Of Men and Monsters by Nazareth College

OF MEN &

M ON STE R S

Table of Contents s

Introduction DR. DENNO .............................................. 7 “Hero” Meets “Monster”: Deconstructing Differences in Beowulf KELLY KENYON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 “If I Were a Boy”: The Complications of Gender Binaries in Monster Narratives MIRANDA SPALDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Beowulf Film Adaptations: High and Low Culture Misconceptions RACHEL OLSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 The Pagan Villain and the Hybrid Hero KATHERINE BALLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 The Horror of Women KATHRYN ANNE BALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 21st Century Monsters KARA CATINO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

The Inscrutable Delineation of Christianity and Paganism in Beowulf ALEXANDRA NATARELLI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Vampirism and Cannibalism in Beowulf and Grettirâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Saga

KAIA MCCULLOUGH

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Adopted Landscape And The Reluctance of Assimilation: A Case Of Beowulf and Sir Gawain And the Green Knight CHERYL CONANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 The Shadow of Doubt JEREMY HUDAK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 The Comfort of Monstrosity: The Aristocratic Imagination at Work in Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight BRADEN BODENSTEINER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Beowulf and The Hunger Games: Eruptions of Societal Issues in text MARIA HERTZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

INTRODUCTION Dr. J. Denno

During the spring semester of 2012, fif-tyna sum (a group of fifteen), including fourteen Nazareth College senior English Literature majors and one elderly pedant, set out to study alterity and monstrosity in the early medieval imagination. Thirteen completed the journey. The essays collected in this volume represent the hard work, critical acuity, and eloquence of those thirteen students. Taking the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf as our anchor text, we examined a series of monstrous texts including Liber Monstrorum, The Wonders of the East, Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies, the Icelandic Grettir’s Saga, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and John Gardner’s Grendel, looking always to discover how the monstrous body and the Other might be read as cultural texts. Along the way, we considered also how monsters are manifest in our contemporary world. Our discussions took up modern and postmodern appropriations of the medieval monster, especially on film. We hope the reader will find insight and inspiration in these essays.

s 7

}

“Hero” Meets “Monster”: Deconstructing Differences in Beowulf Kelly Kenyon At first glance, Beowulf is a story about good triumphing over evil, which is a pleasant picture until one recognizes the faulty foundation of this depiction. In examining Beowulf, one cannot overlook the distinct classifications of hero and villain. The villainous characters (as though not already marked in opposition to the hero) are treated as even more detestable in the texts; they are treated as monsters. The hero kills the monster, and the world is once again restored to its proper order. But is it? When both hero and monster are examined, their categories begin to look more alike than at first glance. In both hero and monster possessing characteristics of one another, the categories themselves break down, becoming ultimately eliminated. The obliteration of these barriers offers a lesson: The barriers do not actually matter. Yet, ostracism occurs even in the postmodern period. There are plenty of members of society today who, though not overtly “monstrous” as in medieval texts, may not feel like societal members because they are still perceived to be monstrous; the form of the monster may change, but not the concept. It would be irresponsible of citizens anywhere to ignore the message that Beowulf offers. If we do not understand Beowulf ’s connection to Grendel, we will not understand our connection to the “monsters” in our own society. Ultimately, we will continue to be the “heroes” needlessly casting aside the “monsters” in a world that relies upon the existence of both to function. 9

The epic poem Beowulf ’s focus on heroism emphasizes a binary dynamic that runs throughout the text. The concept of “hero” versus “monster” is not new in terms of analyzing this text, but in observing these binaries, one may notice deeper implications encapsulated within the seemingly opposed dynamics. The distance between “hero” and “monster” is first established through the opposing descriptions of the characters Beowulf and Grendel. Admired for his superior standing as a king, Beowulf bears the title “gold-friend” (22.1476). Grendel, on the other hand, is referred to as a “fiend from hell” (1.101). Despite the stark differences between Beowulf ’s and Grendel’s descriptions, Beowulf ’s strength and warlike prowess begin to serve as a bridge for the differences between his “valor” and Grendel’s “monstrosity.” In a dramatic irony of sorts, the more that Beowulf is distinguished as superior in terms of battle abilities, the more his strength sets him apart from the society as a whole. Thus, his characteristics begin to cross over into the realm of the monstrous characteristics associated with Grendel. Kroll declares that “like the monsters, the hero can be extraordinarily vengeful,” noting that Beowulf possesses the strength to attack “with the same bloodthirstiness shown by Grendel in devouring Hrothgar’s thanes” (125). Not only does Beowulf possess inhuman strength, but his strength can be used in a “monster-like” manner, as demonstrated by Kroll’s observation. Beowulf affirms his reputation as a hero with exceptional skill by directly telling his fellow warriors that “it is not your way, nor proper for any man except me alone, that he should match his strength against this monster, do heroic deeds” (35.2532-2535). The men obey in awe, revealing Beowulf as more powerful and capable than themselves - than humans themselves. In his supreme ability to tackle monsters, Beowulf is actually separated from the rest of humanity. Lionarons notes that Beowulf is a warrior “to be sure,” but that he is “set apart from humanity through superhuman 10 Of Men & Monsters

abilities” because he is “elevated away from society by his very nature” (31). If Grendel lives below societal expectations, then Beowulf lives above them. That is, Grendel is looked down upon by the members of society because of their perception of him as living below their societal standards. Grendel is a repulsion that members of society would rather cover up than live with in equality. Beowulf, on the other hand, is looked up to because of the admiration that societal members feel for him due to his strength and valor. Beowulf is revered, but in this adoration, he is nonetheless set apart in his own way. These extreme cases exhibited by Grendel and Beowulf indicate a similarity between the two in the sense that they both deviate from what is socially normal. The parallel between “hero” and “monster” is further established in the battle between Beowulf and Grendel’s mother; “monster-woman,” according to the narrative (19.1259). Beowulf acknowledges Grendel’s mother as a powerful fighter, establishing her not only as a character who can fight him on an equal playing field, but more importantly, as a character tied to him because of her strength. Where Beowulf believes that a man must “trust his strength” in war because “he cares nothing for his life,” Grendel’s mother concurrently exerts strength when Beowulf confronts her with battle (22.1533-1536). The fury exhibited by both of these characters further illustrates them as equals, as they are now both participants in an equal fighting and emotional ground. That is to say, in fighting Grendel’s mother, Beowulf seeks revenge for the lives lost on account of Grendel, and Grendel’s mother seeks revenge for the lost life of her son. They are both willing to fight to the death for revenge. Orchard says that Beowulf fights monsters because such are the only opponents of equal strength and skill (32). His observation highlights the idea that the more the borders of differences become parallels instead, the more “hero” and “monster” are brought into closer proximity. The Beowulf poet writes: kelly kenyon

“men do not know whither such whispering demons wander about. Thus the foe of mankind, fearsome and solitary, often committed his crimes...” (2.162-165). In the battle scene between Beowulf and Grendel’s mother, differences continue to diminish to the point where it becomes difficult to deem the “monster” the “foe of mankind.” When examined in this way, the “foe of mankind” slowly helps to close the distance between its “monstrous” self and the “hero.” As the text progresses, the line between the supposed opposites of hero and monster becomes as fine as the line between the ultimate fate of both categories: Death. That is, the gap between “hero” and “monster” becomes increasingly smaller when one realizes that both categories inevitably experience death. Toward the end of the story, a final “monster” appears, completing the closing of the gap between the supposed hero and monsters. This character is the dragon, and he crosses the divide between “hero” and “monster” by revealing Beowulf ’s mortality through death. The dragon is described as “that strange visitor” who “began to spew flames and burn the bright courts; his burning gleams struck horror in men” (33.23122314). Interestingly, the poet declares that, at the time of Beowulf ’s death, “he chose the fire, the hot surging flames - from his breast flew his soul to seek the judgement of the righteous” (38.2818-2820). The appearance of the word “flames” in this death scene marks the dragon and Beowulf as similar by defining both characters as victims of death’s clutches. Beowulf also parallels the dragon in a literal manner, as the onlookers of the battle notice “an even stranger creature, a loathsome serpent lying on the plain directly across from him” (41.3038-3040). The “stranger creature” becomes less alien in its close-up form, as it shares the same space as Beowulf. Beowulf is not only similar in description to the dragon, but he meets his end in interaction with him. Society attempts to keep “monsters” such as the dragon at a safe distance, yet the “monster” and “hero” draw their final breaths on the same 12 Of Men & Monsters

battlefield. Further, the battle between these two characters is equally matched, as “it was not long until those two great creatures came together again” (35.2591-2592). The phrase “those two great creatures” links them together, suggesting that in their “greatness,” they are both something other than ordinary. Ultimately, they share characteristics that set them apart from the society in which they live. Just as “the coiled serpent could no longer rule his hoard of rings,” Beowulf can no longer exert his superhuman strength as a leader once he dies (39.2826-2827). Yet, his dying words include: “Hurry, so I might witness that ancient wealth, those golden goods, might eagerly gaze on the bright precious gems, and I might more gently, for that great wealth, give up my life and lordship, which I have held so long” (37.2747-2751). The treasures that Beowulf speaks of, however, are of no value in the end, even for a revered warrior such as himself. Not only are the riches useless in the hour of his death, but they were also meaningless during the hours of his life. Tragically, Beowulf does not see the uselessness of worldly riches, since he believes that even just a glimpse of them will allow him to “more gently give up” his life. The focus on wealth and status cannot remain with him once he passes away. He lived and died for high status that neither mattered when he lived nor when he died, for this obsession with status is what allows the members of society to keep a prominent barrier between themselves and the “monsters.” This concept connects to the idea that the established categories in society do not matter. Kearney says that “we externalize what is ‘strange’ within us onto an external ‘stranger’,” expressing the idea that monsters are a projection of what is undesirable or bizarre within us (73). The idea that monsters only possess our unflattering characteristics does not entirely match up with my point, since I am partly arguing that the “monsters” have positive traits that are overlooked because many people do not want to look at the “monsters.” kelly kenyon

Kearny’s argument does blend with my own, however, in his declaration that in order to banish alienation, one must acknowledge “(a) oneself as another and (b) the other as (in part) another self ” (80). The assertion that one must recognize “oneself as another” connotes a responsibility on the part of citizens to find connections with one another. In order for this to occur, societal members must meet one another halfway so that they are able to recognize their similarities. It is this initiative that will determine whether or not we learn from the disastrous alienation in Beowulf, where society wastes time focusing on stature. In doing so, the society fundamentally wastes their time ostracizing the “monsters” because they do not fit into their idea of pristine status. Perhaps if the characters had considered their similarities with the “monsters,” then neither Beowulf nor the dragon would have died. The fact that the character of the dragon is revealed toward the end of the poem reflects the running deconstruction of binaries throughout the story. The proximity of the dragon and Beowulf (both figuratively in their similar characteristics and literally in the positions of their bodies at death) simultaneously connects them on level ground (diminishing their differences) and underlines the fact that death is the inescapable destiny of everyone. “Each of them had journeyed to the end of this loaned life,” the poet explains (39.2844). No matter how glorious Beowulf had been, he has the same final fate as the dragon because not even he could escape death. Despite Beowulf ’s attempts to eradicate the monstrous dragon, they both lived in the same world. More than that, they both lived “loaned” existences. And it is within these existences that they both meet death. How thick are the borders between “hero” and “monster,” if both categories experience the same ultimate end? Beowulf ’s connection to the “monstrous” is worth examining because the preoccupation of the characters with status emphasizes the 14 Of Men & Monsters

categorization so prevalent in the text. Moreover, the established sense of what is socially acceptable can be observed in both Beowulf and the real world today. Beowulf may be considered ancient in the current time period, but the lessons that it encompasses are far from irrelevant. The old age of this particular text emphasizes the old age of ostracism, and thus the gravity of its stubborn existence at the very moment. The act of separating oneself from other members of society based on the fact that they are different quite literally results in the death of both the “hero” and the “monsters” in Beowulf. These deaths are in vain if the reasons that caused the deaths are not heeded as a warning against excluding those who we do not understand; more specifically, those we do not make an effort to understand. Beowulf never considers the perspectives of the “monsters” he so eagerly fights, and because of this, never understands them. And his ignorance does not die with him; it lives on in society today. Keeping this in mind, the question now becomes: How do we remedy this problem? Richard Zeikowitz, an English professor interested in Queer Studies, asserts that “transformation can occur only if students come to realize the part they play in an exploitative and unjust society” (68). His encouragement of students to evaluate their roles in society is a foundation for my own argument because the movement to eradicate ostracism can begin with those who have read Beowulf. These readers have insight into “hero” and “monster” dynamics that runs much deeper than surface level. The knowledge gained by reading Beowulf indicates not only the relevance of medieval texts in life today, but also their potential to spark positive change. As Durkheim keenly observes, “to make progress, individual originality must be able to express itself ” (143). In today’s society, “individual originality” is often associated with deviance - with members of society who shake the status quo, just as the “monsters” challenge the norms of society in Beowulf. This narrowminded functioning of society can be changed, but in order for this to be kelly kenyon

accomplished, society must include the “monster.” To ignore the “monsters” in society is to acknowledge only a fragment - an incomplete society. Essentially, the “monsters” in the text are only called such because they are considered foreign. What is more, their unfamiliarity remains intact because people push them away before attempting to understand them. Whether mentally or physically disabled, homosexual, or transgendered (among many other categories that people are placed in), many societal members do not feel they are members of society. To neglect addressing these exclusive attitudes is to neglect enacting any change for the better. Bildhauer and Mills argue that textual monsters are unable to be separated from the constructs of society, since they are “a way of understanding, and providing justification for, the deformed ‘among us’” (9). “Monsters” keep social order intact, providing a space at a safe distance to place what we either cannot or do not want to recognize as similar to ourselves. We can push the “monsters” away for only so long, however, because as aforementioned, the “monster” is within us. I argue not that everyone has an evil “monster within” that needs to be restrained, but the opposite. In agreeing that there is a “monster within,” I am asserting that similarities lurk beneath society’s surface, and that these traits should be embraced instead of ignored. In order to embrace these characteristics, however, we must be willing to swim against the current. We must make an effort to think about our perceptions of others before blindly agreeing with standards that have been embedded in society. Kroll compliments my argument, establishing that the undercurrent of Beowulf is inextricably tied to social constructs. Specifically, Kroll views these social constructs as the key to the way that citizens are supposed to regard one another. She says that “the Beowulf poet gives primary value to men’s responsibility to and dependence on other men,” and that “not only does every human’s good depend on the goodwill of other humans, a 16 Of Men & Monsters

matter of brotherhood, but every tribe’s existence and level of civilization depends on its harmonious coexistence with other nations or tribes” (119). What is ironic is that someone in society may consider him or herself a hero in being separate from the “monster,” but, as examined in Beowulf, the “hero” is actually more like the “monster” than he or she may like to think. Just as is demonstrated in Beowulf, we all live a “loaned” existence, and we all share the same final fate. If these end caps apply to everyone, then surely there are similarities that encompass us in between birth and death. Beowulf illustrates the dangers of exclusivity, but the text can only go so far; it becomes the responsibility of the readers to ultimately take action. Even though universal change may not necessarily occur (at least certainly not overnight), the point is that people make the attempt to examine themselves in relation to others. More specifically, that individuals make an effort. Significant changes often start in small ways, and even if society as a whole cannot become inclusive instead of exclusive, the point is that individuals think for themselves and do not simply agree with stigmas that have been established. Learning and growth are born of open-mindedness, not narrow-mindedness, and from open-mindedness is born positive change. Failing to acknowledge the “monsters” is ultimately failing to closely examine ourselves. The divide between “hero” and “monster” is not as wide as one may think when one first envisions medieval tales of monsters and heroes, but that divide will remain dangerously wide if we do not become a more open-minded society. If we do not learn from Beowulf, we only perpetuate the cycle of ignorance and narrow-mindedness. On the other hand, if we do learn from Beowulf, we can consequently learn from one another. James Phillips also interprets the Beowulf “monsters” as having realistic, current implications. Being in the company of predators, as the article’s title suggests, is to be in such close proximity to the predator (“monster”) that humans cannot deny the ties between themselves and the kelly kenyon

“monster.” Phillips asks, “Do we know who we are? Do we see monsters in the mirror?” (42). As I approach this question through a modern lens, I assert that we must see monsters in the mirror, since, just as in Beowulf, the “monsters” in society are more like us than we observe by taking a quick look in the mirror. Gurewitsch observes that bubbling under the “monster’s” exterior “lurks someone we need to know” (118). To reiterate: to understand ourselves as fully as possible, we need to make an attempt to understand the “monster.” In deconstructing what are perceived to be differences between “hero” and “monster,” Beowulf offers a valuable lesson. Whether or not the reader accepts the lesson is up to him or her, but the ostracism that occurs will only cease if one acknowledges that the present eventually becomes the past. If we do not learn from history, we will never learn that the world is not in fact restored to its proper order when the “monsters” are slain. Sometimes we need to step out of our comfort zone to recognize the similarities between ourselves and the “monsters.” Sometimes, we need to choose between what is simply comfortable and what is going to improve our understanding of both ourselves and our fellow human beings with whom we share this “loaned life.”

s 18 Of Men & Monsters

Works Cited Beowulf. Ed. R.M. Liuzza. Toronto: Broadview Press Ltd., 2000. Print. Bildhauer, Bettina, and Robert Mills. “Introduction: Conceptualizing the Monstrous.” The Monstrous Middle Ages. Toronto UP, 2003. 1-27. Print. Durkheim, Emile. “The Functions of Crime.” Seeing Ourselves: Classic, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings in Sociology. Eighth ed. Prentice Hall, 2010. 141-143. Print. Gurewitsch, Matthew. “Evildoer.” Smithsonian 37.1 (2006): 118-123. Print. Kearney, Richard. “Aliens and Others.” Strangers, Gods and Monsters. Roultedge, 2003. 65-82. Print. Kroll, Norma. “Beowulf: The Hero as Keeper of Human Polity.” Modern Philology 84.2 (1986): 117-129. Print. Lionarons, Joyce. “Beowulf and the Beowulf Dragon.” The Medieval Dragon: The Nature of the Beast in Germanic Literature. Hisarlik Press, 1998. 23-47. Print. Orchard, Andy. “Psychology and Physicality: The Monsters in Beowulf.” Pride and Prodigies. Cambridge: Brewer, 1985. 28-57. Print. Phillips, James. “In the Company of Predators.” Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 13.3 (2008): 41-51. Print. Zeikowitz, Richard E. “Befriending the Medieval Queer: A Pedagogy for Literature Classes.” College English 65.1 (2002): 67-80. Print. kelly kenyon

} 20 Of Men & Monsters

“If a woman can only succeed by emulating men, I think it is a great loss and not a success. The aim is not only for a woman to succeed, but to keep her womanhood and let her womanhood influence society.” Suzanne Brogger

“If I Were a Boy”: The Complications of Gender Binaries in Monster Narratives Miranda Spalding Beowulf is a text of binaries: man and beast, pagan and Christian, hero and king, friend and foe, us and them. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (hereafter SGGK) likewise contains binary constructions, especially in regard to monstrosity and alterity. Whether in these specific texts or life in general, few would dispute that a binary exists between male and female, or that patriarchal society elevates the male gender over the female. However, in the world of these two texts, there are women who disturb that dichotomy. They do not remain within the confines of their feminine roles and cross the border to participate in specifically masculine activities. I posit that this gender inversion creates a second binary within the clearer male/female binary: peace-weaver/peace-breaker. Because “binaries are almost always hierarchical in value, with the first term being the preferred, privileged one,” the question becomes which term must be listed first in the binary (D. Hall 162). I further argue that, though both texts construct the well-behaved women to remain within the peace-weaver side, Beowulf elevates (in a sublime sense) women who choose to not do so over those who do, whereas SGGK shows this action to be folly. The conflation of the women characters in these two poems creates new meaning for modern concepts of feminine 21

monstrosity. An acceptable, expected role for a woman in the Anglo-Saxon culture is the “peace-weaver.” Jamison explains that “[i]n order to bind men together and ensure peace, Germanic women of the highest rank sometimes served as peace pledges and were trafficked in marital exchange” (Jamison 13). Therefore, the woman is a key figure in establishing peace between warring nations. However, this usefulness does not equate with high value or respect as might be expected from a person who, in a sense, ends a war. The peace-weaver is merely a commodity, an object for men to trade for political means. In regard to Hygelac’s daughter, Hall argues “that ofermaðmas at least potentially means ‘excessive treasures’. Developing this reading implies a less favourable assessment of Hygelac’s actions here than has previously been inferred[…] [F]urther that the excess in Hygelac’s treasure-giving derives specifically from his gift of his only daughter, and the consequent loss to the Geats of the possibility of a diplomatic marriage through which they might end their feud with the Swedes” (A. Hall 81). The possibility of Hall’s argument presupposes the absolute maleness of power in these exchanges, leaving the obedient woman to serve merely as a commodity. Her objectification is especially apparent considering Hall’s rhetoric surrounding his argument: treasure-giving, excessive treasures and gift all refer to a human being. This binary of power within gender relations, men with the power versus women without, serves to separate men from women and create a clear border between the genders. Wealhtheow acts in accordance with this role: marrying Hrothgar, bearing him sons, and bringing mead to their thanes and guests. Jamison argues that “[s]he has, it seems, balanced or shifted her loyalties and assumes an important role in her husband’s hall, distributing mead and gold rings to her husband’s thanes and actively participating in forging political alliances. Her actions in the mead hall enable her to empower her husband’s men, for 22 Of Men & Monsters

those she serves first seem placed in a position of privilege” (Jamison 22). However, I argue instead that this serving is exactly that— she is a servant for the men around her. The strongest evidence of this fact is, in the one moment she attempts to assert herself in any way, the lack of response to her speech aimed at protecting her sons. She states she “know[s] that [her] own / dear gracious Hrothulf will hold in honors / these youths” (Beowulf 19.1180). She reminds Hrothgar she “expect[s] that he would wish to repay / both [their] sons kindly, if he recalls all / the pleasures and honors [they] have shown him” (Beowulf 19.1184) and she admonishes Beowulf to “[b]e to [her] sons kind in [his] deeds” (Beowulf 18.1226). These are the words of a strong woman who expects the men she addresses to respect her wishes. Yet, there is no acknowledgment of her speech. There is no lengthy vow to do as she bid as demonstrated in male relationships such as between Hrothgar and Beowulf. Not only does this silence highlight Wealhtheow’s powerlessness in her position as a woman, but it also delineates the stark difference between male to male relationships and male to female. Though Wealhtheow is worthy to serve as a peace-weaver, the men ignore her efforts to protect her sons, her only family in this foreign world given that her family traded her to establish peace. This tension creates an “us and them” dichotomy between men and women. Woman is Other: she does not deserve the same honor as men. Studying the culture of speech-giving indicates how rhetorical strategy is gender encoded in the text, as comparisons between male speeches and Wealtheow’s speech indicates. Davidson explains that While Hrothgar legitimizes the exchange of gifts with Beowulf in conventional heroic male speech, Wealhtheow’s speech frames its perspectives on exchange and obligation in lexically unique fashion. In ways that reveal Wealhtheow’s attempt to draw Beowulf ’s attention to kinship ties, her speech is constructed through lexical miranda spalding

differences that code gender at the same time as they express her kinship focus. Unique stylistic and collocational differences characterize her speech in ways that also encrypt the limits of her authority. Unlike Hrothgar’s speeches, Wealhtheow’s (1169–87; 1216–31) include few of the rhetorical devices outlined by Bjork […] The formal differences between the speeches of Wealhtheow and Hrothgar are clear, and these differences are functional. The poet’s linguistic choices express the desires and interests of the speakers and, especially for the purposes of my discussion here, encode gender through variation within the constraints of poetic diction. (Davidson 149-151).

Wealhtheow’s feeble attempts to engage with masculine speech-giving strategies are largely ignored, which suggests that her meager attempts to behave masculine are too subtle and weak to be acknowledged. This brief moment in which Wealhtheow attempts to perform the masculine is a diluted version of stronger women who more successfully attempt to do the same. Wealhtheow’s failure indicates the difficulty in asserting any authority as a peace-weaver. Though not nominally or culturally a “peace-weaver” in the text, Guinevere’s role is certainly comparable and can even be aligned with the associated actions of a peace-weaver. Guinevere’s introduction in the poem describes only her beauty, not her personality or even her position in the court. Further, the text describes her beauty in relation to the jewels she wears, as well as objectifies her physical traits when the poet states “not one stone outshone / the quartz of the queen’s eyes” (SGGK 1.81). Material goods and her comparison to them define Guinevere’s worth, which indicates a similar view of the woman as a commodity in the peace-weaver tradition. Further, Guinevere does not speak and her only mention again within the first fitt is as “his [Arthur’s] queen of queens” in his condescending admonition to not fear the strange events (SGGK 1.469). Like a peace24 Of Men & Monsters

weaver, she also is a possession of her husband, as the possessive pronoun indicates. Overlapping the two women who act within the confines of their gender demonstrates little shift in the codified behavior of proper womenqueenly yet subservient. Though they serve a purpose in the society, even treated with respect in some cases, they are not powerful by any means. Wealhtheow attempts to assert authority and fails; Guinevere does not even approach the possibility. There are women in these two texts, however, who attempt to perform the masculine gender strongly and successfully. Examinations of women who violate the confines of the peace-weaver role offer more relevant information pertaining to the shift in portrayals of women in monster narratives. In the interest of simplicity, I will refer to women who rebel against the peace-weaver role as “peace-breakers.” These women cross the boundary that divides the binary of gender to not only disturb traditional gender roles by acting masculine, but also to disrupt the peace of the society in so doing. These masculine actions make them “peacebreakers.” For example, “[i]n the terms described in Luce Irigaray’s Women on the Market, [Thryth]’s masculine performance manages to subvert the usual use of women as objects in exchanges between men” when she aggressively assumes authority over the men of her hall (Dockray-Miller 5). Thryth rebels against her gender role: “[a]fter all, the usual assumption of [Thryth]’s wickedness is that she has repudiated the conventional female role of passive peaceweaver [sic] and taken matters of violence, best left to men, into her own hands” (Dockray-Miller 9). When Thryth does assume this role, she “has the ultimate power, that of life and death, over the men in her hall. This power is masculine in terms of the gender construction of the text; those who wield power are men, like Beowulf or Higelac, and those who are completely powerless are women, like Hildeburh or Freawaru...Because she is wielding power as she arranges the deaths of the men who have offended miranda spalding

her, she is constructing her gender, and that gender, within the terms of the poem, is masculine. [Thryth] is making an absolute, masculine statement” (Dockray-Miller 10). Further, it is important to note that, while operating within her constructed masculine gender, Thryth evokes terror: No man so bold among her own retainers / dared to approach her, accept as her prince, / or dared to look into her eyes by day; / for he knew that deadly bonds, braided by hand, / were waiting for him— first the hand-grip, / and quickly after a blade appointed, / so that a patterned sword had to settle things, / proclaim the execution. That is no queenly custom / for lady to perform— no matter how lovely— / that a peace-weaver should deprive of life / a friendly man after a pretended affront. (Beowulf 27.1933-1943).

The text explicitly states that her aggressive behavior is improper for a woman, which indicates clear transgression in Thryth’s assumption of a masculine identity. For this reason, the text subverts her into the traditional gender role for women with her marriage to Offa. Dockray-Miller asserts vehemently that Thryth’s marriage does not tame her, yet the critic simultaneously acknowledges that “after three and half lines (1951b-1954) [of] praising her as a good, traditional queen, the poet moves on to praise her husband and does not mention [Thryth] again. She has disappeared from a story which is supposedly hers. Her body disappears as well as her name; her son Eomer is born not from her but thonon (1.1960), from him, i.e. from Offa. There is no need to mention the passive woman who does her duty as gold-adorned, fertile queen” (Dockray-Miller 15). In her reading of the text, Dockray-Miller refuses to recognize that with Thryth relinquishing her role as a masculine figure, the text has successfully subverted her back into traditional gender roles of marriage and child-bearing, “at her father’s wish” no less (Beowulf 27.1951). 26 Of Men & Monsters

The text condemns her behavior prior to her submission to both her father and new husband, as well as indicates with that submission that her attempt to perform the masculine cannot be sustained. However, the fact that she inspired fear signifies that there were men following her orders and thus her attempt to perform the masculine had temporary success. SGGK contains women who likewise attempt to play the game of assuming a masculine identity: Morgan, in collaboration with Lady Bertilak. However, these women do not taste power in ways even remotely parallel to Thryth. The juxtaposition of Lord Bertilak’s hunting scenes with Lady Bertilak’s similar attempts to “hunt” (seduce) Gawain, while he succeeds and she fails, begins to establish and emphasize the failure of women who attempt to wield masculine power. Even worse, Morgan believed “grieving Guinevere would go to her grave,” which is the original intent of her creation of the Green Knight (SGGK 4.2460). Further, she utilizes a male to act as the monstrous Other figure instead of herself. When Gawain returns home and shares his adventure, he implies he sees value in the lesson he learned from his encounter with the Green Knight. Further, the response of his people is overwhelmingly positive, providing comfort and even laughter (SGGK 4.2512). As a result of Gawain’s adventure, all the knights of the Order wear a green sash; the fact that “[e]ach knight who held [the green belt] was honored forever” is a sign from the text that the people celebrate the lesson Gawain shared with them, finalizing the positive outcome of Morgan’s failed attempts to cause Guinevere’s death (SGGK 4.2520). This cheery culmination to the events of the text was never Morgan’s original purpose, indicating her utter failure either to achieve her desires or wreak any havoc. Sir Gawain’s outburst against Morgan and Lady Bertilak, who successfully manipulate him to lie to Lord Bertilak, indicates the text’s negative view of their attempts to wield masculine power. Gerald Morgan miranda spalding

argues that Gawain’s behavior preceding his rant against women necessitates the understanding that the outburst is not an example of misogyny, especially because he is “impeccably courteous” throughout his interactions with Lady Bertilak (Morgan 271). However, G. Morgan fails to recognize that Gawain maintains this courteous behavior as a facet of his chivalric code which crumbles once he comprehends the deceit involved in those conversations with the Lady. He undeniably blames his failure to adhere to his agreement with Lord Bertilak on the deceptions of women. When G. Morgan evacuates gender from the moment, insisting instead that Gawain’s outburst is a reflection of his frustration at his sins in a moment of piety, G. Morgan fails to recognize that the transgression of women attempting to manipulate Sir Gawain, and thus assume masculine power, evokes this frustration (Morgan 275). While Lady Bertilak maintained an acceptable, though slightly more deviant role, Sir Gawain maintained his chivalry. However, the revelation of the larger plot, which involves a woman assuming a masculine role of power, breaks down his usual chivalric behavior. His reaction, aimed purely at the women involved, and not the male Lord Bertilak, indicates the transgression in Morgan (and, by extension, Lady Bertilak’s) attempts to perform the masculine. These peace-breakers, however, ultimately fail because Sir Gawain leaves only with a moral lesson and a scar to remind him of his encounter with the Green Knight. Grendel’s mother is an example of another peace-breaker; however, her masculine behavior surpasses the masculine women of the two poems to include a particularly monstrous aspect. Acker posits that her existence in the poem is a projection of anxiety about the maternal as well as the flaws in the revenge system. I posit a third projection of anxiety: a biologically female character who performs the masculine gender. Not only does Grendel’s mother wreak havoc that parallels the physical damage and fear Grendel had caused previously, but she does so in an act of calculated vengeance. 28 Of Men & Monsters

Violence and revenge had previously been specifically masculine activities. Though Grendel’s mother responds out of belated protection of her son, thus reflecting motherly instincts, in a way that parallels Wealtheow’s speech aimed at protecting her own sons, Grendel’s mother removes her actions from the sphere of feminine, motherly behavior and situates them within the masculine. Jamison agrees when he states “[w]hen Beowulf fatally wounds her son, she exchanges violence for violence. Such aggressive behavior, deemed masculine, largely contributes to Grendel’s mother’s status as “monster,” setting her apart from, and in contrast to, the women who act as peace pledges in the text” (Jamison 26). By assuming the role of avenger, Grendel’s mother greatly displaces herself from her femaleness, as the occasional application of masculine terms to her further demonstrates. As such, her presence complicates the dichotomy between good and bad women. However, her equal does not exist in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Though Morgan is certainly the strongest female figure in SGGK, her manipulative efforts fail completely, leaving only a benevolent lesson in their wake rather than the fearsome (albeit short-lived) terror Grendel’s mother inspires. The absence of such a figure, indeed in all successive monster narratives, is worthy of examination. Waterhouse asserts that Grendel’s mother “differs strikingly from the women in the recent monster discourses…[;] the perpetual gender power struggle within society and culture does not allow the female to overcome the male in physical combat, but the female is in no way as weak an Other as the female of the Self ” (Waterhouse 35, 36). She further asserts “that a monster could be female for the Anglo-Saxons (instead of a female becoming a monster, as in later texts) suggests that women were not as marginalized as they came to be in the later periods” (Waterhouse 36). However, Waterhouse does not examine further what the presence of Grendel’s mother accomplishes for a binary between miranda spalding

good and bad women. I propose that her inclusion in the poem indicates the possibility of a woman successfully performing the masculine gender. As Francus explains about 18th century literature (which is certainly applicable to the portrayal of Grendel’s mother), The female body is a convenient site for chaos, as it is located between the created and the uncreated. The chaos of the female in these works is signified by the womb and its products, which embody darkness and void; the womb also generates anxieties attendant upon the inability to fill or illuminate such a space. The darkness of the maternal womb echoes the primordial darkness that is a precondition of divine creation, which invokes light (Gen. 1:3). As light is established as a masculine positive associated with order and reason, darkness is construed as its devilish opposite: a feminine force associated with chaos and the imagination. Accordingly, the maternal body is situated in darkness throughout these works: Errour lives in a darkened cave (itself a metaphorical womb) and shuns the light, as do her children. Sin, as a denizen of hell, exists in darkness visible; Criticism, though less clearly identified with physical darkness than with perpetuation of intellectual dimness, lives in a den (BB, 240). Dulness, the daughter of Chaos and Night, not only lives in darkness, but is a purveyor of darkness, as she parodies divine creation by reversing it. In her reign “Universal Darkness buries All,” as she induces the world to sleep-and into the realm of the unconscious and the imagination, where reason loses its hold on artistic and intellectual accountability. Like the Platonic caves that they invoke, the shadowy wombs and dens of the monstrous mother function as images of entrapment and intellectual deception. As monstrous mothers produce and rear their monstrous progeny in these darkened domiciles, nature perpetuates the unnatural; by insisting that the female domain as chaos can only generate chaos, these works argue for the necessity, if not the primacy, of the masculine. Felicity Nussbaum notes that in the misogynistic literature of the period “the inevitable rhyme for ‘womb’ is ‘tomb,”’ which also suggests that by giving birth these monsters 30 Of Men & Monsters

produce death (and in the case of Sin, literally so). (Francus 832).

Grendel’s mother likewise embodies this anxiety of sexuality and reproduction in the female. She lives in the mire, producing evil progeny who lurks in the dark only to attack and terrorize his human neighbors at night while they sleep- an ignoble, reprehensible act. As the source for this evil, as well as being capable of enacting the masculine traits her son does, she transgresses in a way no human woman could previously in Beowulf or in the future with other female monsters. Grendel’s mother creates a sublime fear of women who successfully behave socially masculine. She must be killed and dismembered in order to eliminate such a transgression of societal norms; however, Grendel is similarly dispatched which suggests the equation of the fear of Grendel’s mother with that of Grendel. Morgan, in contrast, is free to continue her haphazard attempts at monstrosity, as the text elevates Gawain’s lesson about the sins of man and his return to Camelot with that lesson over the brief mention of Morgan’s hand in the matter. A woman who utilizes the sexuality of her puppet, Lady Bertilak, in chaotic attempts to kill her female rival over petty jealousy (culturally feminine behaviors) is hardly in need of elimination like a woman who successfully performs masculine behaviors. This difference in the end result for the strongest women in each work indicates that women are less feared and used to be taken more seriously. Little changes from peace-weaver (Wealhtheow, the subdued Thryth) to later proper women (Guinevere): submissive, beautiful, uninvolved, faint of heart even. However, by examining the peace-breakers between the two texts, a digression in the portrayal of women is apparent. The creation of women who are dangerous, but only through sexuality, without even a punishable ending for the males entrapped in their games, detracts from any empowerment that women could have. Though bad women were punished miranda spalding

by subversion back into the acceptable female role or death in Beowulf, they at least took some men with them and had a damaging effect. However, this idea that women could have power of the intellect or strength was too dangerous and is replaced instead with women beautiful and seductive, yet only causing chaos. The comparison between women characters in Beowulf and those in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight indicate a shift in the portrayal of women in monster narratives. Beowulf establishes a dichotomy between impotent women who operate within the confines of their gender in the role of peace-weaver and women who disrupt the gender binaries to act as peace-breakers. SGGK contains a parallel dichotomy between proper women and women who violate the code of their gender. Examining the differences between the peace-breakers of both texts indicates a shift from powerful, masculine women with some level of success to women whose power resides only in sexuality and the results of their efforts are chaos and laughable lessons. This difference between dangerous women affects today as female monstrosity continues to operate in relation to sexual appeal rather than the terrifying power of archaic female monsters. An especially pertinent example of this phenomenon is the 2007 film interpretation of Beowulf, which features a naked, golden, high heel-wearing (seriously?) CGI Angelina Jolie as Grendel’s mother who utilizes her sexuality to manipulate the men around her in a chaotic, sketchy plot that more closely resembles Morgan’s shoddy attempts to orchestrate the events of the text than the original, terror-inducing Grendel’s mother. Wang explains how in modern horror films, the female Other operates only in relation to the male— a trend that evidently began in much earlier monster narratives.

s 32 Of Men & Monsters

Works Cited Acker, Paul. “Horror and the Maternal in ‘Beowulf.’” Modern Language Association. 121.3 (May 2006): 702-716. Web. Jstor. 4/4/12. Beowulf. Trans. R.M. Liuzza. Toronto: Broadview Press Lt., 2000. Print. Davidson, Mary Catherine. “Speaking of Nostalgia in Beowulf.” Modern Philology. 103.2 (November 2005): 143-155. Web. Jstor. 4/4/12. Dockray-Miller, Mary. “The Masculine Queen of ‘Beowulf.’” Women and Language. 21.2 (Fall 1998): 31-xx. Web. Literature Resource Center. 3/21/12. Francus, Marilyn. “The Monstrous Mother: Reproductive Anxiety in Swift and Pope.” ELH. 61.4 (Winter 1994): 829-851. Web. Jstor. 04/04/12. Hall, Alaric. “Hygelac’s only daughter: a present, a potentate and a peaceweaver in Beowulf.” Studia Neophilologica. 78.1 (June 2006): 81-86. Web. Academic Search Premier. 3/21/12. Hall, Donald E. Literary and Cultural Theory: From Basic Principles to Advanced Applications. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001. Print. Jamison, Carol Parrish. “Traffic of Women in Germanic Literature: The Role of the Peace Pledge in Marital Exchanges.” Women in German Yearbook: Feminist Studies in German Literature and Culture. 20 (2004): 13-36. Web. MLA International Bibliography. 3/21/12. Morgan, Gerald. “Medieval Misogyny and Gawain’s Outburst against Women in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” Modern Language Review. 97.2 (April 2002): 265-278. Web. Academic Search Premier. 3/21/12.

miranda spalding

Murphy, Michael. “Vows, Boasts and Taunts and the Role of Women in Some Medieval Literature.” English Studies. 66.2 (April 1985, 2002): 105-112. Web. Academic Search Premier. 3/21/12. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Trans. Simon Armitage. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2007. Print. Wang, Yiman. “Here, Again, Comes the Bride-to-be: Refiguring the gender and Remaking the horror.” Language and Literature. 28 (2003): 43- 65. Web. Academic Search Premier. 3/21/12. Waterhouse, Ruth. “Beowulf as Palimpsest.” J.J. Cohen. Ed. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1996. 26-39. Print.

34 Of Men & Monsters

Beowulf Film Adaptations: High and Low Culture Misconceptions Rachel Olson Beowulf, the heroic English epic, is arguably one of the most valued works of early English literature. Yet, modern film adaptations modify the traditional values set in place by the anonymous Beowulf poet. In place of heroic sacrifice, valiant fights of good versus evil, and iconic death scenes, Beowulf in film displays sex, violence, and cliché dialogue. The abrupt shift from artful poetic literature to gruesome and borderline-pornographic images represents an appeal to what Herbert Gans refers as “low culture” (Gans 115). According to Gans, low culture finds value in and appreciation of familial dysfunction, bawdy and overly-erotic sexual imagery, a clear distinction between good and evil, yet disdains and, at times, is disgusted by examples of high culture. By incorporating elements such as these in the Beowulf films, directors Zemeckis, Gunnarsson, and Baker attempt to market a canonical representation of high culture to a low culture audience. Such adaptations do not replicate or replace the Beowulf text because they do not intend to do so. Rather, they represent how all film adaptations serve as supplementary texts, translations, and commentary intended for a modern audience and, in the specific case of the Beowulf films, use this intertextuality to help redefine monstrosity in the modern world. Beowulf ’s story has been retold and adapted countless times for the universal appeal of its plot, characters, and cultural commentary. Beowulf is the story of a heroic Geat who, after hearing stories of woe, travels to free the Danes from attack by a powerful, seemingly-unstoppable monster, Grendel. rachel olson

Beowulf defends Heorot, the hall of Hrothgar, king of the Danes. Beowulf defeats Grendel during a nightly assault by ripping off Grendel’s arm, using his (Beowulf ’s) bare hands. Following Grendel’s death (the result of the gruesome amputation), Grendel’s mother attacks the hall out to avenge her dead son. She too is defeated, though with the use of a powerful sword. The death of Grendel’s mother earns Beowulf honor, glory, and treasure, with which he proudly returns home. After fifty years as a respected king, Beowulf again learns of an attack by a treacherous monster, this time on his own kingdom. Beowulf fights the monster, an incredible dragon, but in doing so sacrifices his own life. Beowulf, thus, is a story of glory, triumph of good over evil, and the defeat of monstrosity. The film versions, however, are not as iconic or artfully composed. In the most recent of the three adaptations, Zemeckis’ Beowulf (2007), Beowulf still reigns a hero, but does so only in part, due to a lack of fidelity and self-restraint. Beowulf still fights all three monsters, though is not truly responsible for the death of any. Grendel, a childlike deformed beast, does die following the removal of his arm, yet its amputation is done after Beowulf binds him with a chain and closes Heorot’s heavy wooden door on it, rather than Beowulf using his hands alone. Hrothgar, a randy, drunken man, is the secret father of Grendel, following an adulterous encounter with the seductress, Grendel’s mother (a golden, tailed, naked Angelina Jolie in heels). Rather than kill her (as the original story tells), Beowulf also has a sexual encounter with Grendel’s mother, resulting in the dragon Beowulf must defeat at the film’s end. Though not a direct replication of the Beowulf text, (“Hrothgar has no heirs; Hrothgar kills himself; Beowulf inherits Hrothgar’s kingdom and queen” (“Popularizing” 46)), Zemeckis’ Beowulf is the most textually accurate of the three films. Beowulf and Grendel, Gunnarsson’s 2005 creation, takes a number of liberties with the Beowulf text by generating plot lines as well as incorporating 36 Of Men & Monsters

new characters and altering iconic scenes. In Beowulf and Grendel, there are only two monsters, Grendel and his mother, but arguably, the film represents the violent ethnocentric Danes and Geats as more monstrous than the traditional fiends. Once again, despite the explicit mention of Grendel’s lack of father in the text, Gunnarson (like Zemeckis) generates a father: this time in the form of an innocently slaughtered troll. Grendel thus becomes a victim in this version, mourning the loss of his father and only seeking vengeance on those affiliated with his death. Grendel is the protector of Selma, a Pagan witch, who after years of rape and abuse by the Danes, has a brief sexual encounter with Grendel, after which she bears an unnamed, rarely seen son. Beowulf, through testimony of both Selma and Hrothgar regarding Grendel’s past, empathizes with Grendel though he neglects to convince his men to feel the same. Following the destruction of Grendel’s father’s skull (a trophy kept for years of humanly mourning), Grendel finally attacks Heorot, affording Beowulf the chance to kill the monster he traveled to defeat. Instead, Beowulf only captures Grendel through the use of a chain, before Grendel cuts off his own arm to be free and return home. Though Grendel dies and his mother arrives for revenge, Beowulf defeats her at the mere before, at the conclusion of the film, Selma and Grendel’s son appears. Beowulf, upon discovering the young boy realizes his nationalistic, terrorizing ways, and thus spares the boy’s life, stopping the cycle of crosscultural murder. Although Beowulf and Grendel takes numerous liberties with the Beowulf story, Baker’s 1999 adaptation is, by far, the most divergent film of the three. In Baker’s Beowulf, set in a post-apocalyptic future, Beowulf arrives at Hrothgar’s much-feared castle, drawn by “the Darkness” (“Graham Baker” 245). There he meets a slew of new characters including Hrothgar’s independent, scantily-clad daughter, Kyra. Grendel, the secret lovechild of Hrothgar and Grendel’s over-sexed mother, lives in the dungeon, periodically rachel olson

attacking for the sole purpose of exposing Hrothgar’s paternity. Beowulf, the son of an evil God, has tremendous supernatural powers, allowing him to succeed where the Danes have failed, by killing Grendel (this time with a knife). Though (as with Beowulf and Grendel) there is no mention of a dragon, Grendel’s mother does appear, revealing Hrothgar’s fatherhood, the related suicide of Hrothgar’s wife, and an apparent desire to seduce Beowulf in order to kill him. Despite transforming into an over-sized crab-like spider monster with a human head (complete with make-up), Grendel’s mother is unsuccessful in killing Beowulf and ultimately dies after he lights her on fire. As flames consume her, they also destroy the castle, an inconsequential misfortune given that the only two survivors, Beowulf and Kyra, manage to escape. The two ride off into the sunset, thus concluding the film. Kathleen Forni asserts that the adaptations of Baker and Zemeckis’ Beowulf films represent intersections between what Herbert Gans defines as high and low culture. Though not explicitly stated, authors William F. Hodapp and E.L. Risden might agree that Beowulf and Grendel also could be defined as such, due to their clearly argued opposition to the sexualization and plot alterations. Gans accurately contends that there exists a dichotomy between “educated practitioners of high culture” and “most of the rest of society, rich and poor, which prefers the popular culture now supplied mainly by the mass media and other consumer goods industries” (3). Such class conflicts are “an attack by the cultured against the uncultured, the educated against the uneducated, the experts against the laity, and the most affluent against the less affluent,” representing a debate surrounding cultural values and appreciations (4). In the case of the Beowulf films, the directors have attempted to reach the largest possible audience; therefore, they have appealed, not to members of high culture (who would naturally appreciate the original Beowulf text (101)), but to members of low culture whose aesthetic appeal favors standardized pop culture through the “use 38 Of Men & Monsters

of formulas and stereotypical characters and plots” (32). Thus, the Beowulf directors, having target audiences in mind, marketed a high culture product to a low culture audience by adjusting the values, beliefs, and appeals of the original text. Although Gans, and by extension Forni, rightly argue that low culture adaptations alter texts for marketability rather than aesthetic value, both underestimate the value of film adaptation. Movie critics often unfairly judge film adaptations as “unfaithful” to the original. Though as Brian McFarlane correctly asserts, it is “more helpful to consider what film and literature have in common than either to require film to ‘reproduce’ the experience of the [text] (however doomed an enterprise that might be) or to insist simply on the authority of the film” (Cartmell and Whelehan 19). Examining film adaptations as unique translations of texts, rather than required replications, allows for a richer understanding of the film and deeper appreciation for a new reading of the original text. Film critics use terms such as “violation,” “vulgarization,” “bastardization,” and “desecration” to describe the accuracy of text-to-screen adaptations. The use of such terms gives expression to the intense disappointment we feel when a film fails to capture what we believe to be fundamental elements (Stam 3). In doing so, critics who unfairly label film adaptations establish a hierarchy of interpretations, insinuating the inferiority of low culture. Though their names might suggest otherwise, Gans argues that taste cultures (high and low) are not inherently better or worse than one another, yet merely reflect societal norms and values. Instead, he claims that “all human beings have aesthetic urges; a receptivity to symbolic expressions of their wishes and fears; a demand for both knowledge and wish-fulfillment about their society; and a desire to spend freetime, if such exists, in ways that diverge from their work routine” (91). Thus, according to Gans, “all taste cultures are of equal worth” and the expression of different aesthetic appreciations merely reflects “values, aspirations, and fears” of the rachel olson

taste culture (“Graham Baker” 24). With the understanding that taste cultures are of equal value, to stigmatize film adaptations for appealing to low culture is to unfairly criticize the values of an entire cultural population. Pop culture film analyst Richard Keller Simon posits that “for people with inquiring minds but short attention spans, our stories of suffering, fall, and recognition now come … as a kind of fast-food tragedy-to-go, but the fragments themselves contain nearly all the essential elements of dramatic tragedy” (Simon 2), thus arguing that although the great literature of the past might appear cheapened by modern interpretations, in reality, there is little difference between original texts and contemporary adaptations. Rather than stressing linguistic perfection or aesthetic appeal, “brevity, clarity, and accessibility are the principles of this new tragic form” (5). In modern literature, these three qualities are highly regarded as demarcations of an experienced author. So why do these understandings not translate to film? If taste cultures are equal and modern film includes indicators of quality writing, why then is there this stigma against film adaptations? The answer lies with the values and beliefs of low culture, itself. Gans claims that low culture shares a set of desires common to all taste cultures, yet the needs shared by all for simple binaries and clear resolution present themselves in unique ways. Low culture’s “dominant views are dramatized and sensationalized” with particular emphasis on demarcating good and evil” (Gans 116). The split between good and evil is often melodramatic, enhancing the dichotomy between hero and villain, with the former always winning over the latter (116). Thus, the Beowulf films’ incorporation of these and other such low culture values represent how taste cultures participate in cultural straddling, or the downward and upward selections from different taste cultures (136). Film critics resent film adaptations like Beowulf because, “as cultures borrow from 40 Of Men & Monsters

one another, content is often transformed to make it understandable or acceptable to different publics” (137) leaving the borrowed material to be perceived as “tainted because its use by the popular culture has lowered its cultural prestige” (39). By emphasizing four values of low culture—familial dysfunction, sex, a resentment for higher culture, and the established roles of good and evil—the Beowulf directors generate controversy within high culture, but in no way bastardize the original text. One primary interest of low culture is familial dysfunction. According to Simon, “the great literary tradition and trash culture both ‘refract universal human themes through different cultural prisms’” (“Graham Baker” 248) and so trash culture, or low culture, shares the same values expressed through high culture literature. This is true of Beowulf, both in text and film, through the lens of familial dysfunction. The text is riddled with examples family discord: Beowulf and Grendel have no fathers in a patrilineal society, tensions surrounding the endowment of Hrothgar’s kingdom arise, Wealhtheow (Hrothgar’s wife) is a strong, outspoken independent woman in a time of near-complete female submission, and Grendel’s mother acts upon masculine impulses, seeking brutal vengeance for her son’s death. In the films, such familial dysfunction exists as well. A sort of melodrama surfaces as Zemeckis and Baker make Hrothgar Grendel’s father. In doing so, Hrothgar becomes guilty of infidelity, discrediting him as a husband, a loyal king, and a man. By falling victim to seduction, Hrothgar represents the weakness and inferiority of men. In Baker’s Beowulf, Hrothgar is primarily an “irresponsible and neglectful father and his struggle with Grendel is transformed into the sort of familial melodrama dealing with ‘the problem of upholding tradition and maintaining order against irrepressible sexual impulses’” (“Graham Baker” 248). Beowulf follows suit in Zemeckis’ version, losing the viewers’ sympathy and respect in his “selfish blindness rachel olson

to the effects of [his] moral choices” (Hodapp 106). In doing so, Beowulf becomes corrupt and untrustworthy, giving Grendel’s mother the moral high ground as she articulates to Beowulf, “I know that underneath your glamour you’re as much a monster as my son, Grendel” (106). Thus, a dysfunctional web of illegitimate children, secrecy, infidelity, and moral corruption join the films, generating pop culture buzz, rather than deep thematic meaning. In Zemeckis’ Beowulf, Hrothgar’s infidelity provokes Wealhtheow’s rejection (denying him an heir) and in Baker’s Beowulf, it leads to Weahtheow’s suicide. Even in Gunnarsson’s Beowulf and Grendel, the introduction of Grendel’s father creates tension in the film, leading to Grendel’s ostracism, and ultimate sexual domination of Selma. Fatherhood in all three films adds low culture drama, generating subplots and tensions between characters which fuel the familial dramatic “appeal to lowbrow audiences” (“Graham Baker” 247). The question of paternity and of fidelity in these films closely links the low culture appeal for familial dysfunction to the desire for sex on screen. Beowulf is seduced in all three films, whether by Grendel’s mother, Selma, or Kyra. All three cater to “low culture’s preference for both clear and moral dichotomies and women who are ‘overtly erotic’” (Gans in “Graham Baker” 247). The female leads are “sexually aggressive, dominating over and corrupting the actions of Beowulf and Hrothgar (Gans 118). In Zemeckis’ Beowulf, men are unable to control their libidos (especially when they gain higher status by indulging), ultimately transforming them into “more powerful, more monstrous, and less scrupulous versions of themselves” (Risden 111). Grendel’s mother (the golden Angelina Jolie) seduces Beowulf and Hrothgar, producing powerful heirs capable of incredible destruction while seemingly enjoying “less in the liaisons than in her ability to show her sexual superiority and productivity” (111). Selma too produces an heir in Gunnarsson’s film, one capable of stopping cross-cultural feuds. Thus, 42 Of Men & Monsters

it seems, when women use their sexuality in Beowulf films, they do so to prolong power and dominate over men. This is most certainly the case in Baker’s Beowulf. Grendel’s mother and Kyra both wield their own power, conforming to “well-worn good girl/bad girl stereotypes” with Kyra as the “sexually available nurturer who strokes the hero’s ego (among other things) and functions as the ultimate tangible reward for his courage and prowess” while Grendel’s mother (played by Playboy’s October 1997 Playmate of the Month, Layla Roberts), plays “the scheming seductress who uses her sexuality to destroy men” much like Grendel’s mother in Zemeckis’ film. Both Kyra and Grendel’s voluptuous mother sport leather, transparent, or loosely woven clothing to accentuate their bodies, and establish themselves, paradoxically, as objects capable of commanding power and respect. As monsters, Grendel’s mother in Zemeckis’ and Baker’s Beowulf link “monstrosity with the forbidden” making them all the more appealing “as a temporary egress from constraint” (Cohen 17). As Cohen argues, although there is a natural repulsion of the deceptive and monstrous, the sex appeal of these temptresses offers “the possibilities of other genders, other sexual practice, and other social customs” that can be explored (18). By serving as dangerous, deceptive, and cunning, while maintaining a seductive air, Grendel’s mother in these two films “lurks somewhere in that ambiguous, primal space between fear and attraction, close to the heart of what Kristeva calls ‘abjection’” (Cohen 19). Kristeva defines abjection as “that which does not ‘respect borders, positions, rules… that which ‘disturbs identity, system, order” (Creed 45). Although Beowulf rejects (at least temporarily) both of the Grendel’s mother figures, the abject monstrous women are still needed. They are needed because without an Other (an opposing order of binary), there would be no true definition of self (46). Beowulf cannot fully understand himself without an Other from which to distinguish, just as low culture audience members need an Other because expulsion can only rachel olson

occur when one rejects a part of the self connecting him/her to that which is despised (47); and yet, the audience cannot reject Grendel’s mother as Playboy Bunny or golden goddess, because rejection of these monstrous women would be a denial of sexual self. All of the coveted women involved in the Beowulf films are Other, monster, unique, or dangerous. The women are strong, independent, sexually liberated, passionate beings because the low culture audience longs for sex at the cinema and for the self. Another example of abjection in the Beowulf films which appeals to low culture is the incorporation of high culture elements. The story of the films inherently bonds them to the high culture text of Beowulf. While Forni justifiably argues that “the intention is to pack theaters, not to explore the complexities of Germanic or Anglo-Saxon culture,” (“Popularizing” 55) in reality, while Baker, Gunnarsson , and Zemeckis may not have been trying to make a commentary about the culture of the original text, they were most definitely appealing to the love-hate relationship low culture shares with high culture. According to Gans, low culture members are “likely to reject [high] ‘culture,’ and even with a degree of hostility. They find culture not only dull but also effeminate, immoral, and sacrilegious” (Gans 115). While Gans may be correct in assuming resentment on the part of low culture, in reality, low culture also aspires to be like high culture. Low culture demonizes high culture, making it monstrous. Yet, as Cohen correctly asserts, the monster is a symbol which reveals some greater truth about society (Cohen 4). The intermingling of high and low culture to fulfill mutual needs and desires is known as “subcultrual programming (Gans 175). Subcultural programming enables “audiences to find content best suited to their wants and needs, thus increasing their aesthetic and other satisfactions and the relevance of their culture to their loves” (175). By embracing the monstrous high culture, such as the Beowulf plotline, film makers marketing on behalf of low culture attempt to “impose their own taste and values on the audience, and many 44 Of Men & Monsters

see themselves as popular educators trying to improve audience taste” (34). In this way, low culture meets what it both loathes and aspires to be, through political, social, and aesthetic appreciation. Cohen argues that the monster’s body is a cultural body; in the case of Beowulf, high culture (made abject and onstrous by low culture) is a reflection of a low cultured body’s values and desires (Cohen 4). The final low culture value exhibited within the Beowulf film adaptations is that of the portrayal of good versus evil. However, like the appreciation for culture, this value is more complex than the instinctual or carnal desires for basic family drama or sexual entertainment. The Beowulf films alter drastically the notion of good versus evil from the original text. In the original, Beowulf is the clear hero and the monsters (Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and the dragon) are undoubtedly villains. Yet, in each of the three films, intentional steps are taken to humanize the monsters by adding new character traits, new behaviors, and new background stories. In Zemeckis’ Beowulf, Grendel is weak, vulnerable, sensitive and childlike. His primitive speech, dependence on his mother, and tremendous emotional shifts portray him as an underdeveloped being worthy of pity. Grendel’ mother, as previously mentioned, loses her masculine aggressive role from the text, becoming a coveted temptress. The dragon is Beowulf ’s son who, upon being killed, shrivels into the form of a human. In Gunnarsson’s version, Grendel mourns his innocent, murdered farther, cries, beats himself with rocks, and protects the mother of his child. In Baker’s Beowulf, Grendel only seeks acknowledgment of his father’s paternity while his mother is a powerful shape shifting seductress. In essence, all of these monsters are humanized; “with each new incarnation the boundaries between good and evil are blurred just a shade more,” (Farrell 947), posing questions about the true meaning of evil. Forni states that directors frame “modern assumptions about heroes and monsters, not historical ones” because historically the rachel olson

monster/hero binary was clear and now, the line is blurred (“Popularizing” 55). In all three films, Beowulf neglects to remove Grendel’s arm using his bare hands. Thus the hero loses his inherent strength and power found in the original text. By using a weapon or device, Beowulf too becomes more human, further blurring the lines between good and evil. Although Gans claims low culture values a simple hero/villain distinction, our modern world views monstrosity as a part of life. The monsters in the Beowulf films, to an extent, are like us (the viewers). They are emotional, sexual, imperfect beings trying to survive as best they know how. In this way, we are all monsters. Film critics of Zemeckis’ Beowulf “seemed little bothered by the departure from the original, praising the creative team for its commercial savvy, the chief standard, from an industry perspective, by which the product is judged” (“Popularizing” 47). The changes made are acceptable because they take high culture concepts and make them universal by incorporating low culture values and commonalities among all people. According to Stam, adaptation in film follows a Darwinian survival of the fittest mode: evolve and survive, stay consistent and perish; “thus, rather than acting as a parasite that kills the host text, the film version is a ‘mutation’ that helps its source text ‘survive’” (“Popularizing” 49). Changing the good versus evil mentality, by making monsters human, allows the films to survive, helping the audience to appreciate the films in their own right as well as reading them as impressions of the Beowulf text. Thus, although the Beowulf directors acted to generate low culture texts to appeal to a wider audience than a high culture Beowulf replication would have drawn, in reality, the films serve as cultural equalizers. Through appeal to elements of familial dysfunction, sex, portrayal of good versus evil and an appreciation for both high and low culture, all three Beowulf film adaptations, though imperfect as replications, serve as fine intertextual pieces and cross-cultural equilizers. 46 Of Men & Monsters

s Works Cited Beowulf. Dir. Graham Baker. Perf. Christopher Lambert, Rhona Mitra and Oliver Cotton. Capitol Films, 1999. DVD. Beowulf. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Perf. Ray Winstone, Crispin Glover and Angelina Jolie. Paramount Pictures, 2007. DVD. Beowulf and Grendel. Dir. Sturla Gunnarsson. Perf. Stellan Skarsgard, Ingvae Eggert Sigurdsson, and Gerard Butler. Movision and Endgame Entertainment, 2005. DVD. Cartmell, Deborah and Imedla Whelehan, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007. Print. Creed, Barbara. “Horror and the Monstrous Feminine.” Screen; the Journal of the Society for Education in Film and Television 27.1 (1986): 44-70. ILLiad TN. Print. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Monster Theory: Reading Culture. J.J. Cohen. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1996. 3-25. Print. Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind The Mask: Grendel’s Pop Culture Evolution.” Journal Of Popular Culture 41.6 (2008): 934-949. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012. Forni, Kathleen. “Graham Baker’s Beowulf: Intersections Between High and Low Culture.” Literature Film Quarterly 35.3 (2007): 244- 49. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Forni, Kathleen. “Popularizing High Culture: Zemeckis’s Beowulf.” Studies in Popular Culture 31.2 (2009): 45-59. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 7 Apr. 2012. rachel olson

Gans, Herbert J. Popular Culture & High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Print. Hodapp, William F. “’No Hie Faeder Cunnon’: But Twenty-First Century Film Makers Do.” Essays in Medieval Studies 26 (2010):101-08. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Risden, E. L. “The Cinematic Sexualizing of Beowulf.” Essays in Medieval Studies 26 (2010): 109-115. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Simon, Richard Keller. Trash Culture: Popular Culture and the Great Tradition. Berkeley: U of Califormia Berkeley, 1999. 1-10. Print. Stam, Robert. Literature through Film: Realism, Magic, and the Art of Adaptation. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005. Print.

48 Of Men & Monsters

The Pagan Villain and the Hybrid Hero Katherine Balla Throughout the history of Europe and the mixing and development of religion, paganism and the Christian religion have been at odds. With this clash of beliefs during the beginning of Christianity in Europe, the opinions of the religions were clearly expressed. In the epic narrative Beowulf, paganism represents the villains, and the main character shows signs of both Christianity and paganism, meaning that the hero of the tale is neither a true hero, nor a villain, which places him in a space of liminality with his religious beliefs. This theme of religion is apparent throughout many different types of stories from the medieval times, due to the conversion from paganism to Christianity. In Beowulf, Beowulf needs to kill the monsters because the monsters represent the paganism that is both within the land and within his own being. The death of the monsters signifies both the death of paganism within Beowulf and the succession of Christianity spreading. Paganism is a way of life for those during the time of this story who are not Christian and who do not identify with any religion, which many different nations used to influence and define their culture. Paganism as being the Other, defies the actions that the Christians partake in, and mentioned in the story. Grendel, one of the villains in the story, is a character who is connected to the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character, Cain. The fact that Cain killed his brother in a jealous fit forms a Biblical connection to Grendel, therefore further defining the characterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s temperament. Those that are ancestors of Cain are thought to be worshipers of the Devil. Due to the fact that Grendel is said to be a descendent of Cain, he cannot be a Christian, and therefore, his actions are not used to secure a place in Heaven during the afterlife. In 49

Beowulf, Grendel is said to be:

This grim spirit was called Grendel, mighty stalker of the marches, who held, the moors and fens; this miserable man lived for a time in the land of giants, after the Creator had condemned him among Cain’s race-when he killed Abel the eternal lord avenged that death. (I.102-108)

Grendel, being of Cain’s race, is ostracized: a monster. He is called a man in this description, which, regardless of his non-Christian actions, makes him a man of God in Christian society. His actions that do not fit within the religion cause turmoil after death. His distaste for the human world, that consists of lively action in the Dane’s land, makes Grendel act out in ways that cause the need for his removal from the world. His inability to fit into the developing Christian society shows how he is able to be a part of the wilderness, and pagan culture, rather than the rest of society. Grendel’s death is caused by his sins, since he was, “‘guilty of his crimes, the greater judgment,/how the shining Maker wishes to sentence him’” which makes him at the will of not only Beowulf, who causes his death, but also God’s wrath (XIV.978-979). Due to Grendel’s actions during his lifetime, the members of Christian society believe that he is doomed, and will be greatly punished in the afterlife. Grendel’s monstrous mother uses unjust violence in an act of revenge against those who killed her son. In early medieval literature, it was not feminine to fight. Another ostracized character is the creature known as Grendel’s mother, who seeks seek revenge for the death of her son. She is viewed as a “monster-woman,” and not associated with the proper gender 50 Of Men & Monsters

role (XIX.1259). She is described as nothing more than an inhuman being who is willing to fight any armed soldier to destroy those who killed her son. Despite the fact that the mother was acting out in despair at her child’s death, and becoming a sympathetic character to the audience, she is still a female who is portraying a male role by fighting in the Danish society, which isolates her from Christian society and pushes her further into paganism. The dragon in the story is symbolic of a time when Denmark was not Christian, and where paganism was accepted. His means of preserving his own belongings and the need to tear apart the Christian culture create the equalizing antagonist to Beowulf. The dragon’s hoarding is a sign of the unwillingness of pagan culture to assimilate into Christian society. The act of the dragon searching for the missing cup taken from his lair, is symbolic of people who have strayed from their original beliefs, into the Christian faith. The quick hostility used to seek revenge for the cup shows the desperation of the dying culture, and the value of every member who is seen as pagan within the Danish culture. The battle in the end of the book, showing both the demise of Beowulf and the dragon, shows how neither is able to win in the ultimate battle of religious aggression, and how the two religions are not able to coexist. This is due to the fact that the differences Beowulf and the dragon share not only challenges society, but also pushes the characters with differences out of society, and into a place of Otherness. The poem states that, “it was not long,/until those two great creatures came together again,” which means that Beowulf is no longer a man, and the dragon and Beowulf are together, “trapped by flames” (XXXV.2592-2593, 2595). The dragon, being the most inhuman of all the monsters, is the creature who is incapable of ascending to Heaven. This depiction of the dragon surrounded by fire shows the dragon’s close relation with hell, and distances himself from Heaven. Fire is a symbol of Hell, and therefore the death of the dragon amidst the flames symbolizes the afterlife of the dragon and shows he will, katherine balla

according to Christian dogma, go to Hell. With the death of the dragon, and the removal of the gold, the assumption is that the last of the pagans is dead. The importance of the battle between the dragon and Beowulf is that it illustrates the final battle of paganism and Christianity, because when they die, there are no more characters to fight for either belief system. There are no monsters left behind by Beowulf for future generations to fight. Since this story was passed down by word of mouth for many generations, the story could have easily changed. One of the largest discrepancies consists of the Christianity within the poem. Because of the more recent translations of the poem, there is a question whether the religious aspects of Beowulf were added later, or if they were always present in the story. Beowulf ’s religion could have been changed many times before it was written down, in order to fit the social needs of the time. William Whallon states that, in written works, it is “tendentious to use the capital letter” when referring to God (Whallon 19). This is an important factor of the poem to consider because depending on the time frame that Beowulf was written, and the audience of the poem, determines how each version of the story is viewed. Some versions of Beowulf could have Beowulf being of some polytheistic religion, and other versions could have him simply being a part of Christian society. The fact that there could be a discrepancy of the capitalization of such a word could challenge one’s viewpoints of the religious aspects in the text. Because pagans believe in multiple gods, there is reason to believe that if Beowulf were talking of god, he could be referring to one singular god of the many he believes in. This idea would show how similar he is to Grendel, Grendel’s mother and the dragon, parts of the old society, thirsty for blood, and desires a battle in a Norse pagan manner (dying in a battle was more noble than dying outside of a battle). Due to the fact that Beowulf shows signs of greed, by taking the treasure from the dragon in the end, he is not showing the heroic nature commonly associated 52 Of Men & Monsters

with Christian. Beowulf states that, “‘With daring I shall/ Get that gold- or grim death/And fatal battle will bear away your lord!’” (XXXV.2535-2567). Beowulf, under any circumstances, is willing to steal from the dragon goes against one of the Ten Commandments. This means that his actions could be interpreted as a sign that the paganistic culture he had been trying to get rid of, is at a war within himself. His decision to steal shows “his manly courage …lacking in Christian virtue because he vows to win the treasure at all costs,” giving him a trait which is not Christian, because the religion frowns upon stealing. This makes him no different than the monsters that he kills, because he fights for power and the ability to protect himself and others as the monsters fight for survival, revenge, and power (Marshall 4). Even though Beowulf is a pagan follower, based on his greed and his fighting styles, he is also a Christian, but does not show the ability to live with both social settings within his being, therefore he must choose which society to belong to, and ignore the other. In the King James Holy Bible Jesus tells his followers, “Lay not up to yourself treasures on earth: where the rust, and the moth consume, and where thieves break through, and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor the moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal” (Matthew 6.19-21). This is an important standpoint to consider when looking into Beowulf ’s moral character because it points out two flaws that Beowulf has. He has the desire for gold, regardless of if he gives it away or keeps it for himself, he is still greedy in that he needs to remove the gold from one being and give it to another. He is willing to break into someone’s dwelling, and take away their possessions . All these earthly desires that reside within a mere human being could in no way symbolize the idealized Christian, in that every human being on earth has desires and needs, and therefore, we all show similarities to the monsters in this poem. Church states that “The Christian God was constructed by those who worshiped Him at this time katherine balla

as a jealous God who would suffer no rival; the pagan gods coexisted in the minds of those who worshiped them…”(Church 177). This is important because it shows how Beowulf and the monsters both the ones that he kills, and the monsters within himself (the different beliefs that are seen throughout the story while relating to Beowulf ’s character) could have been combined to make a new culture, and could have coexisted. The coexistence of these two religions could have been the shaping of a world where religion was not one of the largest beliefs on what makes a hero, or villain. The fact that Beowulf is constantly in a place of both pagan beliefs and Christian beliefs makes himself a hero, in that he was constantly battling the monsters. By killing them, he destroys paganism and further spreads Christianity eliminating the paganism within himself. Marshall’s argument states that, the Christian doctrine would not support “the negative view of treasure that would condemn Beowulf,” failing to mention that stealing is frowned upon in the religion, as a sign of greed (Marshall 23). The explanation of Beowulf ’s motives in the text, as someone who is hell-bent on amassing a fortune for an unspecified goal, leads to questions about Beowulf ’s true beliefs. Although David Williams states that, “he [Beowulf] does not represent the ideal Christian ruler nor does his realm symbolize the ideal Christian society,” Beowulf is more often described as a Christian, and not as a pagan worshiper, but there are many times when he practices paganism (Williams 19). For example: the burial of Beowulf is considered to be part of pagan practices, as he is buried with gold he has gained and prided himself on throughout his life. This differs from a Christian burial where they are buried with nothing, because they will not need anything in the afterworld. Beowulf ’s later actions depict his yearning for a Christian society. Beowulf talks about his deeds being completed on behalf of God. The sword represents Christianity and creates tool to carry out God’s work, and respect for Christianity. Swords with a hilt are symbolic of the cross. Therefore, the 54 Of Men & Monsters

fact that Beowulf carries and uses a sword to defeat his enemies towards the end of the poem, is a large sign that he was using his new found faith to destroy the old ways that he was once a part of. The more villains that Beowulf kills, the more weaponry he uses. When he reaches the dragon he uses the cross-like sword to defeat him. This symbolizes the distancing from pagan culture that he was once partially tied to. The pagan characters, that were described in the story as monstrous, were all killed at the hands of Beowulf. Beowulf is also a Christian character in that he is able to claim that he “… endured/of dire grief from Grendel,/ but God may always/work, Shepherd of glory,” which makes him a follower of the Christian faith, because he is refrences the Shepherd (XIV.929-931). In Christian society, the Shepherd with a capitol “S” symbolizes Jesus Christ. The symbol of the shepherd represents the following of, and leading of the flock. This is important in the story because Beowulf is sent to get rid of the monsters that inhabit the land and the monsters, causing fear. The stories of Christ and Beowulf are similar in that Beowulf comes to Hrothgar’s people, as Jesus did for his people. Beowulf, like Jesus, becomes an icon and is an idealistic hero, ready to kill the people’s villains and further his cause, spreading his religious beliefs further into the land while eliminating the old ways of society. Christianity stresses that the common person’s goal is to attain a similar lifestyle to that of Jesus Christ, in order to achieve a place in Heaven. Bittarello states that a hero of a story should appear as a “Christ-like figure, a savior of human kind,” which is true of Beowulf in Beowulf (Bittarello 219). Because Beowulf hopes to kill Grendel, who he had heard stories of from his own land, showing that he is the savior of the people, and he does not anticipate leaving until the people are safe. He is introduced in the beginning of the story as, “The mighty one (arose), and many a man with him,/ powerful Thanes,” which suggests a comparison to Jesus Christ and the twelve apostles, who were by Jesus’ side (VI.399-400). During Beowulf ’s journey, he is not alone, because katherine balla

he is constantly surrounded by his loyal warriors. He was always surrounded by physical human bodies who believed in him and respected him. Beowulf makes it a point to mention that his victory would have been impossible, “save for the grace of God” (Bodek 130). Beowulf ’s constant references to God and his claim that God’s grace was the reason for his success was make him a Christian hero; he goal is to protect the Danish people, as long as that was what God wants. This also brings up the idea that the Danish people live in close proximity to the monsters in the poem, which means that they are more likely to have pagan tendencies. Therefore, when Beowulf is able to kill each monster, he does so in name of God. The success of each villain’s death is a means of Christian propaganda, and causes the people who are around Beowulf (the Danish, and the people that came to Denmark with him) to think about what he says, and perhaps pass along his message. This distances himself further away from the pagan society. Marshall states that, “Hrothgar, Hygelac, and Beowulf all magnanimously dispense treasure to their loyal thanes in the gold-hall, while the dragon avariciously hoards it in his earth-hall” (Marshall 9). Due to the fact that Beowulf does not keep the money he earns and steals, for his own use, he is considered caring, and a good leader. His ability to please his people before himself shows not only that he is a good leader, but also a man who can be idolized, trusted, and heroic. Beowulf ’s inability to separate his beliefs, his thirst for blood, his need for money, and his protection of the Danes people create a sense of liminality between hero and monster. The mix of beliefs that work their way into Beowulf ’s actions create for a sort of hybrid hero, one whose actions are sort of combined to form this new sort of hero that is both respected, feared, remembered and powerful. As Beowulf goes to fight Grendel, he chooses to fight the way Grendel fights. The battles of Beowulf, which shows kindness, and compassion, a sense of a fair fight between the two. That is the first 56 Of Men & Monsters

and only time mentioned in the story that he is able to fight a fair fight, thus making for the poem as Christian, with pagan highlights, as it talks about the removal of the wicked monsters, the pagans in the story. They are the ones that want to destroy the rapidly growing Christian culture by their unwillingness to partake in the religious observances. Because Beowulf ’s Christian beliefs outweigh the pagan practices, he is considered the victor of the story, despite his death. He gives up his life, as Jesus had, for the greater good of the people. In this attempt, the reader is able to make the connection of sacrifice, knowing that worse things would come along if Beowulf had simply sat by and done nothing. The fact that Beowulf is buried with the gold taken from the dragon makes it appear as though the Christian afterlife of Beowulf will be judged based on that action alone, but it never mentioned in the book that he wanted to be buried with the gold. Instead, it states that “offspring of noblemen, twelve in all/they wished to voice their cares and mourn their king,” which brings back the fact that Beowulf died a Christian (XLIII.3170-3171). This is symbolic of Beowulf ’s journey through life and religious turmoil, in that he starts off with his own men who sing his praise, and follow him. Then Beowulf journeys to protect the people of the land from the monsters who threaten to harm, which leads to his death. The same twelve people who had followed Beowulf from the start end up giving the most praise of the deeds Beowulf had done, and they are determined to carry out all that needs to be done, as goes the story of Jesus Christ. The burial of Beowulf is another important point to make, because of the fact that Beowulf has a Christian burial, rather than being set out to sea, as most burials went at that time. This is a step in realizing that his life after death is completely Christian, because he is freed from his thoughts, and is not able to focus on anything. His ability to be buried in a Christian like ceremony makes a large impact on the value of Beowulf ’s growth and success as a hero as a character. katherine balla 57

The different religions of the world has created many problems, as well as create a sense of community within certain circumstances. Each practice and religion has different beliefs, actions, and cultures. Despite the fact that the infusion of Christianity into the once pagan culture within Europe was not a bloodless act; there were many people combined the two belief systems, and made their own beliefs. Due to the fact that the creatures within Beowulf do not show habits of Christianity, holding onto traditions of the past; they are considered the villains, and need to be slain from the growing spread of Christianity, as they do not fit into the changing society. Beowulf kills the monsters, which symbolically represents the triumph of Christianity and the defeat of paganism. Beowulf â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defeat of the monsters eliminates the paganism in the land, and removes all the paganism that was possibly within Beowulf, as he is buried.

s 58 Of Men & Monsters

Works Cited Bittarello, Maria Beatrice. “Shifting Realities? Changing Concepts of Religion and the Body in Popular Culture and Neopaganism.” Journal of Contemporary Religion. 23.2 (2008): 215-232. Bodek, Richard. “Beowulf.” Explicator. Vol. 62 NO 3. 2004.Church, S.D. “Paganism in Conversation-Age Anglo-Saxon England: The Evidence of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History Reconsidered.” History. 93.310 (2008): 162-180. Liuzza, R.M. Beowulf. Broadview Literary Texts. (2000). Marshall, Joseph E. “Goldgyfan or Goldwlance: A Christian Apology for Beowulf and Treasure.” Studies in Philology. 107.1 (2010): 1-24. Holy Bible. King James Text: Modern Phrased Version. New York: Oxford UP: 1980. Thayer, J.D. “Resolving the ‘Double Curse’ of the Pagan Hoard in Beowulf.” Explicator. 66.3 (2008): 174-177. Whallon, William. “The Idea Of God In Beowulf.” PMLA: Publications Of The Modern Language Association Of America 80.1 (1965): 19-23. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 7 Apr. 2012. Williams, David. “The Cain Tradition.” Cain and Beowulf: A Study in Secular Allegory. Toronto. U Toronto Press. (1982): 19-39.

katherine balla 59

} 60 Of Men & Monsters

The Horror of Women Kathryn Anne Ball The basis of any good story arc is eruption of a problem or conflict, climbing action, crisis, falling action, and resolution. For a story to be whole and complete, each section, upon reaching the end of the work, must make sense or leave the reader better for the reading. Yet in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, there is a missing link in the story arc. The story begins with a wodwo, a challenge, moves through the adventure, many hunts, and a seduction for the climbing action, and the crisis is met when Gawain meets the wodwo’s challenge at the designated time and place. However, the very next step, the falling action, is skimmed over and nearly disregarded to rush to the conclusion and resolution in the court of King Arthur prompting the question; why does such a well-written, well-crafted, well-thought-out poem skip a full step in the story arc? The answer: unspeakable taboo and horror. The falling action begins to explain that a female of power has been in charge of the entire affair, and as soon as this is said, the idea is bypassed, ignored, never spoken of again. But what is so frightening about a woman in power? Everything. Cultural, psychological, sociological, even basic sexual norms are challenged by the very idea, in a similar way that the modern sociopath challenges our own culture. On the basest level, Freud and his contemporaries have asserted that there is something fundamentally terrifying about women. This fear does not come because of mood swings or even their ability to scorn; instead the fear of women comes from the female’s lacking a phallus. In Creed’s opening lines of “Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine,” she quotes Freud as saying “Probably no male human being is spared the terrifying shock of threatened 61

castration at the sight of female genitals,” (Creed 44). What is it about a vagina that makes the male so fearful for his phallus? When considering humans, there is a binary between men and women, and with almost all binaries, one is thought of as ‘normal’, ‘good’, or ‘dominant’. In the case of the male/female binary, the male physiology is thought of as the ‘normal’ physiology, especially by gendered males who inhabit a male body. The utter lack of the appendage that then distinguishes them as men is therefore terrifying. Not only is there a lack of phallus, but there is a gaping maw between the woman’s legs that seems poised to swallow the phallus of the man and to make them both equally castrated (Class Discussion 4/11/12). In a literary example of such a case Grendel (from the so named book) looks between Wealhtheow’s vagina, and his disgust suddenly outweighs all of his interest in her (Gardner 109-10). In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (here-after SGGK) the implication of castration is an imminent and important fear. In the first scenes of the story, Gawain takes the head off of the body of another male (SGGK 42530). This is not coincidental. The goal of the game is to kill the opponent so that the next blow could not be returned. While a logical choice is the head, borne on the weak pedestal of the neck, other equally valid options for a means of death would be aiming for the heart (surely such a large ax as the one mentioned, could burst through the ribcage and bisect the chambers of the beating heart). Instead, the Green Knight kneels on the floor, pulls back his hair, and exposes his neck (a motion which also would have protected the chest from the blow). Gawain then cuts the head smoothly off, but the Green Knight does not die (SGGK 430-39). This direction of the ‘game’, the way that the formula for it is dependent upon the removing of the head for killing, makes definite and distinct ties to the idea of the phallus. The loss of the head, and there by the loss of the phallus not only ends one’s life, but one’s masculinity. When the Green Knight survives the loss of his head, it 62 Of Men & Monsters

is only through shape-shifting, and the subservience to a woman that he continues to exist, marking him as un-masculine at best, or more properly as un-gendered or in gender liminality. The neck and head in this case stand in for their sexual counterparts, the shaft and tip of the penis. If the phallus is dispatched (cut off or torn away), the most basic symbol of manhood is lost. Yet the Green Knight rides off with his head as if the head were no more essential to life than the phallus is. Later on in the story, Gawain faces this same predicament. He is to bare his own neck to receive a decapitating blow (SGGK 2309-2321). The blade does not hit its mark (whether because of the magic of a gifted girdle, or because it was never intended to strike) but instead nicks the skin,

but far from being fatal it skewered to one side, just skimming the skin and finely snicking the fat of the flesh so that bright red blood shot from body to earth. SGGK 2311-14)

Shaw cites Wrigley’s idea that: “Gawain’s ordeal as an initiation rite of circumcision (symbolized by the beheading game)” (Shaw 188). Yet even circumcised Gawain is thought of no less of, even after the proof and the story of how the scar on his neck came about (though he does not mention Morgan, only a ‘lady’s love) (SGGK 2484-2500). He returns to the court of Arthur and is well accepted despite his apparent disgraces. Is this because circumcision was thought of as a rite of men? Or was it because Gawain was never fully considered a man of the court to begin with? For Gawain there is also a threat of becoming female. In SGGK, Gawain enters a liminal space in his sexuality. He starts the text sitting next to a woman, instead of with the men. This placement has him as a youth at kathryn anne ball

best (placing him there perhaps as boy would sit next to the women), or otherwise relating him to women in general. When he stands up and accepts the challenge of the Green Knight, he does it to assert himself in a masculine world, to take on a quest to prove his manhood. Yet even here he hesitates. He is to set out to find the Green Knight by the end of the next year, and is given no direction. Instead of heading out with months to spare, he heads out as time runs short: At Michaelmas the moon stands like that season’s sign, a warning to Gwain to rouse himself and ride. (SGGK 531-34)

While he is lost in the woods, he does not call upon God to save him, but instead upon his patron, Mary, the only possible ‘Goddess’ one can attribute to Christianity (SGGK 738-39). In fact, Gawain binds himself body and spirit to her through his shield, and as Shaw states: “Gawain faces his adventure fully decked with talismans of the Goddess: the never-ending knot of his pentangle, the image of the Virgin on the other side of his shield, and later the girdle tied around his waist” (Shaw 191). The reliance on females might be considered a part of the chivalric code, according to Gerald Morgan (Morgan 267), where courting females is a part of the duty that men have to be men. Yet there is also a symbolic leaving of the masculine court to go out into the woods. These woods can be interpreted as feminine. Yamamoto (following on Crane’s ideas) suggests that “adventure is so highly valued in texts because it allows men to step for a moment into the female role of receptivity to chance and change, without in any sense becoming less masculine” 64 Of Men & Monsters

(Yamamoto 202). In fact, feminine power can be found in place as well as in individuals. Nature especially is associated with women. In many mythical beasts, men who are part of the wild are bestialized and made ugly, hairy, or grotesque. Instances of this can be seen in the wodwo, a generally hairy creature (whose exception to being grotesque is the Green Knight, servant of the Goddess Morgan, and through her femininity saved from repulsiveness), the centaur, who is marked by his hairiness as well as his equine lower half, the fawn, another hairy male with a goatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lower half, the Cyclops, a giant marked by a single eye, represent a few. Females, on the other hand tend to be more sensual: sirens, beautiful giantesses, harpies, these are all lovely women spirits that inhabit oceans and sky. These figures all tend to be ethereal (while early depictions of the harpy do resemble a bird, it does not seem to lose its attractiveness), yet that is not to say all female monsters are attractive. Indeed, the closer the female monster comes to society the more deformed it becomes. The sphinx, laying on the outside of society and yet still interacting, has the body of a lion, medusa and her gorgon sisters who were once part of society and then cast out are horribly ugly, the hag who lives among the people is repugnant, without sexual appeal, and more than slightly disturbing (Orchard). Similarly, the more powerful a woman is the uglier she is. Celtic hags often had the power to choose the kings (Carter 33). Gorgons who have the ability to turn men to stone are hideous, the hunting women are described as being hairy with beards and they command the power of beasts and are self-sufficient, both of these are powerful women who are disfigured almost beyond the point of recognition. These overtly powerful females cannot be looked on with anything but disgust, from their actions to their body they are vile. Only in the woods, in their own natural element, are women allowed to have any power and be beautiful, far away from men, as an idea and not as a reality. The one exception to this is the shape-shifter, which not only bridges the woods, women, and power, but kathryn anne ball

also changes the notion of gendered characters. The shape-shifter creates a sort of gender neutrality, yet is still portrayed mainly as female (Yamamoto 213). Yamamoto suggests that “women are intermediaries between culture and nature” (Yamamoto 206). The fact that shape-shifters are primarily women is no coincidence, and that they are found mainly in the woods is only highlights the feminine nature of the wild. Moreover, Morgan is a wellknown shape-shifter, and while it was not mentioned in the book, it is part of her mythology that the audience of SGGK would have known. Not only that, but Lord Bertilak had shape-shifting abilities (rarer in men), to go from the courtly Lord to the fierce Green Knight. Shaw suggests that the Green Knight not only acts as Morgan’s “representative,” but also as a conduit of the Lady Morgan moreover, indeed Shaw also suggests that Bertilak is therefore an example of a small portion of “medieval ‘wodewos’ or Wilde Men who were tamed by femininity and subservient to women” (Shaw193). Carter meanwhile suggests that “Bertilak’s shape-shifting is Celtic on origin, fey, and femininely motivated” and that that “the magicality of the shape-shifters… erodes gender expectations” (Cater 45, 32). These ideas almost completely erase the perceived masculinity of Bertilak, previously the poem’s strongest male figure. This idea once again changes the gender dynamic of the poem. Gawain, a sexually ambivalent male, is now pitted against a wodwo who, while once being the pinnacle of unrepressed male (a creature Gawain fought in the woods), is controlled and tamed by females (SGGK 720-23). What happens then when Bertilak’s masculine gender identity is destroyed? Gawain is no longer fighting against two women and a man, but instead two women and a woman’s tool. Gawain becomes a man who is fighting femininity. Carter suggests that “shape-changing characters embody apprehension about duality within narratives that then attempt to deal with such apprehension” (Carter 50). Gawain is tested by a females and 66 Of Men & Monsters

found worthy, yet in the end, he denies her any power over him, where she would have granted him a position in her court (SGGK 2463-70). In fact he begins an entire tirade against women that feminists have found horrifyingly chauvinistic and misogynistic for years. Yet even in modern times, there are those who can find excuses for the behavior of a man frightened by a woman. Gerald Morgan takes a stance for Gawain’s comments, yet does not provide any in text support for his argument, instead he cites the codes for ideal knights. Supporting this anti-feminist remark in the modern era can only be considered a continuation of the anxiety over women in power. If ever there was a time to be afraid of women it was during the era that medieval romance was being written. At that time there was a deeply rooted fear of women at the cultural level. The Anglo-Normans of the time were constantly aware of the Irish, at that time the Celts. Shaw states that “Medieval romance, particularly the matter of Britain, contains a substantial layer of archaic, ‘Celtic’ images,” a category which SGGK falls under. The Celts were troubling to the British because they were a rival people in rather close contact with the early English, but their ways were as foreign as if they had been from the other side of the planet. Among the differences was the valuing of women. Celtic women could be ruling Queens, respected and held at equal power as an English King. Any difference can be used as a weapon or distinguisher of Otherness, and such a large difference would not be bypassed. Celts often embraced the women in their mythology as well, whereas, with the exception of Mary, the most famous Christian woman is the first woman, Eve, who causes the downfall of man (Genesis 2). The idea of the downfall of man being the fault of a woman is important, and is echoed in the story of Gawain, along with other Christian ideals (as Arthurian legends tend to be based in the triumph of a Christian good over a pagan evil). Gawain’s tale is no different, though whether or not he triumphs is up for debate. In the beginning, Gawain is faithful to his kathryn anne ball

own Goddess, the Virgin Mary. He bears the pentangle in her honor, and represents chivalry with his shield and her picture as he rides out (SGGK 619-30). He even calls upon her when he is weak and weary and in need of shelter come Christmas (SGGK 752-57). Yet when he enters the realm of Bertilak, he never again calls upon Mary. Perhaps it is when he finds Lady Bertilak, servant to pagan Morgan, more beautiful than the Christian Guinevere that his faith is shattered. Perhaps it is his journey through the woods, or perhaps Christianity will not work in a pagan environment. Whichever way, Gawain’s second game is fated to end the same way as the downfall as the characters in the second scene in the Bible. Gawain, who already has the knowledge of good and evil, first sees Lady Bertilak and says of her “She was the fairest amongst them—her face, her flesh, / her complexion, her quality, her bearing, her body, / more glorious than Guinevere,” (943-45). He is then tempted by the lady in his bedchambers, to fall into a sin. Yet this is not Lady Bertilak’s own plan, nor her own course of action. She is seeking Gawain out for her husband, who asks her to do this at Morgan’s behest. Similarly, Adam knew not to disobey God, yet Eve tempts him at the bidding of the serpent (Genesis 2). This theme does not seem arbitrary in a text which is part of a mainly Christian genre. Indeed it the text says “For man’s crimes can be covered but never made clean; / once entwined with sin, man is twinned for all time” (SGGK 2511-2). In this short and simple line, Gawain seems to compare himself with Adam, suggesting that for his sin, all mankind will suffer. Yet who is the instigator, Lady Bertilak? Certainly Lady Bertilak is an Eve figure, used by another, but then that would leave the serpent to be Morgan. Morgan is the one ultimately responsible for the fall of Gawain, and the paralleled fall of man. More than just religious sources can be found concerning the anxiety of women in power. Older cultural texts also touch on the issue of female 68 Of Men & Monsters

power. In Beowulf, the second monster in the line of three successfully more powerful monsters, is the female named only “Grendel’s Mother”. This beast that rises out of the water to avenge her son is the first beast who comes close to killing Beowulf: “She set upon her hall-guest and drew her knife. / broad, bright-edged; she would avenger her boy….There, the son of Ecgtheow would have ended his life...” (1545-50). This scene shows a distinct unease of the historical audience, yet there was anxiety over even nonaggressive women in this tale. Wealhtheow, is a peaceable woman, yet through her position, she also seems to have raised anxieties. Carter suggests that her role as ‘peace-weaver’ “always has the potential to cause fresh violence, always testifies to previous conflict, perhaps keeping old grievances alive rather than smoothing them over” (Carter 49). Certainly in Beowulf this is true, as the mentions of Wealhtheow bring up memories of another woman in power in power. Her contrasting female personality is that of Hildeburh, who is sung by the harper between Wealhtheow’s speech and the appearance of Grende;’s mother. Wealhtheow is used to open a dialogue between the three women, and it is through her presence that the femininity is explored. In this case, there is no place for a woman to hold any power without her stirring the cauldron of anxiety. This leads to the climax of the SGGK where the idea of women in power is finally addressed. Yet when there is finally a situation where the power of women can openly be addressed, the entire conversation is shut down violently. Instead of thinking about how women have influenced his life, Gawain shuts down the very idea and closes off the conversation with a tirade against women (SGGK 2471). The attention of the reader is completely diverted, almost as if there is a physical rejection of the idea, like looking away from a horror movie on film. Carter suggests that this reaction, the metaphorical head turning and refusal to acknowledge the facts, allows for “identification [to] temporarily broken as the spectator is constructed in a kathryn anne ball

place of horror, the place where sight/site can no longer be endured, the place where pleasure in looking is transformed into pain and the spectator is punished for his/her voyeuristic desires.” (Creed 64). It is this idea with which Gawain casts away all women and refutes the idea of joining into the court of Morgan. Instead he flees the scene as quickly as possible and returns to the masculine court of Arthur. Indeed upon the final revelation of Morgan’s interference at line 2452, Gawain ceases to speak. He only regains his voice when he is at home in patriarchal Camelot. Once there he explains his “trials and tribulations” but makes no mention to women except for mentioning “the love of the lady, which led to the belt” (2495, 2497). It is here that he “writhed in rage and pain” yet his “blood flowed towards his face and showed his smarting shame” (2501-2). This pain and rage is not the physical result of the scar paining him, but the memory of his defeat, and the idea of what caused it. Still he will not speak of the most shameful part of the ordeal, that the nick, the shame, and the scar were all Morgan’s doing. Once returned and in the court, there is almost a sense of condescension about his mission and he gets a glorified pat on the head (SGGK 1513). In a way this sends the message that the confrontation with women is unworthy of men of the court, even though the entire experience was traumatic and intense for Gawain, or even unspeakable among the culture. In the end Gawain’s journey reverts to the game the Green Knight started the ordeal out as. Gawain wins no obvious gain from the trip other than the briefest of praises from the court. If anything, it appears that the men of the court laugh at him. “The king gave comfort, then laughter filled the castle” (SGGK 1513). Still, there was change as the entire court of Arthur took up a new banner, a green sash so they may never forget the whiles and trickery of woman. So what then was made of powerful women and those who represent them? They are trivialized and marginalized, unspoken of or despised. Even that which sets out to create a dialogue about the idea must 70 Of Men & Monsters

be stifled away under the overbearing banner of taboo, and will not cross the final line to speak the unmentionable. Modern texts such as Grendel and Gerald Morganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only stand to point out that this once unmentionable is not only extremely important at the time the text is written, but continues to be an uncomfortable idea. Still, there is hope for Morgan Le Fay, for even though her chosen knight, Gawain did not join her court, he still wears her girdle and is marked by her forever. In that, her power remains, and her position as a powerful woman is reaffirmed, reinstated, and recognized. This in and of itself is a triumph against the silenced women of the time.

s kathryn anne ball

Works Cited Armitage, Simon, ed. and trans. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 1st. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. , 2007. Print. Carroll, Robert, and Stephen Prickett, ed. The Bible: King James Version . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. 1-5. Print. Carter, Susan. “Trying Sir Gawain: The Shape-Shifting Desire Of Reganelle And Bertilak.” Reinardus 18.(2005):29-51. Academic Search Complete Web. 8 Apr. 2012. Creed, Barbara. “Horror and the Monstrous Feminine.” Screen: The Journal of the Society for Education in Film and Television. 27.1 (1986): 44 77. Print. Gardner, John. Grendel. New York: Random House, 1971. Print. Liuzza, R.M. , ed. and trans. Beowulf. Peterborough: Broadview Press Ltd. , 2000. Print. Morgan, Gerald. “Medieval Misogyny And Gawain’s Outburst Against Women In Sir Gawain And The Green Knight.” Modern Language Review97.2 (2002): 265-278. Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 8 Apr. 2012. Miyares, Ruben Valdes. “Sir Gawain And The Great Goddess.” English Studies83.3 (2002):185. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Apr. 2012. Orchard, Andy. Pride & Prodigies . Toronto: 1995. 254-317. Print. Yamamoto, Dorothy. “Women and the Wild.” The Boundaries of the Human in Medieval English Literature. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. 197-224. Print.

72 Of Men & Monsters

21st Century Monsters Kara Catino Monsters, whether a goblin or ghoul can be frightening while at the same time enticing. The Oxford English Dictionary explains, monster, a word derived from the Latin root monstrum, meaning portent or unnatural. In the epic battle between Beowulf and Grendel, the fear of monster against man arises from the dominating power and continuous return of the monster or the unnatural being. However, when thinking of unnatural beings it is easy to identify the oversized beast or disfigured animal, but aside from all other unnatural beings there is technological phenomenon. Advancements in technologies have become increasingly popular in the past decade, and according to Niall Ferguson who quotes Gordon E. Moore’s “law” stating, “computing power will double every two years, implying a roughly 30-fold increase in 10 years” (2). Therefore, the fears that were once instilled by goblins, ghouls and gore have evolved to contemporary terror of artificial intelligence, computers and technological advancements, which makes technology a modern monster. In order to earn the title of a modern monster, technology should align with monster enthusiast, Jeffrey Jerome Cohen’s chapter, “Monster Culture (Seven Thesis),” in which, Cohen describes the world of monstrosity, putting together seven aspects of the monster. Cohen unravels both in the inner and outer workings of a monster, including the physical appearances, psychological functioning and societal interactions. Cohen lays the foundational path for monsters and using his theory, modern technology parallels the characteristics of the medieval monsters such as the infamous Grendel, the dragon in Beowulf, along with Grettir of Grettir’s Saga. Each kara catino

of these three monsters represents a dark and evil place which causes horrifying conflicts between man and monster. While Grendel terrorizes the Danish men with his murders and cannibalism, Grettir frightens his fellow Icelanders with his physical strength and power. Modern monsters, still provoke fear and terror however, the modern fear of technology arises from misuse and misunderstandings. As technology continues to evolve people become more accustomed to using technology. The daily use of computers, cell phones and smart devices then not only increases in popularity, but also adds to the misuse and abuse of modern monsters. Cohen’s “Monster Thoery” argues that monsters are part of the human world; including the known and unknown. His theory provides basic understandings of monstrosity, and modern technology corresponds to each of his proposed theses labeling both the tangible piece of technology and the users with the title monster. In his first thesis, Cohen states, “the monster’s body is cultural body” (Cohen 4). Cohen recognizes that the monster lives in a world where the culture has produced an understanding and identification of Other or a representation of something as unnatural or against the social norm. He states that “the monster is born only at this metaphoric crossroads, as an embodiment of a certain cultural moment – of time, a feeling, and a place” (Cohen 4). Today’s world is filled with technological advancements including computers, smart phones/ devices and artificial intelligences. Modern culture is a technological culture. In addition to culture of technological advancements, Jeffrey Cohen states in his second thesis that, “the monster always escapes” (4). Monsters are able to live beyond human expectation; they never really die and always find a way to return. In the case of modern technology, there are constantly new advancements including new additions, upgrades, and new devices. Therefore, new technologies never perish, but instead they will always be 74 Of Men & Monsters

reborn. On March 16, 2012, Apple launched the new iPad 3. In comparison to the previous two versions of iPad, the newest version promised to provide a vivid retina display, faster processing time and an improved camera. The traditional monster returns after death or is reborn and Apple is one of the many companies that continue to produce new products that are better than before, paralleling Cohen’s thesis and supporting the idea that all monsters, including modern technologies, will never cease to exist, but rather expand. These dynamic expansions of monstrous beings attract attention and curiosities by continuously breading new forms, making the existence of monster a subliminal crossroads between the known and unknown. In Cohen’s third thesis he asserts that, “the monster is the harbinger of category crisis,” meaning the monster has no definite place within societies. In placing modern technology under the category of a machine, all technologies should only fit under that same title, machine, yet in today’s world a human no longer needs to run a machine. There are instead selfrun technologies. Therefore, machines and technologies are no longer just a machine, but rather a self-sufficient device crossing the liminal borders of man and machine or as Cohen would say all monsters are, “disturbing hybrids whose externally incorporate bodies resist attempts to include them in any systematic structuration” (Cohen 6). Humans like to have answers. Explanations provide a sense of comfort and security and when an object is unidentifiable, fear and uncertainty arises by increasing possibilities created by the unknown: “By refusing an easy compartmentalization of their monstrous contents, they demand a radical rethinking of boundary and normality” (Cohen 6). In an article titled, “Cyborg Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in the Contemporary City, [author] Matthew Gandy describes the full functioning cyborg, “a hybrid creature, composed of organism and machine” (27). Cyborg, then fully blurs man and machine, demonstrating how Rachel, a completely functioning robotic human lives kara catino

among humans as a half- human, half- machine: “As she tentatively plays the piano, the replicant, named Rachel, recalls that she once had lessons but cannot be sure whether these memories are her own or simply the implanted memories of someone else” (Gandy 26). Rachel is living and selffunctioning artificial intelligence. Although she is not born human, Rachel imitates the human body and human behaviors. While the cyborg is a very modern creation, Rachel is not all contemporary. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein tells the story of a fictional monster and the disaster that erupted from his creation projecting a similar fear to that which arises from modern cyborg: “The emerging depiction of the humanmachine interface as a technological monstrosity is the strongly associated with nineteenth-century romanticism: anxieties over uncontrollable science and technology…” (Gandy 31). However, authors and literary scholars are not the only people to expose this sort of monster; director Steven Spielberg took hold of this idea when he directed the 2001 movie Artificial Intelligence: AI. This film depicts the horror that arises when tensions build between humans and artificial intelligences. In this film humans become so technologically advanced they are able to create human-like robots called “mechas.” In the main case of the first “mecha” to embrace human emotion, the young robotic boy, David is created. He is capable of feeling human emotions and having real desires, leading him to function under envious desires. The problem then arises when David recognizes he will never be human, but rather human like. While artificial advancements create a sublimal effect, the possibilities of terror and robotic malfunctions continuously linger amongst these forms of technological advancements. In this same thesis Cohen argues that the monster also, “notoriously appears at times of crisis as a kind of third term that problematizes the clash of extremes” (Cohen 6). In the case of Spielberg’s movie the creation of the “mechas” comes about after the traumatic melting of the polar ice 76 Of Men & Monsters

caps. These artificial intelligences come at time of natural destruction. An initial reaction to a crisis today, is to reach for a cell phone or search the internet for answers. Any natural devastation may turn to machine powered assistance in controlling the trauma. Inside a doctor’s office or hospital, there are patients hooked up to machine operated support. However, when the technology fails or malfunctions the crisis erupts into a more serious problem. While technology acts as an aid in providing support and answers, its advancements always provide opportunities for failure and corruption by creating new challenges through the desire of further explorations. It is then our dependability on technology and the fear of failure within technology that create anxieties which show up in scary movies such as Artificial Intelligence: AI. Cohen’s fourth thesis titled, “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference,” argues that the monster is a dynamic being that “threatens to destroy not just individual members of a society, but the very cultural apparatus through which individuality is constituted and allowed” (12). The constantly changing and developing power of technology supports Cohen’s statement clearly by creating the possibility of mass destruction due to technological advancements. Current cell phones and computers can be detrimental to individuals, communities and entire societies if used with harmful intent. The internet best exemplifies the horrifying effects of technology. While the internet remains to be a place for answers or web browsing, it seems to act as an opportunity of for corruptions as well. In the world of social media, people all over the world have access to personal information. That information can then be misused variously. One very common misuse of the internet is online scams. It seems like an easily avoidable situation however, according to Leonard D. DuBoff and Christy O. King, internet scams are terrifyingly common, they say that, “because new scams are kara catino

constantly being developed, it can be difficult to avoid the risk of falling for one. Even lawyers have become victims of con artists, wiring phony clients money from their trust accounts after depositing cashier’s checks that turned out to be fake” (DuBuff and King 12). In the case of a scam, a fake company or domain may use an email, text message or phone call with legitimate registrars and logos, asking for personal information. As an individual provides the requested information, the attacker takes advantage and uses his/her personal information to potentially harm his/her life: “sadly, modern technology has also provided the less scrupulous segments of society with opportunities to take advantage of others” (DuBuff and King 11). In classic cases, a monster takes advantage of weak or naive prey such as humans that lack the physical strength or power of a monster however, in the world of monstrous technology, an attacker uses resources like the internet and smart devices to destroy. The increase in technology only makes these opportunities to destroy more accessible and realistic. Niall Ferguson’s article titled, “World on Wi-Fire,” makes the claim that, “the possibility that the global computer network formed by technology unified human minds is inherently unstable – and that is it ushering in an era of intolerable volatility” (Ferguson 5). The horrifying fear in this statement lies in the unknown possibilities of misused technology. Technology allows others to act monstrous towards individuals and societies by providing immediate access to information. Cohen states: “The monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural, political, racial, economic and sexual” (Cohen 7). Monsters have opportunities to affect all facets of a society, and in the case of modern technology where computers, cell phones and smart technologies are used daily, the reality of monstrous attacks are not uncommon. In today’s technological world, especially the cyber world and specifically the internet there are direct ties between modern advancements and classic monsters. 78 Of Men & Monsters

Jeffrey Cohen’s fifth thesis highlights how “The Monster Polices the Borders of the Possible,” meaning the monster pushes boundaries. Since the monster avoids classification, it floats among human kind and pushes the boundaries of uncertainty: Cohen states “from its position at the limits of knowing, the monster stands as a warning against exploration of uncertain demesnes” (Cohen 12). Technology continues to question the impossible. For every new technological creation there seems to arise a new problem. While technological advancements create easy solutions there are also bugs or problems that arise during the creation process forcing the creation of a new advancement, building a continuously repetitive cycle of creation, problem and resolution. Jeffrey Cohen acknowledges a similar pattern when he states, “the monster prevents mobility (intellectual, geographic or sexual), delimitating the social spaces through which private bodies may move. To step outside this official geography is to risk attack by some monstrous border or (worse) to become monstrous oneself ” (Cohen 12). As technology continues to grow, it creates a transgressive attitude and pushes the boundaries of impossible while challenging the intelligences man once knew. New advancements means more answers while at the same time creating more questions such as; what to do when technology fails and how to operate new advancements. The transgression that technological monsters instill also brings a sublime sense; a strange awe and terror. In Jeffrey Cohen’s sixth theses he labels the, “Fear of the Monster is really a Kind of Desire” (16). Cohen’s argument simply states that the monster creates a fear while at the same time a sense of desire: “We distrust and loathe the monster at the same time we envy its freedom and perhaps its sublime despair” (17). It is hard not to take an interest in learning more about the monstrous world. We as humans rely in technology to work constantly and create progress, yet we get frustrated when it fails or malfunctions. Monsters create fear through kara catino

their actions while simultaneously creating wonder in their abilities to exist. While monsters live among us, they seem to also live above and below our human lives. Technology or modern monsters have the ability to support a human life while at the same time dominate a human life. Modern technological powers expand over a wide spectrum of abilities. The power that monsters have is beyond the power of an average human. While humans use technology, they are unable to match its abilities, leaving a frightening yet promising experience. As Cohen states, “the monster lurks somewhere in that ambiguous, primal space between fear and attraction” (19). Monsters leave room for further discoveries and entice humans with mysterious charm. According to Richard Conniff, this subliminal terror is a “healthy terror,” a fear that we need in order to move forward. In his brief article about fear of the wild, he states, “Science needs to give us a world of remarkable facts that are entertaining and compelling” (19). Technological advancements found within the sciences give the world places to explore. However, it is the exploration process and the production of new technologies that instill fear in the modern world. Beyond the facts and entertainment, technology has detrimental capabilities by providing power in machines. In Jeffrey Cohen’s final argument: “The Monster Stands at the Threshold of Becoming,” he concludes his argument by saying, “Monsters are our children” (20). Technology is born from humans, making technology similar to a human child. As people create a new device they have to groom it and improve its functions, nurturing the technology often as a mother does for its child. Technology then expands and grows, returning with powerful devices that stand aside man in building hope and promise while threatening possible destruction. The man against machine relationship is a love- hate battle that continues to expand. As technology functions correctly and is used properly humans find love for their computers and smart 80 Of Men & Monsters

devices, however if that piece of technology fails the hate and frustration builds towards the device causing an uneasy feeling to arise. According to Cohen when the monsters return, “they bring not just a fuller knowledge of our place in history and the history of knowing our place, but they bear self-knowledge, human knowledge – and a discourse all the more sacred as it arises from the Outside” (20). The ‘Outside’ is a place easy to identify, but hard to accept. To be different means to live against the norm or the accepted. Monsters live in a world all too familiar to humans, yet their actions and interactions leave uncomfortable unanswered questions when both advancements and malfunctions happen. Monsters freely cross the liminal borders and spaces between good/ bad and unexplainable. While humans can recognize the Other, they are unable to identify with Other, leaving open a mysterious and frightening category of beings. In the case of humans against monsters, maybe the problem is not categorizes the fear of monsters, but rather embracing the realities of being Other. To be accepted is to have a sense or feeling of being understood. In the case of both medieval monsters and twenty-first century monsters, the battle between man and monsters is only made worse when labels or titles become involved. In using the label monsters, automatic discomfort arises from the dark reputation of monstrosity. Therefore, with the continuous use of labels, humans continue to create monsters. In labeling anything monstrous there is an automatic discomfort and negative connotation. To carry the title monster means to stand out amongst others. No matter the context, monstrosity carries a painful reality of being different. Whether it is a difference in physical appearances or abilities, being monstrous means being Other. To be different or Other then creates permanent stains on someone/ something’s character. Across the diverse fields or disciplines of understanding, there are accepted and unaccepted ways to perform or act. Whether it may be in the field of technology, humanities kara catino

or social sciences, stating something as being normal or even defying the norm essentially creates a monster by introducing an Other. Once a monster carries a label, it then becomes difficult even nearly impossible to remove that monstrous title. Whether or not the title malevolent, the negative reputation that follows a monster automatically instills the frightening terror associated with monsters. Monsters can be found everywhere, whether in a childish nightmare, medieval epic or a contemporary form of technology, monsters continuously arise from fear and horror.

s 82 Of Men & Monsters

Works Cited Byock, Jesse, trans. Grettir’s Saga. Oxford: Oxford World Classics, 2009. Print. Cohen, J.J. ed. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1996. 3-25. Coniff, Richard. “Healthy Terror.” Atlantic Monthly (10727825) 273.3 (1994): 18-20. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. DuBoff, Leonard D., and Christy O. King. “Educators Beware: Avoiding The Scams.” Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning 53.2 (2009): 11-13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Apr. 2012. Ferguson, Niall. “World On Wi-Fire.” Newsweek 158.15/16 (2011): 4-6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. McCormick, Patrick. “Why Modern Monsters Have Become Alien To Us.” U.S. Catholic 61.11 (1996): 37. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2012. “Monster.” Def. 1a. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Print.

kara catino

} 84 Of Men & Monsters

The Inscrutable Delineation of Christianity and Paganism in Beowulf Alexandra Natarelli In the medieval epic Beowulf there is a dissonance between paganism and Christianity which remains an object of scrutiny in contemporary scholarship concerning the poem. Throughout the text, there are references to the Christian God, yet, with allusions in other areas of the text to a rather prevalent pagan belief system within the Germanic society of Beowulf, it remains unclear whether Christian monotheism was a notion affirmed by the Danes and Geats, or by the poet. There are also numerous instances in which the people of the epic are referred to as heathens for their paganism, suggesting the poetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s belief in Christianity, rather than the people of which the poet writes. The attitude towards these heathens appears overtly negative, this negativity stemming from the necessity of Christianity to distance itself as much as possible from the paganism of the dark ages in order to corral the mass populace of the known world. In the early years of Christianity, this monotheism was not simply a religious movement; Christianity was a power mechanism employed by leaders to bind their peoples to a unified moral standard and code of conduct in order to more effectively govern. The conversion to Christianity was not an easy one, however, and the Church found itself absorbing some practices of paganism and denouncing others, turning pagan gods into demons, and transforming practitioners of paganism into sinners damned to Hell. Christianity thus became impure in its very nature, owed to its inclusion of numerous pagan rituals; in the cultural world of Beowulf, Christianity was not fully developed, standing 85

in stark contrast to paganism, and we begin to see the early stages of this ‘pollution’ of Christianity by paganism. The dissonance in Beowulf is owed to the early resistance to Christianity when confronted with the strength of paganism, and it is just after the early centuries of conversion that we begin to see the melding of the good of paganism with Christianity, and the denunciation of what the Christians deemed to be the evils of paganism. When viewing the Germanic culture that frames Beowulf through this lens, the discrepancy in belief structures is apparent, however it does not detract from the literary merit of the poet, nor does it diminish Beowulf ’s heroism. Although it makes little difference to the validity of the poem, the contention between Christianity and paganism is rife throughout in the language used to describe the people of Beowulf and their customs. No matter how clear a distinction Christianity may attempt to make between itself and paganism, condemning the latter in favor of a strengthened affirmation of the former, it remains abundantly clear that the two are in fact inextricably linked and as such Christianity cannot fully repudiate paganism, for if it does, it is repudiating itself in return. Throughout most of R. M. Liuzza’s translation of Beowulf, the poet relating the story of the conquests of the hero to the audience periodically imposes his/her own seemingly Christian beliefs onto this society in flux, doing so, for the most part, subversively. Notwithstanding, in fitt XVI, the poet seems to create a break in the flow of the epic to attest to the righteousness of Christianity, perhaps in order to convince the reader of the rectitude of the religion. Conversely, the poet could employ this attestation to further the expanse between paganism and Christianity, promoting this monotheism because of the lack of conviction with which the characters of Beowulf seem to believe in this new-founded religion:

86 Of Men & Monsters

the Maker ruled all of the race of mankind, as He still does. Therefore understanding is always best, spiritual foresight – he must face much, both love and hate, who long here endures this world in these days of strife. (XVI.1057-1062)

Additionally, the poet repeatedly refers to the pagan men of Beowulf as heathens, as pre-Christian pagans were believed to be by medieval Christians. While this antagonism is apparent, it is clear that Beowulf, even as pagan, retains legitimacy in the medieval Christian world, for if it had not, the epic would never have been recorded. This affirmation of the integrity of the text, evidenced by the simple fact of its transcription, and the retention of the heroism of its title, pagan, character seem at odds with medieval Christianity and its proclamations of the evils of paganism; if paganism were so damnable, why is Beowulf portrayed as hero rather than hell-bound heathen? For Marie Padgett Hamilton, this discord is not so unsettling, but rather an exemplification of Orthodox Christian belief. She claims that the poet was aware of the influence of God in the pre-Christian society about which they were writing, and while the Scandinavians were not necessarily Christians themselves, they were not altogether abandoned by God. Hamilton considers the role of Providence and grace in this pagan era, claiming that “Divine mercies never have been reserved exclusively for the faithful,” leaving the “poet free to represent the Creator as conferring grace on Scandinavian men of good will” (Hamilton 314). Indeed, Hamilton offers a persuasive explanation for the reverence of a Germanic hero, in a predominantly pagan text, by a thoroughly Christian society, yet she fails to explain the disparate language used throughout the poem by the poet in reference to the people of which the poet is writing. The unfavorable attitude towards the pre-Christian Danes and Geats is emblematic of the Alexandra Natarelli

disavowal of this un-Godly period in history. The denunciation of paganism stems from the attempts of the Christian elect to round up the masses and convert them to the righteous belief of Christianity; the religion became, in its early years, a power mechanism used to control the masses and affix them with the same ethics and decorum. Christianity, therefore, methodically delineated itself from the former way of life, paganism, as much as possible; the Church proclaimed paganism itself, and related rituals, as evil and condemnable, hence the discrepancies within the Beowulf text. Any lingering reverence for pagan gods, apotheosis of nature, indulgence in revelry, and so forth, was deemed sinful, and judged those who partook of these practices as hell-bound. Over time, in efforts to exact pervasive conversion, the religion absorbed some fundamental practices and rejected others. For the Scandinavians of Beowulf, the struggle of Christianity came from the Norse belief of the cult of Odin. This system spoke “of the feasting of warriors in Valhalla. Here reigned Odin, god of death and battle, who [. . .] was believed to welcome into his hall warriors who died a heroic death on the battlefield” (Davidson 31). The parallels between the ideal of Valhalla and the magnificent hall, Heorot, built by King Hrothgar, are undeniable. Hrothgar’s hall is a place of relaxation, merriment, and feasting for the warriors of the Danish kingdom, as Valhalla is for their stalwart, long-lost brothers. Furthermore, cremation, rather than burial, is the most common form of funeral ceremony, building a pyre and burning the valiant dead with their possessions to take on with them to that glorious hall: “cremation was practiced by the followers of Odin, who believed that the higher the smoke rose above the funeral pyre, the greater the honour in Valhalla” (Davidson 44). The rationalization of cremation rather than burial is accredited to the belief that it would aid the dead in reaching the afterlife sooner, thinking that a wind would be sent by the gods to take the deceased away to the afterlife (Davidson 45). These 88 Of Men & Monsters

accounts of cremation in pre-Christian Scandinavian history directly call to mind Beowulf ’s funeral. After his death, and the disposal of the dragon’s corpse over the rocky cliffs, the poet recounts the Geatish men building a great pyre for their gracious and heroic king, augmenting the heap with armor and the treasure that Beowulf bought with his life:

No small part of the hoard shall burn with that brave man, but countless gold treasure, grimly purchased, and rings, here at last with his own life paid for; then the flames shall devour, the flame enfold. (XLI, 3010-3015)

This depicted Germanic society is still fundamentally pagan in their continued reverence of Odin, Valhalla, and cremation. Christianity, in this world, has been met with great resistance by the pagans and has failed, at this point, to convert the heathens of Scandinavia. The resistance of the pagans to their conversion to Christianity can be explained, in part, by the analysis of the European peasantry, for it was in their nature to resist, as Professor A. M. H. Jones purports in The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and Christianity. He claims that in most of European society during the age of conversion, “the slow progress of Christianity in the rural areas is also to be attributed to the inherent conservatism of the peasantry. Peasants have at all times and in all places resisted change and clung stubbornly to their traditional way of life” (Momigliano 18). While the character of King Hrothgar may have, at least partially, believed in the goodness of God which Christianity promoted, evidenced in his praise to God at the arrival of Beowulf, it is the majority of his subjects who offer up the conflict of religion in their stubborn refusal Alexandra Natarelli

to entirely reject their traditions. This is seen, in particular, when the poet recounts the sacrifices made to pagan gods by the Danish people seeking sanctuary after the continuous attacks by Grendel, for “at times they offered honor to idols/ at pagan temples, prayed aloud/ that the soul-slayer might offer assistance/ in the country’s distress” (II.175-178). Jones also stresses that this resistance was due, in part, to the fact “that Christianity was in its early days a vulgar religion. [. . .] most of its adherents” being of “little or no education” and much of its literature being “uncouth and barbaric, written in a Greek or Latin which grated on the sensibilities of any educated man” (Momigliano 20). For converted Christians, their new-found religion was a clear departure from their old ways; however this continued resistance forced Christians to find a new way to characterize the religion for the masses. In order to do so, Christianity first had to define and organize what it was not. James Palmer, in Defining Paganism in the Carolingian World, explains that “Boniface’s attacks on paganism, like his challenge to the heretics Aldebert and Clemens, were more about characterizing otherness in order to reinforce ‘correct’ Christian practice” (Palmer 407). Furthermore, Palmer asserts that “most descriptions of paganism are inexorably linked to the creation or refinement of a Christian Weltbild that employed a range of alterity motifs to help to reaffirm core values” (Palmer 410). Any study or discourse about paganism during this period arose from a compulsion to outline the practices of a good and faithful Christian, for “to define paganism in the Carolingian world was to define otherness, and by extension to promote ideal forms of Christendom” (Palmer 425). This effort to characterize Christianity by defining paganism can be glimpsed in various scenes throughout Beowulf, particularly when the poet denounces the Germanic pagans and their ignorance of the right God:

90 Of Men & Monsters

Such was their custom the hope of heathens â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they remembered hell in their minds, they did not know the Maker, the Judge of deeds, they did not know the Lord God, or even how to praise the heavenly Protector, Wielder of glory. (II.178-183)

In the process of defining this maturing religion, Christianity was forced to syncretize some of the pagan rituals which were so established in the Germanic cultures, to create a familiarity that would make it easier to mold the minds of the populace into conformation. In the spirit of assimilation, several pagan feasts were transformed into Christian holidays, a number of pagan gods were assumed into the identities of archangels, and numerous entities of Teutonic and Celtic ideals of evil were dispatched to Satan (Carus 246). Paul Carus, in The History of the Devil, continues on to suggest that giants were not originally to be conceived of as the kin of Cain; rather they were the transformation of the old Teutonic giants who were plain personifications of the crude forces of nature, into Christian devils. [. . .] The giants envy men their comfort and try to destroy their work. Thus the fog-giant Grendel appears at night-time in the hall of King Hrodhgar and devours at each visit thirty men. Beowulf, the sunhero, fights with him and cuts off his arm. (Carus 249-250)

Carusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; contention suggests that both Grendel and his mother are in fact Christian re-interpretations of Teutonic fog-giants who were only able to be defeated by the monotheistic version of the sun-hero, illustrated in Beowulf. This re-interpretation of the giants, originally personifications of mother natureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s numerous, irascible forces, into the kin of Cain is self-evident in Alexandra Natarelli

the text, for the poet explicitly states that “this miserable man [Grendel]/ lived for a time in the land of giants,/ after the Creator had condemned him among Cain’s race” (I.104-107). However, Carus’ intimation that Beowulf is a re-evaluation of a Teutonic sun-hero is a link that is somewhat difficult to forge, and Carus neglects to address this. While Beowulf does save the Danish kingdom from the terror of Grendel, and soon thereafter Grendel’s mother, thus restoring happiness and light to Hrothgar’s land, Beowulf himself is a dark and mysterious character, keeping mostly to himself. Additionally, Beowulf ’s defeat of Grendel is very gruesome and somewhat vulgar, temporarily suggesting a parallel between the two, and the evil of which Grendel is symbolic, in terms of the grotesque and macabre. Carus continues to draw linkages between rituals of Teutonic and Celtic paganism and the almighty truth and purity of Christianity: the Christian sentiment of salvation has been molded by a pre-Christian ritual of sacrifice and cannibalism in which man hoped to partake of divinity and immortality by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of his incarnated God or his representative. The Christian scheme of salvation may be briefly called the vicarious atonement of man’s sin through the blood of Christ. (Carus 261)

The connection between Christian communion and ancient rites of cannibalism creates a discrepancy in the treatment of Grendel, however. One of the characteristics of Grendel that distanced him so drastically from humanity was the role that cannibalism played in his atrocious raids on Heorot. When considering the origins of Christian practices of salvation in pagan cannibalism, the alienation of Grendel becomes, to a degree, hypocritical. During the age in which Beowulf was performed and written down, this notion of redemption through reinterpretation of the ancient cannibalistic rites was highly prevalent within Christianity, thereby creating 92 Of Men & Monsters

duplicity between Christian morals and Christian rituals. The parallels between paganism and Christianity, however, only extend so far, for at a certain point, Christianity was forced to scorn most of pagan practices and beliefs, or risk having to forgo conversion entirely. So Christianity began denouncing associations with nature and worship to and in the midst of the earth. It was the strong affiliation of paganism with nature that made the reverence of the earthly the greatest opposition of the church. Christians began thinking that “trees, like idols, should be destroyed: [. . .] one Christian response to Slav paganism was to ‘burn down with fire the groves or trees which the people worshipped in many places” (Dowden 76). This scorn for trees is also evidenced in the story of Creation, and of Adam and Eve. The tree of knowledge, by God’s decree, was not to be touched, nor should the fruit of that tree be eaten. The banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, after partaking of the fruit of that tree, exemplifies the general Christian attitude towards many forms of nature that were, in any way, linked to paganism. This denunciation of nature can be seen in Beowulf in the dark imagery used to describe the natural environment in which Grendel and his mother dwelled: “that murky land/ they hold, wolf-haunted slopes, windy headlands,/ awful fenpaths [. . .]/ over it hangs a grove hoar-frosted, a firm-rooted wood looming over the water” (XX.1357-1364). This cold, dark imagery, coupled with the affiliation of Grendel and his mother with evil descended from Cain, creates a sentiment of gloom directed towards the old pagan ways that the monsters of Beowulf represent. Christians tried to more clearly define paganism in order to demarcate pagan practices as evil and eventually ban them:

Alexandra Natarelli

one overwhelming and characterful source for the activities of pagans is those who sought to destroy, stamp out and repress every last vestige of paganism. For Christians, paganism was a professional interest. [. . .] In a remarkable way Christians were unable to comprehend the variety and chaos that always makes paganism what it is. (Dowden, 149)

This chaos that is paganism and the veneration for nature that has become synonymous with the belief system has been cause for a resurgence of paganism. Christianity’s syncretization of select pagan rituals illustrates the notion that Christianity did not, in fact, achieve such an absolute victory as is commonly believed. Julia Phillips alleges that the “combination of searching for cultural roots, reverence for the planet as sacred, and a basic human need for a spiritual purpose, forms the nexus of the revived pagan religion” (Phillips 17). Furthermore, Phillips continues to claim that “new or old, the real force of the earth-centred (pagan) movement is the attempt to return to some of the positive aspects of religions that revere nature, and are not based on creeds, prophets or proselytizing” (Phillips 16). In the attempt to convert the majority of European society to Christianity, monotheistic xianity was forced to come to grips with the knowledge that all of paganism was not evil, and that, while it was not a true religion in their minds, it was in the minds of the masses. So Christianity adopted those practices which they were able to recognize as not quite so evil; however it was still forced to differentiate itself in order to consider itself the true and right religion of God. The world in which Beowulf existed was undoubtedly one in which Christianity had not yet successfully converted, and actually illustrated the early beginnings of a religion that was still learning, still growing, and still maturing. Regardless of the fact that many medieval Christian leaders and scribes were overtly opposed to paganism, publicly denouncing its beliefs 94 Of Men & Monsters

and followers, it cannot be denied that if not for paganism, Christianity would be nothing of what it is today, and to entirely disavow paganism is to renounce cultural practices of Christianity that are rooted in paganism itself.

Alexandra Natarelli

Works Cited Carus, Paul. The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil, From the Earliest Times to the Present Day. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Pub. Co., 1974. Print. Davidson, Hilda Roderick Ellis. Scandinavian Mythology. New rev. ed. New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1982. Print. Dowden, Ken. European Paganism, the Realities of Cult from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge, 2000. Print. Hamilton, Marie Padgett. “The Religious Principle in Beowulf.” PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 61.2 (1946): 309-330. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Liuzza, R. M.. Beowulf a new verse translation. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2000. Print. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century; essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. Print. Palmer, James. “Defining Paganism In The Carolingian World.” Early Medieval Europe 15.4 (2007): 402-425. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Mar. 2012. Phillips, Julia. “Paganism, Past And Present.” Social Alternatives 14.4 (1995): 16-19. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Mar. 2012.

96 Of Men & Monsters

Vampirism and Cannibalism in Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga Kaia McCullough Fear and disgust are powerful emotions that are often elicited when taboo behaviors are illustrated in a narrative. Vampirism and cannibalism are two of these behaviors. While complicated concepts, vampirism and cannibalism represent ideas that are considered monstrous, and therefore, when the audience encounters these notions, they automatically associate the characters with the monstrous or Other. In the case of Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga, two examples of early Northern European epics, the use of vampirism and cannibalism serves to categorize beings as fundamentally Other and monstrous. This categorization creates a vivid demonstration of the power struggle between the Other and society, as well as leads the audience to have a more difficult time summoning sympathy for the monstrous characters. The implication of this assertion is that without the depictions of their behaviors and interpretation of Grendel, Grendel’s Mother, the Dragon and Glam as being the monstrous Other, the audience would not have the same reaction to the narrative. The reasons for connecting cannibalism and vampirism are simple: there is an innate similarity between the consumption of flesh and the imbibing of blood. This similarity carries over to the idea’s applications in medieval literature. In order to make an appropriate discussion about the use of vampirism and cannibalism in medieval literature, an exact definition of terms is necessary. The word vampire, according to Katharina Wilson in her investigation into the history of the word, has four distinct possible linguistic origins: “Turkish, Greek, Hebrew and Hungarian” (Wilson 577). While the 97

language behind its exact beginning is not critical, it is interesting to note that all of its etymologies are in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean, which are the areas of the world most commonly associated with the vampire myth. These myths all follow a similar pattern in their description of the vampires as well. Vampires are often said to “seek nourishment, or do harm, by sucking the blood” of humans, which is traditionally acquired through biting the victim’s neck (Vampire). They are the immortal undead or “reanimated corpse[s]” (Vampire), and therefore very difficult to kill, requiring complex rituals like beheading, corpse dismemberment and burning or “revenge-seeking emanation of the dead” to ensure they do not rise from the dead again (Huggan). While the specific details on vampires are not all the same as “the way of transmission is not always clear,” there is a definite pattern that emerges from the reports of vampirism that began in approximately 1688 (Wilson 579-580). It is from a combination of all the most common of these descriptions that the well-known vampire myths come about, and as a result, it is this combination of descriptions that will be used to define the term in this paper. Cannibalism is a very different subject than Vampirism, and its definition is less broad and controversial. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, cannibalism is “the practice of eating the flesh of one’s fellowcreatures” (Cannibalism). This is congruent with the commonly understood idea of cannibalism, as it has been described following its first reported recording in France in 1796 (Cannibalism). In the context of this paper, cannibalism will be used to describe exactly what the definition implies: the consuming the flesh of something that belongs to the same or similar species as the consumer. Unlike vampirism, the reasons behind cannibalism are what make it a contentious topic. Fernando Vidal, perhaps unintentionally, explores a possible explanation for cannibalism. According to Vidal, personal identity is intrinsically linked to the body, and the physical possession of a 98 Of Men & Monsters

body (Vidal). Taking his idea a step further, cannibalism would therefore allow someone to possess the identity of another by consuming their body. This theory is certainly a possibility, especially in the case of Grendel, the monster from the epic medieval poem Beowulf. There are several passages in Beowulf that refer to or describe in detail acts of cannibalism and/or vampirism. The concept of convoluted death procedures, as is common in the vampire mythology, is a large part of Beowulf ’s struggles with Grendel and Grendel’s mother. Grendel’s death is a direct result of his arm being torn off, a specified part of the vampire death ritual of dismemberment. Additionally, Grendel is shown to be nocturnal because he actively waits for the darkness before beginning his attacks on Heorot. As the sun is one of the traditional means to kill a vampire, the fact that Grendel waits until “night descended” to attack Hrothgar’s hall is an important facet of his connection to vampirism (Liuzza II.115). After Grendel’s death, “Beowulf in the hall of Grendel’s mother cuts off the head of the dead Grendel” (Waterhouse 32). Beowulf is described as decapitating Grendel with “a hard sword stroke, and his head chopped off,” furthering the comparison between Grendel’s death procedure and the traditional methods of killing a vampire (Liuzza XXIII.1590). In the case of Grendel’s mother, Beowulf:

Drew the ring-marked sword despairing of his life, struck in fury so that it caught her hard in the neck, broke her bone-rings; the blade cut through the doomed flesh (Liuzza XXIII.1564-1568)

This ends her life by decapitation and connects her with the idea of a vampire through her method of death. The fact that both mother and son are linked to the vampire myth is an interesting concept that perhaps reflects kaia mccullough

the somewhat supernatural aspects both characters display. Perhaps the most well illustrated connection between Beowulf and vampirism is the Dragon as a kind of vampire. While its origins are not discussed, its method of killing is easily connected to the traditional vampire lore. When Beowulf is engaging the Dragon in battle, the Dragon’s fatal strike is when “he saw the chance, seized him by the neck/ in his bitter jaws; he was bloodied/ by his mortal wounds –blood gushed in waves” (Liuzza XXXVI. 2691-2693). The idea that the Dragon kills by biting the neck of his victim links it closely to the vampire myth, despite the fact that “it is not human, and it does not depend on blood for its continuing life” like the majority of the vampire lore dictates vampires do (Waterhouse 32). Additionally, the dragon is a being so ancient that he is described as “An old beast of the dawn” which implies that he was created in the dawn of time (Liuzza XXXII. 2270). This realization leads another connection to the vampire mythology: given the extraordinary age of the dragon it could be said that he is undead and immortal, as it requires a complicated series of knife wounds to kill it, reminiscent of the difficult and complex rituals necessary to ensure the death of a vampire. The character of Grendel is also linked to the concept of cannibalism. When he is introduced to the reader, and in the depictions of his attacks on Heorot he is shown to eat the flesh of the men he kills as “when Hrothgar’s hall-companions/ he slew in their beds, devoured sleeping/ fifteen men of the Danish folk,/ and made off with many more/ a loathsome booty” (Liuzza XXIII. 1580-1584). Additionally, when Beowulf speaks of his mission to kill Grendel, he says:

You’ll have no need to cover my head – he will have done so, gory, bloodstained, if death bares me away

100 Of Men & Monsters

he will take his kill, think to taste me, will dine alone without remorse, stain his lair in the moor; no need to linger in sorrow over disposing of my body! (Liuzza VI. 445-451)

By asserting that Grendel will “taste me” Beowulf is demonstrating his understanding of Grendel as a cannibal (Liuzza VI. 448). This evaluation of Grendel’s character as cannibalistic does have a slight flaw: It is contingent on considering Grendel to be a member of the human race. If Grendel belongs to a different species, his behavior would not be classified as cannibalism, but merely a being eating prey. However, there is evidence to propose that Grendel is partially human. Early on in the epic, Grendel is described as being “among Cain’s race,” suggesting that he is at least part human as Cain was human (Liuzza I.107). T he connection to vampirism is not just present in Beowulf. One of the most memorable characters in Grettir’s Saga is Glam, the curious supernatural being that curses Grettir to a life of “never become stronger than you are now” (Byock 102). Glam, who was in life a pagan shepherd, is found dead in the woods, and it is “concluded that a monster had killed Glam” (Byock 94). They find it impossible to take Glam to a church and once:

They gave up on trying to move Glam to the church, and buried him under a mound of stones at the place where he was lying. A little later people became aware that Glam was not lying there quietly. He became a scourge to the local people. Many lost their senses when they saw him, some of them never recovering. (Byock 94-95)

This description shows that soon after his death, Glam returns from the kaia mccullough

101

dead to wreak havoc on the community he had lived in. He is corporeal, as demonstrated through his battle with Grettir, but he seems to possess some supernatural powers, as demonstrated by his ability to make the locals lose their “senses when they saw him, some of them never recovering” (Byock 95). While it is implied that the monster is some kind of large creature as it has “tracks so big it was as if barrel bottoms had been thrown down,” the idea that Glam was killed by a monster and then promptly rose from the grave immediately forms a tentative tie between him and vampirism (Byock 94). The scene depicting Glam’s death is another link between Glam and vampirism. After Glam curses Grettir to mediocrity, “the powerlessness that had gripped Grettir slid away. He drew the sax and cut off Glam’s head, placing it against his buttocks” (Byock 102). They then “burned Glam, until only his cold ashes remained. They then carried the ashes in a skin bag, burying them at a place farthest from where people would go or livestock might graze” (Byock 102). The decapitation and incineration of Glam is an obvious connection with the complex vampire death rituals further bonding Glam to the definition of a vampire. In his article “The Fearless Vampire Killers: A Note About The Icelandic Draugr And Demonic Contamination In Grettis Saga,” Armann Jakobsson ventures to argue that Glam is a vampire. Perhaps the most relevant argument Jakobsson makes is that Glam is the undead, which fits his definition of a vampirea as “a blood-sucking undead” being (Jakobsson 309). He also asserts that one of the reasons why this is undeniably true is that the title of ghost fits Glam worse than the title of vampire. Glam is described in Icelandic terms as being a draugr, which is traditionally translated as ghost. Jakobsson determines, however, that this is not the only option for a translation. He argues there is “no need to distinguish sharply between this Icelandic undead [draugr] and other supernatural creatures that serve a similar function,” which makes vampire just as valid a 102 Of Men & Monsters

translation for draugr as ghost (Jakobsson 308). Jakobsson’s translation is not a widely held opinion, convincing as it is, and in particular David Keyworth who has written several articles on vampires and draugr “is not enamoured of…usage of the word vampire for Gla´ mr, [Glam] and he instead stresses the various differences between Icelandic draugar and Eastern European vampires” (Jakobsson 308). He suggests another alternative: that the “Devil might reanimate a corpse and pretend to be the deceased” which would mean Glam is a possessed corpse (Keyworth 158). Despite the difference in opinion, Jakobsson’s argument is thoroughly believable. Ghosts are most commonly incorporeal creatures whose influence over the living is entirely supernatural, while Glam is a corporeal being who has physical impact on the living as well as supernatural. To simply assume the translation of the word draugr as ghost would be to discount possible evidence of other theories, limiting the focus on the text. Assuming that the characters in Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga are vampires and cannibals is true, the question then arises over what that means for the characters and for our interpretation of the whole text. The simple answer is that the characters become monsters and are Otherized. This, however, does not explain the complexities surrounding the idea of Otherness. Ruth Waterhouse defines Otherness in relation to the Self by determining that there is a “power struggle between Self and Other” (Waterhouse 33). By evaluating how Grendel is depicted negatively in the epic, it is asserted that the Self in Beowulf is based on society as a whole, and therefore Grendel’s presence means that society is “under attack from” the Other (Waterhouse 34). Waterhouse goes on to say that the dragon is a “very powerful signs for the monstrous” that evokes a “fascinating dread that Other generates” through its vampirism and difference from the Self (Waterhouse 33). This is one opinion on a very complex issue. Graham Huggan, on the other hand, thinks that vampires are “twisted embodiments kaia mccullough

103

of a process by which Otherness is returned” to a kind of reality, which is the opposite of Waterhouse’s view (Huggan). Huggan, with partial success, refutes the traditional view of vampires as “figures of dangerous alterity, as direct threats to established systems of social order,” instead viewing them as being “potentially empowering devices for previously marginalised individuals or people to articulate their alternative vision of themselves and their relation to the world” which would imply their Otherness is not negative in the least (Huggan). Huggan fails, however, to apply his theories to any example, which makes his argument much less convincing than Waterhouse, whose application of Otherness vs. Self to Beowulf is highly compelling. In the case of Grendel and the Dragon, Hrothgar’s society has rejected them, which leads to their being cast as Others. In Grettir’s Saga this is even clearer through the community’s interpretation of Glam. Glam had been struggling in his community even before his death due to his paganism which was rejected in a community of Christians. When he returned in a vampire like form, it created even more social tension as his behaviors echoed the tradition of the Eucharist or “The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” in which Christians eat bread that represents Jesus’ flesh, and drink wine that represents Jesus’ blood (Eucharist). The qualities of vampirism that Glam displays eerily mirror this sacrament, causing a cultural tension between the community and Glam. For this reason and from taking both Huggan and Waterhouse into consideration, it becomes clear that the Otherness presented in Beowulf through Grendel and the Dragon and in Grettir’s Saga through the mysterious Glam creates a view of Otherness as a kind of power struggle between society and Other. Monstrosity is another concept that is difficult to define. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “abnormally developed or grossly malformed,” which suggests a purely physical requirement to monstrosity 104 Of Men & Monsters

(Monstrosity). In her article “Beowulf as Palimpsest,” Waterhouse gives another definition as to what exactly a monster is. She determines that a Monster has three qualities “-natural or human, +deformity (physical and/ or moral), +large size” (Waterhouse 27). In her explanation, Waterhouse at least makes some allowance for morality and other more emotional or mental monstrosity, which is crucial to understanding how Otherness is related to Monstrosity. However, she does leave out several key points that connect Other and Monster, as they greatly overlap in their definitions. While the Other, as previously determined, is in constant conflict with society, the Monster is often in this conflict, but not always. In some cases, especially in more modern literature, the monster is instead seen as an active and contributing member of society, sometimes even portrayed as doctors or lawyers. In the case of Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga, however; this is not true. The monsters in these medieval texts are seen to always be at odds with society. The dragon, when disturbed by a socially obligated servant, attacks Beowulf ’s kingdom. Grendel and his Mother live apart from Hrothgar’s village, and viciously assail and consume those who exist in his society. Glam’s paganism puts him at odds with his community even before death, a state that is only exacerbated by his death and transformation into a draugr which results in his harassing of the community. Despite a few exceptions, in these two particular medieval epics, Monster and Other are not different concepts at all, but instead refer to the same struggle against society that the Others partake in. By viewing the characters in Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga who participate in vampirism and cannibalism as Other and Monstrous, there are several larger implications. First, the sympathy felt for those characters becomes warped, as they are contributing to a behavior that has been classified as “monstrous” which makes them innately hard to relate to or sympathize with. As a result the “monsters” are more solidly defined as villains in the kaia mccullough

105

mind of the audience. Second, as vampirism and cannibalism go against society because of their Otherness, the audience will see the heroes as more heroic. Beowulf ’s triumph over Grendel, Grendel’s Mother and the Dragon are not just him battling various odd looking creatures, but him combating something that is a threat to the basic ideals of society. The same is true for Grettir, whose success (although temporary) over Glam results in his being praised heartily by the surrounding community which Glam was tearing apart with his pagan draugrness. In Beowulf and Grettir’s Saga, there are several characters who engage in acts of vampirism and cannibalism. Due to these taboo behaviors, the characters of Grendel, Grendel’s Mother, the dragon, and Glam are shown to be both Other and Monster. This is revealed by analyzing the theories surrounding vampirism and cannibalism, how the ideas are used to describe the behaviors of the characters in the two epics, the relationship these characters have to Otherness, and finally the connection between Otherness and Monstrosity through their battle with society. By viewing the narratives through this lens, the audience will be able to gain a better understanding of the heroes and lose sympathy for the monsters, but also the underlying power struggle between Other and society that exists in both of the famous medieval epics.

s 106 Of Men & Monsters

Works Cited Byock, Jesse, trans. Grettir’s Saga. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. “Cannibalism, n.”. OED Online. March 2012. Oxford University Press. 16 April 2012 <http://0-www.oed.com.libra.nazlib.org/view/Entry/271 07?redirectedFrom=cannibalism>. Davidson, Lola Sharon. “Keyworth, David, Troublesome Corpses: Vampires and Revenants from Antiquity to the Present.” Parergon 25.2 (2008): 168+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. “Eucharist, n.”. OED Online. March 2012. Oxford University Press. 22 April 2012 <http://0-www.oed.com.libra.nazlib.org/view/Entry/64906?re directedFrom=eucharist>. Huggan, Graham. “Vampires, again.” Southerly 66.3 (2006): 192+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 8 Apr. 2012. Jakobsson, Armann. “The Fearless Vampire Killers: A Note About The Icelandic Draugr And Demonic Contamination In Grettis Saga.” Folklore 120.3 (2009): 307-316. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Apr. 2012 Keyworth, David. “The Aetiology Of Vampires And Revenants: Theological Debate And Popular Belief.” Journal Of Religious History 34.2 (2010): 158-173. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Apr. 2012. Liuzza, R.M. Beowulf. Broadview Literary Texts. (2000). “Monstrosity, n.”. OED Online. March 2012. Oxford University Press. 16 April 2012 <http://0-www.oed.com.libra.nazlib.org/view/Entry/121 758?redirectedFrom=monstrosity>.

kaia mccullough

107

“Vampire, n.”. OED Online. March 2012. Oxford University Press. 22 April 2012 <http://0-www.oed.com.libra.nazlib.org/view/Entry/221303?r skey=cDXQB2&result=1&isAdvanced=false>. Vidal, Fernando. “Brains, Bodies, Self and Science: Anthropologies of Identity and the Resurrection of the Body.” University of Chicago Press. 28.4 (2002): 930-974. Web. 9 Apr. 2012. <http://0 www.jstor.org.libra.nazlib.org/stable/10.1086/341240>. Waterhouse, Ruth. “Beowulf as Palimpsest.” Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Comp. J. J. Cohen. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1996. 26-39. Print Wilson, Katharina. “The History of the Word “Vampire”.” Journal of the History of Ideas. 46.4 (1985): 577-583. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. <http://0 www.jstor.org.libra.nazlib.org/stable/2709546>.

108 Of Men & Monsters

Adopted Landscape And The Reluctance of Assimilation: A Case Of Beowulf and Sir Gawain And the Green Knight Cheryl Conant It is a simple assertion that with a new ruling order comes change. Cultures converge, language evolves, and the emphases placed on specific economic tactics swap importance. While all these socio-economic impacts sculpt a newfound group identity, remnants of the past and the old ways of surviving and interacting with others literally lurk in the backdrop in the form of remaining native clans. Both Beowulf and Sir Gawain And The Green Knight are poems developed out of conquest and reluctant assimilation. Where Beowulf comes out of the Anglo-Saxon immigration into Britain, Sir Gawain and The Green Knight is born from the French influences that stem from the Norman Conquest. By examining the environment described in both these works, which is not the native homeland to the poets, one can see the construction of the monstrous as a coping mechanism for distinguishing oneself from the native inhabitants of the conquered land. Though the time span separating Beowulf and Sir Gawain and The Green Knight could be upwards to roughly six hundred years, they both confront the same dilemma of a confused identity and an attempt to control the way in which a new setting effects a people with an already established, rich cultural identity. Although there was no unified form of central government at the time of Beowulf â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s composition, the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain resulted 109

in their establishment as the dominant power. Beowulf from the very beginning emphasises that the story is being told about a setting theoretically displaced from the one in which the story is being told. This is demonstrated in the early emphasis placed on the Scandinavian location. “Beowulf, the son of Scyld, was renowned, / his fame spread wide in Scandinavian lands” (18-19). Though the lands are distant from Britain, the pride associated with these people, as the recognized ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons, remains obvious and full of legitimizing rationales as to why they are fit to lead. “Then success in war was given to Hrothgar, / honor in battle, so that his beloved kinsmen / eagerly served him, until the young soldiers grew / into a mighty troop of men” (I. 64-67). By calling upon the strength and worth of the ancestor, fictitious though said ancestor may be, there is established a sense of a heroic past and lineage that directly equates to and reinforces the idea of superiority within this group of people living in a land not native to them. The natives of Britain, therefore, become a threat to power and Other in that they do not share a familiar lineage. Within Beowulf, this is idea of Other (a cultural other) is embodied in Grendel, begot from “Cain’s race” (I. 107). Within the context of conquest, creating a monster becomes the ideal way in which to contextualize the hostile natives who don’t conform to an Anglo-Saxon idea of social norms. Heide Estes describes a sense of insecurity the Anglo-Saxons have with their own geography in that they are trying to firmly establish themselves as members of the Christian world, yet are geographically separated from the hotbed of Christendom (Estes 371). While Estes focuses on Anglo-Saxon texts relating to the monstrosities described in the East, this theory can also be applied to the native Britons and Celts living in what the Anglo-Saxons have claimed as their land. The texts fundamental Christianity or paganism may be contested there are many instances in which Beowulf is described in Christ-like terms. “Thus should a 110 Of Men & Monsters

young man bring about good / with pious gifts from his father’s possessions, / so that later in life loyal comrades / will stand beside him when war comes, / the people will support him—with praiseworthy deeds” (20-24). Here the hero is not only Christian but described in terms that makes him Christ-like by creating a parallel between the life of Christ and the life of Beowulf. Christ brings the metaphorical good and gifts of his father (God) and is supported by his apostles during the time of trial. Beowulf mimics these traits within the context of Anglo-Saxon culture. The hero referencing back to traits of Christ and the Christian story helps to reaffirm Christianity, as relatively resent converts, within the Anglo-Saxon context. The paganism of the Britons and Celts allows for another opportunity for reinforce a Christian identity as something that distinguishes “us” from “them,” essentially making it easier to demonize the natives into a sub-human category. While Estes argues that Beowulf itself is a text about Anglo-Saxon encounters with the East and their reconciliation with Christianity as an Eastern Religion (371), I contend that because Grendel is a monster inhabiting the same living space as the Geats, he is not treated within the text as a newly discovered species, but rather as a people attempting to coexisting within the same living space. While the traditions within Beowulf appear to pre-date the idea of a market driven system, the idea of hospitality as a code of honour can still clearly be seen throughout the text. The fact that Beowulf is welcomed with little suspicion into Heorot is representative of this system of hospitality as Alban Gautier notes: “Giving and receiving are obligations, compulsory acts in pre-market societies. They have also shown that giving is always some kind of keeping-while-giving, that a donor always retains some rights over his donation and/or over the donee” (Gautier 28). Grendel fails to live up to this code as can be demonstrated by the Geats’ description of his reign of terror. “For many seasons, / perpetual conflict; he wanted no peace / with any man in the Danish army, / nor ceased his deadly hatred, nor settled with cheryl conant

111

money, nor did any of the counsellors need to expect / bright compensation from the killer’s hands” (II. 154-157). This essential difference in culture with regards to recompense once again points to a rupture of what is considered by the Anglo-Saxons to be normal as opposed to making Grendel a creature that is inherently animal, otherwise there would be no point in trying to initiate the process of exchange between the Geats and this foe. Grendel is not one singular monster, but a compilation of fears and anxieties the Anglo-Saxons have towards the native Britons and their unfamiliar culture. The landscape of Beowulf takes on the identity of a land that is home and familiar, yet is not the homeland. Thus the distinct separation within Beowulf between Heorot and the wilderness can be seen as an expression of Anglo-Saxon anxiety towards a land they are living in and yet remains foreign because they remain steadfast in preserving a culture that was developed elsewhere. Stuart Elden explores the possible emotional symbolism placed within the settings of Beowulf. He suggests the idea that “the hall speaks of the power of the Danes, of their proud lineage from Scyld Scefing” (Elden 449). Heorot, or a manifestation of the strength of Anglo-Saxon heritage and culture, is supposed to be a place of stability and comfort. Instead, however, this structure/idea falls under attack by Grendel and becomes a place of persistent danger. This can be perceived as the dangers of cultural mixing and an attempt by the Anglo-Saxons to keep their old identity alive and unchanged in this new land. Here is demonstrated the literary version of puffing up the chests of the Anglo-Saxons who see themselves as the heirs to people like the Geats and the Danes: “Then a bench was cleared in the beerhall/ for the men of the Geats all together;/ the strong-minded men went to sit down, / proud in their strength. (VII. 491-494). Here the harmonious union between Danes and Geats emphasises the importance placed on the strength of peoples from a similar cultural background. They unite in direct opposition to that which exists outside the 112 Of Men & Monsters

Hall. The idea of mixing is carried over to landscape, particularly Grendel’s landscape. Grendel, the “grim spirit,” doesn’t just live in a certain environment but is a part of it as a “mighty stalker of the marshes, who held / the moors and fens” (I. 102-104). Marshes and moors distinctly create imagery of the in-between, land that that is neither solid nor entirely liquid. While Elden describes the fear of Grendel’s territory as being wasteland or uncultivated land, I argue that the descriptions of this landscape create a distinct fear of the convergence of two seemingly opposite things (land and water) into essentially barren nothingness. “That murky land / they hold, wolf-haunted slopes, windy headlands, / awful fenpaths, where the upland torrents / plunge downward under the dark crags” (XX. 1357-1360) is a description evokes the most primal fear of digestion. This landscape is able to physically engulf with its marshes and leave nothing but the feeling of emptiness for “it is no good place (XX 1372)! Just as the glory of Herot can be equated to the glory of the pure Anglo-Saxon race, so too can this description of hybridity within landscape be asserted as the outcomes of cultural hybridity between the Anglo-Saxons and native people. Grendel is described as part man and part beast, living in the wastelands but constantly breaking into the Anglo-Saxon world. He is not the literal outcome of cultural mixing but the embodied fear, or a warning, saying that this is what happens when the link to the aggrandized ancestors is forgotten. The landscape of Beowulf can also be taken very literally in terms of specific locations. Margaret Gelling uses both descriptions as well as examinations of old English to connect the settings described in Beowulf to places that can be pinned on a map.

cheryl conant

113

The ‘water channel’ term is found, in the modern word for Lode, mostly in minor names in the eastern fenlands and in the low-lying areas of Somerset, whereas the ‘water crossing’ term is found in small number of major names more widely distributed over the southern half of England. It is these last names which deserve consideration for the interpretation of he Beowulf-poet’s fen-gelad (Gelling 10).

The specific locations she believes are being described in the poem, however, do not undermine the more metaphorical reading described in the above paragraphs. Present day Somerset during the Anglo-Saxon invasion, remained predominantly under native Briton’s control as opposed to many other areas that had been greatly influenced by Roman rule (“Somerset”). Thus the assignment of Landscape of Beowulf to specific locations only strengthens the reading of Grendel being an embodiment of the native (classified as Other) since the conflict between these two groups was frequent. Grendel is defeated. Beowulf is hero and saviour. What does it mean, however, that ultimately the story fails in achieving a stable and secure power? As is made clear after the death of Beowulf “this folk may expect / a time of trouble, when this is manifest / to the Franks and Frisians, and the fall of our king / becomes widespread news” (XL. 2910-2913). There will be an invasion and an eventual envelopment of Beowulf ’s people into another’s. That which is most feared is inevitable. The process of being consumed is natural, whether it be consumed by the funeral pyre, or consumed by wildlife and wilderness, there is a distinct fear of death, but more specifically a cultural death. In this sense Beowulf is being used as an encouragement for seeing the native Britons as a threat and as Other as an attempt to stave off this cultural death. The act of creating an animalistic monster of the natives doubles as a means of suggesting that it is only natural that the Anglo-Saxons assert themselves as the dominant group within Britain. 114 Of Men & Monsters

The year 1066 marks yet another conquest in British history. The Norman invasion establishes a monarchy, a new means of recording and distributing land, and the introduction of the French language into English, just to name a few major cultural shifts that occur as a result (“Norman Conquest”). Just as with the Anglo-Saxon invasion, however, the process of change and acclimation into the general population was slow and tedious. Sir Gawain And The Green Knight, written around 1400, postdates the conquest by three hundred years or more, yet, like Beowulf uses the landscape and geography in a way that expresses the agitation of conquest and the colonial identity. I argue the poem concludes, however, in a manner that looks favourably upon the idea of cultural hybridity as opposed to Beowulf, which condemns it. The Northwest/ West Midlands of England is clearly depicted as the general setting of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight (Arner 85). What is initially the most interesting part about this area of the country at this time is its ability to resist assimilation into the Norman culture. The power and influence of the pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon families of the North West was immense and the location, as a border of both Scotland and Wales, made it geographically integral to the maintenance of England’s borders and the possibility for expansion. Thus, “in parts of the North, the conquerors both found it necessary, and were more willing, to accommodate existing elites” (Latimer 52). Paul Latimer creates a detailed account of the very slow assimilation of the Norman elites into the circle of the Anglo-Saxon elites in the Northwest via the gradual changes from more Norse sounding names and surnames to those we recognized as English today. This historical evidence becomes integral to my argument in that it perfectly illustrates how geography allowed this regions people to culturally change at a much slower pace compared to the rest of the country. As Latimer observes, “AngloScandinavian landholding families, while certainly having to submit to and cheryl conant

115

accommodate the dominant immigrants, never lost their place within the aristocratic network in the way that happened to a large extent in southern and Midland England” (65). Even the churches established in the area remained largely ignored and unsupported well into the 12th century. This doesn’t mean they remained pagan, but certainly shows a less interest in the furthering the Christian cause than other parts of the country (Latimer 64). In terms of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight, which was thought to have been composed for one of the Northwest ruling families (Bergner 415), the slow convergence of Anglo-Saxon/ Anglo-Scandinavian elites with the Norman elite allows for a sustained attachment to a cultural heritage and a heightened awareness of the cultural changes that are occurring because of convergence as opposed to an abrupt seizure of power by another group, as was the case with the majority of England after the Norman conquest. As is the case with Beowulf, landscape and geography within Sir Gawain And The Green Knight can work on both the levels of allegory as well as a more literal interpretation. Nature can initially be seen as a divide between the Arthurian court and that of King Bertilak. The Green Knight is a character described as “A mountain of a man, immeasurably high,/a hulk of a human from head to hips,/so long and thick in his loins and his limbs/I should genuinely judge him to be a half giant. . . no soul had ever seen/a knight of such a kind—/entirely emerald green” (I. 137-150). It is this description that acts as a divider. Besides his strange colour and massive stature, however, an element of familiarity remains in that he remains a member of courtly life. He wears “A tight fitting tunic, tailored to his torso,/ and a cloak to cover him, the cloths fully lined/with smoothly shorn fur clearly showing, and faced/ with all-white ermine, as was the hood. . . From his belt hooks and buckle to the baubles and gems/ arrayed so richly around his costume/and adorning the saddle, stitched onto silk” (I. 152-164). These garments are luxurious and expensive, creating a similar class consciousness. 116 Of Men & Monsters

Thus the purpose of the description in part becomes a comparison between two distinct courts. Bergner argues that the comparison of the two courts acts as a means of showing tensions between the Royal court of England (shown as the Arthurian court) versus the court of the elite families in the Northwest (Bertilak’s court). He believes “Gawain, and in an extended sense the Arthurian court, is tested by the provincial court in an excruciating way” (Bergner 413) leading to the conclusion that the courtly life of the elite families can rival and surpass that of the monarchy. While I don’t disagree in the least with this literal approach, I believe this distinction between courts can be pushed more into the abstract in terms of viewing the Arthurian court through the emotional description of the wilderness (Sobeki 465) as the controlled, and the court of King Bertilak and the Green Knight as the uncontrollable or, more specifically, the uncontrollable nature of change. The Arthurian court is run entirely by the code of chivalry and honour, but simultaneously embraces the idea of joy and pleasure. As we see by the Christmas celebration, everything is done by accordance and strict, unchanging tradition: “But Arthur would not eat until all were served. He brimmed with ebullience, being almost boyish in his love life, and what he liked the least/was to sit still watching the seasons slip by . . . and the matter which played on his mind at that moment was his pledge to take no portion from his plate on such a special day until a story was told: some far-fetched yarn or outrageous fable, the tallest of tales, yet one ringing with truth” (I. 85-94).

The Arthurian court exists within its own bubble of happiness and steadfast ritual. While the Green Knight also displays the manner of courtly cheryl conant

117

behaviour, he literally wears on his face the marker of nature, an element uncontrollable by human behaviour, which also seems to be a foreign challenge to Gawain. Into the forest Gawain rides, and is met with nature as he had never experienced it before. “So momentous are his travels among the mountains / to tell just a tenth would be a tall order. / Here he scrapes with serpents and snarling wolves, / here he tangles with wodwos causing trouble in the crags, / With nerves frozen dumb he napped in his armour, / bivouacked in the blackness amongst bare rocks” (718-730). Though Gawain is labelled as a knight, his most perilous journey is a horseback ride through an English forest near the Welsh border. For anyone familiar with the area, especially, this seems frankly pathetic. Gawain’s inability to cope with the surroundings of nature stems directly from the Arthurian court’s ability to control all aspects of life within its bubble. To return to Bergner’s idea of the two courts, instead of relating the Arthurian to the royal court and Bertilak’s to the elite of the Northwest/ West Mindlands, I am relating the idea of an illusion of purity and control to be a less effective and unable to adapt to changing times as opposed to the hybridity of the Green Knight who can embody chivalry as well as the ability to cope with the uncontrollable. Sir Gawain And The Green Knight becomes a poem encouraging the mixing between the Norman and Anglo-Saxon elite as a means of creating wealthy and powerful ruling families. It would be irresponsible, however, to disregard one of the most prominent features of the geography of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight, and that is the Welsh Border. Conflicts with the Celtic Welsh people during this time period are persistent. While the poem may support the social mixing of Anglo-Saxon elites and Norman elites in the Northwest, the idea of mixing could also play a part in an appeal for peace at the border. Lyn Arner makes a good case for the place of colonialism within the poem, and concludes that the poems direct intent is to enforce and encourage the 118 Of Men & Monsters

colonization of the Welsh. I agree with the rationale behind the Green Knight representing the Welsh and the Arthurian court representing the English. The Green night embodying nature and magic in his appearance feeds directly into the idea of the Welsh, as nature worshiping pagans who use “the black arts, arts that are conventionally considered irrational, feminized, and malevolent, which, by a coincidence, is also how colonized people are frequently characterized” (Arner 91). This idea is very apparent during the first leg of Gawain’s journey when “He wanders near to the north of Wales / with the Isles of Anglesey off to the left. / He keeps to the coast, fording each course, / crossing at Holy Head and coming ashore / in the wilds of the Wirral, whose wayward people / both God and good men have quite given up on” (II. 697-702). Here is clearly shown the Welsh people placed into a category of disregarded heathen. Conversely, however, we are given a description of the Green Knight (who embodies Celtic nature worship) that is honourable, hospitable and merciful. Their apparent courtesy, however, opposes the mindset “that the English could educate people at the frontier and in Wales and teach the Welsh the principles of behaviour befitting good members of a civic community” (Arner 91). The Green Knight’s alter ego, King Bertilak, is described by Gawain as “a man quite capable of keeping such a castle and captaining his knights” (II. 848-849), in other words, he is worthy of praise and respect. This esteem is a contradiction to the idea of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight simply being a poem of colonization. The Green Knight teaches Gawain how to be a knight. From the man who is symbolizing the Welsh, he learns to face death, not as an animal running from the hunt, but as a man who has the ability to constrain natural instinct. This is displayed during the execution scene where Gawain was motionless, never moved a muscle, / but stood stone-still, or as still as a tree stump/anchored in the earth by a hundred roots” (IV. 2292-2294). Gawain is taught a lesson integral to chivalry by a man supposed to be cheryl conant

119

the enemy. This is surely not a typical treatment of a poem solely for the purpose of supporting the English conquest of Wales. It expresses the idea of harmony at the heart of trying to separate the two cultures, and, as the Green Knight expresses “for God be my maker” (2469), joins the two under the fundamentally Christian idea that all people are Gods people. While Arner takes the wearing of the green stripe as the Arthurian court’s “adopted sign” (2519), as a symbol of conquest over the enemy (Arner 94), because of the lessons received from the man who is supposed to represent the heathen, I argue Sir Gawain And The Green Knight is a poem essentially about the benefit of hybridity. The green sign adopted by the Arthurian court is a symbol of the benefit and acceptance of cultural convergence. Hybridity is essential in making the outcome of the poem a successful and peaceful affair as opposed to Beowulf, where the threat of invasion, lack of leadership, and sorrow is the last impression one is left with. Landscape and geography both directly and indirectly affect the idea of establishing an identity as a group. Conquest adds the complication of owning land as opposed to knowing anything about the cultural attachments and associations that natives have established over generations. The Landscapes of Beowulf and Sir Gawain And The Green Knight present land that is contested territory between the new settlers and the old inhabitants and can be read as a way of seeing how two groups can either merge or repel. The historical and cultural significance of what lengths one culture will do to distinguish itself from another for the means of power and control can be seen within these two texts in terms of the land they claim. Though Beowulf and Sir Gawain And The Green Knight occupy two very different moments in British history, through the examination of their landscapes it is clear they both deal with the same anxieties over cultural hybridity and the consequences to what they know as their own traditions and way of life. 120 Of Men & Monsters

s Work Cited Armitage, Simon. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A New Verse Translation. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007. Print. Arner, Lynn. “The Ends of Enchantment: Colonialism and Sir Gawain and The Green Knight.” Texas Studies In Literature and Language 48: (2006). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 25 March 2012. Bergner, H. “The Two Courts. Two Modes of Existence in Sir Gawain And The Green Knight.” English Studies 5: (1986). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 26 March 2012. Elden Stuart. “Place Symbolism and Land Politics in Beowulf.” Cultural Geographies 16(2009):447-463. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 20 March 2012. Estes, Heide. “Wonders and Wisdom: Anglo-Saxons and the East”. English Studies 4 (2010): 360-373. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 20 March 2012. Gautier, Alban. “Hospitality In Pre-Viking Anglo-Saxon England.” Early Medieval Europe 17 (2009). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 25 March 2012. Gelling, Margaret. “The Landscape of Beowulf.” Anglo-Saxon England 31: (2002). MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. 25 March 2012. Latimer, Paul. “Assimilation In North-Western England From the Norman Conquest To The Early Thirteenth Century: The Kirkby, Pennington and Copeland Families”. Northern History 1: (2010) Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 25 March 2012.

cheryl conant

121

Liuzza, R. M. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2000. Print. “Norman Conquest.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. Sobecki, Sebastian. “Natures Farthest Verse or Landscapes Beyond Allgory And Rhetorical Convention? The Case Of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight And Petrarch’s Ascent Of Mount Ventoux.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 42: (2006). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 25 March 2012. “Somerset.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.

122 Of Men & Monsters

The Shadow of Doubt Jeremy Hudak A national identity functions as the backbone of an individual or collective sense of being. In extreme cases, it is the primary conduit for selfdefinition. A subjective, distinguished, and integrated selfhood in relation to an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homeland is as essential as a spinal column to a human body in western civilization. Particularly in its early stages of development (between the 6th and 7th centuries) what is now called England was at a loss in regards to a defined collective self and territorial expansion was aggressively implemented as a means to create this identity. Despite this valiant strive for individuation, feelings toward this establishment of a national identity were slightly emotionally ambiguous and tended manifest themselves through projections of fear and anxiety directed at monstrous literary figures. At this time the Anglo-Saxon identity is scattered, unorganized, and chaotic, leaving those who made it up questioning what exactly defined their sense of self as a nation and as individuals. The multiple warring Germanic tribes such as the Geats and the Danes had an overarching fear of becoming a complete subjective self, represented in the terrifying creatures they immortalized in myth and legend. Using Carl Jungâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theory of identity integration in application to the epic poem Beowulf, one can deduce the subconscious insecurities of the scattered Anglo-Saxon culture as well as the particular psychological stages of integration they went through in regards to becoming an individual national identity through the authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interpretations of the monsters the protagonist of the epic encounters. By revealing the full spectrum of the Anglo-Saxon psyche (as according to Jung) during this tumultuous time of shifting identity, one can read Beowulf 123

as a national and psychological coming of age story for the English culture, complete with the repressed violent tendencies it possess in each stage of its individuation. Jungian literary criticism implies that there are four distinct mental archetypes that are presented throughout the process of individuation: The ego, the shadow, the anima, and the Self. Each of these archetypes requires a level of acceptance in order to progress to a fully unified, autonomous selfhood. The integration of all four stages into a single, unified Self marks the completion of this search for individuation. Only when the ego encounters and accepts the other three levels of consciousness can this state of integration be fully realized and achieved. Jung’s theory suggests that the conscious or unconscious imperfections of an individual are projected onto another and then disassociated with in order to distance the individual from the imperfections he or she possesses. The “Other” upon whom these psychological imperfections are projected is then demonized by the individual who possesses the imperfections in the first place, essentially denying the existence of these flaws inherent in the individual and falsely acquitting him or her of the imperfections he or she does indeed possess. This projection of what one does not approve of within his or her own lifestyle, personality, or psychological framework is referred to as the “shadow” in Jungian psychology and can serve as a vehicle from which a psychoanalyst can read the underlying self-conscious insecurities of the individual. In Richard Sugg’s edition of Jungian Literary Criticism, Michael Atkinson describes the “shadow, that figure of the same sex as the ego that embodies negative or positive traits but which now has been repressed” and emphasizes its importance and attachment to the self or the “ego” (Sugg 85). Jung’s goes on to explain how a psyche can only progress by coming to terms with and incorporating the shadow (as well as the other two mental archetypes) into his or her mental framework. He also stressed 124 Of Men & Monsters

that denial of these four archetypes as a part of the consciousness (the ego, the shadow, the anima, and the self) of the individual ultimately leads to violent consequences such as “wars and unexpected reigns of terror, as the dark side, so long denied a voice, erupts after long suppression” (Conger 84). Jung suggested that the shadow is inherent in every human being and that a denial or repression of that shadow, the anima, or the Self by the ego rather than an acceptance of it can result in the form of brutal violence and psychological neurosis. The third level of integration, the anima, represents the opposite gender of the ego: the consciousness embodying the feminine aspect with which the ego must reconcile. Described as “the woman within the man,” the stage of the anima is represented by realizing the capacity for opposite gender characteristics within the personality (Sugg 85). The ego, must accept and integrate that which is of the opposing gender into itself for the prospect of holism to be fulfilled. Often described as maternal (or paternal if the ego is characterized as feminine) and “supremely valuable” by Jung because of its connection not only to a completely opposite set of concepts that would be otherwise foreign to the original ego, but also because of its connection to the bases of childhood (Jung, “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype”). By incorporating the anima into the entirety of the personality, one is open to another interpretation of existence through a maternal, feminine lenses as well as a reconciliation with past childhood experiences. Jung’s theory of personality integration can be applied to a given culture as readily as it can be applied to an individual. One can realize the undercurrent negative anxieties of an entire civilization by analyzing the nature of those whom that culture ostracizes, rejects, and fears. As a collective consciousness, a group of people will “Otherize” those who most closely embody that which the collective despises about itself, revealing its jeremy hudak

125

own internal struggle with that which it deems inappropriate and barbarous. When faced with a monster, a culture will quickly see what it does not like about itself in the creature deemed monstrous, and, will quickly demonize it in an attempt to detach those flaws from their own consciousness. The monster therefore represents the psychological stages of individuation of the entire culture and all that particular culture despises about itself or its origins. An acceptance of these undesirable traits is the only way for a scattered, uneasy collective identity to progress to a state of united wholeness in which all parts of the psyche are appropriately reconciled. In relation to literary theory, the integration of personality can be applied to a text’s interpretation and description of a monster (or in the case of Beowulf, three) and reveal what that culture finds inappropriate within the individuals that represent it. The gruesome, yet vague depictions of Grendel, Grendel’s mother, and finally the dragon function as symbolic manifestations of the Anglo-Saxon’s own deep-seeded psychological insecurities about becoming a single, united nation rather than multiple warring Germanic tribes with no distinguished identity. By analyzing the characteristics attributed to the three monsters, one can determine specific anxieties and fears repressed in the Anglo-Saxon psyche throughout the process of becoming a singular culture and nation. Each monster represents different stages of this psychological development all to be integrated into the superstructure of the psyche in order for a unified Anglo-Saxon identity to be realized. The protagonist, Beowulf, represents an attempt of the Anglo-Saxons to unite under a common identity to finally come to terms with their own psychological shadow. Beowulf stands for all that the Danes revere; he is strong, revered for his combat prowess, rational, and excessively masculine, while Grendel stands for that which the Danes find undesirable about themselves. His “behavior… can certainly be recognized as the behavior of 126 Of Men & Monsters

the hero’s shadow” characterized by the savagery he inflicts onto the Danes (White 10). Beowulf is clearly Grendel’s opposite, and the two function as symbols of the psychological dichotomy between the ego and the shadow. Beowulf represents the mature ego of the Anglo-Saxon identity, while his battle with Grendel symbolizes an attempt to reconcile the darkness the shadow casts through integration. In chronological order, Grendel is the first of the monsters to appear. He is foreshadowed long in advance and described as absolutely barbarous and inhuman. His descent from Cain is mentioned and condemned, and the Danes regard him as “Other” from even before the time of his birth. This notion that Grendel was never part of the collective identity, but rather originates from outside the walls of familiarity, suggests that the AngloSaxons denied their shadow from moment they became self-aware. The Dane’s attempt to negate any connection between Grendel and themselves highlights their disassociation with and denial of their own psychological shadow. Despite their efforts to destroy Grendel and eliminate the dark side of their consciousness, Grendel continues to wreak havoc upon their civilization for over a decade. Grendel’s tendencies toward chaos, disregard for economic system, and taste for human flesh all symbolically reflect the Anglo-Saxon’s fear of their past atrocious selves. Their intense hatred of Grendel represents a subconscious self-hatred of their past disorganization and self-destruction as a people. From these negative attributes associated with the shadow, one can deduce that the Anglo-Saxons feared a return to their old primeval ways of brutal pillaging and relative anarchy. The fact that Grendel “wanted no peace” with the Danes “nor settled with money” reminds the Anglo-Saxons of their own former state of constant warfare and lack of any specified economic system (II 154-157). Grendel, “grim and ravenous”, is often depicted destroying Hrothgar’s jeremy hudak

127

hall and slaughtering and consuming dozens of Danes (Beowulf II-121). He has no regard for human property or life, represented in his delight at the kidnapping and devouring of thirty thanes, and he regularly destroys any constructs of Hrothgar’s kingdom that get in his way. Grendel’s cannibalism suggests metaphorically that the warfare the Anglo Saxons constantly engaged in was internally destructive any only succeeded in diminishing their opportunity to progress into a solidified nation. His lack of care for basic human rights suggests the primitive behavior inherent in the AngloSaxon culture before it was united under a common identity. The Danes fear Grendel because he reminds them of their old ways of life, so much so that the use military force to distance themselves from him. This distancing however, as explained by Jung simply brushes the shadow aside rather than dealing with it directly, a process which is required in order for the self to achieve true wholeness. Beowulf ’s battle with Grendel represents the Anglo-Saxon identity finally reconciling with the darkness inherent in their cultural personality. After years of repression the Danes finally come to terms with their shadow, symbolized by Beowulf ’s grappling match with the monster. Evidence of this fight being symbolic for the process of mental integration is seen in the multiple abnormalities present before and during the fight (such as one man taking on what hundreds of Thanes had fought against and died from). His choice to face Grendel without armor or a weapon “further suggests that the conflict between the hero and Grendel is reflective of an internal conflict rather than a traditional battle” (White 24). This refusal to face the monster without any form of battle attire symbolizes a lack of mental deterrence or distraction of thoughts and anxieties while the ego’s reconciliation with the shadow is being processed. Grendel’s violent intrusion on the mead hall represents the shadow breaking into the ’inner domain’ in which the heroego and the projected shadow will meet” again suggesting the unique nature 128 Of Men & Monsters

of this encounter (25). Though Beowulf defeats Grendel with relative ease, the psychological integration of personality is only in its beginning stages. There is still much to come to terms with after the battle is won at Herot, and the shadow has been accepted as part of the personality, symbolized by the suggestion of Hrothgar for Beowulf to inherit his kingdom in attempt to unite the Geats and the Danes. The next psychological obstacle to be reconciled remains in the form of Grendel’s mother who proves to be much more difficult to incorporate into the depths of the Anglo-Saxon psyche. Grendel’s mother symbolizes the inherent femininity within the Anglo-Saxon culture as well as the general consensus on gender roles at the time. Being the second monster that the ego, Beowulf, encounters, she represents the anima, or the feminine characteristics inherent and hidden away in the personality of the Anglo-Saxon culture. The negativity projected toward Grendel’s mother represents the insecurities of the present Anglo-Saxton identity during the time Beowulf was written. The role of psychological anima in relation to the ego has been passed to her, while Beowulf ’s symbolic intent on full integration is still in effect. The fact that she is a woman represents the misogyny inherent in the Anglo-Saxon culture while her ultimate confrontation with Beowulf suggests the second stage of psychological integration. Her label “monster-woman” reflects the hatred of femininity the progressing culture possesses within itself, suggesting a constant struggle to keep it in its place (Beowulf XIX 1259). The hatred expressed by the Danes toward Grendel’s mother suggests their extreme reliance on patriarchy and uneasiness with what is feminine within them as a culture. Grendel’s mother’s role in avenging her son’s death (stereotypically a man’s job in the Danish society) evokes anxiety within the Danes because of an upset of the gender norms within their society. This alteration in gender roles displayed in the form of the mother acting as the avenger threatens jeremy hudak

129

the Anglo-Saxon concept of patriarchy and the order it places in regards to masculinity and femininity. Predominantly in the Danish culture, the death of a son would be avenged by the father of the household. Grendel’s mother, having defied these boundaries of gender, acts as a reminder of their struggle to contain femininity and distinct gender roles within their society. Grendel’s mother is described twice as “greedy” for exacting revenge for her son (Beowulf XIX 1277, XXII 1499). Though a life for a life is an acceptable form of justice in the Danish society, the anima (Grendel’s mother) is condemned for her longing to avenge her son. This blatantly contradicts the laws of justice within the Anglo-Saxon culture, suggesting that they subconsciously regard the principal as avaricious and self-centered. The greed the Danes highlight in the behavior of Grendel’s mother reminds them of their own covetous ways of exacting justice, presenting yet another obstacle they must, as a unified society, come to terms with and, again, suggests the preference for male dominance with in their scattered identity. The anima which Grendel’s mother represents proves a much more difficult object of integration than the shadow, suggesting that the AngloSaxon culture could reconcile their self-destructive, sadistic tendencies much more easily than their inherent femininity. The fact that Beowulf fights her in full battle gear and with the aid of a weapon symbolizes the mental uneasiness of confronting a force that is mysterious and feminine, again highlighting the Anglo-Saxton preference for exclusive patriarchy. His difficulty in defeating Grendel’s mother as well as his close encounter with death as she “drew her knife, broad, bright-edged;” intending to “avenge her boy” further suggests the laborious process of integrating the anima into the psyche, a feat which the Anglo-Saxtons could almost not accomplish (XXII 1545-1546). With the anima eventually accepted and the femininity of the Anglo-Saxons fully realized, the accumulation of a complete national and individual subjective identity has but one more stage to complete. 130 Of Men & Monsters

The final sequence of integration is represented by the last monster, the dragon that terrorizes Beowulf ’s kingdom. The dragon represents the Anglo-Saxon’s full reconciliation and acceptance of their cultural personality coming full circle. After the integration of the shadow and the anima are complete, the realization of a fully incorporated whole self can be seen symbolized through the difficult battle between Beowulf and the dragon. The lines “It was not long before those two great creatures came together again” suggests that the battle is symbolic for a reunion of the different stages of the psyche (Beowulf XXXV 2591-2593). Both the ego and the Self ’s mutual demise as well as the passing of the torch to Wiglaf suggests that both stages of the cultural personality have been fully reconciled and a new Anglo-Saxon national identity has been achieved. The new and improved Geatish nation, personified by Wiglaf ’s, kingdom represents the finished product of the unified Anglo-Saxon identity. After the completion of the four stages of Jungian personality development are realized, the cultural identity of what is now called England possesses new meaning and autonomy. Through rigorous integration of the ego, the shadow, the anima, and the Self, the Anglo-Saxton identity can be equated with a distinguished, undivided nation as opposed to a compilation of warring Germanic tribes. This nationality is an anchor for the developing Anglo-Saxton civilization to progress from, and the sense of selfhood that accompanies it gives those associated with this civilization something to call a homeland.

s jeremy hudak

131

Work Cited Beowulf. Ed. R.M. Liuzza. Toronto: Broadview Press Ltd. 2000. Print. Conger, John P. Jung and Reich: The Body as Shadow. California: North Atlantic Books, 2005. Print. Jung, Carl.”Psychology and Religion” (1938). In CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. P.131 Jung, Carl. “On the Psychology of the Unconscious” (1912). In CW 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. P.35 Jung, Carl. “Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype” (1939) In CW 9, Part I: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious P.172 Sugg, Richard, ed. Jungian Literary Criticism. Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1992. pp. 21-38. Print. White, Judy. Hero-Ego in Search of Self: A Jungian Reading of Beowulf. 26. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2004. Print.

132 Of Men & Monsters

The Comfort of Monstrosity: The Aristocratic Imagination at Work in Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Braden Bodensteiner As purely fictional beings, monsters of medieval literature at first glance seem to represent a threat to humanity. Yet, within fictional works, there is an overwhelmingly consistent pattern of monsters exclusively endangering members of the upper-class. Some may contend that such a correlation between aristocrats and monsters exists because the upper class has more to lose, which increases the stakes in a confrontation between beast and human. Consequently, the story is more exiting for its audience. This conclusion, while partly true, stops short of addressing the nature of monsters, presupposing an absolute distinction between man and beast by suggesting that only man has something to lose while in conflict with the monster. Rather, the similarities between monsters and the upper class contribute to a more complete understanding of their relationship throughout medieval literature. In the medieval works, Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, monsters are solely represented as preoccupations of the aristocracy, where the monster is perceived as an embodiment of the primal impulses of nobility. The violence and martial prowess that confer power to the aristocracy stands in direct opposition with the civil principles of courtly life: mastery of chivalric code and rhetoric. Therefore, in order to create an absolute distinction between man and beastâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;courtly values and primal valuesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the idea of monstrosity is constructed in the imaginations of the 133

aristocracy. The reality, however, is that the medieval monsters bring into and out of the courts a hybrid of primal and chivalric values that ironically expose the civil ideals of Anglo-Saxon nobility as purely fantastic and hollow. In this sense, the illusion of upper-class life is contingent on the creation of monsters who authenticate the fantastical ideals of nobility by the perceived undermining of such ideals, much in the same way that darkness exists because there is light. The monsters in Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are in fact the courts’ noble counterparts, embracing both courtly and primal values. Yet, before making such a leap, a psychological analysis on the repression of monster and human relatedness is necessary. In Beowulf, the monstrous Grendel is a mysterious, shadowy creature. Grendel, a being of literary fantasy, is necessarily subject to interpretation for both the audience and the characters within the poem because his physical appearance, thoughts, and feelings are never given to us in full detail. Grendel, “a bold demon who waited in darkness,” killed at night, and then retreated back to the mere, is simultaneously known and unknown (86). He is known to be a danger to Heorot, but the actual creature is an enigma and thus creates what Freud calls the “uncanny” experience—an encounter with something both familiar and unfamiliar (Sandner 164). David Sandner argues that Grendel attacks Hrothgar’s thanes, not as a monster, but “as a feuding lord might attack, knowing where the seat of power lies, in Heorot, the mead-hall itself ” (171). Here, Sandner asserts that Grendel’s primal form of attack, in the form of cannibalism, is inextricably linked with Anglo-Saxon culture because it is an act of war, which necessarily begot Hrothgar’s kingdom. Nevertheless, Grendel embodies the uncanny because Hrothgar and his kinsman are experiencing “a return of something once thought safely repressed” (165). While Sandner’s argument offers a foundational understanding of how the aristocratic imagination imposes monstrosity on Grendel as a way to 134 Of Men & Monsters

dissociate self from a primitive past, the argument can also be extended to address Hrothgar’s present day anxieties. Hrothgar implicitly confirms Grendel’s human nature by accepting the notion that he is “among Cain’s race” (107). Although Cain’s race in the early Middle Ages is commonly associated with giants, trolls, etc., I cannot overlook the relevance that such a connection is rooted in the exclusively human fear of fratricide. Hrothgar, living in a time of primogeniture, certainly had to fear, if only subconsciously, that his younger brother Halga might kill him in order to inherit the throne. Although there is no evidence to suggest Hrothgar senses a true brotherhood with Grendel, comparing him to Cain signifies the possibility of the king’s paranoia about his own brother. The shapelessness of Grendel allows the king to imagine Grendel as the monstrous embodiment of fratricide. As a result, the king effectively manages his paranoia about losing power by assigning it to what Sandner would term “the unknowable and the impossible” (162). In this sense, the fear of being usurped takes the form of the incomprehensible monster—somehow familiar, yet strange. Such a fear, therefore, cannot be realized within the rational, orderly realm of the Court, thereby placating the king. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, there is the same experience of the uncanny when the Green Knight intrudes on King Arthur’s feast. The Green Knight’s beheading game forces King Arthur’s knights to simultaneously confront their violent impulses with their civilized courtly manner. Carl Grey Martin reads the Green Knight as “a blend of the amicable and the quarrelsome, the crude and the civilized” and “a kind of monster” who embodies the monstrosity of the militarized society that produced him” (311). Like Sandner, Martin asserts that the monster is more repulsive when it personifies the ancient, more primitive values of a culture. Unlike Grendel, however, the Green Knight is an invention, created by sorceress Morgan le Fay. Consequently, the mystery of the Green Knight is of a far different braden bodensteiner

135

nature than Grendel’s, yet still elicits the same psychological response of imposing monstrosity on the indeterminate Other. Morgan le Fay, “who learned magic from Merlin—master of mystery,” imbues the Knight with both overtly monstrous and human qualities. For instance, he is described as “half giant. . . but handsome too like any horseman worth his horse” (140142). The Knight, having the body type of a human, but with green skin, is deemed “otherworldly, yet flesh and bone” (197-198). These binaries lead the narrator to simultaneously affirm The Knight’s monstrosity and humanness, and ultimately the mystery of his being, when he asks: “what did it mean / that human and horse could develop this hue. . . ?” (233-234). Therefore, the Green Knight’s mysterious nature requires interpretation, from both the audience and the characters within the romance itself. Implicit in Gawain’s decision to wear a magic girdle to save himself from the Green Knight’s death blow is the belief that courtly chivalry, in the form of fairness, need not extend itself to the Green Knight because he is perceived as a monster— in direct opposition to humanity. In both stories, the aristocracy denies the humanity of Grendel and the Green Knight, despite their palpable human qualities, because they signify the primal reflexes, the violent impulses, of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman culture respectively. In this sense, Grendel and the Green Knight engender a sense of the uncanny. Both Sandner and Martin seem to acknowledge that monstrosity is found within mysterious beings who challenge our notion of self. Yet, there is no such thing as a pure self, existing apart from a social context. Although monsters do in fact represent a compelling, yet forbidden sense of self, it is important to consider the context in which the self develops and defines its boundaries. Medieval monsters are not generically scary. Rather, they are created within a context which addresses the specific anxieties and repressions of a particular group of people. The monsters of Beowulf and SGGK challenge a notion of self that is particular to the aristocratic society 136 Of Men & Monsters

as a whole, and therefore distinctly belong to the imagination of nobility itself. Foust argues in his article, “Theory of Fantasy Antagonists,” that “ambivalence is at the core of the ‘monstrous’ image” (443). In other words, he defines the monster’s hybridity to be a merging of the natural world with the civilized world. In medieval literature, however, the aristocracy believes its social stability rests on purely civilized ideals: good manners, chivalry, and playfulness. Ambiguity, then, necessarily indicates impurity and degeneracy, and thus becomes problematic within the court. Although both natural and civilized worlds are represented within the monster, nobility must interpret monsters as underdeveloped beings who threaten the purity of the court. In fact, nobility interprets the monster’s hybridity as its parody of courtly life, which must not go unpunished. For example, the Green Knight is thought to be “fearful, irredeemably other, and yet a ‘mayster’: a man, or more properly a lord or master” (Walker 112). He dresses and speaks elegantly, obeying the terms of chivalry. His explicit assertion, however, that “I mean no menace” and that “I’m clothed for peace, not kitted out for conflict,” is strangely misinterpreted by the king as the Knight seeking “a fair, unarmored fight” (266-278). Also puzzling is the fact that Arthur still acknowledges the Knight’s courteous demeanor, despite his belief that he has entered his Court for combat. This misinterpretation of the Knight underscores the Court’s desire for a disconnect between the natural world and the civilized world, primal and courtly instincts. Because the courtiers and the King are dumbfounded by the Green Knight, and subsequently do not respond to his challenge, he resorts to ridicule: “The towering reputation of the Round Table, / skittled and scuppered by a stranger—what a scandal!” (313-314). The Knight, having devolved from courtesy to rudeness, now receives an appropriate response to his challenge because he is behaving in a manner that is truer to his monstrous nature. Greg Walker interprets the moment braden bodensteiner

137

Arthur takes up the challenge as an affirmation of the Green Knight’s superiority, and the “dwindling” of the king’s authority as he’s “frantically swinging a borrowed ace around his head, while the Green Knight himself quietly strokes his beard.” (116). I see it, however, as Arthur’s recognition that the Green Knight is working within the code of chivalry in order to taunt it. His failure to see this before is reflected in the aristocratic belief that only those who belong to the courts can demonstrate its values clearly, and outsiders, such as the Green Knight, cannot possibly participate in such ideals. In this moment, Arthur’s “frantic swinging” is more indicative of his readiness to rid his Court of the “fool” than of a sort of subordination to the Green Knight: “No warrior worth his salt would be worried by your words, / so in heaven’s good name over the axe…” (324-326). The hybridity of the Knight is ultimately determined to be an impossibility. Walker accurately contends that his “nature and status is constantly revised and renegotiated” (111). In the context of the aristocracy, such an argument implies that the greater extent to which his hybridity is realized, the greater need there is to imagine him as antagonistic to their courtly values. Grendel’s mother, more so than her son, also embraces the values of nobility, while still living in a primal, uncivilized space. That is not to say, however, that Grendel is not imagined as antagonistic. Rather, he is imagined as antagonistic to a lesser extent, evidenced by the text in two ways: Beowulf ’s fight with Grendel’s mother is given greater emphasis (i.e. Beowulf ’s fight with Grendel is only twenty lines, whereas his fight with Grendel’s mother is about fifty) and Beowulf “revises” his fight with Grendel’s mother in order to accommodate the expectations of Anglo-Saxon nobility (Oswald 66). Yet, Grendel remains a preoccupation of nobility because he embodies a subversion of aristocratic peace and security, rather than being viewed as actual enemy that can be fought against: “for twelve long winters the lord of the Scyldings suffered his grief. . .” (147-148, emphasis mine). The aristocracy 138 Of Men & Monsters

embraces Grendel as a necessary terror, so that the courtly ideal of peace is not compromised. To interact with Grendel, either diplomatically or with violence, would inevitably require courtliness to interact with the primal, and ostensibly monstrous, values of Anglo-Saxon culture. The rationale of the aristocracy is that it is better to have its ideals threatened, rather than undermined altogether. Grendel’s mother complicates the borders of nobility to a much greater extent than her son. Keith Taylor claims, “the bravery and thus the inherent nobility of Grendel’s mother becomes clear when, in the absence of a male counterpart, she ventures to Heorot alone and unarmed. . . to avenge the murder of her only son” (21). Moreover, when Beowulf consoles Hrothgar in the wake of Aeschere’s death (the thane Grendel’s mother killed) he says, “it is always better / to avenge one’s friend than to mourn overmuch,” implicitly acknowledging Grendel’s mother’s vengeance as chivalric (13841385). Furthermore, it is implied that she is a ruler in her own right, as her dwelling is called a “battle-hall” (22.1513). Grendel’s mother is referred to as “monster-woman,” which implies her hybridity (19.1259). Yet, Wendy Hennequin maintains that she is “presented as noble and brave opponent and even as a somewhat sympathetic character” (504). Such sympathy would seem to contradict the notion that hybridity yields monstrosity. She is, however, perceived as a greater danger than Grendel, because she has effectively transported courtliness to the wilderness—the swampy, fire snake infested fens. Beowulf wants to insure victory against Grendel’s mother, and thus “geared up / in his warrior’s clothing” (21.1442-1443). The Danes “suffered” Grendel for twelve years because he merely scorned courtliness and did not appear to embody it. On the other hand, Grendel’s mother is imagined to be a far worse antagonist because she assumes nobility in the “that murky land / of wolf-haunted slopes. . . / and awful fenpaths” (20.13571359). The Court necessarily becomes implicated in such wilderness, and braden bodensteiner 139

her extermination becomes all the more urgent. Though Hennequin makes a strong case for the sympathetic reading of Grendel’s mother, it is strictly a critical interpretation and does not prevent the aristocratic imaginations within the poem from distorting her admirable qualities. Furthermore, her death even becomes subjective. Oswald argues that Beowulf downplays how challenging the fight with Grendel’s mother truly is because, not only is it emasculating, but it would harm the reputation of the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy (70). Because “rulership in Beowulf is a masculine activity,” Beowulf would cause the aristocracy great strife if he divulged that a woman ruler (if we accept the notion that Grendel’s mother rules her underwater hall) nearly overpowered him (Hennequin 510). Rather than attribute the battle’s strenuousness to Grendel’s mother alone, he invents other foes: “In that conflict, when I had the chance, I slew / the shepherds of that house” (24.1665-1666, emphasis mine). Nowhere in the fight with Grendel’s mother is it implied that there are other attackers present. Keeping in mind that the upper-class is ultimately about maintaining its power, power that resides in masculinity, Beowulf revises his encounter with Grendel’s mother in order to keep that courtly ideal intact. While hybridity in the antagonistic beings is perceived to be a perversion of nobility in the minds of the aristocracy, in reality it defines the nature of nobility. In this sense, the rejection of hybridity is the true corruption that exists within the courts. Hybridity should be embraced because it is a more truthful representation of human identity. Consequently, acceptance of such duality prevents one group from oppressing another based on a more muddled, seemingly less secure, albeit more truthful identity (i.e. cultural, gender, sexual identities). Therefore, the idea of monstrosity perpetuates the aristocracy by constructing illusions that affirm and secure the power of the ruling class. For example, the fact that Grendel’s mother is an avenger, a warrior, and a ruler, but that she is also of Grendel’s kind, living below the 140 Of Men & Monsters

earth’s surface exposes the aristocratic space to be purely hypothetical, and illusory. She exemplifies how primal and courtly traits are fluid, and exist in both civilized and natural realms. She acts with primitive violence, yet within chivalric terms when she murders Aeschere in the court. Moreover, in the mere she acts as a guardian of her son’s remains while engaged in a highly sexualized, bodily encounter with Beowulf: “After [Beowulf] has pulled her to the floor and she has grabbed him, he falls on his back on the floor while Grendel’s mother sits astride, having pulled her short sword” (Oswald 68). This sexualized battle, reminiscent of more primal urges, is mixed with the more courtly manners of protecting one’s hall and avenging the death of a loved one. Beowulf necessarily confronts the fluidity of natural and civilized impulses in the mere-hall. Based on Beowulf ’s revisions that he makes to his fight with Grendel’s mother, one senses his discomfort with the encounter: his masculinity, reputation, and notions of rulership are profoundly challenged and as a result, he, at the very least becomes aware of the possibility that the monster of the aristocracy’s and his imagination does not exist, and therefore, neither does the fantasy of a pure civilized realm. Regardless, Beowulf decides to allow the Danes to continue living their fantasy by bringing to the surface Grendel’s head, rather than the mother’s, and although, as Oswald asserts, his fight with Grendel was less challenging, he tells that tale with greater detail and wit (71). The Green Knight also uses his hybridity to expose the illusion of a civilized ideal. In Arthur’s court, he is a combination of the elegant (i.e. his attire, his speech, his manner) and the primal (i.e. the violent nature of his beheading challenge). At the Green Chapel, located in the wilderness, the Knight grants Sir Gawain mercy, only giving him a shallow wound for “the loyalty that [he] lacked” (4.2366). Gawain, aware of his transgression grieves, “A curse upon cowardice and covetousness / They breed villainy and vice, and destroy all virtue” (4.2374-2375). The Knight, through his braden bodensteiner

141

hybridity, is able to draw Gawain to the realization that a purely civilized life is merely fantasy. Of Morgan le Fay, the Knight says, “There is no nobleness / she cannot take and tame” (4.2454-2455), which quite literally affirms the irrational nature of a realm that only appeals to civilized values. Gardner’s Grendel, although a postmodern treatment of medieval monstrosity, also explores the idea that “There is a sense of freedom in being outcast and working outside the normal societal constraints” (Farrell 948). Grendel neither confines civil behavior to the hall, nor primal behavior to the wilderness: Grendel contemplates and broods in the forest, while he commits cannibalism in the hall. The peasant man who speaks to Hrothfulf contributes an appropriate commentary on the fictions that the aristocracy proliferates: What does a kingdom pretend to do? Save the values of the community—regulate compromise—improve the quality of the commonwealth! In other words, protect the power of the people in power and keep others down. By common agreement of course, so the fiction goes. And they do pretty well. We’ll give them that (Gardner 118).

The peasant’s insight here confirms the fantasy world of the upper-class which seeks its preservation through denying the humanity to those who challenge its conception of power, which is believed to derive from purely civil ideals. Yet, civil ideals, as the monsters of Beowulf and SGGK demonstrate, are in constant and fluid interaction with human nature. That is, civil values cannot possibly exist without being informed by the primal impulses embedded within our human nature. The fantasies that the aristocracy creates only benefit those who have power, not humanity in general, whereas monsters, who embody a hybridity, offer a chance for humanity to question power and the self in relation to that power, as Grendel’s mother does for Beowulf and 142 Of Men & Monsters

as the Green Knight does for Gawain. Therefore, the noble preoccupation with monsters is merely a way to maintain a fantasy, and therefore its power, by envisioning an antagonist that threatens its ideals. Monsters, however, are not about undermining the upper class for the sake of usurping them. Rather, monsters represent the untamed consciousness of the lower class. The horror that results from encounters with the imaginary monstrous, therefore, can be read as a sort of comfort, a sort of affirmation of the purity embedded within the upper class. As victims of monstrosity, the upper class simultaneously acknowledges a fear of the unruly lower class and reasserts the impossibility of having their way of life penetrated, or even influenced by it. Postmodern conceptions of horror continue to deal with the relationship between monsters and upper class society. Horror films such as Halloween, Cabin in the Woods, and The Ring portray an invasion of upper class society and its values by introducing antagonists who cannot possibly live in the pure realms of the affluent. The suburban space is terrorized, bloodied, and effectively ruled by unrest at the filmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conclusion. Yet the films, as works of fiction, offer the upper class audience a sense of comfort and newfound appreciation for suburban space, assuredly rid of monsters. Therefore, the monsters of postmodern film and medieval literature are both imagined in the minds of the aristocracy so that they can more fully realize their security within the social hierarchy.

s braden bodensteiner

143

Works Cited Armitage, Simon. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A New Verse Translation. New York:W.W. Norton and Company, 2007. Print. Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s Pop Culture Evolution.” The Journal of Popular Culture 41.6 (2008): 934-949. EBSCO. Web. 7 April 2012. Foust, R. E. “Monstrous Image: Theory of Fantasy Antagonists.” Genre 13 (1980): 441-453. EBSC. Web. 7 April 2012. Garnder, John. Grendel. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc, 1982. Print Hennequin, M. Wendy. “We’ve Created a Monster: The Strange Case of Grendel’s Mother.”English Studies 89.5 (2008): 503-523. EBSCO. Web. 24 March 2012. Luizza, R.M. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. Perterborough, Ont: Broadview, 2000. Print. Martin, Carl Grey. “The Cipher of Chivalry: Violence as Courtly Play in the World of SirGawain and the Green Knight.” The Chaucer Review 43.3 (2009): 311-329. EBSCO.Web. 4 April 2012. Oswald, Dana M. “ ‘Wigge under Waetere’: Beowulf ’s Revision of the Fight with Grendel’sMother.” Exemplaria 21.1 (2009): 63-82. EBSCO. Web. 6 April 2012. Sandner, David. “Tracking Grendel: The Uncanny in Beowulf.” Extrapolation 40.2 (1999): 162-176. EBSCO. Web. 5 April 2012. Taylor, Keith. “Beowulf 1259a: The Inherent Nobility of Grendel’s Mother.” English Language Notes 31.3 (1994): 13-25. EBSCO. Web. 5 April 2012. Walker, Greg. “The Green Knight’s Challenge. Heroism and Courtliness in Fitt I of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.” The Chaucer Review 32.2 (1997): 111-128. EBSCO. Web. 4 April 2012. 144 Of Men & Monsters

“The Monster is unsettling not simply because it is intent on our destruction, but also because it is related to us…” (Phillips 42).

Beowulf and The Hunger Games: Eruptions of Societal Issues in text Maria Hetz Literature is frequently a clear depiction of a culture’s problems, fears. However, often that literature takes those cultural issues even further. Authors convey the underlying problems they see in society, and warn readers against what will happen if society takes their problems and anxieties too far. In the poem Beowulf, and the popular young adult novel The Hunger Games, the societal concerns of Anglo-Saxon culture and modern 21st century America, respectively, are not only represented throughout the texts but show what can happen when those problems erupt and warn against that eruption occurring. These eruptions are presented through the lenses of Monster theory and the theory of Equipment for Living. Monster Theory states that monsters are our neuroses; they are a reflection of both ourselves, as well as our culture as a whole (Cohen 4). Monsters are a way to interpret a culture’s fears, and to understand more deeply the problems within it: “The monster’s body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety, and fantasy … the monstrous body is pure culture” (Cohen 4). Also, a monster is something only meant to exist in text. When the monster breaches the text the eruption in reality occurs (Cohen 4). The monster’s breach is the cultures fears being realized, the repercussions of the drastic actions taken by those suffering injustice. Monsters not only represent culture, they also warn against anxieties breaching the text and the 145

effects that breach will have on society. Kenneth Burke’s theory “equipment for living” states that, through literature, people confront their problems, celebrate their victories, and embrace their tragedies. Burke takes it one step further than Cohen’s Monster Theory by saying not only are a culture’s fears shown within their literature, but all the other good and bad things happening in that society are reflected as well. Brummett, in his interpretation of Burke’s work, states that, “to identify a representative anecdote as immanent within a number of media discourses is to sum up the essence of a culture’s values, concerns, and interests in regard to some real-life issues or problems” (164). Burke’s theory suggests that this literature is not simply a warning against what can happen if society takes their issues to the breaking point and eruption occurs, but actually equips the readers with the tools to know how to deal with these scenarios: Equipment for living “provides them with the motives, hope, and symbolic resources to face their real situations” (Brummett 164). Taken together, Cohen’s Monster Theory, and Brummett’s take on Burke’s “equipment for living,” offer insightful lenses into analyzing Beowulf and The Hunger Games as texts that incorporate the fears, anxieties, and warnings of the culture they were written for, as well as what happens when those issues breach the text and are made reality. The history of Anglo-Saxon England sheds light on the points of discord in the culture of Beowulf. Characteristics of feudalism are present in Anglo-Saxon England even before the Norman Conquest (Burton 11). Three institutions, dependent tenures, private jurisdictions, and military service for land tenure were common; these institutions were also great sources of anxiety (Burton 12). Tenures were landholdings of any type; a landholder under tenure did not have absolute possession over her/his land. A landholder under tenure often had to provide either some kind of service to the ultimate landholder; this service had to be a “service worthy of the 146 Of Men & Monsters

free man, the vassal being distinctively the free man of feudal days. With this proviso it might be of any sort, and was of great variety, sometimes nominal only” (Burton 17). Many Anglo-Saxons had tenured land. They lived in constant fear of their land being taken away. Furthermore, there were many commitments that were demanded of the peasants of Anglo-Saxon England; service in the national militia, or fyrd, was required of the free peasant landholder (Stenton 277). The free peasant must also “join with others of his class in supporting his king by contributions to the feorm, or food-rent” (Stenton 278). Responsibility for this service and for the payment of the king’s feorm, as well as all other public “burdens” were distributed throughout the free peasants in terms of peasant tenements (Stenton 279). Despite the fact that these free peasant landholders were “subject to no lord below the king,” the king still took great liberties in doling out responsibilities to these peasants. Although they are considered free, the peasants still had to pay for the king’s living expenses, and the king lived infinitely more affluently than the peasants. The peasants worked hard to provide for their family, put food on the table and a roof over their heads. These duties towards the king weighed on the peasants, creating underlying anxieties within the culture due to inequality. Moving to the corresponding Anglo-Saxon text, just as the peasants were in constant fear of their land being taken away, the Danes in Beowulf are in constant fear of Grendel. Grendel, the Monster in Beowulf, personifies the eruption of all the anxieties the Anglo-Saxons felt about the upper class, specifically over land and money. Phillips states in the article “In the Company of Predators: Beowulf and the Monstrous Descendants of Cain” that, “these monsters are, for better or worse, emblematic of the darkness of the so-called Dark Ages,”(Phillips 41). In other words, these monsters are representative of problems in the culture. In the prologue to Beowulf the origins of Hrothgar’s empire are immediately established: “He grew under maria hetz

147

heaven and prospered in honor / until every one of the encircling nations / over the whale’s-riding had to obey him, / grant him tribute (Prologue, 8-11). Hrothgar had conquered other kingdoms, and all those kingdoms had to pay him, creating unease due to both forced unification and forced tribute. Land and money are very often fought over and caused a great deal of turmoil in this time period (Elden 447). According to Elden this turmoil is present throughout Beowulf, specifically in its setting: “…but rather less noted are the particular sites at which these take place- the hall, the mere, and the burial-mound. Following readings of these three sites, two more general themes are discussed: gifts of land and conflict over it” (449). The most important place pertaining to this argument is Heorot, the mead-hall. Heorot is portrayed “[as] a place of joy and security” (Elden 449). However, when Grendel begins to attack the Danes, the hall becomes “threatened by external forces of evil” (Elden 449). This attack on the King’s place of happiness and celebration is where the Anglo-Saxon anxieties are being projected into the literature. Those living under tenure see their homes as “a place of joy and security” but live under the ever-present fear of that tenured land being taken away, as well as having to give their hard-earned money away, and, therefore, their well-being is “threatened by external forces of evil.” Hrothgar is rich and powerful, in charge of many tributary kingdoms; Therefore, Hrothgar is inflicting the landholder’s anxiety over keeping their land and money,that is until Grendel attacks. When Grendel raids Heorot, the tables are turned: Hrothgar now fears both his own safety, and the security of his land. Now there is something more powerful than he is, able to kill his soldiers by the dozens, directly threatening Hrothgar’s livelihood. Grendel is the eruption of the anxieties of the tenured landholders and tenement paying peasants, showing the royalty what will happen if they take things too far and highlighting the extreme inequalities present in society. Grendel is the warning, and Grendel is the threat: “the monster is at war 148 Of Men & Monsters

with humanity; the consanguineous monster is the definition of humanity at war with itself ” (Phillips 41). The monster is not only a warning to the aristocracy, but a warning to all of humanity. The monster tells us what can happen to everyone, not just the elite, when anxieties erupt: the monster is not only at war with the elite, but “humanity at war with itself ” (Phillips 41). King Hrothgar and his Queen are not the only people being terrorized. The entire kingdom suffers the consequences of Grendel’s raids. In fact, it is only those under King Hrothgar’s rule, and not King Hrothgar himself, who are killed by Grendel. Beowulf is a warning to all those in the Anglo-Saxon society of the ramifications that would be endured if their anxieties erupted, and the implications of the poem steer them away from a too-drastic measure by pointing out that the aristocracy would not be the only class affected. Currently in American Society, there are several issues that, if taken too far, would also threaten the culture’s well-being: The extremes of entertainment, like survivor and MTV reality shows, disagreements in politics, when the ads go negative, and the tremendous inequality. Occupy Wall Street is a movement that has captured the twenty-first century’s attention: a movement of unrest due to inequality; a movement on the verge of eruption. The Occupy Wall Street movement hopes to call attention “to the actions of the wealthiest 1% that impoverish the remaining 99%” (Northridge 585). Just as the Anglo-Saxon kings took the security and money from the peasants, the one percent is stealing the security and money from the rest of the population. A topic that was once seemingly taboo to discuss has now not only become one of the most debated and talked about movements in the twenty-first century, but is also influencing the 2012 presidential elections topic discussions (Northridge 585). The “ninety-nine percent” claims the “one-percent” has taken their democracy, pride, and hope, and highlights the extreme income inequality taking place. maria hetz

149

By labeling themselves the “ninety-nine percent” and not “the poor” the stigma falls away and allows this movement to spread. It is a movement that people are “proud to claim as their own,” moving towards social and economic justice (Northridge 585). Although Northridge’s writing is biased towards the movement the points she makes about the movement seem to ring true throughout society. The Occupiers have taken this movement and run with it, spreading it throughout the world. Occupy Wall Street has not fully erupted in the monstrosity that its extremity threatens to become. That threat is a monstrosity we are not equipped or prepared to deal with. Some popular literature does portray what could happen if the Occupy movement takes their issues to the point of eruption. The Hunger Games trilogy is a story of tremendous inequality and unfairness; The Capitol holds all power while the districts provide it with everything it needs because “that’s what the districts are for. To provide the bread and the circuses” (Collins 221). Those who live in the Capitol are the richest of the rich; They throw up what they’ve eaten just to make room for more; They wear copious amounts of make-up and dye their skin, hair, and eyes, and extravagant clothes that would never be seen in the districts. Most importantly they take “the kids from [their] districts, forcing them to kill one another while [they] watch -- this is the Capitol’s way of reminding [them] how totally [they] are at their mercy” (Collins 18). In District Twelve, the farthest district, the inhabitants struggle to put food on the table, wear rags for clothing, use shacks for shelter, and surrender all their hard work directly to the Capitol. This inequality in The Hunger Games directly reflects the inequality in society today, exaggerating what is already present in society, the inequality highlighted in the Occupy Wall Street movement, in order to emphasize the problem. The Capitol ensures that all districts are aware of the shear amount of power they hold over the districts in order to keep them in line. However, 150 Of Men & Monsters

in an act of defiance, the main character, Katniss Everdeen, sparks the flame that sets the districts on fire and pushes them into revolution and chaos. This revolution parallels the potential eruption of the Occupy Wall Street movement. With its emphasis on The Capitol taking what the districts work so hard for, and the districts fighting back, the books lay out a warning to modern society of the events to come if the Occupy movement is to go too far. Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, highlighted these current issues on purpose. She stated in an interview that “she created the sociopolitical overtones of The Hunger Games intentionally to characterize current and past world events” (Hintz 122). In fact, dystopian literature has exploded in young adult fiction, possibly because “modern youngsters have never experienced a world free from war” (Kirtley 120). It’s been argued that dystopian fiction has been written, specifically for the younger generation, so they can be given “the vicarious opportunity to evaluate socioeconomic inequity in an imaginary world and consider potential solutions” (Kirtley 120). This theory of dystopic fiction, specifically The Hunger Games, directly lends to Burke’s theory of “equipment for living.” By seeing these fictional situations of inequality and unrest, children are allowed the opportunity to read through a situation and familiarize themselves with the issues of the real world before they need to address them first hand, making choices and opinions in an imaginary world before making them in everyday life (Hintz 2). The Hunger Games is a direct depiction of this dystopic fiction that leaks the ever-present issues of our culture into the young-adult fantasy world; Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, states “she created the sociopolitical overtones of The Hunger Games intentionally to characterize current and past world events.” Beyond Burke’s “equipment for living” Collins also plays into Monster theory. However, the monsters in The Hunger Games are too close for comfort. This becomes obvious when Katniss says “I no longer feel maria hetz

151

any allegiance to these monsters called human beings, despite being one myself ” (Collins 33). The revolution has turned all humans into monsters. There is no longer a common enemy but an omnipresent enemy that is indistinguishable among the population. Everyone has killed, everyone has betrayed, there seems to be little humanity left to hold on to; The monster has successfully penetrated society and the culture’s fears have been realized when the characters conclude “collective thinking is usually short-lived. We’re fickle, stupid beings with poor memories and a great gift for selfdestruction“(Collins 386). According to Cohen “the monster’s body quite literally incorporates fear, desire, anxiety…,” and the monster “only exists to be read” (Cohen 4). However, now that the monster is human, society has come one step closer to the full-frontal breach of the monster into reality. As a society that is constantly at war the monsters are no longer untouchable aristocracies, but everyone. Everyday people, songs, daughters, mothers, fathers, the monster has become up close and personal. The monster has become us. Collins presents us with a world of terror; The terror that would result in the eruption of the underlying anxieties and inequalities present throughout our society, the breach of the monster. Just as in Beowulf, Collins is not simply warning the rich, but everyone in society. If a revolution were to break out, the one percent would not be the only people affected; in war, both parties always endure detrimental results. There is always death and destruction, no matter the winner. Beowulf and The Hunger Games are two works of literature that present us with the eruption of a culture’s fears, a view of what would happen if the monsters break out of the text. From the known history of the AngloSaxon’s under a reign of inequality, giving away what they have rightfully earned and living in constant fear of losing their land, Beowulf can be seen as the eruption of those problems, warning aristocracy of what may happen to them if they push the peasants too far. Occupy Wall Street follows the 152 Of Men & Monsters

same lines; The Hunger Games present a society where the rich are simply feeding off the poor’s hard work and show that when the poor eventually take a stand, terrible things will come for both parties. Literature gives society a way to analyze the culture’s problems and take a step back and realize what could happen if certain debates are taken too far. Cohen’s Monster Theory and Burke’s theory of “equipment for living” provide lenses to read these two texts, showing us that this literature not only presents the readers with the fears and anxieties of a culture, but allow the reader to understand what the real ramifications of these problems are when “the cruelifications of our age must inevitably foreshadow ‘cruel realities’” (McDonald 16). When the monster penetrates the pages will the society be equipped to handle the inhumanities that arise? Taking action against these issues not only affects those being attacked, but directly affects the attackers as well. The conversion from human to monster is something society is not yet prepared for, and something it is certainly not equipped to handle.

s maria hetz

153

Works Cited Brummett, Barry. Burke’s Representative Anecdote as a Method in Media Criticism.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication. 1. (1984): 161 176. Print. Burto, George Adams. “Anglo-Saxon Feudalism.” American Historical Review. 7.1 (1901): 11-35. Print. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Minneapolis: UP Minnesota, 1996. 3-25. Print. Collins, Suzanne. Mockingjay. New York: Scholastic Press, 2010. Print. Elden, Stuart. “Place Symbolism and Land Politics in Beowulf.” SAGE Publications. 16. (2009): 447-463. Print. Hintz, Carrie, and Elaine Ostry, ed. Utopian and Dystopian Writing for Children and Young Adults. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print. Kirtley, Patricia M. “The Hunger Games: Discussing Dystopia.” National Social Science Proceedings. 46.1. (2011): 119-123. Print. Liuzza, R.M. Beowulf:A New Verse Translation. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2000. Print. McDonald, Brian. “The Final Word on Entertainment: Mimetic and Monstrous Art in the Hunger Games.” The Hunger Games and Philosophy: A Critique of Pure Treason. Ed. George A. Dunn and Ed. Nicolas Michaud. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. 8-25. Print. Northridge, Mary E. “We are the 99 Percent.” American Journal of Public Health. 102.4 (2012): 585-585. Print Phillips, James. “In the Company of Predators: Beowulf and the Monstrous Descendants of Cain.” Angelaki Journal of the Theoretical Humanities. 13.3 (2008): 41-51. Print. 154 Of Men & Monsters

Stenton, Frank. Anglo-Saxon England. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 277-283. Print.

maria hetz

155