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