Some critics view Beowulf as a tragic hero. His death, they argue, is tragic for several reasons. For one thing, he ignores Hrothgar's advice (lines 1700-1784), which emphasizes the difference between a young warrior and a king who has "wintered into wisdom" (as Hrothgar describes himself), after an early life as a warrior, telling Beowulf to seek "eternal rewards." He insists on fighting the dragon alone, in spite of his old age, and does so quite unnecessarily because we see no indication that the dragon will attack again, as Grendel had done and as his mother might have done. He is too proud of his life and achievements and because of that excessive pride he fights the dragon in search of more glory and dies, leaving the Geats vulnerable to attack from their enemies when they hear of his death. Write an essay which responds to these arguments and treats Beowulf as a hero, but not a tragic one. In support of your thesis, you may wish to consider some of the following questions. Does Beowulf say what he considers to be 'eternal rewards"? Taking into account all his achievements, both before he sails to Denmark to confront Grendel and his mother, and after he returns to Geatland and during the period Hygelac is king, and then Hygelac's son, Heardred, is king, does there come a time when he should decide to stop being a warrior? Does there come a time after he is king when he should stop being a warrior and be just a king, as Hrothgar apparently was when Grendel's attacks started, leaving the fighting to others? Would such a decision have benefited the Geats? Was Beowulf deceiving himself about his age when he fought the dragon? What might have happened if Beowulf had decided to let the dragon remain in its barrow, guarding the treasure, and live out the rest of his life in whatever peace was possible? Finally, consider the last portion of Topic II regarding Wiglaf's criticisms of Beowulf.
Sample Solution