The Other Grendel: The Importance of the Heremod Digression
Your opinion is important to us, please comment on this article.
by Michael Hall
It is very possible to read Beowulf and never come across the interesting story about the character Heremod. He is easy to overlook considering extremely little is written about the man, and the other main characters in the story tend to overshadow him. Yet there is much to be learned from the short digression, which associates the ancient villain with the present destroyer of the Danish landscape, Grendel. We will see that although barely perceptible upon an initial reading, Hrothgar’s story about Heremod sheds light on Grendel’s situation, and his overall responsibility for his evil actions. Also, we will examine the reasons the story is told by Hrothgar, and its importance to the main character, Beowulf. The Heremod Digression is deliberately associated with Grendel to raise theological concerns for the sole purpose of warning Beowulf not to choose the wrong path and become like them.
The ambiguous passage “Enraged, he cut down his table companions,/ comrades-in-arms, until he turned away alone/ from the pleasures of men” has a number of possible interpretations, all of which are associated with Grendel (Beo. 1713-15). One possibility is that the “pleasures of men” could be treasure, which is very likely considering that treasure is present, and is the object of desire, in virtually every corner of the Beowulfian world. Therefore under this interpretation, Heremod may have lost interest in attaining wealth, which is unlike the rest of his contemporaries who view treasure as precious. Grendel shares a similar sentiment in that “he scorned the treasures; he did not know their love” (Beo. 169). A second possible interpretation is that “pleasures of men” means friendship and companionship. Under this interpretation, “turned away” from companionship means that Heremod chooses the path of solitary exile over being a member of the community of men. This is an obvious association to Grendel since he also “marched the exile’s path,” and “his separation from the world/ in those days of this life/ would have to be miserable” (Beo. 1352, 805-07). A third possible interpretation is that “pleasures of men” is life. This particular reading can be arrived at when examining another line later in the text that essentially means the same thing: “he gave up man’s joys, chose God’s light” (Beo. 2469). Now according to footnote, “God’s light” means “he died.” So in this context, “man’s joys” represents life, and can therefore be read: “he gave up life, and died.” Now “man’s joys” and the “pleasures of men” appear to be very closely related in meaning. So it is possible that “pleasures of men” does in fact mean life based on the associated passage. Now based on this new contextual reading, the phrase “turned away alone” could be interpreted as dying. This is, of course, because dying is something that can only be experienced by an individual alone. So ultimately the phrase could be paraphrased: “He wreaked havoc by killing his companions until his death.” This is similar to Grendel who also caused destruction by killing many of the Danes until Beowulf killed him. So regardless of what the actual meaning is, it is likely that any interpretation will involve an association with the creature Grendel.
The Heremod story also includes a passage that opens up a perplexing theological issue of God’s involvement in the actions of men, for both good and evil purposes, which have far reaching implications for both Heremod and Grendel:
…through mighty God exalted him in the joys
of strength and force, advanced him far
over all men, yet in his heart he nursed
a blood ravenous breast-hoard. (Beo. 1716-19)
As we can see, Heremod was given his great strength as a gift from God, just like Beowulf who possessed the “great gift which God had given him,/ the greatest might of all mankind” (Beo. 2181-82). But instead of using that strength for good like Beowulf, Heremod uses it for evil. We also know from one of Beowulf’s speeches that Grendel greatly trusted his strength, being “brave” enough to face all the men using no weapons (Beo. 677-83). But was Grendel’s great strength God given? There are certain passages in the text that seem to indicate this. For example, “Grendel came stalking—he bore God’s anger (Beo. 711). The line seems to associate “God’s anger” with the wicked deeds Grendel was about to commit. This association is further revealed in a passage that shows God’s influence on Grendel’s actions: “the demon foe could not drag them under/ the dark shadows if the Maker did not wish it” (Beo. 706-07). Now some may say that this means that God has the option to miraculously intervene to prevent an evil from happening. But by saying “if the Maker did not wish it” also allows for the possibility that the Maker could “wish it.” The passage seems to imply that God already has a deep involvement in the choice of whether or not Grendel will commit an evil deed. In a sense, God can prevent or allow an evil action to be committed. So does God, in someway, control Grendel’s actions? It appears that the answer is yes, especially when reading a passage that comes later in the text: “the judgment of God would guide the deeds of every man, as it still does today” (Beo. 2858-59). So since God influences the actions of “every man,” it is reasonable to assume that God would also have influence over a “miserable man,” as Grendel is described earlier in the text (Beo. 104). Therefore it is very likely that Heremod, was guided by God to commit the evil deeds he did commit. So the evil Heremod and Grendel might actually be the victims of a predestined Beowulfian universe in which they have little or no control over their actions, and some of the responsibility for the feelings in their hearts may fall on their Creator. But this still leaves a big unanswered question: Although God may influence the actions of good or bad man to commit good or bad deeds, does the individual at least have the choice of whether he will be a good or bad man? The answer to the question is yes and it is the reason the digression exists in the story in the first place.
Hrothgar tells Beowulf the story of Heremod for the sole purpose of warning him to always ensure he never makes the choice to follow the evil path, but it certainly appears the advice was not completely heeded. Hrothgar tells the story because he knows that even good men can turn evil, and can then loose their God given protection and could be potentially used by the Creator for evil purposes. Hrothgar, being very wise, knows that good men can fall because Heremod was once a noble and “famous prince,” so noble in fact that “God exalted him” (Beo. 1724, 1715, 1716). Even though he killed his “table-companions,/ comrades-in-arms,” he did at least initially have them, which means he was a well-liked and deeply honored prince (Beo. 1713-14). So he cautions Beowulf to always be virtuous and remain on the right path. But though Beowulf was, for the most part, a good and generous man, there are signs that he may have started down the wrong path before he died (Beo. 2738-39). Beowulf’s turn begins after the dragon has caused destruction in his lands and, in response, his “breast within groaned/ with dark thoughts” (Beo. 2331-32). Beowulf’s heart was beginning to turn “ravenous,” just like Heremod’s and Grendel’s (Beo. 121, 1719). Beowulf also became “grim and enraged” just like Heremod did before he killed his companions (Beo. 1713). In addition, Beowulf’s “heart was grieving, restless and ripe for death” (Beo. 2419-20). All of these passages further support the theory that Beowulf had turned down the path of destruction. But what choice did he make that caused this? I believe it is when Beowulf’s objectives are no longer motivated by virtue, but by hate and greed, just like Heremod (Beo. 1713, 1719-20). For example, shortly before the battle with the dragon, Beowulf says: “With daring I shall/ get that gold—or grim death” (Beo. 2535-36). Because of this motivation, God chooses not to protect him, and also probably due to his past actions, he decides not to use him for evil purposes. Instead, he allows him to die. When Beowulf is about to die, “he soon realized/ that in his breast, with an evil force,/ a poison welled” (Beo. 2713-15). The poison in his heart is both physical and figurative. It is physical due to the dragon’s poison, and it is figurative because his heart was poisoned by greed. Had Beowulf listened to Hrothgar’s story of Heremod, and not chosen greed but virtue, he may not have died as he did.
Overall, we have seen how the Heremod digression plays an important role in Beowulf. First, we looked at the number of associations in the passage that compare Heremod to Grendel. Next, we examined the theological issues raised in the passage that shift some of the responsibility of evil deeds to the Creator. And finally we saw that Hrothgar told Beowulf the story because he knew than men have some control in determining their destiny by choosing either a good or evil path. But Beowulf did not heed all of the king’s advice, and started down the path of evil, just like Heremod and Grendel. We already know that Heremod is the other Grendel, but perhaps Beowulf is as well. So the Heremod Digression is deliberately associated with Grendel to raise theological concerns for the sole purpose of warning Beowulf not to choose the wrong path and become like them.
Leave a reply