While assuming a mournful tone that suggests the survivor resents his treasure as the result of a self-destructive materialism, the speech also acknowledges with nostalgia the high value accorded to the accumulation and spread of wealth in Germanic warrior culture. Such moral ambivalence results from the poet’s attempt to superimpose his own Christian beliefs on the pagan tradition of Germanic society. Despite claims to a “high-born” (2235) lineage, the unnamed survivor could not prevent his tribe’s extinction. Having amassed great “riches” (2235), this race nonetheless could not preserve its legacy. In a culture that equates fame with power, for an entire tribe to be “forgotten” (2234) is a shameful failing. That the poet has chosen to leave both the tribe and its sole survivor nameless stresses the notion of anonymity as a mark of weakness. Thus, while material wealth may bring prosperity to a people, its benefits are fleeting, as treasure alone cannot ensure a race’s survival. Such a conviction reflects the poet’s Christian background in which the accumulation of wealth is shunned, associated with the fatal sin of greed. In a clear departure from a culture that glorifies feuding and bloodshed, the survivor claims his tribe has been “ruined in war” (2250). Blaming the decimation of his people on war, the survivor has denounced one of the very pillars of his culture. Having “emptied” (2266) the world of “entire” (2266) races, the bloody pursuit of treasure has transformed a thriving culture into a barren wasteland. In choosing “pillage” (2265) and “slaughter” (2265), words with barbaric connotations, over more triumphal words such as “plunder” or “raid,” the poet effectively condemns violence as a fruitless, self-destructive endeavor. While lamenting his misfortunes, the survivor pays tribute to the “heroes” (2248) and “honorable men” (2249) who made good use of the treasure in their lifetime, effectually extolling its cultural significance. Hailing from a...