Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Heaney: lines 2069-2396; Mitchell: lines 1988-2304

Beowulf describes his fight with Grendel to Hygelac, adding details missing in the poet’s description. He claims Grendel tried to cram him into some sort of pouch, but there’s no mention of this pouch in the poet’s description of the fight with Grendel. Beowulf then describes the festivities in Hrothgar’s Hall where men take turns reciting stories of heroes. He narrates the fight with Grendel’s mother in her underwater lair but omits mentioning he would have lost the fight had it not been for God’s intervention. He presents Hygelac with the gifts he received from Hrothgar.

The poet gives us an interesting tidbit about Beowulf’s reputation. Apparently, he hadn’t been well-regarded by his uncle or the Geats before setting off to fight Grendel. Hygelac presents Beowulf with a fancy sword and land.

Time passes. Hygelac is killed, and Beowulf eventually inherits the throne and rules for fifty years. A dragon interrupts the peace after discovering a thief has stolen a goblet from his treasure. The poet shows compassion by telling us the thief didn’t mean to cause trouble and was just a slave desperate to escape “the heavy hand of some master.” We get the back story of the hidden treasure: it was hidden by the last survivor of a race whose people were killed in war. The dragon finds the treasure-filled barrow and guards it for three centuries. He sets out in a fiery rampage after discovering the missing goblet, wreaking havoc on the Geats and forcing an aging Beowulf into action.

At this point, we get a flashback of Hygelac’s death. Hygelac died in . . . yes, you guessed it . . . another blood feud. Beowulf escapes the battle by swimming across the sea, “shouldering thirty-battle dresses.” He is offered the Geat throne by Hygelac’s wife, Hygd. Apparently, she doubts her son’s ability to ward off invaders. Beowulf refuses kingship, opting, instead, to act as a counsellor to Hygelac’s heir, Heardred. After Heardred is killed, Beowulf inherits the throne.

The poet gives us an interesting aside when he claims, “I heard four horses were handed over… (Heaney: lines 2164), and later, “I heard he presented Hygd with a gorget.”

What do you make of “I heard”? Is this a case of oral transmission—of the poet hearing it from someone who heard it from someone else, etc. etc. going all the way back to someone who was present at the time? Or is this a case of poetic license—an attempt by the poet to render his story with some degree of authenticity?

Apparently, Beowulf’s credentials as a warrior were questionable before he headed off to fight Grendel.

He had been poorly regarded
For a long time, was taken by the Geats
For less than he was worth: and their lord too
Had never much esteemed him in the mead-hall.
They firmly believed he lacked force,
That the prince was a weakling; but presently
Every affront to his deserving was reversed.
(Heaney: lines 2184-2090)

Mitchell translates it as, “They firmly believed he was lazy, a feeble young prince.” And Headley says:

the Geats thought him lazy, and even their lord
Had never given him span on the beer-bench, believing
He was all bluster, no badass, thinking his position came
From privilege, not class.
(Headley: lines 2185-2188)

Do you think there is any significance to Beowulf being considered weak and ineffectual before proving himself against Grendel and Grendel’s mother? Does it explain anything about his character and/or behavior?

When describing the fight with Grendel, Beowulf says, “I had done him no wrong.” Why do you think he says that?

Strictly speaking, Hygelac's death is the start of a feud, not an episode in an ongoing dispute, so far as the poem tells us.

His attack on the Frisians seems unmotivated by anything except greed, and a desire for military glory -- both highly respectable motifs at the time, and throughout the Middle Ages, although in later times, possibly under the influence of the Church, it was also customary to invent excuses for wanton aggression.

(E.g., the Anglo-Normans invaded Ireland "to reform the Church," the Pope having suddenly noticed that in Ireland Bishops were subordinate to Abbots. Never mind that it was a tempting target, with Irish infantry showing little obvious potential for a defense against knights in armor.)

There would have been little chance for an existing feud between the Geats, in southern Sweden, and the Frisians, on the North Sea coast of the Low Countries. They were separated by the powerful Danish kingdom's control of the exit from the Baltic into the Atlantic, and the Saxons formed a wedge blocking a land route.

So the Geats and Frisians would have had no immediate military contact, although there might have been a commercial connection, if the Danes allowed Frisians access to the Baltic, instead of monopolizing international trade for themselves.

Here is where Hrothgar's offer (through Beowulf) of peace with the Geats comes in: King Hygelac is able to take a war-fleet through Danish waters without having to worry about being attacked, and without the Danes immediately seeing him as a threat.

Of course, as "Beowulf" shows, this turned out to be a less than brilliant idea.

The Frisians, better known to the Anglo-Saxons as traders rather than warriors, might not have successfully resisted a surprise attack, but they were vassals/allies of the Northern European super-power of the the day, the Merovingian Franks, who intervened to protect their interests.

This happens to be the one clearly historical, and even approximately datable (c. 520) event in the whole poem. Decades later (around 594), the Gregory, Bishop of Tours, included the story in his usually pretty reliable The History of the Franks, otherwise "The Ten Books of History," Book III, chapter 4. He describes the attack by "Chlochilaicus" the "King of the Danes," and their defeat by the combined Franco-Frisian forces.

This is repeated in a much later, but possibly independent source, the "Historia Francorum" of the 790s, with a different, but still recognizable, spelling of the king's name.

He is finally identified as king of the "Getae" in the (also probably) eighth-century "Liber Monstrorum" (Book of Monsters) in which he is described as a giant, whose huge bones can still be seen on an island in the Rhine.*

It has been argued that Gregory was right about the king's nationality, and that the Beowulf poet was confused, but the most obvious explanation is that to a Bishop well south in France all northern barbarians were indiscriminately "Danes" -- just as Norwegian Vikings were designated in the ninth century.

The Latin spelling of Getae for Geatas is a classical flourish: the actual Getes were a Thracian tribe known to Herodotus, whose name late Roman historians sometimes used to designate the Goths -- which led to some considerable confusion in the Middle Ages and even the nineteenth-century, with the Goths put much too far south and much too early. Eventually, it was pointed out that the same historians sometimes referred to the Huns as (long-gone) Scythians, and, retrospectively, to the Scythians as (unrelated) Huns, since they were both mounted warriors from the Eastern steppe.

The relationship of Beowulf to Gregory's short narrative was not immediately recognized, and when it was first proposed in the nineteenth-century it was discounted. Early scholars also missed the explicit reference to the Merovingians, mostly because they divided the words in the sentence incorrectly. In the first decent edition of the poem, Kemble read the name as mere-wicingas, "sea-vikings," which made little sense in context.

Thomas Shippey has argued that the Beowulf passage in question gives the only philologically correct form of the Merovingian name directly attested in the Middle Ages -- but that gets pretty complicated, and rather dry.

*This Latin text, which was edited and translated by Andy Orchard in Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf Manuscript, is closely related to some of the other texts bound with Beowulf, although the direction of influence is difficult to establish: the short book may have been of insular (Anglo-Saxon) origin. If so -- and this attribution is a speculation, not a fact -- it would indicate that the background of "Beowulf" was known to at least some Anglo-Saxons, along with a tendency to exaggerate the physical power and size of some of the characters.

Ian, please shorten the length of your posts and restrict your comments to the poem, itself.

The nature of your posts includes a lot of historical references that may be stifling participation in the discussion. That the Anglo-Normans invaded Ireland to reform the Church, the Pope having suddenly noticed that in Ireland Bishops were subordinate to Abbots, or what Gregory, Bishop of Tours, included the story in his usually pretty reliable The History of the Franks, or The Latin spelling of Getae for Geatas etc. etc. is information that may be required in a graduate seminar. This is not the place for it, and I am concerned it is having a negative impact on participation in the discussion.

Thank you for your cooperation.

When King Hygelac is killed in battle, Beowulf does not make that the start of a blood feud. But when his son King Heardred is slain by treachery, Beowulf does lead a "comfortless campaign" to avenge him, and the "feud was settled." I think were getting a lesson of when blood vengeance is justified and when it isn't.

Roger wrote: "When King Hygelac is killed in battle, Beowulf does not make that the start of a blood feud. But when his son King Heardred is slain by treachery, Beowulf does lead a "comfortless campaign" to aven..."

If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting a couple of things here. First of all, Beowulf considers context. Death on the battle field does not constitute a feud. Death by treachery does. Secondly, Beowulf will not initiate blood feuds but will retaliate if they are initiated by the opposing side.

That's a good distinction and one that hadn't occurred to me before. It paints Beowulf in a positive light. It also might explain why he says about Grendel, "I had done him no wrong" and why he waited for Grendel to kill a Geat before springing into action. He won't initiate a feud with Grendel, but he will retaliate when Grendel initiates a feud with him by killing the Geat.

If so, if Beowulf do not consider that he have a feud with Grendel already, Beowulf is considering Grendel not an outcast but a being with rights, as a person? Not a monster where the whole humanity is his enemy?

Rafael wrote: "If so, if Beowulf do not consider that he have a feud with Grendel already, Beowulf is considering Grendel not an outcast but a being with rights, as a person? Not a monster where the whole humanit..."

Those are really good questions and open up a whole new way of looking at things. Beowulf's behavior seems to suggest he is treating Grendel on some sort of equal footing, doesn't it?

This may possibly explain why Beowulf is surprised when Grendel's mother retaliates. For one thing, we are given no indication Beowulf even knew of her existence until Hrothgar tells him. And for another, even if he did know of her existence, he had played by the rules and took a life only after a life was taken, which may have led him to believe the feud had been satisfactorily concluded.

This reinforces the point you make: Grendel as being treated on equal footing; the possible assumption that Grendel's mother is capable of understanding the rules and abiding by them.

It puts an interesting twist on the events and on Beowulf's perceptions.

Tamara wrote: "He won't initiate a feud with Grendel."

It sounds a bit like, "But mom, He hit me first!", which is actually a fair policy when honestly applied.

My edition provides account of the feud in five phases that begins with a Swedish invasion of Geat territory after the death of Hygelac's father who was also Beowulf's grandfather, referencing some text that is a bit outside of this week's discussion, but the point being neither Hygelac nor Beowulf started the feud and Beowulf certainly likes to end them.

David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "He won't initiate a feud with Grendel."

It sounds a bit like, "But mom, He hit me first!", which is actually a fair policy when honestly applied...."

LOL!
And with Grendel's mother, it sounds a bit like, "But, mom, she's not playing fair!"

I can't believe that Beowulf left his followers lying around as bait, waiting for Grendel to kill one of them to justify an attack on him.

Roger wrote: "I can't believe that Beowulf left his followers lying around as bait, waiting for Grendel to kill one of them to justify an attack on him."

But that's exactly what he did.

Mighty and canny,
Hygelac's kinsman was keenly watching
for the first move the monster would make.
nor did the creature keep him waiting
but struck suddenly and started in;
he grabbed and mauled a man on his bench,
bit into his bone-lappings, bolted down his blood
and gorged on him in lumps, leaving the body
utterly lifeless, eaten up
hand and foot. Venturing closer,
his talon was raised to attack Beowulf
where he lay on his bed;
(Heaney: lines 735-746)

I read this as Beowulf waited. He did nothing to prevent Grendel from gobbling up a Geat. Is there another way to read this?

Yes, it sure sounds like Beowulf was awake and watching when Grendel entered and ate Handscio. Maybe we should take it as tactical ruthlessness that allowed him to take Grendel by surprise.

Could we view Beowulf’s battles as acts of taking responsibility? In his battle with Grendel he is taking responsibility for his fallen kinsmen. Later with Grendel’s mother he is taking responsibility for his own actions. It seems similar to the idea of a king being married to the land and taking responsibility for things like facing ritual sacrifice in the case of a crop failure (like the Irish Cashel Man).

Mike wrote: "Could we view Beowulf’s battles as acts of taking responsibility? In his battle with Grendel he is taking responsibility for his fallen kinsmen. Later with Grendel’s mother he is taking responsibil..."

I don't understand the connection you're suggesting between Beowulf and the ritual sacrifice of a king due to crop failure. Perhaps you can explain.

Mike wrote: "Could we view Beowulf’s battles as acts of taking responsibility? In his battle with Grendel he is taking responsibility for his fallen kinsmen. Later with Grendel’s mother he is taking responsibil..."

When it comes to killing Grendel, I understand from the text that the reason is mostly out of the desire to avenge those he has killed. Avenging seems to be given much more weight than any preventative measures out of concern for those Grendel would kill in the future.

The question seems to be is an avenging reciprocity responsible enough, or is it more responsible to prevent events leading to a need for revenge; here I am including the Grendels as well as the seemingly endless feuds? The discussion has touched on it, but any preventative measures, trying to negotiate with Grendel, or forging alliances through marriage appear doomed to fail, leaving only retaliation, War is the continuation of politics by other means. - Clausewitz. Beowulf seems to go out of his way to achieve a "fair" retaliation by never starting the conflict, even to the point of watching Grendel kill one of his own men and giving him a "sporting" chance by fighting him without weapons.

Beowulf's description of the fight with Grendel contains a linguistic puzzle.

He reports that Grendel had a "glof," which, contextually, means a pouch, but is the same word as modern English "glove." There is evidence in other medieval texts for people using large gloves as impromptu pockets.

In the Prose Edda the giant Skrymir has a gigantic, or at least magical, glove, which Thor and Loki mistake for a building (a hall with a single side chamber, so it is problem to be imagined as a mitten). There is also some other Scandinavian (mainly, I think, Icelandic) lore about magical gloves.

So Grendel's possession of a very, very, large glove isn't much of a problem among his other unrealistic elements, like magically unbarring the doors of Heorot, or invulnerability to iron weapons.

However, the Geat Grendel killed was, we learn for the first time from Beowulf's report, named Hondscioh (MS spelling), "Hand-Shoe."

This is the same as the modern German Handschuh, "glove" (i.e., something that goes over the hand, the way a shoe goes over the foot), which is the explanation given in glossaries and dictionaries.

(It may be Common Gemanic: according to the bilingual dictionaries l have available, it also appears in Dutch as "handschoen" and in Icelandic 'hanski," Norwegian "hanske," Swedish "hansdske," and Danish "handskejc.")

In fact, the meaning was so obvious it took a while for the Old English word to be recognized by early modern scholars as a proper name, as required by the syntax. (No capitalization in Old English manuscripts.....)

There seems to be a doubled motif here, something that the final poet didn't quite understand, but used anyway, although not in the original fight description, because it was part of the story as it had reached him, and couldn't be omitted entirely, or it came to mind when he had to recapitulate without too much exact repetition.

This puzzle is one of the evidences for an older "Beowulf" without all the heroic legend to provide an "historical" context.

(In "Sellic Spell," a sort of reconstructed "Proto-Beowulf", Tolkien picks up on this as a folktale element, and makes "Handshoe" a magical companion of the main hero, whom he etymologizes as "Beewolf.")

Ian wrote: "although not in the original fight description, because it was part of the story as it had reached him, and couldn't be omitted entirely, or it came to mind when he had to recapitulate without too much exact repetition."

That answers my main question about Grendel's pouch, which is, why are we only hearing about this container when Beowulf tells Hygelac about it instead of the original telling of the fight.

As for the rest, a small footnote in my edition more simply says, This is the only mention of Grendel’s “pouch” (Old English glof). Its significance is unknown, although it has associations with trolls in Germanic mythology.

I notice both times now that Beowulf relates a tale of his own adventures to someone that he add details to it. From Unferth's account of his swimming contest he adds to all of the sea monsters he had to kill along the way. Now in relaying the fight with Grendel to Hygelac, we learn of the pouch and the name of the Geat that Grendel ate.

I am not saying he is lying, but he is definitely doing some embellishing.

David wrote: "I am not saying he is lying, but he is definitely doing some embellishing...."

He also does some omitting.
When he describes his fight with Grendel's mother to Hrothgar, he acknowledges it would have gone badly for him had not God helped him. When he describes it to Hygelac, he acknowledges it was a tough fight but he omits attributing his success to God:

For a while it was hand-to-hand between us,
then blood went curling along the currents
and I beheaded Grendel's mother in the hall
with a mighty sword.
(Heaney: lines 2137-2140)

Since Beowulf's credentials as a warrior were questionable before he went off to fight Grendel, the omission may have been intentional since he didn't want to appear weak in front of the Geats who had already doubted his prowess.

Tamara wrote: "Do you think there is any significance to Beowulf being considered weak and ineffectual before proving himself against Grendel and Grendel’s mother? Does it explain anything about his character and/or behavior?"

Here are my thoughts.
1. Inspirational. There may be some hope for me (the reader) yet like a type of rags to riches story.
2. Humble and unassuming origins may be meant to mirror or recall the humble and unassuming origins of Shield Sheafson, the foundling to start with, he would flourish later on.

His former reputation may be a reason Beowulf displays so much showmanship now with his boasting and embellishing of his own adventures. Perhaps his fight with Grendel there is a desperation for greatness behind the undaunted courage, Often, for undaunted courage, fate spares the man it has not already marked. and he really is willing to die in order to reverse his former reputation,

(Heaney 632) “I had a fixed purpose when I put to sea. . .
. . .And I shall fulfill that purpose,
prove myself with a proud deed
or meet my death here in the mead-hall.”

However, What we are learning now about his poor reputation seems at odds with what he tells Hrothgar on his arrival to fight Grendel,

(Heaney 408) When I was younger, I had great triumphs.

Perhaps Beowulf means a recent younger self.

David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "However, What we are learning now about his poor reputation seems at odds with what he tells Hrothgar on his arrival to fight Grendel,
(Heaney 408) When I was younger, I had great triumphs.
Perhaps Beowulf means a recent younger self..."

Good catch. But how much more recent can he mean? It's clear that Hygelac didn't want him to go to Heorot.

"How did you fare on your foreign voyage,
dear Beowulf, when you abruptly decided
to sail across the salt water
and fight at Heorot? Did you help Hrothgar
much in the end? Could you ease the prince
of his well-known troubles? Your undertaking
cast my spirits down, I dreaded the outcome
of your expedition and pleaded with you
long and hard to leave the killer be
(Heaney: lines 1987-1995)

His questions sound as if he had serious doubts about Beowulf's abilities to survive the ordeal. And if you couple that with what he tells Hrothgar about having "great triumphs" when he was younger, it makes me wonder if Beowulf has a distorted self-image. Which then leads me to question whether his narrative about the swimming contest with Breca was accurate. Maybe Unferth was on to something, after all.

In line 408, maybe Beowulf was burnishing his record a bit. After all, he's only [super]human.

Tamara wrote: "It's clear that Hygelac didn't want him to go to Heorot."

I was just thinking about that. It is clear that Hygelac did not want him to go, but it is not clear why. Was it more because Hygelac felt Beowulf was not up to the task due to his former reputation, or more because Hygelac, as an uncle, is worried about his nephew?

I also wonder about our introduction to Beowulf,

(Heaney 194) When he heard about Grendel, Hygelac’s thane
was on home ground, over in Geatland.
There was no one else like him alive.
In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth,
highborn and powerful. . .

I wonder now if it was or was not yet Beowulf's day. What marks the beginning of Beowulf's day?

David wrote: "I was just thinking about that. It is clear that Hygelac did not want him to go, but it is not clear why. Was it more because Hygelac felt Beowulf was not up to the task due to his former reputation, or more because Hygelac, as an uncle, is worried about his nephew?..."

Maybe a bit of both. Hygelac, apparently, didn't have a high opinion of his abilities: "and their lord too/Had never much esteemed him in the mead-hall."

Roger wrote: "In line 408, maybe Beowulf was burnishing his record a bit. After all, he's only [super]human."

It certainly sounds like it, doesn't it?
A young man with a reputation of being a bit of a weakling, ignores his uncle's advice, and sets off to fight a monster to prove himself worthy. Exaggerates his past "triumphs" when he gets to Heorot; is willing to risk his life to prove his strength; and is celebrated for his prowess when he returns home.

Tamara wrote: "Roger wrote: "In line 408, maybe Beowulf was burnishing his record a bit. After all, he's only [super]human."

It certainly sounds like it, doesn't it?
A young man with a reputation of being a bit ..."


This interpretation is consistent with Campbell's monomyth, aka hero's journey.

Tolkien also agrees with this interpretation. Moreover, he argues that the hero Beowulf might originate from a "Bear's son tale", where Beowulf (Beewolf) was not Hygelac nephew, but a feral child found and admitted at the king's court.

Emil wrote: "This interpretation is consistent with Campbell's monomyth, aka hero's journey..."

I'm a big fan of Joseph Campbell. Thank you for making the connection. Beowulf's story fits so well with the monomyth.

When Beowulf hears of the dragon, his immediate response is to wonder if he has caused trouble for his people by offending God:

It threw the hero
Into deep anguish and darkened his mood:
The wise man thought he must have thwarted
Ancient ordinance of the eternal Lord,
Broken his commandment
(Heaney: lines 2328-2331)

Why does Beowulf feel guilty? Does he have anything to feel guilty about?

Tamara wrote: "When Beowulf hears of the dragon, his immediate response is to wonder if he has caused trouble for his people by offending God:

It threw the hero
Into deep anguish and darkened his mood:
The wise..."

Maybe because people used to view disasters as punishments from gods. Punishing the whole nation for the sins of their leader was also very common. Think about Yahweh inflicting ten plagues on Egyptians because the Pharaoh refused to release the Israelites from slavery. In Oedipus Rex, the gods sent a plague to Thebes to punish Oedipus for patricide and incest, even if his sins were involuntary.

Faced with this extraordinary disaster, Beowulf natural reaction was to ask himself: have I done something wrong to upset God?

Emil wrote: "Maybe because people used to view disasters as punishments from gods. Punishing the whole nation for the sins of their leader was also very common. ..."

I agree.

But now I'm wondering why Hrothgar didn't blame himself for Grendel. He complains about the plague that is Grendel. He complains about his household guard being killed off. But I haven't seen any indication that either his people blame him or that he blames himself for the Grendel catastrophe. The poet says of Hrothgar:

Yet there was no laying of blame on their lord,
the noble Hrothgar; he was a good king.
(Heaney: lines 861-862)

What are we to make of Hrothgar's reaction to a disaster and Beowulf's reaction?

The speculation that Beowulf, like Thackeray's "Barry Lyndon," and the protagonists or narrators of many modern novels, is an unreliable narrator (liar) is interesting, but there is a simpler explanation.

The origin of the poem is undoubtedly complex. It is very likely that the final poet had to juggle two Beowulfs, and kept them compartmentalized.

One was the protagonist of a folktale about an unlikely hero, which Tolkien, among others, thought was the seed of the poem (although Tolkien thought more highly of it than most).

The other -- who may have been the poet's innovation -- was a companion of famous Kings, and a mighty warrior from the start. Hrothgar seems to know this Beowulf as a promising member of Hygelac's court (besides being the king's sister's son).

Listeners might know either one, and expect to hear about the one they knew.

The solution, not necessarily deliberate, seems to have been to introduce the folktale Beowulf in the return to Hygelac's court.

He is there, but not beforehand, and not often afterwards, the equivalent of the disregarded third son (or daughter) in many modern fairytales. the one who succeeds when all others have failed.

This also, as I have suggested before, avoids the problem of straight repetition of the Heorot material when the story resumes in Geatland.

The final poet also manages to work in divine favor as an explanation for the change, probably not thought necessary in older tellings.

R.D. Fulk's recent translation, based on his own editorial work on the poem, puts the narrator's second version of the young Beowulf quite clearly (and is very close to the facing Old English text: The Beowulf Manuscript, pp. 230/231):

"For a long time he had been lowly, as the sons of the Geats had not thought him good, nor had the lord of the Weders cared to put him in possession of much on the mead-bench; they had rather thought that he was shiftless, a slack [sleac] lordling. A reversal of fortune for all his trouble came to the man blessed with glory."

This solution doesn't work all that well in a modern, printed, text, where the reader can flip back to find a contradiction, but it is unlikely to have been a big problem for a listening audience: especially if the story was told episodically, broken into three parts, in different sessions, as has often been proposed.

I just read this part yesterday. As for the pouch-bit: in my Dutch version it gets translated as 'handschoen' (i.e. glove). Then again there are 2 Dutch words: there's 'handschoen' (hand-shoe), which typically has 5 fingers, and 'want', which has 2 'fingers'. I can see the later one more easily being transformed into a pouch, however.

I also think that Beowulf might do some embelishing and omitting when telling his adventures to the Geats. I do think however that for an audience point of view it's way more interesting to have a somewhat different account everytime the events are narrated again (after all, this is the 3th time the account is given, the first one being the fight itself as told by the poet)

Then again it of course is interesting to elaborate on the way the story of the fight with Grendel and his mother are told every time.
On that account a lot of good interpretations are given. I would like to add that Beowulf might have had an interest in downplaying the facts to Hrothgar: in doing so Beowulf might have appealed to some kind of guest code not to outshine his host too much.

That being said, I do think his first account might me more truthfull, as it takes place right after the event. On his way home Beowulf had time to think about what he was going to say to his uncle about it and, as is mentioned here before, he had a chance to change the perception of the Geats of him being a weakling.

On that account I thought his escape from the fight with the Frysians quite remarkable: instead of standing by his uncle's and king's side in battle he kind of ran off.

Marieke wrote: "On that account I thought his escape from the fight with the Frysians quite remarkable: instead of standing by his uncle's and king's side in battle he kind of ran off..."

I don't think Beowulf "ran off." He fought in the battle in which his uncle was killed. It was only after the battle was over that he swam across the sea with the thirty sets of armor which he took as plunder.

Marieke wrote: "I would like to add that Beowulf might have had an interest in downplaying the facts to Hrothgar: in doing so Beowulf might have appealed to some kind of guest code not to outshine his host too much..."

We know Beowulf is very diplomatic when he talks to Hrothgar about fighting Grendel. He doesn't embarrass him by saying I'm here to fight Grendel because you are incapable of doing it. Instead, he couches it by asking Hrothgar's permission--as if he wants Hrothgar to do him a favor. So you may be right. He may be adhering to some kind of guest code in not wanting to outshine his host by going into a lot of detail.

Tamara wrote: "Marieke wrote: "I would like to add that Beowulf might have had an interest in downplaying the facts to Hrothgar..."

If Beowulf had reason to soften his story to Hrothgar, maybe a need to reverse and build his reputation at home caused him to enhance the story for Hygelac,

The poet has no reservations about foreshadowing Beowulf's death a number of times throughout the poem. In this section, the poet reveals the outcome of Beowulf’s fight with the dragon right after Beowulf orders his new shield as he prepares to face the dragon.

The poet's audience would know of Beowulf's impending death at the hands of the dragon. But does the foreshadowing ruin the suspense for you? Why do you think the poet lets us know the outcome of the fight in advance? What—if anything—does he gain by doing so?

Tamara wrote: "The poet has no reservations about foreshadowing Beowulf's death a number of times throughout the poem. In this section, the poet reveals the outcome of Beowulf’s fight with the dragon right after ..."

If Beowulf was indeed the outcome of an oral tradition one might argue that the outcome, i.e. Beowulfs death, is already known. Giving away the outcome might activate the listeners to pay attention to the skill of the orator. (I'd say as a teaser saying 'this part is coming up, listen how skillfully I tell you of it')

One question : is the 50 years of rule mentioned a kind of phrase? (troph?). I believe Hrothgar is mentioned to rule for 50 years

Marieke wrote: "Giving away the outcome might activate the listeners to pay attention to the skill of the orator. (I'd say as a teaser saying 'this part is coming up, listen how skillfully I tell you of it').."

Very Interesting. The poet's audience would have known the outcome, so they want to see how the poet handles/interprets it. A bit like the Greek classical plays or Shakespeare's history plays where the audience already knew how the story would end but went to see how the poet interpreted the events. The skeletal frame was already there and known; the poet fleshed out the parts.

This is also why we read and re-read great literature. We don't read it to learn what happens next because we already know. We re-read it to experience the author's interpretation of a story we are already familiar with.

Marieke wrote: "One question : is the 50 years of rule mentioned a kind of phrase? (troph?). I believe Hrothgar is mentioned to rule for 50 years"

I may have missed it, but I didn't find a reference to Hrothgar ruling for 50 years.

Tamara wrote: "Marieke wrote: "One question : is the 50 years of rule mentioned a kind of phrase? (troph?). I believe Hrothgar is mentioned to rule for 50 years"

I may have missed it, but I didn't find a referen..."

Heaney 1669:

"Just so I ruled the Ring-Danes' country
for fifty years, defended them in wartime
with spear and sword against constant assaults
by many tribes: I came to believe
my enemies had faded from the face of the earth."

In the O.E text we have "hund missera" - ad litteram " one hundred half-years"

Tolkien translation is a bit closer to the original in this case:
"Even so did I for half a hundred years beneath heaven rule the ring-proud Danes"


For Beowulf reign we have "Fiftig wintra" - "fifty winters"

I like how the poet uses different ways to express the same period of time.

Emil wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Marieke wrote: "One question : is the 50 years of rule mentioned a kind of phrase? (troph?). I believe Hrothgar is mentioned to rule for 50 years"

I may have missed it, but I didn't..."

Thanks for catching that, Emil. I don't know how I missed it.

Tamara wrote: "Emil wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Marieke wrote: "One question : is the 50 years of rule mentioned a kind of phrase? (troph?). I believe Hrothgar is mentioned to rule for 50 years"

I may have missed it,..."

Anyway, I don't think the poet means literally 50 years. It's just a nice round number symbolizing a very long reign. A monarch ruling around 50 years is a historical anomaly.

We have a lot more monarchs who reigned for less than a week than kings who lasted for half a century. Think about this: in the long history of the Roman Empire, we don't have an emperor that ruled 50 years or more but we have a dozen who reigned less than a year.

This means that Beowulf and Hrothgar were not merely "good kings" and mighty warriors, but leaders who brought political stability to their country.

Emil wrote: "Anyway, I don't think the poet means literally 50 years. It's just a nice round number symbolizing a very long reign. A monarch ruling around 50 years is a historical anomaly. ..."

I agree: the number is symbolic. We aren't meant to enter into calculations of Beowulf's minimum age when he decides to fight a dragon.

One reason for short reigns, although not very applicable to the Roman situation, was medical: or, rather, the lack of real medical care that was more than palliative. Important people often died relatively young, like almost everyone else.

(Yes, some elderly Renaissance Popes and other churchmen lasted a memorably long time, to the frustration of their would-be successors. But the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, born in 1500, died in 1558, having actually retired from ruling two years before, plausibly claiming to be worn out. His reign had effectively started in 1519, so he had been at it a long time.)