Europäische Hochschulschriften - Reihe XIV 402 A Case for Irony in Beowulf with particular reference to its epithets von Tom Clark 1. Auflage A Case for Irony in Beowulf – Clark schnell und portofrei erhältlich bei beck-shop.de DIE FACHBUCHHANDLUNG Peter Lang Bern 2003 Verlag C.H. Beck im Internet: www.beck.de ISBN 978 3 03910 221 1 Inhaltsverzeichnis: A Case for Irony in Beowulf – Clark Introduction A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the house of his fathers. Of the rest, he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building. So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man’s distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and even forgot the stones. They all said: ‘This tower is most interesting.’ But they also said (after pushing it over): ‘What a muddle it is in!’ And even the man’s own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: ‘He is such an odd fellow! Imagine his using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did he not restore the old house? He had no sense of proportion.’ But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea.1 This may be the intention of everyone who attempts to present an understanding of the poem Beowulf, or indeed of any difficult work: to ‘make possible’ a particular view of the thing, the object of study. Something similar clearly motivated Kierkegaard to write his own doctoral dissertation on irony and Socrates.2 This thesis springs from a belief that early Germanic poetry, particularly Old English poetry, especially Beowulf, is funnier, more playful, and more sophisticated – more cool even, more nonchalant in its sophistication – than has generally been acknowledged. Within that set of qualities, which are notoriously mercurial, one is relatively straightforward to define, to identify, to demonstrate. I mean irony. The principal aim of this thesis is to impart a clear sense of the presence of irony in Beowulf: to define it, identify it, and demonstrate it as a fundamental component of the poem. A secondary aim of this thesis is to offer concrete evidence to those who will pursue questions of humour and play in Beowulf or related texts. 1 J.R.R. Tolkien, ‘Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics,’ in Lewis E. Nicholson (ed.), An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame and London, 1976, pp. 54-55. 2 Søren Kierkegaard, The Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates, together with Notes of Schelling’s Berlin Lectures, ed. and trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992. 15 For that reason, the core of the following discussion is more taxonomic than analytic. It is an effort to show that we can be systematic in discussing the many light-hearted aspects of the poem. This may seem bloody-minded: a boring approach to irony certainly has an ironic ring to it. However, one thing it is not is arbitrary. While a shortage of studies in the lighter side of Beowulf may not last – while several recent publications suggest that the scholarship around Old English poetry is taking an increasing interest in its levity – there is an overwhelming weight of scholarship that posits an overwhelmingly solemn or reverential text. Such studies as Magennis, Tripp, and the Wilcox anthology3 are recent turning points, but prior scholarship has given us an extremely developed system, if you will, of received wisdom about the poem. In Wilcox’s words, ‘a critical stranglehold has evolved as to what the poem means and how it works.’4 It is a system that has not really processed the matter of levity, therefore it is a system that marginalises it. As a consequence, it is important to be systematic in establishing the presence of irony. 1. Towards a context-specific definition of irony Before turning to apply a conception of irony to Beowulf, it is important to define it. The approach in this section is to cite a common use sense of ‘irony,’ then examine two scholarly accounts of irony that are informed by classical rhetoric. These descriptive accounts are considered in light of Kierkegaard’s analytic approach to ‘the concept of irony,’ before we turn to the very difficult question of how irony was viewed in Anglo-Saxon England. As we see, what little evidence that period has provided to us is contradictory, not conclusive. In the course of these discussions, this section notes that greater attention has been 3 Hugh Magennis, Images of Community in Old English Poetry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996; Raymond P. Tripp Jr, Literary Essays on Language and Meaning in the Poem Called ‘Beowulf’ – Beowulfiana Literaria, E. Mellen Press, Lewiston (New York), 1992; Jonathan Wilcox (ed.), Humour in Anglo-Saxon Literature, D.S. Brewer, Cambridge, 2000. 4 Wilcox (ed.), Humour in Anglo-Saxon Literature, Introduction, p. 7. 16 paid to the nature of irony in other textual traditions than in Old English poetry, particularly Old Norse and Middle English poetries. An effort to align Old English views of irony with modern views is aided by consideration of the ‘transformation’ theory of the joke (after Freud), the ‘alienation’ theory of comedy (after Bergson), and the ‘superiority’ theory of laughter (which resonates with attitudes expressed in Beowulf itself). The Oxford English Dictionary gives three key meanings of the word ‘irony:’5 A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt [...] (Figuratively) A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things [...] In etymological sense: Dissimulation, pretence, especially in reference to the dissimulation of ignorance practised by Socrates as a means of confuting an adversary [...] Lanham defines irony as one of two things:6 • Implying a meaning opposite to the literal meaning. • Speaking in derision or mockery. Muecke’s definition, also dualised, is more technical: irony is either a wordplay (‘verbal irony’), where somebody says one thing and means the opposite, or else it is a function of situation (‘situational irony’), where something happens to reveal a situation that is quite different from someone’s understanding of it.7 There is no necessary contradiction between these approaches, nor are they exhaustive. 5 T.J. Benbow, J.A. Simpson, E.S.C. Weiner, et al., The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, p. 878 (87). The following three definitions are direct quotations. 6 Richard A. Lanham, A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, 2nd ed., University of California Press, Berkely, Los Angeles, and London, 1991, p. 92. The following two definitions are paraphrased. 7 D.C. Muecke, Irony, Methuen (Critical Idiom Series: general editor John D. Jump), London, 1970, ‘Introduction,’ pp. 1-12. 17 Many commentators have pointed to evidence of the ironic and related figures throughout Beowulf, as well as the broader corpus of Old English poetry, although they have drawn differing conclusions from this material. This thesis seeks to examine: • What is referred to by ‘irony’ in discussion of Beowulf. • What evidence exists to support an ironical reading of the poem, along with the limits to such supporting evidence. • Whether such a reading is thoroughgoing, premised in an attitude of the narrator running throughout the poem, or ad hoc, premised in more or less sporadic incidents of irony and related rhetorical figures. Lanham characterises irony as essentially the product of ‘an allegorical habit [...], a habit that will juxtapose surface and real meanings.’8 His characterisation is of interest to studies of humour and paronomasia in Beowulf, particularly because of the connection he draws with punning.9 Lanham’s rhetorical background is classical and scholarly, meaning that his concepts are fundamentally quite similar to those with which the Beowulf poet could have been familiar, given sufficient book learning. This is an important question, to which we shall return shortly: how familiar were the Beowulf poet and audience with any particular concept of ironia? For Kierkegaard, irony is not only a habit and its affective manifestations; it is also a disposition, a governing attitude. Note especially his following theses:10 VI. Socrates not only used irony but was so dedicated to irony that he himself succumbed to it. VIII. Irony as infinite and absolute negativity is the lightest and weakest indication of subjectivity. X. Socrates was the first to introduce irony. 8 Op. cit., pp. 92-93. 9 Ibid., pp. 126-128. His discussion of the pun is well worth reading as a case study of processes and motives in a rhetorical device. 10 Op. cit., p. 6. The following six theses are direct quotations from the Hong and Hong translation. 18 XI. The more recent irony belongs essentially under ethics. XIII. Irony is not so much apathy, devoid of the more tender emotions of the soul; instead, it must rather be regarded as vexation at the possession also by others of that which it desires for itself.