Whoooooooo's got the CRACK?
Seriously considering describing Beowulf as the "support beam that holds up the mead hall" and coming VERY close to using the phrase "and that's a whole can of Jesus worms I don't even want to open" are why I love 2am essays. Oh. Man. My brain is fuuuuny!
God Amongst Men, Men Amongst God:
Humanity and Divinity in Beowulf and the York Mystery Plays
There is surely a piece of divinity in us, something that was before the elements, and owes no homage unto the sun.- Sir Thomas Brown (1605 - 1682)
What is the nature of the divine? Is God something deep within man or is man a plaything of God? This is certainly an esoteric and complicated question, tackled with aplomb by many authors, perhaps most enduringly in the works Beowulf and The York Mystery Plays.(Hi, as a college sophmore I'm going to tackle questions relating to the nature of GOD in an essay, in 1500-2000 words.Yea. Fucking. Right.) By juxtaposing two works by the anonymous authors, it becomes clear that one can be used to illuminate the other. In Beowulf, the title character exemplifies the divinity of man, The York Mystery Plays uses characterization to explore the humanity of the Divine. Though the plays are separated by time and intent, they both hold within them a certain ideal.(as you can see professor i'm not clarifying this ideal, because I know if i do you can prove me wring, but if i bring you on some ass backwards literary bastardization of logic! you can give me at least a B for effort like last time, and considering the fact that i think i wrote my last essay drunk i can be assured that at least this time i'll remember to edit. or perhaps my flaming aparthy will win me some points.)
God’s presentation in both The York Mystery Play and Beowulf are not separated by more than a few hundred years, yet the God that they present is vastly different. (Because i mean what were a few hundred years in those days, they were still shitting in buckets and most of the eart was illiterate anyway. Plus they didn't have television. What good are they!)In Beowulf, God is an omnipotent but far removed being. It seems that the God in Beowulf hardly acts or intervenes on the part of the characters, with the exception of gently guiding Beowulf’s vision to the ancient sword while he fights Grendel’s mother. In the terms of the Beowulf story God even has indirect creations, something that could never happen within the context of the York mystery play due to the omnipotent and all knowing nature of God. These indirect creations are of course the children of Cain. They are creatures that God did not create and if we follow the myth of Noah even tried to destroy. (Gen. 6:7)(This is the portion of the essay when I, being an pagan liberal anrchist point out that the bible is stupid and so is the monk who transcribed beowulf. I am TOTALLY more intelligent than those fuckers!) However if one takes into context that biblical story it would infer that the children of Cain survived the great flood, which might explain Grendel’s mother’s ability to live below a great lake, and their continuing to plague man. (Right becasue I can hear that phone call..."Hey God...yeah its Noah. You missed a ton of the fuckers. We're gonna have to flood this shit again. ::click:: OK guys! Back in the arc. God Fucked up!)Of course one of the most interesting parts of Beowulf is the juxtaposition of a Pagan hero and Christian morals. It seems that Beowulf was a part of the great pre-Christian oral tradition. The person who transcribed the great epic to paper infused it with the Christian god. This infusion is marked for two reasons. The first of these is that Beowulf explores in great details some very non-Christian themes, such as revenge and blood price. The latter is the rather awkwardly “stuck in” references to God. In fact if one removes the overtly tacked on Christian message we see a man who can, at will invoke great power, not via the whim of some overarching Deity but by magic or even sheer will. This seems to make Beowulf akin to a God himself. Consider: he certainly takes on foe that no other mortal man can, executes impossible feats, such as swimming to the bottom of a lake in full armor and holding his breath for the entirety of the battle with Grendels mother. Additionally he comes without warning to save the day, creating a sort of Beowulf Ex Machina.(Hey Professor! It's me again! Just letting you know, I know what deus ex machina is! yup. Juuuust wanted to shove that uncomfortably in there to remind you that I am probably smarter than the dumb asshole who sits in front of me who probably can't spell his name.
Yet Beowulf himself is presented as what Dante would have considered a “Virtuous Pagan.” He is a good father/king to his people and his trials only serve to gain notoriety for his tribe and on several levels his story draws parallels to that of St.George. These parallels are especially strong in the fact that each thwarted a mighty mythical beast but also in their examples of charity. Though one may argue that Georges charity was of a much different kind than Beowulf himself, since Beowulf’s was to gain favor and St.Georges was out of piety. (Catholic Forum: St.George) Yet, both these men were mortals, despite their valiant heroics. For in the end, all mortals must come to the same fate, Death. This is main support beam of the mead hall as it were: Beowulf’s death is the most prominent confirmation of his humanity.(Yeah so what! Support beam made it in! There are no Jesus worms ok!)
A few hundred years later (about 375 years if one accepts the year 1000a.d. as the approximate year of the writing down of the Beowulf myth) The York Mystery Play cycle emerges.(From a primordial mire of medieval chamber pot soup. Seriously this is the works play ever, and it was put on by guys who made leather. What the hell? Didn't they have full tiem actors to get addicted to drugs and wear expensive sunglasses yet?) This work shows God to be, not only a main character and not some far removed deity but to also a major catalyst in the events of the play. While on the surface this may seem like an obvious point (God is a main character! He speaks! Of course he’s going to be more active than simply pointing out a giant sword on the wall!) (Allow me to make assumptions about the powers of the celestial diety. I'm sure he won't mind Fredrik tells me he's dead.) Yet when Satan falls God does not destroy him, but casts him out. The casting out is certainly damnation to a lifetime of pain and torment, which is a far worse fate than and cessation of conscious being. Yet God is like the men of Geat and Sweden, who have no tolerance for action against them and would respond with a demand for blood or money.(Desperate to relate this all to anything she just takes a vague theme and shoves some shit together) However God, having no use for money, and seeing that Satan would probably prefer death enacts the most vengeful retribution possible. Eternity in misery.(Of course, he could have assigned satan this essay which would have been painful enough.)
Yet what do these two works elucidate about each other? (I in no way looked "elicidate" up in the thesaurus.No way.) Briefly put, it gives us a basis for the categorization of modern monotheistic conceptions of what exactly deification encapsulates. (Briefly put, I am a pretentious asshole with a thesaurus)While superficially it may seem that it is simply great deeds and extraordinary feats define being a God, it is also a capacity to lead, to inspire and to know.(Here I define what it means to be a God. Apparently just citing Alan Rickman wasn't enough...) Also the concept of “God is love” seems to follow at the heels of the Almighty. From a Christian concept love itself is defined thusly:
"Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not want what belongs to others. It does not brag. It is not proud. It is not rude. It does not look out for its own interests. It does not easily become angry. It does not keep track of other people's wrongs. Love is not happy with evil; but it is full of joy when the truth is spoken. It always protects. It always trusts. It always hopes. It never gives up. Love never fails" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)(That was in no way a blatant attempt to take up some of the damn word requirement. Long quotes are the "this book is very very very very very good" of college)
Yet within the context of both works we see many of theses rules broken. In The York Mystery Plays God fails in inspiring his servants to follow his will. This is mirrored in Beowulf when Beowulf goes to fight the fearsome dragon and all but one shield dane abandons him. In fact Beowulf mirrors many of Gods less than celestial aspects, just as God reflects many of Beowulf’s finer points and vice versa. Examples are like a vice checklist, both being quick to anger, boastful and proud. Yet this raises a huge red flag, Beowulf has license to make error, he is mortal. God as the divine being has no such excuses for his imperfections. Therefore a major point is brought forth for consideration, through the comparison of these works do we discover God’s flaws? Or do we simply come to understand that as flawed humans we cannot comprehend perfection and therefore in God’s word he acts in error to show us a more righteous path. Is not only Satan but God himself an authority to be questioned in action but not in teaching? Perhaps this play presents a classic case of “do as I say not what I do” without overtly stating so. Perhaps these “flaws” are written in to cause us to contemplate and question the meaning of divinity, thereby elevating ourselves spiritually.(Perhaps, I am pulling this out of the fucking ether at 2am! Who knows! It's unknowable!)
What about Beowulf? What do we have for him? He and God are certainly allies in the Christian aspect of the text. He gets his monster, the monsters mother, lives a good long time, gets to fight Dragon and then dies as all mortal men do. Consider this however, to this very day the name of Beowulf is spoken, written and studied by scholars, students, Tolkien fanatics and hobbyists. It is through this that Beowulf (real man or not) has obtained a sort of Egyptian immortality, as the Egyptians were of the belief that to speak the name of the dead was to allow them to live forever. (Wesson) Not so bad for a simple shield dane, to be elevated such.(I'm just a desperate anthro minor, citing my archaeology class because I caaaaan.)
In the end, like most attempts at tackling the nature of the divine in relation to man, there are more questions than answers. (Ha ha nobody can hold me accontable becasue I am proving my opinion on something that can't be any more substaintiated than why people think overalls look good.)But perhaps this is all part of the divine plan, perhaps the point of perfection is simply that imperfect creatures cannot capture it. Perhaps heroes like Beowulf are the closest that we can come to a god who walks on earth. Or perhaps God is not so far away at all, but rather is the higher purpose within the hearts of man. (and maybe I'm a apathetic jackass and I think that asking a bunch of students to write a paper on GODS RELATIONSHIP TO MAN is totally inane.)
P.S Under the cut...the essays's unedited but it makes my mispelled and delirious commentary funnier. so deal.
God Amongst Men, Men Amongst God:
Humanity and Divinity in Beowulf and the York Mystery Plays
There is surely a piece of divinity in us, something that was before the elements, and owes no homage unto the sun.- Sir Thomas Brown (1605 - 1682)
What is the nature of the divine? Is God something deep within man or is man a plaything of God? This is certainly an esoteric and complicated question, tackled with aplomb by many authors, perhaps most enduringly in the works Beowulf and The York Mystery Plays.(Hi, as a college sophmore I'm going to tackle questions relating to the nature of GOD in an essay, in 1500-2000 words.Yea. Fucking. Right.) By juxtaposing two works by the anonymous authors, it becomes clear that one can be used to illuminate the other. In Beowulf, the title character exemplifies the divinity of man, The York Mystery Plays uses characterization to explore the humanity of the Divine. Though the plays are separated by time and intent, they both hold within them a certain ideal.(as you can see professor i'm not clarifying this ideal, because I know if i do you can prove me wring, but if i bring you on some ass backwards literary bastardization of logic! you can give me at least a B for effort like last time, and considering the fact that i think i wrote my last essay drunk i can be assured that at least this time i'll remember to edit. or perhaps my flaming aparthy will win me some points.)
God’s presentation in both The York Mystery Play and Beowulf are not separated by more than a few hundred years, yet the God that they present is vastly different. (Because i mean what were a few hundred years in those days, they were still shitting in buckets and most of the eart was illiterate anyway. Plus they didn't have television. What good are they!)In Beowulf, God is an omnipotent but far removed being. It seems that the God in Beowulf hardly acts or intervenes on the part of the characters, with the exception of gently guiding Beowulf’s vision to the ancient sword while he fights Grendel’s mother. In the terms of the Beowulf story God even has indirect creations, something that could never happen within the context of the York mystery play due to the omnipotent and all knowing nature of God. These indirect creations are of course the children of Cain. They are creatures that God did not create and if we follow the myth of Noah even tried to destroy. (Gen. 6:7)(This is the portion of the essay when I, being an pagan liberal anrchist point out that the bible is stupid and so is the monk who transcribed beowulf. I am TOTALLY more intelligent than those fuckers!) However if one takes into context that biblical story it would infer that the children of Cain survived the great flood, which might explain Grendel’s mother’s ability to live below a great lake, and their continuing to plague man. (Right becasue I can hear that phone call..."Hey God...yeah its Noah. You missed a ton of the fuckers. We're gonna have to flood this shit again. ::click:: OK guys! Back in the arc. God Fucked up!)Of course one of the most interesting parts of Beowulf is the juxtaposition of a Pagan hero and Christian morals. It seems that Beowulf was a part of the great pre-Christian oral tradition. The person who transcribed the great epic to paper infused it with the Christian god. This infusion is marked for two reasons. The first of these is that Beowulf explores in great details some very non-Christian themes, such as revenge and blood price. The latter is the rather awkwardly “stuck in” references to God. In fact if one removes the overtly tacked on Christian message we see a man who can, at will invoke great power, not via the whim of some overarching Deity but by magic or even sheer will. This seems to make Beowulf akin to a God himself. Consider: he certainly takes on foe that no other mortal man can, executes impossible feats, such as swimming to the bottom of a lake in full armor and holding his breath for the entirety of the battle with Grendels mother. Additionally he comes without warning to save the day, creating a sort of Beowulf Ex Machina.(Hey Professor! It's me again! Just letting you know, I know what deus ex machina is! yup. Juuuust wanted to shove that uncomfortably in there to remind you that I am probably smarter than the dumb asshole who sits in front of me who probably can't spell his name.
Yet Beowulf himself is presented as what Dante would have considered a “Virtuous Pagan.” He is a good father/king to his people and his trials only serve to gain notoriety for his tribe and on several levels his story draws parallels to that of St.George. These parallels are especially strong in the fact that each thwarted a mighty mythical beast but also in their examples of charity. Though one may argue that Georges charity was of a much different kind than Beowulf himself, since Beowulf’s was to gain favor and St.Georges was out of piety. (Catholic Forum: St.George) Yet, both these men were mortals, despite their valiant heroics. For in the end, all mortals must come to the same fate, Death. This is main support beam of the mead hall as it were: Beowulf’s death is the most prominent confirmation of his humanity.(Yeah so what! Support beam made it in! There are no Jesus worms ok!)
A few hundred years later (about 375 years if one accepts the year 1000a.d. as the approximate year of the writing down of the Beowulf myth) The York Mystery Play cycle emerges.(From a primordial mire of medieval chamber pot soup. Seriously this is the works play ever, and it was put on by guys who made leather. What the hell? Didn't they have full tiem actors to get addicted to drugs and wear expensive sunglasses yet?) This work shows God to be, not only a main character and not some far removed deity but to also a major catalyst in the events of the play. While on the surface this may seem like an obvious point (God is a main character! He speaks! Of course he’s going to be more active than simply pointing out a giant sword on the wall!) (Allow me to make assumptions about the powers of the celestial diety. I'm sure he won't mind Fredrik tells me he's dead.) Yet when Satan falls God does not destroy him, but casts him out. The casting out is certainly damnation to a lifetime of pain and torment, which is a far worse fate than and cessation of conscious being. Yet God is like the men of Geat and Sweden, who have no tolerance for action against them and would respond with a demand for blood or money.(Desperate to relate this all to anything she just takes a vague theme and shoves some shit together) However God, having no use for money, and seeing that Satan would probably prefer death enacts the most vengeful retribution possible. Eternity in misery.(Of course, he could have assigned satan this essay which would have been painful enough.)
Yet what do these two works elucidate about each other? (I in no way looked "elicidate" up in the thesaurus.No way.) Briefly put, it gives us a basis for the categorization of modern monotheistic conceptions of what exactly deification encapsulates. (Briefly put, I am a pretentious asshole with a thesaurus)While superficially it may seem that it is simply great deeds and extraordinary feats define being a God, it is also a capacity to lead, to inspire and to know.(Here I define what it means to be a God. Apparently just citing Alan Rickman wasn't enough...) Also the concept of “God is love” seems to follow at the heels of the Almighty. From a Christian concept love itself is defined thusly:
"Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not want what belongs to others. It does not brag. It is not proud. It is not rude. It does not look out for its own interests. It does not easily become angry. It does not keep track of other people's wrongs. Love is not happy with evil; but it is full of joy when the truth is spoken. It always protects. It always trusts. It always hopes. It never gives up. Love never fails" (1 Corinthians 13:4-8a)(That was in no way a blatant attempt to take up some of the damn word requirement. Long quotes are the "this book is very very very very very good" of college)
Yet within the context of both works we see many of theses rules broken. In The York Mystery Plays God fails in inspiring his servants to follow his will. This is mirrored in Beowulf when Beowulf goes to fight the fearsome dragon and all but one shield dane abandons him. In fact Beowulf mirrors many of Gods less than celestial aspects, just as God reflects many of Beowulf’s finer points and vice versa. Examples are like a vice checklist, both being quick to anger, boastful and proud. Yet this raises a huge red flag, Beowulf has license to make error, he is mortal. God as the divine being has no such excuses for his imperfections. Therefore a major point is brought forth for consideration, through the comparison of these works do we discover God’s flaws? Or do we simply come to understand that as flawed humans we cannot comprehend perfection and therefore in God’s word he acts in error to show us a more righteous path. Is not only Satan but God himself an authority to be questioned in action but not in teaching? Perhaps this play presents a classic case of “do as I say not what I do” without overtly stating so. Perhaps these “flaws” are written in to cause us to contemplate and question the meaning of divinity, thereby elevating ourselves spiritually.(Perhaps, I am pulling this out of the fucking ether at 2am! Who knows! It's unknowable!)
What about Beowulf? What do we have for him? He and God are certainly allies in the Christian aspect of the text. He gets his monster, the monsters mother, lives a good long time, gets to fight Dragon and then dies as all mortal men do. Consider this however, to this very day the name of Beowulf is spoken, written and studied by scholars, students, Tolkien fanatics and hobbyists. It is through this that Beowulf (real man or not) has obtained a sort of Egyptian immortality, as the Egyptians were of the belief that to speak the name of the dead was to allow them to live forever. (Wesson) Not so bad for a simple shield dane, to be elevated such.(I'm just a desperate anthro minor, citing my archaeology class because I caaaaan.)
In the end, like most attempts at tackling the nature of the divine in relation to man, there are more questions than answers. (Ha ha nobody can hold me accontable becasue I am proving my opinion on something that can't be any more substaintiated than why people think overalls look good.)But perhaps this is all part of the divine plan, perhaps the point of perfection is simply that imperfect creatures cannot capture it. Perhaps heroes like Beowulf are the closest that we can come to a god who walks on earth. Or perhaps God is not so far away at all, but rather is the higher purpose within the hearts of man. (and maybe I'm a apathetic jackass and I think that asking a bunch of students to write a paper on GODS RELATIONSHIP TO MAN is totally inane.)
P.S Under the cut...the essays's unedited but it makes my mispelled and delirious commentary funnier. so deal.