Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 The Form of Direct Speech
- 2 The Content and Context of Direct Speech
- 3 A Lack of Subjectivity?
- 4 Archetypal Subjectivity
- 5 A Problem with Voices
- 6 A Problem with Point of View
- 7 Impossible Irony
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- Anglo-Saxon Studies
4 - Archetypal Subjectivity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- 1 The Form of Direct Speech
- 2 The Content and Context of Direct Speech
- 3 A Lack of Subjectivity?
- 4 Archetypal Subjectivity
- 5 A Problem with Voices
- 6 A Problem with Point of View
- 7 Impossible Irony
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- Anglo-Saxon Studies
Summary
Direct Speech is typically couched in the discursive mode and thus full of markers of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. By and large, Old English poetry follows that rule, but the way it uses such markers is so peculiar, from our own modern perspective, that the speeches, to us, tend not to seem very subjective. This chapter takes a closer look at some of the most important markers of (inter)subjectivity, namely axiological terms, references to persons and pragmatic markers.
Axiological Terms
Axiological terms are words (most often nouns and adjectives) that express a value judgement. Theoretically, they are most typical of the subjective enunciation modes (discourse and storytelling), but in Old English poetry they are present everywhere. In fact, maxims are among the most ‘objectivised’ Old English texts, but their whole point is to pass judgement on human action. However, that judgement is not based on individual evaluation but on a set of collective norms that are perceived as absolute truths. As a consequence, axiological terms in maxims are not markers of speaker involvement, i.e. of subjectivity in the usual sense.
The same diagnosis can be made for most if not all axiological terms in Old English poetry. Consider for instance Beowulf's recounting of King Hrethel's grief:
Wæs þam yldestan ungedefelice
mæges dædum morþorbed stred,
syððan hyne Hæðcyn of hornbogan,
his freawine, flane geswencte,
miste mercelses ond his mæg ofscet,
broðor oðerne blodigan gare.
Þæt wæs feohleas gefeoht, fyrenum gesyngad,
hreðre hygemeðe; sceolde hwæðre swa þeah
æðeling unwrecen ealdres linnan. (Beowulf, 2435–43)
This is one of the few instances when Direct Speech slips into the historical mode for a little while. Beowulf is speaking to his men, but there is no sign of his involvement or their presence in the speech. Strong axiological terms are used, but they do not seem to reflect an individual point of view. The word gedefe, on which ungedefelice is based, does not refer to what is good according to one's conscience, but to what is fitting according to the rules laid out by society. Additionally, the numerous references to the kinship between the killer and the victim, culminating in the simple and effective bro.or o.erne, suggest that the judgement passed on that death does not come from the speaker, but from the facts themselves, which are inescapable.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Direct Speech in Beowulf and Other Old English Narrative Poems , pp. 127 - 173Publisher: Boydell & BrewerPrint publication year: 2016