For centuries, Beowulf has been celebrated as a hero who defeats terrifying monsters. But what if the Old English poet wanted audiences to see the story from the monsters’ perspective as well? A new study suggests that a puzzling passage in the medieval epic may reveal how Beowulf himself could be portrayed as a threatening and even malicious figure.
The study, by Jun Terasawa of Aoyama Gakuin University in Japan, examines a long-debated passage describing Beowulf’s encounter with Grendel. Published in SELIM: Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature, the research offers a new interpretation of a single Old English word that has troubled scholars and translators for generations.
Terasawa argues that the poet’s choice of language may reflect a deliberate shift in narrative perspective. Rather than consistently presenting events through the eyes of the hero, the poem sometimes adopts the viewpoint of his monstrous enemies, complicating the traditional distinction between heroes and villains.
A troubling word in Beowulf
A passage from Beowulf showing lines 748 and 749. British Library, Cotton MS Vitellius A XV, fol. 148r.
The question centres on lines 748–749 of Beowulf, during the famous confrontation between the hero and Grendel in King Hrothgar’s hall. As Grendel reaches towards Beowulf, the hero suddenly seizes his opponent and prepares to fight.
The original Old English passage reads:
feond mid folme; he onfeng hraþe inwitþancum ond wið earm gesæt.
Terasawa translates the final sentence as:
“he (i.e., Beowulf) quickly seized (Grendel) with malicious intentions and sat up against his arm.”
The difficulty lies in the word inwitþancum, used to describe Beowulf’s intentions. Its first element, inwit, is associated with evil, deceit and treachery. Taken literally, the passage suggests that Beowulf attacks Grendel with malicious intentions. This is an uncomfortable description for a character traditionally celebrated for his courage and heroic deeds.
Terasawa points out that the negative associations of inwit are well established in Old English literature. Elsewhere in Beowulf, related compounds describe the malicious grasp of Grendel’s mother and the dragon who threatens the kingdom late in the poem. Similar expressions appear in other Old English works, including Andreas, Elene and the Meters of Boethius, where they describe wicked intentions and evil thoughts.
Why, then, would the poet apply such language to Beowulf?
How translators have handled the problem
Over the centuries, editors and translators have offered several explanations. Many have softened the negative implications of inwitþancum, interpreting it as an expression of anger, hostility or determination rather than outright malice.
J. R. R. Tolkien, whose translation of Beowulf was published posthumously in 2014, rendered the phrase as “with hate in heart”. More recently, Tom Shippey and Leonard Neidorf’s 2024 translation used “angrily”, while R. D. Fulk’s 2010 translation employed “with a belligerent aim”.
Other translators have moved further away from the word’s negative associations. S. A. J. Bradley’s 1982 translation uses “with astute presence of mind”, while Seamus Heaney’s celebrated 2000 translation describes the encounter as “the alert hero’s comeback . . . forestalled him utterly.”
A different approach has been to associate the malicious intentions with Grendel rather than Beowulf. C. L. Wrenn, for example, translated the passage as “Quickly did he (Bēowulf) perceive that plan of malice”, suggesting that Beowulf was recognising Grendel’s evil intentions rather than acting maliciously himself.
Terasawa examines these explanations but finds difficulties with each. In particular, interpreting the relevant Old English verb as meaning to perceive or understand requires a relatively unusual usage that is not otherwise found in Beowulf.
Instead of changing the meaning of the troublesome word or assigning it to Grendel, Terasawa proposes that its negative associations should be retained.
Seeing the hero through a monster’s eyes
An illustration of Grendel by J.R. Skelton from Stories of Beowulf.
The key to Terasawa’s interpretation is the possibility that the poet briefly presents Beowulf from Grendel’s perspective. From the monster’s point of view, Beowulf is not a noble warrior defending a hall but a dangerous opponent who attacks him with hostile intentions. The negative description therefore makes sense without requiring scholars to alter the usual meaning of inwitþancum.
Terasawa supports this reading by examining other passages where the poet appears to employ similarly negative language for heroic characters. One example involves Sigemund, the legendary Germanic hero whose exploits are recounted in Beowulf. After defeating a dragon and claiming its treasure, Sigemund is described using the word aglæca, a term frequently associated with monsters and terrifying adversaries. The poem also describes Sigemund’s adventures using expressions associated with feuds and crimes. These descriptions have likewise troubled scholars, who have sometimes preferred more neutral translations.
Terasawa suggests that the language may reflect the dragon’s perspective. To the dragon, Sigemund is not a glorious hero but a fearsome enemy who kills it and takes its treasure.
A comparable example appears in the Old English poem Andreas, where Saint Andrew is described using the negative term aglæca. In that instance, however, the description appears in the speech of a devil who regards Andrew as an enemy.
These examples suggest that negative language applied to a heroic character need not represent the poet’s own moral judgement. Instead, it may reveal how that character appears to an opponent.
Sympathy for Grendel’s mother and the dragon
The study identifies further evidence that the poet sometimes presents events from the monsters’ perspectives. After Grendel is defeated, the poem describes the conflict using an expression that Terasawa translates as “sorrow-bearing conflict”, reflecting the grief experienced by Grendel’s mother. Her subsequent journey to Heorot to avenge her son is described as a “grief-filled journey”.
Such descriptions invite the audience to consider her actions not simply as those of a terrifying monster, but as those of a mother mourning her child.
Similar shifts occur during Beowulf’s final confrontation with the dragon. The man who steals treasure from the dragon’s lair is described as an enemy, while Beowulf and Wiglaf, who eventually fight the creature, are characterised using expressions that can mean fiends or hateful men. From the dragon’s perspective, the human characters are the aggressors.
These passages, Terasawa argues, demonstrate that the poet was capable of presenting the same conflict from opposing viewpoints, sometimes allowing the monsters’ experiences to influence the language of the narrative.
Rethinking heroes and monsters in medieval literature
Terasawa’s interpretation does not mean that Beowulf should be regarded as the villain of the epic. Rather, it suggests that the Old English poet employed a more complicated narrative technique than a straightforward division between good heroes and evil monsters.
By occasionally adopting the perspective of Grendel, his mother or the dragon, the poet could encourage audiences to recognise that the same confrontation might appear very different depending on who was telling the story.
The study builds on earlier scholarship concerning the poem’s shifting narrative perspectives, particularly the work of Fred C. Robinson and Alain Renoir. Terasawa extends these discussions by proposing that the negative descriptions of heroic figures are part of the poet’s deliberate narrative strategy.
For modern readers, this interpretation offers another way of approaching one of the most famous works of medieval English literature. Beowulf remains the central hero, but the monsters he defeats may have been given a greater voice in the poem than has traditionally been recognised.
The study, “A Note on Beowulf 748b–49a”, by Jun Terasawa, is published in SELIM: Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature. Click here to read it
For centuries, Beowulf has been celebrated as a hero who defeats terrifying monsters. But what if the Old English poet wanted audiences to see the story from the monsters’ perspective as well? A new study suggests that a puzzling passage in the medieval epic may reveal how Beowulf himself could be portrayed as a threatening and even malicious figure.
The study, by Jun Terasawa of Aoyama Gakuin University in Japan, examines a long-debated passage describing Beowulf’s encounter with Grendel. Published in SELIM: Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature, the research offers a new interpretation of a single Old English word that has troubled scholars and translators for generations.
Terasawa argues that the poet’s choice of language may reflect a deliberate shift in narrative perspective. Rather than consistently presenting events through the eyes of the hero, the poem sometimes adopts the viewpoint of his monstrous enemies, complicating the traditional distinction between heroes and villains.
A troubling word in Beowulf
The question centres on lines 748–749 of Beowulf, during the famous confrontation between the hero and Grendel in King Hrothgar’s hall. As Grendel reaches towards Beowulf, the hero suddenly seizes his opponent and prepares to fight.
The original Old English passage reads:
feond mid folme; he onfeng hraþe inwitþancum ond wið earm gesæt.
Terasawa translates the final sentence as:
“he (i.e., Beowulf) quickly seized (Grendel) with malicious intentions and sat up against his arm.”
The difficulty lies in the word inwitþancum, used to describe Beowulf’s intentions. Its first element, inwit, is associated with evil, deceit and treachery. Taken literally, the passage suggests that Beowulf attacks Grendel with malicious intentions. This is an uncomfortable description for a character traditionally celebrated for his courage and heroic deeds.
Terasawa points out that the negative associations of inwit are well established in Old English literature. Elsewhere in Beowulf, related compounds describe the malicious grasp of Grendel’s mother and the dragon who threatens the kingdom late in the poem. Similar expressions appear in other Old English works, including Andreas, Elene and the Meters of Boethius, where they describe wicked intentions and evil thoughts.
Why, then, would the poet apply such language to Beowulf?
How translators have handled the problem
Over the centuries, editors and translators have offered several explanations. Many have softened the negative implications of inwitþancum, interpreting it as an expression of anger, hostility or determination rather than outright malice.
J. R. R. Tolkien, whose translation of Beowulf was published posthumously in 2014, rendered the phrase as “with hate in heart”. More recently, Tom Shippey and Leonard Neidorf’s 2024 translation used “angrily”, while R. D. Fulk’s 2010 translation employed “with a belligerent aim”.
Other translators have moved further away from the word’s negative associations. S. A. J. Bradley’s 1982 translation uses “with astute presence of mind”, while Seamus Heaney’s celebrated 2000 translation describes the encounter as “the alert hero’s comeback . . . forestalled him utterly.”
A different approach has been to associate the malicious intentions with Grendel rather than Beowulf. C. L. Wrenn, for example, translated the passage as “Quickly did he (Bēowulf) perceive that plan of malice”, suggesting that Beowulf was recognising Grendel’s evil intentions rather than acting maliciously himself.
Terasawa examines these explanations but finds difficulties with each. In particular, interpreting the relevant Old English verb as meaning to perceive or understand requires a relatively unusual usage that is not otherwise found in Beowulf.
Instead of changing the meaning of the troublesome word or assigning it to Grendel, Terasawa proposes that its negative associations should be retained.
Seeing the hero through a monster’s eyes
The key to Terasawa’s interpretation is the possibility that the poet briefly presents Beowulf from Grendel’s perspective. From the monster’s point of view, Beowulf is not a noble warrior defending a hall but a dangerous opponent who attacks him with hostile intentions. The negative description therefore makes sense without requiring scholars to alter the usual meaning of inwitþancum.
Terasawa supports this reading by examining other passages where the poet appears to employ similarly negative language for heroic characters. One example involves Sigemund, the legendary Germanic hero whose exploits are recounted in Beowulf. After defeating a dragon and claiming its treasure, Sigemund is described using the word aglæca, a term frequently associated with monsters and terrifying adversaries. The poem also describes Sigemund’s adventures using expressions associated with feuds and crimes. These descriptions have likewise troubled scholars, who have sometimes preferred more neutral translations.
Terasawa suggests that the language may reflect the dragon’s perspective. To the dragon, Sigemund is not a glorious hero but a fearsome enemy who kills it and takes its treasure.
A comparable example appears in the Old English poem Andreas, where Saint Andrew is described using the negative term aglæca. In that instance, however, the description appears in the speech of a devil who regards Andrew as an enemy.
These examples suggest that negative language applied to a heroic character need not represent the poet’s own moral judgement. Instead, it may reveal how that character appears to an opponent.
Sympathy for Grendel’s mother and the dragon
The study identifies further evidence that the poet sometimes presents events from the monsters’ perspectives. After Grendel is defeated, the poem describes the conflict using an expression that Terasawa translates as “sorrow-bearing conflict”, reflecting the grief experienced by Grendel’s mother. Her subsequent journey to Heorot to avenge her son is described as a “grief-filled journey”.
Such descriptions invite the audience to consider her actions not simply as those of a terrifying monster, but as those of a mother mourning her child.
Similar shifts occur during Beowulf’s final confrontation with the dragon. The man who steals treasure from the dragon’s lair is described as an enemy, while Beowulf and Wiglaf, who eventually fight the creature, are characterised using expressions that can mean fiends or hateful men. From the dragon’s perspective, the human characters are the aggressors.
These passages, Terasawa argues, demonstrate that the poet was capable of presenting the same conflict from opposing viewpoints, sometimes allowing the monsters’ experiences to influence the language of the narrative.
Rethinking heroes and monsters in medieval literature
Terasawa’s interpretation does not mean that Beowulf should be regarded as the villain of the epic. Rather, it suggests that the Old English poet employed a more complicated narrative technique than a straightforward division between good heroes and evil monsters.
By occasionally adopting the perspective of Grendel, his mother or the dragon, the poet could encourage audiences to recognise that the same confrontation might appear very different depending on who was telling the story.
The study builds on earlier scholarship concerning the poem’s shifting narrative perspectives, particularly the work of Fred C. Robinson and Alain Renoir. Terasawa extends these discussions by proposing that the negative descriptions of heroic figures are part of the poet’s deliberate narrative strategy.
For modern readers, this interpretation offers another way of approaching one of the most famous works of medieval English literature. Beowulf remains the central hero, but the monsters he defeats may have been given a greater voice in the poem than has traditionally been recognised.
The study, “A Note on Beowulf 748b–49a”, by Jun Terasawa, is published in SELIM: Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature. Click here to read it
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts