Classics and the Western Canon discussion

(Heaney: lines 2821-end; Mitchell: lines 2715-end)
The poem as a whole

A broken-hearted Wiglaf tenderly tries to revive Beowulf with water. The poet praises Beowulf’s courage at facing the dragon, saying few would have been as brave. Beowulf’s men, who had abandoned him earlier, return. Wiglaf rebukes them for their cowardice and predicts enemies will attack because they know them to be cowards. A messenger announces Beowulf’s death to the waiting crowd and predicts renewed bloodshed when the Swedes learn of Beowulf’s death. He urges the people to take a last look at Beowulf and the treasure.

The poet tells us the messenger accurately predicts the doom and gloom following Beowulf’s death. The people gather to view Beowulf’s body and the dragon’s corpse. Wiglaf tells them the treasure is cursed and is to be buried with Beowulf. He claims they had tried to convince Beowulf not to go after the dragon, but he disregarded their advice. He repeats Beowulf’s last wish to have a barrow serve as his memorial, and he orders the construction of Beowulf’s funeral pyre. Men haul out the treasure and throw the dragon’s corpse over a cliff.

The funeral pyre is built with helmets and war shields and armour. Beowulf’s corpse is placed in the middle and the whole thing is set alight. The people mourn. A Geat woman is singled out. She grieves at the loss of Beowulf and the nightmare of slavery and bloodshed that will follow. There is some speculation the Geat woman may be Hygd, Hygelac’s wife, but we don’t know for sure. The people construct a barrow on the remains of the fire containing Beowulf’s ashes. They bury the treasure, and twelve warriors ride around it, chanting dirges, mourning Beowulf’s death, and praising him as a kind and gracious king.

Wiglaf says:
Often when one man follows his own will
Many are hurt. This happened to us.
Nothing we advised could ever convince
The prince we loved, our land’s guardian,
Not to vex the custodian of the gold,
Let him lie where he was long accustomed,
Lurk there under the earth until the end of the world.
(Heaney: lines 3077-3083)

Is Wiglaf accusing Beowulf of putting himself above the needs of his people?

What do you think of the description of Beowulf’s funeral, beginning with line 3137 in Heaney? Do you find it moving?

The closing lines of the poem praise Beowulf for being gracious, kind, fair-minded, and concerned with his legacy. There’s no mention of his courage, strength, or victories in battle or in defeating monsters. Isn’t that unusual for a poem about a heroic warrior? What does that indicate about the qualities the poet and/or his audience want in a good leader?

Now that we’ve come to the end, it’s time to share your thoughts on the poem as a whole.

How do you feel about the digressions in the poem? Do you think they serve a useful purpose in advancing the narrative? Or do you see them as unnecessary diversions?

What do you think of Beowulf? Is he your favorite character? If not, who is?

Which theme(s) resonated with you?

If this isn’t your first reading of the poem, did you pick something up from the reading/discussion this time around that you hadn’t noticed before?

Tamara wrote: "What do you think of the description of Beowulf’s funeral, beginning with line 3137 in Heaney? Do you find it moving? ..."

Some users (especially Roger if I'm not mistaken) drew parallels between Beowulf and The Iliad / The Odyssey.

Both Beowulf and Iliad are ending with the hero's funeral.

Would it be too much to call Beowulf "the Anglo-Saxon Iliad"?

It's not only about the plot & the characters. Both poems are sharing the same major themes: fate, glory, hubris, homecoming, pride.

The enmity of the Swedes is to be expected in general, but it could be a bit of a surprise in particular.

Beowulf had installed Eadgils as the Swedes' king (2391ff.), and one would suppose this produced a certain sense of obligation, assuming that Eadgils was still reigning.

The elapsed time since this happened is not clear, and, given the formulaic fifty years of Beowulf's reign, Eadgils successor, or successor's successor, might have felt no particular indebtedness to the Geats, recognizing only a tradition of hostility with a neighboring kingdom.

And we might think of the sense of obligation as strictly personal, cancelled by the death of the benefactor, Beowulf.

On top of which, Eadgils, as Athils (or Adilsus in Latin texts), shows up in in much later Danish and Icelandic accounts as particularly treacherous, at least vis-a-vis his guest and kinsman Hrolf Kraki (Hrothulf in Beowulf).

That hostile characterization of Eagils, in an early form, may be the implication here, although I wouldn't advance this as an explanation with any confidence.

There is a small translation problem which may be relevant to the prospect of a new Swedish-Geatish war, and how vulnerable the Geats were to attack with Beowulf gone. It also raises some issues on how the poem was intended to be understood when it was new.

This also involves how realistic the poem is supposed to be. That is, granted trolls, dragons, and superhuman feats of strength and endurance, as being part of the accepted world-view in the eighth or ninth, or whichever, century in which it was composed.

Was this all considered more than "just a good story"?

Back in line 2394. right after Beowulf is described as a "god cyning" (ike Scyld Scefing), he is said to have given help to the exiled Swedish prince Eadgils "ofer sae side." This can be rendered "across the sea" without doing violence to the Old English, and is so translated by, e.g., Chickering, while Fulk has "over the broad sea," retaining the adjective "sid," meaning large or spacious.

I would not be inclined to quarrel with their expert views, but if Geatland is the same place as the historical Gautland provinces of Sweden, or part of them, it is on the mainland, so a sea-voyage as such would be out of place, or at least involve awkward maneuvering on the Swedish coast, and then a march inland.

(This problem has been used to argue, albeit without much scholarly support, that the Geats are actually the inhabitants of the island of Gotland, in the Baltic. In which case other aspects of the story, like Hygelac's raid, become problematic, given the population the island could have supported.)

However, "sae" in Old English can mean any large body of water, fresh as well as salt.

All that may be implied is that Beowulf (sensibly) used the great chain of very large Swedish lakes to transport and supply his army, instead of trudging through the uninhabited forests that also marked the border landscape. Which would be a logistical nightmare for any pre-modern army which had to be fed off the land.

So I would think that this was the usual Geatish strategy in their wars with the Swedes. And, by the same token, that of the Swedes, although the poet never (I think) implies it.

My previous argument makes some assumptions that might be questioned.

Unlike modern editions and many translations of Beowulf, there were no maps of Scandinavia in Anglo-Saxon England. But my exposition seems to presume that the Beowulf poet, and maybe the audience, had some fairly accurate idea of ancient Scandinavian geography.

Accurate knowledge might have been passed down through oral tradition from before the Anglo-Saxon migration, but this might be seen as far-fetched.

However, there may have been more recent word-of-mouth reports to fill in details.

The Old English translation of the Latin "world history" (from a Christian viewpoint) of Orosius contains reports of King Alfred's interviews with two merchants familiar with Scandinavian water.

One, Wulfstan, was apparently an enterprising, and brave, Anglo-Saxon.

The second, Ohthere, was a Norwegian (probably Old Norse Ottar) who was interested in trading with, instead of plundering, the Anglo-Saxons

This, remember, was during the height of the Viking Age.

(The passages in question are standard fare in Old English readers and collected translations, as examples of OE prose not translated from Latin. Most people who are able to read Beowulf in Old English, even a little, will likely have encountered them, or at least know them by report.)

So peaceful trade was still possible, and, in consequence, some knowledge of who lived where was available, and even vital to some people.

So the later Anglo-Saxons just may have known quite a bit of Scandinavian geography, and might have able to relate it to their ancestral traditions without the poet giving explanations.

(A secondary argument is that, In a much later account, the first Vikings to attack England were initially mistaken for merchants trying to evade a royal excise tax. Which, if true, means that the Christian Anglo-Saxons had kept up mercantile ties with the "heathens" from the Old Country, with the same implications for geographical knowledge.)

Beowulf is thankful he can leave so much treasure to his people. Presumably he thinks the treasure will somehow protect them--maybe by buying off their enemies. He doesn't say anything about burying it. But the decision is made to bury the treasure in Beowulf's barrow. Why? Is it because they suspect the treasure is cursed? Or is this a remnant of the pagan practice of burying treasure with the king/pharaoh to ease his transition to the afterlife? Any other possibilities?

Tamara wrote: "Beowulf is thankful he can leave so much treasure to his people. Presumably he thinks the treasure will somehow protect them--maybe by buying off their enemies. He doesn't say anything about buryin..."

Another possibility is that it replaces the store of treasures destroyed by the dragon when Beowulf's royal hall was burned, which relieves Beowulf of a serious worry about his successor's problems.

The royal "gift-giving" of treasures was supposed to be rewarded by loyalty, and encourage valor. (We see that it didn't always work.)

And a reputation for generosity would attract enterprising foreign warriors to a king's retinue. (Tolkien's theory of the Finnsburg story was that such men, Jutes "hired" from opposing sides in a feud, triggered the Danish-Frisian struggle.)

Recall Hrothgar's difficulty in proper gift-giving when he couldn't use his hall to make it a ritualized public event.

The burial, although it frustrates Beowulf's instructions, is archeologically sound, although on a fantastic scale. Most ancient graves were looted early on, but surviving Scandinavian ship-burials from the early Viking Age included a variety of grave-goods to accompany the dead man (or, in at least one case, the dead woman).

But the example most relevant to Beowulf (and so invoked ad infinitum, here and in connection with Scyld) was the main mound at Sutton Hoo. This royal (or "princely") monument, stuffed with treasures, apparently was made when the Anglo-Saxons were on the cusp of accepting Christianity, but still clung to the ways of the forefathers on really important occasions.

There is a scholarly legend that "Beowulf" was quoted as evidence of the public nature of the burial during the hearing to determine who owned the treasure, under age-old English law. It wasn't, but it probably should have been.

There is also some dispute over whether the Sutton Hoo mound was actually a grave, and not rather a cenotaph to satisfy public opinion or maintain prestige, alongside a proper Christian burial elsewhere.

There was no sign of cremation, like a burial urn, well-known from older Anglo-Saxon pagan graves, so it doesn't match Beowulf that way.

Unfortunately, the soil destroyed bones, as evidenced by largely dissolved food-offerings, and the skeleton of the occupant may be missing for that reason, if it was there to begin with.

Ian wrote: "This also involves how realistic the poem is supposed to be. That is, granted trolls, dragons, and superhuman feats of strength and endurance, as being part of the accepted world-view in the eighth or ninth, or whichever, century in which it was composed.

Was this all considered more than "just a good story"?..."

What do you think the poet had in mind when he wrote "Beowulf"? Did he wanted to create a historical work similar to Heimskringla or Gesta Danorum? Or maybe his main focus was to retell an old legend from a Christian perspective? Or maybe he just wanted to write a beautiful poem?

What was his main intention? Did he wanted to teach, to preach or just to entertain?

I think he wanted to remember the great deeds of the ancients.

Tamara wrote: "Now that we’ve come to the end, it’s time to share your thoughts on the poem as a whole.

How do you feel about the digressions in the poem? Do you think they serve a useful purpose in advancing t..."

I found most of the digressions impossible to follow. I wish I had noticed the family trees in the back of the Heaney edition sooner! Honestly, I'm not sure I would have followed them even then. But they do make the argument that this was not simply intended to be a beautiful or entertaining poem. It's a history lesson. Maybe it's best thought of as parallel to historical fiction today. Readers of historical fiction will often say they don't like reading history but they enjoy learning some history via fictional means--with obviously problematic consequences at times. Maybe Beowulf is that kind of history: based in fact but embellished for entertainment purposes.

Kathy wrote: "I found most of the digressions impossible to follow. I wish I had noticed the family trees in the back of the Heaney edition sooner! Honestly, I'm not sure I would have followed them even then. But they do make the argument that this was not simply intended to be a beautiful or entertaining poem. It's a history lesson...."

You and the first generations of scholars were in the same position when it came to following the "digressions" (their term).

It took some hard work by students of medieval languages to find, publish, and analyze, most (but not all) of the back-stories, chiefly from later Scandinavian literature, and to see how they fit in with the older poem.

(I kept mentioning Beowulf and Its Analogues because it contains nearly all of this material in convenient form, broken down into easily digested chunks.)

The main lines of these stories were mostly clarified by the 1920s (i.e., after a century), and Tolkien in 1936 could take some consensus on them for granted when he pointed out, rather sharply, that concentration on them, and the perception that, being (possibly) historical, they were the only valuable parts, had distorted nearly everyone's perception of the poem itself.

As I'm sure I've indicated before (perhaps too many times), the stories in the digressions were probably fairly familiar, at least in outline, to the original audience for the poem. I suspect that some, but not all, Anglo-Saxons would pick up the hints about as rapidly as a Sherlock Holmes fan could identify the the source of "Mr. Holmes, they were the footprints of a gigantic hound!"

Many of them might have heard the stories at length (we know that monks were listening to the Ingeld story around 800), and they may have been common knowledge to the upper class. I single them, because they were the only people who could have supported professional singers of tales for any length of time, and learned from his repertoire.

Except perhaps for well-funded monasteries, which tended to be popular with pious (and aging) aristocrats, who may have wanted to hear the good old stories, and one of which held at least one scribe who thought the old stories were worth preserving on expensive parchment.

Maybe the Swedish-Geatish wars, and the Geatish dynastic history, which we get in more detailed "flashbacks," could meet your description. How popular they were is guesswork. The later analogues to them are very fragmentary, although some incidents are recognizable.

As for the less clearly "historical" matter: the function of the Sigemund story as a compliment to Beowulf (and maybe a a foreshadowing, was probably recognized early on. But the actual summary of the Sigemund story sung in Heorot clearly assumes we know who Fitela was, and why he was important, even if he wasn't with Sigemund when he fought a dragon.

We have to flesh out that one from bits of the "Elder Edda" and a more coherent version in the fairly late "Volsunga Saga," and then guess at how much of that tangled story was already current in Old English, and how much of it was later elaboration. (The Heremod story, by contrast, has no such backup, so we have to make guesses about its exact relevance.)

Kathy wrote: "I found most of the digressions impossible to follow. I wish I had noticed the family trees in the back of the Heaney edition sooner! Honestly, I'm not sure I would have followed them even then..."

I think the digressions serve a couple of different purposes.

As you suggested, they remind the audience of a shared history. The poet plugs them in to give the audience something familiar, something “true,” which then adds greater credibility to his Beowulf story.

They foreshadow events, for example, Sigemund killing the dragon.

They reinforce the didactic function evident throughout the poem: King Heremod is contrasted with Beowulf as an example of how not to behave. Similarly, the pre-married Queen Modthryth is contrasted with Hygd as an example of how not to behave. And the lengthy episodes about feuding factions with their endless cycles of violence illustrate the point that ongoing blood feuds are a tragic waste of life with devastating consequences on all involved, especially women.

Tamara wrote: "But the decision is made to bury the treasure in Beowulf's barrow. Why?"

I feel like the Heaney translation is missing a concrete explanation for this, or I am just not finding it.

Wiglaf does a thorough job of shaming the other warriors for failing to come to Beowulf's aid and declares all the gold, arms, and armor Beowulf gave out to them as gifts wasted on them. The text however does not directly support the idea that the treasure was punitively withheld.

The text does refer to a curse on the treasure and does not indicate whether the curse is lifted now or not. One might suppose that Beowulf was the only one worthy of it but this is not made clear:

(Heaney 3051) That huge cache, gold inherited
from an ancient race, was under a spell—
which meant no one was ever permitted
to enter the ring-hall unless God Himself,
mankind’s Keeper, True King of Triumphs,
allowed some person pleasing to Him—
and in His eyes worthy—to open the hoard.

But the text does indeed indicate all of the treasure was buried with Beowulf and seemingly against his final wishes:

(Heaney 3163) And they buried torques in the barrow, and jewels
and a trove of such things as trespassing men
had once dared to drag from the hoard.
They let the ground keep that ancestral treasure,
gold under gravel, gone to earth,
as useless to men now as it ever was.

Letting the ground keep the treasure useless to men could imply a scorched earth policy to prevent it from falling to their enemies in the face of the impending invasions.

Here is another tragic case of things not working out to expectations that was set up way back near the opening lines.

(Heaney 20) And a young prince must be prudent like that,
giving freely while his father lives
so that afterward in age when fighting starts
steadfast companions will stand by him
and hold the line. . .

The old standby of generously giving gifts in exchange for steadfast support failed Beowulf in the end. Did the concept fail, or is there a limit to this axiom that Beowulf's personal bravery surpassed causing him to ask too much of others to follow him?

Just in case the translation you are using doesn't mention it, lines 3149-55 are in dreadful condition, and made up largely of conjectures and emendations.

It took ultra-violet photography in the mid-twentieth-century to establish that a "Geatisc meowle" (Geatish woman) was mourning Beowulf in 3150: the actual text, such as it is, leaves it open as to whether this was Queen Hygd, as is often postulated, and sometimes asserted in translations.

Chickering puts most of his verse translation in square brackets, although he shifts things around for the sake of better English, so the damage pattern isn't as clear as in his Old English facing version.

Unfortunately, the Fulk bilingual (in the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library) indicates the condition of the text only in end notes ("apparatus"), and doesn't signal it at all in his translation, which otherwise I would be inclined to quote as an easy illustration of the problems.

Apparently Beowulf's fairly won treasure was buried along with the most worthy man, and neither will be able to help his people any longer.

Roger wrote: "Apparently Beowulf's fairly won treasure was buried along with the most worthy man, and neither will be able to help his people any longer."

Should the burial of Beowulf and the treasure together cause us to equate the two or consider Beowulf a treasure to his people so much more valuable than actual treasure that without him the actual treasure is useless?

David wrote: "Letting the ground keep the treasure useless to men could imply a scorched earth policy to prevent it from falling to their enemies in the face of the impending invasions...."

I see it a little differently.

We have repeatedly been told about the importance of wealth distribution. Hrothgar, Beowulf, and others have been touted as good leaders because they are generous in gift-giving. In contrast, the dragon hoards wealth, effectively taking it out of circulation. So it becomes a useless commodity. The treasure is taken out of circulation, again, when it is buried. So it remains, "as useless to men now as it ever was."

I read this as the poet arguing that wealth should be distributed for the general good. It must remain in circulation for the benefit of the community.

Tamara wrote: "I read this as the poet arguing that wealth should be distributed for the general good. It must remain in circulation for the benefit of the community."

I do not see calling the treasure "useless to men now as it ever was" as an argument to put the treasure to use by distributing it, or using it to pay other tribes to not attack them, or to buy allies to help them. Another way of saying that is, that it is as useless to men now as it was when Beowulf was still alive. The Geats did not need the treasure while Beowulf was alive, and it is easy to imagine their need for treasure seems greater now with Beowulf dead but I see no compelling reason to re-bury it with Beowulf. How do we reconcile the instances the poet did say that giving it away was good and not giving it away was bad with the fact Beowulf's generosity failed him in this case, see my post #17 above.

David wrote: "I do not see calling the treasure "useless to men now as it ever was" as an argument to put the treasure to use by distributing it, or using it to pay other tribes to not attack them, or to buy allies to help them..."

Gift-giving plays a prominent role in the poem. It is almost like a binding contract between a lord and his thanes. The relationship is based on reciprocity. He gives them gifts in exchange for which they agree to serve him. Beowulf is generous in his gift-giving, so his warriors are under an obligation to help him. They fail to live up to their agreement and receive a stern rebuke from Wiglaf. Their violation of the contract brands them as cowards or even traitors. But their failure to meet their obligations doesn’t negate the fact that gift-giving and distribution of wealth is taken seriously in the poem.

Early on, we learn of Beow:

And a young prince must be prudent like that,
Giving freely while his father lives
So that afterwards in age when fighting starts
Steadfast companions will stand by him
And hold the line.
Heaney: 20-24

Hrothgar reminds Beowulf of the importance of generosity and of honoring the custom of gift-giving. In his speech cautioning Beowulf on the dangers of power, he describes a bad leader is one who covets and resents; dishonours custom and bestows no gold (Heaney: lines 1749-1750). King Heremod was condemned because he killed his companions and hoarded wealth: he grew bloodthirsty, gave no more rings to honour the Danes (1719-1720).

It is almost a constant refrain in the poem that good kings are generous in gift-giving. Beowulf receives gifts from Hrothgar which he gives to Hygelac. Wealth must circulate if it is to benefit society. Beowulf recognizes the importance of circulating wealth when he expresses relief about leaving so much of it to his people. He wants it circulating to do good. But Wiglaf decides to bury it, thereby rendering it useless, once again.

David wrote: “Another way of saying that is, that it is as useless to men now as it was when Beowulf was still alive.”

Yes, the dragon's treasure was useless when Beowulf was alive because the dragon had taken it out of circulation, thereby rendering it useless. It becomes useless, again, when it is buried with Beowulf. The poet is arguing against the burial of treasure. He wants it out of the ground and circulating where it can do good.

They let the ground keep that ancestral treasure,
Gold under gravel, gone to earth,
As useless to men now as it ever was.
Heaney: 3166-3168

Avarice and hoarding treasure instead of distributing it goes against the very fabric of warrior society. Gift-giving is a central tenet in the reciprocal relationship between a king and his warriors. If a king cannot rely on the loyalty of his warriors, if they cannot rely on him to distribute the wealth, their relationship crumbles. And if their relationship crumbles, the society becomes unstable. The fact that Beowulf’s men failed to honor their part of the bargain does not negate the importance in warrior society of wealth circulation to maintain stability.

(Sorry for the length of this post.)

Tamara wrote: "does not negate the importance in warrior society of wealth circulation to maintain stability.,..."

I agree.

I think that the poet's view of the hoard and its proper function may be deduced from lines 2276-77 concerning the dragon, which Fulk translates "old in winters, it keeps watch over heathen gold; it is none the better for it" (The Beowulf Manuscript p. 237).

Or, to use some of the original vocabulary, "is not a whit the better" (ne byð him wihte ðy sel."

Putting it back into the earth,as though he alone is worthy of it, is a nice tribute to Beowulf, but it still frustrates the proper function of wealth in a gift-economy.

(On views of which see Arguing With Anthropology: An Introduction to Critical Theories of the Gift, by Karen Sykes, the Kindle edition of which is free (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...)

The poet does seem to be specifically addressing the dragon's treasure, i.e., the ancestral treasure, when he declares it, As useless to men now as it ever was.. Is it possible the ascetic part of his christian character is, in the end, declaring all treasure useless folly, especially in light of its failure to gain Beowulf steadfast companions [that] will stand by him [when the fighting starts] As we have previously noted, Beowulf was less motivated by treasure than fame and glory, kleos perhaps, throughout the story, and additional support for an austere attitude toward treasure comes from his example at the end when the poet says:

(Heaney 3074) Yet Beowulf’s gaze at the gold treasure
when he first saw it had not been selfish.

David wrote: "(Heaney 3074) Yet Beowulf’s gaze at the gold treasure
when he first saw it had not been selfish. ..."

This would be a good proof-text, but Heaney has made a leap here in explicating the Old English sentence. I think he was desperate to make sense for the reader of what he had before him. He has also thrown in Beowulf's name as a guide, although it is not in the text.

According to a couple of commentaries, Lines 3074-75 may be subject to more contention than any other short passage in the poem. There are basic grammatical difficulties with them, and the implied subject is not clear in all the proposed explanations, which then call for interpretation which may also be disputed.

Fulk, for example, translates, very freely, in prose, and taking into account the origin of the treasure:

"He had not by any means expected a curse on the gold, rather the owner's favor."

Chickering, I think more literally (according to which interpretation you choose, of course). has the rather opaque

"None the more readily had he earlier seen
the gold-bestowing kindness of the owner."

(Chickering's commentary is one of those I referred to above. Another, by Fulk et al. is in "Klaeber's Beowulf." I'm sure both would admit that the translations offered are debatable.)

What aspects of the poem resonated with you?

One of the things that resonated strongly with me was the poet's sympathetic treatment of women.

Wealhtheow is presented as a gracious, politically astute queen who wants to protect her sons.

Through Hildeburh, we see the tragic consequences of a blood feud and the failure of a marriage alliance to heal the rift. The poet shows tremendous compassion for Hildeburh's plight. He says she is bereft and blameless, a woman in shock, waylaid by grief. He asks, how could she not/lament her fate when morning came/and the light broke on her murdered dears? (Heaney: 1073)

I thought the poet even included a touching detail when he described Grendel’s mother snatching Grendel’s hand to deprive her son’s killers of their trophy.

And then there’s the Geat woman who sings out in grief at Beowulf’s funeral:

a wild litany
of nightmare and lament: her nation invaded,
enemies on the rampage, bodies in piles,
slavery and abasement.

Women caught in the middle of political maneuvers, power struggles, bloodshed, and mayhem. The lament of the Geat woman echoes throughout the centuries and can be heard today and seen in the faces of mothers in conflict-ridden areas all over the world.

Ian quoted, ""old in winters, it keep watch over heathen gold; it is none the better for it" (The Beowulf Manuscript p. 237)." Which is the presumed subject of it, the dragon or the gold?

The dragon (he, him).

Chickering translates: "where he guards for ages
heathen gold; / gains nothing by it."

... Þær he hæðen gold
warað wintrum frod, / ne byð him wihte ðy sel. (2276-77)

The first half of line 2276 is mostly restoration, so I won't bother with it.

A note in passing: As in Maxims II, the dragon is described as "frod," which primarily means "old," or even "ancient," but also can mean "wise," or possibly "cunning' (not clearly distinguished at all stages of the language).

That connotation may not be relevant to these passages, but they could be read that way.

Further note, on a modern use of the second meaning: (view spoiler)[These lines, combined with hints about Fafnir in the Elder Edda, may be where Tolkien got his cunning dragons, first in the proto-Silmarillion material, and later Smaug in "The Hobbit." (Where the dragon is enraged by the theft of a gold vessel, as in Beowulf). (hide spoiler)]

David wrote: "Is it possible the ascetic part of his christian character is, in the end, declaring all treasure useless folly, especially in light of its failure to gain Beowulf steadfast companions [that] will stand by him [when the fighting starts]..."

This was how I read it, too, but perhaps because I was applying my own values as a lens. Tamara's long post has convinced me otherwise!

Tamara wrote: "What aspects of the poem resonated with you?

One of the things that resonated strongly with me was the poet's sympathetic treatment of women.

Wealhtheow is presented as a gracious, politically ..."

Maybe the poet was a woman. ;)

Kathy wrote: "Maybe the poet was a woman. ;)"

That's an awesome thought. Probably not very realistic. But awesome, nevertheless :)

Tamara wrote: "But the decision is made to bury the treasure in Beowulf's barrow. Why? Is it because they suspect the treasure is cursed? Or is this a remnant of the pagan practice of burying treasure with the king/pharaoh to ease his transition to the afterlife? Any other possibilities?"

I agree the poet has consistently supported the importance of the gift-economy and I am still left without a solid and contrary reason behind the decision to re-bury the dragon hoard in Beowulf's tomb, but I am beginning to think it is just the history of that particular hoard repeating itself.

(Heaney 2231-2269) briefly tells the story of the hoard first became useless to men foreshadowing that it would remain so, independent of the dragon which came along later:

. . .some forgotten person had deposited the whole
rich inheritance of a highborn race
in this ancient cache. Death had come
and taken them all in times gone by
and the only one left to tell their tale,
the last of their line, could look forward to nothing
but the same fate for himself. . .
. . .His words were few. . .
“. . .My own people
have been ruined in war. . .
. . .I am left with nobody
to bear a sword or to burnish plated goblets,
put a sheen on the cup.. . .
. . .Pillage and slaughter
have emptied the earth of entire peoples.

With Beowulf's death, the Geats would also look forward to nothing but death, ruin by war, pillage and slaughter just as before with the previous owner. Since neither the poet nor a character explicitly states the reason to re-bury the hoard it is simply the fate of that particular hoard to remain useless to men.

The stolen goblet which is not re-buried even fails to benefit the thief who stole it from the dragon:

(Heaney 2216) He had handled and removed a gem-studded goblet; it gained him nothing.

Tamara wrote: "Now that we’ve come to the end, it’s time to share your thoughts on the poem as a whole.

What aspects of the poem resonated with you? ..."

I'm sorry I have been missing from the latter chapters' discussions.. My dad has fallen ill and he's lost a lot of his memories and neural function.. He used to be this kind of math and English genius and now he has hard time subtracting 7 from 100 or remembering his dog's name..
Beowulf's death and his words 'For every one of us, living in this world means waiting for our end' rang so true to me. Not only a person's glory or wealth or strength is waiting an end. Even the very personality or memories can come and go with the slightest alteration to the electrolytes or oxygen or water content.

I was expecting a very macho, hero-centered poem and was surprised by the sympathetic treatment of women and the several digressions to the ones whol couldn't be heroic or fortunate like the hero. I was worried about my Dad but also worried about my Mom who lives far away from us and due to the coronavirus situation, she had to take care of Dad alone in the hospital. To see the former brilliant diplomat-professor husband at a loss with his underwear (He actually didn't know what it was for..) and help him put it on must have been devastating. She was also struggling to keep him from taking out the IV line and wandering off and starving himself.

Not only in Beowulf, War and Peace or a modern book I read a while ago (The Unwomanly Face of War by Svetlana Alexievich), I've noticed war/battle through the experiences of women, and I realized that it's not only in the battefield or in war that women are fighting and struggling, but life in general. Also, it's also not limited to women but the minor characters who die helplessly and namelessly.

Although I couldn't participate so much I thank Tamara and this group for introducing me to this book and guiding me through it (which I probably would never have tried by myself due to my ignorance of old English and nordic history). I also want to thank the group for letting me know about Maria Headley's translation.

Borum, I am so very sorry to read about the situation with your father. I know this must be extremely difficult for you. I wish I could find the right words to say to give you some comfort. My heart goes out to you, to your father, and, especially, to your mother. I can only imagine what she must be going through seeing her husband in this condition.

I wish you strength through this difficult time. And I wish you well.

One of the many things that resonated with me was the blurred line between the historical and the fantastic elements and the general ambiguity of the text.

I spent the last weeks at the seaside and one evening I was reading Beowulf while a storm was brewing. The horizon became blurry and the sky merged with the sea forming a huge grey mass, a charcoal dragon occasionally stroke by the lightning. Other people were seeing a spectacular storm, but for me this was Beowulf fighting the dragon.

Emil wrote: "I spent the last weeks at the seaside and one evening I was reading Beowulf while a storm was brewing. The horizon became blurry and the sky merged with the sea forming a huge grey mass, a charcoal dragon occasionally stroke by the lightning. Other people were seeing a spectacular storm, but for me this was Beowulf fighting the dragon.."

What a wonderful image!
I love reading Beowulf during a storm. For me, the thunder and lightning are the growls of the monsters and the fire-breathing dragon.

Susanna wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Now that we’ve come to the end, it’s time to share your thoughts on the poem as a whole. "

The highlight for me was reading the Headley version. The updated language brought the poe..."

I love the Headley version, too. I'm so glad you liked it. Her translation is so unlike any other.

I am fascinated by personalities that are duty/honor bound and dauntless to a fault, like G.A. Custer. Beowulf seems to fit into this category. Their choices lead to a tragic end, but what an audaciously interesting story they make. So I guess for me the quote of the book is:

(Heaney 572) . . .Often, for undaunted courage, fate spares the man it has not already marked.

It was such a great opportunity to read and discuss Beowulf with you folks. Thank you, everyone!
Tamara was the perfect guide through this journey and her comments made me think about topics I have overlooked in my previous readings.
Ian's comments always gave me an inferiority complex - in a positive way. It was amazing to have around somebody who studied Beowulf and Old English for so many years.

My enjoyment in reading the classics comes not so much from placing them in their historical perspective but in seeing how they continue to resonate. I look for the universal, the qualities that transcend time and place, qualities that tell me something about our shared humanity. Each reading opens up new vistas for me, and our discussion of Beowulf has been no exception.

This has been a truly rewarding experience for me, one that has expanded my appreciation for the poem. My thanks go out to all of you who contributed to the discussion. And thank you, also, for your generous words of appreciation.

I recently read History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History by the eminent Assyriologists, Samuel Noah Kramer. His words below encapsulate my thoughts and are applicable to Beowulf and to any great classic.

What gives these episodes lasting significance and universal appeal is their human quality. They revolve about forces and problems common to man everywhere through the ages—the need for friendship, the instinct for loyalty, the impelling urge for fame and name, the love of adventure and achievement, the all-absorbing fear of death, and the all-compelling longing for immortality.

I couldn’t have said it any better.

Thank you, again, for a wonderful discussion.

I read it some time ago, but now I could understand better, although Tolkien's commentaries help a lot too. I am glad that I read with you. I half agree with Tamara. I like to read books that resonate with me but I think be important to know the context when a book was written. This may explain it and make us feel as a contemporary of it.

Overall, I’m glad I decided to join in on reading Beowulf.

The main issues I had while reading it were the feelings of confusion and being lost when the poet goes off on some side story. There were higher frequencies of unfamiliar names during those parts which added to the difficulty I had with them.

My favourite character is Beowulf, followed by Wiglaf. I like that Beowulf has both confidence and ability and is constantly demonstrating that throughout the story. I like Wiglaf too because he doesn’t get scared and run off in the end and instead keeps his honour by staying and helping Beowulf.

The theme of courage is the one that is the most impactful for me. Beowulf has courage is able to accomplish great things because of it.