Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
|
[1] Abbreviated Titles
[2] [3] Editor's introduction [4] Introduction [5] Texts [5.1] The Fragment [5.2] The Episode [6] Glossary of names
[6.1] [6.2] The Episode [7] Textual Commentary [7.1] The Fragment
[7.2] [8] The Translations [8.1] The Fragment
[8.2] [8.3] The Episode
[8.4] [9] Reconstruction
[10]
[11]
[12] |
Preface
Nearly twenty years ago I read to the Dublin Mediæval Society a paper entitled “Hengest and the Jutes”. Later, in conversation with colleagues, I discovered that nearly all my conclusions had been anticipated many years previously in lectures by the late Professor J. R. R. Tolkien, which I had not heard; it was therefore impossible for me to publish my paper. On my next visit to Tolkien, in 1966, I explained the situation to him; a few days later he wrote to me offering, with characteristic generosity, to hand over to me all his material on the story of Finn and Hengest, to make what use of it I wished. The material was in disorder, and when Tolkien died in 1973 he had still not sorted it out; eventually, through the kindness of Mr Christopher Tolkien, it came into my hands in 1979.
When I read Tolkien's lectures it became obvious to me that I could never make use of his work in any work of my own: not only had he anticipated nearly all my ideas, but he had gone far beyond them in directions which I had never considered. On the other hand it seemed equally obvious that the lectures ought to be published, since they displayed to a high degree the unique blend of philological erudition and poetic imagination which distinguished Tolkien from other scholars. It was suggested to me that I should myself undertake the task of editing Tolkien's lectures for publication. I did not find it easy to decide whether to accept or decline the invitation: on the one hand I foresaw the great difficulty of the undertaking; on the other hand I remembered that Tolkien himself had wished me to have the handling of his work. Eventually I agreed to undertake the task, and this book is the outcome of my efforts.
It is the custom in Oxford for the Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon to lecture regularly on Beowulf, and in the twenty years (1925-45) during which Tolkien occupied the Chair few years passed in which he did not deliver the expected lectures. Between 1928 and 1937 he also lectured six times specifically on the story of Finn and Hengest. The title of the lecture-course varied – “The ‘Fight at Finnesburg’ and the ‘Finn Episode’ ” (1928), “Finn and Hengest: the problem of the Episode in ‘Beowulf’ and the Fragment” (1930), “Finn and Hengest: the Fragment and the Episode (textual study, and reconstruction)” (1931), “The Fight at Finnesburg” (1934), “Finn and Hengest” (1935, 1937) – but no doubt the material remained essentially the same, even if it was revised in detail from time to time. A seventh course of lectures, under the title “The Freswæl (Episode and Fragment)”, was announced for Michaelmas Term 1939, but on the outbreak of war the published lecture-list was cancelled, and these lectures were not delivered. During the war years Tolkien lectured regularly on Beowulf, and it appears that he devoted more attention than previously to the “Finn Episode”, to compensate for the lack of a separate lecture-course on Finn and Hengest. In 1962 Tolkien emerged from retirement during the absence in America of Professor C. L. Wrenn, his successor in the Rawlinson and Bosworth Chair, and in Hilary Term 1963 he delivered a course of lectures under the same title as the ill-fated lectures of 1939.
It will be seen, then, that there are three periods in which Tolkien is likely to have worked most intensively on the story of Finn and Hengest, about 1930, about 1940, and about 1960; and these three periods are reflected in the surviving material. The most substantial block of material no doubt formed the basis of the lectures on Finn and Hengest from 1928 onwards. This consists of four main parts: a study of the proper names in the Fragment and the Episode, arranged in the order in which they occur; notes on the text of the Fragment; notes on the text of the Episode; and a reconstruction of the story underlying the remains. The first of these four parts also exists in a much longer and fuller version: this may have been prepared for publication, since it is more carefully penned in a more formal style, and is liberally supplied with footnotes. Another set of lecture-notes on the Episode (as far as line 1143) seems to have been extracted from the lectures on Beowulf delivered during the war-years; some pages are written on the back of duplicated notices dated late in 1939 or early in 1940. The first part of these notes, as far as line 1087, was revised and expanded, so that there is an overlap in the page-numbering; since the revised notes refer to the “last time (1941)” that the lectures were given, the revision probably belongs to 1942. Finally there is a bundle of “Later Material”, not all of which is in fact very late: it includes two versions of a translation of the Episode and an additional reconstruction. An important section of this later material can be definitely identified as belonging to 1962.
The task facing the editor of this material resembles the task facing Tolkien himself when in his last years he envisaged revising The Silmarillion for publication:1 “the manuscripts themselves had proliferated, so that he was no longer certain which of them represented his latest thoughts on any particular passage. ... He had never decided which was to be the working copy, and often he had amended each of them independently and in contradictory fashion. To produce a consistent and satisfactory text he would have to make a detailed collation of every manuscript.” The editor's task is even more intimidating than the author's, since the author stands at least some chance of remembering which was his final view, and he is always free to rewrite; but the editor has neither of these advantages. In many ways the easiest thing to do would have been to write a new book based on Tolkien's ideas: but I have undertaken the more difficult task of producing a “consistent and satisfactory text” entirely in Tolkien's own words. The only parts of the book which are my own are the Editor's Introduction (pp. 1-6), the translation of the Fragment (pp. 147-9), and Appendix C (pp. 168-80).2
The general plan of this book follows that of Tolkien's early lectures. For the first section, of which the main part is the study of proper names, I have substituted the revised and expanded version which seems to have been prepared for publication. Only one version of the notes on the Fragment is extant, and I have perforce followed that. For the notes on the Episode two or in some cases three versions are available: the early and very full version used in lectures on Finn and Hengest, the later but much briefer version used in the wartime lectures on Beowulf, and in some cases a final version compiled in 1962 or later. The difficulty here is that Tolkien's latest thoughts are often much more briefly expressed than his earlier ideas, so that I have had to choose between lateness and fullness. For this part of the book I have compiled a patchwork of material; wherever Tolkien's ideas seem to have changed little or not at all over the years I have generally preferred the earliest, fullest version; but wherever he rejected his earliest conclusions I have chosen the most lucid expression of his latest ideas.3 In one or two places a crucial point in the argument is nowhere very clearly explained in the surviving material, and in these cases I have added a few words of my own enclosed in square brackets.
The very numerous annotations in the manuscripts present a special problem. These are of various kinds, and I have treated them differently according to their nature. Where they correct or modify the original I have incorporated the correction or modification into the text; where they add something new I have either incorporated them into the text or relegated them to footnotes, as seemed most appropriate in each case; where they represent memoranda proposing a further line of research which was apparently never carried out, I have had no choice but to omit them.
The lecture-notes were hastily written, and are much abbreviated, either by the use of symbols like ∴ for “therefore” or // for “parallel”, or by the omission of inessential words; the punctuation and paragraphing, too, are often careless. In a number of cases Tolkien himself corrected hasty usages and accidental errors; I have had the fewer scruples about silently correcting the rest. I have not, however, attempted to alter the colloquial style appropriate to lectures, though occasionally it reads oddly in print. If Tolkien himself had revised his work for publication, no doubt he would have made many stylistic changes; for me to do so would have meant at best pastiche, at worst misrepresentation. The reader will therefore notice a marked difference of style between the careful “Glossary of Names” and the colloquial lectures; in view of the nature of the surviving material this is unavoidable, and perhaps not undesirable.
The greater part of this book was written more than fifty years ago, the most recent parts nearly twenty years ago. Inevitably a great deal has been written about Finn and Hengest which is not taken into account. Nevertheless I have not thought it advisable to attempt any systematic survey of these more recent studies.4 If Tolkien's work had been published sooner, most of what others have written would not have been written at all, or would have been written differently; there seems to be little point in documenting interpretations which are wholly inconsistent with Tolkien's. However, I have referred to recent work in two circumstances: when it reinforces or amplifies points already made by Tolkien, and when it shows that Tolkien's view on points of detail is not seriously tenable. In similar circumstances I have occasionally added comments of my own. Apart from such comments, my footnotes are designed to supply full references for quotations where Tolkien gave either an insufficient reference or no reference at all. Where the reference given is unambiguous though incomplete, I have silently expanded it; where no reference is given I have tried to trace the quotation to its origin. All my footnotes are enclosed in square brackets, so that they cannot be confused with Tolkien's footnotes.
My thanks are due to Christopher Tolkien, who encouraged me to undertake the editing of this book and gave me indispensable information about this father's methods of work; to David Evans, who advised me on all things Scandinavian and gave me many other kinds of help; and to the late Professor J. A. W. Bennett, who generously lent me the notes he made at Tolkien's lectures in 1934-35, thus providing me with one secure point of reference in the difficult task of dating different versions of the lectures.
Alan Bliss
ASPR: G. P. Krapp and E. van K. Dobbie, The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records (New York, 1931-53).
Campbell, Æthelweard: Alistair Campbell, The Chronicle of Æthelweard (1962).
Chadwick, Origin: H. M. Chadwick, The Origin of the English Nation (Cambridge, 1907).
Chambers, Introduction: R. W. Chambers, Beowulf: an Introduction to the Study of the Poem (Cambridge, 1921).
Chambers, Widsith: R. W. Chambers, Widsith: a Study in Old English Heroic Legend (Cambridge, 1912).
Elton, Saxo: Oliver Elton, The First Nine Books of Saxo Grammaticus(1894).
Förstemann, Namenbuch: E. W. Förstemann, Altdeutsches Namenbuch, Second Edition (Bonn, 1900) Vol. I “Personennamen”.
Fry, Finnsburh: D. K. Fry, Finnsburh: Fragment and Episode (1974).
Heimskringla: Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, Heimskringla (Íslenzk Fornrit xxvi-xxviii: Reykjavik, 1941-51).
Holder, Saxo: Alfred Holder, Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum (Strasburg, 1886).
Jónsson, Eddukvæði: Guðni Jónsson, Eddukvæði (Akureyri, 1954).
Jónsson, Skjaldedigtning: Finnur Jónsson, Den Norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning (Copenhagen, 1912-15).
Klaeber, Beowulf: Fr. Klaeber, Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, Third Edition (Lexington, 1936).
Malone, Literary History: Kemp Malone, The Literary History of Hamlet: I. The Early Tradition (Anglistische Forschungen 59: Heidelberg, 1923).
Mommsen, Chronica Minora: Theodor Mommsen, Chronica Minora Saec. IV. V. VI. VII., Vol. III (Berlin, 1898).
Müller, Saxo: P. E. Müller, Saxonis Grammatici Historia Danica (Copenhagen, 1839-58).
Myres, Settlements: R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres, Roman Britain and the English Settlements (Oxford, 1936).
Plummer, Bede: Charles Plummer, Baedae Opera Historica (Oxford, 1896).
Searle, Onomasticon: W. G. Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897).
Sweet, OET: Henry Sweet, The Oldest English Texts (Oxford, 1885).
Sweet, Orosius: Henry Sweet, King Alfred's Orosius (1883).
Williams, Finn Episode: R. A. Williams, The Finn Episode in Beowulf (Cambridge, 1924).
Wyatt & Chambers, Beowulf: A. J. Wyatt, Beowulf with the Finnsburg Fragment, revised by R. W. Chambers (Cambridge, 1914).
|
B. |
Beowulf |
|
G. |
German |
|
IE |
Indo-European |
|
ME |
Middle English |
|
MHG |
Middle High German |
|
OE |
Old English |
|
OHG |
Old High German |
|
ON |
Old Norse |
|
OS |
Old Saxon |
|
WS |
West Saxon |
George Hickes was one of the numerous clergymen who in 1688 rejected the usurpation of the throne of England by William of Orange and remained loyal to James II. The consequence of their refusal to swear allegiance to William was that they were deprived of their benefices, persecuted, and threatened with imprisonment; Hickes, like the others, had to spend part of his time in hiding. Despite these immense difficulties, during the next fifteen years Hickes managed to compile the monumental collection of grammatical and literary material relating to the languages of northern Europe which was published at Oxford in 1705 as Linguarum Vett. Septen-trionalium Thesaurus. On pp. 192-3 of the first volume he printed a fragment of Old English verse, less than fifty lines long, which (he said) he had found on a single leaf in a volume of “Semi-Saxon” homilies in the Library of Lambeth Palace, the London residence of the Archbishops of Canterbury.5 This leaf has never been seen since. It was apparently already missing when the great palæographer Humphrey Wanley compiled the catalogue of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts which forms the second volume of Hickes’ Thesaurus: departing from his usual practice, Wanley gives no description or date for the fragment, merely referring the reader to the printed text.6 Standards of scholarly integrity were less strict in 1700 than they are now, and Hickes was working in difficult circumstances; it is possible that he removed the crucial leaf from the Library; to save the trouble of transcribing it, he may even have given it to his printer to be set up in type. At all events the printed version is now the only authority for the text of the Fragment: but we need not take seriously the suggestion (perhaps not very seriously intended) that “as it stands it is hard even to be certain that it is authentic survival and not brilliant pastiche”.7 A study of Hickes’ versions of Old English poems in manuscripts which are still extant shows that his standards of accuracy and those of his printer were not high; editors have consequently been more than usually ready to emend the text of the Fragment. Hickes’ Fragment gives an incomplete account of a battle in a place called Finnesburg ‘Finn's citadel’. A “young king” and his followers are besieged in a hall, which they vigorously defend; a conspicuous member of the defending force is named Hengest. There is not enough information in the text to elucidate the circumstances of the battle, and the Fragment is generally known by the somewhat non-committal name The Fight at Finnesburg.8 Short though it is, the Fragment is of major importance to Anglo-Saxon studies, for at least three reasons.
(1) The Fight at Finnesburg appears to be a fragment of the kind of short heroic poem known as a “lay”. This term is used as the equivalent of the word leoð, frequently used in Old English poetry for the song or recitation performed by a minstrel at a feast – though there is no etymological relation between the two words. It is generally believed that the literary references reflect the facts of history, and that the Germanic peoples had indeed a large stock of orally transmitted poems, each recounting a single episode from history or legend; it may be that they corresponded to the carmina antiqua ‘ancient songs' described by Tacitus in his account of the Germanic tribes in the first century A.D.9 There is linguistic and metrical evidence that such lays were used in the compilation of later, longer poems,10 but unfortunately direct evidence for their existence is extremely scanty; at best not more than two of them have survived to the present day, the Hildebrandslied in Old High German and The Fight at Finnesburg in Old English. Since both of these are fragments it is impossible to be quite certain that the complete poems did not extend to a much greater compass than that of the lay; nevertheless, in both these fragments the rapid movement of the narrative and the brisk exchange of dialogue is so different from the leisurely manner of the later “epic” that their classification as lays seems justified.
(2) Finnesburg appears to be a purely pagan poem, in the sense that it contains no reference to God, and the story is not told in terms of Christian values. Since the fragment is so short it might be thought that such negative evidence is of little significance; yet the two fragments of the Old English epic Waldere, together scarcely longer than The Fight at Finnesburg, contain two references to God couched in such terms as to make it likely that the author was not only a Christian but a monk.11 Since the transcription and preservation of manuscripts of Old English poetry was the work of the monasteries, it is not at all surprising that the vast bulk of what survives is either explicitly or implicitly Christian; even Beowulf, the greatest monument to the pagan heroic past of the Anglo-Saxons, is Christian in the sense not only that it was plainly written by a Christian poet for a Christian audience, but also that (according to the majority of recent critical studies) it re-interprets the pagan past in terms of Christian theology. The Fight at Finnesburg is in fact the only surviving pagan narrative poem in Old English.
(3) The story told in the Finnesburg Fragment is closely linked to a story very allusively related in Beowulf. Beowulf, the hero of the poem, has defeated in single combat the quasi-human monster Grendel, who for twelve years has been ravaging the hall of Hrothgar, king of the Danes. A feast is held to celebrate the victory, and as part of the festivities Hrothgar's minstrel recites a story for the entertainment of the assembled company. Presumably in real life he would have recited a lay, but what is provided in Beowulf is certainly not a lay nor even the summary of a lay; in less than ninety lines a full-length story is told in terms so allusive that it could have made immediate sense only to those already familiar with the sequence of events. The leading characters of the story are Hengest and Finn, presumably the Finn who gave his name to Finnesburg; a certain Hnæf, killed before the beginning of the story, is apparently the “young king” of the Fragment. The Fight at Finnesburg thus seems to deal with the antecedents of the Episode in Beowulf, and elucidates much that would otherwise be obscure. Even in conjunction with the Fragment the Episode is far from easy to interpret in detail, as the size of this book testifies; without the Fragment the Episode would pose an insoluble problem.
Whatever the obscurities of the story told in the Fragment and Episode, it is quite clear that it is of a type common enough in the Old Norse sagas, but virtually unknown in Old English poetry: it is a story of the conflict of loyalties in the heroic world. There are no monsters or dragons such as there are in Beowulf: the personages of the drama are ordinary fallible human beings, suddenly plunged into circumstances from which no issue can preserve both life and honour. In his classic lecture Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics12 Tolkien showed that for the purposes of the Beowulf poet the monsters were quite essential: he was planning a general comment on the destiny of man; whereas human adversaries would limit the comment in time and place, supernatural beings could symbolize the everlasting adversaries of the human race. Nevertheless it remains true that a modern audience finds it difficult to accept the supernatural in fiction, and a story of conflicting loyalties is more obviously attractive. Certainly a great deal of effort has been devoted to the disentangling of the story of Finn and Hengest. Dorothy Whitelock once complained in exasperation that “too much brooding over our inadequate scraps of evidence for the Finn tale has been one of the most unprofitable and time-consuming occupations of Beowulf scholars”;13 this book is evidence that this time-consuming occupation need not necessarily be unprofitable.
It is possible to give in a few lines an outline of the story of Finn and Hengest which is uncontroversial because all controversial details have been omitted. Hnæf, a Danish chieftain, paid a winter visit to his sister Hildeburh, wife of Finn the king of the Frisians. During the visit an attack was made on Hnæf and his men in the hall where they were lodged, and in the course of the fighting Hnæf and a son of Finn were killed. The defenders were in a strong position, and a treaty was made according to which the survivors would remain under the protection of Finn until the coming of spring made it possible for them to go home. This treaty, however, was in direct conflict with the duty of vengeance for the death of one's lord, and when spring came vengeance came too: Finn was killed, and Hildeburh was taken home to her people.
The main participants in the dispute were the Danes and the Frisians: but a third group, the “Eotens”, is referred to in lines 1072, 1088, 1141 and 1145 of Beowulf, and the part played by these has given rise to much discussion. The forms used in Beowulf are themselves of uncertain significance, but in spite of phonological difficulties most scholars accept that “Eotens” is a proper name meaning ‘Jutes'; yet there are still some who believe that the word means ‘giants', either literally, or metaphorically in the sense of ‘enemies'.14 Since the text gives no support for the idea of a tripartite dispute the “Eotens”, whether Jutes or giants, are generally identified with one or other of the contending parties: if they were merely ‘enemies', “Eotens” might be an alternative name for Danes or Frisians; if they were Jutes, they must have been either under the control of, or at least in alliance with, one or other of the contending parties. The current view is that the “Eotens” were on the same side as the Frisians,15 but there are still some who put them on the same side as the Danes.16
Tolkien's most important contribution to the interpretation of the story was what he refers to several times as the “Jutes-on-both-sides” theory. In the lecture notes he revised in the early 1940s he stated his position as follows:
My private and patent solution, derived from the text, and not solely devised in order to get round the difficulties of other views, is that Jutes were on both sides in the quarrel; on Finn's side, and on Hengest's side: it was a Jutish feud.
Later he added a pencilled footnote to this passage:
When I propounded this view it had certainly not been printed by anyone else, nor uttered publicly or privately in my hearing.
Because Tolkien never published his material, the “Jutes-on-both-sides” theory has never been argued in print; it was, however, referred to at least four times by the late Professor C. L. Wrenn, though not in terms consistent with the details of Tolkien's theory.17 I have been unable to ascertain whether these references were authorized by Tolkien: they include no acknowledgment to him, but on the other hand he seems to have made no protest about them – unless, indeed, the footnote quoted above is a reaction to the earliest of them.
Tolkien himself did not in fact argue the “Jutes-on-both-sides” theory in any systematic way: it emerges almost imperceptibly from his study of the text, and is all the more convincing for that. The most important arguments are to be found in the Textual Commentary in the discussion of lines 8-9 of the Fragment and lines 1071ff., 1084, 1087, 1095ff., 1102, 1124 and 1140ff. of the Episode in Beowulf. The implications of all these passages are brought together in the Reconstruction on pp. 159-62.
The Freswæl: Finn and Hengest
This is the name which I give to the problem of the relation of the Finn Episode in Beowulf to the fragmentary Fight at Finnesburg,18 and the story behind both. It is the name actually given to the story in Beowulf 1070: Hnæf... in Freswæle feallan sceolde; Klaeber glosses it ‘Frisian battlefield’,19 but it is rather ‘Frisian disaster or massacre’. The evidence and allusions which have to be compared and their explanation attempted are the following:
(1) Widsith, line 27: Fin Folcwalding Fresna cynne.
(2) The Episode in Beowulf from c. line 1066 to line 1159.
(3) The fragment of a poem (probably a “lay” rather than an “epic” of Beowulfian style and proportions) discovered by George Hickes in Lambeth Palace Library and printed in his Thesaurus.20 It has since been lost, stolen or mislaid, so that we depend solely on the print made from the (apparently) inaccurate transcript of c. 1700. This is The Fight at Finnesburg.
(4) Other allusions to the names – especially Finn or Hengest e.g. in the OE genealogies, which will be referred to in the Glossary of Names below, pp. 27-79.
That these references – (1), (2), (3) at any rate – all refer to the same persons Finn (King of the Frisians) and Hengest is almost the only certain thing about them. That they refer to the same events or to the same story concerning these names, still more to the same version of such a story, is far from certain or proved. Indeed it rests in the last resort on nothing more definite than the sound principle that where all is uncertain one's hypothesis must be simplified as far as possible.
In the case of (4) identity of reference is not certain (e.g. Finn Godulfing of the genealogies, or Hengest the invader of Kent) – see the Glossary of Names.
(2) and (3) will be later the subject of our detailed investigation. (4) will be drawn in incidentally. Of (1) no more need be said except to direct attention to its context. With Widsith line 20 (Casere weold Creacum 7 Cælic Finnum) we leap from the Gothic and Burgundian world and the Eastern Empire up towards the Baltic, and then plunge into the middle of the small seafaring peoples of that northern world on either side of the Cimbrian peninsula – with whose traditions the English in the early days were probably specially familiar. Out of that lost wealth the fight at Finn's fortress alone has been preserved (battered and tantalizingly obscure), except for bare echoes in Widsith. Thus in line 21, Hagena Holmrygum (MS rycum) 7 Heoden Glommum. In the same context appear Swæfe 22, Hælsingas 22, Myrgingas 23, Franks 24, Wernas (Varini) 25, Eowe (Aviones?) 26, Yte (Jutes – under King Gefwulf: Oswine weold Eowum 7 Ytum Gefwulf) 26. Then comes the line Fin Folcwalding Fresna cynne, 27. After that we pass towards Scandinavia, with Sædene 28, which intervenes before the important Hnæf Hocingum 29 (an undoubted reference to the character in the Episode there said to be Scyldinga and Healfdena, gen. pls.).21 This Widsith context, lines 20 to 35 (or 49), should be carefully considered.
We may now begin with a few remarks on the Frisians, who are the one people concerned beyond all doubt. In this peculiarly difficult enquiry, where one has frequently to begin with a temporary theory, and later halt and re-examine it, and recapitulate the evidence, there is of necessity much repetition, and what is said here may be needed again further on, or may have to be modified.
The Frisian name – unetymologizable like most of the old simple uncompounded Germanic sectional or tribal names (Dene, Sweon, Eote) – is old, doubtless much older than its first appearance. An inscription (found near Leeuwarden) shows the Frisian fisheries to have been known to the Romans.22 There were Frisians in the Roman army (including the stations in Britain). In Tacitus it is clear that Frisians were already west of the Zuyder Zee, and were in those days the most westerly of the Germanic peoples of the North, occupying parts certainly not originally Germanic in speech.23 Tacitus indicates a division of them (probably not solely made by aliens, but native also, the product of expansion) into Lesser Frisians, west of the navigable lakes, and Greater Frisians – free from Roman control, in the still (to the Romans) little known and little explored marshes and fens to the north and east.
Something of the same distinction still lingered probably in heroic times (in Beowulf and Widsith). The Greater Frisians, or their descendant groupings, are probably Finn's people proper, mentioned along with the North Sea folk. The Lesser are those mentioned in close connection with the (now southern) Franks: e.g. Widsith 68, Mid Froncum ic wæs 7 mid Frysum: also Beowulf 2912, 1207, 1210 (joined with Hetware and Franks).
That the distinction between the - and the ē-forms follows any such political or geographical distinction is not borne out by OE usage. Too much cannot be made of the distinction in Beowulf and Widsith in any case. The name Froncum occurs also in Widsith line 24, not long before Finn, while the Hætwere occur in the same passage (33) dealing with mainly northern peoples, though they are clearly associated with the Franks. Too much, suggestive as it is, cannot be made of the order of mention in Widsith's catalogue – especially as preserved – since geography, alliteration, and connection in story (which might bring Geatas into relation with Franks!) all play their part, doubtless, in determining the arrangement, before corruption, interpolation and dislocation are considered.
The English were in any case well acquainted with Frisians of any kind before, during, and after the settlements in Britain. Before, as a natural deduction from their situation, and from the close similarity of their dialects. During, not only because of the inevitableness, one might say, of some Frisian participation in adventure shared by tribes so closely connected, but because of the well-known allusion in Procopius.24 After, because of the maritime importance of the Frisians, which I illustrate in a moment. In fact the debate whether the Finn-story is a native tradition (brought over with the Anglo-Saxon luggage), or belonging properly to a Frisian element, or a loan taken from Frisians, is really making a distinction without any difference of practical value.
After the settlement in Britain and the decline of “Saxon” piracy and sea-power the Frisians entered on a time of maritime prosperity and fame in the north-west – indeed, if my final reading of this problem is correct they were already (in the fifth century) very powerful, if not indeed the chief of the loosely-connected “Anglo-Frisian” tribes of the north-west, and already menaced by the stirring of the North, the Scandinavian North. Indeed the popularity and importance of the Finn-story (see below, pp. 45-50) is doubtless, if we knew all, due to its being central to, and embedded in, the complex and stirring events in the northern waters which led to the Germanic colonization of Britain. The relations of Finn historically – or at least that of the Frisian power he represents – to the other peoples of these regions (including the expanding Danes) were doubtless of first-class importance in that history, and the poetic traditions descended from those days.
Still in Ælfred's time some four centuries later we can gather hints of this naval eminence. On fresisc and on denisc were to Ælfred clearly the two obvious ways of building war-vessels, or styles on which to found experiment. (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, anno 897.) Probably the English and Saxons of England now practised the ship-building art little or not at all, on a scale suitable for larger trade or for organized war. Such trade as there was – principally in the south-east – was probably dependent on foreign (Frisian) bottoms, and kings were little concerned with the upkeep of war-ships, their battles being on the plains and about the fords and passes of England, before the coming of the Norse. Ælfred evidently depended for officering, possibly largely for manning, of his war-ships to a considerable extent upon Frisians.25 What was the case in A.D. 875, when (as is apt to be overlooked) Ælfred sallied forth himself with a sciphere and engaged the enemy not unsuccessfully,26 I do not know. As this was, however, more than twenty years before he began to think of improving his naval arm, and developing an English fleet, his sciphere was most likely mercenary, and Frisian (from London?). Certainly in 897 after his well-known ship-building experiment the casualties of the not very successful skirmish in which nine of the new royal ships were engaged include three Frisians (Wulfheard Friesa, Æbbe Friesa, 7 Æðelhere Friesa) among the five officers sufficiently eminent to be named. We are also expressly told that in all 62 were slain, Frisian and English (in that order).
Æðelhere is also an OE name, and Wulfheard is an extremely common one; Æbba (not however Æbbe, which is usually feminine; but cf. Æbbi) is also Old English. This in itself directs one to the reflection that even in Ælfred's time the Frisian dialects can have appeared no stranger than a markedly dialectal Old English, and there was no effective linguistic barrier to intercourse. Linguistically the Frisians were almost a branch of the same people, but outside the dominions of any “English” king – a situation similar to that of Little Britain (Brittany) in relation to Cornwall, whose inhabitants long, until early modern times at least, regarded themselves as “Britons under the rule of the French king”, or “of the English king”, but yet as virtually one people, visiting one another and intermarrying freely down to at least the time of the Reformation.
A memory of such a situation between English and Frisian is preserved in:
Good butter and good cheese
Is good English and good Friese.27
Glancing back to an earlier period – 300 years nearer to the time of Finn – we may mention the suggestively casual allusion in Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica. In Book IV Chap. xx (xxii)28 we hear of the thegn Imma wounded and left for dead in the battle of the Trent between his lord Ecgfrith, king of Northumbria, and Æthelred of Mercia. He fell eventually into the hands of one of king Æthelred's gesiþas, and when healed was sold to a certain Frisian in London.29 The battle was fought in the year 679. The presence of a wealthy Frisian, so casually mentioned, in London, able to buy up slaves produced by the internecine wars of the English, is interesting, especially since the date 679 closely corresponds to the beginning of missionary enterprise in Frisia. It is significant that the continental missions – one of the chief glories of ancient England, and one of our chief services to Europe even regarding all our history – began with Frisia. Charity began at home and spread next to the closest cousins. The conversion was largely done by St Willibrord and the Northumbrians in the early eighth century.
In Ælfred's day more than hire would bring the Frisians to his aid. Frisians suffered when England and Ælfred did. The rise of the Viking tide destroyed them, in fact. Their power had controlled the neighbouring waters (mare Fresicum), and archæology indicates that this included control of a lively trade to Norway. Dorostates Frisionum, their chief town, had been heard of in the sixth century already, even so far away as Italy, as a place of special importance – as such it is mentioned in the work known as the “Geographer of Ravenna” (or his source).30 This importance endured until the ninth century. Then this town Dorestad (now Wijk bi Duurstede not far from Utrecht on the Lower Rhine), once one of the chief centres of commerce in northern Europe, was destroyed by repeated Viking attacks. Certainly by 700 the Frisians had already suffered from the aggression of southern enemies, the Franks, but even at that date the Frisian king, or the leader of their more or less centralized confederacy, still controlled all the coast-lands from the borders of the Franks to those of the Danes.
The story of Finn belongs however to the heroic times; if before the chief commercial prosperity of Frisian, also before its decline and fall. We might venture then to ask (and guess at the answer): how would an English writer think of Finn who knew heroic traditions as well as the still existing conditions of Frisian power – say in the eighth century ?
We might answer – as a supreme lord over a confederacy of coastal tribes or settlements: indeed not unlike a Northumbrian king (apart from the peculiar formation of Frisia and its islands), whose power actually extended over settlements along an outstretched line of English and Scottish coast, with a vague boundary inland. Chambers draws this interesting parallel,31 and says, rightly, that to understand the atmosphere of the Finn story we should read Bede's account of the Northumbrian kings, the subordinate tribes, the alliances, feuds, attempted assassinations, and the loyal deeds of bodyguards and thegns. Later this comparison may be useful, and in any case will have to be considered in treating the difficult question: where and what was Finnesburg? If it was not in Frisia proper, or not the capital (as is often held), this is no more unnatural than that the seventh-century fortress of Eadwinesburg should be outside the ancient limits of Deira, which was Eadwine's proper realm.32
This tale of Finn (one may guess) was once one of the best known in England (of, say, the sixth to eighth centuries, at least). Of the five extant OE heroic poems or fragments, three refer to it. One of them (Beowulf) drags it in, one might say; or better, selects it specially where reference to a great and moving tale in a king's hall is to be made.33 As we have already said, neither knowledge of the tale nor its popularity need be due to Frisian immigrants, or Frisian traders of later times. “In the great fight in Finn's hall, most of the North-Sea tribes seem to have claimed their share, and the tale was probably common at an early date to them all, and was brought across the North Sea by gleemen of Saxon and of Jutish race”34 – in fact in the original little boats.
We have now, as was necessary, taken such a glance as is possible at the Frisian situation and at the English atmosphere of the time of composition (roughly) of the surviving treatments. This as a preliminary.35
|
”................[hor]nas byrnað.” |
|
|
[H]næf hleoþrode,heaþogeong cyning: |
|
|
”Ne ðis ne dagað eastan,ne her draca ne fleogeð, |
|
|
ne her ðisse heallehornas ne byrnað; |
|
|
5 |
ac her forþ berað[feorhgeniðlan |
|
5* |
fyrdsearu fuslic.]Fugelas singað, |
|
gylleð græghama:guðwudu hlynneð, |
|
|
scyld scefte oncwyð.Nu scyneð þes mona |
|
|
waðol under wolcnum,nu arisað weadæda, |
|
|
ðe ðisne folces niðfremman willað. |
|
|
10 |
Ac onwacnigeað nu,wigend mine! |
|
Habbað eowre [h]lenca[n],hicgeaþ on ellen, |
|
|
þindað on orde,wesað onmode!” |
|
|
13 |
Ða aras [of ræsterumheort] mænig |
|
13* |
goldhladen ðegn,gyrde hine his swurde, |
|
ða to dura eodondrihtlice cempan, |
|
|
15 |
Sigeferð and Eaha,hyra sword getugon, |
|
and æt oþrum durumOrdlaf and Guþlaf; |
|
|
and Hengest sylfhwearf him on laste. |
|
|
Ða gyt Garulf[e]Guðere styrde, |
|
|
ðæt he swa freolic feorhforman siþe |
|
|
20 |
to ðære healle durumhyrsta ne bære, |
|
nu hyt niþa heardanyman wolde; |
|
|
ac he frægn ofer ealundearninga, |
|
|
deormod hæleþ,hwa ða duru heolde. |
|
|
“Sigeferþ is min nama,” cweþ he,“ic eom Secgena leod, |
|
|
25 |
wreccea wide cuð;fæla ic weana gebad, |
|
heardra hilda;ðe is gyt her witod, |
|
|
swæþer ðu sylf to mesecean wylle.” |
|
|
Ða wæs on heallewælslihta gehlyn: |
|
|
sceolde celæs bordcenum on handa |
|
|
30 |
banhelm berstan;buruhðelu dynede, |
|
oð æt ðære guðeGarulf gecrang |
|
|
ealra æresteorðbuendra, |
|
|
Guðulfes sunu,ymbe hyne godra fæla, |
|
|
hwearflicra hræw.Hræfen wandrode |
|
|
35 |
sweart and sealobrun.Swurdleoma stod |
|
swylce eal Finn[e]sburuhfyrenu wære. |
|
|
Ne gefrægn ic næfre wurþlicoræt wera hilde |
|
|
sixtig sigebeornasel gebæran, |
|
|
39 |
ne nefre swanassel forgyldan |
|
39* |
hwitne medo,[heardgesteallan,] |
|
40 |
ðonne Hnæfe guldanhis hægstealdas. |
|
Hig fuhton fif dagasswa hyra nan ne feol, |
|
|
drihtgesiða,ac hig ða duru heoldon. |
|
|
Ða gewat him wund hæleðon wæg gangan, |
|
|
sæde þæt his byrneabrocen wære, |
|
|
45 |
heresceorp unhror,and eac wæs his helm ðyr[e]l, |
|
ða hine sona frægnfolces hyrde |
|
|
hu ða wigend hyrawunda genæson, |
|
|
oððe hwæþer ðæra hyssa................ |
2a Næfre hleoþrode ða.2b hearo geong.3a Eastun.11a landa.11b Hie geaþ.12a Windað.18b styrode.20b bæran.25a Wrecten.25b weuna.26a heordra.29a borð.29b Genumon.33a Guðlafes.34a Hwearflacra hrær.38b gebærann.39-39* Ne nefre swa noc hwitne medo. Sel forgyldan.45a Here sceorpum hror.
|
Þær wæs sang ond swegsamod ætgædere |
|
|
fore Healfdeneshildewisan, |
|
|
1065 |
gomenwudu greted,gid oft wrecen. |
|
Ðonne healgamenHroþgares scop |
|
|
1067 |
æfter medobencemænan scolde, |
|
1067* |
[cwæð him ealdres wæsende gegongen,] |
|
Finnes eaferum. |
|
|
Da hie se fær begeat, |
|
|
hæleð HealfdeneHnæf Scyldinga |
|
|
1070 |
in Freswælefeallan scolde. |
|
Ne huru Hildeburhherian þorfte |
|
|
Eotena treowe:unsynnum wearð |
|
|
beloren leofumæt þam lindplegan, |
|
|
bearnum ond broðrum;hie on gebyrd hruron, |
|
|
1075 |
gare wunde;þæt wæs geomuru ides. |
|
Nalles holingaHoces dohtor |
|
|
meotodsceaft bemearn,syþðan morgen com, |
|
|
ða heo under sweglegeseon meahte |
|
|
morþorbealo maga.Þær he ær mæste heold |
|
|
1080 |
worolde synne,wig ealle fornam |
|
Finnes þegnas,nemne feaum anum, |
|
|
þæt he ne mehteon þæm meðelstede |
|
|
wig Hengestewiht gefeohtan, |
|
|
ne þa wealafewige forþringan |
|
|
1085 |
þeodnes ðegne.Ac hig him geþingo budon, |
|
þæt he him oðer fleteal gerymde, |
|
|
healle ond heahsetl,þæt hie healfre geweald |
|
|
wið Eotena bearnagan moston, |
|
|
ond æt feohgyftumFolcwaldan sunu |
|
|
1090 |
dogra gehwylceDene weorþode, |
|
Hengestes heaphringum wenede |
|
|
efne swa swiðesincgestreonum |
|
|
fættan goldes,swa he Fresena cyn |
|
|
on beorselebyldan wolde. |
|
|
1095 |
Ða hie getruwedonon twa healfa |
|
fæste frioðuwære.Fin Hengeste |
|
|
elne unflitmeaðum benemde, |
|
|
þæt he þa wealafeweotena dome |
|
|
arum heolde;þæt ðær ænig mon |
|
|
1100 |
wordum ne worcumwære ne bræce, |
|
ne þurh inwitsearoæfre gemænden, |
|
|
ðeah hie hira beaggyfanbanan folgedon |
|
|
ðeodenlease,þa him swa geþearfod wæs. |
|
|
Gyf, þonne, Frysna hwylcfrecnan spræce |
|
|
1105 |
ðæs morþorhetesmyndgiend wære, |
|
þonne hit sweordes ecgseðan scolde. |
|
|
Ad wæs geæfned,ond icge gold |
|
|
ahæfen of horde.Here-Scyldinga |
|
|
betst beadorincawæs on bæl gearu. |
|
|
1110 |
Æt þæm ade wæseþgesyne |
|
swatfah syrce,swyn ealgylden, |
|
|
eofer irenheard,æþeling manig |
|
|
wundum awyrded.Sume on wæle crungon! |
|
|
Het ða Hildeburhæt Hnæfes ade |
|
|
1115 |
hire selfre sunusweoloðe befæstan, |
|
banfatu bærnan,ond on bæl don |
|
|
eame on eaxle. Ides gnornode, |
|
|
geomrode giddum.Guðrec astah. |
|
|
Wand to wolcnumwælfyra mæst, |
|
|
1120 |
hlynode for hlawe.Hafelan multon, |
|
bengeato burston,ðonne blod ætspranc |
|
|
laðbite liges.Lic eall forswealg |
|
|
gæsta gifrostþara ðe þær guð fornam |
|
|
bega folces.Wæs hira blæd scacen! |
|
|
1125 |
Gewiton him ða wigendwica neosian |
|
freondum befeallen,Frysland geseon, |
|
|
hamas ond heaburh.Hengest ða gyt |
|
|
wælfagne winterwunode mid Finne |
|
|
[ea]l unhlitme;eard gemunde, |
|
|
1130 |
þeah þe he [ne] meahteon mere drifan |
|
hringedstefnan:holm storme weol, |
|
|
won wið winde,winter yþe beleac |
|
|
isgebinde,oþðæt oþer com |
|
|
gear in geardas,swa nu gyt doð |
|
|
1135 |
þa ðe syngalessele bewitiað, |
|
wuldortorhtan weder.Ða wæs winter scacen, |
|
|
fæger foldan bearm.Fundode wrecca, |
|
|
gist of geardum –he to gyrnwræce |
|
|
swiðor þohteþonne to sælade, |
|
|
1140 |
gif he torngemotþurhteon mihte, |
|
þæt he Eotena bearninne gemunde. |
|
|
Swa he ne forwyrndew[e]orodrædenne, |
|
|
þonne him HunlafingHildeleoman, |
|
|
billa selest,on bearm dyde – |
|
|
1145 |
þæs wæron mid Eotenumecge cuðe; |
|
swylce ferhðfrecanFin eft begeat |
|
|
sweordbealo sliðenæt his selfes ham, |
|
|
siþðan grimne gripeGuðlaf ond Oslaf |
|
|
æfter sæsiðesorge mændon, |
|
|
1150 |
ætwiton weana dæl:ne meahte wæfre mod |
|
Forhabban in hreþre.Ða wæs heal roden |
|
|
Feonda feorum,swilce Fin slægen, |
|
|
cyning on corþre,ond seo cwen numen. |
|
|
Sceotend Scyldingato scypon feredon |
|
|
1155 |
eal ingestealdeorðcyninges, |
|
swylce hie æt Finnes hamfindan meahton |
|
|
sigla searogimma.Hie on sælade |
|
|
drihtlice wifto Denum feredon, |
|
|
læddon to leodum. |
1069a healf dena.1073b hild plegan.1086a hie.1086b gerymdon.1104b frecnen.1106b syððan.1107a að.1117a earme.1118b guð rinc.1122a lices.1122b lig ealle.1134b deð.1142b worold rædenne.1151b hroden.
Assuming (as one must, as a preliminary simple hypothesis, and probably rightly in any case as later investigations may show) that the two pieces deal with substantially the same version of the same events, we may guess at the outset that the Fragment deals with a part of the events preceding the main matter of the Episode – the Fragment as it stands, that is. The Fragment is a fragment, and its accidental ending is no proof that the preoccupation of the Episode with the situation after the fight is peculiar, or that the position of Hengest after the fight was not also to the author of the Fragment the chief part of the tale (quite different as his style, treatment and objects were to those of the author of Beowulf).
The Fragment opens with the “young king” espying an onset – like the helmets gleaming when the sleeping hall is attacked in the Niebelungenlied. This king, we may guess, is Hnæf.36 The details of attack and defence are still obscure to a first glance, but we notice that Hengest occupies already before Hnæf's fall a peculiar position (Hengest sylf, 17). Apparently there are two sets of doors, one held by Sigeferth and Eaha (*Eawa), the other by Ordlaf, Guthlaf and Hengest. A young Garulf, in spite of the dissuasion of a Guthere, attacks Sigeferth and is the first to fall. He is called Guðlafes sunu, and at first sight it certainly appears that father and son are on opposite sides – a bewildering feature, which if it really belongs to the tale must, in view of the prominence and importance given both to Garulf and to Guthlaf, have been an important element.
The fight goes on for five days and no defender falls. Then someone (an attacker?) is heard returning and speaking to his anxious lord (folces hyrde) – is it Finn? Thereupon the Fragment breaks off.
There are at least two fights in Finn's hall: it is clear (with Hengest inside) that the Fragment does not deal with the attack of revenge at the end of the Episode, when Finn was slain. It is a night attack, which connects well enough with syþðan morgen cwom (B. 1077). It is not necessary to assume any discrepancy between the Fragment and the Episode. The Episode (1076ff.) only tells us that when morning came Hildeburh could see (i.e. observe in progress) morþorbealo maga. It does not say, necessarily, her kindred, but with that we shall deal later. The probable meaning, according to OE poetic usage, of morþorbealo (murder-bale) is ‘cruel or evil slaughter’; but (a) this may be a compressed expression, after the manner of the Episode, quite compatible with a night attack, generally known throughout the burg when day came, which resulted in a long-drawn-out fight; casualties doubtless had already occurred before the first morning among somebody's magas, even if no defenders fell for a long time; but that the whole murderous process was first observed the morning after the outbreak may well be compressed into this phrase; (b) possible, but less simple, is the supposition that more than one attack by night was made on the defenders in the hall, and in the Episode, hurrying on to the treaty and the resulting situation, only the last one (in which, say, Hnæf fell) which preceded or necessitated the treaty is explicitly alluded to. The Episode, in fact, simply does not tell us anything positive about the length of the fight.
We see from the Episode, however, that in the end Hnæf (for the moment assumed to be the “young king” of the Fragment) was slain in the defence, and in some fashion – one of the cruces of any interpretation – the son also of Finn and his wife Hildeburh. Nearly all Finn's thegns (not people) also had perished.
Then comes the chief crux of interpretation: we find Hengest surviving and a mysterious peace patched up, neither the terms nor the reason of which can be understood at a glance. Amid the obscurities the references to the wealaf (1084, 1098) are clearly both difficult and of first importance.
There is a funeral by burning – marking a pre-Christian heathen tale, and one still recognized and placed as such. There is a dispersal of the warriors “to see Frysland”; but Hengest remains with Finn. Obscurely we glimpse him troubled in mind, apparently torn between loyalty to the slain Hnæf and to new oaths to Finn, and by still obscurer methods being brought to take part in vengeance. The references to the Eotena (gen. pl.), not to mention those to Healfdene and the Scyldingas, are also difficult and obscure, but obviously important to elucidate, if any solution is to be arrived at. The final difficulty is that of the two Guthlafs.
After this first glance it becomes evident that a first need is to clear up where possible the identity of the named figures in the tale and their relations one to another. I propose, therefore, at once to make a list of all the names in the Fragment and the Episode with references, and with notes of anything remarkable, or on anything clearly observable at the outset (before any clear theory has developed).
I give these names in their order of occurrence, beginning with the Fragment; * is prefixed to names recurring in both Fragment and Episode.
Sigeferð: Sigeferð and Eaha 15; Sigeferþ . . . ic eom Secgena lead 24. He appears to be one of Hnæf 's warriors, at any rate a defender. He belongs to, or is a prince of, a tribe called Secgan. With this name in relation to secg ‘sword’ cf. Seaxan in relation to seax ‘knife’; also Sweordwerum (next to Sycgum) in Widsith 63. So Secgan is probably related to the poetic word secg ‘sword’. This tribe is without much doubt the same as the Sycgum of Widsith 31 and 63.37 The double reference is perhaps indicative of importance in ancient minstrelsy. The first reference is suggestive in being in the Finn-context. In Widsith the ruler of the tribe is Sæferð. This name is sufficiently similar to that of the Fragment to justify the assumption that the two are at least related, or even very likely identical (on the observed Heregar ~Heorogar treatment of old names).38 Nothing now is known of the precise location or history of the Secgan or their princes. Sigeferth, however, uses of himself the significant word wrecca – ic eom Secgena leod, wreccea wide cuð; fæla ic weana gebad, heardra hilda.39 He was not a “resident” prince, therefore, or one necessarily with his own following of Secgan – he was an adventurer, or a man who had offered his sword to another lord. Cf. Wulfgar Wendla leod in the service of Hrothgar (B. 348); wrecca is applied also to Hengest (B. 1137) and to Sigemund (B. 898). See further on this word under Hengest, where it is important.
Eaha: Sigeferð and Eaha 15. He is mentioned nowhere else. If Hickes’ form is right, this can only be a name with (rare) original double medial h, *Eahha or *Eohha. This may be supported by the occurrence of Eahha, for instance, among the names of Liber Vitæ ecclesiæ Dunelmensis.40 Hickes’ confusion of letters is so frequent that it tempts emendation. His healle is probably to be read wealle in 28.41 It is thus attractive to emend the name to Eawa (cognate with OHG Ouwo), a name which occurs in Mercian genealogies, and which may further be connected with the tribal name Eowum (dat. pl. of Eowan) in Widsith 26, just before the Jutes and Finn. Keeping or altering, however, we gain no further knowledge of this forgotten hero.
*Ordlaf: Ordlaf and Guþlaf 16. This pair cannot be separated from the Guðlaf ond Oslaf of the Episode (B. 1148), q.v. Names not only of legendary but also of historical persons tend to vary in their first element, while preserving the first letter and the last element intact. So Heregar (B. 467) for Heorogar. This is not due to lack of differentiation of names, but to faults of memory and transcription combined. Confusion of ord, os is not unlikely palæographically. In Searle42 one may note variant forms Ordbeorht/Osbeorht of one and the same Bishop of Selsey, and Ordgar/Osgar of one and the same Abbot of Abingdon. Ordlaf not Oslaf is probably the correct form of the name – see further under the names in the Episode.
Guðlaf (i). Cf. above, and see the names in the Episode.
Guðlaf (ii): Guðlafes sunu 33. This phrase is used of Garulf. That Garulf is “son of Guthlaf” must mean one of three things:
(1) that father and son were on opposite sides (i.e. that Guthlaf (i) and (ii) are identical), since Garulf is clearly an attacker and Ordlaf and Guthlaf clearly defenders;
(2) that there were two distinct Guthlafs involved in this tale;
(3) that Hickes (or his manuscript before him) has gone wrong, and Guðlaf (33) stands for some other name.
(1) As a situation this is by no means impossible, but it can, I think, here be dismissed from practical consideration – there is too much to conjecture without burdening ourselves with the highly unlikely. Such a situation, since both Garulf and Guthlaf (i) are clearly important, would certainly be made more of – at least the relationship would be explicitly mentioned, and exactly at this point in the telling. In thie case it is no use to say “we do not know what the complete lay contained”, for it is precisely at that point of the lay which is preserved that we should expect some note or comment on the situation, however bare and pithy, if nowhere else.
(2) This is less impossible than appears at first sight, though again, I think, it is sufficiently unlikely to be negligible. Were Guthlaf (i) and Guthlaf (ii) both genuine and distinct, even in a brief and pithy lay, something explanatory might be expected. Certainly, as has been pointed out, even among the few names mentioned in The Battle of Maldon there are two Wul(f)mærs and two Godrics. The Battle of Maldon, however, really when examined is evidence on the other side. We may leave apart the consideration that it is a poem on rather a different plane to the Fragment – i.e. to say the least more tied to the casual facts of history which does not take care to name its characters distinctly in the way which a much-worked legend (however historical in foundation, as I believe the Finn story to have been) might be expected to have done. Yet, treated as on the same historical footing, it may be observed that even in Maldon the presence of two Godrics is felt to be a nuisance, and the very last line preserved points out their distinction with næs þæt na se Godric þe ða guðe forbeah. The fathers of both are also added, of course, for further distinction (Oddan bearn 186, Æþelgares bearn 320). Moreover Wulfmær (i) is carefully distinguished as Byrhtnoðes mæg . . . his swuster sunu (114-15) – the poet had time to touch on this intimate relationship – from Wul(f)mær (ii) se geonga and Wulfstanes bearn (155). It may be noted in addition that Godric and Wulfmær are also two extremely common names in Old English. Guðlaf is very rare: indeed this is not strong enough – there is no other evidence for the name outside the Fragment and the Episode, that I can discover. It may be conceded, then, that two Guthlafs, unconnected, is a very improbable supposition.
We are left, therefore, with (3) as chief claimant. It cannot be proved, and Guðlafes is certainly in the transcript; but the chances of corruption of a proper name – in, it would appear, a late OE manuscript, afterwards unskilfully copied, and then printed – need no proof. Even in OE manuscripts, even in such a relatively good manuscript as the Beowulf manuscript, proper names, especially of the characters of old tales, are constantly corrupted or confused. The errors of Hickes (and other transcribers such as Elphinston for Hearne) also need no illustration.
On purely palæographical grounds Guðulf would be a likely – indeed a tempting – emendation. The similarity of this to Guðlaf, which occurred above it, would be almost enough to explain the error, without illustration of the confusion of a/u – seen in eastun 3, weuna 25 – which may have assisted. Apart from palæography Guðulf, however, would be a satisfactory name for a father of Garulf (cf. Gefwulf of the Jutes in Widsith 26). That the name is not otherwise evidenced in England is not against it – it is a Germanic name (and the forms Gundulf, Gunnulf of various origins appear later in England). See the note on Guðere below.
*Hengest: Hengest sylf 17. This phrase does not, of course, necessarily imply that Hengest was a king or prince, but it shows that he was of special importance in the tale – most likely we may deduce from sylf that Hengest had already been specially mentioned in the part of the poem now lost. From the Fragment we most unfortunately do not learn what his “tribe” or nation was: all we can say is that he is inside and one of the chief defenders. For a fuller treatment see the names in the Episode.
Garulf 18, 31. This, as a name, is also found in actual use in Anglo-Saxon times. As a heroic character nothing more is known of him than can be gleaned from the two references in the Fragment. He was a chief or the son of a ruling chief – not a wrecca: for he is restrained from imperilling his “precious life” in the first assault. There must be some very special reason, probably of prime importance to our tale, if we only knew, why he should be so hard to restrain, and why (so unusually) he should have a mentor, not to bid him to do well, but to restrain him. The most obvious guess is that in him the hopes of a dynasty and a party were centred, and that his death would be specially welcome to some, at least, of those within. In fact it is not easy to think of any other good reason. That Garulf was a Jutish prince is a mere guess, unfortunately – but a likely one (and a very suggestive one). Its sole support is, however, the fact that in this Fragment we are clearly dealing with stories of the very group of peoples linked together in Widsith 24-35. There, just before Finn is mentioned (but under no alliterative compulsion), we have Ytum [weold] Gefwulf. Garulf and Gefwulf may indeed be related; but, if the Jutish guess is right, it is clearly far more likely that they are identical – cf. Sigeferð, Ordlaf above. In that case Gefwulf is probably correct, both because it is not else found (and cannot, therefore, be likely to be produced by substitution), and because of the superior authority on the whole of Widsith. I say “clearly far more likely” because, if this G—ulf person is a Jute at all, dying young in one of the most famous of legendary fights in Finn's hall, it is he (not a son of his who must have ruled long after Finn's downfall) who is likely to be mentioned in Widsith next to Finn.43
At least it is clear in the brief rapid Fragment that Garulf is important in himself and to the tale – which strengthens our search for an important tribe to attach him to. It is not reasonable to imagine that 16 lines (out of a surviving 47½) are devoted to him and to his clash with Sigeferth and his fall merely because he was the first casualty, whose unfortunate priority gave him a fictitious prominence. In fact Garulf must not be forgotten, even in a problem which is chiefly concerned with the greater figure of Hengest.
Guðere 18. That Garulf was a young man is a possible but not a certain deduction from his eagerness and the restraining words of Guthere. If he was young, even though an actual chief or prince, Guthere was probably older – a mentor, a guardian, a trusty thegn or even an eald geneat, of the æscwiga type but of very different mood. The quality of his advice, whatever be the tale behind, probably indicates however one of high rank, indeed a member of the same family. Alliteration to some extent supports this, as well as the similarity of the same first element to that of Guðlaf(ii)/*Guðulf, Garulf's father. The name Guðhere (of which our Guðere is a late form probably) is found in actual use occasionally, but is rare. Its occurrence here is interesting since this “heroic” character bears the same name as that of the famous Burgundian king, but is without doubt distinct. We know no more of him, though doubtless there was more to know, even if, as is probable, he was one of the many who perished at the side of the “precious life” Garulf (line 33). Names are not likely to have been used in the lay of persons of small interest or importance.
Secgena leod 24. See Sigeferð.
*Finn 36. Hickes: Swurd-leoma stod. Swylce eal Finnsburuh. Fyrenu wære.44 Here we will deal only with the expression Finnes buruh; for Finn see the Episode.
Finnes burg may have been the actual name of an historical stronghold, or of a stronghold that early became a fixed and definitely conceived feature of the tale. See p. 15, and the comparison with the OE Eadwines burg (Edinburgh), the fortress of King Eadwine of Northumbria, the name of which originated c. A.D. 625. Too much is, however, probably made of this. We are dealing not with pure history, but with poetic tradition, however historical in foundation. This type of name was the natural way in such “legends” – where names of actors usually outlived memory of geography – of denoting the place, vaguely conceived geographically, where a king held court. So Attila lives at Etzelnburg in the Niebelungenlied. There is in the name – apart from what may be discovered in investigating the language of the Episode – nothing to prevent identification of Finnes burg with, or with part of, Finnes ham (B. 1156). Indeed it would be a poor rounding off of the story, if that vengeance overtook Finn in a quite different place from the site of the tragic fight. Finnes ham in any case is certainly Finn's “capital”, and there was all Finn's wealth and jewels. It was no outlying fortress.
*Hnæf: Hnæfe 40. From the Fragment alone it is clear that he is a “king” or chief – it is to him that the defenders owe loyalty, and it is the king's patronage that they are praised for rewarding with valour. He is probably the “young king” of the opening lines. If so he is younger, or so it would seem, than his sister Hildeburh, since her child, his nephew, perishes in the conflict; but this question, which involves the meaning of heaþogeong, the way in which Finn's son met his death, and indeed a discussion of most of the problems of the story, must be reserved. For Hnæf see further under the names of the Episode.
The mention of Finn in Finn[e]sburuh is the only occurrence of his name in the Fragment. It is indeed this occurrence, coupled with Hnæfe in line 40, that really shows that Fragment and Episode are related. But for the lucky occurrence of these names in the scanty piece preserved – and their lucky preservation more or less uncorrupted45 – though by a different turn of expression both might easily have been omitted, it is not too much to say that the connection of Fragment and Episode would be no more than a hazardous conjecture, in spite of the mention of Hengest and Guthlaf.
Healfdene. All the questions, minor and major, that are aroused when this problem of the Freswæl is investigated, are found to be closely connected and to ramify into puzzling intricacy – reflecting, I believe, the fact that in tackling this problem we are attempting to unravel the echoes of a largely historical tale right in the centre of the intricacies of “North-Sea” history of the fifth and sixth centuries, which are the background of Old English heroic traditions, as of English origins, and the very stuff of the mental storehouse of the author of Beowulf, as of other poets now lost.
At first sight – a sight beyond which further glances are not often made – it is merely a tiresome accident, if not indeed just the mischievous result of casual corruption of the text, that the seemingly forced and dubious expression fore Healfdenes hildewisan (B. 1064) should occur when it does to accentuate the unfortunate fact that the name of Hnæf's “tribe”, the Healfdene,46 chances to be the same as that of Hrothgar's father.
The following remarks, long and involved, are directed to the object of showing that the “odd expression” is, if forced, deliberate and significant; and that the tiresome homonymity is no accident, but an indication of a connection which, if proved or shown to be likely, must be of great importance in forming a conception of Hnæf's position, and of Hengest's, and of Finn's policy, and so of the whole problem. This must be its excuse. It starts out with the initial advantage that it is based (at least at the outset) on what is there, and on explaining it, not explaining it away, nor on dismissing words and names as “epic conventions”, “Beowulfian innovations”, and the like. If it becomes involved in guesswork and hazardous reconstruction, this cannot be escaped by any such thorough attack upon the problem. And I believe, or of course I should not indulge in it, that the guess-work is of a reasoned order, operating along the lines on which these dynastic and territorial struggles proceeded, and better than wild stories of demonic sons of trolls, woe-cursed treasure, or sentimental pictures in which “the pale figure of Hildeburh . . . drifts athwart the gloomy background of tragedy like a white dove in a charnel-house”!47
A complete understanding of the situation requires, I think – if ever criticism of the airy structure of hypothesis here raised is to be fair – an exhaustive consideration of the Danes, and of the Scyldings from Healfdene downwards, including the Heathobeard conflict and its significance for Northern history. This, however, is not possible here: here I must confine myself (more or less) to the name Healfdene, personal and “tribal”, and in its direct relationship to our problem.
The Episode clearly shows that in spite of the odd name Healfdena (1069) (as it stands a genitive plural and so at first sight “tribal”) – Semi-Danes – which as a group-name occurs nowhere else, Hnæf's people are regarded as Danes, politically at any rate. Indeed they are given the names Scyldinga g.pl. (1069, 1154); Here-Scyldinga (1108); and Dene (1090, 1158).
It has, of course, been noted that Danes are not mentioned in the Fragment; but neither are Frisians, who no one doubts were concerned! Indeed it seems to me clear that a reasonable view will, instead of calling the Danish nationality of Hnæf a “Beowulfian innovation”, see in this Danish nationality or political association of the defenders, who after being wronged triumphed over Frisians, the Danes' most powerful rivals in northern waters, one at least of the reasons why this story was selected as typical of the minstrelsy of Heorot at a time of rejoicing. Otherwise we should be forced to the ridiculous supposition that the author of Beowulf first dragged in a tale not specially suitable to Heorot, and then Danicized Hnæf, erroneously and gratuitously, to make it suitable!48
If Beowulf has innovated at all it is in the peculiar use of Healfdena g.pl. in line 1069, a usage which, as we shall see, is quite isolated in any Germanic records. “Tribal” or group names, of course, often provided the elements of personal names (Gaut, Wealh, and so on), or gave rise to or passed into personal names themselves, as surnames still do. It cannot be denied that Healfdene, though a personal name (ON Halfdanr), nonetheless contains a tribal element (“Dane”). The prefix is odd, indeed almost isolated, and especially odd as the name of the head of the most renowned Danish royal house. Indeed the name and its dynastic occurrence clearly require explanation, for Healfdene the Scylding seems to be the earliest recorded bearer of the name, as a purely personal one; a name which remained Scandinavian,49 and whose wide use was indeed probably originally due to the fame of the Scylding house and of their legend.
The obvious explanation that it means “Half-Dane” – one of half-Danish parentage – is clearly the only one that is likely to be right. The use of Half- as a first element in names is confined to this name (if we pass over obscurer names where inorganic addition of h-to the alb- ‘elf’ element is certain or probable), except, as far as I am aware, for (a) Healfheages gemæro quoted by Searle from B.C.S. 1316,50 which points to a nickname Healf-heah, a jocular alteration (we might guess), not a mere corruption, of the common name Ælfheah; and (b) the names Halbthuring, Halbwalah quoted by Förstemann,51 where it is highly significant that both the second elements are racial, so that Förstemann's explanation that (at least in genesis) they mean “a man of half-Thuringian or half-Romance blood” is clearly right. Such a meaning must have originally attached to the name Healfdene’, but “nicknames” or “surnames” easily become personal, without literal meaning, with no more reason than a family or dynastic connection for their later application. Though not impossible, it is highly improbable that Healfdene Scylding, therefore, who seems to have borne the name as such and solely, and not as a nickname, acquired it directly for such a reason. It probably existed before his time as a name or surname in his family; but no trace of such existence is to be found outside the expression hælep Healfdena Hnæf Scyldinga (B. 1069). It is not, therefore, straining probabilities to conclude that the name of the Scylding was connected with that of Hnæf's people or family. Indeed it would be straining the probabilities to reject this conclusion – which has not only the support of this etymological argument, but illuminates at once both the reason for the selection of the tale of Hnæf to be told in the court of Healfdene's son,52 and the politics of Finn.
Healfdene was, then, probably not strictly a “tribal” name, but a surname of Hnæf, or of Hoc, or of both, referring to the ancestry (and indirectly, only, to the type of subjects they controlled) of one or other of them. As such it could be extended, doubtless, to their household and comitatus, which would stand – in the aristocratic convention of heroic poetry, like Scyldingas for Danes – for their people; but there is actually scanty evidence that it was usually so extended. The people who defended Hnæf so bravely are not again called Healfdene once the connection between Heorot and Hnæf has been pointed. They are Danes, or Jutes (I may say to anticipate), or others – and, in this sense only, half Danes.
It is perhaps surprising that when we turn to Widsith we find not Healfdenum but Hocingum as the subjects (or followers) of Hnæf, although Healfdenum would be metrically equivalent even to the alliterative letter, and in spite of the fact that mention immediately after Finn and the Sæ-Dene seems to indicate that the compiler was aware of the connections of Hnæf either way. This surprise may be lessened when we reflect that the Heathobeards also apparently had two names, and that in this case it is only Widsith that records the second (Wicinga cynn, line 47, beside Heaðobeardna þrym, line 49), not Beowulf, in spite of its fifty lines devoted to the affairs of Ingeld. Moreover neither in that celebrated passage of Widsith, nor elsewhere in that document, is the person Healfdene mentioned, nor indeed the title Scyldingas! The people of Hrothgar are not named. The authors neither of Beowulf nor of Widsith told all they knew. Nonetheless the absence of Healfdenum and the use of Hocingum in Widsith remains odd, if Healfdene really was the name of a “people”. Why substitute a patronymic,53 which could refer properly only to Hnæf's family, or at most his household, if he was king of a real “tribe”? A twofold answer may be suggested: (a) Healfdene was originally a “surname” (of Hoc or Hnæf), referring to its bearer's mixed ancestry primarily (though this may also have been connected with a mixed political situation); (b) Hnæf (and Hoc) were not the kings or chiefs of a natural or geographical “tribe”, but minor chiefs, subordinate offshoots of expanding Danish power in regions not originally Scandinavian. As such Hnæf is remembered chiefly as lord of a “following” (Hocingas),54 and as such he was the very person to have a mixed following, as he appears indeed to have had.55 If Beowulf is guilty of any “innovation” at all, it may be guessed that it consists in taking the name Healfdene (belonging to Hoc or even perhaps to Hnæf himself) and treating it as the equivalent of Hocingas. But this development may have been older than Beowulf – the obvious “national” character of the second element, and the fact that from very early OE times its form was either singular or plural, would greatly assist such a process. We have no need, perhaps, to emend Healfdena in line 1069 to Healfdene56 – we cannot feel certain that the name was Hnæf's (not Hoe's) as this would imply – and though we may feel that the genitive plural perhaps somewhat obscures the original significance of the name, we may also feel confident that the significant fact of connection with Healfdene Scylding was at least fully recognized when Beowulf was written. It was pointed to not only by the expression Healfdenes hildewisan above, but by the immediate conjunction of the title Scyldinga in the same line.
It is a weak explanation in view of this, even on the part of those who believe in a people called Healfdene, that Scyldingas is “epic”, a mere poetic variation upon Dene, even though it is repeated again in (Here-)Scyldinga (1108, 1154), and that nonetheless Hnæf's people, Danish more or less in truth or by mere “Beowulfian innovation”, were unconnected with the main Danish lords, afterwards called the Scyldingas. It is one thing to give the name Scyldingas to the Danes of Heremod's day (B. 1710), certainly identical with those later ruled by Healfdene and his descendants the Scyldingas,57 whose rise appears to follow the ending of an older dynasty in fratricidal strife and an interregnum in which the Danes were a prey to factions, aldorlease (B. 15). It is quite another to apply it to a tribe or group marked by name (on this assumption) as separate, and supposed by the very supposition of “epic” usage to be unconnected except in a measure of Danishry undefined.58
The matter has been argued at length, because it is essential to any theory of the tale that considers all the import of words and names preserved to us in endeavouring to gauge the relations of Hnæf, Finn, and Hengest.
Though an hypothesis only, it is at least a reasonable one, that Healfdene was originally not a group-name or tribe, but a personal surname, and that if indeed it ever became used as a family name (before or outside Beowulf) this was a later development, the beginnings of an obscuration of the original facts. This Healfdene was the name of one of Hnæf's family; among variant possibilities, we may select as the most probable that it was a name of Hoc. Hnæf was therefore properly Hnæf son of Hoc Healfdene. From this family, where alone it is recorded in surviving heroic traditions, other than those of Healfdene the Scylding, it reached the Scyldings – who all alliterate on H (even to their hall and town) like the Hocingas – probably by connection of blood, by marriage.
Healfdene's real father was clearly forgotten, which in legendary terms is but to say that he was not a king, or in the direct line of ancestry from any ancient house or hero. He represented a new beginning – in history and in legend, however, this is made more easy by marriage – and afterwards, when his fame and his descendants' fame was the matter of tradition, he was linked with preceding dynasties, or else given a strange and mythical descent. The one process reflects the fact that he did acquire the chief Danish power, the other that there was before him an unusual gap, and about his rise and the times in which it took place something unusual and strange. If Hoc and Hnæf “of the Halfdanes” represent the expansion of Danes into neighbouring non-Danish territory, and their story is one of the resulting dislocations and feuds, Healfdene's rise marks the shift of the centre of Danish power from southern “Sweden” to the debatable peninsula and islands, the increase in the importance of these outliers, and the achievement of a general overlordship of a man, shall we say, of at least partly “colonial” origin. His maternal grandfather – such is the simplest explanation – bore Healfdene as a significant name or surname, and if the full import of the isolated occurrence of this odd name in B. 1069 is appreciated, the most likely identification is with Hoc. The carrying on of the mother's father's name has many parallels, especially in later Norse, and the carrying on of a “nickname” into a succeeding generation can also be paralleled.59 In this case Healfdene Scylding would have stood in the specially intimate relation of “sister-son” to Hnæf Hoeing, and so also to Hildeburh and Finn.
A memory of such a relationship, or indeed of any close blood-tie of this sort, would be sufficient to explain the application of Scyldinga to Hnæf. At least he was closely related to the family, even if he was not originally a member of it, as he may nevertheless quite well have been.60
As to the geographical position of Hnæf's people and “realm” – even a rover-king will have some sort of base – one may here say, in anticipation, to round off a long account, that even if there were no mention of Eotena treowe or of Hengest the most likely place would be Jutland,61 a region first to feel the effects of Scandinavian expansion. There they represent an early intrusion of Danish power and influence (as well, doubtless, as of Danes) into an area originally distinct and peculiar and not “Scandinavian”. Their story is bound up with the struggles and dislocations of the Jutes.
*Finn 1068, 1081, 1096, 1128, 1146, 1152, 1156 (Finnes ham). The number of references alone is an indication of his importance. The name occurs also in the Fragment, line 36 (Finnsburuh) and in Widsith 27 (as king of the Frisians). See pp. 11, 15, 35,
In Widsith he is given the patronymic Folcwalding, and in B. 1089 is alluded to as Folcwaldan sunu.
Now Finn's name is found frequently in another kind of source: OE royal genealogies.62 Here we may neglect variations of spelling and corruption, and simplify the contents of the documents. The genealogies all reach a stage Woden. Above that there is a group which leads up again to the mythical Woden-name Geat, Geata. In its simplest form this consists of a series Woden – Frealaf – Finn – God(w)ulf – Geat.63 This appears in MSS B, C, D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, anno 855, and in Textus Roffensis II; and also in Icelandic (drawing from OE sources) with some Scandinavianizing of spelling, e.g. in Langfeðgatal, in the Prologue to the Snorra Edda, and in Flateyjarbók. The elaborations of this simpler series whereby usually a Friþu(wu)lf appears between Finn and Frealaf (Genealogy of the kings of Lindsey, ninth century, MS Vespasian B vi; Genealogy of the Northumbrian kings in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, anno 547, in MSS Tiberius A vi and B i); or a Friþuwald appears between Woden and Frealaf (William of Malmesbury); or both these additions occur (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Parker MS, anno 855, West-Saxon Genealogy; Asser's Life of Alfred; Ethelwerd; Textus Roffensis I) do not closely concern us. Nothing is known of the additions, and they are probably mere multiplication of stages by genealogists – like the duplication of Finn himself into Finn – Frenn in Nennius Interpretatus out of Finn and a corruption of Finn in another version (Finn appears as Fran in the Chartres MS of the older Nennius, Historia Brittonum).
Now not only Woden and Geat, but the later additions of Heremod64 and Scyld are sufficient to show that mythical persons and persons from Northern and Danish story could get attached to these genealogies. There is therefore nothing impossible in the belief that Finn of the genealogies is really the Frisian king of our story – whether because he is originally mythical and an intruder into both genealogies and tale, or originally a king famous in story and so suitable as an ancestor.
At this point we may notice the Genealogy in the form found in Nennius’ Historia Brittonum. Setting aside corruptions the series is there: Woden – Frealaf – Fredulf – Finn – Folcwald – Geta, qui fuit, ut aiunt, filius dei. Now this is clearly the same as the series we have just examined, but with the remarkable modification that we have Folcwald as the father of Finn, not Godulf. This at first sight clinches the identity of Finn with the Finn of our story (and I think the first sight is the right view). Godulf, however, has to be explained. Two explanations are current: (i) that Finn Godulfing is a mythical character (more proper to a genealogy between Woden and Geat), and that in Nennius, owing to confusion, the historical Finn Folcwalding has been substituted; (ii) that Godulf was the real name of Finn's father and Folcwalda his title (also Finn's), which as it conveniently alliterated eventually supplanted the real name. If so, it supplanted it in just the three documents of most authority and the oldest, where special knowledge of Finn might be expected – Widsith, Nennius, and Beowulf.65
On the other hand, there is nothing, except occurrence between Woden and Geat, to support the existence independent of the genealogies of a “mythical” Finn (Godulfing). Indeed Finn Folcwalding has more right to be regarded as mythical: for it cannot be denied that the expression Freyr folkvaldi goða (Skírnismál 3)66 is suggestive, when we observe the Frea-element also in the genealogies at this point.
It is clearly impossible to ascertain precisely what lies behind the compilation of this series; but I would suggest that, as far as Finn is concerned, it is overwhelmingly probable that the name was borne by an historical Frisian “king” (at the period to which our legend refers), whereas there is no real evidence at all for a “divine” Finn. It is certainly, therefore, the most likely explanation that Finn is an intruder between Woden and Geat, a tribute to his fame, if nothing more. Some other reason than fame, however great, probably existed for his intrusion at this precise point, nonetheless. This reason may well have been very casual and slight. Having regard to the ways in which the compilers of these elongated “trees” worked, I should suggest the following. A name of such fame, belonging to a people so important, both anciently and contemporary with the earlier development of these genealogies, would not be remembered without, probably, at least a father's name and the name of a son (and even grandson) attached. Now his descendants' names may have been similar to some mythical name already present between Woden and Geat, or at least have alliterated with it, while his father's name was conveniently linked by alliteration with Geat.67
The suggestion is, in fact, that we have an elongation of a mythical series Woden – Frea (Frealaf)68 – Geat, by the intrusion of an historical Frealaf (Friþulaf) – Friþuwulf – Finn – Godwulf folcwalda. Frealaf – if his name does not represent mere contamination with the mythical series, rather than (as is more likely) the point of contact with it – is the most certain, for it occurs in every version in this form;69 but Frithuwulf cannot be neglected, though he is absent from some of the versions of the West-Saxon genealogy (Chronicle 855), the Icelandic derivatives, and William of Malmesbury. He occurs in all other versions, and though he might be an elaboration of Frealaf/Friþulaf + Godulf, this is most unlikely in view of his appearance in the highly important Nennius (without Godulf!). He is more likely to be responsible for the Freoþolaf, Friðleif variants than invented from them, though this may be the result of the contamination of Frealaf belonging to Woden and Friþulaf belonging to Frithuwulf and Finn.
There is nothing, of course, to show that all Finn's progeny perished in the Freswæl and the Danish vengeance. Ingeld survived the downfall of Froda. Finn may have had two sons, one of whom, if only a child when he escaped the sack of Finnes ham, may have carried on the line; but a not unlikely event is that Finn had two sons remembered by tradition (one renowned as perishing in the tragedy of the Freswæl, the other as carrying on the line when he grew up), but afterwards arranged in series, after the manner of genealogies, and becoming genealogically son and grandson of Finn.70
In that case we should select Frithuwulf as the elder son who perished and was burned on Hnæf's pyre, because he is always, when mentioned, next to Finn, and because he occurs in Nennius, which clearly draws on sources remembering our tale, since the series is there Hengest . . . (three stages). . . Woden – Frealaf – Fredulf – Finn – Folcwald.
Frealaf has such a good name for a survivor of a great king's downfall that we might almost suspect it to have been borne or invented in fact or legend on that account. This name and his position mark him out (if genuine) as the carrier on of Finn's line. For that reason perhaps (as a stage in dynastic history) he is present in all versions, even those that omit Frithuwulf (with only tragic story to his credit); though Frithuwulf's omission may be in all cases, and certainly in William of Malmesbury, a simplification accidental (among so many Fr-names) or intentional. The process of omission is also found in the compilation of genealogies, real or fictitious, in spite of the general intention to elongate. We may pass over Frithuwald.
The question of the name of Finn's father is, of course, also obscure. It has been assumed above to be Godwulf folcwalda for the following reasons: (i) If it were traditionally attached to Finn, it would by alliteration with Geat have aided the intrusion, (ii) Folcwalda is in itself more like a title than a name (though this is inconclusive), and especially with reference to lords of Frisia (chiefs probably of a maritime confederacy differing in many ways from small “kings” of compact territorial sway) does it suggest a title belonging to the father, or ancestors, of Finn. We have already, under Healfdene, studied the development of a title or nickname into a real name. Nor is the ousting of an assumed first name (Godwulf) by a surname (Folcwalda) impossible in traditions specially well-informed about the persons, (iii) There is nothing to show Godulf “mythical” and belonging to the Woden-Geat series, not to Finn; or to an entirely unevidenced mythical Finn, not a Frisian. Certainly the first element is God, but this is very frequent indeed in Germanic names, among which Godulf itself occurs, apart from our tale. Chambers' suggestion71 that Folcwalda is derived from “epic poetry”, where this conveniently alliterative word would naturally be more prominent, even in early times while Godwulf was still remembered, is the most probable.
Now all this argument about the genealogies does not advance us much with regard to the story of the Freswæl; but it may be excused by the interest in Finn which a discussion of the problem arouses. There is not so much left of the heroes of ancient English traditions that we should scorn the attempt, tiresome in the process and inconclusive in the result as it may be, to piece together all the scraps. At least in identifying Finn Folcwalding with Finn Godulfing (and Godulf with Folcwalda) we get additional indications of the importance of this character, and of the story concerning him. Also it is worth some labour, I think, to recapture the name, or even to guess at the name, of the hapless son of Finn and Hildeburh.
The most important point in the genealogies – and one whose importance is quite independent of the identity of Finn Godulfing – is the appearance of Folcwald72 in one source, and one source only, outside the heroic fragments: that is, in the genealogy of Hors et Hengist in Nennius’ Historia Brittonum, which is generally regarded as an early element in that curious document, belonging to the end of the seventh century or c. 700; but this concerns rather the identity of Hengest and the Eote; see below, p. 67.
One question concerning Finn must be reserved for the discussion of the text in detail: Finnes eaferum 1068. What we have already discovered (quite independently of this debated expression) from the genealogists may, however, eventually prove of service at that point also.
*Hnǽf 1069. Cf. Fragment (p. 35). Hnæf is a prince or king (for legendary purposes at any rate), as is shown by his inclusion in Widsith. On the nature of his realm and subjects and the significance of B. 1069, where he is called “hero of the Halfdanes, Hnæf of the Scyldings”, see Healfdene above. Little can be learned from the Fragment concerning him with certainty except (see p. 35) that he is the chief of the defenders, to whom the warriors owe allegiance. It is a probable conjecture that heaþogeong (Hickes: hearogeong) cyning of the Fragment (line 2) refers to him, and possible (but still more uncertain) that he is one of the hyssas (hwæþer þæra hyssa) referred to in line 48. Neither of these words is definite in reference to age, though in the terse language of the lay we should expect heaþogeong to have some special significance, more than that he was active in battle and not yet senile. Hyse glosses puer, and can be used of a boy not yet fully grown or war-high (hyse unweaxen – Battle of Maldon 152). This is, of course, impossible of Hnæf, but that the word could be used in verse more vaguely, of men of full growth, is seen plainly in other occurrences in The Battle of Maldon; and in Beowulf 1217, where Wealhtheow applies hyse to Beowulf at the very feast where the song of Finn was sung. Even if we make Finn's son a mere child at his death, Hnæf (and Hengest) must still be of an age to allow the one to be spoken of suitably as he is in the Fragment, lines 39-40; and the other to have acquired the importance which he clearly had in both Fragment and Episode, and to be a wrecca (B. 1137). Hnæf must be an established chief. Had he died as a youth, when his father Hoc might well be alive, he would hardly be remembered as Hnæf lord of the Hocings (Widsith 29).
But nothing, except a strained and improbable assimilation of this story to the medieval Niebelungenlied, is in favour of making Finn's son a mere child. The overwhelming probability is that he died fighting, even if a hyse unweaxen, cniht on gecampe, as was Wulfmær se geonga who fell at Maldon.
Men grew up young (and women were often married young) in the heroic and the Viking times. A difference of age between Hildeburh and Hnæf whereby she was 6-10 years older – which is by no means impossible – would, with an early marriage to Finn, allow for all the requirements: Hnæf 25-30, Hildeburh 33 or more, Finn's son about 15. See p. 73.
The fact here assumed that Hnæf was Hildeburh's brother is, of course, a deduction from B. 1074 (bearnum ond broðrum), 1114-1117 (where earme is certainly an error for eame), and from 1076 where Hildeburh is Hoces dohtor, whereas Hnæf ruled the Hocingas (Widsith 29).
An interesting and suggestive trace of memories of Hnæf's name and ancestry, and therefore possibly also of some story concerning him, was discovered by Mullenhoff in Thegan's Life of Louis the Pious §2.73 There in the genealogy of Hildegard wife of Charlemagne (married in 771) is given: Godefridus dux genuit Huochingum, Huochingus genuit Nebi, Nebi genuit Immam, Imma vero Hiltigardam beatissimam reginam. Hiltigard was of the Alamannic ducal line from High Germany, and the shores of Lake Constance.
On the form Huochingus used as a name see note 18 on p. 41. Even though we have the equivalent of OE Hocing, not Hoc in this genealogy, the relation of the two names Nebi, Huochingus as son and father is difficult to dismiss as accidental and unconnected with the English tale. These people Nebi and Huoching, grandfather and greatgrandfather of Hiltigart, belonged approximately to the seventh century.
This gives, of course, ample time for the wandering of a tale from the North Sea, belonging to the fifth century, into Upper Germany. That tales of the more northern Germans did travel south is well known – the Frankish tale of Siegfried/Sigurd being the best-known case; but this was not the only tale that wandered, and we cannot support any theory of the connection in plot between the tragic ending of the Niebelungen and our tale upon this. The legend dealt with in the MHG Kudrun came also from the Baltic and North Sea. Among the characters of that poem indeed occurs Fruote of Tenemark (Denmark), who is undoubtedly connected with the Froda/Frotho/Fróði name of the Heathobeard-Danish conflict.
Hnæf's name is probably connected etymologically with ON hnefi ‘fist’ – whence the ME neve and modern dialectal neve, neive (and probably the surname Neave). The name occurs in Hnæfes scylf, B.C.S. 1307.74 In Old High German Hnabi and Nebi are found: see above and Förstemann (who cites the modern German Näbe, Nebe).75 Hnefi occurs in Old Norse as the name of one of the many “sea-kings”, whose stories are lost, but whose names provide the skalds with kennings. The form Hniflungar, which occurs occasionally or is required by alliteration instead of Niflungar, has been thought to belong originally to Hnefi.76 If so, though we have no Norse story of Hnefi, he must have once been a figure of importance in legend.
These fugitive and inconclusive suggestions are, of course, not sufficient to support any connection in plot between our tale and that of the tragic ending of the Niebelungen, beyond their common element of an heroic defence of a hall. They certainly offer no support to intruding elements peculiar to the Sigurd story, its ancient and mythical elements, such as dwarf-treasure; or peculiar to the Attila-story, the deaths of his sons as children.
Scyldinga 1069, 1154; Here-Scyldinga 1108. See Healfdene above.
Freswæl: in Freswæle 1070. This seems pretty clearly to be the traditional name of the events alluded to, and should be substituted for “The Fight at Finnesburg”.77 The Frisians are also referred to in the Episode 1093 (Fresena cyn), 1104 (Frysna hwylc), 1126 (Frysland). On the Frisians and their divisions see above, pp. 10-16.
At the time of the Geatish raid – more than 70 years, at least, later than the Freswæl – the political situation had changed, owing to the settlement in Britain, the removal or absorption of the Jutes, and the growth of Frankish power. The Frisians are now alluded to in connection with the Franks, though whether the West Frisians alone (distinct from the people of Finn or their descendants) are intended is not clear. The references are: Beowulf 1207, 2912 (Frysum), 2915 (Fresna land), 2357 (Freslondum); and, most interesting, Frescyning 2503. The latter suggests that the Frisians are thought of rather as allies repelling a Scandinavian raid with Frankish help than as part of the Frankish realm.
Hildeburh 1071, 1114. She is called also Hoces dohtor 1076; seo cwen 1153; and drihtlice wif 1158. No trace is found of her outside the Episode. (Her name is of a common Germanic form and is frequently found in use in England and in Germany.) She is an important character in the tale, nonetheless, indeed of an importance that is probably underestimated in interpretations of the tale; but her position, influence, and motives – so far as they can be made out – must be left to the attempted “reconstruction” at the end. Here we may say that it is fairly clear that she is Hnæf 's sister (see above), and she is certainly Finn's wife; and that at any rate the fact that Finn was allied by marriage to a house of Danish connections and allegiance (see Healfdene above) is clearly of great importance to the whole tale.
Eotena gen. pl., 1072; 1088, 1141 (Eotena bearn); Eotenum, dat. pl., 1145. This name is crucial in itself, apart from the vexed question of which side the people so named were on. The latter question must be left to the discussion of the text, and to the “Reconstruction”.
Here we are concerned primarily with identification. I have no hesitation in saying at once that “Jutes” are undoubtedly referred to. The argument on which this conclusion is based is essentially bound up with the identification of Hengest – and also, for all these problems are intricately bound up with traditions concerning early Danish history, with the identification of Heremod and the explanation of the dark allusions in Beowulf 898-915 and 1709-1722. We will deal with the latter first. Though it may seem a digression it is essential. We must decide the question of the “Eotens” by any means we have; but if we can show that Eotenum means, or even probably means, ‘Jutes' in Beowulf 902, we shall approach the forms of the Finn Episode already armed.78
Heremod is in Beowulf a Danish king, who belonged to the remote past, being thought of together with Sigemund but conceived as preceding him (lines 901-2). He must already, therefore, by the author of Beowulf have been thought of as belonging to a period before the house of Healfdene, since he is available for Healfdene's son, Hrothgar, to use as a cautionary example in giving sound advice to Beowulf. He must indeed, for the author of Beowulf, have belonged either to a period beyond the interregnum (line 15) which preceded the coming of Scyld Scefing (since there is no gap for that between Scyld and Hrothgar), or to a side-line of the Danes.79 That his Danish nationality is denoted by calling his realm eþel Scyldinga (913), and his subjects Ar-Scyldingum (1710) beside Deniga leodum (1712), Denum (1720), is usually assumed to be due to “epic” or loose anachronistic use of Scyldingas, which had come to be so often used as an equivalent of “Danes” that it might be used carelessly of them at any period or in any branch. Though we have criticized this assumption of “epic” use in the case of Hnæf (p. 42), it would certainly seem that the use is inaccurate here. It could, from the point of view of the author of Beowulf and his contemporaries, be defended if the true Scyldingas in fact held the same realm and subjects as the older line; in this case the use would be much more intelligible than its false application to a different and more or less contemporary line (the Hocingas): see p. 42.
Such may be the kind of explanation that the author of Beowulf would have offered, if pressed, but it does not follow that it is the real explanation. Scyld/Skjöldr is clearly an eponym derived from a family name of the “heraldic” type: Scyldingas/Skjöldungar. This family name or title was clearly borne by the house of Healfdene, but it is not clear or proved that it was first borne by that house in Danish history; and it is equally likely that they inherited it or adopted it together with the power and position they obtained, as the royal arms descended in England. The true explanation of the use of this name by persons belonging to or related to the Danish royal families may be that it originally belonged to them. Scyld as an eponym has no real existence, no place in chronology. He must therefore be made either a son of a god (Óðinn), the usual Scandinavian development; or a mysterious newcomer as in the Beowulf exordium. But it is actually only in Beowulf that the genealogy is so exclusive, with its direct line Scyld – Beowulf – Healfdene – Hroðgar.
Scandinavian traditions in simpler form make Skjöldr son of Óðinn, but usually fill the necessary gap between the historical Halfdanr and this fictitious forefather with varied material, often drawn from the “Heathobeard” legend – where any connection with Halfdanr is made at all. Saxo intrudes Gram, Hadingus, Frotho I before Haldanus;80 Sweyn Aageson, Frotho; “Series Runica Regum Daniæ Altera”, Hading, Frothe; “Annales Ryenses”, Gram; Skjöl-dunga Saga (epitome) intrudes many chapters, and deals with Herleifus (fourth king and his six grandsons, among whom are Hunleifus, Oddleifus and Gunnleifus, who have actually to do with our Finn story) before he comes down from Scioldus son of Odinus to Frodo and Halfdanus.81
But Skjöldr is not always left at the head. Saxo gives Dan – Lotherus – Skioldus. The same appears in “Annales Ryenses”.
Now all the OE genealogies that include Scyld (Sceld, or the weak form Sceldwa, and variants) are late compilations, later than the writing of Beowulf. In these he has to take his place in a long line, but they all agree in placing above Geat(a):
Tætwa – Beaw (Beow) – Sceld(wa) – Heremod – Itermon – Haðra – Hwala – Bedwi(g) (corrupted from Beowi(us) – Beowi appearing only in MS Cotton Tiberius B iv) – Sceaf.82
William of Malmesbury is the sole exception. He has evidently access to two sources: (i) a simpler one, otherwise lost to us, before the sudden intrusion of Heremod, and while Scyld was still in English fashion made “original” by linking him up with the culture-myth Sceaf direct, and before the duplication of Beaw/Beow who belongs really to Sceaf, which was one of the consequences of the insertion of Scyld where he did not belong between two “corn-spirits” that could not be separated; (ii) one, and in a corrupt form, that included Heremod. As a result he offers Getius83 – Tetius – Beowius – Sceldius – Sceaf. After some very interesting remarks on Sceaf (which really rob him of any need of ancestors!) he adds that Sceaf was Heremodius – Stermonius – Hadra – Gwala – Bedwigius – Strephius (born in Noah's Ark).84
It remains possible nonetheless that his Gwala preserves a more ancient form (else assimilated to Haðra) – cf. Itermod in Asser, Herman in Textus Roffensis II. It is tempting in this *Wala to see the same person as in eaforum Ecgwelan (i.e. Danes, or Danes of the royal house) in Beowulf 1710.
It can hardly be doubted that if Scyld acquires his place among the mythical “originators” Sceaf and Beow because of his fictitious and eponymous character, Heremod acquires his fixed place next above Scyld because Scyld was nonetheless still Danish in tradition when these kings were invented (as he clearly is in Beowulf), and because Heremod was also Danish, but older than Healfdene and his descendants. That is – Heremod of the genealogies is the same as the Heremod of Beowulf. English tradition, having linked Scyld so close to Healfdene (which was not inevitable, and not done in Scandinavian tradition in all cases), had no room in which to operate with other Danes except before Scyld. There was therefore no question of making Scyld of divine “Odinic” origin and first king of the Danes (as usually in Scandinavian treatment), because English tradition still remembered many Danish traditions which were (vaguely, doubtless) known to be before Healfdene. Though Heremod may well have had a perfect right to the Scylding name, yet since he clearly came before the “interregnum” (B. 15) which preceded the rise of the house of Healfdene – he was probably the last of an older line – he had nonetheless to go before Scyld.
At any rate he occupies as immediate predecessor, or genealogically “father”, of Sceldwa/Scyld in Old English exactly the same position as Lotherus in Saxo and in “Annales Ryenses”. There is nothing in this at first sight. There is a common element in both names,85 but that does not prove anything, and in any case the elongations of Saxo's Danish line are independent of the English compilations; but Saxo tells a story of Lotherus that is very close to what can be made out of the story of Heremod in Beowulf. This certainly is enough to arouse suspicion – same position with regard to Scyld/Skjöldr, similar story – but not enough to prove identity. Proof cannot be obtained, but the matter can be raised to great probability. We need some indication that Lother(us) has ousted Hermóðr, the Scandinavian form of Heremod's name. The following indications can be found: Hermóðr is no longer recognized as a Danish king in Norse, but he is a son of Óðinn (as is Skjöldr). He seems dimly connected in the mind still with Sigmundr (cf. Hyndluljóð, where we meet a warrior Hermóðr in close connection still with Sigmundr, before whom he is named).86 This would seem to support the connection of Hermóðr the son of Óðinn with the Danish wrecca whose fame preceded that of the Sigemund mentioned in Beowulf (lines 898-902); but we shall see below (certainly in a late source combining evidently more than one older one) Lotherus also mixed up with Balderus and Othinus.
Now the stories of Lotherus all make him driven out or killed in a rebellion (of nobles) because of his tyranny, and this is their chief point of contact with the allusive account in Beowulf. Yet the following certainly late and corrupted hints seem to show that Scandinavian tradition once told such a tale of Hermóðr, before (a) as wreccena wide mærost he became a son of Óðinn and was cut off from his human disasters, and (b) these last became attached to other names, though still associated with Denmark:87
(i) Saxo tells similar tales concerning Olo (i.e. Áli hinn frœkni, Danish king), a gifted and strong youth, who was later a cruel and evil king, so that twelve duces plotted against him and induced Starcatherius (i.e. Starkaðr) to kill him at the bath.88
(ii) But in Nornagestsþáttr89 (c. A.D. 1300) and Egilssaga ok Ásmundar90 (fourteenth century) it is Armóðr who is slain while bathing by Starkaðr. It seems probable that if we had earlier Norse sources we should find the uncorrupted name Hermóðr.
In the Scondia Illustrata of Johannes Messenius,91 a chronicler of the early seventeenth century, we have the following account (in Latin): “therefore Lotherus, King of the Danes, bereft of his wealth because of his excessive tyranny, and defeated, fled into Jutia”. This is, of course, quite independent of Beowulf which was then as yet unknown. Messenius is evidently combining older sources, with different accounts of the end of Lotherus-Heremod, for in Scondia Illustrata Lotherus returns, slays the rival king Balderus, but is killed by Othinus in a war of revenge. The return from exile and the slaying of the rival is another Heremod-feature; but the chief interest of this is the blending of the “fratricidal tyrant” story with the relation to Óðinn, which are elsewhere separated, even if this has made Lotherus kill Baldr (!) (and humanized both Baldr and Óðinn as a result) instead of his brother Humblus (as in Saxo).
Now, can we equate Beowulf 902-4, he mid Eotenum wearð on feonda geweald forð forlacen, snude forsended, with the flight into Jutia of this late chronicle? For the moment we will grant the philological and grammatical possibility, which will be discussed below.
Against this is, of course, the lateness of Scondia Illustrata. It should also be noted that Beowulf 902-4 (if it applies to Heremod at all) applies to his wrecca period, while he was still hopeful, and had not yet become a tyrant. Finally it must be noted that the uses of he in this passage are obscure. We cannot here discuss the passage in detail, but in view of the clear use in 913-15 (where he, hine are contrasted and refer to different persons), it is plain that he mid Eotenum wearð on feonda geweald . . . forsended MIGHT refer to Sigemund, in which case “Jutes” would be unlikely and “monsters” most probable, since Sigemund and Fitela hæfdon ealfela eotena cynnes sweordum gesæged (883-4).
In its favour we might urge in reply: scraps of valuable tradition may well turn up in late sources, and Messenius would certainly seem to be using sources much older than his own time, and to have been using something no longer available. The alteration in the time of the occurrence of the tyrannical nature of Hermóðr/Lotherus is not a serious obstacle. It was the chief thing remembered of him in Scandinavia, and obscured his period of glory unless this was isolated in the person of Hermóðr son of Óðinn. Finally, though possible, the attribution of 903-5 to Sigemund is very unlikely. We do not know, of course, what was his end in early OE tradition, but nothing that is known anywhere is in favour of its being “among Jutes”, or by “being betrayed into enemies' hands among giants, and quickly sent to destruction”; whereas if you take it of Heremod it becomes reasonable. Jutes on the one side and Geatas on the other were clearly in early times the nearest natural enemies (as neighbours) of the Danes. For a young wrecca, driven out by a jealous relative, Jutland was a natural haven. So Eanmund and Eadgils go from Sweden to the Geats, so Ecgtheow from Geats to Danes, when their own land is too hot to hold them. Moreover we are contrasting Sigemund's prosperity (and doubtless avoiding mention of any “end”) with the sorrows of Heremod, and yet in this first passage we are dealing with his trials as a wrecca, before his return to Denmark.
We may translate: “He was ‘betrayed forth’ – i.e. driven away by treachery – to the realms of enemies among the Jutes (feonda of the Danes and their house, not particularly of Heremod), swiftly driven into exile.”92 This is, in fact, so much more reasonable than attribution to Sigemund, or translation so as to describe Heremod's end which is not in question, but rather his exile (swiðferhþes sið 908), that “Jutes” have a strong claim, quite apart from hints and identifications in Scandinavian sources. What Heremod's actual end was is not clear, but it does not in Beowulf appear to have been sudden death or anything done snude. He appears to have gone alone into dishonoured exile (1714-15), and to have suffered (as the result of the strife he roused) long misery (1721-2).
We can, therefore, for the moment still shelve the problem of form. We can approach the Episode armed with the belief that already in line 902 we have met the Jutes in the form Eotenum, Will anything lead us to prefer this identification in the Episode, rather than “giants” or creatures of Grendel-sort?
Certainly – the atmosphere of the Finn-story is heroic, “historical” and political, and bound up with the history of warring peoples, and especially of the Danes and Frisians (beyond doubt). No people are antecedently more likely to figure in a story of Danish and Frisian policies at this date than Jutes. No creatures are less likely to have any concern in the story than “trolls”, and only reluctantly and in face of conclusive evidence should we admit them. We have already seen that Frisian and Jute are associated together (and together with Danes). See p. 46 fn. 30 and p. 47 fn. 32, and especially Widsith 26-9 where without alliterative compulsion we have the collocation Ytum Gefwulf, Finn Folcwalding Fresna cynne, Sigehere lengest Sæ-Denum weold, Hnæf Hocingum – reflecting this connection, with an additional suggestion that it has our story actually in mind. Finally there is Hengest – for argument that he is a Jute see below, pp. 66-8.
Nothing really is against “Jutes”, everything for it – except the form eotenum. Metre unfortunately fails us here. There is only one place in OE metre where (ĕotĕnă, ĕotĕnŭm) will not go, and is not permitted, and that is as the second part of a C half-line, preceded by a long syllable; but none of these forms appears in such a metrical position. All our occurrences in the Episode and the Heremod-passage occur where ĕotĕnă and ēot(e)nă are equally possible.
What are the forms of the Jutish name ? The form we now use (Jute) is a book-form, derived ultimately from the Latin of Bede who, writing about the time when Beowulf was probably composed, used the plural forms Iuti. Iutae: that is, he Latinized his contemporary archaic Northumbrian Īuti pl. (like Seaxe, Engle, Swæfe, Mierce, etc.) or the weak singular Īuta. These forms represent a Germanic *Iutīz < *Eutīz, beside a weak variant *Iutiō. In later Old English their forms would have been (a) Anglian Īote, Īotan (later Ēote, Ēotan, whence the genitive plural Ēot(e)na, which would be the form chiefly used, and in epic poetry most familiar). In West-Saxon we should have , (g.pl. ).
These forms do occur.93 For example: (i) in the Old English translation of Bede; while at one point the only two extant MSS give the erroneous Geata (a confusion which does not concern us here, except that traces of its occurrence in Geotena ‘of Geats' in Beowulf 443 supports the equivalence of Ēotena and Jutes), at another point four MSS give Ēota and one the WS .94 (ii) A different translation of Bede was inserted into a copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle early sent to one of the Northumbrian abbeys; here Iutis, Iutarum are rendered Iutum (Iotum), Iutna.95 (iii) This Northumbrian Chronicle came back to Canterbury; here (where if anywhere they might have remembered the Jutish name) they used Iotum (Iutum), Iutna.96 (iv) MS C.C.C.C. 41 gives a Wessex version of Bede by a scribe who knew Hampshire; here Ēota is rendered by , Ēotum by .97 This belongs to c. 1066. The name survived for some time, for Florence of Worcester (early twelfth century) refers to noua foresta quae lingua Anglorum Ytene nuncupatur, and to in prouincia Iutarum in Noua Foresta.98 This is a reference to land, the parts of Hampshire (including the Isle of Wight) originally occupied by Jutes, (v) In Widsith we have .
It cannot, therefore, be denied that in Beowulf, in which many non-West-Saxon forms (even apart from purely poetic words like
eafera, heaþu-, among which the ancient heroic names of persons and peoples may really be reckoned) are preserved unaltered, Eotena would be a perfectly natural form for the genitive plural of “Jutes”.
But we have Eotenum in line 1145 (not to mention line 902).
A dative plural in -(e)num is of course not a usual or natural form in Beowulf for the name of the Jutes or for any other weak noun. That it is not an impossible late form is shown by the rare dative plurals (of weak nouns) oxnum, nefenum, lēonum, tānum. These are late forms on the analogy of the genitive plurals oxna, nefena, etc., and the Beowulf manuscript is late;99 but do we really have to prove that eotenum is a possible (late) dative plural of the name of the Jutes? It is no part of any theory, and in any case extremely unlikely, that either of the two scribes who produced our surviving manuscript of Beowulf understood what he was copying out in all its details, or indeed knew half as much as we do, or cared so much. It is most probable, indeed, that when Scribe A wrote eotenum he thought it was the dative plural of ěoten, and was content; but we are not concerned with him – neither Scribe A nor Scribe B knew much about the old proper names, and either because of their own ignorance, or because they represent the culmination of a process of forgetfulness and corruption, less reliance can be placed on the forms of proper names in Beowulf than on any other class of word. We are constantly obliged to emend them from knowledge gleaned from Beowulf itself, from metre, or from extraneous sources.
Names essential to the tale like Heardred son of Hygelac are miswritten hearede (dative) 2202; even Grendel is once written gredel 591; Finn is disguised and evidently not recognized in finnel unhlitme 1128-9. Hemming, who appears twice in the Offa-passage, is neither time given correctly; Unferð, in defiance of alliteration, appears throughout as hunferð. The Swedes appear as swona (‘swans', if anything) in the genitive plural, for Swēona, in 2946; while the byname of the Geatas, Wederas, is completely corrupted in 461, or by casual suggestion of letters turned into the Christian formula Drihten wereda in 2186; the common genitive plural Denigea ‘of Danes' is by casual association with Scyldinga, just before, turned into Deninga 465. Casual associations, especially with other words (not proper names) of more or less similar appearance, are in fact well evidenced. Cain, in cain wearð 1261, becomes camp ‘battle’; *Eomer becomes geomor 1960; Hreþric becomes hreþ rinc 1836.
Nothing is therefore more to be expected than the alteration of Jutes into eotens. The forms eotum, eotenum are similar in appearance; the name of the Jutes only occurs occasionally in the poem, and in obscure and allusive contexts, and was doubtless in the tenth century no longer generally known (like Frisian, Dane, Swede, Geat) since, owing to the very events we are studying, they had been uprooted or absorbed politically. The scribe had already five times (before 902) met with the genuine word ěoten. There was, of course, in OE MSS no use of capitals to guide one. Actually ěoten itself is only evidenced in Old English from Beowulf, but this does not prove it an unfamiliar word (we have nothing else in Old English which touches on that kind of native story or tradition); but just as monster and fairy outlived the heroic tale founded on history, so eoten outlived Jute, and is found still in Middle English.
There is, then, nothing in the form of Eotenum (902, 1145) that can upset the evidence of the other sort that when those lines were composed the people “Jutes” were intended. Ēotum must doubtless have stood in those lines at an earlier stage in the history of our text; but for our purpose it matters little whether we accept Ēotenum as a late dative plural form of the name of the Jutes, along with various other late forms in our text, or emend it as being a scribal error due to confusion with the word ěoten (which is far the more likely of the two possibilities).
Hoc: only in Hoces dohtor 1076, of Hildeburh, and in Hocingum, Widsith 29. See further under Hnæf above, and pp. 40-41 and p. 41 note 18. The simple uncompounded names that appear with unusual frequency in this tale (Hoc, Finn, Hnæf, Hengest, Eaha) accord well with the fifth century and the place-name evidence of early nomenclature in England.
*Hengest. In addition to the pregnant reference to him in the Fragment (q.v.) we meet him several times in the Episode. The exact purport of the references belongs to a discussion of the text: see below, pp. 100-104, 123-30. The occurrences of the name are 1083, 1091, 1096, 1127: all, it may be said, referring to the situation after Hnæf's death, or so it would appear. He then seems to stand forth as the leader of the defenders (1083), the chief party to the treaty with Finn (1091, 1096), and it is his feelings after its conclusion that are dealt with (1096ff., 1127ff.). All of which bears out the suggestion of Hengest sylf (Fragment 17), that he was a prominent, even dominant figure among the defenders, and had been prominently mentioned before the outbreak of war (which our actual Fragment speaks of), and that he was in some way specially concerned with the “feud” which lay behind it.
That he is referred to as þeodnes ðegne (1085), a phrase which would reveal his relationship to Hnæf, is not universally agreed. Still less certain is the assumption that he is referred to as Eotena bearn (1088, 1141) in either or both cases. (See the discussion of the text.) There cannot, however, be much doubt that he is referred to as wrecca (1137), and the meaning of this word therefore acquires special importance.
We must not be misled by its cognate, Modern German Recke ‘hero, man of valour’ (especially as figuring in old tales), and forget its descendant, Modern English wretch ‘unhappy man’. The proper meaning of this word is ‘one exiled, driven out into banishment in alien lands, cut off from his own home’. Apart from heroic poetry its natural connotation is misery (wineleas, hamleas, werig, geomor). It is applied to Cain, to the Devil, to the fallen Angels. It is the normal word to represent Latin exul, extorris, and already in Old English it is used to represent merely miser, though it is sometimes found used merely of “strangers”, journeying, arriving, or living in foreign lands (extraneus, advens, incola) – cf. OS wrekkio, used of the Three Kings of the East. The OHG reccho still has a similar use, cf. reccheo in Hildebrandslied 48.
But the wreccan with which heroic traditions dealt were men famous in story, either of the far past like Wudga and Hama (wræccan, Widsith 129-30), or of more recent times and nearer home: men who, driven from home by usurpers, invaders, or feuds, or their own wild deeds, took to viking-life, or found service among the “comrades” of celebrated kings, even (or especially) with the traditional enemies of their own houses and people. They won renown in song like Sigemund (wreccena wide mærost, B. 898), and though they often came to a grievous end, like Eanmund the exiled Swedish prince, fugitive from his uncle Onela, who was slain by Weohstan (wræcca wineleas, B. 2611-3), they might also achieve vengeance and re-instatement, as Eadgils, Eanmund's brother, did with Geatish aid (B. 2391 ff.), or Heremod, who also had the title wrecca (by implication of his contrast with Sigemund).
This heroic and adventurous connotation of the word in ancient poetry, which is seen (beside traces of the ‘exile’) in the MHG Recke ‘knight errant, proven warrior of valour’, and survives in Modern German Recke, is due to the feuds among the proud and ambitious sons, and brothers, and brothers' sons, of the northern kings, as well as to the natural interest at all times in outlaw-tales and the adventures of brave men winning renown from misfortune.
Thus Sigeferth claims in the Fragment (line 25; see p. 87) to be wreccea wide cuð – and note that even he claims to have “suffered many woes”. He is also Secgena leod, but he is not a “king of the Secgan” but a prince whose sword is now at the service of Hnæf. Indeed the word wrecca does not necessarily show that with him any personal following of other Secgan was included among the gallant gesiþas of the Danish chief.
So with Hengest: it is possible, at least, that his position was similar, though his fame may have been greater; that he did not belong to Hnæf's house or people, but was another exile, or disinherited man, attached to his following. It is well to bear this in mind; but it should be noted that unfortunately (there are many misfortunes in the Episode) even this word, which holds promise of yielding a meaning that would aid in defining the position and origin of Hengest, is not free from ambiguity. We cannot insist on its full “heroic” meaning here. It remains, of course, possible that this word is selected to apply to Hengest – it is free from any alliterative or metrical compulsion – because the author knew of him as a famous wrecca, involved in the feuds of his own people. This is the sort of trick the Old English poetic language plays – with many-sided words packing the short sonorous lines full of meanings (so that we must not neglect those which lie on the borders of the main purport, or beneath the surface of the obvious). We can admire and enjoy it when we know the subject; it is an added difficulty when this is what we are trying to discover. Here, nonetheless, the place and context must be considered. The passage is one dealing with the irksomeness of enforced sojourn at Finn's court; and the word gist, at least a partial equivalent (‘stranger’, not necessarily ‘guest’ precisely), immediately follows. It is plain enough, then, that it is Hengest's relations with Finn, not with Hnæf, that are primarily defined by wrecca, gist. Hengest was not, of course, precisely a wrecca – he was not actually “in exile”, but had come on a visit which had ended disastrously; he was not wineleas, but had his heap, at least, and a formal bargain with Finn. We cannot, all the same, argue from the use of the word that he was a wrecca in Hnæf's service, and when at home with Hnæf was still himself not at home, but exiled, a stranger in foreign service. He may have been, and this may (acting together with the suggestion of gist) have determined the choice of the pregnant word in line 1137, in place of some vaguer warrior-synonym; but the poet's probable meaning is that he was in alien service (to Finn) now, being wineleas, robbed of his lord Hnæf by death, so that, being cut off (at least for the moment) by winter from return, his position was similar to that of a wrecca – the chief difference, indeed, between his position and the usual one of a wrecca was that he had a feud and a grudge to bear against his new master, and followed him only under the compulsion of a crooked fortune.
Since we cannot, without a closer examination of the text of the Episode as a whole, define Hengest's position or origin more closely, we must see if nothing can be done with extraneous evidence. Outside the Finn-story the name Hengest is unknown in literary or historical documents or traditions, except as the name of a Jutish adventurer and chief who with his brother Horsa came to England.100
It is possible, of course, that these are two distinct characters, but it is certainly not the most probable reading of such evidence as we possess. For –
(1) Hengest is an odd and rare name.
(2) Both bearers of this memorable name were contemporaries, and adventurers in the same waters. On the chronology see below, pp. 71-5.
(3) One was probably a Jute, and at any rate a leader of Jutes, and was regarded as the ancestor of the kings of the Jutish kingdom of Kent; the other is a dominant figure in a tale in which the name Eotena, Eotenum occurs plainly as an important factor – and this name has independently been seen to mean, most probably, ‘Jutes'.
(4) The Kentish tradition, alone outside Old English verse, names (in connection with Hengest) Finn son of Folcwald, as in Beowulf. see under Finn above, p. 50.
It is not forcing the evidence, but following its most obvious leading, to identify the two Hengests, and believe that we have preserved two traditions of different adventures in the life-history of one famous adventurer – and each where we should expect it, were the two Hengests one: the story of the gallant defence in the heroic traditions mainly concerned with Germania, not Britain; the story of the landing in Britain and the foundation of a new kingdom in the embryonic history of that new kingdom. In fact any theory of the Episode or Fragment which separates the two Hengests (or does not take their identity into full account) must, I think, depend on some very strong counter-arguments indeed. Unless these are forthcoming we must inevitably see Jutes in the Finn-story and Hengest among them.
Nor is the general character or atmosphere of the tale against this. That troubles and feuds between Danes and Frisians, and other North-Sea peoples lying between them, should precede and be intimately connected with the events in Britain in the fifth century is indeed precisely what might be expected. That these traditions, and Hengest's part in them, should anciently have figured largely in the traditions of people who remembered Hengest as a prominent leader in Britain requires no great effort of belief.
There remains, nonetheless, a chronological problem with which we must do our best before we have done all we can for Hengest.
We cannot here discuss the “Chronicle” tradition and the matter of Hengest and Horsa in Britain in full. The most important points about it for our immediate purposes are the Jutish connections of Hengest, his position of warlike adventurer, and the dating in tradition of his arrival.
We may accept this tradition as worthy of credence within certain limits. Tradition of the kind, especially coming from a time of very remarkable events, is likely to be long-lived and in certain points accurate: these points, in an aristocratic and dynastic tradition, connected with “heroic” verse though not necessarily solely enshrined in it, will be the names of the principal persons, chiefs, leaders, warriors, their relationship to one another (especially in blood), and something of the sequence of events. Exact dating will be its weakness: things that are remembered at all may be kept in their right order, but the line will be liable to be stretched here or contracted there.
We are not likely to be faced with the confusions of the Gothic story, which reached England and Scandinavia only from a distance, already in the earliest layers probably somewhat altered in the interests of the personal and dramatic, and which has now at length reached us only after a long process of literary handling cut loose from history, or even any local or dynastic interests. Here we are dealing with things which concerned the English directly, and treated of the names of actual leaders and chiefs in the adventure into Britain, and of the ancestors of the actual kings before whom lays were recited.
The story of Hengest and Horsa belonged to ancient English, or rather Kentish, tradition, and appears moreover to have reached documentary written form at a very early date – a thing neither impossible nor improbable in the South-East. This tradition was early blended with Welsh tradition, but in England, in Kent, remained independent and native.101 Fixed points in the tradition, and ones on which we may therefore rely, are: the Jutish origin102 of the Kentish kingdom; the names of the leaders of the expedition,103 Hengest and Horsa his brother; their landing in Thanet about the middle of the fifth century; Horsa's death in battle in the early days of fighting; the foundation of the Kentish kingdom by a son of Hengest,104 at a later date.105
Bede I xv: Duces fuisse perhibentur eorum primi duo fratres Hengist et Horsa; e quibus Horsa postea occisus in bello a Brettonibus, hactenus in orientalibus Cantiae partibus monumentum habet suo nomine insigne.
II v: Erat autem Aedilberct filius Irminrici, cuius pater Octa, cuius pater Oeric cognomento Oisc, a quo reges Cantuariorum solent Oiscingas cognominare. Cuius pater Hengist, qui cum filio suo Oisc inuitatus a Uurtigerno Brittoniam primus intrauit.
Chronicle A.D. 449 (date taken from beginning of Bede I xv): Her Mauricius 7 Ualentines onfengon rice 7 ricsodon vii winter; 7 on hiera dagum Hengest 7 Horsa from Wyrtgeorne geleaþade Bretta kyninge gesohton Bretene on þam staþe þe is genemned Ypwinesfleot. 455. Her Hengest and Horsa fuhton wiþ Wyrtgeorne þam cyninge in þære stowe þe is gecueden Agæles þrep, 7 his broþur Horsan man ofslog; 7 æfter þam Hengest feng to rice 7 Æsc his sunu. 457. Her Hengest 7 Æsc fuhton wiþ Brettas in þære stowe þe is gecueden Crecganford, 7 þær ofslogon wera (i.e. 4000; but other versions have iiii werad), 7 þa Brettas þa forleton Centland, 7 mid micle ege flugon to Lundenbyrg. 465. Her Hengest 7 Æsc fuhton uuiþ Walas neah Wippedes fleot, 7 þær xii wilisce aldormenn ofslogon 7 hiera þegna an þær wearþ ofslægen, þam wæs noma Wipped. 473. Her Hengest 7 Æsc gefuhton wiþ Walas, 7 genamon unarimedlico herereaf, 7 þa Walas flugon þa Englan swa fýr. 488. Her Æsc feng to rice, 7 was xxiiii wintra Cantwara cyning.
It is not necessary for our present purpose to deal with the vexed question of the whole of the process of the “English” invasion, and of the relation of the tradition in the Chronicle to other evidence (e.g. archæological).106 Nor are we really concerned with the precise position of Hengest in that process. His expedition may or may not have been the first. Maritime “Saxon” raids began to be serious even before the fifth century, and the whole course of events was evidently long and confused; but one thing seems to emerge from the confusion, and that is that about the middle of the century things took a new turn (just as later they did in the case of the Danish invasions), devastating blows were struck from which the British defence never really fully recovered, and Britain was faced not with plunderers merely but with determined efforts to establish permanent settlements. That Hengest was actually a masterless man, seeking for warlike employment and any opportunity that luck might present to him, who came primarily as a mercenary, but soon changed his purpose, is highly probable in itself, and very suggestive if we identify him with Hnæf's thegn. That it was his success that changed the course of things and attracted leaders of greater importance and more numerous following to Britain, as a solution of the strife and pressure of their native lands is also very possible. The prominence given to his name in Bede and the Chronicle is certainly due in part to the early establishment of the Jutish kingdom, and to its special importance at the end of the sixth century in the time of the first missionaries – it depends on definitely south-eastern tradition; but this does not exclude the possibility that Hengest may actually have been both prominent and renowned!
Unfortunately it is the date of Hengest's expedition with which we are for the moment principally concerned, not a point in which the traditional account is likely to be very reliable. Yet this date, say c. 450, cannot actually be seriously challenged, unless the whole matter is dismissed as a myth. The actual date 449 is due to Bede, and to his calculation, based doubtless as usual upon native traditions and foreign learning, and his attempt to harmonize the two.107 His calculation will actually fit any date between A.D. 450 and 455. That the Jutish expedition, which on archæological grounds has been thought to proceed from the mouth of the Rhine,108 had anything to do with the battle of Chalons (452), or the growth of Frankish power, is an interesting suggestion.109 It does not directly concern us, except to note that the Rhine-mouth is, in this debatable period, as well called an area of Frisian influence as of Frankish.
All the same, though we may not be able to pin our date to 449 or to any precise year between that and 455, we cannot shift it more than a few years. We have in the Chronicle, in fact, an example of that extension of the line of historical sequence, not its confusion, which we have spoken of already as likely. The death of Horsa (whose tomb was still in Bede's time to be seen in eastern Kent),110 a memorable event, is probably rightly placed, but the time elapsing between it and the landing has been stretched – the native tradition has been blended with the calculations of Bede. We may represent this, with some hope of being more or less correct, in this way: between A.D. 450 and 455 (say c. 453) an expedition of Jutes landed in Thanet, primarily as mercenaries; but hostilities broke out between them and their employers after no very long time. The leaders were Hengest and Horsa. Horsa fell in battle c. 455. Attracted by the initial successes of the attempt, many Jutes followed, and after varying fortunes succeeded in establishing a permanent “kingdom” in Kent; whether actually in Hengest's lifetime remains to be seen.
We must now return to the Freswæl. This has no traditional date attached to it, but we must attempt first of all to date it, however conjecturally, independently of the identification of the Hengests.
The connection of the Freswæl with events in Britain does not depend solely on this identification. That it belongs to the troublous years of the fifth century, when Danish power disturbed the North, when Jutes appear unsettled and of uncertain situation, seeking new homes south and west, and when the Huns (among other causes) disturbed and dislocated the South, with far-reaching consequences for the defence of Britain, is antecedently most probable; but it might be placed either earlier or later. English heroic traditions looked back beyond the fifth century (as in the case of Offa), and were not cut off from the events in the North after that century.
Yet we can dismiss a date later than the fifth century, or even late in the century. The Freswæl cannot have occurred after the death of Healfdene Scylding and the accession of his son Hrothgar. Even disregarding the connection proposed above (under Healfdene) between Hnæf and Healfdene (though some connection can hardly be doubted), it is extremely improbable that a matter belonging to Hrothgar's own lifetime, or reign, and especially to a time quite close to the supposed feast, would be selected for the minstrel in Heorot by a poet who wrote when many traditions of the Danes were still current, and considerable knowledge of dynastic relations and their relative chronology were still preserved.
If, however, any such connection between Healfdene and Hnæf as I have proposed is assumed, a date for the Freswæl at latest in Healfdene's early years is necessary. The connection between the two can hardly have been nearer in time than nephew (Healfdene) to uncle (Hnæf).111 Healfdene was therefore, probably, twenty, or say at least ten, years younger than Hnæf, who was (on the most likely interpretation of the Fragment) a comparatively young man.
Now Healfdene's dates can be independently calculated.112 His birth must have occurred about 440, or possibly a little earlier. The most probable sequence is: Healfdene born A.D. 435-40; died (or was slain) at an age great enough to be memorable and referred to in both English and Scandinavian tradition, c. A.D. 500-5. Hrothgar, his second son and possibly his third child, succeeded at this date (aged c. 35). Beowulf's visit belongs in the neighbourhood of A.D. 520-5 in so far as it is historical, and some five to ten years later occurred the fall of Hygelac (525-30).
Into this sequence the Freswæl fits well enough c. 450. Healfdene would then be aged about 10-15, and Hnæf (his uncle?) about 30; Hildeburh at least 33, and her son 15 or more.
The Freswæl cannot be much later than the date suggested, though an adjustment of a year or so would be possible.
It might, however, be made considerably earlier, if Hoc and Hnæf were more remote ancestors of Healfdene. Against such a supposition nothing very definite can be urged. Trouble in Jutland and migration of Jutes has on archaeological evidence been supposed to begin far back, even as early as the second century.113 Yet on general considerations (see above, p. 68) we should not expect the Freswæl to date from a century earlier than the fifth: a century to which the evident importance of the Frisians seems to point as the earliest likely one. We should, too, certainly expect the Freswæl to be directly connected with the conditions amid which the house of Healfdene took its rise, and not to any very remote time; while a fairly close tie between Hnæf and Healfdene is far the most likely explanation of the evident interest of Heorot in the matter, and the preservation of the memory of that connection in England points rather to the fifth century, about which much was remembered, than to earlier times already becoming dimmer and more confused.
Amid a wide range of possibilities, then, which we cannot reduce with certainty owing to the misfortune that we must depend only on an allusion in a compressed passage in Beowulf, and have no precise statement of the relation of Hnæf to Healfdene, we cannot do more for the dating of the Freswæl than this: it might belong to a very ancient layer of heroic traditions, but in all probability it does not, and in that case a date in the neighbourhood of A.D. 450 fits best.
Now this has been calculated quite independently of the identification of Hengest Hnæf's thegn and Hengest of Kent. If the two are identified – an identification which does not solely depend on considerations of chronology – this date still fits very well. At the least this is interesting and suggestive, and might be taken as somewhat strengthening the network of conjecture.
If we make the identification we can make our chronology more definite. The Freswæl then fits in best between 450 and 453 (say), and occurs not long before, and very possibly in actual connection with, the expedition to Britain. At the time of that disaster Hengest must be assumed to be about 25, if we are to believe that he died c. 488 (being then aged about 63). He might, of course (as far as mere possibility goes), have been even 10 years or so older, but we have no certain means of defining his age. Our only indications are (a) the probability that he is called hyse in the Fragment, (b) the age of his son c. 455, and (c) the accession of this son in 488.
But we are not really obliged to believe that Hengest survived until 488, even accepting the English tradition as finally enshrined in the Chronicle. The fact that Oisc (Æsc), not Hengest, gave his name to the Kentish Oiscingas does not in the face of the fixed tradition disprove Oisc's parentage, but it does suggest that to Oisc was actually ascribed the foundation or permanent establishment of the kingdom, and that this was not achieved until after Hengest's time. Hengest's death may have occurred at any time between, say, A.D. 470 (Hengest is last mentioned in the Chronicle A.D. 473) and c. 490 (the Chronicle under A.D. 488 mentions the “accession” of Æsc). The expression feng to rice is not solely used of normal accession by the heir to an established realm; it may be translated ‘took, or acquired, command’.
With regard to Æsc it is most likely that the tradition in the Chronicle is erroneous. He is said by Bede (see the citation above, p. 70) to have come to Britain invited with his father; the Chronicle associates him with his father in “taking command” after Horsa's death (455; see above, p. 70); and again in battle with the Brettas in 457 (Laud MS, anno 456).
This, of course, if Æsc were no more than, say, 17 in 455, would make him 50 in 488, and 74 at death (not entered in the Chronicle) after 24 years' reign. Not impossible, but very dubious. Hengest would in that case be 35 at least at the landing, we should imagine, and we should have to put his birth somewhat before 420, and his age in 488 (supposing he survived so long) as about 70. There is nothing, of course, really impossible about this – the career of Penda might warn us that a king could succeed late in life and die at an advanced age, even in battle – but on the whole it is more likely that the line of events 449-99 has been stretched in length; a not unlikely process, as has already been said.
It has not been stretched by making the accession of Æsc too late. Æthelberht his great-grandson was reigning in 596 and did not die until 616. The gap between 488 and 596 is only just filled by Æsc, Octa, and Irminric, and by assuming a fair longevity for the Kentish kings. Probably, but not certainly, the emergence of Æsc as a warrior has been antedated. It probably did not actually occur before c. 470. Though he may have come to Britain with Hengest, he was probably no more than a child at the time, and his birth may be conjecturally placed close to the date of the Freswæl.
We may arrange matters thus: Hengest born 420-25; survived the Freswæl (c. 450 or a little later) at the age of 25-32; came to Britain c. 453 (his son born c. 450); Horsa slain c. 455; Hengest last mentioned in battle A.D. 473 (aged 48-53), and about this date his son Æsc became a warrior, establishing himself as king of the Cantware c. 488 (aged about 38), and dying in 512 (aged about 62).
Folcwaldan sunu 1089. See above under Finn.
Dene: see under Healfdene above. Dene appears to be equated with Hengestes heap 1091;114 to Denum 1158 means back to the raiders' home, certainly the home of Guthlaf and Oslaf, apparently that of Hildeburh and Hnæf. Hengest is not mentioned.
Hunlafing 1143, sometimes divided into Hun (man) and Lafing (sword). This is plausible, because Hun occurs as a man's name, and an “heroic” one (e.g. Hun Hætwerum in Widsith 33, and Hun in Saxo).115 The name is old, and probably distinct in origin from the name of the Huns. But on the reasons for retaining Hunlafing as the patronymic name of a man, see under Guðlaf ond Oslaf (next entry).
*Guðlaf ond Oslaf 1148. This is evidently the same pair as the Ordlaf and Guþlaf who with Hengest, and therefore closely associated with him, held one of the doors of the hall in the Fragment. For the variation Oslaf, Ordlaf see p. 31.
Outside the allusions in the Fragment and the Episode the evidence is scanty but suggestive:
(1) The passage in MS Cotton Vespasian D iv (fol. 139v) discovered by Imelmann, which gives a short list of Germanic heroes still remembered (after the Norman Conquest) in English tradition, who earned fame in Italy, Gaul, Britain and Germany,116 tells us that to the widespread activity of barbarians and Germans who settled throughout Europe give witness gesta rudolphi et hunlapi, Unwini et Widie, horsi et hengisti, Waltef et hame. Only eight names. Unwine, Widia and Hama belong to Gothic story and do not concern us (all three are mentioned in Widsith 114, 124); but it is remarkable that if we deduct them and the late “Norman-Conquest” hero Waltef we are left only with names connected with the house of Healfdene and the Freswæl. By association with rudolphi (i.e. Hrothulf), Hunlaf is seen to be probably a Dane. The occurrence of these names in the same short list, though the Gothic Unwine and Widia appear in between (pretty clearly dissociated and wrongly separated from Hama), is also highly suggestive.117
(2) In the Latin abstract of the lost Skjöldungasaga118 we learn that Herleifus (fourth king of Denmark after Scioldus) had a son Leifus, and he had six sons Herleifus, Hunleifus, Aleifus, Oddleifus, Geirleifus and Gunnleifus. The three names which concern us are the exact equivalents of OE Hunlaf, Ordlaf, Guðlaf.
Why is this matter in the late, confused and elaborated Skjöldungasaga anything to do with our purpose? The following reasons might be given:
(1) They are Danes, and so are our people; or at least they belong to some region or people later confused with or absorbed by Danes, together with their legends. Moreover they are Skjöldun-gar, and we have already seen that it has been too hastily assumed that Scyldinga 1069, Here-Scyldinga 1108 reflect merely a loose “epic” use in the Episode.
(2) One similar name would be accident, but three is not likely to be accident. Even the order of precedence is probably the same. The elaborated Scandinavian source gives among other names Hunleifus, Oddleifus, Gunnleifus. The English tradition suggests that Hunlaf was the most important, and the Fragment, which here preserves the names better, has Ordlaf and Guþlaf. The Episode's order may, of course, be due merely to the alliteration.
(3) Hunlaf and Ordlaf/Oslaf are well-evidenced OE names; but Guðlaf occurs only in the Episode and the Fragment: and, inconclusive as such negative evidence is, this suggests that we have here traditions in England concerning some non-English heroes.
(4) The connection of the brothers' names by rhyme (and not alliteration) both in Skjöldungasaga and in English is noteworthy, and again suggests a common origin for the traditions.
It would appear practically certain that we must keep Hunlafing as one name;119 in which case it will refer to a son of Hunlaf, who was sufficiently important for the patronymic to name him, in the compressed and deliberately allusive Episode. Where Hunlaf comes in is not clear. If we place any reliance on the Skjöldungasaga we shall make him a brother, and Hunlafing a nephew, of the evidently very prominent Guthlaf and Ordlaf. It will remain undecided whether Hunlaf was one of the many that perished in the Freswæl, and his fall part of the weana dæl that Guthlaf and Oslaf lamented (Episode 1149-50). We must assume that Hunlaf was sufficiently important for his son to succeed, or to have succeeded before these events, naturally to the leadership or spokesmanship of the “Danes” in Hnæf's following; and for him to need no more precise name.
This cannot be said to simplify the problem of the positions and relations of Hnæf and Hengest and other names among the defenders; but that does not show it to be wrong. Yet it cannot be denied that even for the Episode it is difficult to believe that a new character not else mentioned, and yet sufficiently important to justify the assumptions just made, would be referred to in this way; while, if we attempt to explain it by saying that Hunlaf was well known as one of the victims of the Freswæl (so that his name would be present to the mind of an eighth-century audience or to eighth-century readers of the Episode), we shall still feel it odd, in spite of all pleas of compression, that the fall of so important a man (the chief of Hnæf's Danish followers, say) is not mentioned.
I think we are placing too much reliance, or reliance of the wrong kind, on the Skjöldungasaga. We may trust to it, and be grateful to it, for the preservation of certain names from ancient tradition, in connection with Danish legend, and even associated with the Scylding name; but it will still remain open to grave suspicion, if we examine its other elaborations and confusions, of representing a late stage in Scandinavian tradition in which these names are (a) multiplied by invention, and (b) their original relationships altered and confused. It seems to be quite possible, if not demonstrable (giving Skjöldungasaga all the attention it deserves), that in English tradition Hunlaf was the name of a famous Danish hero, sufficiently famous to live on right through the Old English period, connected in some way specially with Scylding legend, with which the English were evidently very well acquainted. Even Hengest has a brother attached; but not Hunlaf. Of his legend we have now nothing left: but it is credible that in English tradition Ordlaf and Guthlaf were his sons, and a famous pair of warrior-brethren. The use of Hunlafing, referring to one of these brethren, who are mentioned soon after – probably Ordlaf/Oslaf, as the elder – will then be much more intelligible. It is the habit of the Episode to refer to characters, once mentioned in their proper names, by a periphrasis, but not so to drag in unnamed characters. So Healfdenes hildewisan 1064, Hoces dohtor 1076, Folcwaldan sunu 1089. Hunlafing has not been named previously, but we may perhaps all the more demand that he should be someone who is named eventually, i.e. Ordlaf/Oslaf or Guthlaf.
Where precisely the “Hunlafing” brethren come in cannot, of course, be decided without reference to a complete theory of interpretation; but even here it may be suggested that, taking into consideration what has already been said about Hnæf, Healfdene, and Hengest, they probably represent a more purely Danish element in the mixed comitatus of Hnæf, connected with the relations by blood between Hnæf and Healfdene already proposed. That Hunlaf was also genealogically connected with Healfdene is, of course, possible.
In any case, it seems plain enough that Hengest does not belong to this part of Hnæf's following. No interpretation of that chief crux of the Episode, lines 1142-5, is really intelligible unless in some way it includes the assurance to Hengest, the chief man left among the defenders, of the allegiance and support of a section to which he did not belong, and with which his connection was only that of a common service under Hnæf, now dead. Whether this throws any light on lines 1083-5 we shall see later.
1 nas byrnað næfre. If this is the first line, the cæsura must come at nas, which must be the last part of a plural noun. The preceding word, probably an adjective, must have begun with b. Line 4 shows that the word is hornas, to which line 4 is an emphatic answer. It is plain that someone has seen a sudden light, and has probably asked a question couched in the same terms as the reply: “there is a light like fire – it can't be dawn, can it ? – or a dragon ? – or the gables of the roof on fire?”
næfre is odd. A sense like our colloquial “it's never the roof burning, is it?”, i.e. “surely not”, would be interesting, but is quite unexampled. Also in such a question the final position (where it would in such a sense be emphatic) is odd to the point of grave suspicion. This, coupled with the fact that the first half of the next line is awkward, certainly makes Hnæf hleoþrode (taken as the first half of line 2) “a very tempting emendation”, as Klaeber calls it.120
2 In any case the heaþogeong cyning is probably Hnæf. The original questioner was perhaps Hengest. The word heaþogeong need not be pressed. It means that he was still a good fighter, untouched by the disablements of age. He may have been fully adult (about 30), and his nephew in his late teens. Hickes has hearogeong, but it requires too simple and touching a faith to keep hearo- and interpret it as equivalent to heoru-. Neither heaþogeong nor heorugeong occurs elsewhere, but a glance in Grein-Köhler121 is all that is needed to see that heaþo-is right (cf. heaþo-deor, -rof, -seoc, -torht, -werig).
3 There are three clauses, each beginning ne ... ne ... ne ‘neither... nor . . . nor’: the other ne's simply negative the verbs in accordance with OE syntax. It is fairly clear that this is an answer to a tripartite question. 'Neither is this (this light that you mention) the dawn from the east, nor a dragon flying here, nor are the gables of his hall aflame.’ The original question was doubtless ironic – the questioner knew the answer before it was given. Draca probably shows this: all three possible sources of red light are mentioned, sun, dragon, earthly flame.122
5-7a I do not think these lines (five half-lines according to Hickes) can possibly be justified, for (a) it is nonsense to say, as Klaeber does, that an object to beraþ is supplied in accoutrements later mentioned (when animals and birds intervene!), and (b) we must have a subject, a new subject, to beraþ, whereas we have not even a pronoun. But the question in lines 1-2 did not meet a real answer, which is now being given. Either by Hickes, or before his time, a subject to beraþ beginning with f and two words (one beginning with f) meaning ‘weapons' have been omitted – probably by haplography. This is a pity, because the subject might have been Frysan, or Finnes þegnas – and if we had that before us it would settle a good many things. As it is, we can but leave two half-lines blank, as Chambers does. (The best neutral filling up is feorhgeniðlan/ fyrdsearu fustic.)123
5*-6 fugelas singað, gylleð græghama. This is a clever variation on the conventional animal and bird accompaniment of slaughter (cf. Brunanburh 64), combining it with the chill presage of dawn – the cry of birds, the yelp of wolves. The words gyllan and græg are applied to wolves and to coats of mail, but fugelas singað seems to point to wolves (even by putting some such word as flanbogan into the missing half-lines, fugelas cannot be made into ‘arrows' – “birds of the bow” is a “scaldic” kenning out of place in the “eddaic” style of the Fragment). In addition græg may be applied to mail, but not (probably) græghama, which means ‘the grey-coated (one)’ (bahuvrihi). I say “probably” because græghama might mean simply ‘grey coat’, cf. feðerhama (ON fjaðrhamr). Cf. Bjarkamál (fragment) – which is a call to arms:124
Hjalti: Dagr er upp kominn,
dynia hana fiaðrar,
mál er vílmögum
at vinna erfiði.
8 waðol ‘wandering’ – an expression taken from the appearance of swift motion of the moon when thin clouds move across it. It is not from the noun wāð, originally ‘hunting’, in Old English ‘wandering’, but cognate with MHG vadel (applied to the moon), related to OHG vadalōn, which is related to OHG wallōn (OE weallian) ‘to wander’ just as OE staðol is to steall. This fine use of the moon to heighten the feeling of the passage may be compared with the riding of Niðað's men into Wolfdale to capture Weland in the Eddaic Völundarkviða:125
nуttum fуru seggir,
negldar vбru brynjur,
skildir bliku юeira
viр enn skarрa mбna.
8-9 Here we first get any hints that may help with our problems. The language is not normal – deeds do not usually “accomplish” things; and willað is notable. Quite literally: ‘now woeful deeds are beginning, that will (intend to, are intended to) accomplish this enmity of the people.’ This seems clearly to indicate that some old feud is at the back of things, and that danger from it had been in the minds of the defenders, even if they had not (earlier in the lay) discussed it, as is possible. Note that it is not folca, implying a feud between peoples, but folces, implying a feud among a single people;126 is this merely the general vassalage of Finn ? Note also that it is ðisne, not ðisses.
Nið is unfortunately a vague word difficult to pin down. It is better taken of fierce hatred than of sorrow. Note that ðisne folces nið is not ‘the affliction of this people’: the lines do not mean ‘deeds that are going to bring woe to us here’ but ‘bring to a bitter end this well-known bitterness in the people’.
10 Cf. Bjarkamál:127
Vaki ok ж vaki
vina hцfuр,
allir ena њztu
Aрils ofsinnar.
11 Cf. The Battle of Maldon 4 and 20, and especially Exodus 215ff.: habban heora hlencan, hycgan on ellen is very likely an echo of the Fragment, or from common stock. This Exodus passage, and the fact that the obvious correction of landa to linda does not really scan very well, move one to accept hlencan (in which case the corruption in point is probably pre-Hickes).
12 þindað. This is the actual reading of Hickes, not windað.128 Windað would give a nice crossed alliteration; but 12b belongs to Type C with unemphatic wesað, and so too þindað is subordinate in emphasis to orde. Þindan elsewhere means ‘swell’; but such words had in Old English (and elsewhere) a semantic tendency to acquire the sense of pride, or wrath. Cf. belgan. Toþindan is recorded in the sense ‘be arrogant’. Translate ‘bear yourselves proudly’.
13 It certainly looks as if Hickes’ 13a ða . . . ðegn contains the beginning of one line and then (after an omission) goldhladen ðegn the beginning of another; for alliteration on gyrde cf. gyrede hine Beowulf (B. 1441b). Only sheer rewriting will restore the original. Goldhladen ðegn can stand as Type E (cf. mundbora wæs 2779) without reading [gum]ðegn, which, after assuming a lacuna before goldhladen, makes the whole thing too perilous. Đa aras [of ræste rum-heort] mænig (Holthausen)129 is the best of the re-writings. Note goldhladen ðegn: the defenders were nobles, the comitatus of a powerful prince.
15-17 For these people see the discussion of names above, pp. 30-33. Note: there are two sets of doors. There is no special significance in the use of the plural in line 16; cf. line 20, and compare ON dyrr (always pl.) used of the opening; similarly Latin fores, valvae.
17 him. If you put a comma after sylf, translate ‘Ordlaf and Guthlaf and Hengest himself followed them (i.e. followed their example)’ – him referring to Sigeferth and Eaha. So Klaeber punctuates, and so I suppose translates (with hwearf, not incredibly, agreeing only with the last and specially mentioned subject). It is more natural to omit the comma, and to take him as referring to Ordlaf and Guthlaf. Hengest sylf was perhaps so important that it is notable that he went to the door after them, acting as a sort of general, posting men; however, his importance may have been personal, not of rank. But on last implies no inferiority: in OE verse it is merely equivalent to ‘behind, after’.
18 Hickes styrode. This is a bad late form of styrede ‘stirred, moved’; but ‘egged him not to’ is unlikely! We must therefore either have something omitted after line 19 (in line 20 we get a plural verb bæron which has to be emended to bære), or accept styrde ‘restrained’; that the exhortation was negative is sufficiently shown by swa freolic feorh. However, styran in this sense requires a dative, and the editors finally plump therefore on Garulfe ... styrde ... bære. Of these implied errors Garulf may be due to Hickes, who was careless about final -e – Garulfe is required by the metre;130 styrode is more likely to have been in the original manuscript.
In any case the sense is in all probability that Guthere restrained (was restraining, attempted to restrain – a sense often implied by the OE past tense) Garulf from thrusting his precious person forward. A rather similar situation is seen in Waltharius, where young Patafrid (one of Gunther's twelve-strong vanguard) is warned by his uncle Hagano (his mother's brother) not to attack Walther – and is also warned by Walther not to come on.131
20 bære. Hickes bæran. However this error arose, it must be a mistake for bære since, if an attack is to be made at all, such advice may be given to one special person, but not to many!
25 Hickes þrecten.132 This is probably pure Hickes: þ is like wynn, c is like t, a is not unlike u. Read wreccea, as the alliteration also requires. On the exact force of the word see above, pp. 64-6. It implies ‘hero, champion’ (so G. Recke), but also in Old English ‘exile’, almost ‘outlaw’. It is important here, because it prevents us from definitely assuming that the Secgan as a whole were under the command of Sigeferth. He may be a wreccea because of old woes (weana dæl, B. 1150), and now be re-established, but he may not. It rather looks already as if Hnæf's crew were an odd lot of vikings without very definite territorial associations.
29-30 Hickes Celæs borð. Borð is pretty clearly bord. Celæs is inexplicable. The usual emendation is to cellod bord, but -læs does not look in the least like -llod, cellod bord only occurs in The Battle of Maldon 283, and its meaning and derivation are there quite unknown. We will not spend time on points that do not really affect the meaning. Fairly clearly we have here a corrupt (or forgotten) epithet applicable to a shield.
Banhelm must be nominative, either parallel to, or a mere expression equivalent to, cellod bord. Sceolde sg. is not decisive against banhelm as the name of a different weapon. The word only occurs here, so we are left guessing. Can ban-helm mean ‘screen of the bones (or body)’, equivalent to ‘shield’? Could it mean ‘helmet with horns', for which there is some archæological evidence ? Could it even stand for bar-helm ‘boar-helmet’?
Cenum on handa. Hickes genumon, a good example of Hickes’ errors. Cenum implies for the warriors: shields would shiver in their hands.
33 For the question of the genuineness of Guðlaf, which should perhaps be emended to Guðulf, see above in the list of names.
34 This line has never been put straight in a way that is both satisfactory and palæographically probable. Hickes has
Hwearflacra hrжr.Hræfen wandrode.
We need not go deeply into it, as it clearly does not affect our problem – it is one of the conventional descriptions of a fight with accompaniments. Hrær is clearly hrǣw. Hwearf- must (owing to the rules of alliteration) in all probability be a noun or adjective. This knocks out most of the emendations proposed. We must probably have hwearf ‘crowd’ or hwearflic ‘active’ (!). The best reading is hwearflicra hræw (Grein2, followed by Sedgefield, Klaeber, etc.)133 ‘the corpses of the valiant’, equivalent to godra fæla. For hræw equivalent to wæl cf. Andreas 1031, ær þan hra crunge.
36 Finn[e]sburuh. See p. 9 fn. 1.
39 Hickes Ne nefre swa noc hwitne medo. Sel forgyldan. The emendation usually accepted is swanas for swa noc. It is not sufficiently observed that swanas is here virtually a hapax legomenon. It does not else occur in verse, and if we accept the emendation we are obliged also to assume that, like scealc, ceorl, eorl, hyse, hæleþ, etc. it was used in verse (though not by chance recorded otherwise) as a “man”-word, i.e. in a more general sense. In prose it means ‘(swine)herd'. This verse use would be one more instance of the approach of the OE poetic vocabulary to the Scandinavian – this use of swan is more like ON sveinn than Old English. In Old Norse, sveinn means ‘boy, lad, page, esquire’; the latter – if the emendation is right – must be seen here. OS sven means ‘swineherd’. OHG svein means ‘servant, herd’. The especial association of swān with “swine” is probably later in Old English and Old Saxon, and possibly due to the sound – the words swīn and swān may not be connected etymologically. More probably swān is originally connected with the reflexive pronoun (IE swe- se-); cf. swǣs ‘one's own, dear’. Thus *swaina- would mean ‘belonging to one's own household, personal retainer’.
At any rate some noun beginning with s appears to be required by the metre; but the line is odd, and corruption – possibly pre-Hickesian – is not unlikely, even the loss of a certain amount of matter. The difficulty is not really got over by the emendation of hwitne to swetne. The unlikely epithet is not probable as a corruption of the obvious swetne – and (though only as late as the eighteenth century) the epithet “white” is found applied to mead. A possible reconstruction might be:
ne nefre swanassel forgyldan
hwitne medo[heardgesteallan].134
43 It is unfortunately far from certain who the wund hæleð is, or on what side. It appears most probable that he is an attacker (a “Frisian” if you like, though this begs the question rather), and the folces hyrde (46) the leader of the attackers – probably Finn as overlord of the assembled tribes. There is, then, a distinct pause at duru heoldon (42), and the text should be printed with the paragraph break at Đa (43). This is good, because it throws into relief the pregnant words hig ða duru heoldon just before the pause. I believe it is right that the wund hæleð is an attacker – though in the present state of the fragment one cannot dismiss the possibility that he is a defender speaking to Hnæf.
If folces hyrde is Finn, then the situation is apparently that one of the attackers breaks away in despair and goes to Finn and says that it is impossible to force an entrance. The King (Finn) then asks by what miracle the defenders still live in spite of their many wounds (which doubtless you have given them) – ironic, but on Finn's part, not Hnæf's as Chambers supposes;135 irony of this sort would be very out of place in the mouth of a warrior leading a gallant minority! He also asks which of the two young warriors have played the most gallant part in the defence – Hengest or Hnæf? This fits tolerably well with B. 1084. If the wund hæleð is a defender, then the folces hyrde is Hnæf, and his question is probably merely solicitous – “how are my men getting on in spite of their hurts?” – and we can hardly guess who the hyssas are.
The first suggestion is more probable because it gives point to hig ða duru heoldon, and to hu ða wigend, etc. It is pretty plain from the Episode, whatever else is dark, that a central matter in the tale was an heroic and unexpected defence of few against many, with grievous losses on the attacking side which forced a truce. Hnæf was ultimately killed – but not in the Fragment.
45 Hickes Here sceorpum hror. ‘Active in his armour’ makes no sense in the context, which clearly is a complaint that their weapons are no longer serviceable. Compare the exclamation of Hjalti (Hialto) in Saxo's translation of Bjarkamál:136 “Already, grievously have sword and darts cut to pieces my shield, and the greedy iron has devoured bit by bit the fragment torn away in battle ... of the broken shield the arm thongs alone’ remain.” Compare also the situation in Ólafr Tryggvason's last fight:137
Óláfr konungr Tryggvason stóð i lypting (‘poop’) ok skaut optast um daginn, stundum bogaskoti, en stundum gaflökum, ok jafnan tveim senn. Hann sá fram á skipit, ok sá sína menn reiða sverðin ok höggva títt, ok sá, at illa bitu; mælti þá hátt: “hvárt reiði pér svá slæliga sverðin, er ek sé, at ekki bíta yðr?” Maðr svarar: “sverð vár eru slæ ok brotin mjök.”
In that case read heresceorp (pl.) unhror. Unhror does not else occur, and hror is usually applied to persons – its sense is ‘valiant, mighty’ (but etymologically ‘active, agile’). Neither of these is a fatal objection. Words properly applied to fighters are easily transferred to weapons. Cf. fyrdsearo fuslic (B. 2618) ‘gallant’. The classic example is cene ‘noble’ – ‘bold’ – ‘sharp’. The accentuation héresceorp un| hrór (Type E) is not unprecedented: cf. se þe unmurnlice • madmas dæleþ (B. 1756), þæt is undyrne • dryhten Higelac (B. 2000). Technically as a “noun-compound” un- should have the accent, but in spite of the additional logical reason for accenting the negative un- it was clearly often unaccented (like ne) – owing partly to the influence of the simplex and partly to sentence-rhythm. It is often in origin an IE unaccented form. Cf. “the únknown warrior”, “into the unknówn”; cf. also ON ó- accented, ú- unaccented.
How Hnæf was killed and the battle ended we can only guess – vainly. But of one thing we may be sure: that a successful firing of the hall which drove the defenders into the open was not a feature of the tale, for in that case the tale would have ended like The Battle of Maldon, not with a remnant (wealaf?) holding out to the bitter end, until granted honourable terms.
Here the real difficulties confront us – every line bristles with them! There are several reasons why this should be so: we are ignorant of the tale; the poet's special effort of compression has made the language obscure; we are forced to scrutinize every detail closely – it is a salutary warning to see how little we know when we look close. The difficulties start with the question of where the Episode really begins: in 1068? or 1069? and must we emend 1068? We know from leoð wæs asungen (1159) that we have what is dramatically a reported lay. Even if we dismiss the odd fore Healfdenes hildewisan, where Healfdenes hildewisa is Hrothgar (although we have seen reason to suspect that this name was intentionally dragged in here, because of some connection between it and the name of Hnæf's tribe), we are confronted with the following difficulties: where does the report of the lay begin? how are we to construe Finnes eaferum? and how punctuate lines 1067-70? These questions have never been satisfactorily answered. For myself, I suspect that the text may be more corrupt than is usually supposed, e.g. by dislocation and even omission of a line or so. However, taking the MS text as it stands (with the alteration Healfdene 1069, suggested below) the following points seem clear:
(1) In 1068 the metre is correct as it stands; but the addition of a small word, such as be or mid, would be possible at the beginning of the line.138
(2) Eaferum is dative plural and it cannot be construed at all, as it stands, certainly not as a “comitative dative”, i.e. as meaning by itself ‘along with the eaferan'. A comitative dative is found in Old English (strictly it is an instrumental), but only when the word in the dative is itself a “company” word, such as trum, þreat, hos, corþor and the like; cf. in WS prose lytle werede ‘with a small troop’ (Chronicle, anno 878). Eaferum thus either requires a preceding preposition (e.g. be, mid), or must be emended to eaferan. Why the preposition be (or mid) was omitted by the scribe, if that is the case, is not apparent, but both scribes of this manuscript do in fact omit many words without clear contextual reasons.
(3) Mænan must here mean ‘mention, recall, name’ – and not either (a) ‘mean, signify, intend’, or (b) ‘bemoan, complain of’. Mænan ‘mention’ is usually construed thus: with the accusative of what is mentioned (or a clause expressing this), the audience being often introduced by fore ‘before, in the hearing of’ (as in 1064; cf. mænan fore mengo in Widsith 55 and Riddle 20.11-12); if a dative is present it may be instrumental (as gieddum mænden ‘in lays', Guthlac 1233).
Our choice is thus between the following alternatives:
(a) . . . healgamen . . . mænan scolde, Finnes eaferan, ða hie se fær begeat. (Lay begins.) That is, mænan may be taken to have (by zeugma) two objects: a lay to entertain those in the hall, mentioning the sons of Finn.
(b) . . . healgamen . . . mænan scolde. Mid Finnes eaferum etc. That is: ‘. . . should recite a lay.’ (Lay begins.) ‘With the sons of Finn, when the dire onslaught came upon them, Hnæf was fated to fall.’
(c) Following Klaeber (only without his unnecessary comma at scolde): . . . healgamen . . . mænan scolde be Finnes eaferum, ða hie se fær begeat. Reporting of the lay, more or less in lay-form, then begins, though part of its subject-matter has already been touched on in the prelude: ‘should recite a lay in hall concerning the sons of Finn, etc.’
I prefer (b). To my mind (a) and (c) are both open to the objection that they imply that the main interest of the lay is the fall of the sons of Finn. That certainly does not appear to be so, from the report given later.
A variation of (c) would be to accept be, but a full stop at eaferum and begin the reported lay at Đa. It is not necessary for such a report to begin at the beginning of a line. Heremod comes in in the middle of line 902; Sigemund in the middle of line 874. Đa hie se fær begeat should, I think, certainly belong to the reported lay; but this arrangement is open to the same objections as (a) and (c). Scolde (be) is an easier error to assume than omission of mid; yet I should still choose (b) among the options set out. Actually I feel strongly that omission of at least one whole line is really more probable than the omission of a preposition. Moreover before the long report (meant to represent dramatically though not in extenso an actual lay) we should expect some sentence containing cwæð ‘he said’ or its equivalent. The insertion in Sedgefield's third edition,139 cwæð him ealdres wæs ende gegongen/Finnes eaferum is the sort of thing required.
1069 Now our text has here hæleð healf dena hnæf scyldinga. This is a clear enough indication that the name Healfdene was associated with the Hocingas. Also the use of the name Scyldinga for Hnæf is sufficient indication of the relationship of the families – even if this use is not historically correct. As we have no means of judging whether it is or not, it is legitimate and safest to assume that the use is correct, and that the poet knew what he was talking about.
But there is no trace elsewhere of Healfdene pl. – that is, of a tribal or family name of this form. In Widsith Hnæf is said to rule the Hocingum, not the Healfdenum (line 29). Moreover while a proper name (as Beowulf Geata, or Hnæf Scyldinga), or a plural word (as bearn ‘children, sons', or leode as Geata leode), which then usually comes second, can be combined with a tribal or family name in the gen. plur., the expression hæleð Healfdena is unnatural. It appears to me, therefore, overwhelmingly probable that hæleð Healfdena is an error: not, as has often been supposed, an error or “innovation” of the Beowulf-poet, but a scribal error – and one of the commonest type, attraction of endings. This is assisted here by the fact that healf and dena are (as usual) written separately, while dene the ordinary OE word for ‘Danes' stands close to Scyldinga, a name with which it is constantly associated and with which a scribe might suppose that it should agree in case. That is: I suppose the poet to have meant hæleð Healfdene Hnæf Scyldinga ‘the doughty Hnæf Healfdene of the Scylding house’.
1070 Freswæle. This is an alteration in the manuscript, but a deliberate and clearly correct emendation of an error (made by the scribe himself). It is a warning, however, that he may have made uncorrected errors. To my mind this name “The Frisian slaughter” or “Slaughter in Frisia” is clearly the title of the lay, or the traditional name for the tragic events it deals with. It should be used instead of modern fanciful titles such as “The Fight at Finnesburg”.140 What follows is a resume of a lay or lays dealing with the series of events and situations called the Freswæl.
1071ff. The next four lines are even more ambiguous. Chiefly in doubt are (1) what is the force of the negative sentence ne huru. . . ? (2) what is the sense of treowe? (3) what is the sense of unsynnum? (4) who are the eotena, and what side are they on?
(4) cannot be answered yet. These are clearly the same people as are referred to in 1088, 1141 and 1145; we have already found a bias against ‘giants' and strongly in favour of ‘Jutes' (above, pp. 54-60).
(1) ne . . . þorfte. Cf. 1674, 2363, 2873, etc.
The type illustrated by 2363 and 2873 – ‘had no cause to’ (by litotes meaning ‘had cause to do the opposite’) – would here give the sense ‘Hildeburh had no cause to praise the treowe’, i.e. she had good reason to curse it (because it was not treowe but something else).
The type illustrated by 1674 is not helpful: it would mean that Hildeburh has no need to praise because there was no occasion for her to do so. The context and the expression ne huru show that she could not be thus passive towards the vital treowe.
We are obliged therefore to assume either (a) that Hildeburh had no cause to praise the treowe because it had done her evil, although it was certainly treowe all right; or (b) that Hildeburh had no cause to praise the treowe because she had cause to curse it – it was not treowe, but treachery, (b) is usually assumed. I think (a) is – other things to be discussed later being agreeable – a much more likely interpretation of the words as they stand just in these lines. As Williams rightly says,141 there is no evidence of any direct sort that treachery comes in anywhere in the story (the idea that it does is due to the hunt for a scapegoat for Finn), whereas it is clear from the Fragment and the Episode that treow or loyalty was central to the story.
(2) Treow may signify either the personal loyalty of the Eotens (e.g. to their leader) or their faithfulness to a compact between peoples. The first is more likely if we see in treow an allusion to that cardinal point in the story, the loyalty of Hnæf's men. And behold, the Eotens (Jutes) are beginning to appear on Hengest's side!
(3) Unsynnum is a “hapax legomenon”, but both the affixing of the negative un- to an abstract noun, and the employment of an abstract noun in the dative plural as an adverb are well evidenced features of Old English. Cf. unwearnum ‘unhindered’ from wearn ‘opposition’.
Synn means ‘crime, offence’, so that unsynnutn means ‘without offence’, i.e. without guilty cognizance of Hildeburh.
1074 bearnum ond broðrum. Whether this is singular in both cases, plural in both cases, or plural in the case of bearn only is debatable, but it does not (as far as we can tell) affect the kernel of the problem. Eaferum (1068) supports bearnum as plural; selfre sunu (1115), in the light of confusion of final u/a in Beowulf and generally in the acc.pl. of this word, is unfortunately indecisive. The reason for the doubt is the fact that, descending from the Indo-European dual usage, the plural (instead of the dual) was used occasionally in such pairs (the Sanskrit dvandva-usage); cf. Latin veneres cupidinesque. The linguistic feeling underlying such a construction would be that the plurality implied in the whole was extended, purely grammatically, to each part. Cf. æt his lices heafdum in The Dream of the Rood 63, which I think means ‘both ends', i.e. ‘head and feet’.
On gebyrd ‘as was their lot’, but possibly ‘in succession’; cf. Solomon and Saturn 386, ac sceall on gebyrd faran/ an æfter anum.
1076 We may accept here, as is usually done, the argument of Chambers142 that the lindplega is the fight in the Fragment, and that syþðan morgen com marks no real discrepancy between Episode and Fragment; but we may be permitted to view the arguments slightly differently. It is quite true that we do not know enough (a) about the story or (b) about the relation of the Fragment to the Episode – though probabilities are enormously in favour of their belonging to the same tradition and agreeing in all such essentials as the length of the fight – to be certain whether the solution is “she first heard of the business, which broke out at night, next morning” or “she first heard of the cruel slayings in the last attack (there being more than the one in the Fragment) on the morning following it”; but it is unlikely that morþorbealo should not imply the death already of some of the combatants (of Hildeburh it is said that meotodsceaft bemearn): it is the natural sense of the word. Cf. morðbealu (136).
We are still not driven to demand two night attacks; for who are the magas? It seems always assumed that they are Hildeburh's. Mæg certainly in Old English usually means ‘blood relative’ (not ‘relation by marriage’ as in Old Norse), and it could be used of Hildeburh to Hnæf and her son; but it was also used of the actual or theoretical blood-relation of members of one tribe (hence mægþ, mægburg ‘family, tribe’) – in the Épinal and Corpus Glossaries meeg, meig gloss contribuli[u]s. I would translate, therefore, ‘murder-evil (i.e. evil murder) among kinsfolk’, but I suggest that it was the Eotens who were magas on either side.
Nalles holinga. She had good reason to bemoan this, for people dear to her were involved – in fact, if my theory is right, Hnæf was part object of the wrath of the Eotens who had not become Danified.
1079 We must certainly disallow the emendation of he to heo, and put a full stop at maga. Þær ... wynne then means, very fittingly, ‘in his royal hall’, or (see p. 105) perhaps less definitely ‘in his royal stronghold’, which contained obviously at least one complete hall beside his mansion (see p. 116 for 1127).143 Cf. the parallel in Beowulf 1730, seleð him on eþle eorþan wynne to healdanne hleoburh wera, where to . . . wera defines eorþan wynne.
1080-81 These lines are not difficult, but require to be understood exactly, (a) The þegnas are not Finn’s war-host, but his knights, the members of his household retinue, the chiefs of dependent tribes, and such exiles and adventurers as sought his service (some of whom are met by name in the Fragment), (b) He lost most but not all of these. Finn was not reduced to impotence. We know from the Fragment (line 38) that there were only sixty inside the hall – on þæm meðelstede (1082) ‘in that place of contest’ – when battle broke out. A good retinue for a king on a peaceful errand, but not an army for a hostile raid, nor one that could come into open war.
1082ff. With regard to gefeohtan it would naturally be assumed to mean ‘win by fighting’ – a very common use of ge- with an intransitive verb, which even if gefeohtan itself in this sense is not evidenced in verse (it is in prose) hardly needs such support, similar examples of ge- being frequent; but here we have rather the “perfective” use of ge- ‘fight out’, combined with an interior or cognate object. The construction is poetical and evidently archaic. We can (to label it) call it a “dative of disadvantage” – which simply means the dative still used more vaguely instead of the more precise later construction with various prepositions. With a cognate object wig, which is the ordinary noun of action in verse corresponding to feohtan (wīgan having practically disappeared), the meanings ‘to win by fighting’, or the probably older perfective ‘to fight out (to an end)’, approach close.
There can be little doubt that the sense is ‘in any way fight out the battle to an end with (sc. against) Hengest on þæm meðelstede’. Note the last words – emphatic and important – ‘in that place’, i.e. while they were entrenched in the hall.
1084 The following construction must closely agree with the preceding: i.e. þeodnes ðegne is a dative similar to Hengeste, and in all probability refers to the same person. In fact I do not see the value of discussing any other view.144
Wealaf is recorded only twice outside this Episode. In Wulfstan145 it refers to the survivors of the destruction and ravaging of the land (who acknowledge that this was a retribution for their sins). In Metres of Boethius i 22-3 it occurs in a passage more closely resembling the present passage.146 The piece treats of the defeat of the Romans by the Goths, the flight of “Cæsar” (casere), and the capture and pillage of Rome by Rædgod and Aleric:
Ne meahte þa seo wealafwige forstandan
Gotan mid guðegiomonna gestrion.
‘The survivors of the defeat could not then with battle or force of arms protect from the Goth147 their ancestral treasures.’ So they had to come to terms and swear “holy oaths” (sealdon unwillum eþel-weardas halige aðas) – sc. oaths of surrender and allegiance to the Gothic conquerors. This passage is decisive with regard to the sense of wealaf; it also shows that, though only a laf (a remnant), it could be (proportionately to the situation) a considerable group and contain persons of authority with whom the opponents could treat; but it does not in any way support current interpretations of forþringan. On the contrary!
The meaning ‘rescue’ “generally assigned to it” (Klaeber) cannot be maintained, either lexically or contextually. Klaeber, for instance, is wrong in saying in his note148 (a) that the sense ‘rescue’ would certainly fit oðþringan, and (b) that “it is not an extravagant assumption that forþringan – like forstandan – construed with accus. and dat. (instr.), carries the sense of ‘rescue’, ‘defend’, ‘protect’.” It may not be “extravagant”, but it is an assumption only possible if one neglects to observe both the facts and the probabilities of OE usage, and indeed passes over the point that þringan ‘to thrust, force’ is not the same as standan ‘to stand firm’.149
Oðþringan occurs seven times in verse,150 and once in prose.151 To this may be added ætþringan in Andreas 1371.152 In all nine places the sense is ‘remove (by force)’ something belonging to another, the thing removed being accusative and the person deprived in the dative (ablatival, or dative of indirect object – of disadvantage). The sense is in fact the very opposite of ‘rescue’. Actually in every case but one (Daniel 51) the object is ‘life’ (lif, feorh, aldor), and the verb means to take life (by violence, in Orosius by poison) from its possessor. The place in Daniel is a little closer to the Episode.153 Nabochodonossor is moved by God to the design of conquering Israel and taking Jerusalem:
южt he secan ongansefan gehygdum
hu he Israelumeaðost meahte
þurh gromra gangguman oðþringan.
’. . . how he could best by assault of foes rob the Israelites of men’ (sc. destroy their warriors and leave Jerusalem defenceless).
So much for oð-þringan. The meaning of for-þringan should not differ widely: with the simple sense of prefix for- (‘away’) we should expect a sense ‘thrust away – out of the way’; if the prefix implies a wrongful, injurious, or destructive result the sense expected would be ‘drive to death in disaster’, but this does not so well fit the contextual construction. Forþringan has, however, so far only been found once elsewhere, in the Benedictine Rule:154 on nanum stowum ne sy endebyrdnes be nanre ylde gefadod, ne seo ylde þa geoguðe ne forþringe ‘in no monastery is order of precedence to be arranged according to any considerations of age (seniority), nor is old age (sc. the seniors) to thrust aside the youth (sc. the juniors)’.155 This scarcity of record is, however, probably only a matter of chance, since þringan is a commonly used word and forþringan a natural derivative: it occurs in Middle English,156 and also outside English.157 The natural sense – in view of the uses of the prefix for- and þringan trans. – would be ‘thrust forcibly away’, and so it appears to have been.
We must for the moment be content to translate ‘wrest the woeful remnant from the (fallen) king’s chieftain’ – or ‘detach them from him’ in some way.158
So far I believe that Hengest was a Jute, probably with Jutes in his train who made up a large part, at least, of Hnæf’s sixty men. The whole lot are called Dene, because such is the name of Hnæf's people, whether or not the name Healfdene had originally arisen in Jutland through invasion, encroachment, or assimilation. It is no doubt the Jutish contingent which have taken service with Hnæf and the Danes that are the object of some feud (probably including Hnæf)159 by exiled, dispossessed, unsubmitting Jutes who have taken refuge in the Frisian court – the natural refuge from Danish oppression, as Denmark was for the Geats from Swedish oppression. Quite possibly on setting out they did not expect to meet these enemy Eote at Finnesburg. As soon as they did they knew they were in for trouble. The atmosphere is tense – and we feel that though they came on a peaceful invitation they expected trouble (þisne folces nið) before it actually broke out.
1085 Ac ‘but, on the contrary’ – as often, implying a complete reversal. The geþingo are generous, the very opposite of fighting to the bitter end.
1085-6 Here I believe the text has been slightly corrupted, making the sense more difficult to follow than it need have been. The account given, however, is compressed and allusive, and I do not suppose that the scribe followed it with any very clear understanding.
First of all, it seems to me at least certain that it was the wealaf, the defenders in the hall, and not the attackers nor Finn, that made the first advance and offered terms. Budon is plural and cannot be emended. Hig ‘they’ must therefore refer to the last mentioned plural word, or word implying persons: wealaf. But after that it is, I think, probable that the poet wrote in 1086 þæt he (Finn) him (for them, the wealaf) oðer flet eal gerymde. The corruption is primarily due to the fact that the next clause of the proposed treaty (þæt hie 1087) has a different subject, hie (they, sc. the proposers), and a plural verb moston. The first clause he gerymde160 has been assimilated to it. Compare the clear case of corruption in 1101, where the manuscript has gemænden pl. attracted to hie folgedon in the next line, although the actual subject of gemænde(n) is sg. ænig mon. Other errors with the pronouns he/hie occur in Beowulf.
1087 Hie ‘they’ refers to the hig of 1085. Finn was made to promise that they (sc. the proposers of the terms: the wealaf) should have control healfre, i.e. ‘of half (a feminine thing)’. This must in the context be heall. Wið is the correct and normal preposition in Old English in such expressions as “sharing with”.
This is the crux of the matter: who are to share control with the Jutes? Since immediately afterwards Finn is also made to promise to treat the Danes and Hengest’s troop as well as he treated the Frisians, the “Jutes” of this tale have very commonly been equated with the Frisians; but I do not accept that. My interpretation is as follows.
The wealaf are the survivors of the “Danish” knights of the slain King Hnæf. These Finn could not separate by force of arms (wige) from Hengest, owing to the slaughter of his own comitatus in the attacks on the hall (1084). Hengest was also in Hnæf's train (on what terms is not clear), but he was not a Dane: he was a Jute with a special heap of his own.161 At Hnæf’s death Hengest remained naturally in command of his own heap (which owed direct loyalty to him personally, and only through him to Hnæf). He was no doubt a man of dominant character, but he was also now in command of the most cohesive and possibly the largest group among the surviving defenders: it was at least of approximately the same size as the wealaf, since the “other hall’ was to be shared half with the Jutes. It was obviously a chief concern of the “Danish” wealaf to know what Hengest would do now that Hnæf was slain. Debate and discussion among the defenders must have intervened between þeodnes ðegne and the laconic ac of 1085. The only hope of the defenders, as a whole, was to stick together: and it appeared that this course would be followed. Whatever were the terms under which Hengest served Hnæf (as þeodnes ðegn), he was not going now to make a separate agreement with Finn. His reasons we can only guess. Both the following considerations may have been among them: he felt (personally) loyalty and affection for Hnæf, and so towards the “Danes” of Hnæf’s following; his heap, whatever its size, could not hope alone either to break out or to long hold the hall. Above all: there was no hope of a separate agreement. He (and his heap) were indeed the prime object of the hatred that had caused the attack. It was Hengest they wanted, and the attackers would not come to terms with him! Hence the curious expression, 1082-5, in which it is said that Finn could not by force of arms thrust away the wealaf from Hengest. Hnæf and his “Danes” were not the object of the attack, but they had insisted on defending and protecting Hengest and his men. So it was the Danish wealaf that opened negotiations, and maintained at the outset that cohesion with Hengest was unbroken. If they got what they demanded – a separate hall in which they would not have to see or meet any of the attackers – then it must be shared equally with Eotena bearn. Nonetheless Hengest was now (at least by the defenders) recognized as the chief man of the survivors. Thus we see that after the general terms between the two sides (attackers, and defenders as a whole) were agreed and ratified, Finn swears a further oath to Hengest in person (1096); and it is interesting and important to note that it concerns the wealaf, which clearly in what precedes does not include Hengest or his heap. This is Hengest’s return for the faithful friendship of the “Danes”. They had negotiated a treaty to help him, they had insisted that he and his men should be equally protected by it – but it had involved them in a position of humiliation and doubtful honour. Clearly their position with regard to Hnæf was different to his: they were of Hnæf’s own people, his own personal gesiþas, some probably his kin. They should not according to the highest traditions of honour have made any terms with his slayers. They were not to be mocked or reproached for this – the position was thrust on them by necessity.
1095ff. The Danes at any rate are giving up the ”duty”of revenge for Hnæf. This may be made somewhat easier if we imagine that a large part of his defenders (half – 1087?) were Jutes with direct allegiance only to Hengest; but unnecessary difficulty is really made over this. After all the fact that they were doing so is plain enough, admitted even in the terse episode explicitly (1102), and the motive assigned (1103). There were degrees of duty – the mere retainer might be as uncompromising as a blood-relative, but the duty of dying in such a situation cannot ever have been held so binding on him as on a blood-relative. Besides, we are probably dealing with an actual story derived from history, and in this detail true to history, not over-romanticized (or, if you prefer it, heroized). Hnæf, too, was young, very likely the childless last of his line – they had no house to be loyal to. Lífit mun ek kjósa, ef kostr er: so quotes Hrafnkel at a moment when literary pride could have bidden him die unyielding.162 He chose to yield and strike back later. He was a strong enough character, and as good a representative of heathen northern feeling as you could wish for. The defenders had acquit themselves so well that they could hardly be called “cowards” – there was no thought of yielding when things were at their worst, while they had Hnæf to defend, and defence seemed hopeless. They made the terms themselves, and pretty good ones – considering they had their backs to the wall in a foreign fortress – but becoming handgengnir to Finn was inevitable: swa him geþearfod wæs.
At the same time one would admit that the submission is made easier by the assumption that Finn was not the original attacker. My theory does not define his position, nor how he came to be drawn in, but it certainly throws weight on the Eote as the real cause of the trouble. Doubtless Finn was thoroughly enmeshed in Jutish/Danish politics: he could hardly have been unaware of their feuds. We may guess that his marriage to Hildeburh was political (as most such marriages were and are); and that he is also engaged with Jutes, possibly using them as a buffer against the Danes, or secretly favouring the difficulties they cause in the North.
But just as we have already guessed (on the “Jutes on both sides” theory) that Hnæf and Hengest were probably unprepared to find recalcitrant Jutish exiles at Finn's court, so we may still further guess that Finn was quite unprepared to find the great Jutish rover Hengest, an object of bitter animosity or great admiration among the Jutes, with some of his redoubtable Jutish vikings in Hnæf’s retinue on his friendly visit.
Whether the Jutes of Finn’s court attacked the Danes and Hengest indiscriminately, or whether it was Hnæf they were after (in spite of Finn), whom Hengest (Eotena treowe!) refused to abandon, or the reverse (a pure Jutish feud for reasons now unknown connected with Hengest), is more difficult to determine. Most likely the former. Compare the beginning of the Fragment – there are no parleyings or offers for anyone to come out: fighting begins at the doors at once.
Williams makes much of his consideration of how the attackers came to be in Finn’s own main hall:163 but were they? They were in Finnesburg, but it contained obviously more than one hall164 in which Finn might enjoy the sense of kingly power and glory (1087). Even 1079-80 may refer rather to his royal stronghold – containing his halls and mansions – than to one hall only, his own main royal hall. The whole of Finnesburg is lit with sword-flashes as with fire, not just the hall of battle.
Though some overt act of hostility in the evening (attack or insult) may have precipitated catastrophe, and put Hnæf and his following on guard, we are not obliged to assume this. The feud was an old one. The very sight of certain faces in Finn’s hall was enough to warn the guests that nu arisað weadæda, ðe ðisne folces nið fremman willað (Fragment 8-9). We only need such an elaboration of the story if the battle takes place in Finn’s chief hall; for why are the guests there, except as a refuge? They may have taken refuge there as a sheer precaution, but they may (perhaps) more naturally be in a separate hall, assigned to them as a guest house. On the whole, however, the fact that they are able to treat (probably with the hall as an asset on their side), and that the hall comes first in the negotiations, may make us lean to the view that the battle was in the main Frisian royal hall – had they taken refuge there because it was isolated and more defensible? Or perhaps the situation was more like that of the main plot of Beowulf (hence a subsidiary fitness of the tale): Finn gives his hall to Hnæf’s keeping, and retires like Hrothgar to his bur; but in this case his son sleeps with his eam.
1095 hie, i.e. Finn and Hengest, immediately afterwards named; note that Finn and Hengest are now equal.
1096 fæste frioðuwære. This phrase rather recalls the statement of the preamble or title of the treaty; it need not necessarily refer to the attitude of either party (or to later history!) ‘A treaty of peace (to be) binding.’
1097 elne unflitme ‘without disputing any of the conditions’ – probably an old technicality in swearing oaths of such a kind.165
1098 weotena dome. Perhaps no more than ‘not acting arbitrarily or according to personal feelings’ – coloured, for instance, by the loss of his sons; being guided by the judgment of his councillors like a good Germanic king. Whether Hengest or any others of the defending lords are intended as added to the weotan that would advise Finn is not explicit, but is possible; Finn’s own weotan may have urged the treaty on him.
1099 The second þæt-clause seems but to amplify the first – to explain in what one way especially they would be treated with ar. In fact the whole treaty as reported is to protect the defenders against insult for coming to terms. This is alone sufficient to show how important this was, how acutely the defenders felt it, and how certainly the story was that they had made terms in dubious circumstances; but the report is not really full – it is only intended as a representation of it. The terms mentioned in the negotiations (1085-94) were doubtless accepted elm unflitme and repeated by Finn, but there was no need for the poet, compressing, to repeat.
þæt ðær ænig mon . . . gemænde(n): gemænden is in all probability pure error (the basis of which is discussed above in the note on lines 1085-6, q.v.) for gemænde.
Nobody was to break the compact (generally and vaguely), but Frisians only are really meant, for Finn is taking the oath, and also this goes closely with 1101 which specifies the way in which it must not be broken definitely – ‘no one should through malice (i.e. with intent to re-awaken ill-feeling) ever allude to it (explained by what follows).’ That þæt 1099 means ‘on condition that’ – making what follows a duty incumbent explicitly on all – is really ruled out by the fact that Finn is taking a formal oath, not bargaining (even if þæt could bear such a sense).
1102 – ‘even though they as a matter of fact took service under the slayer of their (former) patron, since they were compelled to this course.’ Þa him swa geþearfod wæs is probably in intention an explanation directly of the reason for their action in accepting Finn; but since these are represented as Finn’s spoken words, they also are Finn’s uttered recognition of their necessity (absence of cowardice) and the justice of protecting them from taunts.
It is a commonplace that beaggyfan banan, which may be literal, need not be so by any means. The parallel in Beowulf 1968 (where Hygelac is called bonan Ongenþeoes, as prince of the opposing realm, and commander of the opposite side in the battle when Ongentheow fell, although Ongentheow was, as we learn in 2961-81, actually slain by Eofor, Hygelac’s þegn) is sufficient in this respect; but Finn must be regarded as directly responsible for Hnæf’s death, since otherwise beaggyfan bana would not be accepted by him in his oath. This is, when all is said and written, the real central difficulty of the problem for us – probably sheerly from our ignorance of the tale: a brief outline of events would almost certainly settle it at once.
Finn’s responsibility means, at most, that the whole of Finn’s retinue of Frisian champions (as well as any stray Jutes or other folk) must at some point have been engaged; Finn himself was probably armed and present, and may (or may not) have actually crossed swords with Hnæf; at least, that the Jutes (if I am right, the beginners of the attack) were so definitely part of his comitatus that the act of one of them in slaying Hnæf was Finn’s responsibility (as much as Eofor’s act was a deed of fæhð of the royal Geatish house against the Swedish house). The truth probably lies nearer to the first – because of 1081, which shows us that Finn’s champions were nearly all killed, and that all his comitatus was evidently involved. What Finn actually did we cannot decide, but evidently, however the quarrel began, Frisian feeling was pretty deeply involved before it was over (Frysna, line 1104). We simply do not know the position of affairs at Finn’s court well enough to follow events closely. I think the most probable explanation is still as follows:
(a) This is not a case of treacherous invitation (as in the Burgundian-Hun affair) on the part of Finn, or of malice on the part of his wife. A revealed treachery on the part of Finn would really make the action of the survivors incredible, for practical and heroic reasons: a man who breaks one treaty and promises to keep the next cannot be trusted, as we know.166 The atmosphere of the beginning of the Episode is against it – Hildeburh is ruled out. Her sorrow for her brother and son(s) is plain. There is also unsynnum. Moreover, since her first thought on the cause of the disaster is Eotena treowe, it is a non-Frisian party to which we must look.
(b) The assault – perhaps suspected (owing to the unforeseen encounter of old faces at Finn’s court on the day of the guests’ arrival) and prepared against by taking refuge in the fortified hall – was at first on the part of the Eote. How this spread to the whole Frisian retinue cannot now be clearly known; but these Eote were definitely part of Finn’s comitatus, for whom he was responsible, and they were probably bound in ties of comradeship, blood-brotherhood and so on with their Frisian comrades. The defenders may well have taunted the whole of the king’s bodyguard. It is a common feature of northern tales that a man who stands aside for excellent motives is drawn in by taunts of cowardice. The young Jutish prince may have been drawn in in this way (even if he was not Garulf).
1104 The use of Frysna does not weaken the argument that the Eote are at the bottom of the trouble. Frisian feelings were deeply engaged before the settlement took place. In any case Finn is a Frisian king, and primarily responsible for Frisian behaviour only – though doubtless the title includes all his personal comitatus (including Eote, if any were left alive – it is too much, indeed, to infer from Frysna that none were left of the Frisian Eote).
1106 It is very hard to believe in Williams’ ‘then it should be the sword’,167 i.e. then it should be a case of punishment by death. We need not delay long here. There is plainly some corruption, but happily it does not vitally matter. The general sense is clear – if any Frisian spoke challenging words recalling the deadly outbreak of hatred, then Finn would punish it by death (we need not consider the idea that Finn is swearing that in that case everyone is free to fight – small consolation to the isolated wealaf!). Some emendation is probably required. Most editors have attacked syððan – and certainly here the corruption is most likely to lie, since a transitive infinitive would be convenient, and the word syððan is one of the few in Old English which end in -an that are not infinitives. It probably, therefore, conceals an infinitive. Yet it is hard to find an infinitive s—an that really fits. Sehtan, seðan, seman, scyran, swyðan, snyððan have been suggested. Sehtan is good in sense, but it unfortunately is a late word, probably from Old Norse, and not found in verse. The best palæographically is seðan (cf. Northumbrian seoððan, soeðan for syððan); the sense is ‘verify, bear witness’. Cf. Psalm 118 160, ealle þine domas synt dædum geseðde – ‘carried out in fact’. (Actually only geseðan occurs else in verse.)
This is probably better than Williams’ alternative proposal him syððan scolde ‘he should get the sword as a result’ – cf. B. 1783, unc sceal worn fela maþma gemænra, siþðan morgen bið. This is good – but hit is not a likely point for corruption. It is also better than simply believing in a lacuna after scolde.
1107 Að wæs geæfned. It is a little more important to decide here if we believe in að or would emend. Að comes in well just at the end of the swearing – ‘the oath-taking was carried out’. It looks at first odd that it is að here and aðum plural in 1097, but this is like word sg. (or pl.) for a whole speech or “saying”. Williams also quotes a good parallel from Ælfred’s Orosius,168 where að is equivalent to aðas. Last and not least, að is in the manuscript.
So much in favour – but we need not be blindly in favour of a manuscript which has already made probable errors at 1086, 1101 and 1106, certain ones at 1073 and 1104, and will make more before we reach the end of the Episode, including an almost certainly corrupt word icge in this very line.
I don’t think that anyone before has noted that að geæfnan must mean ‘carry out the oath’; að means the terms, not the ceremony, which is aðsweorð. If this is right we need not bother to wonder what part gold played in oath-ceremonies. We may picture Finn giving gifts to heal sore hearts all round to Frisian, Dane and Jute alike, as a foretaste of the “equality” demanded.
This is possible, I think – though we now follow quickly to a pyre scene, and we do know that costly things were burned (or in legend were said to be burned) on a royal pyre. It is in this compressed narrative not very cogent to say “Where is the gold in the following description?”, even if it is true (as it is) that the pyre scene is compressed in narrative, but full, even expansive, in elegiac motive or sentiment. The mentioning that gold was brought out to adorn the pyre is sufficient once!
Lastly, að to ad is one of the simplest of all palæographic emendations. One would say that after such a passage full of wære, aðas, etc. our scribe might be trusted to turn ad into að. The total of the argument is to show, I think, a very strong balance of probability in favour of ad – if geæfned can mean ‘made ready, built’.
Etymologically, of course, it might – its stem is related to ON efni ‘material for making anything’. Though ON efna (efndi) is only used in the sense ‘fulfil’ (efna orð, heit, sætt), efna (efnaði) means ‘prepare, make arrangements’. This sense is happily recorded once in Old English – in Beowulf and in similar circumstances (3106): ic eow wisige, þæt ge genoge neon sceawiað, beagas ond brad gold. Sie sio bær gearo, ædre geæfned. It is possible that this archaic word (twice in Beowulf and not else) therefore represents not quite the same formation as efnan elsewhere, but is from *abnē-n, corresponding to ON efna(ði). This may explain (through coalescence) the unmutated form æfn- which we find in both our passages.
A final point is represented by œt þæm ade (1110) – this is much better if ad has already been mentioned. (Certainly the practically synonymous bæl has intervened.) And cf. ade again in 1114. Altogether I think we have made emendation to ad as near proved as possible; in fact the pyre is evidently the burden of this passage.
1108ff. The rest of the funeral will not give us much trouble. It is the central point of the (elegiac) interest of the poet – and so, dramatically, of his minstrel. In that case it is interesting to note how prominent Here-Scyldinga betst beadorinca is in the scene, as well as the use of the title. It increases the feeling that the reason for this song being sung in Heorot is connected with Healfdene’s name, and the Scylding house.
It is perhaps going too far to say that this passage is “elegiacally expanded” (elegisch erweitert):169 it is less compressed, and picturesque and moving detail is allowed – just as a full description, even with weather-symbolism as a parallel, is given of Hengest’s mood later: the second great moment in the drama.
1117 earme on eaxle. How are we to treat this? I think we can dismiss it as a plural adjective agreeing with sunu (and so dismiss our last textual hope of deciding the fortunately not vital question of the number of sons). We must have something to define the eaxle, and it is a little harsh to understand Hnæfes from 1114. There remain two alternatives:
(1) ... on bæl don. Earme on eaxle ides gnornode, geomrode giddum. ‘Pitifully the lady wailed (i.e. previously to the commitment to the flames) beside him/them (sc. son(s) and possibly son(s) and brother), had mourned in fitting words.’ A slight displacement in the OE manner (and in the poetic manner generally) from strict time-sequence, of a detail – made easier in Old English by the width of time-range of the simple past tense.
(2) Holthausen’s ingenious emendation eame (the dative is the correct idiom) ‘at his/their uncle’s side’. This is a typical scribal blunder – the more pertinent word giving way to the vaguer, which looks very like it, and seems to fit a context with gnornian, geomrian. Also the emphasizing of the sentiment of the burning of a nephew with his mother’s brother (a relationship keenly felt –note how it is mentioned in Maldon still)170 – even if, or all the more because, as we suspect, they had fallen on opposite sides – is just in the tone of the passage.
On the whole I favour the emendation eame.
1118 Apparently ‘the warrior mounted on high’.171 If the text is sound guðrinc astah must refer to Hildeburh's son. Hnæf was already on the pyre – on bæl gearu (1109) in fact probably means in full ‘laid on the pyre ready for the kindling’; but the expression sounds quite wrong. It is out of place in the succession of events: the placing of the son’s body on the pyre – apparently as a sudden passionate decision – just before it was kindled; the lighting of the pyre; the lamentations and keening, and the special lament of Hildeburh, as the reek rose and the fire gathered power. (If we compare the burning of Beowulf, it would appear that first the ad was built and adorned with arms and other treasures; then the body or bodies to be burned were laid on top of the pile and in its middle; and then the pyre was set alight. The lamentations, both unpremeditated and formal, began with the kindling, and continued till the fire had burned itself out. Cf. 3137 to 3155, and especially 3143 Ongunnon . . . bælfyra, mæst wigend weccan to Heofon rece swealg; and note wudurec astah 3144.) In addition it is difficult to parallel in Old English the use of astigan of an inert thing, lifted by hands: it is usually applied to persons or things (as the sun) possessing a power of motion, or to things that appear to move by themselves, being set in motion and then proceeding alone on their way (as smoke, waves, or plants growing); occasionally it is used of a tall thing (as stiepel) that may be said to rise up towards heaven.
I find it difficult to resist the conclusion that guðrinc has been substituted for guð-rec. Guðrinc was a familiar word (to judge by its use four times elsewhere in Beowulf, twice in Andreas, and once in Maldon),172 but guð-rec was probably a nonce-compound, in this highly compressed episode, conveying that the smoke was the final act in the dreadful battle.173
Note that the emendation should not be to a word meaning ‘lament’ or ‘clamour’. First, because guð would then be out of place: a battle-cry would not be a lament. Secondly, and more importantly, because a lament is out of place in this extraordinary and grim situation. The poem speaks here of Hnæf’s pyre, explicitly. On it were placed certainly only those of his following – not Frisians or their allies. (This adds poignancy to the sudden addition of Finn’s own son to the pyre of his mother’s brother.) What the other side did about their dead we are not told; but certainly since the survivors on Hnæf’s side had demanded a separate hall, so that they need not live or share food and drink with the other side, they would certainly not share a funeral pyre with them. The pyre and much of its costly ornament were provided by Finn, but the only mourners were men: they were in a foreign land, far from their people, and there were no women to mourn or wail for their dead – save one, the Frisian queen herself, Hnæf’s sister. She uttered her lament, but this pyre was not wope bewunden (3146): the grim survivors stood silently by.
1120 In the case of Beowulf the hlaw or mound in which the ashes and other relics of the burning were to be buried was not apparently built until after the burning, and it was probably at some distance from the site of the pyre on a cliff above the shore. This was in accordance with Beowulf’s own directions (2802ff.): hatað heaðomære hlæw gewyrcean beorhtne æfter bæle æt brimes nosan. In this case the mound was already prepared, or partly so (though not of course roofed or covered in), and close by the site of the pyre.
1122 It seems clear to me that we have here an error, through crossing of lie and lig: laðbite liges . . . lic eall forswealg. This is not certain, of course; but cf. 2080, lic eall forswealg. The reversal would not be difficult to account for. Laðbite liges gives a good reason for the spurting of the blood, and a satisfactory objective genitive for bite (which is in Old English a verbal noun, the act of biting). Against the emendation is the fact that it requires also the alteration of ealle to eall (neuter plural); but after, or in process of, the reversal ealle would be likely to be produced to provide an object for forswealg.
1124 bega folces. The fact that this collocation is (as far as I can discover) without parallel in Old English seems to have escaped all commentators, and the makers of dictionaries and glossaries also. It is usually rendered ‘of both peoples’, or the equivalent in sense ‘of either people’; but this cannot be its meaning as it stands.
Primarily and normally begen is a numeral adjective, agreeing in number and case (plural for dual) with the concomitant noun. In this it agrees with twegen (with which it rhymes in all its inflected forms). From twegen it differs in sense in that twegen refers to two things as part of an indefinite series, but begen refers to two things exclusively (there being naturally only two, as parents of one child, or only two in the circumstances, as opponents in a duel), which share alike in any condition or action that is stated. Begen is thus not followed by a partitive genitive dependent on itself, and is in the genitive itself only in concord with a noun (expressed or understood). Tweg(r)a folca means ‘of two peoples’ and beg(r)a folca ‘of both peoples’, not ‘of both of the peoples’. The relation is the same as in godra folca ‘of good peoples’, and to this is due the later alteration by intrusion of the adjectival r. Bega folces can therefore no more stand for ‘of both peoples’ than could godra folces for ‘of good peoples’. Modern speech-feeling is apt to be misleading in this point, owing to the frequent use of a partitive of after both, as in both of them equiva
lent to them both; but OE heora beg(r)a means ‘of them both’ and not ‘of both of them’.174
In that case, if the text is sound, only one folc is concerned, and bega agrees with some other noun understood and to be inferred from what has gone before. The rarity and difficulty of the expression may be explained by the extreme compression of the narrative, which was composed for those who knew the story entire (and even then demanded their close attention). We have to do our best to determine the sense of folc here, and to what bega refers.
Wyatt and Chambers,175 though making no comment, do at least see that the expression needs some explanation, and in their glossary translate bega folces ‘of the folk of both [peoples]’; but they do not under folc indicate what sense is to be attached to folces here. The only sense that fits is ‘folk’ as the plural of ‘man’, and actually the translation is simply equivalent to ‘of both peoples’, for which the natural Old English was bega folca. The vague sense ‘people’, i.e. ‘the persons present or spoken of, without consideration of their grouping or distinctions’, is well evidenced, but hardly in such a context, where the more precise sense of folc ‘an organized group with a head (a cyn or mægþ)’, or ‘a body of men under command of a leader’, is naturally to be expected, and is in fact supposed to be the “understood” word after bega. It may also be observed that in the text as it stands the sense ‘all the men/people concerned’ is already expressed by ealle (usually taken as acc. pl. masc.) 1122; which makes it all the more probable that folces 1124 has a specific sense, some one definite body. Of this the slain had been part.
In the compressed narrative, only the pyre of Hnæf (the centre of the main emotion of the tragedy) is specifically described. This is awkward, of course: compression always is, especially for those who do not know the full tale; but not more awkward than supposing that a pyre specifically called Hnæfes ad (1114) was the common pyre for all the slain, friends and enemies. I think it more likely that, in fact, in the compression only Hnæf’s pyre is mentioned at all, as far as the end of 1124 (scacen). The funeral rites were then over, as 1125ff. imply; but what was done about the slain attackers simply is not related. In that case bega folces refers to the fact – already sufficiently evident in the provision of the treaty that the “other hall” was to be shared by two different groups in the defenders – that Hnæf’s retinue included men belonging to two different “tribes”. [Bega folces must mean ‘of both sections of the people’; folc refers to the defenders under Hnæf’s command, and the “two sections” are the Danes and the Jutes.]
1125 We come here to a part that has often puzzled people. The comment of Williams is worth noting:176 I will number and abridge some of his points:
(1) 1125-7: we must here have some reference to the fulfilment of the bargain and the departure to oðer flet; i.e. the defenders must be included in wigend; heaburh must be their new hall.
(2) freondum befeallen doubtless would fit all (sume on wæle crungon!), but is specially apt of the þeodenlease.
(3) But if they are included, why is the important fact of their going to another hall mixed up with the unimportant (because inevitable, and unnecessary to describe) action of the natives?
(4) If we see in wigend only the defenders, we get rid of most of the difficulties of the words, and of any necessity for believing that Finnesburh was not in Friesland and of a sort of general tour to inspect Frisia.
Chambers believed that Finnesburg was not in Frisia proper177 – we have seen that the name alone does not prove it was; but it is not against its being in Frisia – any more than Etzelnburg is not a natural legendary name of Attila’s ham ond heaburh.
Actually the importance of the hall, and the clear fact that Finn was finally slain in that very hall which in 1147 is called his selfes ham – þær he ær mæste heold worolde wynne (1079) – show that it must have been his normal royal residence, and therefore not at all likely to have been an outlying stronghold; but (especially in Frisia!) it may have been, indeed certainly was, by the sea. The guests probably had seen little of Frisia, even of the royal capital or stronghold, until the battle was over and peace concluded. They may not unintelligibly now be said ‘to (leave the funeral and) depart to visit the dwellings and look on Frisia, the homesteads and high burh or stronghold’ (not ‘capital’ – no need to translate it so).
I am not convinced.
It is true that burh is not a ‘city’ or ‘town’ in this sort of Old English, but a fortified place – but it is going too far to assume that it is the same as heall. The fortress included more than one building. The heaburh is at first sight unlikely to refer to anything else than Finnes burg; i.e. not a separate and more important “capital” burh; for the good reason above, that Finnes burg would certainly seem to be selfes ham, and no other burh is likely to be hea (‘capital’ or ‘chief) in contrast. For hea(h)burh does mean ‘chief burh’, as well as ‘lofty (loftily situated) burh’.
Can hamas (plural) and heaburh be purely poetical for Finnes ham, i.e. Finnesburg? Very possibly – but can one then be said to depart and visit it (unless the funeral was a long way off, as is unlikely)?
A nasty puzzle. There are various possible solutions that occur to one. The wealaf might have gone off to visit and choose their new quarters – distances very small, probably; but this is very unlikely. It would be desperately risky. One feels that they would want a good hall round them quick – oft seldan hwær . . . bongar bugeð (2029-31)!
My inclination is to see in the passage no special reference to the occupation of another hall. For I see no reason to suppose (a) that this was outside Finnesburg, or (b) that Hengest was with Finn as a sort of hostage, cut off from his heap, which is quite unlike the tone of the treaty, especially in my solution of it; while (c) Finn was overlord of both, and had dogra gehwylce to treat both parties alike – they were probably in the same place, if lodged differently. He was like a bishop with two sees and cathedrals adjacent.
Finn’s warriors (and the others too) now depart from the funeral, still filled with sorrow for fallen comrades, some to the outlying wicas in Frisia, some to hamas, some to the very heaburh: hamas is not connected with heaburh but contrasted. Doubtless all three (wicas, hamas and heaburh) were close together, say on one island, and his forces were still doubtless largely in the heaburh; but he is clearly relying on the treaty and its sincerity (which both adds to the impression that the outbreak was no plot of his, and makes pregnant the gradual breaking down of sincerity in Hengest which immediately follows).
The only weakness in this hypothesis is the use of Frysland geseon of natives – but it is not very serious.
1127ff. With this part – in which Hengest (and not his actions so much as his motives) is beyond any doubt the important matter, at any rate to our “compressor” author, probably even to the older lay author – we approach new difficulties almost as teasing as those already dealt with:
The “winter and spring” part is not easy to construe.
1140-1 is ambiguous and obscure, and will probably remain so (but on my theory it is perhaps intentionally so: see below, p. 127).
What is the meaning of woroldrædenne? And how is Hunlafing to be taken ?
What is the reference of æfter sæside in 1149?
Yet we feel our interest abate. It is not so easy to ponder and weigh pros and cons. Why? Because really by now the central problem is solved – or not. It is sufficiently clear how the whole disastrous tale ended – Hengest in spite of the oaths (hence the pregnant dramatic irony of 1095-6 and 1129) finally broke the compact, and with help from abroad (of course – it could not be done without) finally slew Finn, laid waste his hall and burh, and went back – out of the story. The details are details simply.
It is nonetheless not necessarily true to say that because Hengest and his motives are the chief concern in the second half of the Episode, this throws light back and makes him the chief concern throughout.
I do not deny that he is a commanding figure (Hengest sylf in the Fragment) throughout: the chief of Hnæf’s warriors, doubtless if we knew all a mainstay of the defence, and the one who kept the defenders together after Hnæf’s fall. Conceivably and probably he was of the heroic Bryhtwold mould,178 and in the negotiation passage we may have been quite right in suspecting that it was the Dene, not Hengest or his heap, who were primarily responsible for any truce taking place before all were dead (though decent loyalty and Hengest’s presence made them demand the same terms for his heap, the Eote, as for themselves): but what real evidence is there for making his predominant character one of grimness? This “demonic” character must be proved independently of the translation of Eotena bearn, not assumed because it is (incredibly) rendered ‘child of giants’.179
Actually loyalty is the only thing – extreme loyalty to his allegiance and his word – that we can gather about his character and his function in the tale, beyond of course essential valour. The keynote is Eotena treowe, and the poet has gone out of his way to show the turmoil of his mind when he finds himself trapped and obliged to forgo death with his master or vengeance for him. As to exactly what his explicit or tacit bond to Finn was, see below, p. 119: it is not clear at all that it was a permanent oath of faithfulness. I think if we grasp this we have done the chief part of the “consideration” of the place of the latter part of the Episode in the “problem”.
1128 wælfagne winter. The “winter” would hardly be said to be wælfag if the actual Freswæl had not occurred technically in winter. I think it is probably quite wrong to assume that the wealaf and Hengest’s heap were precluded by treaty from sailing away. There is nothing whatever to show it – and much to the contrary – and it involves one in quite unnecessary difficulties round about line 1148.
In this connection wælfag winter is of high importance. We can without any undue pressure learn a great deal from it. The wæl took place in “winter” – that is, at the end of the year, probably at the end of the period when a visit by ship was probable or normally practicable. We must not think in terms of our own (vague enough in popular use) quadripartite year: spring, summer, autumn, winter. The real Germanic Northern year was summer/winter (cf. our use of one or other to this day as equivalent to “year”). Summer began more or less in the middle of what we call April, and ended in the middle of what we call October. So still in Iceland. There was an old Germanic (Indo-European) word for ‘spring’ (ON vár): hærfest was the getting in of crops, an agricultural period rather than a season, and part of summer.
But this hardly affects at all the technical use of winter. The coming of the guests, a king with a retinue of sixty chosen knights, including princes such as Sigeferth, in winter, must mean a full and formal invitation – since the whole situation seems to preclude a surprise visit, or any hostile intent. They did not intend to return home until spring. They were to sit and drink with Finn right through Yule.
This intention remained, added to the inclement weather in the (late autumn or) early winter storms, and we must see in the treaty only a demand that Finn should protect them and deal with them as his own friends over the period of the original invitation – while they were obliged to be in his land. This, indeed, makes the treaty much more intelligible. The difficult relationship was not to be permanent. Doubtless either explicitly or implicitly the hatchet was supposed to be buried by either side for good, but this is not clearly shown anywhere. We have already noted that the defenders probably propose terms, and at any rate are nowhere formally made to swear anything. At most they become technically “followers” of Finn (1102) – part of his household – for a time. It is a conceivable situation that this is the most that either side could expect.
(1) Finn supports feuds and gives the usual presents to the wealaf, who are otherwise þeodenlease, and protects them from insupportable insult; he was in any case their host – cf. gist 1138.
(2) The wealaf become (at least temporarily) his men – until they can clear out. After that Finn doubtless thought he could look after himself, ac him leigh se wrench180 – because vengeance came before the whole body had cleared out. It is in this fact, I think we shall see, that the explanation lies of 1142ff. Here also lies the breaking of the troth: and Hengest the loyal, probably the most reluctant swearer, is seen not as the grim mover in oath-breaking, but as the most reluctant breaker. He had to be “egged” – though he had played in imagination long with the idea (the necessary preliminary to falling into any temptation for anyone, hero or not).
1129 finnel unhlitme. The textual problem need not delay us. Clearly something has been omitted; equally clearly it means ‘sincerely (zealously) and according to agreement (or compulsion)’. Cf. 1097. The scribe may have pronounced it Finn’ eln’ unhlitme: Williams is right in regarding the error as one in which “saying it over in one’s mind” has affected the scribe,181 together with the rarity of the words concerned.
For -hlitme cf. hlytm 3126: næs ða on hlytme hwa þæt hord strude, which may mean ‘it was not put to the lot’ – i.e. there was no hanging back – or ‘it was not a matter of chance’, it was all arranged (the latter, pace Williams, fitting the context ill, in my opinion). This at any rate gives us a key to the formation: it is related to hleotan, if not a corruption simply of the phrase elne unflitme (1097).
Only two senses can be got out of it:
(1) ‘unluckily, unhappily’ – this means the abandonment of elne
and the adoption of the palæographically much weaker eal.
(2) ‘not caused by chance, pre-arranged’, adverbial dative of hlytm
‘lot-throwing’ with negative un-.
The latter I think forced, in spite of the palæographic superiority of elne unhlitme. I think we must choose between elne unflitme and eal unhlitme. The latter is better because hlytm does occur, actually in Beowulf, and we are relieved of the spectacle of the scribe managing elne unflitme in 1097 and completely bungling it in 1129.182
1130 þeah þe. This here might mean ‘whether’. Cf. OE ic nat þeah þu wene þæt... ‘I don’t know whether/if you think that. . .’; uncuð þeah þe he slæpe ‘not known whether/if he is asleep’. ‘He thought of his own land, (pondering) whether .. .’183 This relieves us of the necessity of inserting a ne in 1130.
I am not quite sure. The parallels are not as good as they look at first sight, and ne could get omitted, especially easily before meahte. ‘Although’ is also more forcible and sensible. He must have known that the voyage was impossible because of both the weather and the treaty.
In that case it would seem that ne is required: but it remains possible to view þeah þe as introducing an “impossible condition”. Cf. þonne andwyrdan þa yrfenuman swa he sylf sceolde þeah he lif hæfde – ‘supposing he had been alive, as he was not’, where we should expect þeah ... næfde (and indeed we may almost suspect a manuscript error).
1131ff. The function of this passage is two-fold:
(1) Primary – the explanation of why Hengest (and company) did not sail away, at least as soon as their hurts were healed. Why stay in so awkward a position ? The fact that such an explanation is necessary is sufficient, I think, to show that even if we had a Freswæl poem in fullest length, the compact would contain no hint of a provision that the “defenders” became Finn’s men for ever, restrained by oath from leaving him, bound permanently to his side. I take it they were capable of departing singly or together. Winter prevented them, impassable storms, followed by the freezing of the northern waters: but spring came at last to end that winter, as still it does.
(2) Secondary – doubtless (as so many poetical effects) largely unconscious: a symbol or parallel to the moods of men, the winds to their troubled hearts, the ice to their forced inactivity and sojourn in an hostile land – the spring to the release of passions once more, the chance of action, the sating of bitter feelings of bereavement.
It is ingenious because it is not mere symbolism. The actual physical winter is integral to the plot, the cause largely of the situation as well as its allegory.
For my purpose this is more important than the actual construe of 1134-6. Williams’ comment is here good, and worth noting; but I still on the whole follow Klaeber, except in his idiotic comment “a trivial statement of a matter-of-course fact” – there is no room for such in our Episode, nor can we lightly accuse our author of it anywhere.184 The fact that spring still comes to weary hearts may be well-recognized, but it is not trivial. The old poet did not fall into that last feeble error of despising truth, because it was so large and potent as to have been observed by others before him.
The fact that deð is disyllabic is no proof that it is plural dōað – it may be dōið singular: cf. 1058 for a close parallel. Changes of number are not to be so lightly accepted in Beowulf as Williams would have it [perhaps deð should be emended to doð]. Also, though wuldor-torhtan weder clearly is ‘spring’, and not merely equivalent to ‘year’, it is possible to construe it as subject, not object, of bewitiað. Finally, sele is better as ‘occasion, due and proper season’ in such a context. Cf. Exeter Gnomic Verses 50-51: Storm oft holm gebringeþ, geofen in grimmum sælum.185 Translate, therefore: ‘until another year came into the world of men, even as it yet does (or, they do), spring weathers gloriously bright that continually observe the season(s)’.
1137 fundode. Though in certain contexts this verb may be translated ‘hastened’, it really always means ‘to be fus in a certain direction of mind (and body)’, and does not necessarily imply that any action or motion in the desired direction has yet taken place. Cf. we fundiaþ Higelac secan (1819-20). We can translate ‘we are off to see Hygelac’ in modern colloquial English – but no actual movement has, of course, taken place. It means ‘we are eager to be gone’. The question is, what does of geardum mean ? And does the next sentence mean ‘he did not voyage, but turned his eagerness to thoughts of revenge’, or ‘in his actions the purpose of revenge was more dominant than voyaging, a mere means to an end’? The probable answer is a combination of the two. Voyaging was a necessary means to an end, and was undertaken, but not by Hengest (because revenge had become dominant, and for all to sail away was to dismiss practical hopes of this).
Probably of geardum means simply the place where he was, the royal Frisian burh (not the abodes of men generally, as Williams would have it – this meaning is found almost solely in weather- and season-expressions, as in 1134). Cf. geong in geardum 13, not young ‘in the world’ but ‘in his royal house’; gomen in geardum 2459.
‘Now was winter departed, fair was the bosom of earth. The exile (Hengest) was eager to be (astir and be) gone from the halls where he was guest’ – a bitter ironic word. ‘(But) his mind had been turned rather to revenge for woe than to voyaging upon the sea’ – i.e. vengeance first, departure from the hated place of his master’s and companions’ deaths only when his feeling of loyalty to their memory was satisfied: also, vengeance could only be accomplished by putting off departure.
Yet we must not necessarily think of this grim plotting as in his mind from the beginning. He had a winter to think about things in. This is rather the playing with an idea (often partly unwilled) which precedes a final yielding to the impulse. Swa 1142 is strong and forcible: ‘consequently’ the final egging had effect.
I take it, in fact, that the “egging” of Hengest took place before any definite plot for the breaking of the troth came into being. The episode of the sword came before anyone had departed – at the first sign of spring. It came again from the Danish wealaf, not from Hengest or his heap – but again Hengest and his heap were as necessary to their revenge as to their defence. It was part of the plot that most should remain in Finn’s burg as long as possible, otherwise there was no hope of taking it. The chief of all, Hengest, must stay, otherwise the staying of any would be suspicious. The placing of Guthlaf and Oslaf’s sea-voyage (1149) later is therefore chronologically correct.
The “egging” perhaps took the form of definitely making Hengest their lord, of swearing fealty to him. Hengest was þeodnes ðegn, but not (even if we assume him a mighty man) probably the natural heir of the allegiance of the Danes.
1140ff. We now approach the most difficult passage in the whole Episode (in my opinion) – and one which is very difficult to clear up: but we, perhaps, may avoid any more discussion than is necessary to arrive at any sound conclusion, because I submit it is largely a grammatical and syntactic puzzle. There can be little real doubt of the general drift: Hengest was thinking of revenge (and probably if not certainly the Eotena bearn were going to feel this to their advantage or disadvantage, or both). Still, out of it we shall obtain some very valuable indications concerning the Eotena bearn, and so must not altogether shirk the necessary scrutiny.
Let us first assume that the Eotena bearn are (as now usually supposed) solely on the Frisian side, and therefore Hengest’s enemies. Then we will see if the difficulties we are landed in are in any way relieved, not by a change of construe but of theory – by regarding the Eotena bearn as Hengest’s friends (or perhaps ambiguous). If the difficulties will not disappear we must look for another way out.
The chief difficulties – þurhteon (see below, p. 129) is purely secondary – are (i) þæt 1141, (ii) Eotena bearn, (iii) inne, (iv) gemunde.
(i) þæt. The possibilities are: (a) neuter demonstrative pronoun; (b) neuter relative pronoun; (c) conjunction, (a) is ruled out by the hypothesis that Eotena bearn is not the same as he for –
(ii) Eotena bearn must be, since ex hypothesi it is not the same as he, the object of gemunde. Also it is plural (as we shall see later again, pp. 128-9).
(iii) inne means ‘inside’. However we take þæt it cannot mean ‘in it’, sc. in the battle (torngemot); it must mean ‘inside’ quite physically of something hollow, or by a very simple transference ‘in the bosom’.
(iv) gemunan, except in dubious cases (such as þæs . . . gemundon, a variant reading to the better þæs . . . onmunden of the Chronicle, anno 755), means to ‘bear in mind’, ‘not forget or dismiss from thought’, ‘remember’, ‘recall to thought’, ‘recollect’. It would not be an unnatural litotes to use ‘remember someone’ for ‘not forget what he has done (and repay him with good will)’, just as we (and Old English) can use “remember”/gemunan for ‘pray for’, or a man asking for a Christmas box may ask you modestly to “remember the dustman”.
Let us now see what we can make of it:
‘His mind had been turned rather to vengeance than to sailing away, if he could successfully achieve a conflict so that he could remember the Jutes inne.’ We may dismiss þæt . . . inne (with þæt relative) as equal to þe/þær . . . inne. Even emendation to þær . . . inne would not help, because inne could not be used of the vague relation “in a battle”, but only of “inside a hall (or breast)”.
The only possibility for the last clause would appear therefore to be ‘so that he could remember the Jutes inside’. What does this mean? On the theory that the Jutes were Frisians and therefore outside it is nonsense (for one can hardly believe in ‘remember the Jutes inside, i.e. now in their turn besieged’, since this is future and imagined, not remembered), unless inne can be given the sense of ‘in his heart’. I think it can. Inne is frequent with reference to inside a man (doubtless more or less physically imagined), but it needs usually some word to show this, e.g. hreðer inne weoll (2113). Still we may plead that the language is here compressed, and gemunan implies ‘spirit, thought’ (hyge), normally thought of as inside a man’s breast.
Well then – ‘so that he could in his heart remember the Jutes’ – which means ex hypothesi ‘wreak vengeance upon them’.
Now is this credible language? It might be, if inne was quite unimportant, inne gemunan ‘remember (in his heart)’ meaning simply ‘remember’; but both its position, taking of alliteration, and the very compression of language we have appealed to, whereby every word and its full associations count, are all against this. Inne must, so taken, mean ‘in his inmost thoughts’, which naturally suggests an opposition to outward expression fatal to the sense we are taking for gemunan ‘show one's remembrance in overt action’. We are driven to translate it ‘sincerely, deeply, thoroughly’ – for which I can find no precise OE parallel, though both Old English and Middle English use inlice (inliche, inli) in the sense ‘sincerely’ (he him inlice freond wæs).186 The implied antithesis here is to superficial outward expression, in fact with reference to quite a different situation from this one. There is here no question of insincere expressions of hate – ‘that he might sincerely remember (hostilely) the Eotena bearn, not merely talk about it’. We can hardly imagine even poor old Finn undertaking to put Frisians (ex hypothesi equivalent to Eotena bearn) to death for being rude, if Hengest and company, if only out of policy, did not abstain from continually alluding to “those nasty murderous Eotena bearn who ought to be punished”, however insincerely, and without bothering to take revenge.
We find, then, that taking the Jutes as Hengest’s enemies only leads us into translations that are either unintelligible or intolerably forced and unnatural. This is, I think, a strong argument against the hypothesis. We will finally abandon it.
With Eotena bearn equivalent to Hengest’s friends (especially the fallen ones), and possibly a deliberate play on the fact that it might also refer to his enemies (hence the ambiguity of the expression), the syntactical problem is exactly the same, but the difficulty of making sense quite different.
‘His mind had turned rather to vengeance for woe than to sailing on the sea, if he could successfully achieve a conflict, so that he could remember the Jutes inside (or, in his heart).’
Inne in its physical sense is no longer so impossible. It is conceivable that Hengest could be said to remember the besieged Jutes (i.e. those who had fallen in Finn’s hall) on his own side.
I am bound to say that I am not confident of such a translation – in spite of the use of inne in such expressions as inne besittan ‘to besiege a man in his own hall’ (in the Laws be fæhðum; cf. ON inni only of ‘in (one’s) house’: brenna hann inni), and inne frequently means ‘indoors’. The chief objection is not, of course, the sense of inne, but its function virtually as an adjective, or equivalent to a relative clause þe ær inne ofslægene wæron.
One cannot, however, dismiss it as impossible in language at once archaic and compressed. Its chief weakness, from the point of view of my theory (which, I think, has other things outside this passage to commend it, and therefore may be allowed to colour our decision here), is that it limits the Eotena bearn too closely to the attacked – and that not in a passage where its reference was naturally more limited (the sharing of a hall), but in one where gemunan was by nature vague in import.
If, however, we abandon it we are still faced with inne gemunde: ‘so that in the deeps of his heart he might remember’ will hardly fit, because in his secret heart he was remembering, and this memory was driving him to some new purpose; ‘so that he might deeply (with deep inward feeling, and so passionately sincerely) remember’ is not very natural language, especially in the context, for ‘show practically his loyalty to their memory’. Still, I don't think it impossible, especially if the ambiguous position of the Jutes be allowed to have caused (deliberately) ambiguous language.
On my theory, therefore (keeping Eotena bearn as plural), we must have either (a) ‘so that he might recall (and be urged by the memory) the Eotena bearn (besieged) in the hall’, or (b) ‘so that he might allow his heart within to remember the Eotena bearn (and all the circumstances of the feud)’ – in opposition to the formal forgetfulness or “amnesty” imposed by the frioðuwære. The last is, I think, the best that can be done, for there is no way out except by making Eotena bearn NOT the object of gemunde; in that case it must be in apposition to he, and singular.
Now it is true that we can now use þæt as a neuter pronoun, the direct object of gemunde, and render – ‘that (was what) he, son of Jutes, pondered deep in his heart’. This seems very good: inne here has its natural antithesis to his outward presentation of frioðu while revolving the thought of a torngemot. If we object that gemunde is very poorly evidenced in the sense of ‘reflect, meditate (on something fresh)’, it can be urged that torngemot means the old battle -‘that was what he remembered deep in his heart’; but I will deal with that suggestion later.
In the meanwhile this doubt about gemunan is the first point against this theory. The second is the apposition he/Eotena bearn. The apposition is only credible if the explanation of he so offered is forcible, and explains or illuminates the sentence. Usually (and always in this compressed Episode) such “titles”, especially with a pronoun he in both the preceding and the following sentence, would be sufficient: cf. Healfdenes hildewisan 1064, Hoces dohtor 1076, Eotena bearn 1088, Folcwaldan sunu 1089. What could be the sense of ‘so that he, as being a Jute (or, though a Jute) . . .’ ? Of course, by the very nature of this present supposition, Jutes can only be on Hengest’s side or on both, if we construe bearn as singular. On my theory we can see the emphasis. The quarrel was primarily a Jutish one. All Hengest’s Jutish feelings were aroused for all we know – in addition to his loyalty to Hnæf, which was probably part of them: a thing about which Jutes violently disagreed.
Still, I think it breaks down on the singular usage: bearn with a genitive plural is elsewhere always plural (as in the only certain parallel in Beowulf, Geata bearn 2184) – as we should expect. A man is a son of a Jute, not of Jutes, for the genitive is not a partitive one (‘child from among the Jutes’), but the plural of the genitive singular used in patronymic phrases. Cf. monnes bearn sg. (Guthlac 430), not manna bearn, which would be correct and intelligible in the plural and occurs of course, as also wera, ylda, fira, gumena, hæleða, leoda bearn, which are all plural not singular. Eotena bearn cannot, therefore, be singular or in apposition to he – without emendation to Eotan.187
In that case the idea that torngemot is the old battle (which we saw was necessary on such a construction to give gemunde its proper sense of ‘remember’) really fails too: but it fails also quite independently and so, I think, assists in the final dismissal of construing Eotena bearn as the subject of gemunde. Its support is the idea that þurhteon must mean ‘bring to an end, finish (something begun)’. This does not appear to be true. Etymologically, of course, the word means ‘pull right through’, and so naturally gets the sense of ‘finish, bring to an end’; but one can speak of bringing to an end, accomplishing, achieving, pursuing to a successful issue, things not previously begun and left unfinished, but only newly attempted. This is Hengest’s thought. There is nothing unnatural in his thinking “supposing I can bring about successfully and win a new battle!” Actually we find þurhteon used in a sense hardly stronger than ‘perform, do, make’; in any case it is often used of obtaining requests, or putting plans into effect. I cannot see that there is any evidence for torngemot as referring to the old battle in the hall, which ended indecisively and therefore needed finishing.
Also I submit that no one partaking in those events ending with a solemn treaty and a funeral would have thought of the old torngemot as anything but absolutely ended, decisively – if not at all satisfactorily. The gemot ‘clash’ was over, if not the animosity. If you wanted to settle the actual difference (the only thing which could be said not to be finished) you could effect a new clash. You could not be said to be “finishing the old battle”, after an intervening treaty, funeral, evacuation of the hall (scene of the previous battle). We should speak of a “new war” ourselves, even against an old enemy and about the same thing, if a treaty and a period of “peace” intervened.
I submit, then, that out of this discussion we have elicited:
(1) Eotena bearn does not refer only to Hengest (though he was certainly a Jute).
(2) The Eotena bearn were to feel the result of Hengest’s memory of recent events.
(3) But we can make little or no sense out of it unless Eotena bearn are chiefly his friends, though the ambiguous language may be due, probably deliberately, to the fact that in the actual situation Jutes would be both avenged and punished.
Amid a tangle of difficulties we decided on ‘so that he might within – i.e. so that his heart might – remember the Jutish warriors with deep feeling’ as the most probable interpretation.
1142 Swa. Forcible: ‘Consequently’. So far this had only been passing in Hengest’s mind; he had (one may fairly imagine) not even discussed it with anyone, secretly or otherwise; but something now occurred which turned him – already prepared in mind so that he needed no long argument to persuade him, only some moving symbolic act – to definite action. Unfortunately the language remains still obscure, doubtless because of our partial ignorance of OE poetical language itself (woroldrædenne) as well as our partial ignorance of the situation.
I think my view that the defenders were mixed (we know they were Dene, yet Sigeferth was Secgena leod!) – mainly people who could be called Jutes (Eotan, Eotena bearn) and others who could be called Danes (Dene) – elucidates the situation considerably. Hengest is not the natural heir to the allegiance of the whole band of survivors; he has his heap (Jutes), many of whom have fallen; but doubtless he is the best man left.
My reading is that one of the natural results of the living together of the Dene and Eotena bearn the long winter through, after sharing an heroic defence, is for plans for revenge to have been whispered. That Hengest was left isolated, pondering, does not require him to have been isolated as a hostage with Finn, cut off from them – not if you do not insist (as we have, seen, there is no evidence for it) on regarding him as a naturally grim character. For all we know, unbending loyalty to his word may have been so characteristic that men feared to approach him, until by outward signs they perceived that he was unsettled in mind. Far more probably it is because the movement for revenge was primarily directed towards revenge for Hnæf, and arose not among Hengestes heap but among the Danish wealaf.
We have already dealt with part of the problem of lines 1142-5 under the names in the passage, and just as we have there found reason at the outset to suspect that Hengest was a Jute, so we found some reason for Guthlaf and Oslaf (Ordlaf) being “Danes” of some sort, and associated probably with a Hunlaf.188 It is for this reason that we decided to read Hunlafing, which must then be a man’s name (or rather title, used in this compressed Episode instead of the real name, like Hoces dohtor, Folcwaldan sunu); hildeleoman is then either a “kenning” or a name (we cannot finally decide which) for a sword. What can we make out, or guess, of the process?
1142 woroldrædenne. Ræden f. is an abstract derived probably from rǣdan wk.v. (Gothic raidjan) ‘to arrange’, though influenced by confusion of that word with rædan str.v. ‘advise, discuss, etc.’. It means ‘rule, government, reckoning, estimating; stipulation, condition’. It also is used frequently virtually as an abstract noun former (e.-g. broþorræden ‘fraternity, brotherhood, community’, ME broþerrede, -hede). The simplex does not occur in verse, but the compound and virtual suffix uses do. Compound: folcræden ‘plebiscite’; frumræden ‘thing arranged before (or in the beginning)’; meodoræden, apparently meaning ‘dealing with (the giving of) mead in hall’; þingræden ‘intercession’, also probably meaning ‘wooing’, or possibly equivalent to wifþing ‘sexual intercourse’; unræden ‘ill-advised action’. Suffix: campræden ‘warfare’; freondræden ‘friendship’; gafulræden, equivalent to gafol; mægræden ‘relationship by marriage’; treowræden ‘pact’; wigræden ‘warfare’ (Waldere 22). Outside verse the word is still more common, especially as expressing relations or conditions: mannræden ‘allegiance, homage’; burgræden ‘citizenship’; geferræden ‘companionship’; hierdræden ‘custody’; hiwræden ‘family, household’. None of these words occurs in Beowulf nor in any of the heroic fragments, except for wigræden in Waldere.
It is clearly from the examples not easy to discover by usage or etymology what is meant by the woroldræden which he accepted (ne forwyrnde); but plainly it cannot belong to the class like folcræden, meodoræden, where ræden still retains its force as ‘arrangement’ – it cannot mean ‘arrangement, government of the world’. Either then, (a) it means ‘world-arrangement/condition/state’ – from this have proceeded the guesses ‘way of the world, temptation’, or even ‘proper procedure, keeping oath’, or ‘death’, or ‘destiny’, and so on; or (b) worold is a mere intensive, and ræden is the real thing -‘stipulation, condition’; or (c) we must emend – most easily to *werodræden ‘service in a military band’. The word does not exist, but cf. wigræden, campræden, and the prose hiwræden, geferræden, etc. (b) gives the best provisional sense, but clearly we must rely on the context and the interpretation of the general situation to decide.
What is meant by on bearm dyde? We may, of course, dismiss the idea that anyone stuck a sword into Hengest! Clearly he was given a sword either actually or symbolically. A close parallel exists in Beowulf itself (2192-6), where Hygelac is rewarding Beowulf for his prowess, and apparently by the “wealth of his gifts” (a whole province) raising him to the rank of a vassal prince: næs mid Geatum ða sincmaðþum selra on sweordes had; þæt he on Biowulfes bearm alegde, ond him gesealde seofan þusendo, bold ond bregostol. Cf. also 2404 him to bearme com, i.e. into his possession, and the Cotton Gnomic Verses 25, sweord sceal on bearme.189
The placing of Hildeleoma on Hengest’s lap was evidently fraught with deep significance: for, quite apart from the fact that “its edges were renowned among the Jutes” (on which see later), the whole run of the passage shows clearly that it finally decided him to give effect to his thoughts of revenge.
What is the significance of the act? The mere value of the sword (not even backed by renown or sentimental associations connected probably with the very feud which is the background, hardly seizable, of the story), now given as a present with the stipulation “enter our/my service”, will satisfy no one. Either Hengest is being offered the lordship of people over whom he had previously no precise jurisdiction, or he is being asked for allegiance by someone who might rightly claim it – e.g. as the successor of Hnæf.
I don’t think it will be easy to decide between these two possibilities. I think we may decide that Hunlafing is a Dane, not a Jute, because Hengest surely had no need of symbolic acts of homage from his own heap – I say this because although Leifus with his six sons Hunnleifus, Gunnleifus, Oddleifus, etc. is king of Denmark,190 we have no absolute certainty that he does not represent in the late Norse tradition some king or hero of parts afterwards absorbed into Denmark, e.g. a Jute (as the Angle Offa appears as the Dane Uffo); but the two considerations together are clearly in favour of Hunlafing as a Dane. In that case, either Hengest is being made leader of the Danes (at any rate in this desperate revenge), or Hunlafing has some reason to expect his allegiance.
We know too little to be sure. If we give much faith to the Latin epitome of Skjöldungasaga, Hunlaf was the eldest of the brothers. He is not mentioned in our extant Fragment. He may have fallen in Finnesburg (but 1 do not think the reference to Ordlaf and Guthlaf in line 16 of the Fragment is in favour of this). We do not know what relationship he had to Hnæf. Hnæf is called a Scylding; so are Guthlaf and Oslaf, probably, in 1154 (but this may be the general title of the attacking revengers, regarded mainly as Danes, or as Scylding vassals). One’s feeling, in the absence of certainty, is that the way in which Hengest is treated in the Fragment and the Episode (especially after the death of Hnæf – he is the formal recipient of Finn’s oath, and so apparently the biggest man among the survivors) makes one expect that he is being offered leadership.
In Norse there are a good many references to uses of a sword in swearing fealty, and these may illuminate the passage.
(1) There is a passage in Saxo Book II191 where after the death of Hrólfr Kraki (Rolvo) only Viggo is left alive. Hiartvarus (Hjörvarðr = Heoruweard) his slayer asks Viggo if he is willing to become his man, and when he says yes, offers him a drawn sword; but Viggo refuses the blade, and seizes the hilt, saying that that was the way Rolvo used to offer the sword to his men. “Olim, namque,” says Saxo, “se regum clientelæ daturi tacto gladii capulo obsequium pollicere solebant” – “for formerly those who were about to engage themselves as members of the king’s comitatus were accustomed to promise service while touching the sword-hilt”, sc. of the king’s sword lying in his lap. (Of course Viggo seized the chance of running Hiartvarus through, but that has nothing to do with our story.)
We need not give references to the general practice of swearing on swords, especially drawn swords (such as is referred to e.g. in Völundarkviða: eiþa skaltu mér áþr alla vinna at skips borði ... ok at mækis egg).192
(2) That a sword could be laid on the lap as a mere present accompanying a gift of vassalship, or a request to be accepted as a vassal, is shown (a) by Beowulf 2404 quoted above, and (b) in the reverse case by the following quoted in Müller’s Notæ uberiores to the above Saxo passage193 from the Annales Fuldenses (anno 873) – I translate from the Latin: “The ambassadors of Halbdenus, brother of King Sigifridus, offered to the king (Hludovicus) as a gift a sword which had a golden hilt, earnestly beseeching that the king should deign to have their masters in place of sons, while they would honour him as a father all the days of their life. . . . They swore also according to the custom of their people upon their weapons, etc.”
Yet even here the account may have been a little dislocated, or misunderstood – and possibly the sword presented to Hludovicus was used in swearing (by proxy) fealty.
(3) This might be all there is to Hunlafing offering a sword to Hengest and swearing fealty to Hengest on it; however, the fact that a sword so presented might be presented for the reverse usage, to make the recipient subordinate, is attested by the well-known story from Snorri’s Heimskringla.194 When Aðalsteinn came to the English throne he sent messengers to Norway to King Harald. They were to approach him and hand him a sword of very costly adornment. One of them proffered the sword-hilt to the king saying “Behold the sword which King Aðalsteinn has bidden you receive.” The king seized the hilt, and the messenger at once cried “Now you have taken the sword as the king wished it, and you will be his vassal, as one who has held his sword.” (The return trick of sending Hákon to be fostered by Aðalsteinn is also well known.)195
I should say on the whole that Hunlafing is laying a sword in Hengest’s lap and swearing fealty to him.
(a) because him certainly means Hengest and not Hunlafing (acting as a prince and laying his own sword on his lap for Hengest to swear on);
(b) in that case either Hunlafing swearing or Hengest is possible, for
(c) Hunlafing had conceivably brought a sword not previously in Hengest’s possession, but thought specially appropriate to swear on – it may have belonged to Hnæf, or have been an old Jutish sword (cf. 1145), or both; probably, I think, it was Hnæf’s sword.
(d) Hengest’s general eminence seems to make this most likely, while 1145 mid Eotenum . . . cuð seems, however we interpret it, to give importance to the Jutes and Hengest; but especially Finn’s swearing to Hengest (1096) shows that no one among the defenders (to whom Hunlafing probably belonged: see below) had at any time a superior claim to represent the whole force of the defenders.
What, then, about woroldræden? It practically must mean,196 on this construction – indeed, I don’t see how in this context it can mean anything else but – ‘allegiance offered’ or ‘allegiance asked’. Can it? It seems difficult to believe it. It is just possible if we take it as equivalent to ræden; even perhaps if we take it as ‘customary arrangement’; but in fact any translation of woroldræden in the context is grievously forced, and the best are arrived at by practically equating worold with ‘men’. Still, worold in the sense ‘mankind’ can hardly make ræden into mannræden.
It seems to me a fairly clear case for emendation to werodræden in the form weorodræden; in the forms weorod/weorold the two words approach extremely close. If weorodræden occurs nowhere else, neither does woroldræden, and weorodræden has parallels both of a warlike kind in campræden, wigræden – the last the only one in heroic verse – and of the “group” kind in geferræden, broþorræden, hiwræden. Also it fits the sense: ‘Consequently he rejected not the fealty (of the Danish band) when Hunlafing laid upon his bosom (in the act of taking an oath) Hildeleoma, best of swords.’
1145 Cf. Beowulf 2192-3. ‘Its edges were renowned among the Jutes.’ Certainly this is ambiguous. Maybe this is again another intentional double entente, because of the ambiguous position of the Jutes – hence its difficulty for us (unless we recognize that the Jutes were divided); but I am not convinced that ecge must (as Chambers says)197 make the reference hostile. If not, he says, the poet would have dwelt on its adornment, not its edges; but ecg is too frequent as the equivalent of ‘sword’ to be pressed. Even if you object that this is a definite plural edges, I should say that the Jutes were probably better judges of swords than editors – if a sword is renowned among any people, it is its blade and cutting power primarily that wins it its renown, whether exerted for or upon them. Hreðles laf (2191) was golde gegyred, but if it was mid Geatum cuð doubtless it was more for its blade than its gold; yet Hreðles laf could not be cuð for killing Geats – though this is not due to differences of Geatish and Jutish history.
Williams’ point that cuð + dative means ‘known to’, and mid implies ‘among’ – i.e. the Jutes were not the sufferers – is good if provable. So too is his point that the audience hearing the Episode must have known who the sword belonged to.198 Also, on my theory there were few offending Jutes left alive. In other words, the poet knew and expected his audience to know precisely why the sword was mid Eotenum . . . cuð, and probably chose ambiguous language to point this situation.
1146ff. One last thing remains to consider in our discussion of the Episode textually, before an attempt at a final reconstruction: how was the plan carried out? – what was the sequence of events? – and what did Guthlaf and Oslaf get up to ?
1146 Swylce. This can according to Williams mean ‘in such wise’,199 i.e. in a way similar to what has previously been mentioned; that is, through the new situation arising after Hunlafing’s action. It can, of course, also mean ‘likewise, so too’ – even merely ‘also’. In any case the matter following swylce relates a further consequence and development in affairs (as after swa above, 1142). Hengest’s mind turns to thoughts of vengeance – consequently he falls in with the plot – and so Finn meets his death.
I am inclined to reduce the punctuation at cuðe to no more than a semi-colon, for reasons that will appear later – I am inclined to refer the difficult ne meahte . . . hreþre to Hengest, finding in all that intervenes after swa an explanation of how his mere thoughts of gyrnwræce became accomplished facts, through opportunity.
ferhðfrecan. At first sight Williams’ suggestion, that this is the gen. sg. of ferhðfreca ‘the daring-hearted’ and means Hengest, is attractive. 200 I have already pointed out that I don’t think Hengest can be assumed to be naturally grim or ruthless, and Ī do not think we know enough of the tale to deny that Finn was ferhðfrec.201 Still,
(1) It is certain (as Chambers says)202 that this is a story of Hengest, his hesitation and revenge. He ought to be mentioned in the actual revenge.
(2) As a wrecca (and indeed from the whole tone of the references) he was clearly a “hero”, bold and daring, even greedy of heart (in seeking spoil) – even if normally a man of his word and loyal in a tight place.
(3) The Episode has no room in the economy of its language for mere “epic” compliments (suitable or unsuitable) to Finn; while it is in its manner to indicate the subject by some such title alone, when it is sufficiently shown who is referred to.
(4) I don’t think it is in accordance with OE style (especially the style of this passage) to prefix a weak adjective to any name. Even in the case of Beowulf this is never done. We have, of course, vocative Beowulf leofa (1216, 1758), leofa Beowulf (1854, 1987, 2663); but if a compliment is paid it is in the form se goda . . . Beowulf (675), Beowulf. . . sigoreadig secg (1311).
It is the last consideration which weighs with me – though I still leave room for doubt that ferhðfrecan Finn (Finn whose heart sought really only his own advancement) is in effect a quotation of the words of his accusers.
Of course it is a question whether even in this Episode ferhðfrecan . . . sweordbealo sliðen ‘cruel sword-bale of the daring-hearted’ can mean ‘cruel ruin/damage/attack by the sword of the daring-hearted’. The answer is (perhaps with some hesitation) “probably yes”. It is a pity we can’t feel sure, for then we should have this documentary support for our feeling that Hengest was dominant throughout; but sweordbealo, though it implies death as a final result, does not yet say that Finn was killed – that is reserved for 1152.
1147 æt his selfes ham. ‘In his own hall’ – emphatic. Cf. his sylfes ham 2325. There the emphatic words are used because the attack of the Dragon was truly dire if the ever-victorious king’s own hall was in flames. Similarly here – but doubtless also because Finnes ham was the very scene of the original grim gripe. Then it had proved impregnable with Hengest defending. Now the situation was reversed (and doubtless Finn was caught napping, too).
1148 Siþðan is clearly a conjunction, ‘after, when’. It is incredible that this sentence should relate events after the death of Finn (with siþðan adverb): these we get in lines 1154 ff.
grimne gripe ‘cruel onset’ and sorge are parallel and both objects of mændon, whether in the sense ‘lamented’ or (as is more probable) ‘spoke of, reported’: ‘the cruel onset and the woe’ – the treacherous attack and the fall of their friends in it.
1149 æfter sæsiðe. This must mean ‘after sailing on the sea’. Now, Guthlaf and Oslaf had certainly been inside the hall in the defence (Fragment, line 16); they can only, therefore, have sailed back to Denum – as on my reading all were free to do as soon as spring came. Their only object was to get reinforcements. To do this they would have to report events, and represent someone who was still alive as worthy of punishment. What point is there in making them come all the way back again to Frisia (alone) to abuse Finn – and prematurely at that (as Klaeber does)?203
1150 ætwiton weana dæl. ‘They laid the blame of their share (the share of the Danes as opposed to the Jutes)204 of woes, their burden of woe’ – the sentence requires a dative, at least him. This can only be Fin ... his ... of the preceding sentence. If we translate with him (see below, p. 141) you will see that it sounds immediately as if the reference was to Finn.
It seems to me necessary to assume that Hunlafing (whether Hunlaf was or not) was one of the original besieged Guests. There could have been no sailings until the plot was made, otherwise all would have gone, piecemeal or otherwise, and the chance would have been lost. The “egging” of Hengest must have taken place as soon as the seas became navigable or began to be, when the Danes saw that it was then or never, before the band was broken up. Hunlaf was – if his preservation alongside rodulphus in the celebrated list of Germanic heroes205 is significant – a very prominent figure in the English tradition of “Danes”. From the Skjöldungasaga it appears that he was the eldest of the brothers.206 Hunlaf himself was clearly either not here at all or dead – probably the latter, since his son seems to be regarded as the chief surviving “Dane”. It is a possibility, of course, that the Skjöldungasaga, with its king Leifus and his sons Hunnleifus, etc., has got the relations rather wrong (not unusual with later Scandinavian tradition), and Hunlaf was the father of Guthlaf and Ordlaf, and possibly related to Hnæf; so that Hunlafing is a title of Guthlaf or Ordlaf, just as we have Hildeburh in 1071 and Hoces dohtor in 1076. This is my view. Guthlaf and Oslaf, then, having obtained Hengest’s leadership (or allegiance) go back to Denum. It seems to me very possible that with them the whole of his (small) Danish wealaf go too, leaving behind only the Jutish Hengestes heap. This would thoroughly allay Finn’s suspicion. The separation of Jutish ally and Dene (of which we have perhaps a hint in 1084) seemed accomplished. The Danes are gone. Hengest lingers on – but Finn has had Jutish wreccan in his service before.
He was cheated. Danes came back in force quite unexpected, and there was a foe and ally of the invaders inside his very burh. A night attack with a traitor within the gates succeeds – the sack of the burh of the mighty Frisian king was no small thing, and naturally lingered in song.
1150b ne meahte, etc. It is held207 that the best treatment of these words is to take them as a description of the doomed Finn’s death. It is true that we have at least a verbal parallel in 2420, where it is said of Beowulf (fæge, approaching the hour of death) that him wæs geomor sefa, wæfre ond wælfus; but the parallel is not as close as it seems. Here we are told that the mod “could not restrain itself in the breast”. This, if applied to Finn, can only mean ‘it left his breast, he died’, for he could not foresee his death – or the plot would probably have failed; but death is reserved for 1152. Can we say “his soul was sped (or rather, he could not keep his soul from wandering) – then the hall was dyed with blood – likewise he was killed” ? I don't think so!
In that case the mod should be that of one of the other preceding subjects Guðlaf ond Oslafor Hengest.208 In the first case “the restless spirit (i.e. emotion) could not restrain itself within the breast” may refer to their passionate outburst when telling the story of their wrongs; in the second, the troubled spirit (referring to his long inward debate) could no longer be repressed – i.e. he gave full rein to his grief and desire for vengeance.
Note that mod need not be the subject. It is true that forhabban can be used intransitively in the sense ‘restrain oneself – cf. 2609, ne mihte ða forhabban, hond rond onfeng; yet this parallel without a pronoun, but referring to the subject (Wiglaf) of the preceding sentence, makes us want to take mod as the object, and the subject of the preceding sentence as the subject of meahte – but this probably needs emendation to meahton, unless I am right in treating Guthlaf as equivalent to Hunlafing, and in fact thought of throughout. Alternatively ne meahte might be impersonal, and mod the object of forhabban.
We will translate, then:
‘So Hengest did not reject the allegiance (of the Danes) when Hunlaf’s son laid upon his knee (in the act of taking an oath) Hildeleoma, best of swords – renowned were its edges among the Jutes; and in this way (or, and so, likewise) cruel ruin by the sword of the daring in heart came upon Finn (or, cruel and murderous swords came upon ambitious Finn) in his very hall, after Guthlaf and Oslaf had passed the sea and told the tale of the cruel onslaught and their sorrow, charging him (Finn) with their portion of woes – the deep-stirred feelings could not be prisoned in their breast.’
1151 Ða wæs heal hroden feonda feorum, swilce Fin slægen. Our last difficulty.
It is clear enough that hroden is a blunder. It is waste of time to try and defend it. Far the most likely word is roden ‘reddened’ (derivatives of *hreodan and reodan are not unnaturally confused elsewhere);209 in fact we shall not abandon it except under violent pressure. WS broden (which requires that broden not brogden should have stood already in the copy) leads to a translation of this kind: ‘The hall was braided, woven, with enemy lives – i.e. a manngarðr (as in ON heimsókn) was made about it.’ This gives a very probable statement of events, but a very comic translation of the OE words. ‘The hall was reddened with blood of foes, and Finn amidst his bodyguard himself was among the slain’ – this is excellent general sense in the context, and resists really all carping criticism.
The use of feonda is good – both sides are now at war; the truce is broken; doubtless there was heavy slaughter on both sides. Hengest may have been a good captain, aided by night surprise and treachery, but the hall had previously held out against odds for five days at least. We may translate ‘with the blood of men at war’ – a suitable background for the great king’s fall. However concentrated on Finn the poet may have been (as Williams says), I don’t see why one should object to this.
Can we get any such sense out of feorh? Williams is right in directing his criticism against the loose assumption that feorh is equivalent to wæl ‘(dead) body’.210 One does not stain a hall with bodies, or even with wæl (which implies blood), but with dreor, blod, swat, etc. The instance of feorh in Beowulf 1210 he rightly points out means ‘life’ as Hygelac’s most precious possession (named before armour and jewels), not his corpse. That the word can mean ‘living person’ (cf. ME life) is undoubted, but does not help us here: one does not ‘redden (or, adorn) a hall’ with living persons. Genesis 2065, feonda feorh (pl) feollon ðicce (in battle) provides a parallel phrase: it is quite rightly interpreted by Williams not as wæl, but as an expression where feonda feorh is equivalent to fiend, i.e. ‘members of the enemy host’. The most curious instance is fira feorum ‘with (spirits of) men’, Christ 1592.
It is therefore a question of whether a word used (in a vast number of cases) as ‘(abstract principle of) life’, occasionally as ‘living being’, can be used of any thing or actual part of a body essential to life – as we say life-blood. Certainly it can – vaguely: we have wæs in feorh dropen ‘smitten in the vitals’ in Beowulf 2981, feorh geræhte in Maldon 142. Feorhlast in feorhlastas bær (B. 846) is curious: ‘life-tracks’? – but Grendel was going home to die – and the lastas were visible; and note blode 847. One would like ‘tracks stained with life-blood’. Cf. ON fjör in verse, and Finnur Jónsson’s note in Lexicon Poeticum: “in many of these instances fjör is treated as something substantial . . . probably the blood is thought of as identical with life; this sense is clear in Völuspá 41, fyllisk fjörvi feigra manna, rýðr ragna sjöt rauðum dreyra.” 211 One may add fjörsegi (Fáfnismál 32) meaning ‘life-muscle (blood-muscle!)’, i.e. ‘heart’.
However we take it – corrupt or not – I feel certain that the passage means ‘reddened with the blood of combatants’. If you don’t feel confidence in feorum (by attraction plural – each of the fallen fiend lost his feorh in spilling his blood) as equivalent to ‘life-blood’, you must have feonda feorum as equivalent to feondum, and say that the compressed language ‘reddened with enemies’ stands for ‘reddened with the blood of enemies’.
1152 The ending is on the return of Hildeburh to her own people. The way it is said (seo cwen numen) and her carrying off like booty gives no support to any theory of her complicity – rather we see her pathetic as at the opening, a sport of fates and violent men. It is obviously a deliberate stroke of art which in this “song” – whose central theme is Hengest and violent feud – nonetheless begins with the hopeless Hildeburh unsynnum afflicted with woe, and ends with her. It is of a piece with the “elegiac” feeling of the man who compressed so masterly his tangled tale and yet touched the sad tragic points with freer and more picturesque language. It is of a piece with all surviving Old English poetry as we know it (except Finnesburh and Waldere). It is certainly of a piece with Beowulf as a whole, in which the Episode must have stood from its first creation in the form we know.
|
”................[hor]nas byrnað.” |
|
|
[H]næf hleoþrode,heaþogeong cyning: |
|
|
”Ne ðis ne dagað eastan,ne her draca ne fleogeð, |
|
|
ne her ðisse heallehornas ne byrnað; |
|
|
5 |
ac her forþ berað[feorhgeniðlan |
|
5* |
fyrdsearu fuslic.]Fugelas singað, |
|
gylleð græghama:guðwudu hlynneð, |
|
|
scyld scefte oncwyð.Nu scyneð þes mona |
|
|
waðol under wolcnum,nu arisað weadæda, |
|
|
ðe ðisne folces niðfremman willað. |
|
|
10 |
Ac onwacnigeað nu,wigend mine! |
|
Habbað eowre [h]lenca[n],hicgeap on ellen, |
|
|
þindað on orde,wesað onmode!” |
|
|
13 |
Ða aras [of ræsterumheort] mænig |
|
13* |
goldhladen ðegn,gyrde hine his swurde, |
|
ða to dura eodondrihtlice cempan, |
|
|
15 |
Sigeferð and Eaha,hyra sword getugon, |
|
and æt oþrum durumOrdlaf and Guþlaf; |
|
|
and Hengest sylfhwearf him on laste. |
|
|
Ða gyt Garulf[e]Guðere styrde, |
|
|
ðæt he swa freolicfeorh forman siþe |
|
|
20 |
to ðære healle durumhyrsta ne bære, |
|
nu hyt niþa heardanyman wolde; |
|
|
ac he frægn ofer ealundearninga, |
|
|
deormod hæleþ,hwa ða duru heolde. |
|
|
“Sigeferp is min nama,” cweþ he,”ic eom Secgena leod, |
|
|
25 |
wreccea wide cuð;fæla ic weana gebad, |
|
heardra hilda;ðe is gyt her witod, |
|
|
swæper ðu sylf to mesecean wylle.” |
|
|
Ða wæs on heallewælslihta gehlyn: |
|
|
sceolde celæs bordcenum on handa |
|
|
30 |
banhelm berstan;buruhðelu dynede, |
|
oð æt ðære guðeGarulf gecrang |
|
|
ealra æresteorðbuendra, |
|
|
Guðulfes sunu,ymbe hyne godra fæla, |
|
|
hwearflicra hræw.Hræfen wandrode |
|
|
35 |
sweart and sealobrun.Swurdleoma stod |
|
swylce eal Finn[e]sburuhfyrenu wære. |
|
|
Ne gefrægn ic næfre wurþlicoræt wera hilde |
|
|
sixtig sigebeornasel gebæran, |
|
|
39 |
ne nefre swanassel forgyldan |
|
39* |
hwitne medo,[heardgesteallan,] |
|
40 |
ðonne Hnæfe guldanhis hægstealdas. |
|
Hig fuhton fif dagasswa hyra nan ne feol, |
|
|
drihtgesiða,ac hig ða duru heoldon. |
|
|
Ða gewat him wund hæleðon wæg gangan, |
|
|
sæde þæt his byrneabrocen wære, |
|
|
45 |
heresceorp unhror,and eac wæs his helm ðyr[e]l, |
|
ða hine sona frægnfolces hyrde |
|
|
hu ða wigend hyrawunda genæson, |
|
|
oððe hwæþer ðæra hyssa................ |
2a Næfre hleoþrode ða.2b hearo geong.3a Eastun.11a landa.11b Hie geaþ.12a Windað.18b styrode.20b bæran.25a Wrecten.25b weuna.26a heordra.29a borð.29b Genumon.33a Guðlafes.34a Hwearflacra hrær.38b gebærann.39-39* Ne nefre swa noc hwitne medo. Sel forgyldan.45a Here sceorpum hror.
”. . . gables are burning.”
Hnæf spoke, the warlike young king: “Neither is this the dawn from the east, nor is a dragon flying here, nor are the gables of this hall aflame; nay, mortal enemies approach in ready armour. Birds are crying, wolf is yelping; spear clashes, shield answers shaft. Now that this moon shines, wandering behind the clouds, woeful deeds are beginning, that will bring to a bitter end this well-known enmity in the people. Awaken now, my warriors! Grasp your coats of mail, think of deeds of valour, bear yourselves proudly, be resolute!”
When many a valiant retainer decked in gold rose and buckled on his sword, to the doorway went the noble warriors Sigeferth and Eaha, drawing their swords, and at the other doorway were Ordlaf and Guthlaf; and Hengest himself was at their heels. Still Guthere was exhorting Garulf that in his armour he should not risk so precious a life in the first attack on the hall-door, now that a hardy warrior was ready to take it away; but openly the valiant hero cried above the clamour, asking who was holding that door. “My name is Sigeferth,” said he, ”I am a prince of the Secgan, a well-known adventurer; many old woes and bitter battles have I experienced; and here there is appointed for you whatever fate you wish to seek from me.”
Then in the hall was the sound of deadly conflict: the hollow shield, protector of the body, was to shiver in the hands of the brave; the timbers of the hall resounded, till in the fight lay Garulf son of Guthulf dead, the first of all the inhabitants to die, and round him a host of good men, the bodies of the brave. The dusky dark-brown raven circled round. The gleam of swords shone as if all Finnesburg was aflame. Never did I hear that sixty valiant fighters bore themselves more honourably in a clash of foes, nor ever did a man's own brave companions make better payment for the white mead than his young warriors made to Hnæf. For five days so well they fought that none of the retainers fell: nay, they held the doors.
When a wounded champion turned away, saying that his coat of mail was damaged, his armour useless and his helmet also pierced, the ruler of the people quickly asked him how those other warriors endured their wounds, or which of the two young men . . .
|
Þær wæs sang ond swegsamod ætgædere |
|
|
fore Healfdeneshildewisan, |
|
|
1065 |
gomenwudu greted,gid oft wrecen. |
|
Ðonne healgamenHroþgares scop |
|
|
1067 |
æfter medobencemænan scolde, |
|
1067* |
[cwæð him ealdres wæsende gegongen,] |
|
Finnes eaferum. |
|
|
Da hie se fær begeat, |
|
|
hæleð HealfdeneHnæf Scyldinga |
|
|
1070 |
in Freswælefeallan scolde. |
|
Ne huru Hildeburhherian þorfte |
|
|
Eotena treowe:unsynnum wearð |
|
|
beloren leofumæt þam lindplegan, |
|
|
bearnum ond broðrum;hie on gebyrd hruron, |
|
|
1075 |
gare wunde;þæt wæs geomuru ides. |
|
Nalles holingaHoces dohtor |
|
|
meotodsceaft bemearn,syþðan morgen com, |
|
|
ða heo under sweglegeseon meahte |
|
|
morþorbealo maga.Þær he ær mæste heold |
|
|
1080 |
worolde synne,wig ealle fornam |
|
Finnes þegnas,nemne feaum anum, |
|
|
þæt he ne mehteon þæm meðelstede |
|
|
wig Hengestewiht gefeohtan, |
|
|
ne þa wealafewige forþringan |
|
|
1085 |
þeodnes ðegne.Ac hig him geþingo budon, |
|
þæt he him oðer fleteal gerymde, |
|
|
healle ond heahsetl,þæt hie healfre geweald |
|
|
wið Eotena bearnagan moston, |
|
|
ond æt feohgyftumFolcwaldan sunu |
|
|
1090 |
dogra gehwylceDene weorþode, |
|
Hengestes heaphringum wenede |
|
|
efne swa swiðesincgestreonum |
|
|
fættan goldes,swa he Fresena cyn |
|
|
on beorselebyldan wolde. |
|
|
1095 |
Da hie getruwedonon twa healfa |
|
fæste frioðuwære.Fin Hengeste |
|
|
elne unflitmeaðum benemde, |
|
|
þæt he þa wealafeweotena dome |
|
|
arum heolde;þæt ðær ænig mon |
|
|
1100 |
wordum ne worcumwære ne bræce, |
|
ne þurh inwitsearoæfre gemænden, |
|
|
ðeah hie hira beaggyfanbanan folgedon |
|
|
ðeodenlease,þa him swa geþearfod wæs. |
|
|
Gyf, þonne, Frysna hwylcfrecnan spræce |
|
|
1105 |
ðæs morþorhetesmyndgiend wære, |
|
þonne hit sweordes ecgseðan scolde. |
|
|
Ad wæs geæfned,ond icge gold |
|
|
ahæfen of horde.Here-Scyldinga |
|
|
betst beadorincawæs on bæl gearu. |
|
|
1110 |
Æt þæm ade wæseþgesyne |
|
swatfah syrce,swyn ealgylden, |
|
|
eofer irenheard,æþeling manig |
|
|
wundum awyrded.Sume on wæle crungon! |
|
|
Het ða Hildeburhæt Hnæfes ade |
|
|
1115 |
hire selfre sunusweoloðe befæstan, |
|
banfatu bærnan,ond on bæl don |
|
|
eame on eaxle. Ides gnornode, |
|
|
geomrode giddum.Guðrec astah. |
|
|
Wand to wolcnumwælfyra mæst, |
|
|
1120 |
hlynode for hlawe.Hafelan multon, |
|
bengeato burston,ðonne blod ætspranc |
|
|
laðbite liges.Lic eall forswealg |
|
|
gæsta gifrostþara ðe þær guð fornam |
|
|
bega folces.Wæs hira blæd scacen! |
|
|
1125 |
Gewiton him ða wigendwica neosian |
|
freondum befeallen,Frysland geseon, |
|
|
hamas ond heaburh.Hengest ða gyt |
|
|
wælfagne winterwunode mid Finne |
|
|
[ea]l unhlitme;eard gemunde, |
|
|
1130 |
þeah þe he [ne] meahteon mere drifan |
|
hringedstefnan:holm storme weol, |
|
|
won wið winde,winter yþe beleac |
|
|
isgebinde,oþðæt oþer com |
|
|
gear in geardas,swa nu gyt doð |
|
|
1135 |
þa ðe syngalessele bewitiað, |
|
wuldortorhtan weder.Ða wæs winter scacen, |
|
|
fæger foldan bearm.Fundode wrecca, |
|
|
gist of geardum –he to gyrnwræce |
|
|
swiðor þohteþonne to sælade, |
|
|
1140 |
gif he torngemotþurhteon mihte, |
|
þæt he Eotena bearninne gemunde. |
|
|
Swa he ne forwyrndew[e]orodrædenne, |
|
|
þonne him HunlafingHildeleoman, |
|
|
billa selest,on bearm dyde – |
|
|
1145 |
þæs wæron mid Eotenumecge cuðe; |
|
swylce ferhðfrecanFin eft begeat |
|
|
sweordbealo sliðenæt his selfes ham, |
|
|
siþðan grimne gripeGuðlaf ond Oslaf |
|
|
æfter sæsiðesorge mændon, |
|
|
1150 |
ætwiton weana dæl:ne meahte wæfre mod |
|
forhabban in hreþre.Ða wæs heal roden |
|
|
feonda feorum,swilce Fin slægen, |
|
|
cyning on corþre,ond seo cwen numen. |
|
|
Sceotend Scyldingato scypon feredon |
|
|
1155 |
eal ingestealdeorðcyninges, |
|
swylce hie æt Finnes hamfindan meahton |
|
|
sigla searogimma.Hie on sælade |
|
|
drihtlice wifto Denum feredon, |
|
|
læddon to leodum. |
1069a healf dena.1073b hild plegan.1086a hie.1086b gerymdon.1104b frecnen.1106b syððan.1107a að.1117a earme.1118b guð rinc.1122a lices.1122b lig ealle.1134b deð.1142b worold rædenne.1151b hroden.
There was song and music together before Healfdene's war-captain; harp was played, ever and anon, a tale was duly told. Then Hrothgar's bard, in performance of his office, recounted a thing for the entertainment of those in hall upon the benches, [told how life's ending came to] the sons of Finn.
When the sudden peril came upon them, the doughty Healfdene, Hnæf of the Scylding house, was fated to fall in the Freswæl. Indeed no cause had Hildeburh to praise the Jutish loyalty: without fault of hers she was in that clash of shields bereft of those she loved, child and brother; they fell by doom, wounded with spears; an unhappy woman was she. Not without cause did Hoe's daughter lament her destined lot when morning came, and she then beneath the light of heaven could see the murderous evil among kinsfolk. Where he aforetime had possessed the greatest of earthly bliss, there war swept away all the knights of Finn, save few alone; so that he in that place of encounter could by no means fight out the battle with Hengest, nor with war wrest the survivors of disaster from the king's thane. Nay, they offered him terms, that he should make free for them another building entire, hall and throne, so that they might have possession of half thereof, sharing it with the sons of the Jutes; and that at the giving of gifts Finn, son of Folcwalda, should every day honour the Danes, and should gladden Hengest's troop even as greatly with jewelled treasures and plated gold as he was wont to enhearten the Frisian race with in the drinking-hall.
Then they confirmed on two sides a fast pact of peace. Finn to Hengest, earnestly and without cavil, declared with oaths that he would honourably treat the survivors of disaster according to the judgment of his counsellors; that no man there should by words or deeds break the pact, nor should with device of malice ever cast it up, though they followed the slayer of their patron, being without a prince, since upon them the necessity was laid. If, however, any among the Frisians with perilous speech should prove a remembrancer of the deadly feud, then the edge of sword should make good the pact.
A pyre was prepared, and bright gold was brought forth from the treasury. The best man of battle of the warlike Scyldings was ready for the funeral fire. On that pyre was plain to see many a shirt of mail bloodstained, the wild swine's image all gilded, boar-crest hard as iron: many a noble lord destroyed with wounds. No few had fallen in the slaughter! Then Hildeburh bade men upon Hnæf's pyre to commit her son to the blaze, to burn him body and bone, to lay him by his uncle's side. The lady mourned, uttering a sad lament. The reek of carnage mounted on high. To the clouds surged the greatest of devouring fires, roaring before the burial mound. Heads crumbled, gaping wounds burst open, when the blood sprang away from the cruel bite of flame. That greediest of spirits consumed all the flesh of those whom in that place war had carried off of both parties of the people. Their glory had departed!
Then the warriors went away, bereft of friends, to visit the villages, to look on Frisia, its homesteads and high citadel. Hengest still through that bloodstained winter abode with Finn all unhappily; his own land he remembered, though he could not upon the sea drive his ring-prowed ship: the deep surged with storm, striving with the wind, winter locked the waters in icy bond, until another year came to the homes of men, even as still they do, weathers glorious and bright that in endless succession observe the seasons. Then winter had departed, fair was the bosom of earth. The exile was eager to be gone, the guest to be gone from the courts – yet his thought now turned rather to vengeance for grief than to journey on the sea, if he could bring to pass a clash of hate, so that he might remember in his heart the sons of the Jutes. And therefore he did not refuse the warlike service when Hunlaf's son placed upon his lap Hildeleoma, best of swords – its edges were renowned among the Jutes. So too cruel death by the sword of the daring-hearted came upon Finn in his own home, after Guthlaf and Oslaf, having passed the sea, had reported the deadly onslaught and their grief, blaming him for their share of woes: the troubled spirit could no longer be restrained in the breast. Then the hall was reddened with life-blood of enemies, and Finn too was slain, king amid his company, and the queen taken. The warriors of the Scyldings to their ships bore off all the riches of the king of the land, such as they might find in Finn's home of figured jewels and cunning gems. They bore off on the paths of the sea the royal lady to the Danes, and led her to her people.
Hnæf, son of Hoc, represents an offshoot of advancing Danish maritime power, spreading out of Scandinavia proper into the debatable lands; Hnæf is mentioned in Widsith (line 29) immediately after Sigehere of the Sea-Danes. The actual settlement of his family was perhaps modern Jutland (the north end of the Cimbric peninsula). This family or tribe may have acquired the nickname of “Half-Dane” either because they were of mixed blood or because they had a mixed following. Hengest, a Jute (and possibly a figure in some purely Jutish feud), is clearly in Hnæf 's service – þeodnes ðegn (line 1085). It is likely enough that both Hnæf (as representing a usurping invading people) and Hengest (as following such a prince, if for no other reason) were objects of hatred to dispossessed and exiled Jutes. In all this trouble Frisia occupied a dubious position, perhaps represented by the placing of Finn in Widsith (line 27) between the Jutes and the Danes. Finn was playing a dangerous political game. He had married Hildeburh, Hoe's daughter and Hnæf's sister. It is probable that the son of Finn and Hildeburh had been fostered212 by Hnæf – which will explain how Finn's son got killed, why he was specially laid on the pyre beside his uncle, and also why Hnæf came to Frisia. This was clearly not an invasion, nor a sudden unlooked-for arrival, and almost certainly not originally intended as a trap, since otherwise no treaty would have been possible. Hnæf came with a large retinue of at least sixty (Fragment, line 38), probably by invitation – at the end of autumn, with the intention of feasting over Yule. He was probably bringing home Finn's son.213 But the peril of Finn's policy now became apparent: though allied by marriage to the Danes, he had allowed or encouraged Jutes in exile to settle in Frisia, and many of them were actually in his comitatus; it is likely that the Garulf who is prominent as a young man of precious life in the Fragment (line 19) was the rightful heir of the older Jutish kings – cf. Gefwulf, the king of the Jutes in Widsith (line 26). As soon as Hnæf and his great retainer Hengest arrived the atmosphere became tense.
What immediately followed is not clear, because the Episode only deals with the situation after the famous clash and wæl, while the Fragment only begins as the attack is developing. It is likely that Hnæf (and Hengest) were threatened; Hnæf then seized, or was allowed by Finn to occupy, the royal hall as a defensible place. They were attacked during the night (whether it was their first night in Frisia or not we do not know). The Fragment tells us that the defence lasted five days, during which time none of the defenders was killed, but the attackers were severely handled. But there must later have been a desperate assault – probably Frisians were drawn in as well, since they would have various bonds of marriage and friendship with the Jutes of Finn's court. In this assault, which probably penetrated the doors, Hnæf fell; but in the end the attackers were driven off. Hengest remained: a dominant figure, and able to hold together the remnant of Danes and his own Jutish heap. Finn's son also fell – not, I think most likely, as an attacker but as a defender: he would sleep in the hall with his mother's brother and fosterfather, more especially if he was threatened. It is probably to the last terrible assault that lines 1076 ff. (morgen) refer, rather than to the morning after the first outbreak of war.
Now we come to the truce proposed first by those inside the hall, and discussed in the notes (pp. 101-3). The cards the defenders had to play were these: (1) Finn's losses had been grievous; his immediate guard of knights was nearly annihilated; it would be some time before he could attack again; (2) they were in his royal hall, which he would naturally desire to recover (and so would be unlikely to burn over their heads); (3) they, or at least the Dene, had the queen's sympathy; (4) as far as we know, Finn also was personally guiltless, and deeply grieved at the turn of events. It would seem probable that Finn felt some animosity against Hengest, because the Episode speaks of his inability to fight it out with Hengest, or to separate from him the wealaf (Danes against whom he had no desire to fight), and because the proposers of terms think it necessary to state explicitly that they demand equal terms for the Jutes. Against the defenders was their ultimately hopeless position: they could be reduced by thirst and hunger, and could not escape by ship, even if they could cut their way out. Hence the arrangement whereby what was left of Hnæf 's party was to remain in Finnesburg over winter, and technically to accept Finn as their lord, since he was the only possible source of keep and pay, during that time in which they had in any case originally intended to be his guests.
But Hengest brooded. So also independently did the Dene, who now had to think of the blood-feud for fallen kin and king. A plot thus came into being. A sword (Hildeleoma may have been its name and not a mere kenning) was placed on Hengest's lap. The phrase saying that its edges were “famous among the Jutes”214 shows it had played a considerable part in the previous history. It may have been, probably was, Hnæf's sword. In that case “famous among the Jutes” would be sinisterly ambiguous. The placing of it on Hengest's lap would be a reminder of his personal fealty to Hnæf and his duty of revenge, whether the Dene are now making Hengest their leader or forcing him to serve under the chief surviving Dane, Hunlafing. The most likely course of the plot is that as soon as spring came the Dene sailed away. Hengest remained on; but Finn was used to Jutes, and probably thought the alliance broken. But a new Danish force reappeared, and Finnesburg was betrayed, for Hengest was inside. The terrible sack was long remembered. What happened to Hengest immediately afterwards we do not know, but it seems likely that, Frisia and the North being no longer good places for him, he took his heap (strengthened by adventurers, Jutish, Frisian, and others) on a new adventure across the straits: to Kent. You may read his character how you will. From what is left in Old English it certainly appears that he was a dominant figure (Hengest sylf, says line 17 of the Fragment, describing the holding of the doors); but not necessarily that he was treacherous, ruthless, or particularly grim. He was caught in circumstance. In the end (after some internal debate and struggle) he valued his original fealty and oath to Hnæf above the oaths given to Finn under þearf.215
If only we had this story in fuller and clearer forms we should know a great deal more about the English view of the beginnings of the conquest of Britain, and much more about the mysterious Jutes. At least we can see in this legend part of the reason why the settlement in south-east Britain is in tradition associated with the Jutish name (and that name in turn with the northern part of the Cimbric peninsula), and yet is archæologically closely connected rather with the Rhine-mouth, and in language rather with Frisia than with Denmark.216 It is plain that all the worsened politics of Scandinavia and the Isles deeply concerned the “Anglo-Saxons” as the very cradle of their race and culture. Beowulf is not a “national epic” (like the Lusiads or the Æneid), but it is drawn from the heart of a connected wealth of poetic traditions that occupied an “epical” and “national” place in ancient English imagination – and caught up into it are two great names: one, Offa, associated with the far origins of the small people calling themselves Engle ‘English’; another Hengest, associated with that troublous and dispossessed borderfolk between the awaking Scandinavian world and the island homes of many seafaring peoples, the ancient Jutes.
In Widsith the Danes are mentioned in four places. We have Sigehere and the Sæ-Dene (28) in connection with Finn and Hnæf; Alewih and the Dene (35) in connection with Offa; Hrothgar and Hrothulf (45) in connection with the Heathobards (their Danishry is not actually mentioned!); and mid Sweom ond mid Geatum ond mid Suþ-Denum (58) in a context unconcerned with dynasties and purely Scandinavian or “Scedelandic”, in which Suþ is probably an ancient affix, referring to their original location with regard to their northern neighbours, which enabled this ancient triad to be fitted into an alliterative line.
This wealth of allusion reflects, doubtless, the importance of the Danes to the “Anglo-Frisian” world, to the troubled waters of the Baltic and North Sea. It may indicate also that in the times to which some of these traditions reach all the elements bearing the name “Dane” were not politically united, or “governed” by the kings of Scedeland- it was a time of movement. There were Danish rovers and invaders (like the later Scylding Helgi) who could also be called “kings”. Compare in the later expansions, a continuation probably of the processes which disturbed the Northern world in the fifth century, the independent winners of kingships in England and elsewhere. Compare also the tendency for the central power to shift to the later acquired area (where this was important and colonization numerous) as under Knút the Great, though actually the Anglo-Danish empire did not succeed, whatever may be thought of the Jute-Heathobard-Danish formation (not to mention other ingredients). Part of the explanation is no doubt, however, to be sought in the bringing together in Widsith of tales of different heroes and kings of different periods,217 as is the case with the Goths. Not scattered disunion, but wide power, and a centralization of Danish “colonies” and humiliated neighbours under a powerful house – probably a most disturbing factor in the fifth and sixth centuries in the North – is, we may imagine, reflected by the prefixes norþ, sup, east, west (as well as the many honorific prefixes) found in Beowulf, even though their fabrication may originally have been suggested by older forms (of different significance) such as Suþ-Dene (above).218
The dating of Healfdene and of the Danish kings mentioned in Beowulf is largely founded on the Geatish raid of Hygelac. Hygelac reigned in Geatland while Hrothgar was still king of Denmark, but was clearly a younger man. The direct link is Beowulf. He, and his visit to Heorot, may or may not have any historical foundation, but at the least they are arranged more or less to suit a chronology concerning which it is plain that tradition had something to say at the time of the poem's composition. Beowulf is Hygelac's nephew, a young full-grown man, but as yet unproven except in reckless deeds of boyhood, at the time of his visit.
Now Hygelac's fall must be dated c. 525, and might be almost as late as 530.219 At that time Heardred was still a minor, but Beowulf was of an age and experience sufficient to indicate him as king, though he chose to be regent.
This is best expressed by a chronology of the following sort: Hygelac, born c. 480-5, perishes (about 45 years old) c. 525 or somewhat later. Heardred, born c. 515 or a little later, is at that time about ten years old; a child probably of a second wife Hygd,220 mentioned specifically as swiðe geong (B. 1926) at the time of Beowulf's return. Beowulf was then probably born c. 500, certainly not much before. His visit to Heorot must therefore be imagined as occurring c. 520 when he was twenty or a little more, from five to ten years before Hygelac's death. At this time Hrothgar was already old, though his sons were not yet full grown. Though not explicitly stated it is fairly clear that Wealhtheow his wife is a good deal younger than the king, whether she be a second wife or one married late in life. The son of the king's younger brother is a man and already associated in rule with Hrothgar.
At this period Hrothgar must already have been some long time on the throne. He was the second son, and possibly the third child, of a man who lived to great age (see below). We need not then force the words of Beowulf (lines 465-6) where Hrothgar speaks of himself as beginning to reign long ago in his youth, after Heorogar's death, and about the time of Ecgtheow's feud and flight to the Danish court. It is “youth” as looked back on by a man conceived by the poet, plainly in deference to a strong tradition, as aged. Actually if Hrothgar was about 35 when he succeeded, we could allow some twenty years of reign to elapse before the date of the visit to Heorot, and that would agree well enough with Beowulf's age (say c. 25), and with the fact that Ecgtheow is now dead.
We may therefore write Hrothgar down as born about 460. He succeeded to the throne about 495 and in 520 or thereabouts was an old man of sixty, when Beowulf came to his court. The expressions used in Beowulf which indicate that at that time Hrothgar had reigned 62 years (!) – i.e. twelf wintra tid + hund missera, lines 147 and 1769 – cannot be taken literally. They are in the first place conventional numbers, and mean (in poetry) a shorter period and a long period. Secondly, the tradition of Hrothgar's venerable age at the end of his reign has (as is natural) coloured the account of the king at a point supposed to be within his reign.
Now Healfdene was renowned for his age. If Chapter 64 of Skáldskaparmál221 is late, and in it Halfdanr is cut free from his historical associations, we can still see this tradition of his age at death in the story of his sacrifice, and its modified response – that his age should at any rate become renowned to posterity. He was remembered as gamol (and guðreow) in England, and as gamall in Scandinavia. This means that he was still reigning while an old man, ususually old for a warlike king, whether he ultimately died in bed ata great age, in spite of his atrocitas (OE guðreow!) and a host of foes, as Saxo says,222 or was slain by Froda of the Heathobards, as a probable reading of the tradition concerning that ancient feud suggests. We have already arrived at a date about 495 for Hrothgar's accession as a man of approximately 35 (born c. 460). It is a reasonable further step that if Healfdene died, or was slain, at a memorable old age, c. 495, he must have been born about 435 at the very latest.
We may present our theory of the chronology in the following form:
1. Hnæf born c. 420-5.
2. Hengest born c. 425.
3. Healfdene born c. 430-5.
4. Freswæl occurs at Finnes burg about 452. Healfdene is then 17-22 years old; and his uncle Hnæf, who perished, about 30. Hengest the king's thegn is 25-30; Hildeburh the king's sister not less than 33; her son fifteen or more.
5. c. 453: Hengest and Horsa come to Britain. ”Oesc” son of Hengest is at this time an infant. Horsa is slain in battle not long after the outbreak of hostilities between the Britons and the “mercenaries”.
6. c. 460-5: Hrothgar, second son of Healfdene, born.
7. c. 470: ”Oesc” becomes a warrior. About 473 comes the last mention of Hengest in Britain. His death is not recorded, though Horsa's is. He therefore probably was not slain, but died somewhere after 475 (say), when he was aged about fifty; or he may have survived until c. 490, aged about 65.
8. c. 480-5: Hygelac of the Geats born.
9. c. 490 (488): Kingdom of Kent established with ”Oesc” as head of the royal line.
10. c. 495-505: Death of Healfdene Scylding (aged 60-70); accession of Hrothgar aged 35 or more.
11. Beowulf born 495-500.
12. 12: Death of ”Oesc”.
13. c. 515: Birth of Heardred.
14. Beowulf visits Hrothgar c. 520 or even a little later. (Hrothgar
aged about 60 or so.)
15. Fall of Hygelac 525-30.
Tolkien assumes without discussion that if the Hengest of the Freswæl was the same man as Hengest of Britain he must necessarily have been a Jute.223 The identification of the two heroes seems to me certain, but the assumption that Hengest of the Freswæl was a Jute involves substantial difficulties in the interpretation of the text of the Episode. After the death of Hnæf the leadership of his men seems to have devolved upon Hengest: the natural interpretation of lines 1089-94 would take Hengestes heap as parallel to Dene.224 As leader, Hengest would naturally have proposed the terms of the treaty, and certainly it is to him that Finn swears his oath (lines 1096-7); yet the treaty provides that the proposers shall share a hall with the Jutes. These cannot be Finn's Jutes: it would be criminal folly to expect the participants in the recent murderous fighting to live together in hourly contact; and if it were so, Finn would not have “vacated” the hall (line 1086). They must, then, be Hnæf's Jutes. If Hengest was one of them, how could he be said to share a hall with them?225 It seems, then, that Hengest was not a Jute, It is not, of course, necessary to assume that he was a Dane: the Fragment provides evidence that there were men of other tribes in Hnæf's retinue. There is no clue at all in Fragment or Episode to the nationality of Hengest of the Freswæl; it therefore seems worthwhile to see what evidence there is for the nationality of Hengest of Britain.
The use of tribal names by early writers needs to be treated with some caution. In particular, the term “Saxon” was used by speakers of Celtic languages as a general term for people of Germanic stock.226 A curious instance of this usage is to be found in the Middle Irish version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History, where a well-known passage in Book I, Chapter xv is rendered as follows: Tri cinela Saxan tancatar assin Germain .i. Saxain 7 Angli 7 Iuti ‘Three tribes of Saxons came from Germany, that is, Saxons, Angles and Jutes.’227 This usage was adopted by early Celtic writers in Latin, and Saxones became the standard Latin term for any Germanic people;228 in OE writings the terms derived from Angel became equally generalized.229 In considering the evidence of the early writers, therefore, it is prudent to discount the use of Saxones in Latin and of Angel-words in Old English. Thus, no significance is to be seen in the reference by Gildas (who does not name Hengest) to ferocissimi illi nefandi Saxones deo hominibusque invisi.230
Historians have generally assumed on the basis of Bede's evidence that Hengest and Horsa were Jutes, but in fact Bede nowhere says so. He says, indeed, like all other authorities, that Hengest was the first invader of Kent, and that his son Oisc was the founder of the Kentish royal dynasty, the Oiscingas;231 and, as will appear, he says quite plainly that the Kentish settlers were Jutes. It does not follow, however, that the leader of a tribe must necessarily have had the same ethnic origins as the tribe itself: it may well be, for instance, that the first leaders of the West Saxons were properly Gewisse, and of a different stock from the people over whom they ruled.232 Far from saying that Hengest was a Jute, Bede sometimes goes out of his way to refer to the first invaders of Britain as Angli. His use of Anglorum siue Saxonum gens (i 15) can be discounted:233 Saxones is the usual term in Latin, and the alternative Angli may be a gesture towards the vernacular usage. When, however, in his Chronological Summary (v 24) he refers to the Angli a Brettonibus accersiti,234 he has to be taken more seriously, since those who were invited by the Britons were the first settlers in Kent. Even more striking is his usage in his Chronica Maiora (§484), where he is following Gildas very closely. When Vortigern seeks new allies to defend him against the Picts, Gildas refers to the newcomers as lues . . . hostium novorum; to this Bede adds the phrase id est Anglorum.235
In the light of Bede's emphasis on the Angli it seems worth while to examine in detail his careful account of the tribal affiliations of the invaders of Britain (i 15):236
They came from three powerful German peoples, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the Cantuarii and the Victuarii, that is, the people which holds the Isle of Wight and that which to this day is called the Jutarum natio in the province of the West Saxons set opposite the Isle of Wight. From the Saxons, that is from that region which is now called that of the Old Saxons, came the East Saxons, South Saxons, and West Saxons. Moreover from the Angles, that is from that country which is called Angulus, and from that time to this is believed to remain uninhabited between the provinces of the Jutes and the Saxons, are sprung the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians, the whole stock of the Northumbrians . . . and the other Anglian peoples. Their first leaders are believed to have been two brothers Hengist and Horsa.
As Myres points out,237 “the leadership of Hengist and Horsa is most naturally read as applying to the Angles who are discussed in the previous sentence rather than to the Saxons or Jutes”. In order to avoid this implication, which runs counter to accepted doctrine, Myres suggests that the “three ethnological sentences” were an afterthought by Bede which has “broken the thread of his narrative, and confused its sense”; but this is a mere ad hoc conjecture, and the natural sense of the passage is that Hengist and Horsa were the first leaders of a band of Angles.
Nevertheless it must be admitted that Bede's evidence is indecisive : though it leaves no doubt that Angles were involved in the earliest invasion of Kent, their precise role is not made clear. Fortunately where Bede is ambiguous, Nennius is not. His reference to Saxones in §§ 31 and 36 can be discounted,238 but the statement in §37 is of quite a different character:239 Hengest gives his answer to Vortigern inito consilio cum suis senioribus, qui venerunt secum de insula Oghgul ‘having taken counsel with his elders, who had come with him from the island of Angeln’.240 Angeln is not, of course, an island, but it is a small district marked out by seas and waterways, and Nennius says clearly that Hengest and his immediate entourage of advisers were Angles. There is no room for doubt here: the reference to Angeln is much more specific than the mere tribal name Angli would have been – and even that would have been significant in a Latin text. Nennius may have been wrong, but at least he is not ambiguous. If he is right, and if the facts were known to Bede, it is easy to see how Bede could have come to refer to the invaders of Kent as Angles, even though the majority of the settlers were Jutes. Confirmation that the rulers, if not the inhabitants, of Kent were Angles is to be found in the Lex Angliorum el Werinorum, hoc est Thuringorum:241 the social system described in this document in some respects resembles the system which distinguishes Kent from the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.242 The Angles and the Wærne for whom the document was compiled certainly did not live in the Cim-bric peninsula, but it is probable that they migrated from it to Thuringia, and that the Lex reflects a system that they brought with them. Myres’ comment is worth noting:243 ”a strong case has been made out for believing that the royal families, not only of the Anglian districts of England but even of Kent and Wessex, were of Anglian rather than of Saxon origin in their continental homes.”244
A further piece of evidence is concerned, not with Hengest's entourage, but with his nationality as an individual. According to the OE genealogies245 the grandfather of Hengest was Witta; according to Widsith (line 22) Witta was the ruler of the Swæfe. The Swæfe are mentioned twice more in Widsith (lines 44 and 61), each time in conjunction with the Angles: lines 42-4 make it clear that the two tribes had a common boundary, but the precise relationship between them remains uncertain. It is commonly agreed that the Swæfe are to be identified with the Suebi or Suabi of Classical writers, but this name seems to have been used to cover a large confederation of different tribes: Tacitus, for instance, lists a number of tribes (including the Angli) who together constitute the larger unit of the Suebi.246 The geographer Ptolemy calls the Angles the Suebi Angili;247 unfortunately he places them in quite the wrong area, though his error can be explained.248 It seems reasonable to assume that the Swæfe and the Angles were closely related. The evidence of Widsith excludes the possibility that the two names were applied to the same people: not only had the two tribes a common boundary, but the Angles were ruled by Offa (line 35) and the Swæfe by Witta (line 22). Perhaps the Swæfe lived to the south of the Angles in Schleswig, near the modern Schwabsted.249 It seems possible that the Angles had established some kind of hegemony over the Swæfe, so that a scion of the royal house of the Angles ruled over them; but this is speculation.250 Even if it were so it would not necessarily follow that Hengest was himself a prince of the Swæfe, as Malone assumes:251 he might have belonged to a cadet branch, and would have felt himself more closely linked to the Angles. It would, however, follow that Hengest was of royal stock, a point of some importance (below, p. 179).252
The name Hengest means ‘stallion’; the name Hors (used by Nennius) means ‘horse’; the more familiar Horsa is a hypocoristic form of Hors. Chadwick suggests that Hengest and Hors(a) “were not the names originally given to the two brothers but nicknames acquired subsequently”.253 If Hengest and Horsa were nicknames it would certainly be interesting and might be enlightening to recover the true names of these brothers. It could be argued that the true name of Hengest was Oisc. According to the “Geographer of Ravenna” the name of the leader of the invaders of Britain was Ansehis (above, p. 69 fn. 69); this is always taken as an error for Anschis, reproducing a Germanic *Anskiz, the regular antecedent of Oisc; and Bede, as we have seen, records the fact that the Kentish royal family were known as the Oiscingas (ii 5).254 However, such a hypothesis would be difficult to sustain, since the Chronicle plainly distinguishes between Hengest and Æsc, and records the activities of both (see the extract above, p. 70).255
A clue is to be found in the varying relationships between Hengest, Oisc and Octa. According to Bede (ii 5),256 Oisc was the son and Octa the grandson of Hengest; the Chronicle, too, makes Æsc the son of Hengest (anno 455). According to Nennius (§58), however, Octha was the son and Ossa (i.e. Oisc) the grandson of Hengest;257 so also the early genealogy in MS Vespasian B vi makes Ocga (i.e. Octa) the son and Oese (i.e. Oisc) the grandson of Hengest.258 This is just the kind of confusion that might arise if the true name of Hengest had been Octa: once the identity had been forgotten, and it was remembered only that Octa was closely associated with Hengest, the name would need to be fitted into the genealogy at some convenient place. For those who knew that Oisc had succeeded Hengest as king of Kent, Octa would need to be the grandson; for those less certain about the position of Oisc it might seem more natural to place Octa as near as possible to Hengest. The chronicler Æthelweard was a member of the royal family of Wessex, and had Jutish blood;259 he may, therefore, have had access to traditional information not present in his written sources. According to Æthelweard the son of Hengest was Ochta qui prжnominabatur Ese ‘Octa who was nicknamed Oisc’;260 it seems that he may have known that Octa was the true name of someone more familiar under a nickname, but made the wrong choice of nickname. Oisc, of unknown meaning, is intrinsically a much less probable nickname than Hengest ‘stallion’.261
If Hengest's real name was Octa, it seems likely that Horsa's real name was Ebissa. In the Historia Brittonum (§38) Hengest says to Vortigern:262
invitabo filium meum cum fratueli suo, bellatores enim viri sunt, ut dimicent contra Scottos . .. et [Guorthigirnus] iussit ut invitaret eos et invitavit: Octha et Ebissa cum quadraginta ciulis.
The unusual form fratuelis stands for the more normal frairuelis, and unfortunately the word is ambiguous. In Classical Latin it means ‘father's brother's son’;263 in Mediæval Latin it retains the Classical meaning, but it can also mean ‘mother's sister's son’ and even ‘brother's son’.264 In the later Nennius Interpretatus the passage reads rather differently:
mittam in Lochlandiam ad invitandos filium meum et filium sororis eius matris et dimicabunt contra hostes . . . iussit Guorthigernus invitari eos et invitati sunt et venerunt Octha filius Hengisti et Ebissa cum quadraginta navibus.
Here fratruelis has been taken in its mediaeval meaning ‘mother's sister's son’. Finally, the late MS Cambridge U.L. Ff i 27 has a list of chapters not found in other texts of the Historia Brittonum, and the heading of Chapter XXXVII reads as follows:265
Qualiter Hengistus Ottam filium suum et Ebissam filium Hors fratris sui ad aquilones partes Britanniae invitavit.
Here fratruelis is taken in its Classical meaning ‘father's brother's son’, and the relationship is made more explicit by the addition of the name of Horsa. If this relationship is the one intended by Nennius, it seems possible that, just as Octa may be the true name of Hengest, so Ebissa may be the true name of Horsa; in each case, once the identity had been forgotten, nickname and true name were given to a hypothetical father and son.
It has been argued so far that Hengest may have been an Angle, and of royal stock. Since the Mercian genealogies go back to Offa, king of the Angles in the fourth century, it may be enlightening to compare the genealogies of the Mercian and Kentish royal families:
|
Woden |
Woden |
|
|
300 |
Wihtlæg |
|
|
330 |
Wærmund |
Wehta |
|
360 |
Offa |
Witta |
|
390 |
Angeltheow |
Wihtgils |
|
420 |
Eomær |
Hengest |
|
450 |
Icel |
Oisc |
|
480 |
Cnebba |
Octa |
|
510 |
Cynewald |
Eormenric |
|
540 |
Creoda |
Æthelberht |
|
570 |
Pybba |
|
|
600 |
Penda |
The Mercian genealogy is that of the Chronicle, anno 626; a second version, anno 755, agrees in the stages above Penda. MS Vespasian B vi substitutes Angengeot for Angeltheow and adds Waðolgeot between Woden and Wihtlæg;266 Nennius adds Guedolgeat and Gueagon between Woden and Wihtlæg.267 The Kentish genealogy follows Bede, with some adjustment of the spelling.268 Variations in the names below Hengest have already been discussed (above, p. 174), but there are variations above Hengest too. MS Vespasian B vi gives the sequence Uoden – Uegdæg – Uihtgils – Uitto – Hengest;269 Æthelweard (ii 2) has Wothen – Wither – Wicta – Wihtgels – Hengest.270
The dates in the first column give the approximate birth-dates of the rulers named opposite them; they are based on the common assumption that a generation is equivalent to thirty years, and the starting-point is the birth of Penda.271 Obviously these dates are quite unreliable, since a sequence of short or long lives could introduce a substantial error; yet the contemporaneity of corresponding names can hardly be doubted. The contemporaneity of Offa and Witta is guaranteed by Widsith (lines 22 and 35): Witta weold Swæfum ... Offa weold Ongle.272 The birth-date of Eomær depends on his position in the Mercian genealogy,273 and corresponds closely to the estimated birth-date of Hengest (above, p. 76); Icel, after whom the Mercian royal family were known as the Iclingas,274 and Oisc, after whom the Kentish royal family were known as the Oiscingas,275 are likely to have lived at the same stage of the invasion of Britain. Æthelberht, who died in 616, reigned for fifty-six years,276 so that he can hardly have been born later than 540; this is the birth-date of Creoda, based on his position in the Mercian genealogy. The position opposite Cnebba, born about 480, is filled by Bede with the name of Octa, who is not mentioned in the Chronicle. I have suggested above that Octa is to be identified with Hengest; if so, Bede's insertion of his name at this point is a mistake (above, p. 174). As Tolkien points out (above, p. 75), the names in Bede are only just enough to fill the gap between Hengest and Æthelberht, so that Eormenric can hardly have been a son of Oisc: either the name of Eormenric's father is lost, or perhaps the name Oeric belongs here. This name, which appears in no other source, is given by Bede (ii 5) as the true name of Oisc;277 possibly Bede, like Æthelweard, knew that some member of the Kentish royal family had both a name and a nickname, but identified name and nickname wrongly.
If it is true that Hengest was an Angle, and of royal stock, there ought to be some link between the Mercian and Kentish genealogies,278 and there are indeed a number of onomastic links. There are only three instances in the genealogies of the element Wiht: two of these are in the Kentish line, in the name of Wihtgils the father of Hengest, and in that of Wihtred the great-great-grandson of Æthelberht;279 the third is in the Mercian line, in the name of Wihtlæg the grandfather of Offa. Wehta looks like a hypocoristic form of some Wiht-name, and it has been suggested that Witta, too, may represent some Wiht-name.280 If these conjectures are well-founded, Wehta might perhaps have been a younger son of Wihtlæg;281 if so, Offa of the Angles and Witta of the Swæfe would have been first cousins. It was customary among Germanic tribes for members of the royal family to bear alliterating names,282 and there are obvious parallels between the Mercian and Kentish genealogies: both begin with W-names, including Wiht-names, and then pass on to vowel-names. If the true names of Hengest and Horsa were Octa and Ebissa, it was they who inaugurated the vowel-names in the Kentish line; these vowel-names continued until Wihtred reverted to W late in the seventh century. In the Mercian line the vowel-names were followed by three generations of C-names and two of P-names, but subsequently there was a reversion to vowel-names: Penda's brother Eowa had sons and grandsons with vowel-names, and Penda's own son was named Aeðilred.283 The most striking link of all, however, is to be found in the name of Eomær, Hengest's Mercian contemporary. Eo-mær means ‘famous horse’ (OE eoh ‘horse’, mære ‘famous’): if this is a nickname, as seems likely, it is directly comparable with Hengest and Horsa – as if there had been a temporary fashion in the royal family of the Angles for horse-nicknames.
It cannot be proved that Hengest was descended from the royal stock of the Angles; the only direct statement is that of Nennius, who may have been mistaken. However, it is a striking fact that a number of small scraps of evidence of very diverse kinds all point in the same direction; and the hypothesis that Hengest was an Angle illuminates so many dark corners in the story of the Freswæl that the texts themselves become supportive evidence for the hypothesis.
If Hengest was indeed descended from the royal stock of the Angles, it is easy to understand why he should have been a special object of enmity for the exiled Jutes at Finn's court. The earliest known kings of the Angles, Wihtlæg, Wærmund and Offa, who appear at the head of the Mercian genealogy, appear in the Danish History of Saxo Grammaticus as Vigletus, Vermundus and Uffo. They are there said to be kings of the Danes, but it is generally admitted that the English tradition is correct: in Danish legend the rulers of a district afterwards ruled by the Danes came to be called Danes themselves. Saxo gives a circumstantial account of the ending of the royal line of the Jutes, already in the fourth century under some kind of domination by foreigners. A certain Gervendillus was Jutorum præfectus, and at his death his two sons Horvendillus and Fengo were appointed by Röricus, king of the Danes, in Jutiæ præsidium.284 Fengo killed Horvendillus, whose son Amlethus avenged his father's death; thereupon he was appointed king by immediate public acclaim – rex alacri cunctorum acclamatione censetur.285 Meanwhile Röricus had been succeeded by Vigletus (Wihtlæg), who complained that Amlethus had defrauded the king of Leire by ruling Jutland without his authority; with this excuse he made war on Amlethus and killed him in battle in Jutland.286 If Saxo's superficial danicization of the Angles is discounted, the picture becomes clear. From an early date the Jutes were subject to some kind of domination by the Angles; their rulers, though Jutish kings, had the status of præfecti, appointed by the kings of the Angles. After Amlethus had brought to a close the sordid fratricidal strife of Horvendillus and Fengo, he was acclaimed as king by the people, perhaps in a resurgence of Jutish national feeling; Vigletus (Wihtlæg) was not prepared to tolerate this, and with the death of Amlethus he ended the royal line of the Jutes, who henceforth had no leaders of their own – unless, indeed, Garulf of the Fragment was a Jutish prince in exile (above, p. 33).
In all this the Danes were in no way concerned. There is no likelihood that the Danes had expanded into the Cimbric peninsula before the fifth century: the early trouble which seems to have taken place in Jutland (above, p. 74) must have been between the Jutes and the Angles. When the Danes did eventually occupy the peninsula it seems to have been by peaceful penetration rather than by conquest; as Chadwick points out, Saxo's use of the name Vermundus in an Anglo-Frisian form rather than a form corresponding to the Scandinavian Vármundr suggests a penetration so peaceful that it could take over local traditions and make them its own.287 The Angles were not subject peoples but honourable allies of the Danes. The Jutes need have had no particular animosity towards the Danes, who at worst had merely accepted a fait accompli; Finn had no reason to expect that a visit from his Danish brother-in-law would give rise to any conflict. It was otherwise with the Jutes and the Angles. If indeed, as suggested above, Hengest was the great-great-grandson of Wihtlæg, the Jutes would naturally feel a very strong animosity towards him as a descendant of the murderer of the last king of Jutland.
The supposition that Hengest was an Angle of royal stock and a descendant of Wihtlæg elucidates many of the outstanding problems in the Fragment and the Episode. The Jutes among Hnæf's men were no doubt in the service of Hengest who, as a powerful leader, would have had his personal retinue of Angles (the seniores qui venerunt secum de insula Oghgul), and also a band of Jutish fighting-men; it was his presence and theirs, not Hnæf's, which gave rise to the battle. Hengest, as a distinguished ally of royal blood, would deserve the special mention he receives in the Fragment, and would naturally take command after the death of Hnæf; there is no need to distinguish him from the wealaf by a forced interpretation of lines 1082-5.288 It would naturally be he who would negotiate the treaty with Finn, and as the commander of a mixed troop he would make stipulations on behalf of each party: on behalf of his Jutes, that they should not be expected to mix with Finn's Jutes; on behalf of the Danes, that they should not be reproached because they were following the killer of their lord.
1 Humphrey Carpenter, J. R. R. Tolkien: a Biography (1977), 251.
2 This appendix is an expansion of the only part of my Dublin paper which had not been anticipated by Tolkien.
3 When Tolkien's lectures were first written, R. A. Williams' book The Finn Episode in Beowulf (Cambridge, 1924) was still quite new, and it is natural that he should have referred to it with great frequency. It is not now an influential book, and many of the references now seem inappropriate, the more so that some of them are expressed with undue asperity. In such cases I have sometimes substituted a later for an earlier version; yet I have allowed many references to stand, since Williams' book has been unfairly neglected, and many of his arguments are well worth consideration.
4 A full bibliography is to be found in Fry, Finnsburh, 47-57.
5 By “Semi-Saxon” Hickes meant what would now be called “Early Middle English”. It is generally agreed that the manuscript must have been MS 487, the only manuscript in the Lambeth Library which fits Hickes’ description.
6 Thesaurus, Volume II, p. 269.
7 Derek Pearsall, Old English and Middle English Poetry (1977) 6.
8 On the form of the name Finnesburg see below, p. 9 fn. 1.
9 Germania, c. iii: J. G. C. Anderson, Corneli Taciti de Origins et Situ Germanorum (Oxford, 1938) 5.
10 See Alistair Campbell, “The Old English Epic Style”, in English and Medieval Studies presented to J. R. R. Tolkien, ed. Norman Davis and C. L. Wrenn (1962) 13-26.
11 Waldere I 23, II 28: ASPR vi, 5, 6.
12 Proceedings of the British Academy xxii (1936) 245-95.
13 Dorothy Whitelock, The Audience of Beowulf (Oxford, 1951) 19.
14 Most recently R. E. Kaske, “The Eotenas in Beowulf”, in Old English Poetry: Fifteen Essays, ed. R. P. Creed (Providence, 1967) 285-310, and Fry, Finnsburh, Glossary.
15 The prevailing view is summarized by Dobbie, ASPR iv, p. xlix.
16 This view is most thoroughly argued by Ritchie Girvan, “Finnsburuh”, Proceedings of the British Academy xxvi (1940) 327-60.
17 J. R. Clark Hall, Beowulf and the Finnesburg Fragment, Revised by C. L. Wrenn (1940) 184; C. L. Wrenn, Beowulf with the Finnesburg Fragment (1953) 52; R. W. Chambers, Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem, Third Edition, with a Supplement by C. L. Wrenn (Cambridge, 1959) 544; C. L. Wrenn, A Study of Old English Literature (1967) 88-9.
18 Usually Finnsburh, Finnsburg. The word Finnsburuh occurs in the Fragment, but in a title slavish adherence to (not even) manuscript authority is absurd. Finns- is in any case, even in the text, a casual error probably of the transcriber, requiring emendation. Let us have Finnesburg or the complete modernization Finsbury (as in Finsbury Park). [C. L. Wrenn systematically used the form Finnesburg; see p. 5, fn. 13.]
19 [Klaeber, Beowulf, 435.]
20 Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus Grammatico-criticus et Archæologicus (Oxford, 1705) i 192-3.
21 [Tolkien later came to the conclusion that Healfdena should be emended to Healfdene; see below, p. 94.]
22 Chambers, Widsith, 66 fn. 1.
23 [Ibid. 67, but the conclusions do not seem to follow at all naturally from Tacitus' words in his Germania, c. xxxiv: J. G. C. Anderson, Corneli Taciti de Origine et Situ Germanorum (Oxford, 1938) 22-3.]
24 “The island of Brittia is inhabited by three very numerous nations, each having one king over it. And the names of these nations are Anglii, Frissones and Brittones, the last being named from the island itself.” (Procopius, De Bello Gothico iv 20). This lacks confirmation, and has been attributed to confusion of Frisians and Saxons. Even so it is evidence of the close connection of the three, if not of Frisian intermediaries, already – so early – between Britain and Gaul; Frisian sources of information, that is. [For text and translation see H. B. Dewing, Procopius with an English Translation (1914-41) v 252-5. The implications of the passage are not nearly as clearcut as Tolkien suggests. According to Procopius the “island of Brittia” is an entirely different place from Britain, and it is possible that he intends to refer to some district on the Continent; if so, the passage is still very interesting, but in a different way.]
25 In the Exeter Book Gnomic Verses (94-9) a “Frisian wife” is introduced as a typical sailor's wife:
leof wilcuma
Frysan wife,þonne flota stondeð;
biþ his ceol cumenond hyre ceorl to ham,
agen ætgeofa,ond heo hine in laðaþ,
wæsceð his warig hræglond him syleþ wæde niwe,
liþ him on londeþæs his lufu bædeð.
[ASPR iii 160. Frysan wif is best taken as meaning ‘the wife of the Frisian’: see E. G. Stanley, “Two Old English Poetic Phrases Insufficiently Understood for Literary Criticism”, in Old English Poetry: Essays on Style, ed. D. G. Calder (Berkeley, 1979) 67-90, p. 89 fn. 45.]
26 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, anno 875: Þy sumera for Ælfred cyning ut on sæ mid sciphere, 7 gefeaht mid .vii. sciphlæstas, 7 hiera an (sc. scip) gefeng, 7 þa oþru gefliemde.
27 [This couplet is said to have been popular about 1900; see C. L. Wrenn, The English Language (1949) 69. It is apparently a free rendering of a Frisian original cited by Johannes Hilarides, Naamspooringen van het Platte Friesk, ed. A. Feitsma (Groningen, 1965) 10:
Buuter, breea, in griene tjiiz
is goe Ingels in goe Fries.
According to Hilarides it was in use in the early sixteenth century: see S. Klazinga, “Bread butter and green cheese”, It Beaken (Tydskrift fan de Fryske Akademy) xxx (1968) 199-200.]
28 Plummer, Bede, i 249-51.
29 Ut ergo conualuit, uendidit eum Lundoniam Freso cuidam (p. 251).
30 [Moritz Pinder and Gustav Parthey, Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia (Berlin, 1860) 27-8 (§i 11).]
31 [Chambers, Introduction, 289.]
32 [Ibid. 259.]
33 But on this see below, pp. 37-44 – there may have been a special link between the tale and the house of Healfdene. Even behind Beowulf lies the special interest of OE heroic verse in the troublous history of the Northern waters in the fifth and sixth centuries.
34 So Chambers (Widsith, 67), who selects “Saxon” and “Jutish” apparently because of Binz, who points out that men and places bearing names connected with the Finn story are found chiefly (a) in Essex, (b) in the old Ytena land (in part of Hampshire afterwards absorbed in Wessex), but not, oddly enough, in Kent. See Gustav Binz, “Zeugnisse zur germanischen Sage in England”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Litteratur xx (1895) 141-223, pp. 179-86.
35 [At this point in the manuscript Tolkien continues as follows:
Now we have to come to grips with the pieces themselves, and devise some method of tackling this involved and convolved problem. The only method is, I think, to be prepared for repetitions and even modifications as we proceed. The correct procedure is to begin with a first draft of a translation both of the Episode and the Fragment. This will have little final value, and will doubtless have to be re-done at the end. But the process has this value: it will reveal difficulties, points requiring special attack, elucidation, or textual consideration; it is also necessary to attack the translation at first without a theory, using only the resources of grammar and OE scholarship – though a theory may develop in the process.
The difficulty of this procedure lies, of course, in the fact that many passages mean little or nothing unless elucidated by some theory of what the story is about, and choices between possibilities must be made, and this also requires some theory. Theory is, however, unsound unless based in the first instance on unbiassed translation which seeks on purely linguistic grounds to define the sense, or possible senses, of the words without prejudice.
Later Tolkien came to see that no such “unbiassed” translation is possible. He altered the words “correct procedure is” into “correct procedure would be”, and “will have little final value” into “would have little final value”. He also added the following pencilled note:
But the matter is so complex that I will postpone the preliminary translation until we have discussed the proper names. We must have some glimmering of an idea before we can translate any of the lines.
No “unbiassed” translations were ever provided, and I have therefore inserted here the text of the Fragment and Episode, edited so as to incorporate the emendations recommended in the textual commentary (the conventions used are Klaeber's). Translations incorporating the results of the investigation appear on pp. 147-55: the translation of the Episode is Tolkien's own; since his translation of the Fragment (if it ever existed) has not survived, I have supplied one.]
36 That Hnæf's name is actually concealed in the text in a corruption will be argued below, p. 83.
37 Sycg- may be regarded as a “bad spelling” for Secg-. Rather than an instance of y for e (a late Kentish type) it is probably an example of late westerly secg>sycg, a change evidenced in ME suggen ‘say’ (OE secgan), though by chance no OE *sycgan ‘say' has been recorded.
38 See the note under Ordlaf, below p. 31.
39 Wea is not a synonym of hild, but they are here equated. Thus wea is a disastrous fight: this helps us to decide the meaning of wealaf (B. 1084, 1098).
40 [Sweet, OET, 154-66: the name echha appears in lines 53, 94 and 96. The same name appears in the form aehcha in an early eighth-century Kentish charter: ibid. 428, Charter 5, line 7.]
41 [No mention of this popular emendation is to be found in the notes on the text of the Fragment.]
42 [Searle, Onomasticon, s.v.]
43 Gefwulf may, however, have been the last independent King of the Jutes – Garulf his son died in exile. [The suggestion that Gefwulf was the father of Garulf is inconsistent with the suggestion above that the name of Garulf's father was Guthulf; Gefwulf might have been a remoter ancestor.]
44 See p. 9, fn. 1. The emendation to Finnes is necessary both grammatically and metrically (buruh is only a late spelling – the word scans as burh, burg, – not ). It is remarkable that editors retain Finns-, while usually emending ðyrl (with similarly omitted e) in line 45 to the form ðyrel; ðyrel is necessary to the metre, but no more so than Finnes, and is in itself a much more possible form. [The metrical point is not valid, since there are a number of instances in Beowulf of a first half-line ending in a disyllabic compound: Bær þa seo brimwyl[f] (1506), Me þone wælræs (2101), etc. The case of ðyrl is not comparable, since this is a second half-line, in which the form ðyrel is absolutely required.]
45 Hnæf, furthermore, is in all probability (if undemonstrably) concealed by corruption in næfre in line 1 of the Fragment. On this see the textual discussion below, p. 83.
46 Episode, line 1069: hæleð Healfdena Hnæf Scyldinga. [Tolkien later recommended the emendation of Healfdena to Healfdene; below, p. 94.]
47 [Williams, Finn Episode, 33. This passage plainly struck Tolkien very forcibly, since it is quoted several times in the manuscripts.]
48 Williams' notion [Finn Episode, 10-11] that the Finn-story was selected as suitable matter for a song at this point because it concerned a fight in a hall, and the feast celebrated a fight in a hall, is absurd. There are many tales of fights in halls, but none so entirely dissimilar as the stories of Hnæf's defence and Grendel's humiliation. Except that in one the hero and in the other the villain is in a hall which does not belong to him there is no point of contact at all. The theory is in any case due chiefly to an interpretation of healgamen (1066) which is in itself absurd.
49 It was in popular use among the Norse invaders of England, and first appears on English soil (of historical persons) at the end of the ninth century. Together with Bachsecg it is in fact the first personal name of any Scandinavian to be recorded in the Chronicle [anno 871]. The forms later found often reveal a Scandinavian origin (Halfdan, Haldan), but are also given a purely English shape (Halfdene, Healfdene) even when referring to undoubtedly Norse persons, as in the battle of Ashdown (871). This anglicization, not normal, cannot be solely due to the perspicuousness of the two elements; it must be in part due to English recognition of the name, although there is no evidence of their use of it for any other person than Healfdene gamol the Scylding, to whose fame in their traditions doubtless this recognition is largely due.
50 [Searle, Onomasticon; the abbreviation B.C.S. refers to W. de G. Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum (1885-9).]
51 [Förstemann, Namenbuch, 596.]
52 Incidentally giving us also a reason why Hrothgar, now old, is so oddly alluded to just before (1064) as Healfdenes hildewisan – or alternatively, if we read -wisum, why the court of Heorot is here so oddly referred to by Healfdene's name; what was regarded as an unfortunate bewildering accident of homonymity becomes deliberate and significant.
53 We may assume, I think, that Hocingum is “patronymic”; but not, of course, with complete certainty, in spite of Hoces dohtor (1076). Hoc is a genuine name occurring in the seventh century in England, as well as in place-names; but an investigation of Scyld and Scylding warns us that such “family” names may in process of legendary traditions generate an eponymous ancestor. So Wælsing has been supposed to have generated Wælses eafera (B. 897), and the fact that it was originally not genuinely patronymic to be revealed in the use of Völsungr, Welisune as individual names. Under Hnæf (below, p. 51) we shall see the same use of Hocing (Huochingus) as a name, not a patronymic.
54 The patronymic nature of this name, if it is rightly assumed, is an additional oddity, supporting the view that Hnæf is not thought of as primarily a territorial chief. It is the only name, among many ing-names in Widsith (Baningum, Hælsin-gum, Myrgingum, Hundingum, Rondingum, Brandingum, Wulfingum, Woingum, Þyringum, Wicinga and Wicingum) for which a “patronymic” nature can be assumed with any likelihood. Those which are not obscure, or have -ing added to elements already “tribal” (Þyringum), belong probably to the emblematic or “heraldic” type (Rondingum, Wulfingum). It is true, however, that the distinction between the “heraldic” and the “patronymic” types is often difficult to draw, not only in fact, because of the use of actual names like Brand, Helm, but also in legend, owing to the generation of eponyms like Scyld – as the result partly of the personal and aristocratic dynastic tendencies of the heroic traditions, partly of the very ease with which words like Wulf, Helm functioned both as real names and as “emblems”. Cf. Helmingas in Beowulf (620) and Helm of the Wulfingas in Widsith (29).
55 If Ordlaf/Oslaf and Guthlaf (and Hunlaf) were Danes (see below, pp. 76-8), the only others we hear of certainly were not. Sigeferth fortunately tells us so, but there cannot, I think, be much doubt that neither was Hengest, and that he represented a third element.
56 [Later Tolkien recommended this emendation; see below, p. 94.]
57 Since Scyld is certainly an eponym, later fitted into a gap, it is far from certain that Scyldingas as an heraldic name of Danish kings was not older than Healfdene, or indeed inherited by the new line from preceding ones, as royal claims and titles have a habit of being.
58 Whether it is to Hnæf or Hoc, if not to an even earlier member of the family, that we should apply the surname Healfdene in the first instance depends on many things, and cannot of course be decided – but fortunately the decision is not of prime importance to a theory of the tale, as the important fact, the connection of Scyldings and Hnæf, remains. It depends on our view of the genuineness of Hoc (character or eponym?); of the authority of Beowulf (can we emend to Healfdene 1069, and is the resulting expression likely? – if not, of course, the surname is older than Hnæf); and of the chronology, which cannot be definitely settled, especially the problem of the relative ages of Hnæf and Healfdene. This depends on the identification of Hengest, and on some textual points such as the reference of hyssa (Fragment, line 48). If Hengest is a Jute and the same as the invader of Britain, then the story must belong to a period before that adventure, and indeed hint at the reasons for it; and Hengest and Hnæf will both be fairly young men, at any rate at the time of the “Frisian slaughter”, which must then fall in the first half of the fifth century. The date calculated for Healfdene's birth is c. A.D. 430-35 (see Appendix B: The Dating of Healfdene and Hengest). This fits well enough with the relationship proposed for Hnæf and Healfdene (below, pp. 43-4).
Hoc's relegation to a patronymic in Widsith does not prove him to have had no importance, or Hnæf the only figure of the family with which heroic traditions were once concerned. Healfdene is not mentioned in Widsith, though Hrothgar is (line 45).
59 For example: Sigurðr ormr-í-auga was, at any rate in legend, son of Áslaug daughter of Sigurðr Fáfnisbani. Eiríkr blóðøx also bore the name of the father (Eiríkr king of Jutland) of his mother Ragnhild, one of the several wives of Haraldr hárfagri. Examples of this are very numerous. A specially good illustration is provided by the genealogy of Grettir the Strong, whose name was originally a nickname twice found among his father's kin. Ófeigr grettir (yngri), it may be noted, got it from his maternal grandfather Ófeigr grettir (ellri). (Cf. also in other sagas Ketill hœing grandfather of Ketill hœing; and Blundketill grandson of Ketill blundr.)
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
These nicknames doubtless often ousted the genuine names in everyday life – hence their development into first names. Thus Önundr's grave was and is called Tréfótshaugr.
60 His family may have been a branch of an old Danish line. See p. 42, fn.23.
61 Jutland remained distinct and peculiar even after Scandinavianization. In earlier times it would be a neighbouring (hostile) power. Glimpses of this are seen in the Heremod story. For later allegiance to the Scyldings in these parts cf. Wulfgar Wendla leod at the court of Hrothgar (B. 348), who is more likely to hail from Vendsyssel than Sweden.
62 Chambers, Introduction, 199-200, 202-3; Klaeber, Beowulf, 254-6. [I give no further references to versions printed in these two books.]
63 ... qui fuit, ut aiunt, fllius dei (Nennius); þene þa hæðene wu[r]þedon for god (Textus Roffensis I). The stages above Geat which appear in some sources do not concern us directly, but are concerned with the problem of Beaw, Sceaf and Scyld.
64 See below, pp. 54-60.
65 Nennius is giving the genealogy of Hengest. Widsith and Beowulf are older than the genealogies in composition, and in any case our prime authorities for OE traditions. That “Widsith” knew our story, and a good deal about Finn, seems shown by the collocations in lines 26-31, compared with the Episode and Fragment, especially that of Finn and the Frisians (27) next to the Jutes (26), without any alliterative compulsion.
66 [Jónsson, Eddukvæði, i 102.]
67 Close association in the mind of Frisian and Jute may also have helped. This is seen in Widsith (see p. 46, fn. 30), and also elsewhere. See the extract from the Chronicle Roll in Chambers, Introduction, 201 and 204, where we have (a) as sons of Boerinus (a corruption of Beowinus), right to left, Geate, Dacus, Suethedus, Fresus, Gethius, etc.; and (b) in a marginal note Saxones, Angli, Iuthi, Daci, Norwagences, Gothi, Wandali, Geathi et Fresi. This is, of course, a late compilation (reign of Henry VI), but it must depend on another document now lost. The confusion in English between Jute and Geat, both ancient enemies of the Danes (Daci, Dani), must have begun, quite apart from their formal approach phonologically, as soon as knowledge of Scandinavian kings became remote in time or place, and at least as soon as the earliest attempts to put English traditions on record in writing (at the earliest in the seventh century).
The intrusion of names from legend is illustrated probably by Freawine and his son Wig in the genealogies of Cerdic (Chronicle, anno 552) and Æthelwulf (anno 855). Contamination is also illustrated by Freawine, for in the Parker MS we have in the genealogy of Æthelwulf (anno 855) Friþuwald Freawining [sic], Frealaf Friþuwulfing, with Freawine from the lower stage.
68 That a stage was early present above Woden, and contained the element Frea, or was actually of the form Frealaf, seems shown by the genealogies that stop with Woden-Frealaf as their highest stages: e.g. the first and second Northumbrian, the first Mercian, the Kentish, and East Anglian genealogies given in MS Vespasian B vi [Sweet, OET, 169-71], though since this manuscript contains also the stages Frealaf to Geat in the Lindsey genealogy this is inconclusive.
69 Except Fríalaf, er vér köllum Friðleif (Edda), and Freoþelaf Freoþulfing (Chronicle, anno 547), a contamination of two degrees. Cf. the Friðleif in the Skáldskaparmál (Ch. 40) where the series is Óðinn-Skjöldr-Friðleifr-Friðfróði. See also p. 55.
70 See p. 47, fn. 32. Wig son of Freawine illustrates this, since both names seem to come from the Offa story in which they are not father and son but contemporaries (and enemies).
71 Chambers, Introduction, 200.
72 Unmistakably, even if in the corruptions Fodepald, Folcpald, beside Folcvald (in the later Nennius Interpretatus).
73 Karl Müllenhoff, “Zeugnisse und Excurse zur deutschen Heldensage”, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum xii (1860) 253-386, p. 285.
74 [W. de G. Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum (1885-9).]
75 Förstemann, Namenbuch, 198.
76 Finnur Jónsson, Lexicon Poeticum Antiquæ Linguæ Septentrionalis (Copenhagen, 1931) s.v.
77 [See above, p.9.]
78 The failure to prove this, or even the establishment of a sense ‘giants, demonic creatures’ will, of course, still leave the decision in the Episode open, for it is not doubted that eotenum can be dative plural of eoten ‘giant’, though actually this word occurs in Old English only in Beowulf, in eoten (n.sg.) 761 = Grendel, eotenas (n. pl.) 112, eotena cyn 421, and in all probability in eotena cynnes (enemies of Sigemund) 883; also in the derivatives eotenisc, eotonisc (of swords) 1558, 2616, 2979, eotonweard 668.
79 If so there is nothing odd in Hnæf's also being another sideline and yet called Scylding.
80 [See the convenient genealogy in Elton, Saxo, 414. The relevant parts of the sources referred to in this paragraph are printed by Klaeber, Beowulf, 261-3.]
81 [Jakob Benediktsson, Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta (Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana ix-xii: Copenhagen, 1950-57) i 336.] Skáldskaparmál oners the series Óðinn-Skjöldr-Friðleifr-(Frið-)Fróði, and does not connect it with the family of Hrólfr [Klaeber, Beowulf, 256-7]. Cf. Langfeðgatal: Odin-Skioldr-Friðleifr-Fridefrode, after which intervene several stages including the Heathobardic Frode F[r]ækni and his son Ingialdr before Halfdan-Helgi oc Hroar [ibid. 262].
82 Corruptions or spelling variants ignored.
83 -ius is patronymic.
84 Bedwigius-Strephius clearly duplicates Beow(ius)-Sceaf, but only after a lot of textual history requiring a native Beow(ing)>Latin Beowius>false native Beowi>corrupt Bedwi(g)>relatinized Bedwigius.
85 [I.e. the element here, implicit in the name Lotherus.]
86 [Jónsson, Eddukvæði, ii 487.]
87 [The discussion here follows Klaeber, Beowulf, 162-3.]
88 [Müller, Saxo, 392; Holder, 265; Elton, 319-20.] Áli was killed by Starkaðr after a long reign, in Ynglingasaga and Skjöldungasaga. [Ynglingasaga c. 25 in Snorri's Heimskringla, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson (Íslenzk Fornrit xxvi-xxviii: Reykjavik, 1941-51) i 49; Skjöldungasaga c. 9 in Jakob Benediktsson, Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta (Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana ix-xii: Copenhagen, 1950-7) i 341.]
89 [Nornagestsþáttr c. 8 in Guðni Jónsson, Fornaldar Sögur Norðurlanda (Akureyri, 1954) i 324.]
90 [Egils saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana c. 18, ibid, iii 364.]
91 [Johannis Messenii Scondia Illustrata (Stockholm, 1700); see Gregor Sarrazin, ”Der Balder-kultus in Lethra”, Anglia xix (1897) 392-7.]
92 ‘Put to death’ is not a necessary translation: cf. sume [he] on wræcsið forsende (Sweet, Orosius, 114 line 34). The misplacement of the adverbial mid Eotenum is like the misplacement of adverbs of time with ic gefrægn, etc.
93 [The discussion here follows Chambers, Introduction, 335-7; see also Widsith, 237-8.]
94 [Thomas Miller, The Old English Version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History (1890-98) i 52, 308.]
95 [MS Laud 636.]
96 [MS C.C.C.C. 173, the “Parker MS”.]
97 [Miller, op. cit. ii pp. xv, xvi.]
98 [Benjamin Thorpe, Florentii Wigorniensis Monachi Chronicon (1848) ii 45, i 276.]
99 Actually no such late forms are found, so far as I am aware, with proper nouns. The process is illustrated, however, in ON gotnar, gotna, gotnum (beside gotan), used in verse as ‘men’, but originally ‘Goths'.
100 Indeed so rare and odd is the name that the Hengest and Horsa of Kentish tradition have been treated as myths or ridiculous fictions; but animal-names, simple or compounded, were a common feature of early Germanic times, a kind of heraldry in nomenclature. We may admit that these names mean ‘Stallion’ and ‘Horse’ (plus an ending which is not the Latin feminine: one of the more ignorant sceptics translates them ‘Horse’ and ‘Mare’ [cf. R. H. Hodgkin, A History of the Anglo-Saxons (Oxford, 1935) i 78]), without proving them impossible for historical persons to bear, just as we may admit that the Geatish brothers Eofor and Wulf in Beowulf (2964-5) bore names meaning ‘Boar’ and ‘Wolf, or believe in the real existence of Red Indian chiefs with similar animal-names. Place-names show that at any rate, at various dates later than the fifth century, the names were not impossible for men. This is clear in the case of Horsa, which cannot mean ‘a horse’, but occurs in the earliest forms (Horsan-den) of Horsington in Lincolnshire and Horsenden in Buckinghamshire. The use of the genitive, too, is indicative of a personal element in such names as Hengestesheal (a field-name recorded in the tenth century in Worcestershire), or Hengestesig which is the earliest form of (Ferry) Hinksey. Certainty is not, perhaps, obtainable in the latter case – names of genitival “personal” form were sometimes fabricated (cf. Hrofesceaster), or made out of non-personal names (cf. Chronicle, anno 835: Parker MS Hengest-dun, Laud MS Hengestes-dun). This very tendency is, however, testimony to the predominantly personal character of OE place-names.
These place-names, nonetheless, though they may be held to show the possibility of real people bearing the names Hengest and Horsa, are naturally subsequent to the time of the Hengest (or Hengests) of heroic or historical tradition, and their use may be due precisely to the currency of legends associated with that name. They do not, therefore, seriously modify the claim that, for the period with which we are concerned, Hengest, without being a name of a kind which forces us to believe its owner himself a fiction, is nonetheless significantly rare. For the same reasons the survival of the name in later documents is no more than interesting witness to the possibility of such names, and probably to the late survival of heroic traditions. See Alien Mawer and F. M. Stenton, Introduction to the Survey of English Place-Names (Cambridge, 1924) i 187, where Swanhild is cited from the twelfth century (in the Liber Vitæ of Hyde); Widi(g)a is popular in Norfolk at the end of the eleventh century. Hengest survives later still: Hengest mercator attests a charter in Norfolk in the reign of Richard I, and Engist son of Langhine is accused of cornstealing in 1198 (Assize Rolls). Compare the occurrence of (gesta) horsi et hengesti in the late MS Cotton Vespasian D iv, where Dr Rudolf Imelmann discovered a short list of eight heroes, remembered apparently long after the Norman Conquest (cited in full in the Appendix to Chambers, Widsith, 254) [Rudolf Imelmann, Review of Schücking's Beowulf (Eighth Edition), Deutsche Literaturzeitung xxx (1909) 995-1000, p. 999; see below, p. 76].
101 Chadwick, Origin, 35-52.
102 Bede I xv [Plummer, Bede, i 30-33]; Chronicle (dependent on Bede) under the year 449. This is confirmed, however, by other considerations linguistic, legal, archæological, which point to the distinction between Kent and the Anglian and Saxon areas, but also to the connection of its culture with that of Wight, as alleged by Bede. See R. W. Chambers, England before the Norman Conquest (1926) 50-51, 56.
103 Who were Jutish probably. There is no real ground for doubting this; but the whole vexed question of the Jutes and their relations to Frisia is here involved, and intimately concerned, clearly, with the interpretation of the Finn story, which is as likely to illumine it as to be illumined by it. See Chambers, op. cit. 56.
104 The Historia Brittonum makes his son Octha, whose son was Ossa (=Oisc?) [Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 203; see also Appendix C, p. 174]. We may disregard this reversal and accept the English version which makes Oisc the son and Octa the grandson of Hengest (Bede II v). The name Oisc appears to be an early archaic spelling of *Oesc (corruptly in the Chronicle Æsc), *Ēsc from still earlier *Ōski, *Anski. This name appears to have reached the “Geographer of Ravenna”, who mentions that a prince of the “Saxons” (the usual indiscriminate name for the Germanic invaders) called Anschis (Ansehis) had “settled this land of Britain some time back”. [The passage is printed by I. A. Richmond and O. G. S. Crawford, The British Section of the Ravenna Cosmography (Oxford, 1949) 17, and by A. L. F. Rivet and Colin Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (1979) 205.] Continental information was most likely to hear chiefly of events in the South-East.
105 See the citations from the Chronicle, and the discussion below. [For the quotations from Bede see Plummer, Bede, i 31 and 90.]
106 If Hengest I (of the Freswæl) and Hengest II (of Kent) are identified it is plain that Hengest cannot have been a man long settled in Frisia (or a descendant of such exiled Jutes). He must have been a man still domiciled in Jutland, and of “Danish” vassalage or allegiance; but this does not necessarily conflict with the archæological, legal or linguistic evidence concerning the “Jutish” settlement in Kent. Before Danish expansion, Jutland was no doubt an Ingvæonic area, and its language (and culture) not Scandinavian, but closely related to that of the Angles further south in the same peninsula. I do not think it can be shown that the linguistic character of Kentish could not have been derived from “Jutland” north of the English (in Angeln). However at this period Frisia was probably a dominant cultural and trade centre. Moreover, if we suppose that Hengest soon after the Freswæl next turns up as an adventurer (and temporary “mercenary”) in Britain, it is reasonable to suppose that he needed more than his heap (or small group of fighting men), and that in the condition of Frisia after the destruction of Finn and Finnesburg and its plundering – of which we hear nothing – he would recruit not only Jutes but “Frisian Jutes” and no doubt many Frisians (fleeing from the Sea-Danes); and that the artefacts of the early “Jutish” settlements should show mainly connections with Frisia and the
Rhine-mouth is not at all surprising.
[Recent studies have tended to confirm the accuracy of Bede's account of the settlement of Kent. For the archæeological evidence see J. N. L. Myres, “The Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes”, Proceedings of the British Academy lvi (1970) 145-74. Myres concludes that Bede “was even more penetratingly right in perceiving, beneath the glittering facade of Frankish sophistication, the solid Jutish background of the Kentish people and the links that bound them to southern Hampshire and the Isle of Wight” (p. 173). For the linguistic evidence see M. L. Samuels “Kent and the Low Countries: Some Linguistic Evidence”, in Edinburgh Studies in English and Scots, ed. A. J. Aitken, Angus McIntosh and Hermann Pálsson (1971) 3-19, and René Derolez, “Cross-Channel Language Ties”, Anglo-Saxon England iii (Cambridge, 1974) 1-14.]
107 See R. W. Chambers, England before the Norman Conquest (1926) 81.
108 E. T. Leeds, The Archæology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlement (Oxford, 1925) 99.
109 G. P. Baker, Fighting Kings of Wessex (1931) 54.
110 See the citation above, pp. 69-70.
111 Any later connection, such as that they were cousins, or that Hnæf was (say) the nephew, would make the explanation of the odd name Healfdene increasingly difficult.
112 See Appendix B: The Dating of Healfdene and Hengest. [There are some minor discrepancies between text and appendix, but these do not affect the argument.]
113 See Chambers, op. cit. 56-7. [Chambers cites Alfred Plettke, Ursprung und Ausbreitung der Angeln und Sachsen (Hildesheim, 1921) 68-9.]
114 [Tolkien later qualified this identification: see below, p. 102.]
115 [Müller, Saxo, 240; Holder, 159, Elton, 197.]
116 [See above, p. 66 fn. 65.]
117 [This list is strong evidence in favour of the identification of Hengest of the Freswæl with Hengest of Britain. If we exclude the four names shown by Tolkien to be extraneous we are left with Hrothulf, Hunlaf, Hengest and Horsa, in that order. Hunlaf is associated with Hengest of the Freswæl, Horsa with Hengest of Britain; such a collocation without comment seems unlikely if the two Hengests were not the same.]
118 Arngrím Jónsson's Rerum Danicarum Fragmenta (A.D. 1596) is an epitome of a late, thirteenth-century, version of a Skjöldungasaga. The matter alluded to occurs in Chapter IV between the account of Scioldus (Scyld) and the garbled and confused account of the Heathobards (Frodo) and Danes (Halfdanus) [Jakob Benediktsson, Arngrimi Jonae Opera Latine Conscripta (Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana ix-xii: Copenhagen, 1950-57) i 336]. The application of this account to our purpose was first made by Chadwick, Origin, 52 fn. 1.
119 It occurs as a “patronymic” in an English charter, Hunlafingham: W. de G. Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum (1885-9) No. 1077.
120 [Fr. Klaeber, Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, Second Edition (1928) 236: “Hnæf hleoþrode, heaþogeong cyning . . . would be a tempting reading of this line.” This comment was omitted from the third edition.]
121 [C. W. M. Grein, Sprachschatz der Angelsächsischen Dichter, neu herausgegeben von J. J. Köhler (Heidelberg, 1912).]
122 [For Celtic parallels to these opening lines see P. L. Henry, The Early English and Celtic Lyric (1966) 216-21; Patrick Sims-Williams, ” ‘Is it Fog or Smoke or Warriors Fighting?’: Irish and Welsh Parallels to the Finnsburg Fragment”, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies xxvii (1976-8) 505-14.]
123 [C. W. M. Grein, Beovulf nebst den Fragmenten Finnsburg und Valdere (Cassel, 1867).]
124 [Jónsson, Skjaldedigtning, B i 170.]
125 [Jónsson, Eddukvæði, i 187-8.]
126 [There is a link here, which Tolkien seems not to have noticed, with line 1124 of the Episode; see the note below, pp. 113-15. Cf. also folces hyrde in line 46.]
127 [Jónsson, Skjaldedigtning, B i 170.]
128 [In fact the text of Hickes has Windað: see Bruce Dickins, Runic and Heroic Poems (Cambridge, 1915) 65. On p. 1 of Part I of his Thesaurus Hickes gives an Alphabetum Anglo-Saxonicum, which gives two symbols equivalent to TH and two equivalent to W. The two symbols equivalent to TH are Ð and p. The two symbols equivalent to W are variant forms of the Anglo-Saxon wynn: the first resembles a right-angled triangle with its shortest side at the top; the second has a more normal form, closely resembling but not quite identical to p. In printing his texts Hickes invariably uses Đ for TH, never p; for W he nearly always uses the triangular wynn but occasionally the more normal wynn which can easily be misread as p. This is the symbol he uses here and in Wrecten (line 25). If þindað is to be read in line 12 it must be as an emendation.]
129 [F. Holthausen, Beowulf nebst dem Finnsburg-Bruchstück (Heidelberg, 1905-6).]
130 [The metrical argument is not wholly cogent; see p. 35, fn. 9.)
131 [Karl Strecker, Ekkehards Waltharius, Second Edition (Berlin, 1924) 45-7.]
132 [Hickes has Wrecten; see p. 86. fn. 9.]
133 [C. W. M. Grein, Beovulf nebst den Fragmenten Finnsburg und Valdere (Cassel, 1867); W. J. Sedgefield, Beowulf (Manchester, 1910); Klaeber, Beowulf.]
134 [For a parallel to this passage see Beowulf 2633-8; for closer Celtic parallels see P. L. Henry, “Beowulf Cruces”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung lxxvii (1961) 140-59, pp. 154-6.]
135 [Wyatt & Chambers, Beowulf, 162; see also S. B. Greenfield, “‘Folces hyrde’, Finnsburh 46b”, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen Ixxiii (1972) 97-102. Compare the use of folces in line 10 and in B. 1124.]
136 [Müller, Saxo, 105-6; Holder, 65; Elton, 79. Cf. also Müller, 96; Holder, 61; Elton, 74.]
137 [Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar c. 109, in Heimskringla, i 363.]
138 [Not so; anacrusis is not used when a half-line of Type A consists of two disyllabic words. See A. J. Bliss, The Metre of Beowulf (Oxford, 1958) 40-43.]
139 [W. J. Sedgefield, Beowulf, Third Edition (Manchester, 1935).]
140 [See also p. 9.]
141 [Williams, Finn Episode, 29.]
142 [Chambers, Introduction, 259-60.]
143 [Wyatt & Chambers, Beowulf; Williams, Finn Episode, 34.]
144 [Though þeodnes ðegne certainly refers to Hengest, it is best taken as a belated parallel to Hengeste in line 1083, with line 1084 as a parenthetic insertion. See Alistair Campbell, “The Old English Epic Style”, in English and Medieval Studies for J. R. R. Tolkien (1962) 13-26, p. 22 and fn. 1. On the significance of this interpretation for the nationality of Hengest and his place in Hnæf's band see Appendix C below, p. 180.]
145 [Dorothy Bethurum, The Homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957) 233, line 70.]
146 [ASPR v 154.] This Metre, since it deals with matter which was also the subject of independent native tradition (the wars of the Goths), uses without inspiration but with some skill many formulae and elements of OE epic language.
147 Gotan might be an error for Gotum pl., but Gota ‘the Goth’ – representative singular – is used in the same piece, line 9.
148 [Klaeber, Beowulf, 172.]
149 Also whatever other title you may like to give to the grammatical dative (as used with forþringan, oðþringan, forstandan and other verbs of similar import), at any rate it is not “instrumental”. The dative is either ‘of, from’(“ablatival” of deprivation) or dative “of indirect object” – the effect on this indirect object being either advantageous or the reverse, according to the basic meaning of the verbs, or to the context.
150 [The instances are: Genesis 1523, Daniel 51, Juliana 500, Seafarer 71, Fortunes of Men 49, Riddle 88 16, Judith 185.]
151 Sweet, Orosius, 136 line 15.
152 Virtually a form of the same verb. The prefixes became confused, probably owing to the close approach of ot- (original atonic form of æt-) to oþ- (atonic form of ūþ-).
153 [ASPR i 112.]
154 [Arnold Schröer, Die angelsächsischen Prosabearbeitungen der Benedictinerregel (Kassel, 1885-8) 115 line 7.]
155 [The Old English is ambiguous, and can be translated in other ways: see Williams, Finn Episode, 166-8.]
156 Only, however, in Orm's forrþrungenn (line 6169) ‘oppressed’ (in prison), which seems to show the influence of ON þrunginn ‘oppressed’, and in the Winteney version (c. 1275) of the Benedictine Rule, which virtually repeats the OE words [Arnold Schröer, Der Winteney-Version der Regula S. Benedicti (Halle, 1888) 129 line 4.]
157 MHG verdringen (ModG verdrängen) ‘push aside, thrust away’.
158 [The linking of þeodnes ðegne with forþringan seems forced, and ‘wrest from, detach from’ is hardly the same as ‘thrust forcibly away’. If þeodnes ðegne is taken as parallel to Hengeste (p. 98, fn. 25), line 1084 can be more readily translated: ‘nor could he dislodge the woeful remnant by fighting’. A possibility worth considering is that forþringan represents a simplification of forþ-þringan ‘thrust forth’; if such a compound had existed the sequence -rþþr- would certainly be reduced to -rþr-.]
159 Not necessarily. To decide we should have to know more about Jutish history. The feud of the Eote may not have been connected with Danish encroachment, but centred around Hengest and some deeds of his; but the tone of the Fragment is all against such an idea. Hnæf is the one to whom loyalty is shown. [See further Appendix C, p. 180.]
160 Gerymdon is subjunctive, and should at least be gerymden, though in late Old English the -en of the subjunctive plural was frequently replaced by -on. Errors in “number” in the past tense subjunctive are specially frequent in OE verse. The explanation of this may perhaps lie in the fact that the past tense subjunctive should anciently have ended in -i (later -e) in all numbers, since n was lost after -i [see Leonard Bloomfield, “Old English Plural Subjunctives in -e”, JEGP xxix (1930) 100-13].
161 The character of the landless chieftain with his own small private army of adventurers fits well with Hengest the mercenary chieftain in Britain later.
162 [Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða c. 5 in Jón Jóhannesson, Austfirðinga Sögur (Íslenzk Fornrit xi: Reykjavik, 1950) 121.]
163 [Williams, Finn Episode, 34-7.]
164 See below, p. 116, on the fact that 1127 does not contradict this.
165 [See the discussion of line 1129 below.]
166 [This pencilled addition was probably written in 1940; if so the reference is obvious.]
167 [Williams, Finn Episode, 66-8.]
168 [Ibid. 68; Sweet, Orosius, 162 line 10.]
169 [Andreas Heusler, Lied und Epos in germanischer Sagendichtung (Dortmund, 1905) 11; quoted by Williams, ibid. 16-17.]
170 [The Battle of Maldon 115.]
171 [It is customary to refer to the ON phase áðr á bál stigi in Vafþrúðnismál 54: Jónsson, Eddukvæði, i 82.]
172 [Beowulf 838, 1501, 1881, 2648; Andreas 155, 392; The Battle of Maldon 138.]
173 [The MS reading can perhaps be retained if guðrinc is taken as a spelling of guð-hring. Both the peculiarities of spelling required for this assumption are found within the Episode: ætspranc (1121) for ætsprang shows unvoicing of final -ng, and confusion of r and hr is found in (h)roden 1151. Guð-hring might perhaps mean ‘spirals of flame and smoke’; see W. J. Sedgefield, Beowulf, Second Edition (Manchester, 1913) 127. However, it is difficult to find a parallel for hring ‘spiral’, and it is no doubt preferable to emend. In any case the punctuation of the passage needs adjustment:
Guðrec astah,
wand to wolcnum;wælfyra mæst
hlynode for hlawe.
‘The reek of carnage mounted on high, circling to the clouds; the greatest of devouring fires roared before the burial mound.’ This punctuation preserves the frequent stylistic device in which one line ends with a finite verb and the next begins with another finite verb parallel to it. The same device is used just previously in lines 1117-8: Ides gnornode, / geomrode giddum.This punctuation is proposed by R. L. Hoffman, “Guðrinc astah: Beowulf 1118b”, JEGP lxiv (1965) 660-7; but his interpretation of guðrinc is not acceptable.]
174 It can thus be seen that the use of on twa healfe in 1095 is significant, in contrast to on ba healfa (1305) and on ba healfe (2063). In the Episode there were more than two possible divisions among the peoples concerned (e.g. Danes, Frisians, Jutes), but in the particular circumstances the treaty was between two sides (cutting across tribal divisions): defenders owing allegiance to Hnæf, and all those owing allegiance to Finn. In 1305 there are only two sides, Danes (or human beings in general) and Monsters; in 2063 only Heathobards and Danes are concerned. The difference can be felt in modern English by translating twa by ‘two’ and ba by ‘the two’.
175 [Wyatt & Chambers, Beowulf.]
176 [Williams, Finn Episode, 78-82.]
177 [Chambers, Introduction, 258-9.]
178 [See The Battle of Maldon 309-19.]
179 [I have not found this actual phrase; but such a rendering is implicit in Williams, Finn Episode, 92.]
180 [Apparently an allusion to the thirteenth-century Proverbs of Alfred, lines 160-3: Monymon weneþ I þat he wene ne þarf, / longes lyues; / ac him lyeþ þe wrench! ‘Many a man expects what he has no right to expect, long life; but that false notion deceives him!’ See W. W. Skeat, The Proverbs of Alfred (Oxford, 1907) 18-19.]
181 [Williams, Finn Episode, 83.]
182 [Most recent editors accept the emendation [ea]l unhlitme, but the relationship of this half-line to 1097a poses difficulties, which are well stated by J. L. Rosier, “The unhlitm of Finn and Hengest”, Review of English Studies N.S. xvii (1966) 171-4: “It seems to me highly improbable, however, that in a bound narrative of no great length we should encounter in almost identical syntactic construction – allowing the accepted emendation eal – two different rare or hard words of very similar shape. . . . Our presumption or prediction would be that the similarity in shape and construction strongly indicates that there is really but one word, with a slight scribal confusion in the other. . . . Stylistically supporting parallel construction (elne unhlitme, eal unhlitme) in these lines is the fact that in only these two places does the poet refer to both Hengest and Finn by name (1096b: Fin Hengeste; 1127-8: Hengest . . . mid Finne)” This is convincing; but the arguments in favour of reading unhlitme in both places are equally in favour of reading elne in both places, the more so since eal is not in the manuscript; moreover, as Tolkien points out, elne is palæographically much more satisfactory. It seems best to read elne unhlitme in both 1097a and 1129a: in 1097a the scribe miswrote unhlitme, in 1129a elne. It is noteworthy that in the first occurrence it is Finn's actions that are being described, and in the second it is Hengest's actions; it would seem that the poet is drawing some kind of parallel between the situations of the two main characters in the Episode.
The meaning of unhlitme has been much discussed. All recent commentators agree with Tolkien in linking it with the noun hlytm ‘lot’ (B. 3126), but there is little agreement about the significance of such a formation. Rosier favours ‘with lack of choice’, not far removed from Dobbie’s ‘having no choice’ (ASPR iv 177); Fry (Finnsburh, 22) argues, however, that “ ‘without casting of lots’ should produce just the opposite of ‘having no choice’. Casting lots throws the result up to chance, and so un-hlitme should logically mean ‘not by chance’, that is ‘voluntarily’.” The same meaning is proposed on different grounds by J. F. Vickrey, “The Narrative Structure of Hengest's revenge in ‘Beowulf ”, Anglo-Saxon England vi (Cambridge, 1977) 91-103. Vickrey argues that the stem of hlytm was associated in Anglo-Saxon England with the sortilege, and that the connotation is usually ‘fate’ or ‘necessity’; unhlitme should therefore mean ‘not by necessity’, that is ‘voluntarily’. Neither Fry nor Vickrey reads unhlitme in 1097, and indeed the meaning ‘voluntarily’ would not fit that context, since the poet tells us that Finn could not dislodge the wealaf; he had no alternative, then, but to agree to terms. In 1129 the meaning ‘voluntarily’ requires the rejection of the customary emendation in line 1130: Hengest remained ‘voluntarily, although he could drive his ring-prowed ship over the sea.’ It is pleasant to be able to retain the MS reading, but it is not easy to explain the relevance of 1131-7. Vickrey claims that the passage is wholly symbolic, and has no literal relevance; but this argument is hardly convincing.
Reading elne rather than eal in 1129 makes it possible to construe unhlitme as an adjective rather than an adverb, as in the close parallel elne unslawe ‘with active zeal’ (Guthlac 950). In this case unhlilme would belong to the numerous group of adjectives formed from nouns by prefixing un- and adding -e, with mutation where relevant; the meaning can generally be rendered in Modern English by ‘without’ or ‘-less’. Thus, ungielde ‘without compensation’, unscende ‘without shame’; ungrynde ‘bottomless’, unmæle, unwemme ‘spotless’, unwene ‘hopeless’. Since “chance” can easily come to signify “favourable chance”, as in Modern English luck and fortune, unhlitme might have the meaning ‘luckless’, that is ‘ill-fated’. The same meaning could be reached in a different way, on the basis of Vickrey's claim that the stem of hlytm was associated with the sortilege and therefore with fate. The OE prefix un- can sometimes have a pejorative rather than a negative sense, as in undæd ‘evil deed’ (Judgment Day II 58), unræd ‘evil counsel’ (frequent in Genesis); if hlytm can mean ‘fate’, unhlitme would thus again mean ‘ill-fated’.
The translation ‘with ill-fated courage’ is highly appropriate in 1097: it was a courageous decision for Finn to agree to terms with a company of warriors against whom his men had just been fighting, and who could not leave until winter was ended; but it led to disaster. The rendering is less clearly appropriate in 1129: it cannot strictly be said that it was a courageous act for Hengest to remain with Finn throughout the winter, since he cannot get away. The reference is rather to the undertaking than to its fulfilment: it was just as courageous for Hengest to propose terms as for Finn to accept them, and the result was bloodshed for both of them. The poet, by repeating the same phrase, draws attention to the similar predicaments of Finn and Hengest. Each of them, faced with an exceedingly difficult situation, does the sensible thing, but in so doing defies the dictates of the heroic code, the overriding duty of vengeance; the outcome is precisely what they had tried to avoid, the renewal of the deadly fighting. It would not be difficult to argue that the “moral” of the tale of Finn and Hengest is the insufficiency or over-rigidity of the heroic code, which allows no exceptions in special and difficult circumstances.]
183 [Williams, Finn Episode, 88-9; J. M. Burnham, “Concessive Constructions in Old English Prose”, Yale Studies in English xxxix (1911) 33-4.]
184 [Williams, ibid. 89-90; Klaeber, Beowulf, 175.]
185 [ASPR iii 158.]
186 ‘Cf. mid inweardre heortan gemunan ond geþencean: Richard Morris, The Blickling Homilies (1874-80) 55. But here the reference is to keeping such a fast hold on teaching as to preclude later forgetfulness.
187 [Cf. S. O. Andrew, Postscript on Beowulf (Cambridge, 1948) §85: “It is clear from internal evidence that in the combination æþelinga bearn the latter word is always a plural . . .; when bearn is singular, the formula is always ‘æpelinges (ðeodnes, etc.) bearn’.”]
188 Cf. hunlapi joined with rudolphi in the list of Germanic heroes (above, p. 76).
189 [ASPR vi 56.]
190 [Above, p. 77.]
191 [Müller, Saxo, 108-9; Holder, 67; Elton, 81. ]
192 [Jónsson, Eddukvæði, i 196.]
193 [Müller, Saxo, ii 104.]
194 [Haralds saga ins hárfagra c. 38, in Heimskringla, i 143-4.]
195 [Ibid. 144-5.] Cf. also the Exeter Gnomic Verses, lines 67-70 [ASPR iii 159]. For reference to the Ancient Laws of Norway see Nora Kershaw, Anglo-Saxon and Norse Poems (Cambridge, 1922), note to The Wanderer lines 42-3.
196 For ‘way of the world, destiny’ is not a thing a true hero would think of ‘refusing’, and the refusal or not must have some close connection with the sword-play following.
197 [Chambers, Introduction, 253.]
198 [Williams, Finn Episode, 98-100.]
199 [Ibid. 101.]
200 [Ibid. 102-3.]
201 Do we really know what ferhðfrec means? Etymologically it should mean ‘greedy’ – or at least ‘importunate’, thrusting oneself forward shamelessly. In prose frec means only ‘greedy’: freca means ‘warrior’, probably only via ‘wolf (greedy one). In verse frec occurs only twice in the phrases firendæda/-lusta frec – a bad sense. As a strong adjective (guðfreca wk. might be a compound of freca) it only occurs once in the collocation guma guðfrec.
202 [Chambers, Introduction, 285.]
203 [Fr. Klaeber, Beowulf and the Finnsburg Fragment, Second Edition (1928) note on line 1148; but on p. 220 fn. 2 he suggests that æfter sæsiðe “could . . . refer to the original journey of the Danes to Friesland”. In his Third Edition (1936), p. 232 fn. 3, he says definitely that “by sæsið presumably the original journey of the Danes to Friesland was meant”, and in his note on line 1148 he compares æfter sæsiðe sorge with æfter deaðdæge dom (885). According to this interpretation Guthlaf and Oslaf never left Frisia; they precipitated Hengest's vengeance by openly blaming Finn for all their troubles.]
204 [This interpretation of dæl can hardly be sustained: weana dæl is a formula, and occurs also in Deor 34; cf. wean ænigne dæl (Christ 1384) and earfoða dæl (Genesis 180, Fortunes of Men 67, Deor 30, Riddle 72 15). In none of these instances is there any suggestion that woes or hardships are shared between two or more parties.]
205 [Above, p. 76.]
206 [Above, p. 77.]
207 [E.g. by Williams, Finn Episode, 102.]
208 [Hengest was last referred to by name in line 1127, twenty-three lines earlier; but the he ... him of lines 1142-3 plainly refer to Hengest.]
209 [No such confusion seems to occur elsewhere in OE poetry.]
210 [Williams, Finn Episode, 103-4.]
211 [Finnur Jónsson, Lexicon Poeticum Antiquæ Linguæ Septentrionalis (Copenhagen, 1931). For the two quotations see Jónsson, Eddukvæði, i 14 and 248.]
212 Fostering was a northern custom: the foster-father was usually of similar social rank, but lesser wealth or power. Cf. the Scandinavian view of the fostering of Hákon by Æthelstan of England. Finn was obviously a more wealthy and powerful king than Hnæf.
213 Among the names that follow Finn's name in the West-Saxon genealogies there is probably contained the traditional name of the son. It was very likely Fripuwulf (above, p. 48).
214 In spite of Wrenn's note, I think “giants” quite out of the picture. [The reference is presumably to the note on pp. 184-5 of C. L. Wrenn's revision of Clark Hall's translation of Beowulf, first published in 1940 (above, p. 5 fn. 13): “Unless a scribal error is assumed, it should refer rather to the eotenas, giants probably, among whom (as they made such magic weapons) this special sword may well have been famous.”]
215 [There is in fact no direct evidence in the text that Hengest swore any oaths to Finn: all the oaths referred to are sworn by Finn to Hengest (lines 1096-7). However, Hengest's acceptance of Finn's protection certainly implied fealty in return.]
216 [Above, pp. 70-71 and fn. 71.]
217 Thus Alewih, whose mention in the same line with Offa appears to be significant (since Offa's story goes on again after he is named), would, if we can base even approximate calculations on the genealogy of the Mercian kings, belong most probably to the fourth century and is earlier than the Finn story.
218 East-Denum is also found in the Rune Poem (line 67) [ASPR vi 29]. Its significance there is less clear, but (since alliterative poets were not helpless!) is probably to be connected with the location of the cult of Ing rather than merely with his vocalic initial.
219 [The date of Hygelac's death is uncertain, and depends on the interpretation of a passage in Gregory of Tours' Hisloria Francorum (Klaeber, Beowulf, 267-8). Tolkien's date is probably based on the discussion in Chambers, Introduction, 381-2; but in his second edition (pp. 383-7) Chambers somewhat modified his position. Klaeber adopts the date 521 (Beowulf, p. xxxix). Despite this earlier date for Hygelac's death, Klaeber's dates for the births of Healfdene and Hrothgar are some ten years later than Tolkien's (p. xxxi).]
220 Since a daughter had been given in marriage to Eofor after the slaying of Ongentheow, which would represent a period of Swedish depression favourable to the raid southwards.
221 [The chapter is renumbered in modern editions. It is c. 81 of Skáldskaparmál in Finnur Jónsson, Edda Snorra Sturlusonar (Copenhagen, 1931) 181.]
222 [Müller, Saxo, 80; Holder, 51; Elton, 62; Klaeber, Beowulf, 259.]
223 See pp. 67, 102, 129 and (rather less dogmatically) p. 69, fn. 68.
224 Hengest's leadership would not obviate the necessity for a formal declaration of allegiance (lines 1142-4) as a preliminary to vengeance.
225 Tolkien's note on line 1087, a late addition to his lectures, seems designed to meet this very objection. The first part of the treaty, he suggests, was proposed by the Danes; in gratitude Hengest insisted on additional provisions favouring the Danes. This is ingenious, but unconvincing; it does not emerge naturally from the text, but savours of special pleading.
226 Cf. Myres, Settlements, 343: “To the frightened provincial the precise ethnology of those who looted his villa was a matter of indifference – they were all Saxons to him.”
227 O. J. Bergin, ”A Middle-Irish Fragment of Bede's Ecclesiastical History”, in Anecdota from Irish Manuscripts, ed. O. J. Bergin, R. I. Best, Kuno Meyer, J. G. O'Keeffe, Vol. III (Halle, 1910) 63-76, p. 68. luti is miswritten Riti in the original.
228 Chadwick, Origin, 56.
229 Ibid. 57.
230 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 38.
231 Plummer, Bede, 90.
232 Myres, Settlements, 403-4.
233 Plummer, Bede, 30.
234 Ibid. 352.
235 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 303; passages taken from Gildas are printed in italic type, additions in roman.
236 Plummer, Bede, 31; translated by Myres, Settlements, 336.
237 Loc. cit. 337, fn. 1.
238 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 172, 176.
239 Ibid. 178.
240 The later Nennius Interpretatus replaces this clause by the neutral inito consilio cum Saxonibus. It has never been doubted that Oghgul means ‘Angeln’, but the curious spelling has never been explained – or, indeed, remarked on. The final ul no doubt reflects Bede's Latin form Angulus; the initial O may reflect the OE a/o alternation before a nasal – compare Ongle in Widsith 8, 35. The sequence /ηg/ would be difficult for a Welsh scribe to reproduce, since in Old Welsh it occurred only in compounds, and this is not a compound. The phoneme /η/ was represented by ng or g, the phoneme /g/ by g or c; the sequence ghg may represent an attempt to combine the two functions of the symbol g.
241 Printed by K. von Richthofen in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, ed. G. H. Pertz, Leges Vol. V (Hanover, 1875).
242 Chadwick, Origin, 81-3, 108.
243 Myres, Settlements, 344.
244 A scrap of evidence of very doubtful value is to be found in the “Leges Anglorum Londiniis” of about 1210, printed by Felix Liebermann, Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (Halle, 1898-1916) i 658:
De illis, qui possunt et debent de iure cohabitare et remanere in regno Britannie. . . .
Guti uero similiter cum ueniunt, suscipi debent et protegi in regno isto sicut coniurati fratres nostri et sicut propinqui et proprii ciues regni huius: exierunt enim quondam de nobili sanguine Anglorum.
The force of this is somewhat weakened by the next sentence:
Saxones uero Germanie cum ueniunt in regno, suscipi debent et protegi in regno isto sicut coniurati fratres nostri et sicut proprii ciues regni huius: exierunt enim quondam de sanguine Anglorum, scilicet de Engra ciuitate, et Anglici de sanguine illorum, et semper efficiuntur populus unus et gens una.
Engra is no doubt a corruption of Angeln or Angulus, as Liebermann suggests in his note. The laws are attributed to Ine (Ita constituit optimus Yne rex Anglorum), and it is perhaps just possible that some kind of ancient tradition is preserved here.
245 For a fuller discussion of the genealogies see below, pp. 175-7.
246 Germania, xxxviii-xl: J. G. C. Anderson, Cornelii Taciti de Origine et Situ Germanorum (Oxford, 1938) 24-6.
247 Ptolemy II 11 8: Otto Cuntz, Die Geographie des Ptolemaeus (Berlin, 1923) 63.
248 Chambers, Widsith, 243-4.
249 Ibid, 194.
250 Compare the rule of Frovinus over Schleswig: Müller, Saxo, 162; Holder, 107; Elton, 131. Frovinus and his son Vigo appear as Freawine and his son Wig in the West-Saxon genealogy; see above, p. 47 fn. 32.
251 Malone, Literary History, 20.
252 Compare the evidence of Geoffrey of Monmouth (VI x): Nos quoque duos germanos, quorum ego Hengistus, iste Horsus nuncupamur, prefecerunt eis duces, nam ex ducum progenie progeniti ftieramus. See Acton Griscom and R. E. Jones, The Historia Region Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth (1929) 367.
253 Chadwick, Origin, 45 fn. 1. Malone (Literary History, 23) seems to envisage the same thing when he tentatively equates Hors with the Eaha of the Fragment; no doubt this possibility was suggested by the likeness of Eaha to OE eoh ‘horse’, of which it might perhaps be a Northumbrian hypocoristic form.
254 Plummer, Bede, 90.
255 The relationship between the names Oisc and Æsc has been variously explained: see above, p. 69 fn. 69, and Kenneth Sisam, “Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies”, Proceedings of the British Academy xxxix (1953) 287-348, p. 338 and fn. 1.
Oisc is an early spelling of what would later be Esc; it seems most probable that the Chronicle form Æsc is a ”West-Saxonization” of the written form Esc, comparable to WS mæsse ‘Mass’ for Kentish messe from Late Latin missa.
256 Plummer, Bede, 90.
257 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 203; cf. also Octha filius eius in §56, p. 199.
258 Sweet, OET, 171.
259 Ælfred's mother Osburh was a Jute, according to Asser: see W. H. Stevenson, Asser’’'s Life of King Alfred (Oxford, 1904) 4.
260 Campbell, Æthelweard, 18.
261 Bede's statement (ii 5) that the true name of Oisc was Oeric, a name which appears nowhere else in the genealogies, may be relevant here; for a possible explanation of Bede's statement see below, p. 177.
262 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 179.
263 C. T. Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1894) s.v.
264 J. F. Niermayer, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus (Leiden, 1957-76) s.v.
265 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 129.
266 Sweet, OET, 170.
267 Mommsen, Chronica Minora, 203.
268 Bede's genealogy is in two parts (i 15, ii 5): see Plummer, Bede, 31-2, 90. The second passage is printed above, p. 70.
269 Sweet, OET, 171.
270 Campbell, Æthelweard, 18. Another genealogy in i 4 (p. 9) has the same forms, though the spellings differ.
271 On the date of Penda's birth see Chadwick, Origin, 16.
272 Chadwick (Origin, 134-6) attempts to confirm the date of Wærmund by identifying Saxo's Athislus (Müller, Saxo, 162; Holder, 107; Elton, 131), a contemporary of Vermundus, with the Eadgils of Widsith. This Eadgils was a contemporary of Ermanaric (lines 88, 93), who is known to have flourished in the middle of the fourth century.
273 In Beowulf 1960-2 Eomer is the son of Offa and the grandson of Garmund – the name of Angeltheow is omitted from the descent. The manuscript reads geomor, but emendation to Eomer or something similar is required by the alliteration.
274 C. W. Goodwin, The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Life of St Guthlac (1848) 8.
275 Plummer, Bede, 90.
276 Ibid.; Chronicle, anno 616.
277 Plummer, Bede, 90.
278 Descent from Woden need not, of course, be taken into account, since it is common to all but a few of the Anglo-Saxon genealogies.
279 Chronicle, anno 694.
280 Erna Hackenberg, Die Stammtafeln der ags. Königreiche (Berlin, 1918) 93.
281 In the Kentish genealogy in MS Vespasian B vi (Sweet, OET, 171; above, p. 176) the name which immediately follows Uoden is Uegdaeg, and it is tempting to see in this a corruption of Wihtlæg; however, the name Uegdaeg appears in the same position in one of the Northumbrian genealogies, where another has Beldaeg (Sweet, OET, 170).
282 G. T. Flom, “Alliteration and Variation in Old Germanic Name-Giving”, Modern Language Notes xxxii (1917) 7-17.
283 See the Mercian genealogies in MS Vespasian B vi (Sweet, OET, 170); the descendants of another brother of Penda, Coenwalh, reverted to C-names.
284 Müller, Saxo, 135; Holder, 85; Elton, 104.
285 Müller, Saxo, 154; Holder, 100; Elton, 121-2.
286 Müller, Saxo, 160-1; Holder, 105-6; Elton, 128-30.
287 Chadwick, Origin, 125.
288 Above, p. 100.
103