The contemporary reaction to Seamus Heaney’s translation of, and indeed all translations of, Beowulf reveals a fundamental shift in the understanding of what makes a hero, let alone an epic hero. Gone are the days of extolled honor, glory, and superhuman feats without acknowledged, human, flaws. Now an individual’s ability to accomplish such feats in conjunction with, and in spite of, their human imperfection is idealized as heroic. This modern view is in stark contrast to that of the ancient world. Assertions that in a “Heroic age,” such as that described in Beowulf or in the Homeric epics, there was little room for a hero to show humility as it would betray their human weaknesses would not be unheard of. However, such a view does not take
…show more content…
It is here that all semblances of youthful hubris melt away. There is no boasting to be had, only solemn acceptance of the dire circumstances. That his opponent is a dragon, of all creatures it may have been, is of particular import. Margaret Goldsmith suggests that the dragon’s shape is that of the devil and as such represents pride and greed (83). I am in wholehearted agreement that the serpent is metaphor for avarice; however I will contend that its relation to hubris and rapacity stems from the various cultural notions that dragons are inherently conceited treasure hoarders, and not that its form is somewhat reptilian. That aside, in his last venture Beowulf seems to believe that facing this beast in single combat is his duty as a king. “In attempting to kill the dragon, Beowulf acts out of generosity; heroic achievement is given only secondary importance” (Santibáñez Sáenz 160). In engaging the beast he slays it, but so too does it cost him. In looking to protect his people he has misjudged the benefits of the dragon’s death in exchange for his own. The blood price has been paid, the glory is his, and yet he thinks only of the gift his death has bought his people, “. . . to the King of Glory, I give thanks . . . that I have been allowed to leave my people / so well endowed on the day I die” (Beowulf 2795-8). Though he dies to the serpent he rejects avarice and other such miserly merits in his final
It is here that all semblances of youthful hubris melt away. There is no boasting to be had, only solemn acceptance of the dire circumstances. That his opponent is a dragon, of all creatures it may have been, is of particular import. Margaret Goldsmith suggests that the dragon’s shape is that of the devil and as such represents pride and greed (83). I am in wholehearted agreement that the serpent is metaphor for avarice; however I will contend that its relation to hubris and rapacity stems from the various cultural notions that dragons are inherently conceited treasure hoarders, and not that its form is somewhat reptilian. That aside, in his last venture Beowulf seems to believe that facing this beast in single combat is his duty as a king. “In attempting to kill the dragon, Beowulf acts out of generosity; heroic achievement is given only secondary importance” (Santibáñez Sáenz 160). In engaging the beast he slays it, but so too does it cost him. In looking to protect his people he has misjudged the benefits of the dragon’s death in exchange for his own. The blood price has been paid, the glory is his, and yet he thinks only of the gift his death has bought his people, “. . . to the King of Glory, I give thanks . . . that I have been allowed to leave my people / so well endowed on the day I die” (Beowulf 2795-8). Though he dies to the serpent he rejects avarice and other such miserly merits in his final