Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: New Beowulf

Expand Messages
  • Lisa Deutsch Harrigan
    Well, I went to the translation section and I do know some Old English (I took it in college many years ago). What I read seemed good. He did give the
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 28, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, I went to the translation section and I do know some Old English (I took
      it in college many years ago). What I read seemed good. He did give the
      translation a nice poetic flow and did translate everything, so you don't need
      to know Old English at all. But he did keep in mind the original meanings of the
      words and so kept true to the story. And he seems to keep the words in the right
      order. I could go back to the original and find the words I knew and piece
      together how he did his translation. So if you know a smattering of Old English,
      although it won't teach you the language, you could use it as an aide.

      Mind you, this is only for the bit they had in the article. The translation may
      be completely botched in other spots. Though, since it was a big hit in England,
      I doubt it. The English know and love their Beowulf.

      Since this one has done so well in England, may be they will translate some of
      the other Old Stories? I'd like to see them too.

      Mythically yours,

      Lisa

      ERATRIANO@... wrote:

      > From: ERATRIANO@...
      >
      > Oh yeah, Dad said he'd save me the Sunday book review from the New York
      > Times, had a write up yesterday. Can't wait to see. Kinda like, not again,
      > but OTOH, kinda like, oooh what have they done now? ggg
    • Ted Sherman
      Well, I can tell you that in the international community of Old English scholars, there is a great deal of discussion (and often heated) about Heaney s
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 28, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, I can tell you that in the international community of Old English
        scholars, there is a great deal of discussion (and often heated) about
        Heaney's translation. One of the problems for us academics is that
        Heaney apparently knows little OE. Beowulf is probably the most complex
        work of OE poetry, not to mention the longest piece, so one really must
        be proficient in the language to understand the subtle nuances of the
        poem.

        For the record, however; I am quite pleased that the book is getting
        such good press. Perhaps it will turn folks back to Beowulf and we'll
        see a resurgence of students interested in medieval studies in the
        universities. (Sure would make my job more enjoyable!)

        Yours,

        Ted

        PS: Mythlore Issue 85, Volume 22, Number 3 is with the mailing agent and
        should be in the mail beginning tomorrow.

        Lisa Deutsch Harrigan wrote:
        >
        > From: Lisa Deutsch Harrigan <lisa@...>
        >
        > Well, I went to the translation section and I do know some Old English (I took
        > it in college many years ago). What I read seemed good. He did give the
        > translation a nice poetic flow and did translate everything, so you don't need
        > to know Old English at all. But he did keep in mind the original meanings of the
        > words and so kept true to the story. And he seems to keep the words in the right
        > order. I could go back to the original and find the words I knew and piece
        > together how he did his translation. So if you know a smattering of Old English,
        > although it won't teach you the language, you could use it as an aide.
        >
        > Mind you, this is only for the bit they had in the article. The translation may
        > be completely botched in other spots. Though, since it was a big hit in England,
        > I doubt it. The English know and love their Beowulf.
        >
        > Since this one has done so well in England, may be they will translate some of
        > the other Old Stories? I'd like to see them too.
        >
        > Mythically yours,
        >
        > Lisa
        >
        > ERATRIANO@... wrote:
        >
        > > From: ERATRIANO@...
        > >
        > > Oh yeah, Dad said he'd save me the Sunday book review from the New York
        > > Times, had a write up yesterday. Can't wait to see. Kinda like, not again,
        > > but OTOH, kinda like, oooh what have they done now? ggg
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Get your money connected @ OnMoney.com - the first Web site that lets you
        > see, consolidate, and manage all of your finances all in one place.
        > http://click.egroups.com/1/1636/3/_/505012/_/951782827/
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

        --
        Dr. Theodore James Sherman
        Department of English, Box X041
        College of Liberal Arts
        Middle Tennessee State University
        Murfreesboro, TN 37130
        615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
        tsherman@...
        tedsherman@...
      • David S. Bratman
        ... The sad fact is that there s nothing else like Beowulf in Old English literature, and we almost didn t have Beowulf, either: it survives in a single
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 28, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Lisa Deutsch Harrigan wrote:

          > Since this one has done so well in England, may be they will translate some of
          > the other Old Stories? I'd like to see them too.

          The sad fact is that there's nothing else like Beowulf in Old English
          literature, and we almost didn't have Beowulf, either: it survives in a
          single manuscript of unknown provenance, which almost burned in a fire
          some 400-500 years ago, long before it was adequately transcribed.

          There probably were other great Old English epics that _didn't_ survive,
          of which we have only tiny surviving hints: Wayland the Smith, for
          instance. It was because the English didn't have an Edda, or a
          Nibelungenlied, or an Odyssey or Aeneid, or a Charlemagne cycle, that
          Tolkien decided to make one up on his own.

          (As for why the English are so bereft, that permits of a three-word
          oversimpliciation for an answer: the Norman Conquest.)

          David Bratman
          - not responsible for the following advertisement -
        • Steve Schaper
          ... There are some nice fragments from the School of Cynewulf, but nothing like Beowulf. ==================================== Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 28, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            At 10:52 PM -0500 2/28/00, David S. Bratman wrote:
            >From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
            >
            >On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Lisa Deutsch Harrigan wrote:
            >
            >> Since this one has done so well in England, may be they will
            >>translate some of
            >> the other Old Stories? I'd like to see them too.
            >
            >The sad fact is that there's nothing else like Beowulf in Old English
            >literature, and we almost didn't have Beowulf, either: it survives in a
            >single manuscript of unknown provenance, which almost burned in a fire
            >some 400-500 years ago, long before it was adequately transcribed.
            >
            >There probably were other great Old English epics that _didn't_ survive,
            >of which we have only tiny surviving hints: Wayland the Smith, for
            >instance.
            There are some nice fragments from the School of Cynewulf, but
            nothing like Beowulf.

            ====================================
            Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
            sschaper@...
            members.delphi.com/sschaper/web/sschaper.html
            ====================================
          • ERATRIANO@aol.com
            In a message dated 02/28/2000 7:28:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, lisa@harrigan.org writes:
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 02/28/2000 7:28:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              lisa@... writes:

              << He did give the
              translation a nice poetic flow and did translate everything >>
              Is it alliterative?

              Lizzie
            • Ted Sherman
              ... Well, it depends on what you mean by like Beowulf. OE literature contains many great work, some short and some long. Beowulf is sui generis in terms of
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                "David S. Bratman" wrote:
                >
                > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
                >
                > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Lisa Deutsch Harrigan wrote:
                >
                > > Since this one has done so well in England, may be they will translate some of
                > > the other Old Stories? I'd like to see them too.
                >
                > The sad fact is that there's nothing else like Beowulf in Old English
                > literature, and we almost didn't have Beowulf, either: it survives in a
                > single manuscript of unknown provenance, which almost burned in a fire
                > some 400-500 years ago, long before it was adequately transcribed.

                Well, it depends on what you mean by "like Beowulf." OE literature
                contains many great work, some short and some long. Beowulf is sui
                generis in terms of its matter; that is, aside from the one surviving
                manuscript of Beowulf, there are no other stories of Beowulf the Geat.
                We do have, at the very least, other references to such great Germanic
                heroes and characters as Siegfried and Sigemund, Attila and Gudrun,
                Welund and Walter, Finn and Hengist; but there's only one story that
                mentions Beowulf. BTW, the Beowulf manuscript was damaged in the great
                fire in 1731 at Ashburnam House, and other manuscripts were destroyed
                and/or nearly destroyed. One of the current projects at the British
                LIbrary is to recover the texts--via UV photography with a Kontron
                camera--contained in some of those burnt mss.

                > There probably were other great Old English epics that _didn't_ survive,
                > of which we have only tiny surviving hints: Wayland the Smith, for
                > instance. It was because the English didn't have an Edda, or a
                > Nibelungenlied, or an Odyssey or Aeneid, or a Charlemagne cycle, that
                > Tolkien decided to make one up on his own.

                Well, England did have its own cycle: the Arthurian cycle. (I know that
                some/much of the Arthurian material comes from France.) Beowulf is
                England's Nibelungenlied, and it antedates the Nibelungenlied by at
                least 175 years. The Brut by Layamon could easily be viewed as England's
                Odyssey or Aeneid, especially the latter (since it kind of takes up
                where the Aeneid stops).

                >
                > (As for why the English are so bereft, that permits of a three-word
                > oversimpliciation for an answer: the Norman Conquest.)
                >
                Actually, the Norman Conquest is only partially responsible; the main
                culprits, really, are the Vikings and Henry VIII. When the Vikings began
                invading in the late 8th century, they sacked and destroyed monasteries
                and the monastic libraries. It's a miracle that the two greatest OE
                manuscripts, The Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells, still
                survive. In 1536/38 Henry dissolved the monasteries and confiscated
                them; one of the results was the dispersal of many of the monastic
                libraries as well as the destruction of the monasteries and their
                medieval sculptures and stained-glass windows. That's why the Ruthwell
                Cross--which contains a 7th-8th century runic inscription of portions of
                the great OE elegy "The Dream of the Rood"--is broken and the
                inscription so weather damaged. The reformers, following Henry, cast
                down the cross and left it to weather away. It wasn't until the 19th
                century that it was put back together (though with part missing) and
                placed in a chapel.

                Another BTW: the English don't really value Beowulf as much as the press
                might lead one to believe. In the past few decades Beowulf and other
                areas of Anglo-Saxon culture (as in the culture in Britain from c.
                450-1066) have gradually been removed from the curriculum, so that now
                relatively few students actually study Beowulf. Also, for the Whitbread
                Prize, which Heaney's translation won, the vote was split: five judges
                voted for Beowulf and four for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
                Azkhaban. Two different versions of Heaney's Beowulf are now available
                in the US: a straight translation as well as a copy with Beowulf in OE
                and Heaney's translation on facing pages.

                Ted

                --
                Dr. Theodore James Sherman
                Department of English, Box X041
                College of Liberal Arts
                Middle Tennessee State University
                Murfreesboro, TN 37130
                615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
                tsherman@...
                tedsherman@...
              • Stolzi@aol.com
                In a message dated 2/29/00 9:12:51 AM Central Standard Time, ... Hmm! What exactly does the Whitbread Prize reward? What a combo. I won t say from the
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 2/29/00 9:12:51 AM Central Standard Time,
                  tedsherman@... writes:

                  > Also, for the Whitbread
                  > Prize, which Heaney's translation won, the vote was split: five judges
                  > voted for Beowulf and four for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
                  > Azkhaban.

                  Hmm! What exactly does the Whitbread Prize reward?

                  What a combo. I won't say "from the sublime to the ridiculous," for I quite
                  like Harry, but there =is= a disproportion here.
                • Ted Sherman
                  The Whitbread is for, if I remember correctly, best book of the year in England. Ted ... -- Dr. Theodore James Sherman Department of English, Box X041 College
                  Message 8 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The Whitbread is for, if I remember correctly, best book of the year in
                    England.

                    Ted

                    Stolzi@... wrote:
                    >
                    > From: Stolzi@...
                    >
                    > In a message dated 2/29/00 9:12:51 AM Central Standard Time,
                    > tedsherman@... writes:
                    >
                    > > Also, for the Whitbread
                    > > Prize, which Heaney's translation won, the vote was split: five judges
                    > > voted for Beowulf and four for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
                    > > Azkhaban.
                    >
                    > Hmm! What exactly does the Whitbread Prize reward?
                    >
                    > What a combo. I won't say "from the sublime to the ridiculous," for I quite
                    > like Harry, but there =is= a disproportion here.
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Show your style! Choose from 6 great card designs when you
                    > apply for Capital One's 9.9% Fixed APR Visa Platinum.
                    > http://click.egroups.com/1/1894/3/_/505012/_/951842337/
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                    --
                    Dr. Theodore James Sherman
                    Department of English, Box X041
                    College of Liberal Arts
                    Middle Tennessee State University
                    Murfreesboro, TN 37130
                    615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
                    tsherman@...
                    tedsherman@...
                  • David S. Bratman
                    ... When I wrote that there is nothing else like Beowulf in OE literature, I didn t mean just that there were no other versions of the story of the man
                    Message 9 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Ted Sherman wrote:

                      > "David S. Bratman" wrote:
                      > >
                      > > The sad fact is that there's nothing else like Beowulf in Old English
                      > > literature, and we almost didn't have Beowulf, either: it survives in a
                      > > single manuscript of unknown provenance, which almost burned in a fire
                      > > some 400-500 years ago, long before it was adequately transcribed.
                      >
                      > Well, it depends on what you mean by "like Beowulf." OE literature
                      > contains many great work, some short and some long. Beowulf is sui
                      > generis in terms of its matter; that is, aside from the one surviving
                      > manuscript of Beowulf, there are no other stories of Beowulf the Geat.

                      When I wrote that there is nothing else like Beowulf in OE literature, I
                      didn't mean just that there were no other versions of the story of the
                      man Beowulf. There are some great short poems in OE, but I know of no
                      other works of creative art in that language remotely comparable to it in
                      combination of length and quality. If you do, I would like to know of them.

                      > Well, England did have its own cycle: the Arthurian cycle. (I know that
                      > some/much of the Arthurian material comes from France.)

                      For Tolkien, the Arthurian cycle didn't count. He said it was
                      imperfectly naturalized, by which he meant not so much that a great deal
                      of what we think of as Arthurian comes from Chretien and other French
                      romancers, but that the whole retains a Celtic air: it isn't English, and
                      he wanted something English.

                      > The Brut by Layamon could easily be viewed as England's
                      > Odyssey or Aeneid, especially the latter (since it kind of takes up
                      > where the Aeneid stops).

                      A good point, though the Brut is of course not Old English but Middle
                      English. It's not the only English work that is in a sense a sequel to
                      the Aeneid (which certainly seems to have had more of a hold on the
                      British imagination than it does on mine): Geoffrey of Monmouth's History
                      (in Latin, unfortunately for the sake of OE literature) also ties in to
                      the Aeneid, and doesn't "Gawain and the Green Knight" start off with some
                      references to the Odyssey/Aeneid period? (I don't have a copy here to
                      check.)

                      > > (As for why the English are so bereft, that permits of a three-word
                      > > oversimpliciation for an answer: the Norman Conquest.)
                      > >
                      > Actually, the Norman Conquest is only partially responsible; the main
                      > culprits, really, are the Vikings and Henry VIII.

                      As I said, an oversimplification. While the Vikings and H8 did the
                      destruction, they and others like them destroyed many more ancient
                      manuscripts, in many languages in many times and places, than they ever
                      let survive. What's the fault of the Norman Conquest is that there
                      weren't _more (and later) copies_, a few of which might have survived.
                      (The Vikings didn't help much there either.)

                      David Bratman
                      -not responsible for the following advertisement-
                    • ERATRIANO@aol.com
                      In a message dated 02/29/2000 11:43:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, Stolzi@aol.com writes: Yes,
                      Message 10 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 02/29/2000 11:43:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                        Stolzi@... writes:

                        << for I quite
                        like Harry, but there =is= a disproportion here. >>
                        Yes, an interesting assortment. I just started Harry the other day. what
                        fun!

                        Lizzie
                      • David Lenander
                        Yes, I agree with you, Mary. I m dubious about the necessity of rewarding Heaney s translation of Beowulf, for that matter. The news report I saw said that
                        Message 11 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, I agree with you, Mary. I'm dubious about the necessity of rewarding
                          Heaney's translation of Beowulf, for that matter. The news report I saw said
                          that in part the award recognizes popularity. Personally, I think such an
                          award is pretty silly. The financial reward and popularity ought to be reward
                          enough, and I don't especially begrudge Harry Potter the popularity, but I
                          think awards to call our attention to lesser-known but worthwhile works make
                          more sense. And today is the deadline for e-mailing nominations to Ellie
                          Farrell for the Mythopoeic Scholarship and Fantasy Awards.

                          This morning in the car we were listening to Jane Yolen's _Wizard's Hall_ on an
                          audiotape. Quite similar in some respects to Harry Potter, it's a earlier book
                          that hasn't had near the the notice or readers. I don't know if the story is
                          any better than Harry Potter, it's much shorter and not so breakneck in pacing,
                          and probably written for slightly younger readers, but it is told with more
                          finesse, grace and style by a writer who has mastered her craft on a level
                          towards which Rowlings is still climbing. Quite different from Harry Potter
                          but likewise worthy of more readers are such past winners of the MFA as Diana
                          Wynne Jones' _Dark Lord of Derkholm_ (last year's children's division winner)
                          and Jane Yolen's "Young Merlin" trilogy (winner the year before). Dark Lord
                          seemed to me as much fun as Harry Potter, but much more complex and
                          interesting, and while "Young Merlin" is not a lot of fun, it's strikingly
                          beautiful in its spare, poetic prose and story construction, and full of action
                          in a story that is probably shorter--in all three volumes--than any one of the
                          Harry Potter books. Both of these books are probably aimed at somewhat older
                          readers than Harry Potter's target audience. In saying this, by the way, I'm
                          not disparaging Harry Potter, which I enjoyed, at least the first two books
                          that I've read (my 10-year old daughter and most of her class at school have
                          avidly read all three).

                          Stolzi@... wrote:

                          > From: Stolzi@...
                          >
                          > In a message dated 2/29/00 9:12:51 AM Central Standard Time,
                          > tedsherman@... writes:
                          >
                          > > Also, for the Whitbread
                          > > Prize, which Heaney's translation won, the vote was split: five judges
                          > > voted for Beowulf and four for Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
                          > > Azkhaban.
                          >
                          > Hmm! What exactly does the Whitbread Prize reward?
                          >
                          > What a combo. I won't say "from the sublime to the ridiculous," for I quite
                          > like Harry, but there =is= a disproportion here.
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > Show your style! Choose from 6 great card designs when you
                          > apply for Capital One's 9.9% Fixed APR Visa Platinum.
                          > http://click.egroups.com/1/1894/3/_/505012/_/951842337/
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                          > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
                        • Ted Sherman
                          Just to keep this on topic (for those who are unaware), Tolkien was Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford (and wasn t he also later Rawlinson Professor
                          Message 12 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Just to keep this on topic (for those who are unaware), Tolkien was
                            Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford (and wasn't he also later
                            Rawlinson Professor when at Merton?).

                            "David S. Bratman" wrote:
                            >
                            > From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>
                            >
                            > When I wrote that there is nothing else like Beowulf in OE literature, I
                            > didn't mean just that there were no other versions of the story of the
                            > man Beowulf. There are some great short poems in OE, but I know of no
                            > other works of creative art in that language remotely comparable to it in
                            > combination of length and quality. If you do, I would like to know of them.
                            >
                            The so-called Caedmonian poems--Genesis (A and B), Exodus, Daniel,
                            Azarias; the Cynewulf poems--Elene, the Fates of the Apostles, Andreas,
                            etc.--as well as Judith (the other poetic piece in Cotton Vitellius
                            A.xv, the Beowulf manuscript): these are all "remotely comparable" in
                            length and quality. The key word, obviously, is "remotely." Then there's
                            some of the fragmentary pieces: Battle of Maldon (simply glorious) and
                            the Finnsbug Fragment.

                            > > Well, England did have its own cycle: the Arthurian cycle. (I know that
                            > > some/much of the Arthurian material comes from France.)
                            >
                            > For Tolkien, the Arthurian cycle didn't count. He said it was
                            > imperfectly naturalized, by which he meant not so much that a great deal
                            > of what we think of as Arthurian comes from Chretien and other French
                            > romancers, but that the whole retains a Celtic air: it isn't English, and
                            > he wanted something English.
                            >
                            Yes, I knew Tolkien didn't count the Arthurian cycle because of its
                            non-native elements as well as its "Celtic air." The problem, however,
                            is with the whole notion of how to define "English." The English
                            are/were an amalgam of native British (read Celtic), Roman soldier
                            immigrants, Germanic invaders, Norse and French invaders, etc. The
                            Celtic air is in the atmosphere of England, just as the Germanic air and
                            French air are.

                            > > The Brut by Layamon could easily be viewed as England's
                            > > Odyssey or Aeneid, especially the latter (since it kind of takes up
                            > > where the Aeneid stops).
                            >
                            > A good point, though the Brut is of course not Old English but Middle
                            > English. It's not the only English work that is in a sense a sequel to
                            > the Aeneid (which certainly seems to have had more of a hold on the
                            > British imagination than it does on mine): Geoffrey of Monmouth's History
                            > (in Latin, unfortunately for the sake of OE literature) also ties in to
                            > the Aeneid, and doesn't "Gawain and the Green Knight" start off with some
                            > references to the Odyssey/Aeneid period? (I don't have a copy here to
                            > check.)
                            >
                            Good point, David, about the Brut being in ME, but keep in mind that
                            there isn't a clear break between Old and Middle English. And much
                            material now in OE was originally written in Latin: Bede's History,
                            Nennius, Gildas, etc.

                            > > > (As for why the English are so bereft, that permits of a three-word
                            > > > oversimpliciation for an answer: the Norman Conquest.)
                            > > >
                            > > Actually, the Norman Conquest is only partially responsible; the main
                            > > culprits, really, are the Vikings and Henry VIII.
                            >
                            > As I said, an oversimplification. While the Vikings and H8 did the
                            > destruction, they and others like them destroyed many more ancient
                            > manuscripts, in many languages in many times and places, than they ever
                            > let survive. What's the fault of the Norman Conquest is that there
                            > weren't _more (and later) copies_, a few of which might have survived.
                            > (The Vikings didn't help much there either.)
                            >
                            Again, I don't know (and I could easily be wrong) that the Norman
                            Conquest is the cause for there not being more and later copies of much
                            OE material. The Normans didn't necessarily lay waste to the monasteries
                            and scriptoria in their conquest of England; they did, however, replace
                            English abbots and bishops with French ones.

                            What the Norman Conquest really did was the screw up the language and
                            spelling of English; but that's another topic.

                            Ted

                            --
                            Dr. Theodore James Sherman
                            Department of English, Box X041
                            College of Liberal Arts
                            Middle Tennessee State University
                            Murfreesboro, TN 37130
                            615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
                            tsherman@...
                            tedsherman@...
                          • David S. Bratman
                            ... Rawlinson _and_ Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, 1925-45, after which he was Merton Professor of English Language and Literature (also at
                            Message 13 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Ted Sherman wrote:

                              > Just to keep this on topic (for those who are unaware), Tolkien was
                              > Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford (and wasn't he also later
                              > Rawlinson Professor when at Merton?).

                              Rawlinson _and_ Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford, 1925-45,
                              after which he was Merton Professor of English Language and Literature
                              (also at Oxford, but attached specifically to Merton College); in the
                              latter job he worked mostly on Middle English literature.

                              > > When I wrote that there is nothing else like Beowulf in OE literature, I
                              > > didn't mean just that there were no other versions of the story of the
                              > > man Beowulf. There are some great short poems in OE, but I know of no
                              > > other works of creative art in that language remotely comparable to it in
                              > > combination of length and quality. If you do, I would like to know of them.
                              > >
                              > The so-called Caedmonian poems--Genesis (A and B), Exodus, Daniel,
                              > Azarias; the Cynewulf poems--Elene, the Fates of the Apostles, Andreas,
                              > etc.--as well as Judith (the other poetic piece in Cotton Vitellius
                              > A.xv, the Beowulf manuscript): these are all "remotely comparable" in
                              > length and quality. The key word, obviously, is "remotely." Then there's
                              > some of the fragmentary pieces: Battle of Maldon (simply glorious) and
                              > the Finnsbug Fragment.

                              I know the last two, and they're very short (though good), and I thought
                              Cynewulf's poems were short too. Exodus (which I also know slightly,
                              because Tolkien wrote about it) is much longer, but it's a retelling of
                              the Bible story, so perhaps it doesn't count. (OTOH, who's to say that
                              Beowulf isn't a retelling of something lost? It probably is, come to that.)

                              > Yes, I knew Tolkien didn't count the Arthurian cycle because of its
                              > non-native elements as well as its "Celtic air." The problem, however,
                              > is with the whole notion of how to define "English." The English
                              > are/were an amalgam of native British (read Celtic), Roman soldier
                              > immigrants, Germanic invaders, Norse and French invaders, etc. The
                              > Celtic air is in the atmosphere of England, just as the Germanic air and
                              > French air are.

                              Dorothy Sayers liked to make that point: that the English were not only a
                              mongrel nation, they were uniquely proud of it. That's not how Tolkien
                              viewed things, though. He felt there was a pure Anglo-Saxon strain which
                              he wished to isolate. As Americans, with our melting pot, we're used to
                              things being naturalized as soon as they step off the boat. Many
                              Europeans view things differently (one reason for the xenophobic politics
                              that look so strange to us). "How many years does it take to make a
                              steward a king, if the king return not?" "Few years, maybe, in other
                              lands. In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice."

                              > Good point, David, about the Brut being in ME, but keep in mind that
                              > there isn't a clear break between Old and Middle English. And much
                              > material now in OE was originally written in Latin: Bede's History,
                              > Nennius, Gildas, etc.

                              A fairly clear break, I think, as far as creative literature is concerned,
                              there being a long gap without much except the Ancrene Wisse, which I
                              believe is clearly ME, though certainly early ME. As for the Latin
                              stuff, precisely because it's in Latin it's not OE literature in the
                              language sense, except insofar as the translations are literature.
                              (Which they are: after all, King Alfred translated Boethius, who wasn't
                              English by nationality let alone language, and that's considered a
                              masterpiece of OE literature.)

                              > Again, I don't know (and I could easily be wrong) that the Norman
                              > Conquest is the cause for there not being more and later copies of much
                              > OE material. The Normans didn't necessarily lay waste to the monasteries
                              > and scriptoria in their conquest of England; they did, however, replace
                              > English abbots and bishops with French ones.

                              I didn't mean that the Normans destroyed things, but by taking over and
                              putting the cultured use of the English language on ice for a couple
                              hundred years, they severely reduced the impetus to make more copies.
                              Considering how very few manuscript copies were made of anything
                              pre-Gutenberg, in any country, and how very fewer of them survived the
                              vicissitudes of the centuries, any marginal difference can be vitally
                              important.

                              David Bratman
                              -not responsible for the following advertisement-
                            • WendellWag@aol.com
                              In a message dated 2/29/00 12:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... England. To be more precise, there are Whitbread awards for best novel, best first novel,
                              Message 14 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 2/29/00 12:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                tedsherman@... writes:

                                > The Whitbread is for, if I remember correctly, best book of the year in
                                England.

                                To be more precise, there are Whitbread awards for best novel, best first
                                novel, best biography, best book of poetry, and best children's book. Each
                                of them is worth 2000 pounds, except for children's book, which is worth
                                10,000 pounds. There is also an overall award chosen from the winners, which
                                is the book of the year, and this wins 21,000 pounds in addition.

                                Whitbread, which sponsors the award, is one of the biggest breweries in
                                England.

                                See

                                http://www.whitbread-bookawards.co.uk/

                                for more information.

                                Wendell Wagner
                              • Ted Sherman
                                ... The Battle of Maldon is approximately 350 lines, whereas the Finnsburg fragment is only about 35-40. Why wouldn t a retelling of a Bible story count?
                                Message 15 of 27 , Feb 29, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "David S. Bratman" wrote:
                                  >

                                  > > some of the fragmentary pieces: Battle of Maldon (simply glorious) and
                                  > > the Finnsbug Fragment.
                                  >
                                  > I know the last two, and they're very short (though good), and I thought
                                  > Cynewulf's poems were short too. Exodus (which I also know slightly,
                                  > because Tolkien wrote about it) is much longer, but it's a retelling of
                                  > the Bible story, so perhaps it doesn't count. (OTOH, who's to say that
                                  > Beowulf isn't a retelling of something lost? It probably is, come to that.)

                                  The Battle of Maldon is approximately 350 lines, whereas the Finnsburg
                                  fragment is only about 35-40. Why wouldn't a retelling of a Bible story
                                  count? Genesis B contains material based on Genesis, but it also
                                  contains material that John Milton likely used in Paradise Lost. It's as
                                  literary as one can get. Refashioning earlier texts was common
                                  throughout the Anglo-Saxon period--and later.

                                  >
                                  > > Yes, I knew Tolkien didn't count the Arthurian cycle because of its
                                  > > non-native elements as well as its "Celtic air." The problem, however,
                                  > > is with the whole notion of how to define "English." The English
                                  > > are/were an amalgam of native British (read Celtic), Roman soldier
                                  > > immigrants, Germanic invaders, Norse and French invaders, etc. The
                                  > > Celtic air is in the atmosphere of England, just as the Germanic air and
                                  > > French air are.
                                  >
                                  > Dorothy Sayers liked to make that point: that the English were not only a
                                  > mongrel nation, they were uniquely proud of it. That's not how Tolkien
                                  > viewed things, though. He felt there was a pure Anglo-Saxon strain which
                                  > he wished to isolate. As Americans, with our melting pot, we're used to
                                  > things being naturalized as soon as they step off the boat. Many
                                  > Europeans view things differently (one reason for the xenophobic politics
                                  > that look so strange to us). "How many years does it take to make a
                                  > steward a king, if the king return not?" "Few years, maybe, in other
                                  > lands. In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice."
                                  >
                                  Frankly, I don't see the point of the latter quotations. JRRT might have
                                  wished to isolate a "pure Anglo-Saxon strain" but he needn't have tried.
                                  There wasn't one. Just when the "English" did begin to develop into
                                  their own people and own country, they would be disturbed from Outside.
                                  Those disturbances came from the Vikings, the Normans, and later the
                                  Flemish, Italians, Dutch, etc., from the late Middle Ages on. King
                                  Alfred was probably the closest one could come to a "pure Anglo-Saxon"
                                  but his entire life--almost--was spent confronting the Danes.

                                  > > Good point, David, about the Brut being in ME, but keep in mind that
                                  > > there isn't a clear break between Old and Middle English. And much
                                  > > material now in OE was originally written in Latin: Bede's History,
                                  > > Nennius, Gildas, etc.
                                  >
                                  > A fairly clear break, I think, as far as creative literature is concerned,
                                  > there being a long gap without much except the Ancrene Wisse, which I
                                  > believe is clearly ME, though certainly early ME. As for the Latin
                                  > stuff, precisely because it's in Latin it's not OE literature in the
                                  > language sense, except insofar as the translations are literature.
                                  > (Which they are: after all, King Alfred translated Boethius, who wasn't
                                  > English by nationality let alone language, and that's considered a
                                  > masterpiece of OE literature.)
                                  >
                                  No, not really. There is much early creative material, it's just not
                                  very popular today, nor is it studied or read much because of its
                                  didactic and hagiographic elements. There are early ballads and lyrics,
                                  and a few of the romances (Havelock the Dane comes to mind) are rather
                                  early. Alfred's Boethius is considered a masterpiece of OE literature
                                  precisely because Alfred rendered it into English. Just as Bede's
                                  History is a masterpiece. There are also the riddles, chronicles,
                                  saints' lives and numerous other works that were translated into OE that
                                  are masterpieces of OE prose and/or poetry.

                                  BTW, when I mentioned the break between OE and ME, I was referring more
                                  to the language. Parts of the island probably retained OE well into the
                                  late 12th century, if not the early 13th. The earliest datable document
                                  in ME is the entry for the year 1135 in the Peterborough Chronicle of
                                  the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

                                  > > Again, I don't know (and I could easily be wrong) that the Norman
                                  > > Conquest is the cause for there not being more and later copies of much
                                  > > OE material. The Normans didn't necessarily lay waste to the monasteries
                                  > > and scriptoria in their conquest of England; they did, however, replace
                                  > > English abbots and bishops with French ones.
                                  >
                                  > I didn't mean that the Normans destroyed things, but by taking over and
                                  > putting the cultured use of the English language on ice for a couple
                                  > hundred years, they severely reduced the impetus to make more copies.
                                  > Considering how very few manuscript copies were made of anything
                                  > pre-Gutenberg, in any country, and how very fewer of them survived the
                                  > vicissitudes of the centuries, any marginal difference can be vitally
                                  > important.
                                  >
                                  But copies were being made in the ME period; just look at one of the
                                  volumes in the Index of Middle English Verse to see how many works were
                                  copied. There are numerous copies of Monmouth's History, and they were
                                  all copied in the ME period. There are redactions and redactions of
                                  numerous works, making the lives of us textual editors interesting.
                                  Again, while numerous manuscripts and tales/poetry undoubtedly were
                                  destroyed during the centuries, it is quite amazing, really, that we
                                  have the number of manuscripts that do survive from the OE and ME
                                  periods.

                                  Ted
                                  --
                                  Dr. Theodore James Sherman
                                  Department of English, Box X041
                                  College of Liberal Arts
                                  Middle Tennessee State University
                                  Murfreesboro, TN 37130
                                  615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
                                  tsherman@...
                                  tedsherman@...
                                • WendellWag@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 2/28/00 6:43:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Huh?
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Mar 1, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 2/28/00 6:43:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                    ERATRIANO@... writes:

                                    > And some antlered lord tales. Why is this figure so elusive?

                                    Huh?
                                  • David S. Bratman
                                    ... I expect because it s not fully naturalized, as Tolkien said of the Arthurian material. Whether it s a re-telling doesn t count. You d have to ask
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Ted Sherman wrote:

                                      > Why wouldn't a retelling of a Bible story
                                      > count? Genesis B contains material based on Genesis, but it also
                                      > contains material that John Milton likely used in Paradise Lost. It's as
                                      > literary as one can get. Refashioning earlier texts was common
                                      > throughout the Anglo-Saxon period--and later.

                                      I expect because it's not fully naturalized, as Tolkien said of the
                                      Arthurian material. Whether it's a re-telling doesn't count. You'd have
                                      to ask Tolkien, really; he, not I, was the one who originally said there
                                      was no real Anglo-Saxon mythology, and surely these major OE texts didn't
                                      just slip his mind.

                                      > > He felt there was a pure Anglo-Saxon strain which
                                      > > he wished to isolate. As Americans, with our melting pot, we're used to
                                      > > things being naturalized as soon as they step off the boat. Many
                                      > > Europeans view things differently (one reason for the xenophobic politics
                                      > > that look so strange to us). "How many years does it take to make a
                                      > > steward a king, if the king return not?" "Few years, maybe, in other
                                      > > lands. In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice."
                                      > >
                                      > Frankly, I don't see the point of the latter quotations. JRRT might have
                                      > wished to isolate a "pure Anglo-Saxon strain" but he needn't have tried.
                                      > There wasn't one. Just when the "English" did begin to develop into
                                      > their own people and own country, they would be disturbed from Outside.
                                      > Those disturbances came from the Vikings, the Normans, and later the
                                      > Flemish, Italians, Dutch, etc., from the late Middle Ages on. King
                                      > Alfred was probably the closest one could come to a "pure Anglo-Saxon"
                                      > but his entire life--almost--was spent confronting the Danes.

                                      The point of the quotation is that, by analogy, mere residence in a
                                      country doesn't make one part of an ethnic group. What you say shows
                                      that there was no time when the Anglo-Saxons had Britain quietly all to
                                      themselves. This is reflected in LOTR when Frodo bristles at the notion
                                      of the Nazgul wandering around in his own Shire. "But it is not your own
                                      Shire," says Gildor. "Others dwelt here before hobbits were; and others
                                      will dwell here again when hobbits are no more. The wide world is all
                                      about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it
                                      out."

                                      So you can't write about hobbits without including their relationship
                                      with other peoples, and indeed Tolkien doesn't. But that doesn't make
                                      hobbits any less of an individual, separable people with their own
                                      traditions and their own customs. And the same is true of the
                                      Anglo-Saxons. However much time they spent interacting with French and
                                      Germans, and however many Celts and Vikings were also occupying Britain,
                                      the Anglo-Saxons were their own people with their own ethnic identity (as
                                      we'd say today), and the heart of England, the land Tolkien loved, was
                                      their own country, even though it hadn't always been, and even though
                                      others might also claim it as their own. (It's not incompatible.)

                                      > > A fairly clear break, I think, as far as creative literature is concerned,
                                      > > there being a long gap without much except the Ancrene Wisse, which I
                                      > > believe is clearly ME, though certainly early ME. As for the Latin
                                      > > stuff, precisely because it's in Latin it's not OE literature in the
                                      > > language sense, except insofar as the translations are literature.
                                      > > (Which they are: after all, King Alfred translated Boethius, who wasn't
                                      > > English by nationality let alone language, and that's considered a
                                      > > masterpiece of OE literature.)
                                      > >
                                      > No, not really. There is much early creative material, it's just not
                                      > very popular today, nor is it studied or read much because of its
                                      > didactic and hagiographic elements. There are early ballads and lyrics,
                                      > and a few of the romances (Havelock the Dane comes to mind) are rather
                                      > early. Alfred's Boethius is considered a masterpiece of OE literature
                                      > precisely because Alfred rendered it into English. Just as Bede's
                                      > History is a masterpiece. There are also the riddles, chronicles,
                                      > saints' lives and numerous other works that were translated into OE that
                                      > are masterpieces of OE prose and/or poetry.

                                      But they're not major works of the _native OE creative imagination_ the
                                      way that Beowulf is (even if what we have is a retelling). That's the
                                      difference. I wouldn't allow my love for the Silmarillion, or the
                                      History of Middle-earth, or Farmer Giles of Ham, to blind me to the fact
                                      that LOTR is Tolkien's single outstanding masterpiece; nor does this
                                      other stuff take away from Beowulf's unique status.

                                      > BTW, when I mentioned the break between OE and ME, I was referring more
                                      > to the language. Parts of the island probably retained OE well into the
                                      > late 12th century, if not the early 13th. The earliest datable document
                                      > in ME is the entry for the year 1135 in the Peterborough Chronicle of
                                      > the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

                                      No language break is is perfectly sharp, either chronologically or
                                      geographically, but those between OE and ME, and ME and Modern English,
                                      are sharper than most. In any case the OE/ME evolution was long over
                                      before the 14th century which was the time of all the major ME literary
                                      masterpieces. (Yes, I know there was plenty of other literature. I'm
                                      talking about outstanding masterpieces.)

                                      > But copies were being made in the ME period; just look at one of the
                                      > volumes in the Index of Middle English Verse to see how many works were
                                      > copied. There are numerous copies of Monmouth's History, and they were
                                      > all copied in the ME period. There are redactions and redactions of
                                      > numerous works, making the lives of us textual editors interesting.
                                      > Again, while numerous manuscripts and tales/poetry undoubtedly were
                                      > destroyed during the centuries, it is quite amazing, really, that we
                                      > have the number of manuscripts that do survive from the OE and ME
                                      > periods.

                                      The glass is half-full! No, the glass is half-empty!

                                      It would be a lot fuller if the OE literary, linguistic and ecclesiastical
                                      traditions hadn't been so severely disrupted by the Normans. We can be
                                      delighted with what we have, and still note there could have been a lot
                                      more. In particular, as Tolkien noted, there are many OE legendary
                                      figures (Wayland the Smith comes to mind) of whom we know nothing but
                                      their names and a few scraps, but of whom mighty epics were perhaps once
                                      told. No way to be sure.

                                      If there's any distinctively native English mythology that Tolkien
                                      ignored when he made his complaint, it's Robin Hood. But not only is
                                      Robin Hood ME and not OE (thus irrelevant to Lisa's original comment),
                                      but the literature consisted of ballads and other short works, didn't
                                      receive any full-scale treatments until the 19C, and unless you count
                                      Howard Pyle still lacks IMHO a good one.

                                      David Bratman
                                      - not responsible for the following advertisement -
                                    • WendellWag@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 3/3/00 6:18:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... So Tolkien wasn t really English, but German like his ancestors (or some of them anyway)?
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 3/3/00 6:18:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                        dbratman@... writes:

                                        > The point of the quotation is that, by analogy, mere residence in a
                                        > country doesn't make one part of an ethnic group.

                                        So Tolkien wasn't really English, but German like his ancestors (or some of
                                        them anyway)?
                                      • David S. Bratman
                                        ... Man, I m getting it from both sides this week, aren t I? If by his German ancestors, you mean the ones who _weren t_ Anglo-Saxons, and who were responsible
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 WendellWag@... wrote:

                                          > > The point of the quotation is that, by analogy, mere residence in a
                                          > > country doesn't make one part of an ethnic group.
                                          >
                                          > So Tolkien wasn't really English, but German like his ancestors (or some of
                                          > them anyway)?

                                          Man, I'm getting it from both sides this week, aren't I?

                                          If by his German ancestors, you mean the ones who _weren't_ Anglo-Saxons,
                                          and who were responsible for the name Tolkien, please refer to Letter 95
                                          ("For barring the Tolkien (which must long ago have become a pretty thin
                                          strand) you [CT] are a Mercian or Hwiccian on both sides"), Letter 44
                                          ("Though a Tolkien by name, I am a Suffield by tastes, talents, and
                                          upbringing"), and Letter 165 ("I am neither `foolhardy' not German,
                                          whatever SOME [emphasis added] remote ancestors may have been. They
                                          migrated to England more than 200 years ago, and became quickly intensely
                                          English ... I am in fact far more of a Suffield"). In other words, the
                                          German side was a tiny strand in his ancestry, which would never have
                                          been noticed had it not been the line that provided his surname. In any
                                          case they did naturalize, and it was thus more than mere residence.

                                          If by his German ancestors you mean the fact that the Anglo-Saxons
                                          originally came from Germany, that's reductionist. The point of my
                                          quotation about Gondor and the 10,000 years was that it takes time to
                                          naturalize, a long time. But England isn't Gondor, either, and 1500
                                          years is surely long enough.

                                          David Bratman
                                          - not responsible for the following advertisement -
                                        • WendellWag@aol.com
                                          In a message dated 3/3/00 7:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... I m sorry if that came out sounding nasty. I didn t mean it as an attack on you. An attack on
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            In a message dated 3/3/00 7:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                            dbratman@... writes:

                                            > Man, I'm getting it from both sides this week, aren't I?

                                            I'm sorry if that came out sounding nasty. I didn't mean it as an attack on
                                            you. An attack on Tolkien, possibly, but not on you.

                                            I was referring to Tolkien's German ancestors, who were 1/64 of his ancestry
                                            (or was it 1/32 or 1/128?). There are Americans who make a big deal of what
                                            country their ancestors immigrated from, even if they immigrated over 200
                                            years ago. There's something a bit odd about an Englishman making a big deal
                                            about his ethnic identity. It's not as odd as an American making a big deal
                                            about his ethnic identity, but it's odd nevertheless.

                                            Maybe my testiness about this comes from having a two-year argument in the
                                            letters column of _Amon Hen_ (the Tolkien Society quarterly newsletter) about
                                            the "Englishness" of _The Lord of the Rings_. There are some T. S. members
                                            who think that the appearance of any American voices in a movie version of
                                            the book would be utter heresy.

                                            Wendell Wagner
                                          • Ted Sherman
                                            David, I also was not attacking you, or JRRT; this is just an instance where I think he was wrong (thankfully, there are very few times where I disagree with
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              David,

                                              I also was not attacking you, or JRRT; this is just an instance where I
                                              think he was wrong (thankfully, there are very few times where I
                                              disagree with him).

                                              Ted

                                              WendellWag@... wrote:
                                              >
                                              > From: WendellWag@...
                                              >
                                              > In a message dated 3/3/00 7:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                              > dbratman@... writes:
                                              >
                                              > > Man, I'm getting it from both sides this week, aren't I?
                                              >
                                              > I'm sorry if that came out sounding nasty. I didn't mean it as an attack on
                                              > you. An attack on Tolkien, possibly, but not on you.
                                              >
                                              > I was referring to Tolkien's German ancestors, who were 1/64 of his ancestry
                                              > (or was it 1/32 or 1/128?). There are Americans who make a big deal of what
                                              > country their ancestors immigrated from, even if they immigrated over 200
                                              > years ago. There's something a bit odd about an Englishman making a big deal
                                              > about his ethnic identity. It's not as odd as an American making a big deal
                                              > about his ethnic identity, but it's odd nevertheless.
                                              >
                                              > Maybe my testiness about this comes from having a two-year argument in the
                                              > letters column of _Amon Hen_ (the Tolkien Society quarterly newsletter) about
                                              > the "Englishness" of _The Lord of the Rings_. There are some T. S. members
                                              > who think that the appearance of any American voices in a movie version of
                                              > the book would be utter heresy.
                                              >
                                              > Wendell Wagner
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              > DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
                                              > Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
                                              > 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
                                              > Apply NOW!
                                              > http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/3/_/505012/_/952097429/
                                              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

                                              --
                                              Dr. Theodore James Sherman
                                              Department of English, Box X041
                                              College of Liberal Arts
                                              Middle Tennessee State University
                                              Murfreesboro, TN 37130
                                              615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
                                              tsherman@...
                                              tedsherman@...
                                            • David S. Bratman
                                              ... Americans tend not, however, to make a big deal out of ancestors who were only 1/64th of their ancestry, unless it s something rare and special. I know
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 WendellWag@... wrote:

                                                > I was referring to Tolkien's German ancestors, who were 1/64 of his ancestry
                                                > (or was it 1/32 or 1/128?). There are Americans who make a big deal of what
                                                > country their ancestors immigrated from, even if they immigrated over 200
                                                > years ago. There's something a bit odd about an Englishman making a big deal
                                                > about his ethnic identity. It's not as odd as an American making a big deal
                                                > about his ethnic identity, but it's odd nevertheless.

                                                Americans tend not, however, to make a big deal out of ancestors who were
                                                only 1/64th of their ancestry, unless it's something rare and special. I
                                                know people who are 1/64th Amerind, and proud of it.

                                                Tolkien didn't make a big deal out of his ancestry: these are three
                                                letters over an entire lifetime! But to the extent that he did, it was
                                                1) to correct the misapprehension, from his name, that he was German; 2)
                                                because he loved his homeland and felt a special connection with it.
                                                There's nothing wrong with that: here in California, people whose
                                                ancestors have been here for a whole hundred years feel a special sense
                                                of connectedness which they hold over those of us who've only been here
                                                for 30 or 40 years; and we, in turn, who can remember Silicon Valley
                                                before it was called that, and when it was full of orchards, have
                                                something over the dot-com weenies.

                                                > Maybe my testiness about this comes from having a two-year argument in the
                                                > letters column of _Amon Hen_ (the Tolkien Society quarterly newsletter) about
                                                > the "Englishness" of _The Lord of the Rings_. There are some T. S. members
                                                > who think that the appearance of any American voices in a movie version of
                                                > the book would be utter heresy.

                                                I agree with them!

                                                David Bratman
                                                - not responsible for the following advertisement -
                                              • Berni Phillips
                                                ... Hmmph. Surely they would agree to let Americans voice the orcs! Berni David Bratman is not responsible for the following message: (Just kidding, dear!)
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  ----------
                                                  >From: "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@...>

                                                  >On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 WendellWag@... wrote:

                                                  >> Maybe my testiness about this comes from having a two-year argument in the
                                                  >> letters column of _Amon Hen_ (the Tolkien Society quarterly newsletter) about
                                                  >> the "Englishness" of _The Lord of the Rings_. There are some T. S. members
                                                  >> who think that the appearance of any American voices in a movie version of
                                                  >> the book would be utter heresy.
                                                  >
                                                  >I agree with them!

                                                  Hmmph. Surely they would agree to let Americans voice the orcs!

                                                  Berni
                                                  David Bratman is not responsible for the following message:
                                                  (Just kidding, dear!)
                                                • David S. Bratman
                                                  ... What, I _am_ responsible for the following message? DB
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Berni Phillips wrote:

                                                    > David Bratman is not responsible for the following message:
                                                    > (Just kidding, dear!)

                                                    What, I _am_ responsible for the following message? <g>

                                                    DB
                                                  • Ted Sherman
                                                    ... David, Your comment about the orchards brought back a flood of memories of the Santa Clara Valley when it still have more orchards than concrete. I can
                                                    Message 25 of 27 , Mar 3, 2000
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      "David S. Bratman" wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >and we, in turn, who can remember Silicon Valley
                                                      > before it was called that, and when it was full of orchards, have
                                                      > something over the dot-com weenies.
                                                      >
                                                      David,

                                                      Your comment about the orchards brought back a flood of memories of the
                                                      Santa Clara Valley when it still have more orchards than concrete. I can
                                                      remember looking down over the valley from Skyline or the Saratoga Gap
                                                      and seeing blossoms--plum and apricot--from the Santa Cruz foothills to
                                                      the Mt. Hamilton range.

                                                      Thanks for the jolt to my memory!

                                                      Ted
                                                      --
                                                      Dr. Theodore James Sherman
                                                      Department of English, Box X041
                                                      College of Liberal Arts
                                                      Middle Tennessee State University
                                                      Murfreesboro, TN 37130
                                                      615 898-5836; FAX 615 898-5098
                                                      tsherman@...
                                                      tedsherman@...
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.