Talk:Beowulf/Archive 2

Body cremated or buried
I am confused the intro says beowulf was buried in a barrow, but later on it says he was cremated. Can anybody clear that up? rhemmen 14:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Both statements are true. The body was burnt on a pyre and a barrow built over the site of the pyre. The barrow also contained valuables. MWLittleGuy 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Derivative works and contemporary influences section
I think "Derivative works and contemporary influences" should be moved to a subarticle since it is just a list. Here is an example of such a page, which was broken off from the Gandhi main article: List of artistic depictions of Mahatma Gandhi. The main Beowulf article should focus on the poem only. -Classicfilms 12:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved this information to a new article. -Classicfilms 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

When was it written?
The introduction contains no sentence summarizing the scholarly consensus about when the poem was written. It doesn't even narrow it down to a century -- except obliquely by saying it was composed in Old English.
 * It is probably because no such consensus exists, so no uncontroversial date can be given. In my experience estimates vary depending on the outlook of the scholar. Adding to the difficulty of dating it, the work is not purely a work of fiction composed by an imaginative author at a specific date, but a retelling of heroic legends generally held to date back to the 5th and the 6th centuries, or even earlier in some cases (it is however possible that the main plot dates to the late 10th century). I think it is likely that it existed in several different versions from the 7th century and onwards, each version changing it somewhat until it reached its present form.--Berig 07:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, a notable indication of the existence of previous versions of Beowulf and the difficulty of dating it is the fact that Pagan and Christian elements intermingle. We will never know whether it was a purely pagan poem which was rendered politically correct with Christian elements or whether it was composed in a syncretic environment, like several of the the corresponding Scandinavian sources were.--Berig 10:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why just norse?
Is there any specific reason that this article is only labeled under Norse history? I think that Beowulf has a great importance in English history as well. It also occupies a huge place in the study of the Old English language. I would add this, but I wanted to know if there was any specific reason why and English history tags were omitted.Arbadihist 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) As there has been no reply to this comment in over a month, I take it that no-one has any objection. So I have added the label.--Cenwulf 08:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The map and its caption
The map is unencyclopedic, drawn by an anonymous editor, who has not indicated what maps he used to make this representation. I suspect original research, WP:OR; see also WP:IMAGES. I propose that this file be removed from this article and deleted, unless someone can give a reference to a similar map in print. /Pieter Kuiper 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you, please, give any details as to how the map is wrong? I am not sure exactly what your problem is?--Berig 21:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is how we can know if it is right. /Pieter Kuiper 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The map appears to have been in the article for more than two years and it seems likely that numerous university professors and students have seen it. No one has so far expressed anything like your insecurity, or even commented on it. I suggest that you actually *point* out where you find the map problematic.--Berig 22:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, you know very well that few people agree on the whereabouts of these literary tribes. One bit that was really completely new for me is the location of the Wulfings (yellow on the map). Is there any other printed map where they are shown in this location together with all the other tribes? /Pieter Kuiper 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you first, please, explain what you mean with "literary tribes"? I just want to make sure whether we are talking of the same subject. The Danes who are marked on the map were a real tribe, AFAIK, so in what way are they literary?--Berig 22:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I think is an irrelevant question here. I repeat: what is the source for the Wulfings being in the yellow area. If there is no answer to that kind of questions, this map has no place in an encyclopedia. What map is this map based on? /Pieter Kuiper 22:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether there are any maps that you can consult for verification, but they appear to be correctly placed on the map. Maybe another editor who knows more about Beowulf maps than I do can guide you to a map.--Berig 22:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish scholarship on Beowulf is not this bad
When I see how this article has been raided by Scandinavian chauvinist Vikings, I feel embarassed being a resident of Sweden. For those who can read a smattering of Swedish, here is link to a short entry in a lexicon published by a Swedish national museum, to show that this is not what kids are taught in school. It says that "the scene is set in Denmark, with a people called gaetas."

/Pieter Kuiper 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and everyone knows that modern day Swedes deny their own history of fear to break the "jante-law".
 * And what kind of translation is that? The article from the museum says: "Handlingen utspelas i Danmark. hos det folk som kallas 'geatas'." ("The scene is set in Denmark. AMONG the people called gaetas.") - which is totally wrong and just shows that the museum have no knowledge at all about Beowulf. /Leos Friend 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Carin Orrling's article appears odd indeed, since Beowulf is mostly set among the Danes and not among the Geats. It could be due to the fact that Beowulf is virtually unknown in Sweden and so the errors have been able to pass unnoticed. However, you would then expect her to have consulted the standard English-Swedish dictionary of the time (Norstedts 1994) which defines the English Geats as the Swedish Götar. If she had done so, she might not have written that the Geats lived in Denmark.--Berig 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pieter and I have been having a dispute over this article over on svwiki as well. I think it's pretty clear that Orrling's article is a (almost copy-violating) summary of the corresponding article in Nationalencyklopedin, which has many similar phrases but not this curious placement of the Geats.
 * Andejons 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to English wikipedia, dear Andejons, with your first utterance here this month. /Pieter Kuiper 19:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is a stupid movie and a stupid character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.124 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image
the image of "The first page of Beowulf" is a broken link. plz fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.127.31 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed by purging the cache of the image description page. /Pieter Kuiper 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Professor Robert F. Yeager notes that the role of Christianity in a pagan context poses one of the mysteries surrounding Beowulf: That the scribes of Cotton Vitellius A.XV were Christian is beyond doubt; and it is equally certain that Beowulf was composed in a Christianized England, since conversion took place in the sixth and seventh centuries. Yet the only Biblical references in Beowulf are to the Old Testament, and Christ is never mentioned. The poem is set in pagan times, and none of the characters are demonstrably Christian. In fact, when we are told what anyone in the poem believes, we learn that they are idol-worshipping pagans. Beowulf’s own beliefs are not expressed explicitly. He offers eloquent prayers to a higher power, addressing himself to the “Father Almighty” or the “Wielder of All.” Were those the prayers of a pagan who used phrases the Christians subsequently appropriated? Or, did the poem’s author intend to see Beowulf as a Christian Ur-hero, symbolically refulgent with Christian virtues?[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.23.2 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of copies
Are there really 1.5 million copies of Beowulf? This is not citedBdodo1992 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Massive Rewind and loss of edits (sorry)
I've rewound from 29th September back to 00:53 25th September -- because the vandalism has been persistent and poorly corrected leaving chunks of the article missing and the headers broken. It's too complex to find where the good edits were, so would the contributors of the last few days please re-enter your work. Sorry about that.--Farry 12:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf Analysis Page
A separate Beowulf Analysis page has been created: Beowulf Analysis. Not sure if someone wants to merge this information with the main page or let this second page contain the spillover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixi72 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge the ananlysis article is way too long for a merge.Rlevse 13:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge per Rlevse BYT 15:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, redirect. This article contains nothing but information found elsewhere on their respective pages and in greater detail. bloodofox: 06:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, redirect per bloodofox --Classicfilms 14:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Thirteenth Warrior
]IM a little Confused about this movie, its said that its based on Beowulf, But its about an arab that travels to the nordic land,to make peace, but gets dragged into a fight with "Grendel" like Monsters, and the "Grendels Mother" Which turned out to belike a witch of some sort, Could someone Explain this to me?
 * The 13th Warrior is based on Michael Chrichton's Eaters of the Dead, which is in turn sort of a blending of Beowulf and Ahmad ibn Fadlan's writings. See the linked articles. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(oops I accidently Erased The Mohammadism thing, Sorry!)

old english??
"Beowulf is an Old English heroic epic poem of anonymous authorship" --> apperars to be wrong. its anglo saxon. so saying its something with "english" is definitively wrong. in time where it was written nothing like "english" existed. its rather an old germanic poem than an english! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.83.48 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Anglo Saxon is Old English. Anglo Saxon is an early form of English. --SpudBoy (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)



better? = The poem/song is written in Old English, but is about something going on in Denmark (Zealand). Jan Eskildsen Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.198.234 (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Grendel
Can someone give me some insite on Grendel, Im doing a literary Reasearch paper on Beowulf and I would like to explain Grendel In a way, that isnt colouded, I want to know were I can find out History on Grendel, Ive looked everywhere and can't find anything.
 * Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with what modern English-speaking scholars think about Grendel, and I think Classicfilms could answer that much better than I could. However, in case it interests you, there are Norse parallels, where heroes fight half-human foes of great strength, and they are either trolls/giants as in Gríms saga loðinkinna, or as the blótrísi of Kormáks saga or draugar as in Grettis saga and in Hrómundar saga Gripssonar. IIRC, Scandinavian sources tend to talk of Grendel as a Troll.--Berig 18:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't have much more to add to the above.-Classicfilms 18:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think your on to something, I think now maybe the Author of Beowulf was.. or had... thought of grndel as a troll... maybe an early troll, Seeing as to how old Boewulf is, Maybe Grendel was to be a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In the poem, the author says that he is part of "Cain's clan" mad up of "towering giants and elves and ogres". To the Anglo-Saxons, however, and to many other Celtic peoples, "giants" were very different then our modern image, and were more like trolls than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.189.10 (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So its Decided, Grendel is a troll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am Swedish and while I have read quite a bit about Beowulf. It is to my understanding that Grendel is a troll. Trolls were part of the pre-Christian Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon culture. The author of Beowulf was most likely a Christian and had to find away around calling Grendel a troll, so he used the explanation of "Cain's clan". This way he could keep this troll in the story without getting into too much problem with the church. Certain Trolls seems to dwell near or close to water. Take the troll in Norwegian tale of “The Billy Goats gruff”. According to a research project that the University of Lund (in Sweden) have been working on, creatures such as trolls, vittra, gnomes etc, etc were had a very large part in the practices of pre-Christian Scandinavia. The elite or the nobles of the time were mostly concerned with Odin, Thor etc, while for the average person who liven even closer to nature, it was the creatures who hit in the dark Nordic forest that they were pre-occupied with. (VsanoJ (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's important to remember too that we are not deciding here at the Wikipedia what Grendel is or is not. Instead we are trying to convey what scholars are writing about (or have written about) on the topic. Some good points are made above. In addition, you might want to spend time reading what other scholars have written about on this subject - who might agree or disagree with the above approach. A good book to begin with is Andy Orchard's "Pride and Prodigies: Studies in the Monsters of the Beowulf Manuscript" which you should be able to find in the library. This will also lead you to other books and essays on the subject and help you determine the different debates on the topic. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A movie is coming out
Why is this not in the article? I saw the trailer on Nick At Nite tonight and am shocked it hasnt been mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.188.218 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's discussed in the Beowulf in Art section here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf#Beowulf_in_art -Classicfilms 14:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just modified the header to "Beowulf in film, literature, music, and popular culture," so try here
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf#Beowulf_in_film.2C_literature.2C_music.2C_and_popular_culture
 * -Classicfilms 15:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the movie is telling a completely wrong story, it's not worth mentioning as a source. It leaves the impression, that Beowulf was seduced by Grendel's mother (played by Angelina Jolie with rather swelling lips and breasts) and that he didn'tkill her. A complete lie with no relevans. Jan Eskildsen, Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.198.234 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Copies printed
I removed this sentence from the introduction:

"There are over 1.5 million copies of Beowulf printed today."

It needs to be sourced and clarified - there are numerous translations of Beowulf in many different languages. This sentence needs to clarify which editions are included in this number and which languages they are translated into. It also needs to differentiate between translations and either dual language editions or editions published in Old English. -Classicfilms 20:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf (character)
The section below should be sourced before being restored back to the article. -Classicfilms 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien argued that the name Beowulf means bee-hunter (literally, bee-wolf) in Old English. The name Beowulf could therefore be a kenning for "bear" due to a bear's love of honey. Jacob Grimm attributes the term "bee-hunter" to a type of woodpecker.

Some scholars suggest that Beowulf could correspond to Bödvar Bjarki, the battle bear, from Norse sagas. Both left Geatland (where Bjarki's brother was king), arrived in Denmark and slew a beast that terrorized the Danish court. They also both helped the Swedish king Eadgils defeat his uncle Áli in the Battle on the Ice of Lake Vänern.

Author John Grigsby argued that the word Beowulf translates as 'Barley wolf' and links this character to ancient warrior cults of Indo-European tradition. R. D. Fulk and Joseph Harris suggest that the name is theophoric, related to the germanic god Beow, citing the rarity of kenning derived names and other similar names such as Gott-fried, Gott-lieb, Torsten(Thor-stone), the Norse þór-ólfr, and the English Tiu-wulf.


 * The connection with Bjödvar Bjarki is notable and I have seen it mentioned both in older works and in more recent ones.--Berig 05:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the only reason it was moved is because I tagged it with reference tags in individual places instead of the broad tag that existed before. If nobody beats me to it, I will eventually reference as much as I can. bloodofox: 06:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the section has been tagged for a long time without references being added which creates problems re: Reliable sources. Of course, if sources are found the section should be restored. -Classicfilms 14:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there appear to be so few editors who would make the effort of providing references. Bödvar Bjarki has been on my to-do list for about a year now, and I haven't seen any other editors trying to expand the info on him.--Berig 15:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the three sources below? They are good places to begin, particularly Klaeber's introductory section-
 * 1. Orchard, Andy. A Critical Companion to Beowulf. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2003.
 * 2. Frederick Klaeber, ed. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg. Third ed. Boston: Heath, 1950.
 * 3. Mitchell, Bruce, et al. Beowulf: An Edition with Relevant Shorter Texts. Oxford, UK: Malden Ma., 1998.
 * -Classicfilms 15:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! They'll come in handy in a while. I am working on some runestone articles at the moment, and when I'm done, I intend to revisit the legendary articles.--Berig 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, glad to help out. Beowulf is potentially a featured article but it still has a long way to go - I think the entire article needs to be re-worked with more sources and references to notable Beowulf scholars. The section above should probably be attended to first, but there are other portions as well. These three texts are a good place to begin because they contain extensive bibliographies which will point the way to other notable scholars and articles. For a general overview, you might also want to look at the related sections in the Norton Anthology of English Literature -Classicfilms 16:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I already have Norton :). I'd be great if the article could be raised to FA status, but we'd need to be several editors to make it happen, I think.--Berig 16:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed :-) Maybe other editors will see this thread and also take a look at the texts mentioned... -Classicfilms 16:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As for this particular section, Olson (1916) is a source that should be used. He discusses the connections between Beowulf and Bödvar Bjarki in various old sources, but it would need to be updated with more recent works.--Berig 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably wouldn't hurt to mention it, but yes more recent articles should be sourced. Also, a well-written section would refer to the articles by the most notable scholars who have written on the subject. For example, the Beowulf article frequently references Tolkien (I suspect due to the popularity of the Lord of the Rings books and films). While no one will doubt Tolkien's importance to the field, the number of references to him coupled with the lack of references to other scholars decreases the overall value of the article. So my overall comment would be that the references should be relatively current (unless notable such as in the case of Tolkien), should be from sources who are considered leaders in the particular area discussed, and should be balanced with a variety of viewpoints to achieve NPOV. -Classicfilms 17:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not refer to Olson in particular, but it's a good source for the views of classic authorities like Sophus Bugge. Bugge might need to be referred to because of his notability, although his main theory became outdated when Georges Dumézil launched his comparative theory. Bugge maintained that the Norse mythos had arrived in Scandinavia from Rome and Greece by the way of Anglo-Saxon England, whereas Dumézil showed that the Norse mythos dates back to Proto-Indo-European times.--Berig 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok not to Put you Guys down or anything, But, Maybe Beowulf was just a name the author picked, and didnt have any Referencial Meaning?, I mean I sometimes Write stories and I just pick a name. I hope I dont sound stupid, hehe. But it was just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The name "bear" is actually a common Scandinavian name, becoming Björn in Swedish and Icelandic, and Bjørn in Danish and Norwegian. The Anglo-Saxons, a very Scandinavian influenced people would most likely have used the name bear a lot amongst themselves, however, the poet would have used the more elegant Beowulf. Also, the poet names another Beowulf as the successor to Scyld Scefing, as this Beowulf was Danish, it points even more towards a translation of Bjørn. Also, the word for barley (beow) is spelled without a macron on the e, whereas the name Beowulf is, making it Bēowulf, thus, because ēo is a diphthong, the two words have essentially different spellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

CE v AD
There is a wikipedia editor, Jpeterson46321, who has been going about making wholesale changes of dates from BCE/CE style to BC/AD style. This, I believe, is expressly against Wikipedia policy. I reverted a number of his edits, including the one he made to this page, but I have some doubts about my reversion here. When Jpeterson found this article it had one CE and one AD. When I came here I found three AD's and made them all CE's. Others who are more familiar with this article may have contrasting views and I will happily bow to consensus on this point so far as this article is concerned. Steven J. Anderson
 * In response to editor Steven Anderson, I believe that my reversions to AD are both proper and correct. First, the original usage was the AD/BC format.  Secondly, the usage conforms with traditional usage in Western culture.  I will revert the improper changes by editor Anderson and await a consensus on the matter.  Jpetersen46321 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is now common practice in western culture to use the BCE/CE format, especialy in academic circles. I would suggest it would be better to change it to that format here as the outdated BC/AD style doesnt fit in a modern resource like wikipedia.-vibranceuk 8 november 2007
 * I think BCE/CE is more appropriate. bloodofox: 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote the manual of style, "Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." For what it is worth, the earliest available version of this article used AD see here. Dsmdgold 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, to sate the lust of people who want Jesus Christ mentioned in our date system, but to keep religious neutrality, and also sate the lust of those who think it is necessary to use Latin, we could use AOI (Annō ortī Iesī), in the year of the birth of Jesus. Except for a few atheist naysayers, it is universally excepted that Jesus of Nazereth did exist at the time which Pontius Pilate was procurator of Iudea, and it is from the year of his birth that the "Common Era" dates from.

To also quote the manual of style: "It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other." Joe Garrick (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to weed out needless references to religion. I think BCE/BC is much more appropriate for this reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulaklak (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think WP should use BC/AD. BC/BCE means the same darn thing. It's using the same system, and calling it something different, for the sake of being PC. Just accept that Western society was so influenced by Christianity that we use a Christian-based dating system, and move on. Using BC/AD is in no way an endorsement of the religion, its just being practical. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I belive/think BCE/CE is more appropriate.--Northern European (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, BC/AD is a better option. For one reason. People know it already. I mean, 3 quarters of the world doesn't even know what BCE/CE stands for!! Wikipedia is used by millions of people, including millions of kids like me doing school projects. I've lived in a whole lot of countries and in every one they teach BC/AD. I know also that if they want to find information, most of them want to come to Wikipedia. So what is the dang point if they don't even know what it says? You big scholar smart people should think about the dumb rest of the Christian world!On papers in arabic or something, that's a different story. But in english at least, it should be BC/AD. You probably won't listen to what i say anyway because I'm a kid. No-one listens to kids. Marco, 3:23pm, 25th November, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.129.152 (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're insightful Marco, we'll listen to you. And get an account and contribute more ;) Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I started this train wreck, I might as well try to finish it. Wikipedia policy also says that dates without BC, BCE, AD, or CE are all assumed to be AC/CE years and need no modifier. Since all the dates mentioned in the article are AC/CE the entire controversy can be avoided by omitting the abbreviations entirely. As that's the state the article is in now, I think it's best to leave it that way and call it a consensus. Unless anyone objects? --Steven J. Anderson 11:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems a reasonable compromise, though I agree with Jpetersen46321 that the original change of AD to CE was incorrect, both according to Wikipedia policy and normal usage.
 * —FlashSheridan 17:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf and danish mythology
Per Articles for deletion/Beowulf and danish mythology, what follows is the content of the now-deleted article Beowulf and danish mythology, by. Some of it may be useful here. Sandstein 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Beowulf’s poet adapts certain motifs found in Danish mythology (also see Norse Mythology) to relay a directed moral to his audience. The poet expects his audience to possess a general knowledge of these myths and he uses them to contrast the actions and choices of the mythical characters with the characters in his own poem. There are two important myths that he incorporates into his poem: those of Freyja’s Brísingamen, and Thor and the World Serpent.


 * The first of the myths is that of the Brísingamen, a necklace owned by the goddess Freyja. In the poem, there is a brief mention of Brosinga Mene, wherein the poet alludes to a decision made by Hama to forego earthly treasure for eternal reward (Beo 1195-1201). This allusion “[links] the pursuit of treasure with damnation.”


 * Finally, and arguably most importantly, there is the connection between Beowulf and the Dragon and Thor and the World Serpent. It is suggested by some scholars that the poet uses Beowulf’s character as an analogy to Thor. Numerous similarities may be found: their battles with giants, the loss of hope experienced by their people after their deaths and their final battles with serpents. The use of these Danish myths, although Christianized, adds an interesting perspective on the poet and his own views on the salvation of “heathens.”

Response

 * The only thing that I have not already seen mentioned in other articles is the analogy with Thor's battle against the Midgard Serpent. Still, there are other more close analogies, such as Sigmund's battle against a dragon in Beowulf itself and Sigurd/Sigfried's battle against Fafnir. Maybe the Thor-Beowulf analogy could be used in a section or article on dragons in Germanic paganism. I wonder what is meant by "Danish mythology" since there are only references to Beowulf and Norse mythology.--Berig 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Berig! - Have you read the text mentioned in the article? I'd like to track it down and take a look before offering a comment on the summaries provided here. Regards, -Classicfilms 17:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which text do you mean? Richard North's book?--Berig 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.-Classicfilms 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid not. I simply assume good faith on the part of the contributor who wrote about his book.--Berig 17:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - I didn't mean to imply anything but good faith. I do not doubt the accuracy or good faith of the summaries above. What I was referring to is the scholarly practice of reviewing the original document that summaries or quotes come from before developing a response. I did find the book listed in the library - once I have reviewed it myself, and have a larger context for the summaries above, I'll comment. Regards, -Classicfilms 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One comment that I forgot to add - since the above is the work of a single scholar, the text needs to be re-written to indicate this fact. In other words, the paragraphs should begin with a sentence such as: "Richard North, Professor of English, University College London, argues that Beowulf’s poet adapts certain motifs ..." In addition, the work of a few more scholars will be needed for a balanced view of the topic before this can be placed in the main article. -Classicfilms 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, such theories are more useful for the article Beowulf (hero).--Berig 08:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked through the chapter last night. The summary offered above is useful but misses a number of other points offered by the author. I reviewed each point offered above and elaborated on it according to North's text. Also - I could not find the quote attributed to p. 198 - I would appreciate a second set of eyes to look through the chapter for it. I re-wrote the text and added a new quote which offers the same information. As I said, there is quite a bit of information given in this chapter but I thought it best to limit my re-write to what is offered above. It looks useful, though for balance we should add the work of a few more scholars (as I mentioned above). Here is the re-write:

---

In Chapter 7 of his text Origins of Beowulf: From Vergil to Wiglaf, Richard North (Professor of English, University College London) argues that the Beowulf poet interpreted, "Danish myths in Christian form." North states:


 * As yet we are no closer to finding out why the first audience of Beowulf liked to hear stories about people routinely classified as damned. This question is pressing, given Pages' demonstration that Anglo-Saxons saw the Danes as 'heathens' rather than as foreigners, even if he concludes that 'in different parts of England, a variety of positions was possible,' including the composition of a praise poem for Danes during the Viking Age.

North continues by stating that the poet expected his audience to possess a general knowledge of these myths which he used as a tool to contrast the actions and choices of the mythical characters with the characters in his own poem.

He suggests that a few important myths influenced the poem. The first, he argues, was the tale of Freyja’s Brísingamen. North refers to Wealtheow's act of giving a necklace to Beowulf and then suggests that,


 * The wider Old Norse-Icelandic tradition attributes the Brisinga men or giroli Brisings (Brisinger's girdle c.900) to Freya who is at once the sister of Ingvi-freyr of the vanir, the leading Norse goddess of love, and a witch with the power to revive the dead. Freya's aquisition of this necklace and its theft by Loki are the central incidents in Sorlaþattr.

North also argues that there is the connection between Beowulf and the Dragon and Thor and the World Serpent. It is suggested by some scholars that the poet uses Beowulf’s character as an analogy to Thor. Numerous similarities may be found: their battles with giants, the loss of hope experienced by their people after their deaths and their final battles with serpents. North suggests that this version of the myth was "Christianized."

9876543210000

SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, WISE GUYS This piece is in my (Danish) opinion not good enough. It's bad. It doesn't even mention the Danish names of characters. It doesn't even mention where the events in the story is going on. I'm afraid that too many people have been too busy showing that they have read SOMETHING SOMEWHERE - but is it relevant? I don't think so, and noboby with real knowledge of the Danish history have contributed. It takes a person with deep insight into Danish history to get it right. One of the best Danish sources, Dr. Andreas Haarder is not even mentioned, and neither is his dissertation The Appeal of a Poem (1975) or his (later) other writings on the subject. To only mention Grundtvig's OLD work is not only ridiculous, it's scandalous. I think you should consider again : what should be the meaning with this article, throw all the crab and amateur discussion away and ask somebody in Denmark, who really know the background to write a pice on the poem. The scene for "Sangen om Bjovulf" (as we call it here) is here in Denmark, and our old legends and myths have been taught in schools and is available in rater new editions, so you have no excuse to let it be as it is ... (From : Jan Eskildsen (B DJ), journalist and historian writer.)

Character List
The character list is quite long - it is also (obviously) a list. For both of these reasons, I would like to suggest moving it to another article called "List of characters in Beowulf." -Classicfilms 13:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree on this since it takes up a lot of space. However, it might be better just to remove it since a "List of characters in Beowulf" will probably be attacked by the List of X deletionists anyway.--Berig 20:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to delete the list since it is enormously useful to have the character names in one place. I checked Lists and can't find a reason to delete such a page. There are also Featured lists to imitate. -Classicfilms 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is place for an article like List of English words containing Q not followed by U, there should be place for an article named "List of characters in Beowulf". I can make it tomorrow afternoon, if it is fine by you.--Berig 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Berig for making me laugh (I certainly needed it :-) Yes, it is remarkable to see what becomes an FA (also gives us hope that one day Beowulf will be an FA as well). By all means, please do make the list if you have the time - it would be greatly appreciated (and in line with the current header, it should probably be called, "List of characters and objects in Beowulf" since some of the important terms refer to inanimate objects). -Classicfilms 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it does not hurt to start it right away, although I should be going to bed :-). Here it is: List of characters and objects in Beowulf.--Berig 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey great start! Though I think that there is no rush on this - take your time -Classicfilms 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Don't hesitate to improve it until I return tomorrow afternoon.--Berig 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just did. I added a basic intro, cats, images, and subheaders to the article. Please feel free to edit and tweak these additions as you format the list. I also deleted the list from the main article, add a "main" tag and wrote a very short intro that could use some more work. I'll leave that to you. Thanks, -Classicfilms 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great work as usual :)! I will make some additions and fixes.--Berig 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thanks too for cleaning up the list and making more additions - I'll keep a watch on it. -Classicfilms 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Meter
I'm surprised that there's no discussion of Sievers' Theory of Anglo-Saxon Meter, but then the section on meter is rather scattered in general (why two form sections?), and might benefit from some copy and paste replacement from alliterative verse. The section on common Germanic features explains alliterative verse much more clearly and concisely than here. I'd sofixit, but I'm a physicist and trying to stay on wikibreak. 206.81.65.30 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. I'd like to add that Alliterative verse is a featured article (and was a "Today's Featured Article" in 2004). I would like propose that the sections Language and verse-form and Form are combined into one section (perhaps called "Form and meter"), and that much of the general information be removed. What is left can serve as an introduction and a Main Link can be added, pointing to Alliterative verse. It would improve the article dramatically. -Classicfilms 19:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Those two sections should be merged.--Berig 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll wait a few days and if there are no objections, I'll take care of the merge and main. -Classicfilms 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to propose that we remove the long translation in "Form." The translation does not improve or help the article and since there are literally hundreds of modern English translations of the poem, it seems beyond the bounds of the Wikipedia to promote one particular version.-Classicfilms 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I combined the two sections, created a main link to Alliterative verse, edited down the text and removed the long translation for the reason stated above. Please feel free to tweak. -Classicfilms 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IN SPITE of being Danish?
As of 13 Nov 2007, A sentence in the into reads: As the single major surviving work of Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, the work—in spite of dealing primarily with Danish and Swedish events—has risen to such prominence that it has been described as "England's national epic.". Well... In that time frame, being Danish rather than British is what makes it an English rather than a Welsh epic. So the wording "in spite of" doesn't look appropriate to me. Can anybody suggest something better? --Farry 14:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It looks like OR to me. Also, the source did not support the claim, the poem is still considered a Teutonic epic as far as I know. - Jeeny (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the statement and replaced the reference.--Berig (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

the statement was fine as it was. The proposition that "in that time frame, being Danish rather than British is what makes it an English rather than a Welsh epic" is complete nonsense. dab (𒁳) 14:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Expert tag
I added the "Expert tag" with the hope that this will encourage greater input into this article from Beowulf scholars. -Classicfilms 19:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove it. It doesn't seem in dire need of expert improvement, which I think it should be to warrant a tag, and makes the article look messy. If experts come along, they'll edit it whether or not there's a tag. GDallimore (Talk) 17:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Different Dates
Why is it that the manuscript is from 410 CE (beginning of the entry) but deals with events that took place later, in the late 5th and early 6th centuries. Either one of these is false or Beowulf was written before the action took place. --24.57.19.247 (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was just temporary vandalism. It has been fixed.--Berig (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasnt Beowulf written in 500 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, A.D. (which is nowadays written C.E.). Different cultures starting writing stories down on paper at different times, partly depending on the availability of paper, and largely on the development of an economy that supports a leisure class that has time to write down stories. Lots of stuff. Pete St.John (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So if the Author of Beowulf used paper, that meant he was Rich? Or did the author use Parchment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.156.80 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I genuinely don't see why Beowulf (hero) is a separate article. At the moment it contains a plot summary of the epic, and three proposed identifications with Scandinavian equivalents:
 * An (unsourced, but plausible) quote locating the Brondings at Brännö in Sweden
 * An identification of Beowulf's mound with a particular archaeological site.
 * A note that Beowulf is comparable to Bödvar Bjarki; I'm not sure he is more so than to any other werebear; but the whole subject belongs under the Bee-wolf etymology anyway, merged or not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. There is a section in the main article into which merger is proposed which deals with the historical background. It makes sense for all relevant information to be in the same place, until it gets unwieldy to either read or edit (in that order). I don't think that point would be reached, even after a merger, bearing in mind that all duplicate and unsourced material would be factored out in the merge. Also, bearing in mind Occam's Razor and the fact that the film is current, I think the less scope for inconsistency the better. It's not my field of expertise at all, and my opinion is purely third-party. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 00:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with a merger. The identifications with Swedish sites are pure speculation. The tenuous parallel with Icelandic sagas is the subject of Origins for Beowulf and Hrólf Kraki. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article for the figure of Beowulf should be where all information directly referring to the numerous theories, discussion and research regarding the figure should be placed as this article is already pretty sizable. I've since added an etymology section as well as restructured and formatting the article to facilitate future additions. bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have to agree with bloodofox: on this issue. There is quite a bit of scholarship on this topic (enough to justify its own article) so perhaps it is just a matter adding more scholars and texts. -Classicfilms (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is enough unique information to justify it, and there are articles for the other main characters. Kuralyov (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I raised this issue on the other talk page Talk:Beowulf (hero). One of the more interesting comments was by Pieter Kuiper "It is not just the character of the protagonist. Every minor figure and object seems to have its own article - see List of characters and objects in Beowulf. Following the example of the Harry Potter aficionados?". Although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, I wonder if this falls under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" perhaps not for these two pages under discussion, but what of articles like Æschere? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The figure of Beowulf has also appeared in several modern books and movies. This is the major protaganist for several works, and deserves a page. However, the pages on all the minor characters (as per above comment) should be speedily removed. --lk (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Not enough material is presented to warrant the split. "several modern books and movies" may be a reason for Beowulf in popular culture, not for Beowulf (hero). If there really is "enough scholarship to justify its own article", by all means write the article based on such scholarship. Just make sure to present the scholarship first, and branch out the article later, once the accumulated material is beginning to overwhelm the main article. dab (𒁳) 10:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would suspect that an etymology section for the figure of Beowulf alone (which I have facilitated very recently) would be enough to warrant his own article as the actual manuscript is untitled, not to mention the large amount of comparable historical figures and theories relating to the subject which I will continue to reference and add. Shall we also merge the sizable articles relating to Grendel's Mother and Grendel? What about Heorot? Don't you think the article is already pretty lengthy? bloodofox: (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I note that Bloodofox has expanded Beowulf (hero) significantly since this proposal was made; that's certainly one way to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per bloodofox: and Classicfilms. The article Beowulf (hero) has a lot of potential and should be expanded rather than reduced to a redirect.--Berig (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the individual person "Beowulf" may present little or no evidence outside the context of the story, it is a distinctly notable story. In the sphere of literary and historical analysis, it makes as much sense as distinguishing the character Hamlet from the play Hamlet. Pete St.John (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One would think, given the power of the character, that he's analogous to Hamlet, but, in terms of psychology and nuance (i.e. in terms of character and literariness), he's more equivalent with Mistress Quickly. It is enough that the discussion in the poem be full and that a redirect take the curious (and the slashdotting masses) to the poem.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but I think Beowulf's significance is more in the nature of an icon or an archetype (e.g. Mnemosyne) than a psychological study (e.g. Ullyses). Pete St.John (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also say Mistress Quickly could have her own article is anyone had the desire to do some focused research. Take a look at Rosaline and Sycorax (Shakespeare). I don't think we'll really know what a character article about Beowulf would be capable of until we really try to improve it and his poem article. Wrad (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: As I wrote on AN/I: The Anglo-Saxon scribe was not very interested in psychological realism, so the character of Beowulf isn't very developed. The narrative origins belong in a "sources and analogs" section for the poem, and as Beowulf he appears only in Beowulf.  Hrothgar has much more complexity as a character.  Even Wiglaf is more interesting.  Beowulf is an active force, not a meditative one. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally (P.S. to the above), Beowulf is absolutely a hero, but, while we can see the analogs various places, they're generally under developed themselves. He is, we think, an archetypical hero, but there is no way to know whether he is such because he's all over heroic literature or because we have fashioned our ideas of the Nordic hero from him.  A more common heroic figure is a person like Njal or Egil.  Beowulf is remarkable for being so taciturn, so boastful, so immaculately muscular, and so utterly undeveloped as a character.  He is so near to sui generis and yet so near the archetype that he is best discussed within his poem and only his poem.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right in pointing out that the character is relatively flat and mainly evokes the hero archetype. However, the main article is already reaching 46 kb and has to treat not only the hero, but also subjects like metre, origins and various themes. Since there are scholarly sources that discuss not only the etymology of the character Beowulf but also compare him with other legendary characters, I do believe that there is a need for an extra article for such discussions.--Berig (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Begging your pardon, but aren't you talking of a hypothetical article? It is, I agree, entirely possible to speak of the character's place in genre, his singularity, etc., but I also think that doing so pushes us close to literary criticism, which Wikipedia generally avoids (yes, yes, there are exceptions, and I myself added to one recently).  If we had a solidly referenced and well circumscribed article on the character (vs. Joseph Campbell's silly stuff, vs. Icelandic heroes, vs. legendary figures, vs. the various berserks, as progenitor of the Fantasy genre Conanisms), then it would be an appropriate break out.  The present article seems to fall within the poem, though, and even the good article we're discussing would be susceptible to the infinite detail of "in popular culture."  The very size of the poem's article limits some of that.  Utgard Loki (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that you feel like expanding and improving the article until you think it's worthy of being an article of its own. These articles need all the quality editors they can get.--Berig (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I fail to see the point of even wanting to merge the two articles whlie leaving the articles on the other characaters unmerged. Beowulf (hero) is about the character - not the poem - and he is not a minor character. As the central character in the poem, he is as "deserving" of an article as Grendel, Grendel's mother, or the minor characters with articles. At this point, however, it would probably make more sense to cover all the cahracters in one place, perhaps Characters in Beowulf. But this page is longe enough as it is. - BillCJ (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an existing article called List of characters and objects in Beowulf. -Classicfilms (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but as a list page it's not suitable, and is an AFD-magnet. - BillCJ (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are Featured lists. -Classicfilms (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that, as I mentioned above, I also oppose the merger and think that the character of Beowulf is deserving of a separate article. Perhaps it would makes sense to create an article which combined minor characters, but not the major ones. As it stands, the list is a useful reference tool when reviewing the poem as there are many characters, objects, and clans to keep straight - and as the FA link above demonstrates, there are lists which have gained community consensus. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is meaningful to divide the characters of Beowulf into "minor" and "major" characters as far as Wikipedia articles are concerned. Some major characters in Beowulf appear nowhere else and as is shown by this straw poll, some people may argue that they should not have separate articles. Many minor characters, OTOH, are quite notable as they also appear in other surviving pieces of Germanic heroic poetry, chronicles and sagas. I see no reason why we should have an article named "characters in Beowulf" to cover "minor characters in Beowulf" when they already have medium-sized to major articles like Ingeld, Healfdene, Halga, Hroðulf, Heoroweard, Eormenric, Fitela, Sigemund, Onela and Eadgils. Hama has not even got an article yet, but I am planning quite a large one on him.--Berig (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, these articles are simply much too expansive and encompassing to merge them all together into a single page. As Berig states, many of these figures have extensive history and associations outside of Beowulf. bloodofox: (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it really would appear odd to define Wayland Smith as a Beowulf character when he even has a poem of his own in the Poetic Edda. --Berig (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditionally Oppose, as per BillCJ. Unless all other characters of the Beowulf epic are merged into the main article, there is no point in doing so just for this case. Merge everything if you think you can do so, but it better be properly structured and more easily maintainable than it is now, or you can betcha that it's going to be reverted faster than you can look anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOtherStephan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf and the Cain traditions
I think a key to understand the form of Christian faith that is mingled with the Nordic heathendom in Beowulf, is that the Geats, like their relatives the Goths, during that time were influenced by Semi-Arianism, and not Catholicism. The person who later edited the stories may have been a Catholic, but there are certain traces of Biblical faith in the poem that diverts from Catholicism, but may be related to Semi-Arianism. This would be, if true, interesting for those who try to understand what the story actually is about. I think it's about a confrontation between the old idol worship (so deep that it could manifest in physical demonic forms), and the "proto-Christianity", that just had begun to influence the peoples of the North. And, as the Geatish/Gothic peoples were more into Semi-Arianism, and thus opposed to Catholicism, during the iron age, we find a strange mix of heathen and Christian faith, in the poem.

From this point of view, there would be no reason to think that Beowolf wasn't a real person. He may have been a kind of shaman, but at the same time heavy influenced by Gothic Christendom, giving him an advantage against the old demonic forces, that for example, the Danes didn't have. We know that people who are deep into the occult, view their world of spiritual conceptions as a physical reality. It can cause them wounds, and supernatural strength, and lots of other weird things. Whether or not "real" in a modern sence, didn't matter for them. Their faith in those dark forces was enough to cause disorder and deaths and misery, and Beowulf may have been the one, at that time, who was needed, to cause these manifestations to "die" and disintegrate. ...

I wrote the above just a few days ago, but awaited some sence, or feeling, of confirmation. Next day I saw that someone had written about "The Cain Tradition in Beowulf". That was exactly those traces of Biblical faith diverging from Catholicism, that I mentioned above!

This is very interesting, because it shows that the Beowulf stories must be of another origin, than that of nations were Catholicism "ruled", because they had the Vulgate translation in which there is no mentioning of fallen angels, producing giants and monsters, as told about in Beowulf. So, the Beowulf origin must be of an older date than when Catholicism had defeated other Christian faiths among the German tribes. And the clue here might be, that the Goths were Semi-Arians up until about the same time that the Beowulf story took place.

In Catholicism, the story of Cain's breed mixing with "the Sons of God", is depicted as the godly offspring of Seth mixing with the ungodly offspring of Cain, producing not physical giants and monsters, but humans "gigantic" only in deeds. On the other hand, the Septuagint tells fully about fallen angels mixing with humans forming a race of real giants, and there are some mentioning in the Apocrypha also, about a mix of giants and animals, creating monsters and hybrids (like in the ancient Greek tales). This is what seems to be the view in Beowulf, and thus must be of another Christian tradition than the one spread from Rome. So, a connection between the Goths and their Geatish relatives in the North, must be the most obvious here.

I'm not sure, but maybe this could change the view about when Beowulf was written. Why would a Catholic monk in England leave the Septuagint's Cain tradition untouched, if he were editing the stories to fit his Church? Perhaps he didn't edit at all - he just translated the original Geatish tales.

Anyway, this mythical Cain tradition shows that the Beowulf origin isn't written, or taken place, under Roman-Catholic influence. The rest remains to be proven. Unfortunately, what remains of the Gothic Bible translation made by Wulfila doesn't include Genesis, so we don't know which Cain tradition Wulfila followed. But a good guess would be that he, as the Semi-Arianism was mostly an Eastern Christianity teaching, himself being a Semi-Arian, followed his fellow brethren's view. I think that makes these speculations quite possible, and worth of considering, if not done yet by someone. /Leos Friend (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In general the section on Beowulf and Christianity seems to be lacking. The evidence is out there, but I think there needs to be a stronger case made for the influence of Christianity in the Beowulf.  For instance, the similarities between the heroic journeys of Beowulf and Jesus are not limited to them two alone, but rather apply to a multitude of Indo-European and Near Eastern heroes and gods.  If this subject is going to be breached, then more details or else simpler proposals need to be brought forward.Delvebelow (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Hello, I have taken the liberty of deleting the last two sentences at the end of the Introduction (about pronouncing "baya"-wulf) because the information they provide is already provided a couple of lines higher up in a much more rigorous way. One has the impression that whoever added the bit I have removed didn't understand that the preceding explanation was already saying the same thing. The omitted two sentences were also poorly written, incidentally. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please correct my mistake! Cheers, --A R King (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edits. Thanks! -Classicfilms (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The map
The map which shows the different regions of Scandinavia discussed in the work has several blue links to other articles in the caption, but the links are not clickable. Any ideas? Corvus cornix talk  22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're working for me. I have Firefox. Maybe something's wrong with your browser? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypotheses about the original story behind Beowulf
The phrase "living in a lake" could mean "living on a platform in a lake" as for example the platform found in Tingstäde träsk on Gotland, similar platforms has been found in Poland and Baltikum, and it is beleived that people lived on these platforms, and that seen as a whole the lake and the platform made a perfect defense construction. I made a special own page for this: http://hem.fyristorg.com/magnus.andersson/Beowulf.html (I don't want to waste the space here) Magnus Andersson (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

IPA sucks
Could someone write a phonetic pronunciation so we don't have to look it up in some annoying table? Thanks. 66.30.14.161 (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * IPA is the standard for pronunciation in WP. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)