- The so-called 'heroic ideal' is a consistent feature of Old English poetry, represented through its trappings of horses, kinsmen, gift-giving, feasting, boasts, hall-joys, battle and lord-fealty. All these things - the mathums - symbolise the loyalty between lord and retainer that underlies a lot of the literature. Motifs and topoi from Germanic literature, such as the beasts of battle and the passing of the cup around the hall before a fight, recur again and again (Beowulf, Maldon, Waldere, The Wanderer - so cross-genre). Clearly, then, there's evidence for a heroic convention in the *literature* of Anglo-Saxon England.
- Okay, but. The existence of something in literature does not necessarily mean it existed in the society that produced that literature. I could write a book about public schoolboys marching out to win a war on the playing fields of Eton, but the concept would still be an archaism that never quite existed anyway. We know very little about the continuance of the Germanic tradition even in Germany at this point, let alone in England. Brandl: although it is ‘beyond all dispute that the Anglo-Saxons introduced into their new home the principles of Germanic society simply because they were the only ones they knew’, this does not ‘imply either that such principles tallied with those described by Tacitus three hundred years before or even with those which prevailed among them before they left the Continent.’ Tacitus's account of the Comitatus identifies many traits consonant with those found in the literary heroic convention, but a) it was written far too early to be relevant, and b) Tacitus had a political bias anyway, commending in the Germans those traits he found lacking in the Romans of his day. So, as Lali said, he's pretty damn unreliable in either event. The Germania articulates, yes, some of the original tropes and themes that influenced the later literature, but that society, if it ever existed as such, was long gone by the time somebody sat down to write 'Beowulf'.
- Certainly, this doesn't mean the Anglo-Saxons had forgotten these original social guidelines. In Cynewulf and Cyneheard, for example, we find ‘a textbook illustration of the themes of heroic conduct found in secular poetry’ (O’Brien O’Keefe), suggesting a continued idealisation of the heroic code. But it's all a bit *too* textbook - this piece may be in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but it seems far too rhetorically slick to be accurate history; it conforms too perfectly to literary expectations. It emphasises the problems that arise when loyalty is claimed by both kin and king, a bit of a grey area. Ultimately, according to this story, you really should stick with the king. (NB: Beowulf, the father unable to avenge the death of his hanged son, etc). The writer is using heroic themes to make his story seem familiar, and his point more clear. This suggests that Anglo-Saxon England was still well enough acquainted with the heroic code to view it as an overriding moral guideline, particularly when they found a theoretical difficulty such as this one.
- This function of the heroic code, as something which the audience would be familiar with and which would set the story in moral context, is frequently seen. Deor depends on it - it alludes to five exemplary stories from the heroic tradition, expecting its audience to know them. It's hard to tell whether *Deor* is Christian, pagan, or neither, but the Germanic background of the Anglo-Saxons serves as a touchstone here, especially since the narrator is a 'scop' who has allegedly watched all these legends come and go. The message would mean far less to a society who did not still revere The Poet. *Widsith*, similarly, assumes knowledge of the Germanic sagas, alluding to a lot of legendary kings and heroes. We know that these stories were still written down in England because we have one of them, *Waldere*. So there was obviously still knowledge of the literary history of the Heroic Age, among all ranks of society.
- *Literary*, though, seems to be the operative word, especially when we look at the existence of the heroic ideal in Christian literature. Genesis A, bizarrely, has Abraham and the Sodomites (great name for a band? I think their first hit should be Electronic Beowulf) fighting under the banner of a lion; Moses, in Exodus, is called theoden, while Christ is 'tha geong haeleth' in our old friend The Dream of the Rood. Obviously, the fact that biblical leaders are treated as the heroes of Germanic lays does not imply that the poets thought old Israel had a society like that. It's just used as a means of expression, drawing an equation between a Christian hero and a Germanic one to clarify the part he's playing in the story and the loyalty his men owe to him. It's a means of fusing two societies. Familiar language makes the Christian message more convincing, especially when the points of similarity are highlighted - fighting the good fight, being loyal to your lord, and so on, are equally valid in heroic Christianity as in paganism.
- We see this fusion in a lot of instances. In the Cotton Gnomes, we've got a lot of rambling about dragons and the wind, lords and retainers, king, thunder, fate, wisdom, treasure...and right in the middle of it is Christ, fusing the two. The actual beliefs and gods of paganism seem to have gone; it's just that its trappings are used to dress up Christianity as something martial and interesting, approachable to the listeners/readers. The heroic convention again is a *literary* one, facilitating rather than complicating the spread of Christian tales.
- So is there any evidence that the actual lords and retainers paid any real-life attention to the heroic code? Well, Maldon claims to be a history; it's certainly talking about a fairly contemporary battle. We've got Byrhtnoth the 'godan', who challenges the Vikings, rallies his men, and is then slain. At this point, the ironically-named Godric runs away and is followed by a load of men who think he's Byrhtnoth (it riht ne waes!) Those who remain vow to avenge their lord and be killed rather than run away, as Wiglaf says in Beowulf. But Maldon's hardly a reliable historical source - the artistry of the poem is enough to tell us this all on its own; it's got heroic topoi (waelwulfas), long boasts and speeches as per the convention, which the poet couldn't exactly have written down at the time ("Hang on a minute, Byrht old lad - say that last bit again?"), and unlikely illustrative bits like the boy killing the whopping great Viking. Irving thinks it's actually a commemoration of the early by the monks of Ely, which presents him as a paradigmatic role-model.
- For one thing, B. is a perfect retainer to his own lord. He's a mathumgyfa, and then Godric flees on a stolen horse - obvious juxtaposition. Godric is subverting the expected lord-retainer relationship by stealing the gift meant to symbolise the bond, in order to abandon his lord. Conversely, we've got Offa, who ‘laeg thegenlice theodne gehende’ (lay like a thane close beside his lord) and the remaining warriors, whose loyalty emphasises the strength of heroic fellowship established by Byrhtnoth. So we've got all the bits and pieces of the heroic code, but they're all so perfect that again, what with the lack of evidence of the actual battle, we can't believe in their truth. (Especially since, if all the men *had* run away, given the emphasis the poet places on this, the Chroniclers could hardly have failed to mention it). So again, all this poem proves is the continuance of the ideal in literature. O'Brien O'Keefe: The continuance of heroic literary conventions ‘does not provide reliable evidence of contemporary culture in Anglo-Saxon England, as literature does not mirror, in any straightforward way, the society which produces it.’
- For example, did A-S England really expect every man to die with his lord? Even the Wanderer has clearly outlived his. The degree of personal loyalty expected by the time of Alfred was no longer anything like what it had been in the days of mead-halls and rings. According to Asser, Alfred only expected three months of service a year from his retainers, which is all a bit unheroic and dull. Alfred himself had a vision of ‘the kings who had power over the people in those days…and they had peace, morality and power within the country’, which he evidently felt was a Heroic Age now past. So they're still harking fondly back to a bygone age, but society itself seems to have moved on a bit.
- So! The influence of the heroic code clearly still existed, colouring literature and alleged history alike. The bonds between lord and retainer did still exist, but in a far more diluted form. The Anglo-Saxons were very attached to their ideal of the hero dying gloriously in battle, as is evident from the way they carried it forward into Christian literature. But this was all very hard to apply to real life, which is why they were so nostalgic for stories about it. 'The heroic idiom of The Battle of Maldon… suggests at once admiration, nostalgia and regret – admiration for the greatness of a secular magnate, nostalgia for the heroism of a brighter day, and regret that such heroism makes death its companion.’ (O’Brien O’Keefe) The Anglo-Saxons, Deor and Widsith would suggest, continued to learn and enjoy the legends of their Germanic ancestors, to idealise guddeath and to idolise those who died in loyalty to their lords. Yet, increasingly, these ideals were becoming literary ones alone, extant nowhere beyond the realms of fantasy as they became ever less compatible with the demands and structures of modern Christian life.
*****
(Well, I'm impressed with myself. Look at me! Working! I agree, Lali; this is quite fun! Otherwise I'd have poked Facebook all morning.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
1. about the germanic tradition on the continent.. the goths are the earliest germanic people, presumably, and they were christianzed in about 4-5th century. so we dont know of any pre-christian heroic code, only that influenced by christianity.
2. one view about the cynewulf-cyneheard episode is that it is trying out prose for the first time and thats why its a mess. it probably takes a fact and turns it into literary prose but the writer only knows poetic styles. not that this is directly relevant to what ur saying, but i just thought its an interesting point.
3. i like what you say about writers using the heroic code because it was familiar. so it was probably a mythical, legendary thing at this time (and perhaps in any time). But In Deor, i think the poet expects his audience to know the stories, not neccessarily impying that they would know the heroic values behind them? Would you agree?
3. when you say "literary history of the heroic age" do you mean legendary history? The religious leaders are indeed portrayed in germanic military terms (cf. Guthlac where he is called a soldier of christ, more about this in my next post). I wrote about this in my thesis where i argued that religious good and evil are depicted only according to social values, as there is no other way of depicting it, esp evil (when talking about "good", one can be suitably vague and talk about radiant lights and eternal joys, without actually saying what that really means- they cant because they are post-lapsarian and therefore unable to understand the workings of god/paradise). Familiar language is important in depicting christian things epecially as Anglo Saxon society was newly converted, so it was propagandist in its literature.
4. battle of maldon is definitely a literary portrayal of a historical event, but its point is to glorify the defeat and say, the christians lost, but its okay. christianity is still the way to be.
5. if the only evidence we have of the heroic ideals, is that which has been written in a post christian age, maybe we should consider how far it has been christianised, or how far it was acceptable to the monks who copied it. i suppose it worked initially, and was even neccessary for the audience to understand, but after that, christianty could stand on its own feet without leaning on pagan legend.
also, who was this audience? they were people without a stable history- people from the continent, mixed with locals, so you already have this tension based on identity. What do you think they considered their ancestral "past" to be?
ok, this is almost as long as ur post! sorry. i just got all enthusiastic about it! Im actually getting genuinely interested in what Im studying, because of this blog. Interactive studying works so much better.
"somebody sat down to write 'Beowulf"... How does oral transmission-composition come into this debate, if at all?
"i like what you say about writers using the heroic code because it was familiar."... Would that be familiarity imbued with an acute sense of these stories as being nonetheless distant, foreign?
Sorry if these points are pointless, or if they've been mentioned and I missed them...
Everything you guys have written is really great...
xxxxxx
will leave it to janette to answer your first comment.
and i think the argument is over whether it was distant to them or not? was it part of what they considered their own heroic past, even if it was far off or legendary? or was it a closer exemplar? i dont think i agree with the use of word "foreign" here.
Well, expand/elaborate on what you disagree with in the use of that word.
Wow, Lali's comment is long! Interesting points - am too tired to give them the attention they deserve at present! Will return to them ibid. Ayoush - re: the oral/written composition thing, I don't know, but I *have* opened the Jack Beowulf, so I can tell you that he thinks the style suggests written composition - parallelisms too carefully constructe d to be oral. BUT formulaic diction is still used, as it is in saints' lives, suggesting that what had been something meant to aid oral poets had become so fundamental to the literature that it had carried over beyond its original function into the written realm.
lol. my comment was so long because i was making notes while i was reading the post. I really like what you wrote- lots of things to discuss there. i think this change of original function but using the same thing is very imp in OE poetry. Robert Burlin says of Phoenix, and we can use it to talk about heroic diction as well, I think: 'Just as a figure may be formally multiplied while the referent remains stable, so the simple type may be unchanged while its significance undergoes repeated alteration'.
ayoush: i disagree with calling it "foreign" because that suggests separating it from the self, treating it as an outsider, whereras whats going on here i think, is that they are looking back at their own "past" which is certainly distanced, but not "foreign" to them. I suppose Im making this point because Im suggesting that it was used to create a united identity of some sort, not nationalistic perhaps, but certainly Christian.
The heroic should not be denigrated, it tells us a lot about the values of the listeners of these tales. If we bare that in mind then this tale can be every bit as instructive as Mr. Tennant's Dr. Who. Our choice of heroes says something.
Post a Comment