Byrhtferth'sEnchiridionand the computus in Oxford, St John's College 17

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
More than fifty years after its first appearance in print, Byrhtferth'sManual, orEnchiridionas he called it himself, is among the most puzzling texts of the Old English prose corpus. Its obscurity is due partly to its unglamorous subject matter – mathematics (computus) and the calendar – but more, perhaps, to its apparently bewildering organization. Humfrey Wanley called it an ‘opus miscellaneum’, Richard Wülker described it as ‘auβerordentlich bunter’ and Frederick Tupper referred to it as ‘that remarkable potpourri’. Indeed theEnchiridionseems often enough to wander aimlessly or shift abruptly; it seems to follow no plan and many an intrepid scholar has come away from it with the disquieting feeling that, having read a scientific primer, he has learned shamefully little science. As Heinrich Henel and N. R. Ker pointed out, the text has come down to us disarranged; but the restoration of the misplaced sections to their proper order only partly relieves the confusion. We may as well admit at the outset that Byrhtferth often digressed and often backtracked: as an organizer he was barely tolerable. But if we fail to understand theEnchiridionthe fault is partly our own, for it was not Byrhtferth's intention to write a wholly self-contained book. As Henel ably demonstrated, theEnchiridionwas designed as a commentary on the computus; this fact is the key we need to unlock the mysteries of Byrhtferth's work. To read it without referring to a computus would be as pointless as to read a biblical commentary without referring to a bible.