Beowulf’s Fratricide

An analysis of the similarities between the hero and the monster,

and what this means for the story.

Lecturer: Aline Douma

Student’s name: Jonathan Olde Scheper
Student number: S5367093
Hand-in date: 8-04-2024
Word count: 2596
 2

There has been an extraordinary amount of scholarly discussion regarding Beowulf, and
everything adding to the collective leaves less room for novel interpretations, hence
originality becomes a difficult enterprise; one that I have attempted. Modern scholarship
builds on J.R.R. Tolkien’s lectures, wherein he argued: “the monsters are not an inexplicable
blunder of taste; they are essential, fundamentally allied to the underlying ideas of the
poem.”1 I am echoing Tolkien, because of my interest in the monsters, since their ambiguous
portrayal allows theorising; they do not represent a black and white dichotomy of monster
versus hero, and especially Grendel seems to harbour redeeming qualities. This equivocal
depiction is also present for the hero, who hosts a self-centred, overly aggressive Jungian
shadow alongside his heroic nature. I have come across numerous articles arguing that
Grendel represents Beowulf’s shadow: the hidden, repressed, for the most part inferior and
guilt-laden personality juxtaposed to one’s conscious awareness.2 I do not intend to use a
Jungian framework however, nor delve deep into the various symbolic imageries present that
have been a commonly discussed scholarly topic, although George Clark’s discussion on
symbolism has been insightful for examining what has not been sufficiently discussed:
Beowulf and Grendel their separation from humanity – represented by Hrothgar, Hygelac and
Beowulf’s elite guard – that allows them to be granted a novel classification, and what it
means for the text. Further details will be discussed in a later stage, hence all that matters at
this point is: Beowulf and Grendel can be likened to entitatem,3 through their shared
characteristics, such as extreme aggression, an indifference to human concerns and formidable
strength, which shows the limited influence of humanity when faced with immensely stronger
foes.
In the poem Beowulf, Grendel his violent outbursts mark him as monstrous in nature,
yet Beowulf shares the same tendencies. Violence is a prominent aspect of Anglo-Saxon
society - a necessary part for a warrior such as Beowulf, seeking to gain social status through

1
J.R.R. Tolkien, “The Monsters and the Critics.” In The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, 5-48.
Edited by Christopher Tolkien (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983), 19
2
M.L. Von Franz, “The Process of Individuation.” In Man and his Symbols, 157 – 254. Edited by C.G. Jung and
M.L. Von Franz (London: Aldus Books, 1964), 171-179 (It is partly quotation, partly paraphrase, but I would
argue that the meaning of Jung’s shadow has been captured sufficiently.)
3
Grendel and Beowulf are separated from humanity, but to avoid anthropological, or biological, discussion I am
describing them with the word entitatem, which is Latin for entity. I intend to solely focus on their behaviour,
hence the usage of a nondescript identifier.
 3

his craft4 – but the hero appears unusually motivated to demonstrate his strength, which
illustrates his bloodthirsty nature. According to Norma Kroll: “He had ground the attacking
sea monsters […] into pieces with the same bloodthirstiness shown by Grendel in devouring
Hrothgar's thanes.”5 It would have sufficed to end their lives, but the hero resolved to butcher
them. Beowulf performs the same unnecessarily violent actions as Grendel, demonstrating
their behaviour is not entirely opposed to each other.
Adding on to that, Beowulf and Grendel share an indifference to human concerns; for
the hero it is portrayed through his egotistical actions; for the monster it is portrayed with his
repeated consumption of Heorot’s inhabitants. In the first half of Beowulf, Beowulf seems the
undisputed hero, because without regard for his own safety, he aids a different nation in
fighting their monster; however, when he returns home, ulterior motives are revealed. His
voluntary battle with Grendel was not motivated by selfless heroism, but an egotistical desire
to gain fame and renown, and even though it is common for a warrior to seek glory,6 placing
your desires above that of the tribe is self-centred. Beowulf’s egocentrism is uncovered by
Hygelac’s speech: “How did you fare on your foreign voyage, dear Beowulf, when you
abruptly decided to sail away across the salt water and fight at Heorot? […] I pleaded with
you long and hard to leave the killer be, let the South-Danes settle their own blood-feud with
Grendel.”7 Hygelac’s words dispute Beowulf’s status as selfless hero, since he states the
departure was a sudden and abrupt course of events. The hero departed to foreign lands on his
own accord, to solve disputes that did not concern him; fighting Grendel was an unnecessary
risk to take, since he knew it may be his demise, evidenced by the speech he gave before
fighting the monster.8 Beowulf left his homestead without permission, and as Jessie Bonafede
stated: “It stands to reason that for Hygelac and the Geats more broadly, they doubt how
Beowulf’s goal will benefit the tribe.”9 The hero is not as selfless as he appeared at first,
because his tribe did not see the value in his departure, and by placing his own desires above

4
Mary Dockray-Miller, “Beowulf’s Tears of Fatherhood.” Exemplaria 10, no. 1 (Januari 1, 1998): 2-10.
https://doi.org/10.1179/exm.1998.10.1.1.
5
Norma Kroll, “‘Beowulf’: The Hero as Keeper of Human Polity.” Modern Philology 84, no. 2 (1986): 125.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/437569.
6
Mary Dockray-Miller, ‘Beowulf’s Tears of Fatherhood,’ 2-10
7
‘Beowulf.’ In The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 37-109. 10th ed. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt (New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2018), 85
8
‘Beowulf,’ 51.
9
Jessie Bonafede, “The Good, the Bad and the Violent: Analyzing Beowulf’s Heroic Displacement and
Transgressive Violence during the Grendel Quest,” Quidditas: Vol 42, (2021): 16.
 4

that of the tribe he demonstrates his egocentrism. This does not equate him to the status of a
monster, but the hero and the monster share a disregard for human concerns.
Beowulf shares qualities of Grendel, and the same holds true the other way around,
which means that their dichotomy is not a rigid hero versus monster distinction but an
ambiguous classification, which allows me to grant them a new, more fitting, and shared
classification. “Where one would expect an assured, unequivocal condemnation of the
manslayer, one finds instead a curious ambivalence.”10 Robert L. Chapman bases his
statement on the numerous sympathetic qualifiers assigned to Grendel i.e., “deprived of joy”
or “his death was to be miserable”, that denote the presumable sympathy Beowulf’s poet had
for Grendel. This sympathy continues when narrating his lineage: Grendel’s descent from
Cain. This descent locks him into the status of outcast, because - as Bonafede discusses11 - in
the world of Beowulf ones paternal lineage affects the societal status one is born into; when
ones parent’s status is disgraced their status will be, and after committing the first fratricide,
Cain’s status was permanently disgraced – resulting in Grendel being marked evil, without
chance of redemption, from birth.12 Grendel will always be seen as a monster, regardless of
his actions, which does not justify them, but it does make it unclear whether he truly is a
monster, or a product of his environment, and because of this present ambiguity I would
contend neither is exactly a hero, or a monster: they’re both entitatem, that do not have to
concern themselves with human affairs.
The ambiguous classification of Beowulf and Grendel, which allows me to call them
entitatem, is supported through specific additions, by the Beowulf poet, that signal the two are
linked together. In the first attack on Heorot, the narrator stated Grendel “Grabbed thirty men
from their resting places, and rushed to his lair,”13 which displays his uniquely formidable
strength, yet when Beowulf is described by Hrothgar, he says the warrior holds: “The strength
of thirty in the grip of each hand.”14 Similar amounts of strength are ascribed to them, and the
specificity of the numbers signals that the addition was a deliberate choice. The goal of this is
granting them a shared status – one stronger than the average man; not exactly a man –

10
Robert L. Chapman, “Alas, Poor Grendel” in College English 17, no. 6 (1956): 334.
https://doi.org/10.2307/372370. (The sympathetic qualifiers Chapman discusses, and I build on, are based off a
translation by Klaeber, who the former based his arguments on.)
11
Bonafede, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Violent,’ 10-13
12
‘Beowulf,’ 45
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., 50
 5

wherein they can only contend with each other; wherein they are destined to clash, and
Beowulf is aware of their link, evidenced by renouncing to use his weaponry: “I have heard
moreover that the monster scorns in his reckless way to use weapons […] I hereby renounce
sword and the shelter of the broad shield, the heavy war-board: hand-to-hand is how it will
be.”15 He has learned that his opponent does not use weapons, and deliberately chooses to
relinquish the advantages his armaments provide. According to George Clark,16 the use of
weapons symbolises belonging to humanity, because only humankind is able to create and
wield armaments, hence choosing to forego their utilisation symbolises rejecting humanity,
which brings Beowulf and Grendel closer together physically – their bodies must now make
contact during the struggle – and metaphorically – insinuating their coupling. I am
specifically using ‘coupling,’ because I do not intend to discuss the Dragon and Grendel’s
Mother in detail; the former because its serpentine nature removes it from the descriptions
attributed to Beowulf and Grendel; the latter because Beowulf does not share the same desire
to fight on equal footing, nor does she share her son’s strength of thirty men, denoting she is a
different category altogether, beyond the scope of this article discussing Grendel and
Beowulf. Their battle holds symbolic value, because Beowulf’s decision to fight ‘hand-to-
hand’ transforms their subsequent clash into “an archetypal struggle essentially unlike human
warfare,”17 since it is not exactly a confrontation between two humans, it has become one
between entitatem. That are distanced from humanity through behaviour and physical
attributes, and even though Beowulf chooses to reside with people, his actions cannot be
influenced by them.
Beowulf and Grendel do not have to concern themselves with human affairs – it is a
choice instead of a requirement, and while Grendel chooses to consume people, Beowulf
decided to protect people. I am not saying Grendel could live a peaceful existence among
people – his lineage foreordains him to wander in exile forever – but I am arguing that neither
Grendel or Beowulf need other people around them to survive; their strength warrants
sufficient ability to perform all actions required for survival: evidenced by Beowulf’s five day
swimming competition with Breca, sustenance is not his highest priority, and Grendel has no
difficulty finding nourishment in Hrothgar’s clan, but people are depending on Beowulf for
protection. The dependence on Beowulf’s protection is illustrated in two examples I would

15
Ibid., 51
16
George Clark, “Beowulf’s Armor.” ELH 32, no. 4 (1965): 409 - 411. https://doi.org/10.2307/2872250.
17
Ibid., 421
 6

like to discuss; his speeches elucidate an awareness that only he can exterminate the monsters
of his world;18 the narrator states the importance of Beowulf’s presence: “Now war is looming
over our nation, soon it will be known to Franks and Frisians, far and wide, that the king is
gone.”19 Beowulf was the reason that other tribes made no attempt to attack, and with their
king gone, his people will perish. He is not only the leader of a people, but also their sole
protector, since they cannot defend themselves without him.
Beowulf chooses to be around people, but they do not have influence over him,
evidenced by Hrothgar’s pleas. The leader of the South-Danes is unable to halt Grendel,
hence needs to be saved by Beowulf. Mary Dockray-Miller stated: “Hrothgar, the proto-
masculine great king, is actually losing masculine status within the social networks and battles
of the poem because he does not wield power and cannot dominate others in the manner that
Beowulf can.”20 She argues the king has lost his masculine status, because he cannot defend
his people from Grendel, whereas Beowulf can, which leads the warrior’s status to
aggrandise. According to Dockray-Miller, Hrothgar attempts to gain power over Beowulf, and
thus regain his masculine essence, by trying to adopt him. This attempt to play the role of
father to Beowulf does not work out however, since the warrior ignores it; “If Beowulf had
responded at all to Hrothgar’s emotion, his tears, the longing in his blood, it would have been
an acknowledgement that Hrothgar held some sort of power over him.”21 This shows that
Hrothgar is not able to exert any influence over the warrior, akin to Hygelac, whose pleas to
‘let the South-Danes be,’ were to no avail. Two of the kings presented in the poem, men who
would be considered wielding high amounts of power in Beowulf’s world,22 could not exert
any influence over Beowulf which shows he resides with people not out of necessity, but out
of his own volition.
Nobody has any influence over Beowulf, and with the exception of the warrior
himself, this is also the case for Grendel. Take for example his first portrayal: “Their mighty
prince, the storied leader, sat stricken and helpless, humiliated by the loss of his guard,

18
‘Beowulf,’ 87 – 89 (An argument can be made that every speech Beowulf gives illustrates this, but the
example given appeared all-encompassing to me, for its length and detail.)
19
Ibid., 104
20
Mary Dockray-Miller, ‘Beowulf’s Tears of Fatherhood,’ 2
21
Ibid., 28
22
Bonafede, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Violent,’ 10 – 13
 7

bewildered and stunned, staring aghast at the demon’s trail, in deep distress.”23 Grendel
appears and disappears out of his own volition, leaving a trail of destruction in his wake. The
inability to ward off Grendel could be explained by the South-Danes their warriors lacking
physical prowess, but neither the elite guard that Beowulf brought along could affect the
beast. Before embarking on his voyage Beowulf had assembled a small army to accompany
him, comprised of the finest men he could find: “he moved about like the leader he was,
enlisting men, the best he could find; with fourteen others the warrior boarded the boat as
captain,”24 yet these hand-picked men made no impact in the battle with Grendel, because
only Beowulf is able to exert influence over him; showing that nobody has any influence over
the entitatem, apart from themselves.
The hero and the monster their portrayal is nuanced, layered, and ambiguous, which is
why I labelled them entitatem, that stand above humanity through their shared formidable
strength. The hero holds qualities of the monster – a thirst for blood, an egocentric mindset –
whereas the monster is portrayed rather equivocal, because of the sympathetic qualifiers the
poet assigned to him, as well as his foreordained disgrace. Furthermore, they do not have to
involve themselves with human concerns. Beowulf deliberately chooses to protect humanity;
Grendel chooses to consume Heorot’s inhabitants, and, with the exception of the warrior,
everyone is powerless to stop him; Hrothgar attempts to exert influence over Beowulf, but
ultimately fails, hence humanity is not able to exert any influence when they are faced with
immensely stronger foes. I would argue a novel topic has been addressed, although, since I
am not familiar with the entire literary corpus on Beowulf, I cannot say with certainty I am
treading new ground, yet I would argue my contribution held significance because of the
unique combination of literature, with especially a focus on the symbolism – George Clark -
and ambiguity present in the text – Robert L. Chapman – that helped in arguing humanity is
helpless in the face of great adversity. I would contend that utilising an entirely Jungian
framework in future analyses will lead to intriguing interpretations, since this article only
scratched the surface of the numerous possibilities, wherein I focussed on similarities between
Beowulf and Grendel linking them together, their connection to humanity, and what it means
for the text.

23
‘Beowulf,’ 45
24
Ibid., 47
 8

Bibliography:

‘Beowulf’ In The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 10th ed.

Edited by Stephen Greenblatt, 37-109. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2018.

Bonafede, Jessie. “The Good, the Bad and the Violent: Analyzing Beowulf’s Heroic
Displacement and Transgressive Violence during the Grendel Quest,” Quidditas: Vol
42, (2021)
Chapman, Robert L. “Alas, Poor Grendel.” College English 17, no. 6 (1956): 334–37.
https://doi.org/10.2307/372370.

Clark, George. “Beowulf’s Armor.” ELH 32, no. 4 (1965): 409–41.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2872250.

Dockray‐Miller, Mary. “Beowulf’s Tears of Fatherhood.” Exemplaria 10, no. 1 (January 1,

1998): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1179/exm.1998.10.1.1.

Kroll, Norma. “‘Beowulf’: The Hero as Keeper of Human Polity.” Modern Philology 84, no.
2 (1986): 117–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/437569.

Von Franz M.L. “The Process of Individuation.” In Man and his Symbols, 157 – 254. Edited
by C.G. Jung and M.L. Von Franz. London: Aldus Books, 1964

Tolkien, J.R.R. “The Monsters and the Critics” in The Monsters and the Critics and Other
Essays, 5-48. Edited by Christopher Tolkien. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983