Hello again Leofe gesiþas
I am not being contrary. I am not attacking anyone’s preference for the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ over other terms. My comments are made in the spirit of good-natured, good-humoured debate. As I have said, at least for the time being, the discussion over ‘Anglo-saxon’ is raging in the Academy, and it is of little import which term we laypeople - enthusiastic knowledgeable and skillful amateurs – prefer to employ. Having said that, we are indebted to the work of the academy past and present so it’s interesting to keep track of, and voice opinions on, the debate going on there.
While I’ve never been particularly fond of ‘anglo-saxon’, and prefer other terms, I am in full sympathy with Phyllis’ statement that the racist identitarians should not have the right to invest their meanings into language that we use for utterly friendly and pacific, and dare I say inclusive, pursuits.I’m reminded of the case in Sweden where a far-right group appropriated the Tyr rune, and it is now deemed by a court of law to be a Nazi symbol (in certain contexts. It resembles an up arrow, so a comic got some good comedy out of “Nazi” signs on the Stockholm subway train system “One ticket, One journey, One Führer!”). Similarly, a German mid-century fascist political party appropriated the sun wheel symbol, flipped it and it’s now indelibly associated with unspeakable atrocity, loss of life, and odious ideas which is brought to mind every time I pass the Chinese buddhist association premises in West Toronto.
In any case, I am having difficulty following some of the points being made here. Perhaps, because they are made briefly and in haste, or conversely they are read briefly and in haste.
I mentioned legitimate problems with the term ‘Anglo-saxon’ that doesn't even include the current discussion in academia around its origins and use in contexts heavily characterized by racism. It was then said that there were problems with using the terms “Early English” and “Pre-conquest English” without further elaboration.
It was also said that it didn’t matter how the Early English referred to themselves, but how we should refer to them. This is a fair point. It is normally the courteous thing to do with ethno-cultural groups to use the name they prefer or which they use to refer to themselves. In Canada, for example, the indigenous peoples prefer to be referred to as “first nations” rather than “Indians” and out of respect and courtesy, this is the term employed settler Canadians.
Taking this as the model, I like to refer to the mediaeval political-cultural group/s as “English” or “Early English” or "Early Mediaeval English” or 'pre-conquest English" as the early English referred to themselves in English almost exclusively as ‘Englisc’. As noted before, in Latin and mainly with very specific political/judicial or religious/spiritual meanings, they referred to themselves as ‘anglo-saxorum’.The difference between the First Nations and the mediaeval English is, of course, that the latter are an historical group and the object of study and the former is a contemporary group and a subject in nation to nation relations. In this case it is of less importance to refer to the Englisc by the name they prefer to use, and it is impossible (at the moment) to ask them how they would like people a thousand years thence to refer to them. Add to this that it was said in this thread that there are, in fact, problems with referring to the Early English as “Early English”.
When I asked out of curiosity, and interest in other views, for an example of these problems. I was answered with a line of Old English poetry with the plural nouns Engle and Seaxe (which are not the adjective anglo-saxon) replaced with a modern English word: ‘conquest’.This does not answer my question as to what the problems with “early English” as a term might be, and moreover, seems to be an assertion of how the early mediaeval English preferred to refer to themselves, which is in contradiction to the statement that it does not matter so much what the early English used to refer to themselves.
I say ‘seems’ as this poem is not an example of how the early English referred to themselves:
“… Ne wearð wæl māre
on ðȳs īglande ǣfre gȳta
folces gefylled beforan ðyssum
sweordes ecgum, ðæs ðe ūs secgað bēc,
ealde ūðwitan, siþþan ēastan hider
Engle and Seaxe ūpp becōmon,
ofer brāde brimu Brytene sōhton,”
Nor has there on this island
been ever yet a greater number slain,
killed by the edges of the sword before
This time, as books make known to us, and old
and learned scholars, after hither came
The Angles and Saxons from the east
Over the broad sea sought the land of Britain.
I used Richard Hamer’s translation rather than my own. It came from a book with the title “Choice of Anglo Saxon verse’
As we can see from this poem, the author is not referring to the early Mediaeval English but Germanic peoples of the continent in late antiquity. The author is referring to historical groups not to his or her own cultural political group. And he or she is using them as a time reference not as an identity marker.
“since records began” “since the fall of the roman empire” “since before there was even an Englelond,” are rough loose paraphrases.
So, are there problems with modern enthusiasts describing the the dominant culture in what is now England using the phrases "early English" or "pre-conquest English"? If so, what are they?
