Beowulf II
by Thomas Fleming
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Before moving on to Grendel’s lovely and charming dam, let us look briefly at the interesting song performed by the scop at the victory celebration for the killing of Grendel. (Roughly 1063-1160). The song relates how Hnaef and his Half-Danes visited his brother-in-law Finn, lord of the Frisians. The Danes are set upon in the night but manage to hold out for days of fighting in which Hnaef and his Finn’s son (and Hnaef’s nephew) are killed. Terms are made according to which the Danes and their new leader Hengest will now swear allegiance to Finn. When Hengest leaves, though, he meditates a terrible revenge on Finn.
Let us discuss the story on its own terms and then how it relates to Beowulf. Before doing that, however, we should pay some attention to the recent writeback of Kate Dalton Boyer, a former managing editor of Chronicles:
What a pleasure to read Beowulf again—and I have enjoyed this discussion as well.
My eldest daughter (who is nine) has heard every story from the Iliad and Odyssey without turning a hair, but she cannot bear to hear me retell the story of Beowulf and Grendel. I think Tom is right that there is a frightening vividness to this story that the Greek myths stand one artistic remove from.
But I want to return to Tom’s question about Grendel (human or monster?). I read through this poem once long ago in Old English, but have forgotten what little I knew. So I may well stand corrected or be making points made long ago by others. I am however struck by the impression that among many other things this poem seems to be a long effort to proselytize. The poet seems more Christian than the world he is describing—and he is interpreting that world in a Christian fashion for his hearers, in an effort to enable them to see it differently.
The obvious example of this is the poet’s scornful description of the warriors’ sacrifice to false gods, but throughout the poem, the most Christian elements are often the poet’s descriptions and explanations, not always the words of the king or even Beowulf. “Wyrd is determined!” Beowulf says at one point in my translation, though he softens the necessity of wyrd in a later line (see 572 or thereabouts).
Grendel may perhaps have been a monster to Hrothgar and his followers, but to the poet he is a fallen human, a descendant of Cain, and with a “heathen soul” in my translation, hence damnable in the way presumably an animal-monster is not. The poet takes the view that Grendel’s attributes are not just evil but sinful. His suffering, too, as described by the poet, is human—envy, ostracism, life in the dark.
He is a foil for what is by period standards a selfless champion of a people who are not his own. And I think the fight between Beowulf and Grendel is fought without weapons to underscore that it is a moral battle, one of will against will. Beowulf refuses to use a weapon so as to meet Grendel on his own terms–a fair duel. But that rightness of his moral choice (right even though made with a boast), his willingness to give the devil his due, means Beowulf can in fact defeat Grendel, which he could not have done had he fought less fairly (ie with a sword). In any case I would argue that what is described here is the potential for human good fighting the potential for human evil—and that victory requires, in addition to courage and enormous strength, a willingness to risk seeming advantage in order to fight justly.
I think this is a valuable contribution because it highlights the human aspect of Grendel–albeit distorted into monstrosity–that elevate the episode above the level of the fairy tale.
I have appended below my original post. Newcomers to this discussion might, if they have time, go to the original entry which has slipped down to page 2 of the opening page.
Beowulf I
I want to begin with a few bits of basic information, subject to correction from the superior authorities on whom I am counting. Beowulf is generally regarded, Tolkien notwithstanding, as an epic poem written down in its current state mostly in the Wessex dialect of Anglo-Saxon. Traces of East Anglian, apparently, have been detected We can discuss later, if anyone likes, what is meant by “epic” poem and whether or not the length and composition of Beowulf may have been influenced by reading or at least knowledge of the Aeneid
Although the manuscript of Beowulf is generally dated to approximately 1000 AD, the ms. may well be a copy of a work composed much earlier, even before 800. Both internal evidence, apparently, and analogies with other epic poems would suggest that it is the most recent version of a traditional story, polished by generations of perhaps illiterate revisers, before reaching its present form. If there are, indeed, traces of other dialects, the analogy with Homer is useful. The Iliad and Odyssey are written in what is often called the “epic dialect” a literary hodge-podge that is primarily Ionic Greek but with traces of Arcado-Cypriot (reflecting earlier Mycenaean) and perhaps Aeolic.
The story of Beowulf concerns Germanic peoples, primarily Geats, Danes, and Frisians. There is an undoubted historic core: Hygelac is referred to not only in the Liber Monstrorum, and his raid on the Frisians, dated to about 515, is noted by Bishop Gregory of Tours in his history of the Franks. I borrow the rest of this brief and inadequate introduction from a lecture I gave two weeks ago:
“Most students of history inevitably look at the past from a southern perspective, observing the torch of civilization as it passes from Egypt and the Middle East first to Greeks and Romans and then to the French and then, belatedly, to the English. Norman Conquest gives us opportunity to study microcosm of interaction between Germanic barbarians and Roman culture, though not quite so simple: AS’s had been strongly influenced by Latin Christianity and later by Norman culture, while Normans themselves were a Germanic-Nordic people who had only recently adopted French language, Roman Church, and what was left of Gallo-Roman culture. In other words our gaze is fixed between latitudes 30 N to 40 N and then a bit beyond 50 N.
For this discussion we want to turn our perspective upside down or rather upside up and look down from north, shedding feeble polar light of 60 degrees + North upon history. While Greeks were creating and Romans extending civilization in the sunny Mediterranean, their distant IE cousins were eking out a savage and marginal existence in the frozen wastes of Scandinavia, where civilization is known, even today, only as a tall tale told by heroic sea-rovers or Swedish mass-tourists stuffed with cheap pizza, raw wine and burned garlic. (No offense meant to Steve Berg et al.)
Swedes, Geats, Jutes, Lombards, Burgundians, Goths were the northern brethren of the Germanic peoples who lived to the South. They had been living in Scandinavia since roughly 2000 BC during a mild period for Northern Europe, and as the first age of global warming came to an end (complete perhaps by 500 BC), many of the tribes began moving South and eventually took part in the great Germanic folk-migrations that overthrew the Roman Empire. An early hint of what was to come from Scandinavia was the migration of the Teutones and Cimbri, who left their homes and raided their way across Europe and into Italy, where they were stopped by Roman general Marius in 101 BC.
The Jutes and Angles and Saxons who began attacking Britain in the IV C came, roughly from Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein, and northern Saxony. Hrolfe the Walker, the pirate and free-booter also known as Rollo, when Charles the Simple granted him the land to be called Normandy in 911, launched his raids from the territory of the Angles. William the Conqueror was the direct descendant, 6 generations later, of Rollo the Viking. Thus the three contestants for the throne of England in 1066 were all cousins: Anglo-Saxons (whose ancestors included Jutes from Jutland), Normans, and Norwegians (commanded by the most remarkable man of the age, Harald Hardrada). Obviously, there are serious differences among the 3 nations. By 1066 both Normans and Anglo-Saxons had gone a long way from their ancestral roots: They had accepted Christianity, were part of Catholic Europe, had developed more sophisticated agriculture, technology, and trade. Even 11th century Norway had developed the institutions of a national-state. Much of Norway was already Christianized even before Harald’s brother Olaf came to the throne and unwisely attempted to finish the job. Still, it is hard to find a streak of Christian humility or kindness in Harald.
Nonetheless, despite the dangers inherent in extrapolation from later Vikings back to the Angles and Saxons, it is helpful to try to understand a little of primitive Scandinavia, from the time of the Anglo-Saxon raids down to the Viking period. First thing to take note of: very very cold. Climate change for worse had accomplished several things. The tall, blond, rugged Scandinavian type, though not universal, was probably the result in part of adaptation to climate. Conditions varied, of course, and there was good arable land in some parts of southern Scandinavia, but generally at a disadvantage. Fishing, herding played larger role than elsewhere. Thin population—often bled away by migrations—and rough conditions did not encourage large-scale political units.
We have next-to no knowledge of Anglo-Saxon society on even of invasions, but we know a little more about Vikings several hundred years later. At the top of the social order were kings, members of royal kindreds, though power did not pass automatically to eldest son or, failing sons, a daughter, either in Scandinavia or in AS England. The king was primarily warchief and thus a tough and resolute warrior was needed to protect the people. King much more loosely applied than among Goths and other tribes to the South—often claimed by members of royal clan. Under the king were jarls/earls, who enjoyed power and prestige over community or communities, and in Scandinavia were commissioned by the king to represent his government, much like the comites in Carolingian Francia. These nobles, powerful as they might be, lacked the divine sanction of kings who claimed descent from Woden.
“The basic unity in society…was no king or earl but a bondir, a free farmer, roughly equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon ceorl…” [H.R. Lloyn, The Vikings in Britain] The bondir was no little man in our sense of the word. He was at his most typical the head of a household, a man of some property in land and especially in stock. He was a slave-owner. His symbols of rank were his axe and his spear. The mark of the freeman was the right to bear arms. He was oath-worthy and law-worthy… Sturdy and at times savage, independence was a characteristic of this breed, but…his very litigious and squabblesome nature found its outlet in what was essentially communal institutional life, in the folk-court, the local thing held at some traditional spot…”
Anglo-Saxon society developed under Frankish and Christian influence, but it started from roughly the same place and was never fully detached from its foundations. The freemen and Earls were fiercely individualistic, self-assertive, quick to anger; also intensely familial and devoted to kin. Marriage far more egalitarian than among more developed peoples. Free contract between man and woman, dissolvable by either party. Scandinavia and AS societies were not the Playboy Club that Iceland has become, but they were freer and less restricted in their sexual mores and attitude toward women than, say, Mediterranean cultures. This is one more indication of how primitive they were and are.
In Beowulf, the most important social and legal fact to notice is the code of the Germanic warrior. A free man, by definition, was a man who could fight to defend himself, his kin, and his king. Blood revenge and what would later be called dueling were social and moral norms.
In modern times, English law has gone farthest in restricting the individual’s recourse to violence. Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, if they were freemen, did not so much take the law into their own hands as exercise the law on their own authority. In avenging a death in the family, they were less interested in the motives and circumstances than in the fact. Blood once spilled cannot be recalled, as the furies say in Aeschylus’ Eumenides. Even in a case of accidental homicide, where no negligence is involved, a man is still dead, and–as the legal maxim held–”Legis enim est qui inscienter peccet, scienter emendet”, that is a man should knowingly fix the harm he had done in ignorance.” In tort law, this principle endured into the 19th century.
For the Saxons, murder as well as accidental homicide were settled by payment of blood-money to the kindred. “Homicide appears in the Anglo-Saxon dooms as a matter for composition in the ordinary case of slaying in an open quarrel. There are additional public penalties in aggravated cases, as where a man is slain in the king’s presence or otherwise in breach of the king’s peace.” [Maitland and Pollock I.52]
Wergeld, as our Saxon ancestors called it, is a custom of many nations, although none, perhaps, has elaborated it into a social system so successfully as the Germanic peoples. The monster Grendel, whom Beowulf kills, is an outlaw not so much because he kills the Danish king’s retainers as because his refusal to pay compensation puts him outside society.
“Although it may be assumed that the primitive Germans recognized only the fact of bloodshed, motivation and circumstance did come to play an important part. Of course the slayer’s kin could stick to the letter of the law of blood, but “one may almost say that the leading motive in heroic literature is precisely this difference of opinion between the people who hold that under any circumstance it is shameful to come to an agreement with the bana (slayer) of one’s lord or friend or kinsman, and the people who are willing under certain circumstances to come to such an agreement.” [Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn by R.W. Chambers with supplement by C. L. Wrenn, IIIrd Ed., Cambridge UP, 1963, 276-77.] Liability also extended to one who loaned weapons or was present in a fray.
Much of what underlies the principle of blood-revenge is summed up in the phrase “collective responsibility.” In other words, an individual who killed or maimed or robbed someone was not the only person responsible. If a town rose up against the king, it was not just the guilty parties who suffered. In Medieval Tuscany, Florence in particular, wide networks of kinfolks were held collectively responsible for paying the fines of an offending member, and this gave the Florentine business classes the ability to expel entire noble kindreds. One of King Alfred’s successors made local communities responsible for paying the fines for unpunished criminals—which must have served as a powerful incentive to punish the guilty parties.
This is a very inadequate and amateurish introduction, which can be fleshed out in many directions, but I wanted to begin to show that in the heroic world of Beowulf, we shall not find many things to confirm our modern liberal prejudices in favor of equality, individualism, and universal moral rules.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Steve Berg on 20 February 2008:
Certainly no offense is taken, Dr. Fleming. My Danish ancestors have a long history of fighting the Swedes. I never told this to Alan Carlson, but it is the case. Alan and I were both born in opposing sides of the bunker line there in Des Moines’ Snooseville, that divided the Swedes from their superiors on the Danish side.
I am greatly enjoying this discussion.
Steve
2 Comment by robert m. peters on 20 February 2008:
I will be joining the discussion late Saturday. Events and chores take me away for a couple of days.
3 Comment by woodcutter on 20 February 2008:
Grendel has caused me
with his grim hate-thoughts
and dreadful attacks.
re: VII
Not only did the author understand the source of Grendels evil, he understood the the power of evil in the minds of those who embrace the darkness and the harm that those thoughts can do to those around the carrier of these thoughts. This is a very interesting commentary of the understanding of evil in the minds of old and a source of wisdom that we can draw from. We should not only pray for the absence of evil deeds but also for the removal of the evil influences that will pray on us via the hearts and thoughts of others. Just a thought.
4 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 20 February 2008:
I’ve been following the Beowulf discussions, although I haven’t had much to say. Trained more in the Greco-Roman tradition, I’ve neglected the Old English / Norse classics, something which I am now trying to rectify. I’ve purchased used off Amazon both Timothy Murphy’s translation of Beowulf, and have been reading Frank Stenton’s Anglo-Saxon England, both recommended by Dr. Fleming on a previous post. (After these, I plan to move on and read the Eddas.) I agree with the “vividness” of Beowulf, which I think is present in much ancient Northern literature. There indeed is something “magical” about the feel of the languages (which, I confess, I don’t know, which may make them seem more so). For example, I am quite fond of the Latin language, but if Tolkien had made his Elvish languages Latin-based, I doubt they would still possess the same magic. The “monsters” in Northern literature, on some base level, are more frightening than those confronted in the Greco-Roman classics. The digression (or is it one?) of Finn and his followers is at first hard to follow. To tie the Half-Danes and Frisians, Hildeburh marries Finn, When Hileburgh’s brother, Hnaef, is killed by Finn’s men, and Hildeburh’s and Finn’s son is also killed, it shows the complicated loyalties of Hildeburh (both to brother and husband). Such stresses were not alien to the Greeks and Romans, as all tragedy in a sense is close to home, but this song inserted before the killing of Grendel illustrates the lack of any such dilemmas in her elimination. She is a monster and won’t be missed.
5 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 20 February 2008:
Sorry for the sloppy syntax. I should have typed that up in Word.
6 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 20 February 2008:
Read: before the killing of Grendel’s mother. N.B., that the battle with the she-monster will be more vicious than with her son. Most female animals (e.g. dogs) will be ferocious in protecting their offspring.
7 Comment by Allen Wilson on 20 February 2008:
TJF, I now understand the reason for your last question on the first Beowulf thread. Admittedly, I drew a blank on that one. The fallen nature of grendel causes him to live in darkness. Our own fallen nature as men, descendants of Adam, causes us all to live in darkness, but Grendel’s darkness goes much deeper than that. His sin is such that it has turned him into a monster.
Grendel must live in the physical darkness of the world, the night, because of his own internal darkness. He chose darkness and perhaps that was his first sin. His inner darkness makes his outter world around him dark. He not only causes his own darkness, he is his own darkness.
Perhaps we have a parallel with the story of Dracula? I see great similarities here.
Woodcutter, you’re on to something. Perhaps Grendel can represent the dark thoughts and emotions that all of us have which do cut us off from happiness and can cause us to harm ourselves and others around us, even if only through hurtful words or callous or inconsiderate bahaviour. In it’s extreme form, it turnes us into murderers, serial killers, warmongers, war profiteers, etc., real life Grendels.
The battle between Beowulf and Grendel illustrates that psychological and very much spiritual battle with our own darkness which we must all face. Most people refuse to enter the darkness of their own souls because it scares them too much. They look for some way to overcome it or suppress it, some kind of crutch or weapon, either drugs or the latest self-help craze, or whatever. This is weakness and cannot but fail, as weapons fail against Grendel. One may try to ignore the internal darkness altogether because it prooves that we are not the nice, good, wonderful people we like to think we are, and we dont like that. So we become like the the surviving Danes, who would hide in the darkness, enslaved to the darkness. Hide from the darkness and you remain in the darkness, all around you, and you are not free. Refuse to face your own darkness inside and you remain enslaved to it.
Each of us must enter our own darkness and face our own internal Grendel on it’s own terms, unarmed, regardless of the terror, and see and understand, ‘this is how I really am’. This grappling with our own darkness renders it asunder, because to grapple with it, without resisting but by simply being with it and seeing it for what it is, up close and personal, is actually the light shining upon it, rendering it asunder like the tearing of Grendel’s arm away from his body as Beowulf faced grendel, not only face to face but actually touching, grappling and holding on like grabbing and holding on to a terrifying and stomach churning snake, feeling the muscles flexing inside it.
Yes, a graphic story indeed.
This story must be a type of wisdom story, a spiritual parable similar to those told by Christ.
TJF, I think you are right. This is a Christian story. Perhaps the author was a follower of Christ who saw in the vanishing or recently vanished pagan world around him, stories and archetypes that held wisdom, much like the early Christians saw the wisdom in Greek philosophy, and decided to make good use of it.
8 Comment by woodcutter on 21 February 2008:
Allen, very good thoughts. Even though Beowulf is graphic it is no less than real. I work with people that are in the deepest suicidal depression. These people are assisted by our drug addicted society to medicate rather than to understand the darkness we have inherited. In the end it is either a blood soaked tragedy or a wrestling match of wills that only a vice like grip of determination and prayer can overcome, strengthened by the grace of God. Beowulf has the qualities and determination necessary for the job! The post modern world has devalued these qualities in order to subdue us into believing that these qualities are worth nothing, that we should medicate instead of meditate.
9 Comment by Bruce on 21 February 2008:
Mrs. Boyer writes that the poem was intended to proselytize. Again, I’m reminded of the Heliand, written about the same time, 800-ish, for the Old Saxons. Beowulf appears to be another attempt to make the Gospel understandable to early Germanics.
Anyone looking for a good children’s version should check out the re-telling by Henrietta Elizabeth Marshall’s. There’s also a new, picture-book version I’ve read to my boys that uses all Anglo-Saxon-derived words with a few exceptions, one being the word “dragon.”
10 Comment by Allen Wilson on 21 February 2008:
errrr…. the last paragraph of my post should have been addressed to Mrs Boyer.
11 Comment by robert reavis on 21 February 2008:
“evil in the minds of those who embrace the darkness and the harm that those thoughts can do to those around the carrier of these thoughts. This is a very interesting commentary of the understanding of evil in the minds of old and a source of wisdom that we can draw from.”
I have been reading a little book by Pete Carril, the long time Hall of Fame basketball coach at Princeton, who said “that being poor during his childhood enhanced the ability to develope creativity. While being poor today engenders violence.” He had noticed this change in his players over the years and the effects it had on their ability to really understand or play a team sport. He concluded it was not being poor that inhibited full maturity, but rather hate. Now back to the story.
12 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 21 February 2008:
In reply to Mr. Wilson:
As I said, I have forgotten whatever I once learned about Beowulf, and so I had to be reminded while reading some critical essays that a prevalent (if not universal) view of this poem is that it is a Christian poet writing about a pre-Christian era. The poet admires his subjects, however, and makes the case to his audience that these pre-Christian heroes had strong leanings toward the truth, even though they had no Revelation.
That would explain the oddity of a Christian poem with no Christ in it; all the words for God (in my translation, Measurer, Wielder, God, God Almighty, Father, Deemer—but never Redeemer) are words for God the Father, not God the Son. The critic Fred Robinson points out that many of these OE words for a god had been transformed to names for God once Christianity came—hence within the story they have a double meaning, one for the pagan thanes, another for the Christian poet and presumably his audience. It would also explain why the pagan Hrothgar sounds so Christian and yet is never explicitly so—the poet is emphasizing every correspondence, every flicker of a very dimly seen candle. To me the poem feels almost like a prayer for these long-dead men, because throughout the poet is arguing that their virtue is Christian virtue, even if they were not.
To return to Tom’s subject of the day: I would be interested to hear what those who have read more widely in Old English or allied literatures had to say about the story of Hnaef and Hengest itself. Not having much to relate it to, it makes more sense to me within the context of Beowulf than it would on its own, except as a sorrowful, genealogical “winter’s tale” of how one’s cousins chose badly and suffered.
Within the story, however, it makes lots of sense: Grendel is defeated, his arm has been nailed up, and here in Heorot sit drinking the warrior who defeated him and all his armed men. It’s understandable, then, that Hrothgar might ask to hear a story about the conflict and betrayal of two different peoples brought together in one hall, men who were allied through marriage and then through oaths but who nevertheless turned on each other, with both sides suffering for it.
Surely it is a cautionary tale to everyone hearing it, and an argument for Beowulf to treat the Danes justly—underscored by Wealhtheow’s bringing around the wine cup afterwards, and pleading for the care of her sons.
She would have taken little comfort from Hildeburh’s fate in that tale, and indeed the queen makes of point of calling her husband a “treasure-sharing” king and who offers “welcoming words” to the Geats as a “wise man should.” It is moment of tense and pointed graciousness, that she would stand up right after the song and speak as she does, reminding both the king and the hero of their obligations to each other. Hrothgar is a moral leader who would do the right thing regardless, but he and his queen wish to act justly for self-preservation, too–this is not a poem to shut its eyes to life’s potential violence.
So I would argue that this song is not an aside but an expression of the unspoken thoughts and worries of the king and queen. I would like to hear what else it might be.
13 Comment by TJF on 21 February 2008:
Our understanding of the tale of Finn, fortunately, can be amplified by comparison with a famous fragment on Finnsburg, his great fortified castle. One important question raised by the episode is the faith or loyalty of Hengest. He has sworn some kind of fealty to Finn but he is also bound to avenge the death of Hnaef. The subject is endlessly and perhaps fruitlessly debated, and I am not prepared to offer a philological response. Nonetheless, however we interpret what happens, we cannot say that his oath to Finn trumps the necessity for vengeance. Quite the contrary, I should say. In moral terms, then, I am tempted to suggest that blood-revenge is near the top of AS system of social and ethical obligation. This makes the parallel and contrast with the later Jomsburg fort all the more interesting, because there it is the political oath which transcends loyalty to blood.
14 Comment by Bill Temple on 22 February 2008:
“Not only did the author understand the source of Grendels evil, he understood the the power of evil in the minds of those who embrace the darkness and the harm that those thoughts can do to those around the carrier of these thoughts. This is a very interesting commentary of the understanding of evil in the minds of old and a source of wisdom that we can draw from. We should not only pray for the absence of evil deeds but also for the removal of the evil influences that will pray on us via the hearts and thoughts of others. Just a thought.” -woodcutter
That is astute. Every’thing is a vibration with its own unique frequency. Thoughts have their own vibrations as well and so in that sense thoughts are things. These things/thoughts are merely separated by degrees. E.g. the vibration of the high note is stronger than the vibration of the glass it shatters when they intersect.
The finer is the stronger or the good, i.e. the better, ultimately the best…However it too must be proactive along the way vs. that which would, and does amass power at its own level which then extends outward inevitably as well. I.e. also good v. evil. … So mentally or vibrationally one can be as it were malpracticed at the level of thought – unless of course one is aware and uses thought to protect onself vibrationally as well from the travesty. The finer vibrations are the stronger at root if employed individually and collectively amassed, and often once in place even in only being defensive can ricochet the evil back to the sender/s. In other words it also has that Effect as well.
In this regard it is just a thought or vibration but so are things vibrations, and thus separated only by degrees, thoughts are things. Thus is also the vibrational value of prayer the finer the good the community etc. It is palapable. Like that funny ad – if your wife is dragging you to the opera or vice versa and you’ve stashed some beers in your jacket pockets…make sure they’re cans, not glass bottles. (My friend’s wife says she gives him 4 beers and she can take him anywhere.) I kid but not about vibrations. Make’em good they’re also the finer and the stronger.
15 Comment by Sally on 22 February 2008:
Without any intention of snarky comment, the “AD” goes before the year thus, AD 1000. BC of course follows the date of the year thus, 228 BC. Thanks for retaining the Christian designations. I’m tired of the BCE and CE designations shoved into our faces about the same time we were told we were consumers, not producers; and about the same time we were told America was Judeo-Christian, not Christian; and so on.
16 Comment by woodcutter on 23 February 2008:
He bathes in abundance,
not a bit troubled
by age or illness;
anxious worries
do not darken his mind,
nor dangerous threats
from spears, but all things
conspire to pamper
his needs, and he knows
of nothing worse,
until his heart mounts up
and haughty thoughts
quicken within him
and conscience sleeps,
the soul’s sentry,
its slumber deepened
by banal routines.
Near him the Devil
creeps with his quiver
of crooked arrows,
the warped suggestions
of wicked fiends,
but he has lost his shield,
and at last he feels
a shower of sharp
shafts in his heart.
What a relevant section! a commentary on post modern man. We live in a world of comforts so great that we become spiritually sleepy. Banal routines and warped suggestions of wicked friends describes our day to day life, in the present moment. As practicing Christians we are a minority, we are over whelmed by the secular. Without care and awareness we too will loose our shield.
17 Comment by woodcutter on 23 February 2008:
my apologies, I have gotten ahead of the suggested topic.
18 Comment by Allen Wilson on 23 February 2008:
Woodcutter: I dont wish to lead this thread off topic, but I would like to respond to your post #17. I think the key to keeping your sentry awake is to stay aware of what you are doing while you are engaged in that banal routine from moment to moment, like monks who see common tasks such as washing dishes as spiritual work. Same with the warped suggestions of wicked fiends, or friends. Just be aware of them in the present moment. People forget that they dont have to identify with the suggestions. Nor do they have to identify with those haughty thoughts. Just recognise them for what they are and let them pass. Dont buy in to them and dont become critical or loathful of yourself for having them either, which only strengthens them, or try to resist them, which also strengthens them. ‘Resist not evil……’ Just observe and let them pass.
He bathed in abundance until he let his emotions and thoughts take control, thus losing control of himself; now he is the devil’s victim.
19 Comment by woodcutter on 23 February 2008:
Allen, thanks for the reply. You are right of course. I tend to get defensive when threatened by the abundance of nonspiritual, asleep people in the world. Your words are wise. I am reading Beowulf for the first time and find it very exciting. Most of my spiritual reading to date has been from the Early Church fathers and Saints. As well as contemporary theologians. To find Beowulf has been a gift and gives me another source of hope. Some of the comments are over my head but I will try to follow along. I have a good friend (GLA) that is more scholarly than I and is reading along with us. He keeps me on track as well.
20 Comment by Bill Temple on 23 February 2008:
two or three things: there is also the reality that too much adversity does not stimulate or challenge but rather crushes. and secondly – in reality outside of literature or our culture which tends to over-emphasize the individual the only actual defense is the group. and also said group’s taking control of and protecting its own media. You got ‘changed’ first conceptually via allowing congress to give your airways to the few (who lie to you outright as well as change you according to their own whims for profit.) we are first and foremost as human beings unlike how the other creatures are – we are conceptual creatures. Culture i.e. the conceptual gets set-up via the media (which you’ve lost your own.) We all individually pause (being human beings) at the conceptual level for beliefs, conscious thoughts, ideas etc. prior to activity and behaviors. Culture is nothing more or less than the collective pause at the conceptual level as it pertains to what the culture thinks, believes, embraces etc. Lose Your media, that’s your End. period. End. Full stop. (especially when its alien and pernicious in knowing how it wants to manipulate you.) and also even brags about that.
there’s a dynamic symbiosis between the individual and his/her group or whole. no One individual is, can be, or should attempt to the be – the whole. we each have our role to play in the whole. individuals “hip” to this make a better whole and vice versa the subsequent better whole makes better individuals.
But sadly when the individual is overemphasized as in our culture even when it is not coopted, corrupted, bastardized – ‘as if’ [subtlely] it ought to be the high goal of every individual to Be the whole himself or herself. Just that ‘tad’ even a tad of an imbalance in that direction is the culture’s as it were Achilles heel. Take a group of 60 individuals 58 of whom are imbalanced in this direction and two who behave as a team. 58 of them lose one by one, and two win together, because it’s always case by case two against one.
seeing this at least as an example Doesn’t release a much Endorphins (the brain’s natural painkillers) as believing in a super or the suprmeme possibility of being ‘the’ individual as if the whole. Except that belief itself is blasphemy (the devil is in that deception) – for that is God’s role and His alone. sometimes therefore in the endorphin department less (releasing) may be a little bit more uncomfortable but it’s in effect more i.e. in such a case is where less is more.
then the benefit is slightly delayed though worth it.
when you Lose you have to put yourself under the microscope and your culture and tweak or adjust it appropriately. this site does that. so this is just my 2 cents worth. sorry, less from me is more?! live with it – or delete. sorry.
21 Comment by Allen Wilson on 24 February 2008:
In response to TJF, I agree that vengeance trumps his oath in moral terms, in this case. After all, the oath was sworn under duress, and could be considered null for that reason. We seem to be dealing with a society which has a more primitive form of what you have described in your posts here in the past concerning Greek concepts of law and justice, where it is up to the victim’s family to punish murderers, etc.
22 Comment by woodcutter on 24 February 2008:
TJF…”He has sworn some kind of fealty to Finn but he is also bound to avenge the death of Hnaef.”
Could this cautionary story be used as a lesson before the start of the “Iraq War” an extension of the war on trror. Replace Finn with Saddam Hussein and Hengest with…Bush? Should it have been read to Bush following 911 ? At least it was remembered and told in the meed halls. Would the outcome have been different if Hengest had of been able to leave for home to contemplate away from Finn.
23 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 25 February 2008:
Thanks, Tom, for yours at 13. But where does that leave the practice of paying blood money for dead men? Hengst has not only sworn an oath with Finn, but has accepted wergeld, and surely the point of blood money is to put an end to an otherwise long cycle of revenge killing.
Hengst may have only hesitated to strike back for practical reasons–waiting to attack till winter was over, when he could send for reinforcements, fight and then immediately set sail for home. But there also seems to be hints that a certain amount of pleading and argument are involved, and when Hunlafing brings Hengst the “vengeance-sword,” the poet says Hengst does not reject it–implying that he could have. Perhaps he might have had some moral justification in doing so under these very complicated circumstances.
I read a summary of Tolkien’s reconstruction of the web of relationships and actions that may lie behind this partially told story of Finn, and he supposes Hildeburh asks for her son to be buried with Hnaef because the uncle had been the young man’s foster-father, having raised him in Denmark, and they had probably fought together during the battles. But she may have made her request for an additional reason: to emphasize to the Danes that while they had lost their prince, the Frisians had lost theirs too. That fact made the two sides fairly even in their losses–the one death could be seen as a payment for the other, quite aside from any wergeld, and could make a peace more morally justifiable.
Hengst did not finally see it that way, but then hard cases make for a good lay. If we later readers argue endlessly over which duty trumps the other, probably Beowulf’s listeners did too, and the moral complexity of the Finn tale is one other reason why the poet includes it within his own.
24 Comment by robert m. peters on 26 February 2008:
An old professor, Dr. Willibald Kubecik at the University of Vienna, startled my then young mind, a mind which had been schooled that all loyalty expected to focus on the “ultimate” claims of the state to one’s body, to one’s treasure and to one’s allegiance, when, in reference to Germanic epics and sagas, he said that the conflict of competing forces for loyalty – forces with legitimate claims, usually – was at the heart of the Germanic sense of reality. In the real Germanic world, at least that world revealed through its literature, the conflict of loyalty was the milieu into which one was born and in which one had one’s being. Dr. Kubecik asserted that it was not the choice itself that was judged but what the man made of the consequences of the choice.
As I recall, Dr. Kubicek also, in an oblique reference to Nietzsche, held that the characters of Germanic epics and sagas could not be held, in a modern sense, to be tragic as related to the outcomes of their choices. Dr. K. held that for their to be real tragedy there had to be an understanding that there was an alternative to the seeming chaos of conflicting forces vying for one’s loyalty. He held, at least for the Germanic mind, that the unique perspective of Christianity provided that “other” which could view the pre-Christian Germanic world as “tragic” but that such a view was alien to that world itself. He also noted, as I recall, that since these works, as they are extant to us, were essentially reworded and rewritten in a nascent Christian context that this sense of tragedy, i.e. that a choice itself could be right or wrong, was a new element and that it is precisely this new conflict between the old pagan non-tragic and the Christian tragic
which intrigues us. I remember, however, that he also warned that modernity or post-modernity (I do not recall using “post-modernity” in the late 60’s.) losing or having lost the Christian perspective would not only lose the sense of tragedy but would also not be able to recapture the pagan sense of nobly bearing the consequences of choices made in a conflict of loyalties.
Some comments thereupon are invited.
Also, I wrote my dissertation on the German short story. I will elaborate later, but the genesis of the modern German short story is the story, song or poem within a story. By necessity, the epic breadth of a story, song or poem within a greater story must be shortened. That which is not said but which is implied becomes as important as that which is said. Someone on this thread has already pointed out that the audience, including Beowulf, was pondering the song under discussion and relating it to their own condition. This is also a point for discussion.
25 Comment by TJF on 26 February 2008:
In answer to Kate, who again has raised an important question, I would say that the purpose of blood-money is to satisfy the claims of justice and only secondarily to prevent blood-feuds, which are a form of private war. Hengest, it seems to me, is torn between two forms of loyalty, much as Agamemnon is torn between loyalty to family and daughter and his loyalty to the revenge-expedition against Troy. I don’t think were are necessarily supposed to see Hengest’s choice as entirely without evil–as Agamemnon commented that nothing he could do was without evil. But it does allow us a glimpse into a world where the claim of blood-revenge trumps sworn oaths, contracts, treaties, etc.
It has been a while since I read Tolkien on Beowulf, but it now seems to me in retrospect that he worked too hard in seeing the poem in Christian terms. This was natural in an age when the terms Christian scholar or Christian intellectual were increasingly meaningless. I have the feeling, sometimes, reading Tolkien and Lewis that they had already despaired of Christian civilization. In Lewis’s case, part of his gloomy cast of mind derives from his peculiarly arid view of Christianity as a set of ideas and moral laws–but that is a subject for another discussion.
The problem in using a term like “tragedy” in this context is the same problem as using epic. As the great Wilamowitz once defined tragedy, it is a song performed in competition for the prize of a goat, that is, tragedy is so embedded into Greek ritual and social life that it is difficult to extrapolate a “tragic” point of view. That said, it is true that much Greek tragedy involves conflicts of loyalty among kin relations (Should I murder my mother because she has murdered my father? Should I kill my niece and future daughter-in-law because she has buried a brother who is the city’s enemy?). The revenge is not, actually, Hengest’s idea, but when a sword is laid in his lap, presumably by a close relative of one of the victims, he accepts the law of the world, namely, blood-revenge.
If Aeschylus handled the Finnn episode, Hengest would suffer for his decision. I don’t think the lack of tragic sense has much to do with the author’s Christianity and I suspect it has to do with the tradition he grew up in. By contrast, I do sense something tragic in the mostly deserved fate of the Njalsons but I don’t know anything about Icelandic literature, apart from reading it for pleasure.
I think Mr. Peters’ citation of his professor is extremely helpful. I seem to hear, in all Germanic literature, a sense of human futility but, at the same time, a call for heroic action even in a doomed cause. This sense is echoed a bit at the end of Raspail’s Camp of the Saints (and even better in Sept Cavaliers), where men of different types–scholar, pimp, admiral, little Indian man–go cheerfully to their death, doing what men do. I think Greeks and Romans would have done a better job of planning their retreat.
Shall we move on to Grendel’s lovely and gracious dam?
26 Comment by robert reavis on 26 February 2008:
I have been reading Mircea Eliade and Ananda Coomaraswamy on myth and symbol so feel free to discipline my comments if necessary.
I wonder why Grendel’s mother is such a strange character ? Is she a source of the evil in Grendel ? The only thing that Beowulf takes with him to kill her is protection for his head, his courage and confidence in the ancient and traditional sword given to him. He uses his intellect during the fight but ultimately the Grendel family’s own weapons to destroy them. His ability to think and keep his head while under water seems to save the day. This is so rich in symbol, myth and truth, is there any wonder we are still reading the poem with joy after 1200 years ?
27 Comment by Allen Wilson on 26 February 2008:
By the way, the humiliation that such a forced backing-down will cause is just what is needed to destroy the hubris of this country’s elites, before a real catastrophe caused by them does it, perthaps fatally to the country and it’s people.
28 Comment by Allen Wilson on 26 February 2008:
Err…. this post should have went on another thread here…..one of the dangers of tabbed blogging……please delete it from this thread…sorry.
I never claimed to be all that bright.
29 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 26 February 2008:
Many thanks to Mr. Peters for his own and his professor’s comments, and to Tom too.
I’m not sure I fully understand the distinction you are trying to make, Tom, between justice and private obligation for revenge. To whom does wergeld make up for the loss of a life, if not to the family of a dead man? If to the community, then why is the obligation for vengence a private one? Is it that in the case of a betrayal (as here) there could be no possible payment that would relieve a man of his obligation for revenge? Or was a man honor bound to revenge his own relatives or prince regardless of the circumstances? In that case, what did wergeld accomplish?
It is interesting to read yourself into a society that had little health or comfortableness and yet no ultimate justice or wholeness to hope for. I can see why honor would be essential to people in these circumstances–it replaces hope, and gives a person something to live for in a world where Might would otherwise be the only, and hellish, standard.
I only have questions about Grendel’s dam. She is older than Grendel, and if anything fouler, but she has no name. Though originally described as weaker than her son she is a tougher opponent when it comes to grappling with Beowulf, and gets the upper hand for a moment. She is killed with a sword and not creature-to-creature as Grendel is killed; why the difference? She is shown to be suffering grief at the loss of her son, but in general–perhaps because she is more briefly described–is not as pitiable a creature as Grendel is; why again?
Thanks to all.
30 Comment by TJF on 26 February 2008:
Kate, in looking back I can see I was unclear. The distinction is not between abstract or public justice and private revenge, but between blood-revenge, which is the most common form of justice in this society, and a social and political order based on oaths, contracts, treaties, obedience to authority. My initial point, however, was that the payment of wergeld, as a substitute for blood, is not exclusively or primarily aimed at eliminating the blood-feud but is a means toward securing justice, though one that stops short of taking a life or limb. In an instrumental and secondary sense, it has the effect of reducing the level of violence, but it cannot be seen as a second-best substitute for a revenge killing, because in such a case it would not work.
31 Comment by robert reavis on 26 February 2008:
Kate @29
“I can see why honor would be essential to people in these circumstances–it replaces hope, and gives a person something to live for in a world where Might would otherwise be the only, and hellish, standard.”
Kate I am glad you are posting on this thread and have enjoyed your comments and questions. One caveat to the above comment is that it assumes that these ideals, standards or virtues ( courage, honor, hope etc.) are something imposed by men upon a otherwise earthly chaos, as opposed to something discovered by them in an existing order or something revealed to them by a divine manifestation.
Modernity certainly has adopted this as a first principle but I am not sure if I believe it or if I do, where the order of a created universe ends and the human cultivation of civilized habits begin. Or to put it another way, I am more inclined to believe that we humans discover the meaning and purpose inherent in life, rather than create it for ourselves. (At least the best of our men and women or perhaps I should say the wisest or most merciful of our lot ) Certainly this epic poem shows the hero overcoming obstacles and making sacrifices for the ‘good ‘ as is necessary in the maintanance of any real culture, just as it is necessary for the real growth and maturity of the indivdual. Beowulf, in fact, finds himself fighting dragons to the very end of his life. In fact contrary to the advice of Job’s wife who suggested to her husband when the chips were down to “simply curse God and die,” Beowulf (like Job) uses his sense of honor, courage and perserverance to overcome the dragons of this world — presumably to then “die in peace.” Similar to the hero, Odysseus, but not as refined and interesting, the reader or listener of this tale of Beowulf presumes that the hero has a purpose in his life — a home or purpose and destination to which he is tending and certainly loves. Or so I believe.
32 Comment by woodcutter on 26 February 2008:
Grendals mother….. could this be a reflection on the source of all evil. That women have an edge when it comes to tempting men. After all she managed to entice Beowulf to to battle on her own terms, on her own turf. Surely she new Beowulf would follow.
33 Comment by robert m. peters on 26 February 2008:
I make some assumptions which are not warranted by the text: Grendel had a father. Grendel’s father was a mortal man, a human. Grendel’s mother is not , although having human form. In a Christian context, she might be a spawn of hell itself. Within the framework created by my assumptions, Grendel might, himself, be the closest “thing” through which Hell can counterfeit the Incarnation. Christ is 100% man and 100% God, not half and half which is close as Hell can come. As the race of Cain declines, it is more able or more willing to consort with Hell, and “new creatures,” mocking a Christian’s being a new creature in Christ, are the products thereof.
Grendel’s mother is no such “new creature” as is her son. She is a product of evil, more at “hag.” As such, she has certain powers associated with her station and is therefore harder to kill but she is not the new hybrid that was her son. It seems that although in the spirit of revenge she ventures out to kill or challenge the one who had slain her son, she may well be more place bound than was her son. While she was able to kill a “normal”mortal in the hall, she was intent on luring Beowulf to her lair where her powers might well have been stronger.
If that is the case, then there is a certain irony; for in there in her lair, where she is perhaps the strongest is also the instrument of her demise – an instrument, perhaps more ancient than she and not fully understood by her. There in that deep, dark and evil place, unknown by the evil itself in the person of Grendel’s mother, is the instrument of salvation, there from times ancient to perform its ultimate task and then to be no more.
Beowulf’s dive into this unholy place, a journey of a day, is a dive of faith. There will be a way to deal with the evil, perhaps even in his own death. This he cannot know as he begins the dive. It is a “divine” moment in that neither the sword nor Beowulf can kill Grendel’s mother alone. Beowulf cannot kill her in his own strength or even with his own instruments, and the sword is not able to lift itself against Grendel’s mother. But, together appointed, they destroy her.
34 Comment by TJF on 27 February 2008:
Mr. Peters offers a very interesting speculation, which has stirred my imagination. However, the drawback to all interpretive speculations is that we are not justified in building upon them without becoming the prisoners of our own imagination. For example, if we suppose that a novel with no obvious sexual currents is really written from a Freudian point of view, what then? We are up against the brick wall, because we cannot go from our speculation to any concrete consideration of the text, unless we are prepared to engage in a kind of mythopoetic conversation with readers whom we intend to hypnotize into joining our cult of Freudian literary interpretation.
I should disclose up front that in matters of literary hermeneutics–falsely called literary criticism, which properly refers to the development and application of aesthetic criteria, as in Aristotle’s Poetics or Horace’s Ars Poetica–I am an extreme skeptic. Indeed, if I had the power I would fire from the universities everyone who has ever published an article or given a lecture in which he/she presumed to interpret a work or analyze its “meaning.” (Mark Twain went further at the beginning of Huckleberry Finn, declaring that anyone attempting to find a moral would be shot.) For this reason, anyone interested in lit crit should take my skepticism with the usual granum salis. This decree of banishment, however, only applies to foreign language departments, since my first step as Education Czar would be to dissolve all the English departments, which never should have been created in the first place, and replace them with Anglo-Saxon and Middle English programs
I don’t know how seriously, even, we are to take the “theology” of these monsters. Americans can refer to their boss or supervisor as a “demon from Hell” without expecting to be taken literarily, and, although in such a mythic work we have to take the supernatural seriously, the author or his culture may not have worked out the origins or nature of these beasts with any clarity. In these barbarian-Christian works, there is often a need to conflate the pagan traditions with the Christian and/or classical. Hence Frankish or Anglo-Saxon genealogies will trace a king or hero back through a line of Germanic ancestors all the way to Aeneas or a patriarch. All I can deduce from such passages is a naive desire to integrate the barbarian past with the more glorious tradition. In short, dunno.
As to Grendel’s mother, it is certainly significant that she is a she and that she acts according to a motive recognizable to the intended audience. But, I want to ask, what is the point of a second heroic episode of monster-slaying? One answer is that our author and his audience simply like to hear horrible stories and don’t care if it seems repetitious or not. (Homer, by contrast, choreographs a varied and intricate ballet of homicides in his battle scenes, and in the great combats and killings–the killing of Sarpedon and the fight over his body, the duel between Paris and Menelaus, Patroclus and Hector, Hector and Achilles–there is great attention to the shaping of the episodes to make them distinctive. So, one answer is that our poor barbarian author is not very artful. Let us suppose that this is not the right answer or only the least important part of the answer. Then the question becomes: What is the point to this episode? Does it reveal anything knew about Beowulf? The nature of the hero? The meaning of life?
35 Comment by robert m. peters on 27 February 2008:
Dr. Fleming,
I agree with your analysis. As you note, I began by stating that my speculations were not warranted by the text. I often enter into such speculations with my students; they usually get into it. Then, after a nice discussion thereof, I ask whether or not our ramblings are warranted by the text. Interestingly, most of them say, “Yes!” They seem to think that their opinions can become the text. I must say that the bit with the sword having been foreordained to be ready for the hand of Beowulf is Tolkienesque, and one can see how such arrangements in Lord of the Rings might have been inspired by Beowulf.
I like to do this when studying the Middle High German poem Under den linden. I initially give my students the only the first two lines:
“under der linden an der heide,
dâ unser zweier bette was,”
(Under the linden on the heather,
there where the bed of the two of us was,)
I ask them to translate the lines, and then in prose, sketch or painting, if they have the latter abilities, to render an image of the scene. Once we have done that and have discussed their renderings, I give them the next lines which concretely describe the bed, telling us exactly what it is. The poem usually destroys the images which they have created.
In the end, the second heroic episode of the monster-slaying is likely nothing more that the Verdoppelungseffekt – the repetition of the same theme or story one or more times in a story. It occurs quite often in Middle High German stories. Some speculate that it is a formula of the oral tradition; others speculate that there is an aesthetic purpose; others hold that there is a didactic purpose in the Verdoppelungseffekt.
36 Comment by robert reavis on 27 February 2008:
“although in such a mythic work we have to take the supernatural seriously, the author or his culture may not have worked out the origins or nature of these beasts with any clarity.”
I always agree with Dr. Fleming for good reason. He is a fierce defender of his positions and he is a damn fine gentleman and scholar. But here I must add another possibility and one which I think is true. WE may have lost the understanding, which the author and/or his contemporaries took for granted, of the nature of these beasts and monsters.
There was a time for instance when whole societys and cultures knew where to look for The Kingdom of Heaven. We do not. There was a time when bridges, rivers and monsters had a certain and understood significance in traditional literature, folk lore and fairy tales. Today their meanings and significance have been lost. The hero who could walk on water, nymphs who lived in the navel of the world, the virtue of nostalgia, etc.. their once upon a time significance almost all lost to most modern readers.
37 Comment by TJF on 27 February 2008:
I agree entirely with rr that we have lost our sense of wonder and find it difficult to understand the mysterious. It is also true that we–or, more properly, I–have too little information to decide this question. I do not at all doubt that the author and his contemporaries were far more likely to believe in monsters than rationalists are. What I do not yet see is a coherent understanding of what their origin and nature is. I suspect that, as in the case of Grendel, they are all hybrids of a sort, not in the sense of being mixed species but of mixed traditions.
Mr. Peters’ story is a wonderful illustration of the human obsession with finding and imposing meaning, even when the meaning is simply a projection of one’s feelings or speculation. You all probably remember the experiment in which subjects were asked to listen to a series of sounds, of randomly varying pitch, intensity, rhythm, etc. Asked to find the pattern, they always did, though there was none. I am also reminded of a silly professor I had who wrote an article on Horace in which he speculated on what kind of experiences and mental states were behind a particular ode and then proceeded to read his theoretical reconstruction into the poem, which he then interpreted. When he gave me a copy of the article and I asked him about the petitio principi involved, he looked quite bewildered. I was hardly surprised, some years later, to see him interviewed on a national news program covering an Oz convention. He was dressed as the Wizard, but should have been the Scarecrow.
If the repetition is not formulaic and does have a point, what is it?
38 Comment by robert reavis on 27 February 2008:
Then the question becomes: What is the point to this episode? Does it reveal anything knew about Beowulf? The nature of the hero? The meaning of life?
I can’t answer the question directly but it is consistent with human conduct, especially family conduct, to come and take his arm and shoulder down from public display upon Mead Hall.
Ma Barker and her boys were a ruthless lot. They finally were shot dead down in Florida where the authorities displayed the corpses just as the Dalton gang was displayed in the windows of downtown Coffeville, Kansas. The Barker family still living in Oklahoma arranged for their bodies to be trained back to Oklahoma where they were buried under the cover of darkness in a little cemetary just a few miles from my farm. So, no, I don’t think Dam Grendels late entry into the tale is misplaced or unrealistic, just very crude.
39 Comment by TJF on 27 February 2008:
Do we have any sympathy for the lady seeking revenge? Or is our sympathy abstract as it must be for the mother-alien in the awful movie, Aliens II?
40 Comment by Albert on 27 February 2008:
41 Comment by Albert on 27 February 2008:
42 Comment by Albert on 27 February 2008:
43 Comment by robert reavis on 27 February 2008:
TJF @ 39 Do we have any sympathy for the lady seeking revenge?
No. I didn’t recall any for her the first time, so I went back and read again. She is simply too evil and supernatural to arouse human sympathy. It would be like feeling sorry for the devil who entered the swine upon Christ’s command ,” Go!!” A good question in its brevity and insight. Thanks for pointing it out for me.
44 Comment by robert reavis on 27 February 2008:
“Mr. Peters’ story is a wonderful illustration of the human obsession with finding and imposing meaning, even when the meaning is simply a projection of one’s feelings or speculation.’
It is also a marvelous example of excellent teaching. One of the problems with this obsession is that it generally leads to a kind of Gnosticism in one direction or a condescending rationalism in the other.. Wonder is the beginning of philosophy — the love of wisdom. Curiosity on the other hand —wanting to know what is none of our business or concern– often leads to something else. The letter without the spirit, kills. But as St. Augustine observed, reading sacred texts simply as literature, is like the ax hewing the stone.
Poems like Beowulf are a real mystery to me because of their crude, simple, compressed, appeal. They are real in a way that fanatasy is not,and yet they deal with real marvelous events and characters. Almost mythic, a kind of epic, and certainly delightful. It is what it is –rich and simple. and heroic. I guess that should be enough for mere mortals —sandwiched as we are between angels and beasts. But for the overly curious, it never really is.
45 Comment by robert m. peters on 27 February 2008:
Mr. Reaves @ 44
I believe it was Robert Frost, in one of his poems, who wrote lines similar to these:
“We sit in a circle and suppose,
The secret sits in the middle and knows!”
The “we” includes the master and his students. There is a fundamental difference between the master and the students as they sit in awe of the Mysterium Tremendum, as He reveals Himself in and through the various disciplines: the master understands in humility that learning is in great part an unveiling of one’s own ignorance and that the discipline is the subject in the sense of that which is doing the intending and exerting the influence; the student holds that discipline is a means to power and is the subject in the sense of that to be analyzed and brought under control. The masters apprehends in the sense that he anticipates the unexpected even in the most mundane; the student wishes to apprehend the discipline as a policeman wound catch a robber or a cowboy would lasso a cow. The master understands that learning, knowledge or education is the continued unveiling of his own ignorance and the deepening of his own humility as a byproduct and that his goal should be to help the student learn to perceive with the master’s eye.
And the Mysterium Tremendum reveals Himself in His disciplines such as the master and his students can handle the intended light.
Since the Myterium Tremendum, in His Christian revelation and His ancient pagan guise, has been banished from academe and from general education, there can be no awe, only banality. Beowulf is interesting because He is there in His guise and in His revelation.
46 Comment by Michael Ezzo on 28 February 2008:
I’ve been meaning to read Beowulf for a long time, but unfortunately have been away from this site for many months. So I just want to thank Dr. Fleming and all the good folks who responded here for making such a rich educational experience. I’ll have to refer back here once I get a copy of the work to read. And it’s so nice to see a discussion without flippant remarks by people who aren’t serious about the topic.
I notice that Penguin Classics offers an annotated prose edition. If this is worthy I would like to know. Sometimes these modern scholars can nearly ruin something by picking it apart until there is no mystery left. Or else, trying to explain it all away from the point of view of a man who has accepted psychology, racism, feminism, and all the other intellectual fads of the last century as valid tools for discernment (as though a writer a millennium ago could have any relevance to such things!). Thank you, again, to all.
47 Comment by woodcutter on 28 February 2008:
Gredals mom as victim………. good discussion, In my work recently I have been dealing with an ex prostitute who is now pregnant and is in the habit of directing her hatred towards her present boyfriend, she uses knives, pots and pans and draws blood weekly. She is seen as a victim by our social services people. She is in no way a victim. She is living filled with vile hate towards her parents and herself. To enter her home is no less dangerous (spiritually and physically) than the mother’s home in Beowulf. Unfortunately my clients boyfriend is an addiction filled coward and has no hope of changing his situation. The story of Grendals mom is a very practical and relevant to my situation and I thank God that we are having this discussion as it is helping me in daily life. I pray daily for these people who live in these situations of hate, blood and gore.
PS. If she is a victim , she is a victim of the evil one.
48 Comment by robert m. peters on 28 February 2008:
I would suggest that within a completely pagan context of the pre-Christian Germanic world, it would be understood that Grendel’s mother had an obligation, with or without the state or emotion of hate, to avenge her son’s death. Yet, even in that context Grendel and his mother are outside the fellowship; they cannot live in the world of light and are not welcome in “dreamum.”
The poem “Beowulf,” in the extant version which we have, also has a Christian context. Although I cannot prove it by the text, I have always taken Grendel’s mother to be a creature beyond redemption, something out of the dominion of the Evil One. Grendel has always been more problematic for me since one aspect of his being is linked to Cain.
Someone has already stated, I believe, that we moderns or post-moderns have likely lost the objective correlative that our Germanic ancestors had to these monsters and their natures and symbolic meanings within the stories.
49 Comment by TJF on 28 February 2008:
Various responses:
The question about sympathy for Grendel’s mom was a kind of test, which I see everyone has passed. What would Milton have made, we don’t really have to wonder, about the attempt to make Satan the hero of Paradise Lost? It is one thing to obect, as Trollope does, to impossibly good heroes and impossibly evil villains in novels, but quite another to insist that every hero must be deeply flawed or to find some element of goodness in the irredeemably evil. We could go on with this point, though I won’t, to suggest that moderns have been taught to fall in love with evil itself by being accustomed to whores with a heart of gold and serial killers who like fuzzy little animals. I thank both Mr. Peters and “Woodcutter” for their comments.
I think annotations are a necessity for so alien a work as Beowulf. I don’t know the Penguin edition, but in general they are solidly mediocre and not unreliable.
Finally, although I almost regret beginning this discussion from a weak position of ignorance, I am delighted to see it has generated such excellent comments.
50 Comment by robert reavis on 28 February 2008:
woodcutter @47
“She is living filled with vile hate towards her parents and herself.”
Sometimes only prayer and fasting can help these kind. I admire your insights and am happy to know there are still a few sane Franciscans working with the poor and destitute in America. Of all the addictions and vices — alcohol, drugs, whoring, lieing, cheating, stealing, etc. I admire the whores the most and think they often have the best chance for recovery.
51 Comment by Allen Wilson on 28 February 2008:
Is there any significance to the fact that Grendel managed to escape to die, fleeing Beowulf and Heorot, whereas his dam had to be sought out, and beowulf had to enter her lair? We go from fighting in the home turf of men to fighting in the home turf of the damned.
Beowulf, though rewarded hansomely by Hrothgar, finds no treaure guarded by Grendel, takes nothing from the dam’s hoard but the hilt of the sword he killed her with, and later (jumping way ahead here) dies fighting the dragon and so still gets none of the hoard.
Again, I’m jumping ahead here, but is there siginificance to the fact that Grendel is clearly an evil creature and his mother perhaps more so, condemned because of their sins, descendants of Cain, etc., whereas the dragon that Beowulf will face later is merely a dragon, a creature not really evil if he is ferocious, in fact (unless I am displaying total ignorance about mythology concerning dragons) apparently one of God’s creatures like any other, and who has clearly, in his own primitive animal mind at least, been wronged? Instead of there being no sympathy warranted for the dragon, as is the case with the evil Grendel & dam, we can at least understand why the dragon is so enraged, much like we understand the anger of a dog who has found a toy, thinks it’s his, and had it taken from him.
To Woodcutter and Mr Reavis: have you noticed that there are some sluts and whores out there who, though living depraved lives, somehow manage to preserve something inside themselves untouched by it all? This is in contrast to those who are completely self-loathing or in total despair. They may have the best hope of rehabilitating themselves eventually. With them, I suspect that a deep, intense shame attack, not brought about by badgering or browbeating or harsh words, but the kind that makes them see themselves for what they are and not be able to stand it, and resolve never to live that way again, might work. I’m not sure that there is any way to bring such a thing about intentionally. Most likely, it must happen of it’s own accord when the time and situation are right. Perhaps that is up to God’s grace.
52 Comment by robert reavis on 28 February 2008:
Mr. Wilson writes :”With them, I suspect that a deep, intense shame attack, not brought about by badgering or browbeating or harsh words, but the kind that makes them see themselves for what they are ….. when the time and situation are right. Perhaps that is up to God’s grace.”
I really am convinced that of all the various periodicals still in circulation, that Chronicles is the best hope to continue the conversation with the withering remnant of Americans who still have a memory. It will be interesting to watch and see if our way of living and praising things will gather a re-birth in the years ahead or dwindle down to nothing — as in non existent. Whatever the outcome, the truths like those mentioned above will last. Whether there remains anyone left to recognize them, or the courage of a Tom Fleming to print and even defend them, is another matter.
53 Comment by Albert on 28 February 2008:
Stuttering Albert… thanks to the editor, that’s what he’s for… i’m sober now. i’m a pretty good guy though when drunk and when sober. you know the good guys finish last. and the last shall be first. i’m still working on that part. isn’t that the issue really for the most part in literature. and if we’re ‘lucky’ possibly even in nature too – “And him as for a map doth nature store, To show false art what beauty was of yore.” – Shakespeare … right-on Beowulf! Dig it, i’m down with it. i’m overcoming my [sacred] warrior spirit – it’s too much. i want to also be known and be a christian. amen. sorry for being so self-centered.
yours truly,
his majesty, the infant
p.s. it’s an exchange – i’ll get informed too if this is deleted or not. (humor)
______
54 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 28 February 2008:
In answer to Mr. Reavis: Actually I would agree with you that all goodness has its source in Christian truth; I believe that all peoples have a yearning towards Revelation and some inkling of it. Only when they have preceded it, they must identify it in some other way than Christ. Vivid stories like Beowulf make the spiritual loneliness of pre-dispensation peoples very immediate to my mind.
The love of honor and right-dealing in Beowulf is in all the more admirable because it is a choice made in the absence of any assurance. I think the poet feels something like this admiration for his pagan characters, and that’s why he has such compassion for them. Hard as it is to be Christian in the knowledge of Christ, it must be so much harder to act rightly without having His promise.
I would also agree with several others here that these monsters must be taken as they are and can’t be reduced to symbols or a set meaning. Still in any great work there are layers of meaning to be found in every ogre. There is no way to say if Grendel’s dam is all human, or all monster, or Grendel either, but she is presented as more monstrous and less human than he is and less deserving of pity. She doesn’t really entice Beowulf to her lair so much as flee the hall in fear of the thanes, after killing one and grabbing Grendel’s arm; she is described as a less manly as well as less-human enemy than Grendel was. If there are elements of a moral fight between human goodness and human evil in Beowulf’s fight with Grendel, Beowulf’s killing of Grendel’s dam feels more like an extermination, as of a rat. One duel could be read as the Christian one, and the other pagan. Perhaps that’s what one of you meant by a mixed tradition within this one poem.
The only other, obvious point to make is that the poet is emphasizing that evil is not easily conquered, and there is always another monster. Personally there is enough variety in the three battles to suit me, but then I have a lot of Scots in my family tree, and feel at home with all ogres and dragons.
I have always believed that the human mind’s insistence that it make order out of chaos is evidence that there is a little piece of our Maker’s mind in us. I find those studies Tom mentioned very heartening.
Thanks again to everyone for this discussion.
55 Comment by Albert on 28 February 2008:
“I have always believed that the human mind’s insistence that it make order out of chaos is evidence that there is a little piece of our Maker’s mind in us. I find those studies Tom mentioned very heartening.” -K.D.B.
I’d just add to that…the Dogma of George – from the old SF site…
since it’s a world of opposites and a world of degrees to human experience… and thus so – to us humans
when we see two apparently opposite choices (since separated by sufficent degrees) i.e. hot / cold … etc. it’s real but it’s not necessarily a question of either / or it is in Fact both. So we ascertain if we can synthesize the best of both OR if (given the dimension of time) in that instance it may be a binary choice of either / or. This reality is as simple as the example of a coin which has two sides heads & tails and yet is one.
Or as simple as the Kabbalah admonition that the ‘devil’ is of course God’s pal in the royal court in a kind of divine sting operation – whether the devil knows it or not?! (humor) In creating Actual others needless to say God who is NOT in control of everything NEEDS to see who is who? What do the Others want?
So Kate you see whether you know it or not YOU exist. Is that a ‘bad’ thing?
56 Comment by robert reavis on 28 February 2008:
Kate @54
Thanks for the reply . Electronic communications are not the best way to converse because there is very little context. My response was not a critique of anything you said, just wondering aloud. I hope you did not take it as a challenge to your good comments. It is an interesting question and one I haven’t really answered for myself. Some traditionalist assert that there is a much more ordered understanding of certain figures of speech in these epic tales than is recognized by nominalist scholars since the Enlightenment. And they make a good case for it. As I said before, I am happy you are with us and have enjoyed your comments. I am an amateur who joins these discussions from the delight they render and nothing else. You have been a part of that enjoyment for me. I hope I haven’t detracted from yours. rr
57 Comment by woodcutter on 29 February 2008:
Today is a day of prayer, reflection and paper work from my home. Three days of doing battle with the dark one is enough for me. Even Beowulf had time to rest between battles. during these times he receives words of wisdom from friends. Praise God for conversations like this. May the Almighty God bless you all, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit + .
58 Comment by Kate Dalton Boyer on 29 February 2008:
Mr. Reavis: No offense taken at all; I just wanted to make clearer what I had said.
By talking online we have to do without many things that make live conversation humane. We can only make the best of it. So, in the absence of any clear indication otherwise, I’m assuming everyone is speaking in a pleasant tone–please argue your points as you wish.
59 Comment by Albert on 29 February 2008:
Face to face is usually more telling… first you have to be strong to know that it’s war usually in this world… though stronger if you prefer peace.
if you do prefer peace must be all the stronger as well, for face to face.
internet is interesting – that this has happened since it’s almost a ‘no man’s land’ in the sense – it’s not nearly as intimate as a phone call… nor as formal as a letter or even a Fax… (never mind face to face – which is the most difficult) … [do you see my pimples?]
but of course these ‘things’ like i.e. internet have their value – it’s just that we don’t KNOW yet (do we?) is it a high value, medium value, or low?
so far i’ll be honest (as usual) i for one, don’t know.
i would for example probably never have “said” written the things to kate i did – if it were even a phone call… so this may be good – another spoke in the bicycle wheel of truth?!
regards to all… wuv’Ya. … no i really do. (do you care?) funny, there’s always at least humor besides the tragic.
tragi-comic… it is, says Yoda.
60 Comment by robert reavis on 29 February 2008:
” regards to all… wuv’Ya. … no i really do. (do you care?) funny, there’s always at least humor besides the tragic.”
Albert,
Why don’t you send me a message at robert.reavis@oscn.net Evidently you need a little help and assistance. I’ll do what I can, which isn’t much.
Thanks.
61 Comment by Albert on 29 February 2008:
i get your message… i guess. i hear you… thanks. robert.reavis@oscn.net – i’m ‘too’ honest? … or discretely you’re saying not ‘appropriate’ ? … ok. NOT seeking assistance. but i get the message and appreciate the kindness if so. so i won’t post anymore. i ‘get’ it. i’m at a genius level i.q. – that doesn’t mean i’d not seek help. but if i did – i’d FIND it. yourself if you need it – http://www.primaltherapy.com
but i thank you.
by the way in my opinion if a priest or a cleric – you ARE undoubtedly at the Top of the professions… doctors are pill dealers today without realizing it, and lawyers – higher on [my] scale than they… are what they are. sorry. mea-culpa…
____________
62 Comment by woodcutter on 1 March 2008:
That was very gracious of you Robert. Kindness over internet is hard to discern, but I think we have just witnessed some.
63 Comment by G.S. on 2 March 2008:
My apologies for blundering into a conversation that seems to have been proceeding extremely well — Lenten commitments have limited my cyberspace access. Tomorrow I introduce Beowulf to my humanities class; thanks to Dr. Fleming, Kate Dalton Boyer, Allen Wilson, Robert Reavis, & Co., this task is considerably easier.
My own meager & belated contribution at this late and exhausted hour (I only just finished writing an exam to administer tomorrow) is one possible answer to Dr. Fleming’s question of #37, regarding Ma Grendel: “If the repetition is not formulaic and does have a point, what is it?”
Could it be an illustration of the dangers of thinking evil has shallow roots — of not recognizing that evil goes deeper than the mere latest expression of it?
In other words — prior to the slaying of Grendel everybody obviously assumes that if they could only get rid of Grendel all would well … by analogy, many conservatives assume on some level that if only we could thwart once-and-for-all the Democratic Party, the gay marriage movement, and jihad, then that would spell an end to America’s woes.
And libertarians tend to think everything will be hunky-dory if only we can overthrow socialism, thus restoring the righteous reign of classical liberalism.
Slay one monster and you discover that that monster was begotten by an older one?
64 Comment by woodcutter on 3 March 2008:
GS…In other words — prior to the slaying of Grendel everybody obviously assumes that if they could only get rid of Grendel all would well … by analogy, many conservatives assume on some level that if only we could thwart once-and-for-all the Democratic Party, the gay marriage movement, and jihad, then that would spell an end to America’s woes.
Very good observation. As of yet I do not think this was pointed out yet. You are very right of course. While some have indicated that maybe we read to much into Beowulf, I would say that as soon as something is created and presented as an art form, it is open for discussion as to it’s meaning. As an artist I sometimes create a painting simply because it is appealing to me in a visual sense. No sooner have I done this, people began to try to understand what I meant by painting it this way or that. And that is OK with me.
In response to your observation about ma Grendal. You have hit on something. This may be another lesson among many. Possibly a sign of great stories …is that many lessons can be gained by many different listeners. God bless you in your Lenton observanses.
65 Comment by robert reavis on 3 March 2008:
“Could it be an illustration of the dangers of thinking evil has shallow roots — of not recognizing that evil goes deeper than the mere latest expression of it?”
Yes, G.S. that was my impression upon the first, second and third reading. It reminded me of the Gospel account of driving out one demon and seven more coming to take his place. But we must be careful in saying more than what the text and wise commentary allow. Less is always more — the imagination and passions must be subservient to understanding, like the wife to her husband.
( Now that ought to stir some comments, or this thread is dead )
66 Comment by woodcutter on 3 March 2008:
Less is always more — the imagination and passions must be subservient to understanding, like the wife to her husband.
Hmmmm …And Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed Himself over for her (just in case your wife is looking over your shoulder Robert).
I have always said that sometimes I act to fast. Maybe, but if I require total understanding before express my self, I may never speak to my wife again. Hopefully you mean to apply this to scholarly situations mostly. I have a sign in my shed that says….”If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear………….is he still wrong?”. As the years pass hopefully I speak less and understand more.
67 Comment by robert reavis on 3 March 2008:
….”If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear………….is he still wrong?”.
LOL. Marriage should be entered into only with the understanding that it’s long term viability is impossible unless each spouse is willing to answer yes to that question under the appropriate circumstances. Thanks.
68 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 7 March 2008:
“Fools rush in, etc…” Just saw the new cinema “Beowulf.” It strikes me as a rather silly comic book affair without any reflection of the moral weight of the original. I thought the film “Beowulf and Grendel” a few years ago was more faithful to the spirit if not the letter of the source. What do you learned folks think?
69 Comment by robert reavis on 7 March 2008:
Dr. Wilson,
I have not seen either movie but since today is friday and the weekend invites one to at least a little leisure, I will watch them this weekend. I am glad you have joined the conversation over here and look forward to your thoughts on Beowulf.
70 Comment by Bruce on 8 March 2008:
Beowulf and Grendel – don’t bother with it Mr Reavis.
A year ago or so I was dumb enough to obtain the movie “Beowulf and Grendel” from the Brevard library. I didn’t think it was at all faithful to the spirit. Grendel was avenging himself because his father was killed in front of him by Hrothgar’s people. There seemed to be lots of modern, moral relativist thinking in the film. I also thought the red-headed slut character (who at one point is raped by Grendel and also beds down with Beowulf) was ridiculous. She reminded me of one of the hate-the-world “goth” (no-pun-intended) girls I attended high-school with. About the only thing that was good was the cinematography. “The Thirteenth Warrior” is a less objectionable (albeit even further from the original) version.
I don’t think this sort of thing lends itself to film treatment. In retrospect, I’d spend my time reading an alternative translation or some of the critical essays I haven’t got to yet.
I also haven’t bothered with watching Brad Pitt as Achilles.
71 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 March 2008:
Bruce. I am not a purist when it comes to this sort of thing. Like it or not, the movies are the predominant art form of our time, and I have never yet seen literature transferred to film with complete success. I am not defending any of the failures of the cinema. But the “Beowulf and Grendel” film did, I thought, convey something of the reality of pagan Northern Europe, have believable human characters, and translate some of the fantastic elements into plausibility. This in comparison to the ludicrous current film. I feel the same way about the old 1950s film of “The 300 Spartans.” Whatever flaws it might have, and our most estemmed Editor has previously pointed these out, it did convey some sense of history, heroism, and patriotism. In contrast to the recent disgusting, laughable video-game-inspired, multicultural movie of the same story. It is the difference, in both cases, between civilised realism and nihilism.
72 Comment by TJF on 8 March 2008:
I agree with my friend Professor Wilson that in general a film should be judged on its merits more than on its fidelity to an original text. I would say, though, that I dislike even awell-made film that is faithless to the spirit of the original. Even historical films like Braveheart, which unncessarily introduce deliberate and impossible lies (e.g. a Romance between William Wallace and the wife of Edward II) annoy me so much that I find it difficult to enjoy the film. As the years go by, I refuse to see any movie made by Mel Gibson–as opposed to the good films in which he has appeared. In Braveheart I only remember with affection the praise of Latin and the Old Mass and the brilliant performance of Patrick McGoohan as Edward I. As for the 300 Spartans, I agree entirely that despite Egan’s wooden performance and other failings, the filmmakers tried to convey the popular tradition (perhaps more from Plutarch–from whom many of the best lines are taken–than Herodotus) of Thermopylae. The other night, slumming it, we watched the 1957 Hamnmer film “The Curse of Frankenstein.” Despite a pretty good performance by Peter Cushing, the film stinks and is vastly inferior to the original piece of junk introducing “Karloff.”
As much as I enjoy movies, I am not so ready to call them art in any sense that might include the symphonies of Haydn or even the novels of Dickens. There is too much easy trickery in film, and as the years go by, and films become more what they are and less novels or plays turned into movies, the evils of the form become more and more apparent. The nearest to art film has reached has been 1) good silents, where the absence of dialogue forces the director to work hard (Note how John Ford, a silent director originally, cared so little about dialogue) and 2) a few films made by artsy directors, nearly all foreign, like Fellini, Bergman, and Kurosawa. My favorite movies tend to be based on good scripts. Preston Sturgis was a playwright before going to Hollywood and his screen plays could mostly be performed on stage–though he did make excellent use of locations in Sullivan’s Travels, The Palm Beach Story, etc.
Back to Beowulf: Let’s wrap up next week by talking about the Dragon episode, and even before we are through, let us pick another book. At some point, I want to do Cochin, but before then, what? This time I will take the most appealing (easiest for me) suggestion, and will try to steer a course between earlier discussions, which always included long-winded posts from me, and this discussion, which has been directed more by the participants.
73 Comment by robert reavis on 8 March 2008:
Dr. Wilson @71 writes :
” Like it or not, the movies are the predominant art form of our time,”
I tend to agree with you professor, although I would put myself in the category of not liking it. The last time I saw Dr. Fleming I offered an unsolicited suggestion that he see ‘No Country for Old Men.’ It was if I had suggested he try Mogan David as a wine to compliment his medium rare, Kansas City strip sirloin –seared and grilled to tender and juicy perfection. I make no defense to his stern tongue lashing –it was all true — except for me, the movie portrayed an actual sign of the times, albeit the evil of our times.
For my penance I suggest we read The Song of Roland and then Cochin. Or Cochin and then Roland. It is in praise of rear guard efforts ( like the ones we “Unpatriotic American” types are supposedly fighting ) as well as honor, friendship and other permanent things we hold dear.
74 Comment by robert reavis on 9 March 2008:
“Just saw the new cinema “Beowulf.” It strikes me as a rather silly comic book affair without any reflection of the moral weight of the original. ”
Yes, I watched it this evening and it wasn’t serious in any aspect. I would recommend a serious man save his time and money for Sturgis if he is really committed to a pure life of the senses , what Hollywood seems so frequently to call aesthetics — which is all the new Beowulf film is. A complete waste of time. Read the poem, enjoy it and reflect upon it but never ask a modernist or “post christian” what their view of the poem is. They can never move their mind beyond cultural destruction, or personal destruction laced with the arrogant assurance that progress is being made and they are some how contributors . As Frank O’Conner said of James Joyce, Ulysses, –it has become ” A CRASHING BORE !!!
75 Comment by Allen Wilson on 10 March 2008:
The Song of Roland seems good to me too if no one objects, since it’s another one of those works I’ve meant to get around to reading for years. It’s also easy to find both online and off, unlike, say, Digenes Akrites, which I cant even find in Greek, much less English, after a year of searching. It’s also relatively short so it might last just long enough for scoundrels like myself to finally get a copy of the Cochin book after so much procrastination.
If Dr Fleming wishes to let participants do more directing, then perhaps, since we have people here with knolwedge of Germanic languages, literature, and history, some other work of Germanic literature would be appropriate if we dont go to the Song of Roland.
76 Comment by robert reavis on 11 March 2008:
Dr Fleming,
I wish you would introduce us to the Dragon episode and perhaps start a new thread. ( or not as you wish.) I am looking forward to the conversation on what I consider to be the best part of the poem. — his final struggle and defeat of the dragon and then death.
Reading it again this evening — I was wondering if this ending should be considered a tragedy or comedy; or if those terms even apply to such a poem as this. I was moved by the scene in which his loyal friend and servant stands by Beowulf to the very end while the other twelve removed to the woods and hid. It reminded me of another group of twelve in which not even the leader, St. Peter, stood firm when the dragon’s breath grew heated.
There are many other memorable scenes in this final conflict but I write to simply get the conversation started again and as a ploy to get Dr. Fleming and others to help bring this delightful conversation about Beowulf to an honorable ending.
77 Comment by PcH on 5 May 2008:
I could not participate fully in the discussion on Beowulf because I was amidst changing ISPs. I am adding this in for reference’s sake, for anyone who may be chcking bak here.
I did make some references to the Book of Enoch; there is some literature of varying qualities discussing the possible influence of Enoch on Beowulf. Here is a relevant passage from the beginning of Enoch relating to Grendel’s lineage from Cain, for anyone who may be interested: