The Battle of Maldon: A New Critical Edition

The fragmentary late Old English poem known as The Battle of Maldon can hardly be said to be understudied. Next year will see the three-hundredth anniversary of the poem's first appearance in print. In the centuries since, the text has been edited several times and has appeared regularly in readers and anthologies. Both the poem and the battle that it commemorates have been the subject of extensive scholarly investigation. Nevertheless, the poem has surely never received such sustained, detailed, and insightful attention as that now afforded it by Mark Griffith in this splendid new critical edition.This is a very substantial volume, nearly three times the length of the previous standard edition by D. G. Scragg (The Battle of Maldon 1981). Griffith differentiates his approach from that of previous editors by stressing his focus on “the poem as poetry” (p. ix). The historical context and the events surrounding the battle in AD 991 are accordingly very little discussed here (and Griffith sometimes tacitly assumes a degree of prior knowledge of this context). This approach is vindicated by the light that Griffith throws upon the poetic qualities of the text, but it is worth noting that in this, as in some other matters, the edition is clearly not intended for students approaching the poem for the first time.The text itself takes up only eleven pages. Griffith is, in general, a conservative editor, preferring to retain the reading of the eighteenth-century transcript—the sole surviving witness to the since-destroyed manuscript—even where possible emendations are noted or proposed in the commentary. The most important differences between his text and Scragg's tend to result from Griffith's reading of the poem's syntax and metrical grammar (a major focus of this edition), reflected primarily in details of punctuation.The text is accompanied by an exceptionally full glossary. Alongside the usual grammatical information, Griffith provides detail about register (poetic or prosaic words, hapax legomena) and cross references to relevant entries in the Dictionary of Old English. Fine distinctions relating to syntax and prosody are often marked. This fuller information is no doubt very valuable, but it can be distracting or even overwhelming at times (see, for instance, the thirteen different sections or subsections in the entry for the word þā p. 298). The glossary of proper names is similarly informative, summarizing what the poem says of each named individual and providing references to relevant entries in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England database. An Appendix includes (as literary analogues rather than historical sources) the accounts of the battle in the Liber Eliensis and the Vita Sancti Oswaldi, as well as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 755 (“Cynewulf and Cyneheard”).The text and glossary together provide an excellent basis for future scholarship. It is, however, in the introduction and extensive commentary that the real value of this new edition lies. The introduction is divided into five sections: “Text and Origins,” “Language,” “Prosody,” “Style,” and “Battle Narrative.” In the first section, Griffith provides a full account of the surviving transcript and what is known of the circumstances of its preservation. Griffith is happily able to paint a rather more positive picture of the reliability of the transcript than some previous commentators. This leads to a detailed discussion of capitalization, paragraphing, and punctuation. Of particular interest here is the contrast Griffith identifies between passages with extensive and apparently metrical pointing and passages with minimal verse-end points. Noting that passages with heavy pointing seem to coincide with “more exciting” moments within the narrative, Griffith suggests that “a rhetorical motive seems to play a part in these patterns” and that heavily punctuated passages may have been of particular interest to early readers (p. 9, emphasis original).In the section on “Language,” Griffith identifies some “slight evidence” indicating the poet's southern origins (p. 39) but no conclusive indicators as to the date of the poem (p. 26). The subject matter “probably indicates composition for an audience from Essex, or the south-east, sometime soon, or soon-ish, after the battle” (p. 53). Griffith convincingly dismantles the idea, repeated frequently in criticism, that the poem shows a late Old English tendency towards SVO word order in non-dependent clauses (pp. 33–35). Conversely, he identifies aspects of the poet's syntax that show “developments” from the norms of presumably older verse (pp. 36–37). The poet “was clearly well-versed in the language and traditions of the poetry stretching back at least to the time of Beowulf” (p. 53). To judge by the pronouns used, Griffith assumes that the poet was male.The section on “Prosody” reflects Griffith's particular expertise in this area. A lengthy discussion of alliteration recasts the poem's departures from anticipated norms as innovative rather than flawed (p. 64). The discussion of the poem's meter, on the other hand, suggests that while “the Old English prosodic system remains just about intact . . . changes of various sorts are beginning to reshape the model” (p. 75). Most strikingly, Griffith shows, firstly, that aspects of the poet's treatment of unstressed syllables parallel features of Old Saxon metrical practices (p. 69), and, secondly, that the poem seems to anticipate developments associated with early Middle English verse (pp. 73–74).This latter point is taken up again in each of the following two sections and represents a major contribution to scholarship on the poem. The section on “Style” sets out to assess whether the poem is “restrained or elaborate, simple or complex, Beowulfian or not Beowulfian” (p. 97). The section will be of more general use, however, as a superb discussion of features of Old English verse style and rhetoric. Griffith shows how the poem reflects in some respects the tradition represented by other (presumably older) surviving Old English heroic poems while seeming in others to foreshadow features of later Middle English alliterative verse. The resulting impression is of a poem occupying a moment of transition, drawing upon the traditions of the past while pointing forward to developments to come. This impression is strengthened in the section on “Battle Narrative.” Griffith shows that in depictions of “mass action” fighting the poet demonstrates a keen understanding of the structures and formulas of traditional narrative verse, while scenes depicting “individual combat” seem, in their syntax and prosody, as well as lexis and idiom, to anticipate (sometimes very strikingly) the later alliterative tradition (pp. 99–107). These latter passages, Griffith suggests, “have a claim to be the first examples of Middle English alliterative poetry” (p. 105).This section also includes a subsection on “Structure and Ethos” (pp. 113–23) that may prove to be of most immediate interest to many students of the poem. Here, Griffith offers his take on a well-known series of interpretative difficulties—namely, the meaning and significance of the hapax word lytegian, the nature of Byrhtnoth's ofermod, and the question of whether or not the poet criticizes the ealdorman for his decision to allow the Vikings to cross the river. In short, Griffith suggests that the defense of the causeway represents a “change of strategy” on Byrhtnoth's part: having publicly committed himself to battle in his first speech to the Viking messenger, Byrhtnoth resorts to defensive tactics as a result of his sudden realization of the overwhelming strength of the enemy numbers (p. 115). That the poet never says as much—nor explicitly states that the English are outnumbered—should be attributed to artistry (p. 116). The poet's reference to Viking guile (implied by the term lytegian) reflects the fact that their request for passage effectively catches Byrhtnoth in a cleft stick: he can stand by his public commitment and expose his men to probable death or break his word and expose himself to shame and ridicule.That he chooses the former is not a cause of reproach from the men who suffer the consequences of his decision, and so neither (Griffith suggests) should we expect it to be criticized by the poet. The statement that Byrhtnoth allowed the enemy “too much land” (landes to fela, l. 90a) should be understood, therefore, as an “emotional rather than moral” response, reflecting the poet's wish—and that of the audience—that things could have been different (pp. 118–19). Neither should we see criticism in the much-debated reference to Byrhtnoth's ofermod. In the earlier section on “Language,” Griffith had rejected arguments that see moral judgement in this term, asserting that “in a secular poem foregrounding warrior ethics where pride is a necessary quality of the fighting hero, ofermod in a meaning other than ‘sinful pride’ is called for” (p. 52 emphasis original). Now it emerges that this “other” meaning is connected to the heroic ethos that requires Byrhtnoth to honor his word (the glossary defines ofermod simply as “pride” p. 293).The edition is handsomely produced. I noticed very few typographical errors, almost all of which appeared in the notes to the introduction. The only significant error that I saw was at p. 33 where “316b” (for “the instrumental of separation”) should read “316a.” As always, there are decisions with which one might quibble. The absence of modern English translations (of the poem, the quotations in the introduction, or the Latin and Old English analogues included in the Appendix) must surely be regretted and will inevitably make the work less approachable and less useful for less advanced students. The lack of markers of vowel length in the edited text also seems a pity. Vowel length is indicated in the glossary, but including these markers in the text would be helpful for scansion purposes. In an edition that gives unprecedented attention to the poem's language and prosody, the omission is surprising. Personally, I found the system of cross-referencing by section (and subsection) a source of irritation. References like “see INTRO: 3. A. I (a) (iv); I (b) (v); and B. (g)” (p. 207, emphasis original) are not easily followed up given the absence of running heads in the introduction. Cross-reference by page number would have been more user-friendly.Griffith's stated purpose in editing the poem was “to illuminate its literary qualities, to assess its place in the Old English poetic tradition and to characterize the ways in which it looks forward to later alliterative poetry” (pp. ix–x). In these three aims, he is undoubtedly successful. It is unlikely that any reader will agree with every aspect of Griffith's interpretation of the poem, but all readers will, I suggest, find many valuable and productive new insights here and come away with a greater appreciation of the artistry of this fine Old English poem. Griffith has done a singular service to scholarship on The Battle of Maldon and on Old English verse more generally. This will no doubt be a standard edition for some time to come and is bound to stimulate much future work.