"Myriad with Difference": Alterity and Identity in Old French and Russian Epic [PhD thesis]

The existence of epic poetry in so many and such varied cultures indicates its importance not only as entertainment, but also as a channel of communal standards and ideals. Traditionally, studies of epic have sought to illuminate a nation's heroic models through analysis of the genre's most praiseworthy characters, usually male, Christian warriors. Yet such an approach ignores the vast number of characters in epic who do not fall into that category. These characters can be called Others, since they differentiate themselves in many ways from the hero, who is understood to be the ideal. My study seeks not only to show how many and varied the characters in epic are, but also to suggest new terms that acknowledge such diversity.
Epic representation of the Other must be varied, since if the heroes generally conform to a model, then all those who do not conform must greatly outnumber the paragons. Studies of non-heroes in epic have focused on, for example, Saracens or women. It is not any one group of Others that interests me, but rather the mental phenomenon of alterity, and the range of characters who illustrate it. Yet it is this broad range that also poses considerable problems of categorization.
In literary and historical studies, the term "marginal" has too often been applied to persons or groups, fictitious or real, who were excluded. Yet such a blanket term does not take into account the various reasons for exclusion, and ensuing degrees of Otherness. Meanwhile, in anthropology and folklore, the terms "marginal" and "liminal" have been used interchangeably, to denote persons in a transitional stage.
I have sought to redefine terms such as "marginal" and "liminal" in order to make clearer the distinctions between types of Others, whose criteria of exclusion or difference vary greatly. Each chapter thus discusses one type of Other, and proposes several representative examples for each type; however, I do not suggest that my typology is definitive. The categories I propose should be taken as proof that the epic Other cannot be stereotyped and simplified, and as an invitation to further reflection and research.