Straightforward

Straightforward Allen J. Frantzen interviewed by David Matthews Allen J. Frantzen is professor in the Department of English, Loyola University Chicago. H e is the author of The Literature ofPenance in Anglo-Saxon England, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983) and Desire for Origins: New Language, Old English, and Teaching the Tradition, (New Brunsw and London: Rutgers University Press, 1990), and editor of several volumes of essays including Speaking Two Languages: Traditional Disciplines and Contemporary Theory in Medieval Studies,. (Albany, NY: State University of N e York Press, 1991) and, with John D. Niles, Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction ofSocial Identity, (Gainesville, Fla: University Press of Florida, 1997). His ne book, Before the Closet: Same-Sex Love From Beowulf to Angels in America, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), was released in October 1998. David Matthews' book, The Making ofMiddle English, 1765-1910, appears with the University of Minnesota Press in 1999. D.M.: In your book Desire for Origins, you expressed a qualified optimis for the future ofAnglo-Saxon studies; how do you feel now, five years on? Have the things which you felt had to happen occurred within the discipline? A.F.: Well, I'm glad to hear you say that it seems like qualified optimism, because I think one of the things that surprised m e was that so many readers would not see the optimistic side of m y argument. M a n y people felt that because I was pointing out the political affiliations of the people w h o created Anglo-Saxon studies—and therefore also pointing out our political affiliations—I was really damning the whole enterprise of P A R E R G O N ns 16.1 July 1998) 94 Frantzen/Matthews medieval studies as a sort of narrowly self-interested endeavour. What I wanted to do was to say that if Anglo-Saxon studies are going to continue, they have to become more explicitly engaged with the modern world, and this should not be rejected or feared as the politicisation of Anglo-Saxon studies, because they have always been politicised. So I've been disappointed that some people—especially a few traditional reviewersonly saw the negative side of what I was saying. I sought to portray the political comments of earlier Anglo-Saxonists as productive and affirming, really, of the reason to have Anglo-Saxon studies. One thing for example that a lot of Anglo-Saxonists continue to resist— were certainly resisting furiously when I was putting m y book together in 1988, 1989—was any theoretical engagement of Anglo-Saxon studies. It seemed to me—just in terms of experiences with m y o w n students—that i t would be impossible for Anglo-Saxon studies to continue without acknowledging the turf that they shared with other parts of the industry. Where Anglo-Saxon studies are growing and where there are new generations of Anglo-Saxonists, they're very interesting. In that sense I think that things look very good for Anglo-Saxonists, and Anglo-Saxon studies. There are lots of terrific young Anglo-Saxonists, w h o are doing lots of interesting work. But of course, there are more places where there are no Anglo-Saxon studies, and also places where, because the people doing Anglo-Saxon studies have resolutely refused to be engaged with the rest of the English Department, they've been losing their ground. A n d I can't say that I think this is a bad thing—they're practising a kind of Anglo-Saxon studies that might have been sufficient twenty years ago. But w e have rising numbers of w o m e n in the profession, and I think it's important to realise that if w o m e n coming out of colleges and universities are going to be Anglo-Saxonists most of them are not going to be Anglo-Saxonists in a traditional mould. So that's been changing things for the better, whether somebody had written a book like mine or not. I'm glad I did. People have said that I've tried to bring an end to Anglo-Saxon studies and all sorts of...