Heavenfield

In his description of the piety of Audrey of Ely, the Venerable Bede mentions that she didn’t bathe in hot water except in preparation for the three greater feasts of the year — Easter, Pentecost and Epiphany (Bede, HE IV:19). While it is no surprise that Easter and Pentecost were the primary feasts of the year, ranking Epiphany among the top three is a bit of a surprise.The Nativity and most of the other feasts of the year were celebrated in the 7th century, but apparently second rate compared to epiphany.

Today, Epiphany is the celebration of Christ’s manifestation to the gentiles — the three magi who coming bearing gifts. However in Bede’s time Epiphany was the celebration of the baptism of Christ. When the Holy Spirit utters the words “This is my beloved son with whom I’m well pleased” Christ is manifest to the world. From Bede’s homily on Epiphany we can see that the lectionary used at Wearmouth-Jarrow called for Matthew 3:13-17, the baptism of Christ in the River Jordan.

If we turn to Bede’s homily on Epiphany we gain more insight into how Epiphany was viewed in his time.

“Now there follows: “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Let it be [so] now, for it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice’. … ‘Let me now,’ he says, let me now be baptized by you in water as I have ordered, and afterwards you will be baptized by me in the Spirit, as you are asking. So it is fitting that we give an example of all justice, [which is] to be fulfilled, namely, so that the faithful may learn that no human being can be perfectly just apart from the waters of baptism, and that the ceremony of life-giving regeneration is necessary for all, no matter how innocently and justly that they may live, when they recognize that although I was conceived and born by the working of the Holy Spirit, I was subject to a second birth, or rather that I consecrated the bath of baptism for them. None of the more important people should scorn to be baptized in the forgiveness of sins by my humble ones, when they remember that the Lord, who was wont to forgive sins as he baptized in the Holy Spirit, lowered his head to be baptized in water at the hands of his servant.’ ” (Martin and Hurst, p. 115-116)

The editor is indicating that all of this is quoted form somewhere else but doesn’t say where. The editors suggest that he is quoting Jerome in part, but not all of it. Where ever it comes from, probably part Bede and part quoted, it does suggest that the baptism was considered second nativity and perhaps more important than the first.

Bede then goes on to make an interesting link to the relationship between Christ and Adam, Adam being expelled with his wife, and eventually to Christ taking the church as his wife.

“The second Adam on this day points out that through the waters of the bath of rebirth the flickering flame by which the cherub guardian blocked the entry into paradise when the first Adam was expelled would be extinguished. Where the one went out with his wife, having been conquored by the enemy, there the other might return with his spouse (namely the Church of the saints), as a conqueror over his enemy. Further, the Father of the age to come, the Prince of peace, might grand to those redeemed from sin the better gift of immortal life, which the father of this present age, the prince of discord, lost after he was sold, together with his descendants, into the slavery of sin.” (Martin and Hurst, pm 116-117)

“Now what sort of flaming sword it is guarding the doorway to paradise has been extinguished for each of the faithful at the font of baptism, and it has been put away so that they may return. For the unfaithful, however, it remains always immovable, and also for those falsely called faithful thought they have not been chosen, since they have no fear of entangling themselves in sins after baptism, it is as though the same fire has been rekindled after it has been extinguished, so they they may not merit to enter the kingdom that they try to obtain with a deceitful and duplicitous heart — with the fraudulent tooth of a serpent rather than the simple eye of the dove, which the Lord shows that he loves very much his Church when he says in the song of love, ‘Behold, you are beautiful, my friend, behold you are beautiful. Your eyes are those of doves.’ (Sg. 1:15)” (Martin and Hurst, p. 120)

Bede goes on to quote the Song of Songs three more times, amid the seven examples of virtues of the dove. All of this fits well with what Bede writes of St. Audrey. First bathing being tied to the feast of Christ’s baptism. Second, to the imagery of Audrey as a bride (and mother) of Christ. The use of the song of songs is recalled in Bede’s hymn on Audrey, even if it is not quoted.

So today, Pentecost, is one of the three primary feasts in Anglo-Saxon times and certainly a major feast today. Pentecost is the celebration of the birthday of the church, recorded in Acts, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, Mary his mother, and the others in the upper room. I hope you were able to celebrate the feast of Pentecost, or Whitsun, with your church family. I wonder how many sermons today discuss the confluence of the birth of the church with Mother’s day.

References:

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People

Lawrence Martin and David Hurst, eds. Bede the Venerable Homilies on the Gospels: Book One Advent to Lent, Cistercian Publications, 1991.

St Owine is a somewhat malleable figure in the veneration of St Audrey.

He first appears in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People where he is a member of St Chad’s household at Lichfield. Owine witnesses an exchange between Chad and an angel shortly before Chad’s death. Bede goes on to explain that Owine had been chief of her officers and the head of Æthelthryth’s household when she married prince Ecgfrith of Northumbria (Bede, HE IV.3). Bede goes on to relate that Owine joined Chad at Lastingham dressed plainly and carrying only an axe and adze to show that he came to work. He was not skilled at the study of Scriptures but more than made up for this in his earnest manual labor. When Chad moved to Lichfield to become bishop he asked Owine to join his household there. He was working outside of Chad’s personal oratory when he overheard Chad conversing with an angels. Chad then sent Owine to collect the others of the household and he gave them all, including Owine, his last instructions. Chad died on March 2, 672; the same year Æthelthryth (Audrey) left her marriage and entered Coldingham. Thus, Owine had left Æthelthryth’s service long before she left her marriage. Owine is also only associated with Lastingham and Litchfield by Bede. To join Lastingham while Chad was there he would have joined between 664 and 670; most of this time Chad was also Bishop of York (c. 665-669).

The Liber Eliensis expands Owine’s role. It casts Owine as Æthelthryth’s protector who only entered the church after she took up monastic life. He is clearly portrayed as following her lead. This is clearly impossible. It does claim that Owine entered Lasthingham when it was ruled by Bishop Chad of Mercia whose great friend he became, so it pushes his entry into Lasthingham as late as possible (LE i.8, 10). In LE i.23, Owine is, ironically, called her tutor. This may be a plea to link the cults of Chad and Audrey, particuarly after Ely largely came under the control of Mercia in the time of Offa. However, the expansions are not too great over what Bede reports.

This caution to keep within the outline laid out by Bede is completely lost in Marie de France’s Life of St Audrey. Marie claims that Audrey founds the church of St Andrew at Augustaldeus (Hexham) which she staffed with ‘her people’ who established the house there. Audrey placed the monk Ovin (Owine) as the “master of that church and its religious life”. Ovin became friends with Chad but is not said to have joined Chad’s household. Later, Marie claims that Ovin, “spiritual leader of Saint Audrey’s people” followed Audrey into Coldingham.

We can see an escalating of Owine’s relationship to Audrey. I haven’t yet found a source that claims that Owine came to Ely with her, but that may be the implication of Marie’s claim that he followed her into Coldingham. Commemoration of St Ovin — notice Marie’s French spelling — is part of remembrances of St Audrey at Ely today. This cross is apparently a medieval relic from a neighboring village. This drawing is from Cambridgeshire History.

Today at Ely Cathedral, a procession to St Ovin’s Cross takes place at second evensong on both St Audrey’s day and the feast of her translation in October using the ‘verses and collect’ of St Ovin.

Sources:

Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, 731

Janet Fairweather, trans. Liber Eliensis: A History of the Isle of Ely from the Seventh Century to the Twelfth. Boydell, 2005.

June Hall McCash and Judith Clark Barban, trans and ed. The Life of Saint Audrey: A Text by Marie De France. McFarland, 2006.

As Prof Cohen over at In the Middle is teaching Marie de France this week, I thought I would revisit one of Marie’s innovations in her Life of Saint Audrey. I mentioned earlier that Marie had come up with an interesting answer to how Audrey preserved her virginity through 12 years of marriage, so here is her solution:

“Once she had married him, he surrounded her with sweetness and love, but he could not conquer her heart. The king was truly amazed that he could not direct her heart’s affection toward him. Her religious fervor was so intense that she was in prayer night and day. Whenever the king lay in his royal bed awaiting his pleasure, it pleased God to have him fall asleep. The queen would in turn get up to pray and make supplication; she did not want to get back into bed. The Holy Spirit living in her heart governed her. By His holy inspiration she was kept from corruption. She was strong against all vices and disdained pleasures of this world. Never would her body be penetrated not her heart violated. Never for her lord Egfrid’s beseeching nor for his love did she leave the service of Jesus Christ to which she had committed herself. … Unable to have his way with her, the king became irritated and twice tried to force her, but he could never subdue her that way. When he saw that he could not do with her what he wanted, he became extremely angry and even more ardently wanted her to do his bidding. But the more he tormented her, the more resistant he found her. The virgin and her will vanquished all his cruel intention. Finally King Egfrid realized that he could not overcome her in anyway when they were alone in his bedchamber. (lines 924-948, 955-969, McCash and Barban, eds. The Life of Saint Audrey, McFarland, 2006, p. 69, 71, 73)

You would think being so well rested would just make Ecgfrith that much more frustrated. Anyway, Marie managed to make Audrey the strong one, she is the one who can’t be vanquished or overcome. Audrey is the one who is in control of her future. In the next few lines she describes Ecgfrith’s complaints to clergy as a cruel trick, although of course she prevails. As far as I know, Marie’s sleepy Ecgfrith is unique in hagiography on Audrey.

In Adomnan’s Life of Columba he relates a curious episode that seems to be pointed directly at Northumbria (from the Medieval Sourcebook, Ch XLII):

“Of one Lugne, surnamed Tudida, a Pilot, who lived on the Rechrean island (either Rathlin or Lambay), and whom, as being deformed, his wife hated.

ANOTHER time, when the saint was living on the Rechrean island, a certain man of humble birth came to him and complained of his wife, who, as he said, so hated him, that she would on no account allow him to come near her for marriage rights. The saint on hearing this, sent for the wife, and, so far as he could, began to reprove her on that account, saying: “Why, O woman, dost thou endeavour to withdraw thy flesh from thyself, while the Lord says, ‘They shall be two in one flesh’? Wherefore the flesh of thy husband is thy flesh.” She answered and said, “Whatever thou shalt require of me I am ready to do, however hard it may be, with this single exception, that thou dost not urge me in any way to sleep in one bed with Lugne. I do not refuse to perform every duty at home, or, if thou dost.command me, even to pass over the seas, or to live in some monastery for women.” The saint then said, “What thou dost propose cannot be lawfully done, for thou art bound by the law of the husband as long as thy husband liveth, for it would be impious to separate those whom God has lawfully joined together.” Immediately after these words he added: “This day let us three, namely, the husband and his wife and myself, join in prayer to the Lord and in fasting.” But the woman replied: “I know it is not impossible for thee to obtain from God, when thou askest them, those things that seem to us either difficult, or even impossible.” It is unnecessary to say more. The husband and wife agreed to fast with the saint that day, and the following night the saint spent sleepless in prayer for them. Next day he thus addressed the wife in presence of her husband, and said to her: “O woman, art thou still ready to-day, as thou saidst yesterday, to go away to a convent of women?” “I know now,” she answered, “that thy prayer to God for me hath been heard; for that man whom I hated yesterday, I love today; for my heart hath been changed last night in some unknown way–from hatred to love.” Why need we linger over it? From that day to the hour of death, the soul of the wife was firmly cemented in affection to her husband, so that she no longer refused those mutual matrimonial rights which she was formerly unwilling to allow.”

This episode seems to be aimed at Northumbria because when Adomnan wrote in c. 700-704, the current and previous king of Northumbria had allowed their wives to leave their marriages and enter convents. Adomnan’s good friend and pupil King Aldfrith of Norhtumbria had allowed his wife Cuthburgh (sister of King Ine of Wessex and kinswoman of Abbot Aldhelm of Malmesbury) to leave their marriage and enter a convent. The previous Northumbrian king, Ecgfrith, had also dissolved his marriage to Aethelthryth after 12 years of marriage.

If we go back 12 years from her vows in 672, Aethelthryth would have been married in c. 660 by Bishop Finan of Lindisfarne who died in 661. Just as importantly though, she would have been living under bishops from Lindisfarne until 669, first Bishop Colman and then Bishop Chad. Neither of them are likely to have been sympathetic to her desire to leave her marriage. It seems likely that dissolving the marriage wasn’t possible while her father-in-law King Oswiu lived. We might even wonder if Ecgfrith would have wanted his father or the wider kingdom to know of his marriage difficulties until he was securely on the throne. Either way for 9 out of the 12 years of Aethelthryth’s marriage separation from Ecgfrith would have been impossible. By 672 Aethelthryth recognized the right confluence of events: Ecgfrith was securely on the throne, and Wilfrid was securely set at York and, unlike the Irish trained bishops, could be talked into indulging her piety.

We don’t really know enough about the marraige of Aldfrith and Cuthburgh to say much. We know that they had separated during their lifetimes and we have plenty of evidence to back this up. She was already in Barking Abbey when Aldhelm wrote his works On Virginity and mention her in the preface. This might suggest that like his brother, Aldfrith separated from his first wife. This might explain how Aldfrith’s oldest son was only 8 years old when he died after 19 years on the throne.

Returning to Adomnan, it is interesting that the saint who is most directly associated with protecting women was not only be the author of the Columban story above but also of a canon law that takes this sentiment one step further. Among the Canons of Adomnan (not to be confused with Cain Adomnan), the 16th canon is that a man whose wife is a ‘harlot’ and leaves him for another man (or two or three), still can’t divorce her and take another wife. It makes some reference to the questions of Romans turning on a legal point over witnesses. Recall that Adomnan was a lawyer for whom a question of witnesses (and the quality thereof) are vital. Adomnan’s views on women are more complex that simply protecting them from violence. The stress he places on women as wives and mothers may be a reflection of his growing devotion to the Virgin Mary.

On the canons of Adomnan, see Medieval Handbooks on Penance, p. 133.

octors are not very common in early medieval works so Cynefrith really stands out in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. Cynefrith is the primary witness to the miraculous ‘healing’ of St Aethelthryth’s neck wound while in the grave. Bede actually talks as though he knows Cynefrith: “more certain proof is given by a doctor named Cynefrith, who was present at her deathbed and at her elevation from the tomb. He used to relate how…”. Bede then directly quotes him and unlike elsewhere, he doesn’t find the need to tell us who is relaying the story. The implication is that he had personally talked to Cynefrith. It is not all that difficult to imagine how these circumstances worked out.

Cynefrith was apparently a physician in residence at Ely during the plague outbreak of c. 679. His testimony relates how he was ordered to lance the tumor on Abbess Aethelthryth’s neck to drain out the infection (poisonous matter). She seemed to recover for about two days and then rapidly declined and died on the third day. Note that he didn’t lance it on his own authority but was ordered to presumably by the abbess herself. He goes on to say that she was buried with a gaping neck wound and when she was raised from the grave it had sealed itself shut with only the slightest trace of a scar. [Today we can take this as evidence of natural mummification where the desiccation of the body dried out the wound and, as the stretch skin collapsed, it matted together.] It may also be Cynefrith who related Aethelthryth’s quote that she deserved this fiery red wound for her childhood vanity of wearing necklaces with gold and pearls. It is easy to imagine that this might have been some of Aethelthryth’s chat at he prepared to lance open her neck.

I find myself marveling today at Cynefrith’s endurance as a physician. He survived a plague where one of the treatments was for him to lance the swellings/bubos. He must have been continually exposed to a large amount of bacterium and still survived over 16 years later. If the plague was caused by Yersinia pestis (the black death) then survivors of infections might be able to fend off future exposures. Physicians required an excellent immune system in those days due to their high exposure.

So coming back to how Bede might have met Cynefrith, it is quite possible that by c. 705-709 he had joined Bishop Wilfrid’s retinue. We know that Wilfrid was present at Aethelthryth’s translation. If he wanted to promote Aethelthryth’s sainthood he might have insisted that Cynefrith travel with him as a witness to Aethelthryth’s sanctity, her own miraculous healing in the grave, and the healings that surrounded her translation. If Cynefrith was indeed traveling with the elderly bishop, who by then had cause to keep a physician nearby, then Bede would have had ample opportunity to discuss Aethelthryth with him, when he also questioned Wilfrid, if not other times.

Cynefrith is found in Book 4 Chapter 19 of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

In my continuing quest to learn more about 8-9th century breviate psalters I’ve came across a couple interesting papers:

Thomas H Bestul (1986) “Continental Sources of Anglo-Saxon Devotional Writing” p. 103-126 in Sources of Anglo-Saxon Culture. P Szarmach with V. Oggins, eds. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications.

Leslie Webber Jones. (1929) “Cologne MS.106: A Book of Hildebald” Speculum 4(1): 27-61.

They are interesting papers. Finally a description of one of the three manuscripts that contain the oldest surviving edition of Bede’s Abbreviated Psalter (Cologne MS 106)! Bede’s three surviving psalters all come from c. 825 and apparently all passed through Alcuin (pictured).

There was apparently once quite a bit of discussion over this manuscript because it was thought that it might be the set of works sent by Alcuin to Bishop Arno of Salzburg before 805. Webber Jones has proven that this is not Alcuin’s manuscript. However, it does seem to contain the vast majority of the works that Alcuin sent to Arno, along with other materials.

So, it was apparently written in Cologne during the tenure of Bishop Hildebald of Cologne from 794-819 (who helpfully had all books produced during his tenure labeled as such). It includes Alcuin’s letter to Arno as a preface, as if to explain where most of the original text came from.

Cologne MS 106 contains a formidable list of Bede’s devotional materials: 12 hymns or metrical prayers including the hymn on Aethelthryth and his abbreviated psalter. Bede’s note that his hymns are in “various meters and rhythms” could be an explanation for the variety of metrical prayers and hymns included in his prayer book. In other words, it more a book of verse/poetry than a hymnal in today’s sense. His title seems to reflect the medieval norm that poetry was to be sung rather than recited. Given that I know of no cult of Aethelthryth on the continent and the manuscript isn’t reported to contain any excerpts from the Ecclesiastical History, Aethelthryth’ s hymn appears to be transmitted as one of a set of Bede’s hymns. This gives me some more confidence that we may have a portion of Bede’s ‘Book of Hymns’.

Bestul suggests that devotional books prior to the Book of Cerne were all or primarily verse (as the Cerne is, excepting the Passion narratives). All of Bede’s devotional works done for himself or friends were verse including his verse Life of Cuthbert and the hymn on Aethelthryth. For his personal uses, these verse versions were sufficient. He only writes the prose Life of Cuthbert to fulfill a specific commission from Lindisfarne. This answers the nagging question of why he didn’t write a prose life of Aethelthryth when he was clearly devoted to her memory. The answer may be that he simply didn’t get a commission to do so, and the hymn was sufficient for his use. Of course, the vast bulk of Bede’s works were not devotional materials; they were teaching texts. While these teaching texts may reveal windows into his theology and devotional practices, that was not their purpose.

This all begs the question: does Bede’s ‘Book of Hymns’ - currently best represented by Cologne MS106- represent Bede’s personal prayer book? If so, then it is the best window into his personal devotional practices.

[I'm going to use Audrey for St Aethelthryth because of the similarity of her name to Queen Aelfthryth.]

I was reading a paper by Mary Clayton recently and she mentions that the re-dedicated house of Ely was dedicated to Sts. Mary, Peter and Audrey, but that Audrey soon became the dominant patron after the death of the initial reformers (ie Bishop Aethelwold and his colleagues). What caught me up here is the dedication to Peter….doesn’t that sound more like Bishop Wilfrid? It also calls to mind that when Wilfrid has his stroke-like illness on return from his last trip to Rome one of his instructions from the Archangel Michael is to dedicate a church to St Mary before he dies. Fair enough, but this vision is long after Audrey is dead. Now Audrey’s church might not of counted because Wilfrid didn’t own it or build it but it still gives me pause to think that we don’t really know who her church was dedicated to, if anyone.

Clayton goes on to discuss how the Virgin Mary was really the unifying saint of the whole reform movement and was used to bolster the position of the queen, initially Queen Aelfthryth. In St Audrey Bishop Aethelwold had the perfect setting, a native virgin queen to be the focus of his Marian dedications (already suggested by Bede). Further, Queen Aelfthryth was the first consecrated queen of England. The increase in her prestige was in parallel to the support for the virgin queen St Audrey and the Queen of Heaven, St Mary. Building up Queen Aelfthryth proved disastrous though as she is associated with ruthless means of bringing her son Aethelred Unred to the throne and at Ely, with the murder of their first abbot after re-foundation, so that by the time the Liber Eliensis was written she was remembered as an evil witch.

Clayton observes that St Mary became a supporter of native saints because there were no established pilgrimages to Marian shrines in the Anglo-Saxon period. St Mary could be venerated anywhere, and nowhere had corporal relics of her. She also argues that veneration to Mary was restricted to monastic settings in the Anglo-Saxon period; she simply didn’t appeal to the laity until after the Norman conquest.

St Mary continues to have a significant presence at Ely because the association has antiquity in Bede’s writings and she supports Audrey’s veneration so well. Yet, as we saw with the Lady Chapel at Ely Cathedral, St Mary is pushed to the side in favor of St. Audrey. The extra large Lady Chapel and rich Marian-Audrey iconography will later been a great boon to Ely when Ely is placed on the pilgrim trail from London to the great Marian shrine at Walsingham.

~~

Mary Clayton (1994) Centralism and Uniformity versus Localism and Diversity: The Virgin and Native Saints in the Monastic Reform. Peritia 8: 95-106.