Classics and the Western Canon discussion

(Heaney: lines 2397-2820; Mitchell: lines 2305-2714)

Beowulf heads off to fight the dragon with 11 of his comrades. The poet foreshadows Beowulf’s death. Sensing his end is near, Beowulf gives a moving farewell speech to his men. He recaps the events: how Hygelac’s father, King Hrethel, adopted him as one of his sons; Hrethel’s lament at the accidental death of Herebeald, his first-born son, at the hands of Haethcyn, his second-born son; the feuding between the Swedes and the Geats after Hrethel’s death; Haethcyn’s death in battle; his killer killed by Eofor, a Geat. Hygelac assumes the throne and rewards Beowulf for his prowess in battle.

Beowulf gives his last boast. He will fight the dragon while acknowledging he is now an old man. Unlike his fight with Grendel, he will face the dragon in battle gear. He orders his men to stay at a safe distance so he can fight alone. He enters the dragon’s lair and is met with fire and brimstone. Fierce fighting ensues. The dragon spouts deadly flames. His men hear the clamor and run back in fear—all except Wiglaf.

We get an aside about Wiglaf’s father, Weohstan. Wiglaf urges the men to support Beowulf, reminding them of all he did for them. But they run off, so Wiglaf goes in alone. The dragon attacks. Naegling, Beowulf’s sword, snaps. The dragon clamps his fangs on Beowulf’s neck. Wiglaf charges at the dragon, sinking his sword in the dragon’s belly. Beowulf musters his strength and delivers the fatal wound. Working together, the two of them kill the dragon.

Realizing he is at death’s door, Beowulf reflects on his life, a speech that echoes Hrothgar’s final speech to him. He asks Wiglaf to show him the treasure before he dies and is thankful to God he has been able to leave his people all this wealth. He designates Wiglaf as his heir, entrusts him to take care of the people, and orders the construction of a commemorative barrow on his funeral pyre to be called Beowulf’s barrow. And with that, our hero dies.

Beowulf’s farewell speech to his men includes an account of King Hrethel’s lament for the accidental death of his son. Beowulf compares it to the misery of an old man witnessing his son’s death on the gallows. He describes Hrethel as someone who can longer find joy in life. I thought this poignant and moving description shows Beowulf as being sensitive to the tragic loss of a life. I compared it to his reaction when Hrothgar was lamenting the death of his advisor, Aeschere. In that instance, Beowulf claimed it was better to avenge than to mourn, a piece of advice that struck me as flippant and insensitive. Do you think Beowulf ‘s attitude toward loss of life has changed in his old age?

The young Beowulf shows little concern for treasure. Although he has easy access to the treasure in the underwater lair of Grendel’s mother, he leaves it behind, taking only the sword’s hilt, which he later presents to Hrothgar. But his last thoughts before dying are about treasure. Why? Has his perception of gold and its importance changed now that he is on the verge of dying?

Do you see any similarities and/or differences between the dragon and Grendel or Grendel’s mother?

Are there any similarities between an aging Beowulf at the end of the poem and the aging Hrothgar at the beginning of the poem?

In all the reminiscences of fighting and killing, blood feuds were avoided.

King Hrethel "could not punish the killer in accordance with the law / of the blood-feud" (2466-67 Heaney) in the accidental killing of Herebeald by his brother Haethcyn. Hrethel died of grief, Haethcyn became king and leds the Geats against the Swedes, who "were unrelenting, / refusing to make peace" (2475-76). So the Swedes were the aggressors, and the Geats defending themselves. Haethcyn died in battle and the crown passed to Hygelac. The war ended when the Swedish king was killed: "his feud-calloused hand / could not stave off the fatal stroke" (2488-89). Apparently no further feuding ensued.

Then Beowulf recounts his defeat of Dayraven the Frank in open single combat between two armies. Again no feuding results.

And we learn that Wiglaf's father Weohstan killed Eanmund, but he delivered the latter's arms to Eanmund's kinfolk, and blood-feud was again avoided.

Roger wrote: "In all the reminiscences of fighting and killing, blood feuds were avoided.

King Hrethel "could not punish the killer in accordance with the law / of the blood-feud" (2466-67 Heaney) in the accid..."

Nice summation. There seems to be an unwritten code of honor operating in blood feuds. Specifically, I'm thinking that Wiglaf’s father was able to avoid the continuation of a blood feud by delivering Eanmund's arms to his family.

But I wonder if the cessation of blood feuds is just temporary--a hiccup until the defeated party feels strong enough to retaliate. I’m thinking of Beowulf’s prediction that the marriage of Hrothgar’s daughter to the Heathobard will fail to heal the feud. It sounded as if the Heathobards were just biding their time until they assembled sufficient resources to retaliate against the Danes.

Heaney (2401) The lord of the Geats took eleven comrades
and went in a rage to reconnoiter.

This is the first time I noticed Beowulf actually being emotionally invested and angry. The word rage caught my attention and I could not help but try to draw comparisons with the rage of Achilles and how it drove him to his death. Does Beowulf have a different attitude of revenge towards personal affronts, like the burning of his own home, compared to seeking personal glory by avenging others, or is this a case of translator's choice?

(Heaney 2325) his own home,
the best of buildings, had been burned to a cinder. . .
. . .so the war-king planned and plotted his revenge

David wrote: "Heaney (2401) The lord of the Geats took eleven comrades
and went in a rage to reconnoiter.This is the first time I noticed Beowulf actually being emotionally invested and angry. The word rage caug..."

Mitchell's translation:
To Beowulf then the terror was told,
that his own house, that majestic hall,
the Geats throne room, had gone up in flames.
This cause the good man untold anguish,
a bitter sorrow that seared his heart.
(2239-2243)
and so the king planned vengeance on him (line 2250)
The king of the Geats, with eleven comrades,
furious, went to look for the lair.
(2309-2310)

Headley translation:
Soon Beowulf received a blistering missive.
His own hall, his heart-home, had combusted.
He'd been ghost-throned by the skyborne gold-holder.
To the good man, this region's ring-giver, this was
distress unbearable--punishment, perhaps, from the Lord.
(lines 2325-2329)
the old war king woke to action, plotting vengeance
on the stranger.
(lines 2336-2337)
The Geat-king rode with eleven companions,
firing himself into a fury as he hunted the lair's location.
(lines 2400-2401)

Heaney uses rage whereas the others say he was furious or in a fury. In either case, Beowulf is pretty mad. We don't get the same sense of rage when he goes after Grendel or Grendel's mother. He was more composed there. He projected an emotional detachment from the whole undertaking, as if this is just another job he has to do.

His attitude here is very different. The dragon attacked his home and his people. So it's personal and political since he has an obligation to protect his people. He is more invested in seeking revenge, exhibiting rage and fury. Of course, that could also cause his downfall since such strong emotions may cloud his judgment.

He seems to recover his composure by the time he gets to the lair. He pauses, reflects, makes plans, gives a little speech before going in. He still wants to take on the dragon mano-a-mano, though, making only the concession to practicality of carrying arms this time.

Roger wrote: "He still wants to take on the dragon mano-a-mano, though, making only the concession to practicality of carrying arms this time..."

Yes, but he's an old man now--fifty years older than when he took on Grendel and Grendel's mother. He doesn't have the strength or energy he once had. Is his decision to fight the dragon alone wise? Why is it so important to him, at this stage in his life, to prove himself? Why not take men in with him to help?

Remember Hrothgar's advice:

Do not give way to pride.
For a brief while your strength is in bloom
but it fades quickly; and soon there will follow
illness or the sword to lay you low
(Heaney: lines 1760-1763)

Is Beowulf ignoring Hrothgar’s advice by not recognizing the limitations of his aging body? Is his pride getting in the way of doing the sensible thing?

Beowulf is acknowledging the power of the dragon and he knows that only he can defeat it. He is not just proud, he's realistic:

"This fight is not yours,
nor is it up to any man except me
to measure his strength against the monster"

What he doesn't know is that he can not defeat the dragon alone, he will need the help of a loyal friend like Wiglaf. Maybe that's the moral of this story: no matter how strong you (think you) are, there are things you can not achieve without the help of others.

Tamara wrote: "Do you see any similarities and/or differences between the dragon and Grendel or Grendel’s mother?

Are there any similarities between an aging Beowulf at the end of the poem and the aging Hrothgar..."

Is it important that Hrothgar doesn't fight against Grendel, the threat to his pepole and rule, himself whereas Beowulf does fight against the dragon himself?

Who of them is the wiser man here? Hrothgar who acknowledges he doesn't have the stenght (anymore) to fight Grendel but instead keeps sending in the best warriors he can find, or Beowulf who seems to feel responsible for the dragon being there and wanting to fight him alone?

Tamara wrote: "Hrethel’s lament at the accidental death of Herebeald, his first-born son, at the hands of Haethcyn, his second-born son;..."

Some critics compared Herebeald and Haethcyn to Cain and Abel. But Herebeald was killed accidentally, with an arrow.

Anyone familiar with Norse mythology will notice that this story is just another version of the death of Baldur, son of Odin. He was also killed accidentally with an arrow by his brother Hodr.

In an earlier discussion, Ian pointed out that there are striking similarities between Thor and Beowulf:

Ian wrote: "It was pointed out some time in the nineteenth century that Beowulf's biography bears a remarkable resemblance to that of the god Thor, especially as told by Snorri Sturluson in the Prose (or Younger) Edda. He spends his time, like Beowulf, killing monsters and enemies of the gods and men -- chiefly Frost Giants, and Trolls -- and in the end faces and kills a dragon-like super-monster, the Midgard Serpent, but dies of the poison it spews: again, like Beowulf...."

Freawaru and Ingeld also reminds us of Freya and Freyr. Ing was the original name of the Old Norse god Yngvi, the original name of Freyr.


I don't think the poet intentionally inserted these pagan elements; on the contrary, he did his best to remove/censor them or to replace them with Christian elements.

Marieke wrote: "Who of them is the wiser man here? Hrothgar who acknowledges he doesn't have the stenght (anymore) to fight Grendel but instead keeps sending in the best warriors he can find, or Beowulf who seems to feel responsible for the dragon being there and wanting to fight him alone?"

If the goal is to kill the dragon, then you send in your strongest warrior(s) to do so. Hrothgar knew his limitations as an old man so he didn't try to do it himself.

Beowulf may feel responsible for the dragon because his immediate reaction was to think he may have offended God and brought the catastrophe on his people. But he also has a responsibility toward his people by protecting himself as their leader. He has ruled them successfully for fifty years. His presence has kept away enemies. He is more important to them alive than dead. So why does he take the risk to fight a fire-breathing dragon alone? Why not minimize the risk by taking men with him to face the dragon?

I think Beowulf needlessly put his life at risk. He knows how much his people need him as their leader. He knows he is an old man. It may be more heroic, more grand, to face a monster on your own, but in this case, I think it was irresponsible. Like Hrothgar, he should have known his limitations and sent his best warrior(s).

For all his flaws--maybe because of them--I love Beowulf. It's hard to come to terms with the fact that your aging body can no longer do what once came so easily to it. Believe me, I know. But he should have thought of his people first and of how much they rely on him as their leader.

He should have shown the wisdom of Hrothgar.

I do not think old age is the issue for a man who is still strong enough to shatter an iron sword on a dragon's skull.

Susanna wrote: "Was it suicide by dragon?.."

Wow! I hadn't thought of that. His farewell speech to his men in which he recaps his life and addresses his companions "one final time" certainly suggests he suspects he will die.
Was it suicide by dragon? Maybe.

Tamara wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Was it suicide by dragon?.."

Wow! I hadn't thought of that. His farewell speech to his men in which he recaps his life and addresses his companions "one final time" certainly sugge..."

Given Beowulf seems to be sure he has provoked some divine punishment onto his people 'sacrifice' might be the better word.

I don't think I know enough of Beowulf to either rule out or support the theory of suicide though

Marieke wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Was it suicide by dragon?.."

Wow! I hadn't thought of that. His farewell speech to his men in which he recaps his life and addresses his companions "one final time" ..."

On the other hand, he does make preparations for his death when he fights Grendel and Grendel's mother by telling Hrothgar how he wants his stuff distributed. But his speech to his comrades is far more elaborate. He touts his accomplishments as if he wants to remind them of his legacy.

Beowulf seems to have a sense of responsibility towards his people, but he also holds himself to the heroic. He didn't want to die in bed. Maybe that's a fault, or maybe that's just part of the tragedy of life. Would we really want to read about Beowulf if he put together a team of overwhelming force to deal with Grendel and then with the dragon?

Roger wrote: "Beowulf seems to have a sense of responsibility towards his people, but he also holds himself to the heroic. He didn't want to die in bed.
Maybe that's a fault, or maybe that's just part of the t..."

I guess that depends on how skillfully it is told (and what tactics are used). But I guess that would take away from the whole David vs. Goliath-feel

Tamara wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Was it suicide by dragon?.."

Wow! I hadn't thought of that. His farewell speech to his men in which he recaps his life and addresses his companions "one final time" certainly sugge..."

This doesn't prove he was expecting to die, Beowulf gave this kind of overdramatic speech before his fights with Grendel and Grendel's mother.

I don't think anyone could have killed the dragon except Beowulf. Not even an army. You need a hero to kill a dragon, and Beowulf was the only hero available.

Beowulf is acting heroically, but his death is more about self-sacrifice. Yes, he could have hidden for 12 years like Hrothgar, dying of old age while his kingdom is being burnt by the dragon, but this would be no proper end for our story.


Was it "suicide by dragon"? If so, Jesus's death was also "suicide by cross".

+1 on suicide by dragon. Thought provoking and funny, but no.

There is a difference between sensing your death and suicide. Beowulf just senses it is his time.

(Heaney 2419) . . .He was sad at heart,
unsettled yet ready, sensing his death.
His fate hovered near, unknowable but certain:
it would soon claim his coffered soul,
part life from limb. Before long
the prince’s spirit would spin free from his body.

Soon after that we are specifically told Beowulf is an unwilling participant in his death:

(Heaney 2487) For the son of Ecgtheow, it was no easy thing to have to give ground like that and go unwillingly to inhabit another home in a place beyond;

Susanna wrote: "Emil wrote: "Was it "suicide by dragon"? If so, Jesus's death was also "suicide by cross" ..."

So Beowulf is a Christ-like figure?"

I suppose there are some similarities, don't you think? But he's more of a "Thor-like figure". Thor died in the same way, killing a huge snake with Mjollnir, his hammer, but was killed by the snake's venom afterward.

The term "Christ-like figure" has been abused in the last decades, so I avoid using it. Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin, Frodo Baggins, Superman, Luke Skywalker have all been described as "Christ-like"

Since my attempt to unpick the historical background of Hygelac's death, and its separate legendary development outside "Beowulf," does not seem to have been well-received, I will merely point out that there is a Icelandic version of the Swedish dynastic succession, based on a Norwegian poem, under the title "Ynglinga Saga,"

This is the first part of Snorri Sturluson's "Heimskringla," otherwise the biographies of Norway's historical kings. Most of the Swedish kings mentioned in Beowulf appear in it under the expected Icelandic equivalents of their names: but Ongentheow appears as Egill, for no known reason.

A pdf of a modern translation of it can be found, free, on the publications page of Viking Society for Northern Research
https://www.vsnr.org/publications/
Simply scroll down the page until you find "Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla I. The Beginnings to Óláfr Tryggvason. Translated by A. Finlay and A. Faulkes. 2011." Just click on it to start the download. Unfortunately, the titles are now in html green, so they are a bit hard to read.

Also useful for those unfamiliar with the Icelandic sagas would be another of their free publications, "D. Whaley: Heimskringla. An Introduction. Text Series VIII. 1991"

(I originally posted this on last week's thread, but decided that it fits better here.)

I suppose that we are supposed to remember that the young Beowulf had the strength of thirty men in his hands: even assuming that old age has cut that in half, he is probably still the best (superhuman) monster-slayer available to the Geats.

However, his decision to act alone is questionable: if he had expected his companions to actively aid him, he should have equipped them with new, fire-proof, iron shields, like his. (Shields were made of wood: one of the Anglo-Saxons synonyms for a shield is "bord," literally, "board.")

As it is, they seem more like intended witnesses, and they fail even at that.

At lines 2582-83 there is an interesting (I think) interpretive problem.

The text says "wide sprungon / hilde-leoman," which R.D. Fulk translates very accurately as "the battle-lights sprang far and wide."

In context, "battle-lights" is a metaphorical substitute for a common noun, and refers to the dragon's fire.

However, elsewhere in Beowulf (1143), the same compound word (in a different case) means "sword."

There has been some dispute over whether anyone listening to the poem would have picked up on the two meanings, and treated it as a kind of pun -- fire is metaphorically the dragon's sword -- or it would have simply passed by without notice.

And for those who take their Oral Formulaic theory straight, the poet too may not have noticed, because it was just a convenient word to fill out the line metrically.

We would have more to go on if "hilde-leoma" appeared in other Old English poems as a term for a sword, so that it might be familiar to the audience.

In the absence of better evidence, I'm inclined to think of it as a deliberate play on words. The dragon, unlike Grendel, but like Grendel's mother, has a weapon to wield, even if it isn't iron, or even solid. So Beowulf using a sword is "fighting fair," if one ignores that his opponent is fifty feet long.....

Emil wrote: "I don't think anyone could have killed the dragon except Beowulf. Not even an army. You need a hero to kill a dragon, and Beowulf was the only hero available. ..."

But he didn't kill the dragon single-handedly. The dragon was winning. Beowulf would have died had not Wiglaf intervened. This has echoes of the fight with Grendel's mother where he would have lost had it not been for God's intervention.

Roger wrote: "Beowulf seems to have a sense of responsibility towards his people, but he also holds himself to the heroic. He didn't want to die in bed. Maybe that's a fault, or maybe that's just part of the tra..."

I see that. It certainly would have diminished his stature as a hero to curl up and die in bed.
I am reminded of Beowulf's words to Hrothgar:

For every one of us, living in this world
means waiting for our end. Let whoever can
win glory before death. When a warrior is gone,
that will be his best and only bulwark.
(Heaney: 1386-1389)

I guess there's a price to be paid if you want to maintain your status and legacy as a heroic warrior. His words may be true but they're also very poignant.

Tamara wrote: "Beowulf would have died had not Wiglaf intervened."

But Beowulf loosened it*, distracted the dragon, as nobody else could, allowing Wiglaf to strike.

*for all those people that aren't quite able to unscrew a tight jar lid, but the next person is able to.

Ian wrote: "As it is, they seem more like intended witnesses, and they fail even at that.."

Yes, and that makes his death all the more sad. They fail him. Wiglaf reminds them of Beowulf's generosity toward them. He says we owe him. Beowulf has done so much for his warriors, maintained the peace for 50 years for his people. Now, when he needs their help, they abandon him to his fate. It's a betrayal.

Beowulf's determination to fight the dragon despite sensing his death at the end serves to increase his heroism, our appreciation of him, and the inspiration the poet's audience can take from his altruistic example, despite any personally glory he was going for. This perspective from hindsight is probably where any comparison to Christ should stop.

Beowulf is more like the typical soldier killed in battle serving his country. Kamikaze and suicide bombers aside, soldiers killed in times of war are neither christ-like nor suicidal despite knowing they could be killed or even sensing with certainty that they will be killed. As the Patton quote goes, No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country. But more to the point of sealing Beowulf's legacy, when survivors of some conflict are called heroes, they are quick to downplay their own part and remind us that the real heroes are the ones who did not come back.

I am still a little stunned at Beowulf's rage in confronting the dragon vs. his indifference confronting Grendel's mother. In going out to confront the dragon he is clearly angry:

(Heaney 2550) Then he gave a shout. The lord of the Geats
unburdened his breast and broke out
in a storm of anger. Under gray stone
his voice challenged and resounded clearly.

In preparing to battle Grendel's mother he is indifferent:

(Heaney 1442) Beowulf got ready,
donned his war-gear, indifferent to death;. . .

Beowulf seemed indifferent about risking his life and leaving things up to fate in prior battles. Perhaps his rage over the battle with the dragon is not directed at the dragon as much as it is sensing fate has decreed this time that he will die.

David wrote: "Perhaps his rage over the battle with the dragon is not directed at the dragon as much as it is sensing fate has decreed this time that he will die..."

The young tend to think they're invincible. They charge headlong into potentially dangerous waters with ne'er a second thought. The old are generally more circumspect. They know their end is near so they tend toward caution.

As you suggest, Beowulf's rage over the battle with the dragon may be because he senses his time has come. He has lost his "abandon all caution to the wind" attitude that characterized his youth. He is aware of all he's lost and that enrages him.

I'm curious to see if any of you think there is a significance to this pattern concerning the location of the battles with monsters.

Grendel is an outcast. He leaves his mere/home and invades Heorot. He's an outsider who has intruded into someone else's space. He is soundly and single-handedly defeated by Beowulf who doesn't even need armor or weapons to defeat him.

Grendel's mother lives in her mere. Beowulf invades her space, fully armed for battle. But he can't kill her unaided. He needs divine intervention to kill her.

The dragon lives in his underground barrow. Beowulf invades his space, fully armed for battle. Again, he can't kill the dragon unaided. Wiglaf has to step in and help.

I'm not sure what--if anything--is to be made of this. When Grendel invades foreign territory, he is soundly defeated. Every time Beowulf invades foreign territory, he needs help. Why? Is something being suggested about the dangers of invading someone else's space? Or am I making too much of this pattern?

The word for Beowulf's anger in 2550 is actually rather dramatic: ge-bolgen (from the verb belgan) means not only simply angry, but "swollen with rage."

The verb was also used reflexively: "to enrage oneself." This might have been used by an Anglo-Saxon to describe a berserker working himself into a fury, but there is no sign that it ever was. Along those general lines, it may once have had connotations of an especially heroic state, in which the warrior really does seem larger, but there is no Old English evidence for this that I am aware of, either.

(The medieval Irish had a word for it, but it included bodily distortions, and is mainly associated with the fighting fury of the hero Cuchulain.)

Tamara wrote: "But he didn't kill the dragon single-handedly. The dragon was winning. Beowulf would have died had not Wiglaf intervened. ..."

I agree, Wiglaf played a big role. He did more than joining the fight, he managed to motivate Beowulf. His powerful speech was marvellously translated by Tolkien and Heaney:

"Beowulf beloved, do all things well unto the end, even as thou didst vow aforetime in the days of youth that thou wouldst not while living suffer thy honour to fall low. Now must thou, brave in deeds, thy noble heart unwavering, with all thy might thy life defend. To the uttermost I will aid thee."
Tolkien


"Go on, dear Beowulf, do everything
you said you would when you were still young
and vowed you would never let your name and fame
be dimmed while you lived. Your deeds are famous,
so stay resolute, my lord, defend your life now
with the whole of your strength. I shall stand by you."
Heaney

Ian wrote: "The word for Beowulf's anger in 2550 is actually rather dramatic: ge-bolgen (from the verb belgan) means not only simply angry, but "swollen with rage". . .This might have been used by an Anglo-Saxon to describe a berserker working himself into a fury, but there is no sign that it ever was."

Thanks, I was wondering if it was the case that Beowulf was a bit crazed, i.e., overtones of going berserk, over the dragon and did not attack it with all rationality due to this rage. However, taking all of the responsibility of going after the dragon, even in full battle gear and the iron shield, is consistent with his previous behavior. We could probably supply reasonable answers as to why he should change his behavior now, but he would not be the same Beowulf if he had.

Also, it is good to hear ge-bolgen does not necessarily entail berserk becasue being swollen with rage seems more compatible with the heroic Beowulf than being a crazed warrior attacking in a frenzy.

David wrote: "However, taking all of the responsibility of going after the dragon, even in full battle gear and the iron shield, is consistent with his previous behavior. We could probably supply reasonable answers as to why he should change his behavior now, but he would not be the same Beowulf if he had. ..."

Maybe "Beowulf and Grendel" and "Beowulf and the Dragon" were originally two different orally transmitted stories and the poet combined them. This would explain the inconsistencies in Beowulf behaviour.

The epic has Beowulf's two encounters with monsters, one at the beginning and one at the end of his career. All of his many fights with mere men are passed over quickly. That gives the work some unity.

Emil wrote: "Maybe "Beowulf and Grendel" and "Beowulf and the Dragon" were originally two different orally transmitted stories and the poet combined them. This would explain the inconsistencies in Beowulf behaviour. ..."

That is a reasonable proposition, although the dragon-slaying with Beowulf as a character need not have circulated independently, at least for very long.

There are enough parallels in Scandinavian sources to suggest that a Beowulf-like figure was associated with the Scylding (Skjöldung) kings of Denmark, including fighting two successive monsters, but that character is never associated with a dragon.

The conclusion of "Beowulf" may be an invention of an Anglo-Saxon scop (poet), tacked on to both the Grendel story and a (possible) role for Beowulf in the Geatish-Swedish wars, perhaps because he thought a dragon would make a better ending than "he got very old, and died."

The inconsistencies aren't, I think, much greater than one would expect to build up from multiple re-tellings, even by the same poet -- that is, the story is re-composed in the recitation, and memories of past experiences with it, or of versions by other performers if it was a popular tale, might creep in unnoticed.

If it was composed in written form, the same considerations would probably apply: it wasn't as though it was easy to page back through an unbound parchment manuscript to find out exactly what you said the last time the issue came up.

I've seen worse in books where the author presumably had the advantage of reading galley proofs (as Tolkien pointed out), not to mention editorial oversight. Or, these days, of searching the file to find the precise reference in seconds.

Emil wrote: "Maybe "Beowulf and Grendel" and "Beowulf and the Dragon" were originally two different orally transmitted stories and the poet combined them. This would explain the inconsistencies in Beowulf behaviour."

1. I think Beowulf's behavior over time was more consistent rather than less.
2. The idea of two different orally transmitted Beowulf stories remind me of Robert E. Howard's comment on the story order of his Conan character:

Howard himself suggested why the stories should not be presented in the order they occurred in the character’s life: “In writing these yarns I’ve always felt less as creating them than as if I were simply chronicling his adventures as he told them to me. That’s why they skip about so much, without following a regular order. The average adventurer, telling tales of a wild life at random, seldom follows any ordered plan, but narrates episodes widely separated by space and years, as they occur to him.”

Howard, Robert E.. The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian (Conan the Barbarian Book 1 - Introduction) . Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Of course multiple stories skipping around in time like this are susceptible to all manner of transgressions committed in the name of continuity trying to string stories written as these were together chronologically. There is something to be said for Howard's approach, but being that the Beowulf manuscript as it is written is all we have it is probably best kept the way it is, despite any inconsistencies. At least it is temporally sound for Beowulf to recall his fight with Grendel as well as other previous actions while preparing to attack the Dragon. For an early attempt at written "English" storytelling, its not too bad and the fun and adventure of it is intact.

David wrote: "1. I think Beowulf's behavior over time was more consistent rather than less...."

I agree. But I think the apparent inconsistencies are due to changes/growth in Beowulf's character. I see a difference between the young Beowulf and the Beowulf of fifty years later.

The young Beowulf brags openly about his exploits; the old Beowulf internalizes. He asks himself if he is responsible for bringing catastrophe on his people.

The young Beowulf doesn’t react to Hrothgar’s sermon; the old Beowulf is living it.

The young Beowulf doesn’t care about treasure; the dying thoughts of the old Beowulf are about treasure.

The young Beowulf shows a callous lack of concern for Hrothgar's grief at the death of his friend; the old Beowulf gives a very moving speech about Hygelac's grief at the death of his son.

The young Beowulf approaches his battle with monsters as if it were just another day at the office; the old Beowulf arms himself for battle and prepares to die.

Time changes all things. But time is also cyclical. We begin with a young Beowulf and an aging Hrothgar; we end with an aging Beowulf and a young Wiglaf.

I find much in this poem that is poignant and resonant. The more I read it, the greater the respect I have for the skill of this amazing poet.

I agree with all of your points and will add these notes to show consistencies.

Tamara wrote: "The young Beowulf brags openly about his exploits; the old Beowulf internalizes. He asks himself if he is responsible for bringing catastrophe on his people. ."

He is still brags and boasts, (Heaney 2510) Beowulf spoke, made a formal boast 2510 for the last time: “I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning,

Tamara said: "The young Beowulf doesn’t care about treasure; the dying thoughts of the old Beowulf are about treasure."

I think the treasure in Grendel's cave belongs to Hrothgar and is not Beowulf's to plunder, and Hrothgar rewarded him adequately. He does care more for his own treasure, as it is part of his legacy he is leaving for his people. Beowulf had to have an interest in treasure since he was a "good king" and generous in handing treasure out to build loyalty. (Heaney 24) Behavior that's admired is the path to power among people everywhere.

Tamara said: "The young Beowulf shows a callous lack of concern for Hrothgar's grief at the death of his friend"

I do not see that as a callous lack of concern but one of maximum practical concern. I think Beowulf knows it is important to put those strong emotions to use in avenging the murder of Hrothgar's friend. There will be time for grief after the avenging is done and the body is recovered, including now over Hygelac's grief at the death of his son.

Tamara said: "The young Beowulf approaches his battle with monsters as if it were just another day at the office; the old Beowulf arms himself for battle and prepares to die.

Prior to his battle with Grendel and Grendel's mother he boasted of his life being in the hands of fate. He dressed for the underground battle against Gredel's mother, and was not averse to using a sword, or two, and elsewhere where appropriate, even though he tended to shatter them.

David wrote: "He is still brags and boasts, (Heaney 2510) Beowulf spoke, made a formal boast 2510 for the last time: “I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning,.."

I don't see that as bragging. He acknowledges he risked his life as a young man; now he sees it as his duty toward his people.

David wrote: "I think the treasure in Grendel's cave belongs to Hrothgar and is not Beowulf's to plunder, and Hrothgar rewarded him adequately. He does care more for his own treasure, as it is part of his legacy he is leaving for his people. "

Why does the treasure in Grendel's cave belong to Hrothgar? Why not to Beowulf since without Beowulf, Hrothgar would have had no access to it, anyway?

David wrote: "I do not see that as a callous lack of concern but one of maximum practical concern. I think Beowulf knows it is important to put those strong emotions to use in avenging the murder of Hrothgar's friend."

Yes, but they were Hrothgar's strong emotions--not Beowulf's. Beowulf, not Hrothgar, will avenge the murder. Beowulf had no strong emotions about Aeschere to put aside. He could have said something comforting to the old man before he set off to avenge the death. I still think it's callous of him not to acknowledge the man's grief. And it's a far cry from the moving way he described Hygelac's grief.

David wrote: "Prior to his battle with Grendel and Grendel's mother he boasted of his life being in the hands of fate. He dressed for the underground battle against Gredel's mother, and was not averse to using a sword, or two,..

Regardless of whether or not he armed himself for battle, don't you sense there is a difference in attitude between the Beowulf facing Grendel/Grendel's mother and the Beowulf facing the dragon? I see the aging Beowulf as far more pensive, far more circumspect, far more concerned with his legacy.

In other words, my friend, right back at ya :)

David wrote: "He is still brags and boasts, (Heaney 2510)..."

Some editors and translators have agreed with Heaney in this line, but a lot of others take "beot-wordum spraec" to mean "spoke an oath" (or a vow, promise, etc.).

The element of bragging would come in when Beowulf shortly thereafter protests that he would like to grapple with this opponent, as he did with Grendel, instead of using a sword and shield.

This is an old man's reference to his youth, so I'm not sure how we are supposed to take it.

Tamara wrote: "Regardless of whether or not he armed himself for battle, don't you sense there is a difference in attitude between the Beowulf facing Grendel/Grendel's mother and the Beowulf facing the dragon? I see the aging Beowulf as far more pensive, far more circumspect, far more concerned with his legacy..."


Nicely put. I also see a difference in his attitude but I don't think it's only because he's older. His status also changed. The young Beowulf is just a geat trying to prove himself. The old Beowulf is a renown hero who ruled over Geatland for fifty years.

Tamara wrote: "In other words, my friend, right back at ya :)"

Ha. . .LOL Yes, but recall the very first words of my post, I agree with all of your points I just maintain that the bravado is still there and I think he would have to kill all of Hrothgar's Danes to take Grendel's treasure. He probably could have survived the attempt too, but it would have been bad form for the hero.

I started this reading with a revelation: Oh, this is oral history, not fantasy as I'd remembered it! (Bear with me here.) Even Grendel and his mother seemed more like monstrous creatures that could have been "real" in a sense when I read them this time around, albeit with flourishes and exaggeration. But the treasure buried in a cave and the dragon take me back into the fantasy realm. So, now I'm thinking about how we retell our purported history today, Hollywood style, and trying to think of a parallel, in which history and fantasy coexist, not just in terms of hyperbole or fact twisting but in terms of mixing genres. What might our Beowulf stories be? The ones that are founded in something that actually happened and then embellished with fantastical elements? (Steampunk?) I'm really curious whether our own storytelling impulses continue to take us to a similar realm.

Kathy wrote: "So, now I'm thinking about how we retell our purported history today, Hollywood style, and trying to think of a parallel, in which history and fantasy coexist, not just in terms of hyperbole or fact twisting but in terms of mixing genres. What might our Beowulf stories be?.."

Interesting questions, Kathy. I don't have any suggestions, but you've given us something to think about :)

Beowulf (2007 film) is a well animated film with some big names lending their voices that might give you an idea of what the modern Hollywood treatment would be. It is currently streaming free for Amazon Prime members. There is a lot of poetic license to try and make sense of a few things and "soaps" it up a bit with mellow drama well beyond what any serious translation would dare. In my opinion it is worth seeing but one must say it is a film, "based on Beowulf".