Beowulf II
Before moving on to Grendel's lovely and charming dam, let us look briefly at the interesting song performed by the scop at the victory celebration for the killing of Grendel. (Roughly 1063-1160). The song relates how Hnaef and his Half-Danes visited his brother-in-law Finn, lord of the Frisians. The Danes are set upon in the night but manage to hold out for days of fighting in which Hnaef and his Finn's son (and Hnaef's nephew) are killed. Terms are made according to which the Danes and their new leader Hengest will now swear allegiance to Finn. When Hengest leaves, though, he meditates a terrible revenge on Finn.
Let us discuss the story on its own terms and then how it relates to Beowulf. Before doing that, however, we should pay some attention to the recent writeback of Kate Dalton Boyer, a former managing editor of Chronicles:
What a pleasure to read Beowulf again—and I have enjoyed this discussion as well.
My eldest daughter (who is nine) has heard every story from the Iliad and Odyssey without turning a hair, but she cannot bear to hear me retell the story of Beowulf and Grendel. I think Tom is right that there is a frightening vividness to this story that the Greek myths stand one artistic remove from.
But I want to return to Tom’s question about Grendel (human or monster?). I read through this poem once long ago in Old English, but have forgotten what little I knew. So I may well stand corrected or be making points made long ago by others. I am however struck by the impression that among many other things this poem seems to be a long effort to proselytize. The poet seems more Christian than the world he is describing—and he is interpreting that world in a Christian fashion for his hearers, in an effort to enable them to see it differently.
The obvious example of this is the poet’s scornful description of the warriors’ sacrifice to false gods, but throughout the poem, the most Christian elements are often the poet’s descriptions and explanations, not always the words of the king or even Beowulf. “Wyrd is determined!” Beowulf says at one point in my translation, though he softens the necessity of wyrd in a later line (see 572 or thereabouts).
Grendel may perhaps have been a monster to Hrothgar and his followers, but to the poet he is a fallen human, a descendant of Cain, and with a “heathen soul” in my translation, hence damnable in the way presumably an animal-monster is not. The poet takes the view that Grendel’s attributes are not just evil but sinful. His suffering, too, as described by the poet, is human—envy, ostracism, life in the dark.
He is a foil for what is by period standards a selfless champion of a people who are not his own. And I think the fight between Beowulf and Grendel is fought without weapons to underscore that it is a moral battle, one of will against will. Beowulf refuses to use a weapon so as to meet Grendel on his own terms–a fair duel. But that rightness of his moral choice (right even though made with a boast), his willingness to give the devil his due, means Beowulf can in fact defeat Grendel, which he could not have done had he fought less fairly (ie with a sword). In any case I would argue that what is described here is the potential for human good fighting the potential for human evil—and that victory requires, in addition to courage and enormous strength, a willingness to risk seeming advantage in order to fight justly.
I think this is a valuable contribution because it highlights the human aspect of Grendel--albeit distorted into monstrosity--that elevate the episode above the level of the fairy tale.
I have appended below my original post. Newcomers to this discussion might, if they have time, go to the original entry which has slipped down to page 2 of the opening page.
Beowulf I
I want to begin with a few bits of basic information, subject to correction from the superior authorities on whom I am counting. Beowulf is generally regarded, Tolkien notwithstanding, as an epic poem written down in its current state mostly in the Wessex dialect of Anglo-Saxon. Traces of East Anglian, apparently, have been detected We can discuss later, if anyone likes, what is meant by “epic” poem and whether or not the length and composition of Beowulf may have been influenced by reading or at least knowledge of the Aeneid
Although the manuscript of Beowulf is generally dated to approximately 1000 AD, the ms. may well be a copy of a work composed much earlier, even before 800. Both internal evidence, apparently, and analogies with other epic poems would suggest that it is the most recent version of a traditional story, polished by generations of perhaps illiterate revisers, before reaching its present form. If there are, indeed, traces of other dialects, the analogy with Homer is useful. The Iliad and Odyssey are written in what is often called the “epic dialect” a literary hodge-podge that is primarily Ionic Greek but with traces of Arcado-Cypriot (reflecting earlier Mycenaean) and perhaps Aeolic.
The story of Beowulf concerns Germanic peoples, primarily Geats, Danes, and Frisians. There is an undoubted historic core: Hygelac is referred to not only in the Liber Monstrorum, and his raid on the Frisians, dated to about 515, is noted by Bishop Gregory of Tours in his history of the Franks. I borrow the rest of this brief and inadequate introduction from a lecture I gave two weeks ago:
“Most students of history inevitably look at the past from a southern perspective, observing the torch of civilization as it passes from Egypt and the Middle East first to Greeks and Romans and then to the French and then, belatedly, to the English. Norman Conquest gives us opportunity to study microcosm of interaction between Germanic barbarians and Roman culture, though not quite so simple: AS’s had been strongly influenced by Latin Christianity and later by Norman culture, while Normans themselves were a Germanic-Nordic people who had only recently adopted French language, Roman Church, and what was left of Gallo-Roman culture. In other words our gaze is fixed between latitudes 30 N to 40 N and then a bit beyond 50 N.
For this discussion we want to turn our perspective upside down or rather upside up and look down from north, shedding feeble polar light of 60 degrees + North upon history. While Greeks were creating and Romans extending civilization in the sunny Mediterranean, their distant IE cousins were eking out a savage and marginal existence in the frozen wastes of Scandinavia, where civilization is known, even today, only as a tall tale told by heroic sea-rovers or Swedish mass-tourists stuffed with cheap pizza, raw wine and burned garlic. (No offense meant to Steve Berg et al.)
Swedes, Geats, Jutes, Lombards, Burgundians, Goths were the northern brethren of the Germanic peoples who lived to the South. They had been living in Scandinavia since roughly 2000 BC during a mild period for Northern Europe, and as the first age of global warming came to an end (complete perhaps by 500 BC), many of the tribes began moving South and eventually took part in the great Germanic folk-migrations that overthrew the Roman Empire. An early hint of what was to come from Scandinavia was the migration of the Teutones and Cimbri, who left their homes and raided their way across Europe and into Italy, where they were stopped by Roman general Marius in 101 BC.
The Jutes and Angles and Saxons who began attacking Britain in the IV C came, roughly from Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, and northern Saxony. Hrolfe the Walker, the pirate and free-booter also known as Rollo, when Charles the Simple granted him the land to be called Normandy in 911, launched his raids from the territory of the Angles. William the Conqueror was the direct descendant, 6 generations later, of Rollo the Viking. Thus the three contestants for the throne of England in 1066 were all cousins: Anglo-Saxons (whose ancestors included Jutes from Jutland), Normans, and Norwegians (commanded by the most remarkable man of the age, Harald Hardrada). Obviously, there are serious differences among the 3 nations. By 1066 both Normans and Anglo-Saxons had gone a long way from their ancestral roots: They had accepted Christianity, were part of Catholic Europe, had developed more sophisticated agriculture, technology, and trade. Even 11th century Norway had developed the institutions of a national-state. Much of Norway was already Christianized even before Harald’s brother Olaf came to the throne and unwisely attempted to finish the job. Still, it is hard to find a streak of Christian humility or kindness in Harald.
Nonetheless, despite the dangers inherent in extrapolation from later Vikings back to the Angles and Saxons, it is helpful to try to understand a little of primitive Scandinavia, from the time of the Anglo-Saxon raids down to the Viking period. First thing to take note of: very very cold. Climate change for worse had accomplished several things. The tall, blond, rugged Scandinavian type, though not universal, was probably the result in part of adaptation to climate. Conditions varied, of course, and there was good arable land in some parts of southern Scandinavia, but generally at a disadvantage. Fishing, herding played larger role than elsewhere. Thin population—often bled away by migrations—and rough conditions did not encourage large-scale political units.
We have next-to no knowledge of Anglo-Saxon society on even of invasions, but we know a little more about Vikings several hundred years later. At the top of the social order were kings, members of royal kindreds, though power did not pass automatically to eldest son or, failing sons, a daughter, either in Scandinavia or in AS England. The king was primarily warchief and thus a tough and resolute warrior was needed to protect the people. King much more loosely applied than among Goths and other tribes to the South—often claimed by members of royal clan. Under the king were jarls/earls, who enjoyed power and prestige over community or communities, and in Scandinavia were commissioned by the king to represent his government, much like the comites in Carolingian Francia. These nobles, powerful as they might be, lacked the divine sanction of kings who claimed descent from Woden.
“The basic unity in society…was no king or earl but a bondir, a free farmer, roughly equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon ceorl…” [H.R. Lloyn, The Vikings in Britain] The bondir was no little man in our sense of the word. He was at his most typical the head of a household, a man of some property in land and especially in stock. He was a slave-owner. His symbols of rank were his axe and his spear. The mark of the freeman was the right to bear arms. He was oath-worthy and law-worthy… Sturdy and at times savage, independence was a characteristic of this breed, but…his very litigious and squabblesome nature found its outlet in what was essentially communal institutional life, in the folk-court, the local thing held at some traditional spot…”
Anglo-Saxon society developed under Frankish and Christian influence, but it started from roughly the same place and was never fully detached from its foundations. The freemen and Earls were fiercely individualistic, self-assertive, quick to anger; also intensely familial and devoted to kin. Marriage far more egalitarian than among more developed peoples. Free contract between man and woman, dissolvable by either party. Scandinavia and AS societies were not the Playboy Club that Iceland has become, but they were freer and less restricted in their sexual mores and attitude toward women than, say, Mediterranean cultures. This is one more indication of how primitive they were and are.
In Beowulf, the most important social and legal fact to notice is the code of the Germanic warrior. A free man, by definition, was a man who could fight to defend himself, his kin, and his king. Blood revenge and what would later be called dueling were social and moral norms.
In modern times, English law has gone farthest in restricting the individual's recourse to violence. Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, if they were freemen, did not so much take the law into their own hands as exercise the law on their own authority. In avenging a death in the family, they were less interested in the motives and circumstances than in the fact. Blood once spilled cannot be recalled, as the furies say in Aeschylus' Eumenides. Even in a case of accidental homicide, where no negligence is involved, a man is still dead, and--as the legal maxim held--"Legis enim est qui inscienter peccet, scienter emendet", that is a man should knowingly fix the harm he had done in ignorance." In tort law, this principle endured into the 19th century.
For the Saxons, murder as well as accidental homicide were settled by payment of blood-money to the kindred. "Homicide appears in the Anglo-Saxon dooms as a matter for composition in the ordinary case of slaying in an open quarrel. There are additional public penalties in aggravated cases, as where a man is slain in the king's presence or otherwise in breach of the king's peace." [Maitland and Pollock I.52]
Wergeld, as our Saxon ancestors called it, is a custom of many nations, although none, perhaps, has elaborated it into a social system so successfully as the Germanic peoples. The monster Grendel, whom Beowulf kills, is an outlaw not so much because he kills the Danish king's retainers as because his refusal to pay compensation puts him outside society.
“Although it may be assumed that the primitive Germans recognized only the fact of bloodshed, motivation and circumstance did come to play an important part. Of course the slayer's kin could stick to the letter of the law of blood, but "one may almost say that the leading motive in heroic literature is precisely this difference of opinion between the people who hold that under any circumstance it is shameful to come to an agreement with the bana (slayer) of one's lord or friend or kinsman, and the people who are willing under certain circumstances to come to such an agreement." [Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn by R.W. Chambers with supplement by C. L. Wrenn, IIIrd Ed., Cambridge UP, 1963, 276-77.] Liability also extended to one who loaned weapons or was present in a fray.
Much of what underlies the principle of blood-revenge is summed up in the phrase “collective responsibility.” In other words, an individual who killed or maimed or robbed someone was not the only person responsible. If a town rose up against the king, it was not just the guilty parties who suffered. In Medieval Tuscany, Florence in particular, wide networks of kinfolks were held collectively responsible for paying the fines of an offending member, and this gave the Florentine business classes the ability to expel entire noble kindreds. One of King Alfred’s successors made local communities responsible for paying the fines for unpunished criminals—which must have served as a powerful incentive to punish the guilty parties.
This is a very inadequate and amateurish introduction, which can be fleshed out in many directions, but I wanted to begin to show that in the heroic world of Beowulf, we shall not find many things to confirm our modern liberal prejudices in favor of equality, individualism, and universal moral rules.
Entries(RSS)
Is there any significance to the fact that Grendel managed to escape to die, fleeing Beowulf and Heorot, whereas his dam had to be sought out, and beowulf had to enter her lair? We go from fighting in the home turf of men to fighting in the home turf of the damned.
Beowulf, though rewarded hansomely by Hrothgar, finds no treaure guarded by Grendel, takes nothing from the dam's hoard but the hilt of the sword he killed her with, and later (jumping way ahead here) dies fighting the dragon and so still gets none of the hoard.
Again, I'm jumping ahead here, but is there siginificance to the fact that Grendel is clearly an evil creature and his mother perhaps more so, condemned because of their sins, descendants of Cain, etc., whereas the dragon that Beowulf will face later is merely a dragon, a creature not really evil if he is ferocious, in fact (unless I am displaying total ignorance about mythology concerning dragons) apparently one of God's creatures like any other, and who has clearly, in his own primitive animal mind at least, been wronged? Instead of there being no sympathy warranted for the dragon, as is the case with the evil Grendel & dam, we can at least understand why the dragon is so enraged, much like we understand the anger of a dog who has found a toy, thinks it's his, and had it taken from him.
To Woodcutter and Mr Reavis: have you noticed that there are some sluts and whores out there who, though living depraved lives, somehow manage to preserve something inside themselves untouched by it all? This is in contrast to those who are completely self-loathing or in total despair. They may have the best hope of rehabilitating themselves eventually. With them, I suspect that a deep, intense shame attack, not brought about by badgering or browbeating or harsh words, but the kind that makes them see themselves for what they are and not be able to stand it, and resolve never to live that way again, might work. I'm not sure that there is any way to bring such a thing about intentionally. Most likely, it must happen of it's own accord when the time and situation are right. Perhaps that is up to God's grace.
Mr. Wilson writes :"With them, I suspect that a deep, intense shame attack, not brought about by badgering or browbeating or harsh words, but the kind that makes them see themselves for what they are ..... when the time and situation are right. Perhaps that is up to God’s grace."
I really am convinced that of all the various periodicals still in circulation, that Chronicles is the best hope to continue the conversation with the withering remnant of Americans who still have a memory. It will be interesting to watch and see if our way of living and praising things will gather a re-birth in the years ahead or dwindle down to nothing --- as in non existent. Whatever the outcome, the truths like those mentioned above will last. Whether there remains anyone left to recognize them, or the courage of a Tom Fleming to print and even defend them, is another matter.
Stuttering Albert... thanks to the editor, that's what he's for... i'm sober now. i'm a pretty good guy though when drunk and when sober. you know the good guys finish last. and the last shall be first. i'm still working on that part. isn't that the issue really for the most part in literature. and if we're 'lucky' possibly even in nature too - "And him as for a map doth nature store, To show false art what beauty was of yore." - Shakespeare ... right-on Beowulf! Dig it, i'm down with it. i'm overcoming my [sacred] warrior spirit - it's too much. i want to also be known and be a christian. amen. sorry for being so self-centered.
yours truly,
his majesty, the infant
p.s. it's an exchange - i'll get informed too if this is deleted or not. (humor)
______
In answer to Mr. Reavis: Actually I would agree with you that all goodness has its source in Christian truth; I believe that all peoples have a yearning towards Revelation and some inkling of it. Only when they have preceded it, they must identify it in some other way than Christ. Vivid stories like Beowulf make the spiritual loneliness of pre-dispensation peoples very immediate to my mind.
The love of honor and right-dealing in Beowulf is in all the more admirable because it is a choice made in the absence of any assurance. I think the poet feels something like this admiration for his pagan characters, and that's why he has such compassion for them. Hard as it is to be Christian in the knowledge of Christ, it must be so much harder to act rightly without having His promise.
I would also agree with several others here that these monsters must be taken as they are and can't be reduced to symbols or a set meaning. Still in any great work there are layers of meaning to be found in every ogre. There is no way to say if Grendel's dam is all human, or all monster, or Grendel either, but she is presented as more monstrous and less human than he is and less deserving of pity. She doesn't really entice Beowulf to her lair so much as flee the hall in fear of the thanes, after killing one and grabbing Grendel's arm; she is described as a less manly as well as less-human enemy than Grendel was. If there are elements of a moral fight between human goodness and human evil in Beowulf's fight with Grendel, Beowulf's killing of Grendel's dam feels more like an extermination, as of a rat. One duel could be read as the Christian one, and the other pagan. Perhaps that's what one of you meant by a mixed tradition within this one poem.
The only other, obvious point to make is that the poet is emphasizing that evil is not easily conquered, and there is always another monster. Personally there is enough variety in the three battles to suit me, but then I have a lot of Scots in my family tree, and feel at home with all ogres and dragons.
I have always believed that the human mind's insistence that it make order out of chaos is evidence that there is a little piece of our Maker's mind in us. I find those studies Tom mentioned very heartening.
Thanks again to everyone for this discussion.
"I have always believed that the human mind’s insistence that it make order out of chaos is evidence that there is a little piece of our Maker’s mind in us. I find those studies Tom mentioned very heartening." -K.D.B.
I'd just add to that...the Dogma of George - from the old SF site...
since it's a world of opposites and a world of degrees to human experience... and thus so - to us humans
when we see two apparently opposite choices (since separated by sufficent degrees) i.e. hot / cold ... etc. it's real but it's not necessarily a question of either / or it is in Fact both. So we ascertain if we can synthesize the best of both OR if (given the dimension of time) in that instance it may be a binary choice of either / or. This reality is as simple as the example of a coin which has two sides heads & tails and yet is one.
Or as simple as the Kabbalah admonition that the 'devil' is of course God's pal in the royal court in a kind of divine sting operation - whether the devil knows it or not?! (humor) In creating Actual others needless to say God who is NOT in control of everything NEEDS to see who is who? What do the Others want?
So Kate you see whether you know it or not YOU exist. Is that a 'bad' thing?
Kate @54
Thanks for the reply . Electronic communications are not the best way to converse because there is very little context. My response was not a critique of anything you said, just wondering aloud. I hope you did not take it as a challenge to your good comments. It is an interesting question and one I haven't really answered for myself. Some traditionalist assert that there is a much more ordered understanding of certain figures of speech in these epic tales than is recognized by nominalist scholars since the Enlightenment. And they make a good case for it. As I said before, I am happy you are with us and have enjoyed your comments. I am an amateur who joins these discussions from the delight they render and nothing else. You have been a part of that enjoyment for me. I hope I haven't detracted from yours. rr
Today is a day of prayer, reflection and paper work from my home. Three days of doing battle with the dark one is enough for me. Even Beowulf had time to rest between battles. during these times he receives words of wisdom from friends. Praise God for conversations like this. May the Almighty God bless you all, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit + .
Mr. Reavis: No offense taken at all; I just wanted to make clearer what I had said.
By talking online we have to do without many things that make live conversation humane. We can only make the best of it. So, in the absence of any clear indication otherwise, I'm assuming everyone is speaking in a pleasant tone--please argue your points as you wish.
Face to face is usually more telling... first you have to be strong to know that it's war usually in this world... though stronger if you prefer peace.
if you do prefer peace must be all the stronger as well, for face to face.
internet is interesting - that this has happened since it's almost a 'no man's land' in the sense - it's not nearly as intimate as a phone call... nor as formal as a letter or even a Fax... (never mind face to face - which is the most difficult) ... [do you see my pimples?]
but of course these 'things' like i.e. internet have their value - it's just that we don't KNOW yet (do we?) is it a high value, medium value, or low?
so far i'll be honest (as usual) i for one, don't know.
i would for example probably never have "said" written the things to kate i did - if it were even a phone call... so this may be good - another spoke in the bicycle wheel of truth?!
regards to all... wuv'Ya. ... no i really do. (do you care?) funny, there's always at least humor besides the tragic.
tragi-comic... it is, says Yoda.
" regards to all… wuv’Ya. … no i really do. (do you care?) funny, there’s always at least humor besides the tragic."
Albert,
Why don't you send me a message at robert.reavis@oscn.net Evidently you need a little help and assistance. I'll do what I can, which isn't much.
Thanks.
i get your message... i guess. i hear you... thanks. robert.reavis@oscn.net - i'm 'too' honest? ... or discretely you're saying not 'appropriate' ? ... ok. NOT seeking assistance. but i get the message and appreciate the kindness if so. so i won't post anymore. i 'get' it. i'm at a genius level i.q. - that doesn't mean i'd not seek help. but if i did - i'd FIND it. yourself if you need it - http://www.primaltherapy.com
but i thank you.
by the way in my opinion if a priest or a cleric - you ARE undoubtedly at the Top of the professions... doctors are pill dealers today without realizing it, and lawyers - higher on [my] scale than they... are what they are. sorry. mea-culpa...
____________
That was very gracious of you Robert. Kindness over internet is hard to discern, but I think we have just witnessed some.
My apologies for blundering into a conversation that seems to have been proceeding extremely well -- Lenten commitments have limited my cyberspace access. Tomorrow I introduce Beowulf to my humanities class; thanks to Dr. Fleming, Kate Dalton Boyer, Allen Wilson, Robert Reavis, & Co., this task is considerably easier.
My own meager & belated contribution at this late and exhausted hour (I only just finished writing an exam to administer tomorrow) is one possible answer to Dr. Fleming's question of #37, regarding Ma Grendel: "If the repetition is not formulaic and does have a point, what is it?"
Could it be an illustration of the dangers of thinking evil has shallow roots -- of not recognizing that evil goes deeper than the mere latest expression of it?
In other words -- prior to the slaying of Grendel everybody obviously assumes that if they could only get rid of Grendel all would well ... by analogy, many conservatives assume on some level that if only we could thwart once-and-for-all the Democratic Party, the gay marriage movement, and jihad, then that would spell an end to America's woes.
And libertarians tend to think everything will be hunky-dory if only we can overthrow socialism, thus restoring the righteous reign of classical liberalism.
Slay one monster and you discover that that monster was begotten by an older one?
GS...In other words — prior to the slaying of Grendel everybody obviously assumes that if they could only get rid of Grendel all would well … by analogy, many conservatives assume on some level that if only we could thwart once-and-for-all the Democratic Party, the gay marriage movement, and jihad, then that would spell an end to America’s woes.
Very good observation. As of yet I do not think this was pointed out yet. You are very right of course. While some have indicated that maybe we read to much into Beowulf, I would say that as soon as something is created and presented as an art form, it is open for discussion as to it's meaning. As an artist I sometimes create a painting simply because it is appealing to me in a visual sense. No sooner have I done this, people began to try to understand what I meant by painting it this way or that. And that is OK with me.
In response to your observation about ma Grendal. You have hit on something. This may be another lesson among many. Possibly a sign of great stories ...is that many lessons can be gained by many different listeners. God bless you in your Lenton observanses.
"Could it be an illustration of the dangers of thinking evil has shallow roots — of not recognizing that evil goes deeper than the mere latest expression of it?"
Yes, G.S. that was my impression upon the first, second and third reading. It reminded me of the Gospel account of driving out one demon and seven more coming to take his place. But we must be careful in saying more than what the text and wise commentary allow. Less is always more --- the imagination and passions must be subservient to understanding, like the wife to her husband.
( Now that ought to stir some comments, or this thread is dead )
Less is always more — the imagination and passions must be subservient to understanding, like the wife to her husband.
Hmmmm ...And Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed Himself over for her (just in case your wife is looking over your shoulder Robert).
I have always said that sometimes I act to fast. Maybe, but if I require total understanding before express my self, I may never speak to my wife again. Hopefully you mean to apply this to scholarly situations mostly. I have a sign in my shed that says...."If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear.............is he still wrong?". As the years pass hopefully I speak less and understand more.
….”If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear………….is he still wrong?”.
LOL. Marriage should be entered into only with the understanding that it's long term viability is impossible unless each spouse is willing to answer yes to that question under the appropriate circumstances. Thanks.
"Fools rush in, etc..." Just saw the new cinema "Beowulf." It strikes me as a rather silly comic book affair without any reflection of the moral weight of the original. I thought the film "Beowulf and Grendel" a few years ago was more faithful to the spirit if not the letter of the source. What do you learned folks think?
Dr. Wilson,
I have not seen either movie but since today is friday and the weekend invites one to at least a little leisure, I will watch them this weekend. I am glad you have joined the conversation over here and look forward to your thoughts on Beowulf.
Beowulf and Grendel - don't bother with it Mr Reavis.
A year ago or so I was dumb enough to obtain the movie "Beowulf and Grendel" from the Brevard library. I didn't think it was at all faithful to the spirit. Grendel was avenging himself because his father was killed in front of him by Hrothgar's people. There seemed to be lots of modern, moral relativist thinking in the film. I also thought the red-headed slut character (who at one point is raped by Grendel and also beds down with Beowulf) was ridiculous. She reminded me of one of the hate-the-world "goth" (no-pun-intended) girls I attended high-school with. About the only thing that was good was the cinematography. "The Thirteenth Warrior" is a less objectionable (albeit even further from the original) version.
I don't think this sort of thing lends itself to film treatment. In retrospect, I'd spend my time reading an alternative translation or some of the critical essays I haven't got to yet.
I also haven't bothered with watching Brad Pitt as Achilles.
Bruce. I am not a purist when it comes to this sort of thing. Like it or not, the movies are the predominant art form of our time, and I have never yet seen literature transferred to film with complete success. I am not defending any of the failures of the cinema. But the "Beowulf and Grendel" film did, I thought, convey something of the reality of pagan Northern Europe, have believable human characters, and translate some of the fantastic elements into plausibility. This in comparison to the ludicrous current film. I feel the same way about the old 1950s film of "The 300 Spartans." Whatever flaws it might have, and our most estemmed Editor has previously pointed these out, it did convey some sense of history, heroism, and patriotism. In contrast to the recent disgusting, laughable video-game-inspired, multicultural movie of the same story. It is the difference, in both cases, between civilised realism and nihilism.
I agree with my friend Professor Wilson that in general a film should be judged on its merits more than on its fidelity to an original text. I would say, though, that I dislike even awell-made film that is faithless to the spirit of the original. Even historical films like Braveheart, which unncessarily introduce deliberate and impossible lies (e.g. a Romance between William Wallace and the wife of Edward II) annoy me so much that I find it difficult to enjoy the film. As the years go by, I refuse to see any movie made by Mel Gibson--as opposed to the good films in which he has appeared. In Braveheart I only remember with affection the praise of Latin and the Old Mass and the brilliant performance of Patrick McGoohan as Edward I. As for the 300 Spartans, I agree entirely that despite Egan's wooden performance and other failings, the filmmakers tried to convey the popular tradition (perhaps more from Plutarch--from whom many of the best lines are taken--than Herodotus) of Thermopylae. The other night, slumming it, we watched the 1957 Hamnmer film "The Curse of Frankenstein." Despite a pretty good performance by Peter Cushing, the film stinks and is vastly inferior to the original piece of junk introducing "Karloff."
As much as I enjoy movies, I am not so ready to call them art in any sense that might include the symphonies of Haydn or even the novels of Dickens. There is too much easy trickery in film, and as the years go by, and films become more what they are and less novels or plays turned into movies, the evils of the form become more and more apparent. The nearest to art film has reached has been 1) good silents, where the absence of dialogue forces the director to work hard (Note how John Ford, a silent director originally, cared so little about dialogue) and 2) a few films made by artsy directors, nearly all foreign, like Fellini, Bergman, and Kurosawa. My favorite movies tend to be based on good scripts. Preston Sturgis was a playwright before going to Hollywood and his screen plays could mostly be performed on stage--though he did make excellent use of locations in Sullivan's Travels, The Palm Beach Story, etc.
Back to Beowulf: Let's wrap up next week by talking about the Dragon episode, and even before we are through, let us pick another book. At some point, I want to do Cochin, but before then, what? This time I will take the most appealing (easiest for me) suggestion, and will try to steer a course between earlier discussions, which always included long-winded posts from me, and this discussion, which has been directed more by the participants.
Dr. Wilson @71 writes :
" Like it or not, the movies are the predominant art form of our time,"
I tend to agree with you professor, although I would put myself in the category of not liking it. The last time I saw Dr. Fleming I offered an unsolicited suggestion that he see 'No Country for Old Men.' It was if I had suggested he try Mogan David as a wine to compliment his medium rare, Kansas City strip sirloin --seared and grilled to tender and juicy perfection. I make no defense to his stern tongue lashing --it was all true -- except for me, the movie portrayed an actual sign of the times, albeit the evil of our times.
For my penance I suggest we read The Song of Roland and then Cochin. Or Cochin and then Roland. It is in praise of rear guard efforts ( like the ones we "Unpatriotic American" types are supposedly fighting ) as well as honor, friendship and other permanent things we hold dear.
"Just saw the new cinema “Beowulf.” It strikes me as a rather silly comic book affair without any reflection of the moral weight of the original. "
Yes, I watched it this evening and it wasn't serious in any aspect. I would recommend a serious man save his time and money for Sturgis if he is really committed to a pure life of the senses , what Hollywood seems so frequently to call aesthetics --- which is all the new Beowulf film is. A complete waste of time. Read the poem, enjoy it and reflect upon it but never ask a modernist or "post christian" what their view of the poem is. They can never move their mind beyond cultural destruction, or personal destruction laced with the arrogant assurance that progress is being made and they are some how contributors . As Frank O'Conner said of James Joyce, Ulysses, --it has become " A CRASHING BORE !!!
The Song of Roland seems good to me too if no one objects, since it's another one of those works I've meant to get around to reading for years. It's also easy to find both online and off, unlike, say, Digenes Akrites, which I cant even find in Greek, much less English, after a year of searching. It's also relatively short so it might last just long enough for scoundrels like myself to finally get a copy of the Cochin book after so much procrastination.
If Dr Fleming wishes to let participants do more directing, then perhaps, since we have people here with knolwedge of Germanic languages, literature, and history, some other work of Germanic literature would be appropriate if we dont go to the Song of Roland.
Dr Fleming,
I wish you would introduce us to the Dragon episode and perhaps start a new thread. ( or not as you wish.) I am looking forward to the conversation on what I consider to be the best part of the poem. -- his final struggle and defeat of the dragon and then death.
Reading it again this evening --- I was wondering if this ending should be considered a tragedy or comedy; or if those terms even apply to such a poem as this. I was moved by the scene in which his loyal friend and servant stands by Beowulf to the very end while the other twelve removed to the woods and hid. It reminded me of another group of twelve in which not even the leader, St. Peter, stood firm when the dragon's breath grew heated.
There are many other memorable scenes in this final conflict but I write to simply get the conversation started again and as a ploy to get Dr. Fleming and others to help bring this delightful conversation about Beowulf to an honorable ending.
I could not participate fully in the discussion on Beowulf because I was amidst changing ISPs. I am adding this in for reference's sake, for anyone who may be chcking bak here.
I did make some references to the Book of Enoch; there is some literature of varying qualities discussing the possible influence of Enoch on Beowulf. Here is a relevant passage from the beginning of Enoch relating to Grendel's lineage from Cain, for anyone who may be interested: