Beowulf states in the poem "Sorrow not, wise one! It is always better / to avenge one's friend than to mourn overmuch" (1384-1385). That is, of course, unless you are a woman. For a woman to avenge one's friend, or one's son as illustrated by the actions of Grendel's mother, is problematic - in Beowulf such a woman functions as a perversion of the ideal female in Danish society. For a woman to exhibit agency is figured as fearful, threatening, even monstrous. Women, particularly women's bodies, have always posed a threat to society and Grendel's mother is just another to add to the list.
Jane Chance, in "The Structural Unity of Beowulf: The Problem of Grendel's Mother," convincingly argues that the function of Grendel's mother in the poem is to represent everything a woman should not be and do: she should not avenge her son's death, she should not show agency but, rather, passivity in matters of state, she should not exhibit pride, etc. Because Grendel's mother does show agency she is figured as monstrous and it is made clear in the poem that there is no room for her in respectable Danish society. And, yet, upon first read I found myself almost sympathizing with Grendel's mother - she has just lost her son and, in a society that places signficance on vengence and kinship, I thought it was only normal for her to want to avenge her son.
Over the centuries, women's bodies have always held a certain amount of fascination for some but, unfortunately, this fascination has usually morphed into disgust and evidence for their affinity towards less Godly, and more monstrously demonic, forces. The body of Grendel's mother is an example of this. She is the only mother in the poem to give birth and raise a son without a father-figure. In fact, it is not altogether clear if there ever was a father at all thereby endowing the body of Grendel's mother with unfathomable powers which would, undoubtedly, seem threatening to the male dominated society of the Danes. Moreover, her battle with Beowulf is imbued with sexual overtones which could further suggest fear of female sexuality. It is only natural, then, that she should be a monster as the perversions she represents would not be embodied by a good Danish woman.
Showing posts with label Beowulf. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beowulf. Show all posts
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Only the Lonely
One of the most surprising things to me about the great death of Beowulf is that he does not die alone. When, before preparing to confront the dragon, he states, "I would always go before him, / alone on the front line - and all of my life / I will wage war, while this sword endures" (lines 2497 - 2499), the poem seems to be setting up a parallel between being a great fighter, and fighting alone, which would lead one to assume often means dying alone.
In Beowulf's two other major fights, he is very much depicted as the lone warrior fighting against evil, while those around him sort of, kind of help out. When he kills Grendel, the other men of the hall, even the fighters he hand-picked to assist him, are prevented from helping because of their use of weapons. When he invades Grendel's mother's home, he does so by himself. The many battles that occupied the fifty years between his defeat of Grendel's mother and his confrontation with the dragon were no doubt filled with cooperative warfare, but we hear less about those, implying that the heroics that are worth writing about are those in which one man takes on many monsters.
Compounding our image of Beowulf the lonely is the fact that we never hear about him marrying or having children, something that I would think was odd for the leader of a people, who would in other circumstances would feel compelled to produce a son to carry on his leadership. Instead, he is a man only of war, with no need for a "peaceweaver" wife, or sons to continue his reign.
This is not to say that Beowulf is outside of society in any way - he is not Grendel. Beowulf is both within the hall society and a little above it. He participates in the celebrations and exchanges of property that come along with being a good fighter, and he is seen as a loyal thane, but he is dedicated to fighting and defending his people, which seems to set him a little apart from others.
Yet Beowulf the solitary is given company at his death in the form of the loyal Wiglaf, who not only helps him to defeat the dragon (doing most of the heavy lifting himself), but comforts him and stays with him. Wiglaf is acting as a surrogate son in ensuring that Beowulf is honored, and he is also acting as a kind of surrogate "reader" of Beowulf's life by ensuring this his last words are heard. Perhaps lone warriors are not truly alone as long as we hear of their good deeds.
In Beowulf's two other major fights, he is very much depicted as the lone warrior fighting against evil, while those around him sort of, kind of help out. When he kills Grendel, the other men of the hall, even the fighters he hand-picked to assist him, are prevented from helping because of their use of weapons. When he invades Grendel's mother's home, he does so by himself. The many battles that occupied the fifty years between his defeat of Grendel's mother and his confrontation with the dragon were no doubt filled with cooperative warfare, but we hear less about those, implying that the heroics that are worth writing about are those in which one man takes on many monsters.
Compounding our image of Beowulf the lonely is the fact that we never hear about him marrying or having children, something that I would think was odd for the leader of a people, who would in other circumstances would feel compelled to produce a son to carry on his leadership. Instead, he is a man only of war, with no need for a "peaceweaver" wife, or sons to continue his reign.
This is not to say that Beowulf is outside of society in any way - he is not Grendel. Beowulf is both within the hall society and a little above it. He participates in the celebrations and exchanges of property that come along with being a good fighter, and he is seen as a loyal thane, but he is dedicated to fighting and defending his people, which seems to set him a little apart from others.
Yet Beowulf the solitary is given company at his death in the form of the loyal Wiglaf, who not only helps him to defeat the dragon (doing most of the heavy lifting himself), but comforts him and stays with him. Wiglaf is acting as a surrogate son in ensuring that Beowulf is honored, and he is also acting as a kind of surrogate "reader" of Beowulf's life by ensuring this his last words are heard. Perhaps lone warriors are not truly alone as long as we hear of their good deeds.
Super Beowulf?
Beowulf is a man, just a simple mortal who can be under water by a day and sometimes exhibits some superhuman strength… but he is just a man. Was he the whole day inside the water or was he just the most part of it? How could he survive the lake were Grendel’s mom seemed to live? Of course this is just an overheard story, a legend and it is impossible to know what really happened or if something actually really happened. However, assuming the poet wanted to establish that Beowulf was just a simple mortal, did they knew at the time the real capacities of human body?
Time is a subjective impression, especially if somebody is not wearing a precise watch and it is very probably that somebody could really think he or she is really a long time under the water and, without counting the times a person goes out to breathe it could seem that someone is under the water the whole day! However, this attempt of explanation is just speculation. What can we say about a world with trolls! What is a troll, actually! Beowulf takes place in a non historic world or at least in a world where its historic aspects are totally hid for us.
What we can know by reading Beowulf is about the character of the people who conceived it and enjoyed it, about their beliefs and hopes. We can also know how their ways passed to us as parts of the Western Culture, but we cannot know what really happened there, if something happened, and some of their perspectives are lost for us forever. That is the problem when time goes by without proper records.
The Uncle Pagan...
Poor old Danish and poor old Geats! They never knew about the holly revelation and that is why they were idolatrous. If they knew the true God they probably never had to hire Beowulf, because God would not permit Grendel killing thanes…
The poet shows more mercy to the ancient Danish and Geats than Roland’s author shows for the Saracens. Is it just a difference of style? Well, first of all, with women exchanged as presents and to seal alliances, it is of high probability that our unknown author had a Danish grandmother or a Geat aunt. Secondly, at the time when this poem was written, most of the Danish and Nordics tribes were already Christians, just like the English of the time. English ancestors were also Pagans until three or four generations before the poem was written and they shared many aspects with ancient People of the North… so let’s be indulgent to the ancient pagans. They did not know about Christ and if they knew, they would embrace the true faith, because they were Christian in their character and they had the favor of the Lord…
The poem presents the ancient pagans as Christians in their ways and tries to present them as the prototype of chivalry and knighthood, even when, at that time, those things were not invented yet. The poem reinterprets an old story and presents it as compendium of “Christian” –as Christianity was understood in Middle Ages –and noble virtues present in the very origin of the People of the North, who shared some codes with the contemporary English. Was this poem composed in occasion of some alliance?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Wealhtheow the Slave-Servant
Knowing what we do about Wealhtheow (particularly regarding her prominence in Hrothgar's court and her contrast to Grendel's mother), how can we explain a name like Wealhtheow?
While at least one scholar has noted that this could be a nickname, I have to contest - what kind of nickname is a literal combination for "slave/foreigner" and "servant?" The possibility that someone consciously applied that name to this woman (whether it was the poet or someone who knew her)suggests that we may extrapolate from that name deeper knowledge of her character and position in both Danish society and the poem. As I mentioned previously, Wealhtheow seems to present an example of a strong queen. How, then is she slave, foreigner or servant?
It seems more logical that the "Weal-" portion of her name suggests that she is a foreigner, an outsider to this culture. From all that we have seen presenting women as peace-weavers in this culture, Wealhtheow could easily have been born leagues upon leagues away and married to Hrothgar to seal some sort of peace accord. In that sense, although made immediately royal by her status among the Danes, she is a slave to that self-same peace. In the seventeenth fit, Wealhtheow comes forward immediately following the story of how Hildeburh lost brother, husband, son, everything through the pitfalls of her own peace-weaving, and we see that Wealhtheow is aware of this because she presently defends the rights of her sons. Although the individual composing Wealhtheow's nickname may have intended the meaning 'foreigner,' 'slave' seems to be just as appropriate to her tightly locked position in Hrothgar's hall, in which she has very little freedom at all.
The fact that her name/nickname concludes "-theow" or "servant" perhaps should not surprise us, especially if we consider Wealhtheow an example of what a good hall-wife should do: serve her people and her guests. Wealhtheow is clearly described passing the mead cup from highest- to lowest-ranking thanes in Heorot and finally to Beowulf. Additionally, she serves Beowulf in presenting him with gifts. And on a bawdier note, she clearly serves Hrothgar when he wishes to seek his queen's bedchamber (664-665).
For all that Wealhtheow is a prominent figure in these first two-thirds of the poem (she is the only woman exposed to the grisly spectacle of Grendel's head, for example, in lines 1648-50), she is not necessarily a dominant character. As weird as is feels to jokingly (or heaven forbid - tenderly) call someone your dearest slave-servant, the name certainly fits.
While at least one scholar has noted that this could be a nickname, I have to contest - what kind of nickname is a literal combination for "slave/foreigner" and "servant?" The possibility that someone consciously applied that name to this woman (whether it was the poet or someone who knew her)suggests that we may extrapolate from that name deeper knowledge of her character and position in both Danish society and the poem. As I mentioned previously, Wealhtheow seems to present an example of a strong queen. How, then is she slave, foreigner or servant?
It seems more logical that the "Weal-" portion of her name suggests that she is a foreigner, an outsider to this culture. From all that we have seen presenting women as peace-weavers in this culture, Wealhtheow could easily have been born leagues upon leagues away and married to Hrothgar to seal some sort of peace accord. In that sense, although made immediately royal by her status among the Danes, she is a slave to that self-same peace. In the seventeenth fit, Wealhtheow comes forward immediately following the story of how Hildeburh lost brother, husband, son, everything through the pitfalls of her own peace-weaving, and we see that Wealhtheow is aware of this because she presently defends the rights of her sons. Although the individual composing Wealhtheow's nickname may have intended the meaning 'foreigner,' 'slave' seems to be just as appropriate to her tightly locked position in Hrothgar's hall, in which she has very little freedom at all.
The fact that her name/nickname concludes "-theow" or "servant" perhaps should not surprise us, especially if we consider Wealhtheow an example of what a good hall-wife should do: serve her people and her guests. Wealhtheow is clearly described passing the mead cup from highest- to lowest-ranking thanes in Heorot and finally to Beowulf. Additionally, she serves Beowulf in presenting him with gifts. And on a bawdier note, she clearly serves Hrothgar when he wishes to seek his queen's bedchamber (664-665).
For all that Wealhtheow is a prominent figure in these first two-thirds of the poem (she is the only woman exposed to the grisly spectacle of Grendel's head, for example, in lines 1648-50), she is not necessarily a dominant character. As weird as is feels to jokingly (or heaven forbid - tenderly) call someone your dearest slave-servant, the name certainly fits.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Is a Monster a Monster?
In Jane Chance’s article The Structural Unity of Beowulf she suggests that the attempt of Grendel’s mother to avenge his death would be justified if she were human and male. This got me thinking. It seems to me that being a human is the more weighted of these two characteristics, as I find it unlikely that a mass-murdering-monster’s father could avenge his son’s death with no consequence. On the other hand, could a human mother avenge her son’s death with no consequence? I’m not sure. Perhaps I’m being unfair—not all monsters are of the Grendel human eating troupe. However, it still seems more probable that the mother could avenge without consequence—Being human matters.
But this is really neither here nor there. What I find most interesting is Beowulf’s treatment of the two monsters. As victims, both Grendel and his mother are beheaded. There is no distinction based on sex. To me this starts to suggest that monster is the defining characteristic, and gender takes the backseat.
In line 1393 Beowulf also fails to use the correctly gendered pronoun to describe Grendel’s mother. Beowulf says “he will find no protection” when referring to Grendel’s mother. This further suggests that monster is the focus, and gender the background.
Finally, Beowulf underestimates Grendel’s mother when he says “The horror was less / by as much as a maiden’s strength / a woman’s warfare, is less than an armed man’s” (1281-1284). As we know, the battle with Grendel’s mother is more treacherous that the battle with Grendel himself. Perhaps Grendel’s mother not fitting the medieval female stereotype indicates her monster trait weighs more.
Of course this is not to say that gender does not add complexity to this monster! It is just to point out that Grendel’s mother doesn’t receive much special treatment as a result of her gender. But in the end, perhaps for a female that is special treatment in and of itself.
But this is really neither here nor there. What I find most interesting is Beowulf’s treatment of the two monsters. As victims, both Grendel and his mother are beheaded. There is no distinction based on sex. To me this starts to suggest that monster is the defining characteristic, and gender takes the backseat.
In line 1393 Beowulf also fails to use the correctly gendered pronoun to describe Grendel’s mother. Beowulf says “he will find no protection” when referring to Grendel’s mother. This further suggests that monster is the focus, and gender the background.
Finally, Beowulf underestimates Grendel’s mother when he says “The horror was less / by as much as a maiden’s strength / a woman’s warfare, is less than an armed man’s” (1281-1284). As we know, the battle with Grendel’s mother is more treacherous that the battle with Grendel himself. Perhaps Grendel’s mother not fitting the medieval female stereotype indicates her monster trait weighs more.
Of course this is not to say that gender does not add complexity to this monster! It is just to point out that Grendel’s mother doesn’t receive much special treatment as a result of her gender. But in the end, perhaps for a female that is special treatment in and of itself.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Grendel and Technology
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Power behind Hrothgar's Throne
Who is Wealhtheow? She is Hrothgar's queen, we know that much. But aside from numerous qualities praising her to this extent, that is all we know. And yet she is vastly important. For all that she is relationally ambiguous, she is hugely important to the first two parts of the story. Hrothgar rarely appears without her, and her presence is much more than just silent feminine existence.
Notably, in a passage following the fatal injury of Grendel, Hrothgar "strode glorious / from the women's chambers" (is this a shameful place to be? this is where he has been in hiding) "with a great entourage, / a chosen retinue, and his royal queen with him / measured the meadhall-path" (lines 921-924). In the day of victory, Wealhtheow emerges triumphant alongside Hrothgar. It would seem that during a time of danger, he was actually taking refuge in the women's quarters, in her domain where she would assume a dominant protective role. We are told earlier that "The war-chief wished to seek Wealhtheow, / his queen's bedchamber" (lines 664-664). Whether there is a sexual refuge implied here or not, Wealhtheow is definitely given the authority of being Hrothgar's safe space when he doesn't want to die a horrible death at Grendel's hands.
Additionally, during the celebratory feasting, it is Wealhtheow that we hear speak, far more than anyone else. We are told of the gifts Hrothgar gives to Beowulf, but it is Wealhtheow who provides the poet with commentative narrative within the story. She is the character strong enough to present gifts along with compliments and well-wishes for their use. "Beowulf, beloved warrior, wear this neck-ring..." (line 1216). Et cetera.
The real clincher in her position as a powerful female figure in her community is her behavior as hostess. She concludes the short speech begun above thus: "The troop, having drunk at my table, will do as I bid" (line 1231). This is her party, and she knows it.
It seems that Hrothgar is as much defined by his queen - and by her constant strong presence - as he is by Heorot or the persecution from Grendel. She is quite literally the power behind his throne.
Notably, in a passage following the fatal injury of Grendel, Hrothgar "strode glorious / from the women's chambers" (is this a shameful place to be? this is where he has been in hiding) "with a great entourage, / a chosen retinue, and his royal queen with him / measured the meadhall-path" (lines 921-924). In the day of victory, Wealhtheow emerges triumphant alongside Hrothgar. It would seem that during a time of danger, he was actually taking refuge in the women's quarters, in her domain where she would assume a dominant protective role. We are told earlier that "The war-chief wished to seek Wealhtheow, / his queen's bedchamber" (lines 664-664). Whether there is a sexual refuge implied here or not, Wealhtheow is definitely given the authority of being Hrothgar's safe space when he doesn't want to die a horrible death at Grendel's hands.
Additionally, during the celebratory feasting, it is Wealhtheow that we hear speak, far more than anyone else. We are told of the gifts Hrothgar gives to Beowulf, but it is Wealhtheow who provides the poet with commentative narrative within the story. She is the character strong enough to present gifts along with compliments and well-wishes for their use. "Beowulf, beloved warrior, wear this neck-ring..." (line 1216). Et cetera.
The real clincher in her position as a powerful female figure in her community is her behavior as hostess. She concludes the short speech begun above thus: "The troop, having drunk at my table, will do as I bid" (line 1231). This is her party, and she knows it.
It seems that Hrothgar is as much defined by his queen - and by her constant strong presence - as he is by Heorot or the persecution from Grendel. She is quite literally the power behind his throne.
Looking Back in Beowulf
R. M. Liuzza states in our Intro to Beowulf that the average reader approaches the text with the expectation that s/he will come face to face with the "collective unconscious of English culture, [that the text] will allow him to experience at first hand what is primordial, elemental and primitively powerful in it." But, he goes on to say, the reader finds that Beowulf does not contain anything we might call primorodial but is, itself, looking back as well (17). It's as if we are reading an epic about the making of an epic. This raises the question as to whether there is anything "primordial" or "elemental" in any culture or literature or whether whatever is deemed to be "primoridial" is, itself, contingent on the age (among many other things).
This idea of looking back has always fascinated me as it has fascinated many who are interested in understanding, not only literary or nationalisitic origins, but also human ones. The Victorian period is wrought with novels and essays and poems about looking backwards to our past, our primal ancestors, at the same time that they are fervently pushing forward with industrialization and modernization. This idea that we cannot move forward without taking stock of our origins is not a new one and it seems to be operating in Beowulf in a fundamental way.
I should say at this point that I have only done the reading for our first Beowulf meeting - just wrapped up the battle and defeat of Grendel. It seems to me to be a battle between the hero, Beowulf, and the very material and extremely hostile world in which Beowulf must decide what man he will be and what he will fight/stand for. This battle becomes a microcosm for the world at large that is taking stock of the kind of nation and people they want to be. They must rid themselves of the past that no longer serves them (and maybe Grendel is a symbolic stand-in for paganism?) before they can move forward to what seems to be a more Christian future. They must, in a sense, come to terms about their past before they can move forward.
This idea of looking back has always fascinated me as it has fascinated many who are interested in understanding, not only literary or nationalisitic origins, but also human ones. The Victorian period is wrought with novels and essays and poems about looking backwards to our past, our primal ancestors, at the same time that they are fervently pushing forward with industrialization and modernization. This idea that we cannot move forward without taking stock of our origins is not a new one and it seems to be operating in Beowulf in a fundamental way.
I should say at this point that I have only done the reading for our first Beowulf meeting - just wrapped up the battle and defeat of Grendel. It seems to me to be a battle between the hero, Beowulf, and the very material and extremely hostile world in which Beowulf must decide what man he will be and what he will fight/stand for. This battle becomes a microcosm for the world at large that is taking stock of the kind of nation and people they want to be. They must rid themselves of the past that no longer serves them (and maybe Grendel is a symbolic stand-in for paganism?) before they can move forward to what seems to be a more Christian future. They must, in a sense, come to terms about their past before they can move forward.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
What is Grendel Anyway?
A giant man eating monster, whom like Cain, was exiled by God. Yes, that much we know. The poet tells us that Grendel is a “fiend from hell” (101), and a “grim spirit” (102)—In short, a no nonsense evil to the bone kind of guy. But what drove him into the throat-slitting-blood-drinking-flesh-gobbling business?
Is Grendel a pagan—the same force that Roland and Charlemagne were to overcome (with the help of God himself of course)? Well, Grendel is called the “foe of mankind” (164), and Beowulf’s pre-game wrestling match discussion, “let the wise Lord grant the judgment of glory…to whichever hand seems proper” suggests that God was on the side of Beowulf, the victor in the fight. According to the Roland model, it would appear that Grendel is the pagan to be conquered.
However, it seems that paganism is not the corrupting force in Grendel. In fact, some of Grendel’s potential prey “offered honor to idols at pagan temples” (175-176). The poet then explains that “they did not know the Lord God, ore even how to praise the heavenly Protector” (181-182) and asserts his Christian opinion. Because the poet is taking the time to assert these opinions outside of the monster, it suggests Grendel’s downfall may not of the pagan variety.
Luizza argues that Beowulf is a Christian poem about Pagans that avoids automatic condemnation. I would suggest that the condemnation of Paganism is subtler in Beowulf than in Roland. So, in the end, I don’t know what Grendel is. Perhaps Grendel is, as Luizza suggests, the “embodiment of fratricide” based on his association with Cain, or maybe he’s just evil.
Is Grendel a pagan—the same force that Roland and Charlemagne were to overcome (with the help of God himself of course)? Well, Grendel is called the “foe of mankind” (164), and Beowulf’s pre-game wrestling match discussion, “let the wise Lord grant the judgment of glory…to whichever hand seems proper” suggests that God was on the side of Beowulf, the victor in the fight. According to the Roland model, it would appear that Grendel is the pagan to be conquered.
However, it seems that paganism is not the corrupting force in Grendel. In fact, some of Grendel’s potential prey “offered honor to idols at pagan temples” (175-176). The poet then explains that “they did not know the Lord God, ore even how to praise the heavenly Protector” (181-182) and asserts his Christian opinion. Because the poet is taking the time to assert these opinions outside of the monster, it suggests Grendel’s downfall may not of the pagan variety.
Luizza argues that Beowulf is a Christian poem about Pagans that avoids automatic condemnation. I would suggest that the condemnation of Paganism is subtler in Beowulf than in Roland. So, in the end, I don’t know what Grendel is. Perhaps Grendel is, as Luizza suggests, the “embodiment of fratricide” based on his association with Cain, or maybe he’s just evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)