--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is where I got the word "identity" from in Davis:
>
> [snip examples]
>
> All of these seem perfectly normal usages; it's your equation of
> identity and ancestry that does not.
>
This equation I obtained from Davis: he writes about the ethnic
identity of the Anglo-Saxons, which they derive from their ancestry
which goes back variously to the Danes, Geats, Goths, Seth, as well as
the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. I am using "ancestry" in a general
sense, i.e. one's national ancestry, as opposed to individuals in
one's ancestry. The same way I could say that I have Scottish or clan
McMillan ancestry, which contributes to my ethnic identity ("of
Scottish ancestry") and my individual identity ("a descendant of the
McMillans"). I really don't see how my choice of words is so
confusing, especially since it comes from or derives directly from
Davis's article. Should I have used "heritage" instead of "ancestry"?
One's heritage is determined by where one's ancestors came from.
> [...]
>
> > The idea of the Anglo-Saxons welcoming foreign elements comes from
> > this and later:
>
> I know where it came from. I just think that you've turned a
> molehill into a mountain.
>
You may be right. That's what Cybalist is for, discussion of ideas
(with possible rejection; you've rejected this one, no problem).
>
> > From the quotes above as well as much else in the text, I would not
> > say that I have misread Davis.
>
> I would.
>
You're right. I generalized from the identity put forth by Beowulf to
the identity of all Anglo-Saxons. OK, I misread it, probably read it
too quickly. But I got the idea of a propensity for glorifying
foreignness among the Anglo-Saxons of this time from the following:
"A Gothic or Geatish ancestry seems thus to have acquired a special
appeal for the English dynasties bold enough to claim it. A Geatish
hero may in consequence have had a pointed, political significance for
the Anglian, Jutish or other members of the poem's audience who may
have come to fancy themselves to be of Geatish extraction. King Alfred
was the most important such person, as we have seen. Under his
direction, the West Saxon royal family, too, had acquired the itch for
Geatish ancestors as part of their pedigree and borrowed the Anglian
genealogies to trace their own lineage back to Geat (Craig Davis 1996:
51-63). But this is precisely where the Alfredian genealogist found
room for improvement over his neighbors and went on to trace the
patriline of the kings of Wessex beyond Geat to the founder of the
Danish royal family, Scyld Scefing, subordinating all prior
pedigrees-including the Geatish one-to this new sequence of
distinguished ancestors. By the late ninth century, Danes had
supplanted Geats in genealogical prestige, at least at the court of
King Alfred."
>
> >>> I just meant that we English have always seemed rather
> >>> eager to celebrate, praise, pay tribute to, or adopt
> >>> foreign elements, whether in words, ancestry, or political
> >>> affiliations.
>
> >> I'm not at all sure that I agree with this, but in any
> >> case it's very different from what I understand by
> >> 'identity-challenged'.
OK, Davis was saying that Beowulf's glorification of the Danish,
Geatish, and other ancestry of its hero was not well-received by the
Anglo-Saxon audience because they had other, stronger ties that led to
a national consciousness. Yes, I misread that and concentrated only
on the earlier parts of his article in which I mistook the ancestry
presented by Beowulf for its hero (the Geats from which Alfred was
believed to have descended, but I also conflated the Danes in there)
as being presented as the ancestry of all Anglo-Saxons. Yes, I
seriously misread it, you were completely right, I'll have to eat my
words. I'm not even sure that what I'm saying here is factually
correct, maybe I'll have to reread Beowulf itself. I read it in
university, but maybe even then I was confused as to whether Beowulf
was an Anglo-Saxon hero or a Geatish hero or even a Danish hero.
>
> > Davis uses the term "identity" several times in making his
> > argument about "the failure of Beowulf to establish itself
> > as an effective contribution to the English nation's sense
> > of itself in the tenth century."
>
> Indeed he does. He also argues effectively that it failed
> because it was incompatible with stronger identity-forming
> elements.
I'm not objecting to the word 'identity'; it's
> the notion that the Anglo-Saxons were 'identity-challenged'
> that I find absurd (and entirely incompatible with Davis's
> discussion).
>
See my comments above.
>
> >>> But I would like to know why then have we borrowed so
> >>> profusely from outside sources, compared to other Germanic
> >>> languages for example? Germany is close to France, the
> >>> Netherlands are close to France, not separated by an arm
> >>> of the sea, yet they have borrowed nowhere near as many
> >>> words from French and Latin as we have.
>
> >> For starters, they had very different historical
> >> relationships with the French.
>
> > What about what I said about Greece and its conquest by the
> > Romans? Is there no parallel there?
>
> Anti-parallel, so to speak: the Romans admired Greek culture,
> and the borrowing went in the other direction, from Greek to
> Latin.
>
So the Anglo-Saxons were not admired by the Normans. Were the
Anglo-Saxons looked down upon? As I've mentioned before, I have a
poor knowledge of the social and political history of Anglo-Saxon and
early Medieval England (which I intend to correct), so maybe you could
say a few informative words here for me. Or if you're finished with
this thread that's fine too, I'll bone up on this period when I have
the opportunity.
Andrew