""Wulf and Eadwacer": The
Adulterous Woman Reconsidered."
Full Bibliographic citation:
Frese, Dolores Warwick.
""Wulf and Eadwacer": The Adulterous Woman Reconsidered."
Notre Dame
English Journal 15.1 (1983): 1-22. Web.
Download PDF of article
Read:
September 11, 2016 for British
literature. I read through the chapter once and then went back, scanning and
re-reading some portions to properly fill out this form.
About the author:
This is a chapter in the Notre Dame
English Journal by Dolores Warwick Frese. She is a Professor Emerita at Notre
Dame and has earned her BA, MTS, MA, and PhD. Her specialty is medieval
literature (emphasis on Chaucer). She is currently studying Marie de France.
Her recent publications include literary analysis of “The Wife’s Lament”. This
information was found on the Notre Dame website: http://english.nd.edu/people/faculty/emeritus/frese/
About the author’s intentions:
The author wanted to convince readers
that the poem “Wulf and Eadwacer” is not about an adulterous woman, but about a
mother lamenting her son’s death. This makes sense for the author’s
intellectual and educational background, because she has focused on medieval
literature in her previous studies and books/articles.
Thesis:
“…if we can put aside a century and a
half of assumed amorous passion—no easy task, to be sure—and listen to the
utterance of a mother lamenting a lost son, then the content as well as form
would seem to connect ‘Wulf and Eadwacer’ to the mainstream of grieving mothers
in Anglo-Saxon poetry” (Frese, 5).
Type of literary study that it is:
I believe this is mainly a linguistic
literary study, because it is arguing that the past interpretations/translations
of the poem “Wulf and Eadwacer” are incorrect. It is also a historical literary
study, because she uses historical context, artifacts, and literature to argue
her point.
Structure of the argument:
The chapter is split into four sections.
Section one includes other interpretations (the most popular) of the poem. She
ends this section with her thesis, and begins her argument for the speaker in
the poem being a mourning mother. Section two contains a more extended
explanation of her interpretation of the poem. She references other Old English
literature (Beowulf, Volsunga Saga’s Signy, Hildebrandslied, The Battle of
Brunanburh, The Fortune’s of Men) and uses their themes to discuss how grieving
mothers are presented and show that Wulf and Eadwacer is the same. Section
three is used to discuss stones and artifacts from medieval Britain. Rök is one
example. It is a stone with writing on it and references wolves on a
battlefield as beings that take souls away. The wolf in the poem could refer to
a son dying in battle. She then, again, refers to other old English poems with
references to wolves and other myths/beliefs. The fourth section discusses the
religious context of the poem: pagan past and Christina present. She believes “Eadwacer”
is an epithet for a spiritual messenger or guide (possible an angel) that is
watching over her and her dead son. She ends this section and her chapter with
her translation of the poem.
Evidence used:
As mentioned above, she discusses a
lot of other writings about this poem and other translations that she thinks
are incorrect. She evens this out with even more evidence supporting what she
believes is the true translation. This is made up mostly of literature and
artifacts found in the same historical context as the poem. I think this
evidence is used well. However, the author claims that women in the literature
in this time are most concerned with their children. I would have liked to have
heard about some that disproved this (a counter-argument) that she could have
accepted but shown why her evidence is still stronger than those that believe
this poem is about an adulterous woman.
Ideological orientation:
This author believes that most
everyone who has ever interpreted “Wulf and Wadwacer” came to the incorrect
conclusion. I think that this is a very bold thing to do. This made the article
immediately interesting to me and I think gave her an interesting edge. The
novelty of it really drove the shape of the chapter.
Strengths:
The evidence is strong and very
logically presented to the reader. The most effective part was ending with her
own translation of the poem. After reading her arguments and evidence, it is
almost impossible to read the poem not from her point of view. It was a very powerful
way to end, and it made my belief in her ideas stronger.
Weaknesses:
This was relatively organized, but at
some points I got a little confused about what she wanted to convey to me at
that point in the chapter. I think she could have been a little more concise
and thoughtful in her organization of her arguments. That would have made her
argument easier to follow and ultimately more powerful.
Contributions to the field:
This is a new way of looking at this
important and famous work of literature. I think it is bold, valid, and an
interesting thing to discuss.
Contributions to your reading:
I have read this poem previously in
high school. It was never described to me in this way, instead I was told it is
about a love triangle. It is really interesting to read it with this new idea
in my head. I don’t think it really changes the themes; it still about longing,
separation, love, and other really relatable human experiences. It has not
changed my appreciation or emotional connection with the poem, instead it has
broadened my view understanding of medieval literature.
- Jillian Heilborn
