final project
TRANSCRIPT
White
Amanda White
4/28/2016
ENGL 4713-001
Final Project
Extreme [Treasure] Hoarders: The Beowulf Edition
Germanic fascination with treasure and material wealth within their literary
culture is one of the most prominent themes found in the heroic epic Beowulf; and as a
result, it comprises a vast amount of academic scholarship that has been written to date.
Because this is such a broad topic for discussion, the focus of this paper will be narrowed
by carefully examining how and why treasure troves and hoards were legally important to
the plot, characters, and society in Beowulf, as well as the implied importance to the
Beowulf audience. The treasure hoard was not highly valued in Beowulf’s society purely
because of its implied material wealth, it was the agent that moved and held together
Germanic society. Without treasure, feuds could not be ended, the comitatus could not be
sustained, and a ruler could not expect to prosper. This idea of gift-giving, facilitated by
kings such as Hrothgar and Hygelac via the treasure hoard, is often the determining factor
used to judge whether or not one was a good ruler, which is evident from the good and
bad kings that are used as exemplum. Throughout the remainder of this paper, defining
the proper and improper uses of treasure, as well as both the treasure trove in a Beowulf-
context and an Germanic legal context, will be essential for examining the overall
importance and function of the hoard in the poem. By choosing to examine treasure
through a Germanic legal lens, Beowulf’s suspicious interest in the treasure no longer
becomes a fulfillment of greed, but a fulfillment of his duty as a retainer and king.
1
White
In his Ph.D. dissertation, “Radix Malorum: The Presence and Function of Money
in Medieval Literature”, Joseph E. Marshall gives a very literal definition of the treasure
trove in Beowulf, and what its function was in Germanic society. For now, a preliminary
definition is useful to set up a specific view of the hoard; but his analysis will be further
examined later on in order to glean a deeper understanding of the treasure’s legal
standing within the poem. Marshall carefully breaks the treasure down into four
categories; and he emphasizes their significance by providing a systematic count of how
many different ways the Beowulf-poet describes the different categories of treasure. The
first category accounts for different units of treasure; and according to Germanic society
and the Beowulf-poet’s different word choices, these units of treasure included gold,
jewels, rings, necklaces, cups, plates, armor and weapons. The second category divides
treasure into multi-faceted purposes, that “of receiving, dispensing, or plundering”
(Marshall, 58). The first two categories of receiving and dispensing account for the
positive, proper way of using treasure; whereas the third act of plundering characterizes
the negative, improper use of treasure. Marshall defines the last two categories as “words
and phrases that pertain to agents and locations” of treasure within the poem (Marshall,
58). This category ties back into the previous one, in terms that it highlights once again
the positive and negative uses of treasure. Like Marshall, Patricia Silber also analyzes the
positive and negative uses of treasure in Beowulf; and her article will prove useful in
further breaking down the fundamental uses of material wealth in the narrative.
Silber’s article, “Gold and Its Significance in Beowulf”, defines the two main uses
of treasure within the poem; and these two basic functions can account for the different
ways treasure is found and used throughout the narrative. For Silber, improper uses of
2
White
treasure are “concerned with…hoarding or refusing to give”, whereas the proper uses of
treasure are affiliated with gift-giving and rewarding retainers (Silber, 6). The different
definitions of treasure, good and bad, proper and improper, are characterized by the
tropes of giving and hoarding throughout the poem by various characters. The impetus
behind the treasure trove lies in the way it is used, not in its material value; and in turn
this reflects on the audience’s perception of certain characters in the poem. In moving
forward, it will be important to distinguish both the figures that exemplify the different
usages of treasure, as well as expand upon ideas of proper and improper uses of treasure.
In terms of characters that exhibit Silber’s idea of “acquisition and distribution”,
Hrothgar, Hygelac, and even Beowulf later on serve as gift-givers in the poem (Silber, 6).
Gift-giving goes beyond general philanthropy between a lord and his retainer in the
poem; it is equivalent to the “social glue” that holds Germanic society together. Kings,
specifically good ones like Hrothgar and Hygelac, function as the “guardian of the
national treasure”, their own forms of treasure hoards; and consequently, they are
responsible for facilitating the relationship between themselves and their hearth-
companions through the Germanic concept of gift-giving. This relationship is specifically
characterized by the loyalty exemplified by a lord’s thanes who guard and serve him; but
this relationship is dependent upon a king who adequately dispenses treasure in order to
maintain a positive, prosperous kingdom. The most prevalent example of gift-giving
throughout the poem is often characterized between Beowulf and the different lords he
assists. In the first half of the poem, Beowulf does Hrothgar a great service by ridding
him of Grendel and his mother. Grendel has been accosting the great hall of Heorot for
twelve years; and relief only comes when Beowulf offers his services to the Danish King,
3
White
who promptly promises him wonderful gifts if he fulfills his boast. Following his victory,
Hrothgar upholds his promise to Beowulf and presents him with the requisite amount of
material wealth equivalent to the service he has provided in order to reward him for his
brave deeds, but he also dispenses treasure to solidify the relationship between them, that
of loyal thane and generous lord. Both Hrothgar and Beowulf have fulfilled their duties
assigned to them by society; Beowulf successfully defeated Grendel as a sign of his
loyalty to Hrothgar, who in turn fulfilled his duty as gift-giver.
While the poem gives several instances of “good” kings who are characterized by
their gift-giving, it also presents antithetical figures who represent a lack of gift-giving
and the subsequent consequences. The prominent “bad” king in the poem is Heremod,
who comes up several times throughout the narrative; however, his most influential
reference takes place in Hrothgar’s sermon to Beowulf after he has killed Grendel’s
mother. In addition to bad kings such as Heremod, antithetical characters include
Grendel’s mother and the infamous dragon, which become allegorical representations of
hoarded treasure and its negative effects on society. The ancient sword hilt that Beowulf
recovers from the underground treasure trove inspires Hrothgar’s sermon, which centers
on the nature of greed in the poem. The runes on the hilt symbolize, at least for Hrothgar
and the Beowulf-poet, the dangers of treasure that is hoarded; and this in turn prompts
him to warn Beowulf. A king who fails to reward his retainers essentially locks up the
fluid nature of treasure in society by keeping it stationary. Treasure is supposed to flow
from thane to king, and back again; it is not meant to remain with just one individual
because it disrupts the entire gift-giving cycle that holds society together.
4
White
There are many descriptions of treasure and those who wield it throughout the
poem; and it can be understood that the presence of treasure also signifies the presence of
a treasure hoard. Two types of treasure hoards exist in Beowulf, those that are “seen” and
“unseen”; and their existence correlates to either their proper or improper use. The two
central gift-givers in the poem, Hrothgar and Hygelac, presumably facilitate their
ritualistic gift-giving through a treasure hoard of some kind; and the fact that these hoards
are essentially “unseen” stems from their positive nature. Treasure for Hrothgar and
Hygelac is fluid, not stationary; for the good, gift-giving kings, an “unseen” hoard is not
problematic because its contents are being spread from individual to individual,
constantly strengthening the relationship between lord and retainer while also pushing
society in Beowulf forward. Treasure hoards are also intimately connected to the location
they are found in, not just to the lord who wields it; “unseen” hoards that are
characterized by their purposeful gift-giving and rewarding are found in civilized, warm
locations like the mead-hall Heorot. Sitting upon his “gifstol”, Hrothgar fulfills all of the
responsibilities that relate to active treasure distribution from the throne in Heorot. Proper
uses of treasure inevitably relate to both the location and the wielder in Beowulf, and
antithetical, improper uses of the treasure hoard correlate to vastly different locations and
agents.
Consequently, treasure hoards that are improperly used, stationary, and symbolic
of interrupted gift-giving are “seen” in the poem and have a physical presence in the
poem. There are two treasure hoards that are literally and actively “hoarded” in Beowulf;
and because they represent improper, negative uses of treasure in Germanic society, they
are not found in a mead-hall like “Heorot, the epitome of civilization” and central
5
White
location of gift-giving in the poem, but in isolated, dark “barrows” that are consistently
found underground (Marshall, 59). “This juxtaposition between bright places of treasure-
giving and dark places of treasure-hoarding occurs repeatedly throughout the text”; and it
represents a sharp allegorical contrast that the Beowulf-poet uses to emphasize the
radically different perceptions of hoarded and dispensed treasure (Marshall, 59). The two
misused treasure hoards, characterized by their dark, isolated locations, are also
associated with figures who represent the antithetical nature of hoarding that contrasts
with characters who represent treasure-dispensing and gift-giving, like Hrothgar and
Hygelac. The first treasure hoarder to appear in the poem is Grendel’s mother, who lords
over her own “hall” and guards a treasure trove deep underwater in a “hordærna
(treasure-cave)”. The second and more iconic treasure hoarder does not make an
appearance until the end of the poem; the infamous fire-dragon that guards the fabulous
hoard of material wealth deep within the earth will also prove to be Beowulf’s downfall.
According to Victoria Symons’ article, “Wreothenhilt ond wyrmfah: Confronting
Serpents in Beowulf and Beyond”, the “wyrm, or serpent-like dragon, was a figure firmly
rooted in the medieval Germanic imagination”, and the consistent association with
treasure and the act of hoarding is one of the most common thematic aspects of the
dragon (Symons, 76). Dragons symbolize the dangers of hoarding in a very physical and
metaphorical sense in Beowulf; and this proves true when the dragon razes the entire
countryside to the ground and destroys the Geats’ mead-hall, all the while greedily
guarding the treasure trove in his subterranean barrow. Because dragons are figures so
strongly correlated with treasure hoarding in Beowulf and other medieval Germanic
works, it is not a stretch to consider Grendel’s mother as a metaphorical dragon. By
6
White
definition, she is equivalent to the dragon; she breaks into Germanic civilization, violates
the cycle of gift-giving, and avariciously guards her own underground treasure hoard.
More important than the different nature of treasure hoards in the poem, “seen” versus
“unseen”, is the implication behind their existence in the narrative. Because treasure
hoards are the source from which agents pull for their ritualistic gift-giving, they have
both a legal standing and a legal purpose in Germanic society, which both complicates
the narrative but also serves to push it forward.
Legally defining the treasure hoard takes the argument away from overly
symbolic meanings that scholars have long since and will continue to debate regarding
Beowulf. Treasure hoards do not have to be symbolic of greed, strife, or spiritual warfare
in the poem; in fact, a legal definition relegates the need to question the infamous
suspicion regarding Beowulf’s supposedly avaricious nature as unnecessary. In “Treasure
Trove in Beowulf: A Legal View of the Dragon’s Hoard”, Earl R. Anderson defines
treasure trove as “an old, concealed deposit of money or moveables of which the memory
is no longer extant, so that it now no longer has an owner”; this definition gives treasure
hoards a legalistic standing in Germanic society that can be termed “treasure-regality”
(Anderson, 142). Anderson goes on to define treasure-regality as a king’s legal right to
any treasure hoards that existed in the land; but this was stipulated by the condition that
he responsibly dispense the treasure among his retainers. Knowing this, two key points
enhance the legal significance of treasure hoards in Beowulf; and it will serve as a lens
that effectively examines the two episodes in the poem that deal with literal treasure
troves. First, any man who found a treasure trove had no legal entitlement to keep it; and
the poem can attest to this with scenes concerning treasure hoards. Second, it was a crime
7
White
for anyone to conceal treasure hoards from the authoritative ruler, and they could be
judged guilty and punished accordingly.
Taking into account the cultural and symbolic importance of gift-giving, its
inseparable dependence upon the treasure hoard, as well as the legal standing of treasure
in Germanic society, a close examination of the two scenes that give a detailed image of
treasure hoards in Beowulf will attest to his upstanding character as a proper Germanic
retainer and king. The first instance of a physical, literally “seen” treasure hoard occurs
when Beowulf journeys into the “hellish turn-hole” to kill Grendel’s mother after she
invaded Heorot and killed Hrothgar’s thane, Æschere (Heaney, 105). Beowulf sets forth
on this venture with the promise that if he successfully kills Grendel’s mother, thus
repaying the crime committed against the Danes, Hrothgar will reward his prowess with
material wealth equivalent to the services rendered. However, Beowulf’s victory against
the Grendel-kin was contingent on him discovering “a blade that boded well, a sword in
her armoury…an ideal weapon” in her underwater hall (Heaney, 107). Upon defeating
her and beheading her son’s corpse, Beowulf beholds “treasure in abundance but [he]
carried no spoils from there except for the head and the inlaid hilt embossed with jewels”
(Heaney, 111). He swiftly returns to Heorot to tell Hrothgar of his victory, present the
Danish king with the spoils from battle, and receive his own reward as befits the custom
of gift-giving.
This scene correctly depicts Germanic concepts of treasure legality, gift-giving,
and the fulfillment of the relationship between a lord and his retainer for several reasons.
For one, based on Anderson’s definition, the “armoury” Beowulf discovers at the bottom
of the mere does qualify as a treasure hoard; because this was apparent to Beowulf he
8
White
does two things. Firstly, Beowulf does not take any treasure for himself as it would be in
violation of the Germanic concept of treasure-regality. Secondly, what he does take from
the trove he immediately hands over to the ruling lord of the land, thus upholding the law
and informing the Danish king that a hoard exists and where to find it. Next, Beowulf
fulfilled his boast to Hrothgar and satisfied the Germanic concept of “wergild”, in that he
killed the monster that disrupted the peace at Heorot and killed a man in cold blood. In
doing so, he entitles himself to material reward in the form of “twelve treasures” from
Hrothgar (Heaney, 127). Both he and Hrothgar return Heorot to its original, peaceful state
by taking part in the ritualistic gift-giving after removing the threat to civilized, Germanic
society, which in turn fulfills the relationship between the lord and the thane. This scene
also highlights the juxtaposition of hoarded treasure and dispensed treasure made
throughout the poem. During the fight with Grendel’s mother, Beowulf comes across an
“ancient heirloom from the days of the giants”; presumably this sword has not seen the
light of day since it was placed in the underground treasure hoard (Heaney, 107). By
taking it from its hoarded state, Beowulf not only kills the monster, he brings this
symbolic representation of the hoard back into Germanic society. In doing so, Beowulf
fulfills the act of reintroducing treasure that had long since been stagnant; but he also
succeeds in pushing the novel forward by bringing the hilt to Hrothgar’s attention. Upon
examining the ornate hilt with its depiction of giants and their subsequent destruction,
Hrothgar is able to lecture Beowulf on the dangers of greed and literally withholding
treasure. As the latter half of the poem will prove, this motif of greed and hoarded
treasure becomes both Beowulf’s downfall and his last opportunity to fulfill his
responsibilities as an upright, kingly figure in Germanic society.
9
White
Moving forward, the infamous scene featuring the “slick-skinned dragon”,
avariciously guarding the underground barrow full of treasure long forgotten, becomes
the final depiction of wrongfully hoarded treasure in Beowulf’s own kingdom (Heaney,
155). Unlike the previous scene, the dragon’s hoard is discovered by a lowly thief; who
upon taking a “gold-plated cup”, quickly flees the “hoard-guardian’s” barrow (Heaney,
155). This crime has horrible repercussions for both the thief and Beowulf’s entire
kingdom, in the form of a murderously angry, fire-breathing dragon that has been
unleashed upon the countryside. In his rage, he destroys Beowulf’s entire kingdom; and
when this news reaches the Geatish king, he takes it upon himself to capture the thief,
uncover the underground hoard and slay the dragon. Like the trove belonging to
Grendel’s mother, the dragon’s barrow also fits Anderson’s definition of a legal treasure
hoard, while also forfeiting all ties to its previous owner. However, instead of taking the
role of the thane who discovers the hoard, Beowulf is the king who is legally entitled to
it, based on the rule of treasure regality. Because the treasure hoard legally belongs to
Beowulf and he is required to repay the dragon’s crimes against his kingdom, he is
perfectly within his right to kill the hoard guardian and seize the underground treasure
full of “glittering gold…goblets and vessels from the past” (Heaney, 187). This scene
also emphasizes the uselessness of hoarded treasure; objects that could have once been
used for gift-giving purposes now lie rusted and corroded within the barrow, symbolic of
their sedentary and improper nature.
Many scholars argue that Beowulf’s final battle with the dragon and his
acquisition of the treasure is the poet’s final critique concerning the Geatish king’s
struggle with pride and greed. While his dying wish is to see the treasure he has won
10
White
from the baleful dragon, Beowulf is legally within his right with regards to both the battle
and the treasure hoard. Because the dragon attacked and destroyed his kingdom, Beowulf
fulfills his kingly duty of repaying that crime by killing the “old harrower of the dark”
(Heaney, 155). Based on Anderson’s definition of treasure regality, Beowulf is also
legally entitled to the dragon’s hoard. Because the trove “no longer has an owner”, and it
has been “…deliberately concealed” by the dragon, greed does not play a role in his drive
to possess it. Because the thief stumbled across the treasure and removed a piece of it, he
has broken the law of treasure-regality and is subject to punishment. By law, Beowulf has
a responsibility to both acquire the treasure and introduce it back into Germanic society,
which he does as his final act as king.
It is important to note that, like the treasure hoards seen and unseen throughout
the poem, Beowulf works as different agents through his legal interactions with material
wealth. In the first half of the poem, Beowulf is the agent who fulfills his boasts to
Hrothgar, who simultaneously brings back peace to the Danes by removing the threat
which disrupted the cycle of gift-giving, as well as re-introducing treasure hoards into
society to facilitate the ritualistic dispersion of wealth between a lord and his thanes. In
the second half of the poem, he repays the dragon for crimes against his kinsmen, while
also legally taking back the treasure that belongs to him now that he is king of the Geats.
By taking on the role of both the loyal thane and responsible lord, he effectively brings
back peace and ritualistic gift-giving to society, as he did for Hrothgar many years ago.
Beowulf is not guilty of pride or greed by killing the dragon and repossessing the treasure
hoard, he is acknowledging his legal rights and responsibilities that maintain the
civilized, peaceful state of a Germanic society.
11
White
Works Cited
Anderson, Earl R. “Treasure Trove in Beowulf: A Legal View of the the Dragon’s
Hoard.” Mediaevalia 1978: 141-164. Print.
Heaney Seamus. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2000. Print.
Marshall, Joseph Edward. “Radix Malorum: The Presence and Function of Money in
Medieval Literature.” Ph.D. Diss., Catholic Univ. of America, 2006. DA/67A
(2006): 55-103
Silber, Patricia. “Gold and Its Significance in Beowulf.” Annuale Mediaevale 18. (1977):
5-19. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Symons, Victoria. “Wreothenhilt 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. 28 Apr. 2016.
12