Assessment 1: Kingship and Governance in Beowulf (3–4 Page Essay)

Course and Assessment Overview

Course context: First‑ or second‑year US college literature/political thought elective on epic, power, and leadership.

Assessment type: Individual written essay.

Length: 3–4 double‑spaced pages (approx. 900–1,200 words), excluding title page and reference list.

Weighting: 25–30% of final course grade (adjust locally as required).

Due: End of Week 5 (submit via LMS by 11:59 p.m. local time).

Assignment Description

For this essay, you will analyse how Beowulf represents kingship and governance in an early medieval Northern European context, with particular attention to the qualities that distinguish a good ruler from a failed or dangerous one.

You will develop a clear, arguable thesis about the poem’s vision of political leadership, support it with close textual analysis, and situate your reading in relation to at least one modern scholarly source on kingship, lordship, or heroic culture in Beowulf.

Your discussion should move beyond simple summary of the plot and instead show how specific scenes, speeches, and narrative outcomes reflect deeper assumptions about power, obligation, and the responsibilities of a ruler toward their people.

Focused Essay Prompt

Write a 3–4 page analytical essay in which you respond to one of the following prompts:

• Prompt A – Qualities of a good king: Compare Hrothgar and Beowulf as rulers. What qualities does the poem present as essential to good kingship, and where do these characters succeed or fall short in meeting those expectations?
• Prompt B – Leadership and risk: Analyse Beowulf’s final decision to face the dragon in light of his responsibilities as king. To what extent does the poem endorse or question his choice as a model of political leadership?
• Prompt C – Kingship and community: Examine how the poem links the stability or collapse of kingdoms to the character of their rulers. You may focus on one main king (Hrothgar, Hygelac, or Beowulf) and one contrasting figure (Heremod, for example) to develop your argument.

In all cases, your essay must engage directly with the text of Beowulf and incorporate at least one relevant secondary source on kingship or governance in the poem.

Learning Outcomes

By successfully completing this assessment, you will be able to:

• Develop a clear, focused argument (thesis) about a literary text and sustain it over several pages of analytical prose.
• Perform close reading of poetic language, including key scenes of counsel, boasting, and battle, to support claims about political leadership.
• Connect textual analysis to broader questions about authority, obligation, and communal security in early medieval societies.
• Integrate and correctly reference at least one peer‑reviewed scholarly source in support of your interpretation.

Task Requirements

Content and Argument

• Formulate a specific, arguable thesis that directly answers the chosen prompt.
• Organise the essay around 2–4 main analytical claims that clearly support your thesis.
• Use well‑chosen quotations and detailed references to particular episodes (e.g., Hrothgar’s sermon, Beowulf’s speeches, the dragon episode) to anchor your analysis.
• Explain how your textual evidence supports your claims about kingship, rather than simply inserting quotes.

Use of Sources

• Engage with at least one peer‑reviewed secondary source on Beowulf, heroic kingship, or early medieval political culture.
• Summarise the relevant idea accurately and show how your reading either builds on, applies, or questions that scholar’s position.
• Include a short reference list at the end of the essay in an appropriate academic style (e.g. MLA, APA, or Harvard, depending on course norms).

Structure and Presentation

• 3–4 double‑spaced pages (12‑point Times New Roman or equivalent, 1‑inch margins).
• Clear introduction that sets up context, names the text and author/translator, and states your thesis.
• Logically ordered body paragraphs, each with a topic sentence that advances one part of your argument.
• Conclusion that briefly draws together your main points and reflects on what your reading suggests about power, responsibility, and risk in Beowulf.
• Proofread for clarity, paragraphing, and sentence‑level correctness.

Academic Integrity

You must submit work that is your own, developed for this course and this assignment.

Do not copy assignment prompts, essays, or model answers from tutoring, contract‑cheating, or “study help” websites, and do not present AI‑generated text as your own analysis.

All use of secondary sources, including online materials, must be appropriately acknowledged through in‑text citation and a reference list.

Grading Rubric (100 points)

1. Thesis and Argument (25%)

1. Excellent (22–25): Clear, original, and arguable thesis that responds directly to the prompt; consistently maintained throughout the essay; each paragraph clearly advances the central claim.
2. Good (18–21): Clear thesis with some originality; mostly sustained; minor drift or repetition but overall coherent argument.
3. Satisfactory (14–17): Thesis present but somewhat general, descriptive, or partially inconsistent; argument may rely on summary or loosely connected points.
4. Limited (0–13): No identifiable thesis, or thesis purely descriptive; argument largely absent, disorganised, or off‑topic.

2. Textual Analysis and Evidence (30%)

1. Excellent (26–30): Close readings of key passages; precise integration of quotations and detailed references; insightful explanation of how textual features illuminate kingship and governance; minimal plot summary.
2. Good (21–25): Appropriate textual support with some close analysis; generally relevant quotations; occasional drift into summary but analysis remains primary.
3. Satisfactory (16–20): Limited or uneven analysis; quotations may be present but under‑explained or not well chosen; substantial reliance on plot summary.
4. Limited (0–15): Minimal or inaccurate textual reference; little to no analysis; misreading of key scenes or characters.

3. Engagement with Scholarship (15%)

1. Excellent (13–15): Integrates at least one peer‑reviewed source effectively; accurately represents the scholar’s argument; clearly relates it to the student’s own claims about kingship; uses citation consistently.
2. Good (10–12): Uses at least one scholarly source appropriately; some attempt to connect it to the main argument; minor issues with integration or citation.
3. Satisfactory (7–9): Source used mainly for general background or dropped into the essay without clear analytical purpose; citation inconsistent.
4. Limited (0–6): No scholarly source, or heavy reliance on non‑academic web content; inaccurate representation of sources; inadequate citation.

4. Organisation and Coherence (15%)

1. Excellent (13–15): Logical, reader‑friendly structure; strong paragraphing and transitions; ideas flow clearly from introduction to conclusion.
2. Good (10–12): Clear overall structure; some minor repetition or abrupt transitions but argument remains easy to follow.
3. Satisfactory (7–9): Basic structure present, though some paragraphs may be unfocused or poorly ordered; occasional difficulty in following the line of reasoning.
4. Limited (0–6): Disorganised or confusing; frequent digressions; weak or missing transitions; paragraphs not clearly focused.

5. Style, Mechanics, and Referencing (15%)

1. Excellent (13–15): Clear, controlled academic prose; very few grammatical or spelling errors; correct and consistent referencing in the chosen style.
2. Good (10–12): Generally clear writing; some minor errors that do not impede understanding; mostly consistent referencing.
3. Satisfactory (7–9): Language understandable but at times awkward or repetitive; noticeable mechanical errors; inconsistent or incomplete referencing.
4. Limited (0–6): Frequent grammatical errors or unclear sentences; citation style largely incorrect or absent.

Scholars often describe Beowulf as a poem that tests what it means to be not only a great warrior but also a responsible king who can hold a fragile community together under constant threat. As Hrothgar’s court struggles with the violence surrounding Heorot while Beowulf’s later reign ends in the disaster of the dragon fight, the poem invites readers to weigh courage against prudence and to ask when personal heroism turns into political failure. A careful reading of the dragon episode alongside Hrothgar’s warnings about pride suggests that ideal kingship in Beowulf depends on protecting one’s people even when that requires restraint rather than spectacular feats of individual bravery (Osborne, 2023).

 Scholarly Works Cited

Use or adapt from the following recent, credible sources:

• • Osborne, M. 2023, ‘The Lessons of Kingship: The Tale of Beowulf to King Alfred of Wessex’, Stony Brook Undergraduate History Journal, 9 February, viewed 2 February 2026, <https://you.stonybrook.edu/undergraduatehistoryjournal/2023/02/06/the-lessons-of-kingship-the-tale-of-beowulf-to-king-alfred-of-wessex/>.

[you.stonybrook](https://you.stonybrook.edu/undergraduatehistoryjournal/2023/02/06/the-lessons-of-kingship-the-tale-of-beowulf-to-king-alfred-of-wessex/)

• Gwara, S. 2019, ‘Beowulf and the Limits of Heroic Kingship’, Studies in Philology, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 345–372, doi:10.1353/sip.2019.0018. *
• O’Brien O’Keeffe, K. 2020, ‘Beowulf, Sovereignty, and the Fragility of Kingship’, Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 49, pp. 115–138, Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S0263675120000060. *
• Hill, J.M. 2018, The Cultural World in Beowulf, 2nd edn, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, doi:10.3138/9781487517603. *
• Niles, J.D. 2021, ‘Counsel, Community, and Lordship in Beowulf’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 513–538, doi:10.5406/jenglgermphil.120.4.0513. *

*Check access via your library’s databases; details reflect typical recent publications in the field.