Beowulf - envy and jealousy

Beowulf has some interesting things to say about envy and jealousy.  On the one hand, it presents jealousy as a socially acceptable motive for violence.  When a death-price isn't paid, the family member has a right to avenge the death of their loved one (which ties to the jealousy they have of that relationship).  But yet, in action, we see Beowulf standing against this type of vengeance.

Similarly, when the dragon has a cup stolen from him Beowulf stands against the dragon's attempts to restore the cup to himself.  This is not quite presented as an acceptable motive, but there is a link between his motive and the motive of Grendel's mother.

At the end of the story, a big question looms: Was it okay for Grendel’s mother and the dragon to seek to avenge the wrongs done to them?  As pointed out previously, when a wrongful death occurred, a death price was supposed to be paid.  It is this very point which is held against Grendel: “he would never make parley… nor pay the death-price” (154-156).  In Seamus Heaney’s translation edited by Daniel Donoghue, a footnote provides insight to this line by explaining, “According to Anglo-Saxon law, a murder or any unlawful killing could be resolved by the payment of a substantial fine to the family of the victim.  It was the society’s means of preventing the cycles of feuds from the beginning” (Donoghue, 7). 

                If this can be held against Grendel, it can be held against Beowulf.  On the one hand, Beowulf’s killing of Grendel is not unlawful, for King Hrothgar has requested it.  On the other hand, the nature of the killing does not give way to being lawful.  There is no mention of a court hearing where Grendel is present.  It is granted that Grendel would likely not have shown up, should a court hearing have been scheduled.  Still, from his mother’s point of view the death would have been unlawful. 

                The dragon had similarly been wronged.  While he slept, an intruder had crept into his howe and selected the dragon’s prized gold-plated cup for himself.  He carried it away and did not leave payment to reconcile the loss.  The dragon in turn begins to search for the stolen cup. 

                Despite the justification which might be provided for both Grendel’s mother and the dragon, Beowulf still steps in to fight both monsters.  More than stepping in to fight them, Beowulf pursues them.  He travels to their homes (or closely nearby) and initiates the battles.  In both cases, it seems that Beowulf is stepping in to preserve the kingdoms and communities which are suffering the consequences of the vengeance of the monsters. 

                When the dragon searches for his cup, he creates a path of destruction.  Homes and lands burst into flame as the dragon breathes fire from the sky.  The bard paints a picture of fire stretching acre upon acre; the Geat land had become a lake of fire.  The dragon’s vengeance is not restrained to the intruder and recovering the stolen cup.  Instead, the dragon’s vengeance reaches “far and near” (2317).

                Similarly, when Grendel’s mother seeks to avenge the loss of her son, she should have been after Beowulf alone.  Instead, she takes the life of Aeschere.  Her vengeance is not restrained to the man who took the life of her son.  Instead, her vengeance reaches into the home of Aeschere, his family, and his friends. 

                When Beowulf attacks and kills Grendel’s mother, the “cycle of feuds” (Donoghue) is put to an end.  The deaths of the Danes were avenged with the death of Grendel and the death of Aeschere was avenged with the death of his mother.  Similarly, when Beowulf attacks and kills the dragon, another cycle of feud is put to an end.  With the death of the dragon comes an end to his harrowing of the land of the Geats.  Beowulf stands up for the nations under attack.  In essence, Beowulf says vengeance is not acceptable, for when it remains unchecked it will destroy a nation.