Grand unified books thread

[Jacob]

Skre's mostly accepted, yet in its time, controversial hypothesis was that the kingship of Norway was in the west at Avaldsnes. A slow building of strength.

Yeah, I imagine that's formed part of the thesis of the book - describing how Scandinavia changed from tribal to lordly to ultimately kingly social organization during that period. Though I'm still early in my reading - around p. 100 out of 550  ).

[Sheilbh]

Well I can't speak to it in depth, relying as I am on Skre's summary which is primarily a "here's where I stand in this controversy, and why" as a building block towards his larger argument.

Interesting.

On single author v multiple I think I am more single author but working from multiple sources/traditions if that makes sense. But I can definitely see there'd be a debate around that - as there is with Homer and any other work from an oral society being pinned to text. One other reason for this is that while Beowulf (and all Anglo-Saxon poems) have some formulas and rote phrases, my understanding is that there are a lot fewer for a poem of its length than in, say Homer. My understanding is that those formulas are often understood as useful tools in an oral tradition - and is why I think there is more than just recording oral traditions going on but a very creative mixing and structuring but I think there are signs that the version we have is possibly written for text (from oral sources). I think what we have is very much a literary text and creation and not just a recording of a story overheard.

And yeah it is interesting that's a debate because I definitely remember the text book intro to Old English with the map of Denmark of where they thought the different places where but again I wonder if there's a difference I know nothing about between Old English readers and introductions v philology and archaeology. That would not suprise me

I'm not so sure on it being quite so unadulteratedly pagan. But I think it's right there is a fair bit of debate on that - my read was that it's a Christian poem but that is remembering set in the world of a pre-Christian world. But also fully aware the version that I remember is the very unfaithful translation by Seamus Heaney

[Jacob]

I think the "English author" and "single author" arguments are along the lines of what you're saying - if I understand you correctly.

Namely that there was some body of Scandinavian poetry around which the author drew on when they composed Beowulf, setting it in the real world locations in Scandinavia that they'd heard about. But that the writing down itself was the creative act, taking elements from different oral versions and arranging them to taste, adding bits where appropriate and excluding others, expressing a specific sets of themes and so on where they are of interest to the author and their time. That is, it's an English, Christian poem drawing on an older tradition - much like the play Hamlet while clearly set in Denmark and drawing on some older stories (Amled), but is nonetheless clearly an English play engaging with Elizabethan English concerns.

Perhaps your understanding is a softer version of this, but it sounds to me that it's in that direction?

Skre's contention takes issue with that - and I quote here - is that "... although it was likely first penned in Old English around AD 700, the epic poem Beowulf was composed in Scandinavia in the 6th century and reached Britain in the early 600s in a form close to the extant."

I'll quote the part of the section introducing the discussion, because it's very much the type of academic argument I enjoy following from the sidelines 

The Scandinavian-origin hypothesis was considered in the early period of Beowulf research (e.g. Stjerna 1912; Lindqvist 1948) but has not been seriously addressed in more recent scholarship, in which it "provokes only a consensus of mirth", according to Theodore M. Andersson (1997:129). However, the hypothesis has lingered among Scandinavian scholars, and recently, Bo Gräslund (2022) has forcefully argued for a Scandinavian origin of the poem. Would such an idea, as stated by Robert E. Bjork (2020:249) in his review of the 2018 Swedish edition of Gräslund's book, be "like claiming that Shakespeare's Roman plays should be attributed to Plutarch"? To be frank, considering the quite profound problems that the British-origin hypothesis answers only vaguely and unsatisfactorily (pp. 87-93), the glee reported by Andersson and Bjork's downright dismissal strikes some scholars versed in Scandinavian history and culture as amusingly audacious.

[Jacob]

For reference, here's a link to Gräslund's book: https://www.arc-humanities.org/9781802700084/the-nordic-beowulf/

In such a wide-ranging, long-standing, and international field of scholarship as Beowulf, one might imagine that everything would long since have been thoroughly investigated. And yet as far as the absolutely crucial question of the poem's origins is concerned, that is not the case.

This cross-disciplinary study by Bo Gräslund argues that the material, geographical, historical, social, and ideological framework of Beowulf cannot be the independent literary product of an Old English Christian poet, but was in all essentials created orally in Scandinavia, which was a fertile seedbed for epic poetry.

Through meticulous argument interwoven with an impressive assemblage of data, archaeological and otherwise, Gräslund offers possible answers to the questions of the provenance of the Geats, the location of Heorot, and many more, such as the significance of Sutton Hoo and the signification of the Grendel kin and dragon in the sixth century when the events of the poem, coinciding with cataclysmic events in northern Europe, took place.

... it's a bit rich for my book-buying budget, alas.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - interesting. Framed like that I think I am maybe on the "English" side. Although I wouldn't frame it in that way - I don't think there's anything particularly English about it. But I do think it's a Christian poem depicting a pagan society, rather than a pagan poem that is lightly Christianised. I don't think there's an extant pagan poem there and I think the's a coherence to it that is more single author creating a text.

Although I wonder if there is an inter-disciplinary argument going on there because looking up those scholars Bo Graslund is an archaeologist (and I think Skre is too), while Andersson and Bjork are respectively a Germanist specialising in the Sagas and a Medieval literary scholar. At a very high level I can't help but wonder if that's a divide between basing their opinion on the material indicators within the content v the style of the text. Inevitably because I studied literature I'd probably emphasise a stylistic/literary critical analysis of a text  

I think the Plutarch comparisons a bit strong But I would note that Shakespeare lifts entire speeches from North's translation of Plutarch (I think several of Cleopatra's most ripe speeches are basically totally lifted from North's Plutarch) and there are in fact some who've suggested North might have produced entire plays based on his own translations (those speeches are very dramatic) that Shakespeare is basically reworking/adapting/developing. But I think it's up there with Golding's Ovid as the biggest source/influence.

[Sheilbh]

Should say again - it does sound very interesting and hope there'll be another update. I'll even avoid being disputatious about it

Close to finishing City of Quartz by Mike Davis which is incredible. Mike Davis was an American Marxist writer who I think is mainly known as a theorist and historian of urban spaces - particularly LA/Southern California. City of Quartz is a history/exploration of LA written in 1990. Elements of the book are inevitably a little dated (such as Japan representing globalisation and the shift to Pacific Rim capitalism) but overall it's extraordinary how much is recognisable and now generalisable. He's writing about LA as a "post-liberal" city and I think we'd now probably position a lot of what he's exploring as "neo-liberal". The opening chapter is a broad overview of different generations of competing elite groups within LA's power structure - boosters to mercernaries. Then a high level political history, a study of the emergence of the NIMBY movement, then a look at the anti-human/surveillance architecture before a chapter on the LAPD and the war on drugs. Each of which draws points and ideas that seem incredibly and more generally relevant now.

Also perhaps a little more relevant than one would hope. I found a blogpost setting out a suggested order to read it and providing some orientation and I have started getting into Balzac's Comedie Humaine

[Jacob]

Should say again - it does sound very interesting and hope there'll be another update. I'll even avoid being disputatious about it

I was mid-writing a response when I got distracted by some bullshit, and it's taken a bit to get back to it.

Don't worry about being disputatious - it makes for good conversation. It's been one of my favourite languish exchanges in quite a while

Right now reading through a section that goes into the distribution, composition, and dating of silver denarii hoards in Scandinavia in great detail, as a prelude to discussing the implications (I assume). There's some inter-academic drama there too, but it's less juicy than the Beowulf stuff IMO

[Jacob]

But to get back to the conversation... yes, there's definitely a interdisciplinary disagreement going on 

The archaeologists do seem to build their arguments on an interdisciplinary foundation (including some literary and philological arguments). I'm not sure to what degree the stylistic/ literary criticism side of things considers evidence outside their specific fields. However, IMO - and this is Skre's argument earlier in the book - a conclusion supported by evidence in multiple different fields is more persuasive than one supported by evidence from only one field and failing to address questions raised by evidence in other areas of inquiry.

So from a bit of a re-skim of the argument, here's my rendering of the "Scandinavian origin" arguments:

Beowulf discusses gold rings frequently and they appear in significant numbers in the Scandinavian archaeological record from the 3rd to mid 6th centuries, after which they disappear until the 9th century. Meanwhile, gold rings are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon record until the 9th century (which is after the composition of Beowulf by most reckonings).

Similarly, there are many references to byrnies - in language the suggests practical and personal experience - which are completely absent from the Anglo-Saxon archeological record from the 5th - 10th centuries, with the one exception of Sutton Hoo (which is unique in England, but has many features commonly found in Scandinavia in that period).

Both of those elements are described in great and realistic detail, in a way that suggests personal experience by the author(s), which is odd in the case of England where they basically hadn't appeared yet.

As well, the subjects of the poem are existing ethnic groups accurately placed along the Baltic and in Scandinavia, none of whom according to DNA analysis contributed to Anglo-Saxon settlements in England; yet there are no mention of Angles or Jutes or Saxons who did. It seems odd that ancestors of the local magnates weren't mentioned even peripherally if the song was composed locally.

There are other arguments (about the timing of the development of Hall culture so vividly described in the poem) and plausible answers given to questions raised (about the form of names, about the meter used, and about how the song could've appeared) as well.

Obviously it's subject to discussion, but I think Skre's basic contention that a theory should be able to address the evidence from multiple disciplines to be convincing is sound. The "local author" argument seems to be that an English author could reflect social and material culture from Scandinavia that did not exist locally without error and without making flourishes reflecting local conditions (unlike, say, Shakespeare) to create something very distinct from the other output of the era because "they drew on a local tradition of performing Scandinavian derived songs to provide the form, the themes, and the material and social culture, but the tradition wasn't relevant enough to make the writing down of a Scandinavian song credible".

That is potentially possible, of course, but it seems less credible than "they wrote down a Scandinavian song that had elements particularly offensive to the locals removed" to Skre (and therefore, to me as his reader    )