Cannibalism in Beowulf and other Old English Texts

Other tales (not old English) such as hansel and Gretal and Jack and the Beanstalk also use cannibals that are almost human like Grendal, maybe Witches and Giants eating people is a little easier to understand.

Originally posted by gcle2003   I can throw in another category of cannibalism: the involuntary sort, such as occurs in Shakespeare's Titus Anndronicus.   TITUS. Why, there they are, both baked in this pie,     Whereof their mother daintily hath fed,     Eating the flesh that she herself hath bred.     'Tis true, 'tis true: witness my knife's sharp point.   Here Titus inflicts cannibalism on the object of his revenge.

Dew-worms are worms, and they stay worms. Bagworms and silkworms aren't worms, they are caterpillars, members of species that change form in their lifetime, just as a fertilised human ovum becomes a foetus, a foetus becomes a baby and a baby becomes an adult, though the change of form in the last process isn't as drastic in a mammal.

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

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?

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri 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?

The goal of this thread is to discuss cannibalism not only in Beowulf but also other texts.  I do not think that the Grendels resorted to cannibalism to survive, I think their cannibalism serves a function in the story, however, their cannibalism does not make them not-human as you have argued.  Of course there are differences between forced and optional cannibalism, but as GCLE said it is still cannibalism whether forced or not.

Edited by King John - 12-May-2009 at 16:50

Originally posted by gcle2003 In part of the legend of St Christopher he is a cynocephalic monster. But Christianity presented another kind of cannibalism: this is Galahad's vision at the climax of the Quest (in Malory): And at the lifting up there came a figure in likeness of a child, and the visage was as red and as bright as any fire, and smote himself into the bread, so that they all saw it that thebread was formed of a fleshly man; and then he put it into the Holy Vessel again, and then he did that longed to a priest to do to a mass.

I certainly can not take some of this information a Literally" as most of you, that is that these people actually ate "human" flesh!

In the above quoted post, what we really see is an "outsiders" view of the Christian "Holy Communion!", IE, the "literal" transformation of "bread" into the flesh of Christ! Many religious groups do believe that the bread is transformed into "flesh", IE, the human flesh worn by God, in the form of Jeusus, etc. Certainly another group which did not, either practice this service, or another group which did not believe a "literal" transformance took place but it was rather a "symbolic" one! IE, Wine only stands in the place of the "Blood of Christ" and "bread" only stands in the place of the "flesh of Christ", etc.

Or the entire thing might even have been a representation of "oral sex?", practiced by certain religious groups? LIterally "eating" or placing within one's mouth the "body" or penis of another! One only needs to undertand that many "experts" consider the "laying of one's hand upon the "thigh" of another, really meant "holding their genitals!"

Dear Cryptic,

Regarding the previous posts; Concerning especially this quote; "And at the lifting up there came a figure in likeness of a child, and the visage was as red and as bright as any fire, and smote himself into the bread, so that they all saw it that thebread was formed of a fleshly man.."

It appears that the above is a description of making "bread" into human shape, and you cannot really disagree that the Christian Sacrament concerning "bread = flesh", and "Wine = blood", are incorrectly stated (although numerous scholars have argued for years concerning the "actual transformation itself!)

I parts of this world, and especially in parts of Italy and Sicily, people have for years manufactured bread (and other edible items I suppose) into the shape of both "babies" and human reproductive organs (IE, the penis, etc.) And while in more modern times the examples of these representations has of course shrunk considerably, they still exist as do religious festivals where statues of erect penis' are paraded around, or placed in fixed places. There is even an element of this practice found in both India (I believe) and even in Japan!

Famous wines both mixed and straight have also been named for their "blood-like properties", such as "Sangria"!

Now, imagine you were an on-looker to a procession where edible peni? were eaten as though they were real flesh, and wine inbibed as though it was real blood? Would you not easily imply, at least via writing, that these people practiced a form of canabalism? Note eventhough everything uses "fake" forms the real manifestation takes place through the faith of the believers, and the proscriptions of their spiritual leaders!

That is, indeed, the only point I intended to make, and there is really no reason that past authors have written such things because the actual events came to them via word or mouth, and rumor!
Regards,

Methinks that you may well be wrong about sexual symbols not being approved by the Church? Indeed numerous cathredrals have been found with sexual symbols carved indeed in stone (IE, female buttocks, etc.)! And, since having parts of saints, etc. was so important to these churches, even bits of Christ's hair, skin, and even his fore-skin (prepuce)were claimed by numerous churches! There also exists no reason to also believe stone representations of the penis might well have also existed? Only most all of these representations were later destroyed during one of the numerous revivals or spiritual awakenings, or even "puritanism" crept into the church itself!