Skip to main content

Less of a Thought, More of a Brainstorm - Jamie Peters

Whenever I read this last semester for Brit Lit, I was really interested in writing a research paper discussing the interjections of the sides stories by the poets. I never got around to it in there, so I am going to do it here! What I want to know is who each character in the Finnsburg Episode (the second story for those of you who don't have that annotation) is supposed to represent in the bard's eyes. There are three main characters discussed, Finn, Hildeburh, and Hengest. Both Hildeburh's brother and son, who are Danes, die to the hands of Finn's men, and the successor of the Danes, Hengest, quickly brings justice upon those who murdered them. After a winter of recieving tributes from Finn because of his loss, Hengest's "...longing woke 

in the cooped-up exile for a voyage home - 

but more for vengeance, some way of bringing 

things to a head..." (1138-1141)

Inevitably, Hengest recieves what he thinks is the weregyld, or the blood-price, for the bother and son of Hildeburh by killing Finn in is own house and returning Hildeburh to her kin (1146-1158).

Based on the summary above, the order of events still confuses me; I do think, however, that I can attribute who the bard thinks each person is. Hilderburh represents Hrothgar, the man under much sorrow because of all the people he has lost. Finn I think is supposed to represent Grendel because of the murder of the brother and son and the fact that he is the king of the Frisians, the inherent enemy of the Danes. That leaves Hengest as Beowulf, the man that brought vengeance upon the murderer. 

Thank you for letting me use this space to sort out my thoughts on this. Do you think that I got the characters right?


P.S. I commented on Abigail's and Braylan's posts.

Comments

  1. Lily CaswellFebruary 22, 2021 at 9:22 PM

    I definitely can see it after reading your post, Jamie. I’m not exactly sure what I can add to this because there’s not really anything to add other than the fact that the timeline of the story is a little bit different like you mentioned but sometimes that can be just poetic license rather than the way it might have actually happened.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more