AElfric of Eynsham's Letter to Sigeweard: An Edition, Commentary, and Translation

By Larry J. Swain

The Letter to Sigeweard, also known by the title it bears in one of the manuscripts, Libellus de Veteri Testamento et Novo, is Ælfric's response to a request from an Anglo-Saxon nobleman to provide texts from Ælfric's pen. The letter is in part a review of Christian doctrine and in part a review, book by book, of the Christian Bible, its meanings and its contents.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Witan Publishing
• Release date: May 6, 2017
• ISBN: 9781386074472

Book preview

Preface

Sixteen years ago as of this writing, I was applying to graduate programs in English and Medieval Studies. The admissions committee at the Medieval Institute of Western Michigan University saw something in a non-traditional student who had been out of school for fourteen years and allowed me into their program. Three and a half years later, M. A. in hand, Dr. Thomas N. Hall accepted me as a doctoral student in the English program at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I am not able to find the words to express my gratitude to Paul E. Szarmach, then Director of Western Michigan's Medieval Institute and now Director of the Medieval Academy of America, Thomas Seiler, and Clifford Davidson for allowing me to be a part of the Medieval Institute. Beyond that, however, I owe a debt to Dr. Szarmach and Dr. Timothy Graham who taught me so much and shaped so many of the approaches and tools I have used in my work.

I would like to extend especial thanks to Meagan Brault. Her hard work editing this book and working with me was a learning experience for both of us. I would also like to thank Witan Publishing and Dr. Richard Scott Nokes for their invaluable help and publishing this book.

I would point out a few informational things about the following pages. In the Commentary section, I opted to use intext citations, especially as most of those references look to editions of primary texts whereas references in the introductory chapters are endnotes. A list of abbreviations is used throughout: the full list follows the Table of Contents. A list of abbreviations to manuscripts and previous editions of this text also occurs in the matter leading into the edition itself.

Portions of chapters 2 and 3 have now been published as "Whose Text for Whom? Transmission History of Ælfric of Eynsham's Letter to Sigeweard ," in The Language of Medieval Scribes, ed. J.Thaisen and Hanna Rutkowska for Studies in Medieval Language and Literature Series, gen. ed. Jacek Fisiak, (Peter Lang Publishing Group. 2010).

The Letter to Sigeweard is an understudied text. Yet, it is rich in giving insight into the mind of the author as well as the period. Hopefully, this edition, translation, and commentary will spur further study of this little book.

Table of Contents

Preface

Table of Contents

Introduction

I: At the Intersection: Politics, Reform, and Education As Background for the Letter to Sigeweard

II: Introducing the Letter to Sigeweard

III: Manuscripts, Audience Reception and Modern Editions

IV: Ælfric's Sources

V: Edition

VI: Commentary

VII: Translation

Endnotes

Bibliography

About the Author

List of Abbreviations

Introduction

Ælfric of Eynsham was born in the middle of the tenth century during a period of comparative peace. Little is known of his life, but he informs us in his Grammar that he studied under St. Dunstan, who also ordained Ælfric, and later under St. Æthelwold. Both of his teachers were major architects of the Benedictine Reform in England, and both were influenced by the Benedictine Reform movement occurring on the continent. These teachers brought the reform to England and taught it to their students. Ælfric seems to have absorbed his lessons well; in 987 he became a monk at Cerne Abbas. Within a few years he established himself as a major literary figure.

In 1005 Ælfric was named abbot of the newly established monastery at Eynsham. While there, Ælfric composed his last works, including the Letter to Sigeweard, also known by the title it bears in one of the manuscripts, Libellus de Veteri Testamento et Novo. This text is Ælfric's response to a request from an Anglo-Saxon nobleman to provide texts from Ælfric's pen. The Letter is in part a review of Christian doctrine and in part a review, book by book, of the Christian Bible, meanings and its contents.

The Letter survives in four manuscripts, with a complete text appears in one manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509. A second manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343, contains approximately half of the text, the Old Testament portion of the Letter though even here there are gaps in the text. Two other manuscripts contain longer or shorter excerpts: London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius C.V and London, British Library, Harley 3271. These excerpts were used for sermons and other purposes and have never been edited.

It is an interesting note that this letter is unique for the medieval period in its discussion of the Bible. Not since Augustine in the fifth century and not again until the Reformation would a Christian writer subject the Bible to this kind of book-by-book analysis.

This letter is unique in that it is also one of Ælfric's last works. During the course of the letter Ælfric often makes reference to other works he has written, as well as to multiple sources from which he borrows. The Letter is in many ways a capstone to Ælfric's teaching program that saw a substantial number of Christian texts come from his pen. As such, the Letter informs us a great deal about Ælfric, his library, his chief concerns, his sources and other related issues.

Regrettably, modern scholars have been neglectful of this work, preferring instead to examine the Lives of the Saints or the Catholic Homilies and other works from Ælfric. The Letter has not been edited or published since William L'Isle published transcriptions of the work based on the text in Laud Misc. 509 in 1623. In 1922, Samuel J. Crawford published a corrected version of L'Isle's text of Laud Misc. 509 for the Early English Text Society, to which he added his own edition of the text in Bodley 343, reprinted by the Society in 1997. The translation that Crawford included, however, was L'Isle's, and this was unchanged from the seventeenth-century edition.1

The Fontes Anglo-Saxonici project does not include the Letter to Sigeweard among the works of Ælfric that have been sourced, and so far the Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture project has not addressed it either.2 Furthermore, in a discussion of the canonicity of the biblical book of Judith, Eric Stanley employs text-critical tools and infrared photography to demonstrate that one of Ælfric's sermons does indeed say that Judith is included in the canon, correcting an earlier scholar's reading, which has Ælfric stating the opposite.3 Neither scholar, however, looked to the Letter to Sigeweard, in which Ælfric very clearly and unapologetically includes Judith in the canon of Scripture.

Peter Clemoes further illustrates this problem: in his chronology of Ælfric's works he lists the Letter and states that it is a summary of Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana.4 However, even a cursory glance at the two works reveals that this cannot be the case. Augustine is concerned with the contents, and only the contents, of the Old Testament. He lists the books in order and divides the Old Testament into three groups: the five books of Moses, books of history that include from Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, 2 books of Ezra; everything remaining is called prophets. Ælfric follows no such classification. His interest seems to be historical or chronological rather than canonical. For example, while enumerating the books of Kings and Chronicles, mentioning that they overlap in content, Ælfric relates the story from Daniel about Daniel's three friends thrown into the furnace. Although this story comes from the biblical book of Daniel, Ælfric does not mention that fact as he relates the story, nor does he connect the story with Daniel when he mentions Daniel among the prophets later. There are several other key differences between Ælfric's account and Augustine's. It is unlikely that Ælfric is merely reworking Augustine's De Doctrina. Ælfric's canon, his treatment of it, and his motivations in doing so at first glance seem unique.5

Finally, it should be noted that in Luke Reinsma's justly famous Ælfrician bibliography and in subsequent bibliographies, there is not a single article dealing with this text.6 Since the publication of Reinsma's bibliography, only one article has appeared that is devoted to a study of the Letter to Sigeweard.7 Current scholarship has determined that Ælfric had a specific program that accounts for the nature and type of works that he penned and the care with which he wanted the scribes to take in copying his works. As abbot, his chief concern was to supply a body of materials to educate both clergy and laymen in the Christian faith and doctrine.

The Letter to Sigeweard begins with an exhortation to good works, proceeds through a meditation on the Trinity, then relates the hexameral tradition, followed by a discussion of each biblical book, its contents, and meaning, then a discussion of the three estates, and a final exhortation against drinking. Along the way Ælfric discusses various literal and typological meanings, making use of a variety of exegetical techniques as well as material not in the biblical text. As an example of this last point, when discussing the Acts of the Apostles, Ælfric not only summarizes the book but also relates what subsequently happened to each of the twelve apostles, little or none of which is actually included in the biblical Acts.8

The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a new edition and study of the Letter to Sigeweard. William L'Isle in 1623 published his transcriptions of one of the manuscripts and his translation. While of good quality for its period, L'Isle's edition makes errors in the text and his translation has errors as well, elements of which will be pointed out and discussed in the apparatus for the edition and translation. Other scholars of the late nineteenth century either reprinted L'Isle's text or did not provide a full and error-free text according to Crawford, hence his corrected transcriptions of the two principal manuscripts.9 Crawford, however, did not include the two shorter extracts of the Letter in other manuscripts, nor did he provide a modern translation.

Helmut Gneuss described in 1973 the ideal edition for preparation of the Dictionary of Old English Project.10 Every edition of an Old English text ideally should have a comprehensive introduction that includes detailed manuscript descriptions consisting of the codicology, palaeography, and history of the manuscript; a discussion of the issues of the scribe such as orthography, punctuation, and errors; the history and transmission of the text and post-medieval copies and editions; and questions of authorship, sources and antecedents, style, linguistics, followed by a full bibliography. This model has been followed in this edition.

As Gneuss points out, ...an introduction of this kind may take years to prepare.11 Of course, just preparing an introduction of this kind is an investment of time beyond the preparation of the actual text, translation, and in this case, commentary. Fortunately, with an author such as Ælfric, issues regarding his language have been sufficiently covered by other scholars working on other texts.

The current editor was trained in his early days in what is called the historical critical method which at that time, and in many sectors still is, the primary method of biblical interpretation. Those in English and other literary departments would call it a historicist approach. Textual criticism certainly lends itself to such models and methods.

Accordingly, the first chapter establishes some background for my approach to this text and what it contains. Interpretation of the Letter to Sigeweard in my view revolves around Ælfric's religious concerns regarding catechetical teaching and giving the highpoints of the Christian salvation history while at the same time he has a great deal to say about the current political situation in Viking ravaged Anglo-Saxon England. This chapter gives a brief overview of the politics and the principal activities of the Benedictine Reform movement as they touch upon the contents of the Letter.

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 all address the chief issues that Gneuss has laid out in his Guide. The second chapter focuses on the traditional questions of authorship, recipient, date, occasion, themes, and so on. The third, a description of the manuscripts and editorial history, with some slight foray into discussing audience reception of the various forms in which this text has been transmitted. Chapter 4 discusses Ælfric's sources in some detail.

The introductory material is followed by the edition to the text, which is preceded by a preamble that discusses some of the editorial issues encountered and details my editorial practices. The commentary on the edition focuses on source critical commentary and on fitting various statements Ælfric makes into the historicist background given in the introductory materials.

Before turning to the matters at hand, it might be useful to take a moment and remark on Ælfric's importance as perceived by his near contemporaries, rather than on his importance to modern Anglo-Saxonists or even his importance to English Reformers. In an eleventh-century poem copied into a thirteenth-century manuscript at Worcester, the following statements about Ælfric are made:

Ælfric abbod þæt we alquin hoteth

he was bocare and þe fif bec wende

Genesis Exodus Utronomius Numerus Leuiticus

þurh þeos weren ilaerde ure leoden on englisc.12

The poem, which continues on to name others and bemoan their loss, was written in the twelfth century, possibly earlier, but bears testimony that Ælfric's influence was still being felt at Worcester almost two centuries after his works were copied. That he is remembered for his translations of the Bible, and the misnaming him as Alcuin might suggest that the poet also knows Ælfric's translation of Alcuin's work on Genesis, is interesting especially in that L, our base manuscript, includes the text of the Letter along with Ælfric's translations. As the scribe of L says, This was meant for one man, but will benefit many. And so Ælfric's legacy continues now into its eleventh century.

I: At the Intersection: Politics, Reform, and Education As Background for the Letter to Sigeweard

Politics and Reform

The mid-tenth century in Anglo-Saxon England unleashed the forces that would define and shape events and culture for the next century. The century opened with peace between the English and the Vikings followed in 924 by the first king in England who could truly claim to be king over all the English, Æthelstan. The century ended with the church and king in a new understanding of their respective roles, with the Vikings having raided several times and many more raids to come, with the loss of respect for the king, Æthelræd, and the weakening of the English state.

Throughout the century, particularly in the middle part, kings tended to be short-lived. After Alfred the Great's son Edward the Elder reigned twenty-four years, Æthelstan ruled fifteen, followed by Edmund for six years, his brother Eadred nine years, Eadwig four years, Edgar for sixteen, and Edward the Martyr for three. The longest reign is in fact that of Æthelred the Unready, nearly thirty-eight years from 978 to 1016. Though long, his reign was turbulent only in part due to the renewed attacks of the Vikings.

The Vikings began again to make incursions into Anglo-Saxon England in the reign of Æthelstan, largely over disputes with the kingdom of York, which was under Norse control. In large part the English brought the situation upon themselves. In 927 Æthelstan, taking advantage of the death of the York monarch Sihtric, invaded Northumbria in order to assert his control and regain lost territory. While these events resulted in the first king of all the English and of all England in Æthelstan, the dispute over who would rule over Northumbria is what triggered Norse attempts to retake that kingdom in the middle of the tenth-century. Then later the Norse continue to harass and harry the English in the south until 1009 when Thorkell the Tall invaded and ravaged Æthelred's kingdom, followed by Swein Forkbeard in 1013; the latter succeeded in becoming king of England only to die weeks later and was followed by his son Cnut, who reconquered England and became the king of the English in 1016.

Edmund, who lost Northumbria for a time, is also known for appointing the initiator of the Benedictine Reform, Dunstan, as abbot of Glastonbury.13 As abbot, along with one of his monks named Æthelwold, Dunstan studied the Rule of Benedict and other writings. Some years later, Dunstan was exiled temporarily from England by Eadwig, and while on the continent Dunstan stayed at St. Peter's monastery in Ghent. This monastery was one of those practicing a reformed Benedictine monasticism, and Dunstan's observation of the practices there combined with his own studies ignited a reform movement in England when Dunstan returned.14

In part as a spiritualized response to the Viking incursions, and in part as a response to a period in monastic practice, which had become more relaxed and individualized, a group of monks in the early tenth century argued that the woes Western Europe faced were in part due to the spiritual laxity of the church and the monastic movement. These monks wished to return to the simplicity of the Benedictine Rule and to move further outward from society and worldly temptations and connections. In 909 the abbey of Cluny was granted its charter and began to live according to a slightly revised Rule of Benedict, stressing more communal worship and less personal contemplation. The difference is one of emphasis rather than replacement. The reforms and the renewed stress on spirituality and simplicity ignited a tenth-and eleventh-century movement that began at Cluny in Burgundy but quickly spread throughout Gaul, Italy, Spain, and into the Low Countries.15

It was not until Dunstan's visit in the late 950s, however, that the movement crossed the English Channel. Edgar, who in the late 950s ruled Mercia and Northumbria under his brother Eadwig, recalled Dunstan, most likely at the request or at least under the influence of Æthelwold, who had been a pupil and friend of Dunstan's at Glastonbury. Æthelwold was now Edgar's tutor and advisor. Dunstan returned to Glastonbury and continued the reforms there that he had begun before his exile, and shortly thereafter he was made Bishop of London. In 959, Eadwig died and Edgar reunited the kingdom. The archbishopric of Canterbury was vacant soon after Edgar's reign began, and Edgar appointed Dunstan to the office, which he held until his death in 988.16

It is easy to see that from his new place as archbishop, Dunstan could readily spread the renewal throughout the English church. What made this task somewhat smoother was that Æthelwold was also convinced of the necessity for church reform, and Dunstan became Edgar's chief advisor. Edgar enthusiastically supported the reform movement and it was such royal support that in fact made the Benedictine Reform in England somewhat different than the reform movements on the continent. In fact, the scribe of the Winchester version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 964 records that it was Edgar rather than Æthelwold who drove secular priests from Winchester, Chertsey and Milton Abbas and replaced them with monks.17This step seems to have been planned by Æthelwold but certainly required Edgar's active support. In his Life of Æthelwold Ælfric records the eviction of the secular priests from Winchester as follows:

Erant autem tunc in veteri monasterio, ubi cathedra episcopalis habetur, male morigerati clerici elatione et insolentia ac luxuria praeuenti adeo ut nonnulli eorum dedignarentur missas suo ordine celebrare, repudiantes uxores quas inlicite duxerant et alias accipientes gulae et ebrietati iugiter dediti. Quod minime ferens vir Sanctus Æthelwoldus data licentia a rege Eadgaro expulit citissime nefandos blasphematores Dei de monasterio, et adducens monachos de Abundonia locavit illic quibus ipse abbas et episcopus extitit... Misit quoque rexquendam ministrorum suorum famosissimum Wulfstanum vocabulo, cum episcopo...18

Needless to say, the use of troops to expel priests and others and to impose the reform-movement created ill will on the part of some, but those who did oppose the movement would not have significant political power for some time.

Edgar died in 975, and thereafter there is a reassertion of lord's rights over against monastic rights in terms of the grants Edgar had made to various monasteries, especially in Western Mercia under the ealdorman Ælfhere.19 Not only so, but Edward the Martyr, Edgar's successor, and after him, Æthelred, were less inclined to give the level of support their father had to the Reform. The result was a significant shift in the relationship between the king and the leaders of the Reform who were also the leaders of the English church.

The picture above needs a slight adjustment. Æthelred did grant lands and income to many monasteries in his long reign, 978-1016, the longest reign since Alfred and outlasting that worthy king too. But after the death of Dunstan, the king reversed himself on relations with key monastic and ecclesial locations, reduced privileges, took properties and gave them to others and per-formed other similar acts that alienated the church from the king.20 The fact that these early actions seemingly against the monasteries were followed within a few years by renewed Viking invasions in the 980s subsequently led some to make a causal connection, an attitude that however untrue or unfair, Æthelred was never to recover from.21

Thus, by the time Ælfric was penning the Letter to Sigeweard circa 1005, the golden age under Edgar was a memory only to the very oldest in England. Views of kingship, of the Reform's relationship to the king, and of course what had caused the Viking invasions and why God's people, the English, now are faced with a heathen foe ravaging their land were the issues of the day. Such is illustrated very clearly in Ælfric's works. The changes he makes for example in this Letter to the Monks at Eynsham from his source text underscore these differences. The poem to the Regularis Concordia that is the source of Ælfric's letter is in part a program for the Reform movement and glorifies and calls upon the king. In Ælfric's monastery forty years later, the situation was sufficiently different that many of these elements were omitted from Ælfric's treatment or changed to fit the new order.22 He further compares and contrasts the current state of England with that of Edgar in more than one place, and Æthelred comes out the poorer in the comparison.23

As will be shown in later chapters, Ælfric has interestingly mixed his topic matter in the Letter. Lying at the intersections of external invasions and the second generation of Reform movement in England must deal with a changed and changing relationship with the king and the nobles from the relationship their forebears had, a changed situation where political commentary could be dangerous, as Ælfric's patron discovered. Yet this monk from Eynsham makes public political commentary while at the same educating in essential Christian tradition. But in addition to these historical contexts there is a religious one as well. It is well known now since Clemoes's seminal article that Ælfric had a catechetical concern and an overarching program of Christian education for monks and laymen alike.24 The Letter to Sigeweard is in large part a work of catechetical instruction and it is to the background of catechesis in Anglo-Saxon England that we now turn.

Catechesis

Ælfric naturally operated within an intellectual and religious tradition. As has been seen in the foregoing discussion, he is deeply indebted to the Benedictine Reform and its leaders Dunstan and Æthelwold. Studies of his works have revealed a dependence on patristic writers such as Augustine and Jerome, Paul the Deacon's homiliary, Bede, Gregory the Great, and other important writers of the period. The Letter is part of this tradition.

But there are unique aspects of the Letter as well. As will be seen below, the Letter is a unique text in its treatment of the Bible on a book-by-book basis. The Letter is also a unique text as a catechetical document since it structures the Biblical books and its discussion of the contents of the Bible on the scaffolding of salvation history. Further, there are sections of the work that appear to be dependent or at least influenced by other Old English works, notably the poetry of the so-called Caedmon Manuscript, Oxford, Bodleian Library ms. Junius 11. The Letter then becomes a place where Ælfric's originality may be seen alongside his use of sources in passing on catechetical and general Christian lore.

It has been suggested that the Letter is in some part influenced by the Catechetical narratio.25 Day posits the narratio's influence at the beginning of the Letter's content in regard to the nature of the Trinity and the creation of the angels. She then believes that the hexameral genre has more influence before Ælfric turns to discussion of Biblical books. Other writers who mention the Letter largely fall into Day's errors in this regard, though they are not significant errors.

Before explaining those errors, a few definitions are in order. Day understands the Catechetical narratio as Augustine does, to be a narration from Creation to the story of the church down to the present day.26 This works well enough, but for the purposes of this study a restatement is in order. The Catechetical narratio is understood as the narrative that relates the story of salvation from God before creation, through discussion of the nature of the Trinity, the creation of the world and the heavens and their respective inhabitants, the respective falls of the angels and humanity, and any other events deemed important up to the essentials in the center of the story, the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of Christ and the arrival of the Holy Spirit inaugurating the church age culminating in the Last Judgment and the end of history. Different authors will emphasize different elements of this narrative of salvation history. The Letter contains a nearly complete narrative including some mention of all the details from the Christian Old Testament through to the end. The terms catechetical and catechism indicate basic information that every Christian should have known; this information is given in large part in Anglo-Saxon England through sermons and homilies for lay audiences.

These definitions highlight the differences of the approach here from Day. Whereas Day considers only the beginning of the Letter as part of the Catechetical narratio inspired by Augustine, and distinguishes the hexameral tradition from the narratio, the approach taken here sees the whole Letter as catechetical in nature, and the majority of it a particular and peculiar relating of the narratio of salvation history. And although the hexameral tradition may stand separately from the narratio as a genre or sub-genre, in the case of the Letter and other works, it stands as part of that narratio explaining why in fact salvation is necessary. Second, though related, the narratio does not end its influence in the letter. It is the purpose of this letter to render a complete narratio, and it does so by locating the principal people and events of the Christian Old Testament within