All Things Medieval discussion

I wrote this sort of hymn to Beowulf in an obscure discussion on the book. I thought I'd start a topic, and post my little hymn, to find other Beowulf fans and talk.

The question was, How does Beowulf fit your idea of a hero?
My answer:

I think Beowulf is my ideal hero. Just about my perfect hero.

He's often criticised for his boasts, even in the scholarship; but boasts were a cultural thing, and he cites his past feats by way of credentials for the job he's about to undertake. When he boasts in Heorot, he's been egged on, or rather invited to give his 'beot', to tell his tales: to offer his credentials. Also, the boast, in the culture, is a standard to live up to: he's told his aim, and now he has no choice but go through with the fight. You give your boast so you can't back out (as does a drunken coward or two in the story).

I find him absolutely unselfish. And he's gentle-hearted. At the end, the lament for him talks about his tenderness, his comradeship, in short his good heart. They don't even mention the ogres and dragons he slew, in his lament.

What's more, Beowulf is fighting a losing fight. That doesn't stop him. His is a sad story, terribly sad; and he himself, childless, is a sad figure at the end. Nevertheless he goes on courageously and gives his life for his society - a society he knows is on the eve of ruin. What more can you ask?

There is a strong element of 'the freak who's on our side'. That is, Beowulf is huge, too huge to be quite human, and uncanny in other ways; even his naivety or simplicity is a little like the monsters he fights. Beowulf is almost one of the monsters, but one who fights on the right side: hence the love for him. They love him as a defender - when mere humans can't defend - and perhaps, as a guy who might have been another Grendel.

I think I worship Beowulf. I can't name a better hero.

-See what I meant about a hymn?

That is quite a eulogy you wrote there, but it's interesting to see how people view this character.

But let me ask a question: What do you mean by mentioning his "naivety of simplicity"?
Also, I don't really agree with Beowulf almost being one of the monsters (although he's on the good side, as you mentioned), as monsters are wild and evil creatures whereas Beowulf as a hero lives according to a codex. He is loyal, honest, brave and far more than just the 'uncivilised' monsters like Grendel (who is in the text described as a descendant of Cain!). But maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote.

Hello. I do see Beowulf as a simple kind of person, in himself - simple-hearted - I don't mean simple-minded. Too direct for the in-fighting human world; among the monsters, he knows where he is and what to do. Things are simple.

And almost one of them, because he's a freak. In a physical sense. He's freakishly big and strong - inhumanly, and if he were on Grendel's side, watch out. Freaks are often rejected - what if he had been? He'd be a Grendel? Beowulf doesn't seem to fit into the human world - he spends his life with monsters (fighting them, yes). He doesn't have kids. A wife is never mentioned.

You know, I find in the poem a sympathy with the monsters. Maybe that's me. But Grendel has a grievance, as an outsider - it isn't his fault he's of the kin of Cain, and he's jealous of the music in the hall, both intrigued and tormented. His dam has more of a justification to fight the humans, and the dragon was pretty quiet until stolen from. I always liked Grendel, and certainly felt sorry for him.

PS. Yes, it was a eulogy, but other people had said he was too much a boaster or didn't have a cause outside himself and his own glory.

Bryn wrote: "...other people had said he was too much a boaster or didn't have a cause outside himself and his own glory..."

Then they're reading it wrongly.
Like any ancient poem/text it has to be taken in context with some knowledge of the society it came from.
To read Beowulf and view it only from a 21st cent perspective kind of misses the point.

You make that point in your initial post.

I've read other threads on other texts that make the same mistake...if folk are unhappy about Beowulf and his moral compass, or Homeric heroes owning slaves, or the level of alcohol abuse in the Eddas, folk should stick to more modern tales.

As to Beowulf being freak or an outsider...I think freak may be too strong a word, but he is certainly from a different mould. The nature of the hero is that they are capable of deeds above the norm, whether smarts or brawn, or a combination of them. He stands as a bulwark against the chaos of the dark and the wild forces of nature, the beasts from outside the hall, from beyond the palisade. He isn't like Arthur or Jason, a hero that is part of a larger "team". He is a lone force, therefore in many ways an outsider, but as his attributes are basically ideals of the society he is from he is more hero than freak...more Herakles or Cú Chulainn.

I like to think people can find enough in the actual work to give them the cultural hints they need - for example, if you read with care, Beowulf isn't a braggart, and you can tell from the poem. If you've taught yourself to read old things. This is the commonest of mistakes, as you say: to judge by our standards, and not learn about a different mental world.

It's the fact he has 'strength of thirty in the grip of his hand' that makes me call him that. I'll just admit, that's the way I like to think of him.

One thing about him compared to some other heroic figures is that he is more of a culture hero than a demi-god.
By that I mean he is human and owes none of his prowess to divine parentage or patronage. He is the epitome of the warrior in his culture. It is as though the poet is talking about someone real rather than mythological.
The "strength of thirty in the grip of his hand" idea is common enough in poety of this type, as is comparisons to boars/bears etc, as is the whole "he killed 300 with one blow of his sword" type of thing (though this doesn't occur in Beowulf if memory serves). Basically underlining the fact that the hero is nails compared to the average thrall/huscarl.
But I think his humanity is important, the fact that he's dead and there's no promise of return (unlike Arthur and his promised re-appearence) makes the poem more melancholy at times...and Beowulf knows his fate, yet it doesn't stop him acting...to me that makes him heroic more than his X-men qualities. Like Sarpedon at Troy he just gets on with the job, "sure, we're here anyway...let's go to work" (paraphrasing obviously).

Absolutely. As Tolkien says, fighting a losing fight. Beowulf knows it. That's why he's sad, majestic and my hero. The end is so bleak. Or melancholy is the perfect word. Because we're glad he lived, although his efforts were futile, strictly.

I think the other people in the poem treat that 'strength of thirty' thing seriously - not a figure of speech (as he proves upon Grendel) - while the other heroes are quite human, of normal human strength. From memory (uh oh) within the poem, Beowulf is set apart in this, and the other guys go on about his outstandingness, his abnormality.

Enjoyed the Seamus Heaney version that came out a few years back...also rather enjoyed the Michael Crichton take on it, Eaters of the Dead...guilty pleasure I know.

I always meant to catch up with the Eaters of the Dead! And felt a little guilty. I'll go ahead and do so now.

this is my favorite version.