# Reading > Poems, Poets, and Poetry >  Epic Poetry

## Proust71

I am quite ambiguous as to what occurred with the cessation of epic poetry. Why has it not lived on like its literary counterparts? Where is the American epic poem that can one can say, "Oh, look, this rivals, if not is nonpareil, to Dante, Milton, or Virgil"? Indeed I wonder, and indeed, I am further befuddled. Can anyone enlighten me?

----------


## JBI

The last true Epic in English has to be the Prelude. Nothing else really took the same way. One can even argue that Milton's Paradise Lost was the last true epic. Still, nothing in the past Dante's Comedia seems to have had the same epic influence in the west as Dante, Beowulf, Virgil, Homer, el Cid, etc.

As a form, the epic seems to have died with the death of the oral tradition in the medieval times, and ironically, the publication of Dante, which set the grounds for vernacular language literature amongst the educated elite. Because of this, the epic seems to have died in favor of Prose, and in favor of theatre, and eventually in favor of novels. Verse itself has been put to a more lyric purpose in our time period.

There are American epics, Hiawatha, Evangeline by Longfellow, the infamous epic on Daniel Boone (I think it's called the Mountain Muse or something silly like that, it never took, and was a completely flop), Leaves of Grass to some extent is epic, though not really, the Wasteland, etc. None of these are true epics though.

True epics no longer exist since we no longer have need of them.

----------


## Proust71

I find their archaic characteristics rivoting. How reproachful we have to disregard them nowadays.

----------


## blazeofglory

Today, the world of the epic is gone, and hardly anyone reads it except for the academics. Not that it lost its shine and sheen, it still does have them. Yet people have a choice and sees finds arrays of the means of entertainment today with a massive range.

Yes I still love the Mahabharata, perhaps the greatest epic ever written, and it is matchless and marvelous.

----------


## JBI

Homer was the first cult figure of literature. And seems to be the most enduring one, besides perhaps Shakespeare. There just isn't room for an epic in these days where literature is a secondary form of communication.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

My, this thread comes off as a bit depressing. It also sounds a lot like people in the early 16th century who went around lamenting that the days of the great epic tales were dead and gone (they had yet to see Tasso, Ariosto, Spenser, Milton etc.). While, I'll agree that this is a more valid complaint in many ways in the early 21st century (certainly it's true, that Milton more or less marks the end of the classically imitative English poetic epic), I can't really fully agree with this statement:




> True epics no longer exist since we no longer have need of them.


People are always going to have need of epic stories. They crave having common tales to tell and refer to, heroes to look up to, and some sort of larger narrative that celebrates the virtues and beliefs of their age. No, you're not going to find an exact replica of classical epic today, nor should you want to. Clearly a story that starts out with women as slaves and objects to pick a fight over, or one that celebrates the deeds of Christian crusaders in the Middle East are neither one of them suitable to the sort of culture I think most of us would like to see emerging at the start of this new millenium. Epics tied too closely and explicitly to specific nationalities are also going to be more difficult to pull off in an increasingly global world. However, I think there's still very much a place for the epic form in today's society. 

I'll agree that unfortunately poetry in general, both epic and otherwise, is not really the it thing in our times. Prose reigns supreme right now. Who knows maybe poetry will make a comeback one of these days, but that's hard to say now. I disagree, however that epic themes have died out entirely. I would argue that the clearest inheritors of the epic tradition are fantasy and science fiction books, which are often quite old fashioned, either literally in that they are set in a mythical epic past, or in terms of the way they concentrate on the deeds of the hero, the workings of higher powers etc. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is, of course, the most obvious, given his direct ties to earlier epic forms, but I would say that many fantasy novels and also, perhaps more importantly given their tremendous cultural impact, movies like Star Wars, etc. are carrying on this tradition. In fact, film is interesting to me because it in some ways has the potential to return to a more oral based story telling tradition. I think it will be exciting to see what sort of new themes get an epic style treatment in the coming years.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> As a form, the epic seems to have died with the death of the oral tradition in the medieval times, and ironically, the publication of Dante, which set the grounds for vernacular language literature amongst the educated elite. Because of this, the epic seems to have died in favor of Prose, and in favor of theatre, and eventually in favor of novels. Verse itself has been put to a more lyric purpose in our time period.


I've also got to disagree with this just in terms of your timeline. You can't possibly claim that poetry and the oral tradition died in the middle ages shortly after the publication of Dante. The period following Dante in the Renaissance was a golden age for poetry in Europe. To ignore it would be to ignore the likes of Petrarch, Ariosto and many others in Italy; the Pleiade in France; Chaucer Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton and many more in England. I think you have to move the rise of prose as the dominant form to at least the later 17th or early 18th century.

----------


## JBI

Poetry yes, but not epic poetry. You have Boccaccio shooting out the Decameron, you have the Arabian Nights earning popularity, you have the sonnet form kicking off, you have the Nuremberg scene down in Germany, with a strong emphasis on lyric, you have Chaucer getting ready in England, but who is writing epics in Vernacular? Who is writing Vernacular anyway? None of the medieval Latin epics really took.

Latin was the mark of the educated. No one wrote and read in Vernacular, essentially (with the exception of a few medieval romances, and the troubadour tradition which was more oral than written anyway), until really Dante. 

After Dante you have Chaucer, then an influx of Italian literature around the world, entering England by means of translations, and direct copies. Lyric takes the stage completely after Dante, with the exception of narrative poetry in Boccaccio and Chaucer, though they are not, as pointed out writing epic.

The renaissance seems to me very prose and theatre driven. Name one major English verse writer from Chaucer until Spenser. Prose began to rise with the focus going towards humanism, and breaking away from medieval church influence. Prose certainly was at a low ebb before Dante, especially in Vernacular, and seems to shoot up right after him, and the bringing of Greek texts from Byzantium.

----------


## mortalterror

The Epic does not end after Milton. There are the Ossian poems published by MacPherson in 1765. William Blake writes Milton in 1810. John Keats writes Endymion and Hyperion at the beginning of the nineteenth century. There's Lord Byron's Don Juan, then the Kalevala which doesn't get written down until 1835. William Morris wrote The Earthly Paradise in the 1860s, and Sigurd the Volsung in 1870. James Joyce tries to parallel Homer's Odyssey in the structure and action of Ulysses in 1922. Currently, there are new sci-fi epic poems like Aniara, and Derek Walcott attempts to update the epic to modern times with his Omeros.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> Poetry yes, but not epic poetry. You have Boccaccio shooting out the Decameron, you have the Arabian Nights earning popularity, you have the sonnet form kicking off, you have the Nuremberg scene down in Germany, with a strong emphasis on lyric, you have Chaucer getting ready in England, but who is writing epics in Vernacular? Who is writing Vernacular anyway? None of the medieval Latin epics really took.


The Renaissance was when literature in the vernacular first really took off. It was also a great period for epic production. Due to their length there have always been very few quality epics produced in any period. The Renaissance saw the production of possibly a few more than its fair share. Among the poetic epics and epic/romances produced in the Renaissance:

Tasso's _Gerusalemme Liberata_
Boiardo's _Orlando Innamorata_
Ariosto's _Orlando Furioso_
Camoes' _Os Luciadas_
Spenser's _Faerie Queene_
Milton's _Paradise Lost_

As you may know, the Renaissance is so called because the term means "re-birth," referring to the profound interest in the re-birth of the classics. Virgil and the Aeneid were absolutely central to this renewed interest in classical texts, and there were innumerable numbers of Virgilian imitators and not an inconsiderable number of those who either did or attempted to write epic poem to outdo the Aeneid. Those listed above were the most successful, but there were a plethora of attempts to write epic poetry or epic style romance. This is partly evident in that it inspired Cervantes' _Don Quixote_ (a good place to go for considering the transition between epic and novel). 




> After Dante you have Chaucer, then an influx of Italian literature around the world, entering England by means of translations, and direct copies. Lyric takes the stage completely after Dante, with the exception of narrative poetry in Boccaccio and Chaucer, though they are not, as pointed out writing epic.
> 
> The renaissance seems to me very prose and theatre driven. Name one major English verse writer from Chaucer until Spenser. Prose began to rise with the focus going towards humanism, and breaking away from medieval church influence. Prose certainly was at a low ebb before Dante, especially in Vernacular, and seems to shoot up right after him, and the bringing of Greek texts from Byzantium.



Perhaps we're talking a bit at cross purposes here because if you're talking about English literature then what most call the Renaissance period begins in the early 16th century (usually the Petrarchan sonnets of Wyatt and Surrey are used as a rough mark of the start of the period) and really refers to the literature produced during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I across the latter half of the 16th and the 17th century. Milton is then considered to be the author who marks the end of the English Renaissance period. If you have the 15th century in mind, then you're right that it was a period of very little literary production of any kind in England (though there are the great Arthurian long poems, the _Alliterative Morte Arthur,_ and Malory's _Le Morte d'Arthur_). However, the English Renaissance, starting in the 16th century, is a period of astonishing poetic production and, indeed, produced very little in the way of enduring prose fiction. Certainly there are some excellent sermons, essays and other prose works (mostly non fiction) that emerge from the period, but these aren't the stand out literary works from the time. In terms of poets, you have Wyatt, Sidney, Marlowe, Spenser, Shakespeare, Herbert, Donne (indeed, all the metaphysical poets) and many others. Many centuries would be happy to have claimed the production of only one of these. 

I'm a bit baffled by your desire to claim that theater is distinct from poetry during this time, since all plays were poetry. Indeed, that's one of the marks of the intense interest in poetry during the period. To say that Shakespeare doesn't count as a poet would be an absurd claim. Perhaps you are just trying to say that many poets were employed in writing for the theatre as opposed to writing epic? Many poets throughout the ages haven't been up to writing epic. Certainly I can't see how the verse drama of the Renaissance would indicate a trend toward prose.

----------


## JBI

Faery Queen isn't a true epic. First of all it didn't take, second of all, it was never finished (or even close to finished). 

There have been epics written since Milton, of course, but none of them are true epics. True epics require in them the ability to speak of the whole culture and situation of a time period.

Homer encompassed the tradition and culture in Greek times by focusing his epics on traditional stories with a strong focus on Arete, the Greek ideal.

Virgil focuses on the Roman ideal, maturing the plot to suit the roman perception of Arete, including compassion, mercy, love, teamwork, and dedication. You don't see that in Homer, and it is also of note to mention the ending, which has drawn many critics, as to why Virgil makes Aeneas kill Turnus, who is begging on his knees.

Beowulf encompases the story of the decaying Geat way of life, as an influx of foreign influence enters, and Christianity mixes into a barbaric land. Beowulf seems to encompas the hopes and dreams of his nation, yet, ultimately, fails to live long enough to ensure the endurance of the Geat people. 

The Song of Roland seems to reflect the mentality of the Franks. This story is famous for its early perception of chivalric honor, and its protagonist's reluctance to blow his horn, bringing about his tragic, yet heroic death. This shows us the mentality, and perception of Frankish Arete.

I am less familiar with the Poem of the Cid, but it can be seen to embody the Spanish ideal of honor, custom, and value, as do all true regional epics.

Dante seems to be the last one in this line of West-European epics. His journeys reflect the influences of Chivalric rommance, mixed in with a strong religious temperament (which was higher than ever at this point), and also reflects the values of Christian morality, and Christian desires. 

I purposely left out the Nieblungenlied because I am less familiar with it than other epics, and because it seems to me to be minor in comparison, it being derived heavily from prior works. There are several other Scandanavian epics (including a famous Finnish one which I have never completed) but none seem to me to have the influence of these.

Either way, after Dante no work seems to come even close to achieving this sort of cult status. In addition, please take Milton off the list of Renaissance English writers, it is embarrassing to your intelligence. 

The epic mode as it was originally intended seems to end with Dante. Milton, Wordsworth, Keats all try to create an epic, but none of them took. None of them had the same culture importance as the others.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> Faery Queen isn't a true epic. First of all it didn't take, second of all, it was never finished (or even close to finished).


I'll agree that it would be possible to argue about the generic category of the Faerie Queene, though not really for the reasons you mention. Not being finished doesn't mean it couldn't still be considered an epic work. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about it didn't take. It was a highly influential poem at the time and has had a great deal of influence on subsequent poets and writers. However, one could certainly say that FQ belongs to the category of epic style romance, as opposed to Virgilian epic. Many people in more general discussions tend to lump both epic and romance under the single umbrella of "Epic," and I wasn't sure how precise we were being in our terms in this discussion, especially since you mentioned the Prelude as a possible epic, which certainly has much less in common with traditional epic than the Faerie Queene. 




> The epic mode as it was originally intended seems to end with Dante. Milton, Wordsworth, Keats all try to create an epic, but none of them took. None of them had the same culture importance as the others.


I omit quoting your list of epics, but I have indeed read all those you mention as well as several others in the epic family, including many of the Northern sagas you allude to and so on (just so we know we're on the same page :Smile:  ). I don't think I can really agree that Milton's cultural impact is significantly less than Dante's. _Paradise Lost_, like the _Divina Commedia,_ blends elements of both religious concerns and classical epic, making it similarly deeply relevant to the Christian culture of the times and afterward. It has had an enormous impact on both English literature and cuture, and it's still considered significant enough to be frequently taught as a representative work of English literature in the world literature courses of non-English speaking countries. Clearly you are right about Keats and Wordsworth (as far as their writing in the epic genre specifically, not necessarily the idea that they didn't "take"). Neither really produced works that significantly meet the standards of traditional epic. 



> In addition, please take Milton off the list of Renaissance English writers, it is embarrassing to your intelligence.


The ad hominem is unbecoming and inaccurate. I know what I am talking about. I am in the late stages of a PhD specializing in English Renaissance literature and teach the subject at the college level. Most literary scholars consider Milton a Renaissance poet, and most college surveys teach him as such. Since all such categories are, obviously, artificial guides, I am certainly open to arguments that would prefer to categorize his work differently, and would be genuinely interested to hear how you yourself prefer to categorize him and why, but I am in no danger of looking foolish by saying that Milton is generally considered the last of the English Renaissance poets.

----------


## stlukesguild

JBI- When you challenge Petrarch's Love concerning Renaissance literature I hope you realize that you (as a student) are challenging a PhD. (or soon-to-be PhD.) in her area of specialization. It might do you some good to be careful when questioning your "opponent's" intelligence under such circumstances. I would then question you myself concerning several blanket statements: 

Faery Queen isn't a true epic. First of all it didn't take, second of all, it was never finished (or even close to finished)

So who has decided what exactly qualifies as an "epic" if Spencer falls short (and thus I would assume, so too does his Italian model, _Orlando Furioso_)? He never finished? Neither did Virgil... and _Beowulf_ is far shorter and fragmentary in what remains. What exactly are the requirements that you imagine as being essential to any work before it might qualify as an "epic"... and by what authority were these established?

True epics require in them the ability to speak of the whole culture and situation of a time period.

Homer encompassed the tradition and culture in Greek times by focusing his epics on traditional stories with a strong focus on Arete, the Greek ideal.

Hmm... is that so? So Homer speaks for the whole of Greek culture and Virgil for the Romans and Dante for the Italians? Personally, I always felt that an artist spoke for him or herself. Wikipedia offers the following description of *Epic Poetry*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_poetry

...including examples well into the present, and while Wikipedia is certainly not the last word upon anything the information here does not seem to contradict most of what Petrarch has suggested or clearly eliminate _The Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, Milton, Don Juan, Leaves of Grass, The Odyssey:a Modern Sequel,_ etc...

I purposely left out the Nieblungenlied _because I am less familiar with it than other epics_, and because it seems to me to be minor in comparison, it being derived heavily from prior works. There are several other Scandanavian epics (including a famous Finnish one which I have never completed) but none seem to me to have the influence of these.

So your unfamiliarity with a work is a valid excuse for eliminating its validity as an epic? :Confused:  So if you were unfamiliar with the Mahabharata, Ramayana, or Gilgamesh can be equally ignored if your reading does not extend beyond the West? And the _Nibelungenlied_ can be dismissed because it is largely derived from earlier works...? And the _Iliad_, the _Aeneid_, and the _Divine Comedy_ were not? As for influence... just what influence did _Beowulf_ have? The poem was written down between the 8th and the 11th century (although it may have been composed earlier) and the only existing manuscript is dated circa 1010. It's existence was largely unknown until the 16th century and its first owner of record. The first mention of the work in print is from a letter dated 1700. Transcriptions of the manuscript were not published until 1815 and translations needed to wait until the 19th century... 1895 for the important William Morris edition. Where is the influence on world literature in that history? 

Milton, Wordsworth, Keats all try to create an epic, but none of them took. None of them had the same culture importance as the others.

Huh? None of them "took"? So _Paradise Lost_ has had less impact upon subsequent culture than Beowulf? And influence upon subsequent culture is the standard measure as to what does or does not qualify as an epic? Personally I find this to be nonsense. certainly influence is one measure of the importance of a work of art... but it is not the end-all/be-all. Even if this were so it would then largely make the question of contemporary epics an impossibility as it is impossible to know which works will or will not continue to speak to and influence future ages.

----------


## JBI

It isn't influence on culture but speaking for a culture. When people think Ancient Greek, they think Homer, When people think Roman, they think Virgil, when people think early Italian, they think Dante. The epic, in order to be true, must carry the heart of the time and location it is written in. By the Wiki definition, almost any book can be considered epic. You could apply their definition to any Tolkienian fantasy. You could apply it to almost any novel, pretty much, and have it classified as an epic.

I did not leave the Nieblungenlied out of my definition of an epic, I just didn't go into detail with it since I don't know enough about it. It is clearly a pre-Dante epic which classifies, but I would think Parzifal to be more of an epic of the time anyway.

The point is, if you look at it, any major poem seems to be somewhat epic in scale. A distinction is needed between a true epic, and an indistinct epic. To say that Brut and the Comedia are on the same scale is ridiculous. There is always going to be a distinction.

----------


## JBI

Milton could be considered a Renaissance poet, but Paradise Lost comes after the end of English Renaissance. It is in the restoration that it first appears, and it alludes to those events, rather than Renaissance events. The central focus seems to be on Revolutionary events, rather than Renaissance ideals or humanism.

----------


## stlukesguild

It isn't influence on culture but speaking for a culture. 

Again... this is an idea I don't accept. An artist speaks first and foremost for him or herself. I read a book or spend time with a painting not in order to gain a deep understanding of another culture... but rather to engage in a dialog with an individual with an exceptional mind. Certainly, all individual artists cannot help but be influenced by the society in which they live and work... but no work of art can speak of the totality of a single individual human being... let alone represent the whole of a culture.

When people think Ancient Greek, they think Homer, When people think Roman, they think Virgil, when people think early Italian, they think Dante.

You are making some rather large assumptions, here. When I think of Greece I certainly think of Homer... but I also think of Plato, Aeschylus, Sappho, Euripides, the Parthenon, Praxiteles, the Mausoleum of Hallikarnosis, Haigha Sophia, etc... When I think of the Romans I think of Virgil... and Ovid, Horace, the Colosseum, _Augustus of Prima Porta_, Constantine, etc... When I think of early Renaissance Italy I think of Dante... but also Petrarch, Cavalcanti, Boccaccio, Machiavelli, Cimabue, Giotto, Fra Angelico, Simone Martini, Brunelleschi, etc... None of these artists speaks of the whole of the culture.

To say that Brut and the Comedia are on the same scale is ridiculous.

Certainly... but you seem to be suggesting that the aesthetic worth of a work is one of the standards by which we establish what is or is not an "Epic". Of course, by this standard I would question whether Beowulf might even hold its own (let alone stand superior) against _Paradise Lost, The Faerie Queene, The Prelude, Leaves of Grass,_ etc... An "Epic Poem" is a genre... like a tragedy, a comedy, a symphony, or an opera. We don't question whether Mozart's early symphonies are even symphonies because they cannot hold up to comparison with his later works... or with Beethoven's symphonies. The fact that Orlando Furioso cannot withstand direct comparison with the Comedia does not mean that both are not epic poems... any more than the fact that Charles Simic may pale in comparison to Baudelaire means that hie are not lyrical poems. The term "Epic" suggest scale... but does not assure quality.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

I am a bit unsure about epic poets reflecting their own age. They, more often than not, reflect the tradition. Then there are the 'cycles' of epics. Gilgamesh hearkens to other epics that existed even before the so-called first epic itself, Homer tells of almost mythical events he took from other epic poets, Virgil depicts of the times he had heard about, Milton and Dante depict events that do not happen in our world as we know it. Yes there are the under-lining themes of rebellion, humanism, improvisation, expression and creativity etc but most art is about these things, not only epic poetry. Art and creativity itself is rebellious and unnatural. Art is produced when a human being takes himself above and out of the 'normal' scheme of things and becomes a Creator. An epic has a bigger canvas. It depicts a gamut of human and divine emotions, motives, actions and their results. _War and Peace_, _King Lear_ and the Sistine ceiling and altar are three of my favorite 'epics'.

As far as the decline of the epic is concerned, we have the novel form which has replaced the traditional epic poems. This decline in the popularity of the epic 'poem' maybe temporary. Poetry has generally declined in popularity with the growing popularity of the printed media. As we moved away from the oral tradition, the decline in the popularity of poetry became more and more obvious. The new age of the 'multimedia' has the potential to revive the oral/aural element in poetry. Only time will tell how we use these opportunities.

----------


## chasestalling

The closest thing to an American epic is LEAVES OF GRASS, the thing precluding it from being the one, its structure, which is an almagam of images and ideas, as opposed to being a narrative that is singular and coherent.

But then who's to say. Proust's magnum opus is called a novel though it's stuctured nothing like it's predecessors.

Ergo LEAVES OF GRASS is America's epic poem if you ask me.

----------


## Virgil

> Dante seems to be the last one in this line of West-European epics. His journeys reflect the influences of Chivalric rommance, mixed in with a strong religious temperament (which was higher than ever at this point), and also reflects the values of Christian morality, and Christian desires. 
> 
> I purposely left out the Nieblungenlied because I am less familiar with it than other epics, and because it seems to me to be minor in comparison, it being derived heavily from prior works. There are several other Scandanavian epics (including a famous Finnish one which I have never completed) but none seem to me to have the influence of these.
> 
> Either way, after Dante no work seems to come even close to achieving this sort of cult status. In addition, please take Milton off the list of Renaissance English writers, it is embarrassing to your intelligence. 
> 
> The epic mode as it was originally intended seems to end with Dante. Milton, Wordsworth, Keats all try to create an epic, but none of them took. None of them had the same culture importance as the others.


I've been dying to jump into this conversation, because i do agree the age of great epic literature pretty much ends with Milton. In this discussion my feelings are closer to JBI's than the others, although I disagree with JBI on several things he may have said throughout. But as far as great epic literature, I do believe it ends with Milton's Paradise Lost, and I'm not sure everyone (critics) know why. We can all specualte.

My specualtions include the following: With the rise democracies, and therefore an established dissenting voice to cultural ideals, it becomes impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms. Epics by their nature support cultural ideals. Cynicism, an undercurrent to democratic debate, undermines whatever the reason forbeing of an epic. That's why the only epics that are reveared in contemporary literature is within the fantasy genre. Fantasy literature establishes a fictional homeland, not one rooted in reality.

----------


## JBI

StLukes, the concept of the artist speaking for the artist is a rather new one. In English it seems to stem from Wordsworth, especially in the epic style, which set himself as the hero of the Prelude. Homer did not even name himself in his work, and it doesn't detail anything in his life, or really anything rooted in truth. 

In actuality, epic writers all the way to Milton seem to be calling on divine inspiration to bring these works into existence. As seen here;

Sing, O goddess, the rage of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans.
Homer, Iliad, Book1, Line 1-2 Samuel Butler translation.

O Muse! the causes and the crimes relate;
What goddess was provok'd, and whence her hate;
For what offense the Queen of Heav'n began
Virgil, the Aeneid, John Dryden translation, book 1, Lines 11-13

Of course, invoking the muse needed to rest here, since muses are not part of every tradition, but look closely at how Beowulf opens

LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won! hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

The text there doesn't even consider the poet from the beginning, it goes straight to say that he is praising the prowess of the Great Spear-Danes, the poet himself is unmentioned.

Dante is of course the exception, but his subject matter is hardly his own. The work is personal on many levels, but it is also speaking, not just of Dante, but of his whole culture. Pay mind to the frequent references to contemporary politics, contemporary thought, and contemporary tradition.


On the note of not just these figures seeming the associate writers of their time, that is a point. But think of it this way, there are always some writers who seem to stand out, and be labeled culture figures for their time.

In the whole Ancient Greek tradition no one in contemporary times (Plato and Sophocles were not contemporaries, keep in mind) had the same status. His popularity was so constant and important to the Greek tradition that people would memorize it as pass time. Plato went as far as to attack it in his republic because of this. Everyone knew Homer, and his popularity lasted well through antiquity, up until the publication really of Virgil in Rome, as the supreme epic poet.

Virgil comes second, and seems to destroy the epic scene. There were roman epics written before him, yet none survive (which has been attributed to his overwhelming popularity over them). Virgil was the most read epic all the way through the middle ages, to the point where even Dante names him as his "master". Catullus hardly measures up the same way.

Of course, the hardest of these epics to defend is probably Beowulf, it coming from an oblique time period, and existing only in one MS. It is unclear (it seems to me) to determine how popular, or important it was to Anglo-Saxon society, but it is fair enough to say that it seems the definitive work of Anglo-Saxon literature. It existed for hundreds of years in oral form, which seems to indicate at least some cultural importance, in addition to the fact that it was popular enough for a scribe to actually write it, when so few Old English MS exist.

It seems that the point where we are most in disagreement is whether or not Dante should be considered the last major epic work, or Milton (most scholars I have encountered go with Milton). That I think we can leave for personal preference, since it's open to a wide debate, but as for Hiawatha being labeled a true epic, I think that's an impossible stretch. If you say anything written in a long saga-like way is epic, than you will find epics in everything.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> It isn't influence on culture but speaking for a culture. When people think Ancient Greek, they think Homer, When people think Roman, they think Virgil, when people think early Italian, they think Dante. The epic, in order to be true, must carry the heart of the time and location it is written in. By the Wiki definition, almost any book can be considered epic. You could apply their definition to any Tolkienian fantasy. You could apply it to almost any novel, pretty much, and have it classified as an epic.
> 
> I did not leave the Nieblungenlied out of my definition of an epic, I just didn't go into detail with it since I don't know enough about it. It is clearly a pre-Dante epic which classifies, but I would think Parzifal to be more of an epic of the time anyway.
> 
> The point is, if you look at it, any major poem seems to be somewhat epic in scale. A distinction is needed between a true epic, and an indistinct epic. To say that Brut and the Comedia are on the same scale is ridiculous. There is always going to be a distinction.


Well, of course, as Kafka's Crow and others are pointing out, the word "epic" can be used in a modern sense to refer to any long work with a grand design. The word also, however, refers to a specific genre of literature starting with Gilgamesh and Homer, which is clearly what we have been discussing for the most part here.

You are bringing up a very interesting question about genre in the above quote, but you are answering it too quickly. St. Luke's and others have given some thoughtful responses to the specifics of your claims, but I would like to urge you to think a little bit more about the method of your claims. You clearly are well read in many of the epic poems and have an active and intelligent mind that has been engaged with some of the big questions about epic. You may even have come to an interesting point when you identify one thing that defines an epic as a work that tries to speak for a the culture of a group or nation in a specific time, and I agree with your desire to draw a line in defining a specific genre of epic so that it doesn't just become any large poem (carried too far in that direction things become so vague that genre is no longer useful as a tool for discussion). I urge you, though, not to stop there. The thinkers who come up with the best answers are those who constantly question and re-question; search and search again (that's why we call it research  :Wink:  ). By settling on this one thing as the answer to a very complicated question about genre, you're not only opening yourself up easily to attack from the likes of St. Luke's ( :Tongue:  ), but, more importantly, you're depriving yourself of the chance to discover a more interesting and nuanced answer to the question of epic and genre. Ask yourself that big question again, but with an open mind as though it were the first time you had thought of it. Play devil's advocate and question your own conclusions. Think of other possible questions that both your initial question and your current hypothesis about broad cultural representation lead to. I suggest these things, not solely because they may help with the issue at hand, but because an approach along these lines will be both an asset and a joy to you in many facets of your life and your thinking. 

If the question of epic genre really is something of interest to you, then you may want to start (if you haven't already) by looking at some of the criticism written about the form. Here's a brief bibliography of some things written about epic. The first grouping are a few historical texts that address (indeed, created) questions of poetic genre including the genre of epic and the second grouping are some of the more influential critical works of the last century or so:

Aristotle's _Poetics_
Dante's _De vulgari eloquentia_ 
Tasso's _Discorsi dell'arte poetica_ (discourse on the art of poetry)
Sidney's _Defense of Poesy_

Bowra, C.M., _From Virgil to Milton_ (1945).
Giammatti, A. Bartlett, _The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic_ (1966).
Greene, Thomas M. The Descent from Heaven: A Study in Epic Continuity (1963). 
Ker, W.P._ Epic and Romance: Essays on Medieval Literature_ (1897).
Murrin, Michael, Allegorical Epic (1980). 
Tolkien, J.R.R. "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" (1936).
Quint, David,_ Epic and Empire_ (1993).

This is a far from exhaustive list, but may give you some food for thought if this is a subject you have an interest in. I especially recommend starting with the Aristotle if you don't know it already, since it is a foundational text for thinking about all kinds of poetry and genre. I hope you take my suggestions above in the friendly and constructive spirit in which they are offered.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> I've been dying to jump into this conversation, because i do agree the age of great epic literature pretty much ends with Milton. In this discussion my feelings are closer to JBI's than the others, although I disagree with JBI on several things he may have said throughout. But as far as great epic literature, I do believe it ends with Milton's Paradise Lost, and I'm not sure everyone (critics) know why. We can all specualte.
> 
> My specualtions include the following: With the rise democracies, and therefore an established dissenting voice to cultural ideals, it becomes impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms. Epics by their nature support cultural ideals. Cynicism, an undercurrent to democratic debate, undermines whatever the reason forbeing of an epic. That's why the only epics that are reveared in contemporary literature is within the fantasy genre. Fantasy literature establishes a fictional homeland, not one rooted in reality.





> Milton could be considered a Renaissance poet, but Paradise Lost comes after the end of English Renaissance. It is in the restoration that it first appears, and it alludes to those events, rather than Renaissance events. The central focus seems to be on Revolutionary events, rather than Renaissance ideals or humanism.


To return to the specifics of the discussion, I wanted to combine my thoughts on these two points. To begin with JBI's comment on the classification of Milton. Yes, certainly Milton's work was published in the Restoration period, and the political events of the civil war and the restoration are clearly important to keep in mind in order to generate the fullest possible interpretation of PL. At the same time, Milton was very deeply concerned with the renaissance humanist projects of resurrecting classical texts, imitating the style and rhetoric of the classics, and attempting to write an epic to rival the Aeneid. Certainly his intensely latinate style could easily be regarded as the culmination fo the humanist literary project. I referred to Milton as a Renaissance poet because this is how he is most commonly regarded (It's certainly expected that I'll cover Milton when teaching a Medieval/Renaissance survey course), but I do think it is more accurate to think of him as a transitional writer who is still deeply connected to the style and aesthetic characteristic of the Renaissance, but an inhabitant of the post-civil war era. 

It is because of the transitional quality of his work that I juxtoposed JBI's observation with Virgil's above. I think Virgil has a good point about fantasy being the modern realm for epic because of an unease about fixing certain kinds of cultural ideals about empire, nobility etc. in a real world place. Given Virgil's hypothesis about the rise of democracy, I wonder if we can make anything of the fact that what many regard as the last English epic, Paradise Lost, is written in the wake of Cromwell's republic? Could the political context also be one reason (certainly not the reason) for setting the epic in Paradise (which, like fantasy settings, is not a real place and nation) and for making it a work that makes every Christian a potential hero?

----------


## Virgil

> It is because of the transitional quality of his work that I juxtoposed JBI's observation with Virgil's above. I think Virgil has a good point about fantasy being the modern realm for epic because of an unease about fixing certain kinds of cultural ideals about empire, nobility etc. in a real world place. Given Virgil's hypothesis about the rise of democracy, I wonder if we can make anything of the fact that what many regard as the last English epic, Paradise Lost, is written in the wake of Cromwell's republic? Could the political context also be one reason (certainly not the reason) for setting the epic in Paradise (which, like fantasy settings, is not a real place and nation) and for making it a work that makes every Christian a potential hero?


Good point Petrarch, and perhaps that is one of the reasons people find Paradise Lost as an epic problematic. The real heros of Paradise Lost is actualy God or Jesus, who actually rides triumphantly in a chariot (kind of silly if you ask me). But the dislocation from real life terra firma to a metaphysical place allows Milton to avoid his present day political issues.

Edit: One more thing. I don't think Milton had thought it through as to why he picks this subject for an epic. That's just a hunch. How could he pick his present day, he was on the losing side of the war?

----------


## JBI

I don't think the epic is dead because of the rise of democracy, but because of the rise of further communications. Traditional epics for the most part in the west will never exist again, simply because someone with the capability to write something like that is most likely going to be literate, and thereby create a secondary epic. The secondary epic is pretty much dead, since no one has interest in it, and communications are removing regionalist thought. I can hardly think of any way to form an epic for the scope of the world exposed to the poet, and meanwhile retain the culture significance required.

----------


## Virgil

> The secondary epic is pretty much dead, since no one has interest in it, and communications are removing regionalist thought. I can hardly think of any way to form an epic for the scope of the world exposed to the poet, and meanwhile retain the culture significance required.


When Virgil wrote his epic, Rome was essentially the world and there was no regionalist thought. I don't see why it could not occur again, given the right conditions. It may be that at some point the entire world will be of one culture, or close enough. Actually mass communication is making that happen.

----------


## JBI

Yes, but cultural identities are being preserved rather than mixed into an ideal. Common trends right now are trying to keep ethnic diversification, it seems, especially amongst academic anthropological thought. You really need 1 set of core beliefs, or very few sets, to create an epic.

----------


## Virgil

> Yes, but cultural identities are being preserved rather than mixed into an ideal. Common trends right now are trying to keep ethnic diversification, it seems, especially amongst academic anthropological thought. You really need 1 set of core beliefs, or very few sets, to create an epic.


I essentially agree with that last sentence, but can't you envision a world, perhaps far into the future, with one essential core set of beliefs? I'm not saying it will happen, but it is in the realm of possibility, no?

----------


## mortalterror

I think thought has always been more diverse than Virgil or JBI make out in their comments above. The idea of a core belief system is essentially as mythical as Aeneas. People may talk about the unity and reason of the Ancient Greeks, but let's not forget that when we speak of the Ancient Greeks we are really talking about a diverse collection of city states spread over several generations and several hundred years. We lose sight of the fact that although Plato or Aristotle were advanced thinkers for any time, they were neck deep in superstition, violence, slavery, and ignorance. It's really a mistake to take the shining lights of an age for it's median and guiding star. The individuals themselves are often so much more complicated than the way history has preserved their memory. In addition to his scientific and mathematical genius, Newton was a big fan of Alchemy. The Alchemical side of Newton's character is probably a much better example of the trend in thought common to his time. I think that great men like Virgil, Dante, or Milton are not so much creatures of their age, so much as they are above it. These stand out men, are not so much men of their own time as much as they are men for all time.

When I think of the epic, I think of two things: poetry and length. If you are going to define the epic through morality and national identity, then you must include The Faerie Queene. But if you are defining it structurally, in the twelve book style, then you should exclude Dante.

Also, Jesus isn't the hero of Paradise Lost. Satan is.

----------


## Virgil

> When I think of the epic, I think of two things: poetry and length. If you are going to define the epic through morality and national identity, then you must include The Faerie Queene. But if you are defining it structurally, in the twelve book style, then you should exclude Dante.
> 
> Also, Jesus isn't the hero of Paradise Lost. Satan is.


I don't know about morality, but certainly national identity is a critical component to any epic. You'll just have to look it up. Even a modern day epic as Joyce's Ullyses the national identity of Ireland is the among the main themes.

As to Satan being the hero of Paridise Lost, well, we're just going to have to disagree. There is just no way possible that Milton intends Satan to be idealized. He is attractive and seductive, but that is the point. Anyway, that's for another thread.

----------


## JBI

First of all, Plato and Aristotle are in a different time period than Homer. Second of all, The Iliad is essentially about Arete, the Greek ideal. Everything in the story can be seen as an extension of that thought. Achilles' feud with Agamemnon is a dispute in Arete. If Agamemnon gives away his prize, he appears to be answering to not only the priest, but also Achilles. He solves the problem by taking Achilles' prize, and thereby not losing face, but causing Achilles to lose face.

The Odyssey seems to me to be an expansion on this. Penelope is seen to possess a high amount of Arete, because of her devotion and faithfulness. Odysseus because of his wit, the old man for helping him, and even his dog for recognizing him when all others could not.

The core beliefs of Rome are written in Virgil. The very purpose of the epic, I have heard argued, was to create a Roman epic, to rival the Greek one, since they beat the Greeks, and therefore could not go on praising them that way. To do this, Virgil links back to Troy, and says, though they beat them there, Rome, the seeds of Troy, won in the end. Aeneas is the Roman ideal in every way, and even possess the flaw of Rome, as seen when, as I previously have mentioned, he kills Turnus right at the end. His men show Greek idealism in the way they fight, his very birth links, not to the usual God, Zeus, but to Venus, the goddess of beauty, which is a very post-homer thought.

Sure the Fearie Queen could classify with these things, but it seems to me to have failed because of Spenser's death. It lacks coherent structure to really chronicle the time, though this does not make it a bad work, just simply not the same genre. The incoherent nature of the Faerie Queen, which seems to leap from one thing to another, without any real closure because of it's abrupt end, seems to disqualify it from the genre.

----------


## mortalterror

If you are looking for national unity, do not look for it in The Iliad. That is a story about an uneasy alliance of warring tribes. Don't take my word for it. Take Thucydides':

Before the Trojan war there is no indication of any common action in Hellas, nor indeed of the universal prevalence of the name; on the contrary, before the time of Hellen, son of Deucalion, no such appellation existed, but the country went by the names of the different tribes, in particular of the Pelasgian. It was not till Hellen and his sons grew strong in Phthiotis, and were invited as allies into the other cities, that one by one they gradually acquired from the connection the name of Hellenes; though a long time elapsed before that name could fasten itself upon all. The best proof of this is furnished by Homer. Born long after the Trojan War, he nowhere calls all of them by that name, nor indeed any of them except the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes: in his poems they are called Danaans, Argives, and Achaeans. He does not even use the term barbarian, probably because the Hellenes had not yet been marked off from the rest of the world by one distinctive appellation. - The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chapter 1, Richard Crawley translation, http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/p...r.1.first.html

As for The Faerie Queene not being complete at it's author's death, The Aeneid ends with Turnus' execution only because Virgil died before completing his poem. He asked his friends to throw it into the fire because it wasn't finished and he didn't want people to see it that way. There's a very thorough analysis of the ending here if you'd like to read it.

----------


## Virgil

I never said national unity. I said *national identity*.

----------


## JBI

What Virgil said. And though the Aeneid was never finished, it still is coherent, and has a consistent plot. The Faerie queen does not.

And, it is not as if that essay you linked to is the definitive work on the subject. I don't think he even comes to a conclusion about the ending in his essay, since it seems to end more abruptly than the Aeneid does.

----------


## mortalterror

Unity or identity, The Iliad is not nationalistic. You have to wait for The Aeneid to get that sort of thing. The alliance of various tribes in the Iliad resembles The Axis and Allied forces in WW2, The Crusaders, or NATO more than two nations at war. There is a common purpose or goal without a common identity. The Argives for the most part lead the invasion force, but they do not rule the other Greeks. I think this is demonstrated pretty readily by the way Achilles stands up to Agamemnon, denies him his men, and refuses to fight.

After the fall of Troy, the individual groups split up and go back to their respective homes. Then they renew old grudges and make war upon each other. The concept of national identity is something that really has to be worked out after the fact, the way Virgil did, writing centuries after his country's unification. One has to remember that Italy proper, as it stands today wasn't unified in Dante's own time. Instead, Dante's world was a series of warring city states, frequently subjugated by foreign powers; so he enobles Florence and looks back to a time of Empire when the Roman's ruled everything. He sees himself as Roman or Florentine, not Italian. As for Homer, it's hard to write with a national identity when you don't have a nation yet. Greece doesn't become homogeneous until Alexander the Great finishes conquering it in 336 BC.

----------


## JBI

We aren't concerned with the unity of the tribes, but are more concerned with Arete. Look it up if you don't know what it means. The Iliad is not about the Greek victory over troy, it is about a fight that Achilles had with Agamemnon during the 9th year of the war.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Looks like there's an interesting exchange going on here. Certainly the celebration of a certain culture or nation is an important element of epic, but it is a much more complex topic than it seems at first glance. Mortal Terror brings up a good point in saying both that culture is never as monolithic and defined as a simple look at history might indicate, and that it would be hard to have a national epic before having nations. On the other hand JBI, is certainly right that epics seek to celebrate some sort of unified values, and often these are tied to the cultural group the hero comes from. 




> We aren't concerned with the unity of the tribes, but are more concerned with Arete. Look it up if you don't know what it means. The Iliad is not about the Greek victory over troy, it is about a fight that Achilles had with Agamemnon during the 9th year of the war.


Doesn't this blend the two views you and Mortal Terror have been presenting? At the same time as Arete is a term specific to a certain culture and time, doesn't it also point to a larger and more universal ideal? We could say that Homer celebrates Greek Arete, that Virgil celebrates Roman Virtu, that Dante and Milton celebrate Christian Virtue. Though all of these terms--Arete, Virtu, Virtue--have different valances of meaning specific to their historical and cultural setting, they also all have something in common in that they are to describe man striving for an ideal. Though they start in different places, one could say that this ideal reaches a common place and speaks in common, not to just one culture but to many. 

Perhaps we might think of this further in terms of the last part of your comment, in which you point out that the Illiad is not really about the campaign of the Greeks in Troy, but about a quarrel between two men. This suggests that the focus of the work is not concerned as much with a nation as with a set of individuals. This in turn has the power to move the poem to the level at which it speaks, not just to people who identify with being a member of the Greek army, but to people who identify with ever having had a quarrel with a friend or being at the point of exhaustion after a long fight.

----------


## Proust71

My, I had no idea that my thoughts of epic poetry's modern absence would cause such an epic discussion. I am a mortal amongst gods here. Haha.

----------


## JBI

No, the fight always links to Arete. Agamemnon doesn't wish to appear as someone who is yielding (to in this case Achilles, since he is the only one who told him to return the girl to her father, and appease Apollo). Because of this, he takes Briseis, Achilles' prize, as a means of retaining his Arete, and therefore not seeming weak in front of his men. Achilles therefore is offended and withdraws from the fight, to which Agamemnon says essentially, "We don't need you, go, stay in your tent." But this is not enough, Achilles needs to be wanted, he begs his mother, who begs Zeus, to make the Trojans win the conflict, now that it has commenced again. In this way, Achilles becomes needed, and is eventually honored more than any fighter, after his feuds with Hector, a man who also possesses a great deal of Arete.

Even the armor seems to reflect these ideals. After Patroklus is slain, Hector dawns Achilles' armor, which he removed from the corpse. Within the next seen we see a transformation in Hector, to the point where he actually manages to scare his own son. The armor seems to echo his accomplishments, and his perceived Arete.

This leads Achilles to petition his mother to have Hephaestus forge him a new set, in which Homer goes to extraordinary length in describing, especially the shield. This is the same set that later Ajax would fight over, and eventually kill himself over.

The whole story is not even about a fight, as much as it is about the perceived image of Arete. All actions in the plot stem from a desire to gain a higher spot on the Arete metre, amongst the soldiers.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

O.K., let's say that we're interpreting the Iliad in terms of Arete as you suggest. Why does this interpretation mean that epic, as you've been claiming, functions _solely_ as a means of speaking for a particular culture? To be completely clear, I am not trying to claim that the work is not profoundly involved in speaking for the culture it sprang from or in celebrating ideals in a way that is particular to a certain culture and time. I doubt most people would deny that this is a feature of most epic literature. I am trying to suggest some additional modes of interpretation which highlight other, equally important features of the epic genre. In my comment above I was not trying to suggest that Arete is not an important theme throughout the poem; I was trying to suggest that the concept of Arete itself takes the story to a more universal level that in many places transcends the culture it is specific to.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> My, I had no idea that my thoughts of epic poetry's modern absence would cause such an epic discussion. I am a mortal amongst gods here. Haha.


Well, epic is an endlessly fascinating subject (then, as a Medieval/Renaissance scholar perhaps I'm just a tad prejudice in that regard  :Tongue:  ). A mortal? Nay, we have a nice seat set by for you here on Olympus.  :Biggrin:

----------


## mortalterror

JBI, I see what you are saying here about arete, but I think you are using arete and the concept of kleos interchangeably. Arete, as I understand it has several meanings, 1)Goodness or Excellence, 2)Self-Actualization, 3)Virtue, 4)as a type of code, like chivalry requiring deeds or a quest component. Kleos would be the Greek equivalent of glory, and everlasting fame. While I believe that many epic heroes strive for an ideal, to become the best that they can be, that they embody certain virtues and often compete in feats of strength; I also believe that Agamemnon and Achilles clash over their kleos. Agamemnon has to give back his trophies so he takes Achilles' trophies. Agamemnon wants the kleos of leading the greatest force of all time. Achilles wants the kleos of being the greatest soldier of all time. There's also the fact that Agamemnon is a wealthy king and all Achilles has is his kleos, which he's already chosen to sacrifice his own life to attain. That's the conflict.

I also think it would be a mistake to leave hamartia (an error in judgement), hubris (excessive pride or arrogance, usually leading to ruin), and the tragic flaw out of a discussion of Greek epic. Our heroes are not perfected human beings. They have weaknesses. They make errors, and one can wonder if they ever achieve true Aristotelean arete.

While I agree that arete, and kleos are often components of the epic, I don't know that they are exclusive to the epic. If we are still trying to define the limits and boundaries of epic, we must look to other factors. I don't think that subject matter, or handling of a subject will do that. If we are to define a type of writing, I think it should be done from a structural point of view, and not necessarily with what concepts it incorporates. Subject matter is the stuff of genre, but I'm not sure that epic isn't more a series of techniques, or a form. Romance novels, and sci-fi novels are still novels, but there are differences between a three act play, a five act play, and a one act play. Very specific things are meant by the term sonnet, as opposed to a lyric. Then you have well defined variations between Petrarchan, Shakespearean, and Spenserian sonnets. Set descriptions of length, rhyme scheme, and meter dominate the definition in these cases.

----------


## bluevictim

> My, I had no idea that my thoughts of epic poetry's modern absence would cause such an epic discussion. I am a mortal amongst gods here. Haha.


As a fellow mortal, I'll venture some of my thoughts, as well.





> I think Virgil has a good point about fantasy being the modern realm for epic because of an unease about fixing certain kinds of cultural ideals about empire, nobility etc. in a real world place. Given Virgil's hypothesis about the rise of democracy, I wonder if we can make anything of the fact that what many regard as the last English epic, Paradise Lost, is written in the wake of Cromwell's republic? Could the political context also be one reason (certainly not the reason) for setting the epic in Paradise (which, like fantasy settings, is not a real place and nation) and for making it a work that makes every Christian a potential hero?


There are two points here that I'd like to address. First, I'm not convinced that (as Virgil put it) it is "impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms" because "cynicism ... undermines whatever the reason for being of an epic." Second, I think fantasy and science fiction lack a very important element of epic poetry -- its nonfictional aspect.

As to the first point, I think there are plenty of national / cultural norms in American (just to use a specific example) society that an epic can draw from. Not only that, there are plenty of national heroic tales that can be made into an American epic. There is no shortage of heroic stories of the exploration of America, the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War, the Wild West, the World Wars, or the space race which capture many important cultural ideals of Americans that cynicism has done little to weaken. This is evidenced by the success of many movies about these tales, like _Jeremiah Johnson_, _Tombstone_, or _The Right Stuff_. More evidence of the existence and strength of cultural norms can be found in political rhetoric, but that's off limits for discussion here.

My second point is related to the first -- I think it's important to keep in mind the nonfictional aspect of epic poetry. In other words, fantasy is a poor choice (in my opinion) as a modern realm for epic. I don't think the story of Adam and Eve was any less real to Milton than the Trojan War was to Homer. Epic poetry is not escapist literature, and it does not work as a product of an individual with an exceptional mind (in my opinion). Maybe my point here is related to JBI's insistence on cultural relevance (although I'm not very clear on what he is trying to say). I think it is important that Homer's gods and heroes fit into, and participate in, the existing world of gods and heroes as his audience understood it, and that Milton's Satan, Adam, Eve, God the Father, and God the Son are to be identified with the Satan, Adam, etc. of his audience's belief. I do not mean to say that imagination and invention are not crucial elements of epic poetry, but I do think that it would lose a great deal of its power if it were independent of its larger cultural context.


I do agree with this sentiment:


> People are always going to have need of epic stories. They crave having common tales to tell and refer to, heroes to look up to, and some sort of larger narrative that celebrates the virtues and beliefs of their age.


As I said, I don't think fantasy fulfills these needs. A little closer to the spirit of epic (in my opinion) are popular history books, especially now that many authors are giving up the pretense of objectivity, or the kind of movie I mentioned above.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> There are two points here that I'd like to address. First, I'm not convinced that (as Virgil put it) it is "impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms" because "cynicism ... undermines whatever the reason for being of an epic." Second, I think fantasy and science fiction lack a very important element of epic poetry -- its nonfictional aspect.
> 
> As to the first point, I think there are plenty of national / cultural norms in American (just to use a specific example) society that an epic can draw from. Not only that, there are plenty of national heroic tales that can be made into an American epic. There is no shortage of heroic stories of the exploration of America, the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War, the Wild West, the World Wars, or the space race which capture many important cultural ideals of Americans that cynicism has done little to weaken. This is evidenced by the success of many movies about these tales, like Jeremiah Johnson, Tombstone, or The Right Stuff. More evidence of the existence and strength of cultural norms can be found in political rhetoric, but that's off limits for discussion here.


Glad to see you joining the discussion Blue. I agree with you that there are still plenty of national narratives around, and I also don't entirely agree with the comments on this thread that it's impossible to create something that celebrates national norms these days. I do still think that Virg. was possibly bringing up a good point in suggesting that democracy problematizes some traditional features of epic, most obviously the celebration of a noble class of warrior. American national stories like to base themselves on the premise of celebrating the "common man" (even when it is an uncommon man, we love to find common roots for him). This does mean a shift in the kind of epic stories that can be told and the way they will be told. I am, however, with you in that I see no reason why America couldn't have it's own kind of epic as well as anyone else. 

I also think people on this thread have been right to point out that, particularly within the last hundred years or so, there's also been a significant shift toward a more global culture, and that there is some sense that explicitly celebrating empire is not going to fly. I find this aspect of our current age very interesting and exciting in terms of the type of epic stories it could potentially produce. Perhaps, though, we should say that this is simply a new additional factor in our current age, and not one that necessarily obliterates the possibility of a work that identifies with one particular nation or culture. 




> My second point is related to the first -- I think it's important to keep in mind the nonfictional aspect of epic poetry. In other words, fantasy is a poor choice (in my opinion) as a modern realm for epic. I don't think the story of Adam and Eve was any less real to Milton than the Trojan War was to Homer. Epic poetry is not escapist literature, and it does not work as a product of an individual with an exceptional mind (in my opinion). Maybe my point here is related to JBI's insistence on cultural relevance (although I'm not very clear on what he is trying to say). I think it is important that Homer's gods and heroes fit into, and participate in, the existing world of gods and heroes as his audience understood it, and that Milton's Satan, Adam, Eve, God the Father, and God the Son are to be identified with the Satan, Adam, etc. of his audience's belief. I do not mean to say that imagination and invention are not crucial elements of epic poetry, but I do think that it would lose a great deal of its power if it were independent of its larger cultural context.
> 
> 
> I do agree with this sentiment:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love View Post
> People are always going to have need of epic stories. They crave having common tales to tell and refer to, heroes to look up to, and some sort of larger narrative that celebrates the virtues and beliefs of their age.
> As I said, I don't think fantasy fulfills these needs. A little closer to the spirit of epic (in my opinion) are popular history books, especially now that many authors are giving up the pretense of objectivity, or the kind of movie I mentioned above.


With this second point, I can only partially agree. First, I do think that you're pointing to something important by saying that epic literature is usually rooted in fact in some essential way. I think you're absolutely right that there is supposed to be a level on which the audience feels that they are being tied to a true story of their culture or religion. (Also, lest one of my previous comments be misconstrued, I did not intend to suggest that Milton intended the story of Paradise Lost to be a fantasy, merely that his approach to telling the story has some features in common with a fantasy tradition--more on this below). So, you bring up a good point, but to suggest that history books (even popular and well written ones) could function as epic is to miss the profound importance of both fiction and elements of the fantastical that are intrinsic to the epic tradition. If popular history could replace the function of epic, then we could all throw out our Virgil and read Livy instead. 

Your comments about non-fiction in epic do seem to helpfully open up a possibly productive way of discussing some of JBI's concern about cultural relevance. The element of fantasy also points to a generic distinction between what one might call "straight" epic and the genre of epic romance, which in turn helps to explain where the Faerie Queene belongs in all this, as well as the reasons fantasy may not be an entirely unexpected inheritor of epic tradition. I'm a bit wary of overburdening this thread with a detailed exploration of all this, since some may be uninterested and others already knowledgeable, so I think I'll do a blog entry on a brief history of epic fantasy and epic versus romance, and just link it here for any interested parties. 

Edit: Here's a link to my blog on the subject: http://www.online-literature.com/for...941&entry=5247 I ended up just scratching the surface of the start of the epic/fantasy connection with regard to Homer, but if there's interest I may continue it up through the development of romance etc. Anyway, the entry may contain some thoughts of interest to this discussion.

----------


## Virgil

> There are two points here that I'd like to address. First, I'm not convinced that (as Virgil put it) it is "impossible to create an epic that glorifies national norms" because "cynicism ... undermines whatever the reason for being of an epic." ...As to the first point, I think there are plenty of national / cultural norms in American (just to use a specific example) society that an epic can draw from. Not only that, there are plenty of national heroic tales that can be made into an American epic.


Agreed. I didn't say that cynacism was the only reason for the decline of the epic. There are other major reasons I think as well.

First of all, the enlightenment movement, post Milton, where science becomes the over riding conceptual framework of society. With science we end mythologizing (so that even religion has to work within the science framework or be scoffed at), and mythologizing framework provides author with a touchstone for grandising heros. Science has made all people human, and so Achilles is imposibble and Aeneas and Beowulf unlikely. And their exploits as well. Related to this is the obvious fact that man is quite limited in scope to the cosmic forces, and therefore has a smaller and smaller scale. 

Second, whatever caused literature to evolve further and further into realism, (perhaps because of that first point I just made) undermined the epic tradition as well. Realism is about every day things, a de-mystifying of super human accomplishment. Heros of the past looked greater. In fact all the epics prior to Milton that I can think of all occured in a heoric past. Homer wrote in 7th century BC while the events occurred at least four hundred years earlier. Same with the Aeneid and also with Beowulf. Epic writers have traditionally removed the setting to a non-contemporary time. 

I think both of these points support the fact that fantasy lit is still the only viable medium for epic. Fantasy suspends or alters the rules of science and removes the story from a realism mode.

----------


## JBI

I don't think science really killed it. You look at epics such as The Lay of the Cid, which has essentially no magic, and you realize that magic isn't a requirement, but just a reoccurring thing amongst pre-enlightenment society. It is possible to have an epic based purely on semi-factual information, all of which being possible in our society. The only problem is the culture identity needs to believe this story as an epic, or critics down the road need to. 

I think if you compare the epic to the post-apocalyptic genre, you may see some of the effects science has had on imaginative literature. I think, had someone written an American epic about post-nuclear society during the cold war, it perhaps may have taken.

----------


## mortalterror

If there really is a shortage of good contemporary epic, I see this less as a democratic problem, a crisis of cynicism, or a difficulty in adapting realism to the epic so much as there's been a trend in serious literature toward internalization of conflict. The characters in a traditional epic tend to be men of action who externalize conflict, battling monsters and other heroes. These days, what passes for good writing is bloodless, ineffectual, effete males struggling with their souls. 

I didn't like The Odyssey when I read it but I got how other people would. The whole thing is like an action blockbuster of the ancient world with over the top fight sequences, and larger than life machismo, testosterone pumping, bragging, boxing, sword swinging demigods. That type of character really only gets used in pulp or genre fiction these days. I don't just mean fantasy and science fiction. I bemoan the fate of some of our nation's greatest heroes, destined to be passed around by hacks writing for a juvenile audience. Bat and the Man I Sing, anyone?

However, and I know I'm reversing myself here, I would be interested in reading an epic with a completely internalized conflict, just to see how it could be done.

I may be over stretching myself here, but since epyllia have already been mentioned, what does everybody think of mock epics?

----------


## Virgil

> If there really is a shortage of good contemporary epic, I see this less as a democratic problem, a crisis of cynicism, or a difficulty in adapting realism to the epic so much as there's been a trend in serious literature toward internalization of conflict. The characters in a traditional epic tend to be men of action who externalize conflict, battling monsters and other heroes. These days, what passes for good writing is bloodless, ineffectual, effete males struggling with their souls.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  Yes, actually I meant to add another factor and that is the increasing subjectivity limited to a character rather than a shared communal view. I think by limiting the scope of the work to the thoughts and feelings of a single character the rationale for an epic is also undermined.

----------


## JBI

I don't think I like your reading of the Odyssey. The travels of Odysseus are only 1/6 of the story. The real story seems just an extension of Homer's thoughts on Arete.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

> I don't think I like your reading of the Odyssey. The travels of Odysseus are only 1/6 of the story. The real story seems just an extension of Homer's thoughts on Arete.


I can only assume that this is in reference to my blog entry, which was intended, not as a comprehensive reading of the Odyssey, which does indeed include other elements in addition to the voyages (and even other elements in addition to Arete  :Wink:  ), but as a reading specifically about the elements of fantasy in Homer, which were in turn immensely influential on countless works of literature in the western tradition.

----------


## Virgil

> I can only assume that this is in reference to my blog entry, which was intended, not as a comprehensive reading of the Odyssey, which does indeed include other elements in addition to the voyages (and even other elements in addition to Arete  ), but as a reading specifically about the elements of fantasy in Homer, which were in turn immensely influential on countless works of literature in the western tradition.


Petrarch, I think he posted before you put out your blog. I thought he was referring to Mortalterror who had posted before me.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

Ah, well, if that's the case then I retract the above. I somehow missed that Mortal Terror referenced the Odyssey in that post and thought no one but me had referenced it on this thread. Did Mortal actually mean to say the Iliad, since that's the one with most of the over the top fight scenes? Regardless, this was a great observation, Mortal:



> These days, what passes for good writing is bloodless, ineffectual, effete males struggling with their souls.


I think it's time to bring back the epic! :Biggrin:

----------


## bluevictim

> I do still think that Virg. was possibly bringing up a good point in suggesting that democracy problematizes some traditional features of epic, most obviously the celebration of a noble class of warrior. American national stories like to base themselves on the premise of celebrating the "common man" (even when it is an uncommon man, we love to find common roots for him). This does mean a shift in the kind of epic stories that can be told and the way they will be told.


Absolutely. I guess I just kind of latched on to the suggestion that these differences are a significant hindrance to the creation of epics. Anyways, there are already established epics that do not celebrate the traditional noble class of warrior, like _Paradise Lost_ and the _Divine Comedy_.




> I also think people on this thread have been right to point out that, particularly within the last hundred years or so, there's also been a significant shift toward a more global culture, and that there is some sense that explicitly celebrating empire is not going to fly. I find this aspect of our current age very interesting and exciting in terms of the type of epic stories it could potentially produce. Perhaps, though, we should say that this is simply a new additional factor in our current age, and not one that necessarily obliterates the possibility of a work that identifies with one particular nation or culture.


Indeed, I agree that an epic celebrating empire these days would not be very popular, but I don't see celebration of empire as a very essential feature even of traditional epics. For example, I don't think the Homeric epics celebrate empire. I don't know that the shift toward a global culture is all that significant; it seems to me that nationalism is very strong today all around the world.





> So, you bring up a good point, but to suggest that history books (even popular and well written ones) could function as epic is to miss the profound importance of both fiction and elements of the fantastical that are intrinsic to the epic tradition. If popular history could replace the function of epic, then we could all throw out our Virgil and read Livy instead.


Hopefully it was duly noted that, when I claim popular history books are "a little closer to the spirit of epic" than fantasy and at the same time say that fantasy is a poor substitute for epic, it consequently means that I don't think popular history books are a good substitute for epic poetry, either. Of course we shouldn't throw out Virgil and read Livy instead, but neither should we throw out Virgil for Heliodorus.

Actually, some works of art today that I think come even closer to serving the function of epics are movies like _The Right Stuff_. It portrays larger than life national heroes who embody many of the characteristics that Americans admire (with enough artistic license to make the point) in a national story that is a source of pride for America, set in something of a golden age of American unity and prosperity. There are even other-worldly (literally) scenes that function somewhat like the fantastic elements of an epic.

----------


## JBI

The Lay of the Cid seems to break all of what you have said about the required (fantastical elements). To me, the only thing constant is the concept of Arete, in one form or another. History cannot be read as an epic, because people historically don't possess Arete. It is an ideal which cannot be completely met.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

In his _A Preface to Paradise Lost_ C S Lewis divides the epic tradition in two sub-traditions:

_a_) Primary or Homeric epic
_b_) Secondary or Virgilian epic

Primary epic deals with the universal whereas secondary epic deals with national themes. He puts Milton's poem in the first category.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195...pt#reader-link

----------


## JBI

Strange. Primary, as I seem to remember it being called, was meant to define it as stemming from the oral tradition, and therefore containing formula, and reoccurring phrases, as well as an unpolished sound, because of the repetitiveness of certain things.

Beowulf, The Lay of the Cid, Homer's Epics, and the Song of Roland seem to fall in this category, by this definition.

Secondary as I seem to remember it being called, was meant to define the property of it being written, and therefore not entirely contained within the composer/reciter's memory. Because of this, there is more freedom, and less reliance on formula, and other memory-trigger techniques.

This is at least what I remember reading in a series of criticism on the epic form. I guess though that Lewis' criticism is stemming from a period of interest in Jungian criticism, and therefore he is trying to create a form of archetypal, structuralist code for epic, based on his views. Still, even with this, I can't help but think his religious views may have decided to include Milton in primary, rather than secondary, according to his definition. To me Milton seems far more Virgilian, I being an atheist Jew.

----------


## Virgil

No you're correct JBI. Those are the definitions of primary and secondary epics as I understand it.

----------


## NickAdams

Where would you place John Gardner's Jason and Medeia?

----------


## JBI

I haven't read it, but I wouldn't place it as an epic, but assuming it is like Grendel, a form of criticism on an Epic, the epic being Argonautica.

----------


## Virgil

> Where would you place John Gardner's Jason and Medeia?


I didn't know about that, nor obviously have I read it. You know he also wrote _Grendel_, a remake of Beowulf from the point of view of Grendel.

----------


## NickAdams

> I haven't read it, but I wouldn't place it as an epic, but assuming it is like Grendel, a form of criticism on an Epic, the epic being Argonautica.


It's another retelling, but in verse.

What do you think about The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel by Nikos Kazantzakis?




> I didn't know about that, nor obviously have I read it. You know he also wrote _Grendel_, a remake of Beowulf from the point of view of Grendel.


Grendel is on my list of things to read, but I want to read _Beowulf_ first. I hope to finish _The Aeneid_ soon, then it's on to _Gilgamesh_. I will follow it with _Beowulf_. I want to read as many epics as possible.

----------


## Kafka's Crow

> It's another retelling, but in verse.
> 
> What do you think about The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel by Nikos Kazantzakis?
> 
> 
> 
> Grendel is on my list of things to read, but *I want to read Beowulf first. I hope to finish The Aeneid soon, then it's on to Gilgamesh. I will follow it with Beowulf.* I want to read as many epics as possible.


_Gilgamesh_ is excellent. Short and witty with some wonderful and memorable passages. You will never realise the old age of the poem. It is just so very human and natural. Even gods are very very human. I think humanism is also one of the major ingredients of epic poems. Our age is not exactly a humanistic age as our priorities lie elsewhere, not with the unmeasurable worth of a human being. We have lost the ability to appreciate the unquantifiable. 

I was taught _Beowulf_ from the point of view of the outsider or the monster. Try to get hold of Seamus Heaney's translation:
http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-Illust...9743427&sr=8-3

----------


## JBI

The bilingual edition of Heaney's is much better.

----------


## mortalterror

> _Gilgamesh_ is excellent. Short and witty with some wonderful and memorable passages. You will never realise the old age of the poem. It is just so very human and natural. Even gods are very very human. I think humanism is also one of the major ingredients of epic poems. Our age is not exactly a humanistic age as our priorities lie elsewhere, not with the unmeasurable worth of a human being. We have lost the ability to appreciate the unquantifiable. 
> 
> I was taught _Beowulf_ from the point of view of the outsider or the monster. Try to get hold of Seamus Heaney's translation:
> http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-Illust...9743427&sr=8-3


I read Gilgamesh in January. I don't remember the humanism you're talking about. Maybe I'm just defining humanism more narrowly though. You are right about the work being short and sweet. It's very efficient, tells it's story and doesn't overstay it's welcome. Lots of nice action.

As far as empathizing with the monster, that works for John Gardner's Grendel (which I loved), but there are actually three antagonists in Beowulf, with only one protagonist. It might help not to get too attached to any one of them, because they don't have nearly the same number of lines as the principle character. They sort of come and go amid a lot of boasting and giving of rings.

----------


## JBI

Beowulf should not be poked at from the monsters anyway. The whole thing needs to be read in context of Beowulf. The Christian allusions and references are probably the most important aspect. as a poem, it functions as a telling of what passed in the transition from pagan to Christian life. Beowulf's death is a symbolic destruction of the old good, and a Christ like transition into the unknown, terrible, where all that once was is overthrown by the opposing threats. It is rather a sad a grim tale, with the ending being the saddest part of all.

----------

