Second thoughts on the interpretation of The Seafarer

My article begins in true medieval fashion with a retraction. A few years ago I argued that The Wanderer and The Seafarer involved two imaginary speakers rather than one. Ever since the publication of this argument I have been assailed by doubts of its validity, not only because most persons whose judgement I trust in such a matter have been either politely noncommittal or vociferously hostile, but because I myself, in returning again and again to the poems, have been less and less convinced that their texts would support my reading. The decisive moment came, I think, when I read P. L. Henry's strong reinforcement, from the Celtic side, of Dorothy Whitelock's view of The Seafarer as the monologue of a religious ascetic who had chosen exile on and beyond the sea for the love of God – a peregrinus pro amore Dei of a sort well known in the British Isles from before Bede's time to Alfred's wherever Celtic Christianity had taken root. In thus returning to Professor Whitelock's interpretation I found myself completely convinced of its superiority. Since that time I have altogether abandoned my former view of The Seafarer , and with it my view of The Wanderer also, and I welcome the opportunity to say so.