Emily Kesling. 2020. Medical Texts in Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture. Anglo-Saxon Studies 38. Cambridge: Brewer, xii + 233 pp., 3 tables, £ 60.00/$ 99.00.

Medicine in Anglo-Saxon England has been the object of extensive research. The corpus of Old English medical texts is the earliest in any vernacular language in Europe, and one that includes four main collections of remedies, plus a number of individual texts scattered amongst several Old English manuscripts. This huge body of texts has been discussed in terms of the efficacy of Old English medicine; of their alleged pagan elements; of the relationships with charms, prayers, and other formulaic texts.^[1] Yet there is still scope for new approaches and investigation, as Medical Texts in Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture shows. Following her PhD dissertation on the same topic (Kesling 2016), Emily Kesling discusses the literary context of the four main Old English medical collections, arguing that they originate from the literate milieu of monastic centres rather than representing mere remnants of folk belief. The book opens with an introduction that surveys previous literature on the theme, establishes the aims of Kesling’s research, and provides a brief overview of the main Latin sources of Old English medical collections. There follow five chapters; each of the first four chapters is devoted to one of the major repositories of Anglo-Saxon medical culture, namely Bald’s Leechbook, Leechbook III, the Lacnunga, and the Old English Herbarium, respectively. Appendices with quotations from medical texts, a bibliography, and a general index conclude the book.

The first chapter aims to set Bald’s Leechbook in the wider framework of the ninth-century translations of Latin texts into West Saxon. Kesling focuses on the translation techniques found in the collection, noting that they would fit with those adopted in translations of the Alfredian period, such as that of the Orosius. Following previous scholarship on the theme, the author agrees that the “short remedies” found in the collection display diverging renderings of their respective Latin sources, which shows that these remedies “were likely translated by a variety of individuals in different times and circumstances” (34). On the other hand, longer passages seem to adopt a shared technique in which the Latin source is condensed by selecting material and translating it into Old English. The author suggests that several “long passages” may have been translated specifically for the compilation of this collection (44). The intellectual endeavour of Bald’s Leechbook, Kesling argues (55–56), lies in the fact that its compiler(s) assembled a miscellany of texts into a cohesive work, sometimes translating Latin material anew, in order to make these remedies available to a readership who could then have access to them in a vernacular translation.

In Chapter II, the study of Leechbook III takes on a specific target, that is, remedies related to elf-diseases. Kesling chooses to underline the similarities between charms against elves and exorcism formulas (78–80), both of which are informed by a similar purpose to fight demonic possession. The author compares, in particular, the exorcism found in the Leofric Missal and the charm Wiþ elfsogoþa (86–92); the two feature a head-to-toe list of parts of the body in Latin. This pattern not only resembles the overall structure of medical collections (as noted by the author, remedies in Bald’s Leechbook, Leechbook III and the Lacnuga are arranged a capite ad calcem), but also that of the Lorica of Laidcenn, which is discussed in Chapter III. Kesling underlines this resemblance in the chapter that follows; yet a cross-reference may have strengthened her argument here. It is interesting to note that both Wiþ elfsogoþa and the Lorica of Laidcenn conclude their respective lists of body parts with a formula meant to avoid omissions, e. g., ‘all the other members of the body’; such a clause has been labelled by Herren (1987: 28) “safety clause”. Loricae, charms, exorcisms and other formulas such as excommunications all share, in fact, several structural features (on which see Reid 2002). This marries with Kesling’s remark on the “close connection between medical expertise and ecclesiastical practice in this period” (94). The use of Latin, Greek and Hebrew in Wiþ elfsogoþa (93) constitutes a further bridge between Chapter II and Chapter III, which deals with the Lacnunga.

As the author suggests, the sporadic use of Greek, Hebrew, and Old Irish words in the Lacnunga, along with the inclusion of the Hiberno-Latin Lorica of Laidcenn, points towards Hisperic influence on the collection. I am unsure whether the Old English compiler(s) would have had any command of Greek and Hebrew or used them with knowledge of their respective meanings (and I am sceptical that amen, quoted at page 100, can be taken as a proof of knowledge of Hebrew). As recognised by Kesling (121), the corrupt state of such words rather suggests that their usage was performative, not too different from the ‘gibberish’ found in other magico-medical recipes of the period (on which subject see Arthur 2019). A key point of Chapter III is the comparison between a group of Lacnunga charms and the marginalia in Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41. The author argues that the texts in CCCC 41 and the Lacnunga collection share a similar preoccupation towards spiritual and physical protection (107), concluding that “the compilers of the Lacnunga and the marginalia of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 41 had strikingly similar source material on hand” (114). For example, Kesling sees a parallel between the Lacnunga text known as Nine Herbs Charm and the CCCC 41 Journey Charm; the latter has also been shown to echo the structure of a lorica prayer (114; see also Amies 1983).

Chapter IV deals with the Old English Herbarium, focusing on the relationship with its source and especially on the techniques adopted by the Old English translator. Kesling argues that the Old English Herbarium is a generally literal rendition of its Latin counterpart with some deviations – mostly omissions – aimed to render the text more accessible to a vernacular readership. More interesting is the suggestion that the monastic environment may help to explain several omissions in the rendering of the Latin texts, omissions which are related to remedies pertaining to women. Building upon D’Aronco’s studies on the theme (see especially D’Aronco 1994–1995, 2007), Kesling agrees that the Herbarium is a product of the Benedictine reform movement.

Chapter V frames the preceding chapters by discussing how medicine was portrayed in Old English religious literature. The motif of the Christus medicus, which originates in the early Mediterranean Christianity and was especially developed by Augustine, underlies several Old English passages, such as the verses on the heavenly doctor and the comparison between wounds and sins found in the poem Judgement Day II. This chapter also offers an analysis of ideas expressed in works by Ælfric and Wulfstan; Kesling (171–181) shows that the view of læcedom, intended as the product of learned techniques, was fundamentally a positive one, in sharp contrast with superstitious practices labelled as galdor ‘utterance’, which around the time of the Benedictine reform came to indicate charm-like utterances, and drycræft ‘sorcery’. The latter, Kesling notes, is often associated with practices related to women.

If the various connections amongst the different collections (such as those outlined above) had been made more explicit, this would have reinforced the over-arching argument of the literate milieu of Old English medical texts. It is therefore regretful that cross references are referred to as “000–000” (13 n35 and n36, 38 n31, 41 n41, 55 n81, 63 nn28–30, 73 n50, 74 n55, 112 n56, 132 n7, and 182 n91). Several typos can also be found: page 2 note 3 has “Roma Te” for “Roma Tre”; at page 142 a translation is separated from the Latin quotation by a line of text; at page 200 “I codici presalernitano” should be “I codici di medicina del periodo presalernitano”. These are, of course, minor issues when compared to the overall contribution to current scholarship on the subject. Medical Texts in Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture is a valuable work that takes on the daunting task of offering a fresh view on a much-studied field such as that of Old English medicine. Kesling’s discussions on translation techniques and on the view of medicine in religious literature are especially sound and will hopefully stimulate further research in this field.