¹ The following abbreviations are used throughout: Assmann = Assmann, Bruno, ed., Angelsächsische Homilien und Heiligenleben, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 3 (Kassel, 1889; Darmstadt, 1964). CHI = Ælfric's Catholic Homilies: The First Series , ed. Clemoes, Peter, EETS s.s. 17 (Oxford, 1997). CHII = Ælfric's Catholic Homilies: The Second Series , ed. Godden, Malcolm, EETS s.s. 5 (Oxford, 1979). LS = Ælfric's Lives of Saints Being a Set of Sermons of Saints' Days Formerly Observed by the English Church , ed. and trans. Skeat, Walter, EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94, 114 (London, 1881–1900; repr. as two vols., 1966). Pope = Homilies of Ælfric: A Supplementary Collection , ed. Pope, John, EETS o.s. 259–60 (London, 1967–68). Each collection is cited by item and line number. Citations of Assmann that do not include an item number refer to page numbers. I have expanded the ampersands and contractions in CHI and have replaced with a “g” the yogh in Assmann. I have also modernized Skeat's punctuation and capitalization where appropriate. All translations are my own. This article is a substantially revised version of Chapter 1 of my PhD dissertation, “The Hagiography of Chaste Marriage in Ælfric's Lives of Saints” (The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 2001). Portions of the essay were presented at the annual meeting of Fontes Anglo-Saxonici held at King's College, London in April 2000 and at the Old English Division's Open Session of the 2000 MLA Annual Meeting held in Washington, DC. Special thanks are due to E. Gordon Whatley for his continued support and encouragement and to Jenny Adams for her trenchant criticisms and unstinting good cheer. I also wish to thank the anonymous readers at Traditio for their helpful comments and James Cox, Paul Menzer, Mary Swan, and Karen Upchurch for reading earlier drafts of this essay.Google Scholar

² The four other sermons are: CHI.2, LS 1, Pope 1, and item 9 in Belfour's collection ( Twelfth-Century Homilies in Ms. Bodley 343 , ed. Belfour, A. O., EETS o.s. 137 [London, 1909; repr. Woodbridge, Engl., 1998]).Google Scholar

³ On chastity as a favorite topic of Ælfric, see Hurt, James, Ælfric (New York, 1972), 57–58, and Lees, Clare, Tradition and Belief: Religious Writing in Late Anglo-Saxon England (Minneapolis, 1999), 150–53. The discussion that follows is indebted to Malcolm Godden's comments on these lines: “Ælfric perhaps has in mind, in these final injunctions, the ways in which the laity normally celebrated Christmas, but the emphasis on chastity as the key virtue at 283–87, though perhaps justified by the earlier discussion of the virgin birth, sounds more like an allusion to his criticisms of the secular clergy” (Ælfric's Catholic Homilies: Introduction, Commentary, and Glossary , ed. Godden, Malcolm, EETS s.s. 18 [Oxford, 2000], 354).Google Scholar

⁴ Payer, Pierre, Sex and the Penitentials (Toronto, 1984), 23–28, at 24. The other periods are before Easter and Pentecost.Google Scholar

⁵ CHILI.100–101.Google Scholar

⁶ To date there has been no such study, although other scholars have discussed Ælfric's views of chastity in their work. For example, Anthony Davies includes Ælfric's views on various sexual practices in his “Sexual Behaviour in Later Anglo-Saxon England,” in This Noble Craft—: Proceedings of the Xth Research Symposium of the Dutch and Belgian University Teachers of Old and Middle English and Historical Linguistics, Utrecht, 19–20 January, 1989, ed. Kooper, E. (Amsterdam, 1991), 83–105; Clare Lees focuses on his treatment of chastity as it pertains to the formation of a Christian identity (Tradition and Belief, 133–53); Peter Jackson discusses Ælfric's views of spousal celibacy adopted after procreation (“Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage: A Reconsideration of the Life of Æthelthryth, Lines 120–30,” Anglo-Saxon England 29 [2000]: 235–60); Gillian Overing and Clare Lees briefly touch on female representations of chastity and virginity in the Lives of Saints (Double Agents: Women and Clerical Culture in Anglo-Saxon England [Philadelphia, 2001], 127–32); and, in the context of a study of the married saints in the Lives of Saints, Liesl R. Smith traces Ælfric's use and development of patristic ideas of virginity primarily in the letter to the layman SigefyrÐ and his homily for the Nativity of Mary (“Virginity and the Married-Virgin Saints in Ælfric's Lives of Saints: The Translation of an Ideal” [PhD diss., University of Toronto, 2000], 81–124). Dr. Smith and I have both written dissertations on the married saints in the Lives of Saints, so independently we arrive at some of the same conclusions about Ælfric's efforts to redirect the monastic ideal of virginity to the laity.Google Scholar

⁷ Overviews of the reform include Symons, Thomas, ed. and trans., Regularis Concordia (London, 1953), ix–xxviii; Knowles, David, The Monastic Order in England, 2^nd ed. (Cambridge, 1963), 31–82; Stenton, Frank, Anglo-Saxon England, 3^rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), 433–69; and Farmer, D. H., “The Progress of the Monastic Revival,” in Tenth-Century Studies , ed. Parsons, David (London, 1975), 10–19. More detailed studies are found in the following collections of essays: Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence , ed. Yorke, Barbara (Woodbridge, Engl., 1988); St. Dunstan: His Life, Times, and Cult , ed. Ramsay, Nigel, Sparks, Margaret, and Tatton-Brown, Tim (Woodbridge, Engl., 1992); and St. Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence , ed. Brooks, Nicholas and Cubitt, Catherine (London, 1996).Google Scholar

⁸ Wilcox dates Ælfric's birth ten to fifteen years earlier (Ælfric's Prefaces, ed. Wilcox, Jonathan [Durham, 1994], 7). On Æthelwold's life and career, see Wulfstan of Winchester: Life of St. Æthelwold , ed. and trans. Lapidge, Michael and Winterbottom, Michael (Oxford, 1991), xxxix–li, and Mechthild Gretsch, The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform (Cambridge, 1999), 235–41. On his school at Winchester, see Gneuss, Helmut, “The Origin of Standard Old English and Æthelwold's School at Winchester,” Anglo Saxon England 1 (1972): 63–83; Lapidge, Michael, “Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher,” in Yorke, Bishop Æthelwold, 89–119; Lapidge, and Winterbottom, , Wulfstan of Winchester, xcii–xcix; and Gretsch, , Intellectual Foundations, 262–64. For comments on Ælfric as the bishop's pupil, see Clemoes, Peter, “Ælfric,” in Continuations and Beginnings , ed. Stanley, Eric (London, 1966), 176–209, at 191–92. Concerning Ælfric's educational program see Clemoes, Peter, “The Chronology of Ælfric's Works,” in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. idem (London, 1959), 212–47, at 227 and 245–46; Gatch, Milton McC., Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: Ælfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, 1977), 12–17; and Clayton, Mary, “Homiliaries and Preaching in Anglo-Saxon England,” Peritia 4 (1985): 207–42, at 213–16 and 234–35. For overviews of Ælfric's life and works, see Greenfield, Stanley and Calder, Daniel, A New Critical History of Old English Literature (New York, 1986), 75–88, and the Introduction to Wilcox, Prefaces. Full length studies are those by Hurt, Ælfric , and White, Caroline, Ælfric: A New Study of His Life and Writings (Boston, 1898). For a list of Ælfric's works, see Pope, 1:136–45, and Kleist, Aaron, “Ælfric's Corpus: A Conspectus,” Florilegium 18 (2001): 113–64.Google Scholar

⁹ On the political climate during Æthelred's reign, see Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England, 372–90; Yorke, Barbara, “Æthelmær, the Foundation of the Abbey at Cerne and the Politics of the Tenth Century,” in Cerne Abbey Millennium Lectures , ed. Barker, Katherine (Cerne Abbey, 1988), 15–25; Stafford, Pauline, Unification and Conquest: A Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1989); Campbell, James, ed., The Anglo-Saxons (New York, 1991), 192–207; Gordon Whatley, E., “Late Old English Hagiography, ca. 950–1150,” in Hagiographies: Histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en Occident des origines à 1550 , ed. Philippart, Guy, 3 vols. (Turnhout, 1996), 2:441–44; Jones, Christopher, Ælfric's Letter to the Monks of Eynsham (Cambridge, 1998), 42–51; and Stafford, Pauline, “Political Ideas in Late Tenth-Century England: Charters as Evidence,” in Law, Laity and Solidarities: Essays in Honour of Susan Reynolds , ed. Stafford, Pauline, Nelson, Janet, and Martindale, Jane (Manchester, 2001), 68–82. On the prosperity of the reform in this period, see Keynes, Simon, The Diplomas of King Æthelred the Unready, 978–1016 (Cambridge, 1980), 198–200.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For the date of Ælfric's death, I follow Clemoes (“Chronology,” 245). Clemoes sets the date of composition for CHI at 989 and that for CHII at 992 (ibid., 243–44) while Godden suggests dates of 990–94 and 995, respectively (Commentary, xxxv). For the dating of individual sermons, I have relied throughout on Clemoes and Pope, 1:146–50.Google Scholar

¹¹ See, for example, his sermons on the structure of the liturgical year (Pope 11), the efficacy of Mass (CHII.15), the significance of baptism (CHII.3), and the necessity of confession (Thorpe, , Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2:602–8, cited fully in n. 14 below). Sermons that discuss the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the Resurrection, and Judgment Day are, respectively, Assmann 3, CHI.20, CHI.15, and Pope 18.Google Scholar

¹² I list them here for convenience, noting with asterisks those sermons that figure importantly in the discussion below. Ælfric refers to physical clænnyss in twelve sermons: (1) CHI.9.157–60, 210–20; (2) CHI.10.169–73; (3) CHI.11.196–202^∗; (4) CHI.25.161–69; (5) CHII.6.115–26, 136–38^∗; (6) CHII.7.22–26^∗; (7) CHII. 12.357–64 and, from the Secunda Sententia de hoc ipso, lines 542–52; (8) CHII. 15.303–6; (9) CHII.19.166–75^∗; (10) CHII.23.71–76; (11) Pope 19.111–15^∗; and (12) LS 12.41–58^∗ He touches on the spiritual virginity of the laity in seven more: (13) CHI.33.19–27^∗; (14) CHI.35.40–46; (15) CHILI.91–120^∗; (16) CHII.4.25–36; (17) CHII.39.78–92^∗; (18) Assmann 3.53–184^∗; and (19) Assmann 6.89–105. I would be grateful to know of others (robertu@unt.edu).Google Scholar

¹³ For an overview of the church's program, see Payer, , Sex and the Penitentials, 23–28. For various strictures placed on marital intercourse in Egbert's penitential, see the “Poenitentiale Egberti,” in Die Bussordungen der abendländischen Kirche , ed. Wasserschleben, F. W. H. (Halle, 1851; Graz, 1958), 231–47, at 238, ch. 7, nos. 1–4. Those in the Pseudo-Egbert Scrift boc can be found in Das altenglische Bussbuch , ed. Spindler, Robert (Hamburg, 1933), 184–85, no. 19 b, c, p, t, and v. I have adopted Allen Frantzen's use of “Scrift boc” rather than the traditional “Confessional,” an editor's translation of the Old English phrase (The Literature of Penance in Anglo-Saxon England [New Brunswick, 1983], 134). Restrictions on sexual intercourse in the Pseudo-Egbert Penitential are listed under no. 21 of Die altenglische Version des Haltigar'schen Bussbuches , ed. Raith, Josef (Hamburg, 1933), 28–29. Fehr, the editor of Ælfric's pastoral letters, thinks it is highly probable that Ælfric knew Egbert's penitential (Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics , ed. Fehr, Bernard, Bibliothek der angelsächsischen Prosa 9 [Hamburg, 1914], xciii–xciv, at xciii: “Und doch war der echte Ecgbert Aelfric höchst wahrscheinlich bekannt”). On Ælfric's knowledge of the Pseudo-Egbert Scrift boc, see ibid., xciii. On Ælfric's use of the Pseudo-Egbert Penitential , see Raith, , Die altenglische Version des Haltigar'schen Bussbuches, xl, and Audrey Meaney's articles, “Ælfric and Idolatry,” 130 and 134–35, and “Ælfric's Use of His Sources in His Homily On Auguries” 482–83, 486–88, and 491 (both are cited fully in n. 65 below).Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, ed. and trans. Thorpe, Benjamin, 2 vols. (London, 1844–46), 2:608. Pope surmises that the passage was excerpted from a letter (1:144), and Frantzen speculates that the material appended to Thorpe's manuscript of the Catholic Homilies, which includes the Admonition, is for clergymen charged with instructing the laity in penitential practice (Literature of Penance, 144).Google Scholar

¹⁵ In On Apostolic Doctrine, Ælfric encourages laymen to go to church and to take communion on Sundays during Lent, the three “days of silence” before Easter, the Thursday of Rogation Week (Ascension Day), Pentecost, and on the four Ember fast Sundays (Pope 19.119–30). Pope repeats an earlier editor's observation that “this is Ælfric's most explicit recommendation on the frequency with which the holy sacrament should be received by the laity” (2:636, note on these lines).Google Scholar

¹⁶ The Admonition continues and concludes: “Læsse pleoh biÐ þam cristenan men þæt hé flæsces bruce on Leneten-timan, þonne hé wífes bruce. On Lenetene sind getealde ealles Ðæs geares teoÐung-dagas, on Ðam dagum sceolon cristene men heora lichaman mid forhæfednysse Gode teoÐian, swa swa hí sceolon symle heora geares teolunga Gode þone teoÐan dæl, mid cystigum mode, syllan. Nis Ðæs mannes fæsten naht, þe hine sylfne on forhæfednysse dagum fordrencÐ. Se Scyppend, þe eow gesceop, sylle eow gódne willan, and eow gelæde to Ðam ecan lífe.” (There is less risk for a Christian man that he enjoy meat at Lent than he enjoy his wife. During Lent are reckoned all the tithe-days of the year; in these days Christian men ought to tithe their bodies to God with abstinence, just as they always ought to give to God the tenth part of their year's labors with a generous mind. That man's fast is worthless, who makes himself drunk on days of abstinence. May the Creator, who created you, give you good intention and lead you into the everlasting life [Thorpe, , Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 2:608]).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Godden, , Commentary (n. 3 above), 93. For another connection between making an offering to God and offering one's clænnyss as a sacrifice, see CHII. 12.357–64, where Ælfric explains that just as the Old Testament priests offered a turtledove for a sacrifice at the temple, so may believers offer themselves if they “on clænnysse wuniaД (remain in chastity) (364).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Godden, , Commentary, 93. For the remark in the Admonition, see n. 16 above.Google Scholar

¹⁹ LS 12.289–90.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ibid., 49–50.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., 58.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 59–64, at 59, and 65–74, at 70, respectively.Google Scholar

²³ CHII.19.181–82.Google Scholar

²⁴ The Pseudo-Egbert Scrift boc forbids sex during menstruation and pregnancy (Spindler, Das altenglische Bussbuch [n. 13 above], 178, no. 9a, and 184, no. 19b, respectively). Bede's penitential proscribes sex during menstruation (Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen [n. 13 above], 224, no. 37), while Egbert's penitential and the Pseudo-Egbert Penitential forbid sex during pregnancy (respectively, Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen, 224, no. 37, and Raith, Die altenglische Version des Haltigar'schen Bussbuches [n. 13 above], 29, no. 21c). Theodore's penitential contains both restrictions (Wasserschleben, , Die Bussordnungen, 199, no. 23, and 213, no. 12.3).Google Scholar

²⁵ Clemoes, , “Chronology” (n. 8 above), 226, and Pope, 2:614.Google Scholar

²⁶ Jackson, , “Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage” (n. 6 above), 240 and 260, respectively.Google Scholar

²⁷ My point about Ælfric's use of Augustine's ideas is exactly that which Jackson makes about Ælfric's use of the Historia monachorum for his coda to the Life of Æthelthryth:“In the case of Ælfric, [source study] shows a writer who is at once intensely aware of earlier authority, but subtle, selective, attentive and utterly individual in its use” (ibid., 259).Google Scholar

²⁸ Mark 4:1–20 also records the parable and lists the three yields in ascending order in v. 20. Since Bede, Ælfric's source for the preceding exposition of the various types of seeds, mentions Matthew's account of the rewards in his Commentary on Luke, it is more likely that Ælfric's “other evangelist” refers to Matthew, not Mark (Godden, Commentary [n. 3 above], 392). Ælfric mentions the three states of chastity in four other works: CHI.9.198–220, CHII.4.297–305, Assmann 2.132–38; and Assmann 3.367–82, the last three of which Godden lists when discussing lines 198–220 of CHI.9 (Commentary, 76). To these might be added CHII.32.150–67 from the Nativity of St. Matthew, where the apostle preaches on the three states to the Ethopian king Hyrtacus, who is determined to marry the former king's daughter, an abbess. In lines 158–60, when Hyrtacus asks Matthew to help him plead his case, “se apostol him eallum sæde. hwæt gebyraÐ to sincipe. hwæt to wydewan hade, hwæt to mægÐhade. and hwæt to ælces mannes Ðeawum þe on godes gelaÐunge mid geleafan wunaД (the apostle said to them all what befits marriage, what widowhood, and what virginity, and what behaviors [befit] every man who remains in God's church with belief). Hyrtacus departs in anger.Google Scholar

²⁹ Godden, , Commentary, 392. Augustine also discourages men from having sex with pregnant wives in The Good of Marriage (Augustine: De bono coniugali; De sancta uirginitate , ed. and trans. Walsh, P. G. [Oxford, 2001], 2–63, at 12–13).Google Scholar

³⁰ Godden, , Commentary, 392.Google Scholar

³¹ In The Good of Marriage Augustine praises couples for refraining from intercourse before they would naturally do so, but he in no way implies that all husbands and wives must. Nor does he establish menopause as a point after which sex is no longer permitted: qui quanto meliores sunt tanto maturius a commixtione carnis suae pari consensu se continere coeperunt, non ut necessitatis esset postea non posse quod uellent, sed ut laudis esset primum noluisse quod possent. Si ergo seruatur fides honoris et obsequiorum inuicem debitorum ab alterutro sexu, etiamsi languescentibus et prope cadauerinis utrisque membris, animorum tamen rite coniugatorum tanto sincerior quanto probatior, et tanto securior quanto placidior castitas perseuerat. [The better the couple are, the earlier they have begun by mutual consent to abstain from sexual intercourse — not because it had become physically impossible for them to carry out their wishes, but so that they could merit praise by prior refusal to do what they were capable of doing. If, then, an honorable fidelity is maintained by both sexes and replaces the compliance owed to each other, even if the physical powers of both are failing and virtually dead, the chastity of souls truly united continues the purer the more it has proved itself, and the safer as it is more serene.] (Walsh, , Augustine, 6 and 7) Of immoderate sexual intercourse and its sinfulness, Augustine says later: Iam in ipsa quoque immoderatiore exactione debiti carnalis, quam eis non secundum imperium praecipit sed secundum ueniam concedit apostolus, ut etiam praeter causam procreandi sibi misceantur, etsi eos praui mores ad talem concubitum impellunt, nuptiae tamen ab adulterio seu fornicatione defendunt. [Even when such physical debts are demanded intemperately (which the Apostle permits in married couples as pardonable, allowing them to indulge in sex beyond the purpose of procreation, rather than laying down the law as command), and though debased habits impel partners to such intercourse, marriage is none the less a safeguard against adultery or fornication.] (Ibid., 12 and 13) Dyan Elliot observes that the church fathers generally expected marital intercourse to cease gradually with a couple's desires and abilities (Spiritual Marriage [Princeton, 1993], 40–41).Google Scholar

³² Godden, , Commentary, 392.Google Scholar

³³ I am grateful to Peter Jackson for this reference. The following remarks complement his discussion of Ælfric's Augustinian views of marriage (Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage,” 247–48).Google Scholar

³⁴ Contra Iulianum 3.21.43 (PL 44:724).Google Scholar

³⁵ Answer to the Pelagians II: Marriage and Desire, Answer to the Two Letters of the Pelagians, Answer to Julian, trans. Teske, Ronald J., The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century 1/24 (Hyde Park, 1998), 363.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the point in The Good of Marriage, see n. 31 above. Elizabeth Clark confirms that Ælfric's restriction of marital intercourse to procreative ends in the Sexagesima homily and in On Apostolic Doctrine (see n. 39 below) is “a great deal more rigorous” than Augustine's opinion on the matter. She points to Augustine's Pauline concession for sex motivated by desire as evidence that procreative intercourse is for him an ideal (E-mail to the author, “Re: A question about St. Augustine's views of marital celibacy,” 23 Sept. 2003).Google Scholar

³⁷ Helmut Gneuss's Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts (Tempe, AZ, 2002) shows that Against Julian survives in three manuscripts written or owned in England prior to 1100, all of which are dated to the eleventh century: (1) Handlist no. 283 — BL, Additional 23944, “prov[enance] England s.xi ex.”; (2) Handlist no. 551 — Bodleian Library, Bodley 145, s.xi²; and (3) Handlist no. 738 — Salisbury Cathedral Library 138, s.xi ex. Because the earliest manuscript is dated to the second half of the eleventh century, it remains unclear whether the text was known in Anglo-Saxon England or was imported after the Conquest.Google Scholar

³⁸ That Ælfric might have known Against Julian is “very plausible indeed” writes Malcolm Godden, noting that a lack of other corroborating evidence for Ælfric's knowledge of this work is true in the case of other Augustinian texts he uses infrequently. Godden also comments that “toughening one of Augustine's reservations into a rule would also be characteristic of [Ælfric] of course” (E-mail to the author, “Re: A question about Ælfric's Sexagesima Homily (II.6),” 26 Nov. 2003). See also Elizabeth Clark's comment about Ælfric's restriction of marital intercourse to procreative purposes in n. 36 above.Google Scholar

³⁹ On Apostolic Doctrine is built around Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians about chastity and marriage. Ælfric begins the section on marriage in lines 90–118 by repeating Paul's instructions that couples should not deprive one another of sex unless by mutual consent and then moves on to prohibitions against divorce on the grounds of unbelief (Paul) and infertility (Augustine). Next is the program of marital celibacy that contains the same elements of the “rule” found in the homily for Sexagesima Sunday: Nis swaþeah hæmed geset for nanum þinge buton for bearnes gestreone, and æfter þam boclican regole, ne sceolde nan man bearneacnigendum wife genealæcan, ne monoÐseocum, ne þam Ðe for ylde untymende byÐ. Se Ðe þis healdan mæg, he byÐ fulfremed on læwedum hade, swa swa we be manegum mannum rædaÐ. (Pope 19.111–16) [Nor is sexual intercourse established for anything except the procreation of children, and according to the rule derived from books, nor should any man approach a pregnant or menstruating wife, nor one who is barren due to old age. He who keeps this (rule) may be perfected in the layman's state, just as we read about many men.] Although Ælfric omits any mention of the thirtyfold fruit of good works, it is still by adhering to these guidelines that laymen earn credit in heaven for their obedience “to the rule derived from books.” Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Godden, , Commentary (n. 3 above), 525. Pope, , 2:749.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Godden, , Commentary, 524–25.Google Scholar

⁴² Jackson, , “Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage” (n. 6 above), 238–40.Google Scholar

⁴³ The summary is Gordon Whatley's in his entry for Malchus in “Acta Sanctorum,” in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture, 1, ed. Biggs, Frederick M. et al. (Kalamazoo, MI, 2001), 22–486, at 310. An edition and translation of Jerome's Life of Malchus is that by Mierow, Charles C., ”Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Vita Malchi monachi captivi,” in Classical Essays Presented to James A. Kleist , ed. Arnold, Richard E. (St. Louis, 1946), 31–60. More accessible is Carolinne White's “Life of Malchus by Jerome,” in Early Christian Lives (London, 1998), 117–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Aldhelm makes the substitution apparently on the authority of Theodore of Canterbury, who in turn was following the Greek father Basil (Aldhelm: The Prose Works, trans. Lapidge, Michael and Herren, Michael [Ipswich, Engl., 1979], 55–56). The passage itself appears in chapter 19 of the prose De virginitate, which is found in Lapidge and Herren's translation on 75–76 and in Gwara's edition on 217–25 (Aldhelmi Malmesbiriensis Prosa de virginitate: Textus , ed. Gwara, Scott, CCL 124 [Turnhout, 2001]). On the study of Aldhelm in tenth-century Anglo-Saxon schools, see Gwara, Scott, Aldhelmi Malmesbiriensis Prosa de virginitate: Praefatio, Indices, CCL 124A (Turnhout, 2001), 69–70; Orchard, Andy, The Poetic Art of Aldhelm (Cambridge, 1994), 68; Lendinara, Patrizia, “Anglo-Saxon Learning,” in The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature , ed. Godden, Malcolm and Lapidge, Michael (Cambridge, 1991), 264–81, esp. 275–77; Aldhelm: The Poetic Works , trans. Lapidge, Michael and Rosier, James (Woodbridge, Engl., 1985), 101, esp. nn. 11 and 13; and Lapidge, and Herren, , Aldhelm: The Prose Works, 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Gwara, , Prosa de virginitate: Textus, 221 and 223; Lapidge, and Herren, , Aldhelm: The Prose Works, 75.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ In the legend Thomas says flatly to Mazdai, the king of India, that the newly converted Migdonia, the sister of the king's wife, should leave her unbelieving spouse. Ælfric then writes, “ac canones swa-þeah cweÐaþ and beodaÐ þæt nan wíf / ne sceole hire wer forlætan swilce for eawfæstnysse / buton him bam swa gelicige” (but the canons nevertheless say and instruct that no wife ought to abandon her husband as it were for the sake of religion (also, piety) unless it please them both [LS 36.387–89]). Skeat attributes the following speech to Thomas, although I prefer to treat it as an aside. Jackson also quotes these lines (“Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage,” 244).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Spindler and Raith date the Pseudo-Egbert Scrift boc and Penitential to the second half of the tenth century (respectively, Das altenglische Bussbuch, 124, and Die altenglische Version des Haltigar'schen Bussbuches, xxxviii [both in n. 13 above]). The Scrift boc treats separation by mutual consent twice. In the first instance, the spouse remaining outside the monastery is permitted to remarry, if he or she was not married previously: Healice gegaderunga ne mot mon gesceadan butan begea geÐafunga. Heora ægÐer mot oÐrum lyfan mynstergang and him niman oÐerne gegadan, gif hi in þæm ærestan hæmede wæron. (Spindler, , Das altenglische Bussbuch, 180–81, nos. 14b–c) [No man may separate exalted unions without permission of both. Either of them may permit the other to join a monastery and to take for himself another companion if they were in a first marriage.] The second treatment of mutual separation does not address remarriage but adds that parting is permissible when one spouse is ill: Wer and wif þa Ðe him in hæmede geÐeodde wæron, gyf oÐer wile Godes Ðeowa beon and oÐer nele, oÐÐe heora oÐer biÐ untrum oÐer byÐ hal, swa þeah mid heora begra geÐafunge heo hi gedælen, gif hi wyllon. (Ibid., 182, no. 16h) [If either the husband or wife joined in marriage wishes to become God's servant (i.e., a religious) and the other does not, or if one of them is sick and the other healthy, nevertheless they may separate with the consent of them both if they wish.] The canon in the Pseudo-Egbert Penitential repeats the first of these but adds that the separation must be approved by a bishop, a requirement which Raith notes is a later addition (Die altenglische Version des Haltigar'schen Bussbuches, 65, no. 52, and the notes there).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Wulfstan's Canon Law Collection, ed. and trans. Cross, J. E. and Hamer, Andrew (Cambridge, 1999), 147. The source for the dual vow of chastity in this passage is a Carolingian collection of patristic excerpts and canons, which itself is derived from Isidore's seventh-century Regula monachorum (ibid.). Book four of the Quadripartitus, the Carolingian collection of patristic excerpts and canons cited by Cross and Hamer, circulated in tenth-century England (Gneuss, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts [n. 37 above], 96, no. 592). Interestingly, there are two canons preceding the passage that require both spouses to take a vow of chastity if they choose to separate. Both are similar to those cited in the note above: Legitimum igitur coniugium non licet separari sine consensu amborum; potest tamen alter alteri, cum consilio episcopi, licentiam dare ad seruitutem Dei accedere. Quidam etiam dicit: Si vir siue mulier ex consensu religionem ceperit, licet alterum accipere nouum coniugium, sed puellam uel puerum, si continens esse non poterit. Quod non laudo. [Therefore a lawful marriage may not be separated without the consent of both parties; however, each is able, with the counsel of a bishop, to give the other freedom to enter into the service of God. A certain authority also says: If a husband or wife shall, with the agreement of the other, take up the religious life, the other, if a young woman or young man, is permitted to undertake a new marriage, if they are unable to be celibate. (I do not approve of this.)] (Cross, and Hamer, , Wulfstan's Canon Law Collection, 147)Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The idea of mutual consent is central to Jackson's argument about why Ælfric appends the coda to Æthelthryth (“Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage,” 256–60).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cross and Hamer suggest that those responsible for compiling the collection used Ælfric's works, not vice versa, as has traditionally been assumed (Wulfstan's Canon Law Collection, 17–22). Godden, on the other hand, acknowledges the possibility that Ælfric wrote the collection or helped to compile it (“Anglo-Saxons on the Mind,” in Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England [Cambridge, 1985], 271–98, at 253.) Jackson cites both opinions (“Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage,” 244, n. 33).Google Scholar

⁵¹ The Pseudo-Egbert Penitential contains the following instructions in a section devoted to “hu gesynhiwan heora þeawas healdan sceolan for gode” (how married couples ought to guard their virtues for God): Halige bee tæceaÐ hwæt ælcum geleaffullum were to donne is, þonne +he, his riht-æwe ærost ham bringeÐ; Ðæt is ætter boca tæcinge þæt hy þreora daga and nihta fyrst heora clænnesse healdan sceolon, and þonne on þone þriddan dæg heora mæssan gestandan and hy butu husl niman, and syÐÐan heora gesynscipe healdan for gode and for and for worulde swa heora þearf sy. (Raith, , Die altenglische Version des Haltigar'schen Bussbuches, 28–29, no. 21a) [The holy books teach what each believing man is to do when he first brings home his lawful wife. According to the books' teaching, they shall preserve their chastity for the first three days and nights and then on the third day come to mass, take communion, and afterwards keep their marriage according to the standard of God and according to the standard of the world as is their need.] This proscription of intercourse for three nights has scriptural support in the apocryphal book of Tobit (6:16–22), where an angel orders Tobias not to consummate his marriage with his new bride for the same period (ibid., n. on no. 21a–b). In the same note Raith also surmises that the translator has mangled the canon found in another penitential that called for married couples to abstain from intercourse three nights before receiving communion. A canon in the Excerptiones requires couples to refrain from sexual intercourse for one night after being married: Canon Cartaginensis. Sponsus et sponsa, cum benedicendi sunt a sacerdote, a parentibus aut a paranimphis offerantur; qui cum benedictionem acceperint, eadem nocte pro reuerentia ipsius benedictionis, in uirginitate permaneant. [A canon of Carthage. The bridegroom and bride, when they are to be blessed by the priest, are to be brought forward by their parents or by the bridal attendants; and when they have received the blessing, that same night, they are to remain in the state of virginity, out of respect for that blessing.] (Cross and Hamer, Wulfstan's Canon Law Collection, 91) This canon too circulated in the Quadripartitus (see n. 48 above).Google Scholar

⁵² The legends are: LS 4 (Julian and Basilissa), LS 34 (Cecilia and Valerian), and LS 35 (Chrysanthus and Daria). Drawing extensively on the work presented here, I have explored how Chrysanthus and Daria reflects Ælfric's homiletic concerns with marital celibacy in “The Legend of Chrysanthus and Daria in Ælfric's Lives of Saints” in Studies in Philology 101 (2004): 250–69. I am currently preparing editions and translations of the Old English texts and their putative Latin sources, and a study of the three legends in their literary, historical, and cultural contexts. Liesl R. Smith also explores Ælfric's use of these legends in her PhD dissertation, “Virginity and the Married-Virgin Saints in Ælfric's Lives of Saints” (n. 6 above).Google Scholar

⁵³ Jackson includes the Rogation Monday homily in his enumeration of the sermons containing Ælfric's teaching on marriage and comments that he “stresses the indissolubility of marriage, while conceding that couples who prefer to abstain may separate, or even forgo intercourse throughout marriage if God calls them both to do so” (“Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage,” 244). Ultimately, however, he argues that Ælfric is “uneasy” (ibid., 254, n. 71) with the idea of laymen pursuing lifelong chastity. I agree with Jackson that Ælfric does not recommend spiritual marriage for all couples, even most, but he does appear to endorse the idea wholeheartedly and with a particular purpose in mind, as I hope to demonstrate below.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The allegory has a broad biblical foundation based on early Christian interpretation of (among other passages) the Song of Solomon, Psalm 45, 2 Cor. 2:2–3, and Eph. 5:22–32, as well as Jesus' first miracle at the wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11) and his parable of the invitation to a wedding banquet (Matt. 22:1–14). Stephen Morrison documents the use of the allegory among writers of Old English prose with a particular focus on Ælfric's works including those discussed below in his “The Figure of Christus Sponsus in Old English Prose,” in Liebe-Ehe-Ehebruch in der Literatur des Mittelalters, ed. von Ertzdorff, Xenja and Wynn, Marianne (Giessen, 1984), 5–15. Hugh Magennis adduces more examples from hagiography of the period in his “Occurrences of Nuptial Imagery in Old English Hagiographical Texts,” English Language Notes 33 (1996): 1–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Clayton, Mary, “Ælfric and the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” Anglia 104 (1986): 286–315, at 306, where she is referring specifically to Ælfric's discussion of the merit and sanctity of the vow of virginity, which he had treated earlier in On Apostolic Doctrine. On the dating of the Nativity of Mary see ibid., 295. On its circulation see Assmann 249–50, who notes that the sermon survives in three manuscripts, only one of which is early; Pope describes the manuscripts (1:18–20, 59–62, and 67–70). Clayton also discusses Ælfric's Nativity of Mary in The Cult of the Virgin Mary in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1990), 244–48. However, she does not treat in detail the lines that are the focus of this discussion in either her article or book. Her most complete sourcing of the homily is “The Sources of Assmann 3 (Homily for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) (Cameron B.1.5),” 1990, Fontes Anglo-Saxonici: World Wide Web Register at <http://fontes.english.ox.ac.uk/>, accessed January 2004. Prior to composing the Nativity of Mary, Ælfric employed the allegory of spiritual marriage in five First and Second Series homilies: CHI.33; CHI.35; CHII.1; CHII.4; and CHII.39. The longest of these treatments totals 138 words (CHII.39.78–92), a fraction of the roughly 800-word discourse in the Nativity of Mary. Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Clayton, , Cult of the Virgin Mary, 247, and eadem, “Ælfric and the Nativity,” 295.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Eadem, , “Ælfric and the Nativity,” 299.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ On his use of repetition as a stylistic device for “promoting coherence and securing emphasis,” see Pope, 1:110.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The homilies are: CHILI.93–94, CHII.4.29–32, and CHII.39.81–86.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Fontes Anglo-Saxonici database, sourcing of lines 131–35. De sancta virgintate and this passage are found in Walsh, Augustine (n. 29 above), 66–147, at 72–73.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Augustine writes, “Et coniugatae quippe fideles feminae et deo uirgines dicatae Sanctis moribus et caritate ‘de corde puro et concientia bona et fide non ficta’ [1 Tim. 1:5], quia uoluntatem patris faciunt, Christi spiritaliter matres sunt.” (For both married women in the faith and virgins consecrated to God are Christ's mother spiritually, by reason of their holy manners and their love “from a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, for they do the will of the Father” (De sancta virginitate 6 [PL 40:399]).Google Scholar

⁶² Assmann 2.138–46. On the letter's adaptation as a homily, see Pope, 1:31 and 2:801, and Clemoes, “Chronology” (n. 8 above), 239. For the passage from Sexagesima Sunday, see page 50 above.Google Scholar

⁶³ The image of the unfaithful spouse “a whoring after other gods” is biblical. Judg. 2:16b–17 reads, “sed nec illos audire voluerunt fornicantes cum diis alienis et adorantes eos cito deseruerunt viam per quam ingressi fuerant patres et audientes mandata Domini omnia fecere” (Biblia Sacra Vulgata, ed. Weber, Robert, 3rd ed. [Stuttgart, 1969]). (And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the Lord [King James Version, Judg. 2:17]). See also Exod. 31:6 and 34:15–16, Lev. 20:6, and Deut. 31:16. Israel is personified as the unfaithful wife in Hos. 2:2–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ In addition to the passage from the letter to SigefyrÐ quoted in the preceding paragraph, see, for example, the Second Series homily for Mid-Lent Sunday where Ælfric explains the commandment this way: “Ælc Ðæra manna þe hæmÐ buton rihtre æwe. he hæmÐ unrihtlice; And se Ðe ofer his æwe hæmÐ. he is forlír. Ðurh his æwbrice” (CHII.12.318–20). (Each man who has sexual intercourse except with his lawful spouse has unlawful intercourse; and he who has intercourse outside of marriage is a fornicator because of his adultery.) On the Monday of Rogationtide, he declares “God soÐlice fordemÐ þa dyrnan forlíras. and Ða unrihthæmeras on helle fordeÐ. buton hi ær geendunge. heora yfel gebeton” (CHII.19.170–72). (God truly condemns secret fornicators and destroys adulterers in hell, unless they atone for their wickedness before death.) For Ælfric's ordering of the commandments see Kleist, Aaron, “The Division of the Ten Commandments in Anglo-Saxon England,” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 103 (2002): 227–40.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For such idolatrous practices, see, for example, the Feast of the Lord's Circumcision (CHI.6), the Life of St. Bartholomew (CHI.31), and On Auguries (LS 17), the last of which defines idolatry both literally and figuratively. Audrey Meaney surveys various practices and beliefs that Ælfric considers idolatrous, including those mentioned here, in “Ælfric and Idolatry,” Journal of Religious History 13 (1984): 119–35. She also notes that Ælfric's distinction between literal and figurative idolatry in On Auguries provides evidence for the way in which he “put his own mark on the homily and unified it … by emphasizing the opposition between God and the good Christian on one side, and the devil and the idolater on the other” (“Ælfric's Use of His Sources in His Homily On Auguries” English Studies 66 [1985]: 477–95, at 490).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Godden, , Commentary (n. 3 above), 657. Clayton does not cite a source for lines 78–86 in her Fontes Anglo-Saxonici entry or suggest one for them in her treatments of the Nativity of Mary in her article or book (all are cited in n. 55 above).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Godden, , Commentary, 657.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ A good example is that from On the Feast-Day of Holy Virgins, where, having used 2 Cor. 11:2 to establish in line 83 that “eal [seo gelaÐung] is genamod to anum mædene” (all the Church is named as one virgin), Ælfric explains. Nis Ðis na to understandenne lichamlice. ac gastlice; Crist is se clæna brydguma. and eal seo cristene gelaÐung is his bryd. þurh Ða he gestrynÐ dæghwomlice mennisce sawla to his heofenlican rice; Seo gelaÐung is ure modor and clæne mæden. for Ðan þe we beoÐ on hire geedcynnede to godes handa. þurh geleafan and fulluht. (CH II.39.87–92) [This is not to be understood literally but spiritually. Christ is the chaste bridegroom, and all the Christian Church is his bride, by whom he daily begets human souls to his heavenly kingdom. The Church is our mother and a chaste virgin, because we are in her born again into the possession of God by means of belief and baptism.] Other examples are CHI.35.40–46, CHII.1.86–92, and CHII.4.33–36.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Godden, , Commentary, 277, notes on lines 19–23 and 23–27.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., note on lines 23–27. Neither Albert Blaise's Dictionnaire latin-fran&çais des auteurs Chrétiens (Turnhout, 1993) nor J. F. Neirmeyer's Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden, 1993) defines electus as a priest or any other member of the clergy but as “those who have been chosen by God.” Yet Latham's, R. E. Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources (Oxford, 1973) records the definition as “an abbot or bishop elect” as early as 804. Susan Irvine notes Ælfric's tendency to translate minister or sacerdos with Ðegen (thane) instead of Ðeow (servant) (Old English Homilies from Ms Bodley 343, ed. eadem, EETS o.s. 302 [Oxford, 1993], 46, n. 10). Ælfric's application of þeow to all Christians is similar to the more inclusive use of the Latin servus that Hugh Magennis observes in Aldhelm's De virginitate, where “the slave [of God] phrases refer to good Christians in general and, more specifically, to virgin martyrs” (”Godes þeow and Related Expressions in Old English,” Anglia 116 [1998]: 138–70, at 147 and n. 17). Aldhelm, according to Magennis, is a notable exception to Bede and other Anglo-Latin writers who restrict the term to those pursing the religious life.Google Scholar

⁷² Godden, , Commentary, 647–48, on which the following remarks depend heavily.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ælfric conflates Matthew's account of the parable with that in Luke 19:15–26 (ibid., 648).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Ibid., 650, where Godden quotes the passage from Gregory in full.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ CHII.38.141–49, at 141 and 143–44, respectively.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ I owe the genesis of this idea to Malcolm Godden who mentioned it to me at the 2000 annual meeting of Fontes Anglo-Saxonici in the context of a discussion about the reasons Ælfric included the legends of the virgin spouses in the Lives of Saints. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Godden, , Commentary, 354.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Another possibility is a passage from an Ascension homily whose language is close to that of the Nativity sermon. Having compared the ascensions of Enoch, Elijah, and Christ, Ælfric reiterates why Christ was able to ascend under his own power, explaining that, he is ord and angin ealra clænnyssa. and him is seo clænnys swiÐe lufiendlic mægen; Đæt he geswutelode þa Ða he geceas him mædenmann to meder. and eall se halga heap Ðe him fyligde wæs on clænnysse wuniende swa swa he cwæÐ on sumum godspelle; Se þe to me cymÐ ne mæig he beon min leorningcniht buton he his wif hatige. (CHI.21.218–23) [He is the beginning and origin of all chastities, and to him chastity is a very desirable virtue. That he revealed when he chose for himself a virgin as (his) mother, and all the holy troop that followed him was living in chastity just as he said in a certain gospel: “He who comes to me may not be my disciple unless he hate his wife” (Luke 14:26).] It is worth noting that Ælfric quotes selectively the verse from Luke's gospel where Christ mentions that one must hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and himself in order to be a disciple.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See the relevant passages from CHI.21 in the note above and from CHII.6 quoted in the following paragraph of the article. Also, in a tirade in his Preface to Genesis, Ælfric lambastes ignorant, half-literate priests who ignore the gastlice andgit (spiritual understanding) of the Old Law and use examples from it, such as Joseph, who had four wives, to justify their marriages (Wilcox, Prefaces [n. 8 above], 117, lines 23–40, at line 25). For works directed to clergymen, see Ælfric's first pastoral letter to Wulfsige, bishop of Sherborne (993–1002), in which he chides priests for thinking that absolute celibacy was syllic (strange) and then upbraids them for “habbaÐ [heora] yrmÐe swa on gewunan gebroht, swylce hit nan pleoh ne sý, þæt se preost libbe swa-swa ceorl” (having made [their] crime a custom, as if it is no risk that a priest live like a married man [Fehr, , Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics (n. 13 above), 4, no. 14]). In all quotations from Fehr, I have replaced with a “g” his yogh. In 1005, in his first letter to Wulfstan, archbishop of York (1002–23), Ælfric scolds priests for thinking that the proscription against having a wife is mirum (astonishing) and incredibile (unbelievable); rather he says that he is astonished that they do not consider it sinful “si presbyter aut diaconus aut clericus uiuat cum uxore sicut laicus” (if a priest or deacon or cleric lives with a wife like a layman [ibid., 46, no. 87]). Gordon, E. Whatley draws attention to the passages from the feast of St. Peter's Chair, the Preface to Genesis, and the letter to SigefyrÐ (mentioned in the following note) in “Pearls Before Swine: Ælfric, Vernacular Hagiography, and the Lay Reader,” in Via Cruris: Essays on Sources and Ideas in Memory of J. E. Cross , ed. Hall, Thomas N. with assistance from Hill, Thomas D. and Wright, Charles D. (Morgantown, 2002), 158–84, at 162.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ That the question of clerical celibacy was not settled late in his career is evident from Ælfric's letters to Wulfstan (see note above and below) and to the layman SigefyrÐ (Assmann 2), which he wrote after becoming abbot of Eynsham in 1005 (Clemoes, “Chronology” [n. 8 above], 243). The entire letter to SigefyrÐ is a defense of sacerdotal chastity rebutting an English anchorite's teaching that priests could marry; lines 32–84 parallel those from St. Peters Chair. See also CHII.12.548–52 for another sermon in which Ælfric preaches simultaneously to the clergy and laity about the necessity for maintaining their clænnyss. Google Scholar

⁸¹ In his second Latin letter to Wulfstan, Ælfric writes that “Uos decet esse magistros et docere discipulos, non carnales filios, sed spiritales” (It is fitting for you to be teachers and to teach students, not your biological sons but spiritual ones [Fehr, , Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, 62, no. 41]). In his second Old English letter to Wulfstan, Ælfric advises priests to train children to help them during their services but warns them to choose “Ná eower ægene cild, þe ge unrihtlice ge-strynaÐ, ác þá ælfremedan, þæt hy eowre cild beon þurh þa gastlican láre” (not your own children, whom you unjustly begot, but those not your own, who are your children by means of spiritual instruction [ibid., 176, no. 81]).Google Scholar

⁸² In his letter to SigefyrÐ, Ælfric calls those who refuse to agree with his arguments against clerical marriage gedwola (heretics) (Assmann 2.199). In the first Latin letter to Wulfstan his language is milder though his commitment to the idea no less firm when he admits “Non cogimus uiolenter uos dimittere uxores uestras, sed dicimus uobis quales esse debetis” (we may not violently compel you to divorce your wives, but we say that you are obliged to do so [Fehr, , Die Hirtenbriefe Ælfrics, 48, no. 111]). For his demand that priests put away their wives in this letter and in the letter to Wulfsige, see ibid., 46, nos. 88–91, and 5, no. 17, respectively.Google Scholar

⁸³ See the entry for (ge)strēon in A Thesaurus of Old English, ed. Roberts, Jane and Kay, Christian, 2 vols. (London, 1995), 2:1349, and the note on gestrynan in Godden's glossary (Commentary, 766).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For accounts of the invasions, see Campbell, , The Anglo-Saxons (n. 9 above), 192–201, and Stenton, , Anglo-Saxon England (n. 7 above), 372–79.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ On Ælfric's views of the approaching millennium, see Gatch, , Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England (n. 8 above), 78–81; Godden, Malcolm, “Apocalypse and Invasion in Late Anglo-Saxon England,” in From Anglo-Saxon to Early Middle English: Studies Presented to E. G. Stanley , ed. Godden, Malcolm, Gray, Douglas, and Hoad, Terry (Oxford, 1994), 130–62; and Whatley, , “Late Old English Hagiography” (n. 9 above), 443.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Æthelmær, Ælfric's younger patron, comes to mind, but his founding of abbeys at Eynsham and Cernel, and his temporary retirement to the former may more likely be related to political exigency rather than spiritual piety (Yorke, , “Æthelmær,” 19–20, and Jones, , Ælfrics Letter, 13–15 [both in n. 9 above]).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Assmann 3.125–30, cited initially on p. 63 above.Google Scholar