Beowulf- the static hero

One of the things that struck me about the character of Beowulf was that he was not a dynamic character.   He was unchanging and shockingly void of emotion. Before I get accused of bashing one of the greatest pieces of ancient literature I will elaborate.

The reason I am so turned off by Beowulf is that he fulfills an entirely different role as a character than the characters I am so fond of (i.e. Gilgamesh and Genji <3). 

Beowulf’s purpose seems not to be a character but a cultural ideal.  I say this because I am bias and feel that if a character is multi-dimensional he/she should at least either

•          change or develop (static vs dynamic)  
•           give the reader some kind of emotional cues (be they cold and distant- or warm) 

It is possible these elements were lost in translation.  And that Beowulf sending away his men at the end could have been his change or development.  However, this is not a new attribute of Beowulf.

Because one cannot throw whatever opinion they want onto a text and call it valid without being able to support it with the text or at least a good dose of logic based on the text, I will try to prove my point.

Release from Comitatus

The release from Comitatus definitely adds tension to the story; however I do not feel that it necessarily adds any depth, tension, or change to Beowulf’s character. 

When Beowulf and his men prepare for the coming of Grendel, Beowulf says they must “forego our swords” because Grendel does not know the “arts of war”(1209).  While this is different than sending your men away he is still making himself (or his side) weaker to fight a villain.  This means that Beowulf sending away his men is not necessarily the result of a shift in his character.

Learning from Beowulf?

There are lessons to learn form the story of Beowulf however; Beowulf is not the one who teaches us.  Wiglaf teaches us comitatus is so important that one is never released from it. 

It could be said that Beowulf teaches us this lesson though his “mistake” this point is valid, but I side with the idea that Beowulf represents the ideal leader who is willing to repeal comitatus when needed.  

 

Which leads me to ask is a leader tied to the same type of comitatus as his/her subjects?

I say no because Beowulf is never vilified in the text for releasing, only his men for running. Beowulf releasing his men seems A-okay culturally but the men using the release as an excuse to run is not okay!     

 Does Gilgamesh display hubris?

Again he is never vilified or spoken ill of because of his pride.

The release from Comitatus definitely adds tension to the story; however I do not feel that it necessarily adds any depth or tension to Beowulf’s character.

This leads me to believe Beowulf is a stagnant character.

The fact that Beowulf is stagnant character does not mean he is a poorly written character as I said earlier he serves a different purpose as a character.  The character himself is a an ideal and the reader does not need details about his emotions or personality or him to change. 

 I think Beowulf serves more as an ideal, while Gilgamesh’s growth and emotion give us an example and a lesson to learn and Genji gives a struggle between society, the individual and emotion.