The Kings Behind the Heroes: A Comparison from Beowulf
An epic poem, in the traditional sense, seems to require the presence of a certain class of characters, elevated to an elite level in the social hierarchy. Usually this tradition finds its implementation through the creation of monarchs and nobility, especially sense the definition of an epic hero says that he (or she) must be greater than the average person. As such, the heroes are usually either kingly or noble as well. While there is generally little variation in the major attributes of a truly epic hero, there is no guiding code for developing the kings whom the heroes serve. As can be seen through the individual differences among three kings in particular, Hrothgar from Beowulf, Charlemagne from La Chanson de Roland, and Kay Kavus from The Shâhnâme, one is able to conclude that nowhere to be found among the prerequisites for the archetypal epic hero is a static ruler. As shown in each of these poems, the personal attributes of each of these three kings differ substantially.
King Hrothgar, of Beowulf, is a good Danish king. The poet introduces him, as Beowulf arrives to defeat Grendel, as being grateful for the invitation by Beowulf to aid his kingdom, even though others before had failed. Having confidence in Beowulf serves to display Hrothgar’s wisdom. Once having slain Grendel, and, later, Grendel’s mother, Hrothgar rewards Beowulf and his men, also a move of wisdom by forging a relationship based upon honor and generosity that serves the kingdoms well.
Like Hrothgar, the poet of La Chanson de Roland portrays Charlemagne as a good king. However, the poet takes the extent of Charlemagne’s greatness and extends it; he has great, power, prestige, wealth, compassion, and most likely any other qualities which one might attribute to the most kingly of kings. Charlemagne’s power is evident from the onset of the poem, as his massive armies, led by Roland, are returning to France after a successful conquest of Spain. Charlemagne is also characterized in a manner that borders on divinity; “There sits the King, who rules over sweet France. / His beard is white, his hair flowering white. / That lordly body! The proud fierce look of him!” (Laisse 8, 116-8). As Charlemagne is consistently referred to as being nearly 200 years old, his status is clearly that of a living legend. Charlemagne's presence demands respect and reverence by his subjects.
Supposing the characteristics of a king are classifiable, Charlemagne would occupy any end of a continuum most distant from The Shâhnâme’s Kay Kavus. As a monarch, Kavus is inept at the very best. Since God presumably chose the shah, having a weak shah was unfortunate, as removing him would only lead to Iran’s destruction. Kavus is notoriously weak, as he has to turn to Rostám to bail Iran out in times of dire need. Furthermore, Kavus is irrational and temperamental, as exemplified by his anger at Rostám’s delayed arrival to defend Iran and subsequent order to have Rostám executed. Finally, Kavus proves his ineptitude as monarch by supplying vengeance instead of grace and healing by withholding the nushdarú from Rostám to save Sohráb’s life, saying, “When I may suffer evil at his hands, / What gift but evil should I make him now? / You heard him, how he said, ‘Who is Kavus?’” (“Rostám Asks” 21-3). While Rostám is consistent with the model of epic hero, Kavus, in all his weakness and fault, certainly does not follow suit.
Consequently, Hrothgar, Charlemagne, and Kavus fall into three distinct, but occasionally overlapping categories. Hrothgar is good, Charlemagne is glorious, and Kavus is inept. Kavus resides at one end of the figurative continuum by himself, in contrast to similar characteristics between Hrothgar and Charlemagne. Just as each of these monarchs fits a different mould, the epic heroes from each of the corresponding epics fits the mould of the archetypal hero set forth by Homer and Virgil, revealing no evidence supporting a relationship between static heroes and a similar archetype of king. Instead, what is apparent is that although the hero will remain within the boundaries of traditional composition, the hero’s king has no such conventional boundaries, in an epic, within which he must exist.