Lila Rouk

SWA 2

1. In Edwin’s Conversion, I think the two most significant modes to be considered are
Edwin’s concern for his salvation and Redwald’s need for Edwin’s deliverance to the
envoys. For example, he promised to fulfill the vow that he made so that he could be
delivered from exile and advance to the throne. He was only compelled to do this because
of the vision that he had of persecution and living in hiding. These motivations are what
led to advancements in the plot, such as the council that was held in response to the new
doctrine, allowing Edwin mercy by Redwald. His predecessor attempted to use war and
bribery to bring Edwin back, which are themes that are present in The Tain. The two
motivators in the Tain Bo Cuailnge were mainly competition and inequality, and bribery.
The progression of the story relied heavily on the intensity of competition between Medb
and Aillil, and advanced through their methods of gaining victory in the competition with
one another. The two stories are similar because they are both about profit. Edwin’s profit
being his advance to the throne, and Medb’s profit being the bull, although the two ended
up being equal in the latter story.
2. I think the typological allusion here is in the parallels that this story has with the wars of
religion between Protestants and Roman Catholics concerning Christianity in France and
Britain. “…in his third consulship come the groans of the Britons.” The entire excerpt is
rooted in historical context.
3. I think using the Persians as a motivation, a scapegoat, for the movement was a very
clever, very effective emotional appeal because of how divisive it is. Pope Urban called
them an “accursed race, utterly alienated by God,” and I think this succeeded in angering
the Christian masses and fanning the flames of a movement. The effect increases in
intensity when he describes what he believes to be Christian oppression in detail, stating
that the Persians circumcise Christians and spread the blood upon altars. He uses quotes
from the bible to appeal logically, as Christianity is the way and the word for the
audience he speaks to, and so this is logic is what makes religion a good enough reason to
incite war. “…manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel…”
4. In the anonymous account, the narrator stated that “some of our men… ripped up the
bodies of the dead, because they used to find bezants hidden in their entrails, or others cut
the dead flesh into slices and cooked it to eat.” In Chartres’s account “many of our
people, harassed by the madness of excessive hunger, cut pieces from the buttocks of
the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked, but when it was not yet roasted
enough by the fire, they devoured it with savage mouth.” In the first account, the men are
eating because they are hungry, yes, but they are also celebrating their victory, and also
looking for gold in the entrails, because they have grown used to murdering the Saracens,
and are aware of the way in which they operated, and why the inside of their bodies
carried gold. However, in the second account, the men are eating out of desperation, and
lack the knowledge of Saracen gold, akin to what the men in the first account look for.
Furthermore, in the first account, the anonymous writer states that only some of these
men are driven by this hunger, while all the men in the second account participate in
cannibalism with a ferocity. These accounts differ because they came from two men who
were clearly fighting on two different sides.