Read Beowulf for Free Online

accomplished oral poets in the traditional plots and formulaic expressions for describing people, buildings, gods, weapons, and the like. In order to test this hypothesis, Parry and Lord sought out traditional oral poets, whose art had been passed down into modern times. They found such poets among Serbo-Croatian singers, and their research among these singers confirmed their earlier findings and allowed them to extend and refine their theory of oral composition-in-performance.
    In 1953 Francis P. Magoun published a famous study of oral-formulaic poetry in Anglo-Saxon England that quickly drew other scholars to apply the theory to Beowulf in detailed analyses. Immediately, a controversy erupted. The main issue appeared to be the question of originality and artistry on the part of the Beowulf poet. If the poem consisted largely of traditional formulas, then what kind of originality or artistic mastery did the poet exercise in its creation? Or, what could “creation” even mean in such a case? And if the work of artistic creation in Beowulf were so substantially reduced, what would happen to claims that it was a literary masterpiece? These questions were especially crucial to those who adhered to Romantic and Post-Romantic conceptions of the poet as an individual genius creating works of art that were nothing if not original. But gradually the initial passion of the debate subsided as the very definition of “formula” proved less and less clear, and both proponents of oral theory and proponents of the masterful artistry of the poem sought some middle ground. For clearly there is evidence here both of traditional oral poetry and of a very high level of artistry working within traditional forms. Let us look at some of that evidence.
    First of all, there are formulaic expressions in many places in Beowulf. As we saw earlier, a speech by the hero is generally introduced by the expression,
    Then Beowulf spoke, the son of Ecgtheow.
     
    But the same expression can be used to introduce other speakers:
     
    Then Hrothgar spoke, the son of Healfdene.
     
    Then Hygelac spoke, the son of Hrethel.
     
    Then Wiglaf spoke, the son of Weohstan.
And so on. Such expressions unmistakably follow a formula for introducing speakers, and the poet-singer-narrator needs only to insert the proper names for the speaker and for his father into the slots that are already there for that function.
    Yet there is no denying the artistic skill with which style and structure are developed, even working with traditional phrasing—as in the example of variation in the description of the Geats sailing home (see above). While we do not know who the poet was or how he composed his poetry, it seems from such evidence that he was thoroughly familiar with traditional forms that were no doubt still being used in oral performances by “singers of tales” in his own time. He also showed an artistic subtlety that we usually associate with writing. Likewise, the audience was probably made up of both literate and nonliterate Anglo-Saxons, and, of course, there may have been several different audiences for the same poem, or even different performances that were shaped by the makeup of different audiences. For example, such a skillful poet would surely have made adjustments in performing the poem for, say, a monastic audience as distinguished from a more secular court audience—or for audiences that mixed individuals of different backgrounds, classes, or education.
    While the Beowulf poet-singer-narrator may have given oral performances, he may also have committed the epic to writing or performed it for some scribe who did. Such a written version would contain forms designed for oral performance, and this version could have passed through several hands before being copied by the scribes of the surviving manuscript. But we really do not have clear evidence to solve this perplexing problem. So, we may ask, what difference does it make to us as modern readers whether we