Signs of Devotion: The Cult of St Aethelthryth in Medieval England, 695-1615

Abstract

This monograph traces the cult of St Æthelthryth of Ely from its inception in the eighth century to the pre-Reformation period by analysing a number of its texts and artefacts; however, the rationale behind the selection of material is not stated explicitly. The first chapter examines passage by passage Bede's prose account of Æthelthryth (HE IV.16 [18]) and his abecedarian, epanaleptic hymn in her praise (HE IV.17 [19]), and provides a gendered interpretation of the saint's representation in these pages. It is not possible to address here the many points in Blanton's arguments which call for comment in this and in the ensuing chapters, but one may give an impression of the author's line of reasoning. While no one will contradict a statement such as ‘For Bede, Æthelthryth's importance rests in her virginity, tested by at least one amorous husband, and sustained through God’ (p. 27), one might have doubts about its corollary, namely that Bede is not interested in Æthelthryth's ‘promotion of the church’ or in her role as abbess, teacher or miracle worker (pp. 27–8, 38–9). The question as to whether or not he had information on these points should at least be raised. Consider also a (typical) statement such as: ‘[Bede] establishes Æthelthryth's chastity as a cultural sign for his audience by presenting a narrative in which the physical body is inscribed with a multivalent mark. The result is a textual body, one whose virginal signs can be read and imitated’ (p. 31). The information conveyed here simply is that Bede interprets Æthelthryth's virginity (confirmed by her incorrupt body and the healed wound) as a sign of her sanctity, and implies that her life can be imitated. Is this really a novel insight? And how would professional psychoanalysts react when confronted with popularised Freudianisms such as ‘the scar [on Æthelthryth's neck!] also operates as an indication that Æthelthryth's body is sealed, that the vaginal opening is forever closed’ (p. 45, repeated p. 52; cf. also p. 51, n. 77)?