---

§1. Beowulf has long been defined according to the classical tradition as an epic battle between brave heroes and the monstrous other.¹ More recently, several scholars have noted parallels that seem to challenge the narrative of othering, thus framing the heroes as monstrous in key respects (Griffith 1995; Orchard 1995; Köberl 2002; Gwara 2009). Within this debate, however, there has long been a consensus that Beowulf begins with a heroic encomium to Scyld Scefing and the Danes, thus establishing the Danish patriarch as a praiseworthy warrior and king:

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas, Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs god cyning! (1–11) ²

“What! We have heard of the power of the folk-kings of the Spear-Danes in yore-days, how those princes performed valor. Often, Scyld Scefing amid troops of ravagers, deprived many tribes of mead-seats, terrified earls. Although he was first found forsaken, he awaited consolation, grew under the clouds, prospered in worthy-honors, until each of the around-sitters [surrounding peoples] across the whale-road must heed him, pay tribute. That was a good king!”³

§2. Critical convention has long interpreted these lines as acclamation for Scyld Scefing and the Danes.⁴ John M. Hill speaks for many readers when he characterizes the passage as a recollection of “the days when kings and princes of spear Danes were worthy, when one could say emphatically that they were good” (1995, 54). The editors of Klaeber's Beowulf: Fourth Edition likewise endorse Scyld Scefing’s reputation as a god cyning “good king” (11):

The emphasis at the beginning of Beowulf on good kingship (i.e. strong kingship), kingship that gains the respect of neighboring peoples) directs attention to one of the poem’s leading themes, the question of what makes for social order in a highly unstable world (Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 112).⁵

This encomiastic viewpoint also informs approaches that problematize heroism. Several who identify a critique of the poem’s other heroes nevertheless leave Scyld unscathed.⁶ Tom Clark is exceptional in his critical note that Scyld targets “soft opponents, keener on drinking than fighting”; yet even this observation merely qualifies Scyld’s glory (2003, 143). Perhaps surprisingly, the strongest panegyric view comes from Andy Orchard, whose work was the first to expose figures of heroic monstrosity as a sign of destabilizing pride. For Orchard, the Danish founder represents an exemplary foil to Beowulf: “Scyld carved out through conquest a country for himself, and, crucially, left his people a long line of kings, while Beowulf famously delays seizing the crown and leaves his people lordless” (2003, 104). In sum, a virtual consensus interprets the prologue’s opening lines as an assertion of praise for the Danes and their far-famed progenitor, Scyld Scefing.⁷

§3. In this article, we complicate this convention. We concur that various elements align Scyld with the warrior ethics celebrated within the poem’s heroic world; yet we will also demonstrate an enigmatic design, in which these same elements invite an interrogation of heroism.⁸ Specifically, we argue that Scyld is characterized in terms that foreshadow Grendel’s violent conquest of Denmark in the subsequent two fitts. By considering both lexical and narratological evidence, we demonstrate that Scyld’s own reign of terror, wreaked upon the mead halls of surrounding nations, aligns with Grendel’s enigmatic presentation and monstrosity.

§4. No doubt, the prologue’s first sentence offers a raft of positive signs regarding Scyld and his dynasty. Recalled in the lore of geardagum “yore days” (1), the Gardena “Spear Danes” (1) possess the status of legend, in a reputation for þrym “power” (2) the audience already has gefrunon “heard” (2). The emphasis on Scyld’s enduring dynasty is also projected in the intergenerational reference to þeodcyningas “people’s kings” (2) and æþelingas “princes” (3); and this dynastic emphasis also frames the closing reference to ellen “valor” (3), a term that suggestively elevates courage as of defining attribute of the Danes. The rest of the passage also suggests an enduring quality to Scyld’s renown. The contrast between his dismal origins and ascendancy, for example, might suggest that his frofor “consolation” comes from God; likewise, Scyld’s aspect as one who weorðmyndum þah “prospered in worthy honors” (8) certainly highlights his expanding authority, such that far-flung nations ofer hronrade hyran scolde / gomban gyldan “across the whale-road must heed him, pay tribute” (10–11). Finally, the closing acclamation seems to cast unequivocal approval: Þæt wæs god cyning “That was a good king!” (11). Undeniably, then, the prologue’s opening section offers various signs that suggest an encomiastic tribute to the lasting glory of Scyld Scefing and the Danes.

§5. It is thus a matter of great significance that the subsequent narrative completely overturns every encomiastic sign. Far from confirming the Scylding Danes, in their unfailing courage, invincible might, and enduring acclaim, Beowulf’s narrative arc dramatizes their paralyzing terror, abject helplessness, and ill-famed humiliation. Immediately after Hrothgar erects Heorot, the narrator predicts the hall’s fiery doom (79–85); and shortly after that, Grendel reduces the Danes to terror and humiliation, bruited among the nations (115–63). This reversal also pertains to reputation. Whereas Scyld’s notoriety is proclaimed across the hronrad “whale-road” (10), the Danes subsequently gain wide repute for their debasement at Grendel’s hands. Indeed, so pronounced is Danish impotence that Hrothgar must rely on a foreigner for deliverance (371–89). Yet Danish humiliation does not end with Grendel’s defeat. Rather, it is Danish warriors who are routed by a “lady” in the character of Grendel’s mother (1258–1301); it is the Danish champion, Unferth, who relinquishes both reputation and sword to Beowulf (1455–60); and it is Beowulf, the foreign champion, who prevails (1497–1631). This theme of subjection then culminates with Beowulf’s prediction, in his report to Hygelac, of impending catastrophe for his erstwhile hosts (1999–2069). If the editors of Klaeber 4 are correct in defining “good kingship” as “kingship that gains the respect of neighboring peoples” (Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 112), then Beowulf’s closing prediction leaves no room for doubt: after the prologue, it is all downhill for the Danes.

§6. To contextualize the disjoint between the prologue’s opening passage and the subsequent narrative, we turn to early medieval narrative traditions. Encomiastic interpretive conventions not only overlook the radical instability of Danish puissance, they also ignore the critical discourse that largely defines the early medieval English milieu. Originating in biblical narratives of pagan hegemonies such as that of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, cultural critiques of pagan heroic instability extend through the Christian scriptures to inform the patristic legacy, from Augustine’s City of God (De civitate Dei contra paganos) to Orosius’s Seven Books of History Against the Pagans (Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII) and Prudentius’s Psychomachia.⁹

§7. Within the milieu of early medieval England also, critiques of the pagan heroic social order underpin an array of texts,¹⁰ including such Old English poems as Andreas, Daniel, Exodus, Guthlac, Juliana, The Ruin, and Vainglory. ¹¹ Equally salient is the tenor of the Nowell Codex (London, British Library, Cotton Vitellius a.xv), with its Orosian treatments of heroic figures. Within the codex, narratives of heroic instability frame the figures of King Dagnus in the Old English Passion of Saint Christopher, Alexander the Great in the Old English Letter of Alexander to Aristotle and Wonders of the East, and Holofernes in the Old English Judith. Indeed, it is this same concatenation of fallen hero-kings that informs Andy Orchard’s work, in defining the Nowell Codex via the organizing principle of pride and prodigies (Orchard 1995, 1–139). Specifically, Orchard observes that all of the texts contained in the manuscript “uniformly exhibit a twin interest in the outlandish and in the activities of overweening pagan warriors from a distant and heroic past: pride and prodigies” (Orchard 1995, 27).

§8. The Nowell Codex’s context of critique supports our reading of heroic instability as imbricated in the prologue’s characterization of Scyld Scefing and the Danes. As we demonstrate, the prologue employs lexical and grammatical ambiguity to suggestively align the poem’s warrior ethos with the attributes of its monsters. Accordingly, words or phrases that may ostensibly seem celebratory may also align with this critique. Furthermore, this same pattern of ambiguity effectively generates an enigmatic design, in which the prologue’s apparent praise of Danish power simultaneously anticipates the subsequent narrative of Danish debasement. Indeed, an example of this ambiguous construction occurs in the first sentence. Accordingly, the term ellen “valor” (3), which seems to mark the Danes encomiasticlly will next recur just 80 lines later, to mark Grendel as an ellengæst “valor-spirit” (86). Likewise, the sign of Scyld’s renown, which is widely gefrunon “heard” (2) foreshadows Grendel’s renown, which reaches Geatland after twelve years, inspiring Beowulf’s quest to slay the monster (194–205).

§9. This parallelism between the Danes and their nemesis also frames the second sentence: Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum / monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah / egsode eorlas. “Often, Scyld Scefing amid troops of ravagers, deprived many tribes of mead-seats, terrified earls” (4–6). This sentence reveals the means by which the Danes gain their power and fame—through assaults that deprive monegum mægþum “many tribes” of their meodosetla “mead-seats” (5) and egsian “terrified” (6) elite warriors. Yet these are same deeds exhibited by the ellengæst Grendel, who gains power and fame by depriving the Scyldings of their mead-hall (138–46) and by terrorizing their best warriors (160–61). The other trope that unites the two figures is that of frequency, for just as Scyld’s assaults occur oft “often” (4), Grendel’s attacks are also unrelenting (133–37).

§10. These parallels have escaped attention in part because of longstanding distortions. One problem area is the Old English verb ofteon (5). Many translation favor verbs like “take away,” “snatch up,” and “seize” in their characterization of Scyld’s conquests.¹² Yet the image of Scyld physically removing mead-seats represents a misconstrual. A better rendering of ofteon may be “deprive”—as in “withhold” or “deny” (Beowulf, 420). We concur therefore with Robert Fulk’s translation of the verb as “expelled” (2010, 87). This is certainly the action by which Scyld denies his enemies of their “mead-seats”; but notably, this is Grendel’s action too.

§11. . Another misconstrual concerns the noun sceaða [genitive plural sceaðena]. Like the verb sceþðan “to scathe, harm, ravage,” it is etymologically related to the modern English word “scathe” and thus denotes the impact of depredation (Beowulf, 428). Numerous sceaða- compounds frame Grendel as the manscaða “crime/man-ravager” (712, 737), synscaða “criminal/perpetual-ravager” (707, 802),¹³ dolscaða “brazen-ravager” (479), hearmscaða “harm- ravager” (766) and leodsceaða “people-ravager” (2093).¹⁴ The term also applies to human warriors. Notably, within the arc of Danish debasement, the Geats are characterized as scaðan, as they bear off the Danes’ ancestral hoard (1803, 1895). In capturing this act of depredation, we agree with Fulk’s rendering of the Geatish scaðan as “raiders.”¹⁵ This same valence, however, is lost in the glossary of Klaeber 4 and in most translations, where the chosen noun (“enemy”) denotes an opposition that may or may not entail depredation.¹⁶ We propose, therefore, that the word “ravagers” best aligns with the poem and the corpus, in denoting an injury inflicted by taking precious possessions—including treasure, life, and the soul.

§12. Conventional approaches also occlude the grammatical ambiguity lodged in this sentence. Although dominant approaches situate Scyld Scefing as one who acts “against” troops,¹⁷ the phrase sceaðena þreatum may also be translated using the preposition “(together) with.”¹⁸ By employing the preposition “amid,” we preserve this grammatical ambiguity. If we construe the phrase sceaþena þreatum as “against troops of ravagers” (5) then Scyld projects the figure of a lone marauder like Grendel. For just as Grendel acts alone as feond mancynnes “enemy of mankind” (164) to deny Danish marauders their hall-seats (115–49), Scyld acts as the enemy of monig mægð “many tribes” as he medosetla ofteah “deprived [them] of mead-seats” (5).¹⁹ The other alternative interprets sceaðena þreatum as a reference to Scyld’s own forces; yet this depiction is problematic also. In the Old English corpus, the only other recurrence of sceaðena þreatum “troop of ravagers” is Juliana’s characterization of Heliseus, as the violently unstable pagan king who departs for his doom sceaðena þreate “with a troop of ravagers” (Juliana, 672).²⁰ Salient too is the way Heliseus’ identity as a synscaða “criminal/continual ravager” (671) parallels Grendel’s identity as a synscaða (707, 802)—while also framing Scyld’s identity as a marauding warlord who assaults oft (often). Significantly, therefore, the phrase aligns Scyld with an infamous pagan lord of sceaðena þreatum, even as it generates multiple parallels with Grendel’s reputation for incessant hall-ravaging.

§13. Scyld’s identity is problematized further by instances of dramatic irony, which repeatedly situate the Danes as potential victims of the pillaging warfare that Scyld exacts. Indeed, following Scyld’s introduction, the next reference to ravaging occurs as the Danish watchman claims to hold guard, þe on land Dena laðra nænig mid scip-herge sceðþan ne meahte “so that in the land of Danes no hateful ones might ravage with a ship-army” (242–43). What the watchman fears, in other words, are sea-borne warriors just like Scyld’s ravaging Spear-Danes. This same anxiety also frames Beowulf’s unsure description of Grendel’s predations:

 þu wast, gif hit is
swa we soþlice secgan hyrdon,
þæt mid Scyldingum sceaðona ic nat
hwylc, deogol dædhata, deorcum nihtum
eaweð þurh egsan uncuðne nið, hynðu ond hrafyl (272–77).

You know, if it is as we have truly heard said, that among the Scyldings, a ravager I know not which, a hidden doer of hate-deeds, in the dark nights reveals through terror, inexplicable hostility, humiliation, and slaughter.²¹

Just as the watchman alludes anxiously to a mode of warfare for which the Danes are also known, this description of a far-famed ravager who wreaks hostility, humiliation, terror, and slaughter might apply to Scyld as well as Grendel. This parallelism also is heightened by repetition of sceaða in the pairing of sceaðena þreatum in reference to Scyld’s hosts (4) and sceaðona hwylc in reference to Grendel (274).²² In effect, then, Beowulf’s foreign perspective regarding this sceaðona ic nat hwylc “ravager, I know not which” (274) compounds the ironic frame. For just as his statement unwittingly situates the Danes as potential victims of hall- ravaging violence, it also implies that the mysterious sceaða “ravager” might be a disaffected member of the Danes themselves.

§14. Grendel’s capacity for terror also extends to Scyld and his descendants. Scyld’s signature effect is that he egsode eorlas “terrified noblemen” (6); likewise, Beowulf reports that Grendel eaweð þurh egsan “reveals [himself] through terror” (276). For Beowulf and the Danes, terror proceeds from what is deogol “hidden” (275) and uncuð “unknown” (276) about Grendel’s identity.²³ For the audience, however, terror proceeds from Grendel’s revealed identity as Cain’s demonic offspring, at once a wer “man” (105) and a feond on helle “enemy in Hell” (101).²⁴ Subsequently, as Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe observes, Grendel’s approach to the hall culminates in a “horror of recognition,” when the sceadugenga “shadow-walker” (704) emerges as a rinc “warrior” (720)—thereby revealing the uncanny liminality between monster and warrior (1981, 492). This same liminality, moreover, recurs after Grendel’s defeat, when his severed limb presents a wonder upon which the warriors sceawian “gaze” (983).²⁵ For though Grendel’s fingernails are stile gelicost “most like to steel” (985), his fearsome appendage is recognizably human. It is characterized as a folm “hand” (990) and hand (983, 986); it possesses fingra “fingers (984) and naegla “nails” (985). Indeed, Hrothgar himself confirms this revelation, as he subsequently identifies Grendel as human.²⁶ What Hrothgar does not apprehend, however, is the narrator’s disclosure that the blodge beadu-folme “bloody war hand” (990) is that of a hæþenes hilderinces “heathen battle-warrior’s” (986). Thus, Grendel’s handsporu (986), in its dual rendering “hand-vestiges” and “hand-spur” (Beowulf, 175), is framed for the audience as a symbol egl, unheoru “horrible, cruel” (987) which projects the monstrous aspects of the heroic world. Accordingly, the fearsome hand of the rinc “warrior” (720) named Grendel challenges warrior ethics and reveals something monstrous in the Danish rincas (412).²⁷

§15. Outside the verbal parallelism produced in the second sentence, additional terms align Scyld with the Scyldings’ future nemesis and with tropes of pagan criminality. The Danish progenitor is described as feasceaft funden “found forsaken” (7); so too is Grendel called the feasceaft guma “forsaken man” (973). Scyld the hall-wrecker weox under wolcnum “thrived under the clouds” (8); likewise, Grendel wod under wolcnum “walked under the clouds” (714) in his final approach to Heorot. For just as Grendel crosses water to attack and pillage, leaving every night with his huðe hremig “exulting in plunder’ (124), Scyld crosses water to plunder æghwylc ymbsittendra “each of the around-sitters” (9) who then hyran scolde, gomban gyldan “must heed, pay tribute” (10). Later, after slaying the Grendelkin, Beowulf vows to aid Hroðgar against future terrors: Gif ic þæt gefricge ofer floda begang, / þæt þec ymbsittend egesan þywað, / swa þec hetende hwilum dydon, / ic ðe þusenda þegna bringe, / hæleþa to helpe “If I hear across the expanse of the flood that around-sitters oppress you with terror, such as the haters did for a while, I will bring you a thousand thanes, heroes to help” (1826–30). In pledging to protect the Danes from ymbsittend “around-sitters” (1827), Beowulf effectively promises to protect the Danes from the terror that monsters like Grendel but also warriors like those found in Scyld’s sceaþena þreatum. This last phrase also bears clarification—for though the formula gomban gyldan “pay tribute” might seem to accommodate a pact of protection, such as Alfred allegedly formed with various Welsh leaders,²⁸ Scyld is depicted throughout as a hall-wrecking aggressor—a depiction that suggestively aligns him with the Danish Viking raiders who extracted their “tribute” in Danegeld (Abels, 140–3). This negative valence, moreover, is reflected in the corpus, where the only other instance of the phrase [gombon gieldan] references the violent kings of Sodom in the Old English Genesis (1978).

§16. This same pattern, in which the apparent encomium accommodates a negative critique, also frames the closing epithet: Þæt wæs god cyning “that was a good king” (11). Most obviously, the note of dominion is interrogated in Grendel’s depiction as a ruler—first as the mære mearcstapa “renowned mark-stepper” (103),²⁹ where he moras heold, / fen ond fæsten; fifelcynnes eard “held the marshes, the fens and strongholds, the realm of monster-kind” (102–04), and then when he is depicted as one who rixode “ruled” (144) Heorot. Within Beowulf, it is essential to note that the word god “good” registers capability, not ethical virtue.³⁰ Beowulf says of Grendel that Nat he þara goda “he does not know the good arts” (681), but what is meant here is that Grendel is ignorant of “the good arts” of swordplay and therefore incapable of using weapons. It is not a comment on his moral or ethical character, and in the following half-lines, Beowulf explains how Grendel does not know how þæt he me ongean slea,/ rand geheawe, þeah ðe he rof sie/ niþgeweorca “he might strike against me [with a weapon], hew my shield, although he is brave in vicious-works” (681–83). Moreover, again, a parallel in Juliana pertains, as the evil king Heliseus is also characterized as to freonde god “good as a friend” (102).³¹ Indeed, Scyld reveals himself to be supremely capable at exacting terror and plunder.

§17. Everything the audience learns of Scyld’s conquests is mirrored in Grendel’s conquests. Both are marked as feasceaft “forsaken,” yet known for ellen “valor.” Both are renowned marauders who cross water in frequent hall attacks that dispossess their neighbors. Both are characterized by the terms for “ravaging” [sceaða, sceþðan] and “terrorizing” [egesa, egsian]. Likewise, though Scyld is heralded as a god cyning “good king,” the effect of his ellen “brave” deeds (3) is no different Grendel’s fyrendæda “crime-deeds” (1001). In sum, both figures exact a reign of terror. To be sure, this resemblance is complicated by other categories: Scyld’s identity as a gift-giver and Grendel’s demonic aspect, for example, suggest important distinctions. Likewise, the prologue’s enigmatic structure, which simultaneously invites and dismantles encomiastic interpretation, bears further examination—especially as it relates to the subsequent arc of Danish debasement. Yet there can be no doubt that the disorienting parallels between Scyld and Grendel undermine the longstanding enomiastic convention, even as they also align the poem with the broad critique of pagan heroism, as exemplified in the patristic tradition, the Old English poetic corpus, and the Nowell Codex.

Notes

1. Tolkien famously argued for the literary merits of Beowulf as related to the poem’s treatment of heroes and monsters (1936). Classical poems like the Ancient Greek Iliad and Odyssey, and Ancient Latin Aeneid, establish an epic tradition that subsequent literary works borrow and adapt. Moreover, scholars who read Beowulf as primarily oral and natively Germanic, generally frame the poem within the context of heroic virtue (Niles 1983). [Back]

2. All quotations of Old English verse come from the Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records (ASPR) and all numbers refer to line numbers. [Back]

3. All translations of Old English are our own collaborative translations. [Back]

4. The positive appraisal of Scyld Scefing can be traced to 1805, with Sharon Turner’s assessment of Scyld as “Great among the greatest” (Shippey and Haarder 1998, 79). [Back]

5. We subsequently reference this edition as Klaeber 4. [Back]

6. Griffith offers a critique of Sigemund as monstrous (1995); see also Fahey 2020, 381–84; Fahey 2019; and Köberl and Gwara identify monstrous aspects in Beowulf (Köberl 2002; Gwara 2009). However, none of these scholars identify Scyld’s character as a topic of concern. [Back]

7. The encomiastic reading of Scyld’s character was first challenged, however, in Chris Vinsonhaler’s Modern English performance, “Beowulf: Monsters and Men” (1999). Likewise, her self-published edition Beowulf: A Dramatic Translation highlights the ironic framework surrounding the putative encomium. (Vinsonhaler 2004, 8). [Back]

8. Vinsonhaler shows how the riddling design of the Grendel episode projects a critique of heroic desire, in its depiction of Beowulf’s mock-heroic exorcism of the demonic intruder (2016). Fahey discusses a sustained “enigmatic design” in Beowulf and demonstrates the ways riddling rhetorical strategies link the heroes with the monsters in the poem (2020, 157–399). The suggestion that Beowulf might be enigmatic also reflects Niles’s argument for enigmatic influence throughout the Old English corpus (2006). Regarding enigmatic design in Beowulf, see Robinson’s argument for an appositive design with regard to compounds (1985); Orchard’s argument for overlap between the heroes and monsters with regard to pride and prodigy (1995, 1–139); Köberl’s argument for indeterminacy as a hermeneutic (2002); Clark’s argument for irony (2003); and Gwara’s argument for ethically ambiguous portrayals of heroic identity (2009). [Back]

9. While Augustine’s De civitate Dei contra paganos is not well attested in the manuscript evidence from early medieval England, both Orosius’s Historiarum Adversum Paganos (which is translated into Old English) and Prudentius’ Psychomachia loom large in the Anglo-Latin and Old English intellectual traditions as well as the extant manuscript evidence from early medieval England. For discussion of Orosius’s Historiarum Adversum Paganos in early medieval England, see Cary 1956 and Orchard 1995, 116–39. Regarding Orosian influence in the Nowell Codex and broader Old English literary tradition, see Orchard 1995. Regarding the influence of the Psychomachia and psychomachic allegory in early medieval England, see Hermann 1989. Regarding the manuscripts containing Prudentius’s Psychomachia, see Wieland 1987; for synthesis and expansion of these arguments, see also Fahey 2020, 402–564. [Back]

10. Boniface’s characterization of vice, especially vainglory (Vana gloria iactantia, Enigmata 20), furthers this tradition, as does the treatment of vice in Aldhelm’s Carmen de virginitate, and the anonymous Anglo-Latin Liber monstrorum, which features a passage on Higelacus [Hygelac] in its list of monsters. [Back]

11. Vinsonhaler demonstrates shared patterns of critique and riddling design aligning Beowulf with the poetic hagiographies Andreas, Juliana, and Guthlac (2013). [Back]

12. Kemble translates ofteon as “tear away” (1837, 1); Donaldson offers “take away” (1966, 1); Chickering offers “seize” (1989, 49); Liuzza also offers “seize” (2000, 55); Orchard offers “snatch up” (2003, 59); and Fulk offers “expel” (2010, 87). [Back]

13. For discussion of the polysemy of syn as “criminal” and “perpetual” see Orchard 1995, 36". [Back]

14. One of the sea monsters from the Breca-episode is called feondscaða “enemy-ravager” (554), Grendel’s mother is like her son a manscaða “criminal-ravager” (1339), and the dragon is marked as uhtsceaða “dawn-ravager” (2271), þeodsceaða “people-ravager” (2278, 2688), guðsceaða “war-ravager” (2318), mansceaða “criminal-ravager” (2514) and attorsceaða “poison-ravager” (2839). Two exceptions of this pattern are made in reference to Beowulf and the Geats as scaþan “ravagers” (1803, 1895). The first reference occurs as the Geats prepare to leave Heorot (1803), and the second occurs as they prepare to board the ship (1895). Taylor argues that scaþan suggests the warriors’ demonstrated power to ravage, (1986, 37–43). Liuzza translates the first instance as “soldiers” (2000, 161) and the second instance as “warriors” (2000, 1895); Fulk translates both instances as “raiders” (2010, 1803 and 1895). [Back]

15. Although Fulk twice translates scaðan as “raiders” (2010, 1803 and 1895), he translates the prologue’s reference as “opponents” (2010, 87). [Back]

16. The editors of Klaeber 4 supplement the term “enemy” with the clarification “one who does harm,” (Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 427). [Back]

17. Following the earliest modern English translation of Beowulf (Kemble 1837, 1), most translations interpret sceaðena þreatum as Scyld’s opponents rather than his army; see Donaldson 1996, 1; Chickering 1989, 49; Orchard 2003, 59; Heaney 2000, 3; Liuzza 2000, 55; and Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 87. For an alternative translation that accommodates ambiguity, see Vinsonhaler 2021. [Back]

18. Klaeber 4 offers an overview of arguments for grammatical ambiguity in the phrase (Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 111). For the argument regarding the translated option “together with,” see Taylor 1986, 37–43 and Bammesberger 2001, 131–33. [Back]

19. For discussion of feond mancynnes in Beowulf, see Fahey 2020, 314, 329, 341; see also Fahey 2018. [Back]

20. Heliseus is also identified by the narrator as the hæþen hildfruma “heathen battle-leader” (Juliana, 7). [Back]

21. Fulk translates this phrase: “as we have certainly heard tell, that among the Scyldings who know what marauder, a mysterious persecutor in the dark of night, shows through his terror inexplicable malice, abasement, and carnage” (2010, 105); Liuzza translates: “if things are as we have truly heard tell, that among the Scyldings some sort of enemy, a hidden evildoer, in the dark nights makes known his terrible mysterious violence, shame, and slaughter” (2000, 71). [Back]

22. These are consecutive uses of this specific form of sceaða (in the genitive plural), appearing with varied orthography as sceaþena (4) and sceaðona (274) respectively; this repetition produces the potential for aural resonance that links these two moments directly. [Back]

23. For discussion of the function of secrecy in Beowulf, see Saltzman 2018; for a discussion of the psychology of terror, see Lapidge 1993. [Back]

24. For discussion of the phrase feond in helle (101) in reference to Grendel, see Andrew 1981. [Back]

25. For discussion of the legal and cultural functions of Grendel’s arm and Æschere’s head in the context of feuding, see Lockett 2005, 368–88. [Back]

26. Beowulf characterizes Grendel as a guma “man” in his report after the battle (973) and Hroðgar references Grendel with the terms wer (1352) and mon “man” (1353) after the hand’s display. Subsequently, the narrator defines Grendel again as guma “human” (1682). [Back]

27. For a comprehensive chart containing terms for Grendel, including specifically human descriptions, see Fahey 2020, 295–300; Fahey also discusses Grendel terminology in his article centered on pedagogical approaches, see Fahey forthcoming. [Back]

28. Richard Abels cites Asser, in describing the pact of protection solicited by the Welsh leaders Hyfaidd, Eliseg, Hywel ap Rhys, Ffernfael and Brochmael ap Meurig (1998, 187). [Back]

29. The editors of Klaeber 4, define mearcstapa as “wanderer in the waste borderland” in their glossary, (Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 411). For discussion of mearcstapa in Beowulf, see Fahey 2020, 286, 304, 326, 333–34, 345–46, 348, 357, 473, 487; see also Fahey 2018; for discussion of the mearc of Cain in relation to the Grendelkin compound mearcstapa, see Sharma 2005, 265–79. [Back]

30. The editors of Klaeber 4 gloss the word god (good) with this list of terms: “able, efficient, excellent, strong, brave” (Fulk, Bjork, and Niles 2008, 386). [Back]

31. In Juliana, despite repeated criticism of Heliseus’s marauding and pillaging, it is specifically said of Heliseus that he is to freonde god “he is a very good friend” (Juliana, 102), which might equally be said of Scyld. However, the narratological contexts are rather different; Scyld is described as god by the narrator in Beowulf, while in Juliana it is the wicked Affricanus, Juliana’s father, who characterizes Heliseus as god (102). [Back]

---

Works Cited

Abels, Richard. 1998. Alfred the Great: War, Kingship, and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England. New York: Longman.  [Back]

Aldhelm. 1961. Carmen de uirginitate. In Aldhelmi Opera (MGH), edited by Rudolf Ehwald, 327–474. Berolini and Weidmann.  [Back]

Andrew, Malcolm. 1981. “Grendel in Hell.” English Studies 62: 401–10.  [Back]

Augustine. 1994. City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library.  [Back]

Bammesberger, Alfred. 2001. “The Syntactic Analysis of Beowulf, lines 4–5.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102:131–33.  [Back]

Bately, Janet, ed. 1980. The Old English Orosius. Edited by Janet Bately. London, UK: Oxford University Press.  [Back]

Boniface. 1968. Enigmata. In Variae collectiones aenigmatum Merovingicae aetatis (CCSL 133), edited by Maria De Marco, 273–343. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.  [Back]

Brooks, Kenneth R., ed. 1961. Andreas and fates of the apostles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  [Back]

Cary, George. 1956. The Medieval Alexander. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [Back]

Chickering, H. D. 1989. Beowulf: A dual-language edition. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.  [Back]

Clark, Tom. 2003. A Case for Irony in Beowulf: With Particular Reference to Its Epithets. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.  [Back]

Donaldson, E. Talbot. 1966. Beowulf: a new prose translation. New York: W.W. Norton.  [Back]

Dobbie, E. V. K., ed. 1953. Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records IV: Beowulf and Judith. New York: Columbia University Press.  [Back]

Fahey, Richard. 2018a. “Mearcstapan: Monsters Across the Border.” Medieval Studies Research Blog. Medieval Institute: University of Notre Dame (July 20, 2018). http://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/2018/07/20/mearcstapan-monsters-across-the-border/.  [Back]

———. 2018b. “Feond Mancynnes: The Enemy of the People.” Medieval Studies Research Blog. Medieval Institute: University of Notre Dame (October 31, 2018). http://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/2018/10/31/feond-mancynnes-the-enemy-of-the- people/.  [Back]

———. 2019. “The Lay of Sigemund.” Medieval Studies Research Blog. Medieval Institute: University of Notre Dame (March 22, 2019). http://sites.nd.edu/manuscript- studies/2019/03/22/the-lay-of-sigemund/.  [Back]

———. 2020. “Enigmatic Design and Psychomachic Monstrosity in Beowulf.” Dissertation: University of Notre Dame.  [Back]

———. Forthcoming. “Teaching the Beowulf-monsters.” A Practical Guide to Beowulf. Medieval Institute Publications: Kalamazoo, MI.  [Back]

Fulk, Robert. 2010. The Beowulf Manuscript: Complete Texts and The Flight at Finnsburg. Boston: Harvard University Press.  [Back]

Fulk, Robert D., Robert E. Bjork, and John D. Niles, ed. 2008. Klaeber's Beowulf: Fourth Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.  [Back]

Griffith, Mark. 1995. “Some Difficulties in Beowulf, Lines 874–902: Sigemund Reconsidered.” Anglo-Saxon England 24: 11–41.  [Back]

Gwara, Scott. 2009. Heroic Identity in the World of Beowulf. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.  [Back]

Heaney, Seamus. 2000. Beowulf a New Verse Translation. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.  [Back]

Hermann, John. 1989. Allegories of War: Language and Violence in Old English Poetry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.  [Back]

Hill, John M. 1995. The Cultural World in Beowulf. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.  [Back]

Kemble, John M. 1837. A Translation of the Anglo-Saxon Poem of Beowulf with a copious glossary preface and philological notes. London: William Pickering.  [Back]

Köberl, Johann. 2002. The Indeterminacy of Beowulf. Lanham, MD: University of America Press.  [Back]

Lapidge, Michael. 1993. “Beowulf and the Psychology of Terror.” In Heroic Poetry in the Anglo-Saxon Period: Studies in Honor of Jess B. Bessinger, edited by Helen Damico and John Leyerle, Studies in Medieval Culture 32, 373–402. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University.  [Back]

Liuzza, R. M. 2000. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.  [Back]

Lockett, Leslie. 2005. “The Role of Grendel’s Arm in Feud, Law, and the Narrative Strategy of Beowulf.” In Latin Learning and English Lore: Studies in Anglo-Saxon Literature for Michael Lapidge (I), edited by Katherine O’Brien O’Keeffe and Andy Orchard, 368–88. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.  [Back]

Niles, John D. 2006. Old English Enigmatic Poems and the Play of Texts. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.  [Back]

———. 1983. Beowulf: The Poem and Its Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  [Back]

O’Brien O’Keeffe, Katherine. 1981. “Beowulf, Lines 702b–836: Transformations and the Limits of the Human.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 23: 484–94.  [Back]

Orchard, Andy. 2003. A Critical Companion to Beowulf. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.  [Back]

———. 1995. Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf-Manuscript. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.  [Back]

Orosius. 1882. Historiarum adversum paganos. Edited by Karl Zangemeister. Vienna, Austria: C. Geroldi.  [Back]

Prudentius. 1966. Psychomachia. In Aurelii Prudentii Carmina, edited by Maurice P. Cunningham, 149–182. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.  [Back]

Robinson, Fred C. 1985. Beowulf and the Appositive Style. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.  [Back]

Saltzman, Benjamin A. 2018. “Secrecy and the Hermeneutic Potential in Beowulf.” Publications of the Modern Language Association 133: 36–55.  [Back]

Sharma, Manish. 2005. “Metalepsis and Monstrosity: The Boundaries of Narrative in Beowulf.” Studies in Philology 102: 247–79.  [Back]

Shippey, Thomas A. and Andreas Haarder. 1998. Beowulf: The Critical Heritage. New York: Routledge.  [Back]

Taylor, Paul B. 1986. “Beowulf 4–6a: Scyld’s Scaþan.” In Geardagum 7: 37–43.  [Back]

Tolkien, J. R. R. 1936. “Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics.” Sir Israel Gollancz Lecture, Proceedings of the British Academy 22: 245–95.  [Back]

Vinsonhaler, Chris. 1999. “Beowulf: A Modern English Performance with Harp,” Beowulf Live, last modified March 15, 2021, http://www.beowulf.live.  [Back]

———. 2004. “Beowulf: A Dramatic Translation,” Beowulf Live, last modified March 15, 2021, http://www.beowulf.live.  [Back]

———. 2013. “The Prophetic Beowulf: Heroic-Hagiographic Hybridity in Andreas, Juliana, and Beowulf.” Dissertation: University of Iowa.  [Back]

———. 2021. “The Riddle of Beowulf: A New Translation (Excerpts).” Beowulf Live, last modified March 15, 2021, http://www.beowulf.live.  [Back]

Wieland, Gernot. 1987. “The Anglo-Saxon Manuscripts of Prudentius's Psychomachia.” Anglo- Saxon England 16: 213–231.  [Back]