Along the lines of Aia's and Megan's posts, I have been thinking about what Grendel might have represented to the original audience of Beowulf. Clearly, as Liuzza says, he is a terrifying combination of pagan and Christian threats, an amorphous boogie-man that is all the more frightening for being undefined. Still, the aspect that most fascinates me about Grendel is that weapons have no power over him because "he had worked a curse on weapons / every sort of blade" (ln 804-805). Could it be that he represents a past that is not only pagan, but also pre-technology? He can be seen not only as a destroyer and consumer of men, but also the embodiment of the fear that the things that man has created to make him safe are of no use against true evil.
We can see this first with the ease with which Grendel penetrates the hall, which is depicted as beautiful and towering, something that "the sons of men should remember forever" (ln 70). The pride of the Danish people, filled with its lords and warriors, as well as poets and musicians (all the best representatives of the current culture, in other words) becomes a target for Grendel's rage and then the site of frequent massacres. The Geats, with their beautiful, well-made and frightening armor and weaponry, are in fact no better equipped to meet Grendel than their counterparts. The look-out may be impressed by their showing, but the reader knows that all of their shields will not keep them safe against Grendel.
Only Beowulf's lucky decision to meet the demon without a sword - something that he amusingly seems to consider a way to keep things fair ("I will not kill him with a sword, / put an end to his life, though I easily might; / he knows no arts of war, no way to strike back" ln679-681) - leads to the defeat of the monster. In other words, only by regressing back to an earlier form of combat is Beowulf able to survive and kill Grendel. The people end up being saved, not by superior weapons, but by a very firm grip. This seems to me to suggest that there was an anxiety about the technology of the time - the swords, chain mail, and shields- and a fear that there might exist something in the world that could not be stopped by such civilized defenses.
I agree - Grendel's inability to be killed by weapons does seem to represent a fear that there is something even the superior technology of the time could not fight.
ReplyDeleteIt also may work on the flip side. As much as it's an insecurity about the present, it seems to also be a fear of the past. A fear of what it was like to face the world without weapons of bronze or iron. An imagining not only of swords failing, but also of failing to have swords.
Even if Beowulf was written (or first told) at it's earliest possible date in the sixth century, it's still roughly 2500 years after the beginning of the Bronze Age in Britain. Although weapons became stronger and easier to make, by no means were enough people armed to be rid of the fear of finding yourself unarmed and under attack.
The fear goes with a good amount of logic. If a terror is powerful enough to defy all weapons, even the best swords you can create, how could you possibly hope to defeat it without any weapon at all?
Evidently Beowulf can.
Rose—I think this is a very interesting idea and a fear that remains in our present day.
ReplyDeleteI actually want to comment on a tiny detail that you brought up, Beowulf’s decision to fight Grendel without his sword. You are right. This is amusing. The more I think about it the more amusing it becomes. What warrior fighting an unstoppable man eating force is concerned with a fair game? I mean, this isn’t football we’re talking about. Perhaps Beowulf has higher standards than I do myself (or more pride at stake), but I’d take the light-saber, or tank, or technology in a heartbeat.