Byrhtferth's Enchiridion, a bilingual commentary on computus, contains a vivid picture of the secular clergy studying in the classroom at Ramsey, where Byrhtferth was schoolmaster. Like many other reformers, Byrhtferth held a universally low opinion of the abilities-especially intellectual abilities-of the secular clergy. Throughout the text, he claimed the he had to undertake the chore of translating into English for the secular clergy, who were too lazy to learn Latin. These remarks taken at face value suggest that the secular clergy could read only English, while the monks could read Latin as well. Thus the English sections of the Enchiridion were for Byrhtferth's clerical students, while the Latin sections were for Byrhtferth's monastic students, both of which groups studied in his school at Ramsey. A close reading of the text suggests otherwise, however, since some English sections name their audience as monks, and some sections in hermeneutic Latin-the most difficult sections of the work-berate the idleness and poor learning of the secular clergy, while admonishing them to better behavior. If the secular clergy were as idle and undereducated as Byrhtferth repeatedly claimed that they were, then they could not have read these stinging attacks, and thus could not have followed the advice contained therein.
             My paper will examine the connection between the reformers' villianization of the secular clergy and cultivation of hermeneutic Latin, an esoteric and difficult style that has been called the badge of a reformed monk. Sarah Foot has pointed out that prior to the monastic reform, there was not clear distinction between the duties of a monk that of a secular cleric. However, the reformers firmly defined the role of a monk, as a follower of the Rule of St. Benedict, which stipulated that certain portions of the day be set aside for the study of Latin and religious subjects. Extensive education was a lu...