wraeccan:

I think your work is really interesting, and I'm not in a position to comment about translation. (I do have some Latin knowledge, but it's rusty and the people over in Rome's lingua latina group might be more help.) However, in some cases I wonder if the cart isn't rolling a bit ahead of the horse? You have done a lot of work on this topic, so I'd defer to your opinion... it just seems to me that it's normal for something to seem "rather traditional" in a piece well over a millennium old. We are already interpreting through a scratched-up lens, with our own cultural mindset.

In this example I think a lot of the elements you've mentioned, when considered in the historical context, can be taken at face value. It doesn't mean they necessarily must be, just that they can be. A friendless outcast might well be miserable, no matter his former identity. Platitudes about carefully considering one's words resonate through almost all cultures. The idea of loyalty to one's lord and desire to be near him is pretty common in this type of literature, too (as are the allegorical possibilities implied by the word "lord"). "Swim away" doesn't automatically imply that the men in question fear something: it's a good metaphor, akin to "evaporate," but appropriately matched to the other aquatic imagery that runs through the piece. The "swimming away" in question takes place in memory, and seems to me to have nothing to do with fear and more to do with the ephemeral quality of memory.

(The passage in question, from anglo-saxons.net:
Sorrow is renewed when the mind surveys the memory of kinsmen; he greets them joyfully, eagerly scans the companions of men; they always swim away. The spirits of seafarers never bring back there much in the way of known speech. )

I think so far the most compelling evidence in support of your theory is "geara iu", more than the other quotes in this last message. What I mean about the cart and horse is that there are a lot of questions to be asked to test any statements, and the most specific are probably along the line, "Is there any other explanation for this element, besides the one I favor?" There are easier explanations for the other elements you mention than the one posited by your theory, so they don't really help to support the theory that much. The better support comes when we have to stretch as much for other theories (which I'll do later in this message with regard to "geara iu").

Here are some questions I would consider. You may have already thought about them, and I'll admit that some of them come out of my ignorance of Englisc. But they might be helpful to you in supporting/testing your theory:

- In any Anglo-Saxon texts, are the words used for lord (in terms of the lord of a mead-hall) the same as a word commonly used for God? Was that particular metaphor in common use then?
- Would it be more helpful to think of the speaker in terms of "Lucifer" than in terms of "Satan" - not necessarily "the devil", but "the fallen"? They are not always the same being: IIRC, "Satan" as a demonic entity has existed in cultures where "Lucifer the fallen angel" has not, and the idea of Lucifer has been known in cultures without a specific "Satan."
- Does the concept of Lucifer (as we know it now) or Satan, or the conflation of the two, exist anywhere in the Anglo-Saxon record? Is it contemporary with this piece, in this part of the world? You probably know by now that the modern idea of Satan (esp the fundamentalist Christian one) is not appropriate for every historical Christian culture, especially ones that held onto a lot of prechristian folkloric beliefs that might be adapted (gods into fey creatures), carried alongside Christianity, or repudiated (gods/fey into devils).
- How was this piece written? Was it originally an oral composition that someone set down? If so, who? What was their background? Would they have been in a position to tilt the piece by changing a few words, or to want to? Would an oral composer have had the folkloric knowledge necessary to compose a piece with this layer of meaning and expect that his audience would understand the allegory? (There's a whole chain of questions that fire off from this line of thought.)
- Does this interpretation ultimately work, with what we know of Anglo-Saxon culture?

I know I'm giving you a bit of a hard time here, but for what it's worth, I think that your concept of "the fallen" as The Wanderer is probably more historically in line than the concept of Satan as the evil tempter of men who drags their souls to hell and makes them suffer a thousand torments, etc. I'm also not saying that your interpretation doesn't WORK - that may be one reason the piece survived, if someone thought it was worth recording because they felt religious import in it, even if most people up to and including its author did not. But is it the original author's intention, or something plugged in by whoever recorded it? Or even just something that we can get out of it now? (The Wanderer need not necessarily be "the fallen" for the "geara iu" implication of extreme-passage-of-time to make sense - it could merely be the wandering spirit of a completely mortal, long-dead man, or even someone who simply feels like they've been on their own for long eons - in other words, a poetic exaggeration?)I think these are the kinds of questions against which you'll eventually have to defend your work in the academic field, so it's good to think about them now in a friendlier forum.

There is an Oxford Book of Medieval Folklore that might be helpful to you - it is definitely geared towards a later period than we're discussing, but it does have articles on things like Satan, devils, angels, saints, and depictions thereof in literature and art, folktales and customs. I am recommending it on the basis that, if something wasn't common in Western Europe until around 1200 or so, and it came initially from Persia or Turkey, it probably wasn't a factor in Anglo-Saxon England.

Hope this helps! Keep up your hard work!