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."