Beowulf and the "Mud Beggars" - Renaissance Faire Reflection

I had an amazing time at the annual Renaissance Faire at Greenbulff. As Katie said (below), I am sure that I would have had lots of fun regardless of my ability to contextualize and connect certain pieces of the faire to the literature and culture we have studied. But, it was the background that I had in Medieval Lit that allowed for me to feel connected to the faire in a whole new way. I also felt the urge to try and speak to others in the Middle English pronunciation we learned… but didn’t want to embarrass Hannah’s boyfriend Craig that went to the faire with us.

The main aspect of the faire that I want to discuss was a performance called “Mud Show”. The “Mud Beggars” were described in the faire’s informational pamphlet as, “lowly peasants who will delight and entertain you with traditional stories of Shakespeare and classic tales of adventures such as Beowulf and the Odyssey.” They perform their tales in what is essentially an oversized kiddy pool filled with mud. I thought this was a rather brilliant production for the faire to provide – it exposes people to a deeper form of the culture other than just jousting and funny costumes.

Luckily for us, the beggars put on a performance of Beowulf. But, unfortunately, the performance could barely be considered a rendition of Beowulf. The central characters– Beowulf, Grendel, and Grendel’s mother – were present, but there was so much missing from the story such as the destruction of Heorot (Beowulf came to slay Grendel because he was “agitating the townspeople”) and the character Hrothgar was completely absent. Instead of giving the audience exposure to this “classic tale of adventure”, they presented to us a rather meaningless, mud-covered caricature of the story of Beowulf.

I could, however, see a reason for the performers’ decision to present the story in this way. Perhaps this presentation of Beowulf is what the laypeople really thought the stories were about. After all, Anglo-Saxon literature was usually recited to the aristocracy by a scheop in the mead-halls. How could a layperson possibly have access to the entire story? And if a layperson did have knowledge of Beowulf, it would quite possibly be like the caricatured version I witnessed at the Renaissance Faire.

The Mud Beggars also had a slogan of sorts that they yelled and was written on the backdrop of the stage – “Mud is Truth!” At first I did not understand what was meant by this phrase, and to be honest, I found it fairly stupid. But, if the performers behind the Mud Show had the intentions for the performance that I discussed in the previous paragraph, perhaps their slogan was actually incredibly intelligent. If the Mud Beggars were presenting Beowulf from the layperson’s perspective, then the phrase “Mud is Truth!” could be in reference to the fact that this version of Beowulf is all they know. And, because the laypeople were the majority of the population, the caricatured version of Beowulf was most likely the version told the most. And therefore, it was “truth” to the majority of the people during that time.

But, because of the way the performance was described in the pamphlet, I doubt that the performance was this in depth. It was probably just an over-simplified Beowulf so that people could be exposed – and see people dressed as beggars thrash around in mud. Regardless, I enjoyed the performance until Beowulf’s fight with Grendel’s Mother got a little messy. At that point I stood up and booked it to the caramel apple stand for another round of free samples.

Technology and Plurality of Cultures at the Renaissance Faire

This weekend I went to the Renaissance Faire at Greenbluff. While I was there, I noticed there was an amalgamation of cultures (separate from the obvious modern vs renaissance). Everywhere I went, every booth I entered, there was a collaboration from different countries in the technologies or styles that they were using. For instance, the musicians would say, "This ballad is from France" - then "This is an English song." They had songs and melodies from all over. I was curious to see if this hybridity extended elsewhere, so I started asking questions. There was an obvious fascination with technology, where the blacksmith said that he could now be more efficient and it took less work to make things - like horseshoes and nails. There was a woman spinning thread who said that her spinning wheel was the best money could buy, so not many of the underclass would be able to use it, but the middle class worker or the upper class lady would be able to find it. She said that the wheel was originally from China and she was very happy to have something that made spinning easier. The lady next to the spinning wheel was making thread by hand, which she said was much more tedious, but she couldn't afford a wheel for herself. They were both using sheep's wool, not dyed or altered.
There was a booth talking about weapons and armor and how they were changing because of what they had found in foreign lands, there was a carpenter using new tools, there were people playing chess, which was originally played in India but moved around quite a lot. There were all sorts of new things that people at the Renaissance Faire were using, from all over the world. This showed a growing sense of plurality, but also of ownership over those ideas. They took them and made them their own. Later in history, the English would start taking over the very countries they had been taking inventions from. Here, there was a fascination with the unknown, with technology that would make life easier. This idea permeated throughout their culture and influenced their literature as well, because it was so evident in society. Such as mentioning different inventions like spurs or plows.

English Culture and Battle Chess--Renaissance Faire Reflections

Today I was able to check out the Renaissance Faire down by Green Bluff. I haven't been to a Renaissance Faire since I was about four years old, so it was definitely a different experience for me. When I was younger, I remember everything seeming so alien and magical (there was jousting on horses and my dad got to shoot a real arrow! Whoa!), and today I felt a lot more cynical. Most of that is growing up, but I think part of it probably has to do with having the context of the Anglo-Saxon and Middle English literature to consider while walking around the Faire. However, having the literature to compare qualities of the Faire with was very entertaining and definitely lent to my enjoyment of the day.

Maybe the most interesting connection to our readings I saw at the Faire was a show called "Battle Chess." In "Battle Chess," two actors played normal chess, but whenever their pieces came together there would be a fight to see whose piece would win. The fighters were chosen "randomly" out of a hat. Before the game began, however, the characters had mini scenes where they interacted with each other. Some characters got engaged; others revealed long-standing feuds with each other. Thus, when it became time for them to fight with each other during "Battle Chess," the audience had a context for their relationships. This is similar to the Anglo-Saxon and Middle English tendency to start epics with a description of the genealogical history behind the characters. (For instance, the first 60 lines of Beowulf address Hrothgar's family history.) In both cases, primary information is set up at the beginning so that there will be a context for the events that occur within the story and also a reason for the audience to care about the characters and the families they represent. Brianna Wheeler, who went with me, made a really good comment about that: "It's just effective storytelling," she said. "As long as they are telling a story in a similar medium, it is going to come out comparably." It was interesting to be able to see these ideas in action, as well as to consider them in a larger function-based context.

Another similarity between "Battle Chess" and our readings so far was a domineering female character. In "Battle Chess," one of the longstanding feuds between characters existed because one of the women had married the cousin of one of the men. However, that cousin had died on his wedding night, and his kin were still very upset with the bride, since they suspected that she had killed him. This has similarities to the Wife of Bath, who also may have killed one of her husbands: at the very least, she tells Jamekin "If I were widwe, sholde wedde me" (574) and is widowed 19 lines later. In both cases, these are strong women who are portrayed as scheming and ruthless. They both are suspected of manipulating and possibly killing men to get what they want. While we still have a stereotype of this woman in our culture today (in some cases, she may be referred to as a gold digger), this seems like an especially appropriate trope for early English culture and literature. Because women were primarily married off for financial, social, and political advantage, it makes sense that some might decide to take matters into their own hands and control their own situations.

I really enjoyed being able to check out the Renaissance Faire today, and I'm glad that I was able to have the context of medieval literature to guide my observations. Otherwise, I'm sure that I would have caught the more obvious historical allusions like dress and jousting, but I may have missed the more subtle cultural details, and those are what ended up being most fascinating in the end. This is a really interesting cultural time period, and I'm excited to continue learning about it.

Where is the Horse and the Rider?

After an exhausting night of studying for the Medieval Exam on Tuesday, I decided to wind down and relax with a little Lord of the Rings. While watching Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, I couldn’t help but notice that Peter Jackson (and presumably Tolkien) made use of two Anglo-Saxon literary aspects in a particular scene. King Théoden is delivering some kind of aside/poem/speech in the scene; it is an obvious lament for his Kingdom that is facing war – and likely defeat – with an army of uruk-hai. Watch the following scene and try to determine what the two aspects are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzx6d5h-5Mg

Could it be more obvious? The two aspects of Anglo-Saxon literature I noticed were Ubi Sunt and the Epic Catalog. It almost feels as if Jackson purposefully put these two Anglo-Saxon techniques in this scene to emphasize the impact that Old English had on Tolkien’s stories. If you are aware of these two techniques, it is almost impossible not to know that Jackson is referencing them!

Théoden’s Ubi Sunt speech is suspiciously reminiscent of the Wanderer’s Ubi Sunt in The Wanderer. Let’s compare:

·      “Where did the steed go? Where the young warrior? Where the treasure-giver? Where the seats of fellowship? Where the hall’s festivity?” (The Wanderer 92-93)

·      “Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing? Where is the harp on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing? Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?” (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers)

Tolkien was very clever to use the Ubi Sunt form in Théoden’s speech here. Théoden is different from the Wanderer in that he is a King and still has his Kingdom. But, by referencing the Wanderer’s Ubi Sunt passage, Tolkien/Jackson is suggesting to the reader/viewer what might become of Théoden if the war is lost and Rohan is taken.

But, Jackson chooses to depict Théoden participating in an Epic Catalog in the scene. Reminiscent of the Epic Catalog in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in lines 566-665, Théoden is dramatically fitted with his armor for the battle, slowly and piece by piece. Although he is delivering an Ubi Sunt speech that seems to foreshadow doom for his Kingdom, Théoden’s Epic Catalog deems him a hero of sorts and combats the doom with foreshadowing of victory.

DANG! I have so much more appreciation for this scene and the Lord of the Rings series as a whole now. You go, Peter Jackson. Way to stay true to the literary masterpieces of Tolkien. Major props.

Second Shepherd Musing

I've been thinking a lot today about the "Second Shepherds' Play," especially since it seems so relevant to campus life right now. (I have a couple of friends who are working on the production.)Anyway, I realized that one of the main reasons why the play still confuses me is because I've been having a really hard time with one of the lines in the introduction. The Norton asserts that "by linking the comic subplot of Mak and Gill with the solemn story of Christ's nativity, the Wakefield Master has produced a dramatic parable of what the Nativity means in Christian history and in Christian hearts" (449). I definitely see parallels--such as the sheep and the shepherds and the baby--but how does Mak's story enhance the Christian story? How does it show "what the Nativity means" in a more personal, down-to-earth context?

At first I took this story as associative. The stolen lamb can be associated with Jesus, and Jesus is mock-"born" to Gill in order to help her and Mak get away with stealing. This is certainly strange--how is a crime in any way similar to the birth of Christ? How can Gill be associated with Mary? Why would Jesus be in a position where he was something to be fought over and taken? And why in the world would there be serious mentions of magic in such a religiously-centered play? This reading seemed amusing, sure, but way too removed from the truth of the story to represent a Christian way of interpreting the Nativity.

As I think about it more, though, I guess one narrative interpretation would be mainly to focus on the grace that the shepherds show Mak when they catch him. If Mak represents humanity, which (as Doug said in class) is at its lowest point when Jesus comes, then Mak's sheep-stealing could be a reflection of human sin. Since Mak actually steals the sheep, it's possible that his actions could also be compared to the crucifixion of Jesus. Then, the shepherd's mild punishment could be taken as a plug for the virtue of forgiveness, a large part of Jesus' mission. (Jesus even forgave his tormentors when he was crucified.) Magic could potentially represent the "flawed" or paganistic religions that some people followed before Jesus showed up. However, this feels kind of like I'm "stretching" and trying to make everything mean something. It's a comedy--it's supposed to be fun and funny and does not need to be beaten with a stick until meaning emerges.

Anyway, these are just some ways that I was thinking about the "Second Shepherds' Play." I certainly enjoyed it, but I wonder if it still feels like an accurate representation of what the Nativity means in our Christian hearts today. Part of the genius of these Mystery Plays is the way that they gave the characters "the appearance and characters of contemporary men and women" (Norton 449), but of course our society's changed a lot since then. Do the plays retain the same relatability and immediacy? For me at least, I'm not sure that they do. However, I'm really excited to go see the Wakefield Mystery Plays in just a few weeks--maybe seeing them acted will make it all make sense. Until then, I'll have to keep my mind open.

Hunting Does

I don't know about anyone else, but when I read the lines: "the lord of the land had laid down a law / that man should not maim the male in close season. / [...] and the din drove the does to sprint for the dells" (1156-1157, 1159), in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" this weekend, I wasn't thinking about the actual hunting--I was just really preoccupied with why they could hunt the females and not the males. I don't actually go hunting, so maybe this is like a supply/demand reproduction thing, but it struck me as a little (okay, maybe a lot) misogynistic. Tied in with some of the other telling parts of this poem--like Bertilak's wife being a kind of sex-crazed temptress unworthy of a name and the section where Gawain recounts all the times in the bible that women have led men astray (2416-2421)--this definitely seems like a poem that is saying something about "the fairer sex." I would not classify that something as "complimentary."

What I thought was interesting about this is that the mentality that these characters have about women is really similar to a book I'm reading right now--a book set in the Iranian Republic from 1979-1997. The chador and other types of veils are recurring images in this book not because they are repressive in themselves but because the way that the regime imposed them on all women, regardless of preference or religion, was a symbol of power and control. One woman in Reading Lolita in Tehran is thrown out of school because her chador didn't cover her shoulder, which aroused an influential male member of the student body (Nafisi 251). In this case, of course, it is the woman's fault for tempting the man, much as it was Bertilak's wife's fault for tempting Gawain and Eve's fault for tempting Adam.

Anyway, I suppose my reason for comparing Reading Lolita in Tehran and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is just to think about how similar they are in thought process--and how different they are in publication year. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" is from the fourteenth century or so, and Reading Lolita in Tehran is set in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, both seem shockingly "unmodern" in their approach to women. Sure, that's certainly understandable in "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"'s case--it's not modern--but I think that the fact that we understand and recognize these tropes is very telling. Sure, we think, when Bertilak's wife waltzes into Gawain's bedroom, she's going to tempt him and he's going to have to refuse her. These mentalities still exist in a modern-day context, as shown by the events in Reading Lolita in Tehran. While they may seem extreme, they are not new, shocking, or different. Similarly, I didn't even notice that Bertilak's wife didn't have a name until I was trying to write this blog post. For most of the poem we just think of the women as the pretty one and the ugly one, and those are totally normal ways for us to think.

I'm not trying to say that we live in a disgusting sexist society. I just wanted to note that these throwaway comments about hunting and bedroom seduction and biblical history betray a mentality that doesn't seem all that foreign to us and the world we still live in. That's not surprising--our culture comes from somewhere, and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" certainly represents a huge part of our cultural heritage. I think it's interesting to see which aspects of our culture (courage and to some extent the view of women) translate really well to medieval texts and which ones don't (leaders giving away all of their riches). Part of reading literature is determining how texts affect and influence not just their time, but ours as well. Anyway, watching the evolution--or non-evolution--of views towards women might be interesting as we continue to make our way through English literature.

Hoarded Treasures

After finishing and discussing Beowulf in class today I had a question concerning the treasure troves of both Grendel’s mother and the dragon. When Beowulf slayed Grendel’s mother, the treasure just dissolved and disappeared, along with the sword he used to slay her. When Beowulf and Wiglaf slay the dragon, Beowulf asks Wiglaf to view the treasure room. Wiglaf returns to him with priceless weapons and jewels and afterwards Beowulf dies.

I had a chance to speak to Doug after class about the importance of this. He was able to tell me that the trove in Grendel’s mother’s lair was possibly cursed; because to the Anglo-Saxons horded treasure is not a good thing, that the kings, or ring-givers, should reward those who deserve it and give it away. Therefore, treasure should not be horded but should change hands through the generations.

As for the dragon’s treasure horde, the text also stated there was a curse on this as well; that no man may take it for themselves. I believe that since Beowulf did not claim the treasure out of selfishness but instead claimed it for his people as his last gift to them before he died he lifted the curse which allowed Wiglaf to take the treasure.