Rachel Lee

EN220B - WCH BritLit: Medieval-Romance & War

Dr. Louis Martin

2 May 2016

As Seen through the Eyes of the Dragon: Treasure in “Beowulf”

A double-edged sword cuts both ways. It can vanquish the foe or nick its own wielder. Treasure in Anglo-Saxon culture is like a double-edged sword; it can bring fame or destruction to its owner. In the medieval epic poem, “Beowulf,” the dragon acts as a symbol of treasure's destructive side, such as greed and hoarding, and as a symbol of treasure’s complex role in Anglo-Saxon culture.

To better understand this symbolism behind the dragon, readers must first understand why the poet focuses on treasure when he describes characters. Instead of painting an elaborate portrait of the characters as later poets like Chaucer will do, the Beowulf poet describes their treasure. Several variations of Hrothgar show this. His wife, Wealtheow, calls the Danish king “my loved lord, / treasure-giver; O gold-friend of men” (Crossley-Holland 103). Readers do not know his hair color or his favorite dish, but they do know his relationship to men. He rewards his retainers according to their bravery with armor, rings, weapons, and other treasures stripped off fallen enemy warriors after battle. This earns him the titles of “treasure-giver” and “gold-friend of men.”

The poet likewise describes Hrothgar’s queen according to her treasure. Wealtheow enters the mead-hall twice “adorned with gold” and once “adorned with rings” (Crossley-Holland 89-90). The queen herself is not described as beautiful, but instead the poet describes her necklace as “the most handsome collar in the world. / I have never heard that any hero had a jewel / to equal that” (Crossley-Holland 103-4).

This apparent preoccupation with treasure can be partially explained by how important it is to the warriors; it can save their lives. During his epic competition with Becca, Beowulf recalls:

           My coat of mail,

           hard and hand-linked, guarded me against my enemies;

           the woven war-garment, adorned with gold,

           covered my breast (Crossley-Holland 87).

Like the lines about Hrothgar and Wealtheow, these lines contain more details about the treasure than about the character. Readers learn little details about the armor, such as it is linked by hand and decorated with gold, but they learn nothing about Beowulf’s physical appearance during this mortal combat. Is he sweating? Do his eyes reflect his determination? Readers do not know. The armor saves Beowulf’s life, making it more important. Beowulf himself is defined by his brave actions, not his appearance.

To a degree, Beowulf’s treasure also defines him. Since lords like Hrothgar give treasure like armor to their bravest retainers, the fact Beowulf has well-made and well-decorated armor shows he fought bravely in previous battles and earned it.

Beowulf’s actions in the epic earn him more treasure, as well. After slaying Grendel, for example, Hrothgar gives Beowulf “Healfdene’s sword, / and a battle banner, woven with gold, / and a helmet and a corslet, as rewards for victory” (Crossley-Holland 99). The word “rewards” in this passage implies Beowulf earns these treasures. They are not gifts given out of generosity or donations given out of goodwill, but rewards given out of gratitude.

Like his armor, the sword highlights Beowulf’s status and the helmet protects his life.  The poet tells the reader that “many men watched while the priceless, renowned sword / was presented to the hero” (Crossley-Holland 99). It is a public event. The sword is not simply given, but presented like an award at a ceremony. Other warriors see Hrothgar reward Beowulf and know Beowulf is a brave warrior. The passage even calls him a hero. It also describes the helmet as having:

          A jutting ridge, wound about with metal wires

          . . . protecting the skull,

          so that well-ground swords, proven in battle,

          could not injure the well-shielded warrior

          when he advanced against his foes (Crossley-Holland 99).

In this passage, the word “well-shielded” clearly shows how the helmet benefitted Beowulf. Treasure is therefore both a reward and a preserver of life for warriors.

For their lords, treasure can also have positive outcomes. Treasure helps Hrothgar; it is part of the reason Beowulf comes to his aid and rids the Danish land of Grendel and his mother. When Beowulf first enters Heorot, Hrothgar greets him by saying, “’Beowulf, my friend! So you have come here, / because of past favours, to fight on our behalf!’” (Crossley-Holland 85). Not only is Hrothgar elated to see Beowulf, as shown by the phrase “my friend” and the use of exclamation marks, but Hrothgar knows why Beowulf came. In Hrothgar’s own words, “I settled your father’s feud by payment; / I sent ancient treasures to the Wylfings / over the water’s back; and Ecgtheow swore oaths to me” (Crossley-Holland 85).  Ecgtheow killed a Wylfing and the Geats exiled him. Hrothgar pays the wergild, which allows Ecgtheow to go home. Beowulf is in Hrothgar’s debt.  Without the treasure used as wergild, Grendel might still be terrorizing Hrothgar’s halls. Treasure creates mutually beneficial bonds between the lord and his retainers.

Hrothgar’s queen also gives treasure, including her necklace, to Beowulf in the hopes of creating a mutually beneficial bond between them. After rewarding him, Wealtheow tells Beowulf, “Be kind in your counsel / to these boys; for that, I will reward you further” (Crossley-Holland 104). Wealtheow uses the promise of more treasure to try to protect “these boys,” her sons, from Hrothulf, her nephew. Oher passages suggest Hrothulf might harm her sons after her husband dies. The poet says, “Hrothgar and Hrothulf were sitting side by side, / uncle and nephew, still friends together, true to one another,” and  Wealtheow tells Hrothgar, “’I believe [Hrothulf] will repay our sons / most generously if he remembers all we did / for his benefit and enjoyment when he was a boy’” (Crossley-Holland 103). The word “still” implies Hrothgar and Hrothulf will not be friends in the future, and the phrases “I believe” and “if” cast doubts on Wealtheow’s statement and Hrothulf’s future actions. With Beowulf on their side, however, the sons would be safe. Treasure could facilitate this.

A gnomic verse in the beginning of the epic summarizes the importance of creating bonds through treasure by stating:

         likewise by generous gifts

         while he still enjoys his father’s protection,

         a young man must ensure that in later years

         his companions will support him, serve

         their prince in battle; a man who wins renown

         will always prosper among any people (Crossley-Holland 74).

By using the word “wins,” the poet implies the man must pay a price in order to gain the support of his peers. Treasure pays that price and therefore allows the man to prosper.

However, treasure also has a dark side, which is equally as important to Anglo-Saxon culture as the prosperous side. While treasure could save a warrior’s life, it could end it, as well. When the poet digresses and describes how Hygelac, Beowulf’s lord, dies, several details hint at the destructive nature of treasure. These details include that:

          Hygelac the Geat, grandson of Swerting,

          wore that necklace on his last raid

          when he fought beneath his banner to defend his treasure,

          his battle spoils; fate claimed him then (Crossley-Holland 104).

“[T]hat necklace” refers to Wealtheow’s gold collar. The necklace creates a bond between Beowulf and Wealtheow and strengthens the one between Beowulf and Hygelac, but in the end it leads to Hygelac’s death. From the phrase “he fought beneath his banner to defend his treasure, / his battle spoils,” the reader can infer the enemy targeted Hygelac because they want his treasure, the precious necklace. This idea is further supported by the poet’s description of how “the king’s body fell into the hands of Franks, / his coat of mail and the collar also; / after that battle, weaker warriors picked at and plundered the slain” (Crossley-Holland 104). The details about how the enemy warriors took “the collar” also let the reader know they wanted it and that it led to Hygelac’s downfall. A coat of mail has practical value in battle, but the necklace only made him a target of his enemy’s envy.

The feuds demonstrate another reversal in the role of treasure in the epic. While Hrothgar paying wergild peacefully ends Ecgtheow’s feud with the Wylfings, the Freawaru digression describes how treasure rekindles the feud between the Heathobards and Danish people. Freawaru is sent to the Heathobards “to use her as a peace-weaver to bury old antagonisms, / mortal feuds” (Crossley-Holland 125). The plan seems to bring peace until the Danish people visit Freawaru, wearing the treasure they won in battle by killing Heathobards. For example, an older Heathobard tells a younger Heathobard: 

          See how the son of one of those 

          who slew [your father] struts about the hall;

          he sports the sword; 

          he crows about that slaughter

          and carries that heirloom which is yours by right! (Crossley-Holland 125).

The use of the verbs “struts,” “sports,” and “crows” shows how the Heathobard view the Danes as arrogant and gloating for simply owning the treasure; it is enough to anger the older Heathobard to the point of wanting war, which he gets. This idea of revenge was central in Anglo-Saxon England, and John Hill argues avoiding feuds is the main reason behind giving gifts of treasure (86). There are other notable reasons, but this one is important. Feuds could start or end because of treasure.

Similarly, another contrast exists between how Hrothgar rewards Beowulf with treasure and how Heremod hoards treasure. In the epic, Heremod “never gave / gifts to the Danes, to gain glory” and “was long an affliction / to his people” (Crossley-Holland 117). By not distributing gold rings and other treasures to each warrior according to his bravery as Hrothgar does, Heremod harms his retainers. The poem describes him as an “affliction,” an illness that kills his people, and he does kill the people he is supposed to protect. The epic explains, “he grew to spread slaughter and destruction / rather than happiness amongst the Danish people” and “murdered his table-companions, / his most loyal followers” (Crossley-Holland 116-7). Why?

The epic offers an explanation. According to Crossley-Holland’s translation, when “there is no end to his ambition” and “the seed of arrogance is sown and grows,” the lord “begins to hoard / his treasures, never parts with gold rings / in ceremonial splendor” (117). The hoarding motivated by ambition and arrogance will ultimately end Heremod’s reign as:

            In time his transient body wizens and withers,

            and dies as fate decrees; then another man

            succeeds to his throne who gives treasures and heirlooms

            with  great generosity; he is not obsessed with suspicions (Crossley-Holland 118).

Heremod and Hrothgar, a bad lord and a good lord, therefore both die because of treasure, despite its potential for good. Hoarding has another damaging effect, as well. Victoria Symons argues that because hoarding treasure is the opposite of giving treasure, it threats the very fabric of the society, built on exchanges between lords and retainers (79). It renders the treasure useless, as Cameron McNabb points out by showing how useless the treasure of  Grendel’s mother is under the water and how useless the dragon’s hoard was to its original owners, now dead (149-50). The idea of treasure is not a simple one.

Into this complex idea of treasure, the dragon enters the epic. The poet’s description suggests the dragon represents the negative side of treasure, greed and hoarding. The verbs associated with the dragon, such as “harassed,” “prowled,” and “circled” (Crossley-Holland 131), have negative connotations. “[H]arassed” is especially negative. When actions are described as being harassing, they are typically bothersome and malice in nature. Like when a school bully harasses another child, the actions harm the other party. In this epic, the use of “harassed” marks the dragon as the aggravator and the Geats as the victims. “[P]rowled” and “circled” are predatory verbs and likewise paint the Geats as prey. Predators like wolves prowl the forest while stalking their prey, and animals like vultures circle the dying bodies of their next meal. The use of these verbs implies the dragon is a predator and natural enemy of the Geats.

Another verb, “slid,” emphasizes the serpent-like properties of the dragon and how he moves along the ground, putting him below the Geats in a sense. Serpents also have religious connotations. In the Christian bible, Satan disguises himself as a snake when he tempts Eve, leading her to commit the first sin. Since Christian elements exist in the epic, such as when a scop sings about creation stories found in Genesis and the poet describes Grendel as Cain’s kin (Marshall 10), the dragon’s association with serpents further demonizes the creature and describes it as a natural enemy of the Geats just as Satan is the natural enemy of Christians. As Peter Baker points out the Old English word used, wyrm, can apply to dragons, serpents, and worms that eat decaying human flesh in the graves. Other types of worms are described by a different Old English word (Baker 225). Taking this into account, the dragon is not only connected to spiritual death of humans, but their physical death, as well.

Another passage also supports this interpretation of a natural animosity between the dragon and the Geats. When Beowulf roars at the dragon before engaging him in mortal combat, the dragon “knew the voice for human; / violent hatred stirred within him” (Crossley-Holland 138).  This passage implies simply hearing the voice of a human caused the dragon to feel hatred and the desire to kill. That degree of animosity exists between them.

This negative view of the dragon gains support from several passages tying the dragon to nighttime and from the lack of passages tying him to any other time of day. In the beginning of the second part of the epic, “on dark nights, / a dragon began to terrify the Geats” (Crossley-Holland 129). Not only does he attack the Geats at night but during “dark nights.” The dragon is again associated with a negative word, “dark,” implying an association with the stain of sin and other types of evil. Other passages say the dragon “flew by night,” was an “aged twilight flier,” and “fought to defend [the hoard] / with flames – terrifying, blistering, / ravening at midnight” (Crossley-Holland 131, 143-4). These all describe the dragon acting at night, but there are no such passages about other times of the day. This implies the dragon was a creature of the night. Humans, on the other hand, are creatures of the day. This makes the dragon and the Geats enemies in more ways than one.

The dragon also prefers a time of day when the Geats are at a disadvantage; they cannot see in the dark. According to the epic, “restlessly the dragon waited for darkness” (Crossley-Holland 132). This passage implies the dragon purposely waited until the Geats were at a disadvantage to attack and did so “restlessly,” as if he could not wait to kill them.

Other passages support this idea that the dragon purposely waited for the veil of night. According to the epic, when “the daylight failed / as the dragon desired,” he attacked the Geats, but “before dawn, he rushed back / to his hidden lair and the treasure hoard” (Crossley-Holland 132). The verbs “failed,” “desired,” and “rushed” suggest the dragon prefers night to day. “[F]ailed” has a negative connation and since its subject is “the daylight,” it suggests that the dragon wins once the sun sets. The word “desired” confirms that the dragon purposefully waits for darkness before he emerges from his cave. “[R]ushed” similarly shows how much he does not want to be out during the day. He does not simply return, but does so at a rapid pace. 

This animosity and negativity surrounding the dragon become more significant as the reader sees the dragon as a symbol. Variations of the dragon, such as the “warden of the hoard” and the “guardian of the hoard,” show the dragon’s strong association with the treasure he guards (Crossley-Holland 131-132). Like human characters, the poet does not describe the dragon according to his color or size, but according to his treasure. His description also closely ties him to negative things like darkness and a serpent. The epic therefore paints the dragon as a negative entity that guards treasure. His sole role in life consists of guarding treasure and tormenting humans.

Fire also relates to the dragon and the duality of treasure. Several passages describe the dragon’s fire and its destructive power.  First, the epic describes how the dragon destroys the mead hall when he “began to breathe forth fire / to burn fine buildings; flame tongues flickered, / terrifying men” (Crossley-Holland 132). Then, the dragon kills men when he “girdled the Geats with fire, / with ravening flames” (Crossley-Holland 132). Words like “terrifying” and “ravening” have negative connotations of fear and destruction, which reflect the nature of the dragon’s fire; it brought destruction and fear to the Geats.

While fire represents death and ruin in the epic, fire has other, more positive connotations; it represents life, as well. Before modern times and the discovery of electricity, people relied on fire for warmth, light, protection, and cooking. This correlates to how the dragon symbolizes the dual nature of treasure during the medieval period in England. Like fire, treasure can both help and destroy.

Treasure can start a feud like the one between the Danes and the Heathobards or end it like the wergild paid by Hrothgar for Beowulf’s father. Treasure can be the reward of battle like Wealtheow’s gold collar given to Beowulf or the reason for a death during battle like the same collar attracting Hygelac’s killers. The dragon symbolizes the deadly side of treasure. His hoarding and mass destruction correspond to the behavior of bad lords like Heremod, but his fire may remind the reader treasure is a complex idea in the Anglo-Saxon world. Treasure is not one-sided; it is a double-edged sword.

Works Cited

Baker, Peter S. “Beowulf’s Last Triumph”. Honour, Exchange and Violence in Beowulf. Vol. 20. Boydell & Brewer,               2013. 200–239. Web. 1 May 2016.

Crossley-Holland, Kevin. The Anglo-Saxon World: An Anthology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984. Print.

Hill, John M. “The Economy of Honour in Beowulf”. The Cultural World in Beowulf. University of Toronto Press,                 1995. 85–107. Web. 1 May 2016.

Marshall, Joseph E. "Goldgyfan Of Goldwlance: A Christian Apology For Beowulf And Treasure."Studies In                         Philology 107.1 (2010): 1-24. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 1 May 2016.

McNabb, Cameron Hunt. "'Eldum Unnyt': Treasure Spaces In Beowulf." Neophilologus 95.1 (2011): 145-164. MLA               International Bibliography. Web. 1 May 2016.

Symons, Victoria. “Wreoþenhilt Ond Wyrmfah: Confronting Serpents in Beowulf and Beyond”. Representing Beasts             in Early Medieval England and Scandinavia. Ed. Michael D. J. Bintley and Thomas J. T. Williams. NED - New           edition. Boydell & Brewer, 2015. 73–93. Web. 1 May 2016.