Classics and the Western Canon discussion

(Mitchell: lines 1-472; Heaney: lines 1-498)

What we don’t know about Beowulf: who the author is; where in England it was written; the exact dates of its composition, which range anywhere from around 650 to 1025, although most scholars nowadays date it between 700 and 750. It describes events that probably occurred around two centuries before the poem was written to an audience who probably viewed it as history and may have even considered Beowulf as an ancestor. But we don’t know if Beowulf was a real person, a composite figure, or a figment of the imagination.

The single surviving copy of the Beowulf manuscript is dated around 1100. Its top and outer edges were burned in a fire in 1731. It was transcribed in 1786 and translations began in earnest in the early 1900s. The poem is in two parts: Part 1 tells the story of Beowulf, nephew of the king of the Geats, and his encounter with Grendel and Grendel’s mother. Part 2 takes place 50 years later.

The selection for this week opens with a brief history of the Danes and their warrior kings, the most famous being Shield Sheafson (Scyld Scefing). This is followed by a list of Shield’s heirs: Beow, Halfdane (Healfdene), and Hrothgar. Hrothgar celebrates his success as a warrior king by building Heorot, a great mead hall. Enter Grendel who attacks Heorot at night, devouring men at will. Poor Hrothgar is helpless against the onslaught.

Enter Beowulf, a thane of King Hygelac of the Geats (a tribe located in southern Sweden). Determined to help, he sets sail for the Danish coast with 14 of his men. He must explain himself twice before being allowed to enter Heorot. Once inside the hall, Beowulf describes some of his heroic exploits and declares his mission to defeat Grendel in single combat. He also reassures Hrothgar he won’t have to go to the trouble of burying him should he fail because Grendel will dispense with the need for burial by gobbling him up. Hrothgar bemoans the loss of his men to Grendel and invites Beowulf to join them.

There’s a lot of foreshadowing of doom and gloom in this poem, beginning with this section. For example, Heorot is described in its full glory as “the greatest of halls.” It’s a sort of circle of light surrounded by darkness. But immediately after describing its magnificence, the poet foreshadows its destruction by fire:

. . . The hall towered,
Its gables wide and high and awaiting
A barbarous burning. That doom abided,
But in time it would come: the killer instinct
Unleashed among in-laws, the blood-lust rampant.
(Heaney 81-85)

Why does the poet celebrate a positive only to follow it so quickly with a negative? Is he telling us not to get too excited about this? Is he suggesting all good things will come to an end by setting a tone of impending doom and destruction?

I read Beowulf and can’t help thinking about poor Grendel. It “harrowed” him to hear the minstrel singing of God’s creation. We’re told he descended from Cain and is condemned by God. But does that fully explain why he is so miserable and suffers such torment? He sounds like such a tortured, lonely soul. Is Grendel’s suffering simply due to inheriting the sins of the father? Are we supposed to feel sorry for him because he’s not been invited to the party?

Although Christianity had come to England around the 2nd or 3rd century, the poet never mentions Jesus or the Gospels. The only Biblical references in the poem are from Genesis. Why is that? On the other hand, there are several references to a pre-Christian past. What are some of the pagan influences in the poem so far?

Tamara wrote: "There’s a lot of foreshadowing of doom and gloom in this poem..."

My impression was that the poet used this to enrich the drama. I imagined myself sitting in a hall with a bunch of people listening to the bard of that time singing or telling the story. There was no Netflix at that time :-) so this was the only drama and entertainment available - the gloomier the better. I imagine that the audience knew beforehand that there would be doom and destruction in the story and that they sat with eyes wide open anticipating a the disaster and drama. :-)

Charlotte wrote: "Tamara wrote: "There’s a lot of foreshadowing of doom and gloom in this poem. ..."

There is also quite a bit of glamour in this drama (I am comparing it to a TV-show again :-)): just how lofty was the hall, just how well-crafted and shining was the armour, just how generous was the king with his rings, etc. I imagine this was also a popular element for the common audience.

Tamara wrote: "Although Christianity had come to England around the 2nd or 3rd century, the poet never mentions Jesus or the Gospels. The only Biblical references in the poem are from Genesis. Why is that? On the..."

A couple of points:

First: Christianity came to Britain under the Roman Empire, when England didn't exist That is, it is the "Land of the Angles," one of the pagan Germanic peoples that invaded the Empire during the fifth century, in this case the Roman province of Britannia, along with the Saxons and Jutes. These three tribes, possibly with others from Scandinavia, eventually took a big chunk of Roman Britain for their own, and spilled over its northern border into what is now part of Scotland. (On which events see also the "historical" basis of King Arthur.) The beginning of the invasion of Britain is traditionally dated around 450.

The Romano-British Christians were pushed west, into Wales and Cornwall, and north, into a corner of Scotland, where they survived until some time in the Middle Ages as the Stratchclyde Welsh, until being assimilated by the English and Scots (another long story).

Although the Venerable Bede, our main source for the period, sometimes tries to hide it, some of the Anglo-Saxons converted to Christianity under Welsh, or, possibly, Irish, influence. But the formal conversion of the Anglo-Saxons is generally credited to St. Augustine of Canterbury (d. 604: not to be confused with Augustine of Hippo, the author of The City of God), who was sent by Pope Gregory the Great.

(We know about the earlier English Christians because Bede gives it away when he describes the problems that arose from two different methods of calculating the date of Easter, one, the older, used by the Celtic Churches, as against the newer, Roman one, about which the the insular Churches had never been consulted, and viewed with suspicion.)

Second: The failure to mention anything Biblical after Genesis has been debated, with some early suggestions being that the poem had heard only the beginning of the Christian message when he composed his work -- although the language contains a few borrowings from Church Latin, which suggests a closer acquaintance.

The most probable explanation (I think, following most modern scholarship) is that the poet is avoiding confronting the fact that all of his characters, heroes and villains alike, were "heathens," and so, according to Church doctrine, damned.

Third: there is exactly one event in Beowulf that is clearly historical, and can even be approximately dated: a raid on the Frisians in about 520, recorded somewhat after the fact by Gregory of Tours in his "History of the Franks," and in a couple of later sources. Whether some other events in the poem, involving the Swedes and Danes, are datable from this is, as usual, a matter of controversy.

Charlotte wrote: "I imagined myself sitting in a hall with a bunch of people listening to the bard of that time singing or telling the story...."

It's interesting you say that, Charlotte.

In the Introduction to her translation, Maria Dahvana Headley claims she spent "a lot of time imagining the narrator as an old-timer at the end of a bar, periodically pounding his glass and demanding another." She then proceeds to pepper her translation with a lot of four-letter words :)

I think the text effectively fuses Pagan and new Christian influences. The pagan ones are very evident in the ideas of myth, legend, heroism and vengeance. Beowulf is a hero and perhaps also the Christian embodiment of salvation from the evil Grendel. Perhaps Grendel's pain when faced with Christianity through the story of the Creation is a symbol of God's power over evil. Christianity was still at a very early stage of development for the English so it is more a question of seeing these influences emerge from the Pagan ones. There is overlap between the two in overcoming evil and darkness.

I am taking a guess that Grendel is kept away from the throne through belief in the divine right of kings, that kings are god's lieutenants, or that some kings are even thought of of as god on earth.

(Heaney, 167). . .{Grendel] took over Heorot,
haunted the glittering hall after dark,
but the throne itself, the treasure-seat,
he was kept from approaching; he was the Lord’s outcast.

Does that mean Hrothgar himself would be safe from Grendel, or just the throne?

David wrote: "Does that mean Hrothgar himself would be safe from Grendel, or just the throne?."

I don't think Hrothgar would be safe from Grendel. He runs off at night, vacating the hall. This suggests he fears for his life.

Exactly what this passages means in practical terms is one of the many things in Beowulf open to debate: which in part accounts for the ever-growing inundation of technical secondary literature.

In this case, some take the easy way out, and suggest an interpolation to render the poem more Christian (even if superficially).

Unfortunately, despite nineteenth-twentieth century theories of Germanic divine kingship, we don't really know enough to determine whether this is a gloss on a pre-existing (and therefore "heathen") belief. We do know that Hrothgar can't do just anything he wants -- he says so. And the exile of a former Danish king who thought otherwise is alluded to.

It there is anything to the divine kingship idea, there could be a connection to the ancestors described at the beginning of the poem, Scyld (Shield), and, depending on whom you consult, his son Beow, or Beowulf -- the latter being the manuscript reading, but almost universally considered a scribal mistake, taking the real short name for an abbreviation. (The scribe could have been told just, "Copy this song about Beowulf," and jumped to a logical wrong conclusion.)

"Beow," or "Beowa," found in some Anglo-Saxon place-names, means "barley," and appears in lists of royal ancestors, some of them, like Woden (Odin) clearly divine, so thinking of him as once a grain god, and appropriately the grandson of Sheaf, is attractive.

But this is a web of speculation, with a few points of fact.

The poem is a peculiar mixture of pagan and Christian references. We have Scyld Scefing's burial in a pagan funeral ship; the Danes making offerings at pagan shrines; the Geat elders inspecting omens before Beowulf sets off to fight Grendel.

And then there is Grendel as a descendent of Cain; Grendel unable to approach the throne since, as David suggests @10 this may have something to do with the divine right of kings. But even that is a pre-Christian concept going all the way back to ancient Sumer and ancient Egypt where kings and pharaohs were regarded as the earthly embodiment of the god.

It's as if the poem straddles between paganism and Christianity with the poet not quite ready to let go of the former and embrace the latter.

Tamara wrote: "TIt's as if the poem straddles between paganism and Christianity with the poet not quite ready to let go of the former and embrace the latter."

Christianity was still unknown to the people at the time.

(Heany 175) Sometimes at pagan shrines they vowed
offerings to idols, swore oaths
that the killer of souls might come to their aid
and save the people. That was their way,
their heathenish hope; deep in their hearts
(180) they remembered hell. The Almighty Judge
of good deeds and bad, the Lord God,
Head of the Heavens and High King of the World,
was unknown to them. . .

However, the narrator has transitioned to Christianity and takes pitty on those that have not, or could not yet, put their trust in The Lord

. . .Oh, cursed is he
who in time of trouble has to thrust his soul
(185) in the fire’s embrace, forfeiting help;
he has nowhere to turn. But blessed is he
who after death can approach the Lord
and find friendship in the Father’s embrace.

I began with the electronic Beowulf project to follow along with the old English lecture. This is entertaining to hear the older language. I googled for a couple translations. I will use the amazon sample until I receive the Frazier Park's libraries hard copy.

Have fun
Carla Ferris

https://ebeowulf.uky.edu/ebeo4.0/CD/m...

David wrote: "Christianity was still unknown to the people at the time."

The narrator tells us that Christianity was unknown to them, but the same time the bards were signing:

"how the Almighty had made the earth
a gleaming plain girdled with waters;
in His splendour He set the sun and the moon
to be earth's lamplight, lanterns for men,
and filled the broad lap of the world"

This is Christian cosmology.

I can think of two possible explanations:

1. The events are taking place exactly when Christianity is penetrating their society. They are not yet Christian, but many Christian elements (like the Genesis) already appeared in their culture.

2. Beowulf was essentially a pagan story and the author(s) added Christian elements to it.

Emil wrote: "The narrator tells us that Christianity was unknown to them, but the same time the bards were signing. . ."

That all makes sense, but it is still not clear why Grendel was kept from approaching the throne. It is like the throne is some sort of sacred holy ground or divine sanctuary. I can only compare that to Grendel being unable to enter a church if they had built one, but that might be taking things a bit too far?

Emil wrote: "David wrote: "Christianity was still unknown to the people at the time."

The narrator tells us that Christianity was unknown to them, but the same time the bards were signing:

"how the Almighty h..."

Doesn't Beowulf only reference the Old Testament which was a Jewish tesxt? Genesis predates Christianity.

Yes, Bereshit (Genesis) is the first book of The Torah.

Sam wrote: "Doesn't Beowulf only reference the Old Testament which was a Jewish tesxt? Genesis predates Christianity...."

That's correct. Beowulf does only reference Genesis.

I found the reaction of Grendel to sounds of singing from Heorot interesting. Living in a city and having had noisy neighbors I have at times thought of going all “Grendel” on them but I do not think this is how the original listeners would have taken it. I believe they would have taken this as part of his exiled from happiness and accursedness from God.

I like the little breaks in the narrative for advice. This one is strikingly opposite of any advice to rule through fear.

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. Behavior that’s admired in
is the path to power among people everywhere.

David wrote: "That all makes sense, but it is still not clear why Grendel was kept from approaching the throne. It is like the throne is some sort of sacred holy ground or divine sanctuary. I can only compare that to Grendel being unable to enter a church if they had built one, but that might be taking things a bit too far?.."

If we admit thst Grendel was an evil monster we can also say that the throne was a sacred place, an axis mundi and Grendel couldn't approach it.

But what if Grendel was not a monster? I like to think he was just a berserker and probably a banished fighter, a skógarmaðr. Maybe he couldn't approach the throne only because the power emanated by the throne as an institution was stronger than Grendel insanity/rage.



Sam wrote: "Doesn't Beowulf only reference the Old Testament which was a Jewish tesxt? Genesis predates Christianity.
..."

Genesis itself is of course older than Christianity, but Judaism and Christianity have the same cosmology. The authors/scribes were Christian and we can consider all the references to the Genesis Christian influences.

The most interesting question is why we only have direct references to the Genesis? Maybe the authors tried to make Beowulf look more "old" or historical? Or they wanted to avoid any Christian elements and they used the Christian Genesis out of ignorance, thinking that the pagans have the same cosmology?

Emil wrote: "The most interesting question is why we only have direct references to the Genesis? Maybe the authors tried to make Beowulf look more "old" or historical? ..."

Tolkien, one of the most influential Beowulf scholars, thought that the poem as a whole was filled with efforts to make the subject seem "historical," as witnessed by the "digressions" and "episodes" that older critics found so annoying (or, despite self-contradiction, so insufficient), and that this had drawn several generations of scholars into believing that the poem was a key to early Scandinavian history. (For example, the references to the coming destruction of Heorot suggest that this was a famous story, that had to be acknowledged somehow: it appears explicitly in another Old English poem, and later medieval Danish and Icelandic literature have a similar event in the reign of a different Skjoldung/Scylding king.)

Making a "wise heathen" like Hrothgar and his scop (poet, singer) aware of a Genesis-like story of Creations (ll. 90ff. in the OE) would have been in accord with those early Christian theologians who allowed that some wise and virtuous pagans had a glimmer of the Biblical truth: how well-distributed that doctrine was when Beowulf was composed is debatable, since we don't even know when or what part of England was involved, but it isn't impossible that the poet knew the idea.

For those who have sought a more literary precedent for the song, a point of reference has been the creation song in Virgil's Aeneid, I 472ff. If the Beowulf poet was literate enough in Latin, or had friends who were, this might have been known to him (probably him) as one of the moralizing and grammatical excerpts from the poem that circulated in the "Dark Ages," without requiring a greater knowledge of the Roman epic (although that, too, has been claimed, on evidence that mostly can be dismissed as inevitable coincidence.)

Shield was abandoned as a child, A foundling to start. This is referred to again at his funeral when they equate Sheild's burial treasure to the treasure given to him by those who cast him away, I assume his parents?

They decked [Shield's] body no less bountifully with offerings than those first ones did who cast him away when he was a child. . .

Why would a child be abandoned with this much treasure? Is this kind of pulling yourself up on your own merits, i.e., foundling to king, supposed to serve as inspiration or some moral instruction?

By comparison, Beowulf is described as highborn.

There was no one else like him alive. In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth, highborn and powerful

Is it greater to start low and rise, or to start high and not fall?

"No less" is Anglo-Saxon (and English) understatement. It means "a great deal more."

The whole story of the funeral sounds like a mythological model for actual ship-burials (in mounds), best known archeologically from Scandinavia, but also from Anglo-Saxon England (Sutton Hoo). The idea of actually setting out to sea a ship loaded with attractive treasure to tempt to the greedy, and enemies, is, of course, highly improbable.

Here, for the sake of the curious, I get a little technical. Some of this appears in notes or introductions to translations, usually in even more summary form than here. I apologize for reporting old news (with help on precise details from Beowulf and Its Analogues) to those who don't need it.

The "Sceafing" name, unexplained in Beowulf, is usually referred to a story told by the twelfth-century (d. 1143) Anglo-Latin historian, William of Malmesbury, in De Gestis Regum Anglorum II:126:

"Sceaf ... so they say, as a small child, was driven ashore in a boat without oars on a certain island of Germany called Scandza.... He was asleep, and at his head was laid a sheaf of grain; for this reason he was given the name Sceaf, and was received as a miracle by the men of that region....," with further details on how he ruled, not Denmark, but the "region called 'Old Anglia;' from there the Angles came to Britain...."

This presumably would imply that, in the Beowulf version, it was Scyld who was laid on a sheaf, and was of like mysterious origin, but came to the Danes. (The Scyld name is unexplained by this: there is another medieval text, perhaps unrelated, about settling a boundary dispute by floating a shield down a river, and using its course as a guide.)

However, William then makes a sudden switch, and tells us that the seemingly parentless Sceaf "was the son of Heremodius...." This must be the "Heremod" mentioned in Beowulf as a former (bad) king of the Danes: who may be identical to a Hermod mentioned in Old Norse poems as a hero like Sigmund (Beowulf's Sigemund), who in turn may or may not be the same as the character named Hermod who appears as Odin's messenger to Hel (the death-goddess) in the Prose Edda.

To add to the confusion, the (probably) seventh century Old English catalogue-poem "Widsith" instead informs us that "Sceafa [ruled] the Langobards" (later known as Lombards): literally "Long-beards -- with a story to explain the name as an unintended gift from Odin -- who may have been related to the Heathobards, or "war-beards"[!], who appear in Beowulf as enemies of the Danes. So Sceaf is an ancestor-figure for a whole bunch of nations.

Whomever Sceaf was thought to have ruled over, two manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, tracing the ancestors of the kings of Wessex -- like Alfred the Great -- fit Sceaf into the Big Picture of the world by reporting that he was "the son of Noah and was born in Noah's Ark."

David wrote: "Shield was abandoned as a child, A foundling to start. I ..."

The manner in which King Shield appeared for the first time was a legendary saga. A ship arrived with no one on it, with the sail set and the course all set, yet mysteriously no one was on board. When the ship landed all by itself, the Danes discovered a small boy near the mast, lying on a bundle of wheat inside a shield surrounded by gold, jewelry and presents. They believed he was sent by the gods and they named him shield after the shield he was lying in.

Ian wrote: "his this reasons he was given the name Sceaf) ..."

Our stories crossed eachother. And they complement eachother?

Tamara wrote: "There’s a lot of foreshadowing of doom and gloom in this poem, beginning with this section. For example, Heorot is described in its full glory as “the greatest of halls.” It’s a sort of circle of ... A barbarous burning. That doom abided,
But in time it would come: the killer instinct
Unleashed among in-laws, the blood-lust rampant.."

This killer instinct unleashed among in-laws, does it forewarn the readers of some kind of upcoming family or tribal feud? Is the mention of Cain's fratricide of Abel another reference to a bloody battle between former ties? Even with their former ties and present aid, might it hint at some kind of animosity or tension between the Danes and the Swedes? I was somewhat impressed by how the guards (first the coastguard then the wise Wulfgar) check their identity and make them leave their shields and spears behind (and how some of the men stay behind to keep watch on the arms).

Cain was both cursed as an outcast but also was safeguarded by a mark so tat whosoever found him should not kill him ("or whosoever shall kill Cain shall be punished sevenfold"). If Grenweld is like Cain, would anyone who kill him (perhaps Beowulf) be punished sevenfold?

David wrote: "I like the little breaks in the narrative for advice. This one is strikingly opposite of any advice to rule through fear.
And a young prince must be prudent like that,
giving freely while his fat..."

I liked this, too. Sort of a 'how to win friends and influence people in the ancient times'. It also reminded me how before the rise of central political authority, the society may have been more tribal/feudal.

Borum wrote: "I was somewhat impressed by how the guards (first the coastguard then the wise Wulfgar) check their identity and make them leave their shields and spears behind..."

I like that, too. I also like how the poet uses the two guards to build up Beowulf’s heroic, larger-than-life, stature.

Nor have I seen
a mightier man-at-arms on this earth
than the one standing here: unless I am mistaken
he is truly noble.
(Heaney: 248-250)

The poet’s use of imagery has already set Beowulf up as exceptional even before he gets to Heorot. His journey across the water is characterized by speed and light: “the wind behind her/and foam at her neck, she flew like a bird.” His arrival is noisy, “with a clash of mail.” And, later, his shields “glitter.” And walking to Heorot, the “mail-shirts glinted,” their “armor rang.”

Beowulf arrives with speed, light, and noise to suggest he charges to the rescue and will and bring light back to Heorot.

Beowulf has come to Heorot because an aging Hrothgar cannot fight Grendel. He is there to perform a service. But he couches his mission to kill Grendel as a request to Hrothgar—as if Hrothgar is doing him a favor by allowing him to fight:

. . . my one request
Is that you won’t refuse me, who have come this far,
The privilege of purifying Heorot
(Heaney: 429-431)

Why does he phrase it that way?

Well, Hrothgar does acknowledge that Beowulf has “traveled here to favor us with help” but he also mentions a feud begun by his father and his murder of Heatholaf, aWulfing. His father was forced to leave and Hrothgar finally healed the feud by paying a trasure trove to the Wulfings, so I guess Beowulf’s favor to help is also a chance for him to pay back his father’s debt and regain his honor.

Borum wrote: "Well, Hrothgar does acknowledge that Beowulf has “traveled here to favor us with help” but he also mentions a feud begun by his father and his murder of Heatholaf, aWulfing. His father was forced t..."

Yes, but I think there is more going on with it. I see Beowulf phrasing it as a request as his way of preserving Hrothgar’s dignity.

Hrothgar has lost control over Heorot. He is powerless because Grendel has wrested power away from him. With no control and no power to fight Grendel, he doesn’t actually have a choice and needs Beowulf’s help. But to save face, he reminds everyone he bailed out Beowulf’s dad in the long ago, so it is only fitting Beowulf is here to return the favor.

And as for Beowulf—he has come to do what Hrothgar can no longer do for himself. But instead of rubbing it in his face, instead of embarrassing him in front of everyone, he couches it as a request to restore some measure of control to Hrothgar. He asks permission, thereby preserving the man’s dignity.

I see this as the poet demonstrating Beowulf is more than just a man with an impressive physical stature. He is also a man skilled in speech. He knows the rules of protocol and diplomacy.

Beowulf isn't at Heorot to help Hrothgar. He's there to win glory for himself. That's why he insists on single combat with Grendel, even acknowledging a significant chance of losing. If killing the monster were the primary goal, he'd attack it with his whole army.

Tamara wrote: "he couches his mission to kill Grendel as a request to Hrothgar—as if Hrothgar is doing him a favor by allowing him to fight . . .Why does he phrase it that way?"

To spare Hrothgar's bruised ego for not being able to kill Grendel himself, as mentioned. But Hrothgar's is not the only ego being served here and the request dovetails nicely into Beowulf's own boastful legendary ego.

I am just surprised at this detail that I had missed all this time: Grendel's had been raiding the hall for 12 years before Beowulf arrives.

For twelve winters, seasons of woe, the lord of the Shieldings suffered under his load of sorrow; and so, before long, the news was known over the whole world.

That amount of time makes Beowulf's request even more obviously diplomatic. Borum was right. At times this reads like a medieval How to Win Friends and Influence People.

How about the mystery of the two Beowulfs?

The name of Hrothgar grandfather (Scyld Schefing son) is mostly translated as "Beow", but his name is Beowulf in the original text:

Beowulf wæs breme blæd wide sprang (line 18)

This fellow is of course not our Beowulf, the hero of the poem.

The name of "Beowulf" was extremely rare. So rare, that it occurs only in this poem, there isn't any Beowulf in other Old English texts as far as I know.

Tolkien came up with three possible explanations:

a) Coincidence - both guys were called Beowulf.
This is very improbable as we don't have any mention of a "Beowulf" in relation with Scyld and as I already mentioned the name was very uncommon.

b) Error - the scribes/authors mixed up the names. I think this is the most probable scenario, the scribes were quite sloppy with proper names (a side effect of drinking too much Mead, I know it from personal experience).

c) Deliberate - the authors did it on purpose for some unknown reason.
That's the most interesting explanation. Why would they do that?
Maybe it's a kind of joke in order to confuse the reader? Or maybe the scribe hated the name "Beow" (barley) and replaced it with Beowulf?

Emil wrote: "How about the mystery of the two Beowulfs?

The name of Hrothgar grandfather (Scyld Schefing son) is mostly translated as "Beow", but his name is Beowulf in the original text:

Beowulf wæs breme b..."

Perhaps it's a foreshadowing. Beowulf's name isn't given again until he gives it himself while standing in Heorot. The little taste of hit may heighten anticipation.

Emil wrote: "How about the mystery of the two Beowulfs? .... The name of "Beowulf" was extremely rare. So rare, that it occurs only in this poem, there isn't any Beowulf in other Old English texts as far as I know...."

There is exactly ONE other "Beowulf" in the surviving old English texts: and even that is not absolutely certain. The "Book of Life" (i.e., lists of those whose deaths were to be commemorated) of Durham Cathedral, mentions, from the seventh century, a certain "Biuulf." Given dialect differences (between the early Northumbrians and the late West Saxons), and spelling conventions, this could be Beo-wulf, the "Bee-Wolf" (generally identified as the honey-eating bear, although Jakob Grimm and W.W. Skeat independently proposed "woodpecker," an eater of bees).

Or, as once thought, and some have begun arguing again, it could be the equivalent of Beow-(w)ulf, (divine) "Barley" + an heroic-sounding name element: compare Old Norse Thorolf, "Thor-wolf," which has no particular meaning beyond invoking the god Thor (Old English Thunor).

And some propose that both etymologies -- take your pick of which -- apply to both versions.

Some more technical evidence, which can be skipped:

The name Beow, or Beaw, or Beowa, does appear in Old English place names, in charters describing boundaries -- sometimes close to water-sources with "grendel" (probably "grinder") as a name element! An excerpt of the most famous, a charter of about 931, is: "... from there north over the hill ... to the fence of Beowa's Patch [Beowan hamm], and then eastwards to Blackberry Copse ... then to the long meadow, and from there to Grendel's Mere ...."

(These documents are sometimes mentioned in the notes or introductions to translations: they are given in the original language in recently revised Klaeber's Beowulf -- as they were in Klaeber's own editions -- and in translation, which I have quoted, in Beowulf and Its Analogues.)

As I've suggested earlier, there is a wide-spread agreement that, yes, Beowulf the Scylding is the error of a scribe who didn't know the story. (This is true throughout the manuscript, by the way.) Tolkien gives an unusually elaborate analysis of the consequences of thinking that the name is correct.

A technical piece of evidence for the shorter name is that the half-line in which the name "Beowulf" appears in that context is metrically rather odd, and would be much smoother if "Beow" was adopted. This is subject to the controversies over emending Old English poems in general. Almost all of them exist in unique copies, so comparing evidence, as in other literatures, usually isn't available. There is a now widely prevailing view that we shouldn't, since the scribes, however careless, knew far more about the possibilities of Old English than we can.

The contrary position points out that, in the few cases where we do have duplicates, such as with the poems embedded in different manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, we find a high degree of scribal garbling, so that the texts not only can be restored by standard methods, they must be if they are to make any sense.

(Old English verse was always copied as prose, and the sudden change in style may have been a special problem for the scribes in that context: they would have been used to lots of simple declarative sentences -- "The Pope died, and there was a famine" sort of thing. (Early modern Anglo-Saxonists, e.g., in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had a great deal of trouble with the poems, and not just from the corruptions in them, and some concluded that the elegant "Battle of Brunanburh," commemorating a great English victory, was nonsense by an over-excited monk.)

David wrote: "I am taking a guess that Grendel is kept away from the throne through belief in the divine right of kings, that kings are god's lieutenants, or that some kings are even thought of of as god on eart..."

Around line 140 it says, "So Grendel ruled in defiance of right...". He may not have the throne, but Grendel is the one running things.

It was also interesting to me that the next line says, "one against all" because isn't that essentially what a king's rule is?

Tamara wrote: "There’s a lot of foreshadowing of doom and gloom in this poem, beginning with this section. For example, Heorot is described in its full glory as “the greatest of halls.” It’s a sort of circle of l..."

I wondered at the repeated references to how magnificent the hall was, contrasted to the tragedy and terror of what was happening with Grendel, and wondered if it was some sort or moralistic point about riches not being everything in a day when riches on display were heralded as a display of power or something? Or maybe that you could have magnificence but not power?

The selection for this week opens with a brief history of the Danes and their warrior kings, the most famous being Shield Sheafson (Scyld Scefing). This is followed by a list of Shield’s heirs: Beow, Halfdane (Healfdene), and Hrothgar. Hrothgar celebrates his success as a warrior king by building Heorot, a great mead hall. Enter Grendel who attacks Heorot at night, devouring men at will. Poor Hrothgar is helpless against the onslaught. "

There seems to be some sort of progression to greatness. Between lines 10 and 20 it says, "He knew what they had holed, the long times and troubles they'd come through without a leader....". Shield Sheafson starts out not being a great leader but grows into and his son, Beow, continues that to Hrothgar, who builds the magnificent hall, but they still don't have all of the kinks worked out in the progression...

In line 2, it says," the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness". In line 64 it talks about the fortunes of war favoring Hrothgar. If it was fortune that brought him success in war, then how was he courageous or great? Does anyone know how or IF they reconciled these things?

in Line 164, in the Heaney translation is says, "So Grendel waged his lonely war...". I'm wondering about the word "lonely". Today it is an adjective often used to invoke a sympathetic response, right? I'm doubting that that was the case in Old English. Or was it? Are we supposed to have some sympathy for Grendel for some reason?

Genni wrote: "In line 2, it says," the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness". In line 64 it talks about the fortunes of war favoring Hrothgar. If it was fortune that brought him success in war, then ho..."

The "fortunes of war" is an artifact of translation, although not without some justification. The term in OE is heresped, "war-success," which Chickering, for example, renders the whole phrase a bit more concretely: "Then Hrothgar was given victory in battle." There may be an implication of fate, luck, or destiny (take your pick of the nuances) favoring him, but, as we learn elsewhere in the poem, the Anglo-Saxons would have understood the meaning of "Fortune favors the brave."

So far as we actually see Hrothgar in action, though, he seems to favor "soft power," demonstrating his superior wisdom and strength by arranging an end to feuds (as with Beowulf's father), and otherwise exerting influence from a position of relative power. (You just can't ignore his wishes when he steps in as a mediator.) His peace-making extended to using his daughter to end the deadly feud with the neighboring Heathobards -- but we later will hear Beowulf's opinion of that bit of diplomatic maneuvering.

Genni wrote: "in Line 164, in the Heaney translation is says, "So Grendel waged his lonely war...". I'm wondering about the word "lonely". Today it is an adjective often used to invoke a sympathetic response, ri..."

I won't venture a guess as to why Heaney chose "lonely" -- I agree that it does suggest sympathy, which probably isn't intended.

The word translated is "an-gengea," "one-goer," solitary traveler. I doubt that it is intended kindly, as Grendel is immediately before called "feond mancynnes," "enemy of mankind." (Modern "fiend" is a specialized sense of feond, but it seems have had its beginnings this early, elsewhere usually in reference to Satan, if I recall correctly.)

[I skipped over something: This should read: "is immediately before qualified as "atol," terrible, and before that is called "feond..."]

Genni wrote: "I'm wondering about the word "lonely". Today it is an adjective often used to invoke a sympathetic response, right? I'm doubting that that was the case in Old English. Or was it? Are we supposed to have some sympathy for Grendel for some reason?."

Maria Dahvana Headley's translation Beowulf: A New Translation:

Speaking of grudges: out there in the dark, one waited.
He listened, holding himself hard to home,
but he'd been lonely too long, brotherless,
sludge-stranded. Now he heard and endured
the din of drinkers. Their poetry poisoned his peace.

Maybe we're not suppose to feel sorry for Grendel, but I do. He is ostracized and lives outside the circle of light. This is a time when men relied on each other. You swore allegiance to your lord, and, in turn, he rewards you by showering you with all manner of gifts ("the ring-giver"). Brotherhood and community meant survival. Heorot is the "hall of halls." It is the circle of light, providing shelter and refuge from darkness.

Poor Grendel is cut off from all of that. He's been excluded from the partying and camaraderie. It "harrowed him" to hear the music and singing. It is a constant reminder that he is isolated. He is angry and wants vengeance. So he invades their circle and extinguishes the light.

I think you're right, Genni. We're probably not supposed to feel sorry him. But I do.

Grendel seems somewhat like the Grinch.

Tamara wrote: "Genni wrote: "I'm wondering about the word "lonely". Today it is an adjective often used to invoke a sympathetic response, right? I'm doubting that that was the case in Old English. Or was it? Are ..."

Me too. I am reading Headley's wonderful translation along with Heaney's I am appreciating her take on all the characters.

I taught Beowulf this year for about the 50th time. I read it aloud to every class of high school seniors every year. We use Raffel's translation. Anyone who is interested in some lectures, readings, and associated background material on the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon poetry is welcome to check out my lectures that I had to record because of COVID this year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hkD...