Reading Beowulf, Part 1
Great Books Notes
Beowulf, A Verse TranslationTranslated by Seamus Heaney, Second Norton Critical Edition, 2019.
I've begun reading, despite not being quite through with The Iliad, so I can participate in
’ reading group. Reading the poem itself first, then I'll turn to the critics. Some things that jumped out at me from the first sections:"And a young prince must be prudent like that,
giving freely while his father lives
...Behavior that's admired
is the path to power among people everywhere." (20-25)
"...his throne-room and there he would dispense
his God-given goods to young and old" (71-2)
This is interesting, because it suggests an awareness (which is echoed elsewhere) that achievement, power, riches do not belong to individuals because God or the fates are involved and responsible. This seems to cap the ego. Also, the leader is a dispenser of value, not an accumulator, who "doled out rings and torques at the table" (80-1).
Part of the hideousness of Grendel seems to be in his singularity and lack of connection. He was a monster because he "ruled in defiance of right, one against all" (144-5). He was also unreasonable: "he would never parley or make peace with any Dane nor stop his death-dealing nor pay the death-price" (153-6). Despite the obvious singularity of Beowulf's abilities and heroism, he is firmly embedded in a community and a hierarchy. I wonder if this distinction is also about the transition from a pagan to a christian world-view (at least in the eyes of the poet)? Another, more direct reference to this transition is the idea of fate. For example, the observation, "Oh, cursed is he who in time of trouble has to thrust his soul into the fire's embrace, forfeiting help" (183-5). This seems like an ancient, pagan sentiment. The next bit though, "But blessed is he...", seems a bit more like an editorial intrusion by the poet than an organic moment in the narrative.
It's fun to pick up details of life, like the fact that it took fifteen men to crew a ship (207-8). Or that it was typical when landing a "force under arms", to get the consent of the clan that controlled the territory (244). I'm also really enjoying some of the "kennings", like the many descriptions of the sea and especially the moment when "The leader of the troop unlocked his word-hoard" (258). There's plenty of practical advice, too. Such as, "Anyone with gumption and a sharp mind will take the measure of two things: what's said and what's done" (287-9). And the later passage about the swimming race gives us a glimpse of the culture's attitudes about the sea (begins 506).
Another moment where the transition from a pagan tradition to a version of christianity seemed to be when Beowulf observed that Grendel "scorns in his reckless way to use weapons" (433-4), and therefore concludes he will do the same. This suggests to me that he considers Grendel to be more human than animal (this idea seems to be echoed in the narrator's remarks about the curse of Cain), since there would be no dishonor in spearing a wild bull. Beowulf explains his decision not by saying "may the best man win" but by admitting "Fate goes ever as fate must" (455). Ironically, we learn later that Grendel is magically protected against edged weapons. In the strange temporality of the poem, this almost seems as a retroactive acknowledgement that Beowulf had chosen right. Beowulf's attitude is illustrated again in his depiction of the swimming race, "Often, for undaunted courage, fate spares the man it has not already marked" (572-3). If one's fate is written, there's nothing to be done. But if not, fortune favors the bold.
Beowulf's companions, who did not pledge to fight without swords, try in vain to participate in the battle between their leader and the monster, "striking out on every side, seeking to cut straight to the soul" (797-9). Beowulf alone, however, "was granted the glory of winning", by ripping the arm off his foe (817-8). He is praised profusely in the aftermath, the Danes claiming that no one was more qualified "to raise a shield or rule a kingdom. Yet there was no laying of blame on their lord, the noble Hrothgar; he was a good king" (860-2). I was struck, reading this, that the story seems to acknowledge the passage of time and effects of age (Beowulf is a young prince while Hrothgar is an old king) in a way that *The Iliad* does not when contrasting Achilles and Agamemnon.
In the aftermath, viewing the destruction, the narrator remarks that "death is not easily escaped from by anyone: all of us with souls, earth-dwellers and children of men, must make our way to a destination already ordained" (1001-5). This perspective seems equally appropriate for the pagan and christian traditions, since even if each person's fate is not equally written in a book of destiny, we share a common nature. So there seems to be a foundational level of a sort of warrior stoicism beneath both worldviews. This continuity during the transition seems echoed in the remark that "Past and present, God's will prevails. Hence, understanding is always best and a prudent mind" (1057-8).
I really liked the poems within the poem. Some of the language was especially evocative, such as when "the glutton element/flamed and consumed/the dead of both sides" (1122-4). After the saga of Finn, there's another reference to fate, which "swept [Hygelac] away because of his proud need to provoke a feud with the Frisians" (1205-7). It doesn't strike me as identical to the ways we sometimes imagine *hubris*, since the "need" doesn't seem entirely a matter of Hygelac's choice. This seems echoed a bit later, in the aside, "how could they know fate, the grim shape of things to come, the threat looming over many thanes as night approached" (1233-4). But this question seems to be answered at the end of the section, when we learn "It was their habit always and everywhere to be ready for action...They were a right people" (1246-50).