Beowulf - Confusing spots

Reading Beowulf I realized that this poem was written in flashback form; generally a style I find interesting as it gives me time to draw conclusions, based on the evidence, to what may have occurred, only to find out the 'reality' of what happened. However, the use of the author's flashbacks was confusing; there were no clear transitions stating "OK, now my I will tell you about something that happened previously, so please don't think this is any reflection on what is happening now." Instead, a character would break into rhetoric and, through use of deduction on the part of the reader, you have to figure out if he is talking about the present or past. Yes, sometimes it was blatant, "We accomplished that heroic deed" spoke Beowulf - you know that is in the past tense referring to his battle with Grendel. Other times, we aren't so lucky.

Throughout the piece, I waited for the explanation of when the author no longer spoke of Beowulf I and moved onto Beowulf II. I could not find that transition. I have re-read many parts of the piece looking for such a break, but, cannot find it. Would anyone be kind enough to share their knowledge with me?

In Chapter XIII, I became confused on who actually killed Grendel. Was it Beowulf's sword that did the deed, or did his men perpetrate the final blow? Perhaps this is part of the myth in the epic - a leader's men do go to battle with him and all join to overtake the foe. What matters most is that Beowulf was the one who started the charge at Grendel, continued to fight, and took congratulations for having such a wealth of good men.

In Chapter XXXII, the author speaks of "he" but I cannot find a reference to the person - is it Beowulf, is it one of his men, is it the person who found the Dragon's treasure and in doing so made him angry? I understand the need for this chapter/passage, as it directly addresses the Dragon's lair, treasure, and fury. And, perhaps it doesn't matter to the story who the "he" is. However, is it not possible that the "he" could have been a foe of Beowulf II, out to do him in by picking a fight with the Dragon? That would add to the story, even make the Dragon incident make better sense. It seems odd to me that the author would be thinking, "Well, Beowulf needs something to do. I'll find some random guy who decides to steal gold from a Dragon. The Dragon gets angry and attacks the place Beowulf just happens to be staying. Which gives Beowulf a chance to fight a great and evil thing." There just has to be more to it than that!

I have not researched this next idea, but, I will.

The last sentence in Chapter XXXIX leads me to believe that this epic is an explanation of some tragedy which befell people in (their) recent history. As with the Creation Myth, this sentence "explains" why there are so many 'tribes' throughout the world who do not speak one another's languages, "Every man of the people shall wander". Further, it explains an invasion (Roman? Norman?) which (shall) took place because of their "inglorious act." Or perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

Next post - new words and ideas.