![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
#27 | |
|
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bree
Posts: 390
![]() |
Quote:
I’m not aquatinted with Professor Clarke outside of the above article, but Clarke’s view regarding the monsters in Beowulf is a popular one today (it was the one that I was taught and took for granted). The monsters give an opportunity for Beowulf to demonstrate his, and his kind’s, greatness. Primordial evils are represented in more human form, such as Queen Modthryth who randomly kills those she doesn’t like, the cunning and scheming Hrothulf, and the domineering King Heremod who recklessly throws away human life. Clarke’s camp does carry the burden of proof by placing Beowulf in comparison to Scandinavian and continental eulogium, and Anglo-Saxon hagiography. The above article’s scope didn’t give Professor Clarke ample opportunity to explain this bit of exegesis. You can’t blame Clarke for that. After reading The Monsters and the Critics (which I just read mainly due to this thread), I’m not sure which way to lean on the issue. Professor Tolkien is, admittedly, a bit of a romantic, but anyone who knows me would know that I find this to be an admirable trait. On the other hand, I’m a stickler for factual realism. I doubt, though, that these two approaches are really saying two entirely different things. Beowulf’s greatness sets him apart from Hrothulf, Modthryth and Heremod. His greatness enables him to defeat the monsters. Isn’t Professor Tolkien correct then in drawing a parallel between the monsters and the primordial evils represented by the human monsters? Isn’t Grendel and the dragon pictures of these evils that live in the hearts of wicked people, stripped, as it were, from the human forms that so often encase them? [ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]
__________________
I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|