Comparing Beowulf's Mother And Wealtheow

This paper will endeavor to examine archetypal representations of the female in Beowulf as evidenced by both Grendel’s mother and Wealtheow. Traditional scholarship holds that Grendel’s mother is a monstrous female—either a “swamp hag” or some other form of hideous beast. However, examination of the work of contemporary scholars such as Christine Alfano, as well as a close reading of the original Old English text reveal that Grendel’s mother is not portrayed in monstrous terms whatsoever. While she is depicted as a warrior and a mother bent on revenge, she is not portrayed as a beast. Converse to this active female, lies the passivity of Wealtheow, who is commonly accepted as the archetypal Anglo-Saxon wife, a producer of male heirs and a quiet

Often, Wealtheow is considered to be a secondary character; however, as Sam Newton notes, she is the only character in the text who has cultural ties to England. We can infer, then, that an audience of Beowulf would have considered Wealtheow of primary importance. It is important to note that Wealtheow again represents a sort of safe alternative to Grendel’s mother. While the poem presents Grendel’s mother in somewhat neutral terms, establishing her as the most competent of all of Beowulf’s foes (she is the only foe who Beowulf cannot defeat of his own accord—he requires both magical protection via enchanted artifact, as well as the direct protection of the Christian God in order to defeat her), she is ultimately defeated. Her defeat comes only at the hands of Beowulf, who, like Wealtheow, is someone who represents the covenant of political alliances, as he himself is fighting on behalf of Hrothgar, a person who could never defeat Grendel and his mother due to his own aged enfeeblement. Wealtheow, upon the defeat of this Other female, perpetuates the nature of political allegiances through the presentation of gifts to Beowulf. These females, presented as opposites, are representations of a shifting socio-historical dynamic. Their

Historical primary sources as well as historical analyses will need to be assessed in order to gain proper and substantial insight into the shifting nature of Anglo-Saxon culture during the establishment of “mead hall allegiances.” Furthermore, I wish to examine the nature and extent of mistranslations associated with Grendel’s mother, with specific focus on the translations of John Mithcell Kemble, Benjamin Thorbe, Francis B. Gummere, Michael Alexander, and Howell D. Chickering. Attention will also be given to Tolkein’s recently released translation as well as the Seamus Heaney translation. While I will offer my own translation of certain of certain phrasings in the original text, I will be working with the R.M. Liuzza translation. Focus will also be placed upon the ambiguous usage of several Old English phrases when used to describe Grendel’s mother, especially the title ides. Consultation with the Oxford English Dictionary, Elly van Gelderen’s History of English, and other Norse primary texts will be