anglo-saxon charms in the context of a christian, world view

Anglo-Saxon charms in the context of a Christian world view

Karen Louise Jolly

The following article explores aspects of a Chris- tian world view found in late Anglo-Saxon Eng- land, seeking to put such phenomena as magic, miracles and charms in their proper Christianperspec- tive. Previous criticism has had a tendency to accen- tuate the pagan aspects of the charms and to confuse a modern dejnition of magic with that of the ear& medieval Christian view. The view of nature found in A?lfric’s sermons, for example, reveals a particular attitude towards magic, miracles and natural remedies such as charms. Magic and miracles are at opposite extremes, while charms are part of an intermediate category of practices not specafkally condemned as develish magic, norjtting into the Christian interpretation of miracles as signs from God.

The second part of the article turns to an examination of the charms themselves to demonstrate how they do jt into a Christian view. Charms having to do with elves, as found in the Leechbook, contain large amounts of Christian material. There is an especially strong correlation between these charms and the use of the mass to counteract the influence and effects of elves. Thus the charms, far from being examples of the remnants of paganism, are evidence of the integration of popular material into a Christian view of the world.

Magic, miracles, and charms are three modes of interaction with the created order which were once commonly accepted but are foreign to the modern mind. The problem for modern historians is learning to interpret these subjects in a way consistent with the documents of the time and the world view they present.’ In the Augusti- nian-Christian world view of late Anglo- Saxon England, as expressed by such wri- ters as the abbot and homilist filfric, magic and miracles were seen as polar opposites, one evil, the other good. Charms fell into an area of popular practices intermediate between these two. The charms found in late Anglo-Saxon medical manuscripts are view- ed, like other medical practices, as natural remedies consistent with a Christian approach to illness.

This fact has been obscured by an over- emphasis on the pagan elements in the charms, an approach which has since been discarded in other areas of Anglo-Saxon studies. Scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century sought for the pu- rest Anglo-Saxon expression in the most ori- ginal, and thus least Christian, aspects of a text (Stanley 1975). The charms have thus been interpreted as a clear statement of pagan sentiment and their Christian elements have been suppressed. While subsequent re- search has restored the unity and Christian nature of much of Anglo-Saxon literature, little has been done to revise the earlier approach with regard to the charms (notable exceptions: Niles 1980 and Hill 1977). Yet in the form in which they appear in late- Saxon medical manuscripts, the charms constitute an inseparable blend of Christian and pre-Christian ideas. They have been as- similated into a Christian framework, much

Journal of Medieval History 11(1985)279-293. 0 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland) 279

as Pope Gregory I advised Abbot Mellitus and Augustine of Canterbury to adapt pagan temples and practices to Christian uses (Colgrave and Mynors 1969: 106-g).

This study will first examine the Augusti- nian view of the world as found in Anglo- Saxon writings, primarily Elfric’s, and will then turn to an examination of some Anglo- Saxon charms to demonstrate how they fit into this world view.

In her book, Miracles and the medieval mind, Benedicta Ward has used the Augustinian world view, which prevailed in the early medieval West, to propound two opposite categories, magic and miracles, along with an intermediate area between them (Ward 1982: 3-19) _ These categories are clearly evident in the homilies of Rlfric, who cites Augustine as his source in his discussions of magic, miracles and natural medicine. His vernacular homilies, in the two sets of Catho- lic homilies (989 and 992) and the Saints’ lives (1002), are works of popular religion, an attempt to adapt and communicate Christian theology in Anglo-Saxon terms (Greenfield 1965: 46-9). His goal, along with that of his contemporary Wulfstan, was to extend the reform movement begun in the previous ge- neration under Dunstan, Oswald and athelwold. The difference is that the re- forms of filfric and Wulfstan are not aimed primarily at the monasteries, as before, but at the secular clergy through laws, canons and homilies. Moreover, the political circumstances had changed drastically. The peaceful rule of Edgar had been replaced by the upheaval brought about by the Da- nish raids under Ethelraed Unrzed. Blfric’s homilies, then, are written explicitly to counteract false teaching in the face of difli-

cult circumstances which seem to indicate the end of the world (Thorpe 1844:3; Thorpe 1846:3, 343, 371).

The Homilies and Lives are written for clergy to preach to lay congregations. They may also have been read by literate lay per- sons who were considered “unlearned” because they could not read Latin.2 Blfric is aware that he is adapting theological material and that there is a certain loss in the transmission; he apologizes for his simplic- ity to any learned person reading his books (Thorpe 1846:461, 52 1). His concern in writing is more for the ignorant who might be led astray by false teaching, and so he adapts his material to their level: “One should speak to laymen according to the measure of their understanding, so that they be not disheartened by the deepness, nor by the length wearied” (Thorpe 1846:447; see also 3, 315, 321, 457, 461, 467, 521).

While Blfric’s world view is not unique, his use of the medieval Augustinian system is peculiarly Anglo-Saxon if only because he is translating these ideas into the Anglo- Saxon language and thought patterns; this gives a different tone to the concepts.3 For example, typical of the Augustinian approach to nature, filfric asserts that it is not for man to investigate how God, for whom all things are equally easy, could create Adam out of dirt (Thorpe 1844:237):

Now we cannot investigate how of that loam he made flesh and blood, bones and skin, hair and nails. Men often see that of one little kernel comes a great tree, but in the kernel we can see neither root, nor rind, nor boughs, nor leaves: but the same God who draws forth from the kernel tree, and fruits, and leaves, may from dust raise flesh and bones, sinews and hair....

In this passage we see Elfric attempting to explain a theological mystery in terms

280

familiar to his Anglo-Saxon readers. Unlike modern science, the emphasis is not on how the universe works, except by analogy, but on the God who made it.

Furthermore, the modern distinction between natural and supernatural did not exist at this time; all phenomena, all of nature, visible and invisible, miracles or natural healing, are an expression of God, part of the created natural order. Thus, El- fric does not distinguish between supernatural and natural. Rather, he recognizes two realms, the visible and invisible, spirit and body. Christ and man participate in both the ungesewenlice and gesewenlice, having both lichaman and gastas (Thorpe 1844: 16 1, 273-7). When the good man dies (Thorpe 1846:232-3): “The body turns to earth and awaits the resurrection, and in that space feels nothing”. Se lichama awent to eoraan, and anbidaa iristes, and on aam fyrste n&z &ng ne gefrt2.

Elfric also explains how certain concepts about God and man in the universe are explicable. God is everywhere present, not spatially but by the presence of his majesty (se ]3e dghwar is andweard, na &u-h rymyt @we stowe, ac purh his m&geni)rymmes andweardnysse); God’s Spirit fills all the cir- cumference of the earth, and he holds and maintains all things (Godes Gast gefyla ealne ymbhwyrjt middangeardes, and he hylt ealle sing) (Thorpe 1844:262, 280). God is distinct from creation: every substance that is not God is a creature and that which is not creature is God; creation has measure (gemete), number (getele) and weight (hefe); God does not (Thorpe 1844: 102-3, 276-7, 286-7). While this is traditional Christian doctrine, it does emphasize the greatness and yet nearness of God in relation to His creation.

Humanity, however, is different from other creations because each person has a soul and each has something of all creatures: existence (wunigende) like stones, life (lybbe) like trees, sense (gefrede) like beasts, and understanding (understande) like angels (Thorpe 1844:302-3; 277). Humankind is thus placed in a unique position within this world that God has created and inhabits. Humans live within nature and yet have, by virtue of their soul, a connection with the divine. Therefore, a person can relate to nature by relating to God and vice versa. It is in this context that Elfric asserts that God is the true leech (doctor), the one who controls all sickness and health; ultimately one must appeal to God or use God’s creation properly to achieve any well-being (Thorpe 1844:47 l-3).

Miracles, then, fit into the above context of Elfric’s view of nature and health: God acts in the world in a way consistent with nature as a natural means of communication with people. “Miracles are events with a point in the overall scheme of things and so in a sense very much regular” (Swin- burne 1970:9). The presupposition of Au- gustine concerning the relationship of miracles to creation is that the possibility of miracles is inherent in nature. A miracle is a drawing out of the virtues hidden by God within a cosmos that was all potentially miraculous (Ward 1982:3). The question asked of miracles is never how something could happen but whe.ther it is of God and if so what it expresses sbout humanity’s relationship to God. Miracles and nature are put on an equal footing as a sign from God to humanity (Ward 1982:4, 8-9). Miracles, as presented in homilies and saints’ lives, are the shining example of Christian truth;

281

they are of God and are in opposition to the evil, corrupt influence of magicians. This Augustinian definition of miracles can be seen in Blfric’s sermons.

There are two words usually translated as miracle, both of which &lfric uses: wundor and tam. The terms are used interchange- ably in the context of his discussions, but generally when Blfric uses tam he is stress- ing the meaning of miracles. Wundor, which implies the wonder of men and women in response to some phenomena, is a more general term which can also be used to describe wonders done by the devil, although in a Christian context it means the same thing as tam (Thorpe 1844:307). Tam is more specifically a miracle as Blfric views them, for the word indicates the purpose of miracles: they are a sign (tam) from God to His people.

The major purpose of miraclks is to reveal God to humanity, to disclose His might and His glory, and thus to promote faith in people (Thorpe 1844: 123, 185-7, 231, 293, 407-9; Thorpe 1846:21-3, 73, 377, 379). Miracles can also teach specific lessons: “It is not enough that we wonder (wundrian) at the tacnes, or praise God on account of it, without also understanding its spiritual sense” (Thorpe 1844: 187). In the saints’ lives in particular, certain miracles communicate a specific truth: the wundra of the Anglo-Saxon saint ABel&-yi) made known her sacred relics and her virginity. Moreover, her uncorrupted body showed God’s power to raise up corruptible bodies, giving each individual hope for the resurrection. Another Anglo-Saxon saint, Swithun, performed many wundra which manifested to the people that they might merit the king- dom by good works even as the saint now

shines through his wundra (Skeat 1966a:433, 439, 469).

Zlfric sees miracles as part of God’s ever- continuing communication with humanity (Thorpe 1844:184-7):

God hath wrought many wundra and daily works; but those wundra are much weakened in the sight of men, because they are very usual. A greater wundor it is that God Almighty every day feeds all the world, and directs the good, than that wundor was, that he tilled five thousand men with five loaves: but men won- dered (wundredon) at this, not because it was a greater wundor, but because it was unusual. Who now gives fruit to our fields, and multiplies the harvest from a few grains of corn, but he who multiplied the five loaves? The might was there in Christ’s hands, and the five loaves were, as it were, seed, not sown in the earth, but multiplied by him who created the earth.

This wundor is very great, and deep in its significa- tions (getacnungum). Often some one sees fair character written, then praises he the writer and the characters, but knows not what they mean. He who understands the art of writing praises their fairness, and reads the characters, and comprehends their meaning. In one way we look at a picture, and in another at characters. Nothing more is necessary for a picture than that you see and praise it: but it is not enough to look at characters without, at the same time, reading them, and understanding their signification. So also it is with regard to the wundre which God wrought with the five loaves: it is not enough that we wonder (wundrian) at the tames or praise God on account of it, without also understanding its spiritual sense.

LElfric clearly places miracles in the Au- gustinian context of nature as a continuing revelation of God. As he shows, the miracle of the harvest each year, upon which their very existence depends, is as much a miracle as Christ multiplying the loaves; Christ, as creator, can perform the miracle in a way just as ‘natural’ as the miracle of seeds growing. In this meaningful way El- fric communicates that miracles are a spiritual message through analogies familiar to his audience.4

At one point Blfric seems to imply that

282

miracles are no longer God’s way of speak- ing. He shows that wundra were necessary at the beginning of Christianity just as a man waters a tree or herb until it takes root; but the Church now works spiritual wundra as the apostles did material ones. Yet despite his emphasis on the spiritual aspect of miracles, Blfric definitely affirms the possibility of contemporary physical miracles (Thorpe 1844292-3, 305) :

We have the belief that Christ himself taught to his apostles, and they to all mankind; and that belief God has confirmed and established by many wundrum. First Christ by himself healed dumb a . . ^ ’ ’ and blind, mad and leprous, and raise life: after. bv his anostles and other wrou,qht the same wundra. Now also in our time,

tnd deat, halt d the dead to

~~~ holy men, he

perilous times. Moreover, the telling of miracle stories re-enforces the notion that God is active within the world He has created and that humanity can tap this divine source.

On the other hand, magic in the Augusti- nian system is the antithesis of miracles;

exhibit that kind of love and truth. Thus.

magical wonders are wrought by demons. Recognition of the reality of magic high- lights similarities between magic and miracles: in the duels between Christian saints/ missionaries and heathens their methods could appear identical. The difference is that miracles are always a sign of God’s presence, His love and truth; the devil cannot

everywhere where holy men rest, at their dead bones

other heretic’s, but at the sepulchres of orthodox men,

God works many wundra, because he will with those

who believed in the Holy Trinity, and in the true

wundrum confirm people’s faith. God works not these

Unity of one Godhead.

wundra at any ,Jewish man’s sepulchre, nor at any

magic was condemned as of the devil and

witches and the like. .These people may

was usually associated with heathen ac-

manipulate natural objects, but the basis of their activities is deception in order to trap

tivities; it involved ma,+cians, sorcerers,

Moreover, God has also blessed England

[Edmund] that men should venerate it, and well pro- vide it with God’s pure servants, to Christ’s service,

with miracles (Skeat 1966b: 333-5):

because the saint is greater than men may imagine. The English nation is not deprived of the Lord’s

Worthy is the place for the sake of the venerable saint

saints, since in English land lie such saints as this holy king, and the blessed Cuthbert, and saint IEael- arya in Ely, and also her sister, incorrupt in body, for the confirmation of the faith. There are also many other saints among the English, who work many wundra, as is widely known, to the praise of the Al- mighty in whom they believed.

Miracles are a sign that God has chosen the nation, as Gregory’s letter to Augustine of Canterbury says concerning the miracles done by the missionary (Thorpe 1846: 131- 3). The continuation of miracles into their own day is an assurance for AZlfric’s readers that God is still with them, a comfort in

gustine for material. As a consequence, the

souls for the devil.

condemned practices are continental as much as they are Anglo-Saxon. The source of these evils, and the reason they are con-

This second category is thoroughly de-

demned, is the devil. The devil can work

fined by Blfric who relied heavily on Au-

visibly or invisibly, just as God and his angels can (Thorpe 1844:557; 343, 349, 541). However, since God controls all nature, the devil’s wonders are really delu- sions. He can only heal diseases he himself inflicted on people so that when he cures them at their request they will believe in him and he will obtain their souls (Thorpe 1844:5). LElfric repeats a popular story of St Macarius in which the saint ‘heals’ a young girl who, according to her family and all

283

who saw her, was turned into a mare. Macarius tells them: “But it [the transfor- mation] is nevertheless a delusion, by the devil’s art; and if anyone makes the sign of the cross over it, then the delusion ceases” (Skeat 1966a:471).

Practices associated with the devil and deemed magic are drycreft (magic), wiglung (sorcery), galdras (enchantments), zericcecrceft, and the use of pagan sites (trees, stones, well-springs). &lfric shows how such practices are inconsistent with a Christian view of nature, but how certain other practices are acceptable. Using God’s creatures without his blessing is deofellicum wiglungum (de- vilish sorcery) and condemned as heathen; all creatures are worthy of blessing and all blessings are of God. However, in the same passage, Elfric defends doing certain things at the full moon, such as cutting down trees, because this is not wiglung but is according to nature: created things (the tree) are stronger at the full moon. (Nis i)is nun wiglung, ac is gecyndelic Sncg purh gesceapenysse) (Thorpe 1844: 100-3). He challenges astrol- ogy by putting man in his proper place in nature: man is not created for the stars, but the stars were created as a light by night for men (Thorpe 1844: 111). In a passage condemning witchcraft, AXlfric argues against taking offerings to earth-fast stones, trees, or well-springs; he asks how the dead stone or dumb tree can help or give health when it cannot even move (Skeat 1966a:373-5).

Elfric offers a substitute and antidote for these magical practices: use of the sign of the cross and Christian prayers, putting the demons to flight (Skeat 1966a:375). Thus, Elfric argues from a Christian view of nature against practices which deny God’s role in nature or which are animistic, and

yet he accepts others which are consistent with the way God has made the world.

As these two categories, magic and miracles, are relatively well-defined, the problem becomes how to fit other types of healing and uses of natural objects between these two extremes. This intermediate area is an application of medieval ideas about causa- tion: the popular notion of occult virtues was close to the idea of hidden virtues present in Augustine’s discussion of miracles and was applied to natural medicine. There is a spectrum of these types ranging between magic and miracles: medical remedies, charms and Christian ritual. Closest to condemned magic are remedies known as charms, words and actions spoken or performed in a ritual manner with herbs. Although pagan charms are condemned as magic, Christian ‘charms,’ Christian words and rituals with herbs, are acceptable. Medical remedies, using herbs or other natural elements, are often recognized as natural and non-magical by modern defini- tions, but they are in the same manuscripts with charms and both are considered part of medieval medicine. Christian ritual as a means of cure comes closest to miracles; but the idea of using the mass, the cross, and Christian prayers to effect cures or bless fields is distinct from the medieval concept of miracles as a direct communication from God to man. Rather, Christian ritual is used like charms and herbs as a way of tapping the God-given potential of nature. Thus charms, other medical remedies and Chris- tian ritual all form an intermediate ‘non- category’ and exist in a spectrum between, but different from, magic and miracles.

Thus, these legitimate uses of medicine or Christian ritual to activate the potential

284

of nature are not magic. In several passages, Zlfric discusses phenomena such as charms, herbs and Christian ritual. Elfric himself never treats them as a subject in themselves, as he does magic and miracles, but as a ‘non-category.’ One way to focus on these areas, as well as the categories of magic and miracle, is to examine the subject of healing. Illness is a prevalent phenome- non and one for which magic, miracles, charms, herbs and Christian ritual are used.5

The context for sickness and healing is a proper understanding of creation, as out- lined above. Essentially, God is the true leech, who controls life, death, sickness, health.6 Likewise, Blfric presents the Christian doctrine that though the devil may vex one with sickness it is never without the permission of God, who has reasons for afflicting us. Therefore “we ought to seek, if we be afllicted, restoration from God, not from the cruel witches, and with all our hearts please our Saviour, because nothing can withstand His might” (Skeat 1966a:377; Thorpe 1844:475). “Medicine (bcedom) is granted for bodily infirmity, and holy prayers, with God’s blessing; and all other aids are hateful to God” (Skeat 1966a:379; 369). Here he is defining the boundary between magic and medicine. The heart of medicine in the Augustinian- Christian view of nature is a recognition of God as ultimately responsible for all phenomena within nature and affecting humankind.

The type of medicine, however, must be defined. Anglo-Saxon medical manuscripts include transcriptions of continental texts, herbal remedies and ‘charms.’ Charm, from the Latin carmen, song, is a translation of the Anglos-Saxon galdor. Galdor also means

song, but it refers specifically to any verbal formula used in a remedy, and is usually associated with ritual actions performed either during the collection of herbs or in the presence of the patient. It is clear from their treatment in medieval medical manuscripts that charms were considered an in- tegral part of Anglo-Saxon medicine.7 El- fric recognizes the validity of herbs as a cure though still condemning magical uses of herbs (Thorpe 1844:475-7):

The Christian man, who in any of this like is afllicted [with disease], and he then will seek his health at unallowed practices, or at accursed galdrum, or at any witchcraft, then will he be like to those heathen men, who offered to an idol for their bodies’ health, and so destroyed their souls. Let him who is sick pray for his health to his Lord, and patiently endure the stripes; let him behold how long the true Leech provides, and buy not? through any devil’s craft, with his soul, his body’s health; let him also ask the blessing of good men, and seek his health at holy relics. It is not allowed to any Christian man to fetch his health from any stone, nor from any tree, unless it be the holy sign of the rood, nor from any place, unless it be the holy house of God: he who does otherwise, undoubtedly commits idolatry. We have, nevertheless, examples in holy books, that he who will may cure his body with true leechcraft, as the prophet Isaiah did, who wrought for the king Hezekiah a plaster for his sore, and cured him.

The wise Augustine said, that it is not perilous, though any one eat a medicinal herb; but he rep- rehends it as an unallowed miglung, if any one bind those herbs on himself, unless he lay them on a sore. Nevertheless we should not set our hope in medicinal herbs, but in the Almighty Creator, who has given that virtue to those herbs. No man shall enchant a herb with galdre, but with God’s words shall bless it, and so eat it.

Elfric thus substitutes relics for pagan sites, Christian blessings for witchcraft and en- chantment, and herbs with God’s words for magical words.

The difficulty is with words said over herbs, charms or galdra. Although some extremists forbid all galdor except prayer itself,

285

the common attitude is represented in this rule from the Penitential of Egbert:*

It is not allowed for any Christian to observe empty divination, as heathens do (that is, they trust in the sun and moon...and search to divine the time to begin their things), nor gather herbs with any charms, except with the Pater Noster and with the Creed, or with some prayer which pertains to God.

This rule reflects the tendency to Chris- tianize charms through the use of Christian prayers, evident in the charms themselves. filfric in his homilies is condemning galdra with pagan, magic connections: the context is always a discussion of witches, enchan- ters, sorcerers.g However, he allows Chris- tian words to be said over the herbs. And, in fact, the ‘charms’ as isolated in the Anglo-Saxon medical manuscripts by modern scholars contain surprisingly few pagan elements (that is, few recognizable ones - folklorists have pointed out numerous elements which have a pagan past). Instead Christian elements predominate.

It is therefore misleading to designate the charms as ‘pagan,’ because pagan and Christian elements cannot easily be distin- guished in their use. Assuming that ‘Chris- tian’ things are whatever things Christian people at a given time thought were Chris- tian, then we should look at the charms through the eyes of an Anglo-Saxon. This will enable us to see the continuity of thought between paganism and Christianity as the charms gradually evolved. Both paganism and Christianity express themselves in ritual. Ritual is a form of imitation, a dramatic expression of belief in certain principles of order in the universe. Ritual in the charms reflects the people’s beliefin the possibility of intervention from an invisible power, a pagan as well as a Christian con-

cept. This blending of paganism and Chris- tianity is evident in the charms for, although Christian wording is added, the actions change little.

Christian ritual, the sign of the cross, the mass, holy water, holy oil and other elements, appear frequently in charm remedies, particularly those relating to an illness with some mysterious and thus demonic origin, as in elf-charms in which the location of the ailment or its cause is not specific or is invisible. The use of Christian ritual as a means of cure is borderline between this intermediate category and miracle, for these rituals themselves are classified by Blfric as a type of miracle: the apostles worked bodily miracles and the Church works spiritual miracles in christen- ing and baptism, both of which cast out the devil (Thorpe 1844:305).

Christian ritual fuses nature and the divine, invisible becomes visible, and man ex- periences the divine in his body as well as in his soul. The mass is thus seen as a mystery, the how of which cannot be under- stood (Thorpe 1846:269-73). In a Hortator_y sermon on the efJicacy of the holy mass filfric repeats stories from Bede and Gregory to show how powerful the mass can be. In one, whenever a priest said mass for his de- ceased, as he presumed, brother, the bonds would fall off the brother who was being held prisoner (Thorpe 1846:357-g). In another homily, filfric explains how his audience should understand Christian ritual:”

. ..but the might of the Holy Ghost approaches the corruptible water through the blessing of the priests, and it can afterwards wash body and soul from all sins through ghostly might. Lo we see two things in this one creature. According to true nature the water is a corruptible fluid, and according to a ghostly mystery has salutary power; in like manner, if we behold

286

the holy house1 in a bodily sense, then we see that it is a corruptible and changeable creature. But if we distingujsh the spiritual might therein, then understand we that there is life in it, and that it gives im- mortality to those who partake of it with belief. Great is the difference between the invisible might of the holy house1 and the visible appearance of its own nature.

Thus the visible and invisible aspects of nature help explain this Christian truth. This view of the place of the mass within nature is consistent with its use in the charms: there are invisible virtues in all things that can be tapped and used against invisible forces such as demons and elves. &lfric seeks to define the limits of approaches to healing, and other uses of natural objects within the boundaries of a Christian, Augustinian view of nature in which God is the source of all virtues and the only proper avenue of direct appeal is Christian ritual, all other means are condemned as magic.

The late Saxon medical manuscripts demonstrate how medical practices, particularly ‘charms,’ have been adapted to suit this Christian view of nature. Previous studies of the charms have shown more interest in the few pagan remnants they contain. Thus the two standard editions of the charms, by Felix Grendon in 1909 and God- frid Storms in 1948, display a singular lack of interest in the Christian atmosphere of the charms, their unity despite disparate elements, or their appropriate place amidst the other remedies (Storms 1948, Grendon 1909, Cockayne 196 1 a-c, Lendinara 1978). This type of analysis has distorted the charms in two ways: Christian ritual in the charms has received insufficient attention, and the Christianization of pagan ritual has

been ignored. Godfrid Storms insisted that “Christianity did not succeed in changing the magical atmosphere, which in many cases was more potent to impress the public at large than any Christian elements,” and Charles Singer argued that the Christian elements were “perhaps the least interesting of the factors in Anglo-Saxon medicine, since they are known from many sources, are easily recognized, and still survive in folk-custom” (Storms 1948: 115; Singer 1958:147). But such judgements disregard a fundamental aspect of the charms: that they are a Christian expression of belief in divine intervention, and that the pagan rituals used are only a subconscious remnant of paganism. When the charms are put in their proper medical and Christian contexts, their so-called paganism dissolves. This can be demonstrated through an examination of the charms in their proper order in the manuscripts.”

The two main Anglo-Saxon medical manuscripts are the Leechbook and the Lac- nunga. The Leechbook, a medical book of remedies of which some contain galdor, was probably copied from two other documents at Winchester around 950 or later (BL MS. Royal 12 D xvii; Cockayne 1961 b; Wright 1955; Ker 1957:332-3; Storms 1948:12; Graves 1975:344). The Lacnunga, in addition to an assortment of remedies, charms and otherwise, contains a copy of a classical medical text, the Herbarius Pseudo-Apuleii, and dates from about 1050 (BL MS. Harley 585; Cockayne 1961c; Ker 1957:305-6; Storms 1948: 17-24). These manuscripts were produced in monasteries during and after a time of monastic reform. The use of classical material available only from con- tact with continental manuscripts, and the

287

use of liturgical material known only to trained clergy, suggests clerical authorship of many of the remedies, including most of the charms.

These manuscripts demonstrate that their monastic compilers were familiar with classical cures and with Christian liturgy as a form of remedy, and also with native remedies. Classical medicine, imported from the continent, though somewhat debased in Anglo-Saxon books (Barlow 1979:288; opposite view, Voigts 1979:266), contributed some of the pagan elements to Anglo-Saxon medicine in a Christianized form (Singer 1958: 156-8). Christian liturgy itself contains remedies in the form of exorcism and unction of the sick. Also, Christian liturgical elements were mixed with other remedies; in particular, charms often included the saying of masses.

Although it is often difficult to assign a specific origin to components found in the charms, critics have identified four charac- teristic elements as originating in native Teutonic or Indo-Germanic folklore: specific venoms, the number nine, the worm, and elfshot (Singer 1958:149). The last feature, the elf, has a significant correlation to those charms containing masses and other liturgical material. Of a total of 127 charms listed in Patrizia Lendinara’s bibliography, fourteen mention elves, and four more imply the presence of elves.” Of these eighteen charms, eight contain masses while seven others include other liturgical elements such as holy water and chrism oil. Altogether, fourteen charms include masses, of which six are not related to elves, although two of these six are against witches and another is against demon possession. This strong correlation between elf-charms

and liturgical elements indicates the type of synthesis which had occurred in Anglo- Saxon folklore. The native concept of elves as ambivalent creatures who are the invisible cause of maladies (Peters 1963; Stuart 1972, 1976; Thun 1969) became identified with Christian concepts of demons: hence the attempt to exorcise the elves (Bonser 1963: 164). The polarization between that which is of the devil and that which is of God found in AXlfric’s discussions of magic and miracles appears here in the charms as the elves are demonized and Christian ritual is applied to counteract the evil.

The charms vary in their degree of ‘Christianization,’ but in all of them it is clear that the conception of elf-related ailments is being altered by the influence of Christianity. Moreover, different remedies for these ailments, representing different stages of this change, can be found in the same manuscript. In particular, in the end of the third book of the Leechbook there are several prescriptions in a row having to do with elves. l3 In the first (Lendinara 1978: bibliography no. 107) elves are associated with other demonic beings, such as spirits walking at night and women who have associated with the devil. The herbs used are typical of Germanic elf-charms: nine, the number of masses, is also a native Teutonic element, and running water is a magical practice. And yet the actual charm itself, the words said over the herbs, is a set of masses. Other liturgical elements include holy salt, incense, and the sign of the cross, The actual ritual in this charm is Christian, not pagan.

The next charm (Lendinara no. 108) is actually four elf-charms put together. Len- dinara no. 108A, even more than 107, is full

288

of a Christian ritual: lichen from a cross, with a sword. And let him drink the draught afterwards. incense, holy water, three masses named in-

dividually includingpro injrmis, a litany, the creed, the Pater Noster, the sign of the cross, and holy water. The only elements traceable to pagan charms are the elf itself, and the herbs, which can have no specific pagan overtones except their association with elf-remedies. Smoking the elf out is a pagan practice, but in this case it is Christ- ian incense that is burned. Previous charm editors have mentioned these elements only in their pagan context and ignored their Christian dimension.

The charm immediately following in the manuscript, ,Lendinara no. 108B, contains an elaborate set of actions relatively uncon- nected with Christian liturgy. Here we can see the Christian and pagan elements inter- mingled (Storms 1948:222-5):

Against the same. Go on Wednesday evening, when the sun is set, to a spot where you know that elecam- pane is growing.

Then sing Benedicite and Pater Nester and the Litany. And thrust your knife into the herb. Leave it stick-

ing out, go away. Go back to that spot, just as night and day divide.

On that same morning (before daybreak) you must go to church and cross yourself and commend yourself to God. Then go in silence, and if you meet something dreadful or a man, do not speak any word to them, until you come to the herb which you had marked on the previous evening.

Then sing Benedicite and Pater Noster and a Litany. Dig up the herb, leave the knife sticking in it. Go back to church as quickly as possible, and lay

it under the altar with the knife. Let it lie until the sun has risen.

Wash it afterwards, make it into a drink, together with bishop’s wort and lichen from a crucifix, boil them three times in several kinds of milk. Pour holy water on them three times.

Sing on them Pater Noster and Credo and Gloria in Excelsis Deo, and sing the Litany on him [the patient].

And also inscribe a cross about him on four sides

He will soon be better.

Can this ritual be called pagan? Although the method of gathering the herbs appears strange, the words used while preparing this remedy are Christian, as the Penitential of Egbert cited above required. In its own way, this remedy is seeking the aid of the One who gave the herb its virtues, as &lfric stressed. The actions have no element of pagan worship, even if their pagan origin can be traced (Storms 1948:228-33). An Anglo-Saxon would have seen this charm as a Christian remedy, and would have been quite unaware of the pagan origins of the ritual actions that modern charm critics emphasize.

The next charm, Lendinara no. 108C, re- quires, along with the traditional herbs, nine masses and nine days and nights of smoking the patient with herbs. The Chris- tian and pagan elements are completely in- termixed. To separate them is to destroy the unity of the text and to miss the point: that these are Christian remedies for an aflliction long recognized by Germanic tribes as having an invisible, mysterious source but which has now been more clearly defined by Christianity as a demonic aflliction and is being treated with a more effec- tive remedy - the power of Christian ritual. The so-called pagan elements are simply the tools of medicine, much like modern pills and needles.

The fourth charm, Lendinara no. 108D, is one of the few to describe symptoms, although they are not helpful in identifying the disease. Again the remedy includes so- called pagan ritual actions accompanied by Christian wording (Latin and gibberish).

289

The exorcism of various body parts, mista- les out holy water as necessary for demon- kenly deemed unchristian by Godfrid related remedies, which is the only Chris- Storms, is actually very similar to a Chris- tian element in no. 109, directly above his tian exorcism found in the Leofric missal and comment.i5 The proximity of these two elsewhere. l4 charms to the others also indicates the close

The charm concludes with an intriguing line, open to various interpretations (Storms 1948:227-g):

Wet the writing in the drink and write a cross with it on each limb and say:

Signum crucis Christi conserva te in vitam eternam. Amen. If you do not like to do this, tell the man himself

or the relative that is nearest related to him to do so, and let him make the sign of the cross as best he can.

Storms’ translation and his comments infer that the priest may have some scruples against performing this ‘pagan’ charm (Storms 1948:233). But this is the only instance of such a hesitation, and the passage more probably refers not to the action of the entire charm but to the action immediately preceding, of marking the sign of the cross on every limb of the sick man’s body - a procedure that many priests might well have regarded with distaste.

The next two charms represent opposite extremes. Lendinara no. 109 is relatively untouched by Christian liturgy, containing only a requirement for holy water along with a magician’s charm and a song invok- ing the earth. Lendinara no. 110, on the other hand, is a liturgical remedy against the devil, insanity and temptation, although the herbs recommended are ones tradition- ally used in elf-charms. Interestingly enough, a thirteenth-century hand has com- mented on this page (the only instance in this manuscript of any, comment) and re- marked about the use of Christian elements in these types of remedies. Although his comment is written beside no. 110, he sing-

relationship between elf- and demon-related ailments.

The passage ends with one charm requir- ing masses, another for devil sickness,16 and a third calling for herbs associated with elves. This last charm, Lendinara no. 111, contains a ritual that reflects both pagan and Christian traditions: a specific time of day, the priest cirdling the herbs three times, and twelve masses. This entire sec- tion in Leechbook III shows that the scribe was combining remedies involving elves, demons, and masses. It also demomstrates that the combination of these elements was not an isolated instance, but was occurring at various levels in various ways. In short, this passage, along with other elf-charms, helps demonstrate that the charms were in the process of being Christianized. In this particular case, Germanic elves had become identified with demons and were being exorcised with Christian liturgy, albeit in different ways.

These charms were undoubtedly performed by parish priests because the actions and words mentioned could only have been done by someone familiar with both liturgy and local folkore. The priest had the dignity of his role as mediator between God and man, the knowledge of Christian liturgy, and the authority to say masses, although the charms support the notion that the parish priest’s abilities in Latin might be limited. He also fulfilled the role in Anglo- Saxon society of ealdwita, “old one who knows.“17 As such, he was probably familiar

290

with traditional remedies which he would combine with Christian concepts of exorcism and the unction of the sick in order to meet the demands of the people. That this type of synthesis, not inconsistent with an Augustinian world view, had long been occurring, is demonstrated by the evidence of the tenth- and eleventh-century‘monastic manuscripts - the charms had percolated up that far by 950.

The charms, in short, cannot be taken simply as evidence of continuing paganism in late Anglo-Saxon England. On the con- trary, they demonstrate that Anglo-Saxon

Pagan medicine had become quite thoroughly Christianized. The present out- dated analysis of charms must be revised to preserve their essential unity and their con- sistency with the Augustinian view of nature as found in Elfric. These charms found in the medical manuscripts are not magic; they fight the very evil by which magic is defined. Neither can thev be classified as

Notes I Several recent publications are addressing the historiographical problems of miracles, and popular religion in general: Ward 1982, Kee 1983, C. Brooke and R. Brooke 1984. 2 AZlfric wrote letters to laymen such as Wulfgeat, Sigeweard and Sigefyrth instructing them in basic Christian doctrine (Hurt 1972:3&O; Assmann 1889). 3 &lfric’s three main sources are: Gregory the Great’s homilies, Bede, and Augustine (Fiirster 1894; White 1898: 185-8). 4 The analogy of written characters is an interesting insight into medieval illiteracy. For a recent ex- ploration of changing attitudes towards texts, see Brian Stock’s recent book (1983). 5 I limit the present discussion to healing for the sake of brevity; other uses include the blessing of fields, controlling the weather, protection from the elements and warding off evil. 6 Thorpe 1844:471-3. It is interesting to note that his picture of a leech (a doctor) is not necessarily positive; leeches seem to be associated with surgery and suffering; but the pain is.necessary for the cure,

just as penance is necessary for the cure of the soul. 7 By separating the charm remedies from ‘non- magical’ remedies the editors of charm books are creating. a false distinction which leads to a distortion of the medical text’s unity and a misunderstanding of the charms’ function in the Christian society of ,@rglo-Saxon England.

Thorpe 1840:371, translated from the Anglo-

, miracles as defined in the Augustinian sys- tern, since they are not used to display a sign from God to humanity. But these Anglo-Saxon charms can be considered Christian in three ways: first, their pagan elements have been Christianized and no longer contain any element of pagan worship; second, they contain strong Christian elements which dominate their character; and last, they occur in Christian texts written for Christian priests to perform for a Christian people. Any who used these charms would have regarded them as consistent with a Christian world view, and we would be wise to do the same - setting them firmly within the Christian tradition of late Anglo-Saxon England.

Saxon and Latin. The most notable extremists: Saint Eligius (588-659) (Grendon 1909:143), and Burchard of Worms in his Decretum (McNeil1 and Gamer 1938:41-Z). 9 Skeat 1966a:369. For an analysis of laws and canons concerning charms, see my Master’s thesis, Late Anglo-Saxon folklore: priests and charms, University of California, Santa Barbara, 198 1. 10 Thorpe 1846:271. A?Jfric appears to teach the mystically symbolic view of the Eucharist of Ratram- nus condemned in 1050 (Greenfield 1965:49). The relationship of this view to literacy is explored by Brian Stock in his chapter “The Eucharist and na- ;;re” (1983:241-72).

Storms organizes the charms in his edition according to the amount of untouched Germanic or foreign (classical, Christian) material present in them (1948: 129); Grendon organized his according to type of magic (1909: 123-4). This article will instead

291

examine charms as they appear in the manuscript, in order. Thus, it can be seen how the elf and demon charms are classed together by the manuscript itself. 12 Lendinara lists 124 charms in total, but I have divided one (no. 108) into four parts and counted them individually. Her bibliography provides excel- lent cross-references between editions. All of the charms treated here are from the Leechbook, Book III, t$-lxviii (Cockayne 1961b:344-57).

Books I and II have been copied from a different manuscript than Book III. The order does follow a classification system, which accounts for this group p&elf and demon remedies (Wright 1955:14-15).

Warren 1883:235. See also Lendinara no. 42. Storms comments on gan nature of the passages in both charms (194f 245). Warren (1883:235) cites other liturgical parallels in footnote 1. 15 The margin comment, expanded, reads: Nota quod in omni potu et omni medicina maleficorum et demoniacorum ammiscenda est aqua benedicta. et psalmis et orationibus uacandum est sicut in hoc ;;pitulo plene docetur (Wright 1955:25, f.125b).

Cockayne 196lb:353-7. Neither of these two, Leechbook Book 1II:lxvi and lxvii, which come between Lendinara no. 110 and no. 111 in the manuscript, are catalogued by Lendinara. 17 Bosworth and Toiler’s supplement to the Anglo-Saxon dictionary amends the definition from “one old or eminent in knowledge, a priest” (Bos- worth and Toller 1898:229) to “an elder, senior, prin- cipal person” (Bosworth and Toller 192 1: 168). Three examples are quoted: one from Bede’s Ecclesiastical history where it is a translation of the Latin seniorem, a second from Gregory’s Dialogues in which the Latin does not contain a parallel word, and a third from one of Blfric’s letters where it describes a priest.

Literature Assmann, B. (ed.) 1889. Angelsachsische homilien

und heiligenleben. Darmstadt. Barlow, F. 1979. The English church 1000-1066. Sec-

ond edition. London. Bonser, W. 1963. The medical background of Anglo-

Saxon England. London. Bosworth, J. and T. N. Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon

dictionary. Oxford. Bosworth, J. and T. N. Toller. 192 1. An Anglo-Saxon

dictionary, supplement. Oxford. Brooke, C. and R. Brooke. 1984. Popular religion

1000-1300. London.

Cockayne, 0. (ed.) 196la, b and c. Leechdoms, wortcunning and starcraft of early England. 3 ~01s. London.

Colgrave, B. and R. A. B. Mynors (ed.) 1969. Bede’s ecclesiastical history. Oxford.

Forster, M. 1894. Uber die quellen von Blfric’s exegetischen Homiliae catholicae. Anglia 16: l-6 1. Halle.

Graves, E. B. (ed.) 1975. A bibliography of English history to 1485. Oxford.

Greenfield, S. B. 1965. A critical histary of Old Eng- lish literature. New York.

Grendon, F. 1909. The Anglo-Saxon charms. The journal of American folklore 22: 105-237. Austin.

Hill, T. D. 1977. The Zcerbot charm and its Chris- tian user. Anglo-Saxon England 6:213-21. Cam- bridge.

Hurt, J. 1965. Blfric and the English saints. Disserta- tion. Indiana University. University Microfilms. Ann Arbor.

Hurt, J. 1972. iElfric. New York. Kee, H. C. 1983. Miracle in the early Christian

world. New Haven. Ker, N. R. 1957. Catalogue ofmanuscripts containing

Anglo-Saxon. Oxford. Lendinara, P. 1978. Gli incantesimi de1 period0

anglosassone: una ricerca bibliogratica. Annali de1 Istituto Universitario Orientale, filologia ger- manica 2 1:299-362. Napoli.

McNeill, J. T. and H. M. Gamer. 1938. Medieval handbooks of penance. New York.

Niles, J. D. 1980. The Ecerbot ritual in context. In: J. D. Niles, ed., Old English literature in context 44-56, 163-4. Cambridge.

Peters, R. A. 1963. OE aelf, -zlf, aelfen, &fen. Philological quarterly 42:250-7. Iowa City.

Singer, C. 1958. From magic to science. New York. Skeat, W. W. (ed.) 1966a and b. Blfric’s Lives of the

saints. 2 ~01s. Oxford. Stanley, E. G. 1975. The search for Anglo-Saxon

paganism. Cambridge. Stock, B. 1983. The implications of literacy. New Jer-

sey. Storms, G. 1948. Anglo-Saxon magic. Den Haag. Stuart, H. 1972. The meaning of OE *zelfsciene.

Parergon 2:22-6. Canberra. Stuart, H. 1976. The Anglo-Saxon elf. Studia

neophilologica 48:313-20. Uppsala. Swinburne, R. 1970. The concept of miracle. London. Thorpe, B. (ed.) 1840. Ancient laws and institutes of

England. London. Thorpe, B. 1844 and 1846. The homilies of the Anglo-

Saxon church. 2 ~01s. London.

292

Thun, N. 1969. The malignant elves. Studia neophilologica 41:378-96. Uppsala.

Voigts, L. E. 1979. Anglo-Saxon plant remedies and the Anglo-Saxons. Isis 70:250-68. Baltimore.

Ward, B. 1982. Miracles and the medieval mind. Philadelphia.

Warren, F. E. (ed.) 1883. The Leofric missal. Oxford. White, C. L. 1898. Elfric, a new study of his life and

writings. Boston. Wright, C. E. (ed.) 1955. Bald’s Leechbook. Early

English manuscripts in facsimile, 5. Copenhagen.

293

anglo-saxon charms in the context of a christian, world view

Documents