Structure and Unity, by Thomas A. Shippey [Pp. 149-174 in Bjork/Niles 1998)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Structure and unity, by Thomas A. Shippey [pp. 149-174 in Bjork/Niles 1998) Summary: In the early years of Beowulf scholarship, the poem was seen as so structurally flawed that it must be a product of multiple authorship. Once the poem's unity was conceded, various theories were developed to account for its sud- den changes of time and its many episodes or digressions. It was seen as bipartite, tripartite, arithmetically structured, or deeply affected by folktale; the dominant theory in recent years has, however, been that of interlace, though this approach is still not fully accepted. Chronology 1815: N. F. S. Grundtvig (1815a) declares that the poem is a beautiful and tasteful whole. 1817: On closer inspection, Grundtvig decides that the poem is a spiritual whole but not properly arranged. 1820: Grundtvig criticizes the poem for lack of both external and internal unity and for the use of episodes. 1826: John Josias Conybeare censures the poem for use of digressions and for continuing too long. 1836: John M. Kemble introduces the idea, further repeated in Kemble (1837b), that the poem consists of layers of different date and ori- gin. 1840: Kemble finds further corroboration for his preexisting myth theory in a Wiltshire charter. 1840: Ludwig Ettmüller argues that the poem is an inartistic patchwork and distinguishes original from interpolated lines in his German translation. 1849: Karl Müllenhoff (1849a) attempts to identify the original myth at the heart of the poem. 1862: C. W. M. Grein insists that the poem is the work of a single, skilful poet. 1869: Müllenhoff creates a complex theory of multiple authorship, dis- tinguishing four authors, an author/interpolator A, and a final in- terpolator B. 1870: Artur Köhler (1870a and b) distinguishes art poet from folk poem in the episodes of Scyld and Heremod. 1877: Hermann Dederich asserts that single authorship is unthinkable. [p. 150] 1877: Bernhard ten Brink sees the poem's lack of national spirit as a re- sult of its diversified origins. 1883: Hermann Möller goes beyond Müllenhoff by declaring that the poem was originally written in four-line strophes and attempts to recover this structure. 1883: Frederik Rönning analyzes and rejects the arguments for composite authorship; his work is reviewed by Heinzel (1884) and supported by Fahlbeck (1884). 1884-85: John Earle insists that the poem possesses "absolute unity" and was created with a single didactic purpose, expanding his views in 1892. 1888: ten Brink sees the poem as composed of different sections but ar- gues that each of them is itself a conflation of different versions. 1891: M. Jellinek and Carl Kraus follow Rönning and Heinzel in explain- ing apparent contradictions. 1897: W. P. Ker declares that in spite of faults in structure the poem de- serves to be appreciated as it stands. 1904: Ker calls the poem structurally weak, even preposterous. 1905: James Routh sees episodes and parentheses as part of poetic style. 1905: Levin L. Schücking argues that 1888-2199 are a connecting link between two originally separate poems. 1908: Alois Brandl (1908a) insists that if Beowulf is stylistically and structurally mixed, it is nevertheless the work of a single poet. 1909: W. W. Lawrence rejects belief in a preexisting myth underlying the poem. 1910: H. Bradley contrasts the poem's lucid core with its general impres- sion of chaos. 1912: Richard Boer divides the poem into at least eleven stages of devel- opment. 1912: Ker criticizes the poem for want of proportion and feebleness of plan. 1912: Lawrence explains discrepancies in the poem as the result of a sin- gle author handling varied material. 1915-16: Bradley considers the poem's numbered sections as a clue to its origin. 1916: Enrico Pizzo sees the poem as aesthetically unified by its interest in monsters. 1921: R. W. Chambers defends the poem's unity against Schücking but still finds parts of it inapposite. 1922: While accepting the poem's unity, Friederich Klaeber denies that it achieves any superior unity of structure. 1925: Chambers sees the poem as possessing a folktale plot, with epic relegated to its digressions. 1928: Defending the poem as a work of art, Lawrence explains its digres- sions as deliberate ironic juxtaposition. 1935: Walter Berendsohn notes the demise of Liedertheorie while argu- ing for the poem's stylistic inconsistency. 1936: J. R. R. Tolkien insists on respect for the poem as it stands and puts forward a theory of structural unity in balance. 1949: Adrien Bonjour defends the unusual narrative mode of the Grendel's mother story as artistic and deliberate. 1950: Bonjour extends the method of Bonjour (1949) to many sections of the poem. 1952: T. M. Gang severely criticizes Tolkien's idea of balance, answered by Bonjour (1953). 1953: Arthur G. Brodeur points out the critical and pivotal role of Hyge- lac, expanding his views in 1959. [p. 151] 1955: H. L. Rogers sees a consistent pattern of decline in the poem, which is, however, not perfectly executed. 1955: Jan van Meurs criticizes Tolkien for too readily accepting the poem's perfect structural unity. 1958: Francis P. Magoun Jr. argues that 2009b-2176 are the relic of a separate poem. He extends his view in 1963, is supported by Creed (1966b), answered by Brodeur (1970). 1958: John Nist introduces the idea of pointillist narration. 1961: George V. Smithers argues that the poem's unity is inherited, rather than the result of individual art. 1965: John Leyerle sees the poem as presenting individual failure through contrasted roles and introduces the idea of interlace struc- ture. 1965: Kenneth Sisam argues that the poem is not structurally unified but may have been a serial in three instalments. 1966: P. G. Buchloh sees the poem as structurally similar to Norse heroic lays, but amplified in epic style. 1967: Leyerle develops further the idea of interlace structure and rejects the use of such terms as digression. 1967: Eamonn Carrigan argues for a complex diagrammatic structure based on the poem's numbered sections. 1968: Edward B. Irving Jr. sees the poem's unity as emotional rather than structural. 1969: Sherman Kuhn shows that references to the hero's life are scattered but internally consistent. 1969: T. A. Shippey applies Propp's folktale theories to the poem. 1970: Using a method similar to Shippey (1969), Daniel R. Barnes reaches more extensive but similar results. 1971: Lawrence Fast follows Brodeur in seeing Hygelac as a focal point in the poem. 1972: Gwyn Jones continues to see the poem as structurally flawed. 1974: David Howlett produces a complex diagram similar to Carrigan (1967). 1975: Constance B. Hieatt indicates envelope patterns in the poem, not always related to numbered sections. 1975: Kathryn Hume sees the poem as possessing both bipartite and tri- partite structures. 1976: David M. Wells expresses skepticism about the relevance of sec- tion openings to the poem's structure. 1977: H. Ward Tonsfeldt notes chiastic structures in the poem and sees in its technique a combination of repetition and stasis. 1978: Whitney F. Bolton compares the poem's forty-three sections to those of the Alfredian Boethius. 1978: Martin Stevens assumes the poem's unity but sees its progress as entropic. 1978: Brian Shaw sees two paired sets of speeches surrounding a pivotal speech in 1384-96. 1980: Eric G. Stanley remarks on the poet's detailed narrative skills. 1980: Theo[d]ore M. Andersson sees in the poem an oscillating pattern on both small and large scales, with emotional as well as narrative intentions. 1980: Jane Chance (Nitzsche) foregrounds the Grendel's mother episode as of pivotal structural importance. [p 152] 1981: Thomas Hart finds symmetries in the poem surrounding the use of numerals. 1981: On codicological grounds, Kevin Kiernan (1981a) revives Schück- ing's 1905 suggestion that the poem consists of two once distinct works, connected by a collaborative link. 1981: Leonard Boyle replies to aspects of Kiernan's (1981a) thesis. 1982: Joseph Harris suggests that the poem is a compendium of literary genres. 1983: John D. Niles draws on recent research on oral poetry to explain previously controversial aspects of the poem. 1984: Bernard Huppé sees a clear, mathematically ordered structure in the poem. 1985: Janet Bately demonstrates, in reaction to Kiernan (1981a), that the poem is grammatically unique and consistent in all parts. 1985: Fred C. Robinson views microstructure and macrostructure alike as built on apposed segments. 1986: Morton W. Bloomfield insists that verbal art cannot be properly compared to the visual technique of interlace. 1988: Ward Parks shows how ring structures can integrate digressions with main narrative. 1989: Edward B. Irving Jr. indicates incremental circling on both small and large scales. 1990: Gillian Overing praises elements of irresolution and interplay within the poem's structure. 1991: Allen J. Frantzen condemns attempts to make the poem speak with a single voice, seeing these as editorial and critical constructs. 1991: James Earl proposes a psychological shift as part of the poem's movement. 1992: Paul Sorrell notes oral features within the poem, such as the domi- nance of local effect over narrative unity. The issue of the overall structure of Beowulf did not seem of special importance to early commentators on the poem. This indifference was partly the result of mis- taken ideas of what a heroic or epic poem ought to be (a macroproblem), partly by inability at first to understand the vocabulary, grammar and even nomenclature of the poem (a series of microproblems). Thus, a question that has concerned many later commentators is why the poem should begin, as it ends, with a funeral, and the funeral of a character no more than distantly related to any of the major figures of the poem.