Beowulf is often lionized as a courageous soul, a fearless leader, and an epic hero. He jumps into battle against monsters and creatures without a worry or fear of death and annihilation. His belief in providence makes him brave, but simultaneously irrational and dumb. Readers of Beowulf usually look only at his positive characteristics such as his legacy, strength, perseverance, pride, and alignment with the heroic code. Readers also question whether or not Beowulf is a true epic hero or just an idiot leader. I argue that Beowulf is neither. I argue that Beowulf is not a man or hero, but actually the true monster of the self-titled epic poem. When readers think of monsters in Beowulf they think of Grendel and Grendels mother. But what about Beowulf?
Before delving into the argument of how Beowulf is the true monster of this epic poem, I will need to define what a monster is. A monster is often defined as a thing that is usually larger than average in size, aesthetically atypical, and or something that acts wickedly. I would have to agree with the last definition because one can look monstrous and not technically act or live similar to that of a monster. I personally define a monster as a being, whether human, animal or something of another shape, that acts immorally, fiendish, and or vile. My idea of what a monster is isnt defined by its looks or aesthetics because looks are subjective. My idea of a monster is defined by its intentions and its actions. Questions to reflect over when considering whether or not something is a monster would include, what does the monster do and can what it does be considered good or evil?
Grendel, the first creature in the epic, was a beast driven mad by jealousy and envy. Grendel, described as a brute and a powerful demon, was condemned as an outcast and exiled for being a descendent of Cain (9). On top of having to deal with his own emotional turmoil, Grendel faced having to listen to Hrothgar and his men enjoying themselves on a regular basis. It harrowed him to hear the din of the loud banquet every day in the hall (9). Eventually, Grendel snapped and began to slaughter the men in King Hrothgars halls. It is important to remember that the catalysts for Grendels actions were all human and emotionally brought about. Grendel didnt kill for killings sake, but for his own self-preservation. Though his reasoning was irrational and stupid, Grendel only felt how many other people feel in regards to their loud and obnoxious neighbors.
Interested in Hrothgar, his men, and their turmoil, Beowulf travels to them and offers some assistance. While offering to slay Grendel for Hrothgar, Beowulf also wanted to test his strength against Grendel. King Hrothgar, happy to hear of Beowulfs offer, allows Beowulf to confront Grendel and ends up defeating him. But why did Beowulf seek out vengeance on Grendel? Because of personal interest? Except Grendel wasnt Beowulfs problem. On top of that, Hrothgar didnt request for Beowulfs help. So what did Beowulf have to gain? Did he offer assistance out of compassion for Hrothgar? Or was it to prove that he could defeat him in a fight? That he could defeat a beast with bare hands and no weapons? But if so, would that be a good reason or would it be a selfish one? Definitely a selfish one.
Not too long after having defeated Grendel, Grendels mother attacks Hrothgar and his men to avenge her only child (107). It was reported from Hrothgar that immediately after finding out that her son had died, Grendels mother came out of the woodwork and murdered Aeschere, his right hand man. Though they both lashed out from being overwhelmed with emotion, the biggest difference between Grendels attack and his mothers is that her actions were motivated by revenge. Maternal instinct, a natural and common trait to all mothers, could drive any mother towards killing if their children in question were hurt.
Grendels mother is described by Beowulf as that swamp-thing from hell, the tar-hag in all her terrible strength (105). In my opinion, Grendels mother was simply a mother who suddenly had to face the loss of her son. How could one blame her for seeing red and killing Aeschere? And like Grendel, nothing was premeditated or done without instigation. Grief, and the murder of her child, overtook her better judgment. This sorrow turned to anger and that anger fueled Grendels mother to attack. It would seem only fair to call her reaction natural and expected. Any human, animal, or beast would have reacted the same way his mother did. Only a monster could nonchalantly brush off the death of their offspring.
Meanwhile, in this scene, there is a strong case of irony. Beowulf is quoted saying to Hrothgar, regarding the death of Aeschere, Wise sir, do not grieve. It is always better to avenge dear ones than to indulge in mourning. For every one of us, living in this world means waiting for our end I guarantee you: [Grendels mother] will not get away, (97). But, if Beowulf truly believed in his own words, how could Beowulf murder Grendels mother and then consider her a monster? If avenging dear ones is the expected response when a dear one is lost, then how could he blame Grendels mother for attacking? In my opinion, it seems Beowulf is being a hypocritical jerk. So is he creating a double-standard because he believes himself to be higher in authority? Is he potentially showing his true colors of being a merciless and shameless individual? Or is he simply being selfish and trying to buy more fame through the slaying of another monster?
What is very important to notice is that both Grendel and his mother didnt attack without reason. Neither of them were the first ones to stand up and instigate a battle. Grendel and his mother both lived independently, minding their own business till someone stirred their privacy. This shows that they werent monsters parading about doing monstrous things, but simple creatures that wouldve remained peaceful if left alone. Also, the way they reacted to someone interrupting their lives was instinctual. They were only behaving in the way they were designed. If they had been designed to wreak havoc, murder, and be monstrous, they would have simply done so without instigation. Grendel attacked for unbearable envy and his mother from maternal instinct. The real argument now is why did Beowulf attack Grendel and his mother? It wasnt because of his human emotions. It also wasnt out of self-defense. Beowulf was the one who sought Grendel and his mother and not them him. Was it maybe because Beowulf wanted a stronger legacy? Was it to test his limits and strengths as a warrior? Regardless, both of those reasons are selfish. Also, prior to Beowulfs initial encounter with Grendel and his mother, he was already notorious for being something similar to a god among men. After taking that into consideration, it would be safe to say that Beowulf wanted to continue this track record and was in search of a new conquest to throw out like a rsum bullet.
The narrator described Grendel as malignant by nature, and a monster that never showed remorse (11). But did Beowulf ever show remorse before or after killing Grendel? And what about before or after he killed Grendels mother? No, he didnt. Would that mean that Beowulf was also malignant by nature? And because Grendel and his mother seem more humane than Beowulf, would that make him the true monster of the poem? And what if that same person was the killer of Grendel and his mother? Couldnt Beowulf be considered monstrous for killing, and on top of that, killing without a cause? Its fair to argue that Grendel and his mother are unfairly portrayed as savage monsters when they only responded to catalysts impressed upon them. If someone flicks a bee, that person should expect to get stung, but then who is technically to blame? The bee for its stinging or the person who flicked the bee and antagonized it? The answer would have to definitely be that the person who antagonized an attack is to blame. So goes the saying dont poke the bear.
As I sit here and ponder over my readings of Beowulf, I cant justify believing that Grendel and his mother were monsters and Beowulf a hero. He killed creatures that were only living their own lives before it was interrupted. The only crime they committed was feeling emotions that were relatable to any human being. Any human who was feeling lonely would feel spite against someone who was openly happy. Any maternal mother would want to seek revenge if their child was murdered. On top of that, Beowulf never had good reason for killing them. He only ever seemed motivated by his own selfish personal gain for legacy, fame, and conquest. Finally, in following my belief that a monster is only defined by its actions, how could you not consider Beowulf the true monster?
Already have an account? Log In Now
6217