After Beowulf defeats Grendel's mother he sees Grendel's dead body and decides to behead him. Isn't Beowulfs action dishonorable, because Grendel is already dead?
I think it's difficult for us to label it honorable or dishonorable because the Anglo-Saxons dealt with those things in a very different way. The concept of wergild justifies decapitating an already dead enemy because in Beowulf's mind he was getting fair payment for the men Grendel had killed.
As i was reading i noticed about 4 or 5 referances to the heads of people that had been killed or were fighting to the death. Like in the lake were the heads of the dead float up to the surface. I think the reason Beowulf beheaded Grendel even though he was dead was because it was pay back for all the heads he took during his rein of terror.
i don't think that Beowulf beheading Grendle is dishonorable because its almost like when they took Grendle's arm and put it on the wall as a "trophy." Also I believe it serves as a symbol of all their troubles being over, having Grendle's head, like kelly c said, for pay back.
I think That back then, it was not dishonorable. Rather a form of payback and possibly celebration of final defeat. Personally, however, I think that it is a very frivolous and disrespectful jesture and I see no valid arguement to support the neccessity of cutting off a dead person/monster's head. but thats just me danielle r
As Jenny said, it is difficult to completely determine whether or not Beowulf's actions were honorable. At the time of the Anglo-Saxons, wergild was a justifiable act. In Beowulf's eyes, what he did was honorable. However, maybe it was dishonorable because technically he already got revenge on Grendel by killing him. So, it wasn't really necessary for Beowulf to behead him as well.
7 comments:
After Beowulf defeats Grendel's mother he sees Grendel's dead body and decides to behead him. Isn't Beowulfs action dishonorable, because Grendel is already dead?
Lydia
I think it's difficult for us to label it honorable or dishonorable because the Anglo-Saxons dealt with those things in a very different way. The concept of wergild justifies decapitating an already dead enemy because in Beowulf's mind he was getting fair payment for the men Grendel had killed.
As i was reading i noticed about 4 or 5 referances to the heads of people that had been killed or were fighting to the death. Like in the lake were the heads of the dead float up to the surface. I think the reason Beowulf beheaded Grendel even though he was dead was because it was pay back for all the heads he took during his rein of terror.
i don't think that Beowulf beheading Grendle is dishonorable because its almost like when they took Grendle's arm and put it on the wall as a "trophy." Also I believe it serves as a symbol of all their troubles being over, having Grendle's head, like kelly c said, for pay back.
oh, that last comment, posted by Laurie K
I think That back then, it was not dishonorable. Rather a form of payback and possibly celebration of final defeat. Personally, however, I think that it is a very frivolous and disrespectful jesture and I see no valid arguement to support the neccessity of cutting off a dead person/monster's head. but thats just me
danielle r
As Jenny said, it is difficult to completely determine whether or not Beowulf's actions were honorable. At the time of the Anglo-Saxons, wergild was a justifiable act. In Beowulf's eyes, what he did was honorable. However, maybe it was dishonorable because technically he already got revenge on Grendel by killing him. So, it wasn't really necessary for Beowulf to behead him as well.
Post a Comment