The text shows clearly that the author of Beowulf did not intend "gylden hilt" as a proper noun. He never uses the word "hilt" in connection with the weapon in question to designate the sword as a whole. "Hilt," both as a simple word and in compounds, is used only to designate the handle of the sword. The following terms are used for the sword as a whole: "bil,"[83] "sweord,"[84] "wǣpen,"[85] "mǣl,"[86] "īrena cyst."[87] The word "hilt" is used seven times. Sarrazin says, "Es ist bemerkenswert, dass bei jenem Schwert, auch als es noch vollständig und unversehrt war, regelmässig die hilze, der griff (hilt), hervorgehoben wurde (ll. 1563, 1574, 1614, 1668, 1677, 1687, 1698)."[88] But the statements, "Hē gefēīng þā fetel-hilt,"[89] "Wǣpen hafenade heard be hiltum,"[90] contain the only two instances in which the hilt is mentioned before the blade melted. It is quite natural for the author to say, "He then seized the belted hilt," "The strong man raised the sword by the hilt"; for the hilt is the part of the weapon that is intended to be held in the hand when a sword is to be used. It is hardly correct to say that the hilt is here emphasized.
"Ne nōm hē īn þǣm wīcum, Weder-Gēata lēod, māðm-ǣhta mā, þēh hē þǣr monige geseah, būton þone hafelan ond þā hilt somod, since fāge; sweord ǣr gemealt."[91]
"Hilt" does not here mean "sword," because "sweord ǣr gemealt" and nothing but the hilt was left to be taken away. The same applies to "hilt" in the statement, "Ic þæt hilt þanan fēondum ætferede."[92]
"Þā wæs gylden hilt gamelum rince, hārum hild-fruman, on hand gyfen, enta ǣr-geweorc."[93]
In this passage, "hilt" cannot refer to the whole sword, because the blade had melted; only the hilt remained. To say that the hilt was given to the king, was proper, for (making allowance, of course, for the fictional nature of the whole story) it was literally true; but to say that "Gyldenhilt" (the sword) was given to the king, would not be proper, because the principal part of the sword had disappeared. The word "gylden" is used in this passage apparently for two reasons: 1. that the hilt is of gold renders it more appropriate as a gift, to the king; 2. "gylden" alliterates with "gamelum."
The hilt was remarkable for other qualities than that it was of gold.
"Hroðgār maðelode, hylt scēawode, ealde lāfe, on ðǣm wæs ōr writen fyrn-gewinnes, syðþan flōd ofslōh, gifen gēotende, gīganta cyn; frēcne gefērdon; þæt wæs fremde þēod ēcean Dryhtne; him þæs ende-lēan þurh wæteres wylm Waldend sealde. Swā wæs on ðǣm scennum scīran goldes þurh rūn-stafas rihte gemearcod, geseted ond gesæd, hwām þæt sweord geworht, īrena cyst, ǣrest wǣre, wreoþen-hilt ond wyrm-fāh."[94]
"Hylt"[95] cannot mean the whole sword, since Hrothgar could look at only what was left of the sword. That was the "gylden hilt," which he held in his hand; and the expression "hylt scēawode" leaves no doubt that "gylden hilt" is not a designation of the whole sword. "Wreoþen-hilt"[96] also obviously refers only to the hilt.
In no instance, therefore, in this connection, does the author of Beowulf use "hilt" to designate the whole sword; consequently, to write "gylden hilt" as one word and capitalize it is both arbitrary and illogical. There is, in fact, nothing in the poem to indicate that the sword had a name.
Furthermore, the author refers to other swords that were distinguished by being ornamented with gold. When Beowulf left the land of the Danes, it is said,