Gilgamesh, Prologue and Book 1

Even mostly avoiding the sketchy bits, you had a good discussion of the opening of Gilgamesh. The point I wanted to make about Shamhat and Enkidu is how she civilizes the beastly Enkidu with her “love-arts.” He “could not longer run/like an animal, as he had before….he knew that his mind had somehow grown larger,/he knew things now that an animal can’t know” (79). In our culture, this power given to female sexuality makes us very uncomfortable, so I can understand your reluctance to discuss this scene, especially with me, but it is an important aspect of the epic that reveals a profound cultural difference between the ancient Sumerians who wrote the story and modern Americans who create stories in which female sexuality is seen as the source of evil and as emasculating. Consider the character of Grendel’s mother in the movie version of Beowulf.

When considering the passage quoted above, also consider the way that humans and animals are distinguished from one another. Though, as you pointed out, even the greatest of humans, Gilgamesh, has animal traits. A number of times, Gilgamesh is compared to a “wild bull,” which you noted is a violent animal with uncontrollable strength. As king, Gilgamesh is “a wild bull of a man,” suggesting his great power but also that his power is not always under control (71). Even those who care for the wild bull can get trampled, as Gilgamesh tramples his people, if they get too close.

Beowulf, the end

I must commend you for the comfortable pattern you have fallen into regarding class discussions. Though the beginning of class is usually chaotic, it is not unproductive, as we work through vocabulary words. (Look for the return of grammar in January, too). Though, given the trend in vocabulary quizzes, must wonder if we need to do something differently. At any rate, once you settle down and focus on the book, you focus on the book. I don’t know whether Beowulf requires more attention than The Odyssey or whether you are merely becoming more adept at literary analysis and discussion, but whatever the reason, I am pleased. Today was no exception.

The idea of cycles again rose to the fore today, which is not surprising because, as you mentioned, the poem ends with Beowulf’s funeral as it began with Shield Sheafson’s. Also, again a kingdom finds itself without adequate protection. As Hrothgar’s age and complacency seemed to inspire the violence of Grendel against the Danes, Beowulf’s death leaves Geatland open to attack from enemies that seem already massing on the borders. A Geat woman, “sang out in grief,/with hair bound up, she unburdened herself/of her worst fears, a wild litany/of nightmare and lament: her nation invaded,/enemies on the rampage, bodies in piles,/slavery and abasement” (3150-55). Though given time I could write more about this amazing passage, I merely want to reiterate that the cycle of peace ending violence and peace giving away to violence is repeated. The one difference is the violence here is entirely human.

Your most interesting debate today was whether as a king Beowulf became more corrupt or more mature. You noted that before the battle, his pledge to win the dragon’s gold “’by [his] courage’” makes no mention of God, which is a change from his boast about his fight with Grendel (2537). You also noted that he later says that he hopes that God will recognize that he “’stood by things in [his] keeping’” (2737). A number of you interpreted this focus on gold and things as signs of Beowulf’s corruption, symbolized by the snapping of his sword in his battle with the dragon. As Beowulf grew older, you argued, he became more concerned with the material world and forsook his God.

Others of you, however, argued that the “things” in Beowulf’s keeping referred not to material objects but responsibilities like the protection of his people. You noted that after being wounded, Beowulf gives praise to God: “’To the everlasting Lord of All,/to the King of Glory, I give thanks” (2794-5). You argued that Beowulf remained steadfast in his service to his God. However, you did not address the issue that God seems to forsake Beowulf in this battle. One way to reconcile the two sides of this debate is to see the corruption represented as not moral but physical. Beowulf is old. His body is corrupted by age and, like his sword, it snaps in battle.

Lastly, for those of you are interested, I made “Wiglaf” by Marisa de los Santos available in Moodle.

Beowulf (1887-2390)

I don’t have much time to reflect on another good discussion that began with the juxtaposition of the role of a queen to the role of the king. The queen “should weave peace” (1942). The king should spend his time “dispensing rings” (1970). Though you didn’t explicitly compare these two roles (perhaps the subject of a future conversation?) you did note the queen’s role as weaver associates her with the same distaff work Penelope did in The Odyssey. You spent more time considering the symbolism of rings. The dispensing activity symbolizes the king’s generosity. The acceptance of such a gift signals the vassal’s loyalty. Rings are also round, and are suitable symbols of the cyclical nature of power in the poem. As circles, rings symbolize eternal unity and permanence. One can never come to the end of a circle. I also liked your notice of the kenning “sky-plague,” which describes the dragon. He spreads havoc like a plague, consuming whole villages. His association with fire also connects him with evil out of hell. I wish you had spent more time following the nuances of this metaphor. Similarly, I wish you would have looked more carefully at the dragon’s lair and the circumstances that wake him up. I am out of time and so will hope to hear more on Monday.

Beowulf (836-1320)

Aside from the explosive digression into religion, you had another good conversation this morning. Much of the discussion centered on the conflict between paganism and Christianity in the poem. This continues the discussion from previous days, so I am not going to detail today’s class. I do wish to say, however, that you are very good at identifying and arguing for the thematic to various lines through out the poem.

I would like to see you go more deeply into the language, into the allusion, and into characterization, though. For example, Hrunting, Unferth’s sword reveals some interesting things about him. You made the interesting observation that Unferth’s human made sword was ineffective against Grendel’s mother, and that it took a giant made sword to kill her. That the sword from pre-Christian times succeeds where the sword from the Christian era fails suggests something interesting. Looking at the details about the swords might have revealed something more about the monsters and about Unferth. Indeed, my observation that the sword was fashioned by semi-divine creatures called Nephilim, who were a source of evil in the world, was an attempt (disastrous) to model how you can pursue the nuances of allusions.

I appreciated your recognition of how powerful the poet’s description of the death of one of the monsters in the mere: “a strange lake-birth, a loathsome catch” (1440). I would have liked you to take on the kenning, “lake-birth” used in the context of describing a death. The poetry is truly elegant here. Don’t forget to look at kennings and other figures of speech.

You engaged in some of this analysis today. For instance, you noted how “the water burns” upon the lake, representing the unnatural evil residing therein, but you did not go on to explain how the fire represents evil. Also, Natalie made a good connection to one of the themes in the move, making me glad that I took you to see it, noting that the evil monsters are “fatherless creatures,” suggesting that as did the moviemakers, the poet roots the evil in the world in something female, or at least not male. You did well to see that fatherless may mean literally born to and raised only by a mother, but also without relationship to a fatherly god.

Also, kudos for the connection between Hrothgar and Grendel through the word “harrow” and for noticing that the slaying of Grendel is described from Beowulf’s point-of-view, while the fight with Grendel’s mother was from her point-of-view.

Beowulf (836-1320)

Though saying Beowulf is Jesus may be a bit farfetched, the ascendancy of Christianity is clear in Beowulf’s victory over Grendel as your analysis of last night’s reading shows. The poet credits the Christian God with making Beowulf victorious. Beowulf defeats Grendel “with the Lord’s assistance” (939). The “wondrous gifts” showered upon Beowulf give the strength by which “he overcame the foe” (1271). Clearly, God is given credit for this victory over a descendent of Cain’s clan.

Interestingly, you connected Grendel to Unferth through Cain. Grendel descends from Cain, whom God doomed to wander the earth marked as an outcast for killing his brother Abel. Unferth, who is “sick with envy” of Beowulf, also killed his brother (503). I’m intrigued by the connection you drew between Unferth, Cain, and Grendel. Cain and Grendel, whom you see as representative of pagan evil, are outcasts. Unferth, however, has not been cast out of his community for killing his kin. You suggested that by not exiling Unferth, who is connected to the worst of pagan acts, Hrothgar allows paganism to remain in his court. I’m not sure how much I agree with the point, but I am intrigued and will have to think further on it.

Some points of clarification: Wealhtheow pledges her faith in Hrothulf when she tells Hrothgar, “He will not let you down…and will use the young ones well” (1181-2). She is worried about Hrothgar’s adoption of Beowulf as a son. She worries that Beowulf will claim the throne from her sons should Hrothgar die before they are old enough to defend themselves, and she gets Beowulf to swear to leaving Heorot. Also, after Beowulf’s victory over Grendel, the scop, or bard, sings of two legendary figures, Sigemund and Heremod. Sigemund is meant as a flattering analog to Beowulf. Heremod is meant as a contrast and as a warning of how power can corrupt.

As I look back at my notes from today’s discussion and examine the line numbers you cited, I find that they come from the beginning of the poem to the section you read last night. The connections you made across so many lines of poetry are truly impressive. Well done!

Beowulf (320-835)

Life has been busy, so I have not had a chance to reflect on last Friday’s discussion about Beowulf in the blog until now. I feel especially bad about this delay because the conversation on Friday was interesting and extensive. I can only hope that my notes can help me recall sufficiently what you said. In general, you noted three main themes: the conflict between paganism and Christianity, Grendel’s violence, and the role of fate.

You noted that Grendel descends from Cain and that the pagan gods of the Shield Danes are ineffective in eradicating his evil. In contrast, the poet argues, “but God can easily/halt these raids and harrowing attacks” (478-9). You noted that the poet places faith in God’s superiority over the pagan gods because God can end the attacks. The instrument of God is Beowulf, described as “prince of goodness” (677). Beowulf also pledges to fight Grendel without a weapon, trusting that “the Divine Lord/in his wisdom” will “grant glory of victory/to which ever side He sees fit” (687-9). Beowulf’s faith in God places him in opposition to Grendel’s evil.

As Grendel approaches Heorot, the poet describes him as “spurned and joyless” (720). Because of the mark of Cain, Grendel is ostracized from human society. When he hears the celebrations at Heorot, he grows angry. The poet tells us that Grendel’s “glee was demonic, picturing the mayhem” (730). Indeed it is devilish to find glee or enjoyment in the violence of killing and devouring men. However, even more chilling is that Grendel has not yet reached Heorot. He imagines the pain and suffering that he will shortly cause, making the violence premeditated and decidedly human.

Grendel does not imagine the fate that awaits him, thought he poet does, and he gives god power over that fate and has Beowulf accept the fate. He tells that “the Lord was weaving/a victory” for Beowulf (696-7). As the threads of fate are spun and cut by the gods in Greek mythology, God determines the fate of Beowulf and Grendel. Furthermore, like Christ at the Last Supper, Beowulf “accepted the cup” of his fate (626).

You also made much of Beowulf’s boastfulness. You seemed to dislike Beowulf for talking so big. However, the poet tells us that Beowulf issues a “formal boast” (639). When something is formal, like the dance this Saturday, it follows established conventions and rules. The Danes expect Beowulf to boast of what he will do. If he did not, he would have broken protocol, sinned against the social conventions, like showing up to a formal dance in a tattered jean skirt.

Beowulf (1-319)

Your first discussion of Beowulf started off very well. You totally lost focus by the end of class, though. In future discussions, try better to stay on task. I know the snow today was a bit of a distraction, but to understand Beowulf to the fullest extent possible, you must pay attention to the text the way you did in the first part of the class.

You immediately noted the complicated relationship between paganism and Christianity in the poem. You noted that according to the poet, “the Head of Heavens…was unknown to” the shield Danes (182-3). Head of Heavens obviously refers to the Christian God, though you did not analyze the interesting epithet. You did note, however, that the Danes do not have a relationship with this god. Indeed, when Grendel attacks, the Danes, “Sometimes at pagan shrines they vowed/offering idols” (176-7). The poet goes on to make clear, however, the “heathenish hope” the Danes derive from these pagan practices remains unfulfilled (179). He even argues that the idol worshipers are “cursed,” while those who have a relationship with the Christian god are “blessed” (183, 186).

Enter, Beowulf, who, along with his Geat companions, “thanked God” when he arrives safely from his journey (227). You shrewdly noted that Christianity is associated with the force of change and good in the epic, while paganism is part of an ineffectual past.

One way you reached this conclusion was to not Grendel’s origin as one of “Cain’s clan” (106). You did not go nearly far enough into this allusion to understand the full significance of Grendel’s parentage. Cain commits the first murder, according to Genesis. He angrily kills his brother, Abel, because he envies God’s blessing of Abel’s work. God punishes Cain by banishing him to wander the earth, “marked” as a murderer. More remains to be said. The ambitious among you with a little bit of extra time will read Chapter 4 of Genesis.

You also noted that “Grendel waged his lonely war” against Hrothgar, but really did not delve into the passage, nor did you look very carefully for the motivation of Grendel’s violence. It is at once horrifying and heartbreaking.