However, being a good hero is not necessarily the same as being a good king. We know that Scyld Shefing was a good king. We know that Hrothgar was a good king. We know that Heremod was a bad king. We know that Beowulf - in the words of Wiglaf - "worked for the people" and "behaved like a hero" (3006-07) [folcred fremede - ođđe furđer gen / eorlscipe efnde].
But was Beowulf a good king? As we discussed on Friday, this question is not as easy to answer as it might seem. Without merely revisiting the evidence put forth in class, make an original case for whether Beowulf was or was not a good king. Provide some concrete textual evidence and some solid narrative analysis. I doubt whether anyone's answer will be a simple yes or no. Rather, like most people, Beowulf was likely a mix of both good and bad characteristics, a fact which you can acknowledge while still having an opinion.
Posts are due by NOON on WEDNESDAY 16 NOVEMBER.
Beowulf was not a good king in my opinion. Although we discussed the broader sense of Beowulf and his lack of heirs, I found an intextual concept. There is a reference throughout the book of "the giver of the rings" and/or "ring giver," as seen on pages 25 and 103. I wondered how this correlated with any concepts that could be discussed. We touched on the fact that Beowulf will not be able to pass on anythinbg, including riches or the kingdom to any heirs since none were mentioned at all in the story. We did not however find actual connections to this in the story. This is where I see the correlation between a "ring-giver" and Beowulf's lack of heirs. Since he died he will no longer be able to pass anything on to another, which is a quality of a good king as demonstrated by other preceding kings. Hence, "ring-giver" = ability to pass on and/or having an heir to pass on to another generation.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is very difficult to discredit 50 years of solid leadership, Beowulf does just that with his final act of blockheaded pride. By all accounts, “He was a good king.” (2390). Expanding upon this, “…he kept our coffers and our kingdom safe.” (3005) and at his funeral the people were “…mourning his loss as a man and a king.” (3172). But Beowulf’s foolish pride is perfectly captured on lines 2345-2354 “Yet the prince of the 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... He outgrappled the monster [Grendal] and his evil kin.” One would think that after 50 years of being a good king Beowulf would have wisdom. Yet he puts reason aside and tries to resurrect his glory days of defeating monsters singlehandedly. Had he fought the dragon with the aid of his army, no fault could be found on his behalf because he is still a good fighter after all of these years. But he does not and therefore dies a hero but leaves his kingdom in disarray.
ReplyDeleteWhile Dan has some valid points, following his logic would mean that Odysseus was not a good king either because of his pride & leaving his kingdom in disarray? I think not. Beowulf, like Odysseus, had their faults, I mean they are human after all but I do not think it is fair to critique them, specifically Beowulf, for not leaving an heir. What if he couldn't? I also don't remember reading about any kings offering their daughters up to Beowulf to marry and unite. Who knows, it's all up to speculation. However, I think Beowulf was a good king because he took it upon himself to fight the Grendels and the dragon because people were in danger. He stood up when no one else did and was successful, until old age bit him in the neck (ha ha) and he could no longer protect his people. He was given a very kingly goodbye and his people lamented over his death. Even if he had an heir, that son (or daughter?) could have been a very lousy ruler and opposing forces could have taken advantage of that weakness and the same conclusion would have resulted.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Beowulf never seemed as full of himself as Odysseus was in The Odyssey. In the end though, Odysseus made the right choice and fought for his family and for his people. He was a less selfish person despite all that he did at sea and made the noble choice in the end. Beowulf seemed to ruin his reputation in the end when he left his country without any backup plan.
ReplyDeletePrior to kingship Beowulf acted decently. He did not overstay his welcome when he traveled to the Danes. Hrothgar mentions that Beowulf is fit to be king after defeating Grendel's mother because he is, "strong in body and mature in mind, impressive in speech" (1844). He gives the gifts he received or earned in battle to the king. He gives the hilt to Hrothgar (1677), and gives the helmet,chain-mail, hoar-frost, and war-sword that he received from Hrothgar to his king Hygelac. It says that Beowulf, "bore himself with valour; he was formidable in battle yet behaved with honour and took no advantage;...kept his temper, and watched and controlled his God-sent strength," (2180). Then time passes and Beowulf has been king for fifty years. After hearing that the dragon had destroyed his own home, "his mind was in turmoil, unaccustomed anxiety and gloom confused his brain" (2330). The story never mentions Beowulf's family, so when his home is destroyed he lost it. He may have blatantly underestimated his opponent (2345), but he sensed death with plenty of time to ask for help or turn around. If he knew he was going to die, maybe he did not want to drag anyone along with him willingly. He saw the dragon as his own enemy; he saw it as his own demon. Maybe this was his battle where he was giving up. One last stand, and then become a martre in his own mind. The reader only knows that Beowulf is a good king because he says so. Maybe he took on the dragon because he felt it was his time, and wanted to go out swinging. Regardless, he left his people with no heir. The turmoil that could have been prevented means that all of the work he did for his country meant nothing. That makes a bad king. When the dragon destroyed part of the country, it destroyed apart of Beowulf.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBecause a good king can be defined in a variety of ways, I found it best to derive the definition from the poem itself. The poem begins with an account of the most famous Danish warrior king, Shield Sheafson. We learn that “his powers waxed and his worth was proved” (line 8), contributing to his reputation as “one good king” (line 11). Hrothgar is also regarded as “a good king” (line 862), largely because of his great wisdom. Throughout the book he is referred to as the “wise king” and claims that he is qualified to advise Beowulf on the dangers of power because he has “wintered into wisdom” (1725). Despite their differences, Shield Sheafson and Hrothgar are similar kings in that they both “had courage and greatness” (2). Ultimately, it can be inferred that a good king is one endowed with wisdom, strength, courage, and the ability to defend his country.
ReplyDeleteFrom the poem's definition of a good king, I believe Beowulf fits the criteria. The very first line pertaining to his reign states, “He ruled well for fifty winters, grew old and wise as warden of the land,” (2209), proving that he implemented the wisdom of a good king. He also provided superior protection for his people, as evidenced by his claim that “no king of any neighbouring clan would dare face me with troops, none had the power to intimidate me” (2733). His strength and courage were demonstrated prior to his reign. In addition to embodying the qualities of a good king, he was also adored by his people. Following his death, the Geats rode around his tomb, “all of them distraught…mourning his loss as a man and a king. They extolled his heroic nature and exploits and gave thanks for his greatness” (3173). One cannot deny that Beowulf made a costly, pride-driven mistake, but this did not change the way his people perceived him, made apparent by the poem’s conclusion: “They said that of all the kings upon the earth he was the man most gracious and fair minded, kindest to his people and keenest to win fame” (3182).
The more I think about this question the more I am forced to believe that Beowulf was a great hero, but not so much a great, everlasting king. I think the key to this is everlasting. Yes his people mourned his loss, but they were not loyal to him. When Beowulf needed them the most they “broke ranks and ran for their lives” (line 2596/7). Even in the presence of Grendel and his terrors Hrothgar’s men still remained loyal to him as they were getting eaten. In his last dying breathes Beowulf himself claims that “none [of the kings] had the power to intimidate me” (line 2736). He admits that he basically ruled the other nations by fear, not by communication or peace-weaving. History has shown that this is not the way of a great king. As soon as Beowulf showed the slightest instance of weakness these other nations would not hesitate to attack. So in the circumstance of the dragon entering his kingdom I believe that Beowulf had no choice but to face the dragon on his own and prove his worth once again, or face the consequences of losing his land and people to invaders.
ReplyDeleteWas Beowulf a good king? Yes, he was prompted to be great. He spent his whole life in halls, palaces, and in the company of royalty; it was in his blood. "They wished without hope, to be hold their lord, Beowulf himself"(1604-05). With that said, it is obvious that he is a significant figure in the Geats, and also in the Danes. Even more "his courage was proven, his glory was secure"(1646). The man Beowulf, throughout this poem is not disrespected at all, but is made out to be a great warrior. He is glorified around every turn. "In all things you are even- tempered, prudent and resolute"(1705-07). "Hrothgar declares that Beowulf is fit to be king of the Geats"(margin127). I don't think it is a very fair question to ask, all the evidence points to the fact that he don't really stumble. He was a good king all the way to his death, the Geat people built him a Barrow, huge factor.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf was not only a prodigious warrior, but also a worthy king. His kingdom was peaceful, and “he ruled it well for fifty winters” (2208-09). The conflicts with the dragon and Beowulf’s last moments on Earth are what truly define him as a noble ruler. Lines 2529 – 32 tell how Beowulf commanded his men to stay back, “safe in [their] armor” from the dragon. This exemplifies Beowulf’s fatherly devotion to his men-- he only wants to keep them safe from harm. Of course Beowulf wants to win fame and glory, yet his dying moments are spent being thankful that he is able to leave his people so well endowed with treasure (2777-79). Wiglaf even says “yet Beowulf’s gaze at the gold treasure when he first saw it had not been selfish” (3074-75). As for not producing an heir to the throne, lines 2729-2732, “Now is the time when I would have wanted to bestow this armour on my own son, had it been my fortune to have fathered an heir and live on in his flesh” make me think that Beowulf did not consciously decide to abstain from reproducing, and that maybe he was physically unable to procreate. In addition, he tells Wiglaf “it is up to you to look after their needs,” clearly choosing the loyal warrior as his heir (2800-01). The final line, and our final impression of Beowulf, is “that of all the kings upon the earth he was the man most gracious and fair-minded, kindest to his people and keenest to win fame” (3180-83). Winning fame in that time was an admirable and reputable quality, and a quality fit for a king.
ReplyDeleteFor multiple notecards that I submitted in class I said that Beowulf was better than Odysseus and that Odysseus should have died and not Beowulf. Yes, in my mind, I still feel that Beowulf would win in a fight against Odysseus but, now that I think about it, Beowulf was not a better king/ruler. There are multiple reasons why I believe Beowulf is not a good king but I also have reasons supporting why I feel that he was set up and had the basics to have the possibility to be a good king if he would have changed his ways. In the beginning of the book it is stated, “The man whose name was known for courage, the Geat leader” (340). It is made clear that in the beginning it is understood that he is well known for his courage and bravery. As the story progresses you hear stories that Beowulf defeated multiple creatures, such as the ones in the story about him and Breca (534). This also comes into perspective when you hear of him defeating Grendel and his mother in parts one and two of the book. Beowulf is honored for his accomplishments by being given multiple gifts, such as from Queen Wealhtheow (1195), gifts from the Danes (1866), and a sword from King Hygelac (2193). However, just because Beowulf is known for being courageous and respected with rewards for his accomplishments, this does not make him a good king.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf may have been courageous and have the strength of thirty men but all of that did not make him a good king. I feel that after reading about Beowulf that he was selfish and thought more about himself as an individual than the kingdom that he was put in charge to rule. Even after Beowulf had been injured by the dragon he says, “Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning” (2512). If Beowulf would have not been selfish, I feel that he should have had the frame of mind to want to slay the dragon for his people’s safety not for the pleasure of winning. In this point of the story I feel that Beowulf’s power and past experiences have gone to his head and have caused him to not be able to recognize what his mind set should be as a king. King Hrothgar states “So learn from this and understand true values. I who tell you have wintered into wisdom” (1723). If Beowulf did not let his wisdom wither he could have thought about what was right for his kingdom. The last bit of information that made me recognize Beowulf was not a good king is when his people did not respect him. When Beowulf needed his group of eleven men to help him fight, only Wiglaf stood up to help him. “No help or backing was to be had then from his high-born comrades; that hand-picked troop broke ranks and ran for their lives” (2597). If Beowulf was a true king he would have had people against him every step of the way even if he was facing a killer dragon.
Beowulf was a great hero for killing Grendel and Grendel’s mother, and for the most part, he was a good king “of all the kings upon the earth he was the man most gracious and fair-minded, kindest to his people…” (3181). However, I believe that towards the end of his reign, he began to shirk his responsibilities as a king. Beowulf was described as “keenest to win fame” (3182); he was so intent on winning fame and glory, that he began to look for ways to glorify his name rather than take care of his people. He went to fight the dragon by himself “for the glory of winning” (2514). I believe that Wiglaf states it the best when he says “often when one man follows his own will many are hurt.” (3077). Beowulf began to search for his own fame. He said “let whoever can win glory before death.” (1388). If Beowulf been a good king and provided for his people, he would have received fame for being a powerful leader. Instead, Beowulf began to seek immediate fame, which in turn brings a bad reputation to his name because he did not serve his people well. All in all, Beowulf was a great hero, good king, but he shirked his duties as a king in the end.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I would say Beowulf let his people down as a king in the end. He had moments that revealed his leadership, responsibility, and authority to handle his people well. However, one key component of a good king is leadership and one component of good leadership is the ability to obtain followers and protect them. He needed people to come alongside him to fight the battles and stay until the end. This didn’t happen because his men ran from the dragon (2598). Humility was something Beowulf didn’t have. He lacked humility and instead let pride and arrogance consume him and control his decisions. He was unable to ask for help when the time came to fight the dragon which resulted in his death (2533). On top of that, when he died and because of his death, he left his men and country to face more battles (2911). In the long run, Beowulf didn’t protect his people because of this. He was caught up in his own life and failed to think of the life of his people after his death. Also like stated in class, Hrothgar warned Beowulf of the danger of pride (1760). He was well aware of the destruction it would do and the death it would bring, but Beowulf wasn’t wise enough to take the advice from another good king, one who understood and spoke from experience. To be a good king and leader, you have to be able to take advice and feedback in order to better yourself and the choices you make for your followers, but he failed to do that. Hrothgar told Beowulf of Heremod and how he only brought death and destruction (1712). He was considered a bad king because of it, but didn’t Beowulf do the same? After his pride resulted in his death, he left his people with death and destruction. He could be placed on the same scale as Heremod in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not think Beowulf is a good person, I do think that there are a number of instances in the text that would support the fact that as a king, he did his job. Just looking at his character he was big headed and extremely proud of every fight and conquest that he was involved in and expected credit for all the good he did. “as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning (2513)." It is obvious from this statement that he did not always have the his kingdoms best interest in mind but as king of the Geats he protected his people, which is after all what is most important. He killed grendal and grendals mother along with the dragon in order to protect people, although enjoying the gifts and recognition that came with it, he saved lives and protected lands from further disruption from these beasts. "No king of any neighboring clan would dare face me with troops, none had the power to intimidate me. I took what came, cared for and stood by things in my keeping(2733).” At this time Beowulf has received a fetal bite and is having a chance to reflect on his life and kingship. He does not claim more than doing his job. Protecting those individuals and items in his "keepings" and doing what was necessary for his people. I think that he was good at his job and understood what it took to be a good king.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly Beowulf was a good hero. When thinking about what a hero is and some of the characteristics a hero would have, traits like courageous, strong, brave, and a good warrior. Then thinking about what characteristics a good king would have, these same traits come to mind. I do believe after reading Beowulf, that he was a good king. Coming from another king who was considered a good king, Beowulf is "strong in body and mature in mind, impressive in speech" (1844). This is important because he has the support of a credible person, which is a direct link to how good of a king he would make/is.
ReplyDeleteWhen Beowulf defeats Grendel, it is a very bold thing to do. It is described as "Beowulf's doings were praised over and over again. Nowhere, they said, north or south between the two seas or under the tall sky was there anyone better to raise a shield or to rule a kingdom." (855-860) To rule a kingdom... hmm. Maybe a little bit of foreshadowing. Also it says that he was praised, over and over again. This is exactly what a good king in this era is, a person who is remembered throughout generations and talked about. For Pete's sake he had a book written about him.
But he doesn't stop here, no. He goes on to kill another demon the day after he kills Grendel, which is another noble act that just boosts the glory he wins.
Then Beowulf is elected to be king. He rules well for 50 years, which is longer than the average lifespan in this time era. I personally don't think anyone but a good king could do this. It is true that Beowulf left no heir to his kingdom, but Natalie brought up a great point. No one knows exactly why he didn't leave an heir to his kingdom. Maybe he couldn't. It's all speculation, and assumptions, and you know what people say about assuming. Beowulf cared for and looked out for his kingdom for 50 years, which gets completely overlooked between the three other major happenings in this book.
Lastly, at the end of his reign, Beowulf vows to fight the dragon who is terrorizing his kingdom, and says he will do it alone. There is a very important line when this is happening, that explains why Beowulf wants to kill this dragon by himself. "as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning." (2513). This could be digested as Beowulf being full of himself and blinded by his own fame, but it could also be taken another way. Maybe Beowulf knows that he may die, but is willing to die doing what he loves. It could be one last triumph of glory before he dies, and that line may be his declaration of his intentions. He succeeds with little help from a friend, and is sent off with a very honorable funeral. So my answer would personally be yes, I do believe Beowulf was a good king.
I feel that Beowulf was a good King who left a bad legacy. I don’t think it is fair to label him as a bad king for making one mistake while he ruled the kingdom well for 50 years. He was a good king who made a bad decision to go fight the dragon at such an old age. On page 151 lines 2207-2210 it says, “the wide kingdom reverted to Beowulf. He ruled it well for fifty winters, grew old and wise as a warden of the land.” This quote represents that Beowulf successfully ruled for fifty years. It also states “The feud was settled on a comfortless campaign when he killed Onela” (line 2395). This tells me that he settled many feuds during his kingship. Unfortunately, Beowulf makes the mistake to battle the dragon. Leaving no heir or wife behind, he leaves his country unprotected from neighboring countries and eventually these countries overthrow the land of the Geats. This probably would have left a bad legacy for Beowulf as a king. Although he was a great King for 50 years and an irresponsible one for a day, he may be remembered as the person who lead the Geats to the loss of their land.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Beowulf really wanted to be king. Being king was his job, and he was very good at his job; however, I don't think he tried very hard to excel. He excelled at being a warrior. He fought sea monsters, beat Grendel unarmed, killed Grendel's mother in her own home, and almost defeated a dragon in his old age. Honestly, being a warrior was what Beowulf was born to do, and being king was something he had to do. In the beginning, the narrator states "Behavior that is admired is the path to power among people everywhere." (Lines 24-25). Beowulf was admired for his battles; however, he never fathered a son or married, and in the end, his companions didn't follow him into the cave. A good king would have had loyal soldiers fighting by his side whether he asked to fight alone or not. At his age, a good king probably shouldn't have been fighting at all. Beowulf was being a good warrior, which is what he wanted, but being the best fighter doesn't make you the best king.
ReplyDeleteI have said it once on a notecard and I will say it again; Beowulf was okay as a king, but it was nothing compared to what he was as a hero. It is what I thought of Odysseus except vice versa. Odysseus was an incredible king. But, Odysseus can not even be compared to Beowulf on the hero scale. If Odysseus would die, Telemachus was the heir. If Beowulf died, he had no sons to take over his reign. Odysseus was deeply respected and loved by his people. He was constantly being referred to as "king" whenever his name was mentioned. Whenever anyone talks about Beowulf (before and after he is made King of the Geats), he is called "hero" (line 1518), "fabled warrior" (line 2539), "son of the Ecgtheow" (line 2587), and "lord" (line 2627). The last nickname is interesting because like Odysseus he was also thought of as god-like. Yet, even when Odysseus was being thought of as a god, his people always remembered he was there king. Beowulf was their "war-king" (line 2678). His people respected and loved him because he was first a hero. Odysseus was first a king and then a hero. I feel like Beowulf was always meant to be a hero. It is only until he adds the title of king into the mix that he finally fails. He went into battle alone and with arrogance. He would never have done this before he was king. I feel like because Beowulf is king of the Geats, he feels like he has more to prove than before when he was simply the hero of the Geats.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf was an awesome hero, I don't think there's too much to argue on that point. He was born a hero, but made to be a king, which didn't seem to give him too much motivation to make anything better. After becoming king it's said "He ruled it well for fifty winters, grew old and wise as warden of the land." (2218-2210) I did find this choice of wording interesting, as google definition of the word "warden" reads "A person responsible for the supervision of a particular place or thing or for ensuring that regulations associated with it are obeyed." Nowhere in there is said about moving forward or making your country better (which is what a truly good king would do for his country), only supervision.
ReplyDeleteOn top of this I just have to say what a terrible person I think Beowulf is. The only characters he seemed to feel the need to show any real respect for were Hrothgar and Hygelac. Otherwise, it's all about him and showing sympathy or even gratitude for anyone below him was out of the question. He couldn't even thank Wiglaf when he was dying for helping him actually kill the dragon, his last words being of how he is able to "leave my people so well endowed on the day I die" (2798-2799). Then he tells him to use that "well endowed" money to build him a barrow in his memory. And then he died, without even an "oh thanks by the way." I personally can't consider someone that unthoughtful a good king, and combined with the facts that he killed himself worthlessly and without an heir to leave just means all that much more that he should have stuck to being a warrior and nothing else.
Although I do believe Beowulf to be a great hero for his people, I do not believe he served the Geats as a great King. As was mentioned during class, a great King was someone who thought of the future of his people. One example of this would have been to train a great heir to the throne and to make wise choices so that he could actually rule his people. Instead, he chooses to die, unnecessarily in my opinion, for the glory of killing the dragon. Beowulf says, "I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning." (2513) Being solely interested in glory and 'for the winning' as he puts it, was not in the best interest of his people. His right hand man, Wiglaf wanted to help Beowulf and fight by his side, but he refused, wanting all the glory for himself, which isn't the right mindset for any king.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll throughout the book, Beowulf reminded me so much of Odysseus with the boasting he would do before every battle.I actually ended up liking Beowulf better though. I just think he was more genuine than Odysseus seemed to be. I do think he was a very great hero. He was willing to fight for a people (the Danes) that wasn't even his own (the Geats). He fought scary monsters and saved the town from more turmoil. However, because of his last battle (with the dragon), I do think he was the a great king. I think Hrothgar's line, "often when one man follows his own will, many are hurt," (line 3077) says a lot about Beowulf's character. A great king can't be too prideful and try to fight the good fight without any help if it's obvious he needs help. A great king is willing to admit he can't do everything on his own. Beowulf was a great warrior and a great hero, but, unfortunately, he was no great king, and that, ultimately, caused his death.
ReplyDeleteIn Beowulf, good kings were described by keeping their people safe, and holding the responsibility of giving their warriors praise and gifts along with the treasures they received from winnings. I believe that in the eyes of his own people Beowulf was a good king who upheld the duties required of him. Although some of his actions may have been for his personal fame and glory, the dedication he had in protecting those who needed him was quite substantial. Beowulf ruled his kingdom for fifty years, in which his people held a strong sense of security. With his last words he stated how “no king of any neighboring clan would dare face me with troops, none had the power to intimidate me” (2732). Beowulf is then referred to as “the people’s pride and love,” when a messenger tells the people of his death (2900). In the closing lines of the book, Beowulf’s people state that “ of all the kings [on] earth, he was the most gracious and fair-minded, kindest to his people and keenest to wine fame” (3180). There was a very glorified image of Beowulf as a warrior and a hero, always there to protect his people from any potential harm. In his fight with the dragon, Beowulf orders his men to “remain here on the barrow…this fight is not yours,” so these men did stay loyal to their king by obeying his last orders (2529). Not only does his death portray his dedication to his people but it also leaves them “an abundance” of treasures from the dragons hoard (3135). On the contrary, I believe that Beowulf’s final demise counteracted his actions throughout his life as a good king. He may have kept his people safe and showered them with treasures, but only while he was alive. As soon as Beowulf dies his people realize that the state of peace they were in was only from fear, and that eventually they would be attacked. Beowulf’s glorified image of a courageous, strong, and feared hero created a veil of ignorance for both his people as well as himself.
ReplyDeleteIt is in my opinion that Beowulf is a King who has shown to be a character who was very powerful and inspiring to his people. However, he may not represent the best of the best in regards to his reign as king. The praise and honor Beowulf receives are a direct result of his actions. After the killing of Grendel King Hrothgar states, “I have often honoured smaller achievements, recognized warriors not nearly as worthy, lavished rewards on the less deserving. But you have made yourself immortal by your glorious action” (950). Because no one else from the land was able to get rid of Grendel and his reign of terror lasted so long, Beowulf’s actions seemed that much greater. While Beouwulf’s intentions of going into a battle against the dragon were admirable, it was never directly stated that it was for his people that he was making this sacrifice. Instead he states, “I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning…”(2511). It seems that Beowulf’s driving force was the glory, praise, and rewards that he would receive after returning victorious.
ReplyDeleteIn Beowolf we followed along through three main points in Beowolf's life. We saw how he treated others and how he battled. Through those two areas we were able to composite a picture of who Beowolf really is. We were also given a nice description of Beowolf as a king in lines 2177-2184:
ReplyDelete"Thus Beowolf bore himself with valour; he was formidable in battle yet behaved with honour and took no advantage; never cut down a comrade who was drunk, kept his temper and, warrior that he was, watched and controlled his God-sent strength and his outstanding natural powers."
In this excerpt we can pick apart the text and find the attributes of Beowolf that point to him as being a great king. Beowolf conducted himself in such a way that he was honorable, didn't take advantage, wasn't angry unnecessarily, and fought for his people. These attributes made him a great king. He protected his people and treated them fairly.
Throughout this story I was continually comparing Beowulf to Odysseus. Odysseus was a great king as well as a hero, while Beowulf was very heroic, but simply an okay king. In The Odyssey we saw many instances that defined Odysseus as a great king, but in Beowulf very little was said about his rule other than, “He ruled it well for fifty winters, grew old and wise as warden of the land…” (2207-2210). In Beowulf’s story we see more acts of heroism and pride rather than good kingship. Beowulf had been “poorly regarded for a long time…” (2183-2184) but after slaying Grendel and Grendel’s mother, both the Geats and the Danes gained very much respect for him. I feel that the respect they had for Beowulf was respect as a hero though, not as a king. As a king, Beowulf had too much pride. Odysseus took a lot of pride in his life as well, but the pride he had was not as irrational as the pride Beowulf had in himself. This can be seen especially before Beowulf goes to slay the dragon; “the prince of the rings was too proud to line up with a large army against the sky-plague” (2345-2347). At this point in the story, Beowulf is old. He has been ruling for fifty years and one would think that he would realize that he is not as strong as he was when he killed Grendel and Grendel’s mother. If I were one of his men and he explained that he did not want any help with the dragon, I would definitely doubt his intelligence and his ability to rule. Beowulf was definitely a hero, but I don’t feel he was any more than that; a king can be a hero, but a hero cannot always be a king.
ReplyDeleteI think Beowulf, overall, was a good king. He "ruled it well for fifty winters" (2208-2209). I know this is small evidence, but we aren't given a lot of information about how Beowulf ruled as king. However, we do know that "he wished good luck to the Geats who had shared his hearth and his gold" (2418-2419). Like other good rulers, he shared his wealth with his people.
ReplyDeleteYes, some people have pointed out that he was a bad king because he was impulsive and prideful and therefore made a bad decision with the dragon; and this is true, he did make a bad choice, but does that make him a bad king? He went down in battle instead of running away from the fight, which is a disgrace that his own warriors brought upon themselves. Beowulf didn't bring destruction upon his people by fighting, his fellow warriors did by doing the opposite. "Everyone of you with freeholds of land, our whole nation, will be dispossessed, once princes from beyond get tidings of how you turned and fled and disgraced yourselves" (2886-2890).
Overall, Beowulf had his flaws but he was a perfect king for this type of world, for a middle-earth. Sure, he didn't produce any heirs, and that's probably his greatest fault as a ruler. However, the poem doesn't tell us why he doesn't have heirs...perhaps there were multiple problems with begetting considering Beowulf himself regrets this in his dying words, "now it is time when I would have wanted to bestow this armour on my own son, had it been my fortune to have fathered an heir and live on in his flesh" (2729-2732).
Beowulf was brave, earned glory, gathered treasure, shared his wealth and fame with his people, and never ran from battle. He ruled well for fifty years, was respected by his people, and we're told by the poem that he was wise. Beowulf was both a good hero and a good king.
I think that in the time period that Beowulf lived he was indeed a good king for the most part. However, it is now 2011 and some of the things Beowulf did and or said could be interpreted as cocky and arrogant. Back in the time that Beowulf was written, war was a common thing. You needed a strong warrior king who could protect his people. Beowulf does do this... three times that we know of. (Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon) We also know that Beowulf led his people for ever 50 years! Civil war and taking over other peoples land was common so in my opinion, if Beowulf kept his kingdom for so long than he must have been doing something right! (You shall become a help to your people, a long lasting hero. 1705) The only thing Beowulf is guilty of from the time period he is from and his lack of heir.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf was a good king. However I do not think he was a great king. I think that Beowulf was much more human than Odysseus. By saying that Beowulf is more human, makes him more relatable. Everyone makes mistakes. I know I have made many mistakes in my life. Beowulf ruled for 50 years, he was bound to make a mistake. He went off to fight the dragon for his people without leaving an heir or wife. “Now that I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for glory of winning, if the evil one will only abandon his earth-fort and face me in the open (2512-2515).” Beowulf was no spring chicken. He underestimated his strength and it came back to bite him, literally. I think Beowulf had good intentions but in the end left his people vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteI think that Beowulf was definitely more of a good king than a bad one. Hrothgar says he’s “strong in body and mature in mind, impressive in speech” (1844). I think this s one of the best ways to describe Beowulf because it shows all of the good qualities that makes him fit to be such a good king. While he did have a bit of a pride issue he could have been much worse. For example, in the Odyssey, Odysseus was also very proud and boastful. That was something that I really didn’t like about him basically because it made a really annoying character and I was about ready for someone to just kill him so I didn’t have to hear him brag anymore. In Beowulf, Beowulf is proud and boastful but in his character it’s something I like. Like he says he’ll do something and then he does it. Maybe it’s the way the poem is written, but I feel like Beowulf’s pride is a good thing because it leads him to do things he wouldn’t have done without it like go to Hrothgar.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf did a good job of protecting his country and keeping his people safe. I think that if he hadn’t been a good king then his people wouldn’t have mourned “his loss as a man and a king”, it would have been as just their king, but they think he’s great man too (3173).
Beowulf's ambition took precedence over his duties as king, ostensibly. There is also a case for Beowulf being the only one in the kingdom capable of killing the dragon. 11 of 12 of his personal guard did run away. I assume these are the best warriors in the kingdom. Wiglaf was able to help him, but Beowulf still delivered the final blow. I really hate to blame the kingdom; however, why is their king wielding a sword that “failed when he unsheathed it” (2586)? There's no blacksmith in this kingdom? Shouldn't they have made Beowulf a bigger sword by now if he's their only line of defense? “Then [Wiglaf] ordered the outcome of the of the fight to be reported” (2892). This report doubtlessly included the less than courageous actions of Beowulf's soldiers. So Wiglaf spreads the news to everyone that his army is weak in an attempt to make himself look better, right as their king is reported as mortally wounded. This is all while they are worried about another country attacking them. Also, why does Beowulf have no heir? Is there not a single woman to spare? Certainly something could have been arranged. But I understand that his “sword” does have a notorious failure rate.
ReplyDeleteThough Beowulf had many victories throughout his younger years, the years of his reign were less than adequate. Not to say that Beowulf was not a good man, a victor and cared for his people, but one, his failure to leave an heir to the throne, two, have an egotistical view of himself and the world and three, fight alone in battle against the dragon, make him a less than adequate king. All of the things above are the opposite of what a king should be focussing on as he nears the end of his reign. For instance, had Beowulf never been so caught up in pride, as it states in the very last line, "and the keenest to win fame," he may had never gone to fight the dragon alone rather he would have taken an army to assist him in this battle (Beowulf 3182). And if this were the case he may have never died and would have been able to line up an heir in the chance of his sudden death from something other than battle. However, as I said earlier, I do not think that Beowulf was a bad king, or a bad person for that matter, but I do think his actions could have had more consideration taken into them than just the idea of his eternal fame.
ReplyDeleteThe best quote that I have read in the book that sums up Beowulf as a hero and a king was from lines (2510-2515) "Beowulf spoke, made a formal boast for the last time: "I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning, if the evil one will only abandon his earth-fort and face me in the open."
ReplyDeleteI think that Beowulf is a horrible King. Throughout the whole poem he is constantly bragging about himself and in this quote he is still boasting about how often he risked his life but is so amazing as a warrior that he survived all of those life threatening dangers and I think that he believes that because he is considered a hero, he is also considered a good King. I personally think that he is a very dumb king which means that he is probably making horrible decisions for his kingdom. He makes the comment that he is only pursuing the fight for the glory of winning, but he is going up against a dragon... Beowulf is so full of himself that he leaves to fight a fire breathing dragon at the age of 70 something, with the mind set that he will definitly win. Not very smart. Also, he sets out to fight this dragon without thinking about who will take his place as king if he does not return, he is just leaving his kingdom in complete upturn if he does not return and upsets the flow that people have been used to for over 50 years while he ruled. As a king, I understand that he wants to protect his people, that gives him some brownie points as a good king, but the fact that he does not think out any of his decisions and that he is still so boastful and bragging although he has been out of the "hero" stage of his life for over 50 years, has lead me to the conclusion that he is a much better hero, since risking his life seems to be all that he thrives for, than a king.
In my opinion I do not feel that Beowulf proved to be a good king in the end. From the beginning, Beowulf brags of his skill and power. He does use his power and strength to help others, but it seems his main goal is the fame, not the service to humanity. After killing Grendel and his mother, Beowulf becomes king after King Hygleac dies. Even though he rules for fifty years and was fair to his people, it’s a person’s decisions that are made in the end that effect our lasting impression. When the dragon has to be slain, Beowulf is no longer in his prime, yet insists on battling him alone. This I believe is the worst decision Beowulf ever made. Yes he would have been worshiped had he succeeded, but that was not the case as one could have expected. Again when battling the dragon, helping protect his people was not his drive, thoughts of fame and glory consumed him. While battling the dragon Beowulf “Inspired again by the thought of glory,” (2677) resumes his impossible battle alone. Even after Beowulf dies, his people realize what he has done; Wiglaf especially realizes this by saying “Often one man follows his own will many are hurt. This happened to us” (3077). He was exactly right, Beowulf had only his own wants in mind and instead of him just paying with his life, his people paid the price of being left king-less, heir-less, and at danger from others now in result. Another reason I feel strongly that he was not a good king in the end is because even on his death bed, he talked not of his country or worries of their fate, rather “he was still himself, alive, aware, and in spite of his weakness he had many requests” (3093). He makes requests of his story to be told and a memorial in his honor. A memorial for what?...abandoning his people for selfish reasons? Instead of worrying about how people would remember him, he should have been contemplating the consequences of having no son to take his place and leaving his own country without a leader. Lastly, the ending description of Beowulf seemed to elude to his selfishness. “They said that of all the kings upon the earth he was the man most gracious and fair-minded, kindest to his people and keenest to win fame” (3180). Keenest to win fame, a perfect way to describe Beowulf main mind set in life. Ruling his kingdom rightly to the end should have been his fame, not trying to kill a dragon in his old age.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf had a mixture of good and bad king characteristics. He ruled for “50 winters” (2208), so the people must have liked him. If you think a king should protect people, then he was a good king in that aspect. When he died, the people knew that they would be attacked, because he was no longer there to protect him. However, Beowulf was a bad king by having too much pride. As I wrote on my notecards the entire week, he is entirely way too vain and confident. He should have looked to someone else to fight the dragon. In lines (2510-2515) he even states "I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning.” He should have, instead, been concerned about surviving to continue to take care of the people. I feel it was stupid and selfish of him to pursue to fight at all.
ReplyDeleteBeowulf is not a good king in my opinion. I think he makes a good warrior and puts fear into his enemies but being a good king is low on the totem pole. Our book describes Shield as a good King and his qualities were he thought about the future of his kingdom and people, he produced an heir to take over when he passes on, and he thought about what would happen or what will happen if they ever have to go to war. Shield’s people never had to worry about what was going on or what is going to happen to them in the future. Beowulf’s good quality as a king was that he was feared amongst his enemies. They never messed with Beowulf because they knew Beowulf was a strong warrior and had great warriors to fight for him. A king does not put himself before his people and in this case Beowulf did. Beowulf prided himself on what he could do such as kill Grendle and his mother, along with the dragon but what was behind those deaths was the praise he would get for killing all of them. If you look at lines 632-638 he boast at how he’s going to kill Grendle:” I had a fixed purpose when I put to sea. As I sat in the boast with my band of men, I meant to perform to the uttermost what your people wanted or perish in the attempt, in the fiend’s clutches. And I shall fulfill that purpose, prove myself with a proud deed or meet my death here in the mead-hall” To me he is performing for fame and glory not for the safety of the people. Killing Grendles mother was pretty much a given because you knew she was going to avenge her son’s death. When it came to the dragon is where you can see he was all for the fame and glory. He didn’t care about the people of his kingdom or the consequences it would bring if he should die from this quest. This is where he made the worst decision as a King and therefore he should have stayed a warrior not a king.
ReplyDelete