Beowulf - The monsters

Last summer I was re-introduced to "Beowulf," the early English poem which I had read part of in high school. I read the Seamus Heaney translation that came out some years ago and I enjoyed it a great deal. Trying to understand Beowulf is even harder than trying to understand Shakespeare and not just because of the language. As my intellectual friend, DT (Deep Thinker) and I were saying the other day, while there is no surviving documentation of Shakespeare's intentions, we at least know something of his sources which along with some other things gives us some guidance.



With "Beowulf" on the other hand, we don't even know the poet's name, much less what he read so there are few, if any, clues about his intentions. At some point in reading the poem last summer I was introduced to a famous essay by J. R. R. Tolkien (pictured left) about "Beowulf" called "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," which supposedly revolutionized the scholarly debate on "Beowulf."



One of the challenges of reading academic essays is that they are often written in an esoteric language that is almost impossible for the lay person to understand. I realize that some shared technical language is often necessary, but sometimes it severely limits those who appreciate the content. Yet I often find that if one avoids becoming concerned with understanding every word, one can find a lot of information that promotes a better understanding.



I had the opportunity to read Tolkien's essay over the past two days and other than some phrases in Latin and early English, his essay is fairly free of the more esoteric academic language. According to Tolkien many critics believed that the unimportant material in "Beowulf" is at the center of the poem (that is occupying a lot of space) while the important things are on the fringes. In this view the unimportant things are monsters - specifically Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon. Tolkien believes this view is wrong because the monsters are the important things in the poem - the primary means of exploring what for the poet are the important issues.



It seems clear how such a position could revolutionize "Beowulf" criticism. The monsters then become important symbols or metaphors, but symbols or metaphors for what. Interestingly Grendel and his mother are both connected to Cain, according to the bible, the first human born of a man and a woman. Tolkien refers to Grendel as being the enemy of God, yet in the bible, Adam says that he received Cain from God and then even after Cain kills Abel, God forbids anyone to kill him in for his crime. So there seems to be some inconsistency in Tolkien's position.


The dragon, on the other hand, who mortally wounds Beowulf before being killed by Beowulf is seen by Tolkien (or at least as I understand it) as a symbol or metaphor for death - for our own mortality. The issue then seems to be knowing that this final defeat awaits all of us, how to we respond to that defeat. The way Tolkien seems to phrase it if the dragon is faced heroically, the dragon wins the victory, but not the honor. I am not sure if this is intended by the poet or by Tolkien to extend to all of us, but with the recent death of my friend Edie Ewing, it certainly connects with some of my recent thoughts.

It is fascinating how something so ancient can still speak to us today. I am getting interested in learning a lot more about "Beowulf" and also turning my attention to the new translation of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" that I purchased about a year ago. It looks like DT and I will have a lot to talk about.