Talk:National epic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is it really needed for Beowulf to be on the list twice, once for the Anglo-Saxons and then again for England? The term 'Anglo-Saxon' is used to refer to the people of England (or the petty kingdoms of England) during the Middle-Ages (usually before the Norman Conquest but not exclusively...it has been used to distinguish the peasants from Normans...for example in adaptations of Robin Hood's 'adventures') and thus the 'Anglo-Saxons' are the English...inhaitants of England. Then we have 'England - Beowulf' which I take it is to refer to the modern 'England', however if nothing has changed then it is pointless to put Beowulf as England's epic twice. Even to say it was written in Old English (Or Englisc), as most epics were written in an older language.


Contents

[edit] West and East

What is difference between East and West? Is Mali eastern? Then, Russia is located at east of Mali is eastern? If this means Christianity and Islam, where is China, on north? If all Christians are on West, then where is Christian Ethipoia, or Christian-Muslim mixed Lebanon? How can be an American nation Mayas can be regarded as Easterns? Please, abandon the words West and East in this article Paparokan 20:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism and the National Epic

If 19th-century Romantic nationalism is the sole origin of the "national epic" concept, then what do you call the relationship between the Roman Empire and the Aeneid? -Silence 20:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The model. Put it this way: Beowulf as originally declaimed to an English king who prided himself in his Geatish ancestry, and Beowulf translated into English and published in London on the eve of World War II are incommeasurable cultural events. --Wetman 21:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

National epic, National myth, Founding myth - these all have something in common, although the focus is different. Are three articles necessary? Bathrobe 10:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the pages, they're three distinct concepts; "national myth" is the broad term, and "national epic" and "founding myth" are both types of national myths, the former being a national myth in the form fo an epic (right?), and the latter being a national myth concerning the foundation of a nation. So, it's possible for something to fit into all three categories, by being a national epic (by format) that's also a founding myth (by content). A little merging might not be a bad idea, if only because the "national myth" page is currently dominated by an "examples" section, which now full-fledged article (i.e. not just a list) should be if possible, and would probably be improved by some more detailed coveraged; it doesn't look like it's vital, though, as long as all three terms are significant enough (i.e. are in fairly wide usage).
Though I'm still confused as to the exact reason why the Aeneid dosen't qualify as a national epic. The argument is unclear and oddly-worded; are you saying that the reason Beowulf is a national epic and the Aeneid isn't is because Beowulf concerns a ruler's ancestry and is of incomparable cultural significance to its nation? Because I completely fail to see how either of those qualifications aren't met by the Aeneid, which concerns the legendary lineage of the emperor and is possibly the most important work in the history of Roman literature. Could you please explain it a bit better to me? And probably explain it a bit better on the page, too, so other people won't be confused for the same reason I am. And, of course, you might want to fix the claim that started this whole problem for me: I found the page because it was linked to from the top of the Vergil page when the Aeneid was described as Rome's national epic!! Hence my confusion upon coming to this page to investigate, and finding the on-page defition contradictory to its usage.
The misunderstanding's pretty understandable, too (if it is one—I've yet to see evidence that the Aeneid is not a national epic). The Aeneid is indisputably "national" and indisputably an "epic", so why isn't it a "national epic"? What a counter-intuitive system. Oh, and the Aeneid is also indisputably a founding myth, so if it was a national epic it would be an example of where the two terms can overlap (though they don't always). -Silence 15:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The Aeneid is a good example of a national epic (in fact, an explicitly patriotic composition); Beowulf on the other hand is a very poor one, at least as presented: an "Anglo-Saxon" national epic! How can it be an Anglo-Saxon national epic, when neither the Angles, the Saxons, nor England appear in it? If it were anyone's "national epic" it would belong to the Götar, Beowulf's people; but it wasn't written in their language.
Isn't the very idea of a "national epic" a product of Romantic nationalism? Though the Aeneid was considered the embodiment of the Roman spirit, who was the critic who first called the Aeneid a "national epic"? Not much before 1800, surely? --Wetman 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)--Wetman 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that tracing the first use of the term "national epic" in English, or any other language, would do much good. The type is distinctive, regardless of the words used to describe it. Any epic that attempts to encapsulate and glorify the "spirit" of a nation, whether through recounting its history, describing its origin, or detailing a notable formative event (real or legendary) for that nation, is a national epic whether it was called that or not. A category is pretty poor if it can't account for things that existed before it was created! Firdausi's Shahnameh is a perfect example of a national epic: it describes the origins of the Iranian people, celebrates their victories and accomplishments, and recounts a large part of their history. Yet it was finished in the year 1010, when the words "national" and "epic" didn't exist (because English as we know it didn't exist). Is the lack of contemporary terms relevant? Hardly. The words, even the category might well be new; but the object itself can be determined even when old. 68.100.18.183 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic
I should add that I don't think that many of the epics here listed qualify as "national epics" except in the much broader sense of "epic poems claimed by a certain nation". The Odyssey is hardly a "national epic" -- it's an adventure story about a single hero. It couldn't easily be the national epic even of a Kingdom of Ithaki, because it's not about the Ithacan people -- just Odysseus. The Iliad is a tougher question, because arguably it owes its survival to being perceived as if it were a national epic; being one of the very few Greek legends to represent heroes and armies from all over Greece fighting ensemble. Given that Greece, in Homer's day, before, and for centuries after was not a single state but a mélange of different states separated by sharp differences in dialect and custom, such a story was indeed a rarity! But the story of the Iliad is not the story of a Greek nation; it's a story about a conflict (taking place outside of Greece) in which the various nations of Greece are temporarily allied. To treat it as a national epic in the strictest sense would be as if one were to take an epic about World War II, and treat it as the national epic of a nation which equally included the Americans, Canadians, British, Australians and New Zealanders.
And here's something rather strange: while the article claims that "national epic" is a 19th century construct, it refers to MacPherson's Ossian as a n example of (spurious) national epic: but the Ossian poems were written entirely in the 18th century, supposedly before nationalism existed. I think it's time to edit out this characterization of the national epic as an invention of the 19th century. That is not to say that the 19th century did not mark a period of increased interest in national poetry, and a drive to create it where it didn't exist; but that's not the same as saying that there was no national poetry before 1800.
Re the Iliad (or the Aeneid) : it's not so much a Greek epic as a European one. In the 16th century, all the European monarchs were competing as to which one had the most ancient and the noblest ancestry. Everyone was having a go at tracing their ancestry back to Troy. If Aeneas had founded a kingdom in Italy, other Trojan princes might have escaped and done the same in other places too. Troy had fallen to rise again like the phoenix in France (Francus), Britain (Brute) or Germany. Of course, it's tantamount to hi-jacking the Iliad, but isn't it as interesting a phenomenon as the deliberate writing of a national epic ? In the same way, Moses and the crossing of the Red Sea is a Hebrew epic, but it could be considered as an African-American epic too (Go down Moses etc..), couldn't it ? Perhaps there should be a heading recycled epics --Anne97432 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journey to the West?

Just a question: Is 'Journey to the West' really China's national epic? The four great Chinese vernacular 'novels' were: Journey to the West, Romance of Three Kingdoms, Outlaws of the Marsh, and Dream of Red Mansions. Any particular reason for choosing this one?

None of these novels are "national" in any modern Chinese sense. They are best characterized as literary gems on their own merit, any national myth-making being of much later invention (and even then the subject matter of these stories don't really make good national epics, but that's just my opinion). A-giau 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that few if any of the claimed Chinese 'epics' actually are suitable for this article, since most of them are in prose; the distinctive feature of the epic is not merely that it is lengthy and narrative, but also that it is poetry. 68.100.18.183 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic.

For Japan, you might consider the Tale of Heike -- maybe. Bathrobe 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All these "national epics" have been so designated after the fact. It's not what "we" consider, but what nationalist critics in each nation consider "national epics", that is worth mentioning. --Wetman 17:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
True --Anne97432 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The "facts" still need to be documented. For example, while these Chinese classics are held to be literary masterpieces (and for good reasons), it needs to be established that they are considered national epics by state authorities, establishment intelligentsia, and such. A-giau 00:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Novels and "Prose Epics" even be included?

A lot of the works cited in this section are not really national epics at all, but great novels of various cultures. Dream of the Red Chamber for example is hardly a National Epic, neither is Don Quixote, which is a picaresque novel and a parody of chivalrous novels. And what the heck is Gregory of Monmouth doing here?

A couple of the "Prose Epics" are appropriate, but why do they need a seperate section? The Mabinogion, may not be considered an epic by some, but that is the sort of argument one would use to excuse the Kalevala, which should certainly be included.

I suggest that novels should be specifically excluded, as well as prose histories, except those that are either genuinely unrivalled, such as the Popul Vuh (because nothing else survives).

This would still allow epics such as the Aeneid and the Tale of Kieu, but exclude Huckleberry Finn. --Moheroy 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It all depends what you mean by national Epic. It's a bit like the national anthems, some were written on purpose, others so much captured the spirit of the times that they were adopted as national anthems (la Marseillaise, for one). In France we have poets who deliberately set out to write national Epics (Voltaire's Henriade), but they mostly failed in their efforts. However, during the Blitzkrieg Shakespeare's this sceptered isle of Kings suddenly became meaningful again. I think there should be two categories : a self-defined genre national epic (Camoens), and then texts that people identify to and use to represent the national ethos. Bizarrely, In France we are convinced that American people see Moby Dick as their national epic, but there is no mention of it here. --Anne97432 16:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
These are precisely the subtleties that are erased in a simple-minded listing, but which are the very essence of what this article should be getting across in a more nuanced fashion. Give it a try. --Wetman 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-existent Epics

  • Russia -
    • History of the House of Romanov
    • Kulikovo Pole

I've removed the above because I can't discover what they refer to, or even if they exist. A history is not an epic, not even a prose epic; the second one may refer to Aleksander Blok's poem "Na kulikovom pole" but that appears to be a minor poem, not considered a "national epic" by the Russians. 68.100.18.183 15:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)RandomCritic

[edit] Cleanup / verifiability

The previous section brings to my mins a major wikipedia rule: wikipedia:Verifiability:

The list must be properly referenced by at least one reputable source which describes a particualr work as epic.

`'mikkanarxi 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamlet

Whilst it is frequently recognised as the best play, if not the best piece of literature, ever penned by a British writer, to say that it's a national epic is somewhat absurd. Amongst other things, it's set in Denmark and, therefore, doesn't reflect at all on the "essence or spirit" of the British people (which the introduction states is what a national epic is). Furthermore, whilst it is a phenomenal work, it does not stand head and shoulders above other works by Shakespeare, never mind other works of British literature or in the English language. Since these are the requirements of a national epic, it surely falls short. Hence, I have removed it until a source is cited. Bastin 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, the "essence or spirit" thing seems to apply equally to Beowulf, which is also set outside of Britain. But I do agree this doesn't belong here without some cites (there's certainly plenty of documentation on Beowulf being considered a national epic, at least in modern times.)--Pharos 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore to the fact that Beowulf has been (nearly universally) recognised as the English (or Old English) national epic since the 19th century, Beowulf does stand head and shoulders above all other Old English works, in terms of both length and fame, and so does qualify under the second criterion given in the introduction (unlike Hamlet). Bastin 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What about Henry V? It was revived during the Blitz with great topical relevance. What about Gaunt's speech in Richard II (This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,/This Earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,/This other Eden, demi-paradise ... This precious stone set in a silver sea') ? Wouldn't you say the historical plays are a kind of national epic ? There's a pb. in this article which quotes the Chanson de Roland as a French national epic just because it's an epic and it's French, but shows no awareness of any self-proclaimed French epic like the Henriad or L'Orléanide, Poème national en vingt-huit chants (The Orleanid, a national epic in 28 cantos), Paris, Ed. Artus Bertrand, 1821.. --Anne97432 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

So Tasso and Dante don't get a look-in? Why is Beowulf listed as the English national epic? Whilst it is an epic poem it seems to have very little to do with the English national character and has been obscured and unread for much of its history. I would have expected to see 'Paradise Lost' in this position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordplaye (talk • contribs) 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)