FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2934796309> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2934796309 endingPage "395" @default.
• W2934796309 startingPage "385" @default.
• W2934796309 abstract "D E F E A T A N D V I C T O R Y I N “ T H E B A T T L E O F M A L D O N ” : T H E C H R I S T I A N R E S O N A N C E S R E C O N S I D E R E D RICHARD HILLMAN York University E v e r since J. R. R. Tolkien’s erudite flyting at Byrhtnoth for his ofermod and its tactical consequences,1 commentators have been forming ranks on one side or the other. The case for Byrhtnoth’s posthumous cashiering has been vigorously countered with more or less ingenious excuses, even claims for canonization. The etymological, historical, and literary evidence has been put through a variety of critical sieves without decisive results. The contro­ versy arises from an intractable ambivalence: even as he appears to be blaming Byrhtnoth for the defeat, the “Maldon” poet is elevating him to heroic stature.2 D. L. Scragg, in his recent edition, argues that the eulogistic tenor of the poem can remain comfortably in suspension with the hero’s faults, which in his view actually extend to “hubris.”3 But most commen­ tators are evidently not comfortable; they thirst for some sort of resolution — in effect, for an underlying principle of unity. Given the fragmentary condition of the poem, it might be the better part of valour to abandon this desire. But it can also be satisfied, I believe, more completely than has been recognized. Rosemary Woolf has aptly described the poem as “an heroic story in which paradoxically it is better to lose than to win.”4 In the follow­ ing pages, I should like to examine the poet’s presentation of Byrhtnoth and his followers in light of a celebrated paradox: “ Qui enirn voluerit animam suarn salvam facere, perdet earn: qui autem perdiderit animam suam propter me et evangelium, salvam earn faciet.’,!i The few previous attempts to read the poem in Christian terms have not met with wide acceptance. Scragg, typically, concludes: “there is little evidence that the poet intended any form of allegory or moral teaching in the narrow sense.”6 Perhaps it is precisely the narrowness of this criticism that has failed to convince. Thus Morton W. Bloomfield finds an allusion to patristic portrayals of the soul after death.7 N. F. Blake argues for a close parallel to /Elfric’s life of St. Edmund.8 In both cases, the specific relevance of the analogue is difficult to establish, while the argument is not supported by direct confrontation with the poem’s central issue. Yet, as Blake points out, saints and martyrs all depend on and recapitulate a common original, E n g l is h St u d ie s in C a n a d a , x i, 4, December 1985 Christ himself. Surely the overtly Christian elements in the poem — Byrhtnoth ’s prayers and the insistent (if formulaic) contrast between English Christians and Viking heathens — justify a broader exploration in terms of that primary analogue. Important to Scragg’s argument against the relevance of saints’ lives is their emphasis on passivity at the moment of martyrdom.9 Thus St. Edmund, following Christ’s example, disarms himself: . . . awearp his waepna; wolde geaefenlaxan Cristes gebysnungum, ]> e forbead Petre mid weapnum to winnenne wi5 pa, waelhreowan Iudeiscan.10 But we should not forget that this feature is a vital part of the homiletic design, intended to hold up an ideal model of Christian behaviour in an age that took violent retribution for granted. When we detach Byrhtnoth’s history from the saint’s-life paradigm, we lighten the burden of exemplum. We no longer have the story of an imitator of Christ, but rather of an heroic figure whose struggle in his Christian cause may remind us of, and gain meaning from, Christ’s own. W. F. Bolton’s recognition of Byrhtnoth as miles Christi seems to me important, although his application of the concept is, again, disappointingly narrow and tenuous: he perceives only a moral allegory involving Christ’s temptations in the wilderness.” There is..." @default.
• W2934796309 created "2019-04-11" @default.
• W2934796309 creator A5083223655 @default.
• W2934796309 date "1985-01-01" @default.
• W2934796309 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2934796309 title "Defeat and Victory in “The Battle of Maldon”: The Christian Resonances Reconsidered" @default.
• W2934796309 cites W1481987920 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W1510345377 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W1512773166 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W2023225957 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W2530443287 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W3028233631 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W591919317 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W644076799 @default.
• W2934796309 cites W2050432093 @default.
• W2934796309 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/esc.1985.0050" @default.
• W2934796309 hasPublicationYear "1985" @default.
• W2934796309 type Work @default.
• W2934796309 sameAs 2934796309 @default.
• W2934796309 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2934796309 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2934796309 hasAuthorship W2934796309A5083223655 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C195244886 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C2778627824 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C2779220109 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C51364203 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C124952713 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C138885662 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C142362112 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C164913051 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C17744445 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C195244886 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C199539241 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C27206212 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C2778627824 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C2779220109 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C51364203 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C94625758 @default.
• W2934796309 hasConceptScore W2934796309C95457728 @default.
• W2934796309 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2934796309 hasLocation W29347963091 @default.
• W2934796309 hasOpenAccess W2934796309 @default.
• W2934796309 hasPrimaryLocation W29347963091 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W1890849534 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W2372107132 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W2387139240 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W2915438226 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W3146945901 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W4296376980 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W590269958 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W626705100 @default.
• W2934796309 hasRelatedWork W646069962 @default.
• W2934796309 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W2934796309 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2934796309 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2934796309 magId "2934796309" @default.
• W2934796309 workType "article" @default.