Cannibalism in Beowulf and other Old English Texts

King John wrote: Beowulf places them as the progeny of Cain–a man, so yes I think you can say they are human.  Grendel's mother is called a sea-wolf (brimwylf in multiple places (lns. 1506 and 1599), she is also able to walk and live on land, what seamonsters do we know that can do this?  I think one can make the argument that these other groups of Cain's kindred are human, however, whether they are human or not is irrelevant for this discussion since the giants, elves, and nicors are not described in Beowulf as eating humans.  We must limit ourselves to discussing the beings that are explicitly said to eat human flesh.

Nicely put.

gcle2003 wrote: Cyrus Shahmiri wrote: gcle2003 wrote: Dogs are cannibals when they eat dogs, not when they eat people. I know what you mean, but a cow that eats flesh, however is still similar to a cow, but can not be called a cow, You just called it one. of course in some tragic events like the famine, there were people who had to eat other people but we don't call them cannibals, about Azhidahak we see he had really a body of a human but if he didn't eat the humans, in spite of the fact that there were many things that he, like the humans, could eat, then he would have to eat his own body, it shows he was not a human in essence or better to say he was originally a human who was changed to a cannibal. The definition of a cannibal is a member of a species who/which eats other members of the same species, or parts of them.   Follow the logic of 'a cow that eats flesh (of a cow) cannot be a cow' and cannibalism would then never exist.

Cyrus Shahmiri wrote: gcle2003 wrote: Cyrus Shahmiri wrote: gcle2003 wrote: Dogs are cannibals when they eat dogs, not when they eat people. I know what you mean, but a cow that eats flesh, however is still similar to a cow, but can not be called a cow, You just called it one. of course in some tragic events like the famine, there were people who had to eat other people but we don't call them cannibals, about Azhidahak we see he had really a body of a human but if he didn't eat the humans, in spite of the fact that there were many things that he, like the humans, could eat, then he would have to eat his own body, it shows he was not a human in essence or better to say he was originally a human who was changed to a cannibal. The definition of a cannibal is a member of a species who/which eats other members of the same species, or parts of them.   Follow the logic of 'a cow that eats flesh (of a cow) cannot be a cow' and cannibalism would then never exist. I am talking about changing, a cannibal is a noun, not an adjective, that is not a cannibal-man, when we say dew-worm, silk-worm, bag-worm, ... it is clear that we are talking about worms but this is different when we say butterfly, however that is originally a worm too.

Edited by King John - 10-May-2009 at 18:17

Cyrus Shahmiri wrote: A person who just eats the flesh of another person is not called a cannibal, we don't call people who had to do it in the famine period and other tragic events, cannibals, do we?

Actually yes we do say they were cannibals.  More rightly we say they reverted to cannibalism to survive; meaning that we qualify the cannibalism with the situation.  A person who just eats the flesh of another person is by definition a cannibal and is called such.  Could you provide an instance where a person, who because of a tragic turn of events, eats the flesh of another person and is not referred to as either resorting to cannibalism or being a cannibal?

Cannibals especially in the Indo-European cultures have also other characteristics, they couldn't be good persons, is it even possible that someone who kills another person to eats his flesh, is considered as a good person?

I can give you instances, such as the Donner party, where people resorted to cannibalism and were still good people.  So yes a cannibal can be considered a good person.  

A cannibal was not only a man-eater but also a cruel, tyrant, destroyer, ... so he couldn't be a regular human being.

He most certainly could be a regular human being.  Being a bad, cruel person doesn't mean that the person is no longer a person.  Even if he wasn't a "regular human being" he was still a human being otherwise he couldn't be a cannibal.  How is this hard to understand?  Again, I draw your attention to the Mermedonians of the poem Andreas, they are described as inhabitants of the land where men eat each other.  The cannibalism of this population is not confined to the aristocratic parts of the population but is a characteristic of the whole population.  As you can see they are described as men with the qualification that they practice cannibalism.  While their behavior might not be very "human" from the point of view of the Anglo-Saxon audience, that doesn't make them not human.  Their practicing of cannibalism makes them a population to be feared and makes the work of Saint Andrew that much more heroic.  It also defines the Mermedonians as a population apart from the rest of the Christian world, the "Other" if you will.

There are enforced cannibalism and optional cannibalism, of course. But they're still cannibalism.

Cyrus Shahmiri wrote: I don't know you want to discuss about cannibal just as a word which means a person who eats the flesh of other human beings or a mythical creature in the Old English and other texts, do you think Grendel reverted to cannibalism to survive? There are certainly some differences between forced or optional behaviors, don't you think so?