“To What
Extent Is The Pursuit Of Kleos Presented As Hamartia In Beowulf and The Odyssey?”
The Odyssey is one of the most loved and most
debated pieces of all literature: from the unknown source of its authorship and
the poetic beauty with which it was constructed, to the story of the
relationships of a man returning from war to be with his wife and son. Scholarly debate also provokes the question of how a once-sung epic poem of such stature was
canonised and written down: the question of whose Odyssey it is also underpins the extent
to which critics have interpreted and translated it. The
authorship of the latter epic poem Beowulf is unknown too, although many historians share consensus that it was written during the conversion between
Paganism and Christianity. Yet it also continues to preserve the
tales of its own eponymous hero. Is it coincidental that two texts which
create the cornerstones of literature in their respective societies
(one of Classical Antiquity, the other in the Anglo-Saxon period) are so famed,
yet there is no single authorship agreed upon by scholars of either text?
Indeed, are the unknown authors of these texts holders of their own kleos? Undoubtedly the
unknown authorship of the epic poems makes them complex: their heroes’ eternal social and moral characteristics provoke
judgement from many of their critics, some of which will be considered in
this essay.
The notion of kleos (fame and glory) being won
through memorable actions is perhaps the oldest heroic element, and one of its
study’s most questionable terms. It is linked to the existential questions “Why
am I here?” and “What should I do?” because many, if not most, humans find
self-fulfilment and meaning in performing actions that will be remembered
positively. Sometimes people want to commit a ‘bad’ action if, in a perverse
inversion of the heroic code, this is the only way they feel they can be
remembered. Acting in one way or another in order to be remembered is not only
an aspect of the hero, it is more so a human phenomenon.
To give an analogy, one might give charity for the ‘sake of’
giving charity. But doing something for sake of doing something at all is
morally empty, and, if we all do things that could be done by anyone, there
would be no real gain and no personality or difference between Person One,
Person Two and Person Three. That leaves two other options: firstly, I
could give charity because charity is perceived as ‘good’ by the people around
me; secondly, if we ignore the people around me and simply consider me (the
giver), and you (the receiver), I could give charity because you would think it
is a good action and you would remember me in a positive light for
having given you charity. The single governing element that links the second
two options is what might be termed social opinion. In other words,
caring about what people think about your actions. It is important to note
that, for a select few, self-fulfilment is achieved through literally fulfilling
base needs or hopes without caring what other people think of them -
whether their needs are hunger, intimacy or something else. For anyone
who does not find self-fulfilment in material fulfilment, then I suggest that
we find meaning in ourselves in relation to how other people, or at least
another person, find meaning in us. But for many of us, self-fulfilment is based on
how other people judge and remember the success of our actions as much as we do.
The common translation of kleos as fame and glory,
though, can lead to a faulty understanding of its Ancient Greek meaning. While
it is true that kleos is underpinned by social renown, the form and time
in which kleos must be achieved is intrinsic to whether or not it is in
fact kleos being achieved. As Gregory Nagy points out in Pindar’s
Home, kleos is fame
or honour which is “conferred by song or poetry”: it can only be
achieved in such a way. In the frame of my question, therefore, judging whether
the pursuit of kleos is presented as hamartia means that the measure
might apparently only be applied to those instances in which a character specifically
endeavours to be sang about in the future, after their death. Nonetheless,
during the epic Odysseus and other characters do sometimes speak of their own
fame or honourable deeds (an act which is called ainos), which confers kleos
on to them. The definition is complicated further by the fact that through
reciting an epic poem, a bard (Homer in this case) is intrinsically “narrating
the deeds of heroes… [which is] restricted to the heroes of the distant past”. Nagy
is correct in his thesis that any positive action described in an epic poem
confers kleos onto the ‘dead doer’ of said action; but it can also be said that
kleos can be pursued or created in the present.
In spite of this, there are examples in
the two texts that do not follow the pattern of praising the
pursuit of kleos, thus defining hamartia effectively is paramount. Can
one’s actions that are performed in an attempt to be praised through song
always be honourable and praiseworthy? Is this not a selfish decision?
The term hamartia is equally complex and difficult to understand as kleos is;
it presents difficulties in answering my question because its definition
has been subject to much criticism, and indeed because it refers to drama. Hamartia
was first coined by Aristotle in his philosophical text, Poetics to
refer to a character’s fatal flaw’ which causes them to make a poor decision
that eventually results in a reversal of fortunes. When applied to my essay,
the question then becomes: “to what extent is the pursuit of winning honour
[conferred by a song that praises your deeds] presented as a fatal flaw that
causes an error of judgement?” Even by transgressing the boundaries between
poetry and drama in order to utilise the notion of hamartia in my
criticism of Beowulf and The Odyssey, the term itself is
certainly troublesome, for ‘pursuit’ is an action and thus
intrinsically cannot be a characteristic flaw. The reason one pursues something
may be the result of lust, obstinacy, stubbornness or pride; moralists have
argued that this is the simple definition but even this has been criticised. Nevertheless,
both poems were written in somewhat religious societies where the god’s or gods’
relationship with mortals is important and considered; morality is vital in
understanding hamartia.
In order to understand my thesis I must refute Aristotle’s
definition of hamartia and render my question, “To what degree do the poets of Beowulf
and The Odyssey present the pursuit of winning honour [conferred
by a song that praises a character’s deeds] as an error of judgement?”
The scrutiny of how the poets of these two epics
present the pursuit of kleos as hamartia or sound judgement, is most complex
and intriguing due to the number of characters who create kleos
in a number of different ways. Charles Segal identifies in Kleos and its
Ironies that, “the poet views
kleos retrospectively” in The Odyssey, and this links most profoundly to
those characters who also view kleos in retrospect. Just as the
poet would recite the Odyssey aloud to an audience, hence conferring kleos onto
the characters in the text, within the recitation itself the poet includes
episodes of narrative kleos from the characters’ own perspectives.
The kleos of the eponymous character’s wife,
Penelope, has rightfully been the subject of criticism and debate, both as a
result of her reversal of the traditional gender position as a wife, and due to
the moral reasoning with which she explains her pursuit of it. The first
notable passage in which this argument resonates is Book 19, which
records the first encounter between herself and
Odysseus since he left her to fight the Trojan War 20 years ago. As Charles Segal
points out, this is one of two passages within the entire Odyssey
in which a character narrates their own kleos in the first person; in
fact, this first-person narration perfectly foreshadows the result of her
husband’s self-revealing one book later. When Penelope says to the stranger:
“If he should come back and look after my life, my fame would be greater thus”,
On one level she naturally refers to the kleos which she deserves for
remaining faithful to her husband and keeping the household true - and
indeed this reversal of traditional roles deserves further kleos itself.
But on a deeper level she acknowledges that a secondary superlative kleos (the kleos
which she actively pursues) would always be dependent on him coming back to
observe it. In fact, when Odysseus does reveal himself in Book 20 (now
with the opportunity to restore peace and justice in their house and, as an
extension, Ithaca), her retrospective explanation for and of her
web (which she created during the day and detangled in the night, so that the
suitors could not marry her) quite literally endows her with kleos.
Furthermore, Segal points out, when Amphimedon
recites Penelope’s “wiliness” to Agamemnon in the Underworld, he described her
“good sense” and praised “the glory of her arête (virtue) that will never
perish.” This declaration is therefore both retrospective - for Homer
constructs the recitation so that the slain suitor endows kleos onto Penelope
simply because he is describing previous actions of her arête - and
prospective in that it predicts her future kleos (which we now sing and
praise). Penelope’s pursuit of kleos, moreover, is most certainly not hamartia:
although she achieves kleos identifiably thrice, the one time she aspires
to do so is purely reliant upon Odysseus coming home and re-assuming his role
as King and her lover-protector.
Telemachos is the first and penultimate character
to consider the role of kleos, showing much awareness of the epic warrior
tradition. Jealous of his father’s kleos, which a young Telemachus
believes would have been greater if “he had died,/ If with his companions”,
Odysseus’ son’s calculation that “[my father] would have won great glory for
his son too” pays homage to the fact that a warrior’s son would claim kleos
automatically due to their lineage.” Conversely, Athene in the guise of the
mortal King Mentor highlights Telemachos’ own cowardice in only reacting to
his father by grieving and so subverts this notion by
demanding that he “be as brave as Orestes,” who famously killed his father’s
murderer. This call to action indeed shows the importance contemporary Greek
society placed on a man showing courage in order to inspire “future generations
[to] sing your praises.” In fact, the courage to act and win personal
kleos which Athena inspires in Telemachos at the beginning of the tale adds
weight to any morality judgement of his actions. Though Telemachos doesn’t
realise such until the end, Athena-cum-Mentor’s words of encouragement at the
beginning of his Odyssey are a form of divine directive for his
pursuit of kleos. Notably, the poet shows great poetic justice
within the cycle of the poem’s two main odysseys: foreshadowing from
the beginning Telemachos’ attempts to act as an honourable and kleos-worthy King
of Ithaca, the last line Odysseus speaks to Telemachos upon his own arrival at
end of the poem is a command: “Not to disgrace the family of your fathers, who
before were distinguished for strength and prowess on the whole earth.” Thus
“sound-minded” Telemachos’ response, “In my present spirit, dear father…. you
shall see, That I shall not at all disgrace your family,” is the signal that
his pursuit of kleos is anything but a hamartia. The poet constructs a necessary
reconciliation of the two most prevalent types of Telemachos’ kleos: that
which is sung of his family, and that which praises his own courage.
In Beowulf, the eponymous character achieves kleos
after three main battles, the first of which he engages as a prime model of his
society’s warrior-culture. Beowulf’s first arrival on the scene is in
preparation for battle in Denmark: having crossed the seas from the land of the
Geats, “he was the mightiest man alive, highborn and powerful” and ready to
fight the monster named Grendel, who was terrorising the Danes in their famous hall,
Heorot. Indeed the poet suggests the motivation for Beowulf’s first fight as
the pursuit of immediate honour among the Danes when the warrior explains his
“fixed purpose when I set to sea” to the Danish King, Hrothgar’s, wife. Within
the framework of my question it is arguably true that such pursuit of kleos is
not hamartia: Beowulf knew he lived in a warrior-culture and so his
actions would result in “heightening Hygelac’s fame” and the awarding of a
“huge prize” by Hrothgar. It is notable, therefore, that before defeating
Grendel, Beowulf proposes that his purpose is to “prove myself with a
proud deed”; for although the reader knows in retrospect that within
this epic form kleos is intrinsically being achieved many years after the
battle, any notion of eternal fame (what Nagy would deem real epic kleos) is
only hinted at later on in the text. In fact, only during the celebration at
Heorot does Hrothgar endow eternal kleos on to Beowulf, by declaring: “You have
made yourself immortal by your glorious action.” Moreover, the narrator
comments during his recitation of the battle that “as long as either lived, he
was hateful to the other”, and so we can infer that the battle between Beowulf
and Grendel was in fact necessary. A combination of the warrior-culture of
Beowulf’s contemporary society and the opinion of the poet therefore, suggest
that the hero's decision was perhaps even unquestionable.
However, the pursuit of kleos during Beowulf’s fight
with Grendel’s avenging mother occurs amid a seemingly transitional phase in
his maturity and humility within the epic plot. At this crucial point Beowulf
has achieved the greatest extent of kleos: being “known to all men: now and
forever”, and he has adopted two of Hrothgar’s sons “for kindly guidance” in
becoming great warriors. Paradoxically, the poet suggests Beowulf is
“indifferent to death” and yet he demands that Hrothgar “take care of my young
company, my comrades in arms” if he dies. There is a suggestion that he has
developed a paternalistic relationship not just with these ‘sons’, but also
with the rest of the Danes; this presents the transition from simply being a
‘warrior’ who pursues kleos to a ‘warrior-king’ who fights both to protect his
people. The poet presents a further dichotomy, though, between Beowulf
finding the courage to defeat Grendel’s mother as a result of the importance of
“his name and fame”, and the fact that his victory becomes reliant on divine
intervention, for example when “he saw a blade that boded well.” That Beowulf
additionally relied on the “locks and chains [of his chainmail]” to be
protected from defeat by Grendel’s mother further shows that this victory was
not due to his own strength alone. Therefore the extent to which Beowulf’s
pursuit of kleos is presented as hamartia during his second fight is
complicated by the emphasised significance of divine intervention in this
fight. Beowulf now cares for both his fame and his comrades: yet the poet
repeats the line “holy God decided the victory” to encourage his listener to
question whether the success in battle is the result of fate, the strength of
the hero himself, or a combination.
Indeed, Hrothgar’s reflection of the fight when the hero arrives
in Heorot seems to answer this question.
In response to Beowulf - who voices his appreciation that “the
outcome would have been quick and fatal, if God had not helped me” - Hrothgar
appears to evaluate Beowulf’s motivation to fight with praise. The poet chooses
for the half-Dane to say, “your fame has gone far and wide, you are known to
everyone”, which could either be interpreted as an endorsement of Beowulf’s
motivation to fight in order to gain such kleos, or as a comment that
this kleos is a result of his “even-tempered, prudent”
approach. Certainly, the word “prudent” suggests that Beowulf had made a
calculated and caring decision for the future (whether it be to perform an
action which would gain him kleos, or one which protects his people too). In
addition, Hrothgar’s belief that Beowulf’s actions have “draw[n] “the Geat nation
and us neighbouring Danes, into shared peace”, hence resolving “hatreds we have
harboured in the past”, intensified the worthiness of his kleos.
Moreover, this fulfils the reason for which Beowulf originally declared his
entering Denmark, specifically: “proffer[ing]... a way to defeat his
[Hrothgar’s] enemy”, by in fact creating a “pact” between the Danes and Geats.
Overall, that the kleos which Beowulf has won in defeating Grendel’s
mother (praiseworthy in its own merit) also results in reconciliation between
two fighting countries suggests that by “calm[ing] the turmoil and terror in
(Hrothgar’s) mind”, its pursuit is not an example of hamartia - it is, in fact,
positively multiplied.
Beowulf’s arrival to his home in Geatland subsequently
enlightens the listener of his motivation to pursue kleos before
ever entering Denmark. He immediately tells Hygelac (his uncle) that he
has “won credit for you, my king, and for all your people”, which shows how
important it is to win fame for the family name; in this deeply ancestral and tribal
society, any examples of previous kings or princes who had disgraced
reputations are part of a shame culture, to which the poet directly contrasts
the honour of Beowulf (who is himself “Hygelac’s thane”. Indeed, Beowulf takes pleasure
in giving the physical treasures he’d won from Hrothgar in Denmark to Hygelac
because he realises “It is still upon your grace that all favour depends”,
which is testament to the value heroes placed upon gaining honour from their
king, and consequently from the people around him. Accordingly the
acknowledgment of such repute and loyalty is recognised by Hygelac when
he claims Beowulf had “behaved with honour and took no advantage” in contrast
to when “He had been poorly regarded for a long time.” This indeed links to
heroic epics of the past, most notably The Odyssey, in which Telemachos’
pursuit of his own kleos is instigated by the opportunity to mimic or
imitate the greatness of his father, and make their family name more
honourable. Such sentiment, moreover, is given true justice at the end of
Beowulf’s life, when the last word he speaks is “them” (his dead family), which
contrasts the first words “We” (his and his men’s origin).
The poem’s penultimate praise of Beowulf by Hygelac, therefore, shows a
deeper emotion behind his pursuit of kleos: haunted by, and trying to refute,
his old name of shame, the heroic warrior had won fame for himself and
his uncle - in the hope of gaining social praise in the future and present.
After Hygelac and his successor dies, though, Beowulf
becomes the King of Denmark - thus in the latter part of the epic, the poet
presents the second heroic model: the tender-yet-resolute warrior-king.
The poet at first evokes great and epic sympathy for the paternalistic “warriors’
protector” as he realises the only way to defend his people is to engage in
battle with a dragon who was terrorising Denmark. Having won many battles thus
far and feeling “unsettled yet ready, sensing his death”, Beowulf’s fear that
“he must have thwarted ancient ordinance of the eternal Lord” is utilised by
the poet to advise the listener that divine intervention is a necessary element
of human existence, and indeed in showing the hero that his power is mortally
finite. Nonetheless, the poet secondly emphasises the complexity of the
warrior-king through the kleos which he still pursues, for he wants to “pursue
this fight for the glory of winning” in spite of his humility and awareness
that “fate, overseer, decides.” Indeed, Beowulf seems to have been weakened by
being forced to “unwillingly inhabit another home” when fighting the dragon,
and yet is reminded by Wiglaf that “you would never let your name and fame be
dimmed while you lived.” The poet’s sympathy for Beowulf’s position is thus
testament to the heroism of the model warrior-king: socially he has
“cared for and stood by things in my keeping” yet is physically “letting go of
the life and lordship I have long maintained”. Even at the point of his death,
Beowulf pursues a time (Ancient Greek for a physical symbol of kleos) to
be erected in the form of “Beowulf’s Barrow”, for he hoped he would be praised
Danes and men in the future. Moreover, the almost mathematical transaction of
“treasure…. bought and paid for by Beowulf’s life” suggests the harshness of
his heroically tragic and indeed praiseworthy last action: Beowulf the character died defending his
name and his people.
The response of the Geats and the poet to the death of
Beowulf is telling of the model warrior and warrior-king’s lasting
impact. On one level Wiglaf is the first to internalise the heroic-code
to which Beowulf subscribed, declaring: “A warrior will sooner die than live a
life of shame.” This statement sheds light immediately on Beowulf’s former
state of being “indifferent to death” before fighting Grendel’s mother; it emphasises
the warrior’s motivation to pursue kleos as an opposite to being shamed for
inactivity in the face of danger - which Beowulf continued to represent when he
fought the dragon. Wiglaf had indeed just shown his own “courage” by
assisting the “shepherd of our land” (Beowulf) in defeating the dragon; his
declaration is truly justified to the extent that, within the epic poem we
hear, the poet endows kleos on him by reciting the speech. On a
secondary level, however, Wiglaf highlights the importance of Beowulf having
“in days gone by…. kept our coffers and our kingdom safe” when the Danes
couldn’t defend themselves by suggesting that his death would cause a “bad
blood feud.” The model warrior-king is thus Beowulf: his heroic stature is
based on him having been a powerful fighter who “behaved” in a way that
would ensure his kleos, while such acts of courage also inherently protected
his countrymen.
The ending of Beowulf is therefore interpreted as an imperfect
reconciliation of the apparent selfishness of a warrior entering battle
in the pursuit of kleos, and of a king who safeguards his men from danger
(which increases his kleos further). At his funeral, Beowulf is mourned as “a
man and a king”, with which the poet highlights the contrast between the glory
of his ruling powers and the emotion which the Geats felt for the death of a
relatable human who had been humbled by his last actions. The narrator’s
comments that “a man should praise a prince who he holds dear” can thus be
interpreted as a meta-poetic, or its criticism: in showing an awareness of the
epic poetry tradition of which he was a part, there could be a sense
that Beowulf’s author too is fulfilling his role as a bard
praising “a man”, and yet he is ambiguous as to whether this a “prince… he
holds dear.” Notably, scholars of the
canonised Beowulf text disagree on the exact authorship of the original
oral
poem, and yet there is relative consensus that the poem was constructed
during the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons from Paganism to
Christianity. Thomas D. Hill states in his essay, The
Christian Language and Theme of Beowulf, that the
Beowulf poet is presenting a radical synthesis of pagan and Christian history-
which is seemingly without parallel in Anglo Saxon or Anglo-Latin literature -
and yet this poet perhaps intentionally distances himself from the “Geat
people[‘s]” sorrow for Beowulf. Nonetheless, the last words the Beowulf
poet sings of the poem eponymous hero are thus, “They say… he was the
man most gracious and fair-minded, kindest to his people and keenest to win
fame.” This last praise for Beowulf is testament to his heroic traits: his
decisions were rational and made with an awareness of their impact on others
because he was “fair minded”, which itself contrasts to the excess of the
superlatives “kindest” and “keenest.” In spite of the apparently contrasting
beliefs of Paganism and Christianity, the Beowulf poet presents the
eponymous hero’s pursuit of kleos and “fame” as “fair-minded” and not hamartia.
But are examples of the pursuit of kleos being presented as hamartia
non-existent in either text? There are a number of occasions in each poem
in which pursuing or illustrating one’s own fame blindly is suggested as
hamartia because the circumstances are misjudged: Odysseus tells the Cyclops his name upon escape from the
animal’s cave, which nearly causes his own death and that of his comrades, and
instigates the Sea-God’s attempts to prevent him from ever reaching Ithaca
again. In Beowulf, the poet interweaves stories such as Brecca’s
unsuccessful attempt to win fame by beating Beowulf in a sea battle, or of
previous feuds in which one figure has tried to win honour but has gained a
negative reputation instead. These - and many other similar episodes or
historical events - are only glimpsed upon in this essay to highlight
the more profound episodes in which the characters have learned to
consider that their action is the right one. Ian Johnston points out that The
Odyssey overall celebrates “a certain aspect of human experience” in which a
character must survive and endure difficulty to realise a “domestic community,
and to do so in such a way that we demonstrate and assert our own excellence.” The
greatest kleos created in The Odyssey is Odysseus’ successful return
home (nostos), which in turn justifies the domestic kleos won by both Penelope
(his wife) and Telemachus (his son); the lasting kleos of the Beowulf
poem is its eponymous character’s death whilst protecting his people, who in
turn sing his kleos as a community.
My aim has indeed been to show that judgement of the pursuit of kleos should be
circumstantial and based on contrasts to when such pursuit was hamartia.
The focus of this essay has illustrated, therefore, that in Homer’s Odyssey
and Beowulf, the notion of actively pursuing honour [conferred by a
song that praises a character’s deeds] is not presented as an error of
judgement in and of itself; in the specific examples selected, the epic heroes
demonstrably calculate that such decisions would be sound. Neither of the epic
poems’ exact authorships is known - and they seem to be created in different
societies - yet the epic poem’s messages are both similar: the emotional and
rational responses of surrounding characters are necessarily considered if the
listener is to judge the pursuit of kleos at all.
Cook A, 1993: Odyssey: Homer, W.
W. Norton & Company & Inc., New York
Cook A, 1993: Odyssey: Homer, W.
W. Norton & Company & Inc., New York
Hill, Thomas D. The
Christian Language and Theme of Beowulf.
In Companion
to Old
English Poetry. Eds.
Henk Aertsen and Rolf H. Bremmer, Jr. (Amsterdam: VU
