Double Agents: Women and Clerical Culture in Anglo-Saxon England (review)

Reviews 195 Parergon 21.1 (2004) In addition to guiding the reader through a richly diverse history of Robin Hood(s), A Mythic Biography also explores many other fascinating avenues of research relating to the development of the legend. Of note to this particular reviewer was the treatment of tensions arising in the early modern literary and theatrical material over the consolidation of Marian’s role in the myth, as well as the author’s consideration of the changing nature of homosocial relationships in the legend over time. In short, Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography is a welcome addition to the interdisciplinary scholarship surrounding the iconic English outlaw. With its broad and highly absorbing exploration of a variety of sources, Knight’s latest study promises to be of interest and great value to literary, social and cultural historians of all periods since the later Middle Ages. The narrative is thoughtfully illustrated and although four editorial errors were observed (pp. 53, 70, 127 and 156), these in no way detract from the overall quality of the work. Tania Colwell History, School of Social Sciences Australian National University Lees, Clare A. and Gillian R. Overing, Double Agents: Women and Clerical Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001; cloth; pp. x, 244; RRP US$49.95, £35; ISBN 0812236289. Double Agents purportedly aims to bridge the gap between Anglo-Saxon studies and contemporary theoretical studies of gender, culture and sexuality. While it may well provide students of the latter discipline with access to previously inaccessible material, it is less likely to impress students of the former discipline. The book is densely written and replete with the postmodernist vocabulary of cultural studies. This in itself is a barrier to access by readers who lack that background. The problem is aggravated by peculiarities of grammar, spelling and expression which make the prose irritating and at times unclear. After a laborious introduction, the first chapter considers the depiction of Hild in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. There is some interesting textual analysis in this chapter, although the authors’ understanding of Bede’s probable purposes in writing the History is questionable. They seek to ‘rescue’ (p. 28) Hild from Bede. Chapter 2 begins with a short discussion ofAsser’s treatment ofAlfred’s mother, Osburh. This is followed by a return to the attack on Bede, whose treatment of 196 Reviews Parergon 21.1 (2004) Ælfflæd in his Life of Cuthbert is categorised as ‘simple misogyny’ (p. 52) and compared to the treatment in Stephen’s Life of Wilfrid. It is unfortunate that the authors do not give a specific reference to this episode in Bede’s Life, so that the reader must search it out in order to form an opinion about Bede’s treatment. A section on the Latin and Old English riddles includes the dubious argument that the riddles give prominence to ‘literate and divine authority’, thereby ‘effacing the oral and the feminine’(p. 58). Interestingly, the endnotes to this section reveal that the authors have consciously chosen translations which highlight, and in one case create, gender-specific references in the riddles (notes 69-73). In a discussion of charter evidence, the existence of charters as merely records of transactions, and not transactions in themselves, is completely ignored, although belatedly hinted at (p. 69). The authors also fail to acknowledge that witnesses to charters might be chosen on the basis of the political implications of their witnessing, or even as a means of forcing them to acknowledge the transactions, rather than merely because of their physical presence. The suggestion that women are denied agency in the charters is weakened by these flaws. Chapter 3 opens with similarly flawed consideration of a transaction recorded in the Hereford gospels and of a land dispute between Wynflæd and Leofwine. Misinterpretations of evidence abound in the early part of this chapter. The Hereford document is described as ‘written evidence of the only will in AngloSaxon England where the testatrix’s name is not recorded’ (p. 78), when it is rather the only surviving written evidence which records a will but not the testatrix’s name. Similarly, the later Anglo-Saxon period is said to...