Characterization from Old English to the Renaissance

Old English – Beowulf

The characters in Beowulf seem to be an illustration of the basic societal

structure of the Germanic people portrayed; even though there are different

tribes, like the Danes and the Geats, their social code is the same, so we

can generalize this notion. These characters are then an embodiment of the

values of these nations’ values, and their objectives will always be based on

the interests of the nation, as prescribed by the code. There seems to be no

adaptation in their communication; their speech is the same with everyone

else, always very diplomatic, respectful and impersonal. Characters don’t

seem to evolve much, as one could expect from these kinds of parts which

are the foundational basis of a society.

So we can only clearly distinguish characters by the specific social parts

they perform, and how well they perform it. Their words and actions are

relevant to the extent that they go in one or another direction, that is, the

successful or unsuccessful accomplishment of these sorts of social

‘archetypes’, the expectations which come with their positions. So we will

always see the good or bad manifestations of King/Ring-giver and the

Warrior/Retainer as the primordial pillars, occupying positions of prime (and

quite equivalent) importance; secondarily comes the Queen, and around

them the mead hall and the common people.

There is however, a more basic distinction, which is to be or not bestowed

with God’s grace; Grendel finds himself outside of society because of the

fact that he, as all monsters, is a descendant of Cain, banned from God’s

creation and because of that will never be able to join society and is irritated

with their mirth. He is then utterly wicked and evil in his very spirit, with no
purpose of existing but to satisfy himself with the intentional and

unremorseful slaughter of men. He personifies what is outside man’s

dwelling.

A good king, such as Hrothgar or Hygelac, embodies the prosperity and

civilization he brings to his people; when young, he must perform glorious

deeds to attract dutiful retainers, and grow his band of warriors. He must

provide feasts and be munificent, distribute treasures and land; as well as

care for his people and be always wise in decision before great woes. A bad

king, such as Heremod is one who even though graced by the almighty God

with worthy table-companions (retainers) is unwise and proud, and ends up

becoming an enemy to himself, being covetous, ambitious and blood-thirsty,

kills his retainers instead of nourishing their respect for him. This way, a

king is bound to failure. Hrothgar warns Beowulf of the dangers of being like

this before parting ways.

A good retainer, such as Beowulf and Wiglaf, must always be dutiful to his

king, defend and even advise him in the time of need. He must always fulfill

his boasts, seek to accomplish glorious deeds in order to earn treasures,

become famous and be remembered. He must defend his kin to death, and

avenge them rather than mourn when they are slain by enemies. The

opposite case includes Unferth, Hrothgar’s retainer who taunts Beowulf and

boasts without accomplishing any deeds; also, he has dishonored his king

by slaying a close kinsman, his brother. Bad retainers are also the cowards

who do not stand up side by side with Beowulf in the end, the ‘battle-

dodgers’; Wiglaf tries to inspire them with a speech, saying that ‘death is

better for any earl than a life of blame’, but they do not respond, and after

the fight and Beowulf’s death their treasures and land rights are withdrawn,
for they no longer deserve the benefits since they do not put it to use in the

king’s greatest time of need.

Hygd and Wealhtheow are examples of good queens, embodying the

hospitality and warmth of the mead hall, also conceding gifts to the greatest

warriors. Queens seem to perform a part of secondary importance, as there

is no example in the text of an unsatisfactory queen.

I consider this to be the only line of distinction that can be drawn between

characters; that is, those who do perform well the social parts with which

they are charged, and promote the preservation of their society; and those

who are harmful to their social system to the extent that they do not

perform well their obligations as kings, retainers, queens, commoners, etc.

I believe this is evident from the fact that it is practically impossible to

distinguish the pairs Hrothgar and Hygelac, as well as Unferth and the

‘battle-dodgers’, or Beowulf and Wiglaf, or Hygd and Wealhtheow as very

different personalities. Rather, all characters are degrees of accomplishment

in strict possibilities in a relatively simple society.

Middle English – Canterbury Tales

During Chaucer’s time, the fourteenth century, several social changes were

happening; departing from a tripartite society divided in nobility, clergy and

commoners, the composition became much more complex, with many

groups and the ascension of a middle class. In this period, factors other than

birth started to be important in determining one’s position in society, such

as academic formation and profession, abilities and relationships. We can

find therefore a variety of social layers which relate to each other in

opposition, empathy, dispute for resources, etc.

This shapes the background to the characterization in Canterbury Tales:

each pilgrim character designates the general figure of a specific layer of

the society of the time, and their interaction within the narrative symbolizes

the various relationships. The fact that each consists of a social layer is clear

when he does not give names to the storytellers, preferring to let the Host

name them by their social status, function, or whatever makes them a

distinct social type, such as Knight, Miller, Pardoner, Friar, Wife of Bath.

This does not mean, however, that the characters are dull and generic;

Chaucer actually makes lively descriptions of clothing, character,

countenance, figure, manner of speech and even habits at the table as

distinguishing feats of each group. He makes the general be spoken through

meaningful specificities which give characters a highly entertaining quality

and profoundness. The Host proposes, in the beginning of the General

Prologue, lines 37-41:

It seems to me in accord with reason

To describe to you the state of every one

Of each of them, as it appeared to me,

And who they were, and what was their degree,

And even what clothes they were dressed in;

As an example of how specific he can be in the description without resorting

to social tasks of a group, there is the prioress, in lines 137-150:

At table her manners were well taught withall,

And never let morsels from her lips fall,

Nor dipped her fingers deep in sauce, but ate

With so much care the food upon her plate

That no drop could fall upon her breast.

In courtesy she had delight and zest.

Her upper lip was always wiped so clean

That on her cup no speck or spot was seen

Of grease, when she had drunk her draught of wine.

Graciously she reached for food to dine.

And certainly delighting in good sport,

She was very pleasant, amiable - in short.

She was in pains to imitate the cheer

Of courtliness, and stately manners here,

And would be held worthy of reverence.

But, to speak about her moral sense,

She was so charitable and solicitous

That she would weep if she but saw a mouse

Caught in a trap, whether it were dead or bled.

She had some little dogs, that she fed

On roasted flesh, or milk and fine white bread.

But sorely she wept if one of them were dead,

Or if men smote it with a stick to smart:

Then pity ruled her, and her tender heart.

His language can be pungent when criticizing a group, showing that the

work is not merely an aesthetically pleasing portrayal of his society, which

suffers from the maladies of the late fourteenth century; war, disease, and

the hypocrisy of the Church. The country parson in lines 503-508 of the

General Prologue:
For if the priest be foul, in whom we trust,

No wonder that a layman thinks of lust?

And shame it is, if priest take thought for keep,

A shitty shepherd, looking after clean sheep.

A truly good example a priest should give,

Is his own chastity, how his flock should live.

The General Prologue is made of great descriptions, which provide the

reader with an entertaining critical portrait of the society of the time. The

relationships between groups are explicit in the arguments and interruptions

presented throughout the work, such as the dispute between the Friar and

the summoner, by the end of the Wife of Bath’s prologue. Also, the tales

have influence on and are influenced by characters’ opinions as well as by

the disputes between them. For example, the Wife of Bath’s tale has as

prominent purpose the illustration of her point of view that wives wish the

control of their husbands, and the Miller’s tale, in which two young men

compete for the sexual love of a young and lascivious lady in slapstick

tones, seems like a parody of the Knight’s tale, in which two knights

compete for the romantic love of a damsel.

Renaissance – Shakespeare’s plays; Marlowe’s Faustus

In the sixteenth century in England we have a great turn from the religious

views of the world to secular views, fueled by the rediscovery and praise of

classical sources of values, ethics and styles; the Renaissance, which began

in Italy two centuries earlier. The main characteristic of the way of thinking

about arts, society and politics in this period is humanism; a conjunction of

values which take as central the human being rather than the divine,
valuing human achievements and potentials rather than theological

doctrines. The humanists revived and extended classical studies, generating

a sprawl of new ideas, and their diffusion was benefited by the expansion of

printing. Earthly life begins to be seen as not a transitory phase, but as

having significance in itself without relying on divine meanings. This

motivated a series of political and social changes, as well as in the arts.

Poetry attains a higher status, an educational function, as Sir Philip Sidney

argues in his Defense of Poesy.

There was also the Reformation; the Protestants challenged the view that

only through the Church the individual can find salvation. They separated

themselves from the Roman Church, and emphasized the individual’s

responsibility for his salvation, which must be found by reading and

interpreting the Bible for himself. Even though in England this movement

was not in accordance with the Puritans, individualism gains a new meaning

also in religion.

The center of attentions now is clearly the individual human being, and this

is reflected in the literature of the period; the characters are now deeply

individualized, and posses unique personalities and emotions. Their way of

communicating is adapted to each situation, external and internal to them.

Their actions are motivated by reasons centered in their own beings. Their

essence is revealed the by dialogues in situations of great conflict, in

soliloquies and in speaking aside with the audience, and an infinity of other

expressive resources used by the writer as well as by actors. This highly

emotive soliloquy by Hamlet in act I scene 5 is a good example:

Hamlet O all you host of heaven ! O earth! What else?

And shall I couple hell? O fie! Hold, hold, my heart!
And you, my sinews, grow not instant old,
But bear me stiffly up! Remember thee!
Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. Remember thee!
Yea, from the table of my memory
I’ll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past
That youth and observation copied there;
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain,
Unmix’d with baser matter: yes, by heaven!
O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!
My tables, — meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;
At least I’m sure it may be so in Denmark: [Writing]
So, uncle, there you are. Now to my word;
It is ‘Adieu, adieu! remember me.’
I have sworn ’t.

The richness of details on the personality of the characters may vary with

the genre; it is arguable that Tragedy provides the greatest spectrum for

this expression of individuality, while Comedy tends to present characters

which develop less throughout the plot; they might even not develop at all,

creating comical effect through exaggeration. Histories have a structure

similar to tragedy, and writers like Shakespeare will without hesitation make

alterations in the historical facts to create dramatic effect, to fit his

aesthetics.

Marlowe’s Faustus possesses the uneasy curiosity and imagination, the

desire to know more; he can be considered a symbol of the renaissance

opening of possibilities:

Faustus Thanks Mephastophilis, yet fain would I have a book

wherein I might behold all spells and incantations, that I
might raise up spirits when I please.
Mephastophilis Here they are in this book.
Faustus Now would I have a book where I might see all characters
and planets of the heavens, that I might know their motions
and dispositions.
Mephastophilis Here they are too.
Faustus Nay, let me have one book more, and then I have done,
wherein I might see all plants, herbs and trees that grow
upon the earth.
Mephastophilis Here they be.
Faustus O thou art deceived!
Mephastophilis Tut, I warrant thee.