What makes a good king, according to "Beowulf"?

        While Beowulf tends to be acclaimed as the greatest warrior and protector of his people, this is not a simple claim to make. In order to fully understand his accomplishments and reputation, we analyze what it means to be a king in “Beowulf” by using the other kings’ lives as examples of how to behave and how not to behave properly. 

        Inheritance, strength, wealth, generosity, and legacies are all imperative to being the best king. Who is the best, who is the worst, and where does our hero fall amongst his peers? Let’s find out, on “Words About Words”: 

What makes a good king, according to Beowulf? 

        Beowulf is a 3,185 lined poem constructed in the alliterative verse Old English style, copied down by two scribes on a manuscript over a thousand years ago, and continues to be studied today. Throughout the ages since this story’s first conception, kings have come and gone as nations have risen and fallen, both in literature and in real life. And so, understanding how we can critique and honor kings in Beowulf may allow more profound insight into larger issues of kingship. 

        We will examine here kings as being those leaders who rule over a group of established peoples within the Beowulf poem, and we can analyze kingship as a whole through how these various kings behave while in power. We include Hengest even though he is not explicitly referred to as a “king” by the poem, because nonetheless he does rule over his people while kept captive in Finn’s hall. Headred counts as well because even though he is not in power for very long, he fights whole-heartedly against invaders in order to defend Geatland’s honor. 

        And perhaps less obviously, we will also look at the unnamed character referred to here as “the lone survivor”, whose people owned the treasure that the dragon finds and takes over many years later. Although the poem does not explicitly name or identify his people, the lone survivor is a leader by default because he is the last one of them to die. The lone survivor being characterized as a king—the primarily leader of his people—simply because he is the last one left alive is similar to how Beowulf names Wiglaf as representative of the Waegmundings clan because he is its last living member. 

        While Beowulf is often acclaimed and beloved for its monsters against which the main protagonist must face three trials in order to achieve fame and glory, here we focus rather upon the relations between human figures featured in the poem. In contrast, it can be argued that Grendel and Grendel’s mother rule over the swamp marshes and the other pond serpents lurking near their lair. And it can be said that the dragon rules over the mountain under which he sleeps and the gold he hoards. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this discussion here, we focus on the human kings because in doing so we may argue the proper criteria by which kings can be judged and remembered according to human traditions and expectations. 

        There are many possible criteria by which we may judge kings, but there are a few key ways in which kings can and should behave according to Beowulf that need to be highlighted when analyzing their ranking in relation to their peers. Kings can be judged by how much wealth they possess, partially because one needs to have treasure in order to distribute treasure and also because the amount of treasure one has is a symbol of wealth and prosperity in itself. A king must possess strength in order to be battle-worthy; to have followers and to be able to lead those followers successfully into battle. A king can either be introduced by or remembered for their reputation, which can be alluded to through the identities of their fathers, what they have inherited from their forebears, and for what previous accomplishments prior to their kingship they are known for. It is better to be remembered badly than to not be remembered at all, as we will see when examining Heremod’s legacy. 

        Not only must a king have gold, but he must know how to use it, and so rulers can be judged based upon how they deal and give out wealth: how much, to whom, and to what result their distributing decisions come to. Not only must a king be able and willing to fight, but they can be judged based upon how effectively they protect their people against threats. These threats can either come internally from strife occurring within the nation or externally from invaders entering the country, and danger can stem from men fighting other men or when monsters terrorize the land. And finally, a king is only as memorable as how well his legacy is remembered. A legacy is what they leave behind for us to analyze, whether that be remaining wealth, stability of their nation, suitable heirs, or a lasting reputation. 

        We need to take into account how much we know about their rule due to how much Beowulf reveals about their story. Beowulf the character is often so celebrated because we know about his life more than any other figure, and Hrothgar is so often pitted against him because he is the second most known ruler. It is important to note that this discussion is not necessarily “anti-Beowulf” because we seek not to belittle or strike him down, but to think objectively about his representation as “the best of kings of that time and place”. Beowulf has the power of the protagonist because historically, interpretations and adaptations have long been leaning in his favor, beginning with titling this poem Beowulf. 

        The manuscript itself is not specifically named by the scribes, and theoretically it could be named other things, including but not limited to: Fall of the Geats, Of Heroes and Monsters, Monstersbane, Honoring Kinship, Heorot!, Hwaet…, The Good King, or even The Vampire of the Fens. We would be reading and analyzing a very different poem if it had been primarily presenting Sigemund’s story instead, with a “Beowulf-interlude” interjecting somewhere in between events. 

Therefore, here we will only judge rulers based on what we specifically know about the nature of their reign from textual context. If we do not know how a particular king died, then we cannot judge their death (Scyld, for instance), but rather only the actions they performed leading up to the moment of their passing. 

        Up to line 52, the poem recounts the story of Scyld, who arrived as a “foundling to start with” (line 7), but as an adult established the Danish royal family. In the beginning, “There was Scyld Sheafson, scourge of many tribes,/a wrecker of mead-benches, rampaging among foes./This terror of the hall-troops had come far” (lines 4 – 6). Scyld fathers a famous son (line 18), named Beow who is possibly Beowulf’s namesake, thus elevating his status within the poem by association. “Scyld was still thriving when his time came/and he crossed over into the Lord’s keeping./His warrior band… stretched their beloved lord in his boat,/laid out by the mast, amidships,/the great ring-giver. Far-fetched treasures/were piled upon him, and precious gear” (lines 26 – 37). 

        And so, we know that Scyld had a lot of wealth if his retainers were able to send him off so extravagantly. He had incredible strength and used that power to build a reputation for himself. And by leaving people honoring his death, a famous son, and the Danish royal line behind, he leaves an admirable legacy in his wake. However, we do not know exactly how he distributes that wealth to his people, or how protective he could have been of his people; no one seems to dare to challenge his strength, but we do not get specific textual evidence saying so. 

        Beow is that famous son Scyld leaves behind and follows in his father’s footsteps as an early Danish king. In time, “Beow’s name was known throughout the north” (lines 18 – 19). In his father’s absence, “it fell to Beow to keep the forts./He was well regarded and ruled the Danes for a long time after his father took leave/of his life on earth” (lines 53 – 56). We do not know how wealthy he was or how strong he was, but he did have a high reputation throughout many lands. No one seems to have troubled the Danes during his reign, so we do not know how he would have handled threats to his throne, but his legacy lives on in his reputation and his son Halfdane. 

        Halfdane is king of the Danes as Beow’s son, and in turn fathers Heorogar, Halga, a daughter, and Hrothgar, the last of whom is one of the better-known kings in the poem. Beow’s son is remembered as “the great Halfdane, [who] held sway/for as long as he lived, their elder and warlord./He was four times a father, this fighter prince” (lines 57 – 59). Again, we do not know how wealthy or how great of a ring-giver Halfdane was, but he was an excellent fighter and protector of his people. His legacy is best remembered for the tales of his children. 

        Heorogar, as eldest, assumes the throne first after his father passes away. Hrothgar himself will admit later that, “Heorogar,/my older brother and the better man,/also a son of Halfdane’s” (lines 467 – 469). Heorogar had war-gear that he kept to himself for a long time but never gave to his son, so it goes to Hrothgar who later passes it on to Beowulf for his noble deeds. And so, Heorogar has a reputation as being a better man than his younger brother Hrothgar. But although he had excellent war-gear that presumably used and was worth passing on as a gift to others, he fails to bestow that upon his son. Heorogar seems to have had potential, but he does not rule for as long or as well as some of his ancestors before the crown passes on to his younger counterpart Hrothgar. 

        Hrothgar is defined many times throughout the poem in reference to his father, such as, “Halfdane’s son” (lines 191, 268, 345, 1019). The situations surrounding his reign are described by how “fortunes of war favored Hrothgar./Friends and kinsmen flocked to his ranks,/young followers, a force that grew/to be a mighty army. So his mind turned/to hall building” (lines 64 – 68). It is after the construction of Heorot that Hrothgar’s people are plagued with Grendel and then Grendel’s mother until Beowulf is able to exterminate them both. Despite the twelve years during which Grendel has been terrorizing the hall, however, a messenger still describes Hrothgar to Beowulf as “our noble king,/our dear lord, friend of the Danes,/the giver of rings” (lines 351 – 353). He has wealth and distributes glorious treasure many times throughout the poem. While he was very strong and battle worthy in his youth, he is old and unable to defeat Grendel at the time of Beowulf’s coming. His reputation is both defined by his inheritance from his forebears, his accomplishments earlier on in life, and in the three children he brings into the world. While he has been criticized on multiple occasions throughout the generations of readers following the Beowulf manuscript due to his ineptitude as a protector of his people against Grendel, we will see that perhaps he is still better than some of his peers to come. 

        Beowulf comes by sea from Geatland to aid Hrothgar’s people, which was ruled originally according to this poem by King Hrethel. King of the Geats, father of Hygelac, and Beowulf’s maternal grandfather, Hrethel is responsible for giving Beowulf to Hygelac (line 454) as a retainer. Beowulf says that, “King Hrethel kept me and took care of me,/was openhanded, behaved like a kinsman./While I was his ward, he treated me no worse/as a wean about the place than one of his own boys” (2430 – 2433), indicating that he must have been wealthy enough and generous enough to take on foster children. Despite his good intentions, however, he does not leave behind a stable nation because “hostilities broke out when Hrethel died” (line 2474). Hrethel’s legacy includes the strife his death causes, but also the four children (Herebeald, Haethcyn, Hygelac, and a daughter) he leaves behind. 

        The poem mentions Hygelac as king of the Geats, so not much is known about the other brothers. It is Ongentheow, then king of the Swedes, who “at Ravenswood Ongentheow/slaughtered Haethcyn, Hrethel’s son,/when the Geat people in their arrogance/first attacked the fierce Shylfings” (lines 2924 – 2927). Then when Hygelac comes back in retaliation, “Ongentheow withdrew to higher ground” (line 2951). The new leader Hygelac is pitted directly against the more experienced ruler Ongentheow, and Haethcyn’s brother is judged as the better leader because his opponent “had no confidence/that he could hold out against that horde of seamen,/defend his wife and the ones he loved/from the shock of the attack” (lines 2953 – 2956). “There in his gray hairs, Ongentheow/was cornered, ringed around with swords./And it came to pass that the king’s fate/was in Eofer’s hands, and in his alone” (lines 2961 – 2964). We therefore see here how the Swedish king Ongentheow is unable to defend his loved ones against foreign attack, and he is shamed in battle by being beaten by one of Hygelac’s young retainers (Eofer) instead of the fellow king himself. 

        Ongentheow is remembered through the legacy of his son, Onela, who survives the battle with Hygelac to take his place as king of the Swedes. He marries Hrothgar’s younger sister (line 62) as part of an alliance, thus connecting his honor with that of the Danes. And when Onela gets Weohstan to kill the young Eanmund for him, “Onela returns the weapons to [Weohstan], rewarded [him]/with Eanmund’s war-gear” (lines 2616 – 2618). Because Weohstan killed King Onela’s nephew Eanmund, he might have expected retribution from a less dysfunctional family. But the Swedish royal family is already embroiled in a deadly power struggle, so to say that Onela “ignored the blood-feud” (line 2618) is deeply ironic: he rewards Weohstan for removing a rival claimant to the throne. We see Onela acquiring a good marriage-match and rewarding those who loyally follow him, but because he betrays his nephews in order to assume the throne, he is one of the worst kings as presented in Beowulf. 

        Hygelac, in contrast, is seen in a much more positive light, and not only because he is able to defeat Ongentheow in battle. He is referenced in relation to his father before him as “Hrethel’s son” (lines 1485, 1846, 2358, 2993). However, Hygelac’s ill-fated raid later in life is mentioned several times in Beowulf, such as, “Hygelac, king of the Geats, was killed/in Friesland” (lines 2356 – 2357), and his untimely demise leads to further strain upon his nation. On a side note, Beowulf seems partially disloyal when he leaves against Hygelac’s wishes to help purge Hrothgar’s Heorot of its monster; and yet Beowulf then honors Hygelac greatly by returning with treasure. Hygelac does not seem to have the foresight that Beowulf should go on this adventure to help the Danes, but he possesses the wisdom enough to recognize and celebrate Beowulf’s achievements upon his safe return. And so in Hygelac, we have a young, generous, battle-worthy king who is wise to an extent and leaves two children (Heardred and a daughter) behind. 

        Before moving further down the Geat-ish family tree, let us turn across to examine Hygelac’s sister’s husband, Ecgtheow. He is the father of Beowulf, who remembers him by how, “In his day, my father was a famous man,/a noble warrior-lord named Ecgtheow./He outlasted many a long winter/and went on his way. All over the world/men wise in counsel continue to remember him” (lines 262 – 266). This wide renown harkens back to Beow’s characterization, but Ecgtheow seems more battle-worthy than we know of Beow’s behavior. And when Hrothgar says, “Hrethel the Geat gave Ecgtheow/his daughter in marriage” (lines 373 – 374), it suggests that this was an honorable match, thus uplifting Ecgtheow’s worth because he is tied to both Hygelac and Hrethel through this marriage-pact. 

        Now we can return to Hygelac’s children and how their legacies contribute to the fate of the Geat-ish nation. Headred, son of Hygelac, next becomes king of the Geats. After Hygelac is killed in the raid on Frisia, his son Headred becomes king of the Geats. The Swedish (or Shylfing) king Onela later invades and kills Headred, after which Beowulf becomes king. Following the battle in which Hygelac dies, “there was no way the weakened nation/could get Beowulf to give in and agree/to be elevated over Headred as his lord/or to undertake the office of kingship” (lines 2373 – 2376). He gets the loyal support of Beowulf instead of being usurped, and if Beowulf is as great as the poem professes him to be, then his loyalty is worth at least thirty thanes. When Headred rules, he tries to be a kind and generous figure, but instead “his hospitality/ was mortally rewarded with wounds from a sword./Headred lay slaughtered” (lines 2385 – 2387) by the Swedes. During the battle, “the shelter of Headred’s shield proved useless/against the force aggression of the Shylfings” (lines 2202 – 2203). Headred tries to be a good king, but ultimately he is not battle strong enough to protect his people, and so due to having a short lived reign we do not know how rich or generous he could have been. His legacy lives not on in children or a long lasting reputation, but in Beowulf who follows to take his place. 

        Beowulf, the often-acclaimed hero of the poem, similarly named, becomes king of the Geats after Headred’s battle-death. He is often introduced as, “Beowulf, Ecgtheow’s son” (lines 529, 631, 1473, 1999, 2398); a man who is often defined by the reputation of his father. Beowulf makes a name for himself worthy of remembrance, in addition to his father’s inherited reputation, by competing bravely against Breca in the open ocean, defeating Grendel and then Grendel’s mother, reigning for fifty prosperous and protective years, and defeating the dragon with the aid of his companion Wiglaf. Although he fathers no children, Beowulf names Wiglaf as his heir. He is wealthy and gives out that wealth because of the gear he gives the twelve retainers who join him to find the dragon’s lair, and then again when he gives the dragon horde to his people. He is battle worthy because of the sea fishes and monsters he has slain, and the terrestrial battles between men in which he has participated, and he is revered even in dying by dragon’s fire because he faced said beasty head on despite his old age. 

        After Beowulf mortally wounds Grendel, Hrothgar offers him advise on being an admired ruler by using the king Heremod as a counter-example. Heremod starts off as an admirable Danish hero but becomes a vicious, miserly king who alienated his own people over the years. Although “King Heremod’s prowess declined/and his campaigns slowed down” (lines 900 – 901) can also describe how Hrothgar slows down his fighting career, a decline that leads to the building of Heorot, Hrothgar and Heremod behave significantly different in their retirement. “The waves of [Heremod’s] grief/had beaten him down, made him a burden,/a source of anxiety to his own nobles” (lines 903 – 905), and as a result “evil entered into Heremod” (line 914). “His rise in the world brought little joy/to the Danish people, only death and destruction,” because “he vented his rage on men he caroused with,/killed his own comrades, a pariah king/who cut himself off from his own kind,/even though Almighty God had made him/eminent and powerful and marked him from the start/for a happy life. But a change happened,/he grew bloodthirsty, gave no more rings/to honor the Danes. He suffered in the end/for having plagued his people for so long:/his life lost happiness” (lines 1711 – 1722). Heremod is utilized by the narrative as an example of a bad king that Beowulf should avoid becoming. And although they do not feature more than once, kinsmen of a Danish king, “Ecqwela’s sons” (line 1710) are mentioned in order to describe how Heremod mistreats his people. Because we are partially judged by how well we treat others, Heremod is what can happen to a kingly figure when he no longer acts like one. He stops protecting his people, denies them treasure, and even kills those men closest to him; he is one of the worst leaders mentioned in Beowulf. 

        During the time between Beowulf’s battle with Grendel and that with his mother, a celebration takes place and the tale commonly known as “the Finn episode” is told. Finn was a king of the Frisians, and “the saga of Finn and his sons” (line 1067) tells how “war carried away Finn’s troop of thanes/all but a few” (lines 1080 – 1081). According to the customs of social order, “Finn, son of Folcwald,/should honor the Danes, bestow with an even/hand to Hengest and Hengest’s men/the wrought-gold rings, bounty to match/the measure he gave/his own Frisians” (lines 1089 – 1093), and indeed “Finn swore/openly, solemnly, that the battle survivors/would be guaranteed honor and status” (lines 1096 – 1098). But Finn betrayed the inherent trust between host and guest, killing Hnaef, chief of the Danes and his own brother-in-law. “Hnaef, king of the Danes, met death” (line 1069) during a fierce attack in Friesland. The next ruler by default, Hengest is forced to winter in Finn’s house. “Hengest stayed,/lived out that whole resentful, blood-sullen/winter with Finn, homesick and helpless” (lines 1128 – 1130), and as a result another battle broke out between Hengest’s and Finn’s men. “Thus blood was spilled, the gallant Finn/slain in his home” (lines 1146 – 1147), and therefore “the brutal ambush, the fate they had suffered,/all blamed on Finn” (lines 1149 – 1150) by both his enemies and his own people. Finn’s treasure goes to his murderers after his death when “Finn was cut down,/the queen brought away and everything/the Scyldings could find inside Finn’s walls—/the Frisian king’s gold collars and gemstones—/swept off to the ship” (lines 1152 – 1155). Although Finn has great strength and wealth, he betrays guests in his hall, and this ultimately leads to his own death and the deaths of many of his people. In the end, his treasure and wife are taken away by her kinsmen, and Finn has no legacy, therefore perhaps outmatching Heremod as Beowulf’s worst king. 

        After defeating Grendel, Beowulf is awarded renown jewelry that were once owned by a goddess and then a king named Eormenric. This king of the East Goths had profound wealth, and “there was no hoard like it since Hama snatched/the Brosings’ neck-chain and bore it away/with its gems and settings to his shining fort,/away from Eormenric’s wiles and hatred” (lines 1197 – 1200). The treasures presented to Beowulf after defeating Grendel are compared to a legendary necklace once worn by the goddess Freyja in Germanic legend, which later comes into the possession of Eormenric, whom legends portray as a treacherous tyrant. What could this comparison to a wealthy tyrant reveal about Beowulf’s future kingship? Perhaps Beowulf’s rewards are greater than Eormenric’s because not only did he acquire fine treasure, but he did so honorably. 

        Our “lone survivor” has possession of that gold Beowulf gives his people before the dragon does what dragons do: hoarding said treasure. The lone survivor buries his people in a fresh barrow mound and “into it the keeper of the hoard had carried/all the goods and golden ware/worth preserving” (lines 2244 – 2246). With his parting words, he says, “My own people/have been ruined by war; one by one/they went down to death, looked their last/on sweet life in the hall. I am left with nobody/to bear a sword or to burnish plated goblets,/put a sheen on the cup. The companies have departed” (lines 2249 – 2254). “And so he mourned as he moved about the world,/deserted and alone, lamenting his unhappiness/day and night, until death’s flood/brimmed up in his heart” (lines 2267 – 2270). 

        This lone survivor, long before Beowulf’s time, buries his people with all of the gold they possess, giving them everything that he possibly can, and then wanders the world alone. He physically leaves them behind, which could be criticized to an extent until we remember that he has nothing else to give them and thus can no longer take care of them. The lone survivor does his best and hides the gold from the world for hundreds of years, so technically the treasure is in his people’s possession for that long of a time period, making his gold-giving more permanent than all of his king-peers. 

        When Beowulf seeks the dragon’s treasure, he brings his close companion Wiglaf along with him. This loyal retainer, this last of the Waegmundings, is first introduced by name as “Wiglaf, a son of Weohstan’s,/a well-regarded Shylfing warrior” (lines 2602 – 2603). Wiglaf is said to be a Swede (“Shylfing", line 2603) and a Waegmunding (line 2607), which is also Beowulf’s family among the Geats. There is no problem with this dual identity if, for example, the family shifted allegiance at some point or if a marriage united families from two different tribes. If anything, it makes his actions to stick by Beowulf against the dragon even more honorable because he is less socially obligated to aid him than the retainers who flee into the trees. Wiglaf berates these cowards, saying that, “I remember that time when mead was flowing,/how we pledged loyalty to our lord in the hall… I would rather my body were robed in the same/burning blaze as my gold-giver’s body/than go back home bearing arms” (lines 2633 – 2653). He fulfills Beowulf’s last wishes and fetches gold from the dragon horde for him to gaze upon. When the cowards return, they find “Wiglaf, sitting worn out,/a comrade shoulder to shoulder with his lord,/trying in vain to bring him round with water” (lines 2852 – 2854). And when a messenger is sent to alert the rest of Geatland to the situation at hand, it is told how, “Wiglaf sits/at Beowulf’s side, the son of Weohstan,/the living warrior watching by the dead,/keeping vigil, holding a wake/for the loved and the loathed” (lines 2906 – 2910). Although Wiglaf’s is a special case because we readers do not get to experience his reign and so cannot judge him as fully as some of the others, he is perhaps a close favorite after Offa and Beowulf because he has so much potential based on his honorable character. 

        Of course, there is an imbalance of threats between many of the kings being discussed that needs to be taken into account when pitting them against one another, especially with Beowulf’s case. Hrothgar fails to defeat Grendel, but apart from his reign, no other kings mentioned in the poem are faced with monsters like Beowulf himself is. Perhaps this could be one of the ways in which we explain how Beowulf and Hrothgar have previously been compared and contrasted in relation to one another more so than other kings present in the text. 

        In addition, recognizing that the Beowulf manuscript and all of the scholarly discussions (editions, emendations, translations, articles, etc.) and consumerist digressions (adaptations, movies, board games, video games, etc.) are a part of the combined Beowulf & Beowulf legacy also complicates the ways in which we can quantify the degrees of differences of Beowulf’s reign in relation to his peers within the text. While the other kings are included in full-length translations, a vast majority are not even mentioned in the loose adaptations the general public often encounters. Are the directors and writers of said adaptations deciding which kings are more important in Beowulf, or are we consumers when we watch Robert Zemecki’s Beowulf (2007) instead of reading the original text? Perhaps it is a little bit of both, making us all accountable for these kings’ ongoing legacy, or lack thereof. 

        How much weight can be given to the manuscript’s intentions of Beowulf as being the best king in that time period? A foil to our default hero can be seen in Offa of the Angles, who is described as “the hero king” (line 1943) and who “was honored/far and wide for his generous ways,/his fighting spirit and his farseeing/defense of his homeland” (lines 1957 - 1960). Although not much else is said about them, Offa’s closest family members are important enough to mention when it is said how “from [Offa] there sprang Eomer,/Garmun’s grandson, kinsman of Hemming,/his warriors’ mainstay and master of the field (lines 1960 - 1962). While the poem ends with describing Beowulf’s death, burial, and how his people mourn him, Offa is still described earlier as being “the best king, it has been said,/between the two seas or anywhere else/on the face of the earth” (lines 1954 – 1957). 

        All that we know of Offa from the poem are good things. He is a hero with a renown father, son, and kinsman. He is known throughout the lands during his time as a fighting man and great defender of his people. But how can the same text profess two “best” kings, when the word “best” itself necessitates only one individual as being capable to hold such a position? Perhaps we would read Offa as being the best king in Beowulf if good old Cotton’s library fire had destroyed everything in the manuscript after line 1960. 

        It remains significant that Beowulf is the most renown king from this tale today, though we cannot forget the contributions other kings have made to their reigns as told in Beowulf. The main protagonist seems to be among the best kings portrayed here, but he does not outshine other kings nearly as much as the poem’s title may suggest. Monster-slaying aside (because not monster-slaying cannot be held against those kings who never get the chance to prove themselves worthy of monster-slaying), Scyld, Offa, and Wiglaf can be judged as just as or nearly as great a king as Beowulf himself is. 

References: 

Heaney, Seamus (Translator), and Daniel Donoghue (Editor). 2002. Beowulf: A Verse Translation. A Norton Critical Edition. W. W. Norton & Company. Print. 

        Who is your favorite king in “Beowulf”? Who is your least favorite? If we were looking at the monsters as rulers of their subjects, treasures, etc. how would you rank the monsters against one another, and why? 

        Now that we have examined how the ways in which a king leads his life defines how well he is remembered and revered, we shall look at what the various battle-deaths in “Beowulf” have to teach us about why we die what is worth dying for. Stay tuned, on “Words About Words”. 

Keep Reading & Writing!