Post by Andorinha on Jan 15, 2009 22:21:25 GMT -6
Beowulf ARCHIVE: Lines 1 to 708
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 10/30/2002 6:28 AM
If any of you have read beyond the assigned lines, that's cool. I hope it is because you couldn't wait to see what happened! And if you are behind, don't worry. These boards are always open and you can add to them at any time.
By now we are far enough into Beowulf to have some opinions and ideas, or some questions. Here are a few to get us started.
There will be further interaction between Beowulf and Unferth, and it will be interesting to see how their relationship changes. (A bit of my own foreshadwoing there!), At this point (line 498), what do you think was going on between the two men?
I don't have my copy of the Silmarillion with me, but isn't there a scene, perhaps with Turin, that is somewhat like the scene between Beowulf and Unferth, except Turin (or whoever) kills the man who mocks him?
What do you make of Grendel? How do you feel about him so far? What kind of a creature do you envision him as being?
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 31 in Discussion
From: CathyL
Sent: 11/4/2002 2:26 AM
I feel sorry for Grendel and I'm not sure why. Maybe, since I live in an apartment, I can sympathize with somebody getting really ticked at all the partying in the mead hall.
Partly I don't like his descent from Cain being his doom. But I'm not sure I buy into the Cain stuff as being part of the oral Beowulf before the scribe started working on it.
Grendel seemed to be outside any possible redemption. As some sort of monster he belonged to what I'm calling the realm of chaos and fate that seems to be in the poem in as great a quantity as Christianity. And "ought implies can," from my old school days. If he ought to do otherwise that implies that he can. And I don't think he can do otherwise.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/4/2002 12:49 PM
I too feel sorry for Grendel. He seems so miserable. He "endured dreary time", and think of it, what a poor monster he is, still living with his mother! No wonder he got pissed off at the parties! (And are the other neighbor monsters saying to the newspapers: "But he was always such a nice and quiet boy."?)
I also feel compassion for Grendel's mom, although we haven't gotten to her yet. And as for redemption, I have to ponder that one a bit longer. Initial thoughts: every one is eligible for redemption. But just how human is Grendel? I am of the "yes, the orcs can be redeemed school", But I guess I don't really have enough of a grasp on Grendel's personality to be able to say with any certainty whether he would WANT to be redeemed, the first step towards redemption.
I too doubt that Cain was an element in the story in its earlier form, and that idea was added later. I visualize Grendel as being sort ofan intermediary form between humans and apes, sort of on the cusp of becoming fully human, but not there yet. Or, maybe Grendel is more an expression of the shadow-stuff of the Anglo-Saxon mind, projected out into the darkness, waiting to come back in. Whew! Shivers!
I did check on the part of Turin's story where Searos challenges him (like Unferth challenging Beowulf), and the parallels aren't strong enough to make a case of it. But simply thumbing through the Silmarillion I kept noticing names and places I wanted to check out as perhaps having an Old English lineage. But I refrained!
Anyway Cathy, would you like to start a thread called Chaos and Fate, and share your thinking with us? I know you mentioned that theme before. I think of how very dark it must have been at night, and how anything could have come out of the darkness. That to me is the Chaos! (More shivers. In fact, SHIVERS!).
Quaking in her shoes, Zauber
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 31 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/4/2002 5:32 PM
There does seem to be a modern tendency to sympathise with Grendel - I think there's even a novel written from his point of view. Personally, I don't - and I don't think one is meant to. I'm not sure the concept of redemption is really active in Beowulf. His descent from Cain...I'll say more on this when we get into 'the Christian element' bit, but in part I think it stems from an Anglo-Saxon liking for genealogies, pedigrees. What better progenitor for Grendel than the first kin-slayer? Kin-slaying being a favourite theme (and loathed action) in Germanic stories.
As for the Danes' partying - the poem isn't really that explicit about this being the reason for Grendel's actions, but insofar as it seems to be the case, I think it is more that other people are enjoying life that annoys Grendel.
How much are Grendel's actions of his own choosing? I don't know - I don't think it's something which really enters into the world of the poem. Grendel is partly a man at least - something like a bestial human, that is, what man would be without a 'soul', without human culture?
interesting stuff.
cheers,
-B
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/6/2002 1:04 AM
Grendel Approaches the Bar of Justice:
I fear that Zauber's suite of questions ("What do you make of Grendel? How do you feel about him so far? What kind of a creature do you envision him as being?") demands a suite of judgmental answers which may validly be restricted to our personal reactions, or may involve us in the attempt to make a more emic evaluation from one of several standpoints.
1. My immediate, and personal reaction to Grendel (in the first ten "cantos" of the tale) is confusion (mine not his). I am confused concerning his basic character, his motivations, and even confused as to the nature of the situation being narrated. Has a "crime," or an "injustice" been committed? And just who is the perpetrator?
Hrothgar seems a bit over-stuffed with self importance. Does he commit an initial act of hubris when he sets out to build a combination recreation-hall and redistribution center that will secure his present status as a "Big Man" and give him a sort of "Mausolic immortality" through the anticipated notoriety of his marvelous construction -- "a royal building, a gabled mead-hall fashioned by craftsmen, which the sons of men should hear of forever..." (Chickering, I. 69 - 70)? Were this a Greek epic I would feel more confident of saying that Hrothgar's ego brought upon his home the subsequent troubles of this narrative -- but this is Germanic myth/ epic, not Hellenic, and the concepts of hubris and nemesis may not be valid in this context.
Still, I think that Grendel does engage my sympathies a bit, as I feel that he has the right of prior possession in his favour. Though the poem does not make this pellucidly clear, my understanding of its staves is such that I feel Hrothgar has intruded his happy-hour emporium into the haunts of those who walk the lonely places of the waste and margins of the living world. I think here I have a tendency to see the ensuing conflict as one of primal opposites placed into too confining a propinquity. What business has noisy* "humanity" in closing so nearly with the "non-human"?
Clearly at this point, I do not think Grendel is a human, nor to be judged as one would an assaultive, murderous human. I think him "the other." He is specifically labeled a "great monster" (I. 86) "an enemy from Hell. That murderous spirit was named Grendel," (I. 101-102). His descent from a human, Cain, is largely hinted at, I think, but this still does not make him human, for such generally non-human categories as "monsters and elves and the walking dead, and also those giants" seem numbered among poor Cain's descendants (I.112-113).
In this sense then, does the Beowulf poem record an episode of "guiltless" strife between opposing forces, opposite natures? Good cheer, light, music, and human bliss meet up with a ravenous spirit of the outer dark, a hunger that is sated by quaffing human blood and stilling the voices of human song forever -- an elemental conflict where I find it hard to assign blame and counter-blames, or even degrees of culpability.
2. I find two more valid ways of answering Zauber's questions, both of which invoke anthropocentric platforms of value judgment. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that there was a pre-Christian version of Beowulf in which the narrator would express his/ her own human biases and find that Grendel's activities represented an unjust attempt to thwart human desires. Even if Grendel were viewed as an "antihuman" agent there would still be a tendency, I think, for the narrator to identify the human cause as just, and see Grendel as the perpetrator of the crimes detailed in the poem. Beowulf's subsequent vanquishing of Grendel and his Mum would, from this point of view, be seen as a salutary action of human justice, or as a taming of the "wilderness" and its inimical (to humans) spirits.
With the overlay of Christian values upon a heathen Beowulf, the anthropocentric stance and bias seems even stronger and more clearly drawn. The entire passage that identifies Grendel with the seed of Cain takes us beyond mere conflict between a group of Germanic humans and their natural enemies, and "elevates" the tale to a conflict of absolute Good and Evil. All Christians surely must identify the "good" with the human element here, and the earlier confusion as to whether or not Grendle is the criminal has been effectively removed: by religious fiat, Grendel is diabolic, is Evil, and deserves no sympathetic hearing whatsoever -- his extermination alone will allow the triumph of Good...
*I find it at least amusing that in the original Near Eastern sources concerning the "Flood Episode" the precise same complaint is used as the exculpating "motive" for a subsequent human destruction -- TOO MUCH NOISE!!!
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 31 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/6/2002 7:04 AM
2 notes:
(1)the only reference to the Danes' music and Grendel's (inferred) annoyance is at 86-9.
(2)Grendel is referred to as a 'man' in the poem: e.g., l.105 'wer' (="man" [as opposed to "woman"], cp. "were-wolf", "virile").
--B.
www.heorot.dk
______________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/6/2002 12:49 PM
Thorkel, I think you are safe in saying that perhaps Hrothgar's hubris of building the 'recreation-hall and redistribution center' 'brought upon his home the subsequent troubles'. Pride is a theme we will see cropping up throughout the story, and at one point Hrothgar even lectures Beowulf on the problem of pride. And although his men were being killed off, until they no longer dared to use the hall, Hrothgar seems to be suffering primarily from damaged pride.
From what I have read, I gather there was a pagan and oral version(s) of Beowulf, and that it was Christianized at some point, and written down. At which point (or shorty before) Cain, "The Lord as God", the Flood, etc. were slipped in. We will be discussing that phenomenon starting next week.
Still pondering all that's been said, I am faithfully
Zauber
______________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/6/2002 10:15 PM
Was Grendel "human." The latinate "vir" I suppose, shares a common IE root with OE "wer," both adjectivally having the sense of male, masculine, martial? Does this leave open, then, the assignation of "species" for such as Grendel? The JR Clark Hall concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary I am using actually places the concept "male" ahead of the secondary use for "wer" as "man," whether this is significant for preferring translation 1 ("male being") over translation 2 ("man") is something I do not know. The word "man" may also be used, at least in modern contexts as something other than a precise marker for "species," as in bogeyman, bogieman, or man from Mars, etc. -- perplexing!
In the Beowulf passage measured 99 - 104, I notice the word "man" is used in a broad sense as the "one" ="one person," and seems not to carry any species designation (perhaps not even a gender marker?), whereas the derivative "man-cynne" is used as the generic "mankind," which I take as conveying a "built-in" species designation, "mankind" = Homo sapiens. But nowhere in this passage do I get the definite sense that Grendel is being claimed as a member of "mankind." The spot in line 105 where the term "wer" occurs seems unclear as a direct referent of species, and I notice that both Chickering and Heaney do not indicate "wer" = "man" = "human being," but seem rather to use the term in its masculine sense as a mere third, singular pronoun, "he."
From H. D. Chickering, Jr. we have:
99 Swa tha driht-guman dreamum lifdon,
eadiglice, oththaet an ongan
fyrene fre[m]man, feond on helle.
Waes se grimma gaest Grendel haten,
maere mearc-stapa, se the moras heold,
104 fen ond faestan; fifel-cynnes eard
won-saeli wer weardode hwile,
siththan him Scyppend forscriefen haefde
in Caines cynne -- thone cwealm gewraec
ece Drihten thaes the he Abel slog.
Ne gefeah he thaere faehthe, ac he hine feor forwraec,
110 Metod for thy mane man-cynne fram
99 Thus the brave warriors lived in hall-joys,
blissfully prospering, until a certain one
began to do evil, an enemy from Hell.
That murderous spirit was named Grendel,
huge moor-stalker who held the wasteland,
104 fen, and marshes; unblessed, unhappy
he dwelt for a time in the lair of the monsters
after the Creator had outlawed, condemned them
as kinsmen of Cain --for that murder God
the eternal took vengeance, when Cain killed Abel.
No joy that kin-slaughter: the Lord drove him out,
110 far from mankind, for that unclean killing.
S. Heaney's Norton Critical edition gives us:
99 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
104 and the desolate fens; he had dwelt for a time
in misery among the banished monsters,
Cain's clan, who 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
110 because the Almighty made him anathema,
It may indeed be a meaningless akademic exercize at this point to quibble over such precising definitions of word use, so please forgive my tendentious writing, but if Grendel is accepted as a member of the human species then I think he must be open to judgments that would differ significantly from the way he must be handled if he is in fact inhuman. Certainly Christian concepts of sin and guilt, redemption or divine punishment would differ in their applicabilities according to Grendel's nature as a "soul-possessing" creature, a human being, or his soulessness as an inhuman monstrosity?
Are there later passages in Beowulf that allow a more secure "human" identification for Grendel? Other places where the term "wer" does have a definite context as "male Homo sapiens?" I'll be keeping a weather-eye cocked for such! I see that F.A. Blackburn ("The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf," in L.E. Nicholson's "An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism," pp 1 - 21, 1980, 6th) places the entire contextual passage (lines 90 - 114) into his category of Christian Interpolation. This might allow us to see the use of "wer" at this point as a Christian attempt to place an originally inhuman Grendel within the human realm so that Christian values of sin, and punishment may properly be invoked? LOL! These matters are far above my head!
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 31 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/6/2002 11:03 PM
A good bit of Beowulf criticism explicitly deals with Grendel as a (hu)man, albeit a bestial and debased man. Does anyone have any doubt that Grendel is (roughly) man-shaped, at least? Despite Clark Hall's 'male being', I think wer tends to mean specifically a 'male human'. For instance, 'werewolf' (which exists in OE too) means something like "wolf-man", not "male wolf". By the bye, man, mon, mann, monn in Old English actually only mean 'human', and not 'male human' (like German 'man' "one")...so mancynn is indeed only 'mankind' and 'male-kind'.
Again, Hrothgar refers to the 'Grendels' as "human-ish" (1351b-54):
ðaéra óðer wæs
one of them was,
þæs þe híe gewislícost gewitan meahton
as they most certainly were able to discern,
idese onlícnæs· óðer earmsceapen
of the likeness of a woman; the other one wretchedly shaped
on weres wæstmum wraéclástas træd
in the form of a man trod in the tracks of an exile,
note 'idese' [woman, lady] & weres [man]
As to Christian judgement of the Grendels - well, I'm doubtful of the so-called Christian aspect of the poem - but there is a reference (ll.849-51) about Grendel's "heathen soul" being condemned to hell. So apparently, whatever he is, he has a soul and can be judged.
--B.
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/7/2002 1:55 AM
Again, thank you, Slade! Your expertise here is very helpful. I am making great, "Grendelic" strides of progress in my understanding of the Beowulf! For example, I can already see that I need a genuinely scholarly dictionary of OE! Also I need a new computer, alas, I cannot access your own site and its translations -- consistent crashes...
At this point in my studies I am quite willing to admit Grendel and his Mum MAY be human, but still find as yet no conclusive force to this argument. I find persuasive evidence to think that the monstrous duo have gender assigments approximating male and female, have kinship assignments of son and mother, and that they both bear some strongish resemblance in gross morphology to a "manish" figure and a "womanlike" shape respectively. But here the quibble comes down to precising definitions once again: does "human-ish" imply human; and "woman-like" imply "woman?" Certainly Tolkien uses such attributional descriptives as "manlike" and "in the form of a man" to imply nothing more than a physical resemblance and not a direct human identity -- the Balrog in Moria is described as being "like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater;" (p. 428, Bridge of Khazad-Dum); and in the Silmarillion he introduces us to some very non-human were-wolves, corrupted Ainur, who may take as they will a "man-like" form or that of a great, running wolf.
The question then becomes, did the Germanic culture of the Beowulf poet(s) use similarly the terms "likeness of a woman," and "in the form of a man" as comparatives/ similes, or, in this time and culture are such constructions used only as simple identities -- nothing but a "human woman" walks in the likeness of a woman, and nothing but a "human man" may stalk about in the form of a man? I think from the richness of the kenning imageries, the Beowulf poet(s) had at their command the ability to form implied likenesses of considerable complexity and subtlety, and were indeed using metaphorical constructions that mirror those of modern english. But, on the other hand, this does not mean, of course, that a non-human origin has been established for Grendel -- I find no compelling evidence in that regard either, and will simply keep an open mind on this issue. I look forward to reading the critical works where the various authors you allude to seem convincingly enough persuaded that Grendel was human to create their peer-reviewed, critical threads based upon this assumption.
Of course a valid question here might be, would the Beowulf poet(s) have perceived any significant distinction between a human-Grendel, and a merely human-ish one?
Regarding the "soul" aspect, I am not deeply enough embrued in Christian learning to know if a "soul" (psyche or pneuma?) is a definitional attribute of a strictly human nature?
Once More, Thank You!
_______________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 31 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/8/2002 3:10 AM
I'm unsure about how Hrothgar's character is intended to come across.
Lines 64 - 70 (Heaney):
The fortunes of war favored Hrothgar.
Friends and kinsmen flocked to his ranks,
young followers, a force that grew
to be a mighty army. 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;
Lines 189-191:
So that troubled time continued, woe
that never stopped, steady affliction
for Halfdane's son, too hard an ordeal.
Lines 201:
the famous prince who needed defenders.
So we have a King who won wars and the affection of his people. So far, so good. Yet he and his thanes were helpless to save themselves and the people from Grendel. For Hrothgar, Grendel was "too hard an ordeal" and a "prince who needed defenders." Not very king-like, is he?
Did Hrothgar start resting on his laurels and get lazy? His thanes, too? Or was he never all that great a King and the author's just being nice; did Hrothgar build Heorot with such grandeur because it was the only way left for him to leave his mark on the world? Or is Beowulf so great a warrior that *any* King would pale by comparison?
What do you all think?
Diana
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 31 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/8/2002 3:24 AM
After reading and thinking and reading and thinking, there's nothing like sending a post for something new to pop up! Lines 67-68:
to be a mighty army. So his mind turned
to hall-building: he handed down orders
I can't remember what the opposite of a caesura is; when the end of a line is not the ending of a phrase? Whatever.... It's telling how these two lines are written. The sentence would be: "So his mind turned to hall-building." But it's written so, if not in speaking, at least in looking at the lines, your mind stops at "turned":
.... So his mind turned
to hall-building....
It's a split-second thing while reading, yet it gives an impression -- however fleeting, almost subliminal -- that a change came over Hrothgar. Because of the layout of the lines, it doesn't mean simply that he wanted to build a hall. Fine! He has money, men and time. It seems to say something more; that there was a turn of his mind, his focus moved to other things. Instead of keeping his army in fighting shape, ready for anything, now he's more concerned with self-centered pride. Okay, the mead hall is for his men. But it's also to stand as a testament to his greatness. Heorot wasn't just any old mead hall like those you could find anywhere in Merry Olde Denmark! It was "meant to be a wonder of the world forever."
Then when Grendel comes, it's almost like karma. It was *because* of the merry-making in the mead hall that Grendel became enraged.
My train of thought is starting to derail, so I'll end this here. I hope this makes some sense!
Diana
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 31 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/8/2002 3:46 AM
Don't you hate it when people come to a study almost 3 weeks late and ask a gazillion questions in a row? :-) I'll pop 3 short ones in this post.
1. What's the deal with Beowulf not giving his name till he's been in Denmark for hours? Heaney even makes note of it, as thought it's an important point in the story. Raffel's translation mentions Beowulf's name much earlier, but in a narrative section (line 194).
2. In line 200, "swan's road obviously mean "sea." I'm guessing this is a kenning and can't figure out where the "swan" part comes in. Anyone know?
3. There seems to be a lot of subtlety in the guard's speech. Just a couple of examples: He seems to be bragging about his ability to "read" people. Could his praise of Beowulf be a back-handed slap to Hrothgar? Or am I digging too deeply? :-)
Diana
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 14 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/8/2002 7:01 AM
I think of Grendel as human, and therefore having a soul. (I will not digress further to a discussion of soul-ownership, since I believe many beings have souls that would not be acceptable to standard doctrine). In fact, I see Grendel as a sort of Chewbacca-gone-bad, a renegade Wookie. I don't make that fine a distinction between human and non-human, I guess. I mean, maybe this can all be explained by the missing figure of Grendel's Dad. Who might he have been? What might he have been? (Those are not teacherly questions and do not have to be taken seriously).
As to a crime or injustice having been committed, suppose Heorot was built on Grendel's favorite look-out hill? And then they have this god-awful music and singing, "TOO MUCH NOISE!"* We are interested in motive, but were the Anglo-Saxons that concerned with whys and wherefores, or just want a ripping good tale? Perhaps Grendel was the 'agent' of Hrothgar's fall from pride.
Slade, the novel written from Grendel's point of view is called, simply enough, "Grendel", by John Gardner.
So here's one of my teacherly questions: Who does Grendel, a most likely de-based human, remind you of from Middle Earth?
Zauber
*I once heard on the news about a plumber who just had finished remodeling his bathroom, when his upstairs neighbor let the tub overflow. The water ran down into the newly remodeled bathroom, and in a rage, the plumber stormed up the stairs and killed his neighbor. So, Grendel's motives and actions are not beyond human behavior. One could, if one wished to go out and dangle from a limb, even make a case of the "Sniper" of recent notoriety being a sort of Grendel. But I will stay off of that limb
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/8/2002 7:20 AM
Amaranth -- I see Hrothgar being an ageing King, just not up to the smiting and smoting of his earlier years. Getting (as most of us do with age) more interested in taking it easy. I also think that he wished to leave a tangible 'memorial' of sorts, Heorot. Something solid that would presumabley out live him. The whole tale seems taken up with the awareness of death and dying, knowing it's coming and dealing with it.
So Hrothgar's focus (and that of his thanes) has shifted. I think he was most likely as good a king as he is reputed to be, but has gotten 'soft' with age. He doesn't see Beowulf as a threat, which a younger king might (as Unferth seems to), but as an allie who will do his fighting for him. "His mind turned", he got older, perhaps more complacent, not so focused outward and towards war but more inward and contemplative. That's my take on it.
Remember, there is no early or late to this study, Amaranth. We are quite happily defying both space and time here!
Don't know why Beowulf is reticent about his name. Maybe identifying himself as Edgetheow's son was enough of an identification, since they held such stock in their lineage. It also struck me as odd that the coast guard should be so full of praise for Beowulf, his men and their gear. Was this a form of politeness for that time? Was it a subtle insult to Hrothgar? Was it a standard form of greeting, or a way for the 'audience' to visualize the scene? Was this some a**-kissing in hopes of a nice cut of any plunder? Don't know, but I'll bet others in this study will!
Zauber
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 16 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/9/2002 3:22 AM
Zauber: a "renagadoe Wookie" may be as good as many other identifications! Grendel has been classified by various published students of this epic as an Ice Giant; a Troll; a cannibalistic Zombie (a "draugar" which usually comes supplied with a mother figure, its "ketta," but with no apparent father figure); a "supernatural being" like an anthropomorphic dragon (Joy Norman); a demon (classical mythological, Buddhist, or Christian?); a devilish monster; and even The Devil, Satan.
Having finished another full read of "The Beowulf," and having applied all the care of a legalistic eye to precisely what the text says unambiguously, I find no convincing (to me!) direct statement of Grendel's human nature. Nor do I find any passage which would allow me to categorically deny the poor fellow "human" status of some sort (metaphorical, at least!). He does have an "heathen soul," is "manish" in shape, male by sex/ gender, and apparently both sentient and sapient within the modern range of those judged fit for prosecution upon charges of a capital sort... and even the poet(s) do hint (a matter of joking irony?) that Grendel should fall under human rules of justice concerning the granting of weregeld for his murderous deeds (but how to enforce this action!?).
As to the Anglo-Saxon/ Germanic need to supply motive, look at the lengthy explanations given for Beowulf's own deeds! But, if I could have viewed, more securely, our Grendel as non-human, a folkloric monster only, then his motivation could be very simply his "otherness," his inhuman nature that stands in elemental opposition to all things human and therefore requiring no more explanation. But a human Grendel would suppose human motivations, and I would expect as lengthy and detailed an account of how such blood-feud came to exist between Grendel and Hrothgar as we are given in the mere, historical asides of this epic (ie 459 - 472).
A last comparative effort -- could you be hinting at a steroidal Gollum? Both physically hungry to the point of cannibalism, both humanly pathological in their self-centered absorptions... nahh.
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 1 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 10/30/2002 6:28 AM
If any of you have read beyond the assigned lines, that's cool. I hope it is because you couldn't wait to see what happened! And if you are behind, don't worry. These boards are always open and you can add to them at any time.
By now we are far enough into Beowulf to have some opinions and ideas, or some questions. Here are a few to get us started.
There will be further interaction between Beowulf and Unferth, and it will be interesting to see how their relationship changes. (A bit of my own foreshadwoing there!), At this point (line 498), what do you think was going on between the two men?
I don't have my copy of the Silmarillion with me, but isn't there a scene, perhaps with Turin, that is somewhat like the scene between Beowulf and Unferth, except Turin (or whoever) kills the man who mocks him?
What do you make of Grendel? How do you feel about him so far? What kind of a creature do you envision him as being?
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 2 of 31 in Discussion
From: CathyL
Sent: 11/4/2002 2:26 AM
I feel sorry for Grendel and I'm not sure why. Maybe, since I live in an apartment, I can sympathize with somebody getting really ticked at all the partying in the mead hall.
Partly I don't like his descent from Cain being his doom. But I'm not sure I buy into the Cain stuff as being part of the oral Beowulf before the scribe started working on it.
Grendel seemed to be outside any possible redemption. As some sort of monster he belonged to what I'm calling the realm of chaos and fate that seems to be in the poem in as great a quantity as Christianity. And "ought implies can," from my old school days. If he ought to do otherwise that implies that he can. And I don't think he can do otherwise.
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 3 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/4/2002 12:49 PM
I too feel sorry for Grendel. He seems so miserable. He "endured dreary time", and think of it, what a poor monster he is, still living with his mother! No wonder he got pissed off at the parties! (And are the other neighbor monsters saying to the newspapers: "But he was always such a nice and quiet boy."?)
I also feel compassion for Grendel's mom, although we haven't gotten to her yet. And as for redemption, I have to ponder that one a bit longer. Initial thoughts: every one is eligible for redemption. But just how human is Grendel? I am of the "yes, the orcs can be redeemed school", But I guess I don't really have enough of a grasp on Grendel's personality to be able to say with any certainty whether he would WANT to be redeemed, the first step towards redemption.
I too doubt that Cain was an element in the story in its earlier form, and that idea was added later. I visualize Grendel as being sort ofan intermediary form between humans and apes, sort of on the cusp of becoming fully human, but not there yet. Or, maybe Grendel is more an expression of the shadow-stuff of the Anglo-Saxon mind, projected out into the darkness, waiting to come back in. Whew! Shivers!
I did check on the part of Turin's story where Searos challenges him (like Unferth challenging Beowulf), and the parallels aren't strong enough to make a case of it. But simply thumbing through the Silmarillion I kept noticing names and places I wanted to check out as perhaps having an Old English lineage. But I refrained!
Anyway Cathy, would you like to start a thread called Chaos and Fate, and share your thinking with us? I know you mentioned that theme before. I think of how very dark it must have been at night, and how anything could have come out of the darkness. That to me is the Chaos! (More shivers. In fact, SHIVERS!).
Quaking in her shoes, Zauber
________________________________________________
Reply
Message 4 of 31 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/4/2002 5:32 PM
There does seem to be a modern tendency to sympathise with Grendel - I think there's even a novel written from his point of view. Personally, I don't - and I don't think one is meant to. I'm not sure the concept of redemption is really active in Beowulf. His descent from Cain...I'll say more on this when we get into 'the Christian element' bit, but in part I think it stems from an Anglo-Saxon liking for genealogies, pedigrees. What better progenitor for Grendel than the first kin-slayer? Kin-slaying being a favourite theme (and loathed action) in Germanic stories.
As for the Danes' partying - the poem isn't really that explicit about this being the reason for Grendel's actions, but insofar as it seems to be the case, I think it is more that other people are enjoying life that annoys Grendel.
How much are Grendel's actions of his own choosing? I don't know - I don't think it's something which really enters into the world of the poem. Grendel is partly a man at least - something like a bestial human, that is, what man would be without a 'soul', without human culture?
interesting stuff.
cheers,
-B
_______________________________________________
Reply
Message 5 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/6/2002 1:04 AM
Grendel Approaches the Bar of Justice:
I fear that Zauber's suite of questions ("What do you make of Grendel? How do you feel about him so far? What kind of a creature do you envision him as being?") demands a suite of judgmental answers which may validly be restricted to our personal reactions, or may involve us in the attempt to make a more emic evaluation from one of several standpoints.
1. My immediate, and personal reaction to Grendel (in the first ten "cantos" of the tale) is confusion (mine not his). I am confused concerning his basic character, his motivations, and even confused as to the nature of the situation being narrated. Has a "crime," or an "injustice" been committed? And just who is the perpetrator?
Hrothgar seems a bit over-stuffed with self importance. Does he commit an initial act of hubris when he sets out to build a combination recreation-hall and redistribution center that will secure his present status as a "Big Man" and give him a sort of "Mausolic immortality" through the anticipated notoriety of his marvelous construction -- "a royal building, a gabled mead-hall fashioned by craftsmen, which the sons of men should hear of forever..." (Chickering, I. 69 - 70)? Were this a Greek epic I would feel more confident of saying that Hrothgar's ego brought upon his home the subsequent troubles of this narrative -- but this is Germanic myth/ epic, not Hellenic, and the concepts of hubris and nemesis may not be valid in this context.
Still, I think that Grendel does engage my sympathies a bit, as I feel that he has the right of prior possession in his favour. Though the poem does not make this pellucidly clear, my understanding of its staves is such that I feel Hrothgar has intruded his happy-hour emporium into the haunts of those who walk the lonely places of the waste and margins of the living world. I think here I have a tendency to see the ensuing conflict as one of primal opposites placed into too confining a propinquity. What business has noisy* "humanity" in closing so nearly with the "non-human"?
Clearly at this point, I do not think Grendel is a human, nor to be judged as one would an assaultive, murderous human. I think him "the other." He is specifically labeled a "great monster" (I. 86) "an enemy from Hell. That murderous spirit was named Grendel," (I. 101-102). His descent from a human, Cain, is largely hinted at, I think, but this still does not make him human, for such generally non-human categories as "monsters and elves and the walking dead, and also those giants" seem numbered among poor Cain's descendants (I.112-113).
In this sense then, does the Beowulf poem record an episode of "guiltless" strife between opposing forces, opposite natures? Good cheer, light, music, and human bliss meet up with a ravenous spirit of the outer dark, a hunger that is sated by quaffing human blood and stilling the voices of human song forever -- an elemental conflict where I find it hard to assign blame and counter-blames, or even degrees of culpability.
2. I find two more valid ways of answering Zauber's questions, both of which invoke anthropocentric platforms of value judgment. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that there was a pre-Christian version of Beowulf in which the narrator would express his/ her own human biases and find that Grendel's activities represented an unjust attempt to thwart human desires. Even if Grendel were viewed as an "antihuman" agent there would still be a tendency, I think, for the narrator to identify the human cause as just, and see Grendel as the perpetrator of the crimes detailed in the poem. Beowulf's subsequent vanquishing of Grendel and his Mum would, from this point of view, be seen as a salutary action of human justice, or as a taming of the "wilderness" and its inimical (to humans) spirits.
With the overlay of Christian values upon a heathen Beowulf, the anthropocentric stance and bias seems even stronger and more clearly drawn. The entire passage that identifies Grendel with the seed of Cain takes us beyond mere conflict between a group of Germanic humans and their natural enemies, and "elevates" the tale to a conflict of absolute Good and Evil. All Christians surely must identify the "good" with the human element here, and the earlier confusion as to whether or not Grendle is the criminal has been effectively removed: by religious fiat, Grendel is diabolic, is Evil, and deserves no sympathetic hearing whatsoever -- his extermination alone will allow the triumph of Good...
*I find it at least amusing that in the original Near Eastern sources concerning the "Flood Episode" the precise same complaint is used as the exculpating "motive" for a subsequent human destruction -- TOO MUCH NOISE!!!
___________________________________________________
Reply
Message 6 of 31 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/6/2002 7:04 AM
2 notes:
(1)the only reference to the Danes' music and Grendel's (inferred) annoyance is at 86-9.
(2)Grendel is referred to as a 'man' in the poem: e.g., l.105 'wer' (="man" [as opposed to "woman"], cp. "were-wolf", "virile").
--B.
www.heorot.dk
______________________________________________
Reply
Message 7 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/6/2002 12:49 PM
Thorkel, I think you are safe in saying that perhaps Hrothgar's hubris of building the 'recreation-hall and redistribution center' 'brought upon his home the subsequent troubles'. Pride is a theme we will see cropping up throughout the story, and at one point Hrothgar even lectures Beowulf on the problem of pride. And although his men were being killed off, until they no longer dared to use the hall, Hrothgar seems to be suffering primarily from damaged pride.
From what I have read, I gather there was a pagan and oral version(s) of Beowulf, and that it was Christianized at some point, and written down. At which point (or shorty before) Cain, "The Lord as God", the Flood, etc. were slipped in. We will be discussing that phenomenon starting next week.
Still pondering all that's been said, I am faithfully
Zauber
______________________________________________
Reply
Message 8 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/6/2002 10:15 PM
Was Grendel "human." The latinate "vir" I suppose, shares a common IE root with OE "wer," both adjectivally having the sense of male, masculine, martial? Does this leave open, then, the assignation of "species" for such as Grendel? The JR Clark Hall concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary I am using actually places the concept "male" ahead of the secondary use for "wer" as "man," whether this is significant for preferring translation 1 ("male being") over translation 2 ("man") is something I do not know. The word "man" may also be used, at least in modern contexts as something other than a precise marker for "species," as in bogeyman, bogieman, or man from Mars, etc. -- perplexing!
In the Beowulf passage measured 99 - 104, I notice the word "man" is used in a broad sense as the "one" ="one person," and seems not to carry any species designation (perhaps not even a gender marker?), whereas the derivative "man-cynne" is used as the generic "mankind," which I take as conveying a "built-in" species designation, "mankind" = Homo sapiens. But nowhere in this passage do I get the definite sense that Grendel is being claimed as a member of "mankind." The spot in line 105 where the term "wer" occurs seems unclear as a direct referent of species, and I notice that both Chickering and Heaney do not indicate "wer" = "man" = "human being," but seem rather to use the term in its masculine sense as a mere third, singular pronoun, "he."
From H. D. Chickering, Jr. we have:
99 Swa tha driht-guman dreamum lifdon,
eadiglice, oththaet an ongan
fyrene fre[m]man, feond on helle.
Waes se grimma gaest Grendel haten,
maere mearc-stapa, se the moras heold,
104 fen ond faestan; fifel-cynnes eard
won-saeli wer weardode hwile,
siththan him Scyppend forscriefen haefde
in Caines cynne -- thone cwealm gewraec
ece Drihten thaes the he Abel slog.
Ne gefeah he thaere faehthe, ac he hine feor forwraec,
110 Metod for thy mane man-cynne fram
99 Thus the brave warriors lived in hall-joys,
blissfully prospering, until a certain one
began to do evil, an enemy from Hell.
That murderous spirit was named Grendel,
huge moor-stalker who held the wasteland,
104 fen, and marshes; unblessed, unhappy
he dwelt for a time in the lair of the monsters
after the Creator had outlawed, condemned them
as kinsmen of Cain --for that murder God
the eternal took vengeance, when Cain killed Abel.
No joy that kin-slaughter: the Lord drove him out,
110 far from mankind, for that unclean killing.
S. Heaney's Norton Critical edition gives us:
99 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
104 and the desolate fens; he had dwelt for a time
in misery among the banished monsters,
Cain's clan, who 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
110 because the Almighty made him anathema,
It may indeed be a meaningless akademic exercize at this point to quibble over such precising definitions of word use, so please forgive my tendentious writing, but if Grendel is accepted as a member of the human species then I think he must be open to judgments that would differ significantly from the way he must be handled if he is in fact inhuman. Certainly Christian concepts of sin and guilt, redemption or divine punishment would differ in their applicabilities according to Grendel's nature as a "soul-possessing" creature, a human being, or his soulessness as an inhuman monstrosity?
Are there later passages in Beowulf that allow a more secure "human" identification for Grendel? Other places where the term "wer" does have a definite context as "male Homo sapiens?" I'll be keeping a weather-eye cocked for such! I see that F.A. Blackburn ("The Christian Coloring in the Beowulf," in L.E. Nicholson's "An Anthology of Beowulf Criticism," pp 1 - 21, 1980, 6th) places the entire contextual passage (lines 90 - 114) into his category of Christian Interpolation. This might allow us to see the use of "wer" at this point as a Christian attempt to place an originally inhuman Grendel within the human realm so that Christian values of sin, and punishment may properly be invoked? LOL! These matters are far above my head!
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 9 of 31 in Discussion
From: Slade
Sent: 11/6/2002 11:03 PM
A good bit of Beowulf criticism explicitly deals with Grendel as a (hu)man, albeit a bestial and debased man. Does anyone have any doubt that Grendel is (roughly) man-shaped, at least? Despite Clark Hall's 'male being', I think wer tends to mean specifically a 'male human'. For instance, 'werewolf' (which exists in OE too) means something like "wolf-man", not "male wolf". By the bye, man, mon, mann, monn in Old English actually only mean 'human', and not 'male human' (like German 'man' "one")...so mancynn is indeed only 'mankind' and 'male-kind'.
Again, Hrothgar refers to the 'Grendels' as "human-ish" (1351b-54):
ðaéra óðer wæs
one of them was,
þæs þe híe gewislícost gewitan meahton
as they most certainly were able to discern,
idese onlícnæs· óðer earmsceapen
of the likeness of a woman; the other one wretchedly shaped
on weres wæstmum wraéclástas træd
in the form of a man trod in the tracks of an exile,
note 'idese' [woman, lady] & weres [man]
As to Christian judgement of the Grendels - well, I'm doubtful of the so-called Christian aspect of the poem - but there is a reference (ll.849-51) about Grendel's "heathen soul" being condemned to hell. So apparently, whatever he is, he has a soul and can be judged.
--B.
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 10 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/7/2002 1:55 AM
Again, thank you, Slade! Your expertise here is very helpful. I am making great, "Grendelic" strides of progress in my understanding of the Beowulf! For example, I can already see that I need a genuinely scholarly dictionary of OE! Also I need a new computer, alas, I cannot access your own site and its translations -- consistent crashes...
At this point in my studies I am quite willing to admit Grendel and his Mum MAY be human, but still find as yet no conclusive force to this argument. I find persuasive evidence to think that the monstrous duo have gender assigments approximating male and female, have kinship assignments of son and mother, and that they both bear some strongish resemblance in gross morphology to a "manish" figure and a "womanlike" shape respectively. But here the quibble comes down to precising definitions once again: does "human-ish" imply human; and "woman-like" imply "woman?" Certainly Tolkien uses such attributional descriptives as "manlike" and "in the form of a man" to imply nothing more than a physical resemblance and not a direct human identity -- the Balrog in Moria is described as being "like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater;" (p. 428, Bridge of Khazad-Dum); and in the Silmarillion he introduces us to some very non-human were-wolves, corrupted Ainur, who may take as they will a "man-like" form or that of a great, running wolf.
The question then becomes, did the Germanic culture of the Beowulf poet(s) use similarly the terms "likeness of a woman," and "in the form of a man" as comparatives/ similes, or, in this time and culture are such constructions used only as simple identities -- nothing but a "human woman" walks in the likeness of a woman, and nothing but a "human man" may stalk about in the form of a man? I think from the richness of the kenning imageries, the Beowulf poet(s) had at their command the ability to form implied likenesses of considerable complexity and subtlety, and were indeed using metaphorical constructions that mirror those of modern english. But, on the other hand, this does not mean, of course, that a non-human origin has been established for Grendel -- I find no compelling evidence in that regard either, and will simply keep an open mind on this issue. I look forward to reading the critical works where the various authors you allude to seem convincingly enough persuaded that Grendel was human to create their peer-reviewed, critical threads based upon this assumption.
Of course a valid question here might be, would the Beowulf poet(s) have perceived any significant distinction between a human-Grendel, and a merely human-ish one?
Regarding the "soul" aspect, I am not deeply enough embrued in Christian learning to know if a "soul" (psyche or pneuma?) is a definitional attribute of a strictly human nature?
Once More, Thank You!
_______________________________________
Reply
Message 11 of 31 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/8/2002 3:10 AM
I'm unsure about how Hrothgar's character is intended to come across.
Lines 64 - 70 (Heaney):
The fortunes of war favored Hrothgar.
Friends and kinsmen flocked to his ranks,
young followers, a force that grew
to be a mighty army. 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;
Lines 189-191:
So that troubled time continued, woe
that never stopped, steady affliction
for Halfdane's son, too hard an ordeal.
Lines 201:
the famous prince who needed defenders.
So we have a King who won wars and the affection of his people. So far, so good. Yet he and his thanes were helpless to save themselves and the people from Grendel. For Hrothgar, Grendel was "too hard an ordeal" and a "prince who needed defenders." Not very king-like, is he?
Did Hrothgar start resting on his laurels and get lazy? His thanes, too? Or was he never all that great a King and the author's just being nice; did Hrothgar build Heorot with such grandeur because it was the only way left for him to leave his mark on the world? Or is Beowulf so great a warrior that *any* King would pale by comparison?
What do you all think?
Diana
____________________________________________
Reply
Message 12 of 31 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/8/2002 3:24 AM
After reading and thinking and reading and thinking, there's nothing like sending a post for something new to pop up! Lines 67-68:
to be a mighty army. So his mind turned
to hall-building: he handed down orders
I can't remember what the opposite of a caesura is; when the end of a line is not the ending of a phrase? Whatever.... It's telling how these two lines are written. The sentence would be: "So his mind turned to hall-building." But it's written so, if not in speaking, at least in looking at the lines, your mind stops at "turned":
.... So his mind turned
to hall-building....
It's a split-second thing while reading, yet it gives an impression -- however fleeting, almost subliminal -- that a change came over Hrothgar. Because of the layout of the lines, it doesn't mean simply that he wanted to build a hall. Fine! He has money, men and time. It seems to say something more; that there was a turn of his mind, his focus moved to other things. Instead of keeping his army in fighting shape, ready for anything, now he's more concerned with self-centered pride. Okay, the mead hall is for his men. But it's also to stand as a testament to his greatness. Heorot wasn't just any old mead hall like those you could find anywhere in Merry Olde Denmark! It was "meant to be a wonder of the world forever."
Then when Grendel comes, it's almost like karma. It was *because* of the merry-making in the mead hall that Grendel became enraged.
My train of thought is starting to derail, so I'll end this here. I hope this makes some sense!
Diana
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 13 of 31 in Discussion
From: Amaranth
Sent: 11/8/2002 3:46 AM
Don't you hate it when people come to a study almost 3 weeks late and ask a gazillion questions in a row? :-) I'll pop 3 short ones in this post.
1. What's the deal with Beowulf not giving his name till he's been in Denmark for hours? Heaney even makes note of it, as thought it's an important point in the story. Raffel's translation mentions Beowulf's name much earlier, but in a narrative section (line 194).
2. In line 200, "swan's road obviously mean "sea." I'm guessing this is a kenning and can't figure out where the "swan" part comes in. Anyone know?
3. There seems to be a lot of subtlety in the guard's speech. Just a couple of examples: He seems to be bragging about his ability to "read" people. Could his praise of Beowulf be a back-handed slap to Hrothgar? Or am I digging too deeply? :-)
Diana
_____________________________________________
Reply
Message 14 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/8/2002 7:01 AM
I think of Grendel as human, and therefore having a soul. (I will not digress further to a discussion of soul-ownership, since I believe many beings have souls that would not be acceptable to standard doctrine). In fact, I see Grendel as a sort of Chewbacca-gone-bad, a renegade Wookie. I don't make that fine a distinction between human and non-human, I guess. I mean, maybe this can all be explained by the missing figure of Grendel's Dad. Who might he have been? What might he have been? (Those are not teacherly questions and do not have to be taken seriously).
As to a crime or injustice having been committed, suppose Heorot was built on Grendel's favorite look-out hill? And then they have this god-awful music and singing, "TOO MUCH NOISE!"* We are interested in motive, but were the Anglo-Saxons that concerned with whys and wherefores, or just want a ripping good tale? Perhaps Grendel was the 'agent' of Hrothgar's fall from pride.
Slade, the novel written from Grendel's point of view is called, simply enough, "Grendel", by John Gardner.
So here's one of my teacherly questions: Who does Grendel, a most likely de-based human, remind you of from Middle Earth?
Zauber
*I once heard on the news about a plumber who just had finished remodeling his bathroom, when his upstairs neighbor let the tub overflow. The water ran down into the newly remodeled bathroom, and in a rage, the plumber stormed up the stairs and killed his neighbor. So, Grendel's motives and actions are not beyond human behavior. One could, if one wished to go out and dangle from a limb, even make a case of the "Sniper" of recent notoriety being a sort of Grendel. But I will stay off of that limb
_________________________________________________
Reply
Message 15 of 31 in Discussion
From: Zauber
Sent: 11/8/2002 7:20 AM
Amaranth -- I see Hrothgar being an ageing King, just not up to the smiting and smoting of his earlier years. Getting (as most of us do with age) more interested in taking it easy. I also think that he wished to leave a tangible 'memorial' of sorts, Heorot. Something solid that would presumabley out live him. The whole tale seems taken up with the awareness of death and dying, knowing it's coming and dealing with it.
So Hrothgar's focus (and that of his thanes) has shifted. I think he was most likely as good a king as he is reputed to be, but has gotten 'soft' with age. He doesn't see Beowulf as a threat, which a younger king might (as Unferth seems to), but as an allie who will do his fighting for him. "His mind turned", he got older, perhaps more complacent, not so focused outward and towards war but more inward and contemplative. That's my take on it.
Remember, there is no early or late to this study, Amaranth. We are quite happily defying both space and time here!
Don't know why Beowulf is reticent about his name. Maybe identifying himself as Edgetheow's son was enough of an identification, since they held such stock in their lineage. It also struck me as odd that the coast guard should be so full of praise for Beowulf, his men and their gear. Was this a form of politeness for that time? Was it a subtle insult to Hrothgar? Was it a standard form of greeting, or a way for the 'audience' to visualize the scene? Was this some a**-kissing in hopes of a nice cut of any plunder? Don't know, but I'll bet others in this study will!
Zauber
___________________________________________
Reply
Message 16 of 31 in Discussion
From: Thorkel
Sent: 11/9/2002 3:22 AM
Zauber: a "renagadoe Wookie" may be as good as many other identifications! Grendel has been classified by various published students of this epic as an Ice Giant; a Troll; a cannibalistic Zombie (a "draugar" which usually comes supplied with a mother figure, its "ketta," but with no apparent father figure); a "supernatural being" like an anthropomorphic dragon (Joy Norman); a demon (classical mythological, Buddhist, or Christian?); a devilish monster; and even The Devil, Satan.
Having finished another full read of "The Beowulf," and having applied all the care of a legalistic eye to precisely what the text says unambiguously, I find no convincing (to me!) direct statement of Grendel's human nature. Nor do I find any passage which would allow me to categorically deny the poor fellow "human" status of some sort (metaphorical, at least!). He does have an "heathen soul," is "manish" in shape, male by sex/ gender, and apparently both sentient and sapient within the modern range of those judged fit for prosecution upon charges of a capital sort... and even the poet(s) do hint (a matter of joking irony?) that Grendel should fall under human rules of justice concerning the granting of weregeld for his murderous deeds (but how to enforce this action!?).
As to the Anglo-Saxon/ Germanic need to supply motive, look at the lengthy explanations given for Beowulf's own deeds! But, if I could have viewed, more securely, our Grendel as non-human, a folkloric monster only, then his motivation could be very simply his "otherness," his inhuman nature that stands in elemental opposition to all things human and therefore requiring no more explanation. But a human Grendel would suppose human motivations, and I would expect as lengthy and detailed an account of how such blood-feud came to exist between Grendel and Hrothgar as we are given in the mere, historical asides of this epic (ie 459 - 472).
A last comparative effort -- could you be hinting at a steroidal Gollum? Both physically hungry to the point of cannibalism, both humanly pathological in their self-centered absorptions... nahh.
