Quote:
|
Tolkien was not given to fashionable approaches, and I for one feel that his ideas as put forward in The Monsters and the Critics have genuine merit. Although I haven't the knowledge with which Clarke appears to be blessed, I still think it somewhat overly-simplistic so dismissively to announce "...everything Tolkien ever said about Beowulf is wrong" at least without offering clear evidence to support that point of view… I find it very depressing that Tolkien's critics often appear to offer no real support for their views beyond the current fashion in translation or literary interpretation.
|
Squatter, I agree with you about Professor Clarke’s apparent off-hand remark. I doubt if he really put that much thought into that statement, and journalists and article writers love those statements, more so than the learned ones. I think Professor Clarke would take that statement back after a bit of thought. However, you can’t accuse Clarke of not having support for his position.
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 ]