Beowulf as epic?

To get ourselves in the right frame of mind for W5 (which is still two weeks away, I know, but we're doing the big Bee-wulf, so I'm stoked), maybe we should discuss a bit about what makes (or doesn't make) Beowulf an epic, in either broad or narrow senses.

Beowulf is often said to be sui generis in English: one of a kind - and it is. But it's always been an assumption that there is a great lost epic tradition in Old English and the Germanic languages that never made it into writing, or if it did, was largely lost. We have the fragmentary "Fight at Finnsburgh," a sketchy version of which was incorporated into the text of Beowulf. We also have the Old Saxon "Heliand," which is a versification of the Gospels told in heroic-epic poetry. And we have Old Norse sagas, both prose and poetry, but the evidence for this is late (ca. 1300). We have conjecture, and the reports of ancient historians like Tacitus who recounts the Germans singing songs about their gods/heroes "Tuisto" and "Mannus." The fragmentary evidence notwithstanding (remember we do not have consensus on when , by whom, or for whom Beowulf was written), how does Beowulf stack up with our self-defined criteria for epic:

• Invokes a mythical or distant past to say something about the present
• Uses poetry and storytelling as a search for origins, and thus identity, of a specific community
• The story often involves a community under threat, and its salvation, or destruction.
• The story contains multiple points of view, which can tend to highlight moral and ethical ambiguities.

More than that, how does Beowulf compare to Virgil or Homer; did the Beowulf poet know classical epic (Virgil)?

Comments

[lynda]

The heroic ideal of Beowulf is told in the epic form of Homer, and more on point, Vergil. B is a super-warrior like Achilles, yet comes to battle as the evolved Aeneas, the spawn of Trojan/Greek conflict. Although B is not founding an empire through his epic battles as did Aeneas, he does create through his monster-killing, a personal best, everlasting fame and a mortal fiefdom. The outcome of B's first two battles establish a new community, and he gets the big gold, as Tacitus tells us did the triumphant warrior-kings of his Germania. Scholars through-out this century have furiouisly debated the influence of Vergil on B's author(s). One of the first, Tom Burns Haber, finds The Aeneid and B to be parallel in story structure, plot devices, and overall exhibiting 'Latinisms' from the Classical tradition. In compairing The A and B, Haber cites "familiy consciousness." Haber sees sympathy for the devil (the monsters) that he compares to "Priam 's death at the hands of Pyrrhus or Turnus lying helpless beneath the spear of Aeneas." Others in Habers time, Onians and Nist rallied around the general influence of classical works the author(s) may have read, excluding a grand sweep of The A. More recent scholarship on general Classic influence comes from Andy Orchard's Pride and Progidies, Studies in the Monsters of the B-Manuscript. Orchard cites K. Sisam who posited a monster-story tradition conflation by a Medieval compiler, a "book of various monsters, written in English." Looking back to Vergil's Otherworld, Orchard points to the monster-mere, recalling some Vergil, but more so the OE Letter of Alexander to Aristotle and Wonders of the East, and a little of the medieval Icelandic Grettis saga. In academia, there seems to be agreement on Classical influence into OE...so unto B. I see more much of the tired, repetitive feuding/epic battles from The A into the B, because at the end of B we have anonther dead King (B/Priam), and an iminent destruction of his kingdom (Troy/B-land). Our hero's initial battles may have staved off "minor" killings of polluted populations and inflated their transient fame, yet we return to incessant revenge-killing based annihilations. I vote for B as my medieval tragic hero.

[Nikki]

I strongly see some kind of connection and\or influence of the Iliad and Aenied to Beowulf. Although I may sound fixated on only one minor aspect, I find the correlation between the Heorot Hall in Beowulf as an important specific setting just like the Great Hall that Odysseus (Homer's Odyssey) slaughters the inhospitable suitors. It is in Heorot that Beowulf battles Grendel and ultimately kills the savage monster. The avengeful fight against Grendel's mother and Beowulf begins in this same hall. Odysseus tactfully traps the suitors inside his great hall to kill the suitors for disobeying his family and ruining his property. These halls serve as the battleground to fight the evil presence and, as a result, the good hero prevails.
For Beowulf and Odysseus, the hall is the exact place they prove their heroic ability by getting rid of the evil that infects the community. And after the evil is destroyed, the community is not only saved, but can go back to normal peaceful times. These halls symbolize and stand as a monument ensuring the safety of the community.
For Beowulf himself, I agree with the other comments that there are correlations between his character and the characters of Aenied and characters of the Iliad. The adding of the monsters and dragons in Beowulf seems as a simmilarity to the Gods of ancient Greek and Roman times- the added magical element that must exist to explain what cannot be explained.

[martin]

One of the things about beowulf is that his heroism in the poem was in two seperate phases in youth and and age. Beowulf was a great warrior in his youth and a mighty king fifty years later. The poem is clearly about his heratage and his individual identity as drawn by the Germanic heric code which values stength, courage, loyalty, and a solid reputation in people. The code helps them as a warrior society understand and function in the world in which they live. Since moral judgements stem from the confine of the code, an individuals actions are seen as either conforming to or violating the code. However, fate does seem to play a part in this epic as in the previous ones we evaluated. When the Danes and Geats are a little to overjoyed at the defeat of Grendel, there is a sense of trouble looming when we read of a possible reversal of fortune as we read, "how could they know fate,/ the grim shape of things to come"(1233-1234). Is the pull of fate so strong that it walks among the characters whether they know it or not?
Anyway, I feel that despite its attempt to reconcile Christian thought with peagan ancestery, and its attempt to define the community of a warrior society through demonstration of the individual's application of the Germanic heroic code, with that said, yes, Beowulf is indeed an epic.
Ahh, the dark ages.

[lynda]

Side-post re LAT--one critic's read of 300 as an anti-war movie...

[sean]

Did you mean this one?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2or3sg

[Liliana]

Did the Beowulf know of Virgil or Homer? The comparison is not as easily seen as when comparing Homer’s influence on Virgil. I agree with my classmates that Beowulf is clearly a great hero; for yes, he is as strong and courageous as Achilles. Yet, more than courage, what stands out from Beowulf as a hero is his honor and the respect he has toward his fellow humans (and non-humans). There is an emergence of dignity in the sense that he knows who he is; yet, he shows concern for others: “I took what came/ cared for and stood by things in my keeping/ never fomented quarrels/ never swore a lie” (185). Honor is an important aspect of the heroic code; therefore, in Beowulf we don’t see that bickering or dishonor that we see in Agamemnon and Achilles. In comparison to Aeneas, Beowulf is more than willing and ready to serve his people; furthermore, Beowulf shows more emotion in doing so. In the end of both epics, Aeneas and Beowulf are faced with the ultimate battle, yet when the killing is done, Beowulf shows more sympathy for the one he has brought to its death: “The dragon from underneath/his nightmarish destroyer, lay destroyed as well/utterly without life/no longer would his snakefolds ply themselves to safeguard the gold”(191).
Like I mentioned earlier, it is not so straightforward to find the influence of classical epics in Beowulf because there seems to be more differences than parallels. Right away, we notice the size of the Beowulf epic being shorter than most epics and self-determination over rules the constant theme of the gods’ interference found in Homer and Virgil. However, with all its differences, I do consider Beowulf to be an epic, but just as our professor mentioned—it is one of a kind.

[Libby]

After reading all the responses of my classmates, I tried very hard to find a reason why Beowulf would not be considered an epic. I think that this poem must be an epic, but it is so different in so many ways from the other epics we have read in this class. I feel like this poem has a much more proud feeling about it. In Homer and Virgil’s tales the protagonists made mistakes. They messed up, got off their target, but most of the time could pull themselves out before it was too late. Aeneas was sidetracked in Carthage, but eventually realized his duty once more and made his way to Italy. The authors seem to make sure that we as readers see these flaws and can appreciate them. While reading Beowulf it was hard to see where the author put in any flaws of the main character. It seemed to be a lot of Beowulf saving others and boasting about his own accomplishments. I don’t think, however, this constitutes not being an epic. This poem incorporates most if not all the qualifications our class has agreed upon as what an epic is. Like the Aeneid, Beowulf has a strong main character who is a representation and hero of the people. Beowulf is a hero and I feel that his story is an epic. It is so different, however, that I find it very hard to believe its author had ever read or even heard of either Homer or Virgil.

[Karen]

Looking at some of the criteria that I remember from our first class session, the first being a larger than life hero performing larger than life deeds, Beowulf unquestionably performs superhuman feats worthy of the definition of a hero. Grendel has plagued Heorot for twelve long years, and killed many men, yet Beowulf singlehandedly settles in one battle what men couldn't do in twelve years. This prompts Grendel's mother to avenge her son, and here again, Beowulf does what no other man can do. So he is undoubtedly larger than life, and superhuman as well.

As to the question of whether or not the story makes use of poetry/storytelling as a means to recover the past, and illuminate some aspect of the present, I would cite The Finnsburg episode where we learn of Hildeburgh who was married to the Frisian King, while she, herself was a Dane revealing something of the precarious union between two would be enemies, which serves to illuminate the precariousness of peace pledging marriages in the present day of the story like Hrothgar & Wealhtheow's, where the wife's loyalties would naturally be divided. We get a sense of the constant tension the urge for revenge presented which must've been prevalent at that time. Of course, whether or not that past would be considered mythical or distant enough, I'm honestly not sure how to answer there.

As to the question of whether or not Beowulf stacks up as an epic, I would say according to the classical Greek definition, probably not, but I would argue that because each culture molds the form to fit their cultural paradigm, that this largely would constitute an epic in the middle English and Scandinavian traditions.

[sean]

In the end, I don't know how important it is to classify Beowulf, or any other text as "epic" (I know, I brought it up. . .) We need generic classifications in academic studies on which we can both make meaningful distinctions, but also so that we can divide up labor. I strongly suspect that the B-poet(s) knew Virgil, given that there are little verbal echoes of the Aeneid here and there (i.e. "mirabile dictu" = "wundor to secganne" [marvellous to say]). Maybe Grendel is influenced by Cacus in Book 8; maybe not. But I do not think that B was meant to be "based on" Virgil in any way.
As for our generic markers: I definitely see an attempt to say something about the present by re-inventing a mythical past that tells a story of origins (remember the first few lines about Scyld Sceafing - the progenitor of the Danes?). The problem is: what is that "present" the poem speaks to? That's where we get into all the mess of the conflicting theories and evidence about the date of Beowulf. It still amazes me that we know less about the supposed "origin" of English literature ca. 1000 CE than we do about Virgil ca. 40 CE. I have to qualify Martin's comment about the "Dark Ages" -- before the Viking raids begain in 793, Northumbrian England was perhaps the center of European learning and literacy. The Frankish kings on the continent imported clerics from England; and England had the greatest post-Roman vernacular literary achievements of its time. But once the Danish/Scandinavian raids and invasions begain in earnest ca. 800, much was lost: monasteries burned, books destroyed, the trained clericy killed and their educational system severely curtailed. Ironic it would be then, if the signal achievement of Old English literature turned out to be a tale imported into England from Scandinavia.

[lynda]

Talking about epic and timing, my new reading of Roberta Frank, put me back in the "later epic" frame of mind with her analysis of the author of the 10th century with his "sense of history," putting the author as an unifer of Denmark/England "nation." I blogged this point so I won't reiterate, but I see Frank's point especially after Libby's talk on Nationalism, and the function of epic as propagada for unification purposes.