A number of questions surrounding the composition of Beowulf still inspire modern critical debate. Paull F. Baum examines several of these issues, arguing that the manuscript's date being so much later than the original composition, combined with the fact that the manuscript is written in a different dialect from the original, indicate that the poem lacks a continuous history of reading or recitation. Furthermore, while many believe that Beowulf was recited rather than read, the poem's length makes this assumption unlikely. Baum insists that the evidence suggests a poem composed for the enjoyment of its author, with the expectation that others might also take pleasure in it. While many scholars, including Baum, hold that the poem was composed much earlier than the date of the manuscript, others contend that the manuscript and the poem's composition are contemporaneous. Kevin S. Kiernan makes this argument, citing historical and linguistic evidence for his assertion that both the poem and the manuscript were created in the early eleventh century. Another issue surrounding the poem's composition is the method by which it was created. Some critics maintain that the original poem was an oral composition, while others believe that it made its first appearance in written form. Alain Renoir has studied the motifs of Beowulf, including the underwater fight and the monster's attack on a human dwelling, demonstrating that the poet's use of these devices shows that he was familiar with the traditional methods of oral-formulaic composition. Renoir stresses that this familiarity does not necessarily indicate that the poem was composed orally. J. D. A. Ogilvy similarly comments that it is improbable that Beowulf—as a whole, or even in smaller units—was composed orally. Stephen S. Evans, on the other hand, asserts that an oral form (dating from 685 to 725) of the poem preceded a written version. The original pagan poem was extensively modified, Evans argues, by Christian oral poets sometime between 625 and 700 in order to create a work better suited to a Christian audience.
This article criticizes the fact that the dates of the manuscript are very far off from the actual composition date. I agree that this error leads many people to confusion because it throws off the correct dialect that people should be reading in. These errors have lead to much confusion in the composition and has caused an on going battle on the correst date of the manuscript.
The date in which Beowulf was written will never be known but the estimated date is up for debate.Many feel as if the date given to Beowulf is too far ahead of the factual time in which it was written.
I think that it is interesting that historians can analyze text and come to such conclusions, like how long ago the text was written. Its also interesting that the length of a poem or story is an indicator of whether it was read orally or not.
I'd say the critic believes that Beowulf was originally a written work, instead of being spoken like traditional stories of the time. He throws in quotes from multiple historians to prove that it must have been changed from it's original text, and then spoken afterwards. I suppose I'll agree with the critic since I find it difficult to be able to memorize an entire epic to every fact and detail and recite it to an audience...
Of course the date of Beowulf is not known -- the author isn't even known. Was it even translated correctly? Through translating Beowulf into English, many important details could have easily been messed up -- even without realizing it. I think that this was originally an oral story that was passed down -- later written down by someone who found it interesting. I guess the true, original story will never be known for sure....
The Real author of Beowulf and the original date it was written will never be known just because there are no evidence to prove it. I think the original poem was written orally
this author's "evidence" that Beowulf was not written orally becuase of its length is ludicris. The illiad and the Odyssey are both verses written way before Beowulf, and yet they were recited orally. Individuals used to devote their entire lives to learning such tales, and their recitations often went on for hours... Quite frankly this author's veiwpoint is bunk.
If the original composition was actually a written piece, we would probably have a better idea of the date and possibly the author. A good point is made about the length of the story, it is unlikely that a tale that lengthy would be passed down orally.
I like how people can study different text so deeply to come to such conclusions. They decide when something was written and how it was first created and then believe it. Other people will read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. They should just decide on something and make it fact since we'll never truly know. Thats what i'd do
I agree that the date which Beowulf was written will never be known. I also agree that this could easily lead to many errors and much confusion about the text.
Its interesting that people can analyze the structure of a text and find out so many things about it, or atleast guesstimate some stuff. Of course it is impossible to know the exact year the poem was written.
I do not believe that the length of a text can provide indicators of the date it was written despite the fact that such information is unknown. I think that the story of Beowulf was originally orally passed down and then later written by someone who had heard it and liked it enough to write it down.
It is interesting that critics disagree when Beowulf was actually written. I find interesting that many believe that Beowulf was recited, not read. Beowulf is a very long poem to recite, we didn't even read the whole version. The arguement over the creation of Beowulf, whether the story was told orally, or by composition is intersting. There are good arguments presented in the essay.
Written pieces of far greater length than Beowulf were first communicated orally, so claiming that Beowulf was probably not first communicated orally because of its length is not persuasive. It seems that this critic is fixating on dates, not because he seeks accuracy, but to assert that the original "pagan" piece was altered to suit a Christian audience after the fact.
I agree with the critic in the fact that there are so many questions around Beowulf, and how do we know the truth. Its interesting to think about how this was passed down from generation to generation becuase it took our class about 2 or 2 1/2 weeks to finish the peom, and peuole are saying that this was passed down orally. I would have a hard time remembering every little detail, so some may have been lost over time.
In the same way that The Canterbury Tales gives modern readers a sense of the language at the time, the book also gives a rich, intricate tapestry of medieval social life, combining elements of all classes, from nobles to workers, from priests and nuns to drunkards and thieves. The General Prologue alone provides a panoramic view of society that is not like any found elsewhere in all of literature. Students who are not particularly interested in medieval England can appreciate the author’s technique in capturing the variations of human temperament and behavior. Collections of stories were common in Chaucer’s time, and some still exist today, but the genius of The Canterbury Tales is that the individual stories are presented in a continuing narrative, showing how all of the various pieces of life connect to one another.
23 comments:
A number of questions surrounding the composition of Beowulf still inspire modern critical debate. Paull F. Baum examines several of these issues, arguing that the manuscript's date being so much later than the original composition, combined with the fact that the manuscript is written in a different dialect from the original, indicate that the poem lacks a continuous history of reading or recitation. Furthermore, while many believe that Beowulf was recited rather than read, the poem's length makes this assumption unlikely. Baum insists that the evidence suggests a poem composed for the enjoyment of its author, with the expectation that others might also take pleasure in it. While many scholars, including Baum, hold that the poem was composed much earlier than the date of the manuscript, others contend that the manuscript and the poem's composition are contemporaneous. Kevin S. Kiernan makes this argument, citing historical and linguistic evidence for his assertion that both the poem and the manuscript were created in the early eleventh century. Another issue surrounding the poem's composition is the method by which it was created. Some critics maintain that the original poem was an oral composition, while others believe that it made its first appearance in written form. Alain Renoir has studied the motifs of Beowulf, including the underwater fight and the monster's attack on a human dwelling, demonstrating that the poet's use of these devices shows that he was familiar with the traditional methods of oral-formulaic composition. Renoir stresses that this familiarity does not necessarily indicate that the poem was composed orally. J. D. A. Ogilvy similarly comments that it is improbable that Beowulf—as a whole, or even in smaller units—was composed orally. Stephen S. Evans, on the other hand, asserts that an oral form (dating from 685 to 725) of the poem preceded a written version. The original pagan poem was extensively modified, Evans argues, by Christian oral poets sometime between 625 and 700 in order to create a work better suited to a Christian audience.
This article criticizes the fact that the dates of the manuscript are very far off from the actual composition date. I agree that this error leads many people to confusion because it throws off the correct dialect that people should be reading in. These errors have lead to much confusion in the composition and has caused an on going battle on the correst date of the manuscript.
The date in which Beowulf was written will never be known but the estimated date is up for debate.Many feel as if the date given to Beowulf is too far ahead of the factual time in which it was written.
I think that it is interesting that historians can analyze text and come to such conclusions, like how long ago the text was written. Its also interesting that the length of a poem or story is an indicator of whether it was read orally or not.
I agree that the exact date of Beowulf can not be found. It is impossible to find out the exact date without actual doumentation.
I'd say the critic believes that Beowulf was originally a written work, instead of being spoken like traditional stories of the time. He throws in quotes from multiple historians to prove that it must have been changed from it's original text, and then spoken afterwards. I suppose I'll agree with the critic since I find it difficult to be able to memorize an entire epic to every fact and detail and recite it to an audience...
Of course the date of Beowulf is not known -- the author isn't even known. Was it even translated correctly? Through translating Beowulf into English, many important details could have easily been messed up -- even without realizing it.
I think that this was originally an oral story that was passed down -- later written down by someone who found it interesting.
I guess the true, original story will never be known for sure....
The Real author of Beowulf and the original date it was written will never be known just because there are no evidence to prove it. I think the original poem was written orally
this author's "evidence" that Beowulf was not written orally becuase of its length is ludicris. The illiad and the Odyssey are both verses written way before Beowulf, and yet they were recited orally. Individuals used to devote their entire lives to learning such tales, and their recitations often went on for hours... Quite frankly this author's veiwpoint is bunk.
If the original composition was actually a written piece, we would probably have a better idea of the date and possibly the author. A good point is made about the length of the story, it is unlikely that a tale that lengthy would be passed down orally.
I like how people can study different text so deeply to come to such conclusions. They decide when something was written and how it was first created and then believe it. Other people will read the same thing and come to such different conclusions. They should just decide on something and make it fact since we'll never truly know. Thats what i'd do
I agree that the date which Beowulf was written will never be known. I also agree that this could easily lead to many errors and much confusion about the text.
The date in which Beowulf was written is unknown and will always be unknown but it is possible to estimate the approximate date.
Its interesting that people can analyze the structure of a text and find out so many things about it, or atleast guesstimate some stuff. Of course it is impossible to know the exact year the poem was written.
I agree that some of beowulf may have been left out. Not knowing the date or author may mean that some of the origional story is unkown as well.
I do not believe that the length of a text can provide indicators of the date it was written despite the fact that such information is unknown. I think that the story of Beowulf was originally orally passed down and then later written by someone who had heard it and liked it enough to write it down.
It would be impossible to find the exact date when something was writen. And i wonder how the historians come to their conclusions on it.
It is interesting that critics disagree when Beowulf was actually written. I find interesting that many believe that Beowulf was recited, not read. Beowulf is a very long poem to recite, we didn't even read the whole version. The arguement over the creation of Beowulf, whether the story was told orally, or by composition is intersting. There are good arguments presented in the essay.
I agree that its hard to find the date. Since its unknown.
Written pieces of far greater length than Beowulf were first communicated orally, so claiming that Beowulf was probably not first communicated orally because of its length is not persuasive. It seems that this critic is fixating on dates, not because he seeks accuracy, but to assert that the original "pagan" piece was altered to suit a Christian audience after the fact.
I agree with the critic in the fact that there are so many questions around Beowulf, and how do we know the truth. Its interesting to think about how this was passed down from generation to generation becuase it took our class about 2 or 2 1/2 weeks to finish the peom, and peuole are saying that this was passed down orally. I would have a hard time remembering every little detail, so some may have been lost over time.
I agree that the exact date of Beowulf can not be found. It is impossible to find out the exact date without finding the original work.
In the same way that The Canterbury Tales gives modern readers a sense of the language at the time, the book also gives a rich, intricate tapestry of medieval social life, combining elements of all classes, from nobles to workers, from priests and nuns to drunkards and thieves. The General Prologue alone provides a panoramic view of society that is not like any found elsewhere in all of literature. Students who are not particularly interested in medieval England can appreciate the author’s technique in capturing the variations of human temperament and behavior. Collections of stories were common in Chaucer’s time, and some still exist today, but the genius of The Canterbury Tales is that the individual stories are presented in a continuing narrative, showing how all of the various pieces of life connect to one another.
Post a Comment