The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Tom 1]

I think maybe we're both right. G. K. Chesterton said "tradition is the democracy of the dead". The reason we know of Chaucer is because our ancestors "voted" his work valuable and worth preserving and passing on. Perhaps there was a 14th century man named Smith who also wrote tales, but he is lost to history because his work wasn't deemed as valuable. But we, the living, also get to vote by what we choose to pass on as good and leave behind as bad. So you're right, we recieve national characteristics that we didn't participate in forming, but we do get to play a role in how the characteristics we pass on may change.

True, but the choice of Chaucer’s works isn’t arbitrary, he is right up there with Shakespeare (or a close second) and Cervantes in the development of European literature. He introduced and adapted the iambic pentameter to Middle English. Shakespeare as we know him wouldn’t have been the same without Chaucer before him.

 

[Albion]

A couple of things I came across recently have made me question whether people living in the US have a fundamentally different way of thinking about what constitutes recent history, and what might be called ancient history, or just things that occurred 'a long time ago'.

The first was an article written by a young woman that I read on Medium about certain themes in 'ancient' literature. What the article was actually about was medieval and renaissance literature, which the writer appears to think of as periods of 'ancient' history.

I think this is generally correct and for the reason you mention later in your post. The Ancient and Medieval worlds are evident in Europe but almost non-existent in the Western Hemisphere. When people speak of things "ancient," for example, they just mean "very old."

 

[Chesterton]

True, but the choice of Chaucer’s works isn’t arbitrary, he is right up there with Shakespeare (or a close second) and Cervantes in the development of European literature. He introduced and adapted the iambic pentameter to Middle English. Shakespeare as we know him wouldn’t have been the same without Chaucer before him.

I don't know what you mean by "arbitrary". Humans still voted on the value of Chaucer and the others. He may have introduced iambic pentameter but other people didn't have to enjoy it or use it. It's of a different nature than, say, the Pythagorean Theorem, which, once it's explained to you, you can't just ignore it if you don't like it (if you wanna do math ).

 

[public hermit]

...To current events.

A couple of things I came across recently have made me question whether people living in the US have a fundamentally different way of thinking about what constitutes recent history, and what might be called ancient history, or just things that occurred 'a long time ago'.

The first was an article written by a young woman that I read on Medium about certain themes in 'ancient' literature. What the article was actually about was medieval and renaissance literature, which the writer appears to think of as periods of 'ancient' history. The second was the idea I've seen in a few threads here on CF that the period of slavery in the US happened so long ago that it no longer has any relevance.

This last idea is worth discussing, I think. As a European, I tend to see history as stretching back in one unbroken line (which is indeed what it does) to the very earliest times we know anything about. Everything that ever happened in any significant way had an effect on everything that came after it. To me, that seems obvious - am I wrong? I have spent most of my adult life living in the UK, in England specifically. The dual influences of the classical world and the Germanic/Nordic world are obvious and widespread in English society, thinking, language - pretty much everything. It is not difficult to see how major events in history have shaped the way the English see themselves and how English society functions, 1066 (and all that), the great plague, the subsequent peasants revolt and so on and so on. All of these historic influences come together to inform the perceptions and prejudices of the average person in the street. Again, this seems obvious.

Slavery was common in the US during what was in England the Victorian era - of course slavery was effectively exported to the US from England and other European countries, via colonialism, so this isn't about apportioning blame in any sense, just about things that happened - but wasn't part of most people's lives actually in England at that time. But that same period was tremendously influential on English society and how English people see themselves in all kinds of ways that are absolutely still relevant to how that society functions now. A society and its history are ineluctably bound to each other, what society is now in any country is what previous actions and events have made it. Again, this seems blatantly obvious.

It does to me, anyway, but it does seem that maybe this way of thinking isn't so common or regarded as obvious in the US - ? Is that true? To me, the Victorian period was really not all that long ago, in historical terms. Slavery in the US ended, as I understand it, in the late 1800s, there were laws in place that defined black people in some parts of the US as unequal citizens up until the 1960s, and quantifiable social prejudice continued into the 1970s. None of this is ancient history, but the view that none of this has any relevance today, with regard to the current situation as much as the wider picture of race relations in the US, seems to be quite common.

That's my impression in any case, and it is just an impression, so I'd be interested in hearing what people living in the US think about it. The US is after all a very young country and so a different understanding of history, and different conceptions of what constitutes ancient history, are explainable.

I think you're right. I live in Virginia. We feel pretty good if we have buildings that are a couple, three hundred years old. There is a sense in which Americans think of history as beginning with America. It's the kind of arrogance that one has when they think that every life that came before them was simply a prelude to their own. It's the product of glorious individualism. But, more than that, a lot of folks just want to forget we enslaved one group of people and nearly eradicated another. The stark contrast between that and our high ideals is simply too painful to admit. If we were willing to admit the reality, we would acknowledge that the repercussions of our short history have persisted.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't know what you mean by "arbitrary". Humans still voted on the value of Chaucer and the others. He may have introduced iambic pentameter but other people didn't have to enjoy it or use it. It's of a different nature than, say, the Pythagorean Theorem, which, once it's explained to you, you can't just ignore it if you don't like it (if you wanna do math ).

I’m not sure about the idea of the democracy of tradition in relation to literature. I think it’s true in theology, certainly in churches I’ve been part of people can have a tendency to become fully convinced of a thing without really having any understanding of it, because it is part of the churches’ teaching. I don’t think you can apply it so easily to literature though, it’s true that there were other poets and playwrights in Chaucer’s and Shakespeare’s times, writing about the same themes, in many cases repeating the same stories in different ways, but Shakespeare for example just did it way better than anyone else, as did Chaucer. Shakespeare’s portrayal of the human condition is much more far reaching than say Ben Johnson’s. Truly great writers really capture something that other people just aren’t able to express to the same degree and with the same incisiveness, so they earn their place rather than being voted into it. The English language and English society would be fundamentally different had there been no-one of Chaucer’s or Shakespeare’s calibre at the time.

 

[Tom 1]

I think you're right. I live in Virginia. We feel pretty good if we have buildings that are a couple, three hundred years old. There is a sense in which Americans think of history as beginning with America. It's the kind of arrogance that one has when they think that every life that came before them was simply a prelude to their own. It's the product of glorious individualism. But, more than that, a lot of folks just want to forget we enslaved one group of people and nearly eradicated another. The stark contrast between that and our high ideals is simply too painful to admit. If we were willing to admit the reality, we would acknowledge that the repercussions of our short history have persisted.

I suppose that was the idea, right? Of the Puritans and everyone who came after, to found a completely different society, so it makes sense that it would be seen as the beginning I suppose. What you are saying there also reminds me of Last Exit to Brooklyn. Maybe that reflects the same idea? It’s full of characters striving to achieve an ideal situation in one way or another and all failing to do so. The characters all seem to be trying to build lives but with no solid foundation. I suppose that is what the constitution was intended to be, a foundation for a new kind of society. It makes sense to take that and move forward with it, and I think it can be said to have been largely successful but like you seem to be saying the past can’t just be ignored without consequences.

 

[Radagast]

As a European, I tend to see history as stretching back in one unbroken line (which is indeed what it does) to the very earliest times we know anything about. Everything that ever happened in any significant way had an effect on everything that came after it.

I have the opposite view.

The US still feels strongly about the 1860s, but in Western Europe the 1940s are largely forgotten.

 

[Tom 1]

I have the opposite view.

The US still feels strongly about the 1860s, but in Western Europe the 1940s are largely forgotten.

You reckon? I suppose you could say some lessons learned have been forgotten. And there’s a lot of distortion of history, of course, like the downplaying of the role of Russia in WWII and the semi-serious jokes about the French army etc. But the legacy of the 40s is absolute and concrete, right there in national boundaries and societal reforms, even if people feel disconnected from the events of the 40s those events are still a determining factor in how people think about the world around them.

 

[Radagast]

But the legacy of the 40s is absolute and concrete, right there in national boundaries and societal reforms, even if people feel disconnected from the events of the 40s those events are still a determining factor in how think about the world around them.

What I meant was that Western Europe seems to be more "disconnected" from the events of the 1940s than Americans are from the events of the 1860s.

That seems to change as one travels eastwards through Europe, though.

In terms of determining factors, I agree with you: European culture is heavily influenced by the Middle Ages, by Rome, and by Greece. That influence is often under-appreciated.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Is there a similar lack of continuity in SA?

In South Africa there are multiple competing narratives, essentially equally unknown except in the vaguest sense amongst the young. Of course though, history is itself only a narrative we tell ourselves, a series of agreed upon lies in Napoleon's phrase.

So the problem is that the black population likes to spin an idea of whites having taken all the land and Apartheid having been responsible for all their ills. This ignores a messy history, where the Bantu peoples replaced Khoisan from the north at the same time as the Dutch colony expanded from the south, and later the depopulation of the Mfecane brought on by Dingiswayo and Shaka's wars, with Boer settlers entering largely depopulated lands, some purchases, the massacre of Piet Retief, etc. Essentially it is an idea of happy natives being exploited by evil white people, who are still only well off because of their continued taking from blacks. It has no real historic meaning, as catchall phrases are sufficient. This is the populism of the EFF and the rhetoric of seizing farmlands. There is no difference here between Apartheid, the British, the Voortrekkers, or the Dutch, who are all equally demonised in broad strokes, and equated to whatever current event strikes your fancy. Of course, Colonialism gave us nothing, as you can see with the demonisation of Helen Zille (an opposition party leader), who dared say it wasn't all bad by giving SA infrastructure, modern hospitals, etc.

Put against this, there is the residual Myth of the Afrikaners, which is one of struggle. A famous poem compares the Afrikaners to a thorn tree crushed by a wagon wheel, which repeatedly starts to grow once more - perhaps indicitive of the wheel of fate. This myth starts with the Huguenots being expelled from France, builds into the oppression by the British, the Voortrekkers leaving to form republics, only to be betrayed by Dingane and then the forlorn hope of the Second Boer War and the bittereinders and the Injustice of the concentration camps. We then see the world turn against us in the Apartheid years, and the new oppression of black ecenomic empowerment, the disappearance of Afrikaans, and farm murders as new attempts to destroy the people. Historically this was tied to the idea of the Boers as a new Israel, and like the book of Judges, a punishment for turning from God. This is the myth I grew up with, and still very potent in older Afrikaans populations. As you can see, there is a complete disconnect with Europe - the mythos starts with fleeing Europe, and is tied to the land here.

The English population breaks down between white people who bemoan their part in South Africa's history, beating their breast in anguish (who usually still maintain ties to Britain); or 'when-wes' from 'when we lived in Rhodesia' who are basically nostalgic 'Lost Causers' akin to those in the US South.

The thing about all these narratives, is they start here. It is much the same as in the US, but the differences between them is where a lot of our political fighting ultimately boil down to. There is no real sense of deep history, except a sense of Injustice and persecution, in both the Afrikaner, various black groups and the When-wes. The Zulu and Afrikaner triumphalism based on historic events though, make these potent myths. I myself need to be careful, as I can feel my blood boiling only recounting the Afrikaner myth, and I am aware of its many shortcomings. If people knew that Bantu peoples only expanded out of West Africa in the last 2 millenia, or were more aware of the historic forces that moved the Dutch to come to the Cape and the various populations that washed up here, including the non-white proportion of the Afrikaner founding populations, life would be much different and more civil, I feel. But the myths move the heart more than a more balanced view of history does.

 

[Tom 1]

In South Africa there are multiple competing narratives, essentially equally unknown except in the vaguest sense amongst the young. Of course though, history is itself only a narrative we tell ourselves, a series of agreed upon lies in Napoleon's phrase.

So the problem is that the black population likes to spin an idea of whites having taken all the land and Apartheid having been responsible for all their ills. This ignores a messy history, where the Bantu peoples replaced Khoisan from the north at the same time as the Dutch colony expanded from the south, and later the depopulation of the Mfecane brought on by Dingiswayo and Shaka's wars, with Boer settlers entering largely depopulated lands, some purchases, the massacre of Piet Retief, etc. Essentially it is an idea of happy natives being exploited by evil white people, who are still only well off because of their continued taking from blacks. It has no real historic meaning, as catchall phrases are sufficient. This is the populism of the EFF and the rhetoric of seizing farmlands. There is difference here between Apartheid, the British, the Voortrekkers, or the Dutch, who are all equally demonised in broad strokes, and equated to whatever current event strikes your fancy. Of course, Colonialism gave us nothing, as you can see with the demonisation of Helen Zille (an opposition party leader), who dared say it wasn't all bad by giving SA infrastructure, modern hospitals, etc.

Put against this, there is the residual Myth of the Afrikaners, which is one of struggle. A famous poem compares the Afrikaners to a thorn tree crushed by a wagon wheel, which repeatedly starts to grow once more - perhaps indicitive of the wheel of fate. This myth starts with the Huguenots being expelled from France, builds into the oppression by the British, the Voortrekkers leaving to form republics, only to be betrayed by Dingane and then the forlorn hope of the Second Boer War and the bittereinders and the Injustice of the concentration camps. We then see the world turn against us in the Apartheid years, and the new oppression of black ecenomic empowerment, the disappearance of Afrikaans, and farm murders as new attempts to destroy the people. Historically this was tied to the idea of the Boers as a new Israel, and like the book of Judges, a punishment for turning from God. This is the myth I grew up with, and still very potent in older Afrikaans populations. As you can see, there is a complete disconnect with Europe - the mythos starts with fleeing Europe, and is tied to the land here.

The English population breaks down between white people who bemoan their part in South Africa's history, beating their breast in anguish (who usually still maintain ties to Britain); or 'when-wes' from 'when we lived in Rhodesia' who are basically nostalgic 'Lost Causers' akin to those in the US South.

The thing about all these narratives, is they start here. It is much the same as in the US, but the differences between them is where a lot of our political fighting ultimately boil down to. There is no real sense of deep history, except a sense of Injustice and persecution, in both the Afrikaner, various black groups and the When-wes. The Zulu and Afrikaner triumphalism based on historic events though, make these potent myths. I myself need to be careful, as I can feel my blood boiling only recounting the Afrikaner myth, and I am aware of its many shortcomings. If people knew that Bantu peoples only expanded out of West Africa in the last 2 millenia, or were more aware of the historic forces that moved the Dutch to come to the Cape and the various populations that washed up here, including the non-white proportion of the Afrikaner founding populations, life would be much different and more civil, I feel. But the myths move the heart more than a more balanced view of history does.

That’s interesting. I tend to think of myths and stories as useful, at least potentially, or at least in providing some cohesion in a society but I suppose they are inevitably exclusivist or rooted in an us and them mentality. Maybe if there was only one world myth it might work lol.

I think some myths have some more useful potential than others, like Beowulf, and perhaps Tolkien’s attempts to revive interest in the influences of the Anglo-Saxon world in an academic culture dominated by the classics, the concept of arete and the privileges of the leadership class etc, as opposed to the more earthy sense of responsible, honourable (in a more realistic sense) leadership presented in Beowulf. I don’t think societies can really function without stories and legends, even the Soviets recognised that, but the most tribally insular ones tend to have the broadest appeal.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think you're very right about different perceptions of time. I have an anecdote. My brother once hosted a team of youth soccer players from England. We were driving in a van though town one day and he thought he'd mention some local sites of interest. He pointed at a building and proudly said "That building is over 150 years old!" The kids were clearly unimpressed, one of them muttering something like "There're a couple of churches in our town over 1,000 years old".

What you said may be true for Europeans, but wrong for Americans, and the reason is - the Atlantic Ocean. We live in spacetime, so geography is a factor also. I think we Americans have a sense of disconnectedness with world history simply because of the physical space between the Old World and the New World. I know Jews don't refer to the Old Testament as the Old Testament, and I don't know if Europeans refer to themselves as the Old World, but the fact that we use the terms is perhaps some evidence of what I'm saying.

I believe men do feel a connection with the land they live on, even if subconsciously. Europeans live on a "historic" land, i.e., you have much of the writings, ruins and artifacts which the men of those lands produced. America began on a land which was still "prehistoric" in a sense. The past of our land is murkier.

And some of the disconnectedness was intentional, as reflected in the earliest political thought which strongly encouraged non-interventionism. They knew European history with all its complicated entanglements and bloody wars, and said "we want nothing to do with that, we can be a blank slate, we're starting something new".

So since your main point is about slavery, which occurred on American soil, I guess nothing I just said is relevant. My apologies for that, but I thought what you brought up is interesting in itself.

I agree to an extent that a society and its history are bound to each other, but history does not determine society. We are individuals, and groups of individuals, who make free choices. I couldn't find it when I searched just now, but many years ago I came across a Fiji web forum. There was a thread where Fijians were discussing how they should feel about their history of cannibalism. The responses varied widely from "We should feel horribly ashamed" to "It's nothing to be ashamed of. It was the cultural norm of the times" to one gentleman who said "There's nothing wrong with it. I think we should still eat people today." So, as I say, individuals make choices. And part of making choices is picking and choosing what influences you. The French still celebrate Bastille Day. They may be right to be proud of that event, but there are other events of the revolutionary period which I'm sure they do not celebrate.

I find it odd though. I speak to a fair number of foreign fellows or registrars that make their way through here, and these are all educated people.

The Europeans (mostly British, German, Danish, Dutch) are usually more clued up about history in general. The Australians, Canadians and Americans have more narrow views of their own - even less with Australians, where I remember I had a guy where I had to point out to him that he had a Eureka stockade flag on his clothing, which he knew nothing about. We also get a whole bunch of people from Dubai or parts of Africa, and they are also myopic in their own ways, but less than those others. I think Europeans are more aware of history in a broader cultural sense than other groups, and I can only think it is the presence of ruins and such that are responsible.

It cuts both ways though, as you pointed out. What you choose to celebrate or forget says a lot about you; and I think a large part of the New World's views are a purposeful act of Forgetting. It reminds me of when a US secretary of state made disparaging rematks to a British minister about how they could have acted so in the Anglo-Zulu wars or somesuch, and he retorted that it was about the same time as the Mexican American war.

Even today, the West of the US is not seen as what it really was - the fruit of an expansionist myth, the Manifest Destiny. Like Siberia, the Western US states are the product of 19th century expansionism; as much as British India or the Scramble for Africa. Their roots lie in the same thinking, but the way we reflect on them, are drastically different. Custer is not juxtaposed to Isandlhwana often, but we have similar historic forces, like convergent outflow of Western civilisation, at play here. The stories we tell ourselves differ.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What I meant was that Western Europe seems to be more "disconnected" from the events of the 1940s than Americans are from the events of the 1860s.

That seems to change as one travels eastwards through Europe, though.

In terms of determining factors, I agree with you: European culture is heavily influenced by the Middle Ages, by Rome, and by Greece. That influence is often under-appreciated.

Europe purposefully disconnected from the 1940s. Don't mention the War is the unwritten rule of the EU. However, they have not forgotten what came before, and whenever Germany tries to flex its cultural or economic power, out flows resentment built on the fear of German power and cemented with Nazi imagery amongst populists. This is the same thing they did before WWI, or when the Hapsburgs were opposed in the 16th or the Holy Roman Empire even before. The stories the nations tell of themselves are a strong indicator. Those stories are deeper than the 1940s.

 

[Radagast]

The stories the nations tell of themselves are a strong indicator.

The stories the nations tell of themselves are a curated collection of myths founded loosely on reality. Europe, of course, has a very large pool of stories to select from.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That’s interesting. I tend to think of myths and stories as useful, at least potentially, or at least in providing some cohesion in a society but I suppose they are inevitably exclusivist or rooted in an us and them mentality. Maybe if there was only one world myth it might work lol.

I think some myths have some more useful potential than others, like Beowulf, and perhaps Tolkien’s attempts to revive interest in the influences of the Anglo-Saxon world in an academic culture dominated by the classics and the concept of arete and the privileges of the leadership class etc, as opposed to the more earthy sense of responsible, honourable (in a more realistic sense) leadership presented in Beowulf. I don’t think societies can really function without stories and legends, even the Soviets recognised that, but the most tribally insular ones tend to have the broadest appeal.

The problem with Beowulf in this sense, is it builds on another set of myths. The myth of the Free Anglo-Saxons, of the Whitan and a free Church, that was resecured at Runnymede. It is the Whig reading of English history.

Humans cannot escape myths. CS Lewis and Tolkien were well aware of this. We always spin things in this way, and it is usually only through myth that we really understand, I think. Christianity is presented in a Grand Myth narrative for this reason, and why we transform dry scientific theories into Grand Cosmic dramas or the way certain biologists speak of the Flowering of Life, almost like a paean sang by Pagan priestesses.

The British are especially adept at this. Think of all those Romantic writers worshipping nature almost, or the Arthurianess of Tennyson. Churchill was a master, turning WWII into a new national myth of pluck.

Interesting that you mention Beowulf though. It almost didn't survive. It was an accidental survival, so kind of goes against the idea that Literature is somehow Darwinist, that the best necessarily makes it. I do think the historic process does do that somehow - popular authors of their ages are forgotten today, while others go from strength to strength - but the Zeitgeist of the times play a part in what is transmitted or rediscovered. The West worshipped Rome until recently, and now the Iliad or Aenead are being forgotten, and things like Journey to the West are more commonplace. The hand of Fate plays a potent part here, as does fashion. Mellville was plucked from obscurity, while bestsellers like Toynbee's History are left alone today.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The stories the nations tell of themselves are a curated collection of myths founded loosely on reality. Europe, of course, has a very large pool of stories to select from.

Those they select, and the way they present them, tells you a lot about that group of People and what they value, is what I am saying. WWII can be forgotten, as aside from Britain and Norway, few really covered themselves with any glory. Their national myths will need be look elsewhere.

 

[Tom 1]

The problem with Beowulf in this sense, is it builds on another set of myths. The myth of the Free Anglo-Saxons, of the Whitan and a free Church, that was resecured at Runnymede. It is the Whig reading of English history.

Maybe. Read on it’s own merits though it presents a period of great insecurity, with enemies all around, and the avoidance of potentially annihilating conflicts being contingent on careful, responsible but courageous leadership, diplomacy and the honouring of debts and agreements between peoples and individuals. A very different picture to the sulky, self-obsessed heroes of the classical world.

 

[Tom 1]

What I meant was that Western Europe seems to be more "disconnected" from the events of the 1940s

It’s interesting that you see it like that. In some circles I think there is a conscious avoidance of the topic of the war, as Quid said, but a lot of what goes with that era is still very current. Most of the people I know in Romania and in the U.K. have a grandparent or a parent in some cases who fought in the war. Those stories still circulate. In the U.K., the idea of the blitz spirit still permeates thinking in a way that is still very much connected to the war both on the continent and how it impacted in the lives of people in the U.K. The influence of the war and each country’s part in it is something that surfaces all the time in one way or another, whether in movies, jokes, conversation, anecdotes etc. The only thing people I knew in the army forgot about is that the British army isn’t always invincible, and we don’t always win in the end (there were a lot of optimistic people going into Afghanistan).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Maybe. Read on it’s own merits though it presents a period of great insecurity, with enemies all around, and the avoidance of potentially annihilating conflicts being contingent on careful, responsible but courageous leadership, diplomacy and the honouring of debts and agreements between peoples and individuals. A very different picture to the sulky, self-obsessed heroes of the classical world.

I don't know. Many of those themes I can see occurring, maybe less with the Iliad, but certainly with the Aenead. Aeneas also has to carefully avoid difficulties and secure alliances to settle in Italy. We also see similar themes of underworld descent, with Aeneas entering Hades and Beauwulf the pool of Demons of Grendel's mother. The liminal nature of Grendel, the Shadow-walker, also comes to play here - akin perhaps to Orpheus. Beowulf is also in some sense self-aggrandising in fighting Grendel, and ultimately his bravado was foolhardy in facing the Dragon, while Wiglaf succeeded. I concede your point, but I think the resonance of Beowulf is not purely on its own merits, but a part of the broader cultural change which saw the ending of the hegemony of Rome. Dido cast into the flames made Romans think of the 3rd Punic War, but we would think more of a Juliet-esque love story. We read as much into a story as we take out. Tolkien afterall divided Beowulf into a two part structure, while today we tend to more focus on Grendel's mother in her own right. Remember that movie they made a while back, with Angelina Jolie in the role?

Who knows what will resonate in the future, and what will become merely erudite or dusty reference. We no longer pepper our speeches with classical allusions. The Greco-Roman stories are more triumphant, but we have entered a cultural eclipse - all our pomp of yesterday being one with Nineveh and Tyre - and that is why the smoky, almost cthonic Beowulf feels more apt. It was written in the world beset by Norse raiders, not the heydey of temporal power. Look at the difference between a 1950s tv show and our modern, less secure idealogically, fare. The resonance of the times plays its part.

 

[Radagast]

Beauwulf the pool of Demons of Grendel's mother

We've stolen the Beowulf plotline for a number of movies. It still resonates.

But, in general, the older the stories get, the more they need to be altered in modern retellings, or the motivations of the characters will make no sense to a modern audience.

Tolkien afterall divided Beowulf into a two part structure, while today we tend to more focus on Grendel's mother in her own right.

The movies Alien and Aliens are essentially a retelling of the first part of Beowulf.