This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
An earlier version of this paper was read before the AULLA Congress in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1977. An abstract of that paper, entitled “IsMaldon really Heroic?” will appear inAULLA XVIII. Proceedings and Papers. I wish to thank Profs. C. Horne. R. W. V. Elliott. and M. W. Bloomfield for reading and commenting on the article, even if their views concerning literary criticism differ from mine.
The most significant of these articles are: M. W. Bloomfield, “Patristies and Old English Literature: Notes on some Poems,”Comparative Literature, 14 (1962), 36–43: W. A. Samouce, “General Byrhtnoth,”JEGP, 62 (1963), 129–135; N. F. Blake, “The Battle of Maldon,”Neophilologus, 49 (1965), 332–345; J. E. Cross, “Oswald and Byrhtnoth: a Christian Saint and a Hero who is Christian,”English Studies, 46 (1965), 93–109; W. F. Bolton, “ Byrhtnoð in the Wilderness,”Modern Language Review, 64 (1969), 481–490; M. W. Bloomfield, “Beowulf, Byrhtnoth, and the Judgment of God: Trial by Combat in Anglo-Saxon England,”Speculum, 44 (1969). 545–559; T. D. Hill, “History and Heroic Ethic inMaldon,”Neophilologus, 54 (1970), 291–6; O. D. Macrae-Gibson, “How Historical isThe Battle of Maldon?”Medium Ævum, 39 (1970), 89–108; J. McKinnell, “On the Date ofThe Battle of Maldon,”Medium Ævum, 44 (1975), 121–136; G. R. & S. Petty, “Geology andThe Battle of Maldon,”Speculum, 51 (1976), 435–446. This approach is similar to that of Schliemann, whose research on theIliad led to the discovery of Troy, but makes no illuminating statement about the poem as literature.
Eg., J. R. R. Tolkien, “The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son,”Essays and Studies, ns 6 (1953). 1–18; R. W. V. Elliott, “Byrhtnoth and Hildebrand: A Study in Heroic Technique,” in S. B. Greenfield (ed.),Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur (Univ. of Oregon, 1963), 53–70; E. B. Irving, Jr., “The Heroic Style in “The Battle of Maldon,”Studies in Philology, 58 (1961). 457–67; G. Clark, “The Battle of Maldon: A Heroic Poem,”Speculum, 43 (1968), 52–71.
M. J. Swanton, “The Battle of Maldon: A Literary Caveat,”JEGP, 67 (1968), 441–50.
Whether or not an eleventh century Anglo-Saxon audience would have considered the poem as antiheroic will never be known, and makes little difference to the validity of an interpretation. For however much or little we may know about Anglo-Saxon society, we are still going to respond to the poem, as to all literature, as twentieth century readers, and can only interpret it satisfactorily within the scope of our own experience. To the twentieth century reader, the Germanic heroic code is an ideology which he may try to understand but cannot share. As a matter of interest, J. E. Cross, “The Ethic of War in Old English,” in P. Clemoes & K. Hughes (ed.),England before the Conquest (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 269–282, shows that an antiheroic interpretation may not have been foreign to at least some Anglo-Saxons. Cf. also H. Stuart, “Cuchulainn and theVater-Sohn-Kampf Motif,”AUMLA, 47 (1977), 5–17; “TheHildebrandslied: An antiheroic Interpretation,”GLL, 32 (1978 79), pp. 1–9.
“Some Aspects of theMaldon Poet's Artistry,”JEGP, 75 (1976), 25–41, esp. p. 32.
H. Gneuss, “The Battle of Maldon 89; Byrhtnoð'sofermod Once Again,”Studies in Philology, 73 (1976), 117–137 suggests that the number of trained English warriors at Maldon was about 550, but admits that we do not really have any evidence about the nature of Byrhtnoth's force. The poem, however, tells us three things of relevance: that Byrhtnoth mistrusted his men (he had the horses driven away): that at least some of the men were not very interested in the battle (the young nobleman brings his falcon along, and many later flee); and that at least some of the men were not very skilled at arms (Byrhtnoth has to show his men where to stand and how to hold their shields, vv. 18–20). These three points characterise the English soldiers in the poem (apart from Byrhtnoth'sheardwerod, presumably) as largely untrained.
Hill,op. cit., p. 293 has tacitly followed Tolkien, p. 15, in pinpointing Byrhtnoth's self-deception without exploring it: “Though he responds to the Viking's challenge as if he were one of the heroes of Germanic legend with nothing to lose but his own life, he is not in fact such a hero, but rather an aging Englisheorl with a rather heterogeneous and undependablefyrd under his command.”
P. 448.
Shakespeare'sHenry the Fifth, Act iii provides interesting contrasts withMaldon, Cf., eg., Henry's first encouraging speech, sc. 1, 11, 1–34, in which Henry is absolutely certain of his men's courage, skill and fidelity. One might also mention the parallel inIliad. Book ii, where Agamemnon tests his men by suggesting that they turn back before beginning the battle. The men rush in joy to their ships, only to be told that Agamemnon had not meant what he said.
The edition used here is that of Elliot van Kirk Dobbie, inThe Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems, ASPR vol. 6 (1942: rpt. Columbia Univ. Press, 1958), pp. 7–16.
Cf. G. Clark,op. cit., p. 58, and Robinson,op. cit., pp. 28–32. Despite Robinson's thesis, the three references to Æthelred inMaldon could function as a reminder that false heroism is not the only method of combating the Vikings. The solution of paying tribute is attempted on a personal level inThe Hildebrandslied, when Hildebrand realises that his opponent is his own son. See W. Braune & E. A. Ebbinghaus.Althochdeutsches Lesebuch (Tübingen, 1962), pp. 84–5, 11, 30–5; and cf. H. Stuart, “TheHildebrandslied,” (see n. 5).
Cf. Tolkien,op. cit., p. 15.
J. E. Cross, “Mainly on Philology and the Interpretative Criticism ofMaldon,” in R. B. Burlin & E. B. Irving, Jr. (ed.)Old English Studies in Honour of John C. Pope (Univ. of Toronto, 1974), 235–253.
Cf. Bloomfield, “Beowulf, Byrhtnoth, and the Judgement of God,” p. 547. The phraseofer cald wæter, 91b, emphasises even at this point the importance of the water as a separating device. Cf. the discussion later in this paper.
That the Viking is non-noble is emphasised in v. 132 which sets the tone for Byrhtnoth's death as one of contrast between the hero's death he would have desired and the pitiful target he becomes.
See J. Bosworth & T. N. Toller,An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary andSupplement (Oxford, 1898 & 1921), underyfel.
Cf. Cecily Clark, “Byrhtnoth and Roland. A Contrast,”Neophilologus, 51 (1967). 288–293, who feels that the final prayer proves Byrhtnoth'sofermod. Enough has been said about the implications ofofermod elsewhere (cf. eg., Gneuss,op. cit.). The above analysis shows that those who persist in readingofermod as a purely laudatory term are at least ignoring the rest of the poem.
This is not to say, however, that the poem praises such bonds.
Because the poem is not a historical document, such a backward interpretation seems valid. Few would want to argue that Byrhtnoth deliberately misled his men: but the poem itself, being written from the standpoint of wisdom after the event, condemns the general's decision.
Iliad. xvi, 731 ff.: xxii, 306 ff.:Aeneid, x, 479 ff.
One may note the paradox on which the poem is founded: by denying his men a free choice in the beginning, Byrhtnoth gives them a real choice at the crucial moment. Cf.Henry the Fifth, IV, iii, 34–39, where Henry by giving his men a rhetorical “free choice” (“he which hath no stomach to this fight. Let him depart;”) actually denies them any real choice.
Cf. Cross, “Oswald and Byrhtnoth,”, p. 99.
Considering the symbolism of the water, it is interesting to compare v. 259b with 96b, where the Vikingsfor wætere ne murnon.
Cf. eg., Robinson,op. cit., p. 39.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stuart, H. The meaning ofMaldon . Neophilologus 66, 126–139 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01993680
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01993680