Though it is diffi cult to pin down an exact genre for
Wulf and Eadwacer, the most accepted interpretations
place it as an ELEGY or call it a dramatic monologue,
although it has also been suggested as being a riddle or
a charm. This latter theory was suggested by the
ambiguous dramatic action, but also because the space
and the punctuation at the end of the selection do not
clearly separate it from other riddles. However, for sev-
eral reasons, critics have largely abandoned the riddle
theory. First, if it were a riddle, it would be unsolvable.
Moreover, no riddle subject is indicated—and even if a
riddle is diffi cult to solve, it always refers to a physical
subject, if obliquely.
As an elegy, “Wulf and Eadwacer” leaves something
to be desired. Unlike the other elegies in the Exeter
Book, such as “The WANDERER,” “The SEAFARER,” “Res-
ignation,” and “The Wife’s Lament,” there is no prom-
ise of hope or comfort at the end. Instead, the speaker
sees only a bleak future, separated from one or both
men and her child.
Many modern critics accept “Wulf and Eadwacer” as
a dramatic monologue in which the speaker is a
woman. Manuscript placement supports this interpre-
tation as the poem directly follows “DEOR,” which is
universally accepted as such. Also like “Deor,” “Wulf
and Eadwacer” contains repetitive refrains. In fact,
these are the only two Old English poems to have
refrains of this sort.
Otherwise, 12 of its 19 lines display irregular verse
patterns. Eight of the lines are quite short, consisting of
HALF-LINEs. These seemingly serve as STANZA dividers,
and all are preceded by an exceptionally long line and
followed by a line with irregular meter. Some editors
have pointed out that the only manuscript punctua-
tion, simple points at the ends of lines 3, 10, 12, and
13, also seem to indicate that stanzas might be divided
in these places. However, since there are no actual
divisions within the manuscript, this, too, is a matter
of interpretation.
Not only has determining the poem’s genre been a
critical debate, but its meaning has been constantly
reevaluated as well. The poem’s lexical ambiguity essen-
tially means that anyone who translates it automatically
interprets it at the same time. For instance, the initial
line reads as follows in Old English: “Leodnum is
minum swylce him mon lac gifte.” Lac can be translated
as “prey,” “gift,” “spoils,” “sacrifi ce,” “message,” or “bat-
tle.” Each of these translations bears its own implica-
tion: Something passive has been attacked and will be
destroyed or consumed; something has been deliber-
ately given (and possibly joyously received); something
has been seized, but not necessarily with the intent to
destroy; something has been willingly given to achieve
a desired result; something is being passed as commu-
nication; two sides clash. Each of these interpretations,
in turn, sets up a different mood for the speaker, and
thus a different tone for the poem.
Similar lexical conundrums occur throughout the
poem. Another major one concerns the word hwelp
[whelp] in line 16, which literally translates into “pup”
or “cub,” although metaphorically often means human
offspring. If it is taken literally, then the word Wulf in
the following line may mean “wolf” (the animal) instead
of Wulf (the lover). Yet another critic has suggested
that hwelp means “outlaw,” as it did in a parallel Old
Norse saga and Old Icelandic linguistics, while still
others suggest it is a metaphor for the relationship
between the speaker and Eadwacer. Comparable ambi-
guity surrounds the name Eadwacer. This term can be
read as an epithet instead of a proper name. As such, it
translates into “property watcher,” which does not nec-
essarily indicate a spouse. In fact, if eadwacer is read in
this manner, there may only be two characters in the
poem—the speaker and her absent lover, Wulf. If Wulf
were a wandering warrior, he would be forced to leave
her behind on numerous occasions.
Critics continually question even the roles of the
two men. While the most commonly accepted inter-
pretation of the story identifi es Wulf as the speaker’s
lover and Eadwacer as her husband, the poem itself
does not clarify their respective roles. Some critics
believe that the two men’s roles should be switched.
After all, the speaker acknowledges (ll. 10–12) that
being with the “bold warrior” has brought her both
pain and pleasure (emotional or physical). She may
even be under the surveillance of a “property watcher.”
Others have suggested that Eadwacer is her father, who
exiled her lover, Wulf, to an island after discovering
the speaker’s loss of virginity, and possibly a preg-
nancy. Wulf has alternately been read as the speaker’s“WULF AND EADWACER” 477