The Omont Fragment was discovered among the private papers of M. Henri Omont, a Conservateur at the National Library in Paris, after his death in 1940 (Pollington, 2000). It is a single leaf about 8 inches x 6 inches. The recto is in Old English, listing therapies concerned primarily with the treatment of pain and swelling in the lower extremities. The remedies are interesting because they can be viewed individually or as a whole to treat a single malady, e.g. if an individual had a wound to the leg which became infected (or even gangrenous) that caused swelling, pain and numbness in the feet and leg up to the groin area. The leaf is dated to the mid-9th century, and orthographical comparison suggests that it is Anglian in origin. The verso has several almost decorative scrawls on it (perhaps the kind of markings one might make to test the amount of ink in the tip of a quill pen), practice alphabets, the beginning of an antiphon used in the dedication and consecration of churches, and what appears to be a 12th century caroline miniscule in Old English ("wutun we gebidegol")
translated as 'let us pray' (Schauman and Cameron, 1977). (1)Until recently Anglo-Saxon medicine was not taken seriously because it was so far removed from contemporary Western medicine. The scholars handling the medical texts, however, were not botanists and not cognizant of the pharmacological properties of the plants and other substances in the recipes (for further discussion see Van Arsdall 2002: chapter 35). Colonial era perceptions of traditional or local healers were and are pervasive. The Anglo-Saxons did not go unscathed. They were thought of as "barbarians," and because of the connotations associated with that image scholars belittled Anglo-Saxon medical texts and the therapies they contained as being "heathen" and "irrational". It was scoffed at quite simply because of the imperialist mind-set: if it wasn't Classical, rational medicine then it wasn't really medicine at all.
Despite sound methods for reconstructing paleoethnomedical practices there are always data that remain speculative and open to interpretation. It is not my intention to delve into the realm of speculation of what medical traditions may have been present in Britain prior to the Anglo-Saxons, and it is not my intention to speculate on how these traditions may have influenced Anglo-Saxon medicine. I present here data that suggests the Anglo-Saxons possessed viable medical knowledge. And, if we place the Omont Fragment therapies in context to the other Old English medical texts, and with what we know of Anglo-Saxon language and culture, the therapies could be the earliest reference to an Anglo-Saxon domestic medical tradition in England. What is perhaps most important is that someone, over a thousand years ago, took the time to document their medical knowledge, which suggests the remedies were significant.
Ethnomedically there are two fundamental questions: are the Omont Fragment remedies representative of an Anglo-Saxon medical tradition? And if so, what kind of medical tradition was it? In applying Arthur Kleinman's theoretical model to the body of Anglo-Saxon medicine and what we know of Anglo-Saxon culture, we may be able to distinguish what he calls the "social arenas within which sickness is experienced and reacted to" (Kleinman 1968: 31-32). For Kleinman, medical systems are cultural systems through which individuals experience reality. This is as much true for the healer as it is for the patient. Perhaps one of the most poignant statements he makes is that through these systems people "articulate illness as a cultural idiom, linking beliefs about disease causation, the experience of symptoms, specific patterns of illness behavior, decisions about treatment alternatives, actual therapeutic practices and evaluations of therapeutic outcomes" (Kleinman 1968: 31-33).
There are three social arenas through which people experience and articulate states of health and medical knowledge: 1) a popular or domestic arena, which comprises family contexts regarding health and sickness, the social network within the community, and popular beliefs about sickness and health, therapies, disease causation; 2) the folk arena, which consists of non-professional, and sometimes professional healing specialists who may be of either secular or sacred groups and 3) the professional arena, consisting of professionalized healing traditions which involves a systematic process of diagnosing illnesses and administering therapies based upon criteria set forth within that tradition - e.g. Western, Ayurvedic, Tibetan or Chinese medicine (Kleinman 1986: 33). I would also support the theory that traditions in professional arenas have formalized means of transmitting knowledge to prospective practitioners that distinguishes them from other arenas. Based on the medical texts we have, Anglo-Saxon medicine would most likely fall within the first or second arenas.
From an anthropological point of view what is most valuable is that Omont Fragment represents a local, Old English, plant pharmacology. The fragment is a document containing Anglo-Saxon medical knowledge, which reveals that the Anlgo-Saxons were aware of the uses of the plants around them. There is also evidence that they used non-native plants to the best of their abilities and incorporated them into their local pharmacopeias. For example, peoper, 'pepper' (Piper nigrum), a plant native to warmer climates of India, Southeast Asia and Indonesia, is a component in one of the Omont Fragment salve recipes to treat aslepnum lic 'paralysis' or probably more accurately, 'numbness.'
What Does an Anglo-Saxon Medical Tradition Look Like?
In general, the Old English medical texts (including the Omont Fragment) contain anatomical and physiological terms are used to describe locations in or on the body where pain or illness is being experienced; disease etiology is not present; the recipes are written in such a way to suggest they were used by individuals who familiar with the medicinal application of plants. In brief, if we are to examine the corpus of Anglo-Saxon medicine, there are three primary characteristics that emerge: 1) Anglo-Saxon medicine alleviates specific symptoms when they manifest, and so the remedies are rarely preventative 2) pathogens are generally absent and 3) metaphysical means to heal illness either through the recitation of prayers, or the use of rituals and symbols, are integrated into the medical texts. The reason why the Omont Fragment, the Lacnunga, Bald's Leechbook and the Herbarium list a series of maladies and their corresponding treatment is because at the basis of Anglo-Saxon medicine was the alleviation of symptoms rather than germ theory. The maladies mentioned in the fragment do not reference specific disease states but rather lists symptoms and in general where they occur:
yflum 7 miclum footsuilun 'sever and great swelling of the foot,'
ðehwærce 'thigh ache,'
foet oððo cnio suellen 'swelling of the feet or shanks,'
rotigendum dolge 'rotting wound,'
foet adle 'foot disease,'
lendwærce 'loin ache,'
aslepnum lic 'paralyzed body' (or 'numbness'?).
Within the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the closest reference to a pathogenic agent are wyrms – literally 'worms' (hook worms, intestinal worms, etc.) and less tangible wyrms such as the ones that were thought to cause cavities or pain in people's teeth. Though supernatural causative agents are not mentioned in the Omont Fragment, they are present in the Old English medical texts and it should be noted that what we may refer to as being supernatural (gescoten, fleogendum attre, ælf and dweorh adles) all have specific symptoms, and medicines and procedures to counteract the illnesses they cause which suggests a rationale behind them.
Although it is well established that Hippocratic medical practitioners were extant in England during the Anglo-Saxon period, the remedies in the Omont Fragment are not Hippocratic remedies. Hippocratic remedies included eating foods with certain types of characteristics to balance the body's humors in relation to the climate (humoral pathology is the idea that an internal balance of plegma, haema, chole and melan cholea determined and could explain one's state of health and demeanor). There is no reference to humors in the Omont Fragment nor in the Lacnunga or Bald's. I presume that if the Omont Fragment remedies were representative of Hippocratic medicine there would be more Latin or Greek names to designate disease states (the Lacnunga has two Latin/Greek disease names). The remedies possess, rather, many characteristics (such as those listed above) similar to remedies maintained in oral traditions found in many contemporary cultures.
The Omont Fragment Plants
Another characteristic of traditions within domestic medical arenas is the predominant use of vernacular names for plants. Except for perhaps betonica there is no use of Latin or Greek nomials for the plants listed (or other substances for that matter) in the Omont Fragment.
Names of plants are sometimes quite telling. Plant names generally refer to a physiological (the phytochemicals they produce and how we experience them) or morphological (such as the size, color, or placement of a leaf) characteristic, or how the plant is and isn't utilized (a "weed" might only be useful as fodder). For instance a single plant that has several names sometimes connotes multiple uses. A plant that has only one name, which may refer to its taxa or a part of the plant, may only have a single use to human beings (for more information about ethnobiological classification, see Berlin, Brent. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press).
I have made an attempt here to match the OE names with their Latin binomials and Modern English translations. The difficulty lies in attempting to match the Modern English to the Old English names (which are not consistent between the translations of the medical texts) with their Latin binomials when the Old English vernaculars are no longer or rarely used.
| Old English Name | Translation | Modern English | Plant Family | Genus/Species |
| læssan mucgwyrte moran | 'lesser-mugwort root' | Tarragon? Southernwood? | Asteraceae | Artemisia abrotanum A. dranunculus? |
| neodowarde beolonan | 'lower part of henbane' | Henbane | Solanaceae | Hyoscyamus niger |
| eolectran | 'lupin' | Lupin | Fabaceae | Lupinus albus |
| hwætemeolwe | 'wheat meal' | Wheat | Poaceae | Tricitum sp.? |
| acrinde, aac | 'oak bark' 'oak' | English Oak | Fagaceae | Quercus robur? |
| slahðorn, slahðornes wyrtruman rinde innewarde | 'sloethorn' 'inner bark of sloethorn root' | Blackthorn/Sloe | Rosaceae | Prunus spinosa |
| eofordrotan | 'carline thistle' | Carline thistle | Astereceae | Carlina vulgaris |
| walwyrt | 'wallwort' | European Elderberry | Adoxaceae | Sambucus nigra? |
| eapul* | 'apple' | Apple | Rosaceae | Malus sp.? |
| dorn** | 'thorn' | ? | ? | ? |
| aesc | 'ash' | Ash | Oleaceae | Fraxinus ornus? |
| cuiicbean | 'quickbeam' | Rowan/Quicken | Rosaceae | Sorbus aucuparia |
| æscðrote | 'vervain' | Vervain | Verbenaceae | Verbena officinalis |
| eolone | 'elcampane' | Elecampane | Astereceae | Inula helenium |
| biscopwyrt | 'bishopwort' | Bishopswort | Lamiaceae | Betonica officinalis |
| ifign | 'ivy' | English Ivy | Araliaceae | Hedera helix |
| betonica | 'betony' | Wood betony | Lamiaceae | Stachys officinalis |
| ribbe | 'ribwort' | Common Plantain | Plantaginaceae | Plantago major? |
| rædic | 'radish' | Common Radish | Brassicaceae | Raphanus sativus |
| readan netlan | 'red nettle' | Red nettle | Lamiaceae | Lamium purpureum |
| hræfnesfot | 'ravensfoot' | Ravensfoot sedge | Cyperaceae | Carex crus-corvi |
| seecg*** | 'sedge' | Sedge | Cyperaceae | Cyperus sp. |
| peopor | 'pepper' | Black Pepper | Piperaceae | Piper nigrum |
| hwitcudu | 'mastic' | Mastic/Gum mastic | Anacardiaceae | Pistacia lentiscus |
| cost | 'costmary' | Costmary | Asteraceae | Chrysanthemum balsamita |
| scipteorwe | 'pitch' | Scotch Pine | Pinaceae | Pinus sylvestris? |
*Schauman and Cameron have translated eapul and dorn as separate words. It may be that the words should have been conveyed as eapulthorn, which could be translated to mean Datura stranomium ('thornapple'). Pharmacologically this seems more consistent with the ingredients in the other remedies. Eapul also means 'fruit', as in any kind of fruit not just of the Malus genus. I find it difficult to believe that a general term referring to a plant part, would be listed as an ingredient, especially when there's sufficient evidence to show that the Anglo-Saxons had precise designations for different fruit types.
**In general, plants in the Cyperaceae, Poaceae and Juncaceae families are often very difficult to distinguish from each other because of sometimes subtle morphological characteristics. Within local ethnotaxonomic systems, plants within these families are sometimes just called 'grasses'. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons made distinctions between these families suggests that they were at least somewhat aware of these characteristics. It's unfortunate that we do not have a more specific name. It could be that the treatment listing seecg as an ingredient didn't require a specific sedge species per se and that it was the therapy itself that was beneficial.
***Phytochemicals often have different properties when they are isolated. A double blind study would be required to validate the treatments.
Conclusion
Though I am unable to list all of the phytochemical properties of the plants here, this passage will give you an idea of the possible viability of and Omont Fragment remedy:
"Gif foet oððo sconacan oððo cnio suellen, genim neodowarde beolonan oððo eolectran gecnua suiðe wið mæng wið [s]maelum hwæte meolwe; gecneed to dage clæn on ðæt asuoln limm wrid on næhterne on mærne bið se suile geðui[-] nen sio duæning dæg ðaeh ðe hio on neate sie"
"'If the feet or shanks should swell, take the lower part of henbane or lupin. Pound a great deal. Mix with wheatmeal; knead to dough. Smear on the swollen limb. Wrap for a night. In the morning the swelling will be reduced. The reduction avails even though it is in an animal'" (translation by Schauman and Cameron, 1977).
Based on assays performed on many of the plants listed above there is strong indication that the Omont fragment remedies are biologically active in the ways the Anglo-Saxons applied them. Pharmacologically henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) contains atropine, hyoscyamine, rutin and scopolamine – phytochemicals which have analgesic, antibiotic, anti-inflammatory and sedative properties respectively. And lupin (Lupinus albus), which contains lupeol (among other chemicals) has been shown to have anti-inflammatory and anti-edemic properties (http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/).
The Omont Fragment is one small leaf of text but its importance as a contribution to Anglo-Saxon domestic medicine is tremendous. Our lesson here is that before dismissing domestic medical treatments, from any medical tradition, we should realize that prior to pharmaceutical companies and the technology to synthesize chemicals, we had to rely on plants to obtain our drugs (and still do in many cases). Respecting local medical knowledge and setting aside our biases will enable us to appreciate the wisdom of the ancients.
Footnotes:
1. For complete translations of the fragment see Pollington, 2000, or Schauman and Cameron, 1977. [Back]
References
Omont Fragment, H. No. 31a. Bibliotheque Generale et des Sciences Humains. College Erasme. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Database. November, 2003. http://www.ars-grin.gov/duke/
Kleinman, Arthur. 1993. "Concepts and a Model for the Comparison of Medical Systems as Cultural Systems" in Concepts of Health, Illness and Disease, a Comparative Perspective. C. Currer and M. Stacey, ed. Oxford: Berg Publishers Limited.
Nutton, Vivian. 1998. "Healers in the Medical Marketplace: towards a social history of Graeco-Roman medicine" in Medicine in Society: Historical Essays. Andrew Wear, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, Kathrine. 1998. "Medicine and Society in Medieval Europe, 500-1500" in Medicine in Society: Historical Essays. Andrew Wear, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pettit, Edward, ed. 2001. Anglo-Saxon Remedies, Charms, and Prayers from British Library MS Harley 585: The Lacnunga. Vol. 1. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Pollington, Steven. 2000. Leechcraft: Early English Charms, Plantlore and Healing. Norfolk, UK: Anglo-Saxon Books.
Schauman, Bella and Angus Cameron. 1977. "A Newly Found Leaf of Old Enlgish from Louvain." Anglia:Zeitschrigt Fur Englishe Philologie. Vol. 3-4: 289-312.
Van Arsdall, Anne. 2002. Medieval Herbal Remedies: The Old English Herbarium and Anglo-Saxon Medicine. New York: Routledge.
Copyright © 2003 Justin D. Bullard
© 2004-2007 Northvegr.
Most of the material on this site is in the public domain. However, many people have worked very hard to bring these texts to you so if you do use the work, we would appreciate it if you could give credit to both the Northvegr site and to the individuals who worked to bring you these texts. A small number of texts are copyrighted and cannot be used without the author's permission. Any text that is copyrighted will have a clear notation of such on the main index page for that text. Inquiries can be sent to info@northvegr.org. Northvegr™ and the Northvegr symbol are trademarks and service marks of the Northvegr Foundation.
|