0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
71 vizualizări60 pagini
The Williams College Libraries will make your thesis available for research use. You may provide instructions regarding copyright, aceess, dissemination and reproduction. Copyrighted material may include linages (tables, drawings, photographs, figures, maps, graphs, etc.) select one of the options below with respect to the copyright in your thesis.
Descriere originală:
Titlu original
BEHREND t.megan-The Hero Versus the Other in Beowulf and the Song of Roland
The Williams College Libraries will make your thesis available for research use. You may provide instructions regarding copyright, aceess, dissemination and reproduction. Copyrighted material may include linages (tables, drawings, photographs, figures, maps, graphs, etc.) select one of the options below with respect to the copyright in your thesis.
The Williams College Libraries will make your thesis available for research use. You may provide instructions regarding copyright, aceess, dissemination and reproduction. Copyrighted material may include linages (tables, drawings, photographs, figures, maps, graphs, etc.) select one of the options below with respect to the copyright in your thesis.
COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR A STUDENT THESIS
Your unpublished thesis, submitted for a degree at Williams College and administered by the Williams College Libraries, will be made available for research use. You may, through this form, provide instructions regarding copyright, aceess, dissemination and reproduction of your thesis. The College has the right in all cases to maintain and preserve theses both in hardcopy and electronic format, and to make such copies as the Libraries require for their research and archival functions. _The faculty advisor/s to the student writing the thesis claims joint authorship in this work. _ I/we have included in this thesis copyrighted material for which I/we have not received permission from the copyright holder/s. If you do not secure copyright permissions by the time your thesis is submitted, you will still be allowed to submit. However, ifthe necessary copyright permissions are not received, e-posting of your thesis may be affected. Copyrighted material may include linages (tables, drawings, photographs, figures, maps, graphs, etc.), sound files, video material, data sets, and large portions of text. I. COPYRIGHT An author by law owns the copyright to his/her work, whether or not a copyright symbol and date are placed on the piece. Please choose one of the options below with respect to the copyright in your thesis. _ I/we choose not to retain the copyright to the thesis, and hereby assign the copyright to Williams College. Selecting this option will assign copyright to the College. If the author/swishes later to publish the work, he/she/they will need to obtain permission to do so from the Libraries, which will be granted except in unusual circumstances. The Libraries will be free in this case to also grant permission to another researcher to publish some or all of the thesis. If you have chosen this option, you do not need to complete the next section and can proceed to the signature line. V I/we choose to retain the copyright to the thesis for a period of I OQ years, or until iht/our deathls, whichever is the earlier, at which time the copyright shall be assigned to Williams College without need of further action by me/us or by my/our heirs, successors, or representatives of my/our estate/s. Selecting this option allows the author/s the flexibility of retaining his/her/their copyright for a period of years or for life. II. ACCESS AND COPYING If you have chosen in section I, above, to retain the copyright in your thesis for some period of time, please choose one of the following options with respect to access to, and copying of; the thesis. XI/we grant permission to Williams College to provide access to (and therefore copying of) the thesis in electronic format via the Internet or other means of electronic transmission, in addition to permitting access to and copying of the thesis in hardcopy format. Selecting this option allows the Libraries to transmit the thesis in electronic format via the Internet. This option will therefore permit worldwide access to the thesis and, because the Libraries cannot control the uses of an electronic version once it has been transmitted, this option also permits copying of the electronic version. _ I/we grant permission to Williams College to maintain and provide access to the thesis in hardcopy format. In addition, I/we grant permission to Williams College to provide access to (and therefore copying of) the thesis in electronic format via the Internet or other means of electronic transmission after a period of ___ years. Selecting this option allows the Libraries to transmit the thesis in electronic format via the Internet after a period of years. Once the restriction period has ended, this option permits worldwide access to the thesis, and copying of the electronic and hardcopy versions. __ I/we grant permission to Williams College to maintain, provide access to, and provide copies of the thesis in hardcopy format only, for as long as I/we retain copyright. Selecting this option allows access to your work only from the hardcopy you submit for as long as you retain copyright in the work. Such access pertains to the entirety of your work, including any media that it incorporates. Selecting this option allows the Libraries to provide copies of the thesis to researchers in hardcopy form only, not in electronic format. _ I/we grant permission to Williams College to maintain and to provide access to the thesis in hardcopy format only, for as long as I/we retain copyright. Selecting this option allows access to your work only from the hardcopy you submit for as long as you retain copyright in the work. Such access pertains to the entirety of your work, including any media that it incorporates. This option does NOT permit the Libraries to provide copies of the thesis to researchers. Signed (student author) Signed (faculty advisor) Signed (2d advisor, if applicable) _________________ _ Thesis title I he_ !J..e ru be_ CJ+N.r i r\ F);:owuW c\nd +he- o .\' R CJ \c-.:\\d Date 6/ i 1/ I 2-. Library Use Accepted By: Dt . lin., i<::l J'''i) a e. 1 t: .7--U! .-._ ' cr March 2010 Signature Redacted Signature Redacted Signature Redacted
The Hero versus the Other in Beowulf and the Song of Roland
by
Megan Behrend
Sherron Knopp, Advisor
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors in English
WILLIAMS COLLEGE
Williamstown, Massachusetts
May 16, 2012
Table of Contents
I. Introduction................................................................................................1 II. The Song of Roland.................................................................................12 III. Beowulf..................................................................................................27 IV. Conclusion.............................................................................................46 Works Cited/Consulted...............................................................................53
I. Introduction The periphery of the Hereford World Map, one of the largest and most detailed of the numerous surviving medieval mappaemundi, is teeming with unusual creatures. In particular, many figures resisting categorization as either human or animal appear along the maps edge, including dragons, giants, and various deformed humans in an extensive catalogue of monstruosi populi, or monstrous races. In cultural-historical discussions of medieval monsters, scholars frequently read the Hereford Map and other mappaemundi as visual representations of the medieval cartographers worldview, particularly how he defines himself in relation to other religions, cultures, and geographical places. Accordingly, the medieval cartographers habit of relegating monsters to the edges of the map, thus visually segregating them from his own race, namely European man, reveals something about his perceived relationship to the monstrous Other. These peripheral figures are sometimes, like the giants and dragons of the Hereford Map, monsters in the fantastical sense of the word with which the modern reader is familiar. But others, like the monstruosi populi, represent real people from cultures alien to medieval Europe, who simply differed in physical appearance and social practices from the person describing them (Friedman 1). Still, the medieval cartographer groups all monsters, the real peoples along with the dragons and dog-headed giants, along the maps edges. As Asa Simon Mittman explains, By lumping all the monsters together on the maps, the creators 2 of these maps have established a diametric world in which constant battle rages between Men and Monsters (45). Jeffrey Cohen, drawing on a body of criticism that he labels monster theory, describes the literary monster narrative as functioning similarly to medieval mappaemundi, that is, as a tool for mapping cultural difference frequently in binary opposition to the Self (7). Considering this unity of function, while the worldview presented in medieval monster narratives will certainly differ from that found on maps from the same period, it is reasonable to expect some correspondence between the two. At the very least, one anticipates a representation of a similar diametric world in which constant battle rages between Men and Monsters. Deeply interested in such diametric worlds, medieval epic is a genre in many ways synonymous with the medieval monster narrative, and comparative epic scholarship confirms this relationship. In his historical linguistic analysis of Indo-European heroic poetry, Calvert Watkins locates the monster narrative at the foundations of epic tradition. He traces the theme of dragon slaying, as represented by genetically related linguistic formulas, from its origin in myth to its emergence in epic as early as Homers Iliad and Odyssey: The serpent adversary of myth can easily become the human adversary of epic reality (Watkins 471). Watkins also confirms the expectation of a diametric worldview in medieval epic, identifying the very specific binary opposition of Order, the human, versus Chaos, the dragon (299). Even W.P. Ker, over a century ago, identified a binary opposition throughout medieval epic in his seminal work on medieval genres, Epic and Romance. While he argues that the killing of dragons and other monsters is the regular occupation of the 3 heroes of old wives tales and therefore undeserving of epic dignity, Ker defines the epic as a conflict between defenders and invaders (Ker 190). Although Ker imagines this particular conflict of the epic as occurring strictly between humans, these human enemies, as invaders, share a characteristic of monsters emphasized by Cohen: The monster is difference made flesh, come to dwell among us (7). The monster is not simply a representation of the cultural Other, but an Other who strays from his own world in order to invade that of the Self. In turn, the Self becomes responsible for the defense of his world against this monstrous invader. Thus, it is not surprising that constant battle...between Men and Monsters is at the center of two of the most iconic medieval vernacular epics, the Old English Beowulf and the Old French Song of Roland. In Beowulf the Men are Geats and Danes and the Monsters they fight take the shape of fantastical nonhumans. In the Song of Roland, the Franks fight other men, the Saracens, who are represented as monstrous because of their Muslim faith. Initially, both poets seem to reinforce, through the relationship between their respective heroes and enemies, the binary opposition that medieval cartographers embed in mappaemundi, that Watkins identifies in the traditional theme of dragon slaying, and that Ker establishes in his definition of epic as a tale of defenders versus invaders. The monsters of Beowulf, for instance, superficially seem the antithesis of the Danes and Geats, beginning with the poets immediate labeling of them as inhuman. Grendel receives the bulk of these monstrous monikers, described as elleng!st (bold demon, Beowulf 86), f!ond on helle (enemy from hell, Beowulf 101), and grimma g!st (cruel spirit, Beowulf 102) in just the thirty-line passage in which he is 4 introduced. 1 While the poems other two monsters accumulate a narrower variety of labels, the poet frequently refers to Grendels mother as !gl"cw#f (she-monster) and the dragon as draca (dragon). Similarly, the Roland poet initially constructs a binary relationship between the opposing forces in his poem, constantly distinguishing the Muslims from the Christians by labeling them paiens or pagans and even once describing Marsile, the Muslim king, as Charlemagnes mortel enemi (mortal foe, Roland 461). 2 The poet also describes the Muslims as physically other and grotesque in lines such as Issi est neirs cum peiz ki est demise ([He] is black as molten pitch, Roland 1635) and Granz unt les nes e lees les oreilles (They have large noses and broad ears, Roland 1918). But as one delves further into these texts, the antagonism between hero and enemy, between Men and Monsters, quickly becomes complicated as a result of frequent mirroring between the groups. At times, the poets endow these otherwise opposed characters with the same characteristics, behaviors, or psychologies. As the hero and the enemy appear increasingly alike, the worlds of these poems begin to resemble less and less the diametric worlds of medieval mappaemundi and the epic. This unexpected mirroring appears to contradict not only the medieval worldview as extracted from pictorial evidence, but also expectations of the literary genre for which Beowulf and Roland serve as iconic exempla.
1 All citations from Beowulf are from Fulk, Bjork, and Niles. The translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 2 All citations from the Song of Roland are from Brault vol. 2. The corresponding translations are from Burgess. 5 Among Beowulf scholars, interest in those moments in which the poems monsters bear a striking resemblance to its human heroes is far from new. 3 And yet the critics have reached little consensus in their attempts to interpret this unexpected parallelism. Carol Braun Pasternack, for one, analyzes several such instances using Fredric Jamesons theory of the political unconscious: [A] post-structuralist reading takes such a contradiction [parallelism between the monsters and the Danes] as pointing to something the text is attempting to cover up, an idea that is scandalous within the texts dominant binary, which in Beowulf makes the heroic godly and the heros opponents ungodly. The scandal here is that the Danes fundamentally do not differ from Grendel. (Pasternack 185)
Pasternack proceeds to judge each of these moments as unintended, a slip revealing a scandal within the resolutions the text is attempting and a political unconscious that the text is working hard to cover up (185). Pasternack is correct to point out that these moments do not settle into the binary relationship between heroes and enemies one expects of a medieval epic. But considering the frequency with which these slip[s] occur, I would challenge her assessment of them as unintentional or scandal[s]...the text is working hard to cover up. Rather, the abundance and consistency of the similarities between the heroes and the monsters strongly suggest a deliberate attempt to complicate a simplistic picture of heroic society. Perhaps the most striking similarity between the heroes and the enemies in Beowulf is that the motives for their equally violent actions are identical. Each group kills members of the other in order to defend themselves and their property or to avenge the death of their relations. One might even describe the poems monsters as conforming
3 For a concise summary of scholarship interested in the monsters close resemblance to the heroes, see Fulk, Bjork, and Niles xliv. 6 to the Anglo-Saxon heroic code, in which one is expected to avenge violent deeds against kin and countrymen. Grendel, of course, seems to be an exception as he attacks the Danes neither in defense nor for vengeance. And yet, Andy Orchard argues that of all the monsters, it is Grendel who is most consistently depicted in human terms, particularly in the constant evocation of exile imagery to describe his plight (30). Indeed, as Grendel approaches the human world of Heorot, having left the moor or the f!felcynnes eard (the region of the race of monsters, Beowulf 104), he exhibits simultaneous identification with and isolation from the men he later attacks: Fand !" #!r inne !elinga gedriht swefan fter symble; sorge ne c$#on, wonsceaft wera.
Then inside he found the company of noblemen sleeping after a feast; they did not know sorrow, the misery of men. (Beowulf 118-120) While these men, resting comfortably in the human world, are unfamiliar with sorrow, the misery of men, Grendel, a monster, knows this pain well. In addition, whether committed by man or monster, acts of violence throughout Beowulf are described by the poet in much the same language. For example, he repeatedly uses the verb gewrecan or avenge to refer to both Beowulfs defeat of Grendel, a deed carried out in response to the monsters ravaging of Heorot, and Grendels mothers subsequent attack in response to the death of her son. In fact, the poet first mentions Grendels mother not as !gl"cw#f or even Grendles m$dor, but as wrecend or avenger (Beowulf 1256). Even the dragon, while physically the most monstrous of the three creatures with his body that is byrnende and gebogen (burning 7 [and] coiled, Beowulf 2569), appears more like a warrior guarding a hall in the passage in which he is introduced: ...!n ongan deorcum nihtum draca r"csian, s# $e on h#aum hofe hord beweotode, st!nbeorh st#arcne;
...a certain one, a dragon, began to rule in dark nights, who watched over treasure, a strong stone-barrow, in a high hall. (Beowulf 2210-2213) The words r!csian to rule and hofe residence could just as easily be used in a description of Hrothgar presiding over Heorot. In addition, Beowulf himself commissions the assembling of a st"nbeorh (stone-barrow) to commemorate his death and, using the same noun as the poet uses in the above passage, calls it B!owulfes Biorh (Beowulf 2807). As in the case of Beowulf, scholars have also noted similarities between the Christians and the Muslims of the Song of Roland and interpret this mirroring in a number of ways. Ellen Peel summarizes several possible interpretations: [A] mild opposition can illustrate the strength and seductiveness of evil. Moreover, the Muslims need to be represented as worthy opponents for the Christians, enemies against whom the Christians can prove their courage and skill, since an easy victory would have little meaning... Finally, as potential converts to Christianity, the Muslims must be somewhat diverse, for they cannot all be portrayed as utterly alien. (Peel 263)
While these are all plausible explanations of what Peel describes as surprisingly mild oppositions...in an epic about mortal enemies, they do not exhaust the interpretive possibilities (263). For example, William Comfort offers a different view: The evidence would hardly show that the Christians thought of the Saracens as ethically or culturally inferior to themselves (633). While Comfort suggests, like Peel, that the Roland poet 8 might construct this parallelism because the likelihood is ever present that a Saracen may change his faith (633), he also points to a more interesting interpretation of the mirroring between the Christians and the Saracens. He demonstrates how the ethical and cultural similarities between the two forces emphasize the Saracens chief folly, that is devotion to a religion opposed to that of the Christians (623). Even a casual reader of Roland will notice certain similarities between the Franks and the Saracens, beginning with the identical structure of the two armies: Twelve Peers lead the Christians and Twelve Champions lead the Muslims. Furthermore, the Muslim soldiers appear to participate in the same Western institution of chivalry as the Christian knights. In particular, the poet praises Margaris of Seville, one of Marsiles Twelve Champions, for his chivalrous qualities: Pur sa beltet dames li sunt amies: Cele nel veit vers lui ne sesclargisset, Quant ele le veit, ne poet mur ne riet; N'i ad paien de tel chevalerie.
He is so handsome that the ladies adore him; Whenever one sees him, her eyes light up. When she catches sight of him, she becomes all smiles. No pagan is such a good knight. (Roland 957-60) In addition, the poet makes no attempt to portray Islam accurately, presenting it instead as a corrupt mirror image of Christianity. Thus, he frequently describes the Muslims prayer to a false trinity of Tervagant, Mohammed, and Apollo, mirroring the Christian trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Roland 3267-8). These examples are only a few of the countless similarities between the Muslims and the Christians in Roland. The two armies subscribe to the same rituals whether in court, on the battlefield, or at prayer. Their battle adornments and fighting styles are so similar that the two forces are 9 sometimes indistinguishable in the poems battle scenes. In fact, it often seems as though the only distinction between the two armies is their loyalty to different religions, a phenomenon the poet himself emphasizes with expressions such as Deus! quel baron, sost chrestentet! (O God, what a noble baron, if only he were a Christian! Roland 3164). It should be apparent by now that the relationship between hero and enemy and, in these texts, between man and monster, necessarily implies some correspondence to the relative good and evil of the characters. In The Dialectic of Fear, an essay that examines Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and Paul Stokers Dracula, Franco Moretti organizes good and evil, as they appear in the modern monster narrative, according to yet another binary in which man is good, the monster evil (71). At the beginning of Beowulf, the poet primes the reader to expect this model of good and evil in the medieval monster narrative as well. Almost immediately, the Beowulf poet establishes the Danes as the example of goodness, writing of Scyld Scefing, the founder of Hrothgars royal bloodline, !t ws g"d cyning (That was a good king, 11). Similarly, throughout Roland, the poet differentiates between good Christians and evil Muslims. He even treats the relative morality of these characters as a fact they are capable of knowing or understanding themselves, writing, Li amiralz alques sen aperceit / Que il ad tort e Carlemagnes dreit (The Emir thereby begins to realize / That he is wrong and Charlemagne right, Roland 3553-4). Given these overt proclamations of good and evil, the similarities between the hero and the enemy in both Beowulf and Roland should disturb the reader. From the examples offered above, one can already anticipate how mirroring between two warring groups in narratives of such violence might complicate 10 the readers sympathies. One expects epic heroes to appear consistently good and their enemies consistently evil, but when the monsters and the Muslims behave identically to the Danes and the Franks, it appears that this binary cannot possibly hold up. As it turns out, mirroring between the hero and the enemy impacts the good/evil binary of the two texts quite differently and I explore these differences in the chapters that follow. First, I investigate the Roland poets use of mirroring to assert the inherent goodness of the Christians and the evil of the Muslims. Portraying the Muslim forces as a mirror image of Charlemagnes army in many ways reduces the significance of the enemies to the one quality that differentiates them from the heroes: their subscription to Islam, the inherently wrong religion. As a result, the parallelism that initially appears to contradict the expected good Christians versus evil Muslims dichotomy actually reinforces it. I also identify instances in which this good/evil binary, despite the poets attempt to strengthen it, breaks down, especially in the betrayal of the Christians by Ganelon, a Christian traitor and arguably the most evil character in the poem. The next chapter similarly examines the mirroring between men and monsters in Beowulf, emphasizing the ways in which the poet destabilizes a heroic morality that superficially seems to promote a binary distinction between hero and enemy. The Beowulf poet includes monsters that demand sympathy usually reserved for humans, while the humans, in turn, look occasionally as monstrous as their inhuman opponents. In doing this, the poet reveals the limitations of the Anglo-Saxon heroic code, which often promotes monstrous violence through its notions of protection and vengeance. In the Song of Roland, the poet uses mirroring to firmly present eastern and Muslim as innately evil qualities and French and Christian as innately good ones. 11 As a result, the Roland poet, writing at the very beginning of the first crusade, creates an epic that promotes the virtue of the French Christian empire and justifies their violence against the Muslim people. The goals of the Beowulf poet, however, are a little less clear. Although the poet appears to destabilize the typical good heroes versus evil enemies dichotomy of epic literature, it is too bold to suggest that the poem either condemns its heroes entirely or absolves the monsters. Perhaps one should describe the work instead as a reverent, yet critical reflection on Germanic heroic values. J.R.R. Tolkien first characterized this quality of the poem in his 1936 essay, which still best explains the poets position between admiration and criticism of his hero. He writes, And this, we are told, is the radical defect of Beowulf, that its author, coming in a time rich in the legends of heroic men, has used them afresh in an original fashion, giving us not just one more, but something akin yet different: a measure and interpretation of them all (Tolkien 21).
II. The Song of Roland
Despite what is said around us persecutors are never obsessed by difference but rather by its unutterable contrary, the lack of difference.
Ren Girard, The Scapegoat ________________________________________________________________________
In 1095 at Clermont, while proclaiming the first Crusade, Pope Urban II uttered these words: Rise up and remember the manly deeds of your ancestors, the prowess and greatness of Charlemagne, of his son Louis, and of your other kings, who destroyed pagan kingdoms and planted the holy church in their territories (Brundage 18). The Song of Roland, which most scholars judge to be contemporary with this speech, 1 seems designed to do precisely what Pope Urban was commandingthat is, to remember Charlemagnes own military campaigns against non-Christians. It may then come as a surprise that anti-Muslim military activity is completely absent from historical accounts of the event on which Roland is based. In particular, Einhards ninth-century Life of Charlemagne, a text that would have been available to the Roland poet, provides no evidence that Charlemagne destroyed pagan kingdoms and planted the holy church in
1 According to Burgess, The poem has been dated as early as 1060 and as late as the second half of the twelfth century, but the most frequently accepted date is around the very end of the eleventh century (1098-1100) (8). 13 their territories at the 778 battle of Rencesvals. 2 Instead, leading up to Rencesvals, Charlemagne was in Spain fighting with and for Muslims through an alliance with the Muslim governor of Barcelona, Suleiman ibn al-Arab (Brault 1: 1). According to Einhard, as the French forces left Spain in order to join Charlemagnes more important military endeavors against the Anglo-Saxons, Basque insurgents ambushed and subsequently wiped out the French rearguard. 3 Of course, these accounts of the historical battle of Rencesvals are hardly recognizable in the poem. The Roland poet sets up the battle as a consequence of longstanding animosities between Charlemagne and Muslim states, making no mention of an alliance between the French emperor and Suleiman. He transforms the Basque raiders of Einhards account into a massive Muslim force. And, even though the poet describes the collapse of the Frankish rearguard in the first half of his poem, he goes on to narrate an extremely successful yet entirely fictionalized counterattack led by Charlemagne to annihilate the Muslim army in revenge. These major discrepancies between the historical accounts of Rencesvals and its literary representation in the Song of Roland suggest that, in the heat of Crusade fever, the poet purposefully manipulated this ambush into a largely fictional tale of the prowess and greatness of Charlemagne against Muslim enemies. As a result, Roland seems to fit among a category of documents Ren Girard calls persecution texts. In The Scapegoat, Girard defines persecution texts as accounts of real violence, often collective, told from the perspective of the persecutors, and therefore influenced by
2 For the original Latin text and an English translation of Einhards account, see Brault (1: 2-3). 3 William Kibler notes that Arabic accounts of the 778 battle of Rencesvals suggest that, in actuality, a combination of Basque and Muslim insurgents participated in the ambush on Charlemagnes rearguard (55). 14 characteristic distortions (9). Although Girards terminology of persecutors and victims proves somewhat uncomfortable when applied to the epic, these terms quite aptly describe Christians and Muslims during the Crusades. Certainly, twelfth-century French crusaders, to whom the Roland poet hopes to appeal when fashioning the heroes of Roland, can be considered persecutors and the Muslim people their victims. According to Girards theory, it is not surprising that French crusaders direct their violence against the Muslim community because both ethnic and religious otherness are universal signs for the selection of victims (Girard, The Scapegoat 18). Girard notes that physical differences, particularly disability and deformity, also belong to this group of signs and that one of the characteristic distortions found in persecution texts is the confounding of many signs in a single victim. For example, [I]f a group of people is used to choosing its victims from a certain social, ethnic, or religious category, it tends to attribute to them disabilities or deformities that would reinforce the polarization against the victim, were they real (Girard, The Scapegoat 18). The Roland poet exemplifies this theory, characterizing the Muslim armies as not only morally corrupt, but also physically deformed. As a result, although the heroes of Roland do not fight actual monsters like those in Beowulf, the poet nevertheless portrays the Christians Muslim enemies as monstrous. To begin, he attributes inhuman or beast-like physical characteristics to many of the Muslim warriors. Of the Micenes as chefs gros (the large-headed Milceni, Roland 3221), for instance, he writes, Sur les eschines quil unt en mi les dos / Cil sunt seiet ensement cume porc (On their spines, along the middle of their backs, / They are as bristly as pigs, Roland 3222-3) and, of the people from Occian, he notes, Durs unt les 15 quirs ensement cume fer (Their skins are as hard as iron, Roland 3249). Certainly, the poet attributes these physical deformities to the Muslim army in order to reinforce the polarization against them (Girard, The Scapegoat 18). But these images of men with distinctly inhuman characteristics also recall the monstruosi populi of the Hereford World Map. While the Milceni and the people from Occian, like the monstruosi populi, probably represent real people who simply differed in physical appearance and social practices from the person describing them, the Roland poet, like the medieval cartographer, exaggerates these differences and interprets them as outward manifestations of inherent evil (Friedman 1). The Roland poet expresses the monstrosity of the Muslims not only in their physical descriptions, but also by symbolically associating them with beasts. Within the vocabulary of Charlemagnes prophetic dream imagery, beasts consistently signify the Frankish kings Muslim enemies: Aprs iceste altre avisiun sunjat: Quil ert en France, a sa capele, ad Ais; El destre braz li morst uns uers si mals. Devers Ardene vit venir uns leuparz, Sun cors demenie mult fierement asalt.
After this dream he had another vision: That he was in France in his chapel at Aix; In his right arm he is bitten by a vicious boar. From the direction of the Ardennes he saw a leopard coming; It attacks his body with great ferocity. (Roland 725-9)
This vision of Charlemagne attacked by a boar and a leopard foreshadows the impending Muslim assault on the Christian rearguard. In a subsequent dream predicting a second battle, Charlemagne sees the Muslims as a number of even more demonic animals, including [s]erpenz e guivres, dragun e averser (serpents, vipers, dragons and devils) 16 and [g]rifuns (griffins, Roland 2543, 2544). Some of these creatures, namely leopards, might be explained as typical signs of military ferocity in medieval heroic poetry. Similarly, medieval armies are often pictured carrying heraldic images of dragons and griffins. But boars, serpents, vipers, and, most dramatically, devils evoke not heroic prowess, but beastliness and monstrosity. And, in the second dream, the sheer variety of animals that the poet lists overwhelms the reader with a sense of the Muslims inhumanity, representing them not as an army of men but a catalogue of monstrous creatures. In turn, the symbolism of these dreams establishes more forcefully the inherent evil the poet wishes to attribute to the Muslims. According to these examples, the Roland poet portrays the Muslims precisely as Girard expects persecutors to treat their victims. The poet exaggerates the Muslims cultural difference to such an extent that he essentially makes the Muslims and Christians into different species. But Girard also explains that the persecutors urge to emphasize and even invent differences between the victimized and persecuting groups is, paradoxically, a symptom of their very real similarities: Religious, ethnic, or national minorities are never actually reproached for their difference, but for not being as different as expected, and in the end for not differing at all (The Scapegoat 22). As applied to Roland, this idea suggests that the Christians fear and therefore persecute the Muslims because their similarities as monotheistic warring peoples threatens the illusion that Christians alone practice the right religion and pray to the right God. The fact that the Muslims pray in similar ways and are equally assured that they direct those prayers to the right God therefore terrifies the Christians. Girard explains that the tendency of the persecutor to emphasize those differences that do exist, and often those that do not, 17 allows him to maintain the illusion of difference between himself and his victim, just as the Roland poet distorts his descriptions of the Muslims to make them not just wrong or evil, but literal monsters. But, of course, the Roland poet also reveals and even intensifies a lack of difference between the Christians and the Muslims in the mirror images of the heroes and the enemies he provides. On some occasions, in fact, the two armies are nearly indistinguishable from one another, as in the following passage, where their fighting style and wardress are identical: Mult ben i fierent Franceis e Arrabit; Fruissent cez hanste e cil espiez furbit. Ki dunc vest cez escuz si malmis, Cez blancs osbercs ki dunc ost fremir, E cez escuz sur cez helmes cruisir, Cez chevalers ki dunc vest car E humes braire, contre tere murir, De grant dulor li post suvenir.
The Franks and the Arabs strike fine blows; They smash their shafts and their furbished spears. Anyone who had seen the ruined shields, Heard the ring of metal on shining hauberks, And the grating of swords on helmets, And anyone who had seen these knights toppling, Men howling, as they fall dead upon the ground, Would have many sorrowful memories! (Roland 3481-8)
But the similarities between the warriors seem to extend beyond their weapons, armor, and accoutrements when the poet evaluates the fighting of the two armies with equal praise, asserting that both [t]he Franks and the Arabs strike fine blows and members of each army fall dead upon the ground. Certainly, the equally fatal combat of the two armies may simply confirm that the Muslims are worthy opponents for the Christian heroes. But the final line of this passage, that anyone who had seen...[w]ould have 18 many sorrowful memories, seems a surprising place to confound distinctions between the Christians and the Muslims. The reader expects the poet to encourage the hypothetical onlooker to sympathize only with the Christians, but this passage implies that all deaths at battle are equally mournful regardless of the victim. After many references to the Muslims bestial and monstrous qualities, the poet portrays the Muslims and the Christians as equally human and sympathetic when describing their respective casualties. The mirroring between the two armies is perhaps best illustrated in the parallel figures of Charlemagne and the Muslim emir, the grey-bearded leaders of the two armies: Li amiralz Preciuse ad criee, Carles Munjoie, lenseigne renumee. Lun conuist laltre as haltes voiz e cleres, En mi le camp amdui sentrencuntrerent. Si se vunt ferir, granz colps sentredunerent De lor espies en lor targes roees, Fraites les unt desuz cez bucles lees. De lor osbercs les pans en desevrerent, Dedenz cez cors mie ne sadeserent. Rumpent cez cengles e cez seles verserent, Cheent li rei, a tere se turnerent, Isnelement sur lor piez releverent. Mult vassalment unt traites les espees.
The emir cried out Preciuse And Charles Monjoie, his renowned battle-cry. They recognize each others loud, clear voices And both met in the middle of the field. They go to strike each other and dealt mighty blows With their spears on their wheel-patterned shields. They shattered them beneath their broad bosses And severed the skirts from their hauberks, Without touching each others bodies. They break their girths and turned over their saddles; The kings fall and tumbled to the ground. Immediately they rose to their feet; Very courageously they drew their swords. (Roland 3564-76)
19 The synchronized combat described in this passage reads as though the two kings are performing a well-choreographed dance. Charlemagne and the emir face one another, each handling his weapon so adeptly that they strike in unison until they simultaneously plummet from their horses, rise, and begin to fight again, this time on their feet. It is particularly interesting that the poet describes both kings as courageous rather than reserving this compliment for Charlemagne alone. Previously, the poet praises other qualities of the emir, calling him a mult par est riches hoem (very powerful man, Roland 3265) and a mult de grant saveir (man of great wisdom, Roland 3279), characteristics also ascribed to Charlemagne. Consequently, the Roland poet seems to remember...the prowess and greatness not only of Charlemagne (Brundage 18), but also of his Muslim opponent. In the above passages and others, the Roland poet portrays the Muslims and the Christians fighting or leading their armies with equal skill and often similar success even as he and his characters repeatedly assert that [p]aien unt tort e chrestens unt dreit ([t]he pagans are wrong and the Christians are right, Roland 1015). Such explicit mirroring between the two armies initially seems counterproductive to the poets goals. That is, one would think that actively minimizing the differences between the Christians and the Muslims only reinforces the very reality that frightens the Christiansthat they and their victims are not...as different as expected (Girard, The Scapegoat 22). And yet the Roland poets mirroring ultimately emphasizes the one difference that he preserves, which is also the difference in which the Christians have the most at stake. Mirroring between the Christians and the Muslims does not contradict the poets statement that [p]aien unt tort e chrestens unt dreit ([t]he pagans are wrong and the Christians are 20 right, Roland 1015), but rather reinforces it. After describing the equally deft combat of Charlemagne and the Muslim emir, for instance, the poet concludes, Ceste bataille ne poet remaneir unkes, / Josque li uns sun tort i reconuisset (This combat can never come to end, / Until one of the men admits his wrong, Roland 3587-8). Although the emir never backs down from the fight, he realizes [q]ue il ad tort e Carlemagnes dreit ([t]hat he is wrong and Charlemagne right, Roland 3553-4). Accordingly, even after the emir strikes Charlemagne, God sends Saint Gabriel to ensure that the emir, not Charlemagne falls slain. In turn, although both leaders and armies possess admirable strength, only the Christians have the true God on their side. The way in which mirroring between the Christians and the Muslims actually strengthens the Roland poets assertion that the Muslims are wrong or evil is most apparent in his misrepresentation of Islam as a false mirror image of Christianity. Throughout the poem, for instance, the Muslim warriors carry ensigns featuring images of Tervagant, Mohammed, and Apollo. Edward Said explains that, beginning with their earliest attempts to understand Islam, medieval Christians faced an analogical difficulty: [S]ince Christ is the basis of Christian faith, it was assumedquite incorrectlythat Mohammed was to Islam as Christ was to Christianity (60). But, as Comfort notes, in medieval French epics or chansons de geste, this inaccurate analogy becomes even more pronounced, in which texts Mahom was facile princeps, with Apolin and Tervagant next in importance and forming with him a sort of trinity (Comfort 640). But even as the Roland poet intends these three figures to mirror the Christian trinity, he uses them to prove the Muslims polytheists. That is, because this Islamic trinity is not the Christian trinity, Tervagant, Mohammed, and Apollo are not 21 three consubstantial persons, but idols. In addition, the poet depicts both the Christians and the Muslims praying for victory throughout their battles, albeit with differing success. When Charlemagne [c]ulchet sei a tere, si priet Damnedeu / Que li soleilz facet pur lui arester ([l]ies down on the ground and prays to God / That for him he should stop the sun in his tracks, Roland 2449-50), an angel immediately appears and grants this miracle. In the following laisse, however, when the poet portrays Muslims engaging in similar prayer, the outcome differs greatly: Paiens recleiment un lur deu, Tervagant...mais il ni unt guarant (The pagans call on one of their gods, Tervagant...but they have no one to save them, Roland 2468-9). Perhaps the most powerful example of this simultaneous mirroring and moral distinguishing occurs in parallel scenes during which the soul of a fallen Muslim en portet Sathanas (is carried off by Satan, Roland 1268) while [a]ngles del ciel i descendent ([a]ngels come down...from Heaven, Roland 2374) to collect the soul of a Christian. In these ways, the Roland poet makes literal the very difference that the Christians imagine to exist between themselves and the Muslims. While the armies pray, fight, and die in nearly identical ways, the Roland poet emphasizes that the Christians believe in the one true God and are consequently redeemed whereas the Muslims believe in a false God, or rather gods, and are therefore aligned with the devil. For a large part of the poem, the poets characterizations of the heroes and the enemies consistently function as described above. And yet the Roland poet endows two characters, Roland and Ganelon, with more complexity than the others. For vastly different reasons, both Roland and Ganelon are distinct from the rest of the Christian army. Although Roland is the definitive hero of the poem, he possesses certain qualities 22 that the poet also uses to portray the Muslims negatively. For instance, in a number of passages, the poet compares Roland to a beast. In Charlemagnes first prophetic dream during which a leopard and a boar represent the Muslim forces, another beast, clearly symbolizing Roland, appears: Denz de sale uns veltres avalat Que vint a Carles le galops e les salz. La destre oreille al premer uer trenchat, Ireement se cumbat al lepart.
From within the hall a hunting-dog came down, Bounding and leaping towards Charles. It tore off the right ear of the first boar; Angrily it wrestles with the leopard. (Roland 730-3)
Similarly, Rolands demeanor at war is described as [p]lus...fiers que leon ne leupart (fiercer than a lion or a leopard, Roland 1111) and the poet again likens him to a hunting-dog in the following simile: Si cum li cerfs sen vait devant les chiens, / Devant Rollant si sen fuient paiens (Just as a stag flees before the hounds, / So the pagans take flight before Roland, Roland 1874-5). As I noted earlier, when the Roland poet compares the Muslims to beasts he emphasizes their inhumanity. But when the poet depicts his hero in these primal, strikingly violent images of an animal attacking his prey, it only emphasizes Rolands merit as a warrior. In his discussion of the figure of the hero across the Indo-European tradition, Dean Miller addresses such contradictions in the character of epic heroes: [H]is liminal nature may appear in a high-flown, hubristic assault on heaven in the one direction, and his risky penetration of the Netherworld in the other, with all of the rich, ambiguous powers they represent or contain. The hero may stand (or deliquesce?) between genders and generations, or between the realms of life and death. (Miller 296)
23 While Miller does not list the position between man and beast/monster as one that the hero might occupy, except regarding his size of inhuman proportions in certain texts, Rolands position between warrior and beast seems to place him in a liminal space similar to those Miller discusses. Even though Roland may resemble his Muslim enemies, who are frequently figured as boars, dragons, and even devils, he only assumes greater strength when he is portrayed as a hunting-dog, lion, or leopard, or, to borrow Millers language, all of the rich, ambiguous powers [those images] represent or contain (Miller 296). As a result, Rolands bestial characteristics only strengthen the poets argument by suggesting that a Christian remains good and perhaps even becomes better when he acquires the very traits that align the Muslims with evil. But Roland possesses another quality associated with evil when observed in the Muslims. When it becomes clear that the Muslim army greatly outnumbers the rearguard of the Christians, Roland refuses to the blow his horn and call for Charlemagnes help, arguing en perdreie mun los (I should lose my good name, Roland 1054). Oliver suggests that Rolands refusal to blow the horn makes him a disloyal vassal: Kar vasselage par sens nen est folie; / Mielz valt mesure que ne fait estultie (For a true vassals act, in its wisdom, avoids folly; / Caution is better than great zeal, Roland 1724- 5). Olivers condemnation reveals a particular tension in the poems heroic morality, a tension that has generated extensive debate among scholars about this particular incident. 4 Since the great zeal Roland displays and the true vassal[age] Oliver
4 Brault briefly summarizes the predominant viewpoints in this debate: [Joseph] Bdier believed that Turoldus [the Roland poet] deliberately left unanswered the question of whether Roland or Oliver was right in the famous oliphant scene, but other scholars have argued either for or against Rolands desmesure, concluding more often than not that hero was morally wrong in his initial decision to make a stand at Roncevaux (1: 10). 24 recommends are both virtues in battle, it is difficult to determine whether or not Roland makes the right choice according to a heroic ethos. But the value system with which the poet seems more preoccupied, religious morality, even in this somewhat ambiguous image of the hero, remains clear. Regardless of how one wishes to interpret Rolands refusal, his statement en perdreie mun los (I should lose my good name) certainly displays pride. When the Muslims show pride, the poet condemns them quite explicitly: Devers vos est li orguilz e li torz (On your side is both pride and wrong, Roland 1549). These incidents seem to suggest that pride amounts to sin or evil if one is already a sinner for praying to the wrong God. Similarly, despite Olivers harsh accusation, Rolands pride and its consequences for the rearguard are ultimately labeled as a more trivial errorOliver uses the term follyrather than sin or evil because, as a Christian, Roland is inherently good. Thus, Rolands pride does not approach the evil of the Muslims, who sin simply in their rejection of Christianity and their faith in Islam. Although Oliver tells Roland, Cumpainz, vos le festes (Companion, you have been the cause of it, Roland 1723), the real cause of the Christians loss is Ganelon. Charlemagne recognizes Ganelon as the source of his rearguards defeat in another prophetic dream: Sunjat quil eret as greignurs porz de Sizer, Entre ses poinz teneit sa hanste fraisnine. Guenes li quens lad sur lui saisie, Par tel ar lat estrussee e brandie Quenvers le cel en volent les escicles.
He dreamed he was at the main pass of Cize; In his hands he was holding his lance of ash. Count Ganelon seized it from his grasp; He broke it and brandished it with such violence That the splinters flew up into the sky. (Roland 719-23)
25 Ganelon initially leads the unsuspecting rearguard into deadly battle in order to exact revenge on his stepson Roland, who earlier nominates him to serve as the envoy to Marsiles court. And yet, in this scheme, Ganelon also knowingly betrays his king and country. As Charlemagne himself exclaims when he interprets his dream, Par Guenelun serat destruite France! (France will be destroyed by Ganelon, Roland 835). The Roland poet acknowledges the great evil of such a betrayal. He frequently labels Ganelon li fels (the traitor) and, at one point, Charlemagne refers to him as the vifs diables (living devil, Roland 746). Still, the Roland poet does not condemn Ganelon to the extent that he condemns the Muslims, beginning with the fact that Ganelon is never portrayed as definitively monstrous. In Charlemagnes dreams, for instance, Ganelon appears as himself, a human, while the Muslims and even Roland are portrayed as beasts. In addition, Charlemagne grants Ganelon a trial to determine his punishment, implying that his absolution is possible. In fact, had Charlemagnes knight Thierry not defeated Ganelons proxy Pinabel in the tournament, the traitor would presumably have been released without any punishment for his treason. The Muslims, however, receive no trial to determine the punishment for their sins: their evil is indisputable because of their heretical faith. Each Muslim warrior must submit to baptism or [i]l le fait prendre o ardeir ou ocire ([h]e [Charlemagne] has him hanged or burned or put to death, Roland 3670). Girard asserts that the authors of persecution texts consider themselves judges, and therefore they must have guilty victims (The Scapegoat 6). Certainly, the Roland poet possesses a strong judgmental voice, continually asserting [p]aien unt tort e chrestens unt dreit ([t]he pagans are wrong and the Christians are right, Roland 1015) 26 and variations on this phrase. He justifies these words and the guilt of the Muslims with images of divine judgment, sending the souls of fallen Christians to Heaven and those of the Muslims to Hell. The criteria on which the poet bases his judgments then are exceedingly clear: Christians are inherently good, while Muslims are inherently evil. The poet manipulates the content of his poem in order to support this binary morality, most notably transforming a historical defeat by Basques into a victory against Muslims and then proceeding to turn the Muslims into monsters. But, as I have demonstrated, the Roland poet also supplies ample evidence to undermine this binary morality. He portrays the deeds of the Muslim and the Christian armies as equivalently violent and reveals Ganelons treachery, not the evil of the Muslims, to be the most destructive force in the poem. Even though the poet attempts to justify these discrepancies, the reader can still demystify his text. Girard is instrumental in this demystification, whose theory leads the reader to see that the Roland poet makes the Muslims a monstrous mirror image of the Christians because he fears the many similarities that actually exist between the two groups. Outside of literature, of course, devils and angels do not carry away the souls of the dead and God does not always answer Christian prayers. Frightened by the lack of assurance that, indeed, chrestens unt dreit (the Christians are right, Roland 1015), the poet seeks to justify this statement on his own in the Song of Roland.
III. Beowulf
S!" bi" swicolost. Truth is most deceptive.
The Cotton Gnomes ________________________________________________________________________
Although the Beowulf poet devotes the majority of his three thousand lines to telling the story of a hero and three monstrous opponents, the poem opens with an account of conflict among men: Oft Scyld Sc#fing scea$ena $r#atum, / monegum m%g$um meodosetla oft#ah, / egsode eorlas (Often Scyld Scefing withheld hall-seats from troops of enemies, many peoples, and terrified warriors, Beowulf 4-6). Even beyond this initial image, the poet refers throughout Beowulf to ongoing feuds among many peoples or clans, including the Danes, Geats, Swedes, Finns, and Frisians. Through these frequent references, the poet makes palpable an extreme loss of social order in the Anglo-Saxon society he describes, a quality that, according to Girard, is a precondition for the scapegoat mechanism (Girard, The Scapegoat 14). Girard suggests that societies facing such disorder often use scapegoats to displace their resulting anxiety: [R]ather than blame themselves, people inevitably blame...other people who seem particularly harmful for easily identifiable reasons (The Scapegoat 14). These easily identifiable reasons refer to overt differences between the persecuting community and 28 the scapegoat community, whether those differences are ideologicalfor example, the religious opposition between Christians and Muslims in the Song of Rolandor superficial. Grendel, his mother, and the dragon, opponents in the three main battles of Beowulf, seem particularly harmful because they differ from the poems human heroes both in appearance and as inhabitants of the unknown. The scapegoat mechanism then helps to explain why Beowulf seems most preoccupied with battles against monsters, even though the poet hints that feuds among men, beginning long before Grendel arrives at Heorot and continuing long after Beowulf defeats the dragon, pose a more sustained threat to the poems heroes. In the preceding chapter, I characterize the Roland poet as a judge, albeit a poor one, an observation based on Girards claim that persecutors consider themselves judges (The Scapegoat 6). And, indeed, throughout his poem, the Roland poet makes statements leading to the assertion that [p]aien unt tort e chrestens unt dreit ([t]he pagans are wrong and the Christians are right, Roland 1015). But even more frequently and distinctly than the Roland poet, the speaker of Beowulf shifts from his primary mode of narration to one of judgment. At times the poet himself issues moral evaluations, while at other times characters within the poem participate in the judging. One judgment in particular rings out more often than others: !t ws g"d cyning (That was a good king, Beowulf 11). This half-line appears three times in the poem, first in its opening passage where it is attributed to Scyld Scefing, later in reference to Hrothgar (Beowulf 863), and a final ambiguous instance, which praises either Beowulf or Onela (Beowulf 2390). Several other lines in Beowulf resemble this far-echoing half-line, such as ws s#o $#od tilu (that was a good people, Beowulf 1250), which is ascribed to Hrothgars 29 retainers. But there are still other passages that, while prescriptive rather than evaluative, similarly grapple with concepts of good and evil. In fact, the majority of the poems moralizing moments occur in passages like the following, from the opening lines of the poem: Sw! sceal geong guma g"de gewyrcean, fromum feohgiftum on fder bearme, #t hine on ylde eft gewunigen wilges$#as, #onne w$g cume, l%ode gel!sten; lofd!dum sceal in m!g#a gehw!re man ge#eon.
So must a young man carry out goodness, bold treasure dispensing, in his fathers keeping, so that close companions stand by him afterwards in his old age and, when war comes, men serve him; one must prosper by glorious deeds in all nations. (Beowulf 20-25)
In this passage, parallel constructions using sceal not only signal a transition from the surrounding narrative sentences, but also associate these lines with the Anglo-Saxon poetic tradition of gnomic wisdom proclamations. 1 Greenfield and Calder, in A New Critical History of Old English Literature, suggest that gnomes or maxims of this sort offered up moral guides for large socio-religious areas of human endeavor (259). Whether judgmental or gnomic, the above passages and those similar to them reveal a persistent preoccupation with evaluations and definitions of morality on the part of the Beowulf poet. Interest in establishing a particular morality or ethos and, in turn, making judgments according to that value system, is a prominent feature of most Anglo-Saxon
1 Gnomic language occurs throughout the surviving body of Anglo-Saxon poetry, found both embedded in larger narrative poems as Beowulf and throughout two poems consisting entirely of these gnomic phrases known as the Exeter Gnomes and the Cotton Gnomes. 30 heroic poetry. In fact, Greenfield and Calder claim that most important for Old English secular poems were the spirit and code of conduct they embodied... This heroic spirit manifested itself most strongly in the desire for fame and glory, now and after death. The code of conduct stressed the reciprocal obligations of lord and thegns: protection and generosity on the part of the former, loyalty and service on that of the latter. (134)
Certainly, the Beowulf poet gestures at precisely these values in his moralizing passages. In fact, in just the six-line maxim excerpted above, the Beowulf poet accounts for both the reciprocal obligations of lord and thegns and the desire for fame and glory. To begin, the poet avers that a lord must reward his vassals with treasure and, in return, receive their service, particularly at battle. Then, in the final lines of this same passage, he asserts the importance of widespread glory in the heroic society of the poem: lofd!dum sceal / in m!g"a gehw!re man ge"eon (one must prosper by glorious deeds in all nations, Beowulf 24-5). Those passages in Beowulf that overtly deliver moral precepts stand out against the poems predominant narrative. Many of these judgments and maxims are also imbedded in the poems narrative digressions. 2 For instance, the first iteration of the phrase "t ws g#d cyning as well as the first maxim I quoted above refer to legendary kings in the line from which Hrothgar descends, the former to Scyld Scefing and the latter to his son Beow. Similar moralizing passages occur later in the poem among tales of characters only tangentially related to the main narrative, such as the evil king
2 Some scholars differentiate between Beowulfs true digressions and other episodes removed from the main plot of the poem. Above, by digressions, I mean any narration describing events that occur outside the primary narrative. Robert Bjorks Digressions and Episodes in Bjork and Niles provides a comprehensive summary of the interesting critical history surrounding these moments in the poem (193-212). 31 Heremod or the kin-slayer Hthcyn. As a result of their distance from the main episodes, these judgments and maxims form somewhat of a superstructure for the poem. Thus girded in definitions and evaluations of heroic morality, Beowulf invites, if not compels, the reader to consider the ways in which the events of the primary narrative match the overarching heroic code of the maxims and to judge the morality of the characters dominating the plot. The reader already knows what events underlie this superstructure of moral definitions and evaluations: three battles against three monsters. As I suggested earlier, these inhuman enemies seem to serve as scapegoats for a society in which feuding among men presents the more destructive threat. Girard suggests and, indeed, the reader sees in Roland that such societies tend to endow scapegoats with characteristics that reinforce the polarization against the victim (The Scapegoat 18). Accordingly, the reader expects the monsters of Beowulf to appear supremely other and evil, particularly in contrast with the human heroes. When the reader initially encounters Grendel and his mother, who together make up the monstrous family that Beowulf opposes in the first two battles of the poem, the poet seems to offer precisely this characterization. At times, the Beowulf poet quite explicitly labels Grendel and his mother evil. For instance, he uses m!n, the Old English word for evil, in the compound m!nsca"a or evil-destroyer twice to describe Grendel as he approaches Heorot on the night of his battle against Beowulf (Beowulf 712, 737) and once to refer to his mother when she follows this same path towards revenge (Beowulf 1339). Even more frequently, the poet applies the semantically similar word atol or terrible to this monstrous family, labeling Grendel atol !ngengea (terrible 32 solitary one, Beowulf 165) and atol !gl"ca (terrible monster, Beowulf 732) and his mother atol...fylle (terrible in feast, Beowulf 1332-3). In addition, the poet associates Grendel and his mother with a particularly inauspicious progeny: f#felcynnes eard / wons"l# wer weardode hw#le, / si$%an him scyppen forscrifen hfde / in C!ines cynne (the unfortunate one occupied the region of the race of monsters for a long time, since the creator had condemned him as Cains kin, Beowulf 104-7). Beowulf himself, after telling the story of Hthcyns fratricide, deems kin slaying feohl&as, which literally means without money, but implies that the sin is inexpiable or unforgiveable (Beowulf 2441). As a result, the poem suggests that, through their descent from the original kin- slayer, Cain, Grendel and his mother have somehow inherited his paradigmatic evil. Their evil also manifests itself in their geographical segregation from the humans, another consequence of their relationship to Cain: ne gefeah h! "!re f!h#e, ac h! hine feor forwrc, metod for "" m$ne, mancynne fram. "anon unt"dras ealle onw%con, eotenas ond ylfe ond orcneas, swylce g&gantas
He [Cain] did not rejoice for that hostile act, and the Lord exiled him far from mankind for this crime. From him arose all evil offspring, enemy creatures and elves and monsters and also giants. (Beowulf 109-113)
This landscape, featuring various monsters exiled mancynne fram (from mankind), recalls the geography of medieval mappaemundi, in which monsters are exiled to the periphery. In this portrayal of f#felcynnes eard (the region of the race of monsters), the Beowulf poet seems to be presenting a similar diametric world in which constant battle rages between Men and Monsters (Mittman 45). 33 Beyond their shared marks of evil, Grendel and his mother each possess individually incriminating characteristics. Grendels damning qualities are largely the ways in which he commits his violent acts. Shortly after Hrothgar erects Heorot, that healrna m!st (greatest of hall-buildings, Beowulf 78), Grendel ravages it daily for twelve years, slaughtering countless Danes. Of course, nearly every character in Beowulf, including Hrothgar, Hygelac, Beowulf, and their retainers, take part in highly destructive acts of violence. Yet, unlike Grendels murderous visits to Heorot, the violence that Hrothgar, Hygelac, and Beowulf either commission or commit are acts of vengeance and therefore excused, even promoted, by the heroic code. And, of course, the aspect of Grendels attacks that most disturbs readers is the way in which he does not simply kill his human victims, but devours them. Upon entering Heorot, Grendel fantasizes about the feast he will make of the men: !" his m#d "hl#g; mynte !t h$ ged!lde, !r !on dg cw#me, atol "gl!ca, "nra gehwylces l%f wi& l%ce, !" him "lumpen ws wistfylle w$n.
Then his heart exulted; he thought that he would dispense life from the body of each one, before day came, the terrible monster, then the expectation of a plentiful meal was arisen to him. (Beowulf 730-36)
This description of Grendels greedy feasting on the Danes, who are later described as eal gefeormod (all eaten up, Beowulf 743), seems only to intensify his portrayal as an evil monster. But even among these images of unbounded violence, the poet often portrays Grendel as strikingly human and, in turn, sympathetic. Grendel, when he is not killing, wanders alone: on weres wstmum wrcl"stas trd, / nfne h# ws m"ra $onne !nig 34 man !"er ([he] walked upon the tracks of exile in the form of a man, except that he was larger than any other man Beowulf 1352-3). Exile, even as an abstract concept, seems primarily a human condition and one that is continually mourned by men in Beowulf and throughout Anglo-Saxon poetry generally. 3 The poet makes explicit the human quality of exile when he portrays a solitary Grendel walking on weres wstmum (in the form of a man). In addition, after describing the construction of Heorot and the merriment that fills it subsequently, the poet causes the reader to sympathize with Grendel by narrating the monsters experience from outside Heorots walls: !" se elleng!st earfo#l$ce %r"ge ge%olode, s& %e in %"strum b"d, %t h& d'gora gehw"m dr&am geh"rde hl(dne in healle;
Then the bold demon painfully endured this time, he who waited in darkness, so that each day he heard delight, loud in the hall. (Beowulf 86-9)
This passage leaves Grendel and the reader alike unable to visualize the activity inside, but cognizant of it through sounds of merriment. Through this imagery, the reader is invited to share Grendels misery as an outcast, a condition made particularly pitiable considering a distant ancestor of both monsters and humans was the agent of the original, damning crime. Instead of creating an absolute contrast between Grendel and his hero, the poet uses mirroring between the two characters to further emphasize the way in which Grendels exile lessens his monstrosity. Even as a hero, Beowulf exhibits some of the
3 In particular, the section of Beowulf known as the Lay of the Last Survivor (lines 2247-2266) as well as The Wanderer and The Seafarer, two shorter Anglo-Saxon poems, lament being a man #"le bid$led (deprived of a homeland, The Wanderer 20). This citation from The Wanderer is taken from Mitchell and Robinson and the translation is my own. 35 same distance from the Danes and Geats as Grendel does from humankind. For instance, the poet presents both Beowulf and Grendel as figures of unmatched enormity, describing their freakish size in nearly identical phrases: N!fre ic m!ran geseah eorla ofer eor"an #onne is $ower sum,
Never have I seen a larger nobleman than the one among you. (Beowulf 247-8)
nfne h$ ws m!ra "onne !nig man %#er;
[E]xcept that he was larger than any other man. (Beowulf 1353) Similarly, Beowulf and Grendel stand out from all other warriors on the night of their battle because of their incredible strength. In particular, the poet remarks both that Heorots [d]uru s!na onarn / f"rbendum fst (door, firm with fire-forged bonds, immediately gave way) under the strength of Grendels handgrip and that Grendel ne m#tte...on elran men / mundgripe m$ran (never met in another man a greater handgrip) than Beowulfs (Beowulf 721-2, 751-3). In addition, Beowulf resembles Grendel walking along wrcl$stas (the tracks of exile) when, later in the poem, having lost most of his retainers, the hero returns from war against the Frisians an earm $nhaga or a wretched, solitary being (Beowulf 1352, 2368). Of course, Beowulfs condition as outcast is a consequence of his superior strength and bravery, which are consistent with goodness, especially according to heroic morality. Grendel, on the other hand, is exiled as a result of his monstrous appearance and an inherited affiliation with evil. Nevertheless, through this mirroring the poet seems to be making a deliberate connection between the hero, who should stand for goodness, and the monster, who should stand for evil, and therefore begins to confound expected binary moral distinctions. 36 The poet also narrates from Grendels perspective as the monster enters Heorot. At this point, the poet includes the following intensely sympathetic passage, which I cited earlier in my introduction: Fand !" #!r inne !elinga gedriht swefan fter symble; sorge ne c$#on, wonsceaft wera.
Then inside he found the company of noblemen sleeping after a feast; they did not know sorrow, the misery of men. (Beowulf 118-120) The situation of this quotation immediately before the violent events that follow, namely Grendels slaughter of countless Danes, provides the reader with an increased understanding of his actions. Grendels violence might be interpreted as retribution, an attempt to inflict misery on the men who, unlike himself, sorge ne c!"on or did not know sorrow. The poet reminds the reader of this image of Grendel as joyless on the night he encounters Beowulf. He describes the monster, making his ritual approach to Heorot, as dr#amum bed$led (deprived of joys, Beowulf 721) and, at the end of the battle, notes that Grendel retreats, fatally injured, to his wynl#as w%c (joyless den, Beowulf 821). Even while Grendel is made surprisingly sympathetic in his battle against Beowulf, the hero is made to look quite monstrous. Choosing to fight, like his monstrous opponent, without a weapon, Beowulf gruesomely tears off Grendels arm with his hands: seonowe onsprungon, / burston b&nlocan (the sinews sprang open, the joints burst, Beowulf 817-8). He then revels in his butchery, hanging Grendels severed arm from the roof of Heorot as a t&cen sweotol (clear sign) of what the hero undoubtedly considers a triumph (Beowulf 833). But Grendles gr&pe (Grendels grasp) suspended 37 from the ceiling instead seems an emblem of something quite disturbingnamely, the destructive power of one monstrous handgrip over another (Beowulf 836). Thus, the poems first battle between man and monster already leaves the reader with an impression that the hero is somewhat monstrous, while the m!nsca"a (evil-destroyer) is somewhat human and sympathetic. Andy Orchard notes that Grendels label m!nsca"a itself points to his ambiguous position between man and monster: Twice he is described as se manscea"a (lines 712 and 737), in contexts which suggest that the poet may be playing on the two senses of the homographs man (crime, wickedness) and man (man)... Grendel is certainly the wicked destroyer, but he is also both the destroyer of men, and the man-shaped destroyer. (31)
Indeed, this pun is emblematic of the way in which the poet seems generally to play with notions of monstrousness and humanity in Beowulfs battle against Grendel. Superficially, Grendels mother seems even darker and more inhuman than her son. She first appears in the poem on a mission to avenge Grendels death. Although a mothers wish to avenge her son may inspire sympathy in a modern reader, such an activity would be entirely inappropriate for a woman and, therefore, horrific in the Anglo-Saxon society of the poem. Although Hrothgars wife Wealhtheow and Hygelacs wife Hildeburh also suffer the loss of kin and countrymen, they remainin contrast to Grendels motherhospitable and gracious throughout the poem, never participating in violence. Indeed, Paul Acker suggests that, even though Grendel and his mother commit similar crimes, Grendels mothers violent intention alone makes her more monstrous as a woman than her son: That a female creature and more particularly a maternal one takes this revenge may have highlighted its monstrousness. Unlike Hildeburh and Wealhtheow, Grendels mother acts aggressively, arguably in a fashion 38 reserved for men. The similarity of her actions to that of her son, the fact that she is following in her sons (bloody) footsteps, is emphasized. (705)
The poet also emphasizes Grendels mothers monstrousness in a number of ways more obvious to the modern reader. For instance, when Beowulf arrives at her underwater residence to avenge the death of Hrothgars adviser schere, his visit is reminiscent of a katabasis in which Grendels mother functions as the ruler of an underworld. The water, dr!orig ond gedr!fed (blood-stained and stirred up, Beowulf 1417), is full of s"dracan (sea-dragons) and nicras (water-monsters, Beowulf 1426, 1427) that attack the hero as he descends. In addition, Beowulfs fight against Grendels mother proves far more challenging than his battle against her son. While the hero defeats Grendel handily without arms, Grendels mother nearly kills Beowulf even though he is equipped with helmet, mail-shirt, and a sword that n"fre...t hilde ne sw#c / manna "ngum (never failed any man at battle, Beowulf 1460-1). But this sword does fail Beowulf against Grendels mother and, falling victim to many of her blows, it is Beowulfs mail-shirt that gebearh f!ore (saved his life, Beowulf 1548). In fact, it is likely that Beowulf would not have killed Grendels mother without the magic sword he finds in her hall, the blade of which gemealt (melted) and forbarn (burned-up, Beowulf 1615, 1616) once immersed in her blood. And yet, in many ways, Grendels mothers actions seem to mirror precisely those of the poems good rulers. Throughout the poem, men frequently avenge kin and protect halls. Beowulf himself avenges numerous deaths, including those of his lords Hygelac and Heardred and of the men from Hrothgars company slaughtered by Grendel and his mother. Similarly, Grendels mothers attempt to defend her home, which the poet describes as a hr$fsele (roofed-hall, Beowulf 1515), is not unlike Hrothgars attempts to 39 defend Heorot. Certainly, avenging kin and countrymen and defending ones hall are the very deeds sanctioned in the poems maxims as heroic virtues. But these actions, of course, are only sanctioned for men. As a result, although Grendels mothers behavior mirrors that of the archetypal g!d cyning, her image is undoubtedly a dark reflection of Hrothgar, Beowulf, Scyld, or Beow. This darkness is also manifested in the monstrosity and mysteries of her hall. The perversity of Grendels mothers heroic actions might be explained as her own willful corruption of the heroic code in order to commit evils or, in a more complicated way, as a mirror that reveals the darkness inherent in that heroic code. As Acker contends, Grendels mothers horrors reside in (or are attributed to) her maternal nature, but through her is projected an anxiety over the failure of vengeance as a system of justice (703). These first two battles demonstrate that Grendel and his mother, while labeled monstrous, are not so different from their apparently good human opponents. In the case of Grendels mother, this mirroring reveals the inherent violence, or perhaps even the monstrosity, of the heroic code itself. Upon review, some of this monstrousness may be apparent even in the poems earliest images of the heroic code. Recall that the verdict "t ws g!d cyning sums up the following description of Scylds deeds: Oft Scyld Sc#fing scea"ena "r#atum, / monegum m$g"um meodosetla oft#ah, / egsode eorlas (Often Scyld Scefing withheld hall-seats from troops of enemies, many peoples, and terrified warriors, Beowulf 4-6). Although this account of Scyld denying his enemies benevolence and terrifying armies prove him supremely capable of protecting his kingdom, he commits violence in service of vengeance just like Grendel and his mother. These initial lines about Scyld Scefing gesture to the larger pattern of feuding among men 40 in the heroic society of the poem, which is also promoted by the notions of vengeance and protection embedded in the heroic code. The Beowulf poet thus hints at the problem of an ethos that sanctions such violence and destruction even in the opening passage of his poem, a point he develops in Beowulfs first two battles and makes explicit in the heros final fight against the dragon. Fifty years after he defeats Grendel and his mother, Beowulf faces his third monstrous opponent under quite different circumstances. Now king of the Geats, Beowulf is in essentially the same position as Hrothgar fifty years earlier. As an aged ruler, he must still protect his kingdom against a dragon, which, incensed by the theft of his treasure, wreaks widespread slaughter and destruction. As I assert in my introduction, the dragon is physically the most monstrous and other of Beowulfs three enemies. In addition to having a body that is byrnende and gebogen (burning [and] coiled, Beowulf 2569), he is f!ftiges f"tgemearces / lang (fifty foot-lengths long, Beowulf 3042-3) and older than #r$ohund wintra (three-hundred years, Beowulf 2278), the length of time he has been guarding his hoard. The dragon also nihtes fl$oge% (flies through the night, Beowulf 2273) and breathes wlf&re (deadly fire, Beowulf 2582). In Beowulfs third battle, the dragon does not elicit any of the sympathy that Grendel does nor does he demonstrate the same familial loyalty as Grendels mother. He seems entirely non-human. And yet, the dragon still participates in something of a heroic code based on vengeance. He resides in a hall filled with riches, which he protects, thoroughly avenging any injury to his realm. Described so abstractly, this image is not far from that of Hrothgar at the beginning of the poem, who presides over sincf'ge (treasure-adorned) Heorot and desperately tries to protect the hall from Grendels 41 attacks (Beowulf 167). But the dragons existence is a solitary one, divorced from the kinship and vassalage of the human heroic code and dependent on hoarding rather than distribution of treasure. Hrothgar himself warns against such treasure hoarding and obsession with worldly life and possessions. He tells the story of the evil king Heremod, who, like Beowulf, was outstanding in heroic gfits: hine mihtig God mgenes wynnum, / eafe!um st"pte ofer ealle men (mighty God raised him in the joys of strength and in power over all men, Beowulf 1716-17). But Heremod used these gifts for evil and gew"ox...t# wlfealle / ond t# d"a$cwalum Deniga l"odum (brought about slaughter and deaths to the Danish people, Beowulf 1711), br"at...b"odgen"atas (killed table- companions, Beowulf 1713), and nallas b"agas geaf / Denum fter d#me (never gave rings to Danes in pursuit of glory, Beowulf 1719-20). Ultimately, Heremod, a ruler gone astray, and the dragon, the most monstrous and inhuman creature in the entire poem, look quite a bit alike. Hrothgar directs his sermon about Heremod to Beowulf before the hero returns to Hygelacs kingdom, commanding him, %& !" l'r be !on, / gumcyste ongit (Teach yourself by this, understand manly virtue, Beowulf 1722-3). He even prophecies that Beowulf, unlike Heremod, scealt t# fr#fre weor!an / eal langtw(dig l"odum !(num (shall become a very lasting help to [his] people, Beowulf 1707-8). But the circumstances Beowulf faces in the final episode of the poem and the consequences of his actions demonstrate that the path to becoming a g#d cyning instead of another Heremod is not as clear as Hrothgars sermon and the maxims throughout the poem imply. The heroic code privileges a rulers needs to acquire fame and protect his kingdom. Beowulf attempts to do both these things when he determines to fight the dragon and, in many ways, this 42 choice seems to emphasize Beowulfs heroic virtue. He even insists on facing the dragon alone, remarking to his retainers: Nis !t "ower s#$, n" gemet mannes nefne m#n %nes, !t h" wi$ %gl!cean eofo"o d!le, eorlscype efne.
It is not your undertaking, nor is it fitting for any man except me alone, to deal out strength, even heroism, against the monster. (Beowulf 2532-5)
But despite this great show of bravery, Beowulf still cannot adequately protect his kingdom. Beowulf eventually defeats the dragonof course, not without the help of his retainer Wiglaf but he loses his life in the process. Thus, Beowulf leaves his kingdom virtually leaderless and vulnerable to the even more destructive attacks of the Swedes and Frisians. As a result, in attempting to uphold the heroic code, seeking both to protect his people and achieve glory, Beowulf falls short of absolute goodness. The poet expresses the moral ambiguity of the heros final actions in the last lines of the poem: Sw% begnornodon G"ata l"ode hl%fordes hryre, heor$gen"atas, cw!don !t h" w!re wyruldcyninga manna mildust ond mon$w!rust, l"odum l#$ost ond lofgeornost.
Thus the Geatish people lamented the death of their lord, his hearth-companions, they said that he was of earthly kings the mildest of men and kindest, most gracious to his people and most eager for fame. (Beowulf 3178-82)
This long list of superlative virtues seems to characterize Beowulf as entirely good, the perfect herothat is, until lofgeornost. Much scholarly debate surrounds this final word 43 of the poem and how it should be read. Some readers wish to attribute a favorable sense to lofgeornost in this instance. But, as E.G. Stanley notes, no such example survives in the Anglo-Saxon corpus even though [i]n an unfavorable sense the word occurs often (148). Thus, this final superlative must be read as a somewhat jarring final comment on Beowulfs character.
But rather than suggest that the fault of being most eager for fame belongs to the hero himself, I would like to argue that this is a quality the heroic code promotes, although, as Beowulfs final battle demonstrates, it does so at a cost. Although Beowulfs actions here do not approach the deliberate slaughter and greed seen in Heremod and the dragon, the poems hero and his kingdom are brought to their tragic ends by the same inclination toward earthly glory, an inclination that Anglo-Saxon heroic morality urges. Certainly, the humans of Beowulf use monsters as a scapegoat on which they displace their anxiety over an extreme loss of social order as a result of the continual feuding among human clans. But the Beowulf poet, rather than disguising or attempting to disguise this maneuver in the way the Roland poet does, exposes it and reveals its injustice. The poet continually reminds the reader that the human obsession with fighting monsters is simply a displacement of their fear of the more destructive and sustained problem of feuding among men. The clearest reminder by far comes after Beowulfs final battle. Even though the hero eliminates the last monster of the poem, the kingdom will yet be destroyed, as a messenger prophecies after Beowulfs death, not by a monster, but by men: !t ys s"o f!h#o ond se f$ondscipe, wln"# wera, #s #e ic w$n hafo, !$ %s s$cea# t& Sw$ona l$oda, 44 sy!!an h"e gefricgea! fr#an $serne ealdorl#asne
That is the feud and the enmity, the deadly-hate of men, of which I have an expectation, that the men of Sweden seek us out after they hear our lord is lifeless. (Beowulf 2999-3003)
At the beginning of this chapter, I suggest that the Beowulf poet, girding his poem in moral prescriptions and evaluations, invites the reader to consider the way in which the heroic code interacts with the poems main plot and to judge the morality of the main characters. As it turns out, the poet may have wanted the reader to judge or to consider the morality of the heroic value system itself. Even as the Beowulf poet defines and promotes heroic morality in the superstructure of the poem, he undercuts that superstructure with ambiguities in the morality of the main characters, presenting the supposedly evil monsters as human and the supposedly good humans as monstrous. But, rather than push against these ambiguities or attempt to hide them as the Roland poet does, the Beowulf poet emphasizes them or, at least, allows them to exist in full exposure. In the Cotton Gnomes, a poem composed entirely of maxims similar to those interspersed throughout Beowulf, an anonymous Anglo-Saxon poet wisely instructs the reader, amid a series of truths about nature and society[w]inter by! cealdost (winter is coldest), [w]ind by! on lyfte swiftust (wind is swiftest in the sky), and even [c]yning sceal r"ce healdan (a king must maintain his kingdom, Cotton Gnomes 5, 3, 1)that [s]#! bi! swicolost ([t]ruth is most deceptive, Cotton Gnomes 10). 4 As a result, Greenfield and Evert rightly describe the Cotton Gnomes as a poem on the limitations of knowledge
4 All citations from the Cotton Gnomes are taken from Mitchell and Robinson. The translations are my own unless otherwise noted.
45 (354). The Beowulf poet seems to be doing somewhat of the same thing in his own poem. He spends numerous lines defining a heroic code and making judgments based on it, only to prove that system of morality ultimately insufficient and destructive.
IV. Conclusion Laden with statements such as [p]aien unt tort e chrestens unt dreit (the pagans are wrong and the Christians are right, Roland 1015) and [!]t ws g"d cyning (that was a good king, Beowulf 11), the Song of Roland and Beowulf are poems largely about the morality of their characters. The poets of both texts grapple with prescriptive value systems and, as a result, the limited but absolute definitions of good and evil these systems offer. But the poets ultimately respond to such limitations in strikingly different ways, as I have shown. While the Roland poet strives to justify a simplistic binary opposition between good Christians and evil Muslims, the Beowulf poet emphasizes the insufficiencies of a value system that provides for a similar moral distinction between men and monsters. The Roland poet relentlessly asserts that his French Christian heroes are good and their Muslim enemies evil even though evidence found throughout the poem proves this binary claim weak. The poet often portrays the Muslims as a mirror image of the Christians, revealing the two armies to be equally violent and skilled at war. Similarly, the poet depicts the Christians and the Muslims praying with equal faith and in largely the same ways. Finally, Ganelon, a Christian, proves himself more evil than any Muslim character when he deliberately leads Charlemagnes forces, including his own stepson Roland, into slaughter and death. But the Roland poet works to conceal or at least to 47 rationalize these discrepancies between his moral judgments and the events of the poem. Even while providing mirror images of the Christians and the Muslims, the poet maintains a crucial distinction between these groups, namely that the Christians pray to the one true God and the Muslims worship idols. He then justifies his judgment by creating events in the poem to explicitly confirm it. Thus, angels retrieve the souls of fallen Christians and respond to Charlemagnes prayers, while devils collect the Muslim warriors whose prayers are left unanswered. In turn, although the poet acknowledges ways in which the two armies are similar, he uses these similarities to highlight the single glaring difference in which he and his Christian society have the most at stake. He quite literally shows the reader that chrestens unt dreit (the Christians are right, Roland 1015) and will therefore be redeemed. Beowulf also revolves around a moral system of binary oppositions. Both the poet and his characters issue a variety of judgments and moral prescriptions, which appear to form a rigid heroic code. This code calls for a king to defend his people and reward his vassals and mandates that the deaths of kin and countrymen be avenged. And yet the poet constantly undercuts this value system in the main episodes of the poem. Significant mirroring between the heroes and the enemies at times causes the reader to sympathize with the monsters when the heroic code condemns them, or to shudder at the violence of the humans when that code reinforces their behavior. Rather than attempt to justify the prescriptive morality of the heroic code in spite of these disruptions, the Beowulf poet allows this mirroring to reveal its limitations. Although the poets possess vastly different relationships to the societies they describeone promoting, the other undercutting his value systemthe condition of both 48 societies is quite similar. Each poet, before relating a tale of extensive fighting, refers to a history of violence that precedes the events of his own narrative. The Roland poet begins his poem by contextualizing it within Charlemagnes larger military campaigns Carles li reis, nostre emperere magnes, / Set anz tuz pleins ad estet en Espaigne (Charles the king, our great emperor, / Has been in Spain for seven long years, Roland 1-2)and the Beowulf poet by summarizing the battles of his heroes ancestorsOft Scyld Sc!fing scea"ena "r!atum, / monegum m#g"um meodosetla oft!ah, / egsode eorlas (Often Scyld Scefing withheld hall-seats from troops of enemies, many peoples, and terrified warriors, Beowulf 4-6). The beginnings of both poems thus demonstrate that the heroes have long been involved in cycles of violence, for years in Roland and for generations in Beowulf. Applying Girards theory to these texts helps the reader to understand that, amid this ongoing violence, the heroes of both poems displace their resulting anxiety about justice and morality on scapegoats, Muslims and monsters, respectively. Still, both poems reveal that members of the non-monstrous group, namely treacherous Ganelon in Roland and the feuding tribes in Beowulf, carry out the greatest evils and cause the most destruction. The two poets handle this reality very differently. The Roland poet condemns Ganelon far less severely than the Muslims, expressing little dismay over his near escape from punishment. The Beowulf poet, on the other hand, constantly reminds the reader of the great evils that men can inflict on one another even though the poems main battles are fought against monsters. According to Girard, in an attempt to prove the guilt of a scapegoat community, the persecuting society often generates the kinds of moral judgments we see in both poems. Thus, the Roland poet, in attempting to justify a 49 binary moral distinction between the Christians and the Muslims, seems to share the scapegoat mentality of his heroes, while the Beowulf poet, in revealing the inadequacy of such moral evaluations, undermines this mentality as demonstrated by his own heroes. Perhaps the following quotation best explains this particular contrast between the two poems: When I say that a character...is a scapegoat, my statement can mean two different things. It can mean that this character is unjustly condemned from the perspective of the writer. The conviction of the crowd is presented as irrational by the writer himself... There is a second meaning to the idea that a character is a scapegoat. It can mean that, from the perspective of the writer, this character is justly condemned, but in the eyes of the critic who makes the statement, the condemnation is unjust. The crowd that condemns the victim is presented as rational by the writer, who really belongs to that crowd; only in the eyes of the critic are the crowd and the writer irrational and unjust. (Girard, To Entrap the Wisest 248)
According to this model, the Beowulf poet is the first writer, a voice somehow distant from the Anglo-Saxon men he describes. The Roland poet then is the second writer. He himself belongs to that crowd of French Christians who condemn the Muslims in his text. At the beginning of this thesis, I suggested that Beowulf and the Song of Roland initially seem like literary analogs to the visual representations of the known and the monstrous Other that appear in medieval mappaemundi. Even though the monstrous enemies are not relegated to periphery of either poem, but integrated thoroughly into the landscape of the heroes, that integration occurs through war. Thus, constant battle...between Men and Monsters remains the central narrative of both Beowulf and Roland (Mittman 45). But prominent mirroring between Christians and Muslims in Roland and men and monsters in Beowulf reveals that these relationships are far more 50 complicated than simple oppositions. To understand this apparent contradiction, one should again consider Girards theory of the scapegoat. Societies persecute scapegoats because the scapegoat communitys easily identifiable difference overshadows the real source of the societys disorder. Thus, the placement of war at the center of these poems, either against literal monsters or against humans portrayed as monsters, seems to reflect the mentality of the societies both poems describe. That is, monstrous enemies dominate the physical world of the heroes just as they dominate their minds. Of the most influential essay in Beowulf scholarship, Paul Acker writes, J.R.R. Tolkiens essay Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics has for many readers achieved one of its stated intentions, that of placing the monsters at the center of the poem rather than at the periphery (702). In this quotation, perhaps unintentionally, Acker uses cartographical terminology that calls to mind yet contrasts with the representation of monsters in medieval mappaemundi. He continues in a footnote, quoting Cohen on monsters: Such a focus on monsters reflects the essays cultural anxieties, both for Tolkien, writing between the wars, and for the readers who follow him. For contemporary American readers, Cohen comments on a society that has created and commodified ambient feara kind of total fear that saturates day-to-day living, prodding and silently antagonizing but never speaking its own name. This anxiety manifests itself symptomatically as a cultural fascination with monsters. (Acker 709)
Acker suggests that Tolkien and the readers who follow him misunderstand the monsters of Beowulf precisely as the heroes of the poem do, relying on these monsters as a scapegoat and, therefore, missing the Beowulf poets hints about the more destructive threat posed by human invaders. John Leyerle expresses a similar sentiment when discussing the structure of Beowulf: 51 Monster-fighting thus pre-empts the readers attention just as it pre-empts Beowulfs; the reader gets caught up in the heroic ethos like the hero and easily misses the warnings. In a sense the reader is led to repeat the error, one all too easy in heroic society, hardly noticing that glorious action by a leader often carries a terrible price for his followers. (147)
Indeed, misinterpreting the societies in both Beowulf and Rolandthat is, buying into their scapegoats and perceiving the monsters and the Muslims as absolute evilis a danger any modern reader of these poems face. Acker and Leyerle thus pose a challenge to readers of epic poems about constant battle between heroes and their monstrous enemies. One can follow Tolkien and the modern readers that Acker describes and become obsessed with monster-fighting in the same way that the Roland poet and even the hero of Beowulf are. Or one can perceive the problems of these societies more clearly. One can reject binary moral distinctions between Christians and Muslims or men and monsters. One can read the conclusions of both works as signs that, despite victories against Muslims and monsters, violence will continue until these societies are destroyed entirely. At the end of Roland, an angel calls Charlemagne to return to war against the Muslims, but, cognizant of the tragedies of recent battle, even the good Christian Charlemagne ni volsist aler mie (had no wish to go, Roland 3999). Beowulf ends with the image of a community mourning their leaders death and, consequently, the imminent loss of their kingdom to feuds against men. Indeed, this interpretive challenge does not apply solely to literature, but is a dilemma we face when interpreting our own societies everyday. Although the feuding and crusading presented in these poems seem distant, the endeavors of centuries past, even in the 21 st century we are still involved in destructive cycles of violence. Just a year ago, Americans gathered in jubilant crowds to cheer, sing and applaud early Monday 52 after the president announced that Osama bin Laden was killed (Salazar 1). One must wonder whether a nation that celebrates the death of a human being, not unlike the Geats and Danes celebrating Grendels death, has really progressed beyond the condition of the societies in Beowulf and the Song of Roland. Do we perceive any more clearly than the Danes, Geats, and Christians of these poems the sources of destruction and disorder in our own societies? We blame it on our enemies, but perhaps we need to look more critically at ourselves.
53 Works Cited/Consulted Primary Sources Brundage, James A. The Crusades: A Documentary Survey. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1962. Burgess, Glyn S, ed. and trans. The Song of Roland. London: Penguin, 1990. Brault, Gerard J., ed. and trans. The Song of Roland: Analytical Edition. Vol. 2: Oxford Text and English Translation. 2 vols. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. Cassidy, Frederic G., and Richard N. Ringler, eds. Bright's Old English Grammar & Reader. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Chickering, Howell D. Beowulf: A Dual-Language Edition. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1977. Fulk, R.D., Robert Bjork, and John Niles, eds. Klaeber's Beowulf. 4th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Mitchell, Bruce, and Fred C. Robinson. A Guide to Old English. 7 th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Sayers, Dorothy L., trans. The Song of Roland. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1957. Short, Ian. La Chanson De Roland. Paris: Livre de Poche, 1990. Secondary Sources Acker, Paul. Horror and the Maternal in Beowulf. PMLA 121.3 (2006): 702-16. Bjork, Robert E. Digressions and Episodes. A Beowulf Handbook. Eds. Robert E. Bjork and John D. Niles. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. 193-212. 54 Black, Patricia E. Violence and Desmesure in the Song of Roland. Approaches to Teaching the Song of Roland. Eds. William W. Kibler and Leslie Zarker Morgan. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2006. 253-58. Brault, Gerard J., ed. The Song of Roland: Analytical Edition. Vol. 1: Introduction and Commentary. 2 vols. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1978. Calder, Daniel Gillmore, and Stanley B. Greenfield. A New Critical History of Old English Literature. New York: New York University Press, 1986. Clark, George. The Hero and the Theme. A Beowulf Handbook. Eds. Robert Bjork and John D. Niles. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. 271-90. Clark-Hall, John Richard. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 3rd ed. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1931. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, ed. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Comfort, William Wistar. The Literary Role of the Saracens in the French Epic. PMLA 55.3 (1940): 628-59. Cook, Albert S. A Concordance to Beowulf. New York: Haskell House, 1968. Cook, Robert Francis. An Alternative Reading of the Song of Roland. Approaches to Teaching the Song of Roland. Eds. William W. Kibler and Leslie Zarker Morgan. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2006. 238-45. Friedman, John Block. The Monstrous Races in Medieval Art and Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. Girard, Ren. The Scapegoat. Trans. Yvonne Freccero. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. 55 __________. To Entrap the Wisest. A Theater of Envy: William Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. 243-55. Greenfield, Stanley B., and Richard Evert. Maxims II: Gnome and Poem. Anglo-Saxon Poetry: Essays in Appreciation for John C. Mcgalliard. Eds. Lewis E. Nicholson, Dolores Warwick Frese and John Calvin McGalliard. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. 337-54. Haidu, Peter. The Subject of Violence: The Song of Roland and the Birth of the State. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Harvey, P.D.A. The Hereford World Map: Medieval World Maps and Their Context. London: British Library, 2006. Hill, Thomas D. The Christian Language and Theme of Beowulf. Beowulf: A Verse Translation. Ed. Daniel Donoghue. New York: Norton, 2002. 197-211. Kibler, William W. Rencesvals: The Event. Approaches to Teaching the Song of Roland. Eds. William W. Kibler and Leslie Zarker Morgan. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2006. 53-56. Ker, W. P. Epic and Romance. New York: Macmillian Company, 1897. Leyerle, John. The Interlace Structure of Beowulf. 1967. Beowulf: A Verse Translation. Ed. Daniel Donoghue. New York: Norton, 2002. 130-152. Miller, Dean A. The Epic Hero. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Mittman, Asa Simon. Maps and Monsters in Medieval England. New York: Routledge, 2006. Moretti, Franco. The Dialectic of Fear. New Left Review I/136 (1982): 67-85. Orchard, Andy. Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf Manuscript. 56 Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. Parks, Ward. Prey Tell: How Heroes Perceive Monsters in Beowulf. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 92.1 (1993): 1-16. Pasternack, Carol Braun. Post-Structuralist Theories: The Subject and the Text. Reading Old English Texts. Ed. Katherine O'Brien O'Keeffe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 170-91. Peel, Ellen. The Song of Roland: Structuralism and Beyond. Approaches to Teaching the Song of Roland. Eds. William W. Kibler and Leslie Zarker Morgan. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 2006. 259-268. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Random House, 1978. Salazar, Cristian. Crowds gather in NYC, DC after bin Laden killed. Associated Press 2 May 2011. Stanley, E.G. Haethenra Hyht in Beowulf. Studies in Old English Literature in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur. Ed. Stanley B. Greenfield. Eugene: University of Oregon Books, 1963. 136-51. Tolkien, J.R.R. Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics. The Beowulf Poet. Ed. Donald K. Fry. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1936. 8-56. Watkins, Calvert. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
The Ultimate Oxbridge Interview Guide: Humanities: Practice through hundreds of mock interview questions used in real Oxbridge interviews, with brand new worked solutions to every question by Oxbridge admissions tutors.
Amputation in Literature and Film Artificial Limbs Prosthetic Relations and The Semiotics of Loss Literary Disability Studies 1St Ed 2021 Edition Erik Grayson Editor Full Chapter
Mark The Letter A, B, C, or D On Your Answer Sheet To Indicate The Word(s) OPPOSITE in Meaning To The Underlined Word(s) in Each of The Following Questions