THE REVIEW OF ENGLISH STUDIES PRIZE ESSAY*
‘THOSE WERE GOOD DAYS’: REPRESENTATIONS OF
THE ANGLO-SAXON PAST IN THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY
ON SAINT NEOT
by george ruder younge
Conventionally regarded as one of the last works in Old English, the homily on
Saint Neot has received little critical attention in the past 50 years, falling outside
the bounds of Anglo-Saxon studies yet failing to attract the interest of scholars
working on early Middle English. Recent recognition of the homily’s accomplished
style has culminated in its reattribution to the early eleventh century, where it
stands as a virtually unparalleled example of vernacular hagiography produced
after Ælfric’s Lives of Saints. This article revives the case for a post-Conquest
dating of the homily, questioning its interpretation as the cry of an English underclass hostile to foreign rule. Rather than viewing the homily’s unique features as
evidence of its dependence on a lost version of the Latin Life of Saint Neot, it is
argued that these reflect the distinctive agenda of the translator, who uses the
Anglo-Saxon past as a platform from which to critique Anglo-Norman society.
Introduction
According to the earliest documentary sources, Saint Neot was a monk and hermit
of Cornish descent who died either before or in the year 878.1 The first account of
Neot’s life was written at least one hundred years later, probably at Saint Neots
priory in Eynesbury, which acquired the saint’s relics c.980–1031.2 The Vita Prima
Sancti Neoti (Vita I) presents Neot as a member of the royal house of East Anglia,
rather than a native of western England, who leaves the bustle of the cloister
behind in search of a life of seclusion in the wastelands of Cornwall, later becoming
an advisor to King Alfred the Great. A second recension of the Life (Vita II) was
produced shortly after the Conquest in the vicinity of Glastonbury, where Neot
was revered as a former member of the community.3 In addition to the Latin vitae,
an Old English homiletic adaptation of the Life of Saint Neot survives in the final
booklet of London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D.xiv: a mid-twelfth-century
compendium of Old English prose almost certainly from Christ Church cathedral
* Awarded Jointly.
1 Nicholas Orme, The Saints of Cornwall (Oxford, 2000), 200–3.
2 Vita I is pinted in Michael Lapidge and David Dumville (eds), The Annals of St Neots
with Vita Prima Sancti Neoti (Cambridge, 1985), with discussion of its date and origin at
lxxxv–xcvi.
3 Acta Sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur (Antwerp and Brussels, 1643–1940), July
VII.319–29. Cf. Lapidge and Dumville, Annals, xcii–cxvi.
The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 260
ß The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press 2012; all rights reserved
doi:10.1093/res/hgs039 Advance Access published on 19 April 2012
350
GEORGE YOUNGE
priory, Canterbury.4 Collectively, the two versions of the Latin Life and the Old
English homily form the core of a complex and belated series of legends relating to
this important medieval saint.
Once regarded as a useful source of information for the reign of King Alfred,
the historical value of the Old English homily on Saint Neot was repudiated in the
early twentieth century by Charles Plummer and W. H. Stevenson, who argued
that it was composed long after the Alfredian period.5 The homily’s anachronistic
representation of figures and events from the Anglo-Saxon era, these historians
state, point to its origin in an age when the pre-Conquest past had become a
distant memory. Since then the homily has been neglected, falling outside the
bounds of Anglo-Saxon studies yet failing to attract the attention of scholars of
early Middle English. Only recently has the text been re-evaluated, this time not as
evidence of the life and times of a ninth-century king, but as a cultural artefact in
its own right. Precisely which historical context the homily belongs to, however,
has become a point of contention. For Elaine Treharne, the text provides a valuable insight into the identity of ‘ordinary’ English-speaking people in the late
eleventh or early twelfth century.6 Malcolm Godden, in contrast, has challenged
the conventional dating of the text c.1100, situating it instead between the promulgation of Wulfstan’s Sermo Lupi ad Anglos in 1014 and the terminus ante quem for
the translation of Neot’s relics to Eynesbury in 1031.7 Drawn back into the domain
of Anglo-Saxon studies, the homily is held up by Godden as ‘a striking testimony
to what was possible in late Anglo-Saxon England’.8 This discussion will chart a
course between these two positions, reviewing the case for dating the homily after
the Conquest and questioning its interpretation as the cry of an English underclass
hostile to foreign rule.
Preconditions
The homily on Saint Neot is one of the most densely allusive examples of Old
English prose that survives today. In addition the use of motifs borrowed from the
Lives of Saints Cuthbert and Guthlac, the author pays verbal homage to Ælfric of
4 Cited by page and line number from Rubie D.-N. Warner (ed.), Early English Homilies
from the Twelfth-Century MS. Vesp. D. XIV, EETS o.s. 152 (London, 1917). On the origin
of the manuscript, which has also been attributed to Rochester, see Elaine Treharne,
‘Homilies etc.: London, British Library, Cotton Vespasian D.xiv’ (published online 2010)
<http://www.le.ac.uk/ee/em1060to1220/index.html>, accessed 20 February 2012.
5 Charles Plummer, The Life and Times of Alfred the Great (Oxford, 1902), 55–8; W. H.
Stevenson (ed.), Asser’s Life of King Alfred, together with the Annals of Saint Neots erroneously Ascribed to Asser (Oxford, 1904, reissued with an introduction by Dorothy Whitelock,
1959), 257–61.
6 Elaine Treharne, ‘Periodization and Categorization: the Silence of (the) English in the
Twelfth Century’, in Rita Copeland, Wendy Scase and David Wallace (eds), New Medieval
Literatures, 8 (Turnhout, 2007), 248–75 at 265–8.
7 Malcolm Godden, ‘The Old English Life of Saint Neot and the legends of King Alfred’,
Anglo-Saxon England, 39 (2011), 193–225 at 209.
8 Godden, ‘Neot’, 221.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
351
Eynsham, Archbishop Wulfstan, the Blickling homilist, and the Old English version
of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica.9 The Neot homilist’s familiarity with these authors,
and in particular his emulation of Ælfric and the Old English Bede, is viewed by
Godden as compelling evidence that the text was written before the Conquest.10
While this argument conforms with the general impression of an abrupt cessation of
the Old English prose tradition after 1066, an overview of the corpus of vernacular
hagiography shows that saints’ lives were in fact composed in greater numbers
during the decades before and after the Conquest than in the early eleventh century.
The only examples of Old English hagiography written after the circulation
of Ælfric’s Lives of Saints (c.998) but before c.1050 are Kentish accounts of
Augustine, Seaxburh and Mildrith, and less securely the Life of Saint
Machutus.11 The first three of these texts are short notices that bear only a partial
resemblance to full-length hagiography.12 Moreover, the Lives of Mildrith and
Machutus may derive from exemplars that predate the eleventh century.13
Conversely, c.1050–1150 is an altogether more fertile period for the composition
of vernacular saints’ lives. Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303, a mid-twelfthcentury manuscript from Rochester, contains three substantial biographies of
Nicholas, Giles and Margaret.14 Although these texts cannot be dated with absolute security, it is likely that some if not all of them are post-Conquest in origin.
The cult of Saint Nicholas was established in England shortly before 1066 and that
of Giles not long after; the veneration of both of these saints reflects Norman
influence.15 The cult of Saint Margaret existed in England before the Conquest,
yet the most recent editors of her Life are inclined to date the CCCC 303 version
‘not long before . . . the manuscript in which it is preserved’.16 Like the Neot
9 Mary Richards, ‘An Edition of the Old English Of Seinte Neote’ (unpubd PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1971), 67–97; eadem, ‘The Medieval Hagiography of
St. Neot’, Analecta Bollandiana, 99 (1981), 259–78 at 263–4; Godden, ‘Neot’, 197–201.
10 Godden, ‘Neot’, 201.
11 D. G. Scragg, ‘The Corpus of Anonymous Lives and their Manuscript Context’, in Paul
Szarmach (ed.), Holy Men and Holy Women: Old English Prose Saints’ Lives and their
Contexts (Albany, 1996), 209–30.
12 Jane Roberts, ‘The English Saints Remembered in Old English Homilies’, in Paul
Szarmach (ed.), Old English Prose: Basic Readings (New York, 2000), 433–62 at 445–7.
13 D. W. Rollason (ed.), The Mildrith Legend: a Study in Early Medieval Hagiography in
England (Leicester, 1982), 30–1; David Yerkes (ed.), The Old English Life of Machutus
(Toronto, 1984), xxxvi–xlii.
14 Elaine Treharne, ‘Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, 303’, items 23, 26, and 34 (published online 2010) <http://www.le.ac.uk/english/em1060to1220/mss/EM.CCCC.303
.htm>, accessed 20 February 2012.
15 D. G. Scragg and Elaine Treharne, ‘Appendix: The Three Anonymous Lives in
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College 303’, in Paul Szarmach (ed.), Holy Men and Holy
Women, 231–4; William Schipper, ‘The Normans and the Old English Lives of Saint
Giles and Saint Nicholas’, International Christian University Language Research Bulletin,
1 (1986), 97–108.
16 Mary Clayton and Hugh Magennis (eds), The Old English Lives of St Margaret
(Cambridge, 1994), 70.
352
GEORGE YOUNGE
homily, the Life of Saint Giles borrows from Ælfric, incorporating a substantial
passage from his Life of Saint Martin.17 The vernacular Life of Saint Chad in
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton 116, a compilation produced in the first half the
twelfth century at Worcester, is also indebted to the pre-Conquest literary tradition, drawing directly on the Old English version of Bede’s Historia
Ecclesiastica.18 Although this text is usually thought to be pre-Alfredian in
origin, Jane Roberts has argued that its ‘final compilation’ took place ‘much at
the same time as Hatton 116 was put together’.19 The use of Bede in the Life of
Saint Chad is paralleled in a brief account of Saint Paulinus added to the final folio
of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 340/342 shortly after the Conquest. This is
based on the same section of the Historia Ecclesiastica as referred to in the homily
on Saint Neot.20 Collectively, these texts testify to the continued influence of
Ælfric and Bede on Old English hagiographers working after the Conquest.
The Life of Saint Chad was not the only work of vernacular hagiography
written at Worcester in the early twelfth century. Around the year 1100,
Coleman composed an Old English account of Saint Wulfstan, the last AngloSaxon bishop of Worcester (c.1008–1095).21 The Old English version of
Wulfstan’s Life was lost in the thirteenth century, but a Latin translation by
William of Malmesbury has survived and in this William alludes to ‘the Life of
St Gregory, which, like much else, Coleman turned into his native language’,
implying that Coleman wrote other vernacular hagiographies.22 The loss of the
Old English version of the Life of Saint Wulfstan inhibits assessment of the style
of Coleman’s work, yet there is reason to believe it resembled the homily on Saint
Neot. Like the Neot homilist, Coleman draws on Ælfric, modelling his biography
on the Life of Saint Æthelwold.23 Moreover, in an aside unique to the Latin
translation, William remarks that he has removed ‘the grand language and little
declamations that he [Coleman] borrowed from the Lives of other saints and put in
with all to eager piety’.24 Insofar as we can tell, Coleman drew heavily on the
pre-Conquest homiletic tradition to create a Life that, like the Neot homily, was
nationalistic, nostalgic, and in William’s opinion, overwrought. In the sheer
frequency with which it alludes to earlier texts, the homily on Saint Neot is
17 Elaine Treharne (ed.), The Old English Life of St Nicholas with the Old English Life of
St Giles (Leeds, 1997), 56–7.
18 Rudolph Vleeskruyer, The Life of St. Chad, An Old English Homily (Amsterdam, 1953),
38–71.
19 Roberts, ‘English Saints’, 441.
20 Kenneth Sisam, Studies in the History of Old English Literature (Oxford, 1953), 150–3;
Roberts, ‘English Saints’, 434–5.
21 M. Winterbottom and R. M. Thomson (eds), William of Malmesbury: Saints’ Lives
(Oxford, 2002), 7–155.
22 Winterbottom and Thomson, Saints’ Lives, 30–1.
23 Emma Mason, St Wulfstan of Worcester, c. 1008–1095 (Oxford, 1990), 288; Antonia
Gransden, Historical Writing in England c.550 to c.1307 (London, 1974), 88–9.
24 Winterbottom and Thomson, Saints Lives, 58–9.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
353
unparalleled in any period; in terms of the surviving corpus of vernacular saints’
lives, the timeframe 1050 1100 is an altogether more likely window for the
homily’s composition than the early eleventh century.
Language
All of the texts in Vespasian D.xiv, regardless of their origin, have been regularized
into the dialect of the scribe. While this prevents the homily from being dated on
the basis of its orthography, Godden argues that elements of its vocabulary would
have been ‘distinctly obsolescent’ by the twelfth century.25 The examples he cites
are a reference to Neot praying with his palms (handbred) turned towards heaven,
the use of the word herelaf ‘remnant of an army’ to refer to Guthrum’s defeated
troop, and the choice of æ rather than lagu to refer to ‘law’.26 In each of these cases,
however, the selection of an apparently archaic lexeme is more likely to be a
stylistic desideratum on the part of the homilist than an indication of the text’s
pre-Conquest origin.
The word handbred occurs in a phrase that Godden himself identifies as a direct
quotation from Æflric. Saints Cuthbert, Benedict, and Oswald are all portrayed by
Ælfric praying with their palms (handbred) turned towards heaven.27 In each of
these settings, handbred is used in the context of an allusion to the posture assumed
during the ‘cross vigil’, an ascetic practice first recorded in early Irish penitential
literature and introduced as a motif in Anglo-Saxon hagiography by Bede.28 Even
if handbred was obsolete by the twelfth century, its function in the Neot homily is
referential, designed to show Neot’s participation in a ritual that the translator
apparently associated with insular spirituality. Although herelaf does not occur
elsewhere in post-Conquest compositions, it is retained in late manuscript contexts
and there is little reason to believe it had become obsolete. A twelfth-century
author searching for an archaic-sounding word to refer to Guthrum’s troop
could have found herelaf in Ælfric’s pastoral letters, the Lives of Saints, or the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.29 Nor can æ be considered an obscolescent lexeme, as
Richard Dance has shown.30 While lagu eventually replaced æ in the thirteenth
century, the two words coexisted harmoniously throughout the twelfth century.
25 Godden, ‘Neot’, 202.
26 Warner, 132/5, 133/17, 129/21.
27 Malcolm Godden (ed.), Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies: the Second Series, EETS s.s. 5
(London, 1979), 10/81 and 11/479; Walter W. Skeat (ed.), Ælfric’s Lives of Saints,
EETS o.s. 76, 82, 94, 114 (London, 1881–1900, reprinted in two volumes 1966), 26/117.
28 Colin Ireland, ‘Penance and Prayer in Water: An Irish Practice in Northumbrian
Hagiography’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 34 (1997), 51–66 at 62–6.
29 Herelaf occurs nine times in Ælfric’s alliterative works, once in the Battle of Brunanburh,
and once as a gloss in Aldhelm’s prose De uirginitate. For discussion and a full list of citations
see Thomas A. Bredehoft, Authors, Audiences and Old English Verse (Toronto, 2009), 156–7.
30 Richard Dance, ‘Ealde æ, niwæ lage: Two Words for ‘‘Law’’ in the Twelfth Century’, in
Elaine Treharne, Orietta da Rold and Mary Swan (eds), New Medieval Literatures, 13
(forthcoming, 2012).
354
GEORGE YOUNGE
As Dance notes, æ is used elsewhere in Vespasian D.xiv in the Elucidarius, a text
composed by Honorius Augustodunensis c.1100 and translated into Old English
not long before the manuscript was compiled.31
Although this negative lexical evidence does not prove that the homily was
written before the Conquest, the absence of transitional vocabulary is nonetheless
striking. For Godden, the homily’s lack of early Middle English features contrasts
with Ralph d’Escures’ sermon on the Assumption of the Virgin (c.1100), an
indisputably late text copied alongside the Life of Saint Neot in the final booklet
of Vespasian D.xiv.32 As Godden notes, the twelfth-century date of the Old
English translation of Ralph’s work is immediately apparent from the use of late
loanwords, such as bestuddian ‘trouble about’.33 This text, however, is the
exception among compositions of probable or certain post-Conquest origin in
Vespasian D.xiv, the remainder of which are dateable only on the basis of their
sources and content. The contrast between the linguistic traditionalism of most of
the post-Conquest texts in Vespasian D.xiv and the modernity of their subject
matter is exemplified by the Elucidarius, a work which according to Max Förster
displays ‘a total absence of any Scandinavian and French element’.34 If the homily
on Saint Neot is a late composition, then the lack of Middle English vocabulary
may point to its production in the same linguistically conservative milieu as the
other post-Conquest texts in Vespasian D.xiv.
Sources
The Old English homily cannot be the earliest account of Neot’s life, since the
translator refers to his sources as bec ‘books’ (129/12). The identity of these
documents, however, is contested and two opposing scenarios have been advanced
for the relationship between the three lives. Michael Lapidge argues that Vita I is
the earliest version of the Life (c.1050), with Vita II, and the Old English homily
representing later revisions of this text.35 Richards and Godden, in contrast, claim
that Vita I, Vita II, and the homily derive independently from an earlier version of
the Life that is now lost.36 The hypothetical existence of this archetypal Life allows
Richards and Godden to date the homily before c.1050, giving it chronological
priority over Vita I and Vita II. The lost Life is also used to account for features of
the homily that are not found in the Latin vitae and the absence of details that we
would expect to find in the Old English version.
31 Warner, 145/16. On the date of the Old English Elucidarius, see Stephanie Hollis and
Michael Wright (eds), Old English Prose of Secular Learning (Cambridge, 1992), 76–81.
32 Godden, ‘Neot’, 202.
33 Warner, 134/10.
34 Max Förster, ‘Two Notes on Old English Dialogue Literature’, in An English Miscellany
Presented to Dr. Furnivall in Honour of his Seventy-fifth Birthday (Oxford, 1901), 86–106
at 89.
35 Dumville and Lapidge, Annals, lxxxv–xcii and cix–cxi.
36 Richards, ‘Hagiography’, 264–5, 274; Godden, ‘Neot’, 202–7.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
355
The case for a lost Life rests on textual agreement between the homily and Vita
II against Vita I. The single example of this cited by Richards concerns a description of Neot receiving angelic visitations, which she states is ‘much fuller’ and
‘closer in wording’ in the homily and Vita II than in the corresponding section of
Vita I:37
Unde factum est, ut frequentissime angelico confortaretur alloquio, & sustentaretur patrocinio:
qui spiritu vivebat, spiritu & ambulabat. Disponens exinde divino nutu pluribus
prodesse . . . Coepit ergo ardenti desiderio monasterium construere . . . (§25)
[It came to pass that he was very frequently consoled by angelic reassurance and supported
by their patronage, they who lived and travelled in the air. Next they ordered him by divine
command to be useful . . . Therefore he began, with a burning desire, to build a
monastery . . .]
Him comen gelomen to halige Godes ængles and hine gefrefreden & wel geherten, & hine
manoden, ìæt he ne geswice Godes word to bodigenne ealle mannen oôô his lifes ænde, &
beheten him gewiss ìæt ece lif, ìe he nu mid myrhôe onwuneô (130/21–5).
[God’s holy angels frequently came to him and comforted him and greatly encouraged him,
exhorting him not to stop proclaiming God’s word to all men until the end of his life, and
promised him as a certainty that eternal life which he now inhabits with joy.]
These passages are certainly more elaborate than the equivalent section of Vita
I, which states simply that Neot freqentissime angelica meruit perfrui uisitatione
‘merited the joy of very frequent visitations from angels’ (§6). The expansions
do not necessarily presuppose a common source, however, since the two versions
of the Life develop this detail in very different ways. In Vita II, the angels instruct
Neot ‘to be of use’, in response to which the saint builds a monastery. No mention
is made of the monastery in the homily and instead the angels encourage Neot to
leave his hermitage and preach. Angelic guidance is a relatively common trope in
medieval hagiography and the homilist may have been inspired by a range of
sources. A similar scene, for instance, occurs in Ælfric’s homily on Saint
Furseus, a text copied alongside the Life of Saint Neot in Vespasian D.xiv: þa
cwæô se Godes ængel to ìan were Furseum . . . ‘Bode nu ealle mannen dædbote to
donne, & andetnysse to sacerdan oôô ende nextan tide heoras lifes’ ‘Then God’s
angel said to the man Furseus . . . ‘‘Preach now to all men to repent and make
confession to priests until the last moment of their lives’’ ’ (114/25–9).
In addition to the examples cited by Richards, two further points of agreement
between Vita II and the Old English homily are adduced by Godden. The first of
these is a description of the location of Neot’s hermitage near a spring:
Erat ibi (ut aiunt) & est usque hodie fons quidam irriguus, qui totum locum reddebat aptiorem,
gratam ei conferens amœnitatem (§28).
[There was there, so they say, and still is in the present day, a well-watered spring, which
made the whole place more seemly, bestowing a pleasing beauty on it.]
37 Richards, ‘Hagiography’, 274.
356
GEORGE YOUNGE
. . . & he him ìær wununge getimbrode on swyôe fægeren stowe, and myrige wæterseaôes ìær
abuten standeô, & ìa synden swyôe wynsume of to ìycgene (130/8–10).
[. . . and he built a dwelling for himself there in a very lovely place and pleasant cisterns
stand around there, and those are very joyful to taste from.]
Although these statements are broadly similar, a comparable reference to Neot’s
watery abode is also found in Vita I, which records that Neot lived in a locus
nemorosis undique uallatur arboribus perspicuisque emanat fluminibus ‘place thickly
wooded with trees on every side, flowing with clear rivers’ (§5). As neither of the
Latin lives resembles the Old English version precisely at this point, it is possible
that the homilist had an alternative model in mind. Richards notes that the portrayal of Neot’s hermitage in Vita I partially derives from Felix’s Life of Saint
Guthlac, a source that may in turn have inspired the homilist, whose language
echoes the Old English translation of the Life of Saint Guthlac:38
þa wæs ìær on oìre sidan ìæs hlawas gedolfen swylce mycel wæterseaô wære; on ìam seaôe
ufan se eadiga wer Guthlac him hus getimbrode.39
[On one side of the burial-mound there was dug, a great cistern as it were and over the
reservoir the blessed Guthlac built himself a house.]
The reference to the hermitage’s location next to a wæterseaô ‘cistern’ suggests
that the homilist was familiar with the wording of the Old English Life of Saint
Guthlac. Wæterseaô is an extremely rare compound, occurring only once elsewhere in the corpus of Old English as a gloss for cisterna in a tenth-century copy of
Aldhelm’s prose De uirginitate.40 Whereas Vita I locates Neot’s hermitage near a
flumen (river), and Vita II situates it next to a fons quidam irriguus (well-watered
spring), the Old English homily and the vernacular Life of Guthlac agree in
placing his dwelling next to a cistern.
These parallels between Vita II and the homily are not firm enough to establish
the existence of a Life predating Vita I. One further correspondence, however, is
less easily accounted for. Both Vita II and the homily proceed to make the spring
the setting of a miracle story that takes place when Neot is immersed in the water
at prayer:
Factum est autem in una dierum, ut idem Domini Servus more solito staret in fonte, in quo solitus
erat ad rigoris incrementum totum ex integro Psalterium persolvere (§33).
[It happened one day that the Lord’s servant was standing in his usual manner in
the spring, in which he was accustomed to perform the entire Psalter to heighten the
austerity.]
38 Richards, ‘Hagiography’, 263.
39 Charles Wycliffe Goodwin (ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Life of St Guthlac,
Hermit of Crowland (London, 1848), 26–7.
40 Arthur S. Napier, Old English Glosses: Chiefly Unpublished (Oxford, 1900), 15 [no. 498].
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
357
Hit gelamp sume dæige, ìæt se halge were on ærnemorgen digellice ferde to his wæterseaôe, &
ìær his drohtnunge & his salmsanges on ìan wætere hnacodan leomen adreah, swa his gewune
wæs (130/29–32).
[It happened one day that the saint went secretly in the early morning to his cistern and
there performed his services and psalm-singing in the water with naked limbs, as was his
custom.]
Despite the general resemblance of these two passages, the homily differs significantly in detail and emphasis from Vita II, stating that Neot visited the cistern in
the early morning, that he went there in secret, that he performed the services as
well as singing the psalms, and that he did this with his limbs exposed. If the
descriptions were based on a common ancestor we might expect the correspondences to be more precise. The dissimilarity of the two accounts is further suggested by the miracles that are subsequently related, which derive from
independent sources. In Vita II, Neot is interrupted by a pack of hounds in
pursuit of a deer. The saint rescues the deer and when the huntsman witnesses
this he decides to become a monk (§33–4). In the homily, Neot is surprised by the
sound of an approaching horseman and as he rushes to conceal himself his shoe is
carried off by a fox (130/21–131/17). In a show of favour to Neot, God puts the
fox to sleep, allowing Neot’s servant to recover his footwear. Neither of these
stories was originally associated with Neot: an earlier version of the Fox and the
Shoe occurs in the Vita Sancti Ciarani and the Conversion of the Huntsman is
found elsewhere in connection with Saint Petroc.41 Rather than taking the setting
from a lost archetype of the Life and grafting this onto a miracle story obtained
from a different source, it is more likely that the homilist struck upon both the
setting and the miracle independently of Vita II. As with the reference to the
cross-vigil, the depiction of Neot at prayer in water may conceivably represent an
attempt to demonstrate his insular credentials. The Celtic saints Patrick and Kevin
both recited their psalms immersed in water, as did the Anglo-Saxon holy men
Wilfrid, Aldhelm, Cuthbert, and Drihthelm.42 Moreover, a description of
Drihthelm praying in water features in the same booklet of Vespasian D.xiv as
the homily on Saint Neot (118/22–7).
These plausibly incidental correspondences between the homily and Vita II are
overshadowed by numerous points of close contact with Vita I. A selection of
passages in which the phrasing of the homily directly parallels Vita I are cited by
Lapidge, to which the following observations can be added.43 Both texts share
significant details that are not present in Vita II, including references to the location of Neot’s hermitage near Padstow (§5, 130/7) and the reburial of his relics on
oôre stowe ‘in another place’ within his church in Cornwall (§10, 132/13–6).44
41 Richards, ‘Hagiography’, 274–7.
42 Bertram Colgrave (ed.), Two Lives of Saint Cuthbert (Oxford, 1940), 319; Ireland, ‘Prayer
in Water’, 51–66.
43 Lapidge and Dumville, Annals, cxvi–iii
44 Godden, ‘Neot’, 207.
358
GEORGE YOUNGE
On occasion, the homily seems to imitate passages of rhyme in Vita I, a stylistic
feature not found in Vita II.45 Elsewhere, the homilist struggles with the confusing
topography of Vita I, an aspect of this version of the Life that indicates its composition by an individual who was unfamiliar with the territorial divisions of
ninth-century England.46 These correspondences support Lapidge’s suggestion
that the homily and Vita II are independent revisions of Vita I: the authors of
the later versions of the Life reshaping Vita I according to their respective agendas
and supplementing it with miracle stories obtained from local sources. The homily’s reliance on Vita I provides a terminus post quem of c.1050 and a terminus ante
quem of c.1150, the date of Vespasian D.xiv. Within this window, the homily’s
survival in a manuscript linked to Christ Church, Canterbury and the rise of
Neot’s cult in southeastern England in the late eleventh century point to its
probable composition in the decades either side of the year 1100.
Bec, Christ Church, and Eynesbury
Neot’s name features principally in pre-Conquest calendars from the west of
England. However, his cult spread rapidly in the Norman period and by the
middle of the twelfth century he was venerated at institutions as geographically
diverse as Christ Church, Deeping, Ely, Westminster, Ramsey, and Eynesbury in
the southeast, and Exeter, Glastonbury, and Sherbourne in the west of England.47
The production of Old English manuscripts after the Conquest was restricted
primarily to major monastic centres and it is unlikely that the homily was composed at any of the smaller houses on this list, particularly as the author appears to
have had access to a well-stocked library. As no mention is made of the translation
of Neot’s relics from Cornwall to southeastern England, it is also unlikely that the
homily was written at the priory of Saint Neots in Eynesbury or the abbey of
Crowland. These two foundations maintained rival claims to Neot’s remains and
we would expect an author working at either location to refer to their possession of
the saint’s body, as the Eynesbury-based compiler of Vita I does.48
The homily’s silence on the translation of Neot’s relics to southeastern England
led Godden to suggest that it was written at Glastonbury, ‘the most prominent
location in the Life’ apart from Cornwall.49 If it was composed at this house,
however, one might expect to find a more elaborate description of Neot’s time
at Glastonbury, as is the case in Vita II, which was almost certainly written there
45 Richards, ‘Neote’, 26–7.
46 Compare Vita I, §11 with Warner, 132/18–24.
47 Rebecca Rushforth (ed.), Saints in English Kalendars Before A.D. 1100 (London, 2008),
31 July and 20 October; Michael Lapidge (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Litanies of the Saints (London,
1991), 134, 189, 198 and 237; Francis Wormald (ed.), English Benedictine Kalendars after
A. D. 1100, 2 vols (London, 1946), I, 74, 123, 139 and II, 14, 69. Cf. Lapidge and Dumville,
Annals, xci.
48 Lapidge and Dumville, Annals, xcii–xcvi.
49 Godden, ‘Neot’, 211.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
359
(§10, 18). Moreover, the homilist assumes that his audience is unfamiliar with the
topography of western England, stating that Neot’s church is located in the
wæstdæles ìysses landes ‘western part of this land’, ten miles from Padstow at
Neotes stoca ‘Neotstoke’ (130/7–8). An alternative possibility, and one that has
not yet been explored, is that the homily was written in southeastern England
within the sphere of influence of Christ Church, Canterbury. Although the archdiocese did not claim Neot’s relics, the monks of Christ Church took a close
interest in his cult. Through their connection with the French abbey of Bec,
the Benedictines at Canterbury maintained ties with Saint Neots priory in
Eynesbury, which became a dependency of Bec after its re-foundation by
Richard and Rohais of Clare c.1080–86.50 At the centre of the relationship between
Christ Church, Eynesbury, and Bec is the figure of Saint Anselm, abbot of Bec
(1079–92) and Archbishop of Canterbury (1093–1109), who took a strong personal
interest in Saint Neot.
As Marjorie Chibnall argued, Anselm’s influence almost certainly accounts for
the unexpected veneration of Saint Neot at Bec.51 In a letter sent to the Bishop of
Lincoln, Anselm recalls inspecting Neot’s relics during a visit to Eynesbury between the summers of 1080 and 1081.52 Doubts have been raised about the authenticity of this letter, which is not transmitted among Anselm’s correspondence
and instead survives as a copy of a charter in the register of Oliver Sutton, bishop
of Lincoln (1280–99). However, the information it contains is corroborated by
other sources and its general reliability should be trusted. Anselm’s removal of part
of Neot’s body is confirmed by the inclusion of the saint’s jawbone (maxilla) in a
list of relics drawn up at Bec in 1134.53 Likewise, Eadmer refers to gifts (donum)
offered by Anselm to Bec upon his return from Eynesbury, adding that these were
still housed in the abbey’s church at the time of writing.54 Anselm’s personal
devotion must also account for the extraordinary prestige accorded to Neot in
the liturgy at Bec: Neot’s name is included in the Bec Missal and antiphons for his
feast day (31 July) are recorded in the Customary.55
Elsewhere there is evidence that Anselm was an advocate of the priory of Saint
Neots. Letters of undoubted authenticity show that he dispatched a party of
monks to Eynesbury at the behest of Richard and Rohais of Clare shortly after
50 Marjorie Chibnall, ‘History of the Priory of Saint Neots’, Proceedings of the
Cambridgeshire Antiquarian Society, 59 (1966), 67–74.
51 Eadem, ‘The Relations of Saint Anselm with the English Dependencies of the Abbey of
Bec, 1079–93’, Spicilegium Beccensis, 1 (1959), 521–30.
52 F. S. Schmitt (ed.), Sancti Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia, 5 Vols
(Edinburgh, 1946–63; reprinted Stuttgart, 1968), Ep. 473.
53 André Porée, Histoire de l’abbaye du Bec, vol. 1 (Évreux, 1901, reprinted Brussels 1980),
655.
54 R. W. Southern (ed.), The Life of Saint Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury (London, 1962),
56–7.
55 Anselm Hughes (ed.), The Bec Missal (Leighton Buzzard, 1963), 6 and 172; Porée, Bec,
309, n. 1.
360
GEORGE YOUNGE
inspecting Neot’s relics.56 These men carried with them recommendations addressed to some of Bec’s most influential English friends, including Archbishop
Lanfranc of Canterbury, Bishop Gundulf of Rochester, and Abbot Baldwin of
Bury Saint Edmunds. According to the Bec Chronicle, Anselm’s attempts to raise
money for the priory eventually met with success and a church was dedicated to
Neot at Eynesbury in 1113.57
Given Anselm’s evident interest in Saint Neot, it seems likely that he was also
responsible for Neot’s introduction into the liturgy at Christ Church. Following
Lanfranc’s appointment as archbishop in 1070, the saints observed at Christ Church
were subject to an unprecedented degree of scrutiny. The tension this created within
the community is evoked in a famous chapter of the Life of Saint Anselm, in which
Eadmer recalls a heated conversation between Lanfranc and Anselm regarding the
downgrading of Saint Ælfheah’s cult.58 T. A. Heslop has established definitively
that Lanfranc acted upon his misgivings, purging many of the pre-Conquest feasts
from the liturgy at Christ Church and bringing it into line with Bec.59 Some of these
festivals were reinstated in the twelfth century and, in the case of Ælfheah and
perhaps also Milburga, Anselm’s influence appears to have been instrumental in
ensuring the survival of a native English cult after the Conquest.60 Anselm’s endorsement of Neot and his defence of other English saints supports the surmise that
he was personally responsible for introducing Neot’s feast at Christ Church. Neot’s
festival was not observed by the community before the Conquest and it first appears
in liturgical calendars at the beginning of the twelfth century.61
The devotional preferences and pastoral theology of Saint Anselm also influenced
the compiler of Vespasian D.xiv.62 Many of the texts in this manuscript are targeted
excerpts on the related subjects of clerical marriage and simony, a focus that reflects
the Gregorian reforms of the late eleventh century. Strict prohibitions against these
abuses were issued by a series of Canterbury archbishops, and in particular by
Anselm, who roundly condemned simony and clerical marriage in church councils
at the beginning of the twelfth century. Moreover, the compositions by Honorius
Augustodunensis and Ralph d’Escures in the manuscript are indebted to Anselm’s
theological and devotional writings. Alongside these works of certain post-Conquest
56 Schmitt, Opera Omnia, Epp. 90–4.
57 Chronicon Beccensis, s.a 1113 and 1141, in J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina, 150, col.
650 and 652.
58 Southern, Anselm, 50–3.
59 T. A. Heslop, ‘The Canterbury Calendars and the Norman Conquest’, in Richard Eales
and Richard Sharpe (eds), Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and
Scholars, 1066–1109 (London, 1995), 53–85 at 57–9.
60 Richard W. Pfaff, ‘The Calendar’, in Margaret Gibson, T. A. Heslop and Richard W.
Pfaff (eds), The Eadwine Psalter: Text, Image, and Monastic Culture in Twelfth-century
Canterbury (London, 1992), 62–83 at 67.
61 Heslop, ‘Calendar’, 60, 75, 82; Pfaff, ‘Calendar’, 70.
62 George Younge, ‘An Old English Compiler and his Audience: London, British Library,
MS Cotton Vespasian D.xiv’, in Orietta da Rold and Anthony J. Edwards (eds), English
Manuscripts Before 1400 (forthcoming, 2012).
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
361
origin, the final booklet of Vespasian D.xiv contains other texts that were probably
written after 1066. These include an appendix to Ralph’s sermon describing the
family of the Virgin Mary and an account of the six ages of the world that apparently
derives from a sermon in Honorius’ Speculum Ecclesiae (139/3–25 and 139/26–
140/19).63 Collectively these pieces form a run of post-Conquest compositions in
the final quire block of Vespasian D.xiv with Anselmian connections. That the
homily on Saint Neot stands at the head of this sequence is significant; if ever
there was a place where we might expect to find a late composition with a link to
Saint Anselm, it is here in the final booklet of Vespasian D.xiv.
A connection between Anselm, Neot, and Christ Church would also explain the
prominence accorded to Saint Ælfheah in the homily. Whereas Vita I refers to
Neot’s ordination by an unnamed bishop of his own diocese (§6), the Old English
Life states that:
ìes halge were to Glæstingebyrig gecerred wære on Sanctes Ælfeges dagen ìæs halgen biscopes,
and æt him underfeng ìone halge sacerdhad
[The holy man [Neot] went to Glastonbury in the days of Saint Ælfheah, the holy bishop,
and received the holy priesthood from him’ (129/25–7).]
While this is usually interpreted as a reference to archbishop Ælfheah of
Canterbury, who was martyred by the vikings in 1012, Godden suggests that it
may instead be an allusion to Ælfheah the Bald, bishop of Winchester (d.951).64 The
question of which Ælfheah the homilist had in mind pertains directly to the dating of
the homily. As Godden notes, a reference to Ælfheah the Bald indicates a date earlier
than the 1020s, since after this, ‘ ‘‘the holy bishop St Ælfheah’’ would inevitably
have implied Ælfheah of Canterbury’.65 Although Ælfheah the Bald had a cult at the
Old Minster Winchester in the late tenth century, there is no evidence to suggest
this was anything more than a temporary and strictly local phenomenon. Ælfheah
the Bald’s sanctity is mentioned in only two surviving sources, Wulfstan Cantor’s
Life of St Æthelwold (written at Winchester in 996) and the Old English tract on
saints’ resting places Secgan, and he is not referred to in calendars produced outside
Winchester.66 Given the restricted scope of Ælfheah the Bald’s cult, it is considerably more likely that the homilist is referring to Ælfheah of Canterbury, whose
reputation flourished in southeastern England after the Conquest and whose
relics were kept at Christ Church.67 Rather than supporting the case for an
63 Thomas N. Hall, ‘The Earliest Anglo-Latin Text of the Trinubium Annae (BHL 505zl)’,
in Idem (ed.), Via Crucis: Essays on Early Medieval Sources and Ideas: in Memory of J. E.
Cross (Morgantown, 2002), 104–137 at 132–4; Honorius Augustodunensis, Speculum
Ecclesiae, in J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina 172, col. 854.
64 Godden, ‘Neot’, 205–7 65 Godden, ‘Neot’, 207.
66 Michael Lapidge (ed.), The Life of St Æthelwold (Oxford, 1991), §8 and §14; F.
Liebermann (ed.), Die Heiligen Englands (Hannover, 1889), II.31; Rushforth, Kalendars,
12 March; Lapidge, Litanies, XII.93, XVI.i.84, XV.ii.292.
67 Paul Hayward, ‘Translation-Narratives in Post-Conquest Hagiography and English
Resistance to the Norman Conquest’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 21 (1998), 67–93 at 70–3;
Jay Rubenstein, ‘The Life and Writings of Osbern of Canterbury’, in Richard Eales and
362
GEORGE YOUNGE
early-eleventh-century date, the anachronistic reference to Neot’s ordination by an
archbishop who lived a century after his death points to the homily’s composition in
an age when the chronological gap separating these figures had become less important than their status as ‘great men’, linked in the popular imagination by their
resistance to the vikings and their local importance at Canterbury.68
Regnum and Sacerdotium
Recent scholarship has been sharply divided in its interpretation of the homily’s
presentation of King Alfred. For Treharne, Alfred’s stoic endurance represents ‘a
model to resist oppression resulting from defeat’, providing native Englishmen
with a folk hero who is at once ‘pious, heroic, educated, and the ideal of Christian
leadership’.69 In contrast, Godden regards Alfred as ‘a failed and unheroic king,
driven from his kingdom because of his own crimes and his cowardice’.70 The
homily’s negative portrayal of Alfred, Godden suggests, accords with the perspective of an author writing in the ‘time of Cnut and his sons’ and is ‘consonant with
the view of Æthelred voiced by some texts in this period’.71 At first glance, these
divergent positions are difficult to reconcile, yet they fall into place when viewed
against the backdrop of the localized anxieties of Christ Church monks in the late
eleventh century: a period that marks the beginning of a protracted breakdown in
relations between church and state, known to historians as the Investiture
Controversy.72
The struggle between king and church had a pronounced impact on many
aspects of cultural production at Christ Church in the century after the
Conquest. The frenetic adjustment of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the compilation
of the Christ Church cartulary, and the composition of local hagiography in the
decades surrounding 1100 all testify to the importance of the pre-Conquest past as
a precedent for relations between crown and church in the Norman period.73 This
trend is epitomized by the opening chapter of Eadmer’s Historia Novorum in
Anglia (completed 1123), a work that takes as its controlling theme the conflict
Richard Sharpe (eds), Canterbury and the Norman Conquest: Churches, Saints and Scholars,
1066–1109 (London, 1995), 27–40 at 35–7.
68 Plummer, Alfred, 56. 69 Treharne, ‘Periodization’, 267.
70 Godden, ‘Neot’, 221. 71 Godden, ‘Neot’, 219–20.
72 Sally N. Vaughn, Anselm of Bec and Robert of Meulan: The Innocence of the Dove and the
Wisdom of the Serpent (Berkeley, 1983), 149–213; George Garnett, Conquered England:
Kingship, Succession, and Tenure, 1066–1166 (Oxford, 2007), 45–135.
73 Alice Jorgensen, ‘Rewriting the Æthelredian Chronicle: Narrative Style and Identity in
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle MS F’, in Alice Jorgensen (ed.), Reading the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle: Language, Literature and History (Turnhout, 2010), 113–38; Robin Fleming,
‘Christ Church Canterbury’s Anglo-Norman Cartulary’, in Charles Warren Hollister
(ed.), Anglo-Norman Political Culture and the Twelfth-century Renaissance (Woodbridge,
1995), 83–156 at 99–100; Gransden, Historical Writing, 127–35.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
363
between Anselm and the monarchy. Looking back at the reign of King Edgar
(959–75), Eadmer recalls a time when king and archbishop interacted harmoniously for the benefit of the realm:
In the reign of the most glorious King Edgar, as he diligently governed the entire realm
with righteous laws, Dunstan prelate of Canterbury, a man of limitless virtue, ordered the
whole of Britain by the administration of Christian law. Under his influence and counsel,
King Edgar showed himself to be a devoted servant of God . . . All England enjoyed peace
and felicity so long as it was fortunate enough to have that king and Father Dunstan in
bodily presence.74
The archbishop is portrayed by Eadmer as a loyal supporter of the king and the
king a willing recipient of the archbishop’s counsel. Under Dunstan’s guidance,
Eadmer continues, Edgar’s reign was a period of peace and prosperity, free from
barbarian incursions. The relationship between Neot and Alfred in the homily is
remarkably consistent with the Canterbury perspective in the early twelfth century. In adapting Vita I, the homilist advocates a reciprocal relationship between
king and church, highlighting Alfred’s failure to care for his subjects and relating
this to the temporary loss of Neot’s counsel.
A coherent sequence of alterations establishes a chain of authority that originates
in Rome and descends via the priesthood to the king. Unlike Vita I, the homily
does not allude to a blood relationship between Neot and Alfred (§8). While this
may simply be an oversight, it is possible that Neot’s royal connections were
overlooked in order to avoid the implication that relatives of the king received
preferment in the church. An investiture context would also account for the
homily’s reference to Neot’s ordination by Saint Ælfheah, archbishop of
Canterbury. An analogous series of changes concern the relationship between
Neot, Alfred, and the pope, an important figure in the twelfth-century dispute
between king and church. Whereas Vita I reports that Neot made a single visit to
Rome after spending seven years in the wilderness (§6), the Old English homily
states that the saint travelled to Rome seofe siôen ‘seven times’, omitting any reference to the length of time he spent in isolation (130/3). This adjustment does
not seem to be accidental, since immediately thereafter the homilist praises Neot in
the highest terms: his allegiance to Rome shows that he is on eallen Godes beboden
swyôe fullfremed ‘very perfect in all God’s commandments’ (130/4–5). This pattern is repeated in the presentation of Alfred’s relationship with the pope. Whereas
in Vita I Neot advises the king to send ambassadors (legatus) to Rome, in the
homily Alfred is instructed to visit the pope in person (§9, 131/25). The king’s
fulfillment of this command triggers the first of two explicit statements of approval
by the homilist, who calls Alfred a gode king (131/30). For Godden and Richards,
these readings, which are not found in the Latin vitae, indicate the homily’s
reliance on an earlier version of the Life. Collectively, however, the alterations
74 Martin Rule (ed.), Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia (London, 1884), §3, (translated
Vaughn, Innocence, 150).
364
GEORGE YOUNGE
are consistent in their emphasis and do not need to be explained with reference to
a lost source. Neot’s authority derives from his status as a perfect monastic priest,
ordained by a future archbishop of Canterbury and received by the pope in Rome.
In turn, Alfred’s sovereignty is authenticated by his own allegiance to the pope and
supported by Neot’s guidance, the withdrawal of which precipitates a crisis in
government.
The Old English homily and Vita I differ markedly in their portrayal of Alfred’s
character. Although Vita I refers to the consequences of Alfred’s misgovernment,
its focus is on his moral shortcomings. Neot refers elliptically to the nequissimis
actionibus ‘very wicked deeds’ that Alfred perpetrated in the past and attributes the
viking raids to his failure to atone for these (§9). Because of his shadowy sins, Neot
predicts, Alfred will become a profugus latitabis ‘lurking fugitive’ and remain in
chastisement until he learns the humility of King David (§9). While the homily
refers briefly to Alfred’s sins, its emphasis is on the suffering that his unrihtwisnysse
‘unrighteousness’ causes his subjects. In commenting on the civic dimension of
kingship, the homily echoes the rhetoric of the seventh-century tract De duodecim
abusiuis sæculi, a work of profound importance throughout the medieval period
and especially in the troubled twelfth century.75 It is perhaps no coincidence that
an Old English translation of this treatise by Ælfric is also included in Vespasian
D.xiv, with the section on unrihtwis kings marked out for special attention by the
manuscript’s rubricator (14/25–15/15).
The influence of the De duodecim abusiuis sæculi is felt initially in the homily’s
account of Neot’s prophecy. Rather than stressing Alfred’s personal immorality,
Neot rebukes the king for his unrihtwisnysse (131/24). This terminology is repeated in the homily’s coda, which states that eternal rest was eventually granted to
the king on account of his rihtwisnysse (133/24). Unlike Vita I, the Old English
homily does not present the viking invasions as divine punishment for Alfred’s
sins, but instead portrays them as an inevitable trial that the king will face after
Neot’s death. Rather than concentrating on the causality of the raids, the homily
draws attention to the disruptive effect these have on the relationship between king
and advisor. Neot instructs Alfred to ìine heorte to mine ræde gecerre ‘turn your
heart to my counsel’, urging him to geôænc ìu min, & ic ìe gescilde on Drihtenes
name ‘think of me and I will protect you in the name of the Lord’ (131/23–4, 131/
37–132/1).
After Neot’s death, Guthrum invades and lays waste to the countryside as
predicted. Alfred’s response to this assult is viewed differently in the two versions
of the Life. Whereas in Vita I the king’s flight is presented as an enforced necessity
75 Rob Meens, ‘Politics, mirrors of princes and the Bible: Sins, kings and the well-being of
the realm’, Early Medieval Europe, 7 (1998), 345–57; Björn Weiler, ‘Kingship, Usurpation
and Propaganda in Twelfth-century Europe: the Case of Stephen’, Anglo-Norman Studies,
23 (2001), 299–326 at 322–3.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
365
(§11), the homily introduces the charge of cowardice, calling attention to Alfred’s
failure to protect his subjects:
þa Ælfred king, ìe we ær embe spæcon, ìæt ofaxode, ìæt se here swa stiôlic wæs, & swa neh
Englelande, he sone forfyrht fleames cepte, & his cæmpen ealle forlet, & his hertogen, and eall
his ìeode, madmes & madmfaten, & his life gebearh (132/20–4).
[When King Alfred, whom we spoke about earlier, heard how fierce the army was and how
near to England, he took flight at once in fear and forsook all his soldiers, and his generals,
and all his people, treasures, and precious vessels, and protected his life.]
The homily’s sympathy for the men abandoned by Alfred corresponds with sentiments identified by Treharne elsewhere in English works from the twelfth century. The Peterborough Chronicle, the Dicts of Cato, and the Trinity Homilies all
lament the consequences of dissolute leadership.76
Alfred’s reliance on Neot’s assistance is further underscored in the homily
through the incorporation of biblical allusions that are not present in Vita I.
Neot predicts that Alfred will flee after his death: swa hit on Drihtenes ìrowunge
awriten is ìæt, ‘ìone se herde aflemed & ofslagen byô, ìonne byô ìa scep ealle
tostæncte’ ‘just as it is written in the passion of the Lord that ‘‘when the shepherd
is put to flight and slain, then the sheep will all be scattered’’ ’ (131/34–6). This
citation creates a parallel between Neot and Christ, who utters the parable to his
disciples before the crucifixion (Matt. 26:31; Mk. 14:27). Just as Jesus predicts that
his disciples will stray, so too Neot foresees Alfred’s defection. A related biblical
allusion is woven into the description of the king’s flight to Athelney. After abandoning his army, Alfred sulks along the hegas & wegas, retreating to the place of
his birth (132/24). The phrase ‘hedges and lanes’ contains a verbal echo of the
parable of the wedding feast, the story of a king who invites his successful acquaintances to celebrate a marriage (Lk. 14:16–28).77 One by one the invitations
are declined until the king, angered by the presumption of his guests, sends
servants through the plateas et vicos ‘streets and lanes’ in search of the lowly,
who are deemed to be worthier of his generosity than the rich. Alfred’s flight
through the ‘hedges and lanes’ draws attention to his enforced humility, a consequence of rejecting Neot’s advice. The loss of authority experienced by Alfred
after Neot’s death is complemented thematically by the homily’s focus on Neot’s
role in defeating the vikings. In Vita I, Alfred’s struggle with Guthrum is described
in detail, culminating in the king petitioning Neot for support (§13–5). In contrast, the homily does not mention Alfred’s own efforts to expel the vikings and
attributes their defeat entirely to the intervention of Neot, who pledges to
todræfe ealle ìine wiôerwinnen ‘drive away all your enemies’ if the king will to
geleafen gebege ‘bow to belief’ (133/12–3).
76 Treharne, ‘Periodization’, 259–65.
77 The same phrase is used by Ælfric in his discussion of the parable (Godden, Second
Series, 23/18).
366
GEORGE YOUNGE
As Jane Roberts has observed, the Old English homily on Saint Neot ‘belongs to
an age when romance motifs become more and more a part of the telling of saints’
lives’.78 The homily’s proximity to the romance tradition is especially apparent in
its focus on the king’s emotional development, an aspect of the text that reflects
growing interest in the twelfth century in human motivation and the psychology of
individual action.79 Although the king’s emotions are alluded to throughout the
narrative, as for example in the reference to the fear that overwhelms him when
Guthrum invades, they feature most overtly in the famous story of the burning of
the cakes. The homily’s interpretation of this tale anticipates the use of the ‘disguised king’ motif in later medieval literature, where it becomes a locus for exploring concepts relating to royalty, chivalry and class.80
Although Vita I condemns Alfred’s sins, the earliest version of the Life is
remarkably sympathetic to the king’s plight. Sheltering in the house of a swineherd, Alfred is pictured in the manner of Job, cum patientia tame ex Dei iusti iudicio
talia sibi fieri pensans ‘reflecting patiently that these things had befallen him
through God’s just judgement’ (§12). In the Old English homily, the tale is refashioned as a climactic event in Alfred’s development. With an awareness of class
difference that foreshadows later treatments of the ‘disguised king’ motif, the
homily locates the king’s failure in his willing subservience to individuals below
his station, stressing that he georne herde ‘readily obeyed’ the swineherd and his
yfele wife ‘evil wife’ (132/27). This woman, who is barely characterized in Vita I,
dominates Alfred with her eorre mode ‘angry temper’, and chastises him for being
mycelæte ‘greedy’ (132/30–2). Unable to bear the humiliation, Alfred begs for
mercy and thereby reestablishes his relationship with Neot, triggering the homilist’s second use of the epithet gode king (132/33).
Following the recovery of the fortunes of the West Saxons, the historical section
of the homily concludes with a ringing endorsement of Alfred’s virtues that is
without precedent in Vita I:
þa weox Ælfredes cynerice, & his word wide sprang, ìæt he on godcunden gewriten wel gelæred
wæs, swa ìæt he oferôeah biscopes & mæssepreostes & hehdiacones, & cristendom wel ìeah on
ìan gode time. Eac is to wytene, ìæt se king Ælfred manega bec ìurh Godes gast gedyhte (133/
18–22).
[Then Alfred’s kingdom grew and his reputation spread widely, that he was very learned in
divine writings, so that he exceeded bishops, mass-priests, and archbishops, and
Christendom prospered well in that good time. Also it is worth knowing that King
Alfred composed many books through God’s spirit.]
Although Alfred was celebrated for his learning in the late Anglo-Saxon period,
this hyperbolic description of the king’s erudition, which exceeds even that of the
78 Roberts, ‘English Saints’, 449.
79 Robert Hanning, The Individual in Twelfth-century Romance (New Haven, 1977).
80 Elizabeth Walsh, ‘The King in Disguise’, Folklore, 86 (1975), 3–24; Rachel Snell, ‘The
Undercover King’, in Judith Weiss, Jennifer Fellows, and Morgan Dickson (eds), Medieval
Insular Romance: Tradition and Innovation (Woodbridge, 2000), 133–54.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
367
most illustrious churchmen, reflects the embellishment of his reputation after the
Conquest.81 A close parallel to this statement, for example, occurs in the Proverbs
of Alfred, a collection of sayings dated to the final third of the twelfth century.82 In
this text, the king is portrayed instructing a gathering of fele biscopes ‘many
bishops’ and fele boc-lerede ‘many scholars’, and described as ìe wiseste man /
ìat was on Englelonde an ‘one of the wisest men that was in England’ (8).83 As
in the homily on Saint Neot, the Proverbs map contemporary anxieties about
kingship onto the pre-Conquest past.84 Drawing on the De duodecim abusiuis
sæculi, the narrator refers to Alfred as a riht king and one of the proverbs describes
in detail the attributes of a ryhtwis king (9–10). Other sayings testify to Alfred’s
later alignment with the anti-feminist tradition, echoing the homily’s depiction of
the swineheard’s shrewish wife. Alfred warns his listeners of the dangers of wordwod ‘word-mad’ women and counsels them against taking an uvel wif ‘evil wife’
(24–5). These parallels show that the homily accords with the elaboration of King
Alfred’s legend after the Conquest.
Representing the Anglo-Saxon Past
Far from evincing a purely antiquarian interest in the Anglo-Saxon past, the
homily on Saint Neot embodies post-Conquest anxieties about governance, tracing
Alfred’s development from a coward into a humane leader and friend of the
church. The narrative evokes an idealized gode time of civic concord, in which
English rulers respected the wisdom and guidance of clerics. In the final section of
the homily, this sustained focus on the Anglo-Saxon past dissolves as its contemporary agenda is made explicit:
Eala, mæn ìa leofe, ìa wæron gode dages on ìan gode time for cristenes folcas geearnunge, &
rihtwisra heafodmanna. Nu is æighwanen heof & wop, & orefcwealm mycel for folces synnen,
& wæstmes, æigôer gea on wude gea on felde, ne synd swa gode, swa he iu wæron, ac yfeleô
swyôe eall eorôe wæstme, & unrihtwisnysse mycele wexeô wide geond wurlde, & sibbe tolysnysse
& tælnysse, & se ìincô nu wærrest & geapest, ìe oôerne mæig beswican, & his æhte him of
anymen. Eac man swereô man mare ìone he scolde, ìy hit is ìe wyrse wide on eorôe, & beo ìan
we mugen understanden, ìæt hit is neh domesdæge (133/24–37).
[O beloved men, those were good days at that good time on account of the merits of
Christian people and righteous leaders. Now everywhere there is weeping and wailing,
and great cattle plague because of the people’s sins; and crops both in the wood and the
field are not as good as they were before, but the produce of all the land is greatly declining;
81 Simon Keynes, ‘The cult of King Alfred the Great’, Anglo-Saxon England, 28 (1999),
225–356 at 232.
82 For the date of this text see Olaf Arngart (ed.), The Proverbs of Alfred, vol. 2 (Lund,
1955), 55–7.
83 Citations are by page number from Olaf Arngart (ed.), The Proverbs of Alfred: an
Emended Text (Lund, 1978).
84 Robert Allen Rouse, The Idea of Anglo-Saxon England in Middle English Romance
(Cambridge, 2005), 18–24.
368
GEORGE YOUNGE
and unrighteousness increases considerably and widely throughout the world; and there is
dissolution of the peace and slander, and now he seems most wary and most cunning who
can deceive someone else and deprive him of his possessions. Also, men make oaths more
often than they should, therefore it worsens widely throughout the land, and by this we can
perceive that doomsday is near.]
The apocalyptic motifs in this passage, although biblical in origin, pay verbal
homage to the Blickling Homilies and Wulfstan’s Sermo Lupi ad Angelos.85
Godden interprets these borrowings as evidence that the homily was composed
shortly after the promulgation of the Sermo Lupi in 1014, noting that the concluding warning about the imminence of doomsday is ‘characteristic of the decades
surrounding the year 1000’.86 The correspondences with the Sermo Lupi, however, are vague and do not yield solid evidence that the homilist was working with
reference to a written version of the text.87 Moreover, in selecting the apocalyptic
elements of the Sermo Lupi and overlooking its more topical aspects, such as
references to the viking invasions as a form of divine punishment, the homily
conforms with a later preference for Wulfstan’s eschatological works, witnessed
elsewhere in the late-twelfth-century homiletic miscellany, Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Bodley 343. This manuscript contains the shorter, less politicized version
of the Sermo Lupi and revised copies of three of Wulfstan’s eschatological sermons,
one of which announces the imminent end of the world.88 The Neot homilist’s
warning about doomsday is also compatible with sentiments expressed elsewhere
in late compositions in Vespasian D.xiv. The nearness of doomsday is alluded to in
the Coming of the Antichrist (66/27–67/1) and a blend of apocalyptic speculation
and social critique reminiscent of the Neot homily occurs in the Fifteen Signs
Before Judgement Day, which rejoices in the destruction of the castles that the
Norman’s use to oppress geleaffulle mænn & Godes ìearfen ‘faithful men and
God’s poor’ (90/19–20). Rather than suggesting the homily’s proximity to the
historical context in which Wulfstan was working, the selective reuse of the Sermo
Lupi reflects a disinterest in the subject of conquest and its concern instead
with kingship as a theoretical issue. When the homilist contemplates the gode
dages of the Alfredian past, it is the existence of rihtwisra heafodmanna that
comes to mind first, contrasting with the present day when unrihtwisnysse mycele
wexeô.
Conclusions
The Old English homily on Saint Neot was probably composed at the beginning of
the twelfth century, within the orbit of the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury and
the sphere of influence of Saint Anselm. As Plummer observes, the homily is ‘not
85 See above n. 8. 86 Godden, ‘Neot’, 201.
87 Dance, ‘Ealde æ’ (forthcoming).
88 Aidan Conti, ‘Revising Wulfstan’s Antichrist in the Twelfth Century: A Study in
Medieval Textual Re-appropriation’, Literature Compass, 4 (2007), 638–63 at 658/260–9.
THE OLD ENGLISH HOMILY ON SAINT NEOT
369
merely unhistorical, but anti-historical’, contorting the people and events it treats
to make them conform with a present agenda.89 While the homilist exhibits a
degree of class-consciousness in his focus on the suffering caused by misrule,
he does not emphasize social division along ethnic or national lines. Rather than
depicting Alfred as a model for resisting a colonizing force, the homily advocates
reconciliation. Like the monks of Christ Church, its author is deeply concerned
with defining the correct relationship between king and church, and between
England and Rome. Far from providing ‘a striking testimony to what was possible
in late Anglo-Saxon England’, this sophisticated and imaginative text ranks as one
of the most important witnesses to the continued vitality of the Old English literary tradition in the century after the Conquest.
Trinity College, Cambridge
89 Plummer, Alfred, 53.