|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The One Ring Forums:
Off Topic: Off Topic:
My most useful contribution:
Edit Log
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Nov 4 2007, 2:11pm
Views: 906
|
|
My most useful contribution
|
|
|
might be to let people see these lines in Heaney's version. Other than that, I'll have my usual uneducated guess at some answers to your questions! 
Beowulf doubts that the peace between the Danes and Heathobards will last. Beowulf envisions one of the Heathobards recognizing an item that used to belong to his father, and now is worn by one of the Danes who slew his father. But what is the item to which Beowulf refers? Is it jewelry, a weapon, or something else? What does it look like? What is it made of?
Heaney's translation mentions two items: "burnished ring-mail", and an heirloom sword. This is making me think of your question last week about why Tolkien might have used "Lord of the Rings" as a title representing evil. The original mention of the title "lord of rings" in Beowulf was in reference to Beowulf's ringmail. Now here is ringmail as the source of jealousy and enmity. It seems that the poet, if not Beowulf himself, sees that a peace of this kind, between winners and losers, can't last unless the winners generously give back all the treasure they captured from the losers. But clearly, in this case, he doesn't think they will. And Beowulf foresees more bloodshed because of it.
Wouldn't the Danes know better than to flaunt treasure they took from the Heathobards when visiting their former enemies?
Well, they should know better. If they behave in this arrogant and ungenerous way, they will soon be at war again, Beowulf seems to be saying.
Why are heirlooms worth so much to the Danes, Geats, Heathobards, and presumably the Anglo-Saxons? Are they just into antiques? Do they place great store on sentimental value? Or is there another reason why the age of the treasure has something to do with its value? Is there a historical basis for this value system, or is this simply the stuff of legends and myth and fiction? In other words, did ancient peoples really place such value on heirlooms? If so, why? How would the world be different if the best and most treasured items were also the oldest, rather than the newest?
I guess we have to try to imagine ourselves in a world where skills are being lost. This period isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing. After the Romans left, a great deal of knowledge was lost, and the world became a much darker place. These heirloom swords and pieces of armour probably can't be replicated by later generations. The world really was different then. There really had been giants, or people with magical-seeming knowledge and wisdom, who had left those shores, taking their knowledge with them. Generation by generation, residual knowledge was being lost and not replaced. Things would start to change for the better soon after this story was written (in fact, the writing of it was probably an early sign that things were changing - enough knowledge had now been regained to set the story down on paper). Since then, it's been a continual history of increasing our knowledge and skills, so a world in which old things are the only true treasures is one that seems odd to us (our challenge now is to prevent old things being destroyed and replaced by "better" new ones).
Okay, having briefly discussed why this truce won't last, Beowulf then tells us about his encounter with Grendel and Grendel's mother. Why do we hear this again? Why doesn't the poet just say that Beowulf told his king what has happened, without going through Beowulf's summary of the poem so far?
Well, perhaps the story is like the heirlooms - a precious survival from the past that could be lost so easily, and could never be replaced. The only way this history has been preserved over the illiterate centuries is by continual repetition. So repetition is good - especially in a slightly different form, adding other details. (I recall that the Song of Roland often repeats an episode three times, each time adding different detail.)
How does Beowulf's summary of the poem so far differ from the poem so far? What new information does Beowulf relate that we haven't heard before? Why haven't we heard this information before?
I don't remember the pouch of dragon skins from before. Nor did we get the name of the unfortunate who got killed by Grendel (but it makes sense that Beowulf would give the name of the dead comrade now, to his kinsmen at home). And I like this:
...at times the king
gave the proper turn to some fantastic tale
I don't recall hearing that the king was the ultimate source of the correct version of a story (if this is what the Anglo-Saxon really says). It reminds me of Aragorn saying of some ancient tale that "only Elrond remembers it aright".
What do we learn about Beowulf from hearing his account of what happened? Is Beowulf proud or modest or some mixture of both? Is that okay? Is Beowulf's report complete and accurate? Is it too long or too short? When the poet told us of Beowulf's feats he made sure to mention God or Fate (Weird), but does Beowulf do so? Should he? What did Beowulf think was important, and what did he omit?
Beowulf's account seems to dwell on different aspects of the story than what we heard the first time. I'm not sure we should read too much into what Beowulf himself says compared to what the poet told us. They may just be two versions of the story, rather than meant to represent the "objective truth" (the poet's version) and the "subjective truth" (Beowulf's version). Beowulf does mention Fate briefly:
I barely managed
to escape with my life; my time had not yet come.
but he leaves out a lot of the actual action, and focuses on the honours and gifts that he was given.
Is there any humor in Beowulf's story? Any anger? Any sadness? Is Beowulf a good storyteller? Does Beowulf have an agenda behind the story he tells his king and uncle?
Beowulf seems to be telling his story in very diplomatic fashion. He's dwelling on the honours bestowed on him by Hrothgar, and making it clear that these honours were won on behalf of his own king, Hygelac. So I don't hear anger, sadness, or indeed storytelling. I hear a diplomatic report, confirming details of the story (some of it seems to have already become known), and emphasising the links of goodwill that have been forged.
Is anyone else present when Beowulf tells this story, or is it just him and the king? Is there a poet nearby taking notes? If we imagine Beowulf's story to be historical rather than fictional, how would the story have been handed down to us?
Surely he's addressing the assembled court. I don't think this is a private interview. This is a big, prestige event. I don't think the poets took notes - most of them probably couldn't read or write - but they would have had a prodigious talent for committing to memory what they heard. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were also pretty good at spin doctoring! I think Beowulf's story is (mostly) historical and not fictional. All the political stuff, the feuds and marriages and so on, is surely historical. And the monsters would have grown from some historical kernel of truth as well, no doubt. The story really was handed down to us (or at least to the poet who wrote it down), by generations of storytellers. There wasn't really a division between history and fiction then anyway. History and story were the same word, and essentially the same thing.
What does Beowulf think of Hrothgar? Is it all good? Or does he see some weaknesses in Hrothgar's rulership?
Well, I'm not sure what Beowulf is actually implying in his story of what's likely to happen between the Danes and their former enemies the Heathobards. He imagines the scene of the Danes flaunting their war-trophies in front of the people they took them from, and yet he seems to imply that it's the Heathobards who are not in good faith. To me it looks as if it's the Danes who are acting in bad faith, but I'm not sure if Beowulf would say such a thing since Hrothgar the Dane is his people's new ally. Or maybe he's just being diplomatic?
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Nov 4 2007, 2:19pm)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by FarFromHome
(Doriath) on Nov 4 2007, 2:17pm
|
|
Post edited by FarFromHome
(Doriath) on Nov 4 2007, 2:19pm
|
|
|
|
