THE MONSTERS IN BEOWULF

- Why does Grendel appear?

- Why to that king?
- What is the nature of the beasts?
- Why is Grendel (his mother, too) physically repellent and deformed?
- What is Grendel's mother's role?
- Why dragon?
- Why to Beowulf?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: čudovišta = kršćanska prevlast nad poganskim običajima?

1. Hrothgar savjetuje Beowulfa da ne bude ko Heremod—da bude stup za svoj narod, da

daruje svoj narod, itd. – Beowulf daruje svoj narod, ali je li Beowulf zanemario ono što
je stvarno bitno I koliko je pjesnik tog svjestan, odnosno, koliko toga prešućuje I daje da
se čita između redova? (sigemundova I heremodova digresija se kao dosta toga može
uzeti kao foreshadowing – zbog zmaja I kraljevanja. Što ako pjesnik suptilno želi reći da
je Beowulf I sigemund I heremod, upravo zbog toga što je “po udžbeniku” htio biti isti
sigemund?)

[You ought to turn out as a comfort to your people, entirely long-lasting,

a help to warriors. Heremod did not turn out like that for the sons of
Ecgwela, the noble Scyldings; he did not develop for the joy, but for the
slaughter and death of the Danish people; enraged he slew his table
companions, his comrades, until, alone, he turned, the famous prince,
away from the joys of men. Although mighty God had exalted him with
the delights of might and with powers, promoted him above all men, yet
in his heart there grew a bloodthirsty breast-hoard. Not at all did he give
rings to the Danes in pursuit of fame; joyless he lived on, so that he
suffered grief for that struggle, a prolonged misery for his people. Teach
yourself from that; perceive manly virtue: I, old in winters, have told
this tale for your sake.]

ANDY. That some kind of comparison or contrast is being drawn between Beowulf,
now at the height of his powers, and the fallen idol Heremod is made strikingly
clear in the second passage from the blunt comment of Hrothgar that ‘I . . . have
told this tale for your sake’ (ic þis gid be þe awræc, lines 1723b–24a), words
which could equally mean: ‘I . . . have told this tale about you.’ In the earlier
passage about Heremod, the connection between Heremod and Beowulf is
achieved through the use of parallel syntax: Heremod ‘turned out for his people,
for all the nobles, a source of mortal worries’ (he his leodum wearð, / eallum
æþelingum to aldorceare, lines 905b–6); Beowulf ‘turned out there to all, to the
race of men, to his friends the dearer’ (He þær eallum wearð, / mæg Higelaces,
manna cynne, / freondum gefægra, lines 913b–915a). The precise referent of the
closing half-line of the passage is, however, decidedly ambiguous: we are simply
told that ‘sin entered him’ (hine fyren onwod, line 915b). While modern editors
and translators go to some lengths to reassure their readers that Heremod is
intended here,81 an Anglo-Saxon audience might have felt less confident that
Beowulf and Heremod were being juxtaposed not so much as opposites as
equals.
The way in which the Beowulf-poet adopts and adapts into his poem the tales
of Scyld Scefing and of Sigemund and Heremod is surely instructive of his attitudes
towards the inherited tradition as a whole. Each legendary hero is held up
as a point of comparison and contrast with Beowulf himself, and it cannot fairly
be said that the results are always flattering

sin entered him??? Pjesnik muljator?

RINGLER…………………………………………………………heremod=beowulf
and the delights of men,
a forlorn exile.
Although God the giver
had granted him strength
above all other
earthly champions,
a baneful crop
of bloodthirsty thoughts
took root in his soul;
morose, close-fisted,
he grudged gift-giving
to gain men’s praise,
and both king and country
came to disaster
and long-lasting grief. (3424–43)
Physical strength without wisdom and good judgment is very dangerous.
Heremod perverts two of his most important obligations in the lord-follower
relationship that was so central to early Germanic military and social organization:
instead of protecting his men and promoting their well-being, he
murders them; instead of distributing treasure, he hoards it.

…………………………………………………………………………hrothgar=beowulf
just as Hrothgar and his Danes had lived the good life in Heorot “until
their foe started / his persecutions” (200–201), so King Beowulf ruled his
people in peace and prosperity “until a usurper came / to rule in the night”
(4420–21).55 Our sense of déjà vu—of the alarming parallel between Beowulf’s
situation and Hrothgar’s—increases when we presently learn that now
Beowulf’s own
tall meadhall,
the gift-seat of the Geats,
greatest of buildings,
was in ashes. (4650–53)
And our feeling that things are going badly wrong is deepened even further
by what we are told about Beowulf’s psychological reaction to the bad news:
The old ring-giver’s
heart was heavy
with huge misgivings;
he wondered if all
unwittingly
he had offended God,
the Father of heaven,
by breaking his law;
his breast seethed
with sad foreboding,
as was seldom the case. (4654–64)
His usual steadiness and buoyancy seem to have deserted him.

(NE MOŽEŠ BITI „STEREOTIPIČAN“!!! NE MOŽEŠ GLEDATI DA BUDEŠ SIGEMUNDOV

DUPLIKAT, JER ĆE TE TO SMAO SJEBAT!)

2. HROTHGAR = GOD (creation of HEOROT ++++ song of creation) --- revenge as well?

JOE-3
we are told that Grendel only begins his man-eating marauding
(30 men on his first visit to this restaurant) when the Danish King Hrothgar
builds his mighty hall called Heorot (the name means ‘hart’ or ‘stag’). Another
reason for the attack is perhaps that Hrothgar’s proud poet celebrates the
building by singing a song of the creation of the world that implicitly
compares Hrothgar with the Creator Himself. Outside in the darkness
lurks Grendel, excluded from the Danish feast. For these reasons we can
view Grendel’s ravaging as either an extreme case of retaliation against noisy
neighbours, as a reflex of his Cain seed evil upbringing or, more intriguingly,
as an instrument of God’s wrath against the uppity Danes.

PJEVAČI = ? ABEL
GRENDEL = KAIN!

3. ČUDOVIŠTA VOLJA BOŽIJA? (ne samo drako nego i grendel)

+++ GRENDEL I MAMICA SU dopola LJUDSKI

RINGLER
Grendel and
his mother, though they are human in origin, represent grotesque distortions
of humanity. Grendel, for example, can be interpreted as a projection (and
symbol) of humanity’s proclivity to violence, as is clearly implied by his descent
from Cain. The dragon is more elemental, a nonhuman, antihuman
force of nature, as his weapon of choice—fire—immediately suggests.

Joe-3
The phrase ‘he bore God’s anger’ (godes yrre bær) is ambiguous: Grendel
is potentially both the recipient and the agent of God’s wrath. Likewise,
the following line links by alliteration two contrasting elements: ‘man’
(part of ‘mankind’, manna cynnes) and ‘wickedness’ (part of ‘wicked destroyer’,
manscaGa), by using a compound word that could, in theory, signal both a
‘wicked destroyer’ and a ‘destroyer of wickedness’; and, of course, Grendel
himself is shaped like a man. His human characteristics are highlighted by
the third alliterating element in the line, which focuses on the fact that
Grendel is not mindless: he intended (mynte) what he did, albeit that chillingly
the abritrariness of his frenzied intentions is itself signalled in the very
next line, where we learn that any ‘one’ (sumne) of mankind will do.
 4. Beowulfov zmaj I nordijski mit (Thor I world-serpent). … two-troll motiv iz islandskih
saga.

Thor—isus—

ANDY. And if
by giving his life in defence of his people when he defeats the dragon Beowulf
may well reflect aspects of the monster-slaying pagan god Thor, it is important
to realise that his self-sacrifice also reflects that of a figure from a quite
different tradition, namely Christ

5. HROTHGAR

možda se grendel pojavljuje "samo" ovom kralju---- možda samo ovaj kralj nije sposoban riješit se
takvog zla. recimo da je grendel napadao i prethodne kraljeve: oni ili su se riješili grendela, ili bi svi
pomrli u pokušaju, što govori o kukavičluku i ne-germanskom temperamentu hrothgara i njegovog
naroda

da se donavežem, možda hrothgar i njegovi nisu zaslužili da uopće mogu pjevat o božjem stvaranju
svijeta i progonu čudovišta, možda su nedostojni, možda zato grendel i napada, jer zna da MOŽE

ako je beowulf (30 ljudi) mogao ubit grendela, mogli su i hrothgarovi?!?!?!

.
.
.

6. BIBLIJSKI MITOVI. KAIN I ABEL. The FLOOD.

Grendel počne napadat kad Danci počnu pjevati o stvaranju svijeta. U beowulfu se spominje I
stvaranje svijeta, I nastanak kainovih potomaka I čudovišta, I njihova destrukcija.

ANDY: It is striking to note that both of the biblical narratives explicitly alluded to in
Beowulf should be connected to Grendel and his kin; as Malcolm Godden has
remarked: ‘as Grendel is introduced by a reference to the Old Testament legend
which describes the origin of monsters, so his end is announced by an allusion to
the biblical myth of their destruction’.42 The first of the poet’s biblical allusions
comes as part of a complicated sequence describing the fateful consequences of
the building of Heorot (lines 86–114)
[Then the mighty spirit, who waited in the darkness, endured grievously
for a time that he heard each day joy, loud in the hall; there was the
sound of the harp, the clear voice of the poet. The one who could
recount from past ages the first-making of men spoke, said that the
Almighty created the earth, the fair bright plain which water encircles;
triumphing in might he set the sun and the moon as lamps to give light
to the dwellers on earth, and he adorned the earth’s corners with
branches and leaves; he also fashioned life for each of the kinds that
move around alive. So those noble men lived in joys, happily, until one
began to perform wicked deeds, a fiend in hell; the grim spirit was
called Grendel, a well-known wanderer in the borderland wastes, he
who inhabited the moors, the fens and the fastnesses; the unhappy man
dwelt for a while in the land of the monster-race, after the Creator had
condemned him as one of the kin of Cain: the eternal Lord avenged that
killing, because Cain slew Abel; he did not rejoice in that feud, but the
Creator cast him far out for that crime, away from mankind. Thence
arose all the evil breed: giants and elves and evil monsters, also those
gigantic ones who strove against God for a long time; he repaid them for
that.]
That Grendel should have been roused to wrath by Hrothgar’s poet singing a
song of Creation seems only fitting,44 especially if, as has been suggested,45
lines 99–101 can be read both with what precedes (so alluding to Satan and the
Fall) and with what follows (a simple reference to Grendel);46 certainly, similar
strategies appear to be used elsewhere in Beowulf.47 Typically, the Beowulf-poet
is able to encompass here in just a few lines both the spawning of the kin of Cain
(ealle onwocon, line 111b) and their destruction by God (he him ðæs lean
forgeald, line 114b).48

RINGLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Beowulf the ultimate kin-slayer?

The Lord of heaven
will have little cause
to accuse me of killing
kinsmen, when life
has flown from my body.

RUTH-3 (zašto Grendel napade? Trebamo razumijeti koncepciju čudovišta)

---koncept čudovišta, I liber monstrorum
+ nordijska mitologija (čudovišta offspring of giants and/or loki the wicked god)
Grendel's motivation for raiding Hrothgar's hall is given in simple terms
in lines 86—90: when he hears the poet in the hall praising God's act of
Creation, he suffers. Miserably angry at the joy of Heorot's community,
he must spy on them and take his private revenge for what seems not to
be even his business. Why should Grendel, an unknown creature of the
moor and swamp, take offense at Hrothgar's thanes drinking and hearing
cheerful songs? Grendel's motivation, though stated clearly, raises more
questions than it answers.
The answers lie in understanding the Germanic concept of monsters.
This concept had deep roots in their earlier pagan beliefs, and a modified
understanding of monsters continued long into the Christian era. It is
hard for us to believe that the Germanic peoples, including the Christian
English, completely believed in monsters. There is no doubt that the English
believed in certain classes of beings
…
Trolls and dragons were less
likely to trouble innocent people, as they stayed in remote places and
kept to themselves, but there is no doubt that the English believed in
them as well.
Monsters had an ancient place in the Germanic system. According to
the pagan creation stories, in the beginning there were the gods and the
giants.
…
The Northern Germanic concept of the gods
was not a particularly moral one. The gods and the giants do not seem,
by our light, to be very different. However, the gods stood for civilization
and order and for upholding what men valued. The giants controlled
destructive weather, while among the gods were forces of sunlight and
growth.
Monsters fit into this system as the offspring and servants of the giants
or Loki, the wicked god. In the battle of Ragnarok a giant serpent, a
fierce, giant dog, and a deadly wolf would join the giants in their attack.
While some magical creatures (like Odin's eight-legged horse) could serve
the gods, the "monsters" (the misshapen, deformed, and threatening kind)
were always against them. Monsters were on the side of the destruction
of civilization, and as such their role in Ragnarok was to bring about the
end of order.
When the English became Christians, they did not see any reason to
stop believing in elves, trolls, dragons, and other monsters. In fact, many
people at this time had such beliefs, because so much of the world was
unexplored. From remote places came reports of huge creatures with
long, white tusks and of giant ants that mined for gold. The Englishproduced
Liber Monstrorum (Book of Monsters) includes dark-skinned people,
Homer's one-eyed Cyclops, and humans with dog heads.
…
Some "monsters," such as scorpions
and lions, were clearly part of ordinary animal life. But where did
other monsters fit into the new Christian cosmology? If they were not
the offspring and pets of the Frost Giants, then who were they?

Ruth----------kin-slaying………..CAIN, THIRD SON, FEUD

Kin-slaying held a special fascination for the Germanic people, as it
was the ultimate betrayal of the most important bonds of blood loyalty.
The Anglo-Saxons must have felt a keen interest in the story of Cain, his
crime, and his banishment. They may have wondered why the feud
ended with Cain, because in Germanic tradition the sons or brothers of
the dead man would have to carry out revenge. The Bible does not list
any son for Abel, but Adam had a third son named Seth. To Germanic
minds, Seth would have the duty of continuing the feud.
The poet of Beowulf tells us that Cain and his descendants were in perpetual
feud with God and man. In the medieval view, all living men
were descended from Noah after the Flood, and Noah was descended
from Seth; therefore, all living men were of the line of Seth. Given this
lineage, wouldn't Cain's line continue to feud with the line of Seth,
even today? Due to Cain's hideous evil, his descendants included giants
and monsters. So in Cain's crime, subsequent feud, and deformed descendants,
the English had a place to locate their monsters. If the descendants
of Cain were at perpetual feud with God, then men, as the descendants
of Seth, were at feud with the monsters. Moreover, because Cain was
banished, the monsters were outlaws. An outlaw could be killed legally,
and his family prevented from taking vengeance. An outlaw was literally
outside the law, outside the protection of the community. The English
did not see anything wrong with killing a monster; it was not like needlessly
killing a useful beast, or immorally killing a man. Monsters were
meant to be killed; they were outlaws.
…
(food for thought—možda hrothgar zato što se zabavljao umjesto da CONTINUE THE FEUD, odnosno
da radi šta korisno el o el)
…
Like other giants and monsters,
he is of the line of Cain, at feud with God and the descendants of
Seth.When he heard the joyful songs of creation, he ground his teeth
and swore to destroy Heorot. He is at war with Hrothgar's people,
young and old.

Andy kaže “Presumably, the Beowulf-poet is applying strict logic to the biblical tale: if the
Flood was sent to destroy monstrous creatures, then the only ones who could
survive were those who already inhabited watery depths“ ali andy ne može biti u pravu, zbog toga što
recimo zmaj nije vodeno čudovište, tako da je jedino objašnjenje (a andy ga sam spominje) Noin sin
Cham koji je „mudrost zla“ zapisao na metal i kamen prije Poplave.

[He gazed on the hilt, the ancient heirloom, on which had previously
been inscribed the origin of ancient struggle, when the flood, the
streaming ocean, slew the race of Giants (they suffered terribly [or ‘they
dared boldly’]); that was a race hostile to the eternal Lord; to them the
Ruler gave recompense through the surging of the water.]
That this inscribed weapon of the monstrous races should survive the Flood can
be paralleled in patristic sources: Cassian, for example, tells how Noah’s wicked
son, Cham, a latter-day Cain,51 inscribed on stone and metal his occult
wisdom:52
Quantum itaque traditiones ferunt, Cham filius Noe, qui superstitionibus istis
et sacrilegis ac profanis erat arttbus institutus, sciens nullum se posse super his
memorialem librum in arcam prorsus inferre, in qua erat una cum patre iusto
ac sanctis fratribus ingressusrus, scelestas artes ac profana commenta
diversorum metallorum lamminis, quae scilicet aquaraum conrumpi
inundatione non passent, et durissimis lapidibus insculpsit. Quae peracto
diluuio eadem quae celauerat curiositate perquirens sacrilegiorum ac
perpetuae nequitiae seminarium transmisit in posteros.
[Various traditions tell that Cham, the son of Noah, who was instructed in
those superstitions and sacrileges and profane arts, knowing that he could not
bring a book detailing these things into the Ark, in which he was about to go
with his righteous father and holy brothers, inscribed these wicked arts and
profane commentaries on sheets of various metals and on the hardest rocks,
which would not be harmed by the surge of waters. When the Flood was over
he sought them out with the same curiosity for sacrilegious things with which
he had hidden them, and transmitted the seeds of perpetual wickedness to
later generations.]

JOŠ JEDNA biblijska aluzija jest da se krv ne smije piti, ne daj bože zajedno krv i meso!!!!!

ANDY: But if the three scenes depicting Cain and the Flood are the only ones in
Beowulf where biblical allusion is unquestionable, it might be noted that further
Old Testament references may underlie other aspects of the activities of the kin
of Cain. So, for example, given the commonplace biblical injunctions against
140 A Critical Companion to ‘Beowulf’
51 On the conflation of roles between Cham and Cain, see, for example, Hamilton, ‘The Religious Principle
in Beowulf’, p. 320, n. 4; Donahue, ‘Grendel and the Clanna Cain’, p. 168. For an overview, see
Orchard, Pride and Prodigies, pp. 69–70.
52 Petschenig, ed., Iohannis Cassiani Conlationes, Conlatio VIII.xxi.7–8, pp. 239/27–240/10; cf.
Williams, Cain and Beowulf, p. 35.
53 See, for example, Köberl, ‘The Magic Sword in Beowulf’; Schrader, ‘The Language on the Giant’s
Sword Hilt in Beowulf’; Taylor, ‘Grendel’s Monstrous Arts’; Viswanathan, ‘On the Melting of the
Sword’; Whitman, ‘Corrosive Blood in Beowulf’.
54 Cf. the use of the Flood-motif in the Liber monstrorum above, pp. 133–7.
drinking blood,55 echoed in a range of Anglo-Saxon authors including Bede,
Alfred, Ælfric, and Wulfstan,56 a Christian Anglo-Saxon audience would have
found the description of Grendel’s eating-habits particularly loathsome (lines
739–45a):
Ne þæt se aglæca yldan þohte,
ac he gefeng hraðe forman siðe 740
slæpende rinc, slat unwearnum,
bat banlocan, blod edrum dranc,
synsnædum swealh; sona hæfde
unlyfigendes eal gefeormod,
fet ond folma. 745
[Nor did the awesome assailant think to delay, but he quickly seized at
the first opportunity a sleeping warrior, tore him greedily, bit the joints,
drank the blood from the veins, swallowed in sinful gulps [or ‘mighty
gulps’]; he had soon taken full care of the feet and hands of the unliving
man.]

BROJ 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (biblijska paralela)

The figure 30 is elsewhere associated with both Beowulf and Grendel:67
Grendel snatches thirty thanes from Heorot on his first visit (þritig þegna, line
123a; cf. fyftyne men ond oðer swylc, lines 1582b–1583a), and Beowulf has the
strength of thirty men in his hand-grip (.XXX.es manna mægencræft on his
mundgripe, lines 379b–380). That Samson, who had already killed a lion with
his bare hands (Iud. XIV.6), should travel to Ashkelon, kill thirty of their men,
and return home with their garments as spoils

ALI JEBEŠ SAMSONA, POANTA JEST U TOME ŠTO HROTHGAR NEMA 30 DOBRIH
VOJNIKA, ZATO ŠTO 30=30, ALI 30>30?!?!?!?

………………………………….unferth……………………..ringler!
It is possible, too, since Unferth holds an
official position at Hrothgar’s court—he is its spokesperson (ţyle 1165b,
1456b)—that he is a sort of proxy who expresses the corporate resentment
of all the Danes about their need to be rescued by a foreigner. This at least
is strongly suggested by certain features of Beowulf’s reply.
…
Only then does he turn his attention to Unferth and the Danes,
first saying something that is bound to rub Unferth the wrong way, and then
asserting that Unferth’s most glorious heroic deed to date is murdering his
brothers—an unredeemably evil act, from the Germanic point of view—an
act that puts him in the company of both Cain and Grendel and will ultimately
(Beowulf assures him) land him in hell: ………………..DANCI ZASLUŽILI GRENDELA!!!
…
And when he continues, his focus shifts
gradually from Unferth to the Danes whose mouthpiece Unferth is (at least
ex hypothesi), and he stresses their impotence and humiliation. He even turns
one of their honorific titles, “Victory Danes” (Sige-Scyldingas 597b), against
them in a masterstroke of sarcasm
(UNFERTH = GRENDEL ZBOG TOGA ŠTO BEOWULF NA UNFERTHU DEMONSTRIRA KAKO
NAMJERAVA POBIJEDITI GRENDELA)

7. ŽRTVOVANJE POGANSKIM BOGOVIMA!!!!!

ANDY: The apparent influence of vernacular homiletic sources is evident early

on in Beowulf, when the Beowulf-poet chastises the Danes for sacrificing to
heathen deities in an attempt to escape the depredations of Grendel (lines
175–88):104
Hwilum hie geheton æt hærgtrafum 175
wigweorþunga, wordum bædon
þæt him gastbona geoce gefremede
wið þeodþreaum. Swylc wæs þeaw hyra,
hæþenra hyht; helle gemundon
in modsefan, metod hie ne cuþon, 180
dæda demend, ne wiston hie drihten god,
ne hie huru heofena helm herian ne cuþon,
wuldres waldend. Wa bið þæm ðe sceal
þurh sliðne nið sawle bescufan
in fyres fæþm, frofre ne wenan, 185
wihte gewendan; wel bið þæm þe mot
æfter deaðdæge drihten secean
ond to fæder fæþmum freoðo wilnian.
[At times they vowed at heathen temples homage to idols, asked in
words that the spirit-slayer grant them succour against their dire distress.
Such was their custom, the hope of heathens: they recalled hell in their
hearts. They did not know the Creator, the Judge of Deeds, nor did they
recognise the Lord God, nor truly did they know how to praise the
Protector of the Heavens, the Ruler of Glory. It shall be woe for the one
who must through cruel emnity thrust his soul into the fire’s embrace,
not hope for comfort, or any change; it shall be well for the one who
may seek the Lord after his death-day, and ask for protection in the
father’s embrace.]
The damning phrase ‘hope of heathens’ (hæþenra hyht, line 179a) says it all; in
Christian eyes, heathens have no hope: ‘to be a heathen is sin enough’.105 But, as
we have seen, the Beowulf-poet often seems to sanctify his heathen references,
106 and this, the most explicit reference to heathen practice in the entire
poem, is no exception: the fervent variation on titles for God (there are five such
in the three lines 180b–3a) is presumably intended to have an apotropaic
effect.107 The stark choice between Christianity and paganism is spelt out as that
between ‘the fire’s embrace’ (fyres fæþm, line 185a) and ‘the father’s embrace’
(fæder fæþmum, line 188a); for some it shall be ‘well’ (wel, line 186b), for
others ‘woe’ (wa, line 183b).

danes ignorant of god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andy:::::
and in their resultant panic fall into devilish ways, since they are
ignorant of (the true) God (lines 180b–188):6
Metod hie ne cuþon, 180
dæda Demend, ne wiston hie Drihten God,
ne hie huru heofena Helm herian ne cuþon,
wuldres Waldend. Wa bið þæm ðe sceal
þurh sliðne nið sawle bescufan
in fyres fæþm, frofre ne wenan, 185
wihte gewendan; wel bið þæm þe mot
æfter deaðdæge drihten secean
ond to fæder fæþmum freoðo wilnian.
[They did not know the Creator, the Judge of Deeds, nor did they recognise
the Lord God, nor truly did they know how to praise the Protector
of the Heavens, the Ruler of Glory. It shall be woe for the one who must
through cruel emnity thrust his soul into the fire’s embrace, not hope for
comfort, or any change; it shall be well for the one who may seek the
Lord after his death-day, and ask for protection in the father’s embrace.]
Nor do the Danes ever learn. In what is evidently a deliberate echo of the earlier
passage, we are later told how, even after the defeat of Grendel, the Danes are
still in the dark (as it were), ignorant of the incipient arrival of his avenging
mother (wyrd ne cuþon, geasceaft grimme, line 1233). On both occasions the
Danes feast in empty celebration, before going to a sleep from which some will
never arise.7

8. NAKON 50 GODINA ---- HROTHGAR, MAMICA I BEOWULF

je li to slučajnost? Je li poanta u tome da, kad prođe vrijeme, nema bježanja? Simbolika
broja 50??? (ponos? Ali ima li se itko od njih 3 čime ponositi svojom vladavinom?? Je li
pjesnikova poanta možda ta da su Hrothgar I beowulf zaslužili tu kaznu jednako kao I
mamica? VIDI TOLKIENA ISPOD—vrijeme ) ++++++++++++

ideja: možda tih 50 godina predstavlja Smrt iako je vrlo suspicious (Hrothgar ne umre)—
smrt je kaotična sama po sebi koliko je I uredna.
++++strukture, figure I devices mogu poslužiti za interpretaciju
++++prvi dio o pobjeđivanju polu-ljudskog čudovišta, odnosno zla, ali ako Grendel može
biti svladan, onda može I Beowulf, jer su oboje u suštini ljudska bića

RINGLER
The central, organizing narrative of Beowulf is obviously the story of the
hero’s life, achievements, and death.
…
juxtaposition and contrast, irony and pathos.
The main narrative falls into two parts that are concerned with two defining
moments in its protagonist’s life: his first great heroic achievement as a
young man, which won him wealth and fame and a high position in the aristocratic
society of his day, and his death as an old man fifty years later. There
is no transition between these two parts of the poem: they are deliberately
juxtaposed and sharply contrasted.
…
After this we are in altogether new territory. We never see Beowulf aging;
one moment he is young, vigorous, confident, crowned with success, and
looking forward to a promising future; the next moment—fifty years later!—
he is ancient, doubt-ridden, and doomed. This sudden juxtaposition gives us
a jolt that is nicely calculated to make us realize that no matter how much
time may elapse between our own youth and old age, it is really only the
blink of an eye, which is certainly how it feels in retrospect. This abrupt but
studied contrast of the hero’s youth and old age is thus part of the poet’s ongoing
insistence on the inevitability of reversal (edwenden) in human affairs.
A philosophical position—an interpretation of life—is being articulated here
through the use of structure. DEATH!!!!!!!!!!1
…
Unlike the first part,
with its cast of hopeful young warriors and its evocation of an optimistic
world in which evil can be thumpingly defeated and virtue brilliantly rewarded,
the second part is filled with old, depressed, doomed individuals:
…
if the first part of the poem is concerned with beginnings
(the creation of the world, the building of Heorot, the launching of Beowulf’s
heroic career), the second part is about endings (Beowulf’s death and
the end of both his family, the Wægmundings, and his people, the Geats, as
well as the end of the world).
…
Often the intended effect of these is to show
that nothing in the secular world lasts for very long, neither good fortune
nor bad, happiness nor sorrow, and that one of the things individuals must
always be prepared for is a reversal of their present situation. German university
students used to place a skull on the table around which they sat
drinking; this served as a memento mori, a reminder—at moments of intensest
pleasure and joy—of what life ultimately had in store for them. EVERYTHING ENDS!!!!
…
what the poet wants us to understand is that the moment Heorot has been
built and stands before us in its fresh and highly symbolic glory, it is already
as good as destroyed.
………………
Geats at Beowulf’s funeral watch their king’s body
being consumed by flames. DRAGON/FIRE – ELEMENTAL – DEATH!

Ringler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CREATION NEEDS DESTRUCTION!

destroyers and destruction:
the future burning of Heorot; the first announcement of Grendel’s existence
(“A dread demon / who dwelt in the shadows” [171–72]); and then—after
the wonderful description of the creation of the universe cited above—the
actual appearance onstage of the monster in all his fearfulness. It seems clear
from the way the scene is constructed that the poet views creation and destruction,
the beginning and the end, alpha and omega, as inseparable and
complementary, like yin and yang, opposed hemispheres of one sphere.

ANDY:::::::: [‘So, under the skies, I ruled the Ring-Danes for fifty years, and
protected them in battle against many nations throughout this world,
with spears and swords, so that I did not reckon anyone an enemy to me
under the expanse of the sky. Yet in my homeland a reversal occurred,
grief after joy, once Grendel, the ancient adversary, became my invader;
I continually bore that persecution, great sorrow of heart. Thanks be to
the Creator, to the eternal Lord, that I should experience during my lifetime
that I might stare with my eyes on that blood-stained head after the
ancient struggle.’]
Hrothgar’s tragedy is that, after success abroad, he suffers reversal at home after
a fifty-year reign; it is in this context that he uses an apparently Christian turn of
phrase, describing Grendel as his ‘ancient adversary’ (ealdgewinna, line
1776a).155 The cogency of Hrothgar’s warning is underlined by the poet’s repetition
of precisely the same pattern in the cases of Grendel’s mother, attacked at
home after her successful raid of Heorot at the end of her fifty-year reign (lines
1497–8), and, later, Beowulf himself, who reigns for fifty years after his
successes abroad, but is attacked at home by the dragon (lines 2208b–2211).156
If Hrothgar is ostensibly here preaching to Beowulf on the dangers of pride, then
the Beowulf-poet is implicitly preaching to us all.157
………..
we are told that
when Beowulf could see the bottom, Grendel’s mother ‘immediately perceived
it’ (Sona þæt onfunde, line 1497a); likewise we learn that Grendel’s mother, like
Hrothgar before Grendel’s first attack, like Beowulf himself before that of the
dragon, had governed her domain for fifty years.

------TOLKIEN: man at war with the hostile world, and his inevitable overthrow in Time
…………..
It is just because the main foes in ,c.
Beowulf are inhuman that the story is larger and more significant
than this imaginary poem of a great Eng's fall. It glimpses the cosmic
and moves with the thought of all men concerning the fate of human
life and efforts; it stands amid but above the petty wars of princes,
and surpasses the dates and limits of historical periods, however
important. (smrt---kozmika i simbolika, vrijeme i ukupna SMRTNOST)

JOE-3
Beowulf seems a poem less
about action than about reaction, less about conflict than about the aftermath
of conflict, less about little victories and tiny triumphs than about the
great defeat of death that awaits us all.

………………..TOLKIEN. (obrana čudovišta, opet)

It would really have been
preposterous, if the poet had recounted Beowu.lf'S rise to fame in a
'typical' or 'commonplace' war in Frisia, and then ended him with a
dragon. Or if he had told of his cleansing of Heorot, and then
brought him to defeat and death in a 'wild' or 'trivial' Swedish invasion!
If the dragon is the right end for Beowulf, and I agree with the
1l-"author that it is then Grendel is an eminentl suitable be innin .
T ey are creatures,feond mancynnes, of a similar order and kindred
significance. Triumph over the Jesser and more nearly human is cancelled
by defeat before the older and more elemental. And the conquest
of the ogres comes at the right moment: not in earliest youth,
though the nicors are referred to in Beowulf's geogoOfeore as a presage
of the kind of hero we have to deal with; and not during the later
period of recognized ability and prowess;2 but in that first moment,
which often comes in great lives, when men look up in surprise and
see that a hero has unawares leaped forth. The placing of the dragon
is inevitable: a man can but die upon his death-day.

BONUS!!! FOOD FOR THOUGHT: POVEŽI GRENDELA S BEOWULFOVIM GODINAMA;

POVEŽI ZMAJA S BEOWULFOVIM GODINAMA!

9. Mamica!!!!!!
Koja je poanta mamice? Da treba sažalijevati I čudovišta, iako smo im neprijatelji? A možda
pjesnik kroz čitav ep izjednačava beowulfa, sigemunda, hygelaca itd s čudovištima…
Dolazak mamice je kao minijaturna verzija grendelovog dolaska, I ni približno tako pun terora.
Je li to zato što je ŽENSKO, ili zato što ona tu nije zbog terora kao terora I zadovoljavanjem
unutarnjeg zla, nego zbog LJUBAVI prema sinu?

Andy!!!1 Given Grendel’s central role as a man-eating monster, it seems extraordinary

that the Beowulf-poet should choose to depict him as a character with a point of
view, one that is capable of evoking sympathy, at precisely this key moment in
the battle, when the predator becomes prey.
Sympathy might be more naturally forthcoming for Grendel’s mother, roused
by grim circumstance to avenge her son. Her own approach to Heorot is rather
less dramatic than her son’s (lines 1279–95):102
……………
The speed of the description of this hit-and-run raid contrasts sharply with the
leisurely account of Grendel’s own foray into Heorot: Grendel’s mother comes
and goes in the space of seventeen lines; her son took more than 120 (lines
702b–823a). The difference in scale, aptly characterised here as the difference in
‘terror’ caused by the male and female creatures, is just that: the account of the
attack by Grendel’s mother contains many echoes of that of her son, of which it
is in effect a perfect miniature
………………
The
poet’s observation that ‘grief was renewed’ (cearo wæs geniwod, line 1303b) is
echoed by Hrothgar’s own immediate reaction that ‘sorrow is renewed’ (sorh is
geniwod, line 1322b), and in any case the poet continues with a ringing condemnation
of the nature of the vendetta (lines 1304b–1306a):105
Ne wæs þæt gewrixle til,
þæt hie on ba healfa bicgan scoldon 1305
freonda feorum.
[That was not a good exchange, that they on both sides had to pay with
the lives of their friends.]

JOE-3 (sympathy)
While each monster evokes profound terror for the
destruction they bring, each can also stir our pity, if we see things from their
point of view. The poet appears to encourage us to do just this.

JOE-3 (osveta, feud, Germanic code – but does it apply to monsters who are OUTLAWS? Je li
onda Beowulf ujedno I kritika za takav poganski kod? Želi li poet reći da zlodjelo rezultira
mnogim drugim zlodjelima?)
Yet if Grendel’s motivation for his killing spree is somewhat nebulous,
albeit, apparently, not wholly without provocation, given the incursion of
the Danes into the fens that he thought were his, the motive of Grendel’s
mother is entirely clear: vengeance. Unlike Grendel, who for some real or
imagined affront carries on killing until he is stopped, Grendel’s mother,
who is honour bound to extract vengeance in the apparent absence of any
surviving male relative, offers a measured and strictly limited response: in
return for her dead son she kills a single Dane, namely Æschere, Hrothgar’s
closest friend. The poet is at pains to describe her trip for vengeance as a
‘sorrowful journey’, again apparently playing both sides: her sorrow will
cause further sorrow for Hrothgar, until Beowulf, arguably extending the
feud by his action, puts an end to misery for both her and the Danes.

FEEEUUUUD – VENGEANCE (but has no right to seek it, as she is an outlaw)

Ruth-5
Is Grendel's mother a bestial
female, like a she-bear robbed of her cub, or is she a regal figure demanding
justice for her feud?
While Grendel's feud with Beowulf is accepted as simply being part
of his monstrous nature, the episode with Grendel's mother demands more
explanation and raises more questions. It is portrayed less as an outcome
of monstrosity and more in the terms of a specific feud. The mother is
an "avenger" (1256), who remembers "her misery" (1258) and must take
a "sorrowful journey" to "avenge her son's death" (1278).
…
Many readers feel that her revenge
comes from grief, which is a human emotion and seems jus
…
For the audience of Beowulf] the two possible perceptions of Grendel's
mother were probably both present. On the one hand, she is grieving
and has just come from the scene of her son's death. The poem comments
that there was no good exchange; that "both sides" had to bargain
with "the lives of friends" (1305—1306). This comment seems to make
a moral equation between the losses. On the other hand, Grendel and
his mother are outlaws, monsters, cursed by God and half-bestial. The
heart can allow that she would desire revenge, but the law cannot. Grendel's
death was a legal execution, in a way, and the law did not allow for
the family of a man hung for murder or theft to seek vengeance against
the king who condemned him." Grendel's mother has merely continued
the feud for the lowest reason, to kill and kill alike, and it will only
be settled with her own death unless more relatives come forward.

FEUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 RINGLER
It was typical of feuds in early Germanic society that as their tit-for-tat violence
continued it tended to move up the social scale, claiming ever more
prestigious victims.24 This escalation of a typical feud seems to be represented
in Beowulf, in symbolic fashion, by the “buried” climax sequence under
discussion here, and which may be represented as follows:
— the Danes lose a mitten or glove (the name of Beowulf’s companion
who was killed by Grendel is Hondscioh [cf. German Handschuh],
which literally means “hand-shoe”) [4152].25
— the Grendel clan loses a hand (Grendel’s) [1940].
— the Danes lose first a hand (Hrothgar’s confidant Æschere, who is
called a “hand” [2686] by synecdoche, because he hands out treasure
to his followers), then a head (Æschere’s [2842]).
— the monsters lose a head (Grendel’s [3180]), which brings the
vengeance cycle to a close (and does so at almost the exact halfway
point of the text—a striking fact).

10. GRENDEL |||| BEOWULF (((čudovištA?)))

Andy:::::::: The parallel between Grendel’s attack on Heorot, and Beowulf’s attack on the
‘hall’ (niðsele, line 1513a; hrofsele, line 1515a) of Grendel’s mother, complete
with the homely touch of fire-light, surely makes it most likely that he (rather
than the sea-beasts) is the aglæcan referred to in line 1512.116 At this point,
Beowulf attempts to bring Hrunting into play, striking Grendel’s mother on the
head, but the previously trusty weapon is simply not up to the task (lines
1522b–1528
………………..
That Beowulf is described as a ‘guest’ (gist, line 1422b; cf. selegyst, line 1545a)
in this hall, just like Grendel had been in Heorot, only underlines the parallel,
whilst the fact that Beowulf is unable to penetrate the skin of Grendel’s mother
and ‘harm life’ (aldre sceþðan, line 1524a) only echoes the impervious nature
both of Grendel in Heorot, and of Beowulf’s own mailcoat, which he dons
explicitly so that nothing can penetrate and ‘harm life’ (aldre gesceþðan, line
1447b).

11. IMAGERY OF DOOMSDAY!!!!!!!! (50 GODINA?) (juxtaposition: sve ima kraj!!)

ANDY::::::
[He who, fine in his manly virtues, had endured a great number of
battles, war-clamours, when the foot-troops clashed, saw by the wall a
stone arch stand, and a stream break out from the mountain-side there.
The bubbling of that stream was hot with deadly fires; he could not
without burning endure the depths near the hoard for any length of time,
because of the dragon’s flame.]
Wordplay underlines the extent to which the fiery surges of the dragon’s flame
resemble streams of mountain water (burnan . . . unbyrnende, lines 2546b and
2548a), and, just as with the monster-mere, the combination of fire and water
may well suggest the familiar imagery of Doomsday.105 Certainly, just as
Grendel is roused by the sound of a human voice, so too is the dragon enraged
by Beowulf’s battle-cry (lines 2550–6a); once again references to Beowulf’s
shield are common in the passage that describes the first encounter between
Beowulf and the dragon (lines 2559–75a):106

12. The liber monstrorum-----------knjiga čudovišta.

ANDY. The Liber monstrorum (‘Book of monsters’) is an

extraordinary work, apparently composed by an Anglo-Saxon around the
beginning of the eighth century, which meticulously catalogues more than 120
‘monsters’, divided into three books by type, namely whether they are
humanoid, bestial, or serpentine.24 Even this tripartite division might suggests a
broad parallel with the monster-fights in Beowulf, and indeed the Liber
monstrorum shares a number of curious details with the poem

grendel……………………… [But that beast is said to be amongst the fiercest of all brutes, in which they
assert that there is such a quantity of venom that lions fear it although it is an
animal of weaker body, and they reckon that its poison has such strength, that
the cutting-edge even of iron, dipped in it, melts.]
Such a creature seems to share this curious quality with Grendel, whose blood
likewise causes the blade of the giant sword to melt, an image of which the
Beowulf-poet gives two descriptions, first in his own voice (lines 1605b–1617),
and then in Beowulf’s (lines 1666b–1668a). The accounts of the melting of what
the poet calls ‘an ancient sword made by giants’ (ealdsweord eotenisc, line
1558a)29 and Beowulf calls ‘an ancient and mighty sword’ (ealdsweord eacen,
line 1663a),30 are strikingly similar; Beowulf’s much briefer description has a
number of unmistakable echoes of the earlier version by the poet, especially the
simple statement that ‘the decorated weapon burnt up’, which is repeated
almost verbatim
 13. ZMAAAAAAAJO (volja božija?) (zmajeva osveta: osveta osveta osveta?)

Ringler!!!!!!!!!
Grendel and
his mother, though they are human in origin, represent grotesque distortions
of humanity. Grendel, for example, can be interpreted as a projection (and
symbol) of humanity’s proclivity to violence, as is clearly implied by his descent
from Cain. The dragon is more elemental, a nonhuman, antihuman
force of nature, as his weapon of choice—fire—immediately suggests.

RINGLER
Geats at Beowulf’s funeral watch their king’s body
being consumed by flames. (zmaj je zbog vatre poistovjećen s normalnom smrću—nije bitno je li beowulf
izgorio od zmajeve ili ljudske vatre, bitno je da vatra predstavlja normalan završni stadij života, a to je
smrt! Nešto prirodno)

Ruth-6
it does not take long for
a treasure-hunting dragon to find it. Why? Because it is his nature to do
so (2275). Fish swim, birds fly, and dragons sniff out gold hoards. The
dragon is only doing what dragons do.

NATURE OF DRAGONS!!!!!!!!!
RUTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH-----------ruth-6
Chinese dragons are peaceful and wise,
the totems of the Imperial dynasties. They only want to do good for the
people and are worshipped. They have beards and tusks, and they do not
have wings, although in some stories they can fly. European dragons, in
contrast, are rotten to the core. They have wings, and usually they can
spout flames. They eat livestock, and in later stones they eat young girls.
Having a dragon in the neighborhood is a disaster, and it is imperative
to kill the dragon as soon as possible.
…. (european + acts by nature—elemental!! + GERMANIC people not sympathetic about the third
monster because treasure is not for hoarding but giving as deserved)
the L/7)cr Moustroruni describes serpents
that contain some of the traits of mythical dragons. Some are 120 feet
long, some have poisonous breath, some are studded with emeralds, and
some are born in cold lands and roam the rocky land looking for hiding
places and food. If a dragon is a type of serpent, then here might be some
details; and yet, they are never called dragons ("draca").
The dragon of Beowulf, then, is one of the earliest detailed portraits
of a European dragon. It is clearly an animal: it acts by nature, not by
intelligent thought. It does not appear to talk; at least, there is no reported
speech. It is long (fifty feet) and thin, and it can crawl on the ground,
perhaps smelling for the trail of the thief. Its chief trait is its fond attachment
to its treasure, almost an obsession. We do not know what this
dragon eats, but we do know precisely its animal reaction on finding its
cup missing. When it cannot find the exact thief, it takes to the air
(although wings are not described, the dragon can fly). It breathes fire,
and thus burns up towns and halls. Fire is the dragon's chief weapon, but
it has also sharp teeth and jaws large enough to bite a man's neck. Beyond
that, its bite is poisonous, like a snake's. The most surprisingly animal
trait of the dragon is that it is shy; until now, it has never sought out
mankind, and it is shocked and frightened at seeing Beowulf.
The Geats, and the Anglo-Saxon audience, were sympathetic to the
motive of revenge, but not if it was a dragon's. Why was the dragon's
passion for burning towns in payment of his missing cup not a sympathetic
emotion? Think back over the many actions and stories throughout
this poem. One of the morals that the characters and the narrator are
always voicing is that treasure is for giving. No one who hoards treasure
will find sympathy. Revenge is for someone's death, but it is not for the
loss of treasure. Treasure is to be used to create bonds of loyalty,
although in itself it is lovely and precious. Hoarding it is just plain and,
in their view, the dragon's anger is no excuse for its destructiveness.

I. HROTHGAR WARNS HIM ABOUT GOOD KINGS + BAD FORTUNES

II. LAST SURVIVOR ALSO FORESHADOWING?
III. MELANCHOLY; OFFENDED GOD?
IV. BUT DOES OUR FUCKING HERO WANT TO BE HERO ONCE AGAIN?
Ruth-6
Long ago, Hrothgar had warned him that even
the good king who ruled well might be subject to sudden tricks of fate
in his old age. It happened to Hrothgar, and now it is Beowulf's turn.
Unlike Hrothgar, Beowulf is sure he can avenge himself. Is there any
young hero on the scene to take his place? Apparently not.
Beowulf's mindset is explained briefly but with care (2327-2332).
His first thought may be to recall Hrothgar's words, and he wonders if
he has offended God, the Ruler of All. These painful, dark thoughts are
completely unlike his usual mental state. He knows (2342) that he is
doomed to die. Like the Last Survivor, he has only to spin out the days
with the appropriate actions, and the end will come. There is no good
outcome, only a possibly successful one.
…
Although he is there with eleven companions (the runaway slave,
presumably, has been allowed to leave), he wishes to fight alone. He
instructs his men not to help him but to stand back and watch, waiting
in safety. His men must have heard this instruction with a mixture of
relief and discomfort. They now have a conflicting loyalty. They need
to obey their king, but on the other hand, their normal duty is always
to come to his aid. For him to command them not to help is a contradiction;
it releases them from their oaths to help him, without releasing
them from their oaths to obey him. At the same time, they have no
desire to fight the dragon. Their shields are wooden, and they have never
fought any supernatural or inhuman creature. In their minds, fighting
monsters is Beowulf's specialty, even if he is now seventy-five.
…
"Wyrd" (fate) is against Beowulf this time. When Grendel's mother
attacked him with her knife (while he was still catching his breath), fate
had been with him and had denied her victory. Fate is not with Beowulf
now, but is it with the dragon?

…ruth-6 HERO DIES, LAST LOOK AT TREASURE!!! (***hero***)

After Wiglaf once again revives him writh wrater, Beowulf is just alive
enough to look weakly on the treasures. His last words are filled with
dramatic irony. He sees the treasure as being destined to belong to his
people; perhaps to form the core of a new royal hoard, or perhaps for a
new King Wiglaf to give out and form new bonds of loyalty in the
younger generation.

ANDY:::::::: On the first occasion the

poet ascribes the lucky escape of the thief with the dragon’s cup to God: it seems
unclear why such a character should be regarded as ‘undoomed’

(vidi beowulf-thor --- sve krepava (vidi tolkiena) --- tolkien se osvrnuo na nordijsku mitologiju gdje i
bogovi moraju umrijet, pa eto tako i beowulf, i to zmaj)

TOLKIEN::::::: Beowulf's dragon, if one wishes really to criticize, is not to be

blamed for being a dragon, but rather for not being dragon enoug!l,
plain pure fairy-story dragon. There are in the poem some vivid
touches of the right kind-as Pa se -wynn onwoc, wroht wees geniwad;
. ~ ~ stone refter stane, 22856-in which this dragon is real worm, with a
~ bestial life and thought of his own, but the conception, none the less, approaches draconitas rather than
draco: a personification of malice, greed, destruction (the evil side of heroic life), and of the undiscriminating
cruelty of fortune that distinguishes not good or
, bad (the evil aspect of all life). (dragon in beowulf is as much a plot device as a symbol of MALICE GREED
DESTRUCTION)

JOE-3 (drako simbol zla, previše svetaca se borilo protiv njega)

The dragon cannot match the infamous biblical
ancestry of Grendel and his mother, but is, in Christian terms, nonetheless a
clear symbol of evil: there are enough dragon-slaying saints to attest to that,
and several of their stories have interesting parallels with that of Beowulf.

****VOOOOLLJAAAAAA BOŽIIIIIJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA***
JOE-3
the doomed and ageing Beowulf is depicted as frozen
in melancholy contemplation of what he has done to deserve this attack
…
the
poet goes out of his way to describe the thief who had stirred the dragon’s
wrath in the first place as ‘undoomed’, in a curious comment about how
even a thief can be spared in the name of God that makes it seem as if the
whole episode, culminating in Beowulf’s death, is simply unfolding according
to God’s will.

14. Treasure………….. ringler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And Beowulf’s triumph consists not only in killing a monster that has been
ravaging his country and people; it consists equally in the fact that he has
been able to “open the hoard” (hord openian 3056b), bringing its long-hidden
wealth back to the light of day where men can look on it again.59 He
thereby frustrates the design of the “heathen lords” who buried the treasure
and hedged it about with lethal spells
so that no man on earth
could come near the hoard
or gain its gold. (6105–7)
It is worth pausing here for a moment to point out that the poet’s attitude
toward riches and treasure is always ambiguous. He approves of them when
they circulate in the bright, daylight world of heroic enterprise, awarded by
leaders to their followers as a badge of distinction and a symbol of their worth
or value (3799–3805). On the other hand, he views them with deep suspicion
when they function as what we might call the “objective correlative” of the
psychological need for vengeance, symbolically embodying this need and
spurring people to vengeful activity (4048–4132). And he has no use at all for
treasure when people bury it and try to keep it hidden, thereby inviting the
attention of dragon guardians (who are perhaps projections of its malevolent
influence). In any event, burying treasure is a completely futile activity,
for heathen gold
easily thwarts
efforts by men
to hide it forever,
hard though they try. (5528–32)
All of this contributes to the considerable irony that pervades the end of
the poem. A minute or two before his death, Beowulf, lying on the ground
mortally wounded, is justly proud of having won a great treasure for his
people and sends Wiglaf back into the dragon’s mound to fetch a portion of
it out into the open for him to look at. But his people have a different idea
of what to do with it and decide to commit the whole treasure to the flames
of the king’s burial pyre (6020–24). The irony is further amplified when they
decide to re-inter it with him in his barrow:
they buried all of it
back in the ground,
that unlucky gold,
where it lives today
as idle and vain
as it ever was. (6331–36)
“Idle and vain”—that is the poet’s comment on this particular buried treasure
and probably (by extension) on all buried treasure. Moreover, there is
something ominous and even a little frightening about his calculated use of
the word “lives” (lifađ 3167b) in this passage: this is not a verb that is normally
used in Old English of inanimate things, and its use here implies that
this gold is somehow “alive” and will continue to lurk in the ground, an evil
presence waiting for the day when future men uncover it once again, enabling
it to charm and enslave them and cause more havoc.
…
…
…
…. - svrha zlata je nagrađivanje
- zavist i glad za zlatom i zakapanje i čuvanje zlata je loše
- zmaj projekcija ljudske potrebe za zlatom
- beowulf ponosan što je osvojio hordu zlata za svoj narod - želi gletati to zlato dok umire
(kralj...... narod mu nije zaslužio to)
- zlato "idle and vain" - lives today
- beowulf idle and vain? U SVAKOM SLUČAJU, zlato potvrda njegovog herojstva.
 15. HEROJ, NE KRALJ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 ringler

For an old, old man to set out to fight a flying,

fire-breathing dragon all by himself is either the height of fortitudo or
the height of folly, of course, but it is the sort of thing a king must do if he
is really a hero. In a sense, therefore, Beowulf has no choice, and his immediate
and energetic response to the challenge presented by the dragon stands
in pointed contrast to Hrothgar’s twelve years of passivity and self-recrimination
when he finds himself in a similar situation.
Beowulf’s people protest against his determination
…
No, the hero proceeds on his heroic course with a will that strikes his people
as the next thing to willfulness, and they suffer terribly in consequence, losing
not only their king but—ultimately—their kingdom.

16. LEGEND AND LORE

RINGLER
It is customary to approach Beowulf as a mixture or synthesis of legend
(“fabulous elements”) and lore (“historical elements”). The poet, or the tradition
he represents, has fused these elements so seamlessly together that neither
can be disengaged from the other without producing a very different
—and essentially crippled—work. Not that people do not try to disengage
them: we often see in comic-book or motion-picture redactions of the poem
the elimination of as many of its “historical elements” as possible, and in
hard-nosed rationalistic criticism there is sometimes an inclination to discount
the “fabulous elements” as not worthy of the attention of serious
people.

17. TOLKIEN (((a critique on critics--- art=history)))

(u beowulfu čudovišta imaju veću simboliku nego grčka ili rimska čudovišta
Kritičari prije tolkiena smatrali ep neukusnim zbog čudovišta.

C2!!!£t and
sob~ayrefuse to admit that there can be an interest for usthe
proud we that includes all intelligent living people-in ogres ~nd
dragons; \\Te then perceive its puzzlement in face of the odd fact that
i~rivedgreat pleasure from a poem that is actually about these
unfashionable creatures. Even though it attributes 'genius', as does
Mr Girvan, to the author, it cannot admit that the monsters are
anything but a sad mistake.
Samo dva zmaja u sjevernjačkim književnostima tog doba.

---1. In northern literature there are only two that are ~

nificant. If we omit from consideration the vast and vague Encircler
of the World, Miogarosormr, the doom of the great gods and no
matter for heroes, we have but the dragon of the Volsungs, Fafnir,
and Beowulf's bane. It is true that both of these are in Beowulf, one
in the main story, and the other spoken of by a minstrel praising
Beowulf himself. But this is not a wilderness of dragons. Indeed the
allusion to the more reno d worm killed by the Wcelsing is sufficient
indication that the poet selected a dragon of well-founded
purpose (or saw its signi cance in the plot as it had reached him),
even as he was careful to compare his hero, Beowulf son of Ecgtheow,
to the prince of the heroes of the North, the dragon-slaying
Wcelsing. ~steemed dragons, as rare as they are dire, as some do
still. He lig them-as a poet, not as a sober zoologist; and he had
good reason.

---2. As for the dragon: as far as we know anything about these

old poets, we know this: the prince of the heroes of the North,
supremely memorable-hans nafn mun uppi medan veroldin
stendr3-was a dragon-slayer. And his most renowned deed, from
which in Norse he derived his title Fafnisbani, was the slaying of the
prince of legendary worms. Although there is plainly considerable
difference between the later Norse and the ancient English form of
the story alluded to in Beowulf, already there it had these two primary
features: the dragon, and the slaying of him as the chief deed of the
greatest of heroes-he wres wreccena wide mrerost. 4 A dragon is no
idle fancy. Whatever may be his origins, in fact or invention, the
dragon in legend is a potent creation of men's i~agination,richerIn
significance than his barrow is in gold.

(dragon in beowulf is as much a plot device as a symbol of MALICE GREED DESTRUCTION)

Beowulf's dragon, if one wishes really to criticize, is not to be
blamed for being a dragon, but rather for not being dragon enoug!l,
plain pure fairy-story dragon. There are in the poem some vivid
touches of the right kind-as Pa se -wynn onwoc, wroht wees geniwad;
. ~ ~ stone refter stane, 22856-in which this dragon is real worm, with a
~ bestial life and thought of his own, but the conception, none the less, approaches draconitas rather than
draco: a personification of malice, greed, destruction (the evil side of heroic life), and of the undiscriminating
cruelty of fortune that distinguishes not good or
, bad (the evil aspect of all life).

NECESSITY OF MONSTERS
I would suggest, then, that the monsters are not an inexpljcabJ~
blunder of taste; the are essential, fundamentally allied to the\it.J
underlYIng ideas· of the poem, which give it its 0 tone an . h
serIousness.

--TRANZICIJA ČUDOVIŠTA S JEDNE GRUPE BOGOVA NA DRUGU—TJ, NA Boga

--TIME, ONCE AGAIN

The monsters had been the foes of the gods, captains of men,
and within Time the monsters would win. In the heroic siege and
last defeat men and gods alike had been imagined in the same host.
Now the heroic figures, the men of old, hreleo under heofenum,
remained and still fought on until defeat. For the monsters do not
depart, whether the gods go or come. A Christian was (and is) still
like his forefathers a mortal hemmed in a hostile world. The monsters
remaIned the enemIes of mankind, the infantry of the old war,
and became inevitably the enemies of the one God, ece Dryhten, the
eternal Captain of the new.
…………………………
man, each man and all men, and all their works shall
die

18. GRENDEL

RUTH-3 (physical appearance)

Grendel's physical appearance is not described, but the reader can conclude
that he is both tall and strong. In line 721 he is able to rip open a
door that is bound fast with iron. He has no difficulty killing and eating
a man. He is able to fit inside the hall with ease, and move about, but
the king's hall probably has a high ceiling. Grendel may be twice as big
as a normal man, perhaps ten to twelve feet tall. We know that he has
claws, as he is able to slit a man open, but these claws could be fingernails
that are longer and stronger than usual. We know that much later
in the poem, Beowulf is able to carry Grendel's head by the hair, so we
can picture hair long enough to serve as a good handle. Apart from these
details, we know nothing more about Grendel's appearance. Lines 795-
…
In the end, what kind of monster is Grendel? He has attributes of three
different kinds, and without more description, no one can tell exactly what
he was. Like a troll, he is large and lives in the wilderness, but he is also
somewhat man-like. Like water monsters, he lives in a swampy lake. Like
a ghost, he must have his head cut off. Perhaps the audience of the poem
was willing to enlist all three kinds of creatures in their mental image of
this fierce, evil monster.

(titles)
Grendel is called by other titles. He is referred
to as the "bold demon," the "fiend from Hell," the "grim spirit," but also
the "miserable man" (86—105). He is the "unholy creature," the "great
ravager," and the "foe of mankind" (120—164). His titles tend to describe
his murderous streak (like "evil marauder" [712]) or his moral evil (like
"Shepherd of sins" [750] or "God's adversary" [786]). But the title most
often used is the simplest: he is "asglaeca," meaning the awesome one.

19. Wyrd

The narrator suggests a deep faith in God in this passage. Both Beowulf
and the narrator's voice state that God rules over all and will give the victory
as he wishes. …………….RUTH-4
RUTH-6
Recall the youthful Beowulf's words (572—573) as he
told about his contest with Breca: "Wyrd [Fate] often spares an undoomed
man, when his courage endures!" Gourage alone is not enough, but
without it, doom is sure. Even with courage, sometimes Fate will bring
about a man's death, because it is his time to die.
 READING BEOWULF (HEANEY) NOTES

The fortunes of war favoured Hrothgar.

Friends and kinsmen flocked to his ranks,
young followers, a force that grew
to be a mighty army.

- Mighty army which couldn't provide 30 men to kill Grendel

So his mind turned

to hall-building: he handed down orders
for men to work on a great mead-hall
meant to be a wonder of the world forever;

- Pride. Acting God, therefore God's punishment? If you can act God, can you get rid of
monsters like He did/does? Perhaps fine with the Anglo-Saxons, but a good Christian
king should not dedicate the rest of his days to partying—go and do something useful!?

Then a powerful demon, a prowler through the dark,

nursed a hard grievance. It harrowed him
to hear the din of the loud banquet
every day in the hall, the harp being struck
and the clear song of a skilled poet
telling with mastery of man's beginnings,
how the Almighty had made the earth
a gleaming plain girdled with waters;
in His splendour He set the sun and the moon
to be earth's lamplight, lanterns for men,
and filled the broad lap of the world
with branches and leaves; and quickened life
in every other thing that moved.

- Grendel. The song of Creation.

So times were pleasant for the people there

until finally one, a fiend out of hell,
began to work his evil in the world.
Grendel was the name of this grim demon
haunting the marches, marauding round the heath
and the desolate fens; he had dwelt for a time
in misery among the banished monsters,
Cain's clan, whom the Creator had outlawed
and condemned as outcasts. For the killing of Abel
the Eternal Lord had exacted a price:
Cain got no good from committing that murder
because the Almighty made him anathema
and out of the curse of his exile there sprang
ogres and elves and evil phantoms
and the giants too who strove with God
time and again until He gave them their reward.

- Grendel's relation to Cain. Description. Offspring…

Suddenly then
the God-cursed brute was creating havoc:
greedy and grim, he grabbed thirty men
from their resting places and rushed to his lair,
flushed up and inflamed from the raid,
blundering back with the butchered corpses.

- 30 men! But even if they were drunk and „insensible,“ it only tells us more about the
famous Danes!

Their mighty prince,

the storied leader, sat stricken and helpless,

- Hrothgar helpless, incompetent.

Sometimes at pagan shrines they vowed

offerings to idols, swore oaths
that the killer of souls might come to their aid
and save the people. That was their way,
their heathenish hope; deep in their hearts
they remembered hell. The Almighty Judge
of good deeds and bad, the Lord God,
Head of the Heavens and High King of the World,
was unknown to them. Oh, cursed is he
who in time of trouble has to thrust his soul
in the fire's embrace, forfeiting help;

- Pagans.

"It bothers me to have to burden anyone

with all the grief Grendel has caused
and the havoc he has wreaked upon us in Heorot,
our humiliations. My household-guard
are on the wane, fate sweeps them away
into Grendel's clutchesbut
God can easily
halt these raids and harrowing attacks!

- God can stop the attacks—but does He want to?

You killed your own kith and kin,

so for all your cleverness and quick tongue,
you will suffer damnation in the depths of hell.

- Unferth the kin-slayer. (How does this reflect on Hrothgar?!)

He knows he can trample down you Danes

to his heart's content, humiliate and murder
without fear of reprisal. But he will find me different.

- Unferth as a spokesperson to all Danes.

Then out of the night

came the shadow-stalker, stealthy and swift;
…
The bane of the race of men roamed forth,
hunting for a prey in the high hall.
Under the cloud-murk he moved towards it
until it shone above him, a sheer keep
of fortified gold. Nor was that the first time
he had scouted the grounds of Hrothgar's dwellingalthough
never in his life, before or since,
did he find harder fortune or hall-defenders.
Spurned and joyless, he journeyed on ahead
and arrived at the bawn. The iron-braced door
turned on its hinge when his hands touched it.
Then his rage boiled over, he ripped open
the mouth of the building, maddening for blood,
pacing the length of the patterned floor
with his loathsome tread, while a baleful light,
flame more than light, flared from his eyes.
He saw many men in the mansion, sleeping,
a ranked company of kinsmen and warriors
quartered together. And his glee was demonic,
picturing the mayhem: before morning
he would rip life from limb and devour them,
feed on their flesh; but his fate that night
was due to change, his days of ravening
had come to an end.

- Coming of Grendel. (Flesh and blood.)

The captain of evil discovered himself

in a handgrip harder than anything
he had ever encountered in any man
on the face of the earth. Every bone in his body
quailed and recoiled, but he could not escape.
He was desperate to flee to his den and hide
with the devil' s litter, for in all his days
he had never been clamped or cornered like this.

- Beowulf v. Grendel

After his death

Sigemund's glory grew and grew
because of his courage when he killed the dragon,
the guardian of the hoard. Under grey stone
he had dared to enter all by himself
to face the worst without Fitela.
But it came to pass that his sword plunged
right through those radiant scales
and drove into the wall. The dragon died of it.
His daring had given him total possession
of the treasure hoard, his to dispose of
however he liked. He loaded a boat:
Waels's son weighted her hold
with dazzling spoils. The hot dragon melted.
Sigemund's name was known everywhere.
He was utterly valiant and venturesome,
 - Sigemund the dragon-slayer.

the most resplendent

torque of gold I ever heard tell of
anywhere on earth or under heaven.
There was no hoard like it since Hama snatched
the Brosings' neck-chain and bore it away
with its gems and settings to his shining fort,
away from Eormenric' s wiles and hatred,
and thereby ensured his eternal reward.
Hygelac the Geat, grandson of Swerting,
wore this neck-ring on his last raid;
at bay under his banner, he defended the booty,
treasure he had won. Fate swept him away
because of his proud need to provoke
a feud with the Frisians. He fell beneath his shield,
in the same gem-crusted, kingly gear
he had worn when he crossed the frothing wave-vat.
So the dead king fell into Frankish hands.
They took his breast-mail, also his neck-torque,
and punier warriors plundered the slain
when the carnage ended; Geat corpses
covered the field.
Applause filled the hall.

- Juxtaposition and contrast to present the poet's view of life and death: there is no
creation without destruction, and death is always inevitable. (See: building of Heorot.)

Then it became clear,

obvious to everyone once the fight was over,
that an avenger lurked and was still alive,
grimly biding time. Grendel's mother,
monstrous hell-bride, brooded on her wrongs.
She had been forced down into fearful waters,
the cold depths, after Cain had killed
his father's son, felled his own
brother with a sword. Branded an outlaw,
marked by having murdered, he moved into the wilds,
shunned company and joy.
…
But now his mother
had sallied forth on a savage journey,
grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge.

- Description of Mummy. Avanger!!! There is the difference between her and Grendel:
she is more human—she kills to avenge and satisfy her anger and sorrow.

The hell-dam was in panic, desperate to get out,

in mortal terror the moment she was found.
She had pounced and taken one of the retainers
in a tight hold, then headed for the fen.
To Hrothgar, this man was the most beloved
of the friends he trusted between the two seas.
She had done away with a great warrior,
ambushed him at rest.
…
she has taken up the feud
because of last night, when y ou killed Grendel,
wrestled and racked him in ruinous combat
since for too long he had terrorized us
with his depredations. He died in battle,
paid with his life; and now this powerful
other one arrives, this force for evil
driven to avenge her kinsman's death.

- An arm for an arm (Handscioh). Feud.

A few miles from here

a frost-stiffened wood waits and keeps watch
above a mere; the overhanging bank
is a maze of tree-roots mirrored in its surface.
At night there, something uncanny happens:
the water bums.

- The monster mere. Imagery of Doomsday: water and fire.

Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, spoke:

"Wise sir, do not grieve. It is always better
to avenge dear ones than to indulge in mourning.

- Subtlety and shiftiness of the Beowulf-poet—what does the Christian poet really think of
these rather Pagan and inhumane ways? (Feud and vengeance.)

And another item lent by Unferth

at that moment of need was of no small importance:
the brehon handed him a hilted weapon,
a rare and ancient sword named Hrunting.
The iron blade with its ill-boding patterns
had been tempered in blood. It had never failed
the hand of anyone who hefted it in battle,
anyone who had fought and faced the worst
in the gap of danger. This was not the first time
it had been called to perform heroic feats.
When he lent that blade to the better swordsman,
Unferth, the strong-built son of Ecglaf,

- Shiftiness of the poet!!! (Plus his view of treasure from the end of the poem.)

now she would avenge

her only child

- Grendel is Mummy's only child.

Then he saw a blade that boded well,

a sword in her armoury, an ancient heirloom
from the days of the giants

- Remember Cham.
Beowulf in his fury
now settled that score: he saw the monster
in his resting place, war-weary and wrecked,
a lifeless corpse, a casualty
of the battle in Heorot. The body gaped
at the stroke dealt to it after death:
Beowulf cut the corpse's head off.
…
Meanwhile, the sword
began to wilt into gory icicles,
to slather and thaw. It was a wonderful thing,
the way it all melted as ice melts
when the Father eases the fetters off the frost
and unravels the water-ropes. He who wields power
over time and tide: He is the true Lord.

- The ancient sword melts.

its blade had melted

and the scrollwork on it burnt, so scalding was the blood
of the poisonous fiend who had perished there.

- Fiend, singular. Mummy is much less important or threatening than Sonny. (Plus, it is
his head displayed again at Heorot; her body left entirely in the lake.)

It was a task for four

to hoist Grendel's head on a spear
and bear it under strain to the bright hall.

- How huge is Grendel?

Heremod was different,

the way he behaved to Ecgwala' s sons.
His rise in the world brought little joy
to the Danish people, only death and destruction.
He vented his rage on men he caroused with,
killed his own comrades, a pariah king
who cut himself off from his own kind,
even though Almighty God had made him
eminent and powerful and marked him from the start
for a happy life. But a change happened,
he grew bloodthirsty, gave no more rings
to honour the Danes. He suffered in the end
for having plagued his people for so long:
his life lost happiness.

- Heremod contrasted to Beowulf. Remember the textbook wanna-be theory and how it
affected Beowulf as a hero and king in the end.

"O flower of warriors, beware of that trap.

Choose, dear Beowulf, the better part,
eternal rewards. Do not give way to pride.
For a brief while your strength is in bloom
but it fades quickly; and soon there will follow
illness or the sword to lay you low,
or a sudden fire or surge of water
or jabbing blade or javelin from the air
or repellent age. Your piercing eye
will dim and darken; and death will arrive,
dear warrior, to sweep you away.

- A strong foreshadowing of Beowulf’s future. DO NOT GIVE WAY TO PRIDE, and yet
he does—he takes pride in his past heroic deeds; he himself built a Heorot equivalent;
almost dead, he does not gaze at his people but gold. “Strength is in bloom but it fades
quickly; (…) Or sudden fire—”

afterwards
the wide kingdom
reverted to Beowulf. He ruled it well
for fifty winters, grew old and wise
as warden of the land
until one began
to dominate the dark, a dragon on the prowl
from the steep vaults of a stone-roofed barrow
where he guarded a hoard; there was a hidden passage,
unknown to men, but someone managed
to enter by it and interfere
with the heathen trove. He had handled and removed
a gem-studded goblet; it gained him nothing,
though with a thief's wiles he had outwitted
the sleeping dragon; that drove him into rage,
as the people of that country would soon discover.

- Dragon awakens.

long ago, with deliberate care,

somebody now forgotten
had buried the riches of a high-born race
in this ancient cache. Death had come
and taken them all in times gone by
and the only one left to tell their tale,
the last of their line, could look forward to nothing
but the same fate for himself: he foresaw that his joy
in the treasure would be brief.

- Again, foreshadowing. Geats are about to become extinct like this forgotten race, and
Beowulf will enjoy the treasure briefly only like the last man.

Then an old harrower of the dark

happened to find the hoard open,
the burning one who hunts out barrows,
the slick-skinned dragon, threatening the night sky
with streamers of fire. People on the farms
are in dread of him. He is driven to hunt out
hoards under ground, to guard heathen gold
through age-long vigils, though to little avail.

- Unlike the two previous monsters, the dragon is purely animalistic, built on instinct only,
natural yet symbolic, elemental. There is nothing human about the dragon.
So may a man not marked by fate
easily escape exile and woe
by the grace of God.

- Will of God, maybe?

The hoard-guardian
scorched the ground as he scoured and hunted
for the trespasser who had troubled his sleep.
Hot and savage, he kept circling and circling
the outside of the mound. No man appeared
in that desert waste, but he worked himself up
by imagining battle; then back in he'd go
in search of the cup, only to discover
signs that someone had stumbled upon
the golden treasures. So the guardian of the mound,
the hoard-watcher, waited for the gloaming
with fierce impatience; his pent-up fury
at the loss of the vessel made him long to hit back
and lash out in flames. Then, to his delight,
the day waned and he could wait no longer
behind the wall, but hurtled forth
in a fiery blaze. The first to suffer
were the people on the land, but before long
it was their treasure-giver who would come to grief.

- A bad picture of treasure and gold—sympathetic critique of Germanic values and

Beowulf himself? Plus, treasure is ought to be dispensed, not hoarded. ALSO, the dragon
serves as a plot device as well—Beowulf CLEARLY has to die, but how? Surely not by
something with a human characteristic—he is above human himself.

Yet the prince of the rings was too proud

to line up with a large army
against the sky-plague. He had sca nt regard
for the dragon as a threat, no dread at all
of its courage or strength, for he had kept going
often in the pa st, through perils and ordeals
of every sort, after he had purged
Hrothgar' s hall, triumphed in Heorot
and beaten Grendel. He outgrappled the monster
and his evil kin.

- Beowulf’s PRIDE. Also, he is clearly a hero material only.

Now I am old,
but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight
for the glory of winning, if the evil one will only
abandon his earth-fort and face me in the open."

- No true protector of his people. Proud. Does things for fame, the “glory of winning,” not
to save the Geats.

"Men at arms, remain here on the barrow,

safe in your armour, to see which one of us
is better in the end at bearing wounds
in a deadly fray. This fight is not yours,
nor is it up to any man except me
to measure his strength against the monster
or to prove his worth. I shall win the gold
by my courage,

- Stupid in his pride and heroism. Selfish. Insensible. Gold-hoarder himself in a way.

Then he gave a shout. The lord of the Geats

unburdened his breast and broke out
in a storm of anger. Under grey stone
his voice challenged and resounded clearly.
Hate was ignited. The hoard-guard recognized
a human voice, the time was over
for peace and parleying.

- Dragon agitated by human voice, while Grendel is agitated by humanety in the voice of
humans.

He picked us out
from the army deliberately, honoured us and judged us
fit for this action, made me these lavish gifts-
and all because he considered us the best
of his arms-bearing thanes

- If they are hand-picked, the best of the warriors, what are the others like?! How should
they ever defend themselves?

Away you go: I want to examine

that ancient gold, gaze my fill
on those garnered jewels; my going will be easier
for having seen the treasure, a less troubled letting-go
of the life and lordship I have long maintained."

- Wrong values!? How is giving away treasure to his undeserving thanes more important
than teaching them how to survive, for example? Christian critique?

Never again would he glitter and glide

and show himself off in midnight air,
exulting in his riches: he fell to earth
through the battle-strength in Beowulf's arm.

- Perhaps the defeat of Beowulf, the Geats later, and the dragon is the defeat of
Christianity over paganism?