This essay deals with the analysis of marginal characters in Medieval literature. The research covers various marginal characters that can be met in such Medieval works as Beowulf, The Dream of the Road, Havelock the Dane, Bisclavret (The Werewolf), Lanval, and some others. The main emphasis is put on revealing their role in a wider fabric of the literary structure. Moreover, the current essay provides some insight into the issue of marginal characters’ conceptual role in literature in general. Unfortunately, this issue was often neglected in literary science for marginal characters are an inherent component of every well-structured novel.
The role of marginal characters in literature was often underestimated both by critiques and readers. The former claimed marginal characters are the byproduct of literary work since its fabric and structure are totally based on the plot organized around main protagonists in whom an author puts all his intentions and talent. Their deeds and inner world, psychological tensions, struggle, and feelings are manifestations of the author’s greater idea and imprint of the real world encircled by a beautiful façade of literary work. Marginal characters hence as the majority of critics suggest are not worthy of being noticed by readers at all and are not interesting as an object of literary analysis. Just think how little research was conducted on the issue of marginal characters.
The current essay proposes a certain approach proceeding from the assumption that in such a complex and intact system as literary work there are no trifles or unimportant elements. To better understand the novel’s purpose and greater idea one should analyze its structural elements and the way in which they are connected and integrated by the author. Marginal characters thus may be claimed to play a crucial role in literary work and in the first place – of its conceptual realization. First of all, they play a formal or technical role. It means that a writer can use them as connectives of literary work’s meanings, episodes, and wider elements of work. They may be used as passages and bridges between main characters and smooth out the narration. Besides this using the approach of Russian formalist literary school (OPOYAZ) represented by such authors as Schklovsky and Jacobson it is important to note that marginal characters are one of the main elements of ‘literary delay’, that is temporary deviation of narration from main work’s theme, psychological tensions and relations between main characters. The ‘literary delay’ is often used to build into something important to a literary work by introducing marginal characters. It is sometimes technically impossible or inappropriate to realize some structural elements of a novel by putting ‘expressive material’ in the mouths of the main characters.
Hence marginal characters are used here to bridge this structural gap. Marginal characters as an inseparable part of literary work are not static and external to its elements. This is particularly true of really good stylists among writers such as Flaubert, Tolstoy among others. Marginal characters enter into a dynamic relationship with other characters and often play the role of their interpreters and ‘doubles’. This is especially true if we consider Bakhtin’s dialogical theory in which literary inner communication between characters is premised on multivoicedness of narration, namely its intense dependence on Other (Bakhtin, 1984). Consider Dostoevsky’s famous novel Karamazov Brothers and you will understand an important role marginal characters can play. Hence our analysis shows that in contrast to the simplistic reductionism of literary work marginal characters are quite important both writing and reading it.
The first marginal character to analyze is Unferth from Beowulf. Those critics that decided that Unferth was an evil plotter and troublemaker will be obliged to regard the poet’s application to him of the complimentary phrase eafopes crœftig ‘mighty in strength’ in line 1466 as a deliberate bit of scathing irony rather than as praise. If Unferth then is said to be mighty in strength, it is because he is a warrior and that is what warriors are, generically. Even though Unferth’s lack of courage in confronting monsters is being described at this point, the epithet contains a form of permanent truth. Although such language may have grown out of the incessant demands for fillers in metrical situations, even though such fillers might be inexact and not finely tuned to context, it serves in the event to preserve stability and decorum (Renoir, 1962).
Everything tends to become binary or polarized in the heroic world. A warrior you meet must become either your friend or your foe. Neutrality, ambivalence, or indifference seems not to be possible. Thus here, if Beowulf does not go on actually to fight Unferth (he has already fought him verbally in the formal and ludic flyting), he must – and does – befriend him. The phrase in question then makes a little more understandable Beowulf’s generous and comradely attitude toward the Danish warrior (Wright, 1-11).
There is of course the quite important difference that, unlike these unfortunates, Unferth does not stay around in the hall long enough to be killed by Grendel. But seeing him as one of these boasters over the ale-cup would explain later references to Unferth as a braggart. We should remember that we do not ever hear Unferth bragging, though the poet tells us (499-505) that Unferth dislikes hearing any warrior praised as being any better than he is an attitude consistent with being a braggart. But his only speech, the challenge to Beowulf, is no brag. There Unferth makes the charge that it is Beowulf who is an empty braggart with a low heroic credit rating, whereas Breca, Beowulf’s competitor in the swimming race, is not. (Whitelock, 270-76).
Later, when Unferth gives the sword Hrunting to Beowulf to use in the mere-fight, the poet tells us that the Dane does not remember what he had said when he was drunk (1465-68a). What must be referred to here is not the occasion of his attack on Beowulf which we witnessed but some boast we never actually heard, since the poet’s remark is immediately followed by the statement that Unferth himself did not dare to risk his own life in the mere. This is not a very distinctive failure. Neither did any other Dane. In this, Unferth once again seems merely representative. But only if he had been a conspicuous braggart in the past would his behavior now be considered reprehensible or even noteworthy. (Donahue, 55-116).
These examples prove our assumptions concerning marginal characters. The role of Unferth as a passage link between main characters is exemplified by his central role in motivating plot development. The poet sees Unferth as Representative Dane. It should be noted to any threats from within (she has been reminding them of those) or from without. Even the doomed Æschere is oddly described as beorscealca sum (1240) ‘an important beer-warrior’. Only the general atmosphere of drinking seems to account for this compound. Taking into consideration all these facets of Unferth’s character it may be claimed that his introduction significantly widens the scope of expressive means and literary images presented in this poem.
The place of Wealtheow introduction to the poem (612 line) shows that she evidently would play a marginal role in this literary work. Notwithstanding the fact that she is a queen of Danes and the mother of Hredric and Hrodmund (prince) her place in the poem can be described by possible translation of her name – ‘foreign slave’.
Wealtheow plays quite the marginal role of a hostess in this poem. But notwithstanding this fact, this character is often utilized as a motivation key and passage link for the poem’s plot. For instance, she gives a speech in which she recompenses Beowulf for killing Grendel with horses. She is sometimes at the brink between marginal characters and protagonists. Consider an episode when she fails to prevent the killing of her sons by Hrodhulf which results in his usurpation of power. Her character is often used to reveal others’ powers and strength in the struggle for power and hence in most cases she is a passive object.
These techniques automatically position Wealtheow at the center of the poem plot and make her character crucial for the poem’s constitutional components’ integrity. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Wealtheow resembles much a goddess of Norse mythology Valkyries. Using these metaphors the usage of religious and mythical meaning is realized at the level of character description. Wealtheow represents a typical Anglo-Saxon woman, serving drinks in the mead-hall, greeting guests, and being the overall peacekeeper. The author creates Wealtheow to embody the role of a traditional Anglo-Saxon woman, and he presents this role as the only appropriate one for Wealtheow to fulfill. When she is first introduced in the story, she immediately falls into the role of the peacekeeper and waitress of the warriors, as shown in the quote, “Wealtheow came forth, Hrothgar’s queen, mindful customs, gold-adorned, greeted the men in the hall; and the noblewoman offered the cup first to the keeper of the land of the East-Danes, bade him be glad at the beer-drinking, beloved of the people.” (35) As we see though her role is significantly limited it helps free literary space for description of dominant worldviews and traditions of the ‘dark ages’.
Notwithstanding the fact that the poem’s name is Havelock the Dane, it mainly centers around other characters. Consider for instance the fact that the poem begins in England under the reign of Athelwold which is described as just and legitimate stopped by Athelwold’s death and the absence of a successor. A lot of places are dedicated to his daughter Goldborow, Godrich – the Earl of Cornwall who was appointed as her regent. After the death of Athelwold Godrich betrays him and imprisons Goldborow in a remote tower.
Only later the poem’s plot shift to Denmark where another virtuous king named Birkabein dies leaving two daughters and his son Havelock which is only now introduced to the poem. Two daughters are killed by Godard, a brutal regent, and Havelock is handed to a fisherman Grim to be thrown into the sea. But Havelock recognizes the heir and saves him from death. As we see Havelock is presented as a marginal character in the course of the poem but it also may be realized that his role is immense. Following these starting lines, Grim flees with Havelock to Lincolnshire (Creamer, 2002, 259). There he and his wife raise Havelock as their own son. Havelock is described through the prism of Greem’s paternal attitude to him and still plays a secondary role in the poem. During the famine, Havelock is forced to leave his family and accidentally meets Goldborow with whom he falls in love and flees back to Grimsby. The transformation of marginal into principal begins with Havelock’s return to Denmark and his decision to reclaim the Danish kingdom. After the restoration of his power, he helps Goldborow do the same in England. As we see from these examples marginal characters can be made protagonists by the logical development of literary work.
Ubbe also draws considerable attention as a marginal character playing an important role in the plot. Ubbe was an influential Danish earl who helped Havelock overthrow Godard and reclaim the kingdom of his father and then with his help won a great battle against Earl Goodrich which made him a king of Britain. As Baldwin claims Ubbe follows Havelock at every step in the Danish kingdom and performs the role of medium between him and other people who help Havelock overthrow the brutal regent (1922). Being enamored by Havelock Earl takes him to a feast described in detail and sets guards around their house led by his faithful friend Bernard Brown. Hence Ubbe while being a marginal character plays an important role by linking a wide scope of additional characters with Havelock. Moreover being noble he may be described as a double of Havelock who gathers all honest people around him to achieve their common goal.
The next marginal character to describe is Werewolf. The contemporary beliefs were seen throughout the literature produced in the 16th century, e.g. The Lay of the Were-Wolf by Marie de France, a werewolf fairy tale. Creamer is of the opinion that “Love is never easy for Marie de France’s protagonists. All twelve of her lays feature a man and a woman in troubled love, and these amorous pairs are strained or destroyed by one or more of the intrusive elements: a lie, a deception, or an omission. In each text, the suffering of the couple yields reflection on how males and females comport themselves when entranced by love and faced with its obstacles.
According to Buckner Bisclavret is unique among Marie’s lays because it is the only one of the twelve that concerns itself with a couple falling out of love (Bruckner 258). Creamer further evaluates that “Scholarship on this text has traditionally focused on one of four areas: the etymology of the term Bisclavret; Marie’s appropriation of the werewolf topos; the human/werewolf duality of the baron; or the slow shift of the mantle of villainy away from the werewolf and onto the baron’s wife. The poet, in progressive and incremental ways, builds the wife into a contemptible traitor, a loathsome violator of the institution of marriage who is deserving of her punishment.”
Chevrefoil which is Marie de France’s famous poem tells about the love between Tristan and the wife of his uncle Iseult which was a widely used theme in medieval literature. Tristan was exiled by his uncle for his adultery forced to return to his native land in South Wales. Tristan had the possibility to see Iseult after the feast organized by his uncle as she and her faithful servant Brangaine meet Tristan in the forest. The character of Brangaine notwithstanding the fact of its marginality is very important for understanding the structural composition of this poem. Brangaine is a faithful handmaid and the confidant of Iseult. It can be easily claimed that she plays the role of the main catalyst of Tristan and Iseult romantic relations: Brangaine is entrusted with love potions that should be drunk by Iseult and her husband after the wedding, but mistakenly this potion is drunk by Tristan and then their passion begins; Brangaine also substitutes Iseult on the wedding night with King Mark. Kahedin, Tristan’s friend later after his exile to South Wales falls in love with Brangaine thus creating a new romance in the poem. So Brangaine is definitely playing an important role in narration linking different episodes and realizing functions of connective passing and the link between main characters.
In Ecclesiastical history of the English People, we meet Hengist and Horsa, two Saxons invited by Vortigern to serve him as mercenaries. These marginal characters if we consider the entire literary work may be described as marginal but notwithstanding this fact their function is well-articulated. Hengest’s daughter arrives with the forces of mercenaries to Britain and Vortigern falls in love with her, marries her, and gives Kent to Hengest. The influence of Hengest on Vortigern gradually increases and he invites new mercenaries who become rulers of different territories and lands. As this section of the story suggests ‘So Hengest gradually brought over more and more keels, until they left the islands † whence † they came uninhabited; and as his people grew in strength and numbers, they came to the aforesaid city of the Kentishmen’ ( H.B.38). Hengest and Horsa invite many warriors from Germany and then rebel against Vortigern since he refuses to pay them for their mercenary services. Hengest then becomes a king of Britain and rules until Arthur overthrows him. Considering the entire structure of Ecclesiastical history Hengist and Horsa are marginal characters but the abovementioned examples manifest their importance. Therefore, this analysis shows that the role of marginal characters can be reduced to mere ‘furniture’. Instead, they play an important role in every literary work.
References
Bakhtin, M. Mikhail. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Michigan Press, 1984.
Bede the Venerable. (1910). The Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
Baldwin, Charles Sears. An Introduction to English Medieval Literature. New York: Longmans Green, 1922.
Bruckner, Matilda Tomaryn. ‘Of Men and Beasts in Bisclavret’. Romanic Review 82-3 (1991): 251-69.
‘Gaimar Geffrei and Lestoire des Engles’. ed. and trans. Thomas Duffus Hardy and Charles Trice Martin. The Rolls Series, 91, 2 vols, London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1888-89), vol 2 pp. 1-26.
Hill, Thomas D. ‘Wealhtheow’ as a Foreign Slave: Some Continental Analogues.” Philological Quarterly 69.1 (1990): 106-12.
Renoir Alain. “Point of View and Design for Terror in Beowulf.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 63,1962.
Whitelock Dorothy. The Audience of Beowulf. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 270-76, 1951.
Wright Herbert G. “Good and Evil: Light and Darkness: Joy and Sorrow in Beowulf.” Review of English Studies, n.s. 8 (1957), 1-11.
Creamer, Paul. ‘Woman-Hating in Marie De France’s Bisclavret’. Columbia University The Romanic Review. Volume: 93. Issue: 3. 2002.