Beowulf Socratic Seminar: Period 3 by Ronen Donde

Put Name Here: Mr. Donde

donde_ronen — 2023-01-05 20:09:21 UTC

As Nathan mentioned, Unferth's destructive behavior clearly indicated the pitfalls of excluding a member from belonging to the society as a whole.

I would like to build on that idea. Since the lack of belonging keeps him isolated he grows increasingly resentful and loses compassion for those that he feels has wronged him. This leads to less remorse and guilt when conceiving (thinking about) committing harmful acts or joining dark forces.

Example: William responding to Bryn

ronendonde — 2026-01-22 23:34:02 UTC

I liked how that Bryn mentioned that stelling the cup was a wrong thing to do and I do agree with it. I also added on that if the Firedrake doesn't do anything to the slave and let him go, the slave might come back and steal again and again and again. The slave would be convinced to steal more and more which isn't go for him. I also said that the Fire drake kinda over reacted and he didn't need to burn down an entire village for just one cup. "The mountain shook with the raging of the Firedrake." (Nye 91)

Ava responding to Viona

31foleyava — 2026-01-23 19:21:44 UTC

I agree with Viona, Beowulf did kill monsters for his people but in my opinion I think that Beowulf took it out of his own way to kill them more for fame and glory and less for the people. Also I think it's important to talk about how he never really was anything until he killed grendel and since the fame feels good he just wants to do it for that instead of the goodness for his people. "Beowulf silenced them all with a wave of his hand. he might be a old man, but he still carried authority. 'I will go against the Firedrake,' he said. Nobody dared to argue" (Nye 94). Yes Beowulf is a good person and King and he does want his people to be safe and happy but I feel like he acts like a good person for fame as well.

Mercedes responding to Sophie

31gutierremercedes — 2026-01-23 19:22:14 UTC

I agree with Sophie when she said that Beowulf might have fought the fire drake for glory. I would like to expand on the idea by providing textual evidence. Beowulf justified fighting the dragon by saying to protect his people, but his pride as king fueled his intent. For example, when “the court cried out that the slave should be offered to the firedrake as a sacrifice. Beowulf hummed, then said: ‘no, let them eat honey.’” (Nye, 93). Beowulf’s entire life has been formed by very old world philosophies like chivalry and knighthood duty. The code by which he lives is very ego driven. A king must find justice through the slaying of those who would oppose his people. The legitimacy of his kingship is highlighted by how his people would support his decisions. And in this instance, he uses this idea as an excuse to seek fame and acceptance by his people while disguising it as protection.

Kristina responding to Bree

2026-01-23 19:29:59 UTC

I agree with what she said about that the younger Beowulf would have mostly resorted to fighting using violence and might have wanted to get honor from his acts, but older Beowulf now didn't really care about gaining as much glory and would now use less violent ways to solve problems. So, in the end the younger Beowulf a would mostly use his hands for fighting while now Beowulf would use more of his brain to solve the problems other than just going into a physical fight.

Jaskeerat responding to bree

31singhjaskeerat — 2026-01-23 19:36:23 UTC

Bree said that did beowulf tell wiglaf to tell a ordinary story than to tell it about him because of his non honorly way of deafeting the firedrake to protect the people or his image, But what I think is that he did it to do both because he has reflected on life and also said that his old self would not do something like that, " When I was

young I’d never have done a thing like

that. I’d have thought it was dishonor-

able, or something"(Nye 165). This quotes shows us that if he were to fight the firedrake when he was young he would have not pulled this but know that he is old he has realized you sometimes need to do this to win the battle. Also going back I think he did this for non honorly act because he had to and did not know anything way of everybody being safe, and that Beowulf an old man would not be an ordinary hero so he told wiglaf to tell a ordinary story to beat the firedrake. This has also showed how Beowulf changed throughout the star and end of the story

Jiajun responding to Mathew

2026-01-23 19:41:06 UTC

I agree to Mathew as he said that the queen had originally asked him to be king, but he had refused which shows how he wasn't waiting for the queen's son to die first so he can inherit the crown. It wouldn't make sense for Beowulf to not accept the crown the first time if his goal was to only inherit the crown. For example, the queen, "asked the

people to set aside her own son’s claim

to the throne and have Beowulf as king.

The Geats cheered loud and long

when they heard this. But Beowulf said:

'No, I am no usurper. I do not want the

crown while anyone lives who has a

better right to wear it'" (Nye 139). This shows how Beowulf refused the crown the first time, meaning that his original goal wasn't to inherit the crown so he can be king.

Alvin responding to Andy

31chenalvin1 — 2026-01-26 18:14:13 UTC

I agree with Andy when he says that he did not fight the Firedrake for his own glory and didn't need any rewards for his loyalty and fighting. This is because he was very mentally strong and did good deeds for his people, not for himself. I also want to add on that he was already very old and wasn't as agile and quick as he was before, so he thought that there was nothing to lose if he failed and died in battle against the Firedrake. For example, when Beowulf was getting ready to fight the Firedrake, "[h]is huge hands shook. Wiglaf had

to help him. The young man could not

help remarking that Beowulf’s body

had shrunken with age" (Nye 154). This quote shows that Beowulf was very old, and he didn't care much about living or dying anymore. That is why he willingly went to battle the Firedrake himself and didn't need help from any of his soldiers besides Wiglaf. Also, when he beat the Firedrake in battle and won all of the treasure, he felt like he didn't need any for himself and gave all of the treasure to the community so they could use it for their own purposes. This means that he is very selfless, and he doesn't think that he has a good reason to own the treasure or use it for anything since his life is almost over.

Hudson responding to Yazeed

2026-01-26 18:19:37 UTC

I agree with Yazeed that Beowulf is both good AND bad, with some symbolism represented throughout the story, like Beowulf himself, and his White horse with a black mane, Bees, and the metaphor of the Apple. I completely understand what you mean when Beowulf holds the bad in him back, and tries to only use the good in him for glory perhaps. Beowulf shows Unferth that bad people can sometimes do good, "Even the wickedest person can do good for someone. The truly good man finds good where he can” (Nye 55). And when Beowulf is battling She-Evil, "It is because I hold a Cain in me, but do not let him out" (Nye 115). With these two quotes showing evil inside of people or monsters, but showing that good is resilient is the reason why I agree, and how Beowulf chooses good over evil.

Bree responding to Yazeed

31shepherdaubrey — 2026-01-26 18:20:38 UTC

I agree with what yazeed said about how Beowulf was thoughtful in his war with Onela by avoiding using bloodshed through armies and starting a campaign instead, but disagree with some of the specifics. the text says "So he sent word to

Eadgils in exile, and helped him with

men and equipment, and plotted a cam-

paign for him. The fighting was fierce

and long, but in the end Eadgils won.

He killed Onela in fair combat." Beowulf gave men to Eadgils, and the battle was long and fierce. Beowulf didn't avoid bloody battle, he found a smarter way to approach it.

Matthew responding to Leon

2026-01-26 18:22:28 UTC

I agree with Leon, but it also was the slaves fault, because the master never told the slave to go and steal the treasure, that was the slaves own doing, the slave was also not obvlious to the dangers of the firedrake and the cave, as it states "People believed that it was best to leave such

places alone. The treasure had been

given back to the earth, and it would be

a sin to steal it.

The slave was desperate. He did not

care about any of this." (Nye 147) This quote shows that the slave knew it was wrong, but it also shows that the slave was that desprate to go and try and steal treasure from a place of terror, just to try and please his master, so its also the masters fault, for mistreating the slave so much. But it was mainly the slaves' fault for the firedrake.

Viaan Responding to Seb

2026-01-26 18:27:42 UTC

I agree and disagree with Seb that it was the owners fault because he mistreated him so much that the slave became desperate to please his owners without thinking of the consequence. I would also add up to Seb's idea that it was the societies fault because the country didn't mind the slaves and treated without care. But I disagree with Seb because it was also the Slaves fault as he was careless about the consequence and he did it with bur desperation. As it states, "The slave was desperate. He did not

care about any of this"(Nye 147) This quote showed that he didn't care about the consequences that he had to deal, a long with that he wasn't mindful about the location because he didn't realize that the location was't safe. So it was the slaves fault for provoking the Firedrake, and the Master for mistreating him so much that the slave lost his sense.

Yazeed responding to Jaskeerat

2026-01-26 18:34:57 UTC

I agree and disagreewith Jaskeerat about how he said that he agrees with the choice that Beowulf made. In my opinion i think Beowulf should have ruled until Hardred hit around the age of puberty. Although he had the traits of a king, he was still a baby.

Christopher responding to Jaskeerat

2026-01-26 18:36:51 UTC

I agree with Mercedes because since Hardred was just a baby, he wouldn't be able to rule properly so I believe Beowulf should've ruled for a around three to four years and than allow Hardred to take over once he was mature enough because if Beowulf had accepted the crown, once Hardred grows up he could be mad at Beowulf for "stealing" his crown.

Seb responding to jaskeerat

2026-01-26 18:37:55 UTC

I agree with Jaskeerat that Beowulf demonstrated remarkable loyalty when he decided to allow Hardred to ascend to the throne. This is clearly evident in his assertion, “No, I am no usurper” (Nye 85), which signifies his intention to pass the crown to the rightful heir of his kingdom, rather than seizing power for himself. This act shows a deep understanding of honor and duty in leadership. While his loyalty is commendable and showcases his character as a noble leader, I believe that the choice he made may be somewhat hasty. Entrusting the kingdom’s future to such a young child, especially a baby, is a significant gamble. Moreover, the text highlights that Beowulf not only advocates for Hardred's right to the throne but also actively supports him in his development as a king throughout his life. This mentorship further emphasizes Beowulf's loyalty, as he is committed to ensuring that Hardred grows into a capable and just ruler. Nevertheless, one must consider whether this loyalty, while noble, could inadvertently put the kingdom at risk if Hardred is not prepared to lead. Thus, while I admire Beowulf’s intentions, I remain cautious about the implications of his choices for the future of their kingdom.

Evelyn responding to Jaskeerat

31chenevelyn — 2026-01-26 18:39:00 UTC

I agree with Jaskeerat that Beowulf should let Hardred rule and it was a good decision. Beowulf should not take Hardred's spot and be a usurper if Hardred is more related to King Hygelac than Beowulf since he is his son because Hardred deserved the throne and had the rightful spot on the throne. I also agree that Beowulf should've ruled for a short period of time until Hardred was older and mature enough to make good decisions because if he ruled when he was just a baby/young kid he can't make any decisions so he can't help his people. Beowulf on the other hand had more experience and probably would make better decisions.

“‘No, I am no usurper. I do not want the crown while anyone lives who has a better right to wear it.’” (Nye 85).

Yazeed responding to Aron

2026-01-26 18:39:11 UTC

I agree with Aron because, in my opinion, Beowulf really did fight all those creatures for the protection and peace of his people. We can see this because every time he goes to fight a creature, he goes into that fight with the intention of making his people happier and safer.

“When Beowulf had heard all the stories about the dreadful deeds of the demon Grendel, he determined to goand help Hrothgar, if he could”(Nye42→43).

“Well, the dragon lies dead, and the treasure is there for the good of our people” (Nye 165→166).

Leon responding to jaskeerat

31liweichen — 2026-01-26 18:43:16 UTC

I disagree with jaskeerat because i think beowulf still cares about his people even in his older age. Beowulf cares about his people and dont just brush them off when their in need of help.

I agree with jaskeerat

31marshallreagan — 2026-01-26 18:44:06 UTC

I agree with Jeskerrat about what he said about the choice that Beowulf made. I believe that Beowulf has made the right choice about hardred ruling and Beowulf not becoming king . But Beowulf said:

“No, I am no usurper. I do not want the

crown while anyone lives who has a

better right to wear it.” ( Nye 55). This shows that beowulf did not see himself fit and gave it to the rightful heir at that time.

Jessie responding to Jaskeerat

31ruijessie — 2026-01-26 18:44:58 UTC

I agree to what Jaskeerat just said that it should have passed to Heardred after the king is killed. Loyalty and kinship matters a lot in Beowulf, and Heardred was the king’s son. He had every right to be king. And though Beowulf was stronger and more powerful, he did not ruin the opportunity. Rather, he promised loyalty to Heardred and protected him, showing he was loyal and honorable.

June responding to Kristina

31kimjune — 2026-01-26 18:47:14 UTC

I agree with Kristina because as Kristina mentioned, when Grendel's mother wanted revenge for her son, it was out of loyalty for though they were both evil creatures that didn't know any type of good or love, I am sure that Grendel's mother felt some kind of love for her own son, and grieved significantly when he had died. So though it was out of rage and grief, being on an impulsive behavior, it had some loyalty for her own son. I believe that if Grendel's mother had no love or loyalty for Grendel at all, she would not have cared if Grendel had died or not.

"Something came out of the fen for Grendel’s arm, and whatever it was that came took Unferth too.” (Nye 102). Grendel's mother was the one who took away the remainder of her son, showing that she did care about him and loved him in some way all mothers love their children, even though they were the root of evil. The revenge was taken in an impulsive way, the person who wanted revenge did show loyalty for the person who she had lost, showing that though the revenge was taken in the heat of the moment and was impulsive, it still shows loyalty.

Cain responding to Leon

31mendezcain — 2026-01-26 18:47:27 UTC

I agree with Leon because if the slave owner had never used or even owned the slave, then the slave may not have gone into the firdrakes den to steal the gold." He did not like being beaten, so he ran away".(Nye 146.) If the master did not beat the slave, the slave probably would not have run away to the mountans, found the den, and would not have stolen the golden cup, and the firedrake wouldn't have burnt down an entire town. It is also partly the slaves' fault because if the slave had not gone into the firedrake's den and stolen the golden cup, the firedrake probably would not have gone out and burned down the town in anger. "The slave was desperate. He did not care about any of this."(Nye, 147) The novel said, "He did not care about any of this." It said he didn't care about it, so it was almost all Wiglaf's fault for being careless. It said that stealing from a grave is a sin, but Wiglaf still stole from it and awakened the firedrake

Christopher responding to Dylan

2026-01-26 18:49:13 UTC

I agree with Dylan because when Beowulf killed Grendel and She, he did it not expecting any rewards. Also, when Beowulf received gifts from Hrothgar, he gave all of his gifts to his uncle, Hygelac, which demonstrates loyalty and also shows how he wasn't doing anything for his reputation or for any rewards. Finally, when Beowulf goes to help Hrothgar, he mentions, "Beowulf decided to help Hrothgar if he could," which shows how he would sacrifice himself not for reputation but as respect.