Beowulf is an Old English (Anglo Saxon) heroic epic poem. It is approximately 3,200 lines in length, which is very long in comparison to other poems of the time. Beowulf (which is not its real name, since the original manuscript was untitled) was probably written during the first half of the eighth century, as is estimated on linguistic grounds. On the other hand it might have been composed somewhere around the year 1000. The original manuscript has been dated to this time.

To describe the summary shortly, Beowulf is the name of a hero of a Germanic tribe from the south of Sweden (called the Geats). He travels to Denmark to help defeat a monster named Grendel. Beowulf later returns to Geatland, where he becomes king. Finally, when he is old he kills another dragon, but is mortally wounded in the process and eventually dies.

Since absolutely nothing is known about the poem’s original author, scholars think that maybe all three main battles (with Grendel, his mother, and the dragon) might have been composed by three different poets and later combined by others who also added in the “digressive” narratives: the fight between the Danes and Frisians, the minstrel’s song about Sigmund…

What I’m interested in researching most is whether or not Beowulf is a truly Christian poem (since it was written in a Christian Britain), or perhaps if it is more pagan. As has been noticed by earlier researchers, Beowulf was definitely composed by an anonymous Christian, but he doesn’t ever mention the name “Jesus Christ” and the only biblical references are from the Old Testament. Some scholars argue that maybe all the Christian elements were inserted some time later, perhaps by the scribes copying the manuscript. So, I agree that Beowulf is not really entirely a Christian poem and that it is suffused throughout with nostalgia for a heroic and pagan past. The author, perhaps a monk, found much to admire in the pagan cultural tradition, which were, after all, his roots, inherited from ancient Germania. In this admiration we can see how the author tried to find pagan things that would somehow correlate with Christian beliefs, or at least not directly clash with them. He is not biased and tries to tell the truth. I personally found many places in the poem where the author seems to respect many aspects of pagan life, such as this wise quote: “it is better for every man to avenge his friend than to mourn much.” By the way, I think the character of the poem The Wanderer would have been better off with this sort of attitude…

The most tell-tale sign of the poem’s “paganism” is the glorification of warlike courage as a virtue. Beowulf does not fight the dragon Grendel solely for saving his fellow men, but because he yearns for eternal fame, to be immortal in the minds of men. As the Norse say “only one thing never dies: the fame of a dead man’s deeds.” Beowulf’s main goal is clearly the wish to become the prime Germanic hero. The spoils of his battles are given away to his friends not out of generosity and the goodness of his heart, but rather out of want to show his fellows his largess at bestowing gifts. Although this is not necessarily greed or pride, it is obviously not the same as the Christian virtue of charity.

Even the monsters of the tale aren’t portrayed as demons. Although Grendel and his mother are stated as descendents of the Christian biblical character Cain (“Caines Cynne” – “Cain’s clan” l. 107), they are not described as being enemies of Christ. It is actually unusual that Grendel, as the monster of the tale, actually has a real name, rather then simply being calling “monster,” as the dragon that Beowulf later killed was simply called “wyrm.” Grendel is actually thought to come from Old English grund, meaning “ground, bottom, depth” which clearly points to the murky waters of a deep pool where Grendel and his mother live. Maybe Grendel was simply a water-troll, a character commonly found in Scandinavian myths.

Another thing, C.W. Kennedy wondered, as I do, if Beowulf originated in pagan Scandinavian folkloric traditions (perhaps even some long-lost saga?). In fact, all the events of Beowulf take place in Scandinavia (all the characters are either Swedes or Danes, or members of other tribes.) So it puzzles me why the poem is considered as “England’s national epic” if it mostly deals with Scandinavian matters. Perhaps, as I think, even the author himself was of Scandinavian descent. I personally think the poems total “norseness” is best shown in the name of the hero himself: Beowulf. As J.R.R. Tolkien noted, the name Beowulf almost certainly means “bee-hunter” in Old English. The name Beowulf could therefore be a kenning for “bear” due to a bear’s love of honey. I myself think “bear” associates with “berserker – bear shirt”. Since he was such a great, unstoppable, inhumanely strong and powerful warrior, perhaps the author gave him this name to show that he was a berserker. In fact, I think that Beowulf as a whole is probably a retelling of some early saga, similar to something like Grettissaga about Grettir the Strong, a character that bears strong resemblance to Beowulf.

So, I think that Beowulf is not an original poem or that it is in any way Anglo Saxon. My personal opinion is that it is a interpretation of some earlier Norse saga written and re-written by countless generations of scribes, till it reached its final version and which has been so changed from the original legend that we can no longer associate it with any one saga.

The poem begins with a retelling of the story of the Danish warrior-king Scyld-Scefing (Shield Sheafson), the “scourge of many tribes.” He was the father of Beow. Instead of saying “son,” the kenning “boy child” is used. Shield himself was a foundling, orphan and only became a great leader through his own deeds and accomplishments. After Shield “crossed over into the Lord’s keeping” (died), Beow became ruler. In the description of Shield’s funeral, during which he was laid in a great ship full of treasure and let out to sea, for the first time the narrator personally makes an observation: “I have never heard before of a ship so well furbished….”

Beow was a good ruler of the Danes and his heir was Halfdane, who himself had four children, the best and most successful son being Hrothgar. This man decided to build a great “mead hall, throne room.” Here we first see an ominous warning of the horror to come: “the hall towered, its gables wide and high and awaiting a barbarous burning. The doom abided, but in time it would come.” This was probably meant to prepare the reader for Grendel’s arrival. The next line goes on to say just that: “then a powerful demon, a prowler through the dark nursed a hard grievance.” Supposedly, he hated hearing the great times humans were having in the mead-hall. “Grendel was the name of this grim demon.” Finally Grendel dared to venture from his lair and attack the “ring-Danes,” catching them by surprise just as they were about to fall asleep. First, the “God-cursed brute” killed 30 warriors, and then he continued to kill more and more every night for “twelve winters, seasons of woe.” Hrothgar was devastated and the news of his country’s ill-fate spread far and wide through the sad lays of the minstrels. Grendel himself took over the mead-hall but he didn’t dare touch the king’s throne (“treasure seat”). The narrator says this was because he was “Lord’s outcast,” so the throne was a holy object that could not be touched, like a vampire can’t touch crosses.

Then the narrator goes on to say some scathing remarks about how the Danes, in their desperation turned to their heathen gods for help. The narrator is appalled that in such a time of dire need the Danes don’t turn to the Christian Lord for assistance, but rather continue to damn themselves to the flames of Hell.

Suddenly the story changes location to Geatland, where a mysterious warrior, “the mightiest man on earth”, a thane of Hygelac, learns about Hrothgar’s plight. So, he decides to sail the “swan’s road” and help the desperate king. I really like the lovely description of the sailing ship: “over the waves, with the wind behind her and foam at her neck, she flew like a bird…” This simile was probably used to relate better to the kenning “swan-road,” where a ship is a “bird” sailing over the “road.”

When the battle-party reaches shore, the watchman (coast-guard) is surprised and slightly frightened to see a battle party unload its ship in the open and not seem to be prepared to attack the local land. However, he does notice that the leader of the group is such a “mighty man-at-arms” that there is no doubt he is “truly noble…no mere hanger-on in hero’s armor.” The hero introduces himself, but does not give his own name, only tells of his father and his father’s deeds. He probably denies his name so as the keep the reader in anticipation.

A great deal of the following stanzas are dedicated to describing the richness and majesty of the warrior’s armor and general appearance. Finally they group arrives at Heorot and the great hero introduces himself as Beowulf. Hrothgar, it turns out, knew Beowulf as a child and so he approves of his arrival. Once he is welcomed by the king, Beowulf begins to brag of all his earlier heroic exploits in order to prove that he is truly a match for Grendel. To show off his battle prowess even more, Beowulf declares that he will fight Grendel bare-handed, renouncing any weapons. Finally, as if just in case, he reminds everyone that if by any chance he would fail in this endeavor, they should not mourn for Beowulf and send him back home to his king: “fate goes ever as fate must.”

Hrothgar then tells the story of some old friendship. This is the first “digression” of the poem. During the feast later, a young man named Unferth becomes “sick with envy” over Beowulf’s presence. He tries to demean Beowulf by pointing out (in a somewhat Christian manner, i.e. pride and vanity are sins), that Beowulf is nothing but a vain, proud, and boasting fake, who long ago lost a swimming competition with his friend Breca, and this is proof that he is not perfect. Thus, it is almost guaranteed that despite his strength, Beowulf will not be able to better Grendel and will die.

Instead of being insulted, Beowulf politely corrects the story of the swimming competition by telling everyone that he had lost the contest because he was struggling the entire way fighting various animals and eventually killed nine sea-monsters. My favorite kenning of the entire part is probably “sleeping the sleep of the sword” (line 566), which I’ve interpreted as meaning simply “dead,” which is clearly what happened to the “foul things” that attacked Beowulf and Breca during their ordeal in the sea. Beowulf points out that Unferth could never achieve such a great deed, and he should stop his lies, since he and his ilk have for many years suffered under Grendel’s reign of terror and done nothing to stop it. Then, after he receives a cup of mead from Hrothgar’s queen, Beowulf proceeds to state his formal boast. Afterwards all the court leaves the hall and Beowulf with his friends prepare for Grendel. As he promised, Beowulf removes all his armor and renounces any weapons, entrusting his “smith’s masterpiece” to his attendant’s care.

The final and most exciting part of Grendel’s arrival is filled with many kennings: Grendel is called “shadow-stalker,” “shadow-bourne,” “bane of the race of men,” “captain of evil,” “dread of the land,” “terror monger.” He comes under the cover of “cloud-murk” to the “sheer keep of fortified gold.” I really like the part where Grendel feeds on one Geat warrior’s corpse: “bit into his bone-lappings, bolted down his blood, and gorged on him in lumps.” It’s a very descriptive and strong way to describe Grendel’s barbarism. Finally Grendel is subdued, and although Beowulf’s men desperately try to hack at him with their weapons, they do not know that “no blade on earth, no blacksmith’s art could ever damage their demon opponent.” Finally Beowulf rips off Grendel’s entire arm.

First thing I noticed was all the different words to describe simple things. As I mentioned already many times before, the biggest excitement for me while reading this poem is to guess the meanings for every kenning. Some of them are very common and are repeated on nearly every page. For example the Danes are called everything from “spear-Danes” to “ring-Danes.” Kings and lords are called “grey haired treasure-givers,” Beowulf himself at one point is called “prince of goodness.”

The morning after Beowulf defeats Grendel, all the warriors gather round the "gift-hall" gazing at the trail Grendel left as he fled from Heorot. He's left footprints and bloodstains all the way to the pond where the "bloodshot water wallowed and surged." I didn't really understand if Grendel drowned in the water or if he simply reached the bottom and died naturally from blood loss. The poem itself says "with his death upon him, he had dived deep into the marsh-den, drowned out his life and his heathen soul: hell claimed him there." (l. 851) It doesn't really make sense calling Grendel a heathen who will burn in hell, since all the characters are heathens as well. Also, in Christian dogma, isn't there the belief that anything non-human does not have a soul? Even animals don't have souls, so if Grendel is a monster, then why would the narrator bother saying that he is going to hell?

As for Beowulf, he finally becomes the hero of great-renown as he always wanted to be. Hrothgar's minstrel, "a carrier of tales," sings in Beowulf's honor a specially composed ballad and also recalls the story of Siegmund the dragon-slayer, which is similar to Beowulf's achievement, since he's killed Grendel. Beowulf is also contrasted with the King Heremod, who was unable to defend his nation, unlike the Geat hero. These stories are only a few of the "digressions" that occur in the poem.

Hrothgar officially, in a long speech, thanks Beowulf for his heroic deed, and probably enlarges Beowulf's ego even more by confirming that by killing Grendel, he "made himself immortal by your glorious action," (l. 953) just what Beowulf wanted to hear. Hrothgar is so thankful, that he "adopts…in my heart as a dear son" (l. 946) and for the first time a woman is addressed to as being responsible for Beowulf's existence and Hrothgar says that "the Lord of Ages bestowed a grace" on Beowulf's mother. I think that this is unusual, since all the heroes refer to their linage through their father's line and no one seems to appreciate the mother's role in the birth of great men like Beowulf.

Then Beowulf, as I imagine, in a boastful tone, recounts the fight with Grendel, reminding everyone a couple times that Grendel was killed by God's will. He also shows off his trophy: Grendel's "brutal, blood-caked claw." (l. 989) And all the Danes and Geats commence a great victory feast in the newly-restored Heorot, which was nearly destroyed by Grendel and Beowulf as they fought. The great hero (as well as all his loyal thanes) is also presented with numerous gifts: a gold standard, armor, a sword, richly decorated horses, and a helmet.

To entertain the feast guests, the poem again "digresses" into another performance by the scop. This time the minstrel recounts the saga of Finn and his sons, and a battle in Friesland where a Danish king was killed. I think that this saga is told almost as a fable, because at the end, Hrothgar's queen Wealhtheow reminds her husband to not take his "adoption" of Beowulf too seriously. Instead, he should look to his own family and "bequeth kingdom and nation to your kith and kin," not to some foreign warrior like Beowulf. She recommends their nephew Hrothulf for the duty of ruling the kingdom after Hrothgar's death, whenever that may occur, since their own two sons are still too young.

As the Danes and Geats peacefully slumber in Heorot, Grendel's mother waits in her murky lair, seeking revenge for the murder of her son. The narrator then "digresses" by telling us the story of Cain, who was exiled to the desert, along with the "misbegotten spirits" (including Grendel and his mother) who are his kin. Tired of lurking in the night, Grendel's mother, the "hell-bride, hell-dam," attacks Heorot and kills one warrior, Hrothgar's old friend and advisor, and steals back her dead son's arm.

Hrothgar describes for Beowulf the two monsters, Grendel and his mother. He tells of how the country people envision their hellish home of evil, wolf-dens, windswept cliffs, mist and moorland. He entreats Beowulf to take upon the challenge again, to kill Grendel's mother, to seek out and destroy the evil she represents. So Beowulf goes to the "haunted mere" where Grendel's mother lives. He dives into the deep lake where he is instantly attacked by monsters and serpents, although he is able to fight them back, Grendel's mother captures him. He desperately tries to hurt her with his weapons, but nothing seems to harm her, so, in a blind rage (this brings to mind – berserker), Beowulf kills her with a magical sword he sees in her cave. Meanwhile the Danes have left the lake, because they are sure that are sure that Beowulf has perished, but the Geats remain. They are awarded for their faithfulness by a victorious Beowulf emerging from the water with Grendel's severed head and the hilt of the magical sword that killed Grendel's mother.

When he returns to Heorot, Beowulf is told by Hrothgar the story of Heremod, another "digression" from the main plot. Hrothgar has gained wisdom after a lifetime of pursuing peace for his nation people, so he tells Beowulf to do the same one day, and to avoid becoming Hermod, who ruled with hatred, waging war and murdering his comrades. The king continues to give Beowulf worthy advice. For example, a king must be peaceful and not arrogant, yet still remain ready to do battle at any time in order to protect his kingdom. This part seems to me like a Christian sermon warning Beowulf to not become too proud and vain and then become a tyrannical ruler.

Finally, Beowulf is able to return back home to Geatland. There he is met by his rejoicing follow countrymen. When they reach their lord Hygelac's hall, the poet "digresses" by telling about Hygelac's wife, Higd, a young but wise, peaceful, and virtuous woman. He contrasts her with Modthryth, a haughty and vicious queen who sentenced unfortunate men to death just for gazing at her beauty. But Modthryth then married Offa who was able to make her into a good woman.

Hygelac asks Beowulf to tell about his adventures while they feast. He does, but interrupts his own story by telling about a proposed marriage between Hrothgar's daughter and a prince, an enemy of the Geats. Beowulf disapproves of the union, but I really don't see what he could know about marriage since he never shows any interest in marrying himself. After this interruption, he resumes his tale. I think Beowulf is immensely proud of his achievement and he would never give up a good chance to boast about his strength, and valor, and victory.

Later, around line 2200, the narrator drastically moves forward in time, skipping nearly fifty years of Beowulf ruling Geatland as king.

In my opinion, it somehow ruined the story to repeat Beowulf's adventures all over again, even if it was in his own words. However, I think this was done because in the century when Beowulf was written, the poem would probably be recited over several consecutive nights (during a long feast, or simply every evening at dinner) and the poet would repeat the story all over again later in the poem so that his audience wouldn't forget Beowulf's deeds.

For the last part of the poem Beowulf, the narrator tells us of the years after Hygelac's death and his son's Heardred's death at the hands of the Shylfings, "ruthless swordsmen, seasoned campaigners," who "cut him down" (l. 2203-2206). Thus, without a king to rule them, the people of Geatland turn to their hero Beowulf. A little before this point the narrator recounted Beowulf's life, clearly, in my opinion, attempting to prove his worthiness. And, I think he succeeded in showing just how great a man Beowulf was, especially when he says "bore himself with valour," "formidable in battle, yet behaved with honour" (l. 2177-78). It's a bit hard to believe that Beowulf was just oh-so-great, because no man can be without vice or flaw, but I guess since Beowulf was sort of a "superhero" of his day, it's possible that all his flaws are being overlooked and only his virtues are extolled. Personally, these few lines made me think of Beowulf as sort of like a Christian Teutonic Knight in later eras, when those men were often described as supposedly pious, celibate, virtuous heroes who loved the poor and wretched.

So, Beowulf is proclaimed king and he rules the Geats for more than "fifty winters", with wisdom and justice. I've always like the way in old stories years are called winters. This is probably because people in those days counted the passing of time by natural occurrences, like the moon's phases or the seasons. This nicely shows just how in tune with nature people were then.

But Beowulf's peaceful reign is disrupted when a dragon, who has been sleeping in a hidden tower, awakes in Geatland. A slave running from a cruel master has accidentally found the entrance of the dragon's lair, sees a hoard of treasure and gold, and flees with a jewel-studded golden cup. The dragon awakes in a fury, knowing exactly what has been stolen.

After the dragon wrecks havoc on Beowulf's kingdom, there is one stanza that really ruins my opinion of Beowulf. It says: "yet the prince of rings was too proud to line up with a large army against the sky plague. He had scant regard for the dragon as a threat, no dread at all of its courage or strength…" (l. 2345-49) It seems that Beowulf doesn't care so much about protecting his people and country, but more so to show that even though he is now old, he still isn't afraid of any monster, and, that after killing Grendel, he is ready for anything, no matter how great or powerful the monster would be. As I see later, this blind pride will be his undoing.

Until Beowulf faces the dragon, there are several pages of what I think could be called digressions. There are some flashbacks that tell more about Beowulf, his rise to power, how he gained kinship. Then, almost like icing on the cake, Beowulf himself can't resist giving one last boast of just how great he is.

When Beowulf fights the dragon, I always wondered if it would have perhaps been wise to lure the dragon out into some open flat plain and then overwhelm him with a large army, instead of trying to face him alone with a small band of not-so-loyal warriors. Honestly, it could almost be called sheer luck that Wiglaf happened to be a loyal man of Beowulf's and that he was willing to risk his life to protect his lord after Beowulf's sword fails. As if Wiglaf's loyalty to Beowulf weren't enough to make him a great man, the narrator decides to slightly digress by saying that Wiglaf's father was a great and brave man, so it could only be natural that his son followed in his footsteps.

When Beowulf is eventually mortally wounded and the dragon itself is finally killed, Beowulf asks to see the dragon's treasure almost as if he wants to see for the last time what his legacy to his people will be. But, in the end, the treasure is buried again. This reminds me slightly of the idea of "cursed gold," kind of like in the Volsung Saga, where anyone who owned Fafnir's treasure was doomed. Maybe Beowulf also felt that by giving his people the treasure he would doom them by making them greedy, then they would weaken through internal strife, and finally would be attacked by invaders greedy for the gold. So, he decides that it would be best to leave the gold alone.

I think that when Beowulf's unloyal and cowardly warriors ran away during the battle with the dragon, they doomed their people twice. First by leaving their king and letting him die, second, by showing their enemies that the warriors of Geatland are cowards and probably easy to conquer without the leadership of their heroic king. Wiglaf tells them this and prophecies Geatland's dim future.

Finally I think the poem nicely connects into a circle by telling of Beowulf's funeral in the end while in the beginning there was the story of Scyf Shielding's great pyre. This gives the poem a sense of unity and gives me the feeling that the poet wants us to believe that the cycle will begin anew: a different story will begin with Beowulf's death and that story will end with the death of the new, yet unknown, hero.

Although the events in Beowulf take place in the 5th and 6th centuries, and the so-called "Viking Age" begins in the 8th century, this is only because the first recorded Viking raid was in 787 C.E. and, of course then, in 793 CE, is the infamous raid at the island monastery of Lindisfarne. Nevertheless, I assume that there were Vikings before that, except that they didn't yet raid the coasts of England and thus weren't recorded by Christian monks.

However, as I already know, Hygelac (in Old Norse known as Hugleikr) is mentioned as a king in Liber Monstrorum where he is referred to as Rex Getarum (king of Geats?) and in a copy of Historiae Francorum where he is called Rege Gotorum (are the Geats being confused with the Goths?). These same sources concern a Viking raid into Frisia, ca 516, which is also described in Beowulf.

As I remember in the poem, after the death of his brother, Hygelac ascends the Geatish throne then, later, he goes on (although not said explicitly) a Viking raid to Frisia and is killed.

Etymologists assign the earliest use of the word "viking" to Old Norse (a language that evolved from Proto-Norse sometime in the 8th century) vìkingr, meaning "one who sets out to raid" (Old English wicing). In later centuries the word took on a special sense in other languages, including English, as a generic term for the peoples from Scandinavia at a particular time in history, mostly the so-called Viking Age, between about 793–1066 C.E. This sense of the term probably originated among the Anglo-Saxons. Most significantly, Widsið (an Old English poem that dates back to the 9th century) uses the word wicing in a way that appears to refer to the Norsemen in general. In fact, this poem contains the very first mention in any literary work of the Vikings by their actual name (lines 47-50: "Hroðulf and Hroðgar held the longest/peace together, uncle and nephew/since they repulsed the Viking-kin/and Ingeld to the spear-point made bow/hewn at Heorot Heaðobard's army"). Also in other Anglo-Saxon sources we find the same expression wicinga cynn ("viking kin" as in Widsið), suggesting that Vikings were regarded as a particular nationality, rather than a random group of people who raided and pirated the coasts of England.

Also, it is incorrect to say that the characters in Beowulf worshipping Odin is anachronistic, since he and all the other Norse deities are not only pre-Viking, but date back thousands of years to the Germanic peoples who lived in Central Europe (those tribes of whom Julius Caesar and Tacitus wrote). Odin is also known as Wotan/Woden in Anglo-Saxon England. Woden was worshipped during the Migration period (300–700 C.E.), until the 7th or 8th century, when Germanic paganism was gradually replaced by Christianity. The pagan faith was brought to England by the Anglo-Saxon tribes in the 5th and 6th centuries. It flourished until nearly all of England was converted to Christianity sometime in the 9th century, and all the old gods were abandoned. In the Anglo-Saxon religion, Woden was the guide of the dead, but he did not have the same attributes as the Norse Odin, especially in the idea of the dead warriors becoming Einherjars feasting in Valhalla or Fólkvangr. There isn't a concept of any sort of Valhalla or of Valkyries (as literally "carriers-off of the dead") in the Norse sense, although there is a word for the latter, that is, waelcyrge.

Also, Woden was considered to be the leader of the Wild Hunt, also known as Woden's Hunt, the Raging Host, most commonly Herlathing in England, Cwn Annwn in Wales, Cain's Hunt, and in Cornwall it was known as "the devil's dandy dogs." The idea of this "hunt" is a vision of a ghostly group of hunters, with their horses and hounds and blowing horns, galloping wildly across the sky. It was said that anyone who witnessed the Wild Hunt would immediately die and in general it predicted some great catastrophe.

One of the most obvious connotations of Woden and English tradition is the origin of the word "Wednesday," which obviously means "Woden's day". (an interesting fact is that Woden's role as the guide of the dead can be compared to the Roman Mercury, after whom the third day of the week is also named: French mercredi and Italian mercoledi for the English Wednesday.)