Article Precis: September 13, 2016, by Jillian Heilborn

""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