Sunday, August 19, 2007
Curiousity Assuaged
Catalog copy (Oxford University Press, no less) for a new book by Richard North on the origins of Beowulf caught my eye. The review of the book by Michael Lapidge (http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/lapidge.html) satisfied my curiousity (and saved me the price of the book). Caveat lector.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Quite a scathing review--although, from Lapidge and from what he says, I'm not likely to read this book unless it's assigned for some reason.
I find it curious that so many scholars insist on discussing Beowulf in the terms as this review implies about the book. The debates about dating, authorship, and other unknowable technical attributes of the poem continue to haunt the academic discussions around the poem. Yet such continued arguments clearly add little to the general knowledge of the poem, nor do they enable a greater understanding of the poem as relevant to postmodern readings/understandings/practical approaches. As seen in places like ITM, BABEL, and The Postmodern Beowulf (as well as many other discussions, like Eco's "The Return of the Middle Ages" and plenty of other discussions of the ethics of theory), it seems that the best place for scholarship is in asking about the contemporary implications of medieval texts and reading them. Yet the squabbles ensue--often taken up by the most eminent academics--and the questions of implications and application fall to the way-side.
I find it disturbing (from my view, as I enter the field and hope to utilize theory and reading of medieval texts to better the academic world and find greater implications and uses in society's postmodern discourse) that such books positing such risky footing, reviewed in such scathing tones and sarcasm as Lapidge offers, still continue to emerge. I believe that scholars should, instead, turn their efforts to greater means of reading texts like Beowulf--to more admirable avenues that would benefit scholarship, academia, and culture in general in much greater ways.
Any thoughts?
I guess I can see why scholars WANT to puzzle out questions of origin and transmission--reasons even beyond racking up publications:-) One reads the poem differently (or does in some critical traditions) if one is fairly certain that it was composed to placate a 11th c Anglo-Danish elite, say, than one would if one were convinced it was miraculously transmitted piece of pre-migration-to-England folklore. The problem, of course, is that one will never be certain in such matters--barring the recovery of some new piece of manuscript evidence. But why one would put one's all into a specific and implausible account is mystifying. So in the end, I largely agree with Brandon's conclusion, with the caveat that productive approaches to the poem may often need to speculate about sources and transmission. (But I'm not likely to read North's book either.)
Post a Comment