Aphorisms on Epic Poetry

To interpret epic poetry is to search for the author’s intent (in, “toward” + tendere “to stretch”) in writing the poem in the way that it was written – that is, the desired effect of the poem and the means employed to achieve that effect.

Every epic poem has a two-fold intent – mimetic and rhetorical. Mimeses (Gk. μιμεîσθαι, mimeisthai, “to imitate) is the imitation of reality in language. Rhetoric (Gk. ῥήτωρ, rhetor, “public speaker”) is public speech used to accomplish an objective. That is, every epic poem aims to accomplish an objective through the imitation of reality.

When reading epic poetry, ask two sets of questions: (1) questions of mimesis, and (2) questions of rhetoric. One can initially respond to these questions according to figures of singularity and figures of plurality. Singularity (L. singulum, “one, individual, separate”) is the condition of being one or unified. Plurality (L. plus, “more, greater in number”) is the condition of being more than one or not unified.

The questions of mimesis lead one to an ideology of form (if it exists in the poem); the questions of rhetoric lead one to an ideology of mode (if it exists). An ideology (Gk. Ιδέα, idea, “type, model” + λόγος, logos, “reason, study”) is the systematic scheme of typical concepts implicitly or explicitly regarded by a society as true and/or good.

The first set of questions to ask are the questions of mimesis. The questions of mimesis investigate the relationship of a poem’s form and content.

Begin by asking four questions on the epic’s form (L. forma, “shape”), i.e  the shape of the poem:

What is the poem’s meter (Gk. μέτρον, metron, “measure, rule, length, size”)? In both Greek and Latin, the most common epic meter is dactylic hexameter (six feet of stressed-unstressed-unstressed, with unrhymed line endings). In English, epics are often written in pentameter, especially blank verse (five feet of stressed-unstressed, with unrhymed line endings) but sometimes heroic couplets (five feet of stressed-unstressed, with rhymed line endings). A consistent meter and unrhymed line endings are figures of singularity, while a various meter and rhymed line endings are figures of plurality.

How is the poem organized (Gk. όργανον, organon, “instrument, tool”)? Division into books (OE. bóc, “beech-tree”) is common, especially 24 books or 12 books. Division within books into cantos (L. canere, “to sing”) is common, especially in the Renaissance. Division of the verse within cantos into stanzas (L. stare, “to stand”) also occurs in the romance epics of the Renaissance. The fewer the divisions in an epic, the more singular it is.

What is the material condition of the text? A text is perfect (L. per, “thoroughly, completely, to completion, to the end” + facere, “to do, make”) if the author finished the poem, and it survives intact. A text is imperfect (L. im. “not” + perfectus) if the author did not finish the poem, and/or it does not survive intact. Perfection is a figure of singularity, while imperfection is a figure of plurality.

What is the narrative (L. narrare, “to relate, recount”) structure (L. struere, “to build”) of the poem? If the epic is unified (L. uni “one” + facere “to make”), the action is singular – it can be plotted on a line, though this is not to say that the plot must be linear – collectively related to one distinct event with a beginning, a middle, and an end. If the epic is episodic (Gk. εις, eis, “into” + ὁδός, odos, “way”), the action is plural – and as the action is extraneous, so the plot is digressive – variously related to multiple events that are loosely intertwined, so that an end is always a new beginning.

Pause to articulate the relationship between these four aspects of the poem’s form. How does a given aspect of the form – meter, organization, material condition, or narrative structure – correspond or clash with the other aspects? In terms of singularity and plurality, does any kind of pattern emerge?

Then ask two questions on the poem’s content (com “together” + tenere “to hold”), i.e. that which is held within the shape of the poem:

What is the war (Teut. werra, “confusion, discord, strife”) depicted in the epic, and who wins? The victor (L. vinecre, “to overcome, conquer”) overcomes its adversary. The defeated (L. dis, “undo, reverse” + facere, “to do, make”) are over come by their adversary. In short, who is fighting whom, why are they fighting, and who wins the fight? The victors experience the war as an historical singularity – a linear series of events leading to their victory – while the defeated experience the war as an historical plurality – a random series of events following from their defeat.

What is the cultural (L. colere, “to attend to, respect”) character (Gk. χαρακτηρ, kharakter, “engraved mark”) of each side of the war? The epic poet always figures general cultural characteristics in specific literary characters and groups of characters. A hero (Gk. ἥρως, heros “men of renown supposed to be deified on account of great and noble deeds”) is someone who epitomizes the character of a culture. A physically heroic character – overcoming adversity through a courageous exercise of will and strength – is a figure of singularity, while an intellectually heroic character – coping with adversity trough a temperate exercise of understanding and reason – is a figure of plurality.

Pause to articulate the relationship between these two aspects of the poem’s content. What are the cultural characteristics that are at war in the epic (that is, the cultural character on each side of the war depicted). What kind of heroism wins the war? In terms of singularity and plurality, does any kind of pattern emerge?

Pause again to articulate the relationship between the form of the poem and its content. What are the possible relationships between the patterns in the shape of the poem and the patterns in that which is held within this shape? Does the author imitate the content in the form? Is there an ideology of form – that is, is there a systematic scheme of typical concepts to be found when the form and the content of the epic are taken together? In the heroic epic, the content and form coalesce to produce an ideology of singularity – granting the physically powerful characters and cultures victory in a unified narrative. In the romance epic, the content and form coalesce to produce an ideology of plurality – submitting the intellectually powerful characters and cultures to defeat in an episodic narrative.

The second set of questions to ask are the questions of rhetoric. The questions of rhetoric investigate the relationship between the beliefs of the epic and the mode of the author.

Begin by asking three questions on the beliefs (ME. bi, “about” + leve, “to permit”) presented in the epic, i.e. the disputed opinions that are permitted to govern the epic world and thus confirmed as true for that world (in short, what theories of truth and goodness explain the events that occur in the epic):

What is the epic’s theology (Gk. θεός, theos, “god” + λόγος, logos, “word, reason”) – that is, the belief that explains the relationship between humankind and divinity in the epic? In a positive (L. ponere, “to place, put, lay down”) theology, the historical events depicted in the poem follow from an interaction of the human and the divine. In a negative (L. negare, “to deny, refuse”) theology, the historical events follow from natural causes, or from a breakdown in the relationship between the human and the divine. With its vertical relationship between the human and the divine, a positive theology is a figure of singularity, but with a circular relationship among humans alone, the negative theology is a figure of plurality. There are almost always gods in epic poetry, but are these gods intended to be understood as real (L. res “matter, thing”) or as machinery (Gk. μηχανή, makhana, “device, means”)?

What is the epic’s domestic (L. domus, “house”) policy – that is, the belief about how a society should govern itself? In an aristocratic (Gk. άριστος, aristos “best” + κρατία, kratia, “rule”) ideology, the chief power of government is granted to the best – a notion that is variously defined according to birth, fortune, or worth. In a democratic (Gk. δῆμος, demos, “the people” + κρατία, kratia, “rule”) ideology, government is decentralized so that the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege. Aristocracy is a figure of singularity, while democracy is a figure of plurality.

What is the epic’s foreign (L. foris “out of doors”) policy – that is, the belief about how a society should relate to other societies? Under an imperial (L. im, “in” + parare “to order, prepare”) policy, one culture desires command and control over another, so the concern is with cultural expansion. Under a national (L. nasci “to be born”) policy, a culture desires stable order within its own borders, so the concern is with the continued prosperity of an already established government. Imperialism is a figure of singularity, with it attempt to subsume all societies into one empire, but nationalism is a figure of plurality, with its attempt to address the various factions of a society.

Pause to articulate the relationship between these three aspects of the beliefs presented in the epic. How does a given belief – theological, domestic policy, foreign policy – correspond or clash with the other beliefs? In terms of singularity and plurality, does any kind of pattern emerge?

Then ask two questions related to the author’s mode (L. modus, “manner”), i.e. the manner in which the author presents the beliefs that explain the events of the epic.

What is the author’s national (L. nasci “to be born”) identity (L. identitas, “sameness”)? The author’s national identity is the cultural character of the group of people that constitute the author’s primary social network. Who in the epic, given this national identity, does the author identify with – the victors or the defeated? For the author to identify with the victors is a figure of singularity, but for the author to identify with the defeated is a figure of plurality.

What is the author’s mood? If the epic aims to present events as they actually occurred, then the mood is indicative. If the epic aims to present events as people said they were, then the mood is subjunctive. If the epic aims to present events as they ought to have been, then the mood is optative. In attempting a unity between the event and the representation of it, the indicative mood is a figure of singularity, but in distancing the events and the representation of them, the subjunctive and optative moods are figures of plurality.

Pause to articulate the relationship between these two aspects of the author’s mode. In terms of singularity and plurality, does any kind of pattern emerge?

Is there an ideology of mode? If there is an ideology of mode, then the author has repeated or transgressed against one of the poem’s beliefs in his/her mode. In the didactic (Gk. διδασκειν, didaskein, “teach”) mode, the author presents an ideology as a position for readers to adopt, so the education of an audience occurs by way of indoctrination. In the ironic (Gk. ειρωνεια, eironeia, “feigned ignorance”) mode, the author does not advocate the ideology represented, in fact he or she usually encourages a critique from the reader, so the method by which the audience is educated is instruction.