ABBREVIATIONS: AS: Anchoritic Spirituality, trans. Savage and Watson; AW: Ancrene Wisse, ed. Hasenfratz; B: Bodleian Library MS Bodley 34 [base text]; BT: Bosworth and Toller, Anglo-Saxon Dictionary; CT: Canterbury Tales; F: Furnivall edition (1922); HM: Hali Meithhad; M: Millett edition (1982); MED: Middle English Dictionary; MWB: Millett and Wogan-Browne edition (1990); OED: Oxford English Dictionary; PL: Patrologiae Cursus Completus; SJ: The Liflade and te Passiun of Seinte Juliene; SK: The Martyrdom of Sancte Katerine; SM: The Liflade and te Passiun of Seinte Margarete; SW: Sawles Warde; T: British Library MS Cotton Titus D XVIII; Whiting: Whiting, Proverbs, Sentences, and Pro-verbial Phrases.

Header Epistel of meindenhad meidene frovre. HM participates in and responds to a body of medieval writing known simply as virginity literature, which has its roots in a large body of patristic writing concerning virginity (for an overview of this material, see Lapidge and Herren’s introduction to Aldhelm’s De Virginitate, pp. 51–58 and 191–92n8). While no direct source for the Middle English text can be accounted for, the author most likely had at his disposal a number of Latin compositions about virginity as well as other pastoral material. Bella Millett has exhaustively traced many of these attributions in the 1982 edition, and, where pertinent, we have listed them below. Most likely though, as M writes, HM’s author based at least part of his text on the following main sources: (1) Hildebert of Lavardin’s letter to Athalisa; (2) Gregory the Great’s Regula Pastoralis; and (3) Bernard of Clairvaux’s De Moribus et Officio Episcoporum. The most important and influential of these works on HM is that of Hildebert: this letter, of which at least ten manuscript copies survive, demonstrates both the kind of advisory relationship between virgin recluse and clergyman modeled in texts from the Life of Christina of Markyate to AW, as well as points to the far-reaching influence of conventional models of virginity literature. Those readers who wish to consult the direct passages of Hildebert, Gregory, or Bernard should consult M’s thorough explanatory notes, as well as her introduction, “Sources,” pp. xlv–lii; we have included some short pertinent passages with translations below, which unless otherwise cited, are our own. The source study of HM reveals that the oft-cited sensitive and surprisingly realistic description of pregnancy and childbirth (see 27.6–14) in fact springs from a conventional body of texts written by clergymen for the purpose of deterring women from marriage.

1.1 Audi, filia, et . . . domum patris tui. Compare Vulgate Psalm 44:11. This text is often cited in works on virginity, including Jerome’s letter on virginity to Eustochium, as well as Part III of the twelfth-century Speculum Virginum, a popular dialogue on virginity, of which twenty-seven manuscripts survive (see the appendix of Listen Daughter for a partial translation by Barbara Newman, as well as the critical edition by Jutta Seyfarth). Millett notes that the interpretation of Psalm 44:11 is borrowed from Alan of Lille’s Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, Chapter 47, PL 210.195 (see M, p. 25n1/1–2). In addition, the emphasis on listening, “Audi,” might indicate a listening rather than a reading audience. We do not know for certain for whom the AB texts were written and therefore what kind of literacy that audience possessed. For a discussion of female literacy in this period and concerning these texts see Robertson, “This Living Hand.”

1.2 Davith. According to Millett, the spelling of David’s name here represents an Anglo-French pronunciation (see M, p. 25n1/2). However, alternatively this orthography might reflect Welsh pronunciation and, if so, would further strengthen Dobson’s proposition that the text emanated from the Herefordshire border. See Dobson, Origins of Ancrene Wisse, p. 115–73. See also the explanatory note 31.1.

Godes spuse. While contemplatives were conventionally described as married to Christ, the Bodley 34 texts develop this metaphor to the extreme; as is clear from the previous tales of Saints Katherine, Margaret, and Juliana, the virgins’ spiritual marriage to Christ conflicts with their fathers’ or other superiors’ secular plans for the dispensing of their sexuality; the consistent mis-understanding of the spiritual implications of the women’s divine marriage is one of the marks of pagan mulishness — see, for example, SJ 14.1–2, where Africanus demands to know the identity of this husband to whom he has not yet been introduced. For the particular relevance of the Sponsa Christi motif for women, see Bugge, Virginitas, and Robertson, Early English Devotional Prose, especially Chapter 5 on HM, pp. 77–93. See also Valerian’s response to Cecilia’s claim in Chaucer’s Second Nun’s Tale [CT VIII[G] 162–68].

1.3 Nim yeme hwet . . . sunderliche to seggen. HM’s author directly addresses the reader throughout the text, engaging her in an imaginative dialogue with his material. Margaret Hostetler notes that this pattern reflects a larger agenda, in which the male author creates a number of “reader-characters,” one of which is the seli meiden addressed so frequently in the first half of the text. This figure, Hostetler claims, is invited to participate in an exegesis of Psalm 44 and thus to engage actively and imaginatively with the discourse rather than passively accepting it (see “Characterized Reader,” especially pp. 95–96 on the virgin exegete). See also explanatory note 27.6–14.

1.4 lives luve. Love of eternal life. The concept appears as an allegorical figure in SW 24.1 and following.

1.10 inker. The genitive plural of the dual pronoun: literally, “of your two.”

2.1 Syon . . . the hehe tur of Jerusalem. Millett notes that the description of Sion as “a tower” (tur) follows “the traditional (though inadmissable) etymology of Sion as specula ‘watch tower’” (M, p. 26n2/5). Scripture also points to the possibility of Sion as the literal tower of Jerusalem; see 1 Chronicles 11:5: “David took the castle of Sion, which is the city of David,” i.e., Jerusalem. However, more important for our text is the association between the image of the tower and virginity, both in terms of how the tower image protects virginity but also elevates it in status above more normative sexual roles. In particular, see the legend of Saint Barbara, another early Christian martyr: the tower becomes not only a way for Barbara’s father to encase and enclose her sexuality, but for Barbara herself to use and manipulate for further worship of the Christian God (see Winstead’s translation from the South English Legendary, in Chaste Passions, pp. 39–43). Roberta Gilchrist discusses the uses of architectural space in the constructions of medieval genders and sexualities, explaining that the “gendering of the body was achieved with reference to physical boundaries and architectural spaces, especially the tendencies to link female and religious spaces, and to locate them in the most segregated settings, achieved through boundaries or height; in particular the siting of women’s chambers in the upper reaches of towers. Space was used to construct and reinforce a gendering of women’s bodies which emphasized chastity and purity” (“Medieval Bodies,” p. 57). For Gilchrist’s extended treatment of how space and gender are mutually constitutive, see Gender and Material Culture. Finally, Christopher Cannon suggests that defensive structures such as the tower feature prominently in the AB texts because the environment in which they were presumably produced (on the Herefordshire/Wales border) was sprinkled with similar defensive structures. See his “The Place of the Self: Ancrene Wisse and the Katherine Group” in Grounds of English Literature.

2.4 englene liflade. Consecrated virgins aimed to imitate the life of angels (vita angelica) through contemplation of God (see M, pp. xxviii–xxx). We have followed both M and MWB as well as Savage and Watson in liberally translating this phrase as “angelic life”; literally the phrase translates to “life of angels.”

thah ha licomliche . . . from worldiche weanen. Speaking of the grace of God, Paul writes that those who receive it come not to Sinai, with its physical revelations and restrictions, but “to mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels” (Hebrews 12:22). That this special state is especially accessible to virgins can be seen in the fact that Paul proceeds and follows this passage with admonitions against fornication (12:16 and 13:4). On Sion as a tower, see the explanatory note to 2.1, above.

3.1 mon of lam. The author focuses on the literally earthen nature of men due to the fact that they are made of clay (see Genesis 2:7). The phrase also occurs in SK 23.2 and 51.1, SJ 61.3, and HM 15.3.

4.2 alle thing turneth then gode to gode. The reference is to Romans 8:28, where the gode people for whom things will turn out gode are those who truly love God.

4.4 forte beo cwen icrunet. This particular cwen icrunet is an earthly queen. The virgin, already a crowned queen of Heaven, has no desire to exchange her state to be a temporal queen with an inferior lord. See also the explanatory note 5.5.

4.7 Thus, habbeth Godes . . . ed ten ende. HM varies remarkably from other tracts on virginity, such as Saint Jerome’s Letter to Eustochium and Aldhelm’s De virginitate. Both Aldhelm and Jerome emphasize the rewards a virgin can attain in the afterlife, whereas HM focuses on the rewards in this life as well as in heaven. See Woman Defamed, ed. Blamires, pp. 74–76 for excerpts of the Letter, and Aldhelm’s De Virginitate, as well as Robertson, Early English Devotional Prose, pp. 77–93.

5.4 thes cwenes . . . theos modie leafdis. These references to queens, rich countesses, and proud ladies might be an indication that the text was written for an audience of upper-class women, though perhaps those unfortunate younger daughters for whom the families could not afford an expensive marriage. See also the explanatory note 6.1, below.

5.5 ha lickith honi of thornes. Proverbial; see Whiting H439. This is a conventional description of the difficulties of earthly life. It is interesting to note that the virgin saint Gertrude the Great (d. 1302) was said to have had a vision in which Christ told her that “with my enemies you have licked the dust (compare Psalm 71:9) and sucked honey among thorns. Come back to me now, and I will inebriate you with the torrent of my divine pleasure (Psalm 35:9)” (Gertrude, Herald of Divine Love, p. 95).

5.7 Nat thah . . . ham sticheth ofte. M notes the echo of Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.48 (p. 28n4/13–14). This is the very text against which the Wife of Bath protests so vociferously in her Prologue (CT III[D] 673–75); we might only imagine how Chaucer’s Wife would respond to a text such as HM. Ironically, despite its misogyny, Jerome makes similar arguments against marriage and in praise of virginity in Adversus Jovinianum, though he seems to be addressing an audience of men. For a translated excerpt of this text, see Beidler’s introduction to The Wife of Bath, Geoffrey Chaucer, pp. 21–23.

6.1 hwet wenest tu of the povre. Despite the reference to the poor, this text is clearly addressed to women of upper social status — although perhaps gentlewomen of little inheritance. At times, women entered nunneries or were placed there by their parents especially because they (or their family) could afford dowry for a convent but not for a husband. Aristocratic marriage practices in the Middle Ages often involved the alliance of a member of one class with a member of another. The social desire to marry someone of equal or higher rank (though sometimes aristocrats who were losing money had to marry below their rank) occasionally conflicted with religious expectations of marriage, which argued that marriage should be based on consent alone (for praise of marriage based on consent see, for example, Langland’s Piers Plowman, B.IX.108–18). For a discussion of marriage practices in the Middle Ages, see Sheehan, Marriage, Family and Law. For a critique of marriage practices more concerned with property transfer than affirmations of consent, see the marriage arrangements of Lady Mede in Passus 2 of Piers Plowman (B).

6.3 on hare brudlakes dei iboren to biburien. This imagery most likely alludes to ritual practices concerning anchoresses, who, Clay notes, were “carried to burial on their wedding-day”; that is, they were ritually buried within an anchor-hold as a tomb. See Clay (Hermits and Anchorites, pp. 193–98) for a description of the burial ceremony often practiced at anchoritic enclosure.

8.1 Et concupiscet rex decorem tuum. Compare Vulgate Psalm 44:12. M cites Alan of Lille’s Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, Chapter 47, PL 210.195, as the source for this passage (p. 29n5/10–11): ‘Et’ sic ‘concupiscet rex decorem tuum’, ille scilicet rex, qui est rex regum, et dominus dominantium [‘And’ thus ‘the king will desire your beauty’, that king of course, who is the king of kings, and the lord of lords].

8.4 thet seil thet seileth inc togederes. The seal of virginity is based on the Canticle of Canticles 4:12: “My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up.” See Innes-Parker (“Fragmentation and Reconstruction,” pp. 29–30) for a discussion of the intact body as a necessary aspect of holy life. See also the explanatory note to SM 17.1.

8.6 ne bith hit neaver ifunden. The rigid irrecoverability of virginity proves flexible to later examples of female contemplatives, particularly Margery Kempe. Margery’s non-virginal status becomes a point of contention and ridicule when Christ commands her to wear white clothing as a symbol of her status as (renewed) virgin. For a discussion of how the ideological framework of a text like HM could have influenced Margery Kempe, see Bosse, “Female Sexual Behavior.”

8.12–21 Ant hwet is . . . . as eaveres forroteden. M cites an extended passage in Bernard of Clairvaux’s De Moribus et Officio Episcoporum as the source for this section (p. 30n5/31–6/29). However, she also notes Bernard’s ultimate source: the Speculum Virginum, from which a brief quotation is warranted: “What is the beauty of this virgin, so esteemed by the royal gaze? What beauty does this king, who is the creator of heaven and earth, desire in the virgin? What is this beauty that God seeks in you? Would you like to know? It is the beauty of righteousness, the form of a praiseworthy life, the light of understanding, the grace of heavenly discipline, the love of God, the hatred of the world or anything else of that kind that the rational soul acquires through longing for virtues or hatred of vices” (trans. Newman, Listen Daughter, p. 282).

8.12 of heame hine. This is a confusing phrase, as the clear sense from the rest of the passage indicates that the two terms should be antonyms. Compare also SJ 33.4: “al mi nestfalde cun, thet schulde beo me best freond, beoth me meast feondes, ant mine inhinen, alre meast heamen” [all my closest kin, those who should be my best friends, are my greatest foes, and my household, the greatest of all churls]. However, see The Owl and the Nightingale, lines 1115–16: “Vor children gromes, heme & hine. / Hi þencheþ alle of þire pine,” where the terms, if not synonymous, at least represent similar ideas: household servants. Millett emends to heane following T’s reading, but suggests that this rare Middle English noun is related to the verb heanen, “to injure, oppress, persecute” (MED henen (v.), sense a), thus a translation of “oppressors,” not otherwise attested in Middle English (see M, pp. 30–31n6/2). It should be noted, however, that the adjective heane survives to mean “contemptible, hateful, injurious” (MED hen (adj.), sense b) as in SK 43.8: “thes heane ant tes heatele tintreoh” [this heinous and this hateful torture]. We have retained B’s reading of heame with the assumption that “churls” or “yokel” is antonomous with the concept of an obedient and faithful servant; however we admit that the reading, like other readings, is tenuous.

8.15 Engel ant meiden. On the virginal qualities of the afterlife, see Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:34–36, where proof is found in the presumed lack of marriage among angels.

8.17 ant i this . . . liveth Heovene engel. As a source for this passage, Millett cites Bernard’s Sermo 27 in Cantica, which, in turn, draws its phrase regio dissimilitudinis (land of unlikeness) from Augustine’s Confessions, 7.10 (M, p. 32n6/15–18 and 6/15–16). For the image of life on earth as exile, see Hebrews 11:13–16. See also her discussion, pp. xxvi–xxviii.

burde. The Titus manuscript reads burðe; most likely the scribe simply forgot to cross the ð. The term here presents a theological conundrum, in that burde/burðe is not simply the “birth” or “birthright” of the individual, nor its cunde or nature, but its origin as well. As the virtue of virginity here lives out its liflade in licnesse to the Heavenly life, there is a sense that this virtue preserves the original nature of the creation of God; that is, the nature uncorrupted and stained by the deeds of Adam and Eve. Since all human beings are descended from the marred state of humanity, the theological impossibility of a person living according to this original nature is solved by the author’s attention to the abstracted virtue of virginity: this quality preserves the original chaste nature of humanity, but in the body of the virgin struggles against impure thoughts. The virgin’s success in the process of this struggle is what makes her so unique.

8.18–19 Nis this mihte . . . in hal halinesse. See 1 Thessalonians 4:3–5.

8.21–22 as eaveres forroteden . . . the Deofles eaveres. The Middle English term eaveres is troublesome, and is still defined, according to MED and OED as “boar” (compare MED ever (n.), sense 1 and OED “ever” (n.)), derived from the Old English eofor (BT, eofor (n.), sense1a). Compare Celtic lore wherein evil men are turned into boars that ravage the countryside as Twrch Trwyth in the Irish story of Culhwch and Olwen. We have similarly translated as “boars.” However, identifying an echo here of Joel 1:17 (“the beasts have rotted in their dung”), Tolkien (“Devil’s Coach-Horses,” pp. 333–34) advises translating the word as “horses” based on its relationship to the Middle English term aver meaning “draft horse” or “beast of burden” (MED, aver (n.1), sense 1). MWB translate as “Devil’s cart-horses” (p. 13); Savage and Watson as “beasts of burden” (AS, p. 229). While at first the image of a draft-horse wallowing in dung or muck might still seem to make little sense, compare Chaucer’s Friar’s Tale (CT III[D] 1539–65), which features a similar image — though luckily these “caples thre” do not end up going to the devil.

8.23 with soth schrift ant with deadbote. Compare SW 7.3.

9.1–7 Eadi meiden . . . . schal him overstihen. M cites Gregory’s Regula Pastoralis, Book III, Chapter 28 (p. 33n7/6–24): Admonendi sunt peccata carnis ignorantes, ut tanto sollicitius praecipitem ruinam metuant, quanto altius stant. Admonendi sunt, ut noverint, quia quo magis loco prominenti consistunt, eo crebrioribus sagittis insidiatoris impetuntur. Qui tanto ardentius solet erigi, quanto robustius se conspicit vinci; tantoque intolerabilius dedignatur vinci, quanto contra se videt per integra infirmae carnis castra pugnari [those who are innocent of the sins of the flesh are to be admonished to dread all the more anxiously headlong ruin, the loftier the eminence on which they stand. We should admonish them to realise that the more conspicuous their position, the more numerous are the arrows hurled against them by him who lies in wait for us. The more stoutly he sees himself worsted, the more energetically does he bestir himself. The more intolerable to him is his shame of being conquered, the more clearly he perceives that he is opposed by an unbroken barrier of weak flesh] (trans. Davis, p. 195).

9.2 se herre degré, se the fal is wurse. Proverbial; see Whiting D156.

9.5 the offrede hire meithhad earst to ure Lauerd. According to Millett, in Augustine’s De Sancta Virginitate 4: “Mary was thought to have made a vow of virginity before the Annunciation” (M, p. 33n7/11–15). This tradition is later expanded in medieval writings. When ordered by the priests to take a husband in the N-Town plays, for example, Mary exclaims: “mannys felachep shal nevyr flowe me! / I wyl levyn evyr in chastyté / Be the grace of Goddys wylle!” (ed. Sugano, 10.37–39). For a discussion of the practice of chaste marriage in the Middle Ages see Dyan Elliott, Spiritual Marriage.

10.3–4 Wit, Godes dohter . . . that is ure suster. . . Leccherie, thet is the deofles streon. . . ant Sunne hire moder. The personification of virtues and vices has a long tradition in Christian literature, perhaps most influentially represented in Prudentius’ Psychomachia (ca. 405), where they battle for souls in Virgilian epic form. A much later example from an English writer is John Gower’s Mirour de l’Omme (ca. 1377), where Wit (Reason) is male and weds God’s seven daughters, the virtues, so that together they might stand against the Devil and the seven vices that have been engendered incestuously upon his daughter, Sin. In Gower’s genealogies, Virginity is specifically the second daughter of the virtue of Chastity, which is set, as here, against the vice of Lechery (Mirour de l’Omme, trans. Wilson, lines 16573 ff.). This passage recalls the ongoing battle between Wit, the husband (“Godes cunestable,” 4.1) and Will, the unruly wife in SW.

10.5–13 weorreth o this wise . . . . efter thet wunde. M cites Alan of Lille’s Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, chapter 5, PL 210.122, as a source for this passage describing the five strategies of lust (p. 34n8/7–31). See also p. 34n8/8–20 for an extended discussion of the development of this topos, which originates in Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Part II of AW describes a similar battle between virginity and lechery: “Earest scheot the arewen of the licht echnen, the fleoth lichtliche forth ase flaa thet is i-vithered ant stiketh i there heorte, ther-efter schaketh hire spere ant neolachet upon hire, ant mid schakinde word yeveth speres wunde. | Sweordes dunt [is] dun-richt — thet is, the hondlunge — for sweord smit of nech ant yeveth deathes dunt, ant hit is wei-la-wei nech i-do with ham the cumeth swa nech togederes, thet outher hondli other other i-fele other” [First lechery shoots the arrows from the wanton eyes, which fly lightly forth as a shaft which is feathered and sticks in the heart; afterwards, she shakes her spear and closes in upon her, and with an agitating word, gives the wound of the spear. A sword’s blow — that is, human touching — comes straight down, for a sword smites from near-by and gives death’s blow; and it is, alas, nearly finished for those who come so close together, who either handle each other or touch each other] (ed. Hasenfratz, p. 105, lines 132–37).

10.8 seith scheome. “Speaks shame of”; i.e., slanders.

11.6–13.13 Ant sothes yef . . . were deadlich sunne. M cites an extended section of Book III, Chapter 28 of Gregory’s Regula Pastoralis as the source for this section (p. 35n8/31–10/13). On traditions of personification, see the explanatory note to 10.3–4, above.

12.2 Eunuchus qui servaverit sabata mea, et cetera. Isaias 56:4–5, discussed by Augustine in De Sancta Virginitate, pp. 234–35.

12.6–13.2 singen with engles . . . . of His goddede. M cites Hildebert of Lavardin’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage: Virginitas angelicam redolens conversationem, cantat canticum novum, canticum felix, canticum quod nemo potest dicere praeter eos ‘qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati’ (p. 36n9/13–15) [Virginity smelling of angelic association, sings a new song, a happy song, a song which no one can speak of except those ‘who are not polluted with women]; and Porro canticum omnium laudem Creatoris et actiones intellige gratiarum. Laudant ergo Christum virgines, Christum laudant viduae, laudant etiam conjugatae. Laudant conjugatae, quia . . . (pp. 36–37n9/24–25) [Further understand that the song of all (of them is) praise of the Creator and gestures of thanks. Therefore the virgins praise Christ, the widows praise Christ, and the wedded also praise. The wedded praise, because . . .].

12.6 His sunen ant alle Hise dehtren. On the virgins singing before God’s throne, see Apocalypse 14:3–4. Though the Bible cites these virgins as male (they are specifically undefiled by women), exegetes have long taken the passage to be gender-neutral.

13.4 Non omnes capiunt verbum istud. See Matthew 19:10–12.

13.8–13 Other is thet . . . . were deadlich sunne. This description of the difference between God’s commandments versus his advice corresponds in some ways to the “Author’s Preface” in AW: “Nan ancre, bi mi read, ne schal makien professiun — thet is, bihaten ase heast — bute threo thinges: thet beoth obedience, chastete, ant stude steathel-vestenesse . . . For hwa-se nimeth thing on hond ant bihat hit Godd as heast for-te don hit, ha bint hire ther-to, ant sunegeth deadliche i the bruche, yef ha hit breketh willes. Yef ha hit ne bihat nawt, ha hit mei do thah ant leaven hwen ha wel wule, as of mete, of drunch, flesch forgan other fisch, alle other swucche thinges . . . Theos ant thulliche othre beoth alle i freo wil to don other to leten hwil me wule ant hwen me wule, bute ha beon bihaten. Ah chearite — thet is, luve — ant eadmodnesse ant tholemodenesse . . . theos ant thulliche othre . . . ne beoth nawt monnes fundles, ne riwle thet mon stalde, ah beoth Godes heastes” [No anchoress, by my advice, shall make profession — that is, promise as a vow — except for three things: those are obedience, chastity, and steadfastness of place . . . For whosoever takes a thing in hand and promises it to God as a vow to do it, she binds herself to it and sins mortally in the breach if she breaks it willingly. If she does not promise it, she can do it nevertheless and stop when she well wants, with food, with drink, to forgo meat or fish, all other such things . . . These and such others are all in free will to do or to stop while one wants and when one wants, unless they are promised. But charity — that is, love — and humility and patience . . . these and such others . . . are not man’s invention, or a rule which man established, but are God’s commandments] (ed. Hasenfratz, pp. 62–63, lines 54–67).

13.11 ful. F translates as a past participle of fullen: “filled overfull.” We have followed M and translated as “cup” based on MED ful (n.), sense 1: “A cup; a drinking cup or bowl.” All examples of the use of this word are from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; thus it would make sense for this author to use the word.

13.12 crune upo crune. While the literal sense of upo is “upon,” we have translated as “above” to get at the idea of a crown that surpasses the worth of other crowns.

13.13 Alswa, Seinte Pawel . . . ham mahen halden. Paul’s famous advice, found in 1 Corinthians 7:8 and 25–26, is a favorite among those recommending celibacy as the surest means of avoiding sin.

Seinte Pawel yeveth read. M cites Gregory’s Regula Pastoralis, Book 3, Chapter 27, as the likely source for this passage (p. 37n10/14–15): Hinc est enim quod peritus medicinae coelestis Apostolus non tam sanos instituit, quam infirmis medicamenta monstravit, dicens: ‘De quibus scripsistis mihi: Bonum est homini mulierem non tangere; propter fornicationem autem unusquisque suam habeat uxorem, et unaquaeque suum virum habeat’ [I Cor. 7:1–2]. Qui enim fornicationis metum praemisit, profecto non stantibus praeceptum contulit; sed ne fortasse in terram ruerent, lectum cadentibus ostendit [Hence it is that the Apostle, versed in celestial medicine, did not so much prescribe for the hale, as point out the remedies for the weak, when he said: ‘Concerning the things whereof you wrote to me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.’ (See 1 Corinthians 7:1–2) For in setting out beforehand the fear of fornication, he surely did not give a precept to those who stood on their feet, but pointed out the bed to such as were falling] (trans. Davis, p. 189).

14.1 tha ha walden of meidnes hehschipe. An odd use of the auxiliary walden. F translates as “when they fell short of maidenhoods [sic] elevation”; MWB as “when they were about to fall from the virgin’s high estate.” MED cites this line as a “modal auxiliary expressing wish or desire . . . past form with past meaning with implied inf[initive]” (willen (v.1), sense 9g). Usually in this construction the implied verb is one that has appeared in a previous line, possibly as part of the same sentence, and most often is some expression of “to go,” “to be,” “to do,” or “to get,” as in the other lines cited in 9g. Our translation of “would have gone” follows more closely the usual pattern of this construction, though F and MWB adhere to the image of the maiden falling from the high tower only to be caught by the bed of marriage.

14.3–5 For hwa se . . . . beten hare sunnen. See Evans for a discussion of what she calls the “‘willed’ virginity” characterized by this passage (“Jew, the Host and the Virgin Martyr,” p. 174).

14.3 ham is tolimet. An impersonal construction, literally: “it is dismembered to them.”

15.3 for thet is . . . of hehe blisse. M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 38n11/4–9): Laudant innuptae, quia ex eo habent ut quibus licuit hominibus nubere virginibus, spiritu Deo nubere malint, et carne virgines et spiritu [see I Cor. 7:34]. Ecce sacrarum virginum canticum sacrum, canticum non vetus sed novum, non illius scilicet Adae, in quo et per quem mentis et carnis corrupta est integritas, sed ejus in quo et per quem non solum sanata, sed etiam super angelos glorificata est humanitas. Hujus laus et exaltatio virtutis canticum est quod ignorant viduae, quod nesciunt conjugatae. [The unwedded give praise, because from that they consider that it was allowed for such virgins to marry men, although they preferred to marry God in spirit, virgins both in flesh and spirit. Behold the holy song of holy virgins, not an old song but a new one, certainly not the song of that Adam, in which and through which the soundness of mind and flesh is spoiled, but of this human nature is not only healed in it and through it, but also is glorified above the angels.]

mon of lam. See the explanatory note to 3.1, above.

16.4 Ant alle ha . . . o Latines ledene. For discussion of the source of this description of the rewards in Heaven for those who keep Christ’s commandments of Matthew 19:18–19, see M (p. 39n11/17–20), who observes that ultimately the text here seems to derive from Bede’s glossing of Exodus 25:25 in De Tabernaculo et Vasis ejus 6. However, see also Wogan-Browne, who points out the secular courtliness of the “ring-dance,” noting that “[this scene] invoke[s] a specifically high medieval ideal of the aristocratic heroine, one shared to a large extent with courtly literature and secular romance” (Saints’ Lives, p. 23). This observation emphasizes the author’s use of secular devices to imply heavenly station; compare also explanatory notes 4.4 and 5.5.

17.1–7 Of thes threo . . . . writ in Heovene. According to MWB, this discussion of the relative rewards of virginity, widowhood, and marriage is a patristic interpretation of Matthew 13:23 (“But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one an hundred-fold, and another sixty, and another thirty”) common in literature on virginity (p. 151n20/17–21). Hassel (Choosing Not to Marry, p. 39) sees HM’s emphasis on precise numerical values for virginity, widowhood, and wifehood as “appeals to earthly rank” that overwhelm the spiritual meaning of the parable. Aquinas’ Catena Aurea cites Jerome, where the hundred-fold fruits are ascribed to virgins, the sixty-fold to widows and continent persons, and the thirty-fold to chaste wedlock (1.494). Augustine, in his Quæstiones Evangeliorum, ranks the rewards differently, and notes that the hundred-fold fruit signifies martyrs, the sixty-fold fruit virgins, and the thirty-fold fruit the wedded (1.493).

17.7 lives writ. That is, the Book of Life, made famous for its appearance in Apocalypse 3:5 and 20:12–15.

18.1 Ah schawi we . . . drehen the iweddede. See Savage, “Translation of the Feminine,” for analysis of HM not only as a virginity text but also as a text on martyrdom, particularly “marriage as an unsuccessful martyrdom” (p. 194). Likewise, Hassel (Choosing Not to Marry, p. 33) calls HM “a sermon on virginity that says more about marriage than staying single.” Although M points out the source of many of the details of the difficulties of married life in Hildebert of Lavardin, the author also includes an unusually extensive engagement with the quotidian lives its readers choose to leave behind. For a discussion of this emphasis on “quotidian psychological realism” in the AB texts in general see Robertson, Early English Devotional Prose.

18.9–19.3 hwet maketh hit . . . . monie togederes. M cites Alan of Lille’s Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, Chapter 5, PL 210.123 as source for this passage (p. 40n12/27–13/3): lechery [sic] hominem in pecudem mutat; imo, homo per eam infra pecudem degenerat, cum pecus servat concupiscendi tempora, tu concupiscis omni hora; pecus servat naturam, tu debaccharis in eam; pecus servat unitatem paris, tu ad plures discurris [lechery changes a man into an animal; no indeed, a man through that sinks lower than an animal, since an animal keeps to the seasons of carnal longing while you desire sex at every hour; an animal serves nature, you revel furiously in it; an animal keeps one mate, you run about to many].

18.10 dumbe neb. A dumb snout or face, that is, lacking the ability to speak or clearly communicate, and thus also lacking intellectual ability and discrimination (see MED domb, (adj.), sense 5a, which cites this line).

19.4 Lo nu hu . . . ant eorthe forhohien. The upright posture of mankind is attributed to a desire for Heaven (see M, p. 41n13/3–8).

forthi thet tu . . . thin eritage is. Compare Matthew 6:19–21.

20.5–6 Ah on alre . . . is of Heovene! M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 41n13/19–25): Praeterea ex nuptiis nulla speratur impune felicitas, quam primo necesse est quadam carnis commistione comparari. Infeliciter ei succedit, quae successum virginitatis mercatur impendio . . . Impar mercimonium est, brevem quaestum jactura perenni comparare; minus sibi providet quisquis gratiae virginitatis aliquid anteponit [In addition, no happiness is safely hoped for from marriage, which foremost needs to be secured by means of a certain mingling of the flesh. It turns out unluckily for her, who is trafficked, with the cost (being) the continuance of (her) virginity . . . It is an uneven merchandise, a short-lived profit to compare with eternal loss; whoever places anything before the pleasantness of virginity provides too little for herself.]

21.7–8 Wa is him . . . . áá on ecnesse. M cites Augustine’s Confessions here as a probable source for 21.7–8 (p. 42n14/4–10), respectively: Miser eram, et miser est omnis animus vinctus amicitia rerum mortalium [I was in misery, and misery is the state of every soul overcome by friendship with mortal things] (trans. Chadwick, Book 4, Chapter 6, p. 58) and Beatus qui amat te [God], et amicum in te, et inimicum propter te. Solus enim nullum charum amittit, cui omnes in illo chari sunt, qui non amittitur . . . Te nemo amittit, nisi qui dimittit ["Happy is the person who loves you" (Tobit 13:18) and his friend in you, and his enemy because of you (Matthew 5:44). Though left alone, he loses none dear to him; for all are dear in the one who cannot be lost. . . . None loses you unless he abandons you] (trans. Chadwick, Book 4, Chapter 9, p. 61).

22.4 tin anes dale. “Your own share” refers to the bride’s dowry.

22.11 With earmthe biwinneth . . . hit with sorhe. This description is a conventional formula used by patristic and scholastic writers to describe avarice; for other examples of this description, see M, p. 43n14/34–5. This passage reveals the author’s dependence on these types of sources as well as a more flexible understanding of greed than is traditionally assumed. The ambiguous “muchel” of 22.10, and the series of “hit” (articulated three times in 22.11) refer to a desired object much more tenuous and ambiguous than a simple lust for money. Richard Newhauser, in his study on greed in the early Middle Ages, writes that avarice often manifests as a “desire for intangible objects” such as “honor, knowledge, [or] life itself” as much as it refers to a desire for money (Early History of Greed, p. xiv).

22.13 this worldes hweol. I.e., the wheel of Fortune, a common medieval image often denoting the impermanence of material goods and/or worldly status. Fortune and her wheel appear as both a rich component of philosophical discourse as well as a well-known trope of medieval narrative. For the former, see Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, Book 2, in which Lady Philosophy urges the ailing philosopher to relinquish his attachment to Fortune; in Poem 7 (trans. Green, pp. 39–40), she offers the example of death, the great equalizer, as one of the many demonstrations of the fruitlessness of relying on Fortune. As regards the narrative trope, see, for a vivid and famous example, the Alliterative Morte Arthure, lines 3218–3393, in which Arthur dreams of his terrifying downfall on Fortune’s wheel. Finally, it is worth noting, in addition to this conventional imagery, the preoccupation with images of the wheel in the Bodley 34 texts (compare the would-be tortures devised for Katherine and for Juliana), where the ultimate goal, for professed nuns, anchoresses, or virgin martyrs, is to eventually transcend the significance and effectiveness of worldly pain as well as worldly joy.

22.14–15 Theoves hit steoleth . . . ham ant wreatheth. M cites Hildebert of Lavardin’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 43n15/2–3): Virginitati tamen divitiae praeferuntur, sed eis aerugo suspecta est, sed tinea demolitur, sed insidiantur latrunculi, sed timetur majoris violentia potestatis [Yet riches are preferred to virginity, but rust is suspected by them, and the moth destroys it, and thieves lie in wait for it, and the violence of great power is feared].

22.16 ahte. A general term referring most likely to cattle (compare Savage and Watson’s translation, AS, p. 236, as well as SK 4.1), but often livestock in general, including sheep. See Millett’s note in Ancrene Wisse, which explains that the term “can [also] mean possessions [or] money” (ed. Millett,2.285). Compare also hahte, a similar term referring to sheep, in SM 4.4.

22.17 wullen ha nullen ha. “They wish to they do not wish to”; a proverb leading to “will they, nill they” and eventually to “willy nilly.” According to the OED, this is the earliest known occurrence of the phrase. See Whiting, W277.

23.2 grevin. M and MWB emend to granin. See M, p. 43n15/18. F reads B as grenin as a variant of granen “to groan,” related to Anglo-Saxon gránian (see F, p. 42n444 and p. 87, entry under granen) See also BT, gránian (v.).

23.8 ethele theowe. See M, p. 44n15/30, who argues that the term refers to “a serf born on the estate.”

24.4–7 Yef thu art . . . o thulliche wise? M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this pessimistic passage on marriage (p. 45n16/13–24 and 16/31–17/13): Si formosa est, difficile caret infamia; deformem maritus aspernatur. Nunquam lectus est sine rixa, cujus vel pudet vel taedet conjugalem. Porro consequens est ut ei vir displiceat quae viro placere non quaerit. Quae non quaerit, sagaciores sollicitat aniculas, maleficiis assidet et, ut acquiret gratiam, projicit innocentiam. Quae igitur quies est animae, cui vel maritus est pro supplicio, vel conscientia pro flagello? [If she is beautiful, it is difficult for her to be without disgrace; the husband despises the ugly wife. The bed is never without quarrel, of which she is either ashamed or weary. Furthermore, it is logical that her husband displeases her who does not seek to please her husband. She who doesn’t seek (to do this), she solicits very clever little old women, sits with witches and, to get a favor, throws away innocence. Therefore who is quiet of heart, for whom there is either a husband for punishment, or conscience for a scourge?] and Magni soboles emitur, cujus conceptus infestatio est pudicitiae, partus vitae. Ea in lucem progrediens, auspicium sollicitudinis est, non materia gaudiorum. Vitiosa quippe progenies odium suscitat. Cum vero bona est, timor nascitur amittendi. Quis autem animo locus est gaudii, qui vel inflammatur odio, vel timore cruciatur? [Offspring is purchased dearly, of which the conception is a disturbance of chastity, and its birth a disturbance of life. Advancing into the light, it is an omen of anxiety, not the stuff of rejoicing. Certainly a deformed child arouses hatred. When the child is in fact sound, fear arises of its being lost. Now, what place is there in the spirit for joy, which is either inflamed with hatred, or tortured with fear?]. See also 27.6–14 for the anxieties surrounding childbirth.

27.2–3 For ase Seinte Pawel . . . unwurdthgeth thi bodi. See 1 Corinthians 6:18.

27.6–14 Ga we nu . . . . te therin itimeth. Hostetler describes this famous passage as “a mass of affective detail” signaling the imaginative movement of the “reader-character” into the role of wife and mother. Hostetler points out two other rhetorical details worth noting: first, that the author ceases to address the reader as meiden and switches to wummon (compare 18.1, 22.2 to 27.1); second, that the “narrator uses a debate format, laying out the reader-character’s imagined points and refuting them one by one” (“Characterized Reader,” p. 98). These details illustrate both the author’s strategic use of rhetoric in engaging his reader, as well as the invitation to the female reader to engage with multiple roles — i.e., exegete, virgin, wife, mother, and debater (though perhaps a more appropriate term would be motild; see the explanatory note to SK 9.4). In terms of source material, though, the author has based this sensitive account of childbirth and child-rearing, according to M, on an expansion of a description of pregnancy in Hildebert of Lavardin. The discomforts of pregnancy appear also in other religious letters, such as those of Osbert of Clare (see M, p. 46n17/23–18/4).

27.8 thi breines turnunge. “Your brain’s turning,” i.e., dizziness (see MED brain (n.1), sense a, meaning “vertigo, dizziness” as well as MWB’s translation). We have translated literally, following Savage and Watson. This phrase, a striking description of the source of dizziness, is one of the few examples in the Katherine Group of a kenning, a holdover from Anglo-Saxon poetic tradition, a metaphor or periphrastic expression referring to a thing by description, rather than simply naming it, for example: “whale-road” (sea); “sword storm” (battle); “horse of the sea” (ship).

27.9 swel in. M’s emendation (see p. 46n17/30); see also our corresponding textual note. The presence of swel here presents crucial interpretive issues, as the term is never used (as verb or noun) to describe natural pregnancy, but consistently to describe either pathological, physical swelling or the swelling of the heart/mind to pride or anger, implying (at least in this case) a connection between the sickness of inflammation and moral disobedience. MED defines swelle (n.) as “A morbid swelling in the body or a bodily part.” Compare AW 4.1182–87, where the author compares lascivious temptations to a bodily wound, which the anchoress should not concern herself with “bute hit to swithe swelle thurh skiles yettunge with to muchel delit up toward te heorte, ah drinc thenne atter-lathe ant drif thet swealm ayein-ward frommard te heorte – thet is to seggen, thench o the attri pine thet Godd dronc o the rode, ant te swealm schal setten” [unless it swell too terribly up toward the heart throught he consent of reason with too much delight, but drink then the antidote and drive the inflammation away from the heart – that is to say, think on the poisonous pain that God drank on the Cross, and the inflammation will subside] (ed. Hasenfratz, p. 288, lines 1184–87).

28.1 we ne edwiteth . . . forte warni meidnes. The moral distinction between marriage and virginity is based in the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 7; Paul is careful to point out that marriage should not be condemned, though virginity is preferable. Patristic commentators on both Paul as well as the subject of virginity generally clarify that they do not wish to detract from marriage; Jerome has a particularly interesting take on praising marriage in his letter to Eustochium: Laudo nuptias, laudo coniugium, sed quia mihi virgines generant [I praise wedlock, I praise marriage; but it is because they produce virgins for me] (letter 22, trans. Wright, pp. 94–95).

30.1 Theose ant othre . . . ane lut wordes. M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 47n18/26–27): Haec et alia nuptiarum sunt incommoda, quae numerare longum ducens Apostolus, ‘tribulationem’, inquit, ‘sustinebunt huiusmodi [These and other things of marriage are disagreeable, which the Apostle, considering them tedious to number, says ‘they tolerate the tribulation of this manner of life’].

Tribulaciones carnis et cetera. See 1 Corinthians 7:28.

31.1 Lutel wat meiden . . . ne his caderclutes. M cites Hildebert of Lavardin’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 48n18/32–19/5): Virginitas maritalis ignara negotii, non labores puerperae, non novi partus spurcitias experitur . . . virginitas vigilias nutricis ignorans, quam multa supellectile, quibusve sorbitiunculis alumnus indigeat, non requirit [Virginity ignorant of the business of marriage, does not know about childbirth labors, nor about the filthinesses of a new baby . . . virginity being ignorant of the vigils of the wet-nurse, does not enquire after just how much stuff, or what portions of food the child may need].

bigan. See MED, bigon (v.1), sense a: “to cover.” All of the examples, including the Royal manuscript of Juliana (compare d’Ardenne’s edition, p. 22/187) use this verb to mean “cover (something) with blood.” Compare the Bodley reading of this line in SJ, which reads “bigoten” (27.1 of our text). As M notes (p. 48n19/4), this is the only example of this verb referring to a substance besides blood (in this case, food). We have chosen to translate bigon as “bespatter.”

cader-clutes. Cader is a Welsh word for cradle. The presence of this term provides additional evidence for the theory that the text was produced in Herefordshire near the Welsh border. See Dobson, Origins of Ancrene Wisse, pp. 115–16 and 323–24. Dobson also discusses the Welsh origin of this word on pp. 115–16.

31.3 fliche. “A side of an animal” sometimes referring to beef but more often to pork, as in a side of bacon (OED flitch (n.1)).

33.5–6 Eadi is . . . kinedom of Heovene. M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 49n19/32–20/3 and 20/3–4): Beata nimirum sponsa, cujus pudor dum concipit non deperit; dum generat, non laborat. Beatissimus autem sponsus cui, nisi cohaereat, nulla virgo est; nulla casta, nisi eum diligat; nulla libera, nisi ei serviat [Certainly (God’s) spouse (is) blessed, whose purity does not perish while she conceives; who does not suffer while she produces life. And most blessed (is) the husband, whom, unless she clings to Him, she is no virgin; not clean, unless she loves Him; not free, unless she serves Him] and Ejus prole nihil vivacius, cum qua nulla propagatur mortalitas. Ejus dote nihil utilius, in quo sufficientam comitatur aeternitas [(There is) nothing more long-lived than His offspring, to whom no mortality is spread. Nothing is more profitable than His dowry, in which eternity accompanies sufficiency].

33.6 marhe-yeve. I.e., a dowry. See MED yeve (n.), sense 2b.

33.8 thah He beo . . . Him wel icweme. M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as a source for this passage (p. 49n20/7–8): pauperi libens copulatur, dives in omnes qui invocant illum [with pleasure He marries the poor, rich among all those who call upon Him].

33.9 upo hwas nebscheft . . . fulle to bihalden. Compare 1 Peter 1:12.

34.1–2 Yef the were . . . hire in Heovene. The image of virtues as spiritual children can be traced back to Origen, Homilies on Numbers (see M, p. xli).

35.1–36.1 Ah thah thu . . . his ealdeste dohter. M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as the source for this discussion of adultery with the devil (p. 50n20/29–21/5): Unum tamen est quo ille sponsam ablaterat, et propriam diffitetur: hujus etenim ratio dissidii, sola mentis est corruptela. Mentis deformitas offendit virum, sponsalia diripit, abjudicat dotem, eliminat introductam. Mentem tuus amans explorat, et ex ejus qualitate vel dictat repudium, vel maritum pollicetur. Huic autem suspecta est superbia, nec fieri potest ut cum eo in gratia revertatur [There is one (reason) however for which he sets aside his spouse, and denies his own: indeed the reason for this separation is corruption of the mind alone. Deformity of the mind displeases the Husband, lays waste the betrothal feast, rightfully takes away the dowry, carries the new bride (lit., “the one who has been introduced”) out the door. Your lover tests your mind, and based on its quality he either declares divorce, or promises marriage. Yet still for this, pride is suspected, and it cannot happen that she comes back in favor with Him].

36.1–38.6 Over alle thing . . . al hare lifsithen. Pride particularly threatens the virgin’s salvation because she has something that wives and widows do not: physical purity. Thus this sin has the capacity to upset the traditional order of the female estates (e.g., virgins, widows, wives). Aldhelm, in his tract on virginity, demonstrates particular interest in this matter, since some evidence points to his addressing a mixed audience: virgins and women who have cast off their husbands to pursue a chaste life — hence the terms “chastity” and “virginity” have different meanings (see the introduction to De Virginitate, trans. Lapidge and Herren, pp. 51–58). Aldhelm’s strong words on proud virgins (as opposed to humble chaste women) are worth noting: “because they judge themselves to be chastely celibate and to be thoroughly free from all the dregs of filth, inflated with (over-) confidence in their virginity they arrogantly swell up and in no way do they turn away the most cruel monster Pride, devourer of the other virtues, with the nose-ring of humility . . . Virgins of Christ and raw recruits of the Church must therefore fight with muscular energy against the horrendous monster of Pride and at the same time against those seven wild beasts of virulent vices [i.e., the Seven Deadly Sins], who with rabid molars and venemous bicuspids strive to mangle violently whoever is unarmed and despoiled of the breastplate of virginity and stripped of the shield of modesty” (trans. Lapidge and Herren, pp. 67–68).

36.5–37.3 for ne muhen . . . . the overcom engel. M cites Hildebert’s Letter to Athalisa as the source for this passage (p. 51n21/16–25): Diversum est utrique hospitium, nec in eodem cohabitant animo, quibus cohabitare non licuit in coelo. In coelo nimirum nata est superbia, sed velut immemor qua inde via ceciderit, illuc ultra redire non novit. Ea de supernis corruens, et parentans in terris, omnibus suis apud inferos aeternam pepigit mansionem. Ipsa ex purissimis et simplicibus orta substantiis, puros adhuc animos inquietat, ausa victoriam sperare de homine, quae de angelo triumphavit [It is a hostile lodging for both of them, and they do not live together in the same heart, those who are not allowed to live together in heaven. Pride was undoubtedly born in heaven, but as if (she was) forgetful of which way she fell from there, in addition she did not know how to return to that place. She, falling down from on high, and appearing on the ground, has made an eternal dwelling place for all her own in hell. Risen from the most clean and pure substances herself, even now she disturbs clean souls, having dared to hope for victory over man, she who triumphed over an angel].

37.4 hwit other blac. . . grei . . . grene. The colors probably refer to the different habits of the religious orders. If the grey refers to the Franciscan grey-friars, then this text of HM would have to be dated after 1224, the year that the Franciscans first came to England. Millett has argued that the work most closely associated with HM, AW, should be linked with the Dominicans; see “New Answers, New Questions.” For an earlier argument for the Augustinian origins of the AW and the Katherine Group, see Dobson, Origins of Ancrene Wisse, p. 16ff. The AW itself argues that a contemplative should not be concerned with the different orders but rather should ally herself with the Order of St. James, which is unconcerned with the color of habits. See ed. Hasenfratz, pp. 64–67, lines 79–129.

38.1–2 Ne tele thu . . . a prud meiden. M cites a longer passage from Book III, Chapter 28 of Gregory’s Regula Pastoralis; HM’s author evidently condensed this material for this section (M, p. 52n21/32–22/4). Davis’ translation of this section reads as follows: “Those who are innocent of sins of the flesh are to be admonished not to prefer themselves in the eminence of their loftier estate, seeing that they do not know how many better things are done by those of inferior estate in these matters. For on the assessment of the righteous Judge, the character of our conduct reverses the merit due to our rank. Indeed, who, taking the more outward appearances of objects, does not know that in the realm of gems the garnet is preferred to the jacinth, yet the blue jacinth is preferred to the pale garnet, because what the order of nature has denied to the former, is added to it by the phase of its beauty, and though the latter is superior in the order of nature, it is depreciated by the quality of its colour? So, then, in the case of man there are some who, though of higher rank, are inferior, and others who are in a lower estate, are better, because the latter by their good way of life transcend the character of the lower estate, while the former fall short of the merit of their higher estate by not living up to it” (p. 198).

38.2 charbucle1 . . . jacinct. Precious gems appear in the Bible such as in the description of the ornaments of Aaron and his sons in Exodus 39:10–12: “And he set four rows of precious stones in it. In the first row was a sardius, a topaz, an emerald. In the second, a carbuncle, a sapphire and a jasper. In the third a ligurius, an agate, and an amethyst.” Compare also the description in Apocalypse of the New Jerusalem and its gem-rich edification (Apocolapyse 21:18–21). Jewels such as these were of special interest in the Middle Ages and often accrued moral meaning or powers of healing and protection, as discussed in medieval lapidaries. The Peterborough Lapidary, for example, reports that the carbuncle, or “Carbuncculus is a precios stone, & he schineþ as feyre whose schynyng is not ouercom by nyõt” (Evans and Serjeantson, English Mediaeval Lapidaries, p. 82)

is betere a milde wif other a meoke widewe then a prud meiden. This phrase, Newman notes, is “ubiquitous in . . . virginity literature” (From Virile Woman, pp. 256–57n47). For example, Newman cites Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, 99.13; Caesarius of Arles, Homilies 12; the Speculum virginum; and Thomas of Froidmont, Liber de modo bene vivendi ad sororem 22.64 (From Virile Woman, pp. 256–57n47).

38.3 eadi sunegilt Marie Magdaleine. Mary Magdalene’s identification as a repentant sinner originates in the conflation of the anonymous repentant woman of Luke 7:37–50 and of the “Mary who is called Magdalen” of Luke 8:2 (though Mary Magdalene is mentioned numerous other times in the New Testament). Gregory the Great first identified the two figures as the same, and this identification was later confirmed by Augustine (see Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, 3.258).

38.4 Ant te othre . . . unlusti ant wlecche. See Apocalypse 3:15–16.

39.3 Efter thi word . . . mi Lauerdes threl. See Luke 1:38.

39.5 Elizabeth. Mother of John the Baptist and wife of Zacharias. Elizabeth’s visitation with the Virgin is narrated in Luke 1:39–55.

39.6 For mi Lauerd . . . eadi alle leoden. See Luke 1:48.

39.8 eolie in a lampe. This image of the virgin like an oil lamp is common in virginity literature and is derived from Matthew 25:1–13, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins. See Chrysostom, who says they “denote the gifts of virginity.” Jerome agrees though he is insistent that the parable applies not exclusively to virgins but to the whole human race. Origen glosses “lamps” to mean “natural faculties.” For Hilary they are “the lights of bright souls shining forth in the sacrament of baptism” or human bodies. For Augustine the lamps are their good works that shine before them. For Hilary the oil is “the fruit of good works” and for Jerome, “the ornament of good works”; for Augustine, the oil designates the joy that springs forth in accord with God’s anointment. For Origen oil is “the word of teaching with which the lamps are filled” (Catena Aurea 1.3, pp. 844–45).

40.4 Thench o Seinte Katerrine . . . ant Seinte Cecille. This short list of martyrdoms includes the names of the virgins in the Katherine Group texts, and perhaps provides some hints as to other martyrdoms that the audience of HM was reading or to which they might have had access. Saint Agnes (Seinte Enneis) was a virgin martyr whose legend places her death during the Diocletian persecutions; Saint Cecilia was most likely a legendary figure, though one later made famous in Chaucer’s Second Nun’s Tale. B omits Saint Lucy from this short list, although T does include her here.

40.8 as weren ear ha agulten his eareste hinen. See Jerome, Epistles 22:19. It was generally accepted by the Church Fathers that Adam and Eve remained virgins until after the Fall, although Augustine later argued that sexual intercourse would have taken place in Paradise (see M, pp. xxix–xxx).

40.12 leirwite. From Old English leger-wite, the term was used in legal treatises to specify a fine levied for fornication, in particular with a female slave; see MED leir-wite (n.), sense b. HM has the only recorded instance of this term being used in a figurative sense.

41.3 as Seinte Pawel . . . overcume hire seolf. See 2 Timothy 2:5 and 1 Corinthians 9:24–27.

41.4 as the Apostle seith. This probably is a reference to James 1:12 (see M, p. 55n23/33–24/1 and MWB, p. 153n42/12–13).

41.6 wrist te under Godes wengen. This image of sheltering under God’s wings appears frequently in the Psalms. In particular, see Vulgate Psalms 16:8, 35:8, 56:2, and 60:5. This image also appears in SW 15.1 and 43.2.

41.7 damn his teeth. For a similar phrase see SJ explanatory note 38.5.

Textual Notes to Hali Meithhad Abbreviations: CT: Canterbury Tales; F: Furnivall edition (1922); HM: Hali Meithhad; M: Millett edition (1982); MED: Middle English Dictionary; MS: Bodleian Library MS Bodley 34 [base text]; MWB: Millett and Wogan-Browne edition (1990); OED: Oxford English Dictionary; T: British Library MS Cotton Titus D XVIII; Whiting: Whiting, Proverbs, Sentences, and Pro­verbial Phrases.

1.2 meidene. So T. MS: meiið. M emends to meið.

1.3 word. So M, T. MS: worð.

1.4 lustni. So M, T. MS: lustin.

1.8 Heo mei ondswerien ant seggen. So M. T: Ho mei onsweren & seien. MS omits.

yeorne. So M, T. MS: ȝeone.

1.10 makieth. So M, following dreaieth of 1.10. MS: makied. T: maken.

1.11 bittre. So M, following standard AB spelling of the word. MS: bittri. T: bitter.

1.12 deorewurthe. So M, T. MS: deorewrthe.

2.1 seith. So T. MS omits. M emends to Syon seith.

2.3 worldes. So M. MS: worlddes.

lahe. So F, M, T. MS: the word has been inserted in the right margin with the final two letters cropped (the first upstroke of h is visible).

eorthe. So M, T. MS: eordthe.

2.4 ha 4. MS: ant. T: and. As is, the sentence makes little sense without an independent clause governing thurh . . . eorthe. M retains the MS reading and adds just before it ha stiheð gasteliche, following Dobson’s suggestion (see p. 26n2/11–14). We have emended more conservatively, since neither MS nor T contain this phrase.

2.5 hire. So M, T. MS omits.

icleopet. So MS, corrected from icleoped.

In the bottom margin of fol. 53v, upside down; H: Thomas Wysham de Tedestorne in com’ hereff’ gent in ducentis sterlingorum soluend’. See also the textual note to SJ 43.1, which mentions Thomas’s son George as well as Ker, Facsimile of MS Bodley 34, p. xiv, on the Wysham family of Herefordshire.

3.1 wurthschipe. MS: There is an otiose descender between s and c.

al₂. So M, T. MS omits.

thet₃. So M, following T’s þat. MS omits.

hire leafdischipe. MS: hire leafdhi leafdischipe.

in₂. So M, T. MS omits.

earmthen. So M, T. MS: earmden.

4.5 beon. M, T: beo. MS omits.

4.6 earnnesse. So MS, with a inserted above the line.

5.1 servin. So MS, T. M: serve. M argues that an imperative is necessary here rather than the infinitive servin which appears in both manuscripts. She suggests the scribe made an error following the previous word trukien (M, p. 27n3/31). However, our sense is that the modal schal governs both infinitives, trukien and servin.

ofthunchunges. So M, T. MS: ofthunchunge.

6.1 the₁. So M, T. MS omits.

wummen. So M, following T’s wimmen. MS: wummon.

7.1 the₃. So M, T. MS omits.

fleschliche. So M, T. MS: flecsliche.

7.6 this. So M, following T’s tis. MS omits.

hearm. So M. MS: hearrm. T: harm.

7.8 the₂. So M, T. MS omits.

7.10 biginnen. Our emendation, from T’s bigunnen. MS: luvien. M emends to iunnen, citing MS’s luvien as “bad sense” and T’s bigunnen as “bad grammar” (see p. 29n5/6). We agree that the passage is problematic and reflects corruption in both manuscripts, and have opted for a more conservative emendation. Biginnen replicates the nice alliteration of T and presents the idea that whatever the virgin strives to undertake (see MED, biginnen (v.5), sense a) or "to begin”, God will see through to its completion (endin).

8.3 desireth. Our emendation. MS, M: desiri. T: desire. Although the MED cites the MS reading as an early form of the verb, we think it highly likely, especially given T’s reading, that desiri/desire is a scribal error. A þ immediately follows the word in both manuscripts, and it makes sense that the scribe would have mistakenly elided the final þ of desiriþ/desireþ with the following þe.

8.4 meithhades. So M. MS: meidhades.

8.5 Halt. So M. MS: hwalt. According to M, the scribe anticipated the following hwam (p. 30n5/13).

the. MS: þee.

8.8 yeove. So M, T. MS omits.

8.10 to. So T. MS omits. M emends to te, explaining that in most cases forms of ah (here, ahest) followed by an infinitive (in this case, witen) are usually followed by the to particle (p. 30n5/26).

withuten. So M. MS: wituten. T: wiðute.

8.11 leof. So F, M, T. MS omits.

nis. So M, T. MS omits.

bruche. So F, M, T. MS: bruge, corrected to bruche in a different hand. We have adapted the correction following other editions.

8.12 eorthliche. So M, T. MS: eordlich.

maketh. So M, T. MS: maked.

eorthlich. So M, T. MS: eordlich.

heame. So MS. M, T: heane. See M’s long discussion of the possibility that the MS scribe is right. She argues that heane as “oppressor” fits the sense of the passage better than the more neutral heame, “inhabitant,” despite the fact that heane is not a known word (M, pp. 30–31n6/2).

8.14 ofearnest. So M, T. MS: earanest, with a 1 inserted above the line.

meiden. So M, T. MS: meden.

god. So M, T. MS: goð.

8.15 meithhades. So M. MS: meidhades. T: meidenhades.

8.16 eadiure. So M, T. MS: ed ure. F emends to ediure, noting that “the i has been erased” (p. 16).

halden. MS: halden halden. It appears that the scribe first wrote haeden, tried to correct to halden, then crossed the word out and wrote on a fresh section of the line.

8.17 i this₁. So M, T. MS: is the.

gume. MS: gumine, with e inserted above the i.

licnesse. So M, T. MS: cleannesse. The scribe most likely made this mistake by repetition from the earlier unlicnesse.

throf. So M, T. MS: threof.

8.21 licomliche lustes. So T. MS: licome lustest. M emends to licomes lustes. We have adopted T’s reading based on the presence of the phrase in HM lines 1.10, 7.1, 7.3, 10.4.

theo iliche. So M. MS: the ilich. T: þa iliche. M suggests that T’s iliche should be read as a plural noun, and has adjusted the pronoun to reflect this (p. 32n6/27).

wurthinge₂. So M, T. MS: wurdinge.

8.23 walewith. So M. MS: waleweth.

with₁. So M, T. MS: wid.

9.1 meithhad. So M. MS: meidhad.

9.2 offearet. So M, T. MS: offeaaret. The scribe repeated the a when he began the next page (fol. 57v).

9.4 thurh. So MS, with r inserted above the line.

ure. So M, T. MS: hire.

earst. MS: earest.

9.5 wummen. So M. MS: wummem. T: wimmen.

9.6 the₁. So M, T. MS omits.

scheoteth. So M. MS: scheoted. T: schoteð.

healewi. So MS, with a inserted above the line.

9.9 nawiht. So MS, with ih inserted above the line.

9.10 thes. So M. MS: it appears that the scribe wrote ses, then attempted to correct by adding a descender to the initial long s. T: þe.

fleoth. So M, T. MS: beod.

10.4 other. So M, T. MS: oder.

10.6 greitheth. So M, T. MS: greideð.

10.8 speoketh. So M. MS: sweoked. F reads as speoked but notes the mistake in spelling (p. 22). T: speken.

10.9 fulst. So M, T. MS: fulht.

Meithhad. So M. MS: meiðhað. T: meidenhad.

11.6 throf. So M, T. MS: threof.

12.2 servaverit. So M, T. MS: seminaverunt.

12.6 halhe. So M, following T’s halhes. MS: habbe.

13.1 bith. So M. MS: bid. T: beð.

13.4 istud. So M. MS: istuð. T: hoc.

13.12 as. So M, T. MS: al.

13.13 thet meidnes beoth. MS: þe meidnes beoð. M, T: to beon.

14.2 softeliche. So M, T. MS: fofteliche.

14.4 leod. So T. MS: leo. M emends to leoth.

15.1 is. So M, T. MS omits.

15.2 leadeth. So M. M argues that a plural verb is needed here to follow the plural subject (p. 38n11/3). MS, T: leat.

16.2 muhe. So M, T. MS: muhten.

16.3 gath. So M, T. MS: gad.

16.4 schinende. So T. MS omits. M emends to schininde.

auriole. So T. MS: an urle, which M argues is a corruption of auriole (p. 39n11/19). We have emended to T’s reading in the Middle English and transposed to the Latin term in the translation.

16.5 gimmes. So M. MS: ȝimmies.

te. So M, T. MS: ne.

16.6 meidnes. So M, T. MS: meiðnes.

17.1 Of. So T. MS: ȝef of. M retains MS’s reading. MWB emend to ȝet of. M makes sense of the incomplete if-clause by emending widewehad, ant wedlac is þe þridde to widewehad ant [wedlachad], wedlac is þe þridde. See M, pp. 39–40n25–26 for a helpful discussion of the corruption of this line in MS; also see Dobson, Origins, pp. 161–62n3. Most likely T’s scribe simplified what was originally an “if . . . then” correlative by dropping the ȝef, and we have adopted this reading.

17.4 preoveth. So M, T. MS: preoved.

leapeth. So M, T. MS: leaped.

17.6 haveth. So M, T. MS: haved.

17.7 beoth. So M, T. MS: beod.

18.1 to-eche. So MS. M, T: teke.

18.4 soth cnawes. So M, T. MS: soþ cwawes.

18.8 habbeth. So M. MS: omits.

leaven. MS: le leaven. The scribe began the word at the very end of a line, then canceled and wrote on the next line.

18.9 thet₁. So M, following T’s þat. MS: ant.

19.3 folheth. So M, T. MS: foheth.

19.5 meithhades. So M. MS: meidhades. T: meidenhades. cheaffere. So MS, with a inserted above the line.

21.1 ipaiet. So MS, with i₂ inserted above the line.

21.2 ah. So M, T. MS: ahi.

21.5 earmthe. So M, T. MS: earmde.

21.6 twinnunge. So M, following T’s twinninge. MS: twinnnunge.

22.2 He₁. So M, T. MS: ȝe.

22.3 thin He. So M, T. MS: him þe.

22.5 se. So M, T. MS: þe i þe.

leadeth. So M, T. MS: leaðeð.

22.10 Al. So M, T. MS: as.

22.13 worldes. So MS, with l inserted above the line.

22.14 steoleth. So M. MS: steoled.

hit₂. So M, T. MS: hit hit.

22.16 forwurthen. So M, T. MS: forwurden.

23.1 schal nede. So M, T. MS: ne schal.

23.2 grevin. MS: grenin. T: greni. M: granin. M suggests that the word granin might have been intended to mean “groan (in childbirth)” (though this use is not attested before 1300; see MED gronen (v.1) sense b). See her discussion of the various alternatives offered by editors from Tolkien onward (pp. 43–44n15/18). The first n of grenin  in MS could be a slightly smudged v, hence our emendation. Greven is a verb that appears in HM, though indirectly; i.e. HM 24.6: hit greveth the se swithe.

23.3 were. MS: weres.

23.9 tendreth. So MS, corrected from tendren, with ð written over n 2.

23.12 drehen — ne luvie ha him neaver swa wel. So M, T. MS omits; the line as it stands is missing a verb. M believes that the MS scribe has accidentally missed the line (p. 44n16/2–3).

23.13 gomenes. So M, T. MS: gonienes.

wulle. MS: wulla, with e inserted above the canceled a.

24.1 ifindeth. So M, T. MS: ifinðeð.

24.3 he₃. So M, T. MS omits.

24.4 tu. So M, T. MS omits.

24.5 unwurthlich and wratheliche. So M, T. MS: unwurðliche.

24.7 cunqueari. So MS, with a inserted above the line.

25.1 irikenet. MS: al irikinet, with al significantly faded. The scribe appears to have repeated the word from the previous page and then erased.

26.1 habbe. MS: nab habbe.

ant₁. So M, T. MS omits.

fostrunge. So M. MS: fosttrunge. T: fostringe.

26.3 upbrud. So M, T. MS: upbrrud, with r₂ inserted above the line.

bimong. So M, T. MS: bimon.

26.4 forthlich. So M, T. MS: forlich.

misfeare. MS: ne misfeare.

27.1 hit. MS: inserted above the line.

27.3 sunnen 1. So M, T. MS: sunen.

27.4 Gultest. So M. MS, T: gulteð, the plural form of the verb, whereas the singular is needed. M argues the scribe of the common ancestor was misled by the series of third person singular verbs into substituting gulteth for this word (p. 46n17/21).

27.5 thet₂. So M, following T’s þat. MS: ant.

27.6 awakenith. So M. MS, T: awakeneð, the singular form of the verb (though it looks like a plural), whereas the plural is needed. M explains that the scribe probably accidentally repeated the awakeneð in the preceding line (p. 46n17/25).

27.9 swel in. So M. MS, T: swelin. Reading this word as two words makes the best sense of the phrase, according to M (p. 46n17/30). See also the corresponding explanatory note.

lonke. MS: wombe lonke.

27.11 mete. So M, T. MS omits.

27.13 cares. So M. MS: carest. T: care. An emendation to T’s reading would not make sense as the main verb, bineometh, is in the plural form.

27.14 stikinde. So M, T. MS: stinkinde.

28.1 meidnes. So M, T. MS: meiðnes.

29.1 thet ti. So M, following T’s þat ti. MS: þe hire.

29.3 upo sorhe. So M, T. MS omits (see M, p. 47n18/23).

31.1 werc. So M, T. MS: were.

wleateful. So MS, with e₁ inserted above the line.

sut. So M. MS, T: suti. The normal use of suti to mean “filthy, disgusting” does not quite fit here, hence Tolkien’s original suggestion of sut (see M, p. 48n19/1).

ha schule. So M, T. MS: hit is.

31.4 swithre. So M, T. MS: swithe.

33.5 His. MS: þis, corrected above the line to ihis.

33.7 Lauerd. So M, T. MS: lauerð.

34.1 tholemodnesse. So M, T. MS: tholomodnesse.

mekelec. So T. MS: metelec. M: meokelec.

meithhades. So M. MS: meihades. T: meidenhades. 35.1 i thin. So M, T. MS omits.

36.1 his. So M, T. MS: hiss.

36.2 ha₂ . . . hire. So M, T. MS: hire keaste ure. M argues that MS’s reading “obscures the contrast between Pride’s heavenly father (21/9) and her earthly mothers” (p. 51n21/6).

36.3 ha. So M, T. MS: he.

36.5 muhen₂. So T. MS: maken. M: mahten.

36.6 eardinde. So M, T. MS: earmðe.

bihat. So M, T. MS: bihalt.

hire₂. So M, F. MS, T: hare. M follows F in emending; here, Pride’s mothers (i.e., prideful maidens are not the fiend’s daughters, but rather his whores (p. 51n21/21).

37.5 Sone. So M, T. MS: son.

38.2 charbucle₁. So M, T. MS: charbuche.

onont. So M, T. MS: onon.

38.3 as₁. So M, T. MS: al.

bireowsith. So M. MS, T: bireowseth. Compare the textual note to 23.13; the subjects are the mild wives and meek widows of the previous lines, though the MSS readings are in the singular. M makes the point that the scribe of the common exemplar may have read Marie Magdaleine as the subject (p. 53n22/7), hence the singular form.

inwardluker. So M. MS: inwarðluker. T: inwardlukest.

38.5 liveth. So T. MS omits.

39.1 to trusti. So M, T. MS: trust.

meithhad. So M. MS: meidhad. T: meidenhad.

theawfule. MS: þeawfufele.

39.2 lah. So M, T. MS: þah.

39.6 His. So M, T. MS: þis.

39.8 hit. MS: þis hit.

withute. So M, T. MS: wid ute.

40.1 i thi. So M, T. MS: ant ti.

40.4 meidnes. So M, T. MS: meiðnes.

40.6 ti. So M, T. MS: tu.

the₂. M, T. MS omits.

40.7 engel. So M, T. MS: e englel. The first e is repeated most likely because of a lacuna in the fols. 70r–v which extends diagonally through seven lines; the scribe has heretofore neatly written around the slit.

40.9 deorewurthe. So M, from T’s derewurðe. MS: deorewurde.

40.10 me. So M, T. MS omits.

40.12 blisse upo blisse. So M, T. MS: blisse o up o blisse.

meithhades. So M. MS: meidhades. T: meidenhades.

41.2 thi₂. So M, T. MS: ant ti.

41.6 greveth. So M, T. MS: greved.

Godes. So M, T. MS: goder.

42.1 leve hire. MS: leve me hire.

ant₂. So M, T. MS omits.

beon₂. MS: this word is inserted above the line.

eorthliche limen. MS: between these words the scribe has written several words which have been erased.