Se snotera lareow
Ælfric’s De temporibus anni and Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion compared
Student: Fieke Suzanne de Vreede Student number: 1779990
Supervisor: Dr. C. Dekker
Masterscriptie Opleiding Engelse Taal en Cultuur Faculteit der Letteren
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
DTA Ælfric. De Temporibus Anni. Ed. Heinrich Henel. Early English Text Society o.s. 213. Oxford: OUP, 1942.
Introduction
An emphasis on education is one of the essential aspects of Anglo-Saxon literary and scholarly culture, during the late tenth and eleventh centuries. This was the age of the so-called Benedictine Reform movement, a monastic revival that attached great importance to a successful education of novices and oblates with the help of a curriculum that included not only Latin and biblical exegesis, but also the sciences. The evidence of this flowering scholarly culture are the texts and manuscripts that were used by teachers in monastic schools and other educational surroundings. There are, however, many questions that are raised by these texts and manuscripts. Which texts were school texts, and how can we see this? How were they used, and by whom, and for whom?
In recent years, scholars have been trying to find answers to such questions. For example, Patrizia Lendinara has stated that in the Middle Ages, two different sorts of manuscripts were used as school texts: the “unitary book” and the “miscellaneous manuscript”. The classical world only knew the unitary book: a book containing work by a single author (Lendinara 59). Bede’s De temporum ratione is an example of a unitary book. The miscellaneous book, “containing the work of different writers, as well as different genres of texts”, began to circulate in the late antique period (Lendinara 59-60). These manuscripts were hardly taken into a class, however: they were “perused and studied” by single teachers to improve their knowledge “and possibly prepare for school lessons” (Lendinara 72). Thus, in the Middle Ages, school texts were not used as they are today.
recognise such texts, and how did an educational purpose affect the literary and linguistic qualities of such texts? Many of the answers to these questions lie hidden in the material that has been preserved. Two examples of eleventh-century vernacular educational texts will be discussed in this study: Ælfric’s
De temporibus anni and Byrhferth’s Enchiridion.
Around the turn of the eleventh century, two Anglo-Saxon monks, Ælfric, abbot of Eynsham (c. 950-c. 1010), and Byhtferth of Ramsey (c. 970-c. 1020), each wrote a vernacular treatise on the working of time, entitled De temporibus anni (henceforth DTA) and the Enchiridion (henceforth E), respectively. Both authors were teachers. Ælfric is highly praised for his works; and many scholars recognize his teaching skills.1 The opinions on Byrhtferth differ: scholars note that his treatise is an important work, but the way in which it is written and organized is often criticized. Both texts discuss the topic of “computus”, the knowledge surrounding “the ecclesiastical calendar”, with the ultimate aim of calculating the date of Easter – the most important festival in the ecclesiastical year and the anchoring point for all movable feasts in a year. In spite of great differences in size, scope, execution, and language, the treatises show considerable overlap: they deal with the same subject, were produced during the same period, in Southern England, and are traditionally known as didactic treatises. In this study I will investigate how these two works compare, in terms of material, use of sources, use of language and organisation, and how these differences relate to the purported educational aims with which the two treatises were written.
Ælfric’s De temporibus anni
Ælfric has been a grateful research object for many scholars over the past decades and is still considered so; it is but a few years ago that The Companion to Ælfric, edited by Hugh Magennis and Mary Swan,
was published. Magennis states that in the scholarly community Ælfric is recognised as “the most important writer of Old English prose and as the great English ‘teacher’ of his age” (5). On top of that, “[h]is writing is seen as distinctive and highly accomplished, and the extent of his Latin learning continues to impress researchers even as they define that learning more and more sharply” (5). However, if scholars choose to write about Ælfric, they usually focus on his most renowned works, such as his
Catholic Homilies; conversely, Ælfric’s DTA is often overlooked.
Ælfric lived a fruitful life as a scholar and educator. He was a monk in the Old Minster of Winchester, during the episcopacy of Æthelwold (Bishop of Winchester from 963 to 984). Around 987 he was sent to Cerne Abbas (Dorset) at the request of the powerful layman Æthelmær. Ælfric himself states in his Catholic Homilies that he lived at Cerne Abbas as masspriest and monk: “Ic ælfric munuc 7 mæssepreost swa ðeah waccre þonne swilcum hadum gebyrige” (qtd. in Hill 51). According to Hill he must have been at least thirty years old then, because this was the minimum canonical age for the ordination to the priesthood at that time. This means that Ælfric’s birthdate cannot be later than c. 957, although it might have been earlier. He transferred as abbot to Eynsham (modern Oxfordshire) around 1005 and presumably died there. Most scholars date his death around 1020 (35-36).2
Ælfric wrote De temporibus Anni c. 993 (Henel xlix), which means that he produced it shortly after he composed his Catholic Homilies (xlv). The treatise occurs in nine manuscripts: London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius A. iii; London, British Library, Cotton Tiberius B. v, Corpus Christi College Cambridge 367, London, British Library, Cotton Titus D. xxvii, London, British Library, Cotton Caligula A. xv, Cambridge University Library, Gg. 3. 28, Rome, Vatican Library, Reginensis latinus 1283. Henel based his edition of DTA on CUL Gg. 3. 28. The treatise consists of less than 6000 lines (Hall 212) and is divided into ten chapters: I. De die “about the day”, II. De primo die sæculi ∙ siue de
equinoctio uernali “about the first day of the world, or about the spring equinox”, III. De nocte “about
the night”, IV. De anno, “about the year”, V. De mundo, “about the world”, VI. De equinoctiis, “about the equinoxes”, VII. De bissexto, “about the leap year”, VIII. De saltu lune, “about the leap of the moon”, IX. De diuersis stellis, “about the various stars”, X. De duodecim uentis, “about the twelve winds”, XI. De pluuia, “about rain”, XII. De grandine, “about hail”, XIII. De niue, “about snow”, and XIV. De tonitru, “about thunder”. DTA is a short but concise work, covering the basics of astronomy and explaining several natural phenomena.
Byrhtferth’s Enchiridion
Byrhtferth’s works are less well-known than Ælfric‘s, but that does not make them less worthy of research. Although his Enchiridion has not always received the attention it deserved, a new edition of this work edited by Peter S. Baker and Michael Lapidge was published in 1995, and since then the attention for Byrthferth’s works has increased.
Byrhtferth was probably born around 970, and it is believed that he entered Ramsey Abbey as an oblate. According to Baker and Lapidge, he was “a young and energetic scholar, perhaps in his late teens, when Abbo of Fleury visited Ramsey during the years 985-7” (xxxiii). Later in life Byrhtferth became the master of the Ramsey school, where he taught computus and probably also gave instruction in Latin grammar and “the Latin poets which formed the curriculum of Anglo-Saxon schools” (Baker and Lapidge xxxiii). Byrhtferth probably ended his days at Ramsey as well, but Baker and Lapidge note that it is also possible that he stayed in Evensham, because of the battle of Assandun, which greatly affected Ramsey Abbey (xxxiv).
born in another age he “would have made an acceptably good housemaster at an English public school; but eminent scientist, no” (105).
Byrhtferth’s work is called the Enchiridion, which means “handbook”. It was completed several years after DTA, probably around 1011. Byrhtferth himself states that he has written E for the “suburbani ignorant clerici (Baker and Lapidge 18),3
“þam þe þat Lyden ne understandað” (Baker and Lapidge 86). The work is divided into four parts, separated into multiple chapters. The first part features chapters about the year and its parts; the concurrents, regulars and epacts; Bede’s verses and instructions on the concurrents, regulars and epacts. The second part comprises chapters about the twelve months; the seven embolisms, as well as the year, the night, the hours and their parts. In the third part there are chapters about Easter; the reckoning of Easter; finding the Easter term, as well as a chapter called “concerning many things”. The fourth and last part of the treatise comprises chapters about the meaning of numbers and the six ages of the world. The treatise is concluded with an “ammonitio amici”: an “admonition by a friend”.
Of Byrhtferth’s E short excerpts are preserved in two manuscripts which are both in the Cambridge University Library: Kk. 5.32, fols. 49-60, and Corpus Christi College 421. E is also preserved in a nearly complete manuscript: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 328; therefore, Baker and Lapidge have based their edition of E on this manuscript.
Computus
Both DTA and E deal with the computus.4 Computus is one of the sciences practised in the Church, and it was a compulsory topic at monastic schools. Computus is not a science, but more an application of
3
“The city clerks that are ignorant”. In this study all translations of Byrhferth’s Enchiridion are provided by Baker and Lapidge, unless stated otherwise.
4 For a good overview of ideas and practices of the computus in the Middle Ages, see McCluskey, Stephen C. “Computing
other sciences: “[o]n one level, it can be described as nothing more than a complicated mathematical problem: how to find the date of Easter” (Wallis xviii). In the Middle Ages the word “computus” “could be used of the astronomical science that grew up around the calendar, of books by single authors on this science ... or of a collection of brief notices, tables and diagrams, usually by various authors, on astronomy and the calendar” (Baker 124).5
The major inspirational source of computus learning for both Ælfric and Byrhtferth was the Venerable Bede (673-735). Bede is the composer of two series of Homilies, The Ecclesiastical History
of the English People, several saints’ lives and many other exegetical works. His works were widely
read, and for numerous other Anglo-Saxon authors he was a great source of inspiration.6 He also wrote three scientific works in which the computus played an important role: De temporum ratione, De
temporibus and De natura rerum. Especially Ælfric has relied heavily on Bede: much of his treatise is
based on Bede’s De temporum ratione. Byrhtferth has also quoted extensively from Bede, but also from works by other authors.7
Unlike Bede and other computus authors, Ælfric and Byrhtferth wrote their texts in the vernacular. Why did the authors choose to do this? According to Hart, young novices were taught in Latin, but separate instruction in the vernacular, based on a much simpler syllabus, “was given to the unlettered clerks destined to serve the parish churches of the neighbourhood” (96). Whereas DTA is completely in English, E is not: it contains large chunks of Latin text. It seems that Byrhtferth wrote E for novices as well as unlettered clerks.8
The relation between DTA and E is still a moot point; the correspondences and differences, as well as the purpose and potential usage of the books, require careful study. Therefore, this comparative
5 “Byrhtferth’s ‘Enchiridion’ and Oxford, St John’s College 17”. 6
For more information about Bede, see Wallis, Faith. “Introduction”. Bede: the Reckoning of Time or Wallis, Faith. “Bede and Science”.
Chapter 1
Ælfric and Byrhtferth have a great deal in common and worked from the same religious and intellectual background. Both were teachers: Ælfric taught at Cerne Abbas in Dorset where he was a monk and wrote several pedagogical works. Byrhtferth was the schoolmaster of Ramsey Abbey. Furthermore, both authors write from a Christian background. Hall notes that “much of Ælfric’s work was directed at educating the laity and clergy through regular preaching and instruction” (194). Hall states as well that the “opening sections [of the DTA] are anchored within a Christian framework … which encourages the idea that scientific learning of this kind is best understood within the larger context of biblical study and Christian education” (212). This Christian background was also present in the education the authors received themselves: Ælfric was trained by bishop Æthelwold of Winchester, and Byrhtferth was heavily inspired by bishop Oswald of Worcester (later archbishop of York) and by Abbo of Fleury, who spent two years (985-987) at Ramsey, as a teacher.9 Educators such as Æthelwold and Abbo were the architects of the Benedictine Reform, a movement which greatly influenced the works of Ælfric and Byrhtferth.
In this chapter, we will first consider the Benedictine Reform in terms of its influence on Ælfric and Byrhtferth and, subsequently, review three recent assessments of their pedagogical qualities by Nicole Guenther Discenza, Thomas Hall and René Derolez.
The Benedictine Reform
The Benedictine Reform is “the revival of learning in Benedictine houses under the reforms introduced from the middle of the tenth century” (Fulk and Cain 23). The reforms aimed to re-establish the monastic houses destroyed by the Vikings nearly a century earlier, “to wrest control of the remainder
9 For more information about bishop Oswald and Abbo of Fleury, see Michael Lapidge et al. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of
from the secular canons who occupied them, and to impose strict adherence to the Rule of St. Benedict, which prescribed a carefully regulated set of daily monastic duties in an austere way of life” (Fulk and Cain 23). Dunstan’s (ca. 909-88) appointment as abbot of Glastonbury, sometime between 940 and 946, was the particular event that marked the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon Benedictine Reform (Hill 151). The three main architects of the Reform were, besides Dunstan, Æthelwold (d. 984), bishop of Winchester, and Oswald (d. 992), archbishop of York (Fulk and Cain 23). Two texts served as the foundation for this Reform: the first is the Regularis Concordia: “drawn up as the standard reform consuetudinary in a council held at Winchester under the auspices of King Eadgar” (Hill 153), and the second is the Benedictine Rule itself (Hill 154). The key features of the Reform were:
the desire to achieve uniformity in religious observance in monasteries, regularize and raise the standards of the secular church, strengthen the knowledge of Latin, guarantee the quality of texts, and re-establish an authoritative orthodoxy as defined by the patristic tradition (Hill 162)
The teaching of Latin and the establishment of authoritative texts, with the aim to re-establish orthodoxy was one of the spearheads of reformed policy.
Their place in the Reform is mainly established through their use of language: they both make use of “Winchester vocabulary”; denoting “specific words which are given preference over their synonyms in a number of texts which have some connection with Winchester in the late tenth and eleventh century” (Gretsch 109).10
The list of words was used to render “key concepts of the Christian religion” (Gretsch 125).11
What makes a good pedagogical work?
Nicole Guenther Discenza – “Following in the Tracks of Bede”
Guenther Discenza compares the structure of DTA and E with Bede’s De temporum ratione and has devised three very clear lists of the chapter structures of these works.12 She argues that both Ælfric and Byrhtferth are influenced by the Benedictine Reform: they teach “some scientific knowledge as a necessary part of education in Benedictine Reform houses and as a complement to scriptural study” (69), but they also wrote “other works more obviously central to the Reform—homilies, saints’ lives, [and] Scripture translations” (68). Both Ælfric and Byrhtferth believed that “the learned have a broad duty to teach whatever they know, including science” (80). Guenther Discenza cites an example from Byrhtferth, who states in chapter I.4 that:
Quoniam sermo iste ad desides congruit clericos, ammonemus, pacis reuerentia, eos ut discant que ignorant et postmodum doceant
Because this discussion is pertinent to lazy clerics, let us urge them, begging their pardons, to learn those things they are ignorant
10 Gretsch gives a very clear overview of the “proper assessment of Winchester usage”; see “Ælfric, Language and
Winchester”, pp. 124-5.
11 Gretsch has extensively studied the “Winchester vocabulary” in relation to the Benedictine Reform. For more information,
see The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform.
ceteris que didicerint. Simul erunt rei in conspectu iusti arbitis: qui nolunt scire et qui nolunt docere (Baker and Lapidge 52)
of, and thereafter teach to others what they have learned. In the sight of the just judge both will be guilty―those who do not wish to learn, and those who do not wish to teach (Baker and Lapidge 53)
With regard to this need to teach, both authors share a great interest “in the order of the universe; to understand the universe is to catch glimpses of the divine plan” (73) and they “put these ideas in perspective; knowing the cosmos gives one a sense of the divine order that serenely rules what might previously have appeared to be haphazard phenomena” (71-2). By working with Bede’s De temporum
ratione Ælfric and Byrhtferth made “studying the wonders of God’s creation part of the curriculum even
for less advanced students” (68).
We gesetton on þissum enchiridion (þæt is manualis on Lyden and handboc on Englisc) manega þing ymbe gerimcræft forþon we woldon þæt iunge men mihton þe leohtlicor þæt Lyden ongitan and wið ealde preostas ymbe þas þing þe rumlicor sprecan, and we woldon þæt þas word heom wurodon cuðe forþon hig synd mid myclum geswince mancynne geswutelode (Baker and Lapidge 120)13
The varying attitudes to the audience suggest that there is more to the differences between DTA and E than a distinction between a primer and a reader.
Thomas N. Hall – “Ælfric as Pedagogue”
Thomas Hall considers Ælfric’s DTA with an eye to his potential audience. Hall claims that in reading
DTA, “one is struck by the simple, orderly presentation of the material and the reluctance to go into too
much detail, as if the work were gauged for a readership that had only a mild curiosity about the topic and a limited capacity for technical information” (213). Ælfric uses four features to make DTA suitable for a more general audience than “the monastic oblates who were expected to master an ambitious Latin curriculum” (214): “the simplicity of presentation, the use of numbers as an ordering device, the avoidance of information overload, and the warnings to steer clear of pagan superstition” (214).
The simplicity of presentation is featured in Ælfric’s sentences, which are short and clear, and in the structure of his chapters, which are relatively short as well. In the chapters Ælfric does not waste time on unnecessary digressions and keeps close to the subject. The use of numbers as an ordering device is a device that Ælfric often repeats. For example, he uses this in his chapter about the night, when he discusses of which parts the night consists:
13 “We have written this enchiridion (manualis in Latin and handbook in English) many things about computus because we
An ðæra dæla is Crepusculum ∙ þæt is æfengloma;
Oðer is Uesperum ∙ þonne se æfensteorra betwux þære repsunge æteowa; Ðridde is Conticinium ∙ þonne eall ðing suwiað on heora reste;
Feorða is Intempestum ∙ þæt is midnight; Fifta is Gallicinium ∙ þæt is hâncred;
Sixta is Matutinum ∙ uel Aurora ∙ þæt is dægrad
Seofoða is Diliculum ∙ þæt is se ærmergen ∙ betwux ðam dægrede ∙ 7 sunnan upgange (Henel 24, 26)
Ælfric also uses this feature in his chapters about the year and the twelve winds. By using this device he creates a clear overview of what he wants the reader to know.
The avoidance of information overload already becomes clear from the fact that DTA is a very slim treatise: it comprises only about 5800 lines (Hall 212). Furthermore, the text provides evidence that Ælfric avoids to explain certain details. For example, as Hall notes in his article, Ælfric states in his chapter about the stars: “Þeah ðe we swiðor sprecon be heofenlicum tunglum ∙ ne mæg swa ðeah se ungelæreda leornian heora leohtbæran ryne” (Henel 70).14
Ælfric also notes: “Us ðincð to menigfeald þæt we swiðor embe ðis sprecon” (Henel 76), 15
in his chapter about the twelve winds. This way Ælfric keeps to his claim that De temporibus anni is written for “þam ðe hit licað” and that if people are interested in reading more they should turn to Bede, for instance.
The warnings to steer clear of pagan superstition are featured when Ælfric notes the following to his readers in his chapter about the leap of the moon: “Ne sceal nân christenman ∙ nan ðing be ðam monan wîglian ∙ gif he hit deð ∙ his geleafa ne bið naht” (Henel 60).16
He also warns his readers that one
14 “Even if we were to say more about the heavenly stars, the ignorant would still not be able to understand their brilliant
course” (Hall 214).
15 “It seems to us too complicated to say any more about this” (Hall 214).
16 “No Christian man must divine anything by the moon; if he does so, his belief is nothing.” All translations from DTA
cannot predict the weather by the leap of the moon: “Nu cweðað sume men þe ðis gescead ne cunnon þæt se mona hine wende be ðan ðe hit wedrian sceall on ðam monðe ∙ ac hine ne went næfre naðor ∙ ne weder ∙ ne unweder ∙ of ðam ðe his gecynde is” (Henel 64).17
However, these are the only two warnings he gives. Hall’s assumption that Ælfric’s warning against prognostications points to a lay audience is, therefore, debatable.
Hall is very positive about Ælfric’s work: he is struck by Ælfric’s carefulness in discussing the subjects and the overall clarity of DTA. Hall notes several good points about the organization of DTA, but the “warnings to steer clear of pagan superstition” are not as important as Hall claims them to be.
René Derolez – Byrhtferðus Bene Docet
Derolez assesses E as a text used in the actual teaching process and looks at Byrhtferth the teacher. Byrhtferth claims himself a good writer and teacher in his Enchiridion: “Byrhtferð ipse scripsit bene beneque docet ille suis discipulis” (Baker and Lapidge 88; Derolez 253).18
This sentence is accompanied by a word for word grammatical gloss and is featured in his chapter about synaloepha.19 Byrhtferth explains more about grammar, but this is the only instance where he provides himself as an example. Many scholars disagree with Byrthferth’s claim that he is a good writer,20 an assumption which may be extended to his teaching skills. Derolez notes that “the repetitious elaborations” that often come back in the Enchiridion may irritate modern readers (257). But this was, of course, not Byrthferth’s concern: he repeats himself in order to explain more to the pupils who did not fully understand him. Another feature that may irritate modern readers are the repeated rhetorical questions, but these “are part of the
17 “Now some men who know nothing about this, say that the moon turns according to what the weather will be in that
month, but whether the weather is good or bad, the moon never turns away from what its nature is”.
18
“Byrhferth wrote this well, and he taught his students well”
19 A Greek term which represents the blending into one syllable of two successive vowels of adjacent syllables, especially to
fit a poetic meter.
traditional classroom procedure, hackneyed and predictable, perhaps, but not necessarily objectionable in a good teacher” (Derolez 255). Furthermore, when looking through Byrhtferth’s treatise, “one will easily discover other evidence of [his] pedagogical concern, e.g. his care to establish and maintain contact with his pupils, to communicate efficiently, to resort to anticipation and fulfillment, to repetition and variation,” (Derolez 263). Derolez concludes his article with stating that the Enchiridion is not “a work with literary pretentions―its “literary” bits are no more than “illustrations”; it is not a scholarly treatise, but a teacher’s handbook … to be used in a variety of situations” (263). Derolez also suggests that the treatise was copied from a rough draft by Byrhtferth by an incompetent scribe (263), which makes it difficult to read.
teacher’s struggle to convey more or less technical matters to an audience whose little Latin required the insertion of translations and of explanatory notes in the vernacular” (470). The validity of Derolez’s arguments rests on what type of book Byrhtferth’s E actually is.
Conclusion
Chapter 2
Introduction
For over two centuries the study of sources has been a generally accepted means of understanding an author’s mind (Scragg 39). By looking at the sources of a text, the reader obtains a better understanding of the text itself, because being aware of the sources on which an author based his text makes it easier to interpret why the author chose to note specific things down, and why he has done so in a specific order. On top of that, “[c]ompar[ing] Old English works with their sources has the … usefulness of directing attention to the intellectual interest of Anglo-Saxon authors and the audience for whom they wrote” (Scragg 47). However, finding out on which sources Anglo-Saxon authors based their works is not an easy task. This is not only because much of the material is lost, but also because Anglo-Saxon authors did not state their sources as thoroughly as authors and scholars do nowadays. Scragg describes it as follows: “Nowadays originality in art is considered a desirable quality, but in earlier centuries it was less significant. From ancient times artists consciously borrowed one another’s ideas, a practice endorsed by critics from Aristotle onwards” (39).
the British computer-assisted Fontes Anglo-Saxonici: A Register of Written Sources Used by Authors in
Anglo-Saxon England (Fontes) (Rauer 1), which was last updated in June 2007.
By studying how Ælfric and Byrhtferth incorporated their sources into their works, one gains a better insight into their methods and goals, and therewith into how they intended to serve their audience. In this chapter I will therefore look at which sources they used, how they read and arranged them, and how they approached their sources in the process of writing their own accounts. This will be done by first offering a quantitative analysis of the sources for both treatises with the help of tables. For both
DTA and E, the first table will list the sources with the references, while in the second table these
sources will be sorted according to their usage in the texts. This will provide us with an insight into how Ælfric and Byrhtferth proceeded. Subsequently, I will provide a qualitative analysis of a part in each treatise that relies on the same source. This will allow us to look in greater detail at the differences in the use of sources by both authors.
Quantitative Analysis
It is widely known and accepted that Ælfric and Byrhtferth heavily relied on Bede’s De temporum
ratione when writing their treatises, but they have relied on more than just that specific work. We are
assured that Byrhtferth and Ælfric have relied on Bede, because they state that they do so. On the first page of his treatise, Ælfric states: “Ic wolde eac gif ic dorste gadrian sum gehwæde andgit of ðære bec þe BEDA se snotera lâreow gesette ∙ 7 gegaderode of manegra wisra lareowa bocum be ðæs geares ymbrenum ∙ fram anginne middaneardes” (Henel 2).21
Byrhtferth also mentions Bede several times, praising him as “se arwurðe rimcræftiga” (the venerable computist) and “se eadiga wer” (the blessed man) (Baker and Lapidge lxxxvii). That the authors have mentioned Bede as their source is exceptional
21 “If I dared, I would also wish to gather some little knowledge from the book that Bede, the wise teacher, composed and
and uncommon for their day and age, as mentioned above. Scragg notes this as well, saying that “[w]hen an Anglo-Saxon author specifies the authorities he is using, the source critic’s task is somewhat simplified. But even here it is necessary to be wary, [because i]t is rare in Old English to find an author who is dependent upon a single source” (47-8). None of the other sources used by Byrhtferth and Ælfric are documented as obviously as Bede.
The sources used by Ælfric used in De temporibus anni are listed in Heinrich Henel’s 1940 EETS edition of DTA with sources and parallels on the facing pages. Henel’s work formed the basis for sections on DTA in the Fontes Anglo-Saxonici Database, an electronic database which not only lists the sources for DTA, but also shows whether such sources are certain, fairly certain, or whether they are merely parallels. It is possible, therefore, to see clearly which sources Ælfric quoted in which parts of his text. The table I have made overlaps with the source attestations given on the Fontes website. However, M. Atherton, who compiled the Fontes list for DTA in 1996, did not state which chapters Ælfric has used from which works. For example, he states exactly where Ælfric has quoted Bede's De temporum
ratione, but not from which chapter. Therefore, I have relied on Henel for the table, below.22
Table 1: Ælfric – De temporibus anni
Source Ælfric, DTA Source Ælfric, DTA Source Ælfric, DTA
Bede, De temporum ratione III23 V VI i, l. 2224 i, ll. 17-8, 19-21, 24; iv, ll. 21-2 i, ll. 11, 33-40; ii, ll. 1-4 XVIII XXIV XXV XXVI iv, l. 24 iii, l. 9 iii, l. 7, 12-13; viii, l. 8-12 iv, ll. 25-6, 50-1 XXXII XXXIV XXXV XXXVI vi, ll. 9-10; ix, ll. 6-7 vi, l. 9 iv, ll. 36-43, 53 iv, ll. 16-20, 22-3, 29-30, 31-2; vii, ll. 3-8
22 There is a minor difference between the source attestations mentioned by Henel and those mentioned by Fontes. According
to the Fontes website, there is also a reference to the Vercelli Homilies, but this is not stated by Henel, who refers to it as a translation of a part from Bede’s Commentarii in Librum Genesis. The line is 3.2: “ac ðær is singal leoht ∙ buton ælcum ðeostrum” (18). The source quotation from the Vercelli Homilies is: “þær is leoht butan þysstrum”, whereas the Latin quotation from Bede is: “sed nec tenebris in eo uel abysso locus remanere ullus perhibetur, quod Dominus Deus illuminat, et cuius lucerna est Agnus” (19-21). Therefore, it is more logical that Ælfric has quoted from the Vercelli Homilies than from Bede.
VII VIII-XV XI XVI XVII i, l. 25; iii, ll. 3-4, 6, 7, 14 iii, l. 26 iv, l. 33 iv, ll. 1-14, 15-6, 23 iii, l. 10-11 XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI iii, l. 5 viii, l. 13-14 viii, l. 15 iv, ll. 44-6; vi, ll. 1-6 vi, ll. 7-8, 11-4, 14-20, 21 XXXVIII XXXIX XL XLI XLIII LIX viii, l. 1 vii, l. 8 vii, l. 7 vii, ll. 8-9 viii, l. 1-5 iii, l. 28 Bede, De temporibus III iii, ll. 1, 3 iii, ll. 18-25 IV-VI iii, l. 26
Bede, De natura rerum II III IV V IX i, l. 10 v, ll. 1, 3, 6; x, ll. 1-3, 6 x, ll. 9-11; xi, l. 9 i, l. 5; v, ll. 4-5 ; ix, ll. 8-9 vi, 23-6 XI XII XX XXII XXIV XXV XXVI i, ll. 23, 31 ix, ll. 4-5 iii, l. 8 iii, ll. 15-7 ix, l. 13 x, ll. 4, 7, 13 x, ll. 14-6 XXVII XXXII-XXXIII XXXIV XXXVI XXIX XLIII x, ll. 17-20, 21-2, 23 xi, ll. 1-2, 7-9 xii xiii xiv, l. 1 iv, ll. 53-4 Bede, Commentarii in Librum Genesis: i, ll. 6-7, 26, 31, 32; iii, l. 2; v, ll. 7-9
Bible Gen. i. I, 3. Gen. i. 4-5 Gen. i. 7-8 Gen. i. 14 Gen. i. 16 Gen. i. 20-1 i, l. 2 i, l. 3 i, l. 4 i, l. 13 i, l. 12 i, l. 14 Gen. i. 25, 27 Gen. ii. 2 Cor. ii 12, 2-4 Ps. 95.4 Ps. 148.4-5 i, l. 15 i, l. 16 i, l. 9 v, l. 6 i, l. 8 Ioh. i.9 Ioh. xi.9 Mal. iv. 2 III.K. xvii. 1 III.K.xviii. 42-5 Apoc. x. 3-4 i, l. 39 iv, ll. 21-22 i, l. 34 xi, l. 3 xi, ll. 5-6 xiv, l. 2 Isidore, De natura rerum
XII.6 XIII XV.3 ix, ll. 8-9 i, ll. 7-9 i, ll. 33-4 XXV.1 XXVI.3 ix, ll. 1-3 ix, l. 6 XXVI.5 XXVI.6 ix, l. 8 ix, ll. 10-2
Leofric Missal: iii, ll. 27-9
Missal of Robert of Jumièges: vii, ll. 1-8
The inventories made by Henel and Fontes show first of all that Ælfric used a fairly limited number of sources. If the Bible is counted as a single source, there are only six source texts which are undisputed, and only two authors: Bede and Isidore. Bede´s De temporum ratione is Ælfric’s most important source, from which he quoted 50 times. It was a very well written work and was used as the standard reference-book on Easter computus for many ages, even after Ælfric and Byrhtferth finished their works. Bede’s
De temporum ratione is therefore the leading source for DTA, which may well be seen as a vernacular
secondary importance are Bede’s De natura rerum with 30 quotations and Isidore’s De natura rerum with 7 quotations, an earlier work by the seventh-century Spanish bishop, Isidore of Seville. These works did not concentrate on the working of time and the cosmos, but offered an encyclopaedic insight in other aspects of the natural world. Some minor sources plus the Bible conclude the list.
By reversing table 1, we can see exactly in which chapters of DTA Ælfric has quoted which particular source and which chapter. This will give us an insight into the way he arranged his treatise, and allows us to look over his shoulder as he is reading and writing along.
Table 2: Ælfric – De temporibus anni - reversed
i ii iii l. 225 l. 3 l. 4 ll. 4-6 ll. 6-7 ll. 7-9 l. 8 l. 9 l. 10 l. 11 l. 12 l. 13 l. 14 l. 15 l. 16 l. 17-21 l. 22 l. 23 l. 24 l. 25 l. 26 l. 31 l. 32 ll. 33-4 ll. 33-40 l. 34 l. 39 ll. 1-4 ll. 1, 3 l. 2 ll. 3-4 Bible Bible Bible Bede Bede Isidore Bible Bible Bede Bede Bible Bible Bible Bible Bible Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Isidore Bede Bible Bible Bede Bede Bede Bede Gen. i. 1, 3 Gen. i. 4-5 Gen. i. 7-8 De natura rerum, V
Commentarii in Librum Genesis De natura rerum, XIII
Ps. 148, 4-5 Cor. ii. 12, 2-4 De natura rerum, II De temporum ratione, VI Gen. i. 16 Gen. i. 14 Gen. i. 20-1 Gen. i. 25, 27 Gen. ii. 2 De temporum ratione, V De temporum ratione, III De natura rerum, XI De temporum ratione, V De temporum ratione, VII Commentarii in Librum Genesis Commentarii in Librum Genesis De natura rerum, XI
Commentarii in Librum Genesis De natura rerum, XV. 3 De temporum ratione, VI Mal. iv. 2 Ioh. i. 9 De temporum ratione, VI De temporibus, III
Commentarii in Librum Genesis De temporum ratione, VII
v. vi vii viii ix ll. 1, 3 ll. 4-5 l. 6 ll. 7-9 ll. 1-6 ll. 7-8 l. 9 ll. 9-10 ll.11-4, 14-21 ll. 21-2 ll. 23-6 ll. 1-8 ll. 3-8 l. 7 l. 8 ll. 8-9 l. 1 ll. 1-5 ll. 8-12 ll. 13-4 l. 15 ll. 1-3 l. 4 l. 5 l. 6 ll. 6-7 l. 8 Bede Bede Bede Bible Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bible Bede - Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Isidore Bede Bede Isidore Bede Isidore
De natura rerum, III De natura rerum, V De natura rerum, III
Ps. 95.4
Commentarii in Librum Genesis De temporum ratione, XXX De temporum ratione, XXXI De temporum ratione, XXXIV De temporum ratione, XXXII De temporum ratione, XXXI De temporum ratione, V
Ioh. xi. 9
De natura rerum, IX Missal of Robert of Jumièges De temporum ratione, XXXVIII De temporum ratione, XL De temporum ratione, XXXIX De temporum ratione, XLI De temporum ratione, XXXVIII De temporum ratione, XLIII De temporum ratione, XXV De temporum ratione, XXVIII De temporum ratione, XXIX De natura rerum, XXV. 1 De natura rerum, XII De natura rerum, XII + XIII
passim
De natura rerum, XXVI. 3 De temporum ratione, XXXII De natura rerum, XXVI. 5
iv l. 5 l. 6 l. 7 l. 8 l. 9 l. 10 l. 11 l. 12-3 l. 14 ll. 15-7 ll. 18-25 l. 26 ll. 27-9 l. 28 ll. 1-14, 15-6 ll. 16-20, 22-3 l. 23 l. 24 ll. 25-6 ll.29-30, 31-2 l. 33 ll. 36-43 ll. 44-6 ll. 50-1 l. 53 ll. 53-4 Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede - Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede
De temporum ratione, XXVII De temporum ratione, VII De temporum ratione, XXV De temporum ratione, VII De natura rerum, XX De temporum ratione, XXIV De temporum ratione, XVII De temporum ratione, XVII
passim
De temporum ratione, XXV De temporum ratione, VII De natura rerum, XXII De temporibus, III
De temporum ratione, VIII-XV De temporibus, IV-VI
Leofric Missal
De temporum ratione, LIX De temporum ratione, XVI De temporum ratione, XXXVI De temporum ratione, XVI De temporum ratione, XVIII
passim
De temporum ratione, XXVI De temporum ratione, XXXVI De temporum ratione, XI De temporum ratione, XXXV De temporum ratione, XXX De temporum ratione, XXVI De temporum ratione, XXXV De natura rerum, XLIII
x xi xi xii xiii ll. 8-9 ll. 10-2 l. 13 ll. 1-3 l. 4 l. 6 ll. 7, 13 ll. 9-11 ll. 14-6 ll. 17-20 ll. 21-2 l. 23 ll. 1-2 l. 3 ll. 5-6 ll. 7-9 l. 9 l. 1 l. 2 Bede Isidore Isidore Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bible Bible Bede Bede Bede Bede Bede Bible De natura rerum, V De natura rerum, XII. 6 De natura rerum, XXVI. 6 De natura rerum, XXIV De natura rerum, III De natura rerum, XXV De natura rerum, III De natura rerum, XXV De natura rerum, IV De natura rerum, XXVI De natura rerum, XXVII De natura rerum, XXVII passim De natura rerum, XXVII De natura rerum, XXXII
III. K xvii. I III. K xviii. 42-45
De natura rerum, XXXIII De natura rerum, IV
De natura rerum, XXXIV De natura rerum, XXXVI De natura rerum, XXIX
Apoc. x. 3-4
Looking over Ælfric’s shoulder, we can make a number of observations. First of all it is clear that for chapter I "on the day", he made frequent use of Genesis, especially at the beginning of the chapter. Since this chapter deals with God’s Creation, Genesis is, of course, an obvious choice; remarkable, on the other hand, is the mixture of different sources that he has used for this chapter. It is almost as if he started out very ambitiously, and with the combination of a large number of sources set the context for his book in the all-important creation story. Conversely, chapter II, "on the first day of the world or the vernal equinox", relies on one source text only. Here Ælfric has relied totally on Bede, Book VI of De
temporum ratione, on “The World’s First Day”, in which Bede tried to argue that the first day of the
between day and night. Although Bede’s De temporum ratione remains the most extensively used source in chapters I –VII, and is the only source for chapters IV and VIII (these chapters are all about subjects related to computus), there are also chapters such as IX, X and IX where Ælfric does not rely on
De temporum ratione, but turns to De natura rerum, instead. For his chapters on the various planets, and
meteorological phenomena such as the twelve winds, the rain, hail, snow and thunder, a different source had to be tapped. The additions of these chapters show that Ælfric did not want his treatise to be an outline of Bede’s De temporum ratione alone, but that he had his own ideas about what he wanted in his book and what he thought was important for all students to know. Ælfric’s reputation as a cutter and a paster is maintained in the construction of this book. As with the homilies, so in this book there must have been a clear pre-conceived idea, which started with the Creation story and ended fittingly with an excerpt from the Apocalypse.
Now that we have looked at the sources Ælfric has used, the ones used by Byrhtferth will be considered. The sources of Byrhtferth’s E have been identified in the EETS edition by Baker and Lapidge, and partly by Lapidge in The Anglo-Saxon Library. Unfortunately, the Fontes Database does not include E. However, with the help of The Anglo-Saxon Library it is possible to make a fairly comprehensive list.
Table 3: Byrhtferth – Enchiridion
Aldhelm of Malmesbury Carmen de uirginitate ii.1.204-5 Aldhelm of Malmesbury Prose de uirginitate, X
Prose de uirginitate, LIII
i.3.6-7 iv.2.14
Arator Historia apostolica ii.3.265-6
Augustine De ciuitate Dei XXII.30 ii.1.281-8
Augustine De trinitate IV.4 iv.1.111-18
Bede De arte metrica ii.1.436, 447-8, 470-3, 473-89, 491-6, 496-502
Bede De natura rerum c. xxxix iii.2.131-8
Bede De temporum ratione, XLI
De temporum ratione, XLII De temporum ratione, LIII De temporum ratione, LXVI
Bede De schematibus et tropis ii.3.22-2726
Bede Versus de die iudicii 59-71 iv.2.98-102
Donatus Ars maior ii.1.462-627
Gregory the Great Hom. .xl. in Euangelia I.10 iii.1.59-112 iv.1.10 Gregory the Great Moralia in Iob., XVI.31
Moralia in lob., XXXV.8
iv.1.15-18 iv.1.158-9 Haymo of Auxerre Homiliae de tempore, XVIII
Homiliae de tempore, XXII Homiliae de tempore, XXVIII
iv.1.123-54,
iv.1.296-305, 310-22 iv.1.377-84
Helperic of Auxerre Liber de computo, CC.I Liber de computo, V Liber de computo, VI Liber de computo, VII Liber de computo, X Liber de computo, XI Liber de computo, XIV
i.1.13-14, 22-4, 26-35 i.2.140-57 i.2.63-5, 68-9 i.2.204-9 i.2.259-62, 267-78 i.2.295-303 i.2.306-16 Hrabanus Maurus De computo, XI
De computo, XIII De computo, XV De computo, XIX De computo, XXI De computo, XXII ii.3.69-89, 89-92 ii.3.58-61 ii.3.30-1 ii.3.17-18, 56-8, 64-9 ii.3.131-3 ii.3.148-50 Isidore of Seville Etymologiae I.19.1-10
Etymologiae I.21.2-27 Etymologiae III.6.4-5 Etymologiae V.30.5-8 Etymologiae V.34.3 Etymologiae V.35.5 iii.3.156-85 iii.3.187-232 iv.1.94-8 ii.3.213-24 ii.1.411-17 ii.1.401-7
Jerome Comm. in Euangelium Matthaei, II iv.1.236-40
Jerome Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in
Genesin28
iii.1.30-1
Macrobius Comm. in Somnium Scipionis I.20.3-4 i.1.176-81
Persius Saturae III.84 iii.3.103
Priscian Institutiones grammaticae ii.1.445-7
Remigius of Auxerre Comm. in Bedae Artem metricam iii.3.14-20
Remigius of Auxerre Comm. Bedae Schemata et tropos iii.3.53-8, 64-74, 90-1, 104-9 Remigius of Auxerre Comm. Boethii Consolationem
Philosophiae
i.1.105-13
Sergius Comm. de littera, de syllaba, de pedibus, de accentibus, de distinctione
ii.3.242
Anonymous Writings Disticha Catonis ii.3.242-3
All sources stated in this table are Latin sources. Byrhtferth has quoted from Ælfric and other English authors as well, but these are not stated by Lapidge in The Library. Baker and Lapidge mention some further sources in the edition, including several quotations from the Bible, ranging from Genesis to
26In The Anglo-Saxon Libary this was mentioned as ll. 22-127, but this is a typo. 27The Anglo-Saxon Library notes that Donatus is quoted in III.1, but this is another typo.
Apocalyps; some Irish works on computus entitled Computo dialogus and De bissexto (which are pre-Bede); texts by Abbo of Fleury, Anglo-Saxon computus manuscripts and kalendars, such as “The Winchester computus”; and some quotations from other works by Byrhtferth. They also refer to Old English works such as Ælfric’s De temporibus anni and his Homilies. The list given in the table above is therefore not exhaustive, but it does give an overview of the most important Latin sources Byrhtferth used.
The list of Byrhtferth’s sources is very different from that of Ælfric. It includes, of course Bede, who is Byrhtferth’s most important source, and whom he quotes twelve times, but only five quotations derive from De temporum ratione. Compared to the number of Ælfric’s citations from De temporum
ratione this is very little. Instead, Byrhtferth turns to other texts for computistical knowledge. The most
important is the Liber de computo by Helperic of Auxerre, a ninth-century monk and teacher from France whose computus, written at the behest of his pupils, was used frequently until well into the thirteenth century (Manitius 446-500). The other is the De computo by Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780-856), the learned archbishop of Mainz, who was nicknamed ‘the teacher of Germany’ on account of his impressive oeuvre. Written in Fulda, Hrabanus’ Liber de computo was based on Bede and Isidore, and also enjoyed considerable popularity. With occasional use of Gregory the Great, Aldhelm, Isidore, Jerome, and Augustine, Byrhtferth used a palette of source texts which differed markedly from those used by Ælfric, not only in terms of number and type, but also because he mainly relied on continental sources for his main texts on the computus – presumably an instance of following his master’s voice, in this case Abbo of Fleury. One must assume that Ælfric also knew these sources, but he deliberately restricted himself to the use of Bede.
Table 4: Byrhtferth – Enchiridion - Reversed table Part I Chapter 1 ll. 13-14, 22-4, 26-35 ll. 105-13 ll. 176-81 Helperic Remigius Macrobius
Liber de computo CC.I
Comm. Boethii Consolation Philosphiae Comm. In Somnium Scipionis l.20.3-4
Chapter 2 ll. 45-62 ll. 63-5, 68-9 ll. 140-57 ll. 204-9 ll. 259-62, 267-78 ll. 295-303 ll. 306-16 Bede Helperic Helperic Helperic Helperic Helperic Helperic
De temporum ratione, LII Liber de computo, VI Liber de computo, V Liber de computo, VII Liber de computo, X Liber de computo, XI Liber de computo, XIV
Chapter 3 ll. 6-7 Aldhelm Prose de uirginitate, X
Part II Chapter 1 ll. 121-36 ll. 179-88 ll. 281-8 ll. 204-5 ll. 401-7 ll. 411-17 l. 436 ll. 445-7 ll. 447-8, 470-3, 473-89, 491-6, 496-502 ll. 462-6 Bede Bede Augustine Aldhelm Isidore Isidore Bede Priscian Bede Donatus
De temporum ratione, XLI De temporum ratione, XLII De ciuitate Dei XXI.30 Carmen de uirginitate Etymologiae V.35.5 Etymologiae V.34.3 De arte metrica De institutiones grammaticae De arte metrica Ars Maior Chapter 3 ll. 17-18 ll. 22-27 ll. 30-1 ll. 56-8 ll. 58-61 ll. 64-9 ll. 69-89, 89-92 ll. 131-3 ll. 148-50 ll. 213-24 l. 242 ll. 242-3 ll. 265-6 Hrabanus Bede Hrabanus Hrabanus Hrabanus Hrabanus Hrabanus Hrabanus Hrabanus Isidore Sergius Anonymous Arator De computo, XIX De schematibus et tropis De computo, XV De computo, XIX De computo, XIII De computo, XIX De computo, XI De computo, XXI De computo, XXII Etymologiae V.30.5-8
Comm. de littera, de syllaba, de pedibus, de accentibus, de distinctione Disticha Catonis Historia apostolica Part III Chapter 1 ll. 30-1 ll. 59-112 Jerome Gregory
Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in Genesin Hom. .xl. in Euangelia l. 10
Chapter 2 ll. 131-8 Bede De natura rerum c. xxxix
Chapter 3 ll. 14-20 ll. 53-8, 64-74, 90-1 l. 103 ll. 104-109 ll. 156-85 ll. 187-232 Remigius Remigius Persius Remigius Isidore Isidore
Comm. in Bedae Artem metricam Comm. Bedae Schemata et tropos Saturae III.84
ll. 111-18 ll. 123-54 ll. 158-9 ll. 236-40 ll. 296-305, 310-22 ll. 377-84 Augustine Haymo Gregory Jerome Haymo Haymo De trinitate IV.4
Homiliae de tempore, XVII Moralia in lob., XXXV.8
Comm. in Euangelium Matthaei, II Homiliae de tempore, XXII Homiliae de tempore, XXVII
Chapter 2 Passim l. 14 ll. 98-102 Bede Aldhelm Bede
De temporum ratione, LIII Prose de uirginitate, LIII Versus de die iudicii 59-71
Byrthfterth’s use of sources resembles that of Ælfric, in the sense that he too pieced his chapters together from the contents of his library. However, there are also important differences. First of all, Byrhtferth has used fewer sources than Ælfric, if one considers the length of his treatise. On top of that, he has quoted less from each individual source than Ælfric. Ælfric based his treatise mainly on Bede and Isidore, two minor works and the Bible, whereas Byrhtferth quotes not only from Bede and Isidore, but also from other authors, including works from Ælfric and the Bible, which are not incorporated in the table. The biggest surprise, however, is that there is not as much overlap in the sources as one might have expected from two authors who were so close in time, place, purpose and subject matter.
It is noteworthy that Byrhferth only based two of his chapters largely on one source, namely I.2 and II.3. All the other chapters are scrambled together with bits and pieces of many different texts. For example, IV.1 is based on six different Latin sources, namely two different works by Gregory the Great; Isidore’s Etymologiae; Augustine’s De trinitate, Jerome’s Commentario and Haymo of Auxerre’s
Homiliae de tempore. According to Baker and Lapidge, II.1 is “drawn almost entirely from information
contained in the calendar of Byrthferth’s Computus”, but Byrthferth interrupts this subject with a “long digression on the leap year and the saltus lunae” (280). He bases this interruption on Bede’s De
temporum ratione as well as Ælfric’s DTA, an early Irish tract called De bissexto, the Etymologiae by
and Lapidge 64).29 Another example of a chapter build on a combination of sources is III.1, in which Byrhtferth relies on several Biblical sources, namely Josh. i.7, 1 Cor v. 7-8, John i.I, and Eph vi.14-5, accompanied by several references to the Homilies by Gregory the Great. Explaining the reckoning of Easter is traditionally accompanied with references to the Bible, since Easter is the most important date according to the Christian calendar. Byrhtferth cuts and pasts from many different sources, but for most of his chapter these sources overlap, which is shown by the frequent re-occurrence of for example Isidore’s Etymologiae and the works of Gregory the Great.
Qualitative comparison
Now that we have looked at the sources of the texts, we will take a closer look at how Ælfric and Byrhtferth deal with the same source. The only sources Byrhferth and Ælfric have in common are Bede’s De temporum ratione and the Bible. Both authors also quote from Isidore, but Ælfric only quotes from his De natura rerum, whereas Byrhtferth only quotes from his Etymologiae. There are, however, two subjects which both authors write about, where they both rely on Bede. The first is the “bissexto”, the leap of the year, and the second is the “saltu lune”, the leap of the moon. We will focus on the subject of the “bissexto”.
De bissexto
The only place where DTA and E use the same source for the same topic is in DTA chapter vii, ll. 8-9 and E II.1, ll. 121-36. Chapter vii of DTA is about the leap of the year, the “bissexto”, but Part II.1 of E is about “the growth of the bissextile day”, “de augmentatione bissexti” (Baker and Lapidge 59). These chapters discuss the bissextus: the intercalated day in the month of February of every fourth year or leap year. In the Julian calendar the day was inserted after 24 February, which is the sixth day before the
calends of March. In these parts both authors quote from Bede’s De temporum ratione, book XLI, entitled “The moon also has its quarter-day”:
While we are on the subject, the computist should remember that the lunation of the month of February has 29 days in the other years, but in leap year is counted as 30 [days long], whether it happens to end before or after the intercalated quarter-day. By the addition of this day, it comes to pass that the lunar year is completed in 355 days if it is common and 385 days if it is embolismic. For it is obvious that the quarter-day of which we are speaking is applicable not only to the course of the Sun, but also to the course of the Moon. If you refuse to take the Moon’s quarter-day into account, and apply to February in leap year a lunar month of the same length as you were wont to do before, it will mean that the fourteenth Moon of Easter will waver, and then the course of the year will reel, and that ever-inviolable state of the 19-year cycle, being more and more perturbed, will be overthrown (Wallis 110)
Bede gives his readers a stern warning that not just the solar year requires a bissextus every four years, but also the lunar year. And as the calculation of Easter is based on the lunar year, forgetting the
bissextus in the lunar year will inevitably lead to mistakes in the Easter dates. Byrhtferth paraphrases
Bede’s passage follows:
Betwux þisre spræce sceal se rimre geþencean þæt he
gedo þæt Februarius monð þy geare hæbbe þrittig niht ealdne monan, beo he þær þær he beo nigon and twentig nihta eald geendod—gif he byð beforan þam intercalatum uel interpolatum diem, þæt ys gif he byð beforan þam gesettan dæge, oððe he byð betwynan þam gelogodan dæge, þæt ys bissextus, [and kalendas Martii]. Vnderstand þu, geonglic, þæt ic wyð þe nu
gerunige. Þes dæg gedeð æfter þæs monan ryne, gyf
hyt byð communis gear, þæt þy geare beoð þreo hund daga and fif and [fif]tig. Gyf hyt byð embolismaris oððe embolismus (þæt ys eall an), þænne beoð þy geare þreo hund daga and fif and hundeahtatig daga. Þæt ys wislice to witanne þæt bissextus, þe we ymbe synd sprecende, þæt he gebyrað ægðer | ge to þære
Amidst all this talk, the computist must remember to make sure that February has a thirty-day old moon in that year, wherever it is when it ends twenty-nine days old—whether it is before the intercalatum uel
interpolatum diem, that is, if it is before the
sunnan ryne ge to þæs monan. Soðlice gif man forwyrnð þam worigendan monan [h]is quadrans, þæt ys lunam .xxx., þænne byð mycel gedwyld on þam Easterlican termene; þæt gewyrð þæt man hæfð lunam .xiiii. anum dæge ær his riht þegenscipe sy (Baker and Lapidge 62)
quadrans (the thirtieth day of its lunation), there will
be a great error in the Eastern term; it will happen that one has the fourteen-day-old moon one day before its proper service.
Whereas Ælfric has paraphrased Bede’s section in only three lines (Henel 56):
Gif ðu nelt hine tellan eac to ðam monan swa swa to þære sunnan ∙ ðonne awægst ðu þone easterlican regol ∙ 7 ælces niwan monan gerîm ealles þæs geares;
If you will not count it for the moon as well as for the sun, then you will throw off the Easter rule and the number of the new moon for the whole year.
The difference between the two paraphrases could not be more striking, both in terms of quantity and of quality. Baker and Lapidge note that Byrhtferth did not check Ælfric’s text for this translation of Bede (285). If he had, his piece would perhaps have been as short as Ælfric’s. The parts in italics are phrases that Byrhtferth has added himself; these are not featured in Bede’s text. Although it would seem at first sight that “sceal se rimre geþencean” was added by Byrthferth too, this is in fact a direct translation of Bede’s “the computist should remember”. On top of that, “betwux þisre spræce” is a nice reference to Bede’s “while we are on the subject”.
Even though Ælfric’s piece is short and clear, he left out a fair amount which Byrhtferth has left in. For example, Byrhtferth discusses the importance of knowing how many days are in a year, which Ælfric leaves out. Another difference between the two parts is that Byrhtferth has left in many Latin terms,30 such as “bissextus” and “embolismaris”, whereas Ælfric only uses Old English. However, Ælfric can omit the Latin terms because he does not discuss them in this passage.
One can easily notice that Ælfric’s bit of text is a summary of Bede’s lines. Ælfric has written in clear prose what is important to the reader and omits a lot. Where it takes Bede many sentences to convey his message, it takes Ælfric only one short sentence. Byrhtferth’s part is more difficult to understand and clearly written for an audience familiar with the subject, while Ælfric’s part is easy to understand and looks at the subject with a wider scope. Moreover, Byrhtferth evidently copied all his lines from Bede, whereas Ælfric wrote his own version of Bede’s explanation. Byrhtferth’s reason for his course of action may well be his audience, and his wish to explain everything in detail. One can only speculate about what Ælfric piece would have looked like, had he written with the same purpose in mind.
Conclusion
To conclude, studying the sources of an Anglo-Saxon text is a useful way to find out more about the intentions of the author and the idea behind the text. Especially for texts such as DTA and E, by looking at their sources many questions are elucidated. For example, several scholars have assumed that the works of Byrhtferth and Ælfric overlap for a great deal, since they share the same topic. However, the tables clearly show that the works of Byrhtferth and Ælfric are not as similar as is assumed. The tables give a clear and concise overview of the use of sources by both authors, which makes it easier to compare the sources. Moreover, the tables provide information about the original sources, which does not become clear from the editions by Henel, and Baker and Lapidge.
Chapter 3
Introduction
Both Ælfric and Byrhtferth wrote their treatises in the vernacular on the basis of a selection of Latin sources. Each one used these sources in their own way, and transformed the Latin text into English through the process of cutting, pasting, and translating. As translators, Ælfric and Byrhtferth were part of a long and established Anglo-Saxon tradition. The culture of translation started with the use of glosses: “notations in a manuscript, made either between the lines or in the margins” (Stanton 9). Many Latin manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon period contain glosses. One could call glosses a forerunner of translation, but they never really disappeared from Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, even though the act of translation developed. King Alfred was the one who sparked a wave of translation in Anglo-Saxon England in the ninth century: “he was responsible for writing or commissioning several important translations of canonical works in the late ninth century and for introducing bilingual education to England” (Stanton 55). Along with Ælfric, King Alfred is one of the two most celebrated Anglo-Saxon translators (Stanton 55). Although King Alfred was not the first to translate Latin texts into the vernacular – the Irish had done so long before him, and Bede was working on a translation of the gospel of St. John at the time of his death (Stanton 56-7) – the king was responsible for defining in English the two different methods of translation: “worde be worde oððe andgite be andgite”.31
These words can be read in the context of the main struggle of translation in the Anglo-Saxon period: whether it was appropriate to translate (especially biblical) texts into the vernacular, and how literal such a translation should be. King Alfred was afraid that he would change the original meaning of the text if he translated it.32 There was a general feeling of “discomfort about written English competing with the higher-status
31 “Word for word or sense for sense”
Latin” for Anglo-Saxon authors (Stanton 156); nonetheless Ælfric and Byrthferth both opted for the vernacular as their medium for texts about the computus.
Ælfric and Byrthferth were not only translators, though, but also writers. Ælfric has a reputation of writing good prose, but unfortunately less is known about Byrthtferth’s prose. Old English prose exists in very different types and qualities. Early prose is often stylistically poor, e.g. Alfredian texts such as Waerferth of Worcester’s translation of Gregory the Great’s Dialogues; the Old English
Martyrology; the Old English translation of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, with long
sentences and a very Latinate syntax. Late West-Saxon prose, to which the prose of Byrhtferth and Ælfric belongs, is often of a better quality.
Explaining the computus to beginning students would require an elegant and comprehensible prose style because the computus is a complex subject, even to persons familiar with it. Bede’s De
temporum ratione is a perfect example of an explanation in a lucid prose style, but this work is written in
Latin. The characteristics of good prose for complex subjects are the following: first, sentences have to be clear-cut: they need to have a clear beginning and end, and the message they convey has to be evident and unambiguous. Secondly, good prose consists of a balanced combination of longer and shorter sentences. Too many short sentences will make prose look childish, but too many long sentences will make it incomprehensible. Thirdly, the message that is conveyed has to be absolutely clear. This means that the author should write clearly structured paragraphs, avoid digressions and explain new terms when they are first introduced.
whether there were Old English alternatives for these Latin loans. Secondly, their sentences will be closely examined: we will look at the structure of their sentences in order to see if they have a preference for longer or shorter sentences and determine what effect this has on their prose. Thirdly, the paragraph structure of both works will be investigated in order to see whether Ælfric and Byrhtferth meet the standards of a good paragraph, according to the modern definitions.33 The problem with comparing paragraphs is that in the original manuscripts paragraphs are often difficult to distinguish, and therefore we have to use either the paragraph structure as devised by the editors or rely on our own division of the text into self-contained units discussing a particular thought or point.
The length of both DTA and the E imposes limitations on this investigation, in the sense that it will be restricted to relevant sample passages from both texts. For both Ælfric and Byrhtferth, a summary will be given of the relevant scholarship about their use of language, which will be used as a starting point for the discussion. The aim, here, is to assess the effectiveness of the texts as didactic tools in the time that they were used, rather than to give an exhaustive evaluation of the stylistic features employed by Ælfric and Byrhtferth in the DTA and E as a whole.
Section 1. Ælfric
1.1. Status quaestionis
Predominantly, scholars state about Ælfric that he is an excellent prose writer. Several scholars, such as Malcolm Godden and Charles Barret, have already researched the syntax, phonology, and other grammatical and linguistic aspects of the writing style of Ælfric.34 Other authors offer assessments of
33 This will be defined by the standards given in the chapter “Writing Paragraphs” from the eighth edition of the Wadsworth
Handbook, edited by Kirszner and Mandell.
34Godden, Malcolm R. “Ælfric’s Changing Vocabulary”. English Studies 61. (1980): 206-223; Barret, Charles. “Aspects of
the Placing of the Accusative Object in Ælfric”. Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature
particular aspects of Ælfric’s work. About Ælfric’s language Lipp states: “There are few places where the sense is not absolutely clear or where the demands of clarity seem to have necessitated any awkwardness” (694).35
Stanton has paid special attention to Ælfric’s translations and states that he did not only translate, but “wrote explicitly about the goals and means of his translations” (145). Ælfric “accompanied all of his major works with prefaces establishing the circumstances of their composition, their intended audience, and the uses to which he wanted them put” (Stanton 145). Greenfield and Calder define Ælfric’s “highly stylized” prose as “rhythmical prose” and state that “most scholars now agree that the predominant force behind Ælfric’s rhythmical prose was his native English heritage—with some Latin coloring in rhetorical effects” (83). Rhythmical prose can be defined as a form of prose which is to some extent poetical because of alliterative lines, but which does not meet the standards of ‘real’ Old English poetry. When investigating Ælfric’s language almost all critics tend to concentrate on either his Homilies or his Saints’ Lives. Smaller works such as De temporibus anni are often left out.36 Baker notes, however, that the style in which Ælfric wrote his two textbooks, the DTA and the
Grammar, is much plainer than the highly stylized style in which his other works are written (31). No
doubt, Baker referred to the fact that whereas Ælfric often uses alliteration in his other works, this does not occur in DTA.
1.2. Ælfric’s use of Latin in the DTA
In spite of the fact that most of his sources are Latin, Ælfric barely retains Latin words in DTA. The Latin terms which we still find are firmamentum, kalendas aprilis, bissextus, terminus, saltus lune,
embolismus, omnipotens, as well as the Latin names of the zodiac, the Latin names for the seasons, the
35Lipp, Frances Randall. “Ælfric’s Old English Prose Style”.
36Reinsma’s Annotated Bibliography makes it very clear that the Homilies are a popular object of research: over 40 pages are
