The Role of the Miles Christi in Four Old English Saints' Lives

Soldiering for Christ:

The Role of the Miles Christi in Four Old English Saints’ Lives

Glenn Cahilly-Bretzin

Lincoln College

A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

University of Oxford

March 2020

Geheraðnu,menþaleofstan,hwæthersegðonþysumbocumbeþamhalgan.1

Formygrandfather

Dr.GlennM.Cahilly

1OpeningtotheLifeofPantaleoninLondon,BritishLibrary,CottonVitelliusD.xvii.

Contents

ListofTables

Abstract

Acknowledgements

ShortTitlesandAbbreviations

AnEditorialNote

One:IdeasofSoldieringforChristandSourceStudyinAnglo-SaxonEngland

Two:OriginsoftheMilesChristi,ClericalViolence,andtheTheoryofJustWar

Three:ThePeacefulSoldier:TheAnonymousMartinmas-Homily

Four:TheSpiritualSoldier:TheNarrativesofGuthlacofCrowland

Five:TheHeroicSoldier:TheActsofAndrewamongtheAnthropophagi

Six:TheWorldlySoldierofChrist:TheOldEnglishLifeofEustace

Seven:Conclusions:AMosaicofPerspectives

Appendix:EditionsoftheLivesofSaintEustace

AnEditionoftheVitaetpassioEustachiieteiussociorum

AnEditionoftheOldEnglishLifeofEustace

Bibliography

ListofTables

TableI:EpisodesfromtheVitaS.Martini 50

TableII:EpisodesfromSulpicius’sEpistulae 52

TableIII:LatinPhrasesintheMartinmas-Homily 55

Abstract

Thisdissertationstudiesthediverseapproachesto‘soldieringforChrist’in

Anglo-Saxonhagiographicalnarrativesofwarrior-saints.Theinvestigation

selectsagroupoffoursaints—MartinofTours,GuthlacofCrowland,the

ApostleAndrew,andPlacidas–Eustace—ascasestudiesofnon-royalwarrior-

saintswhoarecelebratedinanonymousOldEnglishproseandpoeticLivesthat

engageddiverseaudiences.Medievalhagiographersassociatedeachofthese

saintswithliteralaswellasspiritualwarfareandappeartohaveusedthesaint’s

associationwithwarriorculturetodefineChristianity’srelationshiptoamartial

ethos.TheOldEnglishnarrativesconcerningthesefoursaintsareanalysedby

comparingthevernaculartextstotheirsourcesandintertextualparallelswhile

alsoplacingthecompositions,transmissions,andaudiencesoftheOldEnglish

accountsintheirhistoricalcontexts.Indoingso,theanalysesfindthattherewas

arangeofperspectivessurroundingChristianwarriorculturewhichwere

producedandcopiedintandem,frompeacefulandnonviolentportrayalsinthe

ninth-centuryMartinmas-homilyandvariousAnglo-SaxonnarrativesonGuthlac,

totheapparentadvocacyofChristianviolenceforconvertingorsubduingpagans

reflectedintheninth-centurypoemAndreas,thetenth-centuryproseLifeof

Andrew,andthelatetenth-orearlyeleventh-centuryLifeofEustace.Texts

presentingconflictingattitudestowardsChristianwarriorcultureare

transmittedinsimilarcontextsandtimeperiods,sometimeswithinthesame

manuscript,suggestingthatnocohesiveideologyconcerningmilitesChristi

developedthroughouttheAnglo-Saxonperiod.Moreover,theworksonMartin,

Guthlac,Andrew,andEustaceillustratethatOldEnglishdepictionsofspiritual

warfarewereheavilyindebtedtomodelsinheritedfromScriptureandearly

Christiantexts,indicatingthatChristianmilitancywasnottheresultofa

‘Germanisation’ofthefaith.RatherthisdissertationarguesthatAnglo-Saxon

hagiographerswereindividuallyrespondingtotheirhistoricalcontext,source

material,andintendedaudiencestodefinewhatitmeanttosoldierforChrist.

Acknowledgements

Standinginthesteamofthesugarhouseboilingmaplesap,Ihavecontinuallybeenaskedwhenthefollowingresearchwillbesubmittedandthesyrupconsumedon‘thedoctor’sorders’.Likethemapleharvestwhichdependsonawholecommunitytoturnthewaterysapintosomethingfullbodied,Iamonlyabletoanswerthosesugarhouseinquisitionsaffirmativelybecauseofthesupportthatinnumerablesaintlypeoplehavegivenme.FirstthanksgoestoProfessorAndyOrchard,whoseinspiration,mentorship,andsupervisionoveradecadeandthroughthreedegreeshavesteeredmetowardsmorerewardingresearchthanIwouldhavethoughtmyselfcapable.Andy’sguidancehasbeenmadeallthericherbyDr.FrancisLeneghan,Dr.HattieSoper,Dr.DanielThomas,andtherestofthe‘BeerandBeowulf’scholarswhoseadviceandsuggestionshaveuncoveredinsightfulpathsofinvestigationandshonelightintothedarkrecessesofOldEnglishLiterature.IamfurthergratefultoProfessorJaneRobertsforheradviceandforgivingmeadvanceaccesstoGuthlac:Crowland’sSaint.MysincerethanksarelikewiseowedtothefellowsofLincolnCollege,namelyProfessorHenryWoudhuysen,ProfessorPeterMcCullough,Dr.DanielMcCann,andDr.TimothyMichael,fortheirencouragementandtutelageduringmyfirstforaysintoteaching. TheacademicsupportthesescholarsprovidedmewouldhavebornelittleifitwerenotfortheamazingcommunitiesandpeoplewhohavemadeOxfordahome.ThestudentsandstaffofLincolnCollegegavemethebestofenviromentstopursuemyresearch.Ihavebeengracedwithacompanyoffriendsandcomradeswhosesmiles,laughter,stabilisinghands,andsilencekeptmymoralehighthroughthecompletionofthisproject.Ioweadeepgratitudetoyouall.Likewise,thiswholeendeavourwouldneverhavebeenachievablewithoutmyfamily—myparentsMonicaandRandallaswellasmysiblingsRandyandMary,whocontinuetoliftmetowardgreaterheightsandshowmetheimmenserangeofpossibility.IamalsoimmenselygratefultomypartnerAisling,whostoodbymefromstarttofinish,soundingideas,readingendlessdraftsofmydrivel,pushingmetopursueopportunitiesandensuringthatIstayedfocused.

Withoutyouall,Iwouldprobablystillbestandinginthewispsofsteaminsteadofbottlingtheflowingnectaratitsheart.

ShortTitlesandAbbreviations

Ælf.CHom.I Ælfric'sCatholicHomilies,Firstseries

Ed.Clemoes,1997.Citedbypagenumber:linenumber.

Ald.uirg(carmen) Aldhelm,DeuirginitateIICarmenEd.Ehwald1919,326–471.Citedbypage:linenumber.

Ald.uirg(prosa) Aldhelm,DeuirginitateEd.Ehwald1919,226–323.Citedbypage:linenumber.

ASC TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:aCollaborativeedition,in17volumesEd.Dumville,Keynesetal.,1983–2004.CitedbyChronicle,year(editor,pagenumber).

ASE Anglo-SaxonEngland

ASPR TheAnglo-SaxonPoeticRecords,in6volumes.Ed.KrappandDobbie,1931–1942.

BHL BibliothecaHagiographicaLatinaEd.Bollandists,1898–1901.Citedbyentrynumber:columnnumber.

BL London,BritishLibrary

CCCC Cambridge,CorpusChristiCollegeLibrary

CCSL CorpusChristianorumSeriesLatina

Collationes Cassianiopera:CollationesXXIIII,CSEL13Ed.Petschenig,1886.CitedbyCollationumber:sectionnumber.

ContaFaustum SanctiAureliAugustini:ContraFaustumEd.Zycha,1891.Citedbybook:chapternumber.

CouncilsandSynods CouncilsandSynods,withotherDocuments:volumeIEd.Whitelock,1981.Citedbypagenumber.

CSEL CorpusscriptorumecclesiasticorumLatinorum

DeciuitateDei S.AureliiAugustiniepiscopiDecivitateDei,libriXXIIEd.Dombart,1981.Citedbybook:chapternumber.

Deinsitutis Cassianiopera:Deinstitutiscoenobiorum,CSEL17Ed.Petschenig,1888.Citedbybook:chapternumber.

DMLBS TheDictionaryofMedievalLatinfromBritishSourcesEd.Latham,Howlett,Ashdowneetal.,2015.

DOE TheDictionaryofOldEnglish:AtoIonlineEd.Cameron,Healeyetal.,2019.

DOECorpus TheDictionaryofOldEnglishonlineCorpusEd.Cameron,Healeyetal.,2019.

Douay–RheimsOnlineBiblehttp://www.drbo.org/

ELN EnglishLanguageNotes

Hexameron HexameronofStBasilEd.Norman,1849.Citedbypagenumber.

HE Bede,HistoriaecclesiasticaEd.ColgraveandMynors,1969.Citedbybook:chapternumber.

Wulf.Hom. TheHomiliesofWulfstanEd.Bethurum,1957.Citedbypage:linenumber.

Laws LawsoftheKingsofEngland,Ed.Robertson,1925.Citedbypagenumber.

LS OldEnglishLivesofSaintsEd.ClaytonandMullins,2019.Citedbyvolume:pagenumber.

MGH MonumentaGermaniaeHistorica

NM NeuphilologischeMitteilungen

OEMart. TheOldEnglishMartyrologyEd.Rauer,2013.Citedbypagenumber.

PG PatrologiaGraeciaCursusCompletus,in161volumes

Ed.Migne,1857–1866.Citedbyvolume:column[col.]number.

PL PatrologiaLatinaeCursusCompletus,in221volumesEd.Migne,1844–1865.Citedbyvolume:column[col.]number.

Regula LaRègledeSaintBenoît,volumesIandIIEd.Neuville,1972.Citedbyvolume:pagenumber.

Throughoutthedissertation,OldEnglishpoemsarecitedbytheline-numbersprovidedwithinthefollowingeditions.Andreas Andreas:AnEdition

Ed.NorthandBintley,2016.

TheBattleofMaldon TheBattleofMaldonEd.Scragg,1981.

Beowulf Klaeber'sBeowulf:FourthEditionEd.Fulk,Bjork,andNiles,2008.

ChristI–III;ExeterBookRiddles;Juliana;Seafarer;Vainglory;Wanderer

TheExeterBook,ASPR3Ed.KrappandDobbie,1936.

ChristandSatan;GenesisAandB

TheJuniusManuscript,ASPR1Ed.Krapp,1931.

DreamoftheRood;Elene;FatesoftheApostles

TheVercelliBook,ASPR2Ed.Krapp,1932.

GuthlacAandB TheGuthlacPoemsoftheExeterBookEd.Roberts,1979.

AnEditorialNote

ThetranslationsoftheLatinandOldEnglishquotationsthroughoutthe

dissertationaremyownunlessstatedotherwise.Translationsofpassagesfrom

theVulgateBiblearesuppliedfromtheDouay–RheimsOnlineBible.Ihave

silentlyremovedaccentsandotherdiacriticsfromtheLatinandOldEnglish

quotationsthroughouttheworkandhavehyphenatedcompoundnounsand

adjectiveswherethemeaningoftheseparateconstituentsisevident.Latin

orthographyhasbeenstandarisedtoleveliforj,minisculeuforv,andmajuscule

VforUunlessitprecedesavowel,whiletheligatureæande-caudata[ę]have

beenstandardisedtoae.

ChapterOne

TheParadoxofSoldieringforChristinAnglo-SaxonEngland

LaborasicutbonusmilesChristiIesu.‘LabourasagoodsoldierofChristJesus.’

IITimothy2:3Theanalogousnatureofgoodsoldieringandthepursuitofspiritualperfection

inspiredscripturalandpatristicwriterstousemilitarylanguagetoportrayideal

Christiandevotion,andinsodoing,integratewarriorcultureintoChristianity.

Theideaofmetaphoricallyfightingtoabstainfromsinandremaindevotedto

GodisfirmlyestablishedinScripture.Job7:1,forinstance,saysthat‘thelifeof

manuponearthisawarfare,andhisdaysarelikethedaysofahireling’(militia

estuitahominissuperterram,etsicutdiesmercenariidieseius).1Suchmartial

characterisationsofthepiouslifecontinueintotheNewTestamentthroughthe

PaulineEpistles.InITimothy1:18,PaulbidsTimothytoheedScripture‘that

thouwarinthemagoodwarfare’(utmilitesinillisbonammilitiam);inITimothy

6:12,Timothyiscalledto‘fightthegoodfightoffaith’(certabonumcertamen

fidei);inPhilippians2:25,PaulcallsEpaphroditus‘myfellowsoldier’

(commilitonemmeum),whichisrepeatedinPhilemon1:2,whenPaulrefersto

Archippusas‘ourfellowsoldier’(commilitoninostro).Pauldescribeshimselfasa

‘soldierofChrist’(milesChristi)inIITimothy4:7–8,whenhecharacteriseshis

devotionas:

Bonumcertamencertaui,cursumconsummaui,fidemseruaui.Inreliquorepositaestmihicoronaiustitiae,quamreddetmihiDominusinilladie,iustusiudex:nonsolumautemmihi,sedetiis,quidiliguntaduentumeius.‘Ihavefoughtagoodfight,Ihavefinishedmycourse,Ihavekeptthefaith.Astotherest,thereislaidupformeacrownofjustice,whichtheLordthejustjudgewillrendertomeinthatday:andnotonlytome,buttothemalsothatlovehiscoming.’

1ThebiblicaloriginsoftheconceptofspiritualwarfarearediscussedinZachariasThundyil,‘AStudyoftheAnglo-SaxonConceptoftheCovenantanditsSourceswithSpecialReferencetoAnglo-SaxonLawsandtheOldEnglishPoems:TheBattleofMaldonandGuthlac’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofNotreDame,1969),pp.266–72;KatherineSmith,WarandtheMakingofMedievalMonasticCulture(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2011),pp.9–28.

Pauldepictslifeonearthasabattle,afterwhich,iffoughtwell,oneattains

salvation.Inthisbattle,themilitesChristidonthe‘armouroffaith’describedin

Ephesians6:11–17:2

InduiteuosarmaturamDei,utpossitisstareaduersusinsidiasdiaboli,quoniamnonestnobiscolluctatioaduersuscarnemetsanguinem,sedaduersusprincipesetpotestates,aduersusmundirectorestenebrarumharum,contraspiritualianequitiaeincaelestibus.ProptereaaccipitearmaturamDei,utpossitisresistereindiemalo,etinomnibusperfectistare.Stateergosuccinctilumbosvestrosinveritate,etindutiloricamiustitiae,etcalceatipedesinpraeparationeEuangeliipacis.Inomnibussumentesscutumfidei,inquopossitisomniatelanequissimiigneaextinguere,etgaleamsalutisassumite,etgladiumspiritusquodestuerbumDei.‘PutyouonthearmourofGod,thatyoumaybeabletostandagainstthedeceitsofthedevil.Forourwrestlingisnotagainstfleshandblood;butagainstprincipalitiesandpower,againsttherulersoftheworldofthisdarkness,againstthespiritsofwickednessinthehighplaces.ThereforetakeuntoyouthearmourofGod,thatyoumaybeabletoresistintheevilday,andtostandinallthingsperfect.Standtherefore,havingyourloinsgirtaboutwithtruth,andhavingonthebreastplateofjustice,andyourfeetshodwiththepreparationofthegospelofpeace.Inallthingstakingtheshieldoffaith,wherewithyoumaybeabletoextinguishallthefierydartsofthemostwickedone.Andtakeuntoyouthehelmetofsalvation,andtheswordoftheSpirit(whichisthewordofGod).’

ThisspiritualarmourprotectsthemilesChristiagainstdemonictemptationand

sin,whichareconceivedas‘arrows’followingtheimageryofthePsalms—as

foundinPsalm11:2,whichsaysthedartsofsinpiercetheheartsofthefaithful

todrivethemawayfrompiousliving.Subsequentwritersbuiltuponthis

imageryandcontinuedtocomparedevotionwithcombat.Theconceptof

spiritualrewardbeingthefruitsofvictoryagainsttemptationappearsinthe

fourthcenturythroughAugustineofHippo’sassertioninDeagonechristiano

(‘OntheChristianStruggle’)that‘thecrownofvictoryisnotpromisedsaveto

thosewhobattle’(coronauictoriaenonpromittiturnisicertantibus),3which

seemstoadaptRevelations2:10,inwhichthosewhoenduretribulationreceive

‘thecrownoflife’(coronamuitae).Thisinvokestheideathatspiritualcoronae

2JohnHermannprovidesafullanalysisofspiritualarmsin‘SomeVarietiesofPsychomachiainOldEnglishI’,TheAmericanBenedictineReview34:1(1983),74–76,and‘SomeVarietiesofPsychomachiainOldEnglishII’,TheAmericanBenedictineReview34:2(1983),209–18.3JosephZycha,ed.,SanctiAureliAugustini,CSEL25(Vienna:F.Tempsky,1891),p.101.

uictoriaecouldonlybeachievedthroughspiritualcombatreminiscentof

physicalbattle.SoprevalentisthisconceptionthatBoltonnotesthat‘spiritual

combatisnotonlyforapostles,ascetics,andmartyrs;itisthegeneralcondition

ofChristianlife.’4

Portrayalsofpsychologicalconflictdevelopedaformulaiclexical

tradition,referringtothosestrivingforthehighestlevelsofdevotionas‘soldiers

ofChrist’.Militarylanguage,especiallytheLatintermsmiles/militare(‘soldier’/

‘tosoldier’)andpugnare(‘tofight’),andtheOldEnglishtermscempa/campian

(‘fighter’/‘tofight’)andgewinn(‘battle’),wereappropriatedtorefertothe

pursuitofreligiousperfection.5Magennisfurtherarguesthattheideaoffighting

becamesynonymouswithservice,andthatthephrasemilesChristiwasequitable

withseruusChristi/þeowCristes(‘servantofChrist’).6Thisequationoffighting

andserviceisapparentinworksonmonasticlifesuchasthesixth-century

RegulaBenedicti,whichusetheterms‘servant’or‘soldierofChrist’

interchangeablytocharacterisedisciplineddevotionremovedfromsocietyand

tojustifythebenefitsmonksprovideforthewiderfaithfulcommunity.However,

theconceptofspiritualwarfareissimultaneouslyemployedtodescribesecular

idealsofworshipaswell,suchthatthemetaphorofsoldieringforChristapplies

equallytoanyonewhoaspirestospiritualperfection.7Thisisparticularly

evidentintheLivesofsaints.

Hagiographicaltextsofferarangeofperspectivesonadmirablebehaviour

forthesanctified.AsDelehayeidentifies,ahagiographical‘documentshouldbe

ofareligiousnatureandshouldaimatedification’sohumansmightattainplaces

inheaven.8Eachsaint,despitebeingtypologicallylinkedtoeveryothersaintas

4W.F.Bolton,‘TheBackgroundandMeaningofGuthlac’,JEGP61:3(1962),597–98.5JoyceHill,‘TheSoldierofChristinOldEnglishProseandPoetry’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish12(1981),59–69;JoyceHill,‘OntheSemanticsofOldEnglishCempaandCampian’,Neophilologus67(1983),273–76;EugèneManning,‘LeSignificationde‘militare-militia-miles’danslaRègledeSantBenoit’,RevueBénédictine72(1962),135–38;StephenMorris,‘OECempainCynewulf’sJulianaandtheFigureoftheMilesChristi’,ELN17:2(1979),81–84.6HughMagennis,‘GodesÞeowandRelatedExpressionsinOldEnglish:ContextsandUsesofaTraditionalLiteraryFigure’,Anglia116(1998),139–70.7Smith,War,pp.71–111.8HippolyteDelehaye,TheLegendsoftheSaints,trans.DonaldAttwater(Dublin:FourCourtsPress,1998),p.2.Delehaye’sworkprovidesausefulintroductiontohagiographyanditscomposition,whileMichaelLapidgeoffersanoverviewoftheAnglo-Saxonapproachestohagiographyin‘Tenth-CenturyAnglo-LatinVerseHagiography’,MittellateinischesJahrbuch24(1988),249–60;and‘TheSaintlyLifeinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inTheCambridgeCompanionto

wellastoChrist,9illustratesadistinctwaytopursuesalvationandreflectsthe

perspectiveoftheindividualhagiographer,influencedbyhisorherhistorical

context.Basedonthelargenumberofextantmanuscriptscontaininglegendsof

saintsandtherangeofnarrativetraditions,itisclearthatsaints’Liveswerevery

popular.10Thosesaints’Livesthatusethelanguageandimageryof‘soldieringfor

Christ’likewisepresentvaryingviewsonhowwarriorculturerelatesto

Christianity.Innoplaceisthistensionbetweenwarriorcultureandreligious

devotionexploredmorethantheaccountsofwarrior-saints(thosewhoserved

inthemilitaryduringtheirlivesorwereassociatedwiththemilitarybytheir

hagiographers).

StoriesofsuchsaintsappearthroughouttheAnglo-Saxonliterary

traditioninAnglo-Latinandvernacularworksofproseandpoetry.Fromthe

anonymousVitaS.Cuthbertiintheseventhcentury,totheLifeofKingOswald

embeddedintheHEandFelix’sVitaS.Guthlaciintheeighthcentury;from

Cynewulf’seighth-orninth-centurypoemElene,11toÆlfricofEynsham’sOld

EnglishaccountsoftheFortyMartyrsofSebaste,andStMauricewiththeTheban

Legionatthebeginningoftheeleventhcentury,Anglo-Saxonaccountsof

warrior-saintsappearindiversecollectionsofhomilies,poems,chronicles,and

hagiographies.ThemanuscriptsthatpreserveLivesofwarrior-saintsinEngland

reflecttheinfluenceofhagiographiesfromthecontinent—particularly

CarolingiancollectionsofmaterialthatmadetheirwaytoEnglandduringthe

OldEnglishLiterature,secondedition,ed.MalcolmGoddenandMichaelLapidge(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity,2013),pp.251–72.9Formoreinformationonthetypologicalandfigurativenatureofhagiography,seetheexpositiononsaintsbeingmembersofthesamebodyintheanonymousVitaS.Gregorii,BertramColgrave,ed.TheEarliestLifeofGregorytheGreat(Lawrence:UniversityofKansasPress,1968),p.130.SeetooSarahDowney,‘IntertextualityintheLivesofStGuthlac’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofToronto,2004),pp.20–25;JamesEarl,‘TypologyandIconographicStyleinEarlyMedievalHagiography’,StudiesintheLiteraryImagination8:1(1975),15–46;ThomasD.Hill,‘ImagoDei:Genre,Symbolism,andAnglo-SaxonHagiography’,inHolyMenandHolyWomen,ed.PaulE.Szarmach(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1996),pp.35–50;PeterJackson,‘Ælfricandthe‘VitaPatrum’inCatholicHomilyI.36’,inEssaysonAnglo-SaxonandRelatedThemes,ed.JaneRobertsandJanetNelson(London:King’sCollegeLondon,2000),pp.259–72.10Delehaye,Legends,pp.16–39.11RobertFulk,AHistoryofOldEnglishMeter(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1992),pp.60–65and351–68,and‘Cynewulf:Canon,Dialect,andDate’,inTheCynewulfReader,ed.RobertE.Bjork(London:Routledge,2001),pp.15–18,datesCynewulfbetween750–850,preferringtoplacehispoemsintheninthcentury.Yetthisopinionisnotuniversallyaccepted.PatrickConner,‘OnDatingCynewulf’,inBjork(2001),pp.46–47,forexample,placesCynewulfinthetenthcentury.

ninthandtenthcenturies.12Collectionsliketheeighth-centuryhomiliaryofPaul

theDeaconandtheninth-centuryCotton–CorpusLegendary—onwhichmany

ofÆlfric’sworksinthelatetenthcenturyseemtohavebeenbased13—aswell

astheninth-centuryExpositiolibricomitisofSmaragdusandthehomiliaryof

HaymoofAuxerredisseminatedknowledgeofmilitesChristiinEngland.14These

compilationsprovidedAnglo-Saxonwriterswitharangeofsourcesthatwere

suitableforprivatereading,conversionintosermons,andvernacular

translation.JacksonandLapidgearguethattheCotton–CorpusLegendary,in

particular,representsthebodyofhagiographicalmaterialthatformedthebasis

fortheAnglo-SaxonSanctorale.15

TheOldEnglishhomiliaries,legendariesorsundryLivesofmilitesChristi

thatwerecomposedfromtheeighthtotheeleventhcenturieswerelikelyaimed

atmultipleaudiences,bothlayandclerical.16Hewishhasshownthatdifferent

12NancyThompsondiscussesCarolingianinfluencesontheAnglo-Saxonhomiliariesin‘TheCarolingianDeFestiuitatibusandtheBlicklingBook’,inTheOldEnglishHomily,ed.AaronJ.Kleist(Turnhout:Brepols,2007),pp.97–119;andin‘HitSegðonHalgumBocum:TheLogicofCompositeOldEnglishHomilies’,PhilologicalQuarterly81:4(2002),388–89.13MalcolmGodden,‘Ælfric’sLibrary’,inTheCambridgeHistoryoftheBookinBritain,ed.RichardGameson(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012),I:681–84;ThomasN.Hall,‘TheDevelopmentoftheCommonofSaintsintheEarlyEnglishVersionsofPaultheDeacon’sHomiliary’,inAnglo-SaxonBooksandtheReaders,ed.ThomasN.HallandDonaldScragg(Kalamazoo:MedievalInstitutePublications,2008),pp.35–36;JoyceHill,‘TheBenedictineReformandBeyond’,inACompaniontoAnglo-SaxonLiterature,ed.PhillipPulsianoandElaineTreharne(Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,2001),p.158;JoyceHill,‘MappingtheAnglo-SaxonIntellectualLandscape:TheRisksandRewardsofSource–Study’,inAspectsofAnglo-SaxonandMedievalEngland,ed.MichikoOgura(FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,2014),pp.53–58;MichaelLapidge,‘Ælfric’sSanctorale’,inSzarmach(1996),p.123;CyrilSmetana,‘ÆlfricandtheEarlyMedievalHomiliary’,Traditio15(1959),164and180–81;PatrickZettel,‘Ælfric’sHagiographicSourcesandtheLatinLegendaryPreservedinB.L.MSCottonNeroEi+CCCCMS9andOtherManuscripts’,DPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,1979);andPatrickZettel,‘Saints'LivesinOldEnglish:LatinManuscriptsandVernacularAccountsÆlfric’,Peritia1(1982),17–37.14JoyceHill,‘ÆlfricandSmaragdus’,ASE21(1992),203–37.15MichaelLapidgeandPeterJackson,‘TheContentsoftheCotton–CorpusLegendary’,inSzarmach(1996),pp.131–46.16MarciaDalbey,‘ThemesandTechniquesintheBlicklingLentenHomilies’,inTheOldEnglishHomilyanditsBackground,ed.PaulE.SzarmachandBernardF.Huppé(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1978),p.237;MiltonMcC.Gatch,‘TheUnknowableAudienceoftheBlicklingHomilies’,ASE18(1989),105,108and114–15;HelenGittos,‘TheAudienceforOldEnglishTexts:Ælfric,RhetoricandtheEdificationoftheSimple’,ASE43(2014),231–66;MalcolmGodden,‘Ælfric’sSaints’LivesandtheProblemofMiracles’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish16(1985),93–94;MechthildGretsch,‘WinchesterVocabularyandStandardOldEnglish:TheVernacularinLateAnglo-SaxonEngland’,BulletinoftheJohnRylandsLibrary83:1(2001),41–87;StephanieHollis,‘Anglo-SaxonSecularLearningandtheVernacular’,AmsterdamerBeiträgezurälterenGermanistik69:1(2012),8–18and40–41;PaulE.Szarmach,‘SermonsandSaints:fromtheLateTenthtotheEleventhCentury’,inACompaniontoBritishLiterature,ed.HeesokChang,RobertDeMaria,andSamanthaZacher(Chichester:Wiley–BlackwellPublishing,2014),I:48;CharlesWright,‘OldEnglishHomiliesandLatinSources’,inKleist(2007),p.39;E.GordonWhatley,‘Lost

manuscriptswereproducedwithvaryingpurposes,characterising,forexample,

thelatetenth-centuryVercelliBook(Vercelli,BibliotecaCapitolare,CXVII)asa

readingbook,whileshedemonstratesthatthelatetenth-centuryBlickling

Homiliary(Princeton,N.J.,PrincetonUniversityLibrary,W.H.ScheideCollection,

71)andeleventh-centuryJuniusHomiliary(Oxford,BodleianLibrary,Junius85

+86)arebooksthathadaliturgicalcontext.17Thevariedaudiencesand

presentationsofhagiographicandhomileticcollectionssuggestthatAnglo-

SaxonsreadilyengagedwithconceptsofChristianwarriorculture,whetherasa

laymanreceivingalessonthroughasermononafeastday,18abishopstudying

Christianpoemsthatinspirehimtoexecutehispastoralduties,19oramonk

contemplatingthenatureofdevotionintheLives.20

DespitetheubiquityofmilitesChristiinthesurvivingAnglo-Saxonliterary

corpus,studiesofmilitancyinhagiographyhavebeenrelativelylimited.There

havebeenmultipleinvestigationsofÆlfric’sattitudetowardswarriorculture,21

inTranslation:OmissionofEpisodesinSomeOldEnglishProseSaints’Legends’,ASE26(1997),197and207–08;E.GordonWhatley,‘PearlsBeforeSwine:Ælfric,VernacularHagiographyandtheLayReader’,inViaCrucis:EssaysonEarlyMedievalSourcesandIdeasinMemoryofJ.E.Cross,ed.ThomasN.Hall(Morgantown:WestVirginiaUniversityPress,2002),pp.176–82.RichardKelly,BlicklingHomilies:EditionandTranslation(London:BloomsburyPublishing,2003),pp.xxixandxlvi,alsosupportsalayaudienceandpastoralcontextfortheBlicklinghomiliesalthoughitisunclearhowhecametothisconclusionorwhoseresearchheconsulted,asSamanthaZacher,reviewofKelly,ed.,BlicklingHomilies,NotesandQueries53:2(2006),216–18,demonstrates.17JulietHewish,‘LivingontheEdge:AStudyoftheTranslationsoftheLifeofStMartininOldEnglish,MiddleIrish,andOldNorse–Icelandic’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityCollegeDublin,2005),pp.120–24.18RobinAnnAronstam,‘TheBlicklingHomilies:AReflectionofPopularAnglo-SaxonBelief’,inLaw,Church,andSociety,ed.KennethPenningtonandRobertSomerville(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1977),pp.272–77;MaryClayton,‘HomiliariesandPreachinginAnglo-SaxonEngland’,Peritia4(1985),207–42;MaryClaytonandJulietMullins,ed.andtrans.,OldEnglishLivesofSaints(Cambridge,MA;London,U.K.:HarvardUniversityPress,2019),I:xxiv–xxv;JaneElizabethJeffery,BlicklingSpiritualityandtheOldEnglishVernacularHomily:ATextualAnalysis(Lewiston,N.Y:Mellen,1989),pp.12–17;JudithGaites,‘Ælfric’sLongerLifeofStMartinanditsLatinSources:AStudyinNarrativeTechnique’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish13(1982),36;JosephHamilton,‘ACriticalEditionoftheBlicklingHomilyonStMartinofTours’,PhD.Dissertation(GraduateCollegeofBowlingGreenStateUniversity,1979),p.15;Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,pp.xv–xx;Lapidge,‘Ælfric’sSanctorale’,pp.115and124;AndreMertens,TheOldEnglishLivesofStMartinofTours:EditionandStudy(UniversitätsverlagGöttingen,2017),pp.93,123and149;JonathanWilcox,‘TheBlicklingHomiliesRevisited:KnowableandProbableusesofPrincetonUniversityLibrary,MSScheide71’,inTheGenesisofBooks,ed.MatthewT.HusseyandJohnD.Niles(Turnhout:Brepols,2011),pp.106–15.19Gittos,‘Audience’,239;FrancisLeneghan,‘TeachingtheTeachers:TheVercelliBookandtheMixedLife’,EnglishStudies94:6(2013),642and653.20Clayton,‘HomiliariesandPreaching’,226;Hill,‘ImagoDei’,37–38;SamanthaZacher,‘ReadingtheStyleandRhetoricoftheVercelliHomilies’,inKleist(2007),p.181.21JamesEarl,‘ViolenceandNon-ViolenceinAnglo-SaxonEngland:Ælfric's‘PassionofStEdmund’’,PhilologicalQuarterly78(1999),125–49;HughMagennis,‘WarriorSaints,Warfare

whichprovideawindowintohowsomeAnglo-Saxonsperceivedsoldieringfor

Christ,butthesearerestrictedtotheperspectiveofasinglecomposerata

specificmomentintheAnglo-Saxonperiod.Fewstudieshaveexploredthe

theme’svaryingmanifestationsintheanonymouslyproducedsaints’Lives.

Damon’ssurvey,forinstance,presumestwoprevailingperspectivesonwarrior-

saintsbeforetheeleventhcentury:onefollowingSulpicius’srejectionofviolence

infavourofpurelyspiritualwarfare;theotheracceptingthatroyalsaintscould

fightassecularwarriors.22Examplesofdiversityinconceptionsofmilitant

Christianitythroughoutthisthesisillustratethelimitationsofsuch‘determined

accountsofthematerial.’23

Moreover,theneglectofanonymousOldEnglishproselegendsofmilites

ChristiisarecurringissueinstudiesthatattempttogeneraliseAnglo-Saxon

approachestohagiography.Thisisperhapsduetotheopinionthatthe

anonymousprosesaints’Livesare‘nothingofgreatvalue,’24dismissedasclose

translationsoftheirLatinsource.25Asaresult,examinationsofChristianwarrior

cultureinAnglo-Saxonliterature—likethoseofCherniss,26Hermann,27andLee28

—havetendedtofocusonpoeticlegends,suchasCynewulf’sEleneandJuliana,

andonthewaystheliteraryeliteappliedheroicpoeticdictionandGermanic

comitatussocialstructurestoChristiannarratives—asseeninCynewulf’sChrist

IIortheDreamoftheRood.29StudiesfocusingonthepoeticLivesconstrainour

understandingofAnglo-SaxonapproachestothemilesChristitraditionby

andtheHagiographyofÆlfricofEynsham’,Traditio56(2001),27–51;E.GordonWhatley,‘HagiographyandViolence:MilitaryMeninÆlfric’sLivesofSaints’,inSourceofWisdom,ed.CharlesWright,FrederickBiggs,andThomasN.Hall(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2007),pp.217–30.22JohnDamon,SoldierSaintsandHolyWarriors(Hampshire;Burlington,VT:Ashgate,2003).23Damon,SoldierSaints,p.22.24GordonHallGerould,Saints’Legends(Boston;NewYork:RiversidePressCambridge,1916),p.112.25RobinNorris,‘Introduction’,inAnonymousInterpolationsinÆlfric'sLivesofSaints,ed.RobinNorris(Kalamazoo:MedievalInstitutePublications,WesternMichiganUniversity,2011),p.1.26WilliamCherniss,IngeldandChrist:HeroicConceptsandValuesinOldEnglishChristianPoetry(TheHague:Mouton,1972).27JohnHermann,AllegoriesofWar:LanguageandViolenceinOldEnglishPoetry(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1989).28AlvinLee,TheGuest-HallofEden:FourEssaysontheDesignofOldEnglishPoetry(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1972).29Cherniss,IngeldandChrist,pp.219–21;PeterClemoes,‘Cynewulf’sImageoftheAscension’,inBjork(2001),pp.110–12;DennisGreen,TheCarolingianLord(Cambridge:UniversityPress,1965),pp.275–303.

consideringonlyhowaselectgroupofEnglishsocietyengagedwithmilitant

Christianity.

BeyondthepoeticLivesandthoseproducedbyÆlfric,thereareover

thirtyanonymousprosesaints’Lives,30nottomentionaplethoraofhomiletic

andmartyrologicalreferencesthatreflectAnglo-Saxonattitudestowardssaints

andwarriorculture.WhileitisnecessarytoconsiderthepoeticLivesandtheir

readership,theyconstituteasmallproportionofthecorpusofhagiographical

materialandarenotrepresentativeofdiverseaudiencesinthesamewaythat

theproseLivesare.Withthisinmind,thefollowingthesiswillanalyseprose

accountsthathavebeenlargelyoverlookedinmoderndiscussionsofthemiles

Christi,despitetheirapparentpopularityduringtheeducationalprogrammesof

Alfredintheninthcentury,andthetenth-centuryBenedictineReform.31

ThroughanalysingOldEnglishproseandpoeticLivesalongsidetheLatin

narrativesthattheyadapt,thisthesiswillprovideevidencethatvaried—andat

timescontradictory—perceptionsofmilitesChristiandChristianwarfarewere

heldsimultaneously.Tothisend,theanonymousAnglo-Saxonnarrativeson

MartinofTours,GuthlacofCrowland,theapostleAndrew’sjourneyto

Mermedonia,andPlacidas–EustaceareseentoexemplifytherangeofAnglo-

SaxonperspectivesconcerningsoldieringasapiousChristian.Whilethe

anonymousproseandpoeticnarrativesconcerningthesefoursaintsareasmall

sampleofthecorpusofOldEnglishhagiographicalmaterial,theyshare

characteristicsthatmakethemappropriateforcomparison.Eachofthesenon-

royalmalesaintsareassociatedwithwarriorculturethroughtheirparticipation

inliteralormetaphoricalsoldiering,andarecharacterisedasmilesChristi.The

verynamesMartin,Guthlac,andAndrewhavemartialetymologies,which

medievalhagiographersknewandworkedintotheirnarratives.32Martin,

Guthlac,andEustacebeginlifeasaristocraticwarriorswhogiveupsecular

soldieringtodevotethemselvestoChrist,whiletheapocryphalstoryofAndrew

30DonaldScragg,‘TheCorpusofAnonymousLivesandTheirManuscriptContext’,inSzarmach(1996),pp.209–26.31Hill,‘BenedictineReform’,pp.155–58;Hollis,‘SecularLearning’,23.32Foradiscussionontheinterpretationof‘Martin’,seeBernardPeebles,‘AMedievalLatinDevelopmentoftheEtymologyofStMartin’sName’,inParadosis,ed.HenryFletcherIIIandMarySchulte(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,1976),pp.189–95.Fordiscussionof‘Guthlac’seepp.137–38;andof‘Andrew’seepp.141and170below.

inMermedoniadepictstheapostlegivinguphislifeasaleaderofabandof

disciplestoserveChrist’smission.InservicetoGod,thefoursaintsaresaidto

fightagainstthedevilinawarlikemanner.Allofthesaintsarepresentedin

conflictasmissionariesandsoldierswhodefeattemptation,convertpagansand

paganplaces,orkillheathensinholywar.TheLivesofMartin,Guthlac,Andrew,

andEustacethusprovideacomparativebasisforourinvestigationofhow

differentAnglo-SaxonsapproachedtheideaofthemilesChristiinnarratives

concerningwarrior-saints.Throughoutthisdissertationitwillbecomeevident

thatAnglo-Saxonhagiographersalteredtheearliernarrativetraditions

surroundingthesefoursaintstoemphasiseordownplaythesaints’soldiery

accordingtotheirperceptionofChristianmilitancy.

ThetextssurroundingMartin,Guthlac,Andrew,andEustacealsoreflect

differentapproachestotranslatingandtransmittingsaints’Lives.Adapters,

translatorsandcopyistsofvernacularhagiographicaltextsflourishedinthelate

Anglo-Saxonperiod.33AlthoughtheOldEnglishtextsthesehagiographers

producedwere‘dependenttoonedegreeoranotheronmedievalChristianLatin

prototypesandexemplars,’34eachwasreworkedwithinthecomposer’s

individualeditorialprogramme.Moreover,Bredehoftarguesthatinrefashioning

anarrativeforanaudience,thehagiographeralteredthestorytoreflectthat

audience’sneedsandperspectives.35Incloselyanalysingamedievaltranslation

initscontext,thereareatleastthreelevelsofunderstandingthetextthatshould

beaddressedwhenidentifyingitsthemes:thatoftheoriginalsource;thatofthe

source’sinitialtranslator;andthatofthetext’ssurvivingwitnesses.36Eachlayer

oftransmissionimbuesthenarrativewithnewmeanings,imagery,intertextual

references,andlanguagethatisrelevantforcontemporaryaudiences.

Meanwhile,anadaptationoftenomitsaspectsofthesourcenarrativethatwould

33HughMagennis,‘ListenNowAllandUnderstand:AdaptationofHagiographicalMaterialVernacularAudiencesintheOldEnglishLivesofStMargaret’,Speculum71:1(1996),27;Scragg,‘CorpusofAnonymousLives’,pp.224–25.34Hill,‘ImagoDei’,35.35ThomasBredehoft,Authors,AudiencesandOldEnglishVerse(Toronto;Buffalo:UniversityofTorontoPress,2009),pp.18–31.36Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.13;MichaelLapidge,‘TheEditionofMedievalLatinTextsintheEnglish–SpeakingWorld’,SacrisErudiri38(1998–1999),218;HansSauer,‘LanguageandCulture:HowAnglo-SaxonGlossatorsAdoptedLatinWordsandtheirWorld’,JournalofMedievalLatin8(2009),467;DonaldScragg,‘SourceStudy’,inReadingOldEnglishTexts,ed.KatherineO’BrienO’Keeffe(Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),pp.39–40.

notresonateinthecontextitisproducedorreproduced,therebyrefocusingthe

narrative.TheversionoftheproseLifeofGuthlacintheVercelliBook—which

removeslargeportionsoftheeighth-centurylegendtorelateonlyGuthlac’sfight

againstdemonicassailants—isacaseinpoint.

Bychangingtheconnotationsofthewordstranslatedandomitting

sectionsaltogether,evenasupposedlyliteralrenderingofthesourcetextcan

provideauniquereadingofthenarrative.37AsLapidgestates,‘thepurposeofthe

comparativeapproachistoaccentuate,throughcounterpoint,thedistinctiveand

individualfeaturesofaparticularworkofliterature.’38Wewillsee,forexample,

thattheLifeofEustacedeepenstheresonanceofthenarrativeforlatetenth-

centuryaudiencesandimbuesthesaint’smilitarycampaignswithreligious

righteousnessbyrefashioningthetermbarbari(‘savagepeople’)ashæðenas

(‘heathens’).Bycomparingversionsofthesamenarrative,wecanthenidentify

intertextualinfluencesintroducedwitheachcomposition.39

Therearecaveats,however,toacknowledgewhenconducting

comparativesourcestudy,particularlyintheAnglo-Saxonperiod.40Achallenge

arisesfromuncertaintyregardingthesourcematerialavailabletotheOld

Englishcomposeranditsexactforminthemanuscriptsthatindividualadapters

consulted.Inthevastmajorityofcases,theexemplaruseddoesnotsurviveoris

unknowable.41Aseverymanuscriptrecensiondiffersinsomeway,itisdifficult

tostatedefinitivelywhetheragivenalterationtoastorystemmedfromthe

Anglo-SaxonadapterorfromtheLatinexemplar.Similarly,versionsofthe

sourcethatcomeaftertheadaptationmightprovidefaithfulreflectionsofan

oldersource.42

37Whatley,‘LostinTranslation’,187–208.38MichaelLapidge,‘TheComparativeApproach’,in.O’BrienO’Keeffe(1997),34.39Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.2–11.40Hill,‘Mapping’,pp.49–64,andScragg,‘SourceStudy’,pp.43–49,analyseotherrisksandshortcomingsofcomparativesourcestudy.41J.E.Cross,‘Saint-Omer202astheManuscriptSourcefortheOldEnglishTexts’,inTwoOldEnglishApocryphaandTheirManuscriptSource.TheGospelofNichodemusandTheAvengingofTheSaviour,ed.J.E.Cross(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),pp.82–104,andKatherineO’BrienO’Keeffe,‘TheTextofAldhelm’sEnigmano.CinOxford,BodleianLibrary,RawlinsonC.697’,ASE14(1985),61–73,demonstrateinstancesinwhichtheexemplarforAnglo-Saxontextsisidentifiableandextant.42Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.143–62;Thompson,‘HalgumBocum’,385–86;CharlesWright,‘LatinSources’,34.

IntheabsenceofidentifiablewitnessesforeithertheLatinsourcesorthe

originalOldEnglishadaptations,onecanonlytocomparetheextantrecensions

tocopiesofpotentialsourcetextswhichwouldhavebeenavailableinAnglo-

SaxonEngland.Thisiseasierinsomecasesthanothers.Forinstance,thereare

manysurvivingversionsofSulpiciusSeverus’sMartiniana,whichappeartohave

beenwidelydistributed.Thesearerelativelyuniform,andprovide

comparativelysafewitnessestotheninth-centuryMartinmas-homilist’ssource.

TheAnglo-SaxonsourcefortheapocryphalActsofAndrewandMatthew,onthe

otherhand,islostandallsurvivingwitnessesdifferfromtheOldEnglish

adaptationstoadegreethatnonecanbeuseddefinitivelyasthesource.Instead,

thesurvivingversionsrepresentcloseanaloguesoftheOldEnglishnarratives.43

Appreciatingthesehurdles,thefollowingstudyintroduceseachsaint’stradition

withadiscussionofthehistoricalcontextofthemilesChristi’scultandthe

sourcesconcerningthesaintknowninAnglo-SaxonEngland.Inthecaseof

Martin,Guthlac,andEustace,theextantversionsoftheCotton–Corpus

Legendaryprovideawitnessofthetextslikelyknowntothehagiographers.

Itisfurtherevidentthatstorieswerealteredusingreferencestotexts

familiartothecomposersorcompilers.Inborrowing,imitating,orreferencing

otherworks,hagiographersimbedtheirnarrativewithinthewidercontextof

thoseworksanddeepenthemeaningoftheirowncomposition.Intertextual

referencesthatintroducethemesorimageryfromotherworksintoasaint’s

legendfurthersuggestthatarangeofsourcesthatdonotshare‘closeverbal

similarity’shouldalsobeconsideredinacomparativestudy.44Thenarrative

traditionofthemilesChristiisparticularlyrichinsuchintertextualallusion,as

Livescompareandcontrastwarrior-saintswithotherhagiographicalandsecular

legends.Indoingso,individualhagiographersengagewithandreinterpret

traditionssurroundingwarriorculture.Therefore,throughoutthefollowing

study,theanonymousOldEnglishnarrativesofMartin,Guthlac,Andrew,and

Eustacearecomparedwiththeiridentifiablesourcesandthecontextsoftheir

43Seepp.143–47belowforafullerdiscussionoftheAnglo-SaxonsourcefortheapocryphalActaAndreae.44PatrickConner,‘SourceStudies,theOldEnglishGuthlacAandtheEnglishBenedictineReformation’,RevueBénédictine103:3–4(1993),381–83;JaneRoberts,‘GuthlacA:SourcesandSourceHunting’,inMedievalEnglishStudies,ed.GeorgeKane,EdwardKennedy,RonaldWaldron,andJosephWittig(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1983),p.3.

textualtransmissionstoanalysehoweachhagiographerreshapedthetraditions

theyinherited.

InthenextchapterwewillseehowsomeRomanhagiographersand

theologians,fromatleastthefourthcentury,appeartoadvocateChristianand

clericalviolencethroughthevenerationofmilitary-saints,theadoptionof

Christianritualintheimperialarmy,forcefulconversionsofheathens,andthe

codificationof‘justwar’ideals.Thisassimilationofsecularmilitancyinthe

RomanandAnglo-SaxonChurchdevelopedintandemwithbeliefsthatmilites

Christiwereexclusivelymetaphoricalsoldiers.Thisbriefsurveyofearly

medievalattitudestowardssoldieringforChrist,alongwiththesaints’Lives

analysedinthisthesis,illustratehowitisimpossibletoeitherascribeauniform

‘Anglo-Saxon’perceptionofsoldieringforChristortoarguethatonecohesively

developsthroughouttheperiod,assomehaveclaimedpreviously.45

ThisismadeclearbystudyingAnglo-SaxonnarrativesonmilitesChristi

chronologically.IfweweretoapproachourinvestigationofMartin,Guthlac,

Andrew,andEustacebasedonthedatetheirLatinlegendswerecomposed,we

wouldstartwiththesecond-orthird-centuryActaAndreaeetMatthiaeapud

Anthropophagos,thenturntoSulpiciusSeverus’sfourth-centuryMartiniana,

followedbyFelix’searlyeighth-centuryVitaGuthlaci,andendwiththelate

eighth-centurylegendofEustace.If,however,weweretoorderourinvestigation

bythedatingoftheOldEnglishadaptations,wewouldbeginwiththeeighth-to

ninth-centurypoemGuthlacA,followedbyAndreas,theMartinmas-homily,and

backtoGuthlacwiththeLifeofGuthlac,allofwhichdatetothelateninth-

century,turningafterwardstothetenth-centuryLifeofAndrew,andconcluding

withthelatetenth-toearlyeleventh-centuryLifeofEustace.Eitherofthese

chronologicalapproacheswouldresultinaconfuseddiscussionofChristian

attitudestowardmilitancy,vacillatingbetweentherejectionandadvocacyof

Christianviolence.Ihaveoptedinsteadtoorderthefollowingstudybasedonthe

levelofacceptanceofChristianwarriorculturereflectedintheOldEnglishtexts,

45See,forexample,J.E.Cross,‘TheEthicofWarinOldEnglish’,inEnglandBeforetheConquest,ed.PeterClemoesandKathleenHughes(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1971),pp.277–82;JohnDamon,‘SanctifyingAnglo-SaxonEaldormen:LaySainthoodandtheRiseoftheCrusadingIdeal’,inHall(2002),pp.194–95;KatherineO’BrienO’Keeffe,‘HeroicValuesandChristianEthics’,inGoddenandLapidge(2013),pp.107–25.

movingfromtherelativelypacifistportrayalofMartintothepresentationof

Eustaceengagedinwarfare.Thisorderallowsustoanalyseaparticularsaint’s

narrativestogether,andcoherentlychartthespectrumofattitudesheldin

Anglo-SaxonEngland.Whilethiscontrivedorderappearstopresentacohesively

developingperspectiveofChristianmilitancy,eachchapterplacesitsnarratives

bothintheirhistoricalcontextandinrelationtothelegendsofothermilites

Christi.Byemphasisingthetemporalandthematicrelationshipsbetween

warrior-saintsandtheirsources,Isuggestthatweshouldnotthinkofan‘Anglo-

Saxon’or‘Germanic’approachtomilitantChristianity,butinsteadofindividual

perceptionsofhowappropriatewarriorcultureisforthefaithful.

ChapterTwodiscussestheoriginsofthemilesChristitraditionand

varyingattitudestowardsChristianinvolvementinwarfarefromthefourth

centuryonwards.Thetheological,canonical,literary,andhagiographical

perspectivesdiscussedinthechapterwillreappearinthesubsequentstudiesof

Martin,Guthlac,Andrew,andEustaceastropesandphilosophiesthatthe

anonymousnarrativesadapted.TheSulpicianMartinianatradition—whichwas

afundamentalinfluenceonlaterportrayalsofthemilesChristi—andits

reworkingintoanOldEnglishMartinmas-homilyarethefocusofChapterThree.

ThechapterconsidershowthehomilyomitsaspectsofMartin’slifethatconcern

hisconflictwithdemonsorinternalChurchpoliticsinordertofocusonthe

saint’snonviolence.Atthesametime,thehomilycontraststhesaintwithpagan

antagonistsandtheirbellicosebehaviour.Wewillseehowtheanonymous

reworkingcelebratesMartin’sremovalfromwarriorcultureandmaintainsthat

Christianitycannotembracemilitarism.

TheendoftheMartinmas-homilycontainsapassingreferencetothe

conceptofspiritualwarfare—anideaexploredinmoredepththroughthe

narrativesconcerningGuthlacinChapterFour.Felix’sVitaGuthlaci,itsOld

Englishprosetranslation,andtheExeterBookpoemGuthlacAallchampionan

asceticlifedetachedfromsecularwarfare,butemploymetaphoricalimageryof

themilesChristitraditiontodescribeGuthlac’sspiritualconflictsagainstdemons.

EvenasGuthlacusesthespiritualarmsintroducedinthePaulineEpistlesto

wardoffdemonicattackerswhopsychologicallyandphysicallywoundhim,all

threenarrativeshighlightthesaint’snonviolentdevotion.

Incontrast,theOldEnglishadaptationsoftheActaAndreaeetMatthiae

apudAnthropophagosdiscussedinChapterFivepresentamilesChristiwhois

vindictiveandwillingtouseforcetomastertheenemiesofChrist.Wherethe

Martinmas-homilyminimisesreferencestospiritualwarfare,Andreasandthe

OldEnglishLifeofAndrewreworktheActa-narrativetoimbuetheirlegendswith

militaristiclanguageandimagery.IntheOldEnglishaccountsofAndrew,the

apostleisaheroicandconqueringassailant,overpoweringdemonsand

hyperbolicallymilitarisedMermedonianheathens.ThiscomplicatesDamon’s

assertionthatbeforetheeleventhcentury,‘onlykingscouldbebothholyand

warlike,’46andCross’sinsistencethat‘nohagiographerwouldeverspeakofthe

possibilityofearthlyglory…inbattle.’47Andreasisalsoseentousemorediverse

secularimagerythanGuthlacAtoframeAndrewasachampioninthecaelestis

militia(‘heavenlyarmy’)whoperformsa‘deedofvalour’(ellen-weorc)by

violentlyconvertingtheMermedonians.Assuch,Andreasfurtherdemonstrates

thattherewasnouniformpoetictraditionforpresentingsoldiersofChrist.

ThereligiouswarriorcultureoftheOldEnglishAndrew-narrativesis,

however,stilllargelymetaphysicalandthesaint’saggressiveactionsfacilitate

conversion.InthelegendofPlacidas–Eustace,consideredinChapterSix,wefind

amilesChristiimbeddedinmilitarysociety,devotinghimselftoGodwhile

wieldingasword.TheOldEnglishadaptationoftheLatinlegendreframes

Eustace’senemiesasheathensripeforslaughterratherthanconversion,and

presentsthesaintasaquasi-monasticwarriorinaseculararmy.Assuch,the

portrayalofEustacerepresentsastrainofthemilesChristitraditionthat

embracesphysicalviolenceandchampionsChristianidealsofwar,ultimately

culminatinginthecrusadingidealattheendoftheeleventhcentury.Thefinal

chapterreflectsuponthemosaicofperspectivesontherelationshipbetween

secularpursuits,violence,andtheidealChristianlifeintheanonymousOld

EnglishLives.Inthis,itisevidentthattheAnglo-SaxonnarrativesofMartin,

Guthlac,Andrew,andEustacedisplayarangeofresponsestoPaul’sdirectionto

‘LabourasagoodsoldierofChristJesus’,buildinguponandadaptingthe

diversityoftraditionsinheritedfrompatristicpredecessors.46Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.23and57–61.47J.E.Cross,‘OswaldandByrhtnoth:AChristianSaintandaHerowhoisChristian’,EnglishStudies46(1965),99–103.

ChapterTwo

OriginsoftheMilesChristi,ClericalViolence,andtheTheoryofJustWar

AsthetraditionofmilesChristigrewfromthePaulineEpistles,theallegoricaluse

ofmilitaristicimageryforanindividual’sstruggleagainsttemptationdeveloped.

Writerslikethefourth-centuryIberianpoetPrudentius,whosePsychomachia

depictsthesoulasabattlefieldonwhichvirtuesslaughtersins,becamepopular

andwidelydisseminatedthroughoutEurope.1Hermann,Orchard,andWieland

variouslyhighlighttheimportanceofPrudentius’sPsychomachiaforAnglo-

Saxonwriters,afocusthatisreflectedinrichlyillustratedcopiesofthe

PsychomachiawithOldEnglishglosses,2suchasthoseinBL,Add.24199,andBL,

CottonCleopatraC.viii.3Anglo-LatinandOldEnglishtextsofallgenresfor

diverseaudiencesbuiltuponthePyschomachia’spersonificationoftemptation

anditsmilitarisationofthefaithful’sresistancetoit.4Lines382–409of

Cynewulf’spoemJuliana,preservedinthetenth-centuryExeterBook,for

example,conceiveofsinasa‘barrageofarrows’(flan-þracu,earh-faru)fired

duringabattle(beadu,cumbol-haga,guþ)forthesoul.5ElsewhereintheExeter

Book,GuthlacAportraysdemonicandangelicforcesvyingoverthesaint’ssoul

(lines114–40a),ChristBrepeatstheimageoftemptationasanearh-faru(line

759),andlines37–39ofVainglorycharacterisesthesoulasa‘fortress’(burg-

weal)thatfallsto‘treacherousarrows’(inwit-flan).

1H.J.Thomson,ed.Andtrans.,Prudentius,LoebClassicalLibrary387(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1949),I:274–342.2Hermann,‘VarietiesofPsychomachiaI’,77–85;Hermann‘VarietiesofPsychomachiaII’,188–95and206;Hermann,Allegories,pp.8–32;AndyOrchard,‘ConspicuousHeroism:Abraham,Prudentius,andtheOldEnglishVerseGenesis,inHeroesandHeroinesinMedievalEnglishLiterature,ed.LeoCarruthersandAndréCrépin(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1994),pp.45–58;GernotWieland,‘TheOriginandDevelopmentoftheAnglo-SaxonPsychomachiaIllustrations’,ASE26(1997),169–86.3ForotherattestationsofthePsychomachia,seeCambridge,UniversityLibrary,Gg.5.35;CCCC23;CCCC223;Cambridge,TrinityCollege,O.2.51(1155),pt.i;Durham,CathedralLibrary,B.IV.9;BL,CottonTitusD.xvi;Oxford,BodleianLibrary,AuctariumF.3.6(S.C.2666);Oxford,BodleianLibrary,RawlinsonC.697(S.C.12541);München,BayerischeStaatsbibliothek,clm29336(1);Paris,BibliothèquenationaledeFrance,lat.8085.4JamesDoubleday,‘TheAllegoryoftheSoulasFortressinOldEnglishPoetry’,Anglia88(1970),503–08.5MatthewCoker,‘VoicingtheSupernaturalinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,DPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,2019),pp.175–79.

AsisapparentinthesepoeticexamplesfromtheExeterBook,thearrows

oftemptationthatthedevilfiresatthefaithfularethemostcommonreference

tospiritualwarfareinAnglo-Saxonliterature.6AldhelmofMalmesbury’sprose

Delaudeuirginitateintheseventhcenturyreferstothe‘poisonedarrowsofsin

andterriblespearofiniquities’(uenenatisquepiaculorumspiculisetdira

facinorumframea).7Lines1745–47ofBeowulfcontainreferencestothedevil’s

arrowsandtheirspiritualeffect.8Portrayalsofmetaphoricalwarfarearealso

foundinOldEnglishprose,likeVercelliIV,whichcallsonthefaithfultoshield

themselveswithspiritualarmour.9Theseimagesofthespiritualarmamentsof

heavenandhellappearagainintheanonymousOldEnglishLivesofMartin,

Guthlac,andAndrew,10asthesaintsequipthemselveswiththearmourofGodto

wardofftemptation.Suchportrayalsofspiritualwarfareworkedto‘transform

themundaneintothemythical’andreframewhatitmeanttobeheroicfor

ChristianAnglo-Saxonaudiences.11

Widespreadpatristicuseofmilitaryimagerynegatestheexceptionalism

thatcommentatorslikeAlbertsonorRussellplaceonGermanicaristocratsas

thosewho‘tendedtoregardChristianityintermsoftheirwarriorcode,’12and

demonstratesthatconceptsofamilitantChristianitywereestablishedwell

beforeitwasintroducedtotheGermanicpeoples.AsSmithsummarises:

6Fullerdiscussionsofthe‘arrowsofsin’motifinAnglo-SaxonliteraturearefoundinCharlesAbbetmeyer,OldEnglishPoeticalMotivesDerivedfromtheDoctrineofSin(Minneapolis:H.W.Wilson,1903),pp.35–37;MarkAtherton,‘TheFigureoftheArcherinBeowulfandtheAnglo-SaxonPsalter’,Neophilologus77(1993),653–56;PeterDendle,SatanUnbound:TheDevilinOldEnglishNarrativeLiterature(Toronto;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,2001),pp.33–35;JohnHermann,‘TheRecurrentMotifsofSpiritualWarfareinOldEnglishPoetry’,AnnualeMediævale22(1982),11–19;Hermann,Allegories,pp.40–43;EricG.Stanley,‘OldEnglishPoeticDictionandtheInterpretationofTheWanderer,TheSeafarerandThePenitent’sPrayer’,Anglia73(1955),418–22.7Ald.uirg(prosa)242:4.ByrhtferthquotesthispassageinhisLifeofOswald,ed.MichaelLapidge(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2009),p.196.8Fulk,Bjork,andNiles,ed.,Klaeber’sBeowulf,p.215;DorothyWhitelock,TheAudienceofBeowulf(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1951),pp.80–82.9DonaldScragg,ed.,TheVercelliHomiliesandRelatedTexts(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992),pp.102–04.10Seepp.81–86,112–30,153–58and163–67below.11Hermann,‘RecurrentMotifs’,20.12ClintonAlbertson,Anglo-SaxonSaintsandHeroes(Bronx:FordhamUniversityPress,1967),p.16;JamesRussell,TheGermanizationofEarlyMedievalChristianity:ASociohistoricalApproachtoReligiousTransformation(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),pp.169–208.SeealsoGerould,Saints’Legends,pp.60–62and80;J.M.Wallace-Hadrill,‘WarandPeaceintheEarlierMiddleAges’,TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety25(1975),168–74;Hermann,‘RecurrentMotifs’,20–24and31–34;Hermann,‘VarietiesofPsychomachiaII’,205–09.

Christandtheapostleswerealsoveneratedaswarriors,notbecauseofaGermanictendencytorecastChristianvirtueinamilitaristicmoldbutbecausegenerationsofdeeplyRomanpatristicinterpretershadunambiguouslysuggestedthisinterpretation.13

Likewise,WhitedemonstratesthatByzantiumhaddevelopedtraditionsof

warrior-saintsintertwinedwiththeethosoftheimperialarmywithoutthe

influenceofGermanicpeoples.14AlthoughtextsliketheDreamoftheRood,the

ninth-centuryOldSaxonHêliand,andAndreasframeChrist’srelationshipwith

hisfollowersasthatbetweenaGermanicwarlordandtheretainersinhis

comitatus,15—aGermaniccompanyofwarriorsboundtoawarlordwith

reciprocaldutiestoprovideloyaltyandserviceinexchangeforhonourand

wealth16—suchculturalassimilationseemstohavearisenlargelyfromthe

desiretoreframeinheritednarrativesinsettingsfamiliartonorthern

audiences.17

ThedepictionsofspiritualarmourandthecomitatusofChrist,whether

presentedinScripture,Christianpoetry,orallegoricalliterature,areessentially

metaphysical.18Theydonotprovideexamplesofhowapiouspersonphysically

fightsthe‘goodfight’.Itisthroughsaints’legendswiththeircombinationof

historicalfactandfaith,thatmodelsofhowonecorporallyandmetaphysically13Smith,War,pp.37and16–38.SeealsoThundyil,‘Convenant’,p.259.14MonicaWhite,MilitarySaintsinByzantiumandRus900–1200(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013),pp.1–93.15MeganCavell,‘TheBindingofReligiousHeroesinAndreasandtheHêliand’,EnglishStudies96:5(2015),507–12;MichaelCherniss,‘TheCrossasChrist’sWeapon:TheInfluenceofHeroicLiteraryTraditiononTheDreamoftheRood’,ASE2(1973),241–52;Green,CarolingianLord,pp.275–78and296–303;G.Murphy,TheSaxonSavior:TheGermanicTransformationoftheGospelintheNinth-CenturyHeliand(NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1989),pp.3–8,57–62and96–103;G.Murphy,ed.,TheHeliand:TheSaxonGospel(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992).16RichardAbels,‘‘Cowardice’andDutyinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,JournalofMedievalHistory4(2006),29–49;PaulBattles,‘‘ContendingThrong’ScenesandtheComitatusIdealinOldEnglishPoetry,withSpecialAttentiontoTheBattleofMaldon122a’,StudiaNeophilologica,83:1(2011),41–51;DavidClark,‘NotesontheMedievalIdealofDyingwithOne’sLord’,NotesandQueries58:4(2011),475–84;RobertaFrank,‘TheIdealofMenDyingwiththeirLordinTheBattleofMaldon:AnachronismorNouvelleVague’,inPeopleandPlacesinNorthernEurope,500–1600,ed.NielsLund,PeterSawyer,andIanWood(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,1991),pp.95–106;Green,CarolingianLord,pp.69–79,provideoverviewsofthecomitatussocialstructure.17MichaelAlexander,OldEnglishLiterature(London;Basingstoke:Macmillan,1983),p.163;Cherniss,IngeldandChrist,pp.151–70;Earl,‘ViolenceandNon-Violence’,142–43;RobertaFrank,‘NorthSeaSoundingsinAndreas’,inEarlyMedievalEnglishTextsandInterpretations,ed.ElaineTreharneandSusanRosser(Tempe:ArizonaCenterforMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,2002),pp.2–10;Lee,Guest-Hall,pp.3and11–14;T.A.Shippey,OldEnglishVerse(London:Hutchinson,1972),pp.114–27.18Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.4–5.

fightsforChristemerge.19ContinentalandAnglo-Saxonexegetesread

hagiographicallegendswithaneyetoextractamultiplicityofmeaningsfroma

singletextandtounderstandtheliteral,moral,allegoricalortypological,and

anagogicaltruthswhichcouldbeappliedtobothone’sphysicalactionsaswellas

spiritualalignment.20Inotherwords,themilesChristi’sfightcould

simultaneouslybereadasametaphoricalstruggleagainsttemptationandas

literalblowslandedagainsttheenemiesofChristianity.Assuch,whennarratives

likeAthanasiusofAlexandria’sLifeofAntonyorFelix’sVitaGuthlacidepictsaints

fightingdevilsintheirdesertretreats,21thefightshavebothphysicaland

spiritualramificationsthatleavetheirbodiesbruisedandtheirsoulsmore

purelyfixedinvirtue.22Themultifariousnatureoftheimageryand

circumstancesinhagiographyseemtofacilitateliteralapproachestotheideaof

‘soldieringforChrist’,especiallyaftertheacceptanceofChristianityinthe

RomanEmpire.

Apostlesandsaintswholivedinthecontextofpersecutionsduringthe

firstthreecenturiesofChristianitycouldenacttheirfaithandmasteryof

temptationthroughmartyrdom.Thenarrativesofmartyrsbothglorified

extremedevotiontoChristandshowedhowsacrificialresistancetowicked

secularauthorityledtoconversionandthestrengtheningofChristendom.23The

storiesofsuchsaintswerepopularinAnglo-SaxonEnglandandwereadapted

intoOldEnglishverse,aswithCynewulf’spoemJuliana,whichrelatesthelifeof

JulianaofNicomedia(285–304).Therearealsonumerousproseaccountsof

soldier-saints,suchastheOldEnglishMartyrology’saccountofTheodosiusand

19Delehaye,Legends,pp.3–9and49–78;Earl,‘TypologyandIconography’,16–19;Godden,‘ProblemofMiracles’,87–94;Hill,‘ImagoDei’,pp.35–36.20SeeJacobHobson,‘ExegeticalTheoryandTextualCommunitiesinLateAnglo-SaxonEngland’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofCalifornia,Berkley,2017),pp.1–7,andHenryMayr-Harting,TheComingofChristianitytoAnglo-SaxonEngland(London:B.T.Batsford,1991),pp.204–19,foroverviewsofpatristicandAnglo-Saxonexegeticalapproachestointerpretingliterature.BernardRobinsonprovidesanoverviewofBede’sexegeticalperspectivesandsourcesin‘TheVenerableBedeasExegete’,DownsideReview112(1994),201–06and221.21EvagriustranslatedAthanasius’sLifeofAnthonyintoLatinby374,witnessedinAnglo-SaxoncontextthroughWorcester,CathedralLibrary,F.48.ForGuthlac’sfightovertheCrowlandbeorg,seepp.123–36below,andBenjaminKurtz,‘FromStAntonytoStGuthlac:AStudyinBiography’,UniversityofCaliforniaPublicationsinModernPhilology12:2(1926),128–40.22GrahamJones,‘GhostlyMentor,TeacherofMysteries:Bartholomew,GuthlacandtheApostle’sCultinEarlyMedievalEngland’,inMedievalMonasticEducation,ed.GeorgeFerzocoandCarolynMuessig(London:LeicesterUniversityPress,2000),p.139;RosemaryWoolf,‘Saints’Lives’,inContinuationsandBeginnings,ed.EricG.Stanley(London:Nelson,1966),p.55.23ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:xvii–xviii;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.217–19.

theSixteenSoldiers,whomtheEmperorClaudiusmartyredinfirstcentury,or

VitalisofMilan,whoiskilledsometimebeforethesecondcentury.24Once

persecutionintheRomanEmpireendedduringthefourthcentury,however,

newwaysofattainingamartyr’scrownweresought.Evangelicalmissionsto

convertpagansprovidedanopportunitynotonlytoemulatetheapostoliccalling

toexpandChristendombutalsotoachievemartyrdom,asBoniface’smissionto

converttheFrisiansintheeighthcenturydemonstrates.25Similarly,thegrowth

ofasceticismandmonasticismchampionedinfourth-centuryLiveslikeEvagrius

ofAntioch’sVitaAntoni,26orSulpiciusSeverus’sVitaMartini,providedwaysin

whichmilitesChristicouldrenouncetheworldandattainsanctitybylivinglives

internallyfightingthoseforcesthatwoulddragthemintoapostasy.27

TheLivesof‘militarysaints’—thosewhofoughtinthesecularmilitary

butwerelaterconsideredsaints,suchastheearlyfourth-centurysaints

Demetrius,Theodore,andGeorge—provideddifferentmodels.28Thesesaints

aresaidtohavepracticedsaintlyasceticismanddevoutfaithwhileintheir

militarypositions.29Incontinuingtofightinthearmy,despitebeingChristian,

military-saintshighlighttheparadoxof‘soldieringforChrist’andseemtoreflect

theconflictingphilosophiesconcerningtherelationshipbetweenChristianity

andmilitancy.AsErdmannnotes,‘thequestionearlyChristianityposedwasnot

whetherreligionwasavalidbasisforwar,butwhetheritwaspossiblefora

Christiantofightatall.’30Anysecularactioncouldbeconsideredacontradiction

ofChrist’sseparationofheavenlyandworldlymattersintheinjunctionto

24OEMart.88and204.25JohnHermann,‘BonifaceandDokkum:Terror,Repetition,Allegory’,MedievaliaetHumanistica22(1995),1–4;HughMagennis,‘ConversioninOldEnglishSaints’Lives’,inRobertsandNelson(2000),pp.293–94.26P.BertrandandLoisGandt,ed.,VitaeAntoniiversionesLatinae:VitabeatiAntoniiabbatisEuagriointerprete.Versiovetustissima,CCSL170(Turnhout:Brepols,2018),pp.3–103.27ChristopherJones,‘EnvisioningtheCenobiumintheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,MediaevalStudies57(1995),271.28MichaelWhitby,‘DeusNobiscum:Christianity,Warfare,andMoraleinLateAntiquity,’inModusOperandi,ed.MichelAustin,JillHarries,andChristopherSmith(London:UniversityofLondon,1998),pp.201–205;White,MilitarySaints,p.3.29JohnHelgeland,‘ChristiansandtheRomanArmyA.D.173–337’,ChurchHistory43:2(1974),156–63,providesanoverviewofactiveChristianinvolvementintheRomanarmybeforeContstantine.30CarlErdmann,TheOriginsoftheIdeaofCrusade,trans.MarshallBaldwinandWalterGoffart(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1977),p.5.

‘renderthereforetoCaesarthethingsthatareCaesar’s’(Matthew22:15–22;

Mark12:13–17;andLuke20:20–26).

AlthoughthePaulineEpistlesestablishmuchofthemilitaristiclanguage

ofthemilesChristi,theyalsostatethat,‘Noman,beingasoldiertoGod,

entanglethhimselfwithsecularbusinesses;thathemaypleasehimtowhomhe

hathengagedhimself’(NemomilitansDeoimplicatsenegotiissaecularibus:utei

placeat,cuiseprobavit,IITimothy2:4).ManyearlyChurchwritersadoptedthis

perspective.Forexample,inalettertoBishopRusticusofNarbonnedated

458×459,PopeLeoIwritesthat‘Hewhowishestoinvolvehimselfwiththe

worldlyarmyisnotfreefromtheDevil’ssnares’(nonestliberalaqueisdiaboli

quisemilitiamundanauolueritimplicare).31CommentatorsontheRegula

Benedicti,similarlyseparatesecularandspiritualwarfare.InhisExpositioin

regulamSanctiBenedicti,SmaragdusofSaint-Michael(c.760–840)says,

‘certainlytherearesecularsoldiers,andtherearesoldiersofChrist’(suntenim

militessaeculi,suntetmilitesChristi).32

ManyhagiographicalaccountsofmilitesChristilikewisedistinguish

betweenworldlymilitaryserviceandserviceinGod’smetaphoricalarmy.

AlthoughSulpiciusSeverusstatesthattheaimofhisVitaMartiniistoinspire

otherstojointhe‘celestialarmy’(caelestemmilitiam),33healsoworkstoremove

Martinfromthesecularwarriorethosandprovideapacifistmodelforwarrior-

saints.34ThepurelyallegoricalunderstandingofsoldieringforChristwas

repeatedthroughouttheAnglo-Saxonperiodinsuchaccountsasthelate

seventh-centuryVitaCuthberti,35Felix’searlyeighth-centuryVitaGuthlaci,36

Willibald’seighth-centuryVitaBonifacii,37theanonymousMartinmas-homilyin

31PL54:col.1207a;JamesBrundage,‘Crusades,Clerics,andViolence:ReflectionsonaCanonicalTheme’,inTheExperienceofCrusading,ed.MarcusBullandNormanHousley(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003),I:154.32AlfredSpannagelandPiusEngelbert,ed.,SmaragdiAbbatisExpositioinRegulamS.Benedicti(Siegburg:F.Schmitt,1974),pp.13–15.SeealsoBolton,‘Background’,599;Smith,War,pp.94–95.Conner,‘SourceStudies’,384–85,andHill,‘ÆlfricandSmaragdus’,203–37,demonstratetheimportanceofSmaragdusinAnglo-SaxonEngland.33PhilipBurton,ed.,SulpiciusSeverus’VitaMartini(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017),p.94.34Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.21–26.35BertramColgrave,TwoLivesofSaintCuthbert:ALifebyanAnonymousMonkofLindisfarneandBede’sProseLife(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1940).36Seepp.127–36below.37C.H.Talbot,trans.,TheAnglo-SaxonMissionariesinGermany:BeingtheLivesofSS.Willibrord,Boniface,Sturm,Leoba,andLebuin,togetherwiththeHodoeporiconofStWillibaldandaSelectionfromtheCorrespondenceofStBoniface(London:SheedandWard,1981),pp.25–62.

theninthcentury,andByrhtferth’sVitaOswaldifromtheearlyeleventhcentury,

whichpresenttheirsaintsasrejectingworldlyservicetobecomenonviolent

militesChristiinthe‘armyoftheLord’(exercitusDomini).38

Atthesametime,otherexegetesandhagiographersweremoreaccepting

ofChristianinvolvementinworldlywarfare.39AftertheadoptionofChristianity

asastatereligioninthefourthcentury,Christiansoldiersandcitizenswere

permittedtoopenlypracticetheirfaith,andthesecularauthoritiesbeganto

advancethefaithwithimperialmight.Awell-knownexampleoftheRoman

Empire’spromotionofChristianityforAnglo-SaxonswasEmperorConstantine’s

mother,StHelena,whoseexpeditiontorecovertheTrueCrosswasbelievedto

havebeenbackedbytheRomanmilitary,ascommemoratedinCynewulf’spoem

Elene.40ThegrowingnumberofmilitarysaintsandtheuseofChristian

iconographyinthearmy,mostfamouslyConstantine’suseoftheChi-Rhosignon

theshieldsofhissoldiersattheBattleofMilvianBridgein312,41illustratethe

wideracceptanceofmilitesChristiwhokilledwhiledevotedtoChrist.42

WiththeriseofChristianityinsecularleadershipandmilitaryforces,

innovativeinterpretationsoftheNewTestamentwererequiredtomitigatethe

contradictionbetweenthelargelynonviolentteachingsofChristandthesecular

needforexecutionersandstandingarmies.43AugustineofHippoandAmbroseof

Milan(340–397)providedsubtledistinctionsbyadaptingclassicalconceptsof

‘justwar’forChristianendsaswellasbyseparatinganindividual’sprivateand

publiclives.44AugustinearguesintheDeciuitatedei(XIX:7)andhisletter

38Lapidge,ed.,LifeofOswald,pp.79,105and170.39Helgeland,‘RomanArmy’,150–56,demonstratesthatmostChurchFathers,particularlyTertullianandOrigen,critiquedChristianinvolvementinthearmybecauseofthearmy’sidolatrouspractices,notthesheddingofblood.SeealsoDavidLenihan,‘TheJustWarTheoryintheWorkofSaintAugustine’,AugustinianStudies19(1988),40–41.40Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.111–23;Hermann,‘BonifaceandDokkum’,8–10;Magennis,‘Conversion’,pp.296–98.41AverilCameronandStuartG.Hall,trans.,Eusebius:LifeofConstantine(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1999),pp.80–86.42Erdmann,Origin,pp.22–26;Whitby,‘DeusNobiscum’,pp.194–204;White,MilitarySaints,pp.20–36and64–68.43Helgeland,‘RomanArmy’,149–63;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.224–26.44Foroverviewsofearlypatristicjustwarcode,seeBrundage,‘ClericsandViolence’,I:147–49;MariaGraziaCammarota,‘Warandthe‘AgonyofConscience’inÆlfric’sWritings’,Mediaevalistik26(2013),88–89;LawrenceDuggan,ArmsbearingandtheClergyintheHistoryandCanonLawofWesternChristianity(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2013),pp.90–94;Erdmann,Origin,p.8;Lenihan,‘JustWar’,40–58;FrederickRussell,JustWarintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:Cambridge

ContraFaustum(XXII:74–76)thatwhatonedidinfulfillinghisdutytothestate,

suchasfightinginthearmy,didnotimpactone’ssoulaslongastheindividual

onlyfollowedordersanddidnotpersonallyattachhimselftotheaction.45By

removingpersonalactionfromvocationalobligation,aChristiancouldservein

themilitary—evenunderapaganleader—providedtheyonlykilledwhile

obeyinganorder.46

TheAugustinianideaofseparatingprofessionalfrompersonallifeseems

tohavebeenacceptedbysomehagiographersinAnglo-SaxonEngland.The

ninth-centuryOldEnglishMartyrology,forinstance,describesStVictorasa

‘soldierofCaesarAntoninus,buthebelievedinChrist’(Antoninuscempaþæs

caseres,achegelyfdeonCrist).47InChapterSix,weseethetenth-centuryOld

EnglishLifeofEustacepresentsasaintsimilarlyservingunderthepagan

EmperorsTrajanandHadrianinbattlewhilerefusingtooffersacrificestopagan

godsand,asaconsequence,becomingmartyred.48InÆlfric’seleventh-century

translationofthePassioSanctiMauricii,49ÆlfricintroducesMauriceandhis

Christiancompanyas‘veryChristianmen,followingthatEmperor[Maximianus],

[who]thenhadtogoonamilitarycampaign,justasallmendid’(swiþecristene

menn,þamcaserefolgiende,forþanþehisceoldonfyrdian,swaswaeallfolc

dyde).50Mauriceandhislegionaffirmthattheydistinguishtheirpersonal

moralityandreligionfromtheirworkintheirresponsetothepagan

Maximianus’smessenger,saying:‘wearereadytosallyforthtofightalongside

thatemperor,butwedonotwishtoturntohissacrifices’(wesyndgearweto

gefeohteforðmidðamcasere,acwenellaþgecyrrantohisonsægednyssum).51

AtthesametimethatAugustinearguesthatChristianscanseparatetheir

privateandprofessionallives,heattemptstoclarifywhatmilitaryactionscanbe

consideredjustifiedandthereforemitigatethemoralimplicationsoffollowing

UniversityPress,1975),pp.4–27;ChristopherTyerman,FightingforChristendom,HolyWarandtheCrusades(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),pp.98–107.45ForananalysisofthesetextsseeLenihan,‘JustWar’,44–46and50–52.46Thispositionwasonewhichwashotlydebatedthroughoutthemedievalperiod.ForanoverviewoftheearlydebateseeCammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,89and106.47OEMart.104.48Seepp.203–07below.49LSIII:42–54.50LSIII:42.51LSIII:46.

anordertokill.52ThroughoutAugustine’sworks,‘wariswagedsothatpeace

maybeattained’(bellumgeriturutpaxacquiratur)andasameansof

maintainingthestatusquo.53However,nowheredoesAugustineprovidea

cohesive‘code’ofwar,onlydisparatecommentsscatteredthroughouthisworks.

Amorecomprehensiblecodeisprovidedbyothertheologianswhoadaptedpre-

Christianlegalphilosophiestoarguethatitwasbothpermissibleandrightfora

soldiertophysicallyprotecttheChristiancommunity,ortoreestablishan

equilibriumbetweenstatesthroughwar.54Thesixth-centuryIberianbishop

IsidoreofSevilledistilledthesepatristicwritingson‘justwar’withCicero’sideas

fromDerepublicaintoasuccinctdefinitioninhisEtymologiae(XVIII:1.2):55

Iustumbellumest,quodexpraedictogeriturderebusrepetitis,autpropulsandorumhostiumcausa.Injustumbellumest,quoddefurore,nondelegitimarationeinitur.‘Justwaristhatwhichiswagedfromaproclamationfortheretakingofpropertyorforthesakeofwardingoffenemies.Unjustwaristhatwhichisbegunoutofangerwithnolegitimatereason.’

InIsidore’sdefinition,waris‘just'onlyifitisindefence,andwaged

dispassionatelyasaresponsetoattackortoreclaimpropertythatwasstolen.

Warthatis‘unjust’iscarriedoutwithirrationalangerorasinfulmotive.These

ideasweredisseminatedwidelythroughoutEuropeandprovidedmoral

rationalizationandalegalframeworkwithinwhichChristianscouldconduct

warfare.56

Withtheframeworkforjustifyingwar,theChristianisationofrituals

practicedwithinthearmyandincreasingthreatsposedtoChristiankingdomsby

52EpistolaadMarcelliuminPL33:cols531–32;EpistolaadBonifaciuminPL33:cols855–57;ContraFaustumXXII:70–76;andDeciuitatedeiV:24;XIV:15;XIX:7and12.ForoverviewsofAugustine’stheoryofjustwar,seeLenihan,‘JustWar’,42–52;Wallace-Hadrill,‘WarandPeace’,161–62;RussellJustWar,4.53PL33:col.856;JohnLangan,‘TheElementsofStAugustine’sJustWarTheory’,TheJournalofReligiousEthics12:1(1984),27–30;Lenihan,‘JustWar’,47–48.54Cross,‘EthicofWar’,pp.274–77;Cammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,93and100–01;Smith,War,pp.9–28;BenSnook,‘JustWarinAnglo-SaxonEngland:TransmissionandReception’,inWarandPeace:CriticalIssuesinEuropeanSocietiesandLiterature800–1800,ed.AlbrechtClassenandNadiaMargolis(Berlin;Boston:DeGruyter,2011),pp.105–08and119–20.55WallaceMartinLindsay,ed.,IsidoriHispalensisEpiscopietymologiarumsiueoriginum,LibrosXI–XX(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1911),II:273.56Cross,‘EthicofWar’,pp.269–72.

heatheninvaders,wardevelopedareligiousdimensionasdivinelyapproved.57

Although,‘justwar’orbellumiustum(awarhavinglegalandsecular

justification)and‘holywar’orbellumsacrum(awarundertakenforpurposeof

Godandwithdirectecclesiasticaljustificationorauthority)mayhaveoriginally

beentwoseparatethings,byendoftheeleventhcenturyandthebeginningof

theCrusades,theseconceptshadbecomesynonymousformanytheologians.58

YettheblendingoftheseconceptsisfoundedontheOldTestamentwarswhich

drewonGod’sauthoritas.TheideathatGod’sfavourwasmanifestedinvictory

onthebattlefield,asisseeninthefifth-centurypseudo-AugustineletterGrauide

pugna:59

Grauidepugnaconquereris:dubitesnolo,utiletibituisquedaboconsilium:arripemanibusarma;oratioaurespulsetAuctoris,quiaquandopugnatur,Deusapertiscoelisprospectat,etpartemquaminspicitiustam,ibidatpalmam.60‘Youcomplainedabouttheseriousfighting:Idon'twishyoutodoubt,Ishallgivetoyouandyoursusefulcounsel:snatchuparmswithhands;may[your]prayerstriketheearsoftheCreator,sincewhenthereisfighting,Godlooksdownfromtheclearheavens,anddiscernswhichsideisjust,andgivesthatsidethepalmoftriumph.’

TheGrauidepugnamollifiedtheguiltofChristiangeneralsbystatingthatdivine

approvalfortheiractionswouldbemanifestintheirsuccess.Thisideathatthe

divinewasdirectlyconcernedwithearthlybattlesisasoldaswaritself,butit

becameentrenchedinChristianitywiththeacceptanceofChristianviolenceand

theriseofChristianprayerstoGodforvictoryinbattle.61TheAnglo-Saxon

notionof‘holywar’combinedclassicalandbiblicalideasofwar,placingthe

57H.E.J.Cowdrey,‘ChristianityandtheMoralityofWarfareDuringtheFirstCentury’,inBullandHousley(2003),I:178;Erdmann,Origin,26–27;FriedrichPrinz,‘King,Clergy,andWarattheTimeoftheCarolingians’,inSaints,ScholarsandHeroes:StudiesinMedievalCultureinHonorofCharlesJones,ed.MargotKingandWesleyStevens(Collegeville,Minnesota:SaintJohn’sAbbeyandUniversity,1979),II:310–18;Tyerman,FightingforChristendom,p.106;White,MilitarySaints,pp.49–63.58Cowdrey,‘MoralityofWarfare’,I:175–76;Erdmann,Origin,p.3;JohnFrance,‘HolyWarandHolyMen:ErdmannandtheLivesoftheSaints’,inBullandHousley(2003),I:207;Russell,JustWar,p.2.59Cowdrey,‘MoralityofWarfare’,I:178.60PL33:col.1098.61Erdmann,Origin,pp.28–30;ClareStancliffe,‘Oswald,‘MostHolyandMostVictoriousKingoftheNorthumbrians’,inOswald,ed.ClareStancliffeandEricCambridge(Stamford:PaulWatkins,1995),pp.50–51;Whitby,‘DeusNobiscum’,pp.194–99;White,MilitarySaints,pp.37–40.

authorityofkillingwithGodandblendingtheboundariesofbellumiustumwith

bellumsacrum.62Hagiographicalnarratives,fromtheeighth-centuryaccountof

KingOswaldofNorthumbriatotheearlyeleventh-centuryattestationofthe

poemJudith(lines154–58)intheNowellCodex,demonstratethatmanyAnglo-

SaxonsthroughouttheperiodadoptedthisbeliefthatGod’sfavourwas

manifestedthroughvictoryonthebattlefield.63

Non-Christianenemieswereconsequentlydehumanisedanddemonized

as‘just’enemiesintheedictsoftheCuriaandpropagandaofChristianstates.64

WhiteshowshowsecularsoldiersintheByzantineEmpirewerecalledmilites

Christiandgiventhesamestatusasmartyrswhentheydiedinbattleagainstthe

‘infidel’duringthereignofHeraklios(610–641).65InalettertotheGerman

bishopsdated878×879,PopeJohnIII(872–882)wentastepfurtherin

presagingtheindulgencesofthecrusades,sayingthosewhodiefightinginwars

againstpaganswouldbepurgedofsinassuchwaramountedtogooddeedsand

penance.66Thebeliefthatonewasalways‘just’infightingpagans,hereticsand

rebelsisseenearlyinAnglo-SaxonrecordsthroughBede’saccountofthesynod

atAugustine’sOakin603.67WhentheBritishclericswillnotacceptthecustoms

oftheRomanChurch,AugustineofCanterburytellsthem‘iftheydonotwishto

acceptpeacewiththeirbrothers,thentheywouldhavetoacceptwarfrom

enemies’(sipacemcumfratribusacciperenollent,bellumabhostibusforent

accepturi).ThisthreatisthenrealisedwhenKingÆthelfrithkillsthemonksof

Bangor-Is-CoedbecausetheyopposedRomanpractices,andprayedonbehalfof

theBritisharmyatCarlegion.

Theideathathereticalorheathenpeopleswerelegitimateenemiesof

ChristendomisalsofoundintextsproducedinthecontextoftheViking

62Cowdrey,‘MoralityofWarfare’,I:177–78;KentHare,‘ChristianHeroismandHolyWarinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,PhD.Dissertation(LouisianaStateUniversity,1997),pp.6and20–24;Russell,JustWar,pp.23–25;Tyerman,FightingforChristendom,pp.102–03.63HEII:2;LSIII:2–4.64Erdmann,Origin,p.10;France,‘HolyWar’,I:203;Russell,JustWar,pp.28–33.65White,MilitarySaints,pp.49–63.ComparetoPopeLeoIV’sstatementinalettertotheFrankisharmythatthosewhodieddefendingChristendom‘wouldnotbedeniedthekingdomofheaven’(quisquis…inhocbellicertaminefidelitermortuusfuerit,regnaillicœlestiaminimenegabuntur),PL115:col.657.66PL126:col.816;France,‘HolyWar’,I:198–203;TimothyPowell,‘The‘ThreeOrders’ofSocietyinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE23(1994),114;Russell,JustWar,pp.9–20.67HEII:2.Stancliffe,‘MostHoly’,pp.76–80,discussesotherinstancesofAnglo-SaxonattacksonChristianBritonsuntilthetimeofBede.

incursionsintheninthcenturyandthelatetenthcentury.68Pezzarossa

demonstratesthattheninth-centurytranslatoroftheOldEnglishProsePsalms,

forinstance,reworkedtheBookofPsalmstopromoteamartialresponsetothe

VikingsbylinkingthemtobiblicalassailantsonIsraelites.69Acenturylaterinthe

midstofanotherwaveofvikinginvasions,Ælfric’sadaptationoftheIsidorian

codeof‘justwar’exemplifiesthedemonisationofheathenhostiles:70

Secgaðswaþeahlareowasþætsyndonfeowercynnagefeoht:iustum,þætisrihtlic;iniustum,unrihtlic;ciuile,betwuxceastergewarum;plusquamciuile,betwuxsiblingum.Iustumbellumisrihtlicgefeohtwiððareðanflot-menn,oþþewiðoðreþeodaþeeardwillaðfordon.Unrihtlicgefeohtþeofyrrecymð.71‘Nevertheless,theteacherssaythattherearefourkindsofwar:iustum,thatisjust;iniustum,[thatis]unjust;ciuile,[thatis]betweentownspeople;plusquamciuile,[thatis]betweenkinsmen.Iustumbellumisjustwaragainstthosecruelseamen,oragainstotherpeoplewhowishtodestroy[one’s]land.Unjustwaristhatwhichcomesfromanger.’

Thisrepresentationofthecodeof‘justwar’appearsinÆlfric’sPassio

Machabeorum,anarrativelargelyconcernedwithJudasMaccabeus’sdefeatof

Israel’searthlyenemiesandwhichglorifiesthekillingofunbelievers.72Ælfric

repeatstheemphasisonjustwarbeingadispassionateresponsetoanattackand

referstovikingsasthesortofpeoplewhoengageinunjustifiedrapacious

warfare.73Thenotionthatpaganswereenemieswithoutrightsisfurtherevident

inthelaw-codeÆthelredVI(c.1008),whichcondemnspagansandcallsfortheir

expulsionordestruction,reflectingthexenophobicinfluenceofÆlfric’s

contemporaryandpastoralcorrespondent,WulfstanarchbishopofYorkand

68Seepp.207–12and217–25below.69LucreziaPezzarossa,‘TheIdeologyofWarinEarlyMedievalEngland:ThreeCaseStudiesinAnglo-SaxonLiterature’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofYork,2013),pp.108–121.70Cross,‘EthicofWar’,pp.271–72;France,‘HolyWar’,I:196–97.Earl,‘ViolenceandNon-Violence’,134–47,arguestothecontrary,claimingthatÆlfricadvocatednonviolenceandmartyrdominresponsetotheVikinginvasions.71LSII:326.72ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:xv,xviii–xxii;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.219–23.JohnHalbrooks,‘Ælfric,theMaccabees,andtheProblemofChristianHeroism’,StudiesinPhilology106:3(2009),263–84,arguesthatÆlfricparticularlyreworkedMaccabeestoemphasisepietasasessentialforChristianheroism.73Cammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,93and100–01;MarciaDalbey,‘TheGoodShepherdandSoldierofGod:OldEnglishHomiliesonStMartinofTours’,NM85:4(1984),434;Whatley‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.221–24.

bishopofWorcester(d.1023).74Ælfricfurtherassuagessecularguiltforfighting

inhisLatinlettertoWulfstaninwhichhesaysthat‘theorderof[secular]

fightersoughttodefendwitharmsourhomelandfromtheincursionsof

enemies’(ordobellatorumdebetarmispatriamnostramabincursibushostium

defendere).75Recentcommentatorsarguethateleventh-centuryworkslike

Ælfric’sPassioMachabeorumaimedtode-stigmatisekillingin‘justwar’,thereby

diminishingthe‘crisisoffaith’forsoldierswhowereconfrontedbytheparadox

ofbeingbothgoodnonviolentChristiansaswellasnecessarydefendersof

England.76AlthoughargumentsthatsecularChristianwarriorswereduty-bound

tofightonbehalfofChristiancommunitiesarefoundthroughouttheperiod,

particularlyinworksdescribinganidealChristiansociety,77itwasnot

universallyacceptedthatthespiritualmilitesChristicouldfightphysically.

Ælfricexplicitlycondemnsclericalinvolvementinphysicalwarfareatthe

endofhisPassioMachabeorum.78Here,ÆlfricstatesthatoneshouldreadtheOld

TestamentandthewarsoftheIsraelitesasallegoriesofthespiritualwarfare

wagedagainstthedevilbyholymenaftertheNewTestament:79

Þætealde[godes]folcsceoldefeohtanþamidwæpnumandheoragewinnhæfdehaligramannagetacnungeþetodræfaðþaleahtrasanddeoflaheomframonðæreniwangecyðnysseþecristselfastealde.80‘TheancientpeopleofGodhadtofightwithweapons,andtheirstrugglehadthesignificationoftheholymenwhodriveoffthoseshamefulonesandthedevilsfromthemselvesintheNewTestamentwhichChristhimselfsetforth.’

74JonathanWilcox,‘StBrice’sDayMassacreandArchbishopWulfstan’,inPeaceandNegotiation,ed.DianeWolfthal(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishers,2000),pp.87–90.Russell,JustWar,p.8,showsthatthisnotionwasestablishedintheRomanEmpire.Seealsopp.207–12below.75CouncilsandSynods,252.76Cammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,89–91,95and100;Damon,‘Sanctifying’,pp.188and197–98;Snook,‘JustWar’,pp.109–10and115.77NicholasBrooks,‘Arms,StatusandWarfareinLate–SaxonEngland’,inEthelredtheUnready,ed.DavidHill(Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports,1978),p.81;SimonKeynes,‘AnAbbot,anArchbishop,andtheVikingRaidsof1006–7and1009–12’,ASE36(2007),166–69;InkaMoilanen,‘TheConceptoftheThreeOrdersofSocietyandSocialMobilityinEleventh-CenturyEngland’,EnglishHistoricalReview553(2016),1337–39;Powell‘ThreeOrders’,112;Wallace-Hadrill,‘WarandPeace’,169.78LSII:325–34.79JamesMacGregor,‘TheMinistryofGeroldd’Avranches:Warrior-SaintsandKnightlyPietyontheEveoftheFirstCrusade’,JournalofMedievalHistory29:3(2003),226–28;Halbrooks,‘ChristianHeroism’,283–84;Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,110–11.80LSII:326and395.

ÆlfricinsiststhatclericsshouldnotreadthewarsoftheOldTestamentliterally

tojustifyclericalinvolvementinbattle,butshouldinterpretthewarsassymbolic

ofaChristian’smetaphysicalstrugglewithsin.81Ælfricfurtherclarifiesthe

spiritualnatureofthecleric’sfightthroughhistreatiseonthethreeordersof

societythatimmediatelyfollowshisPassioMachabeorum,andhisdiscussionof

‘justwar’inasectionvariouslytitledItemalia,quisuntoratores,laboratores,et

bellatoresorDetribusordinessaeculi.82Hereheisclearthatwhilesecular

warriors(bellatores)canfightphysicalenemies,clerics(oratores)aretoabstain

fromworldlywarfare:83

OratoressyndþaðeustoGodegeðingiað,bellatoressyndþaðeustoburgahealdaðandurneeardbeweriaðwiðonwinnendnehere.Nuswincðseyrðlincgembeurnebigleofanandseworuld-cempasceallwinnanwiðurefynd,andseGodesþeowasceallsymleforusgebiddanandfeohtangastlicewiðþaungesewenlicanfynd.Isnuforþymareþæramunecagewinnwiðþaungesewenlicandeoflaþesyrwiaðembeusþonnesyþæraworuld-mannaþewinnaðwiþðaflæsclicanandwiðþagesewenlicangesewenlicefeohtað.Nunesceolonþaworuld-cempantoþamworuldlicumgefeohtþaGodesþeowanneadianframþamgastlicangewinneforðanþehimfremaðswiðorþætþaungesewenlicanfyndbeonoferswyðdeþonneðagesewenlican,andhitbiðswyðederigendlicþæthiDrihtnesþeowdomforlætanandtoworuld-gewinnebugan,þehimnahttonegebyriað.Iulianus,sewiðer-sacaandsewæl-hreowacasere,woldeneadianpreostastoworuldlicumgecampe,andeacþahalganmunecas...84GodesþeowassceolonunscæððignyssehealdanswaswaCristastealdeþurhhinesylfneþabysneþaþahehetPetrumbehydanhisswurdandgehældeþurhhismihteþæsmanneseareþePetrusofasloh,andgeswutelodehisgodnysse.NusemunucþebihðtoBenedictesregoleandforlætealleworuld-ðingehwiwileheeftgecyrrantoworuldlicumwæpnumandawurpanhisgewinnwiðþaungesewenlicanfyndhisscyppendetoteonan?SeGodesþeowanemægmidworuld-mannumfeohtangifheonþamgastlicangefeohteforð-ganghabbansceall.NæsnanhaligGodesþeowaæfterþæshælendesþrowungaþeæfreongefeohtehishandawoldeafylanachiforbæronehtnyssearleasracwelleraandheoralifsealdonmidunscæþþignysseforGodesgeleafanandhimidgodenulybbaðforðanþehifurþonnoldonænnefugelacwellan.85

81AsummaryofearlyexegeticinterpretationsoftheOldTestamentisinSmith,War,pp.10–16.82LSII:334–36.Fordevelopmentoftheconceptofthe‘ThreeOrdersofSociety’inEngland,seeMoilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1331–52;Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,105–10.83Cammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,93–94;Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,118–24.84OmittedhereareÆlfric’sexamplesofwickedsecularauthoritieswhoforcedoratorestofightandwereconsequentlypunished.85LSII:334–36.

‘OratoresarethosewhointercedeforuswithGod,bellatoresarethosewhoholdourfortressesforusandwardoffaninvadingarmyfromourland.Nowthefieldlabourertoilsforoursustenance,andtheworldlywarriormustguardagainstourenemies,andtheservantofGodmustalwaysprayforusandfightspirituallyagainstthoseinvisibleenemies.Now,therefore,greateristhefightofthemonksagainsttheinvisibledevils—whoconspirearoundus—thanthatoftheworldlywarriorswhofightagainstcorporeal[foes]andvisiblyfightagainstthosevisibleones.Now,nevermustthoseworldlywarriorscompeltheservantsofGodtothatworldlyfightfromthespiritualcontest,foritwillbenefitthemmoregreatlythattheinvisibleratherthanthevisibleenemiesbeover-thrown,anditismoreharmfulthattheyabandontheLord’sserviceandbowtotheworldlyfightwhichdoesnotpertaintothematall.Julian,thepersecutingandbloodthirstyCaesar,wishedtoforceprieststoworldlyfightingandalsothoseholymonks…God’sservantsmustcleavetoharmlessinnocencejustasChristsetforththroughhisownexamplethenwhenheorderedPetertosheathhisswordandhealedtheearofthemanwhomPeterhadstruckthroughhismightandmademanifesthisgoodness.Now,themonkwhobendstotheruleofBenedictandabandonsallworldlythings,whywillheafterwardsturntoworldlyweaponsandcastasidehisfightagainstthoseunseenspiritsasaninsulttohismaker?TheservantofGodmaynotfightwithworldlymenifheshallhavesetforthintothatspiritualfight.TherewasnotanyholyservantofGodafterthepassionoftheSaviourwhoeverwishedtosoilhishandsinfightingbuttheyforborethepersecutionofGodlesskillersandgavetheirliveswithblamelessnessforfaithinGodandtheynowlivewithGodbecausetheywerenotwillingtokillasinglebird.’

Ælfricarguesthatthespiritualwarfareofclergyandthephysicalwarfareof

secularsoldierscomplementeachother,86althoughheemphasisesthatthe

spiritualwarfareoftheoratoresisalwayssuperiortothephysicalwarfareofthe

bellatores.87Herepeatsthecanonicalrulingagainstclericalinvolvementin

warfarethatbarsanyclericfromtakingupworldlyweaponsagainafter

devotinghimselftoGod.88Thisseparationofspiritualandworldlyfightingisalso

explicitinÆlfric’stranslationoftheHexameronofBasil,whichcomparesthe

woruldlicewæpna(‘worldlyweapons’)thatworuld-cempan(‘worldlyfighters’)

weartothosespiritualweaponsofmonkswhoare‘thethegnsofChristfighting

86Cammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,92–93.87Moilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1337–38.88ForanalysesandtextsofearlycanonicalprohibitionsofclericalfightingseeDuggan,Armsbearing,pp.95–100;DanielGerrard,TheChurchatWar:TheMilitaryActivitiesofBishops,Abbots,andotherClergyinEngland,c.900–1200(NewYork:Routledge,2016),pp.257–59;Prinz,‘ClergyandWar’,II:303–04.

againstdevils’(Cristesðegnascampiendewiðdeoflu).89InhisHexameron,Ælfric

againplacesspiritualwarfareabovephysicalwarfareashesays:

SemunucscealgeanbidianhisedleanesætGode,andbeonhimsylfælfremedframeorðlicumdædum,andhineneabysgianmidworuldlicumbysgumgifhecampianscealCristeoneornost.90‘ThemonkmustexpecthisrewardfromGod,andbehimselfremovedfromearthlydeeds,andheshallnotbeengagedwithworldlypursuitsifhemustfightforChristinearnest.’

Here,ÆlfricimpliesthatthetruesoldierofChristmustseparatehimselffrom

secularwarfare.

Ælfric’sconcernextendedbeyondmonasticclericstoaddressthesecular

Church.HispastoralletterstoWulfstanandtoBishopWulfsigeofSherbourne

reflectadeepconcernfordistancingclericsfromthesecularrealm.91Inhisthird

letter(993×995)toWulfsigehesays‘letnopriestabandonhisgodliness,neither

taketoworldlytalknorbearweapons’(nepreost...forlætehisgodcundnysse,ne

nefotoworuld-spræcum,nehewæþnanewerige).92Thestatementisemphaticin

censuringthosethatwouldfightwhilebeinganorator,emphasisedthroughthe

redundantusesofthenegationne.Thisthemeisexpandedinthesectiontitled

Debellicoaparatu(‘Concerningmilitarypreparation’)inhisLatinletter

(1002×1005)toWulfstan:

Ordobellatorumdebetarmispatriamnostramabincursibushostiumdefendere,etordooratorum,idsuntclericietmonachietepiscopi,quielectisuntadspiritalemmilitiam,debentorareproomnibus,etseruitiisseuofficiisDeisemperinsistere,etfidemcatholicampredicareetsanctacharismatadarefidelibus.Etomnisquiadistammilitiamordinatur,etsianteaseculariaarmahabuit,debeteadeponeretemporeordinationisetassumerespiritaliaarma,loricamiustitiaeetscutumfideietgaleamsalutisetgladiumspiritus,quodestuerbumDei,etbellareuirilitercontraspiritalianequitia.Quiadistammilitiamperueniatetuultposteasecularibusarmisuticontrahostescarnales,nonneeritapostata,recedensamilitiaDeiadmilitiamsecularem?Ergononpotestinamabusmilitiissimulstare,quiaillamanusquaehumanumsanguinemeffuderit

89Hexameron,26and34–38.90Hexameron,36.91CouncilsandSynods,244and253.92CouncilsandSynods,212.

nonpotestdigneDominicalicemsanctificare.Necsaltimbaculolicetepiscopumquequampercutere,sicutinipsiuselectionedicitapostolus:‘nonpercussorem’,neclitigare,sicutidemdicit:‘SeruumDeinonoportetlitigare,sedmansuetumesseadomnes.’EtDominusdixitPetrocarnaliteradhucsapienti:‘Mittegladiuminuaginam,omnesquiacceperintgladium,gladioperibunt.’Nondixitgladioocciduntur,sedgladioperibunt.Nametcanonesdocent,siclericusinbelloceciderit,utnullusproeomissamfaciat.Iterumdicentcanonesutclericusarmisutensdegradetur.93‘Theorderof[secular]fightersoughttodefendwitharmsourhomelandfromtheincursionsofenemies,andtheorderofthosewhopray—thoseareclericsandmonksandbishopswhoarechosenforspiritualwarfare—theyoughttoprayforeveryone,andtodwellineithertheservicesorofficesofGod,andtopreachthecatholicfaith,andtogivewithfaiththesaintlygiftsofgrace.Andallwhoareappointedtothatmilitaryservice,althoughhehadpreviouslyheldseculararms,oughttosetthemasideatthetimeofhisordinationandassumespiritualarms,thebreastplateofjusticeandtheshieldoffaithandthehelmetofwholenessandtheswordoftheSpirit—whichisthewordofGod—andheoughttowarmanfullyagainstspiritualiniquity.Hewhocomestothatfightandwishesafterwardstouseseculararmsagainstcorporealenemies,surelyhewillbeapostate,forsakingthemilitaryserviceofGodforthesecularwarfare?Thereforeitisnotpossibletostandinbotharmiesatonce,sincethathandwhichshallhavepouredforthhumanbloodisnotabletosanctifythechaliceoftheLordwithdignity.Nortoanyextentisitpermittedtostrikeanyonewiththestaffofabishop,justastheapostlesaysofthisinthelection,‘donotstrike’,nor[isitpermitted]toquarrel,asthesamethingsays,‘theservantoftheLordmustnotquarrel,butbemildtoallmen’(IITimothy2:24).AndtheLordtoldPeterthiswisdomwhilealive,‘Puttheswordintothesheath,forallthattaketheswordshallperishwiththesword.’(Matthew26:52)Hedidnotsaytheywould[literally]befelledbythesword,butperishbythesword.Forthecanonsteach,iftheclericfallsinbattle,thennomassmaybesaidforhim.Elsewherethecanonssaythattheclericisdeprivedofhisrankthroughtheuseofarms.’

Atthetime,WulfstanaskedÆlfrictotranslatethisletterintoOldEnglishsothat

itcouldbeusedforthepastoralcareandtrainingofwider,eleventh-century

Anglo-Saxonaudiences,whichÆlfricdidwithsomeslightalterationsthat

accentuatedthecensureofclericalviolence.94Inbothversionsoftheletter,

Ælfricdefinesclericsasmonks,bishopsorthose‘whoarechosenforspiritual

warfare’(quielectisuntadspiritalemmilitiam),andplacesclericsinthetradition

ofmilitesChristithroughdescriptionsofspiritualarmour.Ælfricexplicitlycalls

93CouncilsandSynods,252;seealsoWhitelock’sintroductiontotheletteronpp.243–47.94CouncilsandSynods,296–300.

onallclericswhohavecarriedseculararmstolaythemdownandrenounce

theirworldlyconnections,rejectingthepossibilityofonebeingbothaphysical

andspiritualfightersimultaneously.Theletterssharetheirinjunctionagainst

clericalinvolvementinsecularactivitieswiththecollectionofcanonlaws

referredtoastheExcerptionespseudo-Ecgberti,95whichwascompiledin

Wulfstan’sscriptorium.96AsPowellsummarises,theseeleventh-century

canonicalworksarguethatthe‘divisionbetweentheclergyandtheorderof

warriorsisabsoluteandextendsbeyondwarfaretoanyformofphysical

chastisement.’97

WhilewehaveseenthattheinjunctionagainstmilitesChristiparticipating

inworldlyconflictappearsthroughoutthelateantiqueandearlymedieval

period,fromthesecond-centuryPaulineEpistlesandfifth-centurytheologians

likeAugustineofHippotoÆlfric’spastorallettersintheearlyeleventhcentury,

otherchurchmenheldlesscriticalviewsofclericalinvolvementinworldly

affairs.FowlersuggeststhatWulfstaninterpretedcanonlawtomeanthatclergy

werebannedfrombearingweaponsinchurchbuildings,butnotbannedfrom

wieldingthemaltogether.98ThisdistinctionexistedasearlyastheCouncilof

Arles(c.314),whichdecreesthat‘thosewhobeararmsintimesofpeace’(qui

armaproiciuntinpace)oughttobebarredfromchurch,butdoesnotbanthe

bearingofarmsduringwar.99

Inhistreatisesandletters,Ælfricnotestheperspectivesofthosewho

arguethatclericscanbeactivesoldiers,indicatingthatintheeleventhcentury

‘someclergyfeltitaChristiandutytoserveGodbyservingtheking,onthefield

ofbattleaswellasinprayer.’100ÆlfricconfrontstheideaofanarmedChurchin

95Seesections160and165inrecensionBinJ.E.CrossandAndrewHamer,ed.,Wulfstan’sCanonLawCollection(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1999)pp.167and169–71.96AndyOrchard,‘TheLibraryofWulfstanofYork’,inGameson(2012),I:698.RogerFowler,ed.,Wulfstan’sCanonsofEdgar(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1972),I:xli–xlii,andWhitelock,CouncilsandSynods,pp.245–46,believethatÆlfricusedtheExcerptionesashissourceintheselettersalthoughCrossandHamer,Wulfstan’sCanonLaw,pp.17–22;and‘Ælfric’sLettersandtheExcerptionesEcberhti’,inAlfredtheWise,ed.JaneRobertsandJanetBatelywithMalcolmGodden(Rochester,NY;Woodbridge:D.S.Brewer,1997),pp.6–12,havearguedthatWulfstanwasborrowingfromÆlfric,andleftthepassageslargelyunalteredinhiscompilationofcanonlaw.97Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,118,also112–13.Moilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1344–51,postulatesthatthisrigiddivisionofsocietyaroseasaresponsetotheVikingthreatandtonostalgiaforthepast.SeealsoCross,‘EthicofWar’,pp.280–82.98Fowler,ed.,Canons,p.36.99Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.70–75.100Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,127;Moilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1339–43.

hisOldEnglishlettertoWulfstanbyrefutingtwojustificationsforclerical

violence.Thefirstusesbiblicalprecedentforholymenwhowieldedworldly

weapons.Thesecondisbasedonthenecessityofservingtheworldlykingasthe

arbiterofGod’searthlykingdom.101Whilewedonothaverecordsofhowthese

twopointswereargued,Ælfric’srebuttalsprovideindirectevidencethatPeter’s

attackonMalchusandthewarsoftheOldTestamentwereusedtojustify

ecclesiasticalinvolvementinwarfare.

Philosophiesthataretolerantofclericalviolencealsogrewasthe

Church’sacquisitionofextensivelandholdingsandauthorityovercommunities

ofclericsandlaymennecessitatedecclesiasticalinvolvementinthedefenceofits

territorialproperty.102Fromthefifthcentury,aristocratsinepiscopaloffices

manipulatedorignoredcanonlawsbanningparticipationinwar,arguingthat

thebanagainstclericalviolencewasrestrictedtothelowerclergy.103Thelate

fifth-centuryVitaGermanibyConstantiusofLyon,andBede’seighth-century

adaptationofit,provideanearlyaccountofepiscopalparticipationinwarfarein

anAnglo-Saxoncontext.104Bothnarrativesrecounthowthefifth-century

bishopsGermanusandLupusactedasgeneralswhodirectedtheBritonsintheir

fightagainsttheinvadingPictsandSaxons,andimbuedtheirarmywithdivine

favourandrighteousfervorthroughbaptisingthesoldiersbeforebattle.

AccordingtoBede,thebattleresultedinavictorywithoutbloodshedandthe

bishopsprotectedthepeaceoftheChristianBritons‘havingovercomethe

enemieseitherinvisibileorseenintheflesh’(superatisquehostibusuel

inuisibilibusuelcarneconspicuis).

TheaccountofGermanusandLupusalongsidethefocusonaristocratic

activityinearlyAnglo-Saxonhagiographytogethershowthatclerical

involvementinwarfarewastolerated,ifnotpromoted,inEnglandfromatleast

101CouncilsandSynods,297–98;Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,122–29.102Duggan,Armsbearing,pp.19–23and59–62;Erdmann,Origin,pp.6–7.103Brundage,‘ClericsandViolence’,I:149;ErdmannOrigin,pp.25–26;France,‘HolyWar’,I:195and205;Gerrard,ChurchatWar,pp.29–33and157;Powell‘ThreeOrders’,126–27;Prinz,‘ClergyandWar’,II:302–17;RussellJustWar,p.34.104HEI:20;B.KruschandW.Levison,ed.,PassionesuitaequesanctorumaeviMerovingicarumcumsupplementoetappendice,MGHSRM7.1(Hanover;Leipzig:Hahnian,1919),pp.263–65.SeealsoNickHigham,‘Constantius,StGermanusandFifth-CenturyBritain’,EarlyMedievalEurope22:2(2014),113–17and128–30.

theeighthcentury.105Later,menlikeDunstanofCanterbury(909–988)and

ÆthelwaldofWinchester(904×909–984),who‘soughttoexercisesupreme

poweroverbothChurchandstatesimultaneously’throughtheirinfluenceon

KingsEadredandEdgar,106orWulfstan,whowasacentralfigureinthecourtsof

bothÆthelrædandCnut,107usedtheirresourcesforwareffortsandtopolitically

manipulateforeignpolicy.108TheseChurchfiguresprovidedtenth-andeleventh-

centurycontemporarieswithlivingexamplesoforatoreswhosoldieredforGod

byinvolvingthemselvesinsecularaffairsinadditiontotheirreligious

observances.

WhiletheWesternChurchwasincreasinglyembroiledinwarfareafter

thefifthcentury,secularauthoritiestaskedwithconductingwareffortswere

becominggraduallyintertwinedwithChurchadministrationandspiritual

duties.109Inparticular,theelevationofthekingabovethetri-partdivisionof

societyastheheadofaChristianstatewithecclesiasticalaswellassecular

duties—articulatedinAnglo-SaxonEnglandbyKingAlfredintheninth

century110—contributedtotheboundary-blurringbetweentheordersof

oratoresandbellatores.111Klaniczay,Rollason,andThackerdemonstratethat

piouskingsthroughoutEuropewerepresentedandveneratedassaintly

paragonsofbothsecularandspiritualaffairs.112Althoughinspiredinitiallyfor

105DavidRollason,SaintsandRelicsinAnglo-SaxonEngland(Oxford:BasilBlackwellPublishing,1989),pp.93–100.106BenSnook,‘BishopsandPawns:Parallelsbetween‘Caesaropapism’andCrusadingIdeologyinTenth-CenturyEnglandandThirteenth–CenturyDenmark’,QuaestioInsularis8(2007),155–67and177.107Orchard,‘LibraryofWulfstan’,I:694–700,summarisesWulfstan’sliteraryinfluences,whileWilcoxdiscussesWulfstan’spoliticalinvolvementin‘StBrice’sDay’,pp.79–91.108See,forinstance,the1002×1005willofArchbishopÆlfricinCouncilsandSynods,239.JohnDamon,‘AdvisorsforPeaceintheReignofÆthelredUnræd’,inWolfthal(2000),pp.57–78,arguesthatchurchmenwereprimarilyadvocatesofpeacefulrelationswithvikingsduringthereignofÆthelred,buthisuseofevidenceislimitedandhisargumentfalliblewhenconsideredinthecontextoftheStBrice’sdaymassacre.SeealsoKeynes,‘Abbot’,169–208.109WithparticularreferencetothisdevelopmentintheCarolingianempire,seeJanetNelson,PoliticsandRitualinEarlyMedievalEurope(London:HambledonPress,1986),pp.117–31.110Erdmann,Origin,pp.23–26and33,believesthattheLivesofKingEdmunddevelopedtheideathatthekinghadspecialroleasbothheadofstateandpriest;althoughPowell,‘ThreeOrders’,104–09,attributesthistoAlfredandAsser;whileDamon,SoldierSaints,pp.28and39–61,arguesthattheshiftarosefromthecultsofroyalmartyred-warrior-saintslikeOswaldandEdwin.111CatherineCubitt,‘SitesandSanctity:RevisitingtheCultofMurderedandMartyredAnglo-SaxonRoyalSaints’,EarlyMedievalEurope9:1(2000),59–63,and78–83;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.23–28.112GáborKlaniczay,HolyRulersandBlessedPrincesses:DynasticCultsinMedievalCentralEurope(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),pp.81–89;DavidRollason,‘TheCultsofMurderedRoyalSaintsinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE11(1983),1–16;AlanThacker,‘Kings,

politicalends,thecultsofmartyrwarriorkingsgainedwiderpopularityoutside

oftheirlocalityorkingdoms.113CultsofkingsandtreatisesonidealChristian

kingshipjustifiedasaintlymonarch’sparticipationinworldlyaffairsas

necessaryfortheprotectionoftheirpeople’sspiritualwellbeing.114Thebelief

thatkingswerebothpriestsandsecularauthoritiesprovidedinstancesinwhich

‘bearingarmsasaclericwasnotonlyallowed,[itwas]almostcommended.’115

OswaldofNorthumbriaexemplifiesthedualnatureoftheidealChristian

king,beingbothawarriorandaspiritualleader.116OswaldwasapiousChristian

who,accordingtoBede(672–735),writingnearlyacenturylater,wasintegralto

convertingNorthumbriatoChristianityduringhisreignfrom634–641×642.117

Oswald’swarringwassanctionedastheunavoidabledefenceofChristian

peoplesagainstenemiesofNorthumbria,andinsupportoftheNorthumbrian

ChurchunderBishopAidan.118BedeportraysOswaldasanEnglishConstantine,

dedicatinghisactionstoChristashedefendshiscountryagainstinvasionand

promotesChristianityasaspiritualfatherofthekingdom.119AsOswaldstates

beforethebattleatHeavenfieldagainsttheChristianWelshKingCadwallon:120

Saints,andMonasteriesinPre-VikingMercia’,MidlandHistory10(1985),2–20.Cubitt,ontheotherhand,arguesthatthecultsofroyalsaintsarisefrom‘spontaneouslaydevotion’inherarticle‘SitesandSanctity’,53–58.113Forexample,seethegrowthofthecultofKingOswaldoutsideofEnglandinAnnemiekJansen,‘TheDevelopmentoftheStOswaldLegendsontheContinent’,inStancliffeandCambridge(1995),pp.230–40;Klaniczay,HolyRulers,pp.86and168–170;AlanThacker,‘MembraDisjecta:TheDivisionoftheBodyandtheDiffusionoftheCult’,inStancliffeandCambridge(1995),pp.114–19and126.114ForAugustine’sconceptionofidealkingship,seeDeciuitateDeiV:24;andGeorgeLampe,‘StAugustine’sTheoryofKingship’,Theology36:212(1938),102–06.SeealsoPowell,‘ThreeOrders’,125–27.115Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,128.116HEII:20–III:12;LSIII:2–20;AlanOrrAndersonandMarjorieOgilvieAnderson,ed.Andtrans.,Adomnan’sLifeofSaintColumba(London:ThomasNelsonandSons,1961),pp.198–202.ForanoverviewofmaterialonKingOswaldseeRobertaBassi,‘StOswaldinEarlyEnglishChroniclesandNarratives’,inHagiographyinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.LoredanaLazzari,PatriziaLendinara,andClaudiaDiSciacca(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishers,2014),pp.535–55;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.42–57.117HEIII:5–12.StancliffeanalysesOswald’spoliticalandreligiousimpactonNorthumbriain‘MostHoly’,pp.46–61and80–83.118Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.42–55;Klaniczay,HolyRulers,pp.82–85.Tyerman,FightingforChristendom,pp.104–05,findsthatOswald’sVitawasmarredbywarriorcultureasaresultoftheGermanisisationofChristianity,mixedwithmartialidealsandimagery.119Stancliffe,‘MostHoly’,pp.40–42and61–66;Thacker,‘MembraDisjecta’,p.112.120HEIII:2.

‘Dominumomnipotentemuiuumacuerumincommunedeprecemur,utinosabhostesuperboacferocesuamiserationedefendat,scitenimipsequiaiustaprosalutegentisnostrisbellasuscepimus.’“LetustogetherpraytothelivingandtrueGodalmighty,thathedefendus,inhismercy,fromanarrogantandsavageenemy,forheknowssohimself,sincewewagejustwarsforthesafetyofourpeople.”

Ashisfaithdeserved(meritumsuaefidei),Oswaldwinsthebattleandisableto

createaChristiankingdomwiththehelpofBishopAidan.Bedelaterdescribes

Oswald’sdeathonthe‘Maserferth’battlefieldfightingthepaganPendaasbotha

defenceoftheChristianstate,aswellasamartyrdominwhichOswaldpraysfor

thesoulsofhisarmy(namcumarmisethostibuscircumseptusiamiamque

uideretseesseperimendum,orauitadDominumproanimabusexercitussui),121

beforehe‘waskilledbypaganswhilefightingforhiscountry’(propatria

dimicansapaganisinterfectusest).AsStancliffeshows,Oswaldwasundoubtedly

involvedinotherbattlesand,ifheridentificationof‘Maserferth’asOswestryis

correct,alsoconductedoffensivecampaignsintoneighboringChristian

kingdoms.122YetBede’sselectiveaccountoftheking’slifeandthereframingof

hisbattlesas‘just’and‘holy’transformedOswaldintoa‘mostholyandmost

victoriousking’(sanctissimumacuictoriosissimumregem),andamilesChristifor

otherstoemulate.123

Storiesofroyalsaints,alongwithnarrativeslikethefourth-century

accountsoftheFortySoldier-MartyrsofSebaste,suggestthatChristians

acceptedandapprovedoflaysanctityformilitarymen,124especiallythosewho

receivedmartyrdomassoldiers.125TheLivesandcultsofsuchsecularsaintsalso

indicatethatmanyacceptedChristianviolence,andthatonecouldstraddlethe

clericalandsecularordersofsociety,126despitetheeffortsofhagiographerslike

Ælfricwhotriedtoseparatetheordersanddistancewarrior-saintslikeKing

121HEIII:12.122Stancliffe,‘MostHoly’,pp.56–70;ClaireStancliffe,‘WherewasOswaldKilled?’,inStancliffeandCambridge(1995),pp.84–96.123HEIII:7.124Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,46–47;StephenMitchell,‘HagiographyandtheGreatPersecutioninSebasteaandArmeniaMinor’,inEarlyChristianityinAsiaMinorandCyprus:fromtheMarginstotheMainstream,ed.StephenMitchellandPhilippPilhofer(Leiden:Brill,2019),pp.54–57;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.228–30.125Stancliffe,‘MostHoly’,pp.38–42;Thacker,‘MembraDisjecta’,pp.97–112.126Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.60–62;Moilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1347–51.

Oswaldfromtheirsecularsoldiery.127Althoughitisunclearwhenthecultsof

laymenbegantobeuniversallyvenerated,thepopularityofmilitarysaintslike

DemetriusandTheodoreestablishedholymodelsofsoldieringfor

Mediterraneanaudiencesfromatleastthefourthcentury.128Whitebelievesthat

thevenerationofmilitarysaintsthenincreasedduringtheninthandtenth

centuriesaroundByzantium,129whileDamonarguesthatthecultsofAnglo-

Saxonaristocraticsaintswhowereactivewarriorsbecamemoreestablishedin

thelatetenthandeleventhcenturies.130HoweverOswald’scultintheseventh

century,Cynewulf’sElenefromtheeighthorninthcentury,accountsofwarrior-

saintsintheninth-centuryOldEnglishMartyrology,131andthetenth-or

eleventh-centuryLifeofEustacesuggestthatlaymenwereveneratedthroughout

theperiod.Likewise,itseemsthatAnglo-Saxonnoblemenwereinterestedin

findingsanctifiedmodelsofwarfare,attestedinthefocusonwarfareinthe

ninth-centuryOldEnglishProsePsalms,132andintheinfluencethesecular

patronsÆthelweardandÆthelmærhadonÆlfric’seleventh-centuryLivesof

Saints.133

ThedevelopmentsinChristianapproachestoviolenceinpastoral

treatises,canons,andsaints’Livessuggestthattheinjunctionagainstfighting

physicallyasamilesChristiwasnotuniversallyfollowed.Meanwhile,the

popularityofthe‘mixedlife’approachtodevotion,inwhichone’sinternalor

contemplativespiritualstateisharmonisedwithone’sactionsandactive

occupationintheworld,encouragedclericalinvolvementinatleastsome

worldlyactivites.134WriterslikeJohnCassian(360–435)andGregorytheGreat

127MaryClayton,‘ÆlfricandÆthelred’,inRobertsandNelson(2000),pp.67–88;ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:xvii–xxi;Cross,‘OswaldandByrhtnoth’,94–99;Earl,‘ViolenceandNon-Violence’,133–39.Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.557–58,arguesthatÆlfric’sportrayalofOswaldadvocatesforamartialresponsetotheVikings.128Whitby,‘DeusNobiscum’,pp.194–99;White,MilitarySaints,pp.26–29.129White,MilitarySaints,pp.64–93.130Damon,‘Sanctifying’,pp.186,191and207.131See,forexample,saintsAdrian,FortySoldiersofSebaste,Vitalis,VictorMaurus,VictorofCilicia,VictorofMarseilles,Romanus,MauriceandtheThebanLegion,Mennas,andHeliodorus,OEMart.60,88,100,104,142,156,186and214.132Pezzarossa,‘IdeologyofWar’,pp.116–21.133Damon,‘Sanctifying’,p.203;PaulE.Szarmach,‘TheVercelliHomilies:StyleandStructure’,inSzarmachandHuppé(1978),p.259;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.217and230.134Foranoverviewofthe‘mixedlife’idealinAugustineandGregorytheGreat’sworks,seeCuthbertButler,WesternMysticism:TheTeachingofSSAugustine,Gregory,andBernardon

(540–604)advocatethistwofoldorderingoflife,135amodelpopularlypresented

forAnglo-SaxonaudiencesthroughSulpicius’sportrayalofMartinofToursasa

bishopwhomaintainsmonk-likeasceticism.136Inthenextchapterwewillsee

theeighth-centuryMartinmas-homilistaltertheportraitofthesaintinherited

fromSulpicius’sVitaMartinibothtopromotethe‘mixedlife’idealofanascetic

missionary,andtodistancethesaintfrommetaphysicalandworldlywarrior

cultures.Indoingso,theanonymoushomilistreframesMartinasamild-hearted

andnonviolentspiritualfatherwhoattendstothewellbeingofthecommunities

surroundinghim.

ContemplationandtheContemplativeLive(London:ConstableandCo.,1922),pp.195–241.ForadiscussionoftheidealinAnglo-SaxonEngland,seeLeneghan,‘TeachingtheTeachers’,632–36.135MarcusAdriaen,ed.,S.GregoriiMagni:MoraliainIob,libriXXIII–XXXV,CCSL143b(Turnhout:Brepols,1985),p.1420;MarcusAdriaen,ed.SanctiGregoriiMagni:HomiliaeinHiezechihelemprophetam,CCSL162(Turnhout:Brepols,1971),pp.229–30.RobertMarkus,GregorytheGreatandhisWorld(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),pp.17–33;Stewart,CassiantheMonk,pp.49–55.136Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.68;JulietHewish,‘EasternAsceticismversusWesternMonasticism:aConflictofIdealsintheOldEnglishTranslationsoftheWorksofSulpiciusSeverus’,QuæstioInsularis4(2003),119–20;Markus,GregorytheGreat,pp.178–87;RobertMarkus,‘AugustineandGregorytheGreat’,inStAugustineandtheConversionofEngland,ed.RichardGameson(Stroud:Sutton,1999),pp.41–47;JulietMullins,‘LaplacedeSaintMartindanslemonachismeanglo-saxon’,AnnalesdeBretagne119:3(2012),60–66.

ChapterThree

ThePeacefulSoldier:TheAnonymousMartinmas-HomilyItishardtooverestimatetheinfluencethatthestoryofMartinofTourshadon

theearlymedievalconceptionofhowtosoldierforChrist.1SulpiciusSeverus

wrotethefirstbiographyofhissanctifiedcontemporaryandacquaintance,

BishopMartinofTours,between396and397.2Sulpicius’sVitaS.Martiniiswhat

Hillwouldclassifyasa‘primaryvita’orcontemporaryaccountofMartin’slife

fromhischildhood,throughhismilitaryserviceandeducationunderSaint

Hilary,tohisestablishmentasbishopofTours.3AfterMartin’sdeathin397,

SulpiciussupplementedhisbiographyofMartininhisDialogiandthree

Epistulae,whichincludegestathatfurtherillustrateMartin’ssanctityaswellas

describinghislastdays.Intheseworks,SulpiciuspresentsMartinasadevoted

missionarymilesChristi,whocanhealbothphysicalandspiritualafflictions

whileconfrontingbelligerentpagansandcorruptbishops.4AsSulpiciuswritesin

hisDialogi,oneshould‘considerthat[Martin]wasasoldierwhofoughtfroma

disadvantageouspositionandyetemergedthevictor’(putaenimistumfuisse

militem,quipugnaueritininiquolocoettamenuictoreuaserit).5Throughouthis

trials,Martinstrivestodisavowanyconnectiontothesecularworld,despite

beingasoldierintheImperialRomanarmyandhavingbeenelevatedtothe

companyoftheseculararistocracybyhisepiscopalposition.Sulpicius’sMartin

tradesthewarriorcultureoftheimperialarmyforthatoftheheavenlyhost.1Martin’swidespreadinfluenceisdemonstratedbyDamon,SoldierSaints,pp.2–11;AllanMcKinley,‘TheFirstTwoCenturiesofSatinMartinofTours’,EarlyMedievalEurope14:2(2006),173–200;andRaymondVanDam,LeadershipandCommunityinLateAntiqueGaul(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985),pp.119–40.2Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.53.ForfullerdiscussionsofSulpicius’slife,historicalcontext,andworksseePhilipBurton,SulpiciusSeverus’VitaMartini(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2017),pp.9–25;RichardGoodrich,SulpiciusServerus:TheCompleteWorks(NewYork;Mahwah,NewJersey:NewmanPress,2015),pp.8–12;Hamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,pp.51–70;AndreMertens,TheOldEnglishLivesofStMartinofTours(UniversitätsverlagGöttingen,2017),pp.5–55;ClareStancliffe,StMartinandhisHagiographer(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983),pp.71–80.3Hill,‘ImagoDei’,p.36.ThemostrecentstudyandeditionofSulpicius’sVitaisinBurton,ed.,VitaMartini,pp.92–128.AneditionofSulpicius’sEpistulaeisprovidedbyJacquesFontaine,ed.,SulpiceSévère:ViedeSaintMartin(Paris:Cerf,1967),I:316–44.AtranslationofallofSulpicius’sworksisfoundinGoodrich,trans.,Sulpicius,pp.23–249.4ForadiscussionofthethemesintheVitaseeDamon,SoldierSaints,pp.2–26;Burton,VitaMartini,pp.25–46;Fontaine,SulpiceSévère:volumesIIandIII;Mertens,Lives,pp.16–28.5JacquesFontaine,ed.,Gallus:dialoguesSurLes“Vertus”deSaintMartin(Paris:Cerf,2006),p.200.

MartineventellstheEmperorJulianintheVita,‘IamasoldierofChrist:itisnot

permittedformetofight’(Christimilessum:pugnaremihinonlicet,lines94–95).

AsapeacefulmilesChristi,Martinhaspoweroverthenaturalworldand

communitythatsurroundhim,resiststhetemptationof‘worldlypomp’,andis

everthemodelofmild-heartedChristianfaith.

Sulpicius’scollectedworksformedthebasisoftheMartiniana(material

concerningthelifeofStMartin)andwerewidelytransmitted,makingMartin

especiallywellknowninIrelandandEngland.6Fromthefifthcenturyonwards,

churchesdedicatedtohimwereestablishedthroughoutEurope,7inspiredby

SulpiciusandtheworksofwriterslikePaulinusofPérigueux,whomBishop

PerpetuusofTours(461–491)commissionedtoproduceametricalversionof

SulpiciusMartiniana,8VenantiusFortunantus,whomqueenRadegund(520–

587)alsocommissionedtocomposeametricallifeofMartin,9andespecially

GregoryofTours,whoproducedfourprosebooksofMartin’smiracula.10

CollectionsoftheSulpicianMartiniana,alongwiththislatermaterial,were

gatheredintovolumesreferredtoasMartinellidevotedtothesaint.Thesebooks

werelikelybroughtwithmissionarieswhofollowedinMartin’sevangelical

footstepsanddisseminatedtheSulpicianmodelofsoldieringforChrist.11

6Fontaine,ed.,Gallus,pp.194–98.ForanalysisofthedisseminationofMartintextsonthecontinent,seeHewish,‘MedievalVitaMartini’,29–43,andfortheextantcopiesoftheMartinianainEnglandseeidem,43–51;andHewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.84–207.7Mertens,Lives,pp.31–42;JulietMullins,‘TroubleattheWhiteHouse:Anglo-IrishRelationsandtheCultofStMartin’,inAnglo-Saxon/IrishRelationsbeforetheVikings,ed.JamesGraham-Campbell,andMichaelRyan(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009),pp.113–22;Mullins,‘LaplacedeSaintMartin’,55–61;Stancliffe,StMartin,pp.361–62;P.A.Wilson,‘TheCultofStMartinintheBritishIsles’,TheInnisReview19:2(1968),135and141.8MichaelPetschenig,ed.,PauliniPetricordiaequaesupersunt,CSEL16(Vienna:F.Tempsky,1888),pp.17–159;AlstonChase,‘TheMetricalLivesofStMartinofToursbyPaulinusandFortunatusandtheProseLifebySulpiciusSeverus’,HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology43(1932),51–76;McKinley,‘FirstTwoCenturies’,185–89;Mertens,Lives,pp.43–46.9FriedrichLeo,ed.,VenantiHonoriClementianiFortunati,presbyteriItalici:operapoetica,MGHAA4.1(Berlin:Weidmann,1881),pp.293–370;Burton,VitaMartini,p.8;Chase,‘MetricalLives’,57–63;Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.50and56–59;Mertens,Lives,pp.48–49.MichaelRobertsprovidesadetailedanalysisofVenantius’smetricalVitaandhiscreationofan‘epic’forMartin’slife,in‘VenantiusFortunatus’sLifeofMartin’,Traditio57(2002),129–87.10GiselledeNie,ed.,GregoryofTours:LivesandMiracles(Cambridge,MA;London:HarvardUniversityPress,2015),pp.422–854.11Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.84–91;Mullins,‘WhiteHouse’,pp.114–15and119–23.Earl,‘TypologyandIconography’,40–46,andRobertMeens,‘ABackgroundtoAugustine’sMissiontoAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE23(1994),5–17,suggestthatIrishecclesiastswerehighlyinfluentialforAnglo-Saxonunderstandingsofhagiographyandiconography.

TheearliestmentionofMartininanAnglo-Saxonsourceisfoundin

Bede’sHistoriaEcclesiastica,whichdescribestwochurchesdedicatedtothe

Gallicsaint.12BedementionstheancientchurchinCanterburyconsecratedto

Martin,whichbecamethefirstchurchinthesixth-centurymissionofAugustine

ofCanterbury.13This‘churchhavingbeenmadeinantiquityinhonourofSaint

Martin,whiletheRomanswerestilllivinghereinBritain’(ecclesiainhonorem

sanctiMartiniantiquitusfacta,dumadhucRomaniBrittaniamincolerent)

indicatesthatbyBede’slifetimethevenerationofMartinwasalready

establishedasanancientcultinAnglo–Saxonminds.Whilethereisarcheological

evidencetoindicatethatthischurchwascertainlyinusebeforethearrivalofthe

FrankishQueenBerthaandherchaplainLiudhard,14manyscholarsascribe

Martin’sassociationwiththechurchinCanterburytoBertha,whichwoulddate

thecultofMartininEnglandtothesixthcentury.15Bedealsonotesthatasecond

‘veryfamous’sixth-centurychurch,usedasthebaseofNynian’smissionin

northernEngland,wasalso‘distinguishedbythenameandchurchofthebishop

saintMartin’(sanctiMartiniepiscopinomineetecclesiainsignem).16Althoughthe

veracityoftheeighth-centuryclaimthatNynianconsecratedhischurchto

Martinisdebatable,suchreferencesreflectMartin’spopularityinEnglandfrom

theverybeginningoftheChristianisationofAnglo-Saxons.17Regardless,thecult

ofMartinspreadquicklyinEngland,clearlywitnessedinsurvivingAnglo–Saxon

calendars,whichrecordMartin’sfeastdayasthe11thofNovemberaswellasthe

12Mertens,Lives,pp.74–85and90–93,notesextantAnglo–SaxonobjectsorrelicsandOldEnglishtextswhichreferenceMartin.13HEI:26;Wilson,‘CultofStMartin’,129.14NicholasBrooks,Anglo-SaxonMyths:StateandChurch400–1066(London:Hambledon,2000),p.95.15NoraChadwick,‘EarlyCultureandLearninginNorthWales’,inStudiesintheBritishEarlyChurch,ed.N.Chadwick(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1958),pp.110–11;McKinley,‘FirstTwoCenturies’,196;Wilson,‘CultofMartin’,133;BarbaraYorke,TheConversionofBritain(Harlow:PearsonLongman,2006),pp.122and157.HewishsupportsthetheoryofBertharestoringthechurchbutalsosupposesthededicationcouldhavecomefromAugustineofCanterburyandnotLiudhard,in‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.124–25.Mertens,Lives,pp.57–62,arguesthatMartin’scultwaspresentinEnglandviaIrishpopularityofthesaint,thoughbelievedBerthaenhancedthecult.16HEIII:4.17Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.126;Mertens,Lives,pp.57–60;Mullins,‘WhiteHouse’,pp.113–19.Wilson,‘CultofStMartin’,133,findstheNynianclaimunsubstantiatedthoughRobinCollingwoodandJohnMyresarguethatNynianhadindeeddedicatedhischurchtoMartininRomanBritainandtheEnglishSettlements,2ndedition(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1949),p.310.

ordinatioandtranslatioofMartinonthe4thofJuly,ofteninilluminatedor

rubricatedscript.18

MartinwassimilarlyprominentintheliterarylandscapeofearlyEngland.

GneussandLapidgehaveidentifiedseveralMartinellimanuscriptswithEnglish

provenances,suggestingthattheMartinianawererelativelywell-knownamong

theAnglo-Saxons.19ThecelebrityofSulpicius’sworksinparticularisfurther

evidentintheimpacttheyhadonAnglo-LatinwriterssuchasAldhelmof

Malmesbury,whocondensedepisodesfromSulpicius’sworksinhisproseDe

uirginitateinordertopresentMartinasaparagonofcharity,empowered

throughhispurity(uirginitas)toperformmiracles.20Sulpicius’sworksalso

influencedmanysubsequenthagiographiescomposedinEngland,suchasthe

VitaS.Cuthberti,Felix’sVitaS.Guthlaci,theMercianLifeofChad,andAbboof

Fleury’sPassioS.Eadmundi,21whichechoedthestyleofSulpicius’sproseand

borrowedmotifsorpassagesfromtheMartinianatoassociateaspectsoftheir

saints’experiencewiththatofMartin.22

BeyondtheMartiniana,severalOldEnglishaccountsofMartin’slife

survive,including:theninth-centuryOldEnglishMartyrology;23ananonymous

ninth-centuryhomilyforMartinmaswiththreeextantmanuscriptwitnesses;24

18FrancisWormald,EnglishKalendarsbeforeA.D.1100(London:HBS,1934/1988).SeealsoHewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.123and139–41.19GneussandLapidge,Handlist,citeseveralextantMartinellimanuscriptswithAnglo-Saxonprovenanceorownership.AmongtheseareBL,CottonNeroE.I;BL,CottonTiberiusD.iv;BL,Add.40074;Hereford,CathedralLibraryO.VI.11;Vatican,BibliotecaApostolicaVaticana,Reg.lat.489;Avranches,BibliothéqueMunicipale,29;aswellasnumerouscopiesofSulpicius’sMartinianawhichsurviveinothercollectionsofsaints’Lives,suchasCCCC9.SeeHewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.91–100,andMertens,Lives,pp.64–74,fordiscussionsofthesemanuscripts.20Ald.uirg(prosa)260–62;MichaelLapidgeandMichaelHerren,trans.,Aldhelm:TheProseWorks(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1979),p.85.ForSulpicius’sinfluenceonAldhelmseeChristopherAbram,‘InSearchofLostTime:AldhelmandTheRuin’,QuaestioInsularis1(2000),35–36;Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.127;AndyOrchard,‘Aldhelm’sLibrary’,inGameson(2012),I:592.21Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.127–29.22Forexample,seeDowney,‘Intertextuality’,pp.45–48,89,96and101,fordiscussionofMartin’sinfluenceonFelix’sVitaGuthlaci.23OEMart.214;Mertens,Lives,pp.90–93.24TheMartinmas-homilyintheVercellibook,titled‘HomilyXVIII’,isfoundinSzarmach,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.57–62;andScragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.289–309.ThetextintheBlicklingHomiliaryhasbeenprintedinHamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,pp.51–70;Kelly,ed.andtrans.,BlicklingHomilies,pp.211–22;RichardMorris,TheBlicklingHomiliesoftheTenthcenturyfromtheMarquisofLothia’sUniquems.A.D.971(London:EETS,1880),pp.210–26.AfacsimileoftheBlicklingversionisinRudolphWillard,ed.,TheBlicklingHomilies(Copenhagen:RosenkildeandBagger,1960),fol.127r–35v;andthemanuscriptavailableonlinethroughthePrincetonUniversityDigitalLibrary,http://pudl.princeton.edu.JohnChadbonprovidedaneditionofthe

andÆlfric’stwoaccountscomposedattheendofthetenthcentury.25Martinis

theonlysaintÆlfricincludesinbothhisCatholicHomiliesandLivesofSaints,

indicatingthatMartinwasveryimportantintheAnglo-Saxonsanctoraleasa

modelforbothlayandecclesiasticalaudiences.26AnalysesoftheOldEnglish

textsconcerningMartintendtofocusonhowÆlfrichasapproachedthe

MartinianaandreworkedthethemeofthemilesChristiinhisaccountsofMartin,

givingcomparativelylittleattentiontotheearlieranonymoushomily.27Those

thathavediscussedthethemeofthemilesChristiintheMartinmas-homilyhave

generallyconsideredittofocusonthepacifistdeedsofamild-hearted

missionary,28whileit‘deemphasisesthemilitarytheme.’29AsSzarmach

suggests,thehomilistportraysMartinasa‘saintlymanofGod,workingmiracles,

convertingunbelievers,andteachingbywordanddeed.’30Throughoutthis

chapterwewillseehowthehomilyremovesthesaintfrommetaphorical

warriorculture,omittingtheMartiniana’smartialimageryandepithetslike

milesChristitocurateanimageofdevotionwhichrejectsmanifestationsof

militantChristianity.

Thelatetenth-centuryVercelliBook(Vercelli,BibliotecaCapitolare,MS

CXVII)containstheearliestextantcopyofthisMartinmas-textasVercelliXVIII,

amongitscollectionoftwenty-threehomiliesandsixreligiouspoems,31andthe

latetenth-centuryBlicklingHomiliary(Princeton,ScheideLibrary,MS71),

incorporatedthehomilywiththetitleToSancteMartinesMæssan(‘FortheMassJuniustextin‘Oxford,BodleianLibraryMSSJunius85and86:AnEditionofaWitnesstotheOldEnglishHomileticTradition’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofLeeds,1993),pp.179–91,althoughMertenshasmorerecentlyprintedtheJuniustextinLives,pp.180–207,alongwithacomparisonofthethreeextantversionsofthehomilyonpp.401–31.25ForanoverviewofÆlfricianMartinianaaswellasrecenteditionsofÆlfricianmaterialonMartin,seeMertens,Lives,pp.104–44,266–389,and432–49.Ælfric’slongerLifeofMartinalsoappearsinLSIII:84–182.26JudithGaites,‘Ælfric’sLongerLifeofStMartinanditsLatinSources’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish13(1982),23.27Dalbey,‘TheGoodShepherd’,424–34;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.259–74;Gaites,‘LongerLife’,24–35;GordonGerould,‘Ælfric’sLivesofStMartinofTours’,JEGP24:2(1925),206–10;KarinOlsen,‘Beggars’SaintbutNoBeggar:MartinofToursinÆlfric’sLivesofSaints’,Neophilologus88(2004),461–72;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.218–19.Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,31–40,andMertens,Lives,pp.124–29,assertthatÆlfricreshapestheMartinianatomakeitmoreapplicableforAnglo-Saxonaudiencesaswellasreducethewarrioraspectsofthesaint.28Dalbey,‘GoodShepherd’,422–34;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.259–64;Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,182–86;Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,34–38.Zacher,ontheotherhand,seestheVercellihomilyonMartinfocusingonhisroleasasoliderofChrist,‘RereadingtheStyle’,p.177.29Magennis‘WarriorSaints’,37,also34–39.30Szarmach,‘StyleandStructure’,pp.259.31Mertens,Lives,pp.96–99;Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.xx–xxxix.

ofSaintMartin’)asHomilyXVIIofitscollection.32Athirdwitnessforthehomily

isfoundintheeleventh-centuryhomiliary,nowsplitbetweenOxford,Bodleian

Library,Junius85+86.33TheBlicklingandJuniuscollectionsaregenerallytaken

tohavebeencompiledinSouth-EastEngland,likelynearCanterbury,orbya

scribefromthatregion.34

JefferyandSzarmachhavearguedthatMartin’sVitawastranslatedinthe

tenthcentury,35whileScraggsuggeststhattheversionoftheMartinmas-homily

knowntotheVercellicompilerwasproducedinthemidtolateninthcenturyin

eitherNorthumbriaorMercia.36Scragg’ssuggestionrestsontheninth-century

abbreviationofMenðaleofstanasasquareMwithamacron,ashorthandthatis

almostexclusivelyusedinVercelliXV–XVIII,withwhichtheMartinmas-homily

appearstobegrouped,aswellasintheninth-centuryhomileticfragmentin

Oxford,BodleianLibrary,Digby63.37Hewish’sanalysis,basedonlinguisticand

contextualevidence,alsodatestheoriginaladaptationofSulpicius’sVitatothe

890’s,whentheMercianPlegmundbecamearchbishopofCanterbury(c.890–

923)andperhapsbroughtthehomilywithhim.38Hewisharguesthatthe

homily’stransmissionwascontemporarywiththecompositionoftheOld32ForgeneralinformationonBlicklingmanuscriptseeHamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,pp.1–7;Mertens,Lives,pp.99–102;andWilliard,BlicklingHomilies,pp.18–49,especially40.33Chadbon,‘Editions’,pp.3–90,providesathoroughcodicologicalandpaleographicalanalysisoftheJuniusmanuscript;whileMertens,Lives,pp.102–04,andScragg,‘CorpusofAnonymousLives’,p.211,givegeneraloverviewsofthemanuscript.SeealsoHiroshiOgawa,‘TheRetoucherinMSSJunius85and86’,NotesandQueries41:1(1994),6–10,forananalysisofthemanuscript’sseventeenth-centuryreadership.34Hamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,p.6,andDonaldScragg,‘TheHomiliesoftheBlicklingManuscript’,inLearningandLiteratureinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.MichaelLapidgeandHelmutGneuss(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),p.307,datetheBlicklinghomiliestothelateninthcenturywithAnglianwordforms.Wilcox,however,postulatestheBlicklinghomilieswerecomposedinSouth-EasterndialectbutcompiledinLincolnin‘BlicklingHomiliesRevisited’,pp.103–06;whileMertens,Lives,p.176,hasarguedthatmostofthelanguageisWestSaxon.Clayton,‘HomiliariesandPreaching’,222–27,andHewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.144–58,notethatitisdifficulttoidentifytheexactoriginofthehomiliesgiventhepalimpsesticnatureoftheirtransmissionwhichresultsinAnglian,Mercian,andWestSaxonwordforms.35Jeffery,BlicklingSpirituality,p.2;Szarmach,ed.,VercelliHomilies,p.xx.Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,pp.xxiiiand193,avoidsdatingtheBlicklinghomilies,suggestingtheywerefromtheopeningorending‘thresholds’oftenth-centuryBenedictinereform.Mertens,Lives,p.145,datesthecompositionto900–950.36DonaldScragg,‘ANinth-CenturyOldEnglishHomilyfromNorthumbria’,ASE45(2016),39–49.ForsimilarargumentsdatinganonymousOldEnglishhomiliesandsaints’Livestotheninthcentury,seeHamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,pp.3–7;andStefanyWragg,‘TheEarlyTextsoftheCultofSaintGuthlac’,EnglishStudies100:3(2019),262–68.37DonaldScraggdiscussestheMartinmas-homily’srelationshiptoVercelliXV–XVIIin‘TheCompilationoftheVercelliBook’,inAnglo-SaxonManuscripts,ed.MaryRichards(NewYork;London:Routledge,1994),pp.324–26and331.38Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.159–77;ASCF(Baker,75).

EnglishHistoriaEcclesiasticaandglossesofthe‘RushworthGospels’,basedon

sharedvocabularylikeaswoltenes(‘death’),whichprimarilyoccurinthese

worksandintheMartinmas-homily.39Throughoutthetenthcenturythetextwas

copiedanditsword-formspartiallymodernisedwithlateWest-Saxonspellings,

contemporarywiththecompilersoftheVercelli,Blickling,andJunius

collections.40

TheanonymoushomilistusedaversionofSulpicius’sVitaS.Martiniand

thirdEpistulaincomposinghisstory,yettheexemplardoesnotsurvive.41The

originalMartinmas-homilyhasalsonotsurvived,althoughNapier’sstudyofthe

homily’stransmission-historyshowshowthethreeextantcopiesofthehomily

arerelated.42Basedonhisanalysisofthevaryingreadingspresentedineach

version,Napierconcludesthatnoneofthescribesoftheextanttextshadaccess

tothesamesource,eachofwhichwerethemselvesremovedfromtheoriginal

composition.43SinceeachwitnessoftheMartinmas-homilyisatsomepoints

moreaccurateandatothersmoreflawedincomparisonwiththeotherextant

copies,allversionsoftheMartinas-homilymustbeusedtogetherwhen

analyzingthehomily.Thisstudywillprimarilyfocusonthetextpreservedin

Junius86,becauseitoffersamorecompleterenderingofthehomilythanthat

foundintheBlicklingHomiliary,inadditiontopreservingtheLatin

interpolations,andsomereadingsthatareclosertotheLatinthanVercelli

XVIII.44However,IshallnotewhereappropriatethoseplaceswheretheVercelli

orBlicklingtextsprovidesuperiorreadings.

Theparatacticnatureofthehomily’sproseandtheavoidanceof

subordinateclauses,althoughcriticisedbyGaitesandOgawa,45ensuredthatthe

39DOEs.v.a-sweltannotesthirteenoccurencesoftheterm:fourintheRushworthGlosses;threeinthemidtenth-centuryBL,CottonCleopatraA.iiiglosses;twiceintheMartinmas-homily;andonceintheOldEnglishBede,AdrianandRitheus,ASCA,andaneighth-centuryCCCC144gloss.40Hamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,pp.2–7;Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.160and186;Mertens,Lives,pp.101and401–02.41ScraggsuggeststhattheMartinianawhichthehomilistusedhadnon-Sulpicianmaterialinthetext,ed.,VercelliHomilies,p.290.42ArthurNapier,‘NotesontheBlicklingHomilies.I.StMartin’,ModernPhilology1:2(1903),303–08.SeealsoClayton,‘HomiliariesandPreaching’,222;Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.xxviand289.43Napier,‘NotesontheBlickling’,303–04.Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.160–01;Mertens,LivesofStMartin,pp.94–95;Scragg,‘SourceStudy’,p.40;Scragg,‘BlicklingManuscript’,p.308.44SeeMertens,Lives,pp.401–31,foracomparisonofthethreeextantMartinmas-texts.45Gaites,‘LongerLife’,38;HiroshiOgawa,‘TheUseofOldEnglishÞaintheÆlfricianandNon-ÆlfricianLivesofStMartin’,Anglia114:4(1996),461and472.

homilywasaccessibleforunlearnedorlayaudiences.Sulpicius’sproseoften

usescomplexgrammaticalstructures,andpresumablywouldnothavebeen

suitablefororalrecitationorunlearnedaudiences.46However,theapproachable

languageoftheMartinmas-textisappropriateforitsuseaspartoftheMassfor

Martin’sfeastday,apurposeindicatedinthetitleToSancteMartinesMæssan

anditsdirectpastoraladdressestoapluralaudience.Theintendedaudiencefor

thehomilyisnotstated,althoughitsplacementamongotherpastoraltexts

suggeststhatitcouldbeusedinaliturgicalcontextaswellasforprivate

contemplationbymixedaudiences.47

CommentatorsarguingthattheBlicklinghomilieswereusedaspreaching

textshaveparticularlyfocusedontheformulaicaddresstomenþaleofstan

(‘dearestmen’)attheopeningofmanyhomilies,includingtheVercelliand

BlicklingversionsoftheMartinmas-homily,asevidencethatthehomilywas

intendedforpublicpresentation.48TheMartinmas-homilysimilarlyendswithan

addresstotheaudienceswho‘hear’(wenugeherað)thestorytoreformtheir

livesandhonourMartin,afeaturewhichwouldsupportthetext’sfunctionasa

publiclypresentednarrative,evenifitsprimarypurposeintheVercelliBook

wasprivatedevotion.49ThestoryofMartin’slifewouldhavebeenrelevantfor

educatingmanyaudiences,sincehewasaconfessor-saintwithstrongmonastic

andmilitaryties,providingamodelforclericswhocouldfollowhis‘mixedlife’

approachasanuncompromisingmonk-bishop,50aswellasforthoselaymen

seekingtoliveapiouslife.51

ThemodelofMartinasanasceticmissionary-bishopremovedfrom

warriorcultureseemstohavebeenparticularlyaimedatthesecularclergyand

46BurtonprovidesadetailedanalysisofSulpicius’sprose-styleinVitaMartini,pp.40–81.47Seepp.4–6above.48Scragg,‘NorthumbrianHomily’,43,notesthatthisopeningwasaverycommononeforanonymoushomilies;andMarySwancallsMenþaleofstanthe‘commonestofOldEnglishhomileticaddress’,arguingthatitwasintegraltotheritualexperienceofpreachingsharedbetwenpreacherandaudience,‘ConstructingPreacherandAudienceinOldEnglishHomilies’,inConstructingtheMedievalSermon,ed.RogerAndersson(Turnhout:Brepols,2008),pp.181and179–188.SamanthaZacherdisagrees,seeingtheformularelatedtoBroðormineandreflectingamonasticaudience,PreachingtheConverted:TheStyleandRhetoricoftheVercelliBookHomilies(Toronto;Buffalo:UniversityofTorontoPress,2009),pp.38–39.49Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.122.50Mullins,‘Martindanslemonachisme’,61–70.SeeChapterTwo,pp.39–40forintroductionto‘mixed-life’approach.51Dalbey,‘ThemesandTechniques’,pp.221–25;Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.48.

aristocraticaudiences.52Insupportoftheideaofalayaudienceforthehomily,

Aronstamnotesthat,‘[i]tisthepublicratherthanthemonasticaspectof

Martin’slifethatthehomilistfindssignificant.’53Afterhisappointmentas

bishop,thesaint’smiraclesinthehomilyareprimarilypublic,ratherthan

privateactions.54Ofallofthemiraclesthatthehomilistchoosestoincludeinhis

compositiononlyone,therevivalofthecatechumen,takesplaceinamonasticor

ecclesiasticalsetting,whilealltheothermiraclesoccurinpublicspacesand

affectlaymenandthesecularChurch.TheMartinmas-homilyalsoremovesmany

aspectsoftheMartinianawhichwouldhavebeenmorerelevantforclerical

audiences,suchasMartin’sconfrontationwithArianheretics(Vitalines142–

49),55orotherbishops(Vitalines193–217,423–26and605–20),suggesting

thatthehomilisthadpublicaudiencesinmindwiththereworkingofthe

narrative.Thehomily’somissionofMartin’shabitofattendinguponhisservant

whileinthearmyasiftheirroleswerereversed,furtherreflectsthehomilist’s

considerationofaristocraticaudienceswhomayhavefeltthecalltomake

themselvessubservienttotheirsocialinferiorstoodegrading.56

Thehomilygivesparticularhopetocatechumensinsuggestingthatone

couldbesavedintheeyesofGodthroughpiousactioninsuggestingthatMartin,

althoughonlychristened,elevatedhisspiritthroughgoodworks(achewæs

gecristnod…hwæðereheþætgereneðarehalganfulwihtemidgodumdædum

geheoldandfullode,lines30–31).Martinthusdemonstrateshownewly

convertedlaymencouldstillbesanctifiedbyremovingthemselvesfromthe

secularmilitary.TheMartinmas-composermighthaveseenMartin,whoseVita

52Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,39;Mertens,Lives,pp.59and109.AntonetteHealeyarguesJunius85+86wasforlayaudiencesinTheOldEnglishVisionofStPaul(Cambridge,Mass:MediaevalAcademyofAmerica,1978),p.15.Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.123,maintainsthatthemanuscriptcouldalsohavebeenforclericalprivatereading.53Aronstamarguesthattextswereaimedforthe‘popularmind’ratherthanmonasticcontext,‘BlicklingHomilies’,p.277.54Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.184.55CitationsandquotationsfromtheVitaMartinirefertothetextandlinenumbersinBurton,ed.,VitaMartini.56Hewish,‘EasternAsceticism’,124–26,notesthatallanti-authoritarianepisodeswereomittedfromthehomily,suggestingamixedaudienceofmonksandlaypeople,‘consistentwiththeemphasisuponcommunityvaluesistheconcerndemonstratedinthesetranslationswithobedienceandhumility.’Olsen,‘Beggar’sSaint’,461–70,arguesthatÆlfricsimilarlyomitsaspectsoftheMartinianathatcompromisedMartin’ssecularauthority.Whatley,‘LostinTranslation’,203–05,notestheomissionaswellassimilaravoidancesofclass-equalityintheLifeofMachutus.

depictsasocietywheresignificantportionsofthepopulationwerepagan,asan

exampleforAnglo-SaxonstopeaceablyconvertpaganScandinaviansettlers,as

Alfredseemstohaveattempted.57Inthelateninth-centuryDanelaw,pagan

ScandinavianswerestilladoptingChristianityafterGuthrum’sdefeatin878,and

conversioneffortsintheDanelawseemtohavecontinuedthroughthetenth

century.58Forinstance,theASCentryfor927(930)notesthatÆthelstan

receivedpledgesfromallkingsinBritaintorenounceidol-worship,59suggesting

thatmissionaryworkinEnglandwasstillongoingintheearlytenthcentury.60

Inthelatetenthcentury,anewwaveofpaganinfluencearrivedin

Englandwiththeresurgenceofvikingincursions.Itisinthecontextofthis

secondperiodofvikingthreatsthatthecompilersoftheVercelli,Blickling,and

Juniushomiliariesallworked,andtheconflictmayexplaintheirparticular

interestinmissionarysaintslikeMartinandAndrew.61Theideaofapeaceful

missionarysaintwouldhavelikelyresonatedwithninth-totenth-century

MerciansorNorthumbrians,whohadinteractionswithpaganinhabitantsand

itinerants,andthenewlyconvertedScandinaviansettlers.Astheportraitofa

Christianconvertingthosepaganswholivedalongsidehim,thehomilyreworks

theSulpiciannarrativetoprovideaudienceswithamodelofthemilesChristi

whoassimilatespagansintotheChristiancommunity,andprotectsitfrom

discord.Byalteringtheconnotationsofthewordswhiletranslating,and

57RichardAbels,‘KingAlfred’sPeace-MakingStrategieswiththeVikings’,HaskinsSocietyJournal3(1991),30–34.58LesleyAbrams,‘TheAnglo-SaxonsandtheChristianizationofScandinavia’,ASE24(1995),215–20;PeterBlair,Anglo-SaxonEngland:AnIntroduction(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1977),pp.166–73;ShashiJayakumar,‘SomeReflectionsonthe‘ForeignPolicies’ofEdgar‘thePeaceable’’,TheHaskinsSocietyJournal:StudiesinMedievalHistory10(2001),25;DorothyWhitlock,‘TheConversionoftheEasternDanelaw’,Saga-bookoftheVikingSociety12(1937–1945),159–76;DavidWilson,‘TheVikings’RelationshipwithChristianityinNorthernEngland’,JournalofBritishArchaeologicalAssociation30:1(1967),37–46.Dalbey,‘GoodShepherd’,433–34,notesinterestinMartinasanexampleforconvertingScandinaviansattheendofthetenth-centuryaswell.59ASCD926(Cubbin,41).Thethirteenth-centuryIcelandicEgilsSagaalsoprovidesevidenceofÆthelstan’sevangelisminrecountinghisrequestthatÞórólfrandEgillareprime-signeduponenteringhisservice,suggestingthatthememoryofAnglo-SaxonevangelicalattitudestowardScandinaviansinthetenthcenturywasprevalentenoughtosurviveforfourcenturiesintheIcelandicliteraryrecord.BjarniEinarsson,ed.,EgilsSaga(London:VikingSocietyforNorthernResearch,2003),pp.71–72.ForafullerdiscussionofthetransmissionandsurvivalofsagatraditionsinIcelandandScandinavia,seeShamiGhosh,King’sSagasandNorwegianHistory:ProblemsandPerspectives(Leiden;Boston:Brill,2011),pp.83–87.60SeealsoEdmund’sconversionsofkingsAnlafandRægnaldASCA942(Bately,73).61Wilcox,‘BlicklingHomiliesRevisited’,p.106,positsthattherewasalargeNorsepopulationaroundLincolnandareasassociatedwiththeBlicklinghomiliaryproduction.

omittingepisodesfromtheMartiniana,theMartinmas-homilistalsorefocuses

theSulpiciannarrativetopresentthesaintasconstantinhispeacefulhumility,

attentivetothephysicalaswellasspiritualwellbeingofthecommunityaround

him,andremovedfromwarriorculture.Indoingso,thehomilistrevealsa

discomfortwiththeideaofChristians‘soldiering’,evenforChrist.

Thehomilist’sauthorialabilityhasreceivedmixedcriticism.Ogawa,in

specificreferenceto‘þa’clauses,saysthatthe‘homilistwritesinastylewhich

suggests,ifanything,crudenessandalackofsensitivity.’62Gaites,comparingthe

Martinmas-homilyunfavourablywithÆlfric’sfullerLife,criticisesitashavinga

‘narrativetechnique[that]canonlybedescribedasclumsy,’aswellasa‘slavish

adherencetoSulpicius.’63Whilemostothercommentatorsaresomewhatless

pejorative,mostregardthehomilyasaliteraltranslationofSulpicius’stext.64

Napier,whosaysthatthe‘translationisfree’,65andSzarmach,whoarguesthatit

adapteda‘lengthyandsophisticated’textforhomileticconventions,66are

notableexceptionstothegenerallydisparagingviewofthehomilist’sprose.

AlthoughitisundoubtedlythecasethattheMartinmas-homilyisdeeply

indebtedtotheMartinianaandthatitattemptstotranslatecloselythoseaspects

oftheLatinsourceituses,itisalsoclearthatthehomilistwasnot‘slavishly’

boundtohissource,butreadilymanipulatedit.67Asaresult,thecomposer’s

influenceonhisworkissubtle,appropriatingthestorywithbriefinterjections

andwordchoicesratherthanacompleteremodelingofthenarrative.Inthis

way,Martin’slifewasreworkedtobringit‘moreinlinewiththeconventionsof

hagiographythanSulpicius’soriginalcollection.’68

WhereSulpiciusandÆlfricaimtopresentacomprehensivepictureof

Martin’slife,69theMartinmas-homilistfocuseshisnarrativeonselectaspectsof

62Ogawa,‘OldEnglishÞa’,461.63Gaites,‘LongerLife’,37–38.64Hamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,p.35;Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.182;Mertens,Lives,p.149;Ogawa,‘OldEnglishÞa’,458–61;Scragg,‘CorpusofAnonymousLives’,p.210;Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.xxxviiand290.65Napier,‘Notes’,303.66Szarmach,‘StyleandStructure’,pp.258–59and263.67Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.260–63;Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,pp.192–93;Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,37–39.68Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.101.69Burton,VitaMartini,pp.25–40,andGoodrich,Sulpicius,pp.9–11,arguethatSulpicius’seditorialprogrammepresentsabiographyofMartinratherthana‘step-by-stepguidetotheasceticlife.’FordiscussionsofÆlfric’sapproach,seeDamon,SoldierSaints,pp.266–68;Gerould,

Martin’scharacterandaccomplishments,specificallyhismagnanimityasa

missionary,healer,andChurchleader.70ThisrefocusingoftheMartinianawas

accomplishedprimarilythroughtheMartinmas-homilist’sprogrammeof

omission,whatWhatleycalledthe‘consciousreshapingofthetext.’71A

comparisonbetweenthoseepisodespreservedintheMartinmastextandthose

foundintheSulpicianMartinianahighlightshowthehomilistadaptedtheVitaS.

MartiniandSulpicius’sthirdepistletoBassila.Thetablesbelownoteallthe

identifiableportionsorepisodesofSuplicius’VitaS.MartiniandEpistulaewhich

thesourcehomilyseemstohaveused.Detailspresentedinboldalsoappearin

theOldEnglishhomily.

TableI:EpisodesfromtheVitaS.Martini

1. Martin’schildhoodismarkedbydevouthabitsandthedesiretobebaptised(Vitalines34–45).

2. Martinisforcedintomilitaryservicebutserves‘likeamonk’andisbelovedtosomesoldiers,whileheisridiculedbyothers(Vitalines46–61).

3. Inthearmy,Martinattendstohisownservantratherthanbeservedbyhim(Vitalines49–51).

4. OnenteringthecityofAmiensduringwinter,MartindivideshiscloakwithabeggarandhasavisionofChristthefollowingnight(Vitalines62–81).

5. Martinreceivesbaptism,butcontinuesmilitaryservice(Vitalines81–87).

6. MartinconfrontsEmperorJulian,andisdischargedfromthearmyafterdivineinterventionsavesMartinfrombattle(Vitalines88–108).

7. HilaryofPoitierordainsMartinasanexorcist(Vitalines108–17).8. Martintravelshometoconverthisparents,andalongthewayconvertsa

bandofrobbers(Vitalines117–33).9. Martinmeetsadevilenrouteandthenconvertshismother,althoughhis

fatherremainspagan(Vitalines134–42).10. MartinopposestheArianhereticsinMilanandisexpelledfromcity,

becomingahermit.Asahermithenearlydiesaftereatingapoisonousroot(Vitalines143–56).

‘Ælfric’sLives’,207–10;Olsen,‘Beggar’sSaint’,461–70;Zettel,‘HagiographicSources’,pp.99–110.70Dalbey‘GoodShepherd’,425–34;Mertens,Lives,pp.124and148–49;Szarmach,‘StyleandStructure’,pp.258–63.Gaites,‘LongerLife’,39,believestheMartinmas-homilstandÆlfrichadthesameintention,thoughÆlfrichadgreaterabilityinexecutingit.71Whatley,‘LostinTranslation’,197,and188–94.ForÆlfric’suseofomissionseeRhondaMcDaniel,‘InterpretingtheTranslator:Ælfric,hisSources,andhisCritics’,inTranslatioortheTransmissionofCultureintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance,ed.LauraHollengreen(Turnhout:Brepols,2008),pp.56–68;Scragg,‘SourceStudy’,p.39;DonaldScragg,‘EditingÆlfric’sCatholicHomilies’,Anglia121:4(2003),611;Whatley,‘PearlsBeforeSwine’,pp.171–73and182.

11. MartinestablishesamonasterynearPoitiers.Shortlythereafterheraisesacatechumenfromthedead,whotellsthemonasteryabouthisjourneyafterdeath(Vitalines157–83).

12. Martinrevivesaslavewhohadcommittedsuicide(Vitalines184–92).13. MartiniselectedbishopofToursamidoppositionfromotherbishops

(Vitalines193–217).14. Martincontinuestoliveasamonkdespitebeingthebishopand

buildsamonasteryatMarmoutier(Vitalines218–42).15. Martindebunksalocalsuperstitionsurroundingaplaceofworship

dedicatedtoafalsemartyr(Vitalines243–61).16. Martindisruptsapaganfuneralbymiraculouslyimmobilisingthe

pallbearers(Vitalines262–78).17. Martindestroysatempleandcutsdownapinetreeworshipedbypagans

followingawagerwithapaganpriest(Vitalines279–311).18. Martinstopsflamesfromspreadingtootherbuildingsaftersettinga

famouspagantempleonfire(Vitalines312–19).19. MartinishelpedbytwoangelstodestroyapagantempleatLevroux

(Vitalines319–34).20. PagansattackMartinontwoseparateoccasionswhileheis

destroyingtemples,butaremiraculouslyhaltedmid-actionandtheyconvert(Vitalines335–44).

21. Martinhealsaparalyzedgirl(Vitalines345–66).22. Martinexorcisesdemonsfrompossessedmenontwoseparateoccasions

(Vitalines367–89).23. Martinquellsrumoursofabarbarianinvasionbyconfrontingthedemons

whospreadthefalserumour(Vitalines390–96).24. MartinhealsaleperatthegatetoParis(Vitalines397–400).25. Martin’sclothesaresaidtohealpeople(Vitalines400–03).26. AletterfromMartinhealsArborius’sdaughter(Vitalines404–11).27. MartinhealsPaulinus’seye(Vitalines412–15).28. AnangelhealsMartin’swoundsafterhefallsdownstairs(Vitalines415–

22).29. MartinhasdinnerwithEmperorMaximus,disregardstheEmperor’s

power,andhonourshispriestabovetheEmperorbeforeprophesyinghowMaximuswilldie(Vitalines423–56).

30. Satan,intheguiseofabull,killsamanworkingatMartin’smonastery(Vitalines457–76).

31. Martinrebukesadevilwhileitattemptstodeceivehimwithliesabouthisfollowers(Vitalines477–99).

32. MartinrevealsthatthefalseholymanAnatoliusisademonindisguiseandbanishesit(Vitalines500–32).

33. AdevilappearstoMartininangelicdisguise,butMartinrecognisesit(Vitalines533–59).

34. SulpiciusmeetsMartin(Vitalines560–86).

TableII:EpisodesfromSulpicius’sEpistulaeI. Martinpanicsandisscorchedbyafirethatisstartedwhenasparkrises

fromahypocausttolighthisstrawfloor.MartinissavedwhenheregainshiscomposureandpraystoGod.(Epistulaepp.320–24).72

II. OnthenightthatMartindies,heappearstoSulpiciusinadreamholdingacopyoftheVitaMartiniandblessesSulpiciusbeforedepartingforheaven.(Epistulaepp.324–26).

III. Martinknowsthathisdeathapproachesbutsetsouttoresolveaconflictwithinoneofhischurches.(Epistulaep.336).

IV. AlongthewayMartinscaresoffwaterfowl,whichheequateswithdevilssnatchingsouls.(Epistulaep.338).73

V. Martinreturnsordertoaparishwheretheclergyhadbeenfightingamongstthemselves.(Epistulaep.338).

VI. MartinpraystoGod,askingwhetherthereismoreworkforhimtodoonearth,orifhecangiveuphisspiritforheaven.(Epistulaepp.338–42).

VII. Martinrebukesthedevilanddiespeacefully.(Epistulaep.342).VIII. Overtwothousandpeoplefromthesurroundingcountrysideandcities

gatherforMartin’sfuneral,atwhichnunsandmonkssingpsalmsandhymnsinMartin’shonour.(Epistulaepp.342–44).

Fromthesetables,wecanseethattheMartinmas-homilisttendstotranslate

groupsofepisodes,like1–5,11–14,18–20,andIII–VII,andomitmostofthe

materialoutsideofthesegroupings.Thehomily’somissionsofepisodesthatdo

notappearintheEpistulaadBassilam,mayindicatethatthehomilist’scopyof

theMartinellusdidnotcontaintheotherEpistulae,similartotheMartinellusin

Avranches,Blibliothèquemunicipale,29.74Thoseaspectsofthenarrativethat

arementionedinthehomilyfromoutlyingepisodes,suchas7and25,tendtobe

briefandareplaceswherethehomilistismostindependentinhisrenderingof

theSulpiciansource.Thecondensedsectionsofthehomilydistilltheessential

aspectsofthesectionandignoredetailswhichwouldbeirrelevantforAnglo–

Saxonaudiencesorthehomilist’sthemesofhealing,conversion,andsaintly

stabilitasinthefaceofheathenaggression.Ofthesaintlydeedsormiracles

Martindirectlyperformsinthehomily,thefirstrelateshisfamoussharingofhis

cloak(episode4),threeportrayhimasahealer(episodes11–12and25),and

theotherfiveconcerntheoverthrowingofpaganismcoupledwithconversion

72CitationsofSulpicius’sEpistulaerefertopagenumbersinJacquesFontaine,ed.,SulpiceSévère,volumeI(Paris:Cerf,1967).73ThisepisodeonlyappearsintheVercelliversionoftheMartinmas-homily.74GneussandLapidge,Handlist,p.561.

(episodes18–20).TheAnglo-SaxonfocusontheseaspectsofMartin’slifemight

alsobeseeninAldhelm’searliercondensedportraitofthesaintintheproseDe

uirginitate,whichsimilarlyomitsmentionsofMartin’sexorcisms,dealingswith

secularauthorityandconflictwithecclesiasticalskeptics.75Aldhelm’sonly

mentionofMartin’sconfrontationwithdevilsrelateshowMartindispelled

Anatolius’sfraudanddemonicdeception,correspondingtoepisodes32–33in

thetableabove.

WhenselectingwhichepisodesofMartin’slifetoinclude,theMartinmas-

homilistfocusesonoverthrowingpaganidolsratherthanMartin’sactsasan

exorcist(episodes7,9,22–23,and31–33),whichwereomittedperhapsbecause

theydetractfromthehomily’sportrayalofChristianfaithasunassailablebythe

devil.76Oncethesaintisbaptised,theOldEnglishtextprimarilypresentsthose

episodesinwhichMartin’spowerislimitedtohisinvocationofGod'spower

throughprayer(11–12and18–20).Forexample,Martin’sfirstclericalrolesasa

defenderofChurchauthorityanddispelleroffakeholymenhavebeen

completelyomittedalongwithanyreferencetohisabilitytobanishdemons

(episodes8–10and31–33).ThemiraclesconcerningMartin’sabilitytocontrol

nature,suchashaltingapaganfuneral(episode16;also10,21and27–28),have

alsobeenomittedinthehomily.EpisodeIV,relatinghowMartindroveoffthe

demonicwaterfowl,whichonlyappearsintheVercelliversionofthehomily,77

waspresumablyremovedfromtheBlicklingandJuniusexemplarto

demonstrateMartin’srelianceondivineauthority,aswellastoconsolidatethe

homily’sthematicandnarrativecohesion.78Inavoidingtheepisodesthat

illustratethesaint’spersonalcontrolofnatureanddemonicinfluencethehomily

strengthensthepresentationofMartinasapeacefulsoldierofGodstrivingto

75Ald.uirg(prosa)260–62.76Dalbey,‘GoodShepherd’,431,linkstheexorcismepisodeswiththegreatestreflectionsofmilitancyinthenarrative,andsaysthesewereomittedtoremovetheaggressionfromMartin’scharacter.Hewish,‘EasternAsceticism’,121–24,suggeststhattheomissionswerefocusedonremovingreflectionsoferemiticlifeaswellasquestionstoauthority.Kellyseesthehomilistmerelychoosingthosewhichwerethemostdramatic,BlicklingHomilies,p.193.Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.260–64,andMertens,Lives,p.149,believethattheomissionsintheMartinmas-homilyandÆlfricaresimply‘detailsthatwouldconfusetheiraudienceratherthanaddanythingofinterest.’77Mertens,Lives,p.424.78BothHamilton,‘BlickingHomily’,pp.42and90,andMertens,Lives,pp.200and424,mentiontheomissionofthe‘demonicbird’episodeandincludeitintheireditionsofthehomily,butdonotexplainwhyitmightbemissing.

physicallyexpandandnurturetheChristiancommunity.79Inasimilarfashion,

theMartinmas-homilyalterstheSulpiciannarrativetomakeMartinamore

authoritativesaint.80DetailsthatdetractfromMartin’sabilitytofollowhisfaith

ordepicthiminaproblematiclightareexcludedoralteredtomakecertain

episodeslessmorallyambiguous.ThedetailtellingofMartin’sdesiretobecome

ahermitasayouth,forinstance,isleftoutintheanonymousnarrativetopass

overMartin’sunrealisedchoices.Similarly,thehomilyomitsthedetails

concerningMartin’sfailuretoquashtheArianheresyinMilan.

TheOldEnglishhomilist’snarrativepruningworkstodepictthephases

ofMartin’slifeinastraightforwardspiritualtrajectorytowardssanctity.After

describingMartin’sexemplarychildhood,duringwhichcharacteristicsofthe

futuresaintareprefigured,thehomilymovestodescribehowMartin’ssanctity

developsinthearmy.ThedevoutlifestyleMartinleadsresultsinhisspiritual

baptismafterhislargessetowardsabeggar,followedquicklybyhisphysical

baptism.ThehomilythenproceedstodescribehowMartinwasordainedby

Hilary,atwhichpointMartinisabletohealindividuals.OnceMartiniselevated

tothebishopricofTours,heundertakesmissionstoconverttownsandcultivate

thespiritualwellbeingoflargercommunities.Finally,Martin’sprotectionis

extendedtotheuniversalChristianchurch,whenheactsasapeacemaker

betweenotherclerics.

ThehomilyreinforcesthelinearprogressionofMartin’sspiritual

influencethroughnarrativetransitionslikeeftgelampoðerwundorðisse

onlicnesse(‘againanotherwondersimilartothishappened’)andtheuseofLatin

phrases.Thesedevicesmarkimportantpointsinthenarrativeorshiftsinthe

phasesofMartin’slife.AlloftheLatinquotationsarerenderedintoEnglish,

suggestingthattheintendedaudienceincludedthosewhodidnotknowLatinas

wellasthosethatcouldnotappreciatetheintertextualallusioneachcarried.Yet,

theexcerptsarenotincludedmerelytoshowoffthehomilist’sknowledgeof

79HughMagennisdemonstratesthatasimilareditorialprocessoccursinOldEnglishLivesofStMargaret,whichdownplaybattleimageryandheightenMargaret’simageasaservantofGod,‘ListenNowAllandUnderstand:AdaptationofHagiographicalMaterialVernacularAudiencesintheOldEnglishLivesofStMargaret’,Speculum71:1(1996),31–41.80ÆlfricsimilarlyeditsSulpicius’snarrativetomakehissaintmoreauthoritative.Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.264–75;Gaites,‘LongerLife’,24and32;Whatley,‘PearlsBeforeSwine’,pp.169–73.

Latin,asGaitessupposes.81ThefrequentuseofLatinquotationsillustratethe

Martinmas-homilist’swillingnesstomanipulatetheVitaandhighlightpointsof

thenarrativethatheorshefeelsarecrucial.Somuchisclearfromthecontexts

ofthephraseswhichappearinthefollowingorder:

TableIII:LatinPhrasesintheMartinmas-Homily

DescriptionofMartin’sCharacter

1. ThephraseDecrastinononcogitareisemployedwhenthehomilydescribesMartinasonewhoalwayslivespiouslyandneverleavesdoingtherightactionforanotherday(homilylines35–36).82

‘Cloak-CuttingandDreamSequenceGroup’

2. ThephraseMoxangelorumcircumstantiummultitudinemisusedatthebeginningofMartin’svisionofChrist,afterMartingivesaportionofhiscloaktoabeggar(homilyline63).83

3. Duringthesamedream,whenChristexplainsthatMartin’sactionsbaptisehimintheeyesoftheLord,thehomilyincludesthephrasesQuamdiufecisti(homilyline68),84andQuouisouirnoningloriamelatusest(homilylines72–73).Martin’sbaptismandhisdeparturefromthemilitaryimmediatelyfollowthisdreamsequence.

DescriptionofMartin’sCharacter

4. AttheconclusionofMartin’shealingmiracles,thephraseOmnesnamqueunanimitercupiebant85isusedtointroduceadescriptionofhowpeopleflocktothesaintinordertolearnfromhim(homilyline139).Afterthisdescription,thehomilyrelateshowMartindestroyspaganidolsandconvertspagans.

5. ThephraseVerebeatusuirinquodolus86isthenusedatthecloseofthemiraclesinvolvingthedestructionofidolsandMartin’sconversions,inordertorelatehowMartinismild-heartedandnotatallfierce-orangry-hearted(homilylines202–03).ThehomilythenproceedstoMartin’speacemakingamongstthebrethrenofhisdiocese.

81Gaites,‘LongerLife’,37.TheseLatinphrasesonlyappearintheBlicklingandJuniusversionsofthehomily.82CompareMatthew6:34(noliteergocogitaredecrastino);Burton,VitaMartini,p.158.83Burton,VitaMartini,p.163,believesthatthisphraseisatleastasoldasTertillianDeOratione3.13.84Burton,VitaMartini,p.163,suggeststhatSulpiciusdrewthisquotationfromMatthew25:40.85ThisvariationisfromtheBlicklingversion.TheJuniusversionemploysanoddspelling:cupabant.Theoriginofthisquotationisunknown,Mertens,Lives,p.416.86ThislineisparalleledinJohn1:47whenJesusremarksEcceuereIsraelita,inquodolusnonest(‘BeholdanIsraeliteindeed,inwhomthereisnoguile’),Burton,VitaMartini,p.257.

‘DeathSceneGroup’

6. AsMartintellshisdisciplesthathewilldie,theyreplyinLatinaskingwhyheisleavingthem,sayingCurnospaterdeseriscuinosdesolatus(Epistulap.338;homilylines233–34).ThisinterjectionbeginsthedialoguebetweenMartinandhisdisciplesconcerningdeath.

7. OnceMartinhasfinishedspeakingwithhisbreathren,hethendirectshisprayerstoGod,sayingDominesiadhucpopulotuosumnecessarius(Epistulap.340;homilylines240–41).

8. Havingreconciledhimselftotherealitythatheisdying,Martintellshisfollowerstostopclinging,andlethimgotoheaven,Sinitefratressinitecelumpotiusrespicere(Epistulap.342;homilylines269–70).

9. Inhislastwords,Martinchastisesthedevilinafinalannouncementofhisvictoryoverviceandsin,sayingQuidadstascruenda[bestia]nihilinmefunesterepperes(Epistulap.342;homilylines273–74).

NotonlydotheseLatinexcerptspunctuateparticularaspectsofthenarrative

andMartin’scharacter,theLatinphrasesalsofunctionasmeansofbeginninga

newthematicsectionofthestorywithoutusingthegelampsiþeorþaheþa

transitionswhichthehomilistotherwiseemploys.87Furthermore,thechangein

languagegivesmoreweighttoapassagebyslowingtheflowofthenarrativeto

forcetheaudiencetodwellontheimplicationsofthisscene,andtoconsiderhow

theyshouldmodeltheirownlives.Thisisespeciallyseeninthoseplaceswhere

theLatinexcerptsareclustered,suchasthe‘dreamsequence’or‘deathscene’.88

Thehomilysimilarlyslowsthenarrativeatthetransitionsinthephases

ofMartin’slife,withdescriptionsofMartin’spiouscharacter.Thesedescriptions

separateeachphaseofMartin’slife,andemphasisethatheavoidedwarrior

cultureatallpoints,fromhis‘youth’(geogoð-had)to‘worldlyservice’(wyrold-

folgoð),tobaptismandimmersioninthe‘serviceofGod’(godesðeow-dom),to

the‘bishopric’(bysceop-had)andhisultimateascensiontothecompanyof‘all

thesaints…intheheavenlykingdom’(eallumhalgum...onheofenarice,line

284).Throughoutthehomily,thewordsusedtodescribeMartin’speaceful

characterandfaith,suchas‘mild-hearted’(mild-heortan),areconstant.89For

instance,whendescribingMartin’slifestyleduringhistimeinthearmy,the

homilysays‘hewaspatient,andmodest,andhumbleinallthingsinhislife’(he

87SeeOgawa’scriticismofþaphrases,‘OldEnglishÞa’,461,472.88Thompson,‘HalgumBocum’,386–87.89Magennisdiscussesthetypologicalstasisandunchangingnatureofsainthoodin‘Conversion’,287–301.

wæsgeðyldigandeadmodandgemetfæstoneallumhislife,line24).Thephrase

eallumhislifesignalsthatMartin’svirtuesareunchanging,andthathedoesnot

evolveasamoralfigure,butratherassumespositionsofgreaterinfluenceasa

resultofhissaintlystabilitas.Thehomilyemphasiseshisconstancyand

immutablemoralitythroughcompoundsincorporating-fæst.AstheMartinmas-

textsays,‘hewassteadfastinhiswordsandpureandcleaninhislifeandhewas

faithfulandmodest’(staðolfæstonhiswordumandhluttorandclæneonhislife

andhewæsarfæstandgemetfæst,lines83–85).

WhilewewillseethatGuthlac,Andrew,andEustacespirituallyevolve

throughouttheirnarrative,fromrapaciouswarlord,hesitatingleaderofaband

ofdisciples,orpagangeneralintosaints,90Martinisalwaysaparagonofpeaceful

Christiandevotion.Erdmannnotesofwarrior-saintslikeMartin,George,Maurice

andSebastian,that‘farfromhavingdistinguishedthemselvesbypiousfeatsof

arms,theyinvariablyachievedholinessinoppositiontotheirmilitary

profession.’91Martin’ssaintlydetachmentfrommilitaryprofessionandfaithful

stasisisparticularlyevidentduringhistimeinthearmy.

Martin’searlylifeissetinthecontextofgeogoð-had(‘youth/childhood’),

læwedumhad(‘beingamongthelaity’)andcniht-had(‘adolescence/childhood’).

Inhisyouth,beforeheistrainedasasecularsoldier,Martindevoteshimself

whollytoGod’sservice(heðasonamideallehislifeymbegodesðeow-dom

abisgodwæs,lines17–18).ThischaracterisationofMartinprefigureshislaterlife

in‘God’sservice’(godesðeow-dom)whilecontrastingsoldieringfororserviceto

Godwiththeworldlymilitaryserviceheisforcedintobyhisfather:92

Patereiusmilesprimum,posttribunusmilitumfuit.Ipse,armatammilitiaminadolescentiasecutus,interscolares

Wæshisfadorærestcyningesðegen93andðaatnihstangeðahþæthewæscyningesðægnaealdorman.Ða

90Seepp.92–94,103–111,139–42,184and212–13below.91Erdmann,Origin,pp.14–16.ForMartin’spacifismandoppositiontomilitarylifeseeCross‘EthicsofWar’,280;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.21–26and259–67;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,p.229.Ontheotherhand,Smith,War,pp.85–87,readsstrongmilitaryundertonesintheMartiniana,alongwithadvocacyforheavenlywarfareandthegroundsformonasticinvolvementinfighting.92ComparativequotationsthroughoutthechapterprovidethetextfromSulpicius’sVita(ed.Burton)orEpistulaadBassilam(ed.Fontaine)onthelefthandside,andthetextfromtheMartinmas-homily(ed.Mertens),ontherighthandsideofthetextblock.93Dalbey,‘GoodShepherd’,424–25,andMagennis,‘WarriorSaints’,37,notethattheMartinmas-homilyprovidesþegn,whichcanreferto‘aretrainer’inmilitaryorciviliancontexts,whileÆlfricusescempa,whichismilitaristicinnature.

alassubregeConstantio,deindesubIulianoCaesaremilitavit.Nontamensponte,quiaaprimisfereannisdiuinampotiusseruitutemsacraillustrispuerispirauitinfantia.Namcumessetannorumdecem,inuitisparentibusadecclesiamconfugitsequecatichumenumfieripostulauit.Moxmiruminmodumtotusindeiopereconuersus,cumessetannorumduodecim,eremumconcupiuit,fecissetqueuotissatis,siaetatisinfirmatisnonfuissetimpedimento.Animustamenautcircamonasteriaautcircaecclesiamsemperintentus.Meditabaturadhucinaetatepuerili,quodposteadeuotusimpleuit.Sedcumedictumessetaregibusutueteranorumfiliiadmilitiamscriberentur.Prodentepatre,quifelicibuseiusactibusinuidebat,cumessetannorumquindecim,captusetcatenatussacramentismilitaribusimplicatusest.(lines35–49).

sceoldehesanctusMartinusnydebeononhisgeogoð-hadeonðæregeferrædeneærestonConstantinesdagumandþaeftonIuliamðæskaseres.Nalæsþæthehiswillumonðamwyrold-folgoðewærc,achesoneonhisgeogoðegodesðe[o]wdommicleswiðorlufodeðanðaidlandreamas[andþawelan]94ðissewyrolde.Þahewæsxwintreandhinehisyldrantoworuld-folguðetyhtonandlærdon.Ðafleahhetogodescyriceanandbædþæthinemongecristnode,þætseærestadælhisonginnesandlifeswærontogeleafangecyrredandtofulwihte,andheðasona[wæswundorlice]95mideallehislifeymbegodesðeowdomabisgodwæs.Ðahewæsfiftenewintre,ðanyddanhinehisyldrantoðanþæthesceoldeworuldlicumwæpnumonfonandoncyningesðegnageferredenabeon.(lines8–20).

‘[Martin’s]fatherwasfirstasoldierandafterwardsatribuneofsoldiers.[Martin]himself,havingenteredintothearmedforcesinhisadolescence,servedamongtheelitecavalryunderEmperorConstantiusandthenunderCaesarJulian.However,thiswasnothisownchoosing,sincefromthefirstyearsinthesacredinfancyofthisfamousboy,heaspiredinsteadtowardsdivineservice.ForwhenhewastenyearsoldhefledtotheChurchcontrarytohisparents’willandheaskedtobecomeacatechumen.SoonhecompletelyconvertedtotheworkofGodinawondrousway;whenhewastwelveyearsoldhedesiredthedesert,andhewouldhavefulfilledthiswish

‘Hisfatherwasfirstthethegnofthekingandnextprogressedsothathewastheleaderoftheking’sthegns.Theninhisyouth,SaintMartinbynecessityhadtobeintheking’sfellowshipfirstinthedaysofConstantiusthenafterwardswithCaesarJulian.Bynomeansdidhewishtobeinthatworldlyservice,butinhisyouthheatoncegreatlylovedmoregreatlytheserviceofGodthantheidlepleasuresandrichesofthisworld.Hewasthentenyearsofageandhiselderstaughtandtrainedhiminworldlyservice.ThenhefledtoGod’schurchandaskedthatsomeonechristenhim,sothatthefirstpartofhisundertakingandlifewouldbeturned

94TheVercelliversionprovidesthisadditionaldetail,Mertens,ed.,Lives,p.403.ThismaybeevidenceoftheVercellicompiler’sinterestindoublets,asZacherarguesinPreachingtheConverted,pp.242–50.95TheVercelliandBlicklingversionsincludethewordswæswundorlice,translatingtheVita’sMoxmiruminmodum;Mertens,ed.,Lives,p.404.

enough,iftheweaknessofhisagedidnotobstructhim.Yethissoulwasalwaysintentoneitherthemonasteryorthechurch.Atthatpointinhisboyhoodhemeditatedstillonwhatheafterwardscarriedoutwithdevotion.Butatthattimetherewasanedictfromtheemperorsthatthesonsofveteransweretobeconscriptedintofighting.When[Martin]wasfifteenyearsold,thematterbeingpushedbyhisfather,whoenviedhisblessedactions,[Martin]wasseizedandchained,andwasboundinmilitaryoaths.’

towardfaithandbaptism,andthenwasheimmediatelywondrouslyengaged,withallhislife,inGod’sservice.Whenhewasfifteenyearsofage,thenhiseldersforcedhimsothathehadtotakeupworldlyweaponsandbeintheking’sretinueofthegns.’

Justashisfatherrosethroughtheranksofthearmy,sotooMartinseemssetto

jointhemilitary.However,thehomilyimmediatelyclarifiesthatMartin’s

involvementinfightingwaswhollybeyondhiscontrol.WhiletheVitasaysthat

Martinfollowed(secutus)inhisfather’sfootsteps,thehomilystressesthat

Martinhadtoservethroughnecessity(sceolde…nydebeon).96TheVitathen

goesontosaythatthisarrangementwasnotatallinaccordancewithMartin’s

willasMartinprefersthe‘divineservice’(diuinam…seruitutem).TheOld

EnglishsaysthatserviceofGod(godesðeow-dom)isinoppositiontoworldly

servicebyclarifyingthatMartinwasnotinterestedin‘worldly-service’(nalæs

þæthehiswillumonðamwyrold-folgoðewærc).Thisweoruld-folgoð(worldly-

service’),97acompoundwhichsurvivesonlyintheanonymoushomilieson

Martin,isfurthercharacterisedinthesamesentenceas‘idlejoysandthewealth

ofthisworld’,(idlandreamas[andþawelan]ðissewyrolde).Theseempty

rewardsareincontrasttotheeternalonesMartinearnsthroughhisgoodworks

indevotiontoGodthroughouthislife.TheVitaoffersnoequivalentpassageor

phrasetomatchthecharacterizationofweoruld-folgoð,illustratinghowthe

homilistindependentlyprioritisesthecontrastbetweenworldlyandspiritual

service.

96Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,31–34,notesthatalthoughSulpiciusportraysMartinasanunwillingsoldierandishesitanttohighlightMartin’sparticipationinviolentaction,SulpiciusdoesnothaveanissuewithChristianviolenceingeneral.97Hamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,pp.71and74,translatesthisas‘worldlyoccupation’;Mertensoffersthetranslations‘worldlyservice’and‘worldlyfellowship’,Lives,pp.180and187;Morris,BlickingHomilies,pp.210and216,interpretsthisas‘temporaloccupation’.

Thereareonlyfourcompoundsincorporating-folgaðextantintheOld

Englishcorpus,andeachimpliesnotonlyanofficeorposition,butalsoservicein

thatposition.Theusagesofbisceop-folgoþ(‘theepiscopate’)inGregory’s

Dialogues,98andprafost-folgoþ(‘officeofprovost’)intheOldEnglishRuleof

Benedictsuggestapositionofauthorityanddevotionthatcannotbebought,but

comeswithservicetoGod.99Likewise,theOldEnglishOrosiususesunder-folgoþ

tomean‘anofficeunderthesuperior’,orthestateofbeingadiscipleordevotee

ofacertainteaching.100Inthislight,thecompoundweoruld-folgoðinthe

Martinmas-homilymightbeunderstoodasa‘devotiontotheworldorearthly

affairs’.Similarconnotationscanbeseeninmanyoftheuniquecompoundswith

weoruld-whichWaldorfidentifies,thatmostlyrelatetothesecularmilitary

(weoruld-feoht,weoruld-gewinn,weoruld-wæpen),physicalwealth(weoruld-feoh,

weoruld-sælig,orweoruld-welig),apparel(weoruld-frætewung),temporalglory

orpower(weoruld-bot,weoruld-dæd,weoruld-dom,weoruld-rædness,weoruld-

hlisa,orweoruld-wuldor),andsin(weoruld-galness,weoruld-gitsere,orweoruld-

widl).101

DamonandMagennisinterpretweoruld-folgaðas‘worldlyoccupation’

andarguethatthecompoundreferstosecularlifebutisnotcriticalofthe

worldlymilitary.102Yetthetermweoruld-folgoðisusedexclusivelyinreference

toMartin’stime‘beinginthecompanionshipoftheking’sthegns’(cyninges

ðegnageferredenabeon),aperiodwhichisalsodefinedasthattimewhenMartin

carriedworldlyweapons(wyrold-wæpnawæg,line21).Moreover,the

compoundweoruld-folgoðeisusedinanenvelopepatternframingMartin’s

militaryservice,firstappearinginacomparisonofMartin’sexpectationtojoin

98TheOldEnglishDialoguesusesthecompoundbisceop-folgoþandcollocationbisceoplicanfolgoðestorefertotheepiscopaloffice.HansHecht,HenryJohnson,andJuliusZupitza,ed.,BischofsWaerferthsvonWorcesterÜbersetzungderDialogeGregorsdesGrossen(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1965)pp.3and65.99ArnoldSchröer,ed.,DieangelsächsischenProsabearbeitungenderBenediktinerregel(Darmstadt:1964),p.126.100(S)under-folgoþisusedinthefollowingpassagetoexpressJulian’sorderthatnoChristianmanmighthaveanotherpersonunderhimasaninferior,specificallyinreferencetohavingstudentsordisciples:Julianforbeadopenliceþætmonnanefæstebocneleornode,andsædeeacþætnancristenmonnemostehabbannænnehissunder-folgeþa,JanetBately,ed.,TheOldEnglishOrosius(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1980),p.150.101NormanWaldorf,‘TheHapaxLegomenaintheOldEnglishVocabulary:AStudyBasedupontheBosworth–TollerDictionary’,PhD.Dissertation(StanfordUniversity,1953),pp.386–87.102Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.260–62;Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,38.

thearmytohisdesiretoserviceGod(line13),andlastusedwhenMartinleaves

themilitary(line78).ItseemsthattheMartinmas-homilistusesweoruld-folgoðe

toreferspecificallytothearistocraticwarriorculturethatfoughtandpursued

‘emptypleasures’(idlandreamas),andnotgenerallytosecularsociety.

Ælfric’stranslationofthehomileticAdmonitioadFiliumSpiritualem,or

HexameronofStBasil,alsoreferstothewarriorcultureofthebellatoresthrough

compoundswithweoruld-.Inthesection‘ConcerningSpiritualWarfare’(De

militiaspirituali),103Ælfricusesworuld-cempa(‘worldlyfighter’)todenotethose

devotedtoworldlyserviceandobedience,whostriveforworuld-gleng(‘worldly

pomp’)andworuld-welan(‘worldlywealth).Thesectionsaysthatsuchmenare

theoppositeofmonksorspiritualfighters(Godescempa),104who‘arealways

securefromworldlycaresandeverytumult’(simleorsorhframworuld-carum

andframælcumgehylde).Whiletheuseofcompoundswithweoruld-inthe

HexameronandMartinmas-homilydrawsacleardistinctionbetweentemporal

andheavenlyservicesgenerally,itisalsoclearthattheyareprimarilyconcerned

withsecularmilitaryservices.

TherepeateduseofweoroldthroughoutthedescriptionofMartin’s

conscriptionassociatestheworldanditsconcernswithidlejoys,wealth,and

weapons.Thesectioncontainsaclusteroffiveusesofweoruld,incompoundsor

standingalone,highlightingthesecularsettingforMartin’searlylife.In

contrastinggodesðeow-domwithweoruld-folgoð,thehomilistrevealshis

opinionthatanyactionintheworldorthroughworldlyserviceisantitheticalto

Christianfaith,advocatingforoneto‘fleetoGod’sChurch’(fleahhetogodes

cyricean,line15).Sotooisthetrainingoneneedsintheworldinsharpcontrast

tothatofGod’sservice.Thedoublettyhtonandlærdon,usedforMartin’s

inductiontosecularsoldiery,isreflectedattheendofMartin’sserviceinthe

militarywhenStHilaryofPoitiers‘taughtandtrained[Martin]inGod’sservice’

(ongodesðeow-domgetydeandgelærde,lines81–82).Martinapproachesthis

trainingofhisownvolition,contrastinghisforcedintroductiontoworldly

service.

103Hexameron,34–38and52.104Seepp.1–3,19–20and27–32above.

TheaccountofMartin’schildhoodsimilarlyintroducesthetwo

contrastingfather-figuresofthenarrative,namelyMartin’sfatherandMartin

himself,whobecomesafæder(‘father’)forhisflock.Thecontrastofcharacters

inthehomilypresentsMartin’sfatherandparentsasmorecloselyassociated

withthehomily’sheathenantagoniststhanascharactersworthyofredemption.

DuringMartin’sgeogaðe-had,itisonlyhisfamilywhoforcehimintosecular

soldieryandnotanedictfromtheemperors,asportrayedintheVita.Hence,the

‘edictfromtheemperorsthatthesonsofveteransweretobeconscriptedinto

themilitary’ispresentedintheMartinmas-textas‘thenhiseldersforcedhimto

that,thathemusttakeupworldlyweaponsandbeintheking’sretinueof

thegns.’ThehomilypreservestheVita’sdepictionofMartin’sfatherasscornful

ofhisson’swishes,orderingMartintobe‘seizedandchained’(captuset

catenatus)whileavoidingthelegalcontextthatwouldnothavebeenfamiliarin

ninth-centuryAnglo-SaxonEngland,whichseemstohavebeenasocietybound

bykinshipandfamilialduties.105TheshiftinemphasisfromMartin’smilitary

servicebeingdemandedbyimperialdecreetohisparents‘forcinghim’intoit,

alsointensifiestheblameonhisyldran.Theheightenedantagonisticroleplayed

byMartin’sparentsmayalsoaccountforthelateromissionofMartin’sjourney

toconvertthem,astoldintheVita(lines117–19and140–41).

Theimageoftheenviousfatherentrenchedinthemilitaryisestablished

heretocontrastthelaterimageofMartinasaloving,pacifist,andnuturing

fatherinthefinalstagesofthenarrative.AsthehomilysayswhenMartinfounds

hismonasterynearPoitiers,‘inthat[monastery]hebecameaspiritualfatherfor

manyoftheservantsofGod’(heonðammanigragodesðeowagastlicfæder

gewearð,lines88–89).ThisreferencetoMartinasafatherreturnsagainathis

deathscene,whenhisdiscipleswillcallhimthefatheroftheirflock(lines232–

33).Asaspiritualfather,Martinsurpasseshisowneldersastheonewhoinduct

youthsintoawarriorsociety.Yetinsteadofforcingpeopleintoweoruld-folgað,

Martinbringsthemintogodesðeow-dom.TheMartinmas-homilythusprovides

105RichardAbels,LordshipandMilitaryObligationinAnglo-SaxonEngland(London:BritishMuseumPublications,1988),pp.14–16,34–37and97–115,andFrankStenton,Anglo-SaxonEngland(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1971),pp.290–91and582–84,arguethatAnglo-Saxonsocietywasdevoidoftotalitarianemperorsandobligatorymilitaryservicewasrelativelyminimalbeforetheeleventhcentury.

analternativetothemilitarylifeperpetuatedbyinheritedfamilialsystems.The

changefromseculartospiritualserviceisonefromadestructiveforcetoa

positiveone.

Althoughimmersedinwarriorsociety,Martinisdescribedaspeaceful

andkind,removedfromthosesinsgenerallyaccruedthroughworldlyservice.A

similarportrayalofthevirtuoussoldierwhosegoodnatureinvitesChristto

converthimappearsintheEustace-Legend.106However,wewillseeinChapter

SixthatEustaceparticipatesactivelyinmilitarylife,whereasintheMartinmas-

homilythesaintisremovedfrompracticalsoldiery.Thehomilyemphasisesthis

factthroughreworkingtheVita’saccountofMartin’snonviolenttenureinthe

military,whichisportrayedinbothversionsasfollows:

Trienniumfereantebaptismuminarmisfuit.Integertamenabhisuitiisquibusilludhominumgenusmaximeimplicarisolet.(lines51–53).

ÐawæronIIIgearærhisfulwihteþæthewyrold-wæpnawæg,andhehinehwæðerewiþeallumðamhealicumwæpnum107geheold,ðaðeworuld-menfremmaðonmænnisscum108ðingum.(lines20–22).

‘Hewasinarmsforaboutthreeyearsbeforehisbaptism.However,heremainedwholefromthesesinsinwhichamanofthatkindismostgreatlyimplicated.’

‘Therewerethreeyearsbeforehisbaptismwhenhecarriedworldlyweapons,andheneverthelessabstainedfromallofthoseexceptionalweapons,thosewhichworldlymenwieldinhumanaffairs.’

TheVercelliversionofthehomilyprovideshealicumsinnum(‘serioussins’);the

BlicklingandJuniusversionsprovidehealicumwæpnum(‘exceptionalweapons’).

TheVercellireadingisclosertotheVitawhichfocusesonthe‘sins’Martin

avoids,usingfremmaðinitsnegativesensetomean:‘thosegravesins,those

whichareofnoavailforworldlymeninhumanaffairs.’TheBlicklingandJunius

versionsbuildonthereferencetothe‘worldlyweapons’(wyrold-wæpna)

mentionedinthepreviousclausetoclarifythatthosesins(uitiis/sinnum)ought

106Seepp.212–13below.107Hamilton,‘BlicklingHomily’,p.54,preferstheVercellireadingofsinnuminsteadofwæpnum,yetwæpnumintheBlicklingandJuniusversionsseemstomakemoresensewiththesubsequentuseoffremmað.SeeallrenditionsinMertens,ed.,Lives,p.404.108Vercellihasmissenlicum(‘various’)hereratherthanmænnisscum(‘human’),Mertens,ed.,Lives,p.404.

tobeunderstoodasrelatingtophysicalweaponsandsecularheroism.Theterm

weoruld(‘world’,‘earth’)appearstwiceinthesentenceintwocompounds,

wyrold-wæpna(‘worldlyweapons’)andworuld-men(‘worldlymen’).The

presenceofcompoundsandalliterationon‘w’inthesimpleproseofthe

Martinmas-textimmediatelydrawstheaudience’sattentiontothem.Theself-

alliteratinghapaxlegomenonwyrold-wæpnabindstheconceptoftheworldwith

weaponswhileprovidingauralemphasisforthepassagewhenreadinthemass

forMartin’sfeast.109Thehomilyfurtherrefinestheuseofweoroldtospecifically

refertohumanswiththecompoundworuld-men,andthestatementthatsuch

worldlyweaponsonlyhelpin‘humanaffairs’(mænnisscumðingum).Asaresult,

thepassageemphaticallyconnectsallthosesinsMartinavoidswiththeworldly

orwarrior-tradition.110

TheonlytimeMartinusesaweoruld-wæpenistocuthiscloakintwoasan

actoflargessandgenerosity(Vitalines62–73;homilylines42–54),whenhe

drawshisseax,asingle-edgedknifeorshortsword,giveninLatinasferrum

(‘iron-implement’orinpoetry‘sword’).Thehomily’suseofseaxworkstoboth

makethestorymoreculturallyspecificforAnglo-Saxonsthroughtheuseofa

weaponassociatedwithGermanicwarriors,111aswellastoalignMartinwithhis

militaryprofessionatthetime.112MagennisnotesthatÆlfricalsousestheword

seaxforMartin’stoolinhisversionsofthecloak-cuttingscene,thoughhe

postulatesthatseaxinÆlfric’sLifeofMartincouldsimplyrefertoageneric

knife.113However,thetermseaxreappearswiththepaganwhoattemptstocut

downMartin(Vitalines340–41;homilylines188–90),suggestingthatthetoolis

usedinamilitaryorwarlikeconnotationintheanonymoushomily.Martin’sact

thusinvertstheexpectationofthewarriorcodeasthesaintappropriatesthe

seaxforapeacefulpurpose.114

109SeeMarkGriffith,‘ExtraAlliterationonStressedSyllablesinOldEnglishPoetry:Types,UsesandEvolution’,ASE47(2020),91–93,fordiscussiononhowself-alliteratingcompoundsaregenerallyinventedbyacomposertohighlightaspectsofanarrative.110Mertens’snoteforline22,ed.,Lives,182.111DavidGale,‘TheSeax’,inWeaponsandWarfareinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.SoniaHawkes(Oxford:OxfordUniversityCommitteeforArchaeology,1989),pp.71–83.112Magennis,‘WarriorSaint’,37.113Mertens,ed.,Lives,p.435.114Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.14–16.

TheMartinmas-homilistcontinuestostressMartin’sunwarlikecharacter

inhisdescriptionofMartin’stimeinthearmy:

Multacircacommilitonesbenignitas,miracaritas;patientiaueroatquehumilitasultrahumanummodum.Namfrugalitatemineolaudarinonestnecesse,quaitaususestutiamillotemporenonmilessedmonachusputaretur.(lines53–56).

Hehæfdemiclelufaneallewærnessetoælcummenandhewæsgeðyldigandeadmodandgemetfæstoneallumhislifeandðeahðeheðegetonlæwedum-hadebeonscoldehwæðerehetoðæsforwyrnednessehæfdeoneallumðingum,þætheefnemunuclifegytswiðorlifdeþannelæwedesmannes.(lines23–27).

‘Greatwasthegenerositytohispeers,wondroushischarity,trulyhispatienceandhumilitywerebeyondhumanlimits.Itisnotevennecessaryforthefrugalitywithinhimtobepraised,whichhesomaintainedthathewaseventhoughttobenotasoliderbutamonkatthattime.’

‘Hehadmuchlovewithallconsiderationforeveryman,andhewaspatient,modest,andhumbleinallthingsinhislife,eventhoughheshouldyetbeinasecularvocation,neverthelesshewasmoderateinallthings,sothatheevenlivedmorethelifeofamonkthanthatofasecularman.’

BothtextssaythatMartinlivedmorelikeamonkthanasoldier,forbearingthe

barbarismofothers,whilealsofocusingonhispacifismandgenerosity.115Yet

theOldEnglishtextgoesastepbeyondtheVitatostressthatthesevirtueswere

turnedtowardsallmen,notjustMartin’scomrades.Similarly,wheretheVita

saysthatMartin’svirtuewasbeyondthatattainablebymortalmen,thehomily

saysinsteadthatMartin’sdisciplineelevatedhimbeyondthesecularworld.Itis

notacritiqueonhumanachievement,butthatofwarriorculture,adaptedforthe

homilist’spastoralprogrammetomakeMartin’sexampleresonatewithlæweda

menn.TheOldEnglishpassageemphasisesthecontrastbetweensecularand

ecclesiasticalorpiouslivingwithasmallenvelopepattern,bindingmunuc-life

betweentwousesoflæw(‘lay’),indicatingthatMartinisactingcontrarytowhat

isexpectedofhisstate,andthatheissurroundedbyotherswhoarenotinhis

wayoflife.

115ÆlfricsaysthatKingOswaldalso‘livedlikeamonkamongthelaity’(munucliceleofodebetwuxðamlæwedumfolce),LSIII:8;Mertens,ed.,Lives,p.85.

Thetermweoruld-folgoðreappearsattheendofMartin’smilitaryservice

andthebeginningofhislifeasacleric(line78).Again,thehomilistappearsto

usethecompoundtohighlighttheparametersofthisperiodinMartin’slife.Once

Martinisbaptised,thenarrativeimmediatelyshiftstoMartin’strainingunder

Hilaryandhisecclesiasticallife.Thecomposerleaveshisaudiencewithoutdoubt

astoMartin’sdevotionthroughthealterationofthistransition.WhereSulpicius

relateshowMartin‘didnotleavethemilitaryimmediately’(necstatimmilitiae

renuntiauit,line83),theJuniusversionofthehomilymakesMartinmore

decisive,sayingthat‘heleftthatworldlyserviceatonce/completely’(forlethe

ealneðanewyrold-folgoðænne).116Wehaveseeninthepreviouschapterhow

Christianandclericalviolencewasforbiddenbysomeearlypatristicwritersand

canonlaws,117althoughitisimportanttonoteherethedecreesmadeunder

PopeSiricius(384–399)duringMartin’slifetimethatprohibitedanyonefrom

beingaclergymaniftheyhadbeenasoldieraftertakingbaptism.118Martin’s

delayinleavingthearmyseemstohaveraisedeyebrowswithhis

contemporaries,119yetHewishandBurtonconcludethatSulpiciusprobablyleft

theembarrassingdetailinhisaccountsincethefactwastoowellknowntocover

up.120TheOldEnglishhomilyavoidstheissueentirelybysayingthatheleftthe

militaryassoonashewasbaptised.Asaresult,notonlydoestheanonymous

composerlendMartinmoresaintlyauthority,butfurtheremphasisesthat

devotiontoChristandwarriorculturearenotcompatible.

WhenMartinleavesthearmy,thedescriptionofhimisoneofmodesty

andpurity.Thereisnomentionofviolenceoraggression.Thehomilyomits

Martin’sargumentwiththeEmperorJulian,aswellastheensuingbattlewhichis

miraculouslyaverted.Instead,thehomilyrelateshowMartinimmediatelyseeks

StHilary,whotheninstructshiminthe‘serviceofGod’,saying:

116Vercellihomilyreads,ðaforletheealneþoneworuld-folgoðan,whiletheBlicklinghomilyhasþaforletheþoneworold-folgað,Mertensed.,Lives,p.411.117Seepp.27–32above.118PL13:cols1179and1190.119Mertens,Lives,pp.20–24;Stancliffe,StMartin,p.259.Prinz,‘King,ClergyandWar’,II:302–03,notescanonVIIIfromCouncilsofToledo400and451excludingsoldiersfromclergy,whichisextendedinsixth-centuryFrankishcouncils.SeealsoSmith,War,pp.44–46.120Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.76.Burton,VitaMartini,pp.19–23,providesasummaryofthedebateonthehistoricityofMartin’smilitarycareerintheVita.

ExinderelictamilitiasanctumHilariumPictauaeepiscopumciuitatiscuiustuncindeirebusexpectataetcognitafideshabebaturexpetiit,etaliquandiuapudeumcommoratusest.TemptauitautemidemHilariusinpositodiaconiiofficiosibieumartiusimplicareetministeriouinciridiuino.Sedcumsepissimerestitisset,indignumseesseuociferansintellexituirdeialtiorisingeniihoceummodoposseconstringisiideiofficuinponeretinquoquidamlocusiniuriaeuideretur.Itaqueexorcistameumesseprecepit.Quamilleordinationemnedespexissetamquamhumilioremuideretur,nonrepudiauit.(lines109–16).…121CumiamHilariuspraeterisset,Pictauoseumestuestigiispersecutus:cumqueabeogratissimefuissetsusceptushaudlongesibiaboppidomonasteriumcollocauit.(lines157–59).

AndðagewathetosancteHilarieðambysceope,ðeinPictaueðærebyrigwæsbysceopandwæsþætswiðeforemæremanforgode.Sebysceopandhisgodwæsswiðegecyðed122andheðaðisneydiganwerfulfremedliceongodesæandongodesðeow-domgetydeandgelærde,eacðanðahinegodselfneinnangemanode.Wæsheswiþegeðungenonhisðeawumandstaðol-fæstonhiswordumandhluttorandclæneonhislifeandhewæsar-fæstandgemet-fæstandmildhyrtonhisdædumandgeornfulandbegewyrhtumymbedrihtneslareandineallumgodumforgodefulfremede.ÐagelampæfterðanþætseeadigawerSanctusMartinussummynstergetimbredeandheonðammanigragodesðeowagastlicfædergewearð.(lines78–89).

‘Thenhavingleftthearmy,[Martin]setoutforsaintHilary,bishopofthecityofPoitiers,whosefaithinthemattersofGodwerethenseenandknown,andstayedwithhimforsometime.However,thissameHilaryattemptedtoattach[Martin]morecloselytohimselfbyimposingtheofficeofdeaconuponhimandbindinghimindivineservice,butwhen[Martin]veryoftenresisted,shoutingthathewasunworthy,thatmanofdeeperinsight[Hilary]understoodthattherewasonewaytobeabletoconstrain[Martin],ifheimposedanofficeupon[Martin]whichwouldseemtobethegroundsforinsult.Andsoheordered[Martin]

‘Thenhewenttothatbishop,saintHilary,whowasbishopinthecityofPoitiers,andwasaveryfamousmanofGod.Thebishop[Hilary],whosegoodnesswaswidelyknown,thencompletelyinstructedandtaughttheblessedman[Martin]inGod’slawandGod’sservice.LikewiseGodadmonishedhimwithin,sothathewasgreatlyadvancedinhiscustomsandhewassteadfastinhiswordsandpureandcleaninhislife,andhewasfaithfulandmoderate,andmildheartedinhisdeedsandzealous,andhecompletedhisworksconcerningthelord’steachingandinallgoodthingsforGod.Thenithappenedafterwardsthatthe

121OmittedherearetheaccountsofMartin’striptoconverthisparents(whichhasmixedsuccess),hisencounterwithsomebrigandsintheAlpsonthewaytoItaly,hisunsuccessfulconfrontationwiththeArianheretics,Martin’smiraculousrecoveryfromeatingpoisononanisland,andfurthermentionsofStHilary.122Juniusversionsuppliesgecyðeð,whereBlicklingandVercelliprovidegecyðed.

tobeanexorcist.Hedidnotrefusethisordination,lestitseemthathehadshunneditforbeingsolowly....SowhenHilaryhadjourneyedon,[Martin]followedhistrackstoPoitiers:andwhen[Martin]hadbeenrecievedby[Hilary]withthegreatestdelight,[Martin]builtamonasteryforhimselfnotfarfromthetown.’

blessedmanSaintMartinbuiltacertainmonastery,andinthat[monastery]hebecameaspiritualfatherformanyoftheservantsofGod.’

TheMartinmas-homilydescribesthesaint’schangeinvocationthroughtheuse

ofthesamedoublet,(ge)tyanand(ge)læran,previouslyemployedtoinitiate

Martinintotheweoruld-folgoð,nowsignifyinghistraininginGod’sservice.This

instructiongreatlyincreasesMartin’sinnatepiety,andpreparesMartintobring

thepowerofhisfaithbeyondhisownsalvationtobenefitothers.Afterthis

inductionintogodesðeowdomMartinfoundshisownmonasteryandgathers

followersaroundhimtoteachandinstructinholyliving.

However,thissuddenshiftfromcatechumentoabbotpassesoverthe

firstactionsofMartin’sclericallifeasanexorcist.IntheVita,Martintakesupthe

roleofdeaconandproceedstoexpeluncleanspiritsfromanumberofpeople,in

additiontounsuccessfullyconvertinghisfatherandfailingtodefeatArian

hereticsinnorthernItaly,beforeheestablisheshismonasterynearPoitiers(Vita

lines117–59).ThehomilyremovesallmentionofMartin’spositionasan

exorcistandhisbanishmentofdemons.Besidesenablingthehomilistto

condensethenarrative,theomissionofMartin’sexorcisttrainingavoidsHilary’s

manipulationofthesaint.IntheVitaHilarywishestobindMartintohimself,

wheretheMartinmas-homilysuggestsinsteadthatMartinisbindinghimself

solelytoGod’swork,usingcompoundswiththewordfæst(‘firmlyfixed’or

‘bound’),asnotedabove.123Thehomilyadaptsthepassagetofitmorefullyinto

itsproselytisingprogramme,givingthesaintmoreauthorityaswellasfocusing

onMartin’sfunctionsasapriestratherthanexorcist.124

123Seep.57above.124ForanintroductiontoexorcisminAnglo-Saxonliterature,seePeterDendle,DemonPossessioninAnglo-SaxonEngland(Kalamazoo,Mich.:MedievalInstitutePublications,2014),pp.141–74.

FromthepointthatMartiniscalledagastlicfæder,heisnolonger

portrayedascultivatinghisownfaith,butcaringforthewellbeingof

Christendomatlarge.Martin’sevolutionfromdedicationtohispersonalwelfare

tothewelfareofothersisdemonstratedinthetwohealingmiraclesMartin

performsafterhefoundshismonastery.Healingadeadcatechumenisthefirst

miracleMartinworksbeforewitnesses(wæsðisðærewundraærstðeðeseadiga

weropenlice,beforanoðrummannumgeworhte,lines111–12)andshiftsthe

homily’sfocusfromMartin’sinternal‘life’tohisactive‘life’caringforthewider

community.125Martinthenhealsaslavewhocommittedsuicideinasimilar

manner(Vitalines157–92;homilylines89–128).Inbothmiracles,Martin

revivesadeadpersonbystretchinghislimbsoverthedeceasedandpraying

untiltheyawake.Theseepisodesarelinkedthroughtheverbastreccan,‘to

stretch[one’slimbs]’,usedforMartinashereachesoutoverthedeadmenhe

resuscitates.126ThisgivesthegeneralfeelingofMartinasacoverorprotection

overthecommunity.

ThetwomenMartinrevivesalsodemonstratethesaint’sgrowing

influence.ThefirstisacatechumenwhocomestolearnfromMartin,andis

predisposedtoChristianityandpiousliving.Thesecond,whohaddiedby

suicide,haswithnoapparentconnectiontoMartinbutisastrangerinthevillage

uponwhichthesainthappensupon.Inthissecondrevival-episode,Martinis

outsideofthespaceshecreatedandishealingsomeonewhohadnocleardesire

tobeaChristian,letalonetocarryonliving.Martinhassoughtoutcommunities

thatneedhishelpandbroughtthemaid,insteadofworkingonlywiththosethat

cometohim.Afterrevivingthesuicide,Martin‘ledhimforthtotheforecourtof

thathouseandpresentedhimtothosepeoplewholeandsound,theonewho

theyhadabandonedearlierasdead’(hinegelæddeforðtoðancauertuneðæs

husesandhineeftðammannumhalneandgesundneageafðehieærdeadne

forleton,lines126–28).Here,thehomilyemphasiseshisabilitytohealthe

125Fordiscussionofthemodelofthe‘mixedlife’,seepp.39–40inChapterTwo.126Jeffery,BlicklingSpirituality,pp.124and140,notesthatSulpiciuswasprobablyinfluencedbymiraclesofElijah,whileKelly,BlicklingHomilies,p.192,linksthemtotheraisingofLazarrus.EileenHarney,‘TheSexualizedandGenderedTorturesofVirginMartyrsinMedievalEnglishLiterature’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofToronto,2008),pp.147–49,notesthatwhenMartinandAgnesresurrectpeopleoftheoppositesex,theylieonthegroundnexttothecorpseratherthanatopit.

personpublicly,beforedescribingMartin’sepiscopalappointment.Martindoes

notelevatehisstatusthroughanyshowofforceoragression,asGuthlacwillin

defeatingthedemonsatCrowland,orAndrewwillinliberatingtheprisoners,

dominatingdemons,andconvertingtheinhabitantsofMermedonia.127Rather,

theMartinmas-homilycontinuestopraisethesaint’sequanimity,statingthathe

‘hadthesamehumilityinhisheart’(hæfdeðaiclaneadmodnesseanhishyrtan,

134–35)despitehisnewpositionofauthority.

AstheOldEnglishnarrativedescribesthenextlevelofMartin’sinfluence,

itglossesoverthecontroversysurroundingMartin’sepiscopalappointmentin

Tours,towhichtheVitadevotesconsiderableattention.TheOldEnglishgoes

fromthesecondhealingmiracletoMartin’sepiscopalmiraclesbysayingthat,

‘thesewondersandmanyothersAlmightyGodwroughtthroughtheblessed

man,beforehesubsequentlybecamebishop’(ðaswundorandmanigoðer

ælmihtiggodþurhðysneeadiganwergeworhteærþanneheæftrewærebysceop,

line129–30).JustasthehomilyomitsmentionofMartin’sexorcisms,sotoodoes

itavoidmostsuggestionsthatecclesiasticalcommunitiesareflawed,proneto

theviceofin-fighting,orthattherewouldbeanyChristianwhowoulddisagree

withthesaint.

ThissilenceonworldlycorruptionintheChurchisemphasisedinthe

followingcharacterisationsofMartinafterhisepiscopalappointment:

Iamuerosumptoepiscopatuqualemsequantumquepraestiteritnonestnostrefacultatiseuoluere.Idemenimconstantissimeperseuerabatquipriusfuerat.Eademincordeeiushumilitaseademinuestitueiusuilitaserat.Atqueitaplenusauctoritatisetgratiaeimplebatepiscopiidignitatemutnontamenpropositummonachiuirtutemquedesereret.(lines218–22).

Acsyððanheðanbysceop-hadeonfænginTurnaðærebyrig.Nisænigmanþætðawundoreallasecgeðaðegodsyððanðurhhinegewrohte,andðeahðeheðamaranhadhæfdeandeacforwyroldericrabeonsceoldeðanneheærwæs,hwæðerehehæfdeðaiclaneadmodnesseanhishyrtanandðailcanforwyrnednesseonhislic-haman,æghwæðergeonmete,geonhræglegeonæghwilcumðingefneswaheærhæfde,andhehisbysceophadswagedefelicegeheoldforgodeswahehwæðernæfreþætmægenandðaforesetenessehismunuc-hadesanneforlet.(lines130–38).

127Seepp.123–36,158–60and179–83below.

‘Yet,itisnotwithinourabilitytosayinwhatwayandhowgreatly[Martin]stoodout,havingindeedassumedtheepiscopate.Forhewasmaintainingthesameabsolutesteadfastnesswhichhehadpreviously.Thesamehumilitywasinhisheart,thesamelowlinessinhisclothing;andthus,fullofauthorityandgrace,hefilledtheofficeofbishopinsuchaswaythathedidnotdeserthismonasticintentorpower.’

‘ThereisnomanwhocoulddescribeallthemiracleswhichGodwroughtthroughhim,butafterwardshereceivedthebishopricofthecityofTours,andthoughhehadagreaterpositionandshould,moreover,bemorepowerfulintheworldthanhewasbefore,neverthelesshehadthesamehumilityinhisheartandthesameabstinenceofhisbodywhetherinfoodorindressorineverything,justashehadbeenbefore,andworthilydidheholdhisbishopricforGodsothathewouldneverabandonthatpowerandthepurposeofhismonasticofficeatonce.

Martin’selevationintothebishopricismarkedwithaclusteroftermsthat

denotevariousstatesofbeing,withbysceop-hade(line130);had(line133);

bysceop-had(line137);andmunuc-hades(line138).Theuseofmultipleterms

illustratethatthesaintwaslivinga‘mixedlife’,fulfillingthe‘active’roleof

bishopwhilealsomaintaininghis‘contemplative’positionasamonk.Wewillsee

inthenextchapterthattheGuthlacA-poetuseshadtorefertothevariousorders

ofsocietyfromwhichonecanattainsanctity,nottorefertotheaspectsofthe

‘mixedlife’.128However,thecontrastbetweenthedifferentwordsdescribing

Martin’snewpositionandthe‘same’(ilcan)charactertraitsofhispreviouslife

reinforcestheideathatthoughMartin’svocationhaschanged,hisfaithand

manneroflifehavenot.Martin’sremovalfromworldlymatters,despiteholding

thetemporallypowerfulepiscopaloffice,isreinforcedthroughhisforeswearing

oftheworldlypompassociatedwiththeposition.Later,thehomiliststatesthat

Martindoesnotpandertoworldlymen(hewæsþanneealraswiðastherianne

þæthenæfrenænigumworldlicummænnecyningeselfumðurhleaseolæcunge

swiðoronbuganwoldeþannehitrihtwære,lines198–200).Therepeated

insistencethatMartinisnotaffectedbyworldlyeminence,inhimselfandin

others,suggeststhatthehomilistseesthesaintandtheservantsofChristas

beingcompletelyremovedfromworldlyconcerns,inadditiontocritiquingall

128Seepp.92–94,102–11and115below.

thosewhoinvolvethemselvestooheavilyinworldlymatters.Thehomily’s

critiqueofaristocratscontraststheapproachwhichthehagiographersofGuthlac

take,whodepicttheascetichermitentertainingvisitorslikeÆthelbald,abbess

Ecgburh,andbishopHeaddadespitehisapparentrenounciationoftheworld.129

Rather,Martin’schangeinvocationisconceivedasanincreaseinhis

influenceandmiraculouspowerratherthanhisheightenedworldliness.Martin’s

elevationtotheepiscopatemarksashiftfromhealingmiraclestoconversion

miracles,illustratinghowthesaint’sinfluenceextendstoawiderrangeof

people,ashelooksafterthespiritualhealthofacommunity,ratherthanthe

physicalhealthofindividuals.Concernforthewellbeingofthelargercommunity

ismanifestedinthedestructionsofidolsandconversionmiraclesthatpreoccupy

themajorityofthehomily’saccountofMartin’sordainedlife(Vitalines312–44;

homilylines139–98).ThesemiraclesareintroducedintheOldEnglishwitha

Latinexcerptandasummaryofhismissionaryactivities:

EtuereanteMartinumpauciadmodum,immopenenulliinillisregionibusChristinomenreceperant.Quodadeouirtutibusilliusexemploqueconualuit,utiamibinulluslocussit,quinonautecclesiisfrequentissimis,autmonasteriissitrepletus.Namubifanadestruxerat,statimibiautecclesiasautmonasteriaconstruebat.(lines304–11).

Omnesnamqueunanimitercupiebant130andeallemenn,ðaðefeorgeneahðyseseadiganwereslifcuðanoððegehyrdan,eallehieþætan-modlicewilnodanþæthihiswordgeheranmostanandhislarumgelyfanforðanhieswutoliceonhimongætongodeslufeandhisblisse.Wæsheforðanswiðemæregeondmiddan-geardandhemanigtemplanddeofol-geldtobræcandgefeldeðæ[r]131hædenemenærdeoflumonguldun,andðanneðærheþætdeofol-gyldgefeldeðanneasetteheðærgodescyriceanoððefullicemynstregetimbrede.(lines139–45).

‘Truly,beforeMartin,fewpeople,indeedhardlyany,inthoseregionshadreceivedthenameofChrist.Yetnow,becauseofhispowersandhisexample[Christianity]flourished,sothattherewasnoplacewhichwasnotfilledwith

‘Forallwerelongingofonemind,andallmen,whofarornearlearnedoforheardaboutthelifeofthisblessedman,allsingle-mindedlywishedthattheymighthearhiswordsandembracehisteachingsbecausethey

129Fordiscussionofmonastichospitality,seep.200below.130ThisLatinsentenceseemstobeuniquetotheBlicklingandJuniusversions.131VercelliprovidesðærwhileJuniusprovidesðæt,Mertensed.,Lives,p.417.

agreatcrowdingofchurchesormonasteries.Forwherehehaddestroyedtemples,heimmediatelybegantobuildchurchesormonasteriesthere.’

clearlyperceivedtheloveofGodinhimandhisbliss.Forthat,hewasveryfamousthroughoutmiddle-earthandhebrokeandrazedmanytemplesanddevil-idolswhereheathenmenhadmadeofferingstodevilsbefore,andwhenherazedadevil-idol[inaplace],thenheestablishedthereachurchofGodorfullybuiltamonastery.’

Martinisnolongeralocalsainthealinganindividual,butsomeonewithwide-

reachingimpact.132TheMartinmas-homily’spassagehighlightstheincreased

scopeofMartin’sinfluencethroughstating,onceinLatinandtwiceinOld

English,howallmenfarandnearnowpayattentiontothesaint.Thereisno

equivalentpassageintheVita;theclosestpassagebeingtheoneprovidedabove,

whichcomesafterMartin’sfellingofapinetreethatwassacredforpagans(Vita

lines279–304).TheLatinversionfocusessolelyonMartin’saccomplishments,

wheretheMartinmas-homilynoteshowMartinisperceivedbyothers,remarks

uponhischaracter,andthenintroducestheactionsasamissionarywhichwill

fillthenextnarrativephase.

ThepagansandChristianswithwhomMartininteractsarecombinedinto

acollectivespiritualcommunitywhichheleads.Dalbey,insupportofherclaim

thattheanonymoushomilistmadethesaintashepherdandteacher,seesthe

destructionoftemplesaspartofhisteaching.133Thehomilyseemstoencourage

thisconnectioninimmediatelyprefacingtheconversionepisodeswitha

descriptionofMartin’sroleasateacher,instructingthosewhowishedtohear

himandtakehisChristianfaith.TheaimofMartin’sdestructionoftheidolsis

thustoinstructotherstoputtheirfaithinChristratherthanemptystatuesor

worldlywarfare,facilitatingtheirintegrationintoChristendom.The

instructionalbasisforthesaint’sactionsisreinforcedattheendofthe

conversionepisodesintheMartinmas-homily,whichconcludethat‘they

convertedtheirheartstoGod’sfaiththrough[Martin’s]teachingandthroughhis

Lord’sgrace’(hieðurhhislareandðurhhisdrihtnesgifehyrahyortantogodes

geleafangecyrde,lines191–92).132Jeffery,BlicklingSpirituality,pp.120–27,assertsthattheidol-destructioninthehomilyissymbolicofhealingthecommunalbody.133Dalbey,‘GoodShepherd’,431–32.

Asacompassionateteacher,Martinisnotaggressiveinhisconversions.

Hisestablishmentofchurchesandaltarsimmediatelyaftertheidolsare

overthrownsuggestsitwasnotnecessarilythebuildingswhichweredestroyed

butthestatuary.134Inthehomily,Martiniscarefultoonlydestroythepagan

templeandleaveallother‘useful’structuresstanding,aswellasthosenot

associatedwithpaganism.Somuchisseenduringtheburningbuildingepisode

(Vitalines312–19;homilylines147–57),wheretheOldEnglishchangesthe

‘nearestandadheringstructure’(proximamimmoadherentemdomum)ofthe

Vita,intoa‘usefulstructure’(nytwyrðhus).Thischangebetterexplainswhy

Martingoestotheeffortofpreservingthebuilding,notbecauseithappenstobe

nearbybutbecauseitisastructurethatdeservedsaving.TheOldEnglishhomily

alsoemphasisespaganismmorethantheLatintext,especiallyinepisodes

recountingMartin’sdestructionofidols,wherethetextclarifiesthatthegyld

‘washighlyvaluedbyheathenmen’(hæðenummannumswiðewyrð)andnotjust

‘mostancientandmostrenowned’(antiquissimoetceleberrimo).This

appropriativemethodofconversionperhapsdrawsinspirationfromGideon,

whoinJudges6:25–27istoldtobuildanewaltarinplaceofonethathadbeen

usedforanidol.Anglo-SaxonaudienceswouldlikelyconsiderMartin’sactionsin

thecontextofGregory’scalltorepurposepreviouslysacredsitesforchurches,135

aswellasBoniface’sownconversionprogrammeinSaxony,whereBoniface

famouslyfelledanoaktreededicatedto‘Jupiter’andbuiltanoratorytoStPeter

fromitswoodonthesamesite.136Martin’smissionprovidesasimilarmodelfor

theaudiencetoadaptsacredpagansitesforChristianpurposes.

Martin’siconoclasticactionsdonotrequirethedeathoforviolence

towardspaganpriestsorindividuals,butareinsteaddirectedattheidolised

object.Theepisodeconcerningthefellingofasacredpinetree(Vitalines279–

304)wasperhapsomittedfromthehomilybecauseitreflectsanaggressive

attitudetowardspagans,forMartincausesthetreetofalltowardstheheathens

134Gaites,‘LongerLife’,33,believesthatÆlfric’snarrativesdownplaythedestructionofpagantemples.Yorke,ConversionofBritain,p.133,writes,‘TheheroicbattlingwiththeforcesofpaganismthatisafeatureofmanyconversionnarrativesinimitationoftheLifeofStMartinisnotcharacteristicofthose[accountsofconversion]whichsurviveforearlymedievalBritain.’135HEI:30.136Talbot,trans.,Anglo-SaxonMissionaries,p.46.SeealsoMurphy’sdiscussionofBoniface’smissionandthetree-fellingincidentinTheSaxonSavior,pp.13–15.

whoattempttostophim.137FortheMartinmas-homilist,itisonlyapeaceful

modelthatconvertspagans,nottheviolentconversionswhichthenarrativesof

AndreworBonifaceappeartoadvocate.138OnceMartinsucceedsinhismission,

thosehehasconverted‘themselvesatlastbrokeandfelledthosevainidolswith

theirhands’(hieætnyhstanselfeeacmidhyrahandumðaidlangyldgebræcan

andgefyldan,lines192–93).InstatingthatthoseMartinconvertedbecame

missionariesthemselves,thehomilysuggeststhatMartin’sroleasabishop

expandingChristendomhasbeenfulfilledandthathisinfluencehasextended

beyondhisimmediatepresence,sothathecanaffectpositivechangeevenin

absentia.

GiventheomissionofepisodesinvolvingMartin’sbattlesagainsteither

thedevilormisguidedChristians,theonlyrealantagonistsinthestoryare

pagans.Theconclusionofthetemple-destructionepisodesusesthese

antagoniststocondemnpaganismaswellaswarlikebehaviour,particularly

throughthemurderousheathensthatMartindisarms(Vitalines335–44;homily

lines158–93).Theseheathensaredepictedasfoilstothesaint.Whilethehomily

saysthatMartinis‘mild-hearted’(mild-heortan)andhas‘humility’(eað-modnes),

theheathensare‘angry-hearted’(gram-heortan)and‘hot-hearted(hat-heortan),

bothtermsthatalwayscarrynegativeconnotationinthesurvivingOldEnglish

corpus.139Whilethepagansdrawweaponstokillthesaintordohimgreat

teonan,Martinforsakesallweaponsandbareshisneckratherthanstrikeback.

WhileMartinispowerfulinstoppingthosepagansaroundhim,theheathens

themselvesareineffectualandincapableofcontrollingtheirownbodies.These

pagansarepresentedincontrasttotheconstantequanimityofMartin,who

nonviolentlydefeatsthemandbringsthemintotheChristianfold.

137TheepisodeistoldinÆlfric’sversionsofMartin’sLife;seeMertens,ed.Lives,pp.234and296–98.138Seepp.180–83below;Hermann,‘BonifaceandDokkum’,1–25.139Thecompoundhat-heortawasapparentlycommon,with249instancesinDOECorpusfromavarietyofsources.Examplesoftheterm’snegativeconnotationareseeninTheWanderer,whichincludeshat-heort(line66)initsgnomiclistofwhatapersonissupposedtoavoid.Similarly,intheproseLifeofAndrew,AndrewapologiestoGodforhavinga‘hot-heart’whenheattemptstoleaveMermedoniatoosoon(þumeneforleteutganganmidminrehat-heortanofþisseceastre,line326),andtheEmperorHadrianissaidtobehat-heortnyssegefylled(‘filledwithhot-heartedness’)beforehedecidestokillsaintEustaceandhisfamily,seeeditioninappendix,line351.

Moreover,theassociationofpaganismwith‘angry-heartedness’

throughouttheOldEnglishcorpusalsodistancesMartinfromallthatseemsto

beimpliedbycompoundswithgram-.Extantattestationsofthetermsgram-

heortandgram-hydig(‘angry-hearted/minded’)allappeartorefertohostile

enemies,oftenofademonicorgodlessnature.Thecompoundgram-heorthas

fourotherwitnesses,140andtheoneclosestinmeaningtothecompoundinthe

homilyisfoundinBeowulf,whereitisusedtodescribeGrendelas‘theangry-

heartedman,theenemyofGod’(grom-heortguma,godesondsaca,line1682).

Likewise,thecompoundgram-hydigisattestedthirteentimes,andisanother

poeticwordloadedwithnegativemeaning.141Forinstance,ChristBrefersto

Satanasgrom-hydigneinline734,andAndreasdescribestheidealisedChristian

cityaftertheconversionoftheMermedoniansasaplace‘wherenoenemyor

angry-mindedspiritmaybe’(þærnæfrefeondesnebið,gastesgram-hydiges,lines

1693b–94a).142

SomuchisespeciallyevidentinthehomilyonThreeUtterancesoftheSoul

thatisfoundalongsidetheMartinmas-homilyinJunius85+86,whichhasgram-

heortanandhat-heortanamongtheepithetsinalistofdevilsandterrible

assailants:‘Thosedevilsandravagersofpeople…andthoseliarsandangry-

heartedones…andthosehot-heartedonesandmaliciousonesandthoseevil

onesandpridefulpeople’(þaðeofasandþaðeod-sceaðan…andþalogerasand

þagram-heortan…andþahat-heortanandþaæfesteganandþayfelanandþa

ofer-modan).143VercelliIVsimilarlylists‘thosehot-heartedonesandthose

angry-mindedones’(þahat-heortanandþagram-hydigan)amongthose

condemnedtohell,referstothebodyas‘hostilemindedflesh’(gram-hidige

flæsc),andlaterequates‘hot-heartedness’withtheeffectsofthedemonicdarts

140TheotherwitnessesforgramheortareGuthlacAline569;ExeterBook‘Riddle2’line6;andBeowulfline1682.ScottGwaranotestheuseofothergramcompoundsinOldEnglishpoetry,pertainingtooneforgettingsocialproprietyinHeroicIdentityintheWorldofBeowulf(Leiden;Boston:Brill,2009),p.211.141DOEs.v.gram-hygdig,gram-hȳdig.142Seepp.167–68below.143Chadbon,Edition,p.143.GeneraldiscussionofthethemesintheThreeUtterancesisinRudolphWilliard,TwoApocryphainOldEnglishHomilies(Leipzig:B.Tauchnitz,1935),pp.31–36and106–45.CharlesWrightanalysesthetransmissionofAnglo-SaxonmaterialinThreeUtterances,andarguesthattheLatinsourceoftheJuniusversionofThreeUtterancesisEngelbergStiftsbibliothek44in‘OldEnglishHomiliesandLatinSources’,inKleist(2007),pp.20–33;and‘MoreLatinSourcesfortheOldEnglish“ThreeUtterances”Homilies’,MediaevalStudies77(2015),49–68.

(stræle).145Theuseofhat-heortanandgram-heortan/-hydigantodescribe

reprehensiblecharactersinworksthataccompanytheMartinmas-homily

suggeststhattheJuniusandVercellicompilerssawthepaganswhoattacked

Martininthecontextofsuchgodlesssinners.

Theimpetuous,bloodthirsty,andhot-headednatureofthepagansinthe

homilycontrastsMartin’sownwisdom,pacifism,andhumility.Thepaganswho

witnessMartin’smissionaryworksareportrayedasangrymobs.WhenMartin

attemptstodestroyanidolinthetownofLevroux,theheatheninhabitantsdrive

himawaywithinjury(hinemidteonanonwegadrifon,lines161–62),anditis

notuntilMartinhasanarmedangelicescortthathecandestroytheidoland

convertthetown.Martinhasamorethreatheningexperiencelater,whenpagans

rushhim:

Ubidumtemplumitidemeuerteret,furensgentiliumrusticorumineumirruitmultitudo.Cumqueunusaudaciorceterisstrictogladiopeteret,reiectopallionudamceruicempercussuropraebuit.(lines335–38).

Swylcegelampsumesiðeþæthesumgyldtobræcþætðærgearnmycelemænegotohimðarahæðenramannaandeallewæronswiðeyrre.Ðawæshyrasumhreðraandhat-heortraðanneðaoðregebrædðahisswyrdeandgemyntehinetosleanne.(lines178–81).

‘When[Martin]wastopplingatemplethereinthesamemanner,aragingmultitudeofyokelheathensrusheduponhim.Andthenone,moredaringthantherest,madeforhimwithadrawnsword;havingthrownbackhismantleMartinofferedhisbaredneckforthestrike.’

‘Soithappenedatsometimewhenhetoredownanidolthatagreatmultitudeofthoseheathenmenrantohimandallweregreatlyangry.Thenacertainoneofthem[who]wasfiercerandmorehot-heartedthantheothersdrewhisswordandintendedtokill[Martin].’

Thepagans’hot-heartedattempttodealwithMartinthroughviolencecontrasts

withthesaint’sownmild-heartedvirtue.Thejuxtapositionisclearlymadeinthe

summaryofMartin’scharacterafterthwartingtheheathens’assassination

attempts,comingattheendofSulpicius’sVita:

145Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.92,101and103.

Ouerebeatusuirinquodolusnonfuit,neminemiudicans,neminemdamnansnullimalumpromaloreddens.Tantamquippeaduersumomnesiniuriaspatientiamassumperatutcumessetsummussacerdosinpuneetiamabinfimisclericislederetur.Necpropterideosautlocoumquamamonuerit,autasuaquantuminipsofuitcaritatereppulerit.Nemoumquamillumuiditiratumnemomerentemnemoridentem.Unusidemquesempercelestemquodammodoletitiamuultupraeferens,extranaturamhominisuidebatur.Numquaminilliuscorde,nisipietasnisipaxnisimiscordiaerat.Plerumqueetiamproeorumquiobtrectatoresilliusuidebantursolebatflerepeccatis,quiremotumetquietumuenenatislinguisetuipereoorecarpebant.Etuerenonnullosexpertisumusinuidosuirtutibusuitequeeiusquiinillooderantquodinsenonuidebant.Adqueomnenefasdolendumetingemiscendum,nonaliifuereinsectatoreseiuslicetpauciadmodumnonaliitamenquamepiscopiferebantur.Necueroquemquamnominarinecesseest,licetnosmetipsospleriquecircumlatrarent,sufficitutsiquiexhishaeclegerintetagnouerint,erubescant.(lines603–620).

Verebeatusuirinquodolus[nonfuit].Þiswæssoðliceeadigwernewæsæfrefacenneinwidonhishyortanneheænignemanunrihtlicenegedemde,nehewitenenamnænigyfelmidyfelenegeald,nehineænigmanyrnenegram-modnegeræhte.Achewæsainanummodeandefneheofonlicneblisandgefeanmannmohteaonhisandwlitanangytan,negehyrdeænigmanahtellesofhismuðenemnecristeslofandnyttespræceneahtellesonhishyortannemnearfæstnesseandmild-hyortnesseandsibbe.(lines202–08).

‘Lo,herewasatrulyblessedman,inwhomtherewasnoguile;judgingnoone,condemningnoone,returningnoevilforevil.Sogreatwasthepatiencehehadassumedagainstallinjuriesthatwhenhewasthehighestofpriests,hewasevenslightedwithimpunitybythelowestclerics,nordidhemovethemfromtheirplaceonaccountofthat,nordidhepushthemawayfromhislovehowevergreat[thatinsult]was.Nooneeversawthatmanangry,noonesawhimperturbed,noonesawhimsorrowful,noonesawhimlaughing;heseemedalwaysoneandthesame,

‘Herewasatrulyblessedmaninwhomtherewas[no]guile.Thiswasatrulyblessedman,norwasthereeverdeceitnorcrueltyinhisheartnordidhecondemnanymanunrightly,nordidhepunishorrepaywithevilforanyeviltaken,nordidanymanfindhiminangerorwithanangrymind.Buthewasalwaysequanimousandonemightequallyfindheavenlyblissandjoyalwaysonhiscountenance,nordidanymanhearanythingelsefromhismouthbutthepraiseofChristandedifyingspeech,noranythingelseinhisheartexceptfaithandmild-heartednessandpeace.’

bearingforthakindofcelestialhappinessinhisface,beyondthenatureofahuman.Neverinhisheartwasanythingbutpiety,butpeace,butmercy.Still,veryoftenhewasaccustomedtoweepprayingforthosewhoseemedtobehisenemies,thosewhovilifiedhimforhisdetachmentandquietudewithpoisonoustonguesandaserpentinemouth.Andtrulywehaveexperiencedsomeenviousofhisvirtueandhislife,whohatedhimbecauseofthatwhichtheydidnotseeinthemselves.Also,itissuchacrimeforlamentingandgrieving,itissaidofhispersecutors,althoughtheyarefew,yettheyweresaidtobenoneotherthanbishops.Nortrulyisitnecessarytonameanyone,eventhoughtheyragearoundusamongthemselvesandmanyothers;itsufficesthat,ifonefromthatbunchweretoreadthisandtorecognisethemselvesinit,theywouldbeashamed.’

Whilethehomilyprovidesthischaracterisationasatransitiontorecountthe

saint’slastdays,thepassagefromSulpiciusincludesadiatribeagainstMartin’s

andSulpicius’sowndetractorswithintheChurch—evenamongthehighorders

ofepiscopalpower—whoareunabletofollowthesaint’sexample.Sulpicius

includesmultiplecritiquesofMartin’sepiscopaldisparagersthroughouttheVita

(lines200–17,425–29and612–621),whichMcKinleyargueswerepartof

Sulpicius’saimtopromoteasceticism,146highlightedthroughthepassageabove

asoneoftheconcludingmessagesinVita.TheMartinmas-homilydoesnot

directlycondemnthesaint’sepiscopalcriticsandmakesnomentionofthem

hereorthroughoutthework.InfocusingsolelyonMartin’scharacter,thehomily

givestheimpressionofaunifiedandharmoniousChristiancommunity,notthe

fracturedonewhichSulpiciuspresents.Bydoingso,thehomilyfocusesonthe

contrastofthesaintwiththehot-heartedorangry-mindedheathensinthe

previousepisodes.ThepassagedescribesMartinaspeacefulandhavinga

constanttemperament.WherethepagansattempttokillMartinfordestroying146McKinley,‘TwoCenturies’,174–80.

theiridols,healwaysturnstheothercheekandoffersforgivenessinreturnfor

aggression.ThishabitismirroredinWillibald’seighth-centuryLifeofBoniface,

whereBonifaceforbidshisfollowersfromdefendingthemselvesagainst

attackersastheyattempttoconverttheFrisians.147

Thehomily’scritiqueofthepagancharacters,whoareportrayedas

bellicoseandirasciblebutultimatelypowerless,illustratesthesuperiorityofthe

peacefulChristianoveranyviolence.Martinisalwaysremovedfromtheworldly

pursuitofrevengeorinjury,continuallyopposingtheviolentactionsaround

him.Asaboy,hisparentstrytoforcehimintomilitaryservice,butheseeksout

thelifeofacleric.Asasoldier,helivesasamonkamonghisbloodstainedpeers.

Asamissionary,henonviolentlyconfrontsmurderousheathensresistanttohis

‘enlightening’works.Atthesametime,thehomilyclearlydemonstratesthat

Martinisabletoovercomeallviolencethroughabstainingfromwarfare.

Martin’sprimaryconcernwithpeaceisfurtherillustratedinthedescriptionof

hisactionsattheendofhislife:

Namclericisinterseecclesiaeilliusdiscordantibus,pacemcupiensreformarelicet,finemdierumsuorumnonignorasset.Proficiscitamenobistiusmodicausamnonrecusauit,bonamhancuirtutumsuarumconsummationemexistimans,sipacemecclesiaeredditamreliquisset.(p.336).

Ðawistehesumnehyrdonhisbysceopscyreðaðeunðwæreandungesibbeheombetweonumweran.Ðafyrdeheðidermidhisdiscipulum,ðeahðehewisteþæthi[t]148ðaæthisdagaændewæreþæthehuruwoldeþæthieealleonsibbewæranærheofweroldegefyrde.(lines211-15).

‘Forwiththeclericsofthatchurchstuckindiscordamongthemselves,[Martin]wasdesiringthathebepermittedtoreestablishpeace,sincehewasnotignorantoftheendofhisowndays.However,hedidnotrefusetosetforthonaccountofthatlimit,judgingthathewouldhaveattainedagoodfulfillmentofhispowers,ifheweretodepart[life]havingreturnedpeacetothechurch.’

‘Thenheknewofacertaincommunityinhisbishopricwhichwasindisagreementandthattherewasnopeacebetweenthemselves.Thenhewenttherewithhisdisciples,thoughheknewitwasattheendofhisdays,yethewishedthattheywereallatpeacebeforehewentfromtheworld.’

147Talbot,ed.,Anglo-SaxonMissionaries,pp.56–57.SeealsoErdmann,Origin,p.14;Hermann,‘BonifaceandDokkum’,11.148JuniushashiewhileVercelliandBlicklingreadhit;Mertens,ed.,Lives,p.423.

ThisisthefirstmentionofdivisionbetweenChristiansinthehomily,andit

comesonlyafterthewholecommunityhasbeenconsolidatedthroughMartin’s

peacefulconversions.Theadditionofungesibbeinthedoublettranslating

discordiarefinesthecontextastheabsenceofpeacewithinthecommunity,

suggestingthattheMartinmas-homilistintendedthedisturbancetobeless

severethanitwasintheLatinsource.YetthehomilysuggeststhatMartinis

desirousforuniversalpeace,sayingthatthesaintwished‘theywereallatpeace’

(hieealleonsibbewæran)ratherthanfocusingonrestoringpeaceexclusively

withinaspecificchurch(ecclesiaeillius)astheEpistularelates.Theemphasison

peace(sibb)againforegroundstheideathatMartinwasremovedfromfighting.

Thethemesofconciliationandpeacemakinginthehomilyarefurther

emphasisedthroughtheomissionofMartin’sconfrontationwithdiving

waterfowl—episodeIVinTableIIabove—intheJuniusandBlicklingversions

ofthehomily.149Inremovingtheunrelatedepisodeaboutthebirds,the

Martinmas-homilyfocusestheendofthenarrativeonMartin’sdesiretoleave

theearthlyChristiancommunityinastateofpeace.ItisonlyafterMartinhas

establishedpeaceandisonhisdeathbedthatthehomilyreferstospiritual

warfareinputtingintohismouththefollowing:

‘Grauisquidemest,Dominecorporeaepugnamilitiaeetiamsatisestquodhucusquecertaui.Sedsiadhucineodemlaboreprocastristuisstaremepraecipis,nonrecusonecfatiscentemcausaboraetatem.Muniatuadeuotusimplebo,subsignistuis,quoadusqueipsetuiusserismilitabo.(p.340).

‘MinDrihten,langeicnuwæsonðanheardancampeheronwyrolde,acðannehwæðerenewiðsaceicðanþæticonðancampe,længsiegifhitðinwillaswiðor[bið],acicmidðinumwæpnumgetrymedonðinumfeðanfæstestandeandforðecampigeðahwileðeðinwillabið.’(lines247–50).

“Thefightofcorporealwarfareisonerous,Lord,andwhatIhavefoughtsofarisalreadyenough.Butifyoustillordermetostandinthatsamelabouronbehalfofyourcamps,Ishallnot

“MyLord,longhaveIbeeninthathardfighthereintheworld,butneverthelessIshallnotrefusetobeinthatfightstill,solongasitmaybeyourwill,butstrengthenedwithyour

149TheVitacallsthebirdsmergatores,whichthehomilyrendersasscealfras.DOECorpusgivesmergus/mergulus/mergula/turdella/circirisasglossesforscealfor.Szarmach,ed.,VercelliHomilies,p.66,writes,‘thebirdsinquestionappeartobemergansers(mergusmerganser)[BE:goosander]ratherthanloons(colymbustorquatus)[BE:divers]orgrebes(podicepscristatus).’TheOxfordOldEnglishWorkinProgressgroup(2020)hasofferedareadingof‘cormorant’forscealforinthiscontext.

pleadtheweakeningofoldageasanexcuse.Devoted,Ishallfulfillyourduties,Ishallfightunderyourbannerforhoweverlongyouorderit.”

weaponsIstandfastinyourinfantryandfightforyouforaslongasyouwishit.”

HereMartinhimselfinvokestheimageofspiritualwarfare,framinghisworkon

earthasabattlewhichhehasbeenfightingintheLord’sarmy.Mostofthe

militarylanguageinthispassagederivesdirectlyfromtheVita,whichusesthe

imageofafightingwarriortocontrastlifeonearthwiththatofheaven.150This

sectionultimatelyderivesfromPaul’slettertothePhillipians,1:22–30,151in

whichPaulexpressesthedesiretodieandgotoGod,whileportrayinglifeon

earthasa‘struggle’(certamen)and‘labour’(opus),throughwhichonemust

defendthegospelsagainstChrist’sadversaries.152ThepassageplacesMartinin

the‘celestialarmy’,implyingthatMartinhadbeenengagedinspiritualwarfare

whileopposingsecularwarfare.HoweverthecontrastbetweenMartin’swords

hereandhisactions—aswellasthehomily’sgeneralapproachtoviolence—

suggeststhatthehomilistwasfullyawareoftheconceptofspiritualwarfare,

thoughwashesitanttointroduceitinhisworkforpresentationattheMass.153

Martin’sspeechintheOldEnglishtextdeviatesfromtheVitatosaythat

heusesGod’sweapons,whichmayexplaintheearlieremphasisonMartin

forsakingall‘human’or‘worldly’weapons.TheweaponsofGod,towhichMartin

refers,arelikelythosemetaphoricalarmsdescribedinEphesiansthat

strengthenthesoul’sresolveinconfrontingspiritualadversityonearth,rather

thanthoseusedforkillingpagansorin‘humanlyaffairs’.TheMartinmas-homily

andtheMartinianabothsupportthemetaphysicalinterpretationofthisconflict

byintroducingthedevilshortlyafterMartinplaceshimselfinGod’sarmy.154

150Aronstam,‘BlicklingHomilies’,p.273,claimsthattheAnglo-Saxonworldviewisoneofstrugglebetweendivinegoodandevil.151Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,p.192.152Seepp.1–3and15–18abovefordiscussionofthebroadercontextofspiritualwarfare.153Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,38,seemscorrectinsayingtheMartinmas-homilistdistanceshisworkfromthedictionassociatedwithspiritualwarfare,butistooabsolutewhensaying‘theoppositionbetweenspiritualwarfareandearthlywarfareisnotalludedto’inthehomily.154Healey,VisionofStPaul,pp.13–15,postulatesthattheMartin’sconfrontationwiththedevilattheendofthehomilyistheprimaryreasonwhythehomilywasincludedintheJuniusmanuscript,thoughshedidnotconsiderhowmuchthehomilyreducesthepresenceofthedevil.

Diabolumuiditpropteradsistere,‘Quid’,hicinquit,‘adstas,cruentabestia?Nihilinme,funeste,reperies.Abrahaemesinusrecipiet.’Cumhacergouocespiritumcaeloreddidit.Testatiquenobissunt,quiibidemfuerant,uidisseseuultumeiustamquamuultumangeli;membraautemeiuscandidatamquamnixuidebantur,itautdicerent:‘Quisistumumquamciliciotectum,quiscineribuscrederetinuolutum?’iamenimsicuidebatur,quasiinfuturaeresurrectionisgloriaetnaturademutataecarnisostensusesset.(p.342).

Ðageseahheðaneawergedangastdeofolðærunfeorstandan,ðacwæðhetohim,‘Quidadstas,cruendabestia?155Nihilinmefunesterepperes’,‘Hwætstandestðuwæl-grimwil-deor?Nafastðumedeahtætme,acmescylAbrahamesbearmþætisseoecerestonfon.’Ðaheðaðiscwæððawearðhisandwlitaswabliðelicandhismodswagefeonde,þæthieefnemeahtanonðangæreongytanþæthegastlicnegefeangeseah,andþæthineheafonlicwerodgefetode,andheðaswagefeondeðassarlicanhofogelet,andhineðauredrihtentohisðamheofonlicanrıcenam.(lines272–79).

‘Hesawadevilstandingnearby.“Why,”hesaid,“doyoustandthere,bloodthristybeast?Youwillfindnothingimpureinme.ThebosomofAbrahamshallreceiveme.”Whenhethussaidthis,herenderedhisspirittoheaven.Those,whowerethere,testifiedtousthattheysawthathisfacewasasthefaceofanangel,likewisehisshininglimbsseemedtobeassnow,sothattheyweresaying,“Whowouldbelievethatthismanwasevercoveredbythatgoat-haircloak,whowouldbelievethathewasrolledupinashes?”Thusheevenseemedthen,inthechangednatureofhisflesh,ashewouldinthefuturegloryoftheresurrection.’

‘ThenhesawthatcursedspirittheDevilstandingnearby,then[Martin]saidtohim,“Whydoyoustandthere,bloodthristybeast?Youwillfindnothingimpureinme”,[whichis,]“Lo,[why]areyoustandingthere,slaughter-grimwild-beast?Youwillnotfindanyrewardwithme,butthebosomofAbrahamshallreceivemeinthateternalrest.”Whenhesaidthis,thenhiscountenancebecamesojoyousandhisspiritsoexulted,thattheymightevenperceiveinthattimethathesawspiritualbliss,andthattheheavenlyhostfetchedhim,andthenherejoicingsoleftthispainfulenclosure,andthenourLordtookhimtohisheavenlykingdom.’

Martin’sreactionathisdeathtothedevildemonstratesthatthesaintisnot

culpable,havingnosinforwhichSatanmightassaulthim,asisemphasisedby

thefinalLatinquotationinthehomily.156Thepassagethusunderscoresthefact

thatMartin’sfightisnotdirectedattemptationoranidentifiedenemy,asitisin

155JuniusprovidesurawhichSzarmach,ed.,VercelliHomilies,p.67,suggestswasmeanttobeuestra,thoughheamendstobestiatomatchtheEpistulaandBlicklingtext.156Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,p.193,postulatesthatthereferencetothedeviliskepttoshowthatanyman,nomatterhowpure,issusceptibletotemptation.

thehomiliesonGuthlacorAndrew,157butmorethatlifeonearthisfullofwaror

strugglecomparedtothepeacethatwillfollow.Theviolentnatureoftheworld

isexpressedthroughitsassociationwithsinandthedevil,whichthepassage

callsthe‘slaughter-grimwild-beast’(wæl-grimwil-deor)usingtwoalliterating

compoundsunderpinnedwithassonance(wæl-wil-)toemphasisethe

connection.Thisviolence,thehomilyshows,canbecounteredwithpacifism.

AsaresultofMartin’sconstantfaith,thesaintisreceivedintothe

‘heavenlyhost’(heafonlicwerod)withbliss,adetailthathasnoparallelinthe

SulpicianEpistula.BeyondconnectingMartintotheBiblicalconceptofthe

‘heavenlyhost’,theinclusionoftheheafonlicwerodmayalsorefertothetwo

armedangelswhoaccompanyMartininhisconversionofLevroux(Vitalines

319–34;homilylines161–71).Liketheangels,whosespiritualpowercomesto

theaidofthefaithful,Martinisenteringthecompanyofsaintswhoaid

ChristiansafterdeathasintercessorswiththeDivine.InlinkingMartintothe

armedangelsathisdeath,thehomilyseemstosuggestthatinvolvementinthe

armyofGodisonlyappropriateformetaphysicalbeingsofdivineauthorityand

theculminationofone’speacefuldevotion,notpartofone’slifeonearth.The

passagehighlightsthisfactthroughtherepetitionofwordsreferringtoheaven

(gastlicandheofonlic).ThehomilydoesnotexplorehowMartin’sphysical

actionsprotecthissoulagainstdemonictemptationandcombattheforcesofthe

Satan,yetwewillseeinthenexttwochaptersthattheAnglo-Saxon

hagiographersofGuthlacandAndrewdidconsiderthemetaphysical

ramificationsofphysicalactionsformilitesChristi.TheMartinmas-homilistmay

havethoughtthattheirmixedaudiencewouldnothavefullygraspedthe

distinctionbetweentheabstractconceptofspiritualandworldlywarfarefrom

whichthehomilistendeavouredtoseparatethesaint.

TheVercelliandJuniusversionsofthehomilyconcludewiththefollowing

address—onethathasnoparallelintheVita—andwhichechoesthehomily’s

opening:

Hwætwenugeherað,[menþaleofestan],158hueaðmodliceðeseadigawerhislifforgodegelyfodeðahwileðeheheronwurolde

157Seepp.112–36,149–53and168–80below.158ThephrasemenþaleofestanisintheVercelliversionbutnotJunius.TheBlicklingHomiliaryismissingthefoliowiththeendingofthehomily.

wæsandhufægeredleanheæturumdrihtneonfeng.Andnuaðahwileðeðeoswuroldstandeðhisgodmænmærsiaðgeondealneðisnemiddan-geardongodescyricean.Andhenumideallumhalgumtowidanfeoreonheofenaricefordrihtnesonsynegefehðandblissað.Acutanwetyliganþætweðyseseadiganwereslifandhisdædaonhyrigan,ðæsðeuregemetsige,andwutanhinebiddanðætheussigeonheofonumðingerewiðurnedrihten.Nuweheroneorðanhisgemyndwyrðiað,toðanusgefultumigeuredrihten,seleofaðandricsaðabutanænde,AMEN.(lines280–88).‘Lo[dearestpeople],wenowhearhowblessedlythisblessedmanlivedhislifeforGodforaslongashewashereonearthandhowfairarewardhereceivedfromourLord.Andnow,foraslongasthisworldstandsmenshallpraisehisgood[deeds]throughoutallofthismiddle-earthinGod’schurches.AndnowwithallthesaintsfarandwidehewillrejoiceandexultintheheavenlykingdominthepresenceoftheLord.Butletusendeavourthatweemulatethelifeanddeedsofthisblessedman,thatthisbeourlot,andletusaskhimthathebeanadvocateinheavenforustoourLord.Nowwehereonearthveneratehismemory,sothathemaybeahelpforuswithourLord,wholivesandrulesforeverwithoutend,AMEN.’

Instatingthatitisonlyingooddeedsonearththatonemightjointheheavenly

host,theMartinmas-homilistusesthesainttoinspireaudiencestodedicatetheir

livesinservicetothespiritualrealm,whichrewardsitsadherentswitheternal

giftsofgrace,ratherthantogivethemselvestotheidlandreamasandþawelan

ðissewyroldewhichareintegraltoworuld-folgoð.Foraristocraticaudiences,this

wouldmeanabandoningthewarrioridealsofsecularlifetoembracepeaceful

communitybuildingasaspiritualsoldierofGod.Thisisthepathwhichthelate

seventh-centuryMercianGuthlactakes,whenheleaveshislifeasabloodstained

warlordforaclericallife,firstasacenobiticmonkthenasanascetichermit.In

thenextchapter,wewillseehowGuthlac’shagiographersfollowSulpiciusin

illustratinghowanidealChristianavoidsthesinsofworldlypursuitsand

bloodshed.Atthesametime,composersoftheOldEnglishGuthlac-narratives—

workinginsimilarhistoricalcontextstotheMartinmas-homilist—aswellas

tenth-centurycopyistswhoplacetheaccountsofMartinandGuthlacalongside

eachother,aremoreacceptingofwarriorcultureasameanstodescribethe

struggleagainsttemptation.

ChapterFour

TheSpiritualSoldier:TheNarrativesofGuthlacofCrowland

Wheretheninth-centuryMartinmas-homilistdistancesthesaintfromwarrior

culture,theAnglo-SaxonnarrativesonGuthlacofCrowlandillustratehowother

hagiographersworkingcontemporaneouslyconceivedofdevotioninmilitary

terms.1FromtheexplanationofGuthlac’snametohissanctifiedapotheosisathis

death,GuthlacstoodforAnglo-Saxonaudiencesasanexampleofhowthemiles

Christiwastofighttemptationinthespiritualrealm.InFelix’sVitaSancti

Guthlaci,2theOldEnglishProseLifeofGuthlac,3andtheExeterBookpoem

GuthlacA,4thesaintmustrepeatedlywardoffdemonicenemieswhophysically

andspirituallyassaulthim.5Inresistingthedemonswithoutphysicalaggression

orviolence,Guthlacisabletodefendhiseremiticlifeonthefenlandbeorguntil

hegainsmasteryofhistemptations,banisheshisfiendishassailants,and

convertsthebeorgintoaChristianstrongholdofsalvation.Afterheconquers

temptationandmakesanearthlyparadiseofCrowland,Guthlacattains

sainthoodfollowingapeacefuldeathwhichisthefocusofthefollowingOld

EnglishpoemintheExeterBook,GuthlacB.6TheGuthlac-narrativesexplorethe

militaryimageryincorporatedatthecloseoftheMartinmas-homily,

1ForoverviewsoftheAnglo-SaxonmaterialonGuthlacseeDowney,‘Intertextuality’,pp.67–185;andJaneRoberts,‘AnInventoryofEarlyGuthlacMaterials’,MediaevalStudies32(1970),193–233.2TheauthoritativeeditionoftheVitaSanctiGuthlaciisBertramColgrave,ed.Andtrans.,Felix’sLifeofSaintGuthlac(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1956).AnalternativetranslationoftheVitaisprovidedinAlbertson,SaintsandHeroes,pp.167–215.LatinpassagesfromtheVitacitedthroughouthavebeensuppliedfromColgrave’sedition.3TheproseLifeofGuthlacfoundinBritishLibrary,CottonVespasianD.xxiwaspublishedbyCharlesGoodwin,TheAnglo-SaxonVersionoftheLifeofStGuthlac,HermitofCrowland(London:J.R.Smith,1848),thenbyPaulGonser,DasangelsächsischeProsa-Lebendeshl.Guthlac(Heidelberg:C.Winter,1909),whodirectlycomparesboththeVercelliandVespasiantextstotheVita.TheextractoftheLifeofGuthlacinVercelli,BibliotectaCapitolare,CXVII,generallynamedHomilyXXIII,hasbeeneditedbySzarmach,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.97–101,andmorerecentlybyScragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.381–92.ForadiscussionontherelationshipbetweentheVercelliandVespasianversionsoftheLifeseeJaneRoberts,‘TheOldEnglishProseTranslationofFelix’sVitaSanctiGuthlaci’,inStudiesinEarlierOldEnglishProse,ed.PaulE.Szarmach(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1986),pp.363–79;Roberts,‘TwoReadingsintheGuthlacHomily’,inTreharneandRosser(2002),pp.201–10.AlloftheOldEnglishquotationsoftheLifeofGuthlacaresuppliedfromGonser’sedition.4SeeRoberts,ed,GuthlacPoems,pp.83–107.5Damon,SoldierSaints,p.137;Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.88–101.6Roberts,ed.,GuthlacPoems,pp.108–24.

demonstratinghowthevirtuesofwarriorculturecouldbeinterpreted

metaphoricallywhenappliedtoanonviolentcontemplativelife.

GuthlacwasaMercian,andoneoftheearliestEnglishsaintstoreceive

extensiveliteraryattention,rivalingthatoftheotherwidelyveneratedAnglo-

Saxonascetic,theNorthumbrianCuthbert.7ThefirstknownaccountofGuthlac’s

lifeisFelix’sVita,8writtenshortlyafterthesaint’sdeathin714butbeforethe

deathofKingÆlfwaldofEastAnglia(d.749),towhomFelixaddressestheVita

initsPrologue(§1).9NotingBede’sunfamiliaritywithFelix’swork,most

commentatorsdatetheVita’scompositiontobetween730and740.10Felix’s

accountseemstohavebeenbasedonhistoricalcharacters,butthestoryisso

heavilyinfluencedbyothersaints’Lives,manipulatedtofithagiographical

traditions,andembroiledineighth-centuryMercianpoliticsthatitisimpossible

toattributehistoricitytotheeventsthattheVitarecords.11Itissimilarlydifficult

todrawadetailedhistoricalaccountofthecomposeroftheVita,Felix.Littleis

knownaboutFelixbeyondhisMercianorEastAnglianorigin,12aswellashis

broadliteraryeducationintheRomanmodelatamonasterywithawell-stocked7FortransmissionofCuthbert’sLivesinEnglandandonthecontinent,seeDonaldBullough,‘ANeglectedEarly-Ninth-CenturyManuscriptoftheLindisfarneVitaS.Cuthberti’,ASE27(1998),105–31;MechthildGretsch,ÆlfricandtheCultofSaintsinlateAnglo-SaxonEngland(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005),pp.66–110.8Foranoverviewofearlymentionsofthesaint,seeJaneRobertsandAlanThacker,‘IntroductiontoGuthlac’sLifeandCult’,inGuthlac,ed.JaneRobertsandAlanThacker(Donington:SuanTyas,2020),pp.xv–xxx;andSarahLeeser,‘OntheEdgeandintheMiddle:TheDynasticandTerritorialContextofStGuthlac’sEarlyCult’,inthesamevolume,pp.138–56.9CitationsoftheVitarefertoColgrave’schapternumberingandaredenotedwithan‘§’.10Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,p.19;AudreyMeaney,‘Felix’sLifeofGuthlac:HistoryorHagiography?’,inÆthelbaldandOffa,ed.D.Hill(Oxford:Archaeopress,2005),p.75b;AndyOrchard,‘LegeFeliciter,ScribeFelicius:TheOriginalityoftheVitaS.Guthlaci’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),p.25;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.1–4;AlanThacker,‘GuthlacandHisLife:FelixShapestheSaint’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.1–5;GernotWieland,‘AuresLectores:OralityandLiteracyinFelix’sVitaSanctiGuthlaci’,JournalofMedievalLatin7(1997),169.11JefferyCohen,MedievalIdentityMachines(Minneapolis;London:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2003),pp.117–21and142–46;Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,pp.2–7;NickHigham,‘Guthlac’sVita,MerciaandEastAngliaintheFirstHalfoftheEighthCentury’,inÆthelbaldandOffa,ed.DavidHill(Oxford:Archaeopress,2005),pp.85b–89a;KellyKilpatrick,‘Places,LandscapesandBordersintheVitaS.Guthlaci’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.98,104–05and114–15;StefanyWragg,‘GuthlacAandCultofGuthlac’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.214–17and225.ForananalysisofthehistoricalcontextofFelix’swork,withafocusonitscontextinMercianpoliticalmovementsintheseventhandeighthcenturies,seeMornCapper,‘StGuthlacandthe‘Britons’:AMercianContext’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.181–213,JosephGrossi,‘FelixandHisKings’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.157–179,andJaneRoberts,‘HagiographyandLiterature:TheCaseofGuthlacofCrowland’,inMercia,ed.MichelleBrownandCarolFarr(London:LeicesterUniversityPress,2001),p.73.12Cohen,Identity,pp.144–45;Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,p.16;Orchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,pp.49–54.Wragg,‘GuthlacA’,pp.214–28;and‘Early–Texts’,259–61,readFelixasMercian,althoughFelix’soriginsareultimatelyunknowable.

library,asisevidentfromthevarietyofsourceshedrawsuponincomposinghis

Vita.13

Felix’swide-rangingeducationundoubtedlyinfluencedhiscompositional

style,whichhasbeencomprehensivelyanalysedsincethetwelfthcentury,with

reactionsrangingfromadmirationtofrustration.14Hisornateprosestyleis

markedbyacombinationofvariousChristianandClassicalLatinliterary

traditions,aswellashisownpenchantforlonglistsandpoeticwords.15Felix’s

resultingnarrativeisthuscouchedinelaboratelanguageandhagiographical

cross-referencesthatonlyalearnedaudiencecouldbeexpectedtofully

appreciate.ThefullextentofFelix’sliteraryborrowingisstillbeinguncovered.

Downey’sstudyontheintertexualityofGuthlac-narrativesdemonstratesFelix’s

useofhagiographicalmaterialtoconnectaspectsofhisVitawithothersaints.16

DowneyandothershaveidentifiedEvagarius’VitaS.Antonii,Jerome’sVitaPauli

Eremitiae,Bede’sproseVitaS.Cuthberti,theDialogiGregorii,Sulpicius’sVita

Martini,Adomnan’sVitaS.Columbae,Jonas’sVitaS.Columbani,VisioS.Pauli,Vita

S.FurseiandtheVitaS.BenedictiamongthesourcesuponwhichFelixdrew.17

ThesetextsprovidethehagiographicaltropessurroundingthemilesChristi,

13MeredithBacola,‘VacuasinAurasRecessit?ReconsideringtheRelevanceofEmbeddedHeroicMaterialintheGuthlacNarrative’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),p.78–85;BrittonBrooks,‘Felix’sConstructionoftheEnglishFenlands:Landscape,AuthorizingAllusion,andLexicalEcho’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.55–65;Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.25–44;Higham,‘Guthlac’sVita’,p.85a;Meaney,‘HistoryorHagiography’,pp.75a–76b;Orchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,pp.25–31;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.7–9.14OrdericVitalis,forinstance,callsitprolixusetaliquantulumobscurus(‘drawnoutandinpartsobscure’)inMarjorieChibnall,ed.,TheEcclesiasticalHistoryofOrdericVitalis(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1969),II:322.Orchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,pp.32–54,analysestherarewordsFelixusesandtheirpoeticorigin.SeetooColgrave,ed.,Guthlac,pp.17–19;SarahDowney,‘TooMuchofTooLittle:GuthlacandtheTemptationofExcessiveFasting’,Traditio63(2008),99;Roberts,‘HagiographyandLiterature’,p.76.15Higham,‘Guthlac’sVita’,p.85a.ThecomplexityofFelix’svocabularymayevenaccountfortheOldEnglishglossesinthethreeoftheextantcopiesofFelix’sVita,astheseglossesappeartocoverrarewordsorcoinages.Forinstance,versutaisglossedwithfæ[cne],stagnosawithfennegan,flagitiosaswithfac[enfulle],andraucisoniswithhasgrumelum.Foralistoftheglossedwordsandanalysis,seeColegrave,ed.,Guthlac,pp.52–54;Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.68–88.Wieland,‘AuresLectores’,169,alsosuggeststhatOldEnglishoraltraditionsinformedFelix’sstyleinadditiontotheLatinsourcesheused.16Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.26–66.17Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,p.4;JosephGrossi,‘BarrowExegesis:Quotation,Chorography,andFelix’sLifeofStGuthlac’,Florilegium30(2013),144–65;Higham,‘Guthlac’sVita’,p.85a;Kurtz,‘StAntony’,103–106,118,126,and140–44;Meaney,‘HistoryorHagiography’,pp.77b–78a;Roberts,‘Inventory’,203.BothDowney,‘Intertextuality’,p.33,andConcettaGilberto,‘TheDescensusadInferosintheOldEnglishProseLifeofStGuthlacandVercelliHomilyXXIII’,inLazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca(2014),p.241,believeFelixdidnotdirectlyconsulttheBibleforscripturalreferencesbutaccessedthemthroughintermediarysources.

particularlyAntony’sstrugglesagainstdemonsinthedeserttomb,whichFelix

appropriatesforGuthlac:thearchetypalascetichermitstrugglingagainst

demonsinawasteland.18MorerecentstudiesofferfurtherlinksbetweenFelix’s

VitaandLatinheroicpoetrylikeVergil’sAeneid,19indicatingthatFelixwasnot

onlyconsciousofClassicalpaganliterature,butalsohadnoreservations

applyingimageryfrompaganliteratureindepictingGuthlacasamilesChristi.

ThecultofGuthlacquicklyspreadthroughoutEnglandintheeighthand

ninthcenturies.Survivingcalendars,missals,andvariousother‘Guthlac-

materials’indicatethattheLifewastransmittedwidely,andattesttothe

popularityofthecultbeforeandafterNormanConquest,aswellasintothe

thirteenthcentury.20Felix’sVitawasthebasisforseveralOldEnglishaccountsof

theGuthlac’slife.AbriefreferencetoGuthlacisfoundintheninth-centuryOld

EnglishMartyrology,21whichfocusesonthemiraclesassociatedwithGuthlac’s

birth,thesaint’sname,andhiscommunicationwithanangelconcerningdivine

mysteries.22InadditiontotheMartyrology,twolengthierverse-narrativesof

GuthlacappearintheExeterBook.ThepoetofGuthlacAseemstohavebeen

awareofFelix’sVita,thoughnottohaveuseditasadirectsource.23Ithasbeen

arguedthatGuthlacAisoneoftheearliestsurvivingOldEnglishpoems,

18Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.33–39;Kilpatrick,‘Places’,pp.108–110;Kurtz,‘StAntony’,105–13;Thacker,‘FelixShapes’,pp.10–12.19HelenAppletonandMatthewRobinson,‘FurtherEchoesofVergil’sAeneidinFelix’sVitaSanctiGuthlaci’,NotesandQueries64:3(2017),353a–55a;Bacola,‘Vacuasinauras’,pp.78–83;Orchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,pp.29–36and40;Thundyil,‘Convenant’,pp.259–65.Brooks,‘Felix’sConstruction’,pp.59–65,disagreesandarguesthatFelixdidnotpurposefullyuseVirgilbutdrewfromagenericstockofmaterial.20Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,p.12;Roberts,‘Inventory’,193,199–202and215–16.GuthlacappearsinallofthecalendarsWormaldanalysesexceptforOxford,Bodleian,Digby63,Northcountry[ix-century];BL,CottonVitelliusAxviii,WellscountySomerset,[1061×1088];EnglishKalendars,pp.5–15and105–15.ForadiscussionofthevenerationofGuthlacaftertheNormanconquestaswellasAnglo-NormanmaterialconcerningGuthlac’slife,seeElizabethDanbury,‘RichardIIandStGuthlac’inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.473–84;andTomLicence,‘TheCultofStGuthlacaftertheNormanConquest’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.385–407.TimothyBolton,‘Guthlac,Waltheof,CrowlandandDouai,Bibliothequemunicipale,MS852’inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.408–25,analysesDouai,Bibliothèquemunicipale,MS852,anddemonstratesthataLifeofGuthlacwascommissionedbyKingWilliamin1076;atextwhichRichardSharpeintroduces,edits,andtranslatesin‘TheTwelfth-CenturyTranslationandMiraclesofStGuthlac’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.485–554.21Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,pp.9–12;Roberts,‘Inventory’,203–04;Wragg,‘EarlyTexts’,13–14.22OEMart.80.23ThomasD.Hill,‘TheMiddleWay:Idel–WuldorandEgesaintheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,ReviewofEnglishStudies30:118(1979),186,thinksitispossiblethatthepoetknewtheVitaevenifhedidnotfollowit.Forafulleraccountofthepoet’sknowledgeofFelixseeColgrave,Guthlac,p.20;Jones,‘Envisioning’,260;Roberts,Inventory’,201;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.11–29;Roberts,‘SourcesandSourceHunting’,pp.1–18.

potentiallycomposedbyanear-contemporaryofGuthlacintheeighthcentury.24

However,RobertssuggeststhatthemetreandlanguageofGuthlacApoints

towardsalaterdatingandWestSaxonorigin.25Thesecondpoem,referredtoas

GuthlacB,isthoughttohavebeencomposedbetweenthelateeighthandearly

ninthcentury,anduseschapter50ofFelix’sVitaasitsmainsourceinretelling

Guthlac’sdeath.26

Felix’sVitaalsoservedasthesourcefortheproseLifeofGuthlac,

recensionsofwhichsurviveasVercelliXXIIIandintheeleventh-centuryBL,

CottonVespasianMSD.xxi,althoughnoextantLatintextpreciselyrepresents

theOldEnglishadapter’sexemplar.27Theproseaccountseemstohavebeen

producedaroundthesametimeastheMartinmas-homily,inthelateninth

century,28possiblyinWorcesterduringtheAlfrediantranslationprogram.29The

datingoftheLifeofGuthlactothelateninthcenturyislexicallysupported

throughtheuseofcompoundsfoundalmostexclusivelyinotherlateninth-

centurytexts.30LiketheMartinmas-homily,theLifeofGuthlacunderwent

alteration,abbreviation,andsuccessivemodernisationasitwasadaptedforthe

VercelliandVespasiancollectionsrespectively.31

24AlaricHall,‘ConstructingAnglo-SaxonSanctity:Tradition,InnovationandSaintGuthlac’,inImagesofMedievalSanctity,ed.DebraStrickland(Leiden:Brill,2007)pp.208–10;Wragg,‘EarlyTexts’,257–58.25Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.70–71.26Hall,‘Constructing’,p.208;PeterLucas,‘Easter,theDeathofStGuthlacandtheLiturgyforHolySaturdayinFelix’sVitaandtheOldEnglishGuthlacB’,MediumÆvum61:1(1992),2–3;Roberts,‘Inventory’,202;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.36–48.27Gonser,Prosa-Leben,pp.100–73,wasthefirsttocomparethewholeLifeofGuthlacwithaVitatext,followedmorerecentlybyScragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.381–394,whoprovidesasimilarcomparisonforthosesectionscoveredbyVercelliXXIII.Gonser’ssourcechoicefortheVitahasbeenquestionedbyW.F.Bolton,‘TheManuscriptSourceoftheOldEnglishProseLifeofStGuthlac’,ArchivfürStudiumdasNeuerenSprachen112/197(1961),301–03,aswellasZacher,PreachingtheConverted,pp.238–41,whosuggestthattheexactsourcesoftheOldEnglishaccountsofGuthlacarenotextant.SeealsoColgrave,ed.,Guthlac,pp.46–52;Roberts,‘TwoReadings’,p.201;Roberts‘SealsoftheCross’,115.28Wragg,‘EarlyTexts’,262–63,suggeststhattheLifewasproducedintheearlyninthcenturytosupportÆthelbald’sbidforpower,thoughherclaimislargelybasedoncircumstantialpoliticalevidenceandnotsubstantiallinguisticgrounds.29SeeJaneRoberts’variousworks,specifically,‘Inventory’,203;‘ProseTranslation’,p.366;‘HagiographyandLiterature’,pp.69–70;‘SealsoftheCross’,119;andGuthlacofCrowland,aSaintforMiddleEngland(Norwich:FurseyPilgrims,2009),pp.178and200–01.Robertsbaseshersuggestionsonlinguisticgroundsandthedetailofahandheldcross,whichisnotfoundintheLatinsourcesbuthasanaloguesinotherofficesforsaintsfromWorcester.30RobertsprovidesdetailedanalysesoftheLife’slexiconin‘ProseTranslation’,pp.368–72,and‘TwoReadings’,p.202.31RobertFulk,‘AnglianDialectFeaturesinOldEnglishAnonymousHomileticLiterature:ASurvey,withPreliminaryFindings’,inStudiesintheHistoryoftheEnglishLanguageIV,ed.Susan

TheversionsoftheLifeofGuthlacintheVercellibookandtheVespasian

manuscriptprovidedifferentinterpretationsoftheirexemplars.32TheVespasian

textisanabridgedaccountofFelix’sentireVitawhileVercelliXXIIIprovidesan

expandedrenderingofchapters28–32oftheVita.33Thesimplificationofthe

Vespasiannarrative,incomparisonwiththeVercellitext,isespeciallyseenfrom

chapter36onwards,wheretheepisodesareincreasinglyabbreviated.34Overall,

theadaptationofFelix’sVitaintotheoriginalLifeofGuthlacstaysclosetothe

Latin,sinceitgenerallyportraysallofthenarrativeelementsfromFelix’sVita,

andsimplifiesFelix’sidiosyncraticallycomplexprose.35Downeyshowsthat

Felix’sVitawasreworkedconscientiouslytomaintaintheinternalrepetitionand

structuralconnectionsinthenarrative.36However,pointsofcleardeviationfrom

theVitademonstratethatthetranslatorandtransmittersdidnothesitateto

altertheirexemplarstohighlightGuthlac’sinvolvementinworldlyandspiritual

warriorcultures.

Themostobviouschangesaretheabbreviationofmiracle-episodes,

particularlythoseafterGuthlac’sdefeatofthedemonsthatinvolvehiscontrolof

birds(§§37–39),exorcisms(§40),ordisplaysofpropheticknowledge(§§43and

47).TheselaterchaptersrelatewhatDowneyhasreferredtoasthe‘public

miracles’—whichtypologicallyestablishGuthlacasasaintwithpowertoheal,

exorcisecorruptingspiritsfromvisitors,controlnature,andforetellthefutureof

hisvisitors—linkingGuthlactothelargerhagiographicaltradition.37Inthe

FitzmauriceandDonkaMinkova(Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,2008),p.91;Roberts,‘ProseTranslation’,pp.366–367;‘HagiographyandLiterature’,p.80;GuthlacofCrowland,pp.196–97,andStefanyWragg,‘VernacularLiteratureinEighth-andNinth-CenturyMercia’,DPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,2017),p.84,furtherarguethattheoriginalLifeofGuthlacwasproducedbyanAngliantranslatorgiventheolderAnglianwordsthatsurviveintheextantWestSaxonversions,althoughRobertsarguesthatevidenceforplacingthetranslationbeforeAlfredislacking.Gilberto,‘DescensusadInferos’,p.233,andHall,‘Constructing’,p.207,datetheLifetotheearlytenthcentury.32Roberts,GuthlacofCrowland,pp.181–87and197.Gonser,ed.,Prose–Leben,pp.117–34,providesbothtextsside-by-sideforcomparison.33FordiscussionsofthedifferencesbetweentheVercelliandVespasiantextsseeRoberts,‘ProseTranslation’,pp.368–72;Roberts,‘TwoReadings’,pp.203–07;Roberts,‘SealsoftheCross’,117;Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.381and390;Szarmach,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.97–101.34Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.133–46,providesananalysisoftheaspectsoftheVitawhichareabbreviatedintheLifeofGuthlac.35Bolton,‘ManuscriptSource’,301;Colgrave,Guthlac,p.19;Downey,‘TooMuch’,99;Roberts,‘ProseTranslation’,pp.363–65;Zacher,PreachingtheConverted,pp.229and236–37.36Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.106–31,analysestheLife’sprosestyle,withaparticularfocusonitsinternalrepetitionsanditsindebtednesstoFelix’sstyle.37Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.138–40and144–45.

VespasianLife,thesemiracle-episodesarecondensedsoastoquicklyaccountfor

themiraclewithoutmanyofthesurroundingdetails.Inthisway,thecompileris

abletogiveGuthlactheappropriateauthoritybefittingasaintthrough

acknowledgingthatheperformedthesamemiraclesasothersaints,and

simultaneouslyavoidscopyingtheformulaicset-upforeach.TheVespasian

compilerisnotuniqueinmakingthiseditorialchoice.MostOldEnglishaccounts

ofGuthlac’slifesimilarlyomitorcondensetheformulaicmiracles,preferring

insteadtofocusonGuthlac’sstrugglewithdemons.38RobertsandParkesfurther

demonstratethattreatmentsofGuthlacaftertheconquest,suchastheHarley

Rollandliturgicalchants,limittheirportrayalsofthesainttofocusonGuthlac’s

virtuesasamilesChristi,hisfightswithdevils,andhiscolloquywithangels.39

TheVercelli-homilistandtheGuthlacA-poetdonotrelateanyaspectsofthe

narrativebeyondthestruggleagainstdemonicforcesinconvertingthebeorg.40

Likewise,thefocusonthesaint’scombatwiththedevils,andneglectoftheother

sectionsofGuthlac’sanchoriticlifeinthetwoversionsoftheLifeaswellas

GuthlacA,suggestthatGuthlac’sexampleofhowtosoldierforChristwasof

primaryinterestforthehagiographers.41

TheGuthlac-narrativesexplorethevariouswaysonemightliveonearth,

andthespiritualramificationsofeach.Thisfocusondifferingwaystoexistis

madeevidentthroughrepeatedreferencestoordersorstatesofbeing,aswellas

thepartitioningofGuthlac’slifeintodistinctstages,similartotheMartinmas-

homily’suseoftermswith-dom,-folgoð,and-hadtomarkthevariousstationsor

areasofserviceMartintakesup.42TheGuthlacA-poetacknowledgesthistheme,

saying,‘therearemanyordersthroughtheworldunderheaven,fromwhichthe

numberofsaintsarise’(mongesindongeondmiddangeardhadasunder

38Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.146–47,165and180–82.Whatley,‘LostinTranslation’,193–98,believesthattheomissionsfocusinsteadonthespiritualconnectionbetweenkingandhermit.Lucas,‘Easter’,1–16,considerstheliturgicalinterestinGuthlac’sdeathinGuthlacB.39HenryParkes,‘MusicalPortraitsofStGuthlac’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.277–95;JaneRoberts‘GuthlaconaRoll:BL,HarleyMSY.6’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.249–54.40PeterDendle,SatanUnbound:TheDevilinOldEnglishNarrativeLiterature(Toronto;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,2001),pp.106–14;Hall,‘Constructing’,pp.214–16;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.29–32;Roberts,‘HagiographyandLiterature’,p.82;Roberts,GuthlacofCrowland,p.25;Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.381–82;Zacher,PreachingtheConverted,pp.229–63.41Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.93and140–59.42Seepp.57–71above.

heofonum,þaþeinhaligrarimarisað,lines30–32a).43Thepoemreinforcesthe

ideaofdifferentorderstwentylineslaterwhenitnotesthe‘manyordersborn

underheavengreatandsmall’(ðanuunderheofonumhadascennað,micleond

mæte,lines52b–53a).Thesetwopassagesspeakofthedistinctstatesofbeing

onecanattainduringlifeonearth.ThismirrorsthedescriptionsofGuthlac’s

visitorsintheVitaandLifeofGuthlac:44

SubeisdemquoquetemporibusaduirumDeiGuthlacummultidiuersorumordinumgradus,abbates,fratres,45comites,diuites,uexati,pauperes…46confluebant.(§45).

Wæsonþasylfantidþætþoneforesprecenanwermissenliceshadesmensohton,ægðerþarageealdormengebisceopas,andabbodas,andælceshadesheaneandrice.(§15:15–17).

‘Alsoduringthesesametimesmanypeopleofrankofdiverseorders,abbots,brothermonks,lords,therich,thetroubled,[or]thepoor,flockedtothemanofGodGuthlac.’

‘Atthatsametimemenofadiverseorder,boththosenoblesandbishops,andabbotsandthelowandpowerfulofeachorder,soughttheaforementionedman.’

AsGuthlachimselfmovesbetweendifferentordinesorhadas,47hebringsthose

fromallwalksoflifetohisisland.TheGuthlac-hagiographersrelatethat

noblemenandafuturekingcometoseeGuthlac,asdobishopsandabbots.Both

ecclesiasticalandsecularordershave‘greatandsmall’ranks,qualifiednotonly

bytemporalwealthandpower,butalsospiritualsalvation.Whendescribing

thesevariousorders,thenarrativesjuxtaposehowthemateriallydestitute

hermitGuthlacissuperiortothoseintemporallyhighplaces.Thisshowshow

thespiritualandphysicalworldsareinvertedwhenassessingrank;themore

43Coker,‘VoicingtheSupernatural’,pp.188–92;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.139–42.Conner,‘SourceStudies’,390–91;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,p.129.RoyLiuzza,TheOldEnglishChristandGuthlac:Texts,Manuscripts,andCritics’,TheReviewofEnglishStudies,41:161(1990),7–10,considersthefirstthirtylinesofGuthlacAtobeanadditiontothepoem,linkingitthematicallytoChristIIIbyexplicatingtheordersofpeoplewhoarewelcomedtoheavenorhell.44ComparativequotationsthroughoutthechapterprovidethetextfromFelix’sVita(ed.Colgrave)onthelefthandside,andthetextfromtheLifeofGuthlac(ed.Gonser),ontherighthandsideofthetextblock.45ThetermfratresdoesnotappearinthreeoftheextantversionsoftheVita,manuscriptsA2E2G,Colgrave,ed.Guthlac,p.138,suggestingtheomissionintheLifemaystemfromitsexemplar.46ClausesreferringtoGuthlac’svisitorscomingfromeveryareaofBritain,drawnbythesaint’smiraclesareomitted.47ThereareseveralinstancesofhadglossingordoinOldEnglishsources.SeeforexampleNapier,Glosses,p.100;JohnQuinn,‘TheMinorLatin-OldEnglishGlossariesinMS.CottonCleopatraA.III'’,PhD.Dissertation(StanfordUniversity,1956),p.196.

temporalpowerandwealthGuthlacgivesup,themorespirituallypowerfulhe

becomes.ThisthemeofasceticsuperiorityintheLifeofGuthlacissimilartothe

detachmentfromtheworldthatisextolledintheMartinmas-homily.48Yetunlike

Martin,whoholdsapowerfulepiscopalpositionandlivesa‘mixedlife’asan

ascetic-bishop,theGuthlac-narrativesemphasisethatthesaint’sinfluenceinthe

worldismostefficaciousthroughacontemplativeliferemovedfromsociety.

Thethemeofspiritualinfluencegainedbyrejectingworldlyconnections

isrepeatedthroughouttheGuthlac-narrativesforeachstateofbeingGuthlac

inhabits.Inmovingfromsecularwarlordtomonkandfinallyanchorite,Guthlac

increasinglyremoveshimselffromworldlyconcernsandthesinswhichhamper

onefromattainingsanctity.Asayoungwarrior,heischaracterisedasviolent

andspirituallyerrant.Asamonk,heisremovedfrommanysinsoftheworld,but

isaneophyteinhisdevotiontoChrist,stilllearningwaystorectifyhis

behaviour.Asananchorite,Guthlacbecomesa‘soldierofChrist’whodefeats

temptationsofworldlycomfortbyoverthrowingdevilsandconvertingthepagan

islandwhileincontemplativeisolation.Throughoutthesestages,thecomposer

indicatesthattheproperplaceformilitarydisciplineandvirtueisinthespiritual

realmagainsttemptation.49Indoingso,theaudienceisnotpresentedwitha

pacifistsaintlikeMartin,butamilesChristiwhoreplacessecularwarfarewith

theabstractcombatofthesoul.

GuthlacisbornintoanobleMercianfamilyandasayouthhe

distinguisheshimselfasawarlord,totheevidentdetrimentofhisspiritualstate

(§§1–4and10–18).Guthlacisinspiredtotake-upthelifeofawarriorwhen‘he

remember[s]thestrongdeedsofthosemenofyoreandofthoseworldlyleaders’

(gemundeheþastrangandædaþara[iu]mannaandþaraworuld-frumena,§2:33–

35).50Thecompoundweoruld-fruma(‘worldly-leader’)seemstobeacoinageof

48Seepp.56–60and70–71above.49TheVespasiancompileronlyprovidesfourchapternumberscorrespondingto:1.Guthlac’sbirth;2.Theeventsofhisyouthuntilhebecomesahermit;3.FoundingthehermitageonCrowland;4.Guthlac’slifeasahermit.Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.88–101,splitsGuthlac’slifeinfiveparts(basedonGuthlac’searlylife,solitarystruggles,‘medial’miracles,publicmiracles,anddeath),whilemorerecentlyOrchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,p.28,splitFelix’sVitaintotwoparts,Guthlac’slifebeforebecomingahermitandhislifeafterwards.SeealsoRoberts,‘ProseTranslation’,pp.364–65.50Themanuscriptreadsunmannahere,yetGonser,Prosa-Leben,pp.108and180,andRoberts,GuthlacofCrowland,pp.182–83,demonstratethatthenonceunmannisamisinterpretationof

thetranslator,adaptingherous(‘hero’)andunderliningtheassociationofthese

inspirationalmenwithsecularconcerns.51

TheLifeofGuthlacandGuthlacAbothcreateacontrastbetweenthe

sanctifiedspiritualrealmandthesinful,fleeting,secularoneusingcompounds

andphrasesthatincorporateweoruld-,justaswesawintheMartinmas-

homily.52First,theLifeestablishesthattheuseofweoruldsignifiesbothlifeon

theterrestrialplane,aswellasinthesecularorder.Forexample,theLatin

phrasesecularibuspompis(§19)becomesworuld-glenga(§2:76),Guthlac’sfather

iscalledworuldewelig(‘wealthyintheworld’,§1:5),andGuthlacAalludestothe

worulde/eorðanwynnum(‘joysoftheworld’)whichthesaintrenounces(lines

2b–3).GuthlacAstateslaterthat,whenGuthlacbecomesahermit,hegivesup

thepossessionshehadinyouthusedfor‘worldlypleasures’(woruldewynnum,

lines103–05),anddefinesthese‘delightsoftheworld’(woruld-blissa)assoft

seats,banquet-feasts,vaindelightsoftheeyes,proudapparelaswellas‘glory

amongmen’(menniscumþrymm,lines164–69).

TheLifeofGuthlacandGuthlacAtogetherdepicttheseaspectsofwarrior

cultureasbothfleetingandtheproductofspiritualturmoil.53Thebeginningof

GuthlacAcallsforthesoultogiveuptransitoryearthlypleasures:ofgiefeþhio

þaseorþanwynne,forlæteðþaslænandreamas(‘[thesoul]givesupthoseearthly

pleasures,forsakesthoseemptydelights’,lines2b–3).Lines37b–47definethe

worldas‘disturbed’(woruldisonhrered,line37b)andstatethat‘everynoble

bountyoftheearthages,andthenatureoffruitfulthingsturnsfrombeauty’

(ealdaðeorþanblædæþelagehwylcreondofwlitewendaðwæstmagecyndu,lines

43–44).However,onlyafewrecognisetheemptynatureofworldlypursuitsas

Godwatcheshislawdecliningasaconsequenceof‘worldly-rule’(woruld-ryhte,

lines56–58).Thepoemcomparesthetransienceoftheworldwiththesoul’s

eternalhomeland:

geo-mann,acompoundwithmoreattestations,andarguethatitshouldbeiu-mannfor‘manofold’,agreeingwithVitatextwhichreads:tuncvalidapriscorumheroumfactareminiscens…§16.51Roberts,GuthlacofCrowland,p.182,andWaldorf,‘Hapax’,p.386,translateworuld-frumaas‘great-man’.52Seepp.58–66above.53Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.18–19.

Biðhimeorð-welaoferþætecelifhyhtahyhst,segehwylcumscealfold-buendrafremdegeweorþan.Forþonhynuhyrwaðhaligramod,ðaþehimtoheofonumhygestaþeliað,witonþætseeðelecebideðealraþæremenguþegeondmiddan-gearddryhtneþeowiaðondþæsdeoranhamwilniaðbigewyrhtum.

Lines62–70a.

‘Forthemthehighestofhopesareforearthlywealth,overthateternallife,whichshallbemadestrangeforeachoftheearth-dwellers.Thereforetheynowderidethemindsofsaints,thosewhohavefixedtheirthoughtstowardstheheavens,knowingthattheirhomelandwillendureforeverforallthemultitudewhothroughoutmiddle-earthservetheLordandby[their]deedsyearnforthatdearhome.’

Thepoetjuxtaposesearthlyandheavenlyapproachestoliving,contrastingthe

earthlyconceptsofeorð-wela,fold-buendra,andmiddan-geardwiththeheavenly

onesinecelif,heofonum,andeðelece.Lines62and64emphasisthedivide

betweenworldlyfixationandheavenlypursuitinalliteratingtheopposingideas

of‘earthlywealth’(eorð-wela)thatthe‘earth-dwellers’seekalienatingthem

(fremdegeweorþan)from‘eternallife’(ecelif).Thepassagethendefines‘home’

(eðelanddeoranham)asthatetherealplacepeoplethroughout‘middle-earth’

areremovedfrombutyearnfor.Increatingthiscontrast,thepoetshowsthat

adheringtotransitoryworldlypleasurescondemnsonetoashortandsinfullife.

AsimilarargumentismadeintheLifeofGuthlac,especiallyinGuthlac’s

initiationintospiritualsoldiery.Atthispoint‘Guthlac[i]sledfromtheturmoilof

thisworldtothemilitaryserviceoftheeternallife’(Guðlacofþæregedrefednysse

þissereworuldewæsgelædedtocamp-hadeþæsecanlifes,§3:71–72).This

passagedescribesthephysicalworldasoneofturmoilanddisorder(drefednes),

andcomparesitwiththestabilityandeverlastingnatureofthesavedsoul.The

compoundsandalliterationconnectingweoruldoreorðwithportrayalsofdecay

inGuthlacAandtheLifeemphasisethedecliningnatureofthephysicalrealmof

existence.TheaudienceisurgedtofollowGuthlac’sexamplebyrenouncingthe

fleetingwealthofthislife(læneslif-welan,line151a),andsuppressingthe

longingfortemporalpleasuresconnectedtotheworld(lines163b–64and328–

WhenGuthlactakesuphisworldlycalling,heisportrayedasasuccessful

warleaderorweoruld-fruma.Hissuccesscanbeseeninthegatheringoftroops

fromalloverEnglandforhisarmy,whichpresumablymeansGuthlacwas

famousasawarrior.54ThosethatjoinGuthlacarehispeersinthepursuitof

seculargloryandarevariouslycalledheafod-gemacan,geþoftenaandefen-

hæfdlingas.Thecompoundefen-heafodlingas(‘equal,fellows,peers,comrades’)

appearstobeanonceterm,whilethetermheafodlingasisararewordfor

‘comrade’or‘peer’,onlyappearingonitsowntwiceintheLindisfarneGospel

glosses.55Theadditionoftheefen–prefixworksasanintensifierandemphasises

thatGuthlac’simmersioninworldlywarriorculturerepresentsallwhopursue

thelifeofawarlordormercenary,whichinvolvesthetakingupofweapons(to

wæpnumfeng,§2:37).

MagennisarguesthatFelixwasuncomfortablewithGuthlac’searly

militarycareer,whichleadsFelixtowhitewashitbyportrayinghisenemiesas

persecutorsandpaintingGuthlacasa‘greatsecularheroengagedinajustwar.’56

However,theLifeofGuthlacpresentsGuthlacasamoresavagewarriorthanthe

portrayalintheVita:

Etcumaduersantiumsibiurbesetuillas,uicosetcastellaigneferroqueuastaret,corrasisqueundiquediuersarumgentiumsociisimmensaspraedascongregaret;tuncuelutexdiuinoconsilioedoctus,tertiampartemaggregataegazaepossidentibusremittebat.(§17).

Þawræchehisæfþancasonhisfeondum,andheoraburhbærnde,andheoratunasoferhergode;andhewidegeondeorþanmenigfealdwælfeldeandslohandofmannumheoraæhtanam.Þawæshesemningainnanmanodgodcundliceandlæredþætheþawordhete,ealleþaheswa[genam] hehetþriddandælagifanþammannumþehehitærongenæmde.(§2:37–44).

‘Andthenheusedtodevastatethecitiesandhomesteads,townsandfortificationsofhisopponentswithfire

‘Thenheavengedhisinjuriesonhisenemies,andburnedtheirfortifications,andcompletelyravaged

54Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,p.3.55WalterSkeat,ed.TheGospelaccordingtoSaintMatthew(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1887),pp.93(forconseruossuos)and201(forcoaequalibus).TheOEDnotestherarityandevolutionofheadlingtomean‘leader’intheOthoversionofLaȝamon’sBrut(line4980).56Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,28–29.

andsword,andhavingassembledcompanionsanddiversepeoplefromeverywhere,heusedtoamassimmensespoils.Then,asifdirectedbydivinecounsel,heusedtoreturnathirdpartoftheamassedtreasuretothe[previous]owners.’

theirstrongholds;andwidelyhefelledandslewinamanifoldslaughterthroughouttheearthandtookthepossessionsofthosepeople.Thenhewassuddenlydivinelyadmonishedfromwithinandinstructedsothathegavethecommandthatathirdportionofallofthatwhichhehadsotakenshouldbegiventothosepeoplefromwhomhehadtakenitbefore.’

TheLifebeginsbystatingthatGuthlacisattackinghisenemiestoavengehis

injuries(wræchehisæfþancas).Thisdetail,firstintroducedwiththeOldEnglish

narrative,justifiesGuthlac’sattacksusingtheIsidoriancodeofjustwar,which

statesthatonecanrightlyfightinordertoavengeapreviouswrongorreclaim

stolenproperty.57FelixmerelymentionsthatGuthlacwasfightinghisenemies

whilegivingnojustificationforhiscampaigns.IntheVita,Guthlac‘la[ys]waste

withfireandsword’(igneferroquevastaret)thetownsandfortificationsofhis

enemies.Totheimageofplunderingbyfireandsword,theLifeofGuthlacadds

wælfeldeandsloh(‘slaughteredandslew’).ThisdoubletemphasisesGuthlac’s

killingandmovesthefocusofthepassageawayfromtheamassedbootyhetakes

intheLatin(immensasprædascongregaret).58

However,thepassageintheLifestillcondemnsGuthlacandsecular

warriorsasdestructiveforcesthatdonotprotectorpositivelycontributeto

society.EventheattempttolessenGuthlac’sguiltbysuggestingthatherestores

onethirdofthewealthhetakesonlyfunctionstoundercutthegoodnessofthe

act,astheLifegivesGuthlaclessagencyinthisprocess.IntheVita,Guthlac’s

generosityislikenedtodivineinspirationthroughtheuseofvelut(‘asif/justas’),

buttheimpetustogivebackisstillhisown.IntheOldEnglish,Guthlacissaidto

havebeen‘divinelyadmonishedfromwithinandinstructed’(innanmanod

godcundliceandlæred).ThepassageintheLifeofGuthlacportraysGuthlacasa

sinfulwarriorwhosesavageryandgreedarecontainedbyexternalinfluence

ratherthanbyhisinnatevirtue.ThefactthattheyouthfulGuthlactakesanywar-

57Hall,‘Constructing’,pp.210–11.SeeChapterTwopp.23–28foradiscussionof‘justwar’theoryinAnglo-SaxonEngland.58ThedoubletalsoappearsinGenesisAforAbraham,who‘gavewartowords,nowoundgoldatallforhisnephew,heslewandfelledtheenemyinbattle’(sealdewigtowedde,nalleswundengoldforhissuhtrigan,slohandfyldefeondonfitte,lines2069b–72a).

bootysetshimamongthesinfulsoldierywhichGuthlacAcontrastswiththe

saintlyhermithewillbecome.59

GuthlacAsimilarlycondemnsthesaint’searlyraiding,referringtosecular

fightingasdiabolicallyinspired.Thepoemusesthetermwræc-mæcgas

(‘mercenaries’or‘exiledmen’)torefertoboththewarrior-bandandthedevils.60

Thiscompoundseemstohaveprimarilycarriednegativeconnotationstoreferto

non-Christianorantagonisticpeople,usedinElene’saddresstotheJewsinElene

line387,forOhthere’ssonsinBeowulf(line2379),andtorefertodevilsin

Juliana(line260)andChristA(line363).ThesinsGuthlaccommitsasawarlord,

namelyslaughterandgreedorgluttony,arethesamesinsthatthedevilshold

overGuthlaclaterinthenarrativewhenhedoubtshewillbeabletoredeem

himself(§29)orwhenencouraginghimtointensifyhisfasting(§30).

ThecondemnationofGuthlac’sactions—andofworldlyculturemore

generally—isevidentinGuthlac’sepiphanyaspresentedintheVitaandLife:

Igiturtranscursisnouemcirciterannorumorbibus,quibuspersecutorumsuorumaduersantiumquesibihostiumfamosumexcidium,crebrisuastationumfragoribus,peregisset;tandemdefessisuiribus,posttotpraedas,caedes,rapinasquequasarmatriuerunt,lassiquieuerunt.ItaquecumpraedictusuirbeataememoriaeGuthlacus,interdubiosuoluentistemporiseuentusetatrascaliginosaeuitaenebulas,fluctuantisqueseculigurgitesiactaretur;quadamnocte,dumfessamembrasolitaequietidimitteret,etassuetomoreuagabundamentesolicitus,mortaliaintentameditationecogitaret;mirumdictu,extimplouelutpercussuspectore,spiritualisflammaomniapraecordiasupramemoratiuiriincenderecœpit.Namcumantiquorumregumstirpissuaepertransactaseculamiserabilesexitusetflagitiosumuitaeterminumcontemplaretur,necnonetcaducasmundidiuitias,

ÐawæsymbenigonwinterþæsþeheþaehtnyssebegangendewæsseeadigaGuthlac,andhehinesylfnebetweoxþisesandweardanmiddan-eardeswealcandwelode. Þagelampsumenihtemidþamþehecomoffarendumwege, andhehysþaweriganlimareste,andhemenigþingmidhismodeþohte,ðawæshefæringamidGodesegeonbryrd,andmidgastlicrelufanhisheorteinnangefylled.Andmidþyheawoc,hegeþohteþaealdankyningas,þeiuwæron, þurhearmlicnedeaðandþurhsarlicneutgangþæsmanfullanlifes,þeþasworuldforleton;andþamicclanwelanþehigærhwilonahton,hegesehonhrædlicnysseeallegewitan;andhegeseahhisagenlifdæghwamlicetoþamendeefstanandscyndan.Ðawæshesæmningamidþamgodcundanegesaninnanswaswyþeonbryrded,þætheandetteGodegifhehimþæsmergen-dægesgeunnanwolde,þæthehisþeowbeonwolde.(§2:45–46).

59Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.143–44.60Hall,‘Constructing’,p.211.

contemptibilemquetemporalisuitaegloriamperuigilimenteconsideraret;tuncsibipropriiobitussuiimaginatamformamostendit;etfinemineuitabilembreuisuitaecuriosamentehorrescens,cursumcotidieadfinemcogitabat,immoetiamaudisseserecordabatur,“Neinhiemeuelsabbatofugauestrafiat.”Haecetaliahissimiliaeocogitante,eccesubito,instigantediuinonumine,seipsumfamulumChristiuenturumfore,siincrastinouitamseruasset,deuouit.(§18).‘Therefore,whenthesphereshadrevolvedaroundnineyears,duringwhichhehadaccomplishedwiththefrequentstrikesofravagingsthefamousoverthrowoftheirpersecutors,theirenemiesandhostileadversaries;atlasttheyweresappedofenergy,aftersomanyraids,slaughters,andlootingwhichtheirarmshadwrought,andbeingtiredtheyrested.ThuswhentheaforementionedmanofblessedmemoryGuthlac,beingtossedthroughtheuncertaineventsoffleetingtimeandthedarkcloudsofobscurelifeandthrownaboutbythewavesofthechurningworld,onacertainnightlaiddownhistiredlimbstotheiraccustomedrest,and,hismindwandering,hecontemplatedmortalitywithsincereconsideration,aswashiscustom,when,wondroustosay,aspiritualflamebegantoburnalloftheaforementionedman’sheartasif[theflame]hadimmediatelyburstthroughhischest.Forwhenhecontemplatedthemiserabledeathsandshamefulendoftheancientkingsofhislineageinthecourseofthepastages,andwasalsoconsideringthefallingrichesoftheworldandcontemptiblegloryoftemporallifewithawakefulmind,thentheimaginedformofhisowndeathappearedtohimself,andshudderingwithacare-filledmindattheinevitable

‘ItwasaboutnineyearsinwhichthatblessedGuthlacwasengagedinthosepersecutions,andhehimselfwanderedastrayamidstthetossingofthispresentmiddle-earth.Thenithappenedonenightthat,whenhehadcomefromgoingabout,andhelayhiswearylimbstorest,andheconsideredmanythingsinhismind;thenhewassuddenlyinspiredwiththefearofGod,andhisheartfilledinwardlywithspirituallove;andwhenheawoke,hethoughtontheancientkings,whowerelonggone,whodepartedthisworldthroughwretcheddeathsandthroughsorrowfulexitsofthatsinfullife;and[ashethoughtof]thosegreattreasureswhichtheyhadpreviouslypossessedhesawitallsuddenlyvanish;andhesawhisownlifedailyhasteningandhurryingtothatend.Thenwasheatoncesoacutelyandinwardlyoverwhelmedwithdivinefear,thatheconfessedtoGodthatif[God]wouldgranthimthenextmorning,thathe[Guthlac]wishedtobehisservant.’

endofthisshortlife,heunderstoodthatthedailycourse[ofhislife]washeadingtothatend.Hefurtherrememberedthathehadhearditsaid:“LetnotyourflightbeinthewinterorontheSabbathday.”Whilemullingovertheseandothersimilarthingshesuddenlyvowed,withdivinepowerinspiringhim,thathewouldbecometheservantofChrist,ifhemighthavelifeinthemorning.’

FelixportraysGuthlacaslyingdown,wearyoftheviolence,tiredfromexertion,

thoughwithlittleclarificationofwhetherthattoilwasgood.Incondensingthe

passage,theOldEnglishnarrativeomitsthisdescriptiontofocusonGuthlac

wanderingaboutinthetribulationsofthisworld,therebyhighlightingthe

differencebetweenearthandheavenaswellasGuthlac’sspiritually

compromisedstate.Moreover,theLifeofGuthlacisclearthatGuthlac’sraidsare

sinfulinnature,sinceGuthlacisthesingularsubjectwho‘engages’inthat

persecution,wheretheVitadescribesGuthlacasadefenderofhispeopleagainst

‘theirpersecutors,theirenemiesandhostileadversaries’(persecutorumsuorum

aduersantiumquesibihostium)whoaretheaggressors.61TheVitafurtherimplies

thattheraidsarethecollectiveeffortsofthewarbandthroughitsuseofplural

verbs(triueruntandquieuerunt),whiletheLifeofGuthlacfocusesonGuthlacas

theoneresponsiblefortheassaults.

Survivingattestationsofthetermehtnes,usedforGuthlac’sviolence,

oftenrefertothepersecutionsofChristandChristiansbywickedpagansorthe

devil.62TheuseofehtnesintheLifeofGuthlacinthepassageaboveistheonly

instancethattheDictionaryofOldEnglishdefinesasanetural‘attackorhostile

raid’,whiletheotherinstancesreferto‘persecution—especially,persecution

inflictedonChrist,onChristians,oronGod'schurch’,demonicafflictionofthe

faithful,orsimilarnegativepersecution.However,Guthlac’ssubsequent

realisationofthesinful(manfull)natureofhisactionswouldsuggestthatthe

adapterconsciouslyusedthetermehtnestonegativelymean‘persecution’and

notneutrallyas‘pursuit’or‘attack’.Later,whentheLifeequatesGuthlacwithSt

61Damon,SoldierSaints,p.72.62DOEs.v.ehtnes,whichnotesthatthetermoccursover200times,primarilyinÆlfric’sworks.

Paul,itdescribeshowPaulpreviouslypersecutedtheholychurch(hewæsærþon

ehterehisþærehalgancyrcan,§3:67–68),usingthecognateehtereforPaul’s

attacksonChristiansbeforehisconversion.Inemployingwordsderivingfrom

ehtanforbothsaints,thehagiographerequatesGuthlac’sactionswiththewicked

persecutionofChristiansandsoalignshisepiphanymorecompletelywith

Paul’s.

Felix’saccountofGuthlac’svisionfocusesmoreonthefleetingnatureof

lifethanonGuthlac’simmorality,sayingthathewas‘consideringthefalling

richesoftheworldandcontemptiblegloryoftemporallife’.TheVitamakesthe

saintlesscomplicitinthespirituallydetrimentaliniquityofsecularlife,and

insteaddepictsGuthlac’srevelationcomingfromtherealisationthathisgloryis

fleeting.TheOldEnglishtexts,ontheotherhand,focusonthesaint’s

participationinaworldlylifestylethatissinfulandleadstoa‘wretcheddeath’,

suggestingthateventhebestoftheweoruld-frumanareinnatelysinful.TheLife

characterisesworldlywarriorculture,evenwhenawarrioris‘generous’tothose

heravages,as‘thatsinfullife’(þæsmanfullanlifes).GuthlacAismorestarkinits

condemnationofsoldiering,characterisingGuthlac’searlylifeasonefilledwith

‘desiresforsinning’(synnalustas,line113b).

TheLifethenrelateshow,‘whenhewastwenty-fourwintersold,thenhe

forsookallthatworldly-pomp,andsetallhishopeinChrist’(ðahewæsfeower

andtwentigwintraeald,þaforletheealleþasworuld-glenga,andeallnehishiht

onCristgesette,§2:75–77).Thecompoundweoruld-glengtranslatesthephrase

secularibuspompisintheVita,anditsnegativeuseintheLifeiscomparabletoits

attestationsintherestoftheOldEnglishcorpus.63InÆlfric’stranslationofthe

Hexameronhesays,‘thewisemandoesnotdesireforthoseworldly-luxuriesnor

thefairappearanceofthebodybutdesiresforthesoul’(Sesnoterawerne

gewilnaðþaraworuld-glenganeþæslic-hamanwlitesacgewilnaðþæresawle),64

andBlicklingIIlinksweoruld-glengtotheuselesswealthablindmandevalues.65

Theonlyothercompoundthatincorporates-glenginthesurvivingcorpusis

63TheLawcodeGrið(c.1014)citesworold-glengasarootofpridewhichthepiousmanavoids,FelixLiebermann,ed.,DieGesetzederAngelsachsen(Halle:M.Niemeyer,1903),I:472.64Hexameron,52.Seepp.60–68inChapterThree.65Morris,ed.BlicklingHomilies,p.21.

forlegis-gleng(‘attireofaprostitute’,translatingornatumeretricio),which

appearsinaglossofAldhelm’sproseDeuirginitate.66

Althoughnotpresentedascompounds,thereareseveralcollocationsof

weoruldandglengelsewhereintheOldEnglishcorpus.Notably,theUbiSunt

passagesofVercelliXusethetermstogethertohighlightthetransienceof

earthlylifeandthemeaninglessnessofseekingwealth,67whiletheeleventh-

centuryOldEnglishtranslationoftheCapitulaofTheodulfofOrléanssaysthat

thegoodChristian‘doesnotdesireworldlypomp’(woruldeglengenewilnige).68

TheHexameron,VercelliX,andtheCapitulasuggestinterpretingtheliteral

meaningofglengas‘adornment’tometonymicallyreferto‘pomp’or‘transitory

wealth’.Moreliteral,althoughstillnegative,usesofglengarefoundinÆlfric’s

LifeofAgnes,whichrecountshowanoblesuitorattemptstocourt‘thepure

maidenwithpreciousgemsandworldlyadornments’(clænanmædene

deorwurðagimmasandworuldliceglencga)andischastisedforpreferring

physicaloverspiritualwealth.69Fromthecontextsandconnotationsof

compoundswith-glengitisclearthatthetermnegativelyreferredtoworldly

connectionasinappropriateforagoodChristian.Theuseofweoruld-glenginthe

LifeofGuthlacthusreinforcesthespirituallybankruptnatureofsecularsoldiery.

OnceGuthlacrealisesthisandleaveshissecularlife,heiscalledthefamulus

ChristiorCristesþeow(‘servantofChrist’),anepithetappliedtohimthroughout

therestofthenarrativeasGuthlacshiftstoahigherstateofbeingorhad.

ThefirstroleGuthlacassumesasafamulusChristiisasacenobiticmonk

atRepton.There,Guthlacis‘instructedandtaughtindivineservice’(þæthewæs

ongodcundlicanþeodscipegetydandgelæred,§2:96–97).Thedescriptionof

Guthlac’sinitiationintotheReptonmonasterymirrorsMartin’sinductioninto

clericallifeintheMartinmas-homily,whichstatesthathetoowas‘instructedand

taughtinGod’sservice’(ongodesðeow-domgetydeandgelærde).70Thissuggests

thatthedoubletgetyanandgelæranwasusedintheninthcenturytodenote

changesinacharacter’sstateoflivingwhichinvolvedlearninganewsetof

66Napier,ed.,Glosses,p.170.67Scragg,ed.,VercelliHomilies,pp.191–92and209.68HansSauer,ed.,TheodulfiCapitulainEngland:diealtenglischenÜbersetzungen,zusammenmitdemlateinischenText(München:Fink,1978),p.327.69LSI:221.70Seeabovepp.61and67–69.

principles.ThecorrespondingpassageinFelix’sVitareadsmonasticisdisciplinis

erudiebatur(‘hewasmadelearnedinmonasticdisciplines’).Incontrasttothe

Vita’sliteraldescription,theLifemakesGuthlac’stransitionlessvocationaland

morespiritual,reworkingmonasticisdisciplinis(‘monasticdiscipline’)as

godcundlicanþeodscipe(‘divineservice’).Framinganecclesiasticalvocationas

‘divineservice’furtheremphasizestheungodlynatureofGuthlac’searlier

‘worldly’soldiery,andcallstheaudiencetoconsiderGuthlac’smonkhoodasa

morevenerableprofession.71

ThemonasticphaseoftheLifeofGuthlacismarkedbyanenvelope

patternwithcompoundsusingmunuc-,beginningwithþammunuc-lifefeng(‘he

tooktothatmonkishlife’§2:81)andconcludingwithÐaymbetwawinterþæsþe

hehislifswaleofodeundermunuc-hade(‘Thenfortwowintershelivedhislifeas

undermonkhood’§2:104–05).Withinthisenvelopepattern,monkhoodis

definedasfollows:

Igiturpsalmis,canticis,hymnis,orationibusmoribusqueecclesiasticisperbienniumimbutus,propriassingulorumsecumcohabitantiumuirtutesimitaristudebat:illiusenimobedientiam,istiushumilitatem;illiuspatientiam,alteriuslonganimitatem;illorumabstinentiam,utriusquesinceritatem,omniumtemperantiam,cunctorumsuauitatem;et,utbreuiusdicam,omniuminomnibusimitabaturuirtutes.(§23).

Midþamþehewæstwagearonþæreleornunge,ðahæfdehehissealmasgeleornod,andcanticas,andymnas,andgebeda,æftercyriclicreendebyrdnysse.Þaonganhewurðiganþagodanþeawasþaragodraonþamlife,eadnysse,andhyrsumnysse,geþyldandþolemodnysse,andforhæfednyssehislic-haman;andealraþaragodramægenhewæsbegangende.(§2:97–103).

‘Thereupon,havingbeensteepedinpsalms,canticles,hymns,prayersandcustomsoftheChurchfortwoyears,hestrovetoimitatethevirtuesofeachofthoselivingwithhim:theobedienceofthatone,thehumilityofthisone;thepatienceofone,thelongsufferingoftheother;theabstinenceofthoseandthe

‘Thenhewiththemwaslearningfortwoyears,whenhehadlearnedthepsalms,andcanticles,andhymns,andprayersaftertheChurch’sfashion.Thenhebegantohonourthosegoodcustomsofthosegoodpeopleinthatlife,theblessednessandobedience,theenduranceandpatience,and

71Meaney,‘HistoryorHagiography’,pp.77aand81a–82a,suggeststhatGuthlacgaveuphisworldlyserviceasaresultofPTSDfromthehorrorsofwarheexperienced.Hill,‘MiddleWay’,186,rejectstheprocessofprovidingpsychologicalorfactualexplantionsforthehighlysymbolicwork.

sincerityofthatother;thetemperanceofall,thecongenialityofthewholegroup;and,sothatImayspeakmorebriefly,heimitatedthevirtuesofallinallthings.’

forbearanceofhisbody;andhewasexhibitingthevirtueofallofthosegood[men].’

Asamonk,Guthlaclearnstheskillsthatwillultimatelyhelphimsucceedasan

anchorite.Helearnsthepsalmsandprayerswhichhewilllaterusetodispel

demons.Hislifebecomesoneof‘enduranceandpatience’whichwillenablehim

toovercometemptation.Heremoveshimselffrombodilypleasures

(forhæfednyssehislic-haman),contrastinghisearlierlifeandpreparinghimself

fortheausteresolitudeoftheCrowlandfens.Yetwhilemonasticvirtuesprepare

Guthlacforahighercalling,hecannotpursuethemtotheirhighestpotential

withinthemonastery.72WhileinReptonmonastery,Guthlacfollowsthe

Benedictinerulewithnotableausterity,avoidingalcoholandadoptinggood

habits(§20).ThisstrictlyregimentedwayoflivingearnsGuthlacenemiesinthe

cloister,whobecomejealousofthesaint(Vita§21;Life§2:83–84).Guthlac’s

distancefromcenobiticmonasticismbecomesarecurrentthemethroughoutthe

Guthlac-narratives,asmonksareintroducedtothestoriesasfigurescontrasting

withGuthlac’sownstrongfaith.

AfterGuthlactakesupresidenceintheCrowlandfens,theVitaandLife

relateanumberofencountersthesainthaswithwaywardmonks(§§43–44and

46–47).Thesemonksareportrayedasrevelers,disobedient,skepticalofreal

sanctity,andproud;theyexhibitvicesthataremoreassociatedwithworldlylife

thanthevirtuesofthesaintlyone.Guthlacreprimandsthemonksfortheir

variousshortcomings,demonstratingthathisasceticismwassuperiortothose

fratreswhoindulgeinthevicesofcommunalliving.GuthlacAalsoincludesthe

followingcritiqueofmonasticisminwhichmonksareportrayedaspronetothe

sinsoftheworld,inascenewhichhasnoparallelinFelix’sVita:73

72Conner,‘SourceStudy’,380–413,andJones,‘Envisioning’,259–91,maintainthatthenarrativeisnotcriticalofcenobitism,butmerelypraisesanchoriticlifeasthehighestlevelofmonasticachievement.73Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.129and145.Thundyil,‘Covenant’,pp.241–42,arguesthatthiscritiquewasreflectiveofthestateofmonasticismintheeighthcentury.Conner,‘SourceStudy’,405,readsthispassageasacritiqueofunreformedmonks,ratherthancenobitismingeneral.

Hyhineþahofunonþaheanlyft,sealdonhimmeahteofermonnacynn,þætheforeeagumeallsceawodeunderhaligrahyrdagewealduminmynsterummonnagebæru,þaraþehyralifesþurhlustbrucan,idlumæhtumondoferwlencum,gierelumgielplicum,swabiðgeoguðeþeaw,þærþæsealdres74egsanestyreð.(lines412–20).

Thentheylifted[Guthlac]intothehighair,gavehimmightoverallmankind,thathesaweverythingbeforehiseyes,thebehaviourofmeninmonasteriesundertheruleofholyguardians,thosewhoenjoyedtheirlifethroughlust,withidlepossessionsandexceedingpride,withostentatiousgarments,asisthewayofyouth,wherethefearofthepriordoesnotrestrainit.

Thiseighth-centurycritiqueofmonasticlivingwasnotuniquetotheGuthlac-

narratives.TherewasgreatdisparityinlevelsofBenedictineobservanceamong

pre-BenedictineReformmonasteries,evenwithinregulatedfoundations.75This

wasnotedbyeighth-centuryecclesiasticalcommentators.76Bede,forinstance,

complainsinhisEpistulaadEgbertumthat‘thereareinnumerableplaces,aswe

allknow,designatedwiththetermsofmonasteries,buthavingnothingofthe

monasticmanneroflife’(suntlocainnumera,utnouimusomnes,in

monasteriorumascriptauocabulum,sednihilprorsusmonasticaeconuersationis

habentia).77Inasimilarfashion,Boniface’slettertoArchbishopCuthbertin747

74SeeRoberts,GuthlacPoems,p.145,formultiplewaysealdrescanbeinterpreted,including‘elder’,‘life’,‘oldage’,‘lord’,anda‘superiororprior’inamonasticcontext.IagreewithRobertsinseeingthelastinterpretationprovidingthebestreadinggiventheterm’splacementinacritiqueofmonasticbehaviour.75Albertson,SaintsandHeroes,pp.19–23;SarahFoot,‘Anglo-SaxonMinsters:AReviewofTerminology’,inPastoralCareBeforetheParish,ed.JohnBlairandRichardSharpe(Leicester:LeicesterUniversityPress,1992),p.217;Mayr-Harting,ComingofChristianity,pp.223–28and254;AlanThacker,‘Monks,PreachingandPastoralCareinEarlyAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inBlairandR.Sharpe(1992),pp.160–65;Thacker,‘PriestsandPastoralCareinEarlyAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inTheStudyofMedievalManuscriptsofEngland,ed.GeorgeBrownandLindaVoigts(Tempe:ArizonaCenterforMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,2000),193–95.CatherineCubitt,‘PastoralCareandConciliarCanons:TheProvisionsofthe747CouncilofClofesho’,inBlairandSharpe(1992),p.208;andAlanThacker,‘Kings,Saints,andMonasteriesinPre-VikingMercia’,MidlandHistory10(1985),2–6;Thacker,‘Monks,Preaching’,pp.143–44,showthatAnglo-Saxonmonksandmonasterieswereinvolvedinpastoralcarebeforethetenthcentury.76SeealsoChapterTwopp.26and34–36foranalysisofclericalinvolvementinwarfare.77ChristopherGrocockandIanWood,ed.,AbbotsofWearmouthandJarrow(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2013),p.142.

complainsaboutthedrinkinghabitsofclericsaswellasthesecularpracticeslike

hunting,bearingarms,andwearingluxuriousclothinginmonasticfoundations.78

Atthesametime,theCouncilofClofesho(747)alsoraisedconcernsoverthe

monasticrecitationofscripturewithsecularpoeticintonation.79Alcuin

reiteratesthisconcerninhislettertoHigbald,blamingthevikingattackon

Lindisfarnein793onthemonk’shabitoflisteningtoheathenpoemsatdinner

andfamouslyasking‘WhatdidIngeldhavetodowithChrist’(Quidenim

HinielduscumChristo)?80

Itisdifficulttodistinguishbetweenregimentedfoundationsandthose

whichearlywritersdenounce.Thetermmonasteriumseemstohavebeen

appliedtomostecclesiasticalfoundationsregardlessofwhetherthoseatsuch

foundationswereordainedoradheringtoarule,althoughitisclearfromthese

andotherecclesiasticalletters,synodsandhagiographies,thatstrictlyobservant

communitiesweretheexception.81Secularanddoublefoundations—those

monasterieswithbothnunsandmonks—thathadconnectionstoroyal

householdsseemtohavebeenparticularlysusceptibletoscandaland

undisciplinedliving.Asaroyaldouble-foundationunderAbbessÆlfthryth,

Reptonitselfmayindeedhavebeensuchanunregulatedmonasterium.82

WhiletheVitaandtheLifeofGuthlaccarefullycouchGuthlac’sentrance

intoecclesiasticallivingwithtermsthatindicatethatGuthlacbecameatonsured

monk‘withthemonasticdisciplines’(monasticisdisciplinis)oftheRegula

78MichaelTangl,ed.,DieBriefedesHeiligenBonifatiusundLullus(Berlin:WeidmannscheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1955),pp.163–70.79SeeCanon5and19ofClofeshoforaneighth-centurycritiqueofthesecularchurch,aswellasCanon12forabanonsecularpoetry,inArthurHaddanandWilliamStubbs,ed.,CouncilsandEcclesiasticalDocumentsRelatingtoGreatBritainandIreland(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1871),III:364and366–69.ForananalysisoftheCouncilofClofeshoseeCubitt,‘PastoralCare’,pp.194–207.80ErnstDümmler,ed.,EpistolaeMerowingicietKaroliniaeviMGH,Epist.4(Berlin:Weidmann,1895),II:181–84.DonaldBullough,‘WhathasIngeldtodowithLindisfarne?’,ASE22(1993),104and124,arguesthattheletterwasintendedinsteadforBishopUnuuonaofLeicester.MaryGarrison,“QuidHinielduscumChristo?”,inLatinLearningandEnglishLore,ed.KatherineO’BrienO’KeeffeandAndyOrchard(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2005),I:238–52,linksthepaganpoetrywithroyalpraisepoemsthatwereinappropriateinamonastery.InBede’sproseLifeofCuthbert,Cuthbertblamestheplagueonmonkstellingsecularstories.81Foot,‘Anglo-SaxonMinsters’,pp.214–25;Thacker,‘Monks,Preaching’,p.140;Thacker,‘PriestsandPastoralCare’,201–07.82Albertson,SaintsandHeroes,p.44and178.FullerdiscussionsofdoublemonasteriesandReptonintheearlyeighthcenturyarefoundinCubitt,‘PastoralCare’,p.208;Roberts,‘GuthlacRoll’,245;Thacker,‘Kings,SaintsandMonasteries’,2–6;Thacker,‘Monks,Preaching’,p.143–44;Wragg,‘EarlyTexts’,3.

Benedicti,83Guthlacisnotordaineduntillongafterhehasprovenhimselfinthe

fensasaholyhermit(§§46–47).Guthlac’sremovalfromamonasticfoundation

maysuggestthatGuthlac-narratorsheldapejorativeviewtowardsmonkhoodas

somethingbelowthefaithoftheasceticmilesChristi.Moreover,Guthlac’s

distancefromecclesiasticalfoundationssuggeststhattheintendedaudiencefor

theworksincludedsecularclergyandlaymen,whocouldthenaspiretosanctity

byemulatingGuthlac’scontemplativelifewithoutbecomingordainedor

initiatedintocenobiticmonasticism.84

Thepassagealsoreinforcestheideathatanchoriticlifeisahigherorder

thancenobiticmonasticism.Whiletheanchoritesharessomeofthesame

fundamentalvirtuesofaBenedictinemonk,85thestoriesGuthlacveneratesas

wellasthesaint’sownlifearguethatitisonlyinsolitaryexistence(solitaria

vita/sunder-setl)thatonemighttrulyserveGod.WhileChristopherJonesargues

thattheproseLifeandGuthlacApresentGuthlacasengrainedwithincoenobitic

life,86bothtextsseemrathertostresstheopposite.TheGuthlacA-poet,for

instance,emphasisesthesuperiorityofa‘lonewarrior’(anoretta)towhom

Christgivesmoreworldlywonders(woruldlicramawundragecyðde,line403).

AlthoughGuthlac’stimeasamonkconstitutesarelativelyshortsectionof

thenarrative,itisanimportanttransitionalperiodinwhichheturnstowards

morepiousliving.Onlyafterhehasreplacedthedesiretocausepainwiththe

virtueofpatience,andsubstitutedhisdesiretogatherlootandfeastwitha

rejectionofbodilypleasures,canGuthlacelevatehimselfasaspiritualwarrior.

Inmovingfromacenobitictoeremiticexistence,Guthlacexemplifiesthe

83Downey,‘Intertextuality’,56–57,demonstratesthatFelixborrowsheavilyfromtheVitaFurseiforhisdescriptionofGuthlac’sentrancetoRepton’smonasticcommunity.84Whatley,‘LostinTranslation’,196,arguesthattheattentiontosecularrelationshipsintheVespasianLifeofGuthlacsuggeststhehagiographerhadasecularaudienceinmindwithhistranslation.Leneghan,‘Teaching’,643–53,arguesthattheextractoftheLifeintheVercelliBookmayhaveservedasprivatereadingonthe‘contemplativelife’foranunreformedbishop.85Jones,‘Envisioning’,269and281–82.SeealsoDamon,SoldierSaints,p.146;Jones,‘GhostlyMentor’,p.137;Thundyil,‘Covenant’,pp.237–97.Downey,‘TooMuch’,92–101,alsonotesthatFelixandtheproseadapterfocusonavoidingexcessivefasting,whichwasaconcernformonasticasceticsinnorthernEurope;whileKatherineO’BrienO’Keeffe,‘Guthlac’sCrossings’,QuaestioInsularis2(2001),16–17,arguesthatitisunclearwhetherGuthlacfollowsanymonasticobservancesasananchoritebeyondthesingingofpsalms.86Jones,‘Envisioning’,261–84.Conner,‘SourceStudy’,380–413,andThundyil,‘Covenant’,272–97,alsobelievethattheRegulainfluencedtheLivesofGuthlac.

perceptionthatanchoritesarethemostvenerableorderofclergymen.87This

followstheRegulaBenedicti’sowndepictionofanchoritesasmoreaustereand

accomplishedintheirdevotionthanotherkindsofmonks.Theopeningchapter

oftheRegulastatesthat:

Monachorumquattuoressegenera,manifestumest.Primumcoenobitarum,hocestmonasteriale,militanssubregulauelabbate.Deindesecundumgenusestanachoritarum,idestheremitarum,horumquinonconversationisferuorenouicio,sedmonasteriiprobationediuturna,quididiceruntcontradiabulummultorumsolacioiamdoctipugnare,etbeneinstructifraternaexacieadsingularempugnamheremi,securiiamsineconsolationealterius,solamanuuelbrachiocontrauitiacarnisuelcogitationum,Deoauxiliante,pugnaresufficiunt.88‘Itisclearthattherearefourkindsofmonks.Thefirstareofthecenobites,thatisfromthecloister,fightingunderaruleorabbot.Thenthesecondkindisoftheanchorites,thatisofthehermits,ofthosewhoarenolongerinthenovitiatefervouroftheirhabit,buthavebeentestedforalongtimeinthemonastery,who,havingalreadybeentaught,learnedtofightagainstthedevilforthesolaceofmanybrethren;andgowelltrainedfromthebattle-lineoftheirbrethrentosinglecombatofthedesert,fearlesswithouttheconsolationofanotherbutwiththehelpofGod,theyhavesufficientstrengthtofightsingle-handedorforearmed,againstthevicesofthefleshorof[wicked]thoughts.’

Here,theorderofanchoritesisdepictedusingtheestablishedmotifsofmilites

ChristiasveteransofBenedictineidealswhoareabletofight(militare/pugnare)

thedevilandtemptationalone(singularis/solus).89Guthlac’sownexperienceasa

‘solitarywarrior’(anoretta,GuthlacAline401)echoesthispassagefromthe

Regulaclosely.Onceheissufficientlyengrainedinmonasticvirtues,hethen

combinesthemwiththemartialdisciplineofhisearlierlifetoprogressintothe

roleofamilesChristi.WhileMagennisarguesthatthetitle‘servantofChrist’was

theequivalentof‘soldierofChrist’,90andwhiletheGuthlac-narrativesusethe

termCristesþeowafterGuthlacbecomesashermit,Guthlacdoesnotattainthe

titleof‘soldierofChrist’untilafterheleavesthemonastery,suggestingthatthe

87ForearlyAnglo-Saxonattitudestowardsanchorites,seeMaryClayton,‘HermitsandtheContemplativeLifeinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inSzarmach(1996),pp.147–76;Foot,‘Anglo-SaxonMinsters’,p.213.88RegulaI:436–38.89Seepp.1–3and15–17above.90Magennis,‘GodesÞeow’,139–70.

OldEnglishhagiographersconsideredthemoveessentialforGuthlac’s

promotionfrom‘servant’to‘soldier’.

JustasGuthlacbecomesawarlordafterbeinginspiredbytalesofold

heroes,Guthlacisinspiredtotakeupthespiritualswordofthe‘soldierofChrist’

bythestoriesofdesertfathers.91TheVitaandLifedescribeGuthlac’schangeas

follows:

Decursisitaquebisdenisbisbinisquemensiumcirculis,quibussubclericalihabituuitamimmensaemoderantiaeperegit,eremumcumcuriosoeximiaesolicitudinisanimopeteremeditabatur.Dumenimpriscorummonachorumsolitariamuitamlegebat,tamenilluminatocordisgremioauidamenteeremumquaerereferuebat.(§24).

Ðaymbetwawinter,þæsþehehislifswaleofodeundermunuc-hade,þætheþaonganwilnianwestenesandsunder-setle.Midþyhegehyrdesecganandheleornodebeþamancerum,þegearaonwesteneandonsundor-setlumforGodesnamanwunodonandheoralifleofodon,ðawæshisheorteinnanþurhGodesgifuonbryrdod,þæthewestenesgewilnode.(§2:104–10).

‘Andsowhentwicetenandtwicetwomonthshadruntheircourse,whichhehadgonethroughinalifeofimmensemoderationundertheclericalhabit,hethoughttoseekthedesertwithacarefulmindofexceedingsolicitude.Forwhileheusedtoreadaboutthesolitarylifeofmonksofold,then,aftertheenlightenedbosomofhisheart,hewasburningtoseekthedesertwithanavidmind.’

‘Itwasaroundtwoyears,duringwhichhelivedhislifeundermonkhood,hethenbegantodesirethewildernessandaplaceapartfromtherest.Forhehadheardtellandlearnedaboutthoseanchorites,wholongagodweltandlivedtheirlivesinthewildernessandinplacesapartfromtherestinGod’sname.Then,washisheartinwardlyincitedthroughGod’sgrace,sothathedesiredthewilderness.’

Guthlac’stransitionfrommonktoanchoriteismarkedintheLifethroughthe

closingoftheenvelopepatternforhismonasticlifewiththeuseofmunuc-had

followedbyasetpiecefocusedaroundtherepeateddoubletwestenandsunder-

setl(‘thewildernessandaplaceapartfromtherest’).Indoingsothepassage

distinguishesmunuc-hadasacommunalvocation,distinctfromthesolitarylife

ofananchorite,highlightedthroughrepeatingGuthlac’sdesireforthe

91ForananalysisofthepoweroforalstoriesinGuthlac-narratives,seeWieland,‘AuresLectores’,172–75.Notealsotheshiftfromlegere(‘read’)togehyrdesecgan(‘heardsaid’)inthepassageaboveasapossiblereflectionoftheoralnatureofAnglo-Saxonstorytelling.

wilderness(wilnianwestenes)threetimes.Thesethreeusagescomeinthe

beginning,themiddle,andendofthepassage,bindingittogetheranddrawing

theaudience’sattentionthroughthealliterationon‘w’.Attentionisalsodrawn

throughtheself-alliteratingcompoundsunder-setl,whichisuniquetotheLifeof

Guthlac.92ThissolitarydesertlifeisthendefinedbyadesireforGod’s‘name’(for

Godesnamanwilnodon).

Guthlac’sremovalfromcommunalobservanceisfurtherillustratedinthe

termsusedtodistinguishbetweentheeremiticandcenobiticlife.Guthlac’s

transitionfrommunuc-hadismarkedwiththeuniquecompoundsancer-setl

(‘seatofananchorite’,§4:17)orsunder-setl(‘aseatapartfromtherest’).Roberts

suggeststhatthecoinagesintheLifearetransparentinmeaning,withsimilar

constructionsfoundelsewhereintheOldEnglishcorpus.93Takingsunder-setlas

ourexample,onefindscompoundswith-setldenoteageneralstateofbeingor

dwellinginheah-setl(‘highseat’)94andeðel-setl(‘nativeseat’,GenesisAlines

1896and1927).InGuthlacAthesaintcallsthedemons’dwellingsinthe

wildernesswræc-setlas(‘seatsofexile’,line296b),95andexilesthedemonsfrom

the‘manypositionstheyheldpreviously’(þærærfelasetlagesæton,lines143–

44).Thetermsusedtogloss‘anchorite’inOldEnglishversionsoftheRegulaare

alsocompoundswith-setlelements,suchaswestþen-setlenaforheremitarum,

ancor-setlenaforanachoretarum,96andan-setlanforvitiasolitariiand

anachoretarum.97Thephraseancer-setlgesætismirroredinÆlfric’shomily

DepositioS.Cuthberti,whichcelebratestheothergreatAnglo-SaxonasceticSt

Cuthbert,whoalso‘hastenedtothathermitagewherehehadsettledbefore’

(Cuðberhtussehalgaþaswiðeonettetoðamancer-setleðærheærgesæt).98

Incompounds,thetermsetl,literallya‘seat’or‘throne’,assumesamore

generalsenseas‘placeofresidence’or‘positionintheworld’,asseenwith

compoundslikebiscop-setl(‘episcopate’).Thissenseisparticularlyprevalentin92ThecompoundappearsagainwhenGuthlacsettlesonCrowlandandbeginshislifeasananchorite,§3:53.93Roberts,GuthlacofCrowland,pp.180–96.94DOEs.v.heah-setlnotesoveronehundredandthirtyoccurencesofthiscompound.95DOECorpuss.v.-setl.96H.Logeman,TheRuleofS.Benet:LatinandAnglo-SaxonInterlinearVersion(London:Trübner,1888),p.9.97Schröer,ed.,Prosabearbeitungen,p.135.98MalcolmGodden,ed.,Ælfric’sCatholicHomilies:Introduction,CommentaryandGlossary(Oxford;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),p.90.

GuthlacA,wherethetermsetlisrepeatedsixtimesdenotingeitherthedemons’

orGuthlac’sstationinlife(lines144a,244b,278a,296b,383b,and785a).99Only

oncedoessetlcarryitsprimarilyliteralmeaninginthepoem,whenreferringto

thesoftlycushionedseats(seftrasetlaline165)thatGuthlacforeswears,though

heretoosetlcouldbetakenmetaphoricallytomean‘softorcomfortablewaysof

living’.Thecollocationofgesætandcompoundsinvolving-setltorefertoa

personassuminganofficeorstationisrelativelycommonintheOldEnglish

corpus,whichmightsuggestthatthemetaphorofapersontakingtheirseat

equatestotheiracceptanceofahigherposition.

AsananchoriticmilesChristi,GuthlacfightsthedevilsoftheCrowland

wasteswithspiritualarms,inordertofreethelargerChristiancommunityfrom

temptationorsinsoftheflesh.100GuthlacAdefinesasoldierofGodasfollows:

ÞaþeherCristesæ

læraðandlæstaðandhislofrærað,oferwinnaðþaawyrgdangæstas,bigytaðhimwuldresræste.(lines23b–25).‘ThosewhoteachandperformChrist’slawhereandraiseuphispraise,conquerthoseaccursedspiritsandgetforthemselvesthereposeofglory.’

ThemilitesChristiarethosethatenactChrist’steachingsandconquercursed

spiritssothatotherscancometoGod’ssalvationfreefromthestainofsin.The

overthrowofdemonictemptationispartofthemilesChristi’sperformanceof

Christ’steaching,suggestingthattheultimateactoffaithisthrough

metaphoricallysoldiering.Thehypermetricityofline25aanddoublealliteration

inthefirsthalf-lineonoferwinnaðandawyrgdan,suggestthatthepoetwishedto

punctuatethefocustheaudience’sattentiononthesoldierofGod’sraisond’être

whichearnshimglory(wuldres).101

99LaurenceShook,‘TheBurialMoundinGuthlacA’,ModernPhilology58:1(1960),8a,argues,however,thattheliteralmeaningofsetlasseatimpliesthattheanchorageisa‘prototypeof,[Guthlac’s]seatinheavenlyglory’.100ThomasD.Hill,‘DrawingtheDemon’sSting:ANoteonaTraditionalMotifinFelix’sVitaSanctiGuthlaci’,NotesandQueries23:9(1976),388–90;FrancesLipp,‘GuthlacA:AnInterpretation’,MediaevalStudies33(1971),60–61.101Roberts,GuthlacPoem,pp.127–28,takesline25tobetheendoftheAngel’sspeech,whichsuggeststhatthehypermetricityisalsoemployedtopunctuatethespeech.Coker,‘VoicingtheSupernatural’,pp.9–14,193–95and215–22,analysestheuseofhypermetricsinGuthlacA.SeealsoGriffith,‘ExtraAlliteration’,88–90.

Thisspiritualconflictandtheimportanceofwarriorcultureinthe

contemplativelife,isdemonstratedbyGuthlac’sfightagainstthedevilsoverthe

‘barrowmound’onCrowland.FromtheestablishmentofthesaintonCrowland,

theLifeofGuthlacandVitabothframeGuthlac’seremiticlifewithmartial

imageryandthetropesofthemilesChristi:

Eratergoannorumcirciteruigintisex,cumseinternubilososremotiorisheremilucos,cumcaelestiadiutorio,ueriDeimilitemesseproposuit.Deindepraecinctusspiritalibusarmisaduersusteterrimihostisinsidias,scutumfidei,loricamspei,galeamcastitatis,arcumpatientiae,sagittaspsalmodiae,seseinaciefirmans,arripuit.Tantaeenimfiduciaeerat,utintertorridastartariturmassesecontemptohosteiniecerit…102NamsicutegregiumdoctoremgentiumDamascumpergentem,quemanteseculaeuangeliumFiliisuinuntiarepraedestinauit,detenebrosaIudaeorumerroriscaliginecaelestiuocededuxit;sicetsanctaememoriaeuirumGuthlacum,detumidoaestuantisseculigurgite,deobliquismortalisaeuianfractibus,deatrisuergentismundifaucibus,adperpetuaebeatitudinismilitiam,addirectiitineriscallem,adueriluminisprospectumperduxit.(§27).

Hæfdeheþaonyldesixandtwentigwintra,þaheærestseGodescempaonþamwestenemidheofenlicregifegeweorðodgesæt. Þasonawiðþamscotungumþarawerigragasta,þæthehinemidgastlicumwæpnumgescylde:henamþonescyldþæshalgangastesgeleafan;andhyneonþærebyrnangegearowodeþæsheofonlicanhihtes;andhehimdydeheolmonheafodclænera geþanca;andmidþamstrælumþæshalgansealmsangesasingallicewiðþamawerigedumgastumsceotodeandcampode.AndnuhwætysswaswiþetowundrianneþadiglanmihteuresDrihtnes,andhismild-heortnyssedomas;hwamægþaealleasecgan?SwáseæþelalareowealraþeodaScsPaulusseapostolþoneureDrihtenælmihtigGodforestihtodegodspelliannehisfolce;hewæsærþonehterehisþærehalgancyrcan,andmidþanþehetoDamascumferdeþærebyrig,þæthewæsofþamþystrumgedwolumabrodenIudeaungeleafulnyssemidþamswegeheofonlicrestefne;swáþonneþærearwurðangemyndeGuðlacofþæregedrefednysseþissereworuldewæsgelædedtocamp-hadeþæsecanlifes.(§3:53–73)

102SeveralsentencespraisingtheomniscienceandjudgementofGodhavebeenomittedhere.

‘Whenhewasabouttwenty-sixyearsofage,hesetforthwiththehelpofheaventobethesoldierofthetrueGodamongtheshadyplacesoftheremotewilderness.Then,girdinghimselfwithspiritualarmsagainstthesnaresofthemostwickedenemy,hetookuptheshieldoffaith,thebreastplateofhope,thehelmetofchastity,thebowofpatience,thearrowsofpsalmody,makinghimselfstrongforthebattle-line.Indeed,sogreatwashisfaiththat,despisingthefoe,hehurledhimselfagainstthetorridtroopsofTartarus…Forjustas[God]withaheavenlyvoicehadledforththegreatteacheroftheGentileswhenhewasonhiswaytoDamascusoutofthegloomymistoftheerroroftheJews,himwhomhadbeenpredestinedbeforeallworldlyrealmstopreachtheGospeloftheSon,so[God]ledGuthlac,amanofsaintlymemory,fromtheragingabyssofthisturbulenttime,fromthewindingroutesofthismortalage,fromtheblackmawsofthisdecliningworldtothewarforeternalbliss,tothepathofthecorrectjourneyandvisionoftruelight.’

‘Whenhewastwenty-sixyearsold,thewarriorofGodfirstbecameestablishedinthatdistantwastewithheavenlygrace.Thenimmediatelyheshieldedhimselfwithspiritualarmsagainstthearrowsofthosewickedspirits;hetooktheshieldoffaithoftheholyspirit;anddonnedthebyrnieofheavenlyhopeonhimself;andheplacedthehelmetofpurethoughtsonhishead;andwiththedartsofholypsalmodyheshotandfoughtthosewickedspiritscontinually.AndnowwhatistheresomuchtowonderatthanthesecretmightofourLord,andthejudgmentsofhismercy;whomaytellallofthem?Justasthenobleteacherofallnations,StPaultheapostle,whomourLordAlmightyGodforeordainedtopreachingthegospeltohispeople;hewhowasbeforeapersecutorofhisholychurch,andwhenhejourneyedtothecityDamascushewasdeliveredfromthedarkerrorsoftheJews'disbeliefbythesoundofaheavenlyvoice;sotooGuthlacofworthymemorywasledfromthetribulationofthisworldtothemilitaryserviceoftheeternallife.’

ThispassageequatesGuthlac’smovetoCrowlandwiththeepiphanyofStPaul,

whopersecutedChristianityinthe‘darkerrorsofJewishdisbelief’andgivesup

hislifeasapersecutorofhisenemiestodevotehimselftoChrist.103Bothshare

pastsaspersecutors,andgiveuptheirworldlywarriorculturefordevotionto

Christ.Guthlac’slinktoPaulisfurtheremphasisedthroughthedescriptionof

spiritualarmour,whichultimatelyderivesfromPaul’slettertotheEphesians

6:10–17.104ThecomparisonofPaul’sconversiontoGuthlac’smovetoCrowland

asananchorite,andnotGuthlac’sinitialtransitionfromworldlypursuitsinto

monkhood,suggeststhatFelixandtheLife’scompilersawtheanchoriticlifeas

theholiestorderandthetrueremissionofthe‘tribulationofthisworld’

103ThomasD.Hill,‘Hebrews,IsraelitesandWickedJews:AnOnomasticCruxinAndreas161–67’,Traditio32(1976),358–61,highlightstheanti-SemiticsentimentintheAndrew-narratives.104Hermann,‘RecurrentMotifs’,7–35.Seealsopp.1–3above.

(gedrefednysseþissereworulde).105ThereferencetoPaul’sdispellingof‘dark

errors’alsoportraysthemilesChristiasonewhofightsagainsttemptationand

theenemiesofthefaithforthebenefitofthewiderChristiancommunity.

Guthlac’snewstateofbeingisthencalled‘themilitaryserviceoftheeternallife’.

Theshiftinecclesiasticalvocationisthuspresentedasastepup,asGuthlacis

referredtonowasa‘warrior’,cempa.Inthisnewrole,Guthlacisanactivefighter

forChristratherthanamereservant.

TheOldEnglishtermusedforthespiritualsoldiership,camp-had,isa

militaryexpressionthatwasappropriatedforChristiancontexts.106Theterm

alsoappearsfivetimesintheOldEnglishtranslationofBede’sHistoria,each

timealongsideanadjectivethatdistinguisheswhethercamp-hadisbeingusedin

aliteralormetaphysicalsense.107ThisisclearlyseenwhenOswydonatestwelve

portionsoflandpreviouslyusedtosupport‘earthlyfighting’(militiaeterrestris/

eorðlicescomp-hades)toamonasterysothatitmightsupportmonksengagedin

‘heavenlyfighting’(militiamcaelestem/heofonlicancomp-had).108Later,the

termcamp-hadagaindescribesthe‘worldlysoldiership’(weoroldlicnecomp-

had)thatmanynobleNorthumbriansleavebehindwhendedicatingthemselves

tothemonasticorder.109Useofthewordcamp-hadinthetranslationofthe

Historiasuggeststhatthecompoundcamp-hadhadalreadyassumedspiritual

connotationsbythelateninthcentury,andauthorsneededtoprovidecontext

forthetermtodistinguishwhetheritreferredtoworldlyorspiritualwarfare.

Similarly,twolatetenth-centuryglossesofAldhelm’sproseDeuirginitatis

translate‘thenovitiateofchastehabits’(castaeconversationistirocinio)with

camp-had,suggestingthatthetermhadtakenonecclesiasticalconnotations.110

FelixandtheLife’scomposerarepartofthisChristiantraditionofadaptingthe

genericmilitaryconceptsofcamp-hadandmilitiaforaspiritualcontext,aligned

withtheRegulaBenedicti’sportrayaloftheanchoriteasafighter.111

105Lipp,‘Interpretation’,48–49.106DOEs.v.camphád.107HEI:7;V:11.108HEIII:24;Miller,ed.,OldEnglishVersionofBede,p.236.109HEV:22–23;Miller,ed.,OldEnglishVersionofBede,p.480.110Ald.uirg(prosa)238:12.FortheOldEnglishglossesoftheDelaudeuirginitate,seeLouisGoossens,ed.TheOldEnglishglossesofMS.Brussels,RoyalLibrary,1650(Brussel:PaleisderAcademiën,1974),p.192.111Albertson,SaintsandHeroes,p.24;Jones,‘Envisioning’,267.

TheseanchoriticsoldiersofChristdefeatdevilsusingspiritual

armaments,whichGuthlacdonsashesettlesonCrowland.112AsGuthlacAsays,

‘hereadiedhimselfeagerlywithspiritualarmaments’(gyredehinegeornemid

gæstlicumwæpnum,lines177–78a).AlthoughtheOldEnglishdescriptioninthe

passageaboveomitsthe‘bowofpatience’(arcumpatientiae)thatisnotedinthe

Vita,theLifeexpandsthedescriptionofeachotherpieceofspiritualarmourto

emphasizetheholynatureofmilesChristi,sothatthescutumfidei(‘shieldof

faith’)becomesscyldþæsHalganGastesgeleafan(‘theshieldofthefaithofthe

holyspirit’);theloricamspei(‘breastplateofhope’)becomesthebyrnan…

heofonlicanhihtes(‘byrnieofheavenlyhope’);thegaleamcastitatis(‘helmetof

chastity’)becomestheheolm…clænera geþanca(‘helmetofpurethoughts’);the

sagittaspsalmodiae(‘arrowsofpsalmody’)becomethestrælumþæshalgan

sealmsanges(‘arrowsofholypsalmody’).TheOldEnglishexpansionshighlight

theideathattheseweaponsareunequivocallyfaith-basedandthatthesaintis

arminghimselfasametaphoricalsoldier.

FramingGuthlac’sinternalstrugglewithtemptationasalargerbattle

againsttheforcesofSatanplaysoutinthesaint’sconversionofCrowlandfor

Christianuse.Whileothersaintshavedemonicenemies,Guthlac’senemiesare

actuallydemons,113andinthewordsofMayr-Harting,‘Crowlandattract[s]devils

assea-islandsattractpuffins.’114Assuch,theGuthlac-narrativesframeCrowland

asanidealplacefortheeremiticsainttotakeupthespiritualarmsofamiles

112Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.42–43,suggeststhatFelix’sportrayalofspiritualarmourisinfluencedbyEvagarius’VitaAntoniiandBede’sproseVitaCuthberti,thoughOrchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,pp.16–17,demonstrateshowFelix’sdescriptionofspiritualarmourismorelikelyanexpansionofthedescriptioninJerome’sVitaPauliprimieremitaethandirectlyfollowingthePaulinetradition.113Lee,Guest-Hall,pp.103and114–15.M.C.Cameron,‘TheVisionsofSaintAntonyandGuthlac’,inHealth,Disease,andHealinginMedievalCulture,ed.SheilaCampbell,BertHall,andDavidKlausner(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1992),pp.152–58,suggeststhatthedevilsactuallyexistedforthehistoricalGuthlacashallucinationsarisingfromtheconsumptionofergotizedbarley-breadandvitamindeficiency.Whilehisstudyignoresthehighly-stylisednatureofthedemon-fightsaswellasFelix’suseofothereremiticsaints’Lives,itdoesprovideafeasiblehypothesisforhowmysticalvisionscouldhaveoccurred.114Mayr-Harting,ComingofChristianity,p.230.SeeMichaelChisholm,‘CrowlandinStGuthlac’sTime’,inRobertsandThacker(2020),pp.316–25,andJustinNoetzel,‘Monster,Demon,Warrior:StGuthlacandtheCulturalLandscapeoftheAnglo-SaxonFens’,Comitatus45(2014),105–20,fordiscussionsofthehistoricallandscapeofCrowlandinLincolnshireaswellastheplaceofthefenlandsinAnglo-Saxonliteraryimaginations.

Christi.115CrowlandisaplacefortheRegula’smetaphoricalassertionthatan

anchoritewillfightdemonsaloneinthedeserttobemadeliteral.116

Psalmsandthesignofthecrossaretheonlyaggressiveapotropaic

weaponsGuthlacuses.117TheLifestatesthatthesaint‘continuallyshotand

foughtwithcursedspirits’(singallicewiðþamawerigedumgastumsceotodeand

campode)usingthePsalms,anditisbyrecitingpsalmsthatGuthlacdispelsthe

devilsbeforehismasteryoftemptation(§§29,34).Whenthedevilsattemptto

driveGuthlacfromCrowlandintheformofwildbeasts,heprotectshimselfwith

the‘signofthecross’and‘shieldofholyfaith’:

SanctusitaqueChristifamulus,armatocordesignosalutari.(§36).

HeþasehalgawerGuþlachinegewæpnodemidþanwæpneþæreCristesrode,andmidþamscyldeþæshalgangeleafan.(§8:11–13).

‘AndsothesaintlyservantofChrist,havingarmedhisheartwiththesignofsalvation.’

‘Thenhe,theholymanGuthlac,armedhimself with the weapon of Christ’scrossandwiththeshieldofholyfaith.’

TheOldEnglishismoreexplicitthantheVitainidentifyingthe‘signofsalvation’

(signosalutari),asthe‘crossofChrist’(Cristesrode).Thisexpansiononthe

spiritualweaponsintheOldEnglishtextfollowstheexpansionwesawearlierin

thedescriptionofGuthlac’sarmamentsoffaith.Theseexpansionsareof

particularnotegiventheLife’sgeneralabbreviationoftheVita.Suchexpansions

likelyindicatetheadapter’sortransmitter’sinterestandemphasisetheaspects

ofthenarrativethatheorshefoundimportant.Theemphasisonthecrossis

115SeeStephanieClark’sanalysisoflandscapesinanchoritichagiographiesin‘AMorePermanentHomeland:LandTenureinGuthlacA’,ASE40(2011),76–79.116Clark,‘PermanentHomeland’,84–99,arguesthatspiritualwarfareinGuthlacAisframedasalanddisputebetweenGuthlacandthedevilsfollowingAnglo-Saxonlandtenurecustoms.Accordingtoheranalysis,thedevilsinhabitCrowlandwithatemporaryland-grantnullifiedbytheirrebellionagainstGodaswellasGuthlac’sowndrivetosettlethelandforGod’speace.DavidJohnson,‘SpiritualCombatandtheLandofCanaaninGuthlacA’,inIntertexts,ed.VirginiaBlantonandHélèneScheck(Tempe:ArizonaCenterforMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,2008),pp.311–17,suggestsGuthlac’sstrugglewiththedemonsresemblesthetreatmentoftheCanaanitesinScripture,andthattheconflictoverCrowlandshouldbereadinabiblicalcontext.117Downey,‘Intertextuality’,p.33,andGilberto,‘DescensusadInferos’,p.252,suggestGuthlac’sapotropaicuseofthecrossderivesfromtheVitaAntonii.ForuseofthecrossintheGuthlac-poemsoftheExeterbook,seeRoberts,‘SealsoftheCross’,125.ForapotropaicuseofcrossthroughoutOldEnglishliterature,seeDavidJohnson,‘TheCruxUsualisasApotropaicWeaponinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inThePlaceoftheCrossinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.CatherineE.Karkov,SarahKeefer,andKarenJolly(Woodbridge:Boydell,2006),pp.80–95.

carriedthroughtheLife’schapterasGuthlacbanishesdemonsusingboththe

crossandwords,wheretheVitashowsthesaintusingonlywords.118Similarly,

theLifeaddsthe‘theshieldofholyfaith’inreferencetothearmouroffaith

presentedearlierinthestory.Thismartiallanguage,usedthroughoutthe

narrative,situatestheconflictsofGuthlac’ssoulinthepsychomachiatradition

thatequatesspiritualtemptationwithblowsfromweapons,andthesoulwith

armourorfortresses.119

Indepictingtemptationasarrows,theGuthlac-narrativesimbuethe

spiritualstrugglewithphysicalattributes,asseeninGuthlac’sfirsttemptation

aftersettlingonCrowland:

Tuncantiquushostisprolishumanae…Cumenimomnesnequitiaesuaeuiresuersutamentetemptaret,tumvelutiabextensoarcuuenenifluamdesperationissagittamtotisuiribusiaculauit,quousqueinChristimilitismentisumbonedefixapependit.Intereacumtelumtoxicumatriuenenisuccuminfunderet,tuncmilesChristitotissensibusturbatus,deeoquodincoeperatdesperarecœpit;ethucillucqueturbulentumanimumconvertens,quosolosederetnesciebat.Namcumsuaantecommissacriminaimmensiponderisfuissemeditabatur,tuncsibideseabluieanonposseuidebatur.Intantumenimdesperarecœpit,utinfinitumetimportabileopusseincoepisseputasset.DeindeChristifamulus,triumdierumuicissitudinibus,quoseuerteretnesciebat.(§29).

Þaseealdafeondmancynnes...Midþyheþahisyfelnyssemægenandgrymnysseattorteldode,þæthemidþanþamenniscanheortanwundode,þasemningaswaheofgebendumboganhiscostungestrealeonþammodegefæstnodeþæsCristescempan,ðaheþaseeadigawermidþæregeættredanstrealegewundodwæsþæsawerigedangastes,ðawæshismodþæseadiganweresswiðegedrefedonhim,beþamonginneþeheongan,þætwestenswaanaeardigan.Midþamheþahinehiderandþydergelomliceonhismodecyrde,andgemundeþaærransynnaandleahtrasþehegefremedeandgeworhthaefde,andþamaranandunmættrahimsylfadyde,þonnehewendeþæthehiæfregebetanmihte.Ðahæfdehineseodeofollicestrælmidormodnyssegewundodne.WæsseeadigawerGuðlacmidþæreormodnysseþridagasgewundod,þæthesylfanystehwiderhewoldemidhismodegecyrran.(§4:38–73).

‘Thentheancientenemyofthehumanrace…whilehewastryingoutallthepowersofhisownwickednesswitha

‘Thentheoldenemyofmankind…whilehe[wasdealingout]thepowerofhiswickednessandthevenomofhis

118Roberts,‘SealsoftheCross’,115.119Doubleday,‘SoulasFortress’,503–08;seepp.16–17inChapterTwo.

cunningmind,shotasfromabowfullydrawn,apoisonedarrowofdespairwithallhismightsothatitstuckfastintheveryshieldbossofthemindofthesoldierofChrist.Meanwhile,whenthepoisoneddarthadpouredinitsconcoctionofblackvenom,thenthesoldierofChristwasdisturbedinallhissenses;andhebegantodespairaboutwhathehadundertaken,andturningthiswayandthatinhistroubledmindheknewnotinwhatplacetorestalone.Forwhenheruminateduponhowthesinshehadcommittedinthepastwereofimmensegravity,thenitseemedtohimthathecouldnotbecleansedofthem.Indeed,sogreatlydidhebegintodespairthathethoughthehadundertakenaninfiniteandinsupportablelabour.ThentheservantofChrist,amidstuncertaintiesforthreedays,didnotknowwhereheshouldturn.’

cruelty,withwhichhemightwoundtheheartsofmen,suddenlyhefixedthedartofhistemptationinthemindofChrist'ssoldierasfromabendedbow.Whentheblessedmanwaswoundedwiththepoisoneddartoftheaccursedspirit,thentheblessedman'smindwasgreatlytroubledwithinhim,concerningtheundertakinghehadbegun,namely,thatheshouldsodwellaloneinthewilderness.Withthatheturnedhimselfhitherandthithercontinuallyinhismind,andrememberedthoseprevioussinsandwickednesseswhichhehadcommittedandwrought,andhethoughtthathehimselfhaddonegreaterandmoreenormoussinsthanhecouldeveramend.Thenhadthedevilishdartwoundedhimwithdesperation.TheblessedmanGuthlacwaswoundedwiththatdespairforthreedays,sothathehimselfknewnotwhitherhewouldturninhismind.’

AlthoughbothversionsblamethedevilforGuthlac’sdespair,theydifferin

describingtheoriginofGuthlac’sdoubt.TheVitaismoreconcernedwiththe

saint’sinternalstruggle,whiletheLifepresentsthestruggleasawound

externallyinflicted.IntheLatintext,wordsofthinkingorthought,suchasmens,

anima,nescire,meditari,anduideri,permeatethepassagetoshowGuthlac

internallyoverwhelmedwithhisowndespair.Thesearetakenupinpartinthe

OldEnglishpassagewithcorrespondingreferencestothe‘mind’(mod)andheart

(heort).TheOldEnglishemphasisesthatGuthlac’sdespairstemsfroman

externallyinflictedwound,whichthedevilinflictsuponGuthlac,andnotfrom

withinthesaint’sownmind.

Thedevilisconceivedofasanarcherwhobendshisbow(gebendum

bogan)toshootpoisonedarrows(geættredanstreale)atthesaint.120These

arrowsinducedoubtinGuthlac,whoissaidtobe‘wounded’(gewundod/

gewundodne).Wordsthatdenote‘wounding’,derivedfromtheverbwundian,

120ForadiscussionofOldEnglishportrayalsofthedevilasanarcher,seepp.15–18above.

appearfourtimesintheshortOldEnglishpassage,emphasisingthattemptation

shouldbeseenwithinthecontextofaphysicalbattle.Thislanguageequates

metaphysicaltemptationwithtangiblewoundsandlinkstheunmartyredsaintto

thephysicalsufferingenduredonthepathtosalvation.121Theuseofalliteration

intheOldEnglish(gebendumbogan,Cristescempan,anaeardigan)further

focusesattentiononthemartialaspectsofthepassage:thedevil’sbow,the

soldierofChrist,andhisabilitytoexistaloneagainsttemptation.TheLifethen

repeatsthatGuthlac’sdoubtiscausedbythedevil’sdart,saying‘thedevilishdart

woundedhimwithdesperation’.TheclausehasnoparallelintheVitaand

reinforcestheideathatGuthlac’sdoubtisexternallyinflicted.

AcloseparalleloftheLifeofGuthlac’sportrayalofthe‘arrowsofsin’is

thelateninth-centuryOldEnglishPsalm10,122whichsays:

Quoniameccepeccatoresintenderuntarcum;paraueruntsagittassuasinpharetra,utsagittentinobscurorectoscorde.

Icwat,þeah,forþamþeþasynfullanbendaðheoraboganandfyllaþheoracocerasmidflanum,toþamþæthimagonsceotanþaunscyldiganheortandygolliceþonanhilæstwenað.123

‘For,lo,thewickedhavebenttheirbow;theyhavepreparedtheirarrowsinthequiver;toshootinthedarktheuprightofheart.’

‘Iknow,however,becausethosesinfulbendtheirbowsandfilltheirquiverswitharrows,sothattheymightshoottheinnocentheartsecretly,whentheyleastexpectit.’

TheOldEnglishpsalmhighlightsthemartialimageryoftemptationthrough

alliteration.First,thealliterationon‘b’inbendaðandboganstressesthebows

withwhichsinnersshoottheirarrowsoftemptation,andisthesameasthat

foundintheLifeofGuthlacwithgebendumbogan.Attentionisthendrawntothe

arrowsfiredbysinfulshootersinthealliterationon‘f’betweenfyllaþand

flanum.Theactionoftemptation‘shooting’(sceotan)likewisealliterateswiththe

121Lee,Guest-Hall,pp.115,121.PeterDendle,‘PainandSaintMakinginAndreas,Bede,andtheOldEnglishLivesofStMargaret’,inVarietiesofDevotionintheMiddleAgesandRenaissance7(2007),45–51,arguesthattheagnosticinterpretationofpainasanecessarypartofattainingsainthoodwaswell-knowninAnglo-SaxonEngland.122ForadiscussionoftheinfluenceofthePsalmsintheVitaandLifeseeHelenAppleton,‘ThePsalterintheProseLivesofStGuthlac’,inGermano–Celtica:AFestschriftforBrianTaylor,ed.AndersAhlquistandPamelaO’Neill(Sydney:TheUniversityofSydney2017),pp.68–72and77–83;Atherton,‘FigureoftheArcher’,653–56,analysesthemotifofthedevilasanarcher.123PatrickO’Neill,ed.,TheOldEnglishPsalms(Cambridge,MA;London,England:HarvardUniversityPress,2016),p.30.

‘innocent’(unscyldigan)heartsshot,linkingtemptationwiththerootscyld

(‘guilt’or‘sin’)aswellascontrastingthosesinfuloneswhoshootwiththosethat

donot.Qualifyingthisattackasoneconducted‘secretly’(dygollice/inobscuro)

furthercondemnstheactionaslackingmartialvirtuethroughusingsubterfuge.

ThesimilaritybetweenthePsalmandtheLifeofGuthlacsuggeststheGuthlac-

narrativeswereconsciouslyembeddingtheirsaintinthetraditionofmartial

spiritualityestablishedfromScriptureandwidelydisseminatedinOldEnglish

duringtheninthcentury.124

Thedevilsarenottheonlyactorswhobeararmsandfightinphysical

terms.125LiketheangelswhocometoMartin’said,theangelsinGuthlacAare

also‘armedwithweaponsofspirits’(gearwemidgæstawæpnumline89).These

holyweaponsareformidable,evendeadly,forthedemonstheyattack.Inthe

VitaandLifeofGuthlac,thedevilsdescribeeremiticsaintsviolentlyquelling

temptationbyfasting:126

Humanaeinfirmitatisvitiaabstinentiæframeainterimebant.(§30).

Onheomealleuncysteofaslogonandacwealdon.(§5:33–35).

‘Theydestroyedthevicesofhumanswiththespearofabstinence.’

‘Theyslewandkilledallvicesinthem.’

Here,theLifeomitsthereferencetothe‘spearofabstinence’intheLatin.This

omissionavoidsaddinganotherspiritualarmamentnotmentionedinitsinitial

descriptionofGuthlac’sspiritualarmsaswellasmaintainingtheideathatthe

psalmodyandsignofthecrossweretheonlyaggressiveweaponsforasaint.In

placeoftheabstinentiæframea,theLifeemploysthedoubletofaslogonand

acwealdontomaketheviolenceofthispassagestrongerthantheVita,which

usesasingleverbinterimere(‘toabolish’).Inusingthesamedoubletwhichhad

previouslydescribedGuthlac’smilitarycampaigns(§17),theLifealsoindicates

thatGuthlac’sspiritualwarfarehassupersededhissecularsoldiering.

Theideaofthephysicaloverthrowofdemonsissummarizedattheendof

Guthlac’sstruggleagainstthedevilsinchapter35:

124Pezzarossa,‘IdeologyofWar’,pp.108–21;andpp.1–3and15–18above.125Abdou,‘SpeechandPower’,204.126SeeDowney,‘TooMuch’,89–127,forananalysisoftheAnglo-Saxonattitudetowardsfasting.

Postnonmultumtempus,cumuiruitaeuenerabilisGuthlacuscontrainsidiaslubricihostissaepecertandotriumphabat;ecce,zabulus,uiressuasfractascomperiens,nouasuersutiasaduersuseumsubtoxicopectoreuersarecœpit.(§35).

MidþyseeadigawerGuðlacswagelomlicewiðþamawerigedumgastumwannandcampode,þaongeatonhi,þætheoramægnandweorcoferswyþedwæs.(§6:20–23).

Notmuchtimeafterwards,whenthemanofvenerablelifeGuthlacwasoftentriumphinginthefightagainstthesnaresofthedeceitfulfoe;behold,thedevil,realisingthathisownstrengthwasbroken,begantoturnnewguileagainst[thesaint]withinhispoisonousbreast.

SincetheblessedmanGuthlacsofrequentlyfoughtandbattledagainstthecursedspirits,theyperceivedthattheirpowerandworkwasovercome.

TheOldEnglishsaysthatGuthlac‘foughtandbattled’thedemons,andasaresult

theyknewthattheirabilitytotempthimwasundone.Theclusteringofdoublets

intheLifeconnectsGuthlac’svictoriousbreakingofthedemon’smightwithhis

pastvictoriesoverhisphysicalenemies.Yet,thedoubletsalsoconnectGuthlac’s

tothemonasticmilesChristitraditionasawarriorwhooverthrowshisspiritual

adversaries.ThephrasewinnianandcampianalsoappearsintheOldEnglish

RegulaBenedicti,whichstatesthatonewould‘wishtofightandcontendunder

thisrule’(Herisseoæ,þeþuunderhyretecingewinnanwiltandcampian).127The

shareduseofthedoubletsuggeststhatthephrasewasadoptedfromsecular

contextsformonasticlife,similartotheappropriationofthetermcamp-had.

HillsuggeststhattheGuthlacA-poetappropriatedsecularheroicdiction,

butlimitedhimselforherselfprimarilytophraseswhichwereestablishedin

monastictraditionsofthemilesChristi.128However,Hilldoesnotanalysethe

overtlymartialnatureoftheinteractionbetweenGuthlacandthedemons,orthe

implicitviolencethatHermanndemonstratesispartofthespiritualwarfare

metaphor.129Thepoemfirststatesthatthosewhogotoheavenaresteadfastin

faith,teachandperformChrist’slaw,praisegodandsubdueaccursedspirits

(oferwinnaðþaawyrgdangæstas,lines25a).Itthenrelateshowanangeland

devildobattleoverGuthlac’ssoul(lines115–16),andlaterdepictsGuthlacasa127ArnoldSchröer,ed.,DieWinteney-VersionderRegulaS.Benedicti(Halle:M.Niemeyer,1888),p.117.ComparetothepassageintheRegulaII:628,eieccelex,subquamilitareuis.128Hill,‘SoldierofChrist’,65–68.129Hermann,Allegories,pp.47–48.

Cristescempasubduingenemydevils(lines152–53).Thepoemcontinuesto

emphasisethatwarriorsofGoddespiseensnarersortemptersand‘fight’

(campian)forGodintheirhearts(lines344–47),beforeendingwithadefinition

ofamilesChristiasonewholovesfasting,fightssins,keepstruth,avoidseviland

strivesinprayers(lines799b–810).GuthlacAreferstosaintsastriedand

experiencedwarriors(gecostancempan,line91),whilethedevilsare‘grim

thegns’(þegnasgrimme,line546)orfootsoldiers(feðe-hwearfum,line191b).

Thedevilsarepresentedasanarmywithcavalryandinfantry(mearaþreatum

ondmon-farum,line286).Guthlac,meanwhile,isa‘warriorofglory’(wuldres

cempa,line324)and‘thesteadfastleaderinfightsagainstfoes’(wæssefruma

fæstlicfeondumonondan,line772).

Thecentralstructureoverwhichthesaintanddemonsfightisthe

tumulus,beorg,orhlæwthatGuthlacsettlesupon.130Therehasbeen

considerabledebateconcerninghowtointerprettheplaceGuthlacsettles.131

ClarksummarisesthatmostinterpretbeorgeitherasaChristianmetaphor,in

whichthebeorgwillbeseenasanallegoricalhillrepresentingGuthlac’spursuit

ofsalvation,132orinlightofGermanicheroicliteratureinwhichbeorgreferstoa

paganbarrow.Thetermstumulusandhlæw,foundintheVitaandLifeofGuthlac,

generallyrefertoa‘burial-mound’or‘barrow’.133Shookfollowsthe‘heroic’

readingofthestructuretomaintainthatGuthlactakesresidenceonapagan

barrow-moundinalloftheGuthlac-narratives.134However,thetermbeorgused

130MargaretE.Bridges,GenericContrastinOldEnglishHagiographicalPoetry:Anglistica22(Copenhagen:RosenkildeandBagger,1984),pp.129–34;Hall,‘Constructing’,pp.212and224–30;O’BrienO’Keeffe,‘GuthlacCrossings’,9–25;AlfredSiewers,‘LandscapesofConversion:Guthlac’sMoundandGrendel’sMereasExpressionsofAnglo-SaxonNationBuilding’,Viator34(2003),24–25;Shook,‘BurialMound’,2b–9b;KarlWentersdorf,‘GuthlacA:TheBattlefortheBeorg’,Neophilologus62(1978),135–42;KellyWickham-Crowley,‘LivingontheEcg:theMutableBoundariesofLandandWaterinAnglo-SaxonContexts’,inAPlacetoBelieveIn,ed.ClareLeesandGillianOvering(UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,2006),pp.96–99.BrittonBrooks,RestoringCreation:TheNaturalWorldintheAnglo-SaxonSaints’LivesofCuthbertandGuthlac(Suffolk:BoydellandBrewer,2019),pp.242–43,arguesthatuseofboundarywordslikehlæwandbeorg‘fixesGuthlac’sprogressioninsanctitytothephysicallandscape’.131ForasummaryofscholarshiponthebeorginGuthlacAtodate,seeMaj-BrittFrenze,‘HolyHeightsintheAnglo-SaxonImagination:Guthlac’sBeorgandSacredDeath’,JEGP117:3(2018),327–29.132StephanieClark,‘GuthlacAandtheTemptationoftheBarrow’,StudiaNeophilologica,87:1(2015),48–60and69.Clarksupportstheallegoricalreadingofthebeorg.133DMLBSs.v.tumulus;DOEs.v.hlǣw,hlāw.134Shook,‘BurialMound’,3a–4b.SeealsoAlbertson,SaintsandHeroes,p.185;EarlAnderson,‘TheUncarpenteredWorldofOldEnglishPoetry’,ASE20(1991),71–73;Hall,‘Constructing’,pp.

inGuthlacAcanmeaneithera‘mountain/hill’ora‘barrow-mound’.135This

ambiguityhasledbothReichhardtandSharmatoarguethatthebeorgshouldbe

readasametaphorforGuthlac’sascensiontowardheavenwithoutreferringtoa

physicalstructureintheflatterrainofthefens.136MagennisandRobertssupport

thisinterpretationinnotingthattheportrayalofCrowlandasagreenfieldatthe

endofthepoemisasymbolofparadise,notaliteraldescription.137However,it

appearsthatthepoetdidnotusebeorgexclusivelytomean‘mountain’or

‘barrow-mound’.Rather,heorsheseemstoencourageaudiencestoreadthe

beorgasbothaliteralpaganburialinthefenlandlandscapeaswellasthe

allegoricalmountainwhichGuthlacscalesindevotiontoGod.Theliteral

meaningisestablishedinboththeVitaandLifeasfollows:

Eratitaqueinpraefatainsulatumulusagrestibusglaebiscoaceruatus,quemolimauarisolitudinisfrequentatoreslucriergoadquirendidefodientesscindebant.Incuiuslatereuelutcisternainesseuidebatur,inquauirbeataememoriaeGuthlacdesuperinpositotuguriohabitarecoepit.(§28).

Wæsþæronþamea-landesumhlawmycelofereorðangeworht,þoneylcanmeniugearaforfeoswilnungagedulfonandbræcon.Þawæsþæronoþresidanþæshlawesgedolfenswylcemycelwæter-seaðwære.OnþamseaðeufanseeadigawerGuthlachimhusgetimbrode,sonaframfrumanþæsþeheþætancer-setlgesæt.(§4:1–17).

‘Therewasonthataforementionedislandaburialmoundbuiltofclodsofearth,whichgreedyvisitorstothedeserthadoncedugopen,inthehopeoffindingtreasurethere.Inthesideofthis[mound]thereseemedtobeasortofcistern,onwhichGuthlacthemanofblessedmemorybegantodwell,afterbuildingahutoverit.’

‘Therewasonthatislandagreatbarrowwroughtfromearth,theveryonewhichmenindaysgonebyhaddugandbrokeninto,hopingforwealth.Therewasontheothersideofthisbarrowdugagreatwater-cistern.OverthispittheblessedmanGuthlacbuilthimselfahouse,andimmediatelyfromthebeginningofthishesettledintothatplaceofhermitage.’

212–18;Wentersdorf,‘BattlefortheBeorg’,135–42;AlexandraOlsen,GuthlacofCroyland:AStudyofHeroicHagiography(Washington,D.C.:UniversityPressofAmerica,1981),pp.33–35.ForageneraloverviewofAnglo-SaxonburialmoundsseeHildaDavidson‘TheHilloftheDragon’,Folklore61:4(1950),176–77,andNoetzel,‘Monster,Demon’,121–22.135DOEs.v.beorg,citesGuthlacAforbothdefinition1.‘mountain,hill’aswellasdefinition2.‘barrow,tumulus,burialmound’.136PaulReichhardt,‘GuthlacAandtheLandscapeofSpiritualPerfection’,Neophilogus56(1974),331–38;ManishSharma,‘AReconsiderationoftheStructureof‘GuthlacA’:TheExtremesofSaintliness’,JEGP101:2(2002),186–95and200.137HughMagennis,ImagesofCommunityinOldEnglishPoetry(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),pp.180–88;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,p.132.

Here,thenarrativesdescribeaconstructedmound(eorðangeworht/agrestibus

glebiscoaceruatus)thatmenofoldbelievedtobeabarrowcontainingtreasure.

Guthlacbuildshiscellonthismoundashetakesupthemantleofananchorite.

SempleshowshowAnglo-Saxonsassociatedbarrow-moundson

boundariesorborderlandswithpaganismandthesupernatural,withsuch

placesoftenappropriatedforChristianburial-groundsormonasteriesinorder

toredefinethelandmark.138ThedescriptionofthemoundintheGuthlac-

narrativeswouldpresumablyhavecarriedsuchsuperstitiousconnotationsfor

Anglo-Saxonaudiences,whocouldhaveseenthebeorginCrowlandas

foreshadowingGuthlac’sconfrontationwithsupernaturalforces.Inbuildinghis

hermitageonthemound,Guthlacisredefiningitspagan,secular,anddemonic

connotations.Themenofthepast(meniugeara)whosoughttreasurearelike

theancientsecularheroes(iu-mannaandþæraworuld-frumena,§2:34)that

Guthlachadveneratedinhissinfulyouth.Theyarealsoreminiscentofthe‘old

kingsofthepast’(þaealdankyningas,þeiuwæron,§2:52)whohoardedwealth

andwhosememoryleadsGuthlactoabandonsecularmilitarypursuits.Secular

heroesofGermanicliteraturelikeBeowulforSigemundgotobeorgasor

‘barrows’tofightforworldlyfame,treasure,andtheslaughterofmonstrous

barrow-dwellers.139Unliketheseheroes,Guthlachastranscendedhisworldly

pursuitsandisnotonasecularmission.Hebuildshiscelloverthebarrow,

deliberatelyblockingboththeavenueforheroestoperformdeedsofworldly

reknown,aswellastheconduitthroughwhichthepagansupernaturalinteracts

withthemundaneworld.Theliteralactionofhissettlementhasanallegorical

andmoralmeaningthatdistinguisheshimfromsecularsoldiersasamiles

Christi.

UnlikepreviousvisitorstoCrowland,whoseekworldlytreasure,Guthlac

settleshimselfforspiritualreward.Theineffectualpursuitoftreasure,reflected

138SarahSempleemploysamixofarcheological,place-name,andliteraryevidencein‘AFearofthePast:ThePlaceofthePrehistoricBurialMoundintheIdeologyofMiddleandLaterAnglo-SaxonEngland’,WorldArchaeology30:1(1998),109–26.SeealsoDavidson,‘HilloftheDragon’,175–79;Sharma,‘Structure’,200.139Beowulflines884b–97a,2510–91aand3087–100;Hall,‘Constructing’,pp.216–18;Meaney,‘HistoryorHagiography’,pp.79b–80b;Noetzel,‘Monster,Demon’,110–13;Siewers,‘LandscapesofConversion’,10–13and26;Wentersdorf,‘BattlefortheBeorg’,136–42.

inthemenofoldwhowereeagerforwealth,isthusjuxtaposedwithGuthlac’s

fruitfuluseofthemound.Thehagiographicaldisdainforworldlyheroesis

stressedintheimpliedfailureofpreviousbarrowrobbers‘hopingforwealth’

(forfeoswilnunga).Indevaluingtheheroicapproachtothemound,the

narrativescritiquethefameofheroeslikeBeowulforSigemundwhoare

celebratedforbringingwealthoutofbarrow-mounds.140Incontrast,Guthlac’s

sanctifiedsettlementmakesthebarrenpaganbarrowbountifulforChristiansof

allordersofsocietylookingforspiritualwealth(§45).141TheVitaandLife

highlightthiscontrastindescribingthe‘treasurehoardofwisdom’(thesaurum

sapientiae,§51;ealragesnyttragold-hord,§20:167)thatGuthlacprovidesthehis

death.142TheGuthlacA-poetsimilarlypresentsconflictingconceptionsofthe

beorgasboththeliteralbarrowthatisemptyforthetreasurehuntersaswellas

aseatofexile(wræc-setl)fordemons,andamountainofsalvationforthemiles

Christithatbecomesaparadisalgrenawong(lines232,477and746).

AfterGuthlac’ssettlementonCrowland,heisbesetbydemonswho

attempttotempthimfromhispurposeaswellastodrivehimfromthe

barrow.143Guthlac’sstruggleagainstthedemonsinawastelandfollowsthe

hagiographicalconventionofthemilesChristi.144Inthebattleoverthebeorg,

boththedemonsandGuthlacfollowthesameplanofattackthatthedevilin

Julianalines352–417describesfortemptingsouls.Guthlac,the‘holywarrior,

hardofresistance’(eadigoretta,ondwigesheard)goestothebarrowarmedwith

spiritualweapons(gæstlicumwæpnum,lines176–78a).Thedevilsattemptto

driveGuthlacfromhispietywiththearrowsoftemptationbut,toadaptthe

wordsofBelialinJulianalines382–83,‘theymeetacourageouslybravesoldier

140Davidson,‘HilloftheDragon’,180–82;Hall,‘Constructing’,213–19and231;Mayr-Harting,ComingofChristianity,pp.231–16;Wentersdorf,‘BattlefortheBeorg’,136.Whitelock,Audience,pp.80–82,postulatesthattheGrendel-kinanddragoninBeowulfwereinspiredbyFelix’sVita.AlexandraOlsen,‘GuthlacontheBeach’,Neophilologus64:2(1980),291–94,showshowthesaintinGuthlacBsimilarlyupsetstraditionalheroicexpectationbyinvertingthe‘heroonthebeach’trope.141Thacker,‘Monks,Preaching’,p.168.142SeeAmyFaulkner,‘TheLanguageofWealthinOldEnglishLiterature:FromtheConversiontoAlfred’,unpublishedDPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,2019),pp.128–51,forananalysisofthemetaphoricaluseoftreasurewordsintheOldEnglishBoethius.143Shook,‘BurialMound’,8b–9b.144Guthlac’sstrugglesareparticularlyinfluencedbyBartholomew’s,Antony’s,andPaultheHermit’sfightswiththedemons.Jones,‘GhostlyMentor’,pp.139–41and144–48;Kurtz,‘StAntony’,103–46;Siewers,‘LandscapesofConversion’,18.

ofGod’(ellen-rofnegemet[aþ]modignemetodescempan).Meanwhile,thesaint

useshisownarrowsofthepsalmodytobesiegethedemonicstrongholdsor

beorgas.Asalonewarrioragainstmany,Guthlacconquershismanyperils(þær

secempaoferwonfrecnessafela,lines180b–81a).145Felixpreviouslyemphasises

thesingularnatureofGuthlac’sfightthroughthetermsolitariavita(‘thesolitary

life’,§§24,28,and50)usedtodescribeGuthlac’slifeafterhedecidestoleavethe

monasteryandbecomeamilesChristi.146

AlthoughtheGuthlac-narratorsframetemptationwithtermspertaining

tophysicalwarfare,Guthlacappearstoconceiveofhisstruggleasremovedfrom

anyviolence.147Forexample,inGuthlacA,Guthlacclearlystatesthatheabstains

fromspillingblood,saying:148

Noiceowsweordongeanmidgebolgnehondoðberanþence,woruldewæpen.Nescealþeswonggodeþurhblod-gytegebuenweorðan,acicminumCristecwemanþenceleofranlace.Nuicþislondgestag,felagemeeardaþurhidelwordabodenhabbað.Nisminbreost-sefaforhtnefæge,acmefriðehealdeðofermonnacynseþemægnagehwæsweorcumwealdeð.(lines302b–12a).‘Idon’tmeantobearasword,aworldlyweapon,withanenragedhandagainstyou.Thisgoodplainshallnotbeinhabitedthroughthegushingofblood,butIaimtopleasemylordChristwithadearersacrifice.NowthatIhaveascendedthislandyouhaveofferedmanydwellingsthroughyouridlewords.Myinnermostmindisnotafraidordoomed,butHekeepsmeinpeaceovermankind,Hewhowieldsallpoweroverallworks.’

145Roberts,GuthlacPoems,p.32,arguesthatGuthlacAemphasizesthesolitarynatureofthesaint,whileDendle,SatanUnbound,pp.106–14,analysestherelationshipbetweenthevaryingnumberofdevilsthatGuthlacfights,themultifariousnatureofdemonictemptation,andthesaintasalonemilesChristi.146Roberts,‘ProseTranslation’,pp.374–75.O’BrienO’Keeffe,‘GuthlacCrossings’,11,notesthatthephrasesolitariavitamaycomefromVitaCuthberti.147AngelaAbdou,‘SpeechandPowerinOldEnglishConversionNarratives’,Florilegium17(2000),205;Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.131–46;Hall,‘Constructing’,pp.220–32,believesthattheGuthlac-poetbothutilizedandsubvertedtraditionalmodelsofheroicbehaviour.148Bolton,‘Background’,601;Lee,Guest-Hall,p.106.

Inthispassage,Guthlacreinforceshisnonviolencebyswearingofftheuseof

physicalweaponsandviolentconquest.149Guthlacthenstatesthatthe

conversionofthebeorgwillnotbethroughbloodshed(þurhblodgyte)but

throughfollowingtheexampleofChrist,whokeepspeaceovermankind(friðe

healdeðofermonnacyn).Thepoetsuggests,liketheMartinmas-homilist,thatthe

highestformofpowercannotbeheldthroughforceorviolence,butrather

throughpeace.

Guthlac’srenunciationofweaponscontrastshisearlierlifeasawarlord

anddepictionsofsecularheroeswhorelyontheswordand‘worldlyweapons’

(woruldewæpen),wieldedwithan‘enragedhand’(gebolgnehond).Guthlac’s

refusaltobecomeenragedlikewisedistanceshimfromthedemons.Elsewhere

inGuthlacAthetermgebolgen(‘enraged’)isusedtodescribedemons,whosay

thatthey‘shallbethenenraged’(beoðþagebolgne,line287a)whentheyattack

Guthlac,andarethen‘enraged’(bolgen-mode,line567b)whentheybring

GuthlactowardsHell.Thesedescriptionsof‘enraged’demonsparallelthosein

Beowulfdescribingthevengefulmentalityofmonsters,Heremod,andthe

eponymoushero(lines709,723,1539,1713,2220,2304,2401and2550),as

wellasthe‘enraged’JewsandMermedoniansinAndreas(lines128and1221).150

Bycharacterisingthedemonsasbolgen-mod,GuthlacAplacesthedemonsinthe

contextofthoseGodlessmonstrousentitiesthatexhibitbehavioursantithetical

toChristianity.TheenragedoragitatedmindsetofCrowland’sdevilsis

juxtaposedwiththesaint’sownpursuitofmakinga‘dearersacrifice’(leofran

lace)151towards‘peace’(frið),aswellasassociatingragewithdamnationsimilar

totheMartinmas-homilist’sassociationofpaganantagonistswithterms

denotinganger,suchashat-heortanorgram-hydig.152

149Bridges,GenericContrast,pp.117–26,assertsthatGuthlacisisolatedfrommartialimageryandmetaphorthroughoutGuthlacA.However,shedoesacknowledgethemotifsofthemilesChristi’sconflict,spiritualarmour,andconceptofbellimunusthroughoutthepoemsuggestthepoememploystheconventionalallegoryofspiritualwarfare.150AndyOrchard,PrideandProdigies:StudiesintheMonstersofthe‘Beowulf’-Manuscript(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1995),p.32;AndyOrchard,ACriticalCompaniontoBeowulf(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2003),pp.112and199.151Lipp,‘Interpretation’,54,andFredRobinson,‘TheSignificanceofNamesinOldEnglishLiterature’,Anglia86(1968),46–48and54–57,notethepoet’sparanomasiaofthesaint’slactoChristandGuthlac’sname.152Seepp.75–80above.

Thisconflictbetweentheviolentinstabilityofworldlytemptationandthe

peacefulstabilitasofthemilesChristipermeatestheGuthlac-narratives.153Hill

suggeststhatGuthlacA‘concernsasaintlymanwhoheldhisowndespiteall

temptation,whowasnotmovedfromeithertheplacehechoseforhimselfor

fromthe‘middleway’betweenprideanddespair.’154Similarly,Shookargues

thatthepoemwasconstructedaroundtheideaofspiritualprogressfacilitated

byangelicpsychopomps,155anideathatReichardt,Sharma,andWeberhaveall

developedfurthertoillustratethethemeofspiritualprogressionandascension

toastateofstabilitas.156GuthlacshowshowthemilesChristiisunwaveringinhis

purpose,andbanishesthedevilswiththepowerofsaintlystabilitas(GuthlacA

lines798–811).AsDendlesummarises,Guthlac‘overcomes[thedemons’]

sustainedattacksbysimplyperseveringthroughthem.’157

WhendemonsattackGuthlacintheguiseofarmedBritons,theyare

unabletoharmGuthlaceventhoughtheyassaulthimwiththeirstræle(§34).The

saintthendispelsthemwitharecitationofaPsalm67:

VelutpropheticooresexagesimiseptimiPsalmiprimumuersumpsallebat:ExurgatDeus[etdissipenturinimicieius],158etreliqua.Quoaudito,dictouelocius,eodemmomento,omnesdemoniorumturmae,uelutfumus,afacieeiuseuanuerunt.(§34).

Heþasonaunforhtliceþastræleþaraawerigdragastahimframasceaf,andþonesealmsang:Exurgatdeusetdissipentur,etreliqua.Sonaswaheþætfyrmesteferssangþæssealmes,þagewitonhiswaswasmicframhisansyne.(§6:16–20).

153Jones,‘Envisioning’,284–91,maintainsthattheGuthlac-narrativesarecommentariesonmonasticstabilitasaswellastheBenedictinevownottoleavethemonastery,whileZacher,PreachingtheConverted,pp.255–66,claimsthatthethemeoftheGuthlac-narrativesistheoppositiontomovementorstasisasdevilstrytodislodgeGuthlacfromhisislandandhismonasticideals.SeealsoColgrave,Guthlac,p.20;Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.12–17;Gilberto,‘DescensusadInferos’,pp.233–34;Roberts,‘HagiographyandLiterature’,p.83;Roberts,‘SaintforMiddleEngland’,29.154Hill,‘MiddleWay’,187.155LaurenceShook,‘ThePrologueoftheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,MediaevalStudies23(1961),296–304.156Reichardt,‘SpiritualPerfection’,331–38;Sharma,‘Reconsideration’,185–200;BenjaminWeber,‘AHarmonyofContrasts:TheGuthlacPoemsoftheExeterBook’,JEGP,114:2(2015),205–11.Wright,‘ThreeTemptations’,341–43,disagrees,arguingthatGuthlacAshowsthatthesainthasstabilitasthroughouthistemptationandthatthepoemisnotaboutspiritualprogression.157Dendle,SatanUnbound,p.104.158Colgrave,ed.,Guthlac,p.111,notesthatonlythreeoftheVitamanuscripts,C1BnG,preservealongerquotationofthePsalm.

‘Asifwithapropheticmouthhebegantosingthefirstverseofthesixty-seventhpsalm,‘MaytheLordarise[andlethisenemiesbescattered’],andtherest.Whentheyhadheardthis,inthesamemoment,quickerthanwords,allofthehordesofdemonsvanishedfromhisfacelikesmoke.’

‘Fearless,hethenimmediatelypushedawaythejavelinsofthosewickedspiritsfromhim,andsangthepsalm:ExurgatDeusetdissipentur,etreliqua.Assoonashehadsungthefirstverseofthepsalm,theydepartedjustlikesmokefromhisface.’

Thesaint’suseofpsalmodyisapotropaic,dispellingtheapparitionand

preventingthedemonsfromattackinghimagainintheguiseofBritons.Unlike

thoseintheMartinmas-homily,theLatinquotationfromthePsalmisnot

translatedintheLife,suggestingthatitsaudiencewasfamiliarwiththeLatin

psalter.159Whilethedevil’sdartscannotpiercethesaintthroughouttherestof

thestory,thesaintcandissipatethedemonslikesmoke.Thedissipationofthe

demonsfollowsthestructureofPsalm67closely,whichstates:

ExsurgatDeus,etdissipenturinimicieius;etfugiantquioderunteumafacieeius.Sicutdeficitfumus,deficient.‘MayGodariseandhisenemiesbedispersed,andmaytheywhohatedhimfleefromhisface.Justassmokewaftsaway,maytheydissipate’

ThePsalmcomplementsthemilesChristitradition,carryingtheideaofGod

dispellingenemiesofthefaithfulandprotectingtheirpossessionofordained

inheritance.160

ThedescriptionofGuthlacrepellingthedemonicjavelins(stræle)inthe

OldEnglishpassagehasnoparallelintheVitaorpsalm,butwasacommonly

presentedconcept,asdiscussedinabove.161InaddingthisdetailtheOldEnglish

adapterdemonstratesGuthlac’suseofthe‘shieldofholyfaith’towardoff

temptation.162Guthlacdoesnotprotecthimselfphysically,butwithintangible

faiththathasatangibleforceforthedemons,turningthemintosmoke.Theterm

strælbecomesdualistic,referringtoboththephysicaljavelinsthedevilscarryas

wellasthemetaphoricaljavelinsor‘temptation-darts’costungestreale(§4:48)

159Appleton,‘PsalterintheProseLives’,pp.77–83.160O’BrienO’Keeffe,‘GuthlacCrossings’,18–21.161Seepp.15–18,78,116,121–22,129,155and169.162Appleton,‘PsalterintheProseLives’,pp.81–83,linksGuthlac’sabilitytothrustawaythejavelinswithhisapotropaicuseofthe‘arrowsofthepsalmody’.

thedevilsusetocorruptpeople.Guthlacdoesnotphysicallytouchthedemons,

butusesthesteadfastnessofhisdevotionandhismild-heortness(§20:171)to

counterhisspiritualattackers.Insodoingheshowscontemptforthedemonsas

wellasthephysicalinstrumentsofwar.

Guthlac’snonviolenceisfurtheremphasisedinhisjuxtapositionwiththe

futilephysicalityofthedevils’threatsandactions.InGuthlacA,thedevilsorder

thesainttorelinquishthebeorgunderthethreatofphysicalforce:

‘Geswicþissessetles!Nemægþecsellanrædmongelæranþonneþeosmengueall.Weþebeoðholdegifðuushyranwilt,oþþeþecungearoeftgesecaðmaranmægne,þætþemonneþearfhondumhrinan,neþinhrafeallanwæpnawundum.Weþaswicmagunfotumafyllan;folcinðriceðmearaþreatumondmonfarum.Beoðþagebolgne,þaþecbreodwiað,tredaðþecondtergað,ondhyratornwrecað,toberaðþecblodgumlastum;gifþuurebidanþencest.Weþecniþagenægað.Onginþegenereswilnian,farþærðufreondawene,gifðuþinesfeoresrecce.’(lines278–90).‘“Giveupthissettlement!Noonecangiveyoubettercounselthanallthismultitude!Wewillbeloyaltoyouifyouwillheedus,sothatoneneednottouchyouwithhandsnoryourbody[need]fallwiththewoundsofweapons,orelsewewillseekyouagainwithgreaterstrength,youwhoareunprepared.Wecantopplethishutwithourfeet;atroopwithbothacavalryforceandfootsoldierswillflattenit.Theywillbeswolleninragethenwhentheystrikeyoudown,tramplingandtroublingyou,wreakingtheirangeruponyou.Theywillcarryyouawayleavingbehindbloodyfootprints;ifyouthinktoendureus.Wewillassaultyouwithhatefuldeeds.Begindesiringarefugeforyourself,gotowhereyoumighthopeforfriends,ifyoucareaboutyoursoul!”’

Theforceofthedevils,placedinreferencetotheirbodily‘hands’(hondum)and

‘feet’(fotum),isdirectedtowardsGuthlac’scorporealexistenceastheythreaten

his‘body’(hra).Theyseetheirassaultshavingaphysicalnaturereflectedinthe

bloodyfootprintstheywouldleave.Yettheseareemptythreats,asthedevils

mistakinglyconflateGuthlac’sbodywithhis‘soul’(feorh).Guthlac,standing

aloneagainstmany(sewiðmongumstod,line323b),isunwavering,andproves

thatthedevilsareincapableofpermanentlyinjuringorremovinghimbodily

fromthebeorg.

Thedemonsfailtorecognisethatphysicalsufferingdoesnotwoundthe

soul,butratheraidsitonitspathtosalvation.Guthlacreinforcesthispoint

explicitlywhenthedevilsbringhimtohell,saying:

‘Ðeahgeminneflæsc-homanfyreswylmeforgripengrom-hydgegifranlege,næfregemecofþissumwordumonwendaðþendanmecmingewitgelæsteð.

Þeahþegehinesarumforsæcen,nemotangeminesawlegretan,acgeonbetrangebringað.’(lines374–78a).‘“Thoughyou,angry-minded,mayseizemyflesh-coveringwiththefire’swelling,withgreedyflame,youwillneverturnmefromthesewords,solongasmymindlasts.Thoughyouafflictitwithpains,youcannevercomenearmysoul,ratheryouwillbringitintoabetterstate.”’

Guthlacrenounceshisownphysicality,sayingthathis‘flesh-covering’(flæsc-

homan)canbedestroyedwithoutaffectinghismind(gewit)orsoul(sawle).

Rather,Guthlacinsiststhatphysicalsufferingandviolenceinflicteduponthe

faithfulpersonbringshisorhersalvation.Guthlac’sspeechemphasisesthe

demons’powerlessnesstoaffecthimbyaddressingthemdirectlywiththe

secondpersonpluralge,andthehypermetricityoflines376–79.The

hypermetricityslowsthespeech’sflowtofocusontheinefficacyofthedemons’

assaultsonthesoul.OnceGuthlacreturnstospeakingabouthisbody,themetre

alsoreturnstoitsusualform.Thisseparationofthesoulfromthebody,along

withGuthlac’searlierrenunciationofspillingblood(line305a),cementsthe

milesChristi’sfocusonspiritualplanesofexistence.

Thedemons’inabilitytoseethatworldlymodesofcombathavenoeffect

inspiritualwarfareleadstotheirdefeat.Guthlacconquersthedemonsashe

consolidateshisfaithandbecomeslessvulnerabletoworldlysin,doubt,or

demonicassaultsonhiscorporealpresence.AfterGuthlacprovestothedemons

thattheyareunabletodraghimintohell(§31),163twoofthemlament:

163SeeGilberto,‘DescensusadInferos’,pp.233–52,andRoberts,SaintforMiddleEngland,pp.18–24,foranalysesofGuthlac’sjourneytohellintheLifeofGuthlacandGuthlacA.

‘Viresnostrasubiquepertefractaslugemus,etinertiamnostramaduersusualetudinemtuamploramus,nonenimtetangere,auttibipropinquareaudemus.’(§33).

‘Witwepað,forþonþeuncermægneallþurhþeysgebrocen,andweþenunemotontocuman,netoþenanespræcehabban;aconeallumþingumþuunchæfstgebysmrod,anduremihtealloferswyþed.’(§5:276–79).

‘“Welamentourpowersthatarebrokenbyyoueverywhere,andwebemoanourweaknessagainstyourpower,forwedonotdaretotouchyouorapproachyou.”’

‘“Wetwoweepbecausebothofourentiremightisbrokenthroughyou,andwecannotnowcometoyou,norhaveanyspeechwithyou,butyouhavehumiliatedusinallthingsandbothofourmightiscompletelyoverpowered.”’

TherareuseofthedualpronounintheOldEnglishfollowsthedetailintheVita

thatthereareonlytwodemonswholingertospeakwithGuthlac,whilethe

subsequentuseofthefirst-persondualpronoununcandpluralpronounwe

indicatethatthedemonsspeakonbehalfofthewholedemonictroop.However,

theperspectivesofthetwodemonsintheVitaandLifevary.Thedevilsinthe

VitafocusontheirhesitancytocomeclosetoGuthlac,sayingthattheydonot

dareapproachhim(non…tibipropinquareaudemus).ThedevilsintheLife

presenttheirdefeatasacompletelossofauthority.Theybemoantheir

humiliationandclaimtwicethattheir‘mightiscompletelyoverthrown’(miht

ealloferswyþed).Wherethedevilsbewailtheirlesserstrengthincomparisonto

Guthlac’sintheLatintext,thedevilsintheOldEnglishtextsaythattheyno

longerhaveanystrengthatall.

Afterthislament,thedevilsincreasinglylosetheirabilitytospeak.164The

nexttimedemonsappear,theyspeakinBrittonic,alanguageknowntoGuthlac

becausehespenttimeinWalesasayoungmanbutforeigntomanyAnglo-

Saxons,whoappeartohavemalignedBritonnicculture(§34).165Guthlacwards

offthedemons’assaultsandbanishesthemwiththerecitationofPsalm67,as164SeeMattCoker’sanalysisoftheimportanceofspeechforrationalbeingsjudgedbyGodin‘VoicingtheSupernatural’,pp.136–43.165Forstudiesoftheanti-CelticnatureoftheGuthlac-narratives,seeLindyBrady,‘ColonialDesireorPoliticalDisengagement?TheContestedLandscapeofGuthlacA’,JEGP115:1(2016),61–78;Downey,‘TooMuch’,126;Higham,‘Guthlac’sVita’,pp.88b–89a;Siewers,‘LandscapesofConversion’,10–11.

notedabove.Inthefinalappearanceofthedevils,theyhavenohumanspeechat

allbutbleatandroarasanimals(§36).Atthatpoint,Guthlacarmshimselfwith

theshieldoffaithandbanishesthedevilswithhisownwords,saying:

‘OmiserrimeSatana,manifestaesuntuirestuae.Nonnenuncmiserarumbestiarumhinnitus,grunnituscrocitusqueimitaris,quianteaeternoDeotesimilaretentasti?IdcircoimperotibiinnomineIesuChristi,quitedecaelodamnauit,utabhoctumultudesistas.’Necmoradictocitius,uniuersaphantasmatauacuasinaurasrecesserit.(§36).

‘Ealaþuearmawiðerweardagast,þinmægnysgesyne,andþinmihtysgecyþed;þunuearm[r]a,wildeoraandfugelaandwyrmahiwætywest, þuiuþeahofeþætþuwoldestbeongelicþamecanGode.NuþonneicbebeodeþeonþamnamanþæsecanGodes,seþeworhteandþeofheofonesheannysseawearp,þætþuframþisseungeþwærnyssegestille.’Þasonaæfterþonealleþaætywnysseþaraawerigdragastaonweggewiton. (§8:14–22).

‘“Lo,mostmiserableSatan,yourpowersaremademanifest.Doyounotnowimitatethewhinnying,thegruntingandthecroakingofmiserablebeasts,youwhobeforeattemptedtolikenyourselftotheeternalGod?ThereforeIcommandyouinthenameofJesusChristwhobanishedyoufromheaven,thatyoumustdesistfromthistumult.”Withoutdelay,quickerthanwords,thewholeapparitionrecededintotheemptyair.’

‘“Alas,youwretchedrebelliousspirit,yourpowerisseenandyourmightismadeknown;nowyoushowtheformofwretchedwildbeastsandbirdsandcreepingthings,youwhoonceliftedyourselfupthatyoumightbeequaltotheeternalGod.NowthenIcommandyou,inthenameoftheeternalGod,whomadeyou,andcastyoudownfromtheheightofheaven,thatyouceasefromthistrouble.”Thenimmediatelyafterthatalltheappearancesoftheaccursedspiritswentaway.’

WhenGuthlacbanishesthedemons,hecommandsSatantoceasehis‘tumult’

(tumultu)or‘discord’(ungeþwærnysse),andimmediatelythespiritsdisappear.

ThisultimatebanishmentdisplaysGuthlac’sauthorityoverthedevils,ashe

dispelsthemwithanorder,notanattackorassault.166Guthlac’suseoftheverbs

ofcommandimperareandbebeodandemonstratehisvictoryonthespiritual

battlefieldaswellashisauthorityoverthebarrow.Moreover,asDowneyand

166Guthlac’sbanishmentofthedemonsthroughaverbalexorcismalsoconformstoearlyhagiographicaltraditionssurroundingdragon-fights,inwhichthesaintverballycommandsthedragontodesistorperish,thedragonisnotabletoretaliate,andaconversionorthefoundationofamonasteryfollows.ForafulleranalysisseeChristineRauer,BeowulfandtheDragon:ParallelsandAnalogues(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2000),pp.69–72.

Cokernote,Guthlacbanishesthesedemonsthroughhisownwordsinsteadof

usingapsalm.167GuthlacassumestheroleofGodinPsalm67,ashearisesand

banisheshisenemies.Inthisweseesalvationreflectedinone’spowertospeak,

notinone’sabilitytofightphysically.168AsGuthlacgainsmoreauthorityand

stabilitasinresistingtemptation,hisprayersandrecitationshavegreatereffect,

whilethedemonsbecomeincreasinglyweakerandvoiceless.169Guthlac’sability

tocommandthedevilswithhisownwords,andnotthoseofthepsalmody,

demonstrateshisultimateascensiontosainthoodandthedevils’complete

defeat.

O’BrienO’Keeffenotesthatthedemonsinothereremiticsaints’lives,

suchastheVitaS.Antonii,perpetuallytormentthesaint,whereasinthe

narrativesonGuthlac,demons‘becomeadiscretephenomenonofplace.’170Once

exorcisedfromCrowlandtheydonotcomeback.Thefinaldefeatofthedemons

ismadeclearintheLifeofGuthlac’ssummaryofGuthlac’sspiritualcombat(§6:

20–23).Atthispoint,theLifepresentsthedefeatofdemonicpowerascomplete

(heoramægnandweorcoferswyþedwæs)whiletheVitasuggeststhedevilisstill

abletotemptGuthlac,albeitinmoreguilefulways(novasuersutiasaduersus

eumsubtoxicopectoreuersarecœpit).TheVitaevenstressesthedevil’s

continuedsubterfugeinthealliterativeparonomasiabetweenuersutias(‘guile’),

aduersus(‘against’),anduersare(‘toturn’).However,byreferringtothedevils’

mightas‘overpowered’(oferswyþed)whenGuthlacresiststhedemonsatthe

mouthofhellandthenasthesaintfinallybanishesthedemonsfromCrowland,

theLifeframesthedeclineofdemonicinfluenceonCrowlandwithinanenvelope

pattern.TheearlierdemonstrationofGuthlac’spacifistpowertocounter

physicalandspiritualviolenceculiminatesinthetotaldefeatofdemonicmight,

totheexenttheydonotevenhavethepowertolamenttheirfinaldownfall.

167Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.32–33;Coker,‘VoicingtheSupernatural’,p.206.Abdou,‘SpeechandPower’,203–04and207–10,showshowthesaintgainsdivineauthoritythroughhisspeechinGuthlacA.168FordiscussionsonthedifferencebetweenthesaintlyanddemonicvoiceinGuthlacA,seeAbdou,‘SpeechandPower,207–09;AdinLears,‘SoðandSense:LanguageProblemsandAffectiveSolutionsinAnglo-SaxonTreatmentsoftheGuthlacLegend’,Viator44:3(2013),67–75.169Abdou,‘SpeechandPower’,203–10,andCoker,‘VoicingtheSupernatural’,pp.201–27,takethedemons’wordsandactionstobeemptythroughoutGuthlacAandthesaint’sauthorityoverthemtobeaconstantfeatureinthepoem.170O’BrienO’Keeffe,‘GuthlacCrossings’,9;SeealsoDendle,SatanUnbound,pp.104–06.

Inrobbingthedevilsoftheirabilitytospeak,havedignity,orperform

actions(nanespræcehabban...unchæfstgebysmrod…uremihtealloferswyþed),

Guthlacremovestheiragencyinthe‘thought,word,deed’trifectaofspiritual

standing,171therebydemonstratinghissanctityandauthorityoverdemonic

corruption.Bedereferstothetriadasthemetricbywhichone’sspiritualfateis

measuredduringhisaccountsofvisionsofhell.172Fursa,Dryhthelm,andan

anonymousMercianthegnknowntoPecthelmofWhithornaretoldthatdemons

andangelsweighthoughts,deeds,andwordstodeterminewhethertheywillgo

tohellorheaven.173WhileGuthlacisnotexplicitlytoldthathewillbejudgedby

thetriadduringhisvisionanditisunclearhowmuchofBede’sworkFelixseems

tohaveknow,Felixappearstobeworkinginasimilartraditionsurrounding

visionsofhell.174ItisthuspossiblethatGuthlac-narrativesrefertothedevils’

lossofpowertodemonstrateGuthlac’sspiritualvictoryinthethematictriad.

Thedevilsnolongerhavethepowertojudgethesaint’sthoughts,words,or

deedsastheirownagencyinthetriadhasbeendominated.

InGuthlacA,thesaintclaimsCrowlandwhenhe‘breaksthebarrows’

(beorgasbræce,line209a)wheredevilspreviouslydwelt,makingthedevils

exiles.ThisexpulsionofthedemonsrecallsChrist’sdefeatofdemonic

temptationinthedesert.175WhenthedemonsconfrontbothChristandGuthlac,

theyareexiledorcompletelydefeated.176

Wæsseoæresteearmragæstacostungofercumen.Cempawunadebliþeonbeorge,wæshisblædmidgod.(lines437–39).

‘Thefirsttemptationofthewretchedspiritswasovercome.Thewarriordwelledhappilyonthebarrow,hisrewardwaswithGod.’

171Foranoverviewofthe‘thought,word,deed’themeinearlymedievalliteratureanditsappearancesinearlyIrelandandEngland,seePatrickSims-Williams,‘Thought,WordandDeed:AnIrishTriad’,Ériu29(1978),78–111.172Sims-Williams,‘Thought,WordandDeed’,109–10.173HEIII:19;V:12;V:13.174Capper,‘MercianContext’,pp.189and212;‘Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.56–59;Orchard,‘LegesFeliciter’,pp.30–31;Roberts,SaintforMiddleEngland,pp.18–24;Thacker,‘FelixShapes’,pp.13–16.175GuthlacAlines200–25;Luke4:1–13;Matt4:1–11;Mark1:12–13;Lee,Guest-Hall,p.104.176Hill,‘Devil’sSting’,388–90.

ThemilesChristi’smissionisaccomplished.Demonictemptationhasbeenrooted

outandoverthrown,thewildernessofCrowlandhasbeentamed,andthebeorg

hasbeentransformedfromadenofdevilstoaplaceofChristianpilgrimage

(§§37–49and52–53;GuthlacAlines742–51).177

ThisthematicemphasisontheroleofthemilesChristiasaspiritual

conquerorandconverterispresentedtoaudiencesintheintroductionof

Guthlac’sveryname.178TheVitaandLifeprovidethisexplanationforthename

‘Guthlac’:179

HocestGuthetLac,quodRomanisermonisnitorepersonatBelli-Munus:quiaillecumuitiisbellandoaeternaebeatitudinispræmia,cumtriumphaliinfulaperennisuitaepercepisset.(§10).

Guðlacsenamaysonromanisc,Bellimunus:forþonþeahhemidworuldlicegeswincemenigeearfoðnysseadreah,andþeahmidgecyrrednysseþagifeþæreecaneadignyssemidsigeeceslifesonfengc.(§2:7–10).

‘Thatis‘Guth’and‘Lac’,whichresoundsinthelustreoftheRomanspeechas‘GiftofWar’;sincehereceivedtheprizesofeternalblisswiththetriumphalbandofeverlastinglifebywarringagainstsins.’

‘Thename‘Guthlac’isintheRomantongue,Bellimunus,becausealthoughheenduredmanytribulationswithworldlytoil,healsoreceivedthegiftofeternalblessednesswiththevictoryofeternallifefromhisconversion.’

Guthlac’sname,interpretedaseither‘theoffering’or‘playofbattle’,initially

referstotheseculartradition,butforeshadowsthesaint’slaterrolein

metaphysicalwarfare.180Thenamesuggestshowthesaintappropriatesthe

martialdisciplineandcourageofhisdaysasawarlordforChristiansalvation

throughouthislife.TheOldEnglishpresentationoftheetymologyaddsaclause

thatstressesthat,withhisconversion(midgecyrrednysse),Guthlacshiftsfrom

attainingsecularrewardsofworldlytoil(woruldlicegeswince)toseeking

spiritualrewardsasasaint.TheLifeandGuthlacAcontinuallyrepeattheidea177Weber,‘HarmonyofContrasts’,210.Brooks,RestoringCreation,pp.257–68and277–86,arguesthattheOldEnglishaccountsmodelGuthlacasanewAdamrestoringaprelapsarianparadiseinCrowland.NancyJiang,‘ExploringthePositiveExilicHeroinChristandSatanandGuthlacA’,QuaestioInsularis17(2016),16–18,Lee,Guest-Hall,pp.105–08,Noetzel,‘Monster,Demon’,123–29,andShook,‘BurialMound’,6b,allreadGuthlacasabuilder(byltalines148b,733a),whocreatesapathtoheaven.Thundyil,‘Convenant’,pp.294–97,comparesGuthlac’sconversionofthebarrowintoanearthlyparadisewiththepropheciesofIsiah.178Thundyil,‘Covenant’,pp.251–54.179AsimilaretymologyisprovidedintheOEMart.80.180Bolton,‘Background’,595–603;Damon,SoldierSaints,p.145;Hill,‘WickedJews’,389b.

thatonemustrenouncetheworldtoattainthe‘gloryofeverlastinglife’(sigeeces

lifesonfengc).Theyarguethat,whilethespiritualstruggleagainsttemptationisa

heroicpursuit,sainthoodandsecularviolenceareincompatible.Onlythosewho

elevatethemselvesfromsecularorderstothegodcundliccamp-hadareableto

reachthe‘holyorder’(halignehad,line94)ofangelsandsaints.

LiketheMartinmas-homily,whichadvocatesforpeacefulconversionof

disbelievers,theproseandverseGuthlac-narrativessuggestthatasoldierof

Christcanmakeaspiritualparadiseofaphysicaldesertandconvertotherstoa

morepiouswayoflifesolelythroughmasteringhisorherowninternalconflicts.

Otherninth-centuryhagiographerscraftingnarrativesonwarrior-saints,even

thoseindependentlyworkinguponthesamelegend,didnotsharetheviewthat

thesoldierofChristshouldbenonviolent.Inthenextchapterwewillseethatthe

ActaAndreaeetMatthiaeapudAnthropophagos,itsOldEnglishproseadaptation,

andthepoemAndreasallpresentdifferenttakesonChristianinvolvementin

warriorculture,rangingfromahesitantservantofChristtoaheroicwarriorin

thecomitatusofChrist,forcingheathenstoconvert.

ChapterFive

TheHeroicSoldier:TheActsofAndrewamongtheAnthropophagi

TheGuthlac-narrativesprovidearelativelyunifiedportraitofhowthehermit

participatedinthespiritualwarriorculture.Themartialportraitofthesaintis

establishedinFelix’soriginalcomposition,uponwhichsubsequent

hagiographersbuilttheirdepictionsofGuthlacasamilesChristi,consistently

employingtheterminologyofspiritualwarfarefoundinmonasticworkslikethe

RegulaBenedicti.TheOldEnglishaccountsofAndrew’striptotheanthropophagi

ofMermedonia,1ontheotherhand,demonstratehowAnglo-Saxonwriters

reframedstoriespreviouslydevoidofmartialimagerytopresentasaintasa

heroicspiritualsoldierfightingintheLord’scomitatus.Wheretheapocryphal

ActsoftheApostlesandActaAndreaeetMatthiaeapudAnthropophagos(Acta)

focusonAndrew’sdevelopmentfromareluctantmissionaryintoaspiritual

teacher,2theanonymousOldEnglishLifeofAndrew,3aswellasthepoem

AndreasintheVercelliBook,4bothminimiseAndrew’scharacter-evolutionto

makeAndrewamodelmilesChristi.5AsHerbisonstates,theOldEnglish

1AsEllenBaumler,‘AndrewintheCityoftheCannibals:AComparativeStudyoftheLatin,Greek,andOldEnglishTexts’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofKansas,1985),p.34,andDennisMacDonald,TheActsofAndrewandtheActsofAndrewandMatthiasintheCityoftheCannibals(Atlanta:Scholars’Press,1990),pp.7–10,show,therearevariousspellingforthecannibalnationthatAndrewandMatthewvisit.ThischapterusesMermedonia,aspresentedintheCasanatensis,AndreasandBlicklingversionsofthenarrative.2AneditionoftheGreekversionoftheActa-narrativeaccordingtothePraxeistextualtradition,andtheLatinversionspreservedintheCasanatensisandVaticanusmanuscriptsarepresentedinFranzBlatt,DielateinischeBearbeitungendeActaAndreaeetMatthiaeapudAnthropophagos(Griessen:Töpelmann,1930),pp.32–94.TranslationsofthesetextsareprovidedinRobertBeonig,TheActsofAndrewintheCountryoftheCannibals:TranslationsfromtheGreek,Latin,andOldEnglish(NewYork;London;GarlandPublishing,1991).Seepp.143–47belowforafullerdiscussionoftheActasources.ThethemeofthereluctantapostleinActa-narrativesisdiscussedinJamesEarl,‘TheTypologicalStructureofAndreas’,inOldEnglishLiteratureinContext,ed.JohnNiles(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1980),pp.82–86;IvanHerbison,‘GenericAdaptationinAndreas’,inRobertsandNelson(2000),186–91;RichardNorthandMichaelD.Bintley,ed.,Andreas:AnEdition(Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,2016),p.5.3AfragmentoftheproseLifeofAndrewisextantonfolios136r–39voftheBlicklingHomiliary,whileafullerversionispreservedonfolios386r–94vofCCCC198.CharlesGoodwinfirstpublishedthetextwithtranslationinTheAnglo-SaxonLegendsofStAndrewandStVeronica(Cambridge:Deighton;Macmillan,1851),pp.2–25;followedbyJamesBrightinBright’sOldEnglishGrammarandReader,ThirdEdition,ed.FrederickCassidyandRichardRingler(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1971),pp.205–19.4ArecenteditionofAndreascanbefoundinNorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.118–210.5RobertE.Bjork,TheOldEnglishVerseSaints’Lives:AStudyinDirectDiscourseandtheIconographyofStyle(Toronto;Buffalo;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,1985),pp.111–23,

‘treatmentofthesaintisthustodiminishtheelementoftestingandreplaceit

withthemotifofspiritualwarfare.’6ThedifferentapproachesofthetwoOld

Englishadaptationsfurtherdemonstratethattheintroductionofmartial

imagerytothestorywasnot,assomehaveargued,7thecoincidental

GermanisierungofnarrativesastheywerereworkedforAnglo-Saxonaudiences.

Rather,theLifeofAndrewusestheimageryofspiritualwarfareestablishedin

scripturetoreframetheapostleasanauthoritativemilesChristi,whilethe

Andreas-poetusesdictionfromheroicpoetrytocontrastthefutilityofsecular

warriorcultureagainsttheefficacyofmilitantChristianitythatspreadthefaith

throughviolence.

AndrewappearsintheBible,althoughheisgenerallyovershadowedby

hisbrotherSimonPeter,somuchsothatoneofAndrew’sepithetsis‘thebrother

ofSimonPeter’(fraterSimonisPetri,John6:8).8WhentheGospelsdomention

Andrew,theyrecognisehimasthefirstdiscipleandaparagonofwillingnessto

followChrist.InJohn1:35–42,AndrewissaidtohavelearnedofChristfrom

JohntheBaptistandthentoldhisbrotherPeterthathehadfoundthemessiah.In

Matthew4:18–20,AndrewandPeterareintroducedasfishermenwhoobey

Christimmediately,throwingdowntheirnetstobecomedisciples.Later,when

Jesusfeedsthefivethousand,itisAndrewwhooffersthefishesandloavesfor

Christ’smiracle(John6:8).Andrew’sconstantandearlydesiretofollowChristis

apredominantcharacter-traitthatBedeemphasisesincallingAndrewandPeter

‘thosefirstcalledtofollowtheLord’(istiprimiuocatisuntutdominum

sequerentur).9

forexample,demonstratesthatAndreasreducestheseparationandironicdistanceofsaintandChristtotypologicallyalignthemmoreclosely.6Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,186–87.7See,forexample,Alexander,OldEnglishLiterature,pp.162–63;Frank,‘NorthSeaSoundings’,pp.1–11;Gerould,Saints’Legends,pp.58–90;AnitaRiedinger,‘TheFormulaicRelationshipBetweenBeowulfandAndreas’,inHeroicPoetryintheAnglo-SaxonPeriod,ed.HelenDamicoandJohnLeyerle(Kalamazoo:MedievalInstitutePublications,1993),p.284;ClaesSchaar,CriticalStudiesintheCynewulfGroup(Lund:Gleerup,1949),p.12.Erdmann,Origin,pp.19–21,andRussell,Germanization,pp.166–70and204–08,arguethatmilitancyandtheappropriationofmartiallanguageinChristianityasawholearosefrom‘Germanisation’oftheChurch.8Boenig,ActsofAndrew,pp.xi–xv.9DavidHurst,ed.,BedaeVenerabilisopera,ParsII:Operaexegetica,3:InLucaeEvangeliumexpositio;inMarciEvangeliumexpositio,CCSL120(Turnhout:Brepols,1960),p.446.

TheaccountsofAndrew’slifeafterChrist’sdeatharelessunified.10A

narrativerecountingtheapostle’sevangelicalmissiontoAchaiaandcrucifixion

atthehandsofÆgiasdevelopedintothePassioS.AndreaeApostoli,11whichis

witnessedinAnglo-SaxoncopiesofPaultheDeacon’shomiliaryandtheCotton–

CorpusLegendary.12ThisPassiowasmixedwithBiblicalreferencesandadapted

inOldEnglishintheOldEnglishMartyrology,13inCynewulf’sFatesoftheApostles

(lines16–22)14andJuliana(lines308–12),Ælfric’shomilyonAndrew,15and

likelyinfluencedtheDreamoftheRood.16Thesedepictionsallseemtoplayon

theetymologyofthename‘Andrew’as‘themanlyone’.17TheOldEnglish

MartyrologysaysthatAndrew‘wasbeautifulinbodyandhewasbeautifulin

spirit’(wlitigonlychamanandhewæswlitigonmode),18andÆlfriccharacterises

Andrewasthe‘manly’(þegenlic)apostle,19whoiswillingtoacceptdeathand

exhibitssaintlystabilitasinhisfaith.WalshandDeGregorioconsiderthis

orthodoxinterpretationofAndrew’smissionsafterthedeathofChristthe

‘primaryorprimitiveactsofAndrew’,opposedtotheapocryphal‘secondary

acts’thatdevelopedfromthefifthcenturyon.20

TheapocryphalActsoftheApostlestraditionor‘secondaryacts’depict

AndrewasanapostlewhoisreluctanttotrustChrist’spowerandunableto

recogniseChristwhentheymeetafterhisresurrection.21Thistraditionmixes

scripturalandcanonicalnarrativeswithsecularmotifs,suchasthosefoundin

10MacDonald,ActsofAndrew,pp.2–47,analysesearlynarrativesconcerningAndrewandtheirrelationshipwithothersaintsintheActsoftheApostlestraditions.11BHL428and430.12ScottDeGregorio,‘ÞegenlicorFlæsclic:TheOldEnglishProseLegendsofStAndrew’,JEGP102:4(2003),452–53;MalcolmGodden,‘ExperimentsinGenre:TheSaints’LivesinÆlfric’sCatholicHomilies’,inSzarmach(1996),p.272;MarieWalsh,‘StAndrewinAnglo-SaxonEngland:TheEvolutionofanApocryphalHero’,AnnualeMediaevale20(1981),107;Zettel,‘HagiographicSources’,pp.166–71and244–45.13OEMart.222.14KennethBrooks,ed.,AndreasandtheFatesoftheApostles(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1961),pp.56–60.15ÆCHomI.507–19.ClaudioCataldi,‘StAndrewintheOldEnglishHomileticTradition’,inLazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca(2014),pp.301–06,andGodden,‘Experiments’,pp.272–75,analyseÆlfric’sapproachtoAndrewlegend.16ThomasD.Hill,‘PassioAndreaeandTheDreamoftheRood’,ASE38(2009),1–10.17FredRobinson,‘SomeUsesofName-MeaningsinOEPoetry’,NM69(1968),163–65,analysespatristic‘name-lore’behind‘Andrew’fromJerometoAndreas.SeealsoDeGregorio,‘Þegenlicandflæsclic’,456–63;Godden,‘ExperimentsinGenre’,p.274.18OEMart.222.19ÆCHomI.506:22,512:154–63.20DeGregorio,‘Þegenlicandflæsclic’,452;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,107.21DeGregorio,‘Þegenlicandflæsclic’,451.

theOdysseyandromances.22MacDonalddemonstratesthatthenarrativetitled

ActaAndreaeetMatthiaeapudAnthropophagoswasnotpartoftheoriginal

apocryphalActs,butwasanoffshootfromthattraditionandsharesmanyofthe

elementsfoundintheoriginalapocrypha.23Theearliestwitnessofthe

MermedoniannarrativewhichiseventuallyadaptedfortheOldEnglishAndreas

andLifeofAndrewistheso-calledGreekΠράξεις(Praxeis,meaning‘TheDeeds’)

textfoundinmultiplemanuscripts.24

TheActa-narrativerelateshowtheapostlesdrawlotsafterChrist’sdeath

todecidewheretocarryChrist’smessage.MatthewisallottedMermedonia,a

placewheretheyimprisonandeatstrangers,anduponarrivinginthis

barbarousland,Matthewiscaptured.ChristthencomestoAndrew,whois

preachinginAchaia,andordershimtorescueMatthew.Andrewdoesnot

initiallybelievethathewouldbeabletojourneytoMermedoniabeforeMatthew

isexecutedandisreprimandedbyChrist,whotestsAndrew’sfaithwhile

disguisedasaship-captainferryingAndrewtothewickedland.Afterarriving

andfreeingMatthewfromprison,AndrewremainsinMermedoniatoconvert

thepeople,whoareincitedbythedeviltotorturehim.Andrewenduresspiritual

andcorporealafflictionsforthreedaysbeforeChristrestoreshim,atwhichpoint

Andrewordersastonepillarinhisprisontounleashafloodtopunishthe

Mermedonians.Trappedanddrowning,theMermedoniansrepentandhumble

themselvesbeforeAndrewwhorevivesallbutthefourteenmostwicked,who

arebanishedtoHell.AndrewthenconvertstheremainingpeopletotheChristian

faith.TheinspirationtoportrayAndrewconvertingcannibalsintheapocryphal

traditionmayhavestemmedfromhissupposedassignmenttoScythia,25the

22Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.5–8;Cataldi,‘StAndrew’,p.293;RosemaryWoolf,‘Saints’Lives’,pp.50–51.Fordiscussionofthenarrative’sconnectiontotheOdyssey’sportrayalofCirce,seeEarl,‘TypologicalStructure’,pp.80–82;EdwardB.IrvingJr.,‘AReadingofAndreas:ThePoemasPoem’,ASE12(1983),216;DennisMacDonald,ChristianizingHomer:TheOdyssey,Plato,andtheActsofAndrew(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),pp.38–40.23MacDonald,ActsofAndrew,pp.27–47.E.A.BudgepresentsotherapocryphalActsoftheApostlesnarrativesconcerningAndrewinTheContendingsoftheApostles(London;NewYork:H.Frowde,1901),II:183–214.24Blatt,ed.,ActaAndreae,pp.32–94.25Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.4–8;Brooks,Andreas,pp.xxvii-ix;GeorgeKrapp,AndreasandtheFatesoftheApostles(Boston;NewYork;Chicago;London:GinnandCompany,1906),pp.lxv–lxviii;MacDonald,ActsofAndrew,pp.16–22;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,97–100;Woolf,‘Saints’Lives’,5.TheVaticanusversionoftheActastatesthatAndrewisamongthe‘Scythianpeople’(gensScithica)asAndrewistortured,Blatt,ed.,ActaAndreae,p.115.

homeofmonstrouscreaturesandcannibalssinceHerodotusandAristotle.26

GodloveevenarguesthatthewidespreadinterestinAndrewpartiallyderived

fromhisassociationwithmissionstobarbarous,threateningpeoples.27

TheActawaswell-knownenoughtoinfluencemoreorthodoxsources,

includingtheRomanantiphonaries,28andGregoryofTour’sDeGestisBeati

Andreae,whichbothmentionMermedonia.29TheActa’spopularityoverthe

PassiocanalsobeseeninCCCC198,whichpreservestheonlycompletecopyof

theOldEnglishproseLifeofAndrew.30CCCC198doesnotcontainÆlfric’shomily

onAndrew,despitebeingprimarilyacollectionofÆlfricianhomilies,perhaps

suggestingthatthecompilerpreferredtheMermedoniannarrativetoÆflric’s.

Moreover,Walshsuggeststhatreferencestoandappreciationofthe

Mermedonianstorypartlystemmedfromtheinabilityofearlywritersor

compilerstodifferentiateapocryphalstoriesfromorthodoxones,indicatingthat

apocryphalnatureofthestorywouldnothavedeterredsomeAnglo-Saxon

compilers.31

LikeMartin,themissionaryapostleAndrewwaspopularthroughout

England.ManyEnglishchurcheswerededicatedtoAndrew,32notablytheearly

dedicationsinRochester(c.604)andnearHexham(c.672–78).33Andrew’s

feast-daywascelebratedonthe30thofNovember,asmostextantliturgical

calendarsfromtheperiodattest,34andheishonouredinthelatetenth-century

VitaS.DunstaniandAdelard’sLectionesindepositioneS.Dunstanifrom

26LindyBrady,‘EchoesofBritonsonaFenlandFrontierintheOldEnglishAndreas’,ReviewofEnglishStudies61(2010),682.Orchard,PrideandProdigies,p.15,andDavidWhite,MythsoftheDog-Man(Chicago;London:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991),pp.31–34,noteAndrew’sassociationwiththeScythiancynocephalusSaintChristopher,whosestoryispresentedinBudge,trans.,ContendingsoftheApostles,pp.203–14.27ShannonGodlove,‘BodiesasBorders:CannibalismandConversionintheOldEnglishAndreas’,StudiesinPhilology106:2(2009),137.28Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,104.29ThepassageconcerningMermedoniainGregory’sworkisinBlatt,ed.,ActaAndreae,p.2.GregoryofToursseemstohavebeenuncomfortable,however,withthemonstrouselementsoftheapocryphalnarrativesincehepresentsthetaleofMatthewandAndrew’sjourneytoMermedoniainitsbriefestessentials,avoidinganyreferencetothefantasticalelementslikecannibalismorthepunishingflood.30Seep.139,n.2above.31Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,100–04.32Alexander,OldEnglishLiterature,pp.159–60;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,103.33Cataldi,‘StAndrew’,p.296–97,alsolinksAndrewtotheGregorianmissiontoEngland.34Boenig,ActsofAndrew,p.iii;BillFriesen,‘LegendsandLiturgyintheOldEnglishProseAndreas’,ASE43(2014),211and225–28;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,p.107.AndrewishonouredineverycalendarWormaldedits,inEnglishKalendars.

1006×1012.35ItisunclearwhentheapocryphalActacametoEngland,orwhenit

wasfirstadaptedintoOldEnglish.Boenig,Scharr,andWalshhavearguedthat

thenarrativepreservedintheGreekPraxeisisourclosestsourceforboththe

LifeofAndrewandAndreas.36BoenigandBrookssuggestthattheCanterbury

schoolofTheodoreandHadrianintheseventhcentury,withsuchpupilsas

AldhelmofMalmesbury,mayhaveprovidedtheunderstandingofGreek

necessarytoaccessthestoryinitsoriginallanguage.37However,insofarasthe

OldEnglishnarrativeseemstofollowthePraxeismorecloselythanthesurviving

Latinrecensions,Boenig’ssuggestionoverestimatesknowledgeofGreekin

Anglo-SaxonEngland.38TheOldEnglishcompositionslikelypost-datethe

CanterburySchoolbyatleastacentury,anditisimprobablethatGreektexts

werewidelyaccessibleaftertheCanterburySchool’sdeclineintheeighth

century.ALatinextractpreservedintheLifefurthersuggeststhattheAnglo-

SaxonwriterswereusingaLatinversionoftheActa,andnotaGreekone.

LatinversionsoftheActasurviveinseveralmanuscripts:theeleventh-

centuryVaticanCity,BibliotecaApostolicaVaticanalat.1274;39thetwelfth-

centuryRome,BibliotecaCasanatense,1104;40theeleventh-centuryBologna,

UniversityLibrary,MS1576;41andtheeleventh-century‘Bonnetfragment’in

Rome,CodexVallicellensis,plut.I,tom.III.42Theseallultimatelyderivefroma

sixth-toninth-centurytranslationofthePraxeis.43The‘Bonnetfragment’

presentsasourcethatisclosesttotheOldEnglishretellingsoftheActa,but

35MichaelWinterbottomandMichaelLapidge,ed.,TheEarlyLivesofStDunstan(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2012),pp.62and122.SeealsoDeGregorio,‘Þegenlicandflæsclic’,449;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,101.36Boenig,ActsofAndrew,pp.viii–ix;Schaar,CriticalStudies,pp.13–23;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,110.AsummaryofthedebatearoundtheAnglo-SaxonsourceoftheActa-narrativeisinBaumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.15–18;andinNorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.4–6.37RobertBoenig,SaintandHero:AndreasandMedievalDoctrine(London;Toronto:AssociatedUniversityPress,1991),pp.23–24;Boenig,ActsofAndrew,pp.vii-ix;Brooks,Andreas,p.xv.Schaar,CriticalStudies,pp.20–23,doesnotthinkthattheGreekversioncouldhavebeenused.38ForananalysisofthelimitedGreekknowledgeinAnglo-Saxon,especiallyaftertheearlyeighthcentury,seeMaryBodden,‘EvidenceforKnowledgeofGreekinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE17(1988),227–32.MichaelLapidge,TheSchoolofTheodoreandHadrian,ASE15(1986),45–67,demonstratesthewiderangeofdisciplinestaughtinCanterburyschool,butdoesnothighlighthagiographyasafocusforTheodore.However,Hewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,pp.175–77,doesnotetheimportanceofhagiographyandSulpicius’sVitaMartiniintheCanterburySchool.39Blatt,ed.,ActaAndreae,pp.96–148.40Blatt,ed.,ActaAndreae,pp.33–95.41Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.90–129.42Brightprintsthe‘BonnetFragment’inhisGrammar,pp.210–11.43Schaar,CriticalStudies,p.13.

providesawitnessforonlyasmallportionofthenarrative.44TheCasanatensis

text,albeit‘writteninamostbarbarousLatin,’45islessembellishedthanits

counterpartinVaticanus,46andlengthierthantheBolognanarrative,makingthe

Casanatensistextabetterrepresentativeoftheexemplarthatthecomposersof

vernaculartextsused.47Moreover,althoughtheOldEnglishtextsgenerally

followthePraxeisquiteclosely,theydosharesomefeatureswiththe

Casanatensistext,asBaumler’scomparativestudyofthedetailsandsequencing

betweenextantversionsofnarrativedemonstrates.48

However,theLatininterpolationintheBlicklingversionofLifeofAndrew,

whichreads,TuncSantusAndreassurgensmaneabiitadmarecumdiscipulissuis

etuiditnauiculaminlitoreetintranauesedentestresuiros(‘thenSaintAndrew

arisinginthemorningleftfortheseawithhisdisciplesandsawalittleboaton

theshoreandthreemenweresittingintheship’),49isnotfoundinthe

CasanatensisversionbutisaclosertranslationofthePraxeistext.50This

indicatesthattheCasanatensisisnotpreciselyrepresentativeoftheActa-

narrative,thatwasthesourceofthestoryforAnglo-Saxons.Likewise,

differencesbetweenthenarrativetraditionssuggestthattheAnglo-Saxon

hagiographerseitherhadaversionoftheActathatwasdifferentfromanysingle

sourceknowntodayorconsultedmultipleversionsoftheapocryphalstory.This

isespeciallyevidentindetailsfoundintheGreekandLatinversions,likethatof

theearthenpotsusedforcatchingthebloodofMermedonianvictims,whichare

missingfrombothoftheOldEnglishnarratives.Moreover,itisclearthat

individualhagiographersadaptedtheirstorytofittheirpurpose,makingit

impossibletoreconstructasinglemissingsourceoftheActafromvernacular

textsasBoenighasattemptedtodo.51ComparingtheextantOldEnglish,Greek

andLatintexts,themostprobableinferenceisthattheAnglo-Saxon

44ThefragmentrelatesAndrew’swakingbeforeMermedoniaandhisapproachtoprison,correspondingtolines843–954ofAndreas,andlines103–24oftheLifeofAndrew.45Brooks,AndreasandtheFates,p.xvii.46Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.56–63;Boenig,ActsofAndrew,p.iii.47Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,215.48Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.19–53.49Morris,ed.,BlicklingHomilies,p.231.50ThePraxeispassagereads:‘SoafterAndrewroseupinthemorning,hewenttotheseatogetherwithhisdisciples,andgoingdowntothebeach,hesawalittleskiff,andintheskiffthreemenweresitting,’Boenig,trans.,ActsofAndrew,p.3.51Boenig,SaintandHero,p.28.

hagiographershadaccesstoaLatinversionofthestory,whichcontained

idiosyncrasiesfoundvariouslyinthePraxeis,Casanatensis,Bologna,andthetwo

OldEnglishtexts.52

ThepictureisfurthercomplicatedbypotentialinfluencesontheOld

EnglishaccountsfromnarrativesotherthantheActa.Forinstance,Olsenargues

thatAndreaswasinfluencedbyArator’sDeactibusapostolorum,53whileWalsh

showslinkstocanonicalActsbyLuke.54Friesenpostulatesthattheanonymous

composeroftheproseLifewasheavilyinfluencedbyliturgicallanguageforthe

massofStAndrew,55anditisclearthatvernacularcomposersusedimagery

fromthemilesChristitraditions.Schaaralsoarguesthatthereweretwo

narrativestreamsfortheapocryphalActainAnglo-SaxonEngland,onefocusing

onthemiraculousandfantasticalelementsofthestoryrepresentedinthe

Andreas,andtheotheranabridgedversionofthestoryreflectedintheproseLife

ofAndrew.56WithoutdefinitivesourcesfortheActainAnglo-SaxonEnglanditis

impossibletoprovewhetherSchaarwascorrectinthinkingthatthereweretwo

strainsofthenarrative,althoughitislikelythatthehagiographerscomposing

worksonAndrew,likethosewhowroteonGuthlac,drewonarangeoftexts.57

ItisalsouncertainwhenthevernacularversionsoftheActaattestedin

theVercelliBook,BlicklingHomiliaryandCCCC198wereproduced.Andreas

appearstohavebeencomposedsometimebeforethelatetenth-centuryVercelli

BookbutafterthecompositionanddisseminationofthepoemsofCynewulf,as

wellasBeowulf,ChristB,andGuthlacA,fromwhichAndreasborrows.58Boenig,

Godlove,andRiedingerdateAndreasbetweentheendoftheninthcenturyand

52See,forexample,Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.64–76;Brooks,AndreasandtheFates,pp.xvii-viii;Goodwin,StAndrew,pp.iii–vi;GeorgeKrapp,TheVercelliBook,ASPR2(NewYork:1932),p.xxxvi;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,p.4;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,110.53AlexandraOlsen,‘TheAestheticsofAndreas:TheContextsofOralTraditionandPatristicLatinPoetry’,inDeGustibus,ed.JohnMilesFoley(NewYork;London:Garland,1992),pp.397–99.54Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,116–22.55Friesen,‘Legendsandliturgy’,217–222and226.56Schaar,CriticalStudies,pp.15–20.57FordiscussionofintertextualityintheGuthlac-narratives,seepp.88–89above.58AndyOrchard,‘TheOriginalityofAndreas’,inOldEnglishPhilology,ed.LeonardNeidorf,RafaelPascual,andT.A.Shippey(Woodbridge,Suffolk:D.S.Brewer,2016),pp.332–47.MeganCavell,‘TheBindingofReligiousHeroesinAndreasandtheHêliand’,EnglishStudies96:5(2015),507–20,suggeststhatimageryoftheHêliand,especiallythebindingofChrist,issharedinAndreasandtheAndreas-poetusesSaxonliteratureforhisowncomposition.FullerdiscussionsofAndreas’ssourcesarebelowonpp.162and169.

thebeginningofthetenth.59Brooksthinksthepoemwasslightlyearlier,

preferringamid-ninth-centurycomposition.60Morerecently,Bredehoftargues

thatAlfred’scircleknewAndreas,61atheorythatNorthandBintleyseemto

support,suggestingthatthepoetwasaMercianworkinginWessexduringthe

lateninthtoearlytenthcentury.62Attheveryleast,itseemsthattheAndreas-

poetwasaroughcontemporaryoftheMartinmas-homilistandthecomposerof

theLifeofGuthlac,andthattheyallworkedinasimilarliterarymilieuwhichwas

interestedinmissionarymilitesChristi.DatingtheLifeofAndrewissomewhat

morestraightforward.Althoughnoexactdatehasbeendeterminedforthework,

theoriginalLifemustpre-date970,givenitspresenceintheBlicklingHomiliary,

andthelateWest-Saxonwordformsofthepieceindicatethatitwasproduced

sometimeinthetenthcentury,wellafterthepoeticcompositionofAndreas.63

TheproseLifeofAndrewTheLifeofAndrewhasbeenclassifiedasa‘closeOldEnglishversionofapopular

Latinlegendofapopularsaint,’64and,accordingly,manyconsideritasmerely

derivativeofitsLatinsource.AsBoenigmaintains,‘theassumptionbehindsuch

atraditionisthatasacredorwell-receivedtextremainsstaticintranslation,

withthetranslatorimposingaslittleofhisownpersonalityonthetextas

possible.’65Thisviewoversimplifiesthehagiographer’sapproachtohissource,

andneglectshowhetransformedthestoryfromafantasticallegendwithgory

detailsandaflawedherointoonesuitableforprivatereligiouscontemplationor

liturgicalcelebrationsonAndrew.66TheLifeabbreviatestheActa-narrative,

59See,forexample,Godlove,‘BodiesasBorders’,139;Riedinger,‘FormulaicRelationship’,p.305.CalvinKendall,‘LiteracyandOralityinAnglo-SaxonPoetry:HorizontalDisplacementinAndreas’,JEGP95:1(1996),1–9,arguesthatBeowulfandAndreasgrewfromsimilaroraltraditionsandwerecomposedaroundthesametime,thoughhedoesagreewithRiedingerthattheAndreas-poethadaccesstoatextofBeowulf.60Brooks,AndreasandtheFates,pp.xxii–xxvi.61Bredehoft,Authors,Audiences,pp.98–99.Boenig,SaintandHero,pp.21and56,alsoseesthelanguageofAndreastobecontemporarywithAlfred.62NorthandBintleyultimatelyarguethatthepoemwaswrittenbyAlfred’sMercianchaplainÆþelstanbetween888–893,Andreas,pp.96–103and109–15.63Bright,Grammar,p.205;DeGregorio,‘Þegenlicandflæsclic’,450;BillFriesen,‘VisionsandRevisions:TheSourcesandAnaloguesoftheOldEnglishAndreas’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofToronto,2008),pp.243–44;Gerould,SaintsLegends,p.113.64Boenig,SaintandHero,p.28.SeealsoFriesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,p.244;Friesen,‘LegendsandLiturgy’,211.65Boenig,SaintandHero,p.28.66DeGregorio,‘Þegenlicandflæsclic’,453–4;Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,pp.243–46and268–74;Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,pp.193–95.

consciouslyremovingsensationaldetailsorepisodesthataretangentialto

Andrew’srescueofMatthewandhisconversionoftheMermedonians.Boenig

offerslittleinsightintotheprosecomposer’sintentionwiththeargumentthat

thereis‘verylittlereasonbehinditotherthanabridgmentforthesakeof

homileticbrevity.’67Theabbreviationisparticularlyevidentintheframe-

narrativesAndrewtellsduringhissea-voyagetoMermedoniaandthecannibals’

effortstobutcherthedeadprison-guardsandinnocentchildren,whichtheLife

eithercondensesorremovesentirely.TheseomissionssuggestthattheAnglo-

SaxoncomposerconsideredAndrew’sconfrontationwiththeMermedoniansas

themostinterestingaspectoftheActa-narrative,incontrasttoscholarssuchas

Alexander,whoarguethatthevalueoftheMermedonianstorywasinthevoyage

sceneandthat‘theviolenttrialsofstrengthinMermedoniaareunbelievableand

unattractive.’68

Throughtheseabbreviations,theLifeminimisesportrayalsofAndrew’s

disobedienceorflawedcharacter,whilemaintainingessentialdetailsneededto

demonstratehowAndrewactedinimitatioChristi.69Thispruningblursaspects

ofthestorywhichrelateliteralorphysicalactions,likethedescriptionsofthe

apparatustheMermedoniansusetocollectthebloodoftheirvictims;the

apocryphaltalesofChrist’sanimationofstatuary;ortheMermedonians’s

depravedwillingnesstosacrificetheirownchildrentosavethemselves.70In

removingspecificdetailsthatgivethenarrativeliteralmeaning,theLifemakesit

easiertointerpretthestoryasanabstractcommentaryonthefightagainst

demoniccorruptionandthepowerofChrist’sservanttoconverteventhemost

obsceneheathens.71

67Boenig,ActsofAndrew,p.xxxi.68Alexander,OldEnglishLiterature,p.161.69FordiscussionsoftypologicalimitatioChristiintheAndrew-narratives,seeFrederickBiggs,‘ThePassionofAndreas:Andreas1398–1491’,StudiesinPhilology85:4(1988),415–22;Earl,‘TypologicalStructure’,pp.66–89;Godlove,‘BodiesasBorders’,153–56;ConstanceHieatt,‘TheHarrowingofMermedonia:TypologicalPatternsintheOldEnglishAndreas’,NM77:1(1976),51–59;AmyReading,‘Baptism,Conversion,andSelfhoodintheOldEnglishAndreas’,StudiesinPhilology112:1(2015),6–16;MarieWalsh,‘TheBaptismalFloodintheOldEnglishAndreas:LiturgicalandTypologicalDepths’,Traditio33(1977),145;Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,113–14and122.Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions,pp.244–91,arguesthattheLifeomitsfantasticaldetailsandtypologicalallusionstosimplifythestoryforliturgicalpresentation.70Kelly,BlicklingHomilies,pp.193–95,believestheLifeisa‘highlydramaticandvivid’conversionstory,butdoesnotcomparetheOldEnglishsourcewithitssourcesandtherebymissesthegeneralisationofthevernaculartext.71Cataldi,‘StAndrew’,p.299.

TheLifeusessyntacticallysimpleproseandavoidscompoundsexceptto

closelytranslatespecifictermsfromitssource,suchasthecompoundfær-sceat

thatisusedtotranslatenaulum(‘moneyorfareforpassage’),72orlyb-cræft

(‘witch-craft’fortheLatinmaleficiamagificeartis,withspecificreferenceto

malignantpotions).TheOldEnglishtextdoes,however,subtlyalterthemeaning

ofsomewordsoractionstostrengthenthespiritualinterpretationofthe

narrative.Forinstance,theLifeusesthewordhyrdastodenotethe‘prison

guards’.Thewordhyrdemostoftenreferstoa‘pastor,guardianofaflockor

livestock’,73thoughitisusedheretotranslatetheLatintermcustos,whichisa

termfor‘guard’or‘protector’.WhileworkslikeÆlfric’sGrammarprovideother

witnessesofhyrdemeaning‘prisonguard’or‘keeper’,74wordslikeweardmay

havebeenclosertotheliteralmeaningofcustos.75Inusinghyrde,thehomilist

specificallyemploysawordwithconnotationsthatequatetheprisonerswith

livestockandthewickedguardswithshepherds.Suchmetaphoricaluseofhyrde

forademonorGodlessentityisattestedelsewhereinOldEnglishliterature.

GuthlacAreferstothedemonsthatafflictGuthlacasthe‘pastorsofsins’(synna

hyrdas,line550a)andSataniscalledthe‘pastorofcrimes,theterribleassailant’

(firnaherde,atolæglæca,lines159b–60a)inChristandSatan.Beowulfprovidesa

similardescriptionofitsownatolæglæcaGrendel,whoiscalledthe‘pastorof

crimes’(fyrenahyrde,line750)duringhislastjourneytoHeorot.Andreasalso

referstotheguardsashyrdasinlines993,1077,and1083,andtoChristasthe

‘shepherdofheaven’(riceshyrde,line807),juxtaposingthedivineshepherdwith

wickedones.Incharacterisingtotheguardsaspastors,theAndrew-narratives

frametheguardsinareligiouscontextasfalsepreachersorspiritualcorrupters

andthoseintheprisonaspeoplewhohavebeenledastray.Thereligious

associationofthetermhyrdeisseenintheOldEnglishtitleforGregory’sCura

Pastoralis,thatisHirde-boc(‘Shepherd-book’),whichusesthesamewordhyrde

72Thecompoundfere-sceattfurtherappearsintwoglossariesforna[b]ulum.Comparealsotofær-riht(againtranslatingnaulum)whichappearsintheLifeofMaryofEgypt;Skeat,ed.,LivesofSaints,II:24.73DOEs.v.hyrde.74TheGrammarprovides:hicethaeccustos—þesandðeoshyrde,andcustosoððepastorhyrde;JuliusZupitza,ed.,ÆlfricsGrammatikundGlossar(Berlin:Weidmann,1880),pp.57and301.75Ælfric’sGrammaralsoprovidesweard-mannumforcustodibus,Zupitza,ed.,ÆlfricsGrammatik,p.271.

torefertothefigurativeguardianshipandguidanceofvirtue.76Thisuseofhyrde

for‘pastoralcare’inthelateninth-centuryAlfrediantranslationisroughly

contemporarywiththeninth-centuryAndreas,andmaysuggestthatreligious

connotationofthetermhyrdewasemployedatthetime.

TheLifeofAndrewfurthersupportsareadingofhyrdeasfalsepastorsby

associatingtheguardswithdemons,whohaveimprisonedsoulswith

metaphoricalblindnessanddisbelief.77Thetreatmenttheguardsinflictuponthe

travelerstoMermedoniaisasmuchspiritualcorruptionasitisphysicaltorment.

Hiehimsealdonattordrincan,þætmidmyclenlyb-cræftewæsgeblanden,andmidþyþehieþonedrencdruncon,hraþeheoraheortawæstolesedandheoramodonwended.SeeadigaMatheusþaineodeonþaceastre,andhraðehiehinegenamonandhiseaganutastunganandhiehimsealdonattordrincanandhinesendononcarcerne.Andhiehinehetonþætattoretan,andhehitetannolde,forþonþehisheortenæstolesednehismodonwended.(lines7–13).‘Theygavethempoisontodrink,thatwasmixedwithgreatwitch-craft,throughwhich,forthosethatdrankthatdrink,quicklytheirheartswereloosenedandtheirmindturned.TheblessedMatthewthenenteredthatcity,andquicklytheycapturedhimandputouthiseyesandtheygavehimpoisontodrinkandsenthimintoprison.Andtheyorderedhimtoconsumethepoison,andhedidnotwishtoconsumeit,becauseofthat,hisheartwasnotloosenednorhismindturned.’

The‘poisonousdrink’(attordrinc)thattheMermedoniansgivetotheircaptives

issaidtochangethemind(mod)andheart(heort),termswhichmightrefer

one’ssoulormoralstate.78ThepotionandtheblindinginMermedoniaparallel

thepoisonBelialusestocorruptpeopleinJuliana(lines468–90)andthe

woundscausedbydemonic‘darts’(stræle),whichmakeonestrayawayfrom

76HenrySweet,ed.,KingAlfred'sWest-SaxonversionofGregory'sPastoralCare(London:Trubner,1871),p.6.77Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,pp.270–71.Lee,GuestHall,p.91,arguesthatAndreaswasthematicallyfocusedonspiritualblindnessanddemonictyranny.Earl,‘TypologicalStructure’,pp.72–76and85,Hermann,Allegories,pp.122–26,Hill,‘WickedJews’,358–61,andReading,‘Baptism,Conversion’,10–17,postulatethattheMermedonianswerelinkedtotheantagonisticJewsintheActa’sframe-narrativesasfigurativerepresentationsofChristianity’senemies.78SeeMalcolmGodden,‘Anglo-SaxonsontheMind’,inOldEnglishLiterature:CriticalEssays,ed.RoyLiuzza(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2002),pp.301–08;MichaelJosephPhillips,‘Heart,Mind,andSoulinOldEnglish:ASemanticStudy’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofIlliniosatUrbana-Champaign,1985),pp.122–232.

Christ’smessageandbecomebestialinnature.79Matthew’simmunitytothe

potion’seffectsandpermanentblindingisareflectionofhissteadfastfaithin

Christ.TheLifealterstheActa-narrativetoshowthatMatthewrefusesto

swallowthepotion,suggestingthatMatthewisnotphysicallyforcedtotakethe

metaphoricalpotionandisnotspirituallycorrupted.80Matthew’spsychological

immunitytothepotionandtheabilitytohealhismomentaryblindnessthrough

prayersuggestthattheafflictionsoftravelersinMermedoniaaremetaphysical.

Thehyrdasthatprotecttheprisonarethendefeatedthroughprayer(lines135–

36).Oncethesefalsepastorshavebeenremoved,Andrew,thetruepastorof

Christ,isablebothbodilyandspirituallytoliberatethosepreviouslytrappedin

demoniccorruption.

Thepsychologicalbasisofthecaptives’woundsisstressedagainwhen

Andrewhealsthem.Atthispoint:

SehaligaAndreassettehishandoferþaraweraeaganþaþæronlandewæron,andgesihþehieonfengon,andefthesettehishandoferhioraheortanandheoraandgiethimefttohwirfde.(lines153–55).‘TheholyAndrewsethishandoverthosemen’seyeswhowereinthatplace,andtheyregainedsight,andafterwardshesethishandovertheirheartsandtheirunderstandingreturnedtothemagain.’

Inhealingtheprisoners’afflictions,thestoryreinforcesAndrew’sconnectionto

Christasonewhocanhealtheblindandexorcisedemons,anddemonstrates

thatthepoisoncanbeundonethroughfaithalone.Theuseofthephraseþæron

landetorefertotheprisonsuggeststhatthecomposerintendedthescenetobe

readallegorically,suchthatAndrewisnothealingindividualcorporealwounds

butthespiritualwoundsofthewholecommunity.

Indepictingphysicallyhealthycharactersasunabletoseepious

Christians,theLifeofAndrewandtheActafurtherindicatethatthepotioninflicts

79Godlove,‘BodiesasBorders’,144–45.Seealsopp.15–18,76,114,119–21and127aboveforpreviousdicussionsofdemonicdarts.80Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,p.23.Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,p.248,andSchaar,CriticalStudies,pp.15–20,arguethealterationcomesfromthedesiretodownplaythemiraculouselementsofthenarrative.

aspiritualratherthancorporealblindness.81First,Andrewandhisdisciples

cannotrecogniseChristasthehelmsmanbecausetheyarehesitantandtheir

faithisflawed(lines42–120),thentheheathenMermedoniansanddevilsare

unabletoseeAndrewwhenheisamongthem(lines133–34and189–200).82

Thejuxtapositionbetweenthecorporealfitnessandspiritualinfirmityofthe

MermedoniansisexemplifiedinthefollowinginteractionbetweenAndrewand

thedevil:

Þætdeofol,þaheþisgehyrde,hehimtocwæð,‘Þinestefneicgehiere,acicnewathwærþueart.’SehaligaAndreashimtocwæð,‘Forþonþeþueartblind,þunegesihstænigneofGodesþamhalgum.’(lines189–92).

‘Thatdevil,whenheheardthis,saidtohim,“Ihearyourvoice,butIknownotwhereyouare.”TheholyAndrewsaidtohim,“Becauseyouareblind,youdonotseeanyoftheholyonesofGod.”’

DespitebeingabletohearAndrewandseetheMermedoniansandhisphysical

surroundings,thedevilcannotseethesaintbecauseheisspirituallyblindto

Christianfaith.TheLifethenreinforcesthelinkbetweentheliteralvisibilityof

AndrewandthemetaphoricalvisibilityofthepowerofChristinChrist’s

commandthat‘Andrewarise,andbeknowntothemthattheymightrecognise

mypowertobeinyou’(Andreasaris,andgecyðhimþæthieongietonminmægen

onþewesan,line197–98).InmakingGod’spowervisible,Andrewhimselfactsas

apreacher,revealingthemysteriesofGod’snaturetounbelieversandmodeling

piousvirtue.Thepresentationofblindnessasapsychologicalailmentthatcanbe

remediedthroughprayerorpreachingsuggeststhatblindnessintheAndrew-

narrativesshouldbereadasreflectiveofanindividual’sspiritualstate.

AsthepotioncanbereadmetaphoricallyintheLife,sotoocantheguards

beinterpretedallegoricallytorefertothetemptationthatconfineshumansin

sinorspiritualblindness.TheLifeseemstoequatethesevenhyrdaswiththe

sevendemon-retainerswhotormentAndrewafterheiscaptured.Thedemonic

81Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,115–16,notesthatmotifsoffloodandblindnessareprominentinthecanonicalActsoftheApostles.82LisaKiser,‘AndreasandtheLifesWeg’,NM85:1(1984),68–70.Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,228,readstheinvisibilityinAndreasliterallyanddescribesitasa‘genuinelyabsurdandincongruousclashofstyleandcontent’.

groupisdescribedas‘thatdevilwhotookwithhimsevenotherdevils,whomthe

holyAndrewhadpreviouslyputtoflight’(ðætdeofolþagenammidhimoþre

seofondeoflo,þaþehaligaAndreasþanonafliemde,lines220–21).Thereisno

previousmentionofAndrewbanishingdevilsintheLifeofAndrew.ThePraxeis

saysthatthesearedevilswhichAndrew‘hadcastoutfromthesurrounding

countryside’whilethesurvivingLatinversionsremovethisdetailentirely.83The

composeroftheLifemighthaveomittedtheMermedoniandebateovereating

thesevendeadguards—aspresentedinActa84andAndreas(lines1088–90)—

toallowforareadingofthesevenguardsasrepresentiveofthesevendevilswho

returntotormentAndrew.

Ametaphorical,ratherthanliteral,understandingoftheguardsand

devilsintheLifeisfurthersupportedinthewayAndrewaddressesthem.Inthe

OldEnglishnarratives,Andrewcallsthedevila‘dart’or(stræl).TheLifesays,‘Lo

youhardestofdartsforeachwrong,youwhoalwaysfightagainstmankind’(Ana

þuheardestestræltoæghwilcreunrihtesse,þuþesimlefihtestwiðmannacyn,

lines186–87),85whiletheequivalentpassageinAndreasreads‘Lo,youdartof

thedevil’(Hwæt,ðudeoflesstræl,line1189b).Zupitzaarguesthatthereference

tothe‘devil’sdart’stemsfromamistranslation,wherebythedemonicname

‘Belial’(bελια)inthePraxeisisconfusedwithbελος(‘dart/arrow’).86This

alterationisevidentintheBolognatext,whichreadsverysimilarlytotheLife,

saying,‘O,youhardestofarrowswhichdoesnotceasetobringinsuffering

beyondanypestilentialsword’(Osagittadurissimaquesuperomnepestiferum

gladiuminferredoloremnonadquiescis,lines379–80).87Thiswouldsuggestthat

thealterationwaspresentintheLatinexemplarthattheOldEnglish

hagiographersconsulted.Thecontinueduseof‘devil’sdart’indicatesthat

subsequentstorytellersfeltthetitlewasappropriatewithinthehagiographical

contextofspiritualwarfare,thatoftenconceivedofdemoniccorruptionasa

83Boenig,trans.,ActsofAndrew,p.18.84Blatt,ed.ActaAndreae,p.75:10–22;Boenig,trans.,ActsofAndrew,pp.15–16and46–48.85TranslationofAnaas‘Lo’isinagreementwithAndreas1189bandtheBolognatext;DOEs.v.heonu,heono,ono,eno.86JuliusZupitza,‘ZurGragenachderQuellevonCynewulfsAndreas’,ZeitschriftfürdeutschesAltertumunddeutscheLiteratur30(1886),184–85;RobertRoot,ed.,Andreas:TheLegendofStAndrew(NewYork:Holt,1899),p.ix.87Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,p.44.

stræl,asseeninChapterTwoandtheGuthlac-narratives.88Inthesamewaythat

theLifeofAndrewincludesareferencetothedevilmetonymicallyasthe

embodimentofcorruption,theguardsaresymbolicallyperversepastorswho

trapothersinspiritualignorance.

UnliketheGuthlac-narratives,whichhighlightpsalmodyastheprimary

meanstodispeldemonsandprotectoneselfagainstdemonicstræle,theLifeof

Andrewhighlightsthesignofthecrossasanapotropaicarmament.89When

Andrewapproachestheprison,heusesthesignofthecrosstokilltheguards

andtoopentheprison(line137).Indoingso,Andrewdefeatstemptatationand

releasesthespirituallyblindfromtheirpsychologicalconfines,justasGuthlac

usesthepsalmodytopurgeCrowlandofdemons.Andrewemploysthecross

againlatertoopenthecolumnandbeginthefloodthatpunishesaswellas

baptisestheMermedonians.90WhenAndrewordersthecolumntoreleasethe

flood,heequatesthesignofthecrosswithGod’sterrifyingpowersaying,‘Dread

youtheLordandthesignofhiscross,beforewhichheavenandearthquail’

(OndrædþeDrihtenandhisrode-tanc,beforanþæmforhtigaðheofonandeorþe,

lines264–65).91Andrewlikewisewieldsthesigntoconvertthoselast

disbelieversandprovidethebaptismalsacramentthatcleansesMermedoniaof

itsprevioussin,convertingthecityintoaChristianparadise.

Similarly,whenAndrewdirectlyconfrontsdemons,itisthesealofthe

crossorsphragisonhisfacethatenableshimtoconquerthem.AsHillnotes,‘the

candidatewhohasreceivedthesphragishasnotonlyrenouncedSatan;heorshe

ishenceforthacombatantagainstSatan,andhisdemons.’92Thedevilsrecognise

thesign’spowertorepeltheirinfluenceandturnthetideofspiritualbattlein

favourofGod,asisillustratedintheirfearthroughthefollowingpassage:

88Seepp.15–17,118–21and129–30above.89Johnson,‘CruxUsualis’,pp.88–92.ForGuthlac’sapotropaicusesofthesignofthecrossseepp.119–20,131–32and136.90FordiscussionsonthefigurativenatureofthefloodasabaptismandcovenantwithGod,seeEarl,‘TypologicalStructure’,pp.74–76;ThomasD.Hill,‘FiguralNarrativeinAndreas’,NM70(1969),265–70;Walsh,‘BaptismalFlood’,141–58.91CCCC198fol.392v.providesthespellingrode-tanc,whichisreproducedinBright’sedition.92ThomasD.Hill,‘TheSphragisasApotropaicSign:Andreas1334–44’,Anglia101(1983),148.

Þadeoflaþablæstan93hieoferþonehalganAndreas,andhiegesawonCristesrodetacenonhisonsiene,hinedorstonhinegenealæcanachraðehieonwegflugon.Þætdeofolhimtocwæð,‘Minebearnforhwonneacwealdongehine?’Hiehimandswarodonandhiecwædon,‘Wenemihton,forþonþeCristesrodetanconhisonsienewegesawonandweusondredon.Wewiton[hine],forþonþeheæronþæsearfoðnessecom,heurewæswealdend.Gifþumæge,acwelhine.Weþeonþissumnehersumiað,þylæswensieþæthineGodgefreolsigeandussendeonwyrsantintrego.’SehaligaAndreashimtocwæð,‘Þeahþegemeacwellan,nedoiceowernewillan,acicdowillanminesDrihtnesHælendesCristes.’Andþushigeherdonandonwegflugon.(lines228–38).‘WhenthedevilsrushedatthatsaintAndrew,andtheysawthesignofChrist’scrossonhisface,theydidnotdaretoapproachhimbutquicklytheyfledaway.That[head]devilsaidtothem,“Mychildren,whyhaveyounotkilledhim?”Theyansweredhimandtheysaid,“Wecouldnot,becausewesawthesignofChrist’scrossonhisfaceandwefearedforourselves.Weknowhim,thathewasourruler,evenbeforehecameintothat[current]hardship.Ifyoucan,youkillhim.Wewillnotobeyyouinthis,lestthereistheprobabilitythatGodshouldfreehimandsendusintoworsetorments.”TheholyAndrewsaidtothem,“Thoughyoushouldkillme,Iwillnotdoyourbidding,butIwilldothebiddingofmyLordSaviourChrist!”Andsotheyheardandfledontheirway.’

Asthispassagedemonstrates,thesignnotonlypreventsthedemonsfrom

harmingorcorruptingAndrew,italsograntsthesaintmasteryoverthemashe

becomestheir‘ruler’(wealdend).Thedevils’statementechoesthedeclarationof

theliberatedprisonerswhosaytoAndrew‘youareourruler’(þuearture

wealdend,lines158–59).NoneoftheActa-textsincludethedetailofthedevils

bestowingthetitleof‘ruler’,oftenassociatedwithChristinOldEnglish

hagiography,uponAndrew.Instead,afterthedemonsseethecrossintheGreek

andLatinnarratives,theyresignthemselvestomockingandderidingthesaint.

ThesignofthecrossintheOldEnglishprosefunctionsasaturningpointin

Andrew’smission,andisnolaughingmatterforthoseagainstwhomitis

93TheDOEtranslatesblæstanhereas‘hurlingupon’,withthereflexive,citingthewordingintheCasanatensis:intenderuntineum(‘streched/extended/turnedtowardshim’),asevidenceforthistranslation.Bright,ed.,Grammar,p.215,alsolinksblæstanwithintenderunt.However,Morris,ed.,BlicklingHomilies,p.242,translatesblæstanas‘blew’,followingtheotherattestationswhichrefertofireeruptinginaneleventh-centurytranslationofBoniface’sLetters,DOEs.v.blæstan.ThomasD.Hill,‘WhenGodBlewSatanOutofHeaven:TheMotifofExsufflationinVercelliHomilyXIXandLaterEnglishLiterature’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish16(1985),132–37,demonstratesthatAnglo-Saxonsreferencedexsufflationasameansofexorcism;yetinthisinstanceitisthedemonsblowing,notAndrew,meaningthatitisnotstrictlyanexsufflation.

wielded.94LikethedemonsintheGuthlac-narratives,whorecognisethatGuthlac

has‘overthrowntheirmight’,95thedemonsintheLifeofAndrewacknowledge

thattheapostlehassubjugatedthem.

Andrew’sdominationoverthedemonsframesthesaint’sconversionasa

blowtothearmyofSatanintheongoingspiritualwarbetweenheavenandhell.

Likeworldlyarmieswithvaryingranksandchainsofcommand,thehomilist

createsahierarchy,atthebottomofwhicharethesevenlowerdemonswho

foresakethehead-deviltobecomesubservienttothe‘ruler’Andrew.96

Meanwhile,Andrewandthedevilsobeyandfearthepoweroftheirultimate

Lord,Christ.Thealterationofthisscenefromoneofridicule,asportrayedinthe

Acta,toadisplayofdeferenceintheLifedemonstratesthattheauthorityof

Christisimmutableandalwayssuperiortothatofthedevil.

Wehavealreadyseenhowthethemeofspiritualserviceiscentraltothe

OldEnglishGuthlac-narratives,whichfocusonGuthlacoverpoweringdevilsso

thattheydothesaint’sbiddingandtheirmightisremovedfromthespiritual

battlefield.Hillarguesthattheriskoflosingone’spowerwhenconfrontingone’s

spiritualopposite,eitherintemptingoneintosinningorinbanishingtemptation

throughfaith,arethebasisofthemilesChristi’sfight.97AlthoughHillonlynotes

thisthemeinGuthlacAandinFelix’sVita,aswellasthepotentialparallelofthe

captureddevilinJuliana(lines287–558),theLifeofAndrewprovidesanother

exampleofamilesChristidominatingdevils.Andrew’sconfrontationwiththe

demonscloselyresemblesGuthlac’sresistancewhenthedevilsbringhimtothe

brinkofhell.Felix’sVitaandtheLifeofGuthlacdepictGuthlac’srebuttalofthe

demons’threatsasfollows:

94JonathanWilcox,‘EatingPeopleIsWrong:FunnyStyleinAndreasanditsAnalogues’,inAnglo-SaxonStyles,ed.CatherineE.KarkovandGeorgeBrown(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2003),pp.207–08,suggeststhattheLife‘playsupthemockeryinthescene’tomakethedemons’overthrowmorepronounced.95Seepp.132–34above.96Fordiscussionofhierarchyamongdemonsresemblingtheimperialcourt,seeCyrilMango,‘DiabolusByzantinus’,inHomoByzantinus,ed.CutlerandFranklin(WashingtonD.C.:DumbartonOaks,1992),215–17.97Hill,‘Demon’sSting’,388b–90b.

IgituruirDeiGuthlacus,cuminnumerabilestormentorumspecieshorresceret,satellitumsibi,uelutexunoore,turmaeclamabant,dicentes:‘Eccenobispotestasdataesttetrudereinhaspœnas[…]’Illishaecetaliaplurimahissimiliadicentibus,uirDeiminaseorumdespiciens,inmotissensibus,stabilianimo,sobriamente,respondensaiebat:‘Vaeuobis,filiitenebrarum,semenCain,favillacineris.Siuestraepotentiaesitistismetraderepœnis,enpraestosum:utquidfalsiuomispectoribusuanasminasdepromitis?’(§31).

ÐaseeadigaGuthlacþamicelnyssegeseahþarawita,þawæsheforþæraegsanswyðeafyrht.Ðacleopodonsonaþaawyrgedangastasmidmycelrecleopungeandþuscwædon:Usysmihtgesealdþetosceofanneonþaswituþissedeopnysse[…]Midþyþaawyrgedangastasþisumwordum[spræconandhimswato]98beotodon,ðaandswerodeheheomþus,andcwæð:‘Waeowþeostrabearnumandforwyrdetuddre,gesyndondustandacsanandysela.Hwasealdeeowearmanþætgeminahtongewealdonþaswitutosendanne?Hwætichereomandweardandgearu,andbidigeminesDrihtneswillan.Forhwonsceolongemideowrumleasumbeotingummeegsian?’(§5:205–32).

‘ThereforewhenthemanofGod,Guthlac,washorrifiedbytheinnumberablekindsoftorture,theattendantswarmscalledasiffromonemouthsaying,“Beholdthepowerhasbeengiventoustothrustyouintothesepunishments[...]”butastheyweresayingtheseandmanyotherthingssimilar,themanofGoddespisedtheirthreats,hissensesunmoved,withthesoulofstability,withagravemind,inresponsehesaid,“Woetoyou,sonsofshadows,spawnofCain,thecindersofashes.Ifthatisinyourpowertohandmetopunishments,thanIamready:sowhyuttertheseemptythreatsfromyourchestsvomitingfalsehoods?”’

‘WhentheblessedGuthlacsawthegreatnessofthosepunishments,thenhewasgreatlyfrightenedforfearofthem.Thenthecursedspiritsimmediatelyshoutedwithagreatcacophonyandsaidthus,“Thepowerisgiventoustoshoveyouintothosetormentsofthisabyss[...]”Withthatthecursedspiritsspokethesewordsandpromisedtodoso,thenheansweredthemthus,andsaid,“Woetoyou,childrenofshadows,andwaywardprogeny,youaredustandashesandembers.Whograntedyouwretchesthatyoumighthavepowertosendmeintothosetorments?Lo,Iampresenthereandready,andawaitmyLord’swill.Whereforemustyoufrightenmewithyouremptyboasting?”’

Guthlacclaimsthatthedevilsdonothave,andpresumblyneverhad,thepower

tocarryhimintohell.TheOldEnglishaccountchangesGuthlac’sretortslightly,

shiftingthestatement‘whatpowerdoyouhave?’to‘whogaveyouthepower?’,

98IntheVercelliversionoftheLifeofGuthlac.

inordertoimplythatnodemonicauthoritycouldeverbestowthepowerto

dominateasaint.GuthlacAlikewisederidesthedemonsaslackingtheauthority

tocontrolGuthlac.Inresponsetothedevils’threats,Guthlacsays,‘Act

accordingly,iftheLordChrist,life’ssourceoflightwishestopermityou’(‘Doð

efneswa,gifeowdryhtenCrist,lifesleohtfrumalyfanwylle,lines592–93).As

notedabove,Andrewrepliesinsimilarfashionwhenheisconfrontedwiththe

demons,saying‘IwillnotdoyourbiddingbutIwilldothebiddingofmyLord

ChristtheSaviour!’(lines236–37).Throughtheseretorts,thehagiographersof

GuthlacandAndrewemphasisethatthesideofChristisalwayssuperiorin

contestsofspiritualauthorityandinfluence,andimmunetodemonicauthority.

Inbothcases,thedemons’lackofpowerisconfirmedimmediatelyafter

theymaketheirthreats.IntheGuthlac-narratives,Bartholomewarrivesand

ordersthedemonstocarryGuthlacbackhomesafely(§32–33;GuthlacA,lines

722–32).Afterwards,Bartholomew‘orderedandbade’thedemonsthatthey

‘becomesubservienttohim’(hetsehalgaapostolScsBartholomeusandheom

bebeadþæthihimwæronunderþeodde,§5:260–61).IndoingBartholomew’s

bidding,thedemonsrecognisethattheirgambittocorruptGuthlachasfailed

andbemoantheiroverthrownmight.Likewise,intheLifeofAndrew,oncethe

demonsseethesignofthecrosstheydonotobeytheirdevil-superiorand‘flee

away’(onwegflugon,lines229,and238),acknowledgingthattheyhavebeen

madetheservantsoftheirformerenemy.WhilethedemonsintheGuthlac-

narrativesneveropenlyacknowledgethatthesaintistheirsuperior,astheydo

intheLifeofAndrew,inGuthlacAtheyoffertobeloyalifheobeysthem(weþe

beoðholdegifðuushyranwilt,line280).Guthlac,knowingthatthiswillresultin

submittingtotemptationanddemonicauthority,doesnotheedtheiradvice.

Insteadheoverpowersthedemons,provingthatheistheirsuperior,who

‘controlstheplain’ofCrowland(lines702-04).

IntheLifeofAndrew,thedemons’admissionthatthesaintistheir‘ruler’

signifiestheirfinalexpulsionfromMermedonia.Afterthispassage,thedevilsdo

notreappearinthenarrative,justasGuthlacdoesnotconfrontthedemonsafter

banishingthemfromCrowland.99Havingassumedthetitleofwealdend,Andrew

imitatesChristthroughenduringhisownpassion(lines207–17and239–50)99Seepp.135–36above.

andtransformsMermedoniaintoaChristianstronghold.BothGuthlac’sand

Andrew’scontrolofthespiritualbattlefieldsofCrowlandandMermedonia

mirrorthevictoryofliteralbattlefields.TheAnglo-SaxonChronicleusesthe

formula‘theyhadcontroloftheslaughter-place’(ahtonwæl-stowegewald)to

signifyvictory,100whichByrthnothusesinTheBattleofMaldonwhenhesays

thatGodalonejudges‘whomightholdtheslaughter-place’(hwaþærewæl-stowe

wealdanmote,line95).Incontrollingthelocationsoftheirconflictswith

demons,GuthlacandAndrewareframedasmilitaryconquerors,holdingthe

fieldforthearmyofChristastheirdemonicfoesaresubdued.

Andrewattainshigherlevelsofauthoritythanthesaintspresentedinthe

Martinmas-homily,theGuthlac-narratives,ortheOldEnglishLifeofEustace.

Wheretheotherwarrior-saintsarealwaysportrayedasvenerablefollowersof

Christ,theyarenotelevatedtothelevelofChrist.101Andrewtravelsto

Mermedoniaattheheadofagroupof‘disciples’.Thesedisciplesrefuseto

abandontheirLorduntilAndrewordersthemawaybeforehistortureand

confrontationwithtemptation,justasChristleaveshisdisciplesforhis

passion.102Andrew’ssolitarystrugglewiththedevilsisapparentlyintendedto

bereadinthelightofChrist’sowndefeatofthedevilinthewilderness(Matthew

4:1–11;Luke4:1–13).

AndrewisfurtherlinkedtoChristthroughhismasteryofwater.When

Andrewleaveshisprisonduringtheflood,thewatersaresaidtoperform

obedienceathisfeet(SehaligaAndreasþauteodeofþamcarcerneandþætselfe

wæterþegnungegearwodebeforanhisfotum,lines288–89).103Andrew’scalming

oftheragingflood-watersmirrorsthestoryofChrist’scalmingofthewindand

seaofGalilee(Matthew8:23–27,Mark4:35–41,andLuke8:22–25),whichisthe

singlestorythatAndrewtellsChristasahelmsmenintheLife(lines88–95).As

AndrewretellsChrist’smiracle,herelateshowthosewhosawChrist’swork

wereterrified,saying‘[Christ]thenaroseandorderedthatthewindbestilled,

100See,forexample,ASCA871(Bately,48–49).101FordiscussionsofAndrew’simitatioChristi,seep.148above.Ontheotherhand,Reading,‘Baptism,Conversion’,18–23,arguesthatAndrew’simitationisflawed.102Bjork,VerseSaints’Lives,p.111,andDendle,‘PainandSaintMaking’,43–47and50,arguethatAndrew’storturewasnecessaryforhissanctification.103Hill,‘FigurativeNarrative’,265–70,JosephTrahernJr.,‘JoshuaandTobiasintheOldEnglishAndreas’,StudiaNeophilologica42:2(1970),330–32,andWalsh,‘BaptismalFlood’,141,linkAndrew’scontrolofwatertoNoahandMoses’controlofbiblicalfloods.

andagreatstillnessdevelopedinthesea,andallwereterrifiedofhimwhosaw

hiswork’(heþaarasandbebeadþamwindeþæthegestilde,andwæsgeworden

mycelsmyltnesonþæresæ,hieondredon,ealleþaþehisweorcgesawon,line92–

94).Inasimilarmanner,thosewhoexperienceAndrew’sfloodandseeAndrew

comeoutoftheprisonaresaidtobe‘greatlyterrified’(þawerasþaþætgesawon

hiehimswiþeondrædon,lines293–94).BothChrist’sandAndrew’sawe-

inspiringmasteryofthewatersleadtoastrengtheningoffaith.Christ’smiracle

leadstotheapostles’sgreatertrustintheirleader,whileAndrew’sempowers

himtocallonGodto‘wakenallthosewhoareinthiswatersothattheymay

believeinyourname’(awecceealleþaþeonþissewæteresyndon,þæthiegeliefon

onþinnenaman,lines301–02).

YettheAndrew-narrativesarecarefultosuggestthatallofAndrew’s

successisdependentonhisobediencetoChrist.Thisperception,thatanythingis

possiblewhenfollowingChrist’sordersasadutifulservantofthedivine,is

succinctlystatedatthestartoftheLife.AsAndrewasksthehelmsmenfor

passagetocarryouthismissionforGod,the‘LordSavioursaidtohim,“Ifyou

weregiventhisorderfromyourlord,comehereaboardmyshipwithjoy”’

(Drihtenhælendhimtocwæð,‘Gifþisgebodeowwæregesealdframeowrum

drihtene,astigaðhidermidgefeanonminscip’,lines71–72).Theculminationof

Andrew’sobedienceishisdominationofnatureandthosearoundhimbythe

endofthenarrative.104InobeyingGod,thefaithfulservantnotonlybecomesthe

rulerofthedemonic,butalsoliftsothersoutofspiritualblindness.AstheLife

reworksthesaint’sinteractionstoillustratehowAndrewisamodelservantof

God,italsoprovidesaportraitofanideal‘mixedlife’,bringingtheactiveand

communalmissionaryactionsofMartinalongsidethemasteryofinternal

temptationespousedintheGuthlac-narratives.

TheLifeofAndrewdoesnotusemartiallanguagetopresentAndrew’s

devotion.Theapostles,MatthewandAndrew,andtheirfollowersarenotframed

aswarriorsfunctioningwithinaspiritualcomitatus,astheyareinAndreasor

GuthlacA,butarecalled‘servants’(þeowas,lines17,111,215,and296)or

‘disciples’(discipulas,lines39,49–52,67,81–88,98,103,113,133,138,166,

104Friesen,‘Legendsandliturgy’,223.

308,321,and330).AlthoughconnectedtothemilesChristitradition,105the

termsþeowanddiscipulintheLifetranslateexactlytheLatintermsservusand

discipulusfoundintheCasanatensisandarenotmartial.Thereisundoubtedly

overlapbetweentheideasof‘serving’and‘soldiering’underChrist,butthe

absenceofmartiallanguageelsewhereintheLifesuggeststhattheAnglo-Saxon

hagiographerdidnotseedevotionthroughthecontextofametaphoricalwarrior

culture.ThismayhavepromptedtheBlickling-compilertogrouptheMartinmas-

homilyandtheLifeofAndrewtogether,giventheirdepictionsofunwarlike

missionaries,andmayreflectthecompiler’shesitancytoincludestorieswith

overtmartialimagerywhileadvocatinga‘mixedlife’.Thesepacifistdepictionsof

militesChristicontrastthemartialportraitsofsaintsthatwereproduced

contemporaneously,includingtheverseversionoftheAndrew-narrative.

TheVercellipoemAndreas

WhereastheLifeofAndrewlimitsitsuseofmilesChristiimagery,Andreas

reworkstheActa-narrativetoconsistentlypresenttheapostlesasheroic

retainersofChrist,warringagainsttheenemiesofGod.106Herbison,Hermann,

andOlsenarguethatthisadaptationofthenarrativepresentstheprotagonistsas

soldiersofChristembeddedinhagiographicaltraditionsofthemilitiaChristi.107

However,Hill’sstudyofvocabularyassociatedwiththemilesChristinotesthat

Andreas’sexpansiveuseofmartialdictionisfarmorevariedthanthelanguage

usedinworkslikeGuthlacAorJuliana.108Hillseesthemilitaryimageryin

Andreasasinappropriate,statingthatthepoem’s‘styleissoheavilydependent

ontheheroictraditionthatitinevitablyarousesthewrongsetofexpectations,

withtheresultthat,wheninactionfollows,asdictatedbythenarrative,we

105Seepp.1–3and109–10above;andMagennis,‘GodesÞeow’,144–54and159–67.106Lee,Guest-Hall,pp.58and82–95,arguesthatAnglo-SaxonChristiannarrativepoemsconcentrateonthesaints’battlesagainstdemonsonearthaftertheAscension.107Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,186–211.Olsen,‘AestheticsofAndreas’,p.395,arguesthatthemilitaristiclanguageinAndreasisthesameastheexpressionsusedforPeterinArator’sDeactibusapostolorum.JohnMilesFoley,‘ThePoet’sSelf-InterruptioninAndreas’,inProsodyandPoeticsintheEarlyMiddleAges,ed.MaryJaneToswell(Toronto:Univ.Toronto,1995),p.49,seesthemartiallanguageusedtohighlightAndrew’seffectivenessinconverting;Hermann,‘RecurrentMotifs’,7–35,demonstratesthattheAndreas-poetisplacingthesaintinthePsychomachiatradition.108Hill,‘SoldierofChrist’,70–73;Hill,‘SemanticsofOldEnglishCempa’,273–76,andMorris,‘OECempa’,81–84,arguethatCynewulf’suseofcempainJulianareferstothemilesChristitradition.SeealsoSchaar,CynewulfGroup,pp.310–16.

experienceastrongsenseofincongruity.’111Thegeneralsenseofuneaseor

‘incongruity’thatmanycommentatorshavefeltwithAndreasmaystemfromits

presentationofamilesChristiwhoisbothaspiritualwarriorandaggressive

missionary.UnlikeGuthlac’sbloodlessconversionofCrowland,Andrewfoundsa

Christianparadisethroughthedeathanddominationofhisphysicaland

metaphysicaladversaries.Thepoetmanipulatesheroicexpectationtoframethe

saintbothasasecularandChristianhero,andinsodoingmakesa‘metaphorical

reassessmentofthenatureoffightandcourage.’112

IthasbeendemonstratedthatAndreascontainsmanytextualallusionsto

otherOldEnglishworks,suggestingthatthepoetwasfamiliarwiththe

Cynewulfiancanon,Guthlacpoems,andBeowulf.113Thespecificallusionsto

otherworksinAndreasalsosuggestthatthepoetintendedtheworktoberead

byanaudiencethatwasknowledgeableofthewiderOldEnglishpoetic

corpus.114Inmeldingtogetherthetraditionsofsecularheroicpoetry,Latin

hagiography,andconceptsofthemilesChristi,theAndreas-poetatonceremoves

theworkfromanyspecificgenre,115andimbuestheActastorywithmotifsand

themesfrommultipleliterarytraditions.116Farfrombeinganinferiorcopyof

Beowulf,117orastoryabouta‘stiffnecked,willfulhesitator’whomustdo

111Hill,‘SoldierofChrist’,72.112NaotoshiFuruta,‘TheDevaluationofGermanicHeroicTraditionintheOldEnglishPoemAndreas’,inMultiplePerspectivesonEnglishPhilologyandHistoryofLinguistics,ed.TetsujiOdaandHiroyukiEto(Bern;Oxford:PeterLang,2010),p.148,also144–51.113IrinaDumitrescu,‘BeowulfandAndreas:IntimateRelations’,inDatingBeowulf:StudiesinIntimacy,ed.,DanielRemeinandEricaWeaver(Manchester:ManchesterUniv.Press,2020),pp.257–75;FrancisLeneghan,‘TheDepartureoftheHeroinaShip:TheIntertextualityofBeowulf,CynewulfandAndreas’,SELIM24:1(2019),120–29;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.60–64;Olsen,‘AestheticsofAndreas’,pp.402–06;AndyOrchard,‘BothStyleandSubstance:TheCaseofCynewulf’,inKarkovandBrown(2003),pp.278–96;Orchard,‘OriginalityofAndreas’,pp.332–47and358–70;Roberts,GuthlacPoems,pp.53–57;Root,Andreas,p.vi;FranciscoRozano-García,‘‘Hwæriswuldorþin?’TraditionalPoeticDictionandtheAlienTextintheOldEnglishAndreas’,Peritia28(2017),180–94.Kendall,‘LiteracyandOrality’,2,seesthepoetmarredbyhisownliteracy.Brooks,Andreas,xxiii-vi,believesthatAndreasdidnotdirectlyuseBeowulfbutused‘theformulaicandtraditionalnatureofOldEnglishPoetry’.Woolf,‘Saints’Lives’,p.51,seestheborrowingasameanstoshow-off.114Leneghan,‘Intertextuality’,128–29;Orchard,‘OriginalityofAndreas’,p.347;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,p.64.115Bjork,‘VerseSaints’Lives’,112;Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,189–192;Lapidge,‘SaintlyLife’,p.268.116Foley,‘Poet’sSelf-Interruption’,p.55;Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,186–211;Krapp,Andreas,pp.l–lvii;BrianShaw,‘TranslationandTransformationinAndreas’,inToswell(1995),p.165.117Boenig,SaintandHero,pp.15–16;Brooks,AndreasandtheFates,p.xxi.

penance,118AndreasmanipulatestheActa-narrativetoexploretheheroicnature

ofspiritualstruggle,119andtheidealChristiancommunity.120

TheopeningofthepoemimmediatelyplacesAndrewinamartialcontext,

asamemberofthecomitatusofChrist.WheretheopeningsoftheLifeandthe

ActasimplyrelatehowtheapostlesdrewlotsafterChrist’sdeathinorderto

decidewheretheywouldpreach,Andreasbeginsbysymbolicallyframingthe

apostlesas‘thegns’or‘heroes’ofChrist:

Hwæt!Wegefrunanonfyrn-dagumtwelfeundertunglumtir-eadigehæleð,þeodnesþegnas.Nohiraþrymalægcamp-rædenneþonnecumbolhneotan,syððanhiegedældon,swahimdryhtensylf,heofonaheah-cyning,hlytgetæhte.Þætwæronmæremenofereorðan,fromefolctoganondfyrd-hwate,roferincas,þonnerondondhandonhere-feldahelmealgodon,onmeotud-wange.(lines1–11a).‘Lo,Wehaveheardindaysgoneby,oftwelvevictory-blessedheroesunderthestars,thegnsoftheLord.Neverdidtheirglorywaneinfightingwhenthestandardsclashed,afterwardstheydispersedbylot,astheLordhimself,thehigh-kingofheaven,hadinstructed[them].Theywerefamousmenonearth,braveandvaliantleadersofpeople,strongmen,whentheshieldandhandprotectedthehelmetonthebattle-field,onthefieldoffate.’

Theimageryismartial,describingtheapostlesasbattle-hardenedheroeswho

striveforgloryinGod’sfight.121The‘shields’and‘helmets’thatthesaintly‘bold

warriors’wieldinthefatefulbattlearereminiscentofthespiritualarmour

118Boenig,SaintandHero,pp.35–36;Boenig,ActsofAndrew,pp.xandxxiv–xxv.Reading,‘Baptism,Conversion’,5–23,arguesthatthepoemfocusesonAndrew’sincompleteandflawedfaith.119Furuta,‘Devaluation’,pp.144–48;Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,196–211;Krapp,Andreas,pp.l–lii.120SeeLee,Guest-Hall,pp.85–92;Magennis,ImagesofCommunity,pp.173–78;FabienneMichelet,‘EatingBodiesintheOldEnglishAndreas’,inFleshlyThingsandSpiritualMatters,ed.NicoleNyffeneggerandKatrinRupp(Cambridge:Scholars,2011),pp.165–88;Shaw,‘TranslationandTransformation’,pp.169–172;Walsh,‘BackgroundsofImagery’,p.258.Rozano-García,‘PoeticDiction’,177–94,arguesthattheAndreas-poetusestraditionaldictiontomakeacontinentalstoryfamiliarforAnglo-Saxonaudiences.121Hill,‘SoldierofChrist’,70–73;Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,193.

describedinEphesiansandtheGuthlac-narratives.122Similarly,themissionary

workeachapostlepursuesiscastasa‘battlefield’andthe‘fieldoffate’.123The

uniquecompounddescribingearth,meotud-wang,impliesthattheeveryone’s

actionswillbejudgedonwhethertheyareworthyofsalvationordamnation.

Thisunderstandingoftheearthbeingafielduponwhichonefightsrighteously

orwickedlyisalsoseeninthecompoundsbeadu-wang(‘battle-plain’),usedby

Andrew’sfollowerswhentheyrefusetoleavehisside,andstede-wang(‘fixed-

field’,lines334,774and988),usedwhentheapostlesortheanimatedstatue

exposeChrist’sglory.Therestofthepoemexploreshowthetwosidesof

spiritualwarfarefightonthemeotud-wangorstede-wang,andwinsaintlyglory

orperishintheabyssofsin.Descriptionsoftwofatesonemightfindonthe

meotud-wangarefoundintheothercompoundsincorporating–wang

throughoutthepoem.ThosesinfulMermedoniansfindearthtobeadeað-wang

(‘death-plain’,line1003)andwel-wang(‘slaughter-plain’1226),whilethe

Andrewattainsneorxna-wang(‘paradise’,line102)andasige-wang(‘victory-

plain’,1581),mirroringGuthlac’sassumptionofthegrenewangthatsymbolises

paradise.124

ThroughoutAndreas,Andrew’sactionsbuildontheimagerysetoutinthe

openinglines,sothathisjourneytoMermedoniaisframedmoreasamartial

expeditionthananevangelicalmission.125Therepeateduseofcompounds

containingguð-(‘battle’)thoroughlysituatesAndrew’sworkinthecontextof

warfare.Forinstance,Andrewparticipatesin‘battle-play’(guð-plega,line1369)

withthedevilsandawaits‘battle-deeds’(guð-weorca,line1066)inanticipation

ofhisconfrontationafterliberatingtheprisoners.Theattestationofthe

compoundguð-[ge]weorcinAndreasistheonlyoccurrenceoutsideofBeowulf

(lines677,980,and1822),whereitreferstoGrendel’sandBeowulf’sworldly

combat.Inusingthewordguð-weorcforAndrew’sactions,theAndreaspoet

appropriatesawordwithsecularheroicconnotationsforspiritualheroism.This

processofappropriationofheroicdictionforreligiouspurposesisclearlyseen

122Seepp.1–3,112–18and121–23above.123Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,216,translatesmeotud-wangas‘doom-field’.124NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,p.298.125Olsen,‘AestheticsofAndreas’,pp.402–07,alsolinksAndrew’sjourneytothe‘heroonthebeach’tropeofsecularliterature.

withthecompoundguð-plega,whichChristB(line573),aswellasFatesofthe

Apostles(line22)useinthecontextofspiritualwarfare.Theonlyliteraluseof

thecompoundisinthelatetenthorearlyeleventh-centuryBattleofMaldon(line

59),suggestingthetermguð-plegawasco-optedformetaphoricalwarfareearly

inthepoetictradition.126Theuseofguð-plegainthefollowingpassagefrom

FatesspecificallyreferstoAndrew’smissionsandmayhavebeentheAndreas-

poet’sinspirationforemployingtheterm:

SwylceAndreasinAchagiaforEgiasaldregeneðde.Neþreododeheforeþrymmeðeod-cyninges,ænigesoneorðan,achimecegeceaslangsumrelif,leohtunhwilen.Syþþanhilde-heard,herigesbyrhtme,æfterguð-plegangealganþehte.(lines16–22).‘LikewiseAndrewventuredhislifeinAchaiabeforeÆgias.Hedidnotwaverbeforethegloryofthepeople’sking,[or]ofanyofearth,buteternallychoseforhimselfthelongerlife,thetimelesslight.Afterwardsthebattle-hardenedone,intheclamourofthearmy,wasstretcheduponthegallowsafterthebattle-play.’

FatesdepictsAndrewasa‘battle-hardened’warriorwhofallsafterabattle(guð-

plega).Andreassimilarlyframesmartyrdominthecontextofwarfare,saying

thatAndrew‘awaitshisdeathinbattle’(beadu-cwealmgebad1702).Theseare

notphysicalbattles,butreferencestothespiritualmilitaryserviceofthe

martyredmilesChristi.

ElsewhereinAndreas,Andrew’sexcursiontofreeMatthewandconvert

theMermedonians,aswellasthedemon’sresistancetoChristianfaith,arecalled

‘war’(guð,lines234,951,1330,1349,1354,and1387;guð-gewinn,line217;

guð-geþing,lines1022and1043).WhenAndrewandMatthewmeet,Andrew

speaksofhisapproachas‘anoutcomeofbattle,afightagainstsinfulmen’

(1022b–23a).Andreas’sapplicationofmartialorheroictermstothesaint’s

soldieringshowsthatOldEnglishhagiographerswerenotuniversallylimitedto

variationsofthetermscempa,campian,andgewinn,asHillsuggests,127butused

126SeeOrchard’sanalysisofthisprocesswithCaedmon’sHymnandGenesisin‘ConspicuousHeroism’,pp.45–58.127Hill,‘SoldierofChrist’,59–63;andseepp.2–3and109–10above.

thebroaderlexiconforwarriorculturethatframedheroesthroughoutOld

Englishliterature.128

TherangeofmartiallanguageusedtodepictthemilitesChristiisalso

evidentintheepithetsforthefaithfulthatappearinAndreas.Apostlesare

variouslycalled‘thegns’(þegn,lines344,363,376,384,391,402,528,and1026;

magu-þegn,line94),‘warriors’(cempan,lines230,461,538,991,1055,and

1446),‘battle-warriors’(guð-rincas,line392),‘heroes’(hæleðlines362,883,

1055;hælehilde-deor,line1002),‘soldiers’(orettan,lines463,664,879,and

983),orthe‘foremostoneindeeds’(dæd-fruma,line1455).Herbisonnotesthat

thefrequentuseofþegninthepoemmayrefertoboththemilesChristitradition

aswellastheetymologyofAndrew’sname,meaningthe‘manly’or‘þegnlic’

one.129Andreasreferstothecollectivegroupoftheapostlesandtheirfollowers

as‘experiencedretainersoftheLord’(dugeðadryhten,line394,698,and878),

‘nobles’(æðelingas,lines44,692,793,805,857,882,990,1174,1223,1272,

1459,1575,and1713)and‘menbraveinbattle’(beornasbeadu-rofe,lines96,

145,848,and982).ThesaintsthatAndrew’sfollowersseeintheirdreamsare

called‘thebeautifulhostoftheLord[Christ]andcohortofglory’(wlitigweoroda

heapondwuldresþreat,line870),and‘blessedsoldier’(eadigoretta,line879).

WhenAndrewspeakstothestonecolumninprison,hesimilarlyreferstothe

spiritualarmyofGod,whichhecallsthe‘strongestofarmies’(herigeamæste,

line1501),andtheholymenoftheOldTestamentwhofearedGod’spowerare

referredtoas‘bravewarrior-thegns’(modigemagu-þegnas,line1515).The

militarylanguageusedinAndreascontrastswiththeunwarliketermsusedfor

theapostlesintheproseLife,notably‘servant’(þeow)or‘disciple’(discipul).

AndreaslikewiseplacesthedemonsopposingChrist’sarmyinan

accursedcomitatus.130Demonsarecalledthe‘youngeronesinwar’(gingranæt

guðe,line1330)andthe‘devil’sthegns’(deoflesþegnas,line43,also1329),in

contrasttoopeninglineswhereapostlesarethe‘Lord’sthegns’(þeodnesþegnas,

line3).ThesethegnsofSatanboastthattheyledHerodtodefeatChristin

combat(forcomætcampe,line1325)andportraytheirconfrontationwith

128GuyBourquin,Guy,‘TheLexisandDeixisoftheHeroinOldEnglishPoetry’,inCarruthersandCrépin(1994),pp.1–5.129Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,194.Fortheetymologyof‘Andrew’seep.141above.130Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,192;Krapp,Andreas,p.li–lii.

Andrewasa‘dangerousfight’(frecnefeohtan,line1350),‘sword-play’or

‘warrior-play’(secg-plegan,line1353),and‘battle,arushofwar’(guðe…wiges

woman,lines1354–55).Thedemonsseetheiractionsasheroic,lookingto

‘shame’(bysmrigen,line1357)Andrew,andthehead-devilstyleshiscompatriots

as‘mymenarereadyforthatbattle-play,who,withoutanydelay,willdriveout

[your]lifewithdeedsofvalourofany’(Secgasminetoþamguð-plegangearwe

sindon,þaþeæningaellen-weorcumunfyrnfacafeorhætþringan,lines1368–71).

Suchmartiallanguagesetsthedevilsasfoilstothesaintsinanongoingwar

betweenheavenandhell,awarinwhichthesaintswilltriumph.

AsAndreasarmsthefaithfulwithshieldsandhelmetsthroughits

allusionstothePaulinespiritualarms,italsodrawsonthemilesChristi-motifof

thedemonicarrowsoftemptation.WhentheprisonersfleeMermedonia,they

arecoveredbyacloudthatprotectsthemagainstthe‘arrowsoftheoldenemies’

(earh-fareeald-geniðlan,line1048).Thisdetailatoncealludestothecloudthat

coversthefleeingIsraelitesinExodus14:19–20,131aswellasthemetaphysical

arrowsoftemptationofthe‘OldEnemy’Satan,indicatingthattheprisonershave

beenconvertedandremovedfromdemonictemptation.Ametaphoricalreading

ofthearrowsissupportedlaterinthereferencetothedevilas‘thedevil’sdart’

(deoflesstræl,line1189),asdiscussedabove,132andinthedevil’sordersto‘drive

thearrowstainedwithpoisonintothefatedman’sspirit’(earhættregemæl,in

gedufaninfægesferð,lines1331–32a).

AstheAndreas-poetsimilarlycharacterisesconversioninmartialterms,

sayingthatAndrew’sevangelicalmissiontoMermedoniaprotectsthenewly

convertedcityfromthedevils’arrowsandassaultfromangry-mindedenemies:

ÞætwæsSatanesartogeþolienne,mycelmodessorg,þætheðamenigeogeseahhweorfanhige-bliðeframhell-trafumþurhAndreasestelaretofægerangefean,þærnæfrefeondesnebið,gastesgram-hydiges,gangonlande.(lines1692–94).‘ThatwaspainfulforSatantoendure,agreatsorrowofthemind,thathethensawthatmultitudeturnfromthehell-pavilionswithjoyousminds,

131Earl,‘TypologicalStructure’,p.88;Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,229.132Seep.155above.

throughAndrew’skindteaching,towardsthatbeautifuljoy,wherethereisneverthepassageoftheenemy,oftheangry-mindedspirit,onland.’

ThepoetportraystheconversionofMermedoniaasawoundtoSatan,whois

injuredinthe‘mind’(mod),muchashisarmy’sarrowsoftendotoothers.

Mermedonia’sconversionisthencastasarefortificationagainstbelligerent

paganism.ThisconversionofMermedoniafromthe‘hell-pavilions’(hell-trafum)

doesnotseemtobealiteralabandonmentoftemplestructuresasmuchasa

metaphoricalabnegationofsinfulpractices.GarnerandYorke,believingthatno

templesorreligiousstructuresassociatedwithAnglo-Saxonpaganismsurvive,

arguethatAnglo-Saxonpaganismdidnothavedefinedarchitectureor

buildings.133However,BlairshowsthatthearchitecturallandscapeofEngland

changedbetween500–900,andthatpaganAnglo-Saxonsbuiltstructureswitha

predominatelyritualratherthandomesticpurpose,althoughthesedidnot

resembleGreco-RomantemplesorChristianchurches.134Itisunclearhowmuch

theninth-centuryAndreas-poetunderstoodofhistoricalorcontemporarypagan

architecture,anditisalsopossiblethatdescriptionsoftemplesinAndreasand

Anglo-Saxonconversion-narrativesprimarilyrefertospiritualorallegorical

templesassociatedwithheathenbeliefsorpractices.Withthedestructionof

suchbeliefs,themetaphoricalarchitectureofdamnationisreplacedwiththatof

paradise.Wesawthisinthepreviouschapterwiththemultifarious

interpretationsofthebeorginGuthlacA.135Theimageryofhellisharchitecture

beingabandonedandprotectionfromthe‘angry-minded’inAndreassimilarly

mirrorsthe‘angry-minded’enemiesfoundintheMartinmas-homily.136

YetAndreas’smartialimagerygoesbeyondthetraditionofthemissionary

milesChristitoredefinedevotiontoChristaspositivelyheroic.Indoingso,the

poemdevaluesthewarriorcultureinsecularsociety,whilemakingparticipation

inthemetaphoricalwarriorcultureofChristthemeanstogaingloryandreach

sanctifiedheightsofprowess.Thisromanticisationoftheapostle’sjourneyisset

133LoriGarner,‘TheOldEnglishAndreasandtheMermedonianCity-Scape’,EssaysinMedievalStudies24(2007),57–61;BarbaraYorke,‘FromPagantoChristianinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inTheIntroductionofChristianityintotheEarlyMedievalInsularWorld,ed.RoyFlechnerandMáireNíMhaonaigh(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishing,2016),pp.240–49.134JohnBlair,BuildingAnglo-SaxonEngland(Princeton;Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2018),pp.86–95.135Seepp.123–26above.136Seepp.75–80above.

outatthebeginningofAndrew’smission:

Þawæsærendeæðelumcempanabodeninburgum,newæshimbleaðhyge,ahhewæsanrædellen-weorces,heardondhige-rof,nalashild-lata,gearo,guðefram,togodescampe.(lines230–34).‘Thenwasthetaskannouncedinthetownstothenoblefighter,norwashismindsoft,buthewassingle-mindedinthedeedofcourage,hardandbrave,notatallslowinbattle,butreadyforGod’sfight,keenforbattle’

ThispassagedoesnotframeAndrew’smissiontoMermedoniaasarescueoran

orderthataservantmustfulfillforhismaster.Rather,inAndreasthesaintisa

‘noblewarrior’embarkingonadventureandforbattle.Heissettingout

specificallytoperforma‘deedofvalour’(ellen-weorc),inthesamewayBeowulf

depictsitsheroes.137Likeitsappropriationofthetermguð-weorc,thepoem

appropriatesthepreviouslysecularideaofperforming‘deedsofvalour’,and

appliesittoaspiritualsoldierremovedfromworldlywarriorpursuits.138

InremodelingAndrewasanidealwarriorinacomitatus,Andreasframes

scenesofthenarrativeasreminiscentofheroicliterature—likeBeowulf,the

episodeofCynewulfandCyneheardintheChronicle,andtheBattleofMaldon—

whileundercuttingthevalueofsecularheroism,specificallythatofthe

Mermedonianwarrior-society.Thisappropriationofheroicimageryisnota

simpleGermanisierung,aresultofthe‘oralformulaictradition’,ora

secularisationofthetext,butthepoet’sactivedisplacementofreverenceforthe

worldlyhero.139AbriefconsiderationofhowAndreaspresentsAndrew’svoyage

toMermedoniawillillustratehowtheAndreas-poetreplacessecularhall-culture,

whichisboundbyphysicaltreasureandworldlyrenown,140withalord-retainer

137Thecompoundellen-weorcoccurstentimesintheDOECorpus:sixtimesinBeowulf,twiceinAndreas,onceinGuthlacA,andonceinVercelliXVIIon‘ThePurificationofMary’.Bourquin,‘LexisandDeixis’,pp.3–4,identifieswordswithellen-aspartoftheheroicparadigm.Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,220–28,suggeststhattheironyofAndrew’shesitancyasasaintisreplacedwithheroiccouragepredicatedonspiritualvalourorellen.138Furuta,‘Devaluation’,pp.144–48.139RichardNorth,‘MeetthePagans:OntheMisuseofBeowulfinAndreas’,inAspectsofKnowledge,ed.MarilinaCesarioandHughMagennis(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2018),p.205.140Battles,‘ContendingThrong’,41–42;Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,222;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,p.231;North,‘MeetthePagans’,p.189.

relationshippredicatedonspiritualrewardsandheavenlypromise.141

AftertellingChristthathecannotpayhisfarewiththetraditional

exchangeoftreasureorrings(lines270–75),Andrewoffersa‘rewardfromGod’,

(meorðwiðgod,line275).142Thepoetkeepstheritualofexchangingornategifts

forloyaltyorservices,asmentionedintheActasource,butreplacestheearthly

rewardswiththeirspiritualequivalent.143Andrewthenboardstheboat,and‘the

heroes[ChristandAndrew]sit,thegloriouslords,thehandsomethegns’(hæleð

insæton,þeodnasþrymfulle,þegnaswlitige,lines362–63).Thelineglorifiesthe

situation,likeningAndrewandChristtoidealisedlordsinconference.Laterin

thescene,Christ,inhisyouthfulhelmsmanguise,callsAndrew‘thegn’(lines

553–54)whileAndrewcallshim‘lord’(line629),therebymaintainingthe

hierarchybetweenapostleandChrist,andframingthemasalordspeakingwith

hisretainer.Thereferencestoþegnandwlitigmakeanotheronomasticplayon

thename‘Andrew’.144

Similarly,Andrew’sretainersreactasmembersofthecomitatuswhen

theyrefusetoabandonhimlesttheybeconsideredcowardly(lines401–14).

Theydefineproperdisciplesasthosethat‘alwayssupportedhislordatbattle,

whenhandandshieldsufferedonthebattle-plain,grounddownwithswordsin

theplayofstrife’(symlegelæstehlafordeæthilde,þonnehandondrondonbeadu-

wangebillumforgrundenætnið-plegannearuþrowedon,lines411–14).Thisis

reminiscentoftheopeninglineswhichdescribetheapostlesfightingonthe

meotud-wang.Thisideal,thatthegooddisciplefollowshisorherlordevenwhen

theoutlookofabattleisdire,mirrorsthecomitatus-ideal,inwhicharetainer

diesonthebattlefieldwithhislord,ascelebratedinTacitus’sGermania,145

exemplifiedbyByrhtnoth’sretainersinTheBattleofMaldon,andalludedtowith

WiglafinBeowulf(lines2602–60and2864–74a).146Thedisciples’referenceto

the‘handandshield’(handondrond)alsoechoesthedepictionoftheapostlesin141Brooks,AndreasandtheFates,p.xxi;Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,192–206;Hermann,‘RecurrentMotifs’,30–31;Leneghan,‘Intertextuality’,123.142Walsh,‘ApocryphalHero’,112–113,suggeststhatthisstemsfromMatthew10:9–10.143Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,221–222.144Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,194.145HerbertBenario,ed.,TacitusGermany,Germania,(Warminster:ArisandPhilips,1999),pp.26–28.Seep.17foranintroductiontotheideaofacomitatus.146Battles,‘ContendingThrong’,46–51.ForidentificationsofthethemeelsewhereinOldEnglishpoetryseeO’BrienO’Keeffe,‘HeroicValues’,pp.107–23;Riedinger,‘FormulaicRelationship’,p.284;C.J.Wolf,‘ChristasHeroinTheDreamoftheRood’,NM71(1970),202–10.

thepoem’sopeninglines(line7),equatingtheirloyaltytoAndrewwithloyalty

toChristinspiritualwarfare.147Andrew’sevangelicalmissiontoMermedoniais

styledasamilitarycampaign,withdiscipleswhoarereferredtoas‘travelersto

battle’(heaþu-līþendas,line425),usingacompoundotherwiseonlyfoundin

Beowulf(lines1794,and2951)todescribetheGeatsthatOngentheowfights.

Andreas’sappropriationofmilitarydictionshiftstheironyofthe

narrativefromAndrew’sflawedcharacter,asintheActa,tofocusinsteadonthe

ironyoftheMermedonianadherencetosecularwarriorculture.148This

satirisationofsecularwarriorsispresentinJulianaandJudith,withregardto

theirdevaluationofthehall-cultureethosoftheirantagonists,149andthe

Martinmas-homily,whichhighlightstheimpotencyofbelligerentpagans.150As

Hermannstates:

(The)Christianinversionofepictraditionpreserveswhatisofvalueunderthenewdispensationatthesametimethatitcancelsit.Suchliterarytransformationsare…emblematicofthedesiretomanipulateapaganculturalinheritanceforChristianends.151

ThepowerlessnessandvainmartialposturingoftheMermedoniansillustrate

howsecularheroismisuselesscomparedtospiritualheroismofthemilites

Christi.152InthewordsofFuruta,‘thepoetexploitsthewell-knownconventionof

Germanicheroictraditioninaninverted,ironicwaysoastoreversethe

traditionalpatternofexpectancyanddenouncethatverytradition.’153

WheretheActacharacterisestheMermedoniansprimarilyas

cannibalistic,154andtheLifeofAndrewshowsthemtobespirituallyblind,

147ComparetoBeowulf,lines656–57,siþðanichondondrondhebbanmihte,ðryþærnDena(‘sinceI,handandshield,wasabletoraisethesplendidhouseoftheDanes’).148Wilcox,‘EatingPeople’,pp.206–08,suggeststhehyperbolicportrayalofthedemonsisdonehumorouslyandtohighlighttheirlackofpower.149Furuta,‘Devaluation’,p.126;IvanHerbison,‘HeroismandComicSubversionintheOldEnglishJudith’,EnglishStudies91:1(2010),7–22;AlexandraOlsen,‘InversionandPoliticalPurposeintheOldEnglishJudith’,EnglishStudies63:4(1982),289–93;ClaudeSchneider,‘Cynewulf'sDevaluationofHeroicTraditioninJuliana’,ASE7(1978),107–18.150Seepp.79–80above.151Hermann,‘Recurrentmotifs’,31,also30–35.152Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,229–34;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.64–66and98.153Furuta,‘Devaluation’,p.143.SeealsoDavidHamilton,‘AndreasandBeowulf:PlacingtheHero’,inAnglo-SaxonPoetry,ed.LewisNicholsonandDoloresFrese(London:Univ.NotreDame,1975),pp.85–86.154Brady,‘EchoesofBritons,686–88;AlexandraBolintineanu,‘TheLandofMermedoniaintheOldEnglishAndreas’,Neophilolgus93(2009),150–53.

AndreasdepictstheMermedoniansashyperbolicallywarlike.155Rozano-García

suggeststhatAnglo-Saxonpoetsoftenframedantagonistsinsocialstructuresor

performingactionsfamiliartocontemporaryaudiences,whileplacingthem

outsidewhatwasconsideredacceptable,thereby‘othering’them.156AsGodlove

argues,‘theencountersofMatthewandAndrewwiththestrangeandheathen

Other,themonstrousMermedonian,serveatoncetodefinewhatitmeanstobe

Christianandtoquestiontheveryfoundationofthatdefinition.’157Suchisthe

casewiththeMermedonians,whoarecalled‘greedybattle-warriors’(grædige

guð-rincas,line155a),‘spear-bearers’(æsc-berend,line1076a),or‘heathen

battle-warriors’(hæðnehild-frecan,lines126and1070)whohave‘battle-might’

(hild-þrymme,line1032b).Thesedescriptors,particularlythecompoundhild-

freca,whichonlyappearsinBeowulftorefertotheScylfings(line2205)andto

Beowulfhimself(line2366),contextualiseMermedoniaasawarrior-society

similartoDenmark,Geatland,andSwedeninBeowulf.158

TheexaggeratedmilitarisationoftheMermedoniansisclearfromtheir

introduction,whentheyaresaidtocutouttheeyesoftheircaptiveswith‘the

pointsofspears’(garaordum,line33).Andreas’smentionofspears,presumably

notthebesttoolstouseforpluckingouteyes,emphasisestheexaggerated

warrior-natureoftheMermedonians.Indeed,theMermedoniansapproach

everythingarmedasifforbattle,regardlessofthefactthatmilitarymightisnot

required.Theymarchwithspearsandshieldstocapturetheunarmedand

companionlessMatthew(lines45–47and125–28).Whengoingabouttheirdaily

routinesordiscussingtheirfoodshortage,theMermedoniansformanarmy

underwar-chieftains(lines1067–69and1093–97).Theyarecalled‘warlike

men’(guðfrecguma)of‘veteranandyoungcompanies’(duguðeondeoguðe)as

theyattempttosacrificeadefencelessyouth(lines1116–23).Christforewarns

Andrewofthisbehaviour,sayingthattheMermedonianswillconfronthimasif

155Furuta,‘Devaluation’,pp.127–30and147.156Rozano-García,‘PoeticDiction’,191–92.157Godlove,‘BodiesasBorders’,138–41.SeealsoIrving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,216–18,Magennis,inImagesofCommunity,pp.173–78,and‘Conversion’,294–96,andWoolf,‘Saints’Lives’,52.158PaulBattles,‘DyingforaDrink:‘SleepingaftertheFeast’ScenesinBeowulf,Andreas,andtheOldEnglishPoeticTradition’,ModernPhilology112:3(2015),447–56;Lee,Guest-Hall,p.89;Magennis,ImagesofCommunity,pp.174–78.Godlove,‘BodiesasBorders’,139and158–59,andLee,Guest-Hall,91–92,alsobelievethattheMermedonianswerebasedontheVikings.

inbattle,offeringhim‘thebattle-rushofheathens,thebattle-craftofwarriors’

(hæðenrahilde-woman,beornabeadu-cræft,lines218b–19a).

EventheMermedoniancannibalismisportrayedasaperverse

distributionof‘bone-rings’(ban-hringas,line150)159amongretainers,insteadof

treasureorgoldenrings.AsIrvingnotes,‘theircannibalisticfeastisagross

parodyoftheGermaniccustomofgenerositydistributingfoodanddrinktoallin

themead-hall,atthesametimeitisalsoasavagedesecrationoftheChristian

Eucharist.’160Thiscorruptedreflectionofthedistributionofwealthin

MermedoniacontraststheidealChristiancomitatusrelationshipbetween

AndrewandChristduringthevoyage,whichreplacestheexchangeofphysical

giftswiththeexchangeofspiritualrewards(lines474b–88).Incontrastingthe

twoapproachestogift-giving,Andreascritiquesthecannibalisticnatureofthe

heathens,whoseetheirsocietyboundthroughtheconsumptionofacorrupt

Eucharist.161ThewarpedsocialstructuresofMermedoniaareconsequently

fragile,upsetbyasingleopponent,sothatthepeopleareeasilydeprivedofjoy

astheirdrinking-hallsandlardersareemptied(lines1158–62).

TheAndreas-poetfurther‘devalues’secularwarrior-societybyinverting

thecharacterassociationsfromthepassagesitborrowsfromBeowulf.162In

particular,HamiltonandOrchardfocusonhowtheAndreas-poetaltersor

invertstheconnotationsofversesborrowedfromBeowulf.163Thethematic

manipulationoftheseborrowedphrasesdonotstem,asPeters164orBrooks165

suggest,fromtheineptitudeofthe‘light-weight’,166‘dunderhead’poet,167or‘the

159Theonlyotherattestationofban-hringisBeowulf1567a,whereitreferstotheneckofGrendel’smotherbeingsevered.160Irving,‘ReadingofAndreas’,219.161Earl,‘TypologicalStructure’,pp.78–80.162Furuta,‘Devaluation’,pp.130and146–47.Riedinger,‘FormulaicRelationship’,pp.283and290–99,proposesthattheAndreaspoetdirectlyborrowedfromaBeowulf-manuscript,usingitasastoreforverse.Hamilton,in‘AndreasandBeowulf’,pp.88–92,and‘DietandDigestion’154–58,disagreeswithRiedinger.Forbreakdownsofallborrowedpassages,seeOrchard,‘OrginalityofAndreas’,pp.358–59,andNorth,‘MeetthePagans’,pp.185–209.163SeeHamilton,‘AndreasandBeowulf’,pp.81–98;Orchard,‘OriginalityofAndreas’,pp.358–59.164LeonardPeters,‘TheRelationshipoftheOldEnglishAndreastoBeowulf’,PMLA66:5(1951),‘AndreastoBeowulf’,856–63.165Brooks,AndreasandtheFatesoftheApostles,pp.xxv-vi.166Woolf,‘Saints’Lives’,53.167EricG.Stanley,‘Beowulf’,inStanley(1966),pp.110–114.SeealsoSatyendraKumarDas,CynewulfandtheCynewulfCanon(Calcutta:UniversityofCalcutta,1942),228–31,whosays‘themanwhocomposedAndreas[was]apoetofaveryloworder’;andGerould,Saints’Legends,pp.85–89,whoevaluatesAndreasas‘theworkofasecondaryandimitativepoet’.

formulaicandtraditionalnatureofOldEnglish’verse.168Rather,theyare

consciouseffortstomakeBeowulfianMermedoniansouttobemonstersandthe

saintaterrifyingassailantthatupsetstheirbackwardsociety.169

ThisinversionofBeowulf’sworldlywarriorcultureisevidentinAndrew’s

approachtotheMermedonianprison.ComparingthepassagefromBeowulf

relatingGrendel’sapproachtoHeorotwiththedepictionofAndrew’sapproach

inAndreas,itisclearthattheAndreas-poetbasedhissceneonBeowulf.170

Beowulf Andreas

Comonwanrenihtscriðansceadu-genga.Sceotendswæfon,þaþæthorn-recedhealdanscoldon,eallebutonanum.þætwæsyldumcuþþæthienemoste,þametodnolde,sescyn-scaþaundersceadubregdan;achewæccendewraþumonandanbadbolgen-modbeadwageþinges.Ðacomofmoreundermist-hleoþumGrendelgongan,Godesyrrebær;mynteseman-scaðamannacynnessumnebesyrwaninseleþamhean.Wodunderwolcnumtoþæsþehewin-reced,gold-selegumena,gearwostwisse,fætumfahne.NewæsþætformasiðþætheHroþgareshamgesohte;næfreheonaldor-dagumærnesiþðanheardranhæle,heal-ðegnasfand.Comþatorecederincsiðian,dreamumbedæled.Durusonaonarn,fyr-bendumfæst,syþðanhehirefolmumæthran;onbrædþabealo-hydig,ðahegebolgenwæs,recedesmuþan.Raþeæfterþononfagneflorfeondtreddode,eodeyrre-mod;himofeagumstodliggegelicostleohtunfæger.Geseahheinrecederincamanige,swefansibbe-gedrihtsamodætgædere,mago-rincaheap.Þahismodahlog;mynteþæthegedælde,ærþondægcwome,atolaglæca,anragehwylceslifwiðlice,þahimalumpenwæswist-fyllewen.(lines702b–34a).

Ðawæsgemyndigmod-geþyldig,beornbeaduweheard,eodeinburhhraðe,an-rædoretta,elnegefyrðred,magamoderof,meotudegetreowe,stoponstræte,(stigwisode),swahimnæniggumenaongitannemihte,synfulrageseon.Hæfdesigoraweardonþamwang-stedewærebetoldenleofneleod-frumanmidlofesinum.Hæfdeþaseæðelingingeþrungen,Cristescempa,carcerneneh.Gesehhehæðenrahloðætgædere,forehlin-durahyrdasstandan,seofoneætsomne.Ealleswyltfornam,drurondomlease.Deað-ræsforfenghæleðheoro-dreorige.Ðasehalgagebædbilwytnefæder,breost-gehygdumheredeonhehðoheofon-cyningesþrym,godesdryhtendom.Durusonaonarnþurhhand-hrinehaligesgastes,ondþærineode,elnesgemyndig,hælehilde-deor.Hæðeneswæfon,dreoredruncne,deað-wangrudon.(lines981–1003).

168Forexample,seeKendall,‘LiteracyandOrality’,8–9;Foley,‘Poet’sSelf-Interruption’,pp.47–56;Shaw,‘TranslationandTransformation’,p.176;Shippey,OldEnglishVerse,pp.86–96.169Hamilton,‘AndreasandBeowulf’,p.86;North,‘MeetthePagans’,p.186.170Orchard,‘OriginalityofAndreas’,p.358;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.73–74;North,‘MeetthePagans’,pp.193–95.

‘Thewalkerinshadowcameglidinginthedarknight;theshootersslept,thosethatoughttoholdthatgabled-hall,allbutone.Thatwasknowntomen,thatthedemonic-foemaynotdragthemundershadow,whentheMeasurerdidnotwishit,butthewakefuloneawaitedinangerforthehostileone,enragedinhismindhewaitedfortheoutcomeofbattle.ThenGrendelcamemovingoverthemoorunderthemisty-slopes,heboreGod’sanger;theevilravagerintendedtoentrapacertainoneofthekinofmaninthathighhall.Hecameunderthecloudstothatplacewherehemostreadilyknewthewine-hall,thegold-hallofmen,adornedwithtreasure.ThatwasnotthefirsttimethathesoughtHrothgar’shall.Neverinthedaysofhislifebeforeorsincedidhewithharderluckfindhall-thegns.Thewarrior,deprivedofjoys,cametravellingtothathall.Thedoor,forgedwithiron-bars,suddenlyburstopenafterhetoucheditwithhishands;themurderousoneswungopenthemouthofthehall,thenhewasenraged.Afterthattheangry-mindedenemywent,quicklyhetrodonthepavedfloor;aneerielightmostlikeaflameissuedfromhiseyes.Hesawmanymeninthehall,akindred-bandsleepingalltogether,aheapofyoung-men.Thenhismindlaughed,theterribleassailantthoughtthathewouldseparatethelifefrombodyofeachoneofthembeforedaycame,whenhehopedthefilloffeastingwouldhappenforhim.’

‘Thenthewarriorhardinbattlewaspatientandmindful,hewentintothecityquickly,thesingle-mindedwarrior,sustainedbycourage,themanbraveatheart,truetotheMeasurer.Hesteppedupthestreet,ashownpathway,sothatnoneofthosemenmightperceivehim,nor[couldany]ofthesinfulseehim;thekeeperofvictorieshadcoveredupthedearleaderofpeoplewithhiscovenantinthatopenplace.Thenthenoblemanhadpressedforward,thewarriorofChrist,neartotheprison;hesawatroopofheathenstogetherbeforethedoors,seven‘pastors’standingtogether.Deathtookthemall,theyfellwithoutglory,therushofdeathsnatchedtheblood-soakedheroes.ThenthesaintprayedtothevirtuousFather,withthethoughtsofhisbreasthepraisedthegloryoftheheavenlyKing,thelordshipofGod,totheutmostdegree,honouredtheLord.Thedoorsuddenlyburstopenthroughthetouchofthehandoftheholyguest/spirit,171andwentinside,mindfulofcourage,amandaringinbattle.Theheathenssleptblood-drunk,theyreddenedthedeath-plain.’

Notonlyareline999bofAndreas,‘thedoorsuddenlyburstopen’(durusona

onarn),andline721bofBeowulfidentical,butthecontextsarehighly

reminiscentofeachother,ashasoftenbeennoted.172IntheActaandLifeof

Andrew,Andrewopensthedoorswiththesignofthecrossandwithouttouching

them.173InAndreas,theapostleuses‘thetouchofthehand’(hand-hrine,line

1000)toburstopentheprisondoor,recalling‘thetouchof[Grendel’s]hand’171TheAndreas-poet,liketheBeowulf-poetbeforehim,appearstoplayontheambiguitywithgast-throughoutthepoem,leavingboththereadingsof‘guest’(gest-,gæst-)or‘spirit’(gast-,gæst-)possible.NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.262–62,believethisambiguityarisesfromscribalconfusionandisnotdeliberate.SeealsoFulk,Bjork,andNiles,ed.,Klaeber’sBeowulf,p.383;DennisGreen,LanguageandHistoryintheEarlyGermanicWorld(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),p.355.172Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,pp.144–51;North,‘MeetthePagans’,pp.193–96;Shippey,OldEnglishVerse,pp.115–16.173Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,p.259.

(folmumæthran,line722)thatbreaksdownthedoorintoHeorot.174Theuseof

thehapaxlegomenonhand-hrinesuggeststhatthepoetintendsthephysicalityof

thesaint’sentrancetobenoticed,potentiallytostrengthenthelinkbetween

AndrewandGrendel.Itispossible,however,thattheAndreas-poetwasalso

associatingtheapostlewithangelicmessengerswhobreaksaintsoutofjails.An

analoguemaybefoundwiththeangelinÆlfric’sLifeofJulianandBasilissa,who

leadsthepriestAntoniustotheprisonholdingJulianandtwentynewconverts.

LikeAndrewinAndreas,thisangel‘openedthatprisonwiththetouchofhis

hands’(þætcweartengeopenademidhishandahrepungeð),whichallows

Antoniustobaptisethetwentyconverts.175

ThepoemalsodeviatesfromtheotherAndrew-narrativesinportraying

thesaintenteringMermedoniaalone,ratherthanflankedbydisciples.In

presentingAndrewascompanionless,Andreasassociatesthesaintwiththe

charactersofmythandhagiographythatareoutcastsorborderfigures.176Like

Grendel,whojourneystoHeorotasa‘solitarytraveler’(angengea,line165),or

Guthlac,whoisseparatedfromothersinhisfightagainstdemonsofCrowland,177

AndrewentersMermedoniaalonetoundermineahostilecommunity.Both

GrendelandAndrewarereferredtoasgæst,whichcanbeinterpretedaseither

‘guest’or‘spirit’.178Indoingso,theBeowulf-andAndreas-poetsindicatethat

bothareoutsidersvisitingtheDanishandMermedoniancommunities,

respectively,aswellasrepresentativesofspiritualstatesofsinorsalvation.

OnceAndrewenterstheprison,hefindstheprisonguards‘sleeping’,justas

GrendelfindsthosewhoshouldbeguardingHeorot,andbothleavetheir

destinationswithmencoveredinblood(Beowulf486,and740–45a;Andreas

996,1003,and1083).AfterAndrew’svisittotheprison,theMermedonians

comeridingtotheprisononhorses(line1097),adetailunattestedintheother174DOE,s.v.hand-hrine,citingtheCasanatensisandLifeofAndrew,sayshand-hrineshouldbetakenfigurativelytorefertotheHolySpirit,thoughitdoesrecognisethepassage’sproximitytotheBeowulfpassage.175LSI:140and235.176GeorgeClark,‘TheTravelerRecogniseshisGoal:AThemeinAnglo-SaxonPoetry’,JEGP64:4(1965),651–53;Dumitrescu,‘IntimateRelations’,p.261.ErickKeleman,‘ClyppanandCyssan:TheFormulaicExpressionofReturnfromExileinOldEnglishLiterature’,EnglishLanguageNotes38:3(2001),3–4and8,notesAndrew’sassociationwithexileinAndreas,whileHieatt,‘Harrowing’,54–58,notesthatChristandAndrewareoutcastsinthetypologicalnarrativeoftheharrowingofhell.177Seepp.108–12and127above.178Seeno.169above.

Andrew-narratives,butmuchliketheDaneswhocometoseeGrendel’stracks

andcelebrateBeowulf’sfeat(lines837–57).

YetwhileAndrewandGrendelarebothsolitaryassailantsofcommunities

withmartialcustoms,theyarediametricallyopposedintheirintentionsand

success.WhereGrendelisa‘wicked’or‘alienguest/spirit’(grimmagæst,line

102;wergangast,line133;ellorgast,line807;hellegast,line1274)whois

‘enraged’(gebolgen,line723;yrremod,line726),Andrewisthe‘holy

guest/spirit’(haliggast,line1000and1621)whois‘patientandmindful’

(gemyndigmod-geþyldig,line981).179The‘wickedguest’Grendelcomesto

entrap(besyrwan,line713a)andeatthoseinsidethecommunityasanenemyto

thehall,itsinhabitants,andtheChristiangod(line711b).The‘holyguest’and

milesChristiAndrewcomestofree(gelædde…framþamfæstenne,lines1033–

34;gefreoðode,line1041a)thoseinsidetheprison,healingthemoftheirwounds

aswellasblindness,andfulfillingGod’smissionasthegroup’sspiritual

benefactor.TheAndreas-poet’sreworkingofAndrew’sapproachequateshim

withtheangelofActs12:6–8,whofreestheapostlePeterfromHerod’sjailby

puttingtheguardstosleepandmiraculouslyopeninglockeddoors,180notwith

the‘descendantsofCain’(line107),suchasGrendel.

Thesequenceofactionissimilarlyreversedinthetwoapproaches.181

GrendelburstsintoHeorotandthenbloodshedensues,whileinAndreas,the

slaughteroftheguardsistheprerequisiteforthesaint’sapproach.Grendel

activelybreaksandslaughtersthosehefinds,whileAndreasdepictsthesaint

walkingintothesceneofslaughter,apassiveparticipantinbloodshedinsteadof

aperpetrator.Whentheinhabitantsofthecitytheninvestigatetheaftermathof

theincursion,theDanesrejoiceintheoverthrowoftheiranthropophagic

antagonistwhiletheMermedonian‘self-eaters’(sylf-ætan,line175)lamentthe

liberationofthosetheywishedtobutcher.

Likewise,thesettingsofthetwoapproachesareopposites.182Grendel

comestoa‘halltoweringhighandhorn-gabled’(selehlifadeheahondhorn-geap,

179Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,pp.212–14;North,‘MeetthePagans’,pp.193–95.180Walsh,‘EcclesiasticalBackgrounds’,p.244.181Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,pp.144–51.182Clark,‘TravelerRecognises’,654–57,suggeststhattheAndreas-poetmanipulatestheconventionoftheheroreachingatoweringbuildingasapreludetoaction,toparodytheentranceinBeowulf.

Beowulflines81b–82a)fromhissubterraneanlairduringthenight.Andrew’s

approachisduringtheday(Andreaslines835–36),andtoaplacevariously

describedasa‘prison’(carcern,lines57a,90a,130a,991b,1075b,1082a,and

1460a),‘townprison’(burg-loca,lines940,1038,1065),‘dimdungeon’(dimman

ding,line1270a),‘straitenedcell’(nead-cofan,line1309),183‘uncleanhouse’(wic

unsyfre,line1310)and‘barred-building’(hlin-ræced,line1463),theantithesisof

thegloriouslygabledmead-hallHeorot.Andrew’sdaytimeapproachtoalowly

buildingistheoppositeofGrendel’snighttimeapproachtoanelevatedone.

Thecommunitieseach‘guest’infiltratesalsostandincontrast.Thesocial

structuresofBeowulf’sDenmarkaregovernedthroughkinshipnetworks,loyalty

toagift-givinglord,andChristiandietaryhabits.Grendelrepresentsthe

antithesisofBeowulf’scommunity,asacannibalbearingGod’sangerwhoattacks

thehall-culturecommunityasasolitaryexile.IntheAndrew-narratives,

Mermedoniaispresentedasasocietyofmisanthropicpagancannibals,willingto

destroytheirkinshipnetworktopreservethemselves.Andrew,asaChristian

‘thegnofChrist’whoputshimselfatriskforthespiritualwellbeingofstrangers,

isthearchenemyofthisGrendel-likeMermedoniancommunity.184

Thecity’sgabled-halls(horn-salu,line1158;win-ræced,line1159)and

stone-pavedstreets(strætestan-fage,line1236)atonceresemblethecityscape

ofDenmarkinBeowulf,aswellasstructuresthatmighthavebeenfamiliarto

Anglo-Saxonreaders.185Thebuildingsalsorepresentahellishcommunityas

placestaintedwiththetabooofdrinkingbloodinsteadofalcohol.186The

‘otherness’ofMermedoniaisfurtherindicatedthroughthedescriptormearc-

land(lines19and802),whichisthesametermthatBeowulfusesforthe

dwelling-placeswheremonstersexist.187Itmayalso,asBradyargues,havebeen

183ThisdefinitionisfromNorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,p.351.184North,‘MeetthePagans’,pp.195–96.185MichaelD.Bintley,‘DemythologisingUrbanLandscapesinAndreas’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish40(2009),114–17;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.81–96.ForananalysisoftheAnglo-Saxonarchitecturallandscapeinninthandtenthcenturies,seeBlair,Building,pp.282–301.186Bolintineanu,‘LandofMermedonia,150–63;Friesen,‘VisionsandRevisions’,pp.176–83;Godlove,‘BodiesasBorders’,142–46;DavidHamilton,‘TheDietandDigestionofAllegoryinAndreas’,ASE1(1972),151;Magennis,ImagesofCommunity,pp.173–78.187GroszandCronanfeelthatthetermsusedtodescribeMermedonia,ea-landandmearc-land,refernotsomuchtoaspecificgeographicallocationbutframethecityasaphysicallyandspirituallyisolatedplace.DennisCronan,‘OldEnglishWaterlands’,EarlyLanguageNotes27:3(1990),6–9;OliverGrosz,‘TheIslandofExiles:ANoteonAndreas15’,EnglishLanguageNotes

usedtorefertoBritonsdepictedascannibalsandpractitionersofhuman

sacrificefromtheclassicalperiod,whoinhabitedthefenlands.188Garner

suggeststhatAnglo-Saxonswouldhaverecognizedtheshareduseofthephrase

harnestan,whichreferstothemonsterlairsinBeowulf(lines887,1415,2553,

and2744)aswellastheMeremedonianbattlementsinAndreas(line841),asa

literarysignifierforadangerousareaandimpendingconflict.189These

descriptionsofMermedoniasituateitsimultaneouslyasafamiliaraswellas

forebodingreflectionofsociety.

AftertheconversionofMermedonia,thecityceasestobethe‘homeland

offoreigners’(ellþeodigraeðles,line16)or‘bordercountry’(mearc-land)and

becomesa‘winetown’(win-burg,lines1637and1672),and‘gold-town’(gold-

burg,line1655)with‘treasurefilledpalaces’(salusinc-hroden,line1673).190The

referencetoMermedoniaasa‘fine-weathertown’contraststheearlierdepiction

ofthecityasboundinwinterandlockedwithice(lines1255–62).Theuseofthe

termwinburgcouldrefertoboththehallsbeingfullofjoyousrevelryagain,and

thewineoftheEucharistreplacingthebloodofforeigners.191Andrewdecidesto

leavethecountryoncehecandescribeitashaving‘thehall-joysofmenand

treasurehoards,brightring-halls’(secgasele-dreamondsinc-gestreon,beorht

beag-selu,lines1656–57).Thisisachangefromthepreviousdepictionsof

Mermedonianhallsasplacesofdrunkennessandcannibalisticrevelry(lines

1072–74and1158–60).192Andrewdoesnotphysicallyprovidethecitywith

jewelsortreasures,noraretheMermedonianspreviouslydescribedaswealthy

inworldlygoods.Thechangeinthecity’scharacterisationsuggestsinsteadthat

theland’snewwealthisspiritual,liketherewardstheAndrewoffersinreturn

forhispassagetoMermedonia,andrestatesthattrueheroicgloryisattained

throughsoldieringforChrist.

7:4(1970),241–42.SeealsoBolintineanu,‘LandofMermedonia’,154–57;NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.81–82.188Brady,‘EchoesofBritons’,671–84and689.189Garner,‘MermedonianCityscape’,55–56.WilliamCooke,‘TwoNotesonBeowulf(withGlancesatVafprudnismal,BlicklingHomily16,andAndreas,lines839–846)’,MediumÆvum72:2(2003),299–300,arguesthatharnestanreferencestomonumentalboundarymarkers.190Bintley,‘Demythologising’,114–17,seesthefloodascleansingthephysicallandscapeofMermedoniaandarguesthatthepoetadvocatesforurbanisationasaresponsetovikingthreats.191North,‘MeetthePagans’,p.203.192Lee,Guest-Hall,p.94.

Althoughthecityisstillframedasasocietyboundbytreasureand

partakingofthejoysofthehall,theMermedoniansarenolongerwarlike,

approachingtheirproblemsarmedwithworldlyweapons,butareinthe

spiritualcomitatusofthemilitesChristi.Attheheadofthiscommunityis

Andrew,whohasbecomeaChrist-figure,havingsufferedapassioninorderto

establishbeliefinGod.193Andrewadoptsthetitle‘protectorofwarriors’

(wigendrahleo,line1672,also896b),atitlepreviouslyusedforChrist(lines

506aand1450b).194ElsewhereintheextantOldEnglishpoeticcorpus,the

phrasewigendrahleoappearsinthecontextofsecularheroesinBeowulf(line

429forHrothgar;line899forSigmundthedragon-slayer;line1972forHygelac;

andline2337forBeowulfasking)andintheChroniclepoemCaptureoftheFive

Boroughs(line12forKingEdmund).WhileFoleysuggeststhatthetitlerefersto

Andrew’seffectivenessasamissionary,195thevarieduseofthetermbetween

AndreasandBeowulfindicatesthattheAndreas-poetappropriatesthephrase

firstforaspiritualreading,andthenelevatesAndrewasareplacementfor

secularwarlords.Thispointisevidentthroughthemanipulationofthehalf-line

þætwæsgodcyning(‘thatwasagoodking’,lines11,863,and2390),usedin

BeowulfforthewarlordsScyld,Hrothgar,orBeowulf.Andreasdoesnotpraise

thewarlikeMermedoniansbutfocusesonsacredChristianhierarchyinwhich

Christistheideallord.Somuchisevidentfromthepoem’slastline,which

reworkstheformulafromBeowulftoportraytheconvertedMermedonians

praisingChristinsaying‘thatisanobleking’(þætisæðelecyning,line1722).

However,justasAndreasappropriatestheidealsofthecomitatusand

heroicdiction,italsoshowsthatamilesChristicouldbeviolent.WhenAndrew

arrivesinMermedonia,a‘heathencity’(hæðenanburg,line111),Christtells

Andrewthathismissionistoconvertthesinful(lines970–80).AlthoughAndrew

istaskedwith‘turning[thecity]toheaven’slight’(gehweorfesttoheofon-leohte,

line974),hecausesthedeathofthefirstpeoplethathemeets.WheretheLife

minimisesthephysicalityoftheguards’killing,Andreasemphasisesit.Andreas

saysthat‘deathsnatchedall’(ealleswyltfornam,line994b)theguards,the

193Boenig,SaintandHero,p.37.194ThephraseisalsousedforChristinChristAline407.Bjork,VerseSaints’Lives,pp.121–23;Hermann,Allegories,p.145;Hieatt,‘Harrowing’,61–62.195Foley,‘Self-Interruption’,p.49.SeealsoBjork,VerseSaints’Lives,p.119.

‘troopofheathens’(hæðenrahloð,line992)‘coveredwithblood’(hæleðheorod-

reorige,line996).AsAndrewpassesthemuponenteringtheprison,theguards

aredescribedas‘blood-drunk,theyreddenedthedeath-plain’(dreoredruncne,

deað-wangrudon,line1003),apunonbeoredruncneandthe‘sleepingafterthe

feast’tropethatprefiguresviolentslaughter.196WheretheActaandLifeof

Andrewattributetheguards’deathstoprayerandthesignofthecross,thepoem

doesnotrelatehowtheydie.Thepoem’ssilence,aswellasAndrew’sconnection

toGrendel,suggestthatthesaintiscomplicitintheguards’horrificend.

WhenAndrewhasthechancetosparetheMermedoniansfromtheflood,

thesaintcondemnsfourteenofthe‘worstofthathost,thehostileenemiesofthe

people’(weorodeseacðawyrrestan,faafolc-sceaðan,lines1592–93)tothe

abyss.ThisdetailisomittedintheLifeofAndrew(lines292–303),butfollowsthe

Acta-narrative,inwhichtheapostlesendsfourteenMermedonianstohell,197

therebyterrifyingtheotherMermedonians,whofearthatAndrewwillslaughter

themaswell(lines1595–1606).InAndreas,Andrewassuagestheirfearsby

sayingthedeaddeservedtheirfatefortheirwickedness,andthattheresthave

nothingtofear‘solongas[their]purposeisright’(gifgetealahycgað,line

1612b,also1609–12).Andrew’sactionsaswellashisveiledthreatillustrate

howthemilitesChristicoulduseforcetoconvertothers.Itsimilarlyimpliesthat

thoseunreformedpagansdeservetodie.Infact,neitheroftheOldEnglish

versionspresentasaintwhoisparticularlymercifulorforgiving.Andrewdoes

notwillinglyofferhisnecktohisenemies,butmustbeorderedbyChristtodoso

intheLife(lines196–97)andAndreas(lines1208–18).Hefeelsthataggressive

retributionisanappropriateresponsetoobstacles.Andrew’svindictivenessis

furtherseenwhenhetrapstheMermedonianswiththefloodandaringoffire,

andforcesthemtorepentfortorturinghim.198AstheMermedoniansentreat

Andrewformercy,theyarehumbledandshamed.199Andrewreleasestheflood

onlyafter‘themightofproudoneswashumbledthere,thegloryofthewarriors’

(þærwæsmodigramægenforbeged,wigendraþrym,lines1571–72a).Hermann,

196Battles,‘DyingforaDrink’,450–56.197Baumler,‘ComparativeStudy’,pp.28–29.198JohnCasteen,‘Andreas:MermedonianCannibalismandFigurativeNarrative’,NM75(1974),74–78,arguesthatcannibalismandfloodingarebiblicalpunishmentsforsinningagainstGod.199NorthandBintley,ed.,Andreas,pp.297–98.

advocatingbothliteralandspiritualreadingsoftheAndrew-narratives,suggests

thatAndreaspromotesviolenceandterrorasrighteousretributionforthe

violentactionstheMermedonianshadperpetrated.200Theevidentapprovalof

theuseofviolencebyamilesChristiisincontrasttothecontemporaryninth-

centuryapproachesoftheMartinmas-homilist,whosesaintisalways‘mild-

hearted’(mild-heortan),201andtheGuthlac-hagiographers,whopresentasaint

whoemphaticallyabstainsfromsheddingbloodwhenconvertingCrowland.202

YettheAnglo-SaxoncomposersoftheLifeofAndrewandAndreasarenot

theonlyearlyMedievalwriterswhojustifiedChristianviolenceasameansof

conversion.WhenChristsendsthetwelveapostlesouttopreach,hetellsthem

‘DonotthinkthatIcametosendpeaceonearth:Icamenottosendpeacebutthe

sword’(Matthew10:34),indicatingthatthesomeoftheearliestChristians

understoodmissionaryactivityastheviolentsuppressionofdisbelief.203Beyond

theapocryphalActa-narrative,whichitselfadvocatesforviolenceandprovides

thesourcefortheforcedconversioninAndreas,204Cynewulfadvocatestortureas

ameansofconvertingtheJewJudasinElene(lines573–723).205Willibald’s

accountofBoniface’smissiontotheFrisiansdepictsapeacefulmissionary

whosemissionisreinforcedbytheFrankisharmythatmassacrestheFrisians

afterBoniface’sdeathatDokkum.206EvenMartin’sinvocationofdivineaid,

whichmanifestsintwoarmedangelswhohelphimdestroytheidolatLevroux,

indicatesthatevangelicalactivitycouldcarrythethreatofviolence,evenifthe

militesChristiweretoabstainfromsheddingbloodthemselves.207Ninth-century

Carolingianbiographies,perhapsinspiredbyCharlemagne’sbloodyconversion

200Hermann,Allegories,pp.140–48.Forallegoricalreadingsofthepoem,seeHamilton,‘DietandDigestion’,158;Hamilton,‘AndreasandBeowulf’,pp.92–93;Herbison,‘GenericAdaptation’,181–86;Hill,‘FiguralNarrative’,261–73;Kiser,‘LifesWeg’,66and75;Lee,Guest-Hall,pp.84–88.Earl,‘TypologicalStructure’,pp.67–70,goessofarastosaythattheliteralmeaningofthepoemmakesnosenseandonemustreadtheworkallegorically.Wilcox,‘EatingPeople’,pp.204–17,strikesabalancebetweenHermann’sliteralreadingandthefigurativereadingstoarguethepoetintendstheviolencetobedownplayed.201Seepp.62–66and73–81above.202Seepp.127–29above.203Erdmann,Origins,p.10.204Helgeland,‘RomanArmy’,155–56,highlightsJesus’sviolenceinapocryphalActstradition.205Magennis,‘Conversion’,pp.296–98.206Talbot,trans.,Anglo-SaxonMissionaries,pp.45,49–51and58–59;Hermann,‘BonifaceandDokkum’,1–25.207Seepp.85–86.

oftheSaxons(c.772–804),praiseforcedconversions,208andintheVitaofSt

Lebuin,aneighth-centuryAnglo-SaxonmissionarytoSaxonywhoseVitaappears

intheearlytenthcentury,thesaintthreatensstubbornpaganswiththearmyof

apowerfulking.209

Moreover,forcedconversionsunderthethreatofviolenceorafterdefeat

inbattlewerecertainlyarealityinEarlyMedievalEurope.210Afterdefeating

GuthrumatEdington,AlfredstipulatesthatGuthrumandhisarmymustconvert

toChristianity,211apolicywhichÆthelstanrepeatsintheEamontBridgeTreaty

afterhis927conquestofNorthumbria.212Theseinstancesofforcedconversions

occurredatthesametimeandinsimilarmonasticcontextstotheMartinmas-

homilyandOldEnglishGuthlac-narratives,suggestingthatconflictingviewson

howamilesChristimightparticipateinwarriorculturewereheld

contemporaneously.WhilethestoriesofAndrew,Boniface,andLebuindonot

presentthemissionariesactivelywieldingworldlyweaponsorkilling

unbelieverswithoutacause,213theydoreflectaphilosophythatpermitsmilites

Christitobeaggressiveinordertoexpandthefaith.Inthenextchapter,wewill

seetheacceptanceofChristianviolencetakenfurtherintheLifeofEustace,a

storythatadvocatesthekillingofheathensnotforthesakeofconversion,but

simplybecausetheyareheathen.

208France,‘HolyWar’,I:198;AndréVauchez,TheSpiritualityoftheMedievalWest:FromtheEighthtotheTwelfthCentury,trans.ColetteFriedlander(Kalamazoo:CistercianPublications,1993),pp.14–15.209France,‘HolyWar’,I:197;Talbot,trans.,Anglo-SaxonMissionaries,pp.232–34.210SeeMurphy,SaxonSavior,pp.11–26,forananalysisoftheforcedconversionoftheSaxonsunderBoniface’smissionsandCharlemagne.Abels,‘Alfred’sPeacemaking’,34,analysesforcedconversionasameaningofestablishingpeaceinninth-andtenth-centuryEngland.211ASCA878(Bately,51).212ASCD926(Cubbin,41).WilliamofMalmesburyalsonotesÆthelstan’sproclivityforforcinghisopponentstoconvert,seeR.Mynors,R.ThomsonandM.Winterbottom,ed.GestaregumAnglorum,ortheDeedsoftheEnglishKings(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1999),I:208and214.213Furuta,‘Devaluation’,pp.128and144.

ChapterSix

TheWorldlySoldierofChrist:TheOldEnglishLifeofEustace

WhilethedepictionsofMartin,Guthlac,andAndrewusedtheimageryaswellas

thesocietalstructuresofawarriorculturetodepictthesaint’smetaphysical

struggleagainsttemptationremovedfromsecularmilitarylife,theeighth-

centuryVitaetpassioS.Eustachiianditseleventh-centuryOldEnglish

adaptationpresenttheirsaintdevotedtoGodasanactiveparticipantinthe

imperialarmy.1TheEustace-legendrecountsthelifeoftheRomanmilitary

leaderPlacidas–EustacewhoconvertsafterChristappearstohimintheformof

adeer(Vitalines1–116;Lifelines1–119).2EustacethenenduresaJob-likefall

fromgrace,includingthelossofhispropertyandsocialstatus(Vitalines117–

40;Lifelines120–39),theabductionofhiswife,Theophista,duringasea-voyage,

aswellasthelossoftheirtwosonstowildbeasts(Vitalines140–85;Lifelines

139–81).Humbledbythesecalamities,Eustaceassumesthelifeofalowly

labourerinaforeignland(Vitalines185–89;Lifelines181–84),beforehe

experiencesafurtherreversaloffortuneandisreturnedtosecularprominence

inordertofightagainsttheenemiesoftheRomanempire(Vitalines190–277;

Lifelines185–265).Duringtheconquest,heisreunitedwithhisfamilyandthey

givethankstoGodforhisfavour(Vitalines277–345;Lifelines265–333).After

layingwastetothelandsoftheempire’senemies,Eustaceandhisfamilyare

ultimatelymartyredinRomefornotsacrificingtopagangods(Vitalines346–

408;Lifelines334–402).

1AttestationsoftheVitathatwasavailabletoAnglo-SaxonsarefoundintheCotton–CorpusLegendary(CCCC9,117v–22r,andOxford,BodleianLibraryBodley354,22v–29r).SeeLapidgeandJackson,‘Cotton-CorpusLegendary’,p.141;Magennis‘SourcesofNon-ÆlfricianLives’,292and297–99.AneditionoftheCotton–Corpustextisintheappendix,pp.234–43below.PrintededitionsoflaterversionsoftheVitaarefoundintheBollandistActaSanctorum,Sep.IV,col.123A–37A;andinBoninusMombritius,ed.,SanctuariumSeuVitaeSanctorum(Paris:AlbertFontemoing,1910),I:466–73.AneditionoftheOldEnglishLifeofEustacewhichwastranscribedfromBL,JuliusEvii,169v–79visincludedintheappendix,pp.244–52below.AprintededitionoftheOldEnglishLifeofEustacecanalsobefoundinSkeat,ed.,Lives:vol.II,pp.190–218,andJohannaKramer,HughMagennis,andRobinNorris,ed.,AnonymousOldEnglishLivesofSaints(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2020),pp.56–91.ForananalysisofsurvivingmanuscriptswiththeLifeseeScragg,‘AnonymousLives’,pp.217–18and222.2LinenumberreferencestotheEustace-legendcorrespondwiththeeditionoftheVitaaswellasOldEnglishLifeappendedtothisthesis.

LiketheapocryphalAndrew-narratives,theEustace-legendblendsmotifs

foundinhagiographical,biblical,andromancenarratives.3AsSkeatnotesinhis

editionoftheOldEnglishLifeofEustace,thestory‘hasapeculiarinterestin

being,practically,asecularandromanticstory,asfaras[Eustace’sreturnfrom

exile],afterwhichitisturnedinto“asaint’slife”bytheadditionofthehero’s

martyrdom.’4ThecompositenatureofEustace’sstoryhighlightsthepurely

fictitiousnatureofthesaint’sexistence,whichGerould’sanalysisofthelegend

demonstratesbyidentifyingthevariousfolk-talesthatresultedin,aswellas

arosefrom,thelegend.5Gerould’sworkhasbeensupportedbyGaster,Murray,

andThierry,whohavevariouslyarguedthatelementsofthelegend,suchasthe

visionofthestag,wereofBuddhistorIndianorigin,6whilethesaint’sreturnto

powerafteracalamitoussea-voyagebearsacloseresemblancetoMediterranean

storieslikeApolloniusofTyre.7

TheoriginofthestoryaboutChristspeakingintheformofastagmay

alsoderivefrombiblicalmaterialwhichcontainstheprecedentofBalaam’s

talkingdonkey,alegendthattheVitaitselfreferences(lines35–36).8Similarly,

otherbiblicalsourcescanbeidentifiedthroughoutthenarrative,suchasthe

legend’scomparisonofEustace’sconversiontothatofCorneliusandPaul(Vita

line31),theinfluenceofJobontheaccountsofEustace’strialsandseparation

fromhisfamily(Vitalines106and175),aswellasthesaint’smartyrdom,which

seemstobebasedontheBookofDaniel.9AsinDaniel,thesaintlyprotagonists

3HippolyteDelehaye,‘LalégendedesaintEustache’,BulletinsdelaClassedesLettresetdesSciencesMoralesetPolitiques5(1919),186–210,providesanoverviewofthethemesintheEustace-legend.4Skeat,ed.,Lives:vol.II,p.452.Inrecognitionofthelegend’sfictitiousorigins,EustacewasofficiallyremovedfromtheRomanCatholiccalendarofsaintsin1970.5GordonGerould,‘Forerunners,CongenersandDerivativesoftheEustaceLegend’,PMLA19(1904),380–91.6M.Gaster,‘TheNigrodha-JãtakaandtheLifeofEustathius–Placidus’,JournaloftheRoyalAsiaticSocietyofGreatBritainandIreland26(1894),340;Gerould,‘Forerunners’,343–54,380and445;J.Murray,‘TheEustaceLegendinMedievalEngland’,BulletinoftheModernHumanitiesResearchAssociation1(1927),37–40;NicoleThierry,‘LeCultduCerfenAnatolieetlaVisiondeSaintEustathe’,MonumentsetMémoiresdelaFondationEugènePiot72(1991),90–93.7Delehaye,‘saintEustache’,186–87;Downey,‘Intertextuality’,pp.12–13.ForanaloguesoftheromantictropesintheLifeofEustaceseeGerould,‘Forerunners’,343and372–380;ThomasHeffernan,‘AnAnalysisoftheNarrativeMotifsintheLegendofStEustace’,MedievaliaetHumanistica6(1975),64–67;Norris,‘Introduction’,p.8;Skeat,ed.,Lives:vol.II,p.452.8ThereferencetothestoryofBalaamderivesfromNumbers22:21–33;Heffernan,‘NarrativeMotifs’,69.9Heffernan,‘NarrativeMotifs’,70–74and86;RobinNorris,‘ReversalofFortune,ResponseandRewardintheOldEnglishPassionofSaintEustace’,inNorris(2011),pp.106–07.

areloweredintoacavewithalionbutarenotharmed,beforetheyaremartyred

inabrazenfurnace(Vitalines361–71;Lifelines348–60).10Thesescriptural

elementsofthelegendprovidespirituallydidacticmotifsofhowfaithinthe

sapientissimusclementissimusqueDeus(‘themostwiseandmostgenerousGod’)

enablethesaintstotriumphovermaterialandspiritualpoverty.11

AswiththeMartinmas-homily,thedepictionofEustaceadvocatesa

‘mixedlife’thatisinternallyordered,throughthedevelopmentofmonastic

virtuesalongsideactiveparticipationinworldlyaffairs.However,Eustaceisnot

amissionarylikeMartin,butasaintlysoldierwhofightsenemiesofthestate.

TheOldEnglishLifereworksthelanguageofthenarrativetoportraythose

enemiesasheathenvikings,whichthesaintkillsasthephysicalandspiritual

adversariesofChristianity.Indoingso,theLifeofEustacepresentsamodelof

soldieringforChristthatwasantitheticaltopeacefulmilitesChristilikeMartin,at

oddswiththesocietallyremovedspiritualwarriorlikeGuthlac,andastep

beyondtheapocryphalAndrew-narrativesthatadvocateforcedconversion.The

LifeofEustaceinsteadappearstoacceptChristianviolenceandinvolvementin

‘holywar’asasuitablemeansformilitesChristitodemonstratetheirfaith.

ThestoryofEustacewasarelativelylateadditiontotheEnglish

Sanctorale,celebratedoneitherSeptember20thorNovember2nd.Thierryargues

thatthelegendaroseinCappadociaandwasthenimportedtoItaly,basedonthe

extensivenumberanddiversityofEustaceimagesthatdatefromtheseventh

centurywhicharefoundinearlychurchesthroughouttheregion.12Thegrowth

ofthecultofEustaceinRomecanbetracedtothepontificateofGregoryII(715–

731),13whenbenefactionsofseveralfarmswerebestowedupona‘deaconryof

10TheLifeemphasisestheconnectionwiththeliondeninDanielbyrenderingLatinharena,whichcouldrefertoapublicoropenarena,aseorð-hus.Ælfric’sPassioS.Dionysii,LSIII:75,andPassioChristantietDariae,LSIII:253provideotherexamplesoflionsbowingtosaintsinOldEnglishhagiographies.11Heffernan,‘NarrativeMotifs’,66–67.Norris,‘ReversalofFortune’,pp.99–102and109–14,arguedthatOldEnglishadapterreworkedthetexttowarnaudiencesnottosinthroughexcessivesorrowortristitia;yetSandraMcEntire,‘WeepinginTranslation:TheProblemofCompunction’,NewComparison:AJournalofComparativeandGeneralLiteraryStudies12(1991),25–29,demonstratesthatexcessivesorrowinAnglo-Saxonhagiographyispartofthedepictionofcompunction(compunctio/onbryrdness).12Thierry,‘LeCultdeCerf’,38–63and96.13StilyanaBatalova,‘TheTraditionofStEustatiusPlacidasinLatin’,Scripta2(2005),326;Murray,‘EustaceLegend’,37.

SaintEustace’(diaconiaS.Eustachii),14afoundationlateridentifiedasthe

‘hospiceintheplanetrees’(xenodociuminPlatana)intheLifeofPopeStephenII

(752–757).15AGreekversionofthelegendfirstappearsintheEuropeanliterary

recordasanextractinJohnofDamascus’sDeimaginibusoratioin726,16butwas

quicklyadaptedintoLatin,andbecamewidelyavailableinCarolingiancentres

bytheearlyeighthcentury,particularlyatStOmer.17InEngland,theearliest

recordoftheVitaetpassioS.EustachiiappearsinBishopÆthelwoldof

Winchester’sdonationoftwenty-onebookstothePeterboroughminsteraround

970,whichalsoincludesaverseVitaEustachiithatseemstohavebeenbasedon

thetextcorrespondingwithBHL2760.18TheonlyAnglo-Saxonmonasteryto

containrelicspertainingtoEustaceandhaveanaltarforthesaintintheeleventh

centurywasAbingdon,whichLapidgepostulatesmayhavebeentheepicentre

forthecultofEustaceinEnglandfromthelatetenthcenturyonwards.19

ThereisnoevidenceforthecultofEustaceinBede’sMartyrology,theOld

EnglishMartyrology,norinEnglishcalendarsbeforetheyear1000,20suggesting

thatEustacewasnotwidelycelebratedinEnglandbeforetheeleventhcentury.21

Mostcalendarsaftertheyear1000includethefeastdayofEustace,yetthe

earliestsecureattestationisinBL,ArundelMS155(c.1012–1023).22Alater

handhasaddedthecelebration‘ofsaintEustaceandhiscompanions’(sancti

Eustachicumsociis)tothecalendaronfolio44roftheso-called‘LeofricMissal’

(Oxford,BodleianLibrary,Bodley579),whichisdated970–991,althoughitis

unclearwhentheEustaceadditionwasmade.Onpaleographicalgrounds,the

14PhilipJaffé,ed.,RegestapontificiumRomanorumadconditaEcclesiaadannumpostChristumnatumMCXCVIII(Göttingen:VandenhoecketRuprecht,1885),I:256(section2220).15LouisDuchesne,ed.,LeLiberPontificalis:Texte,IntroductionetCommentaire(Paris:E.deBoccard,1995),pp.440and456n.5;RichardKrautheimer,CorpusBasilicarumChristianarumRomae:leBasilicheCristianeAntichediRoma,sec.IV–IX(VaticanCity:PontificioIstitutodiArcheologiaCristiana;NewYork:InstituteofFineArts,1937),I:216.16Gerould,‘Forerunners’,383;MichaelLapidge,‘ÆthelwoldandtheVitaS.Eustachii’,Scirelitteras.ForschungenzummittelalterlichenGeistesleben,NeueFolge,Heft99(1988),257.TheGreekpassageintheDeimaginibusoratioisreproducedinPG94:col.1381.17Batalova,‘PlacidasinLatin’,336–38and343.18Lapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,255and257–61,believedthatthisversionofthelegendwasidentifiedbyJohnLelandin1530andextantthroughthe800-linefragmentinOxford,BodleianLibraryLaudmisc.410,1v–8r.19Lapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,260and263.20Heffernan,‘NarrativeMotifs’,67;Lapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,259–60.21Murray,‘EustaceLegend’,39.22Wormald,ed.,EnglishKalendars,p.180.

laterhandappearstobelatetenth-toeleventh-century.23Therearetwo

eleventh-centuryLatinmissalwitnessesfortheAnglo-SaxoncultofEustace,the

MissalofRobertofJumiègesandMissaloftheNewMinsterWinchester,which

includethefeastdayofEustace.24Themissals,however,focussolelyon

Eustace’strialsandmartyrdom,ratherthantheromanceaspectsoftheLife,as

seenintheopeningprayerintheNewMinisterMissal:25

DeusquibeatumEustachiumintemptationibusprobastietprobatumcoronasti:ipsiussociorumqueeiusmeritisinomnibustemptationibus,tuumnobispraestaauxiliumetsempiternumgaudium.‘God,youwhotestedblessedEustacethroughtemptationsandcrownedhimwhenhewastested:byhisownmeritsandthoseofhiscompanionsthroughalltemptations,grantusyourhelpandeternaljoy.’

WhilethemissalsrefertoEustace’sJob-liketrialsandlaterhismartyrdomin

flames,theydonotmentionEustace’sparticipationinthearmy.Thisomission

mayindicatethatthecomposersofthemissalsandtheiraudiencesdidnot

considerEustace’sassociationwiththemilitaryworthyofnoteorappropriate.

ThecompletetextoftheVitaetpassioEustachiisurvivesintwoversions

oftheCotton–CorpusLegendary;CCCC9andOxford,BodleianLibrary,Bodley

354[Bodley354].TheseversionsoftheVitadifferfromthoseprintedinthe

Bollandists’ActaSanctorumorMombritius’sVitaeSanctorumwhichhavebeen

thebasisforrecentstudies,26despiteMagennis’swarningagainstusingthese

printedtextstoanalysetheVita’srelationshiptotheOldEnglishEustace.27The

ActaSanctorumandMombritiantextswerecompiledfrommorerecentversions

oftheVitaandcontainwordingaswellasnarrativedetailsthataredifferentto

whatisattestedintheCotton–CorpustextsortheOldEnglishLife.Compare,for

23NicholasOrchard,ed.,LeofricMissal,HBS114(London:HBS,2002),II:193–94and204;Wormald,ed.,EnglishKalendars,p.54.24H.A.Wilson,ed.,TheMissalofRobertofJumièges(London:HBS,1896),pp.19and222–23;D.H.Turner,ed.,TheMissaloftheNewMinster,Winchester:LeHavre,BibliothèqueMunicipaleMS330(London:HBS,1962),p.179.25Turner,NewMinster,p.179.26See,forexample,GrantLoomis,‘FurtherSourcesofÆlfric’sSaints’Lives’,HarvardStudiesandNotesinPhilologyandLiterature3(1931),5;Norris,‘ReversalofFortune’,p.115.27Magennis,‘SourcesofNon-ÆlfricianLives’,297–98.Hall,‘CommonofSaints’,35and54,andZettel,‘Ælfric’sHagiographicSources’,pp.110–262alsonotetheunreliabilityoftheMombritianandBollandisteditionsassourcesforthetextsknowntoAnglo-Saxons,andScragg,‘EditingÆlfric’,611–13,emphasisestheneedtodirectlystudymanuscriptwitnessesforAnglo-Saxonnarratives.

instance,thepassagesrelatingEustace’sreunionwithhisfamilyandvictoryover

theenemiesoftheempireintheBollandists’ActaSanctorum,Cotton–Corpus,

andLifetexts:

ActaSanctorum Cotton–Corpus OldEnglishLife

Latepercurritrumoreorum,quaeacciderant,itautmirareturcongregatusexercitusetexultaretproptereoruminuentionemmagis,quampropteruictoriamdebarbarisrelatam.MaximamuerocelebritatempropteragnitionemsuoruminstituitEustathius.Etposterodie,Deoinuocato,cumlaudegratiasreferebatDominoChristodemaximaeiusbenignitateetclementia.(col.134a).

Discurritigiturfamahaecperomnemexercitumetomnescongregatimirabanturetexultabantininuentioneeorumampliusetiampropterbarbarorumexpugnationem.Alteradiemaximamcelebritatemfacientesdeogratiasegeruntproptermagnameiuspietatem.(lines340–43).

Þasoðliceasprangsehlisageondealneþonehired,andhieallegegaderewundrodonandblissodonforheoragemetinge,andmiccleþebliðranþehioferwunnenhæfdonþahæþenan.Ðaþyoðrandægedydonhiþamæstangebeorscypeandgodeþancodehismicclanmild-heortnysse.(lines328–31).

‘Thegossipaboutthosethingsthathadhappenedranwidelysothatthegatheredarmywonderedandrejoicedmoreonaccountoftheirreunionthanonaccountofthevictorytakenfromthebarbarians.Truly,Eustaceorderedthegreatestofcelebrationsonaccountoftherecognitionofhisown[family].Andthenextday,havinginvokedthenameofGod,withpraisehegavethankstoLordChristforhisgreatestbenignityandmercy.’

‘Therefore,therumourranthroughoutthewholearmyandeveryonegatheredwonderedandrejoicedmoregreatlyintheirreunionthanonaccountofthefightagainstthebarbarians.Thenextdaytheyheldthegreatestcelebration,givingthankstoGodforhisgreatgoodness.’

‘Trulytherumourofthissprangthroughallthearmyandalltogethertheywonderedandrejoicedfortheirmeetingandweremuchhappierthattheyhadover-throwntheheathens.ThenthenextdaytheyheldthegreatestoffeastsandthankedGodforhisgreatmercy.’

TheActaSanctorumtextgenerallyaddsmaterialtotheVitathatdoesnotappear

intheLife,andindicatesthattheOldEnglishadaptationwasproducedfroma

textclosertothatwitnessedintheCotton–CorpusLegendary.Mombritius’stext

offersasimilarlyinadequatesourcefortheLife,asseeninitspresentationof

howtheEmperorsentsoldiersthroughouthisempiretotrackdownEustace;

Mombritius Cotton–Corpus OldEnglishLife

ColligensautemexercitumetinspiciensomnesmilitesPlacidi:exquirebatsiquicognouisseteumuiuereanmortemobiisse:mandabatqueunicuiquemilitumuteuminquirerentdicebatque:‘Siquiseuminuenerit:etindicaueritmihi:amplioresaddameihonoresetemolumentorumaugebosolatia.’DuoueromilitesnomineAntiochusetAchaciusPlacidumquaerentesueneruntinuicumubidegebatEustachius.(p.470,lines1–6).

Colligensautemexercitumetinspiciensomnesmilites,dePlacidaexquirebat,quicognouissentdeeo,uiuere,anmori.Etdabatmandatumunicuiquemilitum,utinquirerenteum.Etmisitperunamquamqueciuitatemetterramqueeratsubimperiosuo,utrequirerenteum,dicens,‘Siquiseuminueneritetindicaueritmichi,amplioresaddameihonoresetemolumentorumaugebosolatia.’Duoueroquidammilites,nomineAntiochusetAcaiusquialiquandoministraueruntPlacidaeperrexeruntadinquirendumeum.EtperagrantesomnemterramquesubRomanorumessetimperioueneruntinuicumillum,ubidegebatEustachius.(lines200–08).

Gesomnodeþahisfyrdealletohimandgeornliceaxodebehimandbebeadþætmanforansceoldeswawideswahisanwealdwæreandhinegeornliceaxian,andheeacbehetþamþehinefundenmicelnewurðscipeandfremfulnesse.Þaferdonsoðlicetwegencempan,þawærongenemdeAntiocliusandAchaius,þaærwæronunderEustachiushanda28andþurhferdonealleþalandþeintoRomehyrdon,oððæthicomonþærhewunode.(lines193–99).

‘However,gatheringthearmyandinspectingallthesoldiersofPladicus:heaskedifanyknewwhether[Placidus–Eustace]livedorhaddepartedindeath:andheorderedeachone

‘However,gatheringthearmyandinspectingallthesoldiers,heaskedaboutPlacidas,whoknewabouthim,whetherhelivedordied.Andhegavetheordertoeachsoldier,thattheysearchforhim.Hesent[them]throughoneand

‘Thenhegatheredallhisarmytohim,andeagerlyaskedabout[Placidas–Eustace]andorderedthateachshouldgoaswidelyashisdominionwas,andeagerlytoaskafterhim,andhealsopromisedgreathonour

28Thisisapossiblereferencetothecustomofinitiationintothecomitatusinwhichtheretainerplacedhishandswithinthoseofhislordwhileswearinganoathofloyalty;Green,CarolingianLord,p.77.Foradiscussionoftheoath(sacramentum)intheRomanarmy,seeHelgeland,‘RomanArmy’,151.

ofthesoldiersthattheysearchforhimandhebegantosay:“Ifanyoneshouldfindhimandshowhimtome,IwillgivemorecompletehonourstohimandIwillincreasetheconsolationofmoneyforhim.”YettwosoldierswiththenameAntiochusandAchaciuscamesearchingforPlacidusinthetownwhereEustacewasliving.’

everycityandlandwhichwasunderhisownrule,sothattheymightinquireafterhim,saying“Ifanyoneshouldfindhimandshowhimtome,IwillgivemorecompletehonourstohimandIwillincreasetheconsolationofmoneyforhim.”YetacertaintwosoldierswiththenameAntiochusandAchacius,whohadservedwithPlacidasforsometime,hastenedtosearchforhim.AndwanderingthroughallthelandwhichwasundertheruleoftheRomans,theycameintothattownwhereEustacewasliving.’

andrewardfortheonewhofound[Eustace].Thentrulytwowarriorswent,whowerecalledAntiocliusandAchaiusandhadbeenunderEustace’shands,andtheywentthroughallthoselandswhichobeyedRomeuntiltheycamewhere[Eustace]dwelt.’

AlthoughitisclearthattheOldEnglishLifeprovidesacondensedadaptationof

theVita,theMombritiantextomitsaspectsoftheVitathattheOldEnglishdoes

present,likethejourneyofAntiochusandAchaciusthroughthewholeofthe

empireandtheirserviceunderEustace.Moreover,theLifeagreeswiththe

Cotton–Corpustext’svariationofdetailslikethespellingofPlacidasoritbeing

theEmperor’sarmywhichisaskedaboutPlacidas,andnotPlacidus’sarmy

whichtheEmperorassembles.BearinginmindthedifferencesbetweentheActa

SanctorumaswellasMombritianVitaandtheLifeofEustace,itisevidentthat

oneshouldregardtheCotton–CorpusversionoftheVitaastheclosest

representativetotheLatinnarrativeknowntotheAnglo-Saxonhagiographer.

ReferencestotheVitathroughoutthuscorrespondtotheeditionoftheVitain

theCotton–CorpusLegendaryprovidedintheAppendix.29

TheOldEnglishLifeofEustacehasgenerallybeenviewedas‘averyclose

renderingoftheLatintext’30that‘treatsthisreligiousproseromancewith

practicallynovariation.’31Wehavealreadyseenhoweverthatthesupposed

‘closeness’oftheanonymousadaptationsofVitaeisasomewhatmisleading29Seepp.234–43below.30Murray,‘EustaceLegend’,38.SeetooLapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,263;Magennis,‘SourcesofNon-ÆlfricianLives’,297a.31Loomis,‘FurtherSources’,5.

assumptionandweshallseeagainwithEustace’sLifethattheOldEnglish

adaptermadesignificant,ifsubtle,alterations.32Theeleventh-centuryLifeisthe

oldestvernacularaccountoftheEustace-legendandappearsintwocollectionsof

ÆlfricianLivesofSaints,33namelyBL,CottonJuliusE.vii(fols169v–79v)andthe

badlyburntBL,CottonVitelliusD.xvii,ofwhichonlyonefolioisstilllegible.34

BothmanuscriptsincludetheEustace-legendwithafeastdateof2ndNovember.

IntheJuliusE.viimanuscript,theLifeisoneoffourinterpolationsintoÆlfric’s

LivesofSaints,alongwiththestoriesconcerningEuphrosyne,SevenSleepers,

andMaryofEgypt,suggestingthatthemanuscript’scompilerandreadershada

greatertoleranceforunorthodoxhagiographicalmaterialthandidÆlfric.35

AspectsoftheLifeofEustacearethematicallyclosetootherÆlfrician

hagiographies,leadingearliercommentatorstobelieveittobetheworkof

Ælfric.36However,MagennisdemonstratesthatdisparitiesbetweenÆlfricand

theLifeinJuliusE.viiinsuchareasasvocabulary,prosestyle,adherenceto

sourcetext,andthedramaticinterestsofthelegendindicatethatÆlfricdidnot

composethetext.37ItispossiblethatthespecificversionoftheCotton–Corpus

LegendarywhichÆlfricuseddidnotincludeEustace’sstoryandthatÆlfricdid

nottranslateitasaresult.Yetevenifitwerenotinhislegendary,itisprobable

thatÆlfricwouldhavebeenawareofthelegendthroughhisteacher

Æthelwold’sevidentinterestinthesaint.38ItisperhapsmorelikelythatÆlfric

consideredthestoryunorthodoxordidacticallyproblematic,beingtoosecular

orsensationalforÆlfric’stastes.39Still,thelegend’sconnectiontoAbingdon—a

centrefortheBenedictineReformandÆthelwold’shomefoundation—would

32HughMagennis,‘ANoteontheBeginningoftheOldEnglishLifeofStEustace’,NotesandQueries,32:4(1985),438.33Norris,‘Introduction’,p.8.34Scragg,‘AnonymousLives’,p.222,notesthat‘onlyoneleafisnowlegible…butthisisenoughtoshowthatthetwoversionsdifferonlyinveryminordetailsofspelling’.35Magennis,‘JuliusE.vii’,106–09;Norris,‘Introduction’,pp.2–8.ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:xiii–xviandxxviii.36See,forexample,themisattributioninSkeat,ed.,Lives,II:452;andLoomis,‘FurtherSources’,5.37HughMagennis,‘ContrastingFeaturesintheNon-ÆlfricianLivesintheOldEnglishLivesofSaints’,Anglia104(1986),336–342;Magennis,‘NoteontheBeginning’,438.38Hill,‘BenedictineReform’,pp.153and157–62;Lapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,255and263.39MalcolmGodden,‘ÆlfricandtheVernacularProseTradition’,inSzarmachandHuppé(1978),p.102;Magennis,‘ContrastingFeatures’,342;Magennis‘JuliusE.vii’,107–08.

suggestthatnotallreformedAnglo-Saxonclericsfoundthenarrative

problematic,evenifÆlfricmighthave.40

UnliketheCatholicHomilies,Ælfric’sLivesofSaintsandtheLifeofEustace

wouldhavebeenunsuitablylongforhomileticorliturgicalrecitation,suggesting

thatthelegendswereintendedforprivatereadingorasreferenceswhen

composingsermonsforagivensaint’sfeastday.41AstheLifeofEustaceonly

survivesinthecollectionsofÆlfricianLives,wemightpresumethatboth

compositionshadthesameclericalandlayaudiences,especiallyoflearnedlay

patrons,likeÆthelweardandÆthelmær.42Itisdifficulttoseparatethemonastic

andsecularaudiencesoftheLife,giventheinfluenceofworldlyidealsinboththe

secularChurchandmonasticfoundationsduringthelatetenthcentury,despite

theBenedictineReform.43AtthetimetheLifeofEustacewascomposed,many

monasticrecruitswerenotchild-oblatesbutthosewhojoinedlaterinlifeand

camewithexperienceofsecularvocations,bringingtheirpreviousexperience

intothecloister.44Therelevanceofthestoryformonasticaudiencesfamiliar

withworldlypursuitsisreflectedintheLifeofEustace’sacceptanceofsecular

occupations,evenwhenthesewereagainstcanonlaw.Forinstance,Eustace’s

passionforhunting—whichwouldturnEustaceintothepatronsaintofhunters

—wasindirectcontradictiontocanonlaw,asÆlfricreaffirmedinhislettersto

WulfstanandWulfsige,saying‘therefore,nohunterwaseverholy’(forþonþa

nanhuntanæsnæfrehalig).45

40Hill,‘BenedictineReform’,pp.151–52and162;Lapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,255.JamesMacGregorin‘MinistryofGerold’,231–37,and‘NegotiatingKnightlyPiety:TheCultoftheWarrior-SaintsintheWest,ca.1070-ca.1200’,ChurchHistory73:2(2004),320–24,arguesthatGeroldd’AvranchesusedtheEustace-legendtopromotemonasticismandconvertsecularwarriorstospiritualwarfare.41ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:xxiv–xxv;JoyceHill,‘TheContextofÆlfric'sSaints'Lives’,inLazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca(2014),pp.2–3.42SeeÆlfric’sOldEnglishPrefacetotheLivesofSaints,LSI:8–12;ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:viii–ixandxxiv–xxv;Gittos‘Audience’,238–41,254;Magennis,‘JuliusE.vii’,100–01;MacGregor,‘MinistryofGerold’,219–37;McDaniel,‘InterpretingtheTranslator’,pp.60and67–68;Whatley,‘PearlsBeforeSwine’,pp.176–83;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.217and230.Heffernan,‘NarrativeMotifs’,66,thinksthattheLifewasaimedatsufferinglayaudiences.43ForsecularinfluencesonmonasteriesinBenedictineReform,seeSnook,‘BishopsandPawns’,155–67.44Smith,War,p.52.45CouncilsandSynods300and334–35.HuntingwasalsobannedinFrankishcanonsthoughtheinjunctiondisappearsintheseventhcentury:Powell,‘ThreeOrders’,126;Prinz,‘ClergyandWar’,II:302–03.

YetÆflricwouldhavetakenevengreaterissuewiththeEustace-legend’s

endorsementofclericalviolence.ThefactthatEustacereturnstoactivesoldiery

undertheworldlyemperorafteradoptingaquasi-monasticlifesimilartothatof

amonasticnoviceorconuersuswouldhavebeenantitheticaltoÆlfric’s

injunctionagainstclericalinvolvementinsecularwarfare,whichherepeatedly

affirmsinhisLivesofSaints,Hexameron,andpastoralletters.46WhileÆlfricuses

martialimageryinhisportrayalsofthesaintsMaurice,Martin,Sebastian,and

Edmund,heisclearthatthesesaintsonlyfightinspiritualwarfare,47similarto

themodelpresentedintheanonymousGuthlac-andAndrew-narratives.48

Ælfric’streatmentofwarrior-saintssupportsTyerman’sstatementthat,

‘althoughexamplesofwarrior-saints,orsaintswhowereoncewarriors,

proliferatedinthetenthandeleventhcenturies,themoraldangersoffighting

continuedtoberecognised.’49Oncethearistocraticwarrior-saintsinÆlfric’s

collectionslaydowntheirweaponstodevotethemselvestoChrist,theydonot

returntosecularwarfare.50AswesawinChapterTwo,Ælfricandearly

canonicalwritersmandatedthisstrictseparationofthebellatoresandoratores

inlifeaswellasfiction.51Renouncingthesecularrealmwasabsoluteforacleric

whoshouldneverparticipateinworldlywarfareagain.

Eustacecomplicatesthiscanonicalinjunctionasasaintwhoparticipates

inbothspiritualandphysicalwarfare.WhiletheEustace-legenddoesnotoffera

psychomachiaorincorporatedemonsascharacters,whenthesaintisbaptised

heissaidtofightthedevilmetaphysicallyinthesamewaythatMartin,Guthlac,

andAndrewdo.AsChristtellsEustacebeforehistrials:

‘Eadigþueartþeonfengeþoneþwealminregifeandþegegyredestmidundeadlicnysse,andnuþuoferswiðdestdeofolandfortrædeþoneþeþebeswac,andnuðuunscryddestþeþonebrosnigendlicanmann,andþegescryddestþoneunbrosnigendlican,seþurh-wunaðaonworulde.Nubeoðgeswutelodeþaweorcþinesgeleafananddeoflesandabiðastyredwiðþinforðanþuhineforlæteandefestþætheælcyfeldoymbutanþe.

46SeethefulldiscussionofÆlfric’sinjunctiononpp.27–32above.47Dalbey,‘GoodShepherd’,424–34;Norris,‘Reversal’,p.98;Magennis,‘WarriorSaints’,42–48;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.219–31.48Seepp.112–18,127–28,154–58and177–79above.49Tyerman,Christendom,p.107.50ClaytonandMullins,ed.,Lives,I:xvii–xviii;MacGregor,‘MinistryofGerold’,236–37;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.217–19.51Again,seepp.27–32above.

Þegedafenaþsoðlicefelaaræfnianþætþuonfowuldor-beah.Efne,þuwærenuoðþisup-ahafenonþisseworuldeæhtumandhwilwendumweorcum,nugedafnaðþeþætþubeogeeaðmetofþireheanidelnysseþætþueftbeoupahafenongastlicumwelum,neateorigeþinmægenneðunebeseohtoþinumærranwuldre.’(lines94–104).“Youareblessedwhoreceivedthewashingofmygraceandhavepreparedyourselfwithimmortalityandnowyouhaveoverpoweredthedevilandhavetroddentheonewhohaddeceivedyouandnowyouhavedivestedyourselfofthecorruptiblemanandhavevestedyourselfwiththeincorruptible,thatdwellsforeverintheeternalworld.Nowshallbemanifestedtheworksofyourfaith,andthedevil’senvywillbestirredagainstyou,becauseyouforsookhimandhewillhastentodoeveryeviltoyou.Itistrulyfittingforyoutosuffermanythingssothatyouattainthecrownofglory.Behold,upuntilnowyouwereupheldinthisworldwithpossessionsandtransitoryworks,nowitisfittingthatyoubehumbledfromyourhighidlenesssothatyoumightafterwardsbeliftedupinspiritualriches.Letnotyourcourageweakennorlooktowardsyourpreviousglory.”

Christ’sdescriptionhereofEustaceasafighteragainstdemonicenemiesaligns

thesaintwithÆlfric’sdefinitionofanorator,asonewhosuffersadversityand

fightsagainstthedevilforspiritualgains.52ThischaracterisationofEustaceasa

memberoftheecclesiasticalorderofsocietyisfurtheremphasisedthroughthe

legend’sdepictionofEustaceasamonasticoblate,novice,orconuersus(asecular

personwhovoluntarilysubjectedhimselftoreligiousrulebuthadnotformally

takenvows).53

WhenEustaceloseshiswealthandfamily,strandedinaforeignland,he

becomesalowlylabourerwhotoilswithoutaccruingpersonalwealth:54

CumlacrimisetgemituanimiabiitadquendamuicumquidicebaturDadissus.Etingrediensineooperabaturetadquirebatuictum.Commoransueroineoplurimum

HeeodewependeonþonetunþehatteDadissusandþærwunodeandbegethimbiglyfnemidhisweorce.Þaæftermicelretidebædheþæstuneshlafordasþæthemostehealdanheora

52LSII:334–36.53Foroverviewsofadultoblation,seeFoot,MonasticLife,pp.146–55;MaykeDeJong,InSamuel’sImage:ChildOblationinEarlyMedievalWest(Leiden;NewYork;Köln:Brill,1996),pp.43–44,100–02and126–32;Smith,War,pp.52–63.FordiscussionsofAnglo-Saxonmonasteriesincorporatinglaylabourersintheircommunities,seeCubitt,‘PastoralCare’,pp.208–10;Foot,MonasticLife,pp.179–80;Thacker,‘Monks,Preaching’,pp.138–43.54Comparativequotationsthroughoutthechapter,unlessotherwisenoted,providethetextfromtheVitaonthelefthandside,andthetextfromtheLifeofEustace,ontherighthandsideofthetextblock.

tempuspostulauiteiusdemuicihabitatoresetposueriteumcustodireagrossuos.Etmercedemaccipiens,degebatibiannisquindecim.(lines185–89).

æcerasandhimmedeearnianandheðærdrohtnodefiftynegear.(lines181–84).

‘WithtearsandalamentingofspirithewentofftoacertaintownwhichwascalledDadissus.Andenteringintothereheworkedsothathecouldacquirefood.However,lingeringinthatplaceforalongtimeheaskedtheinhabitantsofthatsametownthathemightguardtheirfields.Andreceivingmoney[fordoingso],hepassedfifteenyearsthere.’

‘HewentweepingintothattownwhichiscalledDadissusandtheredwelledandearnedhimselfsustenancewithhiswork.Thenafteragreattimeheaskedthelordsofthetownthathebeabletoguardtheirfieldsandearnfoodforhimselfandhedwelledthereforfifteenyears.

TheLifeisclosetoitssource,exceptintransformingtheclasslessinhabitantsof

thelands(habitatores)intolords(hlafordas).Indoingso,theLifecreatesa

powerdynamicwhichhighlightsEustace’ssubservienceunderagreater

authority.WhileinDadissus,EustacepraystoGodanddevelopsthevirtuesof

humilityandobediencewhichwerefundamentalforamonasticlife.The

contemplativenatureofEustace’sexistenceisindicatedfurtherthroughhis

separationfromthesocietyofDadissus.Evenafterfifteenyears,Eustacestill

saysthat‘Imyselfamforeign’(egoperegrinussum,lines227–28;icsylfeom

ælþeodig,line220).AttheendofEustace’stimeinDadissus,Godpromiseshim

salvationandsanctity,saying:

‘Inresurrectioneueromaiorahorumuidebiseteternorumbonorumdelectationemreperiesetnomentuummagnificabituringenerationem.’(lines217–19).

‘Witodliceonþæreæristeþugesihstmicelremærranþincgandþuonfehstþaraecragodagelustfullungaandþinnamabiðecelicegemærsod.’(lines208–10).

“Certainlyintheresurrectionyouwillseegreaterthingsandyouwillfindthedelightofeternalboonsandyournamewillbeveneratedthroughthegenerations.”

“Certainlyinthatresurrectionyouwillseemuchgreaterthingsandyoushallrecievethejoysofeternalboonsandyournamewillbealwaysvenerated.”

ThepromiseofvenerationafterheisdeadsuggeststhatEustace’smanuallabour

wasintendedformorethanmeresustenance,butasthemeansofcultivatinghis

sanctity.ThisfollowsChrist’searlierinstructionsthatEustacemustsuffertrials

‘tobehumbled’(tehumiliari,line101;beogeeaðmet,line102)whichwillearn

Eustace‘spiritualriches’(spiritalibusdiuitiis,line102;gastlicumwelum,line

103).Indepictingthedevelopmentofhishumilityandsanctity,theEustace-

legendsuggeststhatEustaceisasmuchasaintthroughhispiouslife,asthrough

hismartyrdom.ChristimpliesthisatEustaceandhisfamily’sdeathinsaying:

‘Certatoresperbonamuitamfactiestis,pluresetmagnassustinentestemptationesetnonuictiestis.’(lines385–86).

‘Gewæronwinnendeongodanlife,andgewæronforþyldiendemænigfealdecos[t]nunga,andswaþeahnæronoferswiþde.’(lines379–80).

“Youhavebecomecombatantsthroughagoodlife,sustainingmanyandgreattemptationsandyouwerenotconquered.”

“Youwerefightinginagoodlife,andyouwereenduringmanifoldtemptations,andeventhenwerenotoverthrown.”

ThroughoutthedepictionofEustace’s‘goodlife’,thesaintdevelopsmonastic

virtuestoendurehistrialsandtemptations.Inparticular,thesaint’slifeinexile

asahumblelabourerlivingatoil-filledexistencewithprayerresemblesthe

monastictenetsdescribedinJohnCassian’sDeinstitutiscoenobiorum

(‘Concerningtheinstitutesofthecenobites’)andCollationespatruminscetica

eremo(‘Conferenceswiththedesertfathers’),aswellastheRegulaBenedicti.55

Cassiancallsmonkhoodabrenuntiatio(‘renunciation’)anddefinesitas

‘nothingotherthanasignofthecrossandofmortification’(nihilestaliudquam

crucisacmortificationisindicium).56Cassianclarifiesthatbycruxhemeansfaith

inChrist,thefearofGod,willingnesstoundergotrialforfaithaswellas

obediencetoChrist,andalackofconcernfortomorrow.EustacefulfillsCassian’s

definitionbyrenouncinghisstationofsecularprominence,andacceptinghis

trialsasconfirmationsofhisfaithinChrist.Thosewhorenounceworldlysociety

55GneussandLapidge,Handlist,p.902,haveidentifiedthattheCollationesandDeinstitutissurviveinseveralmanscriptswithAnglo-Saxonprovenance,suggestingthattheywereknownintheAnglo-Saxonliterarycircles,althoughJones,‘Envisioning’,265,arguesthatknowledgeofCassian’sCollationesdoesnotholduptomanuscriptevidenceinGneuss’soriginalHandlist.However,StephenLake,‘KnowledgeoftheWritingsofJohnCassianinEarlyAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE32(2003),27–41,andFoot,MonasticLife,pp.53,153and234,haveshownthatCassian’swritingswereknownandinfluentialinAnglo-Saxonconceptionsofmonasticism.56DeinstitutisIV:34;Reichardt,‘GuthlacA’,334and338.

arethensupposedtolivebythetoiloftheirownhands.57Aschapter48ofthe

RegulaandÆthelwold’stranslationofitbothstate:

Tuncueremonachisuntsilaboremanuumsuarumuiuunt,sicutetpatresnostrietapostoli.58

Þætbeoðþonnerihtmunecas,gifhylibbaðbeþamgeswinceheoraagenrahanda,swaswaurefæderesandþaapostolasdydon.59

‘Thentheyaretrulymonksiftheylivebythelabouroftheirownhands,likeourfathersandtheapostles.’

‘Thentheyaretruemonks,iftheylivethroughthelabouroftheirownhands,justasourfathersandtheapostlesdid.’

Thispassageemphasisesmanuallabourasthecornerstoneofthemonasticideal,

andonethatEustacefulfills.WhiletheDeinstitutisdoesnotprescribemanual

labourinthesamedetailastheRegula,itdoesrepeatedlystressthatmonksgain

humilitythroughphysicalwork,andthatmonksshouldnotbecomeproudfrom

theirabilitytoworkorgetagoodpricefortheirproducts.60TheCollationes,

however,dofocusonmanuallabourasafundamentalaspectofmonasticlifefor

balancingthemind.61CollatioXXIV:12(Deutilitateoperationis,etotii

detrimento)specificallyconcernsamonk’sneedforlabourasthemeansof

sustaininghimselfandcurbingidleness:

Quotidianacorporisalimentanostrismaluimussudoribuspraepararequamsecuraparentumpraebitionefulciri,laboriosissimaehuicpenuriæillamquampraedicasotiosamScripturarummeditationematqueinfructuosamlectionisinstantiampostponentes.‘Wehavechosenrathertoprocureourdailynourishmentwiththesweatofourbodiesthantobesupportedbythesecuregivingfromparents,puttingthatidlemeditationofScriptureandthefruitlessattendancetoreadingyouspokeofearlierafterthismostlaboriouspoverty’.

TheCollatiogoesontocondemnallmonkswholivefromsustenancegivenand

notearnedbythetoiloftheirownhands.Inaccordancewiththesestipulations,

57Foot,MonasticLife,pp.211–16.58RegulaII:400.59Schröer,ed.,Prosabearbeitungen,pp.73–74.60DeinstitutisIV:14–19.61Stewart,CassiantheMonk,pp.17–18and107.SeealsoDeinstitutisII:14.

monkslabourandoughtnottowastetheirtimeinidlereadingorpursuinga

purelycontemplativelife.Eustaceworkstofeedhimself,butnottoaccrue

materialwealthashisremissionofluxuryandsubservienceshownattheendof

histimeinDadissusillustrate(Vitalines229–51;Lifelines221–40).Eustace’s

impoverishedstateafterfifteenyearslikewisefollowstheordersintheRegula

andDeinstitutisthatforbidmonksfromowninganything,sincetheirlackof

physicalpossessionsencouragestheirseparationfromtheworldwhilefostering

obedienceandhumility(humilitas).62

Thevirtueofhumilitasoreaðmodnesisapillarofthemonasticideal,and

thevirtuethatChristencouragesEustacetocultivateduringhistrialswhenhe

tellshimto‘behumbled’(humiliariandbeogeeaðmet).Christthenpromisesthat

“whenyouwillhavebeenhumbledIwillcometoyouandreturnyoutoyour

formerglory[andprominence]”(‘Cumenimhumiliatusfuerisueniamadteet

rursusrestituamteinpropriamgloriam’,lines108–09;‘þonneþubist

geeaðmodadiccumetoðeandgelædeþeefttoþinumagenumwuldreand

wurðscipe’,lines109–10).Eustaceachieveshumilitythroughhisquasi-monastic

lifeinDadissusasalowlylabourer,deprivedofhisfamilyandpossessions.

ChristthenreturnsEustacetohispositioninthearmy,indicatingthatEustace

hadprovenhishumility.

CassiandevotesmuchofhisdescriptionofthelivesofEgyptiancenobitic

monksinbookfourofDeinstitutis(Deinstitutisrenuntiantium,‘Concerningthe

institutesofthosewhoofferrenunciation’)tohowmonasticismrevolvedaround

thecultivationofhumility,fromthemonk’sprobationaryperiodbeforethewalls

ofthemonastery,demonstratinghisdesiretoenter,throughtohissanctified

existenceasanabbot.InDeinstitutisIV:39–43,Cassianlaysoutfourstepsto

spiritualperfectionbuiltonhumilitas.63First,themonkoughttofearGod,which

leadsfromrenunciationoftheworldtowardshumility.Thevirtueisthen

cultivatedthroughtheremissionofpersonaldesiresandindividualwill,

confessionofone’sfaultstohisorherelders,obedienceandpatiencein

adversity,pacifismandsubmissiontoothers,satisfactionwithuttersimplicity

andbeingamanuallabourer,beliefinbeingunworthyforeverything,andthe

62DeinstitutisIV:3–5;RegulaII:562.63DeinstitutisIV:37–43.

avoidanceofidlechat.Oncehumilityisrecognised,themonk’sfearofGodwill

thenbecomefaithfuldevotion.

Eustace’strialsbringhimthroughmostofCassian’sstepstohumilitas.He

fearsandsubmitshimselftoGodwhenconfrontedwithChristintheformofthe

deer(Vitalines28–62;Lifelines34–64).Eustacethenacceptshisremovalfrom

worldlypursuitsorconnectionsthroughlosinghiswealthandfamily(Vitalines

119–85;Lifelines121–81).Eustacefurtherdevelopshumilityasalowly

labourerinDadissus,wherehesubmitshimselftoastationfarbelowhisformer

rankofsenatorialtribuneandundertheauthorityofthetownspeople(Vitalines

186–89and250–51;Lifelines183–85and240).WhenAntiocliusandAchaius

discovertheirformerleaderinDadissus,Eustacehumbleshimselfbeforethem,

denieshisformeridentity,andhoststheminaccordancewithmonastic

hospitality(Vitalines229–47;Lifelines221–36).64

TheRegulalikewiseemphasiseshumilitasasintegraltoamonk’s

development.InchapterVII(Dehumilitate),theRegulastatesthathumilitasis

themeansofattainingtheexaltationofsalvationandlaysouttwelvestepsto

developit.Eustacemodelsmanyofthebehaviourslaidoutinthesesteps,

particularlythefourth(concerninghowonedealswithadversity),thesixth

(callingonetocontenthimselfwithalowlyexistence),theninthandeleventh

(orderingonetokeepsilenceunlessspokento),aswellasthetwelfth(advising

onetokeepabowedandhumbledemeanoratalltimes,inallplaces,andwithall

people).

ThesimilarityofEustace’sexperiencetothedevelopmentofhumilityset

forthinmonasticmanualssuggeststhataudiencesoftheEustace-legendwould

haveseenEustace’slifeinDadissuswithinamonasticframework.Thiswould

havebeenparticularlylikelyinunreformedfoundations,wheretheterm

monachus(‘monk’)wasappliedtoanyonewhowasattachedtoanecclesiastical

or‘monastic’institutionregardlessoftheirstatusintheChurchorwhetherthey

hadtakenmonasticvows.65However,Æthelwold’spromotionofEustace’scultin

64Fortherulesgoverningmonastichospitality,seeDeinstitutisIV:4,7and12;RegulaII:610–16.65Cubitt,‘PastoralCare’,pp.208–10;Thacker,‘Monks,Preaching’,pp.138–43.

Peterboroughsuggeststhatthesaint’sLifealsoresonatedwithreformed

monasticaudiencesaswell.66

Eustace’slifefurtherresemblesthelivesofabbotsPatermutusand

Pinufius,asdescribedbyCassianintheDeinstitutis.Theaptlynamed

Patermutus(literally‘silent-father’)isanoblemanwhojoinsamonasterywith

hissonandistestedtomakesurethatthefamilialtiesbetweenthemhavebeen

severed.67Patermutus’ssonisbeatenandabusedinfrontofhiseyes,but

Patermutuscarriesonasifhehadnosonatall,untilcalledupontothrowhisson

intoariver,whichthemonkdoeswithouthesitation.Althoughnotsilenton

beingseparatedfromhiswifeandsons,Eustace’sfaithissimilarlytested

throughlosinghisfamily—andspecificallyhissonsatariver—whichhe

crossesbeforeenteringhisquasi-monasticlifeinDadissus(Vitalines151–62;

Lifelines148–56).

Eustace’saversiontobeingtakenfromhisholylabouring,alongwiththe

sceneofhisidentification,resemblethestoryofPinufius,68whoisabeloved

abbotwhofleesacrosstheseatomonasterieswhereheisnotrecognisedand

takesanewnamesothathecanliveasalowlylabourer.Pinufius’sself-imposed

exilesareendedwhenmonkswhoformerlyservedunderPinufiusrecognisehim

throughhisdisguiseandcallhimbyhisformername.Eustacewasoriginallya

high-rankingofficerofthearmynamedPlacidas,butrenamedathischristening.

Eustaceisrecalledfromhisexilewhenmenwhohadservedunderhimrecognise

theirformerleaderdespitehispoorclothesandnewname,sothatheisbrought

backtohisformerstation(Vitalines235–47;Lifelines229–45).Giventhe

resemblanceofthetalesintheDeinstitutistoEustace’sownstoryinexile,itis

appearslikelythattheoriginalGreekandLatinnarrativeswereinspiredinpart

bycenobiticheroeslikePatermutusandPinufius.

WhileEustace’sexperiencebeforehisreturntoworldlyserviceresonates

withthelifeprescribedinmonasticrules,hewasnotfullyamonklivingunder

anestablishedrule.AsEustaceissupposedtolivebeforetherecognised

foundersofmonasticism—Anthony,Martin,orBenedict—itwouldhavebeen

unlikelythatthecomposerwouldhavesetEustaceinananachronistically66Lapidge,‘VitaS.Eustachii’,255–61.67DeinstitutisIV:27.68DeinstitutisIV:30.

monasticsetting.ThereferencestoTrajanandHadriandemonstratethatthe

originalhagiographerhadsomehistoricalawarenessandconsciouslydecidedto

placeEustaceinacontextofChristianpersecutionwhichprecedesmonasticism.

NordoesEustacecompletelyfulfilltheidealsthatCassianortheRegulalayout

formonks.Eustacehascontinuedtoholdontohisfamilialattachment(Vitalines

211–17;Lifelines202–08),whichmonasticrulesexplicitlyforbidasanecessary

steptowardsremovingoneselffromworldlyconcerns.69YetitisEustace’s

willingnesstoreturntotheworldthatwasperhapsmostantitheticaltoCassian,

Benedict,andÆlfric’sexplanationofmonastism,allofwhominsistthatoncethe

worldisrenounced,oneshouldnevergoback.70

LikeMartin,EustacefirstcommuneswithGodwhenheisasoldierand

secularnobleman(Vitalines36–116;Lifelines34–118).Yetwhilethe

Martinmas-homilyportraysthemilesChristileavingtheweoruld-folgoð

definitivelyafterheconverseswithChristinadream,71Eustace’sconversionto

thereligiouslifeisonlytemporary.Afterfifteenyearsofthequasi-monasticlife

inDadissus,Eustaceresumeshisworldlyrankandwearstheclothesofhis

imperialmilitarystation(Vitalines251–72;Lifelines241–61),fulfillingChrist’s

promisethathewouldreturntosecularprestige(Vitalines108–09;Lifelines

109–10).Eustace’smovementbetweensecularandreligiousorderscontradicts

thestrictdivisionsofsocietyprescribedinÆlfric’streatisesonthethreeorders,

aswellascanonlaw,72atthesametimeitsuggeststhatonecouldbecomeasaint

asalayman.Eustace’sabilitytoattainsanctityandmaintaina‘goodlife’while

stillfulfillinghismilitarydutiessuggeststhatthelegend’saudienceincludedlay

aristocratslookingformodelsofholylifeoutsideofthemonasteryor

ecclesiasticalorder,andthatitsmonastictransmittersacceptedtheideathat

laymencouldachievespiritualapotheosis.73Likewise,thededicationofEustace’s

69DeinstitutisIV:16,27,29and36;RegulaII:616–18and664–66.70DeinstitutisIV:5–6and36–37;RegulaII:554and664;CouncilsandSynods212,217and300.71Seepp.58–66above.72Moilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1335–44,arguesthatÆlfricadvocatesforastrictboundarybetweenthethreeordersofsociety.73Forintroductionstomedievallaysanctity,seeJanetNelson,‘Monks,SecularMenandMasculinity,c.900’,inMasculinityinMedievalEurope,ed.DawnHadley(London:Longman,1999),pp.124–33;AndréVauchez,‘LayPeople’sSanctityinWesternEurope:EvolutionofaPattern(TwelfthandThirteenthCenturies)’,inImagesofSainthoodinMedievalEurope,ed.RenateBlumenfeld-KosinskiandTimeaSzell(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1991),pp.21–32;Vauchez,Spirituality,pp.105–09and117–35.

feasttoChrist,andthenatureofEustace’smilitarycampaignsasavehicleforthe

miraculousreunionofEustace’sfamilysuggestthattheEustace-hagiographers

believethatcertainactivitiespertainingtosecularwarriorcultureare

compatiblewithsoldieringforGod,solongasthoseactionsweredoneinChrist’s

honour.

WhenEustaceresumeshispatricianstatus,hereturnstothosemilitary

customsheheldbeforehisconversion.Thesearenotonlyactionsconcerned

withorchestratingamilitarycampaign,suchastheinspectionoftroopsand

orderingofbattlenecessaryforhisabilitytoexecutehisduty(Vitalines262–81;

Lifelines251–70),butalsothosepertainingtoanaristocraticlifestyle

antitheticaltohisearlierlifeofausterity.Asdiscussedearlier,lines168–69of

GuthlacAdefinethedelightsoftheworldassoftseats,banquets,proudapparel,

aswellasgloryamongmen.74ThesearethingsthatEustacetakesupasasoldier,

whohasbeenclothedinthefinestvestmentsofhisesteemedposition(Vitaline

252;Lifeline241).Asawar-leader,Eustacehostsbanquets(Vitalines269–72,

342and351;Lifelines330–31),wearsasword(Vitalines262and361;Lifeline

349),attendsmilitaryparades(Vitalines349–50;Lifelines337–39),andwields

power‘ashehaddonebefore’(Vitalines273;Lifeline261).YettheLifeof

EustacereworkstheVitatodistancethemilesChristifromseekingworldly

delightsonhisown.

ThecomposeroftheLifeseemstohavebeenuncomfortablewithfeasts

whichwerenotdedicatedtohonouringChristorfacilitatingamiracle.The

Anglo-SaxonhagiographeromittedapreviousreferencetoEustacehosting

drinking-partiestowhichhissonswereinvited(iussitinterconuiuaseosmense

annumerari,line272)aswellastheconuiuiumtowhichHadrianinvitesEustace

afterEustace’svictoriousreturn(Vitaline351).Thosefeastswhichareremoved

fromtheOldEnglishnarrativearepurelysecularevents,reflectiveofEustace’s

aristocraticsocialstanding.ThepartyEustacedoesthrowintheOldEnglishLife

isnotforhimself,butincommemorationofGod’spowerintwoactions,namely

hisreunionwithhisfamilyandthemilitarydefeatofheathens.

74Seepp.95–96and102–103above.

Omnescongregatimirabanturetexultabantininuentioneeorumampliusetiampropterbarbarorumexpugnationem.Alteradiemaximamcelebritatemfacientesdeogratiasegeruntproptermagnameiuspietatem.Postquamuerosubieceruntuniuersamterrambarbarorumreuersisuntcumuictoriamagnaetspoliamultaportantesetcaptiuosplurimosducentes.(lines340–45).

Hieallegegaderewundrodonandblissodonforheoragemetinge,andmiccleþebliðranþehioferwinnenhæfdonþahæþenan.Ðaþyoðrandægedydonhiþamæstangebeorscypeandgodeþancodehismicclanmild-heortnysse.Þaæfterþamþehigewyldhæfdoneallheorafeondalandandhimidmicclumsigehamhwurfonandlæddonmidhimmicelehere-huþeandmanigehaeft-nydlingas.(lines328–33).

‘Everyonegatheredwonderedandrejoicedmoregreatlyintheirreunionthanonaccountofthefightagainstthebarbarians.Thenextdaytheyheldthegreatestcelebration,givingthankstoGodforhisgreatgoodness.Then,aftertheysubjugatedthewholelandofthebarbarians,theyreturnedwithagreatvictory,bearingmanyspoilsandleadingverymanycaptives.’

‘Alltogethertheywonderedandrejoicedfortheirmeetingandweremuchhappierthattheyhadover-throwntheheathens.ThenthenextdaytheyheldthegreatestfeastandthankedGodforhisgreatmercy.Thenafterthattheyhelddominionoverallofthelandoftheirenemies,andtheyreturnedhomewithgreatvictoryandledwiththemmuchwar-bootyandmanyhostages.’

TheVitacallsthefeastacelebritas(‘celebration’)wheretheOldEnglishhas

gebeorscype,whichisaspecifictypeoffeastclosertoaconuiuiumordrinking-

partyratherthanmerea‘celebration’.75Eustace’suseofagebeorscypetohonour

Christmirrorstheconuiuium/gebeorscypeatwhichCædmoncreatedofOld

Englishreligiouspoetry.76BothCædmon’sandEustace’spartiesenhanceChrist’s

honourandarelaudableforpiousaudiences,unlikethepurelysecularconuiuia

thatEustaceattendselsewhereintheVita.

AlthoughtheOldEnglishLifeishesitanttodepictseculardrinking

culture,77neithertexthasanyqualmsaboutEustace’sparticipationinthe

customsofwarfare,includingthetakingofwar-bootyandhostages.Contraryto

75DOEs.v.gebeorscipe,whichdefinesitasa‘feastatwhich(alcoholic)drinkisserved;carousal’.76InHEIV:24,thepartyatWhitbyiscalledaconuiuium,whichistranslatedasgebeorscipeintheOldEnglish;Miller,ed.,EnglishVersionofBede,p.342.77HughMagennis,‘TheExegesisofInebriation:TreadingCarefullyinOldEnglish’,ELN23:3(1986),3–6,and‘Water–WineMiraclesinAnglo-SaxonSaints’Lives’,ELN23:3(1986),7–9,showsthatOldEnglishtextsoftenavoidedassociatingsaintswiththemetaphorofspiritualinebriationoralcoholingeneral.ForAlcuin’scritiqueofmonasticfeasting,seeBullough,‘Ingeld’,104–08and124.

MacGregor’sargumentthatEustaceisnotdepictedactivelyfighting,78thelegend

presentsEustaceasasuccessfulwarlord,evenafteradoptingaquasi-monastic

lifestyle.TheomissionofEustace’sfeastingandemphasisonhispietyintheLife

thussuggestsEustaceleadsa‘mixedlife’,inwhichheisinternallycontemplative

whileactivelyengaginginholywarfare.ThedepictionofEustace’swillingnessto

activelyparticipateinworldlyfightingalsomirrorsÆlfric’sclaimsthatpressures

tojoinworldlyfightingcamebothfromsecularauthoritiesforcingclericstofight

aswellasfromtheclerics’owndesirestoparticipateinwarfare.79Eustace

renounceshiscontemplativelifeinDadissusbecauseoftheemperor’sorderas

wellashisowndesiretoreturntothearmyasthemeansofseeinghiswife.Yet

thelegendoffersnocondemnationoftheseforces,suggestingthattheEustace-

hagiographersdidnotdisapproveofclericalengagementinwar.

BoththeVitaandLifearemoreacceptingofChristianviolencethanthe

otherwarrior-saintsdiscussedabove.IntheMartinmas-homily,thesaintis

nonviolent,evenwhenheisintheimperialarmy,andturnshisattentionto

peacefullyconvertingpagansonceherenounceshis‘worldlyservice’.80Likewise,

Guthlaconlyengagesinmetaphoricalbattlesafterhisconversionfromalifeof

bloodshedandplunder,fightingpurelywithinthecontextofspiritualwarfareas

amonkandhermit.EventhoughAndreasframestheapostleasawarlike

retainerofChristandtheAndrew-narrativesseemstoadvocatetheforced

conversionofheathens,theyareclearthatAndrewneverwieldsaworldly

weapon.Moreover,thestoriesofMartin,Guthlac,andAndrewuseconceptsof

spiritualwarfaretodepicttheconversionofpagansandpaganplaces,nottheir

obliteration.81ThereisnosuchmissionarydriveintheEustace-legend.Instead,

Eustaceandhissonsactivelykillpagansanddestroytheirlands,asthefollowing

passagesshow:

Profectusestadbellum.Etterramquidem,quamabstulerantbarbari,liberauit.IpsisuerosubiectistansiitfluuiumquidiciturYdispisetulterius

Þaferdehetoþamgefeohteandgeeodeþalandþeðahæðenanætbrodonhæfdonandhiþamcasereunderþeodde.Ferdeðaforðoferþæt

78MacGregor,‘MinistryofGerold’,231and237.79Moilanen,‘SocialMobility’,1339–44.80Seepp.58–66belowforMartin.ForGuthlacseepp.94–96and104–11,andpp.177–78forAndrew.81Forthethemeofconversion,seepp.73–79,134–36,158–60,167–68and179–83above.

procedensininterioraterrabarbarorumetillosdeuincensdepopulatusestterrameorum.Adhucauteminteriusdesideransingredi.(lines273–77).‘Hesetoutforthewarandfreedthatsameland,whichthebarbarianshadtaken.Afteroverthrowing[thebarbarians],hecrossedtheriverwhichiscalledIdispisandproceedingontheothersideintotheinteriorlandofthebarbariansandconqueringthem,hepillagedtheirlands.Atthispointhoweverhedesiredtoprogressfurtherinto[theirland].’

wæter,þætwæsgenemnedIdispis,inþainranlandþærahæðenraandhiofercomandheoraeardaweste.Þagithewilnodeþætheinnorferde.(lines262–65).‘ThenhewenttothatwarandenteredthatlandwhichtheheathenshadstolenandsubjugatedthemundertheCaesar.Hewentforthoverthatriver,whichiscalledIdispis,intotheinnerlandsoftheheathensandovercamethemandlaidwastetheircountry,yethewishedthathecarriedonfurtherinto[theirland].’

ThepassagefromtheOldEnglishLifeintroducesaclausethatsaysEustace

subjugatedthoseheconquerstoCaesar(hiþamcasereunderþeodde),thereby

showingthesaintactivelypromotingapagansecularrulerratherthanseeking

toreestablishthestatusquoorconvertthoseheathensheconfronts.TheVita

doesnotincludeasimilardetail.Eustace’sactionseemstofollowChrist’sorder

to‘renderuntoCaesarthosethingswhichareCaesar’s,andtoGodthosethings

whichareGod’s’(agifaðþæmcasereþaþingþeþæscaseressynd,andgodeþa

þingþeGodessynd,Matthew22:21),asEustaceexpandsthebordersofthe

empirefortheearthlyking.82YetindepictingEustacesuccessfullydefendinghis

country,expandinghisearthlylord’srule,andcollectingtreasurestoenrichhis

community,theOldEnglishpresentsEustaceastheidealealdorman.

Eustaceandhissonsdonopenancefortheirwarring,asearlyMedieval

penitentialswouldproscribe,83noristhereanycondemnationoftheirconquest

whichruinstheforeignlandratherthanturnsitintoaChristiansanctuary.

EustaceisnotamissionaryconvertingheathenstofaithinChrist,butasoldier

whosubjectsthemtothesword.Eustace’scampaignisnotevenconfinedwithin

thelimitsoftheIsidorianconceptionof‘justwar’,sincehebringshisarmy

beyondRome’sborderstolaywastethelandsoftheheathensanddesiresto

82BenjaminThorpe,ed.,ÐaHalganGodspelonEnglisc:TheAnglo-SaxonVersionoftheHolyGospels(London:Rivington,1842),p.50.83Cross,‘EthicofWar’,pp.280–82;Tyerman,Christendom,p.107.ThePaenitentialePseudo-Theodori,forinstance,perscribesfortydaysofwaterandbread,inCarinevanRhijn,ed.,PaenitentialePseudo-Theodori,CCSL156b(Turnhout:Brepols,2009),p.39.

conquermoreland.84Whilethisdesireforexpansionaryconquestorrevenge

couldpotentiallyfallintothecategoryof‘unjustwar’,becauseitseeminglyarose

inangerandsoughttoclaimpropertythatwasnotpreviouslypartoftheempire,

theheathennatureoftheenemiesintheOldEnglishtextsuggestthattheAnglo-

Saxonhagiographermayhaveconsideredthisadivinelysanctionedholywar.

BeforeEustaceisrecalledtothemilitary,Christtellshimthathisfaithfulservice

inDadissuswillberewardedwiththereturnofhiswealth,station,andfamily

(Vitalines216–19;Lifelines207–10).ThefactthatEustaceisvictoriousand

celebratesGodwithafeastfurtherindicatesthathiscampaignshaveareligious

dimension.Aswediscussbelow,theOldEnglishLifeofEustacealsoreframes

Eustace’senemiesasheathensinordertopromoteholywarasthevehicleof

Eustace’ssanctityandmeansofpunishingtheenemiesofpiousChristians.

TheacceptanceoflaysanctityandholywarseenintheLifeofEustace

grewinthecontextofpaganattacksonChristendom.AsBede’saccountof

Oswald’sbattlesagainstthepaganMerciankingPendaindicates,heathenswere

consideredthreatstoChristiancommunitiesfromthebeginningofAnglo-Saxon

hagiographicaltraditions.85Itisthusunsurprisingthatinthecontextofthe

vikingraidsoftheninthcenturyandagainattheendofthetenthandintothe

earlyeleventhcentury,positiveattitudestowardsChristianandclericalviolence

appear.86SomuchisevidentfromÆlfric’sinsertionofthephrase‘cruel

boatmen’(reðanflotmenn)intohistranslationofIsidore’scodeof‘justwar’,

whichillustrateshisinimicalattitudetowardstheNorseheathens.87Wulfstan’s

apparentcomplicityinthe1002StBrice’sDaymassacrewouldalsosuggestthat

clericswerebecomingincreasinglyinvolvedwithandsupportiveoftheuseof

violenceagainstpaganforeignersasbothphysicalandspiritualenemiesof

Christians.88

Thelatetenth-centuryinterestinEustacearoundAbingdonmayhave

stemmedfromthesaint’sexampleasakillerofheathens.Oxfordshirewasa

particulartargetofvikingraids,anditsinhabitantsdevelopeda‘racialhatred’

84Seediscussionof‘justwar’onpp.21–26above.85Seepp.34–37above.86Pezzarossa,‘IdeologyofWar’,pp.108–21,163–80and185–92.87Cross,‘EthicofWar’,pp.269–75;Godden,‘ProblemofMiracles’,92–97;Pezzarossa,‘IdeologyofWar’,pp.190–92;Snook,‘JustWar’,117.88Wilcox,‘StBrice’sDay’,pp.82–83,86and90–91.

forthoseofScandinaviandescent.89ThishatredwasunleasedduringtheSt

Brice’sDaymassacre,90aboutwhichthe‘C’versionoftheAnglo-SaxonChronicle

says,‘inthatyearthekingorderedalltheDanishpeopletobeslainwhowere

amongtheEnglishpeople’(onþamgearesecynghetofsleanealleþaDeniscan

menþeonAngelcynnewæron).91Æthelred’s1004charterforthemonasteryofSt

FrideswideinHeadington,OxfordshiredescribestheScandinaviansettlersas

‘cockleamongthewheat’(lolliumintertriticum)andcallsthemassacre‘amost

justextermination’(iustissimaexinanitione).92Thechartergoesontodescribe

thelocalinhabitantschasingthe‘Danes’intothe‘sanctuaryofChrist’(Xpi

sacrarium)andburningtheminside,withoutmentioninganyremorseforthe

lossoflifeasmuchasforthelossof‘ornamentsandbooks’(ornamentisaclibris).

ExcavationsatStJohn’sCollege,Oxford,in2008alsorevealedthemassburialof

thirty-sevenmenofScandinaviandescentwhoseemtohavebeenexecutedor

stabbedtodeathinflightduringthemassacreorsimilarmassexecutionof

Norsemen.93TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle’spositivedescriptionofthemassacre,

theStFrideswidecharter,andthemassburialinOxforddemonstratethatthe

EnglisharoundOxfordexhibitedconsiderableanti-Scandinaviansentiment.

TheVikingswerenotjusthatedfortheirthreattoproperty,butalsofor

theirthreattothespiritualwell-beingoftheEnglish.Thepracticeofpresenting

heatheninvadersasadivinepunishmenthadalongtraditioninBritain,

stretchingfromGildas’sixth-centuryDeexcidioetconquestuBritanniae,which

saysthesinfulBritonswerepunishedbyforeigninvadersincluding‘thosemost

fierceandimpiousofpeoplenamedSaxons,hatefultoGodandmen’(ferocissimi

89ASCC1009–1015(O’BrienO’Keeffe,92–100);ASCE1002,1009and1013(Irvine,64,67and70);ASCF1016(Baker,107–10);JohnBlair,Anglo-SaxonOxfordshire(Oxford:SuttonPublishing,1994),pp.105–06and167–70;Keynes:‘Abbot’,152–53;KathrynPowell,‘VikingInvasionsandMarginalAnnotationsinCCCC162’,ASE37(2008),165;Szarmach,‘SermonsandSaints’,I:48.SeealsoDOEdefinitionl.a.forDenisc.90SimonKeynes,TheDiplomasofKingÆthelred‘theUnready’978–1016(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980),pp.202–08;Wilcox,‘StBrice’sDay’,pp.83–85.91ASCC1002(O’BrienO’Keeffe,89).92SpencerWigram,ed.,TheCartularyoftheMonasteryofStFrideswideatOxford(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1895),I:2–3.93CeriFalys,‘LateSaxonMassGrave:TheHumanBone’,inOxfordHengeandlateSaxonMassacre,ed.SeanWallis(Oxford:ThamesValleyArchaeologicalServices,2014),pp.xvi,and42.A.M.Pollard,P.Ditchfield,E.Pivaetal.arguethatthemassgravewasnotfromthe1002massacrebutaseparateexecutionofvikingraidersin‘‘SproutinglikeCockleAmongstTheWheat’:TheStBrice’sDayMassacreandtheIsotopicAnalysisofHumanBonesfromStJohn’sCollege,Oxford’,OxfordJournalofArcheology31:1(2012),98.

illinefandinominisSaxones,deohominibusqueinuisi).94Alcuinconsideredthe

eighth-centuryvikingattacksasdivinepunishmentfortheEnglishwho

‘abandonedGodandblasphemedthesacredSaviouroftheworldintheirwicked

deeds’(derelinquuntDeumetblasphemaueruntsanctumsaluatoremmundiin

sceleribussuis).95Manyeleventh-centurycommentariesonthestateofEngland

similarlyinterpretedinvasionsasrecompensefortheimmoralityoftheAnglo-

SaxonsandcalledonChristianstoreform.96Forinstance,in1008ÆthelredVI

requeststhatbishopsoughtto‘eagerlyavoideveryheathenpractice’(ælcne

hæðendomgeorneforbugan),97andtheedictsofthefragmentarycodesÆthelred

IXandXofthesameyearareprimarilyexhortationstoChristianstolayaside

paganpracticesandmorefaithfullydevotethemselvestoChristianity.98The

edictinÆthelredVII(c.1009)thateveryreligiousfoundationsingdailythe

hymn‘AgainstPagans’(ContraPaganos)reflectstheperceptionthatthese

DeniscanmenposedareligiousthreattoEnglishChristianmorality,99whichis

morefamouslyexpressedinWulstan’sSermoLupiadAnglosapparently

composedattheheightoftheVikingraids.100WulfstancomplainsintheSermo

Lupithatitwasbecomingpossibleforoneto‘leaveChristendomtobecomea

viking’(ofCristendometowicingewurþe).101Heblamestheravagesofvikings

andthehasteningoftheapocalypseonthelapseoffaithamongtheEnglishand

94HughWilliams,ed.,GildaeDeexcidioBritanniae,orTheRuinofBritain(London:DavidNutt,1901),p.54.95Dümmler,ed.,Epistolae,p.147;Bullough,‘Ingeld’,95–103;MaryGarrison,‘TheBibleandAlcuin'sInterpretationofCurrentEvents’,Peritia16(2002),73–84.96N.F.Blake,‘BattleofMaldon’,Neophilologus49(1965),334;Keynes,‘Abbot’,152–53,163–65,170and181–89;Powell,‘VikingInvasions’,159–60;Szarmach,‘SermonsandSaints’,I:48.ForAlcuin’sinfluenceonWulfstaninlinkingtribulationswiththemoralfailingsofaristocracy,seeGarethMann,‘TheDevelopmentofWulfstan’sAlcuinManuscript’,inWulfstan,ed.MatthewTownend(Turnhout:Brepols,2004),pp.244–46.IncreasedcallsforpenanceandmoralreformarealsoseeninÆthelredVIIinLaws,108–10;RhijnandSaan,‘CorrectingSinners’,40.97Laws90.98Laws130.99Laws110;Keynes,‘Abbot’,171.100Keynes,‘Abbot’,207–12.ForalaterdatingofSermoLupito1014,seeJonathanWilcox,‘Wulfstan’sSermoLupiadAnglosasPoliticalPerformance:16February1014andBeyond’,inTownend(2004),pp.376–83.101HomiliesofWulfstan,263:99.SimonCoupland,‘TheRodofGod’sWrathorthePeopleofGod’sWrath?TheCarolingians'TheologyoftheVikingInvasions’,JournalofEcclesiasticalHistory42(1991),546–50,andMatthewStrickland,‘Slaughter,SlaveryorRansom:TheImpactoftheConquestonConductinWarfare’,inEnglandintheEleventhCentury,ed.CarolaHicks(Stanford:Watkins,1992),pp.53–53,discusstheCarolingianconcernthatChristianswerebeingcorruptedbythepaganpracticesoftheVikings.

theiradoptionof‘harmfulheathencustoms’(hæþeneunsida)thatwerenotonly

anti-social,butspirituallydamningaswell.102

MeaneyarguesthatWulfstanusesthetermshæþendomandhæþenscipe,

toreferto‘unworthyChristians’whoarepracticingunorthodoxrituals,butare

notnecessarilyheathensthemselves.103Thisoffersamorenuancedviewthan

Dodds’straightforwardinterpretationofWulfstan’suseofthewordshæþendom

andhæþenscipeas‘paganismorfalsereligion’,104althoughMeaneyandDodds

bothassumethatthetermreferredtobehavioursunbefittingforaChristian.In

Ælfric’ssecondOldEnglishlettertoWulfstan(1005×1006),hedefines

heathenismandChristianityasoppositeandinverseentities,sayingallthatis

notChristianisheathen,for‘asthefaithofGodwaxed,heathenismwaned’

(Godesgeleofaweoxandwanodesehæþenscype).105

AhintoftheimmoralpracticesthatlateAnglo-Saxonsocietyassociated

with‘heathenism’mightbefoundinthedescriptionofEdgar’scharacterinthe

Anglo-SaxonChronicle,inwhichbothJayakumarandPons-SanznoteWulfstan’s

xenophobicinfluence:106

Anemisdædehedydeþeahtoswyðe:þætheelðeodigeunsidalufode,andheþeneþeawasinnanþysanlandegebrohtetofæsteandutlændiscehiderintihteandderiendeleodabespeontoþysanearde.‘However,hedidthisonemisdeedtoogreatly:helovedforeignmal-practices,andbroughttoofirmlyheathencustomsintothislandandexhortedforeignpeopleshitherandenticeddangerouspeopletothisland’.

AlthoughtheAnglo-SaxonChronicledescribesEdgarelsewhereasadevoutly

Christianking,WilliamofMalmesbury(c.1095–1143)providessomedetailin

hisGestaregumAnglorumastowhatEdgar’sforeignvicesandheathenpractices

102Wulf.Hom.272:135;JoyceHill,‘ÆlfricandWulfstan:TwoVoicesoftheMillenium’,inRobertsandNelson(2000),pp.234–35.103AudreyMeaney,‘AndWeForbeodaðEornostliceÆlcneHæðenscipe:WulfstanandlateAnglo-SaxonandNorseHeathenism’,inTownend(2004),pp.462–83.104LoringHolmesDodds,‘AGlossaryofWulfstan'sHomilies’,PhD.Dissertation(YaleUniversity,1907),p.116.105CouncilsandSynods271.SeealsoPezzarossa,‘IdeologoyofWar’,pp.177–80.106ASCD959(Cubbin,45);Jayakumar,‘ForeignPolicies’,21–22;SaraPons-Sanz,‘APawinEveryPie:WulfstanandtheAnglo-SaxonChronicleAgain’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish38(2007),39–41.

mighthavebeen.107IndescribingEdgar’scharacter,Williamwrotethat‘thoseof

foreignorigin,namelySaxons,FlemingsandeventheDanesthemselves,made

themselvescloseassociatesofEdgar’(alienigenaeSaxones,Flandritae,ipsietiam

Dani...Edgarofamiliareseffecti).108Withinthiscosmopolitansocietythat

acceptedeventhemost‘outlandish’offoreigners,theEnglishweresupposedto

have‘learnedfromtheSaxonsinordinateferocity,fromtheFlemishaweak

softnessofthebody,fromtheDanesdrunkeness’(aSaxonibusanimorum

inconditamferocitatem,aFlandritiscorporumeneruemmollitiem,aDanis

potationemdiscerent).William’scharacterisationseemstofollowatraditionof

listingthevicesforeignersintroduce,witnessedinlistslikethatfoundinthe

marginofBL,CottonCaligulaA.xv,fol.122v.109Edgar’scharacterflaws(neuum)

werefurtherdefinedwhenheissaid‘tohavebeencruelagainstcitizensand

lustfulforvirgins’(fuissecrudeleminciues,libidinosuminuirgines),110a

characterisationByrthferthofRamseycorroboratesinhisLifeofOswaldof

WorcesterincallingKingEdgarbellicosus(‘militant’).111Lustandcrueltyarealso

thetwodefectsoftheprimaryantagonistsintheEustace-legend—theship-lord

andEmperorHadrian—aswellasbeingthedistinguishingfeaturesofthose

designatedinthestoryas‘foreigners’andthosewhoare‘heathens’.

TheOldEnglishLifebeginsbysettingthestoryinanerawhenpeople

‘werecovered-overwiththeshadowsofdevilworship’(midðamþystrumþæs

deofollicanbiggengesoferwrigenbeon,lines18–19).However,theLifeprovides

anexcuseforPlacidas–Eustace’spaganismwhichisnotattestedintheVita,

sayingthathewasnotChristian‘becausenomantaught[Placidas]thatdivine

faith’(forþamþehimnanmanþonegodcundangeleafannetæhte’,line11).The

defencethatPlacidas–Eustacewasinnocentlypaganexplainshowvirtuous

peoplelivingintheChristianperiodcouldbeheathenthroughnofaultofthier

own,providedtheyweredutiful,humble,andvirtuous.TheEustace-legend107Jayakumar,‘ForeignPolicies’,25,suggeststhatWilliam’sprimarysourceforEdgarwastheASC.108Mynors,Thomson,andWinterbottom,ed.GestaregumAnglorum,p.240.109Foranalysesoftheseethnicportraits,seeC.V.Weeda‘ImagesofEthnicityinLaterMedievalEurope’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofAmsterdam,2012),pp.336–43;C.V.Weeda‘CharacteristicsofBodiesandEthnicityc.900–1200’,MedievalWorlds:ComparativeandInterdisciplinaryStudies5(2017),95–107.110Mynors,Thomson,andWinterbottom,ed.GestaregumAnglorum,I:256–60.111Lapidge,ed.,OswaldandEcgwine,p.79;Jayakumar,‘ForeignPolicies’,18.SeethedescriptionsofEdgar’smilitarycampaignsandmartialstandinginASCE959and975(Irvine,56and59).

supportsthisbycitingActsoftheApostles10:35,sayingthat‘ineverypeople,he

whodoesjustice,isreceivedby[God]’(inomnigente,quioperaturiustitiam,

acceptusestei,lines15–16;onælcreþeodeþerihtwisnyssewyrcðhimbið

andfencgehebecom,lines19–20).112Theexplanationofhowapagancouldbe

laudableisalsoechoedinthecontemporaryportrayalofdutifulpagansin

Wulfstan’sSermoLupi,whichpresentsthereligiouslydevotedheathensinpagan

landsasrespectableinordertocontrasttheimmoralandapostaticalbehaviour

ofAnglo-SaxonChristians.113TheadditionalexonerationofPlacidas–Eustace’s

familyfromthestainofpaganismorimmoralityseparatedthemfromtheothers

called‘heathens’intheOldEnglishversionofthelegend.

WhiletheVitadoesnotgenerallyrefertothereligionofEustace’s

enemiesuntilEustaceconfrontsHadrian,theLifespecifiesthattheyare

‘heathens’,highlightingthereligiousiniquityofthesaint’sadversaries.For

instance,thepeopleEustacefightsasamilitarytribunearerepresentedas‘those

heathens’(ðahæþenan)wherethecorrespondingpassagesintheVitareferto

theforeignantagonistswithinthelegendvariouslyas‘savagepeople’(barbari)

or‘foreigners’(alienigenae).Likewise,thecharacterisationoftheship-lord

movesfrombeing‘theforeignlordoftheship’(Dominus…nauisillealienigena,

line191)to‘theheathenship-lord’(sehæþenascip-hlaford,line186).The

communitytowhichthisship-lordtakesTheophistasimilarlyshiftsin

translation.IntheVita,itisdescribedas‘offoreignorigin’(alienigena)butinthe

Lifeitis‘heathensociety’(hæðengemana,line268).Laterinthenarrative,

Eustace’sdefeatofthe‘savagepeoples’(barbari,lines274–76and344)whohad

invadedRomanterritoryisrecastas‘theyconqueredthoseheathens’(hi

oferwinnenhæfdonþahæþenan,lines329–30).

Theshiftfrombarbaritohæþenanissignificantinrefiningthe

connotationsassociatedwiththecharacterstowhichthesetermsrefer.The

DictionaryofMedievalLatinfromBritishSourcesdoesnotprovideareligious

readingforbarbarusinAnglo-Latintexts,butoffersthedefinitions‘barbarous,

112TheLifefollowsCotton–CorpustextinomittingtimetDeumetatthispoint.113Wulf.Hom.256:22–28;BenReinhard,‘Wulfstan’sNoblePagans’,ASE46(2017),327–38.

uncivilized,strange’or‘cruel’.114TheDictionaryofOldEnglishnotestheLifeof

Eustace’stranslationofbarbarusinoneofitsdefinitionsforhæþen,115but

interpretstheusageintheLifereferringto‘barbarian’andnotcarryingreligious

connotation.Thisisincontrasttotheplethoraofotherdefinitionsthatthe

Dictionaryprovidesforhæþen,whichdohavereligiousundertones.VariousOld

Englishglossesandglossariestranslatebarbarus/-iaselreord(‘onewhospeaks

anotherlanguage’)orælþeod(‘foreigner,onefromanotherland’).116OldEnglish

glosseswithelreordsuggestthatsomeAnglo-Saxonssawthetermbarbarusrefer

todifferencesofspokenlanguage.117

Thisassociationofbarbaruswithlanguageissimilarlyseeninthe

grammaticaltermbarbarismus,whichreferstolinguisticmistakesthatanon-

nativespeakermightmake.118InhisGrammar,forexample,Ælfricinterprets

barbarismusas‘thatistheerrorofaword,ifitiswrittenimproperlyor

mispronouncedfromtheproperway’(þætisaneswordesgewemmednyss,gifhit

byðmiswritenoððemiscwedenofþamrihtancræfte),119andByrthferth’s

Enchiridionsaysthat‘hewhocorruptshisownlanguagecommitsabarbarism’

(seðehisagenespræceawyrt,hewyrcðbarbarismum).120Thesetranslations

implythat‘barbarism’wasrootedintheothernessoflanguage,notsimplyof

placeorreligion.Thenon-religiousunderstandingofbarbarusinearlyAnglo-

SaxonEnglandisalsoreflectedinBede’sHistoria,wherehereferstothe

ChristianWelshkingCadwallonasbarbarus.121InBede’saccounts,Cadwallonis

114DMLBSs.v.barbarus;CharltonLewisandCharlesShort,ed.,ALatinDictionaryFoundedonAndrews'EditionofFreund'sLatinDictionary(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1890),donotprovideanyreligiousdefinitionaswell.115SeedefinitionII.B.4forhǣþeninDOE.116TheDOECorpuss.v.barbarus/i,notestenglossaryattestationsofelreordorælþeodadaptingbarbarus.117TheglossesinBL,CottonCleopatraA.iiigivewalchsiueungerad(‘foreignorignorant/foolish’)forbarbarus,andmiscwedenword(‘misspokenword’)forbarbarismus,aswellasþauncyste(‘amistakeorsolecism’)forbarbarismonfolios16rand108r.118LewisandShort,ed.LatinDictionary,p.222,providethedefinition:‘animproprietyofspeech,barbarism;esp.ofpronunciation.’DMLBSs.v.barbarimusprovides‘barbarism,inwritingorconduct’.InglossestoAldhelm’sDeuirginitatis,barbarismusistranslatedwithmiscwedeneswordes(‘misspokenword’)andbarbarismiwithstæfleahtres(‘grammaticalmistake’),Napier,ed.,Glosses,pp.137and148.119Zupitza,ed.,ÆlfricsGrammatik,p.294.120PeterBakerandMichaelLapidge,ed.,Byrhtferth'sEnchiridion(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995),p.88.121HEII:20.

acruelinvaderofNorthumbria,butnotaheathen.122Meanwhile,Pendaandthe

MercianswhokillOswaldarespecificallydescribedas‘pagans’(paganagente

paganoqueregeMerciorum).123Fromtheseusages,itappearsthattheterm

barbarusdidnotexplicitlycarryreligiousconnotationsinEnglandbeforethe

latetenthcentury.

Bytheeleventhcentury,however,thetermbarbarusappearstohave

beenassociatedmorecloselywiththeOldEnglishtermhæþen.Theeleventh-

century‘DurhamHymnal’translatedbarbarusashæþeninitslistofdifferent

peoplesinHymn80:124

Exomnigentecogniti,Grecis,Latinis,barbaris,cunctisqueammirantibuslinguisloqunturomnium.

Ofælcereþeodewærongegæderode125wæssamodafarengrecisces,lyden-waru,hæþen,andeallumwundriendummidgereordumhispræconealra.

‘Thoseknownfromeverynation,fromtheGreeks,Latins,andofpeoplewithbarbaroustongues,andtheyspokeinalllanguageswiththeadmirationofall.’

‘ThoseknownanddisseminatedtogetherfromeverypeopleoftheGreek,theLatin,theheathen,andtheyallspokewiththewonderingwordsofall.’

Inthiscontext,thewordbarbarusseemsnottohavebeenusedwithareligious

connotationbutratherwithalinguisticmeaningtodenoteallnationsthatdonot

speakGreekorLatin.TheLatinuseofbarbarushereisthereforemoreakinto

theglossesinwhichbarbarusistranslatedaselreord,whiletheOldEnglish

injectionofreligiousdistinctionappearstobeanerroroftheglossator,126

especiallyasthehymngoesontosaythateachofthepeopleslistedworshipthe

ChristianGod.

However,theincompleteglossofHymn82intheDurhamhymnal,titled

YmnusdeSanctoDunstanoepiscopo,providesauseofhæþen,translating

mucronegentisbarbare(‘bytheswordofabarbarouspeople)asswurdeþeode

122Stancliffe,‘MostHoly’,pp.46–56and68–71,notesthatBedeseemsmorecriticalofCadwallonasaBritonthanheisofOswaldkillingChristians.123HEIII:9.124IngeMilfull,ed.,TheHymnsoftheAnglo-SaxonChurch(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),pp.70and314.125DOE.s.v.gegædrod,definition2.c.126Milfull,ed.Hymns,p.315.

hæþenre(‘bytheswordofaheathenpeople’),thatalignswiththeusageinthe

LifeofEustace.127Itisclearfromtherestofthehymnthatthephrasegens

barbarusherereferstotheVikinginvaders:

Ovestuas,pastorpie,passimpremuntangustiae.Mucronegentisbarbarenecamur,en,Cristicole.Offer,sacerdos,hostiasChristoprecumgratissimas,quibusplacatuscriminumsolvatcatenasferreas,perquasAnglorumterminisecclesiaequefiliisetnationesperfidepestesquecedantnoxiae.128‘Afflictionspressuponyoursheeponallsides,piouspastor.Seehowwe,thebelieversofChrist,arekilledbytheswordofthebarbarouspeople.OffertoChrist,youpriest,themostdearsacrificesinprayer,sothathavingbeenplacated,hemayloosentheironchainsofjudgementwiththem,andthroughthemtheperfidiousnationsandnoxiouspestilencesmayfallfromthebordersoftheEnglishandthesonsoftheChurch.’

ThehymnasawholeiscallinguponDunstantointercedeonbehalfofthe

ChristianEnglishtosavethemfromtheswordsofheathensandtheunbelieving

nationswhokilltheEnglish.TheuseofhæþeninHymn82seemsmore

appropriatethanitdoesinHymn80,sinceitisclearinHymn82thatbarbarusis

beingcouchedinanantagonisticandreligiouscontextforspiritualandphysical

enemieswithoutreferringtotheiruseoflanguage.Itseemslikelythatthe

originalhymnographerof82hadvikingsinmindwhenreferringtobarbariand

thattheglossatorofbothhymnswasworkinginacontextsimilartothe

composeroftheLifeofEustace,inwhichasavage‘other’wasassumedtobe

religiouslyimmoralaswell.TheDurhamglossatorwasfurtherdirectedtoa

translationofbarbaruswithreligiousconnotationgiventheuseofthetermgens

inHymn82,whichisoftenusedfor‘gentiles’or‘thosewhowerenotChristian’in

theVulgate.129Whenthereisreligiousqualifierwithbarbarus,itisthenglossed

ashæþen.Thisisseenfurtherinaeleventh-centuryglossforPrudentiuswhich

hasthephrasehæþennegewunan(‘heathencustom’)forritumbarbarum

127Milfull,ed.Hymns,p.318.128Theincompleteglossreads:Scepþine,heordeþuarfæsta,–swurdeþeodehæþenreoffrasacerdonsægednyssecristebenaþagecwemestan,midþamglædleahtrahetolyseracentegaisene,þurhþaængliscragemærumandgelaþungebearnumandmægþegeleafleaseandcwyldabuganderigendlice.Milfull,ed.Hymns,p.318.129See,forinstance,Mark7:26;Acts16:1–3;Galatians2:3;Colossians3:11;DMLBSs.v.gens,definitions4and5.

(‘barbarianrite’),130aswellastwolatetenth-centuryglossesforAldhelm’sprose

Deuirginitatiswhichhavehæþenforbarbarusi.gentilis.131

Itiswithinasetofeleventh-centuryAnglo-SaxonprognosticsinBL,

CottonTiberiusA.iii,thatonefindsanunambiguousexampleofhæþenglossing

barbariwithoutareligiousqualifier.132Onfolio28rtheDreambookstatesthat‘if

hehasseenwarsorbarbarians,itrevealsjoyintheopen’(bellavelbarbaros

uiderit,letitiaminpublicopatet),whichisglossedwithgefeohtuoððeheþene

gesihð,blisseonopenumhitopenað.Inthiscontext,roughlycontemporarywith

thecompositionoftheLifeofEustace,barbariansarepairedwithwar,perhaps

indicatingthatheathenswerethetypeofforeignersChristiansshouldfight.The

translationofbarbarusashæþenintheglossesoftheDurhamhymnalandthe

Tiberiusprognosticsindicatesthatintheeleventhcentury,thetermbarbariwas

becomingmorecloselyassociatedwithheathens.Inthiscontext,theuseofthe

termhæþenintheLifeappearstobeinlinewithPowell’sargumentthat‘the

wordhæðen,althoughclearlyabletorefertoanynon-Christianpeopleortheir

practices,tookonthespecialsenseofDeneduringthelatetenthandearly

eleventhcenturies.’133

TheLifeofEustacealterstheportrayalofthebarbariintheVitatothatof

heathenswhenitcouldhavemaintainedtheirportrayalasforeignersthrough

termslikeelreordorælþeod.Yetgiventheedictfromlaw-codesnottoabuse

foreigners,134itwouldseemlikelythattheLifeusedhæþenasapejorativeterm

forthoseoneshoulddespiseorfight.Indoingso,theOldEnglishhagiographer

appearstodistinguishbetweengoodandbadforeigners.Forinstance,when

AntiocliusandAchaiusfirstencounterPlacidas–Eustaceinexile,theyaskfora

‘foreignernamedPlacidas’(Sægeuslaleofhwæðerðuherwiteænigne

ælþeodigneþehattePlacidas,lines215–16).Eustacethenrepliesthat‘Idonot

knowanysuchpersonhere,trulyImyselfamaforeigner’(natichernanne

swilcnewer,soðliceicsylfeomælþeodig,line220).Then,whenEustaceorders

130HerbertMeritt,ed.,TheOldEnglishPrudentiusGlossesatBoulogne-Sur-Mer(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1959),p.51.131Napier,ed.,Glosses,p.107;Goossens,ed.,Glosses,p.404.132RoyLiuzza,ed.,Anglo-SaxonPrognostics,anEditionandTranslationofTextsfromLondon,BritishLibraryCottonTiberiusA.iii(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2011),p.84.133Powell,‘VikingInvasions’,165.134SeeÆthelredVIwhichordersone‘nottoharassorinjureforeignmenandthosewhocomefromafar’(ælþeodigemenandfeorrancumenenetyriannenetynan),Laws104.

troopstobelevied,hissonsarechosenformilitaryservicebecausetheywere

‘foreign’(ælþeodige,line256).ThesetermsalltranslatetheLatinterm

peregrinus(‘onewhotravelsfromwithout’).Throughoutthestory,Eustace’s

familyarecalled‘foreigners’whileeveryoneelseisgenerallyreferredtoas

‘heathen’.TheonlytimetheLifeofEustacereferstoaninimicalforeignerwith

anythingotherthantheterm‘heathen’,iswhenthesaintlamentshiswife’s

abductionbeforehislifeinDadissus.Theship-lordiscalledanælfremedwer

(‘foreignman/husband’,line147)translatingalienigenaemarito(‘foreign

husband’,line151).Everywhereelsetheship-lordisreferredtoas‘heathen’,and

theusehere—inEustace’sfirst-personspeech—perhapsreflectsthesaint’s

ownshamethatanothermanistakinghiswife.

Theship-lordwhoferriesEustaceandhisfamilyawayfromItalyis

introducedinLatinas‘certainlythelordoftheship,theonewithaforeignorigin’

(dominusueronauisillealienigena,line191),whichtheOldEnglishpresentsas

‘certainlytheheathenship-lord’(witodlicesehæþenascip-hlaford,line186).

Again,theLifereworkssimpleforeignness(alienigena)intheLatintoinclude

religiousovertonesof‘heathen’(hæþena).WhenTheophistaisabducted,the

Latinemphasizesthatsheisdivinelyprotectedfromforeign(alienigenae)

customsandcompany.TheOldEnglishcomposerseemstohaveunderstoodthis

asprotectionfromsexualpredation,asindicatedthroughthefollowingpassages

whichdepictTheophista’sabduction:

Dominiuerogratiaobumbrauitmulieremutnonseeicommisceretalienigenainomniillotempore.Hocenimpostulabatadeoutcustodireturabalienigenaecommunione.Contigitueroillumaliengenammorietipsamsuaeessepotestatis.(lines192–95).‘Moreover,thegraceoftheLordshieldedthewomansothatthemanofforeignorigindidnotconsortwithherinallofthattime.Nonetheless,shedemandedfromGodthatshebeguardedfromcommunionwithaforeigner.However,ithappenedthattheforeignmandiedandthathispossessionswerehers.’

Godesgifehigescyldeþæthehinegewemdeþahwileþeheomidhimwæs.Ealswaheotogodewilnodeandsiððanhedeadwæs,heowæshisyrfe-numa.(lines187–89).‘ThegraceofGodshieldedhersothathedidnotdefileher,whileshewaswithhim.Also,shestroveafterGodandafter[theship-lord]wasdead,shewashisheir.’

Prouidentiaenimdeiuocante,uenitubieratuxorsua.Etutpredictumestcustoditafueratabalienigenaepollutione.(lines277–78).‘SowiththeprovidenceofGodcalling,[Eustace]cametowherehiswifewas.Andaswesaidearlier,shehadbeenprotectedfromcorruptionofforeignorigin.’***Etcumnauigaremusperdiditmepropterquoddominusnauisbarbarusessetquimetenuitinistapatria.EttestisestmichiChristusquianecillenecaltermepolluitsedusquehodieseruauitdominuscastitatemmeam.(lines318–21).‘Andwhenweweresailinghe(i.e.Eustace)lostmeonaccountoftheship-lordbeingsavage(barbarus),hewhoheldmeinthisland.AndChristismywitnessthatneitherhenoranotherdefiledmebuttothisdaythelordhaspreservedmychastity.’

Þaðurhgodesfore-stihtungehebecomtoðamlandeþærhiswifwæs.Hæfdehiohiregebogodonananwyrtiganhamme,andwæshio,swawebufansædon,ungederodþurhgodesgescyldnysseframþæshæðenangemanan.(lines265–68).‘ThenthroughprovidenceofGodhecametothatlandwherehiswifewas.Shehadtakenupherdwellinginahomewithagarden,andshewas,aswesaidbefore,untouchedthroughGod’sprotectionfromheathenassociation.’***Þaðawereowan,þagenamsescip-hlafordmeneadingaæthim,forþamhewæshæðen,andhemegehæfteonhiseðleandcristmeisgewitaþæthenenanmanmegewemdeoþþisnedægaccristselifigendageheoldmineclænnysse.(lines304–07).‘Whenwewererowing,theship-lordtookme(i.e.Theophista)forciblytohim,becausehewasheathen,andheconfinedmeinhishomelandandChristismywitnessthathenoranymandefiledmetothisday,butChristthelivingpreservedmychastity.’

DuringtheOldEnglishversionofherabduction,Theophistaincludesareasonor

justificationforwhyshewastaken,a‘heathenswillbeheathens’argument.It

saysthattheship-lordseizedorforciblytook(genam)Theophista‘becausehe

washeathen’(forþamhewæshæðen).TheLatinblamesEustaceforlosing

Theophista,whosaysthatEustace‘lostme’(perdiditme)whilesayingtheship-

lordwasbarbarus.TheemphasisintheLatinversionisonthecaptain’sconduct

beingforeignor‘barbaric’,butdoesnotmentionreligion,whiletheOldEnglish

explainsthathismisconductisbecausehewaspagan.TheOldEnglishboth

grammaticallyandnarrativelyputstheagencybehindtheabductioncompletely

inthehandsoftheship-lord,whoisinthenominative(sescip-hlaford…genam)

duringTheophista’saccount.Meanwhile,theVitaputstheagencyinEustace’s

hands,hebeingtheimpliedsubjectofperdiditmewhiletheship-lordappearsin

subordinateclauses.Theagencyoftheship-lordisfurtheremphasisedintheLife

throughdifferingdepictionsofhisship.Inreworkingtheship-lord’svesseltobe

onethatwasrowedratherthanonethatwassailed,theLifeseemstoplacethe

boatinthecontextofvikinglongboats,awayfromitsinitialdepictionasa

Mediterraneanvessel.Ineleventh-centuryEnglandsuchboatswererowed

inlandbearingmenwhoevidentlyabductedwomenforslaves,135justasthe

shipmasterseizesTheophista.

PelteretdemonstratesthatalthoughAnglo-Saxonswerealsoinvolvedin

humantrafficking—albeittoalesserdegreethanNorseraiders—Wulfstanisa

strongopponenttothesubjugationofChristianslavestoheathenmasters.136So

toodoesthelaw-codeÆthelredVfrom1008—acodewhichWulfstanwas

involvedinwriting—specificallycondemnthepractice,ordering‘thatone

shouldnotsellChristianmenandthosewhoareinnocentofcrimeoutofthe

land,leastofalltoheathenpeople’(þætmanCristenemenandunforworhteof

eardenesylle,nehuruonhæðeneþeode).137Theophista’sabductionistheliterary

fulfillmentofthelaw-code’sfear,astheLifemakesclearthatsheisnotmerely

goingtoadifferentlandorforeignpeople(ofearde/alienigenae),buttoa

heathenlandinhabitedbypaganpeoplewithwhomshewillhavetoassociate.

TherealityofAnglo-SaxonabductionandslaveryishighlightedintheLife

throughTheophista’saccountthatshecouldneitherleavetoseekChristian

companynorescapetheheathenland,saying‘he[theship-lord]confinedmein

hisland’(hemegehæfteonhiseðle).Thisphrasingintensifiesanddisambiguates

theVitawhichsaysship-lord‘held’(tenuit)Theophistainhisland.

AbductionssimilartoTheophista’saredescribedbycontemporariesof

theLifeofEustace.Forexample,inÆlfric’sPassioChrisantietDariae,whenDaria

isthrownintoabrothel(myltestrenahus),Godshieldsherfromthewicked135ForreferencetotheabductionofslavesinEdgar’sreign,seeJayakumar‘ForeignPolicies’,27.136Wulf.Hom.263:87;Pelteret,‘SlaveRaiding’,99–114.137Laws78.ThisideaismirroredinCnut’s‘WinchesterCode’(c.1021),Laws176.

heathens(godhigescyldewiðþasceandlicanhæðenan).138Thissceneissimilarto

Theophista’strials,asDariaisforciblytakenawayfromherhusbandand

broughtintoasexuallyrapaciouspagancommunity.Inhercaptivity,Theophista

isalsoprotectedfromthethreatofdefilement.TheOldEnglishusestheword

gewemmanfortheencountersTheophistamanagestoavoid,whichisanegative

termmeaning‘todefile,pollute,orcorrupt’,andtranslatesthemoreneutral

Latintermscommiscereandcommunio.SeveralAnglo-Latinsourceswitnessthe

factthatcommiscereandcommuniohadasexualconnotation,139butthesewords

generallyseemtomean‘communing’or‘intermingling’.140Thesetwodefinitions

forcommiscereandcommuniosuggestthatneitherofthesexualmeaningswere

theprimaryconnotationsforthetermsnorthattheyalwayscarriedanegative

connotation.Thus,whiletheVitaisindirectinsuggestingthatTheophistaisnot

rapedormarredbyforeigncompany,theOldEnglishisunambiguous.TheOld

EnglishhagiographertwicenotesthatTheophistawasnotdefiledbytheship-

lordnoranyotherman,andthatshemaintainedherchastityunderthe

protectionofChrist.

Thethreatofdefilementiscommoninmedievalhagiographiesofsaintly

women.141AudiencesoftheLifeofEustacewouldlikelyhavebeenfamiliarwith

instancesofsexuallypredatorypagansthroughGenesis12:12–15,142which

speaksoftheEgyptiansrapingbeautifulwomenlikeSarai,aswellasintheintent

ofHolofernesinJudith(lines34b–73a),orEleusiusinJuliana(lines26b–116),

whoarepresentedaspagannobleswishingtofornicatewiththeheroines.Virgin

saints,suchasLucia,143Agatha,144Agnes,145orEugenia,146inÆlfric’sLivesof

138LSIII:252.139See,forexample,the‘DomesdaySurveyofCheshire’whichstates‘thewidowwasbeingcompensatedwithtwentywholecoins,ifanyoneunlawfullymatedwithher’(uidua,sialicuisenonlegitimecommiscebat,xxsolidosemendabat)inWilliamStubbs,ed.SelectChartersandotherIllustrationsofEnglishConstitutionalHistory(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1921),p.104.140See,forinstance,Ald.uirg(carmen)437:2041,murmuravastasonantflammiscommistacoruscis.141Harney,‘GenderedTortures’,pp.28–31and131–42;KarmaLochrie,‘Gender,SexualViolence,andthePoliticsofWarinOldEnglishJudith’,inClassandGenderEarlyEnglishLiterature,ed.BrittonHarwoodandGillianOvering(Bloomington:Indianapolis,1994),pp.5–12;HughMagennis,‘NoSexPlease,We’reAnglo-Saxon:AttitudesofSexualityinOldEnglishProseandPoetry’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish26(1995),3.142Magennis,‘NoSexPlease’,14.143LSI:270–74.144LSI:250–56.145LSI:218–30.

Saintsmusteachwardoffaggressivesuitorstomaintaintheirchastity.Inmany

ofthesestoriesthespurnedpaganloverthenworkstodestroythesaintand

initiatesthefemalesaint’smartyrdom.147Wulfstan’sSermoLupidepictsthe

threatstheseChristianheroinesfacedinhisgraphicdepictionsofwidowsbeing

abused.148Hesaysthat‘widowsareforcedintoimproper(marriage)toalowly

man,andmanyreducedtopovertyandgreatlyhumiliated’(wydewansyndan

fornyddeonunrihttoceorleandtomænegeforyrmdeandgehynedeswyþe),149and

that‘oftentenortwelve[vikings],eachaftertheother,humiliatewithviolation

thewomanofathane,andsometimeshisdaughterorkinswoman’(ofttyneoððe

twelfe,ælcæfteroþrum,scendaðtobysmoreþæsþegenescwenanandhwilumhis

dohtoroððenydmagan).150Horrificscenessuchasthesewerelikelyonesthat

eleventh-centuryAnglo-SaxonshadinmindwhenconsideringTheophista’s

abduction.

Anglo-Saxonconcernaboutsexualdeviancecanalsobeseeninlaw-codes

andecclesiasticalwritings,whichattemptedtocurbwantonbehaviourinAnglo-

Saxonsociety.151BesidestheSermoLupiandthelaw-codesalreadymentioned,

theninth-centuryFrankishPaenitentialepseudo-Theodori,atextwhichwas

knownineleventh-centuryEngland,isparticularlyconcernedwithsexual

offences.152TheophistathusprovidesanexampleofaChristianwomanwho

safeguardsherchastitythroughherfaithandrefrainsfromimpropersexual

relations.Indoingso,sheisalsotheexampleoftheidealwidowwhichthelaw-

codesÆthelredVandVIstateshouldbeprotectedbyGodandthekingfrom

predations(SiælcwuduweþehisilfemidrihtehealdeonGodesgriðeandonðæs

cynges).153Thismoralorthodoxyworkstoemphasisethedifferencebetweenthe

sexuallyrapaciousheathensandthechastelymonogamoussaintsofthestory.

Thegravityofthethreatofheathencorruptionisfurtherevidentinthe

emphaticinsistenceintheLifeofEustacethatTheophistaisprotectedfrom146LSI:54–60.147Harney,‘GenderedTortures’,pp.25–26,42,86–87and94–95.148StephanieHollis,‘TheProtectionofGodandtheKing’:Wulfstan'sLegislationonWidows’,inTownend(2004),pp.448–49.149Wulf.Hom.268:42–43.150Wulf.Hom.264:111–13.151See,forexample,ÆthelredIV,ÆthelredV,andCnutIIinLaws82,92and202.Magennisdiscussestheselaw-codesin‘NoSexPlease’,1–2and10–16.152RhijnandSaan,‘CorrectingSinners’,26.153Laws84.

heathencompany.WhiletheVitasaysthatTheophistaispreservedfrom‘the

corruptionofaforeigner’(alienigenaepollutio),theLifeaddsareligious

dimensiontotheforeignersasitcallstheirsociety‘heathencompanionship’

(hæðenangemanan).IntheOldEnglishtranslationofBede’sHistoria,thesame

collocationofhæðenanandgemanan,isusedinthecontextoftheChristian

princessÆthelburhofKent’sbetrothaltothepaganKingEdwinofNorthumbria

in625.154TheChristianÆthelburhrequeststhatBishopPaulinusaccompanyher

totheunconvertedlandssothatshewouldnotbebesmirchedbyheathen

companionship.

Nepaganorumpossentsocietatepollui,quotidianaexhortationeetsacramentorumcoelestiumcelebrationeconfirmaret.

Midþamærsungeheofonlicragerynagemidhisdæghwamlicrelaretrymede,þætheoinþamgemananþarahæðenrabesmitennewære.

‘[Paulinus]confirmedwithdailyprayersandthecelebrationofheavenlysacraments,that[Æthelburhandherretinue]werenotabletobecorruptedbythesocietyofpagans.’

‘[Paulinus]confirmedwiththosecelebrationsofheavenlymysteriesandwithhisdailyteaching,thatshewouldnotbesulliedintheassociationofthoseheathens.’

TheNorthumbriancommunityofEdwinisconsideredathreattoÆthelburh’s

pietyorvirtue.Æthelburh’smarriagetoEdwinwouldmeanthatshewouldbe

sexuallyintimatewithaheathen,andPaulinus’smissionisaimedatmitigating

thecorruptionarisingfromsuch.TheOldEnglishadaptationhighlightsthisfact

throughremovingreferencestoÆthelburh’scompanions,suggestingthatitis

herindividualassociationwithaheathenspousethatmighttaintherasa

Christian.ThecautionarystatementsintheLifeofEustaceandversionsofthe

HistoriaecclesiasticacreateacontrastbetweenChristianandpagan

communities.Thestereotypeofthekindofmenwhoruledsuchheathen

societiesareexemplifiedintheLifeofEustacethroughtherapaciousship-lord

andthecruelEmperorHadrian.

WhenEustacereturnsfromhiscampaigns,theVitaintroduces‘apagan

emperorbythenameofHadrianandhimselfworseinimpieties’(imperatorem

nomineAdrianumgentilemetipsumpeioreminimpietatibus,lines347–48).The154HEII:9;Miller,ed.,EnglishVersionofBede,p.120.

Lifeintensifiesthisdescriptorinsaying‘thekingwascalledHadrianwhowas

heathenandworseinbloodthirstiness’(cyningAdrianushattesewæshæþenand

wyrsaonwel-hreownysse,lines335–36),therebyassociatingHadrian’spaganism

withcruelty.Thealliterationon‘h’inhatte…hæþen…wel-hreownysseaswellas

on‘w’inwyrsa…wel-hreownyssehighlightstheconnectionbetweenHadrian’s

heathenismandhisbloodthirstiness.IntheLatintextheis‘impious’,whileinthe

OldEnglishheisbothpaganandcruel.

Inglosses,thedescriptorforHadrian,wæl-hreow,oftenrenderscrudelis

oratrox,eitherinreferencetotormentsortortures.155Inhagiography,those

whodrivethesaints’martyrdomsoraretheslaughterersofinnocentpeopleare

frequentlycalledwæl-hreow.156Forinstance,Ælfricdescribes‘the

bloodthirtinessofHerod’(sewæl-hreowaHerodes)asheordersthebeheadingof

JohntheBaptistandthekillingoftheinnocentinthehomiliesDecollatioS.

IohannisBaptistae157andNataleinnocentiuminfantum.158InÆlfric’sLifeofSt

Denis,atextprecedingtheLifeofEustaceinJuliusE.vii,the‘chiefofficer’(heah-

gerefa)Sisinnius,whoordersDenisandhiscompanionstobemartyred,iscalled

sewæl-hreowadema.159Similarly,theofficialAgricola,whopersecutesmany

ChristiansinthePassiosanctorumquadragintamilitum,iscalleda‘bloodthristy

judge’(wæl-hreowadema).160Ælfric’sMartinmas-homilycallstheEmperorJulian

‘thatbloodthirstyenemy’(þamwæl-hreowanwiðsacan),161whiletheanonymous

Martinmas-homily,referstothedevilwiththerelatedcompoundwæl-grim(line

275).Thetermwæl-hreowisalsousedforSaturninWulfstan’sDefalsisdiis,

whichsays‘hewascalledSaturn,andhewassobloodthirstythathedestroyed

allbutoneofhisownchildren’(sewæsSaturnusgeten,andsewæsswawæl-

hreowþæthefordydehisagenebearneallebutananum).162Thesefewexamples

demonstratethattheadditionofwælhreowforHadrianintheLifeofEustace

155TheDOECorpus,s.v.wæl-hreow,notesatleasteightglossaryattestationsofwæl-hreowtranslatingcrudelisoratrox.156Cammarota,‘AgonyofConscience’,96–97;Szarmach,‘SermonsandSaints’,I:53.TheDOECorpus,s.v.wæl-hreow,containsovertwohundredattestationsoftheterm,mostofteninÆlfricianworksandhomileticprose.157Ælf.CHom.I451:6.158Ælf.CHom.I217:4.159LSIII:72–74.160LSI:302.161Mertens,ed.Lives,p.216,line28.162Wulf.Hom.222:40–42.

framesthevillainasamurderouspaganakintotheantagonistsofmilitesChristi

inthehagiographicaltradition.

DescribingHadrianasbloodthirstyinsteadofsimplyimpiouslikewise

providesaglimpseintohoweleventh-centuryAnglo-Saxonwritersportray

pagansascruelpeople.ThedescriptionoftheChristiansandpaganscomingto

thedeathoftheEustace’sfamilydisplaysthisassociation:

Conuenituerouniuersaplebsfideliumetpaganorumspectaresanctosquomodointroducebanturinaereumbouem.(lines368–69).

Þacomþiderunrimfolcescristenraandhæðenratoþissewæfer-syneþæthiwoldongeseonhuþahalganþrowodon.(lines358–60).

‘Truly,theallthepeopleofthefaithfulandofpagansgatheredtowatchhowthesaintswouldbebroughtintothebrazenbull.’

‘ThentherecamethereacountlessnumberofChristianandheathenpeopletothisspectaclesincetheywishedtoseehowthesaintssuffered.’

TheLatinlegendsaysthatthecrowdgatheredtoseehowthesaintswouldbe

putintothebrazenbull,withoutmentioningtheexpectedsufferingofthe

martyrs.TheLifeclariesthatthespectatorsarecomingtoseehowthesaints

suffered.ForChristians,witnessingmartyrdomwouldhavebeenameansfor

confirmingtheirfaith,whilepaganswouldseeminglyhavebeenpresentsimply

toobservethebloodshedforentertainment.Althoughthisisasmallchange,

takentogetherwiththeLife’sdepictionofHadrian,thedetailofthenameless

‘heathenpeople’watchingthesufferingreinforcesthenegativedepictionof

pagansinthelegendasbloodthirstyandcruel.Earlyeleventh-centuryaudiences

appeartohaveassociatedsuchcrueltywithvikings,whotorturesaintsand

oppresstheEnglishas‘slaughter-wolves’(wæl-wulfas)inOldEnglish

literature.163

Eustace’ssecularactions,despitehisconversionandquasi-monasticlife,

illustratethatforsometenth-andeleventh-centuryaudiences,‘it[was]not

warfaretheyreject[ed],butpaganism,sacrilege,apostasyandfearofdeath.’164

ChristsanctionsEustace’sreturntosecularsoldiering—eventhoughitisunder

163LSIII:188–94;ASCD1012(Cubbin,57);line96ofTheBattleofMaldon.164Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,p.228.

paganemperors—andforeordainsthatEustace’svictoriousconquestswilllead

tohisfamily’sreunion(Vitalines108–09,216–219,277and384–88;Lifelines

109–10,208–10,265and378–82).Whenthefamilyisreunited,they‘weremuch

happierthattheyhadover-throwntheheathens’(bliðranþehioferwinnen

hæfdonþahæþenan,lines330–31),indicatingthattheycoulddevotethemselves

toGodwhilekillingheathens.TheacceptanceofChristianviolenceillustratedin

theEustace-legendwouldculminateintheCrusadesbythecloseoftheeleventh

centuryandintwelfth-centuryidealsofChristianknighthood.165Thecelebration

ofChristthroughthedefeatofheathensintheLifeofEustaceevenreflectsthe

justificationsofthecrusadingwarriorcultureoftwelfth-centurytheologianslike

BernardofClairvaux,whostatesintheDelaudenouaemilitiathat‘theChristian

gloriesinthedeathofthepagan,since[init]Christisglorified’(Inmortepagani

christianusgloriatur,quiaChristusglorificatur).166Yetthistolerantperspective

onChristianmilitancyreflectedintheLifeofEustaceappearsalongsidethe

ÆlfricianinjunctionagainstclericalviolenceandatthesametimeastheLivesof

nonviolentmilitesChristilikeMartinandGuthlacwerebeingdisseminatedinthe

Vercelli,Blickling,Junius,andVespasiancollections.167Thecontemporaneous

disseminationoftheseconflictinginterpretationsofsoldieringforChrist,along

withthepromotionofcultsviolentsaints,likeOswaldandAndrew,168indicate

thattherewasnouniform‘Anglo-Saxon’perceptionofwarriorculture’s

compatibilitywithChristiandevotion,butratheramosaicofapproachesto

soldieringforChrist.

165Brundage,‘Clerics,andViolence’,I:150–56;Damon,‘Sanctifying’,pp.189–91and207;Duggan,Armsbearing,p.62;MauriceKeen,Chivalry(London:FolioSociety,2010),pp.56–60;ChristopherTyerman,God’sWar:ANewHistoryoftheCrusades(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2006),pp.38–51;Vauchez,‘LayPeople’,pp.25–26;Vauchez,Spirituality,pp.139–40.166JeanLeclercqandHenriRochais,ed.,‘Liberadmilitestempledelaudenovaemilitiae’,inS.BernardiOpera(Rome:EditionesCistercienses,1963),III:217.FordiscussionsoftheimpactofBernardandtheDelaudenovaemilitiaeonthedevelopmentofreligiousmilitaryorders,seeDesmondSeward,TheMonksofWar:TheMilitaryOrders(London:FolioSociety,2000),pp.14–16;Tyerman,God’sWar,pp.250–57;StephanHowarth,TheKnightsTemplar(NewYork:BarnesandNoble,1982),pp.73–75.167FordiscussionofhistoricalcontextoftheVercelliBookandBlicklingHomiliary,seepp.4–6,43–46and90–91above.168Seepp.34–37aboveforanintroductiontoOswald,andpp.180–83foradiscussionofAndrew’sviolence.

ChapterSeven

Conclusion:AMosaicofPerspectivesThemultifariousdepictionsofChristianwarriorculturethatwehaveseen

throughoutthelastfourchaptershighlightthefactthattherewasnouniform

conceptionofsoldieringforChristinAnglo-SaxonEngland.Rather,each

adaptationofasaint’sLifeisanattemptbyindividualcomposersoraudiencesto

establishthemoralboundariesofsecularandspiritualworlds.1InChapterTwo

wesawthatAnglo-SaxonsinheritedtheconceptofthemilesChristi,andthe

ideologicalframeworkthatjustifiedChristianwarfare,fromtheBibleand

patristicworks.OursubsequentinvestigationofMartinofTours,Guthlacof

Crowland,theapostleAndrew,andPlacidas–Eustaceillustratedhowvarious

hagiographersadaptedtheseinheritedtraditions,creatingcontrasting

perspectivesofChristianmilitancy.

Webeganwiththeninth-centuryMartinmas-homily,whichrejects

Christianinvolvementinwarriorculture,omittingelementsfromSulpicius’sVita

MartinithatconnectMartintoanyaggressiveaction,whilehighlightingMartin’s

mild-heartedcharacterandmissionaryactivities.WethensawhowFelix,the

GuthlacA-poet,andtheninth-centurycomposeroftheLifeofGuthlacallembrace

themetaphysicalwarriorcultureofheaven,emphasisingGuthlac’sparticipation

inspiritualwarfareandhisseparationfromacommunal‘activelife’.Chapter

Fiveillustratedhowtheninth-centuryAndreas-poetandtenth-centuryprose

adapteroftheLifeofAndrewapproachtheapocryphalActsofAndrewand

Matthewincontrastingmanners.WhereAndreasdepictstheapostleasaheroic

thegninthecomitatusofChrist,theproseLifeofAndrewportraysAndrewasa

servantofGodwhooverthrowsdemoniccorruptionwiththesignofthecross.

Bothaccounts,however,advocateviolenceasameansoffacilitatingconversion,

andplacethemilesChristiattheheartofahierarchicalChristiancommunity.In

thefinalchapter,wesawhowtheearlyeleventh-centuryLifeofEustace

militarisesthemilesChristiasaparticipantinholywaragainstheathenswho

1FordiscussionsofthedifferencesbetweenÆlfricandanonymousworksseeHewish,‘LivingontheEdge’,p.20;Norris,‘Introduction’,p.3;Powell,‘VikingInvasions’,161;Whatley,‘PearlsBeforeSwine’,p.182;Whatley,‘LostinTranslation’,202.

resemblevikings.Atthesametime,thelegendalsoframesEustaceasamonk

turneddefenderoftheChristiancommunity,positivelypresentingasaintwho

straddlesmonasticandsecularorders.

Althoughtheprecedingchaptershavebeenorderedtodiscusssaintsby

increasingmilitancy,asnotedinChapterOne,thisdoesnotreflecttheorderin

whichtheywereproduced.Wehaveseenthataccountsthatremovemilites

Christifromaggressiveaction,namelytheMartinmas-homilyandGuthlac-

narratives,werecomposedorcopiedatthesametimeaslegendsofviolent

militesChristi,suchasAndrew’sforcedconversionofMermedoniaandtheLifeof

Eustace.Giventhesediverseandcontemporaryapproachestosoldieringfor

Christ,itisevidentthattherewasnouniversallysharedperspectiveduringthe

period,justasattitudestowardwarfare‘werenotatallstandardised,butthere

wasinsteadampleroomfordebateanddissentconcerningkeyissuesrelatingto

war.’2ThefactthatLivesofmilitesChristiespousingdifferentinterpretationsof

soldieringforChristappeartogetherincollectionsliketheVercelliBook—

whichcontainstheMartinmas-homily,anexcerptoftheLifeofGuthlac,and

Andreas—furthersupportstheconclusionthatindividualcompilersand

composersdidnotmaintainuniformideologiesofsoldieringforChristwithin

theirownworks.3

IncomparingtheanonymousOldEnglishnarrativesofMartin,Guthlac,

Andrew,andEustacewiththeirsourcesascasestudies,Ihopetohave

demonstratedthatChristianity’srelationshipwithwarriorculturecaptivatedthe

attentionofearlymedievalChristians.Thesearebutasmallselectionofthe

Anglo-SaxonhagiographicalnarrativesthatdiscussmilitesChristi.Wereweto

widenourinvestigationtoconsiderfurtherAnglo-Saxondepictionsofwarlike

femalesaints(suchasJuliana,Elene,andJudith),4royalsaints(suchasOswaldof

2Pezzarossa,‘IdeologyofWar’,p.215.3ConsiderJuliusE.vii,whichcontainsÆlfricianaccountsofOswald,Maccabees,Martin,Edmund,andthetreatiseDetribusordinessaeculialongsidetheLifeofEustace.SeealsoMarySwan,‘CambridgeCorpusChristiCollege198andtheBlicklingManuscript’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish37(2006),89–91;DonaldScragg,‘TheCorpusofVernacularHomiliesandProseSaintsLivesBeforeÆlfric’,ASE8(1979),224.Stancliffe,‘MostHoly’,p.62,notesthatBededidnotpresentasinglemodelforidealkingship.4PortraitsofwarriorcultureintheLivesoffemalesaintsarediscussedinDamon,SoldierSaints,pp.94–123;Harney,‘GenderedTortures’,pp.151–206;JohnHermann,‘TheThemeofSpiritualWarfareintheOldEnglishJudith’,PhilologicalQuarterly55:1(1976),1–8;Lochrie,‘SexualViolence’,pp.2–14;HughMagennis,‘GenderandHeroismintheOldEnglishJudith,inWriting

NorthumbriaandEdmundofEastAnglia),5orthewealthofAnglo-LatinLivesof

militesChristi(suchasthoseofCuthbert,Boniface,andOswaldofWorcester,or

Aldhelm’sproseandverseDeuirginitate)6itwouldreinforcethefactthatAnglo-

SaxonperceptionsofsoldieringforChristformedamosaicofphilosophies

existingsimultaneouslythroughouttheperiod.

ItisfurtherevidentthatChristianity’srelationshipwithwarriorculture

wasindividuallyredefinedintheimmediatecontextofeachlegend’s

composition,transmission,andaudience.7Thekaleidoscopicnatureofsoldiering

forChristrunscountertothetheoriesofscholarslikeDamon,Erdmann,Prinz,

FrederickRussell,JamesRussell,andWhite,whosuggestthattherewasa

gradualandcohesivelywideningacceptanceofmilitantChristianityasaresultof

thearistocraticGermanisierungofthesaintlyidealandinfluenceofroyalmartyr-

saints.8Thevariedperspectivesontheidealpathofdevotionpromotedinthe

Anglo-SaxonnarrativesofMartin,Guthlac,Andrew,andEustacealsoargue

againstFrance’sbeliefthatsaints’LivesarereflectiveoftheChurchasawhole,or

ofcanonicallyapprovedvirtuesthatoughttobecultivateduniversally.9

PreviousstudiesofAnglo-Saxonwarrior-saintswerehamperedbythe

inaccessibilityofeditionsofanonymousOldEnglishprosehagiographyandthe

LatinsourcesavailableinAnglo-SaxonEngland.Morerecenteditions,suchas

Mertens’TheOldEnglishLivesofStMartinofTours,andthecollectionof

anonymoussaints’LiveseditedbyKramer,Magennis,andNorris,aremaking

theseanonymousLivesmorewidelyavailableandwillfacilitatefuturestudiesof

thediversevoicesofAnglo-Saxonhagiographicalcomposition.Asthisstudyhas

demonstrated,however,editionsoftheOldEnglishLivesshouldbepairedwith

editionsoftheLatinsourcesknowntoAnglo-Saxonsaudiences,suchasthe

GenderandGenreinMedievalLiterature,ed.ElaineTreharne(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2002),pp.5–18;Magennis,‘Conversion’,pp.296–98.5AnalysesofEdmund’sLivesarefoundinEarl,‘ViolenceandNon-Violence’,125–49,andKlaniczay,HolyRulers,pp.89–94.Seepp.34–37aboveforintroductiontoBede’sLifeofOswald.6Ald.uirg(prosa)226–323;Colgrave,ed.,TwoLivesofSaintCuthbert;Lapidge,ed.,LivesofStOswald,pp.2–202;Talbot,trans.,Anglo-SaxonMissionaries,pp.25–62.SeealsoAbels,‘Cowardice’,36–37.7Delehaye,Legends,pp.12–16,arguessimilarly,thateachhagiographerpresentsanaccountconformingtotheirownbiasesandpreconceptions.8Damon,SoldierSaints,pp.21–27;Damon,‘Sanctifying’,pp.186–207;Erdmann,Origins,pp.19–26;Prinz,‘King,ClergyandWar’,II:310;Russell,JustWar,p.35;Russell,Germanization,pp.166–214.9France,‘HolyWar’,I:199–203.

Cotton–CorpusLegendary.Sucheditionswillengendermorenuanced

interpretationsofindividualapproachestowarriorcultureandidentifythose

areaswhichtheAnglo-Saxonhagiographersalter,omit,orhighlight.

AsouranalysesoftheOldEnglishprosenarrativesofMartin,Guthlac,

Andrew,andEustacehaveshown,theanonymoushagiographerswerenot

‘derivative,lowinquality,orotherwisequestionable.’10Eachhagiographer

approachingawarrior-saint’snarrativeimbuedthesourcewithhisorherown

ideology.Thisbecomesevidentthroughananalysisofthetechniquesusedto

reworktheirsourcetohighlightordownplayChristianmilitancy.Wehaveseen

thatthesetechniquesrangefromchoosingwordsthatcarrieddifferent

connotationsfromtheLatintermsthattheytranslated,toproducinginternal

repetitionofphrasestohighlightthemesandsignifynarrativeshifts,and

introducingintertextualreferencesthatplacethesaintwithinthewidercontext

ofhagiographicandsecularliterarytraditions.WehavealsofoundthateachOld

Englishadaptionomitsdetailsfromitssource,eitherdeliberatelyorbyscribal

accident.Theseomissionsworktorefocusthespecificnarrativeandemphasise

particularaspectsofthesaint.Everyhagiographer’sandcopyist’suniqueblend

ofthesetechniquesgiveseachrecensionofanarrativeadistinctivecharacter

thatprovesthatAnglo-Saxonadapterswerenot‘slavishly’translatingtheir

sources,butactivelymanipulatingthemtofocusontheaspectsthehagiographer

orcopyistconsideredmostimportant.11

Inthelegendswehaveconsidered,thisfocusoftenrestsonthe

worldlinessofChristianwarriorcultureandthelevelofaggressionthatis

permissibleforasaint.12Condemnationofsecularvices—suchaskilling,luxury,

anddrunkenness—permeatetheLives,seeninthedistancingofEustacefrom

feastingorthefutilityofthehyperbolicallymartialMermedoniansofAndreas.

Similarly,theGuthlac-narrativescritiqueGuthlac’slifeasawarlord,andthe

Martinmas-homilyemphasisesMartin’sseparationfromweoruld-folgaþto

condemndedicationtosecularmatters.Thehagiographicaltraditionsaround

10Norris,‘ReversalofFortune’,p.98.11Thompson,‘HalgumBocum’,384–407,arguesthatmedievalwriterssawtheirtextualsourcesas‘unimpeachableauthorities’nottobealtered,andthat‘homilistswishedonlytobringoutthetruthsembodiedintheirtexts,nottoinnovate.’12Lochrie,‘SexualViolence’,pp.1–20,andMorris,‘OECempa’,81–84,arguethatLivesofmilesChristicondemnworldlinessbutnotwarriorcultureingeneral.

Martin,Guthlac,Andrew,andEustacefurtherillustratedisapprovalofearthly

concernsthroughweoruld-compoundsandinvilifyingandundermining

characterswhofixateonworldlymatters.Thisdevaluationofworldlinessisnot,

asFuruta,Schneider,andSzarmachargue,13arejectionofheroismandwarrior

cultureingeneral,asmuchasadistinctionbetweenwhataspectsofsecular

soldierywereappropriatewhenpursuingdevotiontoChrist.

EvenasAnglo-Saxonhagiographersseparatedtheirprotagonistsfrom

worldliness,themartialimageryofthemilesChristiandseculartraditionhelped

characteriseandshapetheirsaintlysubjects.Theextentdependedonthe

individualhagiographer’stastes,aswellastheprospectivecontextfor

presentation.Prosehagiographicalstoriesthatwereaccessibleforwider

audiencesandcouldberecitedinaliturgicalsetting—suchastheanonymously

producedproseLivesandhomilies—tendtobelessornateintheirportrayalsof

thecomitatusrelationshipbetweenChristandhissaints.Wehaveseenthisin

obliquereferencestothedemonicarrowsoftemptationintheLifeofAndrew,

andthepassingmentionsofspiritualwarfareintheMartinmas-homilyandLife

ofEustace.Meanwhile,theverseLivesofwarrior-saints,likeGuthlacAand

Andreas,makegreateruseofmartiallanguage,whichmayreflectanaudienceof

aristocraticclericswhowerefamiliarwiththeOldEnglishpoetictraditionand

couldappreciatethepoet’sintertextualandtypologicalreferences.14

Yet,despitetheprominenceofmartiallanguageandimageryinpoetry

andlearnedproselikeFelix’sVitaGuthlaci,theworksstudiedabovereflect

significantvariationinthemartialterminologytheyuseandthephrasesfrom

secularliteraturethattheyappeartoborrow.Thevaryingtreatmentsofmilites

Christiinthosepoeticandornateprosetextsintendedforeducatedaudiences

likewisesuggestthatthelearnedaristocracydidnotshareacommonperception

ofhowChristiandevotioncouldbeframedaswarfare.15Indeed,whenwe

considertheportraitofEustaceasaholysecularsoldier—whichwasproduced

13Furuta,‘Devaluation’,pp.125–56;Scheinder,‘Cynewulf’sDevaluation’,107–18;PaulE.Szarmach,‘ÆlfricRevises:TheLivesofMartinandtheIdeaoftheAuthor’,inUnlockingtheWordhord,ed.MarkAmodioandKatherineO'BrienO'Keeffe(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2003),p.49.14Leneghan,‘Intertextuality’,128–29;Orchard,‘Originality’,pp.331–33;Orchard,‘LegeFeliciter’,pp.25–26;Thacker,‘FelixShapes’,p.24.15Pezzarossa,‘IdeologyofWar’,pp.214–16,concludesthatlearnedaristocraticwritersworkingwithinsimilarliteraryandintellectualcontextshaddivergentideologiesregardingwar.

forthemixedaudiencesofJuliusE.vii16—orKingOswald’searlydevotion

amongthenon-aristocraticlaity,17itappearsthatthesocio-economicstandingof

theaudiencedoesnotcorrelatewithattitudestowardsChristianwarriorculture.

Membersfromalllevelsandordersofsocietyengagedwithbothpositiveand

negative,literalandmetaphoricalmodels,ofsoldieringforChrist.

TherangeofapproachestotheLivesofwarrior-saintsproducedinsimilar

circumstancesandforsimilaraudiencessuggestthatawork’sacceptanceof

militantChristianitywasindividuallydefinedbythecomposers,audiences,and

copyistsofsaints’legends.Eachofthesehagiographersandaudiencesmoulded

theirconceptionofsoldieringforChristinresponsetotheirspecifichistorical

contextandsourcematerial.Forexample,interestintranslationsofmissionary

saints’Livesinthelateninthcentury—attestedintheMartinmas-homilyand

Andrew-narratives—arosefromthedesiretoconverttheScandinavianpagans

oftheDanelaw,eitherpeaceablyorbyforce.18InthesimilarcontextoftheViking

invasions,narrativesthatincorporatedidealsofholywar—suchasthe

narrativesofOswald,JudasMaccabeus,Judith,andEustace—servedasmodels

forrespondingtoheatheninvaders.19Inacomparablefashion,thedesireof

privatereaderstomeditateupontheircontemplativelivescouldhaveprompted

thestudyofsaintswhopracticedasceticism,likeGuthlacandEustace.20Itis

throughanalysingthoseparticularinfluenceswhichimpacteachnarrative’s

composition,adaptation,andtransmissionthatwecandistinguishbetween

viewsofwarriorculture.Whenwedoso,itbecomesevidentthattherewere

manywaysthatanAnglo-Saxonaudiencecouldobeythecommandto‘Gonow…

inthenameofGod,justasasoldierofChrist,withboldfaith’(farnuonGodes

naman…swaswaCristescempa,midcenumgeleafan).21

16Seepp.194and233–34forthediscussionoftheaudienceforJuliusE.vii.17Cubitt,‘SitesandSanctity’,55and60–63.18Abels,‘Peace-Making’,23–34.Damon,‘AdvisorsforPeace’,pp.57–78,arguesthatsomeAnglo-Saxonaristocratsadvocatedapeacefulresponsetotheeleventh-centuryinvasions.19Damon,pp.SoldierSaints,193–246;Pezzarossa,‘IdeologiesofWar’,pp.152–59and166–80;Whatley,‘HagiographyandViolence’,pp.217–30.20Conner,‘SourceStudy’,386–88;Leneghan,‘TeachingtheTeachers’,627–58.21FromtheLifeofSaintDenis,LSIII:66.

Appendix AnEditionoftheVitaS.EustachiiintheCotton–CorpusLegendaryThefollowingtextisbasedonatranscriptionofOxford,BodleianLibrary,Bodley354[B],folios22v–29r,whichhasbeenemendedinthoseplaceswheretheversionoftheVitainCambridge,CorpusChristiCollege,9[C],folios117v–22rprovidesareadingthatisclosertotheOldEnglishtextoramorestandarisedspellingoftheLatin.ThetwoversionsoftheVitafoundinBandCareverysimilaralthoughthefewnotabledifferencesareidentifiedwithinthetext.Mostofthesedifferencesarisefromcopyingerrorsorspellingpreferences.Forinstance,thescribeofCtendstoprefer-mm-to-dm-whichisfoundinB,whileBtendstoprefer-ciatothe-tiafoundinC.Moresignificantly,certaindetailspreservedinBandattestedintheOldEnglishadaptationdifferfromtheaccountinC.Thiscanbeseen,forexample,withthesentenceconcerningEustace’smisplacedloyaltytothemortalemperor(lines104–05)whichismissingfromCbutpreservedinBandtheOldEnglishtext.Atotherpoints,CcontainsdetailswhichareattestedinneitherBortheOldEnglishLife,suchasthenotethattheshepherdsrescuedEustace’ssonAgapitusfromthelion‘witheveryone’(cumomnibus,25).1ThesedifferencessuggestthattheanonymousOldEnglishcomposeroftheLifeworkedfromacopyoftheVitaclosertotheBversionoftheCotton–CorpusLegendarythanC.

TherubricsfortheVitaS.EustachiiinbothversionssaythatEustace’sfeastdayisonthe20thofSeptember,followingtheoriginalByzantinetradition,whiletheVita’splacementintheLegendariesandthedatingprovidedwithinthenarrativeplacethefeastdayonthe2ndofNovember.AnEditionoftheOldEnglishLifeofEustaceinJuliusE.viiThefollowingtextisbasedonanewtranscriptionoftheOldEnglishLifeinLondon,BritishLibrary,CottonJuliusE.vii,folios169v–79v,whichappearstohavebeencorrectedbyasecondscribeshortlyafteritsproductionintheeleventhcentury.2NoteontranscriptionIhaveexpandedabbreviations,removeddiacritics,andintroducedmodernpunctuationandcapitalisationinbotheditions.Ihavesilentlystandardisedtheminisculeformsofuandvtou,majusculeUtoVifitpreceedsavowel,ande-caudata(ę)toaeintheLatintextandæintheOldEnglish.Thepointsatwhichthetextcarriesontoanewfolioandcolumnhavebeenmarked.

1TheBHL2760col.127FandtheMombritianSanctuarium,I:469,line26,versionsofthenarrativeprovidecumcanibus.2Scraggprovidesanintroductiontothemanuscriptin‘CorpusofAnonymousLives,pp.217–18.

VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum

INCIPITVITAETPASSIOSANCTIEUSTACHIIMARTYRISETFILIORUMEIUSDIEXXMENSISSEPTEMBRISHOCESTXIIKAL.OCTOBRIS

ndiebusTraianiimperatoris,demonumpreualentefallaciaeratquidammagistermilitumnominePlacidas,generesecundumcarneminsignis,op[er]ibus1pollensetcunctosinhonorepraecellenssedetdemonecaptus.Operibus[B.23ra]ueroetiustitiacunctisuirtutibuseratpreditusetmeritis.

Sub[C.117vb]ueniebatoppressispatrocinabaturgrauatisiniudiciopluresetiama5iudicibusiniustedampnatosop[er]ibusreleuabat,nudosuestiebatetutueredicamcunctisindigentibusinuitadispensans,sicutinActibusApostolorumlegitur,etiaminhistemporibusCorneliusuideretur.Habebatueroetconiugemeandemsubdemonumculturaexistentemsedsimilemmoribusmaritisententiae.Procreantureifiliiduo,quoseducabantparespropriauoluntate.Erat10ueronobilisiniustitia2etpotensinbelloutetipsibarbarisubiugarenturabeo.Eratetiamuenationeindustrisperomnesdies.Sedmisericorsetbenignusdominus,quisemperetubiqueadsesibidignosuocat,bonanondespexiteiusoperanecuoluitbenignametdeodignammentemsinemercededeseriidolatriaecontectamtenebris.SedSecundumquodscriptumest,‘Quodinomnigente,qui15operaturiustitiam,3acceptusestei,peruenitadistumbenignamis[eri]cordiaeteumtalisaluariuoluitmodo.’ Exeunteunadieconsuetomoreadmontesuenari4cumomniexercituetgloria,apparuiteigrexceruorumdepascens,etdisponenssolitomoreexercitum,eosconaturinsequi.Cunctisueromilitibuscircacaptionemceruorumoccupatis,20apparuitunus[B.23rb]ceruorumuastus5ultramensuramtotiusgregisetspeciosusquiresistensagregeimpetumfecitinsiluaminspissioribuslocisquemuidensPlacidesetdesideranseumcapere.Relinquensomnes,cumpaucismilitibuseuminsequitur.Omnibusuerolassatis,quicumillofuerant,solusperseuerauitadinsequendum.Prouidentiauerodomininecequolassante.[C.118ra]Necipso25propterdifficultatemlocidesistente,seddiuinsequens,longiusremotusestasuoexercitu.Ceruusautemillerupisoccupataltitudinemstetit[que]desuper.

Propiusueromagistermilitumuenienssinecomitestetitcircumspiciensundiqueetconsiderans,6quemadmodumpossetcapereceruum.Sedtotiussapientiaeetmis[eri]cordiaedominusquicunctasuiasadsalutemhominum30prouidet,uenantemuenatusest.NonsicutCorneliumperPetrumsedsicutPauluminsequentempersuamostensionem.DiuuerostantePlacidaetaspicienteceruumetadmiranteeouastitatemeius,etdeficientecircacaptionemdemonstratillideusindiciumtalenontimere,nequesuprasuaeuirtutis[esset]magnitudinem,sedsicutsubBalaamtribuensuerbumasinaearguiteius35insipientiam.Sedethuicdemonstrauitintercornuaceruiformamsacraecrucissupraclaritatemsolissplendentemetinmediocornuumimaginemdomininostri

1CandBhaveopib:withoutanabbreviationmarkhereandagainonthenextfoliowithop[er]ibus(line6).However,theOldEnglishreadingweorcum(lines4–6)aswellastheformopib;atthebottomofB22vbsuggeststhatwereadoperibuseachcase.Presumablythescribesforgottheabbreviationmarkonthep.2Biusticia.3Biusticiam.4Cvenare.5Bpastus.6Bconsiderat.

IesuChristisaluatorisquietiamhumanamuoceminponensceruo,aduocatPlacidamdicensei;[B.23va]‘OPlacidaquidmeinsequris?Eccetuigratiaueni,inanimaliistoutappareamtibi;EgosumChristus,quemignoranscolis,elemosine,40quasfacisindigentibus;corammesteteruntetuenimeostenderetibiperistumceruumetproilloteuenari,utcaperetteretibusmis[er]cordiaemeae.Nonenimiustumest,dilectummeumpropterbonaopera,seruiredemoniisimmundisetsimulacrisuitacredentibus7etuacuisinsensatis.Obhocergoueniinterrainhacspeciesicutnuncmeuidessaluaregenushumanum.’45 Haecaudiensmagistermilitum,timorerepletusestmaximo[C.118rb]etceciditdeequointerram.Horauerotransactaadserediitetsurrexitetcautiusuolensuiderequodapparuerateispectaculum,aitintrase;‘Queestistauisioqueapparuitmichi?Reuelamichi,quidloquerisutsiccredaminte.’Etdixitadeumdominus;‘IntendePlacida.EgosumIesusChristusquicaelumetterramex50nichilofeciquiindiscretamma[t]eriedistinxi,quilucemoririfeciettenebrasdiuisi.Egosum,quitemporaetdiesetannosconstitui.Egosum,quihominemformauideterraquiproptersalutemgenerishumaniinterrisapparuiincarne,quicrucifixusetsepultusettertia8diesurrexi.’Haecaudiensmagistermilitumcecidititeruminterramdicens;‘Credodominequiatues,quifecistiomnia,qui55conuertiserrantesetuiuificasmortuos.’Dicitad[B.23vb]eumdominus;‘SicredispergeadciuitatemetaudipontificemChristianorumetquereabipsobaptismumgratie.’ResponditPlacidas;‘Domine,siiubesmeutrenuntiemistaconiugimeetfiliismeisutetipsicredantinte?’Dixitadeumdominus;‘Renuntiaillisetaccipientessignumbaptismimundaminiapollutioneidolorumetuenihucet60rursustibiappareboetdemonstrabotibifuturaetpatefaciamtibisalutismisteria.’ Descendensergodemonte,noctefacta,coepitexponereconiugisueomnia,queuidit.Postquamuerocompleuitomnia,exponensuisionemetqueeidictastiexclamauituxoreiusdicens;‘Dominemeuscrucifixumdominumuidisti65quemChristianicolunt.Illeenimestsolusuerusdeusquipertaliasignauocatadsecredentes.’Tuncdicituirosuo;‘Transactanocteetegouidieumdicentemmihi;“Crastinadietuetuirtuusetfiliituiuenietisadme,”[C.118va]Etnunccognouiq[uonia]mipseestIesusChristus.Voluitergosubtalifiguramirandispectaculiperceruumappareretibiuteiusmiraripossispotentiamcredensin70eum.VeniergohacnocteeteamusetimpetremussanctumbaptismumChristianorum.Perhocenimeiuspropriifiunt,quiinillumcredunt.’DicitadillamPlacidas,‘Hocetmihidixitille,qui[B.24ra]uisusestmihi.’

MediumueronoctisinscientibusfamulissuisabieruntadsacerdotemChristianorumetrenuntiauerunteiomnia,quefactafuerantueldictaadeoset75confestimcredereseindominumIesumChristum,confessisuntetsupplicauerunteumutdareteissignaculumbaptismatis.Quialacrigaudiorepletusetglorificansdominumdeum,quiuultomnessaluosfierietadagnitionemueritatisuenire,accipienscatecizauiteosetexponenseismisteriumfideibaptizauiteosinnominepatrisetfiliietspiritissancti.EtPlacidamquidem80uocauitEustachium,uxoremueroeiusTheophistam,etfilioseorumprimogenitumuocauitAgapitumetalterumTheophistum.EtcontulitsanctumsacramentumdomininostriIeshuChristietdimisiteosdicens.DominusIesus7Bhasaneasureandalaterhandadds[cari]entib;whilethereisspaceforcredentibus,whichCattests.8Btercia.

Christusfiliusdeisituobiscumetdonetuobisaeternaregna.Cognouinamque,quodmanusdominiuobiscumsit.Vosautemconfrueminiparadisomementote85animaemeaeIohannispostulouos. ManeuerofactoaccipiensEustachiuspaucosequitessecumperrexitadmontemetpropelocumueniens,ubiuisionemuiderat,misitmilitessuos,quasisubobtentuinuestigandaeuenationis,etsolusremanensappropriauitadlocum[C.118vb]etuiditformamsibiostensaeuisionispriorisetcadensinfaciem990cla[B.24rb]mauitdicens;‘Supplicote,domine,cognouiquiatuesIesusChristusfiliusdeiuiuietcredoinpatremetfiliumetspiritumsanctumetnuncuenisupplicansintemeratamtuamdiuinitatemutmanifestesquaepromiserasmihi.’EtdicitadeumIesus;‘Beatusesquiaccepistilauachrumgratiaemeaeetquiainduistiteinmortalitate.modosuperastidiabolummodoconculcastieum,quite95deceperatmodospoliastitecorruptibilemhominemetinduistiincorruptibilem,permanenteminseculaseculorum.Modofideituaedemonstrabunturoperaquoniaminuidiacommouebiturcoramtediabolieoquodillumreliquistietfestinatomnemadinuentionemcircatemouere.Oportetenimtemultasustinere,utaccipiascoronamuictoriae.Ecceenimexaltatusesusquemodonegotiishuius100seculiettemporalibusopibus.Oportetergo,tehumiliaridealtatuauanitate,etrursusexaltareteinspiritalibusdiuitiis.Nonergotuauirtusdeficiatnecrespiciasadgloriamquaetibifueratpriussedquemadmodumrepuganshominibuscupiebasuictorostendimortali[imperatorifestinasplacere,sictecontradiabolumstrenuaeagerefestinamihiimmortali]10imperatorifidem105seruareoportetenimethistemporibusalterumIobintedemonstraripertemptationesetuictoremdiaboliostendipertolerantiam.Videergo,neforteincordetuocogitatioblasphemiae[B.24va]ascendat.Cumenimhumiliatusfuerisueniamadteetrursusrestituamteinpropriamgloriam.’ EtpostquamhaecdixitascenditincaelosdicensEustachio;‘Modouis110[C.119ra]accipereinmentem11tibitemptationemaninextremisdiebus.’DicitEustachius;‘SupplicotedomineIeshusinonestpossibileeuaderequaeatenobissuntdecreta,modonobisacciperetemptationemiube.Seddanobisuirtutemsustinerequepromissasuntnealiquodmalignumuerbumadinueniensaduersariuscommoueatsensumnostrumdetuafide.’Etdominus;‘Concertarein115quid12Eustachi,gratiaenimmeauobiscumestcustodiensanimasuestras.’

Descendensuerodemonteetingressusindomum,renuntiauituxorisue13omiaquaeeifuerant14dictaadominoetsimulflectentesgenuasupplicabantdominumdicentes;‘DomineIeshuChristefiatuoluntastua.’Paucisuerodiebustransactiscontigitegritudinepestiferaaffligidomumeiusetmori120omnesseruoseiusetancillas.Hocfacto,sentiensEustachiuspredictamsibitemptationemaffuisseetgratificesuscipiensposcebatuxoremsuam,utnondeficerettribulans.Etpostaliquodtempusoccupauitequoseiusetaliapecoraaerquidammortiferetmortuasuntomniaquefuerantilli.Etexcipiensistamtemptationemdiscessitoccultaededomosuaunacumuxoreetfiliis.Videntes125

9ThefirstscribeofBprovidesfacięwhichlaterscribecorrectswithasuperscriptabbreviationmark.10Comitsthisclause,presumablyasaresultofeye-skip.11Bimminentem.12Binquit.13SuppliedfromC.14Bfuerint.

autemquidamdemalignis[B.24vb]depredationemeorumaggressipernoctemdiripueruntomniaquaepossidebantaurumetargentumetuestesitautnichilrelinquereturdesubstantiaeorumpraeterea15quibus16amictifuerant.Cumqueessentergo17inhuius18moditristitia19reliquaeorumpossessioetsubstantiaadnihilumperuenitperfraudesinimici.130 Illisdiebusomnipopulocelebrante[C.119rb]festiuitatemcumimperatoreprouictoriaquaeinPersasfactafuerat.OportebatetiametPlacidamfestiuitatemsuamfacere,inprandioquippeubifuissetmagistermilitumetprincepssenatus.Querebaturetinuenirinonpoterat.Dubitantibusergocunctisquodsicunomomentonullumdesuisreliquissetnecipsumpossereperiri.Merore135percussus20estimperatoretomnissenatusdeeoetomnesstupebantdehisqueacciderantei.Tuncdicituxorsua;‘Quousqueexpectamushic.Veniaccipiamusduosinfantesnostros,ipsienimtantumrelictisuntnobisetrecedamushinc.Inobprobriisenimfactisumusomnibuscognoscentibusnos.’EtnoctesuperuenienteaccipientesduosinfantespergebantadEgyptum.Postquamuero140duorumfeceruntdierumiter,appropinquantesmarietinuenientesnauemapplicitam21uolebantingrediineamutnauigarent.Contigitautem[B.25ra]utdominusnauisilliusbarbarusessetetinmitisetingressicumeonauigabant. EtuidensnauisdominusuxoremEustachiiquodessetdecorafacie,ualdeconcupiuiteam.Etcumtransfretassent[mare],exigebatabeisnaulum.Non145habentibusillisunderedderentretinuituxoremeiusquasipronaulouolensillamhaberesecum.UtautemuiditEustachiusnolebateamdare.Diuuerocontradicenteeoetsupplicanteinnuitdominusnauisnautissuisutinmediummareillumproicerent.AtubisensitEustachiusinsidiaseorumreliquiduxoremsuametaccipiensduosinfantessuosibatingemiscensetdicens;‘Vemichietuobis150[C.119va]quiamateruestratraditaestalienigenaemarito.’Pergensuerocumgemituetlacrimis,peruenitadquendamfluuiumetpropter[h]abundantiamaquarumnonestaususingredicumduobusfiliisinaquam.Portansuerounuminfantemsuperhumerossuosreliquitalterumcircaripam.Ettransposuitinfantem,quemportaueratsuperterrametibatutreportaretalterum.Cum155uenissetauteminmediumfluminis,nimisautemfluuiusdilatatuserat,intendensuiditetecceleorapuitfiliumeiusetabiitinsiluis.Etdesperansdeeoreuersusestinpatientiaspemha[B.25rb]bensalterius.Etcumabiretuiditeteccesimiliterlupusrapuitalterumfiliumeiusetabiitetnonpotuiteuminsequi.Etcumessetinmediumfluminiscoepiteuellerecapilloscapitissuiplangensetululansuoluit160seproicereinaquam.Sediterumconstantemeumreddiditprouidentiadeiquaefuturaprouidebat.Leouerorapienspuerumconseruauitillaesum22perprouidentiamdei.Videntesautempastores,puerumportarialeoneuiuum,insecutisunteum,cumomnibus23perdispensationemuerodeirediensleo

15Cpreter.16Cque.17SuppliedfromC.18Ceius.19Btristicia.20Cperculsus.21Cadplicitam.22Cinlęsumhereandonline167.23BHLActSanctorum,col.127F,andMombritius,ed.Sanctuarium,I:469,providecanibus.Bomitsthisdetailaltogether.

uero24proiecitinfantemincolumemetrecessit.Alterumueroinfantemqui165raptusfueratalupouidentesquidamaratoresinsequenteslupumliberauerantpuerumillaesum.Utriqueergosiuepastoressiuearatoresdeunofuerantuicoetaccipientespueroseducaueruntapudse.

HaecueroEustachiusnesciebatsedpergebatplangenspariterethaecdicens;‘Heumichiquondampollentiutarbormodoueronudatussum.Heume170quiin[h]abundantiamea25nimiafuerammodo[C.119vb]captiuitatismoredesolatussum.Heumequiamagistermilitumetmultitudineexercituumcircumdatusfuerammodosolusrelictussumnecfiliosconcessussumhabere.Sedtudomine,neinfinemderelinquasmenecdispiciaslacrimasmeas.Memini,domine,tedicentem,quodoportettetemptarisicutIob.[B.25va]Sedecceplus175aliquidinmefieriuideo.Illeenim,etsipossessionibuscaruerit,sedstercushabuitsupraquodsedereconcessumestilli.Egoueroperegreeadempatiortormenta.Illeamicoshabuitcompatienteseiegoueroindesertoinmitesferashabeoinconsolationemquifiliosmeosrapuerunt,Illeetsiramiscaruitseduicemuxorisrespicienssecumconsolabatur.Egoueroinfelixundiquesineradice180factussum,necscintillamfacisgenerismeirespiciens,sedsumsimilisramisindeserto,quiundiqueprocellasconquassantur.Neexecratusfuerisdominemultiloquiatuiserui,26doleoenimdumdicoquodnonoportet.Pone,domine,custodiamorimeo,utnondeclinetcormeuminuerbamalaeteiiciarafaciaetua.Daueroiamrequiemdemultistribulationibusmeis.’Ethaecdicenscumlacrimis185etgemituanimiabiitadquendamuicumquidicebaturDadissus.Etingrediensineooperabaturetadquirebatuictum.Commoransueroineoplurimumtempuspostulauiteiusdemuicihabitatoresetposueriteumcustodireagrossuos.Etmercedemaccipiens,degebatibiannisquindecim. Filiiautemeiuseducatisuntsicutsupradiximus,inalterouico,non190cognoscentesalterutrumquodessentfratres.Dominusueronauisillealienigena,[B.25vb]accipiensuxoremEustachiiperduxitadsuampatriam.[C.120ra]Dominiuerogratiaobumbrauitmulieremutnonseeicommisceretalienigenainomniillotempore,Hocenimpostulabatadeoutcustodireturabalienigenaecommunione.Contigitueroillumaliengenammorietipsamsuaeessepotestatis.195 PosthosautemdiesfactusestincursushostiuminillaterraubieratEustachius.QuiexeuntesplurimasinuaseruntterrasRomanorum.InnimioergotumultuconsistebatimperatordeinuasioneetcommemoratusestPlacidameoquodplerumquestrenueegissetcontraipsoshostesettristabaturdesubitaeiusmutatione.Colligensautemexercitumetinspiciensomnesmilites,dePlacida200exquirebat,quicognouissentdeeo,uiuere,anmori.Etdabatmandatumunicuiquemilitum,utinquirerenteum.Etmisitperunamquamqueciuitatemetterramqueeratsubimperiosuo,utrequirerenteum,dicens,‘Siquiseuminueneritetindicaueritmichi,amplioresaddameihonoresetemolumentorumaugebosolatia.’Duoueroquidammilites,nomineAntiochusetAcaiusqui205aliquandoministraueruntPlacidaeperrexeruntadinquirendumeum.Etperagrantes[B.26ra]omnemterramquesubRomanorumessetimperioueneruntinuicumillum,ubidegebatEustachius.

Eustachiusueroalongeconsideransexconsuetudineincessuseorumrecognouiteosetueniensinmemoriampriorissuaeconuersationiscoepit21024SuppliedfromC.25SuppliedfromC.26CNeexseoratus,fuerisdomine,tuiseruimultiloquia.

perturbarietoransdicere;‘Dominedeusnosterquideomnitribulationeeruissperantesintequemadmodumistospr[aeterspem]27uidiquialiquandomecumfuerunt,iubeutuideamancillamtuamconiugemmeam.Naminfantesmei,scioquemproptermeamprauitatem,aferiscomestisunt.Daergodomineutuelindie[C.120rb]resurrectionisuideamfiliosmeos.’Ethaecdicenteeo,audiuituocemde215caelodicentemsibi;‘ConfideEustachiinpresentienimtemporeremeabisadtuumprioremstatumetaccipiesuxoremtuametfilios,inresurrectioneueromaiorahorumuidebiseteternorumbonorumdelectationemreperiesetnomentuummagnificabituringenerationem.’ HaecaudiensEustachiusterroreperculsussedebat.28Vidensueromilites220sibiuenientesperuiamcontraipsosuenientibusueroillispropius,ampliuseoscognouit,illiautemeumnoncognouerunt.Quidixeruntadeum;‘Auefrater.’Atilleait;‘Paxuobiscumfratres.’Atillirursusdicuntei;[B.26rb]‘DicnobissinostihicperegrinumaliquemnominePlacidamcumuxoreetduobusfiliis?Etsidemonstraueriseumnobisdabimustibipecunias.’Quibusilledixit;‘Quapropter225eumqueritis?’Quidixeruntei;‘Amicusnosterfueratetuolumuseumuiderepostmultosannos.’Di[x]it29adeosEustachius;‘Talemhicuirumnoncognoui.Nametegoperegrinussum.’

Etassumenseosduxitinhospitiumsuum30etabiitemereuinumutpotareteospropteraestum.Etdixitaddominumdomus31inquahospitabatur;230‘Notimichisuntistihominesetpropterhochucuenerunt.Pr[a]ebeergomihicibosetuinumutfruantur,etreddameaibiintemporedemercedemea.’Illeueroalacriterdabateisquaefuerantnecessaria.ReficiensautemeosEustachiusnonpoteratsustinererecolensprioremuitamsuametperfundebaturlacrimis.Plorabatautemforasegrediensetlauansfaciemsuamrursusingrediebaturet235ministrabateis.Illiueroconsideranteseumcoeperuntpaulatimadagitionemuisioniseiusuenire.Adalterutrumdicentes;‘Quamsimilisestistehomoilli,quemquerimus.’[C.120va]Unusautemait;‘Scioquiaualdesimilisestilli.Scioautemegoquodhabet[B.26va]signumaliquoscicatricisinceruicesuaexictubelli.Consideremusergosihabetsignuminceruicesua,ipseest,quiquerituranobis.’240Considerantesuerocautius,uidentescicatriceminceruiceeiusetconfestimexilientesosculabantureumetcumlacrimisinterrogabanteum,[siipseesset]32quiaaliquandomagistermilitumeorumfuerat.Illeueroprofusislacrimisdicebat;‘Nonsumego.’DemonstrantesueroillisignuminceruiceeiusetiurantesquodipseessetmagistermilitumPlacidasetdeuxoreeiusetfiliis245interrogabanteum,quidessetfactum,etaliapluracommemorabanteum.Tuncconfessusestquodipseessetetdeuxoreetfiliisquodmortuiessent.

Etdumhaecdicuntur,omnesilliusuicihomines,quasiadsignumspectaculiueniebant,Tuncergomilitesexponebanteisdeuirtuteuirietdepriorieiusgloria.Audientesautemflebantdicentes;‘Quantaexaltatiouiri,[qui]nobis250submercedeseruiuit.’Tuncmilitesinsinuauerunteipreceptumimperatorisetinduentesillumuestibusoptimisaccipientesillumpergebantinuiamsuam,

27SuppliedfromC.28Bpercussusest.29BandCdicit.30Bhasbeencorrectedwitherasuresandnewhandtoprovidehospitiumsuum.Cprovideshospitiosuo,whichmayhavebeentheorginalwordinginB.31MissingfromC.32SuppliedfromC.

Omnesuerodeuicoproducebanteum,illeueroosculansdimisitillos.AmbulantibusueroillisexposuiteisquomodouiditChristumetquomododenominatussitEustachiusetquae[B.26vb]contigeruntei,omniaexposuiteis.255

Transactouero[quindecim]33dierumitinereueneruntadimper[i]atorem.EtingressimilitesnuntiauerunteiquemammoduminueneruntPlacidam.Etegressusimperatorinoccursumeiusosculatusesteum.Quicausamsuaediscessionispersingulaexposuitimperatorietcunctosenatuietdeuxoresuaquomodoinmare[C.120vb]relictaessetetquomodofiliisuiaferiscaptisuntet260totummeroremsuumexposuit.Factaestueromagnaletitiaininuentioneeius.Petieruntueroeumetcingiturutpridemfueratmagistermilitum.Quidiscutiensmilitemetcognoscensnonsufficereadconspiciendoshostiumincursusiussittyronescolligereperomnesciuitatesetuicos.Contigitauteminillaterrainquaeducatisuntfiliieiusdescribiutdarentur34duotyrones.Cunctiueroeiusdem265uicicultoresillosduosiuuenesquippeutperegrinosdecernentestraduntexpeditionemfacientibus.Erantautemgrandistatuetdecorafacieualde.Congregatisuerocunctistyronibusetadductiscorammagistromilitumomnesconsideranstaxauitinnumeris.Vidensueroillosduosadulescentesquodessentsuperomnesdecorispecieetstatuconstituiteosprimosinministeriosuoet270uidensineosgenerositatemmorumnaturalem[B.27ra]affectuinpulsusinamoreeorumiussitinterconuiuaseosmenseannumerari.

Etpostdispositammilitiam,utsolitumest,profectusestadbellum.Etterramquidem,quamabstulerantbarbari,liberauit.IpsisuerosubiectistansiitfluuiumquidiciturYdispis35etulteriusprocedensininterioraterra36275barbarorumetillosdeuincensdepopulatusestterrameorum.Adhucauteminteriusdesideransingredi.Prouidentiaenimdeiuocante,uenitubieratuxorsua.Etutpredictumestcustoditafueratabalienigenaepollutione.Discesseratenimetsolacommanebatinortulocuiusdametfecitsibitabernaculum.Perueniensigiturinillouicomagistermilitumexspectabatibitribusdiebuset280tribusnoctibusrepausansexercitumsuum.Opportunaerat[C.121ra]possessioadomnemdelectationem.Contigitautemuttentoriaeiusfigerenturprope[h]ortumillumquemcustodiebatmulier.

Illiergoduoadulescenteshospitatisuntintabernaculomatrissuaenescientesquodipsaessetgenitrixeorum.Etfactomeridie,sedentesexponebant285sibiinuicemdeinfantiasuahabebantinmemoriaeaquecontigeranteis.Materueroeorumsedenscontraintentius[B.27rb]audiebatqueilliexponebant.Dicebatergofratermaioriuniori;‘Egoduminfanseramnichilaliudinmemoriahabeonisihocquiapatermeusmagistermilitumeratmaterueromeaspeciosafacieualde.Duosfilioshabebantmeetalterumminoremmeetipsespeciosusnimis.290Accipientesueronosutrosqueegressisuntdedomonoctuetingressisuntinnauemnobiscumnescioubiuolebantire.Cumautemegrederemurdenauematernostranobiscumnoneratnescioquemadmoduminmarerelictaest.Paterueronosterportansnosduosflenspergebat.Perueniensautemadquendamfluuiumtransmeauitcumfratremeoiunioreetmedereliquit37supraripam295fluminis.Cumreuertereturutmeacciperetlupusueniensrapuitillumminorem

33BsuppliesRomannumeralxv.34Badderentur.35AlaterhandhasaddedinthemarginHydaspesflu.CYdispis.36Bterrę.37Cdereliquid.

infantemetantequamadmeappropiaretsubitodesiluaexiliensleorapuitmeetduxitinsilua.Pastoresueroerueruntmedeoreleonisetnutritussuminpossessioneinquaetipsescisetnonpotuisciredepatremeoquidsitfactumdeeonequeinfante.’300 Haecaudiens38iuniormaiorefratredicenteexilienscoepitflereetdicere;‘PerdeumChristianorumutaudiofratertuussumego,quoniametquime[B.27va]educauerunthaecdicbant[C.121rb]quoniamdelupoteeruimus.’Etamplexiosculabanturseinuicem.Audiensuerohaec39matereorumetconsideransquaeexposuerantusqueadnauigiumperturbabaturinuisceribussuis.Ampliusetiam305uidensadulescentesamplectentesseinuicemetosculantesetflentes.Etdum40consideransneforteipsiessentfiliisuiproptereacumdepatredixerintquodmagistermilitumfueratetquiainmarematerrelictaest. Alteradieinterpellauitmagistrum41militumdicens;‘DeprecortedomineegodeterraRomanorumsumetcaptiuaadductahicperducmeadpatriam310meam.’Ethaecdicensconsideransuiditsignaqueerantinmaritosuoetcognoscensformidabateum.Cumuerodiusecontinerenonposset,procidensanteeumdicebat;‘Precortedomineneindigneriscontraancillamtuamsedpropitiusex42audimeexponemihiprioremuitamtuam.EgoenimputoteessemagistrummilitumPlacidamquicognominatusestEustachiusquemetiam315dignatusestsaluatoripseperceruumadseuocareutcrederetineumetincidensintemptationibusaccepituxoremsuamquaesumegoetduosfiliosAgapitumetTheophistumperrexitadEgyptum.[B.27vb]Etcumnauigaremusperdiditmepropterquoddominusnauisbarbarusessetquimetenuitinistapatria.EttestisestmichiChristusquianecillenecaltermepolluitsedusquehodieseruauit320dominuscastitatemmeam.EtecceegodixitibisignaettucognoscensindicamichiperuirtutemtuiChristisaluatoris.’ AudiensautemhaecEustachiusetipsesimiliterconsideransspeciemeiusrecognouiteam.Etincontinentilaetitia43lacrimiseffundensosculabatureametdabantgloriamsaluatoriChristoquiinomni[C.121va]parteprodestsuisseruiset325reuocatetconsolaturdemultistribulationibus.Tuncdiciteiuxorsua;‘Domineubisuntfiliinostri.’Quidixit;‘Aferiscaptisunt.’Etexposuiteiquemadmodumperdiditeos.Etdixitadeum;‘GratiasagamusChristo.Putoenimquemadmodumnobisdeusdonauitutinueniremusnosinuicemdonabit44etiamrecognscerefiliosnostros.’DicitadeamEustachius;‘Dixitibiquiaaferiscaptisunt.’Dicitad330eumuxoreius;‘Hesterna45diesedensinhortoaudiuiquosdamduosiuuenesadinuicemloquentesdeinfantiasuaetscioquemfiliinostrisunt.Sednecipsiinuicemsciebantquiafratressuntnisiperexpositionemmaiorisfratris.Nuncergocognoscequantasitpietas[B.28ra]Christiquiutrisquedonauitagnitionem.Disceigiturabeisetdicenttibi.’Conuocansigiturmagistermilitumadulescentes335sciscitatusestabeisquiessent.Tuncexposuerunteiomniaquefactafuissentsicutsupraexposuimus.Etrecognouiteosquiaipsiessentfiliisuietamplexus

38Bautem.39SuppliedfromC.40SuppliedfromC.41Cmagistro.42SuppliedfromC.43Blęticia.44Bdonauit.45Chaesterna.

EustachiusosculatusesteosetincuruantessuprafilioscumfletibusgratiasagebantChristoabhorasecunda46usqueadsextampropterinuentionemeorum. Discurritigiturfamahaecperomnemexercitumetomnescongregati340mirabanturetexultabantininuentioneeorumampliusetiampropterbarbarorumexpugnationem.Alteradiemaximamcelebritatem47facientesdeogratiasegeruntproptermagnameiuspietatem.Postquamuerosubieceruntuniuersamterrambarbarorumreuersisuntcumuictoriamagnaetspoliamultaportantesetcaptiuosplurimosducentes.345

ContigitigiturantequamreuertereturEustachiusdebello,obisseTraianumimperatoremetresurgerealterumproeo[C.121vb]imperatoremnomineAdrianumgentilemetipsumpeioreminimpietatibus.ReuersoergoEustachiooccurriteiimperatoretutmosestRomanisprouictoriafestiuitatemcelebrauit,etinterrogans48quomodoinpraeliouiriliteregesseritetdeagni[B.28rb]tione350uxorisetfiliorumeiusprolixiusostendit49conuiuium.Alteradieperrexitintemploidolorumprouictoriasacrificiumidolorumoblaturus.IntranteueroimperatoreintemploApollinisnoncumilloingressusetEustachiusetretrocedensforisstetis.Imperatorueroconuocanseuminterrogabatquarenonsacrificaritdiispropteruictoriametuictimasdetulerit50eismaximepropter355uxorisinuentionemetfiliorum.

Quidixitadimperatorem;‘EgosupplicoChristumdominummeumetofferoincessantereiprecesquimisertusesthumilitatemmeametreuocauitmedecaptiuitateetrestituitmihiuxoremetfilios.Aliumuerodeumnequescionequecolonisideumcaelestem51quifecitmirabilia.’360 Tuncimperatorirarepletusiussiteisoluicingulumetuelut52transgressoremastareparitercumuxoreetfiliisetsicfaciebatcontraeumquestionem.ConsideransigiturimperatorinmutabilemeiusinChristofidemiussiteumcumuxoreetfiliisintroducerein[h]arenametdimittieisleonem.AccurrensueroleoetstanspropebeatusEustachiussubmittenscaputatque365adoransrecessitetcoepitegredide[h]arena.Tuncergoimperatoruidensmirabilespectaculumquodnontetigiteosfera,praecepitincendibouemaeneumetibiintroducisanctos.Conuenituero[B.28va]uniuersaplebsfideliumetpaganorumspectaresanctosquomodointroducebanturinaereumbouem.

Inductiueroinmachinam53supplicaueruntcarnificesutdarenteos370orandispatium.Etextendentesmanussuas[C.122ra]oraueruntdicentes;‘Dominedeusuirtutumquiomnibusinuisibilis,nobisuerouisusesutuoluisti,exaudinosdeprecanteste.Ecceenimuotumnostrumperactumestquiarecipientesnosinuicemetadmeruimussortemsanctorumtuorumreciperesicuttrespueriquiperignemprobatisuntnontedenegaueruntsicetnosfinireiubeperignem375istum.Dauerodominereliquiisnostrisgratiamutomnisquimemornostrifueritpartemnostrihabeatinregnocaelorum54etsuperterram[h]abundantiamuelsiinmareautinfluuiopericlitatifuerintetinuocauerinttepernomennostrum,46BandCii.47Bcęlebritatem.48Cinterrogauit,althoughtheeditorofCprovidesnsabovetheline.49Cextendit.50Bobtulerit.51Ccelestem.52Cvelud.53Cmachina.54Ccelorum.

liberenturdepericulo.Etsiinpeccatisinceciderint55perhumilitatemnostramsupplicantibusueniampraestapeccatorumetomnibusmemoria56nostri380habentibusetglorificantibuste,auxiliumpraestaetsubueni.Dauerodomineetcomminationemignisin[err]oremtransferrietinhocfinirinosiubeetcomplaceincorporibusnostris,utnonseparentursedhicsimulreponieaiube.’ Ethaecillisdicentibusuoxadeosdecaelouenitdicens;‘Itaerituobissicutsupplicastisetam[B.28vb]pliusabhisfiet,quiacertatoresperbonamuitam385factiestisplures57etmagnassustinentestemptationesetnonuictiestis.Veniteinpacerecepturicoronasuictoriaeetprotemporalibusmalisinsaeculasaeculorumfruiminipreparatisbonis.’Ethaecaudientesbeatissimialacritersemetipsostradideruntigni.Etstatimcomminatioigniscompressaest.Etglorificantesintemeratametlaudabilemtrinitatemetcantantes[h]ymnum390reddiderunt58cumpaceanimassuas.Etnontetigiteosignisnequecapilluscapitiseorumsensitodoremignis.

Posttresautemdiesaduenitimpiissimusimperatorinlocoetpraecepitaperireaereammachinamutuideretquidfactumesset[C.122rb]reliquiissanctorum..Etuidentescorporaeorumputauerunteosadhucuiuereeteicientes395posuerunteossuperterram.Admiratioautemcunctoshabuitcircumstantes.Quianequeusqueadcapillumdominatusfueratineisignissederantcorporasplendentiasuperniuemetformidansimperatorabiitinpalatiumsuum.Multitudoueroquecircumstabatexclamaueruntdicentes;‘MagnusdeusChristianorumunusetsolusdeusuerusChristusIesusetnonestaliusquianec400incapilliseorumdominatusestignis.’OcculteueroChristianitollentescorporasanctorumdeposueruntinceleberrimoloco[B.29ra]etpostquamsedataestpersecutioibidemoratoriumconstruxeruntetdeposuerunteoscelebrantesmemoriamreliquiarumsanctorumIIIInonasnouember.Istaest[uitaet]passio59beatorumethicfinisgloriosieorumcertaminis.Omnesergoquimerentur405celebrare60memoriameorumetinuocareeosinpresidioimpetrantquaepromissasuntsanctispergratiamdomininostrietsaluatorisIesuChristi.Cuigloriaetpotestasinsaeculasaeculorum.Amen.

55Bciderinthumilitatem.56Bmemoriam.57Bpluras.58Creddeunt.59Csuppliesuita.InB,passioisinsertedabovelinebylaterhand.60Bcęlebrare.

OldEnglishLifeofEustace

IIIINONASNOVEMBRISPASSIOSANCTIEUSTACHIIMARTYRISSOCIORUMQUEEIUS

NTRAIANESDAGUMðæscaseresrixiendum,deofol-gildabiggengawæssumcempenaealdormanþæsnamawæsPlacidas.1Æfterworuldeswiðeæþelborenandswiþeþeondeonhisweorcumandealleoferhlifigendeon

wurð-mynte.Wæshesoðliceonrihtwisnysseweorcumandoneallumgodum5weorcumswiðegefrætwod;ofþryhtumhegehealpandgemundbyrdeþaðefordemdewæronandeacswilceheforwelmanegaþeunrihtliceframyflumdemumgenyþrodewæronalyhte.Nacodehescryddeand,swaicsoðlicesecge,eallenyd-behæfnyssehewæsdælendeþamþeþæsbehofodon;andeacswilcehiswifþaylcangodanweorcbeeode.Achiswa-þeahhwæðerebutuþagit10hæðenewæronforþamþehimnanmanþonegodcundangeleafannetæhte.Hihæfdontwægensunaþahityhtonþæthihimgeefenlæhtonongodumwillan.Wæshewitodliceswiðeæþeleonrihtwisnysseandstrangongefeohteswaþætþahæþenanwæronframhimswiðegewylde.Wæsheeacwelgleawonhuntungeandþætsingalliceælcedægebeeode.Acsemild-heortaandsewel-15willendagod,þesimleæghwærtohimþaþehimwurðebeoðgecygð[170r]neforseahhisgodanweorc,nehenoldeþæthiswel-willendemodandgodeswiðewurðful,butonmedesceoldebeonforlætan,andmidðamþystrumþæsdeofollicanbiggengesoferwrigenbeon.Acæfterþamþehitawritenis,þætonælcreþeodeþerihtwisnyssewyrcðhimbiðandfencgehebecomþatoþyssewel-20willendanmild-heortnysseandhinemidþyllicumgemetegehælde.

Hitgelampsumedægeþætheferdeutonhuntaðmideallumhiswerodeandhiswuldre.Þageseahhemicelneflocheortaandheðagestihtehiswerodswahimgewunelicwæshuhionþonehuntaðfonsceoldon.þahiealleymbþonehuntaðabysgodewæron,þaæteowdehimsylfumanormæteheort,sewæs25ormætremycelnysseoferealleðaoþreandwlitigandþagewendeheframþamflocceandræsdeintoþamwuduþærheþiccostwæs.ÞaþætPlacidasgeseahþagewilnodeheþæthehinegefengeandhimgeornliceæfterferdemidfæwumgeferumþaætnixtanwurdonhieallegeteorodeandheanaunwerighimæfterfyligde.Witodliceþurhgodesfore-stihtungenehorsnehesylfgewergodwæsne30heforðæswegesearfoðnysseablan,achelangeæfterferde2andfeorframhisgeferumge-wat.Seheortþawitodliceastahonanne3heahnecludandþærgestod. Placidasðalangestodandbeheoldþoneheortandwundrodehismicelnysseandablanhisæhtan.Himþagodgeswutelodeþæthehimswilcne35domneondredenehismægnesmicelnyssene[170v]wundrode.WitodlicebetwuxþæsheorteshornumglitenodegelicnysþærehalganCristesrodebreohtreþonnesunnanleomaandseoanlicnysseuresdrihtneshælendesCristesandhemenniscespræceasendeonþoneheort.andclypodetoPlacidamþuscwæþende;‘EalaPlacida,hwiehtestþumin?Efneforþinumintingumiccomnuþæticþurh40þisnytenþemeætywde.IceomseCristþeþunytendewurðast,þaaelmyssanþeþuþearfumdestbeforanmesyndon,andiccomþæticmeþeætywdeþurhþysneheortandforhineþegehuntianandgefonmidþamnettumminremild-heortnysse.Nishitnarihtþætminseleofaþeowforhisgodumweorcum1LaterhandinsertsuabovefinalainPlacidas.2Firsthandprovideswordwhichthelaterhandhasunderlinedandcorrectedtoferde,whichwouldagreewithpreviousphrasinginline28.3MSanre.

þeowigeunclænumdeoflumandþamunwittigumheargumþurhþæticcomto45eorðanonþisumhiweswilcneþumenugesihst.Þæticman-cynngehælde.’ ÞaðaPlacidasþisgehyrde,þawæsheafyrhtmidþammæstanegeandfeollofhishorsetoeorðanandþærlægsumetiddæges,andarasþaeftandwoldegewislicorwitanymbeþaætywnysseþehimæteawdeandcwæðtohim-sylfum;‘Hwætisþeosgesihðþemeheræteawde.Drihtenleofonwreohme50hwætðutomespræceþæticonþegelyfanmæge.’ÞacwæðCristtohim;‘HlystnuPlacida,IceomhælendeCristþeheofonandeorðanofnananþingangeworhteandgedydeþætleohtupasprangandþystrotodælde,andiceomseðegesettedagasandtidaandgear,andiceomseðemanofeorðangehiwodeandfor[171r]man-cynneshæloiccomtoeorðanandflæscunder-fengand55ahangenwaesandbebyrgedandþyþriddandægeofdeaðearas.’ÞaPlacidasþisgehyrdeþafeollheeftsonaoneorþanandcwæð;‘Icgelyfedrihtenþætþueart,seðeealleþincggeworhtestandgecyrstðadweliendananddeadegeliffestast.’Þacwæðdrihtentohim;‘Gifðuonmegelyfstfartoþærebyrigtocristenramannabisceopeandbidehinefulluhtes.’ÐacwæðPlacidas;‘Drihtenleof,motic60þiscyðanminumwifeandminumcildumþæthigelyfanonþe?’Þacwæðdrihtentohim;‘Farnuandsegehiomþæthifulwihtonfonandgebeoðþonnegeclænsodeframdeofol-gildabesmitennysseandcumhidereftandicþefullicorætyweandþecyþeþaðetoweardsyndonandonwreoþahalgangerynu.’ Hwæt,ðaPlacideonnihtþanonhamferdeandhiswiferehteeallþœthe65geseah.Sonaswaheohitgehyrde,þacwæðheo;‘Hlafordminþonegodþugesaweþeahangenwæsþecristenemenwurþiað,hesoðliceisanasoðgodþeþurhswilcetacnagecigeðtohimþaþeonhinegelyfað,andonþisserenihteichinegeseahandhecwæðtome,“Nutomergenþuandþinwerandþinesunacumaðtome,”andnuiconcneowþæthesylfaishælendeCrist.Witodlicehe70woldeunderswilcumhiwewundorlicrewæfer-syneþurhþoneheortætywanþætþuþyswiþorwundriehismihtaandonhinegelyfe.Utonnufaranonþisse4nihteandbegitanusþæthaligefulluht[171v]cristenramannaþurhþætsoðlicebeoðhisagenneþaðeonhinegelyfað.’ÞacwæðPlacidastohire;‘Þætylcemesædeseþeicgeseah.’75

Þasoðlicetomiddrenihtehiferdonswaheoramennystontocristenramannasacerdaandrehtonhimealleþincgþehimætywdewæronandþæthiongodgelyfdonandhalsodonhineþæthehigefullode.Sebisceopwæsðamidmicelreblissegefylledandwuldrodegod,seþewileþæteallemennhalebeonandtosoft-fæstnyssewegebecumað,andhehiþagecristnodeandtæhtehiþa80gerynaþashalgangeleafanandgefullodehionnamanfæderandsunuandþæshalgangastes.AndnemdePlacidamEustachiumandhiswifTheophistimandhisannesunaAgapitumandoþerneTheofistum,andsealdehiþæthaligegerynecristeslic-hamanandblodesandforlethiþuscwæþende;‘DrihtenhælendeCristþæslifigendangodessunu[172r]symideowandforgifeeowþaecanrica.Soðlice85iconcnaweþætgodesbletsungismideowbrucaðgegodesneorxne-wongesandgemunaðminIohannisicbiddeeow.’

Þasoþliceeftonærnemergen,genamEustachiusfeawageferanandferdetoðærestoweþærheærþagesyhðegeseahandtosendehisgeferanswilceforhuntoðesintingan,andheanabelafandnealæhtetoþærestoweandgeseahþa90ylcangesihðeþeheærgeseah,andfeolniþeronhisansyneandcwæð;‘Ichalsige

4Laterhandadds–retoþisse.

þedrihten,andiconcnaweþætþuearthælendCrist,þæslifigendangodessunu,andnuichidercomandbiddeþineuntodæledlicangodcundnysseþætþumegeswuteligeþætþumeærbehete.’Ðacwæðsehælendtohim;‘Eadigþueartþeonfengeþoneþwealminregifeandþegegyredestmidundeadlicnysse,andnuþu95oferswiðdestdeofolandfortrædeþoneþeþebeswac,andnuðuunscryddestþeþonebrosnigendlicanmann,andþegescryddestþoneunbrosnigendlican,seþurh-wunaðaonworulde.Nubeoðgeswutelodeþaweorcþinesgeleafananddeoflesandabiðastyredwiðþinforðanþuhineforlæteandefestþætheælcyfeldoymbutanþe.Þegedafenaþsoðlicefelaaræfnianþætþuonfowuldor-beah.100Efneþuwærenuoðþisup-ahafenonþisseworuldeæhtumandhwilwendumweorcum,nugedafnaðþeþætþubeogeeaðmetofþireheanidelnysseþætþueftbeoupahafenongastlicumwelum,neateorigeþinmægenneðunebeseohtoþinumærranwuldre,aceallswaþugewilnodestþætþumannumgelicodostþurhþinsige-fæstgefeoht,andþamdeadlicancynincgeswaþeeacgedafenaðto105efestenneþætþumeþamundeadlicancynincgeþinetrywagehealde,andonþissumtidumbeongecostnodþurhþrowungaandgeswincswaminseleofaðeowIobanddeoflesoferswiðendþurhgeþyld.Warnahuruþætnanwyrgungandceorungastigeonþinumgeþohte.Soðliceþonneþubistgeeaðmodadiccumetoðeandgelædeþeefttoþinumagenumwuldreandwurðscipe.’110 ÞaæfterþyssespræceastahcristtoheofonumandcwæðtoEu[172v]stachio;‘Hwæðerisðeleofreþeðunuonfoþacostnungaþenearþinumende.’ÞacwæðEustachius;‘Ichalsigedríhtenhælend,butonhitunaræfnedlicsytoofercumenneþaþingþeussyndframðeforestihtode,lætusnuonfonþacostnungeandsyleusgeðyldtoaræfnigenneþylæsseawyrgedafeondastyrige115þætweænigþingcwæþanandgeþencanongenþinnewillan.’Drihtenhimtocweað;‘Eustachiwinnongen.Soðlicemingifuismideowandgehylteowresawla.’ Eustachiusgewendeþahamandarehtehiswifeeallþæthimframdrihtnegesædwæsandhibigdonheoracneowaandbædongodcweðende;‘Drihten120hælendbeohitswaþinwyllasy.’Þagelamphitæfterfeawumdagumþæthishiredwæsgestandenmidcwylmendreadleandwærondeadaægðergehisþeowasgeþeowena.ÞaongeatEustachiuaþætseoforesædecostnunghimðaætwæsandþancfullicehiunder-feng,andbædhiswifþætheoneateoredenetosarigwære.Þaeftæfterlytlanfæcewurdonhishorsealleandælcescynnes125nytenadeadeandheþacostnungalustliceunderfenganddihlicemidhiswifeandmidhistwamsunumaweggewat.Þaþætongeatonyfelemenþæthiswabereafodewæronþaferdonhitoandnamonheoragoldandseolforandeallþætþærwæsandswaeallheoraæhtalosodonþurhdeoflessearwa. Onþamdagumgelampþæteallfolcwurþodonsymbelnyssemidþam130casereþurhþonesigeþeheonPersiaðeoda[173r]gefeaht.WashiteacþeawþætPlacidasonþæresymbelnyssefyrmestbeonsceolde,forðamhewæsþæracempenalareowandealdorman.Þawæshesoht,andhinenanmanfindanmihte.Þawundrodoneallemenþætonswalytlanfæcehinenanmanfindanmihtenenanþingþæshimtobelampandsecasereandeallehisþægnaswæron135swiðesarieforhisfæredlicanaweg-gewitennysse.Þacwæðhiswiftohim;‘Hulangewunigeweher?Utannimanuncretwacildandfaranheonanelleswebeoðtohospeandedwiteeallumþeuscunnon.’Þaonnihtgenamon[hy]5heora

5Alaterhandinsertshyhere.

twaegensunaandferdontoEgyptalande.Soðliceæfterþamþehiferdontwegendagas,þacomonhitosæandþærgemettonscipstandanandhionþæteodon140andmidhimreowan.ÞageseahþæsscypeshlafordþætEustachieswifswiðefægerwæs,þagewilnodehehihabbanandgyrndeþæsscyp-tolles,acðahinanþincgnæfdontosyllanne.Þagyrndeheþæswifesforþamtolle.ÞaEustachiusþætagetþanoldehehialætanþabicnodesescip-hlafordtohismannumþæthihineutsceoldonwurpan.ÞaEustachiusongætheorasarwa,þaletheþætwif145andgenamhistwacildandeodegeomrigendeandcweðende;‘Wameandeowforþameowermodorisælfremedumweregeseald.’

Eodeþaswaheofendeoðþæthebecomtosumumflodeandnedorsteðaforðæsflodesmycelnyssemidþamtwamcildumingan,acbærþætancildærestandsette[173v]onoðrehealfeþæsstaðes,andeodeongeanfeccanþætoþer.Þa150heðawæstomiddeswætres,þageseahheþætanleogenamþætcildandgewendetowudamidheðawæsgeortruwodþæscildesandgehwearfgeðyldelicehopiendeþæsoðresacþaheðyderweardwæsgeseahheþætanwulfgenamþæt.Þatærhehisloccasheofendeandwoldehinesylfneadrencanonþamwætre,achineseouplicear-fæstnyssgestaþelodemidgeþyldeþætheþæt155nedyde.Seoleosoðliceheoldþætcildungederodæftergodesgestihtunge.Þahyrdasðæslands,geseondeþætseleoþætcildswacucubœræfterurnonandhitahreddon,andeallswaþayrðlingasahreddonþætoðercildætþamwulfe.Witodlicegeðahyrdasgeðayrðlingaswæronofanrescireandhiþacildafeddanmidhim.160

Eustachiussoðliceheorafæderwendeþæthiframþamwildeorumabitenewæroneodeþaheofendeandcwæðende;‘Walawahuicnugreowswaþættreowþemidwæstmumbiðfægregefrætwod,andeomnuswaþættwigþætbiðacorfenofþamtreoweandaworpenonmicclumystum,andeg-hwanongecnissed.Walaonhumicelregenihtsumnysseichwilumwæsandeomnu165bereafodswaanhæft-nydlincg.Iuicwæscempenalareowandmidmycclumwereymbsealdnuiceomanaforlætennefurþumminebearnicnæbbe.Acþudrihtenneforlætmeneminetearesnefor-seoh.Icgemanleofdrihtenþætþucwædeþæticsceoldegecos[t]nodbeoneallswaIob,aconsumumþingummareicþolige[174r]þonnehe.Hesoðliceþehhimælitalosodonswaþeahhimwæshis170myxenforlætenþætheþær-uppansittanmihte.Icsoþliceonælþeodignesseanxsumnysseþrowige.Hehæfdefryndþæthinefrefrodonandhimefensargodon.Icsoðliceonþiswestenehæbbewildedeor,þeminebearnmebenaman.Hehæfdehiswifmidhimþehinearetteþeahhehisbearnaþolode.Icwitodliceæghwananeeomungesæligbutonwestmenefurðumanspearcamines175cynrenesnismeforlætan,aceomgelicþambogumþeonwesteneæghwananemidystumslægene[synt].6Drihtenleof,neonscunigeðuþinesþeowesmænigfealdanword.Icsorgiesoðliceþæticmaspræceþonnehitgedafnað.Setedrihtenheord-rædeneminummuðeþætminheorteneabugetoyflumwordum,þilæsþeicbeoaworpenframþincansyne.Drihtenleof,sylemenurestemire180mænig-fealdangedrefednysse.’AndmidþisumwordumheeodewependeonþonetunþehatteDadissusandþærwunodeandbegethimbiglyfnemidhisweorceþaæftermicelretidebædheþæs[tuneshlafordas]7þæthemostehealdanheoraæcerasandhimmedeearnianandheðærdrohtnodefiftynegear.6Asecondhandsuppliessynt.7Thereisanerasureandspaceleftatthispoint.Aneleventh-centuryhandsuppliestuneshlaford–inthemargin,whichhasbeentrimmedtocutthefinal‘d’inhalf.

Hissunaþonnewæronafeddeonoþrantuneandheoranaðornysteþæt185hiwærongebroðra.Witodlicesehæþenascip-hlaford,seðegenamEustachiuswif,gelæddehitohiseardeandgodesgifehigescyldeþæthehinegewemdeþahwileþeheomidhim[174v]wæsealswaheotogodewilnode,andsiððanhedeadwæsheowæshisyrfe-numa. Æfterþissumwæsge-wordenmicelhergungonþamlandeþeEustachius190æronwæs,andhifelaðæraRomaniscralandaawestan.Þawæssecasereþearlegeancsumodforþærehergunge,andgemundeþaPlacidam,andswiþegeomrodeforhisfærlicanawæggewitennysse.Gesomnodeþahisfyrdealletohimandgeornliceaxodebehimandbebeadþætmanforansceoldeswawideswahisanwealdwæreandhinegeornliceaxian,andheeacbehetþamþehinefunden195micelnewurðscipeandfremfulnesse.Þaferdonsoðlicetwegencempan,þawærongenemdeAntiocliusandAchaius,þaærwæronunderEustachiushandaandþurhferdonealleþalandþeintoRomehyrdon,oððæthicomonþærhewunode.

Eustachiusþasoðlicefeorranhibehealdendebeheoragewunelicangauge200higecneowandgedrefedonhismodehegebædhineandcwæð;‘Drihtenuregod,þuðegenerastofælcumgeswinceþaþeonþegehihtað,gefultumameþæticmoteþineþeoweneminegemeccangitgeseon,swaicnuþasgehændegeseoþemehwilonþenedon.Witodliceicwatþætminebeamforminumsynnumframwil-deorumabitenesynd.Forgifmedrihtenþætichuruonæristesdægehi205geseonmote.’Himþaðussprecendumcomstefnufanetohimcwæðende;‘GetrywEustachi,soðliceonþisseandweardantideþugehwyrfsttoþinumþamærranwurð[fol.175r.]scipe,andþuonfehstgeþinwifgeþinecild.Witodliceonþæreæristeþugesihstmicelremærranþincgandþuonfehstþaraecragodagelustfullungaandþinnamabiðecelicegemærsod.’210 Eustachiusþaðisgehyrendemidmycelrefyrhtogeslegenwæsþæthegestandannemihteacgesæt.Arasðaeftuppandlocodewiððæswegesandgeseahþatþamenuwæronwiðhisweardandhehiwelgecneowachinecneowanhine.Þacwædonhitohim;‘Halwæsðubroðor.’Hehimoncwceð;‘Sybsymideowbroðra.’Ðacwædonhieft;‘Sægeuslaleofhwæðerðuherwite215ænigneælþeodigneþehattePlacidasmidhiswifeandhistwamsunum.Soþlicegifðuhineusgecyþestweþewillaðsyllangodemede.’Þacwæðhe;‘Forhwilcumþingumsecegehine?’Hicwædon;‘Hewæsusswyðeleoffreond,nuwoldehinegeseon,gifwehinegeaxianmihtonæfterswafelagearum.’Ðacwæðhe;‘Natichernanneswilcnewer.Soðliceicsylfeomælþeodig.’220

Eustachiusþagelæddehiintohisgesthuse,andut-gangendebohtehimwinandhimscencteforheoramicclangeswince.Þacwæðhetoþamhus-hlaforde;‘Þasmensyndmecuðeandhiforþicomontome.Gifmenumettasandwinandichitþegildeeftofminebyre.’AndhehimþaglædlicetiþodeandheðaEustachiushimþenode,andgemundehuhihimærþenodeandnemihte225forberanþætheneweope,aceodeutandþwohhiseaganandcomeftinnandþencdehim.Hiþageornlicehinebe[175v]heoldonandhinebedæleoncneowan,andcwædon;‘Gelicisþæsmanþammennþewitsecað,eaðehehitmihtebeon.’Ðacwæðseoðer;‘Icwatþæthehæfdeanedolh-swaðeonhishneccanþæthimgelampiuongefeohte.Gymanwenuhwæfterheþættacenþærewundehæbbe.’230Þahiþahinegeornlicebeheoldonþagesawonhiþadolhswaðeonhimandhisonahinebeclyptonandcystanandweopenforblisse,andaxodonhinehwæðerhehitwæreþeheoracempenalareowgeowæs.Heþaoðsocþæthehitnaere,hi

þaongenhinegecnæwnegedydonbeþamtacneþeonhishneccanwæsþæthehitwæsandhineaxodonbehiswifeandhiscildanhwæthigeferdon.Heþa235cwæðþæthehitwæsandþathiswifandhiscilddeadewæron.

Ðasonawearðþiscuðeallumonþamlandeandhiþidercomonmidmycelrewundrungeandþamennþehimæfterferdonrehtonþammannumeallumbehisærranwuldreþahiþusgehyrdonþaweoponhieallecwæðende;‘Ealaþætswamycelhealicnysswilcesweresusþeowode.’Ðacempanþacyðdon240himþæscaseresbebod,andscryddonhinemidþambetstanreafeandlæddonforðmidhim,andþaland-leodehinefurðorgebrohtonandhehimidsibbeforlet.EustachiusþaonþamwegehimrehtehuhimCristætywde,andhuheoffulwihtegenemnedwæsEustachiusandeallhuhimgelampbehiswifeandhiscildum.245 Þaembefiftynedagascomonhitoðam[176r]casereandþacempanhiþaarehtoneallhimhuhihinefundonandsecasereeodeongenhineandcystehineandaxodehwiheswafeorofhiseardefaranwolde.Heðahimandeallehisduguðeendebyrdlicearehteealnehissiðandhiswifesandhiscilda.Secasereþaandeallewæronswiðebliðehisongeancymes,andhinebædonþætheeftfenge250toþamanwealdeþeheærhæfde,andheswadyde.Hetðagegaderianfyrde,þaheþafyrdesceawodeþaongetheþætðærnæsfyrodgenohongenheorafynd.Hetþaofælcrebyrigandtunumgegaderianmacempena.Þagelamphitþætmanbeadþamtun-rædeþehissunaonafeddewæronþætmansceoldetwegencempangescyrpantoþærefyrde.Þageceasmanþatwegencnihtasforþamþehi255wæroncafliceandcyrteneandælþeodigetoþærefyrdunga.Þawæseallseofyrdgegaderodbeforanhim,andhehiþagetrymedeandgesetteswahisþeawwæs.Þageseahheongemangoþrumþageongancnihtas,þæthiwæronwlitigeonhiweandlangeonwæstmum.Gesettehiþafyrmesteonhisþenungeandwearðonæledonheoralufeandæfterþamþehegefadodhæfdeeallhiswerod,swahis260þeawwæs.

Þaferdehetoþamgefeohteandgeeodeþalandþeðahæðenanætbrodonhæfdonandhiþamcasereunderþeodde.FerdeðaforðoferþætwæterþætwæsgenemnedIdispisinþainranlandþærahæðenraandhiofercomandheoraeardaweste.Þagithewilnodeþætheinnorferde.[176v]Þaðurhgodesforestihtunge265hebecomtoðamlandeþærhiswifwæshæfdehiohiregebogodonananwyrtiganhammeandwæshioswawebufansædonungederodþurhgodesgescyldnysseframþæshæðenangemanan.ÞacomEustachiusmidhisheretoþamtuneþeheoðaonwæs.Wæsseowunungþærswyþewynsumontowicenneandhisgeteldwærongehendehirewunungegeslagene.270

Ðagelamphiteacþætþatwegencnihtas,hiresuna,heomingecuronmidhyremeder,nehinistonþætheowæshiremodorneheonisteþæthiwæronhiresuna.Þaanundermælspræconhibetwuxhimþærinneembeheoracild-geogoðe,andseomodorsætgeornlicehlystendehiretale.Þacwæðseyldrabroðor;‘Þætis,þæticgefyrnostgemunanmæg,þætminfæderwæscempena275ealdor-manandminmodorswyðewlitigwæsonhiweandhihæfdontwegensunameandoþernegingran,andþaonnihtferdonhiutandgenamonuncandferdontosaeandutreowan.Þaweupcomonþanæsuremodormidusnaticforhwi.Þagenamurefæderuncandbæruswependeforðonhisweg,þabecomonwetoanreea.Þaeodeheinþætwæterandbærminegingranbroþor,280andforletme.Þacyrdeheeftongeanwoldefeccanme,þacomanwulfandgelæhteminebroðor,andærhetomecumanmihtefæringacomofðamwudaan

leoandgegrapmeandarntowuda.Andþahyrdasðeþærgehendewæronahreddan[177r]me,andicwæsðaafedonþam,tuneealswaðuwast,andicnystehwætminfædergeferdeandminbroðor.285 Þasegingrabroðorþiseallgehyrdeframþamyldranbroðor,þaarasheandgelæhtehinebeþamswuranandcysteandclypteandsæde;‘Þurhþonegod,þecristenewurðað,iceomþinbroðorbeþiretale,forþammesædonþemeafeddonþæthimeahreddanframþamwulfe.’Ðahioramodorþaswordgehyrdeþawæseallhireheorteastired,andhireinnoðandþohtehwæðerhithiresuna290wæron,forðamhecwæðþætheorafæderwærecempenaealdormanandeacþætheoramodorætðamscypeforlætanwearð. Þaðyoþredegegesohteheoþæracempenaealdormanþuscweðende;‘Icbiddeþe,leofhlaford,þætþumegelædetominumearde.IceomsoðliceRomaniscandiconhæftnydhidergelædwæs.’Þaongemangðyssumbeheold295heohineswyðegeorneandgecneowþatacnaþeonhishneccanwæron,andheoþaaforhtode,andnemihteforbæranþætheohitlengforhæle,acgefeolltohisfotumandcwæð;‘Ichalsigeþe,leofhlaford,þætþunebeogeæbylgedongenþineþeowene,acforþinrearfæstnyssegehyrmeandsegemehwætþusy.Icwene,leof,þætþusyPlacidascempenaealdorman,andwæreeftonfulluhte300genemnedEustachius,þoneeacswylcesehælendsylfwæsgemedemodþurhþoneheorttohismild-heortnyssegecigan,þætheonhinegelyfdeandheðaþurhmænigfealdecostungaþehimonbe[177v]comongenamhiswif,þæticeom,andhistwegensunaAgapitumandTheophistumandferdetoAegyptalande.Andþaðawereowanþagenamsescip-hlafordmeneadingasethim,forþamhewæs305hæðen,andhemegehæfteonhiseðle,andCristmeisgewitaþæthenenanmanmegewemdeoþþisnedæg,acCristselifigendageheoldmineclænnysse.Nuichæbbeeallþisgesædswahitgelamp,nubiddeicðeþurhþætmicclemægenuresdrihtnesþætþumesecgehweðerþuðisgecnawe.’ ÞaEustachiusþisgehyrde,þabeheoldhehiandgecneowhibehyrewlite310andformicelreblisseweopandhicysteandgodeþancodesegefrefraðealleþaþeonhinegetrywaðandofealreangsumnyssegenerað.Þacwæðheotohim;‘Hlaford,hwærsynduncresuna?’Heandswarode;‘Wildeorhigelæhton,’andheðaarehtehirehuhigenumenewæron.Þacwæðheo;‘UtondonCristeþancungicgelyfewitodlice,þætealswagoduncgeuþeþætwituncgemettonþætheealswa315forgifeþætwituncrebearnonenawen.’ÐacwæðEustachius;‘Andnesædeicþætwildedeorhigelæhton?’Ðacwæðheo;‘Gyrstandægicsætbinnanminancafertuneþagehyrdeichutwegengeongacnihtasspræconhimbetwuxbeheoracild-geogoðe.Nuwatictosoþanþæthisynduncrebearn.Nehisylfenystonþæthiwærongebroþrabutonþurhþareccingeþeseyldrabroþorrehteþamgingran320ongit.Nuhumicelisgodesmildheortnysseþehimforgeafþæthihigecnawanmostonþathigebroðrasynd.’ÐahetEustachiushitohimclypianandaxodehwæthi[178r]wæron,andhihimsonaarehtoneallswaweherbufansædon,andheþagecneowþæthihissunawæronandhitohimgenamandclypteandcyste,andhiðaealleheoracneowagebigdontoCriste,andmidwopeand325onbryrdnysseþancungedydonframþæreoþretideþæsdegesoþþesixtantideforheoragemetinge. Þasoðliceasprangsehlisageondealneþonehired,andhieallegegaderewundrodonandblissodonforheoragemetinge,andmiccleþebliðranþehioferwinnenhæfdonþahæþenan.Ðaþyoðrandægedydonhiþamæstan330gebeorscypeandgodeþancodehismicclanmild-heortnysse.Þaæfterþamþehi

gewyldhæfdoneallheorafeondalandandhimidmicclumsigehamhwurfonandlæddonmidhimmicelehere-huþeandmanigehaeft-nydlingas. ÞagelamphitþætsecasereTraianuswæsforðfarenærþamEustachiusofþamgefeolitecome,andwæsgesætoþercyningAdrianushattesewæshæþen335andwyrsaonwel-hreownysse.ÞaEustachiusongencomofþamgefeohteþaeodesecaserehimongean,swahitþeawismidRomanum,andmersodemicelesymbelnysseforþamsigeþehegeworhthæfde,andaxodehineembeþætgefeohtandembehiswifandhissuna,huhehigeaxode.Þaðyoþrandægeferdesecaseretoþamtempleþæradeofol-gildaandEustachiusnoldein-ganmidhim,340acstodþær-ute.Þaclypodesecaserehineandaxodehwihenoldeoffrianþamgodumforhissigeandswiþostforþamþehiswifandhiscildfundenhæfde. Ðacwæðhe;‘Icwurþigeandgebiddeminnedrihten,hælendne[178v]Cristandhimunablinnendlicebenaoffrige,seþegemiltsodemireeaðmodnysseandmegeleddeofhæft-nydeandminwifmeforgeafandminecild.Naticwitodlice345nanneoþernegodnenawurðigebutonþoneheofonlicangod,seðeeallegesceaftagesceop,geþaheofonlicangeþaeorðlican,andfelawundrawyrcð.’ Þawearðsecaseremidmicelrehat-heortnyssegefylled,andhethineungyrdanandbewæpnian,andbeforanhisansyneætstandanmidhiswifeandhiscildumswilceofergægendnehishlafordesbebod,andheswaðeahnatoþæs350hwonframhisgeleafanandþamsoðangodegecyrranwolde.ÞageseahsecasereþæthehineþurhnanðingawendannemihteframCristesgeleafan,hetðahinegelædanmidhiswifeandhiscildumintoanumeorð-huseandhetanestrangeleolætanintohimþæthiohiabitansceolde.ÞaarnseoleoandgestodwiðþoneeadiganwerEustachiumandaleatmidþamheafde,andfeolltohisfotumand355geeaðmeddehitohimandaraseftandeodeofþamhuse.Eornostlicesecaseregeseahþaswundorlicanwæfer-syne,þætseleoheoraneoðhran.Þahethegefeccanænneærenneoxanandþoneonælanandþahalganðærondon.Þacomþiderunrimfolcescristenraandhæðenratoþissewæfer-syneþæthiwoldongeseonhuþahalganþrowodon.360

ÞabædEustachiusþæthihimfyrstletonþæthihimtogodegebædonhiþaaþenedonupheorahandatogodecweðende;‘Drihtengod,eallragesceaftascyppendgesewenlicraandungesewenlicra,þuþeeallumeartungesewenlic[179r]onþinummægen-þrymme,framussoðliceþuwæregesewenswaþinwillawæsgehyrusnuleofdrihtentoþegebiddende.Efnenuuregewilnungisgefylled365þætwetogæderecumanmostonandgeearniantoonfoneþonegemananþarahaligra,swaðaðrycnihtas,þeþurhfyrafandodewæronandswaþeahþenewiðsocon.Lætusnudrihtenþurhþisfyrgeendian,andseleðammedeonheofenumþineswuldresmidusþamðeoneorðanuregemyndigbeoandsylehimgenihtsumnysseofereorðan,andgifhionsæoððeonlandegefrecnode370beon,andhiðegeciganþurhurnenamanbeonhyalysedeframælcerefrecednysseandgifhionsynnumbefeallan,andhiþeþonnehalsianþurhureeadmodnysseforgifhim,drihten,forgifnysseheorasynne,andeallumþeuregemynddonandþewuldrianforgifhimfultumandheoragehelp,forgifdrihtenþætþysesfyreshætosygecyrredonwætnedeawandlætusonþisumgeendian375andgelicieþeonurumlic-hamanþæthinebeontotwæmedeaclæthibeonherætgæderegelede.’ Þahiþissædon,þacomstefnofheofonumþuscweþende;‘Swahitbiðswagebiddaðandmicclemaforþamgewæronwinnendeongodanlifeandgewæronforþyldiendemænigfealdecos[t]nunga,andswaþeahnæronoferswiþde.380

Cumaðnuonsybbeandonfoðwuldor-beaheowressiges,andforþissumhwilwendlicumyflumbrucaðþæraeceragodaonworuldaworuld.’Ðaþisgehyrdon,þaeadiganhalganþasealdonhihisylfeþamfyre,andþærrihteseohætoþæsfyresacolode,andhiþawul[179v]drodonþaanwaldanandhergendlicanþrynysse,andsungongodeslofsang,andheorasawlaonsibbeCristeageafon,385andþætfyrheoraneæthrannefurþumanhærheoraheafdes.

Witodliceæfterþrimdagumcomsearleasacaseretoþærestoweandhetgeopenianþoneærenanseare-cræftþæthegesawetohwamþarahaligralic-hamangewordenewæron.Þageseahhehigesundeþawendeheþæthiðagitlyfdonandhethiðawurpanutonðaeorðan.Þawundrodonealleþaþeþær390wæronþætþætfyrneæthranfurðonaneshæresonhimacheoralic-hamanwæronhwittranþonnesnaw.Þawæssecasereafyrhtandþanonferdetohishealleandseomenioþeþærætstodclypodon;‘MycelandmæreissegodcristenramannaandansoðgodhælendeCrist,andnisnanoþerbutonhimsegedydeþætfyrnefornamneanhærheorafeaxes.’Andþacristenannamon395heoralic-hamandigliceandbebyrgdon,andgetimbrodongebæd-hussiððanseoehtnysgestilledwæsandmærsodonheoragemyndonþamdægekal.Nouembris.Ðisisþætlifþæraeadigramartyraandherisseogeendungheorawuldorfullangewinnes.Witodliceealleþaðegeearniaðandmærsiaðheoragemyndandhigecigaðtofultume,hibegitaðþagodþeþamhalgumbehatene400syndþurhðagifeuresdrihtneshælendesCristes.Ðamsywuldorandmihtonworuldaworuldaonecnysse.AMEN.

Bibliography

ManuscriptsConsultedCambridge,CorpusChristiCollege,9,viahttps://parker.stanford.edu/parker/Cambridge,CorpusChristiCollege,198,viahttps://parker.stanford.edu/parker/London,BritishLibrary,CottonCaligulaA.xv,via

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/London,BritishLibrary,CottonCleopatraA.iii,via

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/London,BritishLibrary,CottonJuliusE.vii,viahttp://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/London,BritishLibrary,CottonTiberiusA.iii,via:

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Oxford,BodleianLibrary,Bodley354Oxford,BodleianLibrary,Junius85+86(S.C.5196–7)Princeton,N.J.,PrincetonUniversityLibrary,W.H.ScheideCollection,71,via

http://pudl.princeton.edu/DictionariesandDatabasesConsultedDictionaryofMedievalLatinfromBritishSources(2015©BrepolsPublishersNV

http://www.brepolis.net).DictionaryofOldEnglish:AtoIonline,ed.AngusCameron,AshleyCrandellAmos,

AntonettediPaoloHealeyetal.(Toronto:DictionaryofOldEnglishProject,2018),accessedfromApril2016–February2020.

DictionaryofOldEnglishWebCorpus,compiledbyAntonettediPaoloHealeywith

JohnPriceWilkinandXinXiang.(Toronto:DictionaryofOldEnglishProject2009),accessedfromApril2016–February2020.

FontesAnglo-SaxoniciProject,ed.,FontesAnglo-Saxonici:WorldWideWeb

Register,http://fontes.english.ox.ac.uk/,accessedfromApril2016–June2017.

Lewis,C.T,andC.Short,ed.,ALatinDictionaryFoundedonAndrews'Editionof

Freund'sLatinDictionary(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1880).

AThesaurusofOldEnglish,ed.JaneRobertsandChristianKaywithLynneGrundy(Glasgow:UniversityofGlasgow,2017),accessedfromApril2016–February2020.http://oldenglishthesaurus.arts.gla.ac.uk/.

WorksConsultedAbbetmeyer,Charles,OldEnglishPoeticalMotivesDerivedfromtheDoctrineof

Sin(Minneapolis:H.W.WilsonCompany,1903).Abdou,Angela,‘SpeechandPowerinOldEnglishConversionNarratives’,

Florilegium17(2000),195–212.Abels,Richard,LordshipandMilitaryObligationinAnglo-SaxonEngland(London:

BritishMuseumPublications,1988).———‘KingAlfred’sPeace-MakingStrategieswiththeVikings’,HaskinsSociety

Journal3(1991),23–34.———‘‘Cowardice’andDutyinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,JournalofMedieval

History4(2006),29–49.Abram,Christopher,‘InSearchofLostTime:AldhelmandTheRuin’,Quaestio

Insularis1(2000),25–49.Abrams,Lesley,‘TheAnglo-SaxonsandtheChristianizationofScandinavia’,ASE

24(1995),213–49.Adriaen,Marcus,ed.,S.GregoriiMagni:HomiliaeinHiezechihelemprophetam,

CCSL162(Turnhout:Brepols,1971).———ed.,S.GregoriiMagni:MoraliainIob,libriXXIII–XXXV,CCSL143b

(Turnhout:Brepols,1985).Alexander,Michael,OldEnglishLiterature(London;Basingstoke:Macmillan,

1983).Albertson,Clinton,Anglo-SaxonSaintsandHeroes(Bronx:FordhamUniversity

Press,1967).Anderson,AlanOrr,andMarjorieOgilvieAnderson,ed.andtrans.,Adomnan’s

LifeofSaintColumba(London:ThomasNelsonandSons,1961).Anderson,EarlR.,‘TheUncarpenteredWorldofOldEnglishPoetry’,ASE20

(1991),65–80.Appleton,Helen,‘ThePsalterintheProseLivesofStGuthlac’,inGermano–

Celtica:AFestschriftforBrianTaylor,ed.AndersAhlquistandPamelaO’Neill(Sydney:TheUniversityofSydney2017),pp.61–86.

Appleton,Helen,andMatthewRobinson,‘FurtherEchoesofVergil’sAeneidinFelix’sVitaSanctiGuthlaci’,NotesandQueries64:3(2017),353–55.

Aronstam,RobinAnn,‘TheBlicklingHomilies:AReflectionofPopularAnglo-

SaxonBelief’,inLaw,Church,andSociety:EssaysinHonorofStephanKuttner,ed.KennethPenningtonandRobertSomerville(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1977),pp.271–77.

Atherton,Mark,‘TheFigureoftheArcherinBeowulfandtheAnglo-Saxon

Psalter’,Neophilologus77(1993),653–57.Bacola,Meredith,‘VacuasinAurasRecessit?ReconsideringtheRelevanceof

EmbeddedHeroicMaterialintheGuthlacNarrative’,inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.72–85.

Baker,Peter,ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:ACollaborativeEdition,volume8MS

F(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2000).Baker,PeterandMichaelLapidge,ed.,Byrhtferth'sEnchiridion(Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress,1995).Bassi,Roberta,‘StOswaldinEarlyEnglishChroniclesandNarratives’,in

HagiographyinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.Lazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca,pp.535–55.

Batalova,Stilyana,‘TheTraditionofStEustatiusPlacidasinLatin’,Scripta2

(2005),327–53.Bately,Janet,ed.,TheOldEnglishOrosius,EETSs.s.6(London:OxfordUniversity

Press,1980).———ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:ACollaborativeEdition,volume3MSA

(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1986).Battles,Paul,‘‘ContendingThrong’ScenesandtheComitatusIdealinOldEnglish

Poetry,withSpecialAttentiontoTheBattleofMaldon122a’,StudiaNeophilologica,83:1(2011),41–53.

———‘DyingforaDrink:‘SleepingaftertheFeast’ScenesinBeowulf,Andreas,

andtheOldEnglishPoeticTradition’,ModernPhilology112:3(2015),435–57.

Baumler,Ellen,‘AndrewintheCityoftheCannibals:AComparativeStudyofthe

Latin,Greek,andOldEnglishTexts’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofKansas,1985).

Benario,Herbert,ed.andtrans.,TacitusGermany,Germania,(Warminster:Aris

andPhilips,1999).

Bertrand,P.H.E.,andGandt,Lois,ed.,VitaeAntoniiversionesLatinae:VitabeatiAntoniiabbatisEuagriointerprete.Versiovetustissima,CCSL170(Turnhout:Brepols,2018).

Bethurum,Dorothy,ed.,TheHomiliesofWulfstan(Oxford:ClarendonPress,

1957).Biggs,Frederick,‘ThePassionofAndreas:Andreas1398–1491’,Studiesin

Philology85:4(1988),413–27.Biggs,FrederickandThomasN.Hall,‘TraditionsConcerningJamnesand

MambresinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE25(1996),69–89.Bintley,Michael,‘DemythologisingUrbanLandscapesinAndreas’,LeedsStudies

inEnglish40(2009),105–18.BjarniEinarsson,ed.,EgilsSaga(London:VikingSocietyforNorthernResearch,

UniversityCollegeLondon,2003).Bjork,Robert,TheOldEnglishVerseSaints’Lives:AStudyinDirectDiscourseand

theIconographyofStyle(Toronto;Buffalo;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,1985).

———ed.,TheCynewulfReader(London:Routledge,2001).Blair,John,Anglo-SaxonOxfordshire(Oxford:SuttonPublishing,1994).———BuildingAnglo-SaxonEngland(Princeton;Oxford:PrincetonUniversity

Press,2018).Blair,John,andRichardSharpe,ed.,PastoralCareBeforetheParish,Studiesin

theEarlyHistoryofBritain(Leicester:LeicesterUniversityPress,1992).Blake,N.F.,‘BattleofMaldon’,Neophilologus49(1965),332–45.Blatt,Franz,ed.,DielateinischeBearbeitungendeActaAndreaeetMatthiaeapud

Anthropophagos(Griessen:Töpelmann,1930).Bodden,Mary,‘EvidenceforKnowledgeofGreekinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE

17(1988),217–47.Boenig,Robert,SaintandHero:AndreasandMedievalDoctrine(London;

Toronto:AssociatedUniversityPress,1991).———TheActsofAndrewintheCountryoftheCannibals:Translationsfromthe

Greek,Latin,andOldEnglish(NewYork;London;GarlandPublishing,1991).

Bolintineanu,Alexandra,‘TheLandofMermedoniaintheOldEnglishAndreas’,Neophilolgus93(2009),149–64.

Bollandists,BibliothecaHagiographicaLatinaantiquaeetmediaeaetatis,volumes

I–II(Bruxellis:SocietyofBollandists,1898–1901).Bolton,Timothy,‘Guthlac,Waltheof,CrowlandandDouai,Bibliotheque

municipale,MS852’,inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.408–25.Bolton,W.F.,‘TheManuscriptSourceoftheOldEnglishProseLifeofStGuthlac’,

ArchivfürStudiumdasNeuerenSprachen112/197(1961),301–03.———‘TheBackgroundandMeaningofGuthlac’,JEGP61:3(1962),595–603.Bourquin,Guy,‘TheLexisandDeixisoftheHeroinOldEnglishPoetry’,inHeroes

andHeroinesinMedievalEnglishLiterature:AFestschriftPresentedtoAndréCrépinontheOccasionofhisSixty-FifthBirthday,ed.LeoCarruthers,andAndréCrépin(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1994),pp.1–18.

Brady,Lindy,‘EchoesofBritonsonaFenlandFrontierintheOldEnglish

Andreas’,ReviewofEnglishStudies61(2010),669–89.———‘ColonialDesireorPoliticalDisengagement?TheContestedLandscapeof

GuthlacA’,JEGP115:1(2016),61–78.Bredehoft,Thomas,Authors,AudiencesandOldEnglishVerse(Toronto;Buffalo:

UniversityofTorontoPress,2009).Brenner,Eduard,ed.,‘DeraltenglischeJunius-Psalter:dieInterlinear–Glosseder

HandschriftJunius27derBodleianazuOxford’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofHeidelberg,1908).

Bridges,MargaretEnid,GenericContrastinOldEnglishHagiographicalPoetry:

Anglistica22(Copenhagen:RosenkildeandBagger,1984).Bright,JamesWilson,Bright'sOldEnglishGrammarandReader,ThirdEdition,ed.

FredericCassidyandRichardRingler(NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston,1971).

Brooks,Britton,RestoringCreation:TheNaturalWorldintheAnglo-SaxonSaints'

LivesofCuthbertandGuthlac(Suffolk:BoydellandBrewer,2019).———‘Felix’sConstructionoftheEnglishFenlands:Lanscape,Authorizing

Allusion,andLexicalEcho’,inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.55–71.

Brooks,Kenneth,AndreasandtheFatesoftheApostles(Oxford:ClarendonPress,

1961).

Brooks,Nicholas,‘Arms,StatusandWarfareinLate-SaxonEngland’,inEthelredtheUnready,ed.Hill,pp.81–104.

———Anglo-SaxonMyths:StateandChurch400–1066(London:Hambledon,

2000).Brundage,James,‘Crusades,Clerics,andViolence:ReflectionsonaCanonical

Theme’,inTheExperienceofCrusading,ed.BullandHousley,pp.147–56.Budge,E.A.Wallis,trans.,TheContendingsoftheApostles:BeingtheHistoriesof

theLivesandMartyrdomsandDeathsoftheTwelveApostlesandEvangelists(London;NewYork:H.Frowde,1901),vol.II.

Bull,Marcus,NormanHousley,PeterEdbury,JonathanPhillips,JonathanRiley-

Smith,ed.,TheExperienceofCrusading(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2003),volsI–II.

Bullough,DonaldA.,‘WhathasIngeldtodowithLindisfarne?’,ASE22(1993),

93–125.———‘ANeglectedEarly-Ninth-CenturyManuscriptoftheLindisfarneVitaS.

Cuthberti’,ASE27(1998),105–37.Burton,Philip,ed.andtrans.,SulpiciusSeverus’VitaMartini(Oxford:Oxford

UniversityPress,2017).Butler,Cuthbert,WesternMysticism:TheTeachingofSSAugustine,Gregory,and

BernardonContemplationandtheContemplativeLive(London:ConstableandCo.,1922).

Calder,DanielandM.Allen,SourcesandAnaloguesofOldEnglishPoetry

(Cambridge:Brewer,1976).Cameron,Averil,andStuartG.Hall,trans.,Eusebius:LifeofConstantine(Oxford:

ClarendonPress,1999).Cameron,M.C.,‘TheVisionsofSaintAntonyandGuthlac’,inHealth,Disease,and

HealinginMedievalCulture,ed.SheilaCampbell,BertHall,andDavidKlausner(Basingstoke:Macmillan,1992),pp.152–58.

Cammarota,MariaGrazia,‘Warandthe‘AgonyofConscience’inÆlfric’s

Writings’,Mediaevalistik26(2013),87–110.Campbell,A.,ed.,ChronicleofÆthelweard(London:ThomasNelsonandSons,

1962).Capper,Morn,‘StGuthlacandthe‘Britons’:AMercianContext’,inGuthlac,ed.

RobertsandThacker,pp.180–213.

Casteen,John,‘Andreas:MermedonianCannibalismandFigurativeNarrative’,NM75(1974),74–78.

Cataldi,Claudio,‘StAndrewintheOldEnglishHomileticTradition’,in

HagiographyinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.Lazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca,pp.293–308

Cavell,Megan,‘TheBindingofReligiousHeroesinAndreasandtheHêliand’,

EnglishStudies96:5(2015),507–24.Chadbon,JohnN.,‘Oxford,BodleianLibraryMSSJunius85and86:AnEditionof

aWitnesstotheOldEnglishHomileticTradition’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofLeeds,1993).

Chadwick,Nora,‘EarlyCultureandLearninginNorthWales’,inStudiesinthe

BritishEarlyChurch,ed.NoraChadwick(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1958),pp.29–120.

Chaney,William,‘PaganismtoChristianityinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,TheHarvard

TheologicalReview53:3(1960),197–217.Chase,AlstonHurd,‘TheMetricalLivesofStMartinofToursbyPaulinusand

FortunatusandtheProseLifebySulpiciusSeverus’,HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology43(1932),51–76.

Cherniss,Michael,IngeldandChrist:HeroicConceptsandValuesinOldEnglish

ChristianPoetry(TheHague:Mouton,1972).———‘TheCrossasChrist’sWeapon:TheInfluenceofHeroicLiteraryTradition

onTheDreamoftheRood’,ASE2(1973),241–52.Chibnall,Marjorie,ed.andtrans.,TheEcclesiasticalHistoryofOrdericVitalis

(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1969–1980)volsI–VI.Chisholm,Michael,‘CrowlandinStGuthlac’sTime’,inGuthlac,ed.Robertsand

Thacker,pp.316–25.Clark,David,‘NotesontheMedievalIdealofDyingwithOne'sLord’,Notesand

Queries58:4(2011),475–84.Clark,George,‘TheTravelerRecogniseshisGoal:AThemeinAnglo-Saxon

Poetry’,JEGP64:4(1965),645–59.Clark,Stephanie,‘AMorePermanentHomeland:LandTenureinGuthlacA’,ASE

40(2011),75–102.———‘GuthlacAandtheTemptationoftheBarrow’,StudiaNeophilologica,87:1

(2015),48–72.

Clayton,Mary,‘HomiliariesandPreachinginAnglo-SaxonEngland’,Peritia4(1985),207–42.

———‘HermitsandtheContemplativeLifeinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inHolyMen

andHolyWomen,ed.Szarmach,pp.147–76.———‘ÆlfricandÆthelred’,inEssaysonAnglo-Saxon,ed.RobertsandNelson,

pp.65–88.———‘TheOldEnglishPoemGuthlacA,Line35a’,NotesandQueries257:2

(2012),155–56.Clayton,Mary,andJulietMullins,ed.andtrans.,OldEnglishLivesofSaints

(Cambridge,MA;London,U.K.:HarvardUniversityPress,2019),volsI–III.Clemoes,Peter,ed.,Ælfric'sCatholicHomilies:TheFirstSeriesText,EETSs.s.5

(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997).———‘Cynewulf’sImageoftheAscension’,inTheCynewulfReader,ed.Bjork,

pp.109–24.Cohen,Jeffery,MedievalIdentityMachines(Minneapolis;London:Universityof

MinnesotaPress,2003).Coker,Matthew,‘VoicingtheSupernaturalinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,DPhil.

Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,2019).Colgrave,Bertram,ed.,TwoLivesofSaintCuthbert:ALifebyanAnonymousMonk

ofLindisfarneandBede'sProseLife(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1940).

———ed.andtrans.,Felix’sLifeofSaintGuthlac(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,1956).———ed.andtrans.,TheEarliestLifeofGregorytheGreat(Lawrence:University

ofKansasPress,1968).Colgrave,Bertram,andRogerMynors,ed.,Bede'sEcclesiasticalHistoryofthe

EnglishPeople(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1969).Collingwood,RobinG.,andJohnN.L.Myres,RomanBritainandtheEnglish

Settlements,Secondedition(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1949).Conner,Patrick,‘SourceStudies,theOldEnglishGuthlacAandtheEnglish

BenedicitineReformation’,RevueBénédictine103:3–4(1993),380–413.———‘OnDatingCynewulf’,inTheCynewulfReader,ed.Bjork,pp.23–56.

Conti,Aidan,‘RevisingWulfstan’sAntichristintheTwelfthCentury:AStudyinMedievalTextualRe-appropriation’,LiteratureCompass4:3(2007),638–63.

Cooke,William,‘TwoNotesonBeowulf(withGlancesatVafprudnismal,Blickling

Homily16,andAndreas,lines839–846)’,MediumÆvum72:2(2003),297–301.

Corradini,Erika,‘PreachinginOldEnglish:TraditionandNewDirections’,

LiteratureCompass3:6(2006),1266–77.Coupland,Simon,‘TheRodofGod’sWrathorthePeopleofGod’sWrath?The

Carolingians'TheologyoftheVikingInvasions’,JournalofEcclesiasticalHistory42(1991),535–54.

Cowdrey,H.E.J.,‘ChristianityandtheMoralityofWarfareDuringtheFirst

Century’,inTheExperienceofCrusading,ed.BullandHousley,I:175–92.Cronan,Dennis,‘OldEnglishWaterlands’,EarlyLanguageNotes27:3(1990),6–

9.Cross,J.E.,‘OswaldandByrhtnoth:AChristianSaintandaHerowhois

Christian’,EnglishStudies46(1965),93–109.———‘TheEthicofWarinOldEnglish’,inEnglandbeforetheConquest:Studies

inPrimarySourcespresentedtoDorothyWhitelock,ed.PeterClemoesandKathleenHughes(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1971),pp.269–82.

———‘Saint-Omer202astheManuscriptSourcefortheOldEnglishTexts’,in

TwoOldEnglishApocryphaandTheirManuscriptSource.TheGospelofNichodemusandTheAvengingofTheSaviour,ed.J.E.Cross(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),pp.82–104.

Cross,J.E.,andAndrewHamer,‘Ælfric’sLettersandtheExcerptionesEcberhti’,in

AlfredtheWise:StudiesinHonourofJanetBatelyontheOccasionofherSixty-FifthBirthday,ed.JaneRobertsandJanetBatelywithMalcolmGodden(Rochester,NY;Woodbridge:D.S.Brewer,1997),pp.5–13.

———Wulfstan’sCanonLawCollection(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1999).Cubbin,G.P.,ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:ACollaborativeEdition,volume6MS

D(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1996).Cubitt,Catherine,‘PastoralCareandConciliarCanons:TheProvisionsofthe747

CouncilofClofesho’,inPastoralCareBeforetheParish,ed.BlairandSharpe,pp.193–211.

———‘SitesandSanctity:RevisitingtheCultofMurderedandMartyredAnglo-SaxonRoyalSaints’,EarlyMedievalEurope9:1(2000),53–83.

Dalbey,Marcia,‘ThemesandTechniquesintheBlicklingLentenHomilies’,inThe

OldEnglishHomily,ed.SzarmachandHuppé,pp.221–38.———‘TheGoodShepherdandSoldierofGod:OldEnglishHomiliesonSt

MartinofTours’,NM85:4(1984),422–34.Dam,Raymondvan,LeadershipandCommunityinLateAntiqueGaul(Berkeley:

UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985).Damon,JohnEdward,‘AdvisorsforPeaceintheReignofÆthelredUnræd’,in

PeaceandNegotiation:StrategiesforCoexistenceintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance,ed.DianeWolfthal(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishers,2000),pp.57–78.

———‘SanctifyingAnglo-SaxonEaldormen:LaySainthoodandtheRiseofthe

CrusadingIdeal’,inViaCrucis,ed.Hall,pp.185–209.———SoldierSaintsandHolyWarriors:WarfareandSanctityintheLiteratureof

EarlyEngland(Hampshire;Burlington,VT:Ashgate,2003).Danbury,Elizabeth,‘RichardIIandStGuthlac’inGuthlac,ed.Robertsand

Thacker,473–84.Das,SatyendraKumar,CynewulfandtheCynewulfCanon(Calcutta:Universityof

Calcutta,1942).Davidson,HildaR.Ellis,‘TheHilloftheDragon’,Folklore61:4(1950),169–85.DeGregorio,Scott,‘ÞegenlicorFlæsclic:TheOldEnglishProseLegendsofSt

Andrew’,JEGP102:4(2003),449–64.Delehaye,Hippolyte,‘LalégendedesaintEustache’,BulletinsdelaClassedes

LettresetdesSciencesMoralesetPolitiques5(1919),175–210.———TheLegendsoftheSaints,trans.DonaldAttwater(Dublin:FourCourts

Press,1998).Dendle,Peter,SatanUnbound:TheDevilinOldEnglishNarrativeLiterature

(Toronto;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,2001).———‘PainandSaintMakinginAndreas,Bede,andtheOldEnglishLivesofSt

Margaret’,inVarietiesofDevotionintheMiddleAgesandRenaissance7(2007),39–52.

———DemonPossessioninAnglo-SaxonEngland(Kalamazoo,Michigan:

MedievalInstitutePublications,2014).

Dobbie,ElliottVanKirk,ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonMinorPoems,ASPR6(NewYork:

ColumbiaUniversityPress,1942).———ed.,BeowulfandJudith,ASPR4(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,

1953).Dodds,LoringHolmes,‘AGlossaryofWulfstan’sHomilies’,PhD.Dissertation

(YaleUniversity,1907).Dombart,Bernhard,ed.,S.AureliiAugustiniepiscopiDecivitateDei,libriXXII

(Stuttgard:B.G.Teubner,1981),volsI–III.Doubleday,James,‘TheAllegoryoftheSoulasFortressinOldEnglishPoetry’,

Anglia88(1970),503–08.Downey,Sarah,‘IntertexualityintheLivesofStGuthlac’,PhD.Dissertation

(UniversityofToronto,2004).———‘TooMuchofTooLittle:GuthlacandtheTemptationofExcessive

Fasting’,Traditio63(2008),89–127.Duchesne,Louis,ed.,LeLiberPontificalis:Texte,IntroductionetCommentaire

(Paris:E.deBoccard,1995).Duggon,Lawrence,ArmsbearingandtheClergyintheHistoryandCanonLawof

WesternChristianity(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2013).Dumitrescu,Irina,‘BeowulfandAndreas:IntimateRelations’,inDatingBeowulf:

StudiesinIntimacy,ed.DanielRemeinandEricaWeaver(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2020),pp.257–78.

Dümmler,Ernsted.,EpistolaeMerowingicietKaroliniaevi,MGHEpist.4(Berlin:

Weidmann,1895).Dumville,D.,andSimonKeynes,ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:ACollaborative

Edition,volume4MSB(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1983).Earl,James,‘TypologyandIconographicStyleinEarlyMedievalHagiography’,

StudiesintheLiteraryImagination8:1(1975),15–46.———‘TheTypologicalStructureofAndreas’,inOldEnglishLiteraturein

Context:TenEssays,ed.JohnNiles(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1980),pp.66–89.

———‘ViolenceandNon-ViolenceinAnglo-SaxonEngland:Ælfric's‘Passionof

StEdmund’’,PhilologicalQuarterly78(1999),125–49.

Ehwald,Rudolf,ed.,Aldhelmioperaomnia,MGHAA15(Berlin:Weidmann,1919).

Erdmann,Carl,TheOriginsoftheIdeaofCrusade,trans.MarshallBaldwinand

WalterGoffart(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1977).Falys,Ceri,‘LateSaxonMassGrave:TheHumanBone’,inOxfordHengeandlate

SaxonMassacre:withMedievalandLaterOccupationatStJohn'sCollege,Oxford,ed.SeanWallis(Oxford:ThamesValleyArchaeologicalServices,2014),pp.41–130.

Faulkner,Amy,‘TheLanguageofWealthinOldEnglishLiterature:Fromthe

ConversiontoAlfred’,DPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,2019).Foley,JohnMiles,‘ThePoet’sSelf-InterruptioninAndreas’,inProsodyand

Poetics,ed.Toswell,pp.42–59.Fontaine,Jacques,ed.,SulpiceSévère:ViedeSaintMartin(Paris:Cerf,1967–69),

volsI–III.———ed.,Gallus:dialoguesSurLes"Vertus"deSaintMartin(Paris:Cerf,2006).Foot,Sarah,‘Anglo-SaxonMinsters:aReviewofTerminology’,inPastoralCare

BeforetheParish,ed.BlairandSharpe,pp.212–25.———MonasticLifeinAnglo-SaxonEngland,c.600–900(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,2006).Fowler,Roger,ed.,Wulfstan'sCanonsofEdgar(London:EarlyEnglishText

SocietybytheOxfordUniversityPress,1972).France,John,‘HolyWarandHolyMen:ErdmannandtheLivesoftheSaints’,in

TheExperienceofCrusading,ed.BullandHousley,I:193–208.Frank,Roberta,‘TheIdealofMenDyingwiththeirLordinTheBattleofMaldon:

AnachronismorNouvelleVague’,inPeopleandPlacesinNorthernEurope,500–1600:EssaysinHonourofPeterHayesSawyer,ed.NielsLund,PeterSawyer,andIanWood(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,1991),pp.95–106.

———‘NorthSeaSoundingsinAndreas’,inEarlyMedievalEnglishTextsand

Interpretations,ed.TreharneandRosser,pp.1–11.Frenze,Maj-Britt,‘HolyHeightsintheAnglo-SaxonImagination:Guthlac’sBeorg

andSacredDeath’,JEGP117:3(2018),315–42.Friesen,Bill,‘VisionsandRevisions:TheSourcesandAnaloguesoftheOld

EnglishAndreas’,PhD.dissertation(UniversityofToronto,2008).

———‘LegendsandLiturgyintheOldEnglishproseAndreas’,ASE43(2014),209–29.

Fulk,Robert,AHistoryofOldEnglishMeter(Philadelphia:Universityof

PennsylvaniaPress,1992).———‘Cynewulf:Canon,Dialect,andDate’,inTheCynewulfReader,ed.Bjork,

pp.3–21.———‘AnglianDialectFeaturesinOldEnglishAnonymousHomileticLiterature:

ASurvey,withPreliminaryFindings’,inStudiesintheHistoryoftheEnglishLanguageIV:EmpiricalandAnalyticalAdvancesintheStudyofEnglishLanguageChange,ed.SusanFitzmauriceandDonkaMinkova(Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,2008),81–100.

Fulk,Robert,RobertBjork,andJohnNiles,ed.,Klaeber'sBeowulfandThefightat

Finnsburg:FourthEdition(Toronto;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,2008).

Furuta,Naotoshi,‘TheDevaluationofGermanicHeroicTraditionintheOld

EnglishPoemAndreas’,inMultiplePerspectivesonEnglishPhilologyandHistoryofLinguistics:AFestschriftforShoichiWatanabeonhis80thBirthday,ed.TetsujiOdaandHiroyukiEto(Bern;Oxford:PeterLang,2010),pp.125–56.

Gaites,Judith,‘Ælfric’sLongerLifeofStMartinanditsLatinSources:AStudyin

NarrativeTechnique’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish13(1982),23–41.Gale,David,‘TheSeax’,inWeaponsandWarfareinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.

SoniaChadwickHawkes(Oxford:OxfordUniversityCommitteeforArchaeology,1989),pp.71–83.

Gameson,Richard,ed.,TheCambridgeHistoryoftheBookinBritain:VolumeI,

c.400–1100(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012).Garner,LoriAnn,‘TheOldEnglishAndreasandtheMermedonianCity-Scape’,

EssaysinMedievalStudies24(2007),53–63.Garrison,Mary,‘TheBibleandAlcuin'sInterpretationofCurrentEvents’,Peritia

16(2002),68–84.———“QuidHinielduscumChristo?”,inLatinLearningandEnglishLore:Studies

inAnglo-SaxonLiteratureforMichaelLapidge,volumesI–II,ed.KatherineO'BrienO'KeeffeandAndyOrchard(Toronto;Buffalo;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,2005),pp.238–59.

Gaster,M.,‘TheNigrodha-JãtakaandtheLifeofEustathius-Placidus’,Journalof

theRoyalAsiaticSocietyofGreatBritainandIreland26(1894),335–40.

Gatch,MiltonMcC.,PreachingandTheologyinAnglo-SaxonEngland:ÆlfricandWulfstan(Toronto;Buffalo:UniversityofTorontoPress,1977).

———‘TheUnknowableAudienceoftheBlicklingHomilies’,ASE18(1989),99–

115.Gerould,GordonHall,‘Forerunners,CongenersandDerivativesoftheEustace

Legend’,PMLA19(1904),335–440.———Saints’Legends(Boston;NewYork:RiversidePressCambridge,1916).———‘Ælfric’sLivesofStMartinofTours’,JEGP24:2(1925),206–10.Ghosh,Shami,Kings'SagasandNorwegianHistory:ProblemsandPerspectives

(Leiden;Boston:Brill,2011).Gilberto,Concetta,‘TheDescensusadInferosintheOldEnglishProseLifeofSt

GuthlacandVercelliHomilyXXIII’,inHagiographyinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.Lazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca,pp.229–53.

Gittos,Helen,‘TheAudienceforOldEnglishTexts:Ælfric,Rhetoricandthe

EdificationoftheSimple’,ASE43(2014),231–66.Gneuss,Helmut,andMichaelLapidge,Anglo-SaxonManuscripts:A

BibliographicalHandlistofManuscriptsandManuscriptFragmentsWrittenorOwnedinEnglandupto1100(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2014).

Godden,Malcolm,‘ÆlfricandtheVernacularProseTradition’,inTheOldEnglish

Homily,ed.SzarmachandHuppé,pp.99–117.———‘Ælfric’sSaints’LivesandtheProblemofMiracles’,LeedsStudiesin

English16(1985),83–100.———‘ExperimentsinGenre:TheSaints’LivesinÆlfric’sCatholicHomilies’,in

HolyMenandHolyWomen,ed.Szarmach,pp.261–87.———ed.,Ælfric'sCatholicHomilies:Introduction,CommentaryandGlossary

(Oxford;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).———‘Anglo-SaxonsontheMind’,inOldEnglishLiterature:CriticalEssays,ed.

R.Liuzza(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2002),pp.284–314.———‘Ælfric’sLibrary’,inCambridgeHistoryoftheBook,ed.Gameson,I:679–

84.Godlove,Shannon,‘BodiesasBorders:CannibalismandConversionintheOld

EnglishAndreas’,StudiesinPhilology106:2(2009),137–60.

Gonser,Paul,ed.,DasangelsächsischeProsa-Lebendeshl.Guthlac(Heidelberg:C.Winter,1909).

Goodrich,Richard,ed.andtrans.,SulpiciusServerus:TheCompleteWorks(New

York;Mahwah,NewJersey:NewmanPress,2015).Goodwin,Charles,ed.andtrans.,TheAnglo-SaxonVersionoftheLifeofStGuthlac,

HermitofCrowland(London:J.R.Smith,1848).———ed.andtrans.,TheAnglo-SaxonLegendsofStAndrewandStVeronica

(Cambridge:Deighton;Macmillan,1851).Goossens,Louis,ed.,TheOldEnglishGlossesofMS.Brussels,RoyalLibrary,1650

(Brussels:PaleisderAcademiën,1974).Green,DennisH.,TheCarolingianLord(Cambridge:UniversityPress,1965).———LanguageandHistoryintheEarlyGermanicWorld(Cambridge:

UniversityPress,1998).Gretsch,Mechthild,‘WinchesterVocabularyandStandardOldEnglish:the

VernacularinLateAnglo-SaxonEngland’,BulletinoftheJohnRylandsLibrary83:1(2001),41–87.

———ÆlfricandtheCultofSaintsinLateAnglo-SaxonEngland(Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress,2005).Griffith,Mark,‘ExtraAlliterationonStressedSyllablesinOldEnglishPoetry:

Types,UsesandEvolution’,ASE47(2020),69–176.Grocock,Christopher,andIanWood,ed.andtrans.,AbbotsofWearmouthand

Jarrow:Bede's‘Homilyi.13’onBenedictBiscop,Bede's‘HistoryoftheabbotsofWearmouthandJarrow’,theAnonymous‘LifeofCeolfrith’,Bede's‘LettertoEcgbert,BishopofYork’(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2013).

Grossi,Joseph,‘BarrowExegesis:Quotation,Chorography,andFelix’sLifeofSt

Guthlac’,Florilegium30(2013),143–65.———‘FelixandHisKings’,inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.157–79.Grosz,Oliver,‘TheIslandofExiles:ANoteonAndreas15’,ENL7:4(1970),241–

42.Gwara,Scott,HeroicIdentityintheWorldofBeowulf(Leiden;Boston:Brill,2009).Haddan,Arthur,andWilliamStubbs,ed.,CouncilsandEcclesiasticalDocuments

RelatingtoGreatBritainandIreland(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1869–78),volsI–III.

Halbrooks,John,‘Ælfric,theMaccabees,andtheProblemofChristianHeroism’,StudiesinPhilology106:3(2009),263–84.

Hall,Alaric,‘ConstructingAnglo-SaxonSanctity:Tradition,InnovationandSaint

Guthlac’,inImagesofMedievalSanctity:EssaysinHonourofGaryDickson,ed.DebraHiggsStrickland(Leiden:Brill,2007),pp.207–35.

Hall,ThomasN.,ed.,ViaCrucis:EssaysonEarlyMedievalSourcesandIdeasin

MemoryofJ.E.Cross(Morgantown:WestVirginiaUniversityPress,2002).———‘TheDevelopmentoftheCommonofSaintsintheEarlyEnglishVersions

ofPaultheDeacon’sHomiliary’,inAnglo-SaxonBooksandTheirReaders:EssaysinCelebrationofHelmutGneuss'sHandlistofAnglo-SaxonManuscripts,ed.ThomasN.HallandDonaldScragg(Kalamazoo:MedievalInstitutePublications,2008),pp.31–54.

Hamilton,David,‘TheDietandDigestionofAllegoryinAndreas’,ASE1(1972),

147–58.———‘AndreasandBeowulf:PlacingtheHero’,inAnglo-SaxonPoetry:Essaysin

AppreciationforJohnC.McGalliard,ed.LewisE.Nicholson,DoloresWarwickFrese(NotreDame;London:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1975),pp.81–98.

Hamilton,Joseph,‘ACriticalEditionoftheBlicklingHomilyonStMartinof

Tours’,PhD.Dissertation(GraduateCollegeofBowlingGreenStateUniversity,1979).

Hare,KentGregory,‘ChristianHeroismandHolyWarinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,

PhD.Dissertation(LouisianaStateUniversity,1997).Harney,EileenMarie,‘TheSexualizedandGenderedTorturesofVirginMartyrs

inMedievalEnglishLiterature’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofToronto,2008).

Harsley,Fred,ed.,Eadwine'sCanterburyPsalter(London:Trübner,1889).Healey,AntonettediPaolo,TheOldEnglishVisionofStPaul(Cambridge,Mass:

MediaevalAcademyofAmerica,1978).Hecht,Hans,HenryJohnson,andJuliusZupitza,ed.BischofsWaerferthsvon

WorcesterÜbersetzungderDialogeGregorsdesGrossenüberdasLebenunddieWunderthatenitalienischerVäterundüberdieUnsterblichkeitderSeelen(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1965).

Heffernan,Thomas,‘AnAnalysisoftheNarrativeMotifsintheLegendofSt

Eustace’,MedievaliaetHumanistica6(1975),63–89.

Helgeland,John,‘ChristiansandtheRomanArmyA.D.173–337’,ChurchHistory43:2(1974),149–63.

Herbison,Ivan,‘GenericAdaptationinAndreas’,inEssaysonAnglo-Saxon,ed.

RobertsandNelson,pp.181–211.———‘HeroismandComicSubversionintheOldEnglishJudith’,EnglishStudies

91:1(2010),1–25.Hermann,JohnP.,‘TheThemeofSpiritualWarfareintheOldEnglishJudith’,

PhilologicalQuarterly55:1(1976),1–9.———‘TheRecurrentMotifsofSpiritualWarfareinOldEnglishPoetry’,Annuale

Mediævale22(1982),7–35.———‘SomeVarietiesofPsychomachiainOldEnglishI’,TheAmerican

BenedictineReview34:1(1983),74–86.———‘SomeVarietiesofPsychomachiainOldEnglishII’,TheAmerican

BenedictineReview34:2(1983),188–222.———AllegoriesofWar:LanguageandViolenceinOldEnglishPoetry(Ann

Arbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1989).———‘BonifaceandDokkum:Terror,Repetition,Allegory’,Medievaliaet

Humanistica22(1995),1–25.Hervey,Francis,ed.,CorollaS.Eadmundi:TheGarlandofSaintEdmundKingand

Martyr(London:Murray,1907).Hewish,Juliet,‘EasternAsceticismversusWesternMonasticism:AConflictof

IdealsintheOldEnglishTranslationsoftheWorksofSulpiciusSeverus’,QuæstioInsularis4(2003),115–28.

———‘LivingontheEdge:AStudyoftheTranslationsoftheLifeofStMartinin

OldEnglish,MiddleIrish,andOldNorse-Icelandic’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityCollegeDublin,2005).

———‘SulpiciusSeverusandtheMedievalVitaMartini’,Peritia20(2008),28–

58.Hieatt,Constance,‘TheHarrowingofMermedonia:TypologicalPatternsinthe

OldEnglishAndreas’,NM77:1(1976),49–62.Hicks,Carola,ed.,EnglandintheEleventhCentury:Proceedingsofthe1990

HarlaxtonSymposium(Stanford:Watkins,1992).Higham,NickJ.,‘Guthlac’sVita,MerciaandEastAngliaintheFirstHalfofthe

EighthCentury’,inÆthelbaldandOffa:TwoEighth-CenturyKingsof

Mercia:PapersfromaConferenceHeldinManchesterin2000,ManchesterCentreforAnglo-SaxonStudies,ed.DavidHill(Oxford:Archaeopress,2005),pp.85a–90b.

———‘Constantius,StGermanusandFifth-CenturyBritain’,EarlyMedieval

Europe22:2(2014),113–37.Hill,David,ed.,EthelredtheUnready:PapersfromtheMillenaryConference,

(Oxford:BritishArchaeologicalReports,1978).Hill,Joyce,‘TheSoldierofChristinOldEnglishProseandPoetry’,LeedsStudiesin

English12(1981),57–80.———‘OntheSemanticsofOldEnglishCempaandCampian’,Neophilologus67

(1983),273–76.———‘MonasticReformandtheSecularChurch:Ælfric’sPastoralLettersin

Context’,inEnglandintheEleventhCentury,ed.Hicks,pp.103–17.———‘ÆlfricandSmaragdus’,ASE21(1992),203–37.———‘ÆlfricandWulfstan:TwoVoicesoftheMillenium’,inEssaysonAnglo-

Saxon,ed.RobertsandNelson,pp.213–35.———‘TheBenedictineReformandBeyond’,inACompaniontoAnglo-Saxon

Literature,ed.PhillipPulsianoandElaineTreharne(Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,2001),pp.151–69.

———‘TheContextofÆlfric'sSaints'Lives’,inHagiographyinAnglo-Saxon

England,ed.Lazzari,Lendinara,andDiSciacca,pp.1–28.———‘MappingtheAnglo-SaxonIntellectualLandscape:TheRisksand

RewardsofSource–Study’,inAspectsofAnglo-SaxonandMedievalEngland,ed.MichikoOgura(FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,2014),pp.49–64.

Hill,ThomasD.,‘FiguralNarrativeinAndreas’,NM70(1969),261–73.———‘DrawingtheDemon’sSting:ANoteonaTraditionalMotifinFelix’sVita

SanctiGuthlaci’,NotesandQueries23:9(1976),388–90.———‘Hebrews,IsraelitesandWickedJews:AnOnomasticCruxinAndreas

161–67’,Traditio32(1976),358–61.———‘TheMiddleWay:Idel-WuldorandEgesaintheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,

ReviewofEnglishStudies30:118(1979),182–87.———‘TheAgeofManandtheWorldintheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,JEGP80:1

(1981),13–21.

———‘TheSphragisasApotropaicSign:Andreas1334–44’,Anglia101(1983),

147–51.———‘WhenGodBlewSatanOutofHeaven:TheMotifofExsufflationinVercelli

HomilyXIXandLaterEnglishLiterature’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish16(1985),132–41.

———‘ImagoDei:Genre,Symbolism,andAnglo-SaxonHagiography’,inHoly

MenandHolyWomen,ed.Szarmach,pp.35–50.———‘ÆlfricasPedagogue’,inACompaniontoÆlfric,ed.HughMagennisand

MarySwan(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2009),pp.193–216.———‘PassioAndreaeandTheDreamoftheRood’,ASE38(2009),1–10.Hobson,Jacob,‘ExegeticalTheoryandTextualCommunitiesinLateAnglo-Saxon

England’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofCalifornia,Berkley,2017).Holder,Alfred,ed.HistoriaEcclesiasticaGentisAnglorum(Freiburg:Mohr,1882).Hollis,Stephanie,‘‘TheProtectionofGodandtheKing’:Wulfstan'sLegislationon

Widows’,inWulfstan,ed.Townend,pp.443–60.———‘Anglo-SaxonSecularLearningandtheVernacular’,Amsterdamer

BeiträgezurälterenGermanistik69:1(2012),1–43.Horváth,ÁgnesRéffy,‘SaintGuthlac,theWarriorofGodintheGuthlacPoemsof

theExeterBook’,TheAnaChronisT6(2000),1–28.Howarth,Stephan,TheKnightsTemplar(NewYork:BarnesandNoble,1982).Hurst,David,ed.,BedaeVenerabilisopera,parsII:Operaexegetica;InLucae

Evangeliumexpositio;inMarciEvangeliumexpositio,CCSL120(Turnhout:Brepols,1960).

Irvine,Susan,ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:ACollaborativeEdition,volume7

MSE(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2004).Irving,Edward,‘AReadingofAndreas:ThePoemasPoem’,ASE12(1983),215–

37.Jackson,Peter,‘Ælfricandthe‘VitaPatrum’inCatholicHomilyI.36’,inEssayson

Anglo-Saxon,ed.RobertsandNelson,pp.259–72.Jaffé,Philip,ed.,RegestapontificiumRomanorumadconditaEcclesiaadannum

postChristumnatumMCXCVIII(Göttingen:VandenhoecketRuprecht,1885).

Jansen,Annemiek,‘TheDevelopmentoftheStOswaldLegendsontheContinent’,inOswald,ed.StancliffeandCambridge,pp.230–40.

Jayajumar,Shashi,‘SomeReflectionsonthe‘ForeignPolicies’ofEdgar‘the

Peaceable’’,TheHaskinsSocietyJournal:StudiesinMedievalHistory,10(2001),17–37.

Jeffery,ElizabethJane,BlicklingSpiritualityandtheOldEnglishVernacular

Homily:ATextualAnalysis(Lewiston,N.Y:Mellen,1989).Jiang,Nancy,‘ExploringthePositiveExilicHeroinChristandSatanandGuthlac

A’,QuaestioInsularis17(2016),1–19.Johnson,David,‘TheCruxUsualisasApotropaicWeaponinAnglo-Saxon

England’,inThePlaceoftheCrossinAnglo-SaxonEngland,ed.CatherineE.Karkov,SarahLarrattKeefer,andKarenLouiseJolly(Woodbridge:Boydell,2006),pp.80–95.

———‘SpiritualCombatandtheLandofCanaaninGuthlacA’,inIntertexts:

StudiesinAnglo-SaxonCulturePresentedtoPaulE.Szarmach,ed.VirginiaBlantonandHélèneScheck(Tempe:ArizonaCenterforMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,2008),pp.306–17.

Jones,Christopher,‘EnvisioningtheCenobiumintheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,

MediaevalStudies57(1995),259–91.Jones,Graham,‘GhostlyMentor,TeacherofMysteries:Bartholomew,Guthlacand

theApostle’sCultinEarlyMedievalEngland’,inMedievalMonasticEducation,ed.GeorgeFerzocoandCarolynMuessig(London:LeicesterUniversityPress,2000),pp.136–52.

———‘GuthlacintheLandscape’,inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.353–

84.Jong,MaykeDe,InSamuel’sImage:ChildOblationinEarlyMedievalWest(Leiden;

NewYork;Köln:Brill,1996).Keen,Maurice,Chivalry(London:FolioSociety,2010).Kelemen,Erick,‘ClyppanandCyssan:TheFormulaicExpressionofReturnfrom

ExileinOldEnglishLiterature’,ELN38:3(2001),1–19.Kelly,Richard,ed.andtrans.,BlicklingHomilies:EditionandTranslation(London:

BloomsburyPublishing,2003).Kendall,Calvin,‘LiteracyandOralityinAnglo-SaxonPoetry:Horizontal

DisplacementinAndreas’,JEGP95:1(1996),1–18.

Keynes,Simon,TheDiplomasofKingÆthelred‘theUnready’978–1016(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1980).

———‘AnAbbot,anArchbishop,andtheVikingRaidsof1006–7and1009–12’,

ASE36(2007),151–220.Kilpatrick,Kelly,‘Places,LandscapesandBordersintheVitaS.Guthlaci’,in

Guthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.97–115.Kircher,Athanasius,HistoriaEustachio-Mariana(Rome:SocietateJesu,1665).Kiser,Lisa,‘AndreasandtheLifesWeg’,NM85:1(1984),65–75.Klaniczay,Gábor,HolyRulersandBlessedPrincesses:DynasticCultsinMedieval

CentralEurope,trans.ÉvaPálmai(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).

Kleist,AraonJ.,ed.,TheOldEnglishHomily:Precedent,PracticeandAppropriation

(Turnhout:Brepols,2007).Klinck,Anne,TheOldEnglishElegies:ACriticalEditionandGenreStudy

(Montreal-Kingston;London;Ithaca:McGill–Queen’sUniversityPress,1992).

Krapp,George,ed.,AndreasandTheFatesoftheApostles(Boston;NewYork;

Chicago;London:GinnandCompany,1906).———ed.,TheJuniusManuscript,ASPR1(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,

1931).———ed.,TheVercelliBook,ASPR2(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,

1932).Krapp,GeorgePhilipandElliottVanKirkDobbie,eds.,TheExeterBook,ASPR3

(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1936).Kramer,Johanna,HughMagennis,andRobinNorris,ed.,AnonymousOldEnglish

LivesofSaints(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,2020).Krautheimer,Richard,CorpusBasilicarumChristianarumRomae:leBasiliche

CristianeAntichediRoma,sec.IV–IX(VaticanCity:PontificioIstitutodiArcheologiaCristiana;NewYork:InstituteofFineArts,1937),volsI–V.

Krusch,B.,andW.Levison,ed.,Passionesvitaequesanctorumaevi

Merovingicarumcumsupplementoetappendice,MGHSRM7.1(Hanover;Leipzig:Hahnian,1919).

Kuhn,ShermanM.,ed.,TheVespasianPsalter(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichigan

Press,1965).

Kurtz,Benjamin,‘FromStAntonytoStGuthlac:AStudyinBiography’,University

ofCaliforniaPublicationsinModernPhilology12:2(1926),103–46.Lake,Stephen,‘KnowledgeoftheWritingsofJohnCassianinEarlyAnglo-Saxon

England’,ASE32(2003),27–41.Lampe,GeorgeW.H.,‘StAugustine'sTheoryofKingship’,Theology36:212

(1938),102–06.Langan,John,‘TheElementsofStAugustine'sJustWarTheory’,TheJournalof

ReligiousEthics12:1(1984),19–38.Lapidge,Michael,‘ÆthelwoldandtheVitaS.Eustachii’,Scirelitteras:Forschungen

zummittelalterlichenGeistesleben,NeueFolge,Heft99(1988),pp.255–65.———‘Tenth-CenturyAnglo-LatinVerseHagiography’,Mittellateinisches

Jahrbuch24–25(1989–90),249–60.———‘Ælfric’sSanctorale’,inHolyMenandHolyWomen,ed.Szarmach,pp.115–

29.———‘TheComparativeApproach’,inReadingOldEnglishTexts,ed.Katherine

O’BrienO’Keeffe(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),pp.20–38.

———‘TheEditionofMedievalLatinTextsintheEnglish-SpeakingWorld’,

SacrisErudiri38(1998–1999),199–220.———ed.,TheLivesofStOswaldandStEcgwine(Oxford:ClarendonPress,

2009).———‘TheSaintlyLifeinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inTheCambridgeCompanionto

OldEnglishliterature,secondedition,ed.MalcolmGoddenandMichaelLapidge(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2013),pp.251–72.

Lapidge,Michael,andMichaelHerren,trans.,Aldhelm:TheProseWorks

(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1979).Lapidge,Michael,andPeterJackson,‘TheContentsoftheCotton–Corpus

Legendary’,inHolyMenandHolyWomen,ed.Szarmach,pp.131–46.Lapidge,Michael,JohnBlair,SimonKeynes,andDonaldScragg,TheWiley-

BlackwellEncyclopediaofAnglo-SaxonEngland:SecondEdition(Chichester,WestSussex;Malden,MA:JohnWileyandSons,2014).

Lazzari,Loredana,PatriziaLendinara,andClaudiaDiSciacca,ed.,Hagiographyin

Anglo-SaxonEngland:AdoptingandAdaptingSaints'LivesintoOldEnglishProse(c.950–1150)(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishers,2014).

Lears,AdinE.,‘SoðandSense:LanguageProblemsandAffectiveSolutionsin

Anglo-SaxonTreatmentsoftheGuthlacLegend’,Viator44:3(2013),63–84.

Leclercq,Jean,andHenriRochais,ed.,‘Liberadmilitestempledelaudenovae

militiae’,inS.Bernardiopera(Rome:EditionesCistercienses,1963),III:213–39.

Lee,Alvin,TheGuest-HallofEden:FourEssaysontheDesignofOldEnglishPoetry

(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1972).Leeser,Sarah,‘OntheEdgeandintheMiddle:TheDynasticandTerritorial

ContextofStGuthlac’sEarlyCult’,inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.138–56.

Leneghan,Francis,‘TeachingtheTeachers:TheVercelliBookandtheMixedLife’,

EnglishStudies94:6(2013),627–58.———‘TheDepartureoftheHeroinaShip:TheIntertextualityofBeowulf,

CynewulfandAndreas’,SELIM,JournaloftheSpanishSocietyforMedievalEnglishLanguageandLiterature24:1(2019),105–32.

Lenihan,David,‘TheJustWarTheoryintheWorkofSaintAugustine’,

AugustinianStudies19(1988),37–70.Leo,Friedrich,ed.,VenantiHonoriClementianiFortunati,presbyteriItalici:opera

poetica,MGHAA4.1(Berlin:Weidmann,1881).Licence,Tom,‘TheCultofStGuthlacaftertheNormanConquest’,inGuthlac,ed.

RobertsandThacker,pp.385–407.Liebermann,Felix,ed.,DieGesetzederAngelsachsen(Halle:M.Niemeyer,1903–

1916),volsI–III.Lindelöf,UnoLorenz,ed.,DerLambeth-Psalter:einealtenglische

InterlinearversiondesPsaltersinderHs.427dererzbischöflichenLambethPalaceLibrary(Helsinki:DruckereiderFinnischenLitteraturgesellschaft,1909–14).

Lindsay,WallaceMartin,ed.,IsidoriHispalensisEpiscopiEtymologiarumsiue

originum,LibrosXI–XX(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1911),volsI–II.Lipp,Frances,‘GuthlacA:AnInterpretation’,MediaevalStudies33(1971),46–62.Liuzza,Roy,‘TheOldEnglishChristandGuthlac:Texts,Manuscripts,andCritics’,

TheReviewofEnglishStudies,41:161(1990),1–11.

———ed.,Anglo-SaxonPrognostics,anEditionandTranslationofTextsfromLondon,BritishLibraryMSCottonTiberiusA.iii(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2011).

Lochrie,Karma,‘Gender,SexualViolence,andthePoliticsofWarinOldEnglish

Judith’,inClassandGenderEarlyEnglishLiterature,ed.BrittonHarwoodandGillianOvering(Bloomington:Indianapolis,1994),pp.1–20.

Logeman,H.,ed.,TheRuleofS.Benet:LatinandAnglo-SaxonInterlinearVersion

(London:N.Trübner,1888).Loomis,Grant,‘FurtherSourcesofÆlfric’sSaints’Lives’,HarvardStudiesand

NotesinPhilologyandLiterature3(1931),1–9.Love,Rosalind,‘TheSourcesofFelix,VitaS.Guthlaci(L.E.2.1)’,1997,Fontes

Anglo-Saxonici:WorldWideWebRegister,<http://fontes.english.ox.ac.uk/>,accessedJune2017.

Lucas,Peter,‘Easter,theDeathofStGuthlacandtheLiturgyforHolySaturdayinFelix’sVitaandtheOldEnglishGuthlacB’,MediumÆvum61:1(1992),1–16.

Lynch,Tom,‘RitualinFelix’sLifeofStGuthlac’,inGuthlac,ed.Robertsand

Thacker,pp.86–96MacDonald,Dennis,TheActsofAndrewandtheActsofAndrewandMatthiasin

theCityoftheCannibals(Atlanta:Scholars’Press,1990).———ChristianizingHomer:TheOdyssey,Plato,andtheActsofAndrew(Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress,1994).MacGregor,James,‘TheMinistryofGeroldd’Avranches:Warrior-Saintsand

KnightlyPietyontheEveoftheFirstCrusade’,JournalofMedievalHistory29:3(2003),219–37.

———‘NegotiatingKnightlyPiety:TheCultoftheWarrior-SaintsintheWest,

1070–1200’,ChurchHistory73:2(2004),317–45.Magennis,Hugh,‘OntheSourcesofNon-ÆlfricianLivesintheOldEnglishLives

ofSaints,withReferencetotheCotton–CorpusLegendary’,NotesandQueries,32:3(1985),292–99.

———‘ANoteontheBeginningoftheOldEnglishLifeofStEustace’,Notesand

Queries,32:4(1985),437–38.———‘ContrastingFeaturesintheNon-ÆlfricianLivesintheOldEnglishLives

ofSaints’,Anglia104(1986),316–48.

———‘TheExegesisofInebriation:TreadingCarefullyinOldEnglish’,ELN23:3(1986),3–6.

———‘Water–WineMiraclesinAnglo-SaxonSaints’Lives’,ELN23:3(1986),7–

9.———‘NoSexPlease,We’reAnglo-Saxon:AttitudesofSexualityinOldEnglish

ProseandPoetry’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish26(1995),1–21.———‘ListenNowAllandUnderstand:AdaptationofHagiographicalMaterial

VernacularAudiencesintheOldEnglishLivesofStMargaret’,Speculum71:1(1996),27–42.

———ImagesofCommunityinOldEnglishPoetry(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,1996).———‘GodesÞeowandRelatedExpressionsinOldEnglish:ContextsandUsesof

aTraditionalLiteraryFigure’,Anglia116(1998),139–70.———‘ConversioninOldEnglishSaints’Lives’,inEssaysonAnglo-Saxon,ed.

RobertsandNelson,pp.287–310.———‘WarriorSaints,WarfareandtheHagiographyofÆlfricofEynsham’,

Traditio56(2001),27–51.———‘GenderandheroismintheOldEnglishJudith’,inWritingGenderand

GenreinMedievalLiterature:ApproachestoOldandMiddleEnglishTexts,ed.ElaineTreharne(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2002),pp.5–18.

———‘Ælfric’sLivesofSaintsandCottonJuliusE.vii:Adaptation,Appropriation,

andtheDisappearingBook’,inImaginingtheBook,ed.StephenKellyandJohnJ.Thompson(Turnhout,Brepols,2005),pp.99–109.

Mango,Cyril,‘DiabolusByzantinus’,inHomoByzantinus,ed.A.CutlerandS.

Franklin(WashingtonD.C.:DumbartonOaksResearchLibraryandCollection,1992),pp.215–23.

Mann,Gareth,‘TheDevelopmentofWulfstan’sAlcuinManuscript’,inWulfstan,

ed.Townend,pp.235–78.Manning,Eugène,‘LeSignificationde“militare-militia-miles”danslaRèglede

SantBenoit’,RevueBénédictine72(1962),135–38.Markus,Robert,GregorytheGreatandhisWorld(Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress,1997).———‘AugustineandGregorytheGreat’,inStAugustineandtheConversionof

England,ed.RichardGameson(Stroud:Sutton,1999),pp.41–49.

Mayr-Harting,Henry,TheComingofChristianitytoAnglo-SaxonEngland(London:B.T.Batsford,1991).

McDaniel,Rhonda,‘InterpretingtheTranslator:Ælfric,hisSources,andhis

Critics’,inTranslatioortheTransmissionofCultureintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance:ModesandMessages,ed.LauraH.Hollengreen(Turnhout:Brepols,2008),pp.55–68.

McEntire,Sandra,‘WeepinginTranslation:TheProblemofCompunction’,New

Comparison:AJournalofComparativeandGeneralLiteraryStudies12(1991),23–33.

McKinley,AllanScott,‘TheFirstTwoCenturiesofSatinMartinofTours’,Early

MedievalEurope14:2(2006),173–200.Meaney,Audrey,‘AndWeForbeodaðEornostliceÆlcneHæðenscipe:Wulfstanand

lateAnglo-SaxonandNorseHeathenism’,inWulfstan,ed.Townend,pp.461–500.

———‘Felix’sLifeofGuthlac:HistoryorHagiography?’inÆthelbaldandOffa:

TwoEighth-CenturyKingsofMercia:PapersfromaConferenceheldinManchesterin2000,ManchesterCentreforAnglo-SaxonStudies,ed.DavidHill(Oxford:Archaeopress,2005),pp.75–84.

Meens,Rob,‘ABackgroundtoAugustine’sMissiontoAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE

23(1994),5–17.Meritt,HerbertDean,ed.,TheOldEnglishPrudentiusGlossesatBoulogne-Sur-Mer

(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1959).Mertens,Andre,ed.andtrans.,TheOldEnglishLivesofStMartinofTours:Edition

andStudy(UniversitätsverlagGöttingen,2017).Michelet,Fabienne,‘EatingBodiesintheOldEnglishAndreas’,inFleshlyThings

andSpiritualMatters:StudiesontheMedievalBodyinHonourofMargaretBridges,ed.NicoleNyffeneggerandKatrinRupp(Cambridge:Scholars,2011),pp.165–92.

Migne,Jacques-Paul,PatrologiaLatinaecursuscompletus,in221volumes(Paris:

1844–65).Milfull,Inge,ed.,TheHymnsoftheAnglo-SaxonChurch:AStudyandEditionofthe

DurhamHymnal(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996).Miller,Thomas,ed.TheOldEnglishVersionofBede’sEcclesiasticalHistory,Parts

I–II(London:N.Trübner,1890).Mitchell,Stephen,‘HagiographyandtheGreatPersecutioninSebasteaand

ArmeniaMinor’,inEarlyChristianityinAsiaMinorandCyprus:Fromthe

MarginstotheMainstream,ed.StephenMitchellandPhilippPilhofer(Leiden:Brill,2019),pp.49–75.

Moilanen,Inka,‘TheConceptoftheThreeOrdersofSocietyandSocialMobility

inEleventh-CenturyEngland’,EnglishHistoricalReview553(2016),1331–52.

Mombritius,Boninus,ed.,Sanctuariumseuuitaesanctorum(Paris:Albert

Fontemoing,1910),volsI–II.Morris,Richard,ed.,TheBlicklingHomiliesoftheTenthCenturyfromtheMarquis

ofLothian’sUniquems.A.D.971(London:EETS,1880).Morris,Stephen,‘OECempainCynewulf’sJulianaandtheFigureoftheMiles

Christi’,ELN17:2(1979),81–84.Mullins,Juliet,‘TroubleattheWhiteHouse:Anglo-IrishRelationsandtheCultof

StMartin’,inAnglo-Saxon/IrishRelationsbeforetheVikings,ed.JamesGraham-CampbellandMichaelRyan(Oxford:PublishedfortheBritishAcademybyOxfordUniversityPress,2009),pp.113–28.

———‘LaplacedeSaintMartindanslemonachismeanglo-saxon’,Annalesde

Bretagne119:3(2012),55–70.Murphy,G.Ronald,TheSaxonSavior:TheGermanicTransformationoftheGospel

intheNinth-CenturyHeliand(NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1989).

———trans.,TheHeliand:TheSaxonGospel(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,

1992).Murray,J.,‘TheEustaceLegendinMedievalEngland’,BulletinoftheModern

HumanitiesResearchAssociation1(1927),35–47.Mynors,R.,R.ThomsonandM.Winterbottom,ed.Andtrans.,Gestaregum

Anglorum,ortheDeedsoftheEnglishKings(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1999).

Napier,Arthur,ed.,OldEnglishGlossesChieflyUnpublished(Oxford:Clarendon

Press,1900).———‘NotesontheBlicklingHomilies.I.StMartin’,ModernPhilology1:2

(October1903),303–08.Nelson,Janet,PoliticsandRitualinEarlyMedievalEurope(London:Hambledon

Press,1986).———‘Monks,SecularMenandMasculinity,c.900’,inMasculinityinMedieval

Europe,ed.DawnHadley(London:Longman,1999),pp.121–42.

Neufville,Jean,ed.,LaRègledeSaintBenoît(Paris:Cerf,1971–1977),volsI–VII.Nicholls,Alex,‘TheCorpusofProseSaints’LivesandHagiographicPiecesinOld

EnglishanditsManuscriptDistribution’,ReadingMedievalStudies19(1993),73–96.

Nie,Giselle,ed.,GregoryofTours:LivesandMiracles(Cambridge,MA;London:

HarvardUniversityPress,2015).Noble,Thomas,andThomasHead,eds.,SoldiersofChrist:SaintsandSaints’Lives

inLateAntiquityandtheEarlyMiddleAges(UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,1995).

Noetzel,Justin,‘Monster,Demon,Warrior:StGuthlacandtheCulturalLandscape

oftheAnglo-SaxonFens’,Comitatus45(2014),105–32.Norman,Henry,ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonVersionoftheHexameronofStBasil;or,Be

GodesSixDagaWeorcum;andtheAnglo-SaxonremainsofStBasil'sAdmonitioadfiliumspiritualem(London:JohnRussellSmith,1849).

Norris,Robin,ed.,AnonymousInterpolationsinÆlfric'sLivesofSaints

(Kalamazoo:MedievalInstitutePublications,WesternMichiganUniversity,2011),pp.1–12.

———‘ReversalofFortune,ResponseandRewardintheOldEnglishPassionof

SaintEustace’,inAnonymousInterpolations,ed.Norris,pp.97–117.North,Richard,‘MeetthePagans:ontheMisuseofBeowulfinAndreas’,inAspects

ofKnowledge:PreservingandReinventingTraditionsofLearningintheMiddleAges,ed.MarilinaCesarioandHughMagennis(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2018),pp.185–209.

North,RichardandMichaelD.Bintley,eds.,Andreas:AnEdition(Liverpool:

LiverpoolUniversityPress,2016).ÓCarragáin,Éamonn,‘Cynewulf’sEpiloguetoEleneandtheTastesoftheVercelli

Compiler:AParadigmofMeditativeReading’,inLexisandTextsinEarlyEnglish:StudiesPresentedtoJaneRoberts,ed.ChristianKay,JaneAnnetteRoberts,andLouiseSylvester(Amsterdam:Rodopi,2001),pp.186–200.

O’BrienO’Keeffe,Katherine,‘TheTextofAldhelm'sEnigmano.CinOxford,

BodleianLibrary,RawlinsonC.697’,ASE14(1985),61–73.———‘ValuesandEthicsinHeroicLiterature’,inTheCambridgeCompanionto

OldEnglishLiterature,secondedition,ed.MalcolmGoddenandMichaelLapidge(Cambridge,CambridgeUniversityPress,2013),pp.101–19.

———‘Guthlac’sCrossings’,QuaestioInsularis2(2001),1–26.

———ed.,TheAnglo-SaxonChronicle:ACollaborativeEdition,volume5MSC

(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2001).O’Neill,Patrick,ed.andtrans.,TheOldEnglishPsalms(Cambridge,MA;London,

England:HarvardUniversityPress,2016).Oess,Guido,ed.,DerAltenglischeArundel-Psalter,eineInterlinearversioninder

HS.Arundel60desBritischenMuseums(Heidelberg:1910).Ogawa,Hiroshi,‘TheRetoucherinMSSJunius85and86’,NotesandQueries41:1

(1994),6–10.———‘TheUseofOldEnglishÞaintheÆlfricianandNon-ÆlfricianLivesofSt

Martin’,Anglia114:4(1996),456–80.Olsen,Alexandra,‘GuthlacontheBeach’,Neophilologus64:2(1980),290–96.———GuthlacofCroyland:AStudyofHeroicHagiography(Washington,D.C.:

UniversityPressofAmerica,1981).———‘InversionandPoliticalPurposeintheOldEnglishJudith’,EnglishStudies

63:4(1982),289–93.———‘TheAestheticsofAndreas:TheContextsofOralTraditionandPatristic

LatinPoetry’,inDeGustibus:EssaysforAlainRenoir,ed.JohnMilesFoley(NewYork;London:Garland,1992),pp.388–410.

Olsen,Karin,‘Beggars’SaintbutnoBeggar:MartinofToursinÆlfric’sLivesof

Saints’,Neophilologus88(2004),461–75.Orchard,Andy,‘ConspicuousHeroism:Abraham,Prudentius,andtheOldEnglish

VerseGenesis’,inHeroesandHeroinesinMedievalEnglishLiterature,ed.LeoCarruthersandAndréCrépin(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1994),pp.45–58.

———PrideandProdigies:StudiesintheMonstersofthe‘Beowulf’-Manuscript

(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1995). ———‘Re-readingtheWanderer:TheValueofCross-References’,inViaCrucis,

ed.Hall,pp.1–26.———‘BothStyleandSubstance:TheCaseforCynewulf’,inAnglo-SaxonStyles,

ed.CatherineE.KarkovandGeorgeHardinBrown(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2003),pp.271–305.

———ACriticalCompaniontoBeowulf(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2003).

———‘Aldhelm’sLibrary’,inCambridgeHistoryoftheBook,ed.Gameson,I:591–605.

———‘TheLibraryofWulfstanofYork’,inCambridgeHistoryoftheBook,ed.

Gameson,I:694–700.———‘TheOriginalityofAndreas’,inOldEnglishPhilology:StudiesinHonourof

R.D.Fulk,ed.LeonardNeidorf,RafaelPascual,andT.A.Shippey(Woodbridge,Suffolk:D.S.Brewer,2016),pp.331–70.

———‘LegeFeliciter,ScribeFelicius:TheOriginalityoftheVitaS.Guthlaci’,in

Guthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.25–54.Orchard,Nicholas,ed.,LeofricMissal,HBS113and114(London:HBS,2002),vols

I–II.Parkes,Henry,‘MusicalPortraitsofStGuthlac’inGuthlac,ed.Robertsand

Thacker,pp.277–97.Peebles,Bernard,‘AMedievalLatinDevelopmentoftheEtymologyofStMartin’s

Name’,inParadosis:StudiesinMemoryofEdwinA.Quain,ed.HenryGeorgeFletcherIIIandMaryBeatriceSchulte(NewYork,NY:FordhamUniversityPress,1976),pp.189–201.

Peters,Leonard,‘TheRelationshipoftheOldEnglishAndreastoBeowulf’,PMLA

66:5(1951),844–63.Petschenig,Michael,ed.,Cassianiopera:CollationesXXIIII,CSEL13(Vienna:

Geroldus,1886).———ed.,PauliniPetricordiaequaesupersunt,CSEL16(Vienna:F.Tempsky,

1888).———ed.,Cassianiopera:Deinstitutiscoenobiorum;Deincarnationecontra

Nestorium,CSEL17(Vienna:Tempsky,1888).Pezzarossa,Lucrezia,‘TheIdeologyofWarinEarlyMedievalEngland:Three

CaseStudiesinAnglo-SaxonLiterature’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofYork,2013).

Phillips,MichaelJoseph,‘Heart,Mind,andSoulinOldEnglish:ASemanticStudy’,

PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofIlliniosatUrbana-Champaign,1985).Plummer,Charles,ed.,VenerabilisBaedaeoperahistorica(Oxford:Clarendon

Press,1896).Pollard,A.M.,P.Ditchfield,E.Piva,S.Wallis,C.Falys,andS.Ford,‘‘Sproutinglike

CockleAmongsttheWheat’:TheStBrice’sDayMassacreandtheIsotopic

AnalysisofHumanBonesfromStJohn’sCollege,Oxford’,OxfordJournalofArcheology31:1(2012),83–102.

Pons-Sanz,Sara,‘APawinEveryPie:WulfstanandtheAnglo-SaxonChronicle

Again’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish38(2007),31–52.Powell,Kathryn,‘VikingInvasionsandMarginalAnnotationsinCCCC162’,ASE

37(2008),pp.151–71.Powell,Timothy,‘The‘ThreeOrders’ofSocietyinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,ASE23

(1994),103–32.Prinz,Friedrich,‘King,Clergy,andWarattheTimeoftheCarolingians’,inSaints,

ScholarsandHeroes:StudiesinMedievalCultureinHonorofCharlesW.Jones,ed.MargotH.King,WesleyM.Stevens(Collegeville,Minn.:HillMonasticManuscriptLibrary,SaintJohn'sAbbeyandUniversity,1979),II:301–30.

Prior,AvrilLumley,‘PegelandRevisited:StPegainthePost-GuthlacFenland’,in

Guthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.326–41.Quinn,John,‘TheMinorLatin-OldEnglishGlossariesinMS.CottonCleopatraA.

III',PhD.Dissertation(StanfordUniversity,1956).Rauer,Christine,BeowulfandtheDragon:ParallelsandAnalogues(Cambridge:D.

S.Brewer,2000).———ed.andtrans.,TheOldEnglishMartyrology:Edition,Translationand

Commentary(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,2013).Reading,Amy,‘Baptism,Conversion,andSelfhoodintheOldEnglishAndreas’,

StudiesinPhilology112:1(2015),1–23Reichardt,Paul,‘GuthlacAandtheLandscapeofSpiritualPerfection’,

Neophilogus56(1974),331–38.Reinhard,Ben,‘Wulfstan’sNoblePagans’,ASE46(2017),327–42.Remley,PaulG.,‘TheLatinTextualBasisofGenesisA’,ASE17(1988),163–89.Rhijn,Carinevan,ed.,PaenitentialePseudo-Theodori,CCSL156b(Turnhout:

Brepols,2009).Rhijn,Carinevan,andMarjolijnSaan,‘CorrectingSinners,CorrectingTexts:A

ContextforthePaenitentialePseudo-Theodori’,EarlyMedievalEurope14(2006),23–40.

Riedinger,AnitaR.,‘TheFormulaicRelationshipBetweenBeowulfandAndreas’,

inHeroicPoetryintheAnglo-SaxonPeriod:StudiesinHonorofJessB.

Bessinger,Jr.,ed.HelenDamicoandJohnLeyerle(Kalamazoo:MedievalInstitutePublications,1993),pp.283–312.

Roberts,Jane,‘AnInventoryofEarlyGuthlacMaterials’,MediaevalStudies32

(1970),193–233.———TheGuthlacPoemsoftheExeterBook(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1979).———‘GuthlacA:SourcesandSourceHunting’,inMedievalEnglishStudies

PresentedtoGeorgeKane,ed.GeorgeKane,EdwardKennedy,RonaldWaldron,andJosephWittig(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1983),pp.1–18.

———‘TheOldEnglishProseTranslationofFelix’sVitaSanctiGuthlaci’,in

StudiesinEarlierOldEnglishProse:SixteenOriginalContributions,ed.PaulE.Szarmach(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1986),pp.363–79.

———‘HagiographyandLiterature:TheCaseofGuthlacofCrowland’,inMercia:

anAnglo-SaxonKingdominEurope,ed.MichelleP.BrownandCarolA.Farr(London:LeicesterUniversityPress,2001),pp.69–86.

———‘TwoReadingsintheGuthlacHomily’,inEarlyMedievalEnglishTextsand

Interpretations,ed.TreharneandRosser,pp.201–10.———‘GuthlacofCrowlandandtheSealsoftheCross’,inPlaceoftheCrossin

Anglo-SaxonEngland,ed.CatherineE.Karkov,SarahLarrattKeeferandKarenLouiseJolly(Woodbridge:Boydell,2006),pp.113–28.

———‘OnMulti-UsingMaterialsfromtheDictionaryofOldEnglishProject,with

ParticularReferencetoHapaxLegomenaintheOldEnglishTranslationofFelix’sVitaGuthlaci’,Florilegium26(2009),175–205.

———GuthlacofCrowland,aSaintforMiddleEngland(Norwich:Fursey

Pilgrims,2009).———‘GuthlaconaRoll:BL,HarleyMSY.6’,inGuthlac,ed.Robertsand

Thacker,pp.242–73.Roberts,Jane,andJanetNelson,ed.,EssaysonAnglo-SaxonandRelatedThemesin

MemoryofLynneGrundy(London:King'sCollegeLondon,CentreforLateAntiqueandMedievalStudies,2000).

Roberts,Jane,andAlanThacker,ed.,Guthlac:Crowland’sSaint(ShaunTyas,

2020).Roberts,Jane,andAlanThacker,‘IntroductiontoGuthlac’sLifeandCult’,in

Guthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.xv–xlvi.

Roberts,Michael,‘VenantiusFortunatus’sLifeofMartin’,Traditio57(2002),129–87.

Robertson,AgnesJane,ed.andtrans.,TheLawsoftheKingsofEnglandfrom

EdmundtoHenryI(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1925).Robinson,Bernard,‘TheVenerableBedeasExegete’,DownsideReview112

(1994),201–26.Robinson,Fred,‘TheSignificanceofNamesinOldEnglishLiterature’,Anglia86

(1968),14–58.———‘SomeUsesofName-MeaningsinOEPoetry’,NM69(1968),161–71.Rollason,David,‘TheCultsofMurderedRoyalSaintsinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,

ASE11(1983),1–22.———SaintsandRelicsinAnglo-SaxonEngland(Oxford:BasilBlackwell

Publishing,1989).———‘HagiographyandPoliticsinEarlyNorthumbria’,inHolyMenandHoly

Women,ed.Szarmach,pp.95–114.Root,RobertKilburn,ed.,Andreas:TheLegendofStAndrew(NewYork:Holtand

Company,1899).Rosenwein,BarbaraH.,‘StOdo’sStMartin:TheUsesofaModel’,Journalof

MedievalHistory4(1978),317–31.Rosier,JamesL.,ed.,TheVitelliusPsalter(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1962).Rowland,Jenny,‘OEEaluscerwen/MeoduscerwenandtheConceptof‘Payingfor

Mead’’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish21(1990),1–12.Rozano-García,Francisco,‘‘Hwæriswuldorþin?’TraditionalPoeticDictionand

theAlienTextintheOldEnglishAndreas’,Peritia28(2017),177–94.Russell,JamesC.,TheGermanizationofEarlyMedievalChristianity:A

SociohistoricalApproachtoReligiousTransformation(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1994).

Russell,Frederick,JustWarintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press,1975).Sauer,Hans,TheodulfiCapitulainEngland:diealtenglischenÜbersetzungen,

zusammenmitdemlateinischenText(Munich:Fink,1978).———‘LanguageandCulture:HowAnglo-SaxonGlossatorsAdoptedLatin

WordsandtheirWorld’,JournalofMedievalLatin8(2009),437–68.

Schaar,Claes,CriticalStudiesintheCynewulfGroup(Lund:Gleerup,1949).Schneider,Claude,‘Cynewulf'sDevaluationofHeroicTraditioninJuliana’,ASE7

(1978),107–18.Schröer,Arnold,ed,DieWinteney-VersionderRegulaS.Benedicti(Halle:M.

Niemeyer,1888).———ed.,DieangelsächsischenProsabearbeitungenderBenediktinerregel

(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1964).Scragg,DonaldG.,‘TheCorpusofVernacularHomiliesandProseSaintsLives

BeforeÆlfric’,ASE8(1979),223–77.———ed.,TheBattleofMaldon(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,

1981).———‘TheHomiliesoftheBlicklingManuscript’,inLearningandLiteraturein

Anglo-SaxonEngland:StudiesPresentedtoPeterClemoes,ed.MichaelLapidgeandHelmutGneuss(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),pp.299–316.

———ed.,TheVercelliHomiliesandRelatedTexts(Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press,1992).———‘TheCompilationoftheVercelliBook’,inAnglo-SaxonManuscripts:Basic

Readings,ed.MaryRichards(NewYork;London:Routledge,1994),pp.317–43.

———‘TheCorpusofAnonymousLivesandTheirManuscriptContext’,inHoly

MenandHolyWomen,ed.Szarmach,pp.209–30.———‘SourceStudy’,inReadingOldEnglishTexts,ed.KatherineO'Brien

O'Keeffe(Cambridge;NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),pp.39–55.

———‘EditingÆlfric’sCatholicHomilies’,Anglia121:4(2003),610–18.———‘ANinth-CenturyOldEnglishHomilyfromNorthumbria’,ASE45(2016),

39–49.Semple,Sarah,‘AFearofthePast:TheplaceofthePrehistoricBurialMoundin

theIdeologyofMiddleandLaterAnglo-SaxonEngland’,WorldArchaeology30:1(1998),109–26.

Seward,Desmond,TheMonksofWar:TheMilitaryOrders(London:FolioSociety,

2000).

Sharma,Manish,‘AReconsiderationoftheStructureofGuthlacA:TheExtremesofSaintliness’,JEGP101:2(2002),185–200.

Sharpe,Richard,‘PeterofBloisandAbbotHenrydeLongchamp’,inGuthlac,ed.

RobertsandThacker,pp.448–72.———‘TheTwelfth-CenturyTranslationandMiraclesofStGuthlac’,inGuthlac,

ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.485–554.Shaw,Brian,‘TranslationandTransformationinAndreas’,inProsodyandPoetics,

ed.Toswell,pp.164–79.Shippey,T.A.,OldEnglishVerse(London:Hutchinson,1972).Shook,Laurence,‘TheBurialMoundinGuthlacA’,ModernPhilology58:1(1960),

1–10.———‘ThePrologueoftheOldEnglishGuthlacA’,MediaevalStudies23(1961),

294–304.Siewers,Alfred,‘LandscapesofConversion:Guthlac’sMoundandGrendel’sMere

asExpressionsofAnglo-SaxonNationBuilding’,Viator34(2003),1–39.Sims-Williams,Patrick,‘Thought,WordandDeed:AnIrishTriad’,Ériu29(1978),

78–111.Sisam,CeliaandKennethSisam,ed.,TheSalisburyPsalter(London:Oxford

UniversityPress,1959).Skeat,Walter,ed.andtrans.,TheGospelAccordingtoSaintLuke:InAnglo-Saxon

andNorthumbrianVersions(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1874).

———ed.,TheGospelaccordingtoSaintMatthewinAnglo-Saxon,Northumbrian,

andOldMercianVersions,SynopticallyArranged,withCollationsExhibitingAlltheReadingsofAlltheMSS.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1887).

———ed.andtrans.,LivesofSaints:BeingaSetofSermonsonSaints'Days

FormerlyObservedbytheEnglishChurch(London:Trübner,1881–1900),volsI–II.

Smetana,Cyril,‘ÆlfricandtheEarlyMedievalHomiliary’,Traditio15(1959),

163–204.Smith,KatherineAllen,WarandtheMakingofMedievalMonasticCulture

(Woodbridge,BoydellPress,2011).

Snook,Ben,‘BishopsandPawns:Parallelsbetween‘Caesaropapism’andCrusadingIdeologyinTenth-CenturyEnglandandThirteenth–CenturyDenmark’,QuaestioInsularis8(2007),151–78.

———‘JustWarinAnglo-SaxonEngland:TransmissionandReception’,inWar

andPeace:CriticalIssuesinEuropeanSocietiesandLiterature800–1800,ed.AlbrechtClassenandNadiaMargolis(Berlin;Boston:DeGruyter,2011),pp.99–120.

Spannagel,Alfred,andPiusEngelbert,ed.,SmaragdiAbbatisexpositioinregulam

S.Benedicti(Siegburg:F.Schmitt,1974).Stancliffe,Clare,StMartinandhisHagiographer:HistoryandMiracleinSulpicius

Serverus(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983).———‘Oswald,‘MostHolyandMostVictoriusKingoftheNorthumbrians’,in

Oswald,ed.StancliffeandCambridge,pp.33–83.———‘WherewasOswaldKilled’,inOswald,ed.StancliffeandCambridge,pp.

84–96.Stancliffe,Clare,andEricCambridge,ed.,Oswald:NorthumbrianKingto

EuropeanSaint(Stamford:PaulWatkins,1995).Stanley,Eric,‘OldEnglishPoeticDictionandtheInterpretationofTheWanderer,

TheSeafarerandThePenitent'sPrayer’,Anglia73(1955),413–66.———,ed.,ContinuationsandBeginnings:StudiesinOldEnglishLiterature

(London:Nelson,1966).———‘Beowulf’inContinuationsandBeginnings,ed.Stanley,pp.104–41.Stenton,FrankM.,Anglo-SaxonEngland:ThirdEdition(Oxford:ClarendonPress,

1971).Stewart,Columba,CassiantheMonk(NewYork;Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,

1998).Strickland,Matthew,‘Slaughter,SlaveryorRansom:TheImpactoftheConquest

onConductinWarfare’,inEnglandintheEleventhCentury,ed.C.Hicks,pp.41–59.

Stubbs,William,ed.,SelectChartersandotherIllustrationsofEnglish

ConstitutionalHistoryfromtheEarliestTimestotheReignofEdwardtheFirst(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1921).

Swan,Mary,‘CambridgeCorpusChristiCollege198andtheBlickling

Manuscript’,LeedsStudiesinEnglish37(2006),89–96.

———‘ConstructingPreacherandAudienceinOldEnglishHomilies’,inConstructingtheMedievalSermon,ed.RogerAndersson(Turnhout:Brepols,2008),177–88.

Sweet,Henry,KingAlfred'sWest-SaxonVersionofGregory'sPastoralCare

(London:N.TrubnerandCo,1871).Szarmach,Paul,‘TheVercelliHomilies:StyleandStructure’,inTheOldEnglish

Homily,ed.SzarmachandHuppé,pp.241–63.———ed.,VercelliHomilies:IX–XXIII(Toronto;Buffalo:UniversityofToronto

Press,1981).———ed.,HolyMenandHolyWomen:OldEnglishProseSaints'LivesandTheir

Contexts(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1996).———‘ÆlfricRevises:TheLivesofMartinandtheIdeaoftheAuthor’,in

UnlockingtheWordhord:Anglo-SaxonStudiesinMemoryofEdwardB.Irving,Jr.,ed.MarkC.AmodioandKatherineO'BrienO'Keeffe(Toronto;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,2003),pp.38–61.

———‘VercelliHomilyXIVandtheHomiliaryofPaultheDeacon’,LeedsStudies

inEnglish37(2006),75–83.———‘SermonsandSaints:FromtheLateTenthtotheEleventhCentury’,inA

CompaniontoBritishLiterature:MedievalLiterature,700–1450,ed.HeesokChang,RobertDeMariaJr.,SamanthaZacher(Chichester:Wiley–BlackwellPublishling,2014),I:48–64.

Szarmach,PaulE.,andBernardF.Huppé,ed.,TheOldEnglishHomilyandits

Background(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1978).Talbot,C.H.,ed.andtrans.,TheAnglo-SaxonMissionariesinGermany:Beingthe

LivesofSS.Willibrord,Boniface,Sturm,Leoba,andLebuin,togetherwiththeHodoeporiconofStWillibaldandaSelectionfromtheCorrespondenceofStBoniface(London:SheedandWard,1981).

Tangl,Michael,ed.,DieBriefedesHeiligenBonifatiusundLullus(Berlin:

WeidmannscheVerlagsbuchhandlung,1955).Thacker,Alan,‘Kings,Saints,andMonasteriesinPre-VikingMercia’,Midland

History10(1985),1–25.———‘Monks,PreachingandPastoralCareinEarlyAnglo-SaxonEngland’,in

PastoralCareBeforetheParish,ed.BlairandSharpe,pp.137–70.———‘MembraDisjecta:TheDivisionoftheBodyandtheDiffusionoftheCult’,

inOswald,ed.StancliffeandCambridge,pp.97–127.

———‘PriestsandPastoralCareinEarlyAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inTheStudyofMedievalManuscriptsofEngland:FestschriftinHonorofRichardW.Pfaff,ed.GeorgeHardinBrownandLindaEhrsamVoigts(Tempe:ArizonaCenterforMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,2000),pp.187–208.

———‘GuthlacandHisLife:FelixShapestheSaint’,inGuthlac,ed.Robertsand

Thacker,pp.1–24.Thierry,Nicole,‘LeCultduCerfenAnatolieetlaVisiondeSaintEustathe’,

MonumentsetMémoiresdelaFondationEugènePiot72(1991),33–100.Thompson,Nancy,‘HitSegðonHalgumBocum:TheLogicofCompositeOld

EnglishHomilies’,PhilologicalQuarterly81:4(2002),383–409.———‘TheCarolingianDeFestiuitatibusandtheBlicklingBook’,inTheOld

EnglishHomily,ed.Kleist,pp.97–119.Thomson,H.J.,ed.andtrans.Prudentius,LoebClassicalLibrary387(Cambridge,

MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1949).Thorpe,Benjamin,ed.,ÐaHalganGodspelonEnglisc:TheAnglo-SaxonVersionof

theHolyGospels(London:Rivington,1842).Thundyil,Zacharias,‘AStudyoftheAnglo-SaxonConceptoftheCovenantandits

SourceswithSpecialReferencetoAnglo-SaxonLawsandtheOldEnglishPoems:TheBattleofMaldonandGuthlac’,PhD.Dissertation(UniversityofNotreDame,1969).

Thwaites,Edward,ed.Heptateuchus,LiberJob,etEvangeliumNicodemi,Anglo-

Saxonice(Oxford:SheldonianTheatrePress,1698).Toswell,M.J.,ed.,ProsodyandPoeticsintheEarlyMiddleAges:EssaysinHonour

ofC.B.Hieatt(Toronto;London:UniversityofTorontoPress,1995).Townend,Matthew,ed.,Wulfstan,ArchbishopofYork:ProceedingsoftheSecond

AlcuinConference(Turnhout:Brepols,2004).TrahernJr.,Joseph,‘JoshuaandTobiasintheOldEnglishAndreas’,Studia

Neophilologica42:2(1970),330–32.Treharne,Elaine,andSusanRosser,ed.,EarlyMedievalEnglishTextsand

Interpretations:StudiesPresentedtoDonaldG.Scragg(Tempe:ArizonaCenterforMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,2002).

Turner,D.H.,ed.,TheMissaloftheNewMinster,Winchester:LeHavre,

BibliothèqueMunicipaleMS330,HBS93(London:HBS,1962).Tyerman,Christopher,FightingforChristendom,HolyWarandtheCrusades

(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004).

———God’sWar:ANewHistoryoftheCrusades(Cambridge:HarvardUniversity

Press,2006).Vauchez,André,‘LayPeople’sSanctityinWesternEurope:EvolutionofaPattern

(TwelfthandThirteenthCenturies)’,inImagesofSainthoodinMedievalEurope,ed.RenateBlumenfeld-KosinskiandTimeaSzell(Ithaca;London:CornellUniversityPress,1991),pp.21–32.

———TheSpiritualityoftheMedievalWest:FromtheEighthtotheTwelfth

Century,trans.ColetteFriedlander(Kalamazoo:CistercianPublications,1993).

Waldorf,Norman,‘TheHapaxLegomenaintheOldEnglishVocabulary:AStudy

BasedupontheBosworth–TollerDictionary’,PhD.Dissertation(StanfordUniversity,1953).

Wallace-Hadrill,J.M.,‘WarandPeaceintheEarlierMiddleAges’,Transactionsof

theRoyalHistoricalSociety25(1975),157–74.Walsh,Marie,‘EcclesiasticalBackgroundsofImageryintheOldEnglishAndreas’,

PhD.Dissertation(CatholicUniversityofAmerica,1975).———‘TheBaptismalFloodintheOldEnglishAndreas:Liturgicaland

TypologicalDepths’,Traditio33(1977),137–58.———‘StAndrewinAnglo-SaxonEngland:TheEvolutionofanApocryphal

Hero’,AnnualeMediaevale20(1981),97–122.Weber,Benjamin,‘AHarmonyofContrasts:TheGuthlacPoemsoftheExeter

Book’,JEGP,114:2(2015),201–18.Weeda,C.V.,‘ImagesofEthnicityinLaterMedievalEurope’,PhD.Dissertation

(UniversityofAmsterdam,2012).———‘CharacteristicsofBodiesandEthnicityc.900–1200’,MedievalWorlds:

ComparativeandInterdisciplinaryStudies5(2017),95–112.Wentersdorf,Karl,‘GuthlacA:TheBattlefortheBeorg’,Neophilologus62(1978),

135–42.Whatley,E.Gordon,‘LostinTranslation:OmissionofEpisodesinSomeOld

EnglishProseSaints’Legends’,ASE26(1997),187–208.———‘PearlsBeforeSwine:Ælfric,VernacularHagiographyandtheLay

Reader’,inViaCrucis,ed.Hall,pp.158–84.———‘HagiographyandViolence:MilitaryMeninÆlfric’sLivesofSaints’,in

SourceofWisdom:OldEnglishandEarlyMedievalLatinStudiesinHonour

ofThomasD.Hill,ed.CharlesD.Wright,FrederickM.Biggs,andThomasN.Hall(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2007),pp.217–31.

Whitby,Michael,‘DeusNobiscum:Christianity,Warfare,andMoraleinLate

Antiquity,’inModusOperandi:EssaysinHonourofGeoffreyRickman,ed.MichelAustin,JillHarries,andChristopherSmith(London:UniversityofLondon,1998),pp.191–208.

White,DavidGordon,MythsoftheDog-Man(Chicago;London:Universityof

ChicagoPress,1991).White,Monica,MilitarySaintsinByzantiumandRus900–1200(Cambridge:

CambridgeUniversityPress,2013).Whitelock,Dorothy,‘TheConversionoftheEasternDanelaw’,Saga-bookofthe

VikingSociety12(1937–1945),159–76.———TheAudienceofBeowulf(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1951).———ed.,CouncilsandSynods,withotherDocumentsrelatingtotheEnglish

Church:volumeI,A.D.871–1204(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1981).Wickham-Crowley,Kelly,‘LivingontheEcg:TheMutableBoundariesofLand

andWaterinAnglo-SaxonContexts’,inAPlacetoBelieveIn:LocatingMedievalLandscapes,ed.ClareA.LeesandGillianR.Overing(UniversityPark,Pa.:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,2006),pp.85–110.

Wieland,Gernot,‘AuresLectoris:OralityandLiteracyinFelix’sVitaSancti

Guthlaci’,JournalofMedievalLatin7(1997),168–77.———‘TheOriginandDevelopmentoftheAnglo-SaxonPsychomachia

Illustrations’,ASE26(1997),169–86.Wigram,SpencerR.,ed.,TheCartularyoftheMonasteryofStFrideswideatOxford

(Oxford:OxfordHistoricalSocietyattheClarendonPress,1895).Wilcox,Jonathan,‘StBrice’sDayMassacreandArchbishopWulfstan’,inPeace

andNegotiation:StrategiesforCoexistenceintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance,ed.DianeWolfthal(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishers,2000),pp.79–91.

———‘EatingPeopleIsWrong:FunnyStyleinAndreasanditsAnalogues’,in

Anglo-SaxonStyles,ed.CatherineE.KarkovandGeorgeHardinBrown(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2003),pp.201–22.

———‘Wulfstan’sSermoLupiadAnglosasPoliticalPerformance:16February

1014andBeyond’,inWulfstan,ed.Townend,pp.375–96.———‘TheBlicklingHomiliesRevisited:KnowableandProbableusesof

PrincetonUniversityLibrary,MSScheide71’,inTheGenesisofBooks:

StudiesintheScribalCultureofMedievalEnglandinHonourofA.N.Doane,ed.MatthewT.HusseyandJohnD.Niles(Turnhout:Brepols,2011),pp.97–115.

Wildhagen,Karl,ed.,DerCambridgerPsalter(Hamburg:1910).Willard,Rudolph,TwoApocryphainOldEnglishHomilies(Leipzig:B.Tauchnitz,

1935).———ed.,TheBlicklingHomilies(Copenhagen:RosenkildeandBagger,1960).Williams,Hugh,ed.,GildaeDeexcidioBritanniae,orTheRuinofBritain(London:

DavidNutt,1901).Wilson,David,‘TheVikings’RelationshipwithChristianityinNorthernEngland’,

JournalofBritishArchaeologicalAssociation30:1(1967),37–46.Wilson,H.A.,ed.,TheMissalofRobertofJumièges(London:HBS,1896).Wilson,P.A.,‘TheCultofStMartinintheBritishIsles’,TheInnisReview19:2

(1968),129–43.Winterbottom,Michael,andMichaelLapidge,ed.andtrans.,TheEarlyLivesofSt

Dunstan(Oxford:ClarendonPress,2012).Wolf,C.J.,‘ChristasHeroinTheDreamoftheRood’,NM71(1970),202–10.Woolf,Rosemary,‘Saints’Lives’,inContinuationsandBeginnings,ed.Stanley

(1966),pp.37–66.Wormald,Francis,EnglishKalendarsbeforeA.D.1100(London:HBS,

1934/1988).Wormald,Patrick,‘ÆthelredtheLawmaker’,inEthelredtheUnready,ed.Hill,pp.

47–80.Wragg,Stefany,‘VernacularLiteratureinEighth-andNinth-CenturyMercia’,

DPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,2017).———‘TheEarlyTextsoftheCultofSaintGuthlac’,EnglishStudies100:3

(2019),253–72.———‘GuthlacAandCultofGuthlac’inGuthlac,ed.RobertsandThacker,pp.

214–28.Wright,Charles,‘TheThreeTemptationsandtheSevenGiftsoftheHolySpiritin

‘GuthlacA’160b–169’,Traditio38(1982),341–43.

———‘OldEnglishHomiliesandLatinSources’,inTheOldEnglishHomily,ed.Kleist,pp.15–66.

———‘MoreLatinSourcesfortheOldEnglish“ThreeUtterances”Homilies’,

MediaevalStudies77(2015),45–79.Yorke,Barbara,TheConversionofBritain:Religion,PoliticsandSocietyinBritain,

c.600–800(Harlow:PearsonLongman,2006).———‘FromPagantoChristianinAnglo-SaxonEngland’,inTheIntroductionof

ChristianityintotheEarlyMedievalInsularWorld:ConvertingtheIslesI,ed.RoyFlecherandMáireNíMhaonaigh(Turnhout:BrepolsPublishing,2016),pp.237–53.

Zacher,Samantha,reviewofKelly,ed.,BlicklingHomilies,NotesandQueries53:2

(2006),216–18.———‘ReadingtheStyleandRhetoricoftheVercelliHomilies’,inTheOld

EnglishHomily,ed.Kleist,pp.173–207.———PreachingtheConverted:TheStyleandRhetoricoftheVercelliBook

Homilies(Toronto;Buffalo:UniversityofTorontoPress,2009).Zettel,Patrick,‘Ælfric’sHagiographicSourcesandtheLatinLegendaryPreserved

inB.L.MSCottonNeroEi+CCCCMS9andOtherManuscripts’,DPhil.Dissertation(UniversityofOxford,1979).

———‘Saints'LivesinOldEnglish:LatinManuscriptsandVernacularAccounts

Ælfric’,Peritia1(1982),17–37Zupitza,Julius,ed.,ÆlfricsGrammatikundGlossar(Berlin:Weidmann,1880).———,‘ZurGragenachderQuellevonCynewulfsAndreas’,Zeitschriftfür

deutschesAltertumunddeutscheLiteratur30(1886),175–85.Zycha,Joseph,ed.,SanctiAureliAugustini:Deutilitatecredendi;Deduabus

animabus;ContraFortunatum;ContraAdimantum;Contraepistulamfundamenti;ContraFaustum,CSEL25(Vienna:Tempsky,1891).

The Role of the Miles Christi in Four Old English Saints' Lives

Documents

Transcript of The Role of the Miles Christi in Four Old English Saints' Lives

Number 576 November 2021 PAGES All Saints' Church ...

Saints College, St Joseph's Campus, LOCHINVAR - Catholic ...

Corpus Christi Catholic Church - cloudfront.net

new orleans saints 1988 schedule - NFL.com

Latter Day Saints' messenger and advocate - Search the ...

All Saints Catholic School and Technology College - Science ...

Miles to Go…. - FORUM-ASIA

SSS INTERNATIONAL - Servitium Christi

Descubre miles de cursos como éste en 1

Miles Christi: san Ladislao d’Ungheria tra mito cavalleresco e culto dinastico. Il ciclo pittorico all’Incoronata di Napoli

B EFORE having driven many miles over the highways

Saints Makers in early Modern Europe

Jazz Rats Big Band Miles Davis

Saints and their emblems

Saints and their cults

The Voice of the Saints February 1982 - Mediaseva

Liber Prefigurationum Christi et Ecclesie (traduction, commentaire)

Miles de millones ganados con las materias primas - Multiwatch

THE WAY OF THE SAINTS - Ajaib.com

Miles Padgett