Skip to main content

The lineage of civilization... // Ian Blair

     The first part of Beowulf really painted a picture that the people of the age were looking for a hero that would personify the virtues that they wanted society to aim for. Much like the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians before them, the people of the medieval era really seem to have been trying their hand at establishing a lore of the world around them. The virtues promoted include a sense of "honor" that is oddly based off fairness rather than might or glory.

    This sense of honor is explained when Beowulf begins a boast to Hrothgar and his company, and really sets the scene for the absolute brawl that would later break out between him and Grendel. After taking his armor off, he explains his viewpoint on the fight:

"When it comes to fighting, I count myself as dangerous any day as Grendel. So it won't be a cutting edge I'll wield to mow him down, easily as I might. He has no idea of the arts of war, of shield or sword-play, although he does possess a wild strength. No weapons, therefore, for either this night: unarmed he shall face me if face me he dares. . ." (Heaney, 47).

Making things fair in a fight versus a creature of demonic origin may not sound like a good idea to me or you in today's society, but this was actually a fairly common practice in duels and competitions like jousts. What Beowulf shows here more than anything else is a reverence to the supreme creator of the world. In other words, he demonstrates his faith in the Lord by leaving the outcome of the fight to the creator's will, a virtue valued in heroes such as Achilles and Aeneas by the Greeks and Romans respectively. This leads me to a conclusion drawn from both what we have learned from this semester so far, and from last semester's readings: A civilization must, typically, draw inspiration for its stories, lore, and its culture from its predecessors if it has no other apparent basis to go off of. 


p.s. I commented on Emma Kate's and Clabo's posts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more