King Edgar’s Establishment of the Monasteries (henceforth EEM) is the title commonly given to an account of the revival of monasticism in England under the patronage of King Edgar (c. 944–975) and Queen Ælfthryth (d. c. 1000). This text survives only in London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A.x, fols 148r–151v. It begins imperfectly, after four blank lines and not at the beginning of the line; Ker suggested that this space was left blank for a heading. The sole witness of the text also features an extended lacuna, after fol. 148, which might have amounted to one to three folios. The text of EEM is enriched by interlinear and marginal annotations, some of which—studied in full by Mary Swan—derive from Ælfric’s homily Sancti Gregorii Pape (Catholic Homilies II.ix) and expand on the account of the beginning of monasticism in England. Other marginalia, such as alphabetical maxims based on Publius Syrus, as well as miscellaneous grammatical material, are unrelated to the main text.

MS BL Cotton Faustina A.x is a composite manuscript comprising two parts already assembled in the twelfth century, as demonstrated by the presence of one of the twelfth-century annotating hands on both parts of the codex. EEMis copied in the second part of MS Cotton Faustina A.x, dating to the early twelfth century. This part also includes one of the copies of Æthelwold’s translation of the Rule of St Benedict into Old English. This copy of the Old English Rule precedes EEM on fols 102r–148r; notably, it is the only case in which the Old English translation is not accompanied by parallel Latin text. The Cotton Faustina A.x text of the Old English Rule belongs to the D-redaction in the classification by Rohini Jayatilaka and, from internal evidence, was intended for female use.

Since the first edition by Oswald Cockayne, the possible authorship of EEM by Æthelwold has been advocated. This attribution had not received universal consensus until a pivotal study by Dorothy Whitelock, who examined the parallels between EEM, the Regularis concordia, and charters associated with Æthelwold. Whitelock also compared the lexicon of EEM with that of the Old English Rule, with the cumulative evidence suggesting that the former was intended as an authorial preface to the latter. Although the sole copy of EEM follows the Old English Rule in the manuscript, rather than preceding it, it seems to have served as a preface in the copy of the work known to William of Malmesbury, who in his Vita S. Dunstani, Book II.2.i–ii mentions ‘a prologue’ by an author who ‘explained the Rule of St Benedict into English’. Whitelock also observed that EEM must necessarily have been drafted after the translation of the Rule; David Pratt has recently posited that it was attached to a copy of the C-redaction in Jayatilaka’s classification, forming part of an edition of the translation of the Rule destined for female houses. The plain style of EEM resembles that of nearly contemporary homiletic production, as demonstrated by features such as scriptural quotations, the interpretation of events in the light of God’s masterplan, in-text cross-references, and exhortations. 

The reference by William of Malmesbury also helps reconstruct, in part, the missing portion of the text, so that the overall picture of the contents of EEM is sufficiently defined. The text opens with an overview of the Christianisation of England by the intercession of Pope Gregory and the mission of Augustine. This opening section loosely echoes Bede,Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum, I.xxiii–xxvi, I.xxxiii. There is an oblique reference to the well-known episode of the Angli slaves met at the marketplace by Gregory as recounted by Bede, Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum II.i, as well as by other sources such as the anonymous Whitby Vita Sancti Gregorii and Paul the Deacon’s Vita beatissimi Gregorii papae urbis Romae. EEM then lingers on the apostolic customs adopted by Augustine and the other missionaries in England, after which the lacuna begins. The missing part might have discussed the decline of monasticism in England following the Danish invasion and the episode—cited by William of Malmesbury—of the young Edgar coming across the ruins of Abingdon abbey and promising to restore the abbey upon ascending the throne. The sole copy of EEM resumes with a panegyric of Edgar. His rule and his achievements in maintaining the unity of the kingdom are sharply contrasted with the behaviour of his brother Eadwig, who is also criticised for having alienated the possessions of the Church. The achievements of Edgar are said to surpass those of his wise predecessors by those who can remember them within living memory, and his success is seen as a reward from God. The king’s vow to restore Abingdon is then again alluded to, and its fulfilment described. The refoundation of Abingdon by Eadred, as well as Æthelwold’s appointment there, are not mentioned, although both events might conceivably have formed part of the missing portion of the text. It is stated that, in the restored abbey, there dwelled monks living æfter tæcinge þæs halgan regules (‘after taking the holy rule’), that is, the Benedictine Rule. Before that, only in Glastonbury were there monks following the teachings of the Rule, appointed by Edmund, Edgar’s and Eadwig’s father. 

Reforming activities, such as the endowment and funding of new monasteries, the ousting of unworthy canons, and the entrustment of nunneries to Ælfthryth, are listed and connected with Edgar’s own striving for spiritual self-correction and his zealous study of the Benedictine Rule. This study, in turn, resulted in the commissioning of the translation of the Rule into English. It is specified that those who are learned and know the ‘two-fold wisdom’ (twydæledan wisdom), that is, ‘the wisdom of things actual and spiritual’ (þæt is andweardra þinga ond gastlicre wisdom) do not need this translation, but that it is necessary for ‘unlearned laymen’ (ungelæredum woroldmonnum) who may in ignorance of its content break its precepts. It is therefore of no importance which language leads a man ‘to the true faith’ (to þan soþan geleafan). EEM concludes with an address—according to David Pratt—by King Edgar in his own ‘voice’, exhorting his successors and abbesses not to alienate or diminish any of the possessions of the Church and of the royal house—a recurring preoccupation within the text. The case for a first-person voice of the king within the text supports a dating within Edgar’s lifetime, and particularly in the years 966–970, against Whitelock, who argued for a date after Edgar’s death. The content of the text, especially regarding the advancements of the reform movement and the use of the Benedictine Rule, suggests in any case that it predates the Regularis concordia. EEM therefore stands as one of the most relevant documents of the Benedictine reform, drafted in all likelihood by one of its main promoters and under the king’s patronage, and providing key information on the relationship between the West Saxon royal house and the Church, on the importance of female houses, and on the reshaping of historical narratives for political purposes.

Select Bibliography

Editions and Translations of the Text

Cockayne, Oswald (ed.). Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England. 3 vols (London: Longman and Green, 1864–66), III, pp. 432–45.

Saint Æthelwold of Winchester. The Old English Rule of Saint Benedict with Related Old English Texts, transl. by Jacob Riyeff. Cistercian Studies Series 264 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2017), pp. 151–59.

Whitelock, Dorothy (ed). English Historical Documents c. 500-1042. Second edition (London and New York: Eyre Methuen / Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 920–23.

Whitelock, Dorothy, Martin Brett, and Christopher N. L. Brooke (eds). Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church. I: AD 871–1204. Part 1: 871–1066 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. 142–54.

Manuscript

Digital reproduction of London, British Library, Cotton Faustina A.x, British Library Archives and Manuscripts Catalogue, available at <https://searcharchives.bl.uk/catalog/040-001103859>.

Doane, A.N. Grammars. Handlist of Manuscripts. Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts in Microfiche Facsimile 15 (Tempe, AZ: ACMRS, 2008).

Ker, N.R. Catalogue of Manuscripts Containing Anglo-Saxon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), no. 154.

Criticism

Gretsch, Mechthild. The Intellectual Foundations of the English Benedictine Reform, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Hofstetter, Walther. Winchester und der spätaltenglische Sprachgebrauch: Untersuchungen zur geographischen und zeitlichen Verbreitung altenglischer Synonyme (Munich: Fink, 1987).

Hofstetter, Walther. ‘Winchester and the Standardization of Old English Vocabulary’, Anglo-Saxon England 17 (1988), 139–61.

Jayatilaka, Rohini. ‘The Old English Benedictine Rule: Writing for Women and Men’, Anglo-Saxon England 32 (2003), 147–87.

Lapidge, Michael. ‘Æthelwold as Scholar and Teacher’, in Bishop Æthelwold. His Career and Influence, ed. Barbara Yorke (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1997), pp. 89–118.

Pratt, David. ‘The Voice of the King in “King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries”’, Anglo-Saxon England 41 (2013), 145–204.

Swan, Mary. ‘Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies in the Twelfth Century’, in Rewriting Old English in the Twelfth Century, ed. Mary Swan and Elaine M. Treharne, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 30 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 62–83.

Whitelock, Dorothy. ‘The Authorship of the Account of King Edgar’s Establishment of Monasteries’. In Philological Essays: Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature in Honor of Herbert Dean Meritt, ed. by James L. Rosier. Ianua linguarum. Series major 37 (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1970), pp. 125–36.

Yorke, Barbara, ed. Bishop Æthelwold. His Career and Influence (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1997). 

About the Author

Claudio Cataldi is Associate Professor of Germanic Philology at the University of Palermo, Italy. Email: claudio.cataldi@unipa.it