highlyeccentric | (no subject)

I HATE, HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fucking Sermo Lupi ad Anglos. Can I just say again: I HATE IT. I hate it and its horrible contradictoriness and I hate the fact that I thought I'd made an argument but I'd actually made two contradictory arguments, and I hate the fact that once I thought I was done with it I saw the Bocera and he pointed out all these other contradictory bits. And I HATE HATE HATE the fact that the argument I really really want to make I cannot possibly prove.

What I can apparently prove is that on the 16th of Febuary 1014 Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, ordained a bishop of London, while the current bishop of London was bishop of London but in exile with king AEthelred. ONB, the Archbishop of York shouldn't be ordaining a bishop of London! (Although he could be doing so in his capacity as bishop of Worcester, I suppose.) TWO, a bishop who ordains a new bishop of London clearly doesn't expect the old one to be returning any time soon, and therefore is not about to advocate the recall of King AEthelred.

Except that apparently *this* Bishop did, turning around the next day (if Wilcox is right, at least) and declaring that it's a terrible sin to expel your lord, living, from the land. And the synod and witan, who had gathered for the ordination of a new bishop, all suddenly agreed with him.

I FUCKING HATE IT.

I *want* to agree with Ian Howard, who is a historian not bothered by minor details of literary interpretation, and say Wulfstan certainly did not support the return of AEthelred because that would be a stupid thing to say in York in February 1014. I want to say AEthelred *invaded*, rather than was recalled.

That is what the history would say. Unfortunately the literature says the opposite. I swear there is a way, somewhere, that the SL can be rereaad. But I can't find it right now and it makes me crankypants.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I can help you burn it, if you want. I recently wrote an entire essay based on an argument that I realised was false when I reread the last twenty pages of the book it was about. >:|

You what.

...the fact that the SL reads to the opposite of what history seems to indicate is super duper interesting. Also weird. What the hell.

Although it doesn't contradict the Chronicle OR the Encomium. So it doesn't contradict ALL the history. But the ordination of AElfwig is downright WEIRD.

Hey, weird bits of history make for good papers. Friction points, I keep telling people. Me, I prefer wars for my friction points, but this is a good one.

Also hard. I'm going to go back to looking at kings beating up other kings, thanks. Much easier than literary interpretation.

This is what I was just going to comment and say as well. Can you get anywhere with that?

it drives me around in circles :s

The fun of looking at History from the contemporary's perspective!!

I didn't want to hear that you hate the Sermon; I've got to go and read it for background stuff... Can you suggest a good translation?

Translation, you say. Um. I've never looked at a translation, myself. There's what seems to be a half-decent translation of the long form of the Sermo, based on Bethurum's edition (Bethurum printed three separate versions of the SL, as opposed to Whitelock, who put 'em all together in a mash). It's in the back of Roy Luizza's translation of Beowulf, which is published by Broadview Literary Texts.