5
A Book for Many: Ælfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testaments
T
he Treatise on the Old and New Testaments, also known as the
Letter to Sigeweard, marks the culmination of Ælfric’s long preoccupation with biblical translation, adaptation and interpretation.
1 Quotations of the Treatise are taken from Marsden’s edition of the Heptateuch, which is based on MS Laud Misc. 509 (Ker §344) with some readings supplied from Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 343 (Ker §310), a late twelfth-century collection of homilies which preserves only the section of the Treatise on the Old Testament. See also Larry J. Swain, ed., Ælfric of Eynsham’s Letter to Sigeweard: An Edition, Translation and Commentary (Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, 2009). For discussion of the Treatise, see Hurt, Ælfric, pp. 90–92; Wilcox, Ælfric’s Prefaces, pp. 37–44; Major, ‘Rebuilding the Tower of Babel’; Thomas N. Hall, ‘Ælfric and the Epistle to the Laodiceans’, in Apocryphal Texts and Traditions, ed. Powell and Scragg, pp. 65–83; and Hugh Magennis, ‘Ælfric: Letter to Sigeweard’, in The Literary Encyclopedia, Volume 1.2.1.01: English Writing and Culture: Anglo-Saxon England, 500–1066, ed. Richard Dance and Hugh Magennis (2005): https://www.litencyc.com. For a translation, see Hugh Magennis, ‘Ælfric of Eynsham’s Letter to Sigeweard (Treatise on the Old and New Testaments)’, in Metaphrastes, or, Gained in Translation: Essays and Translations in Honour of Robert H. Jordan, ed. Margaret Mullett, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 9 (Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 2004), pp. 210–35. In this lengthy epistolary work composed sometime after 1005, Ælfric draws on all his skills as a biblical translator, homilist and exegete to summarise the contents of the entire Bible and explain the spiritual (
gastlic) relationship between the Old and New Testaments to uneducated readers. Although the
Treatise has attracted little attention from modern readers, Geoffrey Shepherd has described it
as ‘the most important treatment in English’ of the issue of translation of the Bible before the Purvey tracts, i.e. the General Prologue to the Revised Wycliffe Bible, written
c. 1395,
2 Shepherd, ‘English Versions of the Scriptures before Wyclif’, p. 375. while Hugh Magennis terms it as ‘the earliest extended discussion of the Bible, considered as a whole, in a western vernacular language and […] one of the major discussions of the Bible in medieval English.’
3 Magennis, ‘Ælfric of Eynsham’s Letter to Sigeweard’, p. 210. In the previous chapter, we saw how Ælfric and his co-translators had struggled to make this spiritual sense of the Heptateuch clear, relying on the strict censoring of passages that might be read too literally and only very occasionally resorting to exegesis. With the
Treatise, Ælfric abandons biblical translation entirely in favour of summary, homiletic exegesis and sermon-like moral instruction.
The complete text of the
Treatise survives as the last item
in MS Laud Misc. 509 (MS L), fols 120
v–141
v, where it follows Ælfric’s homily on
Judges and
Letter to Wulfgeat (fig. 13).
4 Kleist, Chronology, pp. 157–8. Ælfric refers to himself as an abbot in the opening of the letter, indicating that it was composed after 1005, when he became abbot of Eynsham. For a post-Conquest partial witness to the Treatise, see below, Conclusion, p. 248. As such, the
Treatise brings the entire collection to a fitting close with its summation of the entire Bible in a format designed to be accessible to a very wide audience.
~
Figure 13. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 509, fol. 120v, ‘Opening of Ælfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testaments’.
Contents, Structure and Theme
Following a conventional third-person epistolary greeting of Sigeweard, the letter then shifts into the first person as Ælfric foregrounds his central theme of good works in the manner of a sermon:
Ælfric Abbod gret freondlice Sigwerd æt Eastheolon. Ic secge þe to soðan þæt se bið swiþe wis, se þe mid weorcum spricð, and se hæfð forþgang for Gode and for worulde, se ðe mid godum weorcum hine sylfne geglengð.
5 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 201, ll. 1–7.[Abbot Ælfric greets in a friendly way Sigeweard at Asthall. I say to you as a truth that he is very wise, the one who speaks with works, and who has success before God and in the world, he who adorns himself through good works.]
Ælfric had previously stressed how a deep knowledge of Scripture was the foundation for a life of good works in his homily for Easter Sunday:
Us is twyfeald neod on boclicum gewriten: anfeald neod us is þæt we ða boclican lare mid carfullum mode smeagan; oðer þæt we hi to weorcum awendan.
6 CH II.16, p. 162.[We have a twofold need for written Scriptures: one need is that we should study the written Scripture with an attentive mind; the other is that we should turn them into works.]
In the Treatise he provides a wealth of examples from Scripture demonstrating the rewards of good deeds and the punishments of bad ones:
And þæt is swiðe geswutelod on halgum gesetnissum þæt þa halgan weras þe gode weorc beeodon, þæt hi wurðfulle wæron on þissere worulde. And nu halige sindon on heofenan rices mirhþe and heora gemynd þurhwunað nu a to worulde for heora anrædnisse and heora trywðe wið God. Ða gimeleasan men þe heora lif adrugon on ealre idelnisse, and swa geeondodon, heora gemynd is forgiten on halgum gewritum, buton þæt secgað þa Ealdan Gesetnissa heora yfelan dæda and þæt þæt hig fordemde sindon.
7 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 201, ll. 7–14.[And that is very clear in holy writings that those men who were diligent about good works, that they were honoured in this world and are now saints in the bliss of the kingdom of heaven and their memory remains now forever because of their steadfastness and their faith in God. Those careless men who passed their lives in complete idleness, and so ended, their memory is forgotten in holy books, except that the Old Testament tells of their evil deeds and that they are damned.]
The
Treatise proper begins with a catechistic exposition of the Holy Trinity and the Creation of the Angels. Responding to Sigeweard’s request for writings in English, Ælfric supplies brief summaries of the essential elements of each of the seventy-two canonical books of the Bible, as well as succinct and unambiguous explanations of their origins and role within the wider structure of the Bible as a whole. In summarising biblical history, he also takes the opportunity to clarify many points of doctrine, for example explaining that there were eight people saved on Noah’s Ark (Noah and his wife, their three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, and their three wives).
8 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 204, ll. 104–11. As Daniel Anlezark has shown, this was a theological point that needed to be made to the West Saxon nobility as the version of King Æthelwulf’s genealogy preserved in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle annal for 855 (MSS ABC) states that Noah had a fourth son named Sceaf, who was born on the Ark.
9 Anlezark, ‘Sceaf, Japheth and the Origins of the Anglo-Saxons’, 40–1. As Anlezark notes, in the version of the West Saxon genealogy included in Æthelweard’s Chronicon, the story of Sceaf’s birth in Noah’s Ark preserved in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is replaced by a legend in which Sceaf is a foundling who arrived in a boat among the Danes, who then accepted him as their king (19–21). For connections with the story of Scyld Scefing in Beowulf, see Francis Leneghan, The Dynastic Drama of ‘Beowulf’, Anglo-Saxon Studies 39 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2020), pp. 143–51. Ælfric would doubtless have viewed this notion of Noah’s fourth son as an error (
gedwyld) that needed to be corrected.
Utilising the framework of the conventional scheme of the Six Ages of the World, Ælfric proceeds through the various stages of salvation history, explaining the relationship between people and episodes in the Old and New Testaments.
10 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 3. On the Six-Ages scheme, see John Burrow, The Ages of Man: A Study in Medieval Writing and Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), pp. 80–92. See further Harriet Soper, The Life Course in Old English Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023). Having summarised the basic elements of the Genesis narrative – Creation, the sin of Adam, the story of Cain and Abel, the Flood, and the repopulation of the world by Noah’s three sons – Ælfric then supplies a Christological exegesis of this story’s significance (
getacnunga) when read in light of the New Testament:
We secgað nu mid ofste þas endebirdnisse, for þan ðe we oft habbað ymbe þis awriten mid maran andgite þa þu miht sceawian, and eac ða getacnunga.
Þæt Adam getacnude, þe on ðam sixtan dæge gesceapen wæs þurh God, urne Hælend Crist, þe com to þissere worulde and us geedniwode to his gelicnisse. Eua getacnode, þe of Adames sidan God silf geworhte, Godes gelaðunge þe of Cristes sidan wearð acenned. Abel slege soðlice getacnode ures Hælendes slege þe ða Iudeiscan ofslogon, yfele gebroðra swa swa Cain wæs. Seth, Adames sunu, ys gesæd ærist, and he gecatnode untwilice Crist, se þe of deaðe aras on ðam þriddan dæge.
11 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, pp. 204–5, ll. 111–21.[We will now briefly narrate this sequence because we have often written about this with more understanding than you might be able to see, and also the significance.
That Adam, who on the sixth day was made by God, signifies our Saviour Christ, who came into this world and renewed us in his likeness. Eve, who God made out of Adam’s side, signifies God’s faithful who were born out of Christ’s side. The murder of Abel truly signifies our Saviour’s murder, whom those Jews killed, evil brothers just as Cain was. Seth, Adam’s son, is said to be first, and he undoubtedly signifies Christ, he who arose from death on the third day.]
Without the self-imposed limitations of his biblical translations, he is now able to exert far more control over which portions of the text his lay readers can access. The more flexible format of the Treatise also allows him to guide these same readers in the spiritual (gastlic) interpretation of Scripture – in particular the Old Testament – and thereby prevent them from falling into error.
Because he is no longer engaged in translating but in paraphrasing the Bible, Ælfric is also now at liberty to add supplementary material that does not appear in the Vulgate, notably the account of the Fall of the Angels and material on the lives of the apostles. The longest of these sections is an episode from the life of John the Apostle, derived from a Latin translation of Eusebius’
Ecclesiastical History.
12 Magennis notes that although Ælfric attributes the translation of Eusebius to Jerome, it is now known to have been done by Rufinus (‘Ælfric of Eynsham’s Letter to Sigeweard’, p. 212). This narrative exemplifies the
Treatise’s
central theme of the value of good works in relating how the apostle rescued a wayward youth from a life of iniquity. Ælfric’s portrait of John serves as a model of an ideal pastor, a theme that recurs throughout the
Treatise. Once the persecutions of the Emperor Domitian have ceased, John is summoned back to Rome, travelling to neighbouring towns in order to preach and set up churches in regions where there were none, appointing ordained priests to serve in them as well as consecrating a bishop and instructing the people. John selects a youth for Christian instruction, charging the recently consecrated bishop to tutor him in the faith, but the youth becomes dissolute, succumbing to vice and drunkenness. John rescues the youth from a band of thieves and ordains him, and the story concludes with a moralising passage in which Ælfric explains that anyone can mend their ways and win salvation if they are resolute.
13 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 223–7, ll. 668–814.After a reiteration of the unity of the Old and New Testaments, the
Treatise returns to this theme of pastoral care with reflections on the responsibility of teachers (
lareowas) to instil knowledge of the Bible’s teachings in all levels of society. Those who are so foolish as to reject
Cristes gesetnysse (‘the Scriptures of Christ’) will suffer
on egeslicum witum (‘in terrible torments’) in hell.
14 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 228, ll. 855–65. Similarly, it is the duty of counsellors (
witan) to reflect on the causes of evil in society and to repair whichever
stelena þæs cinestol (‘supports of the throne’) are broken. There follows a brief discourse on the three orders of society (those who work, those who fight and those who pray), a concept that has its earliest iteration in the Alfredian
Boethius and is, as we have seen, treated in the section appended to Ælfric’s Maccabees.
15 See above, pp. 188–90. Here the political significance of the
Treatise comes to the fore as Ælfric emphasises to his readers that
se cynestol (‘the throne’) rests on these three supports: should one of them become broken, the kingdom will fall. Those who wish to become God’s ministers must therefore set an example to others, resisting the temptation of bribes, lest such evil should spread among the people. As his final example of the punishments which will befall those who fail to believe in Christ, Ælfric presents his readers with a detailed and graphic account of the miserable fate of the Jews after the passion of Christ. In order to punish the Jews for killing Christ and his apostles and for their refusal to repent for these deeds, God sends the Romans to besiege them, with the result that they suffer famine,
sceamlica morð16 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 229, l. 910. (‘shameful abominations’), exile and damnation. Ælfric contrasts this negative exemplum of the perils of
yfelan dæda17 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 229, ll. 917–18. (‘evil deeds’) with the benefits of good works in the closing doxology:
Nu miht þu wel witan þæt weorc sprecað swiþor þonne þa nacodan word, þe nabbað nane fremminge. Is swa þeah god weorc on þam godan wordum, þonne man oðerne lærð and to geleafan getrimð mid þære soþan lare and þonne mann wisdom sprecð manegum to þearfe and to rihtinge, þæt God si geherod se þe a rixað. Amen.
18 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 229, ll. 918–23.[Now you can well understand that works speak louder than plain words, which have no effect. There is nevertheless good work in those good words, when a person teaches another and strengthens them in faith with that true instruction and when a person speaks wisdom for the benefit and correction of the multitude, so that God may be praised, who reigns forever and ever. Amen.]
In this passage, Ælfric again reflects on the duties of religious teachers such as himself, while reminding his readers that they too have responsibilities to instruct and correct others. This lesson becomes more pointed in the final part of the letter where Ælfric directly criticises Sigeweard for inducing him to drink more than was his custom on his last visit, before issuing him with a stern warning of the moral and physical dangers of excessive drinking:
19 For Ælfric’s focus on drunkenness as the cause of Lot’s incest in the Old English prose Genesis, see above, p. 173.Ðu woldest me laðian, þa þa ic wæs mid þe, þæt ic swiðor drunce swilce for blisse ofer minum gewunan. Ac wite þu, leof man, þæt se þe oðerne neadað ofer his mihte to drincenne, þæt se mot aberan heora begra gilt, gif him ænig hearm of þære drence becymð. Ure Hælend Crist on his halgan godspelle forbead þone oferdrenc eallum gelyfedum mannum; healde se ðe wille his gesetnysse. And þa halgan lareowas æfter þam Hælende aledon þone unðeaw þurh heora lareowdom and tæhton þæt man drince swa swa him ne derede, for ðan þe se oferdrenc fordeð untwilice þæs mannes sawle and his gesundfullnyse. And unhæl becymð of þam drence.
20 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, pp. 229–30, ll. 924–30.[You wished to invite me, when I was with you, that I should drink excessively for pleasure more than I am used to. But you know, beloved man, that he who compels another to drink beyond his capacity, that he must bear the guilt of both of them, if any harm comes upon him on account of that drink. Our Saviour Christ in his holy gospel forbade excessive drinking to all those people who believed; let he who wishes hold his doctrine. And those holy teachers after the Saviour established the vices through their teachings and instructed that a man should drink so as not to harm himself, because excessive drinking undoubtedly destroys a man’s soul and his health. And illness comes from drinking.]
Echoing his earlier writings on the Three Orders of Society, in these concluding passages Ælfric thus reminds both the clergy (oratores) and laity (bellatores) of their responsibilities towards each other, and to those who depend on them for religious instruction and military protection: the workers (laboratores). The Treatise thus offers a coherent vision of England as a Christian nation which, like the biblical nation of Israel, derives its core moral values from a correct understanding of the Bible and the strict observance of its laws. Indeed, as Ælfric explains towards the end of the Treatise, it is not possible to avoid evil and commit to good works without a sound knowledge of Scripture:
Hu mæg se man wel faran ðe his mod awent fram eallum þisum bocum and bið him swa anwille þæt him leofre bið þæt he lybbe æfre be his agenum dihte, ascired fram þisum, swilce he ne cunne Cristes gesetnyssa?
21 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 228, ll. 855–8.[How can a person do well who turns his mind away from all these books and is so stubborn that he would rather live by his own judgement, cut off from them, as if he did not know of Christ’s Scriptures?]
In Ælfric’s rhetoric, to lead a good life, all Christians require access to the teachings of the Bible, be they oratores, bellatores or laboratores. Yet as we have seen, Ælfric had serious reservations about the wisdom of providing translations of Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament for the laity. Together with the other translators of the Heptateuch, he therefore took various compensatory measures to ensure that such readers were not exposed to elements of the Old Testament which they might misinterpret.
In the Treatise, Ælfric evokes the figure of Moses in support of his argument that it is the responsibility of elders (maiores) to instruct others in the meaning of the Scriptures:
Moyses us lærde, se mære witega, on his gesetnissum, þus secgende eallum: ‘
Interroga patrem tuum et adnuntiabit tibi maiores tuos et dicent tibi’ (Deut. 32.7),
et cetera. Ðæt ys on Englisc, ‘Asca þinne fæder embe ðone soþan God and he þe kyð be him. Befrin þine yldran and hig þe secgað.’ Gif þu nelt witan and beon gewissod her, þu scealt leornian ðær, þe laþre bið on egeslicum witum, ðæt þu wite þonne hwænne þe forsawe and hwæs gesetnysse.
22 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 228, ll. 858–65.[Moses taught us, the famous prophet, in his writings, saying thus to all: ‘Interroga patrem tuum et adnuntiabit tibi maiores tuos et dicent tibi’, et cetera (Deut. 32.7). That is in English, ‘Ask your father about the true God and he will inform you about him; enquire of your elders and they will tell you.’ If you do not wish to know and be informed here, you will learn there, where the dreadful afflictions will be more painful to you, so that you will know then who it was that you rejected and whose Scriptures.]
Throughout his long career as a biblical translator and exegete, Ælfric himself assumes the role of such an ‘elder’, diligently teaching embe ðone soþan God (‘about the true God’) and providing detailed and accessible instruction in Cristes gesetnyssa (‘Christ’s Scriptures’) to all levels of society.
In addition to these spiritual goals, Ælfric also used the
Treatise for the more practical purpose of drawing attention to his other writings, inviting his readers to consult this vernacular library of core Christian doctrine should they require more extensive accounts of biblical narratives:
23 See Wilcox, Ælfric’s Prefaces, p. 43.We secgað nu mid ofste þas endeberdnisse, for þan ðe we oft habbað ymbe þis awriten mid maran andgite þa þu miht sceawian, and eac ða getacnunga.
24 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 204, ll. 111–13. Ælfric may also have had in mind here the many references to Genesis in his homilies, given the mention of the book’s getacnunga (‘significances’), which are largely left unsaid in his contributions to the Heptateuch.[We will now speak of this narrative (i.e. Genesis) in brief, for we have already often written about this in greater detail which you can look up, and also the significances].
And we hit habbað awend witodlice on Englisc, on þam mann mæg gehiran hu se heofonlica God spræc mid weorcum and mid wundrum him to.
25 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 209, ll. 218–20.[And we have faithfully translated these books (i.e. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) into English; in them one can hear how the heavenly God spoke to him (i.e. Moses) through his works and his wonders.]
Ðis ic awende eac on Englisc hwilon Æþelwerde ealdormen, on þam man mæg sceawian Godes micclan wundra mid weorcum gefremode.
26 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 209, ll. 230–2.[This (i.e. Joshua) I also translated into English once, for ealdorman Æthelweard; in it one may see God’s great wonders carried out with deeds.]
Ðis man mæg rædan, se þe his recð to gehirenne, on þære Engliscan bec þe ic awende be þisum. Ic þohte þæt ge woldon þurh ða wundorlican race eower mod awendan to Godes willan on eornost.
27 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 210, ll. 249–52.[People can read about this (i.e. Judges), if they are interested in hearing it, in the book in English which I translated concerning this. I thought that you would wish to turn your minds through this wondrous narrative to God’s will in earnest.]
The retrospective tone of the
Treatise echoes the list which Bede provides at the end of his
Ecclesiastical History (Ch. 24), as well as Augustine’s
Retractions.
28 For citations of Augustine’s Retractions in Bede and its multiple manuscript witnesses from the period, see Lapidge, Anglo-Saxon Library, pp. 203, 290. Ælfric thus appears to have viewed the
Treatise not only as his final word on biblical translation but also as his last will and testament as a religious teacher who had dedicated his life to the exposition of Scripture.
29 Ælfric’s death is dated c. 1010, so roughly five years after the completion of the Treatise. For a list of Ælfric’s works thought to have been composed after the Treatise, see Kleist, Chronology, pp. 285–9; the majority of these works are supplementary homilies not included in the two series of Catholic Homilies.Style and Sources
In addition to the Vulgate itself, Ælfric draws on a typically wide range of patristic and vernacular sources in the
Treatise, ranging from Augustine to a number of his own homilies and sermons which he repurposes and adapts.
30 The sources for the Treatise are yet to be included on the fontesanglosaxonici database. Swain identifies the following works as potential or probable sources for various parts of the Treatise: Augustine’s De Trinitate, De Civitate Dei, De Doctrina Christiana and Enarrationes; Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica; Jerome’s Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in Genesim, Liber de viris illustribus and Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nomin; Quodvultdeus (pseudo-Augustine), Contra Iudaeos, paganos, et Arianos; Martin of Braga’s De correctione rusticorum; Caesarius of Arles’ sermon 212; Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob; Isidore, Etymologiae and Allegoriae quaedam sacrae scripturae; and Bede’s Homilies, Retractiones and De Temporibus (Letter to Sigeweard, pp. 79–83). The opening section of the
Treatise, up to the fall of Lucifer, is composed in the rhythmical style
characteristic of Ælfric’s later writings. All the typical features of this style are on display from the outset (alliteration in bold):
Ælfric
Abbod gret freondlice Sigwerd æt
Eastheolon. Ic
secge þe to
soðan þæt se bið
swiþe
wis, se þe mid
weorcum
spricð, and se hæfð forð
gang for
Gode and for
worulde, se ðe mid
godum
weorcum hine
sylfne geglengð. And þæt is
swiðe ge
swutelod on
halgum ge
setnissum þæt þa
halgan
weras þe gode
weorc beeodon, þæt hi
wurðfulle
wæron on þissere
worulde. And nu
halige sindon on
heofenan rices
mirhþe and heora ge
mynd þurh
wunað nu
a to
worulde for heora
anrædnisse and heora trywðe wið God.
31 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 201, ll. 4–11. [Abbot Ælfric greets in a friendly way Sigeweard at Asthall. I say to you as a truth that he is very wise, the one who speaks with works, and who has success before God and in the world, he who adorns himself through good works. And that is very clear in holy writings that those men who were diligent about good works, that they were honoured in this world and are now saints in the bliss of the kingdom of heaven and their memory remains now for ever because of their steadfastness and their faith in God.]
This ornate opening passage features sustained alliteration on s, w, sw-, g, h and m, as well as word pairs (swiþe wis […] swiðe geswutelod; for Gode and for worulde; on heofenan rices mirhþe and heora gemynd; halgum gesetnissum […] halgan weras), polyptoton (halgum, halgan, halige), syntactical repetition (þæt se bið swiþe wis […] þæt is swiðe geswutelod; se þe mid weorcum spricð […] se ðe mid godum weorcum hine sylfne geglengð; and heora gemynd […] for heora anrædnisse and heora trywð), and threefold repetition of the key noun weorc (‘works’).
The long exegetical section that follows, concerning the nature of the Trinity and its role in the act of Creation, is a radical reworking of the opening of the first sermon ‘On the Beginning of Creation’ (
De Initio Creaturae) in Ælfric’s First Series of
Catholic Homilies, itself indebted to Augustine’s
De Trinitate.
32 Another example of Ælfric repurposing material from his homilies elsewhere in the Treatise is the simile in which John the Baptist is said to prefigure Christ just as the daystar goes before the sun and the beadle before the judge (Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 219, ll. 508–12), which also appears in his homily on the Nativity of John the Baptist (Catholic Homilies I.25). The simile is itself derived from a sermon by Pseudo-Augustine, though in this instance the passage is much altered and Ælfric does not transform it into rhythmical prose. In composing his
Treatise, Ælfric transformed the relatively plain style of his earlier sermon into the rhythmical prose characteristic of his late style. I quote the passage from ‘On the Beginning of Creation’ first for comparison; alliteration is marked in bold, with word pairs and doublets underlined:
An angin is ealra þinga, þæt is God Ælmihtig. He is ordfruma and ende – he is ordfruma, forði þe he wæs æfre; he is ende butan ælcere geendunge, forðan ðe he bið æfre ungeendod. He is ealra cyninga cyning and ealra hlaforda hlaford; he hylt mid his mihte heofonas and eorðan, and ealle gesceafta butan geswince, and he besceawað þa niwelnyssa ðe under þyssere eorðan sind. He awecð ealle duna mid anre handa, and ealle eorðan he belicð on his handa, and ne mæg nan þing his willan wiðstandan. Ne mæg nan gesceaft fulfremedlice smeagan ne understandan ymbe God. Maran cyððe habbað englas to Gode þonne men, and þeahhweðere hi ne magon fulfremedlice understandan ymbe God. He gesceop gesceafta ða ða he wolde; þurh his wisdom he geworhte ealle ðing, and þurh his willan he hi ealle geliffæste. Þeos Ðrynnys is an God, þæt is, se Fæder, and his Wisdom of him sylfum æfre acenned, and heora begra willa, þæt is, se Halga Gast. He nis na acenned, ac he gæð of ðam Fæder and of ðam Suna gelice. Þas ðry hadas sindon an Ælmihtig God, se geworhte heofenas and eorðan and ealle gesceafta.
[There is one beginning of all things, which is God Almighty. He is the beginning and the end – he is the beginning, because he always was; he is the end without any ending, because he is forever unended. He is king of all kings and lord of all lords; he holds heavens and earth with his might, and all creation without effort, and he looks upon the abyss which is under the earth. He weighs all the mountains with his hands, and he encloses all the earth in his hands, and nothing can withstand his will. No creature can completely imagine or understand God. The angels have greater kinship to God than men, and yet they cannot completely understand God. He created creation just as he wanted; through his wisdom he made all things, and through his will he gave them all life. This Trinity is one God, that is, the Father, and his Wisdom eternally begotten of himself, and the will of both of them, that is, the Holy Spirit. He is not born, but he goes equally from the Father and from the Son. These three persons are one almighty God, who wrought the heavens and earth and all creation.]
33 CH I.1, pp. 14–15.In this opening section of the sermon, alliteration is largely limited to the opening passage, which also features syntactical and lexical repetition and variation (
He is ordfruma […] he is ordfruma […] he is ende).
34 For sensitive discussion of the style of this passage, and the manner in which it anticipates Ælfric’s later, more elaborate style, see Gabriella Corona, ‘Ælfric’s (Un)Changing Style: Continuity of Patterns from the Catholic Homilies to the Lives of Saints’, JEGP 107 (2008), 169–89, at 181–5. The corresponding passage in the
Treatise, by contrast, is considerably more stylised, with alliteration and balanced phrasing employed to great effect:
Se Ælmihtiga
Scippend ge
swutelode hine
sylfne þurh þa micclan
weorc ðe he ge
worhte æt fruman and
wolde þæt ða ge
sceafta ge
sawon his
mærða and on
wuldre mid him
wunodon on
ecnisse on his
underþeodnisse, him æfre gehirsume, for ðam þe hit ys swiðe
wolic þæt ða ge
worhtan ge
sceafta þam ne beon gehirsume þe hi ge
sceop and ge
worhte. Næs þeos
woruld æt fruman, ac hi ge
worhte God silf, se þe æfre þurh
wunode buton
ælcum
anginne on his
miclan
wuldre and on his
mægenþrimnisse,
eall swa mihtig swa he nu ys,
and eall swa micel on his
leohte, for ðan ðe he ys
soð
leoht and
lif and
soð
fæstnisse. And se
ræd wæs æfre on his
ræd
fæstum geþance þæt he
wircan
wolde þa
wundorlican ge
sceafta, be þan ðe he
wolde þurh his micclan
wisdom þa ge
sceafta ge
scippan, and þurh his
soðan
lufe hig
liffæstan on þam
life þe
hig
habbað.
Her is seo
halige
þrinnis on
þisum
þrim mannum. Se Ælmihtiga Fæder of nanum oðrum gecumen, and se micla
wisdom of þam
wisan Fæder æfre of him
anum butan
anginne acenned, se þe
us a
lisde of
urum þeowte syððan mid þære
menniscnisse þe he of
Marian genam. Nu is heora
begra
lufu him
bam æfre ge
mæne, þæt is se Halga Gast þe ealle þing ge
liffæst swa
micel; and swa
mihtig þæt he mid his gife
ealle þa
englas on
liht þe
eardiað on heofenum, and
ealra
manna
heortan þe on
middanearde
libbað, þa þe rihtlice ge
lifað on þone
lifiendan God. And ealra manna
synna
soðlice forgifð, þam þe heora
synna
silfwilles behreowsiað, and nis nan for
gifenis buton þurh his
gife. And he spræc þurh
witegan þe
witegodon ymbe Crist, for þan þe he ys se
willa and
witodlice lufu þæs Fæder and þæs
Suna, swa swa we
sædon ær.
Seofonfealde
gifa he
gifð mancynne (git be þam ic a
wrat ær on sumum oðrum ge
write on Engliscre spræce), swa swa Isaias se
witega hit on bec sette on his
witegunge.
35 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, pp. 201–2, ll. 28–55.[The Almighty Creator manifested himself by the great works which he performed in the beginning, and he wished that creation should see his glory and should dwell with him in eternity, always obedient to him in its service. For it is very wrong that creation should be disobedient to him who created it. This world did not exist at first, but God himself made it, who was ever without beginning in his great glory and who in his majesty was as mighty as he now is, and also as great in his light: for he is light itself, and life and truth. And the plan was always in his intended thought that he would make these wonderful creatures, because he wished through his great wisdom to create them, and by his true love to quicken them into life, which they now have.
The Holy Trinity is in these three persons: the almighty Father, who came from no other being; the great Wisdom ever begotten by that wise Father from him alone, without beginning, who redeemed us afterwards from our bondage with his incarnation, which he received from Mary; the love of both of them, which is ever common between them, is the Holy Spirit, who endows all things with life. He is so great and mighty that by his grace he gives light to all the angels who dwell in heaven and to the hearts of all the people living on earth who believe rightly in the living God; and truly he forgives the sins of all the people who freely repent of their sins, and there is no forgiveness except through his grace. He spoke through the prophets who made prophecies concerning Christ, for he is the will and truly the love of the Father and the Son, just as we said before. He gives yet a sevenfold gift to humankind, concerning which I have written already in a certain other treatise in English, just as the prophet Isaiah set it down in the book of his prophecy.]
In addition to regular alliteration of two-stress phrases, this passage features word pairs and anaphora (e.g. on wuldre mid him wunedon on ecnisse on his underþeodnisse; on his miclan wuldre and on his mægenþrimnisse; eall swa mihtig […] and eall swa micel) and doublets (e.g. hi gesceop and geworhte). Key concepts such as ‘work’, ‘life’, ‘prophecy’ and ‘grace’ are emphasised through elaborate polyptoton (e.g. weorc […] geworhte […] geworhtan […] geworhte; geliffæst […] libbað […] gelifað […] lifiendan; witegan […] witegodon […] witodlice […] witega […] witegunge; gifa […] gifð). The account of Creation in the Treatise also places considerably more emphasis on typology than the sermon on which it is based, linking, for example, the Creation with the Incarnation and Virgin Birth, while introducing the concepts of forgiveness through grace (gife) and the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy of Isaiah in Christ.
Further material from ‘On the Beginning of Creation’ is recycled in the next section of the
Treatise, which presents a typological interpretation of the events which took place before Creation. The story of the expulsion of Lucifer and the rebel angels from heaven is, of course, absent from the Book of Genesis and therefore had no place in the translation of that book which Ælfric made for Æthelweard in the 990s.
36 See above, pp. 153–77. However, the Fall of the Angels is alluded to elsewhere in the Bible, in particular Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 12, as well as in various patristic sources known in England.
37 On Ælfric’s extensive writing on the angelic fall, see Michael Fox, ‘Ælfric on the Creation and Fall of the Angels’, ASE 31 (2002), 175–200. The Fall of the Angels is also the subject of the opening section of the Old English poetic paraphrase Genesis A (ll. 1–102). For the influence of this tradition on Old English poetry and prose, see Thomas D. Hill, ‘The Fall of Angels and Man in the Old English Genesis B’, in Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation, For John C. McGalliard, ed. Lewis E. Nicholson and Dolores Warwick Frese (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp. 279–90; Thomas D. Hill, ‘The Fall of Satan in the Old English Christ and Satan’, JEGP 73 (1977), 315–25; David F. Johnson, ‘The Fall of Lucifer in Genesis A and Two Anglo-Latin Royal Charters’, JEGP 97 (1998), 500–21; Daniel Anlezark, ‘The Fall of the Angels in Solomon and Saturn II’, in Apocryphal Texts and Traditions, ed. Powell and Scragg, pp. 121–33; Jill Fitzgerald, Rebel Angels: Space and Sovereignty in Anglo-Saxon England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019); and Leneghan, ‘Beowulf, the Wrath of God and the Fall of the Angels’. The relevant passage in ‘On the Beginning of Creation’ is again composed in the relatively plain style more characteristic of Ælfric’s earlier prose:
He gesceop tyn engla werod, þæt sind, englas and heah-englas, throni, dominationes, principatus, potestates, virtutes, cherubim, seraphim [Col. 1.16]. Her sindon nigon engla werod; hi nabbað nænne lichaman, ac hi sindon ealle gastas, swiðe strange and mihtige and wlitige, on micelre fægernysse gesceapene to lofe and to wurðmynte heora scyppende. Þæt teoðe werod abreað and awende on yfel. God hi gesceop ealle gode and let hi habban agenne cyre, swa hi heora scyppend lufedon and filigdon, swa hi hine forleton. Þa wæs ðæs teoðan werodes ealdor swiðe fæger and wlitig gesceapen, swa þæt he wæs gehaten “Leohtberend.” Ða began he to modigenne for ðære fægernysse þe he hæfde, and cwæð on his heortan þæt he wolde and eaðe mihte beon his scyppende gelic, and sittan on ðam norðdæle heofenan rices [cf. Is. 14.13] and habban andweald and rice ongean God Ælmihtigne. Þa gefæstnode he ðisne ræd wið þæt werod þe he bewiste, and hi ealle to ðam ræde gebugon. Ða ða hi ealle hæfdon ðysne ræd betwux him gefæstnod, þa becom Godes grama ofer hi ealle, and hi ealle wurdon awende of þam fægeran hiwe þe hi on gesceapene wæron to laðlicum deoflum. And swiðe rihtlice him swa getimode: ða ða he wolde mid modignysse beon betera þonne he gesceapen wæs, and cwæð þæt he mihte beon þam Ælmihtigum Gode gelic, þa wearð he and ealle his geferan forcuþran and wyrsan þonne ænig oðer gesceaft. And ða hwile ðe he smeade hu he mihte dælan rice wið God, þa hwile gearcode se Ælmihtiga Scyppend him and his geferum helle wite, and hi ealle adræfde of heofenan rices myrhðe and let befeallan on þæt ece fyr ðe him gegearcod wæs [cf. Matt. 25.41] for heora ofermettum.
[He made ten hosts of angels, that is, angels and archangels,
thrones,
dominions,
principalities,
powers,
virtues,
cherubim,
seraphim. Here are nine hosts of angels; they have no body, but they are all spirits, very strong and mighty and lovely, created in great beauty for the praise and honour of their creator. The tenth host rebelled and turned to evil. God created them all good and let them have their own choice, either to love and follow their creator or forsake him. The leader of the tenth host was created very fair and beautiful, so that he was called “Lightbearer.” Then because of his beauty he began to be proud, and said in his heart that he would and easily could be equal to his creator, and sit in the north part of the kingdom of heaven and have power and rule against God Almighty. Then he confirmed this plan with the host that he ruled, and they all agreed to that council. When they had all confirmed this council among themselves, God’s anger came over them all, and they were all turned from the fair form in which they were created into loathsome devils. And quite rightly this happened to them: when in his pride he wanted to be better than he was created, and said that he might be equal to the Almighty God, then he and all his companions became more wicked and worse than any other creature. And while he was scheming how he might share the kingdom with God, the Almighty Creator was preparing the torments of hell for him and his companions, and drove them all from the joy of the kingdom of heaven and let them fall into the eternal fire that was prepared for them because of their arrogance.]
38 CH I.1, pp. 17–18.Alliteration is reserved for the description of God’s wrath (Godes grama) and two other phrases (wurdon awende; gearcode se Ælmihtiga Scyppend), while doublets and word pairs are also used sparingly (to lofe and to wurðmynte; abreað and awende; lufedon and filigdon; fæger and wlitig; forcuþran and wyrsan). In adapting this passage for the Treatise, Ælfric produces a moving and highly stylised set-piece which again has all the hallmarks of his late style (alliteration is marked in bold; wordplay and polyptoton are italicised; balanced phrasing and doublets are underlined):
Se Ælmihtiga scippend, ða ða he englas gesceop, þa geworhte he þurh his wisdom tyn engla werod on þam forman dæge on micelre fægernisse, fela þusenda on ðam frumsceafte, þæt hi on his wuldre hine wurðedon, ealle lichamlease, leohte and strange, buton eallum synnum on gesælþe libbende, swa wlitiges gecindes swa we secgan ne magon. And nan yfel ðing næs on ðam englum þa git, ne nan yfel ne com ðurh Godes gesceapennisse, for ðan ðe he sylf ys eall god [cf. Matt. 19.17, Mark 10.18, Luke 18.19] and ælc god cimð of him [cf. Gen. 1.31], and ða englas þa wunodon on þam wuldre mid Gode.
Hwæt þa binnan
six dagum þe
se
soða
God þa
gesceafta gesceop þe he
gescippan wolde,
gesceawode se
an engel, þe þær
ænlicost wæs,
hu fæger he silf wæs and
hu scinende on wuldre, and cunnode
his mihte þæt
he mihtig wæs ge
sceapen, and him wel gelicode
his wurðfulniss þa. Ðe hatte ‘
Lucifer’ [cf. Is. 14.12], þæt ys ‘
leoht
berend’, for ðære
miclan beorhtnisse his
mæran hiwes. Ða þuhte him to
huxlic þæt he
hiran sceolde
ænigum
hlaforde, þa he swa
ænlic wæs, and nolde
wurðian þone þe hine ge
worhte and him þancian æfre ðæs þe he him forgeaf, and beon him underðeodd þæs ðe swiþor geornlice for þære
micclan
mærðe þe he hine
gemæðegode.
He nolde þa habban his scippend him to
hlaforde, ne
he nolde þurhwunian on
ðære soþfæstnisse ðæs soðfæstan Godes sunu, þe hine gesceop fægerne, ac wolde
mid riccetere him rice gewinnan and
þurh modignisse hine macian to Gode, and nam him ge
gadan
ongean Godes willan, to his
unræde on
eornost gefæstnod. Ða
næfde he
nan
setl, hwær he
sittan mihte, for ðan ðe
nan heofon nolde hine aberan
ne
nan rice næs þe his mihte beon
ongean Godes willan, þe ge
worhte ealle ðinc. Ða a
funde se
modiga hwilce his
mihta wæron, þa þa his
fet ne
mihton furðon ahwar standan, ac he
feoll ða a
dun, to
deofle a
wend, and ealle his ge
gadan of ðam
Godes
hirede
into helle wite be heora gewirhtum.
39 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, pp. 202–3, ll. 56–83.[The Almighty Creator, when he created the angels, then created through his wisdom ten troops of angels on the first day in great beauty, many thousands at the creation, so that they dwelt with him in his glory, all bodiless, light and strong, without any sins living in blessedness, of such beautiful nature that we cannot speak of it. And no evil thing was in any of those angels yet, nor did any evil come through God’s creation, because he himself is all good and all good proceeds from him, and those angels then dwelt in that glory with God.
Alas, then within six days the true God made the creation which he desired to make, one angel, he who was excellent, perceived how beautiful he himself was, and how shining in glory, and knew his might, that he was created mighty, and then he greatly liked his worthiness. He was named “Lucifer,” that is “light-bearing,” because of the mighty brightness of his great form. Then it seemed to him too unseemly that he should obey any lord, when he was so excellent, and he desired not to worship him who had made him, and not to thank him ever for what he had given him, and not to be subject to him very eagerly for the great glory with which he had honoured him. He did not wish not to have his Creator as his lord, nor did he wish to remain in faithfulness to the true Son of God, who created him beautiful, but he wished to win for himself a kingdom with power, and wished through pride to make himself God, and eagerly secured companions for himself against God’s will, to his folly. Then he had no throne where he might sit, because heaven did not wish to suffer him, nor was there any kingdom that might be his against God’s will, who made all things. Then the proud one found what his strengths were, when his feet might not even stand anywhere, but then he fell down, and he turned into the devil, and all his companions fell from God’s household into the torments of hell because of their works.]
While ‘On the Beginning of Creation’ simply states that the leader of the rebel angels was
swiðe fæger and wlitig gesceapen, swa þæt he wæs gehaten Leohtberend, the
Treatise provides an exegetical interpretation of his name, first supplying the Latin form given in the Vulgate and then glossing its English translation:
Ðe hatte ‘Lucifer’, þæt ys ‘leohtberend’, for ðære miclan beorhtnisse his mæran hiwes (‘He was called ‘Lucifer’, ‘that is ‘Light-bearing one’, because of the great brightness of his great form’).
40 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 203, ll. 68–9. The opening phrase,
Se ælmihtiga scippend, echoes the language used in the first part of the exposition of Creation in the
Treatise cited above, as well as the variant
Se ælmihtiga fæder used to introduce the preceding exposition of the Trinity. A panoply of rhetorical tropes and literary devices are on display in this
tour de force of rhythmical prose, including
exclamatio (
Hwæt), word-play (e.g.
gode/
God;
an engel/
ænlicost;
mærðe/
gemæðegode;
riccetere/
rice;
mihta/
ne mihton), polyptoton (e.g.
scippend […]
gesceop […]
gesceapennisse […]
gesceop […]
gescippan wolde), balanced phrasing and syntactical parallelism (e.g.
He nolde þa habban […]
he nolde þurhwunian) and doublets (e.g.
for ðære miclan beorhtnisse his mæran hiwes), while extensive, regular alliteration of two-stressed phrases provides rhythm and links key concepts (
scippend,
gesceop;
geworhte, wisdom,
werod;
forman,
fægernisse fela,
frumsceafte).
Ælfric’s rhythmical prose style becomes more visible when presented as lineated text, as is now the editorial norm for his Lives of Saints (/ indicates stressed sounds; | indicates the half-line break or caesura; alliteration in bold):
/ / | / /
Hwæt þa binnan six dagum þe se soða God
/ / | / /
þa gesceafta gesceop þe he gescippan wolde,
/ / / | / /
gesceawode se an engel, þe þær ænlicost wæs,
/ / | / /
hu fæger he silf wæs and hu scinende on wuldre,
/ / | / /
and cunnode his mihte þæt he mihtig wæs gesceapen,
/ / | / /
and him wel gelicode his wurðfulniss þa.
However, alliteration and rhythmical phrasing feature less frequently in the subsequent section of the Treatise describing the Fall of Adam and Eve and the composition of the Pentateuch by Moses:
Ða on ðam sixtan dæge siþþan ðis gedon wæs, gesceop se Ælmihtiga God mannan of eorðan, Adam, mid his handum and him sawle forgeaf [Gen. 2.7], and Evan eft siþþan of Adames ribbe [Gen. 2.21–2], þæt hi sceoldon habban, and heora ofspring mid him, þa fægeran wununge þe se feond forleas, gif hi gehirsumedon heora scippende on riht. Ða beswac se deofol siððan eft þa men, þæt hi Godes bebod tobræcon forraþe and wurdon þa deadlice and adræfde butu of ðære myrhþe to ðisum middanearde and on sorhge leofodon and on geswincum siþþan, and eall heora ofsprinc þe him of com siððan, oþ þæt ure Hælend Crist ure yfel gebette, swa swa þeos racu æfter us segð.
We nymað of þam
bocum þas ende
byrdnysse þe
Moises awrat, se
mæra heretoga, swa swa him God
silf dihte on heora
sunder
spræce, þa þa he mid Gode wunode on þam munte Sinai feowertig daga on an and underfeng his lare, and he ætes ne gimde on eallum þam fyrste for ðære miclan
bisnunge þæra
boca lare. Fif
bec he a
wrat mid
wundorlicum dihte. Seo
forme ys Genesis, þe be
fehð þas racu ærest
fram
frumsceafte and be Adames synne, and hu he leofode nigan hund geara and þrittig geara
41 and þrittig geara is omitted in MS L (Laud Misc. 509) but supplied from Bo. (Bodley 343) on þære forman ylde þissere worulde and
bearn gestrinde be his ge
beddan Euan. And he siððan gewat mid sorge to helle.
42 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, pp. 203–4, ll. 84–103.[Then on the sixth day after this was done, the almighty God created man from the earth, Adam, with his own hands, and gave him a soul, and also afterward Eve from Adam’s rib, so that they and their offspring with them should have the fair dwelling that the fiend lost, if they obeyed their creator properly. Then afterwards the devil deceived these people, so that they quickly broke God’s command, and they became mortal and he drove both of them out of that place of joy to this middle-earth, and they lived in sorrow and toil, and all their offspring who came from them afterward, until our Saviour Christ atoned for our evil, just as this account tells us after.
We begin with the series of books that Moses wrote, the famous war leader, just as God himself dictated in their private speech then, when he dwelled with God on Mount Sinai for forty days at once and received his teaching, and he had no concern for eating in all that time because of the great example of the teaching of the books. He wrote five books with wonderful composition. The first is Genesis, which includes the first account from creation and Adam’s sin, and how he lived nine hundred and thirty years in the first age of this world, and had children by his wife Eve. And afterwards he went with sorrow to hell.]
This plainer prose style, closer to that of Ælfric’s earlier writings, remains in use for the rest of the
Treatise, though there are occasional isolated examples of alliteration.
43 For example, in the introduction to the Three Orders of Society: Witan sceoldon smeagan mid wislicum geþeahte, þonne on mancinne to micel yfel bið, hwilc þæra stelenna þæs cinestoles were tobrocen, and betan ðone sona. Se cinestol stynt on þisum þrim stelum (Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 228, ll. 867–9); and the criticism of the Jews: Ic wolde secgan be þam ungesæligum folce, be þam Iudeiscum, þe urne Drihten ahengon, ac ic wolde ærest secgan þæt þæt ic gesæd hæbbe. Manega ðær gelyfdon of þam mancinne on Crist ac se mæsta dæl þæs mancinnes nolde on hine gelyfan and losodon forði (Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 229, ll. 879–92). It is unclear why Ælfric chose to abandon the high style in the
Treatise after his account of the Fall of the Angels. He may have used this elevated register in the opening section in order to grab his reader’s attention before settling into a less ornate style for the challenging task of summarising the entire Bible.
Creating an English Bible
Debate about the contents of the biblical canon began in the early centuries of the Church.
44 For the patristic background to this topic, see Hans Freiherr von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, trans. J. A. Baker (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1972); Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987); Lee M. McDonald and James A. Sanders, eds, The Canon Debate (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002); and van Liere, Introduction to the Medieval Bible, pp. 53–79. However, as Larry Swain notes, although Ælfric was probably familiar with Jerome’s
Prologus Galeatus and Letter 53, which were often included in medieval bibles, and Isidore’s
Proemia,
none of these works appear to have served as immediate sources for the
Treatise. Rather, Ælfric’s choice of canonical texts is largely determined by the contents of the Vulgate itself, as well as Jerome’s various prefaces to individual books.
45 Swain, Letter to Sigeweard, pp. 69–79. Many biblical books are given Ælfric’s seal of approval either by virtue of the fact that he personally translated them or assisted in their translation, such as the books of the Pentateuch and Joshua, or because they are referred to as the subject of one his homilies, such as Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith and Maccabees.
46 For a helpful list indicating the location of these biblical materials in Ælfric’s works, see Wilcox, Ælfric’s Prefaces, pp. 41–3. The canonicity of other Old Testament books which lie outside Ælfric’s own body of writings, however, requires further explication; hence, for example, he explains that the Book of Ruth
is geendebyrd on ure bibliothecan47 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 210, l. 255. (‘is included in the canon of our Bible’), as are the three books which Solomon composed, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs:
þas bec standað nu on þære bibliotheca48 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 211, ll. 311. (‘these books now have their place in the Bible’). Two further canonical Old Testament books, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are traditionally attributed to Solomon on the grounds of their style and eloquence but, Ælfric explains, they are in fact the work of Jesus son of Sirach and are
swiðe micele bec, and man hig ræt on circan to micclum wisdome swiðe gewunelice49 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 213, ll. 357–8. (‘very great books, and which by accepted custom are read in church for their great wisdom’). The books of the twelve prophets (
witega), Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, are all given Ælfric’s approval, while the Book of Ezra
ys geendebyrd on þissere gesetnysse mid deopum andgitte on diglum getacnungum50 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 216, ll. 444–5. (‘is included in this Testament with profound meaning and hidden significances’). Another prophetic book included in the English
bibliotheca is Tobit, which serves as a further example of good works:
And seo boc ys geteald to þisum getele, for ðan þe þæron ys eac swilce getacnung51 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 217, ll. 458–9. (‘And that book is counted within this number, because within it there is also great significance’). Old Testament books excluded from both the Vulgate and Ælfric’s English Bible, on the other hand, include the minor prophets Elijah and Elisha, despite the fact that they composed their works inspired by the true God:
heora bec ne synd na on ure gesetnissum on þære biblioþecan, swa swa þas oðre beoð52 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 216, ll. 438–9. (‘their books are not in our canon of the Bible, as the others are’).
In his brief summary of the New Testament, Ælfric follows Jerome in sanctioning the writings of the four evangelists, directing readers to his
Catholic Homilies for an authoritative guide to their interpretation:
53 On the Catholic Homilies, see above, Chapter Three, pp. 119–44.Ic secge þis sceortlice, for ðan þe ic gesett hæbbe of þisum feower bocum wel feowertig larspella on Engliscum gereorde, and sumne eacan ðærto. Þa þu miht rædan be þissere race on maran andgite ðonne ic her secge.
54 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, pp. 220–1, ll. 579–82.[I speak of this briefly, because I have composed around forty homilies, or just over, in the English language concerning these four books. There you can read about this story with greater understanding than I provide here.]
By repeatedly emphasising the canonicity of the four gospels (e.g.
Feower Cristes bec sindon be Criste sylfum awriten,
55 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 219, l. 519. ‘Four books of Christ are written about Christ himself’;
Ðas synd þa feower ean of anum wyllspringe þe gað of paradisum ofer Godes folc wide,
56 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 219, ll. 537–9. ‘These are the four streams from one wellspring which flows from paradise far over God’s people’) while remaining silent on the status of the Gospels of Nicodemus and Pseudo-Matthew and other popular works such as the
Vision of St Paul,
Ælfric excludes these apocryphal works from his vision of the English Bible.
57 On Ælfric’s disapproval of such apocryphal works, see Hall, ‘Ælfric and the Epistle to the Laodiceans’, pp. 65–6. Hence, the two epistles of Peter are accepted despite their great length:
Ac hig synd maran þonne man æt mæssan ræt and habbað langne tige to geleafan trimminge, and hig synd to bocum getelade on þære bibliothecan58 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 221, ll. 587–9. (‘but they are larger than the sections read at mass and have a great effect in strengthening the faith, and they are counted as books in the Bible’), as are the epistles of James, John, Judas and Paul and the Acts of the Apostles. By referring to Revelation as
æftemyst on ðære bibliothecan59 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 223, ll. 672–3. (‘the last in the Bible’), Ælfric allows for no further additions to the biblical canon.
We have seen how throughout his career as a biblical translator, Ælfric was concerned with distinguishing between the Old and New Law. In the Treatise, he illustrates the essential unity of the Old and New Testaments through the story of Isaiah’s vision of two hosts of angels singing praise of God (Is. 6.3):
Ða twa seraphin soðlice getacnodon þa Ealdan Gekyðnysse and eac þa Niwan, þe heriað mid wordum and mid weorcum æfre þone Ælmihtigan God, se þa ana rixað on anre Godgundnysse butan anginne and ende.
60 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 227, ll. 822–5.[These two seraphim truly signify the Old Testament and also the New, which praise that Almighty God forever with words and with works, he who alone reigns in one Godhead without beginning or end.]
In his Preface to Genesis, Ælfric expressed reservations about making the plain text of the Old Testament available to poorly educated readers who might be led astray by its contents, while at the same time providing his patron Æthelweard with examples of the complex nature of the exegesis involved in unlocking its spiritual meaning.
61 See above, pp. 153–62. In the making of the Heptateuch, Ælfric and his fellow translators at times radically edited their Old Testament sources in order to make this material more palatable for the same unlearned readership. By dispensing with translation in favour of homiletic paraphrase and exegetical summary in the
Treatise, Ælfric was now free to explain to lay readers how the key events of the Old Testament prefigure those in the New.
At the end of this exegetical summary of the Old and New Testaments, Ælfric states that there are seventy-two books in the Bible, though sometimes they are split in two in church on account of their length, just as the peoples were divided into the same number at the Tower of Babel and the same number of disciples were sent by Christ to preach his teachings.
62 Thomas Hall suggests that Ælfric included Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans as the fifteenth epistle despite Jerome’s condemnation of this letter as apocryphal, because he wanted to make up a total of seventy-two books, a number whose symbolic association further confirms the unity of the Old and New Testaments (‘Ælfric and the Epistle to the Laodiceans’). As Swain notes, other authorities known to Ælfric, including Augustine, Isidore and Cassiodorus, list only seventy-one books of the Bible (Letter to Sigeweard, pp. 76–7). Ælfric is careful in this final section to distinguish these seventy-two canonical books from other works composed by holy teachers which are cherished widely throughout Christendom to the glory of Christ.
63 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 227, ll. 836–45. The
Treatise thereby not only paraphrases and explains the spiritual meaning of the entire Bible but also defines its parameters for readers who might otherwise be led into error by reading apocryphal or otherwise non-canonical books.
Audience
Following a Latin incipit, the text of the
Treatise in
MS L begins with the statement:
Ðis gewrit wæs to anum men gediht ac hit mæg swa ðeah manegum fremian64 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 201, ll. 2–3. (‘This treatise was made for one person but it may serve many’) (fig. 13). Although Sigeweard’s identity is unknown, Catherine Cubitt places him along with two other named recipients of letters from Ælfric, Sigefryth and Wulfgeat, in ‘a middle stratum of thegns; prosperous local figures who acted as surety for each other, witnessed each other’s property transactions and regularly attended the hundred and shire courts’.
65 Cubitt, ‘Ælfric’s Lay Patrons’, pp. 186–7. Ælfric’s active involvement in the pastoral care of such laymen is made clear in the opening, epistolary section of
Treatise, in which he recalls that Sigeweard had invited him to his house and requested a supply of English books:
66 See further Shannon O. Ambrose, ‘The Theme of Lay Clænnyss in Ælfric’s Letters to Sigeweard, Sigefryð, and Brother Edward’, Mediaevalia 35 (2014), 5–21.Ælfric Abbod gret freondlice Sigwerd æt Eastheolon. […] Đu bæde me foroft Engliscra gewritena and ic þe ne getiðode ealles swa timlice, ær ðam þe þu mid weorcum þæs gewilnodest æt me, þa ða þu me bæde for Godes lufon georne þæt ic þe æt ham æt þinum huse gespræce. And þu ða swiðe mændest, þa þa ic mid þe wæs, þæt þu mine gewrita begitan ne mihtest. Nu wille ic þæt þu hæbbe huru þis litle, nu ðe wisdom gelicað. And þu hine habban wilt þæt þu ealles ne beo minra boca bedæled.
67 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 201, ll. 4–5, 14–21.[Abbot Ælfric greets Sigeweard at Asthall in a friendly manner. […] You requested from me very often for writings in English, and I did not grant it to you all too quickly, when you previously desired this from me with works, then you eagerly asked me, for the love of God, that I should speak with you at home at your house. And then you greatly complained, when I was with you, that you were unable to obtain my writings. Now I desire that you at least should have this little book, now that wisdom is pleasing to you. And you desire to have it so that you are not deprived of all of my books.]
The Letter to Wulfgeat, preserved between Ælfric’s Judges and the Treatise in MS L, begins in a similar fashion, with the abbot again explaining how this layman had requested English books from him:
Ic Ælfric abbod on ðisum Engliscum gewrite
freondlice grete mid godes gretinge
Wulfget æt Yimandune! Be þam þe wit nu her spræcon
be ðam Engliscum gewritum, ðe ic þe alænde,
þæt þe wel licode þære gewrita andgit,
and ic sæde, þæt ic wolde þe sum asendan git.
68 Assmann, ed., Angelsaechsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, I, p. 1, ll. 1–6.[I Abbot Ælfric, in these English writings, greet in a friendly manner with God’s greeting Wulfgeat at Yimandum. Concerning that about which we two recently spoke here, about those English writings which I lent you, that the understanding of the writings greatly pleased you, and I said that I desired to send you some more.]
It is clear from the content of the letters themselves that the ‘English writings’ requested in both cases were on biblical topics, whether in the shape of translations or homiletic paraphrases.
69 Patrick Wormald comments: ‘Ælfric actually addressed more of his works to laymen (mere “gentry”, apart from Æthelweard and his son) than to clergy. They may not, in the modern sense, have read them. Equally, it splits hairs to insist that they could not: they still wished to own his books’ (‘Anglo-Saxon Society and its Literature’, p. 18). As men expected to play a role in the organisation of military defences, such men could take inspiration from biblical narratives such as the story of Judith, which as Ælfric explains in the
Treatise, is written in English
eow mannum to bysne þæt ge eowerne eard mid wæpnum bewerian wið onwindendne here (‘for you men as an example, so that you eagerly defend the land with weapons against the attacking army’).
70 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 217, ll. 465–7. Gentry such as Sigeweard might also have used the
Treatise to provide basic biblical instruction to members of their households, perhaps with the assistance of a chaplain.
71 See Gerald P. Dyson, Priests and their Books in Later Anglo-Saxon England, Anglo-Saxon Studies 34 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2019), pp. 24–5. Viewed within such a domestic setting, the potential of the
Treatise as a tool for wider pastoral care becomes clear.
72 On this topic more generally, see the essays in Pastoral Care in Late Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Francesca Tinti, Anglo-Saxon Studies 6 (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005). Moreover, as Cubitt notes, ‘local thegns’ such as Sigeweard and Wulfgeat were also responsible for the administration of their local parish church, with duties including the appointment of priests, the foundation of churches and the provision of vessels, vestments and books.
73 See further Cubitt, ‘Ælfric’s Lay Patrons’, pp. 186–7; Cubitt suggests that Sigeweard owned an estate near Ælfric’s abbey at Eynsham. As Magennis notes, Eastheolon is probably Asthall, around eight miles from Eynsham (‘Ælfric of Eynsham’s Letter to Sigeweard’, p. 211). Equipped with a copy of Ælfric’s
Treatise, such men would know precisely which books they should acquire for their priests.
74 For discussion of the reading materials used by English priests in this period, see Dyson, Priests and their Books. On the development of a system of self-contained local parishes in the English Church c. 850–1100, see John Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 426–504.Secular priests themselves could also benefit from reading the
Treatise by dipping into it as a source of exempla, as Wilcox suggests, or simply by using it as a refresher of key episodes in biblical history.
75 Wilcox, Ælfric’s Prefaces, p. 41. On the likelihood that secular clergy formed an important element of Ælfric’s readership, despite his reluctance to dedicate works to them in his prefaces, see Stephenson, Politics of Language, pp. 135–46. It is certainly with these priests in mind that Ælfric contrasts ignorant teachers with those who know their Bible well and are therefore able to draw examples from both the Old and New Testaments:
76 For Ælfric’s complaint that some priests are ignorant about the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments in his Preface to Genesis, see above, pp. 158–9. On the Letter for Wulfsige, see above, pp. 119–20.Ða lareowas þe nellað heora lare nyman of þisum halgum bocum, ne heora gebysnunga, þa beoð swilce lareowas, swa swa Crist sylf sæde: ‘Cecus si ceco ducatum prestet, ambo in foueam cadent’ (cf. Mt. 15.14). ‘Gif se blinda man byð þæs blindan latteow, þonne befeallað hi begen on sumne blindne seað.’ Ða lareowas þe willað heora lare nyman of þisum halgum bocum, and heora gebysnunga, ge of þære Ealdan Gekiðnisse ge of ðære Niwan, þa beoð swilce lareowas, swa swa Crist eft sylf cwæð: ‘Omnis scriba doctus in regno celorum similis est homini patri familias qui profert de thesauro suo noua et uetera’ (Mt. 13.15). ‘Ælc gelæred bocere on Godes gelaðunge ys gelic þam hlaforde þe forlæt simble of his agenum goldhorde ealde þing and niwe.’
77 Marsden, ed., Heptateuch, I, p. 227, ll. 825–36.[Those teachers who do not wish to take their instruction from these holy books, nor their examples, then those teachers are like those about whom Christ said: ‘Cecus si ceco ducatum prestet, ambo in foueam cadent.’ (cf. Mt. 15.14) ‘If the blind man guides the blind man, then they will both fall into a blind pit.’ Those teachers who wish to take their instruction from these holy books, and their examples, both from the Old Testament and the New, they are like those about whom Christ afterwards said: ‘Omnis scriba doctus in regno celorum similis est homini patri familias qui profert de thesauro suo noua et uetera’ (Mt. 13.15). ‘Each learned scholar among God’s faithful is like that lord who always gives from his own gold-hoard things old and new.’]
We saw above how in the Preface to Genesis Ælfric had expressed his concerns about the poor levels of scriptural knowledge among English priests. With the Treatise, Ælfric took the matter into his own hands by supplying these same priests with the tools to understand the Old Law spiritually and to know the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. The Treatise was thus a true ‘book for many’, serving as a guide to the correct interpretation of Scripture for bookish members of the gentry and for priests whose duty was to explain the Bible to the ordinary people.