom he forgave more’. And he said to him, ‘You have judged rightly’. And turning to the woman, he said to Simon, ‘Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me water for my feet, but this woman wet my feet with tears and wiped [them] with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, since she came in, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not anoint my head, but this woman with perfume anointed my feet’.

‘Then the Pharisee who had invited him saw that and said thus in his thoughts, “If this teacher were a prophet, then he would truly know what sort of woman and how sinful she is who touches him”. The Savior then replied to his thought, saying thus, “Simon, I have something to say to you”. And he said, “Dear teacher, speak”. The Savior said to him, “Two tribute-payers owed money to a certain merchant: the one owed him five hundred pennies and the other fifty. At that time neither of them had the means to repay him the money, and he then mercifully forgave both of them the debt. Now what do you think, Simon, which of them loved him more?” Then Simon answered and said, “I think that he loved him more whom he forgave more”. The Savior answered him and said, “You have judged correctly”. He then looked at the woman and said to Simon, “Simon, do you see this woman? I came into your house, and you did not even offer water for my feet, and this woman timidly washed my feet with her tears and dried [them] with her hair. You did not desire to kiss me, and this woman, after she came in, did not cease to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, and she anointed my feet with precious ointment”’.

245

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Again, Ælfric keeps fairly close to his biblical source, but adds certain details along the way. Sometimes, he spells out what is implied: Jesus answers Simon’s geþance (‘thought’ – here, his unspoken objection), that which is forgiven the debtors is þæt feoh (‘the debt’), and Simon fails in his duties as host by not anointing Jesus mid ele (‘with oil’). Other details, however, do not just clarify but color the text: Simon calls Jesus not simply magister (‘teacher’) but perhaps more hypocritically leof lareow (‘dear teacher’); the money-lender forgives the debt midlheortlice (‘mercifully’35); the woman washes Jesus’ feet forhtlice (‘tremblingly’); and Jesus states that Simon not only did not receive him with a kiss, but nold[e] (‘did not want [to do so]’). With the next two verses, AH I.3 and 8 come back into play, bringing greater theological complexity with them.

Luke 7.47–8

Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 230–1 [= SH I.6, lines 311–1236]

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 122–5

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8), lines 442–5

‘Propter quod dico tibi remittentur ei peccata multa quoniam dilexit multum. Cui autem minus dimittitur minus diligit’. Dixit autem ad illam, ‘Remittuntur tibi peccata’.

Þa cwæð se Hælend be hyre þæt hyre wæron forgyfene manega synna for ðam þe heo micclum lufode.

‘“Forþi Ic secge þe þæt hyre menifealdan synna beoð hyre forgifene for þan þe heo swa swyþe me lufode. Þam þe bið læs synna forgifen se lufað hwonlicor”. Ða cwæþ se Hælend to þam wife, “Þe synd þine synna forgifene”’.

And se Hælend sona hyre synna forgeaf, manega and micele, and hyre milde ða wæs. And hit segð on þam godspelle, þæt heo hine swiðe lufode for ðan ðe heo hæfde hyre synna forgyfennysse.

‘Therefore I say to you, many sins will be forgiven her, because because she loved much. But the one to whom less is forgiven, loves less’. He said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’.

Then the Savior said about her that her many sins were forgiven because she loved much.

‘“Therefore I say to you that her numerous sins have been forgiven because she loved me so greatly. To him who has been forgiven fewer sins, he will love less”. Then the Savior said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven”’.

And the Savior immediately forgave her sins, many and great, and was kind to her then. And it says in the Gospel that she loved him greatly, because she had forgiveness of her sins.

If in general the vernacular texts are fairly similar, in one respect at least they are markedly different: their treatment of Luke 7.47. The Vulgate reads as follows: ‘Propter quod dico tibi remittentur ei peccata multa quoniam dilexit multum’ (‘For this reason, I say to you: many sins will be forgiven her, because she loved much’). The issue at hand is whether human love precedes and prompts divine forgiveness or whether the sinner’s love is a response to God’s unmerited grace – the difference in nuance being of considerable theological importance. The future passive form of remittentur combined with the perfect active dilexit would seem to suggest the former: the woman’s sins 35 36

Perhaps echoing misertus in the comparable story in Matthew 18.27. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 326.

246

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) ‘will be forgiven’ because ‘she loved’. Such a notion, however, is problematized by the parable Christ tells immediately before, in which the debtors do nothing to earn the money-lender’s mercy: forgiveness there is manifestly gratuitous. The degree of forgiveness, moreover, prompts the measure of love in response: the one who has been forgiven more loves more, and vice versa. In the Greek, the matter may be clearer, as the text moves from a perfect passive (her sins ἀφέωνται [‘have been forgiven’]) to an aorist active (ἠγάπησεν [‘she loved’]). Since the Greek perfect ‘emphasizes the present and continuing consequences of a past action’, where the aorist ‘denote[s] a simple or punctiliar action in the past’,37 the former may be said to occur before the latter: as Kenneth Bailey puts it, ‘“her many sins have already been forgiven for she loved much”’.38 ὅτι, moreover, translated in the Vulgate by quoniam (‘because’), may here be ‘added to a speaker’s words to show what ground he gives for his opinion’.39 Christ’s statement might then read: ‘οὗ χάριν λέγω σοι ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ’ (‘For this reason I say to you her many sins have been forgiven – [the reason being] because she loved much’). But Ælfric only had access to the Latin, not the Greek. How then does he handle the tension between Christ’s parable and the future passive form of remittentur? Fascinatingly, he translates the verse differently on different occasions. In Lazarus I, the emphasis appears to be on human merit: ‘Þa cwæð se Hælend be hyre þæt hyre wæron forgyfene manega synna, for ðam þe heo micclum lufode’ (‘Then the Savior said about her that her many sins had been forgiven because she loved him greatly’). AH II.10 seems to side with Lazarus I: ‘Forþi Ic secge þe þæt hyre menifealdan synna beoð hyre forgifene, forþan þe heo swa swyþe me lufode’ (‘For this reason, I say to you: her manifold sins are forgiven her, because she loved me exceedingly’). In AH I.8, however, he reverses the order of the phrases, so that grace is depicted as the cause of her love: ‘And hit segð on þam godspelle, þæt heo hine swiðe lufode, for ðan ðe heo hæfde hyre synna forgyfennysse’ (‘It says in the Gospel that she loved exceedingly because she had forgiveness for her sins’). To complicate matters further, the phrase Ælfric uses in each case – for ðam [or ðan] þe – is itself not without ambiguity, as it could be rendered either ‘because’ or ‘therefore’:40 ‘she is forgiven because she loved much’, or ‘she is forgiven; therefore she loved much’. Given the dual emphasis on grace and merit in Ælfric’s works,41 both translations in his mind may have been appropriate. Finally, there are the closing verses of the passage, found only in AH II.10.

37 38 39 40 41

Miller, Salvation-History, p. 81; see also Blass et al., Greek Grammar, pp. 175–6, §§340 and 342; and Zerwick, Biblical Greek, pp. 96–7, §§285–9. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, p. 257 n. 40. Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon, p. 460) cites Luke 7.47 as an example of this use of ὅτι. Bosworth and Toller, Dictionary, p. 320; and Bosworth, et al., ‘for-ðon’ [1] and ‘for-ðon’ [2]. See the index to Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 411 and 414.

247

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Luke 7.49–50

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 123–5

Et coeperunt qui simul accumbebant dicere intra se, ‘Quis est hic qui etiam peccata dimittit?’ Dixit autem ad mulierem, ‘Fides tua te saluam fecit; uade in pace’.

And þa ymbsittendan sona þus cwædon, “Hwæt is þes þe eac swylce synna forgifð?” Se Hælend cwæð þa git to þam wife, “Þin geleafa þe gehælde; gang þe nu on sibbe.”

And those who were reclining together began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this who also forgives sins?’ And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace’.

‘And those sitting round immediately spoke thus, “Who is this who also forgives sins in this way?” The Savior then still spoke to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go now in peace”’.

Once again, Ælfric adds both clarifying and intensifying details. On the one hand, he refers to þa ymbsittendan (‘those sitting around’) rather than qui simul accumbebant (‘those who were reclining together’; see notes on accumbere and discumbere above). On the other hand, the banquet guests react sona (‘immediately’) and Jesus bids the woman go nu (‘now’). The core of the account, however – the reaction of others to Christ’s affirmation of forgiveness, seen elsewhere in his healing of the paralytic (Matthew 9.2–3), and his assurance that ‘your faith has saved [or “healed”] you’, seen for example in Mark’s version of the blind man outside Jericho (Mark 10.52; cf. Matthew 9.22, Luke 17.19, and Luke 18.42) – remains the same. A final comment on Luke 7.47, ‘her many sins were forgiven because she loved much,’ closes out this section of Lazarus I. In contrast to se mann þe ortruwað (‘the person who loses faith’ [AH I.3, line 233]), Ælfric enjoins that ne ortruwige nan man (‘no one should despair’) over the extent of his sins, as long as he repents and turns from them – language also found in CH II.942 and CH II.19.43 In CH II.19, Ælfric also goes on to state: ‘Ortruwige se ana ðe endeleaslice syngað’ (‘Let him alone despair who sins without ceasing’) – a phrase also used in line 232 – ‘and ær his endenextan dæge dædbote ne gewyrcð’ (‘and does not make atonement before his last day’) – a teaching parallel to lines 232–4. This, then, is the unforgivable sin: perseverance in unrepentance that leads to ecan deaðe (‘eternal death’ [line 236], a term Ælfric uses in his works twenty times). Lines 237–46 [Be þrym deadum … on hys andweardnysse]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 323–32; from it are adapted Lazarus III, lines 101–10. As he concludes his treatment of the three individuals returned by Jesus to life, Ælfric considers a question implicit in the First Series, and apparently raised by Ælfric’s own research: didn’t Jesus resurrect more people than this? As Ælfric says in CH I.33: ‘We rædað gehwær on bocum þæt se hælend fela deade to life arærde. ac þeahhwæþere nis nan godspel geset be heora nanum buton þrim anum’ (‘We read everywhere in books that the Savior raised many dead persons to life, but nonetheless there is no Gospel account of any of them save three alone’).44 For his answer in lines 237–42, Ælfric likely has in 42 43

44

Godden, Second Series, p. 76, line 136. Godden, Second Series, p. 181, line 54. See also CH I.15, where Ælfric uses similar language to affirm that no one should doubt the coming resurrection of the dead (Clemoes, First Series, p. 304, line 140). Clemoes, First Series, p. 461, lines 76–8.

248

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) mind two notes with which John closes his Gospel. First, at the end of his penultimate chapter, he says: ‘Multa quidem et alia signa fecit Iesus in conspectu discipulorum suorum quae non sunt scripta in libro hoc, haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis quia Iesus est Christus Filius Dei et ut credentes uitam habeatis in nomine eius’ (‘Jesus assuredly did many other miracles in the sight of his disciples that are not written in this book, but these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name’ [John 20.30–1]). Finally, he ends his last chapter with these parting words: ‘Sunt autem et alia multa quae fecit Iesus, quae si scribantur per singula, nec ipsum arbitror mundum capere eos qui scribendi sunt libros’ (‘Now there are also many other things which Jesus did. If every one were written down, I reckon the world itself would not be able to hold the books that would be written’ [John 21.25]). For the biblical basis for Ælfric’s attribution of the saints’ miracles ultimately to Jesus, see for example Jesus’ words in John 14.12–14 and Peter’s example in Acts 4.8–10. Lines 247–85 [Þa geswustra cyddon Criste … þam yfelan deaðe]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 333–71. Returning to his main account, the raising of Lazarus, Ælfric recaps highlights from the story: Mary and Martha call for Jesus’ help [lines 247–8; John 11.3], Jesus waits for Lazarus to die before coming [lines 248–50; John 11.6–7], the disciples protest because of the danger [lines 253–5; John 11.8], Jesus nonetheless goes to Bethany [line 256; John 11.17], he observes that those who walk in the light do not stumble [lines 262–4; John 11.9–10], and he assures Martha that those who believe in him, the resurrection and the life, will live [lines 274–8 and 283–4; John 11.25–6]. In the process, Ælfric interweaves various pieces of commentary: He explains that Jesus waits for Lazarus to die his mihta geswutelian (‘to manifest his [miraculous] powers’ [line 252]); the observation is in keeping with Christ’s words to Martha: ‘nonne dixi tibi quoniam si credideris uidebis gloriam Dei’ (‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ [John 11.40]). He also highlights Jesus’ determination to go toward Jerusalem (and ultimately to his death) to underscore one of his favorite theological points: that Jesus’ suffering and redemptive work was sylfwille (‘voluntary’ [line 259]) – a term he uses in this regard nearly twenty times. Furthermore, he articulates the parallelism inherent in the Cross: by his death, Christ alysde (‘freed’) believers from death [lines 259–61]. Ælfric speaks of Christ dying for humanity’s redemption (sweltan + alysan) in CH I.32,45 of Christ’s death freeing humankind (deað + alysan) over thirty times, and of Christ freeing believers from death (deað + alysan) nearly twenty times. Continuing his commentary, Ælfric picks up on Jesus’ ‘I am’ claim in the narrative (‘Ego sum resurrectio et uita’ [‘I am the resurrection and the life’] (Luke 11.25, translated in line 275)]), and associates it in lines 279–82 with another one: ‘Ego sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus Iacob’ (‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’ [Matthew 22.32]). (In the Gospel narrative, Jesus is quoting Exodus 3.6 to make a point about the divine nature, but by juxtaposing the verses, Ælfric applies the verse directly to Christ himself – a connection he would have found for example in Alcuin, 45

Clemoes, First Series, p. 453, line 76.

249

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) Expositio 27,46 or Haymo, Homiliae de tempore 54.47) This instance is one of a number of occasions where Ælfric treats ‘I am’ claims: • • • • • •

‘Ego sum pastor bonus’ (‘I am the good shepherd’ [John 10.11]) in CH I.17;48 ‘[Antequam Abraham fieret] ego sum’ (‘[Before Abraham existed], I am’ [John 8.58]) in CH II.13;49 ‘[Ego sum] principium quia et loquor uobis’ (‘[I am] the beginning who speaks to you’ [John 8.25]) in LS I.1;50 ‘Ego sum lux mundi’ (‘I am the light of the world’ [John 8.12]) in SH I.1;51 ‘Ego sum uia et ueritas et uita’ (‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ [John 14.6]) in De duodecim abusiuis52 and in SH I.153 and De octo uitiis;54 and ‘Ego sum panis uiuus qui de caelo descendi’ (‘I am the living bread that came down from heaven’ [John 6.51]) in In natali Domini (AH I.2).55

See also the Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan for a treatment of the divine affirmation in Exodus 20.2 that ‘Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus’ (‘I am the Lord your God’ [Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 190–1, §122]); and LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] for that in Revelation 1.8: ‘Ego sum Alpha et Omega’ (‘I am the Alpha and Omega’).56 Ælfric describes the sinner’s death as yfel (‘evil’ or ‘wretched’) a dozen or so times [including lines 261 and 285 here], though he also notes in LS II.11 [Skeat I.12] that the penitent will be saved from such an end.57 Lines 286–92 [We ne durran … a to worulde, Amen]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 372–8. Ælfric’s sensitivity to the limitations of his audience [lines 286–8] is well known, and may be seen for example in his First Series preface,58 CH I.5,59 Second Series preface,60

46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

PL 100.990A. For Ælfric’s knowledge of this work, see Godden, Commentary, p. xlvi. PL 118.318D–319A. For Ælfric’s knowledge of this work, see Godden, Commentary, pp. liv–lv; and Smetana, ‘Early Medieval Homiliary’ and ‘Haymo’. Clemoes, First Series, p. 313, lines 2 and 4. Godden, Second Series, p. 134, lines 219–20. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §2, lines 6–7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, lines 10–11. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 209, lines 289–90. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 136, lines 172–3. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 216, lines 462–3. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 176, lines 261–2. Line 177. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 88, §1, line 1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 336, header. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 12, §9, lines 3–6, at line 5; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 272, lines 154–7, at line 156. Clemoes, First Series, p. 173, lines 8 [Ideoque] – 10 [suarum] and 29 [ut non fiat tedium auscultantibus]. Clemoes, First Series, p. 223, line 183. Godden, Second Series, p. 2, line 35 [ic ðohte … to gehyrenne].

250

Commentary: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (Lazarus I) CH II.5,61 CH II.11,62 CH II.25,63 preface to the Lives of Saints,64 and preface to the Letter to the Monks of Eynsham.65 The concluding prayer for Christ to raise believers’ souls from sins may be unique to this homily, reflecting as it does its specific concerns – though Ælfric does affirm Christ’s power ða sawla aræran (‘to raise souls’) at the opening of his added material in Lazarus II, lines 212–13. His final formula, however (‘þam si wuldor and lof a to worulde’ [‘to [Christ] be glory and praise forever’ (line 292)]), is an Ælfrician commonplace, being used on twelve other occasions at the close of homilies or major homiletic sections.

61 62 63 64 65

Godden, Second Series, p. 42, line 36 [þæt hit … þam heorcnigendum]. Godden, Second Series, p. 100, lines 283–5. Godden, Second Series, p. 234, lines 138–9. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 2, §2, lines 1 [Nec] – 4 [Christi], and p. 4, §3, lines 6 [ne fastidiosis] – 7 [Latina]; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 2, lines 9–12, and p. 4, lines 26–8. Jones, Ælfric’s Letter, p. 110, §1 [Fateor … narranti].

251

lazarus ii

LAZARUS II [Feria vi in quarta ebdomada quadragesima] Þis [spel gebyrað on þone feorþan frigedæg on Lencten. Euangelium: Erat quidam longuens Lazarus, ]. 5

10

On þam halgan [godspelle þe ge gehyrdon nu rædan], [us] segð be Lazare þe seoc læg [þa] he wæs [on Bethania wic wunigende] þa, and wæs Marthan broþor and [Marian soðlice], [and þæt] wæs seo Maria þe mid micelre [arwurþnysse mid deorwurðre] sealfe urne Drihten smyrode and mid [hyre fexe] his fet wipode. Text from: H London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v, fols 250r – 254v [ending imperfectly at leofaþ (line 362)] (s. x/xi, SW England). Readings from H, lines 1–211 and 296–378, are reported in the apparatus to Lazarus I. Variants reported and missing text supplied from: F for lines 1–211 and 296–378, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, pp. 274–84 (s. xex or xiin, SE England, probably Canterbury or Rochester, perhaps St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury) [edited above as Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 1–210 and 211–92] B for lines 212–87, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343, fols 166v–167v (s. xii2) [edited below as Lazarus III (AH I.3), lines 27–100] P1 for lines 288–95, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, fol. 59r (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester) [edited below as De cogitatione (AH II.18), lines 1–8] Due to damage to H, square brackets may enclose whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. The siglum H followed by a siglum in square brackets (e.g., H[F]) indicates that letters not enclosed in square brackets are reported from H and that enclosed letters are supplied from the manuscript specified. 1 [Feria…quadragesima]] as supplied by Ker §220.66  2–3 [spel…Lazarus]] spe[l gebyrað on þone feorþan frigedæg on Lencten. Euangelium]: Erat quid[am longuens Lazarus ] H as supplemented by Ker §220.66 with ‘et reliqua’ replacing Ker’s ‘…’; Erat quidam languens lazarus, et reliqua F  4 [godspelle þe ge gehyrdon nu rædan]] god[spelle þe ge gehyrdon nu rædan] H[F]  5 [us]] no reading H; as F  6 [þa] no reading H; as F [on Bethania wic wunigende]] o[n Bethania wic wuni]gende H[F]  7 [Marian soðlice]] Ma[rian soðlice] H[F]  8 [and þæt]] no reading H; as F  8–9 [arwurþnysse mid deorwurðre]] arwurþny[sse mid deor]wurðre H[F]  10 [hyre fexe]] no reading H; as F

254

LAZARUS II Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent This sermon pertains to the fourth Friday in Lent. The Gospel: ‘There was a certain sick man Lazarus’, and so on.1 5

10

In the holy Gospel that you have now heard read, it tells us about Lazarus, who lay sick when he was living at the time in the town of Bethania, and [who] was actually the brother of Martha and Mary, and that was the Mary who with much honor anointed our Lord with precious salve and wiped his feet with her hair.

1

John 11.1: ‘Erat autem quidem languens, Lazarus, a Bethania, de castello Mariae et Marthae, sororis eius’ (‘Now there was a certain man sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, of the town of Mary and Martha her sister’). Lines 1–113 closely follow verses 1–45, which are quoted in the commentary.

255

Text: Lazarus II

15

20

25

30

35

40

‘Þa þa he seoc læg, þa sendon [his geswustra] to þam Hælende sona, secgende mid sarnysse, “[La leof] Hlaford, þone þe þu lufast is nu geuntrumo[d]”. [He him] andwyrde and cwæð, “Nis þeos untrumnys na [to deaðe], ac for Godes wuldre þæt Godes Sunu sy [gewuldrod þurh] hine”. Se Hælend lufode soþlice Marthan [and Marian] hyre swuster and Lazarum heora broþor, [and þa þa he geaxode] be him þæt he geuntrumod wæs, þa [wunode he twegen] dagas on þære ylcan stowe, and æfter [þam cwæð to his] leorningcnihtum, “Uton faran nu [eft to Iudea] lande”. Þa cwædon his leorningcni[htas], “[La, leof lareow], /nu\ for feawum dagum sohton þa [Iudeiscan þe to stænenge], and þu eft nu wylt þyder ongean f[aran]?” [And he him] andwyrde, “La hu næfð se dæg twelf [tida on him]? [And se] þe gæþ on dæg, se ne ætspyrnþ na for [þam ðe he gesicð] ðises middaneardes leoht. Se þe [gæð on niht, se soðlice] ætspyrnð for þan þe leoht nis on him”. [And he eft] þa cwæþ, “Lazarus ure freond lið nu and [slæpð, ac Ic wille] færan þyder þæt Ic hine awrecce”. Þa [cwæðon hys discipuli, | “Drihten, gyf he slæpð, he byð gehealden”. And se Hælend sæde be Lazares deaðe þe læg þa forðfaren. Hi wendon soþlice þæt he be slæpe sæde. He cwæð þa openlice oðre word him to, “Lazarus is forðfaren], and Ic for eow blissige, þæt ge [gelyfon for ðam þe] Ic næs þær. Ac uton faran to him”. And [Thomas cwæð þa], [þ]æs tonama wæs Didimus, to his geferum, “[Uton we eac] faran, þæt we swelton mid him”. 11 [his geswustra]] h[is geswustra] H[F]  13 [La leof]] no reading H; as F  14 [He him]] no reading H; as F  15 [to deaðe]] t[o deaðe] H[F]  17 [gewuldrod þurh]] gewuldro[d þurh] H[F]  18 [and Marian]] no reading H; as F  19 [and þa þa he geaxode]] [and þa þa he ge]axode H[F]  20–1 [wunode he twegen]] [wunode he twe]gen H[F]  22 [þam cwæð to his]] no reading H; as F  23 [eft to Iudea]] e[ft to Iudea] H[F]  24 leorningcni[htas]] leorningcnihtas F [La, leof lareow]] [La, leof lar]eow H[F]   25–6 [Iudeiscan þe to stænenge]] Iu[deiscan þe to stæ]nenge H[F]  27 f[aran]] faran F [And he him]] no reading H; as F  28 [tida on him]] tid[a on him] H[F]  29 [And se]] no reading H; as F  30 [þam ðe he gesicð] þa[m ðe he gesicð] H[F]  31 [gæð on niht se soðlice]] gæ[ð on niht, se soð]lice H[F]  32 [And he eft]] no reading H; as F  33–4 [slæpð ac Ic wille]] sl[æpð ac Ic wille] H[F]  35–40 [cwæðon… forðfaren]] [cwæðon hys discipuli, Drihten, gyf he slæpð, he byð gehealden. And se Hælend sæde be Lazares deaðe þe læg þa forðfaren. Hi wendon soþli]ce [þæt he be slæpe sæde. He cwæð þa openl]ice oðre word him [to, Lazarus is forðfaren] H[F]  41 [gelyfon for ðam þe]] ge[lyfon for ðam þe] H[F]  42 [Thomas cwæð þa]] Tho[mas cwæð þa] H[F]  43 [þ]æs] þæs F  44 [Uton we eac]] [uton we e]ac H[F] 

256

250v

Text: Lazarus II

15

20

25

30

35

40

‘When he lay sick, his sisters then immediately sent a message to the Savior, saying with sorrow, “O dear Lord, he whom you have loved is now ill”. He replied to them and said, “This illness is not unto death but for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it”. The Savior truly loved Martha and Mary her sister and Lazarus their brother, and when he learned from them that he was sick, he then remained two days in the same place and later said to his disciples, “Let us go now again to the land of the Jews”. Then his disciples said, “O dear teacher, for a few days now the Jews sought to stone you, and you now desire to go back again to that place?” And he answered them, “Does not the day have twelve hours in it? And he who walks during the day does not stumble at all because he sees the light of this world. He who walks during the night certainly stumbles because the light is not in him”. And he then said in turn, “Lazarus our friend now lies down and sleeps, but I desire to go to that place to wake him”. Then his disciples said, “Lord, if he is sleeping, he will be preserved”. And yet the Savior spoke about the death of Lazarus who at that time lay dead. They in fact believed that he spoke about sleep. He then plainly spoke another word to them, “Lazarus is dead, and I am glad for you so that you may believe because I was not there. But let us go to him”. And then Thomas, whose surname was Didimus, said to his companions, “Let us go too so that we may die with him”.

257

Text: Lazarus II 45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Se Hælend þa [ferde, and hi] forð mid him and comon on þone feorþan dæg [þæs þe he bebyrged] wæs to Bethanian wic þær he [bebyrged wæs] [þ]anon wæron to Hierusalem fiftyne furlang. [Manega] þa comon of þam Iudeiscum to Marthan and Marian, [and mid him] wæron þæt hi hi gefrefrodon for heora [broður deaðe]. Martha þa gehyrde þæt se Hælend wæs cumen [and eode him togeanes], and Maria sæt æt ham. Þa cwæþ [Martha sona swa] heo geseah þone Hælend, “Hlaford, gif þu [her wære, nære] min broþor dead. Ac Ic swa þeah wat þæt [God þe getiþað swa hwæs] swa þu hine bitst”. And se Hælend cwæþ, “[Þin broþur arist]”. And Martha him cwæþ to, “Ic wat þæt he arist [on þam æriste on þam] endenextan dæge”. Hyre andwyrde [se Hælend, “Ic eom] ærist and lif. Se þe gelyfð on me, þeah þe [he dead si, he leofaþ] swa þeah; and ælc þæra þe leofaþ and on [me gelyfð, ne swylt] he on ecnysse. Gelyfst þu þis, Martha?” [Heo andwyrde and] cwæþ, “Witodlice, Hlaford, Ic gelyfe þæt þu [eart Crist, Godes Sunu], þe on þisne middaneard to [mannum come]”. H[e]o eode þa sona, syþþan heo þis cwæð, and [clypode hyre swuster] mid swigan cweþende, “Se lareow is | her, [and he þe clypað]”. [Heo aras þa sona and eode to him, and se Hælend þa git wæs on þære ylcan stowe þær Martha him spræc to oð þæt Maria com]. [Þa eodon þa Iudei æfter Marian for þan] þe hi gesagon þæt heo swa hraþe [aras and cwædon þæt heo wolde wepan] æt þære byrigene. Maria þa sona [swa heo þone Hælend] geseah, 45 [ferde and hi]] [ferde, and h]i H[F]  46 [þæs þe he bebyrged]] [þæs þe he b]ebyrged H[F]  47 [bebyrged wæs]] bebyr[ged wæs] H[F]  48 [þ]anon] þanon F  49 [Manega]] no reading H; as F  50 [and mid him]] [and mid hi]m H[F]  51 [broður deaðe]] bro[ður deað]e H[F]  53 [and eode him togeanes]] [and eode him to]geanes H[F]  54 [Martha sona swa]] Mar[tha sona swa] H[F]  55 [her wære, nære]] no reading H; as F  56–7 [God þe getiþað swa hwæs]] [God þe getiþað swa h]wæs H[F]  58 [Þin broþur arist]] no reading H; as F   59–60 [on þam æriste on þam]] [on þam æriste on þ]am H[F]  60–1 [se Hælend Ic eom]] [se hælend ic eo]m H[F]  62 [he dead si, he leofaþ]] [he dead si he leof]aþ H[F]  63–4 [me gelyfð ne swylt]] [me gelyfð ne swy]lt H[F]  65 [Heo andwyrde and]] no reading H; as F  66 [eart Crist, Godes Sunu]] no reading H; as F  67 [mannum come]] man[num come] H[F]   68 H[e]o] hoe F  69 [clypode hyre swuster]] cly[pode hyre swust]er H[F]  70 [and he þe clypað]] [and] he þe cl[ypað] H[F]  71–3 [Heo aras…Maria com]] [heo aras þa sona and eode to him, and se hælend] þa git [wæs o]n þære [ylcan stowe þær martha him spræc to] oð þæ[t] maria com H[F]  74–5 [Þa eodon þa Iudei æfter Marian for þan]] Þ[a eodon þa Iudei æfter Marian for þan] H[F]  75–6 [aras and cwædon þæt heo wolde wepan]] ar[as and cwædon þæt heo wolde wep]an H[F]  77 [swa heo þone Hælend]] sw[a heo þone Hælend] H[F] 

258

251r

Text: Lazarus II 45

50

55

60

65

70

75

The Savior then set out, and they [set] forth with him and arrived on the fourth day after [Lazarus] was buried in the town of Bethania where he was buried (from there it was fifteen furlongs to Jerusalem). Many of the Jewish people came to Martha and Mary and were with them to comfort them on account of their brother’s death. Martha then heard that the Savior had arrived and went to him, and Mary stayed at home. Then Martha, as soon as she saw the Savior, said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead. But I know nevertheless that God will grant you whatever you ask him”. And the Savior said, “Your brother will rise”. And Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise at the resurrection on the last day”. The Savior replied to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he be dead, will yet live; and each one of those who lives and believes in me will not die for ever. Do you believe this, Martha?” She answered and said, “Truly, Lord, I believe that you are Christ, God’s Son, who has come into this world for humanity”. She then went immediately, after she said this, and called her sister quietly saying, “The teacher is here, and he is calling for you”. She then arose immediately and went to him, and the Savior was still in the same place where Martha spoke to him until Mary came. Then the Jews followed Mary because they saw that she rose quickly and said that she wished to weep at the tomb. As soon as Mary saw the Savior,

259

Text: Lazarus II

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

þa feol heo to his fotum and him þus cwæð [to], “[Hlaford], gif þu her wære, nære min broþor dead”. Þa þa se [Hælend geseah] hi sarlice wepan and þa Iudeiscan wepende þe [hyre mid] comon, þa grymmette he on gaste and hine sylfne g[edrefde] and cwæþ, “Hwær lede ge hine?” And hi cwæðon him to, “[Hlaford, cum] and geseah”. And þa weop se Hælend. Þa sædon þ[a] Iudeiscan, “[Gesixst] þu hu he hine lufode”. Sume of him sædo[n], “La hu ne [mihte] se don, se þe þone blindan gehælde, þæt þes eac ne swulte?” Se [Hæ]lend eft grymetende com to þære byrigene and cwæþ to [þam ymbstandendum], “Doþ him of þone stan”. Martha cwæþ þa [to Criste], “Hlaford leof, he stincð for þan þe feower [dagas synt syððan] he bebyrged wæs”. Se Hælend hyre cwæð to, “[La hu ne sæde Ic þe] þæt gif þu gelyfst, þu gesihst Godes wuldor?” [Hi ahofon þæt hlid] þa of þære þryh hraþe, and se Hælend cwæð, [up/a\hafenum eagum], “Fæder, Ic þancige þe for þan þe þu me gehyrde[st]. [Ic soðlice wat] þæt þu me symle gehyrst, ac for þam folce Ic [sæde þe her onbutan] stent, þæt hi gelyfon þæt ðu me asendest”. Þa [þa he þis cwæð], þa clypode he hlude, “Lazare ueni foras!”, “[Lazarus cum hider] ut!” And he forðstop sona, se þe forðfaren wæs, [bewunden] swa þeah swa swa hit gewunelic wæs, handum and [fotum, and his heafod] wæs befangen mid swatclaþe swa [swa he gelegd wæs]. | [Þa cwæð se Hælend to ðam ymbstandendum, “Tolysað his bendas and lætað hine gan”. And he þa leofode lange syððan halra þonne he ær wæs þurh þæs Hælendes mihte]. Manega þa [eornostlice of þam Iudeiscum, 78 [to]] no reading H; as F  79 [Hlaford]] no reading H; as F  80 [Hælend geseah]] h[ælend ge]seah H[F]  81 [hyre mid]] hy[re mid] H[F]  82 g[edrefde]] gedrefde F  84 [Hlaford, cum]] hlafo[rd, cum] H[F]  85 þ[a]] þa F [Gesixst]] no reading H; as F  86 sædo[n]] sædon F [mihte]] no reading H; as F  88 [Hæ]lend] hælend F  89 [þam ymbstandendum]] þ[am ymb]standendum H[F]  90 [to Criste]] no reading H; as F  91 [dagas synt syððan]] dag[as synt syððan] H[F]  92 [La hu ne sæde Ic þe]] L[a hu ne sæde Ic þe] H[F]  94 [Hi ahofon þæt hlid]] H[i ahofon þæt hlid] H[F]  95 [up/a\ hafenum eagum]] up/a\h[afenum eagum] H[F]  96 gehyrde[st]] gehyrdest F  97 [Ic soðlice wat]] no reading H; as F  98 [sæde þe her onbutan]] sæ[de þe her on]butan H[F]  100 [þa he þis cwæð]] no reading H; as F  101 [Lazarus cum hider]] Laza[rus cum hider] H[F]  103 [bewunden]] no reading H; as F  104 [fotum, and his heafod]] f[otum, and his hea]fod H[F]  105 [swa he gelegd wæs]] sw[a he gelegd wæs] H[F]  106–9 [Þa cwæð…Hælendes mihte]] [Þa cwæð se hælend to ðam ymbstandendum. tolysað h]is bendas [and lætað hine gan. and he þa leofode lange syððan] halra þonne [he ær wæs þurh þæs hælendes mihte] H[F]  110–11 [eornostlice of þam Iudeiscum þe comon]] e[o]r[nostlice of þam Iudeiscum þe como]n H[F] 

260

251v

Text: Lazarus II

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

she then fell to his feet and spoke to him in this way, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not be dead”. When the Lord saw her weeping sorrowfully and the Jews weeping who had come with her, he then raged in spirit and stirred himself and said, “Where did you lay him?” And they said to him, “Lord, come and see”. And then the Savior wept. Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him”. Some of them said, “Cannot he who healed the blind also cause this one not to die?” The Savior raging once more approached the tomb and said to those standing nearby, “Take the stone away from him’. Martha said to Christ, “Dear Lord, he stinks because it has been four days since he was buried”. The Savior said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see God’s glory?” Then they quickly lifted the cover off the tomb, and the Savior, with eyes lifted upwards, said, “Father, I thank you because you have heard me. I know truly that you always hear me, but I spoke on account of the people standing around here so that they may believe that you sent me”. When he said this, he then cried out loudly, “Lazare, ueni foras!”, “Lazarus, come out here!” And immediately he who had been dead came forth, still wrapped hand and foot as was customary, and his head was encircled with a small cloth just as it had been placed. Then the Savior said to those standing nearby, “Loosen his bonds and let him go”. And he then lived a long time afterwards more healthy than he had been before by means of the Savior’s power. Then consequently many of the Jews

261

Text: Lazarus II

115

120

125

130

135

140

þe comon] to Marian and [Marthan hire swuster] and gesawon hu se Hælend heora [broþur arærde], [gelyfd]on on hine for þam liflican tacne’. [Betwux eallum þam] wundrum þe ure Hælend worhte is þis [miccle wundor] mærlicost geþuht – þæt he þone stincendan La[zarum] to lyfe arærde. Ac gif we behealdaþ hwa hine [arærd]e, þonne mage we blissian swiþor þonne wundrian. [Se arærde þone] man se þe man geworhte. He is se [a/n\cenneda Sunu þæs] ælmihtigan Fæder þurh þone synd [gesceapene ealle] gesceafta, and, la, hwilc wundor is, þeah þe to life [arise an] man þurh hine, þonne ælce dæg beoþ manega [acennede þurh] his mihte on worulde? Micele mare [miht ys menn to gescippenne] þonne to arærenne þone [þe ær wæs]. [He ge]medemode swa þeah þæt he menn gesceope [and eac þæt he arærde] hi eft of deaðe. He gesceop ealle men [and sume arærde], se þe eaþe mihte ealle gif he wolde deade [aræran þurh his] drihtenlican mihte. Ac he heold [witodlice þæt weorc] him sylfum oþ þa geendunge þisre [worulde], [swa he] sylf sæde on sumon godspelle: þæt ‘“Se tima [cymð þonne ealle] þa dædan þe on byrgenum beoð [gehyrað swutellice] Godes Suna stemne and gað of heora [byrgenum] – [to lifes] æriste þa þe god worhton, to [genyðerunge æriste þa þe yfel worhton]”’. Is swa þeah oþer | [ærist on urum sawlum, þe ure Hælend deð dæghwamlice on mannum þonne seo sawul arist of ðære synna deaðe for ðam se ðe syngað, his sawul ne leofað, buton heo þurh andetnysse eft acucige 111 [Marthan hire swuster]] Mar[than hire swuste]r H[F]  112 [broþur arærde]] broþ[ur arærde] H[F]  113 [gelyfd]on] gelyfdon F  114 [Betwux eallum þam]] betw[ux eallum þ]am H[F]  115 [miccle wundor]] mic[cle wun]dor H[F]  116 La[zarum]] La[zarum] F  117 [arærd]e] arærde F  119 [Se arærde þone]] [Se aræ]rde [þone] H[F]  120 [a/n\cenneda Sunu þæs]] a/n\cenne[da Sunu þæs] H[F]  121 [gesceapene ealle]] gesceape[ne eall]e H[F]  122–3 [arise an]] no reading H; as F  124 [acennede þurh]] [acennede þ] urh H[F]  125 [miht ys menn to gescippenne]] [miht ys menn to g]escippenne H[F]  126 [þe ær wæs]] no reading H; as F  128 [and eac þæt he arærde]] [and eac þæt he arær]de H[F]  129 [and sume arærde]] [and sume arærd]e H[F]  131 [aræran þurh his]] [aræran þurh h]is H[F]  132 [witodlice þæt weorc]] wi[todlice þæt weo]rc H[F]  133 [worulde]] no reading H; as F  134 [swa he]] [swa h]e H[F]  135 [cymð þonne ealle]] [cymð þonne eall]e H[F]  136 [gehyrað swutellice]] ge[hyrað swutellic]e H[F]  137 [byrgenum]] no reading H; as F  138 [to lifes]] [to li]fes H[F]  139 [genyðerunge æriste þa þe yfel worhton]] geny[ðerunge æriste þa] þe yfe[l worhto]n H[F]  140–5 ærist…gladige]] [ærist on urum sawlum, þe ure hælend deð dæghwamlice on mannum þonne seo sawul arist of ðære synna deaðe for ðam se ðe s]yngað, his saw[ul ne leofað, buton heo þurh andetnysse eft] acucige and þurh d[æ]dbote [hyre drihten gladige] H[F]

262

252r

Text: Lazarus II

115

120

125

130

135

140

who had come to Mary and Martha her sister and saw how the Savior resurrected their brother believed in him on account of that living sign’. Among all the miracles that our Savior worked, this great miracle is considered the most glorious – that he raised the stinking Lazarus to life. But if we consider who raised him, then we can rejoice rather than wonder. He raised the man who made the man. He is the only-begotten Son of the almighty Father through whom all created things are created, and how surprising is it, though one man rise to life through him, when each day many are born through his power into the world? It is a much greater power to create human beings than to raise a person who already existed. He nevertheless thought fit to make people and also to raise them again from death. He created all people and raised some, he who could easily raise all the dead through his divine power if he desired. But he has assuredly saved that work for himself until the end of this world, as he himself said in a certain Gospel: ‘“The time is coming when all the dead who are in the graves will clearly hear the voice of God’s Son and will leave their tombs – those who did good to the resurrection of life, those who did evil to the resurrection of condemnation.”’ There is nevertheless another resurrection in our souls, which our Savior effects daily in people when the soul rises from the death of its sins because the soul of he who sins will not live unless it comes to life again through confession

263

Text: Lazarus II 145

150

155

160

165

170

175

and þurh dædbote hyre Drihten gladige]. [Æ]lc man ondræt him deaðes tocyme, [and feawa him ondrædaþ] þæra sawle deað. For þæs [lichaman life, þe langsum] beon ne mæg, swincaþ men swiþe on sæ and on [lande] [þæt hi deaðe] ætberstan, and beoþ swa þe[ah] deade on [sumne tima, þeah] þe hi sume hwile ætfleon. And hi nellaþ swincan [þæt hi ne singian] þæt heora sawla lybbon on þam ecan life b[u]tan geswince. [And] bið se lichama æfter Domesdæge to þam [ylcan gebroht] on sawle geliffæst syþþan to worulde. Ondræde [swa þu] ondræde, se deaþ þe cymþ to. Is forþi wislicor þæt ðu wa[rnige] georne þæt þu yfele ne swelte, on synnum geendod, and [syþþan ecelice] on sawle and on lichaman æfre cwylmige on ende[leasum] witum, and sweltan ne mage swa þeah næfre. We [willað secgan] eow nu be þære sawle deaðe, þæt he is þreora cynna, þeah [þe] hit eow cuþ ne sy. Se þe yfel geþencð and yfel don [wile], [him ys] se deaþ wiþinnan digellice on his sawle. And se þe yfel [wile and] þæt yfel gefremaþ, he bið þonne openlice yfele d[ead]. [Se] þe gewunelice and unforwandodlice syngaþ and his [yfel gewidmærsað] þurh yfelne hlisan, se is bebyrged on bis[merful]lum leahtrum, and he fule þonne stincð on his [fracodum] dædum. Nu segð us seo Cristes boc þæt Crist ure [Hælend þry] men arærde of deaðe to life, and þa þry [getacnodon þone] þryfealdan deað

146 [Æ]lc] ælc F  147 [and feawa him ondrædaþ]] [and feawa him ond]rædaþ H[F]  148 [lichaman life þe langsum]] lichama[n life þe langsum] H[F]  149 [lande]] no reading H; as F  150 [þæt hi deaðe]] no reading H; as F þe[ah]] þeah F  151 [sumne tima þeah]] su[mne tima] þe[ah] H[F]  152 [þæt hi ne singian]] [þæt hi] ne s[ingian] H[F]  154 b[u]tan] buton F [And]] no reading H; as F  155 [ylcan gebroht]] yl[c]an gebro[ht] H[F]   157 [swa þu]] sw[a þu] H[F]  158 wa[rnige]] warnige F  160 [syþþan ecelice]] syþþ[an ece]lice H[F]  161 ende[leasum]] endeleasum F  163 [willað secgan] willa[ð] secg[an] H[F]  164 [þe]] no reading H; as F  165 [wile]] no reading H; as F  166 [him ys]] no reading H; as F  167 [wile and]] no reading H; as F  168 d[ead]] dead F  169 [Se]] no reading H; as F  170 [yfel gewidmærsað]] y[fel gewid]mærsað H[F]  171 bis[merful]lum] bismerfullum F  172 [fracodum]] no reading H; as F  173–4 [Hælend þry]] h[ælend þry] H[F]  175 [getacnodon þone]] getacno[don þone] H[F] 

264

Text: Lazarus II 145

150

155

160

165

170

175

and through penance appeases its Lord. Every person fears the arrival of death, and yet few fear the death of the soul. On account of the life of the body, which may not be long, people work hard at sea and on land to escape death, and though they will be dead at some point, they may yet escape for a while. And still they do not desire to work not to sin so that their souls might live in the everlasting life without work. And the body will be brought to the same after Judgment Day, forever afterwards quickened by the soul. May you fear [the soul’s death] as you fear the death that will come to you. It is therefore wiser for you to eagerly take heed not to perish wickedly, brought to an end in sins, and [not] eternally afterwards to suffer repeatedly in soul and body with endless torments and yet not ever be able to die. We desire to speak to you now about the death of the soul, of which there are three kinds, although that is not known to you. For him who thinks about evil and desires to do evil, death is within, secretly in his soul. And he who desires evil and carries out that evil will then be patently dead from evil. He who habitually and without hesitation sins and publicizes his evil through a wicked rumor is buried in his evil sins and then stinks foully in his wicked deeds. Now Christ’s book says to us that Christ our Savior raised three people from death to life, and these three signified the three-fold death

265

Text: Lazarus II

180

185

190

195

200

205

þære synfullan [s]awle þe [syngað on þreo | wisan: on yfelre geþafunge oððe yfelum geþohte, on yfelre fremminge, and on yfelum gewunan. Ure Drihten arærde anes ealdormannes dohtor, seo ðe læg dead digellice on his huse and næs þa gyt geferod forð openlice]. And heo [soðlice getacnode þære sawle deað] þe byþ wiþinnan hyre þurh [þæt yfele geþanc and ne bið] geopenod /þa gyt\ þurh yfele fremminge. [He arærde ænne cniht] þa þa he co[m] to anre byrig Naim [gehaten and he wæs geferod] on [þæs] folces gesihþe and him [folgode seo modor] [d]reorig wepende. Ac ure Drihten sona hi [swæslice gefrefrode], and hire sunu arærde, and betæhte [þære meder], s[wa] swa he mildheort wæs. Þes deada [getacnode þære sawle deaþ] þe syngaþ openlice, swilce heo ferige [on folces] gesihþe hyre deadan on bære, and bið þonne cuþ [hyre synfulla] deaþ þurh þa openan synna. Gif þu syn[godest], þu hit soþlice behreowsa, and Crist arærþ þe þæt þu [cucu byst on] Gode and betæcþ þe þinre meder, þæt is, his Gelaþunge [on þære þu] wære gefullod and on þære þu scealt geþeon. [Se þridda deada] wæs þe ure Drihten arærde Lazarus se Iudeisca, se læg bebyrged fule þa stincende, swa swa [we ær beforan] sædon. And he hæfde getacnunge þæs [synnfullan mannes] þe hæfð him on gewunan his yfelan dæ[da] [and stincð] þurh unhlisan and yfelne gewunan. [Swylcra is to fela] þe on synnum licgaþ, forlorene on [þeawum and ofhrorene] mid leahtrum and nellaþ gehyran þa [halgan lare]. 176 [s]awle] sawle F  176–81 [syngað…openlice]] [syngað on þreo wisan: on yfelre geþafunge oððe yfelum geþohte, on yfelre fremminge, and on yfelum gewunan. ure drihten arærde anes ealdormannes dohtor, seo ðe læg dead di]gell[ice on his huse and næs þa gyt geferod forð open]lice H[F]  182 [soðlice getacnode þære sawle deað]] soðlic[e getacnode þære sawle d]eað H[F]  183–4 [þæt yfele geþanc and ne bið]] þ[æt yfele geþanc and ne bið] H[F]  185 [He arærde ænne cniht]] [He arærde ænne cn]iht H[F] co[m]] com F  186 [gehaten and he wæs geferod]] [gehaten and he wæs ge] ferod H[F]  187 [þæs]] no reading H; as F [folgode seo modor]] fol[gode seo modor] H[F]  188 [d]reorig] dreorig F  189 [swæslice gefrefrode]] swæslic[e gefref]rode H[F]  190 [þære meder]] þæ[re m]eder H[F] s[wa]] swa F  191 [getacnode þære sawle deaþ]] getacno[de þæ]re [sawle d]eaþ H[F]  192 [on folces]] [on fol]ces H[F]  194 [hyre synfulla]] [hyre s]ynfulla H[F]  195 syn[godest]] syngodest F  196 [cucu byst on]] cu[cu byst on] H[F]  198 [on þære þu]] no reading H; as F  199 [Se þridda deada]] [Se þridda d]eada H[F]  201 [we ær beforan]] [we ær befor]an H[F]  202 [synnfullan mannes]] synn[fullan ma]nnes H[F]  203 dæ[da]] dæda F  204 [and stincð]] no reading H; as F   205 [Swylcra is to fela]] swyl[cra is to fel]a H[F]  206 [þeawum and ofhrorene]] þea[wum and ofhr]orene H[F]  207 [halgan lare]] no reading H; as F

266

252v

Text: Lazarus II

180

185

190

195

200

205

of the sinful soul that sins in three ways: by evil consent or evil thought, by evil action, and by evil habit. Our Lord raised a nobleman’s daughter who lay dead hidden in his house and had not as yet been openly carried out. And certainly she signified the death of the soul that occurs within on account of an evil thought and has not yet been made manifest by evil action. He raised one young man when he came to a town called Nain and [the young man] was being carried in the sight of the people and the grief-stricken mother followed him weeping. But our Lord at once gently comforted her, and raised her son, and entrusted [him] to [his] mother, as he was merciful. This dead man signified the death of the soul that sins openly, as if it carries its dead on a bier in the people’s sight, and its sinful death is then made known by [its] open sins. If you have sinned, truly repent of it, and Christ will raise you to be alive in God and will give you to your mother, that is, the Church into which you were baptized and in which you ought to flourish. The third dead person our Lord raised was Lazarus the Jew, who lay buried stinking foully at that time, as we said earlier. And he signified the sinful person who makes a habit of his evil deeds and stinks on account of ill repute and evil habit. There are too many such people who lie in sin, lost in [their] habits and overwhelmed with vices, and do not wish to hear the holy teaching.

267

Text: Lazarus II

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

And þincþ him æþryt þæt he embe þæt þence hu he [arise of þam] reoc[e]ndan meoxe. Is him leofre to licgen/ne\ | on his lichaman [lustum þonne he ænig þing swince and hys softnysse forleose]. Witodlice ure leofa [Hælend mæg, swa swa ælmihtig God], ða sawla aræran þe ðuss ðryfealdlice syng[iað], [swa he þas þry] deadan þurh his drihtenlican mihte to life arærde [to lofe him sylfe]. Is nu swyðe to witenne þæt nis næfre nan synn to ðam swiðe [micel þæt mon] ne mæg gebetan her on ðisum life gif he ða dædbote deð [be þes gyltes] mæðe on Gode truwiene. Ure Hælend swa ðeah sæde [on his] godspelle þæt se mann ðe tallic word cwyð ongean ðone [Halgan Gast] and hine hæfð to hospe næfð he his næfre forgyfenysse, ne [on] ðissere worulde ne on ðære toweardan. Oft gedwolmenn sp[ræ]con dyselice be Criste, ac hi hit eft gebetton and gebugon to hi[m] mid soðum geleafan, and he heom sealde forgyfenysse, swa swa he sylf sæde, ‘“Ðeah ðe hwa secge be me tal oððe hosp, hit byð him forgyfen gif he hit behreo/w\sað. Ac se ðe be ðam Halgan Gaste hosp gecwyð oððe tal, ðonne byð his synn æfre endelea[s]”’. Se ælmihtiga Fæder, þe ealle ðing gesceop, hæfð ænne Sunu of him anum acenned unasecgendlice, þone soðfæstan Hælen[d]. And se Halga Gast nis na gehaten Sunu for ðan þe se an Fæder is æfre unbegunnen, and his ancenneda Sunu of him sylfum æfr[e], and se Halga Gast is heora begra Willa and Lufu, æfre hiom betwynan, of hiom bam gelice. Nu nis se Fæder heora begra Fæder for ðan þe heora oðer is Suna and se oðer nis na Suna. Eft, se ylc[e] Sunu nis na heora begra Suna, þæs Fæder and þæs Gastes, on ðære Godcundnesse. Ac se Halga Gast ana is heom bam g[emæ]nelice, 209 [arise of þam]] no reading H; as F reoc[e]ndan] reocendan F  210 licgen/ne\] /ne\ in the interpolator’s hand? H on his lichaman] the interpolator’s hand begins H  210–11 [lustum…forleose]] lu[stum þonne he ænig þing swince and hys softnysse for]leose H[F]; correspondences with F end 212 [Hælend…God]] H[ælend mæg, swa sw]a [ælmihtig God] H[B]; correspondences with B begin  213 syng[iað]] syng::: H  214 [swa he þas þry]] no reading H; as B  215 [to lofe him sylfe]] t[o] lofe [him sylfe] H[B]; him sylfe to lofe B  217 to ðam swiðe [mycel þæt mon]] H[B]; swa swiðe mycel þæt mon B  219 [be þes gyltes]] [be þes gyl]tes H[B] truwiene] truwienne H; trywige B  220 [on his]] no reading H; as B  222 [Halgan Gast]] halg[an gast] H[B]; halig gast B  224 [on]] no reading H; as B  226 hi[m]] him B  231 endelea[s]] endeleas B  234 Hælen[d]] hælend B  237 æfr[e]] æfr[e] H[B]; eafre B  242 ylc[e]] ylce B  244 g[emæ]nelice] g[mæ]nelice H[B]; imænelic B

268

253r

Text: Lazarus II

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

And it seems wearisome to him to think about how he might rise from the reeking dung. It pleases him more to wallow in the desires of his body than to work at anything and be deprived of his ease. Certainly our beloved Savior is able, as almighty God, to raise the souls who thus sin in three ways, just as he raised these three dead people to life through his divine power to bring glory to himself. Now it is essential to know that there is no sin so great that one cannot make amends here in this life if he does penance according to the severity of the sin, trusting in God. Our Savior nevertheless said in his Gospel that the person who speaks a blasphemous word against the Holy Spirit and holds him in contempt will never have his forgiveness, neither in this world nor in that to come. Often heretics spoke foolishly about Christ, but they made amends for it afterwards and submitted to him with true belief, and he gave them forgiveness, just as he himself said, ‘“Although someone may utter blasphemy or a scornful insult about me, it will be forgiven him if he repents of it. But he who utters a scornful insult or blasphemy about the Holy Spirit, then his sin will be forever without end”’. The almighty Father, who created all things, has one Son born indescribably from him alone, the true Savior. And the Holy Spirit is not called the Son because the one Father is eternally without beginning, and his only-begotten Son is eternally from him, and the Holy Spirit is the Will and Love of them both, eternally among them, equally from them both. Now the Father is not Father of them both because one of them is the Son and the other is not the Son. Likewise, that same Son is not the Son of them both, of the Father and the Spirit, in the Godhead. But the Holy Spirit alone exists in common with them both,

269

Text: Lazarus II 245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

ðam ælmihtigan Fæder and his ancennedan Suna, and ð[u]rh ðone Gast beoð ealle synna forgyfene. Se wisa Fæder witodlice gesceop and geworhte ðurh his halgan Wisdom, þe his Sun[e] is, ealle gesceafta, and he hi soðlice geliffæste þurh ðone Ha[l]gan Gast, ðe is heora begra Lufu. Heora weorc beoð æfre u[n]todæledlice, and hi habbað ealle ane Godcundnysse and ealle an [ge|cund and ane mægnþrymme]. [Ac ðæra] synna [forgyfeness stont on þam Halige Gaste, and] he deð forgyfenysse ðam [dædbetendum monnum] [and heora] mod onliht mid his liðan forgyfennysse [and heom syððan] gefr[e]frað for ðan ðe he is Frofergast. Swa swa seo [acennednesse to Criste] anum belimpð, swa belimpð seo forgyfenyss to ðam [lifigendæ] Gaste, se ðe is ælmihtig God æfre unbegunnen, of ðam Fæder and of þam Suna, heora begra Lufu. Be ðam ge magon witan þæt he is [eallwealdend God] þonne he swa mihtig is þæt he mæg forgyfan ealra manna synna [þe heom soðlice] behreowsiað heora misdæda on eallum middanearde. Se [Hælen]d ana, ðe is gehaten Crist, underfeng þa menniscnysse and for us [monn]um ðrowode. Nu hæbbe we ða alysednysse ðurh ðone leofan Drih[t]en and ure synna forgyfenysse þurh ðæne Halgan Gast. And ðeah eall seo Ðrynnyss on soðre annysse ægðer ðyssera dæda us deð untwylice for ðan þe hi ealle wyrceað æfre an weorc. Se mann cwyð hosp and tal ongean ðone Halgan Gast se ðe næfre ne geswicð synna to wyrcenne, and wunað on his yfele oð ende his lifes, and forsyhð þa forgyfenesse ðæs soðfæstan Gastes, and him sylfum swa belycð þone liflican weg to ðære [miltsunge] ðæs miltsiendan Gastes mid his heardheortnysse his hetelan modes. Behreowsiendan mannum gemiltsað se Halga Gast, 246 ð[u]rh] þurh B  248 Sun[e]] sune B  250 Ha[l]gan] ha[l]gan H[B]; halgæ B  251 u[n]todæledlice] u[n]todæledlice H[B]; untodæledlic B  253 [gecund and ane mægnþrymme]] no reading H; gecund and ane mægnþrymme B  254 [Ac ðæra]] [ac ð]æra H[B]; ac þare B  254–5 [forgyfeness stont on þam Halige Gaste and]] forgyfe[ness stont on þam Halige Gaste and] H[B]  255 [dædbetendum mannum]] dæd[betendum mannum] H[B]; dæþbetendum B  256 [and heora]] no reading H; as B  257 [and heom syððan]] no reading H; as B gefr[e]frað] gefr[e]frað H[B]; frefræð B  258 seo [acennednesse to Criste] anum belimpð] seo acen[nednesse to Cr]iste anum belimpð H[B]; ðeo acennednesse bilimpæþ to criste ane B  259 [lifigendæ]] no reading H; as B  262 [eallwealdend God]] eallweal[dend God] H[B]; alwealdend god B  264 [þe heom soðlice]] [þe heom soð]lice H[B]   266 [Hælen]d] hælend B  267 [monn]um] monnum B  268 Drih[t]en] drihten B  278 [miltsunge]] m[il]ts[u]nge H[B]; mildsunge B

270

253v

Text: Lazarus II 245

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

with the almighty Father and his only-begotten Son, and through the Spirit all sins are forgiven. Indeed, the wise Father created and made all created things through his holy Wisdom, which is his Son, and he truly endowed them with life through the Holy Spirit, who is the Love of them both. Their work is always indivisible, and they all possess one Godhead, and all one nature and one majesty. But the forgiveness of sins abides with the Holy Spirit, and he offers forgiveness to people doing penance and illuminates their mind with his gentle forgiveness and afterwards comforts them because he is the Comforting Spirit. Just as the incarnation belongs to Christ alone, so forgiveness belongs to the living Spirit, who is almighty God eternally without beginning, of the Father and of the Son, the Love of them both. Concerning him you may know that he is the all-ruling God when he is so powerful that he is able to forgive the sins of all people throughout the whole world who truly repent of their misdeeds. The Savior alone, who is called Christ, took on human form and suffered for us humans. Now we have redemption through the beloved Lord and forgiveness of our sins through the Holy Spirit. And yet the whole Trinity in true unity undoubtedly accomplishes both of these actions for us because they all work one work at all times. The person who utters a scornful insult and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit never ceases to commit sins, and persists in his evil until the end of his life, and despises the forgiveness of the true Spirit, and thus closes to himself the way of life to the mercy of the merciful Spirit with [the] hardheartedness of his hostile mind. The Holy Spirit has mercy on repenting people,

271

Text: Lazarus II

285

290

295

300

305

310

ac ðam he ne miltsað næfre þe his gyfe forseoð. Nu sceolon we bidda mid gebigedu[m] mo[de] þone ælmihtigan Fæder þe us ðurh his Wisdom gesceop [and] us eft alysde ðurh ðone ylcan Sunu, þæt he ure synna fram us adyle[gie] þurh ðo[n]e Hal[gan] Gast and us gehealde wið deofol þæt we him gegan þe us [ær worhte]. [Se swicola] deofol, ðe syrwð embe manncynn, asent yfele [geðohtas] and þwyrlice ongean God on ðæs mannes [heortan þæt he mæge] hine gebringan on orwennysse [þæt he ortruwian] sceole be Godes mildheortnysse for þam [manfullum geðohtum]. Ac wite nu gehwa þæt ða yfelan ge[þ]ohtas [ne magon] us derian gyf hig us ne [geliciað] and gyf we hig onscuniað and to urum Drihtene | clypiað. And ne sceal nan mann [swa þeah, þeah þe he si] synfull, geortruwian hine sylfne for [his synna micelnysse]. Ne se goda man ne sceal for his godnysse gedyrs[tlæ]can to swyþe, ne dyslice hine ahebban, ne þone synfulla[n] forseon, for þan hit swa oft getimað þæt se synfulla ma[nn] his mandæda behreowsað, and hine Drihten arærþ swa s[wa] he dyde Lazarum, and he leofaþ þonne bet on his lifes rih[tin]ge þonne þa lybbon þe his lif ær tældon. Be swylcum we [ræ]dað on sumum godspelle: þæt an [synful wif wæs] swiþe fordon man, and heo ofaxode þa þæt ure [Hælend wæs] mid anum Sunderhalgan, se hatte Symon, þa com þæt [wif þyþer] and to Criste genealæhte, licgende æt his fotum gelomlice wepende, and mid hyre tearum his fet aþwoh, and mid hyre fexe hi forhtlic[e] wipode, and mid deorwyrðre sealfe hi syþþan smyrode, swa swa hit gewunelic wæs on Iudeiscre þeode. 282 gebigedu[m]] gebigedu: H; ibegede B mo[de]] mode B  284 [and]] no reading H; as B  285 adyle[gie]] adyle::: H; adiglæde B  286 ðo[n]e Hal[gan]] ðo:e hal::: H; þene halge B  287 [ær worhte]] [ær worht]e H[B]; correspondences with B end  288 [Se swicola]] S[e swico]la H[P1]; correspondences with P1 begin  289 [geðohtas]] geðo[hta]s H[P1]  290 [heortan þæt he mæge]] heor[tan] þæ[t he m]æge H[P1]   291 [þæt he ortruwian]] [þæt he ort]ruwian H[P1]  292 [manfullum geðohtum]] manfull[um geðohtu]m H[P1]; manfull:: (an?) H  293 ge[þ]ohtas] geþohtas P1  294 [ne magon]] [ne] m[a]gon H[P1] [geliciað] ge[lici]að H[P1]; liciað P1  295 clypiað] correspondences with P1 end  296 And ne sceal] ne sceal F; correspondences with F resume   [swa þeah, þeah þe he si]] no reading H; as F synfull] the interpolator’s hand ends H  297 [his synna micelnysse]] [his synna micel]nysse H[F]  299 gedyrs[tlæ]can] gedyrstlæcan F  300 synfulla[n]] synfullan F  301 ma[nn]] mann F  302 s[wa]] swa F  303 rih[tin]ge] rihtinge F  305 [ræ]dað] rædað F  306 [synful wif wæs]] sy[nful wif wæs] H[F]  307 [Hælend wæs]] hælen[d wæs] H[F]  309 [wif þyþer]] w[if þ] yþer H[F]  312 forhtlic[e]] fo[rh]tlice F 

272

254r

Text: Lazarus II

285

290

295

300

305

310

but he never has mercy on those who despise his grace. Now we ought to pray with a humbled mind to the almighty Father, who created us through his Wisdom and afterwards redeemed us through the same Son, to blot out our sins from us by means of the Holy Spirit and to protect us against the devil so that we may come to him who earlier made us. The hostile devil, who plots with regard to mankind, sends evil and perverse thoughts against God into the heart of a person to bring him into despair so that he will despair of God’s mercy on account of wicked thoughts. But every one of you should know now that evil thoughts cannot injure us if they are not pleasing to us and if we shun them and call upon our Lord. Yet no one, though he be sinful, ought to despair of himself on account of the magnitude of his sins. Nor ought a good person on account of his goodness presume too greatly, nor foolishly exalt himself, nor despise the sinful, because it thus often happens that the sinful person repents of his evil deeds, and the Lord raises him just as he did Lazarus, and he then lives better in the governance of his life than those may live who earlier censured his life. We read about such people in a certain Gospel: there was a sinful woman, a very corrupted person, and when she learned that our Savior was with a Pharisee named Simon, the woman then came to that place and drew near to Christ, lying at his feet weeping continually, and with her tears washed his feet, and timidly wiped them with her hair, and afterwards anointed them with precious salve, as was customary among the Jewish people.

273

Text: Lazarus II 315

320

325

330

335

340

345

Þa cwæþ se Hælend be hyre þæt hyre wæron forgyfene manega synna for þan þe heo hine mic[cl]um lufode. And for þi swa swa we ær sædon, /se mann ðe ortru\wað and endeleaslice syngað and on his heardheortnysse his lif geendað, se bið gewislice dead þam wyrstan deaþe for þan þe he færð of þisum frecenfullan life to þam ecan deaðe for his endeleasum sy[n]num. Be þrim deadum we rædaþ þe ure Drihten arærde, ac his wundra næron awritene ealle. Ac þa ana man wrat þe mih[to]n genihtsumian mannum to hæle and to heora ge[le]afan and þa þe hæfdon healice getacnunge, þe wurdon geopenode eft | [þurh þone Hælend]. [Hys apostoli arærdon and heora æftergengan manega menn of deaðe, ac se ylca Drihten dyde þæt þurh hi swa swa he dyde ær þurh hine sylfne on his andweardnysse]. [Þa] geswustra cyddon Criste be Lazare, þæt he [licgende wæs], and he wunode swa þeah on þære ylcan stowe, [anbidige]nde swa lange oþþæ[t] he forðfaren wæs, and ferde [syððan to him]. [He nolde] hine gehælan ac wolde hine aræran and þurh þæt miccle wundor his mihta geswutelian. His [leorningcnihtas] woldon gelettan þone Hælend þæt he ne ferde to þære [freced]nysse þær þa Iudeiscan woldon [hy]ne berædan [and he] forþi ær þanon siþode. Þa halgan apostoli woldon [þam Hælende] þone ræd tæcan þæt he ne [þorf]te sweltan, [se] þe sylfwilles com þæt he sweltan wolde þæt [hi] sylfe ne swulton, ne we eac soþlice, þam yfelan deaþe [þe he us of alysde].

316 mic[cl]um] micclum F  316–18 mic[cl]um…ortruwað] the interpolator has erased the remainder of the line after ‘micclum’, rewrites ‘lufode’, and adds ‘and…sædon’ to finish the line. At the beginning of the next line, he preserves the original text by writing ‘se mann ðe ortru’ above the line   320 se] ‘s’ rewritten in the interpolator’s hand? H gewislice] gewis/s\lice, with ‘s’ added in the interpolator’s hand H; gewislice F  322 sy[n]num] synnum F  325 mih[to]n] mihton F  326 ge[le]afan] geleafan F  328 [þurh þone Hælend]] no reading H; as F  329–32 [Hys apostoli…andweardnysse]] [hys apostoli arærdon and heora] æfter[gengan   manega menn of deaðe, ac se] ylca drihten dyde þæt [þurh hi swa swa he dyde æ]r   þurh hine sylfne on his and[weardnysse] H[F]  333 [Þa]] no reading H; as F  334 [licgende wæs]] [licgende w]æs H[F]  335 [anbidige]nde] anbidigende F  336 oþþæ[t]] oþþæt F [syððan to him]] no reading H; as F  337 [He nolde]] [He n]olde H[F]  339 [leorningcnihtas]] [leorning]cnihta[s] H[F]  340 [freced]nysse] frecednysse H[F]  341 [hy]ne] hyne F  342 [and he]] no reading H; as F  343 [þam Hælende]] [þam] hælen[d]e H[F]  344 [þorf]te] þorfte F  345 [se]] no reading H; as F  346 [hi]] no reading H; as F  347 [þe he us of alysde]] [þe he us o]f [a]lysde H[F] 

274

254v

Text: Lazarus II 315

320

325

330

335

340

345

Then the Savior said about her that many sins had been forgiven her because she loved him greatly. And therefore as we said earlier, the person who despairs and sins endlessly and reaches the end of his life in his hardheartedness will certainly die the worst death because he will go from this perilous life to everlasting death on account of his unending sins. We read about the three dead people whom our Lord raised, but his miracles were not all written down. However, one man wrote down those that are able to suffice for the salvation of humanity and for their faith, and those that had special significance, which were later made manifest by the Savior. His apostles and their successors raised many people from death, but the same Lord did that through them as he earlier had done through himself when he was present. The sisters told Christ about Lazarus, that he was lying sick, and he nevertheless stayed in the same place, waiting for a very long time until he was dead, and afterwards went to him. He did not wish to heal him but to raise him and through that great miracle to reveal his power. His disciples wanted to stop the Savior from going into danger where the Jews wished to lie in wait for him and whence he had, moreover, journeyed earlier. The holy apostles wanted to enjoin the Savior that he need not die, he who willingly came intending to die so that they, and indeed we too, might not die the evil death from which he redeemed us.

275

Text: Lazarus II

350

355

360

365

370

375

Se Hælend cwæð þa him to, ‘“Se dæg hæfð [t]welf tida, and se þe færð on dæg, his fot ne ætspyrnð for [þam ðe he þæt leoht gesihþ þises] middaneardes”’. He is se soða [dæg and þæt soðe leoht] ealles middaneardes, and se man þe him fyligþ, ne gæþ he na on þeostrum ac hæfð [lifes] leoht. His twelf apostoli synd þa twelf tida þe þam [dæge folgiað Drihtne Hælende], [þea]h þe se swicola Iudas [þe hyne] syþþan belæwde of þam wyrðmynte afeolle. Ac þær [feng] oþer to, Mathias se eadmoda, and wearð eft [gefylled þæt twelffealde] getel on þam twelf apostolum. [Se Hælend cwæð to Marthan, Lazares] swyter, ‘“Ic eom ærist and lif. Se [þe gelyfþ] on me, þeah þe he [d]ead sy, h[e] leofaþ [swa þeah; and ælc þære þe leofað and on me gelyfð, ne swylt he on ecnysse”’. And he sæde on oðre stowe, ‘Ego sum Deus Abraham and Deus Isaac and Deus Iacob’: ‘“Ic eom Abrahames God and Isaaces and Iacobes. Nis na God deadra manna ac is libbendra”’. Ealle menn him lybbað. Se þe on hine gelyfð, þeah þe he dead si, he sceal libban swa þeah, and se ðe ne gelyfð on hyne, þeah þe he lifes si, he ys dead swa þeah þam yfelan deaðe. We ne durran gelencgan na leng þysne traht ne eow geswencan na swiðor mid þam, þe læs þe eower sum ceorige on mode. Ac uton biddan ealle urne Drihten Crist þæt he ure sawla fram synnum arære and us þæt ece lif on ende forgyfe. Þam sy wuldor and lof a to worulde, Amen.]

348 [t]welf] twelf F  350 [þam ðe he þæt leoht gesihþ þises]] [þam ðe he] þæt [leoht g]esihþ [þ]ises H[F]  351 [dæg and þæt soðe leoht]] [dæg and þæt soðe leoh]t H[F]  353 [lifes]] no reading H; as F  355 [dæge folgiað Drihtne Hælende]] [dæge] folg[i]að drihtne [hælende] H[F]  356 [þea]h] þeah F [þe hyne]] no reading H; as F  357 [feng]] no reading H; as F  358–9 [gefylled þæt twelffealde]] [gefylled þæt twelf]feal[d]e H[F]  360 [Se Hælend cwæð to Marthan, Lazares]] [se hælend cwæð to marthan laza]res H[F] swyter] swyrter H; swuster F  361 [þe gelyfþ]] þ[e ge]lyfþ H[F]  362 [d]ead] dead F h[e]] he F leofaþ] H ends 362–78 [swa þeah…Amen] text supplied from F as edited in Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 276–92

276

Text: Lazarus II

350

355

360

365

370

375

The Savior then said to them, ‘“The day has twelve hours, and he who walks during the day, his foot does not stumble because he sees the light of this world”’. He is the true day and the true light of the whole world, and the one who follows him does not walk in darkness but has the light of life. His twelve apostles are the twelve hours that follow the Lord Savior during the day, though the treacherous Judas who later betrayed him fell from that honor. But another succeeded to that place, Mathias the humble, and that twelvefold number was again made complete among the twelve apostles. The Savior said to Martha, Lazarus’ sister, ‘“I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me, though he be dead, will yet live; and each one of those who lives and believes in me will not die for ever”’. And he said in another place, ‘Ego sum Deus Abraham and Deus Isaac and Deus Iacob’:2 ‘“I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. He is not the God of dead people, but is [the God] of the living”’. All people will live in him. He who believes in him, though he be dead, shall yet live, and he who does not believe in him, though he be alive, will yet be dead in that evil death. We dare not lengthen this sermon nor tire you more with it, lest some of you complain in [your] mind. But let us all pray to our Lord Christ to raise our souls from sins and give us everlasting life in the end. To him be glory and praise forever, Amen.

2

Matthew 22.32: ‘“I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”’.

277

LAZARUS II

COMMENTARY For the dating, manuscript witnesses, and relationship of the three versions of Erat quidam languens Lazarus, see the introduction to the notes to Lazarus I. Lines 4–113 [On þam halgan godspelle … for þam liflican tacne]: See notes to Lazarus I, lines 3–112. Lines 114–62 [Betwux eallum þam wundrum … ne mage swa þeah næfre]: See notes to Lazarus I, lines 113–61. Lines 163–72 [We willað secgan eow … his fracodum dædum]: See notes to Lazarus I, lines 162–71. Lines 173–211 [Nu segð us … hys softnyse forleose]: See notes to Lazarus I, lines 172–210. Lazarus III, lines 1–26 adapts this section. Lines 212–31 [Witodlice ure leofa Hælend … synn æfre endeleas]: The additional material in Lazarus II [lines 212–95] begins at this point in H. Lazarus III, lines 27–44 adapts this section as well. Perhaps seven or eight years after completing Lazarus I, Ælfric picks up his thoughts right where he was at line 210: having adapted CH I.33 for this last section (see notes to Lazarus I, lines 162–71 and 172–210), he returns to the next subject which CH I.33 addresses – namely, penance. Both texts affirm that ælmihtig God (‘Almighty God’, on whom see, for example, De creatore [AH II.14], lines 43–50) has power to raise humans spiritually as well as physically;1 they also note (as CH I.33 puts it) that ‘swa mare wund, swa [seo sawol] maran læcedom behofað’ (‘the greater the wound, the more [the soul] needs medicine’).2 Where CH I.33 elaborates on the point, however – the ruler’s daughter, raised with few witnesses (Matthew 9.25), corresponds to mental sin for which repentance is easier; the widow’s son, raised before a crowd (Luke 7.12), represents sinful deeds requiring greater penance; and Lazarus, raised by Christ with tears and troubled spirit, indicates the painful earnestness with which the habitual sinner must

1 2

Lazarus II, lines 212–15; CH I.33, lines 102–3 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 462). Clemoes, First Series, p. 462, lines 105–6; corresponding to Lazarus II, lines 216–19.

278

Commentary: Lazarus II seek change3 – Lazarus II simply reiterates CH I.33’s assurance that no one is beyond forgiveness if he repents be þæs gyltes mæðe (‘according to the measure of the sin’).4 Both texts at this point raise the question in Ælfric’s mind of the one apparent exception to this rule: Christ’s statement that ‘omnis qui dicit uerbum in Filium hominis remittetur illi ei autem qui in Spiritum Sanctum blasphemauerit non remittetur’ (‘everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven’ [Luke 12.10]). Quoting the verse in Old English, Ælfric nuances it in two ways: first, he twice renders blasphemia as tal oððe hosp (‘calumny or opprobrium’ [lines 228 and 230; see also line 273]) by way of explanation; and second, he adds the theologically significant phrase ‘[hit byð him forgyfen] gif he hit behreowsað’ (‘[it will be forgiven] if he repents of it’ [line 229]). Lines 232–72 [Se ælmihtiga Fæder … æfre an weorc]: Lazarus III, lines 45–85 adapts this section. In both CH I.33 and Lazarus II, the above distinction between the Son and Spirit leads Ælfric inexorably to one of his chief concerns: his audience’s understanding of the Trinity. In neither case is the language unique: Godden calls this section of CH I.33 ‘a characteristic excursus on the Trinity for which Ælfric seldom needed sources’.5 On ‘Se ælmihtiga Fæder, þe ealle ðing gesceop’ (‘the Almighty Father, who created all things’ [line 232]), see De creatore (AH II.14), line 43. On the ‘ænne Sunu of him anum acenned’ (‘one Son begotten from him alone’ [line 233]), see De creatore, lines 6–7. On þone soðfæstan Hælend (‘the true Savior’ [line 234]), see notes to Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), line 157. On God as unbegunnen (‘without a beginning’ [lines 236 and 260]), see notes to De creatore (AH II.14), lines 73–7. On the Spirit as the Will and Love of the Father and Son [lines 238 and 261, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1. On Ælfric’s differentiation between the persons of the Trinity and their roles [lines 240–6, 254–9, and 266–9], see notes to AH I.1, line 1, and CH I.33.6 On the Father’s creation of all things through the Son and endowing them with life through the Spirit [lines 247–50], see notes to De creatore, lines 152–62. On the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and the Spirit as the Love of them both [lines 247–50], and on the Trinity’s indivisibility [line 251], single nature [lines 252 and 270–2], and mægenþrymm (‘majestic power’ [line 253]), see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1. On God’s power to forgive those who repent [lines 262–5], see lines 216–19 above. Lines 273–87 [Se mann cwyð … us ær worhte]: Lazarus III, lines 86–100 adapts this section. Fundamental Trinitarian doctrine thus expounded, Ælfric returns to the question of the unforgivable sin – blasphemy (tal or hosp) against the Holy Spirit. Perhaps moving away from his sources at this point,7 both CH I.33 and Lazarus II define this sin as persevering

3 4 5 6 7

Clemoes, First Series, p. 462, line 106 (þæt geswutelode) – p. 463, line 121 (rihtwisnysse geweman). Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, line 122; the identical phrase being used in Lazarus II, line 219. Commentary, p. 280, regarding lines 129–60 (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 463–4). Clemoes, First Series, p. 463, lines 130 (An gehæfd) – 139 (to criste anum). Godden notes no antecedents for these lines in CH I.33, and while Pope suggests that for Lazarus II Ælfric may be drawing on an Augustinian sermon, it states simply that ‘cor impoenitens … est

279

Commentary: Lazarus II in wickedness and refusing ever to repent;8 consequently, both also then urge believers to pray to the Father for forgiveness through the Spirit, even as he has provided redemption through the Son.9 Where CH I.33 comes to a close with praise to the Trinity,10 however, Lazarus II transitions neatly to its next section, enjoining believers to pray that God ‘us gehealde wið deofol’ (‘should protect us against the devil’ [line 286]). Lines 288–95 [Se swicola deofol … to urum Drihtene clypiað]: See notes to De cogitatione (AH II.18), lines 1–8. The additional material in Lazarus II [lines 212–95] ends at this point in H. Lines 296–322 [And ne sceal nan mann … his endeleasum synnum]: see notes to Lazarus I, lines 211–36. Lines 323–32 [Be þrym deadum … on his andweardnysse]: see notes to Lazarus I, lines 237–46; see also notes to Lazarus III, lines 101–10. Lines 333–71 [Þa geswustra cyddon Criste … þam yfelan deaðe]: see notes to Lazarus I, lines 247–85. Lines 372–8 [We ne durran … a to worulde, Amen]: see notes to Lazarus I, lines 286–92.

8 9 10

Spiritus blasphemia’ (‘an unrepentant heart … is blasphemy against the Spirit’ [Homilies, vol. I, p. 324, apparatus]). Clemoes, First Series, p. 464, lines 149 (Se cwyð) – 154 (forseondum næfre); Lazarus II, lines 273–81. Clemoes, First Series, p. 464, lines 155 (Uton we) – 158 (þeowte alysde); Lazarus II, lines 282–7. Clemoes, First Series, p. 464, lines 158 (Sy lof) – 161 (rixiende. AMEN).

280

lazarus iii

LAZARUS III

5

10

15

20

25

30

Us sægð þeo halige Cristes boc þæt ure Hælend Crist arerde þreo men of deaþe to life, and þa þreo tacnoden þene ðreofealde deaþ þare sunfule sawle. Ure Drihten arerde anes ealdormonnes dohtor þeo þe læg dead dihlice on hire huse. He arerde æft ænne cniht þa þa he com to ane burh, Naim ihaten, on þæs folces isihðe. Þe ðridde deade wes þe ure Drihten arerde Lazarus ðe Iudeisce, þe læg stincende fule on burigenum feower niht iburiged. Đa ðreo deade men þe ure Drihten arerde betacnæð þare sawle deaþ, þe on þry wisen syngæþ on hyre life: þæt is, on yfele wilnunge, and on yfele fremminge, and on ufele wune unforwondodlic. Ða ufelæ sunæn beoð þare sawle deaþ. And þæs ealdormonnes dohter þe læg inne forðfaren bitacnoð þare sawle deaþ þe on diglum sunne þohte oðer þencæð to syngienne and hæfð þene deaþ behud on hire heortæn on yfele þauunge þæt yfel to donne. Þe deade þe wæs ifered on þæs folces sihðe bitacnæð þa sawle þe openlice syngæð and mid yfelæ dedæ hire deað swutelæð. Lazarus þe Iudeisce, þe læg stincende on burigenne, be|tacnað þa sawle þe syngæþ iwunelice and þurh unlisan atelice stincæð. Ac ure Hælend mæg, swa swa almihtig God, þa sawlæ aræren swa he þas þry deaden dyde þurh his drihtenlice mihte him sylfe to lofe. Nis swa ðeah nan synne swa swiðe mycel þæt mon ne mæg betan gyf he þa bote deþ Text from: B Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343, fols 166v–167v (s. xii2) Variants from: H London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v, fols 252r–254v (s. x/xi, SW England) [edited above as Lazarus II (AH I.3), lines 173–204, 211–87, and 323–32]]

282

167r

LAZARUS III

5

10

15

20

25

30

Christ’s holy book tells us that our Savior Christ raised three people from death to life, and these three signified the threefold death of the sinful soul. Our Lord raised a nobleman’s daughter who lay dead hidden in her house. He likewise raised a young man in the sight of the people when he came to a city called Naim. The third dead person whom our Lord raised was Lazarus the Jew, who lay stinking foully in the tomb having been buried four nights. These three dead people whom our Lord raised signify the death of the soul, which in three ways sins in its way of life: that is, in evil desire, and in evil action, and in reckless evil habit. These evil sins are the death of the soul. And the nobleman’s daughter who lay dead inside signifies the death of the soul that entertained secret sin or intends to sin and thus has death hidden in its heart in [its] evil consent to carry out that evil. The dead [man] who was carried into the people’s sight signifies the soul that sins openly and makes known its death with evil deeds. Lazarus the Jew, who lay stinking in the tomb, signifies the soul that sins habitually and stinks horribly through ill-repute. But our Savior can, as almighty God, raise souls as he did those three dead people through his divine power for his glory. There is, however, no sin so very great that a person cannot atone [for it] if he does penance

283

Text: Lazarus III

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

bi þes gyltes mæðe and on Gode trywige. Ure Hælend sæde swa ðæh on his godspelle, ‘“Þe ðe tallice word sæð ongean ðone Halig Gast and hine hæfð to hospe, næf he næfre þærof forgyfenesse, ne on þisse weorlde ne on þa towearden”’. Ofte dwolmen specon dusilice bi Criste, ac heo hit eft betton and bugon to him mid soðe bileafæ, and he heom sealde forgifenesse, swa swa he sæde him sylf, ‘“Đeah ðe hwa sæcge bi me tal oðer hosp, hit him bið forgyfen gyf he hit bireowsæþ. Ac þe e þam Halga Gaste hosp cwæð oððe tal, his synne bið soðlice endeleas”’. Þe almihtig Fæder, þe alle þing iscop, hæfð enne Sune of him ane acenned unasecgendlice, þene soðfestæ Hælend. Ac þe Halige Gast nis na ihaten Sune for þam þe ðe an Fæder is æfre unbigunnon, and his ancennedæ Sunæ of him sylfe eafre, and þe Halig Gast is heoræ begræ Lufæ, æfer bitweonæn heom, of ham bam ilice. Nu nis na þe Fæder heoræ begræ Fæder for þam þe ðe oðer is Sunu and þe oðer ni na Sunne. Eft, þe ylce Sunæ nis na heoræ begræ Sunæ, þæs Fæder and þæs Halig Gaste, on ðere Godcundnesse. Ac ðe Halige Gast is ane heom bam imænelic, þam almihtig Fæder and his ancennede Sunæ, and þurh Halgæ Gast beoð alle synne forgyfene. wise Fæder witerlice iscop and wrohte þurh his halgæ Wisdom, þæt is his Sune, alle gesceftæ, and heom soðlice lif bifeste þurh þene Halgæ Gast, þe is heoræ begræ Lufe and Willæ. Heoræ weorc bið æfre untodæledlic, and heo alle habbæð ane Godcundnesse, /and\ alle an gecund and ane mægnþrymme. Ac þare synne forgyfenesse stont on þam Halige Gaste, and he deþ forgyfenesse dæbetendum monnum and heore mod onliht mid his liðe forgfennesse and heom syððan frefræð for þam þe he is Froforgast. Swa swa ðeo acennednesse bilimpæþ to Criste ane, swa belimpð þeo forgyfenesse to þam lifigendæ Gaste, 35 hine] abbreviated ‘hī’ B; hine H  36 næf] næf B; næfð H  43 e] þe B; be H  54 ni] ni B; nis H  56 Gaste] gastest B; gastes H  60 ] Þe ðe B; Se H  66 mægnþrymme] mægnþrymme B; mægenþrymm H  68 dæbetendum] dæþbetendum B; dæd[betendum] H  69 forgfennesse]‘y’ lacks the descender B  70 frefræð] with ‘o’ interlined over ‘e’ B 

284

Text: Lazarus III

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

according to the severity of the sin and trusts in God. However, our Savior said in his Gospel, ‘“He who utters a blasphemous word against the Holy Spirit and holds him in contempt will never have forgiveness for that, neither in this world nor in that to come”’. Heretics often spoke foolishly about Christ, but afterwards they repented of it and submitted to him with true faith, and he gave them forgiveness, just as he said, ‘“Although someone may utter blasphemy or a scornful insult about me, it will be forgiven him if he repents of it. But he who utters a scornful insult or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, his sin will truly be without end”’. The almighty Father, who made all things, has one Son indescribably born from him alone, the true Savior. But the Holy Spirit is not called the Son because the one Father is eternally without beginning, and his only-begotten Son [is] eternally from him, and the Holy Spirit is the Love of them both, eternally among them, equally from them both. Now the Father is not the Father of them both because one is the Son and the other is not the Son. Likewise, that same Son is not the Son of them both, of the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the Godhead. But the Holy Spirit alone exists in common with them both, the almighty Father and his only-begotten Son, and through the Holy Spirit all sins are forgiven. Indeed, that wise Father created and made all created things through his holy Wisdom, which is his Son, and truly endowed them with life through the Holy Spirit, who is the Love and Will of them both. Their work is always indivisible, and they all possess one Godhead, and all one nature and one majesty. But the forgiveness of sins belongs to the Holy Spirit, and he offers forgiveness to people doing penance and illuminates their mind with his gentle forgiveness and thereafter comforts them because he is the Comforting Spirit. Just as the incarnation belongs to Christ alone, so forgiveness belongs to the living Spirit,

285

Text: Lazarus III

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

þe þe is almihtig God æfre unbegunnon of þam Fæder and of þam Sunæ, heoræ begræ Lufæ. Be þan we magen witen þæt he is alwealdend God þenne he swa mihtig is þæt he mæg forgyfen alre monne synne þe heom soðlice bireowsiæð and heoræ misdedæ her on weorldæ. Đe Hælend ane, þe is ihaten Crist, underfeng þa menniscnesse and for us monnum þrowode. Nu habbe wæ þa alyseddnesse þurh ðone leofæ Drihten and ure syne forgyfenesse þurh ðone Halige Gast. And þeah al þeo Þrymme is on soðre annesse, and heo us þæs dæda doþ untweolice for þam þe heo alle wurcð an weorc. Þe mon sæð hosp and tal togean þone Halige Gast þe þe næfre ne swicæð synne to wurcean, and on heom wunæ oð his lifes ende, and forsihð þa forgyfenesse þæs soþfesten Gastes, and binimæð him selfum swa þone lyflice wæg buton mildsunge þæs mihtige Gastes mid his heardheortnesse his hetele modes. Đe Halgæ Gast mildsæð bereowsiende monnum, ac heom ne mildsæþ he næfre þe his gyfe forseoð. Nu sceole we biddan mid ibegede mode þene almihtig God, þe us þurh his Wisdom iscop and us aly/s\de þurh þene ylcæ Sunæ, þæt he ure synnen all adiglæde þurh þene Halge Gast and us healde wið deofel þæt we to him gan þe us ær wrohte. Be þreom deadæ we rædæþ þe ure Drihten arerde, ac his wundræ næron iwritene alle. Ac þa ane mon wrat ðe mihton nihtsumien monnum to hæle and to heoræ ileafæ, and þa ðe hæfdon heahlic tacnunge þa wæren iopenode þurh þone Hælend. | His apostoli and heoræ æftergengæn arærden monie men of deaþe, ac þe ylcæ Drihten dude þæt ðurh heom swa swa he dyde ær þurh him sylfum on his andweardnesse.

88 wunæ] wunæd B; wunað H 

286

167v

Text: Lazarus III

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

who is almighty God eternally without beginning from the Father and the Son, the Love of them both. Concerning him we may know that he is the all-ruling God when he is so powerful that he is able to forgive the sins of all people who truly repent of them and their misdeeds here on earth. The Savior alone, who is called Christ, took on human form and suffered for us humans. Now we have redemption through the beloved Lord and forgiveness of our sins through the Holy Spirit. And yet the whole [divine] Majesty exists in true unity, and it undoubtedly accomplishes these actions in us because they all work one work. The man who utters a scornful insult and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit never ceases to commit sins, and persists in them until the end of his life, and despises the forgiveness of the true Spirit, and thus deprives himself of the living way without the mercy of the powerful Spirit on account of [the] hardheartedness of his hostile mind. The Holy Spirit has mercy on repenting people, but he never has mercy on those who despise his grace. Now we ought to pray with a humbled mind for almighty God, who created us through his Wisdom and redeemed us through the same Son, to blot out all our sins through the Holy Spirit and to protect us from the devil so that we may come to him who earlier made us. We read about the three dead people whom our Lord raised, but his miracles were not all written down. But one man wrote down those that are able to suffice for the salvation of people and for their faith, and those that had special significance which were made manifest by the Savior. His apostles and their successors raised many men from death, but the same Lord accomplished that through them as he earlier had done through himself when he was present.

287

LAZARUS III

COMMENTARY For the dating, manuscript witnesses, and relationship of the three versions of Erat quidam languens Lazarus, see the introduction to the notes to Lazarus I. Lines 1–26 [Us sægð … atelice stincæð]: This section corresponds to Lazarus I, lines 172–203, and Lazarus II, lines 173–204. Skipping the close translation of Christ’s raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–45) with which Lazarus I and II begin (Lazarus I, lines 3–112, and Lazarus II, lines 4–113), and Ælfric’s subsequent teaching on God’s power to give life to both body and soul, the death of human souls through sin, sinners’ need for penitence, and three types of spiritual death (Lazarus I, lines 113–71, and Lazarus II, lines 114–72), Lazarus III dives straight into Scriptural exegesis, interpreting the three individuals whom Christ resurrects as symbolic of the three types (or degrees) of the sinful soul’s death. Of the passages extracted from Lazarus I and II, this section has seen the most change. Some differences reflect late Old English readings from the second half of the twelfth century, such as shifts in vowels: we find e and æ appearing interchangeably (segð > sægð [line 1]; arærde > arerde [line 2]), e replacing o (þone > þene [line 4), eo standing for y (þryfealdan > ðreofealde [line 4]), o rather than a being used before a nasal (ealdormannes > ealdormonnes [line 5]), and u being employed rather than y (yfelum > ufelæ [line 16]), for example.1 Other alterations have negligible impact on the overall meaning: the attribute halig (‘holy’ [line 1]) applied to the Gospels, words rearranged (þry men arærde > arerde þreo men [‘raised three people’, line 2]), and Lazarus’ body described as stincende fuyle burigenum (‘stinking foully in the grave’ [lines 10–11]) rather than bebyrged fule stincende (‘buried [and] stinking foully’). On one occasion, a couple key terms are altered – geþafung oððe geþoht [‘consent or thought’] turning to wilnung [‘desire’, line 14] – but the shift from the mind to the heart seems of little consequence, as both refer to internal sin that only later may manifest in action. A pronoun, too, changes genders, with the place in which the ruler’s daughter lies being called hire hus (‘her house’ [line 6]) instead of his; again, however, the change seems simply a reflection that the daughter, not the ruler, is the focus of this story. This said, Lazarus III does alter this section in two substantial ways, reordering the account and condensing it. Where Lazarus I and II introduce and interpret each resurrection before moving on to the next, first of all, Lazarus III describes the resurrections first 1

For a detailed analysis of the language of texts in B, see Irvine, Homilies, pp. lv–lxxvii. Here and below, examples in parentheses are representative rather than exhaustive.

288

Commentary: Lazarus III and then interprets them in turn. Furthermore, Lazarus III omits its predecessors’ direct exhortations to repent and be reunited with one’s mother, the Church (Lazarus I, lines 194–7 and Lazarus II, lines 195–8) and their lament over sinners who refuse to do the work of penitence (Lazarus I, lines 204–10, and Lazarus II, lines 205–11); together, these changes result in a more concise, streamlined text. Lines 27–44 [Ac ure Hælend … soðlice endeleas]: This section corresponds to the beginning of the new material in Lazarus II, lines 212–31 of that version of the homily. Even a glance at the table below shows that changes in this section are far fewer than those above. In addition to additional linguistic shifts – e to i, for example (dyselice > dusilice [line 38]), or u to y (truwienne > trywige [line 32]) – there are omissions (Christ described simply as ure Hælend [‘our Savior’, line 27] without the additional adjective leofa [‘beloved’]), additions (swa ðeah [‘nevertheless’ [line 30]), replacements (Ac [‘But’, line 27] for the introductory Witodlice [‘Certainly’]), and rearrangements (his synne bið [‘his sin will be’, line 44] for byð his synn), but these are minor. Lazarus III also cuts out a few longer phrases – ‘[sawla] þe ðuss ðryfealdlice syngiað’ (‘[souls] who thus sin in three ways’ [Lazarus II, line 213]), ‘Is nu swyðe to witenne þæt’ (‘Now it is essential to know’ [line 216]), and ‘here in ðisum life’ (‘here in this life’ [line 218]) – but again, the edits seem more stylistic than theological, resulting as they do in a more streamlined narrative. Lines 45–85 [Þe almihtig Fæder … wurcð an weorc]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 232–72, again comprising material added to Lazarus I. Having made considerable changes to the opening [lines 1–26] and considerably fewer alterations to the section that followed [lines 27–44], Lazarus III now settles down to reproducing its source with few substantive changes. In addition to many of the vowel shifts seen above, linguistically one finds changes to pronouns, both personal (hi > heom [lines 62 and 70]) and demonstrative (ðam > þan [line 75]). Otherwise, the differences are mostly slight: Lazarus III rearranges a few words (to Criste anum belimpð > bilimpæþ to Criste ane [line 71]), twice adds the modifier Halig (‘Holy’ [line 56 and 59]) to mentions of the Spirit, and moves from direct address (ge magon witan [‘you may know’, Lazarus II, line 262]) to inclusive reflection (we magen witen [‘we may know’, line 75]). Two changes, however, merit further discussion. On the one hand, Lazarus III describes the Spirit not simply as the Love of the Father and Son, but the Love and Will (lufe and willæ [line 63]). The subject as a whole, and these terms specifically, are enormously important to Ælfric (see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1), and consequently such an emendation might well be authorial, supporting the theory that Ælfric (or someone closely familiar with his work) was responsible for shaping the original version of Lazarus III. On the other hand, where Lazarus II refers to the ðrynnyss (‘Trinity’ [line 270]), a characteristically Ælfrician term – variants thereof recur over ninety times in his writings – Lazarus III substitutes þrymm (‘might’ or ‘majesty’ [line 83]). While the word can refer to the Deity,2 much as Maiestas (‘the [divine] Majesty’) is in Hebrews 1.3, and while Ælfric does use þrymm some two dozen times, only here is the term preceded by a definite article (‘the Majesty’). This said, in SH I.11a, 2

Bosworth and Toller, Dictionary, p. 1074.

289

Commentary: Lazarus III somewhat after Lazarus III, Ælfric does speak in the same breath of the ðrynnyss and the unity of the [mægen]ðrymm (on which, see also notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1), echoing Lazarus III’s ‘al þeo Þrymme is on soðre annesse’ (‘all the Majesty is in true unity’ [line 83]): ‘Ðeos is seo halige ðrynnyss þe ealle þing gesceop, an anre Godcundnysse æfre wuniende, on anum mægenðrymme, and on anum gecynde’ (‘This is the Holy Trinity which created all things, One with one eternally-existing Godhead, in one majestic power, and in one nature’).3 Ælfric also discusses the ðrynnyss in fairly close proximity to an mægenðrymm in the Interrogationes4 and the Letter to Wulfgeat.5 Lines 86–100 [Þe mon sæð … us ær wrohte]: This section corresponds to Lazarus II, lines 273–87, nearly the last of the material added to Lazarus I. This material concludes with Lazarus II, lines 288–95, the first eight lines of De cogitatione (AH II.18), but this section is not incorporated into Lazarus III. As with the preceding section, the changes here are minor ones. Linguistic developments in the passage include changes both to vowels – i to e (gebigedum > ibegede [line 95]), i to y (liflican > lyflice [line 90]), y to e (sylfum > selfum [line 90]), and y to i (forsyhð > forsihð [line 89]) – and a consonant, l to d (miltsað > mildsæþ [lines 93 and 94]). In addition again to rearranging words (‘ende his lifes’ > ‘his lifes ende’ [line 88]), moreover, Lazarus III 1. swaps the verb cwyð (‘says’) for sæð (‘speaks’ [line 86]), 2. alters the preposition ongean (‘against’) to togean (‘toward’, though here in practice also meaning ‘against’ [line 86]), 3. substitutes the pronoun heom (‘them’, referring to scorn and blasphemy) for the noun yfel (‘evil’ [line 88]), 4. states that the unrepentant binimæð (‘deprives [himself] of’) the way of life, buton mildsunge (‘without [the Spirit’s] mercy’ [line 91]), rather than belycð (‘locks [himself] from’) the living way to ðære miltsunge (‘to the [Spirit’s] mercy’), 5. references the ‘mildsunge þæs mihtige Gastes’ (‘mercy of the mighty Spirit’ [line 91]) instead of the ‘miltsunge ðæs miltsiendan Gastes’ (‘mercy of the merciful Spirit’), 6. speaks of the almihtig God (‘Almighty God’ [line 96]) as opposed to the ælmihtigan Fæder (‘Almighty Father’), and 7. encourages believers to ask God to blot out ure synnen all (‘all our sins’ [line 98]), where Lazarus II has ure synna fram us (‘our sins from us’). Such changes might be authorial, addressing reduplication in [3], for example, offering a different image in [4], or shifting emphasis slightly in [7]. The evidence is inconclusive,

3

4 5

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, lines 17–19; for similar language, see also p. 471, lines 211–12: ‘on anre G[odcundnysse, and] on anum mægenðrymme anes gecyndes’ (‘in one G[odhead and] in one majestic power of one nature’). Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 565, and p. 238, line 569; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, lines 524–5 and 528. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 1, line 13, and p. 2, line 25.

290

Commentary: Lazarus III however: the words in [1–3 and 6] are common to various authors, the phrases in [4–5] appear to be unique to Lazarus II and III, and both of the expressions in [7] appear elsewhere in Ælfric’s works – all permitting but not confirming the possibility of Ælfric’s authorship. Lines 101–10 [Be þreom deadæ … on his andweardnesse]: This section corresponds to Lazarus I, lines 237–46; and Lazarus II, lines 323–32. For its conclusion, Lazarus III draws on a few sentences after the unique portion of Lazarus II, roughly mid-way through the final material common to Lazarus I and II. The changes here are perhaps the most modest in the homily. Besides further examples of vowel shifts – a to e (genihtsumian > nihtsumien [line 103]), a to i (awritene > iwritene [line 102]), and y to eo (þrym > þreom [line 101]) – and one instance of word reordering (arærdon and heora æftergengan > and heora æftergengæn arærden [lines 107–8]), the only notable difference may be Lazarus III’s omission of the word eft (‘afterwards’, Lazarus I, line 242 / Lazarus II, line 328); even here, however, the effect on the text’s meaning is negligible. More significant, perhaps, are the changes Lazarus III does not make. Where Lazarus I and II conclude with an exhortation to the audience and praise to God, Lazarus III lacks a final formula such as ‘þam si wuldor and lof a to worulde’ (‘to [Christ] be glory and praise forever’; see notes to Lazarus I, lines 286–92). If Lazarus III is by Ælfric, and the copy in B is complete, the omission would suggest that the work is unfinished: perhaps twelve or thirteen years after completing Lazarus I, and perhaps five or so years after Lazarus II, Ælfric distilled portions of his earlier works down into a streamlined homily for another occasion, which he ultimately left useable but unpolished.

291

4

COLLEGERUNT ERGO PONTIFICES Collegerunt ergo pontifices (‘The Chief Priests Therefore Gathered’) is Ælfric’s homily for the Friday of the fifth week of Lent. It stands last in the sequence of pericope homilies that he wrote for the five Fridays in Lent before Good Friday and expounds John 11.47–54,1 a passage directly following the raising of Lazarus that was the subject of the homily for the fourth Friday (AH I.3).2 Our editorial title is taken from the incipit of John 11.47, which begins the account of the meeting of the chief priests and Pharisees at which the high priest Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation. According to John’s account, that meeting also set in motion the plot to kill Jesus, who withdrew from Jerusalem until his return on the Sunday of Passover week, at the end of which he would be crucified. Liturgically speaking, Collegerunt ergo pontifices is Ælfric’s final homily prior to Palm Sunday two days later, when the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem marks the beginning of Holy Week.3 Ælfric begins with a close translation of the day’s pericope [lines 1–27] and commences his exegesis by identifying Lazarus’ resurrection as the catalyst for the council’s plot [lines 28–41]. He had commented at length on the miracle in Lazarus (AH I.3), and as was the case with that homily, Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John guide his interpretation here.4 He links the ‘foolish presumption’ (dyslic dyrstignys [line 36]) of the leadership’s desire to kill Lazarus [lines 36–41] to the plot to put Jesus to death, a plot ultimately foiled when the Crucifixion resulted in the redemption of mankind [lines 42–66]. This ironic reversal prompts Ælfric independently to adapt for this homily the account of the siege of Jerusalem he had written earlier (CH I.38) 1 2 3

4

Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 315 (no. 100). The five Friday homilies are listed above on p. 209, n. 5. Ælfric’s sermons for Palm Sunday are CH I.14 (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 290–8) and CH II.14 (Godden, Second Series, pp. 137–49). Holy Week commemorates the Triumphal Entry on Palm Sunday and the Last Supper, Crucifixion, and Death of Jesus during the Triduum Sacrum, ‘the sacred three days’ of Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday, after which follows the celebration of the Resurrection on Easter Sunday. Andrew Scheil notes that Ælfric’s understanding of the Jews is in part Augustinian (Footsteps of Israel, p. 287), which he summarizes as follows: ‘According to Augustine, the Jews were once God’s chosen people, but, due to their spiritual blindness, they killed Christ and were thus forever cast out from God’s grace. However, the Jews had an important place within Christian cosmology; they provide proof of God’s divine plan as witness to the figural potential of the Christian New Testament with the Judaic Old Law, and thus they were reserved for conversion at the end of time’ (Footsteps of Israel, p. 10). All but the last element regarding conversion are present in Collegerunt ergo pontifices.

293

Introduction: Collegerunt ergo pontifices since the siege, he says, depicts the judgment the chief priests and Pharisees had hoped to avoid by killing Jesus [lines 67–96]. He also underscores the irony of Caiaphas’ prophecy that Jesus would die to save the Jewish nation when, in fact, his death would create a new nation of Jewish and Gentile believers in the Church [lines 97–127]. Ælfric goes on to make two ancillary points related to Caiaphas’ leading role. First, even unbelievers like Caiaphas and King Nebuchadnezzar (Ælfric’s independent example) can testify to divine truths [lines 128–38]. Second, although Caiaphas’ appointment as high priest for a year contravened God’s instructions to Moses to appoint high priests for life one at a time, the office itself is analogous to that of a bishop, whose Old Testament counterpart, Ælfric is careful to point out, had no need to celebrate mass [lines 139–60]. He concludes by interpreting Jesus’ withdrawal from Jerusalem as an authorization for Christians to flee persecution [lines 161–82]. Ælfric may simply be following Augustine for this final point, but given the spike of Viking activity in the 990s when he wrote the homily, the conclusion may have had a more contemporary relevance for him.5 Collegerunt ergo pontifices survives in three copies, and there is evidence of a fourth no longer extant. That evidence consists of a now fragmentary title that an interpolator included in a table of contents he appended to London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v [H].6 The table of contents indicates that Collegerunt ergo pontifices was appended to H as part of a set of Ælfric’s five homilies for Fridays in Lent in sequential order.7 The interpolator, who was working in the mid-eleventh century, did not add the set to H. That was done soon after the manuscript was written at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century. At some point after the interpolator wrote the table of contents, the last lines of Ælfric’s Lazarus homily for the fourth Friday and the whole of Collegerunt ergo ponitifices for the fifth Friday were lost.8 Complete copies of all five Friday homilies survive in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162 [F],9 a collection of more than forty homilies written, like H, at the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century. Rather than copied as a set, the Friday homilies in F have been interspersed among sermons for the five Sundays of Lent.10 As we remarked in the previous chapter, F seems to have been designed primarily for public reading. So Collegerunt ergo pontifices might have been read aloud in the refectories at Canterbury where the manuscript was written or at Rochester where it was later housed, or preached to congregants in these episcopal sees who gathered to observe mass on the final Friday before Holy Week.11 As was the 5

6

7 8 9 10 11

Kleist dates Collegerunt ergo pontifices to ‘Later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 108). For an overview of the Viking activity between 991 and 1005, see Keynes, ‘Æthelred II’. Ker §220; Gneuss and Lapidge §403; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 217–19. The partial title reads: ‘[LXVII] Feria VI. In edbodma[da Vta Collegerunt] pontifices et pharisei [concilium]’ (Ker §220, p. 286). On the work of the interpolator, see above, pp. 212–13. Ker §220.63–66, plus Collegerunt ergo pontifices as listed in the table of contents. Also lost was an unidentified ‘Sermo episcopi’ that followed Collegerunt ergo pontifices (Ker §220, p. 286), on which see above, pp. 212–13 Ker §38; Gneuss and Lapidge §50; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 215. Ker §38.15–26, with the Friday homilies as items 17, 20, 22, 24, and 26. Collegerunt ergo pontifices is item 26. See above, p. 211.

294

Introduction: Collegerunt ergo pontifices case with Ælfric’s Lazarus, we edit Collegerunt ergo pontifices from this manuscript written during his lifetime. It is not possible to offer similar speculations regarding the other two copies of the homily because both belong to twelfth-century collections of homiletic material whose medieval origins and provenances are unknown. Both Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 302 [O],12 dated to the beginning of the twelfth century, and London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix [N],13 dated to its first quarter, are in Elaine Treharne’s judgment ‘utilitarian volumes clearly designed with some practical use in mind’.14 They are ‘small, portable, and non-elaborate in format’,15 and their homilies have been arranged according to the church year. But whether N and O were used for preaching, devotional reading, or reference (or some combination thereof) we cannot say. We can point out that despite their late date, the manuscripts may have shared a common ancestor, perhaps a collection developed by Ælfric himself and issued from his scriptorium between 1002 and 1005.16 If this were the case, then the presence of Collegerunt ergo pontifices in N and O may preserve a trace of authorial preference and pragmatism. As noted in the previous chapter, Ælfric completed the five Friday homilies and his homily for the Third Sunday in Lent between 993 and 998 as a first installment of pericope homilies for occasions not covered in the Catholic Homilies.17 Furthermore, the presence of the Friday homilies in the appendix to H suggests that he had issued them as a set by the late tenth or early eleventh century when they were added to the manuscript. Thus, Ælfric would have had the set at hand when he compiled the common ancestor of N and O between 1002 and 1005. Yet, of the five Friday homilies, he apparently included only Collegerunt ergo pontifices18 even though he used his homily for the Third Sunday in Lent to complete a run of homilies for all five Sundays of the season.19 His decision to leave incomplete a corresponding run of five Friday homilies may preserve a moment when pragmatism took precedence over plenitude. Ælfric is nothing if not practical,20 so maybe the inclusion of Collegerunt ergo pontifices reflects his sense that it would (or should) be the most likely to be 12

13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20

Ker §56; Gneuss and Lapidge §86; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 225–6. Treharne traces the implications of Pope’s tentative dialectical ascription of C ‘to the south-east, particularly Essex and Middlesex, north of the Thames’, and points to St Paul’s Cathedral in London as a possible point of origin in the twelfth century. She does no more than suggest the possibility, however, since C’s spelling may reflect that of the lost exemplar and may not necessarily reflect where C was written even if the spelling is the scribe’s (‘Production and Script of Manuscripts’, p. 20). Ker §153; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 224–5. Treharne, ‘Production and Script of Manuscripts’, p. 39, where this description and that in the next sentence applies to N and O as well to Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116 [S]; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 [C]; and London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xiv [G]. Treharne, ‘Production and Script of Manuscripts’, p. 39. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 28–33. See above, p. 209. Ker §56.24 [O] and Ker §153.20 [N]. Ker §56.18 and 20–3 [O], and Ker §153.11, 13, and 14–19, where N has multiple sermons for the Fourth Sunday in Lent. A good example of Ælfric’s practicality regarding preaching is his decision to slate an Ash Wednesday sermon for the preceding Sunday ‘for ðan þe her bið læs manna on Wodnes-dæg [ðonne nu todæg beoð]’ (‘because there will be fewer people here on Wednesday [than are now here today]’, LS II.11 [Skeat LS I.12] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 22, §6, lines 1–2;

295

Introduction: Collegerunt ergo pontifices preached since it fell on the Friday before the beginning of Holy Week the following Sunday.21 With regard to this supposition, it is worth noting that according to the limited evidence available, Collegerunt ergo pontifices was copied more often than Ælfric’s other Friday homilies.22

21 22

Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 283, lines 289–90). See also the notes to Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 286–92. Clemoes characterizes the sermons for the five Fridays in Lent as being of ‘relatively minor usefulness’ (‘Chronology’, p. 43) The homilies for the first, second, and third Fridays (SH I.2, 3, and 5) survive in two copies in F (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162) and H (Cotton Vitellius C. v); that for the fourth Friday (AH I.3) in three copies in C (Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162), F, and H; and that for the fifth Friday (AH I.4) in four copies, three extant in F, N, and O, and a fourth attested in the table of contents of H.

296

collegerunt ergo pontifices

the chief priests therefore gathered

COLLEGERUNT ERGO PONTIFICES Feria vi in quinta ebdomada quadragesimæ Collegerunt ergo, et reliqua.

5

10

15

Þæt halige godspell þe ge gehyrdon nu rædon segð þæt ‘þa bisceopeal/dras\ and þa Sunderhal/gan\ of Iudeiscre þeode embe urne Drihten ræddon on heora geþeahte him betwynan and cwædon, “Hwæt mage we [la] don nu þes man wyrc/ð\ swa fela tacna? Gyf we hyne forlætað swa, þonne gelyfað ealle menn endemes on hyne, and cumað þa Romaniscan leoda, and ure land gegað, | and ure cyn adylgiað”. And heora an cwæð þa, Caiphas gehaten, se wæs sacerd on þam geare, “Nyte ge nan þing, ne ge þencað þæt us fremað þæt an man swelte for folce and nateshwon ne losie eall seo [mægð tosomne]’”. Nu segð se godspellere þæt ‘he ne sæde na þis Text from: F Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162, pp. 298–305 (s. xex or xiin, SE England, probably Canterbury or Rochester, perhaps St Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury) Original readings that remain visible despite the erasures, underscoring, cancellations, and substitutions of a twelfth-century reviser are reported without comment. Variants from: N London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix, fols 99r–102v (s. xii1) O

Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 302, pp. 151–5 (s. xi/xii)

1 Feria vi…quadragesimæ] Feria vi ante ramos palmarum NO  2 Collegerunt ergo, et reliqua] Collegerunt pontifices et pharisei concilium et dicebant, Quid faciemus quia hic homo multa signa facit? N; Collegerunt … facit? et reliqua O  3 Þæt] large rubricated Þ two lines tall erased O rædon] ‘rædon’ followed by erasure of large ‘Þ’ and a redundant ‘don’  4 þa Sunderhal/gan\ of Iudeiscre þeode] þa farisei NO  5 on] and on NO  6 and] omitted NO mage] magon NO [la]] erased F; la NO  7 man] man þus NO  8 Gyf] A[n]d gif N; And gyf O swa] omitted NO  9 on hyne] repeated and erased F  11 Caiphas gehaten] /þe\ Caiphas gehaten /wæs\, with additions in a different hand F   13 þencað] ne þencað N  15 [mægð tosomne]] erased and ‘þyode’ written in a different hand F; omitted NO; supplied from repetition of the verse [line 100] F nateshwon … [mægð tosomne]] omitted NO

298

p. 299

THE CHIEF PRIESTS THEREFORE GATHERED Friday in the Fifth Week of Lent ‘[The chief priests] therefore gathered’, and so on.1

5

10

15

The holy Gospel that you now heard read says that ‘the chief priests and the Pharisees of the Jewish people deliberated among themselves about our Lord in their council and said, “What can we do now that this man performs so many signs? If we leave him thus, then all men without exception will believe in him, and the Romans will come, and conquer our land, and destroy our nation”. And then one of them named Caiaphas, who was the priest that year, said, “You know nothing, nor do you consider that it benefits us for one man to die for the people so that the whole nation should in no way perish together”’. Now the evangelist says that ‘he did not say this

1

The incipit of John 11.47: ‘Collegerunt ergo pontifices et Pharisaei concilium et dicebant, “Quid facimus? Quia hic homo multa signa facit”’ (‘The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What do we [do]? For this man does many miracles”’).

299

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

of his agenum andgyte, ac openlice witegode, for ðam þe he wæs [sacerd] gesett to þam geare, þæt ure Hælend sceolde sweltan /na\ for þeode anre ac eac swilce gegaderian Godes bearn on an þe ær wæron tostencte. Of þam dæge eornostlice hi anrædlice þohton þæt hi hyne ofslogon and swiðe þæs cepton. Se Hælend þa nolde syððan openlice faren mid þam Iudeiscum ac ferde him þanon to anum westenum earde wið þa burh Effrem, and he þær wunode mid his discipulum’. Þa Iudeiscan ofaxodon hu ure Drihten arærde Lazarum of deaðe, þa ne licode him þæt he swilc/e\ mihte betwux mannum gefremode for ðam þe hi andodon æfre on hys dædum, and eac hi þohton to ofsleanne þone gesæligan Lazarum þe of deaðe aras þurh Drihtnes mihte for þam ðe þa Iudeiscan fela gelyfdon on urne Hælend Crist þurh his ærist of deaðe. Dyslic dyrstignys heora, swilce ure Drihten ne mihte Lazarum aræran to life eft of deaðe, þeah þe hi hyne ofslogon swa swa hi gemynton. Se þe þone deadan | arærde þurh his drihtenlican mihte, se mihte eac swilce, þeah þe he ofslegen wære, hine eft aræran eaðelice to life. Þa earman Iudeiscan embe þæt smeadon, hu hi þæt soðe Lif of life gedydon and noldon smeagan hu hi on hine gelyfdon þæt hi lif hæfdon mid þam soðan Life and swa earmlice on ecnysse ne forwurðan. ‘Hi cwædon on heora geþeahte him betwynon þus, “Hwæt mage we la don nu þes mann þus wyrcð swa fela tacna? [And] gyf we hine forlætað swa, þonne gelyfað ealle men endemas on hyne, and cumað þa Romaniscan leoda and ure land gegað”’. To þam swiðe hi smeadon and syrwdon ymbe Crist þæt þa biscopealdras þæt geban setton 17 ] omitted F; he NO   18 [sacerd]] bisc/e\op written over erasure F; sacerd NO  19–20 ] omitted F; for þeoda and NO  21 ær] þær NO  28 Þa] Þa /þa\, in a different hand F  29 him] hi/o\m in a different hand F  30 þæt] þæt þæt NO swilc/e\] correction in a different hand? F; swylce NO   32 gesæligan] struck through and ‘ilcan’ interlined F; Lazarum] lazarus NO  33 þe] þe /he\, in a different hand F aras…mihte] struck though and ‘arærde’ interlined F   35 urne… Crist] struck through and ‘hine’ interlined F Hælend] drihten O  36 Dyslic dyrstignys heora] ‘heora’ partially erased and struck through, and ‘wæs heora’ added in a different hand after ‘dyslic’ F  38 þe] omitted NO hi] omitted O  40 se mihte] omitted NO þeah þe] omitted NO   41 hine eft aræran] he hine eft mihte aræran N  46 forwurðan] forwurden N; forwurdon O  48 we] ge NO  49 [And]] Tironian et erased F; Tironian et NO  53 geban] ‘bebod’ interlined in a different hand F

300

p. 300

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

according to his own understanding, but [that] he publicly prophesied, because he was the priest appointed for that year, that our Savior was destined to die for the nation, and not for one nation but also to gather God’s children into one who before had been scattered. Accordingly from that day, they single-mindedly thought to kill him and were very intent on that. Then the Savior did not afterwards desire to go about openly among the Jews but went from there to a deserted region in the direction of the city Ephraim, and he remained there with his disciples’. When the Jews learned how our Lord raised Lazarus from death, then it did not please them that he displayed such power among the people because they were always envious at his deeds, and they also thought to kill the blessed Lazarus who rose from death through the Lord’s power because many Jews believed in our Savior Christ on account of his resurrection from death. Foolish [was] their presumption, as if our Lord could not raise Lazarus again from death to life even if they killed him as they intended. He who raised the dead through his divine power might also as easily raise him again from death to life, even if he had been killed. The wicked Jews thought about how to take the life of the true Life and did not wish to think about how to believe in him so that they might have life with the true Life and not perish so miserably forever. ‘They spoke in their council among themselves in this way, “What can we do now that this man thus performs so many signs? And if we leave him thus, then all men without exception will believe in him, and the Romans will come and conquer our land”’. They thought hard about that and plotted against Christ so that the chief priests set forth a decree

301

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

þæt swa hwa swa wiste hwær he wære to soðan þæt he hyt cydde þæt hi hyne gelæhton. Hi sohton þone Hælend, ac hi sohton yfele. Gesælige beoð þa ðe hine secað wel. Swa hi hyne sohton þæt hi sylfe hyne næfdon, ne we þe swiþor gyf hyt be heora willan eode, ac þa þa Crist hi forlet, þa gelæhte we hine mid urum geleafan, and hi hyne forleton. Hyt wæs þa gehende heora Easterdæg, geblodegodne welhreowlice mid þæs Hælendes blode, and he ys þæt Godes Lamb þe alysde mancynn and gehalgode þone dæg mid his halgan blode, þeah þe þa earmingas þæs ne wendon. Hi cwædon þæt þa Roma|niscan heora rice woldon habban, and hyt eac syððan gelamp, swa swa hi foresædon þa, þæt æfter Cristes æriste and upstige to heofonum, comon þa Romaniscan leoda and þæt land gehergodon and þa burh Gerusalem besæton mid fyrde oð ðæt hi hungre acwælon and þa ðe hæfdon sum þing lytles to bigleofan þæt gelæhton reaferas and of þam muðe him abrudon unmæðlice mid þreate. Þa ylcan reaferas urnon geond þa burh mete gehwær secende, and hi manega ofslogon heora agenra burhwara for ðam earmlican hungre, and man þa deadan ne mihte þe þær adydde wæron, sume mid þam hungre, sume þurh þa reaferas, nateshwon bebyrgean for heora mægenleaste, ac wurpon fela hundreda forð ofer þone weall for þam yfelan stence þe him of eode. Þa gewunnon þa Romaniscan mid wige þa burg and þa weallas towurpon and towendon þæt tempel and mid ealle adilogodon þa dyrstigan burhware swa þæt seo brh wearð geworht eft syððan on oðre stowe and se stede æfre syððan wæs æmtig þær heo ær on stod. Þa læddon þa Romaniscan þæt þær to lafe wæs þæs folces, fela hund manna, ham to heora burgum, and þær naht ne belaf on þam lande þæs cynnes and ys swa gefylled | þæt þæt hi foresædon, þæt hi wæron benæmode lifes and eardes. 54 wære to soðan] to soðan wære NO  55 hyt] ‘him’ added after ‘hyt’ in a different hand F   56 sohton] sohton hine NO  57 ðe] ða O  58 Swa] swa swa N  59 ] omitted F; na NO   60 gelæhte] gelæhton NO  62 Easterdæg] Eastertide NO  63 geblodegodne] and hi woldon habban þone halgan easterdæ geblodgodne NO   68 swa swa] swa N  69 upstige] his upstige O  74 and] omitted NO   77 for] on NO  82 þam] þon N  86 brh] brurh F; burh NO wearð] wæs NO  90 ham] omitted NO 

302

p. 301

p. 302

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

that whoever knew where he actually was should make it known to them so that they might seize him. They sought the Savior, but they sought evil. Blessed are they who seek him virtuously. So they sought him not to have him, no more we if it had been done in accordance with their will, but when Christ departed from them, we then seized him with our belief, and they departed from him. At that time it was close to their Passover, cruelly bloodied with the Savior’s blood, and he is the Lamb of God who redeemed mankind and sanctified that day with his holy blood, though the wretches did not expect that. They said that the Romans desired to have their kingdom, and it happened afterwards too, as they predicted at that time, that after Christ’s resurrection and ascension to heaven, the Romans came and harried that land and surrounded the city of Jerusalem with an army until hunger killed them and those who had some bit of food, robbers seized that and cruelly snatched it out of their mouths with threatening. These same robbers ran throughout the city looking everywhere for food, and they killed many of their own townspeople on account of miserable hunger, and the dead who had been killed there, some by hunger, some by robbers, could not even be buried on account of [the townspeople’s] weakness, but they threw many hundreds over the wall because of the foul stench that came from them. The Romans then conquered the city with warfare and tore down the walls and destroyed the temple and entirely obliterated the presumptuous townspeople with the result that the city was later built again in another place and the site always afterwards remained empty where it formerly stood. Then the Romans led the remnant of the people left there, many hundreds of people, home to their city, and nothing of the people was left in the land, and so that which they predicted has been fulfilled, that they were deprived of life and land.

303

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Is swa ðeah micel dæl þæs mancynnes gehwær wide tosawen, and Saracenas habbað þone æþelan eard þe hi ær hæfdon. Caiphas se sacerd cwæð to ðam Iudeiscum, ‘“Nyte ge nan þing, ne ge ne þencað þæt us fremað þæt an man swelte for folce and nateshwon ne losige eall seo mægð tosomne”’. Nu segð se godspellere þæt ‘he ne sæde na þis of his agenum andgyte ac he openlice witegode, for ðam þe he wæs sacerd gesett to þam geare, þæt ure Hælend sceolde sweltan for þeode, and na for ðeode anre ac eac swilce gegaderian Godes bearn on an þe ær wæron tostencte’. Caiphas witegode, þeah þe he wyrðe nære, be ðære anre þeode for ðam þe of þære comon manega gecore, be þam cwæð Crist ær, ‘“Ne eom Ic na asend buton to ðam sceapum Israhela hiwrædene /ða\ þe losedon”’. Ac se godspellere sæde be þam oðrum sceapum of hæþenum folce, be þam se Hælend cwæð, ‘“Ic hæbbe oðre scep þe soðlice ne synt of þysre eowde, and þa Ic sceall lædan, and hi mine stefne gehyrað, and byð an eowd and an hyrde”’. Þa synt þa Godes bearn þe se Hælend gegaderode of Iudeiscre þeode and of hæþenum folce to anre eowde, his Gelaþunge. And þis wæs gesæd be þære soðan forestihtinge, þurh þa | hi wæron gemynte on þam micclan dihte Godes foresceawunge to hys sceapa getele. Næron hi witodlice naðor ne Godes scep ne Godes bearn þa gyt for þam þe hi ne gelyfdon þa gyt on þone Hælend ac gelyfdon syððan and synd nu soðlice his sceap and his bearn, þa ðe he him geceas ær middaneardes gesetnysse. On Caiphas witegunge we synt gemynegode þæt þurh yfele men eac swilce wæs hwilon seo witegung gefremmed, swa swa wæs þurh hyne and þurh þone Chaldeiscan cyning Nabochodonossor, se þe þa þry cnihtas þe wiðcwædon his hæþenscipe het hi gebundenne wurpan into þam byrnendum ofne 94 gehwær] omitted NO  97 Caiphas] Caiphas þa N  104 þeode] þeodan NO  109 gecore] gecorena N; gecorene O cwæð Crist] crist cwæð NO  110 asend] asende N; sænd O   111 /ða\] þa NO  113 be þam] be þam þe N  116 stefne] stemne NO eowd] a letter (‘e’?) and part of a Tironian et has been erased after ‘d’ F; eowd N; eowde with final ‘e’ dotted for deletion O   117 Þa synt] Þas syndon NO Godes] godan NO  120 þis] þus N   121 on þam] repeated twice O dihte] dæge O  123 ne Godes scep] omitted NO  132 se þe] se O  133 þam] omitted NO  

304

p. 303

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Nevertheless, a large portion of the people has been everywhere widely scattered, and the Arabs have the excellent land that they formerly possessed. Caiaphas the priest said to the Jews, ‘“You know nothing, nor do you consider that it benefits us for one man to die for the people so that the whole nation should in no way perish together”’. Now the evangelist says that ‘he did not say this according to his own understanding but [that] he publicly prophesied, because he was the priest appointed for that year, that our Savior was destined to die for the nation, and not for one nation but also to gather God’s children into one who before had been scattered’. Caiaphas prophesied, though he was not worthy, about the one nation because from it came many chosen ones, about whom Christ earlier said, ‘“I am not sent except to the sheep from the household of Israel who were lost”’. But the evangelist spoke about other sheep from gentile people, about whom the Savior said, ‘“I have other sheep that truly are not from this flock, and I shall lead them, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd”’. These are then God’s children whom the Savior gathered from the Jewish nation and gentile people into one flock, his Church. And this was said concerning the true predestination through which they were intended in the great dispensation of God’s divine providence to be counted as his sheep. They were certainly not God’s sheep nor his children as yet because they did not yet believe in the Savior, but [they] believed later and are now truly his sheep and his children, those whom he himself chose before the creation of the world. In the prophesy of Caiaphas we are reminded that prophesy has also been uttered on some occasions through evil men, as it was through him and through the Chaldean king Nebuchadnezzar, who commanded the three young men who rejected his pagan belief to be thrown bound into the burning furnace

305

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

and cwæð syððan to his þegnum þæt he gesawe on þam ofne Godes Sunu gangan mid þam þrym cnihtum. Nu ys heora witegung and heora gelican him sylfum to forwyrde for þam þe hi wiðsocon Criste be þam ðe hi witegodon, þeah þe hi næron wyrðe. Caiphas wæs gesett sacerd to þam geare, ac we secgað nu eow hwi hit swa is gecweden þæt he gesett wære sacerd to ðam geare. God bebead Moyse on þam Munte Sinai þæt Aaron his broþur sceolde beon sacerd and his sunu æfter him, and syððan æfre forð of þam anum cynne sceolde beon gecoren to þam sacerdhade, swa swa | nu synd bisceopas, and ne moste na ma to ðam micclan hade buton an æfter anum of þam ylcan cynne. Ac þa Iudeiscan hæfdon, for heora gytsunge and for heora sacum, gesett nu æt nextan þæt hi ma sacerda him gesette hæfdon and sceolde ælc þenian to anes geares fyrste, swa swa Caiphas wæs geares sacerd. Hi hæfdon þone had þe nu habbað bisceopas to Godes þenungum, ac hi ne þorfton mæssian for ðam ðe huselhalgung næs ær þam ðe se Hælend ær his þrowunge gehalgode hlaf and win to husle, and het syððan don swa on his gemynde. And þa wæs seo mæsse asteald þurh þone mildheortan Crist, þe us þæt wed sealde urum sawlum to clænsunge. We moton nu geendian þyses godspelles race swa swa seo /ge\endung us sæde hwene ær, ‘þæt þa Iudeiscan of þam dæge þohton þæt hi Crist ofslogon and swiðe þæs cepton. Se Hælend þa nolde syððan openlice faran mid þam Iudeiscum ac ferde him þanon to anum westenum earde wið ða burh Effrem, and he þær wunode mid hys discipulum’. He forbeah þa Iudeiscan þeah þe he beon mihte ungederod mid him swa swa he dyde foroft. Ac he beah to ðam westene fram heora wodnysse oð ðæt se tima com þæt he sylfwilles eft þam deaðe genealæhte and ongean ferde. Þa þa he hi forbeah, þa sealde | he bysne 136 ys] his O   145 anum] omitted NO  152 ælc] omitted NO  153 geares] þæs geares NO  156 se Hælend] se hælend com NO  157 gehalgode] and gehalgode NO  158 het syððan] syððan het O  163–6 of þam dæge … mid þam Iudeiscum] syrwdon ymbe þone hælend NO  166 ac] ac he NO  169 he] omitted O  173 ongean] gean O 

306

p. 304

p. 305

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 135

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

and afterwards said to his thegns that he saw in the furnace God’s Son walking with the three young men. Now has their prophecy and also their like been destroyed because they rejected Christ about whom they prophesied, though they were not worthy. Caiaphas was appointed priest for that year, but we will now tell you why it is thus said that he was appointed priest for that year. God commanded Moses on Mount Sinai that Aaron his brother should be the priest and his sons after him, and [that] ever afterwards [the priest] should be chosen for the priesthood from that one line, just as bishops are now, and [that] no more could be chosen for that high office except one after another from the same line. But the Jews, on account of their greediness and their conflicts, had now finally arranged to have more priests appointed for themselves and [that] each should serve a year’s time, just as Caiaphas was priest for that year. They held the office that bishops now hold as God’s ministers, but they had no need to celebrate mass because there was no consecration of the Eucharistic elements before the Savior consecrated the bread and wine as the Eucharist prior to his suffering and issued the command to do so afterwards in memory of him. And at that time the mass was established through the merciful Christ, who gave us that guarantee for the cleansing of our souls. We must now conclude the exposition of this Gospel just as the last section said to us a little earlier, ‘that the Jews of that day thought to kill Christ and were very intent on that. Then the Savior did not afterwards desire to go about openly among the Jews but went from there to a deserted region in the direction of the city Ephraim, and he remained there with his disciples’. He avoided the Jews though he could live unharmed among them as he often did. But he turned away from their madness to a deserted region until the time came that he voluntarily would again draw near to death and go to meet it. When he turned away from them, he then gave an example

307

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 175

180

hys halgum folgerum þæt hi forfleon moston þæra arleasra ehtnysse buton ælcere synne and heora lif gebeorgan and forbugan þa reðnysse. Se mildheorta Hælend þe swa micel forbær for us synfullum sylle us forgyfenysse and his mildheortnysse and mid him wununge on þære ecan worulde. Si him wuldor a on ealra worulda woruld, Amen.

177 and forbugan] wið NO  182 woruld] woruld ecelice NO 

308

Text: Collegerunt ergo pontifices 175

180

to his holy followers that they were allowed to flee the persecution of the wicked without any sin and preserve their lives and evade the cruelty. May the merciful Savior who so greatly endured sinful men on our account grant us forgiveness and his mercy and a dwelling-place with him in the everlasting life. To him be glory forever, Amen.

309

COLLEGERUNT ERGO PONTIFICES

COMMENTARY Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), dateable later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998,1 survives in three manuscripts: F, pp. 298–305 [Ker §38.26]; N, fols 99r–102v [Ker §153.20]; and O, pp. 151–5 [Ker §56.24]. A further copy [which would have been Ker §220.67] once existed in H.2 The text was edited from FNO in the late nineteenth century as Assmann 5.3 Line 2 [Collegerunt ergo [pontifices]]: This phrase (‘The chief priests therefore gathered’), the opening to John 11.47–54, opens the pericope for the Friday after the Fifth Sunday in Lent;4 with it, the copies in MSS F [Collegerunt ergo [pontifices]], N, and O begin. Lines 3–15 [Þæt halige godspell … eall seo [mægð tosomne]]: Expecting that his exposition will follow the oral reading [line 3] of John 11.47–54, Ælfric translates the first four verses in many ways word for word: Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 3–15

John 11.47–50 Collegerunt ergo pontifices et Pharisaei concilium et dicebant quid facimus quia hic homo multa signa facit. Si dimittimus eum sic omnes credent in eum et uenient Romani et tollent nostrum et locum et gentem. Unus autem ex ipsis Caiaphas cum esset pontifex anni illius dixit eis uos nescitis quicquam. Nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.

1 2 3 4

Ða bisceopealdras and þa Sunderhalgan of Iudeiscre þeode embe urne Drihten ræddon on heora geþeathe him betwynan and cwædon, ‘Hwæt mage we la don nu þes man wyrcð swa fela tacna? Gyf we hyne forlætað swa, þonne gelyfað ealle menn endemes on hyne, and cumað þa Romaniscan leoda, and ure land gegað, and ure cyn adylgiað’. And heora an cwæð þa, Caiphas gehaten, se wæs sacerd on þam geare, ‘Nyte ge nan þing, ne ge þencað þæt us fremað þæt an man swelte for folce and nateshwon ne losie eall seo [mægð tosomne]’.

Kleist, Chronology and Canon, 180, 280, and 295 n. 107. See Ker, Catalogue, pp. 285–6; and Clemoes, ‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xxv. Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 65–72. For the history of which, see for example Johnson, ‘From Three Weeks’, pp. 121–5; and Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 315 (no. 100). While this association of pericope and liturgical occasion is traditional, the Friday after the Fourth Sunday in Lent is not in the Gelasian Sacramentary (Chavasse, Sacramentaire Gélasien); the Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (the Temporale material for which runs only from the Friday after Easter through the Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost [Turner, Missal, p. vi]); nor Paul the Deacon’s homiliary (Grégoire, Homéliaires, p. 80). For these sources, see Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), Introduction to lines 1–99.

310

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices Therefore, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, ‘What do we do, for this man does many miracles? If we let him alone like this, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our place and nation’. But one of them, Caiaphas, because he was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You do not know anything. Nor do you consider that it is useful for you that one man should die for the people and the whole nation should not perish’.

The chief priests and the Pharisees of the Jewish people deliberated about our Lord in their council among themselves and said, ‘What may we do now that this man performs so many signs? If we leave him thus, then all men without exception will believe in him, and the Romans will come, and conquer our land, and destroy our nation’. And then one of them called Caiaphas, who was the priest that year, said, ‘You know nothing, nor do you think that it benefits us that one man should die for the people and that the nation should not entirely be lost at all’.

Ælfric does add explanatory and/or intensifying language at various points, however: the religious leaders of Iudeiscre þeode (‘of the Jewish people’ [line 4]) do not just call a council (collegerunt concilium), but ‘embe urne Drihten ræddon on heora geþeathe him betwynan’ (‘deliberated about our Lord in their council among themselves’ [lines 5–6]). They are concerned not just that all (omnes) will believe in Jesus, but that ealle menn endemes (‘all people unanimously [or “entirely”]’ [lines 8–9]) will do so. Moreover, they worry not merely that the nation pereat (‘should perish’), but that it nateshwon ne losie eall (‘should not entirely be lost at all’ [line 15]). The passage is one Ælfric apparently treats only here, though an account of it also appears in Vercelli 1.5 Lines 16–27 [Nu segð se godspellere … mid his discipulum]: Ælfric here finishes translating the passage from John, and again his departures are slight: Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 16–27

John 11.51–4 Hoc autem a semet ipso non dixit sed cum esset pontifex anni illius prophetauit quia Iesus moriturus erat pro gente. Et non tantum pro gente sed et ut filios Dei qui erant dispersi congregaret in unum. Ab illo ergo die cogitauerunt ut interficerent eum. Iesus ergo iam non in palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos sed abiit in regionem iuxta desertum in ciuitatem quae dicitur Efrem et ibi morabatur cum discipulis.

5

…he ne sæde na þis of his agenum andgyte, ac he openlice witegode for ðam þe he wæs sacerd gesett to þam geare, þæt ure Hælend sceolde sweltan na for þeode anre ac eac swilce gegaderian Godes bearn on an þe ær wæron tostencte. Of þam dæge eornostlice hi anrædlice þohton þæt hi hyne ofslogon and swiðe þæs cepton. Se Hælend þa nolde syððan openlice faren mid þam Iudeiscum ac ferde him þanon to anum westenum earde wið þa burh Effrem, and he þær wunode mid his discipulum.

Scragg, Vercelli Homilies, p. 16, line 8 [þa hie] – p. 18, line 18 [goode gelamp], and p. 19, lines 132–41.

311

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices Now [Caiaphas] did not speak this of himself, but because he was the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation – and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered. Therefore from that day they considered how they might kill him. Consequently, Jesus thereafter did not walk openly among the Jews, but went into an area near the desert toward the city that is called Ephrem, and there he remained with [his] disciples.

He did not say this from his own understanding, but [that] he publicly prophesied, because he was the priest appointed for that year, that our Savior should die not for one people but likewise to gather into one God’s children who before had been scattered. From that day earnestly they single-mindedly considered [how] to kill him and were very intent on it. Then the Savior would not afterwards go about openly among the Jews but went from there to a deserted region toward the city Ephraim, and he remained there with his disciples.

In addition to referring to Jesus as Hælend (‘Savior’ [lines 19 and 24]) – one of Ælfric’s favorite terms for the Son, appearing over 1,400 times in his works – Ælfric simplifies his source (omitting the emphatic reduplication of pro gente [‘for the nation’]), adds intensifiers (saying not just that the religious leaders ‘cogitauerunt ut interficerent eum’ [‘considered how they might kill him’] but ‘eornostlice … anrædlice þohton þæt hi hyne ofslogon and swiðe þæs cepton’ [‘earnestly [and] single-mindedly considered [how] to kill him and were very intent on it’, lines 22–3]), and renders pontifex (here, ‘high priest’) as sacerd (‘priest’ [line 12]) – or bisceop (‘bishop’), as the emendation in F would have it; see especially notes to lines 139–60 below. On the translation of anre [line 20], see notes to line 105. On þa Iudeiscan (‘the Jews’) – that is, Jews who opposed Christ and his followers, as distinguished from holy Jewish individuals from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament6 – see Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), lines 180–6.7 Lines 28–41 [Þa Iudeiscan … eaðelice to life]: Transitioning to his commentary on the pericope, Ælfric refers to the Scriptural episode that has provoked the Pharisees’ council: Christ’s raising of Lazarus (John 11.1–45). Ælfric exposits the passage in a companion piece to Collegerunt ergo pontifices: Erat quidam languens Lazarus (AH I.3), the first version of which was composed around the same time (later in the period ca 993 × 993), also features close translations of the relevant biblical passages, and likewise begins by speaking of ‘[þæt] halga godspell þe ge gehyrdon nu rædan’ (‘[the] holy Gospel that you now heard read’ [Lazarus I, line 3, and II, line 4]). Ælfric likely draws simply on Scripture when describing how the Jewish leaders learn of the miracle (John 11.46), respond with envy (John 12.9; cf. Matthew 27.18), and plot to kill Lazarus as well (John 12.10–11) [lines 28–35]. For his judgment that Dyslic dyrstignys heora (‘Foolish [was] their presumption’), however, to kill one whom Jesus could simply raise again [lines 36–41, at 36], Ælfric draws on Augustine’s exegesis of John 11 and 12 in Tractatus in 6

7

Ælfric draws the term Iudaei (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, ‘The Jews’) ultimately from the New Testament, where forms of it appear in various contexts some 187 times: seventeen, for example, are references to Jesus as the rex Iudaeorum (‘king of the Jews’), sixteen or so are descriptions of Jewish feasts or customs, and twenty-one appear in Pauline discussions of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles; seventy-four instances, however – nearly all in the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of John – depict ‘the Jews’ as those who resist the Christian faith and those who practice it. On Ælfric’s depiction of the Jews, see for example Estes, ‘Reading Ælfric’, pp. 269–71 and 274–8, as well as the perspective of Acevedo Butcher, God of Mercy, pp. 39–40.

312

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices Euangelium Ioannis – a source to which he will return repeatedly in Collegerunt ergo pontifices.8 Lines 42–66 [Þa earman Iudeiscan … þæs ne wendon]: Augustine’s Tractatus address the Pharisee’s response to Lazarus’ resurrection, saying ‘Nec tamen dicebant, Credamus … Temporalia perdere timuerunt, et uitam aeternam non cogitauerunt; ac sic utrumque amiserunt’ (‘However, they did not say, “Let us believe” … They feared to lose [their] temporal life, and did not think about [their] eternal life, and so they lost both’).9 Ælfric may have started with such lines, but Collegerunt ergo pontifices’ paronomastic irony – taking life from the Source of life rather than gaining life from him [lines 42–6] – seems to be Ælfric’s own. Next, Ælfric repeats his translation of John 11.47–8 practically verbatim … Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 4–10

Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 46–51

Collegerunt ergo pontifices et Pharisaei concilium et dicebant quid facimus quia hic homo multa signa facit. Si dimittimus eum sic omnes credent in eum et uenient Romani et tollent nostrum et locum et gentem.

[Ð]a bisceopealdras and þa Sunderhalgan of Iudeiscre þeode embe urne Drihten ræddon on heora geþeathe him betwynan and cwædon, ‘Hwæt mage we la don nu þes man wyrcð swa fela tacna? Gyf we hyne forlætað swa, þonne gelyfað ealle menn endemes on hyne, and cumað þa Romaniscan, leoda and ure land gegað, and ure cyn adylgiað’.

Hi cwædon on heora geþeahte him betwynon þus, ‘Hwæt mage we la don nu þes mann þus wyrcð swa fela tacna? And gyf we hine forlætað swa, þonne gelyfað ealle men endemes on hyne, and cumað þa Romaniscan leoda and ure land gegað’.

Therefore, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, ‘What do we do, for this man does many miracles? If we let him alone like this, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our place and nation’.

The chief priests and the Pharisees of the Jewish people deliberated about our Lord in their council among themselves and said, ‘What may we do now that this man thus performs so many signs? If we leave him thus, then all men without exception will believe in him, and the Romans will come, conquer our land and people, and will destroy our race’.

They spoke in their council among themselves in this way, ‘What may we do now that this man thus performs so many signs? If we leave him thus, then all men without exception will believe in him, and the Romans will come and conquer our land and people’.

John 11.47–8

before paraphrasing John 11.56 and translating 11.57:

8

9

Tractatus 50.14 (CCSL 36, p. 439, lines 12–17). Bedingfield notes that Bede’s Homiliae may have served as an intermediate source for Augustine here; see ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’. On Ælfric’s use of the Homiliae e.g., through Paul the Deacon, see Godden, Commentary, p. l; as well as Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 184–8 and 228–32. Tractatus 49.26 (CCSL 36, p. 432, lines 2–3 and 9–10).

313

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices John 11.56–7

Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 52–5

Quaerebant ergo Iesum et conloquebantur ad inuicem in templo stantes quid putatis quia non ueniat ad diem festum. Dederant autem pontifices et Pharisaei mandatum ut si quis cognouerit ubi sit indicet ut adprehendant eum.

To þam swiðe hi smeadon and syrwdon ymbe Crist, þæt þa biscopealdras þæt geban bebod setton þæt swa hwa swa wiste hwær he wære to soðan þæt he hyt him cydde þæt hi hyne gelæhton.

Therefore, they looked for Jesus and talked with one another while standing in the temple, [saying,] ‘What do you think [about the fact] that he has not come on the festival day?’ But the chief priests and the Pharisees had given an order that if anyone should know where [Jesus] was, he should tell [them], so that they might arrest him.

They thought exceedingly about that and schemed about Christ, so that the chief priests established the decree that whoever knew where he actually was should make it know to them so that they might seize him.

Ælfric’s next lines [57–61] become clearer when compared with his Augustinian source: ‘Quaerebant ergo Iesum: sed male. Beati enim qui quaerunt Jesum, sed bene. Illi quaerebant Jesum, ut nec ipsi haberent eum, nec nos: sed ab ipsis abscedentem suscepimus nos’ (‘“Therefore they looked for Jesus” – but in an evil way. For blessed are those who look for him in a good way. Those men were looking for Jesus so that neither they nor we might have him, but we have received him who withdrew from them’).10 Ælfric likely also draws on Augustine for his connection of the sacrificial lamb of Passover with the sacrificed Lamb of Easter,11 though he adds the phrase ‘þeah þe þa earmingas þæs ne wendon’ (‘though the wretches [who killed Christ] did not expect that [redemption would come from it]’ [line 66]). Lines 67–96 [Hi cwædon þæt … hi ær hæfdon]: At this point, Ælfric speaks to the Jewish leaders’ fear that the Romans would land gegað (‘conquer [their] land’ [lines 10 and 51; John 11.48]). Ironically, he says, by killing Christ, the Jews precipitate the judgment that they sought to forestall. For his depiction of the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 [lines 67–96], Ælfric adapts a somewhat longer account of his own from the First Series. The two may be compared as follows:

10 11

Tractatus 50.3 (CCSL 36, p. 434, lines 1–4). Tractatus 50.2 (CCSL 36, p. 433, lines 1–4); Bedingfield, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’.

314

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices CH I.38

Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4)

• The siege takes place 40 years after the Crucifixion [lines 23–5] • Emperor Vespasian sends son Titus [37–8] • 600,000 Jews in the city [40–1] • The Roman army besieges Jerusalem [41–2] • Many thousands die of hunger [42–3] • Bodies cannot be buried; they are cast over the city wall [43–4] • Some bury their kin, but die from weakness [44–5] • Robbers steal any remaining food, pulling meat right from people’s mouths [45–7]

• The siege takes place after the Crucifixion [line 69]

• Robbers scuton (‘rush at [or “strike”]) those with food [46–7]

• Robbers run through the city looking for food and kill those with it [75–7] • Bodies cannot be buried; they are cast over the city wall because of their stench [78–82]

• Starving people chew shoes, clothes, and straw [47–9] • Most of the city perish by famine [52–3] • The Romans slay the rest [53] • The Romans raze the city (Mark 13.2) [53–4]

• 90,000 boys are deported as slaves [55–7] • No Jews remain in the land [57–8]

• Roman army besieges Jerusalem [70–1] • Many die of hunger [72]

• Robbers steal any remaining food with þreate (‘coersion [or “threatening”]’ [73–4])

• The Romans tear down the walls and destroy the temple [83–4] • The Romans ealle adilogodon (‘entirely destroyed’) those who remain [85] • Jerusalem is rebuilt elsewhere; the old site is left vacant [86–8] • The Romans lead the remnant (many hundreds) to Rome [89–90] • No Jews remain in the land [91] • The Jews are scattered widely [94–5]

• Jerusalem is rebuilt elsewhere [58–9] • Arabs (‘Saracens’) inhabit the Jews’ land [59] • Arabs (‘Saracens’) inhabit the Jews’ land [95–6]

In the main, Collegerunt ergo pontifices simply condenses the First Series homily, preserving the order of events therein: while CH I.38 mentions historical details such as dates and names, gives numbers of those who perish or are exiled as slaves, and paints vivid pictures of robbers snatching food from other’s mouths and starving people eating their own shoes, Collegerunt ergo pontifices sacrifices such details for a more succinct story. This said, the later sermon does reorder certain details: it mentions the robbers before the lack of burial of corpses [lines 73–7 and 78–82], the destruction of the city before the slaying of the inhabitants [lines 83–4], and the rebuilding of Jerusalem before the diaspora of the Jews [lines 86–7 and 88–96]. Furthermore, Collegerunt ergo pontifices is not without original color of its own: robbers run through the city and steal food with threats [lines 73–4], it is the stench of rotting bodies that cause their expulsion over the walls [lines 81–2], and the Romans deport a remnant of hundreds [lines 89–90]. This last detail seems to stand in tension with Collegerunt ergo pontifices’s statement that the Romans ealle adilogodon (‘entirely destroyed’) those who remained in the city [line 85], but Ælfric may be recalling his earlier depiction of the youths deported as 315

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices slaves; if so, the discrepancy may suggest that Ælfric reconstructs the whole passage in Collegerunt ergo pontifices from memory. Godden points to Rufinus of Aquileia’s Historia ecclesiastica as Ælfric’s primary source for the episode in CH I.38, perhaps augmented with details from sermons from Haymo of Auxerre’s Homiliae de tempore and Gregory the Great’s Homiliae xl in Euangelia;12 Bedingfield also finds tentative echoes in Hericus of Auxerre’s Homiliae per circulum anni of Ælfric’s summary reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in Collegerunt ergo pontifices [lines 70–2].13 Lines 97–106 [Caiphas se sacerd … ær wæron tostencte]: Ælfric now returns to John 11.49–52, paraphrasing but slightly what he already had translated: Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 11–21

Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 97–106

Unus autem ex ipsis Caiaphas cum esset pontifex anni illius dixit eis uos nescitis quicquam. Nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat. Hoc autem a semet ipso non dixit sed cum esset pontifex anni illius prophetauit quia Iesus moriturus erat pro gente. Et non tantum pro gente sed et ut filios Dei qui erant dispersi congregaret in unum.

And heora an cwæð þa, Caiphas gehaten, se wæs sacerd on þam geare, ‘Nyte ge nan þing, ne ge þencað þæt us fremað þæt an man swelte for folce and nateshwon ne losie eall seo [mægð tosomne]’. Nu segð se godspellere þæt he ne sæde na þis of his agenum andgyte, ac he openlice witegode for ðam þe he wæs sacerd gesett to þam geare, þæt ure Hælend sceolde sweltan na for þeode anre ac eac swilce gegaderian Godes bearn on an þe ær wæron tostencte.

Caiphas se sacerd cwæð to ðam Iudeiscum, ‘Nyte ge nan þing, ne ge ne þencað þæt us fremað þæt an man swelte for folce and nateshwon ne losige eall seo mægð tosomne’. Nu segð se godspellere þæt he ne sæde na þis of his agenum andgyte, ac he openlice witegode for ðam þe he wæs sacerd gesett to þam geare, þæt ure Hælend sceolde sweltan for þeode, and na for ðeode anre ac eac swilce gegaderian Godes bearn on an þe ær wæron tostencte.

But one of them, Caiaphas, because he was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You do not know anything. Nor do you consider that it is useful for you that one man should die for the people and the whole nation should not perish’. Now [Caiaphas] did not speak this of himself, but because he was the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation – and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered.

And then one of them who was called Caiaphas, who was the priest that year, said, ‘You know nothing, nor do you think that it benefits us that one man should die for the people and the whole [nation together] should not perish at all’. Now the evangelist says that he did not say this from his own understanding, but [that] he publicly prophesied, because he was the priest appointed for that year, that our Savior should die not for one people but likewise to gather into one God’s children who before had been scattered.

Caiaphas the priest said to the Jews, ‘You know nothing, nor do you think that it benefits us that one man should die for the people and the whole nation together should not perish at all’. Now the evangelist says that he did not say this from his own understanding, but [that] he publicly prophesied, because he was the priest appointed for that year, that our Savior was destined to die for the people, and not for one people but likewise to gather into one God’s children who before had been scattered.

John 11.49–52

12 13

Commentary, pp. 232–3; see also pp. lix, liv–v, and liii (respectively) for Ælfric’s use of these works in the Catholic Homilies. ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’.

316

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices After modifying somewhat the introductory transition to the passage, Ælfric further intensifies his depiction of the danger to the Jewish nation (which he has just described at some length [lines 83–96]) – it is not just that the nation may ‘perish’ (pereat [John 11.50]), but that ‘nateshwon ne losige eall seo mægð tosomne’ (‘the whole nation together should not perish at all’ [line 100]), Ælfric’s terms nearly stumbling over themselves in their desire for emphasis. In addition, Ælfric states that Caiaphas prophesies that Christ will die ‘for þeode, and na for ðeode anre’ (‘for the people, and not only for the people’ [lines 104–5]), paralleling the Vulgate’s ‘pro gente, et non tantum pro gente’ (John 11.52). While anre may correspond to tantum, however, meaning ‘only’ or ‘alone’, it may also look ahead to Ælfric’s second use of an: Jesus dies ‘na for ðeode anre ac eac swilce gegaderian Godes bearn on an þe ær wæron tostencte’ (‘not for one people [the Jews alone] but likewise to gather into one God’s children [Jews and Gentiles] who before had been scattered’ [lines 20–1 and 105–6]). That Ælfric also has this meaning of an in mind is reinforced by his subsequent exegesis: ‘Þa synt þa Godes bearn þe se Hælend gegaderode of Iudeiscre þeode and of hæþenum folce to anre eowde, his Gelaþunge’ (‘These then are God’s children who the Savior gathered from the Jewish nation and the gentile people into one flock, his Church’ [lines 117–19]). On Caiaphas’ role as sacerd (‘priest’ [lines 95 and 101]), see notes to lines 139–60 below. Lines 107–27 [Caiphas witegode … ær middaneardes gesetnysse]: Caiaphas may not be wyrðe (‘worthy’ [line 107; cf. 128–38]) to prophesy about Christ, as he is calling for Jesus’ death, but Ælfric follows the Gospel writer in acknowledging the prophecy’s truth: Jesus dies ‘gegaderian Godes bearn on an’ (‘to gather God’s children into one’ [lines 105–6]), even as he states in Matthew, Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 110–11

Matthew 15.24 Non sum missus nisi ad oues quae perierunt domus Israhel.

‘Ne eom Ic na asend buton to ðam sceapum Israhela hiwrædene ða þe losedon’.

‘I was not sent save to the sheep of the house of ‘I am not sent except to the sheep from the Israel who were lost’. household of Israel who were lost’.

Ælfric translates the passage straightforwardly, as he does the next verse he adduces to interpret the ‘lost sheep’: Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 114–16

John 10.16 Et alias oues habeo quae non sunt ex hoc ouili et illas oportet me adducere et uocem meam audient et fiet unum ouile unus pastor.

‘Ic hæbbe oðre scep þe soðlice ne synt of þysre eowde and þa Ic sceall lædan, and hi mine stefne gehyrað and byð an eowd and an hyrde’.

‘I also have other sheep that are not of this flock: I need to bring them as well. They shall hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd’.

‘I have other sheep that truly are not from this flock and I shall lead them, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd’.

317

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices Augustine’s Tractatus provide Ælfric with this exegetical concatination of passages:14 Jesus dies for the Jewish people [John 11.50–1; lines 98–102 and 104], even as he had described his mission [Matthew 15.24; lines 110–11]; in addition, however, he dies for his ‘other sheep’, the Gentiles [John 10.16; lines 114–16], who together with Jewish believers become one flock of God’s children, the Church [John 10.16 and 11.52; lines 117–19]. Ælfric’s discussion of this divine plan of salvation in terms of predestination (forestihting [line 120]), foreknowledge or providence (foresceawung [line 122]), and election (þa ðe he him geceas [‘those whom he himself chose’, line 127]), as well as his explanation that before Christ, the righteous had been ‘witodlice naðor ne Godes scep ne Godes bearn þa gyt forþam þe hi ne gelyfdon þa gyt on þone Hælend’ (‘truly neither God’s sheep nor God’s children yet, because they had not yet believed in the Savior’ [lines 123–4], reflects Augustine’s concluding statement: ‘Haec autem secundum praedestinationem dicta sunt: nam neque oues eius, nec filii Dei adhuc erant, qui nondum crediderant’ (‘Now these [Jewish and Christian people] are called [“sheep” and “children of God”] in accordance with predestination, for they were neither his sheep nor children of God yet, who had not yet believed’).15 Drawing on Ephesians 1.4, furthermore, Ælfric adds that God chose these elect before the foundation of the world [line 127]. On Augustine’s and Ælfric’s understanding of predestination, foreknowledge, and election, see for example Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 7, 32, 169, 183, 211, and 216; 21–3 and 25; and 11, 12, 200, and 202, respectively. Lines 128–38 [On Caiphas witegunge … hi næron wyrðe]: Augustine may also be behind Ælfric’s assertion that God can prophesy truth through individuals such as Caiaphas [line 128] or þurh yfele men (‘through evil men’ [line 129], paralleling the Tractatus’ per homines malos16) – but not Ælfric’s additional example here of Nebuchadnezzar. The allusion is to Daniel 3: the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar has a large idol made and commands his subjects to worship it; the Jews Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse; the enraged king has them thrown into a blazing fire; he sees them walking in the fire with one similis filio Dei (‘like a son [or “the Son”] of God’ [Daniel 3.25 (Vulgate 3.92)]; he calls them to come out, sees that they are unharmed, and praises the true God. The question is in what sense Nebuchadnezzar’s words may be considered as witegung (‘prophecy’ [line 130]) – a term Ælfric does not include in his summary of Daniel 3 in CH I.37.17 Ælfric speaks only of Nebuchadnezzar’s command to throw the Jews into the fire [lines 132–3] and vision of ‘Godes sunu gangan mid þam þrym cnihtum’ (‘God’s son walking with the three youths’ [line 135]). Perhaps Ælfric has in mind Nebuchadnezzar’s truthful proclamation about God thereafter: ‘erumpens Nabuchodonosor ait benedictus Deus … neque enim est Deus alius qui possit ita saluare’ (‘bursting forth, Nebuchadnezzar 14 15

16 17

Bedingfield, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’. Tractatus 49.27 (CCSL 36, p. 433, lines 29–31). Bedingfield notes that Hericus of Auxerre’s Homiliae in circulum anni may have served as an intermediate source for Augustine here; see ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’. On Ælfric’s use of Hericus e.g. through a later version of Paul the Deacon’s homiliary (such as that printed by Migne in PL 95), see Godden, Commentary, p. lv. Tractatus 49.27 (CCSL 36, p. 432, lines 6–7). Clemoes, First Series, p. 503, lines 190–9. Godden suggests that Ælfric draws directly on Scripture rather than a secondary source for this First Series passage (Commentary, p. 316).

318

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices said, “Blessed [be] God … for there is no other god who can save like this” [Daniel 3.28–9 (Vulgate 3.95–6)]). If so, perhaps the brief addendum here is Ælfric’s own, from his reading of Scripture: Nebuchadnezzar is, after all, a striking example of an apparent unbeliever testifying to divine truths. As the king’s words do not speak of the future, however, one wonders whether Ælfric is remembering a source that explicitly described Nebuchadnezzar as ‘prophetic’. Perhaps that source also inspired (and might explain) Ælfric’s odd statement that the unbelief of Nebuchadnezzar and Caiaphas brought about not only their destruction but the destruction (forwyrd) of their prophecies as well [lines 136–7]. Regardless, Ælfric links these figures again by his concluding verbal description: both næron wyrðe (‘were not worthy’ [line 138; see also line 107]). Lines 139–60 [Caiphas wæs gesett … sawlum to clænsunge]: Here at last Ælfric pursues in detail a question that has lurked since his description of Caiaphas as sacerd on þam geare (‘priest that year’ [line 12; see also 16]). That – aside from F’s emended reading of bisceop (‘bishop’ [line 18]) – Ælfric should describe Caiaphas as a sacerd [lines 97, 103, 139, 140, and 153] seems reasonable enough: the Vulgate uses pontifex to translate the Gospel’s ἀρχιερεύς (John 11.49), which in turn corresponds to the Old Testament’s ‫כֹּהֵן‬ ‫‘( ַהגָדול‬great’ or ‘high priest’ [e.g., Leviticus 21.10 and Numbers 35.25]) or ‫כֹּהֵן‬ ‫הָר ֹאׁש‬ (‘chief’ or ‘head priest’ [e.g., 2 Kings 25.18 and 2 Chronicles 19.11]); Caiaphas’ priestly role thus is well established. The problem is that the New Testament refers to two living high priests during this period: Caiaphas, pontifex anni illius (‘the high priest that year’ [John 11.49]), and Annas, his father-in-law, also called ἀρχιερεύς or princeps sacerdotum (‘chief of the priests’ [Acts 4.6]); John the Baptist is similarly said to live in the desert ‘cum principibus sacerdotum Anna et Caiapha’ (‘under [i.e., “in the time of”] the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas’ [Luke 3.2]). As Ælfric points out, however, the Pentateuch makes clear that the high priestly office must be passed down from father to son upon the father’s death (e.g., Exodus 28.1 and Numbers 20.26): ‘of þam anum cynne sceolde beon gecoren to þam sacerdhade, swa swa nu synd bisceopas’ (‘[the priest] should be chosen for the priesthood from one line, just as bishops are now’ [lines 145–6]). Bishops in Christ’s Church may not be related by blood, as were high priests in the line of Aaron [line 143], but both posts, Ælfric affirms, were to be appointments for life. Drawing likely again on Augustine’s Tractatus,18 Ælfric concludes: ‘þa Iudeiscan hæfdon for heora gytsunge and for heora sacum gesett nu æt nextan þæt hi ma sacerda him gesett hæfdon and sceolde ælc þenian to anes geares fyrste, swa swa Caiphas wæs geares sacerd’ (‘the Jews, on account of their greediness and their conflicts, had now arranged at last to have more priests appointed for themselves and (that) each should serve a year’s time, just as Caiaphas was that year’s priest’ [lines 149–53]). Further insight into the historical situation is offered by Don Carson as follows: Joseph Caiaphas had been appointed high priest in AD 18 … His father-in-law was Annas, who himself … held the office from AD 6 until AD 15, when Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor, deposed him. Annas continued to hold enormous influence, not only because many Jews resented the arbitrary deposition and appointment of high 18

Bedingfield again notes that the passage could have been mediated by Hericus’ Homiliae; see ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’.

319

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices priests by a foreign power … but also because no fewer than five of Annas’ sons, and his son-in-law Caiaphas, held the office at one time or another (Josephus, Antiquities, 20.198). Annas was thus the patriarch of a high priestly family, and doubtless many still considered him the ‘real’ high priest even though Caiaphas was the high priest by Roman lights … The demonstrative that [John 11.49] may simply mean ‘that fateful year’ or ‘that memorable year’, referring to Jesus’ death – a solution favoured by the repetition of the words in [11.51 and 18.13], and one that can be traced back to Origen. Alternatively, it must be remembered that although the Old Testament specified that the high priest, once appointed, was to serve for life, in reality the office had long been a political football, high priests being appointed and deposed at the will (or whim) of the overlord.19

On the difference between the Aaronic line and Christian priesthood, given the privilege of the latter to handle the Eucharistic elements [lines 154–8], see De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 65–81 and notes thereto. Lines 161–77 [We moton nu … forbugan þa reðnysse]: In his concluding lines, Ælfric continues his pattern of returning to his Scriptural source and then commenting briefly on it. Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 22–27

Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 163–8

Ab illo ergo die cogitauerunt ut interficerent eum. Iesus ergo iam non in palam ambulabat apud Iudaeos sed abiit in regionem iuxta desertum in ciuitatem quae dicitur Efrem et ibi morabatur cum discipulis.

Of þam dæge eornostlice hi anrædlice þohton þæt hi hyne ofslogon and swiðe þæs cepton. Se Hælend þa nolde syððan openlice faren mid þam Iudeiscum ac ferde him þanon to anum westenum earde wið þa burh Effrem, and he þær wunode mid his discipulum.

… þa Iudeiscan of þam dæge þohton þæt hi Crist ofslogon and swiðe þæs cepton. Se Hælend þa nolde syððan openlice faran mid þam Iudeiscum ac ferde him þanon to anum westenum earde wið ða burh Effrem, and he þær wunode mid hys discipulum.

Therefore from that day they considered how they might kill him. Consequently, Jesus thereafter did not walk openly among the Jews, but went into an area near the desert toward the city that is called Ephrem, and there he remained with [his] disciples.

From that day earnestly they single-mindedly considered [how] to kill him and were very intent on it. Then the Savior would not afterwards go about openly among the Jews but went from there to a deserted region toward the city Ephraim, and he remained there with his disciples.

… the Jews of that day thought to kill Christ and were very intent on that. Then the Savior would not afterwards go about openly among the Jews but went from there to a deserted region toward the city Ephraim, and he remained there with his disciples.

John 11.53–4

The city of Ephraim has not been identified with certainty, but is thought to correspond to the Old Testament city of Ophrah in Benjamin (Joshua 18.23) and modern-day Taybeh (et-Taiyiba),20 some twenty miles north-east of Jerusalem. Drawing again on Augustine’s Tractatus,21 Ælfric affirms Christ’s ability to survive the Jews if he chose (see for example 19 20 21

Carson, Gospel, pp. 421 and 580–1. Rasmussen, Atlas, p. 214. Tractatus 49.28 (CCSL 36, p. 433, 5–11), again perhaps mediated by Hericus’ Homiliae (Bedingfield, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 5’).

320

Commentary: Collegerunt ergo pontifices John 7.30 and 44) [lines 169–70], before contrasting Christ’s decision to turn away from persecution (John 11.54) to his subsequent determination to head toward Jerusalem as the time comes near for his death (John 12.12; see also Luke 9.51 and 18.31–3) [lines 171–3]. In acting thus, Ælfric avers, Jesus sets an example for his followers: not (as one might expect from Ælfric’s preceding statement) that Christians should discern when to shun and when to embrace persecution, but that ‘hi forfleon moston þæra arleasra ehtnysse buton ælcere synne and heora lif gebeorgan and forbugan þa reðnysse’ (‘they must flee persecution of the wicked without any sin and protect their lives and evade the cruelty’ [lines 175–6]). The triple emphasis here – flee persecution, protect one’s life, evade cruelty – may simply reflect the wording of the Tractatus, which says that Christ ‘exemplum discipulis demonstrabat, in quo appareret non esse peccatum, si fideles eius qui sunt membra eius, oculis persequentium se subtraherent, et furorem sceleratorum latendo potius deuitarent, quam se offerendo magis accenderent’ (‘gave an example to his disciples in which it would be apparent that there was no sin if his faithful, who are his members, should withdraw themselves from the eyes of persecutors, and by hiding should avoid the rage of the wicked rather than make it greater by offering themselves up’).22 Even so, one wonders if Ælfric’s own experience with Viking depredations – noted, for example, in his Second Series Latin preface – might not have been somewhat in mind. Lines 181–2 [Si him wuldor a on ealra worulda woruld, Amen]: The beginning of Ælfric’s benediction here flows from his preceding exegesis – Christ endured persecution to save us; may he thus grant us forgiveness and eternal life [lines 178–81] – and thus is unique to Collegerunt ergo pontifices. So too is his concluding formula; however, it comes close to variations seen often elsewhere, such as ‘[Sy him] ece wuldor on ealra worulda woruld’ (LS II.18 [Skeat I.19]23), ‘[Sy him] wuldor and lof [or lof and wuldor] on ealra worulda woruld’ (CH I.17, CH I.31, and CH II.2424), and ‘[Sy him] wuldor and wurðmynt on ealra worulda woruld’ (CH II.27,25 CH II.31,26 CH II.37,27 LS I.9 [Skeat I.10],28 and LS I.10 [Skeat I.11]29). For other formulas, see notes to AH I.2, lines 421–4; AH I.3 [Lazarus I], line 292; AH I.6, lines 161–2; AH I.7, line 306; AH II.12, line 61; AH II.13, lines 175–6; AH II.14, lines 306–12; AH II.19, lines 79–80; and AH II.21, lines 2–3 (Gebed I), 6–10 (Gebed III), and 22–5 (Gebed VII); and AH II.23, lines 15–16.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Tractatus 49.28 (CCSL 36, p. 433, lines 7–11). Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 190, line 258; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 430, line 258. Godden, Second Series, p. 229, lines 252–3. Godden, Second Series, p. 247, line 180. Godden, Second Series, p. 271, lines 106–7. Godden, Second Series, p. 317, lines 205–6. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 298, line 292; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 238, line 292. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 320, line 277; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 254, line 277.

321

5

MODICUM ET IAM NON UIDEBITIS ME Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (‘A Little While and then You Will Not See Me’) is Ælfric’s homily for the Third Sunday after Easter, and our editorial title reflects the opening words of the first verse of the day’s pericope, John 16.16–22.1 The reading for the day is a portion of the Last Supper Discourses in John 14–17 that Jesus delivers to his disciples after washing their feet and predicting Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial. Here Jesus announces that his disciples will soon see him no more and soon thereafter will see him again, prompting their confusion and thus his comfort that their grief will be turned to joy. Because Ælfric wrote about this moment near the end of Jesus’ life very near the end of his own, Modicum bears witness to his indefatigableness as he composed new works (and revised old ones) within a few years of his death around 1010.2 Ælfric wrote Modicum between about 1006 and 1010,3 a period during which he focused on expanding his series of temporale homilies for Sundays and non-saints’ feast-days linked to Easter. As early as 993 he had begun supplying pericope homilies for occasions not covered in the Catholic Homilies, and between 1002 and 1005 the first stage of a series known as Temporale Homilies I (TH I) took shape.4 Between 1006 and 1010, a second stage, Temporale Homilies II (TH II), emerged.5 At that time Ælfric appears to ‘have expanded his temporale series from forty homilies running from Christmas to the First Sunday after Pentecost (TH I) to seventy-two homilies [fifty-two now extant] spanning the liturgical year and focusing particularly on the exposition of pericopes (TH II)’.6 AH I.5 is one of ten surviving new pericope homilies he composed for TH II.7 One sermon is for Christmas, seven focus on the period after Pentecost, one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 320 (no. 125). Kleist notes that 1013 is the absolute limit for the date of Ælfric’s death (Chronology and Canon, p. 20). Kleist dates Modicum to ‘ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010)’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 109). On his initial efforts, see above, p. 209, and on TH I, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 27–33. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 38–9. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 38. Listed in order of the ecclesiastical year, the ten homilies are as follows: [1] Christmas Day (SH I.1); [2] Wednesday in the Fourth Week of Lent (Irvine 3); [3] Third Sunday after Easter (AH I.5); [4] Fifth Sunday after Pentecost (SH II.13); [5] Sixth Sunday after Pentecost (SH II.14); [6] Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (SH II.15); [7] Tenth Sunday after Pentecost (SH II.16); [8] Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost (SH I.17); [9] Twenty-Second Sunday after Pentecost (Irvine 1); and [10] Twenty-Third Sunday after Pentecost (Irvine 2) (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 38–9). Also belonging to TH II are the non-pericope homily, De Sancta Trinitate et de Festis Diebus per

323

Introduction: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me is Ælfric’s only extant homily for a Wednesday in Lent,8 and Modicum completes a run of five Sundays after Easter before Ascension Sunday. He had completed runs of five pericope homilies for the Sundays and Fridays in Lent,9 so his composition of Modicum suggests that the provision of homilies for the five Sundays after Easter was equally important to him. This run lent symmetry to his expanding temporale series and allowed him to focus on closing the gaps in the Sundays after Pentecost. Modicum is a two-part homily. The first part consists of Ælfric’s ‘straightforward’ exegesis of the pericope [lines 1–149].10 He begins by contextualizing the passage of Scripture as part of John’s eyewitness account from the Thursday evening before Good Friday [lines 2–16]. He then provides a close translation of the pericope [lines 17–33] and proceeds to repeat and exposit its various lines in sequential order. Homilies by Bede and Haymo of Auxerre on John 16.16–22 guide his exposition, but not slavishly so. He takes care to explain the import of Jesus’ words for his followers both then and in Ælfric’s own day. He makes analogous, for example, the disciples’ sorrow at Jesus’ crucifixion turning into joy at his resurrection and English Christians’ sorrow over their earthly toil turning into heavenly joy when they see their Savior [lines 85–9 and 136–49]. Likewise, Jesus’ comparison of the disciples’ grief and joy to the pain and elation of childbirth yields an analogy wherein the Church does not remember the pain of her struggle against sin when she joyfully gives birth to a spiritual child [lines 90–106]. Like their Mother, her children will suffer before they will rejoice, as the feast-days of martyrs and confessors attest [lines 117–26]. But it is Ælfric, not Bede or Haymo, who observes that a newborn’s cry prophesies a life of struggle against sin and temptation prior to the joys of heaven [lines 127–32]. Part two of Modicum consists of the story from Matthew 28.11–15 of the Jewish leadership’s attempt to suppress the news of the resurrection and a vignette from the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus about the imprisonment and miraculous escape of Joseph of Arimathea who furnished a tomb for Jesus’ body [lines 150–88]. Haymo refers to the Gospel account, but Ælfric introduces the apocryphal story, presumably to drive home the point that the Jews who rejoiced at Jesus’ crucifixion would, in the wake of his resurrection, have only sorrow in this life and the one to come. Part two thus provides the inverse corollary of the reversal from sorrow to joy that Jesus promised his followers and that Ælfric treats at the end of part one [lines 136–49]. In addition to this thematic resonance, the homily’s conclusion also supplies details of events that took

8 9 10

Annum (SH I.11a), and other new compositions that incorporated, revised, or adapted earlier work: a revision of CH II.8, possibly Erat quidam languens Lazarus II and III (Friday in the Fourth Week of Lent) [if Ælfric was responsible for the latter]; a revision and augmentation of CH II.16; an augmentation of SH I.7 (Fourth Sunday after Easter); a revision of CH II.23a [lines 1–125]; a revision of CH II.25; and revisions of CH II.26, CH II.28 + SH II.26 (Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost), and CH II.31 + SH II.27 (Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost) (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 38–9, 101–4, and 285–88). Clemoes (First Series, p. 82) suggests that ‘Ælfric may have composed now-lost homilies for additional Wednesdays in Lent’ (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 298 n. 154). See above, p. 209, notes 4 (for the Sunday homilies) and 5 (for the Friday homilies). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 339.

324

Introduction: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me place between Jesus’ resurrection and ascension, the forty days commemorated during the five Sundays after Easter.11 Modicum survives in one copy found in Cambridge, Trinity College B. 15. 34 [U],12 a now fragmentary collection of homilies by Ælfric that covers Sundays and non-saints’ feast-days from Easter to the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost. U was written around the middle of the eleventh century probably at Christ Church, Canterbury, and though twelfth-century corrections in a non-south-eastern dialect suggest it did not remain there, its provenance is unknown.13 Certain features of U suggest, however, that it may have been intended as a public reading book. Even in its fragmentary state, its bulky 432 pages would be well suited for use at a lectern. Its spacious interlineation, light abbreviation, clear punctuation, and rubricated capitalization at sentence boundaries make it easy to read.14 Who would have assembled to hear its homilies read and where we cannot say, but had Modicum and the other sermons in U been preached, Ælfric would undoubtedly have been pleased.15 U contains five of the ten new homilies he composed to expand his temporale series, as well as twelve sermons he revised for TH II between about 1006 and 1010.16 That a compiler some forty years later saw fit to arrange a temporale collection of exclusively Ælfrician materials meant that Ælfric continued to reach his implied audience of the faithful who assembled regularly for Sundays and important festivals to celebrate mass and hear the preaching of God’s word.17

11

12 13 14

15 16

17

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 339. Pope makes this point about AH I.5 and SH I.7, Ælfric’s homily for the Fourth Sunday after Easter, for both homilies contain similar treatments of the guards at Jesus’ tomb and were composed about the same time. Ker §86; Gneuss and Lapidge §177; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 232–3. Wilcox, ‘Cambridge, Trinity College B.15.34 (369)’, p. 17. The criteria used to arrive at this supposition are those used by Treharne to reach the same conclusion about Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 162 [F], a late tenth- or early eleventh-century collection of homilies possibly written at Canterbury in the monastery of St Augustine (‘Making their Presence Felt’, pp. 407–8). This would be especially true with U since the collection consists only of works by Ælfric and did not mix them with theologically suspect material. The five homilies are AH I.5 and SH II.13–16 (listed above in n. 7), and the revised homilies are CH I.15–24 and 28, and SH I.7 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 38–9). Kleist cautions, however, that the changes to CH I.15–24 and 28 as part of phase ζ of CH I dissemination ‘may not be substantial enough to warrant calling them newly-revised texts for TH II’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 103 n. 92). Godden offers this general characterization of Ælfric’s audiences: ‘If the primary target audience was the laity and their ill-educated preachers, there is also much in the Catholic Homilies that reflects the specialist concerns of monks, the clergy and the more learned’ (Commentary, p. xxvi).

325

modicum et iam non uidebitis me

a little while and then you will not see me

MODICUM ET IAM NON UIDEBITIS ME Dominica tertia post pasca

5

10

15

20

25

Ure leofa Hælend, þa ða he her on life wæs mid mannum wunigende and wundra wyrcende, þa þa hit genealæhte þæt he his lufe geswutelode eallum mancynne mid micelre eadmodnesse þæt he syllan wolde hine sylfne for us, þa on ðam Frigeæfene þæs þe he on mergen þrowode, þa manode he his folgeras | þe him folgodon on life mid langsumere spræce and hy lærde georne mid luflicum wordum and gewissode hy for ðan þe he fundode þa to ferenne of worlde, of ðisum earfoðnessum, to his ælmihtigan Fæder. Iohan/n\es awrat þis, þe wæs his discipulus, swiðe leof þam Hælende, þe gehyrde þa his word, swa swa þis godspell nu us sægð heræfter, ‘Modicum et non uidebitis me’, et reliqua: ‘“Medemmicel hwil is þæt ge me ne geseoð and eft is lytel fæc þæt ge me eft geseoð for ðan þe Ic fare nu to minum heofonlican Fæder”. Þa wundrodon hy swiðe þære sægene him betwynan, and se Hælend þa oncneow þæt hy hine acxian woldon þæra worda digolnyssa and geandwyrde him þus, “Soð, soð Ic eow sæcge þæt ge sceolon wepan and on mode heofian, and þes middaneard blissian. | Ge beoð geunrotsode, ac eower unrotnys bið witodlice awænd eow eall to blisse. Þonne þæt wif acænð, hyre cymð unrotnys. Eft þonne heo hæfð hyre cild acænned,

Text from: U Cambridge, Trinity College B. 15. 34, pp. 79–90 (s. ximed, probably Christ Church, Canterbury) Original readings that remain visible despite erasures are reported without comment. Alterations in a hand of the second half of the eleventh century, which frequently consist of changing hi to hy and him to hym, and alterations and glosses in a twelfth-century hand are not reported.

328

p. 80

p. 81

A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN YOU WILL NOT SEE ME The Third Sunday after Easter

5

10

15

20

25

Our beloved Savior, while he was alive here dwelling among mankind and working miracles, when the time drew near for him to reveal his love for all mankind with great humility so that he desired to give himself for us, on the Thursday evening after which he would suffer in the morning, he then exhorted his followers who followed him while [he was] alive with a long speech and eagerly taught them with loving words and guided them because he intended at that time to depart from the world, from these afflictions, to his almighty Father. This was written down by John, who was his disciple, very dear to the Savior, who heard his words at that time, as now this Gospel relates to us next, ‘Modicum et non uidebitis me’, et reliqua:1 ‘“It will be a short while that you will not see me and a short time later that you will see me again because I am now going to my heavenly Father”. At that time, they wondered exceedingly among themselves about that utterance, and then the Savior understood that they desired to ask him about the hidden meaning of those words and replied to them in this way, “Truly, truly I say to you that you will weep and lament in spirit, and this world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but truly your sorrow will be entirely turned into joy for you. When a woman gives birth, sorrow comes to her. Later when she has given birth to her child,

1

The incipit of John 16.16: ‘“Modicum et iam non uidebitis me, et iterum modicum et uidebitis me, quia uado ad Patrem”’ (‘“A little while and now you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me, because I go to the Father”’).

329

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me 30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

þonne forgyt heo hire unrotnysse for þan þe man is on middanearde acenned. Nu eornostlice hæbbe ge sume unrotnysse, and Ic eft eow geseo and eower heorte blissað, and nan man ne mæg eowre blisse eow ætbredan’”. We habbað nu gesæd þus sceortlice þis godspell anfealdum andgite on engliscum gereorde, and we eac wyllað sum andgit eow sæcgan of ðæs Hælendes wordum eow to geleafan. “‘Medemmicel hwil is þæt ge me ne geseoð, and eft is lytel fæc þæt ge me eft geseoð, for ðan þe Ic fare nu to minum hofonlican Fæder’”. Þeos hwilwende gesihð, þæt hy hine gesawon and eft ne gesawon, to ðam swiðost belimpð þe him þa mid wæron and his word gehyrdon | for þan þe Iudas com mid þam cwealmbærum on þære ilcan nihte mid ormætere wæpnunge, eac mid leohtfatum, and belæwde þone Hælend þam arleasum cwellerum swa swa him ær gewearð, and hy hine læddon to heora heafodmannum. He wearð þa on Frigedæg gefæstnod on rode and on æfen bebyrged æfter his forðsiþe, and hy ða ne gesawon syððan þone Hælend oð ðæt he on Sunnandæg, swa swa he him sæde ær, gesund aras of deaðe and geswutelode hine his halgum apostolum and hy gefrefrode. And he menigfealdlice heora mod gegladode mid his fægeran lare, hu hy læran scoldon ealle þeoda on ðisum middanearde to þam soðan geleafan, swa swa witegan sædon be his agenre þrowunge and be his æriste and be his upstige eft syððan to heofonum. ‘Þa wundrodon hy swiðe þære segene | him betweonan, and se Hælend ða oncneow þæt hy hine acxian woldon þære worda digolnysse and geandwyrde him þus, “Soð, soð Ic eow secge þæt ge sceolon wepan and on mode heofian and þes middaneard blissian”’. Þa þe Crist lufedon and his lare gehyrdon mid him wunigende and his wundra gesawon, þa wæron sarige and swiðe geunrotsode þa ða hy gesawon, swa swa we sædon ær, þæt þa cwelleras comon, and hy Crist gebundon læddon to þam heafodmannum, and hy hine fordemdon

40 hofonlican] hofonlican U  44 cwealmbærum] an erasure of approximately seven letters follows U

330

p. 82

p. 83

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me 30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

she then forgets her sorrow because a human being has been born into the world. Therefore you now will have some sorrow, and later I will see you and your heart will rejoice, and no one will be able to take your joy from you’”. We have thus now briefly declared the simple sense of this Gospel in the English language, and we also want to declare to you some sense of the Savior’s words to give you faith. “‘It will be a short while that you will not see me, and a short time later that you will see me again because I am now going to my heavenly Father’”. This temporary sighting, that they saw him and later did not see him, pertained chiefly to those who were with him at that time and heard his words because Judas came with the murderous ones on the same night with heavy weapons, also with lights, and betrayed the Savior to the wicked killers just as he earlier conspired with them, and they led him to their leaders. Then on Friday he was fastened upon the cross and in the evening [was] buried after his death, and then they did not see the Savior afterwards until he on Sunday, just as he said to them earlier, arose sound from death and revealed himself to his holy apostles and comforted them. And he abundantly gladdened their minds with his excellent teaching about how they ought to guide every nation on this earth to the true faith, just as the prophets told about his suffering and about his resurrection and about his ascension to heaven afterwards. ‘At that time, they wondered exceedingly among themselves about that utterance, and then the Savior understood that they desired to ask him about the hidden meaning of those words and replied to them in this way, “Truly, truly I say to you that you will weep and lament in spirit, and this world will rejoice”’. Those who loved Christ and heard his teaching while dwelling with him and saw his miracles were sad and very sorrowful when, as we said earlier, they saw that the killers came, and led Christ bound to the leaders, and condemned him

331

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

unscyldigne to deaðe, and þa swiðe blissedon, þa þe middaneardlice þing lufedon to swiðe. Þæt wæron þa Iudei þe wunnon on ðone Hælend, and him hefi/g\tyme wæs þæt hy hine gesawon for þan þe he ameldode heora manlice geþohtas and heora unrihtwisnysse he him openlice sæde. Þa wurdon hy swiþe bliþe þæt hy geseon moston æfre þone dæg þæt he fordemed wurde /to\ swa | bysmorlican deaðe swa swa hy him gemynton for þan þe on ðam timan næs on þære þeode nan deaþ swa huxlic swa swa on rode hengenne. “‘Ge beoð geunrotsode, ac eower unrotnyss bið witodlice awænd eow eallum to blisse’”. Hy wurdon geblissode wundorlice on mode þurh þæs Hælendes ærist and his upstige to heofonum, þa ðe hine lufedon, ac þas word belimpað to eallum þam geleaffullum þe her on life swincað and þurh wop gewilniað þæs ecan wuldres mid him. “‘Þonne þæt wif acænð, hyre cymð unrotnyss. Eft þonne hy hæfð hire cild acænned, þonne forgyt heo hire unrotnysse for ðan þe man is on middanearde acænned’”. Þæt wif is her gecweden eall Cristes Gelaþung on gastlicum andgite, þe is his agen bryd, swa swa hit oft sægð swutollice on bocum þæt heo is ure modor and mæden, swa þeah symble | acenð hire cild þam Hælende on þam halgan fullute to þam heofonlican life. And heo ne mæg na beon butan earfoðnessum þonne heo æfre sceal winnan wið ða unþeawas and wið ða heafodleahtras her on þi/s\sum life. Ac þonne oferwinð þa gewitendlican geswinc and þa leahtras ofercymð þurh Cristes sylfes fultum, þonne ne gemunð heo hire modes biternysse, gif heo þa gastlican cild Gode accennan mæg. Existimo enim quod non sunt condigne passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam que reuelabitur in nobis. Paulus þeoda lareow cwæð on his larbocum, ‘Ic wene soðlice þæt ne synd na emlice þissere tide þrowunga þam toweardum wuldre þe bið geswutelod on us sylfum þonne’, þæt is, on heofonan rice, gif we her nu swincað,

107 condigne] condigne U 112 þe] ‘þ’ erased before ‘þe’ U

332

p. 84

p. 85

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

guiltless to death, and [that] those who loved the things of this world too much rejoiced exceedingly. Such were the Jews who strove against the Savior, and it was burdensome for them to see him because he revealed their wicked thoughts and he spoke publicly to them about their unrighteousness. Then they were very happy ever to be able to see the day that he was condemned to so disgraceful a death as they had intended because at that time there was among that people no death so shameful as to be hanged on a cross. ‘“You will be sorrowful, but truly your sorrow will be entirely turned into joy for you”’. They became wonderfully joyful in spirit on account of the Savior’s resurrection and his ascension to heaven, those who loved him, but these words pertain to all the faithful who here in this life toil and on account of weeping desire everlasting glory with him. ‘“When a woman gives birth, sorrow comes to her. Later when she has given birth to her child, she then forgets her sorrow because a human being has been born into the world”’. The woman is here designated as all of Christ’s Church in a spiritual sense, which is his own bride, just as it is often clearly declared in books that she is our mother and a maiden, though [she] continually bears her children for the Savior in holy baptism to the heavenly life. And she cannot ever be without afflictions when she must always struggle against vices and capital sins here in this life. But when she overcomes temporary toil and conquers sins with Christ’s help, then she will not remember her anguish of spirit if she can for God give birth to a spiritual child. Existimo enim quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam que reuelabitur in nobis.2 Paul the teacher of the people said in his book of instruction, ‘I truly consider that the sufferings of this time are not comparable to the future glory that will then be revealed in us’, that is, in the kingdom of heaven, if we now toil here, 2

Romans 8.18: ‘Existimo enim quod non sunt condignæ passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae reuelabitur in nobis’ (‘For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us’).

333

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me 115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

feohtende mid geleafan wið leahtras and synna. Ac ealle we forgytað þæt ærre | geswinc gif ure sawla becumað gesælige to Criste. Se bið soþlice acænned þe siðað to Criste, to ðam ecan life on ðam þe he a leofað, swa swa þa halgan martiras þe her micel þrowedon and þa clænan confessores þe Criste þeowedon and nu libbað mid him, and we on life healdað heora gemynd nu mid mæssum and lofsangum on þam dæge þe hy gewiton of þissere worulde to Criste and þæt is heora gebyrdtid on bocum gecweden, nateshwon woplice swa swa man bewepð deadne ac swiþe wuldorfull mid ecum wurðmynte. Þæt cild þe bið acænned sona hit cyð mid wope and þærrihte witegað þissere worulde geswinc and þa toweardan costnunga, þeah þe hit ne cunne nan þing, for ðan þe hit cymð hyder to hefegum geswince and to micclum gewinne, swa swa Iob iu awrat and swa swa Salomon sæde on his gesetnyssum. ‘“Nu eornostlice | hæbbe ge sume unrotnysse, and Ic eft eow geseo and eower heorte blissað, and nan man ne mæg eowre blisse eow ætbredan”’. Þis he gecwæð þa be ðam þe him folgodon and eac be þam eallum þe hine lufiað for þan þe he geseah hy syððan he of deaðe aras and he hy gefrefrode, swa swa we her foresædon. And dæghwamlice he gesihð þa þe hine lufiað and heora geþyld gewelegað gewunnenum sige þonne hy sigefæste beoð oferswiðedum costnungum. Us ealle he gesihð on ðam ecan wuldre, and ure heorte blissaþ on his gesihþe þearle, and þa micclan blisse us ne ætbret nan man for ðan þe ðær ne wunað nan wiþerwinna ne nan yfel ehtere þe us dreccan mage þonne Crist ure Lif, þe we lufiað nu, us æfre gegladað on ealre godnysse. We wyllað nu sæcgan be þam ungesæligum Cristes cwellerum, hu forcuðe hy ðohton þa ða hy feoh sealdon, | swa swa us sæde se godspellere, eallum þam weardmannum þe wæron asænde fram þam ealdorbisceopum to Cristes byrgenne þæt hy his lic bewacedon þæt he ne wurde forstolen. Hy comon þa and cyddon þæt Crist aras of ðeaðe, and þa heafodmenn sona on synderlicum geþeahte þone sceat him sealdon and bædon þæt hy sædon þæt þæs Hælendes lic hym wurde forstolen 334

p. 86

p. 87

p. 88

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me 115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

fighting with faith against vices and sins. But we will entirely forget that earlier toil if our souls come blessed to Christ. He who has truly been born will go to Christ, to the everlasting life in which he believes at all times, as [did] the holy martyrs who here suffered much and the pure confessors who suffered for Christ and now live with him, and while living we preserve their memory now with masses and songs of praise on the day that they departed from this world to Christ and that in books is called their birthday, not at all tearfully as one mourns the dead but very gloriously with everlasting honor. The child who is born announces it immediately with crying and straightaway prophesies this world’s toil and future temptations, though it knows no such thing, because it comes here to heavy toil and great struggle, just as Job formerly described and Solomon related in his writings. ‘“Therefore you now will have some sorrow, and later I will see you and your heart will rejoice, and no one will be able to take your joy from you”’. He said this at that time about those who followed him and also about all who love him because he saw them after he arose from death and he comforted them, just as we said here before. And he daily sees those who love him and enriches their patience for the victory gained when they are victorious in temptations overcome. He will see us all in everlasting glory, and our heart will rejoice greatly in his sight, and no one will take away that great joy because no adversary or evil persecutor who is able to torment us will dwell there when Christ our Life, whom we love now, forever gladdens us with every virtue. We now want to speak about the wretched killers of Christ, what they wickedly were thinking when they gave money, as the evangelist told us, to all the guards who were sent from the high priests to Christ’s tomb to guard his body so that he would not be stolen. They arrived at that time and said that Christ arose from death, and the leaders immediately in a private council gave them the payment and entreated them to say that the Savior’s body had been stolen 335

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me 160

165

170

175

180

185

mid ðam þe hy befulon fæste on slæpe. Hy namon þone sceatt and swa þeah muþetton and on synderlicum runungum þæt riht eall ræddon. Þa wurdon þa Iudeiscan wodlice astyrode wið ðone halgan Ioseph þe ðone Hælend bebyri[g]de, swa swa Hieronimus sæde syððan on his cranice, þæt hy setton þone Ioseph sona on cweartern for þan þe he him on teonan his lic | bebyrigde on eall niwre þruh and he hine behwearf. Hwæt, þa Godes wundor þær wearð geswutelod on þære sweartan nihte þa ða he sæt on þam cwearterne, þæt þæt stænene cweartern stod eall on lofte up fram þære eorðan swylce englas hit ahofen up be mannes wæstme, and Ioseph wearð ahred swa þæt þa heardheortan his næfdon nan þing, ne hym nan bliss ne becom of Cristes æriste. Þa cwædon þa weardmenn, þe bewiston Cristes lic to þam hetelum Iudeiscum, mid hospe him þus to, ‘Reddite nobis Ioseph, et nos reddamus uobis Cristum’: ‘“Agifað us nu Ioseph, and we agifað eow Crist”’. Manega unblissa and micele sorga becomon þam Iudeiscum, swa swa us cyðað bec, æfter Cristes slege, be ðam we sædon hwilon on Engliscum gewritum, hu hy wurdon adydde | and hy maran sorge sceoldon habban eft þonne hy on Domesdæg fordemde beoð to helle mid ðam hetolan deofle þe hy forlærde to þam. Sy nu wuldor and lof þam welwillendan Hælende a on ecnysse þæt he us alysde, Amen.

336

p. 89

p. 90

Text: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me 160

165

170

175

180

185

from them when they fell fast asleep. They took the payment and nevertheless divulged and explained the truth by means of private whisperings. The Jews were then so madly incited against the holy Joseph who buried the Savior, as Jerome later said in his chronicle, that they immediately put Joseph in prison because as a reproach to them he had buried [Jesus’] body in a new tomb and attended to him. Well, a miracle of God was then revealed there during the dark night when he sat in the prison, so that the stone prison rose completely up into the air from the ground as if angels lifted it on account of the man’s height, and Joseph was rescued so that the hard-hearted possessed nothing of His, nor did any joy come to them on account of Christ’s resurrection. Then the guards, who watched over Christ’s body for the hateful Jews, spoke contemptuously to them in this manner, ‘Reddite nobis Ioseph, et nos reddamus uobis Cristum’:3 ‘“Now give us Joseph, and we will give you Christ”’. Many miseries and great sorrows came to the Jews, as books make known to us, after the killing of Christ, about which we at one time spoke in English writings, how they were killed and are destined later to have more sorrow when on Judgment Day they will be condemned to hell with the hateful devil who led them astray to that end. Now to the benevolent Savior be glory and praise forever because he redeemed us, Amen.

3

This sentence is extra-biblical; see the commentary on lines 163–79.

337

MODICUM ET IAM NON UIDEBITIS ME

COMMENTARY Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), datable to ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010), survives only in U, pp. 79–90 [Ker §86.6]. It was previously edited in the late nineteenth century as Assmann 6.1 Title and line 1 [Modicum et iam … Dominica tertia post pasca]: The passage Ælfric exposits in this homily is John 16.16–22, a text long associated with the Third Sunday after Easter. It appears in the Gelasian Sacramentary as the official Roman pericope for the occasion ‘from about 700 onward’,2 and functions similarly in the Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (s. xi1/2) – a text ‘invaluable as an indication of [which Gospel readings] would have been familiar to Ælfric’3 – in Paul the Deacon’s homiliary,4 on which Ælfric drew heavily for his Catholic Homilies,5 and in the liturgical rubrics of other Anglo-Saxon Gospel-books and homilies.6 Our editorial title, Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (‘A Little While and then You Will Not See Me’), reflects the opening words of John 16.16. Lines 2–12 [Ure leofa Hælend … his ælmihtigan Fæder]: In setting the context for the pericope that follows, Ælfric uses phrases evocative of previous verses in John. Stating that Christ ‘her on life wæs mid mannum wunigende’ (‘was here in this world dwelling among mankind’ [lines 2–3]) echoes John 1: ‘Verbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis’ (‘the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ [1.14]). Setting the scene ‘þa þa hit genealæhte þæt he his lufe geswutelode eallum mancynne mid micelre eadmodnesse’ (‘when the time drew near that he revealed his love for all mankind with great humility’ [lines 4–5]) recalls the beginning of the account of the Last Supper in John 13: ‘sciens Iesus quia uenit eius hora … cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo in finem dilexit eos’ (‘Jesus, knowing that his hour was come … because he had loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end’ [13.1]) – humbling himself by washing their feet (13.4–12) and then humbling himself unto death (19.16–30; see also Philippians 2.8). Explaining that Jesus did so ‘for ðan þe he fundode þa to ferenne of worlde … to his ælmihtigan Fæder’ (‘because he intended at that time to go from the world … to his 1 2 3 4 5 6

Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 73–80. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293; see Chavasse, Sacramentaire Gélasien, p. 243. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293 n. 27; see Turner, Missal of the New Minster, p. 4. Grégoire, Homéliaires, p. 96. See for example Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manuscript’; and Godden, Commentary, p. xli. Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 320 (no. 125).

338

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me almighty Father’ [lines 11–12]) similarly corresponds to John’s affirmation that Christ acts ‘sciens … quia uenit eius hora ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem’ (‘knowing … that his hour was come that he should go from this world to the Father’ [13.1]) and ‘sciens quia … ad Deum uadit’ (‘knowing that … he was going to God’ [13.3]). Finally, describing Jesus’ exhortation to his followers as a langsume spræce (‘long speech’ [line 9]) particularly suits John’s Gospel, which devotes five of its twenty-one chapters (John 13–17) to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, rather than a portion of a chapter in each of the Synoptics (Matthew 26.21–9, Mark 14.18–25, and Luke 22.15–58). Thus commences Frigeæfen (‘Thursday evening’ [line 7]) – called ‘Maundy’ Thursday at least by 1400 after Christ’s mandatum (‘command’) in John 13.34 for his disciples to love one another.7 Lines 13–33 [Iohan/n\es awrat þis … blisse eow ætbredan]: In describing the eponymous evangelist as swiðe leof þam Hælende (‘very dear to the Savior’ [line 14]), Ælfric reflects John’s own indirect description of himself as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (John 13.23, 19.26, 20.2, 21.7, and 21.20). The first such reference, in fact, is at the Last Supper (John 13–17, at 13.23), making John an eyewitness to Christ’s words that follow (‘Iohannes … gehyrde þa his word’ [‘John … heard his words at that time’] [lines 13–14]). Here, in the opening paragraph of his sermon, Ælfric gives the Latin incipit and then renders the pericope in Old English; thereafter, he repeats and exposits individual lines from the passage. The verses warrant discussion in stages, however, since Ælfric’s approach to translation – though conservative throughout – varies somewhat, and one verse (John 16.20b) he also treats in the Catholic Homilies. In translating the first verse, Ælfric largely follows the original, even replicating the substantive adjective + future verb construction (modicum … uidebitis [‘a little [while] … you will see’]) with an adjectivally-modified noun + verb with future force (medemmicel hwil … geseoð [‘a short while … you [will] see’]). The result, which may sound stilted to modern ears, is not one he repeats elsewhere in his corpus, preferring for example a preposition of time + future verb – as when the angel tells Maurus in LS I.6 that most of his monks ‘sceal of life gewitan binnan lytlan fyrste’ (‘will die in a little while’).8 He does simplify the Latin by omitting iam from the incipit, though he knows it can refer to future events (‘a little while, and then’ [line 16]);9 he also adds to the immediacy of Christ’s words by adding nu (‘I am now going’ [line 19]). Aside from the incipit, however, he reproduces his translation verbatim when returning to it in lines 38–40.

7 8 9

See ‘Maundy Thursday, n.’, OED Online; and Bretzke, Consecrated Phrases, p. 137. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 212, lines 331–2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 166, lines 331–2. See Ælfric’s discussion of iam in his Grammar (Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 241, line 18 – p. 242, line 1).

339

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me John 16.16

Modicum (AH I.5), lines 16–19

Modicum, lines 38–40

‘Modicum et iam non uidebitis me et iterum modicum et uidebitis me quia uado ad Patrem’.

Modicum et non uidebitis me, et reliqua; ‘Medemmicel hwil is þæt ge me ne geseoð, and eft is lytel fæc þæt ge me eft geseoð, for ðan þe Ic fare nu to minum heofonlican Fæder’.

‘Medemmicel hwil is þæt ge me ne geseoð, and eft is lytel fæc þæt ge me eft geseoð, for ðan þe Ic fare nu to minum heofonlican Fæder’.

A little while, and then you will not see me; and a little while once more, and you will see me, because I am going to the Father.

A little while, and you will not see me, and so on. ‘It is a short while that you will not see me, and a short time later that you will see me again, because I am now going to my heavenly Father’.

‘It is a short while that you will not see me, and a short time later that you will see me again, because I am now going to my heavenly Father’.

Next, Ælfric comes to a section of the Gospel scene with redundant dialogue, as both the disciples and Jesus himself rehearse what he has said. Ælfric streamlines these verses through paraphrase: the disciples are confused (wundrodon [line 20]), Jesus knows it, and he answers them accordingly. (In the process, Ælfric calls Jesus se Hælend [‘the Savior’, line 21], a term he uses for the Son over 1,400 times.) When Ælfric returns to the passage later in lines 61–5, he copies his translation word for word. John 16.17–20a

Modicum (AH I.5), lines 20–24

Modicum, lines 61–5

Dixerunt ergo ex discipulis eius ad inuicem, ‘Quid est hoc quod dicit nobis: “Modicum et non uidebitis me et iterum modicum et uidebitis me”, et “quia uado ad Patrem”?’ Dicebant ergo, ‘Quid est hoc quod dicit, “Modicum”? Nescimus quid loquitur’. Cognouit autem Iesus quia uolebant eum interrogare et dixit eis: ‘De hoc quaeritis inter uos quia dixi, “Modicum et non uidebitis me et iterum modicum et uidebitis me”? Amen amen dico uobis quia plorabitis et flebitis uos mundus autem gaudebit’.

Þa wundrodon hy swiðe þære sægene him betwynan, and se Hælend þa oncneow þæt hy hine acxian woldon þæra worda digolnyssa and geandwyrde him þus, ‘Soð, soð Ic eow sæcg þæt ge sceolon wepan and on mode heofian, and þes middaneard blissian’.

Þa wundrodon hy swiðe þære segene him betweonan, and se Hælend ða oncneow þæt hy hine acxian woldon þæra worda digolnysse and geandwyrde him þus, ‘Soð, soð Ic eow secge þæt ge sceolon wepan and on mode heofian and þes middaneard blissian’.

Then some of his disciples said to one another, ‘What is this that he is saying to us: “A little while, and you will not see me; and a little while once more, and you will see me,” and “because I am going to the Father”?’ Then they said: ‘What is this that he is saying, “a little while”? We do not know what he is saying’. Now, Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, and he said to them, ‘Are you asking each other about this, that I said, “A little while, and you will not see me, and a little while once more, and you will see me”? Truly, truly I say to you that you shall weep and lament, but the world will rejoice’.

They then wondered greatly among themselves at that utterance, and the Savior understood that they desired to ask him about the hidden meaning of those words and he answered them in this way, ‘Truly, truly I say to you that you will weep and lament in spirit, and this world will rejoice’.

They then wondered greatly among themselves at that utterance, and the Savior understood that they desired to ask him about the hidden meaning of those words and he answered them in this way, ‘Truly, truly I say to you that you will weep and lament in spirit, and this world will rejoice’.

340

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me For the conclusion of verse 20, Ælfric adds various intensifiers. When he first translates the verse in the Catholic Homilies, he underscores that believers will face trials on þisum life (‘in this life’), while describing their joy at Jesus’ return – both at his resurrection and, by implication, the eschaton – as ece (‘everlasting’). In Modicum, however, he appends different words for emphasis: the disciples’ sorrow will witodlice (‘truly’) be turned eall (‘entirely’) to joy eow (‘for you’ [lines 25–6]) – all additions he preserves in lines 83–4 as well. Modicum (AH I.5), lines 25–6

Modicum, lines 83–4

‘Vos autem contristabi- ‘Ge beoð geunrotsode mini sed tristitia uestra on þisum life, ac uertetur in gaudium’. eower unrotnes bið awend to æcere blisse’.

‘Ge beoð geunrotsode, ac eower unrotnys bið witodlice awænd eow eall to blisse’.

‘Ge beoð geunrotsode, ac eower unrotnyss bið witodlice awænd eow eallum to blisse’.

‘And you will be saddened , but your sorrow will be turned into joy’.

‘You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will truly be turned entirely into joy for you’.

‘You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will truly be turned entirely into joy for you’.

CH I.910

John 16.20b

‘You will be sorrowful in this life, but your sorrow will be turned into everlasting joy’.

Ælfric both streamlines and intensifies Jesus’ image of the woman in labor. The woman is not said to grieve because her hour comes, for example (tristitiam habet quia uenit hora eius); rather, in a compact image, sorrow itself comes to her (hyre cymð unrotnys [line 27]). Delivery leads her to forget not out of joy in the birth (propter gaudium quia natus est homo) but, more succinctly, ‘because a person has been born’ (for þan þe man is … acenned [line 30]). Sorrow is not matched with distress, as in the original (tristitia … pressura); rather, adding power through parallelism, sorrow comes, and sorrow is forgotten (unrotnys … unrotnys [lines 27 and 29]). And where the Vulgate speaks but of ‘the child’ and ‘the distress’ (puer … pressura), Ælfric makes both terms personal: it is ‘her child’ and ‘her sorrow’ (hyre cild … hire unrotnysse [lines 28–9]). John 16.21

Modicum (AH I.5), lines 27–30

Modicum, lines 90–3

‘Mulier cum parit tristitiam habet quia uenit hora eius cum autem pepererit puerum iam non meminit pressurae propter gaudium quia natus est homo in mundum’.

‘Þonne þæt wif acænð, hyre cymð unrotnys. Eft þonne heo hæfð hyre cild acænned, þonne forgyt heo hire unrotnysse for þan þe man is on middanearde acenned’.

‘Þonne þæt wif acænð, hyre cymð unrotnyss, eft þonne hy hæfð hire cild acænned, þonne forgyt heo hire unrotnysse, for ðan þe man is on middanearde acænned’.

‘A woman, when she gives birth, has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has given birth to the child, then she does not remember the distress for joy that a person has been born into the world’.

‘When a woman gives birth, sorrow comes to her. Later when she has given birth to her child, then she forgets her sorrow because a person has been born into the world’.

‘When a woman gives birth, sorrow comes to her. Later when she has given birth to her child, then she forgets her sorrow because a person has been born into the world’.

10

Clemoes, First Series, p. 253, lines 120–1.

341

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me This juxtaposition of abbreviation and expansion is seen in the last verse of the pericope as well. On the one hand, Ælfric replaces igitur … quidem (‘therefore … indeed’) simply with eornostlice (which can mean either ‘therefore’ or ‘indeed’ [line 31]). On the other, he qualifies ‘sorrow’ (tristitia or unrotnys) with sume (‘some’ [line 31]), while stating not just that ‘gaudium uestrum nemo tollit’ (‘no one will take your joy’), but that ‘nan man ne mæg eowre blisse … ætbredan’ (‘no one will be able to take your joy’ [line 33]). John 16.22

Modicum (AH I.5), lines 31–3

Modicum, lines 133–5

‘Et uos igitur nunc quidem tristitiam habetis, iterum autem uidebo uos et gaudebit cor uestrum et gaudium uestrum nemo tollit a uobis’.

‘ Nu eornostlice hæbbe ge sume unrotnysse, and Ic eft eow geseo and eower heorte blissað, and nan man ne mæg eowre blisse eow ætbredan’.

‘Nu eornostlice hæbbe ge sume unrotnysse, and Ic eft eow geseo and eower heorte blissað, and nan man ne mæg eowre blisse eow ætbredan’.

‘You also therefore now indeed have sorrow, but I will see you again and your heart will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you’.

‘ Now therefore [or indeed] you have some sorrow, and later I will see you and your heart will rejoice, and no one will be able to take your joy from you’.

‘Now therefore [or indeed] you have some sorrow, and later I will see you and your heart will rejoice, and no one will be able to take your joy from you’.

Lines 34–60 [We habbað nu … syððan to heofonum]: In contrasting the anfeald andgite (‘simple sense’ [line 35]) of the passage – his vernacular translation – with sum angit (‘some sense’ [line 36]) of its meaning through his subsequent exegesis, Ælfric pairs two terms (anfeald + andgite) in a way unique among Old English authors. Outside of Modicum, they appear in conjunction on six occasions. In SH I.211 and SH II.1812, having translated the Scriptural passage anfealdum andgite (‘according to the simple [or “literal”] sense’), Ælfric goes on to expound its gastlic andgyt (‘spiritual sense’). In SH II.17, he concludes the homily with a biblical scene recounted anfealdum andgite (‘according to the simple sense’), offering a fairly close translation without an interpretation thereafter.13 In CH II.39, before turning from his translation of the pericope to his exegesis thereof, he affirms that the passage contains spiritual depths: ‘þis godspel is nu anfealdlice gesæd mid digelum andgite’ (‘this Gospel has now been simply set forth with hidden meaning [or “a secret sense”]’).14 In his Prefatio to Genesis, he warns that his translation sets forth but the nacedan gerecednisse (‘naked narrative’), which may lead the unlearned to think ‘þæt eall þæt andgit beo belocen on þære anfealdan gerecednisse’ (‘that all the meaning [“sense”] is contained in the simple narrative’).15 And in SH II.18, he explains his twofold approach: ‘We moton eow secgan swa swa ge magon understandan, hwilum anfealdlice be eowrum andgite, hwilum eow geopenian þa inran digolnysse, for þam þe ge eaðe ne magon hyt eall understandan’ (‘We must speak to you in keeping with what

11 12 13 14 15

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 232, lines 60–1. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 602, lines 271–2. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 579, line 279. Godden, Second Series, p. 327, lines 24–5. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 4, lines 43–6.

342

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me you can understand, sometimes simply according to your ability [“sense”], sometimes opening to you the spiritual depth, because you cannot easily understand it all’).16 For the Gospel verse (John 16.16) repeated in lines 37–9, see notes to lines 13–33 above. Ælfric recognizes that Christ’s words have a twofold application. On the one hand, they pertain chiefly (swiðost) to Jesus’ immediate audience [lines 42–3, at 42], those who will lose sight of Christ after Judas comes with people carrying weapons and lights [lines 44–6; John 18.3] and betrays Jesus to those with whom he had previously conspired [line 47; John 18.2 and Luke 22.4], so that Jesus is led away to the Jewish leaders [line 48; John 18.12–13], crucified [line 49; John 19.18], and buried [line 50; John 19.42]. This original audience will see Jesus again at his resurrection, when – as he had foretold [line 51; Luke 9.21 and 18.33] – he reveals himself to them and comforts them [lines 53–4; John 20.14–29], heora mod geglad[iende] (‘glad[dening] their mind[s]’) by commissioning them to preach to the nations [lines 55–8, at 55; John 20.21 and Matthew 28.19–20] and by explaining the Old Testament prophecies related to these events [lines 58–6017]. On the other hand, by implication, Christ’s promise applies not just to the first disciples but to believers across history, those who wait not for a ‘temporary sighting’ (hwilwende gesihð [line 41]), but for faith made sight forever. As Ælfric puts it later, ‘þas word belimpað to eallum þam geleaffullum’ (‘these words pertain to all the faithful’ [lines 87–8; see also 136–7]). As the above references show, in this quick summary of events following the Last Supper, Ælfric does not strictly follow John’s Gospel: rather, while he begins with details found only therein – the lanternae and faces (‘lamps’ and ‘torches’) of John 18.3, corresponding to leohtfatu in line 46 – he moves on to events treated in more detail in the Synoptics, such as the Great Commission of Matthew 28 and Christ’s explication of the prophets in Luke 24. In doing so, he may generally follow Bede’s Homiliae II.13: Bedingfield, for example, suggests that in lines 41–56 ‘Ælfric has combined Bede’s interpretation with an expanded account of, especially, the arrest’.18 Lines 61–82 [Þa wundrodon hy … on rode hengenne]: For the Gospel passage (John 16.17–20a) repeated in lines 61–5, see notes to lines 13–33 above. In expositing this section, Ælfric explains who it is that will weep as opposed to the ‘world’ that rejoices. The former, he says, are those who loved Christ [line 66], heard his teaching [line 66], dwelt with him [line 67], saw his miracles [line 67], and grieved to witness him bound and led away to condemnation and death [lines 68–72]. Love, to begin with, is a key part of the Last Supper discourse: speaking not just to the disciple he loved [line 14; John 13.23], but to all his followers present, Jesus repeatedly commands them to love one another [John 13.34a, 15.12, and 15.17]; by doing so, he says, believers will show that they are Christians [John 13.34b], manifest their love for

16 17

18

Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 604, lines 314–17. See Luke 24.27 and 44–7, and especially 24.45: ‘tunc aperuit illis sensum ut intellegerent scripturas’ (‘then he opened their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures’). On the disciples’ joy, see Luke 24.41 and John 20.20, as well as lines 82–8 below. ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 6’; see CCSL 122, p. 267, lines 11 (ad illos specialiter) – 21 (per dies quadraginta).

343

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me Christ through obedience [John 14.15 and 21a], be loved by the Father [John 14.21b, 14.23, 16.27, and 17.23], remain in Christ’s love [John 15.9–10], and emulate Christ by laying down their lives for one another [John 15.12–13]. Similarly, Jesus shows his own love for the Father by obeying unto death [John 14.31], loving his disciples even as the Father loves him [John 15.9], and making the Father known so that the Father’s love for Jesus is also in them [John 17.26]. Ælfric will continue to refer to Christ’s disciples as ‘þa ðe hine lufedon’ (‘those who loved him’ [line 87]) and ‘þa þe hine lufiað’ (‘those who love him’ [lines 140 and 137; see also 148]) as the homily develops. Ælfric’s emphasis on the immediacy of Christ’s audience, next of all – they hear, dwell with, and see him [lines 66–7] – not only reflects the context of the passage (see notes to lines 13–33 above), but reaffirms points Ælfric has already made in the homily. Those destined to weep are those ‘þe him folgodon on life’ (‘who followed him in life’ [line 8; see also 135]), ‘þe gehyrde þa his word’ (‘who heard his words at that time’ [line 14]), and ‘þe him þa mid wæron and his word gehyrdon’ (‘who were with him at that time and heard his words’ [line 43]). Last, Ælfric speaks of the grief of those who witness the cwelleras (‘killers’) come, lead Christ to the heafodmenn (‘head men’), and have him executed [lines 70, 71, and 71–2] – aspects of the Passion narrative that he has already mentioned in lines 47–9 (see also notes to 34–60 and 150–63). He adds additional elements this time around, however: the soldiers bind Christ [line 70; John 18.12], the Jewish leaders condemn him to death [lines 71–2; John 18.19–30 and 19.7 (see also Matthew 26.65–6)], and Jesus is guiltless [line 72; John 18.23 and 19.4]. Bede may again inspire Ælfric’s comments here regarding what those who love Christ witness: ‘Plorabant quippe et flebant amatores Christi cum illum comprehendi ab hostibus ligari, ad concilium duci, damnari, flagellari, derisui haberi, ad ultimum crucifigi, lanceari, et sepeliri uiderent’ (‘Those who loved Christ wept and lamented indeed [John 16.20] when they saw him apprehended by enemies, bound, led to the Sanhedrin, condemned, scourged, mocked, and finally crucified, pierced with a spear, and buried’).19 Ælfric’s emphasis on the immediacy of Christ’s audience, however, would seem to be his own. Opposed to those who weep is the middaneard (‘world’) that rejoices [line 73; John 16.20]. Here, the term refers to all who opposed Christ, be they [1] the cwelleras – the soldiers and servants of John 18.3; see notes to lines 150–63 below – who led him to judgment [line 70]; [2] those who ‘middaneardlice þing lufedon to swiðe’ (‘loved the things of this world too much’ [line 73], such as the Jews who ‘dilexerunt … gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam Dei’ (‘loved … human praise more than praise from God’ [John 12.43]; or [3] ‘þa Iudei þe wunnon on ðone Hælend’ (‘the Jews who strove against the Savior’ [line 74]), namely, the religious leaders whose wickedness Christ publicly exposes [lines 76–7; John 3.10–11, 5.42–4, 8.19 and 44, 9.41, and 18.23]. All such people, Ælfric says, rejoiced to see Jesus die [lines 78–9] – and particularly, Ælfric explains, by a means considered bysmorlic (‘shameful’ [line 80]) and huxlic (‘ignominious’ [line 82]; on which subject, see Deuteronomy 21.22–3 and Galatians 3.13). Again, Bede offers inspiration for much of this passage, as he goes on to say: ‘Gaudebant mundi amatores, quos ob infimas cogitationes mundum uocat Dominus, cum 19

Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 268, lines 47–8); Bedingfield, ‘Assmann 6’, also notes this connection.

344

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me morte turpissima condemnarent illum, qui grauis erat eis etiam ad uidendum’ (‘Those who loved the world – whom the Lord called “the world” on account of their base thoughts – rejoiced when they condemned him – whom it was burdensome for them even to see – to a most foul death’).20 Bedingfield, however, suggests that Ælfric here draws also on Haymo’s Homiliae de tempore 85: ‘At econtra mundus gaudebat, id est Iudaeorum populus, qui propter mundi amorem recte mundus uocatur, cum cerneret eum crucifigi, qui grauis erat etiam eis ad uidendum, existimantes nomen eius esse deletum’ (‘But the world, by contrast, rejoiced – that is, the Jewish people, who are rightly called “the world” because of their love of the world – when they saw him crucified whom it was burdensome for them even to see, having judged his name to be obliterated’).21 Lines 83–9 [Ge beoð geunrotsode … wuldres mid him]: For the Gospel verse (John 16.20b) repeated in lines 83–4, see notes to lines 13–33 above. Ælfric identifies those who will be joyful both as the disciples who witness Christ’s resurrection and ascension [line 86] and as all subsequent believers who currently sorrow [lines 87–8; cf. Matthew 5.4 and notes to lines 34–60 and 133–49]. Though the explanation is general enough simply to be Ælfric’s own, Bedingfield is right to identify Bede as the source again: ‘agnita eius resurrectione, tristitia illorum uersa est in gaudium: uisa ascensionis potentia, iam maiori gaudio subleuati laudabant et benedicebant dominum … Sed et cunctis fidelibus hic sermo domini conuenit, qui per lacrymas pressurasque praesentes ad gaudia aeterna peruenire contendunt’ (‘when they recognized his resurrection, their sorrow was changed to joy; when they saw the power of his ascension, they were raised to even greater joy, [and] praised and blessed the Lord … But these words of the Lord also apply to all the faithful who through present tears and afflictions strive to come to eternal joys’).22 Lines 90–106 [Þonne þæt wif … Gode accennan mæg]: For the Gospel verse (John 16.21) repeated in lines 89–93, see notes to lines 13–33 above. Ælfric interprets Christ’s description of the woman in labor as an image of the Church, his Bride [line 95; see for example Ephesians 5.31–2 and Revelation 21.2], who is both a virgin and a mother [line 97] who bears spiritual children through baptism [lines 98–9] – points Ælfric makes at greater length in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 88–94, 106–16, 126–32, 138–48, 158–75, and 218–20. She forgets her sorrow, Ælfric says, when she perseveres through temporal afflictions to give birth to spiritual children [lines 103–6]. Bede, commenting on John 16.21, likewise notes that ‘Mulierem dicit sanctam Ecclesiam … quia spirituales Deo filios gignere nunquam desinit … Ecclesia quandiu in mundo spiritualium uirtutum profectibus insistit, nunquam mundi tentationibus exerceri desistit; at … Ecclesia nato in uitam futuram fidelium populo, digna exsultatione repletur’ (‘He refers to the holy Church as a woman … because she never ceases to bear spiritual children to God … as long as the Church pursues the growth of spiritual virtues in the world, she never stops being plagued by the temptations of the world; but … the Church is filled with proper exultation when a host of the faithful 20 21 22

Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 268, lines 50–2). PL 118.510B; Bedingfield, ‘Assmann 6’. Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 268, lines 53–9); Bedingfield, ‘Assmann 6’.

345

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me are born into the life to come’).23 Bedingfield also notes a possible source in Haymo, who not only interprets the laboring woman as the Church, but associates her generative work with undam baptismatis (‘the wave of baptism’; cf. line 99).24 Descriptions of baptism as spiritual birth are found in the Bible, however (John 3.3 and 5, Romans 6.4, and Colossians 2.12, for instance), and Ælfric speaks repeatedly of baptism and birth in association with Mother Church: see for example CH I.35 (where he adds these images to his Gregorian source),25 CH II.4 (where he again adds to his sources),26 CH II.39 (in lines original to Ælfric,27 SH I.1 (where he adds to his Bedan source, treating John 3.5),28 and SH I.12 (drawing on and amplifying another homily by Bede).29 For other Ælfrician discussions of the Church as bride, mother, and maiden, see for instance CH I.33,30 CH I.35,31 CH II.1 (treating John 3.3 and 5),32 and CH II.39.33 Lines 107–32 [Existimo enim quod … on his gesetnyssum]: Following both Bede and Haymo,34 Ælfric turns to Paul’s comments in Romans to give perspective on the suffering of Christians in this life. The verse is one that Ælfric translates first in the Catholic Homilies, though there he omits the Latin. In Modicum, he quotes the Latin verbatim, but modifies his translation somewhat: he switches vocabulary (using emlic [efenlic], ‘comparable to’ [line 110] rather than to wiðmeten, ‘for comparison with’ or ‘to be compared with’), reorders phrases (þissere tide þrowunga [line 111] for ðrowunga þyssere tide and geswutelod on us [line 112] for on us geswutelod), and supplies words that are either present in the Vulgate (such as Ic wene … þæt [‘I consider … that’ [line 110]) or original to Ælfric – both for emphasis (soðlice [‘truly’, line 110] and sylfum [‘ourselves’, line 112]) and clarification (þonne [‘then’, line 112]). Romans 8.18

CH I.3235

Modicum (AH I.5), lines 107–12

Existimo enim quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae reuelabitur in nobis.

Ne sind na to wiðmetene þa ðrowunga þyssere tide þam toweardan wuldre þe bið on us geswutelod.

Existimo enim quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam que reuelabitur in nobis. Paulus þeoda lareow cwæð on his larbocum, ‘Ic wene soðlice þæt ne synd na emlice þissere tide þrowunga þam toweardum wuldre, þe bið geswutelod on us sylfum þonne’

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 269, lines 78–8 and 97–9; and p. 270, lines 105–6). PL 118.511D–512A; Bedingfield, ‘Assmann 6’. Clemoes, First Series, p. 477, lines 41–5; Godden, Commentary, p. 291. Godden, Second Series, p. 30, lines 34–6; Godden, Commentary, p. 372. Godden, Second Series, p. 330, lines 88–92; Godden, Commentary, p. 658. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 213, lines 400–2; see also apparatus to lines 391–402. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 484, lines 123–4 and 130; see also apparatus to lines 118–38. Clemoes, First Series, p. 459, lines 21–2; Ælfric here speaks of the Chuch only as mother and maiden, however, not as bride. Clemoes, First Series, p. 477, lines 42–3. Godden, Second Series, p. 6, lines 100–9. Godden, Second Series, p. 330, lines 88–90. See Bede, Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 269, line 100 – p. 270, line 103), and Haymo, Homiliae de tempore 85 (PL 118.512C). Clemoes, First Series, p. 456, lines 169–70.

346

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me For I deem that the sufferings of this time are not worth [comparing] to the future glory that will be revealed in us.

The sufferings of this time are not for comparison with the future glory that will be revealed in us.

For I deem that the sufferings of this time are not worth [comparing] to the future glory that will be revealed in us. Paul, the teacher of the people, said in his book of instruction, ‘I truly consider that the sufferings of this time are not comparable to the future glory that will then be revealed in us’.

Expositing the verse, Ælfric identifies the toweardum wuldre (‘future glory’ [line 111]) as the Kingdom of Heaven [line 113], to which believers may come if in this world they resist sin through faith [lines 113–14], even as did the martyrs and confessors who suffered before them [lines 119–20]. Ælfric describes such individuals as soþlice acænned (‘truly born’ [line 117]), a phrase which not only echoes the spiritual second birth discussed in lines 90–106, but here also correlates with the “birthdays” of the saints – the dates, celebrated by believers, on which they enter the new heavenly life by way of death [lines 121–4]. Bede and Haymo both describe the death of believers (martyrs, confessors, or otherwise) as birth when discussing the woman’s labor in John 16.21.36 The origin of the next few lines, however, is more mysterious. Ælfric affirms that the suffering of humans in this life – þissere worulde geswinc (‘the toil of this world’), þa toweardan costnunga (‘future temptations’), hefig geswinc (‘heavy toil’), and micel gewinn (‘great struggle’ [lines 128–31]) – are attested to and prophesied by a newborn’s first cry [lines 127–8]. Ælfric draws this image, he says, from Job and ‘Solomon’s writings’ [lines 131–2], though it is not entirely clear which verses he has in mind. Job includes statements such as ‘Homo nascitur ad laborem’ (‘Mankind is born to toil’ [5.7]), ‘Homo natus de muliere, brevi uiuens tempore, repletur multis miseriis’ (‘Mankind, born of woman, lives but for a short time, filled with many afflictions’ [14.1]), and ‘Pereat dies in qua natus sum … quia non conclusit ostia uentris qui portauit me’ (‘Let the day perish in which I was born … for it did not shut the doors of the womb which bore me’ [3.1 and 10]). Wisdom, furthermore, describes the view that ‘exiguum et cum taedio est tempus uitae nostrae … quia ex nihilo nati sumus et post hoc erimus tamquam non fuerimus’ (‘short and wearisome is the time of our life … for we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been’ [1.1–2]).37 Otherwise, however, these books draw few explicit connections between human affliction and birth, let alone a newborn’s cry. Bedingfield lists no sources for this section of Modicum, and the sermons by Bede and Haymo which he cites for lines 117–24 do not quote from biblical wisdom books either.38 More likely perhaps is that this idea regarding newborns is Ælfric’s own, and that in invoking additional authorities in support of his own thought – as he does, for example, in CH II.639 – Ælfric is thinking generally of wisdom literature’s acknowledgement of

36 37

38 39

Bede, Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 270, lines 108–15); Haymo, Homiliae de tempore 85 (PL 118.513A); see also Bedingfield, ‘Assmann 6’. Wisdom, however, is here describing se cogitantes non recte (‘those reasoning with themselves not rightly’ [2.1]), who in view of life’s hardships and brevity choose hedonism and injustice rather than the fear of God [2.6–20]. ‘Assmann 6’; see Bede, Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, p. 270, lines 108–15), and Haymo, Homiliae de tempore 85 (PL 118.512C–513B). See Godden, Commentary, p. 392; and notes to AH I.7, lines 127–42 and 161–9, and 214–34.

347

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me human suffering. To quote but one part of Ecclesiastes, for instance, ‘Quid enim proderit homini de uniuerso labore suo et adflictione spiritus qua sub sole cruciatus est. Cuncti dies eius doloribus et aerumnis pleni sunt nec per noctem mente requiescit’ (‘For what profit shall someone have from all his labor and torment of spirit with which he has been tortured under the sun? All his days are filled with pain and toil; nor through the night does he rest in mind’ [2.22–3]). Lines 133–49 [Nu eornostlice hæbbe … on ealre godnysse]: For the Gospel verse (John 16.22) repeated in lines 133–5, see notes to lines 13–33 above. Ælfric again identifies the target audience of Jesus’ words – those who first will sorrow and later rejoice – both as Christ’s original audience ([ða] þe him folgodon [‘[those] who followed him’, past tense]) and subsequent believers (eallum þe hine lufiað [‘all who love / will love him’, [lines 136–7]; see also notes to lines 13–33 and 83–9]). Christ’s care encompasses both: just as Christ comforted the former, Ælfric says, so he helps the latter to persevere (heora geþyld gewelegað [‘he enriches their faith’, line 141]). So does Christ’s vision: he saw his disciples [line 138], he sees current believers [line 140], and he will see all the redeemed in heavenly glory [line 141]. Biblical echoes are sprinkled throughout these lines. Those who are sigefæste oferswiðedum costnungum (‘victorious in temptations overcome’ [line 142]) will receive the heavenly reward, as Paul says, ‘si tamen conpatimur ut et conglorificemur’ (‘if indeed we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him’ [Romans 8.17]). Such trials are cause for joy, since they grow believers’ patience, as James makes clear: ‘Omne gaudium existimate fratres mei cum in temptationibus uariis incideritis, scientes quod probatio fidei uestrae patientiam operatur’ (‘Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into diverse temptations, because you know that the testing of your faith develops patience’ [James 1.2–3]). ‘Crist [is] ure lif’ (‘Christ [is] our life’ [line 148]), Ælfric further affirms, even as Paul states: ‘Cum Christus apparuerit uita vestra, tunc et uos apparebitis cum ipso in gloria’ (‘When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also shall appear with him in glory’ [Colossians 3.4]). The first two references, at least, may be present in Bede;40 if Ælfric draws on Bede for this section, however, as Bedingfield suggests, Ælfric’s rendering ‘considerably rework[s]’ the original.41 Lines 150–62 [We wyllað nu … riht eall ræddon]: Having described the fulfillment of Jesus’ words that the disciples would weep while the world rejoiced [lines 61–82; John 16.20a], and that their sorrow would be turned to joy [lines 83–9 and 133–49; John 16.20a and 22], Ælfric discusses the implied corollary: how the world’s rejoicing was (and will be) turned to sorrow [lines 150–86]. The subjects under consideration are ungesælige Cristes cwelleras (‘Christ’s wretched killers’ [lines 150–1]). Ælfric has referred to [arleasum] cwelleras (‘cruel killers’ [line 47]) or simply cwelleras (‘killers’ [line 70]) when discussing the ‘cohortem et a pontificibus42 et Pharisaeis ministros’ 40

41 42

See CCSL 122, p. 270, lines 126–7 for the allusion to James 1.2–3; and p. 269, line 101 – p. 270, line 103 for Bede’s quotation from Romans 8.18, with which Romans 8.17 is closely linked, speaking jointly about believers’ suffering and glory. ‘Assmann 6’. On Ælfric’s understanding of Jewish ‘chief priest(s)’, see notes to Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH

348

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (‘company of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and Pharisees’) that arrest Jesus at Gethsemane (John 18.3). Here, however, the ‘killers’ are not merely the emissaries of the religious leaders, but those leaders themselves – the principes sacerdotum43 and seniores (‘the chief priests’ and ‘elders’ [Matthew 28.11–12]) who buy the silence of the guards whom they had placed at Christ’s tomb [lines 150–5; Matthew 28.12 and 27.64–6]. Ælfric paraphrases what follows: Matthew 28.11–15

Modicum (AH I.5), lines 156–62

Quae cum abissent ecce quidam de custodibus uenerunt in ciuitatem et nuntiauerunt principibus sacerdotum omnia quae facta fuerant. Et congregati cum senioribus consilio accepto pecuniam copiosam dederunt militibus. Dicentes ‘dicite quia “discipuli eius nocte uenerunt et furati sunt eum nobis dormientibus”. Et si hoc auditum fuerit a praeside nos suadebimus ei et securos uos faciemus’. At illi accepta pecunia fecerunt sicut erant docti et diuulgatum est uerbum istud apud Iudaeos usque in hodiernum diem.

Hy comon þa and cyddon þæt Crist aras of ðeaðe, and þa heafodmenn sona on synderlicum geþeahte þone sceat him sealdon and bædon þæt hy sædon þæt þæs Hælendes lic hym wurde forstolen [160] mid ðam þe hy befulon fæste on slæpe. Hy namon þone sceatt and swa þeah muþetton and on synderlicum runungum þæt riht eall ræddon.

When [the women who had seen Jesus] had left, behold, some of the guards came into the city and told the chief priests all that had happened. And having gathered with the elders [and] taking counsel, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, saying, ‘Say [this]: “His disciples came by night and stole him while we were sleeping.” And if the governor should hear of this, we will persuade him and keep you safe’. So, taking the money, they did just as they had been instructed, and this story was spread among the Jews even up to this day.

They came at that time and said that Christ rose from death, and the head men immediately in a private meeting gave them the payment and told them to say that the Savior’s body was stolen from them when they fell fast asleep. They took the payment and nevertheless leaked and explained the truth by means of private whisperings.

Some elements Ælfric omits, skipping over the leaders’ deliberation (Matthew 28.12), subsuming ‘chief priests’ and ‘elders’ (Matthew 28.11–12) into heafodmenn (‘head men’ [line 157]), and speaking merely of the disciples stealing Christ’s body [line 159] rather than ‘coming and stealing’ it (Matthew 28.13). Other details, imaginable in context, he adds: the leaders react sona (‘immediately’ [line 157]), they meet synderlic[e] (‘privately’ [line 157]), and the guards say they fell fæste (‘fast’) asleep [line 160] – all adding to the vividness of the depiction. The end of the scene, however, catches one off guard. Where the Bible says that the soldiers take the bribe and report the religious leaders’ story as instructed, leading to widespread dissemination of this false account (Matthew 28.15), Ælfric says the opposite: while the soldiers accept the money, they also secretly þæt riht eall ræddon (‘explained the truth’ [line 163]). Ælfric may be seeking proactively to address an expected question from his audience: how did the evangelist hear of this scene if the leaders and guards cover it up? For his explanation, Ælfric might have pointed to such potential sources

43

I.4), lines 16–27. On which term, see notes to Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 139–60.

349

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me as Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish council who helps to bury Jesus’ body (John 3.1, 7.50, and 19.39), and indeed, Ælfric draws on the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus for the conclusion of this homily [lines 161–79]. While Nicodemus and Haymo both mention the scene, however, neither they nor Bede offer this alternate version of the soldiers’ behavior.44 The closest account may be the vernacular version of Nicodemus edited by Cross: after relating that the guards convey the cover story they were given, the text adds, ‘Ac eall heora spræc wearð geypped and gewydmærsod’ (‘But their whole report [to the Jews] was disclosed and widely proclaimed’).45 Where this version uses the passive voice, however, suggesting generally that ‘word got around’, Ælfric assigns responsibility to the guards themselves – a change that seems to be his own. Lines 163–79 [Þa wurdon þa … agifað eow Crist]: Ælfric’s next section draws on the Gospel of Nicodemus, a name used to refer to the Latin versions of the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, written in Greek at least by 387 and likely dating back to the second century.46 Gounelle notes that ‘Some copyists and medieval scholars have also identified the Acts of Pilate with the Gospel of the Nazareans, a Jewish–Christian gospel, now lost, which Jerome claims to have translated’47 – for example in his commentary on Matthew.48 Some version of this textual chain must have been known to Ælfric, who seizes the opportunity to cite Jerome rather than apocrypha as his authority [line 165]. Ælfric describes the post-biblical aftermath of Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea [John 19.38–42]: the Jews throw Joseph into prison [line 166; Nicodemus 12.149], the prison rises into the air [line 171; Nicodemus 15.650], Joseph is rescued [line 173; Nicodemus 12.2 and 15.651], and the guards whom the Jews had placed at Christ’s tomb [Matthew 27.66] note that neither Joseph nor Christ could be contained [lines 176–9; Nicodemus 13.252]. As the cross-references suggest, Ælfric follows the Gospel of Nicodemus in major respects, though, as Bedingfield observes, Ælfric ‘greatly condenses’ the account.53 Ælfric also nuances and intensifies details, however. He describes the Jews as wodlice astyrode (‘madly aroused’ [line 163]), where in Nicodemus they are contristati (‘grieved’ or ‘upset’) or exacerbati (‘exasperated’ or ‘angered’).54 He states that Joseph buried Jesus hym on teonan (‘as a reproach [or “insult”] to them’ [line 167]), where in 44

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

Gospel of Nicodemus 13.3 (Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 29, lines 1–10; and Cross, Two Old English Apocrypha, p. 176); Haymo, Homiliae de tempore 85 (PL 118.510C); and Bede, Homiliae II.13 (CCSL 122, pp. 267–71). Two Old English Apocrypha, p. 177. Gounelle, ‘Pilate’, pp. 172 and 170. ‘Pilate’, p. 173. Commentarii in Euangelium Matthaei, p. 90, lines 366–8; on which subject, see Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, pp. 142–9. Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 27, lines 35–8. Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 33, lines 3–4. Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 28, line 6; and p. 33, lines 1–20. Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 29, lines 18–19. ‘Assmann 6’. Nicodemus 12.1 (Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 27, lines 13 and 34); the Old English version of Nicodemus edited by Cross has unrote (‘displeased’ or ‘angry’ [Two Old English Apocrypha, p. 169]).

350

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me Nicodemus Joseph simply tells the Jews that, by not burying Jesus, ‘non bene egistis’ (‘you have not acted well’).55 He depicts Joseph sitting in prison through þære sweartan niht (‘the dark night’ [line 170]), where in Nicodemus Joseph attests that ‘starem in oratione … media nocte’ (‘I stood in prayer … [until] midnight’).56 He says that ‘þæt stænene cweartern stod eall on lofte up fram þære eorðan swylce englas hit ahofen up’ (‘the stone prison rose completely up into the air from the ground, as if angels lifted it’ [lines 171–2]), where Nicodemus simply reads ‘suspensa est domus a quattuor angulis’ (‘the house was lifted up by its four corners’).57 He maintains that Joseph was delivered be wæstme (‘because of his height’ or ‘because of his growth’ – in faith or character, one assumes, if the phrase does not mean ‘because of his [spiritual] stature’ [line 173]), where Nicodemus instead recalls the fact that Joseph had buried Jesus.58 He underscores that þa heardheortan (‘the hardhearted ones’) who sought to hold Joseph and rejoiced at Jesus’ death [cf. John 16.20] end up empty-handed and joyless [lines 174–5]. And he says that the guards speak mid hospe (‘with scorn’ [line 177]) when they retort, ‘“Reddite nobis Ioseph et nos reddamus uobis Cristum”’ (‘“Give us Joseph, and we will give you Christ”’ [line 178]) – wording, Bedingfield notes, that ‘does not correspond well with the wording of the Acta Pilati as edited by Kim or Cross’.59 Lines 180–6 [Manega unblissa … forlærde to þam]: On the manege unblissa and micele sorga (‘many miseries and great sorrows’) that befall the Jews after Christ’s Passion [lines 180–2, at 180], see Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 67–96. Surprisingly, while Ælfric does not hesitate to describe Jews that reject Christ as arleas (‘impious’),60 ungeleafful (‘unbelieving’),61 hetelan (‘hateful’ [line 177]),62 and so forth, he rarely states (as here) that they ‘on Domesdæg fordemde beoð to helle mid ðam hetolan deofle, þe hy forlærde to þam’ (‘on Judgment Day will be condemned to hell with the hateful devil, who led them astray to it’ [lines 185–6]). Some of these terms do appear elsewhere: 55 56

57

58 59

60 61 62

Nicodemus 12.1 (Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 27, line 16); ge wel na ne dydon (‘you did not do well’ [Cross, Two Old English Apocrypha, p. 169]). Nicodemus 15.6 (Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 33, lines 2–3); ‘Ic on myne gebedu feng and hig georne sang oð hyt to þære myddere nyhte com’ (‘I was engaged in my prayers and sang them diligently until it came to the middle of the night’ [Cross, Two Old English Apocrypha, pp. 189 and 191]). Nicodemus 15.6 (Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 33, lines 3–4); ‘þa wæs þæt hus be þam feower hyrnum upahafen’ (‘then the house was lifted up by its four corners’ [Cross, Two Old English Apocrypha, p. 191]). Nicodemus 15.6 (Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 33, lines 10–11; cf. Cross, Two Old English Apocrypha, p. 191). ‘Assmann 6’; see Nicodemus 13.2 in Kim, Gospel of Nicodemus, p. 29, lines 18–19 [‘“Ioseph nos damus. Date uos Iesum”’], and Cross, Two Old English Apocrypha, pp. 174 [‘“Ioseph nos dabimus. Date uobis Iesum”’] and 177 [‘“Ac on eornost syllon ge us Ioseph þe ge on þære clusan beclysdon and we syllað eow þone Hælend þe we on þære byrgene healdan sceoldon”’ (‘“But seriously, give Joseph to us, whom you shut up in prison, and we will give you the Savior whom we should hold fast in the tomb”’)]. CH II.13 (Godden, Second Series, p. 130, line 92). SH II.3 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 248, line 3). On Ælfric’s depiction of the Jews, see for example Estes, ‘Reading Ælfric’, pp. 269–71 and 274–8, as well as the perspective of Acevedo Butcher, God of Mercy, pp. 39–40. See also Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 28–41.

351

Commentary: Modicum et iam non uidebitis me Ælfric notes, for instance, that the hæðenan (‘heathen’) are ‘fordemede mid deofle on helle’ (‘condemned with the devil to hell’)63 – an expression he also applies to unbelievers in general who do not go to heaven.64 On a few occasions, moreover, Ælfric speaks of Domesdæg (‘Judgment Day’) and hell in close proximity, as one might expect.65 The closest parallel, however, may be in SH II.19, where a monk has a vision of ‘þone deofol on þam deopum witum, and þa arleasan Iudeiscan, þe urne Drihten ofslogon, ealle fordemede on þam ecan fyre’ (‘the devil in awful torments, and the impious Jews, who killed our Lord, all condemned in eternal fire’).66 Lines 187–8 [Sy nu wuldor … us alysde, Amen]: While the closing formula here is unique in Ælfric’s works, elements therein, such as wuldor and lof [line 187] and welwillendan [line 187], may be seen elsewhere; see notes to Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 286–92; Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 181–2; Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), line 61; and De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 310–12.

63 64 65

66

LS I.10 [Skeat I.11] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 324, line 345; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 258, line 345). SH I.11 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 426, line 213); see also SH II.18 (Homilies, vol. II, p. 599, lines 218–19). CH I.11 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 270, line 114), SH I.4 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 270, lines 113 and 115), SH I.12 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 483, lines 109 and 112), and SH II.21 (Homilies, vol. II, p. 680, lines 68 and 70). Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 633, lines 216–17.

352

6

BE ÐAM SEOFANFEALDAN UNGIFA Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (‘Concerning the Sevenfold Evil Gifts’) is a unique, now fragmentary, composite homily slated for the Third Sunday after Easter in the one manuscript wherein it survives. The beginning of the homily is missing, so our title is editorial and the assignment to the third Sunday conjectural, but the fragment is positioned between sermons for the second and fourth Sundays after Easter.1 We know for certain that Ælfric composed the component parts of the composite homily, but it is not clear if the combination is his. Peter Clemoes thinks it is.2 Malcolm Godden thinks it might be.3 John Pope says it is not.4 We prefer to think of it as ‘Ælfrician’ since it is at least possible that Ælfric compiled it. If so, the compilation dates to between about 1002 and 1005,5 by which time he had in hand the two pieces on which he drew. The first piece and the first part of the composite homily [lines 1–79] consists of Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17) in its entirety. This was the Old English tract on the sevenfold good gifts of the Holy Spirit and the corresponding evil gifts of the devil that Ælfric wrote between about 998 and 1002.6 The second piece used for the second part of the composite homily [lines 80–151] was De doctrina apostolica (SH II.19), a non-pericope homily for an unspecified occasion about ideals of Christian conduct that Ælfric wrote between about 993 and 998.7 Part two consists chiefly of an exemplum about the damnation of an unrepentant thegn drawn ultimately from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and excerpted virtually verbatim from De doctrina apostolica. Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa concludes with an adaptation of De doctrina apostolica’s final lines, offering assurance that God will forgive those who do not lose hope in Christ’s mercy and repent of their sins [lines 152–62]. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7

Ker §153.30 [Dominica II post pascha] and 32 [Dominica IIII post pascha]. Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, pp. 46, 32, and 56 (as cited by Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 110). Godden, Second Series, p. xlviii (as cited by Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 110). Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 614–15 (as cited by Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 110). Kleist dates Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa to ‘Between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 109). For the dating to ‘ca 998 × 1002’, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 123. In Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), Ælfric expands his Latin tract on the same subject, De septiformi spiritu (AH II.17). As the notes to AH II.17 state, Ælfric makes reference to the sevenfold gifts throughout his career, and Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa, along with his sermon for the Sunday after Ascension (SH I.9), belongs to the third and final period of his enumerations and extended treatments of the subject (vol. II, pp. 814–15). For the dating to ‘Later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998’, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 91.

353

Introduction: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa Had Ælfric fashioned Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa between 1002 and 1005, then he did so at a time when he was writing pericope homilies for Sundays and non-saints’ feast-days linked to Easter that would become the series known as Temporale Homilies I (TH I).8 The composite homily is not a pericope homily, but Clemoes understood it to be a stopgap for the Third Sunday after Easter until Ælfric wrote the pericope homily Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5) several years later.9 Pope objected to the compilation being Ælfric’s partly on the grounds that ‘[t]here is no apparent reason why the sevenfold gifts should be treated on this occasion, and the combination of the little treatise with the exemplum produces a very odd homily’.10 Modicum’s lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit or his gifts supports Pope’s point. Yet it is interesting to note that each of the six homilies for the Fourth Sunday after Easter to the First Sunday after Pentecost do, in fact, make mention of the Holy Spirit.11 The sermon for the Sunday after the Ascension (SH I.9) even enumerates the Spirit’s seven gifts as Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa does.12 Moreover, on the Sunday after Pentecost (SH I.11), Ælfric refers to the gifts again and possibly to the Ascension Sunday sermon. He explains that the seven days after Pentecost commemorate the coming of the Holy Spirit and his seven gifts, and reminds his audience that he had told them ‘earlier in a certain discourse how [the Holy Spirit] distributes his gifts among believing men as he wishes because he is the true God’.13 The sermon for the Sunday after Pentecost also resonates with Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa since both feature an exemplum with a deathbed experience and an assurance that repentant souls can be saved.14 The combination of explanation and exemplum in these two non-pericope homilies15 calls to mind similar amalgamations of 8 9 10 11

12 13

14

15

On his initial efforts, see above, p. 209 n. 3, and on TH I, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 27–33. See above, nn. 1 and 3. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 615. Pope lists this as the first of his six objections to Ælfric’s authorship. Pope edits all six as SH I.7–12 [Homilies, vol. I]: Fourth Sunday after Easter (SH I.7 [pp. 340–50]); Fifth Sunday after Easter (SH I.8 [pp. 357–68]); Sunday after the Ascension (SH I.9 [pp. 378–89]); Pentecost (SH I.10 [pp. 396–405]); and two sermons for the Sunday after Pentecost, one non-pericope homily (SH I.11 [pp. 415–47]) and one pericope homily (SH I.12 [pp. 479–89]). The length of the mentions varies from very brief (e.g., SH I.8) to extensive (e.g., SH I.7), often depending on the degree to which the Holy Spirit figures in the pericope. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 385, lines 139–44. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 418, lines 69–71: ‘on sumum spelle ær, hu he todælð his gifa on geleaffullum mannum be þam ðe he sylf wile, for ðan ðe he soð God is’. Pope presumes that Ælfric is referring to his homily for Pentecost (CH I.22) (vol. I, p. 447), but Ælfric also make this point in his sermon for the Sunday after the Ascension (SH I.9). Cf. Clemoes, First Series, p. 361, lines 179–86, and Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 384, lines 117–20. Ælfric also makes reference in SH I.9 to comments that he made about the gifts of the Spirit iu ær (‘long ago’ [line 144]), which Pope identifies as those in CH I.22 [Clemoes, First Series, p. 361, lines 109–233, at lines 179–86 and 228–33] (Homilies, vol. I, p. 392). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 423, lines 163–75 (deathbed experience) and 425, lines 191–9 (assurance). The deathbed experiences are different with different didactic aims: that in SH I.11 involves a young man on his deathbed whose imperiled soul is saved by the intercessory prayers of monks who come to his aid, while that in Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa involves an unrepentant thegn whose death illustrates the danger that the devil’s gifts pose to the soul, as is discussed in more detail below. Perhaps the fact that Ælfric wrote pericope and non-pericope homilies for the Sunday after Pentecost (SH I.11 and 12, respectively) lends weight to the possibility that he did the same for the Third Sunday after Easter (AH I.5 and AH I.6, respectively).

354

Introduction: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa exegesis and illustration in the pericope homilies for the Fifth Sunday after Easter (SH I.8) and Pentecost (SH I.10). Thus, as odd as Pope may have found the homily to be, in genre, form, and theme, Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa is not an outlier. The oddity for Pope arises from the combination of the tract on spiritual gifts with the story of an unrepentant thegn,16 yet a recognizably Ælfrician logic governs the homily. The sermon offers the story as an exercise in discernment by which one can look for evidence of good or evil gifts to determine ‘whether the Spirit of God or the angry devil indwells a person’.17 The standard for judging rightly is found in the first part of the homily in the enumeration of the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit that indwell Christ and should indwell every believer [lines 1–37], and of the sevenfold evil gifts the devil imparts [lines 38–79]. Each spiritual gift is accompanied by a character trait or traits that demonstrate a person possesses the gift: for example, one who has wisdom does good works while one who has foolishness pretends to be wise. When the homily turns from enumeration and explanation to exemplum, the story of the king of Mercia’s beloved but unrepentant thegn illustrates the danger that the devil’s gifts pose to the soul. The description of the thegn as gymeleas (‘careless’ [line 84]) in his conduct and as one who lived dyslice (‘foolishly’ [line 85]) shows him to possess the devil’s gift of dysig (‘folly’ [line 55]) that causes one ‘wisdomes ne gym[an] ne wislice ne libb[an]’ (‘neither to pay heed to wisdom nor live wisely’ [line 56]). Appropriately, the king rebukes his beloved retainer for erupting unwislice (‘unwisely’ [line 107]) when he implores him a third time to confess. By then the thegn has made two crucial mistakes. He has scorned his lord’s advice and feels he has acted bravely when he has behaved like a fool. His foolishness leads him to ignore the king’s wisdom. His obduracy exemplifies a devilish receleasnyss (‘recklessness’ [line 62]) rather than the Spirit’s wislican ræd (‘wise judgment’ [line 61]), a gift that would enable him ‘to deliberate what he is to do and what to forsake’.18 His pretense of bravery can represent the simulated sound counsel that accompanies recklessness, the feigned knowledge of ignorance, or the seeming discernment of stupidity.19 Ultimately, the thegn’s refusal to repent signals that he has no Godes ege (‘fear of God’ [line 32]), the gift of the Spirit that is the angin ealles wisdomes (‘beginning of all wisdom’ [line 33]) whose possessor will be eadig (‘blessed’ [line 52]). Rather, his dyslic dyrstignys (‘foolish presumption’, line 50) leaves him to die ‘butan dædbote, mid þam deoflum, genyðerod’ (‘without penance, with the devils, condemned’ [line 145]). It leaves the audience to conclude that he was indwelt by the devil. But should the illustration have prompted conviction, they are not to lose hope. ‘Directed rightly’ (gerihtlæhte [line 148]) by the exemplum, they can repent, confess, and be saved. According to the homily’s governing logic, those not at the point of death will find new life. Their 16

17 18 19

Pope states his objection thus: ‘The exemplum has a carefully designed position in De doctrina apostolica, prefaced as it is by lines 131–5 on the danger of falling into despair, and followed by another exemplum to the same effect and a conclusion in which the theme of despair is reasserted. The compilation in N lifts the exemplum out of this context, treating it as an illustration of presumption, then tacks on enough of the original conclusion to introduce the theme of despair, now a mere afterthought’ (Homilies, vol. II, p. 615). AH I.6, line 79: ‘hwæþer him Godes Gast onwunige oððe þæs gramlican deofles’. AH I.6, line 21: ‘hwæt him to donne sy and hwæt to forlætenne’. AH I.6, lines 60, 64–5, and 57–8, respectively.

355

Introduction: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa confession will manifest a fear of God. They will possess the beginning of wisdom and can begin geearni[an] Godes gife (‘to earn God’s gifts’ [line 37]), which the Holy Spirit will distribute ‘be his mæðe and his modes geornfulnysse’ (‘according to [one’s] ability and zeal of spirit’ [line 16]). The combination of tract and illustration thus offers the audience opportunities for learning, reflection, and application, the hallmarks of Christian living that Ælfric promotes in his homilies.20 Such consonance does not prove of course that he wrote Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa. Rather it emphasizes that he could have. The run of TH I homilies for the Fourth Sunday after Easter to the Sunday after Pentecost shows that he was thinking about the Holy Spirit, his gifts, and repentance as he filled in gaps in the weeks between Easter and the Sunday after Pentecost.21 Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa survives in a single, imperfect copy found in London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix [N],22 an imperfect collection of homilies dated to the first quarter of the twelfth century but whose origin and provenance are unknown.23 Despite this uncertainty, the portable volume’s utilitarian design suggests it was made to be used,24 though Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa could not have been preached on the Third Sunday after Easter or read either devotionally or for study in its current state because it is acephalous. We have supplied the opening portion [lines 1–26 [(wið)utan]] from the copy of Be þam Halgan Gaste found in the mid-eleventh-century homiliary in Cambridge, Trinity College B. 15. 34 [U] and edited below as AH II.17.25

20 21

22 23 24 25

On such hallmarks, see Upchurch, ‘Catechetic Homiletics’. These weeks included Rogationtide, the three days of penance prior to Ascension Thursday, and the Ember Days, the three days of fasting and abstinence observed on the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday between Pentecost and the following Sunday. Ember Days were also observed the third week of Advent, the first week of Lent, and the second or third week of September. Ker §153.31; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 224–5. Like the homily edited from it, N begins imperfectly and now covers the period from the Second Sunday after Epiphany to Pentecost. Treharne, ‘Production and Script of Manuscripts’, p. 39 (as cited above, p. 295). Ker §86.16; Gneuss and Lapidge §177; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 232–3. About U, the base text for AH II.16, Pope remarks that ‘[f]or its careful arrangement and faithfulness to Ælfric this manuscript has no rivals except A [London, British Library, Royal 7 C. xii, fols 4r–218r], K [Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28], and Q [Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188]’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 77).

356

be đam seofanfealdan ungifa

concerning the sevenfold evil gifts

BE ĐAM SEOFANFEALDAN UNGIFA

5

10

15

20

25

[Isaias se witega awrat on his witegunge be ðam Halgan Gaste and be his seofonfealdum gifum. Þa seofonfealdan gifa synd þus gehatene: Sapientia on Leden, þæt is ‘wisdom’ on Englisc; Intellectus on Leden, þæt is ‘andgit’ on Englisc; Consilium on Leden, þæt is ‘ræd’ on Englisc; Fortitudo on Leden and ‘modes strengð’ on Englisc; Scientia on Leden and ‘god ingehyd’ on Englisc; Pietas on Leden and ‘arfæstnyss’ on Englisc; Timor domini on Leden, ‘Godes ege’ on Englisc. Þas seofonfealdan gifa soðlice wunodon on urum Hælende Criste eall be fullum þingum, æfter þære menniscnysse swiðe mihtiglice, and se Halga Gast hi todælþ dæghwamlice git Godes halgum mannum be ðam þe him gewurð, ælcum be his mæðe and his modes geornfulnysse. Se man hæfð wisdom þe wislice leofað, and se hæfð angit þe hit awent to gode, to his Drihtnes willan mid godum weorcum symble. And se hæfð godne ræd þe him gerædað æfre hwæt him to donne sy and hwæt to forlætenne. And se hæfð modes strengðe þe micel mæg forberan, and on eallum earfoðnyssum æfre bið geðyldig, and eft on godum gelimpum ne forlæt his anrædnysse. And se hæfð god ingehyd þe godnysse lufað,

Text from: N London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix, fols 160r–162v (s. xii1) Missing text and variants from: U lines 1–79, Cambridge, Trinity College B. 15. 34, pp. 245–246 (s. ximed, probably Christ Church, Canterbury) Because N’s copy is acephalous, lines 1 [Isaias] – 26 ([wið]utan) are from the copy of Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17) preserved in U. Ælfric uses the tract in its entirety in Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa, lines 1–79 of which correspond to the same lines in AH II.17. Variants from U are recorded in the apparatus of AH II.17.

358

p. 246

CONCERNING THE SEVENFOLD EVIL GIFTS

5

10

15

20

25

Isaiah the prophet wrote in his prophesy about the Holy Spirit and about His sevenfold gifts. Those sevenfold gifts are named in this way: Sapientia [Wisdom] in Latin, which is ‘wisdom’ in English; Intellectus [Understanding] in Latin, which is ‘understanding’ in English; Consilium [Counsel] in Latin, which is ‘counsel’ in English; Fortitudo [Courage] in Latin and ‘fortitude of spirit’ in English; Scientia [Knowledge] in Latin and ‘good knowledge’ in English; Pietas [Piety] in Latin and ‘piety’ in English; Timor Domini [Fear of the Lord] in Latin, ‘fear of God’ in English. These sevenfold gifts truly indwelled our Savior Christ utterly perfectly, exceedingly powerfully in accordance with his humanity, and the Holy Spirit distributes them daily still to God’s holy people as it pleases him, to each according to his measure of virtue and his spirit’s zeal. The person has wisdom who lives wisely, and he has understanding who turns it to good, to his Lord’s will with good works continually. And he has good counsel who always deliberates what he is to do and what to forsake. And he has fortitude of spirit who can endure much, and in all hardships is always patient, and later in good fortune will not forsake his steadfastness. And he has good knowledge who loves goodness,

359

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

and bið betera wiðinnan þonne he wið]utan bið gesewen, and can him scead betwux soð and leas. Se hæfð arfæstnysse þe arfæst bið him sylf and mæðe can on mannum on his modes godnysse, ge on his gelicum ge on læssum mannum, and nele forseon ne gescyndan oþerne. Godes ege is seo seofoðe þissera gastlicra gifa, and seo gifu is angin ealles wisdomes, and se ðe Godes ege hæfð ne forlæt he nan þing. Se man þe bið bedæled eallum þisum gifum, nis he na Godes man ne to Gode ne belimpð buton he gyt geearnige Godes gife æt him. Nu hæfð se yfela gast and se ungesewenlica feond seofonfealde ungifa wiðerræde þisum gifum, þa he dælð his mannum þe him gehyrsumiað and Godes gifa ne gimað ne Godes ege nabbað. Þa yfelan ungifa þæs arleasan deofles syndon þus gehatene on Ledenspræce: Insipientia, þæt is ‘dysig’ oððe ‘dwæsnes’; Stultitia, þæt is ‘stuntnes’; Inprouidentia, þæt is ‘recedleasnes butan foresceawunge’; Ignauia, þæt is ‘abroðennes’ oððe ‘nahtnys’; Ignorantia, þæt is ‘nytennys’; Impietas, þæt is ‘arleasnys’; Temeritas, þæt is ‘dyslic dyrstignys’. Ælc wisdom is of Gode for þan þe God sylf is Wisdom, and ælc man bið eadig þe hæfð þone wisdom gif he his agen lif gelogaþ mid wisdome. Se wisdom is halig þæs Halgan | Gastes gifu, and se deofol forgifð þærtogeanes dysig þæt he wisdomes ne gyme ne wislice ne libbe, and gyt þæt forcuðre is þæt he telle hine wisne and bið swa gehywod swylce he wis sy. Ongean þam andgyte, se deofol forgifð stuntnysse, and eac þæt he hiwige swylce he andgitful sy. Ongean þam wislican ræde, se wiðerwearde deofol sylð receleasnysse his underþeoddum, and eac þæt he hiwige swylce he rædfæst sy. Ongean þæs modes strencðe, se manfulla deofol forgifð abroðennysse þæt se man abreoðe on ælcere neode nahtlice æfre, and eac þæt he hiwige hine sylfne mihtigne. Ongean þam ingehyde, se hetola deofol sylð nytennysse nahtlicum mannum, 26 [wið]utan] N begins imperfectly with ‘utan’.

360

160v

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

and is better within than he is seen to be without, and knows the difference between truth and falsehood. He has piety who is pious, and knows the measure of his spirit’s virtue among people, both among his equals and among weaker people, and does not wish to scorn or shame another. The fear of God is the seventh of these spiritual gifts, and that gift is the beginning of all wisdom, and he who has the fear of God lacks nothing. The person who is bereft of all these gifts is not a servant of God nor belongs to God unless in the future he earns God’s gifts from him. Now the evil spirit and invisible enemy has sevenfold evil gifts opposed to these gifts, which he distributes to his servants who obey him and pay no heed to God’s gifts nor have the fear of God. The wicked evil gifts of the impious devil are named in this way in Latin: Insipientia [Foolishness], which is ‘folly’ or ‘foolishness’; Stultitia [Fatuity], which is ‘fatuity’; Inprouidentia [Lack of foresight], which is ‘recklessness without forethought’; Ignauia [Cowardice], which is ‘cowardice’ or ‘lack of courage’; Ignorantia [Ignorance], which is ‘ignorance’; Impietas [Impiety], which is ‘wickedness’; Temeritas [Presumption], which is ‘foolish presumption’. All wisdom is from God because God himself is Wisdom, and every person will be blessed who has wisdom if he orders his own life with wisdom. Wisdom is holy, a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the devil gives foolishness in opposition [to it] so that [the person] neither pays heed to wisdom nor lives wisely, and yet it is more despicable that he considers himself wise and so has pretended to be wise. Contrary to understanding, the devil gives fatuity and also [causes] him to pretend to be discerning. Contrary to wise counsel, the hostile devil gives recklessness to his subordinates and also [causes] him to pretend to be of sound counsel. Contrary to fortitude of spirit, the wicked devil gives cowardice so that a person fails uselessly on every occasion in every need, and also [causes] him to pretend to be powerful. Contrary to knowledge, the malevolent devil gives ignorance to useless people

361

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa 70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

and eac þæt hy hiwion þæt hy ingehyd habban. Ongean þære arfestnysse, he sylð arleasnysse þæt he ne arige ne eac mæðige his underþeod/d\um ne his gelicum and eac þæt he hiwige swylce he arfæst sy. Ongean Godes ege, se gramlica deofol sylð dyrstignysse mid dwæslicum gebærum receleasum mannum mid modes unstæðþignysse, and eac þæt hy hiwion swylce hy habon Godes ege. Be þisum þeawum man mæg þone man tocnawan hwæþer him Godes Gast onwunige oððe þæs gramlican deofles. Be þam we magon secgan sume soðe bysne, | swa swa Beda awrat, þisum wordum secgende: he cwæð þæt sum forðman wære on Myrcena lande swyðe leof þam cyninge þe Cenred wæs gehaten. Se þegen wæs gymeleas on his þeawum and dædum, and dyslice leofode, and fordyde hine sylfne. Þa manode hine se cyning þæt he his mandæda geswice and his synna geandette mid soðre behreowsunge þy læs þe he færlice forðferde mid his synnum. Se cyning hine lufode and gelome hine swa tihte, ac he forseah his lare and let him eaðe embe þæt, cwæð þæt he wolde on fyrste fon to dædbote. He wearð þa gesicclod sarlice æt nextan, and se cyning Cenred com to him licgendum and bæd þæt he sceolde his synna geandettan mid soðre behreowsunge huru ær he swulte. He cwæð þæt he nolde cyðan þa his synna, ac syððan he gewyrpte he wolde hy geandettan, þy læs þe hine man tælde, swylce he for yrhðe hy geandette þa on his untrumnesse þa þa he ansund nolde. Hym þuhte þæt he spræce þegenlice word, ac he wæs beswicen þurh þone swicolan deofol swa swa hyt him aeode earmlice syððan. His wise wæs þa wyrsiende, and him weox seo untrumnes, and se cyning eode eft in to þam seocan. He clypode þa earmlice and cwæð to ðam cyninge, ‘Hwæt woldest þu | nu æt me? Ne miht þu me nanum gode!’ Þa cwæð se cyning him to, ‘Ne clypa þu swa unwislice. Wite þin gewit’. He andwyrde and cwæð, ‘Ne eom Ic na gewitleas, ac min gewit is yfel. Me comon lytle ær to twegen Godes englas and brohton me ane boc, seo wæs beorhte scinende ac heo wæs swiðe gehwæde, and heton me rædan. Ic þa sceawode þa boc and þæron geseah 77 habon] habon N; habban U

362

161r

161v

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa 70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

and also [causes] them to pretend to have knowledge. Contrary to piety, he gives wickedness so that [a person] neither protects nor respects his subordinates nor his equals and also [causes] him to pretend to be pious. Contrary to the fear of God, the cruel devil gives presumption together with foolish behavior to reckless people with unsteadiness of spirit and also [causes] them to pretend to have the fear of God. By reason of these characteristics one can discern whether the Spirit of God or the cruel devil indwells him. With respect to that, we can relate a certain true example just as Bede wrote down, explaining in these words: he said that there was a certain man of rank in the land of the Mercians [who was] very dear to the king called Cenred. The thegn was careless in his habits and actions, and lived foolishly, and corrupted himself. The king then admonished him to cease from his evil deeds and to confess his sins with true repentance lest he suddenly die in his sins. The king loved him and often urged him thus, but he scorned his advice and took that [matter] lightly, said that he intended in due course to undertake penance. He then finally became grievously sick, and the king Cenred came to him while he was lying sick and urged him to confess his sins with true repentance at last before he died. He said that he was not willing to make known his sins, but [that] after he recovered, he would be willing to confess them, lest one deride him, as though he confessed because of cowardice then in his illness when healthy he was not willing [to confess]. It seemed to him that he spoke words befitting a thegn, but he was deceived by the deceitful devil as it went wretchedly for him afterwards. His condition was worsening at the time, and the illness spread in him, and the king again went to the sick man. He then cried out wretchedly and said to the king, ‘What do you want from me now? You avail me no good!’ Then the king said to him, ‘Do not cry out so unwisely. Act in your [right] mind’. He answered and said, ‘I am not mad, but my mind is evil. Not long before two of God’s angels came to me and brought me a book that was shining brightly but was very small and ordered me to read. I then looked at the book and therein saw

363

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa 115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

þa feawan godan dæda þe Ic dyde seldon; þa wæron swyðe feawa. And hy færlice genamon eft þa boc æt me and me nan þing ne sædon. Efne þa færlice comon þa cwealmbæran deofla swyðe angrislic werod and eal þis hus afyldon, and manega wiðutan on ælce healfe sæton. Hwæt þa se fyrmesta forðteah ane boc, micele and ormæte, swilce mannes by/r\ðen. He het þa ræcan me to rædenne þa boc, and Ic þæron geseah mid sweartum stafum awritene ealle mine synna þe Ic sið and ær gefremode and mine yfelan geþohtas on þære atelican bec swiðe swutelice, swa swa Ic sylf oncneow. Þa cwædon þa deofla to þam Drihtnes englum þe þa lytlan boc me brohton, “Hwæs anbidige her? Ge sylfe witon þæt þeos sawl is ure”. Þa englas þa cwædon to þam atelicum deoflum, “Soð ge secgað. Nimað his sawle to ðam ecum witum | on eowrum forwyr/d\e”. And þa englas sona of minre gesihðe gewiton. Þa arison sona of þam sweartan flocce twegen egeslice deofla mid egeslicum tolum swilce twa scearu and slogon me hetelice, an on þone fot and oþer on þæt heafod. And gað nu þa dyntas þæs deoflican sleges to minum innoðe mid ormætum sarum, and þonne hy togædere cumað, min gast sceal gewitan of þam earman lichaman mid þam atelicum deoflum to hellicum clysingum on þam hatan fyre’. Þus clypode se earming mid orwennysse, and he hraðe þæs gewat to þam ecum witum butan dædbote, mid þam deoflum, genyðerod. Ne fremode his gesyhð him sylfum nan þing, ac for oþrum mannum him wearð æteowed þæt, þæt þa beon gerihtlæhte þe þas rædinge gehyrað for þan þe ure dæda beoð ealle awritene, swa yfele swa gode, on ecum gemynde and us eft beoð æteowde on þam endenextan dæge. Ælc þæra þe geortruwað and geendað butan hihte, se losaþ openlice on þam ecan forwyrde. And se ðe hopað to Criste becymð to mildsunge huru on Domesdæg for þæs Hælendes godnysse, swa us secgað bec þæt manega foroft gebugon on ende on heora forðsiðe to þam soðan Hælende mid anrædum geleafan and mid soþre | behreowsunge, and heora synna geandetton, and God him þa mildsode for his micclan godnysse. 364

162r

162v

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa 115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

the few good deeds that I rarely did; they were very few. And they suddenly took the book again from me and said nothing to me. Just then an exceedingly angry troop of murderous devils arrived suddenly and entirely filled this house, and many sat outside on each side. And then the leader brought forth a book, large and heavy, as big as a man could carry. He ordered them to hand me the book to read, and therein I saw written exceedingly clearly in black letters in that terrible book all my sins that I ever committed and [all] my evil thoughts, as I myself knew. Then the devils spoke to the Lord’s angels who brought me the little book, “Who are you waiting for here? You know yourselves that this soul is ours”. The angels then said to the hideous devils, “You speak the truth. Take his soul to the everlasting punishments in your place of damnation”. And the angels immediately departed from my sight. Then arose immediately from that black multitude two terrifying devils with terrifying implements like two ploughshares and beat me savagely, one on the foot and the other on the head. And the blows from the devils’ beating now reach to my insides with heavy pains, and when they come together, my spirit will depart from [my] wretched body with the hideous devils to the prison-house of hell in the hot fire’. Thus spoke the wretch with despair, and he departed immediately afterwards to the everlasting punishments without penance, with the devils, condemned. His vision profited him nothing, but that was revealed to him for other people so that those who hear this reading will then be directed rightly, because our deeds will all be written down, the evil as well as the good, in an eternal record and will be shown to us again on the last day. Each of those who despair and die without hope will perish publicly in the everlasting place of damnation. But he who hopes in Christ will attain mercy at last on Judgment Day on account of the Savior’s goodness, just as the books say to us that very often many ultimately turned at their death to the true Savior with steadfast belief and with true repentance, and confessed their sins, and God then had mercy on them on account of his great goodness. 365

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa 160

Se eca Drihten us ah/r\edde fram eallum frecednyssum and to ðam ecan life gelæde, se þe leofað and rixað mid Fæder and Halgum Gaste abutan ende; we cweþaþ, Amen.

366

Text: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa 160

May the everlasting Lord save us from all dangers and lead us to everlasting life, he who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit without end; we say, Amen.

367

BE ÐAM SEOFANFEALDAN UNGIFA

COMMENTARY If compiled by Ælfric, Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6) may be dated between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005.1 It survives only in N [Ker §153.31], fols 160r–162v.2 The text has not been edited previously, though its component parts correspond to the whole of Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17),3 written ca 998 × 1002, and sections of SH II.19,4 composed later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998.5 Napier does not collate N in his edition, while Pope does not collate N for lines 250–4.6 Lines 1–79 [[Isaias se witega] … gramlican deofles]: Having in Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5) treated John 16.16–22, a text long associated with the Third Sunday after Easter (see notes to AH I.5, line 1), Ælfric here considers the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit and the evil gifts of the devil with which they contrast. See notes to AH II.17, lines 28–79 below, which the first half of Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa reproduces. Lines 80–152 [Be þam we … þam endenextan dæge]: The second half of Be ðam seofanfealdan Ungifa derives from SH II.19, which, in this section, recounts an episode from Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica V.13. The passage here reproduces SH II.19, lines 136–207 verbatim, with but four minor variations: 1.  angrislic (‘terrible’) for SH II.19’s anþræc (‘dreadful’ [lines 118 and 174, respectively]), corresponding to Bede’s horridus (‘terrible’)7 [cf. the Old English Bede’s micel (‘great’)];8 2.  anbidige for SH II.19’s abide ge (both meaning ‘[Why] should you

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 109–10 and 283. The homily begins imperfectly, a leaf having been lost. The opening page – marked ‘160’ in the lower-right corner, as one of four differing pagination marks on the page – begins ‘[wið]utan bið gesewen’, as Napier 8, p. 58, line 1. The Napier portion ends with ‘gramlican deofles’ (p. 60, line 4) at the bottom of fol. 160v [lines 23–4]; SH II.19, line 136 then begins ‘Be þam we magon secgan …’. Previously edited as part of Napier 8 (Wulfstan, p. 58, line 1 – p. 60, line 4). Lines 136–207, 242–5, and 250–4. On which dates, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 123 and 281, and 89 and 280, respectively. Homilies, vol. II, p. 622. Ecclesiastical History, p. 500. Miller, Old English Version V.14 [EETS 96], p. 438, line 28.

368

Commentary: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa wait’ or ‘[What] are you waiting for’ [lines 128 and 184, respectively]), corresponding to Bede’s [Quid hic] sedetis (‘[Why] do you sit [here]’) [cf. the Old English Bede’s [To hwon] sitton ge [her] (‘[Why] do you sit [here]’)];9 3.  egeslicum (‘dreadful’) for isenum (‘iron’ [lines 135 and 191]), corresponding to Bede’s uomeres (‘daggers’)10 [cf. the Old English Bede’s hondseax (‘daggers’)];11 4. ‘on þone fot and oþer on þæt heafod [(‘one on the foot and the other on the head’ [lines 137 and 193]) for SH II.19’s ‘on þæt heafod and oðer on þone fot’ (‘one on the head and the other on the foot’), corresponding to Bede’s ‘unus in capite et alius in pede’(‘one on the head and the other on the foot’) [cf. the Old English Bede’s ‘oðer in heafod, oðer in fet’ (‘one on the head, the other on the foot’)12]. The unique copy in which Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa survives makes it difficult to confirm, but the changes could be scribal rather than authorial. Anþræc [1 above] is not a common term for Ælfric, appearing some ten times in his writings, but angrislic (or angryslic, or ongrislic) is not a word he seems to use at all. Anbidige for abide ge [2] might easily be a transcription error given the verbal and semantic similarity of the words. Egeslicum [3] could be the result of dittographic confusion given the presence of egeslice earlier in the line (‘twegen egeslice deofla mid egeslicum tolum’ [‘two dreadful devils with dreadful implements’]), particularly as no other line in the SH II.19 section has such repetition within a single line. The inversion of fot and heafod [4], finally, could similarly be a careless transposition. Cf. the arguably authorial changes in lines 152–62 below. While Godden notes that Ælfric knew and used both Bede’s original and the anonymous late-ninth or early-tenth-century Old English translation,13 Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa and SH II.19 both appear to follow Bede’s Latin rather than its vernacular counterpart. In the examples above, for instance, apart from the fot and heafod passage [4], where most of the texts convey the straightforward phrase more or less verbatim, Ælfric’s vocabulary does not parallel that in the Old English Bede. Anþræc (or angrislic) [1] is closer to Bede’s horridus than the Old English micel; Abide ge (or anbidige) [2] captures the spirit of Bede’s sedetis, while the vernacular translates it literally as sitton; and Bede’s uomeres [3] – more often meaning ‘ploughshares’ than ‘daggers’ – may understandably have caused Ælfric some confusion (demons wielding ploughs as weapons?), resulting in the somewhat cautious rendition ‘isenum tolum, swylce twa scearu’ (‘iron tools, like two ploughshares’ [SH II.19, lines 191–2]) rather than the Old English Bede’s apt hondseax. Lines 80–91 [Be þam we … fon to dædbote]: While Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa in the main is a fairly faithful rendition of Bede’s account (even in length, it comes to 615

9 10 11 12 13

Miller, Old English Version V.14, p. 440, line 8. Rather than ‘ploughshares’ in this case, as Colgrave and Mynors argue (see Bede, Ecclesiastical History, pp. 500–1 n. 2). Miller, Old English Version V.14 [EETS 96], p. 440, line 12. Miller, Old English Version V.14 [EETS 96], p. 440, line 13. Commentary, p. l; on the date of this vernacular translation, see Rowley, Old English Version, p. 2.

369

Commentary: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa words to Bede’s 626), Ælfric modifies the Historia in various degrees: some material he translates thought for thought, some phrases he rewords, and some details he adds or omits. Following his quick introduction where he references Bede, for example [lines 80–1], Ælfric reproduces much of the storyline of his source: a man of rank in Mercia was held dear by King Cenred, who warned him to confess and repent of his sins – counsel on which the man fails to act. Where Bede says that the man’s ‘uisiones ac uerba, non autem et conuersatio, plurimis, sed non sibimet ipsi, profuit’ (‘ideas and words, though not his habits, benefited many – but not himself’), so that his interna neglegentia (‘inward heedlessness’) displeased the king, Ælfric says that the man ‘wæs gymeleas on his þeawum and dædum, and dyslice leofode, and fordyde hine sylfne’ (‘was careless in his habits and deeds, and lived foolishly, corrupting himself’ [lines 84–5]). Certain details in Bede (that Cenred succeeds King Æthelred, or that the servant is a layman, for example) Ælfric omits, moreover, while other language he expands – saying that the man ‘he forseah his lare, and let him eaðe embe þæt’ (‘spurned [the king’s] counsel, and treated it with scant regard’ [line 90]) where Bede simply has spernebat uerba salutis (‘he spurned this sound advice’). Such modifications on Ælfric’s part may serve in part to simplify the story for his audience (omitting non-essential details about characters, for example), but they may also reflect the tension of sound and sense inherent in the work of producing rhythmical prose.14 Lines 92–145 [He wearð þa … mid þam deoflum genyðerod]: In this main section of the narrative, Ælfric again follows much of the account closely: the king visits his servant on his sickbed, who recounts a vision of angels showing him a small book of his good works and demons proffering a daunting book of his misdeeds; struck by demons in his head and foot, he predicts that which comes to pass – his death and subsequent torment in hell. Certain elements Ælfric may adapt more than others: he has min gewit is yfel (‘my mind is wretched’ [line 109]) for Bede’s ‘pessimam mihi scientiam certus prae oculis habeo’ (‘I know the worst; it is fixed before my eyes’), for instance. Again, however, part of the reason for such changes may be stylistic, both reflecting the demands of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose overall, and the particular paranomasia present here in this interchange: ‘[Ða cwæð se cyning] wite þin gewit. He andwyrde and cwæð, Ne eom Ic na gewitleas, ac min gewit is yfel’ (‘[Then the king said,] “take heed of good sense.” He answered and said, “I am not mad, but my mind is wretched”’ [lines 108–9; emphasis ours]). Details that Ælfric omits include Bede’s description of duo pulcherrimi iuuenes (‘two most handsome youths’) sitting at the man’s head and feet (Ælfric simply states that ‘comon … twegen Godes englas’ [‘two angels of God … came’ (line 110)]), the obscuritas tenebrosae faciei (‘darkness of the gloom of his face’) of the chief devil, and an extended explanation of the reason for the man’s fate: ‘paenitentiam quam ad breue tempus cum fructu ueniae facere supersedit’ (‘he refrained from doing for a brief time the penance which would have brought the fruit of mercy’). Lines 146–51 [Ne fremode his gesyhð … þam endenextan dæge]: As Ælfric turns to the conclusion of the story, he begins adapting it more. While he preserves the affirmation that the man’s vision was given as a warning to others [lines 146–8], he omits Bede’s 14

On which, see for example Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 105–36.

370

Commentary: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa attribution of the sentiment to Gregory. Where Bede defines ‘others’ at more length as those who put off repentance, may die impenitent, and be judged like the man condemned by the books of his deeds, furthermore, Ælfric more succinctly states: ‘ure dæda beoð ealle awritene, swa yfele, swa gode, on ecum gemynde, and us eft beoð æteowde on þam endenextan dæge’ (‘our deeds are all written down, both the evil and the good, in an eternal record, and hereafter it will happen to us on the last day’ [lines 149–51]). Lines 152–62 [Ælc þæra þe geortruwað … we cweþaþ, Amen]: For the final lines of Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa, Ælfric reorders, weaves together, and adapts passages from the conclusion of SH II.19 thus: • •

•

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Lines 152–5 reproduce SH II.19, lines 250–3 verbatim. Lines 156–9 reproduce SH II.19, lines 242–5, with the following (either scribal or authorial) alterations: 1. Line 156 transitions from the previous sentence using the word Swa (‘Thus’); 2. Line 156 reads þæt manega foroft instead of SH II.19’s foroft þæt manega (‘[the book tells us] that very often many [repent]’) – a possible scribal transposition; 3. Line 157 says that the penitent turn to þam soðan Hælende (‘to the true Savior’ – soða[n] Hælend appearing twenty times as a phrase in Ælfric’s works; see notes to De cogitatione (AH II.18), lines 19–25 below) rather than SH II.19’s to Gode (‘to God’); and 4. Line 157 describes the penitents’ faith as anrædum (‘resolute’ – variations of which term Ælfric elsewhere uses over 120 times) instead of SH II.19’s fæstum (‘steadfast’). Lines 160–1 expand SH II.19’s ‘Se us gelæde to ðam ecan life’ (‘May he lead us to the eternal life’ [line 254]) to ‘Se ece driht[en] us ahredde fram eallum frecednyssum and to ðam ecan life gelæde’ (‘May the eternal Lord save us from all harm and lead us to the eternal life’). The additional language echoes phrases Ælfric uses elsewhere. Ece drihten appears in the closing formulas of LS II.12 [Skeat I.13]15 and II.15 [Skeat 16].16 Ahreddan fram frecednyssum features in CH II.17,17 the close of CH II.24,18 the close of LS I.8,19 and LS II.13 [Skeat I.14]20 (see also Judith21). To ðam ecan life gelæde appears ten times, all but one (CH II.5) in conclusions: CH I.25,22 CH I.37,23 Læwedum Mannum is to

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §5, p. 22, line 22; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 282, line 294. Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 362, line 382; though not on Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 114. Godden, Second Series, p. 175, line 31. Godden, Second Series, p. 229, lines 250–1. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 266, lines 233–4; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 208, lines 233–4. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 62, line 149; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 316, line 149. Assmann 9 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 111, line 281). Clemoes, First Series, p. 387, line 225. Clemoes, First Series, p. 506, line 279.

371

Commentary: Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa

•

•

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Witenne,24 CH II.5,25 CH II.31,26 CH II.36,27 LS II.16 [Skeat I.17],28 LS II.18 [Skeat I.19],29 SH II.19,30 and Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis.31 Lines 161–2 offer a new benediction before SH II.19’s ‘AMEN’: ‘Se þe leofað and rixað mid fæder and halgum gaste abutan ende we cweþaþ, Amen’ (‘He who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit without end; we say, Amen’). The formula is a favorite for Ælfric: see notes to AH II.14, lines 306–12. One thing both Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa and SH II.19 have in common is departing entirely from Bede’s Historia. The latter recaps key elements from the preceding story: the books shown the man by the angels and devils, the contrast between the few good deeds and abundant evil ones, and the missed chance to make up in older age for the errors of his youth. Quoting from Psa 32.1 (Vulgate 31.1) – ‘Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata’ (‘Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered’), in Bede’s rendition – it then cites Pehthelm, bishop of Whithorn (d. 735), as the story’s source. Ælfric, on the other hand, explicitly sets forth takeaway principles – those who perish without repentance are eternally condemned; those who trust in Christ and confess their sins, even at the point of death, receive eternal mercy – before petitioning God for help in this regard and offering him praise.

AH II.20, line 8. Godden, Second Series, p. 45, line 116. Godden, Second Series, p. 271, line 105. Godden, Second Series, p. 309, line 141. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §2, p. 136, line 224; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 382, line 269. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 190, line 257; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 430, line 257. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 635, line 254. AH I.8, line 598.

372

HOMILIES

the proper of the saints

7

DE SANCTA UIRGINITATE, UEL DE TRIBUS ORDINIBUS CASTITATIS De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis (‘Concerning Holy Virginity, or Concerning the Three Orders of Chastity’) is a composite homily assigned to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (15 August) in the one manuscript wherein it survives. Scholars agree that Ælfric composed its component parts but are less certain that he was responsible for the whole. With varying degrees of reservation, Godden, Pope, and Clemoes acknowledge the possibility that Ælfric could have compiled the homily, while more recently Kezel concludes that we are ‘reasonably justified’ in attributing the work to him.1 If Ælfric was the compiler, then he completed the homily between about 1006 and 1010 using parts of two works that he had written around 1005–6.2 De sancta uirginitate would have been his third homily for the feast-day commemorating the Virgin Mary’s reception into heaven in body and soul at the end of her life.3 Part one of De sancta uirginitate [lines 1–213] is adapted from Ælfric’s Letter to Sigefyrth, a freely composed defense of sacerdotal chastity addressed to a layman who may have been a member of the local gentry living near Ælfric’s abbey at Eynsham.4 Ælfric opens with proofs that Christ loves þa halgan clænnysse (‘holy virginity’ [line

1

2 3

4

Godden, Second Series, p. lxvi; Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 31 and 141; Clemoes, First Series, p. 84, and ‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xvii; and Kezel, ‘Ælfric the Benedictine’, pp. 163–71, at p. 171, all as cited by Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 112. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 111–12. De uirginitate (AH II.13), a composite homily possibly by Ælfric, would also have been appropriate for preaching on Mary’s Assumption, but because it is not assigned to or associated with the feast-day, it does not figure in the following discussion. A Sigefyrth, though not necessarily this one, witnesses the Eynsham charter (Keynes, Diplomas, p. 193 n. 143), and the Sigefyrth whom Ælfric addresses may have been a member of the local gentry (Cubitt, ‘Ælfric’s Lay Patrons’, pp. 186–7, as cited in Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 158 n. 2). For an edition of the Letter to Sigefyrth, which is also known as Be þære halgan clænnysse (‘Concerning holy virginity’), see Assmann 2 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 13–23). The evidence for the Letter as a letter, not as a homily or a portion of one, is found in a preface that contains the address to Sigefyrth (Assmann 2, lines 1–12). London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D. xiv [G, s. xiimed] once contained a copy of the Letter, but now only the preface survives (fol. 6v). However, a transcription of G’s copy of the Letter was made by John Joscelyn (1529–1603) and is preserved in London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. vii, fols 10r–12r [Tr6]. When Ælfric adapts the Letter for homiletic use in De sancta uirginitate, he omits the preface (Assmann 2, lines 1–12) and concluding formula [line 225], and adds three new passages (AH I.7, lines 121–6, 136–41, and 146–50). For other minor additions and changes, see the headnote to the apparatus.

375

Introduction: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 3]). Jesus, the Virgin Mary, John the Evangelist, and the Apostles who forsook their marriages when called to follow Christ provide biblical support for Ælfric’s assertion that lifelong celibacy and good works on earth merit a hundred-fold reward in heaven [lines 2–46]. A discussion of a particular kind of celibacy, clerical celibacy, follows [lines 47–120], and Ælfric grounds it in the distinction between the Old and New Law, the time of bigamy and married bishops having given way to the age of unmarried, chaste priests who alone can serve at God’s altar. The need for an accurate understanding of differences between the Old and New Law extends to all Christians who need teachers to teach them about the three conditions that are pleasing to God – marriage, widowhood, and lifelong virginity – and whose good fruit yields, respectively, thirty, sixty, and hundred-fold heavenly rewards [lines 121–82]. Having explained the hundred-fold reward, Ælfric continues to comment on the virginal state. He cautions against the heresy of resisting clerical celibacy and concludes part one by leading his listeners through a miniature Hall of Virgins, whose bishops, priests, desert fathers, and monks and nuns represent others who will serve Christ celibately until the end of the world [lines 183–213]. Part two [lines 214–306] is a passage patterned on Augustine’s treatise on virginity, De sancta uirginitate, and excerpted verbatim from the conclusion of Ælfric’s sermon for the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, In natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8). The excerpt consists of a discussion of the figurative meaning of the ‘penny’ in the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20.1–16), a translation of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5.3–10), and a hortatory conclusion addressed to eow mædenum (‘you virgins’ [line 282]) encouraging them to love the Beatitudes. In the Nativity homily, this passage follows a discussion of the different heavenly rewards married couples and virgins can expect and of the different degrees of radiance with which the righteous will shine.5 So, while all the righteous earn the penny of eternal life the landlord paid to laborers hired at different times throughout the day, virgins, who will receive the highest rewards and shine brightest in heaven, may also earn the greatest honors by practicing the virtues embodied in the Beatitudes. In contrast to the manner in which Ælfric integrated his exposition of the parable into his homily for Mary’s Nativity, his placement of the excerpt in the Assumption homily provides a rather abrupt, but not illogical, transition from Ælfric’s final point in favor of clerical celibacy that culminates with the Hall of Virgins. In turning to the meaning of the penny the lord pays his workers, he seems to be anticipating a question regarding God’s fairness in granting the equal wage of eternal life to married couples and celibates when the latter must work longer and harder to control themselves. If Ælfric has in mind those resistant to the idea of clerical celibacy, then the excerpt may bolster his argument in favor of the superiority of a chaste priesthood over a married one. Not only will chaste priests be more radiant by virtue of their virginity, but they can also shine more brilliantly with spiritual purity as well. The conclusion addressed to eow mædenum (‘you virgins’) brings full circle a homily that began by promising a hundred-fold reward to those who please God with lifelong chastity and good works. Pope considered the direct address as an ‘inappropriate’ follow up to part one of De sancta uirginitate,6 perhaps because the Letter to Sigefyrth adapted for part one offers 5 6

AH I.8, lines 453–506. Homilies, vol. I, p. 31, where Pope also comments that the conclusion is ‘less effectively related to

376

Introduction: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis ‘so much more practical advice on how the laity should behave’ than the sermon on Mary’s Nativity does.7 Certainly, the primary target audience of De sancta uirginitate is different than the celibate monastic audience of monks and nuns for whom Ælfric wrote the Nativity homily.8 While it is true the Assumption homily says much about the laity, it has more to say about the clergy, particularly about the need for the men who serve at God’s altar to be chaste.9 After all, Ælfric wrote the Letter to rebut an English anchorite’s teaching that priests could marry.10 In the homily, as in the Letter, Ælfric unquestionably has secular (non-monastic) priests in mind when he comments that only a gedwola (‘heretic’ [line 188]) would oppose the prohibition forbidding ‘any servant of the altar to have a wife who with his hands must consecrate the holy Eucharist just as the Savior taught’.11 However, in transferring the contents of the Letter to a sermon, Ælfric transforms his commentary about secular priests into counsel for them. If his primary target audience is non-monastic celibates, then his decision to retain the address to eow mædenum makes sense. So does his added reference to Cristes lareowum (‘Christ’s teachers’ [line 122]) who are to instruct the laity about proper living. Ælfric routinely uses ‘teacher’ (lareow) as a synonym for ‘priest’ (sacerd, preost, and mæssepreost), so the unique collocation of ‘teacher’ (lareow) and ‘virgin’ (mæden) in the composite homily aids him in calling secular priests to teach faithfully and live chastely. It is a call by way of encouragement and correction found in other works, some of which he wrote around the same time.12 If Ælfric compiled De sancta uirginitate and assigned it to the Assumption, then the homily would have been his third for the occasion, more than for any other Marian feast or any other saint’s day.13 Read alongside the two earlier sermons, the third might be said to come closest to his ideal homily for the day because it does not mention

7 8 9 10 11

12

13

what precedes in its new position than in its old’ and designates the whole homily ‘a makeshift’. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 314. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 295, and Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 247. See, for example, AH I.7, lines 47–120 and 183–213. See the preface to the Letter to Sigefyrth (Assmann 2, lines 1–12). AH I.7, lines 195–7: ‘ænig weofodes þen moste wif habban, se þe mid his handum halgian sceal þæt halige husel swa swa se Hælende tæhte’. Ælfric later refers to the practice of married men officiating at mass as a fracodnyss (‘wicked custom’ [line 203]). See for example, CH II.6 [991 × 992] (Godden, Second Series, pp. 57–8, lines 136–66); Letter for Wulfsige [ca 993 × ca 995] (Whitelock, et al., Councils and Synods, pp. 196–226, at pp. 196, 198–9, and 199–200, §§1, 14–15, and 17); LS 9 [ca 993 × ca 998] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 292, line 201 – p. 294, line 230; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, pp. 232, line 202 – p. 234, line 231); ‘Prefatio to Genesis’ (Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 3–200, at p. 4, lines 25–42); First Latin Letter for Wulfstan [ca 1005] (Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 35–57, at pp. 46–8, §§87–111); and the First Old English Letter for Wulfstan [ca 1006] (Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, pp. 260–302, at pp. 277–80, §§75–88). The point about this ‘most unusual duplication’ in the Catholic Homilies is Clayton’s, though De sancta uirginitate does not factor into her discussion of Ælfric’s homilies for Mary’s Assumption (Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 242). Ælfric wrote homilies for the other three Marian feasts celebrated by the English Church at the time: CH I.9 for the commemoration of her Purification in the Temple (Luke 2.21–39) on 2 February (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 249–57); CH I.13 for the commemoration of Gabriel’s Annunciation of the Incarnation (Luke 1.26–38) on 25 March (First Series, pp. 281–9); and AH I.8 for the commemoration of her Nativity on 8 September. The feasts of Mary’s Presentation in the Temple (21 November) and her Conception (8 December) were not introduced into Anglo-Saxon England until around 1030 (Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 242). Stephen

377

Introduction: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Mary’s Assumption at all. Ælfric knew first-hand Latin and English Assumption apocrypha, as well as repudiations of the apocrypha in works he believed to be by Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome.14 Mary Clayton characterizes Ælfric’s attitude toward the apocryphal sources as ‘one of discrete agnosticism’,15 and he increasingly distances himself from the Assumption over the course of the three homilies. In the First Series (CH I.30),16 he gives an account of Mary’s life, death, and glorification, which includes ‘possible justifications for her corporeal assumption’ but emphasizes ‘the reasons for her especially glorious spiritual assumption’ as heaven’s Queen.17 In the Second Series (CH II.29),18 he does not interpret the Assumption of the Virgin Mary but expounds instead the story Mary and Martha in the Gospel reading for the day (Luke 10.39–42). He mentions the Assumption only once: at the end of the homily, he cursorily declares that he can say no more than that on this day Mary was taken up to heaven to her son.19 He then goes on to talk about the necessity of rejecting the ‘heretical books both in Latin and English’ read by ‘ignorant men’ and of leaving such matters to wiser ones.20 In De sancta uirginitate, this repudiation gives way to reticence, and Ælfric makes no mention of Mary’s earthly life. Instead, he lists her among the biblical figures he associates with the ideal of virginity. He takes a similar tack, generally speaking, in the Nativity homily from which part two was taken, though, as was discussed earlier, with a different audience of celibates in view. If Ælfric compiled the sermon principally for secular priests, the sole manuscript wherein De sancta uirginitate survives may hint that it possibly found its mark. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v [H]21 originally contained a copy of the First Series written in an unidentified scriptorium at the end of the tenth or beginning of the eleventh century. Soon thereafter Ælfric’s five homilies for Fridays in Lent were added in an appendix, and twenty to thirty years later, an interpolator interspersed seventeen more homilies by Ælfric.22 Two were for Mary’s Assumption: the Second Series pericope homily (CH II.29) and De sancta uirginitate.23 When the interpolator copied afresh the

14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23

(23 December) and Peter and Paul (29 June) are the only other saints’ feast-days commemorated with homilies in the First and Second Series (Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 42). Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 243. On the Assumption apocrypha in Latin that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England, see pp. 6–11, and pp. 232–5 for anonymous Old English homilies that drew on it. Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 243. Clemoes, First Series, pp. 429–38. Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 236. Godden, Second Series, pp. 255–9. Godden, Second Series, p. 259, lines 115–19. Godden, Second Series, p. 259, lines 125–6: ‘ða dwollican bec ægðer ge on leden ge on englisc’ read by ‘ungerade menn’. Ker §220; Gneuss and Lapidge §403; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 217–19. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 26–30. See also Wilcox, ‘Cotton Vitellius C. v’, in Homilies by Ælfric, p. 23, noting that items 14, 37, and 45 [Ker §220.47] were replacement copies, not additions, for which the interpolator was responsible. Ker §220.47–9 / Wilcox, ‘Cotton Vitellius C. v’, in Homilies by Ælfric, p. 32, items 45–7. Ælfric’s opening lines referring to his First Series homily for the Assumption, which directly precedes the interpolated homilies, have been replaced ‘rather clumsily’ with an announcement declaring that the Gospel reading customarily read at mass that day is the story of Mary and Martha, which follows in Old English as Ælfric rendered it (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 29).

378

Introduction: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis First Series Assumption homily (CH I.30) on new leaves24 and added these two others to follow, he created a complete and thus unique set of Ælfric’s sermons for the day. The set offers a user of the manuscript a choice of sermons to recite or read, and H offers a tiny hint that one user around the first quarter of the eleventh century might have been a bishop. The final sermon listed in the interpolator’s table of contents was a sermo episcopi (‘bishop’s sermon’), though neither the complete title nor the sermon survives due to damage to the manuscript.25 The sermon may have been by a bishop or for a bishop or both, but its putative presence at least raises the possibility that the interpolator may have expected a bishop to use his book. If so, it is reasonable to imagine him delivering De sancta uirginitate to the canons who staffed the cathedral priory, or perhaps to a mixed audience of clergy and laity gathered to celebrate Mary’s Assumption.26 The full slate of some seventy homilies in H implies use in a context where Sundays, ferial days, and saints’ feast-days were regularly observed, and ‘you virgins’ would have been a fitting address for such a shepherd to use for his clerical flock. Because De sancta uirginitate survives uniquely in a damaged manuscript, we have departed from standard practice in our edition to improve its readability. To reduce the risk of producing a cluttered text, we put square brackets around whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. We supply details in the apparatus for readings from H and those supplied from parallel sources or by conjecture.

24 25 26

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 28. Ker §220, p. 286; see above, pp. 212–13. Wilcox notes that the portion of the manuscript for which the interpolator was responsible ‘has distinctive punctuation as it contains many hyphens and regularly punctuates with a point at the middle or end of one of Ælfric’s rhythmical lines’ (‘Cotton Vitellius C. v’, in Homilies by Ælfric, p. 23). The interpolator may thus have been working under the assumption that H was to be used for public reading.

379

de sancta uirginitate , uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

concerning holy virginity , or concerning the three orders of chastity

DE SANCTA UIRGINITATE, UEL DE TRIBUS ORDINIBUS CASTITATIS De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordini[b]us [ca]stitatis [Ure] Hælend Crist cydde þæt he lufode þa halgan clænnysse on his þeowum [swu]telice þa þa he mædenmann him to meder geceas Text from: H London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v, 182v–184v (added in s. xi1, SW England) Variants from lines 214–306 of H are reported in the apparatus to AH I.8. Variants and missing or illegible text from: N for lines 1–213, London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A. ix, fols 17v–21v (s. xii1) O

for lines 1–213, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 302, pp. 66–71 (s. xi/xii)

In N [Ker §153.3] and O [Ker §56.9], homilies have been formed from the Letter to Sigefyrth for preaching on (different) Sundays after Epiphany. The sermons do not contain the passages Ælfric added to the homiletic adaptation of the Letter in H [lines 121–6, 136–41, and 146–50] or the other minor changes he introduced (see lines 19 [mægðhade], 45 [lufon], 106 [sang], 116 [þeowas], 134 [unrihtan hæmeras], and 206 [Pafnutius]) (Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 248). O’s readings normally confirm those of N. Q for lines 214–306, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188 [Q], pp. 372–4 (s. xi1, perhaps xi2/4, provenance Hereford Cathedral? [Gneuss and Lapidge §58]): the copy of Ælfric’s homily, Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8, lines 507–99) V1a for lines 121–77, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 419, pp. 347–52 (s. xi1, possibly SE England; provenance Exeter). Ælfric adapted lines 121–77 as the opening section of the composite homily, De uirginitate (AH II.13, lines 2–57). De uirginitate is the only other witness to the passages that Ælfric added to the Letter to Sigefyrth when he adapted it for De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7, lines 121–6, 136–41, and 146–50). Among V1a’s ‘better’ readings (see AH I.7, lines 134, 139, and 174) are two in line 150 that indicate the text in H ‘has been subject to unauthorized amendment which has destroyed the rhythm’ (Clemoes, ‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xvii–xix, at p. xix). De uirginitate was unknown to Assmann when he edited the Letter. Due to damage to H, square brackets may enclose whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. The siglum H followed by a siglum or sigla in square brackets (e.g., H[N] or H[NO]) indicates that letters not enclosed in square brackets are reported from H and that enclosed letters are supplied from the manuscript(s) specified. Where multiple manuscripts are listed in the apparatus, the spelling is that of the first in the list. 1 De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordini[b]us [ca]stitatis] Dominica IIII. Be þera halgan clænnesse N; Dominica II. Be ðere halgan clænnesse O  2 [Ure]] no reading H; as NO  3 [swu]telice] swutelice NO 

382

CONCERNING HOLY VIRGINITY, OR CONCERNING THE THREE ORDERS OF CHASTITY Concerning Holy Virginity, or Concerning the Three Orders of Chastity Our Savior Christ clearly made known that he loved holy virginity among his servants when he chose a virgin as his mother

383

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

and he sylf leofode [but]on eallum synnum on þære ylcan clænnysse, þe he com to mannum oð þæt he [u]s alysde mid his agenum life and mid his æriste urne deað towearp. [I]ohannes eac, se fulluhtere þe Crist gefullode, heold þa clænnysse gecwemlice Gode, on mode and on lichaman on micelre drohtnunge, and he his mægðha[d]es man, for ðam þe mægðhad is ge on wæpmannu[m] ge on wimannu[m], swa swa gewritu secgað. Iohannes se godspellere, þe Gode wæs gecweme, and Crist hine lufode for þære clænnysse, swa swa we singað swutelice be him, Uirgo electus a Deo, [u]irgo in euu[m] permansit: ‘He was on clænum mægðhade gecoren fram Gode, and he on mægðhade on ecnysse þurhwunode’. Sume þa apostolas, þe siþodon mid Criste on his lareowdome þa þa he her on life wæs, hæfdon him gemacan [æ]fter Moyses æ, ac hi sona geswicon þæs sinscipes æfre syþþan hi Cristes [la]re geleornodon æt him, swa swa Petrus sæde on sumum godspelle, ‘Ecce, [no]s reliquimus omnia et secuti sumus te. Quid ergo erit nobis?’: “‘We forleton ealle [þi]ng and þe, leof, folgiað. Hwæt gewyrð be us?’” And him andwyrde Crist, “‘Ge þe fol[gi]að me for þi ge sceolon sittan on twelf domsetlum, and ge deman sceolon [e]allum manncynne on þam micclan dæge æfter þam æriste þonne Ic sylf sitte [o]n þam domsetle mines mægenþrymmes. And ælc þæra þe forlæt on þisum life nu fæder oððe modor, gebroðru oððe geswustru, his wif oððe cildra, hus oððe æceras for minum naman, he underfehð þa mede, be hundfealdum edleane and þæt ece lif’”. Ðysne wyrðmynt geearniað æt þam ælmihtigan [Go]de þa þe mid clænnysse him gecwemað on life and mid godum weorcum hine [gla]diað nu: 5 [but]on] butan NO  7 [u]s] us NO  9 [I]ohannes] Iohannes NO eac] omitted NO  12 his] is N mægðha[d]es] mægðhades NO  13 wæpmannu[m]] macron above ‘u’ not visible H; wæpmannum NO  14 wimannu[m]] macron above ‘u’ not visible H; wimmannum O; wifmannum N  18 [u]irgo] uirgo NO euu[m]] euu, with macron over ‘u’ not visible H; eum NO  19 mægðhade] cnihthade NO  20 he] omitted NO  23 [æ]fter] æfter NO  25 [la]re] lare NO  27 reliquimus] relinquimus N  27 [no]s] nos NO  29 [þi]ng] þing NO  31 fol[gi]að] folgiað NO  33 [e]allum] eallum NO  34 þam] omitted NO   35 [o]n] on NO  41 gearniað] ge geearniað O [Go]de] gode NO  43 [gla]diað] gladiað NO 

384

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

and lived without any sin in that same chastity from the time he came to humanity until he redeemed us with his own life and overthrew our death with his resurrection. Likewise, John the Baptist who baptized Christ, preserved [his] virginity pleasingly to God, living an excellent life in mind and body, and [God] is mindful of his kin, for virginity exists among men and among women, just as writings declare. John the Evangelist was pleasing to God, and Christ loved him on account of [his] chastity, as we clearly sing about him, Uirgo electus a Deo, uirgo in euum permansit:1 ‘He was chosen by God in pure virginity, and he continued in virginity forever’. Certain apostles, who journeyed with Christ during his ministry when he was alive here, had wives according to the law of Moses, but they immediately forsook marriage forever after they learned Christ’s teaching from him, as Peter said in a certain Gospel, ‘Ecce nos reliquimus omnia et secuti sumus te. Quid ergo erit nobis?’:2 ‘“We left everything and followed you, Lord. What will happen concerning us?”’ And Christ answered him, ‘“You who follow me will thus sit on the twelve judgment seats, and you will judge all mankind on that great day after the resurrection when I myself will sit on the judgment seat of my glory. And everyone who now in this life forsakes father or mother, brothers or sisters, his wife or children, house or lands for my sake will receive [as] the reward a hundred-fold recompense and everlasting life”’. Those who are pleasing to him with virginity during their lifetime and who gladden him now with good works will earn this honor from almighty God:

1 2

‘Having been chosen by God as a virgin, he remained a virgin forever’. Matthew 19.27: ‘“Behold, we have left all things and followed you. What therefore shall we have?”’

385

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 45

50

55

60

65

70

75

þæt hi be hundfealdum habbað þa mede, þæt þæt hi be anfealdan for [his lufon] dydon and þærtoeacan syþþan þæt ece lif mid him. Under Moyses [lage men moston] lybban on maran softnysse and on geswæsum lustum swiþor [þonne nu on þisum] niwum dagum æfter Cristes acennednysse, þe þa clænnysse [astealde ge þurh] hine sylfne ge þurh his halgan þegenas, ge wæpmenn [ge wimmen þe wunedon on] clænnysse, fela þusend manna on micelre | [drohtnunge þe nu syndon halige on heofonan rice. ‘Lex et prophetae] usque ad Iohannem’: ‘“Seo [ealde æ wunode and witegan eac swylce oð Iohannes] timan”’, and witodlice [syþþan man sceal mid earfoðnessum þæt ece lif geearnian], swa swa se Hælend on [his halgan godspelle cwæð. Iacob se heahfæder] hæfde twa geswustru buta him to wife be þam [ealdan gewunan], ac þæt is nu manfullic ænigum men to donne on þam [Cristendome, þe Crist] sylf astealde on þæs godspelleres timan nu under Godes gyfe. [Se bisceop] þa moste under Moyses æ habban wif and cild for þære [gesetnysse þe] nan mann ne moste to þam micclum hade nateshwon becuman [buton of] Aarones cynne, þæs forman bisceopes be Godes gesetnysse. Hit [mih]te þa swa wel beon for þam þe hi ne mæssodon næfre ne husel ne halgo[don] ær þan þe se Hælend sylf husel gehalgode ær his þrowunge and het us s[wa] don on his halgan gemynde. He ne gecyst nu be nanum cynrene ac of ælcere mægðe be þæs mannes geþingðum to his halgum þenungum him to mæss[i]gende bisceopas and mæssepreostas to swa mycelre gerynu 45 [his lufon]] [his luf NO]on H[NO]; his lufe  47 [lage men moston]] [lage men mos]ton H[NO]  49 [þonne nu on þisum]] [þonne nu on þis]um H[NO]; þyssum N  50 þe] se þe N  50–1 [astealde ge þurh]] no reading H; as NO  52 [ge wimmen þe wunedon on]] no reading H; as ON   53–5 [drohtnunge þe nu syndon halige on heofonan rice. Lex et prophetae]] drohtnung[e þe nu syndon halige on heofonan rice. Lex et prophete] H[NO]  56–7 [ealde æ wunode and witegan eac swylce oð Iohannes]] eal[de æ wunode and witegan eac swylce oð Iohannes] H[ON]  57–8 [syþþan man sceal mid earfoðnessum þæt ece lif geearnian]] syþþ[an man sceal mid earfoðnessum þæt ece lif ge]earnian H[NO]  59–60 [his halgan godspelle cwæð. Iacob se heahfæder]] [h]is ha[l]g[an] g[odspelle cwæð. Iacob se heah] fæder H[N]; as N but ‘halagan’ O  61 [ealdan gewunan]] [e]a[ldan gewunan] H[NO]   62 men] omitted O  63 [Cristendome þe Crist]] cristendo[me þe Crist] H[NO]  64 godspelleres] godspelles NO  65 [Se bisceop]] no reading H; as NO þa] omitted O  66–7 [gesetnysse þe]] gesetny[sse þe] H[NO]  68 [buton of]] H[NO]  70 [mih]te] mihte NO beon] omitted NO  71 halgo[don]] halgodon O; halgedon N  73 s[wa]] swa NO  76 mæss[i]gende] mæssienne NO 

386

183r

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 45

50

55

60

65

70

75

they will have a hundred-fold reward for that which they did one-fold for his sake and everlasting life with him afterwards as well. Under the law of Moses people were able to live in greater ease and in pleasing desires more than now in this new day after the birth of Christ, who established chastity both through himself and through his holy thegns, both men and women who lived in virginity, many thousands of people living excellent lives who are now saints in the kingdom of heaven. ‘Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem’:3 ‘“The old law and the prophets too lasted until the time of John”’, and certainly thereafter one ought to earn everlasting life through hardships, just as the Savior said in his holy Gospel. Jacob the patriarch had two sisters both as wives according to the old law, but that is now wicked for any man to do in the Christian era now under God’s grace, which Christ established during the time of the Evangelist. At that time the bishop was allowed under the law of Moses to have a wife and children on account of the ordinance that no man at all was able to attain that great office except from the line of Aaron, the first bishop according to God’s ordinance. At that time it could be so because they never said mass or consecrated the Eucharist before the Savior himself consecrated the Eucharist prior to his suffering and ordered us to do so in holy memory of him. He does not now choose for so great a sacrament bishops and priests according to any one family line but from every kin according to a man’s worthiness to celebrate mass for him according to his holy rites

3

The opening phrase of Luke 16.16: ‘“Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem ex eo regnum Dei euangelizatur”’ (‘“The Law and the prophets lasted until John [the Baptist]; thereafter, the Kingdom of God is preached”’).

387

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

þæt hi halgia[n] magon mid heora þenunga þæt halige husel to his lichaman and blode, and he wyle habban huru þa clænan to swylcum weorce, swa swa him wel gerist. He cwæð on his godspelle be þam þe him þeniað, ‘Sint lumbi uestri procincti et lucernae ardentes in manibus uestris’: ‘“Beon eowre lendena ymbgyrde, and beon le[oht]fatu on eowrum handum byrnende”’. Lareowas us secgað þæt on þam lendenum [is] þæs lichaman galnyss, and God bebead forþi þæt we sceolon gewriðan and gewy[ldan] þa galnysse, we þe him þeniað on þære halgan mæssan, and we sceolon habb[an] on urum handum leohtfatu, þæt synd þa godan weorc þe Gode liciað, oðrum m[annum] to bysne, na us sylfum to gylpe. Eft cwæð se Hælend to his gingrum þuss, ‘Qui mihi [mi]nistrat, me sequatur’, et cetera: “‘Se ðe me sylfum þenað, folgie he eac me, and þær þær Ic sylf beo, þær byþ eac min þen’”. Se þe Criste þenað, he sceal him eac f[ol]gian æfre on clænum þeawum be Cristes gebysnungum þæt he mote wunian o[n] þære ecan worulde mid Hælende Criste, swa swa he sylf behet þam [þe him] þeniað on his þeowdome her. Iohannes se godspellere, on his gastlican [ge]sihðe Apocalipsis gehaten þe se Hælend him onwreah, geseah Crist [stan]dan and þone clænan flocc mid him, hundteontig þusenda and [feower and feowertig] þusenda, swiðe hlude singende þone heofonlican [sang]. [And nan oðer] halig mann ne mihte singan mid heom þone [gastlican lofsang on Godes gesyhðe, butan þa þusenda þe þus synd geherode: Hi sunt, qui cum] | mulieribus [non sunt coinquinati, uirgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum, quocumque ierit]: 78 halgia[n]] halgian NO þenunga] ðenungum NO  79 blode] his blode N  85 le[oht]fatu] leohtfatu NO  87 [is]] no reading H, as NO lichaman] mannes NO  88 gewy[ldan]] gewyldan O; gewildan N  90 habb[an]] habban NO  92 m[annum]] mannum NO  93 Eft] Eft he NO  94 [mi]nistrat] ministrat N; ministrað O  96 þen] þenung NO  97 f[ol]gian] folgian NO  99 o[n]] on NO  101 [þe him]] þ[e him] H[NO]  102 [ge]sihðe] gesyhðe NO  104 geseah] he geseah O [stan]dan] standan NO flocc] folc O  105 hundteontig þusenda and [feower and feowertig] þusenda] feowe[r and feo] wertig þusenda H[O]; þæt his anhund þusenda hund teontig þusenda and feower and feowertig þusenda O; þæt is anhund þusenda hund teontig þusenda and feowertig þusenda N  106 [sang]] s[ang] H[NO]; lofsang NO  107 [And nan oðer]] no reading H, as NO  108–12 [gastlica[n…ierit]] gastlica[n lofsang on Godes gesyhðe butan þa þusenda þe þus synd geherode: hi sunt, qui cum] mulieribus [non sunt coinquinati uirgines enim sunt. hi sequuntur agnum, quocumque ierit] H[N]; O as N, but ‘halagan’ for ‘gastlican’ and ‘i’ of ‘hi2’ overwritten with ‘c’  

388

183v

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

so that with their rites they can consecrate the holy Eucharist as his body and blood, and he desires above all to have the chaste for such a task, as befits him. He said his Gospel about those who serve him, ‘Sint lumbi uestri procincti et lucernae ardentes in manibus uestris’:4 ‘“Let your loins be girded, and let your lamps be burning in your hands”’. Teachers say to us that the body’s lustfulness is in the loins, and God thus commanded us to bind and subdue lustfulness, we who serve him in the holy mass, and we ought to have in our hands lamps, which are the good deeds that please God, as an example to other men, not for boasting about ourselves. The Savior likewise spoke to his followers in this way, ‘Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur’, et cetera:5 ‘“He who serves me, let him also follow me, and where I am, there will be my servant also”’. He who serves Christ also ought to always follow him in a chaste way of life according to Christ’s example so that he may dwell for all eternity with the Savior Christ, just as he promised those who serve him in his divine service here. John the Evangelist, in his spiritual vision called the Apocalypse that the Savior revealed to him, saw Christ standing and with him the chaste flock, one hundred and forty-four thousand very loudly singing the heavenly song. And no other holy person was able to sing with them the spiritual song of praise in God’s presence except those thousands who are praised in this way: Hi sunt qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, uirgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocumque ierit:6

4 5 6

Compare Luke 12.35: ‘“Sint lumbi uestris praecincti et lucernae ardentes in manibus uestris”’ (‘“Let your loins be girded and [your] lamps burning”’). Compare John 12.26: ‘“Si quis mihi ministrat me sequatur et ubi sum ego illic et minister meus erit”’ (‘“If anyone serves me, let him follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be”’). Compare Revelation 14.4: ‘Hii sunt qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, uirgines enim sunt, hii qui sequuntur agnum quocumque abierit’ (‘They are those who are not defiled with women, for they are virgins, they who follow the Lamb wherever he goes’).

389

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

115

120

125

130

135

140

‘Ðas halgon [næron næfre mid wifum besmitene. Hi syndon mægðhade gehealdenre clænnysse. Hi folgiað Criste swa hwider swa he] gæð’. Ac þa Gods þeowas [þe Gode sceolon þenian, gif hi licgað] nu on heora lustum her, þonne ne magon [hi singan þone] heofonlican sang ne Criste folgian on his fægerum wununge [þe þa clænnysse] lufað on his clænum þeowdome. Is nu forði mycel neod [Cristen]um mannum þæt hi leornion heora geleafan æt Cristes lareowum and hu hi [libb]on on riht on Godes Gelaðunge for þan ðe þry hadas syndon þe full[ice] Gode liciað: þæra is ærest riht sinscipe, and syþþan wudewanhad, and þonne [m]ægðhad mid þæs modes clænnesse. Riht sinscipe is on gesinhiwum þa þe [be]oð geeawnode æfter Godes gesetnysse and eawbryce ne wyrceað wolice and sceam[li]ce, ac heora lif lybbað swa swa hit alyfed is, bearn strynende mid Godes blet[sun]ge on alyfedum timan Godes folce to eacan, for þan ðe God [fordemð þa dyrnan] forligeras and þa unrihtan hæmeras on hellesuslum buton hi heora unriht ær heora ende gebeton. Hit wære swyþe rihtlic æfter rihtum life þæt se cniht heolde hin[e] sylfne clæne oð þæt he wifode, swa swa he wyle habban clæne mæden þonne hi cumað togæderes. And æfter Godes gesetnesse, eallswa scyldig byð geteald se forlegena [cn]iht swa þæt forlegene mæden. Wudewanhad is þæt man wunige on clænnysse for [Go]des lufon, swa swa þæt godspell segð, æfter his gemacan mid anrædnesse, 113 halgon] halgan N; halagan O  113–15 [næron næfre mid wifum besmitene. Hi syndon mægðhade gehealdenre clænnysse. Hi folgiað Criste swa hwider swa he]] næ[ron næfre mid wifum besmitene. hi syndon mægðh]ade ge[h]ealdenre clæn[nysse. hi folgiað Criste swa hwider swa he] H[NO]  116 Gods þeowas] godas þeowas H; godes þeowan NO  116–17 [þe Gode sceolon þenian, gif hi licgað]] [þe Gode sceolon þenian gi]f [hi licgað] H[ON]  118 [hi singan þone]] no reading H; as NO sang] lofsang NO  120 [þe þa clænnysse]] [þe þa clæn]nysse H[NO] lufað] lufiað NO  121–6 Is nu…modes clænnesse] omitted NO; V1a begins here: Cristene men scylon æt Cristes lareowum leornian heora geleafan þæt hy libban on riht, for ðan þe þreo hadas syndon þe þam Hælende liciað: ærest riht sinscipe and syððan wuduwan had mid þæs modes clænnesse. Note: V1a omits‘and þonne mægðhad’ as the third condition for proper living.  121 [Cristen]um mannum] :::::::um mannum H; cristene men V1a  123 [libb]on H[V1a]; libban V1a  124 full[ice]] full::: H  126 [m]ægðhad] :ægðhad H  128 [be]oð] beoð NOV1a  129 and] omitted N sceam[li]ce] sceamlice V1a; ne sceamlice O; ne scamlice N  130 ac] and NO  131 blet[sun]ge] bletsunge NOV1a  133 [fordemð þa dyrnan]] forde[m]ð þa dyr[n]an H[NOV1a], with stroke over ‘e’ of ‘fordemð’ very faint and perhaps combined with the crossbar of the eth H  134 unrihtan] unriht NOV1a  136–41 Hit wære…forlegene mæden] omitted NO  136 rihtum] rihtlicum V1a  137 hin[e]] hine V1a  139 togæderes] togædere V1a  141 [cn]iht] cniht V1a  143 [Go]des] godes NOV1a  

390

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

115

120

125

130

135

140

‘Those holy ones were never defiled by women. They live in virginity with [their] chastity preserved. They follow Christ wherever he goes’. But if the servants of God who ought to serve God wallow now in their desires here, then they cannot sing the heavenly song or follow Christ in his beautiful abode, he who loves chastity in his pure divine service. For that reason, there is now great need for Christians to learn their faith from Christ’s teachers and how to live properly in God’s Church because there are three conditions that are fully pleasing to God: the first of those is proper marriage, and next widowhood, and then virginity with purity of spirit. Proper marriage exists among wedded couples who are married according to God’s ordinance and who do not wrongly and shamefully commit adultery, but live their life as it is permitted, begetting children with God’s blessing at permitted times for the increase of God’s people, because God will damn secret adulterers and fornicators in the torments of hell unless they atone for their wrong before their death. It would be exceedingly proper in a manner befitting a proper way of life for the young man to keep himself pure until he married, just as he desires to have a pure virgin when they come together. And according to God’s ordinance, the young man guilty of fornication will be considered just as guilty as the young woman guilty of fornication. Widowhood is to live in chastity with steadfastness for God’s sake, just as the Gospel says, after a spouse [dies],

391

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 145

150

155

160

165

170

175

ægðer ge [we]ras ge wif, æfter Godes wissunge. Hit byð swyþe sceandlic þæt eald wif sceole ceorles [wil]nian þonne heo forwerod byð and teames ætealdod ungehealtsumlice, for ðan ðe [gi]fta ne beoð for nanum oðran þinge astealde butan for bearnteame anum, [s]wa swa us secgað halige bec. Mægðhad is witodlice se þe wunað on clænnysse æfre fram cildhade gesælig for Criste – ge wæpmenn ge wi[mmen] þa þe wurðiað Crist mid swa micelre lufe þæt him leofre byð þæt hi mid earfoðnysse hi sylfe gewyldon to þære clænnysse þe hi Criste beheton þonne hi [heora lustas] on heora life gefremmon and fram þam ecan wyrðmynte ælfremode b[eon], [sw]a swa þa godan munecas and my/ne\cena doð, þa þe on clænnysse Criste [æfre þeowiað]. Ðas þry hadas habbað þone þryfealdan wæstm þære godre [eorðan], swa swa þæt godspell us segð, þæt þæt gode sæd þe God sæwð on mancynne, [sum berð þrittigfealdne] wæstm, sum syxtigfealdne, sum [hundfealdne mid healicum geþylde]. [Đ]a þe on sinscipe wuniað mid gesceadwissnysse and heora [æwe healdað butan æwbryce] symle, þa habbað þrittigfealde mede æt þam [mildheortan Criste on þam ecan life] mid þæ[r]a engla [geferræde]. Ða [þe on wuduwanhade wuniað for Criste, þa habbað eft æt him syxtigfealde] | mede. [Ða þe on mægðhade and on modes clænnysse fram cildhade wuniað on] Cristes þeowdome mid [eadmodnesse him æfre þeowiende, þa habbað hundfealde] mede mid [him sylfum] on ecnysse 145 [we]ras] weras NOV1a  146–50 Hit byð … halige bec] omitted NO  146 sceandlic] sceamlic V1a  147 [wil]nian] wilnian V1a  149 [gi]fta] giftu V1a oðran] omitted V1a  150 anum] omitted V1a [s]wa swa us secgað halige bec] swa swa bec us sæcgað V1a  153 wi[mmen]] wimmen NO; wifmen V1a  157 [heora lustas]] no reading H; as NOV1a  158 b[eon]] beon NOV1a  159 [sw]a swa NOV1a  160 [æfre þeowiað]] æf[re þeowi]að H[NOV1a]  162 [eorðan]] no reading H; as NOV1a us segð] sægð us V1a  163 gode] god O  164 [sum berð þrittigfealdne]] [sum berð þrit] tigfealdne H[NOV1a]  165 [hundfealdne mid healicum geþylde]] sum hundf[ealdne mid healicum geþylde] H[OV1a];‘sum hundfealdne’ omitted N  166 [Đ]a] Đa V1a; þa NO   167 [æwe healdað butan æwbryce]] [æwe healdað butan æwbryc]e] H[NOV1a]  168–9 [mildheortan Criste on þam ecan life]] no reading H; as NOV1a  169 þæ[r]a] þæra NO; þara V1a [geferræde]] ge[ferr]æde H[NOV1a]; geferrædene NOV1a  170–1 [þe on wuduwanhade…syxtigfealde]] no reading H; as NO; V1a as NO, but ‘æt him eft’  172–3 [Ða þe on mægðhade and on modes clænnysse fram cildhade wuniað on]] [Ða þ]e on m[ægðhade and on modes clænnysse fram cildhade wuniað on] H[OV1a]; N as OV1a, but ‘þe’ for ‘Ða’  174–5 [eadmodnesse him æfre þeowiende, þa habbað hundfealde]] eadmod[nesse him æfre þeowiende þa habbað hundfealde] H [NO]; V1a as NO, but ‘þeniende’ for ‘þeowiende’  175 [him sylful]] hi[m] sylfu[m] H[NOV1a] 

392

184r

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 145

150

155

160

165

170

175

both men and women, according to God’s guidance. It is very shameful that an old woman should desire a husband without restraint when she is enfeebled with age and too old for childbearing, because marriage is not established for any other purpose except for child-bearing alone, just as the holy books declare to us. Virginity that perseveres in purity perpetually from childhood is truly blessed in the sight of Christ – both men and women who honor Christ with such great love that it is dearer to them to have controlled themselves with great effort on account of the chastity they promised to Christ than to act on their desires during their lifetime and be estranged from everlasting honor, just as good monks and nuns do who continually serve Christ in chastity. These three conditions have a three-fold crop from the good soil, just as the Gospel tells us, so that [of] the good seed God sows among mankind, some bears a thirty-fold crop, some a sixty-fold [crop], some a hundred-fold [crop] with utmost patience. Those who live in marriage with discretion and keep their marriage vow without ever breaking the marriage law will have a thirty-fold reward from the merciful Christ in the everlasting life along with the companionship of the angels. Those who live in widowhood for Christ will afterwards have from him a sixty-fold reward. Those who live in chastity and in purity of spirit from childhood in the service of Christ always serving him with humility will have a hundred-fold reward with him forever

393

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

and þa [mærestan wununge, swa swa se witega cwæð, Isaias se] æþela, on his gesetnysse. On þære [gesetnysse mæg sceawian se þe wyle hu holdlice] God spræc þurh þone halgan witegan be his clænum þegenum and his [clænum þinenum, hu he] hi gearwurðað toforan oðrum mannum on þam ecan wyrðmynte and on [wuldre mid him]. We ne magon nu secgan on þysum sceortum gewrite hu þa halgan apostolas [heredon þa clænnysse] and hu þa wisan lareowas awriton be þære mycele bec on manegum ge[setnyssum]. And se þe him wiðcwyð and heora gesetnyssum, he ne byð na wita ac witodlice gedw[ola]. [We] rædað on bocum þæt ungerim bisceopa and muneca wæron, swa swa wæs Martinus, G[regorius], and Augustinus, Basilius, and Cuthbertus, and manega oðre on micelre drohtnunge Criste þ[eo]wigende on clænnysse æfre, and heora nan ne sealde swylce leafe næfre þæt æ[nig] weofodes þen moste wif habban, se þe mid his handum halgian sceal þæt halige [husel] swa swa se Hælende tæhte. Eac swylce mæssepreostas manega wæron halige, [swa] swa wæs Beda, se mæra bocere, and eft Hieronimus, and oðre gehwylce wide geond þas w[o]ruld þe wunnon wið unþeawas, and galnysse onscunedon þurh Godes Gast on[bryr]de, and þa fulan forsawon for heora fracodnysse. On westenum wunedon þ[a] wisan fæderas, Antonius and Paulus, Hilarion and Macharius, Iohannes and Arsenius, Pafnutius and Apollonius, and fela þusenda, swa swa Uita Patrum segð, muneca and mynecena on mycelre drohtnunge Criste þeowigende on modes clænnysse, and swa byð æfre oð þissere worulde geendunge,

176–7 [mærestan…Isaias se]] mæ[restan wununge swa swa se witega cwæð Isaias se] H[NOV1a]  177 gesetnysse] V1a ends  178–9 [gesetnysse…holdlice]] ges[etny]sse [mæg sceawian se þe wyle hu holdlice] H[N]; O as N, but omits ‘þe’   179 halgan] omitted NO  180–1 [clænum þinenum hu he]] c[lænum þinenum hu he] H[NO]  181 gearwurðað] wurðaþ O   182 on] to O [wuldre mid him]] w[uldre mid him] H[NO]  184 [heredon þa clænnysse]] he[redon þa clæn]nysse H[NO]  186 ge[setnyssum]] gesetnyssum NO  188 gedw[ola]] gedwola [NO]  189 [We]] no reading H; as NO  191 G[regorius]] gregorius NO   193 þ[eo]wigende] þeowiende NO  195 æ[nig]] ænig NO þen] þegen O; þegn N  197 [husel]] no reading H; as NO  199 [swa]] no reading H; as NO  201 w[o]ruld] woruld NO  202 on[bryr]de] onbryrde NO  204 þ[a]] þa NO  206 Pafnutius] omitted NO  210 worulde] omitted N 

394

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

and the most glorious dwelling, just as the prophet, Isaiah the wise, said in his book. He who wishes can examine in that book how God spoke kindly through the holy prophet about his pure male servants and his pure maidservants, how he will honor them before other people with everlasting honor and with glory together with him. We cannot now tell you in this short writing how the holy apostles praised chastity and how wise teachers wrote large volumes about that with many ordinances. But he who opposes them and their ordinances will not be a wise person but truly a heretic. We read in books that there were countless bishops and monks, like Martin, Gregory, and Augustine, Basil, and Cuthbert, and many others of excellent conduct serving Christ in chastity continually, and none of them ever gave permission for any servant of the altar to have a wife, he who with his hands must consecrate the holy Eucharist just as the Savior taught. Likewise, many priests have been holy, as was Bede, the famous writer, and also Jerome, and many others far and wide throughout the world who fought against sins and shunned lust, having been inspired by the Spirit of God, and they despised the defiled for their wicked custom. In the wastelands lived the wise fathers, Anthony and Paul, Hilarion and Macarius, John and Arsenius, Paphnutius and Apollonius, and, just as the Lives of the Fathers says, many thousands of monks and nuns of excellent conduct serving Christ in purity of spirit, and so will there always be until the end of this world,

395

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

þæt þa clænheortan on Cristes lufe þeon[de] beoð on halgum geþingðum oð þæt hi becumon to Criste sylfum. Nu smeagað [sume] men hwæt se pening getacnige þe se hlaford forgyfð þam latostan [wyrhtum þe] on æfnunge becomon into þam winearde, swa wel swa þam ærostum þe on [ær]nemerigen comon swa þæt hi ealle wæron on þære hyre gelice. Nu segð Augustinus, se æðela lareow þe þas gesetnysse on leden gesette, þæt se pening byþ forgyfen þa[m] wyrhtum gelice on þam ecan life þonne hi of deaðe arisað – þa þe God forestihte on frymþe þyssere worulde, and þa þe God geclypode [to] þam clænan life, and þa þe he gerihtwisode on þyssere worulde, and þa þe he gewu[l]dorfullode on þam ecan wyrðmynte – þæt hi ealle habbon heofonan rice him [ge]mænelice heom sylfum to mede and wynsumne lichaman on to wunigenne a, [un]brosniendlicne butan eallum wommum and butan awyrdnysse a to wo[rulde] syþþan. And þiss byð heom eallum æfre gemæne, þeah þe hi sume [scinon, swa swa] we ær sædon, on maran beorhtnesse for heora micclum geea[rnungum]. Ðas geþingðu hi moton geearnian on þyssere worulde [wunigende her on] life þurh þa eadignyssa þæs eahtafealdan [getæles, swa swa ure Hælend] þurh hine gebysnode and us ealle manode to þam [eadignyssum on his halgan] godspelle, ðuss [s]ecgende eallum: [‘Beati pauperes spiritu’, et cetera. ‘“Eadige synd þa þearfan, þa ðe on gaste synd þearfan”’, þæt synd þa ðe habbað þone halgan willan þæt hi lufiað swiðor þa ugesewenlican God and ða ecan sped|an þonne þa ateoriendlican]. 212 þeon[de]] þeonde NO  213 sylfum] sylfum þam si (a N) wuldor to worulde (Amen O) NO  214 Nu smeagað] Q begins [sume]] no reading H; as Q  215–16 [wyrhtum þe]] wyrh[tum þe] H[Q]  217 [ær]nemerigen] ærnemerigen Q  221 þa[m]] macron over ‘a’ not visible H; þam Q  224 [to]] no reading H; as Q  226 gewu[l]dorfullode] gewuldorfullode Q  228 [ge]mænelice] gemænelice Q  230 [un]brosniendlicne] unbrosniendlicne Q  231 wo[rulde]] worulde Q  233 [scinon, swa swa]] scin[on swa swa]wa H[Q]  234 geea[rnungum]] geearnungum Q  236 [wunigende her on]] no reading H; as Q  237–8 [getæles…Hælend]] [g]etæl[es swa swa ure Hælend] H[Q]  239–40 [eadignyssum on his halgan]] e[adignyssum on his halgan] H[Q]  240 [s]ecgende] secgende Q  241–5 [Beati… ateoriendlican]] B[eati pauperes spiritu et cetera. Eadige synd þ]a þearf[a]n, [þa ðe on gaste] synd þ[earfan þæt synd þa ðe habbað þone halgan willan þæt hi lufiað swiðor þa ungesewenlican God and ða ecan sped]an þonne þa ateo[riendlican] H[Q]; speda Q 

396

184v

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

so that the pure of heart in the love of Christ will flourish with holy honors until they come to Christ himself. Now some people question what the penny signifies that the lord gives to the last workers who in the evening came into the vineyard as well as to the first who came in the early morning so that they all were alike with regards to their wages. Now Augustine, the wise teacher who set down this composition in Latin, says that the penny will be given to the workers equally in the everlasting life when they rise from death – those whom God foreordained at the beginning of this world, and those whom God called to a chaste life, and those whom he proclaimed righteous in this world, and those whom he glorified with everlasting honor – so that they all may possess the kingdom of heaven with him jointly as [their] reward and [have] a pleasant body to live in forever, incorruptible without any impurities and without blemish forever afterwards. And this will be shared by them all forever, although some of them will shine, as we said previously, with more brightness on account of their great merits. They may earn these honors in this world while dwelling here alive by means of the eight-fold Beatitudes, just as our Savior set an example and exhorted us all to the Beatitudes in his holy Gospel, addressing everybody in this manner: ‘Beati pauperes spiritu’, et cetera.7 ‘“Blessed are the poor, who are poor in spirit”’, those who have the holy will to love the invisible God and everlasting riches more than transitory ones.

7

The opening phrase of Matthew 5.3: ‘“Beati pauperes spiritu quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum”’ (‘“Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”’).

397

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

[And hi habbað þurh þæt heofonan rices myrhðe, and hi geefenlæcað urum Hælende Criste, se ðe æfre is rice and wearð þearfa for us]. ‘Beati mites’, et cete[ra]. ‘“Eadige beoð þa [liðan”’ þe on heora lifes þeawum geefenlæcað] þam Hælende þe þus [cwæð] to us eallum, [‘“Leorniað æt me þæt Ic swyðe liðe eom] and eadmod on heortan, and ge habbað syþþan eowrum sawlum [reste on ðam soðan] life”’. Eadige beoð þa heofigendan þe heora synna bewepað. Hi ge[efenlæc]að Criste þe com to Ierusalem and beweop swiþe hire toworpennysse, þæt seo [burhwaru] forferde for hire geleafleaste. Eadige beoð þa men þe þurh modes god[ny]sse beoð swiþe ofhingrode and eac swylce ofþyrste æfter rihtwisnysse þæt hi r[ihtlice] libbon. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe cwæð on his godspelle, ‘“Min mete is witodlice þæt [Ic wyrce] æfre mines Fæder willan se þe me asende”’. Eadige beoð þa mildheort[an] þe gemiltsiað oðrum. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe com to þam forwundodum and his wun[da] gewrað and geworhte him sealfe of wine and of ele, and wæh hine syþþan ham to his inne and h[æf]de his syþþan gymene, þæt is þes middaneard þe he mid his tocyme fram synnum g[e]hælde mid his sylfes þrowunge. Eadige synd þa clænheortan þe on clænnysse lybbað. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe þa clænysse astealde, and he synne ne worhte ne nænne swicdom on life. Eadige beoð þa gesibsuman for þan þe hi synd Godes bearn. Hi geefenlæcað þam Hælende þe for his ehterum gebæd his heofonlican Fæder þæt he him gemildsode. Eadige beoð þa þe for rihtwisnysse ehtnysse þrowiað her on þisum life. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe for us þrowode and sealde us þa bysne þæt we him swa folgion. Ðas eahta eadignyssa synd eow mædenum to lufienne þæt ge wislice lyb[b]on and wel geþeawode beon 246–8 [And hi…for us]] [And hi habbað þurh þæt heofonan rices m]yrhðe, and [hi geefenlæc]að urum hælend[e criste, se ðe æfre is rice and wearð þearfa for] us H[Q]   249 et cete[ra]] et cetera Q  250–1 [liðan þe on heora lifes þeawum geefenlæcað]] li[ðan þe on heora lifes þeawum geefenlæc]að H[Q]  251 [cwæð]] no reading H; as Q  252 [Leorniað…eom] no reading H; as Q  254 [reste on ðam soðan]] re[ste on ðam soð]an H[Q]  256 ge[efenlæc]að] geefenlæcað Q  258 [burhwaru]] no reading; as Q  259 god[ny]sse] godnysse Q  261 r[ihtlice]] rihtlice Q  263 [Ic wyrce]] [ic w]yrce H[Q]  265 mildheort[an]] mildheortan Q  267 wun[da]] wunda Q  269 h[æf]de] hæfde Q  271 g[e]hælde] gehælde Q  278 ] omitted H; as Q  283 lyb[b]on] lybban Q 

398

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

250

255

260

265

270

275

280

And on account of that they have the joy of the kingdom of heaven, and they imitate our Savior Christ who is ever rich and became poor for us. ‘Beati mites’, et cetera.8 ‘“Blessed are the gentle”’ who in their manner of life imitate the Savior who spoke in this way to us all, ‘“Learn from me that I am very gentle and humble in heart, and you will afterwards have rest for your souls in the true life”’. Blessed are those who weep, who weep over their sins. They imitate Christ who came to Jerusalem and wept bitterly over its destruction, that the townspeople should perish on account of their unbelief. Blessed are the ones who on account of a goodness of spirit are very hungry for and likewise thirst after righteousness so that they may live properly. They imitate Christ who said in his Gospel, ‘“My food is truly to always do the will of my Father who sent me”’. Blessed are the merciful who have mercy on others. They imitate Christ who came to the wounded [man] and bound his wounds and prepared for him a salve of wine and oil, and afterwards carried him home to his inn and afterwards saw to his care, which is this world that He with his advent healed from sin by means of his own suffering. Blessed are the pure of heart who live in chastity. They imitate Christ who established chastity, and he did not commit sin or any treachery while alive. Blessed are the peaceful because they are children of God. They imitate the Savior who prayed for his persecutors to his heavenly Father to have mercy on them. Blessed are the holy who on account of righteousness suffer persecution here in this life. They imitate Christ who suffered for us and gave us the example to follow him in this manner. You virgins are to love these eight Beatitudes so that you may live wisely and be well disciplined,

8

The opening phrase of Matthew 5.4: ‘Beati mites quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram’ (‘“Blessed are the meek, because they shall possess the land”’).

399

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 285

290

295

300

305

na to higelease, ne to ungehealtsume, ne to biterwyrde, [n]e bealufulle on mode, ne nan unþeaw æfre on eow ne rixie. Ac ge habban sceolon, [sw]a swa se Hælend sæde, mycele geþingðu on eowres modes godnysse þæt Cristes lufu [æ]fre on eowrum heortum wunige to godum fremmingum fulfremedra dæda, and beoð anræde and habbað sum eornost. Se þe eornost næfð, earfoðlice he sceal æfre geþeon on ænigre geþingðe. Ure Hælend cwæð iu on his halgan godspelle to his discipulum and þurh hi swa to us, ‘“On þam bið min Fæder gewuldorfullod soðlice, þæt ge menigfeald[ne] wæstm and micelne forðberon on eowrum godum dædum”’. Nu sceolon we don swa [þurh þæs Hælendes] fultum, þæt we hogian georne þæt we sum godnysse on þyssere [worulde þam Hælend] gebringan for þan þe he lufað us gyf we lufiað hine and gyf we his [beboda healdað] her on life. Gewissige us se Hælend to his willan a, and he us gelæde to [þam ecan] life. Þam is wuldor and wyrðmynt a to worulde, Amen.

285 [n]e] ne Q  287 [sw]a] swa Q  289 [æ]fre] æfre Q  297 menigfeald[ne]] menigfealdne Q  299 [þurh þæs Hælendes]] þur[h þæ]s Hælend[e]s] H[Q]  300 ] omitted H; and sume gode lac Q  301 [worulde þam Hælend] woruld[e þam] Hælend H[Q]; ‘hælend’ abbreviated ‘hæłd’ H; hælende Q gebringan] ‘a’ (‘o’?) is difficult to read H; gebringon Q  303 [beboda healdað]] beb[oda hea]ldað H[Q]  305 [þam ecan]] no reading H; as Q

400

Text: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 285

290

295

300

305

not foolish, not unrestrained, not bitter of speech, not sinful in spirit, nor should any vice ever rule in you. But you ought to possess, just as the Savior said, many honors with the goodness of your spirit so that the love of Christ may ever dwell in your hearts for the good doing of perfect deeds, and be steadfast and have some zeal. He who has no zeal will always barely flourish with any honor. Our Savior once spoke in his holy Gospel to his disciples and through them to us in this way, ‘“In that will my Father be truly glorified, that you bring forth manifold and much fruit with your good deeds”’. Now we ought to do thus with the Savior’s help so that we may eagerly take care to bring some goodness and some good offering in this world to the Savior because he will love us if we love him and if we keep his commandments while living here. May the Savior guide us to his will forever, and may he lead us to the everlasting life. To him is glory and honor forever, Amen.

401

DE SANCTA UIRGINITATE, UEL DE TRIBUS ORDINIBUS CASTITATIS COMMENTARY If, as is likely, De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) was compiled by Ælfric, the text may be dated ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010).1 It survives only in H, fols 182v–184v [Ker §220.49], the edges of which leaves have suffered damage, leaving the text imperfect. The text has not been edited previously, though its component parts correspond to the bulk of Ælfric’s Letter to Sigefyrth2 and to the last part of Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8),3 both composed ca 1005–6. Perhaps because it draws on homilies not originally written for the Assumption – the Letter to Sigefyrth being an epistolary work tied to no liturgical occasion, and Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis being associated with 8 September, Mary’s nativity – it does not exposit the traditional passages associated with the Assumption. The Gelasian Sacramentary, containing the official Roman pericopes ‘from about 700 onward’,4 identifies the Gospel readings for the Assumption as Luke 10.38–42 and Luke 11.27–8.5 The Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (s. xi1/2) – a text ‘invaluable as an indication of [which Gospel readings] would have been familiar to Ælfric’6 – likewise cites Luke 10.38–42 as the traditional Gospel reading for the occasion.7 Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, on which Ælfric drew heavily for his Catholic Homilies,8 includes a Bedan homily for the Assumption on Luke 10.38 (adapting his commentary elsewhere on Luke 3.10).9 Ælfric indeed expounds Luke 10.30–43 in CH II.29, one of his other Assumption homilies, though he ‘uses the story in strikingly independent fashion’.10 He also quotes Luke 11.27 and 28 in relation to Mary, albeit in passing, in SH I.4, a homily for the Third Sunday in Lent.11 Here in AH I.7, however, Ælfric treats such passages as Jesus’ parable of the Sower and the Seed (Matthew 13.1–23), the parable of the Workers in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11

See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 112. Assmann 2, lines 13–224 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 13–23). Lines 505–97. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293; see, p. 243. Chavasse, Sacramentaire Gélasien, pp. 384–7. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293 n. 27. Turner, Missal of the New Minster, p. 145. See for example Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manuscript’; and Godden, Commentary, p. xli. Grégoire, Homéliaires, p. 103.  Godden, Commentary, p. 588. Ælfric’s first homily for the Assumption, CH I.30, offers not exegesis of a pericope but ‘a very cautious account of what is known for certain or can be surmised with confidence’ about Mary’s death and assumption into heaven, drawing on pseudo-Jerome (likely Paschasius Radbertus; Commentary, p. 248). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 279, lines 269–72, and p. 280, lines 287–8.

402

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Vineyard (Matthew 20.1–16), and the Beatitudes (Matthew 5.3–10), on which, see notes to lines 127–41 and 161–9, 214–34, and 235–81 below. De sancta uirginitate should not be confused either with De uirginitate (AH II.13) or Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), both of which not only bear similar names, but also share material found in Assmann 2 and Assmann 3, respectively. Lines 2–20 [Ure Hælend Crist … on ecnysse þurhwunode]: Right off the bat, Ælfric adduces four major biblical examples to underscore the value of virginity in the Christian life: the Virgin Mary [line 4], Christ himself [lines 5–8], John the Baptist [lines 9–14], and John the Evangelist [lines 15–20]. Most of his comments are of a general nature that need stem from no particular source, even though he alludes to gewritu (‘writings’ [line 14]) for support. Speaking of God’s love for the Apostle, however, Ælfric draws on a line from contemporary Anglo-Saxon liturgy (‘swa swa we singað’ [‘just as we sing’] [line 17]): ‘Virgo electus a Deo, uirgo in euu[m] permansit’ (‘having been chosen by God as a virgin, a virgin he remained forever’ [line 18]). The line may have been part of an antiphon for the feast of John the Evangelist (27 December) drawn ultimately from Pseudo-Gregory’s Liber responsalis;12 it also appears, however, in a discussion of discipulus quem diligebat Iesus (‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ [John 13.23, 19.26, 21.7, and 21.20]) in Bede’s Homilia I.8: ‘Sed hunc prae omnibus diligit qui, uirgo electus ab ipso, uirgo in aeuum permansit’ (‘But [God] loves him most of all who, having been chosen by him as a virgin, remained a virgin forever’).13 Lines 21–46 [Sume þa apostolas … ece lif mid him]: Ælfric asserts in a variety of places that those apostles who had been married forsook their wives upon hearing Christ’s teaching [lines 21–5]. In CH I.4, John the Evangelist, said to be the groom at the Wedding at Cana (John 2.1–11), leaves his intended bride upon seeing Christ turn water into wine.14 CH II.6 affirms that Peter and other apostles ‘forleton ealle ðing’ (‘left all things’ [Matthew 19.27; see below]) after ‘hi to ðam apostolican hade geseas’ (‘they chose the apostolic office’).15 LS I.9 [Skeat I.10], citing the same verse, says that Peter renounced fleshly desires after ‘he wære gecyrred to Cristes hirede’ (‘he was converted to the family of Christ’).16 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] states that not only the apostles, but ‘ealle his folgeras forleton ealle þincg ægðer ge wif. ge æhta. and wundon on clænnysse’ (‘all [Christ’s] followers forsook all things, both wives and possessions, and lived in chastity’).17 Ælfric’s Prefatio to Genesis treats the subject at still greater length – as seen in the notes to lines 47–54 below. Two biblical passages at least speak to the question of the married state of the apostles [lines 21–40]. First of all, Matthew recounts that Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law 12 13 14 15 16 17

PL 78.739C, though see though see Rankin, ‘Liturgical Background’, pp. 318–19. Homiliae I.8 (CCSL 122, p. 62, lines 61–2). The passage is also reproduced in Smaragdus’ Collectiones [PL 102.44C]. See also Volfing, John the Evangelist, p. 75. Clemoes, First Series, p. 206, lines 8 (hit is geræd) – 16 (lustum). Godden, Second Series, p. 57, line 158 (Se apostol) – p. 58, line 162 (ðe folgiað), at lines 161–2 and 160–1. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 292, line 201 – p. 294, line 209, at 202–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 232, lines 202–10, at 202–3. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 100, lines 151–2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 348, line 186 – p. 350, line 187.

403

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis (8.14–15), indicating that during Jesus’ life and ministry, Peter at least was married. In addition, in the early years following Christ’s ascension, Paul asks, ‘Numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas?’ (‘Do we not have the right to bring with us a woman, a sister, just like the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Peter?’ [1 Corinthians 9.5]). Ælfric never appears to cite these passages,18 but the quotations he does adduce make clear that he would not have interpreted Paul’s reference to a sororem mulierem (Greek ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα) as a ‘believing wife’, a mulier or γυνή who is also a sister in Christ. During Christ’s life, Ælfric notes, Peter tells Jesus, ‘Ecce nos reliquimus omnia et secuti sumus te’ (‘“Behold, we have left all things”’ – including the apostles’ wives, Ælfric implies – ‘“and followed you”’ [Matthew 19.27; lines 27–8]). Jesus in turn assures him that ‘omnis qui reliquit … uxorem … propter nomen meum centuplum accipiet’ (‘“every one who has left … a wife [or anything else] … for my name’s sake shall receive a hundred-fold [reward]”’ [Matthew 19.29; lines 36–40]). Though certain apostles might once have been married, Ælfric concludes, ‘hi sona geswicon þæs sinscipes æfre syþþan hi Cristes lare geleornodon æt him’ (‘they immediately forsook marriage forever after they learned Christ’s teaching from him’ [lines 24–5]). While Christ states that a centuplus (‘hundred-fold [reward]’) awaits Peter or any other who has ‘left a wife’ for the faith, however, Ælfric reserves this reward not for the formerly-married (such as widows), but for virgins [lines 41–6] – those, one assumes, who either have chosen not to marry, ‘leav[ing the possibility of] a wife’ behind (as in the case of 1 Corinthians 7.37–8), or who have chosen to preserve their chastity even while married, as in Ælfric’s accounts of saintly virgin spouses.19 Lines 47–54 and 60–81 [Under Moyses lage … on heofonan rice and Iacob se heahfæder … him wel gerist]: Ælfric repeatedly distinguishes between the permitted practices of the Old Testament (the Moyses lagu [‘law of Moses’, line 47]) and the more demanding requirements of the New Testament, particularly as regards sexual practice. A biblical locus classicus on the subject is Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). Here, having warned his audience that ‘nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra plus quam scribarum et Pharisaeorum non intrabitis in regnum caelorum’ (‘unless your righteousness should be more abundant than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven’ [Matthew 5.20]), Jesus repeatedly contrasts Jewish practice (‘audistis quia dictum est antiquis ...’ [‘you have heard that it was said to people long ago ...’]) with divine expectations (‘ego autem dico ...’ [‘But I say to you ...’]): believers are not simply to avoid murdering others, for example, but speaking angrily against them as well (Matthew 5.21–2; see also 5.27–8, 33–4, 38–9, and 43–4). Treating the passage in SH II.15, Ælfric concludes: ‘hy magon gehyran her on ðisum godspelle þæt Cristes beboda, þe he bebead mannum, syndon miccle maran þonne Moyses lagu’ (‘here in this

18

19

To my knowledge, Ælfric does not cite either Matthew 8.14–15 or 1 Corinthians 9.5 directly; nor do other Anglo-Saxon writers, save for Bede, who refers to (but does not comment on) the former passage in his Ecclesiastical History 5.4; see ‘Records for Source Title Mt’ and ‘Records for Source Title 1 Cor’. See Upchurch, Virgin Spouses.

404

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Gospel they can hear that the commands of Christ which he proclaimed to people are much greater than the law of Moses’).20 When one comes to Ælfric’s anxiety over the difference between the Old and New Testament and its effect on Christian living, the locus classicus may well be Ælfric’s Old English preface to his translation of Genesis. Here, he expresses his concern that unlearned folk, hearing Old Testament narratives, might think that they can live as people did before or under the Mosaic law. Specifically, his thought turns to sexual conduct [as it does in lines 59–68]: what if his audience decides to emulate the patriarch Jacob, for example, with his multiple wives? Ælfric sternly states: ‘Gyf hwa wyle nu swa lybban æfter Cristes tocyme swa swa men leofodon ær Moises æ, oþþe under Moises æ, ne byð se man na cristen’ (‘If anyone will live thus now, after Christ’s advent, just as people lived before Moses’ law or under Moses’ law, that person is no Christian’).21 Immediately after, thinking of similar problems from the New Testament, Ælfric turns to the question of Peter, the apostles, and marriage [lines 20–39 above]: Ða ungelæredan preostas … cweþaþ eac oft be Petre, hwi hi ne moton habban wif, swa swa Petrus se apostol hæfde. And he nellað gehiran ne witan þæt se eadiga Petrus leofede æfter Moises æ, oþ þæt Crist, þe on þam timan to mannum com, began to bodienne his halige godspel and geceas Petrum ærest him to geferan. Þa forlet Petrus þærrihte his wif, and ealle þa twelf apostolas, þa þe wif hæfdon, forleton ægþer ge wif ge æhta and folgodon Cristes lar to þære niwan æ and clænnisse þe he silf þa arærde. Unlearned priests … also often talk about Peter – why may they not have a wife, just as Peter the apostle had? – and they will not hear nor understand that the blessed Peter lived according to the law of Moses until Christ, who at that time came to humankind, began to preach his holy Gospel, and chose Peter foremost to be his companion. Then Peter abandoned his wife forthwith, and all the twelve apostles – those who had wives – abandoned both wives and possessions, and followed Christ’s teaching to the new law and chastity which he himself then established.22

As in De sancta uirginitate, then, Peter and the other apostles here serve as examples of the new standard of Christian clænnes or sexual purity – or rather, the highest expression of that standard, which Ælfric associates particularly with priests. How was it, De sancta uirginitate asks, that priests were allowed to marry under the law of Moses? The high priest (or bisceop, ‘bishop’), Ælfric explains, inherited his office, being of the line of Aaron; as a result, he had to marry to produce offspring [lines 64–8; Leviticus 21.13–15]. Christian priests, by contrast, are chosen not for their blood but their quality of character, because they handle the blood and body of Christ [lines 74–81]. It is þa clænan (‘the sexually pure’ [line 80], Ælfric affirms, who are fit for such an office.23 20 21 22 23

Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 532, lines 33–5; see also SH I.7 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 359, lines 200–1) and SH I.9 (Homilies, vol. I, p. 388, lines 191–3). Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 3, line 21 – p. 4, line 23. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 4, lines 25 and 31–8. Following Gregory the Great as reported by Bede, Ælfric does at one point grant that those in lower clerical orders may ‘syferlice sinscipes brucon’ (‘enjoy marriage purely’); he underscores firmly, however, that to deacons and priests (the clergy who serve the Eucharist) ‘is eallunge forboden

405

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Lines 55–9 [Lex et prophetae … halgan godspelle cwæð]: When precisely did the divine requirements shift from the law of Moses to the law of Christ? As noted above [lines 21–46], in the case of the apostles’ attitude toward marriage, Ælfric says the change took place after they ‘chose the apostolic office’, or ‘were converted to the family of Christ’, or ‘learned Christ’s teaching’. At this point in De sancta uirginitate, Ælfric puts it another way: ‘Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem ex eo regnum Dei euangelizatur’ (‘The Law and the prophets lasted until John [the Baptist]; thereafter, the Kingdom of God is preached’ [Luke 16.16]). In Luke, Jesus speaks these words to the Pharisees, who devoted themselves to keeping the law of Moses: he condemns them for their love of money (16.13–15), affirms that no part of the law can pass away (16.17), and – ironically, given Ælfric’s teaching on the apostles – uses divorce to illustrate the difference between the law of Moses and that of Christ: ‘Omnis qui dimittit uxorem suam et ducit alteram moechatur et qui dimissam a uiro ducit moechatur’ (‘Everyone who dismisses his wife and takes another commits adultery, and he who marries the divorced woman commits adultery’ [16.18]). As Jesus says elsewhere, while Moses ‘permisit libellum repudii scribere’ (‘permitted men to write a bill of divorce’), it was ‘ad duritiam cordis uestri scripsit uobis praeceptum istud. Ab initio autem creaturae masculum et feminam fecit eos Deus … Quod ergo Deus iunxit homo non separet’ (‘because of the hardness of your heart [that] he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of Creation, God made them male and female … Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one sunder’ [Mark 10.4–6 and 9]). Rather than portraying the Old and New Testament as utterly different, the Gospels thus suggest a measure of continuity: Christ’s teaching is consistent with the spirit of the Law from the beginning. At the same time, in matters such as marriage, the followers of Christ are not to behave as the pharisaical keepers of the Mosaic law. The context for the passage Ælfric here quotes, therefore, reinforces his argument that Christ brings ‘new’ sexual expectations when he begins to preach the Kingdom of God.24 Another version of Luke 16.16 appears in Matthew, the context of which relates even more directly to John the Baptist, and thus to the example with which Ælfric opens De sancta uirginitate [lines 9–14]. John, having been imprisoned by Herod, sends his disciples to confirm whether Jesus truly is the Messiah John had predicted. Having pointed to his miracles by way of evidence about himself, Jesus turns to the surrounding crowd to talk about John: John is the Elijah who was prophesied to precede the Messiah (Matthew 11.14; Malachi 4.5), and the greatest of all who have been born until then (Matthew 11.11). At the same time, Jesus suggests, with the start of his own ministry a new era has come: ‘omnes prophetae et lex usque ad Iohannem prophetauerunt’ (‘All the prophets and the Law prophesied until John’), but now ‘qui minor est in regno caelorum

24

ælc hæmed’ (‘all sexual intercourse is completely forbidden’ [CH II.6 (Godden, Second Series, p. 57, lines 143–6)]); see also Kleist, ‘Monks, Marriage, and Manuscripts’, pp. 323–5; and Godden, Commentary, p. 393 n. 3. One is put in mind of Luke’s version of Christ’s parable of the wineskins (5.33–9): when questioned about the difference between John’s disciples and his own, Jesus affirms not just that new wine must be poured into new wineskins (implying that he brings with him a new way of living), but that aged wine is better than new (implying that his teaching is older than that of John). As John himself says, ‘post me uenit uir qui ante me factus est quia prior me erat’ (‘After me comes a man who was placed ahead of me because he was before me’ [John 1.30]).

406

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis maior est illo’ (‘he who is the lesser in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than [John]’ [Matthew 11.13 and 11]). Having quoted Luke 16.16 to teach that the law of Moses lasted until the time of John [line 55], Ælfric makes what seems to be somewhat of a non sequitur, saying: ‘and witodlice syþþan man sceal mid earfoðnyssum þæt ece lif geearnian, swa swa se Hælend on his halgan godspelle cwæð’ (‘and certainly afterwards one ought to earn everlasting life by means of hardships, just as the Savior said in his holy Gospel’ [lines 57–9]). Three possible explanations bear mention. First, Ælfric may have the ambiguous concluding phrase of Luke 16.16 in mind: ‘[ex eo regnum Dei euangelizatur] et omnis in illud uim facit’ (‘[thereafter, the Kingdom of God is preached,] and everyone does violence against it’ [or ‘forces his way into it’]). Ælfric does not appear to discuss this part of the verse elsewhere, however, and it is unclear what his interpretation of it would be. Second, Ælfric may have one or more other passages in view which warn that the Kingdom of God will bring with it hardships: Paul says in Acts, for example, that ‘per multas tribulationes oportet nos intrare in regnum Dei’ (‘it is necessary that we enter into the Kingdom of God through many tribulations’ (14.22 [Vulgate 14.21]). On the expected nature of such trials, see also 2 Timothy 3.12, 1 Peter 1.6 and 4.12, James 2.3, John 15.18–19 and 16.33, Matthew 10.22, Mark 10.30, Romans 8.16–17, and so on. Third, perhaps in keeping with this second possibility, Ælfric may well be thinking of his teaching on chastity that immediately follows: while certain conduct may have been tolerated under the ealdan gewunan (‘old ways of life’ [line 61]), now God ‘wyle habban huru þa clænan’ (‘especially desires to have the pure’) to serve him [line 80]). Lines 82–101 [He cwæð on his godspelle … on his þeowdome her]: Two passages Ælfric employs from the Gospels to encourage þa þe him þeniað (‘those who serve [Christ]’ [line 45]). In each case, his translation stays close to the Latin. De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 83–5

Luke 12.35 ‘Sint lumbi uestri praecincti et lucernae ardentes [in manibus uestris25]’.

Sint lumbi uestri procincti et lucernae ardentes in manibus uestris: ‘Beon eowre lendena ymbgyrde, and beon leohtfatu on eowrum handum byrnende’.

‘Let your loins be girded and [your] lamps burning [in your hands]’.

Let your loins be girded and [your] lamps burning [in your hands]: ‘Let your loins be girded, and let your lamps be burning in your hands’. De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 94–6

John 12.26  ‘Si quis mihi ministrat me sequatur et ubi sum ego illic et minister meus erit’.

Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur, et cetera. ‘Se ðe me sylfum þenað, folgie he eac me, and þær þær Ic sylf beo, þær byþ eac min þen’.

‘If anyone serves me, let him follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be’. 

He who serves me, let him follow me, and so on. ‘He who serves me, let him also follow me, and where I am, there will also my servant be’.

25

In manibus uestris is a variant of Luke 12.35 (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1633, apparatus) that apparently was included in the biblical version(s) known to Ælfric.

407

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Commenting on the first passage, Ælfric states that ‘Lareowas us secgað þæt on þam lendenum is þæs lichaman galnyss’ (‘Teachers say to us that the body’s lustfulness is in the loins’ [lines 86–7]). The connection may hardly seem to warrant an appeal to authority, but Ælfric could have had Alcuin,26 Gregory,27 Smaragdus,28 or Haymo29 in mind, as each cites the opening of the verse while commenting on fornicatio (‘unlawful sexual intercourse’), the Latin term Ælfric associates with galnes (‘lust’ [line 87]) in LS II.1630 and its corresponding equivalent in De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis.31 Even so, the connections are doubtful: only Gregory and Smaragdus go on to mention the lucernae ardentes (‘burning lamps’), and neither equates them specifically with good deeds [line 91]. In CH II.39, however, Ælfric cites and interprets the verse as in De sancta uirginitate, saying, ‘“Beon eower lendena ymbgyrde, and eower leohtfatu byrnende.” On ðam ymbgyrdum lendenum is se mægðhad, and on ðam byrnendum leohtfatum sind ða godan weorc to understandenne’ (‘“Let your loins be girded up, and your lamps burning.” By girded-up loins, virginity is [meant], and by the burning lamps one is to understand good deeds’).32 It is Augustine, Godden suggests, that ultimately supplies this connection.33 The second passage is a favorite of Ælfric’s. He quotes or paraphrases it at least nine times in his career, as follows: ‘Se ðe me þenige, fylige he me’ (CH I.10 [989]).34

‘He who serves me, he follows me’.

‘Þær ðær ic sylf beo, þær bið min ðen’ (CH II.24)35

‘There where I myself am, there will be my servant’.

‘Ðær ðær ic sylf beo, þær bið min ðen’ (CH II.29).36

‘There where I myself am, there will be my servant’.

‘Ðær þær ic sylf beo, þær biþ mid me se þe me ‘There where I myself am, there will be with þenaþ’ (SH II.25; included in augmented CH II.22). me he who serves me’. ‘Ðe ðe me þenæð, fylige he me þenne … Ðe ðe me þeniæð, fylige he me þenne … And þer ic beo seolf, þær bið eac min þegn’ (Nisi granum frumenti [Irvine 4]).37

‘He who serves me, he follows me to serve me … He who serves me, he follows me to serve me … And where I myself am, there will be also my servant’.

He behet his halgum þæt hi him folgian moston, [Christ] commanded his saints that they must and mid him wunian þær ðær he sylf wunað follow him, and dwell with him there where he (SH I.12).38 himself lives.

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Expositio Apocalypsis I.1.12 (PL 100.1098A). In librum primum Regum expositiones V.202 (CCSL 144, p. 544). Diadema monachorum 78 (PL 102.673B). Expositio in Apocalypsin I.1 (PL 117.955A). Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 106, lines 241–2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 356, lines 276–7. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 144, lines 18–19. Godden, Second Series, p. 329, lines 61–2. Commentary, p. 657. Clemoes, First Series, p. 263, line 143. Godden, Second Series, p. 224, line 118 – p. 225, line 119. Godden, Second Series, p. 257, lines 66–7. Irvine, Homilies, p. 113, line 339; and p. 114, lines 348 and 352. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 488, lines 204–5.

408

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis ‘þær ðær ic sylf beo, ðær bið min ðen’ (SH I.11).39

‘there where I myself am, there will be my servant’.

‘Se ðe me sylfum þenað, folgie he eac me, and þær þær ic sylf beo, þær byþ eac min þen’ (Letter to Sigefyrth).40

‘He who serves me, let him also follow me, and where I am, there will also my servant be’.

‘Se ðe me sylfum þenað, folgie he eac me, and þær þær Ic sylf beo, þær byþ eac min þen’ (De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 95–6).

‘He who serves me, let him also follow me, and where I am, there will also my servant be’.

In De sancta uirginitate, serving Christ means following his example – not simply by doing good works, as in CH I.10,41 but ‘on clænnesse for Cristes lufæn wuniæð’ (‘living in purity for love of Christ’), as Nisi granum frumenti suggests.42 Lines 102–20 [Iohannes se godspellere … his clænum þeowdome]: Ælfric turns to Revelation 14 for this eschatological vision of rewarded virginity. Revelation 14.1–4

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 102–15

Et uidi et ecce agnus stabat supra montem Sion et cum illo centum quadraginta quattuor milia habentes nomen eius et nomen Patris eius scriptum in frontibus suis. Et audiui uocem de caelo tamquam uocem aquarum multarum et tamquam uocem tonitrui magni et uocem quam audiui sicut citharoedorum citharizantium in citharis suis. Et cantabant quasi canticum nouum ante sedem et ante quattuor animalia et seniores et nemo poterat discere canticum nisi illa centum quadraginta quattuor milia qui empti sunt de terra. Hii sunt qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati uirgines enim sunt hii qui sequuntur agnum quocumque abierit hii empti sunt ex hominibus primitiae Deo et agno.

Iohannes se godspellere on his gastlican gesihðe Apocalipsis gehaten þe se Hælend him onwreah, geseah Crist standan and þone clænan flocc mid him, hundteontig þusenda and feower and feowertig þusenda, swiðe hlude singende þone heofonlican sang. And nan oþer halig mann ne mihte singan mid heom þone gastlican lofsang on Godes gesihðe, butan þa þusenda, þe þus synd geherode, Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, uirgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum, quocumque ierit. ‘Ðas halgan næron næfre mid wifum besmitene. Hi sindon mægðhade gehealdenre clænnysse. Hi folgiað Criste swa hwider swa he gæð’.

And I looked, and behold, a Lamb was standing upon Mount Zion, and with him [were] 144,000 who had his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of great thunder. And the voice which I heard was as the playing of harpists on their harps. And they were singing as it were a new song before the throne and before the four creatures and the elders, and no one was able to learn the song except those 144,000 who were purchased from the earth. They are those who are not defiled with women, for they are virgins, they who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from humanity, first-fruits to God and to the Lamb.

John the evangelist in his spiritual vision called the Apocalypse, which the Savior revealed to him, saw Christ standing and the pure flock with him, one hundred and forty-four thousand, singing very loudly the heavenly song, and no other holy man was able to sing with them the spiritual song of praise in God’s presence except those thousands who are praised in this way: They are those who are not defiled with women, for they are virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. ‘Those holy ones were never defiled by women. They are virgins with [their] purity having been preserved. They follow Christ wherever he goes’.

39 40 41 42

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 445, line 543. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 18, lines 106–7. Clemoes, First Series, p. 263, lines 138 (Se man gesihð) – 145 (do). Irvine, Homilies, p. 114, line 343, speaking of one of a series of ways in which individuals may serve Christ.

409

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Ælfric’s biblical translation here is looser than that which we find in lines 82–96 above. Only in his quotation from the Latin does Ælfric refer to Christ as a Lamb [line 112]; he omits the divine names written on the righteous (Revelation 14.1); he ascribes the melodious sound from heaven not to a single voice (14.2) but to the 144,000 [line 105]; he does not mention the creatures and elders before whom the righteous sing (14.3), focusing on God alone [line 108]; and he describes the singers as þone clænan flocc (‘the pure flock’ [line 104]), drawing on the image of Christ as Lamb (14.1 and 4), the identification of the singers as virgins (14.4), and perhaps the depiction of those ‘stantes ante thronum et in conspectu agni amicti stolas albas’ (‘standing before the throne and in the sight of the Lamb, clothed in white robes’ [Revelation 7.9]) which immediately follows John’s previous mention of the 144,000 (7.4–8). This vision, Ælfric concludes, should serve both as an inspiration and a warning, for those who wallow in their base desires rather than serve God in purity (clænnysse) will be unable to sing this song or follow Christ in heaven [lines 116–20]. Lines 121–6 [Is nu forði mycel neod … mid þæs modes clænnesse]: If, in speaking of the apostles who renounced marriage and of Godes þeowas (‘God’s servants’ [line 63]) who may aspire to the ranks of the 144,000, he chiefly has clergy in mind, here Ælfric shifts his focus to lay believers, whom he will also call to purity. In language reminiscent of his First Series preface (and thus Menn Behofiað Godre Lare [AH II.12]),43 Ælfric emphasizes laypersons’ need for righteous instruction [lines 121–2]. Rhetorically, the effect is that of a teacher seeking the attention of those whose concentration might be drifting – non-virgins, for example, to whom the vision of Revelation might not seem relevant. Reward is promised for all those devoted to purity, Ælfric says: to those who are sexually self-disciplined in marriage, in widowhood, and in singleness. These are the þry hadas (‘three conditions’ [line 124], a phrase Ælfric also uses in CH I.944 regarding this subject) who are fullice Gode liciað (‘fully pleasing to God’ [line 124]). Lines 121–6 constitute one of three passages Ælfric adds to the homily when adapting the Letter to Sigefyrth for homiletic use (see also lines 136–41 and 146–50).45 Lines 127–41 and 161–9 [Riht sinscipe is … þæt forlegene mæden and Ðas þry hadas … mid þa engla geferræde]: Jesus’ parable of the Sower and the Seed (Matthew 13.1–23) ultimately furnishes the paradigm for three levels of harvest, with some reaping thirty, sixty, or a hundred times what they sowed [lines 164–5], and Ælfric turns to this image repeatedly in his writings. In CH I.9, interpreting the harvest as future reward, he assigns the thirty-fold reward to married couples who have intercourse ‘on alyfedum timan’ (‘at permitted times’) for the purpose of bearing children, the sixty-fold reward to widows who live chastely after their spouse’s death, and the hundred-fold reward to virgins who despise lust in body and mind.46 In CH II.4, while he does not mention

43 44 45 46

Clemoes, First Series, p. 174, lines 57–8; Menn Behofiað Godre Lare, line 2. Clemoes, First Series, p. 255, line 198. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 248. Clemoes, First Series, p. 255, line 198 – p. 256, line 220; at p. 255, line 211. On Ælfric’s distinction between the thirty, sixty, and hundred-fold crop, see also notes to Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (AH II.20), lines 1–3.

410

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis specific reward amounts, Ælfric does say that faithful spouses, widows, and virgins attain increasingly greater degrees (stæpas) of merit.47 In CH II.6, specifically expositing Matthew 13, he repeats his points from CH I.9 and expands what he means by ‘permitted times’: sex is permitted within marriage only when conception is possible, not during a woman’s period, during pregnancy, or after menopause48 – points he also makes in passing in SH II.29.49 In his Letter to Sigefyrth, alluding to Matthew 13, he repeats his teaching from CH I.9 at some greater length.50 Shortly after, in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), he does the same summarily: swa swa þæt godspel segð (‘just as the Gospel says’), pure spouses, widows, and virgins will harvest a thirty, sixty, and hundred-fold crop.51 In the same period, the material from the Letter to Sigefyrth finds its way into De uirginitate (AH II.13); some time later, it also appears in De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7). Throughout these passages, Ælfric emphasizes the biblical and/or patristic origins of this doctrine: it comes from the Gospels,52 the apostle Paul,53 Isaias se æþela (‘the noble Isaiah’),54 Agustinum magnus (‘Augustine the Great’),55 witan (‘wise men’),56 and so forth. Specific sources for the particulars of Ælfric’s teaching, have proven elusive. As Godden says regarding the passage in CH I.9, ‘none [of the commentaries on the Gospel in question] has anything at all similar to Ælfric’s passage on virginity, widowhood, and marriage’.57 Rather, he concludes after a careful study of the material in CH II.6, ‘Ælfric’s heavy insistence on bookish authority for his views suggests that they may have been both unusual and controversial’.58 Ælfric’s teaching may be idiosyncratic, but it is also consistent. When defining riht sinscipe (‘proper marriage’ [line 127]), for example, the content shared by the Letter to Sigefyrth, De uirginitate, and De sancta uirginitate both parallels and expands upon his other treatments of the subject, saying that

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Godden, Second Series, p. 39, lines 297–305, at line 299. Godden, Second Series, p. 56, line 115 – p. 57, line 135. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 628, lines 111–18. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 19, line 135 – p. 21, line 188. Lines 369–84, at 379. Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), line 379. Clemoes, First Series, p. 256, lines 214–15. Letter to Sigefyrth, line 188 (Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 21). Godden, Second Series, p. 57, line 117. Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), line 376. Commentary, p. 76. Commentary, p. 392. See also notes to Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), lines 107–32.

411

De uirginitate (AH II.13)

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

young men and women are to keep themselves clæne (‘sexually pure’ [line 137]) before marriage;

X

X

X

young men and women are to be held equally culpable if they are sexually immoral [lines 140–1];

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

spouses must not commit adultery (eawbryce [line 129]); sex is [solely] for the purpose of procreation [line 131–2];

X

spouses may only have sex on alyfedum timan (‘at permitted times’ [line 132]);

X

X

‘permitted times’ do not include when a woman is: pregnant having her period past childbearing age

X X X

God will punish the sexually immoral (dyrnan forligeras [‘secret adulterers’] [line 133]) and unrihtan hæmeras (‘fornicators’ [line 134]) after death;

X

God will forgive those who confess and repent [line 135];

X

married sexual partners must behave mid gesceadwisnysse (‘with rationality’ [line 166]);

X

X X X

X

59

spouses must hold their wedding vows for life [line 167]; married Christians who faithfully behave in the ways above will receive a thirty-fold reward [line 168]; and they will enjoy everlasting life with the angels [lines 169].

X

60

X

Natiuitas Mariae (AH I.8)

Letter to Sigefyrth

X

Marriage must be kept according to God’s law [AH I.7, line 128];

CH II.6

X

CH II.4

X

CH I.9

SH II.19

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Lines 136–41 constitute one of three passages Ælfric adds to the homily when adapting the Letter to Sigefyrth for homiletic use (see also lines 121–6 and 146–50).61 Lines 142–50 [Wudewanhad is þæt man … swa us secgað halige bec]: Ælfric is consistent also in his teaching on widowhood: 59 60 61

CH I.9 states the obverse, that those who are not sexually self-controlled are more like animals than humans, being lacking in reasoned action (Clemoes, First Series, p. 255, line 213 – p. 256, line 214). CH II.4 does not mention the thirty-fold reward, but says that sexually faithful spouses comprise the lowest of the three meritorious states (Godden, Second Series, p. 39, lines 299–301). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 248.

412

De uirginitate (AH II.13)

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7)

X

X

this rule applies both to men and women [line 145];

X

X

X

X

it is shameful for older widows [or widowers] to have sex for the sake of pleasure when they can no longer procreate [lines 146–8];

X

X

X

X

sex is solely for the purpose of procreation [lines 149–50]; and

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

widows [and widowers] who faithfully behave in the ways above will receive a sixty-fold reward [line 171].

X

X

62

Natiuitas Mariae (AH I.8)

Letter to Sigefyrth X

Those whose spouses have died must remain celibate [AH I.7, lines 142–4];

CH II.4

X

CH I.9

CH II.6

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

X

Lines 146–50 constitute one of three passages Ælfric adds to the homily when adapting the Letter to Sigefyrth for homiletic use (see also lines 121–6 and 136–41 above).63 Lines 151–60 and 170–82 [Mægðhad is witodlice … Criste æfre þeowiað and Ða þe on wudewanhade … on wuldre mid him]: Finally, Ælfric is consistent in his teaching on virginity:

62 63

CH II.4 does not mention the sixty-fold reward, but says that chaste widows comprise the second of the three meritorious states (Godden, Second Series, p. 39, lines 301–3). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 248.

413

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7)

this truth applies both to men and women [line 153]);

X

X

X

through their self-discipline, virgins love and honor Christ [lines 153–4];

X

X

X

renouncing earthly pleasure, they gain heavenly honor [lines 154–8]);

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

virgins are likely to be clergy [line 159];

X

with their virginity, believers humbly serve Christ [lines 172–4]); virgins will receive a hundred-fold reward [line 175]); and they will be given the most glorious dwelling and be honored forever above other people [lines 176–82].

X

Natiuitas Mariae (AH I.8)

X

Letter to Sigefyrth

X

CH II.6

X

CH II.4

Virginity is a blessed state in God’s eyes [AH I.7, line 152]);

CH I.9

De uirginitate (AH II.13)

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis

X

X X

64

X

X X

X

One other occasion on which Ælfric cites Isaiah when referring to mægðhad and clænnes (‘virginity’ or ‘sexual purity’ [line 172; see also 114, 151, and 172]) is in SH II.19;65 there, the passage in question is clearly Isaiah 56.4–5,66 and this source may well be that which Ælfric has in mind here as well. Lines 183–213 [We ne magon … to Criste sylfum]: If Hebrews 11 is the Bible’s Hall of Faith, this passage may be called Ælfric’s mini Hall of Virgins. He begins with bisceopa and muneca (‘bishops and monks’ [line 189–90]); these include figures to whom Ælfric refers hundreds of times in his writings: Martin (ca 316–397), bishop of Tours, whose life he recounts in CH II.34 and LS III.31 [Skeat II.35]’; Gregory the Great (ca 540–604), bishop of Rome [that is, pope], whose life he treats in CH II.9; Augustine (354–430), bishop of Hippo Regius; and Basil (ca 329–379), bishop of Caesarea Mazaca, whose life is found in LS I.3; as well as ‘manega oðre … Criste þeowigende on clænnysse’ (‘many others … serving Christ in chastity’ [lines 192–3]). Next, he points to two Doctors of the Church: Bede (ca 673–735) and Jerome (ca 347–420), both of whom he cites explicitly

64 65 66

CH II.4 does not mention the hundred-fold reward, but says that virgins comprise the highest of the three meritorious states (Godden, Second Series, p. 39, lines 303–5). Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 625, lines 66–70. As noted by Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 625, apparatus.

414

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis in the Catholic Homilies as authoritative sources,67 as well as ‘oðre gehwylce wide geond þas woruld’ (‘many others far and wide throughout the world’) who not only remained sexually pure themselves, but ‘þa fulan forsawon’ (‘despised the defiled’ [lines 200–3]). Finally, he turns to a number of Desert Fathers discussed in the Vitae patrum:68 Anthony (251–356), Paul of Thebes (ca 227 – ca 342), Hilarion (ca 291–371), Macarius of Alexandria (d. 395),69 John the Merciful (d. 616 × 620), Arsenius (ca 350–445), Paphnutius of Thebes (d. s. iv), and Apollonius of Antinoë (d. ca 305), all ‘Criste þeowigende on modes clænnysse’ (‘serving Christ in purity of spirit’ [lines 204–9]). While all the above by implication teach by example, the bishops’ writings furnish Ælfric with support for his teaching on clerical matrimony. Piling negatives upon absolutes, Ælfric categorically states that ‘heora nan ne sealde swylce leafe næfre þæt ænig weofodes þen moste wif habban’ (‘none of these individuals ever gave such permission, that any servant of the altar’ – mass-priests who consecrate the Eucharist, primarily [lines 196–7; see also 70–81], though elsewhere he also includes deacons in this category70 – ‘was allowed to have a wife’ [lines 194–5]). For fuller discussions of Ælfric’s teaching on priestly marriage, particularly in contrast with one who (ironically) quoted him to support his own antithetical views – Matthew Parker, Elizabeth I’s archbishop of Canterbury – see Kleist, ‘Matthew Parker’ and ‘Monks, Marriage, and Manuscripts’. Lines 214–34 [Nu smeagað sume men … for heora micclum geearnungum]: At this point in De sancta uirginitate, Ælfric transitions from examples from Church history to two passages of Scripture: the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20.1–16) and the Beatitudes (Matthew 5.3–10). In doing so, he moves from the material drawn from his Letter to Sigefyrth [Assmann 2] to that from Natiuitas sanctae Mariae [AH I.8 / Assmann 3]. The transition seems abrupt – enough so, indeed, to prompt Pope to see in it evidence that Ælfric himself was not the compiler of these pieces: ‘There is no sign of ingenuity here,’ he says, ‘only a simple joining of two originally separate passages’.71 Rhetorically, however, Ælfric (or at least the text) is addressing a potential objection: how is it that all God’s faithful equally receive the reward of heaven, when virgins for example have to struggle harder than spouses in lawful matrimony? Is God somehow unfair? Matthew 20 is an excellent passage to use to address the question, as it tackles head-on the issue of apparent inequity in eternal rewards. Jesus tells of a landowner who finds idle laborers over the course of a day, hires them to work in his vineyard, 67 68

69

70 71

CH I.pref. (Clemoes, First Series, p. 173, lines 15–16); see also Godden, Commentary, l–li and lvi–lvii. Ælfric refers directly to the Vitae patrum in at least four places, describing its contents generally or relaying scenes from it; see CH I.36 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 489, line 111), CH I.15 (Godden, Second Series, p. 154, line 159), SH II.19 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 625, line 62), and SH II.27 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 773, line 17). See also Godden, Commentary, pp. lxii, 303, and 494. Or Macarius of Egypt (ca 300–391); Di Sciacca notes that ‘the Macarius of these hagiographical tales [the Vitae patrum] can be identified with more than one representative of Eastern Christianity and monasticism’ (‘“Ubi Sunt” Motif’, p. 369). CH II.6 (Godden, Second Series, p. 57, line 145). Homilies, vol. I, p. 31; see also p. 141.

415

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis and pays each of them a denarius (or pening [‘penny’, line 214], in Ælfric’s terms) even though some worked harder (for longer hours) than others. When some grumble as a result, the landowner says, ‘Amice non facio tibi iniuriam nonne ex denario convenisti mecum? … non licet mihi quod uolo facere an oculus tuus nequam est quia ego bonus sum?’ (‘“Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me [to work] for a denarius? … Am I not allowed to do what I wish [with my money]? Is your eye evil because I am good?”’ [20.13 and 15]). The parable is one Ælfric expounds at length in CH II.5, though there, following Gregory, he interprets the workers as preachers at various points in history, believers who come to faith at various points in history, or believers who come to faith at different times in their lives.72 Here in De sancta uirginitate, however, he cites Augustine as his source, teaching that ‘þa þe God geclypode to þam clænan life’ (‘those whom God called to a chaste life’ [line 224]) will all receive the ‘penny’: everlasting life in a body that is wynsumne (‘pleasant’), unbrosniendlicne (‘incorruptible’), and butan awyrdnysse (‘without blemish’) forever [lines 229, 230, and 231]. Ælfric may have had Augustine’s Sermones de scripturis 87 in mind, as it exposits the parable in full and makes a connection to different levels of purity: while all the righteous receive the coin of eternal life, Augustine says, different merits – such as castitas coniugalis (‘conjugal purity’) and integritas uirginalis (‘virginal chastity’) will shine forth to different extents: ‘Quamuis enim meritorum diuersitate fulgebunt, alius magis, alius minus: quod tamen ad uitam aeternam pertinet, aequalis erit omnibus’ (‘For although they will shine with a variety of merits – some more, some less – nevertheless, that which relates to eternal life will be equal to all’).73 Such language corresponds closely to Ælfric’s statement that ‘þiss bið heom eallum æfre gemæne, þeah þe hi sume scinon, swa swa we ær sædon, on maran beorhtnesse for heora micclum geearnungum’ (‘[the Kingdom of Heaven] will be shared by them all forever, although some of them will shine, as we said previously, with more brightness on account of their great merits’ [lines 232–4]). The texts differ in numerous details, however: Augustine does not discuss the nature of the resurrected body, and lists martyrdom and fructus boni operis (‘the fruit of good works’) along with sexual purity as virtues that may earn reward, for example. Ælfric’s language actually seems more evocative of two biblical passages: Romans 8.30, which states that God praedestinauit (‘predestined’), uocauit (‘called’), iustificauit (‘justified’), and glorificauit (‘glorified’) the righteous [Ælfric’s forestihte, geclypode, gerihtwisode, and gewuldorfullode [lines 223–6]]; and Ephesians 5.27, which says that Christ died to present the Church as his bride, ‘non habentem maculam aut rugam aut aliquid eiusmodi sed … sancta et inmaculata’ (‘not having stain or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish’) [Ælfric’s ‘unbrosniendlicne butan eallum wommum and butan awyrdnysse’ (‘incorruptible without any impurities and without blemish’ [lines 230–31])]. It may be, however, that Ælfric is only gesturing to such sources as he argues for the relative rewards to be given for differing levels of purity. Godden’s conclusion on this point (see lines 127–41 and 161–5 above) bears mention again: ‘Ælfric’s heavy 72 73

Godden, Commentary, pp. 380–7. Augustine, Sermonum classes quattuor I.87.4.6 [PL 38.532–3, at 533]. If this homily was the source in question, Ælfric may have encountered it directly, as it is not in Paul the Deacon or attributed to Augustine in Smaragdus (Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 223–5 and 232–4).

416

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis insistence on bookish authority for his views suggests that they may have been both unusual and controversial’.74 Another more plausible possibility, given that this passage is identical to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 507–27, is that Ælfric is here drawing on Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate, a major source for previous sections of AH I.8.75 While it does not elaborate extensively on the matter, De sancta uirginitate 26 interprets the denarius (or penny) of Matthew 20.9 as eternal life in heaven [lines 220–1]; speaks of the predestination, call, justification, and glorification of Romans 8.30 [lines 222–5]; and cites 1 Corinthians 15.41 to teach that the saints’ splendor will vary depending on their merits [lines 232–3; see also notes to AH I.8, lines 488–93]. Lines 235–81 [Ðas geþingðu hi moton geearnian … we him swa folgion]: The second passage of Scripture which Ælfric cites is Matthew 5.3–10, where at the start of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) Jesus sets forth the Beatitudes – eight virtues by which the faithful may be blessed (beati). Ælfric does not include in his count the ninth beati found in Matthew 5.11: ‘Beati estis cum maledixerint uobis et persecuti uos fuerint et dixerint omne malum aduersum uos mentientes propter me’ (‘Blessed are you when they revile you and persecute you and falsely speak all kinds of evil against you because of me’). He does go on to translate and discuss the verse in CH I.36,76 the last half of which exegetically exposits the whole pericope. Ælfric explains, however, that ‘Eahta eadinyssa sind on ðisum godspelle geendebyrde. Is þeah gyt an cwyde bæftan þe is geþuht swilce he sy se neogoða stæpe, ac he soðlice belimpþ to þære eahteoðan eadignysse, for þan ðe hi butu sprecað be ehtnysse for rihtwisnysse and for Criste’ (‘Eight Beatitudes are ordained in this Gospel. There is one more declaration thereafter [Matthew 5.11], which seems as though it should be the ninth step, but it truly belongs to the eighth Beatitude, because they both speak of persecution on account of righteousness and on account of Christ’).77 Ælfric’s translation of the Beatitudes in De sancta uirginitate is fairly close to the original, perhaps in part because he here follows Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate 28 ‘very closely’.78 Ælfric’s language is nearly as verbatim as his rendition in CH I.36: here in AH I.7, he focuses mostly on the opening of each sentence, adding nuance along the way.

74 75 76 77 78

Commentary, p. 392. See Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 312; and De sancta uirginitate 26 (CSEL 41, p. 262, lines 1–14). Clemoes, First Series, p. 491, lines 164–5; and p. 495, lines 257–8. Clemoes, First Series, p. 494, lines 149–52. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 313.

417

[1] Eadige beoð þa gastlican þearfan, for þan ðe heora is heofonan rice.80 [1] Blessed are the spiritually poor, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

[1] Beati pauperes spiritu quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum.

[1] Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

[1] Blessed are the poor in spirit, et cetera. Blessed are the poor, who are poor in spirit … on account of that they have the joy of the kingdom of heaven …

[1] Beati pauperes spiritu, et cetera. Eadige synd þa þearfan, þa ðe on gaste synd þearfan … hi habbað þurh þæt heofonan rices myrhðe …

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 241–79

[2] Blessed are the gentle, because they shall own the land. [3] Eadige beoþ ða ðe heofiað, for þan ðe hi beoð gefrefrode.82 [3] Blessed are those who weep, because they shall be consoled. [4] Eadige beoð ða þe sind ofhingrode and ofþyrste æfter rihtwisnysse, for þan ðe hi beoð gefyllede.83 [4] Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, because they shall be filled. [5] Eadige beoð þa mildheortan, for þan ðe hi begitað mildheortnysse.84 [5] Blessed are the merciful, because they shall receive mercy. [6] Eadige beoð ða clænheortan, for þan ðe hi geseoð God sylfne.85

[2] Blessed are the meek, because they shall possess the land.

[3] Beati qui lugent quoniam ipsi consolabuntur.

[3] Blessed are those who mourn, because they shall be comforted.

[4] Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam quoniam ipsi saturabuntur.

[4] Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, because they shall be filled.

[5] Beati misericordes quia ipsi misericordiam consequentur.

[5] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

[6] Beati mundo corde quoniam ipsi Deum uidebunt.

[6] Eadige synd þa clænheortan þe on clænnysse lybbað.

[5] Blessed are the merciful who have mercy for others.

[5] Eadige beoð þa mildheortan þe gemiltsiað oðrum.

[4] Blessed are the people who on account of a goodness of spirit are very hungry, and also, as it were, thirst after righteousness so that they may live properly.

[4] Eadige beoð þa men þe þurh modes godnysse beoð swiþe ofhingrode and eac swylce ofþyrste æfter rihtwisnysse þæt hi rihtlice libbon.

[3] Blessed are those who weep, who weep over their sins.

[3] Eadige beoð þa heofigendan þe heora synna bewepað.

[2] Blessed are the meek, et cetera. Blessed are the gentle …

[2] Beati mites quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram. [2] Eadige beoð þa liþan, for þan ðe hi geahniað [2] Beati mites, et cetera. Eadige beoð þa liðan þæt land.81 …

CH I.36, lines 155–6479

Matthew 5.3–10

87

86

85

84

83

82

81

80

p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p.

492, 493, 493, 493, 493, 493, 493, 494,

lines 180–1). line 198). line 204), as well as CH I.9 (p. 253, lines 122–3) and CH I.11 (p. 274, lines 216–17). lines 211–12), as well as CH I.13 (p. 288, lines 200–1). line 219). line 222). line 227 – p. 494, line 238). lines 236–7).

[8] Blessed are those who on account of righteousness suffer hardship here in this life.

[8] Blessed are those who suffer hardship on account of righteousness, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

[8] Blessed are those who suffer persecution on behalf of righteousness, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Series, Series, Series, Series, Series, Series, Series, Series,

[8] Eadige beoð þa þe for rihtwisnysse ehtnysse þrowiað her on þisum life.

[8] Eadige beoð þa ðe þoliað ehtnysse for rihtwisnysse, for þan ðe heora is heofonan rice.87

[8] Beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum.

Clemoes, First Series, p. 491. See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First See also later in CH I.36 (Clemoes, First

[7] Blessed are the peaceful, because they are children of God.

[7] Blessed are the peaceable, because they shall [7] Blessed are peaceful, because they shall be be called sons of God. called children of God.

79

[7] Eadige beoð þa gesibsuman, forþan þe hi synd Godes bearn.

[7] Eadige beoð ða gesibsuman, for þan ðe hi beoð Godes bearn gecigede.86

[7] Beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei uocabuntur.

[6] Blessed are the pure of heart who live in purity.

[6] Blessed are the pure in heart, because they shall see God himself.

[6] Blessed are the pure in heart, because they shall see God.

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Aside from Beatitudes 1 and 7, De sancta uirginitate does not include the rationale for each statement – that the poor in spirit are blessed, for example, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. The effect is to shift the sermon’s focus from the future rewards of virtue [lines 214–34] to the required virtues themselves. These Ælfric mostly translates straightforwardly, though to two he adds a phrase of clarification: those who weep, weep over their sins, he says [Beatitude 3], and those who are pure in heart on clænnysse lybbað (‘live in purity’ [Beatitude 6, line 271]) – a direct connection to the sermon’s main subject. Indeed, Ælfric associates all the Beatitudes with sexual purity: immediately after saying that individuals will shine differently in heaven depending on their merits [lines 232–4] – in context, the various states of marital chastity, widowed celibacy, and virginity – he says that these heavenly honors are earned through ‘þa eadignyssa þæs eahtafealdon geteles’ (‘the eight-fold Beatitudes’ [line 237]). Similarly, having described these qualities, he enjoins: ‘Ðas eahta eadignyssa synd eow mædenum to lufienne’ (‘You virgins are to love these eight Beatitudes’ [line 282]). Consequently, Ælfric takes time in a sermon on virginity to expound upon these virtues by which the faithful will be blessed. It is by imitating Christ, he repeatedly says, that virtue and blessing come. The poor in spirit [Beatitude 1] imitate Christ because Christ was rich and for our sake became poor [2 Corinthians 8.9; lines 247–8]. The meek [Beatitude 2] imitate Christ because Christ described himself as mitis sum et humilis corde (‘meek and humble in heart’ [Matthew 11.29; lines 252–4]). Those who mourn [Beatitude 3] imitate Christ because Christ wept over Jerusalem and its coming punishment for unbelief [Luke 19.41–4; lines 256–8]. They who hunger and thirst for righteousness [Beatitude 4] imitate Christ because Christ’s food was to do the will of his Father [John 4.34; lines 262–4]. The merciful [Beatitude 5] imitate Christ because Christ had mercy on sinners like the Good Samaritan did [Luke 10.25–37; lines 266–71]. The pure in heart [Beatitude 6] imitate Christ because Christ clænnysse astealde (‘established chastity’ [line 273]) and committed no sin [1 Peter 2.22; line 273]. The peaceable [Beatitude 7] imitate Christ because Christ prayed for God to have mercy on those who crucified him [Luke 23.34; lines 276–7]. And those who suffer hardship on account of righteousness [Beatitude 8] imitate Christ because Christ suffered for us, giving us an example that we should follow in his steps [1 Peter 2.21; lines 279–80]. Ironically, of all the points above, it is Ælfric’s assertion that Christ ‘established chastity’ for which he provides no scriptural evidence. Ælfric’s interpretation supplements rather than replicates his original work in CH I.36. There, the poor in spirit ideally are those (like virtuous monks) who lack material possessions and have humility of heart.88 The meek are those who overcome evil with good (Romans 12.21) and have the Lord as their portion (Psalms 142.5 [Vulgate 141.6]).89 They who mourn and are comforted are those who bewail their sins and are comforted by the Paraclete or Holy Spirit (John 14.16 and 26).90 They who hunger and thirst for righteousness are those whose food is that of Christ – namely, obedience to the Father (John 4.34) – and who are filled when God’s glory is manifest (Psalms 17.15 [Vulgate

88 89 90

Clemoes, First Series, p. 492, line 180 – p. 493, line 197. Clemoes, First Series, p. 493, lines 198–204. Clemoes, First Series, p. 493, lines 205–10.

420

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis 16.15]).91 Those who show mercy to the wretched will receive mercy when they are wretched (cf. Proverbs 19.17 and 11.17, Isaiah 58.6–12, and Matthew 18.33–5).92 The pure or simple of heart (Wisdom 1.193) see God because they are cleansed of sins.94 The peaceful govern their mind with reason and their fleshly desires with self-control, receiving the peace given to those bonae uoluntatis (‘of good will’ [Luke 2.14]).95 And those who suffer persecution because of righteousness fear God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew 10.28), rather than human beings.96 Lines 235–81 are identical save for minor variants to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 528–74. Lines 282–305 [Ðas eahta eadignyssa … to þam ecan life]: Topping and tailing his exposition of the Beatitudes, Ælfric again explicitly connects these virtues with virginity: virgins should love and pursue such character qualities, he says, because they will make one self-disciplined (wel geþeowode [line 283]) in attitude, word, and action, perseverance in all of which will lead to heavenly honors (geþingðu [lines 284–91, at 288]). This association of virtue and honors, Ælfric affirms, is swa swa se Hælend sæde (‘just as the Savior said’ [lines 287]), likely pointing back to the discussion of geþingðu with which he introduced the Beatitudes [lines 235–40 above]. In addition, however, he quotes John 15.8 – ‘in hoc clarificatus est Pater meus ut fructum plurimum adferatis’ (‘In this my Father is glorified: that you bear much fruit’) – glossing ‘fruit’ as ‘good deeds’ [lines 294–8].97 In saying that believers do good with Christ’s help, moreover, and that Christ will love those who love him by keeping his commandments [lines 298–303], Ælfric alludes to John 14.15–16 and 21: ‘Si diligitis me mandata mea seruate. Et ego rogabo Patrem et alium paracletum dabit uobis … Qui habet mandata mea et seruat ea ille est qui diligit me … et ego diligam eum’ (‘If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give to you another Paraclete [“helper” or “comforter”] … The one who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me … and I will love him’). Virgins, therefore – and all believers pursuing sexual purity, by implication – should cultivate the qualities outlined by the Beatitudes so that they may receive honor for doing good, keeping God’s commands with his help. Recognizing that such virtue depends on divine grace, he puts his preaching into practice through prayer,98 asking that Christ ‘gewissige us … to his willan’ (‘guide us to his will’ [line 303]) and lead believers to the reward of eternal life [line 305].

91 92 93 94 95 96 97

98

Clemoes, First Series, p. 493, lines 211–18. Clemoes, First Series, p. 493, lines 219–21. See Godden, Commentary, p. 306 for the Augustinian teaching underlying this phrase. Clemoes, First Series, p. 493, lines 222–7. Clemoes, First Series, p. 493, line 227 – p. 494, line 235. Clemoes, First Series, p. 494, lines 236–48. While he does not appear to treat John 15.8 elsewhere, Ælfric does draw the same equation between fruit and good deeds in CH I.35, interpreting Christ’s statement somewhat further in John 15 that ‘ego elegi uos et posui uos ut eatis et fructum adferatis et fructus uester maneat’ (‘I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and your fruit should remain’): ‘wæstm … sind ure godan dæda’ (‘fruit[s] … are our good deeds’ [Clemoes, First Series, p. 302, line 97; John 15.16]). On the role of prayer in Ælfric’s understanding of the relationship between volition and grace, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 172–4 and 179–82.

421

Commentary: De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis Clayton argues that in the related text Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), the direct address to eow mædenum (‘you virgins’ [AH I.8, line 575]) includes monks and nuns.99 Transferred to De sancta uirginitate, however, the address seems directed not to monastic celibates, but to non-monastic ones, particularly the secular priests whose chastity is the subject of much of the Letter to Sigefyrth that Ælfric adapted for this homily (see lines 47–120 and 183–213 above). Save for the scribe’s omission of one phrase in line 300 – believers should bring goodness ‘and sume gode lac’ [‘and some good offering’; AH I.8, line 593] – this passage is identical to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 575–98. We have emended the passage to reflect the original reading. Line 306 [Þam is wuldor and wyrðmynt a to worulde, Amen]: Identical to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), line 599. Ælfric’s closing formula is a common one, being found ten times over the course of his writings; all but one occur at the end of a homily or major homiletic section. The phrase is a variant of one he uses often elsewhere – ‘þam si wuldor and lof a to worulde’ (‘to [Christ] be glory and praise forever’) – on which, see notes to AH I.3 [Lazarus I], line 292, and AH I.4, lines 181–2.

99

‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 295.

422

8

NATIUITAS SANCTAE MARIAE UIRGINIS The birth of the Virgin Mary was the last of the four Marian feasts Ælfric commemorated with a homily.1 He had included in the Catholic Homilies (ca 992) sermons for Mary’s Purification (2 February), the Annunciation (25 March), and her Assumption (15 August),2 but he had refused to write one for her Nativity (8 September). He objected that the story of her birth was apocryphal and that the Gospel reading for the day, Joseph’s genealogy in Matthew 1.1–16, was too hard to expound.3 Then, some fifteen years later, around 1005–6,4 for reasons he never explains, he composed the Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (‘Nativity of the Holy Virgin Mary’) and incorporated it into a revised edition of the First Series.5 It is the only new homily he wrote for this phase of revision,6 and the piece contains his first and last words on the subject such as they are. As Mary Clayton observes, the homily ‘is remarkable in that it almost entirely avoids its supposed subject’.7 Of the sermon’s 597 lines, only the first fifty-three deal directly with the Virgin, and only three of those deal directly with her birth [lines 21–3]. Ælfric begins by resorting to the authority of ‘wise teachers’ to reject the apocrypha surrounding her birth and death [lines 2–10]. Of her earthly life, he mentions only that the righteousness of Mary’s parents allowed them to beget the child who bore the Savior, that Mary was born to be the mother of the incarnate Lord, and that she in turn bore the God-man Christ [lines 11–29]. Ælfric then turns to her feast-day. He explains that the great honors with which Mary came to mankind allow them to come to her for intercession, and he comments on the exceptional nature of celebrating her human birthday when all other saints except John the Baptist and Christ are remembered on the day they were born into eternal life [lines 30–49]. He concludes somewhat summarily by expressing a desire

1 2

3 4 5 6 7

This introduction is deeply indebted to and based almost entirely on the work of Mary Clayton in ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, Cult of the Virgin Mary, and her ‘Changing Fortunes’. For the Purification, see CH I.9 (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 249–57); for the Annunciation, CH I.13 (pp. 281–9); and for the Assumption, CH I.30 (pp. 429–38) and CH II.34 (Godden, Second Series, pp. 255–9). For the note that follows the homily for the Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost (CH II.31), see Godden, Second Series, p. 271. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 113. Clayton speculates that Ælfric might have been acceding to a request for such a homily or was motivated by his own misgivings about Marian apocrypha (Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 245). Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 35. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 296.

423

Introduction: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis to offer some profound ‘holy teaching’ as a form of encouragement on the celebratory feast-day [lines 50–4]. The teaching Ælfric offers focuses on virginity rather than the Virgin, and its contours follow Augustine’s treatise De sancta uirginitate (‘Concerning Holy Virginity’), the title of which supplies a name for part two of the sermon [lines 55–599].8 In fact, as will become clear over the course of the homily, he has the virginal primarily in view. The virgin faith and chaste motherhood of the Church are Ælfric’s first concerns [lines 55–175]. He begins with the reminder that Christ, the Son of God and son of Mary, redeemed mankind and then chose the Church to be his Bride. The Church imitates Mary who bore Christ and yet remained a virgin when the Church gives birth to believers through baptism and yet remains a virgin when she preserves her pure, orthodox belief. Ælfric is careful to point out that while the Church with all its various members cannot maintain its physical virginity as Mary did, it bestows great honor on those who in greater holiness preserve in their bodies the purity that the Church preserves in its faith. With monastic celibates clearly in view, he goes on to explore Mary’s virgin motherhood in more detail [lines 176–225]. As a virgin, Mary exemplifies those who freely vow their virginity to God, the proof of which she offers in her question to the angel Gabriel about how she could be pregnant when she does not have sex [lines 191–9]. As a mother, Mary alone can physically give birth to Christ; however, the faith she had in her son as the Son of God allows other believers to be mothers of Christ by doing the will of his Father, just as Jesus taught [lines 176–86 and 209–17]. Mary’s freely offered vow of chastity leads Ælfric to the subject of various offerings to God [lines 226–89], whether one’s virginity, one’s child as an oblate, or one’s garments for altar cloths and vestments. All must be pure spiritually, morally, or materially: the pledge of chastity intact not broken, the child healthy not sick or lame, the garments new not old and sweaty. Again with his primary audience in view, Ælfric stresses that to offer oneself as a virgin to God is the supreme offering, a holocaust or whole burnt offering. Yet he acknowledges the partial offerings proffered by chaste widows and couples who keep pure their marriage vow, and he delineates the thirty, sixty, and hundred-fold fruit that marriage, widowhood, and virginity respectively yield [lines 290–384]. Because of the virgins’ exalted state, he insists they should bear in mind their need for humility, lest pride diminish their eternal rewards [lines 385–422]. Ælfric distinguishes between the heavenly rewards of virgins and non-virgins, and the different degrees of brilliance with which the righteous will shine according to their different merits, but monastic celibates are uppermost in his mind when he lauds those virgins who forsake private property and live in obedience to a superior [lines 423–506]. Continuing his train of thought regarding heavenly rewards, Ælfric goes on to say that those who receive the highest rewards and shine brightest in heaven can also earn the greatest honors if they exhibit the virtues embodied in the Beatitudes [lines 507–74]. Following Augustine, he arrives at the Beatitudes (Matthew 5.3–10) by way of the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matthew 20.1–16). While all the elect will earn the ‘penny’ of eternal life the landlord paid to laborers hired at different times throughout the day, the mædenum (‘virgins’ [line 575]) Ælfric addresses as at the end of the homily 8

As the commentary demonstrates, Ælfric also drew on about half a dozen other sources while following Augustine in the main.

424

Introduction: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis can earn heaven and heavenly honors if they love the Beatitudes, live wisely, and lead well-disciplined lives [lines 575–99]. Clayton masterfully triangulates Ælfric’s virginal addressees, his use of Augustine’s treatise on virginity, and Mary’s status as ‘a kind of patron-saint’ of reformed Benedictine monasticism9 to read the homily as a protest not against the Virgin but against ‘the excesses of her cult in the monasteries’.10 In writing chiefly for an audience of monks and nuns, Ælfric chooses a source that had been written for groups of virgins, women in this case, but that appears to have had no prior associations with a Marian feast. And by developing Augustine’s parallels between Mary and the Church as virgin mothers, Ælfric sidesteps altogether the accounts of her earthly life chronicled in the Latin Nativity apocrypha that formed the staple ‘pious reading-matter of his monastic confreres’.11 Though he is wary of the apocrypha’s literary excesses and heresies, and dutifully repeats his authorities’ rejection of them, Ælfric nonetheless avers that it is fitting to commemorate Mary’s birth [lines 30–49]. She is worthy of honor and glory as the Savior’s mother. She intercedes with her Son on behalf of all Christians. She provides a means of praising Christ. Moreover, observing her feast-day participates in the tradition of extolling models of virtue, and her human birthday is just one of three that celebrates the significance of the Incarnation in salvation history. Herein may lie Ælfric’s rationale for reversing his original decision. He was satisfied with the result, to judge from his interpolation of a portion of the Nativity homily into his sermon for Mary’s Assumption (AH I.7), assuming that composite homily is his, and from his inclusion of the Nativity homily in a reissue of the First Series preserved in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188 [Q].12 Q is one of the four complete copies of the First Series of the Catholic Homilies13 and a ‘very faithful’ copy of a manuscript that originated in Ælfric’s library or scriptorium.14 Evidence of Q’s origin survives in the form of a Latin note that Ælfric wrote and appended to his homily for the Feast-day of a Confessor (AH II.9). Uniquely preserved in Q, the note records that Ælfric composed the sermon at the request of the bishop of Winchester, Æthelwold 9 10 11

12 13

14

‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 314–15, at p. 315. Cult of the Virgin Mary, pp. 260–5, at p. 264. Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 245. Clayton provides a succinct summary of the contents of the Protoeuangelium, the ultimate source of much of the Nativity apocrypha that circulated in Anglo-Saxon England in a Latin translation of the Protoeuangelium, a rewriting of the Protoeuangelium known as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and a rewriting of Pseudo-Matthew known as the De natiuitate Mariae. She states: ‘The Protoeuangelium deals with Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, and their long period of childlessness, her miraculous conception and birth, her upbringing in the temple until the age of puberty, when she was committed into the care of Joseph, the Annunciation, the birth of Christ, the visit of the Magi and the Massacre of the Innocents’ (Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 3). Ælfric knew at least one of these apocryphal texts because all contain the names of Mary’s parents and the reference to their righteousness according to the Old Law that he includes in the homily [lines 11–15] (‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 288–9). Ker §43.35; Gneuss and Lapidge §58.35; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 227–8. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 227, the other manuscripts being London, British Library, Royal 7 c. xii, fols 4r–218r [A]; London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v [H]; and Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28 [K]. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61. Pope also says of this ‘remarkable volume’ that ‘Q itself is certainly one of the most reliable of the Ælfric manuscripts, with few discoverable errors and a general fidelity to Late West Saxon forms’ (p. 62).

425

Introduction: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis the Younger, and kept a copy for himself. Since Æthelwold II’s tenure lasted from late 1006 or early 1007 to 1012–13,15 Q’s archetype cannot have been written earlier than late 1006.16 By then, Ælfric had enlarged the First Series,17 and his addition of the homily for Mary’s Nativity provided homilies for all four feasts of the Virgin in a single series for the first time.18 Paleographical evidence suggests that Q itself was written in the first half of the eleventh century after Ælfric’s death ca 1010.19 However, its unknown origin and provenance limit speculation about where this homily for monastic celibates might have found an audience. Similar limits apply to the copies of the Nativity homily in two mid-twelfth-century homiliaries, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303 [C]20 and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116 [S].21 It bears remarking, however, that both manuscripts almost certainly originated in monastic cathedral priories where the sermon would have nurtured devotion to the Virgin, C at Rochester and S at Worcester whose church and monastery were dedicated to St Mary.22 Neither cathedral complex included a nunnery, as did Winchester, where it is perhaps easiest to imagine Ælfric’s implied audience assembled from monks of the Old and New Minsters and nuns from the Nunnaminster. As a former monk of Winchester himself, he would have recited a special mass in Mary’s honor every week, would have sought her intercession every day, and may even have prayed daily to the Virgin as the patron saint of the New Minster.23 If so, he would have joined his prayers to 15 16 17

18

19

20 21 22

23

See below, the notes concerning Ælfric’s Latin headnote (vol. II, pp. 514–16). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 62. In addition to the homily for Mary’s Nativity, he added three others within the series: (1) the Hexameron, (2) a homily for the Third Sunday in Lent (SH I.4 [Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 264–80]), and (3) a homily for the Octave of Pentecost (SH I.11 [Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 415–47]) – and appended to the series the homily for the Feast-Day of a Confessor (AH II.9). It is not clear whether Ælfric added to Q’s archetype the now-fragmentary Sermo de die iudicii (SH II.18 [Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 590–609]) that followed the Feast of a Confessor, or if Q included any other sermons (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61). Of the revised and enlarged series, Pope notes that it is also not clear ‘whether Ælfric regarded the archetype of Q as the model for a new edition of the First Series, to be widely circulated in just that form, or merely as a somewhat casual representative of one stage in a gradual process of revision, to serve as an exemplar on demand until some further change occurred to him’ (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 61–2). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61. The note appended to the Feast-day of a Confessor furnishes the latest written evidence that Ælfric could have lived until 1012–13, when Æthelwold II, the recipient of Ælfric’s homily, died. Ker §57.27; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 210–11. Ker §333.10; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 230. The dedication of Worcester cathedral and monastery appears to have been changed from Peter to Mary during the monastic revival in the 960s, a single example of a larger phenomenon by which ‘Marian dedications seem to have become almost an obligatory feature of the English monasteries’ (Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, pp. 132–3, at p. 132). These observances were prescribed in the rule for the reformed monasteries known as the Regularis Concordia, which was written by Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester (963–84), Æthelwold the Younger’s namesake and Ælfric’s beloved teacher, who daily recited a private service of the Virgin and whose Benedictional contains miniatures that draw on Marian apocrypha (Clayton, ‘Changing Fortunes’, p. 89, and, for a fuller account, Cult of the Virgin Mary, pp. 62–5 [Regularis Concordia] and 159–65 [Benedictional of St Æthelwold]). Along with SS Andrew and Eadburg, the Virgin Mary was included as a dedicatee of the monastery at Eynsham where Ælfric would serve as abbot ca 1002 × 1005 – ca 1010 (Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, p. 128).

426

Introduction: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis those of the nuns whose minster was dedicated to Mary too. His education and spiritual formation at a place where her cult was the ‘focus of intense interest’ may have helped him find his uniquely ‘cautionary voice’ among contemporary homilists regarding Marian apocrypha. And it may have been that his Winchester roots and connections also led him to reverse course and commemorate Mary’s Nativity over a decade after initially refusing to do so.24

24

Clayton, ‘Changing Fortunes’, pp. 92 and 96, respectively.

427

natiuitas sanctae mariae uirginis

the nativity of the holy virgin mary

NATIUITAS SANCTAE MARIAE UIRGINIS VI idus septembris. Natiuitas sanctae Mariae

5

10

15

20

Men ða leofostan, we synd gemyngode þurh ðyses dæges wurðmynt, þe we wurðiað to lofe þære eadigan Marian, eow nu to secgenne sum ðing be hyre, be þam ðe us to onhagað. Ac we nellað secgan be þære gesetnysse of ðam gedwylde þe gedwolmen setton by hyre acennednysse, for ðan þe hyt tocwædon þa wisan lareowas, and be hyre forðsiðe, þe ða halgan boceras forbudon to secgenne. Ioachim wæs gehaten hyre halga fæder and Anna hyre modor, under Moyses lagae ælice lybbende on eallre eawfæstnysse swa swa se mæra æsyllend Moyses bebead on his ælicum bocum æfter Godes dihte. Him geuðe þa God, þe ealle ðing gediht, þæt hi þæt bearn begeaton þe abær urne Hælend, Marian þa eadigan of Abrahames cynne and of Iudan mægðe | þæs mæran cynecynnes Dauides ofspringes, us eallum to hæle. And heo wearð acenned þæt heo com to mannum on ðysum andweardan dæge ures Drihtnes modor on his menniscnysse, þe he us mid alysde. Q Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188, pp. 357–374 (s. xi1, perhaps xi2/4, provenance Hereford Cathedral? [Gneuss and Lapidge §58]) Variants from: C Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303, pp. 132–41 (s. xii1 or s. xiimed, probably Rochester) H lines 507–99 only, London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v, 184rv (added in s. xi1, SW England) [edited above as De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 214–307] S

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116, pp. 152–179 (s. xii1)

1 VI idus septembris. Natiuitas sanctae Mariae] Sermo de natiuitate sanctae marie matris domini. VI idus Septembris C; Natiuitas sanctae marie uirginis S  5 sum ðing be hyre] be hire sum þincg C  12 modor] with first ‘o’ (in a different hand?) written over an erased ‘e’ Q; modor C lagae] lare C  18 of Abrahames cynne] omitted C  20 hæle] hælende C  22 on] of S 

430

p. 358

THE NATIVITY OF THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY 8 September. Nativity of Saint Mary

5

10

15

20

Most beloved, we are reminded by the dignity of this day, which we honor in praise of the blessed Mary, to tell you now something about her, as it befits us. But we do not wish to speak about the account derived from the heresy that heretics wrote about her birth, for wise teachers have prohibited it, or about her death, which holy authors have forbidden to be told. Her holy father was named Joachim and her mother Anna, living lawfully under the law of Moses in all obedience just as the great lawgiver Moses commanded in his Ten Commandments according to God’s direction. Then God, who directs all things, allowed them to beget the child who bore our Savior, the blessed Mary from Abraham’s line and from the lineage of Judah of the glorious royal house of David’s offspring, as the salvation for us all. And she was born to come to mankind on this present day [as] the mother of our Lord in his humanity, through which he redeemed us.

431

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

And eac his godcundnyss wæs on þære menniscnysse to anum soðan Criste of hyre acenned, æfre unbegunnen on ðære godcundnysse, þeah ðe his menniscnyss of Marian ongunne, þurh hyne sylfne gesceapen, se ðe gesceop his modor þæt heo hyne gebære butan weres gemanan. Nu is ðes dæg gehalgod hyre to wurðmynte on eallum Cristendome for hyre acennednysse swa swa heo com to mannum for hyre micclum geðingðum, and we on halgum lofsangum hyre mærða cyðað þæt heo us þingige to hyre agenum suna þæt he us miltsige for ðære mærsunge þe we hyre gedoð him eac to lofe. Oðra halgena tid and heora freolsdagas we habbað on gemynde mid urum lofsangum on ðam dagum, þe hi forðferdon oððe for Gode ofslagene and swa gesiðodon gesælige to Criste, of heora geswincum to orsorhnysse, fram deofles ehtnyssum to þam ecum wuldre, fram eallum costnungum to ealre glædnysse. Ac we ne healdað nateshwon nanes halgan acennednysse on urum gemynde, hu hi to mannum comon, buton Cristes anes and his clænan meder and þæs halgan Iohannes þe hine gefullode. Heora gebyrdtida beoð on bocum gesette for ðam micclum mærðum mancynnes alysednysse. Nu wylle we eow secgan sum ðing | eow to lare for ðises dæges mærðe þe eow mage to trymmincge, gif ge þa halgan lare gehyran wyllað and hyre deopnysse on diglum andgite undernyman wyllað on incundre heortan. Incipit De sancta uirginitate. Se halga Hælend Crist and se heofenlica æþeling of his ælmihtigan Fæder wæs æfre acenned butan ælcere meder on ðære micclan Godcundnysse. And he is se eca Wisdom of þam wisan Fæder, þurh þone he gesceop ealle gesceafta ge ða gesewenlican ge þa ungesewenlican. Se ylca Hælend syððan on þære syxtan ylde þyssere worulde wearð to men geboren 25 soðan] omitted C  27 ongunne] agunne C  32 heo] he C  33 cyðað] cyðan C  39 ofslagene] ofsloge C  44 nateshwon] naht C  50 eow1] omitted C  55 Incipit De sancta uirginitate] omitted C  56 halga] omitted C  59 he] omitted C 

432

p. 359

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

And his divine nature also existed in that human form as the one true Christ born of her, eternally without beginning in [his] divine nature, though his humanity would originate from Mary, created by Him who made his mother to bring him forth without intercourse with a man. Now this day is consecrated in her honor throughout all Christendom on account of her birth just as she came to humanity on account of her many excellencies, and in holy songs of praise we make known her glory so that she may intercede for us with her own son to have mercy on us on account of the celebration that we have in praise of her and him too. On the anniversary of other saints and their feast-days, we remember with our songs of praise those who have died or were killed for God and thus departed blessed to Christ from their toil to safety, from the devil’s persecution to everlasting glory, from all temptations to every joy. But we do not remember anyone’s birth, how they were born, except Christ’s and his pure mother’s and that of Saint John who baptized him. Their birthdays are recorded in books on account of the great glories of mankind’s redemption. Now we desire to say something to you by way of instruction with respect to the glory of this day that may be an encouragement to you, if you want to hear the holy teaching and want to receive the depth of its difficult meaning in [your] inmost heart. Here begins ‘Concerning Holy Virginity’. The holy Savior Christ and the heavenly prince of his almighty Father was eternally begotten without any mother in the great Godhead. And he is the everlasting Wisdom of the wise Father, through whom [the Father] created all creatures both visible and invisible. Later in the sixth age of this world, that same Savior was born as human being

433

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

of Marian þam mædene for mancynnes alysednysse butan eorðlican fæder on Bethleem byrig, soð man and soð God, gesewenlic mid mannum. He gebohte eall mancynn mid his agenum life for þan ðe we wæron forwyrhte to helle. Ac us alysde se Hælend mid his halgan blode of þam ecan þeowte þæs ealdan deofles. He geceas þa him sylfum, swa swa us secgað bec, þa halgan Gelaðunge him sylfum to bryde, þæt is eall Godes folc þe on God nu gelyfð mid soðum geleafan, ge læwede ge gehadode, ge wæpmen ge wimmen, cnihtas and mædenu. Ealle hi synd gehatene on halgum bocum Godes sylfes Gelaþung for ðan ðe we synd gelaðode þurh þone leofan Hælend to his heofonlican rice þurh his halwendan tocyme, be þam sang se sealmwyrhta, þisum wordum secgende, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, et cetera: ‘He gesette on ðære sunnan his scinende geteld, and he sylf forðstop syððan witodlice swa swa | ænlic brydguma of his brydbedde’. Iohannes se fulluhtere be þam ylcan cwæþ, ‘Qui habet sponsam, sponsus est’: ‘“Se ðe hæfð bryde, he is se brydguma”’. On þære halgan bec þe hatte Apocalipsis, is oft geswutelod þæt se soða Hælend is se gastlica brydguma Godes Gelaðunge, þurh ða he gestrynð, þurh staðolfæstne geleafan on þam halgan fulluhte and on his cyrcan, þ/a\ gastlican cild þe to Gode becumað gif hi heora fulluht forðhealdað on ðeawum. Ðurh þone halgan geleafan heo is him beweddod, ure ealra modor, and heo is mæden swa þeah æfre ungewemmed þonne heo æfre þurhwunað on Godes geleafan and nele abugan to nanum hæðenscipe fram þæs Hælendes geleafan, fram hyre brydguman to bysmorfullum deofolgylde, ne to wiccecræfte, ne to wiglungum mid nanum gedwylde fram hyre Drihtne ahwar. Heo is an culfre gecweden on bocum for ðære bylewitnysse þæs beorhtan geleafan,

65 byrig] þære byrig C  69 halgan] corrected from halgum (?) Q  73 gelyfð] belefð C  87 se2] omitted C  91 þurh ða he gestrynð] omitted S  95 heo] omitted C 

434

p. 360

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

of the Virgin Mary for mankind’s redemption without an earthly father in the city of Bethlehem, true man and true God, visible among humanity. He bought all mankind with his own life because we were damned to hell. Nevertheless, the Savior redeemed us with his holy blood from everlasting servitude to the old devil. He then chose for himself, just as books declare to us, the holy Church as his own bride, which is all God’s people who now believe in God with true faith, both lay and cleric, both men and women, boys and girls. All those are called the Church of God in holy books because we are invited by the beloved Savior to his heavenly kingdom through his salutary advent, about which the psalmist sang, saying these words, In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, et cetera:1 ‘He set his shining tent in the sun, and he afterwards stepped forth truly like a peerless bridegroom from his marriage bed’. John the Baptist said about the same [idea], ‘Qui habet sponsam, sponsus est’:2 ‘“He who has the bride is the bridegroom”’. In the holy book called the Apocalypse, [it] is often revealed that the true Savior is the spiritual bridegroom of God’s Church, through which he begets, by means of firmly established faith in holy baptism and his Church, spiritual children who come to God if they hold to their baptism in [their] way of life. Through holy belief she is betrothed to him, the mother of us all, and she nevertheless remains a virgin forever undefiled when she continually abides in faith in God and never desires to turn away to any heathen practice from faith in the Savior, from her bridegroom to shameful idolatry, not to witchcraft, not to sorcery with any heresy from her Lord in any way. She is called a dove in books on account of the purity of [her] radiant faith, 1

2

Psalms 19.4b–5a (Vetus Latina 18.6): ‘In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, et ipse tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo’ (‘He has set his tent in the sun, and himself is like a bridegroom coming from his bridechamber’). John 3.29: ‘“Qui habet sponsam sponsus est”’ (‘“He who has the bride is the bridegroom”’).

435

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

þe ða Cristenan men for Cristes lufe healdaþ. And heo is cwen gehaten swa swa Cristes agen bryd, be þam sang se witega, þisum wordum cweðende, Adstitit regina a dextris tuis, et cetera: ‘Seo cwen stent soðlice on ðinre swyþran hand on ofergyldum reafe’, þæt synd þa godan weorc, ‘ænlice embscryd eall mid fahnyssum’, þæt syndon hyre mihta and menigfealde geearnunga þe seo halige Gelaðung habban sceal for Gode on manegum godum mannum þe heo Gode acenð þurh soðne geleafan symle on clænnysse on gastlicere acennednysse binnan Godes Cyrcan. And ealle Godes cyrcan synd to | anre getealde, and seo is seo Gelaðung þe we embe sprecað. Seo asent hyre cild to þam soðan life of þyssere earfoðnysse þe we on wuniað, of þisum sceortan life up to þam ecan, þær þær hi æfre wuniað on ðære ecan Gelaðunge. Nu syndon ealle Cristene men anum naman gehatene, ge weras ge wif and ða unwittigan cild, seo halige Gelaðung, þe gelyfð nu on God. And heo is mæden gehaten for þam micclan geleafan and for þam soðan truwan þe heo symle hæfð to Gode, þæt heo nele forlætan Godes geleafan næfre ne oðerne wer wolice geceosan, ac hylt þone sincipe þæs soðan Hælendes on gastlicum þeawum and on gastlicum bearnteame, on clænnysse wunigende swa swa Cristes bryd. Þeah ðe sume habbon, æfter Godes gesetnysse, woruldlicne sinscipe, wunigende ætgædere for bearnes gestreone, ac hi beoð swa ðeah on Godes Gelaðunge, on gastlicum andgite, Cristes agene limu gif hi lybbað rihtlice. Be þam cwæþ Paulus eac to eallum geleaffullum, Disponsaui uos uni uiro, uirginem castam exhibere Christo: ‘Ic beweddode eow anum clænum were þæt ge an clæne mæden gearcion Criste’. Her ge gehyrað hu he het eall folc, þæt is seo Gelaðung ðe on God gelyfð, an clæne mæden, Cristes sylfes byrd,

108 tuis et cetera] tuis in uestitu deaurato circumdata uarietate C  111 embscryd] embescryd S  117 And] omitted C  119 asent] asænde C  126 And] omitted C is] wæs C  128 næfre] æfre C  138 to] be C  139 Disponsaui] Desponsaui CS 

436

p. 361

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

which Christians preserve for Christ’s sake. And she is called a queen as Christ’s own bride, about which the prophet sang, speaking these words, Adstitit regina a dextris tuis, et cetera:3 ‘The queen truly stood at your right hand in gilded clothes’, which are good works, ‘all splendidly clothed in varieties of color’, which are her virtues and abundant merits that the holy Church ought to have for God among the many good people whom she bears for God in true faith perpetually in virginity by means of spiritual birth into the Church of God. And all the churches of God are considered as one, and she is the Church about which we speak. She sends her children to the true life out of this affliction in which we live, from this short life up to the everlasting [one], there where they dwell forever in the everlasting Church. Now all Christians, both men and women and unlearned children, are called by one name, the holy Church, which now believes in God. And she is called a virgin on account of the great belief and on account of the true faith that she always has in God, so that she never wishes to forsake belief in God or falsely choose another husband, but preserves the marriage of the true Savior with spiritual habits and spiritual childbearing, living in chastity as Christ’s bride. Though some may have, according to God’s ordinance, an earthly marriage, living together for the procreation of a child, they are, nevertheless, in the Church of God, in a spiritual sense, Christ’s own limbs if they live properly. Paul also said about them to all believers, Disponsaui uos uni uiro, uirginem castam exhibere Christo:4 ‘I betrothed you to a chaste husband so that you might present a chaste virgin to Christ’. Here you hear how he called all people, that is the Church who believes in God, a chaste virgin, Christ’s own bride, 3 4

Psalms 45.9b (Vetus Latina 44.10): ‘Astitit regina a dextris tuis in uestitu deaurato, circumdata uarietate’ (‘The queen stood by your right hand in golden clothing, surrounded with colored attire’). Compare 2 Corinthians 11.2: ‘Despondi enim uos uni uiro uirginem castam exhibere Christo’ (‘For I have espoused you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ’).

437

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

na on galnysse ac on gastlicere clænnysse. And se apostol beweddode witodlice þæt mæden þam Hælende Criste þurh ðone halgan geleafan þa ða he him geleafan tæhte, hu hi gelyfdon on God, and he hi gefullode mid þam fæstan wedde þæt hi ðurhwunedon swa þurh his wissunge. And we synd gewissode þurh his gewrita git for ðan ðe his lar becom to eallum | lareowum and he is gehaten ealra þeoda lareow. Nu syndon ða men swiðe wurðfulle ðe on mægðhade wuniað sylwilles for Gode, þe healdað on lichaman þæt þæt eall seo Gelaðung þurh geleafan hylt. And heo swa geefenlæcð hire weres meder þe wunede on mægðhade and Crist þeah gebær on hyre clænan bosme. Swa is eac seo Gelaðung þurh geleafan mæden and on gastlicere cenninge acenð dæghwamlice micelne bearnteam on eallum middanearde. Maria acende Crist lichamlice, ure ealra heafod, and seo halige Gelaðung acenð gastlice Cristes lima oð ðis. On ægþrum is mægðhad and eac swylce bearnteam, and se bearnteam ne wanode ne ne awyrde þone mægðhad naþor ne on Marian ne on Godes Gelaðunge. Seo Gelaðung is halig on lichaman and on gaste, ac heo /n\is na eall mæden swa þeah on lichaman. Ac heo is swa þeah mæden soðlice on gaste. And heo is eall halig for þam halgan geleafan, and heo is swiðor halig on þam halgum mannum þe on mægðhade wuniað on lichaman and on gaste. On Cristesbec is awriten þæt his modor com him to and his siblingas. Þa sæde him man þæt, þæt hi ðær ute stodon and in ne mihton to him for þære micclan meni/g\u þe him ða mid wæs. Ac he andwyrde sona þam secgendum þus, ‘“La, hwa is min modor oððe hwa synd mine gebroðra?”’ He astrehte þa his hand ofer his apostolas, ðus him secgende, ‘“Her synd mine gebroðra and eac min modor. And ælc ðra þe wyrcð mines Fæder willan þe wunað on heofonum, se bið min broþor and swustor and modor”’.

152 git] get gelærde C  156 sylwilles] sylwilles Q; sylfwilles S; selfwilles C  161 eac] omitted C  162 acenð] acenned C  168 se] omitted C  171 swa þeah on lichaman] on lichama swa þeah C  175 wuniað] wuneð C  178 and in] and he in C  184 And] omitted C ðra] ðera Q; þære C; þera S  186 se] he C

438

p. 362

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

not in lust but in spiritual chastity. And the apostle truly betrothed that virgin to the Savior Christ by means of holy faith when he taught them the faith, how they were to believe in God, and [when] he baptized them with a firm promise so that they thus persevered by means of his guidance. And we are guided through his writings still because his teaching came to all teachers and he is called the teacher of all nations. Now those people are honored exceedingly who willingly remain chaste for God, who keep with the body what all the Church keeps through faith. And she thus imitates the mother of her husband who remained chaste and yet bore Christ in her pure womb. So too is the Church a virgin by means of belief and in spiritual birth daily brings forth many offspring into the whole world. Mary gave birth physically to Christ, the head of us all, and the holy Church gives birth spiritually to Christ’s limbs up to now. With each [there] is virginity and also childbearing, and the childbearing did not diminish, nor may it corrupt, the virginity either in Mary or God’s Church. The Church is holy in body and in spirit, but she is nevertheless not wholly a virgin in body. But she is, however, truly a virgin in spirit. And she is entirely holy on account of holy belief, and she is more holy among the holy people who live chastely in body and in spirit. In the Gospels, [it] is written that [Christ’s] mother and his siblings came to him. Then someone told him that they stood there outside and were not able [to approach] him on account of the large crowd that was with him at the time. But he replied immediately to the one speaking in this way, ‘“Who is my mother and who are my brothers?”’ He then stretched out his hand over his apostles, addressing him thus, ‘“Here are my brothers and my mother too. And each of those who works the will of my Father who lives in heaven is my brother and sister and mother”’.

439

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

Eadig is Maria þæt heo his modor is, ac heo is eadigere þurh his geleafan, þæt heo on hine gelyfð, | þæs lyfiendan Godes Sunu, and heo hine on mode hæfð, þone þe heo to men gebær. Heo behet Gode hyre mæghad æt fruman, þæt heo lybban wolde hyre lif on mægðhade sylfwilles for Gode, na for neadunge. God sende hyre ða to Gabrihel his heahengel, þæt he hire cydde Cristes acennednysse þurh hyre innoð. And heo him andwyrde þus, ‘“Hu mæg ðis gewurðan þonne Ic weres ne bruce?”’ And heo mid þysum wordum witodlice cydde þæt heo hæfde behaten hyre mægðhad Gode. God mihte hi hatan þæt heo heolde hyre mægþhad to swilcere acennednysse, ac wæs swa þeah hyre willa mærlicor þæt heo wolde hyre sylf hyre mægðhad behatan þam heofonlican Gode ær ðan þe heo wiste hwæne heo acennan sceolde and wæs Gode gehalgod be hyre agenum cyre, na swylce geneadod mid nanre hæse eallum mædenum to bysne, þe on mode geceosað, þæt hi for Cristes lufon on clænnysse þurhwunion. Ne magon oðre mædenu on heora mode ceorian hwi hi moddru næron and eac swilce mædenu, for ðan ðe Maria sceolde swilcne wurðmynt habban þæt heo modor wære o/n\ clænum mægþhade þonne heo þone acende þe næfde him gelicne. And se ylca is ealra mædena wurðmynt þe hine lufiað gehaldenre clænnysse, and hi magon beon Cristes moddru eac gif hi wyrcað on life his Fæder willan. Eall Cristes Gelaðung is Cristes modor for ðan ðe heo acenð Cristes sylfes lima þurh ða halgan gife on ðam halgan fulluhte. And Maria is his modor lichamlice and gastlice his swustor and soðlice his modor. And heo is ana forði modor and mæden, modor | lichamlice and modor gastlice, lichamlice heo ana and gastlice gemænelice. Se mægðhad is gemæne ægþrum cnihtum and mædenum 191 mæghad] mæghad Q; mægðhad C; mægðhat S  193 neadunge] ænigre neadunge C  195 hire] ‘i’ altered to ‘y’ Q  196 And] þæt C  197 gewurðan] gewurdon C  201–2 ac wæs … mærlicor] ac hire wille wæs swa þeah mærlicor C  204 þe] omitted C  210 and] omitted C eac swilce mædenu] ‘i’ of ‘swilce’ altered to ‘y’ Q; eac swilce C  211 swilcne] ‘i’ altered to ‘y’ Q  219 heo] he C acenð] cænð C  223 And] omitted C mæden] moder for þam heo hine gebær, mæden for þam heo wæs ungewæmmed on lichamlicre tydernesse C  226 ægþrum] ægþrum ge C and] ge C 

440

p. 363

p. 364

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

225

Mary is blessed that she is his mother, but she is more blessed on account of faith in him, to believe in him, Son of the living God, and to hold in [her] heart him whom she brought forth as a human being. She pledged her chastity to God in the beginning, desiring to live her life in virginity willingly for God, not on account of compulsion. God then sent her Gabriel his archangel to make known to her Christ’s birth through her womb. And she replied to him in this way, ‘“How can this happen when I do not have sexual relations with a man?”’ And with these words she truly made known that she had promised her virginity to God. God could have called her to preserve her virginity for such a birth, but yet more glorious was her desire to want to promise her virginity to the God of heaven before she knew to whom she should give birth and [that she] was consecrated to God through her own choice, not compelled thus by any command as an example to all virgins who choose in [their] heart to persevere in chastity for Christ’s sake. Other virgins cannot complain in their heart that they were not mothers and also virgins, because Mary was destined to have such honor as to be a mother in pure virginity when she gave birth to him who had no equal. And this same [honor] is the honor of all virgins who love him with [their] chastity preserved, for they too can be Christ’s mothers if they work the will of his Father while they live. The whole of Christ’s Church is Christ’s mother because she gives birth to Christ’s own limbs by means of holy grace in holy baptism. And Mary is his mother physically and spiritually his sister but truly his mother. And she alone is thus mother and virgin, a mother physically and a mother spiritually, physically only she but spiritually conjointly [with the Church]. Virginity is common to both young men and young women

441

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

þe clænlice lybbað æfre fram cildhade oð ende heora lifes for Cristes lufon, swa swa þa clænan munecas doð and ða clænan mynecena on mynstrum gehwær wide geond þas woruld, swa swa hit awriten is on Uita Patrum and on fela bocum be manegum þusendum on mynstrum and on westenum. Se mægðhad sceal þurh ðæs modes godnysse Gode beon geoffrod be his agenum cyre þæt seo lac beo leofre þam lyfiendan Hælende þe him bið behaten þurh halige drohtnunge and him wel gelæst þurh his lifes clænnysse þonne he wære gif he unðances wære. Ne magon na ealle men beon anes modes ne anre geearnunge ætforan þam Ælmihtigan, swa swa Paulus sæde, ealra þeoda lareow: ‘Anra gehwylc hæfð syndrige gife of Gode, sume þas gife, sume oðre gife’. Ac se ðe æne behæt þam Hælende his clænnysse and ðæt syðþan awægð, he bið scyldig wið God þæs clænan behates þe he Gode behet for ðan ðe God ne bið næfre bepæht. Gif gehadod mæden hi sylfe forligð, heo mæg to Gode gecyrran mid soðre dædbote, ac heo ne wyrð næfre eft syððan mæden, ne heo næfð þone wurðmynt þæs hundfealdan wæstms, mæg swa þeah ætwindan þam hellicum witum mid soðre behreowsunge and geswicennysse. Ða ðe on sinscipe wuniað and embe þæt hogiað, þæt hi heora bearnteam gebringon to Criste þurh þæt halige fulluht and ðone halgan geleafan, þa moton geoffrian | heora cild Gode to þære clænnysse and Cristes þeowdome, swa swa Abraham dyde, se ealda heahfæder þe geoffrode /Gode\ Isaac his sunu, and þæt wife Anna ðe geoffrode Samuhel, and fela oðre men ðe we ne magon nam/i\an. And ða bearn sceolon beon Gode gehyrsume to þan ðe heora magas hi gemynton and beheton. Sume men wyllað wolice betæcan heora laðostan cild to Godes lareowdome, 231 Uita] uitas CS  236 leofre] þe leofre C  237 þe] þæt C behaten] gehaten C  241 Ælmihtigan] ælmihtigan gode C  245 se ðe] se C  252 wæstms] wæstmas Q; wæstmes CS  253 mæg] ac mæg C hellicum] ilcan C  254 and] omitted C  259 þeowdome] þeowdomes C  261 /Gode\] omitted C  263 nam/i\an] næmnian C  264 And] omitted C  266 betæcan] bepæcen C 

442

p. 365

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

230

235

240

245

250

255

260

265

who perpetually live chastely from childhood to the end of their lives for Christ’s sake, just as chaste monks and chaste nuns do in monasteries far and wide throughout the world, just as it is written in the Lives of the Fathers and in a great number of books about many thousands in monasteries and in wastelands. Chastity ought to be offered to God by choice on account of innate virtue so that the offering promised to him through a holy way of life and thoroughly carried out for him through the purity of one’s life will be dearer to the living Savior than [the chastity] would be if it were unwilling. Not all men can be of one mind or one merit in the sight of the Almighty, just as Paul, the teacher of all the nations, said: ‘Each one has an individual gift from God, one this gift, one another gift’. But he who first promises the Savior his chastity and later repudiates it is guilty against God for the pure promise he promised to God because God is never deceived. If a consecrated virgin fornicates, she can turn to God with true penance, but she will never become a virgin afterwards, nor will she have the honor of the hundred-fold fruit, though [she] can escape hellish punishments with true repentance and cessation. Those who live in marriage and take care to bring their offspring to Christ by means of holy baptism and holy belief can then offer their children to God in chastity and the service of Christ, just as Abraham did, the Patriarch who offered his son Isaac to God, and [as did] the married woman Hannah who offered Samuel, and [as did] many other people whom we are not able to name. And the children ought to be obedient to God to the end that their parents intended and promised them. Some people shamefully desire to dedicate their least cherished children to God’s instruction,

443

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

ac hi ne geefenlæcað na Abrahame þam heahfædere þe his leofran sunu to lace geoffrode Gode ælmihtigum uppan his weofode, ne eac hi ne geefenlæcað Annan þam wife þe hyre yldestan sunu swa swa heo ær behet Gode betæhte to his ðenungum. Gode man sceal don mid glædnysse æfre þa betstan behat swa swa se witega bebead, Malachias gefyrn under Moyses lage, Maledictus dolosus, qui immolat debile Domino, et cetera: ‘Awyrged bið se facenfulla þe wyle Gode geoffrian wanhal oððe blind oððe witodlice healt and hæfð him æt ham þa halan him sylf’. Eallswa be mæssereafe þe sume menn maciað of heora eald claðum þe beoð eal on swate þonne God sylf bebead soðlice Moysen þæt he niwe gyrlan þe ær to note næron gesceope to reafe þam sacerde Aaron. Gif hwa wyle wyrcan weofodsceatas Gode oððe oðre reaf of his ealdum claðum, gesylle þa ealdan and geceapige niwe þæt hi to huxlice to his lacum ne beon. Micel geoffrað Gode þe hine sylfne geoffrað. Þæt synd ða mæstan lac þe man mæg geoffrian – þæt he holocaustum beo, þæt is, eall Godes lac, swa swa þa clænan | doð þe dæghwamlice campiað wið ða ungesewenlican and ða swicolan fynd and wið unlustas, gelærede ðurh Crist. Hi beoð Cristes martyras þurh ða micclan drohtnunge, na æne gemartirode ac oft digollice, swa swa Hieronimus, se wisa trahtnere, be swylcum mannum awrat on sumum sealmtrahte. Þa ðe on sinscipe beoð and on asettum timan hi to Gode gebiddað swa swa se apostol bebead, hi bringað sume lac þam leofan Drihtne, ac hi ne beoð na eallunga his holocaustum, þæt is, eall his lac, ac heora ælmyssan sceolon hi fram gyltum aþwean, swa swa Godes witega cwæþ, ‘swa swa wæter adwæsct witodlice þæt fyr, swa adwæscð seo ælmysse ure synna fram us’.

268 na] naht C  277 qui immolat] qui habet in grege suo masculum et uotum faciens immolat C et cetera] omitted C  282 eald] ealdan QS; ealdum C  284 to] æt C  288 geceapige] gebycge C  294 ða ungesewenlican and] omitted C; þa ungesegenlican and S  296 micclan] munuclican CS  297 æne] ænes C  300 asettum] gesettan C  303 beoð] bið C 

444

p. 366

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

270

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

but they do not imitate Abraham the Patriarch who offered his more beloved son to God Almighty as an offering upon his altar, nor moreover do they imitate the married woman Hannah who dedicated her oldest son to the service of God as she had earlier promised. One should always with gladness promise the best to God, just as the prophet Malachi long ago commanded in subjection to the law of Moses, Maledictus dolosus, qui immolat debile Domino, et cetera:5 ‘Cursed is the deceitful one who desires to offer to God the weak or blind or indeed the lame and keeps at home the healthy one for himself’. Likewise, some people make mass-vestments from their old clothes that are all covered in sweat when God in fact commanded Moses to make as clothing for the priest Aaron new garments that had not already been used. If anyone desires to make from his old clothes altar cloths or other vestments for God, sell the old ones and buy new ones so that they will not be too contemptible as offerings for him. He who offers himself offers God much. Those are the greatest offerings one can offer – to be a holocaust, that is, God’s whole burnt offering, just as the chaste ones offer who daily wage war against invisible and deceitful demons and against sinful desires, instructed by Christ. They are Christ’s martyrs by means of living an excellent life, not martyred once but often, imperceptibly, just as Jerome, the wise commentator, wrote about such people in a certain exposition on the psalms. Those who are married and pray to God at set times as the apostle commanded bring a certain offering to the beloved Lord, but they are not wholly his sacrifice, that is, his whole burnt offering, but their almsgiving will cleanse them from sins, just as God’s prophet said, ‘as water truly puts out fire, so almsgiving extinguishes our sins in us’. 5

Compare Malachi 1.14: ‘“Maledictus dolosus qui habet in grege suo masculum et uotum faciens immolat debile Domino quia rex magnus ego dicit Dominus exercituum et nomen meum horribile in gentibus”’ (‘“Cursed is the deceitful person who has a male [sheep] in his flock, and when making a vow offers a crippled [or ‘weak’] one as a sacrifice to the Lord, for I am a great king”, says the Lord of Hosts, “and my name is fearsome among the nations”’).

445

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

Nu cweþað sume men hwi God gescyppan wylle of þam dyrnum forligrum ænig lybbende cild þonne nan cild ne bið buton þa ðe God gescypð on sawle and on lichaman swa swa he gesceop Adam. Ic acsige þone man nu anes þinges: gif hwa forstelð hwæte and þæt forstolene sæwð, hwæt ah þæt corn geweald þæt hit wearp se sædere mid unclænre handa on ða clænan moldan, oððe hwi sceolde se eorðe hyre wæstmas ofteon þam unscyldig/u\m sæde for ðam scyldigan sædere þonne God wyrcð oft micel to gode of manna unrædum þurh his micclan godnysse, swa swa on bocum stent fela bysna be þam? And ælc sawul bið gesceapen þurh God and ælces mannes lichama þe on life bið cucu. And se ðe elles gelyfð, he gelyfð gedwylde. Nu ne sceolon þa mædenu heora moddru forseon of ðam ðe hi comon, þeah ðe hi clæne beon on mægðhade lybbende | and heora moddra beo wif, for ðan ðe þa heahfæderas halige wæron and heora wif heriendlice on halgum gewritum, sidefulle on ðeawum and syferlice lybbende and on Godes bletsunge bearn strynende, swa swa wæs Abraham and his gebedda Sarra. Seo wæs untymende oð ðæt hundnigonteoþe gear, and God him þa behet þæt hi habban sceoldon sunu Isaac gehaten, and se wæs gebletsod þurh þone soðan God swiðe gesæliglice. Eft Isaaces wif, Rebecca gehaten, wæs untymende twentig wintra mid hyre gebeddan. Þa bæd Isaac þone ælmihtigan God, þæt he him bearn forgeafe, and his wif syððan wearð mid getwysan, Esau and Iacob, and heo geswac ða teames. Hit wæs wundorlic ðing, þæt God wolde behaten þurh þone Isaac us eallum bletsunge and ðurh his ofspring eallum mancynne hæle and his wif swa ðeah wæs swa untymende oð ðæt Isaac abæd hyre bearnteames. On þam geswutelode God þæt we sceolon biddan his mildheortnysse æfre to his agenum bebodum 312 acsige] axra C  313 þæt] omitted S  314 wearp] omitted S  316 se] se Q; seo CS  317 unscyldig/u\m] with ‘u’ written above ‘a’ Q  319 unrædum] unwædum C godnysse] godcundnesse C  320 stent] synd geset swa  323 And] omitted C  326 beo] beoð Q; beon CS  329 and] omitted C 

446

p. 367

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

310

315

320

325

330

335

340

345

Now some people ask why God is willing to create any living child from secret fornication when no children come into existence except those whom God creates in soul and body just as he created Adam. I will now ask that person one thing: if anyone steals wheat and sows what he stole, what has power over the grain that the sower cast with unclean hands into the clean ground, or why ought the earth withdraw its crops from the innocent seed on account of the guilty sower when God often works much for good from the folly of men through his great goodness, many examples of which are recorded in books? For every soul is created by God and [so] is the body of every person who is endowed with life in the world. And he who believes otherwise believes heresy. Now virgins ought not despise their mothers from whom they came, though they are pure living in virginity and their mothers are wives, because the Patriarchs were holy and their wives praiseworthy in the holy scriptures, living chastely and purely in [their] way of life and producing children with God’s blessing, as was Abraham and his wife Sarah. She was barren until [her] ninetieth year, and God then promised them that they would have a son named Isaac, and he was very blessedly endowed with favor by the true God. Isaac’s wife too, named Rebecca, was barren twenty years with her husband. Then Isaac asked the almighty God to give them a child, and afterwards his wife was with twins, Esau and Jacob, and she then ceased from childbearing. It was a miraculous thing that God desired to promise us all a blessing through Isaac and salvation for all mankind through his offspring and his wife though [she] was thus barren until Isaac prayed for her childbearing. Through that God revealed that we always ought to ask for his mercy in accordance with his own decrees

447

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

þæt we hi gefyllan magon þurh his agenne fultum, for ðan ðe we butan him naht to Gode ne gedoð. Eallswa Iacobes wif, Rachel geciged, twentig wintra wunode mid hyre were fullice ær ðan ðe heo cild hæfde, and hyre syððan forgeaf se ælmihtiga Scyppend hire sunu Iosep and syðþan Beniamin, swa swa bec secgað. Helchana se ealda and Anna his wif wæron butan cilde oð ðæt heo abæd æt Gode mid agotenum tearum Godes willan to þam þæt heo sunu hæfde, and heo sona wæs tiða and acende Samuhel þone soðfæstan witegan and betæhte hine Gode to his þenungum æfre. Eac on þære | niwan æ on anginne godspelles, Zacharias leofode lange mid his wife, Elisabeth genamod, eallswa butan cilde, ac hi gestryndon on ylde, swa swa se engel him cydde, Iohannem þone fulluhtere þe gefullode þone Hælend. Se wæs swa haliges lifes þæt se Hælend cwæþ be him þæt of wifa bearnum næs nan mærra man. Synd swa þeah þa wydewan ðe wuniað on clænnysse to nunnan gehadode for ðæs Hælendes lufon on maran geþincðum gif hi Gode þeowiað and on maran geearnungum þurh heora clænnysse þonne þa wif beoð þe wuniað on sinscipe. And ða mædenu beoð on maran geþingðe þe synd gehadode to haligre drohtnunge þonne þa wudewan beoð, swa swa witan secgað þæt ða wif habbað þe wuniað on sinscipe and heora æwa healdað wið unhlisan æfre, þrittigfealdne wæstm, swa swa þæt godspel segð, and ða wudewan syððan sixtigfealdne wæstm, and þa halgan mædenu hundfealdne wæstm, swa swa þa halgan martyras and eallswa þa munecas þe fram cildhade symle Gode þeowiað under abbodes wissunge æfter þam regole. Hi sceolon swa ðeah, swa swa we sædon ær, habban eadmodnysse on heora æðelum þeawum mid nanre hiwunge, ne mid higeleaste on ðam micclum geþingðum, swa swa hi manað þæt gewrit, 350 to Gode ne gedoð] ne gedoð to Gode C  351 geciged] wæs get C  352 wunode] wunigende C  353 ðe] omitted C heo] þeo C  354 hire] ‘i’ altered to ‘y’ Q; omitted C Iosep] ioseph gehaten C  365 gestryndon] gestryndon syððan C  370 Hælendes] omitted C  371–2 on maran … and] hi beoð C  372 maran] marum C  373 sinscipe] heora synscipe C  374 And] omitted C  377 þæt] omitted C  378 unhlisan] unrihthæmed C  379 þrittigfealdne] hi habbeð þrittigfealdne C  386 þeawum] þeawum folgian C  388 on ðam micclum geþingðum] ac a beon þam micclan geþincðe efenlæcende C 

448

p. 368

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 350

355

360

365

370

375

380

385

so that we can fulfill them with his help, because without it we achieve nothing for God. Likewise, Jacob’s wife, named Rachel, lived fully twenty years with her husband before she had a child, and the almighty Creator later gave her son Joseph to her and afterwards Benjamin, just as the books declare. The aged Elkanah and Hannah his wife were without a child until she prayed to God with shed tears for God’s will to the end that she might have a son, and she was immediately granted [it] and gave birth to Samuel the true-speaking prophet and dedicated him to the service of God for life. Moreover, in the New Testament at the beginning of the Gospel, Zacharias lived for a long time with his wife named Elizabeth, [who was] also without a child, but just as the angel made known to them, in old age they begot John the Baptist who baptized the Savior. He lived such a holy life that the Savior said about him that of the children of women no one was greater. Widows, nevertheless, who live in chastity consecrated as nuns for the Savior’s sake are to be more honored provided that they serve God and [are] to be deserving of more merits on account of their chastity than are those wives who remain in marriage. And the virgins consecrated to a holy way of life are to be more honored than the widows are, just as the wise say that women who live in marriage and always keep their vow from dishonor will have a thirty-fold crop, as the Gospel says, and then widows a sixty-fold crop, and holy virgins a hundred-fold crop, just like the holy martyrs and also the monks who from childhood serve God for life under the direction of an abbot according to the rule. They ought, nevertheless, just as we said before, to have humility without hypocrisy in their devout way of life, no foolishness with the great honor, just as Scripture exhorts them,

449

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 390

395

400

405

410

415

420

425

Quanto magnus es, humilia te /in\ omnibus, et coram Deo inuenies gratiam: ‘Swa ðu mærra beo on micclum geþingðum, swa ðu eadmodra beo on eallum ðingum a, and ðu gemetst gife æt þam mildheortan Drihtne’. God hatað æfre þa upahafenan mod, and his Gast wunað, swa swa | God sylf sæde, ofer ðone eadmodan and ofer þone gedefan and ða ðe mid ege his beboda gefyllað. Betere bið þæt wif, þe wunað on sinscipe Gode a gehyrsum to his halgum bebodum and eadmod on heort þonne heo hæfð twa ðing untæle for Gode – sinscipe and eadmodnysse on æþelum þeawum – þonne þæt mæden beo þe modig bið on heortan and Gode ungehyrsum þonne heo hæfð twa ðing – clænnysse and modignysse – micel god and micel yfel þe ne magon beon geþwære on nanre þeawfæstnysse for ðan ðe ælc yfel cymð of modignysse. Betere bið to hæbbenne on haligre þeawfæstnysse huru ða læssan god mid oðrum læssum godum þonne þa micclan god mid micclum yfele. Swa is eac on lichaman se læssa man betere, swa swa Zacheus wæs, mid gesundfulnysse, þonne se unhala beo and hæbbe on his wæstme Golian mycelnysse þæs gramlican entes. Ne bið þæt læsse god nahwar gelytlod þurh þæt mare god on þam mægðhade. Ne seo mare ne sceal modigan to swiðe ofer ða læssan æfter Godes lare. Ne seo læsse ne sceal laðlice andigan ongean þa maran, ac mid Godes ege beo ægþer underþeodd þære boclican lare, and hæbbe heora ægþer be heora geearnungum. Ne sceolon ða clænan men þe Criste þeowiað edleanes gewilnian on ðissere worulde for ðan ðe God sylf behet his halgum ðenum þe on clænum mægðhade him gehyrsumiað on his heofonlican huse þær þær he sylf wunað 391 on micclum geþingðum] omitted C  392 on] omitted C  397 and] and ofer C gefyllað] healdeð and on him gelefað C  398 þæt] þam C  399 Gode] þæt heo gode C gehyrsum] gehersumige C  400 eadmod] eadmod beo C heort] heortum Q; heortan CS heo hæfð] hæfð heo C  403 þonne þæt mæden beo] þæt mæden þonne C  404 heo hæfð] hæfð heo C  409 læssum] omitted C  411 se læsse] se he swa C  413 se] we micla C  417 Ne seo mare ne sceal] Ne sceal se mara C swiðe] swiðan C  418 ða] þone C  419 seo] se C  420 ac] an þa S  426 gehyrsumiað] gehersumiað heofene rices myrhþe C 

450

p. 369

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 390

395

400

405

410

415

420

425

Quanto magnus es, humilia te in omnibus, et coram Deo invenies gratiam:6 ‘The greater you are in the great honors, be always the more humble in all things, and you will find grace from the merciful Lord’. God always hates a haughty spirit, and his Spirit dwells, just as God said, upon the humble and upon the gentle and those who with reverence fulfill his commandments. The wife who lives in marriage always obedient to God according to his holy commandments and humble in heart keeping two things blameless for God – [her] marriage and [her] humility by means of virtuous behavior – will be better than the virgin who is proud in heart and disobedient to God when she holds on to two things – virginity and pride – a great good and a great evil that cannot be united in any proper way of life because every evil comes from pride. It is certainly better in holy obedience to have a lesser good with another lesser good than a great good with a great evil. Likewise, the person of smaller stature who is healthy, as Zacchaeus was, is better than one who is unhealthy and has a build the size of Goliath, the angry giant. The lesser good is not at all diminished by the greater good in virginity. The greater ought not exalt itself over the lesser according to God’s instruction. Nor ought the lesser hatefully feel ill will toward the greater, but accompanied by the fear of God, both are supported by the learning contained in books, and both of them will receive [their rewards] according to their merits. The chaste who serve Christ should not desire rewards in this world because to his holy thegns who obey him in pure virginity God promised the best dwellings, superior to [those of his other] sons and daughters,

6

Sirach 3.20: ‘Quanto magnus es, humilia te in omnibus, et coram Deo inuenies gratiam’ (‘The greater you are, humble yourself the more in all things, and you shall find grace before God’).

451

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

and binnan his weallum þære wynsuman byrig ða selostan wununga toforan sunum and dohtrum | and þone ecan naman þe næfre ne ateorað. Ac ðes miccla wurðmynt nis na ealra manna ac, swa swa God sæde, toforan sunum and dohtrum on synderlicum wurðmynte þam gesæligum mædenum and þam clænum cnapum, swa swa we cwædon ær, þe fram anginne æfre Gode þeowiað. Sum synful wif iu, swa swa þæt godspel us segð, gesohte Cristes fet and mid swiðlicum wope his fet aþwoh and mid hyre fexe wipode and gelome hi cyste licgende æt his fotum, and mid deorwyrðre sealfe syððan smyrode, swa swa hit þeawlic wæs on ðære þeode. And se Hælend sona hyre synna forgeaf, manega and micele, and hyre milde ða wæs. And hit segð on þam godspelle þæt heo hine swiðe lufode for ðan ðe heo hæfde hyre synna forgyfennysse. Micele swiðor gedafenað þam mædenum to ðencenne þe on clænnysse wuniað on Cristes þeowdome þæt hi hine lufion mid incundre lufe and mid eallre heortan, ðe hi clæne geheold to þam micclan wurðmynte þæs hundfealdan wæstmes and to þam ecan naman on his agenum hirede þær ðær he sylf wunað, swa swa þæt godspell us segð. On Godes rice beoð eac ða godan wif and ða rihtwisan weras þe wurðodon hine. Ac se Hælend sæde þæt on his Fæder huse syndon manega wununga, þonne wuniað þa mædenu and ða mægðhades men on þam mærostum wunugum and folgiað þam Hælende swa hwider swa he gæð. Ne forlæt se Hælend þa geleaffullan weras ne ða godan wif, þe/a\h ðe hi gan ne magon swa hwider swa he gæð mid /his\ heofonlicum þrymme and mid þam clænan werode þe him wynsumlice singað þone niwan | lofsang þe nan singan ne mæg buton þam clænum anum þe ne comon n/e\ah wife and þam halgum mædenum þe ðone Hælend gecuron him to brydguman to ecere blisse. Ða oðre halgan magon gehyran þone sang 432 ac] omitted C  433 þam gesæligum mædenum] beoð þa gesæligan mædenu C  434 þam clænum cnapum] þa clænan cnihtes C  436 iu] iu wes S  439 gelome hi cyste] gelomlice cyste hi C  440 syððan] hi siððan C  443 ða wæs] gewearð C  444 And] omitted C  446 to ðencenne] to þam cynne C  447 wuniað on Cristes þeowdome] cristes þeowdomes drohtniað C  451 þam] omitted C  452 segð] cweð C  467 sang] lofsang C 

452

p. 370

p. 371

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

430

435

440

445

450

455

460

465

in his heavenly house where he dwells and within the walls of the pleasant city, and the everlasting name that will never disappear. But this great honor is not for all people but, just as God said, [is] superior to [his other] sons and daughters in special honor of the blessed virgins and the chaste young men, as we said earlier, who continually serve God from the beginning of their lives. A certain sinful woman of old, as the Gospel says to us, sought Christ’s feet and with much weeping washed his feet and wiped them with her hair and repeatedly kissed them lying at his feet and afterwards anointed [them] with a precious ointment, as was customary among that people. And the Savior immediately forgave her sins, many and great, and was kind to her at that time. And it says in the Gospel that she loved him exceedingly because she received forgiveness for her sins. Much more is it fitting for virgins to think about those who live in chastity in service of Christ so as to love him with inner love and with [their] whole heart, [and about] those who kept themselves pure for the great honor of the hundred-fold reward and for the everlasting name in his household where he himself dwells, just as the Gospel says to us. In God’s kingdom, there are also good wives and virtuous husbands who honored him. But the Savior said that in his Father’s house are many dwellings, wherefore virgins and chaste men live in the most glorious dwellings and follow the Savior wherever he goes. The Savior does not abandon believing husbands or good wives, though they cannot go wherever he goes with his heavenly host or with the pure troop who pleasantly sing to him the new song of praise that none can sing except the chaste who did not approach a woman and the holy virgins who chose the Savior as a bridegroom for eternal bliss. The other holy ones can hear the song

453

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

470

475

480

485

490

495

500

505

þe ða mædenu singað mid swiðlicum dreame, and hi habbað þa blisse þæs heofonlican sanges, þeah ðe hi singan ne magon þone sang swa swa hi. And ða ðe þær singað ne swi/n\cað on þam sange, ac mid softnysse, butan geswince, hi heriað mid þam sange þone Hælend on blisse, þe hi to þam wurðmynte and to ðam wuldre gebrohte for ðan ðe mæg/þ\had is micel Godes gifu, swa swa martyrdom, ðe ðurh his mihte becymð. Iohannes se godspellere on his gastlican gesihðe geseah þisne heap healice standan mid þam halgan Hælende, and heora getel wæs anhund þusenda and feower and feowertig þusenda þone sang singende, swa swa we ær sædon, mid micelre myrhðe þæs mæran dreames. Wynsum is seo wunung on þam wuldorfullum dreame swa manegra þusenda mid micclum swege. And ða rihtwisan scinað, swa swa se Hælend sæde, swa swa seo sunne scinð mid hyre scearpan leoman on ðisum middanearde mannum to lihtinge. Bið swa ðeah toscead, swa swa se apostol sæde, Stella autem ab stella differt in claritate, et cetera: ‘Þæra steorrena beorhtnes ne bið on eallum gelice’. Oðer is soðlice þære sunnan beorhtnyss, and oðer þæs monan on ðisum middanearde, and oðer þæra steorrena be þam ðe hi standað. Swa bið eac on Domesdæg, þær nan ðing dyrne ne bið þonne þa halgan scinað ælc be his geearnungum æfter þam æriste, | and on þære beorhtnysse hi beoð æfre wuniende buton ateorodnysse. Maran wurðscipe habbað þa ðe þas woruld forsawon, and þa syndrian æhta mid ealle forleton, and hi sylfe geþywdon on Godes þeowdome, and þærtoeacan wæron wuldorfulle on mægðhade, þonne þa habban magon, þe heoldon heora mægðhad and heora æhta ne forleton ac leofodon him orsorge be heora agenum dihte, be nanes ealdres wissunge. Ne nan mægðhad ne bið witodlice heriendlic buton se ðe for Criste þa clænnysse lufað. Nu smeagað sume menn hwæt se pinung getacnie þe se hlaford forgifð þam latostan wyrhtum þe on æfnunge becomon into þam winearde, 469 and] omitted C  470 þone sang] omitted C  471 ne] ne ne Q; ne swincað C  483 dreame] life amang swa micclum dreame C  484 swege] swege god heriendra C  485 And ða rihtwisan scinað] Soðlice þær scineð þa rihtwisan C  486 hyre] omitted C  490 bið] bið na C  494 Swa] Swa he C  495 þa halgan scinað] scineð þa halga C  497 æfre] siððan æfre C 

454

p. 372

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

470

475

480

485

490

495

500

505

that the virgins sing with loud jubilant singing, and they have the pleasure of the heavenly song, though they cannot sing the song as [the virgins do]. And those who sing there do not toil in song, but with ease, without struggle, they praise the Savior with the song in bliss, he who brought them to that honor and to that glory because chastity is God’s great gift, as is martyrdom, which comes through his power. John the Evangelist in his spiritual vision saw this company standing on high with the holy Savior – and their number was one hundred and forty-four thousand – singing the song, as we said earlier, with the great joy of the glorious chorus. Winsome is the dwelling among the wonderful chorus as there are many thousands [making] loud melody. And the righteous shine, just as the Savior said, like the sun shines with its bright radiance on this earth as a light to humanity. Nevertheless, there will be a distinction, just as the apostle said, Stella autem ab stella differt in claritate, et cetera:7 ‘The brightness of the stars is not the same for each one’. Indeed, one has the brightness of the sun, and another that of the moon in this world, and another that of the stars according to where they are positioned. So will it be on Judgment Day, where nothing will be hidden when the holy will shine each according to his merits after the resurrection, and they will dwell forever in that radiance without fading. Those who despised this world, and entirely forsook private property, and submitted themselves to the service of God, and in addition to that were glorious in virginity will have greater honor than those who did not preserve their chastity and did not forsake their possessions but lived carefree according to their own direction, not according to the guidance of a superior. No chastity will truly be praiseworthy except that which loves virginity on account of Christ. Now some people question what the penny signifies that the lord gives to the last workers who in the evening came into the vineyard, 7

Compare 1 Corinthians 15.41: ‘Alia claritas solis, alia claritas lunae, et alia claritas stellarum, stella enim ab stella differt in claritate’ (‘One has the brightness of the sun, another has the brightness of the moon, and another has the brightness of the stars, for one star differs from another in brightness’).

455

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 510

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

swa wel swa þam ærostum þe on ærnemærgen comon, swa þæt hi ealle wæron on ðære hyre gelice. Nu segð Augustinus, se æþela lareow þe ðas gesetnysse on leden gesette, þæt se pening bið forgifen þam wyrhtum gelice on þam ecan life þonne hi of deaðe arisað – þa ðe God forestihte on frymðe þyssere worulde, and ða ðe God geclypode to þam clænan life, and ða ðe he gerihtwisode on ðyssere worulde, and ða ðe he gewuldorfullode to þam ecan wurðmynte – þæt hi ealle habbon heofonan rice him gemænelice him sylfum to mede and wynsumne lichaman on to wunienne a, unbrosniendlicne butan eallum wommum and butan awyrdnysse a to worulde syððan. And þis bið him eallum æfre gemæne, þeah ðe hi sume scinon, swa swa we ær sædon, on maran beorhtnysse for heora micclum geearnungum. Ðas micclan geþincðu hi moton geearnian on | þyssere worulde wunigende her on life þurh ða eadignyssa þæs eahtafealdan geteles, swa swa ure Hælend þurh hine sylfne gebysnode and us /ealle\ manode to þam eadignyssum on his halgan godspelle, ðus secgende eallum: ‘Beati pauperes spiritu’, et cetera. ‘“Eadige synd þa ðearfan, þa ðe on gaste synd þearfan”’, þæt synd þa ðe habbað þone halgan willan þæt hi lufiað swiðor þa ungesewenlican God and ða ecan speda þonne ða ateoriendlican. And hi habbað þurh þæt heofonan rices myrhðe, and hi geefenlæcað urum Hælende Criste, se ðe æfre is rice and wearð þearfa for us. ‘Beati mites’, et ce/te\ra. ‘“Eadige beoð þa liðan”’ þe on heora lifes þeawum geefenlæcað þam Hælende þe ðus cwæð to us eallum, ‘“Leorniað æt me þæt Ic swiðe liðe eom and eadmod on heortan, and ge habbað syððan eowrum sawlum reste on ðam soðan life”’. Eadige beoð þa heofiendan, þe heora synna bewepað.

528 micclan] omitted H  531 sylfne] omitted H 

456

p. 373

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 510

515

520

525

530

535

540

545

as well as to the first who came in the early morning so that they all were alike with regards to their wages. Now Augustine, the wise teacher who set down this composition in Latin, says that the penny will be given to the workers equally in the everlasting life when they arise from death – those whom God foreordained at the beginning of the world, and those whom God called to a chaste life, and those whom he proclaimed righteous in this world, and those whom he glorified with everlasting honor – so that they all may possess the kingdom of heaven with him jointly as [their] reward and [have] a pleasant body to live in forever, incorruptible without any impurities and without blemish forever afterwards. And this will be shared by them all forever, although some of them will shine, as we said earlier, with more brightness on account of their great merits. They may earn these great honors in this world while dwelling here alive by means of the eight-fold Beatitudes, just as our Savior set an example and exhorted us all to the Beatitudes in his holy Gospel, addressing everybody in this manner: ‘Beati pauperes spiritu’, et cetera.8 ‘“Blessed are the poor, who are poor in spirit”’, those who have the holy will to love the invisible God and everlasting riches more than transitory ones. And on account of that they have the joy of the kingdom of heaven, and they imitate our Savior Christ, who is rich and became poor for us. ‘Beati mites’, et cetera.9 ‘“Blessed are the gentle”’, who in their manner of life imitate the Savior who spoke in this way to us all, ‘“Learn from me that I am very gentle and humble in heart, and you will afterwards have rest for your souls in the true life”’. Blessed are those who weep, who weep over their sins.

8 9

The opening phrase of Matthew 5.3: ‘“Beati pauperes spiritu quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum”’ (‘“Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”’). The opening phrase of Matthew 5.4: ‘“Beati mites quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram”’ (‘“Blessed are the meek, because they shall possess the land”’).

457

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 550

555

560

565

570

575

580

585

590

And hi geefenlæcað Criste þe com to Hierusalem and beweop swiðe hyre toworpennysse, þæt seo burhwaru forferde for hyre geleafleaste. Eadige beoð þa men þe þurh modes godnysse beoð swiðe ofhingrode and eac swylce ofþyrste æfter rihtwisnysse þæt hi rihtlice lybbon. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe cwæð on his godspelle, ‘“Min mete is witodlice þæt Ic wyrce æfre mines Fæder willan se ðe me asende”’. Eadige beoð þa mildheortan þe gemildsiað oðrum. And hi geefenlæcað Criste þe com to þam forwundodum and his wunda gewrað and geworhte him sealfe on wine and ele, and wæh hine syððan ham to his inne and hæfde his gymene, þæt is þes middaneard þe he mid his tocyme fram synnum gehælde mid his sylfes þrowunge. | Eadige synd þa clænheortan þe on clænnysse lybbað. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe ða clænnysse astealde, and he synne ne worhte ne nænne swicdom on life. Eadige beoð þa gesibsuman for þan ðe hi synd Godes bearn. And hi geefenlæcað þam Hælende þe for his ehterum gebæd his heofonlican Fæder þæt he him gemiltsode. Eadige beoð þa halgan þe for rihtwisnysse /ehnysse\ þrowiað her on ðisum life. Hi geefenlæcað Criste þe for us þrowode and sealde us swa bysne þæt we him swa folgian. Ðas eahta eadignyssa synd eow mædenum to lufigenne þæt ge wislice lybban and wel geþeawode beon na to higelease, ne to ungehealtsume, ne to biterwyrde, ne bealufulle on mode, ne nan unðeaw æfre on eow ne rixige. Ac ge habban sceolon, swa swa se Hælend sæde, micele geþincðu on eowres modes godnysse þæt Cristes lufu æfre on eowrum heortum wunige to godum fremmingum fulfremedra dæda, and beoð anræde and habbað sum eornost. Se ðe eornost næfð, earfoðlice he sceal æfre geðeon to ænigre geðingðe. Ure Hælend cwæð iu on his halgan godspelle to his discipulum and ðurh hi swa to us, ‘“On þam bið min Fæder gewuldorfullod soðlice, þæt ge menigfealdne wæstm and micelne for/þ\beron 549 And] omitted H  559 And] omitted H  571 þa halgan þe] þa þe H  572 /ehnysse\] ehnysse Q; ehtnysse H; omitted C  574 swa2] omitted C ; þa H  578 ne1] ac þæt ge ne beon C ne] ne to C  579 ne2] omitted C  580 ge habban sceolon] habbað C sæde] bebead C  590 micelne] mycel me C 

458

p. 374

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis 550

555

560

565

570

575

580

585

590

And they imitate Christ who came to Jerusalem and wept bitterly over its destruction, that the town’s inhabitants should perish on account of their unbelief. Blessed are the ones who on account of a goodness of spirit are very hungry for and likewise thirst after righteousness so that they may live properly. They imitate Christ who said in his Gospel, ‘“My food is truly to always do the will of my Father who sent me”’. Blessed are the merciful who have mercy on others. And they imitate Christ who came to the wounded [man] and bound his wounds and prepared for him a salve of wine and oil, and afterwards carried him home to his inn and saw to his care, which is this world that He by his advent healed from sin by means of his own suffering. Blessed are the pure of heart who live in chastity. They imitate Christ who established chastity, and he did not commit sin or any treachery while alive. Blessed are the peaceful because they are children of God. And they imitate the Savior who prayed for his persecutors to his heavenly Father to have mercy on them. Blessed are the holy who on account of righteousness suffer persecution here in this life. They imitate Christ who suffered for us and thus gave us an example to follow him in this manner. You virgins are to love these eight Beatitudes so that you may live wisely and be well disciplined, not foolish, not unrestrained, not bitter of speech, not sinful in spirit, nor should any vice ever rule in you. But you ought to possess, just as the Savior said, many honors with the goodness of your spirit so that the love of Christ may ever dwell in your hearts for the good doing of perfect deeds, and be steadfast and have some zeal. He who has no zeal will always barely flourish with any honor. Our Savior once spoke in his holy Gospel to his disciples and through them to us in this way, ‘“In that will my Father truly be glorified, that you bring forth manifold and much fruit

459

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

595

on eowrum godum dædum”’. Nu sceole we don swa þurh þæs Hælendes fultum þæt we hogion georne þæt we sume godnysse and sume gode lac of ðyssere worulde þam Hælende gebringon, for þan ðe he lufað us gif we lufiað hine and gif we his beboda healdað her on life. Gewissige us se Hælend to his willan a, and he us gelæde to þam ecan life. Þam is wuldor and wurðmynt a to worulde, Amen.

591 sceole] sceolan C swa] omitted C  593 sume godnysse and sume gode lac] gode sume lac C; sum godnysse H  594 of] on H  599 is] sy C

460

Text: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis

595

with your good deeds”’. Now we ought to do thus with the Savior’s help so that we may eagerly take care to bring some goodness and some good offering from this world to the Savior, because he will love us if we love him and if we keep his commandments while living here. May the Savior guide us to his will forever, and may he lead us to the everlasting life. To him is glory and honor forever, Amen.

461

NATIUITAS SANCTAE MARIAE UIRGINIS

COMMENTARY Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), arguably composed ca 1005–6,1 survives in four manuscripts: C [Ker §52.27], pp. 132–41; H [Ker §220.49], fols 182v–184v [imperfect at edges of leaves];2 Q [Ker §43.35], pp. 357–74; and S [Ker §333.10], pp. 152–79. The text was edited in the late nineteenth century as Assmann 3 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 24–48). For the occasion, Ælfric might have chosen to exposit either Luke 1.39–47, Mary’s visit to Elizabeth and the beginning of the Magnificat, or Matthew 1.1–16, the Messianic genealogy from Abraham to Jesus. Luke 1.39–47 is listed as the Gospel reading for Mary’s Nativity in certain versions of the Gelasian Sacramentary, the official Roman list of pericopes from about 700.3 Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, on which Ælfric drew heavily for his Catholic Homilies,4 includes a homily by Ambrose for the occasion on Luke 1.39, as well as one by Bede on the same passage that the homiliary moves instead to the Friday before Christmas.5 Another version of the Sacramentary, however, substitutes Matthew 1.1–16,6 as does the Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (s. xi1/2), 7 a text ‘invaluable as an indication of [which Gospel readings] would have been familiar to Ælfric’.8 A study of Anglo-Saxon liturgical rubrics in such ecclesiastical texts as Gospel-books and homilies, furthermore, shows that both pericopes were used in this period, with Matthew 1.1–16 occurring more often in the manuscripts.9 While he does address the passages elsewhere, however – recounting Luke 1.39–47 in CH I.13,10 for example, and mentioning Matthew 1.1–16 in Irvine 211 – as we will see, Ælfric chooses neither passage here, but instead supplies an account of Mary’s origins and a treatment of virginity based on such orthodox sources as Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 112–13, 284, 299 n. 172, and 300 n. 186. H contains the unique witness to De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), a composite homily that includes part of AH I.8 [lines 507–99]. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293. See for example Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manuscript’; and Godden, Commentary, p. xli.  Grégoire, Homéliaires, pp. 104 and 78.  Chavasse, Sacramentaire Gélasien, pp. 385–6. Turner, Missal of the New Minster, p. 158. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293 n. 27. Lenker, Die westsächsische Evangelienversion, p. 367, no. 110. Clemoes, First Series, p. 287, lines 169 (nu com) – 186 (halwendum gode). Homilies, p. 41, lines 114–15.

462

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Lines 1–10 [VI idus septembris … forbudon to secgenne]: In supplying this homily for the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Ælfric reverses a decision he had made some fifteen years before. In a note appended to CH II.31 called De sancta Maria, he had approached the occasion with decided caution: Mary, he says, was conceived like other people by a father and a mother. She was born on 8 September. Her parents’ names were Joachim and Anne, and they were pious followers of the Old Testament law. No more, however, will he say, ‘þy læs ðe we on ænigum gedwylde befeallon’ (‘lest we fall into any theological error’).12 In the opening to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis, Ælfric gives further hints as to his concern: ‘we nellað secgan be þære gesetnysse of ðam gedwylde þe gedwolmen setton by hyre acennednysse for ðan þe hyt tocwædon þa wisan lareowas and be hyre forðsiðe, þe ða halgan boceras forbudon to secgenne’ (‘we do not desire to speak about the account derived from the error that heretics wrote about her birth, because wise teachers prohibited it, and about her death, about which the holy authors forbade speaking’ [lines 6–10]). In her classic study of the sources of the Natiuitas (then Assmann 3), Mary Clayton identifies the apocryphal material which Ælfric avoids [lines 6–7] as some form of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew; of the authorities that condemned this material, moreover [lines 8–10], she suggests that one which Ælfric would have known was the Decretum Gelesianum.13 Ælfric may have been moved finally to write a homily for the Nativity, she continues, either in response to a particular request, or out of fear that others would fill the liturgical gap with less theologically-orthodox material.14 Other reasons he provides in lines 30–49 below. Lines 11–29 [Ioachim wæs gehaten … butan weres gemanan]: The names of Mary’s parents and sketch of their character [lines 11–15] parallel Ælfric’s brief comments in De sancta Maria;15 the description of them as faithful followers of the Law echoes that of Zechariah and Elizabeth, John the Baptist’s parents, in Luke 1.6. Ironically, Clayton notes, as this information about Mary’s parents is extra-biblical, it ultimately stems from the very apocrypha that Ælfric condemns.16 One assumes, however, that their names and character were also mentioned in sources Ælfric deemed authoritative, which is why he feels the freedom to include them here. Ælfric’s description of Mary’s ancestry [lines 18–20] may be extra-biblical as well. While the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both trace Christ’s descent through Joseph from Judah, the New Testament does not actually specify her tribal background. The Torah did not prohibit marriage between tribes, save in the case of daughters born to a family without sons: such women were to marry within their father’s tribal clan, so as to preserve the family inheritance (Numbers 36.8). While tradition may associate Mary with the tribe of Judah, therefore, such a connection is not explicit in the Gospel record.

12 13 14 15 16

Godden, Homilies, p. 271, line 6. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 288 and 290. On the Decretum, see for instance Gatch, ‘Boulognesur-Mer 63’, p. 489. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 295. Godden, Homilies, p. 271, lines 4–5. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 289.

463

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis While elsewhere Ælfric speaks of Christ’s human nature (menniscnys), drawn from Mary, in conjunction with redemption (alysednys, as in CH I.20,17 SH I.1,18 SH I.11,19 and SH I.11a20), this may be the only occasion when he elegantly observes that Mary’s offspring would redeem her along with all other believers [lines 20–2]. On the Son’s nature and eternality [lines 23–5], see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1. On Mary’s virginity [lines 27–8], see further lines 153–73 below. Lines 30–49 [Nu is ðes dæg … mancynnes alysednysse]: At this point, Ælfric takes a moment to expand on reasons why, as he has said, us to onhagað (‘it is fitting for us’ [line 5]) to commemorate Mary: to honor her micclum geðingðum (‘many excellencies’ [line 32]) and mærða (‘glory’ [line 33]); to bring her to intercede with Christ to obtain mercy on believers’ behalf [lines 34–5]; to praise Christ in the course of celebrating his mother [lines 36]; to further the ecclesiastical tradition of honoring models of Christian virtue [lines 37–43]; and to record glorious moments in the story of redemption [lines 48–9]. Nonetheless, he notes, the honor is an unusual one: most feast-days commemorate saints’ death or martyrdom; only Jesus, John the Baptist, and Mary are celebrated for their birth [lines 46–7]. Using different language, Ælfric makes the same point in CH I.2521 – though there, Clayton points out, Ælfric alters his Bedan source to include Mary along with Jesus and John.22 Clayton adduces no sources for the passage here in the Natiuitas, and it may well be original to Ælfric. Lines 50–5 [Nu wylle we eow secgan … Incipit De sancta uirginitate]: At this point, having addressed Mary’s life in an indirect and summary fashion, Ælfric turns for the extensive remainder of his homily to the subject of virginity. As Clayton aptly observes, the Natiuitas ‘is remarkable in that it almost entirely avoids its supposed subject’.23 Lines 56–70 [Se halga Hælend Crist … þæs ealdan deofles]: Se heofenlica æþeling (‘the heavenly prince’ [line 56]) is not one of Ælfric’s usual terms for Christ, though it does also appear in CH I.5.24 Æþeling of his ælmihtigan Fæder (‘Prince of his Almighty Father’ [lines 56–7]) occurs only here. On the eternally-begotten nature of the Son, his relationship to the Almighty Father, his role as Wisdom, and the Father’s creation of all things [lines 59–61], see De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 13–16, 43, and 159–60, and notes to AH II.14, lines 13–26 and 153–63. On Christ’s birth in the sixth age from Mary for humankind’s redemption [lines 62–6], see De creatore, lines 276–85; on the sixth age, see De sex etatibus huius seculi (AH II.15), lines 188–90 and corresponding notes. 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24

Clemoes, Homilies, p. 340, lines 141–2. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 213, lines 406 and 409. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 416, lines 8–9. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 466, lines 76–7; on Christ’s menniscnes, see also notes to Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), lines 15–17 (Gebed V); In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 1–22; and Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines Incipit–21. Clemoes, Homilies, p. 381, lines 67–70. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 297. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 296. Clemoes, Homilies, p. 222, line 165.

464

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis While Ælfric discusses the dual nature of Christ on numerous occasions, he uses the phrase soð man and soð God (‘true man and true God’ [line 64]), or some close variant, on some nine other occasions: in the Old English preface to the First Series,25 CH II.1,26 CH II.24,27 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],28 LS III.27 [Skeat II.29] (twice),29 SH II.18,30 AH I.2,31 and his First Old English Letter for Wulfstan.32 The reference to redemption through Christ from demonic thralldom is rarer: the closest equivalent may appear in CH I.33, where in closing Ælfric calls believers to pray to the Father, who ‘us þurh his ancennedan bearne fram deofles þeowte alysde’ (‘redeemed us through his only-begotten Son from the servitude of the devil’).33 Lines 71–102 [He geceas þa him sylfum … fram hyre Drihtne ahwar]: Paranomastically discussing the Church (gelaþung [line 77]) to which humans are invited (gelaðode [line 77]), he describes it as the Bride of Christ, swa swa us secgað bec (‘just as books say’ [line 71]). For this image, Ælfric could have drawn on any number of patristic or biblical sources. Among the latter, one might point to Matthew 9.15, Romans 7.1–4, and Ephesians 5.31–2; as well as possible Old Testament types in Psalms 45.9 [Vulgate 44.10] (see lines 105–9 below), Canticles 4.8 et passim, Isaiah 62.5, and Jeremiah 2.2. Ælfric, however, makes use of at least three others. In the first, he quotes an Old Latin version (see notes to lines 103–32) of Psalms 19 [18].

Psalms 19.4b–5a [Hebrew original]

Psalms 19.4b–5a [Vetus Latina 18.6]

‫ׂשֽם־אֹהֶל ּבָהֶ ֽם׃‬ ‫ֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ּׁשמ‬ ֶ ‫ ַל‬In sole posuit ‫ וְהּוא ְּכחָתָן יֹצֵא ֵמ ֻחּפָתֹו‬tabernaculum suum, et ipse tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo. 

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Psalms 19.4b–5a [Vulgate 18.6] Soli posuit tabernaculum in eis et ipse quasi sponsus procedens de thalamo suo.

CH II.134 Se sealmwyrhta Dauid sang be criste þus cweðende; ‘Swa swa brydguma he gæð forð of his brydbedde’.

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 80–4 In sole posuit tabernaculum suum, et cetera. ‘He gesette on ðære sunnan his scinenede geteld, and he sylf forðstop syððan witodlice, swa swa ænlic brydguma of his brydbedde’.

Clemoes, Homilies, p. 175, line 74. Godden, Homilies, p. 11, lines 301–2. Godden, Homilies, p. 224, line 107. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 96, line 75; Skeat, Lives, p. 344, line 110. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 60, lines 33 and 42; Skeat, Lives, p. 170, lines 33 and 42. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 599, line 213. Line 9. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 96–7, §61. Clemoes, Homilies, p. 464, lines 157–8. Godden, Homilies, p. 5, line 96 – p. 6, line 98.

465

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis He has set a tent in them [the heavens] for the sun, and he [or it] is like a bridegroom coming out of his bridechamber.

He has set his tent in the sun, and himself is like a bridegroom coming from his bridechamber.

In them [the heavens35], he has set [his] tent in the sun, and himself [is] as a bridegroom coming from his bridechamber.

[The Psalmist David sang about Christ, thus saying:] ‘Even as a bridegroom, he comes forth from his marriage bed’.

He has set his tent in the sun, et cetera. ‘He set his shining tent in the sun, and he afterwards stepped forth truly like a peerless bridegroom from his marriage bed’.

The Hebrew ‫הּוא‬, like ipse, may refer to the masculine ‘sun’; in that case, it would be the sun who rises like a bridegroom from his place of rest. The intensifier ipse, however, may better be associated with the previous subject, and this is certainly how Ælfric understands the word; it is he sylf (‘[God] himself’) who first creates the heavens and then steps forth from his bed. Ælfric makes a slight chronological distinction between these actions (adding syððan [‘afterward’]), and paints the bridegroom more vividly as ænlic (‘peerless’), but otherwise stays close to the Vetus Latina. No patristic sources appear to cite this verse in the Old Latin in conjunction with the next two verses Ælfric employs; Ælfric does refer to it, however, in CH II.1 (as above). Next, he turns to the Gospel of John. John 3.29

CH II.136

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 86–7

Qui habet sponsam sponsus est.

[Eac Iohannes se fulluhtere þus Qui habet sponsam, sponsus cwæð be criste:] ‘Se ðe bryde est. ‘Se ðe hæfð bryde, he is se hæfð, he is brydguma’. brydguma’.

He who has the bride is the bridegroom.

[John the Baptist also spoke thus about Christ:] ‘He who has the bride, he is the bridegroom’.

He who has the bride is the bridegroom. ‘He who has the bride, he is the bridegroom’.

The text is a locus classicus in this regard, where John the Baptist addresses his disciples, who react on John’s behalf to Jesus’ increasing prominence. John tells them that all is proceeding as is proper: he is but the friend of the bridegroom, not the bridegroom himself; consequently, it is to the groom that the bride – believers – should go (John 3.28–30). The verse is one Ælfric also quotes in CH II.1, immediately before citing Psalms 19.4–5 [Vulgate 18.6]. Finally, Ælfric refers to the ‘halgan bec, þe hatte Apocalpsis’ (‘holy book that is called Revelation’ [line 86]). While he does not give specifics or cite verses in particular, two passages of which Ælfric is likely thinking are Revelation 19.7–8, where the bride of the Lamb is clothed with the righteous acts of the saints, and Revelation 21.2 and 9–10, where the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven as the Lamb’s beautifully-dressed bride. These passages do not, however, appear to be cited elsewhere in Ælfric’s writings. One other passage which Ælfric does quote in conjunction with Psalms 19.4–5 and John 3.29 is 2 Corinthians 11.2, where Paul tells the Corinthians that he espoused them 35 36

That is, the heavenly ‘ends of the world’ (fines orbis) from Psalms 19.4 [Vulgate 18.5]. Godden, Homilies, p. 5, lines 95–6.

466

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis to one husband, to present them as a virgin to Christ (though he fears their minds have been corrupted by false teaching [11.3]). Ælfric quotes the verse immediately before John 3 and Psalms 19 in CH II.1,37 as well as in lines 139–42 (see notes to which below). On Ælfric’s understanding of the Church, like Mary, as both mother and virgin [lines 91–102], see notes to Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), lines 90–106, and to lines 154–74 below. Lines 103–32 [Heo is an culfre … swa swa Cristes bryd]: In addition to the image of the Church as the Bride, Ælfric also describes it as a dove [lines 103–5] and a queen [lines 106–14]. Clayton suggests that the former, while commonplace, may have been drawn from Augustine’s Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 5–6.38 Ælfric may also simply have known it from Scripture, however, as in Hosea 7.11 (factus est Ephraim quasi columba [‘Ephraim [Israel] has become like a dove’]); see also Psalms 68.13 [Vulgate 67.14],39 Isaiah 59.11 and 60.8, Ezekiel 7.16, and Hosea 11.11. For the image of queenship, Ælfric could have drawn for example on Ezekiel 16.13,40 but the context there is one of censure for God’s disobedient people; rather, he turns to an example of praise found in Psalms 45 [Vulgate 44], which he quotes using an Old Latin version [see also notes to lines 71–102] that he had also cited in CH II.40.41 Clayton states that the source for both passages is Pseudo-Augustine’s Sermones de sanctis 231,42 which follows the Psalm with a discussion of the Queen of Sheba (1 Kings 10.1–13 and 2 Chronicles 9.1–12), who also is seen as a type of the Church.43 CH II.40 is actually closer to the Vetus Latina than the printed text of Pseudo-Augustine in Migne (which reads circumamicta [‘enveloped’] rather than circumdata [‘surrounded’]), but this detail likely simply reflects the text of Pseudo-Augustine to which Ælfric had access. The various versions compare as follows:

37 38 39

40

41

42 43

Godden, Homilies, p. 5, lines 93–4. Ælfric also refers to 2 Corinthians 11.2 in CH II.4 (Homilies, p. 30, lines 29–35) and CH II.39 (Homilies, p. 329, lines 78–86); see notes to lines 131–52 below. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 301. Psalms 74.19 [Vulgate 73.19] is also apt – though in Hebrew (‫‘[ ַאל־ּתִ ּתֵ ן ְל ַחּי ַת נֶפֶׁש ּת ֶֹורָך‬Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beasts’]), not in Latin (‘ne tradas bestiis animam eruditam lege tua’ [‘May you not hand over to wild beasts the soul learned in your law’]). Lamentations 1.1 also describes Jerusalem as a queen, but in the Hebrew (‫ׂש ָָרתִ י ַּבּמְדִ ינ ֹות ָהי ְתָ ה לָמַ ֽס‬ [‘[She who was] a queen among the provinces has become a forced laborer’]), not in Latin (‘princeps prouinciarum facta est sub tributo’ [‘The ruler of provinces has been made a tribute’]). Barbara Raw notes that Psalms 94 ‘was regularly used as one of the psalms for the second nocturn of the Feast of the Assumption and the ninth-century Officia per ferias includes the psalm in the office for Saturday under the heading, ‘Psalmus in honore S. Mariae’. A responsory based on the same psalm is a regular feature of the night office for the Feast of the Assumption in early antiphoners’ (Trinity and Incarnation, p. 152). One wonders if Ælfric may have encountered this Old Latin reading in such a liturgical setting. PL 39.2171–2, at 2171. PL 39.2171–2; see Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 302.

467

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Psalms 45.9b [Vetus Latina 44.10]

Psalms 45.9b [Vulgate 44.10]

Pseudo-Augustine, Sermones de sanctis 231

CH II.4044

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 107–11

Astitit regina a dextris tuis in uestitu deaurato, circumdata uarietate.

Stetit coniux in dextera tua in diademate aureo.

Astitit regina a dextris tuis in uestitu deaurato, circumamicta uarietate.

[Be þissere gelaðunge cwæð se witega to gode;] Adstitit regina a dextris tuis. in uestitu deaurato. circumdata uarietate; þæt is. Seo cwen stent æt ðinre swyðran. on ofergyldum gyrlan. ymbscryd mid menigfealdre fahnysse.

[be þam sang se witega þisum wordum cweðende,] Adstitit regina a dextris tuis, et cetera. ‘Seo cwen stent soðlice on ðinre swyþran hand on ofergyldum reafe … ænlice embscryd eall mid fahnyssum.

The queen stood by your right hand in golden clothing, surrounded with colored attire.

The queen stood on your right hand with a golden diadem.

The queen stood by your right hand in golden clothing, enveloped by colored attire.

[About this Church the prophet said to God,] The queen stood by your right hand in golden clothing, surrounded with colored attire; that is, ‘The queen stood at your right hand in gilded apparel, clothed with manifold varieties of color.

[About this the prophet sang, speaking these words:] The queen stood by your right hand, et cetera. ‘The queen truly stood on your right hand in gilded clothes … all splendidly clothed with varieties of color’.

In the Catholic Homilies, Ælfric quotes the Latin in full, whereas in the Natiuitas it is abbreviated; he also adds emphatic details in the Natiuitas (soðlice [‘truly’, line 109], ænlice [‘splendidly, line 111], and eall [‘all’, line 111]), uses different words (on for æt [line 109] and reafe for gyrlan [line 110]), condenses (fahnyssum for menigfealdre fahnysse [line 111]), and expands (swyþran hand for swyðran [line 109]). Overall, however, the meaning remains much the same. Ælfric’s general comments that follow regarding the Church, which conveys believers from this life of affliction to the life everlasting [lines 117–25], may also have been inspired by Pseudo-Augustine’s homily, which speaks of the heavenly vision of peace that far exceeds believers’ expectations;45 they may also simply be Ælfric’s own. On the Church as virgin and mother through faith and spiritual childbearing [lines 114–15 and 126–32], see notes to lines 155–75 below. 44 45

Godden, Homilies, p. 341, lines 187–91. PL 39.2172; cf. 1 Kings 10.7 and 2 Chronicles 9.6.

468

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Lines 133–54 [Þeah ðe sume habbon … ealra þeoda lareow]: On sexuality in marriage for the conception of children [lines 133–5], see lines 324–68 below; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 130–1 and notes to lines 126–40 and 160–8; and Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (AH II.20), notes to lines 1–3. Ælfric’s description of believers as Christ’s limbs [lines 135–7; see also lines 218–20 below] likely stems ultimately from 1 Corinthians 12.12–27, though the image of the Church as Christ’s body may also be found in Ephesians (1.22–3, 4.11–12, and 5.23) and Colossians (1.18, 1.24, and 3.15). Ælfric refers to 1 Corinthians 12.27 (‘uos autem estis corpus Christi et membra de membro’ [‘now you are the body of Christ and members of his limbs’]), for example, repeatedly: in CH II.15,46 CH II.24,47 and SH I.11.48 As noted above [lines 71–102], another verse that Ælfric uses to describe the Church as a virgin is 2 Corinthians 11.2, where Paul speaks of his evangelistic work as that of a matchmaker. The source is one Ælfric reproduces at least four times in the course of his writings. 2 Corinthians 11.2

CH II.149

CH II.450

CH II.3951

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 139–42

Despondi enim uos uni uiro uirginem castam exhibere Christo.

Ic beweddode eow anum were. þæt ge sceoldon gearcian clæne mæden criste.

Ic beweddode eow anum were. þæt ge gearcian criste an clæne mæden.

Disponsaui uos uni uiro uirginem castam. exhibere christo; þæt is on englisc. Ic beweddode eow anum were. þæt ge gearcian an clæne mæden criste.

Disponsaui uos uni uiro, uirginem castam exhibere Christo: ‘Ic beweddode eow anum clænum were, þæt ge an clæne mæden gearcion Criste’.

For I have espoused you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

I betrothed you to one husband so that you should present [yourself] as a chaste virgin to Christ.

I betrothed you to one husband so that you might present [yourself] to Christ as a chaste virgin.

For I have espoused you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ; which is in English: ‘I betrothed you to one husband so that you might present [yourself] as a chaste virgin for Christ’.

For I have espoused you to one husband, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. ‘I betrothed you to one chaste husband so that you might present [yourself] as a chaste virgin for Christ’.

46 47 48 49 50 51

Godden, Homilies, p. 156, lines 225 (us is eac) – 244 (sylfum). Godden, Homilies, p. 224, lines 116 (gyt her is) – 125 (lyma). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 439, line 434 (‘and eft ða Cristenan syndon Cristes lima’); for these references, see ‘Records for Source Title 1 Cor’. Godden, Homilies, p. 5, lines 93–4. Godden, Homilies, p. 30, lines 32–3. Godden, Homilies, p. 329, line 84 – p. 330, line 86.

469

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Most of the differences in the Natiuitas are slight: when he quotes the Latin, he uses desponsare rather than despondere [line 139], both meaning ‘to betroth’; he emphasizes the purity of Christ as well as the Church (anum clænum were [‘one chaste husband’, line 141]), and he moves the verb gearcian (‘to make ready’ or ‘prepare’ [line 142]) later in the sentence. More importantly, however, Ælfric makes the exhortation personal: while the Latin may speak (using exhibere) of ‘presenting’ the Church to Christ, the vernacular adds the second person pronoun: the Church has been betrothed so that ‘ge an clæne mæden gearcion’ (‘you might present [yourself] as a chaste virgin’ [line 142]). Ælfric’s brief exposition of this passage [lines 143–54] is general and likely his own. His description of Paul as ealra þeoda lareow (‘teacher of all nations’ [line 154]) reflects Paul’s description of himself as Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 1.5 and 11.13, Galatians 2.8, and 1 Timothy 2.7; see also Ephesians 3.1). Lines 155–90 [Nu syndon ða men … to men gebær]: Over the course of this homily, Ælfric repeatedly speaks of the virginity of Mary, of chaste believers, and of the Church (sometimes in combination), reiterating themes along the way. In lines 28–30, he describes the paradox of the virgin birth, motherhood without concupiscence. In lines 88–102, using the biblical image of Christ as the Bridegroom, he teaches [1] that Christ begets spiritual children through faith and baptism, and [2] that the Church is simultaneously the Bride of Christ, the mother of all believers, and a virgin undefiled by lack of faith in God. In lines 114–16 and 126–32, he says that the Church [1] begets spiritual children through faith, and [2] lives chastely as a virgin [A] by not forsaking her faith in God, and [B] through spiritual childbearing. Lines 155–90 repeat a number of these points: the Church, he says, is a virgin through her faith though she bears spiritual children [lines 157–8, 161–3, and 172]; as such, she parallels Mary, who lived chastely and yet bore Christ [lines 158–60 and 164–9].52 Ælfric teases these ideas out further, however. While both the Church and Mary are virgins spiritually in their faith-fulness, he explains, the Church is not made up entirely of believers who are chaste; as such, it is ‘na eall mæden swa þeah on lichaman’ (‘not entirely a virgin in body’ [lines 170–5 at 171]). At the same time, he hastens to add, the Church is eall halig (‘entirely holy’ [line 173]) – and particularly so, he notes, among believers who are virginal not just spiritually through faith, but in body as well [lines 174–5 and 155–8]. Here is how these passages compare:

52

In fact, Ælfric affirms not just that the Church parallels Mary in this respect, but geefenlæcð (‘imitates’) her [line 156], as opposed to Mary imitating the Church.

470

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 89–102

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 114–16 and 126–32

[S]e soða Hælend is se gastlica brydguma Godes Gelaðunge, þurh ða he gestrynð, þurh staðolfæstne geleafan on þam halgan fulluhte and on his cyrcan, þa gastlican cild þe to Gode becumað gif hi heora fulluht forðhealdað on ðeawum. Ðurh þone halgan geleafan heo is him beweddod, ure ealra modor, and heo is mæden swa þeah æfre ungewemmed þonne heo æfre þurhwunað on Godes geleafan, and nele abugan to nanum hæðenscipe fram þæs Hælendes geleafan, fram hyre brydguman to bysmorfullum deofolgylde, ne to wiccecræfte, ne to wiglungum mid nanum gedwylde fram hyre Drihtne ahwar.

[H]eo Gode acenð [gode men] þurh soðne geleafan symle on clænnysse on gastlicere acennednysse binnan Godes Cyrcan … And heo is mæden gehaten for þam micclan geleafan and for þam soðan truwan þe heo symle hæfð to Gode, þæt heo nele forlætan Godes geleafan næfre ne oðerne wer wolice geceosan, ac hylt þone sincipe þæs soðan Hælendes on gastlicum þeawum and on gastlicum bearnteame, on clænnysse wunigende swa swa Cristes bryd.

Nu syndon ða men swiðe wurðfulle ðe on mægðhade wuniað sylfwilles for Gode, þe healdað on lichaman, þæt þæt eall seo Gelaðung þurh geleafan hylt. And heo swa geefenlæcð hire weres meder þe wundede on mægðhade and Criste þeah gebær on hyre clænan bosme. Swa is eac seo Gelaðung þurh geleafan mæden and on gastlicere cenninge acenð dæghwamlice micelne bearnteam on eallum middanearde. Maria acende Crist lichamlice, ure ealra heafod, and seo halige Gelaðung acenð gastlice Cristes lima oð ðis. On ægþrum is mægðhad and eac swylce bearnteam, and se bearnteam ne wanode ne ne awyrde þone mægðhad naþor ne on Marian ne on Godes Gelaðunge. Seo Gelaðung is halig on lichaman and on gaste, ac heo nis na eall mæden swa þeah on lichaman. Ac heo is swa þeah mæden soðlice on gaste. And heo is eall halig for þam halgan geleafan, and heo is swiðor halig on þam halgum mannum þe on mægðhade wuniað on lichaman and on gaste.

The true Savior is the spiritual bridegroom of God’s Church, through which he begets, by means of firmly established faith in holy baptism and his Church, spiritual children who come to God if they hold to their baptism in [their] way of life. Through holy belief she is betrothed to him, the mother of us all, and she nevertheless remains a virgin forever undefiled when she continually abides in faith in God and never desires to turn away to any heathen practice from faith in the Savior, from her bridegroom to shameful idol-worship, not to witchcraft, not to sorcery with any heresy from her Lord in any way.

[The Church] gives birth to [good men] in true faith perpetually in virginity by means of spiritual birth in the Church of God … And she is called a virgin on account of the great belief and on account of the true faith that she always has in God, so that she never wishes to forsake belief in God or falsely choose another husband, but preserves the marriage of the true Savior with spiritual habits and with spiritual childbearing, living in chastity as Christ’s bride.

Now those people are honored exceedingly who willingly remain chaste for God, who keep with the body what all the Church keeps through faith. And she thus imitates the mother of her husband who lived in virginity and yet bore Christ in her pure womb. So too is the Church a virgin by means of belief and in spiritual birth daily brings forth many offspring into the whole world. Mary gave birth physically to Christ, the head of us all, and the holy Church gives birth spiritually to Christ’s limbs up to now. With each [there] is virginity and also childbearing, and the childbearing did not diminish, nor may it corrupt, the virginity either in Mary or God’s Church. The Church is holy in body and in spirit, but she is nevertheless not wholly a virgin in body. But she is, however, truly a virgin in spirit. And she is entirely holy on account of holy belief, and she is more holy among the holy people who live chastely in body and in spirit.

471

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 155–75

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis For similar treatments of these themes, see especially CH I.35,53 CH II.1,54 CH II.4,55 and CH II.39;56 see also Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin57 and SH I.1.58 CH II.1, CH II.4, and CH II.39 refer also to 2 Corinthians 11.2, on which see notes to lines 131–52 above. On CH II.1 and its use of Psalms 19.4–5 [Vulgate 18.6] and John 3.29, see notes to lines 69–100 above. Clayton notes that from line 153, Ælfric draws in the main (and with varying degrees of closeness) on Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate.59 Lines 153–73 parallel chapter 2 of De sancta uirginitate, while lines 174 (On Cristes bec) – 188 (to men gebær) correspond to chapter 3.60 Following Augustine, then, Ælfric next addresses a natural question regarding Mary: if she is Christ’s mother, how does one explain Christ’s statement that those who obey his Father are his mother and brothers? Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 176–86

Matthew 12.46–50 Adhuc eo loquente ad turbas ecce mater eius et fratres stabant foris quaerentes loqui ei. Dixit autem ei quidam, ‘Ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te’. At ipse respondens dicenti sibi ait, ‘Quae est mater mea et qui sunt fratres mei?’ Et extendens manum in discipulos suos dixit, ‘Ecce mater mea et fratres mei. Quicumque enim fecerit uoluntatem Patris mei qui in caelis est ipse meus et frater et soror et mater est’.

On Cristes bec is awriten þæt his modor com him to and his siblingas. Þa sæde him man þæt, þæt hi ðær ute stodon and in ne mihton to him for þære micclan menigu þe him ða mid wæs. Ac he andwyrde sona þam secgendum þus, ‘La, hwa is min modor oððe hwa synd mine gebroðra?’ He astrehte þa his hand ofer his apostolas, ðus him secgende, ‘Her synd mine gebroðra and eac min modor. And ælc ðæra þe wyrcð mines Fæder willan þe wunað on heofonum, se bið min broþor and swustor and modor’.

As he was still speaking to the crowds, behold, his mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to him. Now someone said to him, ‘Behold, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking you’. But he, answering the one talking with him, said, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And extending his hand to his disciples, he said, ‘Behold my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother’.

In Christ’s book it is written that his mother and his siblings came to him. Someone then said to him that they stood there outside and were not able [to come] to him on account of the large crowd that was with him at the time. But he replied immediately, speaking to him in this way, ‘Lo, who is my mother and who are my brothers?’ He then stretched out his hand over his apostles, speaking thus to him, ‘Here are my brothers and my mother too. And each of those who work the will of my Father who lives in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother’.

Ælfric translates the passage in question, Matthew 12.46–50, only here, and the changes he makes to it are slight. Where the Latin is repetitive, Ælfric condenses, saying only 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Clemoes, Homilies, p. 477, lines 40–7 (gyftum gelaþode). Godden, Homilies, p. 5, line 91 – p. 6, line 117 (clænum mægðhade). Godden, Homilies, p. 30, lines 29 (Æfter gastlicum) – 36; p. 32, lines 103 (his gelaðung) – 104 (clænre bryde); and p. 40, line 321 (brydguma ðære halgan gelaðunge). Godden, Homilies, p. 329, line 78 (Nis na) – p. 330, line 90. Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 147, lines 242 (of þære arn) – 243 (clæne mæden); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 24, lines 216–18. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 213, lines 398–402. PL 40.395–428; see Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 303 and 299. PL 40.397 and 397–8, respectively.

472

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis once that Jesus’ family stands outside [line 178]. Where the original potentially begs a question – why does his family not come in – Ælfric rearranges the text so as to supply an answer (they are blocked by the crowd [lines 178–9]). Where Christ’s original question and answer retain the same order (‘Where are my mother and brothers? Behold my mother and brothers’), Ælfric places the brothers first in Jesus’ answer [line 183], paralleling the pattern of the final line (‘[he who obeys] is my brother … and mother’) and perhaps emphasizing the application for his audience: it is they, not just Mary, who are called to obedience. At any rate, Clayton observes that Ælfric omits an analogous passage which Augustine includes: Luke 11.27–8, where Jesus answers a woman who cries blessing on his mother, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear God’s word and obey it’.61 The passage is one that Ælfric had expounded in some detail some ten years before in SH I.4, where he concludes: ‘Eadig is Maria þæt arwyrðe mæden, þæt heo Godes Sunu abær bliðe to mannum; ac heo is swa þeah git swyþor eadig, for ðan ðe heo Godes word lufað and healt. Eac syndon eadige þa ealle þe gehyrað þæt halige Godes word and hit healdað mid lufe’ (‘Blessed is Mary, that worthy maiden, for she joyfully bore God’s Son for humankind; but nonetheless she is still more blessed because she loves and holds to God’s Word. We also are blessed, all who obey the holy Word of God and hold it with love’).62 Here in the Natiuitas, Ælfric makes the same point to answer the question posed by Matthew 12: Mary is blessed, true, because she gave Christ birth, but she is still more so because she holds fast to him in faith [lines 187–90]. Lines 191–208 [Heo behet Gode … on clænnysse þurhwunion]: Continuing to follow Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate,63 Ælfric sees in Mary’s response to Gabriel at the Annunciation not just evidence of her virginity, but of her prior vow of virginity [lines 199 and 203; see also lines 201–8 below], the voluntary nature of which makes her an example to all Christians desiring to love Christ through sexual purity (clænnyss [lines 202–8]). The detail about her vow is extra-biblical, but Ælfric’s translation of Luke here is fairly faithful, as it is also in CH I.13: Luke 1.34 Dixit autem Maria ad angelum, ‘Quomodo fiet istud quoniam uirum non cognosco?’

61 62 63 64

Augustine, De sancta uirginitate 4 Quomodo, inquit, fiet istud, quoniam uirum non cognosco?

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 196–7

CH I.1364 Ða cwæð maria to ðam engle, ‘Hu mæg þæt beon þæt ic cyld hæbbe. for ðan ðe ic nanes weres ne bruce?’

And heo him andwyrde þus, ‘Hu mæg ðis gewurðan þonne Ic weres ne bruce?’

PL 40.398; Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 304. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 279, line 269 – p. 280, line 294, at lines 289–94. PL 40.398; Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 304. Clemoes, Homilies, p. 285, lines 125–6.

473

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis But Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I do not have sexual relations with a man?’

‘How’, she says, ‘will this be, since I do not have sexual relations with a man?’

Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can it be that I will have a child, since I do not have sexual relations with any man?’

And she replied to him in this way, ‘How can this happen when I do not have sexual relations with a man?’

Ælfric uses mæg (‘may’ or ‘be able’) rather than bið (here, ‘will be’) to translate fiet (‘will be’), but by no means thereby implies doubt on Mary’s part like that of Zechariah, whom Gabriel punishes for asking, ‘Hu mæig Ic þinum wordum gelyfan?’ (‘How can I believe your words?’ [Luke 1.18–20 at 18]): he has just said, after all, that Mary is blessed because of her faith [lines 188–90]. He uses brucan (‘to enjoy’ or ‘have [sexual] pleasure’), moreover, to translate cognoscere (‘to know’ – here, sexually), but preserves the present tense that implies Mary’s past chastity – and, for Augustine and Ælfric, apparently her future chastity as well. Lines 209–25 [Ne magon oðre … and gastlice gemænelice]: Ælfric follows Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate 5 and 6 for his teaching here on virgins’ relationship to Mary and the Church [on which, see also lines 155–75 above].65 To begin with, he says, virgins cannot complain though they are not mothers like Mary [lines 209–17]: the honor given Mary, to be a virgin mother physically, was unique [lines 200–13 and 223–5]. Virgins may be Christ’s spiritual mothers, however, if they obey the Father’s will [lines 214–17, alluding to Matthew 12.50 in lines 184–6]. Indeed, Ælfric continues, the whole Church is Christ’s mother, inasmuch it gives birth to Christ’s limbs [1 Corinthians 12.12–27; see notes to lines 133–54 above] – through baptism, he adds, supplementing Augustine [lines 218–19; see also notes to Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), lines 90–106]. Ælfric’s concern for individuals who would want to be mothers suggests at least in part a female audience. The possibility appears to be reinforced by his observations immediately afterward about nuns (mynecena [line 229]) and female virgins (mædenum [line 226]) – a term that appears in a direct address later in this work [line 575] and to which Clayton points to argue that Ælfric wrote the Natiuitas both for nuns and monks; see notes to De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 281–304, at line 281. Lines 226–33 [Se mægðhad is … and on westenum]: From this point, Ælfric draws on Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate much more loosely, relying instead ‘on reminiscence and on texts which he also used at about the same time in composing his [First Latin Letter for Wulfstan (ca 1005)]’, such as Revelation 14.4 (see notes to lines 453–97 below).66

65 66

PL 40.398–9; Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 304. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 304.

474

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis For other discussions of virginity as the province of men and women alike, see for example Ælfric’s First Latin Letter for Wulfstan67 and Letter to Sigefyrth68 (in a passage included in De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7)69).70 On the potential significance of these lines regarding Ælfric’s audience, see notes to lines 209–25 above and De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 282–305. On Ælfric’s use of the Vitae patrum [line 231] in his writings, see Godden, Commentary, p. lxii. Lines 234–54 [Se mægðhad sceal … behreowsunge and geswicennysse]: Inspired perhaps by consideration of Mary’s vow of chastity (see notes to lines 190–208 above), Ælfric underscores that virginity is not simply a matter of physical restraint: heart attitude matters [lines 234–9]. (For similar sentiments, see SH II.19,71 Admonitio ad filium spiritualem,72 and De uirginitate [AH II.13]73). He recognizes, however, that not all are called to such commitment: closely translating a verse from Paul that he had used before in SH II.19, he says: 1 Corinthians 7.7

SH II.1974

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 243–4

[Volo autem omnes homines ‘Ælc man hæfð synderlice esse sicut me ipsum sed] gife fram Gode, sum swa, sum unusquisque proprium habet elles’. donum ex Deo alius quidem sic alius uero sic.

‘Anra gehwylc hæfð syndrige gife of Gode, sume þas gife, sume oðre gife’.

[For I wish that all people were ‘Each one has a separate gift as I myself, but] everyone has from God: some one [gift], his own gift from God: one of some another’. one kind; one of another.

‘Each one has an individual gift from God, one this gift, one another gift’.

This said, Ælfric warns those who do commit to virginity that they must hold to their promise: those who break it are guilty (scyldig [line 246]) before God, whom they cannot deceive [line 248; see Galatians 6.7, Ephesians 5.6, and Numbers 32.23]: their virginity cannot be regained [line 251; see also CH II.175] and they will lose their hundred-fold reward [line 252; see also lines 381 and 450 below, as well as Judith76], though they can receive forgiveness and escape damnation through genuine repentance, penance, and purity thereafter [lines 253–4]. Lines 255–89 [Ða ðe on sinscipe … lacum ne beon]: If virgins may offer their celibacy to the Lord, Ælfric continues, godly married persons may offer their children, even as 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 36, §10. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 14, lines 24–5. ‘Mægðhad is ge on wæpmannu[m] ge on wimanu[m]’ (‘virginity exists among men and among women’ [lines 13–14]). See Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 304. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 624, lines 48 (Nu is Criste) – 52 (ænigre hæse). Norman, Admonitio, p. 48; see Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 305. Lines 52–5 and 81–3. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 627, lines 105–6. Godden, Homilies, p. 5, lines 77 (þonne hwilc) – 79 (næbbe heo). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 115, lines 432 (Ac heo) – 433 (wæstmes); see Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 306.

475

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Abraham did with Isaac (Genesis 22.1–19) and Hannah did with Samuel (1 Samuel 1) [lines 260–62 and 266–73]. (For further treatments by Ælfric of the sacrifice of Isaac, see CH II.4,77 Genesis 22.1–19,78 and the Interrogationes Sigewulfi in Genesin79; regarding the dedication of Samuel, see also lines 356–61 below.) Such a sacrifice need not be literal: parents bring their offspring to God, Ælfric says, by baptizing children into the Church and raising them to believe in Christ [lines 255–60]. Like Hannah, however, they may also offer them physically to God by committing them to religious communities as oblates. As Ælfric notes elsewhere regarding virginity (De uirginitate [AH II.13], lines 78–85 and 99–124; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 234–9), the act of sacrifice is not enough: again, heart-attitude matters. Dedicated children, on the one hand, should submit obediently to their parents’ decision [lines 264–5] – a matter Ælfric also addresses in AH II.13, lines 65–70. Parents, on the other hand, should be careful not merely to offer heora laðostan cild (‘their least cherished children’ [line 267]) – a statement, Clayton notes, not in Ælfric’s Augustinian source, but one that is ‘obviously treating a contemporary issue’.80 Rather, turning to Malachi (a book on which he also draws in AH II.13, lines 146–60), Ælfric underscores that to the Lord of Hosts, only the best is due: Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 277–80

Malachi 1.14 Maledictus dolosus qui habet in grege suo masculum et uotum faciens immolat debile Domino quia rex magnus ego dicit Dominus exercituum et nomen meum horribile in gentibus.

Maledictus dolosus, qui immolat debile Domino, et cetera : ‘Awyrged bið se facenfulla, þe wyle Gode geoffrian wanhal oððe blind oððe witodlice healt and hæfð him æt ham þa halan him sylf’.

Cursed is the deceitful person who has a male [sheep] in his flock, and when making a vow offers a crippled [or ‘weak’] one as a sacrifice to the Lord. ‘For I am a great king’, says the Lord of Hosts, ‘and my name is fearsome among the nations’.

Maledictus dolosus, qui immolat debile Domino, et cetera. ‘Cursed is the deceitful person who desires to offer to God the weak or blind or indeed the lame and keeps at home the healthy one for himself’.

Ælfric omits the second part of the verse, and expands upon the contrast between the healthy and flawed (debile) sheep – the one kept safe at home, the other sacrificed despite physical imperfections. The larger point, however, remains: God deserves þa betstan (‘the best’ [line 275]). Not stopping with virginity or children, Ælfric then moves to other things that might be offered to God, such as mass-vestments and altar-cloths [lines 281–89]: such fabric should not be taken from old clothes, stained in sweat, but made from new material, just like the priestly garments God commanded the Israelites to make for Aaron (Exodus 28). While the point might seem somewhat unexpected, Clayton observes that ‘This digression 77 78 79 80

Godden, Second Series, p. 33, line 131 – p. 34, line 160. Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 47–8. Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 233, line 526 – p. 235, line 547; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 50, line 586 – p. 52, line 509. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 306–7.

476

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis can be explained by a train of association: clerical cleanliness was one of the aspects of priesthood on which Ælfric was insisting in his pastoral letters for Wulfstan, which were written at about the same time and which treat some of the same subjects as (AH I.8)’.81 Ælfric’s point, moreover, is of a piece with his comments before: nothing offered to God should be to huxlice to his lacum (‘too shameful as gifts for him’ [line 289]. Lines 290–307 [Micel geoffrað Gode … ure synna fram us]: Returning to the larger picture, Ælfric affirms that the greatest gift believers may offer God is themselves [lines 290–1] – imagery reminiscent of Paul when he urges believers to offer their bodies as a hostiam uiuentem (‘living sacrifice’ [Romans 12.1]). The term Ælfric here uses, however, is not hostia but holocaustum, a whole burnt offering, a word that the Vulgate uses over 250 times in the Old Testament but not in the New. Fehr observes that Ælfric refers to the term in but two passages, here and in his roughly-contemporary First Latin Letter for Wulfstan, noting the similarity between them:82 First Latin Letter for Wulfstan §§73–4 and 7783

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 290–5 and 300–4

Isti elegerunt quem dominus uoluit qui se totos in holocaustum offerunt deo. Nam holocausta sunt quae super altare integra concremantur. Victimae uero et hostiae sunt, quarum pars offertur altari, pars sacerdotibus traditur. Et uictimas offerunt qui ad tempus uacant orationi. Eunuchi uero tenent foedus domini sempiternum, ut non ad tempus uacent orationi et iterum ad ipsum reuertantur.

Micel geoffrað Gode þe hine sylfne geoffrað. Þæt synd ða mæstan lac þe man mæg geoffrian – þæt he ‘holocaustum’ beo, þæt is, eall Godes lac, swa swa þa clænan doð þe dæghwamlice campiað wið ða ungesewenlican and þa swicolan fynd and wið unlustas, gelærede þurh Crist … Þa ðe on sinscipe beoð and on asettum timan hi to Gode gebiddað swa swa se apostol bebead, hi bringað sume lac þam leofan Drihtne, ac hi ne beoð na eallunga his ‘holocaustum’, þæt is, eall his lac.

These who offer the whole of themselves as a burnt offering [holocaustum] to God have chosen that which the Lord wanted. For burnt offerings [holocausta] are those which are consumed whole upon the altar. Sacrifices indeed are also offerings [hostiae], part of which are offered on the altar, [and] part given to the priests. And they offer sacrifices who for a time devote themselves to prayer. Eunuchs indeed perpetually hold fast to the Lord’s covenant,84 so that they should not [simply] devote themselves to prayer for a time and again return to [sex] itself.

He who offers himself to God offers much. Those are the greatest gifts that one can offer – to be a holocaust, that is God’s whole burnt offering, just as the chaste ones offer who daily wage war against invisible and deceitful demons and against sinful desires, instructed by Christ … Those who are married and pray to God at set times as the apostle commanded bring a certain offering to the beloved Lord, but they are not wholly his holocaust, that is, his whole burnt offering.

81

82 83 84

‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 307. See Ælfric’s First Latin English Letter for Wulfstan §140 (Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 52) and First Old English Letter for Wulfstan §164 (Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 128–9). Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. li. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 44. See notes to lines 421–33 regarding Isaiah 56.4.

477

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis The key to Ælfric’s somewhat-elliptical comments in both works is Paul’s teaching on marital sex in 1 Corinthians 7 – a passage he also quotes in SH II.1985 and perhaps CH II.19.86 Here, Paul says: Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere. Propter fornicationes autem unusquisque suam uxorem habeat et unaquaeque suum uirum habeat. Uxori uir debitum reddat similiter autem et uxor uiro … Nolite fraudare inuicem nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus ut uacetis orationi et iterum reuertimini in id ipsum ne temptet uos Satanas propter incontinentiam uestram. (1 Corinthians 7.1–3 and 5) It is good for a man not to have sex with a woman. But because of [the risk of] sexual immorality, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the [sexual] debt to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband … Do not rob one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer and return again to [sex] itself, lest Satan should tempt you because of your lack of self-restraint.

In Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis, Ælfric considers just such married persons, who at times bring a lac (‘gift’, ‘offering’, or ‘sacrifice’ [line 302]) of prayerful continence to God. In the First Latin Letter for Wulfstan, by contrast, Ælfric’s focus is on eunuchi – monks, that is, who are metaphorically if not literally castrated87 – for whom prayerful chastity is not a temporary but an ongoing sacrifice. It is they, both texts affirm, who may be considered ‘holocausts’, offerings completely devoted to the Lord. In the Natiuitas, however, Ælfric goes further. Not only are the chaste worthy of being called holocausts, he says: they are ‘Cristes martyras þurh ða micclan drohtnunge, na æne gemartirode ac oft digollice’ (‘Christ’s martyrs on account of [their] excellent conduct, not martyred on one occasion but frequently imperceptibly’ [lines 296–7]) – a teaching, Ælfric notes, that is ‘swa swa Hieronimus, se wisa trahtnere, be swylcum mannum awrat on sumum sealmtrahte’ (‘just as Jerome, the wise commentator, wrote about such people in a certain commentary on the psalms’ [lines 298–9]). As Clayton observes,88 in the preceding lines Ælfric brings together a couple of Hieronymian passages. His description of virgins as holocausts, on the one hand, comes from Jerome’s commentary on Psalms 96.8 [Vulgate 95.8]. Where the Psalmist encourages the believer to ‘Tollite hostias, et introite in atria eius’ (‘Take up offerings, and come into his courts’), Jerome explains that ‘Vos ipsi estote hostiae. Virginitas holocaustum Xpisti est’ (‘You yourselves are to be offerings. Virginity is a burnt offering to Christ’).89 Ælfric’s description of 85

86 87

88 89

Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 626, line 90 (God byð) – p. 627, line 94 (gebiddan); see Jayatilaka, ‘Record C.B.1.4.20.012.01 for Source Title 1 Cor’ and ‘Record C.B.1.4.20.013.01 for Source Title 1 Cor’. Godden, Homilies, p. 185, lines 154 (and healdað) – 156 (on eawbræcum wife). Christ’s words in Matthew perhaps come to mind: ‘sunt eunuchi qui se ipsos castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum’ (‘there are eunuchs who have castrated themselves because of the Kingdom of Heaven’ [19.12]). Ælfric himself, however, may not have commented on this verse; see ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 307–8. Tractatus siue Homiliæ in Psalmos, p. 136. Given the association of hostia and holocaustum here, it is tempting to view Jerome’s work as the source of the parallel passage in Ælfric’s First Latin

478

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis virgins as martyrs, on the other hand, comes from Jerome’s commentary on Psalms 116.17 [Vulgate 115.8]. Here, having affirmed that ‘Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius’ (‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints’ [116.15; Vulgate 115.6]), the Psalmist says that ‘tibi sacrificabo hostiam laudis’ (‘to you I will sacrifice an offering of praise’). Drawing these images of death and praise together, Jerome states: ‘Sicut … martyres laudant Dominum pure in regione uiuorum, ita et monachi, qui die det nocte psallunt Domino debent eandem puritate habere martyrum: siquidem et ipsi martyres sunt” (‘Just as … the martyrs praise the Lord purely in the land of the living, so also monks, who day and night sing Psalms to God, ought to have the same purity as martyrs: since indeed they are martyrs’).90 As we have seen, in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis, Ælfric notes that though intercourse prevents married believers from being holocausts, they may nonetheless bring some sacrifice to God through times of prayerful continence. Furthermore, Ælfric goes on to say, they may cleanse themselves from sexual sin by giving to the needy: ‘heora ælmyssan sceolon hi fram gyltum aþwean, swa swa Godes witega cwæþ, “swa swa wæter adwæsct witodlice þæt fyr, swa adwæscð seo ælmysse ure synna fram us”’ (‘their almsgiving will cleanse them from sins, just as God’s prophet said, “as water truly extinguishes fire, so almsgiving extinguishes our sins from us”’ [lines 304–5]). The quotation ultimately is from Sirach – on which, see also lines 389–93 below – which Ælfric alters but lightly: Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 306–7

Sirach 3.33 Ignem ardentem extinguit aqua et elemosyna resistit peccatis.

[S]wa swa wæter adwæsct witodlice þæt fyr, swa adwæscð seo ælmysse ure synna fram us.

Water extinguishes a flaming fire, and alms oppose sins.

Just as water truly extinguishes fire, so almsgiving extinguishes our sins from us.

Clayton identifies the immediate source, however, as Caesarius of Arles’ Sermo 44, which gives the following counsel: ‘forte aliquotiens excepto filiorum desiderio ad cognoscendam uxorem propriam uinceris, secundum uires tuas cotidianas elemosinas adde’ (‘perhaps at times you are conquered by the desire to sleep with your own wife [the desire for children being excepted]: according to your ability, give daily alms’).91 Lines 308–23 [Nu cweþað sume men … he gelyfð gedwylde]: While Clayton notes echoes of this passage in Augustine’s De bono coniugali [on which, see also notes to

90 91

Letter for Wulfstan as well; the conjunction also occurs, however, in two other works which Fehr (Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 44) suggests as sources: Isidore’s Etymologiae VI.19.33–5 (Lindsay, Etymologiae, vol. I [unpaginated], lines 12–20) and Bede’s Homiliae I.18 for the Purification of the Virgin Mary (CCSL 122, p. 129, lines 52–6), the latter of which Ælfric used for his earlier homily on the Purification, CH I.9 (Godden, Commentary, p. 68). Haymo echoes Bede’s language in Homiliae de tempore 14 (PL 118.102B, as noted by Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 308), but does not specifically make reference either to uirginitas or hostiae. Tractatus siue Homiliæ in Psalmos, pp. 218–19. Opera omnia, CCSL 103, p. 197; Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 309. Clayton also notes a similar sentiment in Caesarius’ Sermo 42 (Opera omnia, CCSL 103, pp. 187–8), a text on which Ælfric drew for SH II.19 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 627, lines 102–4; Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 309)

479

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis lines 324–68 and 369–422 below], the tone of the whole strongly suggests that the rhetorical interchange is Ælfric’s own. This said, neither the theology or imagery here is unique to this passage: Ælfric defends the value of the life of children born out of wedlock [lines 308–9] in LS II.16 [Skeat I.17],92 uses the metaphor of sown seed [lines 312–17] to speak of sex in CH II.19,93 and affirms that God creates souls and bodies [lines 321–2] in CH I.2094 and SH I.2.95 That God brings good out of evil is a biblical commonplace found for example in Genesis 50.20 and Romans 8.28. Lines 324–68 [Nu ne sceolon … nan mærra man]: Having defended both children born out of wedlock and God’s choice to allow such births, Ælfric again affirms the divine plan for procreation: virginity may be the ideal, but godly motherhood is nonetheless meritorious [lines 324–30]. He gives five examples as support, four from the Old Testament and one from the New. First, we have the long-delayed parenthood of Abraham and Sarah [lines 330–5], whose story is found in Genesis 11.29–21.7. Ælfric speaks of Abraham over 150 times; Sarah, however, features primarily here and in CH I.6.96 Second, Ælfric summarizes the account of Isaac and Rebecca [lines 336–41] from Genesis 25.20–6. Ælfric refers to Isaac some forty-five times in his writings, but Rebecca appears only here and in CH I.7.97 Third, Ælfric mentions Jacob and Rachel [lines 351–55], reflecting events in Genesis 29.28–35.18. Jacob appears over 100 times in Ælfric’s writings, though Rachel is found only here and in CH I.5.98 Fourth, there is the story of Elkanah and Hannah [lines 356–61] from 1 Samuel 1.1–20, which for Ælfric seems to occur uniquely in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis. Last, we have Zechariah and Elizabeth [lines 362–8], whose account is found in Luke 1.5–57. Ælfric elsewhere speaks of Zechariah on nine occasions in four other texts, the first two of which also include Elizabeth: CH I.9,99 CH I.25,100 LS II.14 [Skeat I.15],101 and the Letter to Sigeweard.102 In conjunction with this couple, Ælfric also mentions their son John’s baptism of Jesus [line 366; Luke 3.21–2] and Christ’s statement that none born of woman was greater than John [lines 367–8; Luke 7.28]. Ælfric treats the former passage in Simile est regnum celorum homini regi103 and the latter perhaps only here.104 One significant aside Ælfric makes in these examples occurs after his mention of Isaac and Rebecca. Apparently struck by Genesis 25.21, where Isaac prays to God Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 128, lines 105–8; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 375, lines 151–4. Godden, Homilies, p. 185, lines 179 (Nu bið) – 184 (gemæne cild). 94 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 344, lines 260 (we sceolon) – 264 (lichaman sawle). 95 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 240, lines 229 (þa sawla) – 231 (moddra innoþum). 96 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 224, line 12 (Abraham se heahfæder) – p. 225, line 43 (his cynn). 97 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 236, line 128. 98 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 221, line 117 in relationship to Jeremiah 31.15 and Matthew 2.18 (‘Rachel weeping for her children’). 99 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 255, lines 202–3. 100 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 379, lines 5, 9, 11, and 21; p. 380, line 29; p. 381, lines 59–60; and p. 382, lines 89 and 94. 101 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 82, line 194; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 334, line 194. 102 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 220, line 544. 103 Irvine 2 (Old English Homilies, p. 41, lines 109–18). 104 See ‘Records for Source Title Lc’. 92 93

480

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis regarding his wife’s barrenness and is heard, Ælfric gives at least three reflections. It is a marvel (wundor), he says, that God stayed his entire plan to save humankind through Christ, Abraham’s seed, on Isaac’s prayer for God to act [lines 342–6]. God acted in this way, moreover, to show believers that they have a part to play: in keeping with God’s commands (e.g., in Luke 18.1–8 or James 5.16–17), they should pray for God to help them do his will (as in Philippians 2.12–13) [lines 347–50]. Such a charge, finally, should not lead believers to think too highly of their own role, for ‘we butan him naht to Gode ne gedoð’ (‘we achieve nothing for God without it’ [line 349]).105 Clayton notes both general parallels between the above and Augustine’s De bono coniugali and Sermo IV.354, and differences as well. While both authors praise the marriages of the patriarchs, she says, Augustine views marital practice in the Old Testament as distinct from that in the New: ‘whereas the marriages of the former are not inferior to virginity, those of the latter are’.106 Strikingly, however, here in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis, Ælfric commends Old and New Testament examples equally to his audience. One element of these examples that Clayton finds ‘slightly inapt’ is Ælfric’s emphasis on the initial barrenness of these righteous women: ‘The examples are far more appropriate to a different point, that men should not forsake apparently infertile wives’ – a connection that Ælfric himself makes in SH II.19 regarding Abraham and Isaac.107 It may be, however, that in underscoring the length of time these women lived before becoming mothers, Ælfric may be seeking to illustrate that there is more to the Christian life of spouses than producing progeny: these wives were ‘sidefulle on ðeawum and syferlice lybbende’ before ‘on Godes bletsunge bearn strynende’ (‘living chastely and purely in their way of life’ before ‘producing children with God’s blessing’ [lines 329–30]). Lines 369–422 [Synd swa þeah þa wydewan … be heora geearnungum]: Nunnan (‘nuns’ [line 371]) refers to religious widows who took vows of chastity and pursued their vocations individually or as part of a community, which may have been housed in a minster.108 Compare AH I.7 [line 145], where Ælfric refers to widows as women and men. For Ælfric’s distinction between the merits of spouses, widows, and virgins in relation to the thirty, sixty, and hundred-fold crop [lines 369–84], see De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), notes to lines 128–42 and 162–70, lines 143–51, lines 152–61 and 171–83. Merit, however, should be accompanied by humility, Ælfric warns [lines 385–97]. Again quoting Sirach more or less faithfully (see lines 306–7 above), Ælfric cites a passage to which he has also referred in CH I.13: Sirach 3.20.

which subject, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 169–205. and the Nativity’, p. 310. 107 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 627–8, lines 106–11; Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 310. 108 Clayton, ‘Judith’, pp. 226–7. 105 On

106 ‘Ælfric

481

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Sirach 3.20

CH I.13109

Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 389–93

Quanto magnus es, humilia te in omnibus, et coram Deo inuenies gratiam.

Þonne þu mære sy: geeaðmed þe sylfne on eallum þingum and þu gemetst gife: and lean mid gode.

Quanto magnus es, humilia te in omnibus, et coram Deo inuenies gratiam: ‘Swa ðu mærra beo on micclum geþingðum, swa ðu eadmodra beo on eallum ðingum a, and ðu gemetst gife æt þam mildheortan Drihtne’.

The greater you are, humble yourself the more in all things, and you shall find grace before God.

When you are great, humble yourself in all things, and you will find grace and reward with God.

The greater you are, humble yourself the more in all things, and you shall find grace before God: ‘The greater you are in great honors, be always the more humble in all things, and you will find grace from the merciful Lord’.

Ælfric says that such teaching is swa swa we sædon ær (‘just as we said before’ [line 385]), but his referent is unclear. One might posit CH I.13, save that there Ælfric is speaking not of virgins but of Mary’s response to the Annunciation. One might also consider CH II.6, with its extended treatment of the parable (Matthew 13.1–23) whence the image of hundred, sixty, and thirty-fold harvests originally comes: here, before associating the harvests with different levels of sexual purity, Ælfric affirms that the good soil that bears fruit is also eadmod (‘humble’).110 The point is made but briefly and in passing, however. Alternatively, one might think of De uirginitate (AH II.13), which has a passage that speaks both of mægðhad (‘virginity’) and eadmodnes (‘humility’) [lines 78–85, later circulated separately as SH II.30, lines 8–15] and which draws on Augustine’s Sermo IV.354, as this passage in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis probably does.111 The chronology of these writings may be a problem, however, as De uirginitate may be dated slightly after the Natiuitas in the period ca 1005–6. All this said, there is another work dateable slightly before the Natiuitas in the same period which also treats the tri-tier rewards for sexual purity and enjoins humility to virgins: Ælfric’s Letter to Sigefyrth, in a passage that (confusingly) also appears in De uirginitate (AH II.13) and De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7).112 A second reference to the Letter to Sigefyrth later on in the Natiuitas makes the connection even more likely: see notes to lines 453–97. As his discussion of humility progresses, Ælfric draws on Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate113 to affirm that God hates the proud, but his Spirit rests on the humble and gentle who obey his commands [lines 394–7] – principles ultimately stemming from Homilies, p. 286, lines 146–8. Homilies, p. 56, line 114. 111 See notes to AH II.13, lines 78–85; Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 809; and Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 311. 112 For Ælfric’s reference to virginal humility, see the Letter to Sigefyrth, line 185 (Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 21); De uirginitate (AH II.13), line 54; and De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), line 174. 113 Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 3’. 109 Clemoes, 110 Godden,

482

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Scriptural passages such as Proverbs 16.5; Proverbs 3.34, James 4.6, and 1 Peter 5.5; and Isaiah 66.2, which Augustine quotes in De sancta uirginitate.114 Ælfric then takes a further step, however, than he does in treatments of the thirty, sixty, and hundred-fold reward elsewhere: rather than simply affirming the superiority of the virginal life to marriage, he teaches that the wife who obeys God humbly – having intercourse at appropriate times for the sake of bearing children – is better (betere [line 398]) than a virgin who is proud [lines 398–407]. The comparison speaks not only to the importance of the heart’s attitude for Ælfric, but his understanding of pride as antithetical to virtue: as he says in CH I.36, ‘modignys is ælcere synne angin’ (‘pride is the beginning of all sin’).115 Drawing now on Augustine’s De bono coniugali and Sermo IV.354,116 Ælfric teases out this contrast between virtuous states further [lines 408–22]. Again, he says, it is betere [line 408] to have a ‘lesser good’ (the married life) and live righteously than it is to have a ‘greater good’ (virginity) and do great evil. Zacchaeus may have been a small man (Luke 19.3) while Goliath was a giant (1 Samuel 17.4), but it is better to be small and healthy than massive and sickly [lines 411–14].117 Not only is there no absolute contrast between the merits of spouses and virgins, Ælfric continues, but no cause for ill feeling on either side: each will get the promised reward, with the virgin’s greater recompense taking not at all from the spouse’s thirty-fold reward [lines 415–16]. The married believer should have no envy of the virgin, even as the virgin should not look down on the spouse [lines 415–18]. Rather, both should gain understanding of God’s way through book-learning (such as this sermon), living in fear of God and trusting that they will be judged rightly [lines 420–2]. Lines 423–35 [Ne sceolon ða clænan men … æfre Gode þeowiað]: Ælfric here distills down Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate 24–5, which exhorts Christians to live not for this present world, but for the Kingdom of Heaven.118 While Augustine cites 1 Timothy 4.8 and 2 Corinthians 4.18 to this end, urging believers to pursue godliness and fix their eyes on what is unseen (that is, eternal realities), he also quotes Isaiah 56.4–5, a passage Ælfric had translated fairly closely in SH II.19: SH II.19119

Isaiah 56.4–5 Haec dicit Dominus eunuchis qui custodierint sabbata mea et elegerint quae uolui et tenuerint foedus meum: Dabo eis in domo mea et in muris meis locum et nomen melius a filiis et filiabus nomen sempiternum dabo eis quod non peribit.

God behet‫ ‏‬þurh þone witegan Isaiam þam mannum þe on mægðhade wuniað, and þa clænnysse gecuron þe him gecweme is, þæt he wolde him forgifan þa selestan wununge on his huse, þæt is on heofonan rice, and þone selran naman him gesettan, toforan sunum and dohtrum, se þe ne byð næfre adilegod.

‘Nativity’, p. 311. Ælfric also quotes the passage in his First Latin Letter for Wulfstan (Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 43, §69). 115 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 492, line 183. 116 Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 3’. 117 On Zacchaeus, see AH II.10, lines 9–151, and especially notes to lines 9–42. 118 PL 40.408–10; Clayton, ‘Nativity’, p. 311. 119 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 625, lines 66–70. 114 Clayton,

483

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis Thus says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths and choose the things I desire and hold fast to my covenant: I will give to them in my house and in my walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not pass away.

God promised through the prophet Isaiah to those who live as virgins, and who choose what is pleasing to him, that he would give them the best dwelling in his house, that is in the Kingdom of Heaven, and ordain a better name for them than sons and daughters, one which will not ever be destroyed.

It is this passage on which Ælfric focuses here in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis. It may be argued, however, that he shifts its emphasis somewhat. In its original context, Isaiah’s emphasis may be on inclusivity: all who commit themselves to loving the Lord and doing what is right, including foreigners (with whom the Jews were forbidden to intermingle [e.g., Deuteronomy 7.1–6 and 23.2–3120]) and eunuchs (who were excluded from temple worship [Leviticus 21.18–20 and Deuteronomy 23.1]), will be accepted in God’s temple, a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56.7) – an image cited by Jesus in Mark 11.17. Ælfric, however, following Augustine, sees in the locum melius (‘better place’) promised to eunuchs a comparatively better home in heaven for virgins. As Augustine says: ‘Cum dicit, Dabo eis locum multo meliorem; ostendit et conjugatis dari, sed multo inferiorem’ (‘When he says, “I will give to them a better place by far”, he shows that [a place] will be given to the married, but a poorer place by far’).121 Ælfric, already understanding virgins to be worthy of the highest reward, consequently uses not just a comparative, but a superlative: it is ða selestan wununga (‘the best dwelling’ [line 429]). Lines 436–52 [Sum synful wif iu … þæt godspell us segð.]: See notes under Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 211–36, as well as Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, pp. 311–12. Lines 453–97 [On Godes rice … wuniende buton ateorodnysse]: Still following Augustine’s De sancta uirginitate ‘fairly closely’,122 Ælfric turns to Revelation 14, a passage he also treats in his own De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) (see notes there to lines 102–20) and mentions in passing at the end of CH I.5.123 Some of the details are biblical: virgins follow Jesus wherever he goes [Revelation 14.4; line 458], no other can sing the song they sing [14.3; lines 463–6 and 470], and they are a crowd of 144,000 that stands exalted with Jesus [14.1; lines 477–82]. Other details may perhaps be inferred from the biblical text, such as Ælfric’s affirmation that non-virgins can hear and enjoy the virgins’ song, though they cannot sing it [lines 467–70], or that ‘virgins’ here includes both men [14.4; line 464] and women [line 465]. Still others are extra-biblical, not appearing in the passage here: the virgins sing with ease [lines 470–2], God makes individuals persevere in virginity and rewards them for it [lines 474–6], and the dwellings of the righteous are filled with this music [lines 483–4].124 When Ælfric identifies the number of the virginal crowd as 144,000, he says that the 120 Though

regarding resident aliens, see for example Leviticus 19.33–4. sancta uirginitate 24 (PL 40.408). 122 Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 312. 123 Clemoes, Homilies, p. 223, lines 184 (hi sind) – 188 (wurðmynte); see ‘Record C.B.1.1.6.025.01 for Source Title Apc’. 124 If indeed manegra þusenda refers to wunung[a] rather than to the singers themselves. 121 De

484

Commentary: Natiuitas Sanctae Mariae Uirginis figure is ‘swa swa we ær sædon’ (‘just as we said before’ [line 481]). The number does not previously appear in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis, however, and otherwise is only found in Ælfric’s Letter to Sigefyrth [line 116]125 and De sancta uirginitate [AH I.7, line 105]. As the latter post-dates the Natiuitas, Ælfric’s reference here is likely to his Letter to Sigefyrth. See also notes to 369–422 above. Thinking of this future glory, Ælfric now describes these believers as radiant. Supplementing his source, he begins with a reference to Matthew 13.43: ‘Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum’ (‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father’) [lines 485–6]. Next, like Augustine, he quotes from 1 Corinthians 15.41 to teach that the saints’ splendor will vary depending on their merits: ‘alia claritas solis alia claritas lunae et alia claritas stellarum, stella enim ab stella differt in claritate’ (‘one has the brightness of the sun, another has the brightness of the moon, and another has the brightness of the stars, for one star differs from another in brightness’) [lines 491–3]. Then, adding another passage on his own, Ælfric alludes to Hebrews 4.13: ‘non est ulla creatura inuisibilis in conspectu eius, omnia autem nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius ad quem nobis sermo’ (‘there is no creature invisible in his sight, but all things are stripped and laid bare to the eyes of him to whom we must give account’) [line 494]. Working backwards, he thus recaps: when at the Judgment all things are revealed (Hebrews 4), all will shine according to their merits (1 Corinthians 15), and will do so forever (Matthew 13) [lines 495–7]. Lines 498–506 [Maran wurðscipe habbað … þa clænnysse lufað]: Ælfric distinguishes here not simply between virgins and non-virgins, but between non-virginal laity and virgins who have also forsaken worldly goods and submitted to a spiritual authority – as have monks [lines 498–504]. Perhaps implicit is a contrast between laity who are virgins (e.g., because they are not yet married) and monks ‘ðe for Criste þa clænnysse lufað’ (‘who love purity on account of Christ’ [line 506]. Either way, the language may well be original to Ælfric: as Clayton notes, the lines ‘are generally similar to sentiments of Augustine, particularly those expressed by him at the beginning of [De sancta uirginitate 8], but the formulation seems to be Ælfric’s own’.126 Lines 507–99 [Nu smeagað sume menn … a to worulde, Amen]: Identical save for minor variants to De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 214–306, the notes for which may be consulted above. One slight exception is the scribe’s omission in AH I.7, line 300, of a phrase in line 593: believers, Ælfric says, should bring goodness ‘and sume gode lac’ (‘and some good offering’) to Christ in this world. On the importance of laca in this text, whether virginity, children, altar cloths, or one’s life, see lines 236, 269, 286–9, 290–1, and 300–2.

Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 18. and the Nativity’, p. 312.

125 Assmann, 126 ‘Ælfric

485

ÆLFRICIAN HOMILIES AND VARIA EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS, AND COMMENTARY

Volume II

AARON J KLEIST and ROBERT K. UPCHURCH

D. S. BREWER

Contents

VOLUME II Homilies The Common of the Saints 9. A Confessor: Sermo in natale unius confessoris (‘A Sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor’)

489

10. Dedication of a Church: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (‘A Sermon for the Dedication of a Church’)

531

Unspecified Occasions 11. Esto consentiens aduersario (‘Be in Agreement with Your Adversary’ [Matthew 5.25])

585

12. Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (‘People Need Good Teaching’)

629

Appendix 1: Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (‘Lay People Need Good Teaching’)

657

Appendix 2: Et hoc scientes tempus (‘And [Do] This, Knowing the Time’ [Romans 13.11])

666

13. De uirginitate (‘Concerning Virginity’)

14. De creatore et creatura (‘Concerning the Creator and Creation’)

15. De sex etatibus huius seculi (‘Concerning the Six Ages of the World’)

679 707 753

Varia 16. De septiformi spiritu (‘Concerning the Sevenfold Spirit’)

787

17. Be þam Halgan Gaste (‘Concerning the Holy Spirit’)

803

18. De cogitatione (‘Concerning Thinking’)

827

19. In quadragesima, de penitentia (‘In Lent, concerning Penitence’)

839

Appendix 1: Gelyfst Ðu on God (‘Do You Believe in God’)

860

Appendix 2: Læwedum Mannum Is to Witane (‘The Laity Are to Know’)

866

Appendix 3: Se Hælend Crist (‘Christ the Savior’)

882

Contents 20. Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (‘The Laity Are to Know’)

899

21. Gebedu on Englisc (‘Prayers in English’)

909

22. Se Læssa Creda (‘The Shorter Creed’) [Apostles’ Creed]

929

23. Mæsse Creda (‘The Mass Creed’) [Nicene Creed]

945

24. Pater noster (‘The Lord’s Prayer’)

965

Works Cited

977

Index

1001

vi

HOMILIES

the common of the saints

9

SERMO IN NATALE UNIUS CONFESSORIS The Sermo in natale unius confessoris (‘Sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor’) is Ælfric’s second homily for this liturgical occasion, his first being that in the Second Series of Catholic Homilies (CH II.38).1 In the Second Series, the confessor homily formed one of six sermons for the Common of the Saints, that is, sermons for various categories of saints (apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and patron saints of churches)2 to be used to commemorate individuals without a designated mass of their own. Ælfric’s confessor homilies honor a man of religious vocation who confessed his faith by preserving his chastity, persisting in prayer, and faithfully preaching God’s word, and they were to be read on his natalis (‘nativity’ or ‘birthday’), the day he was born into eternal life.3 Both texts are pericope homilies intended for the laity. In CH II.38, Ælfric expounds the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.14–30 and applies it to the clergy and the laity ‘so that the teacher-saint or holy confessor comes to stand as a model of the Christian who puts God’s talents to work’.4 In the Sermo, he likewise celebrates the teacher-saint, but not in such a way as to collapse distinctions between the layperson and cleric. Rather, his interpretation of Christ’s exhortation to his disciples to keep watch for the Second Coming in Matthew 24.42–7 draws attention to the authority and responsibility of preachers to reprove and restrain foolish laymen. Ælfric freely composes his exegesis with occasional recourse to Bede’s Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (In Lucae Euangelium expositio), where an analogous account of the Parable of the Talents is found (Luke 12.35–48), and perhaps homilies by Pope Gregory and Haymo of Auxerre. As he works his way through successive verses in the first part of the homily [lines 5–171], his application of the passage to all believers – who must keep watch against the devil [lines 50–93], prepare for an inevitable death with good deeds [lines 94–113], and be vigilant to avoid an evil demise [lines 114–27] – narrows. He comes to focus on the teacher-saint, not as a model Christian but as a model 1 2 3

4

Godden, Second Series, pp. 318–26. CH II.35 (an apostle), CH II.36 (several apostles), CH II.37 (martyrs), CH II.38 (confessors), CH II.39 (virgins), and CH II.40 (dedication of a church); see Godden, Second Series, pp. 299–345. For CH II.38, Godden suggests ‘St Augustine of Canterbury, since his feast was among those observed by the laity and he is not otherwise provided for, but the last section [of the homily] is perhaps more appropriate to a recent saint and Ælfric may have been thinking of the needs of individual churches to celebrate particular saints’ (Commentary, p. 648). For the Sermo, Ælfric may have been thinking about a Winchester confessor-saint such as Swithun or Æthelwold, on which see below. Godden, Commentary, p. 647.

489

Introduction: Sermo in natale unius confessoris preacher. In the Sermo, he is more keen to underscore rather than collapse distinctions between the laity and the clergy, for, in his view, the priests charged with teaching [lines 128–54] labor under heavier demands (observance of the Divine Office, vowed chastity, and authoritative teaching) and deserve greater heavenly rewards [lines 155–71].5 Having arrived at the end of the exegesis proper, the homily takes a turn that Mary Clayton describes as ‘a little odd’ given that we might expect the feast-day of a specially regarded holy confessor to have been marked by joyful celebration.6 Ælfric instead delivers a jolt of judgment. He pivots from a description of the office of teacher to the exercise of it, launching into an extended, freely composed treatment of God’s revenge on those who anger him [lines 172–278]. After all, wise men and wise teachers, Ælfric observes, are established to restrain the behavior of fools [lines 273–8].7 He begins with a roll call of those on whom God avenged himself instantly for their infractions [lines 172–216], whether they angered him by disrespect (Moses’ sister Miriam), sacrilege (King Uzziah), betrayal (Judas Iscariot), deception arising from acquisitiveness (Ananias and Sapphira), or blasphemy (Arius and Olympius). Others God punished after a long delay [lines 217–54], whether for disobedience (Adam), murder (Cain), highhanded sin (Saul), idolatry (Solomon), or treachery (Jews). For Ælfric, those punished summarily serve to censure the living and attest to God’s mercy for not allowing them to pile up more sins for which they will have to pay; those punished dilatorily point to opportunities for fools to turn to from sin by heeding a teacher’s correction [lines 255–78]. For such repentance to occur, Ælfric recommends a healthy dose of fear, not just of an avenging God but, it seems, of his priests as well.8 He makes this final point obliquely, turning (via Ambrose) to nature for examples of the fierce lion that fears a little rooster and the massive elephant a tiny mouse [lines 279–98]. Ælfric never clarifies the analogies, but his declaration that the wise are meant to restrain foolish men suggests that the fearsome lion and massive elephant correspond to powerful members of the laity, and the little rooster or tiny mouse to the preacher calling them to account. He follows this rather fine, if figurative, point with a more general, yet elliptical, one to conclude the homily: if animals fear each other, and fear and serve humans, then people as God’s creations ought to serve their Creator. Thanks to a Latin note that Ælfric appended to the Sermo, the homily can be firmly dated to a period between late 1006 or early 1007 and 1012–13.9 These are the dates of the episcopate of Æthelwold II, bishop of Winchester, at whose request Ælfric wrote the Sermo. Clayton observes that if Æthelwold ‘preached this text on the feast of a major saint, such as one of the Winchester confessor-saints, then it could well have reached a

5 6 7 8

9

Only clergymen ordained as priests were permitted to preach. Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 17. This introduction is deeply indebted to Clayton’s incisive analysis of the homily and the circumstances that may have prompted Ælfric to compose it. Clayton remarks that Ælfric’s observation is a ‘notably narrow explanation of the necessity for teachers’ (‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 16). It bears remarking that in his tract Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), Ælfric lists the ‘fear of God’ (Godes ege, glossing timor Domini [line 10]) as the seventh of the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit and ‘foolish presumption’ (dyslic dyrstignyss, glossing temeritas [line 50]) as its corresponding evil gift. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 113.

490

Introduction: Sermo in natale unius confessoris large audience of influential people’.10 Winchester was a royal burh, ‘a planned town, with the Old Minster, New Minster, Nunnaminster and the Royal Palace cheek by jowl in the south-east quadrant’,11 and Clayton suggests that the ‘lions’ and ‘elephants’ to whom Ælfric alludes in the homily were men ‘central in government’.12 King Æthelred’s witan, his group of lay and ecclesiastical advisors comprised of the kingdom’s leading men, had been roiled ca 1005–6 by the murder of an ealdorman and the blinding of his sons, the dispossession of one minister and the ouster of two more, one of whom was Ælfric’s younger patron Æthelmær, and the ascendancy of Eadric Streona, whose rise to prominence was accompanied by the murder, treachery, and deceit characteristic of some of the figures in Ælfric’s catalogue of those on whom God avenged himself.13 Clayton persuasively argues that the Sermo constitutes Ælfric’s ‘personal and emotive response to [these] contemporary circumstances’,14 and she plausibly suggests that Ælfric has the royal council in mind when he pairs witan and wise lareowas (‘wise men’ and ‘wise teachers’ [line 273]) as those established to restrain the conduct of foolish men.15 While Ælfric responded to contemporary circumstances in other works throughout his career,16 the Sermo is the best example among the homilies edited here and one of the latest examples in his corpus. Though Ælfric initially composed the Sermo at Æthelwold II’s request, he evidently found it suitable for inclusion in a late issue of the First Series of Catholic Homilies.17 Five of the seven surviving copies bear witness to this stage of production dating to ca 1006–10,18 and we base our edition of the Sermo on the copy in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188 [Q].19 As noted in the previous chapter, Q is one of the four complete copies of the First Series20 and a ‘very faithful’ copy of a manuscript that originated in 10 11 12 13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20

‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 18. Hill, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’, p. 49. ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 21. ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 19–20. ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 22. To Q was added Ælfric’s Sermon on Judgment Day, Sermo de die iudicii (SH II.18), which may date to ca 1005 (Godden, ‘Relations’, p. 370) and in which he complains about cowardly bishops and priests fearful of preaching God’s word to a Christian king and people (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 597–8, lines 169–99, at 187). It is also worthy of note that in his homily for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost [SH II.15], which dates to ca 1006–10 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 90–1), Ælfric pairs lareowas and witan, and notes that the former must teach and styran (‘correct’ [line 164]) while the latter must reprove the crooked and þa stuntan (‘the foolish’ [line 165]) (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 538). Clayton adduces several examples from ‘Ælfric’s later work in particular’ where ‘his desire to address contemporary conditions seem in some way to disrupt the kind of smooth progression otherwise characteristic of his work’ (‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 18): LS II.12 [Skeat I.13] [middle of the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998], LS II.18 [Skeat I.19], lines 155–258 [later in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998], SH II.22 [ca 1006–10], SH II.13.86–96 and 183–8 [ca 1006–10], and SH II.14.98–107 and 128–46 [ca 1006–10]. To these can be added Ælfric’s revised version of CH I.17 [ca 1002–05], which is discussed with reference to Clayton’s work in Upchurch, ‘Big Dog Barks’, pp. 524–9. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 36–8. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 [B] and Hatton 115 [P1] are the exceptions among the seven manuscripts discussed below. Ker §43.35; Gneuss and Lapidge §58.35; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 227–8. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 227, the other manuscripts being London, British Library, Royal

491

Introduction: Sermo in natale unius confessoris Ælfric’s library or scriptorium, which the Latin note makes clear.21 Q was written at an unidentified scriptorium in the first half of the eleventh century most likely after Ælfric’s death ca 1010,22 and though its provenance is likewise unknown, there are hints that Ælfric may have expected Q to be used in an urban see such as Winchester, Canterbury, or Worcester.23 The Sermo did make its way to Worcester, though not in collections authorized by Ælfric. One copy appears in an eleventh-century homiliary apparently known to Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York (1002–23): Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178 [R1].24 The copy in R1 then served as the exemplar for another copy made between 1064 and 1083 for the homiliary of Bishop Wulfstan II (1062–95) preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 114 [T2].25 As was the case with Æthelwold II at Winchester, it is easy to imagine both Worcester bishops preaching this text on the feast of a major saint, an obvious candidate for which is Oswald, the leading monastic reformer and bishop of Worcester (961–92) whose cult was fostered at his cathedral soon after his death.26 It is thus not surprising to find Sanctus Oswaldus added in the margins of R as a substitute for Ælfric’s unnamed holy confessor designated Ille (‘He’).27 A fragment attests to a third copy of the Sermo known at Worcester in a homiliary that may have been written in the south east of England in the second half of the eleventh century, possibly its third quarter.28 However, of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P], we can only say with certainty that the manuscript was in Worcester by the thirteenth century.29 If, as Susan Irvine suggests, the compiler of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 [B]30 had access to the Worcester library in the second half of the twelfth century, then he might have used one of these texts as an exemplar when he included a copy of

21

22

23 24

25

26 27 28

29 30

7 c. xii, fols 4r–218r [A]; London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v [H]; and Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28 [K]. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61. Pope also says of this ‘remarkable volume’ that ‘Q itself is certainly one of the most reliable of the Ælfric manuscripts, with few discoverable errors and a general fidelity to Late West Saxon forms’ (p. 62). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61. The Latin note appended to AH II.9 furnishes the latest written evidence that Ælfric could have lived until 1012–13, when Æthelwold II, the recipient of Ælfric’s homily for the Feast of a Confessor, died. Upchurch, ‘Big Dog Barks’, pp. 527–9. Ker §41A.11; Gneuss and Lapidge §54.11; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 228–9. Pope notes that R is ‘a descendant, substantially unchanged, of a lost volume of some importance, though not one of one that was put together under Ælfric’s supervision’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 62). Ker §331.76; Gneuss and Lapidge §638.76; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 231–2. On R as one of the exemplars of T, see Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 76. The Sermo belongs to a group of three homilies for the Common of the Saints added to T in a ‘more or less contemporary hand’ (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 74). The other two homilies – one by Ælfric (AH II.10), the other anonymous – were for the dedication of a church (Ker §331.76–8). Brooks, ‘Oswald [St Oswald] (d. 992)’. Ker §41.11, p. 61. P is comprised of P1, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, and P2, a leaf from Hatton 115 preserved in Lawrence, Kansas, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, Pryce C2:2 [Ker §332 and ‘Supplement’, pp. 124–5; Gneuss and Lapidge §639; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 226–7]. The fragment of the Sermo is P2. Ker §332, p. 403. Ker §310; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 208–10.

492

Introduction: Sermo in natale unius confessoris the Sermo in a collection likely meant for devotional reading by monks or nuns or for quarrying by the secular clergy to use in sermons of their own.31 The final, fragmented copy of the Sermo to be considered here is unique because it belonged to a mid-eleventh-century collection comprised entirely of saints’ lives and homilies about saints. Cotton Vitellius D. xvii [fk],32 whose origin and provenance are unknown, was badly burned in the Cotton Library fire of 1731, and only a few fire-damaged folios of the Sermo survive. Still, a table of contents made prior to the fire shows that the sermon was clustered with Ælfric’s Second Series homilies for several apostles (CH II.26), a confessor (CH II.38), and the dedication of church (CH II.40) to form an isolated group of homilies for the Common of the Saints.33 Even if the order of the collection’s items were dictated by the compiler’s sources,34 the Sermo’s presence at least bears witness to the collective uses to which a homily Ælfric wrote at an individual’s request was put in the late Anglo-Saxon and post-Conquest Church.

31

32 33 34

Irvine, Old English Homilies, pp. lii–iii. The Sermo belongs to the manuscript’s final section (Ker §310.77–85), a run of seven homilies on general themes, none assigned to a specific occasion, with Latin dialogues on the Lord’s Prayer and Creed interposed between the fourth and fifth homilies (Irvine, Old English Homilies, pp. xlvii–viii). Ker §222; Gneuss and Lapidge §406; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 246–7. Ker §222.38–41. Clemoes, First Series, p. 62.

493

sermo in natale unius confessoris

sermon for the feast - day of a confessor

SERMO IN NATALE UNIUS CONFESSORIS Sermo in natale unius confessoris Hunc sermonem nuper rogatu uenerandi episcopi Athelwoldi, scilicet Iunioris, anglice transtulimus, quem huius libelli calci inscribi fecimus, ne nobis desit cum ipse habeat. ‘Vigilate ergo’, et reliqua. 5

10

Matheus se godspellere us sæde on ðysum godspelle þæt ure Hælend Crist, ða ða he her on life wæs on soðre menniscnysse betwux mannum wunigende, þæt he gewarnode his apostolas þysum wordum and cwæþ, ‘Vigilate ergo quia nescitis qua hora Dominus uester uenturus sit’: ‘“Waciað eornostlice for þan ðe ge nyton on hwylcere tide eower Drihten cume. Text from: Q Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188, pp. 451–460 (s. xi1, perhaps xi2/4, provenance Hereford Cathedral? [Gneuss and Lapidge §58]) Variants from: B Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343, fols 167v–170r (s. xii2) P2 lines 92 (dom) – 154 (unnytwyrðe), Lawrence, Kansas, Kenneth Spencer Research Library, Pryce C2:2 (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester), as edited by Colgrave and Hyde, ‘Recently Discovered Leaves’ R1 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178, pp. 126–134 (s. xi1, probably Worcester, provenance Worcester [Gneuss and Lapidge §54]) S Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116, pp. 290–294 [lines 1–98 [þæt]] and 253–261 [lines 98 [he] – end] (s. xii1) T2 lines 1–270 (þonne), Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 114, fols 230r–235v (1064 × 1083, Worcester) fk London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius D. xvii, fols 77v [‘Ker 171’], 77r [Ker ‘171’], 90 + 91 [Ker ‘173’], and 76r [Ker ‘174’] (s. ximed) 2–3 Hunc…habeat] omitted BR1ST2  4 Vigilate…reliqua] omitted B  5 on] omitted B  8 þysum wordum] mid þisse worde B cwæþ] þus cwæþ B  11 eornostlice] georne B ge nyton] ge nyten fk, fol. 77v (Ker ‘171’) begins (Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 252)  12 cume] cymð B 

496

SERMON FOR THE FEAST-DAY OF A CONFESSOR Sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor We have recently translated this sermon into English at the request of the venerable Bishop Æthelwold, that is the Younger, which we have written at the end of this book, lest we lack it when he has it. ‘“Watch therefore”’,1 and so on. 5

10

Matthew the Evangelist said to us in this Gospel that our Savior Christ, when he was alive here in true humanity living among people, warned his apostles with these words and said, ‘Vigilate ergo quia nescitis qua hora Dominus uester uenturus sit’:2 “‘Therefore, keep watch because you do not know at what time your Lord will come.

1 2

The incipit of Matthew 24.42, quoted below in lines 9–10. Matthew 24.42: ‘“Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord will come”’.

497

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Wite ge þæt to soðan þæt se hiredes ealdor wacian wolde gif he wiste þone timan hwænne se ðeof come his hus to brecenne, and he nolde geþafian þam þeofe nateshwon þæt he underdulfe digellice his hus. Beoð for ði gearwe for ðan ðe ge nyton on hwylcere tide Mannes Sunu cume. Hwæt wenst þu la, hwa is getreowe ðeow and snotor þone ðe se hlaford | sette ofer his hirede, þe him do heora mete on rihtne timan? Eadig bið se ðeowa gif he swa deþ geornlice þonne se hlaford ongean cymð. Ic cweþe to soðan þæt he hine geset ofer ealle his god’”. Ðis godspell is nu gesæd sceortlice on Englisc on anfealdum gereorde, and we /e\ac wyllaþ þæt andgyt eow secgan on urum gereorde mid sceortum andgyte be ure mæþe for þan ðe we rædaþ ðas rædinge foroft æt þæra halgena mæssan þe we hataþ confessores, swa swa wæs ðs halga wer, Ille, þe we wurðiað todæg mid halgum lofsangum to lofe þam Hælende þe hine gewurðode mid heofenlicum wurðmynte. Ure Hælend þa cwæþ to his halgum discipulum, and þæt ðæt he to him cwæð, þæt he cwæþ eac to us: ‘“Waciað eornostlice for ðan ðe ge nyton on hwylcere tide eower Drihten cume”’. Ge sceolon nu ærest witan þæt twa wæccan synd: an is þæs lichaman, oðer þæs modes. Þæs lichaman wæcce ys þonne we waciað on cyrcan æt urum uhtsange þonne oðre men slapaþ, and we tobrecað urne slæp and gebiddað for eow and heriað urne Drihten mid halgum lofsangum, swa swa se witega us manað þisum wordum cweðende, Memor fui in nocte nominis tui, Domine, et custodiui legem tuam: ‘On niht Ic wæs gemyndig þines naman, Drihten, and Ic þine æ swa geheold’. Good is þæs lichaman wæcce þe for Gode bið gefremod, ac þæs modes wæcce is micele betere 16 nateshwon] na B  17 digellice his hus] his hus digellice B  19 cume] cymæð B  27 we /e\ac] eac we R1T2  28 þæt andgyt eow secgan] eow sæcgan þæt angyt B  32 ðs] ðæs QBT2; þes R1S Ille] sanctus ille T2  36 þæt ðæt] þæt þe B  37 eornostlice] georne B  38 hwylcere] hwulæ B eower] ure B cume] cymæð B  40 oðer] oþer is T2  45 manað] munæþ B þisum wordum] mid þisse worde B  46 in] omitted B  48 þines naman Drihten] drihten þin nome B  49 æ] lægæ B  50 Good is þæs] fk, fol. 77v (Ker ‘171’) ends; þæs] omitted B for] mid BT2  51 is micele betere] mycele bætere is B 

498

p. 452

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Know for certain that the head of the household would have watched if he knew the time when the thief would come to break into his house, and he would in no way have allowed the thief to dig secretly under his house. Therefore be ready because you do not know at what time the Son of Man will come. Who do you think is the faithful and wise servant whom the lord set over his household to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is the servant if he is eagerly doing so when the lord comes again. Truly, I say that he will set him over all his goods’”. This Gospel has now been briefly declared in English in plain language, and we also want to declare the meaning to you in our language with a brief explanation according to our ability because we read this reading very often at the mass of the saints whom we call confessors, as was this holy man, [NAME], whom we honor today with holy songs of praise as praise to the Savior who honored him with heavenly honor. Our Savior at that time spoke to his holy disciples, and what he said to them he also said to us: ‘“Therefore keep watch because you do not know at what time your Lord will come”’. Now you ought to know first that there are two watches: one is physical, the other mental. The physical watch is when we watch in church at our matins when other men sleep, and we interrupt our sleep and pray for you and praise our Lord with holy songs of praise, just as the prophet exhorts us, saying in these words, Memor fui in nocte nominis tui, Domine, et custodiui legem tuam:3 ‘In the night I have remembered your name, O Lord, and I have kept your law’. Good is the physical watch that is performed for God, but much better is the mind’s watch

3

Psalms 118.55: ‘Memor fui nocte nominis tui, Domine, et custodiui legem tuam’ (‘I have remembered your name in the night, O Lord, and I have kept your law’).

499

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

þæt se man hogie hu he gehealden beo wið ðone swicolan deo|fol þe hine beswican wyle mid mislicum leahtrum and manfullum dædum, swa swa se apostol Petrus on his pistole awrat: ‘Beoð eow syfre on bigleofan and soðlice waciað for þan ðe eower wiðerwinna, þæt is se wyrsta deofol, swa swa grymettende leo færð him onbutan, secende gehwær hwæne he forswelge. Wiðstandaþ ðam eornostlice, strange on geleafan’. Lucas se godspellere awrat eac be þysum þæt ure Hælend sæde on sumum his godspelle be ðyssere ylcan wæccan þe we embe sprecað, þæt is ðæs modes wæcce, swa swa ge magon gehyran: ‘Et si uenerit in secunda uigilia’, et reliqua. (Secunda uigilia uel tertia non dicitur, nisi sit prima, quæ precedat.): ‘“Gif se hlaford cymð on þære oðre wæccan oððe on ðære þriddan and he swa gemet his þeowan donde, þonne beoð hi eadige”’. Seo forme wæcce is witodlice on cildhade, and seo oðer wæcce is on weaxendum cnihthade, and seo þridde wæcce is on forweredre ylde. Se ðe nolde wacian on ðære forman wæccan swa ðæt he on cildhade gesohte his Drihten and mid godum bigengum hine gegladode, wacie he huru on þære oðre wæccan and his mod awrecce of middaneardlicum gedwyldum for þan ðe he nat þone timan ðe his Drihten cymð. Gif hwa ðonne bið þe hine sylfne forgyt on þam twam wæccum and wunað on his leahtrum, warnige he þonne þæt he huru ne forleose þa ðriddan wæccan þæt he ne for|wurðe mid ealle ac huru on his ylde of ðam yfelan slæpe his ærran nytennysse ardlice arise and mid soðre gecyrrednysse gesece his Drihten and on godum weorcum wunige oð ende. Ure Drihten wolde þæt us wære bediglod se endenexta dæg þises andweardan lifes

52 se man] ðe B  54 leahtrum] synnum B  56 syfre on bigleofan] warre B soðlice waciað] fk, fol. 77r (Ker ‘171’) begins (Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 252)  57 wyrsta] omitted B  58–9 swa swa … forswelge] færeð eow abuton swa swa grymetende leo secende ofer all hwam he mæg forswolgen B  60 eornostlice] georne B  69 swa] omitted B  70 donde] swa donde B  75 gesohte] ne gesoh[te] fk  76 bigengum] weorcum B gegladode] ne gegl[adode] fk  78 awrecce] awæcce Bfk  79 nat] nan þing nat B  80 þe] þæt S  81 leahtrum] synnum B  82 he þonne] he him þenum B  84 his] omitted B  87 oð ende] oð his ende B  89 se endenexta dæg] fk, fol. 77r (Ker ‘171’) ends 

500

p. 453

p. 454

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

to take care about how one might be protected from the deceitful devil who desires to deceive him with various sins and wicked deeds, just as the apostle Peter wrote in his letter: ‘Be sober in sustenance and truly keep watch because your adversary, that is the most wicked devil, goes about like a roaring lion, seeking everywhere someone he may swallow up. Resist him steadfastly, strong in faith’. Luke the Evangelist also wrote with respect to these things that our Savior declared in one of his Gospels about this same watch that we speak of, that is the mental watch, just as you can hear: ‘Et si uenerit in secunda uigilia’, et reliqua.4 (Secunda uigilia uel tertia non dicitur, nisi sit prima, quae precedat.):5 ‘“If the lord comes in the second watch or in the third and he finds his servants [watching], then they will be blessed”’. The first watch to be sure occurs during childhood, and the second watch occurs during flourishing adulthood, and the third watch occurs during feeble old age. He who did not want to keep watch during the first watch so that he sought his Lord during childhood and gladdened him with good worship, let him keep watch in the second watch and awaken his mind from earthly sins because he does not know the time that his Lord will come. If there is anyone then who forgets himself during these two watches and persists in his sins, let him take heed not to waste the third watch so as not to utterly perish but at least in his old age to arise quickly from the evil slumber of his previous ignorance and with a true conversion seek his Lord and continue in good deeds until the end. Our Lord desired that the final day of this present life be hidden from us

4

5

The incipit of Luke 12.38: ‘Et si uenerit in secunda uigilia et si in tertia uigilia uenerit et ita inuenerit, beati sunt serui illi’ (‘And if he shall come in the second watch or if he shall come in the third watch and find them so, blessed are those servants’). Ælfric’s aside: ‘One does not mention a second or third watch unless there be a first that comes before [them]’.

501

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

þæt we wacele beon on godum weorcum symle, swilce we sceolon siðian of life on þam oðrum dæge and swa dom underfon be þam ðe we geearnodon ær on life. ‘“Wite ge þæt to soðan þæt se hiredes ealdor wacian wolde gif he wiste þone timan hwænne se ðeof come his hus to brecenne, and he nolde geþafian þam ðeofe nateshwon þæt he underdulfe digollice his hus”’. Ðæs hiredes ealdor soðlice is ure agen mod, and se dyrna þeof þe digollice cymð is se gemænelica deaþ ðe þæs mannes lichaman mid his digelan tocyme to deaðe gebringð. Gif se hiredes ealdor wende him þæs ðeofes oððe wiste his tocyme, he wolde him wiðstandan for ðam ðe þæt mod wolde miclum hogian þæt hit awoce and geworhte dædbote his swærran synna ær þam þe se swearta deað him to become, gif hit his cyme wiste. Ne mæg nan man swa ðeah nahwar ætberstan þam gemænelican deaðe þe eallum mannum becymð, ac we sceolon wacian on godum weorcum swa þeah þæt we ne þurfn ondrædan us þæs deaðes tocyme gif we on Godes bigengum beoð geendode. ‘“Beoþ for ði gearowe for ðan ðe ge nyton on hwil|cere tide Mannes Sunu cume”’. Se Hælend us warnode mid þisum wordum ðus for ðan ðe he wyle þæt we ware beon, þæt we yfelum deaðe geendigan ne sceolon, for þan ðe þæs synfullan deað symle bið yfel and ðæs rihtwisan deað bið deorwyrðe Gode. Se Hælend soðlice het hine sylfne Mannes Sunu foroft, swa swa ge gehyrdon nu for þan ðe he ana is anes mannes sunu, and he cwæþ ðæt we nyston hwænne he cuman wolde for ðan ðe we nyton to nanum gewisse hwænne se welwillenda Crist us wile habban to him 90 wacele] wacole R1ST2 symle] æfre B  91 swilce] with ‘i’ altered to ‘y’ Q  92 dom] P2 begins  94 ealdor] ealdes T2  97 nolde] nolde noht B geþafian þam ðeofe] þam þeofe geþæfian P2 nateshwon] omitted B  98 underdulfe digollice his hus] his hus digollice underdulfe B  100 digollice cymð] cymð digollice T2; stillice cymð B  106 geworhte] wrohte B  108 him to become] to him come B hit] he B  112 þurfn] þurhfun, with ‘n’ corrected from ‘r’ Q; þurfon P2R1ST2; þurfan B ondrædan us] us ondredan B  115 cume] cymð B  118 yfelum] on yfele B  119 symle] æfre B  120 Gode] and god B  121 soðlice] omitted B  122–3 foroft … mannes sunu] omitted B  124 he cwæþ] sæde B  125 for ðan ðe] he walde for þam þæt B to] omitted R1  126 habban to him] to him habban B 

502

p. 455

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

so that we might be ever vigilant in good deeds, as we must journey from life into another day and thus receive the judgment according to what we earned before while living. ‘“Know for certain that the head of the household would have watched if he knew the time when the thief would come to break into his house, and he would in no way have allowed the thief to dig secretly under his house”’. The head of the household is truly our own mind, and the stealthy thief who comes secretly is that universal death that brings a person’s body unto death with its secret arrival. If the head of the household expected the thief or knew of his coming, he would want to resist him because the mind would want to take great care that it awoke and did penance for its grievous sins before dark death came to him, if [the mind] knew of its arrival. No person is ever able, however, to escape from that universal death that comes to all people, but we ought nevertheless to keep watch with good deeds so that we have no need to fear death’s arrival if we will have died in the worship of God. ‘“Therefore be ready because you do not know at what time the Son of Man will come”’. The Savior warned us thus with these words because he desires us to be watchful so that we should not be brought to an evil death, because the death of the sinful is always evil and the death of the righteous is precious to God. The Savior truly called himself the Son of Man very often, as you now heard because he alone is the son of one person, and he said that we did not know when he intended to come because we do not know for certain when the benevolent Christ intends to take us to himself

503

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

of ðyssere yrmðe to ecere myrhðe. ‘“Hwæt wenst ðu la, hwa is getreowe þeow and snotor þone ðe se hlaford sette ofer his hirede þe him do heora mete on rihtne timan?”’ Ælcum hlaforde gedafenaþ ðæt he do his mannum symle heora bigleofan on gesettum timan, ac se Hælend mænde þone gastlican mete, þa halgan lare, ðe ge men behofiað eowerum sawlum to bigleofan þa ge sceolon gehyran æt eowerum lareowum swa swa hi leorniaþ on bocum. Se getreowa þeowa and se snotera is se goda lareow on Godes Gelaþunge, ðe segð ða halgan lare þam læwedum folce, swa swa þes halga wer, Ille, dyde, þe we wurðiað todæg. He dælde wislice on gewissum timan þone gastlican mete Godes hirede symle, and he manega sawla mid his lare gestrynde þam ælmihtigan Gode þe hine nu wurðað. Þa halgan apostolas þe ðam Hælende folgodon wæron | þa getreowan þeowan and ða fyrmestan bydelas þe Godes lare geond þas land toseowon, swa þæt heora bodunge sweg swegde geond eall and heora word becomon to eorþan gemærum. Eac heora æftergengan and ða æþelan confessores cyddon Godes lare oð ðæt hit com to us. Nu sceole we eac secgan ða soðan lare eow nu on urum timan elles we beoð gehatene yfele þeowan and unnytwyrðe. Se Hælend sæde on ðisum soðan godspelle, ‘“Eadig bið se þeowa gif he swa deþ geornlice þonne se hlaford ongean cymð. Ic cweþe to soðan þæt he hine geset ofer ealle his god”’. Se soða Hlaford is ure leofa Hælend se cymð to demenne eallum mancynne, and on ure geendunge he underfehð us to him gif we swa gesælige beoð þæt we swa doþ geornlice, swa swa þis godspel segð, and he set us ofer his god on heofonan rice on healicum wurðmynte, 127 yrmðe] weorldes yrmðe B to ecere myrhðe] omitted B  128 la] omitted B getreowe] þe treowa B þeow] þeowa P2  131 gedafenaþ] bureð B  132 symle] æfre B  134 þa] þæt is þa B ge men] omitted B  136 leorniaþ on bocum] on boce leorniæð B  137 snotera] wisæ B  138 lareow] larþeow ðe B  139 ðe] omitted B  140 Ille] sancta ille T2  142 symle] æfre B  143 mid his lare gestrynde] streonde mid his lare B  147 Godes lare … toseowon] seowen godes lare geond þis land B land] erased and ‘woruld’ interlined in a different hand R1; woruld T2  148 sweg] omitted B  152 secgan] secgæn eow B  153 eow nu] omitted B  154 unnytwyrðe] [unnytwyr]ðe P2; P2 ends  157 ongean cymð] cymeð agean B  158 he hine geset] he set hine B  159 leofa] omitted B  160 eallum mancynne] all moncynn B  161 on] æt B  163 segð] us sægð B

504

p. 456

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

from this misery to everlasting joy. ‘“Who do you think is the faithful and wise servant whom the lord set over his household to give them their food at the proper time?”’ It is fitting for each lord to always give his servants their food at set times, but the Savior meant the spiritual food, the holy instruction, which you people need as sustenance for your souls since you ought to hear from your teachers what they learn in books. The faithful and wise servant is the good teacher in God’s Church who relates the holy instruction to lay people, as did this holy man, [NAME], whom we honor today. He always wisely distributed spiritual food to God’s household at appointed times, and with his teaching he acquired many souls for almighty God who honors him now. The holy apostles who followed the Savior were faithful servants and the best preachers who spread God’s teaching throughout these lands, so that the sound of their preaching resounded everywhere and their words went to the ends of the earth. Likewise, their followers and the noble confessors made known God’s teaching until it came to us. Now we too must relate the true teaching to you in our times lest we be called evil and unfaithful servants. The Savior said in this true Gospel, ‘“Blessed is the servant if he eagerly is doing so when the lord comes again. Truly, I say that he will set him over all his goods”’. The true Lord is our beloved Savior who will come to judge all mankind, and at our death he will receive us to himself if we are thus blessed to be thus [preaching] zealously, just as his Gospel says, and he will set us over his goods in the kingdom of heaven in great honor,

505

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

na þæt we ana habbon us ðone wurðmynt, ac swa man mare swincð swa maran mede hæfð. Þa lareowas swincað swiðor þonne ða læwedan, ge on heora þeowdome þe hi Gode þeowiað, ge on heora gehealdsumnysse, þe hi healdan sceolon, ge on þære boclican lare, þe hi bodian sceolon, and bið forði mare heora med mid Gode. We sceolon eow secgan and forsuwian ne durron hu se ælmihtiga God foroft gewrecð swiþe his forsewennysse on forscyldegodum mannum, and hwilon eac forberð, swa swa we on bocum rædaþ, and læt ðam yfelum fyrst þæt hi heora yfeles geswicon and hine gladion | mid godum weorcum. Moyses sweostor, ðæs mæran heretogan, wæs Maria gehaten, swiðe mære wimman. Heo spræc ongean God and ongean Moysen, ac ðærrihte heo wearð mid hreoflan geslagen þæt eal hire lic egeslice tobærst oð ðæt Moyses eft hire earfoðlice geþingode swa þæt heo eft wearð on þam ehteoðan dæge hal ðurh ðone mildheortan God, ðe mæg eal ðæt he wile. Ozias se cyning wolde eac offrian æfter Moyses æ þam ælmihtigan Gode þa gewunelican lac, ac he wæs læwede man and nam þa storcyllan and sterde æt þam weofode. Ða gesloh hine sona se snawhwita hreofla, and he swa hreoflig wunode, oð ðæt he wearð dead for þære dyrstignysse, þæt he dorste onginnan þæra sacerda þenunga þa ða he sylf wæs læwede. Swiðe raðe eac Iudas, þe ur Drihten belæwde, aheng hine sylfne and swa to helle gewat. Eac swilce Annanias, þe on his agenum swicode, and his wif Saphira wurdon ofslegene ætforan þam halgan Petre for heora swicdome. Arrius wæs gehaten sum arleas mæssepreost, se wæs se mæsta gedwola þe wurde æfre on mancynne. He wolde gelytlian urne lyfiendan Drihten and wanian his godcundnysse swa þæt he wurde getwæmed fram his heofonlican Fæder on þære halgan godcundnysse. 166 swa maran] swa man mare R1ST2 hæfð] he hæfð B  168 ge on] geond B  169 ge] omitted 171 mid] for B  172 and forsuwian ne durron] omitted B  173 foroft] oft B  177 hine] him B gladion] gegladian T2  179 wimman] wifman R1; wifmann T2; wifmon B  181 mid hreoflan] fk, fols 90+91 (Ker ‘173’) begins (Ker §222.38) geslagen] ofslagen B  182 egeslice] omitted S  183 eft hire] hyre (hire T2) eft R1 eft hire earfoðlice geþingode] þingode hire eft earfoðlice B  185 mæg] mæg don ST2  194 ur] urene Q; urne R1ST2; ure B belæwde] beswac B  195 to helle gewat] ferde to helle B  199 wæs] wæs eac T2  202 wurde] wære R1T2 

506

p. 457

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

not that we alone might have the honor, but just as one works more, so will he have a greater reward. Teachers work more than lay people, both in their divine service, with which they serve God, and in their chastity, which they must preserve, and in teaching derived from books, which they must preach, and thus their reward is greater with God. We must say to you and dare not pass over how almighty God very often harshly punishes contempt for him in wicked people, and at times also forbears, just as we read in books, and allows evil ones a respite to cease from their evil and appease him with good works. The sister of Moses, the glorious leader, was named Miriam, a very illustrious woman. She spoke against God and against Moses, but she was instantly struck with leprosy so that her entire body terrifyingly burst apart until Moses afterwards strenuously interceded for her so that she became healthy again on the eighth day on account of the merciful God, who is able [to do] all that he desires. Likewise, Uzziah the king desired to offer the customary sacrifice to almighty God in imitation of Moses, but he was a layman and took the censer and burned incense at the altar. The snow-white leprosy then immediately struck him, and he remained thus leprous until he was dead on account of his presumption, that he dared to attempt the priest’s rite when he was a layman. Likewise, Judas, who betrayed our Lord, very quickly hanged himself and thus departed to hell. Ananias too, who cheated with respect to his own possessions, and his wife Sapphira were killed in front of Saint Peter on account of their deceit. There was a certain wicked mass-priest named Arius, who was the greatest heretic who ever lived among mankind. He desired to diminish our Lord and limit his divinity in order to separate him from his heavenly Father with respect to holy divinity.

507

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

Þa com him raðe to swiþe reðe wite swa þæt him wand eal ut his innoþ æt his setle, and he swa sceandlice þa sawlode sona. Olimpius hatte eac swilce an biscop; se wæs eac | gedwola on ures Drihtnes geleafan, and he egeslice spræc embe ða halgan Þrynnysse. Þa sæt he on sumum dæge swa on his bæþe tælende þone Hælend and ða halgan Þrynnysse huxlice mid wordum, ac he wearð sona eal forbærned on þam bæþe middan mid gesewenlicum fyre, and ne mihte þæt bæþ þæt fyr adwæscan þe hine forbærnde, and his wodnys wearð gewrecen swa þurh God. God wrecð hwilon raþe, swa swa we ræddon her, on mancynne heora mislican synna, hwilon eac lator æfter langsumum fyrste, swa swa he dyde on Adam. Æt frumon he behet him deaþ gif he his bebod tobræce. Þa tobræc he his bebod, ac God abad swa þeah nigon hund geara and þrittig geara, and Adam wearð þa dead for þam deopan gylte. Cain, se broðorslaga þe Abel ofsloh, Adames sunu, abad eac on life oð ða seofoþan mægðe, swa swa us secgað bec, and he syþðan underfeng his fyrnlican dæde wite on his deaþe swa swa he wyrðe wæs. Saul se cyning, þe syngode ongean God and hine swa gegremode þæt God cwæþ be him þæt him ofþuhte þæt he hine to cyninge gesette, næs na sona dead for his synnum swa þeah, ac God him let fyrst feowertig geara. Salomon se cyning eac swilce syngode micclum ongean God and macode him deofolgyld, ac for his fæder geearnungum, þæs æðelan Davides, God him let fyrst feowertig geara, and his cynerice wearð syððan todæled on his suna handum, | se hatte Roboam, swa ðæt him fram abeah þæs folces micel dæl, 204 raðe to swiþe] swiðe ræðe to B  206 he] he þa R1T2 þa sawlode sona] sawlode B  207 hatte eac] eac hatte B swilce an] an swylc B  208 geleafan] naman and geleafan S  212 huxlice] huhslice R1  213 on þam bæþe middan] on midden þam bæþe B  217 God wrecð … ræddon her] as Q, but sæden ær B; God wrycð hwilum hraþe, hwilum eac lator æfter langsuman fyrste [as in line 219], swa swa we ræddan her R1T2 ræddon her]  218–20 on mancynne … on Adam] on mancynne heora mislican synna, swa swa he dyde on adame R1T2  227 oð ða] oð ðet þe B  228 fyrnlican] synlice B  232 þæt him ofþuhte] omitted T2  233 næs] næs he T2  234 ac] and ac B  235 swilce] omitted B  238 him let] lette him B  241 fram] omitted B þæs] þæt B micel] omitted R1T2 

508

p. 458

p. 459

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

An exceedingly fierce punishment then came quickly to him so that on his seat his intestines spilled completely out of him, and thus vilely he died instantly at that time. There was also a bishop called Olympius, who was likewise a heretic with respect to the faith of our Lord, and he spoke horribly about the holy Trinity. Then on a certain day he was thus sitting in his bath insulting the Savior and the holy Trinity scornfully with [his] words, but instantly he was utterly consumed with visible fire in the middle of the bath, and the bath could not extinguish the fire that consumed him, and his madness was thus punished by God. God, as we read here, sometimes quickly punishes in mankind their various sins, sometimes also later after a long time, just as he did with Adam. In the beginning, he promised him death if he broke his commandment. Then he broke his commandment, but God nevertheless waited nine hundred and thirty years, and then Adam died on account of profound guilt. Cain, the brother-killer who killed Abel, Adam’s son, also went on living until the seventh generation, just as books tell us, and he afterwards received the punishment for his evil deed at his death just as he deserved. Saul the king, who sinned against God and so angered him that God said of him that he regretted he established him as king, nevertheless did not immediately die on account of his sins, but God allowed him a period of forty years. Likewise Solomon the king sinned greatly against God and made an idol for himself, but on account of the merits of his father, the noble David, God allowed him a period of forty years, and his kingdom was afterwards given into the hands of his son, who was named Rehoboam, so that a great portion of the people, the ten tribes,

509

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

þæt synd tyn mægða, and him twa belifon. Đa Iudeiscan syngodon swiðe ongean God þa þa hi acwealdon Crist urne Hælend, ac God him let fyrst swa þeah feowertig geara, þæt hi heora synna sceoldon behreowsian. Ac ða þa hi ne dydon nane dædbote, þa sende him God to þone scearpan here Romaniscre leode, þe eall þæt land fordyde and heora burga tobræc and hi bysmorlice acwealde, sume mid hungre, sume mid heardum isene, and gelæddon þa herelafe to gehwylcum landum. Fela we mihton secgan swilcera bysena, gif hit to langsum nære on þysum lytlan cwyde. Ac we secgaþ swa þeah, se ðe his Scyppend gremaþ, þæt hit bið gewrecen gewislice on him swa ær swa lator loca hu God wylle, buton he swa gesælig beo þæt he hit sylf gebete his agenes willes ær his geendunge. God gewrecð his forsewennysse, swa swa we sædon ær, hwilon ær, hwilon lator, loca hu him gewyrð. Hwilon he gewitnaþ ðæs mannes gewitleaste sona mid styrnysse oðrum to steore and eac þæt he to swiþe his synna ne geeacnige and maran witu hæbbe on þære toweardan worulde. Hwilon he andbidað, swa swa we ær cwædon, for his micclan geþylde, þæt se man gecyrre fram his synnum gif he wile oððe he butan launge losie mid ealle þonne he swa lange leofode unrihtlice and on þam langan fyrste | his fyrnlican dæda nolde gebetan ne gebugan to Gode. Forði synd witan gesette and wise lareowas þæt hi sceolon styran stuntra manna anginne, þæt gif se dysega him ne ondræt his Drihtnes yrre, þæt he huru hæbbe her for worulde woruldlice steore þæt he ne forweorðe mid ealle, gif nan steor ne gestilð his stuntnysse on ær. Ælc ðing sceal habban sumne ege on his life.

244 þa þa] þa þe B acwealdon] ahengon R1T2  246 sceoldon behreowsian] bereowsiæn sceoldon B  247 ða þa] þa ðe B  248 him God] god him T2  248–9 him God … leode] god to heom þenne scearpe romanisce here B  251 heardum isene] hiren B  259 his] omitted B  260 we] we eow T2 sædon ær] ær sæden B  267 gecyrre] cearræ B  269 oððe] oðer B butan launge] landunge Q; ladunge BR1ST2fk (fk as reported by Assmann); fk, fol. 76r (Ker ‘174’) begins (Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 252)  270 þonne] T2 breaks off  273 lareowas] larþeawæs B  274 styran … anginne] stuntra manna anginne styran R1  277 ne] omitted B 

510

p. 460

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris

245

250

255

260

265

270

275

turned away from him and [only] two remained with him. The Jews sinned greatly against God when they killed Christ our Lord, but God nevertheless allowed them a period of forty years to repent of their sins. But when they did not do any penance, then God sent them the harsh army of the Roman people, who destroyed all the land and wrecked their cities and contemptuously killed them, some with hunger, some with hard iron, and led the remnant of the people into every land. We could relate many such examples if it were not too lengthy for this short sermon. But we will, nevertheless, say about the one who angers his Creator, that [the offense] will assuredly be avenged on him sooner or later in whatever way God desires, unless he be so blessed to make amends of his own will before his death. God will punish contempt for him, as we said earlier, sometimes sooner, sometimes later, in whatever way [it] happens to [the person]. Sometimes he punishes a person’s foolishness instantly with severity as a reproof to others and also so as not to increase his sins and have more punishment in the future world. Sometimes he waits, as we said earlier, because of his great patience, for a person to turn from his sins if he desires or to utterly perish without excuse when he has lived improperly for so long and during that long time did not desire to atone for his wicked deeds or to turn to God. Thus are wise men and wise teachers established to restrain the conduct of foolish people, so that if the fool does not fear his Lord’s anger, he will at least have that [restraint] here in this life on account of worldly correction so that he will not utterly perish if no correction deters his foolishness beforehand. Every thing ought to have some fear in its life.

511

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 280

285

290

295

Ge furðon þa wildan deor, þe on wuda eardiaþ. We rædaþ be þære leon, ðe is swa reðe deor, þæt ðurh hyre grymetunge þonne heo grædig bið, þæt ða oðre deor þe hyre stemne gehyrað, þe mihton hire ætfleon þurh heora fota swiftnesse, þæt hi beoð swa afyrhte þæt hi fleon ne durron. Ac swa þeah seo leo þone lytlan hanan hyre ondræt gif heo him on besyhð and ealra swiðost gif se hana hwit bið. Eac se micela ylp, þe ða modigan fearras mid ealle ofbeat mid his egeslican nypele, ondræt him forþearle gif he gesihð ane mus, ðeah ðe seo mus ne mage his micelnysse derian. Nu habbað deor ege him betwynan, and þa wildan deor be ures Drihtnes gesetnysse syndon mannum underþeodde, and hi mannum þeowiað, ge wilde ge tame, and we sceolon beon Gode underþeodde þe ealle þing gesceop, se ðe ana rixað on ecnysse, Amen.

280 Ge] omitted B  281 swa reðe deor] seo kene deor B  285 ne durron] ne magen with ‘uel durren’ interlined above B  291 forþearle] forhearde R1; swiðe B  295 syndon … þeowiað] beoð underðeode monne and heom þeowiæð B  296 wilde] þe wilde B tame] þa tome B

512

Text: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 280

285

290

295

Indeed, you [fear] the wild beasts that live in the woods. We read about the lion, which is so fierce a beast that, because of its roaring when it is hungry, other beasts that hear its roar, which could escape it by swiftness of foot, are so afraid that they dare not flee. But nevertheless the lion fears the little rooster if it sees him and especially if the rooster is white. Likwise, the great elephant, that beats spirited bulls utterly to death with his terrifying trunk, is very much afraid if he sees a mouse, although the mouse is not able to harm its huge size. Now animals fear each other, and wild beasts have been subjected to humans according to our Lord’s ordinance, and both wild and tame serve humans, and we ought to be subjected to God who created all things, he who alone reigns forever, Amen.

513

SERMO IN NATALE UNIUS CONFESSORIS

COMMENTARY Seven copies of Ælfric’s homily for the Common of a Confessor (AH II.9) survive: B, fols 167v–170r [Ker §310.84]; P2 [not in Ker1]; Q, pp. 451–60 [Ker §43.45]; R1, pp. 126–34 [Ker §41A.11]; S, pp. 290–4 and 253–61 [Ker §333.16]; T2, fols 230r–235v [Ker §331.76]; and fk, fol. ‘171’ (disarranged; presently fol. 77) [Ker §222.38]. The text was previously edited by Assmann2 prior to Colgrave’s and Hyde’s discovery and publication of P2, which was originally a leaf from P1.3 It may be dated early in the period between [A] late 1006 (perhaps after 16 November) to 1007 and [B] 1012 to 10131/2 (possibly before late summer).4 Line 1 [Sermo in Natale Unius Confessoris]: AH II.9 is Ælfric’s second homily for the Nativity (that is, Feast-Day) of a Confessor, the first being CH II.38, which treats Christ’s Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25.14–30 (conflated with the parallel account in Luke 10.12–26), drawing on Bede, Eusebius Gallicanus, Gregory, and Jerome.5 Ælfric may have included AH II.9 in CH I in Phase ε4 of First Series production.6 Lines 2–3 [Hunc sermonem … ipse habeat]: Our text begins with one of two Latin notes associated with the homily, the other being a later exegetical aside (Secunda uigilia … quae precedat [lines 62–3]). Writing in the first person, Ælfric says at least three things: [1] he has translated the homily into English (hunc sermonem … Anglice transtulimus), [2] he did so at Æthelwold’s request, and [3] shortly after completing the translation (nuper), he had a copy made for himself. Taking these points in reverse order, the following observations may be made. First, Ælfric indicates that he had the homily transcribed at the end of ‘this book’ (huius libelli calci inscribi fecimus). While In natale 1

2 3 4 5 6

P2, the third of six consecutive leaves missing from P1 after fol. 82v, preserves AH II.9, lines 88 (dom underfon) – 150 (and unnytwyrðe) (Colgrave and Hyde, ‘Recently Discovered Leaves’, pp. 68–70). This copy of the Sermo in natale unius confessoris should not be confused with the imperfectly-ending copy of In natale unius confessoris (CH II.38) which precedes it in P1 [Ker §332.24]; see also Clemoes, ‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xxiii. Assmann 4 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 49–64). ‘Recently Discovered Leaves’. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 19–20, 113–14, 288, 296 n. 120, 303 n. 238, and 304 nn. 246 and 257. See Godden, Commentary, pp. 647–9. See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 36–8; Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, p. 48, and First Series, p. 119; Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 2; Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. li; and Godden, Second Series, p. lxxxix.

514

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris unius confessoris does now comprise the last entry in Q, the only manuscript in which the note survives, it did not always: not only are quires missing hereafter, according to Ker,7 but the incipit and initial lines of a subsequent homily are still visible at the bottom of the last page, though these have been erased, perhaps by Parker in a characteristic effort to ‘tidy’ his manuscripts. The reference, however, gives some insight into the composition of the ultimate source of this part of Q. Second, the intended recipient, Athelwold Iunior (‘Æthelwold the Younger’), may be identified as Æthelwold II, bishop of Winchester, a figure ‘about whom very little is known’.8 His episcopal predecessor at Winchester was Cenwulf, whose short tenure lasted perhaps from 16 November 1006 to late 1006.9 Æthelwold himself appears as an episcopal witness to eleven charters dating from 1007 to 1012.10 The first charter witnessed by Ælfsige II, his successor at Winchester, dates from 1013, possibly before late summer.11 Æthelwold’s episcopacy may thus be placed between [A] late 1006 (perhaps after 16 November) to 1007, the period between Cenwulf’s death and Æthelwold’s first attestations in charters, and [B] 1012 to the first half of 1013 (possibly before late summer), between Æthelwold’s last appearance in charters and the first occasion where his successor served as witness. While AH II.9 ‘would seem to have been written soon after Æthelwold’s installation as bishop’,12 and Ælfric’s final compositions and revisions likely fell between ca 1009 and ca 1010,13 1013 thus provides a terminus ante quem not just for AH II.9, but Ælfric’s death as well. Third, it is tempting to posit a lost Latin homily behind Ælfric’s statement that ‘hunc sermonem … Anglice transtulimus’ (‘we translated this sermon … into English’). Ælfric uses the same verb (transferre), after all, in the preface to his Old English Letters for Wulfstan to describe his translation of his original letters in Latin,14 whereas he uses interpretare in the prefaces of CH I15 and CH II16 to describe his complex synthesis of sources there, as well as at the beginning of his Grammar.17 Transferre, however, also appears in the preface of the Grammar,18 as well as in the prefaces to the Lives

7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Catalogue, p. 69; Clemoes speaks of ‘the loss of a quire or quires’ (First Series, p. 37). Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, at p. 1. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 18–19. S915–18, S920–3, S926, and S929–30; S915–17 are dated 1007 (Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 263, 122, and 263), while S926, S929, and S930 are dated 1012 (Diplomas, pp. 115, 264, and 266). Æthelwold’s name also appears (with no date) in the Liber uitae of New Minster, Winchester (London, British Library, Stowe 944 [1031, New Minster, Winchester], fol. 16r); the episcopal list in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 140 (Bath, s. xi/xii), fol. 115r; and William of Malmesbury’s Gesta Pontificum Anglorum II.77.1 (Winterbottom, William of Malmesbury, p. 270; see also Nelson et al., ‘Æthelwold 2’). Nelson et al., ‘Ælfsige 80’. Ælfsige witnesses as episcopus in S931 (Keynes, Diplomas, p. 266). Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 2; Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. li. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 20 and 289. Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 260, §1. Clemoes, First Series, p. 174, line 37 (with interpretatio appearing also in lines 31, 34–5, 36, and 40). Godden, Second Series, p. 1, line 9 (with interpretatio appearing also in lines 7 and 24). Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 1, line 13 (with interpretatio appearing also in lines 14 and 15, and on p. 2, lines 2 and 4). Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 1, line 5.

515

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris of Saints,19 LS III.32 [Skeat II.36],20 and CH I itself.21 ‘Hunc sermonem … Anglice transtulimus’ may thus mean, in effect, ‘Drawing on authoritative sources, I composed this homily’. On the possible circumstances surrounding Ælfric’s composition of this homily – namely, the bloody rise of Eadric Streona at the expense of monastic supporters among the nobility, such as Ælfric’s patron Æthelmær – see Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 18–23. Lines 4–25 [‘Vigilate ergo’ … ealle his god]: For his initial pericope, Ælfric chooses Matthew 24.42–7, Christ’s exhortation to his servants to keep watch. Clayton notes that the reading is not found in various immediate sources commonly used by Ælfric, such as Paul the Deacon (whose entries for the occasion exposit Luke 11.33 and 12.3522), Haymo (who treats Matthew 25.14–28 and Luke 12.35–4023), and Smaragdus (who discusses Luke 14.2624). Vigilate ergo (Matthew 24.42) does appear, however, as the incipit of the Gospel for one of the masses for the Feast of a Confessor in the Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (s. xi1/2)25 – a text ‘invaluable as an indication of [which Gospel readings] would have been familiar to Ælfric’.26 Such familiarity seems to have led Ælfric toward sources that treated the passage in question. Ælfric introduces the passage by underscoring not only Christ’s incarnate human nature (menniscnys) – a term to which he turns some 190 times in his writings (see for example notes to In natali Domini [AH I.2], lines 1–22; Gebedu on Englisc [AH II.21], lines 15–7 [Gebed V]; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis [AH I.8], lines 21–9; and Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae [AH II.10], lines 163–9) – but the historical reality of this quoted exchange: Jesus speaks to his disciples when he was her (‘here’), on life (‘alive’), on soðre menniscnysse (‘in actual humanity’), betwux mannum wunigende (‘living among humans’ [line 3]). Heightening the immediacy of Christ’s words, moreover, Ælfric applies them directly to his audience: the Gospel writer us sæde (‘said to us’) that ure Hælend (‘our Savior’) warned his listeners – down through history, by implication – to keep watch [lines 1–2]. Matthew’s account is not one Ælfric appears to treat elsewhere. Analogous passages are found in Mark 13.32–7 and Luke 12.35–48, and Ælfric does cite Luke 12.38 in lines 61–6 below. Where he quotes from these passages in other homilies, however, the verses he selects involve supplemental material that does not correspond to the content of Matthew 24.42–7.27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 2, §1, line 1, and p. 4, §3, line 2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 2, line 1, and p. 4, lines 22–3. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 264, §1, line 1; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 398, line 1. Clemoes, First Series, p. 173, lines 5 and 12. Grégoire, Homéliaires, p. 110.  Homiliae de sanctis, Homiliae aliquot de sanctis 9 (PL 118.781C–790C). Collectiones in Euangelia et Epistolas (PL 102.532B–534C). Turner, Missal of the New Minster, p. 201. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293 n. 27; see also her ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 3. Ælfric probably uses Mark 13.32 (‘“No one knows about that day or hour”’) in an expanded form of CH I.17 (Clemoes, First Series, Appendix B3, p. 539, lines 127 [God nolde] – 131 [to him]); he quotes Mark 13.37a (‘“What I say to you, I say to everyone”’) in Latin and English in CH II.35 (Godden, Second Series, p. 301, lines 57 [Quod autem] – 58 [eallum mannum]); he quotes Luke

516

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris The first verse of the pericope Ælfric reproduces verbatim in Latin and closely in English. As with each succeeding verse, moreover, Ælfric then repeats his translation word-for-word when he exposits it later in the homily. Matthew 24.42

In natale unius confessoris (AH In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 9–12 II.9), lines 37–8

‘Vigilate ergo quia nescitis qua hora Dominus uester uenturus sit’.

Vigilate ergo quia nescitis qua hora Dominus uester uenturus sit: ‘Waciað eornostlice forþan ðe ge nyton on hwylcere tide eower Drihten cume’.

‘Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know at what hour your Lord will come’.

Therefore, keep watch, because ‘Therefore, keep watch because you do not know at which time you do not know at what your Lord will come’. hour your Lord will come: ‘Therefore, keep watch because you do not know at which time your Lord will come’.

‘Waciað eornostlice, for ðan ðe ge nyton on hwylcere tide eower Drihten cume’.

Ælfric’s changes to the second verse are more substantial. He rearranges phrases (‘he would have watched’ / ‘if he knew’), inserts intensifiers (to soðan [‘in truth’]28 and nateshwon [‘in no way’]), adds explanatory detail (the thief comes his hus to brecenne … digellice [‘to break into his house … secretly’]), and even supplements the imagery (the thief ‘digs under’ [underdelfan] the house rather than simply ‘breaking’ [brecan] into it). Matthew 24.43

In natale unius confessoris (AH In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 13–17 II.9), lines 94–8

‘Illud autem scitote quoniam si sciret pater familias qua hora fur uenturus esset uigilaret utique et non sineret perfodiri domum suam’.

Wite ge þæt to soðan þæt se hiredes ealdor wacian wolde gif he wiste þone timan hwænne se ðeof come his hus to brecenne, and he nolde geþafian þam þeofe nateshwon þæt he underdulfe digellice his hus.

Wite ge þæt to soðan þæt se hiredes ealdor wacian wolde gif he wiste þone timan hwænne se ðeof come his hus to brecenne, and he nolde geþafian þam ðeofe nateshwon þæt he underdulfe digollice his hus.

‘But know this, that if the head of the household knew at what hour the thief would come, he would certainly have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into’.

Know for certain that the head of the household would have watched if he knew the time when the thief would come to break into his house, and he would in no way have allowed the thief to dig secretely under his house.

Know for certain that the head of the household would have watched if he knew the time when the thief would come to break into his house, and he would in no way have allowed the thief to dig secretly under his house.

28

12.37b (‘“he will gird himself and … serve them”’) in Latin and English in an addition to CH II.22 [SH II.25] (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 755, lines 10 [Amen dico] – 13 [hym þenað]) and in English in CH II.29 (Godden, Second Series, p. 258, line 90 [Be ðan] – 91 [him ðenað]); and he quotes Luke 12.47 (‘“The servant … who did not obey his lord shall be flogged more”’) in English in CH II.20 (Second Series, p. 193, lines 113 [Se ðeowa] – 115 [witum]); see ‘Records for Source Title Lc’, ‘Records for Source Title Mc’, and ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. For another example of an added to soðan, see notes to De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 58–64.

517

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris The third verse Ælfric renders straightforwardly, save that he streamlines it slightly by omitting the original et uos [‘you also [be ready]’]. Matthew 24.44

In natale unius confessoris (AH In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 18–19 II.9), lines 114–15

‘Ideoque et uos estote parati quia qua nescitis hora Filius hominis uenturus est’.

‘Beoð for ði gearwe for ðan ðe ge nyton on hwylcere tide Mannes Sunu cume.

‘Beoþ for ði gearowe for ðan ðe ge nyton on hwilcere tide Mannes Sunu cume’.

‘Therefore you also be ready, because you do not know at what hour the Son of Man will come’.

‘Therefore be ready because you do not know at what time the Son of Man will come’.

‘Therefore be ready because you do not know at what time the Son of Man will come’.

By contrast, he adds certain words to the fourth verse, turning the interrogative Quis putas (‘Who do you think’) to Hwæt wenst þu la, hwa (‘What indeed do you think, who’) – a formula perhaps more tuned to Anglo-Saxon ears, as variants of it appear also in an expanded version of CH I.829 and in CH I.2030 – as well as modifying certain pronouns (‘the’ [se] lord rather than ‘his’ [suus] lord; ‘their’ [heora] food rather than simply ‘food’). Matthew 24.45

In natale unius confessoris (AH In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 20–2 II.9), lines 128–30

‘Quis putas est fidelis seruus et prudens quem constituit dominus suus supra familiam suam ut det illis cibum in tempore?’

‘Hwæt wenst þu la, hwa is getreowe ðeow and snotor þone ðe se hlaford sette ofer his hirede þe him do heora mete on rihtne timan?’

‘Hwæt wenst ðu la, hwa is getreowe þeow and snotor þone ðe se hlaford sette ofer his hirede þe him do heora mete on rihtne timan?’

‘Who do you think is the faithful and wise servant whom his lord set over his household to give them food at the proper time?’

‘Who do you think is the faithful and wise servant whom the lord set over his household to give them their food at the proper time?’

‘Who do you think is the faithful and wise servant whom the lord set over his household to give them their food at the proper time?’

Finally, in the last two verses, Ælfric combines techniques seen above: he streamlines through omission (quem [‘whom’]; uobis [‘to you’]), inserts an intensifier (geornlice [‘eagerly’]), adds explanatory detail (when the lord comes ongean [‘again’]), modifies a pronoun (se [‘the’] for eius [‘his’]), and rearranges phrases (‘doing so’ / ‘when he comes’). He also simplifies his verbs, moving from the future perfect indicative active or perfect subjunctive active of uenerit and inuenerit – literally, ‘he will have come/ found’ or ‘he should have come/found’; see also Luke 12.38 in lines 61–6 below – to the present tense with future force: ‘If he is doing so when the lord comes, he is [or “will be”] blessed’.

29 30

Clemoes, First Series, Appendix B1, p. 533, line 5. Clemoes, First Series, p. 341, line 182.

518

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris Matthew 24.46–7

In natale unius confessoris (AH In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 23–5 II.9), lines 156–8

‘Beatus ille seruus quem cum uenerit dominus eius inuenerit sic facientem. Amen dico uobis quoniam super omnia bona sua constituet eum’.

‘Eadig bið se ðeowa gif he swa deþ geornlice þonne se hlaford ongean cymð. Ic cweþe to soðan þæt he hine geset ofer ealle his god’.

‘Eadig bið se þeowa gif he swa deþ geornlice þonne se hlaford ongean cymð. Ic cweþe to soðan þæt he hine geset ofer ealle his god’.

‘Blessed [is] that servant whom his lord, when he comes, finds doing so. Truly I say to you that he will set him over all his goods’.

‘Blessed is the servant if he is eagerly doing so when the lord comes again. Truly I say that he will set him over all his goods.’

‘Blessed is the servant if he is eagerly doing so when the lord comes again. Truly I say that he will set him over all his goods’.

Lines 26–34 [Ðis godspell is … mid heofenlicum wurðmynte]: In his other homily for a Confessor, CH II.38, Ælfric does not take time, as here, to set the stage with general comments before transitioning to his exegesis; rather, he merely states: ‘Se eadiga Gregorius papa trahtnode þis godspel and cwæð …’ (‘The blessed Pope Gregory expounded this Gospel and said …’).31 Elsewhere, however, he does use variants of the phrase ‘Ðis godspell is nu sæd sceortlice on Englisc’ (‘This Gospel has now been briefly related in English’ [line 26]): in Nisi granum frumenti,32 SH I.8,33 SH II.17,34 and Erat quidam regulus cuius filius infirmabatur Capharnaum35 – the last two roughly contemporary with In natale unius confessoris. On Ælfric’s contrast between anfealdum gereorde (‘plain language’ [line 27]) and [gastlic] angyt (‘[spiritual] meaning’ [line 27]), see notes to AH I.5, lines 34–60. Though, as noted in the Introduction to AH II.9 above, Ælfric composed six sermons for the Common of the Saints, designed to honor a multiplicity of designates – CH II.35–40, In dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), and In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9) – only in CH II.3836 and AH II.9 [lines 28 and 136] does he leave the name blank, speaking of ‘ðes halga wer, Ille, þe we wurðiað todæg’ (‘this holy man, X, whom we today honor’). Lines 35–60 [Ure Hælend þa … strange on geleafan]: For the Gospel verse (Matthew 24.42) repeated in lines 37–8, see notes to lines 9–12 above. In perhaps an original section of commentary,37 Ælfric distinguishes between physical and spiritual vigilance. The former belongs to those such as Ælfric and his fellow monks who intercede for others, such as the lay-members of his audience: ‘we waciað on cyrcan æt urum uhtsange þonne oðre men slapaþ and we tobrecað urne slæp and gebiddað for eow’ (‘we watch in church at our matins when other men sleep and we interrupt our sleep

31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Godden, Second Series, p. 319, line 38. Irvine 4 (Homilies, p. 112, line 297). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 359, lines 50–1. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 568, line 46. Irvine 1 (Homilies, p. 20, line 32). Godden, Homilies, p. 325, line 213; cf. line 229. See Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’; cf. ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 5–6.

519

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris and pray for you’ [emphasis ours, lines 41–3]). Unsurprisingly, Psalms 119 [Vulgate 118] comes to Ælfric’s mind in this regard, as portions of it may have served as inspiration for the structure of the Divine Office: in the roughly-contemporary First Latin and First Old English Letter for Wulfstan, for example, Ælfric quotes Psalms 119.164 [Vulgate 118.164] – septies in die laudem dixi tibi (‘seven times a day I have praised you’) – as support for the liturgical hours.38 He quotes part of the Memor esto (Psalms 119.49–64 [Vulgate 118.49–64]),39 inverting two phrases but otherwise translating verbatim in Latin and Old English: In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 46–9

Psalms 119.55 [118.55 Vulgate40)] Memor fui nocte nominis tui, Domine, et custodiui legem tuam.

Memor fui in nocte nominis tui, Domine, et custodiui legem tuam: ‘On niht Ic wæs gemyndig þines naman, Drihten, and Ic þine æ swa geheold’.

I have remembered your name in the night, O Lord, and I have kept your law.

I remember your name in the night, O Lord, and I have kept your law. ‘In the night I have remembered your name, O Lord, and I have kept your law.”

While Ælfric might be expected to associate the monastic life with greater virtue [as in lines 167–71 below41] he goes on to affirm that spiritual vigilance is micele betere (‘much better’ [line 51]), and this discipline he enjoins everyone to pursue. Drawing perhaps on Bede,42 if not simply inspired by Scripture, Ælfric draws on a quotation from 1 Peter that he had cited earlier in the Catholic Homilies: 1 Peter 5.8–9 Sobrii estote uigilate quia aduersarius uester diabolus tamquam leo rugiens circuit quaerens quem devoret. Cui resistite fortes fide.

38 39 40 41 42 43

CH II.3043 ‘Beoð syfre and wacole, for ðan ðe se deofol, eower wiðerwinna, færð onbutan swa swa grymetende leo, secende hwæne he abite. Wiðstandað þam, strange on geleafan’.

In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 56–60 ‘Beoð eow syfre on bigleofan and soðlice waciað forþan ðe eower wiðerwinna, þæt is se wyrsta deofol, swa swa grymettende leo færð him onbutan, secende gehwær hwæne he forswelge. Wiðstandaþ ðam eornostlice, strange on geleafan’.

Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 43, §65; and pp. 98–9, §§66 and 71. See also Symons, Regularis Concordia, p. 49, §50; and Billett, Divine Office, p. 103. A passage prescribed by Ælfric to be sung, for example, at Terce on Easter (Jones, Ælfric’s Letter, pp. 134 (§48), 137, and 243. For Ælfric’s use of which, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 18–30. On the Gallican Psalter, see also notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30. One also thinks of Ælfric’s teaching on virginity (e.g., Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis [AH I.8], lines 223–33), though even this state is not the exclusive purview of those in orders. In Marci Euangelium expositio IV.13.37 (CCSL 120, p. 604, lines 358–65); see See Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 6–7. Godden, Second Series, p. 261, lines 34–7.

520

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris Be sober [and] keep watch, because your adversary the devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, strong in faith.

‘Be sober and watchful, because the devil, your adversary, goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, strong in faith.’

‘Be sober in sustenance and truly keep watch because your adversary, that is the most wicked devil, like a roaring lion, goes about seeking everywhere someone he may swallow up. Resist him steadfastly, strong in faith’.

The changes Ælfric makes in his First Series homily are minor, rendering a verb as an adjective (uigilate [‘keep watch’] to wacole [‘watchful’]) and swapping around two sets of phrases (‘the devil’ / ‘your adversary’ and ‘goes about’ / ‘like a roaring lion’). In his homily for a Confessor, however, he • •

• •

intensifies the commands, making the subject of the first imperative explicit (‘Beoð eow syfre’ [‘Be you sober’, line 56], and adding soðlice (‘truly’ [line 56]) and eornostlice (‘fervently’ [line 60]) to others; reverses the First Series changes, using a verb rather than an adjective (waciað [‘keep watch’] rather than wacole [‘watchful’]) and following the original word order (‘your adversary, the devil’ and ‘like a roaring lion, goes about’ [lines 58–9]); augments imagery, describing the adversary as ‘se wyrsta deofol’ (‘the worst devil’ [line 57]) who seeks victims gehwær (‘everywhere’ [line 59]); and explains sobriety (syfer[nes]) in terms of moderation in eating (bigleofan [line 56]) – an admonition that may bring to mind Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (AH II.20).

For another leonine example, this time as a recipient rather than a cause of fear, see lines 281–8 below. Lines 61–93 [Lucas se godspellere … ær on life]: Spiritual vigilance, Ælfric affirms, must be lifelong. To support his point, he picks up a detail from the analogous account in Luke 12.35–48, where the evangelist mentions obedience even in ‘the second or third watch’: In natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 65–70

Luke 12.38 ‘Et si uenerit in secunda uigilia et si in tertia uigilia uenerit et ita inuenerit, beati sunt serui illi’.

Et si uenerit in secunda uigilia, et reliqua. (Secunda uigilia uel tertia non dicitur, nisi sit prima, quæ precedat.) ‘Gif se hlaford cymð on þære oðre wæccan oððe on ðære þriddan and he swa gemet his þeowan donde, þonne beoð hi eadige’.

‘And if he should come in the second watch or if he should come in the third watch and should find [them] so, blessed are [i.e., “will be”] those servants’.

‘And if he should come in the second watch, and so on’. (One does not mention a second or third watch unless there be a first that comes before [them].) “If the lord comes in the second watch or in the third and he finds his servants [watching], then they will be] blessed”.

Ælfric does not quote the Latin in full, and makes certain changes in his translation: he clarifies the subject of the sentence (se hlaford [‘the lord’]), omits redundant words (the second si uenerit [‘if he should come’] and uigilia [‘watch’]), supplies the action (the 521

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris lord finds the servants donde [‘doing’] what he expects), personalizes a pronoun (his [‘his’] rather than illi [‘those’] servants), reverses words (‘servants’ and ‘blessed’), and simplifies verbs (future perfect indicative or perfect subjective [uenerit and inuenerit] to present tense with future force [cymð and gemet]) just as with Matthew 24.46 (see notes to lines 23–5 above). In between, Ælfric makes an aside (see notes on the Latin note above) presumably for Æthelwold or another learned reader: while the Gospel mentions only the last two vigils, they presuppose a first; hence (he implies), he is not going beyond the Scriptural text to speak of vigilance in terms of three ‘watches’. Drawing likely on Bede, if not Bede’s ultimate Gregorian source or a parallel extract in Haymo,44 Ælfric interprets the various watches as childhood, maturity, and old age [lines 71–3]. He who does not restrain himself from sin as a youth should do so as an adult [lines 74–9]; he who sins for most of his life should reform and persevere in his final years [lines 80–7]. Ælfric intensifies the exhortation, however, by adding these extra thoughts: no one knows whether he will see old age; God hides from people the day of their death to encourage their vigilance; once that day comes, the next will be Judgment; what happens then will depend directly on the choices one makes now [lines 88–92].45 Lines 94–127 [Wite ge þæt … to ecere myrhðe]: For the Gospel verses (Matthew 24.43–4) repeated in lines 94–8 and 114–15, see notes to lines 13–17 and 18–19 above. Continuing to follow his source(s) above,46 Ælfric interprets the owner of the house as one’s mod (‘mind’, ‘heart’, or ‘spirit’ [line 99]) and the thief as death, unexpected yet inevitable [lines 100–2]). One might have expected Ælfric to present the threat as temptation or the devil, against both of which elsewhere Ælfric urges believers to be vigilant.47 The exposition is in keeping, however, with Ælfric’s warning just before [lines 94–8]: just as the householder must always be mindful of the risk of robbers, so believers should live as though death may bring them to account at any moment. Such vigilance, Ælfric says, is twofold: doing penance48 for sin on the one hand [line 106] 44

45 46

47

48

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio IV.12.38 and 40 (CCSL 120, p. 257, lines 1039–48 and 1063–6); Gregory the Great, Homiliae I.13 (PL 76.1125BC); and Haymo, Homiliae de sanctis, Homiliae aliquot de sanctis 10 (PL 118.789BC and 790A). See Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 7–10. For Ælfric’s teaching on ‘earning’ eternal reward, and as well as the role of grace in human salvation, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 169, 171, 173, 175–85, 188–91, 192, 194–5, and 197–212. Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio IV.12.40 (CCSL 120, p. 257, lines 1056–63); Gregory the Great, Homiliae I.13 (PL 76.1126B); and Haymo, Homiliae de sanctis, Homiliae aliquot de sanctis 10 (PL 118.789D–790A). See Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 9–10. See for example Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), line 22 (Gebed VII); Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), lines 55–77; De cogitatione (AH II.18) in particular; In natali domini (AH I.2), line 330; Lazarus II (AH I.3), lines 288–95; Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), lines 5–8; Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), lines 55–77; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 42–3; De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 234, 258, and 291; and Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), lines 113–14, 129, and 142. For Ælfric’s teaching on which, see for example De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 3–33; Lazarus I (AH I.3), line 144; Lazarus II (AH I.3), lines 216–19 and 255; Lazarus III (AH I.3), lines 30–2 and 68; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 249–50; and lines 103–7 here in AH II.9.

522

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris and – Ælfric supplements his sources by adding – good works49 on the other [line 111]. Performed with perseverance, he concludes, such actions allow individuals to meet death worshipping God [line 113]. Moving from Matthew 24.43 to 24.44 [lines 114–15], Ælfric reflects various passages of Scripture when making points in his own words. First, he distinguishes between the death of the (unrepentant) sinner and the (penitent) righteous [lines 119–20]: as he explains in CH I.14, the former is yfel (‘evil’ [used also here twice in lines 118–19]), that is, earmlic (‘miserable’), inasmuch as it results in their everlasting torment; the latter is deorwyrðe (‘precious’ [used in line 120]) inasmuch as it delivers them from temporal trials to eternal bliss.50 As the Psalmist says, ‘Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius’ (‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints’ [Psalms 116.15 (Vulgate51 115.6)]). Second, Ælfric explains how Christ uniquely is the Mannes Sunu (‘Son of Man’ [line 122]), a term Ælfric uses some twenty-five times in his works and which he also explicates in Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10) and SH II.18. In AH II.10, expositing Luke 19.10 (‘“uenit enim Filius hominis quaerere et saluum facere quod perierat”’ [‘“for the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost”’]), Ælfric emphasizes the uniqueness of Christ’s dual nature: Jesus is human (the Son of Man) through his mother Mary, but divine (God’s Son) through his coeternality with the Father.52 In SH II.18, treating Matthew 24.30 (‘“uidebunt Filium hominis uenientem in nubibus caeli cum uirtute multa et maiestate”’ [‘“they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and majesty”’, quoting Daniel 7.13]), Ælfric ties Christ’s uniqueness to the glory of his Second Coming.53 In all three cases, Ælfric affirms that ‘[he is] anes mannes [sunu] swa swa nan oðer man nis’ (‘[he is the son] of one person’ – namely, Mary – ‘as no other human is’).54 Third, Ælfric reiterates Christ’s statement that we do not know when he will return [lines 124–8], reinforcing his earlier comments regarding the unknown hour of individuals’ deaths [lines 88–92]. Such teaching reflects not only Christ’s earlier words in Matthew (‘“de die autem illa et hora nemo scit neque angeli caelorum nisi Pater solus”’ [‘“but about that day and hour no one knows, not [even] the angels of heaven, but the Father alone”’, 24.36]), but language in Paul (‘dies Domini sicut fur in nocte ita ueniet’ [‘the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night’, 1 Thessalonians 5.2]), Peter (‘adueniet autem dies Domini ut fur’ [‘but the day of the Lord shall come as a 49

50

51 52 53 54

For Ælfric’s teaching on which, see for example De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 6–7; Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), line 2 (Gebed I); Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), line 19; De cogitatione (AH II.18), lines 9–13; In natali domini (AH I.2), line 305; Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), line 19; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), line 110, 583, and 591; De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 118–21; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 42, 90, 289, and 297; as well as lines 83, 86, and 173. Clemoes, First Series, p. 297, lines 210–15, at 210 and 212. Expanding the image, Ælfric discusses the threefold yfel death of the sinful soul in CH I.33 (First Series, p. 461, lines 81–2) and SH I.6 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 320, lines 172–5). For Ælfric’s use of which, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 18–30. On the Gallican Psalter, see also notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30. Lines 163 [Mannes Sunu] – 166 [butan anginne]. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 608, lines 408–13. SH II.18 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 608, line 411); see also AH II.10, line 164, and line 119 here.

523

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris thief’, 2 Peter 3.10]), and John (‘“si ergo non uigilaueris ueniam tamquam fur et nescies qua hora ueniam ad te”’ [‘“therefore, if you shall not keep watch, I will come just like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you”’, Revelation 3.3]). Finally, while Ælfric’s reference to the parousia may be a commonplace, in saying that Christ will return to bring his followers to eternal bliss [lines 124–7] ultimately stems from such verses as John 14.2–3 (‘“In domo Patris mei mansiones multae sunt … uenio et accipiam uos ad me ipsum ut ubi sum ego et uos sitis”’ [‘“In my Father’s house are many mansions … I will come again and take you to myself, that you may be where I am”’]), 1 Thessalonians 4.16–17 (‘ipse Dominus … descendet de caelo et … rapiemur … in nubibus obuiam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus’ [‘the Lord himself … shall come down from heaven and … we shall be taken up … into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall be ever with the Lord’), and 1 Peter 5.4 (‘cum apparuerit [Christus …] percipietis inmarcescibilem gloriae coronam’ [‘when [Christ] appears … you shall receive an unfading crown of glory’]); see also Acts 1.11, 1 Corinthians 15.22–3 and 51–2, Philippians 3.20, Colossians 3.4, Hebrews 9.28, and Revelation 22.12. Lines 128–54 [Hwæt wenst ðu … þeowan and unnytwyrðe]: For the Gospel verse (Matthew 24.45) repeated in lines 128–30, see notes to lines 20–2 above. In keeping with his dual focus on the physical and spiritual elsewhere in the homily [e.g., lines 39–40], Ælfric touches first on the literal implications of the verse – it is good for hlafordas (‘lords’ or persons with authority) to provide their servants with food [lines 131–2] – before drawing likely on Bede to interpret ‘food’ as the preached word.55 Where Bede emphasizes the importance of adapting one’s preaching to the capacity of one’s audience,56 however, Ælfric sends what may be a multiplicity of messages. On the one hand, he assures the laity [line 139] that coming for spiritual instruction is important [lines 134–5] and that what good teachers say is trustworthy [lines 135–6]; on the other hand, he implicitly admonishes teachers to convey what hi leorniaþ on bocum (‘they learn in books’) if they are to be counted getreowa, snotera, and goda (‘faithful’, ‘wise’, and ‘good’ [lines 137–8]). In the process, Ælfric shifts his imagery somewhat: while he starts by describing the good hlaford [lines 129 and 131], who cares for his household physically, Ælfric then follows the parable in focusing on the good þeow [lines 137 and 146], who cares for his household spiritually. All such comments set Ælfric up to introduce the confessor (of unspecified name; see line 138 and notes to lines 26–34 above) honored on this liturgical occasion. Rather than define this figure as one who, though not a martyr, suffered for confessing his or her faith,57 Ælfric praises this individual specifically for saving souls through regular preaching [lines 141–4]. The authority for such preaching, Ælfric clarifies, is ultimately rooted in Christ and his immediate followers: just as Jesus commissioned his disciples to convey his teaching to the ends of the earth [lines 145–9; see Matthew 10.1–20, Luke 10.1–16, Matthew 28.18–20, and Acts 1.8], so subsequent generations have taken up the baton, down through the confessors and even the speaker of the homily at hand [lines 55 56 57

See Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 12. Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio IV.12.42 (CCSL 120, pp. 258–9, lines 1106–14). See for example Cross and Livingstone, Dictionary, p. 398.

524

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris 150–4]. The weight of responsibility that Ælfric feels in this regard, to which his life’s work of composing teaching material steeped in boclican lare (‘teaching derived from books’ [line 170; cf. 136]) eloquently attests, he partly explains through a verse not found in his writings elsewhere: he would not be one whom Christ condemns as a serue male et piger (‘wicked and slothful servant’ [Matthew 25.26], lines 153–4). For the role of priests as well as bishops as preachers in Anglo-Saxon England, see below. Lines 155–71 [Se Hælend sæde … med mid Gode]: For the Gospel verses (Matthew 24.46–7) repeated in lines 156–8, see notes to lines 23–5 above. Having explicitly identified the lord and servant in the parable as Christ and his followers – that is, Ælfric’s immediate audience (us [‘us’, line 161]) – Ælfric turns again to Bede to elucidate Christ’s promise to reward his faithful [lines 163–4 and 165–6].58 Unlike his previous inclusion of laity in the possibility of greater blessing through spiritual vigilance (see notes to lines 35–60, at 51), here Ælfric affirms that greater reward will go to those who have done more spiritual work: namely, those clergy (not ða læwedan [‘laypeople’, line 167]) who offer God divine service (þeowdome [line 168]), are steadfast in abstinence (gehealdsumnysse [line 169]), and preach (bodia[ð] [line 170]). As Bede notes, quoting 1 Timothy 5.17, ‘Qui bene praesunt presbyteri duplici honore digni habeantur maxime qui laborant in uerbo et doctrina’ (‘Let the priests who lead well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work in word and doctrine’).59 Nor, one suspects, does Ælfric have merely himself in mind: while his own works are indeed steeped in boclican lare (‘teaching derived from books’, or ‘book-lore’ [line 170]), his encouragement is for all who would use his learned writings – those ‘lareowas [ðe] swincað … on þære boclican lare, þe hi bodian sceolon’ (‘teachers [who] work … in teaching derived from books, which they ought to preach’ [lines 167–71]). Lines 172–216 [We sceolon eow … swa þurh God]: The alternative to reward, of course, is judgment [God foroft gewrecð (‘God very often punishes’ [line 173], on which verb see lines 255–78 below)]. While Ælfric has touched on the fact before [lines 92, 106–7, and 117–18], it is to this subject that he turns in the remainder of homily – or rather, sermon, as it no longer offers an exegetical exposition of a pericope. Ælfric offers a list of examples either of God’s condemnation of the wicked or God’s mercy in allowing sinners to repent [lines 172–7]. Clayton suggests that this hall of ignominity, which includes certain figures he treats elsewhere, ‘can only have been compiled by Ælfric himself, who seems to have contrived a rather tenuous link in order to have the opportunity to tackle a subject on which he obviously had strong feelings’.60 The passage features the following:

58 59

60

In Lucae Euangelium expositio IV.12.36–7 (CCSL 120, p. 256, lines 1117–25); see Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’, pp. 13–14. On the role of priests (rather than simply bishops) in preaching in Anglo-Saxon England, see for example Clayton, ‘Homiliaries and Preaching’, esp. pp. 152–3, 165–6, 177, 179, 181, and 189; as well as Ælfric’s own instruction in CH II.19 (Godden, Second Series, p. 183, lines 104–5). ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 15.

525

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris • • •

• •

•

61

62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

75 76

Miriam, the sister of Moses, who is struck with leprosy (and then healed) after opposing Moses with her other brother Aaron [lines 178–85; Numbers 12.1–15]; Ælfric mentions her only here; Uzziah, king of Judah, who is struck with leprosy after seeking unlawfully as a layman to burn incense in the temple [lines 186–93; 2 Chronicles 26.16–21]; Ælfric discusses him only here;61 Judas, the disciple who betrays Jesus, who hangs himself [lines 194–5; Matthew 27.5]; Ælfric speaks of him some sixty-five times, mentioning his hanging in LS I.10 [Skeat I.11]62 and his condemnation to hell [line 195] in LS III.25 [Skeat II.27];63 Ananias and his wife Sapphira, whom the Holy Spirit puts to death when they try to deceive the apostles [lines 196–8; Acts 5.1–5]; Ælfric treats the episode in CH I.2264 and CH I.27;65 Arius (ca AD 256–336), a priest in Alexandria who falls into heresy by depicting Christ as a created being rather than an eternal member of the Trinity [lines 199–206]. Having gleaned the story likely from Haymo,66 Ælfric touches on Arius in CH II.3467 and LS III.28 [Skeat II.31],68 discussing his disembowelment [line 201], in CH I.20,69 Letter for Wulfsige,70 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],71 SH I.10,72 First Latin Letter for Wulfstan,73 and First Old English Letter for Wulfstan74 (see also AH I.1, line 5; LS I.1,75 and AH I.2, lines 23–8); and Olympius, an Arian mentioned by Isidore of Seville76 who is consumed by fire while bathing after blaspheming the Trinity [lines 207–16; for the

Numbers 12 is not among the parts of the Heptateuch translated by Ælfric: see Dodwell and Clemoes, Hexateuch, pp. 48 n. 8 and 44; Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, p. 56; Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 143 n. 4; and Smith, Hexateuch. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 320, line 287; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 256, line 288. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 34, lines 158–9; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 154, lines 158–9. Clemoes, First Series, p. 357, line 88 – p. 358, line 101. Clemoes, First Series, p. 407, line 217 – p. 408, line 223. Historiae sacrae epitome IX.1–6 (PL 118.863A–867A); see Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 394–5; Godden, Commentary, p. 165 (for the analogue in CH I.20); and Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 15. Godden, Second Series, p. 290, line 86. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 96, line 184, and p. 126, line 653; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 230, line 184, and p. 260, line 653. Clemoes, First Series, p. 342, line 213 – p. 343, line 231. Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 198, §§8–11. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 102, §2, lines 171–2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 350, lines 206–7. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 403, lines 159–69. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 41, §50 – p. 42, §55. Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 273, §54 – p. 274, §58. For connections between the First Old English Letter and In natale unius confessoris, see Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. li; and Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 2. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 22, §2, line 1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 10, line 5. Chronica, p. 474; see Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 395 and 403, apparatus.

526

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris term gewrecen (‘punished’, line 216), see lines 255–78 below]; Ælfric recounts the story in SH I.10 as well, immediately after discussing Arius.77 Lines 217–54 [God wrecð hwilon … þysum lytlan cwyde]: While sometimes God punishes (wrecð [line 118]; see lines 255–78 below), at other times, Ælfric acknowledges, God’s judgment is delayed [lines 217–19]. Five additional examples serve to illustrate the point: •

•

•

•

•

77

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

Adam, who eats of the tree forbidden him on pain of death, nevertheless lives 930 years [lines 221–4; Genesis 2.17, 3.6, and 5.578]; Ælfric speaks of Adam over 150 times in his writings, mentioning Adam’s life span in CH I.1,79 De sex etatibus (AH II.15),80 and the Letter to Sigeweard;81 Cain, who slays his brother Abel, dies only after seven generations have passed – an extra-biblical but ‘common’ interpretation82 [lines 224–9; Genesis 4.8 and 2483]; Ælfric speaks of Cain some dozen times, but refers to the seven generations only here; Saul, first king of Israel, who disobeys God but reigns for forty years thereafter [lines 230–4; 1 Samuel 15.1–35 and Acts 13.21]. Ælfric touches on him in LS II.11 [Skeat I.12],84 and treats his story in more detail in CH II.4,85 SH II.30;86 LS II.17 [Skeat I.18],87 the Letter to Sigeweard,88 and SH II.29;89 in the Letter, he also mentions the duration of Saul’s reign;90 Solomon, later king of Israel, comes to sin through idolatry, but is shown mercy for his father David’s sake, so that most of the tribes defect not during Solomon’s forty-year reign, but under his son Rehoboam [lines 235–42; 1 Kings 11.1–13, 11.42, and 12.1–17]; Ælfric speaks of Solomon over fifty times in his writings, but mentions Rehoboam only here; and the Jews who were responsible for killing Christ (as opposed to those who followed him), who were devastated by the Romans forty years later [lines 236–52; e.g., Matthew 27.25]. Clayton observes that the common

Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 403, lines 170–6. Unlike the account in SH I.10, Ælfric here describes Olympius as a bishop [line 203]; Pope suggests, however, that the detail is ‘probably a mere inference’ on Ælfric’s part (Homilies, vol. I, p. 395). For Ælfric’s translation of these verses, see Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 11, 12, and 17. Clemoes, First Series, p. 184, line 168. Lines 1–2. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 204, lines 101–1. Clayton roots Ælfric’s teaching in a ‘common exegesis’ of Genesis 4.24 (septuplum ultio dabitur de Cain [‘sevenfold vengeance shall be taken for Cain’]); see ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 25 n. 35. For Ælfric’s translation of these verses, see Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 14 and 17. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 18, §3, lines 69 and 72; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 278, line 249, and p. 280, line 252. Godden, Second Series, p. 35, line 179 – p. 36, line 201. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 804, line 18 – p. 805, line 28. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 140, lines 1–13; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 384, lines 1–13. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 210, lines 262–71. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 792, line 36 – p. 795, line 96. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 210, line 269.

527

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris strand of forty years in the accounts of Saul, Solomon, and the Jews ‘may have served to associate these three events in Ælfric’s memory’.91 For Ælfric’s treatment of this subject, see notes to Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), lines 67–96. Parallels to Ælfric’s concern here about making his sermon to langsum (‘too lengthy’ [line 254]) may be found for example in CH II.3,92 CH II.14,93 and LS II.23 [Skeat II.25].94 Lines 255–78 [Ac we secgaþ … stuntnysse on ær]: Continuing his apparently original narrative,95 Ælfric further describes how God gewrecð (‘judges’) – a term he has used previously [lines 173 and 216] and that recurs here as well [lines 256 and 260]. In other writings, Ælfric states that God [ge]wrecð all yfel ðæt he onscunað (‘evil that he hates’ [CH I.796]), such as adulterous husbands (CH I.2697) and the sexual sin of Sodom (LS II.12 [Skeat I.13]98); human overlords [hlafordas], similarly, he enjoins to mete out punishment [wrece] justly (De duodecim abusiuis99 and the corresponding De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis100). Here in AH II.9, he summarizes the preceding passages – twice referring explicitly to sinners’ forsewennysse (‘contempt’ [lines 260 and 174]) that God punishes or forberð (‘forbears’ [line 175]) to punish, swa swa we sædon ær (‘just as we said earlier’ [line 260 and 266]) – by affirming the inevitability of God’s judgment, whether it be immediate or delayed [lines 255–6]. If God acts immediately, Ælfric says, he not only offers a warning to others [lines 262–3] but prevents the individual in question from sinning further and increasing his eternal punishment [lines 264–5]. If God waits, he demonstrates his patience [lines 266–7], gives the sinner opportunity to exercise his free will and repent [lines 267–8], and shows humans to be without excuse if they fail during that interval to atone for their sin [lines 269–72 and 256–9].101 Here also, however, Ælfric speaks of human judges: if individuals do not fear God’s correction, they may yet be corrected by temporal or spiritual leaders – the witan (‘wise men’ [line 273], corresponding one assumes to the hlafordas of line 131 and of De duodecim abusiuis and De octo uitiis) and wise lareowas (‘wise teachers’ [line 273], such as he has praised above [lines 131–6 and 167–71]). Lines 279–97 [Ælc ðing sceal … ealle þing gesceop]: Lest his Anglo-Saxon audience cavil at the command to fear, Ælfric affirms fear’s appropriateness in this context through

‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 16. Godden, Second Series, p. 24, line 188. 93 Godden, Second Series, p. 137, line 3. 94 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 286, line 83; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 72, line 82. 95 See Clayton, ‘Records for Anglo-Saxon Text Assmann 4’ and ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 16. 96 Clemoes, First Series, p. 237, line 175. 97 Clemoes, First Series, p. 396, line 215. 98 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 38, line 190; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 296, line 190. 99 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 122, lines 77–8. 100 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 162, lines 166–7. 101 On the subject of penance, see for example De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 8–16; and Lazarus II (AH I.3), lines 216–19. 91 92

528

Commentary: Sermo in natale unius confessoris the example of the animal world. It is natural, he says, for created beings to feel fear [line 279]: not only do humans fear the wild beasts [line 280], but even mighty beasts experience fear in their turn, whether the lion at the sight of a cock [lines 281–8] or the elephant on encountering a mouse [lines 289–92]. Ælfric draws his account of both creatures from Ambrose,102 who describes how animals who might flee from the lion are rendered immobile by its roar [lines 281–5], how the lion fears the white rooster [lines 286–8], how the elephant cows bulls [lines 289–90], and how the mouse appears terrible to the elephant [lines 291–2]. Ælfric mentions lions some seventy times in his writings, and discusses the elephant in his Glossary,103 LS II.23 [Skeat II.25],104 and Hexameron;105 only here, however, does he speak of their relationship to the rooster and the mouse, respectively. This said, Ælfric’s larger point is one he makes elsewhere: the example of animals may inspire virtue in humans. As he says in the Second Series regarding self-discipline in sexuality, ‘bið mannum sceamu, þæt hi mislybban sceolon, and ða nytenu healdað heora gesetnysse’ (‘it is a shame to men, that they should live wrongly, while the animals follow their [divinely-established] law’ [CH II.19]106). Gesetnysse is also the term Ælfric uses here to describe the divinely ordained relationship of beasts and humankind: the former are subject to the latter ‘be ures Drihtnes gesetnysse’ (‘according to our Lord’s ordinance’ [line 295]), even as humans to God should be [lines 297–8]). Line 298 [se ðe ana rixað on ecnysse, Amen]: The closing formula closest to the one here is ‘se ða ana rixað on ecnysse god’ (‘he who alone reigns [as] God forever’) at the end of CH II.18;107 variations, however, may be found elsewhere: see notes to Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), lines 152–62, at 161–2; De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 175–6; De creatore (AH II.14), lines 306–12; Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), lines 2–3 (Gebed I) and 6–10 (Gebed III); and De penitentia (AH II.19), notes to lines 65–80, at 79–80.

102 Exameron

VI.3.14, VI.4.26, and VI.6.37 (CSEL 32.1, p. 212, lines 6–9; p. 222, lines 7–8; and p. 228, lines 16–21); see Clayton, ‘Of Mice and Men’, p. 17; and Cross, ‘Elephant’, p. 373. 103 Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 309, line 1. 104 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 316, lines 559, 561–2, and 565–6, and p. 318, lines 567–74, 576, 582, and 586; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 102, line 558, and p. 104, lines 560–1, 564–73, 575, 581, and 585. 105 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 54, line 276; and p. 55, lines 289–95. 106 Godden, Second Series, p. 185, lines 179–81. 107 Godden, Second Series, p. 179, line 156.

529

10

SERMO IN DEDICATIONE AECCLESIAE As with the confessor homily edited in the previous chapter, Ælfric’s Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (‘Sermon for the Dedication of a Church’) belongs to the Common of the Saints and repeats a category he covered previously in the Second Series. He did not, so far as we know, compose this homily at the request of a particular bishop, but it would have been appropriate for one to deliver since the dedication of churches was an episcopal duty. The rite was the ‘most lengthy and complicated’ service a bishop would perform and was performed both outside and inside the church. Most of the service took place in the church interior out of the view of the laity.1 Still, the sight of vested clergymen lighting candles outside the church, chanting as they processed around it three times, ‘baptizing’ its exterior walls and roof by washing them with consecrated water, and anointing its corners with holy oil made for a ‘spectacular event’ that must have drawn a crowd.2 Should the bishop have invited the laity to attend the mass that concluded the consecration, that setting would provide a context for the preaching of Ælfric’s dedication homilies.3 The anniversary of the dedication provides another. On that feast-day, the sermons would have served a local priest when the community gathered to renew the dedication and remember the church’s patron saint or saints.4 Ælfric’s Second Series homily (CH II.40)5 engages with the idea of the church more directly than the Sermo. In the earlier sermon, he takes as his subject ‘not primarily the church as a physical building, the cyrce, but the church or temple as an image for man and for the congregation of all the faithful, the gelaðung’.6 In this general address, he focuses at length on the fulfillment of Solomon and his temple in the living Church and then equates the Queen of Sheba’s material gifts to Solomon as the spiritual virtues believers offer to Christ. He finishes by admonishing the faithful who make up the living Church to build their foundations with the ‘precious gems’ of spiritual virtues, the ‘gold’ of faith and knowledge, and the ‘silver’ of orthodox and eloquent speech to withstand the fire of Judgment Day. In the Sermo, Ælfric follows this same basic pattern and moves from explanation to eschatology. But rather than another general sermon, he crafts a pericope homily that, oddly, does not mention the church, cyrce or gelaþung, at all. He 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gittos, Liturgy, p. 212. For a detailed description of the ‘distinctively Anglo-Saxon rite’ that circulated in late Anglo-Saxon England, see pp. 230–44, at p. 230. Gittos, Liturgy, p. 214. Gittos, Liturgy, pp. 243–4. Gittos, Liturgy, p. 214. Godden, Second Series, pp. 335–45. Godden, Commentary, p. 661.

531

Introduction: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae instead figuratively interprets Christ’s calling of Zacchaeus out of wicked covetousness and into righteous generosity (Luke 19.1–10) as God’s call to his elect to put their faith into action by giving to the poor and the clergy.7 Ælfric mines thoroughly but does not follow slavishly Bede’s interpretation of the story of Zacchaeus in his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, and as Ælfric’s running gloss proceeds, his exegesis becomes increasingly free. Unusually, he prefaces his translation of the story of Zacchaeus [lines 9–42] by referring to the preceding episode at the end of Luke 18, Jesus’ healing of a blind beggar [lines 2–8]. Although Ælfric doubles back to equate the crowds hindering the blind man and Zacchaeus with thoughts that crowd the mind of those seeking Christ [lines 58–65], perhaps a more general point obtains: those who look for the Savior see and are seen by him. The exegesis proper draws out the spiritual implications of the first seven verses [lines 43–130]: Jesus’ gaze signifies God’s election and love, the crowd fleshly desires, the sycamore tree the Holy Cross, and Zacchaeus’ benevolent hospitality the believer’s receptive faith. Ælfric’s treatment of the story’s denouement in the final three verses is more literal [lines 131–69]. He takes up Bede’s contrasting examples of Zacchaeus, who promises to give to the poor and make restitution with his possessions, and the Rich Young Man in Matthew 19, who refuses to sell all that he possesses and give the proceeds to the poor. However, the focus on almsgiving that emerges subsequently is Ælfric’s own. He describes Zacchaeus’ actions as the ælmissan (‘almsgiving’ [line 149]) that blots out his sins, promises that God will repay hundred-fold the good done to poor men [line 157], and assures the faithful that whatever good deeds they do for the poor and especially God’s servants, the clergy, they do for Christ [lines 157–8]. Ælfric ends the exegesis proper with the reminder that believers can earn eternal life with good practices, and almsgiving is the only practice that he has named. As was true of the Second Series dedication homily, the Sermo concludes with an eschatological peroration [lines 170–86], though here the solid foundations of the faithful survive the floodwaters rather than the fires of Judgment Day. For the first and only time in his work, Ælfric translates Jesus’ allegory of those who build their houses on rock or sand and explains that good deeds provide the one foundation that will eternally survive. He never specifies what sort of good deeds constitute the rock on which to build, but almsgiving cannot be far from his mind. But the sand, he says, is the greed of this world: for no true Christian – no Zacchaeus – counts worldly treasure as equal to the love of Christ. It is not clear what prompted Ælfric to write a second dedication sermon that makes no mention of the Church or a church, but an address that encourages giving alms to assist and honor the Church’s work and clergy would fittingly mark the anniversary of the dedication of the building wherein they met to receive pastoral care. Perhaps he simply wanted to provide a pericope homily for the one occasion among the six in the Common of the Saints he had supplied with a topical sermon.8 The predominantly 7 8

As the notes discuss, Ælfric mentions or treats the story in four other sermons (CH I.8, CH I.38, AH I.8, and SH II.16), but it receives his fullest treatment in AH II.10. His five pericope homilies for the Common of the Saints are as follows: CH II.35 (an apostle), CH II.36 (several apostles), CH II.37 (martyrs), CH II.38 (confessors), and CH II.39 (virgins) (Godden, Second Series, pp. 299–334). In other instances, Ælfric later wrote pericope homilies for an occasion he had initially supplied with general sermons: for Wednesday of Rogationtide, CH I.20 (non-pericope) and CH II.25 (pericope); for Pentecost, CH I.22 (non-pericope) and SH

532

Introduction: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae ordinary prose of the Sermo dates it between about 993 and 998,9 after Ælfric had issued the Catholic Homilies but before he had fully adopted the rhythmical style characteristic of his later work, which Pope observes ‘seems here and there on the verge of breaking out’ in the homily.10 Ælfric later returned to the Sermo to render most of his translation of the pericope in alliterative prose.11 The fact that he revised only the pericope and not the verses repeated from it in the running gloss led Pope to surmise that Ælfric was perhaps making last minute revisions before issuing the homily,12 probably between about 998 and 1002.13 This possibility in turn raises another one, namely that Ælfric might have issued the revised sermon with Bishop Wulfsige III of Sherborne (ca 993–1002) in mind. Three copies of the Sermo survive in books owned by bishops, two from the third quarter of the eleventh century (discussed below) and one from the end of the tenth or beginning of the eleventh century when Ælfric was still alive. The earliest copy, edited below, is preserved in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 943 [Xj],14 a well-known pontifical and benedictional probably written at Canterbury for Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury (959–88), and apparently passed to Wulfsige after he was elevated from the abbacy of Westminster, where Dunstan had put him in charge, to the see of Sherborne in the early 990s.15 Cerne Abbey where Ælfric had been a monk since about 987 belonged to the diocese of Sherborne and had been endowed by his patron Æthelmær, the son of Ælfric’s other main patron, Æthelweard, the ealdorman of southwestern England.16 As Ælfric’s diocesan bishop, Wulfsige would have served alongside Ælfric’s patrons as co-adjudicators in the shire courts and members of King Æthelred’s group of royal counsellors, and all three men shared an interest in the monastic reform movement and

9 10

11 12

13 14 15 16

II.16 (pericope); and for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, CH I.30 (non-pericope) and CH II.29 (pericope). The period 993–8 is also when Ælfric began to provide pericope homilies for occasions not commemorated in the Catholic Homilies (see the Introduction to AH I.3 above). Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 114. For ca 998 as a terminus ante quem for Ælfric’s regular prose compositions, see below, p. 641 n. 4. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 141 n. 1. See, for example, the following three passasges: [1] ‘Þa worhte he wundra be þam wege swa swa his gewuna wæs, / and betwux oðrum wundrum on þam wege he gehælde ænne blindne’ [lines 3–5]; [2] ‘Se Hælend geseah þone welegan for þan þe se welega geseah hine, / and Crist geceas þone þe hine geceas and þone lufode þe hine lufode’ [lines 55–7]; and [3] ‘Þæt is se man þe hine sylfne and his weorc on Criste gefæsðnað. / His weorc þurhwunað a to worulde, and beoð him sylfum ecelice gehealdene’ [lines 181–2]. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 141 n. 1, where Pope notes that ‘the greater part of the pericope (Luke XIX.1–10) is fully rhythmical’. See below, lines 9–42. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 141 n. 1. Compare the ordinary prose used for the translations in the running gloss in lines 96–8, 131–3, 146–7, and 163, with the alliterative prose of the corresponding lines in the pericope, respectively, lines 25–9, 32–7, 38–40, and 41–2. With the exception of lines 96–8, Pope notes that the other passages in the running gloss are ‘verbally different and non-rhythmical’ from the corresponding passages in the pericope. With respect to lines 96–8, he observes that the corresponding passage in the pericope [lines 25–9] ‘belongs to a not fully rhythmical section’. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 114. Ker §364.a; Gneuss and Lapidge §879.a; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 240. Gittos, Liturgy, p. 283. For a general outline of Wulfsige’s career, see Barrow, ‘Wulfsige’, and for a more detailed account, Keynes, ‘Wulfsige’. Hill, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’, pp. 51–2 and 57–8, part of the discussion of Ælfric’s time at Cerne on pp. 51–60.

533

Introduction: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae promoted Ælfric’s work.17 Early in his episcopate, Wulfsige requested from Ælfric a pastoral letter in Old English instructing the non-monastic clergy in their duties,18 so it is possible that he was responsible for having the vernacular dedication homily added to his book of Latin liturgical rites.19 The first rite in the pontifical is that for the dedication of a church,20 and its opening chant an antiphon drawn from the story of Zacchaeus: Zacheae festinans descende quia hodie in domu tua oportet me manere. At ille festinans descendit et suscepit illum gaudens in domum suam. Hodie huic domui salus a Domino facta est. Alleluia.21 Zacheus, come down quickly because today I must stay at your house. And he quickly came down and received him joyfully. Today salvation has come to this house through the Lord. Alleluia.

This textual link and Wulfsige’s social and spiritual ties to Ælfric, who wrote and revised the Sermo not fifteen miles away, support the speculation that the bishop could have solicited or arranged to receive from Ælfric a copy of the dedication homily to preach in conjunction with his performance of the rite. If Ælfric wrote the Sermo with bishops such as Wulfsige in mind, then copies in two episcopal homiliaries of the late eleventh century suggest that two other diocesans recognized its utility. One was Leofric, bishop of Exeter (1050–72), whose now fragmentary collection of eight homilies preserved in London, Lambeth Palace Library, 489 [J2]22 contained three dedication sermons, two by anonymous authors and the Sermo by Ælfric.23 The dedication homilies belong to a portable booklet of five sermons,24 and we might imagine the bishop as he was remembered at Exeter, traveling throughout his see zealously preaching God’s word.25 Leofric was also remembered as a bishop 17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25

Cubitt, ‘Ælfric’s Lay Patrons’, p. 178. ‘Ælfric’s Pastoral Letter for Wulfsige III’, Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, pp. 196–226. Keynes, ‘Wulfsige’, p. 63. The Sermo, which Ker dates on paleographical evidence to s. x/xi (§364.a), was added to Xj on its own gathering that was of the same size and format of those used for the pontifical, a manner of incorporation that suggests the homily was the object of special attention. Added on another gathering of smaller format is a second dedication sermon that Ker dates slightly later to s. xiin (§364.c). That sermon is ‘a translation, with omissions, of the altered form of a homily for the dedication of the church by Caesarius of Arles’ (Ker §364, p. 438), which, apparently unnoticed by Ker, appears in Xj on fols 37v–42v (Opera omnia, CCSL 104, pp. 905–10). A writ by Æthelric, bishop of Sherborne (1002–9), follows the second dedication sermon (§364.d). It stands to reason that Æthelric may have preached the Sermo too. Xj, fols 10r–42v. Xj, fol. 10r. The antiphon is based on Luke 19.5–6 and 9. Ker §283; Gneuss and Lapidge §520; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 219–20. Ker §283.6–7 (anonymous) and 8 (Ælfric). These three sermons are the only dedication sermons among Leofric’s surviving sets of homilies: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 (Ker §32; Gneuss and Lapidge §39); the companion volumes Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 419 and 421 [V] (Ker §§68–9; Gneuss and Lapidge §§108–9; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 233–5.); and the companion volume to J2, London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra B. xiii, fols 1–58 [J1] (Ker §144; Gneuss and Lapidge §322; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 219–20). Robinson, ‘Self-Contained Units’, pp. 235 and 238. Leofric was remembered this way in this obituary in his missal: ‘Qui uir uenerabilis accepto pontificatus honore, diocesim suam perlustrans, populo sibi commisso uerbum dei studiose

534

Introduction: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae who ecclesias non paucas construebat (‘built not a few churches’),26 and he dedicated at least three in Exeter at a time when the city was described as a wealthy one.27 His two surviving pontificals contain a dedication rite similar to Wulfsige’s,28 so perhaps its Zacchaeus antiphon prompted Leofric to preach the Sermo to encourage those assembled to give alms to the new churches he dedicated in his diocese. The second Anglo-Saxon bishop who apparently used the Sermo is St Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester (1062–95). Like Leofric, he was remembered as an enthusiastic church builder and zealous preacher who often drew large crowds when he traversed his diocese on ‘pastoral tours’,29 and his saintly biography ‘shows that whenever the bishop went somewhere for the dedication of a church, preaching and confirmation would naturally follow’.30 As was the case with Wulfsige’s and Leofric’s service books, his pontifical contains a version of the rite complete with its opening Zacchaeus antiphon.31 And it was presumably at St Wulfstan’s direction that a copy of the Sermo and an anonymous dedication homily were added to Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113 [T1] and 114 [T2],32

26 27

28

29 30 31 32

predicabat. Clericos doctrina informabat, ęcclesias non paucas construebat, et cetera quę officii sui erant strenue amministrabat’ (‘The venerable man, when he had accepted the honor of the pontifical office, zealously preached God’s word to the people entrusted to him. He instructed the clergy in doctrine, built not a few churches, and actively administered the other matters that pertained to his office’ [Orchard, Leofric Missal, vol. II, pp. 3–4]). Cited in the note above. Allan et al., ‘Saxon Exeter’, pp. 385, 397–8, and 405–6. Exeter was home to prosperous guildsmen, rich moneyers, and well-to-do merchants, not to mention the super-rich, like the family of Earl Godwine, whose landholdings exceeded those of the king and whose annual revenues were 10,000 times that of a modest thegn (Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 225–7, and ‘New Wealth’, pp. 16–17). For the possibility that Leofric preached to the Godwinesons and the wealthy of Exeter in the presence of King Edward and Queen Edith, Earl Godwine’s daughter, see Upchurch, ‘Resonances and Roles’, pp. 489–95. London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius A. vii [Ramsey Pontifical], fols 17r–32v (Gneuss and Lapidge §397), and London, British Library, Additional 28188, fols 1r–36v (Gneuss and Lapidge §286). Gittos notes that the pontifical section of Additional 28188 ‘is closely related to, and perhaps largely copied from’ Vitellius A. vii, and that the dedication rite in these pontificals can ultimately be traced back to a version of the rite used as the basis for the dedication ordo in Wulfsige’s pontifical (Liturgy, pp. 285 and 228–30, respectively). Tinti, Sustaining Belief, p. 281. Tinti, Sustaining Belief, p. 282, with reference to the Vita Wulfstani by William of Malmesbury. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 146 [The Samson Pontifical], pp. 63–87 (Gneuss and Lapidge §46). Ker §331 [T1: §331.1–36 and 79–81; T2: §331.36–78 and 82–5]; Gneuss and Lapidge §§637–8; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 231–2. The two dedication sermons (Ker §331.77 [Ælfric] and 78 [anonymous]), plus Ælfric’s second sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor (Ker §331.77 [AH II.9]) form a group of three homilies for the Common of the Saints added to the end of T2 in a ‘more or less contemporary hand’ (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 74). The dedication sermons in T2 are the only such sermons found in the homiliaries housed at Worcester in the eleventh century: Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 198 [E] (Ker §48; Gneuss and Lapidge §64; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 213–14), and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178, Part I, pp. 1–270 [R1] + CCCC 162, Part II, pp. 139–60 [R2] (Ker §41; Gneuss and Lapidge §54; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 228–9) (Tinti, Sustaining Belief, pp. 295–300). Ælfric’s Second Series dedication homily (CH II.40) appears in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1] (Ker §332.26; Gneuss and Lapidge §639.26; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 226–7), but this manuscript of uncertain origins cannot be firmly placed at Worcester until about 1200 (Franzen, ‘Hatton 115’, Worcester Manuscripts, p. 44).

535

Introduction: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae the Worcester homiliary copied for and used by him.33 Given that the bishop ‘instigated a programme of church building on his own estates and also instructed parish churches to be built elsewhere’,34 perhaps St Wulfstan became accustomed to preaching the Sermo when he dedicated churches and invited the laity inside for mass.35 If so, he kept in circulation some seventy years later the homily Ælfric may have written for such an occasion.

33 34 35

Franzen, ‘Hatton 113’, Worcester Manuscripts, p. 26. Mason, ‘Wulfstan [St Wulfstan]’. Gittos, Liturgy, p. 253 (Table 4, p. 8 [Samson Pontifical]).

536

sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

a sermon for the dedication of a church

SERMO IN DEDICATIONE AECCLESIAE Incipit sermo de dedicatione aecclesiae.

5

10

15

20

25

Lucas se godspellere awrat on þære þriddan Cristes bec þæt ure Hælend Crist wæs farende to þære byrig Hierusalem ða þa he mennisclice on þisum life wuniende wæs. Þa worhte he wundra be þam wege swa swa his gewuna wæs, and betwux oðrum wundrum on þam wege he gehælde ænne blindne for þan þe he bæd his hæle mid geleafan, and se Hælend mildheortlice, swa swa he mildheort is, hine þurh his mihte onlihte swa þæt se mann mihte butan lateowe þam Hælende mid halre gesihþe folgian, and he swa dyde. And þæt folc þe þis wundor geseah swiðe herede God. ‘Se Hælend ferde þa þurh þa burh Hiericho. Þa wæs þær sum welig mann ongeanwerd þam Hælende, and hys nama wæs Zacheus. Se wæs ealdor and heafod þara woruldmanna þe openlice on unriht reafedon. He smeade þa on hys mode hu he mihte þone Hælend geseon for þan þe se ylca rica wæs sceort on wæstme and ne mihte for þære menigu þe him mid ferdon þone Hælend geseon. He arn þa beforan ealre þære meniu and ardlice astah uppan an treow, ðe is on bocum gehaten sycomeres beam, þæt he hine gesawe huru of þam treowe for þan þe se Hælend ferde forð be þam wege. Hwæt þa, se Hælend, sona swa he him to com, beseah upp wið þæs rican and hine hraðe het astigan niþer of þam treowe, and he neodlice swa dyde. Þa cwæð se Hælend him to, “Nu todæg me gedafenað þæt Ic to þinre dugoðe gecyrre and þæt Ic on þinum huse hæbbe wununge mid þe”. Text from: Xj Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Lat. 943, fols 156r–160r (added s. x/xi, Sherborne) Variants from: J2 London, Lambeth Palace 489, fols 51r–58v (s. xi3/4, Exeter) T2

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 114, 236r–242v (1064 × 1083, Worcester)

1 Incipit sermo de dedicatione aecclesiae] Ali[us] sermo de dedicatione aecclesiae J2  5 blindne] blindne mann J2  11 hys] T2 begins  13 on] an J2 

538

A SERMON FOR THE DEDICATION OF A CHURCH Here begins a sermon concerning the dedication of a church.

5

10

15

20

25

Luke the Evangelist wrote in the third Gospel that our Savior Christ was going to the city of Jerusalem when he was living as a human in this life. At that time he worked miracles along the way as was his habit, and among other miracles on the way he healed a blind man because he asked for his health with faith, and the Savior mercifully, as he is merciful, gave him sight through his might so that the man was able without a guide to follow the Savior with [his] sight healed, and he did so. And the people who saw this miracle praised God exceedingly. ‘The Savior then went through the city of Jericho. At that time there was a certain rich man coming toward the Savior, and his name was Zacchaeus. He was man of authority and the chief of those worldly men who openly stole unjustly. He then deliberated in his mind how he could see the Savior because this same rich man was short in stature and could not see the Savior on account of the crowd that went with him. He then ran in front of the crowd and quickly climbed up a tree, which in books is called a sycamore tree, so that he at least might see him from the tree because the Savior was going forth along the way. And then the Savior, as soon as he came to him, looked up toward the rich man and at once commanded him to climb down from the tree, and he eagerly did so. Then the Savior said to him, “Today it is fitting for me to attend to your salvation and to have a stay with you at your house”.

539

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

And Zacheus sona mid swiðlicre blisse hine underfeng. Hwæt þa, Iudeiscean þæs wundrodon swiðe and mid ceorunge bemændon þæt he to swa synfullum menn wolde gebugan oððe his goda  |  onbyrigean. Zacheus þa on þam gebeorscipe mid bliðum mode clypode to þam Hælende þus and mid behate gefestnode, “Ic wille nu, min Drihten, wædlum and þearfum dælan healfe mine æhta ealles þæs þe Ic hæbbe, and gif Ic hwæne bereafode unrihtlice oð ðis, Ic wylle þæt be feowerfealdum mid freondrædene forgildan”. Þa cwæþ se Hælend sona to Zachee þus, “Nu todæg is gefremmed þisum hirede hæl for þan þe he is sunu soðlice Habrahames. Mannes Bearn com to secenne and sylf to gehælenne þæt þe of mancynne on m[id]danearde losode”’. Đes rica Zacheus wolde þone Hælend geseon, ac he ne mihte for þære meniu, ne eac þa lenge næfde þa arn he beforan and astah uppan þæt foresæde tr[eow] þæt he hine geseon mihte. Se Hælend eac þa geseah his god[an] willan and cwæð þæt he wolde to him gecyrran and on his huse hi[ne] gereordian. He ne dorste þone Hælend to his huse laðian, ac mid þære gewilnunge þe he wolde hine geseon, he geearnode þæt he moste þone Ælmihtigan underfon him sylfum and his hirede to eccre bletsunge. Se Hælend beseah up wið þæs rican, and he hine geseah for þan þe he hine geceas fram þam woroldlicum gitsungum þe he oþ þæt on begripe[n] wæs and hyne mid his gife fram his unrihtwisnessum gerihtwisode. Godes gesyhð getacnað his /ge\corennesse oððe his lufe, swa swa hit awriten is: Oculi domini super iustos, et aures eius ad preces eorum, ‘Godes eagan synd ofer þa rihtwisan, and his earan beoð ahylde to heora benum’. We menn eac  |  swylce, þa þing þe we lufiað we gewilniað to geseonne, and fram þam þe we onscuniað we awendaþ ure gesihðe. Se Hælend geseah þone welegan for þan þe se welega geseah hine, and Crist geceas þone þe hine geceas and þone lufode þe hine lufode. Þæs folces meniu þe mid þam Hælende ferde hremdon þone rican þæt he ne mihte þone Hælend geseon ær ðan þe he uppan þæt treow astah, swa swa hi geletton þone blindan þe be þam wege sittende his hæle bæd. Hi forbudon þam blindan þæt he to þam Hælende ne clypode, ac he clypode þæs þe swiðor oð þæt se Hælend ætstod and his eagan onlihte. Seo meniu þe hine hremdon getacnodon þa flæsclican lustas þe þæs mannes mod oft hrepað þonne he to Gode gecyrran wile. Ac se þe anrædlice to Gode gecyrran wile sceal oferswyþan his ærran unþeawas and þa uplican þing gewilnigean, swa swa Zacheus dyde þa þa he uppan þæt treow astah. Þæt treowcynn is sicomorus gehaten. Hit is on leafum and on bogum morbeame gelic, bið swa þeah heahre on wæstme and is mid hospe gehaten idel ficreow. Hit getacnaþ 34–5 wædlum and þearfum dælan healfe mine æhta ealles] dælan healfe mine æhta wædlum and þearfum ealles J2  36 unrihtlice oð ðis] oð ðis unrihtlice J2  40 sunu soðlice] soðlice sunu J2  42 m[id]danearde] m::danearde Xj; middanearde J2T2  44 þa1] he þa J2 tr[eow]] tr::: Xj; treow J2T2  45 god[an]] god:: Xj; godan J2T2  46 hi[ne]] hi:: Xj; hine J2T2  48 eccre] ecere J2 bletsunge] blisse J2  50 begripe[n]] begripe: Xj; begripen J2T2  53 Godes] þæt is on englisc. Godes J2 beoð] synd, with ‘beoð’ written above J2  67 ficreow] ficdreow Xj; fictreow J2T2 

540

156v

157r

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

And Zacchaeus immediately took him in with great joy. So then the Jews marveled greatly at this and with murmuring complained that he wanted to turn aside to such a sinful man and partake of his food. Then at the feast with a joyful spirit Zacchaeus thus called out to the Savior and confirmed with a vow, “My Lord, I now want to distribute half of all my possessions that I have to the poor and needy, and if I unjustly robbed anyone before now, I want to kindly repay that [person] fourfold”. Then the Savior spoke immediately to Zacchaeus in this way, “Today salvation is accomplished for this household because he is truly a son of Abraham. The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost among mankind in the world”’. This rich man Zacchaeus wanted to see the Savior, but he could not on account of the crowd, nor did he have the height either when he ran in front and climbed up that aforesaid tree to be able to see him. The Savior moreover saw his good intent and said that he wanted to turn aside to him and eat at his house. He dared not invite the Savior to his house, but on account of [his] desire to see him, he deserved to be able to receive the Almighty for himself and everlasting bliss for his household. The Savior looked up toward the rich man, and he saw him because he chose him out of the worldly covetousness by which he had been gripped up to that time and guided him away from his unrighteousness with His grace. God’s gaze signfies his election and his love, just as it is written: Oculi domini super iustos, et aures eius ad preces eorum,1 ‘The eyes of God are upon the righteous, and his ears are inclined to their prayers’. We too desire to see the things we love, and we turn our sight from those that we despise. The Savior saw the rich man because the rich man saw him, and Christ sought out him who sought Him out and loved him who loved Him. The crowd of people that went with the Savior impeded the rich man so that he could not see the Savior before he climbed up that tree, just as they hindered the blind man who asked for his healing sitting by the road. They forbid the blind man to call out to the Savior, but he called out the more [loudly] until the Savior stopped and gave sight to his eyes. The crowd that impeded him signified the fleshly desires that often attack a person’s mind when he wants to turn to God. But he who single-mindedly wants to turn to God will overcome his former vices and long for higher things, just as Zacchaeus did when he climbed up that tree. That species of tree is called a sycamore. With respect to [its] leaves and branches, it is like a mulberry tree, yet it is taller in height and is scornfully called a useless fig tree.

1

Compare 1 Peter 3.12: ‘Oculi Domini super iustos et aures eius in preces eorum’ (‘The eyes of the Lord are upon the just and his ears unto their prayers’).

541

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

þa halgan rode, þe þa geleaffullan lufiað and þa ungeleaffullan forseoð. Mid þære halgan rodetacne we us bletsiað on Godes naman, and we beoð wið deofles costunga gescylde, and þa ungeleaffullan Iudeiscean tælaþ þa halgan rode swa swa idelne ficbeam. Be þam cwæþ se apostol Paulus, Nos autem predicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis, Iudaeis atque gentibus, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam; he cwæþ, ‘We bodiaþ Crist þe wæs on rode ahagen. Nu þincþ hit Iudeiscum  |  mannum tallic and hæþenum hit þincþ dyslic, ac þa þe synd geleaffulle on Gode of Iudeiscre þeode and of hæþenum leodum þam þincð þæt Crist is Godes miht and Godes wisdom’. Zacheus is gecweden iustificatus, þæt is ‘gerihtwisod’, for þan þe God hine gerihtwisode, and he getacnaþ þæt folc þe of hæþenscipe gebeah to Godes geleafan and wæs on þam halgan fulluhte fram eallum fyrnlicum synnum aþwogen and fram arleasnessum gerihtwisod on Drihtnes naman ures Hælendes and on Gaste ures Godes. Swa swa Zacheus astah þæt treow þæt he mihte beon geuferod, swa astigað þa geleaffullan þonne hi clypiað mid þam apostole Paule, Mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Ihesu Christi, þæt is on Engliscum gereorde, ‘Ne gewurþe hit, la, þæt Ic wuldrige buton on þære halgan rode ures Hælendes Cristes’. Be þam cwæþ eft se ylca þeoda lareow, Non enim iudicaui me scire aliquid inter uos, nisi Christum Ihesum et hunc crucifixum, þæt is on urum gereorde, ‘Ne tealde Ic þæt Ic betwux eow ænig þing cuþe buton Hælend Crist and þisne on rode ahagenne’. Đeos is seo hergendlice eaðmodnes þæt se Hælend wolde for us þrowian and mid his anes deaðe ealne middaneard, þa þe on hine gelyfaþ, fram þam ecean deaþe alysan. Hit þuhte þam dysegum hæþenum þæt seo dæd waclic wære þæt he wolde sylfwilles on rode beon gefæstnod. Ac gif he ne sealde hyne sylfne to cwale for us, ne become ure nan næfre to þam ecean life, ac we sceoldon a on ecnesse on þam ecum witum hellesusle cwylmian. Ne mihte naþor, ne engel, ne heahengel, ne heahfæder,  |  ne witega, ne apostol, ne nan oðer halga, ne gold, ne seolfor, ne nan deorwyrðe scet fram deofles anwealde us alysan gif ure Drihten sylf of heofonum nyþer ne astige and us swa mildheortlice þurh his menniscnysse alysde. ‘Se Hælend cwæð to Zachee, “Nu todæg me gedafenaþ þæt Ic to þinre dugoðe gecyrre and þæt Ic on þinum huse hæbbe wununge mid þe”. And Zacheus sona mid swyþlicre blisse hine underfeng’. Hine gelaþode hwilon sum Iudeisc Sundorhalga to his huse, ac he hine ne underfeng na mid swilcum geleafan swa þes Zacheus dyde. We magon eac gewislicor eow onwreon be þan. ‘Sum Iudeisc Sundorhalga wæs gehaten Simon, se gelaþode þone Hælend to his gereorde, and he swa gelaðod þider com. Þa wæs þær on þære byrig Hierusalem sum sinful wif swiþlice forscyldgod on forligere, and heo þa geaxode þæt se Hælend wæs æt þæs Sundorhalgan huse, and brohte þyder hyre sealfbox mid deorwyrþre sealfe, and stod æt þæs Hælendes fotum bewepende hyre synna swa þæt heo aþwoh his fet mid hyre tearum, and mid hyre fexe adrigde, and gelome his fet cyste, and mid þære deorwyrþan sealfe gesmyrede swa swa heora gewuna wæs. Þa geseah

69 costunga] costnunga J2  73 on] an T2  74 ahagen] ahaggen Xj; ahangen J2T2  78 geleafan] willan, with ‘uel geleafan’ written above J2  83 la] na J2  87 ahagenne] ahaggenne Xj; ahangenne J2; ahangene T2  93 ne gold] mid golde J2 ne seolfor] ne mid seofre J2  94 ne nan deorwyrðe scet] ne mid nanon deorwurðan sceatte J2  96 gecyrre] becume, with ‘uel [ge]cyrre’ written above J2  105 gelome] gelomlice J2 

542

157v

158r

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae 70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

It signfies the holy cross, which believers love and unbelievers despise. With the holy sign of the cross, we bless ourselves in God’s name, and we are protected against the devil’s temptations, and the unbelieving Jews despise the holy cross as a useless fig tree. About that the apostle Paul said, Nos autem predicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis, Iudaeis atque gentibus, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam;2 he said, ‘We preach Christ who was hung on the cross. Now Jewish people think it reprehensible and pagans think it is foolish, but those who are believers in God from among the Jewish nation and pagan peoples think that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God’. Zacchaeus is called iustificatus, that is ‘made righteous’, because God made him righteous, and he signifies those people who turned from paganism to belief in God and were cleansed from all [their] wicked sins by holy baptism and made righteous from [their] transgressions in the name of the Lord our Savior and by the Spirit of our God. Just as Zacchaeus climbed the tree so that he might be raised up, so believers climb up when they call out with the apostle Paul, Mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Ihesu Christi,3 which is in English, ‘Oh, let me not boast except in the holy cross of our Savior Christ’. Concerning that, the same teacher of the nations also said, Non enim iudicaui me scire aliquid inter uos, nisi christum ihesum et hunc crucifixum,4 which in our language is, ‘I did not think to make known among you anything except the Savior Christ and him hanged on the cross’. This is praiseworthy humility that the Savior wanted to suffer for us and through his death alone to free all the world, those who believe in him, from everlasting death. Foolish pagans think the deed weak that he would willingly be fastened to a cross. But if he did not give himself to a violent death for us or [if] none of us ever came to the everlasting life, we would yet be destined to suffer forever into eternity in the everlasting punishments of the misery of hell. Neither angel, nor archangel, nor patriarch, nor prophet, nor apostle, or any other saint, nor gold, nor silver, nor any precious treasure could free us from the devil’s power if our Lord had not come down from heaven and so mercifully freed us through his humanity. ‘The Savior said to Zacchaeus, “Today it is fitting for me to attend to your salvation and to have a stay with you at your house”. And Zacchaeus immediately took him in with great joy’. On one occasion, a certain Jewish Pharisee invited him to his house, but he did not receive him with such faith as this Zacchaeus did. We can also explain this more clearly to you. ‘There was a certain Jewish Pharisee named Simon, who invited the Savior to his meal, and thus invited he came to that place. At that time there was in the city of Jerusalem a certain sinful woman made very guilty through adultery, and she then found out that the Savior was at the Pharisee’s house, and brought there her ointment box with [its] precious salve, and stood at the Savior’s feet weeping over her sins so that she washed his feet with her tears, and dried [them] with her hair, and often kissed his feet, and anointed [them] with the precious salve as was their custom. Then

2

3 4

1 Corinthians 1.24 as found in Bede’s Commentary on Luke: ‘But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block indeed to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles, but truly to those who are called, Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’. Galatians 6.14a: ‘But be it far from me that I should boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’. 1 Corinthians 2.2: ‘For I judged not myself to know anything among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified’.

543

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

se Sundorhalga þæt þe hine gelaþode and cwæþ on his geþance þus, “Gif þes lareow witiga wære, þonne wiste he to soþan hwylc and hu synful þæt wif is þæt hine hrepað”. Se Hælend þa andwyrde his geþance þus cweðende, “Simon, Ic hæbbe þe sum þing to secgenne”. And he cwæð, “La leof lareow, sege”. Se Hælend cwæð him to, “Twegen gafolgylderas wæron feoh scyldige sumum massere, se an him sceolde fifhund penega and se oðer fiftig. Þa næfde  |  heora naþor þone andfeng þæt hi him þæt feoh forguldon, and he þa mildheortlice him bam þæt feoh forgeaf. Hwæt þincð þe nu, Simon, hwæþer heora lufode hine swiþor?” Þa andwyrde Simon and cwæð, “Ic wene þæt se hine lufode swiðor þam þe he mare forgeaf”. Him andwyrde se Hælend and cwæð, “Rihtlice þu demdest”. He beseah þa to þam wife and cwæð to Simone, “Simon, gesyhst þu þis wif? Ic com into þinum huse, and þu ne bude me furþon to minum fotum wæter, and þis wif aþwoh mine fet forhtlice mid hire tearum and mid hire fexe drigde. Þu noldest me cyssan, and þis wif, syþþan heo in com, ne geswac mine fet to cyssanne. Þu ne smyredest min heafod mid ele, and heo smyrede mine fet mid deorwurðre sealfe. Forþi Ic secge þe þæt hyre menifealdan synna beoð hyre forgifene for þan þe heo swa swyþe me lufode. Þam þe bið læs synna forgifen se lufað hwonlicor”. Đa cwæþ se Hælend to þam wife, “Þe synd þine synna forgifene”. And þa ymbsittendan sona þus cwædon, “Hwæt is þes þe eac swylce synna forgifð?” Se Hælend cwæð þa git to þam wife, “Þin geleafa þe gehælde. Gang þe nu on sibbe”’. Đises Simones welwillendnes næs swa fulfremed on þæs Hælendes tocyme, swa swa Zachees wæs þæs welegan mannes. Þa Iudeiscan ceorodon þa þa hi gesawon þæt he wolde gecyrran to Zachees huse, cweþende hwi he wolde to swa synfullum men gecyrran. Æfre hi andedon arleaslice þæt se Hælend wolde þa hæþenan þeoda him to folce geceosan and to fulluhte gebiggan, ac se welwillenda Crist wolde hi swa þeah habban. ‘Zacheus þa stod on his gebeorscipe and bliþelice cwæð to þam Hælende, “Ic wylle nu  |  min Drihten dælan mine æhta on twa and þone oþerne dæl syllan þearfum and wædlum, and gif Ic hwylcne mannan bereafode, þæt Ic forgylde be feowerfealdum”’. Se Hælend cwæð ær to sumum oðrum rican men þa þa he hine befran hu he mihte þæt ece lif begitan, ‘“Far and beceapa ealle þine æhta wiþ feo, and dæl þæt wyrðþearfum. Þonne hæfst þu þinne goldhord on heofenum, and cum and filig me”’. Swa hwa swa unscyldiglice butan facne leofode ær his gecyrrednysse, se mæg his æhta ealle þearfum dælan gif he swa fulfremedlice to Gode gecyrran wyle. Ac se þe ær facnfullice leofode, se sceal ærest æfter Godes æ forgildan swa hwæt swa he ær unrihtlice bereafode and syþþan þæt him to lafe bið syllan þæt þearfum. Þonne ‘wunað his rihtwisnys on ealra worulda worold’. Þeos is seo wise stuntnys: þæt man woruldþing forseo, his agen forlæte, and þa ungesewenlican gewilnige, his agene lustas oferswiðe and Cristes fotswaðum folgie, and his agen lif gif hit neod bið for Criste syllan. Forþig Zacheus heold healfe his æhta þæt he mihte his unriht be feowerfealdum gebetan and þa gegladian þe he ær mid swicdome geunrosode. ‘Þa cwæð se Hælend to Zachee, “Nu todæg is hæl þisum hirede gelumpen for þan þe he soþlice is sunu Habrahames”’. Seo ece hæl and þæt ece lif becom þam hiredes ealdre

108 þæt2] þe J2  120–1 secge þe] þe omitted J2; ðe secge T2  133 mannan] mann J2  135 begitan] begytan. Se hælend andwyrde J2  139 bereafode] reafode J2T2  142 gewilnige] gewilnian J2  143 syllan] sylle T2  145 geunrosode] geunrosode Xj; geunrotsode J2T2  147 þam] to þæs J2T2 

544

158v

159r

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

the Pharisee who had invited him saw that and thus said in his thoughts, “If this teacher were a prophet, then he would truly know what sort of and how sinful a woman she is who touches him”. The Savior then replied to his thought, saying thus, “Simon, I have something to say to you”. And he said, “Teacher, speak”. The Savior said to him, “Two tribute-payers owed money to a certain merchant, the one owed him five hundred pennies and the other fifty. At that time neither of them had the means to repay him the money, and he then mercifully forgave them both the debt. Now what do you think, Simon, which of them loved him more?” Then Simon answered and said, “I think that he loved him more whom he forgave more”. The Savior answered him and said, “You have judged correctly”. He then looked at the woman and said to Simon, “Simon, do you see this woman? I came into your house, and you did not even offer water for my feet, and this woman timidly washed my feet with her tears and dried [them] with her hair. You did not want to kiss me, and this woman, after she came in, did not cease to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, and she anointed my feet with precious salve. Therefore I say to you that her numerous sins have been forgiven because she loved me so greatly. He who has been forgiven fewer sins will love less”. Then the Savior said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven”. And immediately those sitting round thus said, “Who is this who also forgives sins in this way?’ Then the Savior also said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go now in peace”’. The benevolence of this Simon was not as flawless upon the Savior’s arrival as was that of the rich man Zacchaeus. The Jews complained when they saw he wanted to turn aside to Zacchaeus’ house, asking why he wanted to turn aside to such a sinful person. They were always wickedly envious that the Savior wanted to choose the gentile nations as a people for himself and to convert [them] to accept baptism, but the benevolent Christ nevertheless wanted to have them. ‘Zacchaeus then stood up at his feast and joyfully said to the Savior, “My Lord, I now want to divide my possessions in two and to give the second part to the needy and the poor, and if I robbed anyone, I will repay that [person] fourfold”’. The Savior earlier said to a certain other rich man when he asked him how he could obtain everlasting life, ‘“Go and sell all your possessions in exchange for money, and distribute that to the poor. Then you will have your gold hoard in heaven, and come and follow me”’. Whoever lived guiltlessly without deceit before his conversion can distribute his possessions entirely to the needy if he thus wants to turn perfectly to God. But he who earlier lived deceitfully at first ought to repay according to God’s law whatever he unjustly stole earlier and afterwards give what is left to him to the poor. Then ‘his righteousness will endure forever’. Such is wise foolishness: that one despise earthly possessions, forsake his own, and long for those invisible ones, overcome his own desires and follow in Christ’s footsteps, and if necessary give his own life for Christ. Therefore Zacchaeus kept half of his possessions to be able to make fourfold amends for his injustice and to gladden those whom he earlier saddened through deceit. ‘Then the Savior said to Zacchaeus, “Today salvation is accomplished for this household because he is truly a son of Abraham”’. Everlasting salvation and everlasting

545

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

Zachee and his hirede þur þæs Hælendes tocyme for þan þe he mid ealre heortan fram his arleasnysse gecyrde and his yfelan dæda mid ælmissan adilgode. Nu cwið sum man on his geþance þæt þes Zacheus gesælig wære þurh swylcne cuman, þæt he moste þam Ælmihtigan mid his mettum  |  þenian. Soð þæt is gesælig he wæs, ac swa þeah ne þurfe we forþi ceorian þæt we nabbað Crist lichamlice nu on urum timan swa swa hi hæfdon, for þan þe he sylf cwæð on his godspelle, ‘Quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis’, þæt is on Englis[c], ‘“Swa lange swa gedydon eower god anum of þisum læstum minum gebroðrum, me sylfum ge hit dydon”’. Swa hwæt swa ge doð to gode hafenleasum mannum on Godes naman, þæt ge doð Gode sylfum, and he hit forgilt eow eft be hundfealdum. Gode beoð þa þenunga þe man Godes þearfum deð and swiðost þa þe man Godes þeowum deþ. Þæt godspel cwyð þæt se welega wære Habrahames sunu for þan þe he geefenlæhte mid his dædum þam heahfædere Habrahame. Be þam cwæð se þeoda lareow Paulus to þam geleaffullum, Si autem uos Christi, ergo Habrahae semen estis, þæt is on Englisc, ‘Gif ge soðlice synd Cristes, ðonne synd ge witodlice Habrahames sæd’. ‘“Mannes Sunu com to secenne and to gehælenne þæt þe losode.”’ Se Hælend sylf is Mannes Sunu, anes mannes, swa swa nan oðer man nis. He is Mannes Sunu on þære menniscnysse þære eadigan Marian, seo þe is mæden and modor, and he is Godes Sunu on þære godcundnysse of þam heoflican Fæder, acenned æfre butan anginne. Se com on menniscnysse on þisum middanearde, acenned to þig þæt he wolde us alysan and gehælan, we þe forlorene wæron, and us þæt ece lif forgifan mid him sylfum and mid eallum his halgum gif we hit mid godum bigengum geearnian willað. Us gedafenað þæt we beon gemyndige ures Hælendes mildheortnysse on us and his lare to worce awendan, þe læs þe we þa stiþan þreale gehyran  |  þe he sumum receleasum cwæð, ‘Quid autem uocatis me “Domine, Domine” et non facitis quae dico?’, þæt is on glisc, ‘“To hwi hate ge me ‘Drihten, Drihten’ and ne doð þa þing þe Ic eow secge? Ælc þæra manna þe cymð to me and mine spræce gehyrð and hi mid weorcum gefylð, Ic geswutelige eow hwam he bið gelic. He byð gelic þam men þe arærð him stænen botl and dylfð þone grudweall swyþe deopne and legð hine mid stane. Eft þonne se storm cymð him to and þæt flod slyhð on þa gebytlu, þonne ætstent þæt hus fæste for þan þe hit wæs getimbrod on þam stane. Witodlice se þe gehyrð mine spræce and nele hi mid weorcum gefyllan, he bið þam men gelic þe bytlað uppan sandceosle þonne cymð færlice se storm and þæt flod and towendað þa getimbrunge grudlunga”’. Þæt is se man þe hine sylfne and his weorc on Criste gefæsðnað: his weorc þurhwunað a to worulde and bð him sylfum ecelice gehealdene. Ealswa se man þe his hiht and his geornfulnysse on þisse worulde gitsunge beset: his geswinc him losað, and his hus bið towend, and he hæfð /þone\ hearm endeleaslice. Gif we soðlice Cristene beoð, þonne ne sceal us nan woruldgestreon beon swa in mede swa ures Drihtnes lufu for þan þe he is to lufigenne ofer ealle þing, se þe leofað and rixað on ealra worulda woruld, Amen.

148 þur] þurþ Xj; þurh J2T2  154 Englis[c]] Englis: Xj; englisc J2T2  166 heoflican] heofonlican J2T2  171 worce] worce Xj; weorce J2T2 sumum] be sumum J2T2  172 receleasum] receleasum mannum J2(?T2)  173 on glisc] onglisc Xj; on englisc J2T2  176 grudweall] grundweall J2T2  180 grudlunga] grudlunga Xj; grundlunga J2; grund[l]unge T2  181 Þæt is] Ac T2  182 bð] beoð Xj; byð T2  183 þisse] þissere J2 

546

159v

160r

Text: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

150

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

life came to the head of the household Zacchaeus and to his household through the Savior’s arrival because he turned from his wickedness with all [his] heart and blotted out his evil deeds with almsgiving. Now a certain person will say in his thought that this Zacchaeus was blessed by such a guest to be able to serve the Almighty with his food. It is true that he was blessed, but nevertheless we have no need thus to complain that we do not have Christ physically now in our time as they had, because he himself said in his Gospel, ‘Quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis’,5 which is in English, ‘“As long as you did your good [deed] to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me”’. Whatever you do as good to poor people in God’s name, you do to God himself, and he will repay you afterwards a hundred-fold. Good are the services one offers to God’s poor and most of all those one offers to God’s servants. The Gospel says that the prosperous man was Abraham’s son because he imitated the patriarch Abraham with his deeds. About that, Paul, the teacher of nations, said to believers, Si autem uos Christi, ergo Habrahae semen estis,6 which is in English, ‘If you are truly Christ’s, then you are certainly Abraham’s seed’. ‘“The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost”’. The Savior is the Son of Man, [the son] of one person, as no other human is. He is the Son of Man in the human nature of the blessed Mary, who is maiden and mother, and he is the Son of God in the divinity of the heavenly Father, having been born [but] eternally without beginning. He came in human form into this world, born because he desired to free and heal us, we who were lost, and to give us everlasting life with him and with all his saints if we desire to earn it with good practices. It is fitting for us to be mindful of our Savior’s mercifulness to us and to turn his teaching into action, lest we hear the stern reproof that he spoke to a certain careless person, ‘Quid autem uocatis me “Domine, Domine” et non facitis quae dico’,7 which is in English, ‘“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do the things that I tell you? Each person who comes to me and hears my words and fulfills them with deeds, I will reveal to you whom he is like. He is like the man who builds himself a stone house and digs the foundation very deep and lays it with stone. Later when the storm arrives and the floodwater crashes against the dwelling, then that house will stand fast because it was built on the stone. Truly, he who hears my words and does not fulfill them with works is like the man who builds upon the sand when the storm and floodwater come unexpectedly and level the building to the ground”’. Such is the one who establishes himself and his work on Christ: his work will remain forever and will be preserved eternally for him. Likewise, the one who sets his hope and his desire on the greed of this world: his labor will be lost to him, and his house will be destroyed, and he will have endless affliction. If we are truly Christians, then no worldly treasure ought to be for us such reward as the love of our Lord because he is to be loved above all things, he who lives and reigns forever, Amen.

5 6 7

Matthew 25.40: ‘“As long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me”’. Compare Galatians 3.29: ‘Si autem uos Christi, ergo Abrahae semen estis, secundum promissionem heredes’ (‘And if you be Christ’s, then you are the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise’). Luke 6.46: ‘“And why to you call me, ‘Lord, Lord’, and do not the things which I say?”’.

547

SERMO IN DEDICATIONE AECCLESIAE

COMMENTARY A mystery lies behind the early copies of De dedicatione (AH II.10). J2, T2, and Xj, tenth- or eleventh-century manuscripts from Exeter, Worcester, and Canterbury, are all major Anglo-Saxon collections whose contents have long been studied. In 1958, however, the library of the University of Szeged, Hungary, published a catalogue by Robert Szentiványi of manuscripts in the Batthyaneum Library of Alba Iulia, Romania.1 Three items therein Szentiványi attributes to ‘Aelfricus OSB2 c. 955–1025’: the Historiae Vet[eris] et Noui Testamenti (‘Histories of the Old and New Testaments’), an entry in Bibliotheca Batthyányana 242 (R.II.82) [Y2]; the Historia V[eteris] T[estamenti] in uersus redacta (‘Abridged History of the Old Testament in Verse’), Batthyányana 289 (R.II.130); and ‘Sermones de animabus, de antichristo. Ælfricus OSB. /?/:De dedicatione’ – a text for the dedication of a church that follows sermons (also attributed to Ælfric?) about souls and the Antichrist in Batthyányana 35 (R.I.35) [Y1].3 Such titles are tantalizing. For the first, one could easily imagine connections to Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard, also called De ueteri testamento et nouo (‘On the Old and New Testament’).4 The second might be an abbreviated portion of the Letter to Sigeweard treating only the Old Testament; or Ælfric’s Hexameron, with its account and exegesis of the six days of Creation; or even the partiallyÆlfrician Heptateuch – all of which, if not in verse, are characterized at least in part by Ælfric’s rhythmical prose.5 The third brings to mind Ælfrician treatments of the soul and the Antichrist – as seen, for example, in his Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1) and Menn Behofiað Godre Lare [AH II.12; see notes to AH I.1, line 1, and AH II.12, lines 14–16]. Even more telling would seem to be the fact that Szentiványi explicitly associates ‘De dedicatione’ in Y1 with Xj and with Brotanek’s edition of AH II.10 from Xj and J2.6 Most 1 2 3 4 5

6

I am indebted to Charlie Wright for calling this catalogue to my attention. The Ordo sancti Benedicti (‘Order of St Benedict’), to which of course Ælfric of Eynsham belonged. Catalogus, pp. 316, 121, 137, and 28. As it is rubricated e.g. in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509 (fol. 120v). Pope gives examples from both the Letter to Sigeweard and the Hexateuch in his analysis of Ælfric’s rhythmical prose (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 119, 121, and 133; see also p. 135), while Clemoes notes that Ælfric’s Genesis – or rather, the sections which Clemoes accepts as Ælfrician: Genesis 1.1–3.24, 5.32–9.29, and 11.32b [Her swutela] – 22.19 (with 23.1–24.10 based on a version by Ælfric but revised by the anonymous compiler[s]) – is not consistently rhythmical until chapter 22 (‘Chronology’, p. 39; see also Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 134; Dodwell and Clemoes, Hexateuch, pp. 48 and 44; Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, p. 56; Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 143 n. 4; and Smith, Anonymous Parts). The entry reads: ‘Sermones de animabus … De dedicatione. Fol. 93r Inc. Fol. 107r Expl. Cf. Cod. Lat. 943 Bibl. Nat. Paris. Brotanek in Text und Untersuch. zur altengl. Literature- und Kirchengesch. 1913’ (Catalogus, p. 28).

548

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae promising of all, perhaps, Szentiványi dates Y1 to the first half of the fifteenth century – a singularly late date for a copy of a text in Old English. Alas, however, a remarkable visit to the Batthyaneum itself7 revealed all three writings to be Latin works with no apparent textual connection to Ælfric. One is at a loss to explain the detailed links Szentiványi saw between the Transylvanian manuscripts, Ælfric, and AH II.10 in particular: for now, the mystery must remain unresolved. Previously edited by Brotanek8 and Ebersperger.9 Line 1 [Incipit sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae]: Written ca 998 × 1002,10 or perhaps earlier in the period ca 993 (after 4 June) × ca 998 – that is, ‘soon after’ the completion of CH II, given the homily’s ‘mainly non-rhythmical form’,11 AH II.10 supplies a homily for part of the Common of the Saints also covered by CH II.40: the dedication of a church. The two texts cover very different territory, however. Where CH II.40 primarily focuses on Solomon and his temple (1 Kings 3–4, 6, and 8), the fulfillment of that temple in the living Church (1 Peter 2.4–5 and 1 Corinthians 3.17), the precious gifts brought by the Queen of Sheba to Solomon (1 Kings 10), and the fulfillment of those gifts in virtues offered by believers to Christ (1 Corinthians 3.11–15), AH II.10 exposits three passages from Luke: Christ’s encounter with Zacchaeus (Luke 19.1–10), Christ’s exchange with Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7.36–50), and Christ’s conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6.46–9). Lines 2–8 [Lucas se godspellere … swiðe herede God]: The primary text under consideration in this homily is Luke 19.1–10, the story of Zacchaeus the tax collector. According to the Missal of the New Minster, Winchester (s. xi1/2) – a text ‘invaluable as an indication of [which Gospel readings] would have been familiar to Ælfric’12 – this passage was the traditional Gospel reading for the Dedication of a Church.13 It was not Ælfric’s only option: Paul the Deacon’s homiliary, for example, on which Ælfric drew heavily for his Catholic Homilies,14 includes two Bedan homilies for the occasion on Luke 6.43 and John 10.22.15 Zacchaeus’ generous response to Jesus, furthermore, puts Ælfric in mind of the parsimonious actions of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7.36–50), whose account Ælfric goes on to treat in lines 98–133 below. It is none of these passages that Ælfric uses to begin his homily, however. Rather, somewhat unusually, he introduces Zacchaeus’ story by summarizing the episode that immediately precedes it in Luke: Christ’s healing of the blind man outside Jericho 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

For which I am indebted to Dan Matei, director of CIMEC, Institutul de Memorie Culturala (Institute for Cultural Memory), Dr Elena Tirziman, National Library of Romania, and Dr Doina Hendre Biro, Batthyaneum Library. Brotanek 1 (Texte und Untersuchungen, pp. 3–15). Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, pp. 237–62. Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, pp. 51, 54, and 56. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 141 n. 1; see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 114 and 279. Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293 n. 27. Turner, Missal of the New Minster, p. 206. See for example Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manuscript’; and Godden, Commentary, p. xli. Grégoire, Homéliaires, pp. 112–13. Chavasse, in his edition of the Gelasian Sacramentary, the official Roman liturgy ‘from about 700 onward’ (Clayton, ‘Ælfric and the Nativity’, p. 293), has no entry for the Dedication of a Church (Sacramentaire Gélasien, p. 243).

549

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (Luke 18.35–43). The latter pericope is the main focus of CH I.10, the exegesis for which Ælfric had drawn primarily from Gregory, with details plucked from Haymo and Alcuin.16 There, while obviously treating the text at more length, Ælfric affirms various points also found here: Jesus was going to the city of Jerusalem;17 in this life, he took on human nature;18 he worked miracles as he had before;19 on the way20 he healed a blind man21 because of the man’s faith;22 Jesus gave him sight through his might;23 whereupon the man followed Jesus24 and those around them praised God.25 At the same time, AH II.10 does include certain details not in CH I.10: Ælfric identifies his (ultimate) source as the þriddan Cristes bec (‘third book of Christ’ – i.e., Gospel [line 2] written by Lucas se godspellere (‘Luke the Evangelist’ [line 2]); he emphasizes that the merciful (mildheort) Savior mercifully (mildheortlice) healed him [line 6]; and he notes that, once healed, the man was able to follow Jesus without a guide (butan lateowe [line 7]) – the last being simply a colorful addition to the account rather than any suggestion that new believers are without need of theological training.26 Such differences aside, Ælfric has an exegetical reason for mentioning the healing of the blind man here – as we will see when we come to lines 58–65. Lines 9–42 [Se Hælend ferde … on m[id]danearde losode]: Ælfric discusses Zacchaeus to greater or lesser extents in five works. In CH I.8, first of all, discussing the potential as well as the peril of wealth, Ælfric briefly notes how Zacchaeus gave half his riches to the poor and compensated fourfold those he had previously cheated.27 Next, in CH I.38, Ælfric pauses his discussion of the apostles Peter and Andrew to explain an allusion to Zacchaeus in his Gregorian source; the result is a fairly direct translation of Luke 19.2–10, the fullest treatment of the story outside AH II.10, and again Ælfric’s final

16 17 18

19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27

Godden, Commentary, pp. 78–84. ‘Crist wæs … byrig Hierusalem’ [lines 2–3]; cf. CH I.10, lines 5 [we nu] – 6 [Hierusalem] (Clemoes, First Series, p. 258). ‘ða þa he mennisclice on þisum life wuniende wæs’ [line 3]; cf. CH I.10, lines 57 [Crist come] – 58 [underfeng], 87–9 [he ferde þurh his menniscnysse (twice)], and 95 [þurh ða] – 96 [blindnysse] (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 260 and 261). ‘þa worhte he wundra be þam wege swa swa his gewuna wæs’ [lines 3–4]; cf. CH I.10, lines 30 [þa wolde] – 31 [wundrum] and 35 [He worhte] – 37 [getrymde] (Clemoes, First Series, p. 259). ‘on þam wege’ [line 5]; cf. CH I.10, lines 11 [be ðam wege], 31–2 [be þam wege], and 59–60 [He sæt … and liif] (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 258, 259, and 260). ‘he gehælde ænne blindne’ [line 5]; cf. CH I.10, lines 20 [loca … geseah] and 32 [Crist … weredes] (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 258 and 259). ‘he bæd his hæle mid geleafan’ [line 5]; cf. CH I.10, lines 20 [þin geleafa … gehæled] and (speaking of the corresponding healing of humankind from blindness) 47 [Ac þurh] – 48 [geleafan] (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 258 and 259–60). ‘þurh his mihte’ [line 6]; cf. CH I.10, lines 35 [He worhte] – 36 [mihte] (Clemoes, First Series, p. 259). ‘se mann … swa dyde’ [lines 6–7]; cf. CH I.10, lines 20 [And he] – 21 [hælende] and 136 [se blinda] – 137 [hælende] (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 258–9 and 263). ‘And þæt folc … herede God’ [line 8]; cf. CH I.10, lines 21 [þa eal] – 22 [onbryrdnysse] Clemoes, First Series, p. 259). A suggestion which would have horrified Ælfric. No mention of this detail recurs in the remainder of AH II.10. Clemoes, First Series, p. 247, lines 172–4.

550

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae emphasis is on Zacchaeus’ generous response to Jesus’ actions.28 Following these First Series texts, in AH II.10, Ælfric translates and exposits the whole of Luke 19.1–10 in detail. Fourth, in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), Ælfric makes perhaps his briefest allusion to Zacchaeus, referencing not his wealth but his stature: better to be short and virtuous like Zacchaeus, he says, than large and evil like Goliath.29 Finally, in SH II.16, returning to the theme of righteousness and the proper use of wealth, Ælfric quotes Luke 19.8–9 to speak of Christ’s commendation of Zacchaeus’ almsgiving.30 All of these passages, save for the brief allusion in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (for the context of which, see notes to AH I.8, lines 369–422), are examined in detail below. Ælfric translates the first few verses only in AH II.10 and CH I.38. Luke 19.1–5a

CH I.3831

Et ingressus perambulabat Hiericho. Et ecce uir nomine Zacchaeus et hic erat princeps publicanorum et ipse diues. Et quaerebat uidere Iesum quis esset et non poterat prae turba quia statura pusillus erat. Et praecurrens ascendit in arborem sycomorum ut uideret illum quia inde erat transiturus. Et cum uenisset ad locum suspiciens Iesus vidit illum et dixit ad eum, ‘Zacchee, festinans descende …’.

Zacheus wæs sum rice mann and cepte þæs Hælendes fær and wolde geseon hwilc he wære, ac he ne mihte for þære meniu þe him mid ferde, for þan ðe he wæs sceort on wæstme. Ða forarn he þam Hælende. and stah uppon anum treowe þæt he hine geseon mihte ; Crist þa beseah up wið ðæs rican and cwæð , ‘Zachee, stih ardlice adune …’

28 29 30 31

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 9–24 Se Hælend ferde þa þurh þa burh Hiericho. Þa wæs þær sum welig mann ongeanwerd þam Hælende, and hys nama wæs Zacheus. Se wæs ealdor and heafod þara woruldmanna þe openlice on unriht reafedon. He smeade þa on hys mode hu he mihte þone Hælend geseon for þan þe se ylca rica wæs sceort on wæstme and ne mihte for þære menigu þe him mid ferdon þone Hælend geseon. He arn þa beforan ealre þære meniu and ardlice astah uppan an treow, ðe is on bocum gehaten sycomeres beam, þæt he hine gesawe huru of þam treowe, for þan þe se Hælend ferde forð be þam wege. Hwæt þa, se Hælend, sona swa he him to com, beseah upp wið þæs rican and hine hraðe het astigan niþer of þam treowe …

Clemoes, First Series, p. 509, line 80 [Zacheus] – p. 510, line 95, lines 80–93 comprising the translation proper. Lines 411–14. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 554, lines 173–82. Clemoes, First Series, p. 509, line 80 – p. 510, line 85.

551

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae And having entered [the city], he was walking through Jericho. And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, who was the chief of the tax collectors, and he was rich. He was seeking to see Jesus, [to see] who he was, but he could not because of the crowd, for he was very short of stature. And running ahead, he climbed up into a sycamore tree in order to see him, for he was to come that way. And when Jesus had come to that place, looking up, he saw him and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down …’.

Zacchaeus was a certain rich man [who] had observed the Savior’s arrival, and he desired to see who he was. He could not, however, because of the crowd that was accompanying him, for he was short of stature. He then ran before the Savior and climbed up a tree, so that he might see him . Christ then looked up at the rich man and said , ‘“Zacchaeus, come quickly down …”’

The Savior then went through the city of Jericho. At that time there was there a certain rich man coming toward the Savior, and his name was Zacchaeus. He was man of authority and the chief of those worldly men who openly stole unjustly. He then deliberated in his mind how he could see the Savior because this same rich man was short in stature and could not see the Savior on account of the crowd that went with him. He then ran in front of the crowd and quickly climbed up a tree, which in books is called a sycamore tree, so that he at least might see him from the tree because the Savior was proceeding forth along the way. And then, the Savior, as soon as he came to him, looked up toward the rich man and at once commanded him to climb down from the tree …

While both translations preserve the chief elements of the narrative, the First Series account is somewhat more succinct. Ælfric elides the first verse by incorporating Jesus’ entry into his description of Zacchaeus: the latter cepte þæs hælendes fær (‘observed the Savior’s arrival’), which motivates his desire to see him. Ælfric also calls Zacchaeus simply a rice mann (‘rich man’), not, as the Vulgate also has it, princeps publicanorum (‘chief of the tax collectors’). He speaks merely of a treowe (‘tree’) rather than a sycomorus (‘sycamore’, on which see notes to lines 66–76 below), and skips over both the anticipation of Jesus’ arrival (quia inde erat transiturus [‘for he was to come that way’] and its actuality (Et cum uenisset ad locum [‘And when [Jesus] had come to that place’]). He also adds a couple elements of his own, however, characteristically referring to Jesus as Hælend (‘Savior’) and noting that the crowd him mid ferde (‘was accompanying him’). It is not only in CH I.38 that Ælfric does not directly translate the term publicanus (‘tax collector’). The term appears, for example, in Jesus’ calling of Matthew (Luke 5.27–32), which Ælfric exposits in CH II.32. Where the Gospel describes Matthew as publicanum … sedentem ad teloneum (‘a tax collector … sitting at a toll-booth’ [Luke 5.27]), however, CH I.32 calls him sumne mannan æt tollsetle (‘a certain man at a toll-booth’).32 When the Pharisees complain about Jesus consorting cum publicanis et peccatoribus (‘with tax collectors and sinners’ [Luke 5.30]), CH I.32 refers to manfullum mannum and synfullum (‘wicked and sinful people’).33 Similarly, publicanus also appears

32 33

Clemoes, First Series, p. 272, line 5. Clemoes, First Series, p. 272, line 13.

552

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18.10–14), to which Ælfric refers in Irvine 3. Where the Gospel describes the publicanus crying humbly to God for mercy, Irvine 3 speaks simply of a manfulle (‘wicked person’).34 At other points, however, Ælfric does translate the term. Where Luke describes publicani (‘tax collectors’) coming to John the Baptist (Luke 3.12), for instance, Ælfric talks of gerefan and tolleras (‘reeves and tax collectors’).35 Where publicani et peccatores (‘tax collectors and sinners’) come to hear Jesus (Luke 15.1 and Matthew 9.10), Ælfric twice refers to gerefan and synfulle men (‘reeves and sinful men’).36 The ‘reeve’ of Ælfric’s day had various administrative responsibilities: Stafford notes that ‘few generalizations would hold good for all reeves’. Nonetheless, she suggests that they were variously used to collect tithe payments and royal dues.37 To say that Anglo-Saxons (like most humans) were not unfamiliar with taxation does not mean that Ælfric would have fully understood the connection between Roman publicani and corruption. In first-century Palestine, the right to collect taxes from a particular area was auctioned off; money collected over and above this amount constituted profit for the collector. Jarvis and Johnson observe, moreover, that ‘Publicans were also moneylenders, speculators, and contractors supplying materiel for the [Roman] army. Such enterprises provided opportunities for cooking the books, commodities speculation, side deals, graft, and extortion to defraud Rome, local officals, fellow investors, and average citizens’.38 Even so, Scripture would have offered Ælfric some clues: there is the steward (uilicus, which Ælfric translates as gerefa [‘reeve’]39) accused of squandering his lord’s goods (Luke 16.1–9), the publicani (gerefan and tolleras [‘reeves and tax collectors’],40 as noted above) warned against taking more taxes than required (Luke 3.12–13), and Zacchaeus himself, who promises to repay fourfold any he ‘may’ have cheated (defraudare, Luke 18.8). It is not entirely unsurprising, therefore, that when he comes to exposit Zacchaeus’ story more fully in AH II.10, Ælfric should gloss princeps publicanorum (‘chief of the tax collectors’) as ‘heafod þara woruldmanna þe openlice on unriht reafedon’ (‘chief of those worldly men who publicly store unjustly’). Nor is this the only addition Ælfric makes both to his earlier translation in CH I.38 and the Vulgate. He identifies Jericho as a burh (‘city’), describes Zacchaeus as ongeanwerd þam Hælende (‘coming to meet the Savior’), calls him an ealdor (‘man of authority’), says that he climbs the tree ardlice (‘hastily’), notes that the tree is called a sycamore on bocum (‘in books’), and portrays Jesus as hraðe (‘quickly’) commanding Zacchaeus to descend. Certain details, moreover, Ælfric reorders, speaking of Zacchaeus’ stature, for example, before the crowds that

34 35 36 37 38

39 40

Irvine, Homilies, p. 72, line 328. CH II.3 (Godden, Second Series, p. 20, lines 38–9). CH I.24 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 371, line 3) and CH II.32 (Godden, Second Series, p. 272, lines 8–9). ‘Reeve’, pp. 386–7. Feasting on the Gospels, vol. II, p. 165. On the Roman system of taxation, see for example Lintott, Imperium Romanum, pp. 70–96; and Badian, Publicans and Sinners (cited by Jarvis and Johnson, Feasting, p. 165 n. 1). SH II.16 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 547, line 5; and p. 548, lines 10, 24, 27, and so on). CH II.3 (Godden, Second Series, p. 20, lines 38–9).

553

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae accompany Jesus. Even with such changes, however, AH II.10 preserves more details from the Latin original than does Ælfric’s summary translation in CH I.38. The next couple of verses appear not only in CH I.38 and toward the start of AH II.10, but also later in AH II.10 as Ælfric starts repeating lines from the pericope as headers for sections of commentary. Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 24–31

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 96–8 [Luke 19.5b–6]

Luke 19.5b–7

CH I.3841

‘… quia hodie in domo tua oportet me manere’. Et festinans descendit et excepit illum gaudens. Et cum uiderent omnes murmurabant dicentes quod ad hominem peccatorem deuertisset.

‘“… for þan ðe me gedafenað þæt ic nu todæig þe gecyrre”’. Zacheus þa swyftlice of þam treowe alihte and hine blissiende underfeng. Ða þa Zacheus Crist gelaðod hæfde …

… and he neodlice swa dyde. Þa cwæð se Hælend him to, ‘“Nu todæg me gedafenað þæt Ic to þinre dugoðe gecyrre and þæt Ic on þinum huse hæbbe wununge mid þe”’. And Zacheus sona mid swiðlicre blisse hine underfeng. Hwæt þa, Iudeiscean þæs wundrodon swiðe and mid ceorunge bemændon þæt he to swa synfullum menn wolde gebugan oððe his goda onbyrigean.

Se Hælend cwæð to Zachee, ‘“Nu todæg me gedafenaþ þæt Ic to þinre dugoðe gecyrre and þæt Ic on þinum huse hæbbe wununge mid þe”’, and Zacheus sona mid swyþlicre blisse hine underfeng. .

‘… for today I must stay at your house’. And, hurrying, he came down and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, all [the crowd] murmured, saying that he had gone to stay with a man [who was a] sinner.

‘“… for it behooves me that I now today turn to you”’. Zacchaeus then quickly came down from the tree and received him joyfully. When then Zacchaeus had invited Christ …

… and he eagerly did so. Then the Savior said to him, ‘“Today it is fitting for me to pay attention to your virtue and to have a stay with you at your house”’. And Zacchaeus immediately took him in with great joy. So then, the Jews marveled exceedingly at this and with complaining lamented that he desired to turn aside to such a sinful man or to partake of his food.

The Savior said to Zacchaeus, ‘“Today it is fitting for me to pay attention to your virtue and to have a stay with you at your house”’, and Zacchaeus immediately took him in with great joy. .

The First Series homily at points reproduces Latin turns of phrase, translating oportet me (‘I must’ [lit., ‘it behooves me’]) with me gedafanað (‘it behooves me’); reflecting deuert[ere] (‘go to stay with’ [lit., ‘turn aside to’]) in gecyrre (‘I turn to’), which otherwise translates manere (‘to stay at/with’); and preserving the participial form of gaudens with 41

Clemoes, First Series, p. 510, lines 85–7.

554

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae blissiende (‘rejoicing’), though not that of festinans (‘hurrying’, translated as swyftlice [‘quickly’]). At the same time, it also supplies names (Zacheus) for the understood subject of verbs, and spells out that the tax collector came down of þam treowe (‘from the tree’). When it comes to Luke 19.7, moreover – the murmuring of the crowd – Ælfric puts the focus on Zacchaeus, who Crist gelaðod hæfde (‘had invited Christ’), providing a smooth transition to the subsequent verse, where Zacchaeus responds to Jesus’ visit by giving to the poor. As before, AH II.10 expands on CH I.38 substantially. In its initial presentation of the story, as well as its later reiteration of lines from the pericope, AH II.10 says that it behooves Jesus not þe gecyrr[an] (‘to turn to you’) – that is, to come to Zacchaeus’ house as his guest – but to þinre dugoðe gecyrr[an] (‘to turn [his attention] to your virtue’ or ‘to pay attention to [the matter of] your salvation’), and to that end ‘on þinum huse hæbb[an] wununge mid þe’ (‘to stay with you in your house’). Zacchaeus then responds not just by blissiende (‘rejoicing’), but receives Jesus sona mid swiðlicre blisse (‘immediately with great joy’). Furthermore, where both CH I.38 and the later quotation in AH II.10 stop with Luke 19.6, the initial AH II.10 account goes on to 19.7. Here, Ælfric states not that the people murmurabant (‘were murmuring’), but that they ‘þæs wundrodon swiðe and mid ceorunge bemændon’ (‘marveled exceedingly at this and with complaining lamented’) that Jesus would go to stay with a sinner and ‘wolde … his goda onbyrigean’ (‘would … consume his goods’ – that is, ‘eat his food’). For the next two verses, the textual situation becomes somewhat more complex, as in addition to CH I.38 and the double quotations in AH II.10, Ælfric alludes to Luke 19.8 in CH I.8 and quotes Luke 19.8–9 in SH II.16.

555

‘[Rice man wæs se heahfæder Abraham, and Dauid se mæra cyning, and] Zacheus se þe healfe his æhta þearfum dælde and mid healfum dæle forgeald be feower-fealdum swa hwæt swa he ær on unriht be anfealdum reafode’.

Stans autem Zacchaeus dixit ad Dominum, ‘Ecce dimidium bonorum meorum Domine do pauperibus et si quid aliquem defraudaui reddo quadruplum’. Ait Iesus ad eum ‘Quia hodie salus domui huic facta est eo quod et ipse filius sit Abrahae’.

‘… þa astod he ætforan him and him anmodlice to cwæð,  “Drihten, efne ic todæle healfne dæl minra goda þearfum, and swa hwæt swa ic mid facne berypte þæt ic wylle be feower-fealdum forgyldan”. Drihten him to cwæð, “Nu todæig is þisum hirede hæl gefremmed for þan ðe he is Abrahames ofspring”’.

CH I.3843

44

43

42

Clemoes, First Series, p. 247, lines 172–4. Clemoes, First Series, p. 510, lines 87–92. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 554, lines 173–82.

‘Zacheus þa on þam gebeorscipe mid bliðum mode clypode to þam Hælende þus and mid behate gefestnode, “ Ic wille nu, min Drihten, wædlum and þearfum dælan healfe mine æhta ealles þæs þe Ic hæbbe, and gif Ic hwæne bereafode unrihtlice oð ðis, Ic wylle þæt be feower-fealdum mid freondrædene forgildan.” Þa cwæþ se Hælend sona to Zachee þus, “Nu todæg is gefremmed þisum hirede hæl for þan þe he is sunu soðlice Habrahames ”’. ‘[The patriarch ‘… then he stood ‘Zacchaeus then called out to But Zacchaeus, Abraham was before him and the Savior at the feast with a standing up, a wealthy man, boldly said to him, joyful spirit in this way and said to the Lord, and David the “Lord, behold I promised with a vow, ‘Behold, Lord: illustrious king, distribute half of my “ My Lord, I now want to half of my goods to the needy, distribute half of all my possessions I give and] Zacchaeus, who gave half his and whatever I have possessions that I have to to the poor, and robbed by fraud, the poor and needy, and if if I have cheated possessions to the anyone, I restore needy, and with the that I want to repay I unjustly robbed anyone, other half repaid fourfold”. The Lord I with friendliness want to it fourfold’. fourfold whatever said to him, “Now repay [that person] fourfold”. Jesus said to he previously had today is salvation Then the Savior spoke him, ‘For this wrongfully robbed’. accomplished for immediately to Zacchaeus in reason salvation this household, this way, “Today salvation has come to this because he is is accomplished for this house today, Abraham’s household because he is truly because this man offspring’. a son of Abraham”’. too is a son of Abraham’.

CH I.842

Luke 19.8–9

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 32–40 SH II.1644

‘Zacheus se rica wæs unrihtwis æt fruman, ac syððan he underfeng þone fyrmestan cuman, þone Hælend sylfne. Þa sæde Zacheus, “Drihten leof, ic wylle dælan mine æhta þone healfan dæl þearfum , and þærtoeacan ic wylle be feower-fealdum forgyldan swa hwæt swa ic reafode”. And se Hælend þa sæde sona him to andsware, “Nu todæg is geworden hæl þisum hirede ”, for þan þe Zacheus swa wæs gerihtwisod þurh þæs Hælendes tocyme, þe com to his huse’. ‘Zacchaeus then arose at his ‘Zacchaeus the rich man feast and joyfully said to the was unrighteous at first, Savior , ‘My Lord, I but afterward he received now want to divide my the chief guest, the Savior possessions in two and to himself. Then Zacchaeus give the second part to the said, “Dear Lord, I want to needy and poor, and if I distribute one half of my robbed anyone, I will repay possessions to the poor, [that person] fourfold” … and in addition, I want to Then the Savior said to repay fourfold whatever I Zacchaeus , “Today salvation robbed.” And the Savior is accomplished for this then immediately said to household because he is truly him, “Today salvation a son of Abraham”’. is accomplished for this household ”, because thus Zacchaeus was made righteous by the Savior’s arrival, when he came to his house’.

‘Zacheus þa stod on his gebeorscipe and bliþelice cwæð to þam Hælende , “Ic wylle nu min Drihten dælan mine æhta on twa and þone oþerne dæl syllan þearfum and wædlum, and gif Ic hwylcne mannan bereafode , þæt Ic forgylde be feower-fealdum ” … Þa cwæð se Hælend to Zachee , “Nu todæg is hæl þisum hirede gelumpen for þan þe he soþlice is sunu Habrahames”’.

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 131–3 and 146–7

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae The first of the two First Series homilies, CH I.8, is but a passing reference: though wealth brings spiritual dangers (see for example James 5.1–6), Ælfric warns,45 wealthy individuals may please God by being rihtwise … and mildheorte (‘righteous … and compassionate’),46 just like Abraham, David, and Zacchaeus. CH I.38, by contrast, is (as we have seen) a summary translation of the Latin. It does make some minor changes, using the preterit indicative astod (‘stood’) for the participle stans (‘standing’ – in effect, ‘after he had stood’), adding the intensifier anmodlice (‘boldly’), reversing the order of words (‘Behold’ and ‘Lord’; ‘give/distribute’ and ‘half of my possessions’), and increasing the certainty of Zacchaeus’ culpability by replacing si quid aliquem defraudaui (‘if I have cheated anyone’) with ‘swa hwæt swa ic mid facne berypte’ (‘whatever I have robbed by fraud’). Even so, this First Series homily remains fairly close to the Vulgate. AH II.10 adds certain details, however. In both the initial account and the later recap, the homily reminds us of the setting (on … gebeorscipe [‘at … [the] feast’]), depicts Zacchaeus offering his wealth ‘joyfully’ (mid bliðum mode / bliþelice), speaks not just of his action (do [‘I give’]) but his heart’s attitude (Ic wille … dælan [‘I want … to distribute’]), and directs Zacchaeus’ liberality not just to the þearfum (‘needy’), as in the First Series, but to the wædlum (‘poor’). The initial account further states that Zacchaeus mid behate gefestnode (‘promised with a vow’) and repays mid freondrædene (‘with friendliness’), while Jesus responds sona … þus (‘immediately … in this way’). At the same time, at a couple of points AH II.10 is closer to the Vulgate than the First Series texts: not only do the AH II.10 passages return to the Vulgate’s conditional construction (gif … bereafode [‘if … I robbed’] for si … defraudaui [‘if … I cheated’]), but describes Zacchaeus as a sunu Habrahames (‘son of Abraham’), reflecting the Latin filius Abrahae (‘son of Abraham’) more literally than CH I.38’s Abrahames ofspring (‘Abraham’s offspring’). Between the two AH II.10 quotations, there are certain differences as well. The later recap cuts some language (both phrases such as ‘[clypode] þus and mid behate gefestnode’ [‘[called] in this way and promised with a vow’] and individual words like ‘[bereafode] unrihtlice’ [‘[robbed] unjustly’]), alters words (both phrases, changing dælan healfe mine æhta [‘distribute half of my possessions’] to dælan mine æhta on twa [‘divide my possessions in two’], and individual words, replacing for example clypode [‘called out’] with cwæð [‘said’]), adds terms (both phrases [þone oþerne dæl syllan (‘give the second part’)] and individual words [stod (‘arose’)]), and reverses word order (þearfum [‘needy’] and wædlum [‘poor’]). Finally, when Ælfric comes to write SH II.16, Zacchaeus again forms an example to which he might quickly allude when treating the subject of giving. In departures both from AH II.10 and the First Series homilies, SH II.16 emphasizes both human action and divine grace: at the beginning, it observes that Zacchaeus ‘wæs unrihtwis … ac syððan he underfeng … þone Hælend’ (‘was unrighteous … but afterward he received … the Savior’); at the end, it underscores that Zacchaeus ‘swa wæs gerihtwisod 45

46

For the tension at this point in the homily between the immediate subject of Ælfric’s Vulgate source (filii regni [‘children of the Kingdom’], Matthew 8.12) and his expositional subject (ða rican bearn [‘the rich children’]) – the difference seeming to turn on the noun rice (‘kingdom’) versus the adjective rice (‘wealthy’) – see Godden, Commentary, p. 66. Clemoes, First Series, p. 247, line 171.

557

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae þurh þæs Hælendes tocyme, þe com to his huse’ (‘thus was made righteous by the Savior’s arrival, when he came to his house’). The swa (‘thus’ or ‘in this way’) that opens the latter statement might be understood as pointing backwards: on account of Zacchaeus’ generosity, he was saved.47 Ælfric’s use of þurh (‘by’ or ‘through’), however, and redoubled emphasis on Christ’s gratuitous action, more likely suggest that swa here points forward: ‘[Christ] said to him, “Today salvation is accomplished for this household”, because thus Zacchaeus was made righteous: by the Savior’s arrival, when he came to his house’ (emphasis ours). This said, theologically Ælfric has both host and guest in view: Christ’s visit inspires the change of heart that brings about Zacchaeus’ salvation.48 The last verse of Zacchaeus’ story appears only in CH I.38 and AH II.10. Luke 19.10

CH I.3849

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 41–2

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), line 163

‘“Venit enim Filius hominis quaerere et saluum facere quod perierat”’.

‘“Ic com to secenne and to gehælenne þæt ðe on mancynne losode”’.

‘“Mannes Bearn com to secenne and sylf to gehælenne þæt þe of mancynne on middanearde losode”’.

‘“Mannes Sunu com to secenne and to gehælenne þæt þe losode”’.

‘“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which had been lost”’.

‘“I came to seek and to save that which was lost among humankind”’.

‘“The Son of Man himself came to seek and to save that which among humankind was lost in the world”’.

‘“The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost”’.

There are slight variations among the texts. On the one hand, Jesus speaks either in the first person (Ic [‘I’]) or as the ‘Son of Man’ (Mannes Bearn or Mannes Sunu). The latter two terms Ælfric uses about equally, as they appear nineteen and twenty-five times in his writings, respectively; they translate Filius hominis (‘Son of Man’), on which see notes to lines 163–9 below. On the other hand, where the Vulgate describes Jesus seeking quod perierat (‘that which had been lost’), the First Series speaks of þæt ðe on mancynne losode (‘that which was lost’ – using a simple preterit rather than a pluperfect – ‘among humankind’). The first account in AH II.10 expands the phrase still further, referring to ‘þæt þe of mancynne on middanearde losode’ (‘that which among humankind was lost in the world’), while the second reverts to a closer approximation of the biblical original: þæt þe losode (‘that which was lost’). Even more important than such linguistic variations, however, is the difference in Ælfric’s focus. In CH I.38, having briefly translated Zacchaeus’ story, he comments not on Jesus’ title or salvific work, but on Zacchaeus’ generosity: by such giving, he says, like the widow with her two mites (Mark 12.41–4) or the one offering a cup of water to the disciple in need (Matthew 10.42), Zacchaeus beceapod (‘bought’) or wæs

47 48 49

Acevedo Butcher appears to understand the passage in this way, as she translates Zacheus swa wæs gerihtwisod as ‘for this almsgiving is how Zacchaeus was made righteous’ (God of Mercy, p. 142). For further discussion of Ælfric’s teaching on the relationship of divine grace and human action, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 172–212. Clemoes, First Series, p. 510, lines 92–3.

558

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae alæten (‘was given’) entry into the Kingdom of heaven.50 In the latter part of AH II.10, however, Ælfric exposits Luke 19.10 in detail, discussing Jesus name, origin, dual nature, and work of salvation, as well as the necessary human response (see notes to lines 163–9 below). Lines 43–8 [Ðes rica Zacheus … to eccre bletsunge]: Turning from translation to exegesis, Ælfric skips over the first two verses – Jesus enters Jericho, where Zacchaeus lives – and jumps in at Luke 19.3, speaking of the tax collector’s desire but inability to see Jesus. For the Semi-Pelagian John Cassian (ca 360 – ca 465), this tension offered a prime example of how Christ might respond to meritorious human initiative: while God may mercifully save sinners in the very teeth of their sin, Cassian affirms, as he did with the apostles Paul (Acts 9.3–19) and Matthew (Matthew 9.9), at other times the initial desire for salvation may come from humans themselves, as in the case of the thief on the cross (Luke 23.40–3) and Zacchaeus, who runs ahead of Jesus and climbs a tree in order to see him (Luke 19.4; AH II.10, lines 44–5).51 More traditional authorities like Bede also praise Zacchaeus’ faith as meritorious, even as they acknowledge God’s hand by speaking of the gratia fidei (‘grace of faith’).52 Ælfric himself, elsewhere in his works, both firmly attributes the origin of faith to God and speaks of the necessity and value of human belief.53 Here in AH II.10, however, his emphasis is on the meritorious nature of Zacchaeus’ god[an] willan (‘good will’ [line 45]): as he says, ‘mid þære gewilnunge þe he wolde hine geseon, he gearnode þæt he moste þone Ælmihtigan underfon him sylfum and his hirede to eccre bletsunge’ (‘on account of [Zacchaeus’] desire to see him, he deserved to be able to receive the Almighty’ [lines 47–8, emphasis ours]).54 For much of his exegesis here in this homily, Ælfric draws on Bede’s In Lucae Euangelium expositio.55 In previous studies, while Pope and Godden listed various parallels between this work and Ælfrician writings, Godden was hesitant definitively to call it a source: particularly as regards the Catholic Homilies, he said, ‘It is not after all entirely certain that Ælfric had direct access to the commentary’, since the material in question also appears in compilers such as Smaragdus and Haymo.56 When we come to AH II.10, however, the evidence is compelling. The section of In Lucae Euangelium expositio that exposits the story of Zacchaeus57 appears as an entry in the

50 51 52 53 54

55

56 57

Clemoes, First Series, p. 510, line 93, and p. 509, line 76. See Kleist, Striving with Grace, p. 154. See Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 71, 78, 82, and 215. See Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 172–6, 177–80, 182, 184, and 188–90. It may be, moreover, that Ælfric sees a parallel between Zacchaeus’ and Jesus’ actions: just as Zacchaeus’ desire to see leads him to act, so Jesus’ observation of Zacchaeus’ desire leads him to act. As Ælfric states, ‘Se Hælend eac þa geseah his godan willan and cwæð þæt he wolde to him gecyrran and on his huse hine gereordian’ (‘The Savior likewise saw then his good will and said that he desired to turn aside to him and to eat at his house’ [lines 45–6, emphasis ours]). Source identified independently here, but previously posited by Ebersperger, Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, pp. 220–2; for her identification of various of the Bedan passages discussed below, see pp. 241, 243, 245, 247, 255, 257, and 259. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 167; Godden, Commentary, p. l. Namely, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–10 (CCSL 120, p. 333, line 1495 – p. 336, line 1620).

559

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae homiliary of Paul the Deacon,58 one of Ælfric’s major immediate sources.59 This exegesis appears nearly verbatim as a pseudo-Bedan homily for the Dedication of a Church,60 the liturgical occasion treated by AH II.10. And at a number of points Ælfric’s comments correspond closely to Bede’s commentary. In her edition of the Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae, Ebersperger points to AH II.10, lines 43–8 as the first point of parallel between it and In Lucae Euangelium expositio. Bede writes: ‘Qui mira deuotione fidei ad uidendum Saluatorem, quod natura minus habuerat, ascensu supplet arboris, atque ideo iuste, quamuis ipse rogare non audeat, benedictionem Dominicae susceptionis, quam desiderabat, accepit’ (‘[Zacchaeus], in order to see the Savior, with the wonderful devotion of faith made up by climbing the tree that which he had less of by nature [that is, height], and for that reason rightly received what he longed for, the blessing of the Lord’s acceptance, though he himself would not dare to ask [for it]’).61 Not only does AH II.10 mention Zacchaeus’ height and desire to see the Savior – details admittedly also in the biblical account – but states that Zacchaeus ‘deserves’ to receive (cf. Bede’s iuste … accepit [‘rightly … receives’]) that for which he dared not ask: Jesus’ favor. Ælfric says: ‘He ne dorste þone Hælend to his huse laðian, ac mid þære gewilnunge þe he wolde hine geseon, he gearnode þæt he moste þone Ælmihtigan underfon’ (‘He dared not invite the Savior to his house, but on account of [his] desire to see him, he deserved to be able to receive the Almighty’ [lines 46–8]). Lines 49–57 [Se Hælend beseah … þe hine lufode]: Skipping over passages in Bede’s commentary to which he will return in lines 77–88, 58–66, and 67–77, Ælfric adapts a section that speaks to the spiritual implications of sight.

58 59 60 61

Kleist, Striving with Grace, p. 230 (Table I.5); see also Smetana, ‘Patristic Anthology’, p. 90. See for example Hill, ‘Ælfric’s Manuscript’; Godden, Commentary, pp. liv; and Smetana, ‘Patristic Anthology’ and ‘Early Medieval Homiliary’. Sermones subdititiae III.66 (PL 94.439C–441C, with Galatians 6.4 and 1 Corinthians 2.2 appearing at 440B and 440C). In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–4 (CCSL 120, p. 333, lines 1504–7).

560

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae 1 Peter 3.12

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.562

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 48–57

Oculi Domini super ‘Suspiciens uidit illum’ quia iustos et aures eius per gratiam fidei a terrenis in preces eorum cupiditatibus eleuatum turbisque infidelibus praeeminentem elegit. Videre enim Dei eligere uel amare est, unde est illud: Oculi Domini super iustos. Nam et nos quae amamus uidere ab his quae execramus intuitum festinamus auertere. Vidit ergo Iesus uidentem se quia elegit eligentem se et amauit amantem.

Se Hælend beseah up wið þæs rican, and he hine geseah for þan þe he hine geceas fram þam woroldlicum gitsungum þe he oþ þæt on begripe[n] wæs and hyne mid his gife fram his unrihtwisnessum gerihtwisode. Godes gesyhð getacnað his gecorennesse oððe his lufe, swa swa hit awriten is: Oculi domini super iustos, et aures eius ad preces eorum, ‘Godes eagan synd ofer þa rihtwisan, and his earan beoð ahylde to heora benum’. We menn eac swylce, þa þing þe we lufiað we gewilniað to geseonne, and fram þam þe we onscuniað we awendaþ ure gesihðe. Se Hælend geseah þone welegan for þan þe se welega geseah hine, and Crist geceas þone þe hine geceas and þone lufode þe hine lufode.

The eyes of the Lord [are] on the righteous, and his ears [are attentive] to their prayers.

The Savior looked up toward the rich man, and he saw him because he chose him from the worldly covetousness by which he was gripped up to that time and guided him aright with his grace away from his unrighteousness. God’s gaze signifies his election and his love, just as it is written: The eyes of the Lord [are] on the righteous, and his ears [are attentive] to their calls; ‘The eyes of God are upon the righteous, and his ears are inclined to their prayers’. We men too desire to see the things we love, and we turn our sight from those that we despise. The Savior saw the rich man because the rich man saw him, and Christ chose him who chose Him and loved him who loved Him.

‘“Looking up, he saw him” because [Jesus] chose the one raised up from earthly desires and eminent above the faithless crowd through the grace of faith. For to see, to choose, or to love is of God, for which reason it is that “The eyes of the Lord [are] upon the righteous”. Therefore Jesus saw the one seeing him, because he chose the one choosing him and loved the one loving him’.

The phrase in question involves the point at which Jesus beholds Zacchaeus (Luke 19.5). For Bede, this sight signifies divine election: Jesus chooses to gaze upon Zacchaeus, speak to him, and to come to his house, leading to Zacchaeus’ salvation. Such election might seem to be a response to human merit: it is the iustos (‘righteous’), raised above earthly desires and the faithless crowd, that choose and love God; Jesus sees, chooses, and loves the one who is already doing the same to him (Vidit … amantem). At the same time, however, such human sight, choice, and devotion is from God (Dei est): Zacchaeus may demonstrate faith through his actions, but this faith is a gratuitous divine gift – the gratiam fidei (‘grace of faith’).63

62 63

CCSL 120, p. 334, lines 1542–8. On Bede’s use of which phrase, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 71, 82, and 313 n. 66.

561

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Ælfric’s initial emphasis in his translation is more on grace than human merit. While he skips over the phrase gratiam fidei, he describes Zacchaeus not as ‘raised up’ and ‘eminent’ (eleuatum and praeeminentem) but as ‘gripped’ (begripen) by worldly covetousness and unrighteousness away from which he needed to be guided by Christ’s grace. Instead, he concentrates on the subject of the biblical phrase at hand: Jesus’ vision, symbolizing his election and his love, manifested in the divine attentiveness of 1 Peter 3.12, quoting Psalms 34.15 [Vulgate 33.16] from the Gallican Psalter.64 This point having been made, he then acknowledges the part human beings have to play. That which we look at reflects our heart, Ælfric observes (We menn … gesihðe); Zacchaeus’ efforts to see Jesus thus point to a burgeoning love for God that Jesus affirms in turn. As Ælfric puts it, drawing on Bede’s final sentence, ‘Se Hælend geseah þone welegan for þan þe se welega geseah hine’ (‘The Savior saw the rich man because the rich man saw him’). Lines 58–65 [Þæs folces meniu … þæt treow astah]: Returning to a passage in Bede over which he had just skipped, Ælfric reflects upon the significance of the crowds. Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 58–65

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–465 Eamdem namque turba noxiae consuetudinis quae supra caecum clamantem ne lumen peteret increpabat etiam suspicientem publicanum ne Iesum uideat tardat. Sed sicut caecus turbarum uoces magis ac magis clamando deuicit, ita pusillus necesse est turbae nocentis obstaculum altiora petendo transcendat, terrena relinquat arborem, crucis ascendat.

64

65

Þæs folces meniu þe mid þam Hælende ferde hremdon þone rican þæt he ne mihte þone Hælende geseon ær ðan þe he uppan þæt treow astah, swa swa hi geletton þone blindan þe be þam wege sittende his hæle bæd. Hi forbudon þam blindan þæt he to þam Hælende ne clypode, ac he clypode þæs þe swiðor oð þæt se Hælend ætstod and his eagan onlihte. Seo meniu þe hine hremdon getacnodon þa flæsclican lustas þe þæs mannes mod oft hrepað þonne he to Gode gecyrran wile. Ac se þe anrædlice to Gode gecyrran wile sceal oferswyþan his ærran unþeawas. and þa uplican þing gewilnigean, swa swa Zacheus dyde þa þa he uppan þæt treow astah.

It is difficult to know whether Ælfric had 1 Peter 3.12 or Psalms 34.15 [33.16] immediately in view, or if he simply thought of both together. AH II.10, line 53 reads preces, following Weber’s main text for 1 Peter rather than the Psalms’ precem; Weber lists preces as a variant of the latter, however (Biblia sacra, apparatus to p. 808). Furthermore, where both 1 Peter and Psalms read in [preces/precem], AH II.10, line 52 has ad – an attested variant for both biblical passages (Biblia sacra, apparatus to pp. 808 and 1867). CCSL 120, p. 333, line 1516 – p. 334, line 1522.

562

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae For indeed, this crowd of harmful habits which was rebuking the blind man who was calling out, so that he would not seek the light, also was hindering the elevated tax collector so that he would not see Jesus. But just as the blind man overcame the voices of the crowds by calling out more and more, so it was necessary that the very small man, by seeking higher things, should surmount the hindrance of the harmful crowd, leave earthly things behind, [and] climb the cross.

The crowd of people that went with the Savior impeded the rich man so that he was not able to see the Savior before he climbed up that tree, just as they hindered the blind man who sitting by the road asked for his healing. They forbid the blind man to call out to the Savior, but he called out the more loudly until the Savior stopped and gave sight to his eyes. The crowd that impeded him signified the physical desires that often attack a person’s mind when he desires to turn to God. But he who single-mindedly wants to turn to God will overcome his former vices and long for higher things, even as Zacchaeus did when he climbed up the tree.

Ælfric follows Bede in noting the connection between Christ’s healing of the blind man outside Jericho (Luke 18.35–43) with Christ’s encounter with Zacchaeus (Luke 19.1–10): in both cases, the crowds around Jesus try to keep others from him. This exegetical insight offers an explanation for why Ælfric had summarized the blind man’s story [lines 2–8] before recounting that of Zacchaeus [lines 9–42]: he is preparing his audience for the point he will make here. Switching the order of phrases in Bede (Þæs folces meniu … his hæle bæd), and adding a quick recap of the blind man’s story (Hi forbudon þam blindan … his eagan onlihte), Ælfric interprets the crowds as ‘þa flæsclican lustas þe þæs mannes mod oft hrepað þonne he to Gode gecyrran wile’ (‘the physical desires that often attack a person’s mind when he desires to turn to God’).66 Ælfric draws this detail from two places in Bede’s commentary. Immediately before, Bede states that ‘inolita uitiorum consuetudo ne ad uotum perueniret obstiterat’ (‘the ingrained habit of sins had stood in his way, so that he could not come to prayer’).67 Before that, however, in the account of the blind man, Bede affirms: ‘Quid isti designant qui Iesum uenientem praecedunt nisi desideriorum carnalium turbas tumultusque uitiorum qui prius quam Iesus ad cor nostrum ueniat? Temptationibus suis cogitationem nostram dissipant et uoces cordis in oratione perturbant’ (‘What do these people symbolize, who go before Jesus as he enters [Jericho], if not the clamor [or ‘crowd’] of fleshly desires and uproar of sins which come before Jesus into our heart? With their temptations they scatter our thoughts and confound the cries of our heart in prayer’).68 Where Bede goes on in our quotation above to connect the responses of the blind man and Zacchaeus, however, praising both for pursuing Jesus in spite of the crowd, Ælfric makes the application personal for his audience: what Zacchaeus did, climbing the tree – a word Ælfric chooses instead of the theologically rich but potentially more confusing crucis (‘cross’) – Christians must do, leaving earthly things for higher ones.

66

67 68

For a similar comment by Ælfric, see CH I.10, lines 69 [Seo meniu] – 71 [behofedon] (Clemoes, First Series, p. 260; as noted by Ebersperger, Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, p. 244, apparatus; and Brotanek, Texte und Untersuchungen, p. 98). In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–4 (CCSL 120, p. 333, lines 1515–16). In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.18.38–9 (CCSL 120, p. 331, line 1440 – p. 332, line 1444).

563

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Lines 66–76 [Þæt treowcynn is … and Godes wisdom]: From Bede’s commentary, Ælfric also gleans both specialized knowledge about the tree which Zacchaeus climbs, and a Pauline reference to the Tree to which the episode points. Ælfric, Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 66–70

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–469 Sicomorus namque, quae est arbor foliis moro similis, sed altitudine praestans (unde et a Latinis celsa nuncupatur) ficus fatua dicitur. Et eadem dominica crux, quae credentes alit ut ficus, ab incredulis irridetur ut fatua.

Þæt treowcynn is sicomorus gehaten. Hit is on leafum and on bogum morbeame gelic, bið swa þeah heahre on wæstme and is mid hospe gehaten idel fictreow. Hit getacnaþ þa halgan rode, þe þa geleaffullan lufiað and þa ungeleaffullan forseoð. Mid þære halgan rodetacne we us bletsiað on Godes naman, and we beoð wið deofles costunga gescylde, and þa ungeleaffullan Iudeiscean tælaþ þa halgan rode swa swa idelne ficbeam.

Now the sycamore, which is a tree similar to the mulberry in its leaves, but surpassing it in height (for which reason it is named sycamorefig [or mulberry70] by Latin-speakers) is called insipid fig.71 And the same cross of the Lord, which nourishes believers like the fig-tree, is mocked by the unbelieving as foolish.

That species of tree is called a sycamore. In respect to its leaves and branches, it is like a mulberry tree, yet it is higher in height and in scorn is called the bare fig tree. It signifies the holy cross, which believers love and unbelievers despise. With the holy sign of the cross we bless ourselves in God’s name, and we are protected from the devil’s temptations, and the unbelieving Jews despise the holy cross as a bare fig tree.

The precise difference between sicomorus and celsa may have eluded Ælfric: sycamores are not native to Britain, having been introduced perhaps in the late Middle Ages,72 and Ælfric may not have had great cause to search for additional information, as the term sycomorus occurs only here in the New Testament, and AH II.10 is the only time he exposits Zacchaeus’ story in detail. (Where he summarily translates it in CH I.38, he refers [twice] simply to a treowe [‘tree’].73) Ælfric did know the terms ficus and morus, however, which he translates as fictreow (‘fig-tree’) and morbeam (‘mulberry tree’) in his Grammar and Glossary.74 He also uses fictreow to translate ficulneus (‘of the fig-tree’)

69 70

71

72 73 74

CCSL 120, p. 334, lines 1522–5. Specialized definition taken from the late-thirteenth-century medical dictionary of Simon of Genoa, Clavis Sanationis, which states that Celsa mora celsi (‘Mulberry [is synonymous with] fig-mulberry’ [Gunther, ‘Celsa’]). Gunther explains: ‘In antiquity the Latin tree-name morus could stand for two very different trees, Morus nigra [“black mulberry tree”] and Ficus sycomorus [“the sycamore fig” or the “fig-mulberry”], because [the latter’s] leaves are similar to those of the true mulberry’ (‘Celsa’). Gunther notes that ‘Ficus fatua … translates as “figue fade”, i.e. “insipid fig”, and it is the fruit of Ficus sycomorus [the “sycamore-fig”] … [which is] related to – though different from – Ficus carica [the “common fig”], the fruits of the latter being superior to the sycamore-fig’s in taste and sugar content, hence its name “fatua”, meaning “tasteless, insipid”’ (‘Ficus fatua’). Morecroft, ‘Effects of Climate’, p. 59; and Jones, ‘Biological Flora’, pp. 220 and 221. Clemoes, First Series, p. 510, lines 84 and 86. Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 30, line 1, and p. 312, lines 8 and 12–13.

564

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae when expositing Luke 13.6–775 and 21.29.76 When he uses idel (‘bare’ or ‘useless’) to translate fatua (‘insipid’ or ‘foolish’), however, the fig-tree Ælfric may have in mind is the ficulneus or arbor – a term also used in Luke 13.6 that he translates fictreow77 – that Jesus curses when he finds it empty of fruit (Matthew 21.19). Whatever his precise understanding, Ælfric glosses over, adds to, and preserves details from Bede’s account. He omits the reference to celsa (‘sycamore-fig’ or ‘mulberry’) as unnecessary for his vernacular audience. He says that the sycamore resembles the mulberry both in its leaves and on bogum (‘and branches’) – likely just a poetic expansion, though possibly a hint of personal knowledge – and notes that the sign of the cross blesses and protects believers. He keeps, moreover, the reference to fatua (‘foolish’), as it offers a segue to his quotation from 1 Corinthians: the cross, as Paul says, is a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. While Ælfrician references to the Son as the miht (‘power’) and wisdom (‘wisdom’) of the Father, drawn from 1 Corinthians 1.24, are commonplace – see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30, as well as ‘The Son as Strength/Wisdom’ under line 1 – this is the only occasion on which Ælfric also cites 1 Corinthians 1.23. 1 Corinthians 1.23–4

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–478

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 71–6

Nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis autem uocatis, Iudaeis atque Graecis, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam.

‘Nos enim praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam. Ipsis uero uocatis, Iudaeis atque gentibus, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam’.

‘Be þam cwæþ se apostol Paulus, Nos autem predicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudeis quidem scandalum gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis, Iudaeis atque gentibus, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam; he cwæþ, “We bodiaþ Crist þe wæs on rode ahaggen. Nu þincþ hit Iudeiscum mannum tallic and hæþenum hit þincþ dyslic, ac þa þe synd geleaffulle on Gode of Iudeiscre þeode and of hæþenum leodum þam þincð þæt Crist is Godes miht and Godes wisdom”’.

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block indeed to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

‘But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block indeed to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles, but truly to those who are called, Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

‘About that the apostle Paul said, But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block indeed to the Jews, and foolishness to the Gentiles, but truly to those who are called, Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; “We preach Christ who was hanged on the cross. Now Jewish people think it reprehensible and pagans think is foolish, but those who from among the Jewish nation and pagan peoples are believers in God think that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God”’.

75 76 77 78

CH II.26 (Godden, Second Series, p. 237, line 76). CH I.40 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 524, line 15, and p. 528, p. 105). CH II.26 (Godden, Second Series, p. 237, line 73). CCSL 120, p. 334, lines 1525–8.

565

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae As the passage is discussed in some detail under AH I.1, suffice it here to observe that Ælfric follows the form of 1 Corinthians 1.24 found in Bede rather than our printed edition of the Vulgate: not only does he use uero (‘[but] truly’) for autem (‘but’) – the former being an attested variant of the latter79 – but he twice speaks of non-Jews as gent[es] (‘Gentiles’) instead of gent[es] and Graec[i] (‘Greeks’). Lines 77–87 [Zacheus is gecweden … on rode ahagenne]: The combination in close proximity of Galatians 6.14a and 1 Corinthians 2.2, which Ælfric quotes in lines 77–87, is unusual: to our knowledge, they appear only here among Ælfric’s works, nowhere else in the Old English corpus, and only occasionally in the Patrologia Latina.80 As such, they give us a key clue as to Ælfric’s source for this passage, as one text that cites the verses in swift succession is Bede’s In Lucae Euangelium expositio.81 A close comparison of Bede’s work and AH II.10 reveals that while Ælfric does not include all Bede’s comments on the pericope, the commentary provides a one-stop shop for Ælfric’s exegesis in this section. First, Ælfric explains the meaning of Zacchaeus’ name (with information drawn ultimately from Jerome,82 perhaps transmitted through Isidore83), and then connects this redeemed figure with Paul’s description of the Gentile Corinthian believers. 1 Corinthians 6.11 … sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, sed iustificati estis in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi et in Spiritu Dei nostri.

79 80

81 82 83 84

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–484

Ælfric, Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 77–80

‘Mystice autem Zacheus qui interpretatur iustificatus  credentem ex gentibus populum significat … Sed ablutus est, sed sanctificatus, sed iustificatus in nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi et in Spiritu Dei nostri …’

Zacheus is gecweden iustificatus, þæt is ‘gerihtwisod’, for þan þe God hine gerihtwisode, and he getacnaþ þæt folc þe of hæþenscipe gebeah to Godes geleafan and wæs on þam halgan fulluhte fram eallum fyrnlicum synnum aþwogen, and fram arleasnessum gerihtwisod on Drihtnes naman ures Hælendes and on gaste ures Godes.

Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1770, apparatus. Such as in Augustine, Sermo 160.3 and 4 (CCSL 41Bb, p. 109, lines 76–7, and p. 111, lines 132–3), in reverse order; and in Dungal of Bobbio (d. after 827), Responsa (PL 105.478B and 479B–479C); based on a search of key terms in 1,000 words’ vicinity. In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–10 (CCSL 120, p. 333, line 1495 – p. 336, line 1620; at p. 334, lines 1531–2 and 1551–2). Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum (CCSL 72, p. 138, lines 16–17; see CCSL 120, p. 333, apparatus to line 1508). Etymologiae VII.10.5 (Lindsay, Etymologiae, vol. I [unpaginated], lines 20–1), as noted by Ebersperger, Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, p. 246, apparatus. CCSL 120, p. 334, lines 1551–2.

566

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae … but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

‘Now “Zacchaeus”, who is spiritually interpreted as “justified”, signifies the believer from the Gentiles … But he is washed, but he is sanctified, but he is justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God …’

Zacchaeus is called iustificatus, that is made righteous, because God made him righteous, and he signifies the people of heathen faith that turned to belief in God and were washed clean from all their wicked sins in holy baptism, and made righteous from wickedness in the name of the Lord our Savior and in the Spirit of our God.

Some shift in number occurs: Paul speaks initially to Gentile believers (plural), Bede applies the language to Zacchaeus (an individual representing many), and Ælfric then uses the term folc (‘people’, taking the singular wæs [‘was’, here translated using the plural ‘were’]). A shift in descriptors occurs as well: where Bede reproduces the terms ‘washed’, ‘sanctified’, and ‘justified from 1 Corinthians, Ælfric describes believers as aþwogen (‘washed clean’) and gerihtwisod (‘made righteous’). Furthermore, Ælfric adds certain details, noting that God makes individuals righteous, sinners are cleansed from sins through baptism, and they are justified from wickedness in the name of the Hælend (‘Savior’), one of Ælfric’s favorite terms for Jesus. Next, skipping to Bede’s exposition of Luke 19.4, where he explains that sinners must climb the tree of the cross to escape the clamor of worldly things, Ælfric follows Bede in connecting Zacchaeus’ action to Paul’s comments in Galatians 6.14a and 1 Corinthians 2.2: in ascending the tree, believers do not exalt themselves, but humble themselves before Christ’s sacrifice. Galatians 6.14a

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–485

Ælfric, Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 82–4

Mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesu Christi …

‘Mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Iesu Christi’.

Mihi autem absit gloriari nisi in cruce Domini nostri Ihesu Christi; þæt is on Engliscum gereorde, ‘Ne gewurþe hit, la, þæt Ic wuldrige buton on þære halgan rode ures Hælendes Cristes’.

But be it far from me that I should boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ …

‘But be it far from me that I should boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ’.

But be it far from me that I should boast save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is in English speech, ‘Oh, may it not be that I boast except in the holy cross of our Savior Christ’.

Both Bede and Ælfric render the Latin verbatim, and Ælfric is conservative in his vernacular translation as well, simply adding the exclamatory la (‘Oh’), describing the cross as halgan (‘holy’), and again using Hælend (‘Savior’) as the term for Jesus. Much occurs the same with the following verse as well.

85

CCSL 120, p. 334, lines 1508–9 and 1511–12.

567

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–486

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 85–7

Non enim iudicaui scire me aliquid inter uos nisi Iesum Christum et hunc crucifixum.

‘Non enim iudicaui scire me aliquid inter uos nisi Iesum Christum et hunc crucifixum’.

Non enim iudicaui me scire aliquid inter uos, nisi Christum Ihesum et hunc crucifixum; þæt is on urum gereorde, ‘Ne tealde Ic þæt Ic betwux eow ænig þing cuþe buton Hælend Crist and þisne on rode ahaggenne’.

For I judged that I did not know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

For I judged that I did not know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

For I judged that I did not know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified; that is in our speech, ‘I did not consider that I knew anything among you except the Savior Christ and him hanged on the cross’.

1 Corinthians 2.2

While iudicaui, like the Greek κρίνω which it translates, may suggest that Paul comes to Corinth ‘resolved’ to know nothing save for Christ’s sacrifice – so that, as he says, his preaching would not be done ‘in persuasibilibus sapientiae uerbis sed in ostensione Spiritus et uirtutis’ (‘in the convincing words of [human] wisdom but in the display of the Spirit and power’ [1 Corinthians 2.4]) – Ælfric understands the term in the sense of ‘judged’: Paul tealde (‘considered’) his knowledge as nothing next to the fact of Christ’s self-sacrifice. Such a posture, Ælfric suggests, is hergendlice eaðmodnes (‘praiseworthy humility’) – a phrase that ultimately describes the accomplishment of Christ, who by ‘hanging on the cross’87 should inspire similar humility in the believer. Lines 87–95 [Ðeos is seo … his menniscnysse alysde]: Where Bede briefly associates ‘climbing the tree’ (Luke 19.4; see above) with humility,88 Ælfric speaks further about this attribute89 in a series of characteristic comments. Christ, he underscores, wolde for us þrowian (‘desired to suffer for us’ [line 88]) – that is, his sacrificial work of redemption was (as he repeatedly says elsewhere) sylfwille (‘voluntary’ [line 90]).90 His death fram þam ecean deaþe alysan (‘from everlasting death’ [line 89], a phrase he uses verbatim on nine other occasions.91 Indeed, Ælfric says, if Jesus had not us alys[de] 86 87 88 89 90

91

CCSL 120, p. 334, lines 1551–2. On which, see notes to Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), line 16 (Gebed V); Se Læssa Creda (AH II.22), lines 4–5; and Mæsse Creda (AH II.23), line 8. In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.1–4 (CCSL 120, p. 334, line 1530). For further comments on humility, see for examples notes to AH II.11, lines 161–86. On which subject, see Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3), notes to lines 247–85 (at 260); Lazarus II (AH I.3), line 345; Collegerunt ergo pontifices (AH I.4), line 172; and In quadragesima, de penitentia (AH II.19), line 70. CH I.2 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 193, line 85); CH I.14 [twice] (First Series, p. 295, line 163, and p. 296, line 171); CH II.7 (Godden, Second Series, p. 61, line 47); CH II.15 (Second Series, p. 151, lines 46–7); De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 70–1; Irvine 3 (Homilies, p. 71, line 297); SH I.7 (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 345, lines 125–6); and Admonitio ad filium spiritualem 4 (Norman, Admonitio, p. 42).

568

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (‘released us’ [line 94]) from hellesusle (‘the torment of hell’)92 – another important refrain in Ælfric’s writings93 – ‘Ne mihte naþor, ne engel, ne heahengel, ne heahfæder, ne witega, ne apostol, ne nan oðer halga, ne gold, ne seolfor, ne nan deorwyrðe scet fram deofles anwealde us alysan’ (‘Neither angel, nor archangel, nor patriarch, nor prophet, nor apostle, or any other saint, nor gold, nor silver, nor any precious treasure was able to release us from the devil’s power’ [lines 92–4]). Consciously or unconsciously, the cadence of this sentence reflects in counterpoint Paul’s paean in Romans: ‘Certus sum enim quia neque mors neque uita neque angeli neque principatus neque instantia neque futura neque fortitudines neque altitudo neque profundum neque creatura alia poterit nos separare a caritate Dei quae est in Christo Iesu Domino nostro’ (‘For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,94 nor things present, nor things to come, nor forces, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord’ [Romans 8.38–9]). On Christ’s incarnate humanity (menniscnysse [line 97]), see notes to lines 163–9 below. Lines 96–130 [Se Hælend cwæð … swa þeah habban]: For Ælfric’s translation here of Luke 19.5b–6, see notes to lines 9–42 above. Zacchaeus is not the only individual whose home Jesus visits: the account reminds Ælfric of an earlier passage in Luke where a Pharisee named Simon invites Jesus for a meal (Luke 7.36–50). The latter episode provides a salient contrast to Zacchaeus’ story, and thus a depiction of how Christians are not to ‘receive’ Christ, as Simon ‘ac he hine ne underfeng na mid swilcum geleafan swa þes Zacheus dyde’ (‘did not receive him with such faith as this Zacchaeus did’ [lines 98–9]). The connection is apparently original to Ælfric: while Bede treats the passage earlier in In Lucae Euangelium expositio95 (albeit in a section not included in Paul the Deacon96), Ælfric does not mine it for exegetical insights as he did before for Zacchaeus. Instead, he simply offers a largely-straightforward translation of the biblical passage, one even fuller than his other treatments of Simon in Erat quidam languens Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 220–36 and Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8), lines 436–45 [for a comparison of which, see notes to AH I.3, lines 211–36].

92 93

94 95 96

A term Ælfric uses some eighteen times in his writings, including at Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), line 126. See, for example, In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 12 and 299–302, and notes to lines 1–22 and 297–313; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 69–70; as well as notes to Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), lines 187–8; Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), lines 140–2; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), line 133; Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), notes to lines 2–21; Menn behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), notes to lines 12–14; De uirginitate (AH II.13), line 14; De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), notes to lines 102–9; De sex etatibus huius seculi (AH II.15), notes to lines 1–14; De cogitatione (AH II.18), notes to lines 19–25; and De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 76 and 78. Principatus being understood by Ælfric as angelic orders; see De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), notes to lines 82–4. III.7.36–50 (CCSL 120, p. 166, line 1 – p. 171, line 235). See Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 228–32. On Paul the Deacon and Bede’s In Lucae Euangelium expositio, see notes to lines 2–8 and 43–8.

569

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Some of the details in the brief commentary on this section [lines 126–30] likewise appear to be Ælfric’s own, as no continental or patristic exegesis of Luke 7.36–50 appears to compare the kindness (welwillendnes) of Simon and Zacchaeus [line 125], particularly in relation to Jesus’ own character (se welwillenda Crist [‘the benevolent Christ’, lines 129–30], nor mention Jesus’ election of Gentiles and their need for baptism [line 129]. The fact that the Jews ceorodon (‘complained’), however, goes back to the murmuring of the crowd in Luke 19.7 (mid ceorunge bemændon [‘with complaining, they lamented’], as Ælfric puts it in line 30); while his statement that they andedon arleaslice (‘were wickedly envious’ [line 128]) reflects Bede’s affirmation that ‘Manifestum est Iudaeos semper gentium odisse salutem, scriptum est enim … Videntes autem turbas Iudaei, repleti zelo’ (‘It is clear that the Jews always hated the salvation of the Gentiles, for it is written … But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy’).97 Bede here is expositing Luke 19.7, but his example is drawn from Acts 13.45, where the crowds are the Jews and Gentiles (paene universa ciuitas [‘nearly the whole city’, Acts 13.44]) of Psidian Antioch who come to hear Paul and Barnabus preach the Gospel. Ælfric omits the reference, perhaps to avoid explaining yet another Scriptural scene, but also perhaps because the parallel is not perfect: while in each case there is resentment that salvation to certain individuals is offered unexpectedly, in Acts 13 the crowds (attesting to Paul’s and Barnabus’ popularity) inspire this resentment, while in Luke 19 it is the crowds themselves that are resentful. In any case, Ælfric’s comment makes clear that he views Zacchaeus as a Gentile, the challenges to which view are discussed in notes to lines 146–62 below. Lines 131–45 [Zacheus þa stod … mid swicdome geunrosode]: Returning to the denouement of Zacchaeus’ story (Luke 19.8), Ælfric restates the tax collector’s commitment to give to the poor and make restitution to any he has defrauded [lines 134–6; see notes to lines 9–42 above]. Bede quotes the verse verbatim, comments on Zacchaeus’ conversion and persistence in his faith, and then abruptly quotes from the episode of the Rich Young Man (Matthew 19.16–30; cf. Mark 10.17–31 and Luke 18.18–30).

97

In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.7 (CCSL 120, p. 335, lines 1573–4 and 1576).

570

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae

Matthew 19.2198

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.799

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 134–6

LS III.28 [Skeat II.31]100

Ait illi Iesus, ‘Si uis perfectus esse, uade, uende quae habes, et da pauperibus et habebis thesaurum in caelo et ueni sequere me’.

Dicente enim Domino, Si uis perfectus esse, uade, uende omnia quae habes, et da pauperibus .

‘Se Hælend cwæð ær to sumum oðrum rican men þa þa he hine befran hu he mihte þæt ece lif begitan, “‘ Far and beceapa ealle þine æhta wiþ feo and dæl þæt wyrð þearfum. Þonne hæfst þu þinne goldhord on heofenum, and cum and filig me”’.

‘“Far and syle ealle þine æhta , and dæl þæt wurð þearfum, þonne hæfst þu goldhord on heofonan rice”’.

Jesus said [lit. “says”] to him, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me’.

For the Lord said, ‘If you wish to be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor ’.

‘The Savior earlier spoke to a certain other rich man when he asked him how he would be able to obtain everlasting life, “Go and sell all your possessions in exchange for money and distribute the proceeds to the poor. Then you will have your treasure in heaven, and come and follow me”’.

‘“Go and sell all your possessions , and distribute the proceeds to the poor; then you will have treasure in the Kingdom of heaven”’.

Ælfric takes more time in AH II.10 to explain the connection between the two scenes: even as Zacchaeus obtained everlasting life through his actions, another rich man sought to do so as well. He also quotes the end of the verse, supplying what Bede had omitted. He does follow Bede in speaking of ‘all’ of one’s possessions (ealle, reflecting the omnia with which Bede supplements the Vulgate101), but adds the explanatory detail that one should sell these possessions wiþ feo (‘in exchange for money’). When he later quotes the verse in LS III.28, however, he keeps the ealle, drops wiþ feo and the final cum and filig me (‘come and follow me’), replaces beceapa (‘sell’) with syle (‘sell’), and changes on heofenum (‘in heaven’) to on heofonan rice (‘in the Kingdom of heaven’). Continuing in AH II.10, Ælfric stays close to his Bedan source.

Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1555. CCSL 120, p. 335, lines 1585–7. 100 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 124, §19, lines 599–600; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 258, lines 599–600. 101 Weber does not list omnia as an attested variant; see Biblia sacra, p. 1555, apparatus. 98 99

571

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 136–45

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.7102 Quisquis ante conuersionem innocenter uixit omnia conversus potest dare pauperibus; at qui aliqua fraude sustulit, primo haec iuxta legem reddere; deinde quod sibi remanserit, debet dare pauperibus. Ac sic et ipse, quia sibi nil retinet, omnia sua dispergit, dat pauperibus, iustitia eius manet in saeculum saeculi. Et haec est sapiens illa stultitia, quam de sicomoro publicanus, quasi fructum uitae legerat, rapta uidelicet reddere, propria relinquere, uisibilia contemnere, pro inuisibilibus etiam mori desiderare, se ipsum abnegare, et eius qui necdum uideatur Domini uestigia sequi concupiscere.

Swa hwa swa unscyldiglice butan facne leofode ær his gecyrrednysse, se mæg his æhta ealle þearfum dælan gif he swa fulfremedlice to Gode gecyrran wyle. Ac se þe ær facnfullice leofode, se sceal ærest æfter Godes æ forgildan swa hwæt swa he ær unrihtlice bereafode and syþþan þæt him to lafe bið syllan þæt þearfum. Þonne wunað his rihtwisnys on ealra worulda worold. Þeos is seo wise stuntnys: þæt man woruldþing forseo, his agen forlæte and þa ungesewenlican gewilnige, his agene lustas oferswiðe and Cristes fotswaðum folgie, and his agen lif gif hit neod bið for Criste syllan. Forþig Zacheus heold healfe his æhta þæt he mihte his unriht be feowerfealdum gebetan and þa gegladian þe he ær mid swicdome geunrotsode.

Whoever lived righteously before conversion is able to give all things to the poor after being converted; but he who took away something with deceit, according to the law must first restore it; then he ought to give to the poor that which remains to him. So also, because he holds nothing back for himself, distributes all of his possessions, [and] gives to the poor, his righteousness endures forever. Now this is that wise foolishness, that the tax collector, as if he had picked the fruit of life from the sycamore tree, should naturally restore that which he had plucked, give up what belonged to him, despise visible things, wish to die for invisible things as well, deny himself, and long to follow the footsteps of his Lord who may not yet be seen.

Whoever lived guiltlessly without deceit before his conversion is able to distribute his possessions entirely to the poor if he thus perfectly wishes to turn to God. But he who earlier lived deceitfully, he at first ought to repay according to God’s law whatever he unjustly stole earlier and afterwards to give what is left to him to the poor. Then ‘his righteousness will endure forever’. This is that wise foolishness: that one despise earthly possessions, abandon his own, and long for those invisible ones, overcome his own desires and follow Christ’s footsteps, and if need be give his own life for Christ. For that reason Zacchaeus kept half of his possessions so that he would be able to make fourfold amends for his injustice and to gladden those whom he earlier saddened through deceit.

A number of phrases Ælfric reproduces nearly word for word, such as ‘Whoever lived guiltlessly [unscyldinglice / innocenter] before conversion’ and ‘this is that wise foolishness’.103 Other parts he changes or reorders, replacing an indication of time (conversus [‘after being converted’]) with a statement of purpose (‘gif he swa fulfremedlice to Gode gecyrran wyle’ [‘if he thus perfectly wishes to turn to God’]), turning Bede’s statement about the tax collector (publicanus) into an application for any believer (man [‘one’]), and moving the charge to despise worldly things (uisibilia contemnere / woruldþing forseo) earlier in his list. Some details he adds, glossing unscyldinglice (‘guiltlessly’) as butan facne (‘without deceit’), explaining that one 102 CCSL

120, p. 335, lines 1587–96. a similar sentiment regarding forsaking visible things for invisible ones (Þeos is … ungesewenlican gewilnige [lines 141–2]), see CH I.24, lines 55 [Hi forseoð] – 56 [heofonlican] (Clemoes, First Series, p. 373; as noted by Ebersperger, Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, p. 246, apparatus; and Brotanek, Texte und Untersuchungen, p. 99).

103 For

572

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae should repay ‘swa hwæt swa he ær unrihtlice bereafode’ (‘whatever he unjustly stole earlier’), and affirming that one may ‘his agen lif … for Criste syllan’ (‘give his own life … for Christ’). Other elements he omits, such as Bede’s description of Zacchaeus picking as it were the fruit of life from the sycamore tree (de sicomoro … legerat), the reduplicated reference to Zacchaeus’ repayment of what he had fraudulently taken (rapta uidelicet reddere), and his inclusion among inuisibili[a] (‘invisible things’) the Lord qui necdum uideatur (‘who may not yet be seen’). Two biblical allusions, furthermore, he preserves: Bede’s reference to the law that required restitution for theft (Numbers 5.7; cf. 2 Samuel 12.6), and Bede’s verbatim quotation from Psalms 112.9 [Vulgate 111.9104], ‘his righteousness endures [or “will endure”] forever’. Ælfric’s chief change, however, is the commentary with which this passage ends. After Bede stops, preparing to move on to the next verse, Ælfric offers this additional explanation: the reason Zacchaeus kept half of his possessions, despite Christ’s charge in Matthew 19.21 to ‘beceapa ealle þine æhta … and dæl þæt wyrð þearfum’ (‘sell all your possessions … and distribute the proceeds to the poor ’), is because he is not one who lived unscyldinglice (‘guiltlessly’) before his conversion. Instead, he must make restitution to those he has wronged. Doing so may seem like folly, but Christ’s commendation that follows reveals Zacchaeus’ commitment to be wise. Lines 146–62 [Þa cwæð se Hælend … witodlice Habrahames sæd]: For Ælfric’s translation of Luke 19.9 in lines 146–7, see notes to lines 9–42 above. Ælfric departs significantly from his Bedan source at this point. Commenting on Luke 19.9, Bede teaches that Zacchaeus is called a ‘son of Abraham’ not because he was a literal descendant (non quia de eius stirpe generatus), but because of his faith: just as Abraham left his homeland at God’s command in hope of a future inheritance (Genesis 12.1 and Hebrews 11.8), so Zacchaeus left his possessions in order to gain treasure in heaven. Moreover, Bede adds, Christ says that ‘“even he”’ is a son of Abraham (et ipse, Luke 19.9b) to show that those who repent of sin, as well as those who persevere in righteousness, are children of the promise (filios promissionis, Romans 9.8). Furthermore, he says, the light of salvation that formerly filled the Jews (cf. John 4.22) now illumines all the nations, so that ‘Abraham’s seed’ includes all who belong to Christ (Galatians 3.29) – not just those who are circumcised, but those who share the faith Abram had before he was circumcised (Romans 4.10–12).105 One of these elements, Galatians 3.29, Ælfric incorporates into his homily. Before he does so, however, he makes three other points of his own. First, he says that Zacchaeus and his household (domui huic [‘this house’, Luke 19.9a]) are saved because he wholeheartedly turned from wickedness and ‘blotted out’ (adilgode) his evil deeds by giving to the poor [lines 147–9]. Second, he affirms that Zacchaeus was blessed to have Christ as a guest [lines 149–51]. Third, he quotes Matthew 24.50 to assure believers that they, too, may be blessed, since what one does for the needy, one does for Christ himself [lines 153–5]. All three of these points have echoes elsewhere in Ælfric’s works. First, in CH I.38 and SH II.16 he follows Luke 19.9a in affirming that salvation comes both to Zacchaeus 104 On

the Gallican Psalter, see notes to AH I.1, lines 18–30. In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.9 (CCSL 120, p. 335, line 1599 – p. 336, line 1612).

105 Bede,

573

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae and his family (hired; see notes to lines 9–42), though Ælfric in AH II.10 repeats the point four times [lines 39, 48, 146 and 148]. In saying that Zaccaeus ‘turned from wickedness’ (fram his arleasnysse gecyrde), he uses a phrase found also in CH I’s preface106 quoting Ezekiel 3.18–19 on the need for clergy to warn sinners to repent.107 And while the precise language of ‘blotting out’ evil deeds through almsgiving (yfelan dæda mid ælmissan adilgode) may be unique to AH II.10, similar sentiments appear for example in SH I.11.108 Second, scholars beginning with Brotanek109 have noted similarities between Ælfric’s comments here about the blessedness of having Christ as a guest and a passage in the Second Series. Indeed, Pope notes, ‘the resemblance of the two passages as a whole is so great that it was one of Brotanek’s strongest arguments on behalf of Ælfric’s authorship of (AH II.10), especially since the main source of the latter (Bede’s commentary on Luke 19.1–10) contains only an oblique hint of the idea’.110 Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 149–53

CH II.29111 Nu ðencað sume men þæt ða wif wæron gesælige þæt hi swilcne cuman underfengon . Soð þæt is gesælige hi wæron, ac swa ðeah ne ðurfe we ceorian þæt drihten nis lichamlice on ðyssere worulde wunigende nu swa swa he ða wæs. þæt we mihton hine eac to us gelaðian, for ðan ðe he cwæð …

Nu cwið sum man on his geþance þæt þes Zacheus gesælig wære þurh swylcne cuman, þæt he moste þam Ælmihtigan mid his mettum þenian. Soð þæt is gesælig he wæs, ac swa þeah ne þurfe we forþi ceorian þæt we nabbað Crist lichamlice nu on urum timan swa swa hi hæfdon, for þan þe he sylf cwæð …

Now some people think that the women [Martha and Mary] were blessed that they received such a guest . It is true that they were blessed, but nevertheless we have no need to complain that the Lord is not physically living in this world now as he was then, that we might invite him to us as well, because he said …

Now a certain person may say in his thought that this Zacchaeus was blessed through such a guest, so that he was able to serve the Almighty with his food. It is true that he was blessed, but nevertheless we have no need thus to complain that we do not have Christ physically now in our time as they had because he himself said …

Certainly there are differences: the former speaks of Jesus in the home of Martha and Mary (Luke 10.38–42) while the latter concerns Zacchaeus, AH II.10 talks wonderingly about being able to serve food to God, CH II.29 voices believers’ regret that they may not invite Jesus to be their guest, and so on. In the main, however, the overall point and much of the language is the same: as the quotation from Matthew 24.50 will make clear, believers have the blessing of serving Christ spiritually, inasmuch as they care for others. The idea of Christ as a spiritual guest (cuma) stems ultimately from a variety of New Testament passages. The general principle may be found in Christ’s statements that ‘“ueniemus et mansiones apud eum faciemus”’ (‘“we [the Father and Son] will come First Series, p. 176, lines 112 and 115. Commentary, p. 7. On the repeated use of these verses (though not the particular phrase in question) both in Ælfric and Wulfstan, see for example ‘Records for Source Title Ez’. 108 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 426, line 211, and p. 435, lines 367–8. 109 Brotanek, Texte und Untersuchungen, p. 100; see also Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 561; Godden, Commentary, p. 590; and Ebersperger, Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, p. 256 and 258, apparatus. 110 Homilies, vol. II, p. 561. 111 Godden, Second Series, p. 256, lines 29–34. 106 Clemoes, 107 Godden,

574

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae and make our dwelling with him”’ who obeys them (John 14.23, which Ælfric quotes in CH I.25112 and CH II.19113), and that ‘“introibo ad illum et cenabo cum illo”’ (‘“I will come in to him and dine with him”’ who opens his heart’s door (Revelation 3.20, which Ælfric quotes in CH II.32114). The specific language of Christ as cuma (‘guest’) appears in Christ’s praise for those who cared for the needy: ‘“hospes eram et collexistis me”’ (‘“I was a guest [or ‘stranger’] and you took me in”’ [Matthew 25.35, which Ælfric quotes in CH II.16115 and SH I.11116]). This principle – that the care Christians show the needy, they show to Christ himself – appears in turn in the passage Ælfric next quotes in AH II.10. Third, then, Ælfric assures believers that they, too, may be blessed by citing Matthew 24.50, a verse he quotes elsewhere half a dozen times.117 Matthew 25.40

CH I.18118

CH I.23119

CH II.7120

CH II.29121

[‘Et respondens rex dicet illis, “Amen dico uobis,] quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis”’.

‘“Þæt ðæt ge doð anum þearfan on minum naman, þæt ge doð me sylfum”’.

‘“Þæt þæt ge doð þearfum on minum naman, þæt ge doð me sylfum’”.

‘“Swa lange swa ge dydon anum þisum læstan on minum naman, ge hit dydon me sylfum”’.

‘“Swa hwæt swa ge doð on minum naman anum ðam læstum, þæt ge doð me sylfum”’.

[‘And responding, the king shall say to them: “Truly I say to you,] inasmuch as you did it for one of the least of these my brothers, you did it for me”’.

‘“That which you do for one in need in my name, that you do for myself’”.

‘“That which you do for the needy in my name, that you do for myself’”.

‘“As long as you did to one of these least in my name, you did it to me”’.

‘“Whatever you do in my name for one of the least, that you do for myself”’.

In the First Series and in CH II.29, Ælfric makes at least four changes in his translation of the verse: he replaces quamdiu (‘inasmuch as’) with þæt þæt (‘that which’) or swa hwæt swa (‘whatever’), he uses the present doð (‘do’) rather than the perfect dydon (‘did’), he speaks of giving [anum] þearfan or læstum (‘to [one of] the needy’ or ‘least’) instead of First Series, p. 386, lines 203–5. Second Series, p. 181, lines 22–4. 114 Godden, Second Series, p. 273, lines 37–40. 115 Godden, Second Series, p. 163, line 81. 116 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 438, lines 412–14. Ælfric quotes and/or translates the first part of Matthew 25.35 (about hungering) in Primus igitur homo 309–10 (Gatch, Preaching and Theology, p. 143), CH I.23 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 369, line 133), and SH II.25 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 757, lines 7–8); cf. Ælfric’s summary of Matthew 25.34–41 in CH I.27 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 406, lines 183–92). 117 Excluding the story of hospitality, related to this verse, in CH II.16 (Godden, Second Series, p. 163, line 83 [Sum hiredes] – p. 164, line 92 [me sylfum]). For other New Testament passages related to Matthew 25.40, see Matthew 10.40 and 42, and Hebrews 13.2. 118 Clemoes, First Series, p. 324, lines 211–12. 119 Clemoes, First Series, p. 370, lines 156–7. 120 Godden, Second Series, p. 65, lines 157–9, for which reference we are indebted to Ebersperger, Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, p. 258, notes to lines 2–4; see also Godden, Second Series, p. 66, lines 171–3. 121 Godden, Second Series, p. 256, lines 34–5. 112 Clemoes, 113 Godden,

575

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae fratribus meis minimis (‘to the least of my brothers’), and he inserts the phrase on minum naman (‘in my name’). CH II.7 follows in part, referring to the læstan (‘least’) and including on minum naman; he preserves the perfect tense of dydon / fecistis, however, and translates quamdiu using swa lange swa (‘as long as’) – a literal, if more classical translation, where ‘inasmuch as’ – with which sense Lewis and Short explicitly associate quamdiu in Matthew 25.40 – reflects later usage.122 As regards on minum naman, Ælfric may have in mind Mark 9.40, where Jesus says that ‘quisquis enim potum dederit uobis calicem aquae in nomine meo quia Christi estis, amen dico uobis, non perdet mercedem suam’ (‘for whoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name because you belong to Christ, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward’ [emphasis ours]). Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 153–5

LS III.28 [Skeat II.31]124

SH II.25c123

SH I.11125

‘“Quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis”, þæt is on Englisc, “Swa lange swa ge dydon eower god anum of þisum læstum minum gebroðrum, me sylfum ge hit dydon”’.

‘ swa hwæt swa we doþ Godes þearfum on Godes naman, þæt we doð Gode sylfum ’.

‘“þæt þæt ge doð on minum naman anum of þysum læstum, þæt ge doþ me sylfum’”.

‘“þæt ge me sylfum dydon þas foresædan ðing, swa oft swa ge hi dydon anum of ðisum lyttlum minra gebroðra’”.

‘“Inasmuch as you did it for one of the least of these my brothers, you did it for me”; that is in English, “As long as you did your good to one of these the least of my brothers, you did it to me’”.

‘ whatever we do for God’s needy in God’s name, that we do for God himself’.

‘“þæt þæt you do in my name to one of these least, that you do to me myself’”.

‘“that you did to me myself – these aforementioned things – as often as you did them to one of these least of my brothers’”.

In AH II.10, on the other hand, no doubt because he quotes the Latin as well, Ælfric stays far closer to the original, translating quamdiu,126 maintaining the perfect tense, retaining the reference to ‘the least of my brothers’, and avoiding the inclusion of ‘in my name’ – though he does make explicit the implied object of the action (‘[you did] it’) with the explanatory eower god (‘your good [deed]’). In SH II.25c and LS 28, however, he returns to form, making the four changes seen above. Then, in SH I.11, he changes the structure entirely, flipping the order of the phrases to foreground the ultimate divine recipient of believers’ actions: it is to the King himself that they did þas foresædan ðing (‘these aforementioned things’) – feeding, housing, clothing, and otherwise caring for 122 Latin

Dictionary, p. 1504. Homilies, vol. II, p. 757, lines 9–10. 124 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 90, §2, lines 84–5; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 224, lines 84–5. 125 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 439, lines 427–9. 126 ‘As long as’ being a literal, if more classical translation, where ‘inasmuch as’ – with which Lewis explicitly associates this verse – reflects later usage (Latin Dictionary, p. 1504). 123 Pope,

576

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae those in need. Furthermore, SH I.11 explicitly associates Matthew 25.40 with almsgiving (ælmissan, as here in AH II.10, line 149), where he says that ‘swa oft swa ge ælmessan dydon anum lytlan ðearfan of Cristenum mannum, þæt ge dydon Criste’ (‘as often as you gave alms to one of the least needy of Christ’s followers, that you did to Christ’).127 Those who follow this example of generosity, Ælfric notes in AH II.10, God will repay a hundred-fold [lines 156–7] – ‘a favorite saying of Ælfric’s’,128 no doubt influenced by Matthew 19.29,129 that echoes statements in CH I.11,130 CH I.18,131 CH I.27,132 CH II.7,133 SH II.13,134 Simile est regnum,135 and SH II.30.136 One gives to God himself most of all, he adds, when one serves God’s servants, the clergy [line 158, echoing CH II.29137]. Closing out this section of AH II.10, Ælfric comes at last to Galatians 3.29, a verse he has quoted thrice in the Catholic Homilies.

Galatians 3.29 Si autem uos Christi, ergo Abrahae semen estis, secundum promissionem heredes.

Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.9138 Si autem uos Christi, ergo Abrahae semen estis .

CH I.6139

CH I.13140

CH II.4

‘“ Gif ge sind Cristes, þonne sind ge Abrahames sæd, and æfter behate yrfenuman.”’

‘“Witodlice gif ge Cristene sind, þonne beo ge Abrahames ofspring, and yrfenuman æfter behate.”’

‘“Eornostlice gif ge Cristes sind, þonne sind ge Abrahames sæd, and æfter behate yrfenuman.”’

Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 160–2 Si autem uos Christi, ergo Habrahae semen estis, þæt is on Englisc, “ Gif ge soðlice synd Cristes, ðonne synd ge witodlice Habrahames sæd .”’

Homilies, vol. II, p. 439, lines 431–2. p. 94; see also p. 153. 129 Where Christ affirms that all who leave relatives or possessions for his sake shall receive centuplum (‘a hundred-fold’) as well as eternal life (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1556). 130 Clemoes, First Series, p. 324, lines 201–3. 131 Clemoes, First Series, p. 274, lines 225–6. 132 Clemoes, First Series, p. 404, lines 130–3 (quoting Matthew 19.29); and p. 407, line 195. 133 Godden, Second Series, p. 64, lines 110–12. 134 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 502, line 108. 135 Irvine 2 (Homilies, p. 40, lines 93–5). 136 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 805, lines 42–3. 137 Godden, Second Series, p. 257, lines 70–2. 138 CCSL 120, p. 336, lines 1608–9. 139 Clemoes, First Series, p. 228, lines 115–16. 140 Clemoes, First Series, p. 288, lines 118–19. 127 Pope,

128 Commentary,

577

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Now if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.

Now if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed .

‘“ If you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”’

‘“Truly if you are Christians, then you are Abraham’s offspring, and heirs according to the promise.”’

‘“Indeed, if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”’

‘“Now if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed”; that is in English, “ If you are truly Christ’s, then you are certainly Abraham’s seed .”’

In the First and Second Series, Ælfric quotes the whole of the verse, including the final phrase that alludes to the ‘promise’ – that is, God’s promise to Abram that, because of his faith, his ‘seed’ would inherit the land (Genesis 12.7, 13.15, and 24.7; Galatians 3.16; and Romans 4.13, 4.16, and 9.8). Word order varies, as do certain terms (e.g., Cristes / Cristene [‘Christ’s’ / ‘Christians’] and sæd / ofspring [‘seed’ / ‘offspring’]), but on the whole the Catholic Homilies quotations are close in form to one another. AH II.10 then breaks the pattern: not only does Ælfric offer the verse in both Latin and Old English, but – following his Bedan source – he omits the final phrase that speaks of God’s promise. One issue inherent in Ælfric’s exegesis of the passage is that he clearly understands Zacchaeus to be a Gentile. In this, he follows Bede, who clearly states that Christ calls Zacchaeus a ‘son of Abraham’ ‘non quia de eius stirpe generatus, sed quia eius est fidem imitatus’ (‘not because he was born of [Abraham’s] lineage, but because he imitated his faith’).141 As such, Zacchaeus would offer a direct example for a [Gentile] Anglo-Saxon audience. ‘Zacchaeus’ (Ζακχαῖος), however, is a Jewish name, derived from the Hebrew ‫זַ ַכּי‬, meaning ‘pure’ or ‘innocent’; an individual so named appears, for example, as an officer of Judas Maccabeus (2 Maccabees 10.19).142 The potential discrepancy does not obscure the main point of the passage, however: whatever his ethnicity, Zacchaeus offers an example of faith that all believers might emulate. Lines 163–9 [Mannes Sunu com … bigengum geearnian willað]: For Ælfric’s translation of Luke 19.10 in line 163, see notes to lines 9–42 above. Rather than drawing on Bede’s commentary,143 which quotes Luke 5.32 to focus on Christ’s salvation of sinners (quod perierat [‘that which had been lost’, Luke 19.10b]), for this passage Ælfric instead makes a series of general statements about the Savior and the process of salvation. First, as elsewhere (see notes to AH II.9, lines 115–28, at 123), Ælfric underscores Christ’s unique nature as the Son of Man (Filius hominis), a term associated with Jesus over eighty times in the Gospels that may ultimately derive from the prophetic description of ‘cum nubibus caeli quasi Filius hominis uenie[ntem]’ (‘one like the Son of man com[ing] with the clouds of heaven’) from Daniel 7.13.144 141 In

Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.9 (CCSL 120, p. 336, lines 1599–1600). Greek-English Lexicon, p. 335; Gesenius, Lexicon, p. 244. 143 Despite the fact that for this passage Ebersperger references Bede, In Lucae Euangelium expositio V.19.10 (CCSL 120, p. 336, lines 1617 [ut ipse] – 1620 [pro nobis]); see her Die angelsächsischen Handschriften, p. 259. 144 See for example Dunn, ‘Danielic Son’, p. 529. 142 Bauer,

578

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae Jesus alludes to the verse for example in Matthew 24.30, which Ælfric quotes in turn in SH II.18,145 followed by a description of the Son very similar to that found here: Christ is ‘anes manes sunu swa swa nan oðer man nis’ (‘the son of one person, as no other human is’146) – or, as AH II.9 puts it, ‘he ana is anes mannes sunu’ (‘he alone is the son of one person’ [line 124]). Here in AH II.10, Ælfric clarifies what he means: Jesus is anes mannes (‘[the son] of one person’ [line 164] in that he has only one human parent, Mary, from whom he draws his human nature [lines 164–5]. His divine nature derives from God the Father, whence he is called the Son of God [lines 165–6]. The remainder of the passage is likewise full of Ælfrician commonplaces. On Christ’s dual nature, see Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 53; In natali Domini (AH I.2), line 9; and notes to Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 21–30. On Mary as mæden and modor (‘virgin and mother’ [line 168]), see AH I.1, line 52; AH I.2, line 6; Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), line 97; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), line 4; and AH I.8, lines 96, 211–12, and 223–5. On Christ’s eternal existence (acenned æfre butan anginne [‘having been born [but] eternally without beginning’, line 169]), see AH I.1, notes to line 1, under ‘The Son’s Eternality’. On his Incarnation (Se com on menniscnysse [‘He came in human form], line 170]), see AH I.2, line 5 and notes to lines 1–22; Erat quidam languens Lazarus II (AH I.3), line 267; Lazarus III (AH I.3), line 80; AH I.8, lines 23–4 and notes to lines 10–28; Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), line 7 and notes to 4–21; Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), line 13; De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 66 and 69; and Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), line 16 (Gebed V); as well as AH II.10, lines 2 and 96 above. For Ælfric’s affirmation that Jesus ‘com on menniscnysse on þisum middanearde … to þig þæt he wolde us alysan’ (‘came in human form in this world … because he wanted to free us’ [lines 166–7]), see the nearly identical statement in his First Old English Letter for Wulfstan.147 That sinful souls are forloren (‘lost’ [line 168]) may be seen in AH I.1, line 160; Lazarus I, line 205 and II, line 206 (AH I.3); and AH II.21, line 12 (Gebed IV). Christ’s gift of eternal life to his followers is also found in Lazarus I (AH I.3), line 291; Lazarus II (AH I.3), line 377; AH I.7, lines 41–6 and 58; Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), line 40; De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), line 148 and notes to lines 271–85; Se Læssa Creda (AH II.22), line 9 and especially notes to 8–9; and Mæsse Creda (AH II.23), notes to lines 15–16; as well as AH II.10, lines 117 and 129 above. And for Ælfric’s exhortation to mid godum bigengum geearnian (‘earn [salvation] with good deeds’ [line 169]), see AH I.2, line 420; AH I.7, lines 41, 58, and 235; AH I.8, lines 112, 372, 422, 495, and 527; AH II.9, line 93; AH II.11, lines 146, 155, 167, and notes to lines 145–60; AH II.14, lines 103 and 219; Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), line 37; and AH II.21, line 3 (Gebed I), 20 (Gebed VI), and 23 (Gebed VII) and notes to lines 2–3, 18–21, and 22–5; as well as AH II.10, line 47 and notes to lines 43–8 above. For the complex tension in Ælfric’s works between meritorious human effort and divine grace, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 172–212. Lines 170–86 [Us gedafenað þæt … ofer ealle þing]: At this point, Ælfric’s exegesis of Christ’s encounter with Zacchaeus ends. For his peroration, Ælfric turns his pastor’s eyes Homilies, vol. II, p. 608, lines 408–13; see also p. 602, lines 264–5. Homilies, vol. II, p. 608, line 411. 147 Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 283, §11. 145 Pope, 146 Pope,

579

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae from exposition to application, urging his audience not simply to hear Christ’s words, but his lare to w[e]orce awendan (‘turn his teaching into action’ [line 171]). For this purpose, he appears to turn directly to Scripture itself, to Christ’s stern warning to his audience at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6.46–9 and Matthew 7.21–7). Having treated neither version elsewhere in his writings, Ælfric here furnishes a close translation of Luke’s account. Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 172–80

Luke 6.46–9 ‘Quid autem uocatis me Domine Domine et non facitis quae dico? Omnis qui uenit ad me et audit sermones meos et facit eos, ostendam uobis cui similis est. Similis est homini aedificanti domum qui fodit in altum et posuit fundamenta supra petram. Inundatione autem facta inlisum est flumen domui illi, et non potuit eam mouere, fundata enim erat supra petram. Qui autem audiuit et non fecit similis est homini aedificanti domum suam supra terram sine fundamento, in quam inlisus est fluuius et continuo concidit et facta est ruina domus illius magna.

‘“Quid autem uocatis me ‘Domine, Domine’ et non facitis quae dico?”, þæt is on Englisc, “‘To hwi hate ge me “Drihten, Drihten” and ne doð þa þing þe Ic eow secge? Ælc þæra manna þe cymð to me and mine spræce gehyrð and hi mid weorcum gefylð, Ic geswutelige eow hwam he bið gelic. He byð gelic þam men þe arærð him stænen botl and dylfð þone grudweall swyþe deopne and legð hine mid stane. Eft þonne se storm cymð him to and þæt flod slyhð on þa gebytlu, þonne ætstent þæt hus fæste for þan þe hit wæs getimbrod on þam stane. Witodlice se þe gehyrð mine spræce and nele hi mid weorcum gefyllan, he bið þam men gelic þe bytlað uppan sandceosle þonne cymð færlice se storm and þæt flod and towendað þa getimbrunge grundlunga’”.

‘But why do you call me, “Lord, Lord,” and do not do what I say? Every one who comes to me and hears my words and does them, I will show you what he is like. He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a deluge came, the river dashed against that house, it could not shake it, for it was founded upon the rock. But he who heard and did not do [what I said] is like a man building his house on the ground without a foundation. Against it the river dashed, and it fell straightaway, and the ruin of that house was great’.

‘“But why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? ”; that is in English, “‘Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do the things that I tell you? Each of those people who comes to me and hears my words and fulfills them with works, I will reveal to you whom he is like. He is like the man who builds himself a stone house and digs the foundation very deep and lays it with stone. Afterwards when the storm comes to it and the floodwater strikes against that building, then that house stands fast because it was built on the stone. Truly he who hears my words and does not fulfill them with works, he is like the man who builds upon sand when the storm and the floodwater comes unexpectedly and knocks the building to the ground’”.

As elsewhere in AH II.10, Ælfric begins by quoting in Latin, staying in step with the wording of the Vulgate. Thereafter, however, he continues the passage in the vernacular, making light alterations along the way. One change is to the tenses of Jesus’ account. The Latin, following the original Greek, begins in the present, describing the one who uenit [‘comes’], audit [‘hears’], facit [‘does’], but then moves to the past, both to recount the parable (fodit [‘dug’], posuit [‘laid’], and so on) and to describe the one who audiuit et non fecit (‘heard and did not do’) what Christ said. The Old English simplifies matters by keeping everything in the present. 580

Commentary: Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae In addition, Ælfric makes changes to wording. At times, he standardizes vocabulary, referring to þæt flod (‘the floodwater’) instead of a flumen (‘flood’ or ‘river’) and a fluuium (‘river’ or ‘stream’), while at other times he varies his terms, speaking of a botl (‘dwelling’), gebytlu (‘building’), and getimbrung (‘structure’) instead of simply a domus (‘house’). Furthermore, he supplies explanatory detail: the first man not only builds on þam stane (‘on the stone’), but builds a stænen botl (‘stone house’) and a foundation made mid stane (‘with stone’), while the second builds not simply supra terram sine fundamento (‘on the ground, without a foundation’), as the Vulgate has it, but uppan sandceosle (‘upon sand’). Characteristically, moreover, he also adds intensifiers, so that the builder digs swyþe (‘very’) deep, the disobedient witodlice (‘truly’) will come to ruin, and their end will come færlice (‘unexpectedly’). In the process, Ælfric makes changes to the order in which phrases appear. The obedient person ‘dylfð þone grundweall swyþe deopne and legð hine mid stane’ (‘digs the foundation very deep and lays it with stone’) rather than ‘fodit in altum et posuit fundamenta supra petram’ (‘dug deep and laid the foundation upon a rock’), for example, while ‘ætstent þæt hus fæste’ (‘that house stands fast’) as opposed to ‘inlisum est flumen domui illi’ (‘the river dashed against that house’). At least one detail, moreover, may go beyond clarity or style to add exegetical nuance. Twice, rather than following the Vulgate by stating that the obedient person deð (‘does’) what Christ says, Ælfric suggests that such an individual ‘[Cristes] spræce … mid weorcum gefylð’ (‘fulfills [Christ’s] words … with works’). Should his audience have done likewise in the aftermath of this homily, Ælfric would no doubt have considered the time writing it well spent. Line 186 [se þe leofað … worulda woruld, Amen]: Ælfric’s closing words echo precisely those found at the end of CH I.40,148 CH II.25,149 CH II.29,150 and CH II.33,151 and nearly those of SH II.30, which adds an extra a butan end (‘without end’).152 For other Ælfrician concluding formulas, see, for example, notes to AH I.2, lines 421–4; AH I.3 [Lazarus I], line 292; AH I.4, lines 181–2; AH I.6, lines 156–7; AH I.7, line 306; AH II.12, line 61; AH II.13, lines 175–6; AH II.14, lines 306–12; AH II.19, lines 79–80; and AH II.21, lines 2–3 (Gebed I), 6–10 (Gebed III), and 22–5 (Gebed VII); and AH II.23, lines 15–16.

First Series, p. 530, lines 187–8. Second Series, p. 234, lines 143–4. 150 Godden, Second Series, p. 259, lines 136–7. 151 Godden, Second Series, p. 287, lines 281–2. 152 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 808, lines 113–14. 148 Clemoes, 149 Godden,

581

HOMILIES

unspecified occasions

11

ESTO CONSENTIENS ADUERSARIO Esto consentiens aduersario (‘Be in Agreement with Your Adversary’) belongs to a group of a dozen sermons Ælfric wrote for unspecified occasions throughout his career.1 To be delivered ‘whenever you wish’, this quando uolueris homily and the four others edited hereafter [AH II.12–15] are late works composed between ca 1005–10, and all are characterized by Ælfric’s reuse of earlier material. Esto consentiens aduersario reuses a continuous passage from the letter Ælfric wrote ca 1005–6 to Wulfgeat, a layman residing at Ylmandune (Ilmington, Warwickshire) some fifty miles or so from Eynsham where Ælfric was abbot (ca 1002 × 1005 – ca 1010).2 Somewhat later it seems, probably between 1006 and 1010,3 Ælfric excerpts the Letter to create Esto consentiens aduersario. He ignores the missive’s opening discussion of fundamental creedal issues and lifts wholesale the lengthy, self-contained exposition of two verses from the Sermon on the Mount wherein Jesus advises his disciples to be reconciled with an adversary on the road to court lest the judge throw them into prison (Matthew 5.25–6).4 To transform the excerpt into a standalone homily, Ælfric needed only to add a brief introduction to the historical context of the passage [lines 2–9] and a Latin formula to introduce the scriptural text [line 10].5 The result is an exegetical eschatological homily whose 1

2 3 4 5

[1] De initio creaturæ (CH I.1); [2] De memoria sanctorum (LS II.15 [Skeat I.16]); [3] De doctrina apostolica (SH II.19); [4] Hexameron; [5] De populo Israhel (SH II.20); [6] Sermo de die iudicii (SH II.18); [7] Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12); [8] De uirginitate (AH II.13); [9] De creatore et creatura (AH II.14); [10] De sex etatibus huius seculi (AH II.15); [11] De sancta trinitate et de festis diebus per annum (SH I.11a); and [12] Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11). Pope assigns to this category ‘homilies for which no occasion is specified even in the best manuscripts’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 141). He mentions Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11) yet does not list it among the quando uolueris homilies; however, he includes De sancta trinitate (SH I.11a) and De uirginitate (AH II.13) despite the fact that he does not think Ælfric compiled them (p. 142). De creatore et creatura (AH II.14) and De sex etatibus (AH II.15) he classifies under ‘Tracts allied to the homilies and treated as such in certain manuscripts’ (pp. 142–3). Cubitt, ‘Ælfric’s Lay Patrons’, pp. 186–9. For the Letter, see Assmann 1 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 1–12), and for an edition and translation, Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, pp. 196–226. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 115. Clemoes notes that ‘[i]t is possible, though perhaps not very likely’ that Ælfric wrote the homily before the letter (‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xiii). The excerpt accounts for about two-thirds of the Letter, the first third of which covers such creedal issues as the Trinity, Fall, Crucifixion and Resurrection, and Last Judgment. Pope suggests that the Latin formula, otherwise unattested in Ælfric’s works, may be a ‘scribal intrusion’, and rejects on stylistic grounds Ælfric’s authorship of the Old English introduction even though he characterizes the lines as ‘rhythmically acceptable and full of characteristic Ælfrician phrases’ (Homilies, vol. I, pp. 72–3). Clemoes declares that Assmann was ‘surely right’ in attributing

585

Introduction: Esto consentiens aduersario interpretation and application of Jesus’ advice are bookended by reminders [lines 22–40 and 217–33] that it is the duty of teachers to teach if laymen are to earn everlasting life by turning doctrine into deeds. The body of Esto consentiens aduersario consists of two sections of interpretation and application that focus, respectively, on disobedience and obedience. The application in both sections turns on figurative interpretations derived from Augustine’s De sermone Domini in monte, a commentary whose first book explicates Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.1–7.29), but Ælfric handles the material with a freedom characteristic of his later work. In the first section, he interprets the ‘adversary’ as the devil and as the Word of God, both of which oppose believers, the former for their damnation and the latter for their salvation [lines 41–57]. The Word of God as adversary predominates in Ælfric’s application of the Scripture, whereby he treats the problem of disobedience [lines 58–60], its forms [lines 61–94], and its root [lines 95–109]. In his reading, disobedience to the Word of God at a basic level constitutes self-harm, which will inevitably impact others regardless of the form the disobedience takes, be it drunkenness, gluttony, fornication, treachery, avarice, or perjury. He ultimately equates self-harm with a failure to understand the Great Commandment (Matthew 22.37–9), which roots love for one’s neighbor in a love of oneself that, in turn, must be grounded in a love of God. To love one’s neighbor as oneself is to correct them, but believers are to first love themselves by loving God through obedience to his Word and by practicing self-correction. From this point, the second section of interpretation and application circles back to the sins (anger, envy, murder, and violence) that believers must correct and atone for should they be reconciled to God, whose Word, their adversary, travels with them until the road of life ends. Should the road run out on the unrepentant and unreconciled, the Judge will hand them over to his subordinates, Satan and the devils, to be imprisoned and punished in hell [lines 110–29]. Against this backdrop of impending judgment, Ælfric urges obedience to achieve reconciliation with God and defines obedience as the work by which one earns the joys of heaven [lines 130–60]. The labor of obedience leads him to expound Jesus’ well-known, paradoxical command, ‘“Come to me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light”’ (Matthew 11.28–30).6 Herein, for Ælfric, lie the many facets of the work of obedience: its object (the soul’s refreshment and rest [lines 161–73]); its manner (undertaken with gentleness and humility [lines 174–86]); its method (fit conduct [lines 187–204]); and its mode (inevitably falling but rising to repentance in view of rising to the resurrection of the righteous on Judgment Day [lines 205–16]). As the peroration makes clear [lines 217–33]), the preacher of Esto consentiens aduersario faithfully discharges his duty by calling the laity to reconciliation through repentance. He will not be held accountable for killing their souls, nor will he have quailed from reproving, entreating, and chiding with patience and doctrine as St Paul enjoined. Having faithfully delivered the word, he leaves his hearers to be doers of it.

6

the homily to Ælfric since the introductory passage ‘bears all the authentic marks of Ælfric’s style’ (‘Supplementary Introduction’, pp. xii–xiii). Ælfric quotes verse 28 in lines 170–3.

586

Introduction: Esto consentiens aduersario It is unclear what prompted Ælfric to fashion Esto consentiens aduersario from an excerpt of the Letter to Wulfgeat. Perhaps mining the Letter for another homily around the same time sparked his interest;7 maybe it was the Sermon on the Mount, which he cites or exposits in three other sermons written around 1006.8 More likely is the possibility that he saw an opportunity to address homiletically a constellation of contemporary problems much on his mind at this time, namely religious laxity, social discord, and clerical neglect. Warrant for this claim is provided by six, perhaps seven, sermons composed between about 1005 and 1010, one of which is Esto consentiens aduersio.9 Though they differ in subject matter, each reiterates and defends the duty of preachers to call out and correct the sins of their flocks, and taken together, they testify to Ælfric’s pastoral distress over negligent shepherds and errant sheep. One suspects that his persistent and concentrated concern has much to do with the upheaval among the governing class that characterized the later years of King Æthelred’s reign (978–1016), particularly from about 1005 on.10 Given that three of the six sermons appear to be directed toward the witan, royal counsellors,11 Ælfric’s reuse of the Letter suggests he found his advice for a local thegn suitable for the magnates and ealdormen at court.12 Seen in the context of their domestic infighting and the ongoing Danish invasions,13 Esto consentiens aduersario, like Ælfric’s Sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor (AH II.9), might profitably be understood to be another example of Ælfric’s personal response to contemporary circumstances. The sole surviving copy of the homily is preserved in an ecclesiastical handbook of canonical, penitential, and homiletic material copied at Worcester for use by St Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester from 1062 to 1095. Esto consentiens aduersario was not originally 7

8

9

10 11 12 13

De sancta trinitate et de festis diebus per annum [SH I.11a] (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 463–72) is a composite sermon that consists of three passages from Ælfric’s extant works, including the Letter of Wulfgeat (see SH I.11a.1–53a and 135–70), and three passages characteristic of Ælfric found only in De sancta trinitate (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 455). Pope does not think Ælfric compiled the sermon, Godden believes it was possible, and Clemoes is confident that he did (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). Kleist dates the composite homily to the same period as Esto consentiens aduersario, ‘ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010)’ (Chronology and Canon, p. 91) Between the Letter to Wulfgeat and Esto consentiens aduersario (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 285–9), Ælfric treats the Beatitudes (Matthew 5.2–11) in De sancta uirginitate, uel de tribus ordinibus castitatis (AH I.7), lines 235–81; quotes Jesus’ advice about giving to the needy (Matthew 6.1 and 3) and seems to follow the Sermon’s sequence of topics in De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 125–30 and 140–60, respectively; and expounds Jesus’ teaching on anger (Matthew 5.21–4) in his homily for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (SH II.15, lines 125–213, pp. 536–40). The six sermons are: [1] the sermon for the Second Sunday after Easter [CH I.17, augmented] (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 313–6 and 535–42); [2] the sermon for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost [SH II.15] (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 531–41); [3] Sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor (AH II.9); [4] Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11); [5] Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12); and [6] Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2). To these six might be added Ælfric’s Sermon on Judgment Day [SH II.18] (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 590–609) if, rather than to 998 × 1002 (Kleist [following Pope], Chronology and Canon, p. 91), the work can be dated to ca 1005 (Godden, ‘Relations’, p. 370). See above, the Introduction to AH II.9, p. 491. CH I.17 (augmented), SH II.15, and AH II.9. See Cubitt, ‘Ælfric’s Lay Patrons’ for a discussion of the ‘web of connections between locality and court’ (p. 170) of which Ælfric was a part. For an overview of Æthelred’s reign, see Keynes, ‘Æthelred II’.

587

Introduction: Esto consentiens aduersario included in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 [T3],14 a well-known witness to the ‘Commonplace Book’ assembled by Archbishop Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York (1002–23). Rather, the homily was added to St Wulfstan’s manuscript soon after it was copied in an appendix containing three works by Ælfric (a pastoral letter for delivery by a bishop to his clergy,15 Esto consentiens aduersario, and a sermon for the Sunday after Ascension [SH I.9]),16 and De anticristo, an anonymous sermon on the Antichrist calling for Christians to persevere in their faith and for preachers to warn them of the impending terror.17 Because Esto consentiens aduersario and De anticristo are paired with an Ascension Sunday homily containing a passage that ‘seems to be aimed at those in high station, including the king’,18 it is tempting to wonder if St Wulfstan singled out the sermons as fit for the kings and counsellors whose company he was accustomed to keep. If so, Bishop Wulfstan may have used Esto consentiens aduersario to hit a mark at the end of the eleventh century that Abbot Ælfric had in his sights at its beginning.

14

15 16 17 18

Ker §338; Gneuss and Lapidge §644; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 231–2. T3 is the companion volume to St Wulfstan’s homiliary, which was copied contemporaneously at Worcester and is preserved in two volumes, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113 [T1] and 114 [T2]. Ælfric’s Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan (Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 146–220). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 378–89. Ker §338.27–30 and p. 417. The anonymous homily titled De anticristo (item 30) is edited as Napier 12 (Wulfstan, pp. 78–80). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 372. The passage to which Pope refers is found in lines 20–82 (pp. 379–82).

588

esto consentiens aduersario

be in agreement with your adversary

ESTO CONSENTIENS ADUERSARIO Evangelii: ‘Esto consentiens aduersario’

5

10

15

20

atheus se godspellere awrat on anum godspelle þæt ure Hælend sæde to his halgum apostolum þa ðe her on worulde wunodon mid him his lare fyligende swa hider swa he ferde | mancyn lærende mid wundrum and tacnum, and he ealle gehælde þe him to comon fram eallum untrumnyssum and ða deadan arærde. Ða sæde he ðus, swa swa we her secgan wyllað: In illo tempore, dixit Iesus discipulis suis, ‘Esto consentiens aduersario tuo cito dum es in uia cum illo’, et reliqua. Ðæt is on Engliscre spræce, ‘“Beo ðu eornostlice swiðe gebeogul mid gebigedum mode þinum wiðerwinnum þonne ðu on wege bist mid him, þe læs þe ðin wiþerwinna, gyf ðu wiðerast wið hine, þe mid yrre betæce þam egefullan deman and se dema þe betæce his underþeoddum and his underþeodda þen þe gebringe on cwearterne. Soð Ic ðe secge, ne scealt ðu on þam cwearterne ær ðan þe þu agylde þone endenextan feorðling”’. Her syndon egeslice word us eallum to gehyrenne and samlæredum mannum swiðe deoplice word. Ac Augustinus se wisa us onwreah þa deop|nysse,

Text from: T3 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121, fols 124r–130v (s. xi3/4, Worcester) Variants from: P1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1], fols 96r/17–99v/21 (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester): a homily adapted from Ælfric’s Letter to Wulfgeat Za Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509, fols 117r/5–120v/1 (s. xi2 or xi3/4): Ælfric’s Letter to Wulfgeat 2 atheus] :atheus, ‘M’ was not executed T3  16 þe læs þe] þe læste Za  19 þen] omitted Za  20 Soð … cwearterne] omitted Za on] of P1  21 agylde] forgilde Za; forgelde P1  24 þa] þas P1Za 

590

124v

125r

BE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR ADVERSARY From the Gospel: ‘“Be in agreement with [your] adversary”’

5

10

15

20

Matthew the Evangelist wrote in one Gospel that our Savior spoke to his holy apostles who lived with him here in the world following his instruction wherever he went teaching mankind with miracles and signs, and he completely healed those who came to him from all [their] infirmities and raised the dead. Then he spoke in this manner, as we wish to speak here: In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis, ‘Esto consentiens aduersario tuo cito dum es in uia cum illo’, et reliqua.1 That is in English, ‘“Be steadfastly very compliant with a humble mind toward your adversary when you are on the road with him, lest your adversary, if you contend with him, angrily hand you over to the fearsome judge and the judge hand you over to his servants and his servant imprison you. Truly I say to you, you will not [come] out of the prison until you repay the last penny”’. Here are dreadful words for us all to hear and [they are] very deep words for people of little learning. But Augustine the wise revealed to us [their] profundity,

1

The phrase ‘In illo tempore dixit Iesus discipulis suis’ (‘At that time, Jesus said to his disciples’) is extra-biblical. For Jesus’ words, see Matthew 5.25a: ‘“Esto consentiens aduersario tuo cito, dum es in uia cum eo”’ (‘“Come to agreement with your adversary quickly, while you are on the road with him”’).

591

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario 25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

se ðe wæs swa wis on Godes wisdome þæt he gesette þurh his sylfes diht an þusend boca be ðam soðan geleafan and be ðam Cristendome swa swa Crist him onwreah on his bisceophade binnan Affrican scire. And ða bec syðþan becomon to us, and geond ealle þas woruld hi synd tosawene Godes þeowum to lare and to geleafan trymminge. Se Hælend cwæð eft on oðrum godspelle to his twelf folgerum þe him folgodon on life, ‘Quod autem uobis dico, omnibus dico’ – ‘“Ðæt þæt Ic eow secge, þæt Ic secge eallum mannum”’ – for þan ðe he lærde hi and hi lærdon oðre forð oð þæt hit becom to us endenextum mannum, and Cristes beboda syndon eallum mannum gesette. Gehyre hi se ðe wylle habban þæt ece lif. Ure wiðerwinna is witodlice se deofol, þe embe us swicað mid his searacræftum þæt he us fordo and us Drihtne ætbrede. Ac us ne het na se Hælend him beon gebeogule | ne him gehyrsumian us to forwyrde. Is nu oðer wiðerwinna þe us wyle gerihtlæcan fram urum unþeawum. Him we sceolon gehyrsumian, þæt is Godes Word þe us gewissian sceal. And þæt Word winþ on us swa swa wis læce deð þe mid stiðum læcecræfte gelacnað þone untruman, and swa swa god lareow lærð his cnapan georne and tæcð him gode þeawas to Godes gesetnyssum. Swa deþ þæt halige Word þe us forbyt unriht and is swiðe stið urum stuntnyssum and þincð us hefigtyme þæt we him gehyrsumion. Hwæt gewilnað þes wiþerwinna þe wyle þæt ðu beo wið hine geþwære buton þines sylfes hæle? Ðæt halige Godes Word is witodlice þin freond, and ðu wyrcst þe sylfne þe to wiðerwinnan. Þu dest yfele þe sylfum þæt ðu forsyhst Godes Word. Ðu lufast druncennysse and dwollice leofast swylce þe to gamenes. Ac Godes Wisdom þe segð, ‘Hwam becymð wawa? Hwam witodlice | sacu? Oððe hwa bið bepæht, oððe hwam becumað wunda oððe eagena blindnyssa buton þam unþeawfæstum þe wodlice drincað and heora gewitt amyrrað

29 bisceophade] bisceopdome P1  30 syðþan] siððan sume P1Za  31 ealle] ealne Za  37 for] Forð Za  47 Him] and him P1Za  57 geþwære] gehwære P1  66 wodlice] dwollice P1 

592

125v

126r

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario 25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

he who was so wise in the wisdom of God that he wrote at his own discretion a thousand books about the truth faith and about Christianity just as Christ revealed [them] to him in his episcopate in the region of Africa. And the books afterwards came to us, and they are spread throughout the world to God’s servants for teaching and for strengthening belief. The Savior also said in another Gospel to his twelve disciples who followed him while he was alive, ‘Quod autem uobis dico, omnibus dico’2 – “‘That which I say to you, I say to all people’” – because he taught them and they taught others until it came to us, the people of the last age of the world, and Christ’s commandments are established for all humanity. Let him who wants to possess everlasting life hear them. Our adversary is truly the devil, who deceives us with his tricks to destroy us and lure us from the Lord. But the Savior did not command us to be compliant with him or to obey him to [our] damnation. Now there is another adversary that desires to correct us from our vices. We ought to obey him, that is, the Word of God that should guide us. And that Word fights in us just as a wise doctor does who with strong medicine heals the sick, and just as a good teacher diligently instructs his boys and teaches them good behavior according to God’s decrees. So does the holy Word that forbids us from wrongful behavior and is exceedingly severe on our foolishness and seems to us troublesome to obey. What does this adversary who wants you to be in agreement with him desire except your salvation? The holy Word of God is truly your friend, but you make an adversary of yourself. You do yourself wrong to despise God’s Word. You love drunkenness and live foolishly for your own amusement. But the Wisdom of God says to you, ‘To whom comes misfortune? To whom strife, truly? Or who is deceived, or to whom comes injuries or blindness of the eyes except to the dissolute who drink madly and impair their sanity

2

Compare Mark 13.37: ‘“Quod autem uobis dico, omnibus dico: Vigilate”’ (‘“That which I say to you, I say to everyone: Watch”’).

593

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

swa þæt hi dwæsiað for heora druncennyssum?’ Eac ure Hælend on his halgan godspelle forbead þa druncennysse his discipulum and eac us þurh hi, swa swa we sædon ær, and ða egeslican oferfylle, þe he onscunað þearle. Ac se bið healic wita þe wat his gemet, and god læce him sylfum þe leofað gemetlice, for þan ðe se lichama losað þurh ða oferfylle and eac swylce seo sawul, swa swa us secgað bec. Godes Word þe forbyt þæt þu ne beo forligr ne þin æwe ne brece þæt ðu ne beo gescynd. Ac leofa þin lif gif ðu, læwede man, sy on rihtum sinscipe mid rædfæstum mode and se ðe gehadod si hogie he embe þæt, þæt he Godes þenunga gedo mid clænnysse. Ðæt halige Godes Word þe forbytt ælc facn and ða yfelan gitsunge, | þe ælc unriht ofcymð. And ðu wylt beswican and besyrwian oðerne and ðe sylfne forswerian, ac þe segð God þus, Qu diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam: ‘Se ðe lufað unrihtwisnysse, he hatað his sawle’. Nu todæg þu beswicst sumne oðerne man, and tomergen beswicð sum oþer man þe; þonne synd git begen beswicene for Gode. Ac inc bam wære betere gyf gyt woldon þæt incer ægðer fylste oðrum to rihte þæt gyt begen wæron butan swicdome and eowre æhta hæfdon and eac eowre sawla. Ne lufast þu na Godes Word gif ðu ne lufast þe sylfne, ne þu ne miht naht eaþe oþerne man lufian gif ðu þe sylfne ne lufast, ne oðrum men styran gif þu ðe sylfum ne styrst. Godes lar bebyt us þæt we lufian ure nextan and þæt we eac styran stuntum mannum, ac we sceolon lufian æfter Godes lare ærest ure sawle and us sylfum styran | for þan þe sume willað witnian swiðlice þa læssan gyltas on heora underþeoddum and nellað witnian mid nanre wrace þa maran synna on heom sylfum nateshwon. Sume witniað þeofas and wyrcað him sylf reaflac swylce Drihten onscunige þa dyrnan stala and na þæt opene reaflac þonne he ægðer forbyt. 86 Qu] Quih T3; Qui enim P1Za  100 stuntum] þam stuntum P1Za  103 swiðlice] stiðlice P1Za  104 underþeoddum] þeoddum Za  107 sylf] sylf T3Za; sylfe P1 

594

126v

127r

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

so that they become foolish on account of their drunkenness?’ Likewise, our Savior in his holy Gospel prohibited his disciples from drunkenness and us too through them, as we said earlier, and from horrible gluttony, which he strictly avoided. But he who knows his limit is an exalted wise person, and he who lives moderately comprehends what is good for him, because the body perishes on account of gluttony and the soul too, just as books say to us. The Word of God forbids you to be a fornicator or to break your marriage vow so that you will not be shamed. But your life [will be] pleasing if you, a layman, live in a proper marriage with a mind firm in purpose and [if] he who is in holy orders takes care to perform God’s divine services while remaining chaste. The holy Word of God forbids you from every act of treachery and from evil avarice, from which every wrongful behavior comes. But you want to trick and deceive another and perjure yourself, but God thus says to you, Qui diligit iniquitatem odit animam suam:3 ‘He who loves wickedness hates his soul’. Now today you outwit some other person and tomorrow some other person outwits you; then you both will be outwitted in the sight of God. But it would be better for you both to want to help the other obtain what is right so that you both were free of deceit and had your own possessions and your own souls as well. You do not love the Word of God if you do not love yourself, nor can you possibly love another person if you do not love yourself, nor correct other men if you do you correct yourself. God’s law commands us to love our neighbor and likewise to correct foolish people, but we first ought to love our [own] soul according to God’s law and correct ourselves because some desire to punish harshly the more minor transgressions among their subordinates and do not at all want to punish with any punishment the more serious sins among themselves. Some punish thieves and commit robbery as if the Lord punishes secret theft and not open robbery when he forbids both. 3

Compare Psalms 11.5 [Vulgate 10.6]: ‘Qui autem diligit iniquitatem odit animam suam’ (‘He who loves wickedness hates his own soul’).

595

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario 110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

Yrre and anda us synd forbodene, mansliht and morðdæda, and ealle manlice þing þurh þæt halige Godes Word, þe is ure wiðerwinna her on þisum life. And ðis lif is se weg on þam þe we sceolon geþwærlæcan wið þæt Word þa hwile þe we magon and moton us gerihtlæcan, for þan þe we ne magon, þonne se weg bið geendod æfter urum deaðe, aht to gode gedon ne þonne us gebigean to Godes bebodum gyf we ær forsawon his gesetnyssa on life. Ðonne þes weg bið geendod þe we nu on libbað, ne bið nan oþer weg us to lafe syðþan on þam þe we magon ure misdæda gebetan. Ac anbidað se dema þe ure dæda asmeað and betæcþ | þa unrihtwisan þam unmildheortan witnere, and se witnere hi gebrincð on þam blindan cwearterne þære hellican susle betwux þam sweartum deoflum þær hi magon behreowsian on þam reðum witum heora yfelan dæda. Ac þær ne bið nan dædbote ne nan liðe mildsung þam manfullum næfre. Lybbe we leng her on life; lybbe we læssan hwile. Æfre us færð mid se foresæda wiðerwinna þam we sceolon abugan to ure beterunge, and he ne abyhð na us þæt he us ne forbeode ealle unrihtwisnyssa and yfel to donne. Þonne bið us mycel sceamu gif we ne magon geþwærlæcan on swa langsumere tide wið swilcne wiðerwinnan. Ne sceole we hine forseon for ðan þe ure Drihten sæde, ‘“Se ðe me forsyhð and mine word ne underfehð, he hæfð witodlice hwa him deman sceal. Min word þe Ic secge sceal hine fordeman”’. We sceolon forði deman | for ures Drihtnes lufon æfre mildheortlice þam mannum þe we sceolon her on life wissian butan wælhreownysse for ðan þe us bið swa gedemed swa swa we demað oþrum. We ne magon mid slæwðe ne þurh asolcennysse þa ecan myrhðe mid Gode geearnian, swa swa Salomon se snotera cyning cwæð, Propter frigus piger arare noluit; mendicabit estate et non dabitur ei: ‘For ðæs wintres cyle nolde se asolcene erigan; he bedecað eft on sumera and him ne bið na getiþod’. 114 þe] omitted Za  115–6 and moton … we ne magon] omitted Za  119 forsawon] gesawon Za  120 nu] omitted Za  125 and se witnere] and se unwitnere Za; omitted P1  128 dædbote] dædbot P1Za  133 na] omitted Za us2] omitted P1  137 sceole] sceoldon Za  141 We] We ðe Za

596

127v

128r

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario 110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

We are forbidden from anger and envy, murder and acts of violence, and every wicked thing by the holy Word of God, which is our adversary here in this life. And this life is the road on which we ought to agree with that Word while we can and are allowed to correct ourselves, because when the road comes to an end after our death, we cannot to do anything as a benefit or turn ourselves then to God’s commandments if we earlier scorned his decrees while alive. When this road on which we now live comes to an end, there will be no other road left to us afterwards on which we can atone for our misdeeds. But the judge who scrutinizes our deeds tarries and delivers the unrighteous to the unmerciful tormentor, and the tormentor leads them into the dark prison of hellish torment among black devils where they can lament their evil deeds amid the cruel punishments. But there will be no penance nor any gentle mercy for the wicked ever. We may live a long time alive here; we may live a shorter time. [But] always the aforesaid adversary to whom we ought to submit for our betterment goes with us, and he will not submit to us so as not to forbid us from doing every wickedness and evil. It will then be a great disgrace to us if we cannot come to an agreement for so long a time with such an adversary. We must not despise him because our Lord said, ‘“He who despises me and does not receive my words, truly has someone who will judge him. My words that I speak will condemn him”’. We therefore must, for our Lord’s sake, always judge mercifully the people we must guide without cruelty while alive here because we will be judged as we judge others. We cannot through laziness or by means of slothfulness earn everlasting joy with God, as Solomon the wise king said, Propter frigus piger arare noluit. Mendicabit estate et non dabitur ei:4 ‘On account of the winter’s cold, the slothful one did not wish to plow. He will afterwards beg in summer and [nothing] will be offered to him’. 4

Compare Proverbs 20.4: ‘Propter frigus piger arare noluit. Mendicabit ergo aestate et non dabitur ei’ (‘Because of the cold, the sluggard did not want to plough. Therefore, he will beg in the Summer, and nothing will be given to him’).

597

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

Ðæt is on gastlicum andgyte, se ðe Godes beboda nele nu gefyllan swa swa he fyrmest mæg and to weorce awendan, þæt him bið forwyrned eft þære ecan myrhðe for þan þe he hi geearnian nolde. He cwæð be ðam ylcan on oðre stowe, Dormitatio uestietur pannis – ‘Seo slapolnyss bið soðlice gescrydd mid wacum | tætacum’ – for þan ðe he wyrðe bið þæt he lytle mede hæbbe, se ðe leofað on asolcennysse. Be þam ylcan sæde se soða Hælend on his halgan godspelle and het us cuman to him: ‘Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et honerati estis, et ego reficiam uos’ – ‘“Cumað endemes to me ge ealle þe swincað and ge þe synd gehefegode, and Ic eow gereordige”’ – for þan ðe we sceolon mid geswince geearnian þæt we moton becuman to his gereordunge swa swa he eallum þam behet þe hine lufiað. ‘“Wegað min iuc nu on eowrum swyrum and leorniað æt me þæt Ic liðe eom, and eadmod on heortan, and ge soðlice gemetað eowrum sawlum reste’”. Ðis sæde Drihten. Ne het se leofa Drihten us leornian to wyrcenne oðerne middaneard, ne þa micclan wundra þe he worhte on life on alefedum mannum, ne ða deadan to | arærenne, þæt þæt we don ne magon, ac het us beon liðe on ures lifes þeawum and eadmode on heortan æfter his gebysnunge. Gyf ðu mycel wille beon and mærlice geþogen, þonne most þu hit onginnan on þære eadmodnysse. Gyf ðu þen/c\est to wyrcenne stænenweorc mid cræfte, þonne scealt ðu ærest embe þone grundweall smeagan, þæt is þæt ðu logige þin lif on eadmodnysse for ðan þe seo eadmodnyss astihð up to heofonum to þære orsorgan reste þe urum sawlum bið forgifen. ‘“Min geoc is swiðe wynsum and min byrðen swiðe leoht”’. Wynsum us bið on mode þæt we welwillende beon, and Godes byrðene eac, þæt synd his beboda, we sceolon mid leohtum mode and mid lufe underfon for þan ðe hi beoð leohte þam þe hi lufiað þonne hi hihtað on God. And hi habbað his fultum to þære fremminge on fulfremed þeah ðe hi stiðe beon þam stuntum 170 nu] omitted Za  183 þonne ... embe] omitted Za  192 hi2] omitted P1Za  193 fulfremed] fulfremednysnysse, with ‘nysse’ at the beginning of the next line T3  194 stuntum] stuntum mannum P1Za

598

128v

129r

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

In a spiritual sense that is, he who does not want to fulfill God’s commandments in so far as he is able and to turn to work will later be denied everlasting joy because he did not wish to earn it. [Solomon] said about the same [subject] in another place, Dormitatio uestietur pannis5 – ‘Sleepiness will certainly be clothed in lowly rags’ – because he who lives in slothfulness [will be] fit to have little reward. The true Savior spoke about the same [matter] in his holy Gospel and commanded us to come to him: ‘Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et honerati estis, et ego reficiam uos’6 – ‘“Come to me all you who labor and you who are burdened, and I will nourish you”’ – because we must bring it about by work to be allowed to come to his meal just as he promised to all those who love him. ‘“Now bear my yoke on your necks and learn from me that I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will truly find rest for your souls”’. The Lord said this. The beloved Lord did not command us to learn to make another world, or [work] the great miracles he worked among crippled people while alive, or raise the dead, things that we cannot do, but [he] commanded us to be gentle in our way of life and humble in heart according to his example. If you desire to be great and splendidly virtuous, then you must begin in humility. If you intend to build a work of stone with skill, then you should think first about the foundation, that is, you base your life in humility because humility rises up to heaven to the carefree rest that is given to our souls. ‘“My yoke is very pleasant and my burden very light”’. It is winsome to us to be loving in spirit, and we ought to accept with a light heart and with love God’s burden too, which are his commandments, because they are light to those who love them when they hope in God. And they will have his help in obeying [them] completely though [the commandments] are severe with the foolish 5 6

Compare Proverbs 23.21b: ‘Vestietur pannis dormitatio’ (‘Sleep will be clothed with rags’). Matthew 11.28: ‘“Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you”’.

599

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario 195

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

and ðam asolcenum | swa swa we ær sædon. Hwæt is wynsumere on life þonne Godes geoc towegenne, oððe hwæt is eft leohttre þonne his leohte byrðen is þæt se man beo afandod on fægerum þeawum, and leahtras forbuge and libbe him rihtlice, and wylle æfre god and nelle nan yfel, lufian ealle men and nænne hatian, ne oðrum ne beode þæt him sylfum oflicige, forlætan gitsunge and lufian þa ecan speda mid þam leofan Drihtne þe leofað a on ecnysse? Gyf we þis ahwær tobrecað, beton eft sona for ðan þe Salomon sæde on þære snotornysse bec, Septies enim cadet iustus et resurget: ‘Seofon siðon fylð soðlice se rihtwisa, ac he arist hraðe eft to rihtwisnysse’. God ælmihtig us gesceop on sawle and on lichaman, and we sceolon eft agifan ure sawla urum Scyppende, þam þe hi ær gesceop and asende to þam lichaman. Ðonne behofað heo wel | þæt heo him gelicige for ðan þe heo is ece swa swa englas syndon, and nan lichamlic gesceaft næfð nane sawle buton se man ana þe hæfð Godes anlicnysse. Us lareowum is neod þæt we læran sceolon openlice oððe digollice þa dysegan and ða gymeleasan mid þære Drihtenlican lare and to geleafan hi tihtan for ðam þe se witega þisum wordum us manað, ‘Gyf ðu nelt gerihtlæcan þone unrihtwisan wer and him sylfum secgan his unrihtwisnysse, Ic wylle ofgan æt þe his blodes gyte’, þæt is his sawul þe þurh synna losode. Eft se þeoda lareow lærde us þus cweðende, ‘Boda þu Godes word bealdlice mannum ægðer ge gedafenlice ge undafenlice; þrea and bide; cid eac mid wordum on eallum geþylde and on ealre lare’. Getiðige us se ælmihtiga God þæt we magon eow secgan his halgan lare oft and eow gehyrsumnysse þæt ge | þa lare awendon to weorcum eow to þearfe, se ðe leofað and rixað a to worulde, Amen.

195 ær sædon] sædon ær P1Za  205 tobrecað] tobrecon P1Za beton] beton hit Za  207 resurget] resurgeret Za  208 soðlice] omitted P1  211 urum] hire Za  214 for ðan þe] for ðam P1  224 his] omitted Za  227 undafenlice] undafenlice T3; ungedafenlice P1Za

600

129v

130r

130v

Text: Esto consentiens aduersario 195

200

205

210

215

220

225

230

and the slothful as we said earlier. What is more pleasant in life than to bear God’s yoke, or what, moreover, is lighter than his light burden to be found worthy in fit conduct, and shun vices and live rightly, and always desire good and never desire any evil, love all men and hate none, nor impose on others what displeases him, to forsake greed and love eternal treasures through the beloved Lord who lives always into eternity? If we break this in any way, [let us] immediately afterwards make amends because Solomon said in the book of wisdom, Septies enim cadet iustus et resurget:7 ‘Seven times will the righteous certainly fall, but he will quickly rise again to righteousness’. Almighty God created us in soul and body, and we ought to give our souls back to our Creator, to him who earlier made and sent them into the body. [The soul] then has very good reason to please him because it is eternal just as angels are, and no physical creation has a soul except man alone who has God’s likeness. It is necessary that we teachers teach publicly or privately the foolish and the negligent with the Lord’s teaching and to incite them to faith because the prophet exhorts us with these words, ‘If you do not desire to correct the wicked man and tell him of his wickedness, I will hold you accountable for the shedding of his blood’, which is his soul that perished through sins. Likewise, the teacher of the nations taught us, thus saying, ‘Preach God’s word boldly to people both when it is fitting and unfitting; reprove and entreat; chide also with commands with all patience and with all doctrine’. Almighty God permits us to be able to speak to you often about his holy instruction and [speak to] you about obedience so that you may turn instruction to action as you need to, he who lives and reigns forever, Amen.

7

Proverbs 24.16a: ‘For the righteous person will fall seven times and rise again’.

601

ESTO CONSENTIENS ADUERSARIO

COMMENTARY Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11) – its title reflecting the opening phrase of Matthew 5.25, with a treatment of which the homily begins – survives only in a single manuscript: T3, fols 124r–130v [Ker §338.28]. Composed (if by Ælfric) late in the period ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010),1 the text has not been previously edited, but was collated in the late nineteenth century for lines 90–312 of Assmann 1.2 Lines 2–21 [atheus se godspellere … þone endenextan feorðling]: Toward the end of his career, Ælfric reproduces the last two-thirds of his Letter to Wulfgeat to warn believers generally of the need to heed God’s Word and persevere in taking up the yoke of Christ. As his starting point, he takes Matthew 5.25–6, drawn from Christ’s Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7).3 Between the Letter and Esto consentiens aduersario, he had exposited the preceding verses, Matthew 5.21–4, in a homily for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost (SH II.15).4 Perhaps in consequence, he takes no time here to review that material, which admonishes believers not simply to avoid murder (as in Exodus 20.13), but to refrain from denigrating others verbally and to pursue reconciliation. Rather, he introduces Matthew 5.25–6 by offering a broad sketch of the historical context (though perhaps not quite as vividly as in his opening to Sermo in natale unius confessoris [AH II.9]5): Christ, he says, spoke these words to his apostles who lived with him [lines 3–4], obeyed his teaching [line 5], and witnessed his miracles [lines 6–8]. Ælfric had touched in passing on Matthew 5.25–6 in the First Series, in the course of treating the Lord’s Prayer from Matthew 6.9–13. When he comes to the matter of forgiveness – ‘“Dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimisimus debitoribus nostris”’ (‘“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors”’ [Matthew 6.12]), Ælfric jumps to a similar passage in Mark 11.25–6 (‘“si uos non dimiseritis nec Pater uester” [‘“If you will not forgive, neither [will] your Father”’]) before going on to cite Matthew 5.25–66 – though in a form quite different than that in Esto consentiens aduersario:

1 2 3 4 5 6

Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 115, 289, and 307 n. 290. Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 4–12. On which, see De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), notes to lines 47–54, 60–81, and 235–81; and De uirginitate (AH II.13), notes to lines 125–39, 140–5, and 146–60. For the text of the pericope, see especially SH II.15, lines 9–24, 125–30, 143, 150–1, and 191–6. See notes to AH II.9, lines 5–8. Godden, Commentary, p. 157.

602

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 90–1008

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 10–21

Matthew 5.25–6

CH I.197

‘Esto consentiens aduersario tuo cito dum es in uia cum eo ne forte tradat te aduersarius iudici et iudex tradat te ministro et in carcerem mittaris. Amen dico tibi non exies inde donec reddas nouissimum quadrantem’.

[Gif ge þonne nellað forgifan, þonne … eower fæder [Mark 11.26]] ‘hæt eow gebindan and on cwearterne settan’ – þæt is on hellewite – and eow þær deofol getintregað oð ðæt ge habbon ealle eowre gyltas geþrowode ‘oð ðæt ge cumon to anum feorðlinge’.

‘Esto consentiens aduersario tuo cito, dum es in uia cum illo,’ et reliqua; ðæt is on Engliscre spræce: ‘Beo ðu eornostlice swyðe gebeogul mid gebygedum mode þinum wiðerwinnan, þonne þu on wege byst mid him, þelæs þe þin wiðerwinna, gif ðu wiðerast wið hine, þe mid yrre betæce þam egefullan deman, and se dema þe betæce his underþeoddum, and his underðeodda þen þe gebringe on cwearterne. Soð ic ðe secge: Ne scealt ðu of ðam cwearterne, ærðan þe ðu forgelde þone endenextan feorðling’.

In illo tempore, dixit Ihesus discipulis suis, ‘Esto consentiens aduersario tuo cito dum es in uia cum illo,’ et reliqua. Ðæt is on Engliscre spræce, ‘Beo ðu eornostlice swiðe gebeogul mid gebigedum mode þinum wiðerwinnum þonne ðu on wege bist mid him, þe læs þe ðin wiþerwinna, gyf ðu wiðerast wið hine, þe mid yrre betæce þam egefullan deman and se dema þe betæce his underþeoddum and his underþeodda þen þe gebringe on cwearterne. Soð Ic ðe secge, ne scealt þu o[f] þam cwearterne ær ðan þe þu agylde þone endenextan feorðling’.

‘Come to agreement with your adversary quickly, while you are on the road with him, lest perhaps the adversary hand you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to [his] subordinate, and you be thrown into prison. Truly I say to you, you shall not go out of there until you repay the last penny’.

[But if you will not forgive [others], then … your Father] ‘will command you to be bound and put in prison’ – that is, the torments of hell – and there the devil will torture you until you have suffered for all your sins, ‘until you have but one penny left’.

‘Come to agreement with your adversary quickly, while you are on the road with him’, and so forth. That is in English, ‘Earnestly be very compliant with a humble mind toward your adversary when you are on the road with him, lest your adversary, if you contend with him, angrily hand you over to the fearsome judge and the judge hand you over to his subordinates and his subordinate then lead you to prison. Truly I say to you, you will not go out of the prison until you repay the last penny’.

At that time, Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Come to agreement with your adversary quickly, while you are on the road with him’, and so forth. That is in English, ‘Earnestly be very compliant with a humble mind toward your adversary when you are on the road with him, lest your adversary, if you contend with him, angrily hand you over to the fearsome judge and the judge hand you over to his subordinates and his subordinate then lead you to prison. Truly I say to you, you will not go out of the prison until you repay the last penny’.

The First Series homily does not quote the Latin, but offers the passage in Old English, and only snippets of the passage at that. All that remain are bare images of incarceration and impecuniosity: sinners will be ‘put in prison … until [they have] one penny’. The 7 8

Clemoes, First Series, p. 330, lines 140–2. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 4.

603

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario literal level of interpretation – the importance of pursuing reconciliation with human adversaries before temporal punishment occurs – is passed over in order to focus on spiritual eschatological consequences: the ultimate Judge, God himself, will order sinners to be bound (as in Matthew 22.13) and tortured (as in Matthew 18.34) by the devil in hell. One question one might ask of the First Series quotation is whether the punishment is temporary or eternal: is it possible, in fact to ‘repay the last penny’? In the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18.23–35), which Ælfric may here blend together with Matthew 5.25–6, Christ says that God the Father will hand those who fail to forgive over to be tortured until they repay uniuersum debitum (‘all that is owed’ [Matthew 18.34]). There, the amount in question is 10,000 talents, approximately 100 million denarii (a denarius being a day’s wage for a common laborer) – in other words, a sum so ‘fantastic’ that arguably it could never be repaid save through the master’s mercy.9 As the passage does not seem to have been exposited in Ælfric’s writings or elsewhere in the Old English corpus,10 we cannot be certain how Ælfric would have interpreted the verse. Augustine, however, in De sermone domini in monte (see notes to lines 21–31 below), affirms that ‘semper non esse exiturum, quia semper soluit nouissimum quadrantem, dum sempiternas poenas terrenorum peccatorum luit’ (‘[the sinner] will never come out [from prison], because he is always paying the last penny, so long as he is suffering the eternal penalty of his earthly sins’).11 Similarly, in CH I.19, Ælfric describes the punishment specifically as hellewite (‘hell-torment’), and changing Matthew’s language from that of repayment (‘until you repay the last penny’) to impoverishment (‘until you have but one penny left’). The possibility of this torment ending does not seem to be in view; the passage thus would seem to reflect Ælfric’s understanding of the eternal state of the wicked rather than what appears elsewhere to be a partially-formed theology of purgatory.12 In contrast to CH I.19, Esto consentiens aduersario (following the Letter to Wulfgeat) does reproduce the Vulgate’s language of ‘repaying the last penny’ [line 20], and much of the rest of Matthew 5.25–6 as well, both in Latin and Old English. Granted, Ælfric adds introductory and transitional phrases (In illo temporum, dixit Ihesus discipulis suis [‘At that time, Jesus said to his disciples’, line 9] and ‘Ðæt is on Engliscre spræce’ [‘That is in English’, line 13]) and makes the scene more intense or vivid by • • •

9 10 11 12

Urging believers, ‘Beo ðu eornostlice swiðe gebeogul mid gebigedum mode’ (‘Earnestly be very compliant with a humble mind’ [lines 13–14, emphasis added]) rather than simply consentiens (‘come to agreement’); Describing the egefullan (‘fearsome’) judge as acting mid yrre (‘angrily’ [line 17]); and Depicting the judge’s servant as actively leading the sinner to prison (‘his underþeodda þen þe ge bringe on cwearterne’ [lines 19–20]) rather than the sinner passively being thrown (mitta[tur]) therein.

See for example Jeremias, Parables, p. 30. See ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. I.11.30 (CCSL 35, p. 32, lines 680–2). On which, see for example Grundy, Books and Grace, pp. 213, 216, 223, 230–3, and 242; Kabir, Paradise, pp. 43; and Bassi, ‘Visions of the Otherworld’, pp. 234–5.

604

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario When it comes to the Vulgate’s conclusion, however, ‘non exies inde donec reddas nouissimum quadrantem’ [‘you shall not go out of there until you repay the last penny’]), aside from explicitly specifying the location in question (þam cwearterne [‘the prison’), Ælfric’s translation is straightforward: ‘“ne scealt þu o[f] þam cwearterne ær ðan þe þu agylde þone endenextan feorðling.”’ (‘“you will not go out of the prison until you repay the last penny”’ [lines 20–1]). Though Ælfric’s language here is different than that in CH I.19, it would seem that in both cases eternal damnation is in view. As he says later in Esto consentiens aduersario, … æfter urum deaðe, aht to gode gedon, ne þonne us gebigean to Godes bebodum gyf we ær forsawon his gesetnyssa on life. Ðonne þes weg bið geendod þe we nu on libbað, ne bið nan oþer weg us to lafe syðþan on þam þe we magon ure misdæda gebetan. Ac anbidað se dema þe ure dæda asmeað and betæcþ þa unrihtwisan þam unmildheortan witnere, and se witnere hi gebrincð on þam blindan cwearterne þære hellican susle betwux þam sweartum deoflum þær hi magon behreowsian on þam reðum witum heora yfelan dæda. Ac þær ne bið nan dædbote ne nan liðe mildsung þam manfullum næfre. [lines 117–29] … after our death, we will not be able to do anything good nor turn ourselves then to God’s commandments if we earlier scorned his decrees while alive. When this road on which we now live comes to an end, there will be no other way left to us afterwards on which we may atone for our misdeeds. But the judge who scrutinizes our actions awaits and delivers the unrighteous to the unmerciful tormentor, and the tormentor leads them into the dark prison of hellish torment among black devils where they are able to lament their evil actions amid the cruel punishments. But there will be no penance nor ever any gentle mercy for the wicked.

For þa unrihtwisan or manfullas (‘the unrighteous’ or ‘wicked’ [lines 124 and 129]), at least – sinners, that is, who do not gain forgiveness through repentance – death precludes the possibility of penance or pardon (dædbote ne … mildsung [lines 128–9]). They cannot perform righteous deeds (to gode gedon [line 117]), bow to God’s law (gebigean to Godes bebodum [line 117]), or otherwise atone for their sin (ure misdæda gebetan [line 122]). Instead, they face the very situation described above, using the same terms found earlier in Esto consentiens aduersario and in CH I.19: the judge (dema [lines 123 and 17]) delivers (betæcþ [lines 123 and 17]) them into prison (on cwearterne [lines 125 and 19, and CH I.19.140]) and hell-torment (hellica susl / hellewite [line 126 and CH I.19.140]) by devil(s) (deof[lum] [line 126 and CH I.19.141]). Across the board, then, the punishment being described is not temporary, but eternal. One final bit of explanation is due regarding the monetary units mentioned in these works. The Vulgate refers to a quadrans, a low-value coin worth one quarter of an as, a coin made of copper; the quadrans was also called a terunicus or triuncis, as it was equivalent to three unciae, each worth one twelfth of an as.13 The Old English word feorðling [line 21 and CH I.19.142], which Ælfric uses in his Grammar to translate quadrans,14 renders the word nicely, as it meant ‘a fourth of [a pening (‘penny’)]’ – a 13 14

Lewis et al., Dictionary, pp. 170 and 1499. Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 61, line 5.

605

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario sense retained in the word farthing, a coin that continued to be produced in England until 1956. Translating both quadrans and feorðling as ‘penny’, however, may better capture the sense of the passage. Lines 22–32 [Her syndon egeslice … to geleafan trymminge]: Ælfric cites Augustine as his source nearly thirty times in his writings, referring to him as wis (‘wise’ [line 24]) on some fourteen occasions. Esto consentiens aduersario may be the only work, however, where Ælfric states that Augustine came from Africa [line 29] and that he wrote a thousand books [line 27]. The passage here offers general comments that may well be original to Ælfric, and the biographical details mentioned are commonplace enough that he may not be quoting a particular source; ultimately, however, they would have derived from the Life of Augustine by Possidius of Calama.15 The Augustinian source in question is De sermone domini in monte, a work that Ælfric likely knew16 and that shares a number of parallels to Ælfric’s exegesis. Augustine interprets the prison of Matthew 5.25–6 as hell [De sermone domini I.11.29;17 Esto consentiens aduersario, line 126], affirms that the punishment described will be eternal [I.11.30;18 lines 129–30], and entertains various possibilities for understanding the ‘adversary’, ultimately rejecting the devil [I.11.31;19 lines 40–44 in favor of the Word of God [I.11.32;20 lines 46–52]. For more detailed comparisons, see notes to lines 2–21, 41–57, and 95–129. Lines 22–32 reproduce Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 101–11,21 save a few variations between þ/ð and y/i. Lines 33–40 [Se Hælend cwæð … þæt ece lif]: The image of authoritative biblical instruction spreading throughout the world [lines 30–2] prompts Ælfric to make another observation before turning to his Augustinian source: the words Christ spoke to his apostles [lines 3 and 34] were not for them alone, but for all who would follow him, down to the present audience [lines 37–9]. For support, he turns to another verse that he had used in the Second Series to make the same point about the immediate applicability of Christ’s teaching, Mark 13.37:

15 16

17 18 19 20 21

Vita di S. Agostino, ed. Pellegrino [formerly PL 32.33–66]. Perhaps directly rather than through for example Paul the Deacon (Godden, Commentary, xlviii; see also Smetana, ‘Patristic Anthology’, p. 90, and Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 223–5), even though no contemporary copy survives (Gneuss and Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts, pp. 894–5). CCSL 35, p. 30, lines 647–8. CCSL 35, p. 31, lines 666–9. CCSL 35, p. 32, lines 689–98. CCSL 35, p. 35, lines 748–53. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 5.

606

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario CH II.3522

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 35–6

‘“Quod autem uobis dico omnibus dico: Vigilate.”’

‘Quod autem uobis dico omnibus dico’: ‘“Þæt þæt ic to eow gecweðe, þæt ic cweðe to eallum mannum”’.

‘Quod autem uobis dico omnibus dico’ – Ðæt þæt Ic eow secge, þæt Ic secge eallum mannum’

‘“That which I say to you, I say to everyone: Watch.”’

‘That which I say to you, I say to everyone’: ‘“That which I say to you, that I say to everyone”’.

‘Quod autem uobis dico omnibus dico’ – ‘“That which I say to you, that I say to everyone”’.

Mark 13.37

Ælfric’s emphasis here is not on the need for vigilance, as in his Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), and thus he omits Vigilate (‘Watch’) both from CH II.35 and Esto consentiens aduersario. Otherwise, however, aside from repeating þæt either for parallelism or emphasis, he translates the verse straightforwardly both in Latin and Old English. The exhortation with which Ælfric concludes, ‘Gehyre hi se ðe wylle habban þæt ece lif’ (‘He who desires to possess that everlasting life, let him hear’ [line 40]), uses language repeated often in Scripture (Ezekiel 3.27; Matthew 11.15, 13.9, and 13.43; and Revelation 2.7, 2.11, and 2.17, among other instances) to drive home his audience’s responsibility to take Christ’s words to heart. Lines 33–40 reproduce Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 112–19,23 save for the spelling beboda [line 39] rather than bebodu [Letter, line 119]. Lines 41–57 [Ure wiðerwinna is … þines sylfes hæle]: Introductory comments aside, Ælfric turns at last to Augustine’s De sermone domini in monte (see notes to lines 22–32 above). Ælfric distills the last half of the African Father’s exposition of Matthew 5.25–6 thus:

22 23

Godden, Second Series, p. 301, lines 57–8. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 5.

607

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 41–57

De sermone domini I.11.31–224 [Aduersarius aut] diabolus est … aut praeceptum [Dei] … sed neque beniuolentiam diabolo iubemur exhibere, ubi enim beniuolentia, ibi amicitia, neque quisquam dixerit amicitiam cum diabolo esse faciendam. Neque concordare cum illo expedit … neque consentire illi iam oportet, cui si nunquam consensissemus, nunquam in istas incidissemus miserias … hic aduersarium praeceptum Dei intelligamus. Quid enim sic aduersatur peccare uolentibus quam praeceptum Dei, id est lex eius et Scriptura diuina, quae data est nobis ad hanc uitam, ut sit nobiscum in uia, cui non oportet contradicere, ne nos tradat iudici; sed ei oportet consentire cito? Non enim quisque nouit quando de hac uita exeat. Quis autem consentit Scripturae diuinae, nisi qui legit uel audit pie, deferens ei culmen auctoritatis, ut quod intelligit, non propter hoc oderit quod peccatis suis aduersari sentit; sed magis diligat correptionem suam, et gaudeat quod morbis suis, donec sanentur, non parcitur: quod uero aut obscurum, aut absurdum illi sonat, non inde concitet contradictionum certamina, sed oret ut intelligat; beniuolentiam tamen et reuerentiam tantae auctoritati exhibendam esse meminerit?

Ure wiðerwinna is witodlice se deofol, þe embe us swicað mid his searacræftum þæt he us fordo and us Drihtne ætbrede. Ac us ne het na se Hælend him beon gebeogule ne him gehyrsumian us to forwyrde. Is nu oðer wiðerwinna þe us wyle gerihtlæcan fram urum unþeawum. Him we sceolon gehyrsumian, þæt is Godes word þe us gewissian sceal. And þæt Word winþ on us swa swa wis læce deð þe mid stiðum læcecræfte gelacnað þone untruman, and swa swa god lareow lærð his cnapan georne and tæcð him gode þeawas to Godes gesetnyssum. Swa deþ þæt halige Word þe us forbyt unriht and is swiðe stið urum stuntnyssum and þincð us hefigtyme þæt we him gehyrsumion. Hwæt gewilnað þes wiþerwinna þe wyle þæt ðu beo wið hine geþwære buton þines sylfes hæle?

[The adversary] … is [either] the devil … or [God’s] commandment … but we are not instructed to show benevolence to the devil, for where there is benevolence, there is friendship, and no one would say that we are to become friends with the devil. Nor is it advantageous to come to agreement with him … nor should we agree with him now, for if we had never agreed with him, we should never have fallen into these miseries … [Rather,] we should understand ‘adversary’ here to be the commandment of God. For what opposes those who wish to sin so much as God’s commandment, that is, his law and divine Scripture? It has been given to us for this life, that it might be with us on the road. We should not contradict it, lest it should hand us over to the judge, but should agree with it quickly. For no one knows when he may depart from this life. Now, who is it that agrees with divine Scripture, if not he who devoutly reads or listens to it, deferring to it as the supreme authority? He does not hate what he understands, because he feels it to be opposed to his sins, but rather loves its reproof, and rejoices that he will not be spared until his faults are cured. Truly, that which sounds either unclear or harsh to him does not cause him to raise contentious objections. Rather, he prays that he would understand, bearing in mind that benevolence and respect are to be shown to such a great authority.

Our adversary is truly the devil, who deceives us with his tricks so that he may destroy us and lure us from the Lord. But the Savior did not command us to be submissive to him or to obey him to [our] perdition. Now there is another adversary that desires to correct us from our vices. We ought to obey it, that is the Word of God which should guide us, and that word fights in us just as a wise doctor does who with strong medicine heals the sick, and just as a good instructor eagerly instructs his young men and teaches them good morals as the ordinances of God. So does the holy Word that forbids us wrongful behavior and is exceedingly severe on our foolishness and seems to us burdensome to obey. What does this adversary who wants you to be in agreement with him desire except your own salvation?

24

CCSL 35, p. 32, lines 688–9, 692–5, and 696–8; and p. 35, lines 748–62.

608

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario While Augustine considers various options for the ‘adversary’ – the devil, human beings in general, the sinful flesh, God himself, or God’s law – Ælfric simplifies matters for his audience by focusing only on the first and last. The devil, on the one hand, would seem to be an obvious candidate: the name Satan (‫שטָן‬ ׂ ָ , Σατανᾶς, and Satanas) literally means ‘adversary’, and Ælfric repeatedly refers to him as wiðerwinna (‘adversary’ [line 41]; see also CH II.3025 and 3726; LS I.10 [Skeat I.11];27 and Sermo in natale unius confessoris [AH II.9]), line 57). Both Augustine and Ælfric reject the suggestion, however, that Christ would command believers to be consentiens (‘in accord with’ [lines 1 and 11]) or gebeogul (‘submissive to’ [lines 14 and 44]) the devil. Rather, they point to the consequences of such concord, either in the past and present in Augustine’s case (‘cui si nunquam consensissemus, nunquam in istas incidissemus miserias’; ‘neque concordare cum illo expedit’ [‘if we had never agreed with him, we should never have fallen into these miseries’; ‘Nor is it advantageous to come to agreement with him [now]’]) or in the present and future for Ælfric (‘[se deofol] us swicað … þæt he us fordo … to forwyrde’ [‘[the devil] deceives us … so that he may destroy us … to [our] perdition’, lines 42–5]). Ælfric differs from his source, however, on the role the devil does play in the parable. Where Augustine does not mention the devil apart from the lines discounting him above, Ælfric depicts devils as present (and possibly as instruments of punishment) in the infernal prison: sinners are led ‘on þam blindan cwearterne þære hellican susle betwux þam sweartum deoflum’ (‘into the dark prison of hellish torment among black devils’ [lines 125–6]). Furthermore, where the Gospel portrays the judge delivering the condemned to a minister (‘subordinate’) [Matthew 5.25], Ælfric speaks of underðeoda (‘subordinates’ [lines 18 and 19]) and a witnere (‘torturer’ [lines 124 and 125]) who will lead sinners to prison. While he does not explicitly identify such figure(s), should he have the devil or demons in mind, it would constitute quite a leap from Augustine’s interpretation, which interprets the minister, God’s servant, as angels (De sermone domini I.11.2928). When he comes to the alternative, that the ‘adversary’ in the parable is God’s law, Ælfric in general reflects his Augustinian source: God’s commands oppose human sin, and people must accord with them in order to escape the Judge’s condemnation. To begin with, however, Ælfric shifts the focus from the actions of the believer to those of the Law. Augustine’s concern is with the former: believers should not contradict Scripture (non contradicere), but should agree with it (consentire), devoutly read and listen to it (legere and audire pie), defer to it (deferre), not hate it (non odi), love and rejoice in it (diligere and gaudere), pray to understand it (orare ut intelligat), and show it benevolence and respect (beneuolentiam et reuerentiam exhibere). Ælfric, by contrast, focuses initially on Scripture. Speaking variously of Godes word (‘God’s Word’ [lines 48, 58, 60 and so on]), Godes lar (‘God’s doctrine’ [lines 99 and 101; see also 219 and 231–2]), and Godes beboda (‘God’s commandments’ [lines 118, 152, and 189; see also 39]), he says that divine commands correct (gerihtlæcan [line 46]), guide (gewissian 25 26 27 28

Godden, Second Series, p. 261, line 35. Godden, Second Series, p. 315, lines 156–7. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 306, line 78 – p. 308, line 79; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 242, lines 78–9. CCSL 35, p. 30, lines 645–7.

609

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario [line 48]), fight (winnan [line 49]) against sin, heal (gelacnian [line 49]), instruct and teach (læran and tæcan [lines 51–2]), forbid (forbeodan [line 53]) wrongdoing, and desire (gewilnian [line 56]) individuals’ salvation. How believers should respond to this adversary, however, Ælfric will turn next. Variations between þ/ð, the spelling gebeogule [line 44] rather than gebeogole [Letter, line 123], and the omission of and at line 46 [cf. Letter, line 126], are all that separate lines 41–57 from Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 120–36.29 Lines 58–75 [Ðæt halige Godes word … us secgað bec]: From this point, Ælfric takes up Augustine’s question of how Christians should respond to Scripture – but he does so primarily using Scripture, in what appear to be his own words. Augustine’s paradigm for understanding Matthew 5.25–6 thus provides Ælfric a launching pad for addressing a number of issues on his mind concerning Christian conduct, though not a template for the rest of the homily. Ælfric begins with the problem of disobedience in general. Just prior, he had noted that humans are not wont to obey the divine law: it is ‘swiðe stið urum stuntnyssum and þincð us hefigtyme þæt we him gehyrsumion’ (‘exceedingly severe on our foolishness and seems to us burdensome to obey’ [lines 54–5; see also 194]). Here, however, he expands on Augustine’s exegesis by noting that while the law may seem adversarial, the opposite is in fact the case: it befriends humans, while they are adversaries to themselves [lines 56–7]. Next, Ælfric focuses on specific forms of this disobedience, the first being drunkenness. It is an issue he addresses in sixteen texts besides Esto consentiens aduersario, once having cited Proverbs to this end (Proverbs 31.4; CH I.3930). To Proverbs here he turns again, this time paraphrasing Proverbs 23: Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 63–7

Proverbs 23.29–30 ‘Cui uae? Cuius patri uae? Cui rixae? Cui foueae? Cui sine causa uulnera? Cui suffusio oculorum? Nonne his qui morantur in uino et student calicibus epotandis?’

‘Hwam becymð wawa? Hwam witodlice sacu? Oððe hwa bið bepæht, oððe hwam becumað wunda oððe eagena blindnyssa buton þam unþeawfæstum þe wodlice drincað and heora gewitt amyrrað swa þæt hi dwæsiað for heora druncennyssum?’

Who has woe? Whose father has woe? Who has strife? Who falls into pits? Who has wounds for no reason? Who has inflamed eyes? Is it not those who linger over wine and apply themselves to quaffing their cups?

‘To whom comes misfortune? To whom certainly [comes] strife? Or who is deceived, or to whom comes injuries or blindness of the eyes except to the dissolute who drink madly and impair their sense so that they become stupid on account of their drunkenness?’

Ælfric preserves the interrogative nature of the passage while adjusting its language. Where the Latin assumes a verb (Cui uae / rixae / foueae [‘To whom [is] woe / strife / pitfalls’]), Ælfric sometimes supplies it (hwam becymð wawa / wunda [‘To whom comes misfortune / injuries’, lines 63 and 64] – though not Hwam sacu [‘To whom [comes] strife’, line 63]). Where the Latin has poetic variation (Cui uae? Cuius patri 29 30

Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 5–6. Clemoes, First Series, p. 522, lines 79–80.

610

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario uae? [‘Who has woe? Whose father has woe?’]), Ælfric simplifies (Hwam becymð wawa? [‘To whom comes misfortune?’, line 63]). Where the Latin may describe literal pitfalls (foueae), Ælfric speaks metaphorically (hwa bið bepæht? [‘who is deceived?’, line 64]). He condenses (omitting sine causa [‘pointless’]), clarifies (explaining suffusio oculorum as ‘opacity’ rather than ‘inflammation’ of the eyes – blindnyssa [‘blindness’, line 65] rather than ‫‘[ ַח ְכלִלּות‬redness’]), and amplifies (rendering ‘his qui morantur in uino et student calicibus epotandis’ [‘those who linger over wine and apply themselves to quaffing their cups’] as ‘þam unþeawfæstum þe wodlice drincað and heora gewitt amyrrað swa þæt hi dwæsiað for heora druncennyssum’ [‘the dissolute who drink madly and impair their sense so that they become stupid on account of their drunkenness’, lines 65–7]). Such adjustments, however, do not greatly distort the rhetoric or sense of Proverbs’ warning. If Ælfric’s debt to Proverbs is clear enough, the source of his next statements is somewhat less certain. First, he teaches that Christ prohibited drunkenness to his disciples on his halgan godspelle (‘in his holy Gospel’ [line 68]). The Gospels largely touch on the issue indirectly: not only does Jesus change water into wine at his mother’s request (John 2.1–10), but the Pharisees accuse Jesus and his disciples of being drunkards, in contrast to those of John the Baptist, whose teetotalism Ælfric specifically praises in CH II.331 (Luke 5.33 and Matthew 11.18–19). Not only do the evangelists repeatedly depict Jesus as being sinless, however (e.g., Matthew 27.19 and 24, John 8.46 and 18.23, and 1 John 3.5), but at one point they record Jesus charging his disciples: ‘Adtendite autem uobis ne forte grauentur corda uestra in crapula et ebrietate et curis huius uitae’ (‘Now be careful, lest perhaps your hearts should be burdened with excessive drink and inebriation and the cares of this life’ [Luke 21.34]). Such a verse may not be as explicit as Ephesians 5.18, where Paul states flat out, Nolite inebriari uino (‘Do not get drunk on wine’ [see also Romans 13.13, 1 Corinthians 5.11 and 6.10, Galatians 5.21, and (the non-Pauline) 1 Peter 4.3]), but it may well have served here as Ælfric’s authority. Second, Ælfric warns against gluttony, a subject he treats in nearly twenty other texts using either the terms gula / gifernys or oferfyll, as here [lines 71 and 74]). Ælfric affirms that such overconsumption harms not just the body, but the soul [lines 74–5] – a point he had previously made in LS II.15 [Skeat I.16]32 and its corresponding passage in De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis.33 In the introduction of De octo uitiis, moreover, composed perhaps slightly before Esto consentiens aduersario,34 Ælfric affirms that his teaching about the physical and spiritual harm of excess on æte and on wæte (‘in eating and drinking’) is ‘swa swa ure Drihten on his godspelle cwæð’ (‘just as our Lord said in his Gospel’).35 The same is true here: ‘Ure Hælend’, he says, ‘on his halgan godspelle forbead þa druncennysse … and ða egeslican oferfylle’ (‘Our Savior in his holy Gospel forbade drunkenness … and awful gluttony’ [lines 68–71]). If the godspel mentioned in De octo uitiis and here is Luke 21.34, the verse may well be that which Ælfric has in mind when he concludes that such doctrine is swa swa us secgað bec (‘just as books tell 31 32 33 34 35

Godden, Second Series, p. 19, lines 17–18. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 106, lines 233–6; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 354, line 268–71. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 144, lines 14–15. See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 121 and 115. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 142, lines 4–5.

611

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario us’ [line 75]).36 The final pronoun is theologically important: as he has already said (swa swa we sædon ær [line 70, referring to 38–9 and 30–2]), Ælfric affirms that the instruction preserved in books is not for the first Christians only, but for those who hear it now. Aside from variations between þ/ð, y/i, blindnyssa [line 65] and blindnyss [Letter, line 144], and forþan [line 74] and forþam [Letter, line 153], lines 58–75 mirror Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 137–54.37 Lines 76–94 [Godes word þe … eac eowre sawla]: As its name suggests, De octo uitiis discusses the eight heafodleahtras or ‘capital sins’, as did LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (from which this section of De octo uitiis derives38) and CH II.12 before it. In each case, Ælfric begins with gifernys (‘greed’ or ‘gluttony’) and moves on to forliger (‘adultery’) and galnes (‘lust’).39 It is not surprising, then, that Esto consentiens aduersario should warn next of forlig[e]r [line 76] as well. Godden identifies Ælfric’s immediate source in CH II.12 as Alcuin’s De uirtutibus et uitiis,40 but the connection between gluttony and sexual immorality may ultimately be inspired by 1 Corinthians 6.13, where Paul’s thought moves between different types of physical indulgence: ‘Esca uentri et uenter escis, Deus autem et hunc et haec destruet. Corpus autem non fornicationi sed Domino et Dominus corpori’ (‘“Food for the belly and the belly for food, but God will destroy both the one and the other.”41 The body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body’). Indeed, upon mentioning forliger, LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] and De octo uitiis immediately paraphrase Paul’s ensuing statement: 1 Corinthians 6.15 Nescitis quoniam corpora uestra membra Christi sunt? Tollens ergo membra Christi faciam membra meretricis? Absit!

LS II.15 [Skeat I.16]42 [Forliger] macað of Cristes limum myltestrena limu.

Do you not know that your bodies are [Adultery] makes members of Christ? Shall I then take prostitute’s limbs from the members of Christ and make them Christ’s limbs. members of a prostitute? May it never be!

36

37 38

39

40 41 42 43

De octo uitiis, lines 19–2043 [Forliger] macað of Cristes limum myltestrena lima. [Adultery] makes prostitute’s limbs from Christ’s limbs.

On this general invocation of authoritative sources, see for example Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), line 156; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), line 86 (see also 150 and 189); Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 71, 232, 320, and 355 (see also 49, 103, and 421); Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 175 and 227; Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), line 19; and De uirginitate (AH II.13), line 30; as well as In natali Domini (AH I.2), line 410. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 6. On the relationship of LS II.15.232–346 with De octo uitiis 12–92, see Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, pp. 1 and 10, the latter discussing the possibility of this section originally forming an independent piece. See CH II.12 (Godden, Second Series, p. 124, lines 484 and 493–505), LS II.16 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 106, lines 233–44; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 354, line 268 – p. 356, line 279), and De octo uitiis (Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 144, lines 13 and 18). PL 101.613–38; see Godden, Commentary, p. 463. On this Corinthian saying, to which Paul arguably reacts, see for example Horsley, 1 Corinthians, pp. 90–1; and Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Corinthian Slogans’, p. 394. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 106, line 243; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 356, line 278. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 144.

612

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Esto consentiens aduersario does not quote the verse; nor does it simply describe the negative effects of sin: commending purity both to laity [line 78] and clergy [line 80] – a subject Ælfric treats at length in AH I.7, 8, and 13 – it notes not only that obedience will keep believers from shame (gescend[nes] [line 77]), but will make their lives ‘pleasing’ (leofa [line 78]). The third capital sin CH II.12, LS II.15 [Skeat I.16], and De octo uitiis address is gitsung (‘avarice’), a vice distinct from gluttonous greed inasmuch (as CH II.12 explains) as it ‘ontent symle ðæs mannes mod to maran æhte, and swa he mare hæfð swa he grædigra bið’ (‘always kindles a person’s heart to [desire] more possessions, and the more he has, the greedier he is’).44 To this characteristic Esto consentiens aduersario duly turns, forbidding ‘ælc facn and ða yfelan gitsunge þe ælc unriht ofcymð’ (‘every act of treachery and evil avarice, from which every wrongful behavior comes’ [lines 82–3]). In one sense, fac[e]n (‘treachery’ or ‘fraud’) corresponds well to forliger, in that sexual immorality involves the treacherous breaking of one’s commitment to God and (in the case of laity) one’s spouse. In CH II.12, however, Ælfric specifically lists it as one of the secondary sins gitsung inspires, saying ‘Of ðisum leahtre beoð acennede leasunga and … facn’ (‘From this vice are born deceit and … fraud’).45 In speaking of gitsung as a sin ‘þe ælc unriht ofcymð’ (‘from which every wrongful behavior comes’ [line 83]), moreover, Esto consentiens aduersario draws on 1 Timothy 6.10, where Paul affirms that ‘radix enim omnium malorum est cupiditas’ (‘Avarice is the root of all evil [or “all kinds of evil”]). The verse is one Ælfric quotes in CH I.1746 and in CH I.18, where he explains: ‘seo gitsung is ealra yfelra þinga wyrttruma: and þa ðe filigað þære gitsunge, hi dweliað fram godes geleafan, and hi befeallað on mislicum costnungum and deriendlicum lustum, þe hi besencað on forwyrde’ (‘Avarice is the root of all evil things. Those who follow greed go astray from God’s faith and fall into various temptations and harmful lusts, which sink them into ruin’).47 Lustas (‘desires’), therefore, may form in Ælfric’s mind a further connection between the second and third capital sins, forliger and gitsung. Before leaving the third capital sin, Ælfric describes further the facn (‘fraud’) that gitsung inspires: it causes people to ‘trick’ and ‘deceive’ one another (beswican and besyrwian [lines 84 and 88–9]) so that they break their word (sylfne forswerian [line 85]) and ultimately are beswicene for Gode [line 90] – ‘overcome’ before God, either temporally or eschatologically as a result of God’s judgment. As Psalms 11.5 says (a verse Ælfric also quotes straightforwardly in CH II.19):

44 45 46 47

Godden, Second Series, p. 124, lines 506–7. Godden, Second Series, p. 124, lines 507–8. Clemoes, First Series, Appendix B, p. 539, line 146. Clemoes, First Series, p. 324, lines 193–6.

613

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Psalms 11.5 [Vulgate 10.6] Qui autem diligit iniquitatem odit animam suam.

CH II.1948 Se ðe unrihtwisnysse lufað, he hatað his sawle.

He who loves wickedness hates He who loves wickedness, he his own soul. hates his [own] soul.

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 86–7 Qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam: Se ðe lufiað unrihtwisnysse, he hatað his sawle. Qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam: He who loves wickedness hates his [own] soul.

At this point, one might think Esto consentiens aduersario would follow its forebears in suggesting that believers should overcome forliger with clænnes (‘sexual purity’) or gitsung with cystignes (‘generosity of mind’).49 Rather, Ælfric avers, believers must do the opposite of ‘tricking’ each other [lines 84 and 88–9]: they must help one another to rihte [line 92] – not just behaving righteously (butan swicdome [‘without treachery’, line 93]), perhaps, but helping others pursue righteousness. Those who do so, he concludes, will be blessed both materially and spiritually, being not defrauded of their possessions and saving their souls from condemnation [line 94]. Aside from variations between þ/ð and i/y, syncope (forligr [line 76] from forliger [Letter, line 155]; man [line 78] from mann [Letter, line 157]), and consonantal doubling (forbyt/t [line 82; Letter, line 161]), lines 76–94 reproduce Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 155–73.50 Lines 95–113a [Ne lufast þu … on þisum life]: If loving wickedness means defying God’s Word and hating one’s soul (by bringing eternal judgment on oneself) [lines 84–7], what, Ælfric appears to ask, does it mean for individuals to love their souls? The verse he quotes by way of explanation [lines 95–7] is Leviticus 19.18, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’, which the New Testament describes as the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13.9 and Galatians 5.14; see also Matthew 22.39 and James 2.8). Ultimately, loving one’s neighbors means working for their eternal good, desiring for others’ souls what one desires for one’s own, and thus helping them to rihte [line 92] by correcting their folly (styran stuntum mannum [line 100]). At this point, however, Ælfric’s mind turns again to the Sermon on the Mount, where Christ warns against hypocritically judging others but not oneself: ‘in quo enim iudicio iudicaueritis, iudicabimini … eice primum trabem de oculo tuo et tunc uidebis eicere festucam de oculo fratris tui’ (‘“in the same way you judge others, you will be judged … first remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will [be able to] see to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”’ [Matthew 7.1 and 5]). Some people, Ælfric notes, condemn their subordinates (underðeoddan) for minor offenses while excusing their own greater sins, punishing theft done in secret, for example, while openly robbing others

48 49

50

Godden, Second Series, p. 184, line 132, apparatus [variant reading in P and fb]. See CH II.12 (Godden, Second Series, p. 125, lines 550 and 553), LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 110, lines 286 and 291; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 358, lines 321 and 326), and De octo uitiis (Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 148, lines 50 and 54). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 6–7.

614

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario themselves [lines 103–9]. The reference to punishment and subordinates lightly recalls the language of Ælfric’s opening pericope [lines 18–19], though no censure is implied of the judge’s treatment of his underðeoddan there; instead, Ælfric here addresses the question of how one should judge or correct (styran – literally, ‘steer’ [lines 98–102]) others. As he states later on, again quoting Matthew 7.1, ‘We sceolon forði deman for ures Drihtnes lufon æfre mildheortlice þam mannum þe we sceolon her on life wissian butan wælhreownysse, for ðan þe us bið swa gedemed swa swa we demað oþrum’ (‘We therefore must, for our Lord’s sake, always judge mercifully without cruelty the men whom we must guide while alive here, because we will be judged as we judge others’ [lines 141–4]). In both cases, Ælfric appears to turn his eye from believers in general to those in authority – perhaps temporal ‘judges’, but more likely spiritual teachers, whom he also discusses in lines 37, 51–2, and 217–33. If so, his discussion of spiritual authorities and theft may well have been inspired by Paul’s condemnation of hypocrisy: ‘Qui ergo alium doces, te ipsum non doces? Qui praedicas non furandum, furaris?’ (‘You, then, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? [Romans 2.21]). In any event, before one can love one’s neighbors by judging, correcting, and ‘steering’ them, one must first steer oneself [line 98]. When one obeys God, Ælfric says, one loves God’s Word [line 95], loves oneself [line 95], and love’s one’s soul [line 102], after which one is able humbly to love others [lines 95–8; see notes to AH I.1, lines 86–99]. What Ælfric next describes as obedience, however, seems a bit of a hodge-podge: ‘Yrre and anda us synd forbodene, mansliht and morðdæda, and ealle manlice þing þurh þæt halige Godes word’ (‘Through the holy Word of God, we are forbidden anger and envy, murder and acts of violence, and every wicked thing’ [lines 110–12]). Such vices do not correspond to Ælfric’s treatment of the eight capital sins, which after auaritia / gitsung (‘avarice’) list ira / weamodnes or weamet (‘anger’), tristitia / unrotnes (‘sadness’), accidia / asolcennes (‘indolence’), iactantia / idel gylp or wuldor (‘vainglory’), and superbia / modignes (‘pride’).51 Nor does the order follow the Sermon on the Mount, which discusses anger and murder [Matthew 5.21–2] before the admonitions treated above (‘Come to agreement with your adversary’ [Esto consentiens aduersario, Matthew 5.25–6] and ‘avoid adultery’ [Matthew 5.27–30]). The majority of Ælfric’s terms, however – druncennysse [lines 61, 67, and 69], oferfyll [lines 71–4], forligr [line 76], yrre [line 110], anda [line 110], and mansliht [line 111] – all appear in an earlier translation he had made of a list of vices in Galatians, and it may be this passage that Ælfric has in mind:

51

See CH II.12 (Godden, Second Series, p. 124, line 510 – p. 125, line 531), LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §2, p. 106, line 245 – p. 108, line 272; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 356, line 280 – p. 358, line 307), and De octo uitiis (Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 144, line 25 – p. 146, line 39).

615

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Galatians 5.19–21

LS II.17, lines 23–9

Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, inmunditia, luxuria, idolorum servitus, ueneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, irae, rixae, dissensiones, sectae, inuidiae, homicidia, ebrietates, comesationes, et his similia, quae praedico uobis sicut praedixi quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non consequentur.

Paulus cwæð, swutele synd þæs flæsces weorc, þæt is forligr and unclænnyss, estfulnyss oððe galnyss, hæðengild oððe unlybban, feondræden and geflit, anda and yrre, sacu and twirædnyss, dwollic lar and nið, mansliht and druncennyss, oferfyll and oðre ðyllice, þe ic fore eow secge swa swa ic fore [sæde]; forðan þa ðe ðyllice weorc wyrcað, ne begitað hi Godes rice.

Now the works of the flesh are clear: they are sexual immorality, uncleanness, luxury, idolatry, witchcraft, enmity, contention, rivalry, anger, strife, discord, division, envy, murder, drunkenness, gluttony, and similar things. I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned, that those who do such things will not attain the Kingdom of God.

Paul said, ‘The works of the flesh are clear: that is, adultery, uncleanness, luxury or lust, idolatry or witchcraft, enmity and strife, envy and anger, conflict and discord, heresy and hatred, murder and drunkenness, gluttony and other such. I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned, because those who do such things will not attain the Kingdom of God’. (emphasis ours)

It is unclear why Ælfric would only choose yrre (‘anger’), anda (‘envy’), mansliht (‘murder’), and morðdæda (‘acts of violence’) from this list; it may be that he recalls anger and murder from the preceding verses in the Sermon on the Mount (as noted above), that anda and yrre are terms linked in his mind (he pairs them, for example, in LS II.16 [Skeat I.17]52 and the Admonitio ad filium spiritualem53), and/or that he chooses the terms for their alliterative (and thus mnemonic) value: yrre and anda … mansliht and morðdæda and ealle manlice þing [lines 110–11]. What is clear is that Ælfric’s argument brings him back to his Augustinian exegesis of the pericope [lines 46–57]: the ‘adversary’ that commands believers to shun these vices, correct their fellows, and judge themselves, he reaffirms, is the Word of God [line 112]. Aside from variations between þ/ð, i/y, a/o, eo/i, and the syncope of man [line 96] from mann [Letter, line 175], lines 95–113a are identical to Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 174–92a.54 Lines 113b–129 [And ðis lif … þam manfullum næfre]: Ælfric’s statement that the Word is believers’ adversary on þisum life (‘in this life’ [line 113]) allows him rhetorically to return to the imagery of his opening pericope. Our lives, he says, are the road (uia or weg [Matthew 5.25; lines 15 and 113]) on which Christ exhorts us to ‘agree’ (consentire or geþwærlæcan [Matthew 5.25; line 114]) with our adversary – in this case, the Word of God [line 112] – while we are still able to ‘correct ourselves’ (us gerihtlæcan [line 115], a term semantically close to geþwærlæcan through its shared root). Once life’s road has ended, human beings will not be able (ne magon [line 116]) to do so – a discussion treated at more length above [notes to lines 2–21 regarding 116–29]. That is then, however: now, at this moment, humans are both ‘able’ and ‘allowed’ (magon and

52 53 54

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 120, §3, line 3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 366, lines 25–6. Norman, Admonitio, p. 38. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 7–8.

616

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario moton [line 115]) to repent – a distinction that, if not simply poetic variation, may allude both to human and divine roles in volition.55 Save for minor variations in spelling – þ for ð, i for y, gebigean [line 118] for gebygan [Letter, line 197], anbidað [line 123] for andbidað [Letter, line 202] – lines 113b–129 correspond directly to Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 192b–208.56 Lines 130–44 [Lybbe we leng … we demað oþrum]: It is not just the severity of potential punishment [lines 123–8], Ælfric maintains, that should cause sinners to repent cito (‘quickly’ [line 11]) or eornostlice (‘earnestly’ [line 13]), nor the fact that repentance may only be performed in this life [lines 128–9]: it is that the end of one’s life may come at any time [line 130] – a point he also makes, for example, in Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 89–94 and 126–8. Until then, God’s Word serves as our adversary [line 131, reflecting 46–57 and 110–13], or rather, the adversary of fallen humans’ ‘flesh’ or sinful nature that opposes God’s law [Romans 7.22–5; cf. lines 53–5 and 56–9]. Believers must submit to this adversary [line 131] and not despise him/it [line 137], lest they be condemned by it [line 140]. As John 12 says: Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 138–40

John 12.48 ‘“Qui spernit me et non accipit uerba mea habet qui iudicet eum. Sermo quem locutus sum ille iudicabit eum in nouissimo die”’.

‘“Se ðe me forsyhð and mine word ne underfehð, he hæfð witodlice hwa him deman sceal. Min word þe Ic secge sceal hine fordeman”’.

‘“He who despises me and does not receive my words has one who shall judge him. The word that I speak – that will condemn him on the last day”’.

‘“He who despises me and does not receive my words , he truly has someone who shall judge him. My words that I speak will condemn him”’.

Overall, Ælfric makes but light changes to the original, using word (‘word’) to translate both uerba (plural) and sermo (singular), approximating the present subjunctive of iudicet (‘judge’) with the present sceal + infinitive deman, adding witodlice (‘truly’) as an intensifier, adds the possessive min (‘my’) to ‘word’, and redoubles his pronoun in the first sentence (‘He who … he’) rather than the second (‘That word … that’). He does, however, omit John’s final phrase – not perhaps because the eschatological reference would have been inappropriate (he has been speaking of the Judgment, after all [lines 124–8]), but because his emphasis is not on the time but the agent of judgment: namely, God’s Word [line 140]. Indeed, as noted above (see notes to lines 95–113a regarding lines 141–4), that reminder of final judgment prompts Ælfric to focus on the present, again urging his audience to repent while they still can. Save for þ/ð and i/y variations, lines 130–44 directly parallel Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 209–23.57

55 56 57

On the tension between which in Ælfric’s writings, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 171–205. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 8. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 8–9.

617

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Lines 145–60 [We ne magon … leofað on asolcennysse]: Whether it be by pursuing virtues, such as judging mercifully [lines 141–4], or eschewing vices, such as sloth [lines 145–60], Ælfric underscores that the joys of heaven must be ‘earned’ (geearn[od] [lines 146, 155, and 167]). His emphasis here is on human volition and industry, the work of obeying God’s Word [lines 145–60 and 196–204] by coming to Jesus and carrying his yoke [lines 161–204].58 Elsewhere, however, Ælfric affirms that such meritorious efforts depend on divine grace – a complex tension discussed in detail in Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 172–212. At this point, Esto consentiens aduersario not only returns to the capital sins, but appears to jump forward to treat slæwð (‘sloth’) and asolcennes (‘laziness’ [line 145]), paired vices that constitute the sixth capital sin in CH II.12 [which has æmelnys (‘sloth’) instead of slæwð],59 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],60 and De octo uitiis.61 Given that he has discussed gifernys (‘greed’ in eating and drinking), the first capital sin, in lines 61–75, forliger (‘adultery’) and galnes (‘lust’) in lines 76–9, and gitsung (‘avarice’) in lines 82–94; and has at least mentioned anger (though using the term yrre instead of weamodnes or weamet (‘anger’), the fourth capital sin; see notes to lines 95–113a above) in line 110; one might expect Ælfric to move on to the fifth capital sin, unrotnes – ‘sadness’ not about one’s sins but about temporal misfortunes and loss of worldly possessions.62 It is possible that this vice is in the back of Ælfric’s mind when he talks about theft in lines 107–9, but that would place the fifth sin before the fourth, if indeed the brief mention of yrre in line 110 (and wælhreownes [‘cruelty’] in line 143?) count as an exposition of this vice. One may be on safer ground to say that while his former treatments of the capital sins furnish Ælfric with vocabulary and general doctrine for Esto consentiens aduersario, they offer him a template that he follows but loosely in this text. In support of his teaching about sloth, Ælfric turns to two quotations from Proverbs, the first of which he also quotes in SH II.16, composed for TH II slightly before Esto consentiens aduersario in the period ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010).63

58

59 60 61 62

63

For other statements about ‘earning’, see for example In natali Domini (AH I.2), line 2; Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), line 37; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 41–3 and 235–6; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 112, 240–1, 372, 422, 494–6, and 525–7; Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), lines 93 and 237; Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), line 169; Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), lines 35–7; De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 103 and 219; Se Hælend Crist [AH II.19, Appendix 3], lines 41 and 146–7; and Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), lines 3 (Gebed I), 20 (Gebed VI), and 22 (Gebed VII). Godden, Second Series, p. 124, line 485, and p. 125, lines 519–20. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 108, line 261; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 356, line 296. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 146, line 31. See CH II.12 (Godden, Second Series, p. 124, lines 514–15), LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §2, p. 108, lines 254–9; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 356, lines 289–94), and De octo uitiis (Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 146, lines 27–30). See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 287.

618

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 148–51

Proverbs 20.4

SH II.1664

‘Propter frigus piger arare noluit. Mendicabit ergo aestate et non dabitur ei’.

‘For þæs wintres cyle nolde se asolcena erian; he bedecað eft on sumera, and him ne bið na getiðad’.

Propter frigus piger arare noluit; mendicabit estate et non dabitur ei: ‘For ðæs winters cyle nolde se asolcene erigan; he bedecað eft on sumera, and him ne bið na getiþod’.

‘Because of the cold, the sluggard did not want to plough. Therefore, he will beg in the Summer, and nothing will be given to him’.

‘Because of the cold of winter, the sluggard did not want to plough. Then he will beg in the Summer, and nothing will be given to him’.

Because of the cold, the sluggard did not want to plough; he will beg in the Summer, and nothing will be given to him: ‘Because of the cold of winter, the sluggard did not want to plow. Then he will beg in the summer, and nothing will be given to him’.

Ælfric’s intervention here is minimal: in both cases, he clarifies that the cold is that wintres (‘of winter’); in Esto consentiens aduersario, he omits the transitional ergo in Latin, while preserving it as eft (‘then’) in Old English. The correspondence between Ælfric’s texts is more than semantic, however. While the immediate context in SH II.16 is the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25.1–13), Ælfric’s point there is the same: ‘he on life lytel swanc for Criste … ða ecan myrhþe ne mæg þonne abiddan’ (‘he who labors little for Christ in this life cannot gain eternal joy thereafter by begging’)65 [cf. lines 145–6 and 152–5 here]. Ælfric’s second quotation comes from slightly later in Proverbs: Esto consentiens aduersario, lines 157–9a

Proverbs 23.21b ‘Vestietur pannis dormitatio’.

Dormitatio uestietur pannis – ‘Seo slapolnyss bið soðlice gescrydd mid wacum tætacum’

‘Sleep will be clothed with rags’.

Sleep will be clothed with rags – ‘Drowsiness will truly be clothed with lowly rags’

Besides adding an intensifying soðlice (‘truly’) and describing the rags as wacum (‘lowly’), Ælfric nuances the vice in question somewhat by translating dormitatio (‘sleep’) as slapolnes (‘drowsiness’ or ‘lethargy’) – a word Ælfric lists as a by-product of asolcennes in CH II.1266 and which he equates with lethargia in his Grammar.67 The difference is not a great one, however: dormitatio is related to dormitare (‘to be drowsy’ or ‘to fall asleep’), and translates the Hebrew ‫‘( נּומָ ֽה‬sleep’, ‘drowsiness’, or [figuratively] ‘indolence’). Save for minor spelling variations – þ/ð, i/y, e/æ, beboda [line 152] for bebodu [Letter, line 231], forþan [line 155] for forþam [Letter, line 234], and consonantal doubling

64 65 66 67

Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 551, line 117 – p. 552, line 118. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 552, lines 119–20. Godden, Second Series, p. 125, line 523. Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 305, lines 7–8.

619

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario (slapolnyss [line 158] for slapolnys [Letter, line 237]) – lines 145–60 directly parallel Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 224–39.68 Lines 161–86 [Be þam ylcan … sawlum bið forgifen]: Moving from the Old Testament to the New, Ælfric states that Christ be þam ylcan sæde (‘spoke about the same’ [line 161]) – namely, the need for righteous action – when he called those who labor to come to him to be refreshed (Matthew 11.28–9). The first verse is one Ælfric had quoted perhaps a decade or more before69 in SH I.5, when discussing Christ’s encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4.1–26). There, as in Esto consentiens aduersario [lines 167–9], Ælfric’s focus is not on the relief Christ offers, but on the need to do good deeds: in contrast to the woman, who wanted ‘beon buton geswince’ (‘to be without toil’), Ælfric says, ‘se Hælend cwæð … Cumað to me, ealle þe geswincað’ (‘the Savior said … “Come to me, all who toil”’).70 The two texts translate Christ’s words as follows: Matthew 11.28

SH I.571

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 163–6

‘Venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam uos’.

‘Cumað to me, ealle þe geswincað and gehefegode synd, and ic eow gereordige’.

Venite ad me omnis qui laboratis et honerati estis, et ego reficiam uos: ‘Cumað endemes to me ge ealle þe swincað and ge þe synd gehefegode, and Ic eow gereordige’.

‘Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you’.

‘Come to me, all who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you’.

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you – ‘Come to me entirely, all you who labor and you who are burdened, and I will refresh you’.

In SH I.5, Ælfric shifts the second person address of the Latin (‘all you who’) to third (‘all who’), but otherwise renders the verse straightforwardly, as he does the Latin in Esto consentiens aduersario. His second vernacular translation, however, not only preserves the second person (‘you who’), but repeats it and intensifies the direct address with endemes (‘[come] entirely’ or ‘[come] all [of you] together’). This is no mere theoretical principle: Ælfric looks his audience straight in the eye and calls them to take heed. On the need to ‘earn’ the heavenly reward [line 167], see notes to lines 145–60 above. On love for God as the proper motivation for righteous deeds, see for example Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), notes to lines 61–82; De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 289–90; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 208, 216, 226–8, 369–73, 446–9, 505–6, and 595–6; and De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 112–13 and 129–30. Continuing in Matthew 11, Ælfric cites a passage he had quoted thrice before: in CH I.14, some two decades before; in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), a

68 69 70 71

Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 9. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 89. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 295, lines 154, 155, and 157. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 295, lines 157–8.

620

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario few years before (ca 1005–6); and in De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), earlier than Esto consentiens aduersario in the period ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010). Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 545–7

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 252–4

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 170–72a

Matthew 11.29

CH I.1472

‘Tollite iugum meum super uos et discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde, et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris’.

“‘ Leorniað æt me þæt ic eom liðe: and swiðe eaðmod , and ge gemetað reste eowrum saulum.”’

“‘ Leorniað æt me þæt Ic swiðe liðe eom and eadmod on heortan, and ge habbað syððan eowrum sawlum reste on ðam soðan life”’.

“‘[Leorniað æt me þæt Ic swiðe liðe eom] and eadmod on heortan, and ge habbað syþþan eowrum sawlum [reste on ðam soðan] life.”’

‘Wegað min iuc nu on eowrum swyrum and leorniað æt me þæt Ic liðe eom, and eadmod on heortan, and ge soðlice gemetað eowrum sawlum reste ”’.

‘Carry my yoke upon you, and learn from me, because [or “that”] I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls’.

“‘ Learn from me, that I am gentle and very humble , and you will find rest for your souls.”’

“‘ Learn from me that I am very gentle and humble in heart, and you will afterwards have rest for your souls in the true life”’.

‘Learn from me, that I am very gentle and humble in heart, and you will afterwards have rest for your souls in the true life’.

‘Now carry my yoke on your necks and learn from me that I am gentle and humble in heart, and truly you will find rest for your souls ”’.

In his first translation (CH I.14), Ælfric omits the opening of the verse, adds the intensifier swiðe (‘very’), and simplifies humilis corde (‘humble in heart’) to eaðmod (‘humble’). In the next versions (AH I.8 and 7), he again omits the opening, moves swiðe to modify liðe (‘gentle’) rather than eadmod, restores corde via the phrase on heortan, translates inuenire (‘to find’) with habban (‘to have’) rather than gemetan (‘to find’), adds the temporal transition syððan (‘afterwards’), reorders reste (‘rest’) and eowrum sawlum (‘for your souls’), and supplies on ðam soðan life (‘in the true life’) to define syððan – the period when the soul’s rest will come in full. Finally, in Esto consentiens aduersario he provides the closest translation yet, including the opening of the verse, dropping the added swiðe, returning to gemetan rather than habban, and omitting his extra-biblical closing phrase. Only two additions depart from the Latin: the intensifier soðlice (‘truly’), and the explanatory (and/or visually more explicit) on eowrum swyrum (‘on your necks’) instead of super uos (‘upon you’). If Ælfric’s comments on Matthew 11.28 emphasized human labor rather than Christ’s kindness, in all four expositions of Matthew 11.29 Ælfric points to Christ’s qualities as a model for human righteousness. As he puts it in CH I.14, ‘[Crist] tæhte symle eaðmodnysse, and þurh hine sylfne þa bysne sealde’ (‘[Christ] continually taught humility, and gave an example through himself’ [cf. lines 174–9 here]).73 Of all the qualities Jesus may have called his followers to emulate, Ælfric says – his power to create worlds [e.g., 72 73

Clemoes, First Series, p. 293, lines 89–90. Clemoes, First Series, p. 293, lines 88–9; see also AH I.8, lines 531–3; and AH I.7, lines 250–54.

621

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario John 1.3 and Hebrews 1.2; lines 174–5], heal the infirm [e.g., Matthew 15.30 and Luke 7.22; lines 175–6], and raise the dead [e.g., Matthew 9.25, Luke 7.14, and John 11.43; line 177]74 – it is gentleness and humility (lið[nes] and eadmod[nes] [lines 178 and 179]) that he commands. Those who would be great in God’s Kingdom must serve and be least [Luke 9.48 and 22.26; lines 180–1]. Those who would build a great structure of stone must have a secure foundation [lines 182–3]: namely, Christ – described as such in 1 Corinthians 3.11, a verse Ælfric quotes in CH I.2675 and CH II.4076 – and, synecdochally, the humility he exemplifies [line 185].77 Such a spiritual structure, Ælfric affirms, astihð up to heofonum (‘rises up to heaven’ [line 185]), perhaps in contrast to the arrogant architects of the Tower of Babel, who wanted a structure ‘swa heahne þæt his rof atille þa heofonan’ (‘so high that its roof may reach the heavens’ [Genesis 11.4]78) Save for minor spelling variations – þ/ð, y/i, y/u, honerati [line 164] for onerati [Letter, line 243], forþan [line 167] for forþam [Letter, line 246], iuc [line 170] for geoc [Letter, line 249], wundra [line 175] for wundru [Letter, line 254], þencest [line 182] for þencst [Letter, line 261], consonantal doubling (grundweal/l [line 183; Letter, line 262], logige [line 184] for gelogie [Letter, line 263], and and eadmodnys/s [line 185; Letter, line 264]) – lines 161–86 directly parallel Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 240–65.79 Lines 187–204 [Min geoc is … a on ecnysse]: Continuing in Matthew 11, Ælfric treats a verse he had employed a decade or so earlier in Admonitio ad filium spiritualem80 to contrast the weight carried by the earthly warrior with the light burden of those waging spiritual war: Matthew 11.30

Admonitio ad filium spiritualem81

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), line 187

‘“Iugum enim meum suaue est et onus meum leue est”’,

Cristes geoc is wynsum and his ‘“Min geoc is swiðe wynsum byrðen swiþe leoht … and min byrðen swiðe leoht’.

‘“For my yoke is pleasant and my burden is light”’.

Christ’s yoke is pleasant and his burden very light …

‘“My yoke is very pleasant and my burden very light”’.

Ælfric’s changes here are slight: he drops the transitional enim (‘for’), speaks in the third person in the Admonitio (his [‘his’] rather than meum [‘my’]), and adds one or two intensifying swiðes (‘very’). Whereas in the Admonitio Ælfric’s commentary is brief – Christ’s yoke is pleasant, he says, ‘þam þe lufe habbað to þam leofan Hælende’ (‘to those who have love for the beloved Savior’)82 – in Esto consentiens aduersario he develops his thought at more length. 74 75 76 77

78 79 80 81 82

If any one text was in Ælfric’s mind at this point, it could have been Christ’s summary of his miracles earlier in Matthew 11.5. Clemoes, First Series, p. 390, line 66. Godden, Second Series, p. 342, lines 225–9. Ælfric might also conceivably have been influenced by a passage earlier in Augustine’s De sermone domini I.3.10, where he notes that the Beatitudes (and thus arguably Christian virtues generally) incipit … ab humilitate (‘begin with humility’ [CCSL 35, p. 7, line 149]). Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 29. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 10. Ca 998 × 1002; see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 125. Norman, Admonitio, p. 36. Norman, Admonitio, p. 36.

622

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario One distinction Ælfric makes is that Christ’s ‘yoke’ is internal as well as external. To be sure, taking up the burden of Christ’s commandments [line 189] requires action, if one is not to be asolcen (‘slothful’ [line 195]), as Ælfric has previously discussed [lines 194–5, referencing 145–60]. At the same time, from the very start of the homily Ælfric has focused on believers’ attitude and mindset: Christians are to be ‘very compliant with a humble mind’ [line 14], a trait again addressed in the passage preceding Ælfric’s comments here [lines 178–86]. Christ’s yoke will thus be wynsum … on mod (‘pleasant … in heart/mind’ [line 187; Matthew 11.30]) for those who welwillende beon (‘are loving’ [literally, “well-wishing”] [line 188]) and who underfon … his beboda (‘accept … his commandments’ [lines 189–90]) – Christlike, in other words, both within and without. The same dual emphasis characterizes Ælfric’s exhortations that follow. Attitude: Believers are to take up Christ’s commands ‘mid leohtum mode and mid lufe … þonne hi hihtað on God’ (‘with a light heart and with love … when they hope in God’ [lines 190–2; see John 14.15 and possibly 1 Thessalonians 1.3]). Attitude and action: God will help change83 þam stuntum (‘the foolish’ [line 194]), described earlier as reluctant to obey [lines 53–5], and ðam asolcenum (‘the slothful’ [line 195]), earlier portrayed as neither working nor wishing to work [lines 152–5]. Action: The obedient person will ‘leahtras forbuge and libbe him rihtlice’ (‘shun vices and live rightly’ [line 199]). Attitude: He will also ‘wylle æfre god and nelle nan yfel’ (‘always desire good and not desire evil’ [line 200]) and ‘lufian ealle men and nænne hatian’ (‘love all people and hate none’ [line 201]). Action: He will not ‘oðrum ne beode þæt him sylfum oflicige’ (‘prescribe to others what displeases him’ [line 202, perhaps reflecting 103–9]). Attitude: He will ‘forlætan gitsunge and lufian þa ecan speda’ (‘forsake greed and love eternal treasures’ [line 203, reflecting 82–3]). Carrying God’s yoke in such ways, Ælfric affirms, is not only pleasant and light [lines 188–90; Matthew 11.30], but will result in Christ’s followers ultimately being approved or found worthy (afandian [line 198]) – a state even more pleasant than the life of obedience itself [lines 196–8]. On the formulaic reference to ‘þam leofan Drihtne þe leofað a on ecnysse’ (‘the beloved Lord who lives always into eternity’ [line 204]), see line 233 below. This section of Esto consentiens aduersario contains the most departures from the Letter to Wulfgeat, small though they may be. In addition to minor spelling variations – þ/ð, i/y, beboda [line 189] for bebodu [Letter, line 268], and consonantal doubling (leohttre [line 197] for leohtre [Letter, line 276]) – it adds hi [habbað] in line 192 [cf. Letter, line 271], omits mannum in line 204 [Letter, line 273], reverses ær sædon in line 205 [Letter, line 274], and inserts (in what Assmann describes as von jüngerer hand84) beran and hi [underfon] [lines 189 and 190; cf. Letter, lines 268 and 269] in T3, fol. 129r. Otherwise, lines 187–204 reproduce the Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 266–83.85 Lines 205–16 [Gyf we þis … hæfð Godes anlicnysse]: What happens when believers break the yoke of Christ’s commands [lines 205 and 188–90]? They must beton eft sona (‘immediately afterwards make amends’ [line 205]86) – through repentance and penance, 83 84 85 86

For God’s assistance in the process of change, see also notes to lines 229–31 below. ‘By a later hand’ (Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 11, apparatus). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 10–11. If indeed the form beton derives from the verb betan: cf. Exodus, line 131 (Krapp, Junius Manuscript,

623

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario one assumes: see for example Lazarus I (AH I.3), lines 143–4; Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 249–54; and De penitentia (AH II.19), lines 3–5. A variation of the phrase occurs in Irvine 3, where Ælfric, supplementing Augustine’s explanation of Christ’s ‘work’ on the sabbath, briefly tells his audience what to do if they sin: ‘gif we hwæt tobrecon, beton þæt georne’ (‘if we break any [command], we should make amends for it earnestly’).87 Where Irvine 3 connects the expression to John 8.34, however – ‘omnis qui facit peccatum servus est peccati’ (‘“Everyone who commits sin is a servant of sin”’) – Esto consentiens aduersario, focusing on the ‘resurgence’ that comes through repentance, turns again to Proverbs: Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 207–9

Proverbs 24.16a ‘Septies enim cadet iustus et resurget’.

Septies enim cadet iustus et resurget: ‘Seofon siðon fylð soðlice se rihtwisa, ac he arist hraðe eft to rihtwisnysse’.

‘For the righteous person will fall seven times and rise again’.

Septies enim cadet iustus et resurget: ‘Truly seven times the righteous will fall, but he will quickly rise again to righteousness’.

Ælfric reproduces the Vulgate verbatim in Latin, but adds intensifiers (soðlice [‘truly’] and hraðe [‘quickly’]), opts for a contrasting conjunction (ac [‘but’]), and explains the ‘rising’ of the just in spiritual terms (to rihtwisnysse [‘to righteousness’]). Given the context, Ælfric may simply have understood resurget [line 207] in terms of temporal repentance and forgiveness. It may be, however, that ‘rising again to righteousness’ also evoked for Ælfric the eschatological setting where people arise in body and soul at the Last Judgment (see for example In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 198–205 and De penitentia (AH II.19, Appendix 2), lines 71–3). This consideration of humanity’s spiritual and physical nature – dovetailing nicely with Ælfric’s discussion of internal attitude and external action (see notes to lines 187–204 above) – then apparently prompts him to touch briefly on important themes in his teaching elsewhere: •

• •

87

God’s creation of humans in soul and body [lines 210 and 212]; see for example Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 310–11 and 321–21, and notes to lines 308–23; see also In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 121–4 (reproduced in De creatore et creatura [AH II.14, lines 39–42]), 216–22, and 297–300; The eternal nature of human and angelic souls [line 214]; see for example In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 116–19 (reproduced in De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 33–6); and The distinction between humans, with their physical and spiritual nature, and other creatures (such as animals) who have the former without the latter [lines 215–16]; see for example In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 112–14 (reproduced in De creatore et creatura [AH II.14], lines 29–31; see notes to lines 27–42).

p. 94; on which, see Visser, Historical Syntax, vol. 2, p. 997). Irvine, Homilies, p. 71, line 288; for the Augustinian source which Ælfric adapts, see p. 70, apparatus on lines 269–97.

624

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario Given the fact that God created humans with souls that will exist eternally [lines 212 and 214], Ælfric affirms that people have excellent cause to make themselves pleasing to God by ‘giving’ their souls to God again [lines 211 and 213] through the obedience he has previously discussed. As he has noted, the prospect of fearsome judgment awaits those who do not do so [lines 120–9]. Save for minor spelling variations – þ/ð, y/i, æ/a, e/a, gelicige [line 213] for gelicie [Letter, line 292], and forþan [line 214] for forþam [Letter, line 293]) – and the use of the present indicative tobrecað [line 206] rather than tobrecon [Letter, line 284], lines 205–16 directly parallel Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 284–95.88 Lines 217–32 [Us lareowum is … eow to þearfe]: For his conclusion, Ælfric returns to the topic of the god lareow (‘good instructor’ [line 51]) who follows the example of Christ [line 5], Augustine [lines 24], the Apostles and their successors [lines 37–8], and ultimately the Word of God [line 48]. Whether teaching occurs publicly or privately (openlice oððe digollice [line 218]), he says, or whether it targets those who sin from ignorance or from negligence (þa dysegan and ða gymeleasan [lines 218]), it is necessary (neod[ful] [line 217]), for Scripture commands it. Drawing on the Old Testament, first of all, Ælfric quotes a verse on which both he and Wulfstan89 repeatedly draw:

Ezekiel 3.18

[cf. Ezekiel 33.8]

CH I.190

CH II.2091

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 221–3

‘Si dicente me ad impium morte morieris non adnuntiaueris ei neque locutus fueris ut auertatur a uia sua impia et uiuat, ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram’.

[Si me dicente ad impium impie morte morieris non fueris locutus ut se custodiat impius a uia sua, ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram’.]

‘Gif ðu ne gestentst þone unrihtwisan and hine ne manast þæt he fram his arleasnysse gecyrre and lybbe, þonne swelt se arleasa on his unrihtwisnysse, and ic wylle ofgan æt ðe his blod’ – þæt is his lyre.

‘Buton þu gestande ðone unrihtwisan and him his unrihtwisnysse secge, Ic ofga his blodes gyte æt ðinum handum’.

‘Gyf ðu nelt gerihtlæcan þone unrihtwisan wer and him sylfum secgan his unrihtwisnysse, Ic wylle ofgan æt þe his blodes gyte’.

88 89

90 91

Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 11–12. See Bethurum 5, lines 10 [Gyf ðu] – 14 [beðorfton] (Homilies, pp. 142–3), Bethurum 16a, lines 5 [si] – 7 [requiram] (Homilies, p. 239), Bethurum 16b, lines 9 [gif þu] – 11 [forgildan] (Homilies, p. 240), and Bethurum 17, lines 45 [Si non] – 48 [forgyldan] (Homilies, p. 244). Clemoes, First Series, p. 176, lines 111–14. Godden, Second Series, p. 194, lines 146–8.

625

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario ‘If, when I say to the wicked, “You will surely die”, you do not denounce him and do not tell him, so that he may turn from his wicked may and live, that wicked person will die in his sin, but I will hold you accountable for [literally, “require of your hand”] his blood’.

[‘If, when I say to the wicked, “O wicked one, you will surely die”, you do not tell him, so that the wicked person may keep himself from his way, that wicked person will die in his sin, but I will hold you accountable for [literally, “require of your hand”] his blood’.]

‘If you do not reprove the unrighteous, and do not warn him, so that he should turn from his wickedness and live, then the wicked person will die in his unrighteousness, and I will hold you accountable for [literally, “require of you”] his blood’ – that is, his destruction.

‘Unless you should reprove the unrighteous and tell him of his unrighteousness, I will hold you accountable for [literally, “require of your hands”] the shedding of his blood’.

‘If you do not desire to correct the wicked man and tell him of his unrighteousness, I will hold you accountable for [literally, “require of you”] the shedding of his blood’.

In the First Series, Ælfric • • •

switches between unrihtwisa and arleasa when translating impius (‘the wicked’), uses the present indicative (e.g., gestentst [‘you reprove’]) to simplify the perfect subjunctive / future perfect indicative (adnuntiaueris [‘you should not have warned’ / ‘you will not have warned’), and glosses blod (‘blood’) as the sinner’s lyre (‘destruction’ or ‘damnation’), much as Esto consentiens aduersario interprets ‘his blodes gyte’ (‘the shedding of his blood’) as ‘his sawul, þe þurh synna losode’ (‘his soul, that perished through sins’ [line 224]).92

In the Second Series, he • • • •

• •

92

standardizes his language, using unrihtwisan/unrihtwisnysse (‘unrighteous/ness’) instead of arleasa/arleasnysse (‘wicked/ness’); uses the subjunctive (e.g., gestande [‘you should reprove’]) instead of the indicative; sets up the conditional with buton (‘unless’) instead of gif (‘if’); summarily paraphrases ‘and [gif] hine ne manast … swelt se arleasa on his unrihtwisnysse’ (‘and [if] you do not warn him … the wicked person will die in his unrighteousness’) as ‘and him his unrihtwisnysse secge’ (‘and [if] you do not tell him of his unrighteousness’); eliminates wylle from willan + ofgan (‘[I] will hold you’); reverses his blod (‘his blood’) and æt (‘from’ or ‘at’);

On the importance to Ælfric and Anglo-Saxon culture broadly of Scripture’s association of life and blood (Genesis 9.4–6, Leviticus 10–14, Deuteronomy 12.23, John 6.54, and Acts 15.20), see for example Clayton, ‘An Edition’, pp. 266–9 and 280 (regarding Ælfric’s Letter to Brother Edward, lines 8 [Ne þicge] – 11 [nytenes lif]); ‘Letter to Brother Edward’, pp. 34–5 and 38; and ‘Blood and the Soul’; as well as Lockett, Anglo-Saxon Psychologies, p. 49.

626

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario •

more closely reflects the Latin by expanding æt ðe (‘from you’) to ðinum handum (‘from your hands’).

Finally, in Esto consentiens aduersario, he • • • • •

Returns to using gif (‘if’), willan + ofgan (‘[I] will hold you’), and æt þe his blod (‘his blood from you’); Uses nelt + infinitive (e.g., secgan [‘to say’]) instead of ne + present subjunctive with future force (secge [‘you should tell’]); Replaces gestandan (‘reprove’) with gerihtlæcan (‘correct’); Adds additional descriptors (‘unrihtwisan wer’ [‘unrighteous man’] and ‘him sylfum’ [‘himself’]) perhaps for emphasis; and Inverts secgan (‘say’) and unrihtwisnysse (‘unrighteousness’).

Next, turning to the New Testament, Ælfric quotes a verse from Paul, whom he calls the þeoda lareow (‘teacher of the nations’) nearly thirty times in his works – though once he speaks perhaps fondly of Bede as the engla ðeoda lareow (‘teacher of the English people’).93 The passage is one Ælfric had cited in SH II.15, where somewhat previously in the period ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010)94 he had likewise spoken of the need for teachers to instruct and correct. 2 Timothy 4.2

SH II.1595

Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), lines 226–9

‘Praedica uerbum; insta oportune inportune. Argue obsecra increpa in omni patientia et doctrina’.

Argue, obsecra, increpa, in omni patientia et doctrina: þrea ðu and bide, cid mid geðylde, on ealre lare to lifes bebodum.

‘Boda þu Godes word bealdlice mannum ægðer ge gedafenlice ge ungedafenlice; þrea and bide; cid eac mid wordum on eallum geþylde and on ealre lare ’.

‘Preach the Word. Work zealously when it is fitting and when it is unfitting. Reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine’.

Reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine: ‘Reprove and entreat, rebuke with patience, in all doctrine’ in accordance with the commandments of life.

‘Preach God’s Word boldly to men both when it is fitting and when it is unfitting. Reprove and entreat; rebuke too with commands in all patience and in all doctrine’.

In SH II.15, Ælfric omits the first part of the verse, but reproduces the remainder both in Latin and Old English. He uses mid (‘with’) to introduce geðylde (‘patience’), moves ‘in all’ to modify ‘doctrine’, and adds a final phrase (to lifes bebodum) which his audience may or may not have taken as part of the biblical quotation. In Esto consentiens aduersario, Ælfric omits the Latin, but supplies a fairly close translation of the whole, departing from SH II.15 primarily by dropping its final phrase and by glossing cidan (‘rebuke’, a new verb in this homily) as correction that is verbal (mid wordum). As elsewhere when Ælfric touches on this topic, he is addressing not simply clergy who will follow his pedagogical example: he has explicitly acknowledged the laity as part 93 94 95

CH II.10, lines 3–4 (Godden, Second Series, p. 81). See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 90. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 295, lines 170–2.

627

Commentary: Esto consentiens aduersario of his audience, after all [lines 76–7]. Instead, he implicitly underscores the importance of preaching for speaker and hearer both, those charged with giving correction and those in need of it. He encourages them, moreover, that they will not be alone in their efforts: God getiðige (‘grants’) teachers the opportunity and ability to convey his doctrine [line 230], and listeners the ability to put that doctrine into practice [line 232]. For further remarks regarding God’s assistance in the process of change, see lines 192–3 above, as well perhaps as line 204, if mid governs the preceding verbs (the obedient shun vices, live rightly, desire good, and so on, ‘by means of’ the Lord) rather than modifying speda (the eternal ‘treasures’ that are ‘with’ the Lord). Save for changes to þ/ð and e/i, and the addition of his in line 224 [cf. Letter, line 303], lines 217–32 directly parallel Letter to Wulfgeat, lines 296–311.96 Line 233 [se ðe leofað and rixað a to worulde, Amen]: The closing formula is identical to one toward the end of Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard;97 it is echoed, however, by Ælfric’s earlier praise of the One þe leofað a on ecnysse (‘who lives always into eternity’ [line 204]). For variations on both phrases, see notes to Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9), line 298. Aside from one þ/ð variation, line 233 is identical to Letter to Wulfgeat, line 312.98

96 97 98

Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 12. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 229, line 887. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 12.

628

12

MENN BEHOFIAÐ GODRE LARE Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (‘People Need Good Teaching’) is a short sermon that argues for the necessity of good teachers and good instruction if Christians are to remain steadfast in their faith in the Last Days when the Antichrist will arrive. Like Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), the sermon is for an unspecified occasion and a late work that reuses earlier material. As best we can tell, sometime between about 1006 and 1010, Ælfric decided to replace an earlier, nearly identical sermon on the subject with Menn Behofiað.1 He had written the earlier sermon, Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (‘Lay People Need Good Teaching’ [Appendix 1]), between 1002 and 1005. It consisted of an excerpt on good teaching and the end times from the vernacular preface to the First Series of Catholic Homilies written in 9912 and a new alliterative sentence that served as a conclusion. Then, between about 1006 and 1010, as he was revising and enlarging the First Series for a set of homilies that did not include its Latin and Old English prefaces, he decided that a sermon like Læwede Menn would make an appropriate pendant to his sermon for the first Sunday of Advent (CH I.39), shifting as it does the text’s focus to Christ’s second advent on Judgment Day. But rather than simply append Læwede Menn to the Advent sermon, he used a different version of the same excerpt from the preface that he apparently had augmented some years earlier,3 likely between 991 and about 998, since the two brief additions are in ordinary prose.4 To the augmented excerpt, Ælfric added the final alliterative sentence from Læwede Menn to conclude the composite Advent homily, which we have edited below as Et hoc scientes tempus (‘And [do] this knowing the time’ [Appendix 2]). Finally, during this same period, he was also reproducing a group of short texts that included Læwede Menn, but he appears to have replaced the earlier homily with the pendant of the Advent homily now extracted as the independent piece, Menn Behofiað Godre Lare. 1 2 3 4

This paragraph summarizes the chronology presented in the introduction to the commentary below. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 71. Pope observes that ‘Ælfric did not insert the additions [to the preface preserved in Menn Behofiað] into all of his copies [of the preface] when he made the adaptation’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 60 n. 1). Pope notes that ‘[s]ince Ælfric normally inserts rhythmic additions into his early plain prose, I should suppose that the additions [AH II.12, lines 14 (Ðonne) – 16 (afylled), and lines 42 (Be þam cwæð) – 46 (forwyrde)] had been made at an early date, before the preface had been adapted for another use by omitting the personal beginning and substituting the new conclusion [as in Læwede Menn Behofiað]’ (Homilies, vol. I, p. 60 n. 1). For ca 998 as a terminus ante quem for Ælfric’s regular prose compositions, see below, p. 641 n. 4. For commentary on the revisions, see notes to lines 14–16 and 34–47.

629

Introduction: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare In Menn Behofiað, Ælfric causally links good teaching and steadfast belief to encourage Christians to bear up under affliction during the last age of the world between Christ’s Resurrection and Second Coming. He is particularly concerned with the tribulation that will accompany the arrival of the Antichrist in the Last Days [lines 2–9]. Good teaching, he argues, will strengthen the faithful and make the persecution easier to endure [lines 10–12]. Likewise, foreknowledge of the coming persecution equips believers with understanding, presumably so that they will not be dismayed, discouraged, or disqualified should they suffer [lines 46–7]. Between these bookends underscoring the strength and wisdom of the well-taught, the core of the sermon [lines 12–46] teaches about the Antichrist, for which Ælfric generally draws on received traditions rather than a specific source or sources.5 The Antichrist, he says, will be a human who is born of fornication and demon possessed; a miracle-worker who claims to be God; an oppressor who compels apostasy through wickedness; and a deceiver and illusionist who seems to call down fire from heaven. A brief coda follows wherein he turns from a demonstration of good teaching to a defense of good teachers, of whom, he laments, there are too few [lines 48–57]. He quotes God’s commands to Ezekiel and Isaiah to preach and call the wicked to repentance to explain why teachers must teach, and he closes by linking sound instruction and steadfast belief for a final time: ‘we secgað eow þas lare þæt ge æfre gelyfan on þone ælmihtigan God, se þe ealle gesceafta gesceop þurh hys mihte’ (‘we declare this teaching to you so that you may always believe in the almighty God who created all things by his power’ [lines 58–60]). With this declaration, Ælfric not only enacts the faithful preaching he describes but also encourages the faithful with the reminder that the Creator God in whom they believe is sovereign over all created things, even the Antichrist.6 In the context of the preface to the Catholic Homilies, the excerpt that became Menn Behofiað functioned as Ælfric’s rationale for writing the First and Second Series.7 That is, because people need good teaching and because he is obligated as a teacher to provide it, he writes the Catholic Homilies. In Menn Behofiað, the need for good teaching and the obligation of teachers to provide it is a rationale unto itself that serves as an apologetic for Christian instruction and belief. It is unknown what prompted him initially to excerpt the preface for Læwede Menn, but his composition of Et hoc scientes tempus and Menn Behofiað confirms the continued utility of a sermon on good teaching and the end times.8 His work on the three sermons ca 1006 coincides with the growing internal unrest among England’s governing class and external threats from the Danes,9 as well as with his work on four other sermons that defend a preacher’s duty to call people to repentance.10 The 5

6 7 8 9 10

For an instance where a contemporary source may have influenced Ælfric to reject a ‘current but questioned view’ (Godden, Commentary, p. 6) of the Antichrist’s origins that he had expressed in Læwede Menn Behofiað, see notes to lines 14–16. For Ælfric’s repeated assertions that God is sovereign over the Antichrist, see lines 18–19, 22–4, 25–7, 30–1, and 40–2. For the passage in the preface, see Clemoes, First Series, pp. 174–6, lines 57 (menn) – 119 (bebodum). For the dating, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 116. For commentary on the revisions, see notes to lines 14–16 and 34–47. On the upheaval, see the Introductions to AH II.9 and 11. The four sermons are: (1) the sermon for the Second Sunday after Easter [CH I.17, augmented]

630

Introduction: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare attention he pays to these works may be indicative of his worry that a dearth of solid teaching and faithful teachers would have grave consequences for the security of the nation and the salvation of its people.11 Both Menn Behofiað and Et hoc scientes tempus are preserved in manuscripts whose ancestry can be traced to Ælfric. In its current state, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178 [R1], which contains Menn Behofiað,12 is a collection of homilies and shorter works by Ælfric copied near Worcester in the first half of the eleventh century. Mary Clayton regards the shorter works as later accretions and argues convincingly that R1’s twenty-five sermons (thirteen for delivery quando volueris, twelve for delivery on specific days) preserve the remnants of a now lost R-type collection that Ælfric assembled sometime after 1006.13 According to her analysis, Menn Behofiað was the only sermon Ælfric added to a group of twelve quando volueris sermons that he had assembled at an earlier stage and then paired with an equivalent number of sermons for specific occasions.14 Ælfric’s willingness to alter the symmetry of two books of twelve sermons perhaps testifies to the importance he attached to the piece. At least two Worcester bishops seem to have concurred, and one if not both put Menn Behofiað to use. Archbishop Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York (1002–23), knew Læwede Menn and Menn Behofiað, and used one of the sermons as a source for each of his longer eschatological homilies on the Antichrist.15 St Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester from 1062 to 1095, had Menn Behofiað copied into his ecclesiastical handbook. It was added to Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 [T3]16 as the one quando uolueris homily in a booklet of four other vernacular homilies for specific occasions.17 Neil Ker raises the possibility that Hemming, a Worcester monk and sub-prior of the cathedral priory who assembled an important collection of the see’s charters and records,18 wrote a portion of one of the homilies.19 If so, as was the case with his cartulary, Hemming may have been copying and assembling the booklet of homilies

11 12 13 14 15

16

17

18 19

(Clemoes, First Series, pp. 313–6 and 535–42); (2) the sermon for the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost [SH II.15] (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 531–41); (3) Sermon of the Feast-day of a Confessor [AH II.9]; (4) Esto consentiens aduersario [AH II.11]. Ælfric’s Sermon on Judgment Day [SH II.18] (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 590–609) represents a fifth possibility if the work dates to ca 1005 (Godden, ‘Relations’, p. 370) rather than ca 998–1002 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 89). On this topic, see Upchurch, ‘Big Dog Barks’. Ker §41A.11; Gneuss and Lapidge §54.11; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 228–9. Clayton, ‘Ælfric’s De auguriis’, p. 390, and for the dating, p. 388. Clayton, ‘Ælfric’s De auguriis’, pp. 389–90. Godden, Commentary, p. 4, where he notes that Wulfstan used Læwede Menn Behofiað as a source in Bethurum 4 and Menn Behofiað in Bethurum 5. Wulfstan likely encountered Læwede Menn Behofiað in Hatton 115 [P1] and Menn Behofiað in an R-type collection, though not in R1 itself (Clayton, ‘Ælfric’s De auguriis’, p. 388). For Wulfstan’s shorter homilies on the Antichrist, one Latin and one in English, see Bethurum 1a–b (Lionarons, Homiletic Writings, p. 49). Ker §338.34; Gneuss and Lapidge §644.34; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 231–2. T3 is the companion volume to St Wulfstan’s homiliary, which was copied contemporaneously at Worcester and is preserved in two volumes, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 113 [T1] and 114 [T2]. Robinson, ‘Self-Contained Units’, p. 235. For the sequence, see Ker §338.31–5, where Menn Behofiað (item 34) follows sermons for the first and second Sundays of Advent and Easter, and precedes that for Mary’s Assumption. Mason, ‘Hemming’. Ker §338, p. 417, where the sermon in question is that for Easter (item 33).

631

Introduction: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare at St Wulfstan’s direction.20 Even if not, the presence of Menn Behofiað in the bishop’s book likely attests to the utility that this zealous preacher saw in the eschatological homily’s compact defense of good teachers, good teaching, and steadfast faith. As mentioned above, Ælfric included Et hoc scientes tempus for the first Sunday of Advent in an enlarged version of the First Series that he was revising around 1006 to 1010.21 And though his archetype of this final phase does not survive, a ‘very faithful’22 copy of it is preserved in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188 [Q],23 a manuscript written at an unknown center in the first half of the eleventh century, probably after his death ca 1010. Q demonstrates that the augmented Advent sermon was one of two new homilies he added at this stage,24 and as was the case in the original issue of the First Series, Et hoc scientes tempus appears in calendar order as the penultimate temporale sermon followed by that for the second Sunday in Advent (CH I.40). Yet Ælfric further expanded the series by adding his Sermon for the Feast-day of a Confessor (AH II.9) and, possibly, his Sermon on Judgment Day, the Sermo die iudicii (SH II.18).25 If he was responsible for adding both, then he created a run of four homilies notably concentrated on God’s judgment. On the first Sunday of Advent, Et hoc scientes tempus features the hardships that will herald God’s final damnation of evildoers; Judgment Day is likewise the ‘major concern’26 of the sermon for the second Sunday of Advent and the sole subject of the Sermo de die iudicii; the confessor homily concentrates on the judgments God doles out day-to-day. The three homilies that focus on the end times also have in common a call for preachers to correct the sins of their flocks, a feature also shared by what is perhaps the most strident address of Ælfric’s career, the revised version of the sermon for the Second Sunday after Easter (CH I.17). This sermon and his confessor homily, moreover, seem to register personal reactions to current political crises and are directed toward the royal counsellors and ruling class. It may be that Ælfric expected Q to be used in an important urban see where this audience might gather, such as Winchester, Canterbury, or Worcester.27 Taken together, these factors would seem to justify viewing his deployment of the composite homily in a sequence focused on God’s judgment as a reflex of his pastoral distress.

20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27

Keynes, ‘Hemming’. Kleist Chronology and Canon, p. 36, where he identifies this phase of the First Series as ε4. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61. Ker §43.43; Gneuss and Lapidge §58.43; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 227–8. The other sermon Ælfric composed for this recension is Sermo in natale unius confessoris (Ker §43.45), which is edited above as AH II.9 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 34 n. 179). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 61, where he expresses confidence that Q’s archetype included the confessor homily but is unsure about the sermon on Judgment Day. Though now erased, the title and incipit of the Sermo de die iudicii indicate that the homily once followed (Ker §44.46), but it is impossible to determine if other items followed in Q. Godden, Commentary, p. 329. Upchurch, ‘Big Dog Barks’, pp. 527–9.

632

menn behofiað godre lar

PEOPLE NEED GOOD TEACHING

MENN BEHOFIAÐ GODRE LARE De anticristo

5

10

Menn behofiað godre lare and swiðost nu on þisum timan, þe is geendung þissere worulde, and beoð fela frecednyssa on mancynne ær þam þe se ende beo, swa swa ure Drihten on his godspelle cwæð to hys leorningcnihtum, ‘“Þonne beoð swylce gedrecednyssa swylce næron næfre ær fram frymðe middaneardes. Manega lease cristas cumað on minum naman cweþende, ‘Ic eom Crist’, and wyrcað fela ta[c]na and wundra to bepæcanne mancynn and eac swylce þa gecorenan menn gif hit gewurðan mæg, and butan se ælmihtiga God þa dagas gescyrte, eall mennisc forwurde, ac for hys gecorenum he gescyrt[e] þa dagas”’. Gehwa mæg þe eaþelicor þa toweardan costnunge acuman þurh Godes fultum gif he bið þurh boclice lareowas getrymed, for þam þe þa beoð gehealdene þe oð ende on geleafan þurhwuniað. Fela gedrecednyssa and earfoðnyssa becumað on þissere worulde ær hyre geendunge, and þa synd þa bydelas þæs ecan forwyrdes on yfelum mannum, þe for heora mandædum syððan ecelice þrowiað on þære sweartan helle. Ðonne cymð Text from: R1 Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178, pp. 134–137 (s. xi1, probably Worcester, provenance Worcester [Gneuss and Lapidge §54]) [CH I phase ε4b] Varients from (arranged in order of composition): K Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28, fols 1v–2v (s. x/xi, possibly Cerne; provenance Durham), as edited by Clemoes, First Series, pp. 174–6, lines 56 (For) – 119 (bebodum): the preface to the First Series of Catholic Homilies from which Menn Behofiað Godre Lare was adapted [CH I phase γ4] P1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, fols 99v–101v (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester): Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare [CH I phase ε1] [edited below in Appendix 1] Q Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188, pp. 87–96 (s. xi1, perhaps xi2/4, provenance Hereford Cathedral? [Gneuss and Lapidge §58]): Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (begins in Q on p. 92, line 24) as incorporated into CH I.39 [CH I phase ε4a] T3 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121, fols 154v–157r (s. xi3/4, Worcester): Menn Behofiað Godre Lare [CH I phase ε4b] 1 De anticristo] Alia P1  2 Menn] For ðisum antimbre ic gedyrstlæhte on gode truwiende þæt ic ðas gesetnysse undergann. and eac for ðam ðe menn … K; Læwede menn P1 and] omitted KP1 nu] omitted KP1  3 beo] becume KP1QT3  4 cwæð to hys leorningcnihtum] to his leorningcnihtum cwæð P1  5 gedreccednyssa] frecednesse T3  6 ta[c]na] taena, with ‘ae’ written in a different hand (over erasure?) R1; tacna KP1QT3  9 gescyrt[e]] gescyrt:, with final letter erased R1; gescyrte P1; gescyrtte Q; gescyrt T3 þa] his T3  11 lareowas] lare KP1QT3  12 gedrecednyssa] gedrefednessa T3  13 synd] syndon T3  14 cymð] bið T3

634

PEOPLE NEED GOOD TEACHING Concerning the Antichrist

5

10

People need good teaching and most of all now at this time, which is the end of this world, for there will be many dangers among mankind before the end comes, just as our Lord said in his Gospel to his disciples, ‘“At that time there will be such afflictions as have never been from the beginning of the world. Many false christs will come in my name saying, ‘I am Christ’, and will work many signs and wonders to deceive mankind and the elect too if it can happen, and unless almighty God shortened those days, all mankind would have perished, but he has shortened those days for his elect”’. Everyone will the more easily be able to endure the impending tribulation with God’s help if he is strengthened by learned teachers, because those who persevere in faith until the end will be preserved. Many afflictions and hardships will come into this world before its end, and they are the heralds of eternal destruction among evil people, who afterwards will suffer eternally in dark hell for their evil deeds. Then will come the

635

Text: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare 15

20

25

30

35

40

45

se Antecrist, se bið mennisc man and soð deofol. He bið begyten mid forligere of were and of wife, and he bið mid deofles gaste afylled. And se gesewenlica deofol þonne wyrcð ungerime wundra,  |  and cwyð þæt he sylf beo /God\, and wyle neadian mancynn to hys gedwylde. Ac hys tima ne bið na langsum for þam þe Godes grama hyne fordeð, and þeos woruld bið syððan geendad. Crist ure Drihten gehælde untrume and adlige, and þes deofol þe is gehaten Antecrist, þæt /is\ gereht ‘þwyrlic Crist’, alefað and geuntrumað þa halan and nænne ne gehælð fram untrumnyssum butan þam anum þe he ær awyrde sylf. He and hys gingran awyrdað manna lichaman digollice þurh deofles cræft and gehælað hi openlice on manna gesihðe, ac he ne mæg nænne gehælan þe God sylf ær geuntrumade. He neadað þurh yfelnysse þæt menn sceolan bugan fram heora Scyppendes geleafan to hys leasungum, se þe is ord ælcere leasunge and yfelnysse. Se ælmihtiga God geþafað þam arleasan Antecriste to wyrcenne tacna and wundra and ehtnysse to feorðan healfan geare, forðon þe on þam timan byð swa mycel yfelnyss and þwyrnys betwuhs mancynne þæt hy wel wyrðe beoð þære deoflican ehtnysse to ecum forwyrde þam þe hym to bugað and to ecere myrhðe þam þe hym þurh geleafan wiðcweðað. God geþafað eac þæt hys gecorenan þegnas beon aclænsode fram eallum synnum þurh þa ormætan ehtnysse swa swa gold bið on fyre afandod. Þa oslyhð se deofol þe hym wiðstandað, and hi þonne /farað\ mid halgum martyrdome to heofonrice. Þa þe hys leasungum gelyfað þam he arað, and hy habbað syððan þa ecan susle to edleane heora gedwyldes. Se arleasa deð þæt fyr cymð ufan swylce of heofonum on manna gesihðe swylce he God ælmihtig sy þe ah geweald heofonan and eorþan. Ac þa Cristenan sceolon beon gemyndige hu se deofol dyde þa þa he bæd æt Gode þæt he moste fandian Iobes. He gemacode þa þæt fyr com ufan swylce  |  of heofonum and forbærnde ealle his sceap ute on felda and þa hyrdas samod, butan anum þe hyt hym cyðan sceolde. Ne sende na se deofol þa fyr of heofonum, þeah ðe hyt ufan come, for þon þe he sylf næs on heofonum syððan he for hys modignysse of aworpen wæs. Ne eac se wælhreowa Antecrist næfð [þa] mihte þæt he heofonlic fyr asendan mæge, þeah þe he þurh deofles cræft hyt swa gehywige. Be þam cwæð se apostol Paulus, þæt se Antecrist wyrcð mid bedyderunge and gedwymore þas wundra, swa þeah on Godes geþafunge, forþam Iudeiscum þe noldan underfon Crist, þe is Soðfæstnyss, hym to alysednysse þæt hy underfon þone leasan Antecrist and hy his gedwyldum gelyfan hym sylfum to forwyrde. Bið nu wislicor þæt gehwa þis wite and cunne hys geleafan weald hwa þa micclan yrmðe gebidan sceole.

15 se] omitted T3  15–16 deofol. He bið … gaste afylled] deofol swa swa ure hælend is soðlice mann and god on anum hade KP1  16 of] omitted T3  17 beo /God\] god beo KP1QT3  19 woruld] weofuld T3  20 þæt /is\ gereht] þæt is gereht KP1QT3 þwyrlic Crist] contrarius christo T3  21 gehælð] omitted T3  22 ær awyrde sylf] sylf ær awyrde KP1QT3  24 ær geuntrumade] ær awyrde and geuntrumode T3  28 betwuhs] betwux AP1Q; betwixt T3  29 bugað] onbugað KP1  31 oslyhð] ofo/f\slyhð, with ‘of’ written at end of line and ‘o/f\slyhð’ at the beginning of the next line R1; ofslihð KP1T3; ofsllylhð Q  32 heofonrice] heofonan rice KP1Q; heofona rice T3  34 swylce of heofonum] swylce hit of heofone cume T3  35 heofonan] heofenas K; heofonas P1  38 ute] ut KP1QT3 hym] omitted T3  39 na] omitted KP1 þa] þæt T3  41 [þa]] he over erasure R1; þa KP1QT3  42–6 Be þam cwæð … to forwyrde] omitted KP1  43 gedwymore] gedweomere T3  45 hy2] omitted T3  47 micclan] omitted P1 gebidan sceole] gebide T3 

636

p. 135

p. 136

Text: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare 15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Antichrist, who is a human being and a true devil. He will be conceived by the fornication of a man and a woman, and he will be filled with the spirit of the devil. And the visible devil will at that time work countless wonders, and say that he is God, and will desire to compel mankind to his heresy. But his time will not be long because God’s anger will destroy him, and this world will afterwards be ended. Christ our Lord healed the sick and diseased, and the devil called the Antichrist, which means ‘perverse Christ’, will enfeeble and sicken the healthy and heal none from sickness except the ones whom he previously injured. He and his followers will secretly injure people’s bodies through the power of the devil and heal them publicly in the sight of people, but he cannot heal anyone whom God previously afflicted. He will compel people through wickedness to turn from faith in their Creator to his lies, he who is the source of every lie and wicked act. Almighty God will allow the impious Antichrist to work signs and wonders and persecution for three and a half years, because in that time there will be such great wickedness and perversity among mankind that they will be well-deserving of diabolical persecution to the eternal destruction of those who submit to him and to the eternal joy of those who with faith reject him. God will also allow his chosen thegns to be purified from all sins through heavy persecution just as gold is tried by fire. At that time the devil will kill those who oppose him, and through holy martyrdom they will then go to the kingdom of heaven. Those who believe his lies he will honor, and afterwards they will have eternal torment as a reward for their error. The impious one will cause fire to come from above as if from heaven in the sight of people as if he were God Almighty who has control of heaven and earth. But at that time Christians must be mindful of how the devil acted when he asked God to be allowed to try Job. He then caused fire to come from above as if from heaven and burned up all his sheep out in the field and the shepherds as well, except one to make it known to him. The devil did not send that fire from heaven, though it came from above, because he was not in heaven after he was cast out on account of his pride. Nor does the cruel Antichrist have the power to be able to send heavenly fire, though he may make it appear so through the devil’s power. Concerning this, the apostle Paul said that the Antichrist will work these miracles with deceit and illusion, although with God’s permission, on account of the Jews who would not accept Christ, who is the Truth, as their redemption so that they should accept the impious Antichrist and believe his falsehoods to their own destruction. Now it will be wiser for everyone to know this and have an understanding of his faith in case anyone should suffer great misery.

637

Text: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare

50

55

60

Ure Drihten bebead hys discipulum þæt hi sceoldan læran and tæcan eallum þeodum þa þing þe he sylf him tæhte, ac þ/æ\ra is nu to lyt þe wel wille tæcan and wel wille bysnian. Se ylca Drihten clypode þurh his witegan Ezechiel, ‘“Gif þu ne gestendst þone unrihtwisan and hyne ne manast þæt he fram hys arleasnysse gecyrre and lybbe, þonne swylt se arleasa on hys arleasnysse, and Ic wylle ofgan æt þe hys blod”’, þæt is hys lyre. ‘“Gif þu þonne þone arleasan gewarnast and he nele fram hys unrihte gecyrran, þu alys[d]est þine sawle mid þære mynegunge, and se arleasa swylt on hys unrihtwisnysse”’. Eft cwæð se ælmihtiga God to þam witegan Isaiam, ‘“Clypa and ne geswic þu, ahefe þine stemne swa swa byme and cyð minum folce heora leahtras and Iacobes hirede heora synna”’. For swylcum bebodum, we secgað eow þas lare þæt ge æfre gelyfan on þone ælmihtigan God, se þe ealle gesceafta gesceop þurh hys mihte, þam sy  |  wyrðmynt and wuldor a to worulde, Amen.

49 þ/æ\ra] ‘æ’ in a different hand above erasure R1; þara T3 is nu] nu is T3 wel wille1] wyle wel P1 wel wille2] wel KP1; omitted T3  50 clypode] cwæþ T3 gestendst] gestentst KP1QT3  51 gecyrre] gecyre, with letter (not ‘r’) between ‘r’ and ‘e’ erased Q  52 arleasnysse] unrihtwisnysse KP1QT3 ofgan æt þe] æt /þe of\gan T3  53 unrihte] arleasnysse KP1QT3 alys[d]est] alys:est, with letter erased; alysdest KP1QT3  55 God] omitted KP1  56 hirede] hiredes, with ‘s’ erased R1; hirde T3  61 wyrðmynt and wuldor] wuldor and lof P1QT3

638

p. 137

Text: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare

50

55

60

Our Lord commanded his disciples to instruct and teach all people the things that he taught, but there are now too few who desire to teach well and desire to set a good example. The same Lord declared through his prophet Ezekiel, ‘“If you do not oppose the wicked and exhort him to turn from his impiety and live, then the impious one will die in his impiety, and I will require from you his blood”’, which is his loss [of life]. ‘“If you then warn the impious one and he does not desire to turn from his wrongful behavior, you will save your soul with that warning, and the impious one will die in his wickedness”’. Another time almighty God said to the prophet Isaiah, ‘“Cry out and do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet and make known to my people their vices and to Jacob’s household their sins”’. On account of such commands, we declare to you this teaching so that you may always believe in the almighty God who created all created things by his power, to whom be honor and glory eternally, Amen.

639

MENN BEHOFIAÐ GODRE LARE

COMMENTARY Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12)1 is one of four interrelated works: 1. The source: Ælfric’s Old English preface to CH I, surviving in Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28 [K], fols 1v–2v [Ker §15.2]; 2. The original homily: Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12, Appendix 1), surviving in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1], fols 99v–101v [Ker §332.28]; 3. The composite homily: Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2), surviving in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188 [Q], pp. 87–96 [Ker §43.43], as part of CH I.39; and 4. The revised homily: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), surviving in a. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 [T3], fols 154v–157r [Ker §338.34], where it follows slightly after a copy of CH I.39,2 and b. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178 [R1], pp. 134–7 [Ker §41A.12]. As best we can tell, the development of these texts proceeded as follows:

1 2

The title here reflects the opening of the text in R and T, though it is entitled De anticristo in R. Fols 138r–142r [Ker §338.31].

640

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare 9911/2 Ælfric composes the prefaces to CH I, including lines 56 (For) – 119 (bebodum) of the Old English preface [K];3 Between 9911/2 and ca 998 Before he fully adopts his alliterative style, Ælfric inserts two additions in ordinary prose – AH II.12, lines 14 (Ðonne) – 16 (afylled), and lines 42 (Be þam cwæð) – 46 (forwyrde) – in a now-lost copy of the prefaces.4 This augmented form of CH I.pref.57 (menn) – 119 (bebodum)5 will form all but the last line of Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12); Between [A] 1002 and [B] Ælfric extracts the earlier, unaugmented form of CH I.pref.57– later in the period 1002 × 16 119 and adds a final, alliterative sentence to create Læwede November 1005 [CH I phase ε1] Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12, Appendix 1) [P1]; ca 1005–6 [CH I Phase ε3] Ælfric composes Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8) – a text which, along with his newly-composed Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2) and AH II.9, will appear in MS Q – for phase ε3 during the year intervening between Ælfric’s First Latin Letter for Wulfstan (Fehr 2) and his First Old English Letter for Wulfstan (Fehr II);6

3 4

5 6

Clemoes, First Series, pp. 174–6. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 60 n. 1. Godden writes that ‘After the CH, [Ælfric’s alliterative prose] next appears in the narrative parts of the LS collection, but then became his standard style for all writing’ (Commentary, p. xxxvii). Within the LS, Pope (Lives, vol. I, p. 116 n. 4) identifies the following as examples of ordinary prose: [1] LS I.1 (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 22–40; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, pp. 10–24), [2] II.11 [Skeat I.12] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 2, §1, lines 1–14, printed as alliterative prose; p. 4, §2.1, line 1 – p. 14, §2.12, line 5; p. 20, §4, lines 1–12; and p. 22, §5, line 22 – §6, line 3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 260, line 1 – p. 262, line 15; p. 262, line 33 – p. 274, line 180; p. 280, lines 254–67; and p. 282, lines 289–94); [3] II.15 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 88, §1.1, line 4 (An ælmihtig) – §1.3, line 10; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 336, line 1 – p. 338, line 35); [4] II.16 [Skeat I.17] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 118, §1.1, line 1 – p. 122, §2, line 2; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 364, line 1 – p. 366, line 48); [5] II.17 [Skeat I.18] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 140, lines 1–11, printed as alliterative prose; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 384, lines 1–11, ‘gradually becoming [rhythmically] regular’); [6] III.29 [II.32] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 186, §1, lines 1–12; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 314, lines 1–12); [7] III.31 [Skeat II.35] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 236, lines 1–5, printed as alliterative prose; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 378, lines 1–5); and [8] III.32 [Skeat II.36] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, §2, p. 264, line 1 – p. 266, line 5, printed as alliterative prose; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 400, lines 13–17). While the references above indicate that debate over the regular versus alliterative nature of some of these lines continues, in temporal terms, all fall into the same range: LS I.1, II.11, and II.15–16 are all datable to the middle of the period ca 993 × ca 998, while LS II.17, III.29, and III.31–2 date to later in the period ca 993 × ca 998 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 137 and 280). Pope also describes AH I.10 (previously Brotanek 1) as ‘another homily of the immediate sort’ that combines regular and alliterative prose (our lines 1–8 and 43–186; and 9–42, respectively). He dates the homily to ‘soon after the completion of [CH] II’ (Lives, vol. I, p. 141 n. 1), that is, earlier in the period ca 993 × ca 998 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 114 and n. 141, and 279); Clemoes, however, places it between ca 998 × 1002 (‘Chronology’, pp. 51, 54, and 56). Ca 998 would thus seem a reasonable terminus ante quem for Ælfric’s regular style, with the allowance that ca 998 × 1002 might also be a possiblity. While Ælfric will ultimately extract CH I.pref.57 (menn) – 119 (bebodum), the complete sentence with which the extract begins starts with CH I.pref.56 (For). See Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 299 n. 172 and pp. 301–2 n. 217.

641

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) [CH I In the course of revising the First Series, for a set that did Phase ε4, Stage 4a] not include the prefaces,7 Ælfric takes the augmented form of CH I.pref.57–119 and adds the final alliterative sentence from Læwede Menn (AH II.12, Appendix 1) – effectively revising Læwede Menn to become Menn Behofiað (AH II.12) – and then appends the new text to CH I.39 to create Et hoc scientes tempus (AH II.12, Appendix 2), including it in Q along with AH I.8 and his newly-composed AH II.9; ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) [CH I Reproducing a group of short items8 found also in P [CH I Phase ε4, Stage 4b] Phase ε1], Ælfric replaces Læwede Menn with Menn Behofiað, retaining the revisions he made in Q [CH I Phase ε4a] but offering Menn Behofiað as an independent text [R1]; ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010) [CH I Ælfric continues to copy Menn Behofiað, with R serving as one Phase ε4, Stage 4b]9 of the exemplars for T.10 

On the possible relationship of Menn Behofiað Godre Lare to Ælfric’s Commonplace materials, see Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, pp. 34–5. Line 1 [De anticristo]: At first blush, Ælfric’s affirmation that AH II.12 is ‘Concerning the Antichrist’ may seem in tension with the [editorial] title and opening line, which affirm that Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (‘People need good teaching’): after all, Ælfric makes no mention of the Antichrist proper until line 15 (where, under notes to lines 14–16, he is treated in detail). As he goes on to explain, however, it is the Antichrist, the lease cristas (‘false christs’ [line 5]), and the coming end of the world [lines 2–3] that furnish the reason for believers’ need for such instruction. Lines 2–3 [Menn behofiað … þyssere worulde]: It is not surprising that Ælfric’s opening contention here – that people behofiað godre lare (‘need good teaching’ or ‘orthodox 7 8 9

10

Even in Q’s original, not acephalous, state (Clemoes, First Series, pp. 36–7). De tribus ordinibus saeculi, Letter to Brother Edward, and De infantibus, as noted above. The argument here corrects that in Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 55–6 and n. 36, which associates T3’s copy of Menn Behofiað more with CH I phase ε3 than ε4b, and erroneously describes it as ‘the straightforward extract’ (i.e., the original homily, here printed as Læwede Menn [AH II.12, Appendix 1]) as opposed to ‘the augmented version’ (the revised homily, here printed as Menn Behofiað [AH II.12]). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 76–7. The sequence outlined here would nuance Clemoes’ position on Menn Behofiað in R1 and T3, which he dated either to phase ε3 or ε4 of CH I development. On the one hand, Clemoes says, Menn Behofiað in R1 and T3 might belong with ε3, since the text [Ker §41A.12 / 332.28] ‘is one of R’s group of short items some of which occur also in P’ (First Series, p. 119) – that is, De tribus ordinibus saeculi [§41A.14 / §332.11], Letter to Brother Edward [§41A.13 / §332.15], and De infantibus [§41A.15 / §332.14] (on which, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 145, 156–7, and 192). In this case, T3’s copy would be contemporary with its copy of CH I.39, which Clemoes assigns to ε3 because [A] its text corresponds to the type found in Q [ε4a] rather than to that in B [ε2] (First Series, p. 45; see also pp. 117 and 119), and [B] the fact that CH I.39 does not incorporate Menn Behofiað (AH II.12) suggests to Clemoes a stage earlier than Q [ε4a], which does incorporate Menn Behofiað. On the other hand, Clemoes states, Menn Behofiað in R1 and T3 might belong with ε4b ‘along with R’s other material’ (First Series, p. 119). Clemoes offered this choice having knowledge of Pope’s then-forthcoming edition (First Series, p. v), but both Pope’s understanding of T’s dependence on R and Clayton’s subsequent arguments about Ælfric’s R-type collection (see for example ‘Ælfric’s De auguriis’, pp. 377–84 and 389–90; and Two Ælfric Texts, p. 11 and n. 58) suggest that the copies of Menn Behofiað in T1 and T3 belong with phase ε4b, not ε3, of CH I transmission.

642

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare doctrine’ [line 2]) – should be one he repeats elsewhere in his corpus, as it is the central justification for his lifelong work: as Paul puts it, ‘quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt quomodo autem audient sine praedicante’ (‘How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching?’ [Romans 10.14]). This phrasing of the sentiment, however, may be confined to the Catholic Homilies. The expanded form of CH I.17 (between [A] 1002 and [B] later in the period 1002 × 16 November 1005) – present among other places in Q, wherein the revised form of Menn Behofiað Godre Lare appended to CH I.39 also appears – affirms that ‘Wel behofiað þa læwedan menn goddra lareowa symle’ (‘Laypersons always have abundant need of orthodox teachers’).11 CH I.19 teaches that people behofiað lare (‘need teaching’) to live, just as they need physical and spiritual bread (the Eucharist).12 CH II.3 underscores that ‘we behofiað þæt we wisra lareowa trahtnunga be ðisum ðingum understandan’ (‘we have need that we should understand the exposition of wise teachers about these [Scriptural] things’).13 And CH II.19 insists again that ‘Læwede menn behofiað. þæt him lareowas secgon. ða godspellican lare’ (‘Laypersons need for teachers to convey the Gospel doctrine to them’).14 Ælfric speaks of ‘geendung þissere worulde’ (‘the ending of this world’ [lines 2–3]) over seventy times in his writings. As regards the specific tima (‘time’ or ‘hour’ [line 2]) of the ending, he affirms with Christ that none but God the Father knows when it will occur (CH I.2115 and CH II.39;16 Matthew 24.36) – though, as he goes on to say in CH I.21, ‘be ðam tacnum þe crist sæde, we geseoð ðæt seo geendung is swiðe gehende’ (‘by the signs that Christ described’ – the frecednyssa and earfoðnyssa [‘dangers’ and ‘afflictions’, lines 3 and 12] Menn Behofiað Godre Lare will go on to discuss – ‘we see that the ending is very near at hand’).17 Lines 3–9 [and beoð … þa dagas]: As Godden notes,18 for this next section, Ælfric also has Matthew 24 in mind, where Jesus answers the disciples’ questions about ‘signum aduentus tui et consummationis saeculi’ (‘the sign[s] of your coming and the ending of the world’ [24.3]).

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Clemoes, First Series, Appendix B, p. 542, line 235. Clemoes, First Series, p. 332, lines 198 and 195. Godden, Second Series, p. 21, lines 76–8. Godden, Second Series, p. 180, lines 1–2. Clemoes, First Series, p. 347, lines 58–9. Godden, Second Series, p. 331, lines 120–1. Clemoes, First Series, p. 347, lines 60–1. Commentary, p. 6.

643

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare Matthew 24.5, 21–2, and 24–5

Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), lines 4–9

[24.5a] Multi enim uenient in nomine meo dicentes ego sum Christus [24.5b] et multos seducent … [24.21] erit enim tunc tribulatio magna qualis non fuit ab initio mundi usque modo neque fiet … [24.22] et nisi breuiati fuissent dies illi non fieret salua omnis caro sed propter electos breuiabuntur dies illi … [24.24a] surgent enim pseudochristi et pseudoprophetae [24.24b] et dabunt signa magna et prodigia [24.24c] ita ut in errorem inducantur si fieri potest etiam electi.

‘[24.21] Þonne beoð swylce gedreccednyssa swylce næron næfre ær fram frymðe middangeardes . [24.5a] Manega [24.24a] lease cristas [24.5a] cumað on minum naman cweþende, ‘Ic eom Crist’, [24.24b] and wyrcað fela tacna and wundra [24.5b] to bepæcenne mancynn [24.24c] and eac swylce þa gecorenan menn gif hit gewurðan mæg, [24.22] and butan se ælmihtiga God þa dagas gescyrte, eall mennisc forwurde, ac for hys gecorenum he gescyrte þa dagas.

[24.5a] For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am Christ’, [24.5b] and will lead many astray … [24.21] For then there will be great distress, such as there has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor will be [again] … [24.22] and unless those days had been made short, no one would be saved; but because of the elect, those days will be shortened … [24.24a] for there will arise false christs and false prophets, [24.24b] and they will perform great signs and wonders, [24.24c] so as to lead into error even the elect, if that were possible.

‘[24.21] Then there will be such afflictions as have never been from the beginning of the world . [24.5a] Many [24.24a] false christs [24.5a] will come in my name saying, “I am Christ”, [24.24b] and will work many signs and wonders [24.5b] to deceive mankind [24.24c] and the elect too if it can happen, [24.22] and unless almighty God should have shortened those days, all mankind would have perished, but for his elect he has shortened those days’.

In the main, Ælfric’s translation is faithful, though he adapts its source somewhat. Most obviously, he rearranges verses, quoting Matthew 24.21, 24a, 5a, 24b, 5b, 24c, and 22, in this order. In addition, he moves and deletes phrases: multi and pseudochristi from 24.5 and 24.24a become manega lease cristas (‘many false christs’ [line 5]), while usque modo neque fiet and et pseudoprophetae from 24.21 and 24.24a Ælfric omits. Furthermore, he clarifies and simplifies verb tenses, making explicit the agent of the divine passive in 24.22 (it is se ælmihtiga God [‘the Almighty God’, line 8] who will abbreviate these eschatological days) and turning the pluperfect and imperfect subjunctives of 24.22 (fuissent and fieret) into preterit subjunctives (gescyrte and forwurde). Lines 10–12 [Gehwa mæg … on geleafan þurhwuniað]: While Ælfric mentions variants of boclice lar (‘book-learning’, or perhaps ‘theological doctrine’ writ large) at least two dozen times in his writings, this is the only instance in his writings that boclice lareowas [line 11] occurs. The statement here that such teachers (and by extension their teaching) may strengthen believers to withstand the coming tribulation (þa toweardan costnunga [line 10]) is fairly unique, though the augmented CH I.17 does note that good shepherds or teachers (lareowas) must warn the flock against ða toweardan costnunga.19 For his next statement, Ælfric returns to Matthew, offering a fairly close translation of 24.13. The verse is one he quotes on a few other occasions as well, with slight variations: 19

Clemoes, First Series, p. 538, line 93. Costunga may here mean ‘temptations’ or ‘trials’, as it translates temptatio from Sirach 2.1, quoted in Latin immediately hereafter (p. 538, line 95); see also Modicum et iam non uidebitis me (AH I.5), line 129.

644

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare

Matthew 24.13

CH II.1920

CH II.3721

SH II.1822

Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), lines 11–12

Qui autem permanserit usque in finem, hic saluus erit.

Se ðe æfre ðurhwunað on anrædum geleafan , se bið gehealden.

… ac se ðe þurhwunað oð ende on geleafan, se bið gehealdene.

… ac þa beoð gehealdene þe þurhwuniað oð ende on Cristes geleafan …

… þe þa beoð gehealdene þe oð ende on geleafan þurhwuniað.

But he who perseveres until the end, he shall be saved.

He who perseveres in resolute faith, he shall be preserved.

… but he who perseveres to the end in faith, he shall be preserved.

… but they shall be preserved who persevere to the end in the faith of Christ …

… they shall be preserved who to the end in faith persevere.

While the form of the phrase may change – anrædum geleafan (‘resolute faith’) in CH II.19 or Cristes geleafan (‘faith of [or “in”] Christ’) in SH II.18 – Ælfric consistently clarifies that it is in the Christian faith that one must persevere to be saved, a message certainly in keeping with the overall context of Matthew 24. In the later two works, moreover, while he retains the sense of the verse, Ælfric shifts to the plural (‘they’ rather than ‘he’, encompassing all rather than an individual believer) and increasingly reorders the language: in both, condition (‘if one perseveres’) follows consequence (‘one shall be preserved’) rather than the reverse, while in AH II.12, the condition is so phrased that it emphasizes the final verb (not ‘persevere to the end’ but ‘to the end … persevere’). Lines 12–14 [Fela gedreccednyssa … sweartan helle]: Gedreccednyssa and earfoðnyssa (‘tribulations’ and ‘afflictions’ [line 12) are fairly common terms for Ælfric; variations appear some sixteen and seventy-five times, respectively, to describe both daily and eschatological hardships. Ælfric appears to use them in conjunction only here, however, and only here does either appear in reference to the endung (‘ending’ [line 13]) of the world; at the close of CH I.32, however, he does note that life for the righteous thereafter will be æfre ungeendod and buton gedrecednyssum (‘endless’ and ‘without tribulations’).23 The reference to gedreccednyssa and earfoðnyssa as bydelas (‘heralds’ or ‘preachers’ [line 13]) is likewise unique. Surprisingly, so are the expressions ecelice þrowiað (‘[sinners] will suffer eternally’ [line 14]) and sweart hell (‘dark’ or ‘evil hell’ [line 14]) – though of course the doctrine and imagery behind them is commonplace. For biblical references to eschatological tribulations, see for example Joel 2.30–1, Luke 21.10–11 and 25–6, 2 Timothy 3.1, 2 Peter 3.7, and Revelation 6.15–16; for references to eternal suffering in hell, see Isaiah 66.24; Matthew 10.28, 13.49–50, and 25.41–6; Luke 16.19–31; 2 Thessalonians 1.8–9; and Revelation 20.14–15 and 21.8. Lines 14–16 [Ðonne cymð … gaste afylled]: In these lines, we come to potentially the most theologically significant change Ælfric makes to his First Series preface. The 20 21 22 23

Godden, Second Series, p. 188, lines 268–9. Godden, Second Series, p. 313, lines 109–10. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 608, lines 391–2. Clemoes, First Series, p. 458, lines 224–5.

645

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare issue at hand is the nature of the Antichrist, a figure mentioned in the Bible either by name (1 John 2.18 and 22, 1 John 4.3, and 2 John 1.7) or by implication as one of the pseudochristi et pseudoprophetae (‘false christs and false prophets’ [Matthew 24.24 and 13.22]) or the filius perditionis (‘son of perdition’ [2 Thessalonians 2.3]) who will seek to deceive humans in the end times. Speaking broadly about the surrounding material on ‘the end of the world and the coming of Antichrist’, Godden states: ‘Ælfric’s account of Antichrist, here and again in [SH II.]18, reflects in general the tradition that had developed on this Biblical basis up to his time … but specific sources are hard to identify, and he seems at times not to share the orthodox view (see Pope, esp. p. 588)’.24 One hesitates, however, to infer a departure from orthodoxy from Pope’s comments. Discussing Ælfric’s treatment in the second half of SH II.18 of ‘Antichrist’s reign of terror and the extraordinary fortitude demanded of those who hope to be saved’, Pope says that this part ‘takes us back’ to the First Series preface (specifically, the material that becomes Menn Behofiað Godre Lare).25 He also states (on the aforementioned p. 588) that ‘what Ælfric says about Antichrist is hard to document’. Rather than suggesting that Ælfric is departing theologically from his sources, however, Pope appears simply to be pointing out that SH II.18 tends to paraphrase rather than quote verbatim. While at points Pope observes that ‘Ælfric is clearly following Jerome’s interpretation’ or ‘Ælfric’s own comment was stimulated in the first place by Bede [though] the original idea was Gregory’s’, for example, ultimately Pope concludes that ‘most of the details … are supplied from memory’ and ‘the greater part of this homily is a free and relatively simple exposition of the Gospels’.26 Line 74 of the First Series preface, however, replaced in Menn Behofiað Godre Lare by lines 14 (Ðonne cymð) –16 (gaste afylled), may indeed have been a point where Ælfric originally strayed from orthodox doctrine – though such is a matter of debate. In the preface, having described the Antichrist as mennisc mann and soð deofol (‘human man and true devil’), Ælfric compares him antithetically to Christ: the Antichrist will be human and demonic ‘swa swa ure hælend is soðlice mann and God on anum hade’ (‘even as our Savior is truly human and God in one person’).27 In a change that Clemoes,28 Pope,29 Godden,30 and Emmerson31 judge to be authorial, Menn Behofiað Godre Lare deletes this clause, saying rather that ‘he bið begyten mid forligere of were and of wife, and he bið mid deofles gaste afylled’ (‘[the Antichrist] will be conceived by the fornication of a man and a woman, and he will be filled with the spirit of the devil’ [lines 15–16]).32 For Emmerson, while the original ‘suggests that Ælfric may have thought of 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Commentary, p. 5. Pope also mentions Ælfric’s brief references in CH II.37 [Godden, Second Series, p. 312, line 80 (gyt bið) – p. 313, line 83 (dreccað); and p. 313, lines 107 (Þeos yfelnys) – 109 (acolod)] to the suffering that will come with the Antichrist’s advent (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 584). Homilies, vol. II, pp. 587–9. Clemoes, First Series, p. 175, lines 73–4. First Series, p. 36. Homilies, vol. I, p. 60 and n. 1. Commentary, p. 6. Antichrist, p. 151. Wulfstan repeats this line nearly verbatim in Bethurum 5: ‘[Antecrist] bið mennisc man geboren, ac he bið þeah mid deofles gaste eal afylled’ (‘[The Antichrist] will be born of a human man, but nevertheless he will entirely filled with the spirit of the devil’ [Homilies, p. 138, lines 66–8]).

646

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare Antichrist as the incarnation of the devil’, ‘his understanding of Antichrist’s nature is clarified’ by the alteration.33 Commenting on this study, Godden observes: ‘Emmerson suggests … that in making the change Ælfric was concerned only to clarify a view already expressed, if obliquely, in the First Series preface; it does seem to me[, however,] that a change of view is involved’.34 For Godden, the original reading seems to imply acceptance of a current but questioned view, that Antichrist would be the devil incarnate, as Christ was God incarnate, and would have a human mother but be fathered by the devil, just as Christ was born of a human mother and fathered by God … The rewritten form, found in QRT, affirms instead that Antichrist would be born in the normal fashion of human parents and presumably redefines his diabolic status as a matter of diabolic possession rather than something analogous to Christ’s divinity.35

This seems right. Ælfric carefully deletes a clause which has attractive symmetry – attributing to Christ’s opposite a perverse counterpart to Christ’s dual nature – but which threatens his audience’s understanding of Christ’s uniqueness. In its place, he supplies an alternate account of the Antichrist’s origins that puts him in his place. One source in particular may have made the difference in Ælfric’s thinking: Adso of Montier-en-Der’s tenth-century Libellus de Antichristo, which makes precisely the theological distinction in question and on which Ælfric drew for SH II.18.36 Lines 16–19 [And se gesewenlica … syððan geendad]: The details in these lines draw ultimately from a variety of biblical passages. Revealing what Emmerson calls ‘a relatively detailed knowledge of the Antichrist tradition’,37Ælfric teaches that the Antichrist will perform miracles [line 17] (2 Thessalonians 2.9), claim to be God [line 17] (Matthew 24.5, 2 Thessalonians 2.4), deceive people – in Ælfric’s words, ‘compel’ (niedan) them to accept his heresy [line 17; see also line 24 below] (Matthew 24.11, 1 John 2.22, 1 John 4.3, 2 John 1.7), and be stopped by God’s wrath before too long [lines 18–19] (Daniel 7.25–6, Matthew 24.22), and the end of the world will follow his destruction [line 19] (Daniel 7.26–7, 2 Thessalonians 2.3). For these first three points (the Antichrist’s miracles, divine claims, and deception that leads people into false belief), see also SH II.18.38 The unique reference here to the gesewenlica deofol (‘visible devil’ [line 16]) contrasts with the ten times Ælfric uses ungesewenlica deofol (‘invisible devil’) to describe Satan himself. Lines 19–25 [Crist ure drihten … and yfelnysse]: Ælfric’s account of Bartholomew (CH I.31) expands at length the principles set forth here. Though the Antichrist per se 33 34 35 36 37 38

Antichrist, p. 151. Commentary, p. 6. Commentary, p. 6. See Emmerson, Antichrist, pp. 81–2; Godden, Commentary, p. 6; and Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 588 and pp. 603 and 607, apparatus. Antichrist, p. 152. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 603, lines 289–93.

647

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare is not in view, the homily repeatedly contrasts Christ’s genuine healing power with the deception of demonic forces, who gain followers by ‘curing’ individuals whom they first had harmed [as in lines 19–24].39 Furthermore, it presents God as the soða læce (‘true doctor’) who cures people from sin by causing them to suffer, even as he humbled Paul through the stimulus carnis meae angelus Satanae (‘stake [KJV “thorn”] in my flesh, a messenger of Satan’ [2 Corinthians 12.7]):40 those thus afflicted, Ælfric warns, must not seek healing through æninne deofles cræft (‘any deceit of of the devil’).41 In a similar vein, Menn Behofiað Godre Lare distinguishes between the demonic and divine: the Antichrist may not heal those whom God afflicts [lines 23–4]. Ælfric’s translation of Antichrist as þwyrlic Crist (‘perverse Christ’ or ‘opposite to Christ’ [line 20]) seems to be unique in his writings, though elsewhere he does speak for example of the ðwyrnysse (‘perverseness’) of the Jews, who ‘wiðerodon ongean cristes lare ðurh ungeleaffulnysse’ (‘opposed Christ’s teaching through unbelief’ [CH II.13]).42 The suggestion that the Antichrist neadað (‘compels’ [line 24; see also line 17 above]) people to believe falsehoods should not be taken to imply that he has power over human volition: as Ælfric makes clear elsewhere, human beings are able and required to reject evil thoughts sent by the devil (CH I.1043 and De cogitatione [AH II.18]44). Rather, as the analogous passage in SH II.18 states,45 and as Ælfric underscores thrice below [lines 25–7, 30–1, and 40–6], the Antichrist performs his evil works þurh Godes geþafunge (‘with God’s permission’). Ælfric’s description of the Antichrist as ord ælcere leasunge and yfelnysse (‘the source of every lie and wickedness’ [line 25]) may ultimately derive from Christ’s statement that ‘diabol[us] … homicida erat ab initio … mendax est et pater eius’ (‘the devil … was a murderer from the beginning … he is a liar and the father of [lies]’ [John 8.44]). Lines 25–34 [Se ælmihtiga God … heora gedwyldes]: The length of the Antichrist’s reign (to feorðan healfan geare [‘for three and a half years’, line 28]) reflects various biblical descriptions of this apocalyptic period: [1] the tempus temporum et dimidium temporis (‘time, times, and half a time’) during which the righteous will be oppressed by a blasphemous ruler (Daniel 7.25), the woman will be protected in the desert from the serpent or dragon (Revelation 12.14),46 and after which the righteous will be scattered (Daniel 12.7); [2] the menses quadraginta duos (‘forty-two months’) during which the ‘holy city’ will be tread underfoot (Revelation 11.2) and the beast will blaspheme against God and have power over the nations (Revelation 13.5); and [3] the dies mille ducenti 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Clemoes, First Series, p. 439, lines 9 (On þam) – 17 (geswac); p. 442, line 102 (Nu deð) – p. 443, line 106 (min god); and p. 443, lines 125 (se unclæna gast) – 132 (awyrdnyssa). Clemoes, First Series, p. 448, line 267 – p. 449, line 302. Clemoes, First Series, p. 450, line 310. Godden, Second Series, p. 127, lines 11–13. Clemoes, First Series, p. 261, lines 83–4. Lines 1–8. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 603, line 291. Meaning, one assumes, that the Church will be protected from Satan: John describes the offspring of the woman as those ‘qui custodiunt mandata Dei et habent testimonium Iesu’ (‘who keep the commandments of God and hold to the witness of Jesus’ [Revelation 12.17]); she is protected from the serpent or dragon qui uocatur Diabolus et Satanas (‘who is called the devil and Satan’ [Revelation 12.9]).

648

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare sexaginta (‘1,260 days’) when God’s two witnesses will prophesy (Revelation 11.3) and the woman is fed in the wilderness (Revelation 12.6). While Ælfric does not discuss all these details, his affirmation that ‘Se ælmihtiga God geþafað þam arleasan Antecriste to wyrcenne tacna and wundra and ehtnysse’ (‘The Almighty God allows the impious Antichrist to perform signs and wonders and persecutions’ [lines 25–7]) during this time may most closely correspond with the actions of [A] the mighty king of Daniel 7.25 (‘sermones contra excelsum loquetur et sanctos Altissimi conteret et putabit quod possit mutare tempora et leges et tradentur in manu eius’ [‘he shall speak words against the High One, and tread upon the saints of the Most High, and he shall think that he can change the times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand’]) and [B] the beasts of Revelation 13 (‘et datum est illi bellum facere cum sanctis et uincere illos et data est ei potestas in omnem tribum et populum et linguam et gentem … et fecit signa magna ut etiam ignem faceret de caelo descendere in terram in conspectu hominum’ [‘and there was given to him [the power] to make war on the saints and to subdue them … and he performed great signs, so that he even made fire come down from heaven upon earth in people’s sight’ (13.7 and 13)]) – the sign of fire being particularly relevant for line 34 below. On the relationship between the Antichrist’s neadung (‘compulsion’) of human beings and God’s geþafung (‘permission’) which governs and limits the Antichrist’s power [lines 25–7, 30–1, and 40–6], see line 24 above. God has a twofold reason for allowing persecution, Ælfric makes clear: on the one hand, human wickedness will be so great ‘þæt hy wel wyrðe beoð þære deoflican ehtnysse’ (‘that they will be well worthy of devilish persecution’ [line 28]); on the other hand, God desires that his chosen be ‘aclænsode fram eallum synnum … swa swa gold bið on fyre afandod’ (‘cleansed from all sins … just as gold is tried by fire’ [lines 30–1]). The latter imagery, while commonplace, has biblical roots in [A] Zechariah 13.8–9 (‘erunt in omni terra dicit Dominus partes duae in ea disperdentur … et ducam tertiam partem per ignem … et probabo eos sicut probatur aurum’ [‘“In all the earth”, says the Lord, “two thirds shall be brought to ruin … and I shall bring the third part through the fire … and I shall try them as gold is tried”’]) and [B] 1 Peter 1.6–7 (‘oportet contristati in uariis temptationibus, ut probatum uestrae fidei multo pretiosius sit auro quod perit per ignem probato inueniatur in laudem et gloriam et honorem in reuelatione Iesu Christi’ [‘it is necessary that you be afflicted with various trials, that the testing of your faith – more precious than gold, which perishes when tried by fire – should be found [worthy of] praise, glory, and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed’]). Lines 34–47 [Se arleasa … gebidan sceole]: Ælfric’s teaching that the Antichrist will deð þæt fyr cymð ufan (‘cause fire to come from above’ [line 34]) is in keeping with medieval tradition47 and likely stems ultimately from Revelation 13.13 (see lines 25–34 above). Ælfric adds a significant theological nuance to his rendering of the verse, however: where Revelation says that the beast made fire ‘de caelo descendere in terram in conspectu hominum’ (‘come down from heaven upon earth in people’s sight’), Ælfric says that it comes ‘ufan swylce of heofonum on manna gesihðe’ (‘from above, as though from heaven, in people’s sight’ [lines 34–5]). Heaven, Ælfric underscores, is 47

On which, see Emmerson, Antichrist, pp. 93–4.

649

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare not the source of demonic power. In the account of Job, he notes, when God gives Satan permission to attack the righteous man’s possessions, it seems at least to Job’s servant that ‘ignis Dei cecidit e caelo, et tactas oues puerosque consumpsit’ (‘“the fire of God fell from heaven and, striking the sheep and servants, burned them up”’ [Job 1.16]). Ælfric clarifies, however: ‘Ne sende na se deofol þa fyr of heofonum, þeah ðe hit ufan come, for þon þe he sylf næs on heofonum syððan he for hys modignysse of aworpen wæs’ (‘The devil did not send the fire from heaven, although it did come from above, because he himself was not in heaven, since he had been thrown out for his pride’ [lines 39–40]). Likewise, Ælfric affirms, the Antichrist merely gehywige (‘may pretend’ [line 42]).48 Such conclusions Ælfric reiterates in his homily on Job (CH II.30), where he says: Þæt fyr com ufan ðe þa scep forbærnde. ac hit ne com na of heofenum þeah ðe hit swa gehiwod wære. for ðan ðe se deofol næs on heofenum næfre siððan he ðanon þurh modignysse afeol mid his geferum; Eall swa deð antecrist ðonne he cymð. he asent fyr ufan swilce of heofenum. to bepæcenne þæt earme mancynn ðe he on bið; Ac wite gehwa þæt se ne mæg nan fyr of heofenum asendan. se ðe on heofenum sylf cuman ne mot.49 The fire that burned up the sheep came from above, but it did not come from heaven, although it seemed like it [or “it was so feigned [gehiwod]”], because the devil was never in heaven after he fell from there with his companions through pride. The Antichrist will act likewise when he comes: he will send fire from above, as though from heaven, to deceive wretched humankind, among whom he will be. Let each person know this: he who cannot himself come into heaven cannot send fire from heaven.

At this point, Menn Behofiað Godre Lare departs from the First Series preface again with its second authorial interjection. The Antichrist, Ælfric states, will perform his miraculous signs before the Jews, who had the opportunity to submit to Christ and be saved, ‘þæt hy underfon þone leasan Antecrist and hy his gedwyldum gelyfan him sylfum to forwyrde’ (‘so that they should submit to the deceitful Antichrist, and believe his falsehoods, to their own ruin’ [lines 45–6]). His Pauline source for the statement is 2 Thessalonians 2.9–11,50 which speaks of the iniquus (‘wicked one’) to be revealed, namely eum cuius est aduentus secundum operationem Satanae in omni uirtute et signis et prodigiis mendacibus, et in omni seductione iniquitatis his qui pereunt eo quod caritatem ueritatis non receperunt ut salui fierent. Ideo mittit illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio, ut iudicentur omnes qui non crediderunt ueritati sed consenserunt iniquitati. him whose coming is in accordance with the work of Satan in every [kind of] power and signs and false miracles, and in every seduction of sin, in respect to those who 48

49 50

Citing Emmerson, Godden observes that Augustine (De ciuitate Dei XX.19) had also drawn a connection between the Antichrist’s fire and that of Satan in Job, ‘but only to make the point that … the prodigies performed by Antichrist will be real rather than illusory’ (Commentary, pp. 6–7). Godden, Second Series, p. 263, lines 90–7. As observed by Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 611, note to line 291.

650

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare are perishing because they had not accepted the love of the truth so that they might be saved. For this reason, God sends to them a work of deception, so that they may believe a lie, in order that all those who have not believed the truth, but have consented to sin, may be judged.

To ensure that his audience does not come away with an exaggerated sense of Satan’s power, Ælfric again emphasizes that the Antichrist works his wonders on Godes geþafunge (‘with God’s permission’ [lines 43–4; see also lines 23–4, 25–7, and 30–1 above]). To explain God’s tolerance of the Antichrist’s evil, however, Ælfric points not simply to human depravity and need for sanctification [lines 25–31], but to Paul’s complex description here of divine providence: as Pope puts it, ‘God will permit men to believe in a lie in order that they may be judged for not having believed in the truth’.51 Who here is at fault? Linguistically, ideo (Greek διὰ  τοῦτο, ‘for this reason’) in 2 Thessalonians 2.11 is potentially ambiguous: does it refer to what comes before (God ‘sends’ the deception because individuals did not accept the truth [2.10]), or after (God ‘sends’ the deception so that they may believe a lie [2.11])? In the former case, human culpability is manifest: people’s refusal to accept the truth that would save them brings about their condemnation. If God is said to allow the Antichrist’s work in order to make people believe falsehood, however, it raises the question of God’s righteousness – or at least the fathomless mystery of divine election.52 For Ælfric, the matter is clear. While the Antichrist (whose power God circumscribes) is guilty in his own right for acting deceitfully ‘þæt … hy his gedwyldum gelyfan him sylfum to forwyrde’ (‘so that … [people] should believe his falsehoods to their own destruction’ [lines 45–6]), human beings, who can and are commanded to reject demonic lies (see lines 25–30 above), bring condemnation on themselves: ‘Þa þe hys leasungum gelyfað … habbað syððan þa ecan susle to edleane heora gedwyldes’ (‘Those who believe in his lies … afterwards will have everlasting torment as a reward for their error’ [lines 33–4]). It may seem odd that in this interjected passage the Antichrist calls down fire forþam iudeiscum (‘on account of the Jews’ [line 44]). Revelation, after all, simply says that the beast calls down fire in conspectu hominum (‘in people’s sight’ [13.13]; see line 37 above). Ælfric may partly be influenced by Paul’s statement earlier in 2 Thessalonians that the filius perditionis (‘son of perdition’) will install himself in templo Dei (‘in God’s temple’ [2.3–4]), evoking images of worship in Jerusalem. As Pope points out, however,53 Ælfric primarily seems to be following Jerome’s Epistula ad Algasiam, the final part of which discusses the filius perditionis: Faciet, inquit, haec omnia non sua uirtute, sed concessione Dei propter Iudaeos, ut qui noluerunt caritatem recipere ueritatis, hoc est Christum, quia caritas Dei diffusa est in corda credentium et ipse dicit: ego sum ueritas, de quo in Psalmis scriptum 51 52

53

Homilies, vol. II, p. 611, note to line 291. On patristic and Anglo-Saxon teaching regarding election, see Kleist, Striving with Grace, pp. 11–12, 44, 51, 53, 77, 151, 200, and 202. For ideo + ut, where the sequent modifying clause expresses the purpose of the main verb (our second interpretive possibility here), see Greenough et al., New Latin Grammar, p. 341 (§531.1). Homilies, vol. II, p. 611, note to line 291. Ælfric cites Jerome as his source for his exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2.7–8 in SH II.28 (Homilies, vol. II, p. 784, line 7).

651

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare est: ueritas de terra orta est. Qui ergo caritatem et ueritatem non receperunt, ut saluatore suscepto salui fierent, mittit illis Deus non operatorem, sed ipsam operationem, id est fontem erroris, ut credant mendacio, quia mendax est ipse, et pater eius. Et siquidem antichristus de uirgine natus esset et primus uenisset in mundum, poterant habere Iudaei excusationem et dicere, quod putauerint ueritatem et idcirco mendacium pro ueritate susceperint; nunc autem ideo iudicandi sunt, immo procul dubio condemnandi, quia Christo ueritate contempta postea mendacium, id est antichristum, suscepturi sunt.54 [Paul] says that [the Antichrist] will do all these things not by his own power, but with God’s permission, because of the Jews, since they had not been willing to accept the love of the truth [2 Thessalonians 2.10], that is, Christ, because the love of God is poured forth in the hearts of those who believe [Romans 5.5], and [Christ] himself says, ‘I am the truth’ [John 14.6], about whom it is written in the Psalms, ‘Truth has sprung from the earth’ [Psalms 85.11 (Vulgate 84.12)]. Those, therefore, who had not accepted love and truth so that, having received the Savior, they might be saved, to them God sends not a worker, but the work itself – that is, the source of deception, so that they should believe a lie [2 Thessalonians 2.11], ‘because [the devil] is a liar, and the father of lies’ [John 8.44]. And if indeed the Antichrist had been born of a virgin, and had come first into the world, the Jews would have had an excuse even to say that they valued the truth and therefore [mistakenly] accepted a lie for the truth. But now, for this reason they must be judged – indeed, without doubt, condemned – because having despised Christ, the truth, they accepted a lie, that is, the Antichrist.

According to Jerome, God sends the Antichrist – allowing him to call down fire, for example, even as God allowed Satan to do in Job – as punishment for previous human culpability: because the Jews once rejected the truth of Christ, they are given opportunity again to accept a lie. Potential punishment is not limited to the Jews alone, however: as Ælfric immediately goes on to say, ‘Bið nu wislicor þæt gehwa þis wite and cunne hys geleafan weald hwa þa micclan yrmðe gebidan sceole’ (‘Now it will be more wiser for everyone to know this’ – that is, the reality of coming tribulation – ‘and have an understanding of his faith in case anyone should suffer misery’ [lines 46–7]). Lines 48–57 [Ure Drihten … heora synna]: The need for preachers to teach Christians rightly is a pressing concern for Ælfric, as his lifelong dedication to the matter shows. Here, to affirm the subject’s importance, he cites two Old Testament passages that involve stern charges from God to those he appoints to be his speakers. The first, a verse repeated in four other texts, is from Ezekiel:55

54 55

Epistula 121.11 (Epistulae, Pars III, p. 55, lines 11–24). The passage also influenced Wulfstan, who refers to Ezekiel 3.18 in Bethurum 17 (Homilies, p. 243, line 38 [and hy] – p. 244, line 56 [forsyhð me]; see ‘Record C.B.2.3.5.005.02’), and to Ezekiel 3.17–18 in Bethurum 6 (Homilies, p. 142, line 10 [Gyf ðu] – p. 143, line 14 [beðorfton]; and p. 143, lines 17 [Gyf ðu] – 20 [ece wite]; see ‘Record C.B.2.2.1.002.02’ and ‘Record C.B.2.2.1.003.01’).

652

‘Unless you should reprove the unrighteous and tell him of his unrighteousness, I will require his blood at your hands. ’

When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’, if you do not declare [my message] to him nor speak, so that he may be turned from his wicked way and live, that wicked man will die in his sin, but I will require his blood at your hand.60 But if you do declare [my message] to the wicked, and he should not be turned from his ungodliness and from his wicked way, he will certainly die in his sin, but your soul will be freed [of guilt].

60

59

58

57

‘If you do not oppose the unrighteous and exhort him to turn from his wickedness and live, then the wicked one will die in his wickedness, and I will require from you his blood’, which is his loss [of life]. ‘If you then warn the wicked one and he does not desire to turn from his wrongful behavior, you will save your soul with that warning, and the wicked one will die in his unrighteous-ness’.

‘ Gif þu ne gestendst þone unrihtwisan and hine ne manast þæt he fram his arleasnysse gecyrre. and lybbe, þonne swylt se arleasa on his arleasnysse, and Ic wylle ofgan æt ðe his blod’, þæt is his lyre. ‘Gif þu þonne þone arleasan gewarnast and he nele fram his unriht gecyrran , þu alysdest þine sawla mid þære mynegunge, and se arleasa swylt on his unrihtwis-nysse’.

‘Gif þu þam arleasan nelt his arleasnysse secgan, þonne swylt se aleasa on his arleasnysse and ic ofgange æt þe mid graman his blod . Gif þu þonne warnast þone arleasan wer and he nelle gecyrran fram his synnum þurh þe, he swylt on his unrihtwisnysse and þin sawul byð alysed’. ‘If you are not willing to tell a wicked person of his wickedness, then the wicked one will die in his wickedness, and with anger I will require from you his blood. However, if you warn the wicked person and he will not turn from his sins because of you, he will die in his unrighteous-ness and your soul will be freed [of guilt]’.

Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), lines 50–4

De duodecim abusiuis57

Godden, Second Series, p. 194, lines 146–8. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 132, lines 144–8. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 12, lines 300–3. Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 172, lines 233–7. That is, ‘hold you accountable for his blood’.

‘ Buton þu gestande ðone unrihtwisan and him his unrihtwisnysse secge , ic ofga his blodes gyte æt ðinum handum. ’

Si dicente me ad impium morte morieris non adnuntiaueris ei neque locutus fueris ut auertatur a uia sua impia et uiuat ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram. Si autem tu adnuntiaueris impio et ille non fuerit conuersus ab impietate sua et uia sua impia ipse quidem in iniquitate sua morietur tu autem animam tuam liberasti.

56

CH II.2056

Ezekiel 3.18–19

‘If you are not willing to tell a wicked person of his wickedness, then the wicked one will die in his wickedness, and with anger I will require from you his blood. However, if you warn the wicked person and he will not turn from his sins because of you, he will die in his unrighteous-ness and your soul will be freed [of guilt]’.

‘Gif þu þam arleasan nelt his arleasnysse secgan, þonne swylt se aleasa on his arleasnysse and ic ofgange æt þe mid graman his blod . Gif þu þonne warnast þone arleasan wer and he nelle gecyrran fram his synnum þurh þe, he swylt on his unrihtwisnysse and þin sawul byð alysed’.

‘Gif ðu nelt gerihtlæcan þone unrihtwisan wer and him sylfum secgan his unrihtwisnysse, ic wylle ofgan æt ðe his blodes gyte, þæt is sawul, þe þurh synna losode’.

‘If you will not rightly direct the unrighteous person and tell him of his unrighteous-ness, I will require from you the shedding of his blood’, that is, [his] soul, ‘which was lost through sin’.

De octo uitiis et de duodecim abusiuis59

Letter to Wulfgeat58

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare Ælfric consistently reproduces the sense of the biblical passage, though he formulates it differently across his texts. The Second Series extract is the most abbreviated, and has certain unique features as a result: it replaces si + the perfect subjunctive / future perfect indicative adnuntiaueris (‘if … you do not declare’) with buton + the present subjunctive gestande (‘unless you reprove’), for example, and imports words from elsewhere in the passage to clarify the recipient and subject of the warning (impium / unrihtwisan [‘unrighteous’] and uia impia / unrihtwisnysse [‘unrighteousness’]). In its immediate context, however – a demon condemning a sinner because ‘nolde cyðan ðam syngigendum heora synna’ (‘he would not make known to sinners their sins’)61 – it shares with the Letter to Wulfgeat a focus on Ezekiel 3.18, where the other three texts add the corollary from 3.19: if preachers faithfully hold sinners to account, they will be exonerated even if their hearers do not repent. Other elements, furthermore, are common across all accounts: all five omit the opening participial clause (‘when I say …’), but reproduce the language of ‘requiring’ someone’s blood de manu tua (‘at your hand’) – that is, holding one accountable for another person’s death. Where the later four versions translate de manu tua as æt ðe (‘from [literally, “at”] you’), CH II.20 offers the full expression æt ðinum handum (‘at your hands’) – language preserved right through the King James Version, which renders the verse ‘his blood will I require at thine hand’.62 Ælfric chooses to explain this blood in Menn Behofiað and the subsequent Letter to Wulfgeat,63 offering a parenthetical gloss that explains the sinner’s blood as his lyre (‘loss [of life]’ or ‘destruction’ [line 54]) or sawul (‘soul’), respectively. Ælfric may here be thinking of the biblical principle, found in the Torah’s proscription against eating blood, that anima carnis in sanguine est (‘the life [or “soul”] of the flesh is in the blood’ [Leviticus 17.1164], a verse Ælfric translates as ‘on þam blode is þæs nytenes lif’ (‘the creature’s life is in the blood’) when treating the biblical passage in his Letter to Brother Edward.65 That Scriptural background would add additional gravity to Ælfric’s exhortation: it is not just someone’s blood that is in question, but his life – and with it, the eternal destiny of his soul. Finally, Menn Behofiað turns to Isaiah, where God again has an earnest charge for those he appoints as preachers.66 Again, Ælfric’s translation follows the original closely:

61 62

63 64 65 66

Godden, Second Series, p. 194, lines 148–9. See also the KJV’s translation of Genesis 9.5: ‘And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man’. De octo uitiis reproduces De duodecim abusiuis at this point, and thus relays the earlier textual formulation despite being chronologically later than Menn Behofiað and the Letter to Wulfgeat. See also Leviticus 17.14, Deuteronomy 12.23, and Acts 15.20 and 29. Clayton, ‘An Edition’, p. 280. The verse also influenced Wulfstan, who quotes it in Bethurum 6 (Homilies, p. 142, lines 5 [Se cwyde] – 10 [synnum gecyrre]; see ‘Record C.B.2.2.1.001.02’).

654

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare Isaiah 58.1

Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12), lines 55–7

Clama ne cesses quasi tuba exalta uocem tuam et adnuntia populo meo scelera eorum et domui Iacob peccata eorum.

Clypa and ne geswic þu, ahefe þine stemne swa swa byme and cyð minum folce heora leahtras and Iacobes hirede heora synna.

Cry out, cease not, lift up your voice like a trumpet and declare to my people their wicked deeds and to the house of Jacob their sins.

Cry out and do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet and make known to my people their vices and to the household of Jacob their sins.

It is ‘for swylcum bebodum’, Ælfric explains, that ‘we secgað eow þas lare’ (‘because of such commands’ that ‘we tell you this doctrine’ [line 58]). Lines 58–61 [For swylcum bebodum … a to worulde, Amen]: Inspired by the biblical charges above, Ælfric says that ‘we secgað eow þas lare þæt ge æfre gelyfon on þone ælmihtigan god se þe ealle gesceafta gesceop þurh his mihte’ (‘we declare to you this teaching so that you may always believe in the Almighty God who created all created things by his power’ [lines 58–60]). The statement raises two questions: first, in what context does Ælfric envision declaring the doctrine of Menn Behofiað Godre Lare; and second, how does this doctrine lead one to believe in God’s almighty creative power? As regards the first, the original setting was straightforward: Ælfric’s remarks served as a preface to the Catholic Homilies, whether these were encountered orally or in lectio diuina. As he extracted this material over a decade later, however, and tweaked it again toward the end of his career, he clearly envisioned it serving a useful purpose independently. This said, there may not have been a specific homiletic or pastoral function for which Menn Behofiað Godre Lare was intended: its general teaching on the imminence of the last times, the coming of the Antichrist, the importance of perseverance in trial, and the need for teachers to instruct believers in the faith would all have been helpful in exhorting believers to stay the course, regardless of the situation. Ælfric’s lifelong habit of revising and repurposing his own work, moreover, suggests that certain topics he kept finding the need to address again and again, whether through multiple treatises on the same subject, such as virginity (De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) and De uirginitate [AH II.13]); multiple addresses for the same liturgical occasion, like Christmas (CH I.2, In natali Domini [AH I.1], CH II.1, LS I.1, Sermo in natale Domini [AH I.2], and SH I.1); single tracts employed in multiple configurations (like De cogitatione [AH II.18]), or individual compositions that quoted or paralleled multiple Ælfrician sources (as with De creatore [AH II.14]). One can envision Ælfric wanting repeatedly to cover the sort of subjects covered by Menn Behofiað Godre Lare, and finding in his old preface a portion he might conveniently reuse. As regards the second question, the relevance of Menn Behofiað Godre Lare’s doctrinal content to God’s almighty creative power, the appropriate answer may again be more general than precise: all theological instruction should point people to God. As Ælfric says in LS II.12 [Skeat I.13] regarding the Paternoster and the Creed (see AH II.24 and AH II.23 below), ‘Se lareow sceal secgan þam læwedum mannum … þæt hi witon … hu hi sceolon on God gelyfan’ (‘The teacher must inform unlearned people … so that they may know … how they must believe in God’).67 Menn Behofiað Godre Lare, 67

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 20, §4, lines 9 (Se lareow) – 12 (God gelyfan); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 280, 264–7.

655

Commentary: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare moreover, paves the way for such instruction by offering an apologetic for Christian teaching and faith: Why should Ælfric’s audience believe? Because the last times are coming, the Antichrist will come, and in the midst of tribulation they must hold fast to faithful preachers’ teaching in order to be saved. What then should they believe? The opening words of the First Series, following closely after the material preserved in Menn Behofiað Godre Lare, show the logical next step in Ælfric’s mind: ‘An angin is ealra þinga þæt is God ælmihtig’ (‘All things have one origin: God Almighty’). On God’s almighty power [lines 59–60], see for example De creatore (AH II.14), lines 13, 43, 50, and 61. On God as the source of all creation [line 60], see De creatore, lines 43, 158–63, and 312. Regarding the text’s concluding formula, ‘þam sy wyrðmynt and wuldor a to worulde’ (‘to whom be honor and glory eternally’ [line 61]), see Lazarus I (AH I.3), notes to lines 286–92; and De creatore (AH II.14), notes to lines 254–70.

656

APPENDIX 1

LÆWEDE MENN BEHOFIAÐ GODRE LARE Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare is the first standalone sermon Ælfric created from an excerpt of his Old English preface to the First Series of Catholic Homilies between about 1002 and 1005.1 He begins mid-sentence by converting a dependent clause in the preface (CH I.pref., lines 57–8)2 into an independent one in the sermon (lines 2–5), and he concludes by fashioning a final sentence (lines 52–5) from an introductory prepositional phrase (CH I.pref., line 119).3 The sermon is uniquely preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1],4 a mid-eleventh-century collection of thirty-two sermons and shorter works by Ælfric. None of the pieces is assigned to a particular occasion,5 and Læwede Menn easily finds a place in this quando uolueris collection. As noted in the introduction to AH II.12, Ælfric included Menn Behofiað among a group of quando volueris sermons that he had assembled (preserved in R1), so perhaps he had in mind a similar use for Læwede Menn.6 Also noted above was Archbishop Wulfstan’s use of the original and revised versions in sermons of his own. Though P1 cannot be placed firmly at Worcester until about 1200,7 Godden tentatively suggests that the manuscript could be or could resemble a copy of a collection assembled and circulated by Ælfric wherein Wulfstan encountered Læwede Menn.8

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

Previously edited by Clemoes as CH I.pref., lines 57–119 (First Series, pp. 174–6). For the dating, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 116. See the apparatus [lines 2–5] below. See the apparatus [line 52] below. Ker §332 and ‘Supplement’, pp. 124–5; Gneuss and Lapidge §639; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 226. The manuscript was augmented at the end of the eleventh century and again in the twelfth (Ker §332, p. 403). Ker §332.1–17, 20, and 21–33 (Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare is item 28). Items 21–6 are Ælfric’s Second Series homilies for the Common of the Saints (CH II.35–40). Detailed comparisons of Læwede Menn with Menn Behofiað can be found above in the commentary on AH II.12. Franzen, ‘Hatton 115’, Worcester Manuscripts, p. 44. Godden, ‘Relations’, p. 368.

657

læwede menn behofiað godre lare

lay people need good teaching

LÆWEDE MENN BEHOFIAÐ GODRE LARE Alia

5

10

15

20

25

Læwede menn behofiað godre lare, swyðost on ðysum timan, þe is geendung þyssere worulde, and beoð feala frecednyssa on mancynne ær ðan þe se ende becume, swa swa ure Drihten on his godspelle to his leorningcnihtum cwæð, ‘“Ðonne beoð swylce gedreccednyssa swylce | næron næfre ær fram frymðe middaneardes. Manega lease cristas cumað on minum naman cweðende, ‘Ic eom Crist’, and wyrcað feala tacna and wundra to bepæcenne mancinn and eac swylce þa gecorenan menn gif hit gewurðan mæg, and buton se ælmihtiga God þa dagas gescyrte, eall mennisc forwurde, ac for his gecorenum he gescyrte /ða\ dagas”’. Gehwa mæg ðe eaðelicor þa toweardan costnunge acuman þurh Godes fultum gif he byð þurh boclice lare getrymmed, for þan ðe þa beoð gehealdene þe oð ende on geleafan þurhwuniað. Feala gedreccednyssa and earfoðnyssa becumað on ðyssere worulde ær hyre geendunge, and þa synd þa bydelas þæs ecan forwyrdes on yfelum mannum, þe for heora mandædum syððan ecelice þrowiað on þære sweartan helle. Ðonne cymð se Antechrist, se byð mennisc mann and soð deofol, swa swa ure Hælend is soðlice mann and God on anum hade. And se gesewenlica deofol þonne wyrcð ungerime wundra, and cwyð þæt he sylf God beo, and wyle neadian manncynn to his gedwylde. Ac his tima ne byð na langsum for þan ðe Godes grama hine fordeð, and þeos woruld byð syððan geendod. Crist ure Drihten gehælde untrume and adlige, and þes deofol þe is gehaten Antecrist, þæt is gereht ‘þwyrlic Crist’, alefað and geuntrumað þa halan and nænne ne gehælð fram untrumnyssum buton þam anum þe he sylf ær awyrde. He and his gingran awyrdað manna lichaman digellice þurh deofles cræft and | gehælað hi openlice on manna gesyhðe, ac he ne mæg nænne gehælan þe God sylf ær geuntrumode. He neadað þurh yfelnysse þæt menn sceolon bugan fram heora Scyppendes geleafan to his leasungum, se þe is ord ælcere leasunge and yfelnysse. Se ælmihtiga God geðafað þam Text from: P1 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, fols 99v–101v (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester) [CH I phase ε1] Variants from: K Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28, fols 1v–2v (s. x/xi, possibly Cerne; provenance Durham), as edited by Clemoes, First Series, pp. 174–6, lines 56 (For) – 119 (bebodum): the Preface to the Catholic Homilies from which Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare was adapted [CH I phase γ4] 1 Alia] the preceding item is designated a ‘sermo ad populum’ (95r) P1  2–5 Læwede menn … middaneardes] Ælfric excerpts this first sentence from a sentence in K that begins, ‘For ðisum antimbre ic gedyrstlæhte on gode truwiende þæt ic ðas gesetnysse undergann, and eac for ðam ðe menn behofiað godre lare …’  4 to his leorningcnihtum cwæð] cwæð to his leorningcnihtum K 

660

100r

100v

LAY PEOPLE NEED GOOD TEACHING Another [sermon]

5

10

15

20

25

Lay people need good teaching, most of all at this time, which is the end of this world, for there will be many dangers among mankind before the end arrives, just as our Lord said in his Gospel to his disciples, ‘“At that time there will be such afflictions as have never been from the beginning of the world. Many false christs will come in my name saying, ‘I am Christ’, and will work many signs and wonders to deceive mankind and the elect too if it can happen, and unless almighty God shortened those days, all mankind would have perished, but he has shortened those days for his elect”’. Everyone will the more easily be able to endure the impending tribulation with God’s help if he is strengthened with learning contained in books, because those who persevere in faith until the end will be preserved. Many afflictions and hardships will come into this world before its end, and they are the heralds of eternal destruction among evil people, who afterwards will suffer eternally in dark hell for their evil deeds. Then will come the Antichrist, who is a human being and a true devil, just as our Savior is truly a human and God in one person. And the visible devil will at that time work countless wonders, and say that he is God, and will desire to compel mankind to his heresy. But his time will not be long because God’s anger will destroy him, and this world will afterwards be ended. Christ our Lord healed the sick and diseased, and the devil called the Antichrist, which means ‘perverse Christ’, will enfeeble and sicken the healthy and heal none from sickness except the ones whom he previously injured. He and his followers will secretly injure people’s bodies through the power of the devil and heal them publicly in the sight of people, but he cannot heal anyone whom God previously afflicted. He will compel people through wickedness to turn from faith in their Creator to his lies, he who is the source of every lie and wicked act. Almighty God will allow the impious Antichrist

661

Text: Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare

30

35

40

45

50

55

arleasan Antecriste to wyrcenne tacna and wundra and ehtnysse to feorþan healfan geare, for þan ðe on ðam timan byð swa mycel yfelnyss and þwyrnys betwux mancynne þæt hi wel wyrðe beoð þære deoflican ehtnysse to ecan forwyrde þam ðe him to onbugað and to ecere myrhþe þam ðe him þurh geleafan wiðcweðað. God geþafað eac þæt his gecorenan þegnas beon aclænsode fram eallum synnum þurh ða ormætan ehtnyssa swa swa gold byð on fyre afandod. Ða ofslihð se deofol þe him wiðstandað, and hi þonne farað mid halgum martirdome to heofonan rice. Ða ðe his leasungum gelyfað þam he arað, and hi habbað syððan þa ecan susle to edleane heora gedwyldes. Se arleasa deð þæt fyr cymð ufan swylce of heofonum on manna gesihðe swylce he God ælmihtig sy þe ah geweald heofonas and eorðan. Ac ða Cristenan sceolon beon þonne gemyndige hu se deofol dyde þa ða he bæd æt Godeþæt he moste fandian Iobes. He gemacode þa þæt fyr com ufan swylce of heofonum and forbærnde ealle | his scep ut on felda and ða hyrdas samod, buton anum þe hit him cyðan sceolde. Ne sende se deofol þa fyr of heofonum, þeah ðe hit ufan come, for þan ðe he sylf næs on heofonum syððan he for his modignysse of aworpen wæs. Ne eac se wælhreowa Antecrist næfð þa mihte þæt he heofonlic fyr asendan mæge, þeah ðe he þurh deofles cræft hit swa gehiwige. Byð nu wislicor þæt gehwa þis wite and cunne his geleafan weald hwa ða yrmðe gebidan sceole. Ure Drihten bebead his discipulum þæt hi sceoldon læran and tæcan eallum þeodum þa þing þe he sylf him tæhte, ac þæra is nu to lyt þe wyle wel tæcan and wel bysnian. Se ylca Drihten clypode þurh his witegan Ezechiel, ‘“Gif þu ne gestentst þone unrihtwisan and hine ne manast þæt he fram his arleasnysse gecyrre and lybbe, þonne swylt se arleasa on his unrihtwisnysse, and Ic wylle ofgan æt þe his blod”’, þæt is his lyre. ‘“Gif þu þonne þone arleasan gewarnast and he nele fram his arleasnysse gecyrran, þu alysdest þine sawle mid þære mynegunge, and se arleasa swylt on hisunrihtwisnysse”’. Eft cwæð se Ælmihtiga to þam witegan Isaiam, ‘“Clypa and ne geswic ðu, ahefe þine stemne swa swa byme and cyð minum folce heora leahtras and Iacobes hyrede heora synna”’. For swylcum bebodum, we secgað | eow þas lare þæt ge æfre gelyfon on þone ælmihtigan God, se þe ealle gesceafta gesceop þurh his mihte, þam sy wuldor and lof a to worulde, Amen.

28 him to] him K  42 yrmðe] micclan yrmðe K  52 For swylcum bebodum] the introductory phrase of a sentence in K that reads, ‘For swylcum bebodum wearð me geðuht þæt ic nære unscyldig wið god, gif ic nolde oðrum mannum cyðan oþþe þurh gewritu ða godspellican soðfæstnysse þe he sylf gecwæð, and eft halgum lareowum onwreah’.

662

101r

101v

Text: Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare

30

35

40

45

50

55

to work signs and wonders and persecution for three and a half years, because in that time there will be such great wickedness and perversity among mankind that they will be well-deserving of diabolical persecution to the eternal destruction of those who submit to him and to the eternal joy of those who with faith reject him. God will also allow his chosen thegns to be purified from all sins through heavy persecution just as gold is tried by fire. At that time the devil will kill those who oppose him, and through holy martyrdom they will then go to the kingdom of heaven. Those who believe his lies he will honor, and afterwards they will have eternal torment as a reward for their error. The impious one will cause fire to come from above as if from heaven in the sight of people as if he were God Almighty who has control of heaven and earth. But at that time Christians must be mindful of how the devil acted when he asked God to be allowed to test Job. He then caused fire to come from above as if from heaven and burned up all his sheep out in the field and the shepherds as well, except one to make it known to him. The devil did not send that fire from heaven, though it came from above, because he was not in heaven after he was cast out on account of his pride. Nor does the cruel Antichrist have the power to be able to send heavenly fire, although he may make it appear so through the devil’s power. Now it will be wiser for everyone to know and have an understanding of his faith in case anyone should suffer misery. Our Lord commanded his disciples to instruct and teach all people the things that he taught, but there are now too few who desire to teach well and set a good example. The same Lord declared through his prophet Ezekiel, ‘“If you do not oppose the wicked and exhort him to turn from his impiety and live, then the impious one will die in his wickedness, and I will require from you his blood”’, which is his loss [of life]. ‘“If you then warn the impious one and he does not desire to turn from his impiety, you will save your soul with that warning, and the impious one will die in his wickedness”’. Another time the Almighty said to the prophet Isaiah, ‘“Cry out and do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet and make known to my people their vices and to Jacob’s household their sins”’. On account of such commands, we declare to you this teaching so that you may always believe in the almighty God, who created all created things by his power, to whom be glory and praise eternally, Amen.

663

LÆWEDE MENN BEHOFIAÐ GODRE LARE

COMMENTARY Lines 2–3 [Læwede menn behofiað … þyssere worulde]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 2–3 above. Lines 3–9 [and beoð … /ða\ dagas]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 3–9 above. Lines 10–12 [Gehwa mæg … on geleafan þurhwuniað]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 10–12 above. Lines 12–14 [Feala gedreccednyssa … sweartan helle]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 12–14 above. Lines 14–16 [Ðonne cymð … on anum hade]: Ælfric replaces these lines concerning the nature of the Antichrist in the revised version, thereby making perhaps his most theologically significant change to the material in the preface (see notes to AH II.12, lines 14–16 above). Lines 16–19 [And se gesewenlica … syððan geendod]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 16–19 above. Lines 19–25 [Crist ure Drihten … and yfelnysse]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 19–25 above. Lines 25–33 [Se ælmihtiga God … heora gedwyldes]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 25–34 above. Lines 33–42 [Se arleasa … gebidan sceole]: Ælfric augments these lines in the revised version by interjecting that God will allow the Jews to believe in the miracles Antichrist performs and be judged for their rejection of Christ (see notes to AH II.12, lines 34–47, at lines 42–6, above). Lines 43–51 [Ure Drihten … heora synna]: see notes to AH II.12, lines 48–57 above. Lines 52–5 [For swylcum bebodum … a to worulde, Amen]: Ælfric uses the introductory phrase, For swylcum bebodum (‘On account of such commands’), from a sentence in the Old English Preface to CH I in which he originally discussed his own desire to be 664

Commentary: Læwede Menn Behofiað Godre Lare innocent of the charge of failing to declare to others the truth of the Gospel (Clemoes, First Series, p. 176, lines 119–22). Here the command to preach compels him to teach about Antichrist to insure his audience remained steadfast in the faith (see notes to AH II.12, lines 58–61 above).

665

APPENDIX 2

ET HOC SCIENTES TEMPUS As explained in the introduction to AH II.12, Ælfric created the composite homily Et hoc scientes tempus (‘And [do] this knowing the time’) between about 1006 and 1010 when he was revising and enlarging the First Series. But rather than append Læwede Menn Behofiað (AH II.12, Appendix 1) to his sermon for the first Sunday of Advent (CH I.39),1 Ælfric used a slightly different version of the excerpt from the preface that appears in Læwede Menn and added to it the final sentence of that homily to create a pendant for the First Series sermon [lines 94–152]. Although the matters treated in the pendant that he would later excerpt as Menn Behofiað Godre Lare are ‘not closely related to any of the issues discussed in the original [Advent] homily, the addition was clearly appropriate to the expectations and celebrations of the second coming associated with the Advent period’.2 Ælfric had dealt with Christ’s first advent and his Second Coming in CH I.39 when he expounded the epistle reading for the day, St Paul’s warning that the hour of salvation is at hand in Romans 13.11–17,3 but the sermon focused primarily on Advent as a preparatory season for the celebration of Christmas. By contrast, the composite homily, whose editorial title refers to the incipit of the pericope expounded, shifts the sermon’s focus to Christ’s second advent, his Second Coming at the end of the world, which the addition of the pendant makes contemporaneous with the nu (‘now’ [line 94]) of the homily’s delivery and the impending arrival of Antichrist. The combination produces an eschatological exegetical sermon for the first Sunday of Advent animated by a sense of urgency for its hearers to prepare for Antichrist’s arrival and Christ’s final return rather than a celebration of the Savior’s birth a few weeks hence. We edit the homily from the unique copy in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188 [Q], for a discussion of which, see the introduction to AH II.12 above.

1 2 3

Clemoes, First Series, pp. 520–23. Godden, Commentary, pp. 329–30, on which the remainder of this paragraph depends. Ælfric had ‘more appropriately’ expounded the Gospel reading for the day, Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21.1–9), for his First Series homily for Palm Sunday (CH I.14) (Godden, Commentary, p. 329).

666

et hoc scientes tempus

and

[ do ]

this , knowing the time

ET HOC SCIENTES TEMPUS Dominica I in aduentu Domini

5

10

15

20

25

Þises dæges þenung and ðyssere /tide\ mærð sprecað ymbe Godes tocyme. Ðeos tid oð midne winter is gecweden aduentus Domini, þæt is ‘Drihtnes tocyme’. His tocyme is his menniscnyss. He com to us þa ða he genam ure gecynd to his ælmihtigan godcundnysse to þi þæt he us fram deofles anwealde alysde. Nu stent se gewuna on Godes Gelaþunge þæt ealle Godes þeowan on cyrclicum þenungum, ægþer ge on halgum rædingum ge on gedremum lofsangum, þæra witegena gyddunga singallice on ðysre tide reccað. Ða witegan þurh Godes Gast witegodon Cristes tocyme þurh menniscnysse and be þammanega bec setton, þa ðe we nu ofer | rædað æt Godes þeowdome ætforan his gebyrdtide him to wurðmynte þæt he us swa mildheortlice geneosian wolde. Crist com on þam timan to mancynne gesewenlice, ac he bið æfre ungesewenlice mid his gecorenum þeowum, swa swa he sylf behet, þus cweþende, ‘“Efne, ic beo mid eow eallum dagum oð þyssere worulde gefyllednysse”’. Mid þysum wordum he geswutelode þæt æfre beoð oð middaneardes geendunge him gecorene menn, þe þæs wyrðe beoð þæt hi Godes wununge mid him habban moton. Þa halgan witegan witegodon ægþer ge þone ærran tocyme on þære acennednysse and eac þone æftran æt þam micclan Dome. We eac Godes þeowas getrymmaþ urne geleafan mid þyssere tide þenungum for ðan ðe we on urum lofsangum geandettaþ ure alysednysse þurh his ærran tocyme, and we us sylfe maniað þæt we on his æftran tocyme gearwe beon þæt we moton fram þam Dome him folgian to þam ecan life swa swa he us behet. Be þyssere tide mærsunge spræc, se apostol Paulus on þyssere pistolrædinge to Romaniscum leodum and eac to eallum geleaffullum mannum þus manigende, ‘Mine gebroðra, wite ge þæt nu is tima us of slæpe to arisenne. Ure hæl is gehendre þonne we gelyfdon. Seo niht gewat, and se dæg genealæhte. Uton awurpan þeostra weorc and beon ymbscrydde mid leohtes wæpnum swa | þæt we on dæge arwurðlice faron, na on oferætum and druncennyssum, na on forlirbeddum and unclænnyssum, na on geflite and andan. Ac beoð ymbscrydde þurh Drihten Hælend Crist’. Text from: Q Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188, pp. 87–96 (s. xi1, perhaps xi2/4, provenance Hereford Cathedral? [Gneuss and Lapidge §58]) [CH I phase ε4a] Variants from: A for lines 1–93, London, British Library, Royal 7 C. xii, fols 4–281, at fols 211r–213v (January– June 990, Cerne Abbas), as edited by Clemoes, First Series, pp. 520–3, lines 1–111 (becuman) [CH I.39]. Clemoes reports variants from Q in his edition, which is used here selectively. Lines 1–93 correspond to CH I.39, lines 1–111. Lines 94–152 correspond to lines 2–61 of Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12).

668

p. 88

p. 89

AND [DO] THIS, KNOWING THE TIME The First Sunday in the Advent of the Lord

5

10

15

20

25

This day’s service and the glory of this season speak about the coming of God. This season until midwinter is called aduentus Domini, that is ‘the advent of the Lord’. His advent is his incarnation. He came to us when he took on our nature with his almighty divinity to free us from the power of the devil. The custom is now established in God’s Church that all God’s servants in [their] church services, both in the holy readings and in the melodious songs of praise, continually rehearse the prophetic sayings of the prophets in this season. The prophets by the Spirit of God prophesied Christ’s advent through [his] incarnation and wrote many books about that, which we now read through during God’s divine service prior to the day of his birth in honor of him who so mercifully desired to visit us. Christ at that time came visibly to mankind, but he is always invisibly with his chosen servants, as he promised, saying thus, ‘“Behold, I will be with you every day until the end of the world”’. With these words he revealed that [his] chosen people will always be with him to the end of the world, those who are worthy to be able to obtain God’s dwelling with him. The holy prophets prophesied both the first advent in his birth and also the later [one] at the great Judgment. We, God’s servants, also strengthen our faith in the services of this season because in our songs of praise we acknowledge our redemption through his first coming, and we exhort ourselves to be ready for his later coming so that we may follow him from the Judgment to the life everlasting as he promised us. Concerning this season’s celebration, the apostle Paul spoke to the Romans in this reading from the Epistles and likewise to all believers, exhorting thus, ‘My fellow-Christians, know that now is the time for us to arise from sleep. Our salvation is nearer than we believed. The night has passed, and the day has drawn near. Let us cast off the works of darkness and be girded with weapons of light so that we may walk worthily in the daytime, not in gluttony and drunkenness, not in beds of fornication and sexual impurity, not in strife and hostility. But be clothed with the Lord Jesus Christ’.

669

Text: Et hoc scientes tempus

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Se apostol us awrehte þæt we of slæpe ure asolcennysse and ungeleaffulnysse æt sumum sæle arison, swa swa ge on ðissere andweardan rædinge gehyrdon, ‘Mine gebroðra wite ge þæt nu is tima us of slæpe to arisenne’. Witodlice ne gedafenað us þæt we hnesce beon on urum geleafan swa swa þas merewan cild, ac we sceolon onettan to fulfremedre geðingðe þurh gehealdsumnysse Godes beboda. We sceolon asceacan þone sleacan slæp us fram, and deofles weorc forlætan, and gan on leohte, þæt is on godum weorcum. Gefyrn scea leoht ingehydes geond eorðan ymbhwyrft, and forwel menige scinaþ on soðfæstnysse wege, þa ðe faraþ þurh godspellic siðfæte to ðæs ecan lifes gefean. ‘Efne nu ure hæl is gehendre þonne we gelyfdon’. Ðurh þeonde ingehyde and godne willan, anum gehwylcum is hæl gehendre þonne him wære þa þa he æt fruman gelyfde. Forði he sceal symle geþeon on dæghwamlicere gecnyrdnysse, swa swa se sealmsceop cwæþ be Godes gecorenum, ‘Þa halgan faraþ fram mihte to mihte’. Eac is gehwylcum men his endenexta dæg near and near, and se gemænelica dom dæghwamlice genealæcð, on þam underfehð anra gehwylc be ðam ðe he geearnode on lichaman, swa  |  god swa yfel. Uton forði ælc yfel forfleon and god be ure mihte gefremman, þy læs þe we þonne willan þonne we ne magon and we þonne fyrstes biddon þonne us se deað to forðsiðe geneadaþ. ‘Seo niht gewat, and se dæg genealæhte’. Her asette se apostol ‘niht’ for þære ealdan nytennysse þe rixode geond ealne middaneard ær Cristes tocyme. Ac he toscoc þa dwollican nytennysse þurh onlihtinge his andweardnysse, swa swa se beorhta dæg todræfð þa dimlican þeostru þære sweartan nihte. Deofol is eac ‘niht’ gecweden, and Crist ‘dæg’, se ðe us mildheortlice fram deofles þeostrum alysde and us forgeaf leoht ingehydes and soðfæstnysse. ‘Uton awurpan þeostra weorc and beon ymscrydde mid leohtes wæpnum swa þæt we on dæge arwurðlice faran’. Uton awurpan þurh andetnysse and behreowsunge þa forðgewitenan yfelu, and uton heononforð stranglice wiþstandan deofles tihtingum, swa swa se ylca apostol on oðre stowe his underþeoddan manode, ‘Wiþstandaþ þam deofle, and he flihð fram eow. Genealæcað Gode, and he genealæcð to eow’. Leohtes wæpna sind rihtwisnysse weorc and soþfæstnysse. Mid þam wæpnum we sceolon beon ymbscrydde swa þæt we on dæge arwurþlice faron. Swa swa dæges leoht forwyrnð gehwilcne to gefremmenne þæt ðæt seo niht geþafað, swa eac soðfæstnysse ingehid, þæt is geþoht ures Drihtnes willan, us ne geþafaþ mandæda to gefremmenne. | Symle we beoð fram Gode gesewene ægþer ge wiþutan ge wiþinnan. Þi sceal eac gehwa se þe fordemed beon nele eallunga warnian þæt he Godes beboda ne forgæge: ‘Na on oferætum and druncennyssum’. We sceolon habban gastlice gereordunge swa swa se ylca apostol þysum wordum tæhte, ‘Þonne ge eow to gereorde gegaderiað, hæbbe eower gehwylc halwende lare on muðe and sealmboc on handa’. Druncennys is cwylmbære þing and galnysse antimber. Salamon cwæð, ‘Ne biþ nan ðing digele þær þær druncennys rixaþ’. On oðre stowe beweop se ylca apostol ungemetegodra manna lif þus cweþende, ‘Heora wamb is heora god, and heora ende is forwyrd and heora wuldor on gescyndnysse’. ‘Na on forlirbeddum and on unclænnyssum’. Ac beo arwyrðe sinscipe betwux gelyfedum mannum swa þæt furþon nan forlir ne unclænnyss ne si

34 scea] sceal Q; scean A 

670

p. 90

p. 91

Text: Et hoc scientes tempus 30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

The apostle has awakened us to arise at a certain time from the sleep of our sloth and unbelief just as you have heard here in this reading, ‘My fellow-Christians, know that now is the time for us to arise from sleep’. Certainly it is not fitting for us to be soft in our faith like a tender child, but we ought to hasten to perfect dignity through obedience to God’s commandments. We ought to shake off the sluggish sleep from us, and abandon the work of the devil, and walk into the light, which is into good works. Long ago the light of understanding shone throughout the outer boundaries of the earth, and a great many shine in the way of truth who travel on the path of the Gospels to the joy of the everlasting life. ‘Behold, now our salvation is nearer than we believed’. By means of a growing understanding and good will, salvation is nearer to each one than it was to him when he first believed. Therefore he continually ought to grow in daily diligence, as the psalmist said about God’s elect, ‘The holy go from virtue to virtue’. Likewise, each person’s final day grows nearer and nearer, and the universal judgment approaches daily, in which everyone will receive according to what he has earned in the flesh, whether good or evil. Let us then flee every evil and do good according to our might, lest we be willing [to do good] at the time when we cannot and pray for a delay when death compels us to a departure. ‘The night has passed, and the day has drawn near’. Here the apostle presents ‘night’ as representing the old lack of understanding that dominated throughout all the world before Christ’s advent. But he drove way the erring understanding by the illumination of his presence, just as the bright day drives away the dim darkness of black night. The devil is also called ‘night’, and Christ ‘day’, he who freed us from the devil’s darkness and gave us the light of understanding and truth. ‘Let us cast off the works of darkness and be girded with weapons of light so that we may walk worthily in the daytime’. Let us cast off past evils through confession and repentance, and let us from now on vigorously resist the devil’s incitements, just as the same apostle exhorted his charges in other place, ‘Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you’. The weapons of light are works of righteousness and truth. We ought to be girded with those weapons so that we may walk worthily in the daytime. Just as the light of day prevents everyone from doing what the night allows, so too the knowledge of truth, that is the thought of our Lord’s will, does not allow us to carry out evil deeds. We are always seen by God both within and without. On that account, everyone who does not wish to be condemned should also take heed in all respects not to transgress God’s commandments: ‘Not in gluttony and drunkenness’. We ought to have spiritual feasts as the same apostle taught with these words, ‘When you gather for a meal, let each of you have a salutary word of instruction in [his] mouth and a psalter in [his] hands’. Drunkenness is a deadly thing and a cause for lust. Solomon said, ‘Nothing will be hidden where drunkenness reigns’. In another place, the same apostle lamented the life of the immoderate, thus saying, ‘Their belly is their god, and their end is destruction, and their glory [is] in humiliation’. ‘Not in beds of fornication and sexual impurity’. But let there be honorable marriage between believers so that no adultery or sexual

671

Text: Et hoc scientes tempus

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

genemned on Godes Gelaþunge. ‘Na on geflite and andan’. Crist cwæþ be gesibsumum mannum þæt hi sind Godes bearn gecigede. And witodlice þa geflitfullan sind deofles lima. Se yfela secð symle ceaste, and wælhreow engel biþ asend togeanes him. Anda is derigendlic leahter, and æfre biþ se niðfulla wuniende on gedrefednysse for þan þe se anda ablent his mod and ælcere gastlicere blisse benæmð. Þurh andan bepæhte se deofol þone frumsceapenan mann, and se niþfulla is þæra deofla dælnimend. Seo soðe sib afligð ungeðwærnysse and þæs modes digel  |  nysse onliht, and witodlice se anda gemenigfylt yrsunge. Se apostol beleac þisne pistol mid þysum wordum, ‘Ac beoð ymbscrydde þurh Drihten Hælendne Crist’. ‘Ealle þa ðe on Criste beoþ gefullode, hi beoð mid Criste ymbscrydde’, gif hi þone Cristendom mid rihtwisnysse weorcum geglengaþ. Ðas gewædu awrat se ylca apostol swutellicor on oþre stowe, þus cweþende, ‘Ymscrydaþ eow swa swa Godes gecorenan mid mildheortnysse, and mid welwillendnysse, mid eadmodnysse, mid gemetfæstnysse, mid geðylde, and habbað eow toforan eallum þingum þa soðan lufe, seo ðe is bend ealra fulfremednyssa. And Cristes sib blissige on eowrum heortum, on þære ge sind gecigede on anum lichaman. Beoð ðancfulle, and Godes word wunige betwux eow genihtsumlice on eallum wisdome, tæcende and tyhtende eow betwynan on sealmsangum and gastlicum lofsangum, singende mid gife Gode on eowrum heortum. Swa hwæt swa ge doþ on worde oððe on weorce, doð symle on Drihtnes naman, þancigende þam ælmihtigan Fæder þurh his Bearn þe mid him symle on annysse þæs Halgan Gastes wunaþ’. Uton forþi us gearcian mid þysum foresædum reafum be þæs apostoles mynegunge þæt we to þære wunderlican gebyrdtide ures Drihtnes mid freolslicere þenunge becuman. Men behofiaþ godre lare and swiðost nu on þisum timan, þe is geendung þisre  |  worulde, and beoð fela frecednyssa on mancynne ær þan þe se ende becume, swa swa ure Drihten on his godspelle cwæþ to his leorningcnihtum, ‘“Þonne beoð swilce gedrecednyssa swilce næron næfre ær fram frymðe middaneardes. Manega lease Cristas cumað on minum naman cweþende, “Ic eom Crist,” and wyrcað fela tacna and wundra to bepæcenne mancyn and eac swilce þa gecorenan men gyf hit geweorðan mæg, and buton se ælmihtiga God þa dagas gescyrte, eal mennisc forwurde, ac for his gecorenum he gescyrtte þa dagas”’. Gehwa mæg ðe eaþelicor þa toweardan costnunge acumon þurh Godes fultum gyf he bið þurh boclice lare getrymmed, for þan ðe þa beoð gehaldene þe oþ ende on geleafan þurhwuniaþ. Fela gedrecednyssa and earfoðnyssa becumaþ on ðysre worulde ær hyre geendunge, and þa synd þa bydelas þæs ecan forwyrdes on yfelum mannum, þe for heora mandædum syððan ecelice þrowiaþ on ðære sweartan helle. Ðonne cymþ se Antecrist, se bið mennisc man and soð deofol. He bið begyten mid forlire of were and of wife, and he biþ mid deofles gaste afylled. And se gesewenlica deofol þonne wyrcð ungerime wundra and cwyþ ðæt he sylf God beo and wyle neadigan mancyn to his gedwylde. Ac his tima ne biþ na langsum for ðan ðe Godes grama hine fordeþ and þeos woruld biþ syþþan geendod. Crist ure Drihten gehælde untrume and adlige, and þes deofol þe is | gehaten Antecrist, þæt is gereht ‘Þwyrlic Crist’, alefaþ and geuntrumaþ ða halan and nænne ne gehælð fram untrumnyssum buton þam anum ðe

93 becuman] becuman þam sy wuldor and lof a on ecnysse. Amen A

672

p. 92

p. 93

p. 94

Text: Et hoc scientes tempus

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

impurity be named in God’s Church. ‘Not in strife and hostility’. Christ said about the peaceful that they are called children of God. And truly the quarrelsome are the devil’s limbs. The evil one always seeks strife, and a cruel angel will be sent against him. Hostility is an injurious sin, and the malicious one is always living in vexation because hostility blinds his mind and takes away every spiritual joy. By means of hostility, the devil deceived the first-created human, and the malicious [person] is one who shares in the fate of the devil. True peace drives out conflict and enlightens the darkness of the mind, and hostility truly increases anger. The apostle closed this epistle with these words, ‘But be clothed in the Lord Jesus Christ’. ‘All those who are baptized in Christ are clothed with Christ’, if they adorn [their] Christianity with works of righteousness. The same apostle wrote about these clothes more clearly in another place, thus saying, ‘Clothe yourselves as God’s elect with mercy, and with kindness, with humility, with self-control, with patience, and above all things have true love, which is the bond of all perfection. And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, into which you are called in one body. Be thankful, and let God’s word dwell among you abundantly in all wisdom, teaching and exhorting each other in psalm-singing and spiritual songs of praise, singing to God filled with grace in your hearts. Whatever you do in word or in deed, do [it] always in the Lord’s name, giving thanks to the almighty Father through his Son, who always dwells with him in the unity of the Holy Spirit’. Let us therefore make ourselves ready with these aforesaid clothes in accordance with the apostle’s exhortation so that we may come to the miraculous day of our Lord’s birth with a festive service. People need good teaching and most of all now at this time, which is the end of this world, for there will be many dangers among mankind before the end arrives, just as our Lord said in his Gospel to his disciples, ‘“At that time there will be such afflictions as have never been from the beginning of the world. Many false christs will come in my name saying, “I am Christ,” and will work many signs and wonders to deceive mankind and the elect too if it can happen, and unless almighty God shortened those days, all mankind would have perished, but he has shortened those days for his elect”’. Everyone will the more easily be able to endure the impending tribulation with God’s help if he is strengthened by learning contained in books, because those who persevere in faith until the end will be preserved. Many afflictions and hardships will come into this world before its end, and they are the heralds of eternal destruction among evil people, who afterwards will suffer eternally in dark hell for their evil deeds. Then will come the Antichrist, who is a human being and a true devil. He will be conceived by the fornication of a man and a woman, and he will be filled with the spirit of the devil. And the visible devil will at that time work countless wonders, and say that he is God, and will desire to compel mankind to his heresy. But his time will not be long because God’s anger will destroy him, and this world will afterwards be ended. Christ our Lord healed the sick and diseased, but the devil called the Antichrist, which means ‘perverse Christ’, will enfeeble and sicken the healthy and heal none from sickness except the ones whom

673

Text: Et hoc scientes tempus 115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

he sylf ær awyrde. He and his gingran awyrdaþ manna lichaman digellice þurh deofles cræft and gehælaþ hi openlice on manna gesihðe, ac he ne mæg nænne gehælan þe God sylf ær geuntrumode. He neadaþ ðurh yfelnysse þæt men sceolon bugan fram heora Scippendes geleafan to his leasungum, se þe is ord ælcere leasunge and yfelnysse. Se ælmihtiga God geþafaþ ðam arleasan Antecriste to wyrcenne tacna and wundra and ehtnysse to feorþan healfan geare, for þan ðe on þam timan biþ swa micel yfelnys and ðwyrnys betwux mancynne þæt hi wel wyrðe beoþ ðære deoflican ehtnysse to ecum forwyrde þam ðe him to bugað and to ecere myrhðe þam ðe him þurh geleafan wiðcweþað. God geþafaþ eac þæt his gecorenan þegnas beon aclænsode fram eallum synnum þurh þa ormætan ehtnyssa swa swa gold biþ on fyre afandod. Þa ofslylhð se deofol þe him wiðstandaþ, and hi þonne faraþ mid halgum martyrdome to heofonan rice. Þa ðe his leasungum gelyfaþ þam he araþ, and hi habbaþ syþþan ða ecan susle to edleane heora gedwyldes. Se arleasa deþ ðæt fyr cymð ufan swilce of heofonum on manna gesihðe swilce he God ælmihtig sy þe ah geweald heofonan and eorþan. Ac ða Cristenan sceolon beon þonne gemyndige  |  hu se deofol dyde þa ða he bæd æt Gode þæt he moste fandian Iobes. He gemacode þa þæt fyr com ufan swilce of heofonum and forbærnde ealle his scep ut on felda and þa hyrdas samod buton anum þe hit him cyþan sceolde. Ne sende na se deofol þa fyr of heofonum, þeah ðe hit ufan come, for þan ðe he sylf næs on heofonum syþðan he for his modignysse of aworpen wæs. Ne eac se wælreowa Antecrist næfð þa mihte þæt he heofenlic fyr asendan mæge, þeah ðe he þurh deofles cræft hit swa gehiwie. Be þam cwæþ se apostol Paulus, þæt se Antecrist wyrcð mid bedydrunge and gedwymore þas wundra, swa þeah on Godes geþafunge, for þam Iudeiscum þe noldon underfon Crist, þe is Soðfæstnys, him to alysednysse þæt hi underfon þone leasan Antecrist and hi his gedwyldum gelyfan him sylfum to forwyrde. Biþ nu wislicor þæt gehwa þis wite and cunne his geleafan weald hwa þa micclan yrmðe gebidan sceole. Ure Drihten bebead his discipulum þæt hi sceoldon læran and tæcan eallum þeodum þa þing þe he sylf him tæhte, ac þæra nu is to lyt þe wel wille tæcan and wel bysnian. Se ylca Drihten clypode þurh his witegan Ezechiel, ‘“Gif þu ne gestentst þone unrihtwisan and hine ne manast þæt he fram his arleasnysse gecyre and lybbe, þonne swylt se arleasa on his unrihtwisnysse, and Ic wille ofgan æt þe his blod”’, þæt is his lyre. ‘“Gif þu þonne þone arleasan gewarnast and he ne|le fram his arleasnysse gecyrran, þu alysdest þine sawle mid þære mynegunge, and se arleasa swylt on his unrihtwisnysse”’. Eft cwæþ se ælmihtiga God to þam witegan Isaiam, ‘“Clypa and ne geswic ðu, ahefe þine stemne swa swa byme and cyð minum folce heora leahtras and Iacobes hirede heora synna”’. For swylcum bebodum, we secgað eow þas lare þæt ge æfre gelyfon on þone ælmihtigan God, se þe ealle gesceafta gesceop þurh his mihte, þam sy wuldor and lof a to worulde, Amen.

674

p. 95

p. 96

Text: Et hoc scientes tempus 115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

he previously injured. He and his followers will secretly injure people’s bodies through the power of the devil and heal them publicly in the sight of people, but he cannot heal anyone whom God previously afflicted. He will compel people through wickedness to turn from faith in their Creator to his lies, he who is the source of every lie and wicked act. Almighty God will allow the impious Antichrist to work signs and wonders and persecution for three and a half years, because in that time there will be such great wickedness and perversity among mankind that they will be well-deserving of diabolical persecution to the everlasting destruction of those who submit to him and to the everlasting joy of those who with faith reject him. God also will allow his chosen thegns to be purified from all sins through heavy persecution just as gold is tried by fire. At that time the devil will kill those who oppose him, and through holy martyrdom they will then go to the kingdom of heaven. Those who believe his lies he will honor, and afterwards they will have eternal torment as a reward for their error. The impious one will cause fire to come from above as if from heaven in the sight of people as if he were God Almighty who has control of heaven and earth. But at that time Christians must be mindful of how the devil acted when he asked God to be allowed to try Job. He then caused fire to come from above as if from heaven and burned up all his sheep out in the field and the shepherds as well, except one to make it known to him. The devil did not send that fire from heaven, though it came from above, because he was not in heaven after he was cast out on account of his pride. Nor does the cruel Antichrist have the power to be able to send heavenly fire, though he may make it appear so through the devil’s power. Concerning this, the apostle Paul said that the Antichrist will work these miracles with deceit and illusion, although with God’s permission, on account of the Jews who would not accept Christ, who is the Truth, as their redemption so that they should accept the impious Antichrist and believe his falsehoods to their own destruction. Now it will be wiser for everyone to know this and have an understanding of his faith in case anyone should suffer misery. Our Lord commanded his disciples to instruct and teach all people the things that he taught, but there are now too few who desire to teach well and set a good example. That same Lord declared through his prophet Ezekiel, ‘“If you do not oppose the wicked and exhort him to turn from his impiety and live, then the impious one will die in his wickedness, and I will require from you his blood”’, which is his loss [of life]. ‘“If you then warn the impious one and he does not desire to turn from his impiety, you will save your soul with that warning, and the impious one will die in his wickedness”’. Another time almighty God said to the prophet Isaiah, ‘“Cry out and do not cease, lift up your voice like a trumpet and make known to my people their vices and to Jacob’s household their sins”’. On account of such commands, we declare to you this teaching so that you may always believe in the almighty God who created all created things by his power, to whom be glory and praise eternally, Amen.

675

ET HOC SCIENTES TEMPUS

COMMENTARY The citations below reproduce those found in Godden’s Commentary (for lines 1–93, pp. 330–4 [CH I.39], and for lines 94–157, pp. 3–7 [CH I.pref.]). Lines 12–13 [Efne … gefyllednysse]: Matthew 28.20, ‘Et ecce ego uobiscum sum omnibus diebus, usque ad consummationem saeculi’ (‘“And behold: I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”’). Lines 22–7 [Mine gebroðra … Drihten Hælend Crist]: compare Romans 13.11–14a, (11) ‘Et hoc scientes tempus: quia hora est iam nos de somno surgere. Nunc enim proprior est nostra salus, quam cum credidimus. (12) Nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquait. Abiiciamus ergo opera tenebrarum, et induamur arma lucis. (13) Sicut in die honeste ambulemus: non in comesationibus et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus et inpudicitiis, non in contentione et aemulatione. (14) Sed induimini Dominum Iesum Christum’ (‘[11] And [do] this, knowing the time: that it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. [12] The night is passed, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the words of darkness and put on the armour of light. [13] Let us walk honestly as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy. [14] But put you on the Lord Jesus Christ’). Line 40 [Þa halgan … to mihte]: from Psalms 84.7 [Vulgate 83.8], ibunt de uirtute in uirtutem (‘they shall go from virtue to virtue’). Lines 55–6 [Wiþstandaþ … to eow]: from James 4.7–8, erroneously attributed to St Paul, ‘Resistite autem diabolo, et fugiet a uobis. Appropinquate Deo, et appropinquabit uobis’ (‘Resist the devil, and he will fly from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you’). Line 63 [Na on oferætum and druncennyssum]: repeating the phrase from the translation of Romans 13.13 in lines 25–6 (cited above in note to lines 22–7). Lines 64–5 [Þonne ge … on handa]: compare 1 Corinthians 14.26, ‘cum conuenitis, unusquisque uestrum psalmum habet, doctrinam habet …’ (‘when you come together, every one of you have a psalm, have a doctrine…’).

676

Commentary: Et hoc scientes tempus Lines 66–7 [Ne biþ … rixaþ]: from Proverbs 31.4, ‘quia nullum secretum est ubi regnat ebrietas’ (‘because there is no secret where drunkenness reigns’). Lines 68–9 [Heora wamb … on gescyndnysse]: from Philippians 3.19, ‘Quorum finis interitus, quorum Deus uenter est, et gloria in confusion ipsorum’ (‘[their] end is destruction, whose god is their belly and whose glory is in their shame’). Lines 69–71 [Na on forlirbeddum … Godes Gelaþunge]: ‘Na on forlirbeddum and on unclænnyssum’ [line 69] repeats the phrase from the translation of Romans 13.13 in line 26 (cited above in note to lines 22–7). Ælfric uses unclænnyssa [line 69] to translate the Latin inpudicitiae (‘impurities’, ‘shameless acts’) from Romans 13.13 (see line 26). Godden notes that ‘[t]here is nothing resembling this reference to marriage in the Latin [sources]’ (Commentary, p. 334), and it is uncertain what Ælfric means by unclænnyss. In light of his frequent use of clænnyss to mean lawful intercourse within marriage when applying the word to the laity, we take unclænnyss here to mean ‘a lack of lawful intercourse’. Line 71 [Na on geflite and andan]: repeating the phrase from the translation of Romans 13.13 in lines 26–7 (cited above in note to lines 22–7). Lines 71–2 [Crist cwæþ … bearn gecigede]: with reference to Matthew 5.9, ‘Beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei uocabuntur’ (‘“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God”’). Lines 79–80 [Ac beoð … Hælendne Crist]: repeating the translation of Romans 13.14 in line 27 (cited above in note to lines 22–7). Lines 80–1 [Ealle … ymbscrydde]: Galatians 3.27, ‘Quicumque enim in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis’ (‘For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ’). Lines 82–91 [Ymscrydaþ eow … Halgan Gastes wunaþ]: compare Colossians 3.12–17, (12) ‘Induite uos ergo, sicut electi Dei sancti et dilecti, uiscera misericordiae, benignitatem, humilitatem, modestiam, patientiam; (13) subportantes inuicem et donantes uobis ipsis si quis aduersus aliquem habet querellam, sicut et Dominus donauit uobis ita et uos. (14) Super omnia autem haec caritatem quod est uinculum perfectionis. (15) Et pax Christi exultet in cordibus uestris in qua et uocati estis in uno corpore; et grati estote. (16) Verbum Christi habitet in uobis abundanter in omni sapientia docentes et commonentes uosmet ipsos psalmis, hymnis, canticis spiritalibus in gratia cantantes in cordibus uestris Deo. (17) Omne quodcumque facitis in uerbo aut in opere omnia in nomine Domini Iesu gratias agentes Deo et Patri per ipsum’ ([12] ‘Put on therefore as the elect of God, holy and beloved, the bowels [i.e. a heart] of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience, [13] bearing with one another and forgiving one another if any have a complaint against another. Even as the Lord has forgiven you, so do you also. [14] But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection, and let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body, and be thankful. [16] Let the word 677

Commentary: Et hoc scientes tempus of Christ dwell in you abundantly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual canticles, singing in grace in your hearts to God. [17] All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him’). Lines 96–101 [Þonne beoð … þa dagas]: a composite from Matthew 24.5, 21–2, and 24 excerpted and rearranged as follows, (21) ‘Erit enim tunc tribulatio magna, qualis non fuit ab initio mundi … (24) Surgent enim pseudochristi … (5) multi enim uenient in nomine meo, dicentes: Ego sum Christus; et multos seducent. … (24) et dabunt signa magna, et prodigia, ita ut in errorem inducantus (si fieri potest) etiam electi. (22) Et nisi breuiati fuissent dies illi, non fieret salua omnis caro; sed propter electos breuiabuntur dies illi’ ([21] ‘“For there shall be then great tribulation, such as the world has not been from the beginning of the world … [24] For there shall arise false christs …for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am Christ’, and they will seduce many … [24] and [they] shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if it is possible) even the elect. [22] And unless those days had been shortened, there should be no flesh saved, but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened”’). Lines 103–4 [for þan ðe … þurhwuniaþ]: perhaps an allusion to this portion of Matthew 10.22, ‘qui autem perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit’ (‘“but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved”’). Lines 142–6 [Gif þu ne … his unrihtwisnysse]: compare Ezekiel 3.18–19, ‘Si dicente me ad impium morte morieris non adnuntiaueris ei neque locutus fueris ut auertatur a uia sua impia et uiuat, ipse impius in iniquitate sua morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu tua requiram. Si autem tu adnuntiaueris impio et ille non fuerit conuersus ab impietate sua et uia sua impia, ipse quidem in iniquitate sua morietur, tu autem animam tuam liberasti’ (‘“If when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’, you declare it not to him nor speak to him that he may be converted from his wicked way and live, the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at your hand. But if you give warning to the wicked and he be not converted from his wickedness and from his evil way, he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul”’). Lines 147–8 [Clypa … heora synna]: Isaiah 58.1, ‘Clama ne cesses quasi tuba, exalta uocem tuam et adnuntia populo meo scelera eorum et domui Iacob peccata eorum’ (‘“Cry, cease not, lift up your voice like a trumpet, and show my people their wicked doings and the house of Jacob their sins”’).

678

13

DE UIRGINITATE De uirginitate (‘Concerning Virginity’) is a scribe’s somewhat misleading title for this composite homily that talks about virginity and about marriage, widowhood, obedience, almsgiving, and tithing as well. Over a span of nearly twenty years, Ælfric authored its four component parts, all of them freely composed,1 and scholarly judgments as to his responsibility for assembling the sermon range from possible (Clemoes and Pope) to probable (Kezel).2 If Ælfric was the compiler, then he likely completed De uirginitate sometime around 1006 since part one [lines 2–57] corresponds to the passage on marriage, widowhood, and virginity in De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), which also dates from this period.3 Part two [lines 58–70] consists of two non-consecutive excerpts from a much earlier work, De doctrina apostolica (‘Concerning Apostolic Doctrine’ [SH II.19]), a homily featuring St Paul’s teaching on chastity and marriage.4 Part two is written in ordinary prose, not in the alliterative prose adopted by Ælfric from about 998 onwards,5 and Pope speculates that he wrote the portion of De doctrina excerpted here while working on the Catholic Homilies, which is to say in the late 980s or early 990s.6 Part three consists of a passage in rhythmic prose on obedience and almsgiving [lines 71–145] that Ælfric may have written for the De uirginitate since it is found nowhere

1 2

3

4 5 6

As the notes demonstrate, Ælfric occasionally makes recourse to sermons by Augustine or Pseudo-Caesarius, but his independence is indicative of much of his later work. Clemoes, ‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xviii (revising his earlier, unqualified attribution to Ælfric in ‘Chronology’, pp. 52 and 57); Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 799; and Kezel, ‘Ælfric the Benedictine’, pp. 163–71, at p. 171, all as cited by Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 118. Clemoes reverses the order of composition he assigned to De sancta uirginitate (initially dated 1006) and De uirginitate (initially dated 1005–6) in his ‘Chronology’ (p. 57). He later concludes that Ælfric adapted the Letter for Sigefyrth for homiletic use in De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) and then excerpted and adapted a passage from De sancta uirginitate for De uirginitate (‘Supplementary Introduction’, p. xviii). Kleist, guided by the ‘Chronology’, dates De uirginitate to ca 1005–6 and De sancta uirginitate to ca 1006 – (1009 × 1010), but notes Kezel’s reference to De sancta uirginitate as the first of the two works (Chronology and Canon, pp. 117, 112, and 302 n. 221). The exact sequence may be impossible to determine with full certainty, but both works can securely dated to ca 1006. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 622–35, lines 34–43 and 53–60, written consecutively. For ca 998 as a terminus ante quem for Ælfric’s regular prose compositions, see below, p. 641 n. 4. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 614. Since the second part of SH II.19 [lines 131–254] is written in rhythmic prose, Kleist dates the homily as a whole to ca 993 – ca 998 (Chronology and Canon, p. 89).

679

Introduction: De uirginitate else in his corpus.7 The non-rhythmic prose of the fourth and final part on tithing [lines 146–76] again points to a date before 998.8 There is no indication that the passage belonged to an earlier work, though Ælfric’s later use of it in a different composite homily may be a point in favor of his authorship of this one.9 Pope is inclined to see De uirginitate as the work of ‘some less gifted preacher’, though when considering the possibility of Ælfric’s authorship, he acknowledges that ‘one cannot expect unfailingly high standards of organization from so prolific and so practical an author’.10 Pope emphasizes the homily’s visible seams,11 we its coherence in spite of them. It is helpful to understand that the sermon has both the laity and the clergy in view. The opening section implies a dual audience by linking marriage, widowhood, and lifelong virginity to the variable yields of the good crops in the Parable of the Sower and their corresponding heavenly rewards [lines 2–57]. Subsequently, the married come into view in the first excerpt from De doctrina that extends the definition of adulterer (forliger [line 13]) to include a man who unjustly divorces his wife [lines 58–64]. The clergy, more particularly the monastic clergy, then come into view. In the second passage from De doctrina, Ælfric addresses his remarks to those who ‘at one time vowed chastity to God’12 [lines 65–70], after which he turns to those who ‘live their life in chastity and purity of spirit’13 [lines 71–98]. In the first instance, he urges obedience to one’s parents for the oblates whose mother and father chose their vocation for them and, in the second instance, obedience to one’s superior and to God for the celibates whom he cautions against prideful disdain toward the married who comprise part of his implied audience.14 Having made the point to the clergy that their obedience to God’s commands is better than their offerings, Ælfric turns to the new but related subject of almsgiving, the ‘little offerings’ (lytan lac [line 102]) one makes with a good heart as an act of worship [lines 99–145]. As he encourages believers to do good with alms, a practice common to both clergy and laity, he broadens the hundred-fold reward due celibates to include all who give without boasting, that is without calling attention to themselves. His final point stresses that even public fasting and prayer can be done ‘in secret’ (diglice [line 143]) if done with humility and can be worthy of eternal reward. Ælfric’s reference to prayer at

7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14

Pope edited this passage as SH II.30 [A], lines 1–74 (Homilies, vol. II, 804–6), which Kleist dates to ca 1006–10 (Chronology and Canon, p. 90). Pope thinks the passage cannot have been written for De uirginitate because it does not integrate the preceding passages nor prepare for those that follow. We see greater thematic continuity with the surrounding sections than Pope does. Pope edited this passage as SH II.30 [B], lines 75–114 (Homilies, vol. II, pp. 806–8), which Kleist dates to ca 993 – ca 998 (Chronology and Canon, p. 92). Ca 1009 – ca 1010 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 92), Ælfric added the passage on tithing to CH II.28 (Godden, Second Series, pp. 249–54), along with the story of the emperor Theodosius and Bishop Ambrose, an exemplum of a proud man humbled (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 762–9 [SH II.26]). The augmented homily [revised CH II.28 + SH II.26] is preserved in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178 [R], pp. 114–26 [Ker §41.10], where it is slated as a quando uolueris sermon. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 802. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 799–801. AH II.13, line 65: ‘se ðe þa clænnesse Gode æne behet’. AH II.13, lines 78–9: ‘on mægðhade and on modes clænnesse heora lif libbað’. Oblation, the practice of dedicating children to religious service, was encouraged in the Benedictine Reform (Stephenson, ‘Scapegoating’, p. 117), and Ælfric addresses the practice at some length in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), lines 255–80.

680

Introduction: De uirginitate mass or during the canonical hours [line 142], the seven services of the Divine Office, suggests he has the clergy primarily in view. The laity too, though, would be expected to observe public fasts and attend mass on special feast-days, a time when they or special class of them, widows for example, might have been permitted to attend evening prayer.15 Themes of giving and obedience come to the fore in the sermon’s final section on tithing [lines 146–76], a practice that may have included the clergy and was obligatory for the laity. Ælfric adduces evidence from holy books and Scripture to assert that every Christian ought to give God his first-fruits and a tenth of all his crops, livestock, and goods [lines 146–60]. Lay believers in particular are the focus of his final instructions [lines 161–76]. From the profit on all gainful activity, whether business, agriculture, or animal husbandry, they are to give two-thirds of their tithe to God’s servants in the minster where they are members and the remaining third to the poor, widows, orphans, and foreigners. Ælfric links the payment of tithes to the harvest season when he explains that first-fruits can denote the first crops from a dedicated plot of land known as an ælmes-æcre (‘alms-acre’ [line 169]). Presumably, in addition to tithes, that yield can be used for alms and the consecration of the niwan hlaf (‘new loaf’ [line 171]), the first bread baked from the new grain of the fall harvest. Though this ceremony, which would come to be celebrated on 1 August, was not integrated into the ecclesiastical calendar in Ælfric’s day,16 tithes on crops were by law to be paid by the autumnal equinox, which fell between 21 and 24 September.17 Pope observes that ‘[a]n admonition from the pulpit a few weeks in advance of the equinox would thus be timely’, and he suggests Mary’s Assumption on 15 August and her Nativity on 8 September as appropriate occasions for the delivery of De uirginitate.18 A date of delivery tied to the equinox may help to explain Ælfric’s reference to an ordained public fast as he sets out some liturgical expectations for the fall agricultural 15

16

17

18

Ælfric mentions widows who had been consecrated as nuns, nunnan, in AH I.8 [lines 369–70, at 370], and in his homily Judith, he seems to be addressing a nunne who lived in a community of such women that could have been housed in a minster and that, in this case, included a dedicated virgin among its ranks (Clayton, ‘Judith’, p. 227). Helen Gittos adduces a late-eleventh-century example of a widow who has access to St Augustine’s monastery at Canterbury during Vespers (Liturgy, pp. 14–15). Also, see below n. 22. The day for the ritual blessing the new loaf at mass, the hlaf-mæsse, would later be known as Lammas (Hlafmæsse) Day. Ælfric knew the term as a calendrical reference rather than a fixed feast-day (Jolly, ‘Tapping the Power’, pp. 68–9). Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 802. Pope refers to a law promulgated by King Edgar around 960–2 which was presumably in force when Ælfric composed De uirginitate [II Edgar.3]. King Æthelred II would later revise this date of render to All Saints’ Day (1 November) in his code of 1008 [V Æthelred 11.2] and again to the Equinox or at the latest All Saint’s Day in his code of 1014 [VIII Æthelred 9.1] (Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 99 n. 1), both of which postdate Ælfric’s composition of De uirginitate. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 802. Pope favors the Assumption, as does Kezel who notes that De uirginitate and De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) as well ‘would be highly suitable on this date because they both relate the three orders of chastity to the parable of the sower – thus beautifully combining themes long associated with Mary’s summer feast: chastity, eschatology, and the harvest’ (‘Ælfric the Benedictine’, p. 169). De sancta uirginitate, which Ælfric excerpts for De uirginitate, is assigned to Mary’s Assumption. Worthy of note is Pope’s observation that Ælfric also uses the section on tithing to augment his homily for the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, a Sunday that usually fell in August at the beginning of the harvest (Homilies, vol. II, p. 801).

681

Introduction: De uirginitate season. As mentioned earlier, in part three of De uirginitate he identifies public fasting and communal prayer in conjunction with almsgiving as meritorious practices provided they are carried out humbly [lines 99–145]. Given the autumnal context of his subsequent comments on tithing, he may have been thinking of the September Ember Days observed on the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday of the week prior to the autumnal equinox.19 His exhortation Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (‘The Laity Are to Know’ [AH II.20]) makes clear that he expected the laity to observe these quarterly days of fasting, abstinence, and prayer.20 And in De doctrina, which he excerpts for De uirginitate, he singles out the Sundays after the Ember Days as four of the fifteen times during the year when the laity should take Communion.21 When he refers to prayers offered at mass [lines 141–2], perhaps he has in mind this Sunday service. There is eleventh-century evidence that the laity attended the office of Vespers in some minsters,22 so maybe the prayer at a canonical hour he mentions could include them too. We can be sure that with its explicit reference to the blessing of new bread and possibly an oblique one to the Ember Days, De uirginitate would enable a pastor to prepare his lay and clerical flocks to render their tithes and offerings at harvest time. Bishop Leofric of Exeter (1050–72) emerges as a prime candidate for such a pastor because he owned the homiliary that preserves the sole copy of De uirginitate to survive. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College (CCCC) 419 [V1a] was not written in Exeter, however. It was most likely copied in south east England, perhaps at Canterbury, in the first half of the eleventh century, as was its companion volume CCCC 421 [V1b]. By the third quarter of that century, both homiliaries appear to have been at Exeter, where seven sermons were added to CCCC 421 [V2], thus bringing to fifteen the number of homilies in both volumes.23 De uirginitate easily finds a place among the general addresses in CCCC 419, where seven other sermons discuss or mention almsgiving and/or tithing as a necessity for leading a virtuous life.24 The same is true of three homilies in CCCC 421.25 Viewed alongside two sermons that promise hell in life and after death for those who fail to pay their tithes and dues,26 and another that puts a fine point on the matter by interposing an excursus on the tortures of hell between lists of their obligations,27 Ælfric’s exhortations to give alms and tithe at harvest time seem quite tame. Exeter was 19 20 21 22

23 24

25 26 27

In 1005, for example, the Ember Days fell on 19, 21, and 22 September, and in 1006 on the 18th, 20th, and 21st (Cheney, Handbook, p. 105 [Table 11] and p. 145 [Table 31], respectively). In addition to September, the Ember Days were during the third week of Advent, the first week of Lent, and the week following Pentecost. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 628, line 126. Dyson, Priests and their Books, p. 191, with reference to the minsters at Waltham and Twynham and his comment that ‘this may have been common in churches where the Office was regularly celebrated’. Ker §§68–9; Gneuss and Lapidge §§108–9; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 233–5. Ker §68.2–3, 9–11, and 13–14. De uirginitate is art. 15. The remainder of the paragraph summarizes and repeats points from the discussion of CCCC 419 and 421 in Upchurch, ‘Resonances and Roles’, pp. 487–95. Ker §69.6 and 9–10. Ker §68.2–3 [CCCC 419]. For the passages, see Haines, Sunday Observance, pp. 150–2 [Letter E], lines 43–81, and p. 124 [Letter B], lines 115–25. Ker §68.10 [CCCC 419]. For the passage, see Napier 22, pp. 113, line 2 – 117, line 3, noting that the homily consists of Napier 21–4, pp. 111–22.

682

Introduction: De uirginitate a prosperous town in Leofric’s day,28 and he a zealous preacher of God’s word.29 So we might imagine Exeter’s citizens and Leofric’s canons gathering in early autumn on a feast-day of Mary, one of the cathedral’s patron saints,30 to hear the bishop preach about the figurative and literal crops that would bring them heavenly rewards.31

28 29

30 31

See, for example, Allan et al., ‘Saxon Exeter’, pp. 385, 397–98, and 405, and Upchurch, ‘Resonances and Roles’, pp. 494–5. His obituary, written at Exeter, recalls that he ‘populo sibi commisso uerbum dei studiose predicabat’ (‘zealously preached God’s word to the people entrusted to him’) (Orchard, Leofric Missal, vol. II, p. 4). The dedication of Exeter cathedral was changed from St Peter to SS Peter and Mary in the late tenth century (Clayton, Cult of the Virgin Mary, pp. 126 and 135). It is worth remarking that the homily Ælfric wrote with the monastic clergy in mind would have been suitable for the community of secular canons serving Exeter cathedral. They too were celibates expected to observe the Divine Office daily. Even Ælfric’s mention of children dedicated to God’s clænum þeowdome (‘chaste or pure service’, line 68) might have been understood by the canons as a reference to children housed and educated in secular minsters with the goal of making them priests who served at the altar, a rank requiring chastity. These children [§46, pp. 260–1] and the requirement [§§62, 64, 68, pp. 300–1, 304–5, and 306–7, respectively] are mentioned in the enlarged version of the Rule of Chrodegang that governed the canons’ lives, and the only Old English translation to survive was that made at Exeter when Leofric was bishop (Langefeld, Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang, p. 45). Langefeld edits the Latin and Old English versions of the Rule from Leofric’s manuscript, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 191 (s. xi3/4).

683

de uirginitate

concerning virginity

DE UIRGINITATE De uirginitate

5

10

15

Cristene men scylon æt Cristes lareowum leornian heora geleafan þæt hy libban on riht, for ðan þe þreo hadas syndon þe þam Hælende  |  liciað: ærest riht sinscipe and syððan wuduwan had mid þæs modes clænnesse. Riht sinscipe is on gesinhiwum þa ðe beoð geeawnode æfter Godes gesetnesse and æwbryce ne wyrcað wolice and sceamlice and heora lif libbað swa swa hit alyfed is, bearn strynende mid Godes bletsunge on alyfedum timan Godes folce to eacan, for ðan þe God fordemð þa dyrnan forligras and þa unriht hæmeras on hellesuslum butan heo heora unriht ær heora ende gebetan. Hit wære swiðe rihtlic  |  æfter rihtlicum life Text from: V1a Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 419, pp. 347–66 (s. xi1, possibly SE England; provenance Exeter) Variants from: H for lines 2–57, from London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C. v, 183v–184r (added in s. xi1, SW England); Ælfric’s De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7, lines 121–77) C for lines 58–70, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303, pp. 302–303 (s. xii1 or s. xiimed, probably Rochester): Ælfric’s De doctrina apostolica (SH II.19, lines 34–43 and 53–60) P1 for lines 58–70, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, 36rv (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester): Ælfric’s De doctrina apostolica (SH II.19, lines 34–43 and 53–60) R1 for lines 146–76, Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178, pp. 124–126 (s. xi1, probably Worcester, provenance Worcester [Gneuss and Lapidge §54]): Ælfric’s augmented version of CH II.28 2–6 Cristene men … modes clænnesse] Is nu forði mycel neod [Cristen]um mannum þæt hi leornion heora geleafan æt cristes lareowum and hu hi [lybb]on on riht on godes gelaðunge for þan ðe þry hadas syndon þe full[ice] Gode liciað: þæra is ærest riht sinscipe, and syþþan wudewanhad, and þonne [m]ægðhad mid þæs modes clænnesse H  6 ] omitted V1a; and þonne mægðhad H  16 rihtlicum] rihtum H 

686

p. 348

p. 349

CONCERNING VIRGINITY Concerning virginity

5

10

15

Christians must learn their faith from Christ’s teachers to live rightly because there are three conditions that please the Savior: the first is proper marriage and then widowhood and then chastity with purity of spirit. Proper marriage exists among wedded couples who are married according to God’s ordinance, and do not wrongfully and shamefully commit adultery, and live their life as it is permitted, begetting children with God’s blessing at permitted times for the increase of God’s people, because God will damn secret adulterers and fornicators in the torments of hell unless they atone for their wrong before their death. It would be exceedingly proper in a manner befitting a proper way of life

687

Text: De uirginitate

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

þæt se cniht heolde hine sylfne clæne oð ðæt he wifode swa he wile habban clæne mæden þonne heo cumað togædere. And æfter Godes gesetnesse eallswa scyldig bið geteald se forlegena cniht swa þæt forlegene mæden. Wudewanhad is þæt man wunige on clænnesse for Godes lufan, swa swa þæt godspel sægð, æfter his gemacan mid anrædnysse, ægðer ge weras ge wif, æfter Godes gewissunge. Hit bið swiðe sceamlic þæt eald wif scyle ceorles wilnian þonne heo forwered  |  bið and teames ætealdod ungehealtsumlice for ðam þe giftu ne beoð for nanum þinge astealde butan for bearnteame, swa swa bec us sæcgað. Mægðhad is witodlice se ðe wunað on clænnesse æfre fram cildhade gesælig for Criste, ge wæpmen ge wifmen þa ðe wurðiað Crist mid swa micelre lufe þæt heom leofre bið þæt hy mid earfoðnesse hy sylfe gewyldon to ðære clænnesse þe heo Criste beheton þonne hy heora lustas on heora life gefremmon and fram þam  |  ecum wyrðmynte ælfremede beon, swa swa þa godan munecas and mynecyna doð þa ðe on clænnesse Criste æfre þeowiað. Ðas þry hadas habbað þone þreofealdan wæstm þære godran earðan, swa swa þæt godspel sægð us, þæt þæt gode sæd þe God sæwð on mancynne sum byrð þrittigfealdne wæstm, sum sixtigfealdne, sum hundfealdne mid healicum geþylde. Ða ðe on sinscipe wuniað mid gesceadwisnysse and heora æwe healdað butan æwbryce symle, þa habbað þrittigfealde mede  |  æt þam mildheortan Criste on þam ecan life mid þara engla geferrædene. Ða ðe on wudewanhade wuniað for Criste, þa habbað æt him eft sixtigfealde mede. Ða þe on mægþhade and on modes clænnysse fram cildhade wuniað on Cristes þeowdome mid eadmodnesse him æfre þeniende þa habbað hundfealde mede mid him sylfum on ecnesse and þa mærestan wununge, swa swa se witega cwæð, Isaias se æðela, on his gesetnesse. God cwæð æt fruman to mancynne on middaneardes anginne,  |  ‘“Wexað and beoð

19 togædere] togæderes H  26 sceamlic] sceandlic H  29 þinge] oðran þinge H  30 bearnteame] bearnteame anum H bec us sæcgað] us secgað halige bec H  42 sægð us] us segð H 

688

p. 350

p. 351

p. 352

p. 353

Text: De uirginitate

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

for the young man to keep himself pure until he married just as he desires to have a pure virgin when they come together. And according to God’s ordinance, the young man guilty of fornication will be considered just as guilty as the young woman guilty of fornication. Widowhood is to live in chastity with steadfastness for God’s sake, just as the Gospel says, after a spouse [dies], both men and women, according to God’s guidance. It is very shameful that an old woman should desire a husband without restraint when she is enfeebled with age and too old for childbearing because marriage is not established for any other purpose except for child-bearing alone, just as books tell us. Virginity that lasts in purity continually from childhood is truly blessed in the sight of Christ, both men and women who honor Christ with such great love that is dearer to them to have controlled themselves with great effort on account of the chastity they promised to Christ than to act on their desires during their lifetime and be estranged from everlasting honor, just as good monks and nuns do who continually serve Christ in chastity. These three conditions have a three-fold crop from the good soil, just as the Gospel tells us, so that [of] the good seed God sows among mankind, some bears a thirty-fold crop, some a sixty-fold [crop], and some a hundred-fold [crop] with utmost patience. Those who live in marriage with discretion and keep their marriage vow without ever breaking the marriage law will have a thirty-fold reward from the merciful Christ in the everlasting life along with the companionship of the angels. Those who live in widowhood for Christ will afterwards have from him a sixty-fold reward. Those who live in chastity and purity of spirit from childhood in the service of Christ always serving him with humility will have a hundred-fold reward with him forever and the most glorious dwelling, just as the prophet, Isaiah the wise, said in his book. God at first said to mankind at the beginning of the world, ‘“Increase and be abundant

689

Text: De uirginitate 60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

gemenigfylde and gefyllað þas eorðan”’. Eft on þære niwan gecyðnesse, þæt is on godspelbodunge, cwæð Crist to þam Iudeiscum, ‘“Ic sæcge eow to soðan þæt swa hwa swa his wif forlæt, butan heo dyrne-ceorl hæbbe, and gif he oðer wif nimð, þonne bið he forliger, and se ðe þæt forlætene wif nimð bið eac forliger”. Ða cwædon Cristes leornigcnihtas him to, “Gif þam were is þus mid wife, selre him bið þæt he ne wifige”. Ða cwæð Crist, “Ne underfoð ealle men þis word, ac þam þe hit forgifen bið”’. |  Wite gehwa, se ðe þa clænnesse Gode æne behet, þæt he hit ne awæge. Fæder and moder motan heora bearn to swa hwylcum cræfte gedon swa hym leofost bið. And God bebead þæt ealle bearn beon gehyrsume fæder and moder. Gif hy þonne heora bearn Gode betæcað to his clænum þeowdome and þæt bearn bið hym ungehyrsum, þonne getimað him swa swa hit awriten is: Nemo inobediens parentibus suis saluus erit: ‘Ne bið nan man gehealden þe bið ungehyrsum fæder and moder’. Ure Hælend Crist  |  wæs gehyrsum his Fæder, swa þæt he sylfwilles hine sealde to deaðe for ure alysednesse mid micelre lufe. Nu sceal ælc bearn beon his fæder underþeod to þæs Hælendes willan, ac he ne sceal na swa þeah his ræde folgian gif he him misræt for Gode, ne his wissungum gif he hine wemð fram Criste. Ða þe on mægðhade and on modes clænnesse heora lif libbað locien hy georne þæt hy þa ne forseon þe on sinscipe wuniað for ðan þe þæt eadmode wif, swa swa Augustinus cwæð, bið betere ætforan Gode  |  þonne þæt modige mæden. Forðam mot seo eadmodnes beon mid þære clænnesse þæt se mægðhad mage þa miclan geþincðe habban þæs hundfealdan wæstmes, swa swa se Hælend cwæð. And æfre to Godes bebodum man sceal beon gehyrsum þam gastlican ealdre, þe him for Gode wissiað. Be ðam cwæð Samuel to Saule þam cynge þa þa he Godes hæse and his wissunge forseah, ‘Melior est enim obedientia quam uictima’: ‘“Betere is soðlice seo gehyrsumnes þonne seo onsægednes”’, þæt syndon  |  offrunga. And betere is to heorcnienne þæs Hælendes willan þonne him to offrigenne ænige oðre lac for ðan þe hit soðlice is, swa swa Samuel sæde, swylce hæðenscipe, and swylc swa is deofolgyld þæt se man wiðrige ongean Godes willan

60 þæt] omitted P1  61–2 þonne … nimð] omitted C  62 eac] omitted P1  63 leornigcnihtas] leornigcnihtas V1a; leorningcnihtas CP1  64 hit] omitted C  65 hit] hit eft CP1  67 bebead] bead P1 69 suis] omitted CP1  87 þam] þam V1a 

690

p. 354

p. 355

p. 356

p. 357

Text: De uirginitate 60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

and fill the earth”’. Again in the New Testament, that is, in the preaching of the Gospel, Christ said to the Jews, ‘“I tell you as a truth that whoever divorces his wife, unless she have a secret lover, and takes another wife, he will then be an adulterer, and he who takes the divorced wife will also be an adulterer”. Then Christ’s disciples said to him, “If it is this way for the man with a wife, it is better for him not to marry”. Then Christ said, ‘“Not all men can receive this word except those to whom it is given”’. Let everyone who at one time vowed chastity to God know that he may not fail to fulfill it. A father and mother may put their child to whatever occupation that most pleases them. And God commanded all children to obey [their] father and mother. If when they dedicated their child to his chaste service and the child disobeys them, then as it is written, Nemo inobediens parentibus suis saluus erit:32 ‘No one who disobeys [his] father and mother will be saved’. Our Savior Christ obeyed his Father so that he willingly gave himself to death for our redemption with great love. Now every child ought to serve his father in accordance with the Savior’s will, but, nevertheless, he ought not follow his advice if he misadvises him concerning God, nor [follow] his guidance if he leads him away from Christ. Let those who live their life in chastity and purity of spirit eagerly take heed not to despise those who live in marriage because, as Augustine said, the humble wife is better before God than the proud virgin. Therefore humility must exist with chastity so that virginity can have the great honor of the hundred-fold crop, just as the Savior said. And one ought always to be obedient to God’s commands and [his] spiritual superior, which guide him for God’s sake. Concerning this Samuel said to King Saul when he despised God’s command and his guidance, ‘Melior est enim obedientia quam uictima’:33 ‘“Truly obedience is better than sacrifice”’, which are offerings. And it is better to pay attention to the Savior’s will than to offer him any other offering because [that] is truly, as Samuel said, like heathen belief, and to struggle against God’s will and not to want to obey his commands at all

32 33

‘No one who is disobedient to his parents will be saved’. The opening clause of 1 Samuel [Vulgate 1 Kings] 15.22b–23a: ‘“Melior est enim oboedientia quam uictimae et auscultare magis quam offerre adipem arietum. Quoniam quasi peccatum ariolandi est repugnare et quasi scelus idolatriae nolle adquiescere”’ (‘“For obedience is better than sacrifices, and to hear more [desirable] than to offer the fat of rams. Because to rebel is like the sin of divination, and to be unwilling to obey is like the crime of idolatry”’).

691

Text: De uirginitate

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

and nelle gehyrsumian his hæsum nateshwon. Ðis is nu gesæd sceortlice þus, and we sæcgað gyt þæt we sceolan god don on urum ælmesdædum þam ælmihtigum Gode to lofe, se ðe ure lytlan lac mid lufe underfehð gif we mid godum willan hy Gode betæcað and on his þearfum  |  her hy aspendað. He sceawað þæs mannes heortan swiðor þonne his lac for ðam þe him nan neod nis ure lytlan sylene, se ðe ægðer hæfð on his anwealde symble heofonan and eorðan and þæt þæt him on wunað. Ac he forgeaf us mannum middaneardlice þing us sylfum to bryce and þæt we hine oncnawan mid þam eorðlicum þingum him to wyrðmynte, and he us forgylt eft be hundfealdum swa hwæt swa we her doð for his lufan to gode. Gif þu oncnawst þinne Drihten on þinum ælmesdædum be ðinre lyt|lan mæðe on wanhalum mannum, hit fremað þe sylfum on þam selran life, and Gode naht ne hearmað þeah ðe þu hine forgite. God girnð þære godnysse þines godan modes, na þinra æhta, se ðe ah ealle þing. Gif þu hwæt dest him to lofe on his lacum mid cyste, þu geswutelast þine godnessa swa mid þære dæde. Gif þu þonne nan god for Gode don nelt, þu geswutelast þa uncyste þines yfelan modes, and seo yfelnes þe fordeð on ecnysse wið God. Be ðam þe se Hælend on his halgan godspelle cwæð, | ‘Nesciat sinistra tua quid faciat dextera tua’: ‘“Nyte þin wynstre hand hwæt þin swiðre hand do”’. Us nis na to understandenne be ðam stæflicum andgite ac be þam gastlicum andgite, þæt we for Godes lufan ure ælmessan don, na for idelum gylpe. Seo wynstre hand getacnað þissere worulde gylp. Nu se ðe ælmessan dælð þam Ælmihtigan to lofe, he dælð soðlice mid þære swiðran handa. And se ðe for idelum gylpe his ælmessan dælð, he dælð witodlice mid þære wynstran handa. Gif seo  |  swiðre hand bið seoc oððe untrum, wel he mot dælan mid þære wynstran handa gif he þone idelan gylp eallunga onscunað. Ealswa be fæstenum gif we fæstað eawunga

692

p. 358

p. 359

p. 360

p. 361

Text: De uirginitate

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

is idolatry. This has now thus been briefly been said, and we will say in addition that we ought to do good with our almsgiving as praise to almighty God who receives our little offerings with love if we entrust them to God with good will and distribute them here among his poor. He considers a person’s heart more than his offering because he has no need for our little gift who forever has in his power heaven and earth and that which dwells therein. But he gave to us humans earthly things for our use and so that we might acknowledge him with these earthly possessions as an honor to him, and he will repay us again a hundred-fold whatever good we do here for his sake. If you acknowledge your Lord with your almsgiving among ailing people according to your small measure, it will do you good in the better life, but [it] will not harm God at all should you forget him. God, who owns all things, desires goodness from a good heart, not your possessions. If you do something out of generosity as praise to him for his gifts, you will thus reveal your goodness with the act. Yet if you do not desire to do any good for God, you will reveal the stinginess of your evil heart, and the wickedness will damn you forever in the eyes of God. Concerning this the Savior declared in his holy Gospel, ‘Nesciat sinistra tua quid faciat dextera tua’:34 ‘“Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”’. We are not to understand [this] according to the literal meaning but the figurative one, so that we give alms for God’s sake, not for empty boasting. The left hand signifies the boasting of this world. Now he who distributes alms as praise to the Almighty truly distributes with the right hand. And he who distributes alms for empty boasting truly distributes with the left hand. If the right hand is diseased or infirm, he may fittingly distribute with the left hand if he avoids empty boasting altogether. Likewise concerning fasting, if we publicly fast 34

From Matthew 6.3: ‘“te autem faciente elemosynam nesciat sinistra tua quid faciat dextera tua”’ (‘“but when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”’).

693

Text: De uirginitate

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

on gebodenum fæstenum, and þonne we us gebiddað betwux oðrum mannum æt mæssan and æt tidsangum eall hit bið diglice gif we hit doð butan gylpe, urum Hælende to lofe þæt we habban þa mede on þam soðan life on ecere gesælðe. God sylf bebead on þære ealdan æ and eac manað on þære niwan þæt ælc Cristen  | man sceal glædlice syllan Gode his frumwæstmas and his teoðunge ealra þæra wæstma þe him God to þam geare forgifð, and ealre þære geoguðe þe him of his orfe acenned bið, and ealra þara goda þe him God to þam geare foresceawað, to þy þæt he mid gesundfulnysse and Godes bletsunge þara nigen dæla brucan mote. For ðam þe hit stent on halgum bocum þus awriten: Si quis primitias retinuerit, aut decimas de laboribus suis, maledictus sit in omni domo sua. Ðæt is on Englisc, ‘Swa hwa swa his frumwæstmas  |  oððe teoðunge his agenre tilðe Gode ætbret, þæt he bið awyrged on ealre his hiwrædene’. Eft is awriten, gif þu æthæfst Gode þa teoðunge, þæt his rihtwisnes benæmð þe þara nigon dæla and læt þe habban þone teoðan dæl. Se ælmihtiga God, þe us ealle þing forgifð, wile habban æt us þa teoþunga his agenre gife, na for his neode ac for ure him to wyrðmynte and us to þearfe for þære gehyrsumnysse, swa swa he behet þurh his witegan, þus cweðende: ‘“Betæcað  |  me eowre teoðunge glædlice butan elcunge and afandiað min swa,” cwæð God, “hwæðer Ic eow forgife syððan renscuras and gode gewideru and wæstmas oð fulre genihtsumnesse”’. Ða twegen dælas þære teoþunge man sceal betæcan Godes þeowum into þam mynstre þær þær he to hyrð, þær þær he his Cristendom hæfð, and þone þriddan dæl man sceal dælan þearfum and wuduwum and steopcildum and ælþeodigum mannum, for ðam þe seo teoðung is Godes dæl, and he sylf hy betæhte þam þe him synderlice þeowiað. Ælcum | men þe ænige tilunge hæfð, oððe on cræfte, oððe on mangunge, oððe on oðrum begeatum, ælcum is beboden þæt hy þa teoðunge Gode glædlice syllan of heora begeatum oððe cræftum þe him God forgeaf. Se ðe næfð butan an cealf on geoguðe, oððe an lamb, he do swa micel to Godes lacum þærfore swa þær to teoþunge gebyrige, þæt is se teoða dæl þæs þe hit wyrðe is. ‘Frumwæstmas’ hatað sume men ælmes-æcer, se ðe us ærest geripod bið, of þam man sceal don ælmessan be his mihte, and  |  bletsian þone niwan hlaf, and onbyrige ærest se Godes þeowa þæs hlafes and ealra þara oðra wæstma ær þam þe se hlaford his onbyrige. Frumwæstmas synd eac swa hwæt swa us ærest on geoguðe acenned bið, and þæt is eall geteald to Godes lacum, þeah ðe hit eow ungewunelic sy. On þissum þingum and on eallum oðrum begeatum, we scylon wurðian urne Drihten þe us ða god foresceawað, se ðe leofað and rixað a in ealra worulda woruld a butan ende, Amen.

147 syllan Gode] gode syllan R1  152 maledictus] maledic R1  163 and2] omitted R1  171 þara] omitted R1  172 onbyrige] onbite R1  174 oðrum] urum R1  175–6 in … ende] on ecnysse R1

694

p. 362

p. 363

p. 364

p. 365

p. 366

Text: De uirginitate

145

150

155

160

165

170

175

an ordained fast and then we pray among other people at mass and during the canonical hours, it all will be [done] in secret if we do [it] without boasting in praise of our Savior so that we will have the reward in the true life in everlasting bliss. God commanded in the Old Testament and also exhorted in the New that every Christian ought gladly to give God his first-fruits and his tenth of all the crops that God gives to him for the year, and of all the young born from his livestock, and of all the goods that God provides him for the year, in order to enjoy the nine parts with health and God’s blessing. On that account it is thus written in holy books: Si quis primitias retinuerit, aut decimas de laboribus suis, maledictus sit in omni domo sua.35 That is in English, ‘Whoever withholds from God his first-fruits or the tenth part of his own harvest will be cursed among all his household’. Likewise it is written, if you withhold from God the tenth part, his justice will deprive you of the nine parts and leave you to have the tenth part. Almighty God, who gives us all things, desires to have from us the tenth part of his own gift, not for his need but for ours as an honor to him and for our benefit on account of obedience, just as he promised through his prophet, thus saying: ‘“Gladly give me your tenth part without delay and test me in this way”, said God, “to see whether I will afterwards give you rain showers and good weather and crops to full abundance”’. Two parts of the tenth part one ought to give to God’s servants in the minster where he belongs, where he has membership in a Christian congregation, and the third part one should distribute to the poor and widows and orphans and foreigners, because the tenth part is God’s part, and he gave it to those who expressly serve him. Every person who has any profit from his labor or occupation or business or other gainful activity is commanded to gladly give the tenth part to God from their gainful activities or occupations that God gave them. Let him who has only one calf or lamb among [his] animals’ young therefore give as God’s offerings as much as is due for a tithe in that case, that is, a tenth of what it is worth. Some men call ‘first-fruits’ the yield of a plot of land that ripens first for us, from which one ought to give alms according to his ability and consecrate the new loaf, and God’s servant should partake first of the loaf and of all the other crops before the lord partakes of his [share]. First-fruits are also whatever is born first among the animals’ young, and that is all counted as God’s offerings, though it is not customary for you. In these things and all other gainful activities, we ought to honor our Lord who provides these goods for us, he who lives and reigns forever without end, Amen.

35

Unattributed: ‘If anyone should hold back his first-fruits [from God], or the tenth part of his labors, he shall be cursed in all his house’.

695

DE UIRGINITATE

COMMENTARY De uirginitate (AH II.13), composed ca 1005–6 (if by Ælfric), survives only in V1a, pp. 347–66 [Ker §68.15]. While the homily in full has not been edited to date, individual pieces have: [1] lines 2–57 correspond to Assmann 2, lines 132–88,36 from Ælfric’s Letter to Sigefyrth (now De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 121–77); [2] lines 58–64 to SH II.19, lines 34–43;37 [3] lines 65–70 to SH II.19, lines 53–60;38 [4] lines 71–145 to SH II.30, lines 1–74;39 and [5] lines 146–76 to SH II.30, lines 75–114.40 Line 1 [De uirginitate]: This text should not be confused with De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) which not only bears a similar name, but also shares material from Ælfric’s Letter to Sigefyrth.41 De uirginitate (AH II.13) (ca 1005–6) may have been written in fairly close proximity to De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) (ca 1006 – [1009 × 1010]), or a few years before. Lines 2–6 [Cristen men scylon … mid þæs modes clænnesse]: De uirginitate and De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7) open slightly differently: De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 2–4

De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), lines 121–4

Cristene men scylon æt Cristes lareowum leornian heora geleafan þæt hy libban on riht, for ðan þe þreo hadas syndon þe þam Hælende liciað.

Is nu forði mycel neod Cristenum mannum þæt hi leornion heora geleafan æt Cristes lareowum and hu hi lybbon on riht on Godes Gelaðunge for þan ðe þry hadas syndon þe fullice Gode liciað.

Christian people must learn their faith from Christ’s teachers so that they might live rightly, because there are three orders that please the Savior.

Therefore there is now great need for Christians to learn their faith from Christ’s teachers and how to live rightly in God’s Church because there are three orders that fully please God.

De uirginitate and De sancta uirginitate both address believers who are in need of instruction and who are not themselves teachers – a category encompassing laity, to be sure, but not precluding clergy, given Ælfric’s thoughts elsewhere regarding certain

36 37 38 39 40 41

Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 19–21. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 623–4. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 624–5. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 804–6. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, pp. 806–8. Assmann 2 (Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 19, line 132 – p. 21, line 188).

696

Commentary: De uirginitate clerics’ education and conduct.42 A comparison of the two passages reveals that De sancta uirginitate reverses phrases (leornion heora gelefan and æt Cristes lareowum [line 121]), rewords clauses (turning ‘scylon … leornian’ [lines 2–3] into ‘Is nu forði mycel neod … þæt hi leornion’), changes the divine reference (God rather than Hælend [line 4]), and adds details (on Godes gelaðunge [line 122] and fullice). Even so, however, the passages are quite close, leading into material that is nearly verbatim. See notes to AH I.7, lines 121–6. Lines 7–21 [Riht sinscipe is … þæt forlegene mæden]: See notes to AH I.7, lines 127–41. Lines 22–30 [Wudewanhad is þæt man … swa swa bec us sæcgað]: See notes to AH I.7, lines 142–50. Lines 31–40 [Mægðhad is witodlice … Criste æfre þeowiað]: See notes to AH I.7, lines 151–60. Lines 41–9 [Ðas þry hadas … mid þara engla geferrædene]: See notes to AH I.7, lines 161–9. Lines 50–7 [Ða ðe on wudewanhade … on his gesetnysse]: See notes to AH I.7, lines 170–77. Lines 58–64 [God cwæð æt fruman … þam þe hit forgifen bið]: At this point, De uirginitate stops quoting from the Letter to Sigefyrth and introduces extracts from SH II.19. The first extract, SH II.19.34–43, sets forth two passages of Scripture that contrast the practices of the Old Testament with (what in Ælfric’s eyes were) the more demanding requirements of the New Testament, particularly as regards sexual practice:43 De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 58–9

Genesis 1.28 Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram.

‘Wexað and beoð gemenigfylde and gefyllað þas eorðan’.

Increase and multiply and fill the earth.

‘Increase and be abundant and fill the earth’.

From the first book of the Old Testament, Ælfric turns to the first book of the New: De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 60–4

Matthew 19.9–11 Dico autem uobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur. Dicunt ei discipuli eius si ita est causa homini cum uxore non expedit nubere. Qui dixit non omnes capiunt uerbum istud sed quibus datum est.

42 43

[Cwæð Crist to þam Iudeiscum,] ‘Ic sæcge eow to soðan þæt swa hwa swa his wif forlæt, butan heo dyrne-ceorl hæbbe, and gif he oðer wif nimð, þonne bið he forliger, and se ðe þæt forlætene wif nimð bið eac forliger’. Ða cwædon Cristes leornigcnihtas him to, ‘Gif þam were is þus mid wife, selre him bið þæt he ne wifige?’ Ða cwæð Crist, ‘Ne underfoð ealle men þis word, ac þam þe hit forgifen bið’.

See for example his Latin preface to the Letter for Wulfsige (Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 196 [Dico tamen … deleta sunt]). On which subject, see further notes to AH I.7, lines 47–54 and 60–81.

697

Commentary: De uirginitate ‘“But I say to you that whoever dismisses his wife – except for adultery – and takes another in marriage commits adultery, and he who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” His disciples said to him, “If that is the situation of a husband with his wife, it is better not to marry”. [Jesus] said, “Not all receive this word, but they to whom it is given”’.

[Christ said to the Jews,] ‘I tell you as a truth that whoever releases his wife, unless she have a lover, and takes another wife, then he will be an adulterer, and he who takes the released wife will also be an adulterer’. Then Christ’s disciples said to him, ‘If it is so for the man with a wife, it is better for him not to marry’. Then Christ said, ‘Not all men receive this word, but those to whom it is given’.

In both cases, Ælfric stays quite close to his biblical source, simply adding to soðan (‘[I tell you] in truth’ [line 60]) to Christ’s Dico uobis (‘I say to you’ [Matthew 19.9]), reflecting either a variant in Ælfric’s version of the Vulgate or (more likely) his memory of the phrase Amen dico uobis (‘Truly I say to you’) that repeatedly appears in close vicinity to this passage (Matthew 18.13, 18.18, 19.23, 19.28, and so on). One word that bears consideration is forlætan [lines 61–2]. Though it may simply mean ‘divorce’ in keeping with the Vulgate’s dimittere (Matthew 19.9), in De sancta uirginitate (AH I.7), Ælfric also uses the word to describe what (in his view) the married apostles did when they received Christ’s teaching: they forleton (‘surrendered’, ‘released’, or ‘abandoned’) their wives [AH I.7, lines 29 and 36], even as they left behind everything else to follow Christ (Matthew 19.27). Where Matthew 19.9 would seem to condemn divorce – or at least remarriage after divorce – Ælfric portrays the disciples’ action as exemplary, since they prioritize sexual purity over marriage for Christ’s sake. On the potentially idiosyncratic nature of Ælfric’s views on such subjects, see notes to AH I.7, lines 127–41 and 161–9. One final point of consideration, both for the beginning and end of lines 58–64, is the lack of transitions between quoted material: De uirginitate moves directly from the Letter to Sigefyrth to the first extract from SH II.19, and then on to the second extract, without adapting lines to blend them together. For Pope, such slapdash workmanship makes him reluctant to assign the compilation to Ælfric: while it is ‘probably impossible to be certain that he did not [put these pieces together]’, and ‘just possible’ that he did, as Pope says of De sancta uirginitate, ‘There is no sign of ingenuity here, only a simple joining of … originally separate passages’.44 Lines 65–70 [Wite gehwa … fæder and moder]: If the seams in De uirginitate lack ‘ingenuity’, however, they do display thoughtfulness, for the pieces are not randomly put together. Though it could have quoted a single portion of SH II.19, for example, it picks and chooses. Following the passage above, the text skips SH II.19’s treatment of Matthew 19.12, Jesus’ distinction between those who are ‘born eunuchs’, ‘made eunuchs’, and ‘made themselves eunuchs’ (se ipsos castrauerunt). The omission may tighten the sermon rhetorically as well as in length, as it presents one rather than two difficult passages to interpret (Jesus’ comments regarding divorce and eunuchi) while retaining the main point of each: those who can accept Jesus’ teaching on sexuality should do so [Matthew 19.11–12; AH II.13, line 64]. Rather than repeat SH II.19’s acknowledgement that Christ could not command all people to practice celibacy, lest

44

Homilies, vol. II, pp. 802 and 616, and vol. I, p. 31, respectively; see also vol. I, p. 141.

698

Commentary: De uirginitate the human race cease [SH II.19.46–7] and its affirmation that believers’ virginity should be offered to God gladly rather than under compulsion [SH II.19.48–52], moreover, De uirginitate jumps straight to the next section [SH II.19.53–60] that addresses those under vows: those who ‘þa clænnesse Gode æne behet’ (‘at one time promised God purity’ [AH II.13, line 65]) must not break their promise, and those whose parents ‘heora bearn Gode betæcað to his clænum þeowdome’ (‘gave their children over to God for his pure service’ [AH II.13, lines 67–8]) must not disobey. De uirginitate thus shows a change in focus at this point: rather than speaking to laity, who have a choice between marrying to engender progeny or taking vows of chastity, it specifically has monks and child oblates in view. This quoted material from SH II.19 ends with a stern warning: Nemo inobediens parentibus suis saluus erit (‘No one who is disobedient to his parents will be saved’ [AH II.13, line 69]). The expression is not biblical, though children are commanded to obey their parents (e.g., Ephesians 6.1 and Colossians 3.20) and honor them (e.g., Deuteronomy 5.16 and Mark 10.19), and those who dishonor their parents are condemned (e.g., Proverbs 30.17 and Micah 7.6). Perhaps the closest verse is Deuteronomy 27.16: ‘Maledictus qui non honorat patrem suum et matrem’ (‘Cursed [be] the one who does not honor his father and mother’). Nor is the sentence apparently patristic. Such does not mean it is original to Ælfric, however: not only does he say that the expression is ‘swa swa hit awiten is’ (‘just as it is written’ [line 69]), but the same line appears in a later hand in Cambridge, Pembroke College 112 (s. xii–xiii).45 Lines 71–7 [Ure Hælend Crist … wemð fram Criste]: Whatever its origin, the warning provides a logical transition to De uirginitate’s next quotation, this time from an incomplete work surviving nowhere else, printed by Pope as SH II.30.1–74. Where SH II.19 warns that sinners who disobey their fathers may be excluded from salvation, SH II.30 affirms that Christ brought salvation to sinners by obeying his Father unto death [AH II.13, lines 71–2]. For all Christians, indeed, obedience to the Father should be paramount: while honoring earthly parents is important, such authorities should not be followed if they lead one away from Christ and into false doctrine [lines 74–7]. Not all have seen thematic continuity in this juxtaposition of parts. Pope, commenting on this first part of SH II.30, concludes that ‘it can hardly have been composed to fill the place assigned to it here [in De uirginitate], because it does not bring the earlier passages into intelligible relation to a larger theme; [rather,] it leads away from them’.46 Actually, Pope’s objection is not that there are no connections between the quotations from SH II.19 and SH II.30; it is that De uirginitate does not explicitly tease them out. Identifying the major theme of SH II.30.1–74 as ‘obedience to God is better than offerings’ (1 Samuel 15.22), he notes that it ‘could easily have been related to the earlier themes [in De uirginitate], for Ælfric often speaks of virginity as an offering made to God … and the offering of children to God by their parents is explictly mentioned. But nothing is made of this’.47

45 46 47

See James, Pembroke College, p. 108; and Schenkl, Bibliotheca Patrum Latinorum Britannica, vol. III, p. 23 [§2537]. Homilies, vol. II, p. 800. Homilies, vol. II, p. 800.

699

Commentary: De uirginitate Lines 78–85 [Ða þe on mægðhade … swa swa se Hælend cwæð]: Continuing its focus on the celibate (monks, most likely), this portion of SH II.30 connects back to De uirginitate’s earlier image of the hundred-fold reward [lines 45, 55, and 85]. Drawing on Augustine’s Sermones,48 Ælfric warns virgins not to look down on married persons: purity of body is not enough to win the reward, he says; it must be accompanied by humility of spirit [lines 78–82]. Ælfric attributes such teaching not just to Augustine, however, but to Christ: it is ‘swa swa se Hælend cwæð’ (‘just as the Savior said’ [line 85]). Ælfric may have in mind Christ’s interpretation of the Parable of the Sower and the Seed (Matthew 13.1–23) which associates failure to produce fruit (understood by Ælfric both as temporal virtue and eternal recompense) with hardness of heart (Matthew 13.15, quoting Isaiah 6.10). Lines 86–98 [And æfre to Godes bebodum … his hæsum nateshwon]: Next, Ælfric offers a close translation, paraphrase, and commentary on part of 1 Samuel 15: De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 90–8

1 Samuel 15.22b–23a Melior est enim oboedientia quam uictimae et auscultare magis quam offerre adipem arietum. Quoniam quasi peccatum ariolandi est repugnare et quasi scelus idolatriae nolle adquiescere.

Melior est enim obedientia quam uictima: ‘Betere is soðlice seo gehyrsumnes þonne seo onsægednes’, þæt syndon offrunga). And betere is to heorcnienne þæs Hælendes willan þonne him to offrigenne ænige oðre lac for ðan þe hit soðlice is, swa swa Samuel sæde, swylce hæðenscipe, and swylce swa is deofolgyld þæt se man wiðrige ongean Godes willan and nelle gehyrsumian his hæsum nateshwon.

‘For obedience is better than sacrifices, and to hear more [desirable] than to offer the fat of rams. Because to rebel is like the sin of divination, and to be unwilling to obey is like the crime of idolatry’.

For obedience is better than sacrifice (‘Truly obedience is better than sacrifice’, which are offerings). And it is better to pay attention to the Savior’s will than to offer him any other gift, because [to do so] is truly just like heathenism, just as Samuel said, and to struggle against God’s will and not to desire at all to obey his command is just like idolatry.

Ælfric here glosses words (explaining onsægednes [‘sacrifice’] as offrunga [‘offerings’, line 92]), makes the divine referent explicit (it is the will of Christ that one obeys [line 93]), and generalizes the principle at hand (it is not just rams’ fat that is in question, but anything offered to God apart from submission [line 94]). Lines 99–124 [Ðis is nu gesæd … ecnysse wið God]: In what Pope calls ‘an extension of the theme [of “obedience to God is better than offerings”]’,49 Ælfric turns from virginity to almsgiving. Two points at least connect the passage to what has come before. First, Ælfric makes another reference to a hundred-fold reward, here associating it not just with chastity or giving but with ‘swa hwæt swa we her doð for his lufan to gode’ (‘whatever good we do here for love of God’ [line 113]). Second, he again underscores

48 49

Sermonum classes quattuor IV.354.9 (PL 39.1567–8); see Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 804, apparatus. Homilies, vol. II, p. 800.

700

Commentary: De uirginitate that one’s heart-attitude matters: perhaps echoing 2 Corinthians 9.7 (‘hilarem datorem diligit Deus’ [‘God loves a cheerful giver’; cf. glædlice in line 147]), Ælfric affirms that believers should give ‘þam ælmihtigum Gode to lofe’ (‘as praise to Almighty God’ [line 101]), ‘þæt we hine oncnawan’ (‘so that we might acknowledge him’ [line 110]), and ‘him to lofe’ (‘for his praise’ [line 113]). Pope offers no sources for this passage, and Ælfric’s comments are general enough that none may have been needed. A number of biblical passages may underlie his teaching, however. The principle that God judges the heart [line 105] is seen in 1 Samuel 16.7. Ælfric’s statement that the maker of heaven and earth has no need of human gifts [lines 106–8] is evocative of Acts 17.24–5 (see also Psalms 50.8–13 [Vulgate 49.8–13] and Romans 11.35). The image of God giving earthly things to humans for their use [lines 109–10] reflects Genesis 1.29 and Psalms 8.5–8 [Vulgate 8.6–9]. The admonition to give to the needy in order to honor God (rather than, for example, for worldly recognition [line 111]) brings to mind Matthew 6.1–4 (a passage quoted immediately below). And the contrast between believers’ lytlan mæðe (‘small measure’ [line 115]) and God’s hundred-fold reward parallels such verses as Matthew 7.2 and Malachi 3.10 (a verse quoted in lines 158–60). Of the nineteen times when Ælfric speaks of ælmesdæda (‘almsdeeds’), this is the only occasion when he speaks of such charitable giving in terms of praise to God [line 121]. Lines 125–39 [Be ðam þe se Hælend … idelan gylp eallunga onscunað]: If the implication was not clear in the above exhortation to honor God through one’s giving, Ælfric spells out the parallel principle: Christians are not to give so as to bring honor to themselves. Quoting Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, he says: De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 126–30

Matthew 6.1 and 3 Adtendite ne iustitiam uestram faciatis coram hominibus ut uideamini ab eis … te autem faciente elemosynam nesciat sinistra tua quid faciat dextera tua.

Nesciat sinistra tua quid faciat dextera tua: ‘Nyte þin wynstre hand hwæt þin swiðre hand do’ … þæt we for Godes lufan ure ælmessan don, na for idelum gylpe.

‘Be careful that you do not do your [acts of] compassion before others, to be seen by them … but when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing’.

Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing (‘Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing’) … so that we perform our acts of almsgiving for the love of God, not for empty boasting.

Ælfric only quotes and translates Matthew 6.3 directly; thereafter, paraphrasing Matthew 6.1, he makes explicit the main principle at hand: believers should give discreetly out of love for God rather than for human praise. For those confused by Christ’s saying, he notes that one must understand it in its gastlicum andgite (‘spiritual sense’ [line 129]) – a phrase that appears some forty-four times in his writings – drawing perhaps on Augustine’s De sermone Domini in monte II.8 for his interpretation.50 For those truly slow on the uptake, moreover – What if one has a bad right hand? Can one then not give alms? – Ælfric supplements Augustine by adding: Use whichever hand you wish, as long as you shun pride when giving [lines 137–9]. 50

Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 805, apparatus.

701

Commentary: De uirginitate While Ælfric does not appear to address this verse elsewhere directly, he does twice cite Matthew 6.2, where Jesus states that hypocrites who give publicly to receive human honor ‘receperunt mercedem suam’ (‘have received their reward’). In both cases, Ælfric’s point is the same: losing eternal reward for ephemeral praise is folly.51 Lines 140–5 [Ealswa be fæstenum … on ecere gesælðe]: Ælfric recognizes that this principle of giving privately to God may seem problematic to those living in community, such as monks. Giving may be done discreetly [Matthew 6.1–4; lines 126–37]; praying and fasting, however – the next issues Jesus addresses in the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 6.5–15 and 6.16–18] – may be more difficult to conceal. Ælfric thus offers reassurance: even if one fasts publicly when it is so decreed (geboden [lines 141]) and prays ‘betwux oðrum mannum æt mæssan and æt tidsangum’ (‘between other men at mass and during the canonical hours’ [line 142]) – clues as to the intended audience of this section – such actions may still be ‘secret’ (and thus meritorious) if they are done with humility and for Christ’s praise [lines 143–4]. Lines 146–60 [God sylf bebead … oð fulre genihtsumnesse]: At this point, the rhythmical material printed as SH II.30.1–74 comes to an end, and De uirginitate incorporates its final piece: an early, non-rhythmical ‘more or less independent discourse on tithes and first-fruits’52 printed as SH II.30.75–114. The text forms part of a later, augmented version of CH II.28, indicating, Pope suggests, that Ælfric was not averse to using it as part of a composite homily53 – a potential point in favor of Ælfric’s authorship of De uirginitate. Commenting on the preceding extract [SH II.19.1–74], Pope says that it ‘ends abruptly without any attempt to prepare us for what follows [SH II.30.75–114]’.54 In fact, however, worldly possessions are the next subject to which Jesus turns at this point in the Sermon on the Mount: believers, he says, are to lay up for themselves treasures in heaven, not on earth, for where one’s treasure is, there one’s heart is also (Matthew 6.19–21). It would be natural for the passage to have prompted what follows in De uirginitate: how believers are to treat their possessions vis-à-vis the Church – namely, in terms of tithes. The audience for this section might seem to be laity, as chapter 33 of the Benedictine Rule – and of the Old English version ascribed to Æthelwold, under whom Ælfric studied at Winchester – stipulates that monks should not own private property.55 In his study of the subject, however, Constable states that in Carolingian monasteries – the cultural birthplace of the tenth-century Anglo-Saxon Benedictine Reform, of which Ælfric was a product56 – ‘monks were definitely expected to pay tithes’ on the produce and revenues 51

52 53 54

55 56

See CH I.28 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 329, lines 169 [Mid sceapum] – 172 [gecweme wæs]), CH II.39 (Godden, Second Series, p. 416, lines 75 [Amen dico] – 76 [heora mede]); and ‘Records for Source Title Mt’. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 800. Homilies, vol. II, p. 801. Homilies, vol. II, p. 800. Speaking of the opening of the next extract, however [SH II.30.75–114], Pope says that ‘the transition from the previous excerpt is easy, though I hesitate to believe that the present passage was written expressly as a continuation’ (Homilies, vol. II, p. 808). Logeman, Rule, pp. 63–4. On the continental roots of the Reform, see for example Bullough, ‘The Continental Background’, Wormald, ‘Æthelwold’, and Leclercq, ‘The Tenth Century’.

702

Commentary: De uirginitate from their communities, and ‘the vast majority of monasteries presumably paid tithes in some form or another’, either by giving directly to the poor or supporting guest-houses which cared for the needs of outsiders.57 Ælfric may therefore also have had individuals in orders in view. In any event, rather than quote Matthew 6, Ælfric first speaks generally of the teachings of the Old and New Testament [line 146], and then offers two quotations as proof, one unidentified, the other from Malachi. References to tithing are found in a variety of places in Scripture. Abraham honors Melchizedek, sacerdos Dei altissimi (‘priest of God Most High’), by giving him a tenth of his plunder (Genesis 14.18 and 20; Hebrews 7.1 and 6). Jacob promises to return to God a tenth of all God gives him (Genesis 28.22). God stipulates to Moses that a tenth of everything, whether grain or fruit or herd or flock, sanctificabitur Domino (‘will be holy to the Lord’ [Leviticus 27.30–2]) and the inheritance of the priests and Levites (Leviticus 18.8–21; Hebrews 7.5). A tenth of all harvests are to be set aside each year, with every third year’s tithes being devoted to Levites and other needy persons (Deuteronomy 14.22–9 and 26.1–15). The Pharisees are said to pride themselves on tithing even down to their spices (Luke 11.42 and 18.12). And when Levites – consecrated servants to God, not unlike monks – receive tithes from God’s people, they are to give God in turn a tithe of their own (Numbers 18.26; Nehemiah 10.38). For support of his teaching on tithes, Ælfric turns first not to any of the passages above, but to a malediction whose meaning is not altogether clear and whose source remains unidentified: ‘Si quis primitias retinuerit, aut decimas de laboribus suis, maledictus sit in omni domo sua’ (‘If anyone should hold back his first-fruits [from God], or the tenth part of his labors, he shall be cursed in all his house’ [lines 151–2]). Decimas de laboribus suis, to begin with, Ælfric translates as teoðunge his agenre tilðe (‘tenth of his labor [or “crop”]’ [line 153]). If laity are in view, the first-fruits and the tenth of the full harvest may reflect two of the offerings made annually by the Israelites (Exodus 23.16). What if Ælfric is also thinking of monks in his audience, however? If his teaching above on fasting and prayer is any indication [lines 140–5], the answer might not just be physical tithes on monastic produce, but the attitude of the giver himself: one ‘holds back’ these gifts when one does not serve wholeheartedly, with humility, or for the sake of Christ. The possibility of this dual audience also appears in the next phrase, the warning that the sinner will be cursed in omni domo sua (‘in all his house’ [line 152]). Is the curse on everything the individual possesses or the entirety of his household – implying perhaps laity – or does the curse fall on this particular individual ‘among all [those in] his house’? Ælfric’s translation of domus as hiwræden broadens the possibilities further, as the Old English term can mean ‘religious house’ as well: those in orders who hold back their gifts will be singled out for condemnation. If the precise meaning of the quotation is less than clear, so is its source. To our knowledge, no biblical or patristic passage offers a precise parallel. As Pope notes, Ælfric may have the language of Malachi 3.8–9 in mind, as he quotes 3.10 immediately hereafter [lines 154–5].58 57

58

Monastic Tithes, pp. 201–2. Constable also notes, however, that as such tithes placed a ‘considerable restriction’ on part of monasteries’ income, popes in the late tenth and early eleventh century ‘began granting and confirming for monks possession of their own tithes’, giving houses discretion as to their use (Monastic Tithes, pp. 207 and 211). Homilies, vol. II, p. 810.

703

Commentary: De uirginitate De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 151–2

Malachi 3.8–9 Si adfiget homo Deum quia uos configitis me et dixistis in quo confiximus te in decimis et in primitiuis. Et in penuria uos maledicti estis et me uos configitis gens tota.

Si quis primitias retinuerit, aut decimas de laboribus suis, maledictus sit in omni domo sua.

Should a person oppress God? For you are afflicting me. And you have said, ‘In what have we afflicted you?’ In tithes and in first-fruits. And you are cursed with want, and you afflict me, your whole race.

‘If anyone should hold back his first-fruits [from God], or the tenth part of his labors, he shall be cursed in all his house’.

The passages do share key terms – primitae, decimae, maledicti, and perhaps domus/ gens, if gens is interpreted as ‘house’59 – and Ælfric may be paraphrasing here, as he does above with 1 Samuel 15 [lines 90–8]. Pope’s conclusion, however, may also be correct: ‘Since Ælfric does not usually invent Biblical quotations … it seems probable that he found the malediction in some unidentified source’.60 Ælfric’s final source for this section is more certain, for he draws directly on pseudo-Caesarius’ Homiliae, and through him, on Malachi 3.10.61 It is pseudo-Caesarius, first of all, who supplies the idea that ‘si tu illi decimam non dederis, tu ad decimam reuoceris’ (‘if you shall not give a tenth to [God], you shall be reduced to that tenth’ [see lines 154–5]).62 This decimation, pseudo-Caesarius adds, will come through droughts, frosts, and pests – the sorts of afflictions, one imagines, that Malachi 3.11 has in view when it describes how faithful tithers will be spared: ‘Increpabo pro uobis deuorantem et non corrumpet fructum terrae uestrae nec erit sterilis uinea in agro dicit Dominus exercituum’ (‘I will rebuke for your sakes’ the devourer, and he shall not destroy the fruit of your land. Nor will the vine in the field be barren, says the Lord of Hosts’).63 Ælfric’s warning, one notes, could have been even more severe, for he easily could have drawn on Christ’s Parable of the Ten Minas (Luke 19.11–27) that discusses how individuals will be repaid for how they steward what they have been given. One man, who keeps his mina [a measure of money] instead of investing it faithfully, is condemned and stripped of it; of this figure, Jesus says, ‘omni habenti dabitur ab eo autem qui non habet et quod habet auferetur ab eo’ (‘“to everyone who has, more will be given, but to him who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him”’ [Luke 19.26]). Ælfric continues to follow pseudo-Caesarius in offering encouragement as well as warning. Paraphrasing Malachi 3.10, he says:

59 60 61 62

63

Lewis, Dictionary, p. 349; cf. Lewis et al., Dictionary, pp. 808–9. Homilies, vol. II, p. 810. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 807, apparatus. Homiliae v collectionis A (titled Homilia II.16 by Migne [PL 67.1079A]), noted by Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 807, apparatus. Dekkers classifies this sermon under ‘spuria’ (Clavis, pp. 333 [§1019] and 869). See Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 811.

704

Commentary: De uirginitate De uirginitate (AH II.13), lines 158–60 Inferte omnem decimam in horreum et sit cibus in domo mea et probate me super hoc dicit Dominus si non aperuero uobis cataractas caeli et effudero uobis benedictionem usque ad abundantiam.

‘Betæcað me eowre teoðunge glædlice butan elcunge, and afandiað min swa’, cwæð God, ‘hwæðer Ic eow forgife syððan renscuras and gode gewideru and wæstmas oð fulre genihtsumnesse’.

‘Bring all the tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this’, says the Lord, ‘[and see] if I do not open unto you the floodgates of heaven and pour out upon you a blessing even to overflowing’.

‘Gladly give me your tenth part without delay and test me in this way’, says God, ‘[and see] whether I will afterwards give you rain showers and good weather and crops to full abundance’.

The heart-attitude is still an important element for Ælfric: he adds that one should give glædlice (‘gladly’ [line 147]; see also notes to lines 99–124 above). Reflecting the agrarian implications of horreum (‘storehouse’) and cibus (‘food’), moreover, he explicitly glosses benedictio (‘blessing’) not only as renscuras (‘rain showers’ [line 159], corresponding to cataractas caeli [‘the floodgates of heaven’]), but as gode gewideru and wæstmas (‘good weather and crops’ [line 160]) – nodding, perhaps, to lay members of his audience. Even with such additions, however, Ælfric stays recognizably close to his biblical source. Lines 161–75 [Ða twegen dælas … ða god foresceawað]: Here, as in his Letter for Wulfsige (ca 993 × ca 995), Ælfric teaches that tithes are to be divided into three parts: two for the church – for the repair of buildings and the maintenance of clergy, Wulfsige notes64 – and one for the poor [lines 161–3].65 While Ælfric attributes the custom to ða halgan fæderas (‘the holy Fathers’), however,66 Constable suggests that it may have developed organically over time: ‘This rule of tripartition … though it was occasionally supported by references to canon law … derived historically from the addition of the clergy and the fabric [i.e, building repairs], as suitable uses for the property of God, to the traditional charitable use of tithes’.67 It may also reflect an Anglo-Saxon modification of the Roman practice of quadripartition, with bishops omitted from the Roman list of bishop, clergy, fabric, and poor.68 Constable and Pope note that the division taught by Ælfric is also reflected in the laws of Æthelred;69 Whitelock adds that the system is found in the laws of Pseudo-Edgar and the 802 Synod of Aachen.70 Ælfric makes a number of loosely-connected observations in the section that follows. First, he teaches that those with but a single calf or lamb may tithe on it by offering a tenth of its value [lines 167–9] – a practical suggestion, but one perhaps at odds with

64 65

66 67 68 69 70

Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, pp. 209–10 (§68). One other echo of this practice may be found in CH I.30, where a bishop divides treasure that has been offered to God into three parts, one to care for the people and two to endow a monastery (Clemoes, First Series, p. 438, lines 255–7); the episode in question seems more unique than representative of regular practice, however. Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 209 (§68). Monastic Tithes, p. 50. Monastic Tithes, p. 50 n. 3 and pp. 43–4. Monastic Tithes, p. 50; and Homilies, vol. II, p. 811; see also Liebermann, Gesetze, p. 264. Councils and Synods, pp. 209–10 n. 7; see also Boretius, Capitularia regum Francorum, p. 106 (§7).

705

Commentary: De uirginitate the Old Testament injunction against redeeming the firstborn of cows or sheep (Numbers 18.17). Second, he speaks of the ælmes-æcer (‘alms-acre’ [line 169]), or part of the harvest given as alms from a plot of land, noting that some associate that offering with the first-fruits [lines 169–70] – again perhaps evoking the messis primitiuorum (‘Harvest of First-fruits’) discussed in Exodus 23.16 (see notes to lines 152–3 above). Third, he spells out proper priorities: individuals should offer their tithe to the Church before rendering to their land-lord the portion due to him [lines 171–2], a principle somewhat reminiscent of Haggai 1.7–11. Fourth, he notes that the firstborn among livestock may also be counted as first-fruits, ‘þeah ðe hit eow ungewunelic sy’ (‘though it is not customary for you’ [lines 173–4]), as it was for the Israelites (Exodus 13.12, Leviticus 27.26, and Numbers 3.13). In all the above, references to livestock and harvested grain suggest that laity are likely the audience primarily in view in this section. Ælfric leaves open the possibility of a wider application, however, with the general principle that everyone who has any gain (tilung [line 165]) from his work should give a tenth of it to God [lines 166–7]. Lines 175–6 [se ðe leofað … a butan ende, Amen]: On Ælfric’s closing formula, see the notes to Be ðam Seofanfealdan Ungifa (AH I.6), lines 161–2; De creatore (AH II.14), lines 306–12; Gebedu on Englisc (AH II.21), lines 2–3 (Gebed I) and 6–10 (Gebed III); and Mæsse Creda (AH II.23), lines 15–16. Pope rightly observes that in ealra worulda woruld never appears in Ælfric’s writings, and that the change from on to in was probably due to the scribe of this portion of V1a.71

71

Homilies, vol. II, p. 812.

706

14

DE CREATORE ET CREATURA Though now damaged and incomplete, De creatore et creatura (‘Concerning the Creator and Creation’) and its companion piece De sex etatibus huius seculi (‘Concerning the Six Ages of the World’ [AH II.15]), once contained Ælfric’s comprehensive outline of Christian history. De creatore appears to have combined a doctrinal exposition of the Trinity with an account of God’s creation and fall of the angels, and the creation, fall, and redemption of mankind to argue for the existence of a triune God who, when he created the world in time, planned to redeem it for eternity. De sex etatibus picks up at the Fall and provides an overview of salvation history from Noah’s day to the dawn of Eternity, so the two sermons present ‘the Christian “world picture” of Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Judgment in its essential simplicity’.1 As late works composed ca 1006,2 they also testify to the commitment Ælfric maintained in the last decade of his life to the ‘staged programme of teaching … designed to tell the basic Christian story sequentially from the beginning’3 that he had initiated with the completion of the Catholic Homilies between 989 and 992. Because the doctrinal discussion and episodes from salvation history that survive in De creatore are central to Ælfric’s program of religious education for all Christians, it is not surprising to find that he took up this combination of ideas throughout his career. They feature in De Initio Creaturae (‘On the Origin of the Created World’ [CH I.1]),4 the first homily of the Catholic Homilies (989)5; in the Hexameron,6 a homily that focuses on the six days of creation (ca 993–8)7; in two letters to the laymen Wulfgeat and Sigeweard (ca 1005–06),8 and yet again in De creatore (ca 1006). Among these works, De creatore bears most resemblance to the Hexameron because Ælfric draws on the homily as one of his two main sources. De creatore is singular, however, for the way in which it marshals arguments about the Trinity, Creation, Fall, and Atonement to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Clemoes, ‘Chronology’, p. 55. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 124. Godden, Commentary, p. xxvii, where an overview of Ælfric’s ‘staged programme of teaching’ is provided. Clemoes, First Series, pp. 178–89. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 71. Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 33–74. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 115. For the Letter to Wulfgeat, see Assmann 1, Angelsächsischen Homilien, pp. 1–12, and for the Letter to Sigeweard (Libellus de ueteri testamento et nouo), Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 201–30. For the dating of each, see, Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 160 and 157, respectively.

707

Introduction: De creatore et creatura counter a worldview that in the extreme denies the existence of God and in the main ignores the need for salvation.9 While in each of the aforementioned works, the stakes of believing rightly are ultimately soteriological, De creatore charts in greatest detail the wayward path of foolish people who by mistaking this earthly life as one of pleasure and satisfaction will miss a better and blissful eternal one. Ælfric traces the origins of this fatal mistake to fundamental errors in doctrine, namely those concerning the Trinity and its role as sovereign Creator and Redeemer. We must tentatively sketch the errant course he seeks to correct because De creatore picks up mid-sentence in the middle of a discussion wherein Ælfric castigates the fool who believes that anything existed prior to God. For this discussion, he draws on his other main source, In natali Domini (AH I.2), a Christmas homily that he wrote between 998 and 1002, five years or so after the Hexameron.10 De creatore reproduces faithfully, though not verbatim, the remainder of the excerpt from In natali Domini, and this high degree of fidelity suggests that it very likely contained more material from In natali Domini than survives.11 Even in its truncated state, we can trace the argumentative through-line Ælfric creates when he combines the discussion of the Trinity from In natali Domini with the Hexameron’s account of the creation and fall of the angels and man, and the redemption of mankind. Put simply, De creatore contends that the Trinity must be understood to be the Creator who exercises sovereignty over his creations and their redemption lest doctrinal errors lead people to believe that there is no God, no need for salvation, and no life beyond this world. To save souls by educating people about the Trinity’s role in salvation history, Ælfric addresses at least three (and perhaps as many as five) errors about the triune Godhead that would lead to a denial that he is sovereign. Had he excerpted whole the discussion of the Trinity from In natali Domini, then he would have first addressed the errors that the Son is not coeternal with the Father (AH I.2, lines 23–8) and that God had a beginning in time (AH I.2, lines 63–8). In the extant portion of the De creatore, Ælfric does address the related error of thinking that God made himself [lines 1–5]12 as well as the mistake of regarding the Son as less powerful than the Father [lines 55–9].13 The final error Ælfric opposes has the greatest bearing on the salvation history rehearsed in De creatore and De sex etatibus. It asserts that the world always existed and thus denies its creation and preordained redemption by a Creator God [lines 153–8 and 161–81]. As De creatore makes plain, if God is not almighty, then he is not God. And if he is not God, then the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be sovereign over the humans the Trinity created without sin [lines 182–217], over the devil who enticed them to sin [lines 218–63], or over mankind’s redemption from sin through the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ [lines 264–91]. For Ælfric then, materialism leads 9

10 11 12 13

As the notes demonstrate, Ælfric draws on his previous writings to make the argument, the singular nature of which is apparent in his arrangement of the material in De creatore to emphasize God’s sovereignty over the creation and redemption of the world. Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 105 and 115, respectively. Compare De creatore (AH II.14), lines 1–27 with In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 84–109. See, for example, the initial discussion of the error of believing that the Son was not coeternal with the Father in In natali Domini (AH I.2, lines 23–83). Compare AH I.2, lines 84–8. Ælfric takes this point from the Hexameron.

708

Introduction: De creatore et creatura the foolish to mistake the slaking of their physical desires as the highest pleasure [lines 292–305], for which they will literally have hell to pay. Ælfric’s rebuttals to such errors demand a recognition of God’s sovereignty as manifested primarily in the Father who ordains the Atonement and the Son who effects it.14 His portrayals of the Godhead work by way of apposition of its roles and names, whether ælmihtiga Scyppend (‘almighty Creator’ [line 43]), ægðer Ordfruma and Ende, eallwealdend God (‘both Beginning and End, all-ruling God’ [line 45]), and ælmihtig God (‘almighty God’ [line 61]). Even when the doctrinal discussions give way to salvation history, Ælfric styles as God ælmihtig (‘God Almighty’ [line 72]) the Deus of Genesis 1.1 who in the beginning created heaven and earth. And when he recounts the climactic moment of salvation history, God’s benevolent provision of his Son for the Atonement, he asserts that God alone was able to accomplish it because he is ælmihtig God [line 270]. The double epithet thus extends the range of such verbal resonances deep into De creatore and amplifies the theme of God’s dominion established at the outset of the sermon. Foregrounded against a backdrop of divine sovereignty operating in human history, the soteriological stakes of De creatore’s overarching if–then proposition become clear in its closing lines. If misunderstandings about the nature of God and man lead people to conclude that satisfying the body’s continual demands for drink, food, shelter, purgation, rest, and healing constitutes a good life in this world [lines 292–305], then they face the ultimate risk of living the worst life in the eternal hardship of hell. The stakes of living as if there is no God, no need for salvation, and no life beyond this world are especially high given the promise of a better life in everlasting bliss [line 308]. Even in its fragmentary state, then, De creatore constitutes Ælfric’s call to all of the offspring of Adam to believe in Almighty God, the Trinity, their Creator and Redeemer. De creatore and De sex etatibus survive in a single manuscript, a miscellany preserved as London, British Library, Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2 [Xd].15 The companion pieces belong to a booklet of three sermons whose third item is Ælfric’s homily about the Israelites’ journey in the wilderness, De populo Israhel (‘Concerning the People of Israel’). Although the booklet was written around the beginning of the eleventh century, possibly in Ælfric’s lifetime, it may have circulated independently as late as the thirteenth century before it was bound into the manuscript. Where the booklet was written is not known,16 but it seems to have been in Worcester by 1060–8017 when a scribe there added running titles to the three sermons.18 Between this period and some point in the twelfth century, De creatore lost its opening leaves. The booklet was perhaps susceptible to the wear and tear of use in the field, and we might imagine the Worcester clergy using the sermons for preaching, catechetical teaching, or devotional reading during the episcopate of St Wulfstan (1062–95) or one of his successors. After De creatore lost its opening leaves, 14 15 16 17 18

See De creatore (AH II.14), lines 177–81 (Father) and 271–85 (Son). Ker §182.5–6; Gneuss and Lapidge §359; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 238. Gneuss and Lapidge tentatively raise ‘SW England?’ as a possibility (§359, p. 282). Da Rold, ‘Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2’. Pope suggests a Worcester provenance based on the evidence of the booklet’s running titles, which appear in a hand resembling that of the Worcester scribe who in the third quarter of the eleventh century copied most of St Wulfstan’s ecclesiastical handbook and homiliary preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 and Hatton 113 and 114 [T1–3] (Homilies, vol. I, p 87).

709

Introduction: De creatore et creatura its remaining outermost leaf became riddled with holes and rubbed in patches to the point of illegibility,19 so much so that a twelfth-century scribe undertook to restore it and handful of problematic spots elsewhere. In his attempt to make the first page readable, however, he made it unreliable by introducing errors of his own making. Eventually, perhaps in the thirteenth century, that partial, imperfectly restored version of De creatore was bound with the rest of the booklet into the manuscript, the whole of which was damaged in the fire of 1731 that destroyed the Cotton library where it was housed. It is this twice damaged, fire-shrunken text of De creatore that we reconstruct and edit below. When writing De creatore, Ælfric followed his two main sources so closely that it is possible to reconstruct nearly all of the homily from parallel passages. For lines 1–53, we have consulted the sole surviving copy of Ælfric’s In natali Domini edited above as AH I.2 from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 [B],20 a manuscript written between about 1150 and 117521 probably in the West Midlands near Worcester.22 As noted in the introduction to In natali Domini, B does not exhibit the standard features of late West Saxon but rather preserves the language in a state of transition to early Middle English, so its departures from Ælfric’s typical spellings are pronounced and arise from the intermingling of late West Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and possibly Latin forms, shifts in pronunciation, and the scribe’s own (West Midland) dialect.23 For lines 54–312, we have consulted the copy of Ælfric’s Hexameron in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1],24 a manuscript that dates to the second half of the eleventh century and was preferred by Crawford because it ‘exhibits the purest Late West-Saxon’.25 To reconstruct the freely composed or as-yet-unsourced passages in lines 82–4, 98–115, 128–32, and 149–52 that are without parallel in In natali Domini and the Hexameron, we have made conjectures commensurate with paleographical and grammatical probabilities, and we have consulted analogous passages in Ælfric’s corpus whenever possible.26 To improve the readability of our edition and remain consistent in our reliance on extant evidence, we have departed from standard practice in our edition of De creatore in this chapter and De sex etatibus in the next. To reduce the risk of producing a cluttered text, we put square brackets around whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. We supply details in the apparatus for readings from Xd and those supplied from a parallel source or by conjecture. To reconstruct damaged, illegible, or missing text in lines 1–53 of De creatore, we have used readings from B’s copy of In natali Domini without normalizing its spellings. At times these late spellings appear to be of a piece with those of the twelfth-century restorer who overwrote (and rewrote) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The remainder of the paragraph is heavily indebted to Leinbaugh, ‘Damaged Passage’. Ker §310.77; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 208–10. Irvine, Homilies, p. lv. Irvine, Homilies, pp. lii–iii. A Hereford provenance is another possibility (Conti and Da Rold, ‘Bodley 343’). Irvine, Homilies, pp. lv, where an in-depth analysis of the language of the homilies begins and runs to p. lxxvii. Ker §332.1 and ‘Supplement’, pp. 124–5; Gneuss and Lapidge §639.1; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 226–7. P1 served as the base text for Crawford’s edition. Hexameron, p. 6 Passages from In natali domini and the Hexameron account for about 90 percent of De creatore. Ælfric’s Christmas sermon in the Lives (LS 1), passages of which he rewrote for In natali domini, supplies three readings in lines 8, 11, and 12.

710

Introduction: De creatore et creatura the lines that correspond to the passage from In natali Domini. Even when they do not, the non-Ælfrician spellings in this context are not overly intrusive and do not impede comprehension.27 The reconstruction of the text in lines 54–312 from P1’s copy of the Hexameron is more straightforward since both Xd and P1 preserve the standard forms of Ælfric’s late West Saxon literary language.28 Despite the fragmentary state of De creatore in this chapter and its sequel De sex etatibus in the next chapter, these late works represent as comprehensive and concise a summary of salvation history and of Ælfric’s educational program as any in his career.29

27 28 29

We would like to thank Susan Irvine for her help in finding a workable solution to the editorial problems posed by this text. For the features of late West Saxon, see Hogg, Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. I, pp. 67–167. Clemoes notes that the pair of homilies is ‘very close to the main theme of Ælfric’s total plan’ for educating believers in the fundamental tenets of the faith (‘Chronology’, p. 54).

711

de creatore et creatura

concerning the creator and creation

DE CREATORE ET CREATURA

5

10

Text begins imperfectly … [Gif nu sum sot wæneð þæt he wrohte hine sylfne, þenne axie we him hu þe heofenlice God hine sylfen wrohte gif he himsylf ær nes], [oðer hwa wyrcæð ænig þing buton he ær wære, and wununge hæfde þæt he wyrcean mihte]? [Þe ðe furðor] smeað [þæt he fandige] Godes, se bið [gelic] þam men þonne [hlæddre] arerð and astihð þonne upp [be] þære [hlæddre] stæpum oð þæt he upp cymð [to ende þære læddre] and [wyle þonne stigan] buton stapum [ufer]. Text from: Xd London, British Library Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2, fols 149r–151v (s. xiin, SW England?; provenance Worcester). Fol. 149r [lines 4 [oðer] –53 [mid]] has been written over and, at points, rewritten in a twelfth-century hand. Variants and missing or illegible text from: B for lines 1–53, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343, fols 155r–158r (s. xii2): the copy of In natali Domini edited above as AH I.2, lines 84–138 W for lines 8, 11, and 12, London, British Library, Cotton Julius E. vii, fols 5v–9v (s. xiin, S. England; provenance Bury St Edmunds): Ælfric’s Christmas sermon in the Lives, edited by Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, pp. 22–40 (LS 1), and Skeat, Lives, vol. I, pp. 10–24 (LS I.1) P1 for lines 54–312, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115, fols 1r–10r (s. xi2 or s. xi3/4, provenance Worcester): the base text of Crawford’s Hexameron. Lines 82–4, 98–115, 128–32, and 149–52 are unique to De creatore Due to damage to Xd, square brackets may enclose whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. The siglum Xd followed by a siglum in square brackets (e.g., Xd[B]) indicates that letters not enclosed in square brackets are reported from Xd and that enclosed letters are supplied from the manuscript specified. 1–3 [Gif nu … ær nes]] no reading Xd; as B  4–5 [oðer hwa … mihte]] [oðer hw]a wy[rcæð ænig þin]g but[on he ær wære and wun]u[n]ge hæ[fde þæt he] wyrcean [mihte] Xd[B]; wurcæð B  6 [Þe ðe furðor]] [Þe ðe furðo]r Xd[B] [þæt he fandige]] [þæt he fandi]ge Xd[B]  7 se] he B [gelic]] g[elic] Xd[B]; ilic B ] omitted Xd; þe B [hlæddre]] hl[æddr]e Xd[B]  8 astihð þonne upp [be] þære [hlæddre] stæpum] astihð þonne upp b[e] þære hl[æddre] stæpum Xd[W]; stihð be þære hlæddre stapum W; astihð þonne uppon þære læddre stæfæ B  9 oð] a B cymð] cume B [to ende þære læddre]] [to ende þære lædd]re Xd[B]; to þære læddre ende B  10 [wyle þonne stigan]] wyl[e þonne stigan] Xd[B] buton stapum [ufer]] ufe[r] Xd[B]; ufor buton stafæ B 

714

CONCERNING THE CREATOR AND CREATION

5

10

Text begins imperfectly … [Now if some fool believes that he made himself, then we ask him how the heavenly God made himself if he did not previously exist,] or who makes anything unless he previously existed and had lived so as to be able to make [it]? He who thinks further to test God is like a person who raises a ladder and then climbs up the ladder’s steps until he approaches the end of the ladder and then desires to ascend higher without steps.

715

Text: De creatore et creatura

15

20

25

30

[Þonne stedeleas he fylþ for] his [stuntnesse] [mid] mycclan [wyrsan] fylle swa [he furðor stah]. [Ne] ongan [þe ælmihtiga] Fæder, ac he [wæs æfre God; and his ancennedæ] Sunu, æfre of [acennedd, eallswa] mihtig swa he, [he is Miht and Wisdom] of [þam] wisan Fæder; [and þe Halga Gast, heora] begra Lufe, nes nefre [ongan], ac wæs [God] æfre, hi [ðry] an God, [wunigende] on anre [God/c\undnysse, untodæledlice] [o]n anum [mægenþrymme and on] anre godcunnysse, gelice [mihtige], nan lasse [þonne oðer]. Swa hwet [swa lesse bið] þonne God, þæt ne [bið] na God. Þæt þæt later bið [þone] God þæt hæfð [angin] [and] ne [bið] na God. [God] nefð nan anginn, ac [he wæs] efre and [wunæð] a on [ecnesse]. Nu synd sume gesceaftæ [swa gesceapene] þurh God [þæt hi hæbbæð angin and eac geendiæð] and [to nohte iwurðæð] for þam ðe hi [nabbæð] nane [sawle]. [Hi] syndon [hwilwendlice swa þæt heo beoð] sume hwile; [þæt beoð nytene and fisces and fugeles]. Hi weron [gesceapene] þurh God, and hi [iwurðæþ to nohte]. Nu synd oþre gesceafta [swa iscapene] þurh God [þæt heo habbað] anginn and nabbað nenne ende 11 [Þonne stedeleas he fylþ for]] [Þ]onne s[tedeleas he fylþ fo]r Xd[BW]; he stedeleas fylþ W; þonne fællæð he stedeleas for B  12 [mid] mycclan [wyrsan] fylle swa [he furðor stah]] [mid] mycclan [wy]rs[a]n fylle swa h [furðor stah] Xd[W]; mid mycclum wyrsan fylle swa furðor stah W; swa mucele wyrsse swa forðor stow B  13 [Ne]] no reading Xd; as B ] næfe; næffe Xd; næfre B [þe almihtiga]] [þe almih]tiga Xd[B]; þe almihtig god fæder B  14 [wæs æfre God; and his ancennedæ]] w[æ]s [æfre god and his ancennedæ] Xd[B]  15 ] hine Xd; him B [acennedd eallswa]] a[cen]nedd eal[l]swa Xd[B]  16 [he is Miht and Wisdom]] no reading Xd; as B [þam]] [þ] am Xd[B]  17 [and þe Halga Gast, heora]] [and þe] Halg[a] G[ast], h[eor]a Xd[B]  18 [ongan]] [onga]n, with illegible text preceding not suggestive of ‘ongan’ and ‘:eled’ (?) interlined after ‘n’ Xd[B] ac wæs [God] æfre] ac wæs [Go]d æfre Xd[B]; ac he wæs æfre God B  19 [ðry]] [ðr]y Xd[B]; ðreo B ] æfr: Xd; omitted B [wunigende]] wunige[n]de Xd[B]  20 [God/c\undnysse untodæledlice]] god/c\ undnsse [untod]æledlice Xd[B]; cynde untodæledlic B  21 [o]n] [o]n Xd[B] [mægenþrymme and on]] [mæ]genþrym[me and on] Xd[B]  22 [mihtige]] [mi]htige Xd[B] [þonne oðer]] þonn[e oð]er Xd[B]; þene B  23 [swa lesse bið]] s[w]a le[sse] bid Xd[B]; swa bið læsse B [bið]] b[i]ð Xd[B] 24 [þone]] [þon]e Xd[B] [angin]] [an]gin Xd[B]  25 [and]] no reading Xd; as B [bið]] bid Xd; bið B [God]] [Go]d Xd[B]  26 [he wæs]] no reading Xd; as B [wunæð]] wun[æð] Xd[B] [ecnesse]] ec[ne] ss[e] Xd[B]  27 [swa gesceapene] þurh God] sw[a] [g]esc[eapen]e Xd[B]; beoð summe isceaftæ þurh God swa isceapene B  28 [þæt hi hæbbæð angin and eac geendiæð]] [þæt hi] hæ[bbæ]ð ang[in and eac] eendi[æ]ð Xd[B]; þæt heo habbæð angin and eac endæð B  29 [to nohte iwurðæð]] no reading Xd; as B [nabbæð]] nabb[æð] Xd[B] [sawle]] no reading Xd; as B  30 [Hi]] [h]i Xd[B] [hwilwendlice swa þæt heo beoð]] h[wil]wendli[ce] (hyw/l\elwendli: (?) Xd) [swa þæt heo beoð] Xd[B]  31 [þæt beoð nytene and fisces and fugeles]] þ[æt beoð nytene and fi]sces and fug[e]le[s] Xd[B]; fugelas B  32 [gesceapene]] ge[scapen]e Xd[B]; iscapene B [iwurðæþ to nohte]] [iwurðæþ to no]the Xd[B] 33 synd] beoð B [swa iscapene] þurh God] [swa isc]apene þurh God Xd[B]; þur God swa iscapene B  34 [þæt heo habbað]] [þæt heo habb]a[ð] Xd[B]; habbæþ B nabbað] omitted B nenne] nænne (?) Xd

716

Text: De creatore et creatura

15

20

25

30

Then unstable, he falls on account of his foolishness with a much worse fall in so far as he climbed higher. The almighty Father had no beginning, but he was eternally God; and his only-begotten Son, eternally born of him, just as powerful as he, he is the Power and Wisdom of the wise Father; and the Holy Spirit, the Love of them both, never had a beginning, but was eternally God, the three one God, eternally dwelling in one Godhead, indivisible in one majesty and in one divine nature, equally powerful, none less than another. Whatever is less than God is not God at all. That which exists later than God has a beginning and is not God. God has no beginning, but he has eternally existed and will exist forever. Now certain creatures are thus created by God to have a beginning and also die and to become nothing because they have no soul. They are transitory so that they exist for a certain time; those are animals and fish and birds. They were created by God, and they become nothing. Now other created beings are thus created by God to have a beginning and no end

717

Text: De creatore et creatura 35

40

45

50

55

60

[and] ece on [þam eftran dæle]; þæt syndon englas and eac manna [sawle]. Hi ne geendiað næfre, þeah ðe hi ær ongunnon. Ne meg þes sawul, þeah ðe se [lichama] swelte, oðþe he on wætere [adrynce oððe] he wurþe [forbærned], nefre geendian, ac heo bið æfre – [beo heo ufel], beo god – swa swa englas beoð æfre þurhwuniende on ece [worlde]. [Nu] is se ælmihtiga Scyppend þe ealle þing gesceop [ane] swa ece þæt he nan angin næfð, ac he sylf is egðer Ordfruma and Ende, [eallwealdend] God. Ne ondræt he nenne for þan ðe nan oðer nis [mihtigræ] þonne he ne furþon him gelic. Efre he bið gifende his [gifa] þam ðe he wyle ac [his] þing ne waniað, ne he nanes ne behofað. Efre he bið ælmihtig, and efre he wyle wel. Nele he næfre [nan ufell, ac] he soðlice þa ðe [wyrceað] and [eac þa fordeð] þe [leasungæ specæð] mid | [unleafulnysse]. Mycel is se Fæder, and mycel is his Wisdom, and [mycel is heora] Lufu. Loca þu nu georne þæt ðu swa swyðe ne /d\welie þæt þu gedon [wylle þone] Sunu læssan þonne his leofa Fæder is, oððe heora Lufu be þinum [lytlan] andgite unmihtigran gemakian wylle. Ac þu ne miht, swa þeah, [þeah] ðu swa mycclum [dwelige, gedon] þæt heora ænig unmihtigra [beo] þonne ælmihtig God. [And hu] wylt þu furþor embe þæt smeagan, þonne [ðu] sylf ne canst embe þe sylfne soðlice [smeagan]? 35 [and] ] [and] :::don Xd[B]; beoð B [þam eftran dæle]] þa[m] eft[r]a [d]æle Xd[B]; eft[r]am Xd; æftran B  36 syndon] beoð B eac] omitted B [sawle]] no reading Xd; as B  37 ðe] omitted B  38 Ne meg þes sawul] annes Xd ; omitted B þeah ðe se [lichama] swelte] þeah ðe se [lich]ama swelte Xd[B]; ðæh ðes monnes lichame swælte B  39 [adrynce oððe]] ad[ryn]ce [oð]ðe Xd[B]; oðer B [forbærned]] fo[r]bærned Xd[B]  40 nefre geendian] ne mæg næfre his sawle endiæn B  40–1 ac heo bið æfre – [beo heo ufel], beo god – swa swa englas beoð] [b]e[o heo u]fel Xd[B]; ac beo heo ufel beo heo god, heo bið æfre swa swa engles beoð B  42 [worlde]] w[orlde] Xd[B]  43 [Nu]] [N]u Xd[B]  44 [ane]] an[e] Xd[B] nan angin næfð] nafeð nan anginne he nafæð nenne ende B  45 sylf] him sylf B [eallwealdend]] eallwealde[nd] Xd[B]  46 he] he him B  47 [mihtigræ]] mihtigr[æ] Xd[B]  48 [gifa]] gi[f]a Xd[B]; gyfæ B  49 ac] ac he B [his]] [h]is Xd[B] nanes] nanes þinges B  51 [nan ufell, ac]] na[n uf]ell, [a]c Xd[B] ] lufað Xd; hatæð B  52 ] god weo(r?)c Xd; unriht B [wyrceað]] wy[rce]að Xd[B]; wurceæð B [eac þa fordeð]] [ea]c þa [f]o[r]deð Xd[B]  53 [leasungæ specæð]] l[easungæ specæð] Xd[B] [unleafulnysse]] [unl]eafulnysse Xd[B]; correspondences with B end here  54 Mycel] correspondences with P1 begin here  55 [mycel is heora]] [mycel is he]ora Xd[P1]; heora begra P1  56–7 [wylle þone]] wy[lle þone] Xd[P1]  58 [lytlan]] [lyt]lan Xd[P1]  59 gemakian] traces of a ‘k’ remain Xd; gemacian P1  60 [þeah]] [þ]eah Xd[P1] [dwelige gedon]] d[we]lige gedon wylle Xd[P1]; gedon P1  61 [beo]] [be]o Xd[P1]  62 [And hu]] no reading Xd; as P1 þu] ðu nu P1 þæt] þis P1  63 [ðu]] [ð]u Xd[P1] [smeagan]] sm[ea]gan Xd[P1]; smeagian P1 

718

149v

Text: De creatore et creatura 35

40

45

50

55

60

and to be eternal with respect to [their] future. those are angels and the souls of humans. They never die, although they earlier had a beginning. A person’s soul, though the body may die, whether it drowns in water or whether it is consumed by fire, cannot ever come to an end, but it will exist forever – be it evil, be [it] good – just as the angels are living eternally in the everlasting world. Now the almighty Creator who created all things is alone so eternal that he has no beginning, but he himself is both Beginning and End, the all-ruling God. He fears no one because no other is more powerful than he nor even equal to him. He is continually giving his gifts to whom he desires but does not diminish his possessions, nor does he need anything. He is eternally almighty, and he always has good will. He never intends any evil, but he truly hates those who work injustice and also destroys those who tell lies with unbelief. Great is the Father, and great is his Wisdom, and great is their Love. Look diligently now that you not err so greatly [as] to intend to make the Son less than his beloved Father is, or by means of your little understanding to intend to make their Love weaker. But you cannot, however, though you should err so greatly, make any [one] of them to be weaker than almighty God. And how do you intend to think more about that when you yourself do not know how truly to think about yourself?

719

Text: De creatore et creatura 65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Sege me nu soðlice, miht ðu geseon þinne hricg oððe [þinne] hneccan þeah ðu lokie [underbac], oððe þine agene saule, hu heo gesceapen is? Ðu scealt gelyfan on [þone] lifigendan God, and na ofer þine mæðe motian be him þe læs ðe þu dwelige swa swa to fela dydon þe ofer heora andgit embe þæt [smeadan] [butan geleafan] and forði losedon. ‘God ælmihtig gesceopp ærest on anginne [heofonan] and eorðan’. Her ge magon gehyran þæt heofen [næs] na ær [ær ðam ðe] se ælmihtiga Wyrhta hi [geworhte] on anginne – and [ealne] middaneard – on his micclum cræfte. Ac [he sylf] wæs æfre unbegunnen Scyppend, [se þe] swa mihtiglice gemacode [swylcne cræft]. Englas he geworhte on [wundorliccre] fægernysse and on [mycelre strencðe, manega] þusenda, ealle [lichamlease] lybbende on gaste, be þam [we sædon hwilon ær swutelicor on gewrite]. Tyn weorod he gesceopp þære scinend/r\a engla, se fyrmesta on þam ðan mid mycelre modinysse beon þam Ælmihtigan gelic. God hine geworhte [wundorlicne and fægerne]. Þa [sceolde] he, gif he wolde, wurðian his Scyppend mid [mycelre eadmodnysse], þe hine swa mærne gesceopp. Ac he ne dyde na swa ac mid [dyrstigre] modignysse cwæð þæt he wolde wyrcean his cyneseld bufan Godes tunglum ofer ðæra wolcna heahnyssa on ðam norðdæle and beon Gode gelic. [Þa] forlet he þone Ælmihtigan, þe is eall Soðfæstnyss, and nolde habban his hlaforscipe ac wolde beon him sylf on his sylfes anwealde. Þa næfde he nane fæstnunge ac feoll sona [adun] mid eallum þam englum þe æt his ræde wæron, and hi wurdon awende to awyrgedum deoflum. Ða drecceað nu mancyn on ðissum middanearde, 65 [þinne]] þinn[e] Xd[P1] [underbac]] und[er]bac Xd[P1]  67 [þone]] þo[ne] Xd[P1]  69 þe læs ðe] þe læste P1  70 [smeadan]] sme[a]dan Xd[P1]  71 [butan geleafan]] bu[t]a[n ge]leafan Xd[P1] 72 [heofonan]] he[ofona]n Xd[P1]  73 [næs]] [n]æs Xd[P1]  74 [ær ðam ðe]] ær ðam [ðe] Xd[P1] [geworhte]] ge[w]orhte Xd[P1]  75 [ealne]] eal[n]e Xd[P1]  76 [he sylf]] no reading Xd; as P1  77 [se þe]] s[e þe] Xd[P1] [swylcne cræft]] s[wylcne c]ræft Xd[P1]  78 [wundorliccre]] wun[dorl]iccre Xd[P1]  79 [mycelre strencðe manega]] mycelr[e strenc]ð[e m]anega Xd[P1]  80 [lichamlease]] lichamlic: Xd; lichamlease P1  81 be þam [we … gewrite]] after ‘þam’, the remainder of the sentence has been erased and written over in a different hand: we geseoð :::tele hun:: þeo :e :e seo: Xd; we sædon hwilon ær swutelicor on gewrite P1  83 ] only a trace of a descender of a Tironian et (?) remains Xd ] æ: Xd ] flod: Xd  85 [wundorlicne and fægerne]] wundo[r]licne [and f] æ[g]e[r]ne Xd[P1]  86 [sceolde]] sceol[d]e Xd[P1]  87 [mycelre eadmodnysse]] mycelr[e e]admodnysse Xd[P1]  88 [dyrstigre]] dyrstig[re] Xd[P1]; dyrstire P1  95 [adun]] a[du]n Xd[P1]

720

Text: De creatore et creatura 65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Tell me now truly, are you able to see your back or your neck though you look backwards, or your own soul, how it is made? You ought to believe in the living God and not to argue about him beyond your ability lest you err as too many did who beyond their understanding thought about that without faith and therefore perished. ‘God Almighty first created heaven and earth in the beginning’. Here you can hear that heaven did not exist earlier at all before the almighty Maker made it – and all the earth – in the beginning by his great skill. But he who so powerfully used such skill was eternally the Creator without beginning. He made angels in wonderful beauty and in great strength, many thousands, all bodiless existing in spirit, about whom we previously spoke in greater detail in writing. He created ten hosts of shining angels, and before the Flood the foremost among them desired with great pride to be like the Almighty. God made him wondrous and beautiful. He ought then, if he had wanted, to have honored his Creator with great humility, he who made him so glorious. However, he did not do so but with presumptuous pride said that he intended to build his royal hall above God’s stars beyond the heights of the clouds in the northern part and to be like God. Then he abandoned the Almighty, who is all Truth, and did not want to have his lordship but wanted to live for himself under his own sovereignty. He then had no stability but immediately fell down with all the angels who were at his council, and they were turned into cursed devils. They now afflict mankind in this world,

721

Text: De creatore et creatura 100

105

110

115

120

125

130

and hi to ælcum yfele ælcne man tihtað þæt hi manna sawla mid synnum fordon for ðam andan þe hi to mannum habbað. God wolde ða gewyrcan manna of eorðan þæt he geearnian sceolde mid his eadmodnysse and þa heofonlican | þæt ðæra engla getæl eft wurde gefylled. And heora werod eft ðæs mannes ofspring for ðan þe heora werod wæs ðæra deofla hryre þe heora Drihten forleton and of heofenum hellewite. God þa gestaðolfæste and gestrangode his englas þe forleton þæt hi lybbað nu æfre buton ælcere synne, orsorge on . gehyrsume on wuldre him, and hi hine wurðiað to worulde mid , buton ælcum geswince a on ecnysse. God ða geworhte of ðære [eorðan lame] mid his halgum handum mannan to his anlicnysse and ableow on his [ansyne] liflicne blæd, and he wearð man geworht on lybbendre sawle. God [sylf ða syððan gesceop] him naman Adam and of his anum ribbe worhte him gemacan – [hire nama] wæs Eua, ure ealra modor. And God hi ða gebletsode mid þissere [bletsunge], “[Wexað] and beoð gemenigfylde and gefyllað þa eorðan, and habbað eow [anweald] ofer þa eorðan and ofer sæ [fixum] and ofer þam fleogendum [fugelum] [and ofer] eallum þam nytenum þe [styriað ofer] eorðan.” On six dagum he , swa swa us secgað bec, þa menigfealdan gesceafta, gesewenlice and , and he sylf þa gesceawade ealle þa , and hi wæron ætgædere eall gode. Ða geendode God weorc on ðam seofoðam dæge and hine þa [gereste and] ðone dæg [gebletsode 101 ] mycclum Xd  104 ] gehyrsum:ysse Xd ] wunun:: Xd  106 ] g::::::::: Xd  107 ] gewano: Xd  107 ] no reading Xd  109 ] af:::::::::: Xd  111 ] no reading Xd  112 ] bliss: Xd  113 ] no reading Xd ] :id Xd  114 ] lof: Xd  115 ] no reading Xd  116 [eorðan lame]] e[orðan lame] Xd[P1]  118 [ansyne]] no reading Xd; as P1  120 [sylf ða syððan gesceop]] sy[lf ða syððan ge]sceop Xd[P1]  122 [hire nama]] hi[re nama] Xd[P1] 123 [bletsunge]] ble[tsunge] Xd[P1]  124 [Wexað]] we[x]að Xd[P1]  125 [anweald]] no reading Xd; as P1  126 [fixum]] fix[um] Xd[P1] [fugelum]] fuge[lum] Xd[P1]  127 [and ofer]] no reading Xd; as P1 [styriað ofer]] [s]tyriað [o]fer Xd[P1]  128 ] no reading Xd  129 ] unge::::::::: Xd  130 ] ::sceafta Xd  132 ] :::::::s Xd  133 [gereste and]] no reading Xd; as P1  133–4 [gebletsode for ðam]] gebletsod[e] [for ðam] Xd[P1] 

722

150r

Text: De creatore et creatura 100

105

110

115

120

125

130

and they incite every person to every evil so that they have destroyed people’s souls with sins because of the great hostility they have for humanity. God wanted then to make a man from the dust so that with his humility and obedience he should earn the heavenly dwelling so that the number of angels might once more be filled. And their host afterwards afflicted the man’s offspring because their host was diminished after the fall of the devils who abandoned their Lord and plunged from heaven into hell-torture. God then firmly fixed and strengthened his angels who did not abandon him so that they now live eternally without any sin, carefree in bliss. They remain obedient to him in glory with him, and they honor him forever with praise, living in bliss without any hardship always into eternity. God then made with his holy hands from the clay of the earth a human being in his own image and breathed into his mouth the breath of life, and he was made a human with a living soul. Then God afterwards gave him the name Adam and from one of his ribs made for him a spouse – her name was Eve, the mother of us all. And God then blessed them with this blessing, ‘“Increase and be multiplied and fill the earth, and have authority over the earth and over the fish of the sea and over the flying birds and over all the animals that move upon the earth”’. In six days, just as books tell us, he made creatures of many kinds, visible and invisible, and he then looked at all the created beings, and they were all together good. Then God finished all his work on the seventh day and then rested and blessed the day

723

Text: De creatore et creatura 135

140

145

150

155

160

165

for ðam] þe he on ðam seofoðan dæge geswac his [weorces]. Næs he na [werig], þeah [ðe] hit swa awriten si, ne he mid ealle ne geswac þa [gesceafta to] geedniwianne. Ac he geswac þæs dihtes þæs deoplican cræftes swa þæt he [selcuðe] syððan scyppan nolde ac ða ilcan geedniwian oð ende þyssere worulde, [swa swa] ure Hælend on his halgan godspelle cwæð, ‘Pater meus usque modo [operatur] et ego operor’, þæt is on Englisc, ‘“Min Fæder wyrcð gyt oð þysne [andweardan dæg], and Ic eac wyrce”’. Ælce geare byð orf acenned, and mennisce menn to mannum [acennede] þa God wyrcð swa swa he þa ærran geworhte, ac he ne gescypð nane [sawle] buton þam cildum anum, and ealle þa nytenu nabbað nane sawle. mannes sawle þe on his meder byð acucod, gescypð se ælmihtiga God he Adames dyde swa lange swa mancynn and ðes middaneard wuniað, and nyten næfð nane sawle. Sume men wendon þæt ðeos woruld wære æfre [buton] ælcum anginne, eall swa [heo] nu is, heofen and eorðe and ealle gesceafta. Ac [we secgað] to soðan þæt God [sylf hi gesceop] and hi næron na gesceafta gif hi [gesceapene næron], | [ne hi ne gewurdon þurh] hi sylfe, ac hi geworhte God. Ælc þing hæfð angin [and ordfruman] þurh [God] buton se ana Scyppend þe ealle ðing gesceop. Se næfð [nan anginn ne nænne ordfruman], ac he sylf anginn and soðlice ordfruma eallra oðra [ðinga and æfre] ungeendod. Næs hit na færlic geþoht oððe unforsceawod ræd [þæt se ælmihtiga] God [þysne] middaneard gesceop. Ac wæs æfre æt fruman on his [ecum ræde] 134 [weorces]] weor[ces] Xd[P1]  135 [werig]] [w]erig Xd[P1] [ðe]] [ð]e Xd[P1]  136 [gesceafta to]] gesce[afta to] Xd[P1]  138 [selcuðe]] sel[cuðe] Xd[P1]  140 [swa swa]] no reading Xd; as P1  141 [operatur]] op[eratur] Xd[P1] 143 [andweardan dæg]] andwea[rdan dæg] Xd[P1]  145 [acennede]] a[cenne]de Xd[P1]  146 þa1] þa ðe P1 þa ærran geworhte] geworhte þa ærran P1  147 ac] and P1 [sawle]] no reading Xd; as P1  148 þa] omitted P1  149 ] æl::: Xd  150 ] sw: Xd Adames dyde] ‘sawle’ interlined in a later hand Xd  152 ] no reading Xd sawle] after ‘sawle’, ‘forþi h[i] gewurðað to nahte’ interlined in a later hand Xd  154 [buton]] no reading Xd; as P1 swa] swa swa P1 [heo]] no reading Xd; as P1  156 [we secgað]] w[e secgað] Xd[P1] [sylf hi gesceop]] [sylf hi ge]sceop Xd[P1]  157 hi1] omitted P1 na] nane P1 [gesceapene næron]] gesceap[ene næron] Xd[P1]  158 [ne hi ne gewurdon þurh]] [ne hi ne gewurdon þ]urh Xd[P1]  159 [and ordfruman]] no reading Xd; as P1 [God]] [g]od Xd[P1]  161 [nan anginn ne nænne ordfruman]] [nan anginn ne næn] ne [o]rdfruman Xd[P1]  162 sylf anginn] sylf /is\ anginn, with ‘is’ in a different hand Xd; sylf is angin P1  163 oðra] omitted P1 [ðinga and æfre]] ð[inga and æ]f[r]e Xd[P1]  165 [þæt se ælmihtiga]] [þæt se ælmi]h[ti]ga Xd[P1] [þysne]] þ[y]sne Xd[P1]  166 [ecum ræde]] [ecum ræ]de Xd[P1]

724

150v

Text: De creatore et creatura 135

140

145

150

155

160

165

because on the seventh day he ceased from his work. He was not at all weary, though it may be written thus, nor has he wholly ceased to replenish created things. But he ceased from the exercise of [his] profound skill so that afterwards he did not desire to create novel things but to replenish the same things until the end of this world, just as our Savior said in his holy Gospel, ‘Pater meus usque modo op[eratur] et ego operor’,1 which is in English, ‘“My Father is still working until this present day, and I am also working”’. Each year cattle are born, and human beings are born into humanity whom God makes just as he made the earlier ones, but he does not create a soul except in children only, for all the animals have no soul. Almighty God creates the soul of every person who is brought to life in his mother, just as he did Adam’s, as long as mankind and the earth remain, but no animal will ever have a soul. Certain people have believed that this world always existed without beginning, just as it is now, heaven and earth and all created things. But we say truly that God himself created them and [that] there would have been no created things if they had not been created, nor did they come into being by their own means, but God made them. Everything has a beginning and source by the agency of God except the one Creator who created all things. He has no beginning nor any source, but he himself is the beginning and [is] truly the source of all things and eternally without end. It was not at all a sudden thought or a plan without preordination that almighty God created this world. But [it] eternally existed at first in his eternal purpose

1

John 5.17: ‘“My father works until now, and I work”’.

725

Text: De creatore et creatura

170

175

180

185

190

195

þæt he wolde gewyrcan ealle þas woruld and ealne middaneard mid his [agenre mihte] him sylfum to lofe, swa swa we geseoð [nu þæt] ealle gesceafta heriað [heora Scyppend buton] þam [earmum mannum þe] hine forseoð and hine herian [nellað, ne hi his] ne gymað, þæt hi mid [ðam ealdan deofle endeleaslice] losiað. [Wel wyste] ure Scyppend þa ða he geworhte Adam, þone frumsceapenan man, [þæt he syngian] wolde þurh ðæs deofles lare swa swa he dyde syðþan. And God [wyste eac] swylce hu he sylf smeade ða iu embe þa bote, hu he hit [gebetan mihte] [þurh] his halgan gife, þæt he [gehulpe] þam [menn] [and eac his ofspryncge þam ðe] on hine gelyfað and mid [soðre lufe hine symle] wurðiað. Se man wæs [swa gesceapen] þæt he syngian ne þorfte, and he wære gesælig gif he na ne [syngode] and æfre [undeadlic] gif he his Drihtne gehyrsumode. [And] gif he syngode, he wære [ungesælig] and syðþan deadlic for ðære synne [fremminge]. God hine ne [neadode on] naðre healfe ac lett hine [habban] his agenne cyre. Næs [he na] geworht mid nanre wohnysse, ne mid [nanum] synnum [gesceapen] to men, ne nane leahtras on his life næron, ac hæfde on his [anwealde] eall his agen gecynd, buton geswince on gesælðe lybbende. [Ne him nan gesceaft] næfre ne derode þa hwile þe he [gehyrsumode his Scyppende] on riht. God hi ða gebrohte binnon [Paradisum], þæt we [hatað] on Englisc ‘Neorxnawang’. Þær wæs wynsum wunung, and hi wunodon [þær] swa, 168 [agenre mihte]] [agenre m]ihte Xd[P1]  169 to lofe] and(?) to w[u]ldre interlined in a later hand Xd  169–70 [nu þæt]] n[u þæt] Xd[P1]  170–1 [heora Scyppend buton]] [heora Scy]ppend bu[t]on Xd[P1]  171 [earmum mannum þe]] ear[m]um mannu[m] þ[e] Xd[P1]  172 [nellað, ne hi his]] [nellað, ne hi h]is Xd[P1]  173 [ðam ealdan deofle endeleaslice]] [ð]am ea[ld]an deof[l]e ende[leas]lice Xd[P1] losiað] losion P1  174 [Wel wyste]] [wel wys]te Xd[P1]  175 [þæt he syngian]] [þæt he s]yngian Xd[P1]  177 [wyste eac]] no reading Xd; as P1  178 ða iu embe þa bote] embe ða bote ða iu P1 [gebetan mihte]] gebe[t]an [mihte] Xd[P1]  179 [þurh]] [þ]urh Xd[P1] [gehulpe]] geh[ulp]e Xd[P1] [menn]] [m]e[nn] Xd[P1]  180 [and eac his ofspryncge þam ðe]] [and ea]c his ofsp[r]yncge [þam ðe] Xd[P1  181 [soðre lufe hine symle]] [s]oð[r]e l[uf]e h[ine s]ymle Xd[P1]  182 [swa gesceapen]] [swa gesce]ap[en] Xd[P1]  183 [syngode]] [s]yngode Xd[P1]  184 [undeadlic]] [undead]lic Xd[P1] 185 [And]] no reading Xd; as P1 [ungesælig]] un[gesælig] Xd[P1]  186 [fremminge]] [fre[m]minge] Xd[P1]  187 [neadode on]] nea[dode on] Xd[P1]  188 [habban]] habba[n] Xd[P1]  189 [he na]] no reading Xd; as P1  190 [nanum]] n[a]num Xd[P1] [gesceapen]] gescea[pe]n Xd[P1]  192 [anwealde]] [anw]ealde Xd[P1]  194 [Ne him nan gesceaft]] [Ne h]im nan gescea[f]t Xd[P1]  195 [gehyrsumode his Scyppende]] [ge]hyrsumode [his Scy]ppende Xd[P1]  196 [Paradisum]] Para[di]sum Xd[P1] 197 [hatað]] no reading Xd; as P1  198 [þær]] no reading Xd; as P1 

726

Text: De creatore et creatura

170

175

180

185

190

195

so that he wished to make all this world and all this earth by his own power for his own praise, just as we see now that all created things praise their Creator except those wretched people who despise him and do not desire to praise him, nor do they pay him heed, so that they will perish eternally with the old devil. Our Creator well knew when he made Adam, the first-created person, that he would sin through the instruction of the devil as he subsequently did. And God also knew by what means he should already plan for the atonement, how he could amend [Adam’s fall] through his holy grace to help the man and also his offspring who believe in Him and with true love always honor Him. The man was thus created so that he need not sin, and he would be blessed if he never sinned and forever immortal if he obeyed his Lord. But if he sinned, he would be accursed and subsequently mortal on account of the commission of that sin. God did not compel him either way but allowed him to have his own choice. He was not made with any falsity, nor created as a human with any sins, nor were there any vices in his life, but [he] had his own nature completely in his control, living in bliss without hardship. No created thing ever injured him while he obeyed his Creator rightly. God then brought them within Paradisum, which in English we call ‘Paradise’. There was a pleasant dwelling, and they thus lived there,

727

Text: De creatore et creatura 200

205

210

215

220

225

230

hale on lichaman and hæfdon ealles geweald ge heora agenes [sylfes] on eallum þingum buton eallum þam dreccednyssum [þe us] deriað nu, and ealre [þære myrhþe] þe ðær binnon wæs buton [anes] treowes þe him forboden wæs þæt hi on ðam anum bebode Gode [gehyrsumodon]. God cwæð to Adame, ‘“Ne et ðu of þam treowe. Gif [þu his] onbyrigst, þu bist sona deadlic”’. Næs na se deað þurh Drihten [gesceapen], ne on ðam treowe aweaxen, ac [hit wæs swa ðeah] þæt gif he | tobræce þæt lytle bebod, þæt he wære syðþan [deadlyc]. And he [næfre ne swulte gif he] swa gesælig wære þæt he þæt eaðelice bebod eallunge geheolde. [Wæs eac oðer treow] on ælemiddan Paradisum lignum uite gehaten, þæt is ‘lifes [treow]’, [of ðam sceolde] Adam etan on ende æfter his gehyrsumnysse and habban þæt [ece lif and þa heofonlican] wununge mid þam halgum englum. Ða wæs þam [deofle waa on his] awyrgedum mode þæt se man sceolde þa myrhðe geearnian þe he [of afeoll for] his upahefednysse. And he mid mycclum andan þa menn þa [beswac þæt hi buta] æton of þam forbodenan treowe and wæron þa deadlice and wið [heora Drihten] scyldige, and hi cuðon þa ægðer ge yfel ge god. God hi ða adræfde ut [of ðære wununge] fram þære myrhðe to mycclum [geswincum], and hi on yrmðe [leofodon heora] lif syðþan. Hi mihton þa syþþan seocnysse þrowian, and hi biton [lys and lyftene] gnættas, and eac swylce flean and oðre gehwylce wyrmas. And him [wæron deregendlice] dracan and [næddran],

200 [sylfes]] [sylf]es Xd[P1]  201 [þe us]] [þe u]s Xd[P1]  202 [þære myrhþe]] [þær]e my[r]hþe Xd[P1]  203 [anes]] no reading Xd; as P1  204 [gehyrsumodon]] [gehy]rsumodon Xd[P1]  206 [þu his]] [þu hi]s Xd[P1]  207 [gesceapen]] [gesce]apen Xd[P1]  208 [hit wæs swa ðeah]] [hit wæs sw]a ð[e]ah Xd[P1]  210 [deadlyc]] deadly[c] Xd[P1]; sona deadlic P1  211 [næfre ne swulte gif he]] no reading Xd; as P1  213 [Wæs eac oðer treow]] no reading Xd; as P1 ælemiddan]‘æle’ altered to ‘ælle’ or ‘alle’ Xd; ælemiddan P1  214 [treow]] treo[w] Xd[P1]  215 [of ðam sceolde]] [of ðam sceol]de Xd[P1]  216–17 [ece lif and þa heofonlican]] e[ce lif and þa heo]fonlican Xd[P1]  218 [deofle waa on his]] deofl[e waa on his] Xd[P1]  220 [of afeoll for]] no reading Xd; as P1  221–2 [beswac þæt hi buta]] beswa[c þæt hi buta] Xd[P1]  223 [heora Drihten]] h[eora Drihten] Xd[P1] scyldige] /for\scyldige, with ‘for’ in left margin in a later hand Xd  225 [of ðære wununge]] [of ðære wunun]ge Xd[P1]  226 to] mid P1 [gewsincum]] geswinceum Xd; geswincum P1  227 [leofodon heora]] l[eofodon heora] Xd[P1]  229 hi] hine P1 [lys and lyftene]] ly[s and lyftene] Xd[P1]  231 [wæron deregendlice]] w[æron deregend]lice Xd[P1] [næddran]] nædd[r]an Xd[P1]

728

151r

Text: De creatore et creatura 200

205

210

215

220

225

230

sound in body and had complete control over everything and themselves in all things without all the afflictions that now injure us, and [over] all the bliss that was therein except one tree that was forbidden to them so that they might obey God in that one commandment. God said to Adam, ‘“Do not eat from the tree. If you eat of it, you will immediately be subject to death”’. Death was not in any way created by the Lord, nor did it grow on the tree, but it was nevertheless that if [Adam] broke that little commandment, he should afterwards be subject to death. For he never would have died if he had been so fortunate to have wholly kept that easy commandment. There was also another tree right in the middle of Paradise called the lignum uite, that is ‘the tree of life’, from which Adam was ultimately to eat in accordance with his obedience and have everlasting life and that heavenly dwelling with the holy angels. At that time the devil was miserable in his accursed mind that the man was to earn the bliss from which he fell on account of his arrogance. And with great envy he then deceived the humans so that they both ate of the forbidden tree and were then mortal and guilty before the Lord, and they knew then both evil and good. God then drove them out of that dwelling from bliss to great hardships, and they afterwards lived their life in misery. From then on they were able to suffer illness, and lice and gnats of the air bit them, and likewise fleas and many other creeping insects. And dragons and serpents were harmful to them,

729

Text: De creatore et creatura

235

240

245

250

255

260

and þa reðan deor mihton derian his [cynne, þe hine ealle] ær arwurðodon swiðe. Heora gecynd eac þa wæs on costnungum [eall] [and him ungewylde] to rihtre wissuncge. And seo galnyss weax unwilles on him, [and oðre unþeawas], þe he ær ne cuðe, wunnon him ða on and on his cynne [syþþan swa þæt ] moston mid mycclum geswince þa godan þe God hi on [gesceop healdan] æfre syþþan gif hi hi habban woldon þæt þæt hi ær heoldon buton [eafoðnyssum]. Þærtoeacan hi swuncon and on swate leofedon, and mid [earfoðnyssum] him ætes tiledon on mycelere geomerunge for heora gymeleaste, [and him þa] þæt hi ær wæron on ealre wynsumnysse and wunodon ða on [sorhge] anbidiende deaþes – and eall heora ofspring. Se ælmihtiga God þa [het his] engla werod healdan þa gatu æt þam ingange into Paradysum, and [þam englum] bebead, ‘“Behealdað þæt Adam ne ete of þam treowe þe is lignum uite [and he libbe] on ecnysse”’. And him wæs swa forwyrned þæs inganges syþþan. [Hearmlic] him wære þæt he wurde þa ece and eallum his ofspryncge on ðære [yrmðe þæt we] ealle sceoldon on ecnysse swa lybban on eallum þam costnungum þe [us becumað] and on [eallum] earfoðnyssum þe we on lybbað. Ða [forwyrnde him] God þæs [inganges forþig] to þam lifes treowe þæt we lybban ne [sceoldon swylce] earmingas [on ecum lichamann] swylce we nu syndon þissum [sorhfullum life]. Well us [foresceawode se welwillenda] God 232–3 [cynne þe hine ealle]] cynn[e þe hine ealle] Xd[P1]  234 on costnungum [eall]] on costnungum eal[l] Xd[P1]; eall on costnungum P1  235 [and him ungewylde]] [and him un]gewylde Xd[P1]  237 [and oðre unþeawas]] [and oðre un]þeawas Xd[P1]  238–9 [syþþan swa þæt ]] syþþa[n swa þæt] Xd[P1], with ‘hi’ attested in OQRS (Crawford p. 68, line 469)  240 ] þæawas Xd; þeawas P1  240–1 gesc[eop healdan]] gesc[eop healdan] Xd[P1]  242 [eafoðnyssum]] e[afoðnys]sum Xd[P1] 244 [earfoðnyssum]] earfoðn[yssum] Xd[P1]  246 [and him þa]] [and him] þ[a] Xd[P1] ] uneað Xd; uneaðe P1  247 [sorhge]] [s]o[rhge] Xd[P1]  249 [het his]] h[et his] Xd[P1]  251 [þam englum]] þ[am englum] Xd[P1]  253 [and he libbe]] [and he lib]be Xd[P1]  255 [Hearmlic]] he[armlic] Xd[P1]  256–7 [yrmðe þæt we]] yrm[ðe þæt we] Xd[P1]  258 [us becumað]] [us be]cumað Xd[P1]; after ‘becumað’, ‘nu’ interlined in a later hand Xd; us becumað nu P1  259 [eallum]] [e]allum Xd[P1] earfoðnyssum] þam earfoðnyssum P1  260 [forwyrnde him]] forwyr[nde him] Xd[P1] [inganges forþig]] ingan[ges forþig] Xd[P1]  261–2 [sceoldon swylce]] sceoldo[n swylce] Xd[P1]  262 [on ecum lichamann]] [on ecum licham]ann Xd[P1]  263 ] o Xd; on P1 [sorhfullum life]] sorhful[lum life] Xd[P1]  264 [foresceawode se welwillenda]] [foresceawode se welwi]llenda Xd[P1]

730

Text: De creatore et creatura

235

240

245

250

255

260

and the fierce animals, all of which honored [the man] exceedingly before, were able to harm his kindred. Their nature too wholly fell into temptation and was not subject to proper guidance by them. And lustfulness increased unwillingly in him, and other vices, which he did not know before, then raged within him and afterwards within his kindred so that with great effort they had to continually maintain the good virtues that God had created in them if they wanted to possess those that they had maintained before without difficulties. In addition to that, they toiled and lived by sweat, and with hardships labored to obtain food for themselves with great lamentation on account of their negligence, and then [it] was grievous to them to have earlier lived in all pleasantness and after that time to have dwelled in sorrow waiting for death – and all their offspring [too]. Almighty God then ordered his host of angels to guard the gates at the entry to Paradise and commanded the angels, ‘“See that Adam does not eat of the tree that is the lignum uite and live forever”’. And so afterwards entry was refused him. It would have been harmful to him and to all his offspring to become eternal at that time in that misery so that we all would have to live thus for all time with all the temptations that befall us and in all the hardships we live with. For that reason, God then refused them entry to the tree of life so that we should not have to live as wretches in an everlasting body as we now do in this sorrowful life. Well did the benevolent God provide for us

731

Text: De creatore et creatura 265

270

275

280

285

290

295

þæt he on oðre wisan ure yfel [gebette and cydde his mihte] | and his mildheortnysse þæt he swa mycel yfell mihte gebetan. [And he eac wolde] for his wellwillendnysse us earmingas alysan fram þam [ecum suslum], þæt mihte he ana don for þam þe he is ælmihtig God. Hit sægð [on þære bec] and on þissere gesetnysse þæt ðær wæs ligen swurd gelogod æt þam [ingange mid] þam halgum englum þe heoldon þæt geat and þæt ilce swurd wæs [awendendlic swa] þeah for þan ðe ure Hælend Crist, þæs heofonlican Godes Sunu, [on ðære syxtan] ylde þyssere worulde wearð to men geboren of þam [mædene Marian], and he mid his agenum deaðe þone deofol oferwann, and he us [swa alysde] of his laðum þeowdome. And he of deaðæ aras on þam ðriddan dæge [and awende þæt swurd] of þam wege mid ealle þæt we in moton gan to þam upplican [Paradise, to ðam] lyfes treowe, þæt is [se] leofa Hælend þe þæt ece lif forgifð þam þe [hine lufiað] and mid weorcum cyþað þæt hi wilniað [his]. Þis [is] nu betere þæt we on [blissum wunion a on ecnysse] þonne Adam [þa] æte [of ðam lifes treowe] and leofode on [ecnysse mid eallum] his cynne, swa swa we cwædon ær, on eallum þam yrmðum ðe [us on rixiað and on] eallum þam costnungum þe us nu [her] becumað. Nu þam dysegan [menn þe dwollice] leofað þæt him genoh well [si on ðyssere] worulde gif he lybban mot [be his lustum] æfre. Ac he ne understent na his agene stuntnysse and nat þæt his lif [is gelogod] on geswincum. Ðonne him hingrað, he ytt grædelice. Eft þonne him [þyrst, he] drincð gif he hæfð. 265–6 [gebette and cydde his mihte]] no reading Xd; as P1  268 [And he eac wolde]] no reading Xd; as P1  269 [ecum suslum]] [ecum suslu]m Xd[P1]  271 [on þære bec]] [on þære b]ec Xd[P1] 272–3 [ingange mid]] no reading Xd; as P1  274 [awendendlic swa]] awen[dendlic swa] Xd[P1]  276 [on ðære syxtan]] [on ðære sy]xtan Xd[P1]  277 [mædene Marian]] mæ[dene Mari]an Xd[P1]  279 [swa alysde]] no reading Xd; as P1  281 [and awende þæt swurd]] [and awende þæt sw]urd Xd[P1] 282–3 [Paradise to ðam]] pa[radise to ð]am Xd[P1]  283 [se]] [s]e Xd[P1]  284 [hine lufiað]] no reading Xd; as P1  285 [his]] hi[s] Xd[P1]  286 [is]] ‘is’ interlined in a later hand Xd; is P1  286–7 [blissum wunion a on ecnysse]] blis[sum wunion] [a on ec]n[y]sse  Xd[P1]  287 [þa]] [þ]a Xd[P1]  288 [of ðam lifes treowe]] [of ða]m li[f]e[s tre]owe Xd[P1]  288–9 [ecnysse mid eallum]] ecnys[se mid ea]llum Xd[P1]  289 cwædon] sædon P1  290–1 [us on rixiað and on]] u[s] on [rixiað and o]n Xd[P1] 291 nu [her]] nu he[r] Xd[P1]; nu omitted P1  292 ] þing Xd; þingð P1] [menn þe dwollice]] [menn þe dwo]llice Xd[P1]  293 [si on ðyssere]] [s]i o[n ðyss]e[r]e Xd[P1]  294 [be his lustum]] [be his lust]um Xd[P1]  296 [is gelogod]] no reading Xd; as P1  298 [þyrst he]] no reading Xd; as P1

732

151v

Text: De creatore et creatura 265

270

275

280

285

290

295

to atone for our evil in another way and made known his power and his mercifulness in that he was able to atone for such great evil. And also on account of his benevolence, he desired to redeem us wretches from everlasting torments, which he alone was able to do because he is almighty God. It says in that book and in this narrative that there was a fiery sword placed at the entry with the holy angels who guarded the gate and that the same sword was yet capable of being turned [aside] because our Savior Christ, the Son of the heavenly God, in the Sixth Age of this world was born of the Virgin Mary as a man, and with his own death he defeated the devil, and he thus freed us from his hateful servitude. And he arose from death on the third day and completely turned that sword from the way so that we may enter into the heavenly Paradise to the tree of life, which is the beloved Savior who gives everlasting life to those who love him and make known with [their] deeds that they long for him. This is now better that we dwell in bliss always into eternity than [that] Adam should then have eaten from the tree of life and lived forever with all his kindred, as we said earlier, with all the afflictions that rule within us and with all the temptations that now befall us here. Now it seems to the stupid person who lives foolishly that it will be well enough in this world if he is always able to live according to his desires. But he does not understand his own foolishness at all and does not know that his life is set amid hardship. When he is hungry, he eats greedily. Again when he is thirsty, he drinks if he has [anything to drink].

733

Text: De creatore et creatura 300

305

310

Þonne him cæleð, he cepð him hlywðe. Þonne him to [gange lyst], he gæð unþances ðider. Ðonne he werig bið, he wyle hine restan. Gif he gewundod bið, he gewilnað læcedomes. Nis þis nu eall geswinc? And gyt [mycele swarran ealle þa] ungelimp þe on [ðissum] life becumað, þe man [earfoðlice mæg] ealle areccan. Uton we forði hogian her on þissum life þæt we mid [geornfulnysse gewilnian] æfre þæs beteran lifes on ðære ecean blisse mid urum Hælende [Criste swa] swa he us behaten hæfð, se þe leofað and rixað mid his leofan Fæder [and þam Halgan] Gaste on anre Godcundnysse, ana soð Scyppend ealra ðinga, Amen.

300 [gange lyst]] [gange l]yst Xd[P1] unþances ðider] þyder unþances P1  303–4 [mycele swarran ealle þa]] [mycele s]w[a]rran [e]alle [þ]a Xd[P1]  304 [ðissum]] [ð]issum Xd[P1]  305 [earfoðlice mæg]] earfoð[lice mæg] Xd[P1]  306 we] omitted P1 þissum life] ‘lenan’ interlined in a later hand Xd; ðysum life P1  307 [geornfulnysse gewilnian]] geornful[nysse ge]wilnian Xd[P1]  309 [Criste swa]] no reading Xd; as P1  311 [and þam Halgan]] [and þam h]algan Xd[P1]

734

Text: De creatore et creatura 300

305

310

When he gets cold, he seeks shelter for himself. When he needs the privy, he goes there by compulsion. When he is tired, he wants to rest. If he is wounded, he wishes for healing. Now is not all this hardship? And yet much more grievous [are] all the misfortunes that come into this life, the entirety of which one can express [only] with difficulty. Let us therefore take care here in this life to always long with eagerness for that better life in everlasting bliss with our Savior Christ just as he has promised us, he who lives and reigns with his beloved Father and the Holy Spirit in one Godhead, the one true Creator of all things, Amen.

735

DE CREATORE ET CREATURA

COMMENTARY Composed ca 1006, De creatore et creatura (AH II.14) survives only in Xd, fols 149r–151v [Ker §182.5]. The text was previously edited in full by Stoneman1 and partially by Leinbaugh.2 Lines 1–53 [Gif nu … sprecað mid ungeleafulnysse]: See notes to In natali Domini (AH I.2), lines 84–95, 96–109, 110–15, 116–26, 127–30, and 131–8, to which this section corresponds. Line 20 [untodæledlice]: It is difficult to see how the corrector might have fit ‘untod’ in the allotted space in Xd. Had he asserted that the Trinity existed in one divine nature and todreledlice (distinctly or diversely) in one majesty and one divine nature, he would have contravened Ælfric’s emphatic insistence on the unity of the Trinity – on which, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1, under ‘The Trinity’s One Nature and Indivisibility’. Lines 46–53 [Ne ondræt he ... sprecð mid ungeleafulnysse]: Leinbaugh deftly corrects a reading introduced when the twelfth-century corrector tried to restore the damaged line 27.3 The corrector’s efforts yield a sentence that makes sense – ‘Nele he nefre nan ifell, ac he lufað soðlice þa ðe god weorc wyrceað ...’ (‘[God] never wishes any evil, but he truly loves those who do good works ...’) – but Leinbaugh uses the corresponding passages from Ælfric’s ultimate source (Sermo in natale Domini [AH I.1], lines 42–3) and intermediate source (In natali Domini [AH I.2], lines 136–7) to replace lufað with hatað (‘hates’) and god weorc with unriht (‘injustice’) to arrive at the proposed original reading presented here. Lines 54–61 [Mycel is se Fæder … ælmihtig God]: Corresponds to Ælfric’s Hexameron, lines 73–80, save for the omission of a word at line 55: [heora] begra [Lufu] (‘[the Love

1 2

3

‘Critical Edition’, pp. 292–329. ‘Liturgical Homilies’, pp. 95–9. While Clemoes indicated that he would be editing De creatore et creatura and De sex etatibus (AH II.15) (‘Chronology’, p. 61 n. 7), these editions regrettably did not appear. ‘Damaged Passage’, p. 113.

736

Commentary: De creatore et creatura of them] both’).4 On the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and the Spirit as their Love, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1. Lines 62–71 [And hu wylt … and forði losedon]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 85b–95, save for the omission of a word at line 61: [hu wylt ðu] nu ‘[how will you] now’).5 CH 1.20 provides a conceptually similar if linguistically different formulation of human limitations.6 Line 72 [God ælmihtig gesceopp … heofonan and eorðan]: The immediate source for this quotation from Genesis 1.1 is likely still the Hexameron, where this phrasing appears verbatim along with the Vulgate Latin.7 Nevertheless, Ælfric speaks about the creation of the earth and living things, especially in relation to God’s eternality, right through his career: see CH I.20,8 Genesis,9 the Interrogationes Sigewulfi,10 LS I.1,11 his Letter to Sigeweard,12 and SH I.1.13 Lines 73–7 [Her ge magon … gemacode swylcne cræft]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 34–8.14 This reference to the non-eternal nature of Creation is rare for Ælfric – though he reiterates it in lines 153–8 below. By contrast, he speaks of God as unbegunnen (‘without a beginning’) on numerous occasions: in CH II.12,15 Grammar,16 Glossary,17 LS I.118 SH II.21,19 elsewhere in the Hexameron,20 In natali Domini (AH I.2),21 Lazarus

4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Crawford, Hexameron, p. 39. For a fuller description of the equality within the Trinity, see CH I.20, lines 121–8 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 339). Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 40–1. Clemoes, First Series, p. 341, lines 164–71. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 35, lines 32b–33. Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, lines 7 [An scyppend] – 10 [ordfruman forgeaf]. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 8. Ælfric also references the verse in a discussion of liturgical practice in his Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan, §58 (‘And syþþan … et terram’ [Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 168–9]). ‘Hu is to understandenne … eorðan geworhte’ (Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 121, lines 159–66; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ 1884, p. 16, lines 227–9); see also Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, pp. 334–5. Ælfric here connects John 8.25 (‘“I who speak to you am the Beginning”’) with Genesis 1.1 (‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth’), identifying Jesus as the Beginning, as he does in LS I.1 and SH I.1 below. For Ælfric’s use of John 8.25, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 2–17. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §8, lines 1–3; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 61–3. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 201, line 32 – p. 202, line 35. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 200, lines 71–2. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 36. Godden, Second Series, p. 117, line 250. Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 201, line 9. Zupitza, Ælfrics Grammatik und Glossar, p. 297, line 5. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 24, §3, line 3; Skeat, Lives, p. 12, line 16. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 677, line 21. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 40, line 84. Line 20 above.

737

Commentary: De creatore et creatura II (AH I.3),22 and Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8).23 For further Ælfrician treatments of God’s eternality, see notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), line 1. Lines 78–81 [Englas he geworhte … swutelicor on gewrite]: Save for an omitted article at line 78 (Ða [englas] [‘The’ [angels]]), this section corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 103–5.24 Similar passages may be found at the beginning and toward the end of Ælfric’s career: in CH I.1,25 Letter to Wulfgeat,26 and SH I.11a.27 Ælfric adds various interrelated comments about the creation of the angels in other writings: in making them spirits, God distinguished them from humans (who also have bodies) and animals (who have no souls) (CH I.20);28 he made them rational and from nothing, even as he did humans (Interrogationes);29 he designed them to move incorporeally, as opposed to animals (who creep, walk, swim, or fly) and humans (who alone go upright) (LS I.1;30 see also Letter to Wulfgeat31 and the corresponding passage in Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11);32 they are but one of many entities among God’s creatures (In natali Domini [AH I.2]);33 and God created them with great beauty, without sin, and ordered in ten hosts (Letter to Sigeweard).34 On angels, see also notes to lines 82–4, 85–97, and 213–17 below. Lines 82–4 [Tyn weorod he … þam Ælmihtigan gelic]: These lines do not correspond to the Hexameron or, to our knowledge, to any of Ælfric’s other works and so would appear to be original to De creatore. Readings enclosed in angle brackets in these lines are conjectures by the editors. Regarding the conjuncture and wolde [line 83], the infinitive beon [line 84] requires an auxiliary verb, and if se fyrmesta is the subject, then a third person singular verb is required. This sentence in Letter to Wulfgeat, ‘Ac wolde se fyrmysta him sylf beon God’ (‘But [first and] foremost he wanted to be God himself’),35 supplies a clue for the conjecture of wolde, and the trace of a descender resembling that used for a Tironian et (7) suggests 7 wolde, a phrase that also fits the space on the page.

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35

Lines 236 and 260 above. Line 26 above. Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 41–2. Clemoes, First Series, p. 179, lines 24–6. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 3, lines 26–30. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, lines 20–4; authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, lines 12 (Englas he) – 14 (buton sawle). Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 85, lines 28 (Hu fela) – 29 (and men), and p. 111, lines 110 (Hwilce gesceafta) – 112 (mannes sawl); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 4, lines 24–5, and p. 10, line 100 – p. 12, line 102. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §7, lines 1 (Ða gesceafta) – 7 (uprihte); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 49–57. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 11, line 293 (heo is) – p. 12, lines 295 (godes anlicnysse). Lines 213–16 above. Lines 139–55 above. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, lines 56 (Se ælmihtiga) – 61 (magon). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, line 38.

738

Commentary: De creatore et creatura Ælfric enumerates the ten hosts of angels three times in the First Series (CH I.1,36 CH I.24 [slightly reordered],37 and CH I.40 [abbreviated]38) – and only here, though he also refers to the ten hosts in his Letter to Sigeweard.39 For further details regarding angels, see notes to lines 78–81, 85–97, and 213–17. Lines 85–97 [God hine geworhte … to awyrgedum deoflum]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 306–19;40 cf. the analogous passage CH I.141 and slightly more extended account in the Letter to Sigeweard.42 Ælfric speaks of pride as the downfall of the demons (and a potential source for human sin) in CH I.7,43 CH I.24,44 CH I.25,45 CH I.36,46 CH II.12,47 Letter to Wulfgeat,48 SH I.11a,49 and Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12).50 He specifically mentions superbia (‘arrogance’) in this regard in LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],51 the Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan,52 and De octo uitiis.53 Ælfric identifies pride as the last of the Eight Chief Sins (heafodleahtras) in the references from CH II.12, LS II.15 [Skeat I.16], and De octo uitiis, calling it se forma heafodleahtor (‘the greatest of the Chief Sins’) in the Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan.54 God, Ælfric underscores (for example in SH I.155), was in no way responsible for the fallen angels’ transgression: rather, as he notes in CH I.756 and LS II.16 [Skeat I.17],57 God gave them free will to choose whether or not they would obey.

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

Clemoes, First Series, p. 179, lines 22–3. Clemoes, First Series, pp. 373–4, lines 81–3. Clemoes, First Series, p. 526, lines 60–1. Ælfric is here speaking of the heofonan mihta that beoð astyrode (‘powers of heaven [that] will be disturbed’ [CH I.40, line 60]), drawing – via Gregory the Great’s Homiliae in Euangelia 1 (Godden, Commentary, p. 338) – on Jesus’ description of the end times in Luke 21.26: uirtutes caelorum mouebuntur (‘the powers of heaven shall be stirred’ [Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1650]). Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, line 57 (as noted above). Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 56–7. Clemoes, First Series, p. 179, line 29 – p. 180, line 38. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, line 64 – p. 203, line 83. Clemoes, First Series, p. 236, lines 147 (ða miswendon) – 149 (deoflum geworhton). Clemoes, First Series, p. 373, lines 78 (ðæt teoðe) – 81 (bescofene). Clemoes, First Series, p. 385, lines 183 (mennisce menn) – 184 (modignysse forluron). Clemoes, First Series, p. 487, lines 24 (Þæt teoðe) – 26 (hellicere susle). Godden, Second Series, p. 125, line 531 (Se eahteoða) – 533 (is modignyss). Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, lines 34 (buton þam) – 35 (ælmihtigan God). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, lines 28 (buton ðam) – 29 (ælmihtigan God). Line 40 (he sylf … aworpen wæs). Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 108, lines 274 (seo geworhte) – 276 (ðurh hi); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 358, lines 309–11. §148 (Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 204). Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 146, lines 40 (Seo geworhte) – 42 (þurh hi). §147 (Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 204). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 205, lines 183 (Næs næfre) – 187 (deoflum awend[an]) and lines 192 (Gode wæron) – 193 (nahwær wunigende). Clemoes, First Series, p. 236, lines 140 (Se ælmihtiga) – 145 (cyre). Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 134, lines 196 (God ælmihtig) – 201 (agene freodom); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 380, lines 241–6.

739

Commentary: De creatore et creatura In works sequent to the Catholic Homilies, Ælfric repeatedly describes devil(s) as awyrged(an) (‘accursed’): see LS I.3,58 SH II.18,59 Admonitio ad filium spiritualem,60 SH I.11,61 SH II.17,62 SH I.11a,63 as well as line 218 below. For further references to angels, see notes to lines 78–81, 85–97, and 213–17. Lines 98–115 [Ða drecceað nu … a on ecnysse]: These lines do not correspond to the Hexameron or, to our knowledge, to any of Ælfric’s other works and may be original to De creatore. Readings enclosed in angle brackets in these lines are conjectures by the editors unless noted otherwise. Lines 98–101 [Ða drecceað nu … to mannum habbað]: These lines may be unique to De creatore; however, using similar language, CH I.1 depicts Satan successfully plotting ‘hu he hi fordon mihte’ (‘how he might corrupt [humans]’, so that ‘wæron swiðe manega on yfel awende’ (‘very many were turned to evil’).64 CH I.17 likewise notes that the devil watches to see how he may ‘manna saula mid leahtrum fordon’ (‘corrupt human souls with sins’).65 The Interrogationes Sigewulfi adds that ‘dæghwamlice drecð deofol mancyn’ (‘the devil daily afflicts humankind’).66 The same, CH II.37 affirms, will happen in the end times: ‘[Antecrist] and his folgeras mid deofles cræfte mancyn dreccað’ (‘[The Antichrist] and his followers, with the devil’s deceit, shall afflict mankind’).67 Lines 102–9 [God wolde ða … heofenum afeollon hellewite]: Ælfric’s language here may adapt a combination of passages in the Hexameron regarding God’s contrasting plans for redeemed humans and fallen angels – the former through humility gaining that heavenly honor forfeited by demons damned to hell for their pride. Hexameron, lines 324–8 and 299–301 68

De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 102–9

Ða wolde God wyrcan ðurh his wundorlican mihte mannan of eorðan, ðe mid eadmodnisse sceold geearnan ðone ylcan stede on ðæra engla geferrædene ðe se deofol forworhte mid his dyrstignysse […] afeoll se deofol of ðære healican heofonan mid his gegadum for his uppafednysse into hellewite.

God wolde ða gewyrcan manna of eorðan þæt he geearnian sceolde mid his eadmodnysse and gehyrsumnysse þa heofonlican wununge þæt ðæra engla getæl eft wurde gefylled. And heora werod eft gewitnodon ðæs mannes ofspring for ðan þe heora werod wæs gewanod æfter ðæra deofla hryre þe heora Drihten forleton and of heofenum afeollon hellewite.

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 106, line 456; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 76, line 457. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 593, line 58. 4.64 (Norman, Admonitio, p. 44). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 440, lines 452 and 457. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 578, line 254. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, line 30; authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). Clemoes, First Series, p. 183, lines 128–9, and p. 184, lines 177–8. Clemoes, First Series, p. 314, lines 240 (Se wulf) – 242 (leahtrum fordon). Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 153, lines 254–5; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ 1884, p. 24, lines 227–8. Godden, Second Series, p. 313, lines 82–3. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 57, line 324 – p. 58, line 328; and p. 55, line 299 – p. 56, line 301.

740

Commentary: De creatore et creatura Then God wanted through his marvelous power to create humankind from the earth, [people] who through humility would merit the same position in the angels’ fellowship that the devil forfeited with his arrogance […] the devil fell from high heaven with his companions for his presumption into the punishment of hell.

God desired then to make a man from the dust so that with his humility and obedience he should earn the heavenly dwelling so that the number of angels afterwards might be filled. And their host afterwards afflicted the man’s offspring because their host was diminished after the fall of the devils who abandoned their Lord and plunged from heaven into the punishment of hell.

In various parts of the Catholic Homilies, Ælfric likewise affirms that God created humans as a replacement for the lost tenth host of angels69 – in CH I.1,70 CH I.13,71 CH I.24,72 CH I.25,73 and CH II.5,74 for example – explaining in CH I.2 that redeemed humankind will equal the number of the holy angels,75 and in CH II.40 that Christ’s sacrifice makes righteous angels and humans to anum werode (‘into one host’).76 See also the Letter to Sigeweard77 and lines 213–17 below. Lines 110–15 [God þa gestaðolfæste … a on ecnysse]: An analogous but not linguistically close passage appears in CH I.1.78 Ælfric affirms postlapsarian angels’ inability to sin in his Letter to Wulfgeat,79 SH I.1,80 SH I.11a,81 and Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (AH II.12).82 Lines 116–27 [God ða geworhte … styriað ofer eorðan]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 344–55.83 Scripture, and Ælfric’s translation of Genesis in particular, underlie them in turn. Lines 116–19 derive from Genesis 2.7,84 a passage that Ælfric also paraphrases

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

On the nine angelic hosts, see also notes to lines 82–4 and 110–15, as well as CH I.24 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 374, lines 106 [Nigon engla] – 107 [teoþe forferde]). Clemoes, First Series, p. 183, lines 125 (Þa ongeat) – 127 (his upahefednysse); and p. 180, line 62 (Ða wolde) – p. 181, line 66 (mid modignysse). Clemoes, First Series, p. 281, lines 5 (he gescop) – 8 (ofermettum forwyrhte). Clemoes, First Series, p. 373, lines 78 (ðæt teoðe) – 81 (bescofene); p. 374, lines 83 (Ða wæs) – 84 (forlorenan heapes); and p. 374, lines 104 (of mancynne) – 106 (awyrigedra gasta). Clemoes, First Series, p. 385, lines 183 (mennisce menn) – 184 (modignysse forluron). Godden, Second Series, p. 47, line 187 (Hwæt eac) – p. 48, line191 (gasta hryre). Clemoes, First Series, p. 192, lines 57 (þone hryre) – 62 (deofles hryre). Godden, Second Series, p. 337, lines 80 (Ipse est) – 82 (anum werode), quoting Ephesians 2.14 not in relation to Christ’s reconciliation of Jew and Gentile, but angels and human beings. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 203, lines 84 (Ða on) – 88 (on riht). Clemoes, First Series, p. 180, lines 47–50. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 2, lines 32 (And þa) – 33 (ne magon). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 201, lines 89 (Ða halgan) – 93 (on wuldre). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 464, lines 26 (And þa) – 27 (ne magon). Line 40 (he sylf … aworpen wæs). Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 59–60. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 10. The passage thus predates the Hexameron, which appears later in this period.

741

Commentary: De creatore et creatura in CH I.1.85 Lines 120–1 summarize Genesis 2.21–2,86 with similar language appearing in Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard.87 Line 122 reflects Genesis 3.20,88 while both CH I.3089 and CH II.190 speak of Eve as ure ealde moder (‘our ancient mother’) in contrast to Mary. Lines 123–7, finally, loosely parallel Genesis 1.28.91 Lines 128–32 [On six dagum … ðam seofoðam dæge]: Likely adapted from Ælfric’s Hexameron: ‘God gesceawode ða ealle his weorc and he wæron swyðe gode, / and se syxta dæg wearð swa geendod’ (‘Then God surveyed all his handiwork, and it was very good; the six days thus came to an end’).92 In referring to bec (‘books’ [line 128]), Ælfric may have had this text in mind. As he says in his Admonitio ad filium spiritualem, ‘Basilius awrat ane wundorlice boc be eallum Godes weorcum þe he geworhte on six dagum Exameron gehaten’ (‘Basil wrote a remarkable book called the Hexameron about all God’s handiwork which he made in six days’).93 Scripture, however, would ultimately have been in view, as Godden points out when he cites Genesis 1.31–2.2a94 as a source for the analogous passage in CH I.1.95 For other summary statements about God’s creative work in six days, see CH II.12,96 and De temporibus anni,97 SH I.2,98 and his Letter to Sigeweard.99 Lines 133–48 [and hine þa … nabbað nane sawle]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 360–75, save for an omitted word and slight reordering in line 146: (‘ða ðe God gewyrcð swa swa he geworhte ða ærran’ [‘[people] whom God makes just as he made the former [animals]’]).100 Lines 132–4 stem from Genesis 2.2–3,101 a passage Ælfric paraphrases in CH I.1102 and SH I.2.103 In CH II.14, Ælfric parallels God’s rest here with Clemoes, First Series, p. 181, lines 66–8; see also p. 182, lines 110 (Þa ða) – 115 (geendað næfre). Ælfric dicusses God’s creation of humankind at length when interpreting Genesis 1.26 (‘faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram’ [‘“Let us make man in our image and likeness”’ (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 5)]) in Interrogationes 178–210 (Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, pp. 127–37; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 18, line 162 – p. 20, line 190. 86 Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 11–12. Ælfric interprets the verse in Interrogationes 238–43 (Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 147; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 22, line 212 – p. 24, line 218). 87 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 203, lines 84–6. 88 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 13. 89 Clemoes, First Series, p. 434, lines 165 (ðurh ure) – 167 (wuldorfullice inferde). 90 Godden, Second Series, p. 11, lines 295 (Ure ealde) – 298 (belucað). 91 Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 9–10. 92 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 60, lines 356–9. 93 Norman, Admonitio, p. 32. Crawford does not suggest any sources for lines 356–9 in the Hexameron (Hexameron, p. 82). 94 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 10. 95 Clemoes, First Series, p. 182, lines 96–8; see Godden, Commentary, p. 10. 96 Godden, Second Series, p. 118, lines 274 (On six) – 275 (ðam seofoðan). 97 Blake, De temporibus anni, p. 76, lines 30 (On ðam) – 32 (and Euan). 98 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 239, lines 214 (se ælmihtiga) – 217 (six dagum). 99 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, lines 64 (Hwæt þa) – 65 (gescippan wolde). 100 Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 60–1. 101 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 10. 102 Clemoes, First Series, p. 182, lines 97–9. 103 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 239, lines 214–17. De temporibus anni also notes God’s cessation of 85

742

Commentary: De creatore et creatura Christ’s rest in the tomb.104 The statement in line 137 that ‘he geswac ðæs dihtes ðæs deoplican cræftes’ (‘he ceased from the exercise of [his] profound skill’) is echoed in the Interrogationes when Ælfric says that through the Father’s power Christ ‘gedihte þone deopan cræft’ (‘wrought his profound handiwork’).105 Lines 135–43 examine God’s cessation of work in Genesis 2.3 in light of Jesus’ statement, when defending his Sabbath healings to the Pharisees, that ‘“Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor”’ (‘“My Father is at work until now, and I am working [too]”’ [John 5.17]).106 In CH II.12107 and the Interrogationes,108 Ælfric likewise distinguishes between God’s initial work of new creation, which he has ceased, and God’s ongoing work of renewing the created order, in which Christ plays a part. For Ælfric’s statement in lines 144–8 that animals have no souls, see lines 27–32 and 149–52. Lines 149–52 [Ælces mannes sawle … næfð nane sawle]: These lines do not correspond to the Hexameron or, to our knowledge, any of Ælfric’s other works and may be original to De creatore. Readings enclosed in angle brackets in these lines are conjectures by the editors unless noted otherwise. In this passage, Ælfric identifies an exception to the general principle that God has ceased his work of new creation: he creates souls. The logical transition is one Ælfric makes for example in SH I.2: unlike their bodies, human souls come not from mother or father, but are created by God and placed in fetuses in the womb.109 That souls originate in God and not parents is a point Ælfric also makes in CH I.1,110 CH I.20,111 and CH II.12.112 For the reiteration that animals lack souls and cease existence upon death, see lines 27–32 above and 144–8 above. Lines 153–63 [Sume men wendon … and æfre ungeendod]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 376–86.113 Ælfric emphasizes elsewhere as well that the created order did not exist prior to God’s initiative: see the extended discussion in CH I.20,114 LS I.1,115 and his Letter to Sigeweard.116 He teaches generally that God made all creatures in CH

activity at the end of the week (Blake, De temporibus anni, p. 76, lines 32 [On ðam] – 33 [ða agan]). Second Series, p. 148, lines 327 (God ælmihtig) – 334 (sæternes hatað). 105 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 237, line 561; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 54, line 521. 106 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1666. 107 Godden, Second Series, p. 118, lines 274 (On six) – 285 (ic wyrce). 108 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 83, lines 20 (Hu is) – 27 (worulde geendunge); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 2, line 18 – p. 4, line 24. 109 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 240, lines 227 ([he gescipð]) – 237 ([ylde at]teoriaþ). 110 Clemoes, First Series, p. 184, lines 170 (Nu smeiað) –175 (gesceapene beoð); see also p. 182, lines 112 (and he) – 115 (geendað næfre). 111 Clemoes, First Series, p. 344, lines 260 (We sceolon) – 265 (þam lichaman). 112 Godden, Second Series, p. 118, lines 293 (swa þæt) –299 (arran ateoriað). 113 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 62. 114 Clemoes, First Series, p. 335, line 10 (he eallum … ordfruman forgeaf); and p. 335, line 17 (Nu mage) – p. 336, line 24 (ealle gesceop). Stoneman calls this section of CH I.20 Ælfric’s ‘most extended discussion of the creator and the creatures’ (‘Critical Edition’, p. 343). 115 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, §8, line 1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 14, lines 61–2. 116 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 201, line 33 (Næs þeos) – p. 202, line 34 (God silf). 104 Godden,

743

Commentary: De creatore et creatura I.1117 CH I.13,118 CH I.20,119 CH I.29,120 LS I.1,121 LS II.20 [Skeat I.21],122 LS III.30 [Skeat II.34],123 In natali Domini (AH I.2),124 SH I.11,125 and SH I.11a;126 see also the references to ‘se ælmihtiga Scyppend, þe ealle þing gesceop’ (‘the Almighty Creator, who made all things’ [line 42]) and ‘ana soð Scyppend ealra ðinga’ (‘the one true Creator of all things’ [line 310]). Ælfric furthermore states in CH I.6 that the devil, unlike God, lacks this ability to create,127 discusses in CH II.12 God’s ongoing work of renewal in generating new plants and animals,128 and connects in SH I.2 the Sabbath and Sunday with the cessation of God’s hexaemeric work of creating all things.129 Repeatedly, moreover, he affirms that God, who had no beginning, created all things through his Wisdom and endows them with life (geliffæste) through his Spirit: see CH I.15,130 De penitentia (AH II.19),131 the Hexameron,132 Lazarus II (AH I.3),133 his Letter to Wulfgeat,134 and SH I.11a;135 see also lines 72–5 above. For further references to Ælfric’s affirmation of the eternality of the Creator, see lines 13–22 and 42–6 above. Lines 164–73 [Næs hit na … deofle endeleaslice losiað]: Aside from the final verb (losiað rather than losion), this section corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 387–96.136Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard also emphasizes that while Creation had a beginning, God had always planned to carry out his creative work: like himself, that plan had no beginning.137 In CH I.11, furthermore, Ælfric grieves over the irony that all of Creation obeys God save sinful humans alone138 – a tension seen particularly, CH II.19 notes, in human beings’ First Series, p. 178, line 6 (An angin) – (is ordfruma); and p. 182, lines 96 (ealle gesceafta) – 97 (six dagum). 118 Clemoes, First Series, p. 281, lines 4 (Ure se) – 6 (gescop mancynn). 119 Clemoes, First Series, p. 336, lines 24 (Ða gesceafta) – 25 (ælmihtig God). 120 Clemoes, First Series, p. 422, lines 122 (Se ælmihtiga) – 123 (gesceafta). 121 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §3, lines 2 (Ac se man) – 7 (ne gesceope); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 12, lines 15–19. 122 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 210, line 65; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 444, line 65. 123 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 210, line 65; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, line 157 (Ealle gesceafta scyppend). 124 Lines 127–8 (Nu is … nan angin) above. 125 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 418, lines 78 (we gelyfað) – 80 (ælmihtig Scyppend). 126 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 471, lines 194 (we gelyfað) – 196 (ælmihtig Scyppend); authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). 127 Clemoes, First Series, p. 230, lines 175 (God gesceop) – 176 (ne mæig). 128 Godden, Second Series, p. 118, lines 296 (God gesceop) – 299 (ærran ateoriað). 129 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 239, line 212 (Sæternes-dæge) – p. 240, line 221 ([þone] seofoþan). 130 Clemoes, First Series, p. 306, lines 183 (Ac uton) – 186 (halgan gast). 131 Lines 38 (God Ælmihtig) – 42 (gesceafta geliffæste). 132 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 37, line 54 (He sylf) – p. 38, line 59 (Halgan Gast). 133 Lines 247–50 (Se wisa … Halgan Gast). 134 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 1, lines 8 (se ælmihtiga) – 10 (soðan wisdom). The passage goes on to discuss the Spirit’s illuminating grace, but does not use the term geliffæstan. 135 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 463, lines 1 (Se ælmihtiga) – 3 (soðan Wisdom); and p. 464, lines 14 (ðurh ðone) – 16 (ancennedan Suna); authorship debated. 136 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 63. 137 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 201, line 33 (Næs þeos) – p. 202, line 39 (gesceafta gescippan). 138 Clemoes, First Series, p. 269, line 102 (Ealle gesceafta) – p. 270, line 107 (hine geworhte). 117 Clemoes,

744

Commentary: De creatore et creatura undisciplined sexuality, which stands in contrast to irrational animals who procreate at set times.139 Lines 174–81 [Wel wyste ure … hine symle wurðiað]: Save for the reordering of words at line 178 (ða iu embe þa bote rather than embe þa bote ða iu), the passage corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 397–404.140 At times, Ælfric defends God’s righteous foreknowledge: God well knew what would come to pass, CH I.7 states, when he created human beings;141 he allowed them to be tempted despite this knowledge, the Interrogationes explains, because human obedience would not be praiseworthy (herigendlic) if they had no choice in the matter.142 On other occasions, Ælfric describes God’s gracious ‘reaction’ to and grief over human sin: see CH I.1143 and CH I.13.144 Lines 180–1 echo the affirmation of CH II.12 that ‘we sceolon mid soðum geleafan and soðre lufe symle wurðian [God]’ (‘we should with true belief and true love continuously worship [God]’). Lines 182–95 [Se man wæs … Scyppende on riht]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 413–26.145 Theodicean passages with similar messages appear throughout Ælfric’s works. Humans were not forced (genedd) to disobey God, Ælfric says (CH I.1);146 God gave them their own choice and he compels (neadað) no one to sin, though he knows who will (CH I.7);147 God created Adam good, but Adam became evil by his own election (cyre) and the devil’s temptation (CH I.18);148 when God creates a soul, he gives it its own election (cyre) as to whether or not to sin (CH I.20);149 God gave Adam free will (his agenum cyre) because if humans were compelled (neadung), they would be like animals, receiving neither glory for obedience nor punishment for wrongdoing; rather, God made Adam in his own image, that humans might be praiseworthy (herigendlic) through their righteous choices (Interrogationes);150 God never compelled (nydde) Second Series, p. 185, lines 172 (Nu gesceop) – 178 (heora timan). Commending the virtue of temperance over the vice of gluttony, by contrast, Ælfric enjoins humans to be disciplined in their eating habits, as opposed to animals, who eat whenever they can: see LS II.15 [Skeat I.16] (Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 110, lines 279–85; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 358, lines 314–20) and De octo uitiis (Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 148, lines 45 [An is] – 49 [þa gifernysse]). 140 Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 63–4. 141 Clemoes, First Series, p. 237, lines 162 (Georne wiste) –163 (toweard wæs). 142 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 151, lines 250 (Hwi geþafode) – p. 153, line 254 (he mihte); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 24, lines 223–7. See also notes to De creatore, lines 181–94 below. 143 Clemoes, First Series, p. 184, lines 159 (wiste God) – 161 (eft gemiltsian). 144 Clemoes, First Series, p. 281, lines 10 (Ða þeahhwæðere) – 12 (anwealde alysan). 145 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 64–5. 146 Clemoes, First Series, p. 184, lines 155 (Næs him) –157 (wære ungehyrsum). The angels, too, Ælfric notes, God created entirely good (ealle gode) and left to their own choice (p. 179, lines 27 [God hi] – 29 [hine forleton]). 147 Clemoes, First Series, p. 236, line 150 (Eft ða) – p. 237, line 156 (heora ofspring); and p. 237, line 172 (Healdað þis) – 174 (syngian willað). 148 Clemoes, First Series, p. 322, lines 159 (good wæs) –161 (his ofsprincg). 149 Clemoes, First Series, p. 344, lines 264 (Ne bið) – 266 (synna forbuge). 150 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 89, lines 42 (Hwi wæs) – 46 (an nyten), and p. 155, lines 258 (Hwi wolde) – 262 (willan nyðergendlic); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 4,

139 Godden,

745

Commentary: De creatore et creatura humans in any way, but each person has free will (agene cyre) (SH I.3);151 by the power of their own God-given free will (agene cyres geweald), individuals succumb to the devil’s temptation (In natali Domini [AH I.2]);152 and Adam could easily have refrained from sinning and would have always existed without sin had he so chosen (SH I.11).153 Lines 196–206 [God hi ða … bist sona deadlyc]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 427–37.154 The passage paraphrases Genesis 2.15–17,155 a passage Ælfric also treats in CH I.1.156 CH II.13 contrasts the death that comes from Adam’s disobedience in relation to the tree with the life that comes from Christ’s obedience in relation to the cross.157 The tree was forbidden to Adam, the Interrogationes states, that he might learn the goodness of obedience to his Creator or the evil of disobeying.158 The Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan, furthermore, while mentioning but in passing the forbodenan treowe in neorxna wange (‘forbidden tree [in] Paradise’), nonetheless takes up terms found in lines 202 and 196.159 The language of line 198 is echoed in Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard, which speaks of a fægeran wununge (‘fair dwelling’) that humans might gain through obedience – save that here it is the fallen angels’ place in heaven.160 Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8) speaks similarly of this heavenly abode, saying that Wynsum is seo wunung (‘pleasant is that dwelling’).161 It is to the eternal joy (myrhðe) of heaven, Ælfric says in the First Series, to which God will bring his saints from all tribulations (eallum gedrecednyssum) – descriptors used here in lines 201–2 in relationship to Eden (CH I.25;162 see also CH I.32163). When it comes to God’s warning to Adam, the Interrogationes further explain that the death in question is twofold – that of the body through mortality and that of the soul through sin, as God allows the soul to live shamefully. Christ, it notes, only experienced the former death, as he never was corrupted by sin.164 Lines 207–12 [Næs na se deað … eallunge geheolde]: Corresponds to the Hexameron,

line 36 – p. 6, line 41, and p. 24, lines 230–5. See also lines 250–4 of the Interrogationes under De creatore, lines 173–80 above. 151 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 253, lines 112 (hi na) – 114 (lifes timan). 152 Lines 339 (þe wælwillendæ) – 341 (deofles lare). 153 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 419, lines 94 (Se frumsceapena) – 102 (he syngode). 154 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 65–6. 155 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 11. 156 Clemoes, First Series, p. 181, lines 69–73. 157 Godden, Second Series, p. 136, lines 288 (Þurh treow) – 290 (ure alysednysse). 158 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 91, lines 47–52; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 6, lines 41–6; see also Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 139, lines 211–17; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 20, lines 190 – p. 22, line 196. 159 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 206 (§154). 160 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 203, lines 86–8. 161 Line 481 above. 162 Clemoes, First Series, p. 381, lines 75 (Se dæig) – 77 (eallum gedrecednyssum). 163 Clemoes, First Series, p. 458, lines 223 (ðam ne) – 226 (rædinge tealdon). 164 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 91, lines 47–52; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 6, lines 41–6.

746

Commentary: De creatore et creatura lines 438–43.165 Having observed that breaking God’s command (bebod) made Adam mortal (deadlic), as in lines 206 and 186 above, SH I.11 underscores that ‘Ne gesceop God þone deað, ne he soðlice ne blissað on manna forwyrde, swa swa gewritu secgað. Inuidia autem diaboli mors intrauit in orbem terrarum: Ac ðurh þæs deofles andan se deað com on ðas woruld’ (‘God did not create death, nor indeed did he rejoice in humanity’s ruin, even as books attest. Inuidia autem diaboli mors intrauit in orbem terrarum: “But through the devil’s envy death came into the world”’.166 On this connection between Godes bebod and deadlicnysse, see also CH I.1,167 CH I.7,168 Letter to Sigeweard,169 Letter to Wulfgeat,170 and SH I.11a;171 as well as SH II.21, with some variation of language.172 Lines 213–17 [Wæs eac oðer … þam halgum englum]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 444–8.173 The suggestion that the tree of life would have served as a reward for Adam had he been obedient, establishing him in righteousness, appears to be unique to the Hexameron and De creatore. SH II.21, for example, states only that Adam would never have suffered harm had he kept God’s command.174 Ælfric may have in mind the depiction in Revelation 22.2 of the tree in heaven, yielding its fruit (one assumes) to the saints. On God’s command regarding the lignum uite, see notes to lines 249–54; for further references to the lifes treowe, see lines 255–70, 271–85, and 286–305; and for further discussion of angels, see notes to lines 78–81, 82–4, and 85–97. Lines 218–24 [Ða wæs þam … yfel ge god]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 449–55.175 Compare this summary of the Fall of humankind in Genesis 3 with that in CH I.1.176 Regarding the awyrged deofol (‘accursed devil’), see line 97; on the potential for humans to gain through obedience the fallen angels’ place in heaven, see lines 102–9 above; for the devil’s envious response (anda), see the Interrogationes177 and SH I.11.178 Lines 225–48 [God hi ða … eall heora ofspring]: Save for a slight reordering at line 234 (on costnungum eall for eall on costnungum), this passage corresponds to Hexameron, p. 66. Homilies, vol. I, p. 420, lines 107–10, quoting Wisdom 2.24 (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1005); see the larger passage starting with p. 419, line 103 (Ða com). On the devil’s envy (anda), see also line 221. 167 Clemoes, First Series, p. 184, lines 149 (Ða deadan) – 150 (Godes bebod). 168 Clemoes, First Series, p. 237, lines 153 (Ac þa) – 156 (heora ofspring). 169 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 203, lines 88 (Ða beswac) – 90 (þa deadlice). 170 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 3, lines 56 (se deofol) – 59 (ecum witum). 171 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 465, lines 49 (se deofol) – 52 (ecan wite); authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). 172 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 678, lines 31 (hi mihtan) – 32 (ne tobræcan). 173 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 66–7. 174 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 678, line 33 (Ða wunode) – p. 679, line 44 (bebod tobræc). 175 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 67. 176 Clemoes, First Series, p. 183, lines 125–9 and 138–41. 177 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 99, lines 71–4; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 8, lines 64–7. 178 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 420, lines 107–10. 165 Crawford, 166 Pope,

747

Commentary: De creatore et creatura the Hexameron, lines 456–78.179 Lines 225–7 paraphrase Genesis 3.23;180 Ælfric also mentions the expulsion for example in CH I.1,181 CH I.7,182 and CH I.10,183 and his Letter to Sigeweard.184 His account in lines 226–44 of postlapsarian afflictions and humans’ struggle to cultivate virtue as well as food is evocative of SH II.21,185 and the expansiveness of both passages stands in contrast to the account in Genesis 3.17–18 wherein God curses the ground with thorns and briers with which Adam would have to struggle for his food.186 That the rewards of righteousness are gained mid geswince (‘with hardships’ [see line 239]) is a frequent refrain found, for example, in CH I.10,187 CH I.19,188 CH II.5,189 CH II.31,190 LS I.10 [Skeat I.11],191 SH I.2,192 and his Letter to Wulfgeat.193 See also CH II.29, where Mary is said to go ‘of ðisum geswincfullum middanearde … [to] ecere myrhðe’ (‘from this toilsome world … [to] eternal joy’; cf. lines 219 and 226).194 Dracan and næddran (‘dragons and serpents’, line 231 above) also appear in CH I.32, as afflictions to be preferred to an evil and talkative wife;195 LS I.5, as demonic torments in hell for unbelievers;196 and SH I.1, as alternative plagues which God could easily have sent against Pharaoh.197 For line 247, Stoneman notes that ‘The Latin gloss tutu for the Old English on sorhge indicates that the glossator has confused on sorhge, “in sorrow or pain”, and orsorge, “secure from care or danger, safe”’.198 The latter term Ælfric uses to describe both the prelapsarian condition of Adam (SH II.21199) and the ascended state of Elijah and Enoch (LS II.15 [Skeat I.16]200). Hexameron, pp. 67–9. Heptateuch, pp. 13–14. The final him ðæron tilode (literally ‘exert himself thereon’) represents an addition to the Vulgate’s ‘emisit eum Dominus … ut operaretur terram’ (‘the Lord sent him out … to work the earth’ [Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 9]). 181 Clemoes, First Series, p. 183, lines 142 (Ða com) – 142 (of neorxnawange). 182 Clemoes, First Series, p. 240, lines 250 (Se frumsceapena) – 252 (forbodenan bigleofan). 183 Clemoes, First Series, p. 259, lines 38 (Þes an) – 41 (cwearterne). 184 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 203, line 88 (Ða beswac) – p. 204, line 91 (middanearde). 185 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 679, lines 45–55. See also Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard (Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 203, line 88 [Ða beswac] – p. 204, line 92 [com siððan]). 186 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 13. Cf. the analogous passage in CH I.1 (Clemoes, First Series, p. 183, lines 143 [for ðan] – 146 [and bremblas]; see also p. 184, lines 166 [adam þa] – 167 [geswince]). 187 Clemoes, First Series, p. 264, lines 175–6. 188 Clemoes, First Series, p. 331, line 174. 189 Godden, Second Series, p. 48, lines 203–4. 190 Godden, Second Series, p. 269, lines 38–9 (regarding diligence in work, with faith). 191 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 304, line 30; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 240, line 30. 192 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 238, line 177. 193 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 10, line 246. 194 Godden, Second Series, p. 259, lines 116–19. 195 Clemoes, First Series, p. 456, lines 174–5, quoting Pseudo-Chrysostom (Godden, Commentary, p. 273) in reference to the leoni et draconi (‘lions and dragons’) of Sirach 25.23 (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1061). 196 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 160, line 75; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 120, line 75. 197 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 207, line 242. 198 ‘Critical Edition’, p. 349. 199 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 678, line 33. 200 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 92, lines 25 (Eft helias) – 27 (orsorhnysse wunað); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 340, lines 60–2. 179 Crawford, 180 Marsden,

748

Commentary: De creatore et creatura Lines 249–54 [Se ælmihtiga God … þæs inganges syþþan]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 479–84.201 God does not address the angels in Genesis 3.24.202 In contrast to the prohibition here, the Hexameron further teaches that upon his resurrection, Jesus ‘awende ðæt swurd of ðam wæge mid ealle ðæt we inn moton gaan to ðam upplican Paradise’ (‘entirely removed that sword so that we might enter into the heavenly Paradise’; see lines 271–85 below).203 Indeed, the Interrogationes explains, Christ is the tree of life, to which believers may come ‘þurh þa soþan lufe Godes and manna and þurh earfoðnysse’ (‘through true love of God and human beings and through hardships’).204 On the lignum uite, see notes to lines 213–17 above; the lifes treowe is also discussed in notes to lines 255–70, 271–85, and 286–305 below. Lines 255–70 [Hearmlic him wære … is ælmihtig God]: Corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 485–500.205 As in lines 286–305 below, Ælfric here presents a twist on the Fortunate Fall (felix culpa): rather than suggesting that redeemed humans are better off than they would have been had Adam never sinned, he argues that their eternal state is better than it would have been had sinful Adam eaten from the Tree of Life, condemning human beings to endless hardships. Ælfric writes elsewhere of fallen humanity’s yrmð (‘misery’), as in for example CH I.13206 and Sermo in natale unius confessoris (AH II.9),207 but neither example sets forth the obverse point made here, that God showed mercy to human beings by preventing them from living forever in misery, with no opportunity for redemption. On the Tree of Life [line 253], see lines 213–17 and 249–54 above, and 271–85 and 286–305 below. At least three other times, Ælfric speaks of costnung and earfoðnyss (‘temptation and hardship’, lines 258–9) as trials which saints endure to gain eternal life (CH I.25208 and CH I.38209) and which cause unbelievers to fall away (CH II.6210). Elsewhere, Ælfric refers to the welwillenda God (‘benevolent God’, line 264) when speaking of the gracious proximity of God’s indwelling presence (SH I.5211) and in the closing formula ‘Sy wuldor and lof þam welwillendan Gode’ (‘Glory and praise be to the benevolent God’ (LS I.6,212 LS II.23 [Skeat II.25],213 LS III.25 [Skeat II.27],214 and Esther).215

Hexameron, p. 69. Heptateuch, pp. 13–14. 203 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 71, lines 511–12. 204 Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 172, line 324; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 30, line 293 – p. 32, line 294. Ælfric further discusses the significance of the cherubim and fiery sword in Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 171, line 315 – p. 172, line 323; corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 30, lines 285–93. 205 Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 69–70. 206 Clemoes, First Series, p. 281, lines 10–12. 207 Line 127 above. 208 Clemoes, First Series, p. 381, line 75. 209 Clemoes, First Series, p. 512, line 162. 210 Godden, Second Series, p. 55, line 83, referencing Matthew 13.21 (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1545). 211 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 296, line 186. 212 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 214, line 368; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 168, line 368. 213 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 334, line 811; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 120, line 810. 214 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 38, line 218; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 158, line 218. 215 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 101, line 329. 201 Crawford, 202 Marsden,

749

Commentary: De creatore et creatura Of the occasions when Ælfric speaks of ‘making amends’ or ‘atoning’ for evil (yfel gebetan [line 267]), the Letter to Sigeweard may come closest to the passage here.216 The divine mihte and mildheartnysse (‘power and mercy’ [line 266]) that God manifests here in his redemptive work are ones which King Manasseh acknowledges in LS II.17 [Skeat I.18].217 That God alone is ælmihtig [line 270] Ælfric affirms both in CH I.20218 and LS II.17 [Skeat I.18],219 but the adjective’s import here is related to its repetition in lines 249 and 270, a doubling of the epithet ælmihtig God that amplifies the theme of God’s dominion established at the outset of De creatore (AH II.14): see p. 709 above and compare lines 61, 150, 249, and 270. Lines 271–85 [Hit sægð on … hi wilniað his]: Save for a missing conjunction in line 271 ([bec] and [on] [‘[book] and [in]’]), this passage corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 501–15.220 On the fiery sword [line 272], see lines 249–54 above; on the Tree of Life [line 283], see notes to lines 213–17, 249–54, 255–70, and 286–305. In describing the sword not just as fiery but as awendendlic (‘changeable’ [line 274]), Ælfric is reflecting the Vulgate’s depiction of it as uersatilem (‘moving’ or ‘turning about’), which in turn translates the Hebrew ‫[‘( ָהפְַך‬continually] turning itself’). Here, however, Ælfric uses awendendlic in the sense of ‘able to be [re]moved’, inasmuch as Christ in the Sixth Age removed (awende) the sword upon his resurrection, opening the way again to the Tree of Life – namely, himself, the source of life [lines 275–83]. To what source Ælfric is referring when he comments that ‘Hit segð on ðære bec’ (‘It says in the book’ [line 271]) is uncertain. In his Hexameron, Bede does suggest that uersatilem implies ‘quod quandoque ueniret tempus, ut etiam remoueri potuisset’ (‘that one day the time will come when [the sword] can also be removed’); he also speaks of ‘lignum uitae, qui est Christus Dominus’ (‘the Tree of Life, which is Christ the Lord’).221 Isidore’s In Genesin, which similarly speaks of the repentant coming ‘ad arborem uitae Christum’ (‘to the Tree of Life, Christ’), may imply as much when it explains the uersatilis guardian of the Tree as temporales poenae (‘transitory sufferings’).222 Haymo of Auxerre, on whom Ælfric draws for the Catholic Homilies,223 speaks similarly when he says: ‘a mortuis resurgens, Cherubim et flammeum gladium atque uersatilem, a uia paradisi [Christus] remouit’ (‘In rising from death, Christ removed the Cherubim and the flaming and moving sword from the way of Paradise’).224 None of these passages, however, directly link the removal of the sword to the Sixth Age [line 276], on which, see AH II.15, lines 180–3 below.

Heptateuch, p. 203, line 90 – p. 204, line 93. and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 168, line 449; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 410, line 449, referencing 2 Chronicles [Paralipomenon] 33.12–13 (Weber, Biblia sacra, page 631). 218 Clemoes, First Series, p. 336, line 25. 219 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 170, lines 479–80; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 412, lines 479–80. 220 Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 71–2. 221 In principium Genesis I.3.24 (CCSL 118A, p. 71, lines 2292–3 and 2309 [sourced independently; see also Crawford, Hexameron, p. 85]). 222 Quaestiones in uetus Testamentum, In Genesin V.13 and 14 (PL 83.222C and 223A [sourced independently; see also Crawford, Hexameron, p. 85]). 223 See Godden, Commentary, pp. liv–lv; and Smetana, ‘Early Medieval Homiliary’ and ‘Haymo’. 224 Homiliae de tempore 70 (PL 118.450C). 216 Marsden, 217 Clayton

750

Commentary: De creatore et creatura A few theological commonplaces in the passage above use specific language that recurs elsewhere in Ælfric’s canon. That Christ deoful oferwann (‘overcame the devil’ [line 278]) and delivered his people from [deofles] þeowdome (‘[the devil’s] slavery’ [line 279]), for example, are expressions that (apart from De creatore and the Hexameron) appear to be concentrated in the First Series: CH I.13225 and CH I.14226 on the one hand, and CH I.22227 and CH I.31228 on the other. That God ece lif forgifð (‘will give [believers] eternal life’ [line 283] is a phrase found in CH II.22,229 CH II.31,230 LS II.23 [Skeat II.25],231 and Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10).232 That believers’ responsibility in turn is to offer God lufe and godum weorcum (‘love and good deeds’ [cf. lines 284–5]), furthermore, is a theme appearing in CH I.11,233 CH II.19,234 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],235 SH II.18,236 SH I.10,237 and De octo uitiis.238 Lines 286–305 [Þis is nu … mæg ealle areccan]: Apart from the reversal of two words in line 300 (unðances ðyder for ðyder unðances), this section corresponds to the Hexameron, lines 516–35.239 For the account of the Fortunate Fall to which he refers (swa swa we sædon ær [‘even as we previously stated’, line 289]), see notes to lines 255–70 above. On the Tree of Life, see lines 213–17, 249–54, 255–70, and 271–85. Otherwise, however, outside of the Hexameron and De creatore, there are remarkably few linguistic parallels to this passage elsewhere in Ælfric’s works. Ælfric does pair the words werig and gerestan [line 301], for example, speaking either of God’s rest (which was not out of weariness) on the seventh day of Creation (CH II.12240) or the eternal rest from weariness of the righteous in the Seventh Age (De sex etatibus [AH II.15]241). It is folly and heresy [line 292], however, that are more often linked together outside of De creatore. Ælfric’s Letter for Wulfsige, for example, states that gedwolmen (‘heretics’) talk dyslice (‘foolishly’) about the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ.242 Lazarus II (AH I.3), likewise remarks that gedwolmenn often speak dyselice about Jesus.243 SH I.1, furthermore, defends the purity of the Virgin Mary against se dysega and se gedwola (‘the fool and the heretic’).244 In natali Domini (AH I.2), moreover, Ælfric’s other main source First Series, p. 283, line 78. First Series, p. 297, lines 204, 206, and 208–9. 227 Clemoes, First Series, p. 355, line 25. 228 Clemoes, First Series, p. 445, line 166. 229 Godden, Second Series, p. 206, line 9; and p. 208, lines 60 and 65. 230 Godden, Second Series, p. 271, line 96. 231 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 290, line 167; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 76, line 166. 232 Line 168 above. 233 Clemoes, First Series, p. 268, line 74. 234 Godden, Second Series, p. 181, lines 44–5. 235 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, §2, p. 112, lines 326–7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 362, lines 361–2. 236 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 605, line 343. 237 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 397, lines 31 (Þære lufe) – 35 (mid dædum). 238 Clayton, Two Ælfric Texts, p. 152, line 79. 239 Crawford, Hexameron, pp. 72–3. 240 Godden, Second Series, p. 118, line 277. 241 Line 195. 242 Whitelock et al., Councils and Synods, p. 215 (§93). 243 Line 221 above. 244 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 214, line 413. 225 Clemoes, 226 Clemoes,

751

Commentary: De creatore et creatura for De creatore, notes that dwolmen (‘heretics’ [line 23]) believe the Son was created by the Father, while the one who sottæð (‘is foolish’ [line 63]) holds that something existed prior to God and the sot (‘fool’ [line 84]) thinks God made himself. None of these three references appears in the extant portion of De Creatore, but the tract opens in the middle of a sentence about the sot who thinks God made himself and who, for his stuntnesse (‘on account of his foolishness’ [line 11]), is in for a greater fall because he climbs higher than his figurative ladder will allow him to reach. As noted in the Introduction (pp. 708–9), Ælfric organizes the tract around a series of foolish misunderstandings about the nature of the Trinity – folly that is dangerous for its heretical implications. Lines 306–12 [Uton we forði … ealra ðinga, Amen]: Corresponds to the conclusion of the Hexameron, lines 536–43.245 If here the righteous are exhorted ‘mid geornfulnysse gewilnian … ðæs beteran life’ (‘to long with eagerness for … the better life [of heaven]’ [lines 307–8]), elsewhere Ælfric uses geornfulnysse gewilnian to speak of the earnest desire either of the saints for heaven (LS I.6246) or of the damned to escape from hell (CH I.23247). In LS III.30 [Skeat II.34], similarly, the saints are shown rejoicing that martyrdom will bring them to beteran life [see line 308]).248 For his closing formula here, Ælfric employs one of his favorite addresses for Christ: ‘se þe leofað and rixað mid fæder and halgum gaste’ (‘He who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit’ [lines 310–11]). Aside from the finale of his Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan,249 however, it is found exclusively in the Catholic Homilies, appearing either verbatim or with minor variations at the end of CH I.7,250 CH I.18,251 CH I.24,252 CH I.30,253 CH I.32,254 CH II.1,255 CH II.4,256 and CH II.25.257 The final part of his peroration, ana soð Scyppend ealra ðinga (‘alone the true Creator of all things’ [lines 312]), appears only in the Hexameron and De creatore; twice in the Catholic Homilies, however, Ælfric refers to se soða Scyppend se ðe ana is God (‘the true Creator – he who alone is God’ [CH I.1258 and CH II.32259]).260 Cf. Ælfric’s statement that he ana … is ælmihtig God (‘He alone … is almighty God’ [line 270 above]).

Hexameron, pp. 73–4. and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 201, lines 300–1; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 164, lines 300–1. 247 Clemoes, First Series, p. 368, line 87. 248 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. III, p. 224, line 231; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 368, line 231. 249 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 220 (§198), 250 Clemoes, First Series, p. 240, line 263. 251 Clemoes, First Series, p. 324, lines 212–13. 252 Clemoes, First Series, p. 378, lines 208–9. 253 Clemoes, First Series, p. 438, lines 272–3. 254 Clemoes, First Series, p. 458, line 228. 255 Godden, Second Series, p. 11, lines 302–3. 256 Godden, Second Series, p. 40, lines 324–5. 257 Godden, Second Series, p. 212, lines 203–4. 258 Clemoes, First Series, p. 186, lines 220–1. 259 Godden, Second Series, p. 276, lines 127–8. 260 Variations on this theme include ‘se soða God þa gesceafta gesceop’ (‘the true God made the created order’ in Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard (ca 1005–6 [Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 202, lines 64–5]). 245 Crawford, 246 Clayton

752

15

DE SEX ETATIBUS HUIUS SECULI In De sex etatibus huius seculi (‘Concerning the Six Ages of the World’), Ælfric surveys the ages of the world from the Fall to Eternity to complete the story of mankind he began in De creatore et creatura (‘Concerning the Creator and Creation’ [AH II.14]). Picking up where he left off in De creatore, De sex etatibus outlines the six ages of the material world that encompass human history from the Fall to Judgment Day before turning to two spiritual ages, one spanning the whole of human history, the other beginning when it ends. The Eighth Age of Eternity represents the culmination of world and salvation history and the dawning of the ece life (‘everlasting life’), the reward of a Christian life faithfully lived toward which all of Ælfric’s preaching points. The sweep of world history in De sex etatibus opens with a First Age stretching from Adam to Noah [lines 1–76] and featuring descriptions of Adam’s arduous post-lapsarian life, death, and damnation, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. This last story prompts a summary analysis of the sorry spiritual state of post-diluvian humanity, but in the Second Age the idolatry of Noah’s day gives way to Abraham’s piety [lines 77–84]. Ælfric’s description of the Third Age from Abraham to David [lines 85–169] holds pride of place in terms of length. This is due primarily to the treatment of the Ten Commandments [lines 124–65] that occurs between descriptions of the time of the patriarchs, the Exodus, and the Wilderness Years, and the description of the Israelites’ arrival in the Promised Land. From this land to middan þissere worulde (‘at the center of the world’ [line 168]), Ælfric says, the prophets predicted that Christ would come, and with that he transitions to the Fourth Age [lines 170–86], the time of the prophets continuing from David to Daniel and encompassing the Babylonian Exile and return [lines 176–84]. Of the Fifth Age, Ælfric remarks only that it runs from Daniel to Christ [line 187] before moving on to the Sixth Age in which he and his audience live, the time between Christ’s Incarnation and his Second Coming at the end of the world [lines 188–91]. Six Ages complete Ælfric’s outline of world history, and the Seventh Age encompasses them all. During this age of rest, a time of blissful celebration is granted to the souls of all the righteous from Abel to those who die before the world’s end [lines 192–203]. On that day, all righteous souls will be reunited with their bodies to reign with Christ, and the Eighth Age will begin and never end [lines 204–8]. The reign of the righteous brings De sex etatibus to a close with an image of ‘the better life in everlasting bliss’ with which Ælfric concludes De creatore (AH II.14 line 308), and such consonance hardly seems coincidental. The first of the companion pieces promises heaven to those who believe in God. The second makes clear that the promise holds true for the righteous, whether they lived in the first epoch of the material world or, like Ælfric, in the last. 753

Introduction: De sex etatibus huius seculi Neither De sex etatibus nor De creatore hints at what may have prompted Ælfric to compose them around 1006 or what use he had in mind for them. Early on he had treated the Six Ages at length in the Catholic Homilies (CH II.4)1 and again much later, ca 1005–06, in the Letter to Sigeweard.2 He had likewise expounded the Ten Commandments in the Second Series (CH II.12)3 and later in his Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan, another contemporaneous letter.4 Despite the proximity of De sex etatibus in subject matter and time to these later letters, the sermon is an ‘independent composition’5 whose ultimate main sources can most often be traced to the Bible and Bede. Pope suggests that it and De creatore ‘may have formed the body of an instructive letter of the sort that Ælfric wrote for [the laymen] Wulfgeat and for Sigeweard’,6 and Ælfric did excerpt his Letter to Wulfgeat as an independent homily about the time he was composing the companion pieces.7 De sex etatibus, like De creatore, is uniquely preserved in a booklet of three Ælfric sermons copied near the beginning of the eleventh century that circulated independently, maybe as late as the thirteenth century, before being bound into London, British Library, Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2 [Xd].8 As was noted in the previous chapter, the fact that the booklet, whose place of origin is unknown, was added to a manuscript whose materials are otherwise unrelated makes it difficult to speculate how these two sermons were used. But the Worcester provenance of Xd raises the possibility that the sermons could have been used by the clergy as part of their program of pastoral care in the area during and after St Wulfstan’s day (1062–95).9 Again like De creatore, De sex etatibus has been seriously damaged by fire, and portions of its text are missing. Because Ælfric freely composed the sermon rather than drawing heavily from earlier work as he did with De creatore, we have not been able to reconstruct the lost text by means of parallel passages from known sources. Rather, we have conjecturally supplied readings using analogus passages from his works or from phrases and words attested in his corpus.10 We have not attempted to recreate readings that approximate Ælfric’s alliterative style, and ellipses indicate places where damage discourages a guess. As was noted in the previous chapter, to improve the readability of our edition, square brackets appear around whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. Since the emendations are supplied by conjecture, the apparatus provides details for readings from Xd only. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

Godden, Second Series, pp. 29–40. Marsden, Heptateuch, pp. 201–30, and for the dating, Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 157. Godden, Second Series, pp. 110–26. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 146–221, 269, and for the dating, Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 157. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 87. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 87, as cited in Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 125. See above, Esto consentiens aduersario (AH II.11), p. 585. Ker §182.6; Gneuss and Lapidge §359; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 238. Pope suggests a Worcester provenance on the evidence of the booklet’s running titles, which appear in a hand resembling that of the Worcester scribe who in the third quarter of the eleventh century copied most of St Wulfstan’s ecclesiastical handbook and homiliary preserved in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 121 and Hatton 113 and 114 [T1–3] (Homilies, vol. I, p. 87). Readings were generated using The Dictionary of Old English Corpus and the editions by Tristram (Sex aetates, pp. 195–201) and Stoneman (‘Critical Edition’, pp. 355–64).

754

de sex etatibus huius seculi

concerning the six ages of the world

DE SEX ETATIBUS HUIUS SECULI

5

10

15

20

[Adam] þa leofode on geswince nigon hund geara and þrittig [geara] and he þa forðferde [þurh his] forgædednysse, and his sawul siðode sarig to [helle], [and eall] his ofspring [swa ferde] oð þæt Crist us alysde of þam [cwearterne eft]. [Ða wearð] mycel yfell [on manncynne] swiðe swa þæt hi God [gremodon mid myslicum leahtrum] and swiðost | mid forligre unalyfedlice swa þæt ure Scyppend cwæð þæt him [sylf ofþuhte þæt he æfre] manncynn gesceop and sæde þæt he wolde hi ealle fordon mid anum [flode]. [Wæron swa] ðeah feawa ætforan Criste rihtwise, swa swa Abel and Enoch and Noe on þam [earde]. [Ðeos] is seo forme yld þissere worulde fram Adame oð Noe, to þam cwæð ure [Drihten], ‘“[Ðe Ic sceawode] ætforan me rihtwisne on þissere mægðe. Gemaca nu forþig ænne [mycelne arc] eall gerefedne. Ic wylle adrencan and adydan eall þis mennisc mid wætere [buton þe] and þinum þrim sunum and eowrum sinnhiwum. Text from: Xd London, British Library Cotton Otho C. i, vol. 2, fols 151v–152v and 154rv (s. xiin, SW England?; provenance Worcester) Due to a misordering of leaves, fol. 153, which corresponds to Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 642, line 34 (lagu) – p. 648, line 152 (wære), belongs to the copy of Ælfric’s De populo Israhel (SH II.20) preserved on fols 154v, 153rv, and 155rv (Ker §182.7). Due to damage to Xd, square brackets may enclose whole words and phrases, even if only part of a word has been emended. Letters not enclosed in square brackets are reported from H and enclosed letters are supplied by conjecture since there is no parallel text from which to supply readings. 1 [Adam]] no reading Xd  2 [geara]] gear[a] Xd  3 [þurh his]] [þurh h]is Xd  4 [helle]] h[e]ll[e] Xd  5 [and eall]] [and eal]l [swa ferde]] [swa f]erde Xd  6 [cwearterne eft]] cwearter[ne eft] Xd  7 [Ða wearð]] no reading Xd [on manncynne]] [on m]anncynne Xd  8 [gremodon mid myslicum leahtrum]] gremodo[n mid myslicum leahtrum] Xd  10–11 [sylf ofþuhte þæt he æfre]] sy[lf ofþuhte þæt he æfre] Xd  12 [flode]] f[lode] Xd  13 [Wæron swa]] no reading Xd  14 [earde]] no reading Xd  15 [Ðeos]] no reading Xd  16 [Drihten]] Dri[hten] Xd  17 [Ðe Ic sceawode]] [Ðe ic sceawo]de Xd  18 [mycelne arc]] my[celne arc] Xd  21 [buton þe]] bu[ton þe] Xd 

756

152r

CONCERNING THE SIX AGES OF THE WORLD

5

10

15

20

Adam then lived in hardship nine hundred and thirty years and at that time he died on account of his transgression, and his sorrowful soul journeyed to hell, and all of his descendants so fared until Christ released us from that prison again. Then there arose great wickedness among mankind so widely that they angered God with various sins and most of all with illicit fornication so that our Creator said that he regretted ever creating mankind and said that he wanted to destroy them entirely with a flood. A few, however, were righteous before Christ, such as Abel and Enoch and Noah, in the land. This is the First Age of this world from Adam to Noah, to whom our Lord said, ‘“I have considered you righteous before me among this generation. Now for that reason, make a large arc completely roofed. I wish to drown and kill all this human race with water except you and your three sons and your wives.

757

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Ge eahta sceolon wunian on [þam arce], and of eallum nytenum Ic gegaderie into eow þæt ge magon to fostre æfter [þam flode … and] þæt eall þeos woruld ne wurðe adylegod”’. Noe þa geworhte þone [wundorlican arc and eode] him oninnan ær þam þe þæt flod come mid his þrim sunum, Sem, [Cham and Iafeth, and eac] mid his gebeddan and his bearna wifum, and God him sende [to], swa swa he him [sæde ær], of eallum nytenum and of fugelcynne symle gemacan, and beleac him [syþþan on þam] arc. God asende ða sona ænne swiðlicne scur feowertig daga on an and eac [geopenode] þa wæterþeotan þære widgillan heofonan and ealle wyllspringas þære [mycclan nywelnysse]. [And] þæt flod ða weox under þam fleotendan arce and adrencte endemes ælc þing [cuces buton] þam eahta mannum þe on ðam arce wæron and buton þam orfcynne [þe binnan] wæs, of þam com syþþan eall þæt nu cucu is. Noes sunan ða syðþan [gestryndon twa] and hundseofontig sunana. Þa woldon sona wyrcean mid heora mycclan [mægene ane wundorlican] burh and ænne heahne stypel þe astige upp oð þone heofonan and begunnon [þæt weorca ongean] Godes willan. Hi hæfdon þa gyt ealle þæt Ebreisce gereord, and God [com þærto] and sceawode þone stypell and forgeaf þam wyrhtum ælcum his gereord þæt [heora ælcum] nyste naht oðres spræce, and hi swa geswicon sona þæs weorces and [toferdon] to fyrlenum landum. Æfter þissum wearð wolice afunden swiðe [mycel gedwyld] on þam manncynne: þæt menn worh him god/a\s of golde and of seolfre and of [mislicum] antimbre manncynne to forwyrde, 22 [þam arce]] no reading Xd  24–5 [þam flode … and]] þ[am flode and] Xd  26–7 [wundorlican arc and eode]] wundorlic[an arc and eode] Xd  28–9 [Cham and Iafeth and eac]] C[ham and Iafeth and eac] Xd  30 [to]] [t]o Xd [sæde ær]] no reading Xd  32 [syþþan on þam]] sy[þþan on þam] Xd  34 [geopenode]] g[eopenode] Xd  36 [mycclan nywelnysse]] myccl[an nywelnysse] Xd  37 [And]] no reading Xd  38–9 [cuces buton]] no reading Xd  40 [þe binnan]] þ[e binnan] Xd  42–3 [gestryndon twa]] gestr[yndon twa] Xd  44–5 [mægene ane wundorlican]] mæge[ne ane wundorlican] Xd  47 [þæt weorca ongean]] [þæt weorca on]gean Xd  49 [com þærto]] co[m þærto] Xd  51 [heora ælcum]] he[ora ælcum] Xd  53 [toferdon]] toferd[on] Xd  55 [mycel gedwyld]] myc[el gedwyld] Xd  56 worh] worh, with ‘tan’ added in a later hand Xd god/a\s] godes, with ‘e’ corrected to ‘a’ Xd  57 [mislicum]] mi[slicum] Xd manncynne] ‘n’2 erased but visible Xd 

758

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

You eight must remain in the ark, and I will gather to you [some] from all the animals so that you can bring forth offspring after the flood … and that all this world will not be destroyed”’. Noah then built the marvelous ark and before the flood came went inside with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and also with his wife and his sons’ wives, and God continually sent to him, just as he had earlier said to him, pairs of all the animals and species of bird, and afterwards shut them in the ark. God then immediately sent a powerful rain shower for forty days without interruption and also opened the floodgates of the broad heavens and all the springs of the great abyss. And the flood then rose under the floating ark and drowned every living thing except the eight people who were on the ark and the livestock that was inside, from which later came everything that is now alive. Noah’s sons then subsequently fathered seventy-two sons. They immediately desired to build with their great host a marvelous city and a high tower to ascend to heaven and began that work against God’s will. They all still spoke Hebrew, and God came to that place and looked at the tower and gave to each worker his [own] language so that none of them knew anything of another’s language, and so they immediately ceased from that work and scattered to distant lands. After these [events], a very profound error was perversely discovered among the human race: that people made for themselves gods of gold and silver and various materials to the damnation of humanity,

759

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

and hi gebædon to him mid [gebigedum limum] and forsawon heora Scyppend þe hi gesceop to mannum. And þæt gedwyld þa [asprang geond] ealne middaneard buton Israhela folce þe on God gelyfde. [Abrahames ofspring] se þe com of [Sem, Noes] yldestan suna, hi ane gelyfdon on þone [ælmihtigan God] þeah ðe hi [oft to deofolgylde] abugon to hearme him sylfum. Hi [gelyfdon] sume [þurh geleafan on God sume on] deade entas þurh deofles lare, ac be [swylcum] sang se [witega, Omnes dii gentium] demonia, Dominus autem celos fecit: ‘[Ealle þæra | hæðenra godas] syndon gramlice deofla; ure Drihten soðlice him sylf geworhte [heofonas]’. [Oþre] godas ne mihton nan þing gescyppan þæt þe ær ðan næs ðe [macian] mæg for þan þe an God is ealra þinga Scyppend, seo halige Þrynnys þe [hi ealle gesceop]. Ðeos is seo oðer yld þissere worulde: fram Noe astreht mid [swiðlicre yfelnysse] oð hit becom to Abrahame, þam halgan heahfædere, se wurþode [God mid weorcum] and geleafan swa þæt God him behet þæt þurh his cynn sceolde eall [manncynn beon gebletsod] for Gode and Crist þa sylf com of his cynne syþþan þurh ðone [ealle þeoda beoð] gebletsode. And þeos is seo þridde yld þissere worulde: from Abrahame [oð Dauid, þe wæs ures] Drihtnes witega and foremære cyning on Israhela cynne. On [þissere ylde wæron] wuldorfulle heahfæderas, Abraham and Isaac and se æþela Iacob, [and Iacobes suna] þa [siðodon] ealle to [Egipta] lande and þær lange wunedon on [þam lande æfter] Iosepes timan 58 [gebigedum limum]] gebigedu[m limum] Xd  60 [asprang geond]] no reading Xd  62 [Abrahames ofspring]] Abraha[mes ofspring] Xd  62–3 [Sem Noes]] [Sem N]oes Xd  64 [ælmihtigan God]] ælmih[tigan God] Xd  64–5 [oft to deofolgylde]] of[t to deofolgy]lde Xd  66 [gelyfdon]] gel[yfdon] Xd  66–7 [þurh geleafan on God sume on]] þur[h geleafan on God sume on] Xd  68 [swylcum]] swy[lcum] Xd  68–9 [witega Omnes dii gentium] w[itega omnes dii gentium]] Xd  71 [Ealle þæra hæðenra godas]] no reading Xd  72 [heofonas]] no reading Xd  73 [Oþre]] [oþr]e Xd  74 [macian]] ma[cian] Xd  76 [hi ealle gesceop]] no reading Xd  78 [swiðlicre yfelnysse]] swið[licre yfeln]ysse Xd  80 [God mid weorcum]] [God mid weorc]um Xd  82 [manncynn beon gebletsod]] mann[cynn beon ge]bletsod Xd  84 [ealle þeoda beoð]] no reading Xd  86 [oð Dauid, þe wæs ures]] [oð Dauid, þe wæs ure]s Xd  88 [þissere ylde wæron]] [þissere ylde wæro]n Xd  90 [and Iacobes suna]] [and Iacobes] sun[a] (sunæ?) Xd [siðodon]] sið[o]don Xd  91 [Egipta]] [E]gipta Xd  92 [þam lande æfter]] no reading Xd 

760

152v

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

and they prayed to them on bended limbs and despised their Creator who created them as human beings. And that false belief then sprang up throughout the earth except among the people of Israel who believed in God. The descendants of Abraham who came from Shem, Noah’s oldest son, alone believed in the almighty God though they often turned to idolatry to their own harm. Some believed in God through faith, some in dead giants through the devil’s instruction, but about such things the prophet sang, Omnes dii gentium demonia, Dominus autem celos fecit:1 ‘All of the heathen gods are cruel devils; our Lord truly made the heavens’. Other gods cannot create anything that can be made which did not previously exist because the one God is Creator of all things, the holy Trinity who created them all. This is the Second Age of this world: from Noah [it] extended with great wickedness until it came to Abraham, the holy patriarch, who honored God with works and faith so that God promised him that through his family all mankind would be blessed for God’s sake and [that] Christ would then later come from his family, through whom all people would be blessed. And this is the Third Age of this world: from Abraham to David, who was our Lord’s prophet and the renowned king of the nation of the people of Israel. In this age lived the glorious patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac and the noble Jacob, and Jacob’s sons who all journeyed to the land of Egypt and lived there a long while in the land after the time of Joseph

1

Psalms 95.5 [Vulgate 95.5]: ‘All the gods of the nations are devils, but the Lord made the heavens’.

761

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

for þam mycclan hungre þe on manncynne þa wæs. [Feower hund] geara hi wunedon on þam lande, and God him þa asende þurh his [foresceawunge þone] mæran Moysen of þam ylcan manncynne and Aaron his broðor, se þe [wæs se æresta bisceop] and hi læddon þæt folc of þam lande ongean ofer þa Readan Sæ [siþiende] mid drium fotum þurh ures Drihtnes mihte – syx hund þusend manna [buton cildum] and wifum – to þam æðelan earde þe God Abrahame behet. And Pharan [him filigde] mid ealre his fyrde on þære Readan Sæ þe him siðode æfter mid his [gebeotlicum] cræftum þæt [heora] nan cucu ne belaf for þan þe he nolde gelyfan þa [on] Gode þurh þa tyn wita þe he him to asende and wolde þæt folc habban him sylfum [to þeowte] and wolde hi gebigan mid bismore þa ongean oþþe hi ealle ofslean, ac hine [adrencte seo] sæ. God þa sylf afedde þæt folc on þam westene ealles feowertig geara [mid heofonlicum] bigleofan [swa] þæt him ælce dæge com edniwe of heofonum. And he [forgeaf him] wæter wynsumlice yrnende of heardum stanclude him eallum to [genihtsumnysse] and se stan wunode swa hwar swa hi wicodon and God þa fela wundra [geworhte on] þam folce. He gesette him þa æ, þæt is open lagu, to rihtre steore [and to rihtum] geleafan þæt hi hine ænne æfre wurþodon. And [he] him forbead ælcne [hæðenscipe] and þæt deofolgyld þe dyslice wæs aræred on [ðære oðre] ylde, swa swa [we ær sædon]. God sylf þa gecom mid swiðlicum [leohte on Munte] Sinai … him togeanes, and hi þær wunodon [witodlice] … [feowertig] daga [and nihta] be þa deopan smeagunge. And God him [awrat ða ealdan æ mid] his fingre 94 [Feower hund]] no reading Xd  95–6 [foresceawunge þone]] fore[sceawunge þo]ne Xd  97 [wæs se æresta bisceop]] [wæs se æresta bi]sce[op], with two damaged letters after ‘sce’ Xd  99 [siþiende]] siþi[ende] Xd  101 [buton cildum]] no reading Xd  103 [him filigde]] no reading Xd  105 [gebeotlicum]] [gebeotlicu]m Xd [heora]] h[/e\]ora, with tail of ‘e’ visible above line Xd  106 [on]] no reading Xd  108 [to þeowte]] no reading Xd  110 [adrencte seo]] no reading Xd  112 [mid heofonlicum]] [mid heofonl]icum Xd  113 [swa]] [sw]a Xd  114 [forgeaf him]] [forgeaf h]im Xd  115 [genihtsumnysse]] ge[nihtsum]nysse Xd  117 [geworhte on]] ge[worhte o]n Xd  119 [and to rihtum]] [and to riht]um Xd  121 [he]] h[e] [hæðenscipe]] [hæðensc]ipe Xd  123 [ðære oðre]] ð[ære oð]re Xd [we ær sædon]] [we ær sæd]on Xd  124–5 [leohte on Munte] Sinai …] le[ohte on M]unte Sinai, and approximately 15 letters missing Xd  126 [witodlice] …] witodl[ice], and approximately 15 letters missing Xd  127 [feowertig]] [feow]ertig [and nihta]] no reading Xd  128 [awrat ða ealdan æ mid]] [awrat ða ealdan æ mi]d Xd 

762

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

because there had been a great famine among mankind. They lived in the land 400 years, and on account of his divine providence, God then sent them the glorious Moses from the same people and his brother Aaron, who was the first bishop, and they led that people away out of the land journeying across the Red Sea with dry feet through our Lord’s might – 600,000 men not counting children and women – to the splendid land that God promised Abraham. And Pharaoh followed [Moses] with all of his army into the Red Sea, which came [together] behind him and his threatening force so that none of them remained alive because he did not want then to believe in God on account of the ten punishments that he had sent him but wanted to keep the people in servitude for himself and wanted them then to turn back in disgrace or all be killed, but the sea drowned him. God then fed the people in the wilderness all forty years with heavenly nourishment so that it came anew to them each day from heaven. And he gave them water running pleasantly from hard rock sufficient for them all, and the stone stood wherever they camped, and God at that time worked many miracles among the people. He established for them the law, that is the revealed ordinances, for proper guidance and for proper faith so that they might always honor it alone. And he forbid them every heathen practice and the idolatry that was foolishly introduced in the Second Age, as we said earlier. God then came accompanied by a great light at Mount Sinai … to meet [Moses], and they truly remained there … forty days and nights in profound reflection. And God wrote out for him the old law with his finger

763

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi 130

135

140

145

150

155

160

| on twam stænenum tabelum to steore eallum manncynne: ‘[Ego sum Dominus, Deus tuus]’: ‘“[Ic eom] Drihten þin God”’. ‘“Ne wyrc þu nateshwon þe sylfum oþre godas”’. ‘“Ne [underfoh ðu on ydelnysse] þines Drihtnes naman”’. Se man hæfð on idel ures Hælendes [naman se ðe gelyfð] þæt he wære witodlice anfeald mann and nære ælmihtig God þeah þe he [wæs æfre God]. ‘“Heald þone restedæg mid rihtum biggengum”’. Se man hyld [þone restedæg] mid rihtum biggengum, se ðe his lif leofað on rihtum geleafan, and [to his Drihtne gebyhð] swa swa he selost mæg, and his Drihten gegladað mid godum weorcum [symle]. ‘“[Arwurþa] þinne fæder and þine modor symle þæt þu lange lybbe on þam behatenum [lande]”’. [Se man] þe wyrigð fæder oððe modor se bið deaðes scyldig for þære [synlican dæde]. [Æfter gastlicum] andgite God sylf is þin fæder and his gelaðung is þin modor, þæt [is Godes] Cyrce. Arwurþa nu ægðerne þæt ðu endeleaslice lybbe on þam [heofonlican life þe] God us eallum behet. ‘“Ne ofsleh þu mannan”’. Þæt is seo mæste [synn þæt man unscyldigne] mann ofslea for his yrre, buton he Gode wiðsace and swa [geeacnige] þa twa mæstan synna þe [mann mæg] gewyrcean. ‘“Ne unrihthæm [þu”’. He hæmð] unrihtlice þe buton rihtum sinscipe hine sylfne befylð and his [galnysse] fulgæð on his life. ‘“Ne stala þu nateshwon”’. Be stale us is full cuð. ‘“[Ne beo ðu leas] gewita”’. Se leas gewita ne bið na ungewitnod, swa swa gewritu secgað, ‘[se man þe] forlyhð se losað [witodlice]’. ‘“Ne gewilna þu nateshwon oðres [mannes wifes]”’. ‘“Ne gewilna þu eac oðres mannes æhta”’. Þæt is rihtwisnys þæt man his agen [hæfen ah gif] se hit ofgange þe hit habban wile, 130 [Ego sum Dominus, Deus tuus]] eg[o sum dominus deus tuus] Xd  131 [Ic eom]] Xd  133 [underfoh ðu on ydelnysse]] u[nderfoh ðu on ydelnysse] Xd  134–5 [naman se ðe gelyfð]] nam[an se ðe gelyfð] Xd  136 [wæs æfre God]] no reading Xd  138 [þone restedæg]] no reading Xd  140 [to his Drihtne gebyhð]] [to his Drihtne ge]byhð Xd  141 [symle]] s[ymle] Xd  142 [Arwurþa]] no reading Xd  143 [lande]] l[ande] Xd  144 [Se man]] no reading Xd  145 [synlican dæde]] synlica[n dæde] Xd  146 [Æfter gastlicum]] æfter gast]licum Xd  147 [is Godes]] no reading Xd  149 [heofonlican life þe]] heo[fonlican life þe] Xd  150 mannan] ‘nan’ erased but faintly visible Xd  150–1 [synn þæt man unscyldigne]] syn[n þæt man unscyl]digne Xd  152 [geeacnige]] gee[acnige] Xd  153 [mann mæg]] [m]ann m[æ]g Xd 154 [þu. He hæmð]] þ[u. he hæmð] Xd  156 [galnysse]] ga[lnysse] Xd  158 [Ne beo ðu leas]] no reading Xd  160 [se man þe]] no reading Xd [witodlice]] witodlic[e] Xd  161 [mannes wifes]] man[nes wifes] Xd  163–4 [hæfen ah gif]] h[æfen ah gif] Xd 

764

154r

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi 130

135

140

145

150

155

160

on two stone tablets as guidance for all mankind: ‘Ego sum Dominus, Deus tuus’:2 ‘“I am the Lord, your God”’. ‘“Make no other gods for yourself at all”’. ‘“Do not take the name of your Lord in vain”’. The person who takes the name of our Savior in vain believes him truly to be a mere man and not almighty God though he was always God. ‘“Keep the day of rest with proper observance”’. The person keeps the day of rest with proper observance who lives his life with proper belief, and submits to his Lord as best he can, and gladdens his Lord with good works continually. ‘“Honor your father and mother continually so that you may live long in the Promised Land”’. The person who curses father or mother will be deserving of death for that sinful deed. According to the spiritual sense, God is your father and his body of believers is your mother, which is God’s Church. Honor each now so that you may live in the heavenly life that God promised us all. ‘“Do not kill a person”’. The greatest sin is for one to kill an innocent person out of anger, unless one were to renounce God and thus compound the two greatest sins that one can commit. ‘“Do not commit adultery”’. He commits adultery who defiles himself outside of proper marriage and gratifies his lust during his lifetime. ‘“Do not steal at all”’. We are entirely familiar with stealing. ‘“Do not be a false witness”’. The false witness will not go unpunished, as the Scriptures say, ‘the person who testifies falsely will surely perish’. ‘“Do not desire another man’s wife at all”’. ‘“Do not desire another man’s possessions either”’. It is just for a person to have his own property if he who desires to have it acquires it [fairly]

2

Exodus 20.2, which Ælfric translates verbatim in the next line.

765

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi 165

170

175

180

185

190

195

and swa bið ælc reaflac and unriht [adwæsced]. [Æfter] feowertigum gearum þæt folc becom to þam lande Abrahames eardes [þe him] behaten wæs to middan þissere worulde þær Crist wæs syðþan acenned [of Iudeiscum] cynne swa swa hit cyddon witegan. On Dauides dæge, ures Drihtnes [witegan þe þa] sealmas sang þurh þone soðan Gast, ongann seo feorþe yld þissere [worulde]. On þære ylde wæron witegan and cyningas herigendlice lybbende on [þam lande, and] fela God symle wurþigende mid weorcum and cyðnyssum. And seo yld swa [geendode] on þone [witegan Danihel] þonne hi wæron gehergode for heora [geleafleaste] and [sceandlice gebrohte] to Babilonian byrig, and manega ofslagene [wæron on þære] mycclan [byrig]. [And sume] þa cyningas of þam cynne [lufodon] … [and þa on hæftnede wæron æfter þære] heregunge on Babiloniscum [earde hundseofontig geara, and God him gemiltsode] æfter þam mycclum [gewinne and | hi eft lædde to þam] earde. And manega wuldorfulle weras wæron on ðam timann on Godes [þeowdome wunigende]. And seo fifte yld wæs ða fram Danihele oð Crist. On ðære syxtan [ylde þissere worulde] com Crist to mannum of Marian acenned buton eorðlicum fæder, [and þeos yld bið] oð þæt seo geendung þissere worulde becume. Seo seofoðe yld ongann [þurh Godes mildheortnysse] on þam halgum sawlum þe siðodon of life fram Abele þam [rihtwisan forð] gyt oþ þis, na on þissere worulde ac on þære sawla reste, þe wuniað [æfre oð þissere] worulde geendunge. Eallum þam sawlum is seo yld forgifenn … wuldrigende on blisse, 165 [adwæsced]] adw[æsced] Xd  166 [Æfter]] no reading Xd  167 [þe him]] no reading Xd  169 [of Iudeiscum]] o[f Iudeiscum] Xd  170–1 [witegan þe þa]] wite[gan þe þa] Xd  172 [worulde]] w[orulde] Xd  174–5 [þam lande and]] þa[m lande and] Xd  176 [geendode]] no reading Xd [witegan Danihel]] wite[gan D]anihel Xd  177 [geleafleaste]] ge[leafleaste] Xd  178 [sceandlice gebrohte]] sceandl[ice gebroht]e Xd  179 [wæron on þære]] no reading Xd [byrig]] no reading Xd  180 [And sume]] [and s]ume Xd [lufodon] …] lufodo[n], and approximately 15 letters missing Xd  181 [and þa on hæftnede wæron æfter þære]] [and] þa on hæ[ftnede wæron æfter þ]ære Xd  182–3 [earde hundseofontig geara, and God him gemiltsode]] eard[e hundseo]fontig [geara and God him gem]iltsode Xd  183–4 [gewinne and hi eft lædde to þam]] gew[inne and hi eft lædde to þam] Xd  186 [þeowdome wunigende]] [þeowdome wuni]gende Xd  188 [ylde þissere worulde]] [ylde þissere worul]de Xd  190 [and þeos yld bið]] [and þeos yld bi]ð Xd  192 [þurh Godes mildheortnysse]] [þurh Godes mildh]eortnysse Xd  194 [rihtwisan forð]] [rihtwisan for]ð Xd  196 [æfre oð þissere]] [æfre oð þisse]re Xd  198 … wuldrigende] approximately 15–20 letters missing Xd 

766

154v

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi 165

170

175

180

185

190

195

and thus will every robbery and injustice be eradicated. After forty years that people came to the land of Abraham’s country that was promised to them, at the center of this world where Christ was subsequently born from the Jewish people, just as the prophets foretold. In the time of David, our Lord’s prophet who sang psalms through the true Spirit, the Fourth Age of this world began. In that age were prophets and kings living commendably in the land, and many [were] continually honoring God with deeds and testimonies. But the age thus ended with the prophet Daniel when they were seized on account of their lack of belief and disgracefully brought to the city of Babylon, and many were killed in the great city. But some[ [in Babylon] loved the kings of that people … and after the invasion they were in captivity in the land of Babylon seventy years, and God had mercy on them after the great strife and led them back to their land. And many glorious men were living in the service of God at that time. And the Fifth Age was then from Daniel to Christ. In the Sixth Age of this world Christ came to humanity born of Mary without an earthly father, and this age will exist until the end of this world comes. The Seventh Age began on account of God’s mercy among the holy souls who journeyed out of life from the righteous Abel even until now, not into this world but into the rest of souls, which will remain continuously until the end of this world. To all those souls is that age given … for celebrating in bliss,

767

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi 200

205

and þæt getacnod seo rest þe God hine gereste æfter [his weorc, na þurh his] werignysse, ac þæt þa sawla hi gerestað [æfter] heora geswincum oð þæt [hi … of] deaðe arison þam Hælende togeanes to þam [heofenlican] life. [On ðam dæge onginð] seo eahteoðe yld, na on ðissum life ac on [ðam] ecean life, and seo yld [þurhwunað ungeendod] mid Gode, on þære rixiað þa halgan mid þam Hælende sylfum [on sawle and on lichoman] syþþan a to worulde, Amen.

199 getacnod] getacnodo Xd  200 [his weorc, na þurh his]] [his weorc na þurh h]is Xd  201 [æfter]] æfte[r] Xd  202 [hi … of]] [hi … o]f, with approximately 15–20 letters missing Xd  203 [heofenlican]] [h]eofenlican Xd  204 [On ðam dæge onginð]] [on ðam dæge ongin]ð Xd  205 [ðam]] ð[a]m Xd  206 [þurhwunað ungeendod]] [þurhwunað unge]endod Xd  208 [on sawle and on lichoman]] [on sawle and on lich]oman Xd 

768

Text: De sex etatibus huius seculi 200

205

and that signified the rest that God took after his work, not on account of his weariness, but so that the souls will rest after their hardships until they … arise from death to meet the Savior in the heavenly life. On that day, the Eighth Age will begin, not in this life but in the everlasting life, and that age will continue without end with God, in which the saints will reign with the Savior in soul and body eternally afterwards, Amen.

769

DE SEX ETATIBUS HUIUS SECULI

COMMENTARY Composed ca 1006, De sex etatibus huius seculi (AH II.15) survives in a single manuscript: Xd, fols 151v–152v and 154rv [Ker §182.5]. The text was edited previously by Stoneman1 and Tristram.2 Title [De sex etatibus huius seculi]: A degree of debate (and thus potential confusion) surrounds this title. Ker, writing in 1957,3 and Clemoes, perhaps drawing on him in 1959,4 both list this text as De sex etatibus huius mundi (‘About the Six Ages of this World’). Only part of the title now is legible: examining the manuscript in white and ultraviolet light, one finds the running headers ‘de sex etatibus hui’ on fol. 152r and ‘de sex etatibus h’ on 154r, and no title introduces the text on fol. 151v. Wanley, however, writing in 1705 before the Cottonian fire, calls it ‘De Sex Etatibvs Hvivs Secvli’;5 and Sisam (1923),6 Pope (1967),7 and Stoneman (1983)8 follow suit – with Pope noting that in his day the words ‘Huius Seculi’ were ‘still partly visible’.9 Lines 1–14 [Adam þa leofode … on þam earde]: Ælfric draws on a number of biblical passages in this section. Genesis 5.5 provides Adam’s age [line 2]; Genesis 2.7 introduces the mortal consequence of sin (for everyone, Romans 5.12) [line 3]; Genesis 6.5–7 recounts God’s grief over human wickedness and decision to send the Flood [lines 7–12]; and various verses discuss the righteousness of Abel (Genesis 4.4, Matthew 23.35, and Hebrews 11.4), Enoch (Genesis 5.24 and Hebrews 11.5), and Noah (Genesis 6.8–9 and 7.1, Ezekiel 14.14, and 2 Peter 2.5) [line 14]. Ælfric’s suggestion that Adam and his offspring go to hell, however [lines 4–5], is extra-biblical. Swain makes this point, for example, when commenting on an analogous passage in Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard,10 where he posits the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus as Ælfric’s ultimate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

‘Critical Edition’, pp. 355–64. Sex aetates, pp. 195–201. §182.6 (Catalogue, p. 237). ‘Chronology’, p. 57. Catalogus, p. 212. ‘Old English Translation’, p. 205. Homilies, vol. I, p. 86 n. 1. ‘Critical Edition’, p. 365. Homilies, vol. I, p. 86 n. 1. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 204, lines 102 (And he) – 103 (to helle).

770

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi source.11 Godden does not mention the Gospel when discussing comparable references in the Catholic Homilies, however, and indeed appears to attribute such comments to Ælfric himself, noting no reference to hell in Ælfric’s sources when Ælfric speaks about Adam’s sojourn in hell and Christ’s deliverance of him thence in CH I.1,12 CH I.14,13 and CH II.1.14 Indeed, when in CH I.1515 Ælfric mentions Christ’s deliverance of Adam and his offspring, Godden notes that Ælfric departs from his source by adding the reference.16 It may be, therefore, that in such comments Ælfric is simply paraphrasing an inherited theological tradition. For additional parallels to this motif, see SH I.4,17 LS II.22 [Skeat II.24],18 SH I.10,19 the Letter to Wulfgeat,20 and SH I.11a.21 Of all these parallels, the Letter to Sigeweard is linguistically closest to Ælfric’s language here in De sex etatibus, as it mentions Adam’s age, Adam’s sorrow [line 4], and the First Age of the world, to which De sex etatibus hereafter turns. For Ælfric’s possible use of the Gospel of Nicodemus in Modicum et iam non uidebitis me, see AH I.5, lines 163–79, and Bedingfield, ‘Assmann 6’. Lines 15–76 [Ðeos is seo forme yld … seo halige Þrynnys þe hi ealle gesceop]: Following Bede,22 who had been influenced by Augustine,23 Ælfric describes the First Age of the world as lasting from Adam to Noah. In doing so, he generally parallels his two other major treatments of the subject in CH II.4 and his Letter to Sigeweard. Where exactly Noah’s Flood (Genesis 6.5–9.17) should be placed, however, is somewhat of a question. In CH II.4, Ælfric expounds the Wedding at Cana (John 2.1–11), interpreting the six jars of water that Christ turns to wine as the Six Ages. Having explained the symbolic meaning of the creation of Eve and the murder of Abel (Genesis 2.21–3 and 4.8), Ælfric states that ‘On ðære oðre ylde þissere worulde wearð eal middaneard mid flodes yðum adylegod for synna micelnysse’ (‘In the Second Age of this world, the whole world was destroyed by the waves of the Flood for the multitude of [its] sins’).24 The Letter 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24

Swain, Letter to Sigeweard, notes on lines 78–81. Clemoes, First Series, p. 184, lines 157 (He wearð) – 159 (into hellewite), and lines 168 (he leofode) – 170 (helle); and p. 18, lines 277 (and Crist) – 279 (ofsprincg). See Godden, Commentary, pp. 12–13. Clemoes, First Series, p. 296, line 187 (seo godcundnyss) – p. 297, line 190 (ær gecwemdon); see Godden, Commentary, p. 118. Godden, Second Series, p. 3, lines 13 (þa asende) – 17 (helle wite); see Godden, Commentary, p. 348. Clemoes, First Series, p. 305, lines 166 (For ðan þe) – 168 (to heofonum); see Godden, Commentary, p. 13. Godden, Commentary, p. 126. Godden does here note a parallel in Haymo, but does not list the work as a source for these lines in his earlier work for Fontes (‘Catholic Homilies 1.15’). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 274, line 190 (ac Godes) – p. 275, line 196 (heofonan rice). Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 276, lines 179–81; Skeat, Lives, vol. II, p. 64, lines 179–81. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 404, lines 197–203. Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 3, lines 56–73. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 465, lines 49–56. De temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p.463, line 8 [Prima est … ad Noe]), possibly mediated by Haymo of Auxerre, Homiliae de tempore 18 (Prima mundi … ad Noe [PL 118.131B]), though Godden suggests that Ælfric at times used De temporum ratione directly (Commentary, p. li). Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, p. 93, line 6 [Nam prima … ad Noe]). Godden, Second Series, p. 32, line 100 – p. 33, line 112, at lines 111–12.

771

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi to Sigeweard, by contrast, appears to associate the Flood with the First Age. Having spoken summarily of Creation, humanity’s Fall, Cain’s murder of Abel, the birth of Seth and (in due course) his descendant Noah, and the Flood (Genesis 1.1–9.19), and then interpreted such elements (including Eve’s creation and Abel’s murder, as in CH II.425) in New Testament terms, Ælfric concludes that ‘Her wæs seo forme yld þissere worulde’ (‘Here was the First Age of the world’).26 De sex etatibus would seem to follow the Letter: having introduced this section by saying, ‘Ðeos is seo forme yld þissere worulde fram Adame oð Noe’ (‘This is the First Age of the world, from Adam to Noah’ [lines 15–16]), Ælfric goes on to recount the story of the Flood (Genesis 6.14–7.23, primarily; lines 17–41) and the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11.1–9; lines 42–53), contrasting the pagan idolatry that followed with the right belief of the Israelites27 [lines 54–76], before affirming that ‘Ðeos is seo oðer yld þissere worulde fram Noe … to Abrahame’ (‘This is the Second Age of the world, from Noah … to Abraham’ [lines 77–9]). Such an arrangement ostensibly places the Flood in the First Age: while the ambiguous pronoun Ðeos [line 77] might refer to events preceding or following in the narrative, the parallel structure in De sex etatibus of the first three Ages – ‘þeos is seo þridde yld þissere worulde fram Abrahame oð Dauid’ (‘This is the Third Age of the world, from Abraham to David’, Ælfric goes on to say [lines 85–6]) – effectively makes these lines the start of a new section, placing events therein under that Age’s umbrella. In another sense, however, CH II.4, the Letter, and De sex etatibus all achieve the same end: if the First Age runs through Noah, and the Second Age begins with Noah, then in this overlapping space the Flood is duly placed. Similar ambiguity, unsurprisingly, is found in Ælfrician treatments of the Ages to come. On the nature and sources of Ælfric’s understanding of the First Age, see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 84, 85, and 94–6. Ælfric treats various aspects of the Flood elsewhere in his works as well: CH I.1,28 CH I.35,29 the Interrogationes,30 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],31 LS II.12 [Skeat I.13],32 the Hexameron,33 and SH II.18, expositing Jesus’ discussion of Noah in Luke 17.26–7.34 His reference, when turning to the Tower of Babel, to the seventy-two offspring of 25

26 27 28 29 30

31 32 33 34

One might note that while in both cases Ælfric associates Cain with the Jews and Abel with Christ, his interpretation of Eve’s creation from Adam’s side (Genesis 2.21–3) differs somewhat in nuance: in the Letter, he links Eve with the Church, which sprang out of Christ (Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 204, line 116 [Eua getacnode] – p. 205, line 119 [Cain wæs]); in CH II.4, he parallels Eve’s creation with the opening of Jesus’ side with a spear at the Crucifixion (John 19.34) – from which wound flowed ‘þa gerynu þe his gelaðung wearð mid gesceapen’ (‘the mysteries with which his Church was created’ [Godden, Second Series, p. 32, lines 100 [þa slep] –114 [clænre bryde], at lines 113–14). Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 204, line 114 – p. 205, line 134, at line 134. Here apparently consisting of the descendants of Shem who came to form the Abraham[es ofspring] (Genesis 11.10–26; line 60). Clemoes, First Series, p. 185, lines 181 (Ða wæs) – 202 (ða forðferde). Clemoes, First Series, p. 484, lines 259 (Ne sceole) – 269 (gastlicum nearo). Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 184, line 184 – p. 186, line 370 (corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 34, line 322 [Hu wæs noes] – p. 36, line 336 [beon adruwod]) and p. 225, line 493 – p. 228, line 511 (corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 48, lines 452 [Hwi wolde] – 472 [fordemede]). Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 90, §1.2, lines 12–14; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 338, lines 22–4. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 38, lines 185–9; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 296, lines 185–9. Crawford, Hexameron, p. 50, lines 225–8. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 590, line 10 – p. 591, line 16; and p. 593, lines 60–3 (hys flode).

772

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi Noah’s sons [line 43], may immediately derive from Alcuin’s Interrogationes Sigewulfi 141–2,35 which Ælfric follows for his similar reference in his Interrogationes.36 It ultimately goes back, however, not just to Augustine,37 but to the genealogical lists in Genesis 10 – though no total figure is given in the narrative, and one arrives at seventy-two only by including Noah’s sons themselves in the figure and discounting certain other details.38 Even so, as Thomas Hall observes, Ælfric may be moved to embrace the figure at least in part because of numerical symbolism.39 Not only does Ælfric speak of seventy-two books of the Bible in CH I.30,40 and of Christ’s seventy-two disciples (on whom, see Luke 10.1–17) in CH II.36,41 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],42 the Letter to Sigeweard,43 and the First Old English Letter for Wulfstan44; but elsewhere in the Letter to Sigeweard, he affirms that just as the Bible has seventy-two books and Christ chose seventy-two disciples, ‘swa fela þeoda wurdon todælede æt ðære wundorlican byrig’ (‘the same number of nations were scattered at the wondrous city’) – that is, the descendants of the offspring of Noah whose language God confuses at Babel (Genesis 11.7–8).45 Ælfric also speaks of the building of the Tower and the division of languages at Babel in CH I.1,46 the Interrogationes,47 and SH II.21;48 contrasting these events with the gift of tongues to believers at Pentecost (Acts 2.1–41) in CH I.2249 and CH II.32.50 For the patristic origin of the identification of Hebrew as the original language of humans before Babel [line 46], see for example Eskhult, ‘Augustine and the Primeval Language’. As he pivots toward the account of Abraham, with whom the Third Age will be said to begin [lines 85–7], Ælfric interjects a summary analysis of the spiritual state of humanity after Babel [lines 54–76]. Most of humanity, he says, forsook their Creator for the worship of false gods, so that heretical beliefs (gedwyld) became commonplace [lines 54–9]. The exception, he affirms proleptically, was Israel – that is, those who would come to believe in God, embodied in the person of their ancestor Abraham [lines 61–2; see Genesis 12.1–4 and cf. Hebrews 7.9–10]. As for the rest, Ælfric variously describes 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 199 (corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], pp. 39 and 41). Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 200, line 405 – p. 201, line 412 (corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 38, line 368 [Se yldesta] – p. 40, line 376 [þeoda]). De ciuitate Dei XVI.3 (CCSL 48, p. 503, lines 81 [In summa] – 91 [non homines]) and XVI.11 (CCSL 48, p. 514, line 66 [maneat numerus] – p. 515, line 79 [diuisa est]). Such as the Philistines and Caphtorites, descended from the Kasluhites in Genesis 10.14 (Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 15). ‘Epistle to the Laodicians’, pp. 73–4. Clemoes, First Series, p. 429, lines 11–12. Godden, Second Series, p. 304, lines 2–3; and p. 305, line 24. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 98, line 112; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 346, line 147. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 220, line 564. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 78–9, §17. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 227, lines 839–40; for the seventy-two descendants of Noah’s sons, see also p. 205, lines 136–7. Clemoes, First Series, p. 185, line 203 – p. 186, line 210. Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 203, lines 415–19 (corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ [1884], p. 40, lines 378 [Hwa] – 383 [todæled]). Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 680, lines 72–81. Clemoes, First Series, p. 358, line 109 – p. 359, line 127. Godden, Second Series, p. 275, lines 93 (eal middaneard) – 105 (fulfremedlice).

773

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi the gods they worshipped as idols, made of gold or silver or other materials [line 56]; bygone giants (deade entas [line 67]), by which one assumes he means the Nephilim of Genesis 6.4; and devils (demonia / deofla [lines 69–71; cf. lines 121–2]), a term he takes from a variant of Psalms 96.5 [Vulgate 95.5]. In contrast to such false objects of worship – who, Ælfric avers, echoing such passages as Psalms 115.2–8 [Vulgate 113.11–16], can make nothing – the true God is the Creator of all things: the Holy Trinity [lines 73–6]. Various elements in this transitional section occur elsewhere in Ælfric’s corpus. He speaks about humanity’s descent into idol worship after the dispersal of Babel, for example, in CH I.151 and SH II.21, in both cases mentioning giants (entas) and images of gold and silver.52 In both cases, Godden notes, Ælfric goes beyond his sources in identifying the builders of Babel as giants:53 in imagining who might have begun to construct this ‘ciuitatem et turrem cuius culmen pertingat ad caelum’ (‘city and tower whose top may reach to heaven’ [Genesis 11.4]), however, Ælfric appears to be envisioning postdiluvian descendants of the Nephilim – the ‘potentes a saeculo uiri famosi’ (‘mighty ones of old, men of renown’) whom the Vulgate terms gigantes (‘giants’ [Genesis 6.4]).54 Ælfric likewise identifies the builders of Babel as entas in CH I.22,55 CH II.12,56 and the Letter to Sigeweard.57 In CH I.26, similarly, he speaks of idols of gold and silver raised to honor ‘dead[e] ent[as] … for þære micelre strencðe þe hi hæfdon’ (‘bygone giants … because of their great strength’).58 Two other instances of textual recurrance also bear mention. First, in CH I.159 and the Letter to Sigeweard,60 Ælfric emphasizes the difference between pagan practitioners and the Israelite people, whom, as here in De sex etatibus [lines 62–3], he describes as descendants of Noah’s son Shem.61 In addition, in the Lives of Saints, he cites Psalms 96.5 in the same form it appears here [lines 69–70]:

51 52

53 54

55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Clemoes, First Series, p. 186, lines 211–21. Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 680, lines 72–81. In his immediate discussion of the building of Babel, Ælfric only mentions entas (to whom he refers again on p. 681, line 101), but he goes on in this extended treatment of false gods to discuss idols of golde, seolfre, and mislicum antimbre (‘gold, silver, and various materials’ [p. 687, lines 191–2]) – the very terms used in De sex etatibus. Commentary, p. 179. Cf. the Rephaites (Deuteronomy 3.11) and Anakites (who are said to be descendants of the Nephilim [the Hebrew term for the gigantes in Genesis 6.4] in Numbers 3.33). Ælfric explicitly makes the connection between the Anakites and ealdan ent[a]s (‘ancient giants’) in SH II.20 (Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 648, lines 162–3, at 163). Clemoes, First Series, p. 358, lines 112–13. Godden, Second Series, p. 114, line 154. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 227, line 840. Clemoes, First Series, p. 389, lines 37–9. Clemoes, First Series, p. 186, lines 222–4. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 206, lines 148 (Of þe) – 150 (God gelifde). For which detail, see Augustine, De ciuitate Dei XVI.10 (CCSL 48, p. 512, lines 59 [in solis] – 61 [ad Abraham]), to which Ælfric may ultimately be indebted.

774

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi Psalms 96.5 [Vulgate 95.5]

LS I.262

LS II.13 [Skeat I.14]63

De sex etatibus (AH II.15), lines 69–72

Omnes dii gentium daemonia, Dominus autem celos fecit.

Omnes dii gentium demonia, Dominus autem cælos fecit; ‘Ealle þære hæðenra godas syndon deofla, and Dryhten soðlice heofonas geworhte’.

Omnes dii gentium demonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit; ‘Ealle þæra hæðenra godas synd gramlice deofla, and ure Drihten soðlice geworhte heofonas’.

Omnes dii gentium demonia, Dominus autem celos fecit. ‘Ealle þæra hæðenra godas syndon gramlice deofla; ure Drihten soðlice him sylf geworhte heofonas’.

All the gods of the nations are devils, but the Lord made the heavens.

All the gods of the nations are devils, but the Lord made the heavens; ‘All of the gods of the pagans are devils, and the Lord truly made the heavens’.

All the gods of the nations are devils, but the Lord made the heavens; ‘All of the gods of the pagans are cruel devils, and our Lord truly made the heavens’.

All the gods of the nations are devils, but the Lord made the heavens; ‘All of the gods of the pagans are cruel devils, our Lord himself truly made the heavens’.

Certain features are common to Ælfric’s three versions: they render the Latin verbatim, they add the intensifier soðlice (‘truly’) to the vernacular affirmation of God’s creative power, and they interpret [dii] gentium (‘[gods] of the nations [or “Gentiles”]’) – that is, non-Jews or (in a New Testament sense) non-believers in the biblical God – as hæðenra [godas] (‘[gods] of the pagans’), that is, non-Christians. At the same time, Ælfric’s translations grow increasingly pointed and personal: in LS II.13 and AH II.15, the devils are gramlice (‘cruel’), while the biblical Creator is ure [Drihten] (‘our [Lord]’), who [in AH II.15] him sylf (‘himself’) made the heavens. In quoting the verse, moreover, Ælfric seems not to follow the Gallican Psalter as was his wont:64 daemonia (‘devils’) appears to be a Roman reading,65 whereas the Gallican Psalter speaks of sculptilia (‘carved images’).66 A search of the Patrologia Latina suggests that Ælfric’s version was a common one, but a comparison of patristic instances and Ælfric’s known sources does not readily clarify where he would have encountered it. For Ælfric’s statements regarding God as the Triune Creator of all things [lines 75–6], see De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 43, 159–60, and 310–12, and notes to lines 13–26, 43–6, 153–63, and 306–12. Lines 77–84 [Ðeos is seo oðer yld … gebletsode]: In CH II.4, Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard, and De sex etatibus, Ælfric parallels Bede67 and ultimately Augustine68 in localizing 62 63 64 65 66 67

68

Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 46, lines 38–40; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 26, lines 38–40. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 52, line 17 – p. 54, line 19; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 308, lines 17–19. See notes to Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 18–30. Jayatilaka, ‘Source Details: ‘C.B.1.3.15.004.02; see Weber, Le Psautier Romain, p. 236. On the Roman Psalter, see notes to the Sermo in natale Domini (AH I.1), lines 18–30. Weber also records scalptilia (‘carved or graven images’) in his apparatus (Biblia sacra, p. 891). De temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p. 463, line 15 [Secunda aetas … ad Abraham]), possibly mediated by Haymo of Auxerre, Homiliae de tempore 18 (secunda a … ad Abraham [PL 118.131B]), though Godden suggests that Ælfric at times used De temporum ratione directly (Commentary, p. li). Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, p. 93, lines 6 [secunda] – 7 [ad Abraham]).

775

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi the Second Age to the period between Noah and Abraham. Like De sex etatibus, CH II.4 clearly demarcates these boundaries by explicitly citing these biblical figures. It discusses, moreover, but one event – the Flood (Genesis 6–9), obviously associated with this time frame – though it references a theological future by interpreting Noah as a figure of Christ and the ark as the Church.69 The Letter, however, is somewhat less neat. As noted above, Ælfric moves from Adam to Abel to Enoch to Noah – again identified as a type of Christ – before stating that ‘Her wæs seo forme yld þissere worulde. And seo oðer yld wæs ‫‏‬þissere worulde oð Abrahames timan’ (‘Here was the First Age of the world. The Second Age of the world was until the time of Abraham’).70 As with sequent Ages (see below), the ambiguity likely reflects the overlap of names: the First Age is from Adam to Noah, the Second from Noah to Abraham, and so on.71 Abraham, however, the Letter seems to confine to the Second Age: having gone on to speak of the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom, and the descendants of Shem (Genesis 11 and 19), it then discusses Abraham’s journey to Caanan, begetting of Ishmael and Isaac (another type of Christ), and willingness to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 12, 16, and 21–2), before stating that ‘Seo þridde yld wæs ða wuniende oð Dauid’ (‘The Third Age then continued until David’).72 On the nature and sources of Ælfric’s understanding of the Second Age, see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 84, 85, and 94–6. As noted above, Noah [line 78] is a popular figure in Ælfric’s writings. Abraham [line 79] is even more prominent, appearing over 150 times in Ælfric’s works. Three aspects of Abraham’s life feature in De sex etatibus: Abraham’s faith (geleafan [line 80]; see for example Genesis 15 and Romans 4), God’s corresponding promise that through Abraham all nations would be blessed (gebletsod [line 82]); see for example Genesis 12.3 and 22.18, and Galatians 3.8), and the fulfillment of that blessing in Christ, Abraham’s descendant [line 83; see Matthew 1.1–17 and Galatians 3.14]. Ælfric discusses Abraham’s faith and blessing in LS II.15 [Skeat I.16];73 Abraham’s blessing and Christ in CH I.13,74 CH II.1,75 and CH II.476; and all three elements in CH I.677 and

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

77

Godden, Second Series, p. 33, lines 111–28. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 204, line 114 – p. 205, line 135, at lines 134–5. De sex etatibus, lines 15–16; and CH II.4, lines 84–5 (Godden, Second Series, p. 32). Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 205, line 135 – p. 206, line 164, at line 164. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §1.3, p. 90, lines 1–4 (cynne); Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 338, lines 24–7. Clemoes, First Series, p. 288, lines 212 (Swa swa) – 216 (geleaffullan gebletsode). Godden, Second Series, p. 6, lines 127 (Se ælmihtiga) – 133 (gelyfað). Godden, Second Series, p. 34, line 152 (God cwæð) – p. 35, line 176 (behate yrfenuman). Ælfric here does not directly identify Christ as Abraham’s seed, but explains [A] that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac (to which God responds with one iteration of his promise; see Genesis 22.1–18) prefigures the Father’s willingness to sacrifice his Son, and [B] that believers are heirs with Christ of God’s promise (Galatians 3.29 – a verse cited by Ælfric for example in CH I.6 [Clemoes, First Series, p. 227, line 110 (Ealle we) – p. 228, 116 (behate yrfenuman)]; CH I.13 [First Series, p. 288, lines 216 (ne sind) – 219 (æfter behate)]; and the Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 160–2. Clemoes, First Series, p. 224, line 12 – p. 225, line 48; Ælfric here treats God’s analogous promise in Genesis 17.1–22.

776

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi the Interrogationes).78 On God’s blessing to Abraham through the birth of Isaac, see Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8) above.79 Lines 85–169 [And þeos is … hit cyddon witegan]: With the Third Age of the world, we come to categories suggested ultimately by the messianic geneology at the start of Matthew’s Gospel: fourteen generations, it says, passed from Abraham to David, David to the Babylonian Exile, and the Exile to the birth of Christ (Matthew 1.17). Though Abraham and David would seem clearly to be assigned to the first period – Abraham is the first and David the fourteenth generation here listed (Matthew 1.2–6) – in practice, as with Noah above, Ælfric speaks of these figures as though in their lifetimes historical periods overlapped. Ælfric may have mentioned Abraham in the Second Age [line 79], but he will also reference his deeds in the Third [line 86]; Ælfric may say that the Third Age goes oð Dauid (‘until David’ [line 86]), but he will go on to state that on Dauides dæge (‘In David’s day’) the Fourth Age began [line 170]. He does draw the lines clearer in CH II.4, where he situates the events of Abraham’s life (chiefly, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac [Genesis 22.1–19]) firmly in the Third Age.80 In his Letter to Sigeweard, however, he recounts matters with even more chronological flexibility: he speaks of the near-sacrifice of Isaac before saying that ‘Seo þridde yld wæs ða wuniende oð Dauid’ (‘The Third Age then continued until David’);81 analeptically references Noah’s descendants (Genesis 10) and God’s provision of animals as food after the Flood (Genesis 9.2–4); and then jumps forward to Isaac’s offspring and other biblical figures until David, whose deeds he then recounts both before and after his statement that ‘seo feorðe yld þissere worulde stod fram Davuide oð Daniele’ (‘the Fourth Age of this world lasted from David until Daniel’).82 Such narratorial anachronism seems more a matter of making connections, however – Ælfric’s mind casting back toward the roots of Abraham’s family even as it leaps forward to the typological fulfillment of Old Testament events in the New – than a case of deliberate or unconscious discrepancy. For the roots of Ælfric’s understanding of this Age in Augustine83 and Bede,84 see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 84, 85, and 94–6. If the chronological framework of this period stems ultimately from the New Testament (Matthew’s genealogy), the events Ælfric summarizes from it draw almost exclusively from the Old. Thus, the Israelites’ entry into Egypt [line 91] stems from Genesis 46; their sojourn there [lines 92–3] generally reflects Genesis 50.22 – Exodus 1.7, with ‘400 years’ [line 94] being taken from God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15.13;85 the Plagues 78 79

80 81 82 83 84

85

Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 209, lines 436 (Oþer þæt) – 438 (on Criste); corresponding to MacLean, ‘Ælfric’s Version’ (1884), p. 34, line 322 (Hu wæs noes) – p. 36, line 336 (beon adruwod). Lines 330 (and on) – 331 (gebedda Sarra); cf. lines 255 (Ða ðe) – 261 (his sunu) for an allusion to Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac in relation to parents’ offering of children to Christ’s service through faith. Godden, Second Series, p. 33, line 131 – p. 34, line 160; see also p. p. 32, lines 85–6. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 206, line 164. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 211, line 280; see p. 206, line 164 – p. 211, line 295 (to cininge). Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, p. 93, lines 8 [tertia] – 9 [Dauid]). De temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p. 463, line 22 [Tertia ab Abraham usque ad Dauid]), possibly mediated by Haymo of Auxerre, Homiliae de tempore 18 (tertia … Dauid [PL 118.131B]), though Godden suggests that Ælfric at times used De temporum ratione directly (Commentary, p. li). The round reference to 400 years also appears in Acts 7.6, while 430 years is specified in Exodus 12.40–1 and Galatians 3.17.

777

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi on and the Exodus from Egypt [lines 94–110] come from Exodus 3–14, with the count of 600,000 men [line 101] being taken from Exodus 12.37; God’s miraculous provision for his people [lines 111–17] summarizes Exodus 15.12–17.7; the institution of the Ten Commandments at Sinai [lines 118–65] corresponds to Exodus 19–20, with the detail of God inscribing the tablets with his finger [lines 128–9] drawing for example on Exodus 31.18; while Israel’s forty years of wandering before entering the Promised Land [lines 166–9] echoes for example Numbers 32.11–13. Close Ælfrician parallels to the accounts above may be found in CH I.12,86 CH II.12,87 SH II.20,88 and the Letter to Sigeweard.89 For discussions of Ælfric’s understanding of the Ten Commandments, particularly in relationship to other considerations of the subject in Anglo-Saxon England, see Kleist, ‘Division’, and ‘Vernacular Treatments’. For the Scriptural reference in line 160, ‘“[se man þe] forlyhð se losað [witodlice]”’ (‘“the person who testifies falsely will surely perish”’), compare Proverbs 21.28: Testis mendax peribit (‘A lying witness shall perish’). Certain elements of Ælfric’s description of these events catch the eye. First, David is described as a prophet (propheta; here, witega [line 86; see also line 170]) in Acts 2.30; Ælfric speaks of him as such in LS II.17 [Skeat I.18], calling him in the same breath a wuldorful cyningc (‘glorious king’; cf. line 85’s foremære cyning [‘illustrious king’])90 and in his First Old English Letter for Wulfstan.91 Second, Ælfric’s description of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as heahfæderas (‘patriarchs’ [lines 88]) might seem commonplace, but in fact the equivalent term patriarchae rarely is used in conjunction with these figures in such immediate Ælfrician sources as Paul the Deacon, Haymo, and Smaragdus,92 and Scripture uses the term for the three men not at all. The Vulgate calls Abraham a patriarcha in Hebrews 7.4, and Ælfric accordingly describes him as a heahfæder in various places: CH I.3,93 CH I.6,94 CH I.13,95 CH

86

87

88 89 90 91 92

93 94 95

Clemoes, First Series, p. 531, entry 1, lines 1, noted by Stoneman, ‘Critical Edition’, p. 373. On this passage, which Ælfric cancelled in favor of his extended account in CH II.12, see Clemoes, First Series, p. 278, at line 79; and p. 65. Godden, Second Series, p. 111, line 37 (Þa æt) – p. 114, line 148 (to gehealdenne). Godden suggests that Ælfric may draw on Isidore’s Quaestiones for his later treatment of the Commandments in lines 255–337 (Commentary, pp. 456–60). Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 641, line 1 – p. 642, line 38. Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 207, lines 185 – p. 208, line 212. Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, p. 142, line 32; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 386, line 32. Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p, 98–9, §70. A search of ‘abr* near isa* near ?acob* near patriarch*’ yields no instances in Paul the Deacon, three in Haymo, and two in Smaragdus, with only one passage from Haymo (PL 118.145C) perhaps speaking exclusively of these three figures using this term. Clemoes, First Series, p. 19, line 32. Clemoes, First Series, p. 224, line 12. Clemoes, First Series, p. 288, line 213.

778

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi I.23,96 CH II.1,97 CH II.12,98 CH II.13,99 CH II.30,100 CH II.34,101 SH II.20,102 Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10),103 the Letter to Sigeweard,104 and Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8).105 But the Vulgate also speaks of Jacob’s sons (the progenitors of the tribes of Israel) as the twelve patriarchae (Acts 7.9), and Ælfric follows suit with heahfæderas in CH I.27,106 CH II.12,107 and the Letter to Sigeweard.108 Elsewhere, Ælfric employs the term in various ways. While the Vulgate never explicitly terms Jacob a patriarcha, Ælfric calls him a heahfæder in CH I.5,109 SH I.5,110 LS I.10 [Skeat I.11],111 and his Letter to Sigefyrth.112 In CH I.8,113 CH I.35,114 and CH II.5,115 treating Christ’s statement that many will feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8.11), Ælfric applies the term heahfæder only to Abraham; in CH I.8, however, paraphrasing the biblical account, he states that many will join the heahfæderum, seemingly referring to all three men.116 In Judith, moreover, he speaks of Abraham, Isaac, and ure heahfæderas (‘and our [other?] patriarchs’), seemingly using the term to refer in general to senior biblical figures.117 In practice, therefore, Ælfric’s use of the term may be more elastic than precise. Third, where one might expect Ælfric to speak of Aaron as, say, the first heahsacerd (‘chief priest’, a term not in fact found in Ælfric’s corpus), he describes him here as æresta bisceop (‘first bishop’ [line 97]) – a phrase he also uses for Moses’ brother in SH II.21,118 calling him an arwurða or mære bisceop (‘honorable’ or ‘excellent bishop’) in SH II.20119 and the forma bisceop (‘first bishop’) in his Letter to Sigefyrth.120 Fourth, Ælfric’s localization here of the Promised Land to middan þissere worulde (‘in the middle of this world’ [line 168]) finds a parallel in SH I.3, where Ælfric affirms that God placed the Israelites ‘on þam selestan earde þysre worulde middan’ (‘in the best

Clemoes, First Series, p. 367, lines 63 and 72. Godden, Second Series, p. 6, line 128. 98 Godden, Second Series, p. 110, line 17. 99 Godden, Second Series, p. 128, line 27; and p. 133, lines 185–6. 100 Godden, Second Series, p. 267, line 225. 101 Godden, Second Series, p. 296, line 303. 102 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 647, line 146. 103 Sermo in dedicatione aecclesiae (AH II.10), lines 159–62. 104 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 205, line 135; and p. 206, lines 152–3. 105 Natiuitas sanctae Mariae (AH I.8), lines 330 (and on) – 331 (gebedda Sarra). 106 Clemoes, First Series, p. 406, line 172. 107 Godden, Second Series, p. 111, line 30. 108 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 207, line 177. 109 Clemoes, First Series, p. 221, lines 117–18. 110 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 288, line 4. 111 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. I, p. 314, line 177; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 248, line 177. 112 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 16, line 71. 113 Clemoes, First Series, p. 244, line 99; and p. 245, lines 171–2. 114 Clemoes, First Series, p. 485, line 279. 115 Godden, Second Series, p. 47, line 186. 116 Clemoes, First Series, p. 244, line 158 – p. 245, line 159. 117 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 109, line 221. 118 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 688, line 218. 119 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 652, line 243; and p. 654, lines 287–8. 120 Assmann, Angelsächsischen Homilien, p. 16, line 79 – p. 17, line 80. 96 97

779

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi land in the middle of this world’).121 Pope cites a homily in Haymo on the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21.33–46) as Ælfric’s source for the surrounding lines, but the phrase in question does not appear in Haymo, and may be Ælfric’s own. Lines 170–86 [On Dauides dæge … Godes þeowdome wunigende]: Ælfric also speaks of the Fourth Age in CH II.4 and his Letter to Sigeweard. In the former, he dates it to the period ‘fram dauide oð þæt Nabochodonosor hergode on Iudeiscre leode’ (‘from David until Nebuchadnezzar took the Jewish people captive’);122 in the latter, ‘fram Dauide oð Daniele þam witegan’ (‘from David to Daniel the prophet’).123 In both cases, there is some ambiguity. CH II.4’s account of David actually begins with his predecessor Saul (‘On ðære feorðan ylde geceas israhela folc him sylfum Saul to cyninge’ [‘In the Fourth Age the people of Israel chose for themselves Saul as king’]124), going on to trace David’s anointing, exile, and ultimate ascension (1 Samuel 11–12, 16, and 18–31; and 2 Samuel 1–5).125 The Letter to Sigeweard describes David’s battles, Solomon’s writings and construction of the Temple, and good kings like Hezekiah and Josiah,126 before moving on to wicked kings (encompassing much of the pre-Exilic period [1 Kings 11 – 2 Kings 24]) like Zedekiah, in whose reign the Fifth Age might presumably be said to begin (see line 183 below).127 Similarly, in De sex etatibus, while the Fourth Age is said to go from David to þone witegan Daniel (‘the prophet Daniel’), it also appears to reference the release of Jehoiachin in Babylon (‘sume þa cyningas of þam cynne lufodon’ [‘some loved the kings of this race’])128 and the full seventy years of the Babylonian Captivity.129 Such ambiguity no doubt stems not just from the fact that the life of David and the Exile encompass a span of time, but because of the chronological account with which the New Testament begins. Tracing the line of the Messiah from Abraham, Matthew notes that there were fourteen generations ‘a Dauid usque ad transmigrationem Babylonis’ (‘from David to the Babylonian Exile’) and fourteen ‘a transmigrationem Babylonis usque ad Christum’ (‘from the Babylonian Exile to Christ’ [1.17]). Matthew divides the two sets of generations (corresponding in Ælfric’s reckoning to the Fourth and Fifth Ages), moreover, between Iechoniam et fratres eius (‘Jeconiah and his brothers’ [1.11]) and Jeconiah’s son Shealtiel (1.12).130 The former refers, confusingly, to the four descendants of Josiah: Josiah’s son Jehoahaz, who reigned for three months and was deposed by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho; Josiah’s son Eliakim, who reigned for eleven years and whom Necho renamed Jehoiakim; Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin (called Jeconiah in Matthew), who reigned for three months and was deposed by Nebuchadnezzar; and Josiah’s son

Homilies, vol. I, p. 250, lines 53–4. Second Series, p. 32, lines 86–7. 123 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 210, lines 280–1. 124 Godden, Second Series, p. 35, lines 179–80. 125 Godden, Second Series, p. 35, lines 179 – p. 36, line 199. 126 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 210, lines 280–1. For these biblical episodes, see 1 Samuel 17–19 and 23, 2 Samuel 5 and 8, 1 Kings 5–9, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, 2 Kings 18–19, and 2 Kings 22–23. 127 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 212, lines 319 (Sume wæron) – 326 (wracu siððan). 128 Line 177; see 2 Kings 25.27–30. 129 Line 179; see Jeremiah 25.11–12 and 29.10, and Daniel 9.2. 130 Weber, Biblia sacra, p. 1527. 121 Pope,

122 Godden,

780

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi Mattaniah, who reigned for eleven years and whom Nebuchadnezzar renamed Zedekiah (2 Kings 23–24). Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) may have begotten Shealtiel after being released from prison thirty-seven years after being taken to Babylon (2 Kings 25.27–30) – or at least at any rate before the conclusion of Israel’s seventy years of captivity. Taking the periods of fourteen generations to correspond to Ages of the world (as Augustine,131 Bede,132 and Ælfric do), Matthew’s division would thus seem to place Zedekiah in the Fourth Age; CH II.4, however, explicitly associates him with the Fifth: ‘On ðære fiftan ylde … beah se cynig Sedechias to hæþengylde’ (‘In the Fifth Age … King Zedekiah turned to idolatry’).133 Nonetheless, in general Ælfric’s descriptions situate the epochal transition of this era with individuals associated with the Exile, as Matthew has it. On the nature and sources of Ælfric’s understanding of the Fourth Age, see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 85 and 94–6. Ælfric treats the life of þone witegan Danihel (‘the prophet Daniel’ [line 176]) in CH I.32,134 LS II.15 [Skeat I.16],135 and SH II.21,136 referencing Daniel and the lions’ den;137 in CH I.34,138 his First Latin Letter for Wulfstan,139 and his First Old English Letter for Wulfstan,140 speaking of Daniel’s vision of the One clothed in linen who is aided by Michael;141 in CH I.37142 and SH II.21,143 summarizing the (apocryphal) account of Daniel, Bel, the dragon, and Habbakuk;144 in CH II.1, quoting one of Daniel’s encounters with Gabriel;145 in CH II.28, recounting Daniel’s interpretation of the writing on the wall;146 and in his Second Latin Letter for Wulfstan147 and Second Old English Letter for Wulfstan,148 citing Daniel’s vision of the glory of the saints in heaven.149 He discusses the hundseofontig geara (‘seventy years’ [line 182]) of the Babylonian Captivity, furthermore, in CH II.5, where he associates it symbolically with Septuagesima.150

131 Tractatus

in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, p. 93, lines 9 [quarta] – 10 [Babyloniam]). temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p. 463, line 29 [Quarta a … transmigrationem Babylonis]), possibly mediated by Haymo of Auxerre, Homiliae de tempore 18 (quarta a … in Babyloniam [PL 118.131B]), though Godden suggests that Ælfric at times used De temporum ratione directly (Commentary, p. li). 133 Godden, Second Series, p. 36, lines 210–12. 134 Clemoes, First Series, p. 457, lines 181 (danihel se witega) – 182 (seaðe ungewemmed). 135 Clayton and Mullins, Lives, vol. II, §2, p. 94, lines 43–7; Skeat, Lives, vol. I, p. 342, lines 78–82. 136 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 693, line 300 – p. 696, line 349. 137 See Daniel 6. 138 Clemoes, First Series, p. 475, lines 263 (ðysum andgite) – 272 (to fultume). 139 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 39, §34. 140 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 84–5, §32. 141 See Daniel 10. 142 Clemoes, First Series, p. 503, line 200 (Eac syððan) – p. 504, line 229 (on eorþan). 143 Pope, Homilies, vol. II, p. 696, line 350 – p. 703, line 493. 144 See Daniel 14 (Godden, Commentary, pp. 316–17; and Jayatilaka, ‘Supplementary Homilies 21’). 145 Godden, Second Series, p. 7, lines 146 (Danihel se witega) – 155 (halgena halga); see Daniel 9.21–4. 146 Godden, Second Series, p. 253, line 134 (Balthasar his sunu) – p. 254, line 159 (his rice); see Daniel 5. 147 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, p. 62, §43. 148 Fehr, Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, pp. 176–7, §83. 149 Daniel 12.3. 150 Godden, Second Series, p. 49, line 237 (Sum wis) – p. 50, line 261 (synna bereowsunge). 132 De

781

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi Line 187 [And seo fifte … Danihele oð Crist]: De sex etatibus follows CH II.4 and Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard in describing the Fifth Age as from the Exile to Christ’s Incarnation. Technically, Ælfric’s language varies somewhat regarding the former: where CH II.4 dates the Age fram babiloniscre heregunge (‘from the Babylonian invasion’),151 De sex etatibus states that it is fram Danihele (‘from Daniel’), and the Letter to Sigeweard says that it begins Her (‘Here’) – a term encompassing, one assumes, the whole preceding description of Zedekiah’s rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Jerusalem, and the exile of Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel (2 Kings 25, and Daniel 1 and 3)152 – all elements, save that of Daniel, associated with this Age later in CH II.4.153 On the nature and sources154 of Ælfric’s understanding of the Fifth Age, see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 85 and 94–6. Lines 188–91 [On ðære syxtan ylde … þissere worulde becume]: Ælfric associates the Sixth Age with Christ’s advent in numerous places. On occasion, the connection arises in the course of exegesis. In CH II.4, for example, interpreting the six jars of water that Christ turns to wine (John 2.6) as the Six Ages, he affirms that the best wine (and era) is saved for last with Christ’s appearance.155 In CH II.15, discussing the Passover (Exodus 12.1–15) in a sermon for Easter, Ælfric notes that the lamb was sacrificed at night just as Jesus suffered in the Sixth Age, the æfnunge þises ateorigendlican middaneardes (‘evening of this transitory world’).156 In SH I.5, furthermore, Ælfric identifies the sixth hour at which Jesus sits by the Samaritan well (John 4.6) with Christ’s redemptive work in the Sixth Age.157 At other points, however, he simply makes the connection directly. Ælfric links this Age and the Incarnation in Natiuitas sanctae Mariae uirginis (AH I.8), where he speaks of Christ’s dual nature;158 in SH II.21, where he remarks on Christ’s resurrection and ascension; in the Hexameron159 and De creatore (AH II.14), which quotes it, where he touches on Christ’s death and resurrection;160 and in SH I.11a, where he discusses the Annunciation.161 The brief reference in De sex etatibus, however, may more closely reflect two snippets in Ælfric’s Letter to Sigeweard, where he speaks of both the beginning and end of the Age – namely, from the Virgin Birth to the final Judgment

Second Series, p. 32, lines 88 (Seo fifte) – 89 (ðære menniscnysse). Heptateuch, p. 212, line 343 [Her ongan … þissere worulde]. 153 Godden, Second Series, p. 36, lines 210 – p. 38, line 276. 154 See Bede, De temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p. 464, lines 36 [Quinta] – 37 [carnem]), drawing on Augustine, Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, p. 93, lines 10 [quinta] – 11 [Iohannem Baptistam]). Haymo’s Homiliae de tempore 18 (quinta quasi … in carnem [PL 118.131B]) may have served as an immediate source, though Godden suggests that Ælfric at times used Bede’s De temporum ratione and Augustine’s Tractatus directly (Commentary, pp. li and xlviii). 155 Godden, Second Series, p. 32, lines 82 (Þa six) – 91 (antecristes tocyme); p. 38, lines 277 (On ðære) – 278 (men geboren); p. 39, lines 289 (Witodlice) – 293 (þises middaneardes); and p. 40, lines 315 (Ac ure) – 316 (namcuðlice gereccan). 156 Godden, Second Series, p. 151, lines 50–2. 157 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 293, lines 110 (On þære) – 112 (to alysenne). 158 Lines 62 (Se ylca) – 66 (mid mannum). 159 Crawford, Hexameron, p. 71, line 501 – p. 72, line 515. 160 Lines 184 (On ðære) – 186 (worulde becume). 161 Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 466, lines 61 (Ða on) – 68 (þinum worde); authorship debated (see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 305–6 n. 280). 151 Godden,

152 Marsden,

782

Commentary: De sex etatibus huius seculi (domesdæg).162 (Note that Ælfric’s language again varies somewhat as regards the latter: in De sex etatibus, the age ceases with seo geendung þissere worulde [‘this world’s end’], while CH II.4 situates the end of the Age with the eschatologically-approximate coming of the Antichrist [antecristes tocyme].163) On the nature and sources164 of Ælfric’s understanding of the Sixth Age, see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91, and 94–7. Lines 192–203 [Seo seofoðe yld … to þam heofenlican life]: Ælfric’s discussion of the Seventh Age parallels conceptually (if not linguistically) his slightly-previous account in the Letter to Sigeweard.165 Drawing on Bede and ultimately on Augustine, Ælfric describes this Age as the spiritual resurrection of righteous souls from Abel to the world’s end, an Age of Rest that spans the whole of the first six Ages. Going beyond his Letter to Sigeweard, moreover, Ælfric symbolically links this rest with that of God on the seventh day of Creation. In the process, he pairs the terms werig and gerestan [lines 199–200]166 in a way evocative of a similar point – God rested not out of weariness – in CH II.12.167 On the nature and sources168 of Ælfric’s understanding of the Seventh Age, see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 86, 88–92, and 94–7. Lines 204–8 [On ðam dæge onginð … a to worulde, Amen.]: Ælfric’s comments here do not include his observation in CH I.6 that Christ’s circumcision on the eighth day (Luke 2.21) represents the Eighth Age in which resurrected believers are ‘ascyrede fram ælcere brosnunge and gewemmednysse ures licaman’ (‘cut off [i.e., set free] from every corruption and defilement of our body’).169 De sex etatibus does, however, continue conceptually to parallel the Letter to Sigeweard in equating the Eighth Age with the eternal life and reign of the saints following their physical as well as spiritual resurrection.170 For more on Ælfric’s understanding of the Eighth Age, including his debt to Bede,171 see Kleist, ‘Influence’, pp. 84, 86, 91, 92, and 96. Heptateuch, p. 220, lines 548–9; and p. 227, lines 846–7, respectively. Second Series, p. 32, line 91. 164 See Bede, De temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p. 464, line 41 [Sexta] – 43 [consumenda]), and Augustine, Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, p. 93, lines 11 [sexta] – 12 [saeculi]). Haymo’s Homiliae de tempore 18 (sexta a … mundum iudicare [PL 118.131B]) may have served as an immediate source, though Godden suggests that Ælfric at times used Bede’s De temporum ratione and Augustine’s Tractatus directly (Commentary, pp. li and xlviii). 165 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 227, line 847 (Seo) – p. 228, line 852 (Drihtene togeanes). 166 See also De creatore et creatura (AH II.14), lines 133–5. 167 Godden, Second Series, p. 118, line 277. 168 See Bede, De temporum ratione 66 (CCSL 123B, p. 464, lines 44 [has erumnosas] – 47 [exspectant] and 67 (CCSL 123B, p. 536, line 43 [non sex] – p. 537, line 52 [receperint]). Neither Haymo’s Homiliae de tempore 18 (especially at PL 118.131B) nor Augustine’s Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, pp. 93–4), expositing the six water jars of John 2.6, make mention of the Seventh Age. 169 Clemoes, First Series, p. 228, line 123. 170 Marsden, Heptateuch, p. 228, lines 852 (Seo eahteoðe) – 855 (deð nu). 171 De temporum ratione 71 (CCSL 123B, p. 542, lines 2 [Et haec] – 8 [redditorum accumulans]]). Neither Haymo’s Homiliae de tempore 18 (especially at PL 118.131B) nor Augustine’s Tractatus in Euangelium Ioannis 9.6 (CCSL 36, pp. 93–4), expositing the six water jars of John 2.6, make mention of the Eighth Age. 162 Marsden, 163 Godden,

783

VARIA

16

DE SEPTIFORMI SPIRITU De septiformi spiritu (‘Concerning the Sevenfold Spirit’) is Ælfric’s Latin tract on the sevenfold ‘spirits’ or attributes of the Holy Spirit and of the evil spirit, the devil. In this brief work, each spiritus bonus (‘good spirit’) is paired with its opposing spiritus malus (‘wicked spirit’) and another worse spirit. A spirit of wisdom, for example, is contrary to foolishness and the pretense of wisdom, and a spirit of discernment contrary to stupidity and the pretense of learning. Likewise, the good spirits of, deliberation, courage, knowledge, piety, and the fear of God are opposed by their wicked and worse counterparts. The tract’s opening sentence mentions Isaiah from whose book of prophesy the idea of the sevenfold spirit ultimately derives. But Ælfric’s more immediate source was a commentary on the book of Revelation, the Commentarius in Apocalypsin, by Primasius, a mid-sixth-century bishop of Hadrumetum in Africa (today Sousse, Tunisia). The one copy of the Commentarius known to have existed in Anglo-Saxon England was annotated by Dunstan (d. 988), the archbishop of Canterbury,1 who along with Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester (d. 984), and Oswald, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York (d. 992), led the ecclesiastical reform of which Ælfric was a product. Dunstan probably annotated the Commentarius when he was abbot of Glastonbury (ca 940–57),2 the same time Æthelwold, Ælfric’s teacher, was Dunstan’s student there.3 Ælfric thus might have learned of Primasius’ commentary from Æthelwold and consulted it in some form during his studies at Winchester.4 For De septiformi spiritu, Ælfric hews very closely to Primasius’ text and then expands on his adaptation in the vernacular Be þam Halgan Gaste (‘Concerning the Holy Spirit’ [AH II.17]). He wrote both tracts between about 998 and 1002, perhaps as a single work and probably for Wulfstan (d. 1023) who was bishop of London at the beginning of this period and archbishop of York at its

1 2 3 4

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 140 (s. vii/viii [before 719], S. England, prov. Glastonbury s. x?) (Gneuss and Lapidge §616). On Dunstan as annotator and corrector, see Lapidge, ‘Dunstan’. See ‘MS. Douce 140’ and Sharpe and Willoughby, ‘Primasius’. Hill, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’, p. 36. Ælfric’s references to the sevenfold gifts in the Catholic Homilies suggest he knew the Commentarius long before he wrote De septiformi spiritu (see notes below on AH II.16, lines 3–17), and he may have started compiling Commonplace materials soon after his arrival at Winchester sometime between 964 and 970 (Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, p. 70). It is worth remarking that the presence of Ælfric’s De septiformi spiritu and Be þam Halgan Gaste in a grammatical manuscript produced at Winchester points to a pedagogical context in which Ælfric might have encountered a portion of Primasius’ work. On Ælfric’s time at Winchester, see Hill, ‘Ælfric: His Life and Works’, pp. 44–51.

787

Introduction: De septiformi spiritu end.5 Wulfstan lightly revised Be þam Halgan Gaste for a homily of his own but left De septiformi spiritu unchanged.6 Ælfric for his part seems to have had both tracts copied into a Commonplace Book that no longer survives.7 With the exception of the copy of De septiformi spiritu that accompanies Wulfstan’s rewriting of Be þam Halgan Gaste, Ælfric’s Latin tract accompanies his vernacular one in the five manuscripts where they are extant. The context of the copies in these manuscripts differs and calls attention to the varying uses to which the tracts were put. In two late homiletic manuscripts, the pair is found among a series of catechetical pieces that accompanies the sermons making up the bulk of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1]8 and Hatton 116 [S].9 In addition to the tracts on the Holy Spirit, the collections contain others of Ælfric’s Commonplace materials: a piece on the rejection of evil thoughts (De cogitatione [AH II.18]); a text teaching parents how not to suffocate their children or kill them spiritually by letting them die unbaptized (De infantibus); and a letter to a layman commenting on the prohibition against eating blood, the adoption of Danish fashion by Englishmen, and countrywomen who eat and drink while on the

5

6

7

8

9

For the dating, see Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 122, and for the probability, Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 142 n. 6. On the composition of the two tracts as a single piece, Bethurum affirms that ‘[t]here is no other example in Ælfric’s works of his writing out an outline in Latin first, if he did that here, and then elaborating it in Old English (p. 305). Ælfric did, however, repeatedly write in Latin and then translate into the vernacular—as with the Letters for Wulfstan, AH I.1 and 2, and perhaps De officiis atque orationibus canonicarum horarum (on which see Kleist, ‘Commonplace Book’, p. 68). Perhaps in connection with his efforts to educate his diocesan priests about the baptismal rite, where the gifts of the Holy Spirit are conferred at confirmation (Bethurum, Homilies, p. 304), Wulfstan reproduces Ælfric’s Latin tract and lightly revises the Old English one for his homily De septiformi spiritu (Bethurum 9 [Homilies, pp. 185–91]). The two tracts are identified as belonging to a group of short pieces ‘composed independently by Ælfric and set aside for later (re-)use, being kept in “a book in which short themes, obiter dicta [passing comments], and letters were put on record from time to time as they were composed”’ (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 117 [quoting Pope]). Cited by item number from Kleist’s Chronology and Canon, p. 117, these Commonplace materials include: Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (1.6.1.4.3); De septiformi spiritu (2.1.4); Be þam Halgan Gaste (2.1.5); Quomodo Acitofel (3.2.2); De tribus ordinibus saeculi (3.2.3); De uaniloquio neglegentium (3.2.4); Letter to Brother Edward (4.3.1); Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (4.4.4); De auaritia (7.2); De cogitatione (7.3); De infantibus (7.9); and, possibly, De duodecim abusiuis (2.1.2). In addition to De septiformi spiritu (AH II.16) and Be þam Halgan Gaste (AH II.17), we edit Menn Behofiað Godre Lare (1.6.1.4.3) as AH II.12, De cogitatione as AH II.18, and Læwedum Mannum Is to Witenne (4.4.4) as AH II.20. Pope draws on evidence for Ælfric’s hypothetical Commonplace Book from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 115 [P1] and Lawrence, Kansas, Kenneth Spenser Research Library, Pryce C2:2 [P2]; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 178, Part I, pp. 1–270 [R1] and Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 163, Part II, pp. 139–60 [R2]; and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116 [S] (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 117). For more on Ælfric’s Commonplace Books, see Kleist, ‘Assembling Ælfric’ and ‘Commonplace Book’. Ker §332 and ‘Supplement’, pp. 124–5; Gneuss and Lapidge §639; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 226. P1 dates to the second half of the eleventh century and originally included some thirty homiletic works by Ælfric. Ker §333; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 230. S is a compilation of some twenty homilies for saints’ days and nearly a dozen miscellaneous items mainly by Ælfric that was copied toward the middle of the twelfth century almost certainly at Worcester.

788

Introduction: De septiformi spiritu toilet (Letter to Brother Edward).10 Viewed in this company, the tracts on the Holy Spirit would seem to be destined for the laity, but who would have delivered the teaching and in what context or form is not clear. Two of the copies suggest that De septiformi spiritu and its companion piece were intended for private reading. The tracts were copied in the second half of the twelfth century among a ‘miscellany of religious pieces with no pattern in their arrangement’11 that forms a section of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 [B],12 itself a haphazard collection of Latin and Old English homilies and some theological texts. Almost half of the section’s dozen items relate to the duties of bishops.13 Eight, including the tracts on the Holy Spirit, have connections to Archbishop Wulfstan,14 which supports Irvine’s suggestion that B’s compiler worked near Worcester and possibly had access to the library there.15 She ultimately rejects the possibility that the compiler was assembling the volume for use by bishops or a specific bishop.16 Instead, she concludes that B is best understood as a collection intended for devotional reading by monks or nuns, or for perusal by members of the secular clergy who could have adapted its contents for preaching.17 The copies of De septiformi spiritu and Be þam Halgan Gaste in London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius C. vi [Xf]18 were unquestionably intended for private devotional reading because they appear in a psalter designed for individual use.19 The well-known, lavishly-illustrated, and continuously-glossed Tiberius Psalter was probably written in the mid-1060s, possibly at the Old Minster, Winchester, where roughly a century earlier Ælfric had been a student and monk. His two tracts form part of the psalter’s sixteen prefatory texts, a group with a decidedly penitential bent, and the penitential texts work in concert with some of the psalter’s prefatory images like David defeating Goliath and Christ harrowing hell to equate Christ’s defeat of Satan with the reader’s battle against evil. In this context, Ælfric’s tracts become ‘verbal expressions of spiritual psychomachia’, and their ‘vivid characterization of Satan’s dissembly’ make them apt for ‘private devotional reading in this particular book with its multiple images of Satan’.20 Both tracts also resonate with others of the psalter’s prefatory texts, particularly Be þam Halgan Gaste with its mentions of the ‘evil spirit and invisible enemy’ and the ‘impious’, ‘hostile’,

10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

In P1, the texts appear closely together in this order: De cogitatione (Ker §332.12), De infantibus (§332.14), Letter to Brother Edward (§332.15), and De septiformi spiritu plus Be þam Halgan Gaste (§332.16). In S, they appear back-to-back, but in the opposite order (§333.25, 24, 23, and 22) [with the Letter titled De sanguine]. For more on the Commonplace materials in these manuscripts, see AH II.18. Irvine, Homilies, p. xlvi. Ker §310; [not in Gneuss and Lapidge]; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 208–10. Irvine, Homilies, p. xlvi (Ker §310.66–8, 73–4). Irvine, Homilies, p. xlvi (Ker §310.66–73). Irvine, Homilies, pp. li–ii. Irvine, Homilies, p. xlvi. Irvine, Homilies, p. liii. Ker §199; Gneuss and Lapidge §378; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, p. 239. Openshaw, ‘Battle between Christ and Satan’, whose conclusions are summarized and further developed in this paragraph. Openshaw, ‘Battle between Christ and Satan’, p. 30.

789

Introduction: De septiformi spiritu ‘wicked’, and ‘cruel’ devil.21 For example, a set of instructions for using the psalms in private devotions includes a prayer in which the reader confesses sins committed ‘at the urging of the enemy of the human race’.22 Directions for a rite of confession (as unusual in a psalter as the tracts are23) has the penitent confess that ‘I have willingly consented to the devil and subjected myself to sins’.24 For the penitent who wishes ‘to be guarded by angelic help in various troubles’, ‘to be protected and defended by spiritual weapons’, and ‘to rescue his soul from hellish dangers’, another set of instructions prescribes the singing of psalms.25 Psalmody, after all, ‘Proclaims the Lord’ and ‘Pains the devil’,26 so like the psalter itself,27 De septiformi spiritu and Be þam Halgan Gaste become weapons for use in spiritual warfare. Though the compiler is unlikely to have known it, the tracts in the psalter function analogously with their role in Ælfric’s oeuvre.28 We edit De septiformi spiritu from the only copy of the work to circulate with Be þam Halgan Gaste as pendants to a homily, being themselves ‘too brief and narrow’29 to constitute sermons on their own. They accompany Ælfric’s homily for Pentecost (SH I.10)30 and naturally complement the observance of the occasion when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and Jesus’ followers after his Ascension. This was Ælfric’s second sermon for Pentecost but his first pericope homily for this Sunday.31 The bulk of it consists of his ‘straightforward exposition’32 of the day’s reading, John 14.23–31, part of Jesus’ Last Supper Discourses in John 14–17. In this passage, Jesus equates obedience to his word with love for him, and he promises the indwelling of the Father and the Son for those who love and obey. Most pertinent to this discussion, he also promises that the Father will send the Holy Spirit and then blesses the disciples with his peace as he prepares to leave. Several points in the sermon may have prompted Ælfric to append the tracts to the homily if he was responsible for the combination. His observation that God tests the heart to see ‘whether a man desires to have His indwelling or to love sins that displease God’33 recalls the discernment granted to those with a knowledge of the

21 22

23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

See above, pp. 810 and 812: AH II.17, lines 38, 42, 61, 64, and 68 and 74, respectively. Openshaw, ‘Images, Texts and Contexts’, p. 513: ‘suadente inimico humani generis’ (Xf, fol. 22r). Openshaw edits and translates the psalter’s prefatory texts in Appendix A, pp. 504–30, and Appendix B, pp. 531–52, respectively. Openshaw, ‘Battle between Christ and Satan’, pp. 29–30. Openshaw, ‘Images, Texts, and Contexts’, pp. 519–20: ‘uoluntari[a]e diabolo consensi et in peccatis memetipsum subdidi’ (Xf, fol. 25v). Openshaw, ‘Images, Texts, and Contexts’, p. 524: ‘in diuersis tribulationibus angelica opitulatione custodiri’, ‘spiritualibus armis muniri ac defendi’, and ‘animam suam a periculis infernalibus eruere’ (Xf, fol. 27r). Openshaw, ‘Images, Texts, and Contexts’, p. 525: ‘Dominum ostendit. Diabolum offendit’ (Xf, fol. 27v). These benefits appear in a text that lists the virtues of singing psalms. Openshaw, ‘Battle between Christ and Satan’, p. 31. On the prominence of spiritual warfare in Ælfric’s corpus, see below p. 804. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 142 n. 6. Pope, Homilies, vol. I, pp. 396–405. In his First Series homily for Pentecost (CH I.22), Ælfric concentrates on the events of Pentecost (Godden, Commentary, p. 175). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 393. SH I.10, lines 49–51: ‘hwæðer se mann wylle his wununge habban, oþþe leahtras lufian, þe Gode misliciað’ (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 398).

790

Introduction: De septiformi spiritu good and evil gifts.34 Likewise, his comment that not all in his audience are illuminated equally ‘because the Holy Spirit … gives you his gifts according to what he desires’35 echoes the observation in Be þam Halgan Gaste that ‘the Holy Spirit distributes [the sevenfold gifts] daily to holy people of God as it pleases him’.36 Even the phrasing that Jesus departed for heaven ‘from this conflict’37 would seem to resonate with the struggle between God and Satan that animates both tracts and involves all believers. Although we cannot be certain that Ælfric arranged the ancestor of the mid-eleventh-century homiliary preserved in Cambridge, Trinity College B. 15. 34 [U],38 Pope surmises that ‘[i]t would have been natural for him to compile and issue the series’ that ran from Easter to the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost and includes the Pentecost sermon and its pendants.39 Ælfric would have had both tracts at hand when he composed the sermon and organized the series. In editing the text from U, we give priority to a manuscript that in ‘its careful arrangement and faithfulness to Ælfric’ has few rivals.40

34

35 36 37 38 39

40

AH II.17, lines 78–9: ‘Be ðisum þeawum man mæg þæne man tocnawan hwæðer him Godes Gast onwunige oððe þæs gramlican deofles’ (‘By reason of these characteristics, one can discern whether the Spirit of God or the cruel devil indwells him’). SH I.10, lines 116–17: ‘for ðan þe se Halga Gast … his gife eow forgifð be þam þe he wyle’ (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 401). AH II.17, lines 14–15: ‘se Halga Gast hi todælþ dæghwamlice Godes halgum mannum be ðam þe him gewurð’. SH I.10, line 145: ‘of ðisum gewinnum’ (Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 402). Ker §86.16; Gneuss and Lapidge §177.16; Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 232–3. Homilies, vol. I, p. 79. The series to which Pope refers is the series of temporale homilies for Sundays and non-saints’ feast-days linked to Easter that Ælfric started as early as 993 and then issued in two stages: Temporale Homilies I (TH I), which dates to between 1002 and 1005, and Temporale Homilies II (TH II), which dates to between 1006 and 1010 (Kleist, Chronology and Canon, pp. 27–33 [TH I] and 38–9 [TH II]). Pope, Homilies, vol. I, p. 77, where he cites as rivals only three manuscripts: A [London, British Library, Royal 7 C. xii, fols 4r–218r], K [Cambridge, University Library, Gg. 3. 28], and Q [Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 188]. On the possibility that U was designed to be read publicly, see vol. I, p. 325.

791

de septiformi spiritu

concerning the sevenfold spirit

DE SEPTIFORMI SPIRITU De septiformi spiritu

5

10

Spiritus Sanctus pro septenaria operatione, Isaia propheta testante, septiformis esse credatur in bono. Spiritus etiam nequam se