Rolph 1

Scott Rolph

Prof. M

Lit 506

22 April 2018

The Anglo-Saxon Warrior Code and the Medieval Code of Chivalry

According to Greenblatt et al., is a character that is “measured against a moral and

Christian ideal of chivalry” (184). In a similar way, Beowulf, a poem written in Old English in

the first half of eighth century (Greenblatt et al., 36) and “The Knight’s Tale,” from The

Canterbury Tales, written in Middle English from 1386-1400, also have characters that are being

measured against codes, However, the codes are related but different. A close comparison

between the two texts yields a specific Anglo-Saxon and a late fourteenth century English code

of chivalry.

In Beowulf, the moral code for rulers demands that a good ruler is generous, and further,

that this generosity is the sign and means of bonding the people to their ruler. In the preamble to

the story, we learn of the Danish rulers that preceded King Hrothgar. Beow is renowned for his

generosity. The authors distinguish this quality in Beow:

Beow’s name was known throughout the north

and a young prince must be prudent like that,

giving freely while his father lives

so that afterward in age when fighting starts

steadfast companions will stand by him and

hold the line. Behavior that’s admired

is the path to power everywhere. (19-25)

 Rolph 2

This passage not only explains the generosity of Beow, but explains its importance to the reader.

All the qualities that are admired in a ruler, especially liberality with gifts, help to bind the

people to the ruler and create loyalty. This sturdy example of Beow is exemplified by other

rulers and warriors, chiefly including Hrothgar and Beowulf. Heorot, the great hall of Hrothgar,

is described not only as a “throne-room,” but a place for the giving of gifts. The authors state: “it

[Heorot] would be his throne-room and there he would dispense/ his God-given good to young

and old” (71-72). Thus, it is evident that generosity is an important element of the Anglo-Saxon

code, so much so that the hall of the Danish king is distinguished by it. The following line is

important; for while the king is to be generous, he is also to be prudent in the distribution of

goods. The authors state that the king would not give “the common land or people’s lives” (73).

Thus, it is important that the king choose wisely when giving gifts. This is seen when Hrothgar

rewards Beowulf for his service, for after Beowulf kills Grendel, he rewards the Gear warrior

with exceptional prizes. The writers state

Then Halfdane’s son [Hrothgar] presented Beowulf

with a gold standard as a victory gift,

an embroidered banner; also breast-mail

and a helmet; and a sword carried high,

that was both precious object and token of honor. (1019-1023)

These gifts are appropriate because of the noble service Beowulf performed; further, their

elaborate nature is intended to continue to seal of friendship between the two kingdoms

represented by Hrothgar and Beowulf. In addition, each of the Geats that sailed with Beowulf

was also rewarded, for Hrothgar gave “each man … a bounty, some treasured possession” (1050-

1052). Further, the authors make it clear that Hrothgar is an honorable king, ensuring that the
 Rolph 3

readers understands that his actions are part of an elaborate code, for they state that the “noble

Hrothgar … was a good king” (862). This generosity of the king towards Beowulf is extended by

his wife, Wealhtheow, who gives Beowulf a “torque,” which Greenblatt notes is a necklace

“comparable to the one worn by the goddess Freya in Germanic mythology” (1195, 68). This

event shows that generosity is a royal duty. In speaking to Beowulf about the importance of this

act, Hrothgar connects it to the official duties of the king, and speaks of a king named Heremod

who did not follow it. He states that a “protector of his people [is] pledged to uphold truth and

justice and to respect tradition … [however,] Heremod was different” because he grew “blood-

thirsty” and “gave no more rings to honor the Danes” (1700-1701, 1709, 1719, 1720). This

affirms the idea that generosity is part of the Anglo-Saxon warrior code; Hrothgar maintains that

Heremod was a bad king because he did not follow tradition by honoring the practice. The

original generosity was extended, not only through words of advice, after Beowulf killed

Grendel’s mother. Further, Hrothgar, in his farewell speech, notes the practice of generosity will

continue. He states, “As long as I rule this far-flung land, treasures will change hands, and each

side will treat the other with gifts” (1859-1861). This confirms, again, the idea that gifts are a

means of cementing or strengthening a bond. This act, and its importance, is not lost on Beowulf

for when he returns to his homeland, he gives King Hygelac a share of the gifts. The poem states

that “four horses” and sets of “armor” were given to the king (2164). Thus, generosity is seen as

an important part of the warrior code, not only because it is part of tradition, but because it is

seen as just and prudent, helping to keep others loyal.

In addition to the prudent distribution of gifts, another aspect to the warrior code evident

in Beowulf is the avoidance of unnecessary violence. One of the remarkable aspects to the

character of Beowulf is that his challenges in warfare were among non-humans; sea-serpents,
 Rolph 4

monsters, and a dragon. Thus, it is clear just from the example of Beowulf’s life that violent

conflict between humans is to be avoided; however, this part of the warrior code is specifically

mentioned throughout the work. When Hrothgar first greets Beowulf, he mentions how

Beowulf’s father became involved in a violent action. He states that his father “killed Heatholaf,

who was a Wulfing,” which nearly created a war between the Geats and the Wulfings (460-461).

While Hrothgar takes credit for “healing the feud” by shipping a “treasure-trove to the Wulfings”

(470-471), and thus gives another example of the key role of gift-giving, but the larger point is

that the seemingly unnecessary violent act nearly caused a massive conflict that could have

resulted in a large loss of life. Later on, during the celebrations at Heorot, the bard speaks the

“Finnsburg” event, which initially involved a contracted marriage between two kingdoms, but

when the visiting party of Danes was attacked by the Jutes, the Danes took vengeance and the

“hall ran red with the blood of the enemies” (1152). While this shows that the royal, arranged

marriages were sometimes imprudent, it also shows how a violent act gave birth to an even more

violent clash. However, the unnecessary violence could also be considered an act to be avoided

because of the larger moral consequences. When Beowulf is first greeted at Heorot, he is warmly

received by nearly everyone, except Unferth. However, Beowulf knows about Unferth, and he

answers his hostility by condemning the violent acts of the man. He states:

You killed your own kith and kin,

so for all your cleverness and quick tongue,

you will suffer damnation in the depths of hell. (587-589)

Thus, in this instance, unnecessary violence is equated with acts that lead to eternal punishment.

In other places in the work, the spilled of blood is depicted as worthy of shunning just because it

violates a deep sense of justice, in and of itself. The virtuous generosity of Queen Hygd is
 Rolph 5

contrasted with the callous actions of Queen Modthryth, who had men killed if they looked at her

directly. The narrator remarks that a “queen should weave peace, not punish the innocent/with

loss of life for imagined insults” (1943). Another example of a regrettable act is related in the

story, through Beowulf’s direct words, when he condemns the act of a younger brother in killing

his older sibling. He states that Haethcyn “loosed the arrow that destroyed his life” when he

“buried a shaft in his own brother” (2438, 2440). Again, an unwarranted violent act is seen as

impotent because it brings only destruction and not gain. Finally, just as Beowulf is about to die,

he expresses gratitude that he never participated in these types of actions. He states, “The Ruler

of mankind/ need never blame me when the breath leaves my body/ for murder of kinsmen”

(2741-2743). It is of critical importance to the poem that Beowulf is especially grateful, and feels

worthy of heaven itself, not for his deeds but because of the fact that he did not kill people

unnecessarily. Indeed, one could see the monsters of Grendel and his mother, as well as the

dragon, as violent beings that bring about their own destruction because of the notoriety of their

ruthless acts. Thus, throughout the text, and in different ways, the work shows that violent acts

are only moral if they are just, and a true warrior only engages in violence under these

circumstances, and this is seen as deeply embedded to the warrior code of ethic of the people in

the story.

While the moral code requires a warrior to be generous and to avoid unnecessary

violence, it also requires assisting others, provided the cause is morally acceptable. Beowulf

exemplifies this quality, for he leaves his homeland to help the Danish king to fight Grendel. The

poem states:

When he heard about Grendel, Hygelac’s thane [Beowulf]

was on home ground, over in Geatland…

 Rolph 6

He announced his plan:

to sail the swan’s road and seek out that king

the famous prince who needed defenders. (194-195, 198-201)

So, Beowulf’s immediate reaction to the threat of the monster, who epitomizes only greed and

malevolence, is to provide assistance. He announces this plan in the hall of Heorot to king

Hrothgar, showing confidence that he has the wisdom and strength to defeat the mortal enemy.

He states:

I came to proffer

my wholehearted help and counsel.

I can show the wise Hrothgar a way

to defeat his enemy and find respite

if any respite is to reach him, ever. (277-281)

Beowulf has the prudence to know that offering help is the only way for the Danes to be saved

from the monster, as they did not have the capability themselves. He fulfilled his promise of help

by defeating Grendel, and as soon as he was aware of the danger from Grendel’s mother, he

defeated her as well. However, helping others to overcome great immoral forces is something

that applies within one’s tribe as well as helping far-away kingdoms. When Beowulf decides to

face the dragon in his homeland, even at an advanced age, his companion Wiglaf decides that it

is his duty to help him; he attempts to convince the other soldiers to fulfill their pledge of loyalty

to Beowulf. He states:

I remember when that time when mead was flowing,

how we pledged loyalty to our lord in the hall,

promised our ring-giver that we would be worth the price…

 Rolph 7

now the day has come

when this lord we serve needs sound men

to give him their support. Let us go to him. (2632-2635, 2646-2648)

This statement reaffirms the practice of generous gift-giving as well as its purpose: the gifts

bestowed on the warriors were meant to inspire their courage at the needed time. Although

Wiglaf was the only man to come to the aid of Beowulf, it is critical because only together did

they defeat the enemy. The narrator states that “they had killed the enemy … [,] that pair of

kinsmen, partners in nobility, so every man should act, be at hand when needed” (2706-2709).

Thus, it is evident that the requirement to help those in need is part of the warrior code that goes

hand-in-hand with the necessity of giving assistance when necessary. Wiglaf shows the vital

importance of this part of the warrior code when he punishes the men that did not fight at the

side of Beowulf. He affirms that “too few rallied around the prince, so it is good-bye to all you

know and love on your home ground” (2883-2885). Because they did not help when their duty

required it, the men are deprived of their positions and possessions, which shows how important

helping others is in the moral code of their people.

However, there is a corollary that goes along with the importance of helping others; for a

good king and warrior also recognizes the prudence of accepting help in certain situations. Thus,

Hrothgar wisely accepts the assistance of Beowulf when it was initially offered. He states that

“Holy God/ has, in his goodness, guided him here … to defend us from Grendel” (381-383). In

stating that Beowulf’s offer was guided by providence, the king asserts that the decision is in

accordance with the highest human wisdom. Beowulf also showed this wisdom in accepting

help. He had initially decided to face the dragon by himself, telling the other men to “remain

here on the barrow, safe in your armor” (2529-2530). However, Beowulf immediately accepts
 Rolph 8

the assistance from Wiglaf in the midst of battle, and it is only together that they were successful;

Wiglaf weakened and distracted the dragon with a blow to the beast’s belly, which allowed

Beowulf to deliver the mortal blow. If he had not accepted Wiglaf’s help, great doubt arises as to

whether the dragon would have been defeated. Thus, the moral code of the warriors required

them to give help to those in need, but also to accept it when the circumstances required it.

As this poem was written in the beginning of the ninth century of the current era and

concerned people, the Danes, the Gates, but also the Swedes, Frisians, and Jutes, that had lived

hundreds of years earlier, a clear picture of the Germanic moral code of the warriors develops,

that includes the importance of generosity, avoiding needless bloodshed, and help in time of

need. While the writers of the poem were Christian, the basic story comes from a pagan time.

However, the basic Germanic, pagan moral code in the story contains that initial elements that

are transformed into chivalry, due to the influence of the conversion of the peoples in England to

Christianity. Six hundred years later, a different but related moral code emerges, which can be

readily seen in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, specifically in the character and tale of the

Knight.

Before examining how the moral code of chivalry is portrayed in “The Knight’s Tale,” is

worthwhile to preface this analysis with an examination of the character of the knight himself.

This would seem not only appropriate to this analysis, but as he is the first of the pilgrims that is

described and the first person to tell a story in The Canterbury Tales; importantly, he is first not

only in the narrative but appears to be the highest-ranking member of the nobility in the group.

Chaucer states that he was a “valiant man” that “loved chivalry, truth and honor, liberality and

courtesy” (43, 45-46). It is evident that the idea of generosity, present in the Anglo-Saxon code,

is still present but now is saddled with other chivalric virtues. All of the places that he fought
 Rolph 9

were outside of England, and include, among others, places in Spain, the Mediterranean, and

Turkey. In order to make it clear that the knight had been fighting along the side of Christians,

Chaucer makes it clear that he had fought “against the heathen” in Turkey. Thus, the code that

had applied to tribal kingdoms within certain geographical areas has now been transformed, and

the knight has international concerns that pertain to the protection and expansion of the Christian

Western world. While the crusades had concluded, fights against Muslims had not ended; part of

present day Spain and Portugal were still under Muslim control, and in the East, the Turkish

empire buttressed parts of Eastern Europe. Moreover, Chaucer is liberal in his obvious esteem

for the character, saying that he was a “true, perfect, gentle knight” (72). The combination of the

praise with the military career gives approval to the choice of campaigns, being as they appear to

be, battles fought on behalf of Christendom. While “The Knight’s Tale” itself is set in pagan

lands and pagan times, in Greece and Thebes, the way in which chivalry had been transformed,

by and for Christianity, is evident from the description of the knight.

“The Knight’s Tale” is different from Beowulf a variety of ways: it does not feature

either a monster or a dragon; all the principal characters are human. Nonetheless, in analyzing

the transformation of Theseus and the conflict between Palamon and Arcite, a clear chivalric

code emerges, one that treasures mercy, values oaths, limits the destructive power of war, and

chooses to fight for what is right rather than to establish what is “right through might.”

The transformation of Theseus in the story shows the value of mercy in the medieval

chivalric code. When the reader first encounters Theseus, a ruler of Athens, he had just

succeeded in conquering the Amazons. Chaucer calls this group, “the regne of Femenye” (8), or

in other words, the land ruled by women. As women were thought to be weaker than men, this

could be construed as a battle in which Theseus had an overwhelming advantage; there is an

 Rolph 10

echo of the Anglo-Saxon idea of avoiding unnecessary violence in this vignette. While returning

home with his war conquest, Hippolyta, Theseus meets a group of women that are deeply

grieved. He addresses the women to find out the cause of their suffering:

Who has mistreated or offended you?

Tell me if your wrong can be righted,

and why you are thus clothed in black. (51-53)

When he learns that their husbands have died in battle fighting Creon, and that Creon has not

allowed their bodies to be given the appropriate funeral, he has tender compassion for the

women. He even gets off of his horse to “take them in his arms and comfort them with goodwill”

as swore, “as a faithful knight … to avenge them” (100-102, 104). Indeed, Theseus immediately

sought out and fought Creon, thus liberating the people from the “tyrant” (104). This event

reveals that mercy is connected to the idea of being chivalrous; Theseus performs his knightly

duty on behalf of those that had been wronged, thus taking a first step at becoming a merciful

leader. His men find the two men in heaps of dead bodies, Palamon and Arcite, and he sends

them to Athens to be imprisoned, thus paving the way for another act of mercy. Palamon and

Arcite met outside of Athens, after both had fallen in love with the young princess Emily,

although Arcite had been freed and Palamon had escaped. The ruler happens upon the two young

knights as they are about to fight. When he learns that one of the knights is Palamon, the recently

escaped prisoner, he orders his death. This time, it is the women of his own court, including

Emily, that weep and pray for mercy. Chaucer states that “at last his anger was slaked, for pity

soon arises in the gentle heart” (901-902). This statement confirms the idea that a knight should

be a merciful person. At this time, Theseus states that he will allow the men to fight in a

tournament, to return in 50 weeks, allowing each of them to build a force of 100 knights. At the
 Rolph 11

time of the tournament, a herald announces that the knights will not be allowed to fight to the

death, stating:

Our lord in his noble discretion

as considered that it would be destruction

of gentle blood to fight in the manner

of mortal combat (1679-1680).

Thus, Theseus has acted in again in mercy; however, this event shows his transformation because

he no longer needs the mourning women to choose in mercy’s favor. He makes this choice on his

own, as the herald states. In the battle, Arcite proves victorious over Palamon but is mortally

wounded when his horse falls. This event paves the way for another act of mercy by the ruler, as

after an appropriate time for grieving, Theseus asks Palamon and Emily to set aside their

grieving and to marry each other. He urges Emily to agree to the idea, stating that “gentle mercy

out to be more esteemed than standing on one’s rights.” (2230-2231). Thus, the transformation of

Theseus is complete; at first, he was taking what he did not have a right to, and then he bestowed

mercy on the woman of Thebes as well as Palamon and Arcite, and finally, he has become a

teacher in the art of mercy. Notably, he no longer needs a request to be merciful but can do it on

his own. In addition, by showing Emily the great value of mercy, he reinforces the idea that it is

a quality that it suitable for knights and thus part of the chivalric code.

While the part of Theseus in the story plainly reveals how mercy is an important element

of the chivalric code, and even hints at other ideas, it is the story of the main characters and their

conflict, that provides further illumination about this code, showing that it values vows, places

limits on violence, and chooses to fight for goodness over selfish reasons. When Palamon and
 Rolph 12

Arcite are imprisoned in the tower and both fall in love with Emily, Palamon reminds him of the

oath that they swore to help each other, especially when it came to romance. He states:

It would not …. Be any great honor for you to be false, or to be a traitor

to me, who am your cousin and your sworn brother,

bound most solemnly by oath (as each of us is to the other)

to the pact that never - even under pain of torture or death,

and never until death shall part us two-

shall either of us hinder the other in love. (271-277)

This speech confirms not only the familial ties that bind the two men, but how the code of

chivalric knighthood also connected them; the idea being that the two would not let a love

interest come between them. This episode underscores the importance of loyal vows to knights,

and how it the breaking of it was considered worse than death. While Arcite easily casts aside the

vow by saying, “All is fair in love” (306), he nonetheless shows that he is not willing to do

anything to achieve his goals. When the two men met outside Athens, it was Arcite that

suggested returning the following day with armor, food, and drink, and even giving Palamon his

armor. He stated, “On my faith as a knight … you choose and leave the worse for me” (754,

756). This statement reinforces the importance of knightly promises, previously discussed.

Further, although they planned to fight to the death, the fact of using armor shows that they did

not want to discard their mortality lightly. The fact that Arcite lets Palamon choose shows that a

knightly benevolence and that he did not want to win at any costs. This episode hints at the value

of life, which is further brought out when Theseus decrees that the men shall not fight to the

death. It also gives a hint that being good is more important than winning at all costs, an idea that

is further brought out through the prayers of the principal characters.

 Rolph 13

The idea that a knight should do what is right rather than to serve his own selfish interests

is brought out through the prayers of the knights. When Palamon first sees Emily, he

immediately takes her to be Venus and issues a prayer in request for freedom. Later, at the

amphitheater before the tournament, Palamon again prays to Venus. He states:

I do not care to boast of arms,

and I do not ask to have the victory tomorrow,

or renown in this matter, or vain glory

of reputation in arms rumored to and fro;

but I would have full possession

of Emily and die in your service. (1380-1385)

The prayer to Venus symbolizes the value of love over the right of conquest. Importantly, he

asks for Emily, and not to be the winner of the tournament. In contrast to the prayer of Palamon,

Arcite prays to Mars, the god of war. He petitions the god, saying:

Lord, help me tomorrow in my battle

for the sake of that fire that once burned you

as much as that fire now burns me. (1544-1546)

Thus, thinking that the winner of the battle would be the one that married Emily, a result

different than the actual course of events, Arcite prays for victory in arms. Thus, it is suggested

that he actually cares more about winning than love, and “might” over “right.” This view is also

suggested by the prayer of Emily, who actually wants to remain a virgin. She states, “If... I must

have one of the two, send me the one that most desires me” (1465-67). Because Palamon prayed

to Venus and Arcite to Mars, it seems fitting that Palamon should be the one that marries her;

earlier, Saturn had suggested that both men would have their prayers answered. Thus, one could
 Rolph 14

rightly conclude that Palamon was the knight that loved her most, and he was eventually

victorious in obtaining marriage because he sought love rather than conquest. In a broader sense,

this struggle suggests that a good knight fights for justice rather than power; or in the words of

the description of the character of the knight, the code of the chivalry includes “truth, honor,

liberality, and courtesy” (46). This view is confirmed in the end of the story, which indicates that

Palamon and Emily had a perfect married life:

Now is Palamon in complete happiness,

living in bliss, in riches, and in health;

and Emily loves him so tenderly,

and her serves her just so gently

that there has never been between them a word

of jealousy or any other vexation. (2243-2248)

This perfect ending hints at the idea that the chivalric code, which includes the idea of mercy,

fidelity, avoiding unnecessary violence, and doing what is right, can bring about, not an ideal

world, but the best possible life that can be achieved in this world.

As shown, the code of the Anglo-Saxons and the code of chivalry from fourteenth

century England are closely aligned, but have some important distinctions. Foremost among

them, the Anglo-Saxon code emphasized helping those in need but the medieval code

emphasized service to Christ as well as the less fortunate. In order to explain these differences,

one must recognize the changes that had taken place in England in the six hundred years between

the two works. In the eighth century, what is now modern England was comprised of several

small kingdoms, just like the fore-runners of modern day Denmark and Sweden, where the story

of Beowulf is set. The Brits, having been conquered by the Romans, saw the Roman power
 Rolph 15

recede as Anglo-Saxon invasions began; other peoples that came to the coast of the country

included Jutes and Frisians (Jenkins 13). Most of England would eventually be brought under the

rule of a king of Anglo-Saxon descent, but would endure Viking invasions that became

“occupation” in many areas (Jenkins 25). Anglo-Saxon rule, as well as the rule in some areas by

the Danish Vikings, would later be superseded by the Norman king, William, in 1066, who was

himself of Viking descent (Jenkins 32). Thus, William effectively unified the country under one

kingship.

At that same time that a nation was being formed, the Anglos and Saxons, and other

peoples of England, were being converted into Christianity. The mission of Augustine to

Ethelbert of Kent in 597 gets credit for the successfully introducing Christianity to the Anglo-

Saxons, although the Celts in the West were already Christian (Jenkins 16, 18; Fiero 250). The

last pagan ruler in what is now present-day England died in 655, and the Synod of Whitby

reconciled differences between the monastic, Celtic form of Christianity with the Roman

Catholic form (Jenkins 20). By the beginning of the eighth century, the leaders and much of

country was largely converted, although some pagan superstitions would take a while to weed

out. With the arrival of William, the new Norman government “cemented the power of the

church” and began great building projects at the “monastic and parish level” (“Christianity in

Britian”). Thus, by Chaucer’s time, the Church was an extremely powerful institution and had

the ability to influence every aspect of life.

Because of these historical changes, we seem a parallel change in literature, which

explains the development of the moral code as seen in Beowulf and “The Knight’s Tale.” By the

time of Chaucer, literature is less concerned with battles between small kingdoms, but England

sees itself as part of Christendom and a Christian nation. While England was actually at war with
 Rolph 16

France during the writing of The Canterbury Tales, it would not see large-scale warfare on the

homeland until the War of the Roses, to come in about a half century. Comparison between these

two texts shows that the social, political, and religious changes had also produced a new country,

with a new set of ideals, and a new language, and a new literature.
 Rolph 17

Works Cited

Beowulf. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Middle Ages. Edited by Stephen

Greenblatt et al., 9th ed., vol. A, Norton, 2012, pp. 41-108.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Knight’s Tale.” The Canterbury Tales. Translated by A. Kent Hieatt

and Constance Hiett, Bantam Books, 1990.

“Christianity in Britain.” BBC, 27 Apr. 2011,

www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/uk_1.shtml.

Fiero, Gloria K. Medieval Humanities. McGraw-Hill, 2017.

Greenblatt, Stephen et al., The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Middle Ages. 9th

ed., vol. A, Norton, 2012.

Jenkins, Simon. A Short History of England. Public Affairs, 2013.