Second thoughts on the interpretation ofThe Seafarer

Abstract

My article begins in true medieval fashion with a retraction. A few years ago I argued thatThe WandererandThe Seafarerinvolved two imaginary speakers rather than one. Ever since the publication of this argument I have been assailed by doubts of its validity, not only because most persons whose judgement I trust in such a matter have been either politely noncommittal or vociferously hostile, but because I myself, in returning again and again to the poems, have been less and less convinced that their texts would support my reading. The decisive moment came, I think, when I read P. L. Henry's strong reinforcement, from the Celtic side, of Dorothy Whitelock's view ofThe Seafareras the monologue of a religious ascetic who had chosen exile on and beyond the sea for the love of God –a peregrinus pro amore Deiof a sort well known in the British Isles from before Bede's time to Alfred's wherever Celtic Christianity had taken root. In thus returning to Professor Whitelock's interpretation I found myself completely convinced of its superiority. Since that time I have altogether abandoned my former view ofThe Seafarer, and with it my view ofThe Wandereralso, and I welcome the opportunity to say so.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.