Thursday, September 19, 2013

Persoun Beowulf


      This may seem like an unlikely juxtoposition and many will likely disagree, but I couldn't help but notice some similarities between the character of Beowulf and that of the Persoun in The Canterbury Tales. The Persoun, or parson, is clearly presented as a role model for his parishioners, or his “people” if you will. In the text, we see he is the epitome of one who practices what he preaches. He expects his “flock” to follow his lead, never asking them to act or live in a manner that he won't also. His moral code and spiritual expectations are reasonable and doable – how do we know? because he is a living example that they are. Figuratively speaking, he refuses to lead his flock into uncharted territory that he himself has not already trod. As Chaucer points out, rather than taking the easy road, like many of the more seasoned country parsons, he stays to tend to those in his parish. Unlike some of the other characters in this text, the parson clearly takes his role seriously and Chaucer makes it clear that he is not the type of clergy to slack off on his duties or take advantage of divergent opportunities like some other corrupt members of the Church. He is a leader. And what leader would expect his followers to adhere to a different set of rules or expectations than he himself does.


     This is where my argument for Beowulf and his comparable traits comes in. I know a few classes back, several of us debated what defines the duties and responsibilities of a king – a leader. There were many who felt that Beowulf had not acted within his role, rather he pridefully took it upon himself to fight the dragon when in reality he should have commissioned a warrior to take care of this “dirty work.” I want to argue that, like the parson in The Canterbury Tales, Beowulf was just being a good role model, which I feel is key to being a good leader. Instead of taking the easy way, remaining in safety and sending someone in his stead, Beowulf ventured first where many had not trod. Like the parson, he did his job and he did not enlist another to do what he did not want to do. As a king, Beowulf did not expect his people to go where he did not; he did not just send his minions off to take care of things he was responsible for (eg: the safety of his people). He put the safety of his people first (not his own) and sacrificed his own wants for the good of the people in his kingdom. He walked the walk. He demonstrated what it means to be a good leader: a front-runner one that puts those he is meant to care for over himself, which is exactly the type of leadership qualities the parson exemplifies too.

3 comments:

  1. That juxtaposition is perfectly justified! Both characters have a greater interest in the people than in themselves. However, I don't think that it's fitting to pair them together to justify Beowulf's own self-sacrifice.

    The parson is just a member of the clergy, one of many. He's a member of the faith, sure, but he's also expendable. Beowulf is a king, someone much less replaceable. If he dies, then the country falls to disarray unless there's an heir to replace him. Beowulf never gave his people the one thing that they really needed, and that, in my opinion, makes him all the more irresponsible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I admit, at first I was skeptical, but now you have my interest. I'm all for unusual comparisons and arguments that take risks. Bravely done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had an idea, after our discussion on the job of our king, that I never got around to sharing. If Beowulf hadn't fought the dragon, how many warriors (and commoners) would have died before it was destroyed? We can't know, since it is just a fictional story, but given how the ones with Beowulf acted, I suspect there would have been many people killed, especially common folk just trying to live their lives, before the warriors finally killed the dragon. In fact, one can easily imagine a situation in which every single warrior dies, or flees in cowardice, leaving Beowulf alone at the end to destroy the dragon.

    While I do agree that, in general, it is best for a king to take the long view and stick to the administrative and political side of things, I also believe there are exceptions. I feel that Beowulf trading his life, and his alone, for the dragon's was not such a terrible choice.

    ReplyDelete