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).