Where the gory meets the glory
The characteristics of Old English heroic poetry
applied to hagiographical literature
Jan-Willem Tjooitink (s1269070) Master’s dissertation English Language & Culture Final version: August 31, 2008
1
Table of Contents
Introduction ... 2
1. Building the Pillars ... 5
1.1 An Introduction to Irving‟s Article ... 5
1.1.1 Class Orientation & Role-model ... 5
1.1.2 Insensible Behaviour ... 5
1.1.3 Physical Example ... 7
1.1.4 Inspirational Qualities ... 7
1.1.5 The Heroic Paradigm (Leitmotif) ... 8
1.1.6 The „Normal Contrast‟ ... 10
1.1.7 Loyalty ... 12
1.1.8 The Evil Antagonist ... 13
1.1.9 Irving‟s Pillars Summarized ... 14
1.2 An Introduction to Cherniss‟ Work ... 15
1.2.1 Loyalty ... 15
1.2.2 Vengeance ... 16
1.2.3 Treasure ... 17
1.2.4 Community ... 20
1.2.5 Cherniss‟ Pillars Summarized ... 21
2. The Shift towards the Holy Heroes ... 23
2.1 The Saintly Pillars ... 24
2.2 The Old English Saints ... 26
2.2.1 Juliana ... 26
2.2.2 Elene ... 29
2.2.3 Andreas ... 33
3. Checking the Pillars ... 35
3.1 Class Orientation & Role-model ... 35
3.2 Insensible Behaviour ... 35
3.3 Physical Example ... 36
3.4 Inspirational Qualities ... 37
3.5 The Heroic Paradigm (Leitmotif) ... 38
3.6 The „Normal Contrast‟ ... 39
3.7 Loyalty ... 40
3.8 The Evil Antagonist ... 41
3.9 Vengeance ... 42
3.10 Treasure ... 42
3.11 Community ... 43
4. Summary and Conclusion ... 45
2
Introduction
What makes a man a hero? Is it big muscles and an underdeveloped brain? And does it even have to be a man? One may think of female superhero Wonder Woman, for example. Or, to take one‟s eyes off the human world: could the little pig that made its house of bricks and mortar and saved his brethren be considered a hero? Clearly, the answer to this question differs from one person to the next. Each of us has certain ideals we consider to be more important than anything else. The greatest villains may be considered heroes to some – it is all a matter of perspective. Or, to quote one of the latest Bond movies: “One man‟s terrorist is another man‟s freedom fighter.”
Within a culture, however, one can identify some traits that would be appropriate for a hero, while others would be less so. For example, taking the lives of dozens of people by blowing up a car in the name of one‟s god may be considered a martyr‟s death in one culture; Western civilization condemns this kind of deed. There are always exceptions, but these are, of course, exceptions. Different cultures often mean different heroes and heroic values.
What happens, then, to a culture‟s heroes when that culture changes? Generally, there are three possible outcomes. One such outcome may be that the hero is so radically obsolete with regard to the new cultural or belief system that his or her (or its) heroic values cannot be adapted to fit the rules, the ideology of the new regime. These heroes die out. Other heroes may be better suited to a new ideology. Perhaps, with a little tinkering here and there, they may be suited to fit the new cultural values. Another set of heroes may fit in perfectly well with a new cultural system; the values that make them heroic have not changed in the new ideology. It is these values I wish to investigate.
3 demands that no one kill another. But, surely, the introduction of the new heroes, the saints of Christianity, would change the themes of the poems. Or does it?
For this dissertation, I will examine the exact nature of the themes in heroic poems. According to two authors, namely Edward B. Irving, Jr, and Michael D. Cherniss, the Old English heroic values are a fixed set of ideals; with the help of their work I will create, in effect, a map of the Old English hero. Then, having established the basic heroic „pillars‟ that support Old English poetry and its heroes, I will closely examine some hagiographical literature from the Old English period. For the heroes of this hagiographical literature, I will also establish a set of values. Lastly, I will compare both sets of ideals, to see whether or not the heroes in the hagiographical literature, the saints, are upheld by similar or, indeed, the same heroic “pillars” as the Old English heroes.
The aim of this dissertation, then, is to explain the popularity of hagiographical literature. The hypothesis is that an Old English audience could identify with the saints quite easily, since the values that had theretofore existed in heroic poetry were comparable to those in the saints‟ lives. These values were not intended to be there, per se. However, the transition from one belief system to the next is undoubtedly quite difficult. Often, an audience looks back longingly to the old ways. The point of this dissertation is that the audience could find the heroic values of the Old English heroes in the hagiographical literature, should they choose to look for them. The old heroes, like Beowulf, made room for the new heroes, the saints. But, deep down, they were almost identical.
4 Æthelstan and Edmund). Since both Irving‟s and Cherniss‟ ideas of what makes an Old English protagonist a hero are different in some respects, their views will be kept separate in these reviews. However, since both authors make equally valuable contributions in proving that the heroes of Old English heroic poetry and the saints of the hagiographical literature of that period share common ideals, both their separate views will receive an equal amount of attention when comparisons are made.
The discussion of Irving‟s and Cherniss‟ ideals is followed by the discussion of the values that can be found in Old English hagiographical literature. In the same way that Cherniss and Irving deduced their heroic ideals, I will deduce certain hagiographical ideals from several saints‟ lives. The fixed ideals of the heroic and hagiographic literature will then be compared. This comparison will describe in how far heroic and hagiographical ideals were similar.
5
1. Building the Pillars
In this chapter, the pillars that can be found in Irving‟s and Cherniss‟ works are listed. These pillars will be considered the foundation of the heroic persona in Old English literature.
1.1 An Introduction to Irving‟s Article
Edward B. Irving, Jr‟s article “Heroic Role-Models: Beowulf and Others” does, as the title suggests, not centre solely on the exploits of the Germanic hero in the poem of the same name, but also on other heroes, such as El Cid, that are less relevant to the current subject; for the purpose of this dissertation, however, the focus will be on Irving‟s discussion of heroic themes in Old English poetry.
1.1.1 Class Orientation & Role-model
As Irving points out, “[p]oets held heroes such as Beowulf up for admiration and emulation” (Irving, p. 347). Here, Irving identifies a role-model function imposed on the heroes of the poetic literature. In other words, heroes have to be enlarged versions of the people living in a particular culture at a particular time. The poetry has to exemplify correct conduct. According to Irving, the “[m]ain purpose of such poetry [was] to provide models of behaviour for semi-aristocratic warrior classes” (p. 347). Here, Irving points out another aspect of heroic poetry: it was intended to be read by, or to, a certain type of class. The protagonists appeal to certain classes within the Anglo-Saxon feudal system, which stresses the function of role-model the heroes performed within the community. In Beowulf, Maldon, and Brunanburh, the protagonists, who are lords or heroic retainers, appeal very much to the semi-aristocratic warrior class. If this appeal is taken into account, the protagonists in all three heroic poems adhere to this pillar splendidly.
1.1.2 Insensible Behaviour
6 after all of Hrothgar‟s strongest men have failed. Beowulf does not use sword or shield: he chooses to face the monster with his bare hands.
“No ic me an herewæsmun hnragran talige guþgeweorca þonne Grendel hine;
forþan ic hine sweorde swebban nelle, alder beneotan, þeah ic al mæge. Nat he þara goda, þæt he me ongean slea, rand geheawe, þeah ðe he rof sie niþgeweorca. Ac wit on niht sculon secge ofersittan gif he gesecean dear wig ofer wæpen.”
(Beowulf, ll. 677-685)
“I do not reckon myself inferior in warlike vigour, for deeds of battle, than Grendel does himself; therefore I will not put him to sleep, take away his life, with a sword, although I easily could. He knows nothing of such noble matters – that he might strike against me, hew at the shield – renowned though he may be for hostile deeds. But in the night we shall both dispense with the sword, if he dare seek a fight without weapons.”1
Beowulf knows no fear, even though, by the standards of any normal person, he should. He chooses to cast aside sword and shield, and face Grendel in hand-to-hand combat; he intends to prove that he is the greater of the two.
A second demonstration of Beowulf‟s insensible actions is the fact that he commands his men to stay back during the dragon episode. He tells them that the fight is between himself and the dragon, while any normal man would have welcomed the additional swords (or, in the case of a really normal and down to earth man, he probably would have ran for it). Perhaps Beowulf is too proud to relinquish the fight to his retainers, but whatever the reason behind his orders, the insensibility behind his actions is the key.
Another example of this insensible behaviour would be Byrhtnoð‟s actions in The
Battle of Maldon: attempting to defend his home against the Viking invaders, the odds against
him are overwhelming. The Vikings offer him an easy way out, by means of paying a ransom. Nevertheless, the hero chooses the assault instead of this ransom, while any „normal‟ man would either have paid (or just fled). It is the most nonsensical or insensible action committed by Byrhtnoð and his Essex men. The heroic quality of Byrhtnoð and his retainers is wonderfully contrasted with the cowardly deed of Godric, who flees from the fight. Godric represents our human selves; but, as Byrhtnoð demonstrates, our human selves are weak. One
1
7 could argue that the Vikings could have come back for more, even if Byrhtnoð had paid. Still, there would at least have been a chance of solving this conflict without casualties.
In The Battle of Brunanburh, however, the notion of insensible behaviour remains a little more obscure. One cannot tell if Æthelstan‟s actions were sensible, since nothing is said of the relative sizes of the armies. Nevertheless, judging from the fierceness with which Æthelstan and his men fight in the poem, one might suspect that the odds were not in their favour. Be that as it may, the evidence is inconclusive.
1.1.3 Physical Example
The fourth factor that Irving indicates as being a defining heroic characteristic, or pillar, is the fact that heroes set an example as leaders and follow their own example. In other words, they are unlike today‟s military strategic commanders, who are more easily compared to chess players than actual soldiers. The heroes in the poems fight alongside their men, or even go at it alone (in Beowulf‟s case).
Byrhtnoð, in The Battle of Maldon, sets an example for his troops. His behaviour does not differ from what he commands them to do. In The Battle of Brunanburh, too, the hero Æthelstan fights alongside his men. And in Beowulf, the hero is the strongest leader-figure of all, since he sets off to face Grendel alone, and later, in the dragon episode, he leads his men into battle once more. Throughout the poem, Beowulf remains the inspirational leader-figure, who does not order his men to do anything he himself would not do.
1.1.4 Inspirational Qualities
8 The same is, of course, true for Byrhtnoð, and the example he sets for the young boy Wulfmar. Upon close examination of the actions committed by both warriors, the actions of the younger retainer Wulfmar seem almost identical to the feats committed by Byrhtnoð. Furthermore, the speeches by Byrhtnoð are later echoed by the speeches by the retainers he leaves behind when he dies (see below).
The copying of a leader‟s actions by his retainers is somewhat less discernible in The
Battle of Brunanburh. In this poem, one cannot easily identify this pillar from the storyline; to
see Æthelstan as an example, one has to be very mindful of semantics: þæt hi æ campe oft
wiþ laþra gehwæne land ealgodon hord ond hamas.
(Brunanburh, ll. 16b-18a)
they should often defend their land, at battle against every enemy, treasures and homes.2
The emphasis in this quotation should be on the plural they; Æthelstan and his retainers operate as a team, they ride into battle together, and they fight together. Here, through his exemplary leadership, Æthelstan inspires his men to follow him to war: there are no fleeing cowards in this poem, making Æthelstan an even more inspirational leader.
1.1.5 The Heroic Paradigm (Leitmotif)
The sixth heroic pillar that Irving points out in his article is a sort of Leitmotif. Irving describes a specific order of actions that a hero performs in a poem, what he calls “the heroic paradigm”: “to look; to move forward; to speak; to die – that is the heroic paradigm” (p. 354). Perhaps Irving is slightly overzealous here. Does a hero really have to die to be identified as such? Is Beowulf not a hero until the point when he is placed on the funeral pyre, after his final battle against the dragon? Surely, he is. However, Irving‟s definition will be respected for the analysis. Since he does not die in the battle described in the poem, this rules out Æthelstan from the definition of hero. In fact, Æthelstan does not appear to follow the heroic paradigm since he is less of a focal point for the action in The Battle of Brunanburh than Byrhtnoð is in Maldon, or Beowulf in Beowulf. The poem is almost too short to be able to focus on any hero enough: it is more of a description of warfare and its resulting deaths than
2
9 of the deeds of one hero. The opening of the poem, however, clearly indicates that Æthelstan is the subject:
Her Æthelstan cyning, eorla dryhten, beorna beahgifa, and his brothor eac, Eadmund æþeling, ealdorlangne tir geslogon æt sæcce sweorda ecgum ymbe Brunanburh.
(Brunanburh, ll. 9-13a)
In this year King Æthelstan, lord of warriors, ring-giver of men, and also his brother, atheling Edmund, obtained eternal glory by fighting in battle with the edges of swords around Brunanburh.
The poem specifically mentions its protagonists, Æthelstan being the more prominent one. Even though Brunanburh may be considered a poem about someone who won lifelong fame, a hero, it is too short and too different in set-up from either Maldon or Beowulf, to incorporate the heroic paradigm.
The heroic paradigm can be found very clearly in Beowulf, especially in the dragon episode. Beowulf, having observed the dragon‟s attack on his kingdom („to look‟), gives a speech to the men he has taken with him to face the dragon in lines 2511 to 2537 („to speak‟). The movement phase is next:
Aras ða bi ronde rof oretta,
heard under helme, hiorosercean bær under stancleofu, strengo getruwode anes mannes…
(Beowulf, ll. 2538-2541a)
Then the renowned champion rose, leaning on his shield, bold beneath his helmet, carried his mail-shirt beneath the rocky cliff, trusted in a single man‟s might.
After this, Beowulf storms forward when he sees the dragon‟s fire, fights the dragon with the aid of Wiglaf, and, of course, everyone knows how this ends („to die‟). The order of events is not exactly the same as Irving‟s example dictates; however, Irving makes no comment that the order of events should be fixed as such.
10 lines 173 to 180, in which he thanks the “Lord of Hosts, for all the joys I have had in this world,”3
and prays for the safety of his own soul. After that, there is not much else left for him to do but die.
Coming back to the pillar of inspiration, discussed earlier, one can now easily see Byrhtnoð‟s inspirational quality in The Battle of Maldon. After he falls, his thanes repeat the heroic paradigm, starting with Aelfwine, who makes a spirited speech („to speak‟), after he has first observed Byrhtnoð‟s fallen body („to look‟), and afterwards he, and the other thanes, who have delivered their own speeches, plunge into battle again („to move forward‟) and die, although this is only implied.
As stated earlier, Irving‟s approach to the hero‟s death could be considered somewhat harsh. If it is followed to the letter, no warrior can ever be considered a hero in his own lifetime. Perhaps the “death” that Irving mentions should be considered as a potential outcome, rather than a fixed one. This would mean that heroes can only become heroes if they hold their own in life threatening situations. Only the threat of death has to be explicit, not the actual act of dying. Following this wider interpretation of the heroic paradigm, it is much easier to classify Æthelstan as a hero: he is certainly in mortal danger when he marches into battle.
1.1.6 The ‘Normal Contrast’
Often within heroic poems, the strong, brave hero is contrasted with a weaker individual in order to make the hero excel in his bravery. This weaker individual can range from an acquaintance of the hero‟s to one of his enemies. According to Irving, “[s]etting the example is all. Yet people might be shown a deceptive example. [In the case of Maldon], what if Byrhtnoð had behaved otherwise? What if he had leapt on his horse … and ridden away, taking prudent flight from the great odds against him?” (Irving, p. 353) This hypothetical question is solved by the cowardly Godric, who contrasts with Byrhtnoð so immensely in strength of heart and bravery that Byrhtnoð‟s retainers are shocked. “Godric is merely normal, a normal dwarf, alas, like the rest of us; he tries to save his life (Irving, p. 354).” This kind of contrast is needed within the poem, to enlarge the hero‟s function as a role-model.
It needs to be stated very clearly that this heroic pillar of the „normal contrast,‟ is not the same as saying that every hero needs an enemy to conquer. The role may be fulfilled by an
3
11 enemy: it is not necessary, though. An enemy can be strong and have several or more heroic qualities. The „normal contrast‟ cannot have any of these qualities. The „normal contrast‟ serves as a mirror, a speculum within the poem. In Brunanburh, it is in fact an enemy that serves as the „normal contrast:‟
Swilce þær eac se froda mid fleame com on his cyþþe norð, Constontinus... (Brunanburh, ll. 45-47)
Likewise there too the old Constontinus with flight came into his northern native land.
Constantine flees north to his native land, which is a shameful thing to do, even against overwhelming odds. If there is anything the heroic poem teaches, it is that battles should be seen through to the death. Godric is the coward for fleeing in Maldon; in Brunanburh, the coward is Constantine, contrasted with the brave Æthelstan and Edmund.
Beowulf knows several „normal contrasts‟. One would be his band of retainers that
flees when Beowulf faces the dragon. Little needs to be explained here, except that their actions are even more shameful since Beowulf has ordered them to stay behind. He orders them not to come with him to the dragon, but he specifically tells them they should remain where they are:
“Gebide ge on beorge” (Beowulf, l. 2529)
“You wait on the barrow.”
The poem describes the cowardice of the thanes in detail: Nealles him on heape handgesteallan, æþelinga bearn ymbe gestodon
hildecystum, ac hy on holt bugon, ealdre burgan.
(Beowulf, ll. 2596-2599a)
In no way did his close companions, sons of princes, take up a stand in a band around him with honour in battle, but they turned to the wood, saved their lives.
None of his retainers, save Wiglaf, the inspired new hero, come to their king‟s aid. They are the most cowardly contrasts for fleeing from their duty to their king.
12 old and weak, but he has his retainers. They are loyal to him, and he should at least send them to do battle. However, they are simply too weak to defeat the monster Grendel – and thereby, they serve as another normal contrast to Beowulf. Hrothgar's weakness poses an interesting question: if the king's actions and demeanour are indeed so deplorable, why does Beowulf listen to Hrothgar? Why does the hero of the poem not turn his back on the king? Grendel's presence is one reason. It would be nonsensical for any normal man to seek a monster out;
ergo Beowulf goes after it. But there is another reason, and that is related to the next heroic
pillar as described by Irving.
1.1.7 Loyalty
The next heroic pillar by Irving can easily be summed up in one word: loyalty. The heroes in each of the poems are loyal to something. It can be a king (in Beowulf‟s case), a country (in the case of Æthelstan and Edmund), or even God Almighty (in the case of Byrhtnoð). This loyalty inspires in the heroes the very magnificence that makes them so admirable. It is out of loyalty to Hygelac that Beowulf aids the defeated Hrothgar; as Irving says: “Beowulf has no need of Hrothgar as either teacher or role-model, … ever. It is not Hrothgar that the hero seems to imitate admiringly, but [Hygelac]” (Irving, p. 359). Beowulf decides to help Hrothgar; he wishes to prove himself to his lord, even though Hygelac does not want him to go. This is what gives Beowulf the strength to stand up to monsters and their mothers: he is inspired by Hygelac, as he himself will inspire Wiglaf in the dragon episode. When Beowulf becomes a king himself, his loyalty lies where Æthelstan and Edmund‟s loyalty lies: with his country.
Æthelstan and Edmund‟s loyalty also lies with their kingdom, the land for which they fight. In The Battle of Brunanburh, Edmund and Æthelstan return to their rightful home after the fight:
Swilce þa gebroþer begen ætsamne, cyning and æþeling, cyþþe sohton, Wesseaxena land, wiges hremge. (Brunanburh, ll. 65-67)
Likewise both brothers together, the king and the prince, sought their native land, the country of the West Saxons, exultant in battle.
13 In The Battle of Maldon, a half-dead Byrhtnoð delivers a stunning speech in the form of a prayer, to show where his loyalties lie:
“[Ic] geþance þe, ðeoda Waldend,
ealra þæra wynna the ic on worulde gebad. Nu ic ah, milde Metod, mæste þærfe þæt þu minum gaste godes geunne, thæt min sawul to the siðian mote on thin geweald, þeoden engla, mid friþe ferian.”
(Maldon, ll. 175-179a)
“I thank thee, Lord of Hosts, for all the joys I have had in this world. Now merciful Lord, I have most need that thou shouldst grant my spirit grace, so that my sould may fare to thee, into thy power, Prince of angels, pass in peace.”
Byrhtnoð prays to God, whom he indeed calls merciful Lord, for the salvation of his soul. In asking for the salvation of his soul, Byrhtnoð admits God is his superior, but also infers that he has done God‟s will, and that he is thankful for all that God has given him. He seems aware that there is a higher power at work than his own strength at conquest; a power he, Byrhtnoð, has served.
After Byrhtnoð has fallen before his enemies, the poem depicts a scene where two of his retainers, Ælfnoth and Wulfmær, die beside him, slain while fighting for their Lord. This is another instance of the inspirational quality of a leader who makes heroes of other men, and makes them loyal to a cause. All protagonists in the heroic poems, then, are in some way loyal to someone or something that is greater than they themselves are.
1.1.8 The Evil Antagonist
A heroic pillar that has been touched upon in a previous paragraph is that of the antagonist. Without stating it so specifically, Irving does imply that a protagonist must have some problem to overcome in order to become a genuine hero. In itself, this argument seems sensible enough – how can anyone enjoy the safety of light if there is no darkness to contrast it with? In other words, while a hero does need a coward to emphasize his own bravery, he also needs a „bad guy‟ to illustrate his own „goodness‟.
14 compete with, while Æthelstan and Edmund hold their own against Constantine‟s most powerful warriors the Norsemen, the Irish, and some Scotsmen. Each of these antagonists is in some way a representation of evil. Beowulf overcomes beings that can be seen as metaphors for sin. Michael Lapidge gives an excellent summary of some of the linguistic origins of “Grendel”: grintil, meaning bolt/ bar; grindan, “the crusher;” gryndel, angry;
grindill, violent wind; grandil, the Sandman, a metaphor for death; grandilaz, “the hostile
pursuer” (Lapidge, p. 378-388). The demons that Beowulf faces are all, in some way, embodiments of evil. The hero tries to overcome them all, but fails in the end. This does not mean that he is not a great hero; according to Ivring‟s paradigm, victory is not part of the job description.
Byrhtnoð‟s adversaries try to cause strife among the nobles: their messenger is a great example of what one would call a goader, someone who causes discord. According to Irving, “through his adroit use of alternating singular and plural second person pronouns [he tries] to drive a wedge between leader and people (Irving, p. 353).” He appeals to Byrhtnoð‟s sense of pride as leader by identifying him with his kingdom. The Vikings are liars, pillagers, murderers; they represent sin, as Grendel and his mother do. Yet how, in the case of the monsters and the Vikings, can one explain the hero‟s self confidence? Surely, these are examples of pride? And if the hero is proud, isn‟t he sinful? But it is not pride that drives the hands of Beowulf and Byrhtnoð. It is not pride that pits them against a Grendel or a Viking; as I explained earlier, they try to protect what they love up to the point of being reckless and insensible (which, in some cultures, is known as “brave”) about it.
The heroes do not always succeed in their quests. Byrhtnoð dies at the hands of the Vikings; Beowulf is killed by the dragon; only Æthelstan and Edmund appear to drive their enemies away. So success against the forces of darkness is not required: a hero simply has to have an evil counterpart. An evil action would be trying to destroy the hero‟s homeland, trying to kill friends of the hero‟s lord – anything that could be considered an assault of the hero‟s lifestyle; the hero is, through his function as role-model, inherently good.
1.1.9 Irving’s Pillars Summarized
15 such as loyalty to a greater good. A quick summary of the heroic pillars as given by Irving follows:
1. heroes should appeal to a certain class 2. heroes should exemplify a culture‟s ideals
3. heroes behave insensibly; they are fearless on the verge of being insensible 4. heroes set physical examples for their retainers/comrades to follow
5. heroes inspire other men to heroic deeds
6. heroes follow a Leitmotif: to look; to move forward; to speak; to die (or: to be in mortal danger) – the heroic paradigm.
7. heroes are contrasted against a „normal person,‟ who breaks down under the stress of the situation in which the hero finds himself
8. heroes are loyal to a greater good
9. heroes need antagonists with whom to contrast their own „goodness‟.
1.2 An Introduction to Cherniss‟ Work
In the next segment of this dissertation, Cherniss‟ work “Ingeld and Christ: Heroic Concepts and Values in Old English Christian Poetry” is centred around the presence of four major themes in Old English Christian as well as heroic poetry. According to Cherniss, heroic poems (at their peak) contain one or more of the following elements: loyalty, vengeance, treasure, and exile.
First, I will describe to what extent these themes figure in the allegedly heroic poems I have picked, namely Beowulf, The Battle of Maldon, and The Battle of Brunanburh. Having established the relevance of Cherniss‟ pillars, as well as the relevance of the pillars described by Irving, I will then gives some further personal observations concerning the themes of Old English heroic poetry.
1.2.1 Loyalty
16 become friends” (Cherniss. p. 30). Cherniss accentuates the importance of loyalty by stating that “[s]ituations in which a hero is faced with a conflict of loyalties are the most common tragic situations in what remains of this body of literature” (p. 31). In other words, the importance of loyalty can be seen by its overwhelming prevalence in Old English heroic literature as a means of heightening the dramatic impact.
Loyalty can be found in all three poems, and its presence has already been discussed in one of the previous paragraphs on Irving‟s work. Beowulf‟s loyalty lies with his uncle, Hygelac – and later, his retainer, and new hero, Wiglaf finds his loyalty lies with Beowulf; Æthelstan and Edmund‟s loyalties lie with their country, their land, hoard and home; and lastly, Byrhtnoð‟s loyalty lies with God, and after he falls before the swords, spears and/or axes of the Viking horde, his retainers remain loyal to him, and descend upon the enemy with all their fury. The importance of loyalty as a heroic pillar, then, has been firmly established within all three poems.
However, Cherniss touches on another interesting point concerning loyalty: when a hero is torn between loyalties, it makes for the most dramatic situations in this body of literature. In other words, if a hero is torn between loyalties, he is a dramatic figure, a human figure. And, as should be apparent by now, the Old English culture did not want its heroes to be human figures – heroes should be larger than life. A person torn between loyalties is no hero according to Cherniss. It is no coincidence, then, that the heroes in these three poems suffer no conflicting loyalties; and even if they do, the poems do not focus on these. The heroes in Beowulf, The Battle of Maldon, and The Battle of Brunanburh are strong fighters who vanquish evil and live by the codes of their age. They are superb role-models, because they do not suffer from the added weakness of conflicting loyalties. Loyalty is Cherniss‟ first heroic pillar, and in all three instances, the heroes excel at it.
1.2.2 Vengeance
17 on Grendel, Grendel‟s mother, and the dragon, is a good example of the importance of the vengeance pillar. He takes revenge on Grendel for slaying Hrothgar‟s men; he exacts his vengeance on Grendel‟s mother for killing another of Hrothgar‟s men, as well as one of his own; and lastly, he takes revenge on the dragon for destroying part of his kingdom. This is not the same as saying to a modern audience that the hero is vindictive: rather, he is adhering to a code of honour.
Æthelstan and Edmund are also on a quest for revenge: it was their home that was invaded, and they simply take revenge for the offense. The same can be said for Byrhtnoð and his men. Byrhtnoð tries to defend himself against the raiding Vikings, and afterwards his retainers face the Vikings to avenge Byrhtnoð‟s death: “Vengeance in heroic poetry must have a sufficient motive, and… the death of one‟s lord is the most common” (p. 67). In Old English heroic poetry, one good turn deserves another. But one fundamental constant can be observed within this theme of vengeance: it is never, under any circumstance, the hero who unleashes the first aggressive act upon his opponent. Heroes defend their homes, and the most important aspect of the “vengeance pillar” is the fact that heroes are never the offending, but always the offended party. Even in the example of Beowulf, the hero goes to Hrothgar‟s hall with the intention of killing Grendel. However, he does not commence the act until the monster takes one of his own men. After Grendel does so, it is simply a matter of retribution. Of course, then Grendel‟s mother takes her revenge, causing Beowulf to takes his revenge on her… The defensive position can cause a lot of harm to the opposition. Vengeance can be a very bloody business, and its greatest problem is that it leaves behind so very few people to tell the tale. Most importantly, it is not ultimately the heroes‟ fault: “In all of the Old English heroic poetry extant, the heroes fight only in retaliation of acts of overt aggression and therefore are, in every instance, avengers” (p. 66).
1.2.3 Treasure
18 Grendles heafod, þær guman druncon,
egeslic for eorlum ond þære idese mid, wliteseon wrætlic; weras on sawon. (Beowulf, ll. 1648-1650)
The head of Grendel was carried in by the hair on to the hall floor were people were drinking – an object of horror to the warriors and the lady with them, a marvellous spectacle; men looked at it.
The head is part of the spoils: it signifies Beowulf‟s potency as a fighter, and therefore counts as treasure. But, thankfully for Beowulf, his rewards include things besides former body parts. At the end of the adventures in and around Hrothgar‟s hall, Beowulf heads home, loaded with treasure (in gold, instead of monsters‟ heads) that he received from the king.
Him Beowulf þanan, guþrinc goldwlanc, græsmoldan træd, since hremig.
(Beowulf, ll. 1880-1882)
Beowulf departed, trod the grassy earth, a warrior proud in the gold, exulting in treasure.
Beowulf goes in with his bare hands, and comes out carrying treasure: a true mark of an Old English hero. In the second part of the poem, Beowulf's fight against the dragon, takes a different turn. In this part, Beowulf does gain the dragon's hoard of gold and jewels, but he cannot actually enjoy it. Together with his corpse, it is placed on the pyre, and burnt. Nevertheless, for the short time it belonged to Beowulf, it was treasure.
In The Battle of Brunanburh, treasure can be found not merely in Æthelstan and Edmund‟s retaining their land, hoard and home, but also in the trail of dead bodies they leave behind. The physical, tangible objects - the houses, the lands, the trees - it is easy to see why those can be thought of as treasure. The corpses are treasure for the same reason Grendel's severed arm is treasure; (parts of) the deceased enemies are material symbols of conquest.
Leatan him behindan hræw bryttian saluwigpadan, þone sweartan hræfn, hyrnednebban, ond þane hasupadan, earn æftan hwit, æses brucan,
grædigne guðhafoc, ond þæt græge deor, wulf on wealde.
(Brunanburh, ll. 68-65a)
19 The scene of battle, even though it is not something they can take with them, stands, for a limited time, as a monument to the heroism of Æthelstan and Edmund. Corpses rot, gold is spent; nothing withstands the test of time. Any gained object is defined as treasure if it reminds the audience of the hero‟s strength, even for a short time.
We have now arrived at what careful readers may have already identified as a point that is problematic to this argument: the absence of gained treasure in The Battle of Maldon. The greatest problem with this poem is that no one can be sure how it is really supposed to end. One can look at the history of the battle, but that does not provide any positive outlook. “It was subsequent to this battle, and presumably as a result of its loss, that the English began to pay large sums of tribute to the Danes (Scragg, p. xii).” There is little treasure to be gained there. But let us approach this matter from a different angle. For, if gaining treasure signifies heroism, then stealing treasure might mean the exact opposite of heroism: cowardice. Cherniss elaborates on this. He calls upon the image of “the cowardly followers of Byrhtnoð” in The Battle of Maldon. In lines 185 to 200, they flee from the scene:
Hi bugon þa fram beaduwe þe þær beon noldon: þær wurdon Oddan bearn ærest on fleame, Godric fram guþe, and þone godan forlet the him mænige oft mear gesealde […] Godwine and Godwig, guþe ne gymdon,
ac wendon fram tham wige and þone wudu sohton, flugon on þæt fasten and hyra feore burgon… (Maldon, ll. 185-195)
Then those who were minded made off from the fight: there Odda‟s sons were foremost in flight, Godric fled from the battle, abandoned the brave man who had often given him many a steed [...] Godwine and Godwig, cared not for combat, but turned from the conflict and sought the wood; fled to the fastness and saved their lives [...]
20 discussion, it should be clear that there is a close relationship between treasure as the symbol of one‟s personal honour, and the pre-Christian concept of loyalty” (Cherniss, p. 101).
Loyalty is a heroic quality. Vengeance is a measure of that loyalty. And treasure is the reward for loyalty. Heroes are never the aggressors; they cannot steal, since theft would be an act of aggression. They can only be rewarded. And when something is stolen from them, that would be as a cause for revenge. All three poems either reward their heroes for their bravery, or emphasize that bravery by having cowards deny the heroes their reward.
1.2.4 Community
Cherniss places his most important pillar last. This final heroic pillar, or in the case of these three poems the lack thereof, is the theme of exile. Exile is deemed by Cherniss to be “the epitome of misfortune in heroic life” (p. 102). The three previously discussed aspects of heroism, according to Cherniss, are all positive aspects, whereas “within the framework of heroic concepts and values, exile may be defined most simply as the state of being alone, without a lord, without retainers, and usually without human companionship of any kind… [An exile] is, in short, deprived of the pleasures and values of heroic life” (p. 102-103). It is not the case that Beowulf, Æthelstan or Edmund, or Byrhtnoð were exiled, and had to redeem themselves. The answer to the question of the relevance of the „exile‟ theme must be sought in the key notions defining „exile‟: „without a lord,‟ „without retainers,‟ „without human companionship.‟ These notions clearly emphasize that it is important for the hero to belong to a group in heroic literature; being a king and having retainers, being a retainer and serving a king, or just having companions. “In Old English heroic poetry, no hero exists in isolation; he is part of a society and, as such, is either a lord or a retainer or both. If a warrior is neither lord nor retainer, then he is by definition an exile…” (p. 59). Do these three poems place emphasis on the individual connection to a group?
Beowulf certainly places emphasis on the individual belonging to a group. Beowulf
arrives at Hrothgar‟s hall with a host of others. They have set out together, to provide the troubled king with all the help they can. The bond between members of a community exists in
Beowulf, as does an example of it being broken; there is a bond between Beowulf and his
retainers who go to face the dragon. Most retainers run away, and they are reprimanded by Wiglaf:
21 in biorsele, ðe us ðas beagas geaf,
þæt we him ða guðgetawa gyldan woldon, gif him þysiclu þearf gelumpe,
helmas ond heard sweord. (Beowulf, ll. 2633-2638a)
I remember the occasion on which we drank mead, when in the beer-hall we promised our lord, who gave us these rings, that we would repay him for the war-equipment, the helmets and hard sword, if any such need as this were to befall him.
The bond between the retainers and Beowulf is broken: the retainers cannot be forgiven. It is very likely that they will be outcasts among society; when they refused to obey the honour of the community, their fate became very grim indeed.
In Beowulf, one can find one more example of the importance of community. The monster Grendel is not part of a community. He is exiled by God Himself, and he is, essentially, the antithesis of the hero. The fact that he is an exile makes him all the more monstrous and inhuman. However, even this exile has a mother, who comes to avenge her son. Once more, the importance of belonging to a community is emphasized – even for the darkest of creatures.
In The Battle of Maldon, Godric, Godwine, and Godwig flee for their lives, in a fashion that could be modelled on Beowulf. They ignore the code of honour of the group. They have become outcasts: the description of their flight is their own death sentence. The importance of the community is demonstrated earlier, when Ælfnoth and Wulfmær are slain while defending their lord. The bond is not heavily emphasized in The Battle of Brunanburh, though it is present; the bond between Æthelstan and Edmund is mentioned in the beginning. Loyalty does not cause the bonding between lords and retainers, but it is loyalty that keeps the bond intact, and strengthens it. What binds them is a desire to belong to a community: the pillar of not wanting to be an exile, the pillar of the community. Contrary to pop-cultural legends concerning heroes (Christopher Lambert's portrayal of Beowulf, for one), the position of „lone wolf‟ character, though modern audiences might perceive him as tough as nails and bold as brass, was not one to be envied.
1.2.5 Cherniss’ Pillars Summarized
23
2. The Shift towards the Holy Heroes
In making the assumption that heroic pillars of the Old English heroes can be compared to the pillars within hagiographic literature, it is useful to observe some theory that points in this direction. In his highly informative and interesting The Church in Anglo-Saxon England, John Blair states that “[t]he Anglo-Saxon local saint was… a patron in a longstanding Roman tradition. It was easy to see, however, that in secular culture such a patron might take on a more vernacular guise, as the undying leader of a kindred or folk-group… Centuries after St. Cuthbert‟s death in 687, the people of the lands which his community controlled were known as the haliwerfolc (“holy-man‟s-folk”)” (p. 141-142). This statement provides some further insight into why it is that the Old English heroic themes, the pillars, ought to be present in the saints‟ lives.
However, Blair does point to a change of ethics in the heroic pillars, a shift of focus concerning what was important for an heroic figure. “The founder [of a town, city, or monastery]… had a vital role in acquiring a minster‟s endowments and fortifying them against attack, and could do these things all the better as an immortal landlord who had passed from the cut-throat company of warriors to the holy company of heaven” (p. 142). With the rise of Christianity and its strengthened role within the community, i.e. the turn from a cult of warriors to a cult of holy men, a holy man‟s memory served better for protection than that of a warlord. Blair implies that the Latin saints actually evolved to live alongside the Old English heroes. This would mean that the hypothesis that both kinds of stories can be seen to adhere to the same pillars could be correct. The church influenced more and more people every day; it was against violence and in favour of the observation of church laws.
More and more, new heroes evolved, carrying within them some of the old spark. Two cultures, one of the sword, and one of the Lord, combined by adapting the saints' lives. Everyone wanted a saint to call their patron: “From scattered references it is possible to assemble a surprisingly long list of […] neglected saints, but even this has to be regarded as ,(at least at some level) representative rather than in any way comprehensive” (Blair, p. 143). Everyone needed a hero, a patron. Saints became the new forefathers and fore-fighters.
24 plausible saints, or [the saints were] prince martyrs whose cults tended to be promoted for political and didactic ends” (Blair, p. 143). This indicates a tremendously powerful link between the church and the Old English heroes, and demonstrates how incredibly intertwined they became.
If these newer, borrowed saints and their lives served didactic purposes, they must have had some appeal to the common man: “it was not just in the monastic precincts that the saints enjoyed their popularity; they were extended into dependent territories where divine power might reinforce proprietorship, and into a lay world of oral legend” (Blair, p. 143). It is not difficult to believe that (in order to have some appeal) these saints adhered to values similar (in some fashion) to those of the Old English heroes; indeed, it seems unlikely that the saints were too radically different from those Anglo-Saxon heroes like Beowulf or Byrhtnoð that existed side by side with them; not after years and years of indoctrination.
2.1 The Saintly Pillars
According to Antonina Harbus and Karin Olsen, in their introduction to Germanic Texts and
Latin Models; Medieval Reconstructions,
“[in] the Middle Ages, writers of Germanic vernacular exploited Latin ideas, motifs, and traditions in the formation of their own narratives and in the development of rhetorical technique. This reconstruction… was highly selective and driven by individual contexts and agendas… As a consequence, this meeting of Germania and Latinia is characterized by a range of correlations between the old and the new texts… All the contributors to this volume demonstrate that medieval writers in north-western Europe tend to operate within a transmission model which treats the host material as a resource to be exploited rather than one which requires the strict transfer of Latin texts into vernacular languages”
(Olsen, Harbus, and Hofstra, p. 1).
25 integration of saints into the heroic ideal: the pillars of heroic literature that can be found in the Old English hagiographical literature are obviously those which matter the most to the Zeitgeist. On the other hand, if the pillars that uphold the saints are radically different from those of the Old English hero, there must be another explanation for the popularity of hagiographical literature.
In order to make the comparison between the pillars, I will need to examine several saints‟ lives. I will use the poetic Old English saints‟ lives that are translated from the original Latin, namely Juliana, Elene, and Andreas. A comparison between the original Latin versions and the Old English heroic poems would determine the differences and similarities between a Latin body of literature, and the values of a body of literature that the Old English public was familiar with. I have chosen to use poetic versions, as the texts' potential public should remain as similar as possible, and one way of doing this is by comparing poetry to poetry, instead of poetry to prose.
However, where significant changes have been made from the original Latin versions to the Old English saints' lives, these changes will be mentioned. For, if the author of the Old English saints' lives chose to add or remove certain heroic pillars with regard to the original Latin versions, this would be of great importance to the discussion. Also, many of the heroic pillars are already present in the Latin sources; if such is the case, this will be pointed out, as it gives even more insight into the popularity of these specific pillars.
In the passiones, for example, one can identify a Leitmotif that is distinctly similar to that of the heroic poems: the saints observe an 'ungodly' situation, they move forward to take action, they have their say on the matter, and are subsequently tortured or killed. One may count on the fact that vitae will be rather different to this, as the death of the protagonist is not a necessary part of a vita's structure.
26 2.2 The Old English Saints
2.2.1 Juliana
The works of Cynewulf, the poet who wrote at least two of the three poems that are used for this discussion of heroic ideals in saints' lives, are dated to the turn of the tenth century. His source material consisted of “a Latin text that presumably resembled the Acta auctore
anonymo ex xi veteribus MS... [M]ost scholars still subscribe to the earlier claim that the
similarities... suggest Cynewulf's original was closely linked to the Acta version” (Calder and Allen, p.121). Cynewulf‟s Juliana is the earliest extant vernacular version of this saint‟s life. Its contents may not appeal to the squeamish reader; nevertheless, it will serve the purpose of this dissertation rather nicely.
In the first 25½ lines of the poem, Cynewulf “ironically establish[es] the counter-themes he will oppose in the saint‟s person and figure: the wealth and breadth of the emperor‟s worldly kingdom and of his thegn‟s (Heliseus‟) dominion, idol worship, and the persecution of Christian saints” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 168). This first section firmly establishes the contrast between the saintly Juliana, and the evil Maximilianus, the lord of Heliseus. It states that the emperor is attached to money and power. Therein, he is a contrast to Juliana, who worships God, and does not concern herself with material wealth: to her, only the wealth of the heavenly kingdom is important. This contrast between good and evil is a recurring theme in the poem.
Furthermore, Heliseus‟ emotional instability is constantly contrasted with Juliana complete composure:
Het þa ofstlice yrre gebolgen leathra lease in þæs leades wylm scufan butan scyldum.
(Juliana, ll. 582-584a)4
Then he, swollen with fury, ordered her, devoid of vices and without guilt, to be thrust into the welter of the lead.
Heliseus is in a state of constant fury and rage towards Juliana. He is referred to as “wretched,” “the enemy (of Juliana),” and “stained with sin.” Cynewulf makes certain that a reader or listener has absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for Heliseus.
4
27 Another feature in the poem that attempts to establish the contrast between good and evil is the debate between the devil and Juliana. While she is imprisoned and awaiting torture, a devil appears in her cell. He tells her of the evils he has committed:
Oft ic syne ofteah, ablende bealoþoncum beorna unrim monna cynnes, misthelme forbrægd þurh attres ord eagna leornan sweartum scurum, ond ic sumra fet
forbræc bealosearwum, sume in bryne sende, in liges locan, þæt him last wearð
siþast gesyne.
(Juliana, ll. 468b-475a)
Repeatedly I have deprived of sight and blinded with wicked thoughts a countless tally of men of the human race, and obscured the light of their eyes with a helm of mist by means of venomous darts in dark showers; and of some I have shattered the feet with vicious snares; and some I have dispatched into the furnace, into the fiery keep, so that the last was seen of their tracks.
The list goes on. The most interesting part of it is that Juliana takes hold of the devil, and forces him to tell her all these things. He is a cowardly figure, who is easily forced into submission, implying that evil deeds and evil wishes do not make one strong. The ability to do evil is not a source of power; Juliana's fidelity to God, her kindness, her goodness, these give her the strength to overcome the devil in her cell. He implores Juliana to let him go: he does not seek to fulfil his mission. The devil does not stay true to the command of his king. Juliana, however, boldly marches onward to the horrible torments that await her. She is loyal to her King. This contrast between Juliana and the devil is best summarized by Greenfield and Calder: “The devil‟s quick collapse and betrayal of his lord contrasts with her steadfast faith under much greater duress. The devil‟s depressed feelings and lamentations, in the fashion of an elegiac exile, also contrast with the tone and spirit of the patient and exultant Juliana” (p. 169).
28 knowledge of her coming torture” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 168). This prior knowledge is suggested in the following lines:
Næfre þu þæs swiðlic sar gegearwast þurh hæstne nið heardra wita,
þæt þu mec onwende worda þissa. (Juliana, ll. 55-57)
Never, in violent spite, shall you contrive suffering, harsh tortures, so severe that you make me swerve from these words.
With this solemn promise to God to stay true to Christianity, Juliana is very specific in her refusal to marry Heliseus. She hints disturbingly accurately to future events, suggesting foreknowledge of coming events. And this foreknowledge makes her actions almost absurd. She does not tell Heliseus she has a headache, or just does not feel like marriage today. She flat-out renounces him, and rather bluntly at that. It is as though she provokes Heliseus, which makes her actions either brave or nonsensical. She does so once more, after her father Affricanus has given her over to Heliseus:
Him seo æþele mæg ageaf ondsware: „Næfre þu geþreatast þinum beotum, ne wita þæs fela wraðra gegearwast, þæt ic þeodscype þinne lufie,
buton þu forlæte þa leasinga, weohwearðinga, ond wuldres god ongyte gleawlice, gæsta scyppend,
meatud moncynnes, in þæs meahtum sind a butan ende ealle gesceafta.‟
(Juliana, ll. 175-183)
The noble girl gave him answer: „Never shall you intimidate me with your threats, nor shall you prepare so many cruel tortures that I shall come to take pleasure in your companionship unless you abandon these false practices, the honouring of idols, and sensibly acknowledge the glorious God, the Creator of souls, the Lord of mankind, in whose power are all created for ever and ever.‟
29 When the torture is complete, and Juliana is still smiling her assured smile, she is ordered to be beheaded:
Đa wæs gelæded londmearce neah ond to þære stowe þær hi stearcferþe þurh cumbolhete cwellan þohtun.
Ongon heo þa læran ond to lofe trymman folc of firenum ond him frofre gehet, weg to wuldre, ond þæt word acwæð […]. (Juliana, ll. 635-640)
Then she was conducted close to the border of the country and to the place where the cruel-minded people meant in their violent hostility to kill her. She then began to exhort the people and to encourage them from wicked deeds to worship and promised them grace and the way to heaven, and she spoke these words […].
Following is a short speech (in comparison to the other speeches in the poem) in which Juliana tells the following to hold their faith in God, not to fear death or dying, and to always be watchful. At the last moments of her life, she is still proclaiming the word of her Lord. She is trying to save others from damnation in hell; she is inspiring them to be good.
2.2.2 Elene
In terms of proximity to the Latin original, Greenfield and Calder state that “Cynewulf‟s model was undoubtedly a Latin prose recension, the closest parallels being in St. Gall MS 225” (Greenfield and Calder, 171). According to John Gardner, Cynewulf used several Latin originals in order to create his own version of this life. Nevertheless, “scholars usually hold that the Elene is most similar to the Acta Quiriaci.”
Cynewulf‟s Life of St. Helena, the mother of emperor Constantine, differs greatly from his work on Juliana. Elene, instead of being a martyred saint like Juliana, is a more proactive person.
30 made and carried into the fight…” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 172). This fight is concluded victoriously:
Þær wæs borda gebrec ond beorna geþrec, heard handgeswing ond herga gring, syððan heo earhfære ærest metton. On þæt fæge folc flana scuras, garas ofer geolorand on gramra gemang, hetend heorugrimme, hildendædran, þurh fingra geweald forð onsendan. Stopon stiðhidige, stundum wræcon, bræcon bordhreðan, bil in dufan, þrungon þræchearde. Þa wæs þuf hafen, segn for sweotum, sigeleoð galen. Gylden grima, garas lixtan
on herefelda. Hæðene grungon, feollon friðelease. Flugon instæpes Hune leode, swa þæt halige treo aræren heht Romwara cyning, heaðofremmende.
(Elene, ll. 114-130a).5
There was cracking of shields, attacking of warriors, cruel sword-chopping and troops dropping when first they face the volley of arrows. Into that doomed crowd, over the yellow targe and into their enemies‟ midst, the fierce and bloody antagonists launched showers of darts, spears, the serpents of battle, by the strength of their fingers. Relentless of purpose onwards they trod; eagerly they advanced. They broke down the shield barrier, drove their swords and thrust onwards, hardened to battle.
There are some differences between the Latin Acta Quiriaci and Cynewulf's version. For one thing, there is no description of the scene of battle in the original: this has been inserted to appeal to the audience. Furthermore, in Cynewulf's version, the cross is raised after the Huns (which in the original are simply “barbarians”) have been conquered. In the Acta Quiriaci, Constantine marches forward under the banner of the Cross. This difference seems to indicate that Cynewulf's Constantine fought under his own power, and paid tribute to the Cross afterwards, instead of using its power to win.
Constantine, despite having born the Cross in battle, is still ignorant of its significance for Christianity. He ordered the learned scholars to tell him who the God might be that this sign belongs to. Constantine is then educated in the ways of God by the wisest of the men.
5
31 Among Constantine‟s men are some who had already been baptised and they start to spread the gospel as well. Constantine learns to love Christ, and the glorious cross is always in his mind. He orders his mother Elene to find the Cross of which he dreamed, and that gave him victory. After a short trip across the ocean, Elene and her troops land on Jewish soil, where she swiftly declares the purpose of her visit: “Her first speech, to 3,000 assembled Jews, calls attention to the darkness-light dichotomy and initiates the theme of the transference of power from the former chosen race to the new” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 173). These themes, i.e. the contrast between light and darkness, also demonstrated in Constantine‟s nocturnal vision of the Cross, and the transference of power, are two important aspects of this saint‟s life.
When Elene securely establishes the undivided attention of the Jews, she calls forth the wisest men in the country, in order to have them tell her the location of the True Cross. She explains, rather harshly, why they, the Jews, are undeserving to be the ones in possession of the Cross:
Ge mid horu speowdon on þæs ondwlitan þe eow eagena leoht, fram blindnesse bote gefremede
edniowunga þurh þæt æðele spald, ond fram unclænum oft generede deofla gastum.
(Elene, ll. 297b-302a)
Filthily you spat into the face of him who by his precious spittle cured as new from blindness the light of your eyes and often saved you from the unclean spirits of devils.
To Elene, and to all Christians, the Jews have become unfit to be the keepers of the Cross, as they denounced Christ as the saviour of humanity. They are the most evil of beings, since they do not recognize the Lord saved them through his own death, which they, in effect, condemned him to.
Each time the Jews bring forth their wisest of the wise, from thousands to three-thousand, from three-thousand to five-hundred, Elene tells them off, until there is only one man left: Judas. He knows the reason for Elene‟s coming, and knows where the Cross is to be found. However, he is not that interested in telling her where it actually is:
32 (Elene, ll. 441-447)
„If in your lifetime it should happen to you that you hear wise men inquiring about that holy tree [...] quickly profess the Child of all concord before death seizes you.‟
Judas‟ grandfather Zaccheus apparently prophesied that when people came looking for the Cross, the time of the Hebrew rule would be over. They would no longer control their kingdom of the possessions. It is, according to Judas‟ own father, the fault of the Jews, for having sentenced Christ to the Cross. Sadly for him, Judas‟ eloquence and his familiarity with the legend of the Cross earn him a rather unfortunate position as Elene's unwilling advisor. He does so - and is tortured until he answers Elene‟s call. Essentially, “Elene asks [Judas] to choose between life and death. Who, he asks, starving in the wilderness, would choose a stone rather than bread?” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 174). This presents us with another important fact, namely that the Jews are never brave enough in the face of danger, and that they renounce their duties.
Judas, who has been thrown into a pit, finally leads Elene and her following to Calvary. After praying for a miracle, the exact place where the Cross is buried is finally shown to him by a rising cloud of smoke. When they dig, they find three crosses, but the True Cross is revealed when it raises one of the dead. Then, the devil appears. The devil prophesies Judas‟ and the Jews‟ undoing. “But Judas bests the devil, promising that the devil himself will be cast down by the brightest of beacons into eternal damnation” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 174). It is interesting to note that Judas goes from a secondary character to someone who defeats the most evil of beings, the devil himself. At this point in the story, Judas himself is converted from Judaism to Christianity; he is renamed Cyriacus and given the rank of bishop.
Afterwards, Elene, having found the True Cross, erects a massive temple to commemorate Christ‟s sacrifice:
Đa seo cwen bebead cræftum getyde sundor asecean þa selestan
þa þe wrætlicost wyrcan cuðon stangefogum, on þam stedewange
girwan godes temple, swa hire gasta weard reord of roderum.
(Elene, ll. 1017-1022a)
stone-33 bondings, in order to prepare God‟s temple upon that spot, according as the
Keepr of souls directed her from the skies.
This monument is intended to be place where the sick, the crippled, the troubled and the dying can come for aid; a beacon of light among (from a Christian perspective) unenlightened Jewish community.
There is one further interesting feature to this poem, namely “the search for and discovery of the nails from the Cross, a miracle which converts the Jew… Elene is advised to shape them into a bridle for the son‟s horse” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 174). This recovery of materials, as well as the construction of the church, are reminiscent of the material landmarks and treasures that were one of the defining pillars of Old English heroism.
2.2.3 Andreas
The last saint‟s life to be reviewed is that of the rescue of Matthew by Andrew: the saint‟s life known as Andreas. Andrew, like Elene, is a more undertaking kind of saint than Juliana. “[W]hat is most noteworthy about Andrew‟s martial prowess in the poem is his patience in adversity” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 160). Andrew never seems to give up, no matter how many problems fall into his lap.
The poem focuses on the quest to save Matthew. The evil, cannabalistic Mermedonians have him as their unwilling guest. The Mermedonians are a race that blinds its victims by poking their eyes out. Afterwards, the victims are given a potion that makes them lose their senses. This blinding and mentally distressing of the Mermedonians‟ victims draws the reader‟s attention to a very interesting contrast between Christian and Mermedonian, namely that the Mermedonians are spiritually blind, whereas the tortured Christians are physically blind.
There is another facet of the Mermedonian characteristic way of life that is a evil copy of a Christian custom. Greenfield and Calder indicate that “a perverted Eucharistic ritual is indicated – God calls the Mermedonians sylfætan „selfeaters‟” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 160). Instead of consuming the body of Christ, the Mermedonians destroy themselves by eating the bodies of human beings.
34 þær… ne me…” (ll. 198b-201). As is shown in the quote, this denial is triply emphasized by the repetition of the word “ne;” Andrew really does not want to go on this quest. Nevertheless, God instructs him to do so anyway. Fully convinced, Andrew sets out on the journey to find and rescue Matthew.
Andrew, in need of transportation, acquires the help of a ship‟s crew. In this section of the poem, Andrew demonstrates the heroic pillar of insensible behaviour, as well as demonstrating the contrast between himself and a 'normal person,' the Helmsman. Lastly, it also allows Andrew to set a physical example: he strides forward, even in the face of great adversity. The Helmsman of the ship tries to tempt Andrew before giving him passage. He asks God‟s disciple: “how could you think of taking such a journey over cold cliffs without money or provisions?” (Greenfield and Calder, p. 162). Andrew is not persuaded by these arguments, and remains steadfast in his faith in God. As it turns out, that is all for the best, since the Helmsman then earns his capital letter: he is, in fact, Christ himself. When the Helmsman reveals his true identity, he also explains Andrew‟s further mission. Andrew is to convert the dreaded Mermedonians. But Andrew, rather insensibly, accepts God‟s design, and proceeds on his quest.
When Andrew arrives at the Mermedonian kingdom, there is not much of a battle to speak of. Matthew and prisoners escape under a divinely inspired cloud cover. Andrew, however, is captured. He suffers for three days – in a symbolic sense one day for each of the times he denied his Lord‟s initial command - during which he fights the devil and sends him packing. Andrew has come a long way from a weak and doubting man, to a strong and convinced servant of God.
35
3. Checking the Pillars
The next section will consist of a check list. Using the analyses of the poems, I will check for each Old English heroic pillar in the saints' lives.
3.1 Class Orientation & Role-model
The first heroic pillar is that of a protagonists appeal to a certain class. This is a rather unfortunate pillar to start the comparison with, as it does not seem to be one of the building blocks of a saint's life. It would appear from at looking these saints' lives that one did not need to belong to any specific layer of society: anyone and everyone could be a servant of God. For most saints, it does not matter what they do or did in their previous life: what matters is the life in which the fulfil God's wishes. The hero of Juliana is a woman (of noble birth, nevertheless), and the hero of Elene is also a woman (also of noble birth).
The hero of Andreas however, does not seem to be anybody important – with all due respect to fishermen everywhere. The first heroic pillar, then, is not one that is found throughout these saints' lives. One might say that saints came from several walks of life, and that to God, all men were equal. This severely discounts this pillar's relevance and popularity.
3.2 Insensible Behaviour
The second heroic pillar is more promising. In Juliana, the protagonist commanded to marry the heathen lord Heliseus, and she declines (as stated earlier, rather bluntly). This is, of course, not a very sensible option to take. Juliana could full well have known what would happen to her should she refuse, and even if she did not know, she might have guessed. In essence, Juliana's refusal to marry Heliseus was a quite insensible move.
