Ana səhifə

Bjork/Obermeier: Date, Provenance, Author, Audiences page


Yüklə 130.5 Kb.
səhifə1/3
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü130.5 Kb.
  1   2   3

Bjork/Obermeier: Date, Provenance, Author, Audiences – page

Robert E. Bjork and Anita Obermeier, "Date, Provenance, Author, Audiences", pp. 13-34 in Bjork and Niles (eds.), A Beowulf Handbook.

[p. 13] Summary: Suggestions for when Beowulf was composed range from 340 to 1025, with ca. 515 530 and 1000 being almost universally acknowledged as the possible extremes. An early consensus favored ca. 650 800 but current thinking is balanced between roughly this view and the late ninth to early tenth centuries. Scholars have tried to specify provenance (Denmark, Germany, Anglia, Wessex), most preferring Northumbria or Mercia; they still debate whether the author, who remains anonymous despite sporadic attempts to discover his identity, was a layperson or cleric; and controversy continues as to the nature (e.g., secular or monastic) and number of the poem's audience or audiences.

Chronology

1815: Grímur Jónsson Thorkelin, first editor of the poem, asserts in his introduction that the author was an eyewitness to the deeds of Beowulf and presented the eulogy at Beowulf 's funeral. The poem was composed, therefore, after 340, the year Thorkelin claims for Beowulf's death. Thorkelin also argues that the author and audience were Danish (1815b).

1817: N. F. S. Grundtvig identifies Hygelac as the Chochilaicus (d. 515 530) mentioned by Gregory of Tours. Identification implies a date after 550.

1820: Grundtvig, arguing for a date around 700, also suggests a companion of Cædmon or Aldhelm as author.

1826: John Josias Conybeare argues that the poem as we have it was written by a bard in the court of Cnut (1016 35) but attributes the original poem to the eighth or even seventh centuries.

1840: Ludwig Ettmüller dates the poem in the eighth century and proposes a Scandinavian source as well as multiple authorship.

1841: Grundtvig identifies "merewioingas" (2921) as "Merovingian."

1849: Joseph Bachlechner argues that "merewioingas" suggests 752 as the latest possible date for the poem, since the Carolingian line replaced the Merovingian then, and the poet probably would not refer to a dynasty long after it had fallen.

1862: C. W. M. Grein considers Beowulf a coherent work by one poet.

[p. 14]

1869: Karl Müllenhoff, applying Lachmann's Liedertheorie (ballad theory) to Beowulf, concludes that it began as four independent lays, put together with interpolations before the time of Cædmon (657 680).

1883: Hermann Möller argues that Beowulf's initial poetic form was a four line stanza and claims that nonstanzaic parts are more recent interpolations. He dates the poem in the ninth, tenth, or eleventh centuries.

1883: Frederik Rönning examining stylistic, historical, and linguistic details in the poem, rejects Liedertheorie, suggests the late eighth century as the date, Northumbria as the provenance, and a cleric as the author.

1884: Thomas Krüger examines the poem's historical and mythological background, backs Müllenhoff about six authors and a late seventh century date.

1886 97: Gregor Sarrazin proposes that Beowulf was translated from a Danish original probably composed or reworked by Starkathr around 700 at Lejre, the Danish court of Ingeld. Argues that Cynewulf translated the poem and interpolated Christian material after writing Christ A and B but before Elene and Andreas.

1886: Eduard Sievers examines the thirty six Scandinavian loan words cited by Sarrazin as proof for a Danish original and rejects thirty four as either extant in Anglo Saxon poetry or prose or part of a common Germanic heritage.

1888: Bernhard ten Brink elaborates Müllenhoff 's conclusions and places the final redaction of the poem in Mercia in the eighth century.

1892: John Earle posits 775 800 as the date because of the Offa episode, lines 1931 62. Poem is therefore a political allegory for Offa's son, Ecgferth, by Archbishop Hygeberht of Lichfield.

1906: Lorenz Morsbach dates the poem to shortly after 700 on linguistic grounds (loss of final u after long root syllables and of postconsonantal h before vowels).

1912: Arguing mainly from the religious allusions in the poem, H. Chadwick postulates that the poem existed in its "full epic form" well before 650 and was later reworked by a Christian poet.

1917, 1923: Levin Schücking, on the basis of historical context, suggests 890 900 as the date, the Danish court in England as the provenance, since the poem is thoroughly Danish in orientation.

1920: F. Liebermann argues for a date of 725 and speculates that the poem could have been written at the court of Cuthburg, sister of King Ine of Wessex, queen of Northumbria and later abbess of Wimborne

1922: Friederich Klaeber (1922a) claims a unified work by one poet, perhaps at Aldfrith's court.

1935: Ritchie Girvan argues for a 680 700 date in Northumbria on the basis of linguistic, historical, cultural evidence.

1935: W. A. Berendsohn offers an analysis of the poem similar to ten Brink's. Supports an eighth century date. Last proponent of Liedertheorie.

1936: Alois Brandl, reading the poem as political allegory, dates it to the reign of Wiglaf of Mercia (827 838).

1937: C. C. Batchelor, discerning traces of Pelagianism in the poem, argues that it could not have been written much later than 705.

1943: George Bond, on the basis of onomastic evidence, links Beowulf to events in the reign of Beornwulf, 823 826, and Wiglaf, 828 838, of Mercia.

[p. 15]

1948: Sune Lindqvist, on the basis of the Sutton Hoo discovery, argues for a date of ca. 700 and contends that the poem was written to honor a line of the royal Swedish house that descended from Wiglaf in the poem.

1951: Dorothy Whitelock suggests ca. 775 800, perhaps in the court of Offa of Mercia. Poem must be pre 835, when Viking raids began in full force.

1953: C. L. Wrenn suggests a pre 750 date because of what he says is an archaic instrumental, "wundini" (which is actually "wundum" or "wundnum," 1382).

1957: Robert Reynolds sees a connection between Beowulf and the Wonders of the East and argues for a tenth century date (late ninth at the earliest).

1958, 1963: Francis P. Magoun Jr. arguing for the presence of "an anthologizing scribe," distinguishes authors for three parts of poem: A (1   2199), A' (2009b   2176), B (2200  end).

1961 62: Gösta Langenfelt, arguing that the Scandinavian historical elements in the poem could not have been known in England before the late eighth century, posits an early ninth century date.

1963: Paull F. Baum suggests that the poet was a "serious and gifted poet, steeped in the older pagan tradition from the continent." He mentions, but immediately discounts, the possibility of female authorship.

1966: Robert P. Creed (1966b) refutes multiple authorship, tries to explain Magoun's A' by suggesting a scribe wrote the epic down during performance.

1970: Arthur G. Brodeur attacks Magoun's (1958, 1963) theory of multiple authorship. Finds no evidence for the discrepancies Magoun asserts.

1977: Nicolas Jacobs, disputing Whitelock's theory, argues for a late ninth , early tenth century date.

1978: Patrick Wormald, exploring the historical and cultural backgrounds of the poem, argues for an eighth century date, a clerical author.

1980: Richard J. Schrader hypothesizes that the Beowulf poet was a monk trained in the classical rhetorical tradition of Bede and that the poem is part of a literary tradition going back to Virgil.

1980: Louise E. Wright argues that "merewioingas" refers to Merovech, the legendary founder of the Merovingians identified in a chronicle not known in England before 751. The word supports a date after 751.

1981: Kevin Kiernan (1981a) posits two poems about Beowulf with the author of the second being the final redactor of the unified whole, ca. 1016 25.

1981: Ashley Crandall Amos casts doubt on the reliability of any of the linguistic or metrical criteria proposed for dating Old English poetry.

1981: Contributors to The Dating of Beowulf review many kinds of evidence for dating. Among them Thomas Cable, E. G. Stanley, Colin Chase, Walter Goffart, Alexander Murray, R. I. Page, Roberta Frank, and Kevin Kiernan either argue for a date later than the eighth century, an audience as late as the eleventh, or leave open those possibilities.

1981: W. G. Busse and R. Holtei, on the basis of historical criteria, chiefly the problem of loyal behavior to one's lord, date the preserved version of the poem to the reign of Ethelred (978 1016) and define the audience as Ethelred's thanes.

1981: David Dumville argues that there is no historical evidence to align date of manuscript and composition and that the poem has a monastic context.

[p. 16]

1981: Patricia Poussa revives Schücking's argument for a date in the tenth century and an audience in the Danelaw.

1982: Frederic G. Cassidy proposes that the poet was a monk writing for a monastic audience; he was tolerated because of his "scholarly eminence."

1982: Horst Weinstock seconds Cassidy, opts for a later date, and theorizes that the poet might have written the epic for a monastic community engaged in missionary work to the Continental Saxons.

1982: Robert T. Farrell surveys Scandinavian contact with England 400 1000, concludes the poem was most probably composed in eighth century East Anglia.

1982: Roberta Frank in one article finds that the poet's synthesis of religious and heroic idealism reflects attitudes current in the tenth century but not before. In another she argues that various Nordicisms in the poem point to a late ninth  or early tenth century origin.

1982: Michael Lapidge, showing direct and indirect connections among Beowulf, Aldhelm's Wessex, and the Liber Monstrorum, suggests that the poem could have been composed in pre Conquest Wessex.

1982: Michael Swanton, arguing that the poem reflects two systems of kingship, finds that the transitional period of the late eighth century is the most likely time of composition.

1983: John D. Niles argues that the poet's ambiguous depiction of the Danes fits in well with the hypothesis of a tenth century date.

1985: Janet Bately, reviewing spelling patterns in the poem, concludes that it probably cannot be dated later than the early tenth century. An examination of "siþþan" in the poem supports the single author theory.

1986: Karl Schneider, noting the transitional nature of the Christianity in the poem, dates it to 640 650 and places it in the court of Penda the Mercian. The poet "may be identical with Widsith".

1986: Zacharias P. Thundy posits that the poem was written between 924 and 931 by Wulfgar, a retainer of King Athelstan.

1988: David Dumville, on paleographical grounds, dates the manuscript to the early eleventh century, not to the reign of Cnut.

1989: Audrey Meaney reviews the elements of the Scyld Scefing prologue to the poem and doubts that they came together before the early tenth century; she accepts the possibility that the Beowulf manuscript represents various layers of composition.

1990: Alfred Bammesberger reexamines Beowulf 1382a, "wundnum" and its suggested variants, as a means of dating the poem and concludes that it does not illuminate the dating question.

1992: R. D. Fulk applies Kaluza's law to the poem and maintains that Beowulf was most probably composed before 725 if Mercian in origin or before 825 if Northumbrian. Evidence favors Mercian origin.

1993: Sam Newton, on the basis of genealogical, orthographic, lexical, phonological, and archaeological evidence, argues that the poem may have been composed in eighth century East Anglia for an audience of Danish extraction or familiarity with the East Anglian Danish heritage.

[p. 17]

1993: Niles (1993a) argues that the poem may reflect West Saxon politics and ideology during the period of nation building in the tenth century.

1993: Niles (1993c) posits that the text of Beowulf came into being as the result of a commissioned event (an "oral poetry act") staged by a patron for the benefit of a textual community.

"[It] will be clear to anyone," asserts Grímur Jónsson Thorkelin in his introduction to the first edition of Beowulf in 1815, that "our poem of the Scyldings is indeed Danish" despite its coming down to us in an Old English translation. The nameless Danish skald who originally wrote the poem "was an eyewitness to the exploits of kings Hrothgar, Beowulf, and Hygelac, and was the eulogizer at Beowulf 's funeral," which Thorkelin unflinchingly fixes at 340, his earliest possible date for the poem's composition (Thorkelin 1815b). Though unequivocal, Thorkelin's contentions are demonstrably wrong or decidedly moot, mere curious footnotes to the whole bewildering debate about perhaps the most vexing problems in Beowulf scholarship: when was the poem composed, where, by whom, for whom?

Scholars responded quickly to Thorkelin. The first Danish reviewer (probably Peter Erasmus Müller in 1815) questioned Danish provenance for the poem and guessed at a date between the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth centuries (Cooley 1940, 51). The German Nicolaus Outzen claimed German provenance and intuited a date later than the fourth century because of the poem's Christian allusions and literary excellence (1816, 321). And the Dane N. F. S. Grundtvig (1817, 284 88) identified Hygelac in the poem with the historical figure Chochilaicus, the king mentioned by Gregory of Tours as having been slain in Frisia on a raid, probably between 515 and 530. The poem, therefore, had to be written in the sixth century or after. Grundtvig later suggested, in fact, that it was composed around 700, during what he thought to be the great flowering of Anglo Saxon literature, probably by a companion of Cædmon or Aldhelm (1820, xxvii viii). Independent of Grundtvig, John Josias Conybeare (1826, 156 57) corroborated this idea, at least in part. The original poem, he thought, probably did come from the eighth or even seventh century since, among other things, the poet displays such an intimate knowledge of Jutland before the eighth century. But the poem as we have it was probably produced by a bard in the court of Cnut (1016 35). Only then would the exploits of a Danish hero, which Conybeare believed Beowulf to be, have been popular in England.

What Grundtvig and Conybeare have provided us (the latter unwittingly) are the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem for dating Beowulf. The epic had to originate between the death of Hygelac and the date of the manuscript itself, which most scholars place at ca. 1000 and which could conceivably fall in the reign of Cnut (see N. Ker 1968, 45 46). Conybeare also raised for us   again unwittingly – a [p. 18] fifth perplexing question about the poem's genesis, and that is, What exactly are we trying to date? Is it the poem as preserved in the manuscript or some urtext, in whatever form or forms, that lies buried or dispersed in the Continental, Scandinavian, or Anglo Saxon past?1

The early history of scholarship on these problems suggests the relatively unsystematized way investigators approach them, but as the history develops, the argument resolves into distinct, interrelated categories. Dating the poem by means of external and internal evidence can lead to knowledge of its provenance; knowledge of its date and provenance allows speculation about who may have written the poem and for whom. This chapter takes up these issues in turn.

1. Date and Provenance

Dating and locating the poem, impossible tasks, are nevertheless the simplest of the four and essential for approaching the questions of authorship and audience. Scholars have marshaled at least seven different kinds of evidence to try to place Beowulf in history and geography: (a) sources and analogues, (b) archaeology, (c) history, (d) literary history, (e) manuscript studies, (f) genealogies, and (g) linguistics, which itself has several categories.

(a, b) Sources and analogues and archaeology are examined in detail elsewhere in this handbook (chapters 7 and 15), so only two points need to be raised here. Although analogues tell us little about date, they do demonstrate that the Scandinavian material in Beowulf "is not derived from, nor influenced by, any known Northern tradition" (Newton 1993, 25) and the poem, therefore, is most probably "a peculiarly English expression" of the Germanic material (Andersson 1983, 300). Archaeological evidence, on the other hand, which is by no means conclusive because of the vague descriptions of artifacts in the poem, supports the possibility that the poem may have been composed as early as the seventh (more probably the eighth) but as late as the tenth century. The date of Beowulf, therefore, can be generally set in eighth  to tenth century England, assuming, of course, that the poem is a unified whole by a single author.

(c) For a more precise sense of when and where the poem was composed, scholars have turned to history. One particular reference in the poem has attracted the most attention for this purpose, "merewioingas" (2921, the sole appearance of the word in Old English poetry or prose). In 1841, N. F. S. Grundtvig conjectured that the word means "Merovingian" (497, 509), and, in 1849, Joseph Bachlechner, who is always credited with the identification, argued that the allusion suggests that the poem could not have been composed after 752 when the Carolingian line replaced the Merovingian. The poet, he reasoned, would not refer to a dynasty long after it had fallen. Some scholars (e.g., Liebermann 1920, 267; Chambers 1921, 487; Brandl 1929, 182) accepted the identification as proof of an early eighth-century date. Others, such as Friedrich Klaeber, did not. He stated that "no absolutely definite chronological information can be derived" from the mention of [p. 19] the Merovingian dynasty since the use of the name could have "continued in tradition even after" the dynasty's fall (1950a, cviii). Although Louise E. Wright implicitly agreed about the name's continued use, she disagreed about its value for dating the poem. She offered a convincing argument that "merewioingas" refers to Merovech, the legendary founder of the Merovingians uniquely identified in a chronicle not known in England before 751. The allusion, therefore, "can be used to fix, not a terminus ad quem, but rather a terminus a quo" and Beowulf can be dated "as late as the early ninth century" (2, 5). The reference could support a still later date, since Klaeber's observation about tradition applies to Wright's argument as well as Bachlechner's. "Merewioingas," therefore, helps little in specifying the poem's date.

Apart from focusing on this one allusion in the poem, scholars have employed three broad, overlapping historical approaches: searching for the source or justification for one or more element of the poem in external history; exploring periods of cultural transition and their possible presence in the poem; and reading the poem as political allegory. These approaches typically presuppose one of four periods and places of power and culture capable of supporting the production of such a sophisticated work of art as Beowulf is: seventh century East Anglia (the age of Sutton Hoo), late seventh  to early eighth century Northumbria (the age of Bede, 675 725), late eighth century Mercia (the reign of Offa, 757 96), and ninth  to tenth century England (the Danelaw and "English England"). Eleventh century England (the reign of Cnut, 1016 35) has also been proposed.

The first, most amorphous approach embraces a wide range of considerations. In 1861, for example, noticing the similarity of word forms in Beowulf and "the Northumbrian monuments and the Durham Ritual," Daniel H. Haigh placed the composition of the poem in Northumbria and stated that "all the events [the poet] records, with two exceptions, occurred in this island, and most of them in Northumbria, during the fifth and sixth centuries" (3 4). The Dane Frederik Rönning in 1883 and the German Felix Liebermann in 1920 also argued for Northumbrian provenance. Rönning examined dialect features of the poem (91 - 98) and traced the path of the Scandinavian material in it from Sweden and Denmark to the north of England, where (he claims) the Grendel legend left its greatest mark (106). He concluded that the tale of the Gothic hero Beowulf originated in southern Sweden, then migrated either directly or with the Angles to northern England, where it was reworked into an epic whole by a Northumbrian poet, perhaps in the eighth century (107).2 Liebermann argued for a more specific date, 725, speculating that the epic could have been written at the court of Cuthburg, sister of King Ine of Wessex, queen of Northumbria and later abbess of Wimborne. The social structure reflected in the poem fits that date better than it does a later date (267), and no historical evidence in the poem points to a date after 725 (270).

Likewise arguing for Northumbrian provenance is Ritchie Girvan, who in 1935 showed "a close correspondence between seventh century conditions in North-[p. 20]umbria and the poem both in the material and intellectual side" (51). On the basis of linguistic and cultural evidence as well, Girvan set the date of composition between 680 and 700 (25). In 1937, while not arguing for provenance, C. C. Batchelor discerned traces of Pelagianism in the poem's vocabulary and therefore claimed that the epic could not have been written much later than 705, when the reign of Aldfrith ended and Aldfrith's opposition to "Roman formalism" was replaced by faith in Augustinian predestination (332). Dorothy Whitelock, however, stated in 1951 that we may look too readily to Bede's Northumbria for the origin of the poem and suggested that there are other possibilities, such as the court of Offa of Mercia, ca. 775 800, which would have been a fitting arena for the sophisticated Christian poet and audience that the poem requires (63). She was convinced that the epic must come from before 835, when Viking raids began in full force with ensuing deep Anglo Saxon resentment of Scandinavians (25 26).

Scholars before and after Whitelock who concerned themselves with the poem's Scandinavian content have reached varied conclusions about it and its bearing upon the date. Gösta Langenfelt (1962, 34) posited an early ninth century date, using Whitelock's findings and arguing that the Scandinavian historical elements in the poem could not have been known in England before the late eighth century, when they would have been brought back by missionaries to northern Germany. Robert T. Farrell (1982) surveyed Scandinavian contact with England from 400 to 1000 and concluded that the poem was most probably composed in East Anglia in the eighth century. Sam Newton (1993) concurred. He based his conclusion on a complex assessment of linguistic, historical, archaeological, and genealogical information, all of which conspire to locate the peculiarly English Scandinavian material in the poem in pre Viking East Anglia.

Scholars drawn to a later period of Scandinavian influence in England appear as early as 1917. In that year, Levin Schücking tried to prove that a poem so thoroughly Danish in orientation could have been composed in 890 900 in a Danish court in England. During that time, he asserted, an appropriate mix of Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian culture existed to give rise to the poem, and he speculated that a Scandinavian prince could have asked a famous English poet to compose it for the instruction of his children (407). His view did not gain much support, even before Whitelock, but in 1981 Patricia Poussa revived it. Neither Schücking nor Poussa "adequately explain the apparently pre Viking background of the poem," however (Newton 1993, 56).

Other scholars favoring a later period of Scandinavian influence take on Whitelock directly, pointing to the fallacy involved in presupposing as homogeneous an audience as she does. Nicolas Jacobs (1978) reconsidered the possibility of date for the poem after 835 and concluded that "any periods in which political considerations may have discouraged the composition of Beowulf are likely to have been brief and at most intermittent" (42). R. I. Page (1981) offered an overview of Anglo Saxons who had regular nonbelligerent contact with the Vikings (e.g., [p. 21] Athelstan of Wessex, Alfred) and argued that excluding the Viking age as a time when the poem could have been composed means assuming an "unsophisticated audience for a sophisticated poem" (113). Two of Page's co contributors to The Dating of Beowulf, Alexander Callander Murray and Roberta Frank, shared his basic premise.

One more contributor to The Dating of Beowulf, Walter Goffart, argued for a late date for the poem, but did so by examining another of its historical features, the words Hetware and Hugas, traditionally thought to be ancient references to the Franks. Goffart sought to prove that the former derived from the eighth century Liber Historiae Francorum (84 88) and that the latter reflected the name "Hugh" that was popular in the territories of the Franks in the ninth and tenth centuries only. Beowulf, therefore, seems to have been written "no earlier than the second quarter of the tenth century" (100). Since Goffart did not definitively negate other interpretations of Hugas, such as the traditional one, his theory opens a new avenue of inquiry but remains inconclusive.

The first historical approach to date and provenance then, which has the advantage of breadth, leaves us with a Beowulf from eighth , ninth , or tenth century Northumbria, Mercia, or East Anglia.

The second approach, a bit more circumscribed than the first though overlapping with it, concentrates on periods of cultural or literary transition and the possible reflection of those periods in the poem. Three have been advanced as candidates thus far: the late seventh to late eighth centuries, the ninth century, and the tenth century. The first is the period of the gradual Anglo Saxon conversion to Christianity and of the amalgamation of Germanic and Roman ideas of kingship. In 1928, analyzing the synthesis of Christianity and Mediterranean learning in the poem, William W. Lawrence dated it to 675 725 during the age of Bede (280). Likewise, in 1978, exploring the historical and cultural backgrounds of the poem and focusing on its peculiar mix of Christian and pagan elements, Patrick Wormald argued that it reflects the assimilation of the Anglo Saxon church by the warrior nobility in the eighth century (57). In 1986, Karl Schneider found a similar, but earlier, assimilation. Examining what he termed "the camouflaged paganism" (199 232) in the poem, as well as its linguistic features, he claimed that it was most probably composed in Mercia between 640 and 650 during the reign of Penda (74). Michael J. Swanton, studying Germanic and Roman ideas of kingship   the former deriving governing power from the people, the latter from the king through God   discerned traces of both in the poem (1982, chapters 4 6) and assigned it to the late eighth century, when, he argued, a shift from one system to the other probably took place. Peter Clemoes, focusing on such matters as the use of figures and tropes in the poem and their reflection of the transition between an old and a new style that he noticed in Old English poetry around the ninth century, placed the poem between the oral poetry of Cædmon and the written poetry of Cynewulf, most probably in the second half of the eighth century (1981, 185).

  1   2   3


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət