History Meme

Both Jonathan and Michelle tapped me for this one so here goes…

Instructions:

  1. Link to the person who tagged you.
  2. List 7 random/weird things about your favorite historical figure.
  3. Tag seven more people at the end of your blog and link to theirs.
  4. Let the person know they have been tagged by leaving a note on their blog.

Of course, I wouldn’t be up to my usual pedantic standards if I didn’t preface something interesting with a whole pile of boring verbiage.

Let’s think for a second about the Benedictine Revival! In the mid-tenth century, King Edgar decided that England was in need of a religious revival. There a number of reasons in back of this–one was the decimation of monasteries and monastic life by the past several centuries of viking depradations, a concomitant loss of learning, bad morale (and maybe morals too), and there was probably something in there too about transferring land-ownership to grateful clergy rather than scheming eorls. While monks can cause problems they rarely raise up armies to overthow you… In any case, he kicked of the reform on the secular side of things. On the sacred side it was begun by the work of three great now-sainted monastic bishops: St. Dunstand, St. Æthelwold, and St. Oswald. This was the first generation of the reform. The second generation is characterized by two men with extant writings, Archbishop Wulfstan of York and Abbott Ælfric of Eynsham. Ælfric was the greatest catechist of his day who embraced the notion that religious reform and revival would occur by promoting sound religious teaching in the vernacular—including a host of sermons and sermon-like materials in Old English, over 150. And yes, he’s the hero of my dissertation. But I’m not writing about him today! (Well—any more today…) No, I’m writing about the author of one of the few surviving documents we have from the third generation of the reform, one of Ælfric of Eynsham’s students, Ælfric Bata.

And yes, the similarity between the names has confused an awful lot of people over the years.

Ælfric Bata’s surviving work is the Colloquies. When you studied foreign languages, did you ever have to stand up in front of the class and act out lame dialogues about buying cheese or whatever in that language? Well, that’s what ÆB’s Colloquies is. Remember, the goal here was to get Germanic-speaking yokels to be able to converse fluently in Latin. ÆB’s Colloquies take us from intermediate level to truly advanced-level conversational Latin. Ok—enough pedantry: onto the good stuff, seven wierd or random facts.

  1. Bata isn’t a last name—it’s a descriptor that probably refers to a barrel of beer. Scholars are split as to why this was applied to him but the leading suggestions were either that he was overly fond of emptying said barrels—or that he was shaped like one. Of course, I see no reason why they can’t both be right.
  2. ÆB’s teacher, my Ælfric, was a serious, pious kind of guy. Not ÆB. The conduct recorded in his Colloquies has been used by historians as evidence of the state of moral decay in English monasteries in the time before and at the Norman Conquest.
  3. For example—one of the dialogues (#3) takes place in a classroom before the teacher arrives. In it, students learn how to ask how to cheat off another’s homework.
  4. In another (#6), the students get beaten for not being able to recite their homework. (Which does give the previous point a bit more urgency…)
  5. Several of them contain an interesting insights into liturgical life, especially the part played by the adolescents who would have been learning these dialogues. In one (#5) a student describes for the master a quick sketch of what the boys have been up to that day—primarily liturgical duties. Another (#18) teaches students how to rent out their services copying liturgical books. According to this colloquy, a well-written missal could fetch up to two pounds of pure silver. The final selling price, though, is twelve mancuses. (If only I knew how that compares to two pounds of silver… What’re the odds that an expert on medieval numismatics might wander along shortly…?)
  6. The point of one of the colloquies (#25) is (apparently) to learn how to insult someone in Latin.
  7. This treatise (still #25) is partly agricultural in nature, going through a variety of plants and trees. However, it seems as if a far greater weight is given to learning the various specialized names for the kinds of manure. If it comes out of the rear of a domestic animal you’ll find it listed here! And yes, I suspect this connects far more to the abuse topos than the agriculture one…

So, if you ever wanted to read some fascinating vignettes of tenth-century monastic life—or how to call somebody cow-poop in Latin—Ælfric Bata’s your man.

[The Colloquies in both Latin and Modern English can be found in a great edition edited by Scott Gwara, translated by David W. Porter called Anglo-Saxon Conversations: The Colloquies of Ælfric Bata (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1997).]

I’ll tag bls, Anastasia, the Postulant (now that GOEs are over), Christopher, LutherPunk, the Lutheran Zephyr, Caelius (are you still alive?) and anyone else with a hankering to do it.

One Other Thing…

M and I watched the Johnny Depp “Sleepy Hollow” over New Year’s. We’re huge fans of most anything that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp do together (Edward Scissorhands, The Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd [which we also saw over the holiday], etc.)

That night I had a nightmare about the headless horseman coming after M and myself. But you know how dreams always change everything… In mine he was on foot but accompanied by a big black poodle (?!?) and at one point the headless horseman, M, several other folks and I were standing around talking about what we do. I mentioned that I was finishing up my dissertation and the hoseman soundly mocked me for my lack of recent progress.

It’s enough that I have to put up with that from real people but now I have to take it from figments of my own imagination? C’mon!

Since then I’ve gotten an important chunk of chapter 5 written up with hopefuly more to follow soon…

I’m Back…Sort Of

Hope y’all had a good Christmas as the season draws to a close. I’m back but not really “back”. Things are extremely busy and I won’t be online much. (Except to be loading freakin’ Oracle tables row by row through a PHP portal since my SQL*Loader is messed up…)

Speaking of how hacked off I am at Oracle, I’m thinking that SQLite really should be the hot new thing. And yes, I realize that sentence made no sense to anyone other than computer geeks but there’s a practical(?) payoff—I think SQLite (a small-profile database system) will give me functionality to program a method of calculating liturgical dates that can easily be switched back and forth between different sanctoral/temporal cycles. So moving between calculating a date in the modern revised common lectionary and a 10th century Benedictine kalendar would be fast and simple—and just a click away for a web visitor…

I think my feed reader said I had some 500 items to catch up on and I’ve seen some interesting email to which I’ll respond when able and yes, I’m gonna do our buddy Ælfric Bata for the history meme that Jonathan and Michelle both tagged me for.

Ack… More later.

Clint Eastwood as an Anglo-Catholic Liturgist

“I know what yer thinkin’, punk…

“The evening of the 20th by all rights oughtta be the First Vespers of St. Thomas the Apostle, a second class universal double feast. But yer thinkin’ maybe–just maybe–the Second Vespers of a second class feria in Sapentia-tide just might take it…and you can get away with usin’ the ‘O’ antiphon with the Magnificat instead of the one appointed for St. Thomas…

“Ya gotta ask yerself a question: do I feel lucky? Well, do ya–punk?”

(The answer, of course, is that the antiphon for the Magnificat is that appointed for St Thomas [Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; * blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed] However, the “O” antiphons appear on the 20th and 21st as commemorations—after the collect of the day, with their versicle & response [if you’re using them] and followed by the collect of the Third Sunday of Advent.)

A Word from Our Sponsor

In lieu of actual content, I bring you two from one our sponsors, Blessed George Herbert:

Church-Rents and Schismes

Brave rose, (alas!) where art thou? in the chair
Where thou didst lately so triumph and shine,
A worm doth sit, whose many feet and hair
Are the more foul, the more thou wert divine.
This, this hath done it, this did bite the root
And bottome of the leaves: which when the winde
Did once perceive, it blew them under foot,
Where rude unhallow’d steps do crush and grinde
Their beauteous glories. Onely shreds of thee,
And those all bitten, in thy chair I see.

Why doth my Mother blush? is she the rose,
And shows it so? Indeed Christs precious bloud
Gave you a colour once; which when your foes
Thought to let out, the bleeding did you good,
And made you look much fresher then before.
But when debates and fretting jealousies
Did worm and work within you more and more,
Your colour faded, and calamities
Turned your ruddie into pale and bleak:

Your health and beautie both began to break.
Then did your sev’rall parts unloose and start:
Which when your neighbours saw, like a north-winde,
They rushed in, and cast them in the dirt
Where Pagans tread. O Mother deare and kinde,
Where shall I get me eyes enough to weep,
As many eyes as starres? since it is night,
And much of Asia and Europe fast asleep,
And ev’n all Africk; would at least I might
With these two poore ones lick up all the dew,
Which falls by night, and poure it out for you!

The Call

Come, my Way, my Truth, my Life:
Such a Way, as gives us breath:
Such a Truth, as ends all strife:
Such a Life, as killeth death

Come, my Light, my Feast, my Strength:
Such a Light, as shows a feast:
Such a Feast, as mends in length:
Such a Strength, as makes his guest.

Come, my Joy, my Love, my Heart:
Such a Joy, as none can move:
Such a Love, as none can part:
Such a Heart, as joyes in love.

++Rowan Sends Letters

++Rowan has sent ’round the world this morning two letters–one for Advent and one for Christmas. Ever the liturgical snark, my first instinct was to wish he had sent the Christmas one later than the Advent one if even only by a day or two…

There will be lots of talk about these letters and their contents. I may weigh in on them–I may not. But I do want to suggest that the Advent letter be analyzed with two entirely different questions in mind:

  1. Does this letter reflect the Anglican understanding of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury? How well does it go about being faithful to our Anglican ways of relating to each other?
  2. How should the Episcopal Church respond–in so far as we are able to respond in any kind of unified way?

Again, I want to stress that I see these as two entirely different questions that will help us gain a better sense of where we ought to be moving in response to this missive.

On the Avatar and Liturgy

Michelle at Heavenfield was asking about avatars. And I’ve been intending to get back to talking about early medieval liturgy. Sorry, but putting together a pedagogically helpful structured sequence of posts that lay everything out in good order is more than I can muster at the present time. Rather, it’ll be bits and pieces that perhaps I’ll try to connect logically at a later date. I mention these two things (avatars and liturgy) together because they’re related…

My avatar avatar is, in fact, a liturgical symbol.

Early medieval sacramentaries are books for the Mass used by the priest. They’re different from missals because missals include more material—they have stuff that the priest wouldn’t pray given a full liturgical crowd. A sacramentary only has the priest’s parts. (On this way of structuring liturgical books and its theological implications see this piece of mine at the Cafe.)

Sacramentaries have material that can profitably be classified in two parts: ordinaries and propers. Ordinaries are those prayers or elements that are used all year long. Preeminently, this means the canon of the Mass. Propers are material that change whether seasonally, weekly, or daily. The bulk of a sacramentary is taken up by “mass sets.” These are collections of a number of prayers—anywhere from four to six or so—that provide the “proper” elements for the occasion, that is, the things that change. The full Eucharistic prayer is not complete until these items are plugged into their proper place.

Major days may get these six proper elements:

  1. An opening collect that goes at the beginning of the service after the introit,
  2. An offering prayer (also known as the secret as it was said inaudibly) [typically marked as sub obl or secreta]* wherein the bread and wine to be consecrated are offered to God,
  3. A proper preface [often marked as Praefat] which follows the introductory dialogue (sursum corda) at the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer,
  4. A prayer at the conclusion [marked Ad Comp] of the Eucharist,
  5. a prayer over the people [marked Ad Pop/uli],
  6. and a benediction [marked Benedict].

*Rubrics are at all the whim of scribes, different books may use different designations. For solid guidance on this matter generally look to Andrew Hughes which is essential for understanding manuscript layout—just be warned he covers sources from 1250 and later…

Mass sets for non-major days—especially weekdays—tend to just have numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5. These days don’t get their own proper preface and, properly speaking, only a bishop should give a benediction and these are often relegated to their own separate book. (I work a lot out of the Leofric Missal which was written for a bishop and thus has them…)

So—what does this have to do with my avatar? Because these prayers are designed to be inserted into pre-existing prayers, there is common transitional material. Since everyone knew what this was, these transitional phrases weren’t written out but were merely abbreviated with signs. My avatar is one of these. What looks like an odd ‘W’ is actually the joining of a V, a D, and a cross to abbreviate the standard phrase that begins proper prefaces: “Vere dignum et iustum est… (It is right and proper that we…)”

This one is taken from Cod. Sang. 342, a manuscript from the monastery of St. Gall and is a proto-missal that contains, in addition to a sacramentary, a Gospel lectionary and the earliest survival noted gradual. It was probably written by Hartker, a monk of St. Gall, who is a major figure for the study of early chant.

As to why I selected it—because I’m a liturgy geek. Was there really any question about that?

(And now I want LP and Lee to explain why they picked theirs…)

Anglican Affairs

I suspect all who care know that the Diocese of San Joaquin voted to disassociate from the Episcopal Church this weekend. Every time I come back to study this event and my reaction to it, I always come away with the same feeling—this is another link in a long chain of events that reek of personal aggrandizement and power politics from both sides of the fence than the sweet savor of Gospel truth. (So sorry, but give my experience with Anglo-Catholic parishes and clergy, the idea that this Anglo-Catholic diocese split because of homosexuality is laughable; furthermore, given the way that many “pragmatic liberals” trumpet “full inclusion” yet act as they will when they will makes me question the purity of their intentions.)

That’s all I have to say on the matter—but I have two thoughts from others to commend to you:

1) More on the split from Fr. David at Ayia Iluvatar.

2) On intemperate blogging from the Morning Office (being myself under the word of judgment):

     

Psalm 52

       
   

1

  Why boastest thou thyself, thou tyrant :
  that thou canst do mischief;
         
   

2

  Whereas the goodness of God :
  endureth yet daily?
         
   

3

  Thy tongue imagineth wickedness :
  and with lies thou cuttest like a sharp razor.
         
   

4

  Thou hast loved unrighteousness more than goodness :
  and to talk of lies more than righteousness.
         
   

5

  Thou hast loved to speak all words that may do hurt :
  O thou false tongue.
         
   

6

  Therefore shall God destroy thee for ever :
  he shall take thee, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling, and root thee out of the land of the living.
         
   

7

  The righteous also shall see this, and fear :
  and shall laugh him to scorn;
         
   

8

  Lo, this is the man that took not God for his strength :
  but trusted unto the multitude of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness.
         
   

9

  As for me, I am like a green olive-tree in the house of God :
  my trust is in the tender mercy of God for ever and ever.
         
   

10

  I will always give thanks unto thee for that thou hast done :
  and I will hope in thy Name, for thy saints like it well.