studies in philology - davisdigitalclassroom - home · pdf filejoseph e. marshall 3 for...

© 2010 The University of North Carolina Press

STUDIES IN PHILOLOGy

Volume 107 Winter 2010 Number 1

1

Goldgyfan or Goldwlance: A Christian Apology for

Beowulf and Treasure

by Joseph E. Marshall

The debate as to what extent Beowulf is a Christian poem often centers on the poet’s struggle to understand and reconcile its obvious pagan elements with its religious values.� One such

area of concern is the hoard of references to treasure. While commen-tators have recognized the important presence of gift-exchange in Beo-wulf, they invariably disagree about what treasure represents and how it functions within the poem, especially in the final one third of the poem (lines 2200 to 3182) where Beowulf eagerly exchanges his life for the dragon’s buried treasure. A host of critics, including Kemp Malone, E. G. Stanley, Margaret Goldsmith, Eugene j. Crook, and Alan Bliss, question Beowulf’s motives for seeking the gold and conclude that he is guilty of avarice. Other critics, such as Willem Helder, Patricia Silber, Robert Creed, Henry Woolf, and Wade Tarzia, grapple with the dubi-ous nature of the dragon’s hoard and offer a variety of explanations for its curse, plundering, and reburial. This article offers, in response to

� This great debate spans more than one hundred sixty years, with most nineteenth-century scholars arguing that the poem is fundamentally pagan and most twentieth-century scholars arguing that it is unmistakably Christian. More recent investigations tend to argue that Beowulf “mixes” and “blends” the two traditions. For a critical sur-vey and chronology of this issue, see Edward Irving, “Christian and Pagan Elements,” in A Beowulf Handbook, ed. Robert E. Bjork and john D. Niles (Lincoln: University of Ne-braska Press, 1997), 175–92.

2 A Christian Apology for Beowulf and Treasure

critics’ accusations of avarice and their uncertainty about buried trea-sure, a renewed investigation of the Beowulf-poet’s distinction between distributed treasure and unused treasure, for the former seems to be a metonymy for lordship and the Christian ideal, while the latter seems to be a perversion of them both. Beginning in the early 1960s, commentators began to question Beo-wulf’s motives and behavior in the final section of the poem. One of the earliest critics to raise doubts was Malone, who despite proclaim-ing Beowulf “an ideal hero,” acknowledges that Beowulf seems particu-larly fond of the dragon’s hoard; for Malone, it symbolizes “the vanity of worldly goods.”� Two years later Stanley proposed that Beowulf is guilty of “avarice” because he not only takes solace in the fact that he has acquired the hoard but also desires to see the hoard before he dies.� The next, most prolific condemnations of Beowulf came from Gold-smith, who first raised concerns about Beowulf’s avarice in her article “The Christian Theme of Beowulf.” In her first examination into the allegorical meaning of the poem, she asserts that “young Beowulf was humble and not covetous,” for he “did not desire Grendel’s gold,” nor did he retain any “royal rewards he gained at Heorot.”� The older Beowulf, she claims, becomes covetous. After quoting biblical passages, such as Matthew 6:19–21 and 1 Timothy 6:10,� as well as examining Beowulf’s behavior, Goldsmith concludes that “Beowulf, like Hygelac before him, was tainted with the sins of the dragon, arrogance and love of treasure” and ultimately sacrifices his soul and the lives of the Geats “for the sake of the gold.”� A few years later, Goldsmith once again concluded that Beowulf, “the deluded old man,” has bartered “his life for the gold, [as] he has committed the dire folly of buying what is worthless at the great-est price.” Goldsmith continues, “Beowulf, blinded by arrogance and desire for the treasure, exchanges the remainder of his length of days

� Malone, “Symbolism in Beowulf: Some Suggestions,” English Studies Today 3 (1961): 81–91.

� Stanley, “Hæthenra Hyht in Beowulf,” in Studies in Honor of Arthur G. Brodeur, ed. S. B. Greenfield (Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1963), 136–51.

� Goldsmith, “The Christian Theme of Beowulf,” Medium Aevum 29 (1960): 93.� Matthew 6:19–21: “Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and

moth consume, and where thieves break through, and steal. But lay up to yourselves trea-sures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal. For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.” And 1 Timothy 6:10: “For the love of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.” All biblical quotations are from the Douai-Rheims translation of the Latin Vulgate.

� Goldsmith, “Christian Theme of Beowulf,” 95–101.

Joseph E. Marshall 3

for short-lived possession of the dragon’s gold.”� The most comprehen-sive of Goldsmith’s attacks, however, appears in her book The Mode and Meaning of “Beowulf,” in which she sets out to prove that Beowulf is “lured as he nears death by the illusory solace of personal glory and great wealth.”� Goldsmith’s conclusion, namely that Beowulf yields to the temptations of avarice, has convinced and invigorated even more scholars. Following Goldsmith’s example, Crook continued the assault on Beo-wulf’s character by reproving the king for his “cursed course of action” in fighting the dragon.� To support his claim, Crook reintroduces the fact that Beowulf once refused treasure in Grendel’s mere and now eagerly seeks it in the dragon’s barrow. This change in behavior leads Crook to conclude that Wiglaf, not Beowulf, shows “the promise of Christian nobility in the rejection of the things of this world which are the roots of greed and corruption.” Besides the poem, Crook also cites passages from St. Gregory and St. Boniface, both of whom censure earthly wealth. Crook also argues that, in addition to gold, the pagan concept of gift-exchange causes nothing but war and death, for Beowulf captures “the futility of trying to bind men to their honor with gold-giving.”�0 One problem in either praising or blaming Beowulf for his actions in part 2 is the mysterious “curse” (galdre) on the treasure. Although the Beowulf-poet mentions the curse a couple of times (lines 3051–54 and 3069–75), the most troubling place for critics is undoubtedly the last reference. In this locus desperatus the poet writes about renowned lords (þeodnas mære) solemnly proclaiming that until the day of judgment (domes dæg) that man who plunders this place would be guilty of crimes (synnum scildig), imprisoned in pagan shrines (hergum geheaðerod), and punished with misfortunes (wommum gewitnad).�� Several scholars have attempted to make sense of this difficult and strange passage. Bliss con-cludes that “the impurity of Beowulf’s motives” leads to his death and the destruction of the Geats.�� Bliss argues that because Beowulf ne-

� Margaret Goldsmith, “The Christian Perspective in Beowulf,” Comparative Literature 14 (1962): 87.

� Margaret Goldsmith, The Mode and Meaning of “Beowulf” (London: The Athlone Press, 1970), 14.

� Crook, “Pagan Gold in Beowulf,” American Benedictine Review 25 (1974): 218–34.�0 Ibid., 233 and 230.�� Textual citations are from The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records, ed. George Philip Krapp

and Elliot van Kirk Dobbie (New york: Columbia University Press, 1953); future refer-ences will be cited in the text by line number. All translations are my own.

�� Bliss, “Beowulf, Lines 3074–3075,” in J. R. R. Tolkien, Scholar and Storyteller: Essays In


glects Hrothgar’s warnings and forgets that God alone dispenses gifts, “the curse is a direct consequence of Beowulf’s avarice.” Bliss is the harshest critic who maintains that Beowulf is not just avaricious but vainglorious as well, for according to Bliss, “he [Beowulf] discovered that the wages of arrogance is death, and the wages of avarice is damna-tion.”�� Although Bliss’s conclusions will be refuted below, Bliss intro-duces a key concept vital to the understanding of Beowulf’s character, the depiction in Beowulf of God as the ultimate gift-giver. Clearly, these critics have valid reasons to cast aspersions on Beo-wulf and to identify his behavior as un-Christian: he does leave some treasure behind in the mere (lines 1612–13), he does desire to win the treasure from the dragon (lines 2535–37), he does want to see the trea-sure before he dies (lines 2747–52), and he does leave his people leader-less (lines 2729–32). The poet is explicit on all of these points; however, other evidence makes it clear that Beowulf demonstrates not avarice but a thoroughly Christian attitude toward wealth. Although most critics who censure Beowulf acknowledge that he is an ideal pagan because of his manly courage, they invariably find him lacking in Christian virtue because he vows to win the treasure at all costs:

Ic mid elne sceallgold gegangan, oððe guð nimeðfeorhbealu frecne, frean eowerne!

(2535b–37)

[I shall win the gold with my courage or battle, perilous deadly evil, will take your lord.]

The audience learns straight from the king’s own lips that Beowulf does indeed want the treasure, but is it really avarice? In addition to under-scoring Beowulf’s wisdom at the beginning of part 2, the Beowulf-poet also emphasizes Beowulf’s ideal lordship by describing his penchant for dispensing treasure.�� Wiglaf mentions this fact twice: first, at line 2606 where the young warrior decides to help his lord after he remem-bers the prosperity that Beowulf had given him (Gemunde ða ða are þe

Memoriam, ed. Mary Salu and Robert T. Farrell (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979), 63.

�� Ibid., 60 and 63.�� See 2208b–10a, where the final section of poem begins not with any condemnation

of Beowulf but rather with praise for the king’s prosperous reign and incomparable wis-dom.


he him ær forgeaf ); and second, at lines 2634–35 where the brave warrior rebukes his fellow warriors for not fighting because they promised to defend Beowulf in the hall (geheton ussum hlaforde) after he dispensed treasure to them (beagas geaf ). Although Crook and others point to this episode as evidence of the futility of gift-exchange, the fact remains that Beowulf exemplifies lordship, for he gives treasures to his worthy re-tainers. If these were the only two places where the poet mentioned this fact, then it could just be considered a minor point, but in addition to Wiglaf’s two passages, Beowulf is repeatedly labeled a giver of treasure in part 2 of the poem: goldgyfan (gold-giver) in line 2652; goldwine (gold-friend) in lines 2419 and 2584; wilgeofa (will-giver) in line 2900; and sincgyfan (treasure-giver) in line 2311. Nowhere does the Beowulf-poet employ an epithet that denotes the hero’s tendency to hoard or guard treasure. Therefore, just like Hrothgar and Hygelac in part 1, Beowulf appears to be a beneficent lord who dispenses gifts to his retainers in part 2. In order to dispense gifts to his retainers, Beowulf first needs to have treasure, and given the recent destruction of his entire kingdom by the dragon, it necessarily follows that Beowulf now has virtually nothing left to dispense. Also, treasure represents “the collective wealth” of the community,�� and without any treasure the Geats have little hope for survival. Consequently, his decision to fight the dragon for his treasure is not motivated by greed because he does not desire the treasure for himself; rather his decision to fight stems once again from love for his people:

Ic ðara frætwa frean ealles ðanc,wuldurcyninge, wordum secge,ecum dryhtne, þe ic her on starie,þæs ðe ic moste minum leodumær swyltdæge swylc gestrynan.Nu ic on maðma hord mine bebohtefrode feorhlege, fremmað genaleoda þearfe; ne mæge ic her leng wesan.

(2794–2801)

[To the Lord of all, the King of glory, the eternal Lord, I say thanks with words for these treasures, which I gaze on here, because I was allowed to acquire such (treasure) for my men before (my) death-day. Now that

�� Michael D. Cherniss, “The Progress of the Hoard in Beowulf,” Philological Quarterly 47 (1968): 477.


I have exchanged my old life-span for the hoard of treasures, (they) will perform the need of the people henceforward; I cannot be here longer.]

As he gazes upon the treasure, Beowulf thanks the Lord for enabling him to acquire the dragon’s treasures. Taken out of context, this pas-sage seems to indicate avarice, but it is important to notice that Beo-wulf is only gratified because he was able to acquire the treasures for his men (minum leodum). This selfless motive is further underscored by Beowulf’s desire for this treasure to perform the need of his people (leoda þearfe) in his stead. Beowulf’s use of the word bebohte (exchanged) captures this critical point, for he genuinely believes that his act has given his people a chance to rebuild and continue their way of life.�� By exchanging his old life-span for this treasure, Beowulf gives the Geats a chance to survive. In a poem that continually celebrates gift-exchange, Beowulf’s gesture to his people is the epitome of lordship and gener-osity because he sacrifices himself in order to save the kingdom. Beowulf’s selflessness and modesty continue with his final instruc-tions to Wiglaf. Prone upon the ground, Beowulf first instructs Wiglaf to build a bright (beorhtne) funeral pyre at the promontory of the sea that towers high (heah hlifian) for the memorials for his people (to gemyndum minum leodum) (2802–8). Again it is notable that Beowulf’s primary con-cern is “for his people” and that all he asks for himself is a relatively simple memorial barrow. For these reasons, Beowulf’s funeral stands out from other funerals in the poem, particularly Scyld’s elaborate funeral at the beginning with its magnificent display of pomp.�� Also unlike Scyld, whose funeral contained much treasure, Beowulf never mentions to Wiglaf that he wants any treasure buried with him. In fact, Beowulf is quite explicit that he would prefer the complete opposite:

Dyde him of healse hring gyldenneþioden þristhydig, þegne gesealde,geongum garwigan, goldfahne helm,beah ond brynan, het hyne brucan well:“þu eart endelaf usses cynnes.”

(2809–12)

[The stouthearted lord took the golden ring from his neck, gave the ring, mail-coat, and helmet adorned with gold to the thane, the young

�� Cf. Paul Beekman Taylor, “The Dragon’s Treasure in Beowulf,” Neuphilologische Mit-teilungen 98 (1997): 229–40.

�� Gale R. Owen-Crocker, The Four Funerals in “Beowulf” (Manchester: Manchester Uni-versity Press, 2000), 87.


spearman, (and) ordered him to use them well: “you are the last remnant of our race.”]

With hardly any life left in his body, Beowulf manages to dispense trea-sure one more time when he gives his own ring, mail-coat, and helmet to his most worthy thane. Wiglaf has just defended his lord and defeated the dragon, and in return for such service and loyalty, the king—on a seat (on sesse) no less—dispenses treasure in recognition.�� Moreover, if Beowulf were as avaricious as some critics maintain, would he not want to retain these precious objects? Would he not demand that Wiglaf bury these symbols of greatness with him in the barrow like the other great kings in the poem? Instead of hoarding these precious objects, Beowulf orders Wiglaf “to use them well” (brucan well) because he is the last remnant of his kingdom. In other words, without an heir (lines 2729–31), Beowulf bestows more than just treasure upon Wiglaf; he is giving Wiglaf a lordship. just as Hygelac once rewarded his most faithful ser-vant with a kingdom, so now does Beowulf. Although commentators have been loath to see any gift-exchange in part 2 of the poem, Beo-wulf’s final gesture is the ultimate exchange in a series of culminating gift-exchanges between lords and thanes. Despite evidence of Beowulf’s generosity and sacrifice, some critics are resolute in their belief that Beowulf is guilty of avarice because he not only desires the dragon’s treasure but also takes great pleasure in obtaining it. No matter how virtuous his intentions may be, the fact remains that Beowulf’s behavior in part 2 seems to these critics irrec-oncilable with Christian doctrine and belief. According to Goldsmith, Beowulf can be regarded “as a just man who has fought the good fight during his lifetime, but who is in the end brought to death by the flaws of human nature, the legacy of Adam’s sin.”�� For Goldsmith and others that legacy is avarice, and they view “the tragedy of Beowulf” as a con-demnation against striving for earthly wealth at the expense of spiritual wealth. To support this position, critics invariably contrast Beowulf’s behavior with two key sources: the church fathers and the Bible. For ex-ample, Crook introduces St. Boniface’s letter to Nithard (ca. 716) as evi-dence because Boniface believes, “Temporal things pass swiftly away, but the eternal that never fade will soon be upon us. All the treasures of this world, such as gold, silver, precious stones . . . melt away like shad-

�� See 2717a.�� Goldsmith, Mode and Meaning of “Beowulf,” 239.


ows, vanish like smoke.”�0 Goldsmith, on the other hand, relies on the Bible for her support, particularly Matthew 6:19–21, where jesus pro-claims, “Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through, and steal. But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.” For Crook and Goldsmith the denunciation of treasure by both the church fathers and the Bible is the key to figuring out what pagan gold means to the Beowulf-poet. Although these sources do condemn striving after earthly wealth at the expense of spiritual wealth, neither the church fathers, nor the Bible, nor the Beowulf-poet condemn earthly riches properly used. St. Ambrose (ca. 340–97), writing an exegesis of Luke 16:9, “Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity,” asserts that riches are good (bona sunt) to him who knows how to use them wisely, whereas riches are evil (recte mala) to him who does not.�� St. Ambrose defines wealth as a means to an end, which is neither right nor wrong by itself. Earthly riches are instruments, and for those who know how to employ them properly, they pose no threat. Ambrose will go on to argue that the right use of wealth is to help the needy and the poor so that God becomes the debtor in a kind of pious usury. Another influential opin-ion comes from the sermons of john Chrysostom (ca. 349–407), a man renowned for attacking the rich. In his sermon on Luke 16, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, he emphasizes that wealth is not evil, but the illegitimate use of it is: “Money is called chremata so that we may use it (chresometha), and not that it may use us.”�� Chrysostom calls atten-tion to the etymology of the Greek word for money—chremata, which means “use.” just like Ambrose, Chrysostom argues that wealth is in-herently neither good nor evil, but one must be vigilant to act as if one possesses the wealth and not the other way around. Finally, in his De Doctrina Christiana, Augustine argues that God created material goods, temporalia, so that they may be “used” on our return journey to Him. Provided that material goods, such as gold and silver, are not “enjoyed” in this world for their own sake, they will aid our spiritual journey: “If we wish to return to our native country where we can be happy,

�0 Crook, “Pagan Gold in Beowulf,” 233. Crook is citing Charles Talbot’s translation in his The Anglo-Saxon Missionaries in Germany (New york: Sheed and Ward, 1954), 65–66.

�� De Nab., 7, trans. Charles Avila, Ownership: Early Christian Teaching (London: Orbis Books, 1983), 69 and 181.

�� In Inscrip. Altaris 1, 2, trans. Avila, Ownership: Early Christian Teaching, 88 and 190.


we must use this world and not enjoy it.”�� Given the prominence of Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine, it is possible that the Beowulf-poet expresses their concept of appropriate use instead of an outright condemnation of “all” earthly riches as some scholars, such as Crook, argue. The Bible, likewise, teaches proper use of earthly riches and does not unequivocally censure all wealth, contrary to the interpretation given by some critics such as Goldsmith. For example, there is Ecclesiasti-cus 29:13: “Lose (Perde) thy money for thy brother and thy friend: and hide it not under a stone to be lost.” The Latin word perde can be trans-lated “lose, throw away, or dispense” but no matter which definition one selects, the meaning remains the same: if one dispenses earthly wealth in order to benefit those around him, one uses wealth properly, whereas, if one hoards wealth by burying it, one responds to wealth improperly. This biblical distinction between distributive treasure and unused treasure seems to parallel the various uses of treasure in Beo-wulf, for Hrothgar, Hygelac, and Beowulf all magnanimously dispense treasure to their loyal thanes in the gold-hall (goldsele), while the dragon avariciously hoards it in his earth-hall (eorðsele). Although it is not the only passage, Ecclesiasticus 29:13 clearly provides some biblical vindi-cation for the omnipresence of treasure in Beowulf.�� More importantly, the Old Testament passage prefigures a second scriptural passage deal-ing with the proper use of earthly riches. The parable of the talents in the Gospel of Matthew begins with a lord giving talents to three servants before he departs on a journey:And to one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. And in like manner he that had received the two, gained other two. But he that had received the one, going his way he digged into the earth, and hid his lord’s money.��

The same pattern found in the Old Testament re-emerges here, for two servants use their talents to benefit their lord while one servant buries and hides his talent in the earth. When the lord returns, he calls the two servants who used their talents “good and faithful servants” (bone

�� De Doc. Christ. 1, 3–4, trans. Avila, Ownership: Early Christian Teaching, 109 and 200.�� Strangely enough Margaret Goldsmith discusses this passage in her book, but she

uses it to defend Wiglaf, not Beowulf (Mode and Meaning of “Beowulf,” 236).�� Matthew 25:15–18. Also cf. Luke 19:11–27.


serve et fidelis) and invites them to share in their master’s joy (in gaudium domini tui), which is a banquet. Meanwhile the lord reproves the one servant who buried (abscondit) his talent, since he not only calls him a “wicked and slothful servant” (serve male at piger) but also casts this “useless servant” (inutilem servum) “into the darkness” (in tenebras ex-teriores). On the literal level, the parable illustrates how a good lord dis-penses gifts to his servants in the hope that they will in turn bring honor to themselves, to their king, and to their kingdom. This reciprocal sys-tem can only occur when the gifts are used properly and not hoarded in the ground. On the tropological level, the parable illustrates how the faithful use of one’s gifts from God will lead to participation in the king-dom of heaven, while lazy inactivity will lead to the exclusion from it. jesus’s parables are meant to transcend the literal meaning, but in order to reach that higher meaning, one must first identify with its literal ele-ments. In the early Middle Ages, the use of one’s gifts, both physical treasure like armor and natural endowments like strength, embodied faithful service. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Beowulf-poet, immersed in such an environment, expresses the same values concern-ing the use of earthly riches when he wrote his poem, because Beowulf clearly celebrates faithful service. Although it may never be conclusively proven that the Beowulf-poet employs either of these biblical passages as a direct source, it may be shown that he most likely had knowledge of them. First, Beowulf con-tains explicit references to the Bible, most notably the book of Genesis, as evident from lines 90 to 110 where the scop not only sings about the creation of men ( frumsceaft fira), the earth (eorðan), the sun and the moon (sunnan ond monan), but also identifies Grendel as one of Cain’s kin (caines cynne) who slew Abel (Abel slog). Commentators have long noticed that the poem seems to contain several allusions to the Bible, and whether or not one agrees with all of them, the two from Genesis are irrefutable.�� Therefore, whether through direct contact, i.e., read-ing, or indirect contact, i.e., sermons, the Beowulf-poet demonstrates certain familiarity with the Bible, and if he knows Genesis, it stands to reason that he may also know parts of Ecclesiasticus and portions of the Gospels. In addition to his knowledge of the Bible, the Beowulf-poet may

�� Cf. F. Klaeber, “Die christlichen Elemente im Beowulf,” Anglia 35 (1911): 111–36, 249–70, 453–83; and 36 (1912): 169–99. Also see William Whallon, “The Christianity of Beo-wulf,” Modern Philology 60 (1962): 81–94.


have been familiar with the parable of the talents through the Old En-glish poetic tradition. Gregory the Great wrote a homily on this par-able and interpreted the traveling lord as Christ, the five talents as the five senses, the two talents as knowledge and labor, and the one tal-ent as knowledge.�� Gregory is a key transmitter of Christianity into the Anglo-Saxon world, for many of his homilies appear not only in extant manuscripts from the early Middle Ages but in poems as well, most notably Ælfric’s sermon Natale Unius Confessoris and Cynewulf’s Christ II.�� Also, j. E. Cross has argued that this parable provides the theme for the Old English poem The Gifts of Men:

Fela bið on foldan forðgesynrageongra geofona, þa þa gæstberendwegað in gewitte, swa her weoruda god,meotud meahtum swið, monnum dæleð,syleð sundorgiefe, sendeð wideagne spede, þara æghwylc motdryhtwuniendra dæl onfon.

(1–7)

[Many are the new gifts visible on earth that soul-endowed (men) carry in knowledge, as here the God of hosts, the Lord strong in might, deals (and) gives (his) special-gifts to men, (and) sends (them) far and wide by his own power so that everyone living among the people may receive his share.]

The beginning of this poem captures God’s boundless mercy and gen-erosity, for the poet employs deliberate repetition: God deals (dæleð), God gives (syleð), and God sends (sendeð) his special-gifts (sundorgiefe). In a society that celebrates gift-exchange as an ideal, it is not surpris-ing to find Anglo-Saxon poets depicting God as a generous gift-giver dispensing valuable gifts to men from His gift-seat. Like the generous kings in Beowulf, God does not hesitate to give His gifts to men because everyone receives his share (dæl onfon). This poem celebrates, classifies, and catalogues numerous human talents both intellectual and physical, so it is extremely significant that of all the gifts the poet enumerates, the first is the gift of worldly treasure: “sum her ofer eorþan æhta onlihð / woruld-gestreona” (30–31a) (To one he grants possessions, worldly trea-

�� Gregory, Homelia XIX in Evangelia, in Patrologia Latina, ed. j.-P. Migne, vol. 76 (Paris, 1844–55).

�� j. E. Cross, “The Old English Poetic Theme of ‘The Gifts of men,’” Neophilologus 46 (1962): 66.


sures, here on earth). The proper use of God’s endowments is implied in the overall meaning of the poem, so like the parable and Beowulf, The Gifts of Men provides additional evidence testifying to the importance of gift-exchange and the need to dispense those gifts wisely in the early Middle Ages. If commentators are willing to accept that the Beowulf-poet is aware of the church fathers’ position on the proper use of wealth and that the poet has knowledge of the parable of the talents, then many of the critical problems in part 2 vanish. For instance, Beowulf’s desire for and satisfaction over acquiring the hoard are no longer signs of avarice. Throughout the first two thirds of the poem, Beowulf is an ideal thane who faithfully serves Hrothgar and Hygelac. Beowulf serves the former by ridding Heorot of Grendel’s terror and the latter by presenting him with the rewards obtained on his foreign campaigns. Significantly, all of the ideal gift-exchange revolves around Beowulf; he is the catalyst and he is the reason for its success. just like the faithful servants in the parable, Beowulf increases his own reputation and the reputation of his lord through his willingness to use his gifts properly. This same pattern carries over into part 2, for although Beowulf is king of the Geats, he is still very much a faithful servant because a good king not only cares for his people but also leads those people by example. In the most trying of circumstances with extensive destruction and loss of life, Beowulf assumes command in order to stop the dragon’s fury and to replenish the depleted supply of treasure. Wanting to restock the public treasury, however, is not avarice. According to Catholic doctrine, avarice occurs when one seeks to amass material goods beyond their reasonable limits for their own sake.�� Beowulf is clearly seeking the treasure for the good of his people and not himself. It is vital to recall that nowhere does Beo-wulf demand any treasure be buried with him. More importantly, Beo-wulf is not just a faithful servant to his people in part 2—he is a faith-ful servant to his Lord God. God has obviously given Beowulf great gifts; he has the strength of thirty men, he is skilled in seamanship, he is battle-brave, he is an orator, and he is wise. In fact, the Beowulf-poet explicitly refers to Beowulf’s great strength as a great gift from God: “gimfæste gife / ðe him god sealde” (1271) (a great gift that God gave to him). Not to use his remarkable talents would be wicked and sloth-ful. Therefore, by using these God-given talents in the service of others,

�� See Catechism of the Catholic Church (New york: Doubleday, 1994), items 2535–37.


Beowulf continually casts himself as a good and faithful servant as in the parable. His decision to obtain the dragon’s hoard for his people is the greatest counter-gift Beowulf could give his Lord. In addition to redeeming Beowulf in part 2, accepting the church fathers’ position and the parable as possible sources also helps us to understand the dragon better. Almost every time the dragon is men-tioned, the poet uses an epithet that serves to highlight his improper use of treasure. For example, the poet uses the word hordweard (hoard-guardian) for the dragon four times in lines 2293, 2303, 2554, and 2593; he uses the word goldweard (gold-guardian) in line 3081; and he uses the phrase frætwa hyrde (guardian of treasure) in line 3133. These specific epithets stand in stark contrast to the ones applied to the characters who use treasure properly, namely Hrothgar (sincgyfan or treasure-giver), Hygelac (sinces brytta or giver of treasure), and Beowulf (gold-gyfan or gold-giver). This juxtaposition intensifies when one also ex-amines the specific words the Beowulf-poet uses to refer to the dragon’s dwelling-place. For example, the poet uses the word beorg (barrow) eleven times (lines 2241, 2272, 2299, 2304, 2322, 2524, 2580, 2755, 2546, 2559, and 2842); the word hordærna (treasure-cave) twice (lines 2279 and 2831); the word eorðsele (earth-hall) twice (lines 2410 and 2515); the word eorðhuse (earth-house) in line 2232; the word eorðreced (earth-hall) in line 2719; and the word eorðscræf (earth-cave) in line 3046. This massive list has one predominate characteristic—all of the words emphasize that the dragon’s domicile is underground, utterly isolated from civilization. Unlike Heorot, which was constructed so that Hrothgar might distrib-ute treasure among his retainers in order to bind everyone together, the dragon’s barrow remains desolate and the treasure lies useless. Given just the vocabulary, this diction identifies the dragon as an anti-lord and his cave as an anti-hall. The dragon thus becomes a foil for Beowulf be-cause the dragon avariciously hoards treasure underground refusing to let it benefit humankind, while Beowulf generously dispenses treasure from a gift-seat urging his retainers to use it well. In addition to the multiple epithets, which the poet uses to portray the dragon and describe his barrow, the Beowulf-poet continues to stress the differences between the generous kings and the dragon through the latter’s various exploits. When the dragon awakes from his slumber, he is hot and angry (hat ond hreohmod) that some thief (þeofes), some guilty man (secg synbysig), has disturbed his gold (goldes), his great-treasures (heahgestreona). After searching eagerly along the ground (georne æfter


grunde) for his precious cup (sincfæt), the dragon unleashes painfully (earfoðlice) and enraged (gebolgen) wishes to requite the missing drink-ing cup with fire (lige gorgyldan). In this particular section of the narra-tive (lines 2287–2302), the Beowulf-poet goes out of his way to under-score the dragon’s anger and greed, for he literally breathes fire when he discovers that one cup, out of a hoard of treasure, has been stolen. Unlike the three kings, the dragon does not enjoy sharing his treasure even with someone who obviously needs it; the poet makes it clear that the man only trod upon the dragon-hoard because of dire distress (þre-anedlan).�0 Even if one sides with the dragon about the obvious theft,�� one cannot sanction the dragon’s requital that far exceeds the bounds of proportional response:

Ða se gæst ongan gledum spiwan,beorht hofu bærnan; bryneleoma stodeldum on andan. No ðær aht cwiceslað lyftfloga læfan wolde.

(2312–16)

[Then the creature began to spew flames, to burn the splendid dwellings; the firelight arose as a vexation to men. The hostile air-flyer by no means wished to leave anything alive there.]

The dragon ravages the entire region, desiring to extirpate every life and to raze every dwelling. For three hundred years (þreo hund wintra), the dragon has not left his cave, but as soon as one cup is lifted from his hoard, he spews flames far and wide. The Beowulf-poet uses hyperbole here with his continual emphasis on the dragon’s exaggerated behavior. Anytime the poet refers to the dragon, the poet describes the dragon as a hostile ravager (guðsceaða) whose hatred continually fuels his relent-less hostility (nið). Understanding the source of this rage and greed is vital to seeing the dragon as an anti-lord. No matter how ambiguous the text is in Beowulf part 2, one must acknowledge that the theft of the polished cup is the catalyst for the dragon’s hostility because the poet repeatedly mentions this fact at lines 2216, 2231, 2282, 2300, and 2404. The last reference is most explicit: the baleful affliction (bealonið) arose when the precious cup (maðþumfæt) came into Beowulf’s hands. And if the dragon is willing to decimate

�0 See lines 2221 through 2226a.�� Cherniss believes that “the treasure represents the dragon’s honor” and that “the

dragon is therefore justified in seeking to humiliate those people whom he believes to be responsible” (“The Progress of the Hoard,” 481–82).


an entire region in order to obtain this single cup, it must hold spe-cial significance. According to Hugh Magennis, “The drinking-vessel, a physical component of feasting, signifies the communal life of human-kind.”�� Of all the gift-exchange that takes place in Beowulf, the passing of the cup is perhaps the most important not because one literally takes a sip and passes it to another, but figuratively because each man takes a turn at holding the very symbol of the community. As scholars point out, feasts pervade Beowulf and always seek to promote community and order.�� By destroying an entire community in order to hoard the very essence of that community, the dragon plainly demonstrates his antipathy for all things communal. This act points to the overall struc-ture and unity of Beowulf, because just as the music—another source of communal bonding—angers Grendel in part 1, the missing cup angers the dragon in part 2. This striking similarity in motive reveals that both monsters detest the joy and order of society from which they have been permanently excluded. In addition to his inexorable pursuit of the missing cup, the dragon ultimately demonstrates his antagonism for society by destroying Beo-wulf’s hall:

Þa wæs Biowulfe broga gecyðedsnude to soðe, þæt his sylfes ham,bolda selest, brynewylmum mealt,gifstol Geata.

(2324–27a)

[Then the terror was quickly, truly made known to Beowulf that his own home, the best of halls, the gift-seat of the Geats, burnt up by the surges of fire.]

When the dragon burns the hall to ashes, he not only destroys the home of the Geats but also destroys the very symbol of a productive, civilized society.�� The primary function of a hall is to protect the gifstol (gift-seat), the throne from which the king dispenses treasure to his loyal retainers. By annihilating it, the dragon further separates himself from the heroic ideals of lordship. Also, if the dragon personifies malice prompted by greed, this episode becomes a potent metaphor for how quickly and

�� Magennis, Images of Community in Old English Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1996), 73.

�� Ibid., 60–61.�� See Kathryn Hume, “The Concept of the Hall in Old English Poetry,” Anglo-Saxon

England 3 (1974): 63–74.


easily generosity and community can disintegrate when threatened by avarice. Furthermore, the connection between the dragon in part 2 and Grendel in part 1 grows even stronger because both monsters exhibit identical behavior. Although the vast majority of part 1 exemplifies ideal gift-exchanges, there is one glaring example of the improper use of treasure—the race of Cain.�� As soon as the Beowulf-poet finishes describing the construc-tion of Heorot, which is constructed for the sole purpose of benefiting humankind, the poet immediately introduces Grendel:

Ða se ellengæst earfoðliceþrage geþolode, se þe in þystrum badþæt he dogora gehwam dream gehyrdehludne in healle.

(86–89a)

[Then that powerful creature, who waited in the darkness, suffered a time of distress painfully because he heard loud joy in the hall everyday.]

The poet’s first depiction of Grendel reveals that he not only waits in the darkness but also suffers from the loud joy emanating from Heorot. These two characteristics are so important that the poet reiterates them in his second depiction of Grendel a few lines later; e.g., Grendel wishes to do violence to the retainers who lived happily with joys (dreamum lifdon eadiglice), and he is a prowler of the outskirts (mearcstapa), an un-happy man (wonsæla wer) who occupies the moors, the fen, and fastness (moras heold fen ond fæsten).�� just like the useless servant in the parable of the talents, Grendel lives in darkness and is excluded from the joys of society. Moreover, the Beowulf-poet also uses the adjectives fierce and greedy (grim ond grædig) to describe his slaughter of thirty thanes, his booty (huðe).�� It is important to remember that every time the poet refers to Hrothgar, Hygelac, and Beowulf, he uses a phrase that high-lights their generosity as givers of treasure or dispensers of rings, but whenever the poet mentions Grendel, it is always his ferocity or greed

�� The Beowulf-poet explicitly mentions that Grendel is one of Cain’s descendants in lines 106a–7a: “scyppend forscrifen hæfde / in Caines cynne” (the creator had condemned him as one of Cain’s kin). The Beowulf-poet’s reference to Cain is important because Gren-del exhibits the same angry, jealous, and greedy behavior as Cain. In Genesis 4:5–8 Cain becomes jealous that God favors Abel’s offering over his. Although there is no specific mention of avarice in the biblical account, some medieval writers would cite it as Cain’s initial sin.

�� Lines 99–105.�� Line 120.


that is emphasized.�� As a result, these stark contrasts—generosity versus greed, civility versus violence, and joy versus anger—establish Grendel as a kind of useless servant just like the dragon. The Beowulf-poet’s depiction of Grendel as a useless servant is perva-sive in part 1. For example, when the poet summarizes Grendel’s terror, he mentions how the dark death-shadow (deorc deaþscua) occupies the hall at night:

Heorot eardode,sincfage sel sweartum nihtum;no he þone gifstol gretan moste,maþðum for metode, ne his myne wisse.

(1666–69)

[He occupied Heorot, the treasure-decked hall, in the dark nights, (and) by no means had to pay respect to the throne, that treasure, because of God, he did not know his love.]

As mentioned previously, Heorot is the epitome of civilization with its architectural splendor, its lavish feasts, and its continual dispensing of gifts. In this account, however, Heorot is dark, empty, and stagnant. The most important place in any hall is the gifstol where a king recognizes and rewards his faithful servants by dispensing treasure. It is signifi-cant that Grendel cannot approach this seat, for it suggests that he is not a true thane.�� As a result, he cannot participate in a productive, civi-lized community. Magennis agrees that “Grendel himself is the antithe-sis of everything which the hall represents.”�0 Furthermore, the reader learns the reason for Grendel’s violent behavior, namely that he did not know God’s love. Like the wicked and slothful servant in the parable, he is prohibited from partaking of his master’s joy and he is prohibited from approaching the gift-seat. Nowhere is this point clearer than in the poet’s description of Grendel’s mere. After Beowulf defeats Grendel in battle, the poet mentions how Gren-del retreats to his wynleas wic (joyless dwelling-place) and his niðsele (hostile-hall). These two phrases alone capture the poet’s intention to depict the mere as a kind of anti-hall, for Heorot is bright, visible, and joyful while the mere is dark, hidden, and joyless:

�� Although Grendel’s greed is literally an appetite for human flesh, the poet neverthe-less chooses the word grædig to describe it.

�� R. Mark Scowcroft, who calls Grendel an “anti-thane” and his mere an “anti-hall,” explores this line of reasoning in his “The Irish Analogues to Beowulf,” Speculum 74 (1999): 22–64.

�0 Magennis, Images of Community in Old English Poetry, 62.


Hie dygel londwarigeað, wulfhleoþu, windige næssas,frecne fengelad, ðær fyrgenstreamunder næssa genipu niþer gewiteð,flod under foldan.

(1357–61a)

[They occupy a secluded land, a wolf-inhabited slope, a perilous fen-tract (with) windy cliffs where a water-stream, a flood goes down under the mists of the cliffs under the ground.]

Hrothgar’s description of the haunted mere reveals that it is secluded, inhabited by wolves, perilous, and defended by water, wind, and earth. Compared to the grand layout of Heorot, the mere is very rustic and crude with hardly any signs of civilized life. Aside from the architec-tural disparities, the most important detail is that the mere is under-ground (under foldan), and because it is underground, anything inside of the mere is essentially buried. Now when Beowulf defeats Grendel’s mother, he notices that there is a great amount of treasure inside the mere: “Ne nom he in þæm wicum, Wedergeata leod, / maðmæhta ma, þeh he þær monige geseah” (1612–13) (The man of the Weather-Geats did not take more treasure in those places, although he saw many there). Although critics invariably discuss this passage in conjunction with Beowulf’s alleged avarice, one wonders why the emphasis never shifts to Grendel. The poet uses the word maðmæhta (treasure) to de-scribe what Beowulf sees inside the haunted mere. As a result, it ap-pears as if Grendel is guilty of hoarding treasure just like the dragon in part 2. Instead of using these lines to criticize Beowulf later in the poem, critics should use them to censure Grendel’s behavior in part 1. There is one other critical problem that the church fathers’ position on the proper use of wealth and the parable may help clarify. In addi-tion to voicing concerns over Beowulf’s alleged avarice and the dragon’s role in the poem, commentators struggle with the dubious nature of the dragon’s hoard because no one seems to benefit from the buried treasure in part 2. What does it signify? One of the earliest attempts to answer this question comes from Woolf, who conjectures that the Beo-wulf-poet supports cultural primitivism because “life without treasures and efforts involved in getting them from the earth would be immeasur-ably simpler and happier.”�� Silber then argues that the poet’s attitude toward gold is decidedly negative, for he seems to be saying, “Bury

�� Woolf, “A Note on the Hoard in Beowulf,” Modern Language Notes 58 (1943): 113–15.


it [gold] . . . either by leaving it unrefined in the ground or by setting some metaphorical dragon to keep men away from it.”�� More recently, Creed argues that hoarding treasure is economically beneficial because removing certain goods from circulation increases the value of those goods still in circulation. Creed concludes that Beowulf is “a tradition-ally preserved account of the appropriate behavior” to follow when one discovers a hoard. According to Creed, “The discoverer should either leave the hoard intact or rebury it.”�� Echoing these same sentiments, Tarzia argues that “the primary message behind the poetry” is that “the deposition of the hoard must be maintained to prevent the recovery and recirculation of the troublesome goods.”�� Overwhelmingly, most commentators who try to understand the meaning behind the tainted hoard believe that the Beowulf-poet praises buried treasure. If one ac-cepts this conclusion, however, one inevitably must censure Beowulf’s actions because he disturbs the buried treasure with the sole purpose of re-circulating it among his retainers. Needless to say, these critics are not considering the individual component in the context of the whole, and their interpretations are not consistent with the overall pattern of the poem. The Beowulf-poet is explicit that no one benefits from the buried trea-sure. The source of this misery is one lonely survivor of a doomed race who decides to hide (gehydde) this ancient treasure (ærgestreona) be-cause he would only be able to enjoy (brucan) it a little while (lytel fæc).�� The poet labels this survivor “a guardian” twice: first at line 2239a with the word weard, and then in line 2245a with the word hyrde. By calling him a guardian, the poet creates a link between this unfortunate soul and other unfortunate guardians, namely Grendel and the dragon. The Beowulf-poet then goes on to describe this guardian’s actions in detail:

Beorh eallgearowunode on wonge wæteryðum neah,niwe be næsse, nearocræftum fæst.Þær on innan bær eorlgestreonahringa hyrde hordwyrðne dæl,

�� Silber, “Gold and Its Significance in Beowulf,” Annuale Medievale 18 (1977): 19.�� Creed, “Beowulf and the Language of Hoarding,” in Medieval Archaeology: Papers

of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Charles L. Redman (Binghamton: State University of New york Press, 1989), 159–64.

�� Tarzia, “The Hoarding Ritual in Germanic Epic Tradition,” Journal of Folklore Research 26 (1989): 107. It is also noteworthy that Tarzia believes that Beowulf dies because of “greed and stupidity” (110).

�� See 2231–40.


fættan goldes, fea worda cwæð:“Heald Þu nu, hruse, nu hæleðð ne moston,eorla æhte!”

(2241–47)

[A new, firm, fully-prepared barrow stood on a plain near the waves of the sea beside a cliff with stratagems for inaccessibility. The guardian of the rings (and) lordly treasure carried a hoard-worthy portion of gold-plated gold inside there, (and) said a few words: “now you, ground, hold the noblemen’s possessions, since the men cannot.”]

This guardian arranges a new, firm, fully prepared barrow with designs for inaccessibility, which clearly alerts the reader that he never intends for anyone to use this treasure. Moreover, the hoard-worthy portion that he dumps inside the barrow is fættan goldes (gold-plated gold). This apparent redundancy underscores the fact that he is not burying just helmets and swords, but actual gold into the ground (hruse), which is another clear piece of evidence linking this guardian with the useless servant from the parable. The key question though is why does this guardian bury the treasure? The poet provides the answer in the next twenty lines where he continually emphasizes the utter uselessness of this treasure, for the guardian not only moans that no one can carry (wege) a sword or carry (bere) a cup, but also that the polishers of the treasure sleep (swefað) and the shields likewise decay (brosnað). It is important to note that treasure in Anglo-Saxon literature is a material symbol of the immaterial quality of virtue.�� Consequently, through its proper use and exchange, treasure comes to represent the inner and outer mettle of a kingdom. How a kingdom uses treasure is a good indi-cation of how well that kingdom conducts itself. Obviously the doomed race can no longer use its treasure properly, so just like the wicked and slothful servant of the parable, it is cast out. The buried treasure does not benefit its next possessor either. After the Beowulf-poet relates the story of how the treasure actually ended up in the barrow, he describes how the dragon found the delightful hoard on one of his nocturnal peregrinations. As soon as the poet explains that the dragon found the hoard, however, he mentions that it never benefits the dragon:

He gesecean sceall[ho]r[d on h]rusan, pær he hæðen goldwarað wintrum frod, ne byð him wihte ðy sel.

(2275b–77)

�� See Cherniss, “The Progress of the Hoard,” 475–76.


[He is accustomed to visit the hoard in the ground; the old (dragon) guards the heathen gold there in the winters; (he) is not better at all for it (gold) than before.]

The poet stresses the utter futility of the treasure by stating that the hoard is “in the ground,” that it is “guarded,” and that the dragon “is not better at all.” This reasoning parallels the plot of the parable of the talents, for the useless servant (the dragon) guards his buried talent (the hoard) and is cast into the darkness (the barrow) without any joy. If there is still any lingering doubt that there is a direct correlation between buried treasure and dragon’s misery, consider the following passage:

Þa wæs gesyne þæt se sið ne ðahþam ðe unrihte inne gehyddewræte under wealle.

(3058–60a)

[So (it) was manifest that the undertaking was not profitable for the one who wrongfully hid the treasures inside under the wall.]

These lines appear more than seven hundred lines after the poet first describes that the dragon never benefits from his hoard, but they still convey the same point: by wrongfully sitting on the treasure for three hundred years, the dragon never profits. In fact, when the Geats get their first glimpse of the dragon’s hoard, the poet not only uses adjec-tives such as rusty (omige) and eaten through (þurhetone) to describe it, but he also explains that the treasure is wound with a spell (galdre bewunden).�� This repeated stress on the utter futility of the buried trea-sure culminates with the poet’s depiction of the Geats. After Beowulf dies, his surviving kinsmen load his body into a wagon along with a countless number of everything (æghwæs unrim) from the dragon’s hoard.�� The Geats then proceed to build a funeral pyre, which is adorned with treasure:

Him ða gegiredan Geata leodead on earðan unwacline,helmum behongen, hildebordum,beorhtum byrnum, swa he bena wæs.

(3137–40)

[Then the people of the Geats prepared a splendid funeral pyre on the earth for him, (and) hung helmets, shields, (and) bright mail-coats onto (it) as he had requested.]

�� See lines 3047–57.�� See lines 3134–36.


It is noteworthy that the Geats decide to prepare a splendid (unwacline) funeral pyre since Beowulf never requests one. Also the Geats decide to adorn the pyre with martial trappings such as helmets, shields, and mail-coats. Although this action is in keeping with tradition, for Scyld was buried with such armor at the beginning of the poem, it is again not what Beowulf requested. Beowulf desired these objects to be used by his successors. The poet then says “as he had requested” (swa he bena wæs), but who exactly is the “he”? Beowulf’s final orders to Wiglaf were ex-plicit, and there is no mention of this added ceremony. Perhaps Wiglaf, as the heir apparent, is the mysterious “he” who orders this ceremonial adornment. What is more, the Geats do not just adorn the pyre with ar-mor as they then decide to throw treasure into it. With an ominous tone, the Beowulf-poet provides this account of the scene:

Hi on beorg dydon beg ond siglu,. . . . . . . . . . . . .forleton eorla gestreon eorðan healdan,gold on greote, þær hit nu gen lifaðeldum swa unnyt swa h[it ær]or wæs.

(3163–68)

[They put the necklace and jewels in the grave-mound, . . . (they) let the earth hold the treasure of noblemen, gold in the earth, where it still lives now as useless to men as it was previously.]

In the last twenty lines of the poem, the poet solidifies the connection between buried treasure and lack of prosperity. It is significant that the poet emphasizes that the gold is in the ground three separate times: on beorg, eorðan, and on greote. Immediately following this syntactical varia-tion, he explicitly states that the buried treasure is useless (unnyt). Ac-cording to Owen-Crocker, the entire poetic arrangement of these lines suggests extreme importance because “the monosyllabic nu is startling, a rare u sound in a section where the predominant vowels are e and e-diphthongs.” She goes on to argue that the poetry “combines with the unexpected present tense, unusual stress on the adverb of time, ‘still’ (gen) and the animism of the verb lifað to add a philosophical dimension to the narrative.”�� The treasure being interred with Beowulf is not ar-mor; it is precious jewelry and gold. Nowhere else in the poem is actual treasure thrown into the pyre, for even at Scyld’s funeral the poet is ex-plicit that it is only armor.�0 Why such a sudden change?

�� Owen-Crocker, The Four Funerals in “Beowulf,” 99.�0 See lines 36–39 where the poet uses the words hildewæpnum (war-weapons) and


The Geats’ inclination to bury the treasure is entirely their own be-cause again Beowulf never tells anyone to bury the treasure with his body; he only tells his people to construct a funeral pyre.�� Thus the poet suggests that the reason the Geats suffer affliction and eventually perish is that they are also examples of useless servants. When Wiglaf speaks to his retainers, he urges them to remember their promise to their ring-giver that they would pay (gyldan) him for the battle-gear with their lives if a need should befall their lord.�� Instead of ventur-ing their gifts in combat in order to increase their reputation and their lord’s, the cowards flee. Also, in his rebuke to the men after Beowulf’s death, Wiglaf again mentions how the pusillanimous thanes failed their lord by not using their gifts.�� It appears that just like the useless ser-vants in the parable of the talents, the Geats fail to use their gifts prop-erly. Moreover, the Geats decide to bury treasure in the ground, and the Beowulf-poet clearly wants this act to stand out at the end of the poem. Consequently, through their failure to use gifts properly and distribute treasure generously, the Geats, like the “wicked and slothful” servant, are cast into the darkness of oblivion. In Beowulf part 2, the dragon, the lone survivor, the Geats, and especially Wiglaf stand out from the hero Beowulf because they bury treasure, rendering it useless, while he gen-erously distributes it. The preceding investigation has attempted not only to defend Beo-wulf from critics’ accusations of avarice but also to alleviate critical uncertainty about treasure. There is sufficient reasonable doubt about Beowulf’s alleged greed in part 2, for in addition to the numerous epi-thets describing Beowulf as a gold-giver (goldgyfan), the account ex-plains that he desires the dragon’s treasure not for himself but for his men (minum leodum). He asks not for an elaborate funeral pyre but for a relatively simple barrow and instructs Wiglaf not to bury the treasure with him but rather to use it well. Some critics claim, despite this strong evidence, that Beowulf’s pursuit of treasure is inconsistent with Chris-tian doctrine. The sources that they use to identify Christian doctrine, however, do not support the negative view of treasure that would con-demn Beowulf. The same sources that critics use to denounce Beowulf,

heaðowædum (battle-garments). Also, as Owen-Crocker notes, “though the poem gives an impression of magnificent treasures, there are no details of them to detract from the cen-tral focus on the presence of weapons and armour” (The Four Funerals in “Beowulf,” 31).

�� See Beowulf’s last words, lines 2793–2816.�� See lines 2631–37.�� See lines 2862–72.


namely patristic writings and the Bible, show that treasure, in Chris-tian doctrine and in Beowulf, is not inherently evil or good by itself but merely an instrument that can be used to benefit others or enjoyed self-ishly for its own sake. The Beowulf-poet presents these two antithetical approaches to treasure throughout his entire poem, parts 1 and 2. The three ideal lords (Hrothgar, Hygelac, and Beowulf) magnanimously distribute treasure to their thanes in exchange for loyalty and service, whereas the four anti-lords (Grendel, the dragon, the last survivor, and the Geats) avariciously hoard treasure. Although other pagan elements in Beowulf remain to be reconciled, the hoard of treasure references should no longer be buried in critical ambiguity. The hoard of treasure references demonstrates consistent values throughout the entire poem and clarifies the characterizations of the dragon and Grendel as foils for Beowulf. Without this clear understanding of treasure references, critics are bound to find many aspects of Beowulf disparate and puzzling.��

Stevenson University

�� The author would like to thank R. Mark Scowcroft for reading an earlier version of this paper and Nanette C. Tamer for reading a recent version of it. Their insightful com-ments and suggestions have been invaluable.

Copyright of Studies in Philology is the property of University of North Carolina Press and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

studies in philology - davisdigitalclassroom - home · pdf filejoseph e. marshall 3 for...

Documents