Unlocking the wordhord: Anglo-Saxon studies in memory of Edward

B. Irving, Jr
By Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe, Edward Burroughs Irving, Mark Amodio
Donald Scragg A reading of Brunanburh
The article concentrates mainly on the recording of the poem in annals, commenting particularly on
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the poems various versions. Scragg discusses the repetitive
nature of the poem and its syntactic patterns, arguing that this is an indication of the poets limited
vocabulary range. He points out that Athelstan and Edmund effectively parallel Constantine and
Olaf, and are never seen without each other, indicating that Athelstan is not the poems only hero.
This is not only a convenient reflection, he goes on to say, but a calculated display of the
importance of lineage and noble ancestry. Scragg declines to comment on the possible
authorship of the poem, claiming that it is, like much of Anglo-Saxon poetry, too formulaic to
guess. He does note, however, that herelafum is present in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and that
the poet might have derived their inspiration from this text. He concludes by saying that The
Battle of Brunanburh is a chronicle poem in every sense.
Scraggs emphasis on the manuscript version of Brunanburh in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is of
little use when thinking about close readings and commentaries. He does state himself in the
introduction to the article that he is trying to diverge from close reading and criticism, as there are
many available examples of this should a scholar of the poem wish to find them.