The Role of the Miles Christi in Four Old English Saints' Lives
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of 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.
i
Contents
ListofTables
ii
Abstract
iii
Acknowledgements
iv
ShortTitlesandAbbreviations
v
AnEditorialNote
viii
One:IdeasofSoldieringforChristandSourceStudyinAnglo-SaxonEngland
1
Two:OriginsoftheMilesChristi,ClericalViolence,andtheTheoryofJustWar
15
Three:ThePeacefulSoldier:TheAnonymousMartinmas-Homily
39
Four:TheSpiritualSoldier:TheNarrativesofGuthlacofCrowland
86
Five:TheHeroicSoldier:TheActsofAndrewamongtheAnthropophagi
139
Six:TheWorldlySoldierofChrist:TheOldEnglishLifeofEustace
184
Seven:Conclusions:AMosaicofPerspectives
226
Appendix:EditionsoftheLivesofSaintEustace
232
AnEditionoftheVitaetpassioEustachiieteiussociorum
233
AnEditionoftheOldEnglishLifeofEustace
243
Bibliography
252
ii
ListofTables
TableI:EpisodesfromtheVitaS.Martini 50
TableII:EpisodesfromSulpicius’sEpistulae 52
TableIII:LatinPhrasesintheMartinmas-Homily 55
iii
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.
iv
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.
v
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
vi
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.
DROB
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.
vii
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.
viii
AnEditorialNote
ThetranslationsoftheLatinandOldEnglishquotationsthroughoutthe
dissertationaremyownunlessstatedotherwise.Translationsofpassagesfrom
theVulgateBiblearesuppliedfromtheDouay–RheimsOnlineBible.Ihave
silentlyremovedaccentsandotherdiacriticsfromtheLatinandOldEnglish
quotationsthroughouttheworkandhavehyphenatedcompoundnounsand
adjectiveswherethemeaningoftheseparateconstituentsisevident.Latin
orthographyhasbeenstandarisedtoleveliforj,minisculeuforv,andmajuscule
VforUunlessitprecedesavowel,whiletheligatureæande-caudata[ę]have
beenstandardisedtoae.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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
4
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.
5
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
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
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.
11
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.
12
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.
13
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.
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.
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.
20
‘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.
21
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
22
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.
23
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.
24
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.
25
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.
26
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.
27
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.
28
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.
29
‘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.
30
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.
31
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.
32
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.
33
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.
34
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,
35
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.
36
‘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.
37
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
38
(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.
39
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.
40
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.
41
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.
42
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
43
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.
44
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).
45
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.
46
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.
47
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.
48
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.
49
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,
50
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.
51
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).
52
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.
53
(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.
54
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.
55
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.
56
‘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.
57
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.
58
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.
59
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’.
60
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.
61
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.
62
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.
63
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.
64
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.
65
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.
66
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.
67
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.
68
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.
69
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.
70
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.
71
‘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.
72
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.
73
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.
74
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.
75
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.
76
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.
77
(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.
78
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.’
79
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.
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.
81
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.
82
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.
83
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.
84
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.
85
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.
86
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.
87
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.
88
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.
89
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.
90
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
91
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.
92
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.
93
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.
94
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
95
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.
96
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
97
longingfortemporalpleasuresconnectedtotheworld(lines163b–64and328–
30).
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.
98
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).
99
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.
100
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.’
101
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.
102
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.
103
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.
104
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.
105
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.
106
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.
107
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.
108
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.
109
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.
110
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.
111
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.
112
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.
113
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.
114
‘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.
115
(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.
116
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.
117
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.
118
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.
119
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.
120
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.
121
‘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.
122
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.
123
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.
124
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.
125
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.
126
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.
127
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.
128
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.
129
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.
130
‘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’.
131
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
132
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.
133
‘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.
134
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.
135
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.
136
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.
137
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.
138
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.
139
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,
140
‘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.
141
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.
142
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.
143
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.
144
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.
145
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.
146
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.
147
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.
148
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.
149
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.
150
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.
151
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.
152
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’.
153
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.
154
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.
155
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.
156
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.
157
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.
158
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.
159
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.
160
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.
161
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.
162
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.
163
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.
164
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.
165
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.
166
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.
167
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.
168
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.
169
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.
170
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.
171
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.
172
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.
173
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’.
174
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.
175
‘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.
176
(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.
177
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.
178
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
179
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.
180
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.
181
‘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.
182
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.
183
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.
184
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.
185
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.
186
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.
187
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.
188
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.
189
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
190
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.
191
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.
192
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.
193
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.
194
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.
195
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.
196
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
197
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.
198
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.
199
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.
200
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.
201
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.
202
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.
203
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.
204
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.
205
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.
206
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.
207
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.
208
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.
209
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.
210
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.
211
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).
212
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.
213
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.
214
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.
215
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.
216
(‘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.
217
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.’
218
***
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
219
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.
220
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.
221
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.
222
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.
223
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.
224
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.
225
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.
226
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.
227
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
228
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.
229
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.
230
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.
231
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.
232
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
233
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.
I
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
234
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
235
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
236
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
237
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
238
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
239
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
240
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
241
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.
VitaetpassioS.Eustachiieteiussociorum
242
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
243
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.
o
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
244
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.
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
245
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.
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
246
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.
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
247
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
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
248
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
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
249
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
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
250
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
OldEnglishLifeofEustace
251
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.
252
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).
253
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.
254
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).
255
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).
256
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).
257
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.
258
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.
259
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.
260
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.
261
———‘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).
262
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.
263
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).
264
———‘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.
265
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.
266
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.
267
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.
268
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
269
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.
270
———‘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).
271
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.
272
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).
273
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).
274
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.
275
———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.
276
———‘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.
277
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
278
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.
279
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.
280
———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).
281
———‘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
282
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.
283
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.
284
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.
285
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).
286
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).
287
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.
288
———‘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.
289
———‘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).
290
———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
291
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:
292
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.
293
———‘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).