{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34117/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34117","id":"gutenberg_34117","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34117","summary":null,"tags":["Anglo-Saxons -- Kings and rulers","Beowulf","Category: Classics of Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Dragons in literature","Epic poetry, English (Old) -- History and criticism","Fight at Finnesburg (Anglo-Saxon poem)","Heroes in literature","Mercia (Kingdom) -- In literature","Monsters in literature","Offa saga","Offa, King of the Mercians, -796 -- In literature"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Charlene Taylor, Ted Garvin, Keith Edkins and\nthe Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttp://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note: In Germanic languages [=a] signifies \"a macron\"; [o,]\n\"o with Ogonek\"; and so forth. [gh] represents yogh. Common accents are\nshown ['a] acute, [`a] grave, [^a] circumflex. aesc, eth and thorn are\nexpanded to ae, dh and th; a-umlaut to ae, etc, o-slash to oe.\n\n[Illustration: Drida (Thryth) reproached for her Evil Deeds\n\n_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 11 b_\n\n\"That is no way for a lady to behave.\" (Ne bidh swylc cw[=e]nl[=i]c\nth[=e]aw | idese t[=o] efnanne:\n\n_Beowulf_, ll 1940-1.) ]\n\nBEOWULF\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF\nTHE POEM WITH A DISCUSSION OF\nTHE STORIES OF OFFA AND FINN\n\nBY\n\nR. W. CHAMBERS\n\n\n\nDey mout er bin two deloojes: en den agin dey moutent.\nUNCLE REMUS, _The Story of the Deluge_.\n\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE\nAT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n1921\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTO\n\nPROF. WILLIAM WITHERLE LAWRENCE\n\nDEAR PROF. LAWRENCE,\n\nWhen, more than four years ago, I asked you to allow me to dedicate this\nvolume to you, it was as a purely personal token of gratitude for the help\nI had received from what you have printed, and from what you have written\nto me privately.\n\nSince then much has happened: the debt is greater, and no longer purely\npersonal. We in this country can never forget what we owe to your people.\nAnd the self-denial which led them voluntarily to stint themselves of food,\nthat we in Europe might be fed, is one of many things about which it is not\neasy to speak. Our heart must indeed have been hardened if we had not\nconsidered the miracle of those loaves. But I fear that to refer to that\ngreat debt in the dedication to this little book may draw on me the\nridicule incurred by the poor man who dedicated his book to the Universe.\n\nNevertheless, as a fellow of that College which has just received from an\nAmerican donor the greatest benefaction for medical research which has ever\nbeen made in this country of ours, I may rejoice that the co-operation\nbetween our nations is being continued in that warfare against ignorance\nand disease which some day will become the only warfare waged among men.\n\n  Sceal hring-naca     ofer heafu bringan\n  l[=a]c ond luf-t[=a]cen.     Ic th[=a] l[=e]ode w[=a]t\n  ge widh f[=e]ond ge widh fr[=e]ond     faeste geworhte,\n  [=ae]ghwaes unt[=ae]le     ealde w[=i]san.\n                                R. W. C.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{vii}\n\nPREFACE\n\nI have to thank various colleagues who have read proofs of this book, in\nwhole or in part: first and foremost my old teacher, W. P. Ker; also Robert\nPriebsch, J. H. G. Grattan, Ernest Classen and two old students, Miss E. V.\nHitchcock and Mrs Blackman. I have also to thank Prof. W. W. Lawrence of\nColumbia; and though there are details where we do not agree, I think there\nis no difference upon any important issues. If in these details I am in the\nright, this is largely due to the helpful criticism of Prof. Lawrence,\nwhich has often led me to reconsider my conclusions, and to re-state them\nmore cautiously, and, I hope, more correctly. If, on the other hand, I am\nin the wrong, then it is thanks to Prof. Lawrence that I am not still more\nin the wrong.\n\nFrom Axel Olrik, though my debt to him is heavy, I find myself differing on\nseveral questions. I had hoped that what I had to urge on some of these\nmight have convinced him, or, better still, might have drawn from him a\nreply which would have convinced me. But the death of that great scholar\nhas put an end to many hopes, and deprived many of us of a warm personal\nfriend. It would be impossible to modify now these passages expressing\ndissent, for the early pages of this book were printed off some years ago.\nI can only repeat that it is just because of my intense respect for the\nwork of Dr Olrik that, where I cannot agree with his conclusions, I feel\nbound to go into the matter at length. Names like those of Olrik, Bradley,\nChadwick and Sievers carry rightly such authority as to make it the duty of\nthose who differ, if only on minor details, to justify that difference if\nthey can.\n\nFrom Dr Bradley especially I have had help in discussing various of these\nproblems: also from Mr Wharton of the British Museum, Prof. Collin of\nChristiania, Mr Ritchie Girvan of Glasgow, and Mr Teddy. To Prof. Broegger,\nthe Norwegian state-antiquary, I am indebted for permission to reproduce\nphotographs of the {viii} Viking ships: to Prof. Finnur J['o]nsson for\npermission to quote from his most useful edition of the _Hr['o]lfs Saga_\nand the _Bjarka R['i]mur_, and, above all, to Mr Sigf['u]s Bloendal, of the\nRoyal Library of Copenhagen, for his labour in collating with the\nmanuscript the passages quoted from the _Grettis Saga_.\n\nFinally, I have to thank the Syndics of the University Press for\nundertaking the publication of the book, and the staff for the efficient\nway in which they have carried out the work, in spite of the long\ninterruption caused by the war.\n\n  R. W. C.\n  _April 6, 1921._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{ix}\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                                       PAGE\n  GENEALOGICAL TABLES                                                   xii\n\n  PART I\n\n  CHAPTER I. THE HISTORICAL ELEMENTS\n\n  SECTION   I. The Problem                                                1\n  SECTION  II. The Geatas--their Kings and their Wars                     2\n  SECTION III. Heorot and the Danish Kings                               13\n  SECTION  IV. Leire and Heorot                                          16\n  SECTION   V. The Heathobeardan                                         20\n  SECTION  VI. Hrothulf                                                  25\n  SECTION VII. King Offa                                                 31\n\n  CHAPTER II. THE NON-HISTORICAL ELEMENTS\n\n  SECTION   I. The Grendel Fight                                         41\n  SECTION  II. The Scandinavian Parallels--Grettir and Orm               48\n  SECTION III. Bothvar Bjarki                                            54\n  SECTION  IV. Parallels from Folklore                                   62\n  SECTION   V. Scef and Scyld                                            68\n  SECTION  VI. Beow                                                      87\n  SECTION VII. The house of Scyld and Danish parallels--Heremod-Lotherus\n               and Beowulf-Frotho                                        89\n\n  CHAPTER III. THEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN,\n  DATE AND STRUCTURE OF THE POEM\n\n  SECTION   I. Is _Beowulf_ translated from a Scandinavian\n               original?                                                 98\n  SECTION  II. The dialect, syntax and metre of _Beowulf_ as\n               evidence of its literary history                         104\n  SECTION III. Theories as to the structure of _Beowulf_                112\n  SECTION  IV. Are the Christian elements incompatible with the rest\n               of the poem?                                             121\n  {x}\n\n  PART II\n\n  DOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE STORIES IN\n  _BEOWULF_, AND THE _OFFA_-SAGA\n\n  A. The early Kings of the Danes, according to Saxo Grammaticus:\n     Dan, Humblus, Lotherus and Scioldus; Frotho's dragon fight;\n     Haldanus, Roe and Helgo; Roluo (Rolf Kraki) and Biarco\n     (Bjarki); the death of Rolf                                        129\n\n  B. Extract from _Hr['o]lfs Saga Kraka_, with translation\n     (cap. 23)                                                          138\n\n  C. Extracts from _Grettis Saga_, with translation: (_a_) Glam episode\n     (caps. 32-35); (_b_) Sandhaugar episode (caps. 64-66)              146\n\n  D. Extracts from _Bjarka R['i]mur_, with translation                  182\n\n  E. Extract from _Th['a]ttr Orms St['o]r['o]lfssonar_, with\n     translation                                                        186\n\n  F. A Danish Dragon-slaying of the Beowulf-type, with translation      192\n\n  G. The Old English Genealogies. I. The Mercian Genealogy. II. The\n     stages above Woden: Woden to Geat and Woden to Sceaf               195\n\n  H. Extract from the Chronicle Roll                                    201\n\n  I. Extract from the Little Chronicle of the Kings of Leire            204\n\n  K. The Story of Offa in Saxo Grammaticus                              206\n\n  L. From Skiold to Offa in Sweyn Aageson                               211\n\n  M. Note on the Danish Chronicles                                      215\n\n  N. The _Life of Offa I_, with extracts from the _Life of Offa II_. Edited\n     from two MSS in the Cottonian Collection                           217\n\n  O. Extract from _Widsith_, II. 18, 24-49                              243\n\n  PART III\n\n  THE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG\n\n  SECTION    I. The _Finnsburg Fragment_                                245\n\n  SECTION   II. The Episode in _Beowulf_                                248\n\n  SECTION  III. Moeller's Theory                                        254\n\n  SECTION   IV. Bugge's Theory                                          257\n\n  SECTION    V. Some Difficulties in Bugge's Theory                     260\n\n  SECTION   VI. Recent Elucidations. Prof. Ayres' Comments              266\n\n  SECTION  VII. Problems still outstanding                              268\n\n  SECTION VIII. The Weight of Proof: the Eotens                         272\n\n  SECTION   IX. Ethics of the Blood Feud                                276\n\n  {xi}\n  SECTION    X. An Attempt at Reconstruction                            283\n\n  SECTION   XI. Gefwulf, Prince of the Jutes                            286\n\n  SECTION  XII. Conclusion                                              287\n                     _Note_. Frisia in the heroic age                   288\n\n  PART IV\n\n  APPENDIX\n\n  A. A Postscript on Mythology in _Beowulf_. (1) Beowulf the Scylding\n     and Beowulf son of Ecgtheow. (2) Beow                              291\n  B. Grendel                                                            304\n  C. The Stages above Woden in the West-Saxon Genealogy                 311\n  D. Grammatical and literary evidence for the date of _Beowulf_. The\n     relation of _Beowulf_ to the Classical Epic                        322\n  E. The \"Jute-question\" reopened                                       333\n  F. _Beowulf_ and the Archaeologists                                   345\n  G. Leire before Rolf Kraki                                            365\n  H. Bee-wolf and Bear's son                                            365\n  I. The date of the death of Hygelac                                   381\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY OF _BEOWULF_ AND _FINNSBURG_                             383\n\n  INDEX                                                                 414\n\nPLATES\n\n  PLATE\n\n    I. Drida (Thryth) reproached for her Evil Deeds            FRONTISPIECE\n\n    II. Leire in the Seventeenth Century                       TO FACE   16\n\n  III. Offa, miraculously restored, vindicates his Right.\n       At the side, Offa is represented in Prayer               \" \"      34\n\n   IV. Drida (Thryth) arrives in the land of King Offa,\n       \"in nauicula armamentis carente\"                         \" \"      36\n\n    V. Riganus (or Aliel) comes before King Warmundus\n       to claim that he should be made King in place of\n       the incompetent Offa                                     \" \"     218\n\n   VI. Drida (Thryth) entraps Albertus (Aethelberht) of\n       East Anglia, and causes him to be slain                  \" \"     242\n\n  VII. The Gokstad Ship. The Oseberg Ship                       \" \"     362\n\n  VIII. Southern Scandinavia in the Sixth Century.\n        English Boar-Helmet and Ring-Swords                        _At end_\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{xii}\n\nGENEALOGICAL TABLES\n\nThe names of the corresponding characters in Scandinavian legend are added\nin italics; first the Icelandic forms, then the Latinized names as recorded\nby Saxo Grammaticus.\n\n(1) THE DANISH ROYAL FAMILY\n\n                      Scyld Sc[=e]fing [_Skj[o,]ldr_, _Skyoldus_]\n                                |\n                      B[=e]owulf [not the hero of the poem]\n                                |\n                      Healfdene [_Halfdan_, _Haldanus_]\n                                |\n        .-----------------------------------------------------------.\n        |                    |                           |          |\n  Heorog[=a]r    Hr[=o]dhg[=a]r [_Hr['o]arr_[1],      H[=a]lga  a daughter\n  [_no           _Roe_], _mar._ Wealhth[=e]ow       [_Helgi_,  [_Signy_]\n  Scandinavian_                  |                   _Helgo_]\n  _parallel_]          .----------------------.           |\n        |              |            |         |           |\n        |              |       Hr[=o]dhmund   |           |\n  Heoroweard       Hr[=e]dhr[=i]c         Hr[=o]dhulf     |\n  [_Hj[o,]rvardhr,_   [_Hraerekr,_        _mar._       [_Hr['o]lfr_\n   _Hiarwarus:_        _Roericus:_        Ingeld        _Kraki,_\n   _but not_           _not_                            _Roluo_]\n   _recognized as_     _recognized_\n   _belonging_         _as a son of_\n   _to this family_]   _Hroarr_]\n\n(2) THE GEAT ROYAL FAMILY\n\n                 Hr[=e]dhel                              W[=ae]gmund\n                     |                                       |\n      .----------------------------.                 .-------------.\n      |        |     |             |                 |             |\n  Herebeald Haedhcyn |       a daughter, _mar._ Ecgth[=e]ow  W[=e]ohst[=a]n\n                     |                      |                       |\n                 Hygel[=a]c, _mar._ Hygd    |                       |\n                     |                      |                       |\n            .-----------------.         B[=e]owulf            W[=i]gl[=a]f\n            |                 |\n        a daughter,      Heardr[=e]d\n       _mar._ Eofor\n\n(3) THE SWEDISH ROYAL FAMILY\n\n                             Ongenth[=e]ow\n                                  |\n             .-------------------------------------.\n             |                                     |\n           Onela                               [=O]hthere [_['O]ttarr_]\n  [_['A]li, not recognized_                        |\n   _as belonging to this_                   .---------------.\n   _family_]                                |               |\n                                       Eanmund        [=E]adgils\n                                                     [_Adhils_[2],\n                                                      _Athislus_]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{1}\n\nPART I\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE HISTORICAL ELEMENTS\n\nSECTION I. THE PROBLEM.\n\nThe unique MS of _Beowulf_ may be, and if possible should be, seen by the\nstudent in the British Museum. It is a good specimen of the elegant script\nof Anglo-Saxon times: \"a book got up with some care,\" as if intended for\nthe library of a nobleman or of a monastery. Yet this MS is removed from\nthe date when the poem was composed and from the events which it narrates\n(so far as these events are historic at all) by periods of time\napproximately equal to those which separate us from the time when\nShakespeare's _Henry V_ was written, and when the battle of Agincourt was\nfought.\n\nTo try to penetrate the darkness of the five centuries which lie behind the\nextant MS by fitting together such fragments of illustrative information as\ncan be obtained, and by using the imagination to bridge the gaps, has been\nthe business of three generations of scholars distributed among the ten\nnations of Germanic speech. A whole library has been written around our\npoem, and the result is that this book cannot be as simple as either writer\nor reader might have wished.\n\n\n\nThe story which the MS tells us may be summarized thus: Beowulf, a prince\nof the Geatas, voyages to Heorot, the hall of Hrothgar, king of the Danes;\nthere he destroys a monster Grendel, who for twelve years has haunted the\nhall by night and slain all he found therein. When Grendel's mother in\nrevenge makes an attack on the hall, Beowulf seeks her out and kills her\nalso in her home beneath the waters. He then {2} returns to his land with\nhonour and is rewarded by his king Hygelac. Ultimately he himself becomes\nking of the Geatas, and fifty years later slays a dragon and is slain by\nit. The poem closes with an account of the funeral rites.\n\nFantastic as these stories are, they are depicted against a background of\nwhat appears to be fact. Incidentally, and in a number of digressions, we\nreceive much information about the Geatas, Swedes and Danes: all which\ninformation has an appearance of historic accuracy, and in some cases can\nbe proved, from external evidence, to be historically accurate.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION II. THE GEATAS--THEIR KINGS AND THEIR WARS.\n\nBeowulf's people have been identified with many tribes: but there is strong\nevidence that the Geatas are the Goetar (O.N. _Gautar_), the inhabitants of\nwhat is now a portion of Southern Sweden, immediately to the south of the\ngreat lakes Wener and Wetter. The names _Geatas_ and _Gautar_ correspond\nexactly[3], according to the rules of O.E. and O.N. phonetic development,\nand all we can ascertain of the Geatas and of the Gautar harmonizes well\nwith the identification[4].\n\nWe know of one occasion only when the Geatas came into violent contact with\nthe world outside Scandinavia. Putting together the accounts which we\nreceive from Gregory of Tours and from two other (anonymous) writers, we\nlearn that a piratical raid was made upon the country of the Atuarii (the\nO.E. _Hetware_) who dwelt between the lower Rhine and what is now the\nZuyder Zee, by a king whose name is spelt in a variety of ways, all of\nwhich readily admit of identification with that of the Hygelac of our\npoem[5]. From the land of the Atuarii this king carried much spoil to his\nships; but, remaining on shore, he was overwhelmed and slain by the army\nwhich the {3} Frankish king Theodoric had sent under his son to the rescue\nof these outlying provinces; the plunderers' fleet was routed and the booty\nrestored to the country. The bones of this gigantic king of the \"Getae\"\n[presumably = Geatas] were long preserved, it was said, on an island near\nthe mouth of the Rhine.\n\nSuch is the story of the raid, so far as we can reconstruct it from monkish\nLatin sources. The precise date is not given, but it must have been between\nA.D. 512 and 520.\n\nNow this disastrous raid of Hygelac is referred to constantly in _Beowulf_:\nand the mention there of Hetware, Franks and the Merovingian king as the\nfoes confirms an identification which would be satisfactory even without\nthese additional data[6].\n\n    Our authorities are:\n\n    (1) Gregory of Tours (d. 594):\n\n    _His ita gestis, Dani cum rege suo nomine Chlochilaico evectu navale\n    per mare Gallias appetunt. Egressique ad terras, pagum unum de regno\n    Theudorici devastant atque captivant, oneratisque navibus tam de\n    captivis quam de reliquis spoliis, reverti ad patriam cupiunt; sed rex\n    eorum in litus resedebat donec naves alto mare conpraehenderent, ipse\n    deinceps secuturus. Quod cum Theudorico nuntiatum fuisset, quod\n    scilicet regio ejus fuerit ab extraneis devastata, Theudobertum, filium\n    suum, in illis partibus cum valido exercitu et magno armorum apparatu\n    direxit. Qui, interfecto rege, hostibus navali proelio superatis\n    opprimit, omnemque rapinam terrae restituit._\n\n    The name of the vanquished king is spelt in a variety of ways:\n    _Chlochilaichum_, _Chrochilaicho_, _Chlodilaichum_, _Hrodolaicum_.\n\n    See _Gregorii episcopi Turonensis Historia Francorum_, p. 110, in\n    _Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Scriptores rerum merovingicarum, I)_.\n\n    (2) The _Liber Historiae Francorum_ (commonly called the _Gesta\n    Francorum_):\n\n    _In illo tempore Dani cum rege suo nomine Chochilaico cum navale hoste\n    per alto mare Gallias appetent, Theuderico paygo [i.e. pagum] Attoarios\n    vel alios devastantes atque captivantes plenas naves de captivis alto\n    mare intrantes rex eorum ad litus maris resedens. Quod cum Theuderico\n    nuntiatum fuisset, Theudobertum filium suum cum magno exercitu in illis\n    partibus dirigens. Qui consequens eos, pugnavit cum eis caede magna\n    atque prostravit, regem eorum interficit, preda tullit, et in terra sua\n    restituit._\n\n    The _Liber Historiae Francorum_ was written in 727, but although so\n    much later than Gregory, it preserves features which are wanting in the\n    earlier historian, such as the mention of the Hetware (_Attoarii_).\n    Note too that the name of the invading king is given in a form which\n    {4} approximates more closely to _Hygelac_ than that of any of the MSS\n    of Gregory: variants are _Chrochilaico_, _Chohilaico_, _Chochilago_,\n    etc.\n\n    See _Monumenta Germaniae Historica_ (_Scriptores rerum merovingicarum,\n    II_, 274).\n\n    (3) An anonymous work _On monsters and strange beasts_, appended to two\n    MSS of Phaedrus.\n\n    _Et sunt [monstra] mirae magnitudinis: ut rex Huiglaucus qui imperavit\n    Getis et a Francis occisus est. Quem equus a duodecimo anno portare non\n    potuit. Cujus ossa in Reni fluminis insula, ubi in Oceanum prorumpit,\n    reservata sunt et de longinquo venientibus pro miraculo ostenduntur._\n\n    This treatise was first printed (from a MS of the tenth century, in\n    private possession) by J. Berger de Xivrey (_Traditions\n    t['e]ratologiques_, Paris, 1836, p. 12). It was again published from a\n    second MS at Wolfenbuettel by Haupt (see his _Opuscula_ II, 223, 1876).\n    This MS is in some respects less accurate, reading _Huncglacus_ for\n    _Huiglaucus_, and _gentes_ for _Getis_. The treatise is assigned by\n    Berger de Xivrey to the sixth century, on grounds which are hardly\n    conclusive (p. xxxiv). Haupt would date it not later than the eighth\n    century (II, 220).\n\n    The importance of this reference lies in its describing Hygelac as king\n    of the Getae, and in its fixing the spot where his bones were preserved\n    as near the mouth of the Rhine[7].\n\nBut if _Beowulf_ is supported in this matter by what is almost contemporary\nevidence (for Gregory of Tours was born only some twenty years after the\nraid he narrates) we shall probably be right in arguing that the other\nstories from the history of the Geatas, their Danish friends, and their\nSwedish foes, told with what seems to be such historic sincerity in the\ndifferent digressions of our poem, are equally based on fact. True, we have\nno evidence outside _Beowulf_ for Hygelac's father, king Hrethel, nor for\nHygelac's elder brothers, Herebeald and Haethcyn; and very little for\nHaethcyn's deadly foe, the Swedish king Ongentheow[8].\n\nAnd in the last case, at any rate, such evidence might {5} fairly have been\nexpected. For there are extant a very early Norse poem, the _Ynglinga tal_,\nand a much later prose account, the _Ynglinga saga_, enumerating the kings\nof Sweden. The _Ynglinga tal_ traces back these kings of Sweden for some\nthirty reigns. Therefore, though it was not composed till some four\ncenturies after the date to which we must assign Ongentheow, it should deal\nwith events even earlier than the reign of that king: for, unless the rate\nof mortality among early Swedish kings was abnormally high, thirty reigns\nshould occupy a period of more than 400 years. Nothing is, however, told us\nin the _Ynglinga tal_ concerning the deeds of any king Angantyr--which is\nthe name we might expect to correspond to Ongentheow[9].\n\nBut on the other hand, the son and grandson of Ongentheow, as recorded in\n_Beowulf_, _do_ meet us both in the _Ynglinga tal_ and in the _Ynglinga\nsaga_.\n\nAccording to _Beowulf_, Ongentheow had two sons, Onela and Ohthere: Onela\nbecame king of Sweden and is spoken of in terms of highest praise[10]. Yet\nto judge from the account given in _Beowulf_, the Geatas had little reason\nto love him. He had followed up the defeat of Hygelac by dealing their\nnation a second deadly blow. For Onela's nephews, Eadgils and Eanmund (the\nsons of Ohthere), had rebelled against him, and had taken refuge at the\ncourt of the Geatas, where Heardred, son of Hygelac, was now reigning,\nsupported by Beowulf. Thither Onela pursued them, and slew the young king\nHeardred. Eanmund also was slain[11], then or later, but Eadgils escaped.\n\nIt is not clear from the poem what part Beowulf is supposed to have taken\nin this struggle, or why he failed to ward off disaster from his lord and\nhis country. It is not even made clear whether or no he had to make formal\nsubmission to the hated Swede: but we are told that when Onela withdrew he\nsucceeded to the vacant throne. In later days he took his revenge upon\nOnela. \"He became a friend to Eadgils in his distress; he supported the son\nof Ohthere across the broad water with men, with warriors and arms: he\nwreaked his {6} vengeance in a chill journey fraught with woe: he deprived\nthe king [Onela] of his life.\"\n\nThis story bears in its general outline every impression of true history:\nthe struggle for the throne between the nephew and the uncle, the support\ngiven to the unsuccessful candidate by a rival state, these are events\nwhich recur frequently in the wild history of the Germanic tribes during\nthe dark ages, following inevitably from the looseness of the law of\nsuccession to the throne.\n\nNow the _Ynglinga tal_ contains allusions to these events, and the\n_Ynglinga saga_ a brief account of them, though dim and distorted[12]. We\nare told how Athils (=Eadgils) king of Sweden, son of Ottar (=Ohthere),\nmade war upon Ali (=Onela). By the time the _Ynglinga tal_ was written it\nhad been forgotten that Ali was Athils' uncle, and that the war was a civil\nwar. But the issue, as reported in the _Ynglinga tal_ and _Ynglinga saga_,\nis the same as in _Beowulf_:\n\n    \"King Athils had great quarrels with the king called Ali of Uppland; he\n    was from Norway. They had a battle on the ice of Lake Wener; there King\n    Ali fell, and Athils had the victory. Concerning this battle there is\n    much said in the _Skjoldunga saga_.\"\n\nFrom the _Ynglinga saga_ we learn more concerning King Athils: not always\nto his credit. He was, as the Swedes had been from of old, a great\nhorse-breeder. Authorities differed as to whether horses or drink were the\ndeath of him[13]. According to one account he brought on his end by\ncelebrating, with immoderate drinking, the death of his enemy Rolf (the\n_Hrothulf_ of _Beowulf_). According to another:\n\n    \"King Athils was at a sacrifice of the goddesses, and rode his horse\n    through the hall of the goddesses: the horse tripped under him and fell\n    and threw the king; and his head smote a stone so that the skull broke\n    and the brains lay on the stones, and that was his death. He died at\n    Uppsala, and there was laid in mound, and the Swedes called him a\n    mighty king.\"\n\n{7}\n\nThere can, then, hardly be a doubt that there actually was such a king as\nEadgils: and some of the charred bones which still lie within the gigantic\n\"King's mounds\" at Old Uppsala may well be his[14]. And, though they are\nnot quite so well authenticated, there can also be little doubt as to the\nhistoric existence of Onela, Ohthere, and even of Ongentheow.\n\n    _The Swedish Kings._\n\n    The account in the _Ynglinga saga_ of the fight between Onela and\n    Eadgils is as follows:\n\n    _Adhils konungr ['a]tti deilur miklar vidh konung thann, er ['A]li\n    h['e]t inn upplenzki: hann var ['o]r N['o]regi. Their ['a]ttu orrostu\n    ['a] Vaenis ['i]si; thar fell ['A]li konungr en Adhils hafdhi sigr;\n    fr['a] thessarri orrostu er langt sagt ['i] Skj[o,]ldunga s[o,]gu._\n    (_Ynglinga saga_ in _Heimskringla_, ed. J['o]nsson, Kjoebenhavn, 1893,\n    I, 56.)\n\n    The _Skjoldunga saga_ here mentioned is an account of the kings of\n    Denmark. It is preserved only in a Latin abstract.\n\n    _Post haec ortis inter Adilsum illum Sveciae regem et Alonem\n    Opplandorum regem in Norvegia, inimicitiis, praelium utrinque\n    indicitur: loco pugnae statuto in stagno Waener, glacie jam obducto. Ad\n    illud igitur se viribus inferiorem agnoscens Rolphonis privigni sui\n    opem implorat, hoc proposito praemio, ut ipse Rolpho tres\n    praeciosissimas res quascunque optaret ex universo regno Sveciae\n    praemii loco auferret: duodecim autem pugilum ipsius quilibet 3 libras\n    auri puri, quilibet reliquorum bellatorum tres marcas argenti defecati.\n    Rolpho domi ipse reses pugilos suos duodecim Adilso in subsidium\n    mittit, quorum etiam opera is alioqui vincendus, victoriam obtinuit.\n    Illi sibi et regi propositum praemium exposcunt, negat Adilsus,\n    Rolphoni absenti ullum deberi praemium, quare et Dani pugiles sibi\n    oblatum respuebant, cum regem suum eo frustrari intelligerent,\n    reversique rem, ut gesta est, exponunt._ (See _Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim\n    Jonssons Udtog, udgiven af Axel Olrik_, Kjoebenhavn, 1894, p. 34\n    [116].)\n\n    There is also a reference to this battle on the ice in the\n    _K['a]lfsv['i]sa_, a mnemonic list of famous heroes and their horses.\n    It is noteworthy that in this list mention is made of Vestein, who is\n    perhaps the Wihstan of our poem, and of Biar, who has been thought\n    (very doubtfully) to correspond to the O.E. Beaw.\n\n      _Dagr reith Dr[o,]sle     en Dvalenn M['o]thne..._\n      _['A]le Hrafne     es til ['i]ss ritho,_\n      _enn annarr austr     und Athilse_\n      _gr['a]r hvarfathe     geire undathr._\n      _Bj[o,]rn reith Blakke     en Biarr Kerte,_\n      _Atle Glaume     en Athils Slungne..._\n        _Lieder der Edda_, ed. Symons and Gering, I, 221-2.\n\n    \"Ale was on Hrafn when they rode to the ice: but another horse, a grey\n    one, with Athils on his back, fell eastward, wounded by the spear.\"\n    This, as Olrik points out, appears to refer to a version of the story\n    in which Athils had his fall from his horse, not at a ceremony at\n    Uppsala, but after the battle with Ali. (_Heltedigtning_, I, 203-4.)\n\n    {8}\n\n    For various theories as to the early history of the Swedish royal\n    house, as recorded in _Beowulf_, see Weyhe, _Koenig Ongentheows Fall_,\n    in _Engl. Stud._, XXXIX, 14-39; Schueck, _Studier i Ynglingatal_\n    (1905-7); Stjerna, _Vendel och Vendelkr[oa]ka_, in _A.f.n.F._ XXI, 71,\n    _etc._\n\n    _The Geatas._\n\n    The identification of Geatas and Goetar has been accepted by the great\n    majority of scholars, although Kemble wished to locate the Geatas in\n    Schleswig, Grundtvig in Gotland, and Haigh in England. Leo was the\n    first to suggest the Jutes: but the \"Jute-hypothesis\" owes its currency\n    to the arguments of Fahlbeck (_Beovulfsqvaedet s[oa]som kaella foer\n    nordisk fornhistoria_ in the _Antiqvarisk Tidskrift foer Sverige_,\n    VIII, 2, 1). Fahlbeck's very inconclusive reasons were contested at the\n    time by Sarrazin (23 _etc._) and ten Brink (194 _etc._) and the\n    arguments against them have lately been marshalled by H. Schueck\n    (_Folknamnet Geatas i den fornengelska dikten Beowulf_, Upsala, 1907).\n    It is indeed difficult to understand how Fahlbeck's theory came to\n    receive the support it has had from several scholars (e.g. Bugge,\n    _P.B.B._ XII, 1 _etc._; Weyhe, _Engl. Stud._, XXXIX, 38 _etc._;\n    Gering). For his conclusions do not arise naturally from the O.E. data:\n    his whole argument is a piece of learned pleading, undertaken to\n    support his rather revolutionary speculations as to early Swedish\n    history. These speculations would have been rendered less probable had\n    the natural interpretation of Geatas as Goetar been accepted. The\n    Jute-hypothesis has recently been revived, with the greatest skill and\n    learning, by Gudmund Schuette (_Journal of English and Germanic\n    Philology_, XI, 574 _etc._). But here again I cannot help suspecting\n    that the wish is father to the thought, and that the fact that that\n    eminent scholar is a Dane living in Jutland, has something to do with\n    his attempt to locate the Geatas there. No amount of learning will\n    eradicate patriotism.\n\n    The following considerations need to be weighed:\n\n    (1) _Geatas_ etymologically corresponds exactly with O.N. _Gautar_, the\n    modern Goetar. The O.E. word corresponding to Jutes (the Iutae of Bede)\n    should be, not _Geatas_, but in the Anglian dialect _Eote_, _Iote_, in\n    the West Saxon _Iete_, _Yte_.\n\n    Now it is true that in one passage in the O.E. translation of Bede (I,\n    15) the word \"Iutarum\" _is_ rendered _Geata_: but in the other (IV, 16)\n    \"Iutorum\" is rendered _Eota_, _Ytena_. And this latter rendering is\n    supported (_a_) by the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_Iotum_, _Iutna_) and\n    (_b_) by the fact that the current O.E. word for Jutes was _Yte_,\n    _Ytan_, which survived till after the Norman conquest. For the name\n    _Ytena land_ was used for that portion of Hampshire which had been\n    settled by the Jutes: William Rufus was slain, according to Florence of\n    Worcester, in _Ytene_ (which Florence explains as _prouincia Jutarum_).\n\n    From the purely etymological point of view the Goetar-hypothesis, then,\n    is unimpeachable: but the Jute-hypothesis is unsatisfactory, since it\n    is based upon one passage in the O.E. Bede, where _Jutarum_ is\n    incorrectly rendered _Geata_, whilst it is invalidated by the other\n    passage in the O.E. Bede, by the _Chronicle_ and by Florence of\n    Worcester, where _Jutorum_ is correctly translated by _Ytena_, or its\n    Anglian or Kentish equivalent _Eota_, _Iotna_.\n\n    (2) It is obvious that the Geatas of _Beowulf_ were a strong and\n    independent power--a match for the Swedes. Now we learn from Procopius\n    that in the sixth century the Goetar were an independent {9} and\n    numerous nation. But we have no equal evidence for any similar\n    preponderant Jutish power in the sixth century. The _Iutae_ are indeed\n    a rather puzzling tribe, and scholars have not even been able to agree\n    where they dwelt.\n\n    The Goetar on the other hand are located among the great nations of\n    Scandinavia both by Ptolemy (_Geog._ II, 11, 16) in the second century\n    and by Procopius (_Bell. Gott._ II, 15) in the sixth. When we next get\n    clear information (through the Christian missionaries) both Goetar and\n    Swedes have been united under one king. But the Goetar retained their\n    separate laws, traditions, and voice in the selection of the king, and\n    they were constantly asserting themselves during the Middle Ages. The\n    title of the king of Sweden, _rex Sveorum Gothorumque_, commemorates\n    the old distinction.\n\n    From the historical point of view, then, the Goetar comply with what we\n    are told in _Beowulf_ of the power of the Geatas much better than do\n    the Jutes.\n\n    (3) Advocates of the Jute-hypothesis have claimed much support from the\n    geographical argument that the Swedes and Geatas fight _ofer s[=ae]_\n    (e.g. when Beowulf and Eadgils attack Onela, 2394). But the term\n    _s[=ae]_ is just as appropriate to the great lakes Wener and Wetter,\n    which separated the Swedes from the Goetar, as it is to the Cattegatt.\n    And we have the evidence of Scandinavian sources that the battle\n    between Eadgils and Onela actually _did_ take place on the ice of lake\n    Wener (see above, p. 6). Moreover the absence of any mention of ships\n    in the fighting narrated in ll. 2922-2945 would be remarkable if the\n    contending nations were Jutes and Swedes, but suits Goetar and Swedes\n    admirably: since they could attack each other by land as well as by\n    water.\n\n    (4) There is reason to think that the old land of the Goetar included a\n    great deal of what is now the south-west coast of Sweden[15]. Hygelac's\n    capital was probably not far from the modern Goeteborg. The\n    descriptions in _Beowulf_ would suit the cliffs of southern Sweden\n    well, but they are quite inapplicable to the sandy dunes of Jutland.\n\n    Little weight can, however, be attached to this last argument, as the\n    cliffs of the land of the Geatas are in any case probably drawn from\n    the poet's imagination.\n\n    (5) If we accept the identification Beowulf = Bjarki (see below, pp.\n    60-1) a further argument for the equation of Geatas and Goetar will be\n    found in the fact that Bjarki travels to Denmark from Gautland just as\n    Beowulf from the land of the Geatas; Bjarki is the brother of the king\n    of the Gautar, Beowulf the nephew of the king of the Geatas.\n\n    (6) No argument as to the meaning of _Geatas_ can be drawn from the\n    fact that Gregory calls Chlochilaicus (Hygelac) a Dane. For it is clear\n    from _Beowulf_ that, whatever else they may have been, the Geatas were\n    not Danes. Either, then, Gregory must be misinformed, or he must be\n    using the word _Dane_ vaguely, to cover any kind of Scandinavian\n    pirate.\n\n    (7) Probably what has weighed most heavily (often perhaps not\n    consciously) in gaining converts to the \"Jute-hypothesis\" has been the\n    conviction that \"in ancient times each nation celebrated in song its\n    own heroes alone.\" Hence one set of scholars, accepting the\n    identification of the Geatas with the Scandinavian Goetar, have argued\n    that _Beowulf_ is therefore simply a translation from a Scandinavian\n    Goetish original. Others, accepting _Beowulf_ as an English poem, have\n    {10} argued that the Geatas who are celebrated in it must therefore be\n    one of the tribes that settled in England, and have therefore favoured\n    the \"Jute theory.\" But the _a priori_ assumption that each Germanic\n    tribe celebrated in song its own national heroes only is demonstrably\n    incorrect[16].\n\nBut in none of the accounts of the warfare of these Scandinavian kings,\nwhether written in Norse or monkish Latin, is there mention of any name\ncorresponding to that of Beowulf, as king of the Geatas. Whether he is as\nhistoric as the other kings with whom in our poem he is brought into\ncontact, we cannot say.\n\nIt has been generally held that the Beowulf of our poem is compounded out\nof two elements: that an historic Beowulf, king of the Geatas, has been\ncombined with a mythological figure Beowa[17], a god of the ancient Angles:\nthat the historical achievements against Frisians and Swedes belong to the\nking, the mythological adventures with giants and dragons to the god. But\nthere is no conclusive evidence for either of these presumed component\nparts of our hero. To the god Beowa we shall have to return later: here it\nis enough to note that the current assumption that there _was_ a king\nBeowulf of the Geatas lacks confirmation from Scandinavian sources.\n\nAnd one piece of evidence there is, which tends to show that Beowulf is not\nan historic king at all, but that his adventures have been violently\ninserted amid the historic names of the kings of the Geatas. Members of the\nfamilies in _Beowulf_ which we have reason to think historic bear names\nwhich alliterate the one with the other. The inference seems to be that it\nwas customary, when a Scandinavian prince was named in the Sixth Century,\nto give him a name which had an initial letter similar to that of his\nfather: care was thus taken that metrical difficulties should not prevent\nthe names of father and son being linked together in song[18]. In the case\nof Beowulf himself, however, this rule breaks down. Beowulf seems an\nintruder {11} into the house of Hrethel. It may be answered that since he\nwas only the offspring of a daughter of that house, and since that daughter\nhad three brothers, there would have been no prospect of his becoming king,\nwhen he was named. But neither does his name fit in with that of the other\ngreat house with which he is supposed to be connected. Wiglaf, son of\nWihstan of the Waegmundingas, was named according to the familiar rules:\nbut Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, seems an intruder in that family as well.\n\nThis failure to fall in with the alliterative scheme, and the absence of\nconfirmation from external evidence, are, of course, not in themselves\nenough to prove that the reign of Beowulf over the Geatas is a poetic\nfigment. And indeed our poem _may_ quite possibly be true to historic fact\nin representing him as the last of the great kings of the Geatas; after\nwhose death his people have nothing but national disaster to expect[19]. It\nwould be strange that this last and most mighty and magnanimous of the\nkings of the Geatas should have been forgotten in Scandinavian lands: that\noutside _Beowulf_ nothing should be known of his reign. But when we\nconsider how little, outside _Beowulf_, we know of the Geatic kingdom at\nall, we cannot pronounce such oblivion impossible.\n\nWhat tells much more against Beowulf as a historic Geatic king is that\nthere is always apt to be something extravagant and unreal about what the\npoem tells us of his deeds, contrasting with the sober and historic way in\nwhich other kings, like Hrothgar or Hygelac or Eadgils, are referred to.\nTrue, we must not disqualify Beowulf forthwith because he slew a\ndragon[20]. Several unimpeachably historical persons have done this: so\nsober an authority as the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ assures us that fiery\ndragons were flying in Northumbria as late as A.D. 793[21].\n\n{12}\n\nBut (and this is the serious difficulty) even when Beowulf is depicted in\nquite historic circumstances, there is still something unsubstantial about\nhis actions. When, in the midst of the strictly historical account of\nHygelac's overthrow, we are told that Beowulf swam home bearing thirty\nsuits of armour, this is as fantastic as the account of his swimming home\nfrom Grendel's lair with Grendel's head and the magic swordhilt. We may\nwell doubt whether there is any more kernel of historic fact in the one\nfeat than in the other[22]. Again, we are told how Beowulf defended the\nyoung prince Heardred, Hygelac's son. Where was he, then, when Heardred was\ndefeated and slain? To protect and if necessary avenge his lord upon the\nbattlefield was the essential duty of the Germanic retainer. Yet Beowulf\nhas no part to play in the episode of the death of Heardred. He is simply\nignored till it is over. True, we are told that in later days he _did_ take\nvengeance, by supporting the claims of Eadgils, the pretender, against\nOnela, the slayer of Heardred. But here again difficulties meet us: for the\nScandinavian authorities, whilst they agree that Eadgils overthrew Onela by\nthe use of foreign auxiliaries, represent these auxiliaries as Danish\nretainers, dispatched by the Danish king Hrothulf. The chief of these\nDanish retainers is Bothvar Bjarki, who, as we shall see later, has been\nthought to stand in some relation to Beowulf. But Bothvar is never regarded\nas king of the Geatas: and the fact remains that _Beowulf_ is at variance\nwith our other authorities in representing Eadgils as having been placed on\nthe throne by a Geatic rather than by a Danish force. Yet this Geatic\nexpedition against Onela is, with the exception of the dragon episode, the\nonly event which our poem has to narrate concerning Beowulf's long reign of\nfifty years. And in other respects the reign is shadowy. Beowulf, we are\ntold, came to the throne at a time of utter national distress; he had a\nlong and prosperous reign, and became so powerful that he was able to\ndethrone the mighty[23] Swedish king Onela, and place in his stead the\nmiserable fugitive[24] Eadgils. Yet, after this half century of success,\nthe {13} kingdom is depicted upon Beowulf's death as being in the same\ntottering condition in which it stood at the time when he is represented as\nhaving come to the throne, after the fall of Heardred.\n\nThe destruction one after the other of the descendants of Hrethel sounds\nhistoric: at any rate it possesses verisimilitude. But the picture of the\nchildless Beowulf, dying, after a glorious reign, in extreme old age,\nhaving apparently made no previous arrangements for the succession, so that\nWiglaf, a youth hitherto quite untried in war, steps at once into the place\nof command on account of his valour in slaying the dragon--this is a\npicture which lacks all historic probability.\n\nI cannot avoid a suspicion that the fifty years' reign of Beowulf over the\nGeatas may quite conceivably be a poetic fiction[25]; that the downfall of\nthe Geatic kingdom and its absorption in Sweden were very possibly brought\nabout by the destruction of Hygelac and all his warriors at the mouth of\nthe Rhine.\n\nSuch an event would have given the Swedes their opportunity for vengeance:\nthey may have swooped down, destroyed Heardred, and utterly crushed the\nindependent kingdom of the Geatas before the younger generation had time to\ngrow up into fighting men.\n\nTo the fabulous achievements of Beowulf, his fight with Grendel, Grendel's\ndam, and the dragon, it will be necessary to return later. As to his other\nfeats, all we can say is that the common assumption that they rest upon an\nhistoric foundation does not seem to be capable of proof. But that they\nhave an historic background is indisputable.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION III. HEOROT AND THE DANISH KINGS.\n\nOf the Danish kings mentioned in _Beowulf_, we have first Scyld Scefing,\nthe foundling, an ancient and probably a mythical figure, then Beowulf, son\nof Scyld, who seems an intruder among the Danish kings, since the Danish\nrecords know nothing {14} of him, and since his name does not alliterate\nwith those of either his reputed father or his reputed son. Then comes the\n\"high\" Healfdene, to whom four children were born: Heorogar, Hrothgar,\nHalga \"the good,\" and a daughter who was wedded to the Swedish king. Since\nHrothgar is represented as an elder contemporary of Hygelac, we must\ndate[26] Healfdene and his sons, should they be historic characters,\nbetween A.D. 430 and 520.\n\nNow it is noteworthy that just after A.D. 500 the Danes first become widely\nknown, and the name \"Danes\" first meets us in Latin and Greek authors. And\nthis cannot be explained on the ground that the North has become more\nfamiliar to dwellers in the classical lands: on the contrary far less is\nknown concerning the geography of the North Sea and the Baltic than had\nbeen the case four or five centuries before. Tacitus and Ptolemy knew of\nmany tribes inhabiting what is now Denmark, but not of the Danes: the\nwriters in Ravenna and Constantinople in the sixth century, though much\nless well informed on the geography of the North, know of the Danes as\namongst the most powerful nations there. _Beowulf_ is, then, supported by\nthe Latin and Greek records when it depicts these rulers of Denmark as a\nhouse of mighty kings, the fame of whose realm spread far and wide. We\ncannot tell to what extent this realm was made by the driving forth of\nalien nations from Denmark, to what extent by the coming together (under\nthe common name of Danes) of many tribes which had hitherto been known by\nother distinct names.\n\nThe pedigree of the house of Healfdene can be constructed from the\nreferences in _Beowulf_. Healfdene's three sons, Heorogar, Hrothgar, Halga,\nare presumably enumerated in order of age, since Hrothgar mentions\nHeorogar, but not Halga, as his senior[27]. Heorogar left a son\nHeoroweard[28], but it is in accordance with Teutonic custom that Hrothgar\nshould have succeeded to the throne if, as we may well suppose, Heoroweard\nwas too young to be trusted with the kingship.\n\n{15}\n\nThe younger brother Halga is never mentioned during Beowulf's visit to\nHeorot, and the presumption is that he is already dead.\n\nThe Hrothulf who, both in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_, is linked with King\nHrothgar, almost as his equal, is clearly the son of Halga: for he is\nHrothgar's nephew[29], and yet he is not the son of Heorogar[30]. The\nmention of how Hrothgar shielded this Hrothulf when he was a child confirms\nus in the belief that his father Halga had died early. Yet, though he thus\nbelongs to the youngest branch of the family, Hrothulf is clearly older\nthan Hrethric and Hrothmund, the two sons of Hrothgar, whose youth, in\nspite of the age of their father, is striking. The seat of honour occupied\nby Hrothulf[31] is contrasted with the undistinguished place of his two\nyoung cousins, sitting among the _giogoth_[32]. Nevertheless Hrothgar and\nhis wife expect their son, not their nephew, to succeed to the throne[33].\nVery small acquaintance with the history of royal houses in these lawless\nTeutonic times is enough to show us that trouble is likely to be in store.\n\n\n\nSo much can be made out from the English sources, _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_.\nTurning now to the Scandinavian records, we find much confusion as to\ndetails, and as to the characters of the heroes: but the relationships are\nthe same as in the Old English poem.\n\nHeorogar is, it is true, forgotten; and though a name Hiarwarus is found in\nSaxo corresponding to that of Heoroweard, the son of Heorogar, in\n_Beowulf_, this Hiarwarus is cut off from the family, now that his father\nis no longer remembered. Accordingly the Halfdan of Danish tradition\n(Haldanus in Saxo's Latin: = O.E. Healfdene) has only two sons, Hroar {16}\n(Saxo's Roe, corresponding to O.E. Hrothgar) and Helgi (Saxo's Helgo: =\nO.E. Halga). Helgi is the father of Rolf Kraki (Saxo's Roluo: = O.E.\nHrothulf), the type of the noble king, the Arthur of Denmark.\n\nAnd, just as Arthur holds court at Camelot, or Charlemagne is at home _ad\nAis, [`a] sa capele_, so the Scandinavian traditions represent Rolf Kraki\nas keeping house at Leire (_Lethra_, _Hleidhar gardhr_).\n\n    Accounts of all these kings, and above all of Rolf Kraki, meet us in a\n    number of Scandinavian documents, of which three are particularly\n    important:\n\n    (1) Saxo Grammaticus (the lettered), the earlier books of whose\n    _Historia Danica_ are a storehouse of Scandinavian tradition and\n    poetry, clothed in a difficult and bombastic, but always amusing,\n    Latin. How much later than the English these Scandinavian sources are,\n    we can realize by remembering that when Saxo was putting the finishing\n    touches to his history, King John was ruling in England.\n\n    There are also a number of other Danish-Latin histories and\n    genealogies.\n\n    (2) The Icelandic _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, a late document belonging to\n    the end of the middle ages, but nevertheless containing valuable\n    matter.\n\n    (3) The Icelandic _Skjoldunga saga_, extant only in a Latin summary of\n    the end of the sixteenth century.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION IV. LEIRE AND HEOROT.\n\nThe village of Leire remains to the present day. It stands near the north\ncoast of the island of Seeland, some five miles from Roskilde and three\nmiles from the sea, in a gentle valley, through the midst of which flows a\nsmall stream. The village itself consists of a tiny cluster of cottages:\nthe outstanding feature of the place is formed by the huge grave mounds\nscattered around in all directions.\n\nThe tourist, walking amid these cottages and mounds, may feel fairly\nconfident that he is standing on the site of Heorot.\n\nThere are two distinct stages in this identification: it must be proved\n(_a_) that the modern Leire occupies the site of the Leire (_Lethra_) where\nRolf Kraki ruled, and (_b_) that the Leire of Rolf Kraki was built on the\nsite of Heorot.\n\n[Illustration: Leire in the Seventeenth Century\n\nFrom Saxo Grammaticus, ed. Stephanius, 1644.]\n\n{17} (_a_) That the modern Leire occupies the site of the ancient Leire has\nindeed been disputed[34], but seems hardly open to doubt, in view of the\nexpress words of the Danish chroniclers[35]. It is true that the mounds,\nwhich these early chroniclers probably imagined as covering the ashes of\n'Haldanus' or 'Roe,' and which later antiquaries dubbed with the names of\nother kings, are now thought to belong, not to the time of Hrothgar, but to\nthe Stone or Bronze Ages. But this evidence that Leire was a place of\nimportance thousands of years before Hrothgar or Hrothulf were born, in no\nwise invalidates the overwhelming evidence that it was their residence\nalso.\n\nThe equation of the modern Leire with the Leire of Rolf Kraki we may then\naccept. We cannot be quite so sure of our thesis (_b_): that the ancient\nLeire was identical with the site where Hrothgar built Heorot. But it is\nhighly probable: for although Leire is more particularly connected with the\nmemory of Rolf Kraki himself, we are assured, in one of the mediaeval\nDanish chronicles, that Leire was the royal seat of Rolf's predecessors as\nwell: of Ro (Hrothgar) and of Ro's father: and that Ro \"enriched it with\ngreat magnificence[36].\" Ro also, according to this chronicler, heaped a\nmound at Leire over the grave of his father, and was himself buried at\nLeire under another mound.\n\nNow since the Danish tradition represents Hrothgar as enriching his royal\ntown of Leire, whilst English tradition commemorates him as a builder king,\nconstructing a royal hall \"greater than the sons of men had ever heard\nspeak of\"--it becomes very probable that the two traditions are reflections\nof the same fact, and that the site of that hall was Leire. That Heorot,\nthe picturesque name of the hall itself, should, in English tradition, have\nbeen remembered, whilst that of the town where it was built had been\nforgotten, is natural[37]. For {18} though the names of heroes survived in\nsuch numbers, after the settlement of the Angles in England, it was very\nrarely indeed, so far as we can judge, that the Angles and Saxons continued\nto have any clear idea concerning the _places_ which had been familiar to\ntheir forefathers, but which they themselves had never seen.\n\nFurther, the names of both Hrothgar and Hrothulf are linked with Heorot in\nEnglish tradition in the same way as those of Roe and Rolf are with Leire\nin Danish chronicles.\n\nYet there is some little doubt, though not such as need seriously trouble\nus, as to this identification of the site of Heorot with Leire. Two causes\nespecially have led students to doubt the connection of Roe (Hrothgar) with\nLeire, and to place elsewhere the great hall Heorot which he built.\n\nIn the first place, Rolf Kraki came to be so intimately associated with\nLeire that his connection overshadowed that of Roe, and Saxo even goes so\nfar in one place as to represent Leire as having been _founded_ by\nRolf[38]. In that case Leire clearly could not be the place where Rolf's\npredecessor built his royal hall. But that Saxo is in error here seems\nclear, for elsewhere he himself speaks of Leire as being a Danish\nstronghold when Rolf was a child[39].\n\nIn the second place, Roe is credited with having founded the neighbouring\ntown of Roskilde (Roe's spring)[40] so that some have wished to locate\nHeorot there, rather than at Leire, five miles to the west. But against\nthis identification of Heorot with Roskilde it must be noted that Roe is\nsaid to have built Roskilde, not as a capital for himself, but as a\nmarket-place for the merchants: there is no suggestion that it was his\nroyal town, though in time it became the capital, and its cathedral is\nstill the Westminster Abbey of Denmark.\n\nWhat at first sight looks so much in favour of our equating {19} Roskilde\nwith Heorot--the presence in its name of the element _Ro_ (Hrothgar)--is in\nreality the most suspicious thing about the identification. There are other\nnames in Denmark with the element _Ro_, in places where it is quite\nimpossible to suppose that the king's name is commemorated. Some other\nexplanation of the name has therefore to be sought, and it is very probable\nthat Roskilde meant originally not \"Hrothgar's spring,\" but \"the horses'\nspring,\" and that the connection with King Ro is simply one of those\ninevitable pieces of popular etymology which take place so soon as the true\norigin of a name is forgotten[41].\n\nLeire has, then, a much better claim than Roskilde to being the site of\nHeorot: and geographical considerations confirm this. For Heorot is clearly\nimagined by the poet of _Beowulf_ as being some distance inland; and this,\nwhilst it suits admirably the position of Leire, is quite inapplicable to\nRoskilde, which is situated on the sea at the head of the Roskilde\nfjord[42]. Of course we must not expect to find the poet of _Beowulf_, or\nindeed any epic poet, minutely exact in his geography. At the same time it\nis clear that at the time _Beowulf_ was written there were traditions\nextant, dealing with the attack made upon Heorot by the ancestral foes of\nthe Danes, a tribe called the Heathobeardan. These accounts of the fighting\naround Heorot must have preserved the general impression of its situation,\nprecisely as from the _Iliad_ we know that Troy is neither on the sea nor\nyet very remote from it. A poet would draw on his imagination for details,\nbut would hardly alter a feature like this.\n\nIn these matters absolute certainty cannot be reached: but we may be fairly\nsure that the spot where Hrothgar built his \"Hart-Hall\" and where Hrothulf\nheld that court to which the North ever after looked for its pattern of\nchivalry was {20} Leire, where the grave mounds rise out of the waving\ncornfields[43].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION V. THE HEATHOBEARDAN.\n\nNow, as _Beowulf_ is the one long Old English poem which happens to have\nbeen preserved, we, drawing our ideas of Old English story almost\nexclusively from it, naturally think of Heorot as the scene of the fight\nwith Grendel.\n\nBut in the short poem of _Widsith_, almost certainly older than _Beowulf_,\nwe have a catalogue of the characters of the Old English heroic poetry.\nThis catalogue is dry in itself, but is of the greatest interest for the\nlight it throws upon Old Germanic heroic legends and the history behind\nthem. And from _Widsith_ it is clear that the rule of Hrothgar and Hrothulf\nat Heorot and the attack of the Heathobeardan upon them, rather than any\nstory of monster-quelling, was what the old poets more particularly\nassociated with the name of Heorot. The passage in _Widsith_ runs:\n\n    \"For a very long time did Hrothgar and Hrothwulf, uncle and nephew,\n    hold the peace together, after they had driven away the race of the\n    Vikings and humbled the array of Ingeld, had hewed down at Heorot the\n    host of the Heathobeardan.\"\n\nThe details of this war can be reconstructed, partly from the allusions in\n_Beowulf_, partly from the Scandinavian accounts. The Scandinavian versions\nare less primitive and historic. They have forgotten all about the\nHeathobeardan as an independent tribe, and, whilst remembering the names of\nthe leading chieftains on both sides, they see in them members of two rival\nbranches of the Danish royal house.\n\nWe gather from _Beowulf_ that for generations a blood feud has raged\nbetween the Danes and the Heathobeardan. Nothing is told us in _Beowulf_\nabout the king Healfdene, except that he {21} was fierce in war and that he\nlived to be old. From the Scandinavian stories it seems clear that he was\nconcerned in the Heathobard feud. According to some later Scandinavian\naccounts he was slain by Frothi (=Froda, whom we know from _Beowulf_ to\nhave been king of the Heathobeardan) and this may well have been the\nhistoric fact[44]. How Hroar and Helgi (Hrothgar and Halga), the sons of\nHalfdan (Healfdene), evaded the pursuit of Frothi, we learn from the\nScandinavian tales; whether the Old English story knew anything of their\nhair-breadth escapes we cannot tell. Ultimately, the saga tells us, Hroar\nand Helgi, in revenge for their father's death, burnt the hall over the\nhead of his slayer, Frothi[45]. To judge from the hints in _Beowulf_, it\nwould rather seem that the Old English tradition represented this vengeance\nupon Froda as having been inflicted in a pitched battle. The eldest brother\nHeorogar--known only to the English story--perhaps took his share in this\nfeat. But, after his brothers Heorogar and Halga were dead, Hrothgar, left\nalone, and fearing vengeance in his turn, strove to compose the feud by\nwedding his daughter Freawaru to Ingeld, the son of Froda. So much we learn\nfrom the report which Beowulf gives, on his return home, to Hygelac, as to\nthe state of things at the Danish court.\n\nBeowulf is depicted as carrying a very sage head upon his young shoulders,\nand he gives evidence of his astuteness by predicting[46] that the peace\nwhich Hrothgar has purchased will not be lasting. Some Heathobard survivor\nof the fight in which Froda fell, will, he thinks, see a young Dane in the\nretinue of Freawaru proudly pacing the hall, wearing the treasures which\nhis father had won from the Heathobeardan. Then the old warrior will urge\non his younger comrade \"Canst thou, my lord, tell the sword, the dear iron,\nwhich thy father carried to the fight when he bore helm for the last time,\nwhen the Danes slew him and had the victory? And now the son {22} of one of\nthese slayers paces the hall, proud of his arms, boasts of the slaughter\nand wears the precious sword which thou by right shouldst wield[47].\"\n\nSuch a reminder as this no Germanic warrior could long resist. So, Beowulf\nthinks, the young Dane will be slain; Ingeld will cease to take joy in his\nbride; and the old feud will break out afresh.\n\nThat it did so we know from _Widsith_, and from the same source we know\nthat this Heathobard attack was repulsed by the combined strength of\nHrothgar and his nephew Hrothulf.\n\nBut the tragic figure of Ingeld, hesitating between love for his father and\nlove for his wife, between the duty of vengeance and his plighted word, was\none which was sure to attract the interest of the old heroic poets more\neven than those of the victorious uncle and nephew. In the eighth century\nAlcuin, the Northumbrian, quotes Ingeld as the typical hero of song.\nWriting to a bishop of Lindisfarne, he reproves the monks for their\nfondness for the old stories about heathen kings, who are now lamenting\ntheir sins in Hell: \"in the Refectory,\" he says, \"the Bible should be read:\nthe lector heard, not the harper: patristic sermons rather than pagan\nsongs. For what has Ingeld to do with Christ[48]?\" This protest testifies\neloquently to the popularity of the Ingeld story, and further evidence is\npossibly afforded by the fact that few heroes of story seem to have had so\nmany namesakes in Eighth Century England.\n\nWhat is emphasized in _Beowulf_ is not so much the struggle in the mind of\nIngeld as the stern, unforgiving temper of the grim old warrior who will\nnot let the feud die down; and this is the case also with the Danish\nversions, preserved to us in the Latin of Saxo Grammaticus. In two songs\n(translated by Saxo into \"delightful sapphics\") the old warrior\nStarcatherus stirs up Ingellus to his revenge:\n\n    \"Why, Ingeld, buried in vice, dost thou delay to avenge thy father?\n    Wilt thou endure patiently the slaughter of thy righteous sire?...\n\n    {23}\n\n    Whilst thou takest pleasure in honouring thy bride, laden with gems,\n    and bright with golden vestments, grief torments us, coupled with\n    shame, as we bewail thine infamies.\n\n    Whilst headlong lust urges thee, our troubled mind recalls the fashion\n    of an earlier day, and admonishes us to grieve over many things.\n\n    For we reckon otherwise than thou the crime of the foes, whom now thou\n    holdest in honour; wherefore the face of this age is a burden to me,\n    who have known the old ways.\n\n    By nought more would I desire to be blessed, if, Froda, I might see\n    those guilty of thy murder paying the due penalty of such a crime[49].\"\n\nStarkath came to be one of the best-known figures in Scandinavian legend,\nthe type of the fierce, unrelenting warrior. Even in death his severed head\nbit the earth: or according to another version \"the trunk fought on when\nthe head was gone[50].\" Nor did the Northern imagination leave him there.\nIt loved to follow him below, and to indulge in conjectures as to his\nbearing in the pit of Hell[51].\n\n    Who the Heathobeardan were is uncertain. It is frequently argued that\n    they are identical with the Longobardi; that the words _Heatho-Bard_\n    and _Long-Bard_ correspond, just as we get sometimes _Gar-Dene_,\n    sometimes _Hring-Dene_. (So Heyne; Bremer in _Pauls Grdr._ (2) III, 949\n    _etc._) The evidence for this is however unsatisfactory (see Chambers,\n    _Widsith_, 205). Since the year 186 A.D. onwards the Longobardi were\n    dwelling far inland, and were certainly never in a position from which\n    an attack upon the Danes would have been practicable. If, therefore, we\n    accept the identification of Heatho-Bard and Long-Bard, we must suppose\n    the Heathobeardan of _Beowulf_ to have been not the Longobardi of\n    history, but a separate portion of the people, which had been left\n    behind on the shores of the Baltic, when the main body went south. But\n    as we have no evidence for any such offshoot from the main tribe, it is\n    misleading to speak of the Heathobeardan as identical with the\n    Longobardi: and although the similarity of one element in the name\n    suggests some primitive relationship, that relationship may well have\n    been exceedingly remote[52].\n\n    {24}\n\n    It has further been proposed to identify the Heathobeardan with the\n    Heruli[53]. The Heruli came from the Scandinavian district, overran\n    Europe, and became famous for their valour, savagery, and value as\n    light-armed troops. If the Heathobeardan are identical with the Heruli,\n    and if what we are told of the customs of the Heruli is true, Freawaru\n    was certainly to be pitied. The Heruli were accustomed to put to death\n    their sick and aged: and to compel widows to commit suicide.\n\n    The supposed identity of the Heruli with the Heathobeardan is however\n    very doubtful. It rests solely upon the statement of Jordanes that they\n    had been driven from their homes by the Danes (_Dani ... Herulos\n    propriis sedibus expulerunt_). This is inconclusive, since the growth\n    of the Danish power is likely enough to have led to collisions with\n    more than one tribe. In fact _Beowulf_ tells us that Scyld \"tore away\n    the mead benches from _many_ a people.\" On the other hand the\n    dissimilarity of names is not conclusive evidence against the\n    identification, for the word _Heruli_ is pretty certainly the same as\n    the Old English _Eorlas_, and is a complimentary nick-name applied by\n    the tribe to themselves, rather than their original racial designation.\n\n    Nothing, then, is really known of the Heathobeardan, except that\n    evidence points to their having dwelt somewhere on the Baltic[54].\n\n    The Scandinavian sources which have preserved the memory of this feud\n    have transformed it in an extraordinary way. The Heathobeardan came to\n    be quite forgotten, although maybe some trace of their name remains in\n    _Hothbrodd_, who is represented as the foe of Roe (Hrothgar) and Rolf\n    (Hrothulf). When the Heathobeardan were forgotten, Froda and Ingeld\n    were left without any subjects, and naturally came to be regarded, like\n    Healfdene and the other kings with whom they were associated in story,\n    as Danish kings. Accordingly the tale developed in Scandinavian lands\n    in two ways. Some documents, and especially the Icelandic ones[55],\n    represent the struggle as a feud between two branches of the Danish\n    royal house. Even here there is no agreement who is the usurper and who\n    the victim, so that sometimes it is Froda and sometimes Healfdene who\n    is represented as the traitor and murderer.\n\n    But another version[56]--the Danish--whilst making Froda and Ingeld\n    into Danish kings, separates their story altogether from that of\n    Healfdene and his house: in this version the quarrel is still thought\n    of as being between two nations, not as between the rightful heir to\n    the throne and a treacherous and relentless usurper. Accordingly the\n    feud is such as may be, at any rate temporarily, laid aside: peace\n    between the contending parties is not out of the question. This version\n    therefore preserves much more of the original character of the story,\n    for it remains the tale of a young prince who, willing to marry into\n    the house of his ancestral foes and to forgive and forget the old feud,\n    is stirred by his more unrelenting henchman into taking vengeance for\n    his father. But, owing to the prince having come to be represented as a\n    Dane, patriotic reasons have suggested to the {25} Danish poets and\n    historians a quite different conclusion to the story. Instead of being\n    routed, Ingeld, in Saxo, is successful in his revenge.\n\n    See Neckel, _Studien ueber Frodhi_ in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 182: Heusler,\n    _Zur Skioeldungendichtung_ in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 57: Olrik,\n    _Skjoldungasaga_, 1894, 112 [30]; Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, II, 11\n    _etc._: Olrik, _Sakses Oldhistorie_, 222-6: Chambers, _Widsith_, pp.\n    79-81.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION VI. HROTHULF.\n\nYet, although the Icelandic sources are wrong in representing Froda and\nIngeld as Danes, they are not altogether wrong in representing the Danish\nroyal house as divided against itself. Only they fail to place the blame\nwhere it really lay. For none of the Scandinavian sources attribute any act\nof injustice or usurpation to Rolf Kraki. He is the ideal king, and his\ntitle to the throne is not supposed to be doubtful.\n\nYet we saw that, in _Beowulf_, the position of Hrothulf is represented as\nan ambiguous one[57], he is the king's too powerful nephew, whose claims\nmay prejudice those of his less distinguished young cousins, the king's\nsons, and the speech of queen Wealhtheow is heavy with foreboding. \"I\nknow,\" she says, \"that my gracious Hrothulf will support the young princes\nin honour, if thou, King of the Scyldings, shouldst leave the world sooner\nthan he. I ween that he will requite our children, if he remembers all\nwhich we two have done for his pleasure and honour, being yet a child[58].\"\nWhilst Hrethric and Hrothmund, the sons of King Hrothgar, have to sit with\nthe juniors, the _giogoth_[59], Hrothulf is a man of tried valour, who sits\nside by side with the king: \"where the two good ones sat, uncle and nephew:\n_as yet_ was there peace between them, and each was true to the other[60].\"\n\nAgain we have mention of \"Hrothgar and Hrothulf. Heorot was filled full of\nfriends: _at that time_ the mighty Scylding folk in no wise worked\ntreachery[61].\" Similarly in _Widsith_ the mention of Hrothgar and Hrothulf\ntogether seems to stir the poet to dark sayings. \"_For a very long time_\ndid Hrothgar and Hrothulf, uncle and nephew, hold the peace together[62].\"\n\n{26}\n\nThe statement that \"as yet\" or \"for a very long time\" or \"at that time\"\nthere was peace within the family, necessarily implies that, at last, the\npeace _was_ broken, that Hrothulf quarrelled with Hrothgar, or strove to\nset aside his sons[63].\n\nFurther evidence is hardly needed; yet further evidence we have: by rather\ncomplicated, but quite unforced, fitting together of various Scandinavian\nauthorities, we find that Hrothulf deposed and slew his cousin Hrethric.\n\nSaxo Grammaticus tells us how Roluo (Rolf = O.N. Hrolfr, O.E. Hrothulf)\nslew a certain Roericus (or Hraerek = O.E. Hrethric) and gave to his own\nfollowers all the plunder which he found in the city of Roericus. Saxo is\nhere translating an older authority, the _Bjarkam['a]l_ (now lost), and he\ndid not know who Roericus was: he certainly did not regard him as a son or\nsuccessor of Roe (Hrothgar) or as a cousin of Roluo (Hrothulf). \"Roluo, who\nlaid low Roericus _the son of the covetous Boekus_\" is Saxo's phrase (_qui\nnatum Boeki Roericum stravit avari_). This would be a translation of some\nsuch phrase in the _Bjarkam['a]l_ as _Hraereks bani hnoeggvanbauga_, \"the\nslayer of Hraerek Hnoggvanbaugi[64].\"\n\nBut, when we turn to the genealogy of the Danish kings[65], we actually\nfind a _Hraerekr Hnauggvanbaugi_ given as a king of Denmark about the time\nof Roluo. This _Roericus_ or _Hraerekr_ who was slain by Roluo was then,\nhimself, a king of the Danes, and must, therefore, have preceded Roluo on\nthe throne. But in that case Roericus _must_ be son of Roe, and identical\nwith his namesake Hrethric, the son of Hrothgar, in _Beowulf_. For no one\nbut a son of King Roe could have had such a claim to the throne as to rule\nbetween that king and his all powerful nephew Roluo[65].\n\nIt is difficult, perhaps, to state this argument in a way which will be\nconvincing to those who are not acquainted with Saxo's method of working.\nTo those who realize how he treats {27} his sources, it will be clear that\nRoericus is the son of Roe, and is slain by Roluo. Translating the words\ninto their Old English equivalents, Hrethric, son of Hrothgar, is slain by\nHrothulf.\n\nThe forebodings of Wealhtheow were justified.\n\nHrethric is then almost certainly an actual historic prince who was thrust\nfrom the throne by Hrothulf. Of Hrothmund[66], his brother, Scandinavian\nauthorities seem to know nothing. He is very likely a poetical fiction, a\nduplicate of Hrethric. For it is very natural that in story the princes\nwhose lives are threatened by powerful usurpers should go in pairs.\nHrethric and Hrothmund go together like Malcolm and Donalbain. Their\nhelplessness is thus emphasized over against the one mighty figure, Rolf or\nMacbeth, threatening them[67].\n\nYet this does not prove Hrothmund unhistoric. On the contrary it may well\nhappen that the facts of history will coincide with the demands of\nwell-ordered narrative, as was the case when Richard of Gloucester murdered\n_two_ young princes in the Tower.\n\n\n\nTwo other characters, who meet us in _Beowulf_, seem to have some part to\nplay in this tragedy.\n\nIt was a maxim of the old Teutonic poetry, as it is of the British\nConstitution, that the king could do no wrong: the real fault lay with the\nadviser. If Ermanaric the Goth slew his wife and his son, or if Irminfrid\nthe Thuringian unwisely challenged Theodoric the Frank to battle, this was\nnever supposed to be due solely to the recklessness of the monarch\nhimself--it was the work of an evil counsellor--a Bikki or an Iring. Now we\nhave seen that there is mischief brewing in Heorot--and we are introduced\nto a counsellor Unferth, the _thyle_ or official spokesman and adviser of\nKing Hrothgar. And Unferth is evil. His jealous temper is shown by the\nhostile and inhospitable reception which he gives to Beowulf. And Beowulf's\nreply gives us a hint of some darker stain: \"though {28} thou hast been the\nslayer of thine own brethren--thy flesh and blood: for that thou shalt\nsuffer damnation in hell, good though thy wit may be[68].\" One might\nperhaps think that Beowulf in these words was only giving the \"countercheck\nquarrelsome,\" and indulging in mere reckless abuse, just as Sinfjotli (the\nFitela of _Beowulf_) in the _First Helgi Lay_ hurls at his foes all kinds\nof outrageous charges assuredly not meant to be taken literally. But, as we\nlearn from the _Helgi Lay_ itself, the uttering of such unfounded taunts\nwas not considered good form; whilst it seems pretty clear that the speech\nof Beowulf to Unferth is intended as an example of justifiable and spirited\nself-defence, not, like the speech of Sinfjotli, as a storehouse of things\nwhich a well-mannered warrior should _not_ say.\n\nBesides, the taunt of Beowulf is confirmed, although but darkly, by the\npoet himself, in the same passage in which he has recorded the fears of\nWealhtheow lest perhaps Hrothulf should not be loyal to Hrothgar and his\nissue: \"Likewise there Unferth the counsellor sat at the foot of the lord\nof the Scyldingas: each of them [i.e. both Hrothgar and Hrothulf] trusted\nto his spirit: that his courage was great, _though he had not done his duty\nby his kinsmen at the sword-play_[69].\"\n\nBut, granting that Unferth has really been the cause of the death of his\nkinsmen, some scholars have doubted whether we are to suppose that he\nliterally slew them himself. For, had that been the case, they urge, he\ncould not be occupying a place of trust with the almost ideal king\nHrothgar. But the record of the historians makes it quite clear that murder\nof kin did happen, and that constantly[70]. Amid the tragic complexities of\nheroic life it often could not be avoided. The _comitatus_-system, by which\na man was expected to give unflinching support to any chief whose service\nhe had entered, must often have resulted in slaughter between men united by\nvery close bonds of kin or friendship. Turning from history to saga, we\nfind some of the greatest heroes not free from the stain. Sigmund, {29}\nGunnar, Hogni, Atli, Hrothulf, Heoroweard, Hnaef, Eadgils, Haethcyn,\nErmanaric and Hildebrand were all marred with this taint, and indeed were,\nin many cases, rather to be pitied than blamed. I doubt, therefore, whether\nwe need try and save Unferth's character by suggesting that the stern words\nof the poet mean only that he had indirectly caused the death of his\nbrethren by failing them, in battle, at some critical moment[71]. I suspect\nthat this, involving cowardice or incompetence, would have been held the\nmore unpardonable offence, and _would_ have resulted in Unferth's disgrace.\nBut a man might well have slain his kin under circumstances which, while\nleaving a blot on his record, did not necessitate his banishment from good\nsociety. All the same, the poet evidently thinks it a weakness on the part\nof Hrothgar and Hrothulf that, after what has happened, they still put\ntheir trust in Unferth.\n\nHere then is the situation. The king has a counsellor: that counsellor is\nevil. Both the king and his nephew trust the evil counsellor. A bitter feud\nsprings up between the king and his nephew. That the feud was due to the\nmachinations of the evil adviser can hardly be doubted by those who have\nstudied the ways of the old Germanic heroic story. But it is only an\ninference: positive proof we have none.\n\n\n\nLastly, there is Heoroweard. Of him we are told in _Beowulf_ very little.\nHe is son of Heorogar (or Heregar), Hrothgar's elder brother, who was\napparently king before him, but died young[72]. It is quite natural, as we\nhave seen, that, if Heoroweard was too young for the responsibility when\nhis father died, he should not have succeeded to the throne. What is not so\nnatural is that he does not inherit his father's arms, which one might\nreasonably have supposed Hrothgar would have preserved, to give to him when\nhe came of age. Instead, Hrothgar gives them to Beowulf[73]. Does Hrothgar\ndeliberately avoid doing honour to Heoroweard, because he fears that any\ndistinction conferred upon him would strengthen a rival {30} whose claims\nto the throne might endanger those of his own sons? However this may be, in\nany future struggle for the throne Heoroweard may reasonably be expected to\nplay some part.\n\nTurning now to Saxo, and to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, we find that Rolf\nowed his death to the treachery of one whose name corresponds exactly to\nthat of Heoroweard--Hiarwarus (Saxo), Hj[o,]rvarthr (_Saga_). Neither Saxo\nnor the _Saga_ thinks of Hiarwarus as the cousin of Rolf Kraki: they do not\nmake it really clear _what_ the cause of his enmity was. But they tell us\nthat, after a banquet, he and his men treacherously rose upon Rolf and his\nwarriors. The defence which Rolf and his men put up in their burning hall:\nthe loyalty and defiance of Rolf's champions, invincible in death--these\nwere amongst the most famous things of the North; they were told in the\n_Bjarkam['a]l_, now unfortunately extant in Saxo's paraphrase only.\n\nBut the triumph of Hiarwarus was brief. Rolf's men all fell around him,\nsave the young Wiggo, who had previously, in the confidence of youth,\nboasted that, should Rolf fall, he would avenge him. Astonished at the\nloyalty of Rolf's champions, Hiarwarus expressed regret that none had taken\nquarter, declaring that he would gladly accept the service of such men.\nWhereupon Wiggo came from the hiding-place where he had taken refuge, and\noffered to do homage to Hiarwarus, by placing his hand on the hilt of his\nnew lord's sword: but in doing so he drove the point through Hiarwarus, and\nrejoiced as he received his death from the attendants of the foe he had\nslain. It shows how entirely the duty of vengeance was felt to outweigh all\nother considerations, that this treacherous act of Wiggo is always spoken\nof with the highest praise.\n\n    For the story of the fall of Rolf and his men see Saxo, Book II (ed.\n    Holder, pp. 55-68): _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, caps. 32-34: _Skjoldunga\n    Saga_ (ed. Olrik, 1894, 36-7 [118-9]).\n\n    How the feud between the different members of the Danish family forms\n    the background to _Beowulf_ was first explained in full detail by\n    Ludvig Schroeder (_Om Bjovulfs-drapen. Efter en raekke foredrag p[oa]\n    folke-hoejskolen i Askov_, Kjoebenhavn, 1875). Schroeder showed how the\n    bad character of Unferth has its part to play: \"It is a _weakness_ in\n    Hrothgar that he entrusts important office to such a man--a {31}\n    weakness which will carry its punishment.\" Independently the domestic\n    feud was demonstrated again by Sarrazin (_Rolf Krake und sein vetter im\n    Beowulfliede_: _Engl. Stud._ XXIV, 144-5). The story has been fully\n    worked out by Olrik (_Heltedigtning_, 1903, I, 11-18 _etc._).\n\n    These views have been disputed by Miss Clarke (_Sidelights_, 102), who\n    seems to regard as \"hypotheses\" of Olrik data which have been\n    ascertained facts for more than a generation. Miss Clarke's\n    contentions, however, appear to me to be based upon a misunderstanding\n    of Olrik.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION VII. KING OFFA.\n\nThe poem, then, is mainly concerned with the deeds of Geatic and Danish\nkings: only once is reference made to a king of Anglian stock--Offa.\n\nThe _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ tells us of several kings named Offa, but two\nonly concern us here. Still remembered is the historic tyrant-king who\nreigned over Mercia during the latter half of the eighth century, and who\nwas celebrated through the Middle Ages chiefly as the founder of the great\nabbey of St Albans. This Offa is sometimes referred to as Offa _the\nSecond_, because he had a remote ancestor, Offa I, who, if the Mercian\npedigree can be trusted, lived twelve generations earlier, and therefore\npresumably in the latter half of the fourth century. Offa I, then, must\nhave ruled over the Angles whilst they were still dwelling in Angel, their\ncontinental home, in or near the modern Schleswig.\n\nNow the Offa mentioned in _Beowulf_ is spoken of as related to Garmund and\nEomer (MS _geomor_). This, apart from the abundant further evidence, is\nsufficient to identify him with Offa I, who was, according to the pedigree,\nthe son of Waermund and the grandfather of Eomer.\n\nThis Offa I, king of Angel, is referred to in _Widsith_. _Widsith_ is a\ncomposite poem: the passage concerning Offa, though not the most obviously\nprimitive portion of it, is, nevertheless, early: it may well be earlier\nthan _Beowulf_. After a list of famous chieftains we are told:\n\n    Offa ruled Angel, Alewih the Danes; he was the boldest of all these\n    men, yet did he not in his deeds of valour surpass Offa. But Offa\n    gained, first of men, by arms the greatest of kingdoms whilst yet a\n    boy; no one of equal age ever did greater deeds of valour in battle\n    with his single sword: he drew the boundary against the Myrgingas at\n    Fifeldor. The boundaries were held afterwards by the Angles and the\n    Swaefe as Offa struck it out.\n\n{32}\n\nMuch is obscure here: more particularly our ignorance as to the Myrgingas\nis to be regretted: but there is reason for thinking that they were a\npeople dwelling to the south of the old continental home of the Angles.\n\nAfter the lapse of some five centuries, we get abundant further information\nconcerning Offa. The legends about him, though carried to England by the\nAnglian conquerors, must also have survived in the neighbourhood of his old\nkingdom of Angel: for as Angel was incorporated into the Danish kingdom, so\nthese stories became part of the stock of Danish national legend. Offa came\nto be regarded as a Danish king, and his story is told at length by the two\nearliest historians of Denmark, Sweyn Aageson and Saxo Grammaticus. In Saxo\nthe story runs thus:\n\nWermund, king of Denmark, had a son Uffo [Offa], tall beyond the measure of\nhis age, but dull and speechless. When Wermund grew blind, his southern\nneighbour, the king of Saxony, laid claim to Denmark on the ground that he\nwas no longer fit to rule, and, relying upon Uffo's incapacity, suggested\nthat the quarrel should be decided by their two sons in single combat.\nWermund, in despair, offered himself to fight, in spite of his blindness:\nthis offer the envoys of the Saxon king refused with insult, and the Danes\nknew not what to say. Thereupon Uffo, who happened to be present, suddenly\nasked leave to speak. Wermund could not believe that it was really his son\nwho had spoken, but when they all assured him that it _was_, he gave the\npermission. \"In vain,\" then said Uffo, \"does the king of Saxony covet the\nland of Denmark, which trusts to its true king and its brave nobles:\nneither is a son wanting to the king nor a successor to the kingdom.\" And\nhe offered to fight not only the Saxon prince, but any chosen champion the\nprince might bring with him.\n\nThe Saxon envoys accepted the offer and departed. The blind king was at\nlast convinced, by passing his hands over him, that the speaker had been in\ntruth his son. But it was found difficult to arm him; for his broad chest\nsplit the rings of every coat of mail: the largest, his father's, had to be\ncleft down the side and fastened with a clasp. Likewise no sword {33} was\nso well tempered that he did not shatter it by merely brandishing it, till\nthe old king directed his men how they might find his ancient sword,\n_Skrep_ (= ? stedfast) which he had buried, in despair, thinking his son\nunworthy of it. The sword, when found, was so frail from age that Uffo did\nnot test it: for Wermund told him that, if he broke it, there was no other\nleft strong enough for him.\n\nSo Uffo and his two antagonists were taken to the place of combat, an\nisland in the river Eider. Crowds lined either bank, and Wermund stood\nprepared to throw himself into the river should his son be slain. Uffo held\nback at first, till he had discovered which of his antagonists was the more\ndangerous, since he feared the sword would only be good for one blow. Then,\nhaving by his taunts induced the champion to come to close quarters, he\nclove him asunder with one stroke. Wermund cried out that he had heard the\nsound of his son's sword, and asked where the blow had fallen: his\nattendants assured him that it had pierced, not any particular part, but\nthe man's whole structure.\n\nSo Wermund drew back from the edge, desiring life now as keenly as before\nhe had longed for death. Finally Uffo smote his second antagonist through,\nthus opening a career which after such a beginning we may well believe to\nhave been glorious.\n\nThe story is told again by Sweyn Aageson in a slightly varying form.\nSweyn's story has some good traits of its own--as when it makes Uffo enter\nthe lists girt with _two_ swords, intending to use his father's only in an\nemergency. The worthless sword breaks, and all the Danes quake for fear:\nwhereupon Uffo draws the old sword and achieves the victory. But above all\nSweyn Aageson tells us the _reason_ of Uffo's dumbness and incapacity,\nwhich Saxo leaves obscure: it was the result of shame over the deeds of two\nDanes who had combined to avenge their father upon a single foe. What is\nthe incident referred to we can gather from Saxo. Two Danes, Keto and Wigo,\nwhose father Frowinus had been slain by a hostile king Athislus, attacked\nAthislus together, two to one, thus breaking the laws of the duel. Uffo had\nwedded the sister of {34} Keto and Wigo, and it was in order to wipe out\nthe stain left upon his family and his nation by their breach of duelling\netiquette that he insisted upon fighting single-handed against two\nopponents.\n\nThat this incident was also known in England is rendered probable by the\nfact that Freawine and Wig, who correspond to Saxo's Frowinus and Wiggo,\nare found in the genealogy of English kings, and that an Eadgils, king of\nthe Myrgingas, who is almost certainly the Athislus of Saxo[74], also\nappears in Old English heroic poetry. It is probable then that the two\ntales were connected in Old English story: the two brethren shamefully\ncombine to avenge their father: in due time the family of the slain foe\ntake up the feud: Offa saves his country and his country's honour by\nvoluntarily undertaking to fight one against two.\n\nAbout the same time that the Danish ecclesiastics were at work, a monk of\nSt Albans was committing to Latin the English stories which were still\ncurrent concerning Offa. The object of the English writer was, however,\nlocal rather than national. He wrote the _Vitae duorum Offarum_ to\ncelebrate the historic Offa, king of Mercia, the founder of his abbey, and\nthat founder's ancestor, Offa I: popular tradition had confused the two,\nand much is told concerning the Mercian Offa that seems to belong more\nrightly to his forefather. The St Albans writer drew upon contemporary\ntradition, and it is evident that in certain cases, as when he gives two\nsets of names to some of the chief actors in the story, he is trying to\nharmonize two distinct versions: he makes at least one error which seems to\npoint to a written source[75]. In one of the MSS the story is illustrated\nby a series of very artistic drawings, which might possibly be from the pen\nof Matthew Paris himself[76]. These drawings depict a version of the story\nwhich in some respects differs from the Latin text which they accompany.\n\n[Illustration: Offa, miraculously restored, vindicates his Right. At the\nside, Offa is represented in Prayer\n\n_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 2 b._ ]\n\n{35} The story is located in England. Warmundus is represented as a king of\nthe Western Angles, ruling at Warwick. Offa, his only son, was blind till\nhis seventh, dumb till his thirtieth year. Accordingly an ambitious noble,\nRiganus, otherwise called Aliel, claims to be recognized heir, in hope of\ngaining the throne for his son, Hildebrand (Brutus). Offa gains the gift of\nspeech in answer to prayer; to the joy of his father and the councillors he\nvindicates his right, much as in the Danish story. He is knighted with a\nchosen body of companions, armed, and leads the host to meet the foe. He\ndashes across the river which separates the two armies, although his\nfollowers hang back. This act of cowardice on their part is not explained:\nit is apparently a reminiscence of an older version in which Offa fights\nhis duel single handed by the river, and his host look on. The armies join\nbattle, but after a long struggle draw away from each other with the\nvictory undecided. Offa remaining in front of his men is attacked by Brutus\n(or Hildebrand) and Sueno, the sons of the usurper, and slays them both (a\nsecond reminiscence of the duel-scene). He then hurls himself again upon\nthe foe, and wins the victory.\n\n_Widsith_ shows us that the Danish account has kept closer to the primitive\nstory than has later English tradition. _Widsith_ confirms the Danish view\nthat the quarrel was with a foreign, not with a domestic foe, and the\ncombat a duel, not a pitched battle: above all, _Widsith_ confirms Saxo in\nrepresenting the fight as taking place on the Eider--_b[=i]\nF[=i]feldore_[77], whilst the account recorded by the monk of St Albans had\nlocalised the story in England.\n\n{36}\n\nIn _Beowulf_ too we hear of Offa as a mighty king, \"the best of all mankind\nbetwixt the seas.\" But, although his wars are referred to, we are given no\ndetails of them. The episode in _Beowulf_ relates rather to his wife\nThryth, and his dealings with her. The passage is the most obscure in the\nwhole poem, but this at least is clear: Thryth had an evil reputation for\ncruelty and murder: she wedded Offa, and he put a stop to her evil deeds:\nshe became to him a good and loyal wife.\n\nNow in the _Lives of the two Offas_ quite a long space is devoted to the\nmatrimonial entanglements of both kings. Concerning Offa I, a tale is told\nof how he succoured a daughter of the king of York, who had been turned\nadrift by her father; how when his years were advancing his subjects\npressed him to marry: and how his mind went back to the damsel whom he had\nsaved, and he chose her for his wife. Whilst the king was absent on his\nwars, a messenger whom he had sent with a letter to report his victories\npassed through York, where the wicked father of Offa's queen lived. A false\nletter was substituted, commanding that the queen and her children should\nbe mutilated and left to die in the woods, because she was a witch and had\nbrought defeat upon the king's arms. The order was carried out, but a\nhermit rescued and healed the queen and her children, and ultimately united\nthem to the king.\n\nThis is a popular folk-tale which is scattered all over Europe, and which\nhas many times been clothed in literary form: in France in the romance of\nthe _Manekine_, in English in the metrical romance of _Emar['e]_, and in\nChaucer's _Man of Lawes Tale_. From the name of the heroine in the last of\nthese versions, the tale is often known as the _Constance_-story. But it is\nclear that this tale is not identical with the obscure story of the wife of\nOffa, which is indicated in _Beowulf_.\n\nWhen, however, we turn to the _Life of Offa II_, we do find a very close\nparallel to the Thryth story.\n\n[Illustration: Drida (Thryth) arrives in the land of King Offa, \"in\nnauicula armamentis carente\"\n\n_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 11a_ ]\n\n{37} This tells how in the days of Charles the Great a certain beautiful\nbut wicked girl, related to that king, was condemned to death on account of\nher crimes, but, from respect for her birth, was exposed instead in a boat\nwithout sails or tackle, and driven ashore on the coast of King Offa's\nland. Drida, as she said her name was, deceived the king by a tale of\ninjured innocence, and he committed her to the safe keeping of his mother,\nthe Countess Marcellina. Later, Offa fell in love with Drida, and married\nher, after which she became known as _Quendrida_. But Drida continued her\nevil courses and compassed the death of St Aethelbert, the vassal king of\nEast Anglia. In the end she was murdered by robbers--a just punishment for\nher crimes--and her widowed husband built the Abbey of St Albans as a\nthank-offering for her death.\n\nThe parallel here is too striking to be denied: for Drida is but another\nway of spelling Thryth, and the character of the murderous queen is the\nsame in both stories. There are, however, striking differences: for whereas\nThryth ceases from her evil deeds and becomes a model wife to Offa, Drida\ncontinues on her course of crime, and is cut off by violence in the midst\nof her evil career. How are we to account for the parallels and for the\ndiscrepancies?\n\nAs a matter of historical fact, the wife of Offa, king of Mercia, _was_\nnamed (not indeed Cwoenthryth, which is the form which should correspond to\nQuendrida, but) Cynethryth. The most obvious and facile way of accounting\nfor the likeness between what we are told in _Beowulf_ of the queen of Offa\nI, and what we are elsewhere told of the queen of Offa II, is to suppose\nthat Thryth in _Beowulf_ is a mere fiction evolved from the historic\nCynethryth, wife of Offa II, and by poetic licence represented as the wife\nof his ancestor, Offa I. It was in this way she was explained by Professor\nEarle:\n\n    The name [Thrytho] was suggested by that of Cynethryth, Offa's\n    queen.... The vindictive character here given to Thrytho is a poetic\n    and veiled admonition addressed to Cynethryth[78].\n\nUnfortunately this, like many another facile theory, is open to fatal\nobjections. In the first place the poem of _Beowulf_ can, with fair\ncertainty, be attributed to a date _earlier_ than that at which the\nhistoric Offa and his spouse lived. Of course, it may be said that the Offa\nepisode in _Beowulf_ is an interpolation of a later date. But this needs\nproof.\n\nThere are metrical and above all syntactical grounds {38} which have led\nmost scholars to place _Beowulf_ very early[79]. If we wish to regard the\n_Offa-Thryth_-episode as a later interpolation, we ought first to prove\nthat it is later in its syntax and metre. We have no right to assume that\nthe episode is an interpolation merely because such an assumption may suit\nour theory of the development of _Beowulf_. So until reasons are\nforthcoming for supposing the episode of Thryth to be later than the rest\nof the poem, we can but note that what we know of the date of _Beowulf_\nforbids us to accept Earle's theory that Thryth is a reflection of, or\nupon, the historic Cynethryth.\n\nBut there are difficulties in the way of Earle's theory even more serious\nthan the chronological one. We know nothing very definitely about the wife\nof Offa II, except her name, but from a reference in a letter of Alcuin it\nseems clear that she was a woman of marked piety: it is not likely that she\ncould have been guilty of deliberate murder of the kind represented in the\n_Life of Offa II_. The St Albans _Life_ depends, so far as we know, upon\nthe traditions which were current four centuries after her death. There may\nbe, there doubtless are, some historic facts concerning Offa preserved in\nit: but we have no reason to think that the bad character of Offa's queen\nis one of them. Indeed, on purely intrinsic grounds we might well suppose\nthe reverse. As a matter of history we know that Offa _did_ put to death\nAethelberht, the vassal king of East Anglia. When in the _Life_ we find\nOffa completely exonerated, and the deed represented as an assassination\nbrought about by the malice and cruelty of his queen, it seems\nintrinsically likely that we are dealing with an attempt of the monks to\nclear their founder by transferring his cruel deeds to the account of his\nwife.\n\nSo far, then, from Thryth being a reflection of an historic cruel queen\nCynethryth, it is more probable that the influence has been in the reverse\ndirection; that the pious Cynethryth has been represented as a monster of\ncruelty because she has not unnaturally been confused with a mythical\nThryth, the wife of Offa I.\n\nTo this it may be objected that we have no right to assume remarkable\ncoincidences, and that such a coincidence is {39} involved by the\nassumption that there was a story of a mythical Thryth, the wife of Offa I,\nand that this existed prior to, and independently of, the actual wedding of\nOffa II to a Cynethryth. But the exceeding frequency of the element\n_thryth_ in the names of women robs this objection of all its point. Such a\ncoincidence, far from being remarkable, would be the most natural in the\nworld. If we look at the Mercian pedigree we find that almost half the\nladies connected with it have that element _thryth_ in their names. The\nfounder of the house, Wihtlaeg, according to Saxo Grammaticus[80], wedded\nHermuthruda, the old English form of which would be Eormenthryth.\n\nIt is to this lady Hermuthruda that we must now devote our attention. She\nbelongs to a type which is common in folk-tale down to the time of Hans\nAndersen--the cruel princess who puts her lovers to death unless they can\nvanquish her in some way, worsting her in a contest of wits, such as the\nguessing of riddles, or a contest of strength, such as running, jumping, or\nwrestling. The stock example of this perilous maiden is, of course, for\nclassical story Atalanta, for Germanic tradition the Brunhilt of the\n_Nibelungen Lied_, who demands from her wooer that he shall surpass her in\nall three feats; if he fails in one, his head is forfeit[81].\n\nOf this type was Hermuthruda: \"in the cruelty of her arrogance she had\nalways loathed her wooers, and inflicted upon them the supreme punishment,\nso that out of many there was not one but paid for his boldness with his\nhead[82],\" words which remind us strongly of what our poet says of Thryth.\n\nHamlet (Amlethus) is sent by the king of Britain to woo this maiden for\nhim: but she causes Hamlet's shield and the commission to be stolen while\nhe sleeps: she learns from the shield that the messenger is the famous and\nvaliant Hamlet, and alters the commission so that her hand is requested,\nnot for the king of Britain, but for Hamlet himself. With this request she\ncomplies, and the wedding is celebrated. But when Wihtlaeg (Vigletus)\nconquers and slays Hamlet, she weds the conqueror, thus becoming ancestress\nof Offa.\n\n{40}\n\nIt may well be that there is some connection between the Thryth of\n_Beowulf_ and the Hermuthruda who in Saxo weds Offa's ancestor--that they\nare both types of the wild maiden who becomes a submissive though not\nalways happy wife. If so, the continued wickedness of Drida in the _Life of\nOffa II_ would be an alteration of the original story, made in order to\nexonerate Offa II from the deeds of murder which, as a matter of history,\ndid characterize his reign.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{41}\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE NON-HISTORICAL ELEMENTS\n\nSECTION I. THE GRENDEL FIGHT.\n\nWhen we come to the story of Beowulf's struggle with Grendel, with\nGrendel's mother, and with the dragon, we are faced by difficulties much\ngreater than those which meet us when considering that background of Danish\nor Geatic history in which these stories are framed.\n\nIn the first place, it is both surprising and confusing that, in the\nprologue, before the main story begins, _another_ Beowulf is introduced,\nthe son of Scyld Scefing. Much emphasis is laid upon the upbringing and\nyouthful fame of this prince, and the glory of his father. Any reader would\nsuppose that the poet is going on to tell of _his_ adventures, when\nsuddenly the story is switched off, and, after brief mention of this\nBeowulf's son, Healfdene, we come to Hrothgar, the building of Heorot,\nGrendel's attack, and the voyage of Beowulf the Geat to the rescue.\n\nNow \"Beowulf\" is an exceedingly rare name. The presence of the earlier\nBeowulf, Scyld's son, seems then to demand explanation, and many critics,\nworking on quite different lines, have arrived independently at the\nconclusion that either the story of Grendel and his mother, or the story of\nthe dragon, or both stories, were originally told of the son of Scyld, and\nonly afterwards transferred to the Geatic hero. This has indeed been\ngenerally accepted, almost from the beginning of {42} Beowulf\ncriticism[83]. Yet, though possible enough, it does not admit of any\ndemonstration.\n\nNow Beowulf, son of Scyld, clearly corresponds to a Beow or Beaw in the\nWest Saxon genealogy. In this genealogy Beow is always connected with Scyld\nand Scef, and in some versions the relations are identical with those given\nin _Beowulf_: Beow, son of Scyld, son of Scef, in the genealogies[84],\ncorresponding to Beowulf, son of Scyld Scefing, in our poem. Hence arose\nthe further speculation of many scholars that the hero who slays the\nmonsters was originally called, not Beowulf, but Beow, and that he was\nidentical with the hero in the West Saxon pedigree; in other words, that\nthe original story was of a hero Beow (son of Scyld) who slew a monster and\na dragon: and that this adventure was only subsequently transferred to\nBeowulf, prince of the Geatas.\n\nThis is a theory based upon a theory, and some confirmation may reasonably\nbe asked, before it is entertained. As to the dragon-slaying, the\nconfirmatory evidence is open to extreme doubt. It is dealt with in Section\nVII (Beowulf-Frotho), below. As to Grendel, one such piece of confirmation\nthere is. The conquering Angles and Saxons seem to have given the names of\ntheir heroes to the lands they won in England: some such names--'Wade's\ncauseway,' 'Weyland's smithy'--have survived to modern times. The evidence\nof the Anglo-Saxon charters shows that very many which have now been lost\nexisted in England prior to the Conquest. Now in a Wiltshire charter of the\nyear 931, we have _B[=e]owan hammes hecgan_ mentioned not far from a\n_Grendles mere_. This has been claimed as evidence that the story of\nGrendel, with Beow as his adversary, was localized in Wiltshire in the\nreign of Athelstan, and perhaps had been localized there since the\nsettlement four centuries previously. Until recently this was accepted as\ndefinitely {43} proving that the Beowulf-Grendel story was derived from an\nancient Beow-myth. Yet one such instance of name-association is not\nconclusive. We cannot leave out of consideration the possibility of its\nbeing a mere chance coincidence, especially considering how large is the\nnumber of place names recorded in Old English charters. Of late, people\nhave become more sceptical in drawing inferences from proper names, and\nquite recently there has been a tendency entirely to overlook the evidence\nof the charter, by way of making compensation for having hitherto overrated\nit.\n\nAll that can be said with certainty is that it _is_ remarkable that a place\nnamed after Beowa should be found in the immediate proximity of a\n\"Grendel's lake,\" and that this fact supports the possibility, though it\nassuredly does not prove, that in the oldest versions of the tale the\nmonster queller was named Beow, not Beowulf. But it is only a possibility:\nit is not grounded upon any real evidence.\n\n    These crucial references occur in a charter given by Athelstan at\n    Luton, concerning a grant of land at Ham in Wiltshire to his thane\n    Wulfgar. [See Birch, _Cartularium Saxonicum_, 1887, vol. II, p. 363.]\n\n    ... Ego Aedhelstanus, rex Anglorum ... quandam telluris particulam meo\n    fideli ministro Wulfgaro ... in loco quem solicolae _oet Hamme_\n    vocitant tribuo ... Praedicta siquidem tellus his terminis circumcincta\n    clarescit....\n\n    dhonne nordh ofer d[=u]ne on m[=e]os-hlinc westeweardne; dhonne\n    ad[=u]ne on dh[=a] yfre on b[=e]owan hammes hecgan, on br[=e]meles\n    sceagan [=e]asteweardne; dhonne on dh[=a] bl[=a]can gr[=ae]fan; dhonne\n    nordh be dh[=e]m ondh[=e]afdan t[=o] dh[=ae]re scortan d[=i]c b[=u]tan\n    [=a]nan aecre; dhonne t[=o] fugelmere t[=o] dh[=a]n wege; ondlong weges\n    t[=o] ottes forda; dhonon t[=o] wudumere; dhonne t[=o] dh[=ae]re\n    r[=u]wan hecgan; dhaet on langan hangran; dhonne on grendles mere;\n    dhonon on dyrnan geat....\n\n    Ambiguous as this evidence is, I do not think it can be dismissed as it\n    is by Lawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV, 252) and Panzer\n    (_Beowulf_, 397), who both say \"How do we know that it is not the\n    merest chance?\" It _may_ of course be chance: but this does not justify\n    us in basing an argument upon the assumption that it _is_ the merest\n    chance. Lawrence continues: \"Suppose one were to set up a theory that\n    there was a saga-relation between Scyld and Bikki, and offered as proof\n    the passage in the charter for the year 917 in which there are\n    mentioned, as in the same district, _scyldes treow_ and _bican\n    sell_.... How much weight would this carry?\"\n\n    The answer surely is that the occurrence of the two names together in\n    the charter would, by itself, give no basis whatever for starting such\n    a theory: but if, on other grounds, the theory were likely, then the\n    occurrence of the two names together would certainly have some\n    corroborative value. Exactly how much, it is impossible to say, because\n    we cannot estimate the element of chance, and we cannot {44} be certain\n    that the _grendel_ and the _beowa_ mentioned are identical with our\n    Grendel and our Beowulf.\n\n    Miller has argued [_Academy_, May 1894, p. 396] that _grendles_ is not\n    a proper name here, but a common noun signifying \"drain,\" and that\n    _grendles mere_ therefore means \"cesspool.\"\n\n    Now \"grindle\" is found in modern dialect and even in Middle English[85]\n    in the sense of \"a narrow ditch\" or \"gutter,\" but I doubt if it can be\n    proved to be an Old English word. Evidence would rather point to its\n    being an East Anglian corruption of the much more widely spread\n    _drindle_, or _dringle_, used both as a verb \"to go slowly, to\n    trickle,\" and as \"a small trickling stream.\" And even if an O.E.\n    _grendel_ as a common noun meaning \"gutter\" were authenticated, it\n    seems unlikely to me that places were named \"the fen,\" \"the mere,\" \"the\n    pit,\" \"the brook\"--\"of the gutter.\" There is no ground whatever for\n    supposing the existence of an O.E. _grendel_ = \"sewer,\" or anything\n    which would lead us to suppose _grendles mere_ or _gryndeles sylle_ to\n    mean \"cesspool[86].\" Surely it is probable, knowing what we do of the\n    way in which the English settlers gave epic names to the localities\n    around their settlements, that these places were named after Grendel\n    because they seemed the sort of place where his story might be\n    localized--like \"Weyland's smithy\" or \"Wade's causeway\": and that the\n    meaning is \"Grendel's fen,\" \"mere,\" \"pit\" or \"brook.\"\n\n    Again, both Panzer and Lawrence suggest that the Beowa who gave his\n    name to the _ham_ may have been, not the hero, but \"an ordinary mortal\n    called after him\" ... \"some individual who lived in this locality.\"\n    But, among the numerous English proper names recorded, can any instance\n    be found of any individual named Beowa? {45} And was it in accordance\n    with the rules of Old English nomenclature to give to mortals the names\n    of these heroes of the genealogies[87]?\n\nRecent scepticism as to the \"Beow-myth\" has been largely due to the fact\nthat speculation as to Beow had been carried too far. For example, because\nBeow appeared in the West Saxon genealogy, it had been assumed that the\nBeow-myth belonged essentially to the Angles and Saxons. Yet Beow would\nseem to have been also known among Scandinavians. For in somewhat later\ndays Scandinavian genealogists, when they had made the acquaintance of the\nAnglo-Saxon pedigrees, noted that Beow had a Scandinavian counterpart in a\nhero whom they called Bjar[88]. That something was known in the north of\nthis Bjar is proved by the _K['a]lfsv['i]sa_, that same catalogue of famous\nheroes and their horses which we have already found giving us the\ncounterparts of Onela and Eadgils. Yet this dry reference serves to show\nthat Bjar must once have been sufficiently famous to have a horse specially\nhis own[89]. Whether the fourteenth century Scandinavian who made Bjar the\nNorthern equivalent of Beow was merely guessing, we unfortunately cannot\ntell. Most probably he was, for there is reason to think that the hero\ncorresponding to Beow was named, not _Bj['a]r_, but _Byggvir_[90]: a\ncorrespondence intelligible to modern philologists as in agreement with\nphonetic law, but naturally not obvious to an Icelandic genealogist. But\nhowever this may be, the assumption that Beow was peculiarly the hero of\nAngles and Saxons seems hardly justified.\n\n{46}\n\nAgain, since Beow is an ancestor of Woden, it was further assumed that he\nwas an ancient god, and that in the story of his adventures we had to deal\nwith a nature-myth of a divine deliverer who saved the people from Grendel\nand his mother, the personified powers of the stormy sea. It is with the\nname of Muellenhoff, its most enthusiastic and ablest advocate, that this\n\"mythological theory\" is particularly associated. That Grendel is\nfictitious no one, of course, would deny. But Muellenhoff and his school,\nin applying the term \"mythical\" to those portions of the _Beowulf_ story\nfor which no historical explanation could be found, meant that they\nenshrined _nature-myths_. They thought that those elements in heroic poetry\nwhich could not be referred back to actual fact must be traced to ancient\nstories in which were recorded the nation's belief about the sun and the\ngods: about storms and seasons.\n\nThe different mythological explanations of Beowulf-Beowa and Grendel have\ndepended mainly upon hazardous etymological explanations of the hero's\nname. The most popular is Muellenhoff's interpretation. Beaw is the divine\nhelper of man in his struggle with the elements. Grendel represents the\nstormy North Sea of early spring, flooding and destroying the habitations\nof men, till the god rescues them: Grendel's mother represents the depths\nof the ocean. But in the autumn the power of the god wanes: the dragon\npersonifies the coming of the wild weather: the god sinks in his final\nstruggle to safeguard the treasures of the earth for his people[91].\nOthers, remembering that Grendel dwells in the fen, see in him rather a\ndemon of the sea-marsh than of the sea itself: he is the pestilential\nswamp[92], and the hero a wind which drives him away[93]. Or, whilst\nGrendel still represents the storms, his antagonist is a \"Blitzheros[94].\"\nOthers, whilst hardly ranking Beowulf as {47} a god, still see an allegory\nin his adventures, and Grendel must be a personification either of an\ninundation[95], or of the terror of the long winter nights[96], or possibly\nof grinding at the mill, the work of the enslaved foe[97].\n\nSuch explanations were till recently universally current: the instances\ngiven above might be increased considerably.\n\nSufficient allowance was not made for the influence upon heroic poetry of\nthe simple popular folk-tale, a tale of wonder with no mythological or\nallegorical meaning. Now, of late years, there has been a tendency not only\nto recognize but even to exaggerate this influence: to regard the hero of\nthe folk-tale as the original and essential element in heroic poetry[98].\nThough this is assuredly to go too far, it is but reasonable to recognize\nthe fairy tale element in the O.E. epic.\n\nWe have in _Beowulf_ a story of giant-killing and dragon-slaying. Why\nshould we construct a legend of the gods or a nature-myth to account for\nthese tales? Why must Grendel or his mother represent the tempest, or the\nmalaria, or the drear long winter nights? We know that tales of\ngiant-killers and dragon-slayers have been current among the people of\nEurope for thousands of years. Is it not far more easy to regard the story\nof the fight between Beowulf and Grendel merely as a fairy tale, glorified\ninto an epic[99]?\n\nThose students who of late years have tried thus to elucidate the story of\nBeowulf and Grendel, by comparison with folk-tales, have one great\nadvantage over Muellenhoff and the \"mythological\" school. The weak point of\nMuellenhoff's view was that the nature-myth of Beow, which was called in to\nexplain the origin of the Beowulf story as we have it, was itself only an\nassumption, a conjectural reconstruction. But the various popular tales in\nwhich scholars have more recently tried to find parallels to _Beowulf_ have\nthis great merit, that {48} they do indubitably exist. And as to the first\nstep--the parallel between _Beowulf_ and the _Grettis saga_--there can,\nfortunately, be but little hesitation.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION II. THE SCANDINAVIAN PARALLELS--GRETTIR AND ORM.\n\nThe _Grettis saga_ tells the adventures of the most famous of all Icelandic\noutlaws, Grettir the strong. As to the historic existence of Grettir there\nis no doubt: we can even date the main events of his life, in spite of\nchronological inconsistencies, with some precision. But between the year\n1031, when he was killed, and the latter half of the thirteenth century,\nwhen his saga took form, many fictitious episodes, derived from folk-lore,\nhad woven themselves around his name. Of these, one bears a great, if\npossibly accidental, likeness to the Grendel story: the second is\nemphatically and unmistakably the same story as that of Grendel and his\nmother. In the first, Grettir stops at a farm house which is haunted by\nGlam, a ghost of monstrous stature. Grettir awaits his attack alone, but,\nlike Beowulf, lying down. Glam's entry and onset resemble those of Grendel:\nwhen Grettir closes with him he tries to get out. They wrestle the length\nof the hall, and break all before them. Grettir supports himself against\nanything that will give him foothold, but for all his efforts he is dragged\nas far as the door. There he suddenly changes his tactics, and throws his\nwhole weight upon his adversary. The monster falls, undermost, so that\nGrettir is able to draw, and strike off his head; though not till Glam has\nlaid upon Grettir a curse which drags him to his doom.\n\nThe second story--the adventure of Grettir at Sandhaugar\n(Sandheaps)--begins in much the same way as that of Grettir and Glam.\nGrettir is staying in a haunted farm, from which first the farmer himself\nand then a house-carl have, on two successive Yuletides, been spirited\naway. As before, a light burns in the room all night, and Grettir awaits\nthe attack alone, lying down, without having put off his clothes. As\nbefore, Grettir and his assailant wrestle down the room, breaking all {49}\nin their way. But this time Grettir is pulled put of the hall, and dragged\nto the brink of the neighbouring gorge. Here, by a final effort, he\nwrenches a hand free, draws, and hews off the arm of the ogress, who falls\ninto the torrent below.\n\nGrettir conjectures that the two missing men must have been pulled by the\nogress into the gulf. This, after his experience, is surely a reasonable\ninference: but Stein, the priest, is unconvinced. So they go together to\nthe river, and find the side of the ravine a sheer precipice: it is ten\nfathom down to the water below the fall. Grettir lets down a rope: the\npriest is to watch it. Then Grettir dives in: \"the priest saw the soles of\nhis feet, and then knew no more what had become of him.\" Grettir swims\nunder the fall and gets into the cave, where he sees a giant sitting by a\nfire: the giant aims a blow at him with a weapon with a wooden handle\n(\"such a weapon men then called a _hefti-sax_\"). Grettir hews it asunder.\nThe giant then grasps at another sword hanging on the wall of the cave, but\nbefore he can use it Grettir wounds him. Stein, the priest, seeing the\nwater stained with blood from this wound, concludes that Grettir is dead,\nand departs home, lamenting the loss of such a man. \"But Grettir let little\nspace come between his blows till the giant lay dead.\" Grettir finds the\nbones of the two dead men in the cave, and bears them away with him to\nconvince the priest: but when he reaches the rope and shakes it, there is\nno reply, and he has to climb up, unaided. He leaves the bones in the\nchurch porch, for the confusion of the priest, who has to admit that he has\nfailed to do his part faithfully.\n\nNow if we compare this with _Beowulf_, we see that in the Icelandic story\nmuch is different: for example, in the _Grettis saga_ it is the female\nmonster who raids the habitation of men, the male who stays at home in his\nden. In this the _Grettis saga_ probably represents a corrupt tradition:\nfor, that the female should remain at home whilst the male searches for his\nprey, is a rule which holds good for devils as well as for men[100]. {50}\nThe change was presumably made in order to avoid the difficulty--which the\n_Beowulf_ poet seems also to have realized--that after the male has been\nslain, the rout of the female is felt to be a deed of less note--something\nof an anti-climax[101].\n\nThe sword on the wall, also, which in the _Beowulf_-story is used by the\nhero, is, in the _Grettir_-story, used by the giant in his attack on the\nhero.\n\nBut that the two stories are somehow connected cannot be disputed. Apart\nfrom the general likeness, we have details such as the escape of the\nmonster after the loss of an arm, the fire burning in the cave, the\n_hefti-sax_, a word which, like its old English equivalent\n(_haeft-m[=e]ce_, _Beowulf_, 1457), is found in this story only, and the\nstrange reasoning of the watchers that the blood-stained water must\nnecessarily be due to the hero's death[102].\n\nNow obviously such a series of resemblances cannot be the result of an\naccident. Either the _Grettir_-story is derived directly or indirectly from\nthe _Beowulf_ epic, more or less as we have it, or both stories are derived\nfrom one common earlier source. The scholars who first discovered the\nresemblance believed that both stories were independently derived from one\noriginal[103]. This view has generally been endorsed by later\ninvestigators, but not universally[104]. And this is one of the questions\nwhich the student cannot leave open, because our view of the origin of the\n_Grendel_-story will have to depend largely upon the view we take as to its\nconnection with the episode in the _Grettis saga_.\n\nIf this episode be derived from _Beowulf_, then we have an interesting\nliterary curiosity, but nothing further. But if it is {51} independently\nderived from a common source, then the episode in the _saga_, although so\nmuch later, may nevertheless contain features which have been obliterated\nor confused or forgotten in the _Beowulf_ version. In that case the story,\nas given in the _Grettis saga_, would be of great weight in any attempt to\nreconstruct the presumed original form of the _Grendel_-story.\n\nThe evidence seems to me to support strongly the view of the majority of\nscholars--that the _Grettir_-episode is not derived from _Beowulf_ in the\nform in which that poem has come down to us, but that both come from one\ncommon source.\n\nIt is certain that the story of the monster invading a dwelling of men and\nrendering it uninhabitable, till the adventurous deliverer arrives, did not\noriginate with Hrothgar and Heorot. It is an ancient and widespread type of\nstory, of which one version is localized at the Danish court. When\ntherefore we find it existing, independently of its Danish setting, the\npresumption is in favour of this being a survival of the old independent\nstory. Of course it is _conceivable_ that the Hrothgar-Heorot setting might\nhave been first added, and subsequently stripped off again so clean that no\ntrace of it remains. But it seems going out of our way to assume this,\nunless we are forced to do so[105].\n\nAgain, it is certain that these stories--like all the subject matter of the\nOld English epic--did not originate in England, but were brought across the\nNorth Sea from the old home. And that old home was in the closest\nconnection, so far as the passage to and fro of story went, with\nScandinavian lands. Nothing could be intrinsically more probable than that\na story, current in ancient Angel and carried thence to England, should\nalso have been current in Scandinavia, and thence have been carried to\nIceland.\n\nOther stories which were current in England in the eighth century were also\ncurrent in Scandinavia in the thirteenth. Yet this does not mean that the\ntales of Hroar and Rolf, or of Athils and Ali, were borrowed from English\nepic accounts of Hrothgar and Hrothulf, or Eadgils and Onela. They were\npart of the common inheritance--as much so as the strong verbs {52} or the\nalliterative line. Why then, contrary to all analogy, should we assume a\nliterary borrowing in the case of the _Beowulf-Grettir_-story? The compiler\nof the _Grettis saga_ could not possibly have drawn his material from a MS\nof _Beowulf_[106]: he could not have made sense of a single passage. He\nconceivably _might_ have drawn from traditions _derived_ from the Old\nEnglish epic. But it is difficult to see how. Long before his time these\ntraditions had for the most part been forgotten in England itself. One of\nthe longest lived of all, that of Offa, is heard of for the last time in\nEngland at the beginning of the thirteenth century. That a Scandinavian\nsagaman at the end of the century could have been in touch, in any way,\nwith Anglo-Saxon epic tradition seems on the whole unlikely. The\nScandinavian tradition of Offa, scholars are now agreed[107], was not\nborrowed from England, and there is no reason why we should assume such\nborrowing in the case of Grettir.\n\nThe probability is, then, considerable, that the _Beowulf_-story and the\n_Grettir_-story are independently derived from one common original.\n\nAnd this probability would be confirmed to a certainty if we should find\nthat features which have been confused and half obliterated in the O.E.\nstory become clear when we turn to the Icelandic. This argument has lately\nbeen brought forward by Dr Lawrence in his essay on \"The Haunted Mere in\n_Beowulf_[108].\" Impressive as the account of this mere is, it does not\nconvey any very clear picture. Grendel's home seems sometimes to be in the\nsea: and again it seems to be amid marshes, moors and fens, and again it is\n\"where the mountain torrent goes down under the darkness of the cliffs--the\nwater below the ground (i.e. beneath overhanging rocks).\"\n\nThis last account agrees admirably with the landscape depicted in the\n_Grettis saga_, and the gorge many fathoms deep through which the stream\nrushes, after it has fallen over the precipice; not so the other accounts.\nThese descriptions are {53} best harmonized if we imagine an original\nversion in which the monsters live, as in the _Grettis saga_, in a hole\nunder the waterfall. This story, natural enough in a Scandinavian country,\nwould be less intelligible as it travelled South. The Angles and Saxons,\nboth in their old home on the Continent and their new one in England, were\naccustomed to a somewhat flat country, and would be more inclined to place\nthe dwelling of outcast spirits in moor and fen than under waterfalls, of\nwhich they probably had only an elementary conception. \"The giant must\ndwell in the fen, alone in the land[109].\"\n\nNow it is in the highest degree improbable that, after the landscape had\nbeen blurred as it is in _Beowulf_, it could have been brought out again\nwith the distinctness it has in the _Grettis saga_. To preserve the\nfeatures so clearly the _Grettir_-story can hardly be derived from\n_Beowulf_: it must have come down independently.\n\nBut if so, it becomes at once of prime importance. For by a comparison of\n_Beowulf_ and _Grettir_ we must form an idea of what the original story\nwas, from which both were derived.\n\n\n\nAnother parallel, though a less striking one, has been found in the story\nof Orm Storolfsson, which is extant in a short saga about contemporary with\nthat of Grettir, _Ormsth['a]ttr St['o]r['o]lfssonar_[110], in two ballads\nfrom the Faroe Islands[111] and two from Sweden[112].\n\nIt is generally asserted that the _Orm_-story affords a close parallel to\nthe episodes of Grendel and his mother. I cannot find close resemblance,\nand I strongly suspect that the repetition of the assertion is due to the\nfact that the _Orm_-story has not been very easily accessible, and has\noften been taken as read by the critics.\n\nBut, in any case, it has been proved that the _Orm_-tale borrows largely\nfrom other sagas, and notably from the _Grettis saga_ itself[113]. Before\narguing, therefore, from any parallel, it must first be shown that the\nfeature in which Orm resembles {54} Beowulf is not derived at second hand\nfrom the _Grettis saga_. One such feature there is, namely Orm's piety,\nwhich he certainly does not derive from Grettir. In this he with equal\ncertainty resembles Beowulf. According to modern ideas, indeed, there is\nmore of the Christian hero in Beowulf than in Orm.\n\nNow Orm owes his victory to the fact, among other things, that, at the\ncritical moment, he vows to God and the holy apostle St Peter to make a\npilgrimage to Rome should he be successful. In this a parallel is seen to\nthe fact that Beowulf is saved, not only by his coat of mail, but also by\nthe divine interposition[114]. But is this really a parallel? Beowulf is\ntoo much of a sportsman to buy victory by making a vow when in a tight\nplace. _G[=ae]dh [=a] wyrd sw[=a] h[=i]o scel_[115] is the exact antithesis\nof Orm's pledge.\n\nHowever, I have given in the Second Part the text of the _Orm_-episode, so\nthat readers may judge for themselves the closeness or remoteness of the\nparallel.\n\n    The parallel between Grettir and Beowulf was noted by the Icelander\n    Gudbrand Vigf['u]sson upon his first reading _Beowulf_ (see\n    _Prolegomena to Sturlunga saga_, 1878, p. xlix: _Corpus Poeticum\n    Boreale_, II, 501: _Icelandic Reader_, 1879, 404). It was elaborately\n    worked out by Gering in _Anglia_, III, 74-87, and it is of course\n    noticed in almost every discussion of _Beowulf_. The parallel with Orm\n    was first noted by Schueck (_Svensk Literaturhistoria_, Stockholm,\n    1886, _etc._, I, 62) and independently by Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 58-68).\n\n    The best edition of the _Grettis saga_ is the excellent one of Boer\n    (Halle, 1900), but the opinions there expressed as to the relationship\n    of the episodes to each other and to the Grendel story have not\n    received the general support of scholars.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION III. BOTHVAR BJARKI.\n\nWe have seen that there are in _Beowulf_ two distinct elements, which never\nseem quite harmonized: firstly the historic background of the Danish and\nGeatic courts, with their chieftains, Hrothgar and Hrothulf, or Hrethel and\nHygelac: and secondly the old wives' fables of struggles with ogres and\ndragons. In the story of Grettir, the ogre fable appears--unmistakably\nconnected with the similar story as given in _Beowulf_, but with {55} no\nfaintest trace of having ever possessed any Danish heroic setting.\n\nTurning back to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, we _do_ find against that Danish\nsetting a figure, that of the hero Bothvar Bjarki, bearing a very\nremarkable resemblance to Beowulf.\n\nBjarki, bent on adventure, leaves the land of the Gautar (Goetar), where\nhis brother is king, and reaches Leire, where Rolf, the king of the Danes,\nholds his court; [just as Beowulf, bent on adventure, leaves the land of\nthe Geatas (Goetar) where his uncle is king, and reaches Heorot, where\nHrothgar and Hrothulf (Rolf) hold court].\n\nArrived at Leire, Bjarki takes under his protection the despised coward\nHott, whom Rolf's retainers have been wont to bully. The champions at the\nDanish court [in _Beowulf_ one of them only--Unferth] prove quarrelsome,\nand they assail the hero during the feast, in the _Saga_ by throwing bones\nat him, in _Beowulf_ only by bitter words. The hero in each case replies,\nin kind, with such effect that the enemy is silenced.\n\nBut despite the fame and splendour of the Danish court, it has long been\nsubject to the attacks of a strange monster[116]--a winged beast whom no\niron will bite [just as Grendel is immune from swords[117]]. Bjarki [like\nBeowulf[118]] is scornful at the inability of the Danes to defend their own\nhome: \"if one beast can lay waste the kingdom and the cattle of the king.\"\nHe goes out to fight with the monster _by night_, accompanied only by Hott.\nHe tries to draw his sword, but the sword is fast in its sheath: he tugs,\nthe sword comes out, and he slays the beast with it. This seems a most\npointless incident: taken in connection with the supposed invulnerability\nof the foe, it looks like the survival of some episode in which the hero\nwas unwilling [as in Beowulf's fight with Grendel[119]] or unable [as in\nBeowulf's fight with Grendel's mother[120]] to slay the foe {56} with his\nsword. Bjarki then compels the terrified coward Hott to drink the monster's\nblood. Hott forthwith becomes a valiant champion, second only to Bjarki\nhimself. The beast is then propped up as if still alive: when it is seen\nnext morning the king calls upon his retainers to play the man, and Bjarki\ntells Hott that now is the time to clear his reputation. Hott demands first\nthe sword, Gullinhjalti, from Rolf, and with this he slays the dead beast a\nsecond time. King Rolf is not deceived by this trick; yet he rejoices that\nBjarki has not only himself slain the monster, but changed the cowardly\nHott into a champion; he commands that Hott shall be called Hjalti, after\nthe sword which has been given him. We are hardly justified in demanding\nlogic in a wild tale like this, or one might ask how Rolf was convinced of\nHott's valour by what he knew to be a piece of stage management on the part\nof Bjarki. But, however that may be, it is remarkable that in _Beowulf_\nalso the monster Grendel, though proof against all ordinary weapons, is\nsmitten _when dead_ by a magic sword of which the _golden hilt_[121] is\nspecially mentioned.\n\nIn addition to the undeniable similarity of the stories of these heroes, a\ncertain similarity of name has been claimed. That _Bjarki_ is not\netymologically connected with _B[=e]owulf_ or _B[=e]ow_ is clear: but if we\nare to accept the identification of Beowulf and Beow, remembering that the\nScandinavian equivalent of the latter is said to be _Bj['a]r_, the\nresemblance to _Bjarki_ is obvious. Similarity of sound might have caused\none name to be substituted for another[122]. This argument obviously\ndepends upon the identification _B[=e]ow_ = _Bj['a]r_, which is extremely\ndoubtful: it will be argued below that it is more likely that _B[=e]ow_ =\n_Byggvir_[123].\n\nBut force remains in the argument that the name Bjarki (little bear) is\nvery appropriate to a hero like the Beowulf of {57} our epic, who crushes\nor hugs his foe to death instead of using his sword; even if we do not\naccept explanations which would interpret the name \"Beowulf\" itself as a\nsynonym for \"Bear.\"\n\nIt is scarcely to be wondered at, then, that most critics have seen in\nBjarki a Scandinavian parallel to Beowulf. But serious difficulties remain.\nThere is in the Scandinavian story a mass of detail quite unparallelled in\n_Beowulf_, which overshadows the resemblances. Bjarki's friendship, for\nexample, with the coward Hott or Hjalti has no counterpart in _Beowulf_.\nAnd Bjarki becomes a retainer of King Rolf and dies in his service, whilst\nBeowulf never comes into direct contact with Hrothulf at all; the poet\nseems to avoid naming them together. Still, it is quite intelligible that\nthe story should have developed on different lines in Scandinavia from\nthose which it followed in England, till the new growths overshadowed the\noriginal resemblance, without obliterating it. After nearly a thousand\nyears of independent development discrepancies must be expected. It would\nnot be a reasonable objection to the identity of _Gullinhjalti_ with\n_Gyldenhilt_, that the word _hilt_ had grown to have a rather different\nmeaning in Norse and in English; subsequent developments do not invalidate\nan original resemblance if the points of contact are really there.\n\nBut, allowing for this independent growth in Scandinavia, we should\nnaturally expect that the further back we traced the story the greater the\nresemblance would become.\n\nThis brings us to the second, serious difficulty: that, when we turn from\nthe _Saga of Rolf Kraki_--belonging in its present form perhaps to the\nearly fifteenth century--to the pages of Saxo Grammaticus, who tells the\nsame tale more than two centuries earlier, the resemblance, instead of\nbecoming stronger, almost vanishes. Nothing is said of Bjarki coming from\nGautland, or indeed of his being a stranger at the Danish court: nothing is\nsaid of the monster having paid previous visits, visits repeated till king\nRolf, like Hrothgar, has to give up all attempt at resistance, and submit\nto its depredations. The monster, instead of being a troll, like Grendel,\nbecomes a commonplace bear. All Saxo tells us is that \"He [Biarco, i.e.\nBjarki] met a great bear in a thicket and slew it with a spear, and bade\nhis {58} comrade Ialto [i.e. Hjalti] place his lips to the beast and drink\nits blood as it flowed, that he might become stronger.\"\n\nHence the Danish scholar, Axel Olrik, in the best and most elaborate\ndiscussion of Bjarki and all about him, has roundly denied any connection\nbetween his hero and Beowulf. He is astonished at the slenderness of the\nevidence upon which previous students have argued for relationship.\n\"Neither Beowulf's wrestling match in the hall, nor in the fen, nor his\nstruggle with the firedrake has any real identity, but when we take a\nlittle of them all we can get a kind of similarity with the latest and\nworst form of the Bjarki saga[124].\" The development of Saxo's bear into a\nwinged monster, \"the worst of trolls,\" Olrik regards as simply in\naccordance with the usual heightening, in later Icelandic, of these early\nstories of struggles with beasts, and of this he gives a parallel instance.\n\nSome Icelandic ballads on Bjarki (the _Bjarka r['i]mur_), which were first\nprinted in 1904, were claimed by Olrik as supporting his contention. These\nballads belong to about the year 1400. Yet, though they are thus in date\nand dialect closely allied to the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_ and remote from Saxo\nGrammaticus, they are so far from supporting the tradition of the _Saga_\nwith regard to the monster slain, that they represent the foe first as a\nman-eating she-wolf, which is slain by Bjarki, then as a grey bear [as in\nSaxo], which is slain by Hjalti after he has been compelled to drink the\nblood of the she-wolf. We must therefore give up the winged beast as mere\nlater elaboration; for if the Bjarki ballads in a point like this support\nSaxo, as against the _Saga_ which is so closely connected with them by its\ndate and Icelandic tongue, we must admit Saxo's version here to represent,\nbeyond dispute, the genuine tradition.\n\nAccordingly the attempt which has been made to connect Bjarki's winged\nmonster with Beowulf's winged dragon goes overboard at once. But such an\nattempt ought never to have been made at all. The parallel is between\nBjarki and the Beowulf-Grendel episode, not between Bjarki and the\nBeowulf-dragon episode, which ought to be left out of consideration. And\nthe monstrous bear and the wolf of the _R['i]mur_ are not so {59}\ndissimilar from Grendel, with his bear-like hug, and Grendel's mother, the\n'sea-wolf[125].'\n\nThe likeness between Beowulf and Bjarki lies, not in the wingedness or\notherwise of the monsters they overthrow, but in the similarity of the\nposition--in the situation which places the most famous court of the North,\nand its illustrious king, at the mercy of a ravaging foe, till a chance\nstranger from Gautland brings deliverance. And here the _R['i]mur_ support,\nnot Saxo, but the _Saga_, though in an outworn and faded way. In the\n_R['i]mur_ Bjarki is a stranger come from abroad: the bear has made\nprevious attacks upon the king's folds.\n\nThus, whilst we grant the wings of the beast to be a later elaboration, it\ndoes not in the least follow that other features in which the _Saga_\ndiffers from Saxo--the advent of Bjarki from Gautland, for instance--are\nalso later elaboration.\n\nAnd we must be careful not to attach too much weight to the account of Saxo\nmerely because it is earlier in date than that of the _Saga_. The\npresumption is, of course, that the earlier form will be the more original:\nbut just as a late manuscript will often preserve, amidst its corruptions,\nfeatures which are lost in much earlier manuscripts, so will a tradition.\nSaxo's accounts are often imperfect[126]. And in this particular instance,\nthere is a want of coherency and intelligibility in Saxo's account, which\nin itself affords a strong presumption that it _is_ imperfect.\n\nWhat Saxo tells us is this:\n\n    At which banquet, when the champions were rioting with every kind of\n    wantonness, and flinging knuckle-bones at a certain Ialto [Hjalti] from\n    all sides, it happened that his messmate Biarco [Bjarki] through the\n    bad aim of the thrower received a severe blow on the head. But Biarco,\n    equally annoyed by the injury and the insult, sent the bone back to the\n    thrower, so that he twisted the front of his head to the back and the\n    back to the front, punishing the cross-grain of the man's temper by\n    turning his face round about.\n\nBut who were this \"certain Hjalti\" and Bjarki? There seems to be something\nmissing in the story. The explanation [which Saxo does not give us, but the\n_Saga_ does] that Bjarki has come from afar and taken the despised\nHott-Hjalti under his {60} protection, seems to be necessary. Why was\nHjalti chosen as the victim, at whom missiles were to be discharged?\nObviously [though Saxo does not tell us so], because he was the butt of the\nmess. And if Bjarki had been one of the mess for many hours, his messmates\nwould have known him too well to throw knuckle-bones either at him or his\nfriend. This is largely a matter of personal feeling, but Saxo's account\nseems to me pointless, till it is supplemented from the _Saga_[127].\n\n\n\nAnd there is one further piece of evidence which seems to clinch the whole\nmatter finally, though its importance has been curiously overlooked, by\nPanzer and Lawrence in their arguments for the identification, and by Olrik\nin his arguments to the contrary.\n\nWe have seen above how Beowulf \"became a friend\" to Eadgils, helping him in\nhis expedition against King Onela of Sweden, and avenging, in \"chill raids\nfraught with woe,\" _cealdum cears[=i]dhum_, the wrongs which Onela had\ninflicted upon the Geatas. We saw, too, that this expedition was remembered\nin Scandinavian tradition. \"They had a battle on the ice of Lake Wener;\nthere King Ali fell, and Athils had the victory. Concerning this battle\nthere is much said in the _Skjoldunga saga_.\" The _Skjoldunga saga_ is\nlost, but the Latin extracts from it give some information about this\nbattle[128]. Further, an account of it _is_ preserved in the _Bjarka\nr['i]mur_, probably derived from the lost _Skjoldunga saga_. And the\n_Bjarka r['i]mur_ expressly mention Bjarki as helping Athils in this battle\nagainst Ali on the ice of Lake Wener[129].\n\nOlrik does not seem to allow for this at all, though of course aware of it.\nThe other parallels between Bjarki and Beowulf he believes to be mere\ncoincidence. But is this likely?\n\nTo recapitulate: In old English tradition a hero comes from the land of the\nGeatas to the royal court of Denmark, where Hrothgar and Hrothulf hold\nsway. This hero is received in none too friendly wise by one of the\nretainers, but {61} puts his foe to shame, is warmly welcomed by the king,\nand slays by night a monster which has been attacking the Danish capital\nand against which the warriors of that court have been helpless. The\nmonster is proof against all swords, yet its dead body is mutilated by a\nsword with a golden hilt. Subsequently this same hero helps King Eadgils of\nSweden to overthrow Onela.\n\nWe find precisely the same situation in Icelandic tradition some seven\ncenturies later, except that not Hrothgar and Hrothulf, but Hrothulf (Rolf)\nalone is represented as ruling the Danes, and the sword with the golden\nhilt has become a sword named \"Golden-hilt.\" It is _conceivable_ for a\nsituation to have been reconstructed in this way by mere accident, just as\nit is conceivable that one player may have the eight or nine best trumps\ndealt him. But it does not seem advisable to base one's calculations, as\nOlrik does, upon such an accident happening.\n\n    The parallel of Bjarki and Beowulf seems to have been first noted by\n    Gisli Brynjulfsson (_Antiquarisk Tidsskrift_, 1852-3, p. 130). It has\n    been often discussed by Sarrazin (_Beowulf Studien_, 13 _etc._, 47:\n    _Anglia_, IX, 195 _etc._: _Engl. Stud._ XVI, 79 _etc._, XXIII, 242\n    _etc._, XXXV, 19 _etc._). Sarrazin's over-elaborated parallels form a\n    broad target for doubters: it must be remembered that a case, though it\n    may be discredited, is not invalidated by exaggeration. The problem is\n    of course noted in the Beowulf studies of Muellenhoff (55), Bugge\n    (_P.B.B._ XII, 55) and Boer (_Die Beowulfsage_, II, in _Arkiv f. nord.\n    filol._ XIX, 44 _etc._) and discussed at length and convincingly by\n    Panzer (364-386) and Lawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV,\n    1909, 222 _etc._). The usual view which accepts some relationship is\n    endorsed by all these scholars, as it is by Finnur J['o]nsson in his\n    edition of the _Hr['o]lfs Saga Kraka og Bjarkar['i]mur_ (Koebenhavn,\n    1904, p. xxii).\n\n    Ten Brink (185 _etc._) denied any original connection, on the ground of\n    the dissimilarity between _Beowulf_ and the story given by Saxo. Any\n    resemblances between _Beowulf_ and the _Hr['o]lfs Saga_ he attributed\n    to the influence of the English _Beowulf_-story upon the _Saga_.\n\n    For Olrik's emphatic denial of any connection at all, see _Danmarks\n    Heltedigtning_, I, 134 _etc._ (This seems to have influenced Brandl,\n    who expresses some doubt in _Pauls Grdr._ (2) II. 1. 993.) For\n    arguments to the contrary, see Heusler in _A.f.d.A._ XXX, 32, and\n    especially Panzer and Lawrence as above.\n\n    The parallel of _Gullinhjalti_ and _gyldenhilt_ was first noted\n    tentatively by Kluge (_Engl. Stud._ XXII, 145).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{62}\n\nSECTION IV. PARALLELS FROM FOLKLORE.\n\nHitherto we have been dealing with parallels to the Grendel story in\nwritten literature: but a further series of parallels, although much more\nremote, is to be found in that vast store of old wives' tales which no one\ntill the nineteenth century took the trouble to write down systematically,\nbut which certainly go back to a very ancient period. One particular tale,\nthat of the Bear's Son[130] (extant in many forms), has been instanced as\nshowing a resemblance to the _Beowulf_-story. In this tale the hero, a\nyoung man of extraordinary strength, (1) sets out on his adventures,\nassociating with himself various companions; (2) makes resistance in a\nhouse against a supernatural being, which his fellows have in vain striven\nto withstand, and succeeds in mishandling or mutilating him. (3) By the\nblood-stained track of this creature, or guided by him in some other\nmanner, the hero finds his way to a spring, or hole in the earth, (4) is\nlowered down by a cord and (5) overcomes in the underworld different\nsupernatural foes, amongst whom is often included his former foe, or very\nrarely the mother of that foe: victory can often only be gained by the use\nof a magic sword which the hero finds below. (6) The hero is left\ntreacherously in the lurch by his companions, whose duty it was to have\ndrawn him up...\n\nNow it may be objected, with truth, that this is not like the\n_Beowulf_-story, or even particularly like the _Grettir_-story. But the\nquestion is not merely whether it resembles these stories as we possess\nthem, but whether it resembles the story which must have been the common\norigin of both. And we have only to try to reconstruct from _Beowulf_ and\nfrom the _Grettis saga_ a tale which can have been the common original of\nboth, to see that it must be something extraordinarily like the folk-tale\noutlined above.\n\n{63}\n\nFor example, it is true that the departure of the Danes homeward because\nthey believe that Beowulf has met his death in the water below, bears only\nthe remotest resemblance to the deliberate treachery which the companions\nin the folk-tale mete out to the hero. But when we compare the\n_Grettir_-story, we see there that a real breach of trust is involved, for\nthere the priest Stein leaves the hero in the lurch, and abandons the rope\nby which he should have drawn Grettir up. This can hardly be an innovation\non the part of the composer of the _Grettis saga_, for he is quite well\ndisposed towards Stein, and has no motive for wantonly attributing\ntreachery to him. The innovation presumably lies in the _Beowulf_-story,\nwhere Hrothgar and his court are depicted in such a friendly spirit that no\ndisreputable act can be attributed to them, and consequently Hrothgar's\ndeparture home must not be allowed in any way to imperil or inconvenience\nthe hero. A comparison of the _Beowulf_-story with the _Grettir_-story\nleads then to the conclusion that in the oldest version those who remained\nabove when the hero plunged below _were_ guilty of some measure of\ndisloyalty in ceasing to watch for him. In other words we see that the\nfurther we track the _Beowulf_-story back, the more it comes to resemble\nthe folk-tale.\n\nAnd our belief that there is some connection between the folk-tale and the\noriginal of _Beowulf_ must be strengthened when we find that, by a\ncomparison of the folk-tale, we are able to explain features in _Beowulf_\nwhich strike us as difficult and even absurd: precisely as when we turn to\na study of Shakespeare's sources we often find the explanation of things\nthat puzzle us: we see that the poet is dealing with an unmanageable\nsource, which he cannot make quite plausible. For instance: when Grendel\nenters Heorot he kills and eats the first of Beowulf's retinue whom he\nfinds: no one tries to prevent him. The only explanation which the poet has\nto offer is that the retinue are all asleep[131]--strange somnolence on the\npart of men who are awaiting a hostile attack, which they expect will be\nfatal to them all[132]. And Beowulf at any rate is not asleep. Yet he\ncalmly watches whilst his henchman is {64} both killed and eaten: and\napparently, but for the accident that the monster next tackles Beowulf\nhimself, he would have allowed his whole bodyguard to be devoured one after\nanother.\n\nBut if we suppose the story to be derived from the folk-tale, we have an\nexplanation. For in the folk-tale, the companions and the hero await the\nfoe singly, in succession: the turn of the hero comes last, after all his\ncompanions have been put to shame. But Beowulf, who is represented as\nhaving specially voyaged to Heorot in order to purge it, cannot leave the\ndefence of the hall for the first night to one of his comrades. Hence the\ndiscomfiture of the comrade and the single-handed success of the hero have\nto be represented as simultaneous. The result is incongruous: Beowulf _has_\nto look on whilst his comrade is killed.\n\nAgain, both Beowulf and Grettir plunge in the water with a sword, and with\nthe deliberate object of shedding the monster's blood. Why then should the\nwatchers on the cliff above assume that the blood-stained water must\nnecessarily signify the _hero's_ death, and depart home? Why did it never\noccur to them that this deluge of blood might much more suitably proceed\nfrom the monster?\n\nBut we can understand this unreason if we suppose that the story-teller had\nto start from the deliberate and treacherous departure of the companions,\nwhilst at the same time it was not to his purpose to represent the\ncompanions as treacherous. In that case some excuse _must_ be found for\nthem: and the blood-stained water was the nearest at hand[133].\n\nAgain, quite independently of the folk-tale, many _Beowulf_ scholars have\ncome to the conclusion that in the original version of the story the hero\ndid not wait for a second attack from the mother of the monster he had\nslain, but rather, from a natural and laudable desire to complete his task,\nfollowed the monster's tracks to the mere, and finished him and his mother\nbelow. Many traits have survived which may conceivably point to an original\nversion of the story in which Beowulf (or the figure corresponding to him)\nat once plunged down {65} in order to combat the foe corresponding to\nGrendel. There are unsatisfactory features in the story as it stands. For\nwhy, it might be urged, should the wrenching off of an arm have been fatal\nto so tough a monster? And why, it has often been asked, is the adversary\nunder the water sometimes male, sometimes female? And why is it apparently\nthe blood of Grendel, not of his mother, which discolours the water and\nburns up the sword, and the head of Grendel, not of his mother, which is\nbrought home in triumph? These arguments may not carry much weight, but at\nany rate when we turn to the folk-tale we find that the adventure beneath\nthe earth _is_ the natural following up of the adventure in the house, not\nthe result of any renewed attack.\n\n\n\nIn addition, there are many striking coincidences between individual\nversions or groups of the folk-tale on the one hand and the\n_Beowulf-Grettir_ story on the other: yet it is very difficult to know what\nvalue should be attached to these parallels, since there are many features\nof popular story which float around and attach themselves to this or that\ntale without any original connection, so that it is easy for the same trait\nto recur in _Beowulf_ and in a group of folk-tales, without this proving\nthat the stories as a whole are connected[134].\n\nThe hero of the Bear's son folk-tale is often in his youth unmanageable or\nlazy. This is also emphasized in the stories both of Grettir and of Orm:\nand though such a feature was uncongenial to the courtly tone of _Beowulf_,\nwhich sought to depict the hero as a model prince, yet it _is_ there[135],\neven though only alluded to incidentally, and elsewhere ignored or even\ndenied[136].\n\nAgain, the hero of the folk-tale is very frequently (but not necessarily)\neither descended from a bear, nourished by a bear, or has some ursine\ncharacteristic. We see this recurring in certain traits of Beowulf such as\nhis bear-like method of hugging {66} his adversary to death. Here again the\ncourtly poet has not emphasized his hero's wildness[137].\n\nAgain, there are some extraordinary coincidences in names, between the\n_Beowulf-Grettir_ story and the folk-tale. These are not found in _Beowulf_\nitself, but only in the stories of Grettir and Orm. Yet, as the\n_Grettir_-episode is presumably derived from the same original as the\n_Beowulf_-episode, any _original_ connection between it and the folk-tale\ninvolves such connection for _Beowulf_ also. We have seen that in _Grettis\nsaga_ the priest Stein, as the unfaithful guardian of the rope which is to\ndraw up the hero, seems to represent the faithless companions of the\nfolktale. There is really no other way of accounting for him, for except on\nthis supposition he is quite otiose and unnecessary to the _Grettir_-story:\nthe saga-man has no use for him. And his name confirms this explanation,\nfor in the folk-tale one of the three faithless companions of the hero is\ncalled the Stone-cleaver, _Steinhauer_, _Stenkloever_, or even, in one\nScandinavian version, simply _Stein_[138].\n\nAgain, the struggle in the _Grettis saga_ is localized at Sandhaugar in\nBarthardal in Northern Iceland. Yet it is difficult to say why the\nsaga-teller located the story there. The scenery, with the neighbouring\nriver and mighty waterfall, is fully described: but students of Icelandic\ntopography assert that the neighbourhood does _not_ at all lend itself to\nthis description[139]. When we turn to the story of Orm we find it\nlocalized on the island Sandey. We are forced to the conclusion that the\nname belongs to the story, and that in some early version this was\nlocalized at a place called Sandhaug, perhaps at one of the numerous places\nin Norway of that name. Now turning to one of the Scandinavian versions of\nthe folk-tale, we find that the descent into the earth and the consequent\nstruggle is localized in _en stor sandhaug_[140].\n\n{67}\n\nOn the other hand, it must be remembered that if a collection is made of\nsome two hundred folk-tales, it is bound to contain, in addition to the\nessential kernel of common tradition, a vast amount of that floating\nmaterial which tends to associate itself with this or that hero of story.\nIndividual versions or groups of versions of the tale may contain features\nwhich occur also in the _Grendel_-story, without that being any evidence\nfor primitive connection. Thus we are told how Grendel forces open the door\nof Heorot. In a Sicilian version of the folk-tale the doors spring open of\nthemselves as the foe appears. This has been claimed as a parallel. But, as\na sceptic has observed, the extraordinary thing is that of so slight a\nsimilarity (if it is entitled to be called a similarity) we should find\nonly one example out of two hundred, and have to go to Sicily for\nthat[141].\n\n    The parallel between the _Beowulf_-story and the \"Bear's son\" folk-tale\n    had been noted by Laistner (_Das Raetsel der Sphinx_, Berlin, 1889, II,\n    22 _etc._): but the prevalent belief that the _Beowulf_-story was a\n    nature-myth seems to have prevented further investigation on these\n    lines till Panzer independently (p. 254) undertook his monumental work.\n\nYet there are other features in the folk-tale which are entirely\nunrepresented in the _Beowulf-Grettir_ story. The hero of the folk-tale\nrescues captive princesses in the underworld (it is because they wish to\nrob him of this prize that his companions leave him below); he is saved by\nsome miraculous helper, and finally, after adopting a disguise, puts his\ntreacherous comrades to shame and weds the youngest princess. None of these\nelements[142] are to be found in the stories of Beowulf, Grettir, Orm or\nBjarki, yet they are essential to the fairy tale[143].\n\n{68}\n\nSo that to speak of _Beowulf_ as a version of the fairy tale is undoubtedly\ngoing too far. All we can say is that some early story-teller took, from\nfolk-tale, those elements which suited his purpose, and that a tale,\ncontaining many leading features found in the \"Bear's son\" story, but\nomitting many of the leading motives of that story, came to be told of\nBeowulf and of Grettir[144].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION V. SCEF AND SCYLD.\n\nOur poem begins with an account of the might, and of the funeral, of Scyld\nScefing, the ancestor of that Danish royal house which is to play so large\na part in the story. After Scyld's death his retainers, following the\ncommand he had given them, placed their beloved prince in the bosom of a\nship, surrounded by many treasures brought from distant lands, by weapons\nof battle and weeds of war, swords and byrnies. Also they placed a golden\nbanner high over his head, and let the sea bear him away, with soul\nsorrowful and downcast. Men could not say for a truth, not the wisest of\ncouncillors, who received that burden.\n\nNow there is much in this that can be paralleled both from the literature\nand from the archaeological remains of the North. Abundant traces have been\nfound, either of the burial or of the burning of a chief within a ship. And\nwe are told by different authorities of two ancient Swedish kings who,\nsorely wounded, and unwilling to die in their beds, had themselves placed\nupon ships, surrounded by weapons and the bodies of the slain. The funeral\npyre was then lighted on the vessel, and the ship sent blazing out to sea.\nSimilarly the dead body of Baldr was put upon his ship, and burnt.\n\n    Haki konungr fekk sv['a] st['o]r s['a]r, at hann s['a], at hans\n    l['i]fdagar mundu eigi langir verdha; th['a] l['e]t hann taka skeidh,\n    er hann ['a]tti, ok l['e]t hladha daudhum m[o,]nnum, ok v['a]pnum,\n    l['e]t th['a] flytja ['u]t til hafs ok leggja st['y]ri {69} ['i] lag ok\n    draga upp segl, en leggja eld ['i] tyrvidh ok gera b['a]l ['a] skipinu;\n    vedhr st['o]dh af landi; Haki var th['a] at kominn daudha edha daudhr,\n    er hann var lagidhr ['a] b['a]lit; sigldhi skipit s['i]dhan loganda\n    ['u]t ['i] haf, ok var thetta allfraegt lengi s['i]dhan.\n\n    (King Haki was so sore wounded that he saw that his days could not be\n    long. Then he had a warship of his taken, and loaded with dead men and\n    weapons, had it carried out to sea, the rudder shipped, the sail drawn\n    up, the fir-tree wood set alight, and a bale-fire made on the ship. The\n    wind blew from the land. Haki was dead or nearly dead, when he was\n    placed on the pyre. Then the ship sailed blazing out to sea; and that\n    was widely famous for a long time after.)\n\n    _Ynglinga Saga_, Kap. 23, in _Heimskringla_, udg. af Finnur J['o]nsson,\n    Koebenhavn, 1893, vol. I, p. 43.\n\n    The _Skjoldunga Saga_ gives a story which is obviously connected with\n    this. King Sigurd Ring in his old age asked in marriage the lady\n    Alfsola; but her brothers scorned to give her to an aged man. War\n    followed; and the brothers, knowing that they could not withstand the\n    hosts of Sigurd, poisoned their sister before marching against him. In\n    the battle the brothers were slain, and Sigurd badly wounded.\n\n    Qui, Alfsola funere allato, magnam navim mortuorum cadaveribus oneratam\n    solus vivorum conscendit, seque et mortuam Alfsolam in puppi collocans\n    navim pice, bitumine et sulphure incendi jubet: atque sublatis velis in\n    altum, validis a continente impellentibus ventis, proram dirigit,\n    simulque manus sibi violentas intulit; sese ... more majorum suorum\n    regali pompa Odinum regem (id est inferos) invisere malle, quam inertis\n    senectutis infirmitatem perpeti....\n\n    _Skjoldungasaga i Arngrim J['o]nssons udtog_, udgiven af Axel Olrik,\n    Kjoebenhavn, 1894, Cap. XXVII, p. 50 [132].\n\n    So with the death of Baldr.\n\n    En aesirnir t['o]ku l['i]k Baldrs ok fluttu til saevar. Hringhorni\n    h['e]t skip Baldrs; hann var allra skipa mestr, hann vildu godhin framm\n    setja ok gera thar ['a] b['a]lf[o,]r Baldrs ... th['a] var borit ['u]t\n    ['a] skipit l['i]k Baldrs,... Odhinn lagdhi ['a] b['a]lit gullhring\n    thann, er Draupnir heitir ... hestr Baldrs var leiddr ['a] b['a]lit\n    medh [o,]llu reidhi.\n\n    (But the gods took the body of Baldr and carried it to the sea-shore.\n    Baldr's ship was named Hringhorni: it was the greatest of all ships and\n    the gods sought to launch it, and to build the pyre of Baldr on it....\n    Then was the body of Baldr borne out on to the ship.... Odin laid on\n    the pyre the gold ring named Draupnir ... and Baldr's horse with all\n    his trappings was placed on the pyre.)\n\n    _Snorra Edda: Gylfaginning_, 48; udg. af Finnur J['o]nsson, Koebenhavn,\n    1900.\n\n    We are justified in rendering _setja skip fram_ by \"launch\": Olrik\n    (_Heltedigtning_, I, 250) regards Baldr's funeral as a case of the\n    burning of a body in a ship on land. But it seems to me, as to Mr\n    Chadwick (_Origin_, 287), that the natural meaning is that the ship was\n    launched in the sea.\n\nBut the case of Scyld is not exactly parallel to these. The ship which\nconveyed Scyld out to sea was _not_ set alight. And the words of the poet,\nthough dark, seem to imply that it was intended to come to land somewhere:\n\"None could say who received that freight.\" {70}\n\nFurther, Scyld not merely departed over the waves--he had in the first\ninstance come over them: \"Not with less treasure did they adorn him,\" says\nthe poet, speaking of the funeral rites, \"than did those who at the\nbeginning sent him forth alone over the waves, being yet a child.\"\n\nScyld Scefing then, like Tennyson's Arthur, comes from the unknown and\ndeparts back to it.\n\nThe story of the mysterious coming over the water was not confined to\nScyld. It meets us in connection with King Scef, who was regarded, at any\nrate from the time of Alfred, and possibly much earlier, as the remotest\nancestor of the Wessex kings. Ethelwerd, a member of the West Saxon royal\nhouse, who compiled a bombastic Latin chronicle towards the end of the\ntenth century, traces back the pedigree of the kings of Wessex to Scyld\n_and his father Scef_. \"This Scef,\" he says, \"came to land on a swift boat,\nsurrounded by arms, in an island of the ocean called Scani, when a very\nyoung child. He was unknown to the people of that land, but was adopted by\nthem as if of their kin, well cared for, and afterwards elected king[145].\"\nNote here, firstly, that the story is told, not of Scyld Scefing, but of\nScef, father of Scyld. Secondly, that although Ethelwerd is speaking of the\nancestor of the West Saxon royal house, he makes him come to land and rule,\nnot in the ancient homeland of continental Angeln, but in the \"island of\nScani,\" which signifies what is now the south of Sweden, and perhaps also\nthe Danish islands[146]--that same land of _Scedenig_ which is mentioned in\n_Beowulf_ as the realm of Scyld. The tone of the narrative is, so far as we\ncan judge from Ethelwerd's dry summary, entirely warlike: Scef is\nsurrounded by weapons.\n\nIn the twelfth century the story is again told by William of Malmesbury.\n\"Sceldius was the son of Sceaf. He, they say, was carried as a small boy in\na boat without any oarsman to a certain isle of Germany called Scandza,\nconcerning which {71} Jordanes, the historian of the Goths, speaks. He was\nsleeping, and a handful of corn was placed at his head, from which he was\ncalled 'Sheaf.' He was regarded as a wonder by the folk of that country and\ncarefully nurtured; when grown up he ruled in a town then called Slaswic,\nand now Haithebi--that region is called ancient Anglia[147].\"\n\nWilliam of Malmesbury was, of course, aware of Ethelwerd's account, and may\nhave been influenced by it. Some of his variations may be his own\ninvention. The substitution of the classical form _Scandza_ for Ethelwerd's\n_Scani_ is simply a change from popular to learned nomenclature, and\nenables the historian to show that he has read something of Jordanes. The\nalteration by which Malmesbury makes Sceaf, when grown up, rule at\nSchleswig in ancient Angel, may again be his own work--a variant added in\norder to make Sceaf look more at home in an Anglo-Saxon pedigree.\n\nBut William of Malmesbury was, as we shall see later, prone to incorporate\ncurrent ballads into his history, and after allowing for what he may have\nderived from Ethelwerd, and what he may have invented, there can be no\ndoubt that many of the additional details which he gives are genuine\npopular poetry. Indeed, whilst the story of Scyld's _funeral_ is very\nimpressive in _Beowulf_, it is in William's narrative that the story of the\nchild coming over the sea first becomes poetic.\n\nNow since even the English historians connected this tale with the Danish\nterritory of _Scani, Scandza_, we should expect to find it again on turning\nto the records of the Danish royal house. And we do find there, generally\nat the head of the pedigree[148], a hero--Skjold--whose name corresponds,\nand whose relationship to the later Danish kings shows him to be the same\nas the _Scyld Scefing_ of _Beowulf_. But neither Saxo Grammaticus, nor any\nother Danish historian, knows anything of {72} Skjold having come in his\nyouth or returned in his death over the ocean.\n\nHow are we to harmonize these accounts?\n\n_Beowulf_ and Ethelwerd agree in representing the hero as \"surrounded by\narms\"; William of Malmesbury mentions only the sheaf; the difference is\nweighty, for presumably the spoils which the hero brings with him from the\nunknown, or takes back thither, are in harmony with his career. _Beowulf_\nand Ethelwerd seem to show the warrior king, William of Malmesbury seems\nrather to be telling the story of a semi-divine foundling, who introduces\nthe tillage of the earth[149].\n\nIn _Beowulf_ the child is Scyld Scefing, in Ethelwerd and William of\nMalmesbury he is Sceaf, father of Scyld.\n\n_Beowulf_, Ethelwerd and William of Malmesbury agree in connecting the\nstory with _Scedenig_, _Scani_ or _Scandza_, yet the two historians and the\n_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ all make Sceaf the ancestor of the West Saxon\nhouse. Yet we have no evidence that the English were regarded as having\ncome from Scandinavia.\n\nThe last problem admits of easy solution. In heathen times the English\ntraced the pedigree of most of their kings to Woden, and stopped there. For\nhigher than that they could not go. But a Christian poet or genealogist,\nwho had no belief in Woden as a god, would regard the All Father as a\nman--a mere man who, by magic powers, had made the heathen believe he was a\ngod. To such a Christian pedigree-maker Woden would convey no idea of\nfinality; he would feel no difficulty in giving this human Woden any number\nof ancestors. Wishing to glorify the pedigree of his king, he would add any\nother distinguished and authentic genealogies, and the obvious place for\nthese would be at the end of the line, i.e., above Woden. Hence we have in\nsome quite early (not West Saxon) pedigrees, five names given as ancestors\nof Woden. These five names end in Geat or Geata, who was apparently\nregarded as a god, and was possibly Woden under another name[150]. Somewhat\nlater, in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, under {73} the year 855, we have a\nlong version of the West Saxon pedigree with yet nine further names above\nGeat, ending in Sceaf. Sceaf is described as a son of Noah, and so the\npedigree is carried back to Adam, 25 generations in all beyond Woden[151].\nBut it is rash to assume with Muellenhoff that, because Sceaf comes at the\nhead[152] of this English pedigree, Sceaf was therefore essentially an\nEnglish hero. _All_ these later stages above Woden look like the ornate\nadditions of a later compiler. Some of the figures, Finn, Sceldwa, Heremod,\nSceaf himself, we have reason to identify with the primitive heroes of\nother nations.\n\nThe genealogist who finally made Sceaf into a son born to Noah in the ark,\nand then carried the pedigree nine stages further back through Noah to\nAdam, merely made the last of a series of accretions. It does not follow\nthat, because he made them ancestors of the English king, this compiler\nregarded Noah, Enoch and Adam as Englishmen. Neither need he have so\nregarded Sceaf or Scyld[153] or Beaw. In fact--and this has constantly been\noverlooked--the authority for Sceaf, Scyld and Beaw as Anglo-Saxon heroes\nis but little stronger than the authority for Noah and Adam in that\ncapacity. No manuscript exists which stops at Scyld or Sceaf. There is no\nversion which goes beyond Geat except that which goes up to Adam. Scyld,\nBeaw, Sceaf, Noah and Adam as heroes of English mythology are all alike\ndoubtful.\n\nWe must be careful, however, to define what we mean when we regard these\nstages of the pedigree as doubtful. They are doubtful in so far as they are\nrepresented as standing above Woden in the Anglo-Saxon pedigree, because it\nis incredible that, in primitive and heathen times, Woden was credited with\na dozen or more forefathers. The _position_ of these names in the pedigree\nis therefore doubtful. But it is only their connection with the West Saxon\nhouse that is unauthentic. It does not follow that the names are, _per se_,\nunauthentic. On the contrary, it is because the genealogist had such\nimplicit belief in the authenticity of the generations {74} from Noah to\nAdam that he could not rest satisfied with his West Saxon pedigree till he\nhad incorporated these names. They are not West Saxon, but they are part of\na tradition much more ancient than any pedigree of the West Saxon kings.\nAnd the argument which applies to the layer of Hebrew names between Noah\nand Adam applies equally to the layer of Germanic names between Woden and\nSceaf. From whatever branch of the Germanic race the genealogist may have\ntaken them, the fact that he placed them where he did in the pedigree is a\nproof of his veneration for them. But we must not without evidence claim\nthem as West Saxon or Anglo-Saxon: we must not be surprised if evidence\npoints to some of them being connected with other nations--as Heremod, for\nexample, with the Danes[154].\n\n\n\nMore difficult are the other problems. William of Malmesbury tells the\nstory of Sceaf, with the attributes of a culture-hero: _Beowulf_, four\ncenturies earlier, tells it of Scyld, a warrior hero: Ethelwerd tells it of\nSceaf, but gives him the warrior attributes of Scyld[155] instead of the\nsheaf of corn.\n\nThe earlier scholars mostly agreed[156] in regarding Malmesbury's\nattribution of the story to Sceaf as the original and correct version of\nthe story, in spite of its late date. As a representative of these early\nscholars we may take Muellenhoff[157]. Muellenhoff's love of mythological\ninterpretation found ample scope in the story of the child with the sheaf,\nwhich he, with considerable reason, regarded as a \"culture-myth.\"\nMuellenhoff believed the carrying over of the attributes of a god to a line\nof his supposed descendants to be a common feature of myth--the descendants\nrepresenting the god under another name. In accordance with this view,\nScyld could be explained as an \"hypostasis\" of his father or forefather\nSceaf, as a figure further explaining him and representing him, so that in\nthe end the tale of the boat arrival came to be told, in _Beowulf_, of\nScyld instead of Sceaf.\n\n{75}\n\nRecent years have seen a revolt against most of Muellenhoff's theories. The\nview that the story originally belonged to Sceaf has come to be regarded\nwith a certain amount of impatience as \"out of date.\" Even so fine a\nscholar as Dr Lawrence has expressed this impatience:\n\n    \"That the graceful story of the boy sailing in an open boat to the land\n    of his future people was told originally of Sceaf ... needs no detailed\n    refutation at the present day.\n\n    \"The attachment of the motive to Sceaf must be, as an examination of\n    the sources shows, a later development[158].\"\n\nAccordingly the view of recent scholars has been this: That the story\nbelongs essentially to Scyld. That, as the hero of the boat story is\nobviously of unknown parentage, we must interpret _Scefing_ not as \"son of\nSceaf\" but as \"with the sheaf\" (in itself a quite possible explanation).\nThat this stage of the story is preserved in _Beowulf_. That subsequently\n_Scyld Scefing_, standing at the head of the pedigree, came to be\nmisunderstood as \"Scyld, son of Sceaf\". That consequently the story, which\nmust be told of the earlier ancestor, was thus transferred from Scyld to\nhis supposed father Sceaf--the version which is found in Ethelwerd and\nWilliam of Malmesbury.\n\nOne apparent advantage of this theory is that the oldest version, that of\n_Beowulf_, is accepted as the correct and original one, and the much later\nversions of the historians Ethelwerd and William of Malmesbury are regarded\nas subsequent corruptions. This on the surface seems eminently reasonable.\nBut let us look closer. _Scyld Scefing_ in _Beowulf_ is to be interpreted\n\"Scyld with the Sheaf.\" But _Beowulf_ nowhere mentions the sheaf as part of\nScyld's equipment. On the contrary, we gather that the hero is connected\nrather with prowess in war. It is the same in Ethelwerd. It is not till\nWilliam of Malmesbury that the sheaf comes into the story. So that the\ninterpretation of _Scefing_ as \"with the sheaf\" assumes the accuracy of\nWilliam of Malmesbury's story even in a point where it receives no support\nfrom the _Beowulf_ version. In other words this theory does the very thing\nto avoid doing which it was called into being[159].\n\n{76}\n\nBesides this, there are two fundamental objections to the theory that Sceaf\nis a late creation, a figure formed from the misunderstanding of the\nepithet _Scefing_ applied to _Scyld_. One portion of the poem of _Widsith_\nconsists of a catalogue of ancient kings, and among these occurs _Sceafa_,\nruling the Langobards. Now portions of _Widsith_ are very ancient, and this\ncatalogue in which Sceafa occurs is almost certainly appreciably older than\n_Beowulf_ itself.\n\nSecondly, the story of the wonderful foundling who comes over the sea from\nthe unknown and founds a royal line, must _ex hypothesi_ be told of the\nfirst in the line, and we have seen that it is Sceaf, not Scyld, who comes\nat the head of the Teutonic names in the genealogy in the _Anglo-Saxon\nChronicle_.\n\nNow we can date this genealogy fairly exactly. It occurs under the year\n855, and seems to have been drawn up at the court of King Aethelwulf. In\nany case it cannot be later than the latter part of Alfred's reign. This\ntakes us back to a period when the old English epic was still widely\npopular. A genealogist at Alfred's court must have known much about Old\nEnglish story.\n\nThese facts are simply not consistent with the belief that Sceaf is a late\ncreation, a figure formed from a misunderstanding of the epithet _Scefing_,\napplied to Scyld[160].\n\n{77}\n\nTo arrive at any definite conclusion is difficult. But the following may be\nhazarded.\n\nIt may be taken as proved that the Scyld or Sceldwa of the genealogists is\nidentical with the Scyld Scefing of _Beowulf_. For Sceldwa according to the\ngenealogy is also ultimately a _Sceafing_, and is the father of Beow; Scyld\nis _Scefing_ and is father of Beowulf[161].\n\nIt is equally clear that the Scyld Scefing of _Beowulf_ is identical with\nthe Skjold of the Danish genealogists and historians. For Scyld and Skjold\nare both represented as the founder and head of the Danish royal house of\nScyldingas or Skjoldungar, and as reigning in the same district. Here,\nhowever, the resemblance ceases. _Beowulf_ tells us of Scyld's marvellous\ncoming and departure. The only Danish authority who tells us much of Skjold\nis Saxo Grammaticus, who records how as a boy Skjold wrestled successfully\nwith a bear and overcame champions, and how later he annulled unrighteous\nlaws, and distinguished himself by generosity to his court. But the Danish\nand English accounts have nothing specifically in common, though the type\nthey portray is the same--that of a king from his youth beloved by his\nretainers and feared by neighbouring peoples, whom he subdues and makes\ntributary. It looks rather as if the oldest traditions had had little to\nsay about this hero beyond the typical things which might be said of any\ngreat king; so that Danes and English had each supplied the deficiency in\ntheir own way.\n\nNow this is exactly what we should expect. For Scyld-Skjold is hardly a\npersonality: he is a figure evolved out of the name _Scyldingas_,\n_Skjoldungar_, which is an old epic title for the Danes. Of this we may be\nfairly certain: the Scyldingas did not get their name because they were\nreally descended from Scyld, but Scyld was created in order to provide an\neponymous father to the Scyldingas[162]. In just the same way {78}\ntradition also evolved a hero Dan, from whom the Danes were supposed to\nhave their name. Saxo Grammaticus has combined both pedigrees, making\nSkjold a descendant of Dan; but usually it was agreed that nothing came\nbefore Skjold, that he was the beginning of the Skjoldung line[163]. At\nfirst a mere name, we should expect that he would have no characteristic\nsave that, like every respectable Germanic king, he took tribute from his\nfoes and gave it to his friends. He differs therefore from those heroic\nfigures like Hygelac or Guthhere (Gunnar) which, being derived from actual\nhistoric characters, have, from the beginning of their story, certain\ndefinite features attached to them. Scyld is, in the beginning, merely a\nname, the ancestor of the Scyldings. Tradition collects round him\ngradually.\n\nHence it will be rash to attach much weight to any feature which is found\nin one account of him only. Anything we are told of Scyld in English\nsources alone is not to be construed as evidence as to his original story,\nbut only as to the form that story assumed in England. When, for example,\n_Beowulf_ tells us that Scyld is _Scefing_, or that he is father of\nBeowulf, it will be very rash of us to assume that these relationships\nexisted in the Danish, but have been forgotten. This is, I think,\nuniversally admitted[164]. Yet the very scholars who emphasize this, have\nassumed that the marvellous arrival as a child, in a boat, surrounded by\nweapons, is an essential feature of Scyld's story. Yet the evidence for\nthis is no better and no worse than the evidence for his relationship to\nSceaf or Beow--it rests solely on the English documents. Accordingly it\nonly shows what was told about Scyld in England.\n\nOf course the boat arrival _might_ be an original part of the story of\n_Scyld-Skjold_, which has been forgotten in his native {79} country, but\nremembered in England. But I cannot see that we have any right to assert\nthis, without proof.\n\nWhat we can assert to have been the original feature of Scyld is this--that\nhe was the eponymous hero king of the Danes. Both _Beowulf_ and the\nScandinavian authorities agree upon that. The fact that his name (in the\nform _Sceldwa_) appears in the genealogy of the kings of Wessex is not\nevidence against a Danish origin. The name appears in close connection with\nthat of Heremod, another Danish king, and is merely evidence of a desire on\nthe part of the genealogist of the Wessex kings to connect his royal house\nwith the most distinguished family he knew: that of the Scyldingas, about\nwhom so much is said in the prologue to _Beowulf_.\n\nNeither do the instances of place-names in England, such as _Scyldes\ntreow_, _Scildes well_, prove Scyld to have been an English hero. They\nmerely prove him to have been a hero who was celebrated in England--which\nthe Prologue to _Beowulf_ alone is sufficient to show to have been the\ncase. For place-names commemorating heroes of alien tribes are common\nenough[165] on English ground.\n\nSo much at least is gained. Whatever Muellenhoff[166] and his followers\nconstructed upon the assumption that Scyld was an essentially Anglo-Saxon\nhero goes overboard. Scyld is the ancestor king of the Danish house--more\nthan this we can hardly with safety assert.\n\nNow let us turn to the figure of Sceaf. This was not necessarily connected\nwith Scyld from the first.\n\nThe story of Sceaf first meets us in its completeness in the pages of\nWilliam of Malmesbury. And William of Malmesbury is a twelfth century\nauthority; by his time the Old English courtly epics had died out--for they\ncould not have long survived the Norman Conquest and the overthrow of Old\nEnglish court life. But the popular tradition[167] remained, and {80} a\ngood many of the old stories, banished from the hall, must have lingered on\nat the cross-roads--tales of Wade and Weyland, of Offa and Sceaf. For\nsongs, sung by minstrels at the cross roads, William of Malmesbury is good\nevidence, and he owns to having drawn information from similar popular\nsources[168]. William's story, then, is evidence that in his own day there\nwas a tradition of a mythical king Sheaf who came as a child sleeping in a\nship with a sheaf of corn at his head How old this tradition may be, we\ncannot say. Ethelwerd knew the story, though he has nothing to say of the\nsheaf. But we have seen that when we get back to the ninth century, and the\nformation of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, at a court where we may be sure\nthe old English heroic stories were still popular, it is Sceaf and not\nSceldwa who is regarded as the beginning of things--the king whose origin\nis so remote that he is the oldest Germanic ancestor one can get back\nto[169]: \"he was born in Noah's ark.\"\n\nWhether or no Noah's ark was chosen as Sceaf's birthplace because legend\nrepresented him as coming in a boat over the water, we cannot tell. But the\nplace he occupies, with only the Biblical names before him, as compared\nwith Sceldwa the son of Heremod, clearly marks Sceaf rather than Sceldwa as\nthe hero who comes from the unknown. Turning now to the catalogue of kings\nin _Widsith_, probably the oldest extant piece of Anglo-Saxon verse, some\ngenerations more ancient than _Beowulf_, we find a King Sceafa, who ruled\nover the Langobards. Finally, in _Beowulf_ itself, although the story is\ntold of Scyld, nevertheless this Scyld is characterized as _Scefing_. If\nthis means \"with the sheaf,\" then the _Beowulf_-story stands convicted of\nimperfection, of needing explanation outside itself from the {81} account\nwhich William of Malmesbury wrote four centuries later. If it means \"son of\nSceaf,\" why should a father be given to Scyld, when the story demands that\nhe should come from the unknown? Was it because, if the boat story was to\nbe attributed to Scyld, it was felt that this could only be made plausible\nby giving him some relation to Sceaf?\n\n\n\nWhen we find an ancient king bearing the extraordinary name of \"Sheaf,\" it\nis difficult not to connect this with the honour done to the sheaf of corn,\nsurvivals of which have been found in different parts of England. In\nHerrick's time, the sheaves of corn were still kissed as they were carried\nhome on the Hock-cart, whilst\n\n                      Some, with great\n  Devotion, stroke the home-borne wheat.\n\nProfessor Chadwick argues, on the analogy of Prussian and Bulgarian harvest\ncustoms, that the figure of the \"Harvest Queen\" in the English ceremony is\nderived from a corn figure made from the last sheaf, and that the sheaf was\nonce regarded as a religious symbol[170]. But the evidence for this is\nsurely even stronger than would be gathered from Professor Chadwick's very\ncautious statement. I suppose there is hardly a county in England from Kent\nto Cornwall and from Kent to Northumberland, where there is not evidence\nfor honour paid to the last sheaf--an honour which cannot be accounted for\nas merely expressing the joy of the reapers at having got to the end of\ntheir task. In Kent \"a figure composed of some of the best corn\" was made\ninto a human shape: \"this is afterwards curiously dressed by the women, and\nadorned with paper trimmings cut to resemble a cap, ruffles, handkerchief,\netc., of the finest lace. It is brought home with the last load of\ncorn[171].\" In Northumberland and Durham a sheaf known as the \"Kern baby\"\nwas made into the likeness of a human figure, decked out and brought home\nin triumph with dancing and singing[172]. But the most striking form of the\nsheaf ceremony is found in the honour done to the \"Neck\" in the West of\nEngland.\n\n{82}\n\n    ... After the wheat is all cut, on most farms in the north of Devon the\n    harvest people have a custom of \"crying the neck.\" I believe that this\n    practice is seldom omitted on any large farm in that part of the\n    country. It is done in this way. An old man, or someone else well\n    acquainted with the ceremonies used on the occasion (when the labourers\n    are reaping the last field of wheat), goes round to the shocks and\n    sheaves, and picks out a little bundle of all the best ears he can\n    find; this bundle he ties up very neat and trim, and plats and arranges\n    the straws very tastefully. This is called \"the neck\" of wheat, or\n    wheaten-ears. After the field is cut out, and the pitcher once more\n    circulated, the reapers, binders, and the women, stand round in a\n    circle. The person with \"the neck\" stands in the centre, grasping it\n    with both his hands. He first stoops and holds it near the ground, and\n    all the men forming the ring take off their hats, stooping and holding\n    them with both hands towards the ground. They then all begin at once in\n    a very prolonged and harmonious tone to cry \"the neck!\" at the same\n    time slowly raising themselves upright, and elevating their arms and\n    hats above their heads; the person with \"the neck\" also raising it on\n    high. This is done three times. They then change their cry to \"wee\n    yen!\"--\"way yen!\"--which they sound in the same prolonged and slow\n    manner as before, with singular harmony and effect, three times. This\n    last cry is accompanied by the same movements of the body and arms as\n    in crying \"the neck.\" ...\n\n    ... After having thus repeated \"the neck\" three times, and \"wee yen\" or\n    \"way yen\" as often, they all burst out into a kind of loud and joyous\n    laugh, flinging up their hats and caps into the air, capering about and\n    perhaps kissing the girls. One of them then gets \"the neck,\" and runs\n    as hard as he can down to the farm-house, where the dairy-maid, or one\n    of the young female domestics, stands at the door prepared with a pail\n    of water. If he who holds \"the neck\" can manage to get into the house,\n    in any way, unseen or openly, by any other way than the door at which\n    the girl stands with the pail of water, then he may lawfully kiss her;\n    but, if otherwise, he is regularly soused with the contents of the\n    bucket. On a fine still autumn evening, the \"crying of the neck\" has a\n    wonderful effect at a distance, far finer than that of the Turkish\n    muezzin, which Lord Byron eulogizes so much, and which he says is\n    preferable to all the bells in Christendom. I have once or twice heard\n    upwards of twenty men cry it, and sometimes joined by an equal number\n    of female voices. About three years back, on some high grounds, where\n    our people were harvesting, I heard six or seven \"necks\" cried in one\n    night, although I know that some of them were four miles off[173].\n\nThe account given by Mrs Bray of the Devonshire custom, in her letters to\nSouthey, is practically identical with this[174]. We have plenty of\nevidence for this ceremony of \"Crying the Neck\" in the South-Western\ncounties in Somersetshire[175], in Cornwall[176], and in a mutilated form\nin Dorsetshire[177].\n\n{83}\n\nOn the Welsh border the essence of the ceremony consisted in tying the last\nears of corn--perhaps twenty--with ribbon, and severing this \"neck\" by\nthrowing the sickle at it from some distance. The custom is recorded in\nCheshire[178], Shropshire[179], and under a different name in\nHerefordshire[180]. The term \"neck\" seems to have been known as far afield\nas Yorkshire and the \"little England beyond Wales\"--the English-speaking\ncolony of Pembrokeshire[181].\n\nWhether we are to interpret the expression \"the Neck,\" applied to the last\nsheaf, as descended from a time when \"the corn spirit is conceived in human\nform, and the last standing corn is a part of its body--its neck[182] ...\"\nor whether it is merely a survival of the Scandinavian word for\nsheaf--_nek_ or _neg_[183], we have here surely evidence of the worship of\nthe sheaf. \"In this way 'Sheaf' was greeted, before he passed over into a\npurely mythical being[184].\"\n\nI do not think these \"neck\" customs can be traced back beyond the\nseventeenth century[185]. Though analogous usages are recorded in England\n(near Eton) as early as the sixteenth century[186], it was not usual at\nthat time to trouble to record such things.\n\nThe earliest document bearing upon the veneration of the sheaf comes from a\nneighbouring district, and is contained in the Chronicle of the Monastery\nof Abingdon, which tells how in the time of King Edmund (941-946) a\ncontroversy arose as to the right of the monks of Abingdon to a certain\nportion of land adjoining the river. The monks appealed to a judgment of\nGod to vindicate their claim, and this took the shape of {84} placing a\nsheaf, with a taper on the top, upon a round shield and letting it float\ndown the river, the shield by its movements hither and thither indicating\naccurately the boundaries of the monastic domain. At last the shield came\nto the field in debate, which, thanks to the floods, it was able to\ncircumnavigate[187].\n\nProfessor Chadwick, who first emphasized the importance of this strange\nordeal[188], points out that although the extant MSS of the _Chronicle_\ndate from the thirteenth century, the mention of a _round_ shield carries\nthe superstition back to a period before the Norman Conquest. Therefore\nthis story seems to give us evidence for the use of the sheaf and shield\ntogether as a magic symbol in Anglo-Saxon times. \"An ordeal by letting the\nsheaf sail down the river on a shield was only possible at a time when the\nsheaf was regarded as a kind of supernatural being which could find the way\nitself[189].\"\n\nBut a still closer parallel to the story of the corn-figure coming over the\nwater is found in Finnish mythology in the person of Saempsae Pellervoinen.\nFinnish mythology seems remote from our subject, but if the figure of\nSaempsae was borrowed from Germanic mythology, as seems to be thought[190],\nwe are justified in laying great weight upon the parallel.\n\nReaders of the _Kalewala_ will remember, near the beginning, the figure of\nSaempsae Pellervoinen, the god of Vegetation. He does not seem to do much.\nBut there are other Finnish {85} poems in his honour, extant in varying\nversions[191]. It is difficult to get a collected idea from these\nfragmentary records, but it seems to be this: Ahti, the god of the sea,\nsends messengers to summon Saempsae, so that he may bring fertility to the\nfields. In one version, first the Winter and then the Summer are sent to\narouse Saempsae, that he may make the crops and trees grow. Winter--\n\n  Took a foal swift as the spring wind,\n  Let the storm wind bear him forward,\n  Blew the trees till they were leafless,\n  Blew the grass till it was seedless,\n  Bloodless likewise the young maidens.\n\nSaempsae refuses to come. Then the Summer is sent with better results. In\nanother version Saempsae is fetched from an island beyond the sea:\n\n  It is I who summoned Saempsae\n  From an isle amid the ocean,\n  From a skerry bare and treeless.\n\nIn yet another variant we are told how the boy Saempsae\n\n  Took six grains from off the corn heap,\n  Slept all summer mid the corn heap,\n  In the bosom of the corn boat.\n\nNow \"It's a long, long way to\" Ilomantsi in the east of Finland, where this\nlast variant was discovered. But at least we have evidence that, within the\nregion influenced by Germanic mythology, the spirit of vegetation was\nthought of as a boy coming over the sea, or sleeping in a boat with\ncorn[192].\n\nTo sum up:\n\nSceafa, when the Catalogue of Kings in _Widsith_ was drawn up--before\n_Beowulf_ was composed, at any rate in its present form--was regarded as an\nancient king. When the West Saxon pedigree was drawn up, certainly not much\nmore than a century and a half after the composition of _Beowulf_, and\nperhaps much less, Sceaf was regarded as the primitive figure in the\npedigree, before whom no one lived save the Hebrew patriarchs. That he was\noriginally thought of as a child, {86} coming across the water, with the\nsheaf of corn, is, in view of the Finnish parallel, exceedingly probable,\nand acquires some confirmation from the Chronicler's placing him in Noah's\nark. But the definite evidence for this is late.\n\nScyld, on the other hand, is in the first place probably a mere eponym of\nthe power of the Scylding kings of Denmark. He may, at a very early date,\nhave been provided with a ship funeral, since later two Swedish kings, both\napparently of Danish origin, have this ship funeral accorded to them, and\nin one case it is expressly said to be \"according to the custom of his\nancestors.\" But it seems exceedingly improbable that his original story\nrepresented him as coming over the sea in a boat. For, if so, it remains to\nbe explained why this motive has entirely disappeared among his own people\nin Scandinavia, and has been preserved only in England. Would the Danes\nhave been likely to forget utterly so striking a story, concerning the king\nfrom whom their line derived its name? Further, in England, _Beowulf_ alone\nattributes this story to Scyld, whilst later historians attribute it to\nSceaf. In view of the way in which the story of William of Malmesbury is\nsupported by folklore, to regard that story as merely the result of error\nor invention seems perilous indeed.\n\nOn the other hand, all becomes straightforward if we allow that Scyld and\nSceaf were both ancient figures standing at the head of famous dynasties.\nTheir names alliterate. What more likely than that their stories should\nhave influenced each other, and that one king should have come to be\nregarded as the parent or ancestor of the other? Contamination with Scyld\nwould account for Sceaf's boat being stated to have come to land in Scani,\nScanza--that Scedeland which is mentioned as the seat of Scyld's rule. Yet\nthis explanation is not necessary, for if Sceaf were an early Longobard\nking, he would be rightly represented as ruling in Scandinavia[193].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{87}\n\nSECTION VI. BEOW.\n\nThe Anglo-Saxon genealogies agree that the son of Sceldwa (Scyld) is Beow\n(Beaw, Beo). In _Beowulf_, he is named not Beow, but Beowulf.\n\nMany etymologies have been suggested for _B[=e]ow_. But considering that\nBeow is in some versions a grandson, in all a descendant of Sceaf, it can\nhardly be an accident that his name is identical with the O.E. word for\ngrain, _b[=e]ow_. The Norse word corresponding to this is _bygg_[194].\n\nRecent investigation of the name is best summed up in the words of Axel\nOlrik:\n\n    \"New light has been cast upon the question of the derivation of the\n    name Beow by Kaarle Krohn's investigation of the debt of Finnish to\n    Norse mythology, together with Magnus Olsen's linguistic\n    interpretation. The Finnish has a deity Pekko, concerning whom it is\n    said that he promoted the growth of barley: the Esths, closely akin to\n    the Finns, have a corresponding Peko, whose image--the size of a\n    three-year-old child--was carried out into the fields and invoked at\n    the time of sowing, or else was kept in the corn-bin by a custodian\n    chosen for a year. This Pekko is plainly a personification of the\n    barley; the form corresponding phonetically in Runic Norse would be\n    *_beggw-_ (from which comes Old Norse _bygg_).\n\n    \"So in Norse there was a grain *_beggw-_ (becoming _bygg_) and a\n    corn-god *_Beggw-_ (becoming _Pekko_). In Anglo-Saxon there was a grain\n    _b['e]ow_ and an ancestral _B['e]ow_. And all four are phonetically\n    identical (proceeding from a primitive form *_beuwa_, 'barley'). The\n    conclusion which it is difficult to avoid is, that the corn-spirit\n    'Barley' and the ancestor 'Barley' are one and the same. The relation\n    is the same as that between King Sheaf and the worship of the sheaf:\n    the worshipped corn-being gradually sinks into the background, and\n    comes to be regarded as an epic figure, an early ancestor.\n\n    \"We have no more exact knowledge of the mythical ideas connected either\n    with the ancestor Beow or the corn-god Pekko. But we know enough of the\n    worship of Pekko to show that he dwelt in the corn-heap, and that, in\n    the spring, he was fetched out in the shape of a little child. That\n    reminds us not a little of Saempsae, who lay in the corn-heap on the\n    ship, and came to land and awoke in the spring[195].\"\n\n{88}\n\nBut it may be objected that this is \"harking back\" to the old mythological\ninterpretations. After refusing to accept Muellenhoff's assumptions, are we\nnot reverting, through the names of Sceaf and Beow, and the worship of the\nsheaf, to very much the same thing?\n\nNo. It is one thing to believe that the ancestor-king Beow may be a\nweakened form of an ancient divinity, a mere name surviving from the figure\nof an old corn-god Beow; it is quite another to assume, as Muellenhoff did,\nthat what we are told about Beowulf was originally told about Beow _and\nthat therefore we are justified in giving a mythological meaning to it_.\n\nAll we know, conjecture apart, about Beow is his traditional relationship\nto Scyld, Sceaf and the other figures of the pedigree. That Beowulf's\ndragon fight belonged originally to him is only a conjecture. In\nconfirmation of this conjecture only one argument has been put forward: an\nargument turning upon Beowulf, son of Scyld--that obscure figure,\napparently equivalent to Beow, who meets us at the beginning of our poem.\n\nBeowulf's place as a son of Scyld and father of Healfdene is occupied in\nthe Danish genealogies by Frothi, son of Skjold, and father of Halfdan. It\nhas been urged that the two figures are really identical, in spite of the\ndifference of name. Now Frothi slays a dragon, and it has been argued that\nthis dragon fight shows similarities which enable us to identify it with\nthe dragon fight attributed in our poem to Beowulf the Geat.\n\nThe argument is a strong one--if it really is the case that the dragon\nslain by Frothi was the same monster as that slain by Beowulf the Geat.\n\nUnfortunately this parallel, which will be examined in the next section, is\nfar from certain. We must be careful not to argue in a circle, identifying\nBeowulf and Frothi because they slew the same dragon, and then identifying\nthe dragons because they were slain by the same hero.\n\nWhilst, therefore, we admit that it is highly probable that Beow (grain)\nthe descendant of Sceaf (sheaf) was originally a corn divinity or corn\nfetish, we cannot follow Muellenhoff in his bold attribution to this\n\"culture hero\" of Beowulf's adventures with the dragon or with Grendel.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{89}\n\nSECTION VII. THE HOUSE OF SCYLD AND DANISH PARALLELS: HEREMOD-LOTHERUS AND\nBEOWULF-FROTHO.\n\nScyld, although the source of that Scylding dynasty which our poem\ncelebrates, is _not_ apparently regarded in _Beowulf_ as the earliest\nDanish king. He came to the throne after an interregnum; the people whom he\ngrew up to rule had long endured cruel need, \"being without a prince[196].\"\nWe hear in _Beowulf_ of one Danish king only whom we can place\nchronologically before Scyld--viz. Heremod[197]. The way in which Heremod\nis referred to would fit in very well with the supposition[198] that he was\nthe last of a dynasty; the immediate predecessor of Scyld; and that it was\nthe death or exile of Heremod which ushered in the time when the Danes were\nwithout a prince.\n\nNow there is a natural tendency in genealogies for each king to be\nrepresented as the descendant of his predecessor, whether he really was so\nor no; so that in the course of time, and sometimes of a very short time,\nthe first king of a new dynasty may come to be reckoned as son of a king of\nthe preceding line[199]. Consequently, there would be nothing surprising\nif, in another account, we find Scyld represented as a son of Heremod. And\nwe _do_ find the matter represented thus in the West Saxon genealogy, where\nSceldwa or Scyld is son of Heremod. Turning to the Danish accounts,\nhowever, we do not find any _Herm['o]dhr_ (which is the form we should\nexpect corresponding to _Herem[=o]d_) as father to Skjold (Scyld). Either\nno father of Skjold is known, or else (in Saxo Grammaticus) he has a father\nLotherus. But, although the names are different, there is some\ncorrespondence between what we are told of Lother and what we are told of\nHeremod. A close parallel has indeed been drawn by Sievers between the\nwhole dynasty: on the one hand Lotherus, his son Skioldus, and his\ndescendant Frotho, {90} as given in Saxo: and on the other hand the\ncorresponding figures in _Beowulf_, Heremod, Scyld, and Scyld's son,\nBeowulf the Dane.\n\nThe fixed and certain point here is the identity of the central figure,\nSkioldus-Scyld. All the rest is very doubtful; not that there are not many\nparallel features, but because the parallels are of a commonplace type\nwhich might so easily recur accidentally.\n\nThe story of Lother, as given by Saxo, will be found below: the story of\nHeremod as given in _Beowulf_ is hopelessly obscure--a mere succession of\nallusions intended for an audience who knew the tale quite well. Assuming\nthe stories of Lother and Heremod to be different versions of one original,\nthe following would seem to be the most likely reconstruction[200], the\nmore doubtful portions being placed within round brackets thus ( ):\n\n    The old Danish prince [Dan in Saxo] has two sons, one a weakling\n    [_Humblus_, Saxo] the other a hero [_Lotherus_, Saxo: _Heremod_,\n    _Beowulf_] (who was already in his youth the hope of the nation). But\n    after his father's death the elder was (through violence) raised to the\n    throne: and Lother-Heremod went into banishment. (But under the rule of\n    the weakling the kingdom went to pieces, and thus) many a man longed\n    for the return of the exile, as a help against these evils. So the hero\n    conquers and deposes the weaker brother. But then his faults break\n    forth, his greed and his cruelty: he ceases to be the darling and\n    becomes the scourge of his people, till they rise and either slay him\n    or drive him again into exile.\n\nIf the stories of Lother and Heremod _are_ connected, we may be fairly\nconfident that Heremod, not Lother, was the name of the king in the\noriginal story.\n\nFor Scandinavian literature does know a Hermoth (_Herm['o]dhr_), though no\nsuch adventures are attributed to him as those recorded of Heremod in\n_Beowulf_. Nevertheless it is probable that this Hermoth and Heremod in\n_Beowulf_ are one and the same, because both heroes are linked in some way\nor other with Sigemund. How these two kings, Heremod and Sigemund, came to\nbe connected, we do not know, but we find this connection recurring again\nand again[201]. This _may_ be {91} mere coincidence: but I doubt if we are\njustified in assuming it to be so[202].\n\nIt has been suggested[203] that both Heremod and Sigemund were originally\nheroes specially connected with the worship of Odin, and hence grouped\ntogether. The history of the Scandinavian Sigmund is bound up with that of\nthe magic sword which Odin gave him, and with which he was always\nvictorious till the last fight when Odin himself shattered it.\n\nAnd we are told in the Icelandic that Odin, whilst he gave a sword to\nSigmund, gave a helm and byrnie to Hermoth.\n\nAgain, whilst in one Scandinavian poem Sigmund is represented as welcoming\nthe newcomer at the gates of Valhalla, in another the same duty is\nentrusted to Hermoth.\n\nIt is clear also that the _Beowulf_-poet had in mind some kind of\nconnection, though we cannot tell what, between Sigemund and Heremod.\n\nWe may take it, then, that the Heremod who is linked with Sigemund in\n_Beowulf_ was also known in Scandinavian literature as a hero in some way\nconnected with Sigmund: whether or no the adventures which Saxo records of\nLotherus were really told in Scandinavian lands in connection with Hermoth,\nwe cannot say. The wicked king whose subjects rebel against him is too\ncommon a feature of Germanic story for us to feel sure, without a good deal\nof corroborative evidence, that the figures of Lotherus and Heremod are\nidentical.\n\nThe next king in the line, Skioldus in Saxo, is, as we have seen, clearly\nidentical with Scyld in _Beowulf_. But beyond the name, the two traditions\nhave, as we have also seen, but little in common. Both are youthful\nheroes[204], both force neighbouring kings to pay tribute[205]; but such\nthings are commonplaces[206].\n\nWe must therefore turn to the next figure in the pedigree: the son of\nSkjold in Scandinavian tradition is Frothi (Frotho {92} in Saxo)[207], the\nson of Scyld in _Beowulf_ is Beowulf the Dane. And Frothi is the father of\nHalfdan (Haldanus in Saxo) as Beowulf the Dane is of Healfdene. The Frothi\nof Scandinavian tradition corresponds then in position to Beowulf the Dane\nin Old English story[208].\n\nNow of Beowulf the Dane we are told so little that we have really no means\nof drawing a comparison between him and Frothi. But a _theory_ that has\nfound wide acceptance among scholars assumes that the dragon fight of\nBeowulf the Geat was originally narrated of Beowulf the Dane, and only\nsubsequently transferred to the Geatic hero. Theoretically, then, Beowulf\nthe Dane kills a dragon. Now certainly Frotho kills a dragon: and it has\nbeen generally accepted[209] that the parallels between the dragon slain by\nFrotho and that slain by Beowulf the Geat are so remarkable as to exclude\nthe possibility of mere accidental coincidence, and to lead us to conclude\nthat the dragon story was originally told of that Beowulf who corresponds\nto Frothi, i.e. Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld and father of Healfdene; not\nBeowulf, son of Ecgtheow, the Geat.\n\nBut are the parallels really so close? We must not forget that here we are\nbuilding theory upon theory. That the Frotho of Saxo is the same figure as\nBeowulf the Dane in Old English, is a theory, based upon his common\nrelationship to Skiold-Scyld before him and to Haldanus-Healfdene coming\nafter him: that Beowulf the Dane was the original hero of the dragon fight,\nand that that dragon fight was only subsequently transferred to the credit\nof Beowulf the Geat, is again a theory. Only if we can find real parallels\nbetween the dragon-slaying of Frotho and the dragon-slaying of Beowulf will\nthese theories have confirmation.\n\n{93}\n\nParallels have been pointed out by Sievers which he regards as so close as\nto justify a belief that both are derived ultimately from an old lay, with\nso much closeness that verbal resemblances can still be traced.\n\nUnfortunately the parallels are all commonplaces. That Sievers and others\nhave been satisfied with them was perhaps due to the fact that they started\nby assuming as proved that the dragon fight of Beowulf the Geat belonged\noriginally to Beowulf the Dane[210], and argued that since Frotho in Saxo\noccupies a place corresponding exactly to that of Beowulf the Dane in\n_Beowulf_, a comparatively limited resemblance between two dragons coming,\nas it were, at the same point in the pedigree, might be held sufficient to\nidentify them.\n\nBut, as we have seen, the assumption that the dragon fight of Beowulf the\nGeat belonged originally to Beowulf the Dane is only a theory that will\nhave to stand or fall as we can prove that the dragon fight of Frotho is\nreally parallel to that of Beowulf the Geat, and therefore must have\nbelonged to the connecting link supplied by the Scylding prince Beowulf the\nDane. In other words, the theory that the dragon in _Beowulf_ is to be\nidentified with the dragon which in Saxo is slain by Frotho the Danish\nprince, father of Haldanus-Healfdene, is one of the main arguments upon\nwhich we must base the theory that the dragon in _Beowulf_ was originally\nslain by the Danish Beowulf, father of Healfdene, not by Beowulf the Geat.\nWe cannot then turn round, and assert that the fact that they were both\nslain by a Danish prince, the father of Healfdene, is an argument for\nidentifying the dragons.\n\nTurning to the dragon fight itself, the following parallels have been noted\nby Sievers:\n\n(1) A native (_indigena_) comes to Frotho, and tells him of the\ntreasure-guarding dragon. An informer (_melda_) plays the same part in\n_Beowulf_[211].\n\nBut a dragon is not game which can be met with every day. He is a shy\nbeast, lurking in desert places. Some informant has very frequently to\nguide the hero to his {94} foe[212]. And the situation is widely different.\nFrotho knows nothing of the dragon till directed to the spot: Beowulf's\nland has been assailed, he knows of the dragon, though he needs to be\nguided to its _exact_ lair.\n\n(2) Frotho's dragon lives on an island. Beowulf's lives near the sea, and\nthere is an island (_[=e]alond_, 2334) in the neighbourhood.\n\nBut _[=e]alond_ in _Beowulf_ probably does not mean \"island\" at all: and in\nany case the dragon did not live upon the _[=e]alond_. Many dragons have\nlived near the sea. Sigemund's dragon did so[213].\n\n(3) The hero in each case attacks the dragon single-handed.\n\nBut what hero ever did otherwise? On the contrary, Beowulf's exploit\ndiffers from that of Frotho and of most other dragon slayers in that he is\nunable to _overcome_ his foe single-handed, and needs the support of\nWiglaf.\n\n(4) Special armour is carried by the dragon slayer in each case.\n\nBut this again is no uncommon feature. The Red Cross Knight also needs\nspecial armour. Dragon slayers constantly invent some ingenious or even\nunique method. And again the parallel is far from close. Frotho is advised\nto cover his shield and his limbs with the hides of bulls and kine: a\nsensible precaution against fiery venom. Beowulf constructs a shield of\niron[214]: which naturally gives very inferior protection[215].\n\n(5) Frotho's informant tells him that he must be of good courage[216].\nWiglaf encourages Beowulf[217].\n\nBut the circumstances under which the words are uttered are entirely\ndifferent, nor have the words more than a general resemblance. That a man\nneeds courage, if he is going to tackle a dragon, is surely a conclusion at\nwhich two minds could have arrived independently.\n\n(6) Both heroes waste their blows at first on the scaly back of the dragon.\n\n{95}\n\nBut if the hero went at once for the soft parts, there would be no fight at\nall, and all the fun would be lost. Sigurd's dragon-fight is, for this\nreason, a one-sided business from the first. To avoid this, Frotho is\ndepicted as beginning by an attack on the dragon's rough hide (although he\nhas been specially warned by the _indigena_ not to do so):\n\n                          ventre sub imo\n  esse locum scito quo ferrum mergere fas est,\n  hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem[218].\n\n(7) The hoard is plundered by both heroes.\n\nBut it is the nature of a dragon to guard a hoard[219]. And, having slain\nthe dragon, what hero would neglect the gold?\n\n(8) There are many verbal resemblances: the dragon spits venom[220], and\ntwists himself into coils[221].\n\nSome of these verbal resemblances may be granted as proved: but they surely\ndo not prove the common origin of the two dragon fights. They only tend to\nprove the common origin of the school of poetry in which these two dragon\nfights were told. That dragons dwelt in mounds was a common Germanic\nbelief, to which the Cottonian Gnomic verses testify. Naturally, therefore,\nFrotho's dragon is _montis possessor_: Beowulf's is _beorges hyrde_. The\ntwo phrases undoubtedly point back to a similar gradus, to a similar\ntraditional stock phraseology, and to similar beliefs: that is all. As well\nargue that two kings must be identical, because each is called _folces\nhyrde_.\n\nThese commonplace phrases and commonplace features are surely quite\ninsufficient to prove that the stories are identical--at most they only\nprove that they bear the impress of one and the same poetical school. If a\nparallel is to carry weight there must be something individual about it, as\nthere is, for example, about the arguments by which the identity of Beowulf\nand Bjarki have been supported. That a hero comes from {96} Geatland\n(Gautland) to the court where Hrothulf (Rolf) is abiding; that the same\nhero subsequently is instrumental in helping Eadgils (Athils) against Onela\n(Ali)--here we have something tangible. But when two heroes, engaged upon\nslaying a dragon, are each told to be brave, the parallel is too general to\nbe a parallel at all. \"There is a river in Macedon: and there is also\nmoreover a river at Monmouth, and there is salmons in both.\"\n\nAnd there is a fundamental difference, which would serve to neutralize the\nparallels, even did they appear much less accidental than they do.\n\nDragon fights may be classified into several types: two stand out\nprominently. There is the story in which the young hero begins his career\nby slaying a dragon or monster and winning, it may be a hoard of gold, it\nmay be a bride. This is the type of story found, for instance, in the tales\nof Sigurd, or Perseus, or St George. On the other hand there is the hero\nwho, at the end of his career, seeks to ward off evil from himself and his\npeople. He slays the monster, but is himself slain by it. The great example\nof this type is the god Thor, who in the last fight of the gods slays the\nDragon, but dies when he has reeled back nine paces from the \"baleful\nserpent[222].\"\n\nNow the story of the victorious young Frotho is of the one type: that of\nthe aged Beowulf is of the other. And this difference is essential,\nfundamental, dominating the whole situation in each case: giving its\ncheerful and aggressive tone to the story of Frotho, giving the elegiac and\npathetic note which runs through the whole of the last portion of\n_Beowulf_[223]. It is no mere detail which could be added or subtracted by\na narrator without altering the essence of the story.\n\nIn face of this we must pronounce the two stories essentially and\noriginally distinct. If, nevertheless, there were a large number of\nstriking and specific similarities, we should have to allow that, though\noriginally distinct, the one dragon story had influenced the other in\ndetail. For, whilst each poet who retold the tale would make alterations in\ndetail, and might {97} import such detail from one dragon story into\nanother, what we know of the method of the ancient story tellers does not\nallow us to assume that a poet would have altered the whole drift of a\nstory, either by changing the last death-struggle of an aged, childless\nprince into the victorious feat of a young hero, or by the reverse process.\n\nThose, therefore, who hold the parallels quoted above to be convincing, may\nbelieve that one dragon story has influenced another, originally\ndistinct[224]. To me, it does not appear that even this necessarily follows\nfrom the evidence.\n\nIt seems very doubtful whether any of the parallels drawn by Sievers\nbetween the stories of Lotherus and Heremod[225], Skioldus and Scyld,\nFrotho and Beowulf, are more than the resemblances inevitable in poetry\nwhich, like the Old Danish and the Old English, still retains so many\ntraces of the common Germanic frame in which it was moulded.\n\nIndeed, of the innumerable dragon-stories extant, there is probably not one\nwhich we can declare to be really identical with that of Beowulf. There is\na Danish tradition which shows many similarities[226], and I have given\nthis below, in Part II; but rather as an example of a dragon-slaying of the\n_Beowulf_ type, than because I believe in any direct connection between the\ntwo stories.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{98}\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHEORIES AS TO THE ORIGIN, DATE, AND STRUCTURE OF THE POEM\n\nSECTION I. IS \"BEOWULF\" TRANSLATED FROM A SCANDINAVIAN ORIGINAL?\n\nOur poem, the first original poem of any length in the English tongue,\nignores England. In one remarkable passage (ll. 1931-62) it mentions with\npraise Offa I, the great king who ruled the Angles whilst they were still\nupon the Continent. But, except for this, it deals mainly with heroes who,\nso far as we can identify them with historic figures, are Scandinavian.\n\nHence, not unnaturally, the first editor boldly declared _Beowulf_ to be an\nAnglo-Saxon version of a Danish poem; and this view has had many\nsupporters. The poem _must_ be Scandinavian, said one of its earliest\ntranslators, because it deals mainly with Scandinavian heroes and \"everyone\nknows that in ancient times each nation celebrated in song its own heroes\nalone[227].\" And this idea, though not so crudely expressed, seems really\nto underlie the belief which has been held by numerous scholars, that the\npoem is nothing more than a translation of a poem in which some\nScandinavian minstrel had glorified the heroes of his own nation.\n\nBut what do we mean by \"nation\"? Doubtless, from the point of view of\npolitics and war, each Germanic tribe, or offshoot of a tribe, formed an\nindependent nation: the Longobardi had no hesitation in helping the\n\"Romans\" to cut the throats of their Gothic kinsmen: Penda the Mercian was\nwilling to ally with the Welshmen in order to overthrow his {99} fellow\nAngles of Northumbria. But all this, as the history of the ancient Greeks\nor of the ancient Hebrews might show us, is quite compatible with a\nconsciousness of racial unity among the warring states, with a common\npoetic tradition and a common literature. For purposes of poetry there was\nonly one nation--the Germanic--split into many dialects and groups, but\npossessed of a common metre, a common style, a common standard of heroic\nfeeling: and any deed of valour performed by any Germanic chief might\nbecome a fit subject for the poetry of any Germanic tribe of the heroic\nage.\n\nSo, if by \"nation\" we mean the whole Germanic race, then Germanic poetry is\nessentially \"national.\" The Huns were the only non-Germanic tribe who were\nreceived (for poetical purposes) into Germania. Hunnish chiefs seem to have\nadopted Gothic manners, and after the Huns had disappeared it often came to\nbe forgotten that they were not Germans. But with this exception the tribes\nand heroes of Germanic heroic poetry are Germanic.\n\nIf, however, by \"nation\" we understand the different warring units into\nwhich the Germanic race was, politically speaking, divided, then Germanic\npoetry is essentially \"international.\"\n\nThis is no theory, but a fact capable of conclusive proof. The chief actors\nin the old Norse Volsung lays are not Norsemen, but Sigurd the Frank,\nGunnar the Burgundian, Atli the Hun. In Continental Germany, the ideal\nknight of the Saxons in the North and the Bavarians in the South was no\nnative hero, but Theodoric the Ostrogoth. So too in England, whilst\n_Beowulf_ deals chiefly with Scandinavian heroes, the _Finnsburg_ fragment\ndeals with the Frisian tribes of the North Sea coast: _Waldere_ with the\nadventures of Germanic chiefs settled in Gaul, _Deor_ with stories of the\nGoths and of the Baltic tribes, whilst _Widsith_, which gives us a\ncatalogue of the old heroic tales, shows that amongst the heroes whose\nnames were current in England were men of Gothic, Burgundian, Frankish,\nLombard, Frisian, Danish and Swedish race. There is nothing peculiar, then,\nin the fact that _Beowulf_ celebrates heroes who were not of Anglian birth.\n{100}\n\nIn their old home in Schleswig the Angles had been in the exact centre of\nGermania: with an outlook upon both the North Sea and the Baltic, and in\ntouch with Scandinavian tribes on the North and Low German peoples on the\nSouth. That the Angles were interested in the stories of all the nations\nwhich surrounded them, and that they brought these stories with them to\nEngland, is certain. It is a mere accident that the one heroic poem which\nhappens to have been preserved at length is almost exclusively concerned\nwith Scandinavian doings. It could easily have happened that the history of\nthe _Beowulf_ MS and the _Waldere_ MS might have been reversed: that the\n_Beowulf_ might have been cut up to bind other books, and the _Waldere_\npreserved intact: in that case our one long poem would have been localized\nin ancient Burgundia, and would have dealt chiefly with the doings of\nBurgundian champions. But we should have had no more reason, without\nfurther evidence, to suppose the _Waldere_ a translation from the\nBurgundian than we have, without further evidence, to suppose _Beowulf_ a\ntranslation from the Scandinavian.\n\nTo deny that _Beowulf_, as we have it, is a translation from the\nScandinavian does not, of course, involve any denial of the Scandinavian\norigin of the _story_ of Beowulf's deeds. The fact that his achievements\nare framed in a Scandinavian setting, and that the closest parallels to\nthem have to be sought in Scandinavian lands, makes it probable on _a\npriori_ grounds that the story had its origin there. On the face of it,\nMuellenhoff's belief that the story was indigenous among the Angles is\nquite unlikely. It would seem rather to have originated in the Geatic\ncountry. But stories, whether in prose or verse, would spread quickly from\nthe Geatas to the Danes and from the Danes to the Angles.\n\nAfter the Angles had crossed the North Sea, however, this close intimacy\nceased, till the Viking raids again reminded Englishmen, in a very\nunpleasant way, of their kinsmen across the sea. Now linguistic evidence\ntends to show that _Beowulf_ belongs to a time prior to the Viking\nsettlement in England, and it is unlikely that the Scandinavian traditions\nembodied in _Beowulf_ found their way to England just at the time when\n{101} communication with Scandinavian lands seems to have been suspended.\nWe must conclude then that all this Scandinavian tradition probably spread\nto the Angles whilst they were still in their old continental home, was\nbrought across to England by the settlers in the sixth century, was handed\non by English bards from generation to generation, till some Englishmen\nformed the poem of _Beowulf_ as we know it.\n\nOf course, if evidence can be produced that _Beowulf_ is translated from\nsome Scandinavian original, which was brought over in the seventh century\nor later, that is another matter. But the evidence produced so far is not\nmerely inconclusive, but ludicrously inadequate.\n\nIt has been urged[228] by Sarrazin, the chief advocate of the translation\ntheory, that the description of the country round Heorot, and especially of\nthe journey to the Grendel-lake, shows such local knowledge as to point to\nits having been composed by some Scandinavian poet familiar with the\nlocality. Heorot can probably, as we have seen, be identified with Leire:\nand the Grendel-lake Sarrazin identifies with the neighbouring Roskilde\nfjord. But it is hardly possible to conceive a greater contrast than that\nbetween the Roskilde fjord and the scenery depicted in ll. 1357 _etc._,\n1408 _etc._ Seen, as Sarrazin saw it, on a May morning, in alternate sun\nand shadow, the Roskilde fjord presents a view of tame and peaceful beauty.\nIn the days of Hrothgar, when there were perhaps fewer cultivated fields\nand more beech forests, the scenery may have been less tame, but can hardly\nhave been less peaceful. The only trace of accurate geography is that\nHeorot is represented as not on the shore, and yet not far remote from it\n(ll. 307 _etc._). But, as has been pointed out above, we know that\ntraditions of the attack by the Heathobeardan upon Heorot were current in\nEngland: and these would be quite sufficient to keep alive, even among\nEnglish bards, some remembrance of the strategic situation of Heorot with\nregard to the sea. A man need not have been near Troy, to realize that the\ntown was no seaport and yet near the sea.\n\n{102}\n\nAgain, it has been claimed by Sarrazin that the language of _Beowulf_ shows\ntraces of the Scandinavian origin of the poem. Sarrazin's arguments on this\nhead have been contested energetically by Sievers[229]. After some heated\ncontroversy Sarrazin made a final and (presumably) carefully-weighed\nstatement of his case. In this he gave a list of twenty-nine words upon\nwhich he based his belief[230]. Yet of these twenty-nine, twenty-one occur\nin other O.E. writings, where there can be no possible question of\ntranslation from the Scandinavian: some of these words, in fact, are\namongst the commonest of O.E. poetical expressions. There remain eight\nwhich do not happen to be found elsewhere in the extant remains of O.E.\npoetry. But these are mostly compounds like _headho-l[=a]c_,\n_feorh-s[=e]oc_: and though the actual compound is not elsewhere extant in\nEnglish, the component elements are thoroughly English. There is no reason\nwhatever to think that these eight rare words are taken from Old Norse.\nIndeed, three of them do not occur in Old Norse at all.\n\nEvidence to prove _Beowulf_ a translation from a Scandinavian original is,\nthen, wanting. On the other hand, over and above the difficulty that the\n_Beowulf_ belongs just to the period when intimate communication between\nthe Angles and Scandinavians was suspended, there is much evidence against\nthe translation theory. The earliest Scandinavian poetry we possess, or of\nwhich we can get information, differs absolutely from _Beowulf_ in style,\nmetre and sentiment: the manners of _Beowulf_ are incompatible with all we\nknow of the wild heathendom of Scandinavia in the seventh or eighth\ncentury[231]. _Beowulf_, as we now have it, with its Christian references\nand its Latin loan-words, _could_ not be a translation from the\nScandinavian. And the proper names in _Beowulf_ which Sarrazin claimed were\nOld Norse, not Old English, and had been taken {103} over from the Old\nNorse original, are in all cases so correctly transliterated as to\nnecessitate the assumption that they were brought across early, at the time\nof the settlement of Britain or very shortly after, and underwent phonetic\ndevelopment side by side with the other words in the English language. Had\nthey been brought across from Scandinavia at a later date, much confusion\nmust have ensued in the forms.\n\nSomewhat less improbable is the suggestion \"that the poet had travelled on\nthe continent and become familiar with the legends of the Danes and Geats,\nor else had heard them from a Scandinavian resident in England[232].\" But\nit is clear from the allusive manner in which the Scandinavian tales are\ntold, that they must have been familiar to the poet's audience. If, then,\nthe English audience knew them, why must the poet himself have travelled on\nthe continent in order to know them? There is, therefore, no need for this\ntheory, and it is open to many of the objections of the translation theory:\nfor example it fails, equally with that theory, to account for the\nuniformly correct development of the proper names.\n\nThe obvious conclusion is that these Scandinavian traditions were brought\nover by the English settlers in the sixth century. Against this only one\ncavil can be raised, and that will not bear examination. It has been\nobjected that, since Hygelac's raid took place about 516, since Beowulf's\naccession was some years subsequent, and since he then reigned fifty years,\nhis death cannot be put much earlier than 575, and that this brings us to a\ndate when the migration of the Angles and Saxons had been completed[233].\nBut it is forgotten that all the historical events mentioned in the poem,\nwhich we can date, occur before, or not very long after, the raid of\nHygelac, c. 516. The poem asserts that fifty years after these events\nBeowulf slew a dragon and was slain by it. But this does not make the\ndragon historic, nor does it make the year 575 the historic date of the\ndeath of Beowulf. We cannot be sure that there _was_ any actual king of the\nGeatas named Beowulf; and if there was, the last known historic act with\nwhich that king is associated is the raising of Eadgils to the Swedish\nthrone, {104} c. 525: the rest of Beowulf's long reign, since it contains\nno event save the slaying of a dragon, has no historic validity.\n\nIt is noteworthy that, whereas there is full knowledge shown in our poem of\nthose events which took place in Scandinavian lands during the whole period\nfrom about 450 to 530--the period during which hordes of Angles, Saxons and\nJutes were landing in Britain--there is no reference, not even by way of\ncasual allusion, to any continental events which we can date with certainty\nas subsequent to the arrival of the latest settlers from the continent.\nSurely this is strong evidence that these tales were brought over by some\nof the last of the invaders, not carried to England by some casual\ntraveller a century or two later.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION II. THE DIALECT, SYNTAX, AND METRE OF \"BEOWULF\" AS EVIDENCE OF ITS\nLITERARY HISTORY.\n\nA full discussion of the dialect, metre and syntax of _Beowulf_ forms no\npart of the scheme of this study. It is only intended in this section to\nsee how far such investigations throw light upon the literary history of\nthe poem.\n\n_Dialect._\n\n_Beowulf_ is written in the late West Saxon dialect. Imbedded in the poem,\nhowever, are a large number of forms, concerning which this at least can be\nsaid--that they are not normal late West Saxon. Critics have classified\nthese forms, and have drawn conclusions from them as to the history of the\npoem: arguing from sporadic \"Mercian\" and \"Kentish\" forms that _Beowulf_ is\nof Mercian origin and has passed through the hands of a Kentish\ntranscriber.\n\nBut, in fact, the evidence as to Old English dialects is more scanty and\nmore conflicting than philologists have always been willing to admit. It is\nexceedingly difficult to say with any certainty what forms are \"Mercian\"\nand what \"Kentish.\" Having run such forms to earth, it is still more\ndifficult to say what arguments are to be drawn from their _occasional_\n{105} appearance in any text. Men from widely different parts of the\ncountry would be working together in the scriptorium of one and the same\nmonastery, and this fact alone may have often led to confusion in the\ndialectal forms of works transcribed.\n\nA thorough investigation of the significance of all the abnormal forms in\n_Beowulf_ has still to be made. Whether it would repay the labour of the\ninvestigator may well be questioned. In the meantime we may accept the view\nthat the poem was in all probability originally written in some\nnon-West-Saxon dialect, and most probably in an Anglian dialect, since this\nis confirmed by the way in which the Anglian hero Offa is dragged into the\nstory.\n\n    Ten Brink's attempt to decide the dialect and transmission of _Beowulf_\n    will be found in his _Beowulf_, pp. 237-241: he notes the difficulty\n    that the \"Kentish\" forms from which he argues are nearly all such as\n    occur also sporadically in West Saxon texts. A classification of the\n    forms by P. G. Thomas will be found in the _Modern Language Review_, I,\n    202 _etc._ How difficult and uncertain all classification must be has\n    been shown by Frederick Tupper (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXVI,\n    235 _etc._; _J.E.G.P._ XI, 82-9).\n\n\"_Lichtenheld's Test._\"\n\nSomewhat more definite results can be drawn from certain syntactical\nusages. There can be no doubt that as time went on, the use of _se_,\n_s[=e]o_, _thaet_ became more and more common in O.E. verse. This is\nlargely due to the fact that in the older poems the _weak adjective_ +\n_noun_ appears frequently where we should now use the definite article:\n_w[=i]sa fengel_--\"the wise prince\"; _se w[=i]sa fengel_ is used where some\ndemonstrative is needed--\"that wise prince.\" Later, however, _se_,\n_s[=e]o_, _thaet_ comes to be used in the common and vague sense in which\nthe definite article is used in Modern English.\n\nWe consequently get with increasing frequency the use of the _definite\narticle_ + _weak adjective_ + _noun_: whilst the usage _weak adjective_ +\n_noun_ decreases. Some rough criterion of date can thus be obtained by an\nexamination of a poet's usage in this particular. Of course it would be\nabsurd--as has been done--to group Old English poems in a strict\nchronological order according to the proportion of forms with and without\nthe article. Individual usage must count for a good deal: {106} also the\nscribes in copying and recopying our text must to a considerable extent\nhave obliterated the earlier practice. Metre and syntax combine to make it\nprobable that, in line 9 of our poem, the scribe has inserted the\nunnecessary article _th[=a]ra_ before _ymbsittendra_: and in the rare cases\nwhere we have an O.E. poem preserved in two texts, a comparison proves that\nthe scribe has occasionally interpolated an article. But this later\ntendency to level out the peculiarity only makes it the more remarkable\nthat we should find such great differences between O.E. poems, all of them\nextant in copies transcribed about the year 1000.\n\nHow great is the difference between the usage of _Beowulf_ and that of the\ngreat body of Old English poetry will be clear from the following\nstatistics.\n\nThe proportion of phrases containing the weak adjective + noun with and\nwithout the definite article in the certain works of Cynewulf is as\nfollows[234]:\n\n                  With article  Without article\n  _Juliana_              27               3\n  _Christ (II)_          28               3\n  _Elene_                66               9\n\nIn _Guthlac_ (A) (c. 750) the proportions are:\n\n                  With article  Without article\n  _Guthlac_ (A)          42               6\n\nContrast this with the proportion in our poem:\n\n                  With article  Without article\n  _Beowulf_              13              65\n\nThe nearest approach to the proportions of _Beowulf_ is in the (certainly\nvery archaic)\n\n                  With article  Without article\n  _Exodus_               10              14\n\nOn the other hand, certain late texts show how fallible this criterion is.\nAnyone dating _Maldon_ solely by \"Lichtenheld's Test\" would assuredly place\nit much earlier than 991.\n\n{107}\n\nIt is easy to make a false use of grammatical statistics: and this test\nshould only be applied with the greatest caution. But the difference\nbetween _Beowulf_ and the works of Cynewulf is too striking to be\noverlooked. In _Beowulf_, to every five examples without the article (e.g.\n_headho-st[=e]apa helm_) we have _one_ with the article (e.g. _se hearda\nhelm_): in Cynewulf to every five examples without the article we have\n_forty_ with it.\n\nA further test of antiquity is in the use of the weak adjective with the\ninstrumental--a use which rapidly diminishes.\n\nThere are eighteen such instrumental phrases in _Beowulf_ (3182\nlines)[235]. In _Exodus_ (589 lines) there are six\nexamples[236]--proportionally more than in _Beowulf_. In Cynewulf's\nundoubted works (c. 2478 lines) there is one example only, _beorhtan\nreorde_[237].\n\n    This criterion of the absence of the definite article before the weak\n    adjective is often referred to as Lichtenheld's Test (see article by\n    him in _Z.f.d.A._ XVI, 325 _etc._). It has been applied to the whole\n    body of O.E. poetry by Barnouw (_Textcritische Untersuchungen_, 1902).\n    The data collected by Barnouw are most valuable, but we must be\n    cautious in the conclusions we draw, as is shown by Sarrazin (_Eng.\n    Stud._ XXXVIII, 145 _etc._), and Tupper (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc._ XXVI,\n    274).\n\n    Exact enumeration of instances is difficult. For example, Lichtenheld\n    gave 22 instances of definite article + weak adjective + noun in\n    _Beowulf_[238]. But eight of these are not quite certain; _se g[=o]da\n    m[=ae]g Hygel[=a]ces_ may be not \"the good kinsman of Hygelac,\" but\n    \"the good one--the kinsman of Hygelac,\" for there is the half line\n    pause after _g[=o]da_. These eight examples therefore should be\n    deducted[239]. One instance, though practically certain, is the result\n    of conjectural emendation[240]. Of the remaining thirteen[241] three\n    are variations of the same phrase.\n\n    The statistics given above are those of Brandl (_Sitzungsberichte d. k.\n    Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften_, 1905, p. 719) which are based upon\n    those of Barnouw.\n\n\"_Morsbach's Test._\"\n\nSievers' theories as to O.E. metre have not been accepted by all scholars\nin their entirety. But the statistics which he {108} collected enable us to\nsay, with absolute certainty, that some given types of verse were not\nacceptable to the ear of an Old English bard.\n\nSceptics may emphasize the fact that Old English texts are uncertain, that\nnearly all poems are extant in one MS only, that the MS in each case was\nwritten down long after the poems were composed, and that precise verbal\naccuracy is therefore not to be expected[242]. All the more remarkable then\nbecomes the fact, for it is a fact, that there are certain types of line\nwhich never occur in _Beowulf_, and that there are other types which are\nexceedingly rare. Again, there are certain types of line which _do_ occur\nin _Beowulf_ as we have it, though they seem contrary to the principles of\nO.E. scansion. When we find that such lines consistently contain some word\nwhich had a different metrical value when our extant MS of _Beowulf_ was\ntranscribed, from that which it had at the earlier date when _Beowulf_ was\ncomposed, and that the earlier value makes the line metrical, the\nconclusion is obvious. _Beowulf_ must have been composed at a time or in a\ndialect when the earlier metrical values held good.\n\nBut we reach a certain date beyond which, if we put the language back into\nits older form, it will no longer fit into the metrical structure. For\nexample, words like _fl[=o]d_, _feld_, _eard_ were originally \"u-nouns\":\nwith nom. and acc. sing. _fl[=o]du_, etc. But the half-line _ofer fealone\nfl[=o]d_ (1950) becomes exceedingly difficult if we put it in the form\n_ofer fealone fl[=o]du_[243]: the half-line _f[=i]felcynnes eard_ becomes\nabsolutely impossible in the form _f[=i]felcynnes eardu_[244].\n\nIt can, consequently, with some certainty be argued that these half-lines\nwere composed after the time when _fl[=o]du_, _eardu_ had become _fl[=o]d_,\n_eard_. Therefore, it has been further argued, _Beowulf_ was composed after\nthat date. But are we justified in this further step--in assuming that\nbecause a certain number of half-lines in _Beowulf_ must have been composed\nafter a certain date, therefore _Beowulf_ itself must have been composed\nafter that date?\n\n{109}\n\nFrom what we know of the mechanical way in which the Old English _scribe_\nworked, we have no reason to suppose that he would have consistently\naltered what he found in an older copy, so as to make it metrical according\nto the later speech into which he was transcribing it. But if we go back to\na time when poems were committed to memory by a _scop_, skilled in the laws\nof O.E. metre, the matter is very different. A written poem may be copied\nword for word, even though the spelling is at the same time modernized, but\nit is obvious that a poem preserved orally will be altered slightly from\ntime to time, if the language in which it is written is undergoing changes\nwhich make the poem no longer metrically correct.\n\nImagine the state of things at the period when final _u_ was being lost\nafter a long syllable. This loss of a syllable would make a large number of\nthe half-lines and formulas in the old poetry unmetrical. Are we to suppose\nthat the whole of O.E. poetry was at once scrapped, and entirely new poems\ncomposed to fit in with the new sound laws? Surely not; old formulas would\nbe recast, old lines modified where they needed it, but the old poetry\nwould go on[245], with these minor verbal changes adapting it to the new\norder of things. We can see this taking place, to a limited extent, in the\ntranscripts of Middle English poems. In the transmission of poems by word\nof mouth it would surely take place to such an extent as to baffle later\ninvestigation[246].\n\nConsequently I am inclined to agree that this test is hardly final except\n\"on the assumption that the poems were written down from the very\nbeginning[247].\" And we are clearly not justified in making any such\nassumption. A small number of such lines would accordingly give, not so\nmuch a means of fixing a period before which _Beowulf_ cannot have been\ncomposed, as merely {110} one before which _Beowulf_ cannot have been fixed\nby writing in its present form.\n\nIf, however, more elaborate investigation were to show that the\n_percentage_ of such lines is _just as great_ in _Beowulf_ as it is in\npoems certainly written after the sound changes had taken place, it might\nbe conceded that the test was a valid one, and that it proved _Beowulf_ to\nhave been written after these sound changes occurred.\n\nThis would then bring us to our second difficulty. At what date exactly did\nthese sound changes take place? The chief documents available are the\nproper names in Bede's History, and in certain Latin charters, the glosses,\nand a few early runic inscriptions. Most important, although very scanty,\nare the charters, since they bear a date. With these we proceed to\ninvestigate:\n\nA. The dropping of the _u_ after a long accented syllable (_fl['=o]du_\nbecoming _fl['=o]d_), or semi-accented syllable (_St['=a]nf[`o]rdu_\nbecoming _St['=a]nf[`o]rd_).\n\nThere is evidence from an Essex charter that this was already lost in 692\nor 693 (_uuidmundesfelt_)[248]. From this date on, examples without the _u_\nare forthcoming in increasing number[249]. One certain example only has\nbeen claimed for the preservation of _u_. In the runic inscription on the\n\"Franks casket\" _flodu_ is found for _flod_. But the spelling of the Franks\ncasket is erratic: for example _giutheasu_ is also found for _giutheas_,\n\"the Jews.\" Now _u_ here is impossible[250], and we must conclude perhaps\nthat the inscriber of the runes intended to write _giuthea su[mae]_[250] or\n_giuthea su[na]_[251], \"some of the Jews,\" \"the sons of the Jews,\" and that\nhaving reached the end of his line at _u_, he neglected to complete the\nword: or else perhaps that he wrote _giutheas_ and having some additional\nspace added a _u_ at the end of his line, just for fun. Whichever\nexplanation we {111} adopt, it will apply to _flodu_, which equally comes\nat the end of a line, and the _u_ of which may equally have been part of\nsome following word which was never completed[252].\n\nOther linguistic data of the Franks casket would lead us to place it\nsomewhere in the first half of the eighth century, and we should hardly\nexpect to find _u_ preserved as late as this[253]. For we have seen that by\n693 the _u_ was already lost after a subordinate accent in the Essex\ncharter. Yet it is arguable that the _u_ was retained later after a long\naccented syllable (_fl[=['o]]du_) than after a subordinate accent\n(_uu[=['i]]dm[`u]ndesf[`e]lt_); and, besides, the casket is Northumbrian,\nand the sound changes need not have been simultaneous all over the country.\n\nWe cannot but feel that the evidence is pitifully scanty. All we can say is\nthat _perhaps_ the _flodu_ of the Franks casket shows that _u_ was still\npreserved after a fully accented syllable as late as 700. But the _u_ in\n_flodu_ may be a deliberate archaism on the part of the writer, may be a\nlocal dialectal survival, may be a mere miswriting.\n\nB. The preservation of _h_ between consonant and vowel.\n\nHere there is one clear example which we can date: the archaic spelling of\nthe proper name _Welhisc_. _Signum manus uelhisci_ occurs in a Kentish\ncharter of 679[254]. The same charter shows _h_ already lost between\nvowels: _uuestan ae_ (_ae_ dative of _[=e]a_, \"river,\" cf. Gothic _ahwa_).\n\nNot much can be argued from the proper name _Welhisc_, as to the current\npronunciation in Kent in 679, for an old man may well have continued to\nspell his name as it was spelt when he was a child, even though the current\npronunciation had changed[255]. But we have further evidence in the\nglosses, which show _h_ sometimes preserved and sometimes not. These\nglosses are mechanical copies of an original which was presumably compiled\nbetween 680 and 720. We are therefore justified in arguing that at that\ndate _h_ was still preserved, at any rate occasionally.\n\n{112}\n\nOf \"Morsbach's test\" we can then say that it establishes something of an\nargument that _Beowulf_ was composed after the date when final _u_ after a\nlong syllable, or _h_ between consonant and vowel, were lost, and that this\ndate was probably within a generation or so of the year 700 A.D. But there\nare too many uncertain contingencies involved to make the test at all a\nconclusive one.\n\n    Morsbach's _Zur Datierung des Beowulf-epos_ will be found in the\n    Goettingen _Nachrichten_, 1906, pp. 252-77. These tests have been\n    worked out for the whole body of Old English poetry in the\n    _Chronologische Studien_ of Carl Richter, Halle, 1910.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION III. THEORIES AS TO THE STRUCTURE OF \"BEOWULF.\"\n\nCertain peculiarities in the structure of _Beowulf_ can hardly fail to\nstrike the reader. (1) The poem is not a biography of Beowulf, nor yet an\nepisode in his life: it is two distinct episodes: the Grendel business and\nthe dragon business, joined by a narrow bridge. (2) Both these stories are\nbroken in upon by digressions: some of these concern Beowulf himself, so\nthat we get a fairly complete idea of the life of our hero: but for the\nmost part these digressions are not strictly apposite. (3) Even apart from\nthese digressions, the narrative is often hampered: the poet begins his\nstory, diverges and returns. (4) The traces of Christian thought and\nknowledge which meet us from time to time seem to belong to a different\nworld from that of the Germanic life in which our poem has its roots.\n\nNow in the middle of the nineteenth century it was widely believed that the\ngreat epics of the world had been formed from collections of original\nshorter lays fitted together (often unskilfully) by later redactors. For a\ncritic starting from this assumption, better material than the _Beowulf_\ncould hardly be found. And it _was_ with such assumptions that Carl\nMuellenhoff, the greatest of the scholars who have dissected the _Beowulf_,\nset to work. He attended the lectures of Lachmann, and formed, {113} a\nbiographer tells us, the fixed resolve to do for one epic what his admired\nmaster had done for another[256].\n\nMuellenhoff claimed for his theories that they were simple[257] and\nstraightforward: and so they were, if we may be allowed to assume as a\nbasis that the _Beowulf_ is made up out of shorter lays, and that the only\nbusiness of the critic is to define the scope of these lays. In the story\nof Beowulf's fight with Grendel (ll. 194-836: Muellenhoff's Sect. I) and\nwith the dragon (ll. 2200-3183: Muellenhoff's Sect. IV) Muellenhoff saw the\nmuch interpolated remains of two original lays by different authors. But,\nbefore it was united to the dragon story, the Grendel story, Muellenhoff\nheld, had already undergone many interpolations and additions. The story of\nGrendel's mother (ll. 837-1623: Sect. II) was added, Muellenhoff held, by\none continuator as a sequel to the story of Grendel, and ll. 1-193 were\nadded by another hand as an introduction. Then this Grendel story was\nfinally rounded off by an interpolator (A) who added the account of\nBeowulf's return home (Sect. III, ll. 1629-2199) and at the same time\ninserted passages into the poem throughout. Finally came Interpolator B,\nwho was the first to combine the Grendel story, thus elaborated, with the\ndragon story. Interpolator B was responsible for the great bulk of the\ninterpolations: episodes from other cycles and \"theologizing\" matter.\n\nTen Brink, like Muellenhoff, regarded the poem as falling into four\nsections: the Grendel fight, the fight with Grendel's mother, the return\nhome, the dragon fight. But Muellenhoff had imagined the epic composed out\nof one set of lays: incoherences, he thought, were due to the bungling of\nsuccessive interpolators. Ten Brink assumed that in the case of all three\nfights, with Grendel, with Grendel's mother, and with the dragon, there had\nbeen two _parallel_ versions, which a later redactor had combined together,\nand that it was to this combination that the frequent repetitions in the\n{114} narrative were due: he believed that not only were the different\nepisodes of the poem originally distinct, but that each episode was\ncompounded of two originally distinct lays, combined together.\n\nNow it cannot be denied that the process postulated by Muellenhoff _might_\nhave taken place: a lay on Grendel and a lay on the dragon-fight might have\nbeen combined by some later compiler. Ten Brink's theory, too, is\ninherently not improbable: that there should have been two or more versions\ncurrent of a popular story is probable enough: that a scribe should have\ntried to fit these two parallel versions together is not without precedent:\nvery good examples of such attempts at harmonizing different versions can\nbe got from an examination of the MSS of _Piers Plowman_.\n\nIt is only here and there that we are struck by an inherent improbability\nin Muellenhoff's scheme. Thus the form in which Muellenhoff assumes the\npoem to have existed before Interpolator A set to work on it, is hardly a\ncredible one. The \"original poet\" has brought Beowulf from his home to the\nDanish court, to slay Grendel, and the \"continuator\" has taken him to the\nhaunted lake: Beowulf has plunged down, slain Grendel's mother, come back\nto land. Here Muellenhoff believed the poem to have ended, until\n\"Interpolator A\" came along, and told how Beowulf returned in triumph to\nHrothgar, was thanked and rewarded, and then betook himself home, and was\nwelcomed by Hygelac. That it would have been left to an interpolator to\nsupply what from the old point of view was so necessary a part of the story\nas the return to Hrothgar is an assumption perilous indeed. \"An epic poem\nonly closes when everything is really concluded: not, like a modern novel,\nat a point where the reader can imagine the rest for himself[258].\"\n\nGenerally speaking, however, the theories of the \"dissecting school\" are\nnot in themselves faulty, if we admit the assumptions on which they rest.\nThey fail however in two ways. An examination of the short lay and the long\nepic, so far as these are represented in extant documents, does not bear\nout {115} well the assumptions of the theorizers. Secondly, the minute\nscrutiny to which the poem has been subjected in matters of syntax, metre,\ndialect and tradition has failed to show any difference between the parts\nattributed to the different authors, such as we must certainly have\nexpected to find, had the theories of the \"dissecting school\" been correct.\n\nThat behind our extant _Beowulf_, and connecting it with the events of the\nsixth century, there must have been a number of older lays, may indeed well\nbe admitted: also that to these lays our poem owes its plot, its traditions\nof metre and its phraseology, and perhaps (but this is a perilous\nassumption) continuous passages of its text. But what Muellenhoff and ten\nBrink go on to assume is that these original oral lays were simple in\noutline and treated a single well-defined episode in a straightforward\nmanner; that later redactors and scribes corrupted this primitive\nsimplicity; but that the modern critic, by demanding it, and using its\npresence or absence as a criterion, can still disentangle from the complex\ncomposite poem the simpler elements out of which it was built up.\n\nHere are rather large assumptions. What right have we to postulate that\nthis primitive \"literature without letters[259],\" these short oral ballads\nand lays, dealt with a single episode without digression or confusion:\nwhilst the later age,--the civilized, Christianized age of written\nliterature during which _Beowulf_ in the form in which we now have it was\nproduced,--is assumed to have been tolerant of both?\n\nNo doubt, here and there, in different literatures, groups of short lays\ncan be found which one can imagine might be combined into an orderly\nnarrative poem, without much hacking about. But on the other hand a short\nlay will often tell, in less than a hundred lines, a story more complex\nthan that of the _Iliad_ or the _Odyssey_. Its shortness may be due, not to\nany limitation in the scope of the plot, but rather to the passionate haste\nwith which it rushes through a long story. It is one thing to admit that\nthere must have been short lays on the story of Beowulf: it is another to\nassume that these lays were of such a character that nothing was needed but\ncompilers {116} with a taste for arrangement and interpolation in order to\nturn them into the extant epic of _Beowulf_.\n\nWhen we find nearly five hundred lines spent in describing the reception of\nthe hero in Hrothgar's land, we may well doubt whether this passage can\nhave found its way into our poem through any such process of fitting\ntogether as Muellenhoff postulated. It would be out of scale in any\nnarrative shorter than the _Beowulf_ as we have it. It suggests to us that\nthe epic is developed out of the lay, not by a process of fitting together,\nbut rather by a retelling of the story in a more leisurely way.\n\nA comparison of extant short lays or ballads with extant epics has shown\nthat, if these epics were made by stringing lays together, such lays must\nhave been different from the great majority of the short lays now known.\n\"The lays into which this theory dissects the epics, or which it assumes as\nthe sources of the epics, differ in two ways from extant lays: they deal\nwith short, incomplete subjects and they have an epic breadth of\nstyle[260].\"\n\nIt has been shown by W. P. Ker[261] that a comparison of such fragments as\nhave survived of the Germanic short lay (_Finnsburg_, _Hildebrand_) does\nnot bear out the theory that the epic is a conglomeration of such lays. \"It\nis the change and development in style rather than any increase in the\ncomplexity of the themes that accounts for the difference in scale between\nthe shorter and the longer poems.\"\n\nA similar conclusion is reached by Professor Hart: \"It might be\nilluminating to base a _Liedertheorie_ in part, at least, upon a study of\nexisting _Lieder_, rather than wholly upon an attempt to dismember the epic\nin question. Such study reveals indeed a certain similarity in kind of\nBallad and Epic, but it reveals at the same time an enormous difference in\ndegree, in stage of development. If the _Beowulf_, then, was made up of a\nseries of heroic songs, strung together with little or no modification,\nthese songs must have been something very different from the popular\nballad[262].\"\n\n{117}\n\nAnd subsequent investigations into the history and folk-lore of our poem\nhave not confirmed Muellenhoff's theory: in some cases indeed they have hit\nit very hard. When a new light was thrown upon the story by the discovery\nof the parallels between _Beowulf_ and the _Grettis saga_, it became clear\nthat passages which Muellenhoff had condemned as otiose interpolations were\nlikely to be genuine elements in the tale. Dr Olrik's minute investigations\ninto the history of the Danish kings have shown from yet another point of\nview how allusions, which were rashly condemned by Muellenhoff and ten\nBrink as idle amplifications, are, in fact, essential.\n\nHow the investigation of the metre, form, and syntax of _Beowulf_ has\ndisclosed an archaic strictness of usage has been explained above (Sect.\nII). This usage is in striking contrast with the practice of later poets\nlike Cynewulf. How far we are justified in relying upon such differences of\nusage as criteria of _exact_ date is open to dispute. But it seems clear\nthat, had Muellenhoff's theories been accurate, we might reasonably have\nexpected to have been able to differentiate between the earlier and the\nlater strata in so composite a poem.\n\n\n\nThe composite theory has lately been strongly supported by Schuecking[263].\nSchuecking starts from the fact, upon which we are all agreed, that the\npoem falls into two main divisions: the story of how Beowulf at Heorot slew\nGrendel and Grendel's mother, and the story of the dragon, which fifty\nyears later he slew at his home. These are connected by the section which\ntells how Beowulf returned from Heorot to his own home and was honourably\nreceived by his king, Hygelac.\n\nIt is now admitted that the ways of Old English narrative were not\nnecessarily our ways, and that we must not postulate, because our poem\nfalls into two somewhat clumsily connected sections, that therefore it is\ncompounded out of two originally distinct lays. But, on the other hand, as\nSchuecking rightly urges, instances _are_ forthcoming of two O.E. poems\nhaving been clumsily connected into one[264]. Therefore, whilst no one\nwould now urge that _Beowulf_ is put together out of two older {118} lays,\n_merely_ because it can so easily be divided into two sections, this fact\ndoes suggest that a case exists for examination.\n\nNow if a later poet had connected together two old lays, one on the Grendel\nand Grendel's mother business, and one on the dragon business, we might\nfairly expect that this connecting link would show traces of a different\nstyle. It is accordingly on the connecting link, the story of _Beowulf's\nReturn_ and reception by Hygelac, that Schuecking concentrates his\nattention, submitting it to the most elaborate tests to see if it betrays\nmetrical, stylistic or syntactical divergencies from the rest of the poem.\n\nVarious tests are applied, which admittedly give no result, such as the\nfrequency of the repetition in the _Return_ of half verse formulas which\noccur elsewhere in _Beowulf_[265], or the way in which compound nouns fit\ninto the metrical scheme[266]. Metrical criteria are very little more\nhelpful[267]. We have seen that the antiquity of _Beowulf_ is proved by the\ncases where metre demands the substitution of an older uncontracted form\nfor the existing shorter one. Schuecking argues that no instance occurs in\nthe 267 lines of the _Return_. But, even if this were the case, it might\nwell be mere accident, since examples only occur at rare intervals anywhere\nin _Beowulf_. As a matter of fact, however, examples are to be found in the\n_Return_[268] (quite up to the normal proportion), though two of the\nclearest come in a portion of it which Schuecking rather arbitrarily\nexcludes.\n\nComing to syntax in its broadest sense, and especially the method of\nconstructing and connecting sentences, Schuecking enumerates several\nconstructions which are found in the _Return_, but not elsewhere in\n_Beowulf_. Syntax is a subject to which he has given special study, and his\nopinion upon it must be of value. But I doubt whether anyone as expert in\nthe subject as Schuecking could not find in every passage of like length in\n_Beowulf_ some constructions not to be exactly paralleled elsewhere in the\npoem.\n\n{119}\n\nThe fact that we find here, and here only, passages introduced by the\nclauses _ic sceal fordh sprecan_[269], and _t[=o] lang ys t[=o]\nreccenne_[270], is natural when we realize that we have here the longest\nspeech in the whole poem, which obviously calls for such apologies for\nprolixity.\n\nThe fact that no parentheses occur in the _Return_ does not differentiate\nit from the rest of _Beowulf_: for, as Schuecking himself points out\nelsewhere, there are three other passages in the poem, longer than the\n_Return_, which are equally devoid of parentheses[271].\n\nThere remain a few _hapax legomena_[272], but very inconclusive.\n\nThere are, in addition, examples which occur only in the _Return_, and in\ncertain other episodic passages. These episodic passages also, Schuecking\nsupposes, may have been added by the same reviser who added the _Return_.\nBut this is a perilous change of position. For example, a certain\npeculiarity is found only in the _Return_ and the introductory genealogical\nsection[273]; or in the _Return_ and the _Finn Episode_[274]. But when\nSchuecking proceeds to the suggestion that the _Introduction_ or the _Finn\nEpisode_ may have been added by the same reviser who added _Beowulf's\nReturn_, he knocks the bottom out of some of his previous arguments. The\nargument from the absence of parentheses (whatever it was worth) must go:\nfor according to Schuecking's own punctuation, such parentheses are found\nboth in the _Introduction_ and in the _Finn Episode_. If these are by the\nauthor of the _Return_, then doubt is thrown upon one of the alleged\npeculiarities of that author; we find the author of the _Return_ no more\naverse _on the whole_ to parentheses than the author or authors of the rest\nof the poem.\n\nPeculiar usages of the moods and tenses are found twice in the\n_Return_[275], and once again in the episode where Beowulf {120} recalls\nhis youth[276]. Supposing this episode to be also the work of the author of\nthe _Return_, we get peculiar constructions used three times by this\nauthor, which cannot be paralleled elsewhere in _Beowulf_[277].\n\nNow a large number of instances like this last might afford basis for\nargument; but they must be in bulk in order to prove anything. By the laws\nof chance we might expect, in any passage of three hundred lines, taken at\nrandom anywhere in _Beowulf_, to find something which occurred only in one\nother passage elsewhere in the poem. We cannot forthwith declare the two\npassages to be the work of an interpolator. One swallow does not make a\nsummer.\n\nAnd the arguments as to style are not helped by arguments as to matter.\nEven if it be granted--which I do not grant--that the long repetition\nnarrating Beowulf's contest with Grendel and Grendel's mother is tedious,\nthere is no reason why this tedious repetition should not as well be the\nwork of the original poet as of a later reviser. Must we find many\ndifferent authors for _The Ring and the Book_? It must be granted that\nthere are details (such as the mention of Grendel's glove) found in the\nGrendel struggle as narrated in _Beowulf's Return_, but not found in the\noriginal account of the struggle. Obviously the object is to avoid\nmonotony, by introducing a new feature: but this might as well have been\naimed at by the old poet retelling the tale as by a new poet retelling it.\n\nTo me, the fact that so careful and elaborate a study of the story of\n_Beowulf's Return_ fails to betray any satisfactory evidence of separate\nauthorship, is a confirmation of the verdict of \"not proven\" against the\n\"dividers[278].\" But there can be no doubt that Schuecking's method, his\nattempt to prove differences in treatment, grammar, and style, is the right\none. If any satisfactory results are to be attained, it must be in this\nway.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{121}\n\nSECTION IV. ARE THE CHRISTIAN ELEMENTS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE\nPOEM?\n\nLater students (like the man in Dante, placed between two equally enticing\ndishes) have been unable to decide in favour of either of the rival\ntheories of Muellenhoff and ten Brink, and consequently the unity of the\npoem, which always had its champions, has of late years come to be\nmaintained with increasing conviction and certainty.\n\nYet many recent critics have followed Muellenhoff so far at least as to\nbelieve that the Christian passages are inconsistent with what they regard\nas the \"essentially heathen\" tone of the rest of the poem, and are\ntherefore the work of an interpolator[279].\n\nCertainly no one can escape a feeling of incongruity, as he passes from\nideas of which the home lies in the forests of ancient Germany, to others\nwhich come from the Holy Land. But that both sets of ideas could not have\nbeen cherished, in England, about the year 700, by one and the same poet,\nis an assumption which calls for examination.\n\nAs Christianity swept northward, situations were created which to the\nmodern student are incongruous. But the Teutonic chief often had a larger\nmind than the modern student: he needed to have, if he was to get the best\nat the same time both from his wild fighting men and from his Latin clerks.\nIt is this which gives so remarkable a character to the great men of the\nearly centuries of converted Teutonism: men, like Theodoric the Great or\nCharles the Great, who could perform simultaneously the duties of a\nGermanic king and of a Roman Emperor: kings like Alfred the Great or St\nOlaf, who combined the character of the tough fighting chieftain with that\nof the saintly churchman. I love to think of these incongruities: to\nremember that the warrior Alfred, surrounded by _thegn_ and _gesith_,\nlistening to the \"Saxon songs\" which he loved, was yet the same Alfred who\npainfully translated Gregory's _Pastoral {122} Care_ under the direction of\nforeign clerics. It is well to remember that Charles the Great, the\ncatholic and the orthodox, collected ancient lays which his successors\nthought too heathen to be tolerated; or that St Olaf (who was so holy that,\nhaving absent mindedly chipped shavings off a stick on Sunday, he burnt\nthem, as penance, on his open hand) nevertheless allowed to be sung before\nhim, on the morning of his last fight, one of the most wild and utterly\nheathen of all the old songs--the _Bjarkam['a]l_.\n\nIt has been claimed that the account of the funeral rites of Beowulf is\nsuch as \"no Christian poet could or would have composed[280].\" Lately this\nargument has been stated more at length:\n\n    \"In the long account of Beowulf's obsequies--beginning with the dying\n    king's injunction to construct for him a lofty barrow on the edge of\n    the cliff, and ending with the scene of the twelve princes riding round\n    the barrow, proclaiming the dead man's exploits--we have the most\n    detailed description of an early Teutonic funeral which has come down\n    to us, and one of which the accuracy is confirmed in every point by\n    archaeological or contemporary literary evidence[281]. Such an account\n    must have been composed within living memory of a time when ceremonies\n    of this kind were still actually in use[282].\"\n\nOwing to the standing of the scholar who urges it, this argument is coming\nto rank as a dogma[283], and needs therefore rather close examination.\n\nProfessor Chadwick _may_ be right in urging that the custom of burning the\ndead had gone out of use in England even before Christianity was\nintroduced[284]: anyhow it is certain that, wherever it survived, the\npractice was disapproved by ecclesiastics, and was, indeed, formally\ncensured and suppressed by the church abroad.\n\nThe church equally censured and endeavoured to suppress the ancient\n\"heathen lays\"; but without equal success. Now, in many of these lays the\nheathen rites of cremation must certainly have been depicted, and, in this\nway, the memory of the old funeral customs must have been kept fresh, long\n{123} after the last funeral pyre had died out in England. Of course there\nwere then, as there have been ever since, puritanical people who objected\nthat heathen lays and heathen ways were no fit concern for a Christian man.\nBut the protests of such purists are just the strongest evidence that the\naverage Christian did continue to take an interest in these things. We have\nseen that the very monks of Lindisfarne had to be warned by Alcuin. I\ncannot see that there is any such _a priori_ impossibility that a poet,\nthough a sincere Christian enough, would have described a funeral in the\nold style, modelling his account upon older lays, or upon tradition derived\nfrom those lays.\n\nThe church might disapprove of the practice of cremation, but we have no\nreason to suppose that mention of it was tabooed. And many of the old\nburial customs seem to have kept their hold, even upon the converted.\nIndeed, when the funeral of Attila is instanced as a type of the old\nheathen ceremony, it seems to be forgotten that those Gothic chieftains who\nrode their horses round the body of Attila were themselves probably Arian\nChristians, and that the historian who has preserved the account was an\northodox cleric.\n\nSaxo Grammaticus, ecclesiastic as he was, has left us several accounts[285]\nof cremations. He mentions the \"pyre built of ships\" and differs from the\npoet of _Beowulf_ chiefly because he allows those frankly heathen\nreferences to gods and offerings which the poet of _Beowulf_ excludes. Of\ncourse, Saxo was merely translating. One can quite believe that a Christian\npoet composing an account of a funeral in the old days, would have omitted\nthe more frankly heathen features, as indeed the _Beowulf_ poet does. But\nSaxo shows us how far into Christian times the ancient funeral, in all its\nheathendom, was remembered; and how little compunction an ecclesiastic had\nin recording it. The assumption that no Christian poet would have composed\nthe account of Beowulf's funeral or of Scyld's funeral ship, seems then to\nbe quite unjustified.\n\nThe further question remains: Granting that he _would_, could he? Is the\naccount of Beowulf's funeral so true to old custom that it must have been\ncomposed by an eye-witness of {124} the rite of cremation? Is its \"accuracy\nconfirmed in every point by archaeological or contemporary literary\nevidence\"?\n\nAs to the archaeological evidence, the fact seems to be that the account is\narchaeologically so inexact that it has given great trouble to one eminent\nantiquary, Knut Stjerna. That the pyre should be hung with arms, which are\n_burnt_ with the hero (ll. 3139-40), and that then a second supply of\nunburnt treasures should be _buried_ with the cremated bones (ll. 3163-8),\nis regarded by Stjerna as extraordinary[286].\n\nSurely, any such inexactitude is what we should expect in a late poet,\ndrawing upon tradition. He would know that in heathen times bodies were\nburnt, and that weapons were buried; and he might well combine both. It is\nnot necessary to suppose, as Stjerna does, that the poet has combined two\nseparate accounts of Beowulf's funeral, given in older lays, in one of\nwhich the hero was burnt, and in the other buried. But the fact that an\narchaeological specialist finds the account of Beowulf's funeral so inexact\nthat he has to assume a confused and composite source, surely disposes of\nthe argument that it is so exact that it must date back to heathen times.\n\nAs to confirmation from literary documents, the only one instanced by\nChadwick is the account of the funeral of Attila. The parallel here is by\nno means so close as has been asserted. The features of Attila's funeral\nare: the lying in state, during which the chosen horsemen of the nation\nrode round the body singing the dead king's praises; the funeral feast; and\nthe burial (not burning) of the body. Now the only feature which recurs in\n_Beowulf_ is the praise of the dead man by the mounted thanes. Even here\nthere is an essential difference. Attila's men rode round the dead body of\ntheir lord _before_ his funeral. Beowulf's retainers ride and utter their\nlament around (not the body but) the grave mound of their lord, ten days\nafter the cremation.\n\nAnd this is perhaps no accidental discrepancy: it may well correspond to a\nreal difference in practice between the Gothic custom of the time of the\nmigrations and the Anglo-Saxon {125} practice as it prevailed in Christian\ntimes[287]. For many documents, including the _Dream of the Rood_, tend to\nshow that the _sorhl[=e]odh_, the lament of the retainers for their dead\nlord, survived into Christian times, but as a ceremony which was subsequent\nnot merely to the funeral, but even to the building of the tomb.\n\nSo that, here again, so far from the archaeological accuracy of the account\nof Beowulf's funeral being confirmed by the account of that of Attila, we\nfind a discrepancy such as we might expect if a Christian poet, in later\ntimes, had tried to describe a funeral of the old heathen type.\n\nOf course, the evidence is far too scanty to allow of much positive\nargument. Still, _so far as it goes_, and that is not far, it rather tends\nto show that the account of the funeral customs is not quite accurate,\nrepresenting what later Christian times knew by tradition of the rite of\ncremation, rather than showing the observation of that rite by an\neye-witness.\n\nWe must turn, then, to some other argument, if we wish to prove that the\nChristian element is inconsistent with other parts of the poem.\n\nA second argument that _Beowulf_ must belong either to heathen times, or to\nthe very earliest Christian period in England, has been found in the\ncharacter of the Christian allusions: they contain no \"reference to Christ,\nto the Cross, to the Virgin or the Saints, to any doctrine of the church in\nregard to the Trinity, the Atonement, _etc._[288]\" \"A pious Jew would have\nno difficulty in assenting to them all[289].\" Hence it has been argued[290]\nthat they are the work of an interpolator who, working upon a poem\n\"essentially heathen,\" was not able to impose upon it more than this \"vague\nand colourless Christianity.\" I cannot see this. If passages had to be\nrewritten at all, it was just as easy to rewrite them in a tone\nemphatically Christian as in a tone mildly so. The difficulties which the\ninterpolator would meet in removing a heathen phrase, and composing a\nChristian half-line in substitution, would be metrical, rather than\ntheological. For example, in a second {126} half-line the interpolator\ncould have written _ond h[=a]lig Crist_ or _ylda nergend_ just as easily as\n_ond h[=a]lig god_, or _ylda waldend_: he could have put in an allusion to\nthe Trinity or to the Cross as easily as to the Lord of Hosts or the King\nof Glory. It would depend upon the alliteration which was the more\nconvenient. And surely, if he was a monk deliberately sitting down to turn\na heathen into a Christian poem, he would, of two alternatives, have\nfavoured the more dogmatically Christian.\n\nThe vagueness which is so characteristic of the Christian references in\n_Beowulf_ can then hardly be due to the poem having originally been a\nheathen one, worked over by a Christian.\n\nOthers have seen in this vagueness a proof \"that the minstrels who\nintroduced the Christian element had but a vague knowledge of the new\nfaith[291]\": or that the poem was the work of \"a man who, without having,\nor wanting to have, much definite instruction, had become Christian because\nthe Court had newly become Christian[292].\" But, vague as it is, does the\nChristianity of _Beowulf_ justify such a judgment as this? Do not the\ncharacters of Hrothgar or of Beowulf, of Hygd or of Wealhtheow, show a\nChristian influence which, however little dogmatic, is anything but\nsuperficial? This is a matter where individual feeling rather than argument\nmust weigh: but the _Beowulf_ does not seem to me the work of a man whose\nadherence to Christianity is merely nominal[293].\n\nAnd, so far as the absence of dogma goes, it seems to have been overlooked\nthat the Christian references in the _Battle of Maldon_, written when\nEngland had been Christian for over three centuries, are precisely of the\nsame vague character as those in _Beowulf_.\n\nSurely the explanation is that to a devout, but not {127}\ntheologically-minded poet, writing battle poetry, references to God as the\nLord of Hosts or the Giver of Victory came naturally--references to the\nTrinity or the Atonement did not. This seems quite a sufficient\nexplanation; though it may be that in _Beowulf_ the poet has consciously\navoided dogmatic references, because he realized that the characters in his\nstory were not Christians[294]. That, at the same time, he allows those\ncharacters with whom he sympathizes to speak in a Christian spirit is only\nwhat we should expect. Just so Chaucer allows his pagans--Theseus for\ninstance--to use Christian expressions about God or the soul, whilst\navoiding anything strikingly doctrinal.\n\nFinally I cannot admit that the Christian passages are \"poetically of no\nvalue[295].\" The description of Grendel nearing Heorot is good:\n\n  Dh[=a] c[=o]m of m[=o]re under mist-hleothum\n  Grendel gongan--\n\nbut it is heightened when the poet adds:\n\n  Godes yrre baer.\n\nYet here again it is impossible to argue: it is a matter of individual\nfeeling.\n\nWhen, however, we come to the further statement of Dr Bradley, that the\nChristian passages are not only interpolations poetically worthless, but\n\"may be of any date down to that of the extant MS\" (i.e. about the year\n1000 A.D.), we have reached ground where argument _is_ possible, and where\ndefinite results can be attained. For Dr Bradley, at the same time that he\nmakes this statement about the character of the Christian passages, also\nquotes the archaic syntax of _Beowulf_ as proving an early date[296]. _But\nthis archaic syntax is just as prominent a feature of the Christian\npassages as of any other parts of the poem._ If these Christian passages\nare really the work of a \"monkish copyist, whose piety exceeded his poetic\npowers[297],\" how do they come to show an antique syntax and a strict\ntechnique surpassing those of Cynewulf or the _Dream {128} of the Rood_?\nWhy do they not betray their origin by metrical inaccuracies such as we\nfind in poems undoubtedly interpolated, like _Widsith_ or the _Seafarer_?\n\nDr Bradley is \"our chief English seer in these matters,\" as Dr Furnivall\nsaid long ago; and it is only with the greatest circumspection that one\nshould differ from any of his conclusions. Nevertheless, I feel that,\nbefore we can regard any portion of _Beowulf_ as later than the rest,\ndiscrepancies need to be demonstrated.\n\nUntil such discrepancies between the different parts of _Beowulf_ can be\ndemonstrated, we are justified in regarding the poem as homogeneous: as a\nproduction of the Germanic world enlightened by the new faith. Whether\nthrough external violence or internal decay, this world was fated to rapid\nchange, and perished with its promise unfulfilled. The great merit of\n_Beowulf_ as a historic document is that it shows us a picture of a period\nin which the virtues of the heathen \"Heroic Age\" were tempered by the\ngentleness of the new belief; an age warlike, yet Christian: devout, yet\ntolerant.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{129}\n\nPART II\n\nDOCUMENTS ILLUSTRATING THE STORIES IN _BEOWULF_, AND THE _OFFA_-SAGA.\n\nA. THE EARLY KINGS OF THE DANES ACCORDING TO SAXO GRAMMATICUS\n\nSaxo, Book I, ed. Ascensius, fol. iii b; ed. Holder, p. 10, l. 25.\n\n    Uerum a Dan, ut fert antiquitas, regum nostrorum stemmata, ceu quodam\n    deriuata principio, splendido successionis ordine profluxerunt. Huic\n    filii Humblus et Lotherus fuere, ex Grytha, summae inter Teutones\n    dignitatis matrona, suscepti.\n\n    Lecturi regem ueteres affixis humo saxis insistere, suffragiaque\n    promere consueuerant, subiectorum lapidum firmitate facti constantiam\n    ominaturi. Quo ritu Humblus, decedente patre, nouo patriae beneficio\n    rex creatus, sequentis fortunae malignitate, ex rege priuatus euasit.\n    Bello siquidem a Lothero captus, regni depositione spiritum mercatus\n    est; haec sola quippe uicto salutis conditio reddebatur. Ita fraternis\n    iniuriis imperium abdicare coactus, documentum hominibus praebuit, ut\n    plus splendoris, ita minus securitatis, aulis quam tuguriis inesse.\n    Ceterum iniuriae tam patiens fuit, ut honoris damno tanquam beneficio\n    gratulari crederetur, sagaciter, ut puto, regiae conditionis habitum\n    contemplatus. Sed nec Lotherus tolerabiliorem regem quam militem egit,\n    ut prorsus insolentia ac scelere regnum auspicari uideretur; siquidem\n    illustrissimum quemque uita aut opibus spoliare, patriamque bonis\n    ciuibus uacuefacere probitatis loco duxit, regni aemulos ratus, quos\n    nobilitate pares habuerat. Nec diu scelerum impunitus, patriae\n    consternatione perimitur; eadem spiritum eripiente, quae regnum largita\n    fuerat. {130}\n\n    Cuius filius Skyoldus naturam ab ipso, non mores sortitus, per summam\n    tenerioris aetatis industriam cuncta paternae contagionis uestigia\n    ingeniti erroris deuio praeteribat. Igitur ut a paternis uitiis\n    prudenter desciuit, ita auitis uirtutibus feliciter respondit,\n    remotiorem pariter ac praestantiorem hereditarii moris portionem\n    amplexus. Huius adolescentia inter paternos uenatores immanis beluae\n    subactione insignis extitit, mirandoque rei euentu futurae eius\n    fortitudinis habitum ominata est. Nam cum a tutoribus forte, quorum\n    summo studio educabatur, inspectandae uenationis licentiam impetrasset,\n    obuium sibi insolitae granditatis ursum, telo uacuus, cingulo, cuius\n    usum habebat, religandum curauit, necandumque comitibus praebuit. Sed\n    et complures spectatae fortitudinis pugiles per idem tempus uiritim ab\n    eo superati produntur, e quibus Attalus et Scatus clari illustresque\n    fuere. Quindecim annos natus, inusitato corporis incremento\n    perfectissimum humani roboris specimen praeferebat, tantaque indolis\n    eius experimenta fuere, ut ab ipso ceteri Danorum reges communi quodam\n    uocabulo Skioldungi nuncuparentur....\n\nSaxo then relates the adventures of Gram, Hadingus and Frotho, whom he\nrepresents as respectively son, grandson and great-grandson of Skioldus.\nThat Gram and Hadingus are interpolated in the family is shewn by the fact\nthat the pedigree of Sweyn Aageson passes direct from Skiold to his son\nFrothi.\n\nSaxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xi b; ed. Holder, p. 38, l. 4.\n\n    Hadingo filius Frotho succedit, cuius uarii insignesque casus fuere.\n    Pubertatis annos emensus, iuuenilium praeferebat complementa uirtutum,\n    quas ne desidiae corrumpendas praeberet, abstractum uoluptatibus animum\n    assidua armorum intentione torquebat. Qui cum, paterno thesauro\n    bellicis operibus absumpto, stipendiorum facultatem, qua militem\n    aleret, non haberet, attentiusque necessarii usus subsidia\n    circunspiceret, tali subeuntis indigenae carmine concitatur:\n\n      Insula non longe est praemollibus edita cliuis,\n      Collibus aera tegens et opimae conscia praedae.\n      Hic tenet eximium, montis possessor, aceruum\n      {131}\n      Implicitus giris serpens crebrisque reflexus\n      Orbibus, et caudae sinuosa uolumina ducens,\n      Multiplicesque agitans spiras, uirusque profundens.\n      Quem superare uolens clypeo, quo conuenit uti,\n      Taurinas intende cutes, corpusque bouinis\n      Tergoribus tegito, nec amaro nuda ueneno\n      Membra patere sinas; sanies, quod conspuit, urit.\n      Lingua trisulca micans patulo licet ore resultet,\n      Tristiaque horrifico minitetur uulnera rictu,\n      Intrepidum mentis habitum retinere memento.\n      Nec te permoueat spinosi dentis acumen,\n      Nec rigor, aut rapida iactatum fauce uenenum.\n      Tela licet temnat uis squamea, uentre sub imo\n      Esse locum scito, quo ferrum mergere fas est;\n      Hunc mucrone petens medium rimaberis anguem.\n      Hinc montem securus adi, pressoque ligone\n      Perfossos scrutare cauos; mox aere crumenas\n      Imbue, completamque reduc ad littora puppim.\n\n    Credulus Frotho solitarius in insulam traiicit: ne comitatior beluam\n    adoriretur, quam athletas aggredi moris fuerat. Quae cum aquis pota\n    specum repeteret, impactum Frothonis ferrum aspero cutis horrore\n    contempsit. Sed et spicula, quae in eam coniecta fuerant, eluso\n    mittentis conatu laesionis irrita resultabant. At ubi nil tergi duritia\n    cessit, uentris curiosius annotati mollities ferro patuit. Quae se\n    morsu ulcisci cupiens, clypeo duntaxat spinosum oris acumen impegit.\n    Crebris deinde linguam micatibus ducens, uitam pariter ac uirus\n    efflauit.\n\n    Repertae pecuniae regem locupletem fecere....\n\nSaxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xv b; ed. Holder, p. 51, l. 4.\n\n    His, uirtute paribus, aequa regnandi incessit auiditas. Imperii cuique\n    cura extitit; fraternus nullum respectus astrinxit. Quem enim nimia sui\n    caritas ceperit, aliena deserit: nee sibi quisquam ambitiose atque\n    aliis amice consulere potest. Horum maximus Haldanus, Roe et Scato\n    fratribus interfectis, naturam scelere polluit: regnum parricidio\n    carpsit. Et ne ullum crudelitatis exemplum omitteret, comprehensos\n    eorum fautores prius {132} uinculorum poena coercuit, mox suspendio\n    consumpsit. Cuius ex eo maxime fortuna ammirabilis fuit, quod, licet\n    omnia temporum momenta ad exercenda atrocitatis officia contulisset,\n    senectute uitam, non ferro, finierit.\n\n    Huius filii Roe et Helgo fuere. A Roe Roskildia condita memoratur: quam\n    postmodum Sueno, furcatae barbae cognomento clarus, ciuibus auxit,\n    amplitudine propagauit. Hic breui angustoque corpore fuit: Helgonem\n    habitus procerior cepit. Qui, diuiso cum fratre regno, maris\n    possessionem sortitus, regem Sclauiae Scalcum maritimis copiis\n    lacessitum oppressit. Quam cum in prouinciam redegisset, uarios pelagi\n    recessus uago nauigationis genere perlustrabat.\n\nSaxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xvi a; ed. Holder, p. 53, l. 16.\n\n    Huic filius Roluo succedit, uir corporis animique dotibus uenustus, qui\n    staturae magnitudinem pari uirtutis habitu commendaret.\n\n_Ibid._, ed. Ascensius, fol. xvii a; ed. Holder, p. 55, l. 40.\n\n    Per idem tempus Agnerus quidam, Ingelli films, sororem Roluonis, Rutam\n    nomine, matrimonio ducturus, ingenti conuiuio nuptias instruit. In quo\n    cum pugiles, omni petulantiae genere debacchantes, in Ialtonem quendam\n    nodosa passim ossa coniicerent, accidit, ut eius consessor, Biarco\n    nomine, iacientis errore uehementem capite ictum exciperet. Qui dolore\n    pariter ac ludibrio lacessitus, osse inuicem in iacientem remisso,\n    frontem eius in occuput reflexit, idemque loco frontis intorsit,\n    transuersum hominis animum uultus obliquitate mulctando. Ea res\n    contumeliosam ioci insolentiam temperauit, pugilesque regia abire\n    coegit. Qua conuiuii iniuria permotus, sponsus ferro cum Biarcone\n    decernere statuit, uiolatae hilaritatis ultionem duelii nomine\n    quaesiturus. In cuius ingressu, utri prior feriendi copia deberetur\n    diutule certatum est. Non enim antiquitus in edendis agonibus crebrae\n    ictuum uicissitudines petebantur: sed erat cum interuallo temporis\n    etiam feriendi distincta successio; rarisque sed atrocibus plagis\n    certamina gerebantur, ut gloria potius percussionum magnitudini, quam\n    numero deferretur. Praelato ob generis dignitatem Agnero, tanta ui\n    ictum ab eo editum {133} constat, ut, prima cassidis parte conscissa,\n    supremam capitis cuticulam uulneraret, ferrumque mediis galeae\n    interclusum foraminibus dimitteret. Tunc Biarco mutuo percussurus, quo\n    plenius ferrum libraret, pedem trunco annixus, medium Agneri corpus\n    praestantis acuminis mucrone transegit. Sunt qui asserant, morientem\n    Agnerum soluto in risum ore per summam doloris dissimulationem spiritum\n    reddidisse. Cuius ultionem pugiles auidius expetentes, simili per\n    Biarconem exitio mulctati sunt. Utebatur quippe praestantis acuminis\n    inusitataeque longitudinis gladio, quem Loeui uocabat. Talibus operum\n    meritis exultanti nouam de se siluestris fera uictoriam praebuit. Ursum\n    quippe eximiae magnitudinis obuium sibi inter dumeta factum iaculo\n    confecit: comitemque suum Ialtonem, quo uiribus maior euaderet,\n    applicato ore egestum belluae cruorem haurire iussit. Creditum namque\n    erat, hoc potionis genere corporei roboris incrementa praestari. His\n    facinorum uirtutibus clarissimas optimatum familiaritates adeptus,\n    etiam regi percarus euasit; sororem eius Rutam uxorem asciuit, uictique\n    sponsam uictoriae praemium habuit. Ab Atislo lacessiti Roluonis\n    ultionem armis exegit, eumque uictum hello prostrauit. Tunc Roluo magni\n    acuminis iuuenem Hiarthwarum nomine, sorore Sculda sibi in matrimonium\n    data, annuoque uectigali imposito, Suetiae praefectum constituit,\n    libertatis iacturam affinitatis beneficio leniturus.\n\n    Hoc loci quiddam memoratu iucundum operi inseratur. Adolescens quidam\n    Wiggo nomine, corpoream Roluonis magnitudinem attentiori contemplatione\n    scrutatus, ingentique eiusdem admiratione captus, percontari per\n    ludibrium coepit, quisnam esset iste Krage, quem tanto staturae\n    fastigio prodiga rerum natura ditasset; faceto cauillationis genere\n    inusitatum proceritatis habitum prosecutus. Dicitur enim lingua Danica\n    'krage' truncus, cuius semicaesis ramis fastigia conscenduntur, ita ut\n    pes, praecisorum stipitum obsequio perinde ac scalae beneficio nixus,\n    sensimque ad superiora prouectus, petitae celsitudinis compendium\n    assequatur. Quern uocis iactum Roluo perinde ac inclytum sibi cognomen\n    amplexus, urbanitatem dicti ingentis armillae dono prosequitur. Qua\n    Wiggo dexteram excultam extollens, laeua per pudoris simulationem post\n    tergum {134} reflexa, ridiculum corporis incessum praebuit, praefatus,\n    exiguo laetari munere, quem sors diutinae tenuisset inopiae. Rogatus,\n    cur ita se gereret, inopem ornamenti manum nulloque cultus beneficio\n    gloriantem ad aspectum reliquae uerecundo paupertatis rubore perfundi\n    dicebat. Cuius dicti calliditate consentaneum priori munus obtinuit.\n    Siquidem Roluo manum, quae ab ipso occultabatur, exemplo reliquae in\n    medium accersendam curauit. Nec Wiggoni rependendi beneficii cura\n    defuit. Siquidem arctissima uoti nuncupatione pollicitus est, si\n    Roluonem ferro perire contingeret, ultionem se ab eius interfectoribus\n    exacturum. Nec praetereundum, quod olim ingressuri curiam proceres\n    famulatus sui principia alicuius magnae rei uoto principibus obligare\n    solebant, uirtute tirocinium auspicantes.\n\n    Interea Sculda, tributariae solutionis pudore permota, diris animum\n    commentis applicans, maritum, exprobrata condicionis deformitate,\n    propulsandae seruitutis monitu concitatum atque ad insidias Roluoni\n    nectendas perductum atrocissimis nouarum rerum consiliis imbuit, plus\n    unumquenque libertati quam necessitudini debere testata. Igitur crebras\n    armorum massas, diuersi generis tegminibus obuolutas, tributi more per\n    Hiarthwarum in Daniam perferri iubet, occidendi noctu regis materiam\n    praebituras. Refertis itaque falsa uectigalium mole nauigiis, Lethram\n    pergitur, quod oppidum, a Roluone constructum eximiisque regni opibus\n    illustratum, ceteris confinium prouinciarum urbibus regiae fundationis\n    et sedis auctoritate praestabat. Rex aduentum Hiarthwari conuiualis\n    impensae deliciis prosecutus ingenti se potione proluerat, hospitibus\n    praeter morem ebrietatis intemperantiam formidantibus. Ceteris igitur\n    altiorem carpentibus somnum, Sueones, quibus scelesti libido propositi\n    communem quietis usum ademerat, cubiculis furtim delabi coepere.\n    Aperitur ilico telorum occlusa congeries, et sua sibi quisque tacitus\n    arma connectit. Deinde regiam petunt, irruptisque penetralibus in\n    dormientium corpora ferrum destringunt. Experrecti complures, quibus\n    non minus subitae cladis horror quam somni stupor incesserat, dubio\n    nisu discrimini restitere, socii an hostes occurrerent, noctis errore\n    incertum reddente. Eiusdem forte silentio noctis Hialto, qui {135}\n    inter regios proceres spectatae probitatis merito praeeminebat, rus\n    egressus, scorti se complexibus dederat. Hic cum obortum pugnae\n    fragorem stupida procul aure sensisset, fortitudinem luxuriae\n    praetulit, maluitque funestum Martis discrimen appetere, quam blandis\n    Veneris illecebris indulgere. Quanta hunc militem regis caritate\n    flagrasse putemus, qui, cum ignorantiae simulatione excusationem\n    absentiae praestare posset, salutem suam manifesto periculo obicere,\n    quam uoluptati seruare satius existimauit? Discedentem pellex\n    percunctari coepit, si ipso careat, cuius aetatis uiro nubere debeat.\n    Quam Hialto, perinde ac secretius allocuturus, propius accedere iussam,\n    indignatus amoris sibi successorem requiri, praeciso naso deformem\n    reddidit, erubescendoque uulnere libidinosae percunctationis dictum\n    mulctauit, mentis lasciuiam oris iactura temperandam existimans. Quo\n    facto, liberum quaesitae rei iudicium a se ei relinqui dixit. Post\n    haec, repetito ocius oppido, confertissimis se globis immergit,\n    aduersasque acies mutua uulnerum inflictione prosternit. Cumque\n    dormientis adhuc Biarconis cubiculum praeteriret, expergisci iussum,\n    tali uoce compellat:\n\nSaxo's translation of the _Bjarkam['a]l_ follows. The part which concerns\nstudents of _Beowulf_ most is the account of how Roluo deposed and slew\nRoericus.\n\nSaxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xix a; ed. Holder, p. 62, l. 1.\n\n  At nos, qui regem uoto meliore ueremur,\n  Iungamus cuneos stabiles, tutisque phalangem\n  Ordinibus mensi, qua rex praecepit, eamus\n  Qui natum Boeki Roericum strauit auari,\n  Implicuitque uirum leto uirtute carentem.\n  Ille quidem praestans opibus, habituque fruendi\n  Pauper erat, probitate minus quam foenore pollens;\n  Aurum militia potius ratus, omnia lucro\n  Posthabuit, laudisque carens congessit aceruos\n  Aeris, et ingenuis uti contempsit amicis.\n  Cumque lacessitus Roluonis classe fuisset,\n  Egestum cistis aurum deferre ministros\n  Iussit, et in primas urbis diffundere portas.\n  {136}\n  Dona magis quam bella parans, quia militis expers\n  Munere, non armis, tentandum credidit hostem;\n  Tanquam opibus solis bellum gesturus, et usu\n  Rerum, non hominum, Martem producere posset.\n  Ergo graues loculos et ditia claustra resoluit\n  Armillas teretes et onustas protulit arcas,\n  Exitii fomenta sui, ditissimus aeris,\n  Bellatoris inops, hostique adimenda relinquens\n  Pignora, quae patriis praebere pepercit amicis.\n  Annellos ultro metuens dare, maxima nolens\n  Pondera fudit opum, ueteris populator acerui.\n  Rex tamen hunc prudens, oblataque munera spreuit,\n  Rem pariter uitamque adimens; nec profuit hosti\n  Census iners, quem longo auidus cumulauerat aeuo.\n  Hunc pius inuasit Roluo, summasque perempti\n  Cepit opes, inter dignos partitus amicos,\n  Quicquid auara manus tantis congesserat annis;\n  Irrumpensque opulenta magis quam fortia castra,\n  Praebuit eximiam sociis sine sanguine praedam.\n  Cui nil tam pulchrum fuit, ut non funderet illud,\n  Aut carum, quod non sociis daret, aera fauillis\n  Assimulans, famaque annos, non foenore mensus.\n  Unde liquet, regem claro iam funere functum\n  Praeclaros egisse dies, speciosaque fati\n  Tempora, praeteritos decorasse uiriliter annos.\n  Nam uirtute ardens, dum uiueret, omnia uicit,\n  Egregio dignas sortitus corpore uires.\n  Tam praeceps in bella fuit, quam concitus amnis\n  In mare decurrit, pugnamque capessere promptus\n  Ut ceruus rapidum bifido pede tendere cursum.\n\nSaxo, Book II, ed. Ascensius, fol. xxi a; ed. Holder, p. 67, l. 1.\n\n    Hanc maxime exhortationum seriem idcirco metrica ratione compegerim,\n    quod earundem sententiarum intellectus Danici cuiusdam carminis\n    compendio digestus a compluribus antiquitatis peritis memoriter\n    usurpatur.\n\n    Contigit autem, potitis uictoria Gothis, omne Roluonis {137} agmen\n    occumbere, neminemque, excepto Wiggone, ex tanta iuuentute residuum\n    fore. Tantum enim excellentissimis regis meritis ea pugna a militibus\n    tributum est, ut ipsius caedes omnibus oppetendae mortis cupiditatem\n    ingeneraret, eique morte iungi uita iucundius duceretur.\n\n    Laetus Hiartuarus prandendi gratia positis mensis conuiuium pugnae\n    succedere iubet, uictoriam epulis prosecuturus. Quibus oneratus magnae\n    sibi ammirationi esse dixit, quod ex tanta Roluonis militia nemo, qui\n    saluti fuga aut captione consuleret, repertus fuisset. Unde liquidum\n    fuisse quanto fidei studio regis sui caritatem coluerint, cui\n    superstites esse passi non fuerint. Fortunam quoque, quod sibi ne unius\n    quidem eorum obsequium superesse permiserit, causabatur, quam\n    libentissime se talium uirorum famulatu usurum testatus. Oblato Wiggone\n    perinde ac munere gratulatus, an sibi militare uellet, perquirit.\n    Annuenti destrictum gladium offert. Ille cuspidem refutans, capulum\n    petit, hunc morem Roluoni in porrigendo militibus ense extitisse\n    praefatus. Olim namque se regum clientelae daturi, tacto gladii capulo\n    obsequium polliceri solebant. Quo pacto Wiggo capulum complexus,\n    cuspidem per Hiartuarum agit, ultionis compos, cuius Roluoni\n    ministerium pollicitus fuerat. Quo facto, ouans irruentibus in se\n    Hiartuari militibus cupidius corpus obtulit, plus uoluptatis se ex\n    tyranni nece quam amaritudinis ex propria sentire uociferans. Ita\n    conuiuio in exequias uerso, uictoriae gaudium funeris luctus\n    insequitur. Clarum ac semper memorabilem uirum, qui, uoto fortiter\n    expleto, mortem sponte complexus suo ministerio mensas tyranni sanguine\n    maculauit. Neque enim occidentium manus uiuax animi uirtus expauit, cum\n    prius a se loca, quibus Roluo assueuerat, interfectoris eius cruore\n    respersa cognosceret. Eadem itaque dies Hiartuari regnum finiuit ac\n    peperit. Fraudulenter enim quaesitae res eadem sorte defluunt, qua\n    petuntur, nullusque diuturnus est fructus, qui scelere ac perfidia\n    partus fuerit. Quo euenit ut Sueones, paulo ante Daniae potitores, ne\n    suae quidem salutis potientes existerent. Protinus enim a\n    Syalandensibus deleti laesis Roluonis manibus iusta exsoluere piacula.\n    Adeo plerunque fortunae saeuitia ulciscitur, quod dolo ac fallacia\n    patratur.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{138}\n\nB. HR['O]LFS SAGA KRAKA, CAP. 23\n\n(ed. Finnur J['o]nsson, Koebenhavn, 1904, p. 65 ff.)\n\nS['i]dhan f['o]r B[o,]dhvarr leidh s['i]na til Hleidhargardhs. Hann kemr\ntil konungs atsetu. B[o,]dhvarr leidhir s['i]dhan hest sinn ['a] stall\nhj['a] konungs hestum hinum beztu ok spyrr engan at; gekk s['i]dhan inn\n['i] h[o,]llina, ok var thar f['a]tt manna. Hann sez utarliga, ok sem hann\nhefir verit thar litla hr['i]dh, heyrir hann thrausk n[o,]kkut utar ['i]\nhornit ['i] einhverjum stadh. B[o,]dhvarr l['i]tr thangat ok s['e]r, at\nmannsh[o,]nd kemr upp ['u]r mikilli beinahr['u]gu, er thar l['a]; h[o,]ndin\nvar sv[o,]rt mj[o,]k. B[o,]dhvarr gengr thangat til ok spyrr, hverr thar\nvaeri ['i] beinahr['u]gunni; th['a] var honum svarat ok heldr ['o]framliga:\n\"H[o,]ttr heiti ek, Bokki saell.\" \"Hv['i] ertu h['e]r, segir B[o,]dhvarr,\nedha hvat gerir th['u]?\" H[o,]ttr segir: \"ek geri m['e]r skjaldborg, Bokki\nsaell.\" B[o,]dhvarr sagdhi: \"vesall ertu thinnar skjaldborgar.\" B[o,]dhvarr\nthr['i]fr til hans ok hnykkir honum upp ['u]r beinahr['u]gunni. H[o,]ttr\nkvadh th['a] h['a]tt vidh ok maelti: \"n['u] viltu m['e]r bana, ger eigi\nthetta, sv['a] sem ek hefi n['u] vel um b['u]iz ['a]dhr, en th['u] hefir\nn['u] r['o]tat ['i] sundr skjaldborg minni, ok hafdha ek n['u] sv['a] gert\nhana h['a]va utan at m['e]r, at h['u]n hefir hl['i]ft m['e]r vidh [o,]llum\nh[o,]ggum ykkar, sv['a] _at_ engi h[o,]gg hafa komit ['a] mik lengi, en\nekki var h['u]n enn sv['a] b['u]in, sem ek aetladhi h['u]n skyldi verdha.\"\nB[o,]dhvarr maelti: \"ekki muntu f['a] skjaldborgina lengr.\" H[o,]ttr maelti\nok gr['e]t: \"skaltu n['u] bana m['e]r, Bokki saell?\" B[o,]dhvarr badh hann\nekki hafa h['a]tt, t['o]k hann upp s['i]dhan ok bar hann ['u]t ['u]r\nh[o,]llinni ok til vats n[o,]kkurs, sem thar var ['i] n['a]nd, ok g['a]fu\nf['a]ir at thessu gaum, ok th['o] hann upp allan. S['i]dhan gekk\nB[o,]dhvarr til thess r['u]ms, sem hann hafdhi ['a]dhr tekit, ok leiddi\neptir s['e]r H[o,]tt ok thar setr hann H[o,]tt hj['a] s['e]r, en hann er\nsv['a] hraeddr, at skelfr ['a] honum leggr ok lidhr, en th['o] thykkiz hann\nskilja, at thessi madhr vill hj['a]lpa s['e]r. Eptir that kveldar ok\ndr['i]fa menn ['i] h[o,]llina ok sj['a] Hr['o]lfs kappar, at H[o,]ttr er\nsettr ['a] bekk upp, ok thykkir theim s['a] madhr hafa gert sik aerit\ndjarfan, er thetta hefir til tekit. Ilt tillit hefir H[o,]ttr, th['a] _er_\nhann s['e]r kunningja s['i]na, thv['i] _at_ hann hefir ilt eitt af theim\nreynt; hann vill lifa gjarnan ok fara aptr ['i] beinahr['u]gu s['i]na, en\nB[o,]dhvarr heldr honum, sv['a] _at_ hann n['a]ir ekki ['i] burtu at fara,\nthv['i] _at_ hann th['o]ttiz ekki jafnberr fyrir h[o,]ggum theira, ef hann\nnaedhi thangat {139} at komaz sem hann er n['u]. Hirdhmenn hafa n['u] sama\nvanda, ok kasta fyrst beinum sm['a]m um thvert g['o]lfit til B[o,]dhvars ok\nHattar. B[o,]dhvarr laetr, sem hann sj['a]i eigi thetta. H[o,]ttr er sv['a]\nhraeddr, at hann tekr eigi mat n['e] drukk, ok thykkir honum th['a] ok\nth['a] sem hann muni vera lostinn; ok n['u] maelti H[o,]ttr til\nB[o,]dhvars: \"Bokki saell, n['u] ferr at th['e]r st['o]r hn['u]ta, ok mun\nthetta aetlat okkr til naudha.\" B[o,]dhvarr badh hann thegja; hann setr\nvidh holan l['o]fann ok tekr sv['a] vidh hn['u]tunni; thar fylgir leggrinn\nmedh; B[o,]dhvarr sendi aptr hn['u]tuna ok setr ['a] thann, sem kastadhi ok\nr['e]tt framan ['i] hann medh sv['a] hardhri svipan, at hann fekk bana;\nsl['o] th['a] miklum ['o]tta yfir hirdhmennina. Kemr n['u] thessi fregn\nfyrir Hr['o]lf konung ok kappa hans upp ['i] kastalann, at madhr\nmikil['u]dhligr s['e] kominn til hallarinnar ok hafi drepit einn hirdhmann\nhans, ok vildu their l['a]ta drepa manninn. Hr['o]lfr konungr spurdhiz\neptir, hv['a]rt hirdhmadhrinn hefdhi verit saklauss drepinn. \"Thv['i] var\nnaesta,\" s[o,]gdhu their. K['o]muz th['a] fyrir Hr['o]lf konung [o,]ll\nsannindi h['e]r um. Hr['o]lfr konungr sagdhi that skyldu fjarri, at drepa\nskyldi manninn--\"hafi thit h['e]r illan vanda upp tekit, at berja saklausa\nmenn beinum; er m['e]r ['i] thv['i] ['o]virdhing, en ydhr st['o]r sk[o,]mm,\nat gera sl['i]kt; hefi ek jafnan raett um thetta ['a]dhr, ok hafi thit at\nthessu engan gaum gefit, ok hygg ek, at thessi madhr muni ekki alll['i]till\nfyrir s['e]r, er th['e]r hafidh n['u] ['a] leitat, ok kallidh hann til\nm['i]n, sv['a] _at_ ek viti, hverr hann er.\" B[o,]dhvarr gengr fyrir konung\nok kvedhr hann kurteisliga. Konunga spyrr hann at nafni. \"Hattargridha\nkalla mik hirdhmenn ydhar, en B[o,]dhvarr heiti ek.\" Konungr maelti:\n\"hverjar baetr viltu bj['o]dha m['e]r fyrir hirdhmann minn?\" B[o,]dhvarr\nsegir: \"til thess gerdhi hann, sem hann fekk.\" Konungr maelti: \"viltu vera\nminn madhr ok skipa r['u]m hans?\" B[o,]dhvarr segir: \"ekki neita ek, at\nvera ydharr madhr, ok munu vit ekki skiljaz sv['a] b['u]it, vit H[o,]ttr,\nok dveljaz naer th['e]r b['a]dhir, heldr en thessi hefir setit, elligar vit\nf[o,]rum burt b['a]dhir.\" Konungr maelti: \"eigi s['e] ek at honum saemd en\nek spara ekki mat vidh hann.\" B[o,]dhvarr gengr n['u] til thess r['u]ms,\nsem honum l['i]kadhi, en ekki vill hann that skipa, sem hinn hafdhi\n['a]dhr; hann kippir upp ['i] einhverjum stadh thremr m[o,]nnum, ok\ns['i]dhan settuz their H[o,]ttr thar nidhr ok innar ['i] h[o,]llinni en\ntheim var skipat. Heldr th['o]tti m[o,]nnum ['o]daelt vidh B[o,]dhvar, ok\ner theim hinn mesti ['i]hugi at honum. Ok sem leidh at j['o]lum, {140}\ngerdhuz menn ['o]k['a]tir. B[o,]dhvarr spyrr H[o,]tt, hverju thetta saetti;\nhann segir honum, at d['y]r eitt hafi thar komit tv['a] vetr ['i] samt,\nmikit ok ['o]gurligt--\"ok hefir vaengi ['a] bakinu ok fl['y]gr that jafnan;\ntvau haust hefir that n['u] hingat vitjat ok gert mikinn skadha; ['a] that\nb['i]ta ekki v['a]pn, en kappar konungs koma ekki heim, their sem at eru\neinna mestir.\" B[o,]dhvarr maelti: \"ekki er h[o,]llin sv['a] vel skipudh,\nsem ek aetladhi, ef eitt d['y]r skal h['e]r eydha r['i]ki ok f['e]\nkonungsins.\" H[o,]ttr sagdhi: \"that er ekki d['y]r, heldr er that hit mesta\ntr[o,]ll.\" N['u] kemr j['o]laaptann; th['a] maelti konungr: \"n['u] vil ek,\nat menn s['e] kyrrir ok hlj['o]dhir ['i] n['o]tt, ok banna ek [o,]llum\nm['i]num m[o,]nnum at ganga ['i] n[o,]kkurn h['a]ska vidh d['y]rit, en\nf['e] ferr eptir thv['i] sem audhnar; menn m['i]na vil ek ekki missa.\"\nAllir heita h['e]r g['o]dhu um, at gera eptir thv['i], sem konungr baudh.\nB[o,]dhvarr leyndiz ['i] burt um n['o]ttina; hann laetr H[o,]tt fara medh\ns['e]r, ok gerir hann that naudhugr ok kalladhi hann s['e]r st['y]rt til\nbana. B[o,]dhvarr segir, at betr mundi til takaz. Their ganga ['i] burt\nfr['a] h[o,]llinni, ok verdhr B[o,]dhvarr at bera hann; sv['a] er hann\nhraeddr. N['u] sj['a] their d['y]rit; ok thv['i] naest aepir H[o,]ttr\nsl['i]kt, sem hann m['a], ok kvadh dyrit mundu gleypa hann. B[o,]dhvarr\nbadh bikkjuna hans thegja ok kastar honum nidhr ['i] mosann, ok thar liggr\nhann ok eigi medh [o,]llu ['o]hraeddr; eigi thorir hann heim at fara heldr.\nN['u] gengr B[o,]dhvarr m['o]ti d['y]rinu; that haefir honum, at sverdhit\ner fast ['i] umgj[o,]rdhinni, er hann vildi bregdha thv['i]. B[o,]dhvarr\neggjar n['u] fast sverdhit ok th['a] bragdhar ['i] umgj[o,]rdhinni, ok\nn['u] faer hann brugdhit umgj[o,]rdhinni, sv['a] _at_ sverdhit gengr ['u]r\nsl['i]dhrunum, ok leggr thegar undir baegi d['y]rsins ok sv['a] fast, at\nst['o]dh ['i] hjartanu, ok datt th['a] d['y]rit til jardhar dautt nidhr.\nEptir that ferr hann thangat sem H[o,]ttr liggr. B[o,]dhvarr tekr hann upp\nok berr thangat, sem d['y]rit liggr dautt. H[o,]ttr skelfr ['a]kaft.\nB[o,]dhvarr maelti: \"n['u] skaltu drekka bl['o]dh d['y]rsins.\" Hann er\nlengi tregr, en th['o] thorir hann v['i]st eigi annat. B[o,]dhvarr laetr\nhann drekka tv['a], sopa st['o]ra; hann l['e]t hann ok eta n[o,]kkut af\nd['y]rshjartanu; eptir thetta tekr B[o,]dhvarr til hans, ok ['a]ttuz their\nvidh lengi. B[o,]dhvarr maelti: \"helzt ertu n['u] sterkr ordhinn, ok ekki\nvaenti ek, et th['u] hraedhiz n['u] hirdhmenn Hr['o]lfs konungs.\" H[o,]ttr\nsagdhi: \"eigi mun ek th['a] hraedhaz ok eigi thik upp fr['a] thessu.\" \"Vel\ner th['a] ordhit, H[o,]ttr f['e]lagi; f[o,]ru vit n['u] til ok reisum upp\nd['y]rit ok b['u]um sv['a] um, at adhrir aetli at kvikt muni vera.\" {141}\nTheir gera n['u] sv['a]. Eptir that fara their heim ok hafa kyrt um sik, ok\nveit engi madhr, hvat their hafa idhjat. Konungr spyrr um morguninn, hvat\ntheir viti til d['y]rsins, hv['a]rt that hafi n[o,]kkut thangat vitjat um\nn['o]ttina; honum var sagt, at f['e] alt vaeri heilt ['i] grindum ok\n['o]sakat. Konungr badh menn forvitnaz, hv['a]rt engi saei l['i]kindi til,\nat that hefdhi heim komit. Vardhmenn gerdhu sv['a] ok k['o]mu skj['o]tt\naptr ok s[o,]gdhu konungi, at d['y]rit faeri thar ok heldr geyst at\nborginni. Konungr badh hirdhmenn vera hrausta ok duga n['u] hvern eptir\nthv['i], sem hann hefdhi hug til, ok r['a]dha af ['o]vaett thenna; ok\nsv['a] var gert, sem konungr baudh, at their bjuggu sik til thess. Konungr\nhorfdhi ['a] d['y]rit ok maelti s['i]dhan: \"enga s['e] ek f[o,]r ['a]\nd['y]rinu, en hverr vill n['u] taka kaup einn ok ganga ['i] m['o]ti\nthv['i]?\" B[o,]dhvarr maelti: \"that vaeri naesta hrausts manns\nforvitnisb['o]t. H[o,]ttr f['e]lagi, rektu n['u] af th['e]r illmaelit that,\nat menn l['a]ta, sem engi krellr n['e] dugr muni ['i] ther vera; far n['u]\nok drep th['u] d['y]rit; m['a]ttu sj['a], at engi er allf['u]ss til\nannarra.\" \"J['a],\" sagdhi H[o,]ttr, \"ek mun til thessa r['a]dhaz.\" Konungr\nmaelti: \"ekki veit ek, hvadhan thessi hreysti er at th['e]r komin,\nH[o,]ttr, ok mikit hefir um thik skipaz ['a] skammri stundu.\" H[o,]ttr\nmaelti: \"gef m['e]r til sverdhit Gullinhjalta, er th['u] heldr ['a], ok\nskal ek th['a] fella d['y]rit edha f['a] bana.\" Hr['o]lf konungr maelti:\n\"thetta sverdh er ekki beranda nema theim manni, sem baedhi er g['o]dhr\ndrengr ok hraustr.\" H[o,]ttr sagdhi: \"sv['a] skaltu til aetla, at m['e]r\ns['e] sv['a] h['a]ttat.\" Konungr maelti: \"hvat m['a] vita, nema fleira hafi\nskipz um hagi th['i]na, en sj['a] thykkir, en faestir menn thykkjaz thik\nkenna, at th['u] s['e]r enn sami madhr; n['u] tak vidh sverdhinu ok nj['o]t\nmanna bezt, ef thetta er til unnit.\" S['i]dhan gengr H[o,]ttr at d['y]rinu\nalldjarfliga ok hoeggr til thess, th['a] _er_ hann kemr ['i] h[o,]ggfaeri,\nok d['y]rit fellr nidhr dautt. B[o,]dhvarr maelti: \"sj['a]idh n['u], herra,\nhvat hann hefir til unnit.\" Konungr segir: \"v['i]st hefir hann mikit\nskipaz, en ekki hefir H[o,]ttr einn d['y]rit drepit, heldr hefir th['u]\nthat gert.\" B[o,]dhvarr segir: \"vera m['a], at sv['a] s['e].\" Konungr\nsegir: \"vissa ek, th['a] _er_ th['u] komt h['e]r, at f['a]ir mundu\nth['i]nir jafningjar vera, en that thykki m['e]r th['o] thitt verk\nfraegiligast, at th['u] hefir gert h['e]r annan kappa, thar _er_ H[o,]ttr\ner, ok ['o]vaenligr th['o]tti til mikillar giptu; ok n['u] vil ek _at_ hann\nheiti eigi H[o,]ttr lengr ok skal hann heita Hjalti upp fr['a] thessu;\nskaltu heita eptir sverdhinu Gullinhjalta.\" {142}\n\n\n\nThen Bothvar went on his way to Leire, and came to the king's dwelling.\n\nBothvar stabled his horse by the king's best horses, without asking leave;\nand then he went into the hall, and there were few men there. He took a\nseat near the door, and when he had been there a little time he heard a\nrummaging in a corner. Bothvar looked that way and saw that a man's hand\ncame up out of a great heap of bones which lay there, and the hand was very\nblack. Bothvar went thither and asked who was there in the heap of bones.\n\nThen an answer came, in a very weak voice, \"Hott is my name, good fellow.\"\n\n\"Why art thou here?\" said Bothvar, \"and what art thou doing?\"\n\nHott said, \"I am making a shield-wall for myself, good fellow.\"\n\nBothvar said, \"Out on thee and thy shield-wall!\" and gripped him and jerked\nhim up out of the heap of bones.\n\nThen Hott cried out and said, \"Now thou wilt be the death of me: do not do\nso. I had made it all so snug, and now thou hast scattered in pieces my\nshield-wall; and I had built it so high all round myself that it has\nprotected me against all your blows, so that for long no blows have come\nupon me, and yet it was not so arranged as I meant it should be.\"\n\nThen Bothvar said, \"Thou wilt not build thy shield-wall any longer.\"\n\nHott said, weeping, \"Wilt thou be the death of me, good fellow?\" Bothvar\ntold him not to make a noise, and then took him up and bore him out of the\nhall to some water which was close by, and washed him from head to foot.\nFew paid any heed to this.\n\nThen Bothvar went to the place which he had taken before, and led Hott with\nhim, and set Hott by his side. But Hott was so afraid that he was trembling\nin every limb, and yet he seemed to know that this man would help him.\n\nAfter that it grew to evening, and men crowded into the hall: and Rolf's\nwarriors saw that Hott was seated upon the bench. And it seemed to them\nthat the man must be bold {143} enough, who had taken upon himself to put\nhim there. Hott had an ill countenance when he saw his acquaintances, for\nhe had received naught but evil from them. He wished to save his life and\ngo back to his bone-heap, but Bothvar held him tightly so that he could not\ngo away. For Hott thought that, if he could get back into his bone-heap, he\nwould not be as much exposed to their blows as he was.\n\nNow the retainers did as before; and first of all they tossed small bones\nacross the floor towards Bothvar and Hott. Bothvar pretended not to see\nthis. Hott was so afraid that he neither ate nor drank; and every moment he\nthought he would be smitten.\n\nAnd now Hott said to Bothvar, \"Good fellow, now a great knuckle bone is\ncoming towards thee, aimed so as to do us sore injury.\" Bothvar told him to\nhold his tongue, and put up the hollow of his palm against the knuckle bone\nand caught it, and the leg bone was joined on to the knuckle bone. Then\nBothvar sent the knuckle bone back, and hurled it straight at the man who\nhad thrown it, with such a swift blow that it was the death of him. Then\ngreat fear came over the retainers.\n\nNow news came to King Rolf and his men up in the castle that a stately man\nhad come to the hall and killed a retainer, and that the retainers wished\nto kill the man. King Rolf asked whether the retainer who had been killed\nhad given any offence. \"Next to none,\" they said: then all the truth of the\nmatter came up before King Rolf.\n\nKing Rolf said that it should be far from them to kill the man: \"You have\ntaken up an evil custom here in pelting men with bones without quarrel. It\nis a dishonour to me and a great shame to you to do so. I have spoken about\nit before, and you have paid no attention. I think that this man whom you\nhave assailed must be a man of no small valour. Call him to me, so that I\nmay know who he is.\"\n\nBothvar went before the king and greeted him courteously. The king asked\nhim his name. \"Your retainers call me Hott's protector, but my name is\nBothvar.\"\n\nThe king said, \"What compensation wilt thou offer me for my retainer?\"\n{144}\n\nBothvar said, \"He only got what he asked for.\"\n\nThe king said, \"Wilt thou become my man and fill his place?\"\n\nBothvar said, \"I do not refuse to be your man, but Hott and I must not part\nso. And we must sit nearer to thee than this man whom I have slain has sat;\notherwise we will both depart together.\" The king said, \"I do not see much\ncredit in Hott, but I will not grudge him meat.\" Then Bothvar went to the\nseat that seemed good to him, and would not fill that which the other had\nbefore. He pulled up three men in one place, and then he and Hott sat down\nthere higher in the hall than the place which had been given to them. The\nmen thought Bothvar overbearing, and there was the greatest ill will among\nthem concerning him.\n\nAnd when it drew near to Christmas, men became gloomy. Bothvar asked Hott\nthe reason of this. Hott said to him that for two winters together a wild\nbeast had come, great and awful, \"And it has wings on its back, and flies.\nFor two autumns it has attacked us here and done much damage. No weapon\nwill wound it: and the champions of the king, those who are the greatest,\ncome not back.\"\n\nBothvar said, \"This hall is not so well arrayed as I thought, if one beast\ncan lay waste the kingdom and the cattle of the king.\" Hott said, \"It is no\nbeast: it is the greatest troll.\"\n\nNow Christmas-eve came; then said the king, \"Now my will is that men\nto-night be still and quiet, and I forbid all my men to run into any peril\nwith this beast. It must be with the cattle as fate will have it: but I do\nnot wish to lose my men.\" All men promised to do as the king commanded. But\nBothvar went out in secret that night; he caused Hott to go with him, but\nHott did that only under compulsion, and said that it would be the death of\nhim. Bothvar said that he hoped that it would be better than that. They\nwent away from the hall, and Bothvar had to carry Hott, so frightened was\nhe. Now they saw the beast; and thereupon Hott cried out as loud as he\ncould, and said that the beast would swallow him. Bothvar said, \"Be silent,\nthou dog,\" and threw him down in the mire. And there he lay in no small\nfear; but he did not dare to go home, any the more. {145}\n\nNow Bothvar went against the beast, and it happened that his sword was fast\nin his sheath when he wished to draw it. Bothvar now tugged at his sword,\nit moved, he wrenched the scabbard so that the sword came out. And at once\nhe plunged it into the beast's shoulder so mightily that it pierced him to\nthe heart, and the beast fell down dead to the earth. After that Bothvar\nwent where Hott lay. Bothvar took him up and bore him to where the beast\nlay dead. Hott was trembling all over. Bothvar said, \"Now must thou drink\nthe blood of the beast.\" For long Hott was unwilling, and yet he did not\ndare to do anything else. Bothvar made him drink two great sups; also he\nmade him eat somewhat of the heart of the beast.\n\nAfter that Bothvar turned to Hott, and they fought a long time.\n\nBothvar said, \"Thou hast now become very strong, and I do not believe that\nthou wilt now fear the retainers of King Rolf.\"\n\nHott said, \"I shall not fear them, nor thee either, from now on.\"\n\n\"That is good, fellow Hott. Let us now go and raise up the beast, and so\narray him that others may think that he is still alive.\" And they did so.\nAfter that they went home, and were quiet, and no man knew what they had\nachieved.\n\nIn the morning the king asked what news there was of the beast, and whether\nit had made any attack upon them in the night. And answer was made to the\nking, that all the cattle were safe and uninjured in their folds. The king\nbade his men examine whether any trace could be seen of the beast having\nvisited them. The watchers did so, and came quickly back to the king with\nthe news that the beast was making for the castle, and in great fury. The\nking bade his retainers be brave, and each play the man according as he had\nspirit, and do away with this monster. And they did as the king bade, and\nmade them ready.\n\nThen the king faced towards the beast and said, \"I see no sign of movement\nin the beast. Who now will undertake to go against it?\"\n\nBothvar said, \"That would be an enterprise for a man of true valour. Fellow\nHott, now clear thyself of that ill-repute, {146} in that men hold that\nthere is no spirit or valour in thee. Go now and do thou kill the beast;\nthou canst see that there is no one else who is forward to do it.\"\n\n\"Yea,\" said Hott, \"I will undertake this.\"\n\nThe king said, \"I do not know whence this valour has come upon thee, Hott;\nand much has changed in thee in a short time.\"\n\nHott said, \"Give me the sword Goldenboss, Gullinhjalti, which thou dost\nwield, and I will fell the beast or take my death.\" Rolf the king said,\n\"That sword cannot be borne except by a man who is both a good warrior and\nvaliant.\" Hott said, \"So shalt thou ween that I am a man of that kind.\" The\nking said, \"How can one know that more has not changed in thy temper than\ncan be seen? Few men would know thee for the same man. Now take the sword\nand have joy of it, if this deed is accomplished.\" Then Hott went boldly to\nthe beast and smote at it when he came within reach, and the beast fell\ndown dead. Bothvar said, \"See now, my lord, what he has achieved.\" The king\nsaid, \"Verily, he has altered much, but Hott has not killed the beast\nalone, rather hast thou done it.\" Bothvar said, \"It may be that it is so.\"\nThe king said, \"I knew when thou didst come here that few would be thine\nequals. But this seems to me nevertheless thy most honourable work, that\nthou hast made here another warrior of Hott, who did not seem shaped for\nmuch luck. And now I will that he shall be called no longer Hott, but\nHjalti from this time; thou shalt be called after the sword Gullinhjalti\n(Goldenboss).\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nC. EXTRACTS FROM GRETTIS SAGA\n\n(ed. G. Magn['u]sson, 1853; R. C. Boer, 1900)\n\n(_a_) _Glam episode_ (caps. 32-35)\n\nTh['o]rhallr h['e]t madhr, er bj['o] ['a] Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum ['i]\nForsaeludal. Forsaeludalr er upp af Vatnsdal. Th['o]rhallr var Gr['i]msson,\nTh['o]rhallssonar, Fridhmundarsonar, er nam Forsaeludal. Th['o]rhallr\n['a]tti th['a] konu, er Gudhr['u]n h['e]t. Gr['i]mr h['e]t sonr theira, en\nThur['i]dhr d['o]ttir; thau v['a]ru vel ['a] legg komin. Th['o]rhallr var\nvel audhigr {147} madhr, ok mest at kvikf['e], sv['a] at engi madhr ['a]tti\njafnmart ganganda f['e], sem hann. Ekki var hann h[o,]fdhingi, en th['o]\nskilr['i]kr b['o]nd['i]. Thar var reimt mj[o,]k, ok fekk hann varla\nsaudhamann, sv['a] at honum thoetti duga. Hann leitadhi r['a]dhs vidh marga\nvitra menn, hvat hann skyldi til bragdhs taka; en engi gat that r['a]dh til\ngefit, er dygdhi. Th['o]rhallr reidh til things hvert sumar. Hann ['a]tti\nhesta g['o]dha. That var eitt sumar ['a] althingi, at Th['o]rhallr gekk til\nb['u]dhar Skapta l[o,]gmanns, Th['o]roddssonar. Skapti var manna vitrastr,\nok heilr['a]dhr, ef hann var beiddr. That skildi medh theim fedhgum:\nTh['o]roddr var forsp['a]r ok kalladhr undirhyggjumadhr af sumum m[o,]nnum,\nen Skapti lagdhi that til medh hverjum manni, sem hann aetladhi at duga\nskyldi, ef eigi vaeri af thv['i] brugdhit; thv['i] var hann kalladhr\nbetrfedhrungr. Th['o]rhallr gekk ['i] b['u]dh Skapta; hann fagnadhi vel\nTh['o]rhalli, thv['i] hann vissi, at hann var r['i]kr madhr at f['e], ok\nspurdhi hvat at t['i]dhendum vaeri.\n\nTh['o]rhallr maelti: \"Heilraedhi vilda ek af ydhr thiggja.\"\n\n\"['I] litlum foerum em ek til thess,\" sagdhi Skapti; \"edha hvat stendr\nthik?\"\n\nTh['o]rhallr maelti: \"That er sv['a] h['a]ttat, at m['e]r helz l['i]tt ['a]\nsaudham[o,]nnum. Verdhr theim heldr klakks['a]rt, en sumir gera engar\nlyktir ['a]. Vill n['u] engi til taka, s['a] er kunnigt er til, hvat fyrir\nb['y]r.\"\n\nSkapti svarar: \"Thar mun liggja meinvaettr n[o,]kkur, er menn eru tregari\ntil at geyma s['i]dhr th['i]ns fj['a]r en annarra manna. N['u] fyrir\nthv['i], at th['u] hefir at m['e]r r['a]dh s['o]tt, th['a] skal ek f['a]\nth['e]r saudhamann, thann er Gl['a]mr heitir, aettadhr ['o]r\nSv['i]thj['o]dh, ['o]r Sylgsd[o,]lum, er ['u]t kom ['i] fyrra sumar, mikill\nok sterkr, ok ekki mj[o,]k vidh alth['y]dhu skap.\"\n\nTh['o]rhallr kvaz ekki um that gefa, ef hann geymdi vel fj['a]rins; Skapti\nsagdhi [o,]dhrum eigi vaent horfa, ef hann geymdi eigi fyrir afls sakir ok\n['a]raedhis; Th['o]rhallr gekk th['a] ['u]t. Thetta var at thinglausnum.\n\nTh['o]rhalli var vant hesta tveggja lj['o]sbleikra, ok f['o]r sj['a]lfr at\nleita; af thv['i] thykkjaz menn vita, at hann var ekki mikilmenni. Hann\ngekk upp undir Sledh['a]s ok sudhr medh fjalli thv['i], er ['A]rmannsfell\nheitir. Th['a] s['a] hann, hvar madhr f['o]r ofan ['o]r Godhask['o]gi ok\nbar hr['i]s ['a] hesti. Br['a]tt bar saman fund theira; Th['o]rhallr\nspurdhi hann at nafni, en hann kvez Gl['a]mr heita. Thessi madhr {148} var\nmikill vexti ok undarligr ['i] yfirbragdhi, bl['a]eygdhr ok opineygdhr,\n['u]lfgr['a]r ['a] h['a]rslit. Th['o]rhalli br['a] n[o,]kkut ['i] br['u]n,\ner hann s['a] thenna mann; en th['o] skildi hann, at honum mundi til thessa\nv['i]sat.\n\n\"Hvat er th['e]r bezt hent at vinna?\" segir Th['o]rhallr.\n\nGl['a]mr kvadh s['e]r vel hent at geyma saudhfj['a]r ['a] vetrum.\n\n\"Viltu geyma saudhfj['a]r m['i]ns?\" segir Th['o]rhallr; \"gaf Skapti thik\n['a] mitt vald.\"\n\n\"Sv['a] mun th['e]r hentust m['i]n vist, at ek fari sj['a]lfr['a]dhr;\nthv['i] ek em skapstyggr, ef m['e]r l['i]kar eigi vel,\" sagdhi Gl['a]mr.\n\n\"Ekki mun m['e]r mein at thv['i],\" segir Th['o]rhallr, \"ok vil ek, at\nth['u] farir til m['i]n.\"\n\n\"Gera m['a] ek that,\" segir Gl['a]mr; \"edha eru thar n[o,]kkur vandhoefi\n['a]?\"\n\n\"Reimt thykkir thar vera,\" sagdhi Th['o]rhallr.\n\n\"Ekki hraedhumz ek flykur thaer,\" sagdhi Gl['a]mr, \"ok thykkir m['e]r at\n['o]dauflig[r]a.\"\n\n\"Thess muntu vidh thurfa,\" segir Th['o]rhallr, \"ok hentar thar betr, at\nvera eigi alll['i]till fyrir s['e]r.\"\n\nEptir that kaupa their saman, ok skal Gl['a]mr koma at vetrn['o]ttum.\nSidhan skildu their, ok fann Th['o]rhallr hesta s['i]na, thar sem hann\nhafdhi n['y]leitat. Reidh Th['o]rhallr heim, ok thakkadhi Skapta sinn\nvelgerning.\n\nSumar leidh af, ok fr['e]tti Th['o]rhallr ekki til saudhamanns, ok engi\nkunni skyn ['a] honum. En at ['a]nefndum t['i]ma kom hann ['a]\nTh['o]rhallsstadhi. Tekr b['o]ndi vidh honum vel, en [o,]llum [o,]dhrum gaz\nekki at honum, en h['u]sfreyju th['o] minst. Hann t['o]k vidh\nfj['a]rvardhveizlu, ok vardh honum l['i]tit fyrir thv['i]; hann var\nhlj['o]dhmikill ok dimmraddadhr, ok f['e]it st[o,]kk allt saman, thegar\nhann h['o]adhi. Kirkja var ['a] Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum; ekki vildi Gl['a]mr\ntil hennar koma; hann var ['o]s[o,]ngvinn ok tr['u]lauss, stirfinn ok\nvidhskotaillr; [o,]llum var hann hvimleidhr.\n\nN['u] leidh sv['a] thar til er kemr atfangadagr j['o]la. Th['a] st['o]dh\nGl['a]mr snemma upp ok kalladhi til matar s['i]ns.\n\nH['u]sfreyja svarar: \"Ekki er that h['a]ttr kristinna manna, at mataz\nthenna dag, thv['i]at ['a] morgin er j['o]ladagr hinn fyrsti,\" segir hon,\n\"ok er thv['i] fyrst skylt at fasta ['i] dag.\"\n\nHann svarar: \"Marga hindrvitni hafi th['e]r, th['a] er ek s['e] til enskis\nkoma. Veit ek eigi, at m[o,]nnum fari n['u] betr at, heldr {149} en th['a],\ner menn f['o]ru ekki medh sl['i]kt. Th['o]tti m['e]r th['a] betri sidhr, er\nmenn v['a]ru heidhnir kalladhir; ok vil ek mat minn en engar refjur.\"\n\nH['u]sfreyja maelti: \"V['i]st veit ek, at th['e]r mun illa faraz ['i] dag,\nef th['u] tekr thetta illbrigdhi til.\"\n\nGl['a]mr badh hana taka mat ['i] stadh; kvadh henni annat skyldu vera\nverra. Hon thordhi eigi annat, en at gera, sem hann vildi. Ok er hann var\nmettr, gekk hann ['u]t, ok var heldr gustillr. Vedhri var sv['a] farit, at\nmyrkt var um at litaz, ok fl[o,]gradhi ['o]r dr['i]fa, ok gn['y]mikit, ok\nversnadhi mj[o,]k sem ['a] leidh daginn. Heyrdhu menn til saudhamanns\n[o,]ndverdhan daginn, en midhr er ['a] leidh daginn. T['o]k th['a] at\nfj['u]ka, ok gerdhi ['a] hr['i]dh um kveldit; k['o]mu menn til t['i]dha, ok\nleidh sv['a] fram at dagsetri; eigi kom Gl['a]mr heim. Var th['a] um talat,\nhv['a]rt hans skyldi eigi leita; en fyrir thv['i], at hr['i]dh var ['a] ok\nnidhamyrkr, th['a] vardh ekki af leitinni. Kom hann eigi heim\nj['o]lan['o]ttina; bidhu menn sv['a] fram um t['i]dhir. At oernum degi\nf['o]ru menn ['i] leitina, ok fundu f['e]it v['i]dha ['i] f[o,]nnum, lamit\naf ofvidhri edha hlaupit ['a] fj[o,]ll upp. Thv['i]naest k['o]mu their ['a]\ntradhk mikinn ofarliga ['i] dalnum. Th['o]tti theim thv['i] l['i]kt, sem\nthar hefdhi gl['i]mt verit heldr sterkliga, thv['i]at grj['o]tit var\nv['i]dha upp leyst, ok sv['a] j[o,]rdhin. Their hugdhu at vandliga ok\ns['a], hvar Gl['a]mr l['a], skamt ['a] brott fr['a] theim. Hann var daudhr,\nok bl['a]r sem Hel, en digr sem naut. Theim baudh af honum ['o]thekt mikla,\nok hraus theim mj[o,]k hugr vidh honum. En th['o] leitudhu their vidh at\nfoera hann til kirkju, ok g['a]tu ekki komit honum, nema ['a] einn\ngilsthr[o,]m thar skamt ofan fr['a] s['e]r; ok f['o]ru heim vidh sv['a]\nb['u]it, ok s[o,]gdhu b['o]nda thenna atburdh. Hann spurdhi, hvat Gl['a]mi\nmundi hafa at bana ordhit. Their kv['a]dhuz rakit hafa spor sv['a] st['o]r,\nsem keraldsbotni vaeri nidhr skelt thadhan fr['a], sem tradhkrinn var, ok\nupp undir bj[o,]rg thau, er thar v['a]ru ofarliga ['i] dalnum, ok fylgdhu\nthar medh bl['o]dhdrefjar miklar. That dr['o]gu menn saman, at s['u]\nmeinvaettr, er ['a]dhr hafdhi [thar] verit, mundi hafa deytt Gl['a]m; en\nhann mundi fengit hafa henni n[o,]kkurn ['a]verka, thann er tekit hafi til\nfulls, thv['i]at vidh th['a] meinvaetti hefir aldri vart ordhit s['i]dhan.\nAnnan j['o]ladag var enn til farit at foera Gl['a]m til kirkju. V['a]ru\neykir fyrir beittir, ok g['a]tu their hvergi foert hann, thegar\nsl['e]ttlendit var ok eigi var forbrekkis at fara. Gengu n['u] fr['a] vidh\nsv['a] b['u]it. Hinn thridhja dag f['o]r prestr medh theim, ok leitudhu\nallan daginn, {150} ok Gl['a]mr fannz eigi. Eigi vildi prestr optar til\nfara; en saudhamadhr fannz, thegar prestr var eigi ['i] ferdh. L['e]tu\ntheir th['a] fyrir vinnaz, at foera hann til kirkju; ok dysjudhu hann thar,\nsem th['a] var hann kominn. L['i]tlu s['i]dhar urdhu menn varir vidh that,\nat Gl['a]mr l['a] eigi kyrr. Vardh m[o,]nnum at thv['i] mikit mein, sv['a]\nat margir fellu ['i] ['o]vit, ef s['a] hann, en sumir heldu eigi vitinu.\nThegar eptir j['o]lin th['o]ttuz menn sj['a] hann heima thar ['a] boenum.\nUrdhu menn ['a]kafliga hraeddir; stukku th['a] margir menn ['i] brott.\nThvinaest t['o]k Gl['a]mr at r['i]dha h['u]sum ['a] naetr, sv['a] at l['a]\nvidh brotum. Gekk hann th['a] n['a]liga naetr ok daga. Varla thordhu menn\nat fara upp ['i] dalinn, th['o]at aetti n['o]g oerendi. Th['o]tti m[o,]nnum\nthar ['i] heradhinu mikit mein at thessu.\n\nUm v['a]rit fekk Th['o]rhallr s['e]r hj['o]n ok gerdhi b['u] ['a] j[o,]rdhu\nsinni. T['o]k th['a] at minka aptrgangr, medhan s['o]largangr var mestr.\nLeidh sv['a] fram ['a] midhsumar. Thetta sumar kom ['u]t skip ['i]\nH['u]navatni; thar var ['a] s['a] madhr, er Thorgautr h['e]t. Hann var\n['u]tlendr at kyni, mikill ok sterkr; hann hafdhi tveggja manna afl; hann\nvar lauss ok einn fyrir s['e]r; hann vildi f['a] starfa n[o,]kkurn,\nthv['i](at) hann var f['e]lauss. Th['o]rhallr reidh til skips ok fann\nThorgaut; spurdhi ef hann vildi vinna fyrir honum; Thorgautr kvadh that vel\nmega vera, ok kvez eigi vanda that.\n\n\"Sv['a] skaltu vidh b['u]az,\" segir Th['o]rhallr, \"sem thar s['e] ekki\nveslingsm[o,]nnum hent at vera, fyrir aptrg[o,]ngum theim, er thar hafa\nverit um hr['i]dh, en ek vil ekki thik ['a] t['a]lar draga.\"\n\nThorgautr svarar: \"Eigi thykkjumz ek upp gefinn, th['o]at ek sj['a]\nsm['a]v['a]fur; mun th['a] eigi [o,]dhrum daelt, ef ek hraedhumz; ok ekki\nbregdh ek vist minni fyrir that.\"\n\nN['u] semr theim vel kaupstefnan, ok skal Thorgautr gaeta saudhfj['a]r at\nvetri.\n\nLeidh n['u] af sumarit. T['o]k Thorgautr vidh f['e]nu at vetrn['a]ttum. Vel\nl['i]kadhi [o,]llum vidh hann. Jafnan kom Gl['a]mr heim ok reidh h['u]sum.\nThat th['o]tti Thorgauti allk['a]tligt, ok kvadh, \"thraelinn thurfa mundu\nnaer at ganga, ef ek hraedhumz.\" Th['o]rhallr badh hann hafa f['a]tt um;\n\"er bezt, at thit reynidh ekki medh ykkr.\"\n\nThorgautr maelti: \"Sannliga er skekinn thr['o]ttr ['o]r ydhr; ok dett ek\neigi nidhr milli doegra vidh skraf thetta.\"\n\nN['u] f['o]r sv['a] fram um vetrinn allt til j['o]la. Atfangakveld j['o]la\nf['o]r saudhamadhr til fj['a]r. {151}\n\nTh['a] maelti h['u]sfreyja: \"Thurfa thoetti m['e]r, at n['u] foeri eigi at\nfornum br[o,]gdhum.\"\n\nHann svarar: \"Ver eigi hraedd um that, h['u]sfreyja,\" sagdhi hann; \"verdha\nmun eitthvert s[o,]guligt, ef ek kem ekki aptr.\" S['i]dhan gekk hann aptr\ntil fj['a]r s['i]ns. Vedhr var heldr kalt, ok fj['u]k mikit. Thv['i] var\nThorgautr vanr, at koma heim, th['a] er h['a]lfroekkvat var; en n['u] kom\nhann ekki heim ['i] that mund. K['o]mu t['i]dhamenn, sem vant var. That\nth['o]tti m[o,]nnum eigi ['o]l['i]kt ['a] horfaz sem fyrr. B['o]ndi vildi\nleita l['a]ta eptir saudhamanni, en t['i]dhamenn t[o,]lduz undan, ok\ns[o,]gdhuz eigi mundu haetta s['e]r ['u]t ['i] tr[o,]llahendr um naetr; ok\ntreystiz b['o]ndi eigi at fara, ok vardh ekki af leitinni. J['o]ladag, er\nmenn v['a]ru mettir, f['o]ru menn til ok leitudhu saudhamanns. Gengu their\nfyrst til dysjar Gl['a]ms, thv['i]at menn aetludhu af hans v[o,]ldum mundi\nordhit um hvarf saudhamanns. En er their k['o]mu naer dysinni, s['a]u their\nthar mikil t['i]dhendi, ok thar fundu their saudhamann, ok var hann brotinn\n['a] h['a]ls, ok lamit sundr hvert bein ['i] honum. S['i]dhan foerdhu their\nhann til kirkju, ok vardh engum manni mein at Thorgauti s['i]dhan. En\nGl['a]mr t['o]k at magnaz af n['y]ju. Gerdhi hann n['u] sv['a] mikit af\ns['e]r, at menn allir stukku brott af Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum, ['u]tan\nb['o]ndi einn ok h['u]sfreyja. Nautamadhr hafdhi thar verit lengi hinn\nsami. Vildi Th['o]rhallr hann ekki lausan l['a]ta fyrir g['o]dhvilja sakir\nok geymslu. Hann var mj[o,]k vidh aldr, ok th['o]tti honum mikit fyrir, at\nfara ['a] brott; s['a] hann ok, at allt f['o]r at ['o]nytju, that er\nb['o]ndi ['a]tti, ef engi geymdi. Ok einn t['i]ma eptir midhjan vetr var\nthat einn morgin, at h['u]sfreyja f['o]r til fj['o]ss, at mj['o]lka k['y]r\neptir t['i]ma. Th['a] var allj['o]st, thv['i]at engi treystiz fyrr ['u]ti\nat vera annarr en nautamadhr; hann f['o]r ['u]t, thegar l['y]sti. Hon\nheyrdhi brak mikit ['i] fj['o]sit, ok beljan [o,]skurliga; hon hlj['o]p inn\noepandi ok kvaz eigi vita, hver ['o]doemi um vaeri ['i] fj['o]sinu.\nB['o]ndi gekk ['u]t ok kom til nautanna, ok stangadhi hvert annat.\nTh['o]tti honum thar eigi gott, ok gekk innar at hl[o,]dhunni. Hann s['a],\nhvar l['a], nautamadhr, ok hafdhi h[o,]fudhit ['i] [o,]dhrum b['a]si en\nfoetr ['i] [o,]dhrum; hann l['a] ['a] bak aptr. B['o]ndi gekk at honum ok\nthreifadhi um hann; finnr br['a]tt, at hann er daudhr ok sundr hryggrinn\n['i] honum. Var hann brotinn um b['a]shelluna. N['u] th['o]tti b['o]nda\neigi vaert, ok f['o]r ['i] brott af boenum medh allt that, sem hann\nm['a]tti ['i] brott flytja. En allt kvikf['e] that, sem eptir var, deyddi\nGl['a]mr. Ok thvinaest f['o]r {152} hann um allan dalinn ok eyddi alla boei\nupp fr['a] Tungu. Var Th['o]rhallr th['a] medh vinum s['i]num that [sem]\neptir var vetrarins. Engi madhr m['a]tti fara upp ['i] dalinn medh hest\nedhr hund, thv['i]at that var thegar drepit. En er v['a]radhi, ok\ns['o]largangr var sem mestr, l['e]tti heldr aptrg[o,]ngunum. Vildi\nTh['o]rhallr n['u] fara aptr til lands s['i]ns. Urdhu honum ekki audhfengin\nhj['o]n, en th['o] gerdhi hann b['u] ['a] Th['o]rhallsst[o,]dhum. F['o]r\nallt ['a] sama veg sem fyrr; thegar at haustadhi, t['o]ku at vaxa\nreimleikar. Var th['a] mest s['o]tt at b['o]ndad['o]ttur; ok sv['a] f['o]r,\nat hon l['e]z af thv['i]. Margra r['a]dha var ['i] leitat, ok vardh ekki at\ng[o,]rt. Th['o]tti m[o,]nnum til thess horfaz, at eydhaz mundi allr\nVatnsdalr, ef eigi yrdhi boetr ['a] r['a]dhnar.\n\nN['u] er thar til at taka, at Grettir ['A]smundarson sat heima at Bjargi um\nhaustit, s['i]dhan their V['i]gabardhi skildu ['a] Th['o]reyjargn['u]pi. Ok\ner mj[o,]k var komit at vetrn['o]ttum, reidh Grettir heiman nordhr yfir\nh['a]lsa til V['i]dhidals, ok gisti ['a] Audhunarst[o,]dhum. Saettuz their\nAudhunn til fulls, ok gaf Grettir honum oexi g['o]dha, ok maeltu til\nvin['a]ttu medh s['e]r. Audhunn bj['o] lengi ['a] Audhunarst[o,]dhum ok var\nkynsaell madhr. Hans sonr var Egill, er ['a]tti ['U]lfheidhi, d['o]ttur\nEyj['o]lfs Gudhmundarsonar, ok var theira sonr Eyj['o]lfr, er veginn var\n['a] althingi. Hann var fadhir Orms, kapil['a]ns Thorl['a]ks biskups.\nGrettir reidh nordhr til Vatnsdals ok kom ['a] kynnisleit ['i] Tungu. Thar\nbj['o] th['a] J[o,]kull B['a]rdharson, m['o]dhurbr['o]dhir Grettis;\nJ[o,]kull var mikill madhr ok sterkr ok hinn mesti ofsamadhr. Hann var\nsiglingamadhr, ok mj[o,]k ['o]daell, en th['o] mikilhoefr madhr. Hann\nt['o]k vel vidh Gretti, ok var hann thar thrj['a]r naetr. Th['a] var sv['a]\nmikit ordh ['a] aptrg[o,]ngum Gl['a]ms, at m[o,]nnum var ekki\njafnt['i]dhroett sem that. Grettir spurdhi inniliga at theim atburdhum, er\nh[o,]fdhu ordhit; J[o,]kull kvadh thar ekki meira af sagt en til vaeri\nhoeft; \"edha er th['e]r forvitni ['a], fraendi! at koma thar?\"\n\nGrettir sagdhi, at that var satt.\n\nJ[o,]kull badh hann that eigi gera, \"thv['i] that er gaefuraun mikil; en\nfraendr th['i]nir eiga mikit ['i] haettu, thar sem th['u] ert,\" sagdhi\nhann; \"thykkir oss n['u] engi sl['i]kr af ungum m[o,]nnum sem th['u]; en\nillt mun af illum hlj['o]ta, thar sem Gl['a]mr er. Er ok miklu betra, at\nf['a]z vidh mennska menn en vidh ['o]vaettir sl['i]kar.\"\n\nGrettir kvadh s['e]r hug ['a], at koma ['a] Th['o]rhallsstadhi, ok sj['a],\nhversu thar vaeri um gengit. {153}\n\nJ[o,]kull maelti: \"S['e] ek n['u], at eigi tj['a]ir at letja thik; en satt\ner that sem maelt er, at sitt er hv['a]rt, gaefa edha gervigleikr.\"\n\n\"Th['a] er [o,]dhrum v['a] fyrir dyrum, er [o,]dhrum er inn um komit; ok\nhygg at, hversu th['e]r mun fara sj['a]lfum, ['a]dhr l['y]kr,\" kvadh\nGrettir.\n\nJ[o,]kull svarar: \"Vera kann, at vit sj['a]im b['a]dhir n[o,]kkut fram, en\nhv['a]rrgi f['a]i vidh g[o,]rt.\"\n\nEptir that skildu their, ok l['i]kadhi hv['a]rigum annars sp['a]r.\n\nGrettir reidh ['a] Th['o]rhallsstadhi, ok fagnadhi b['o]ndi honum vel. Hann\nspurdhi, hvert Grettir aetladhi at fara; en hann segiz thar vilja vera um\nn['o]ttina, ef b['o]nda l['i]kadhi, at sv['a] vaeri. Th['o]rhallr kvaz\nth[o,]kk fyrir kunna, at hann vaeri thar, \"en f['a]m thykkir sloegr til at\ngista h['e]r um t['i]ma; muntu hafa heyrt getit um, hvat h['e]r er at\nvaela. En ek vilda gjarna, at th['u] hlytir engi vandraedhi af m['e]r. En\nth['o]at th['u] komiz heill ['a] brott, th['a] veit ek fyrir v['i]st, at\nth['u] missir hests th['i]ns; thv['i] engi heldr h['e]r heilum s['i]num\nfararskj['o]ta, s['a] er kemr.\"\n\nGrettir kvadh gott til hesta, hvat sem af thessum yrdhi.\n\nTh['o]rhallr vardh gladhr vidh, er Grettir vildi thar vera, ok t['o]k vidh\nhonum b['a]dhum h[o,]ndum. Var hestr Grettis laestr ['i] h['u]si sterkliga.\nTheir f['o]ru til svefns, ok leidh sv['a] af n['o]ttin, at ekki kom\nGl['a]mr heim.\n\nTh['a] maelti Th['o]rhallr: \"Vel hefir brugdhit vidh th['i]na kv['a]mu,\nthv['i]at hverja n['o]tt er Gl['a]mr vanr at r['i]dha h['u]sum edha\nbrj['o]ta upp hurdhir, sem th['u] m['a]tt merki sj['a].\"\n\nGrettir maelti: \"Th['a] mun vera annathv['a]rt, at hann mun ekki lengi ['a]\ns['e]r sitja, edha mun af venjaz meirr en eina n['o]tt. Skal ek vera h['e]r\nn['o]tt adhra ok sj['a], hversu ferr.\"\n\nSidhan gengu their til hests Grettis, ok var ekki vidh hann glez. Allt\nth['o]tti b['o]nda at einu fara. N['u] er Grettir thar adhra n['o]tt, ok\nkom ekki thraellinn heim. Th['a] th['o]tti b['o]nda mj[o,]k vaenkaz. F['o]r\nhann th['a], at sj['a] hest Grettis. Th['a] var upp brotit h['u]sit, er\nb['o]ndi kom til, en hestrinn dreginn til dyra ['u]tar, ok lamit ['i] sundr\n['i] honum hvert bein.\n\nTh['o]rhallr sagdhi Gretti, hvar th['a] var komit, ok badh hann fordha\ns['e]r: \"thv['i]at v['i]ss er daudhinn, ef th['u] b['i]dhr Gl['a]ms.\"\n\nGrettir svarar: \"Eigi m['a] ek minna hafa fyrir hest minn, en at sj['a]\nthraelinn.\" {154}\n\nB['o]ndi sagdhi, at that var eigi bati, at sj['a] hann, \"thv['i]at hann er\n['o]l['i]kr n[o,]kkurri mannligri mynd; en g['o]dh thykki m['e]r hver s['u]\nstund, er th['u] vilt h['e]r vera.\"\n\nN['u] l['i]dhr dagrinn; ok er menn skyldu fara til svefns, vildi Grettir\neigi fara af klaedhum, ok lagdhiz nidhr ['i] setit gegnt lokrekkju\nb['o]nda. Hann hafdhi r[o,]ggvarfeld yfir s['e]r, ok knepti annat skautit\nnidhr undir foetr s['e]r, en annat snaradhi hann undir h[o,]fudh s['e]r, ok\ns['a] ['u]t um h[o,]fudhsm['a]ttina. Setstokkr var fyrir framan setit,\nmj[o,]k sterkr, ok spyrndi hann thar ['i]. Dyraumb['u]ningrinn allr var\nfr['a] brotinn ['u]tidyrunum, en n['u] var thar fyrir bundinn hurdharflaki,\nok ['o]vendiliga um b['u]it. Thverthilit var allt brotit fr['a]\nsk['a]lanum, that sem thar fyrir framan hafdhi verit, baedhi fyrir ofan\nthvertr['e]it ok nedhan. Saengr allar v['a]ru ['o]r stadh foerdhar. Heldr\nvar thar ['o]vistuligt. Lj['o]s brann ['i] sk['a]lanum um n['o]ttina. Ok er\naf mundi thridhjungr af n['o]tt, heyrdhi Grettir ['u]t dynur miklar. Var\nth['a] farit upp ['a] h['u]sin, ok ridhit sk['a]lanum ok barit haelunum,\nsv['a] at brakadhi ['i] hverju tr['e]. Thvi gekk lengi; th['a] var farit\nofan af h['u]sunum ok til dyra gengit. Ok er upp var lokit hurdhunni, s['a]\nGrettir, at thraellinn r['e]tti inn h[o,]fudhit, ok s['y]ndiz honum\nafskraemiliga mikit ok undarliga st['o]rskorit. Gl['a]mr f['o]r seint ok\nr['e]ttiz upp, er hann kom inn ['i] dyrnar; hann gnaefadhi ofarliga vidh\nraefrinu; sn['y]r at sk['a]lanum ok lagdhi handleggina upp ['a]\nthvertr['e]it, ok gaegdhiz inn yfir sk['a]lann. Ekki l['e]t b['o]ndi heyra\ntil s['i]n, thv['i]at honum th['o]tti oerit um, er hann heyrdhi, hvat um\nvar ['u]ti. Grettir l['a] kyrr ok hroerdhi sik hvergi. Gl['a]mr s['a], at\nhr['u]ga n[o,]kkur l['a] ['i] setinu, ok r['e]z n['u] innar eptir\nsk['a]lanum ok threif ['i] feldinn stundarfast. Grettir spyrndi ['i]\nstokkinn, ok gekk thv['i] hvergi. Gl['a]mr hnykti ['i] annat sinn miklu\nfastara, ok bifadhiz hvergi feldrinn. ['I] thridhja sinn threif hann ['i]\nmedh b['a]dhum h[o,]ndum sv['a] fast, at hann r['e]tti Gretti upp ['o]r\nsetinu; kiptu n['u] ['i] sundr feldinum ['i] millum s['i]n. Gl['a]mr leit\n['a] slitrit, er hann helt ['a], ok undradhiz mj[o,]k, hverr sv['a], fast\nmundi togaz vidh hann. Ok ['i] thv['i] hlj['o]p Grettir undir hendr honum,\nok threif um hann midhjan, ok spenti ['a] honum hrygginn sem fastast gat\nhann, ok aetladhi hann, at Gl['a]mr skyldi kikna vidh. En thraellinn lagdhi\nat handleggjum Grettis sv['a] fast, at hann h[o,]rfadhi allr fyrir orku\nsakir. F['o]r Grettir th['a] undan ['i] ['y]ms setin. Gengu th['a] fr['a]\nstokkarnir, ok allt brotnadhi, that sem fyrir vardh. Vildi {155} Gl['a]mr\nleita ['u]t, en Grettir foerdhi vidh foetr, hvar sem hann m['a]tti. En\nth['o] gat Gl['a]mr dregit hann fram ['o]r sk['a]lanum. ['A]ttu their\nth['a] allhardha s['o]kn thv['i]at thraellinn aetladhi at koma honum ['u]t\n['o]r boenum; en sv['a] illt sem var at eiga vidh Gl['a]m inni, th['a]\ns['a] Grettir, at th['o] var verra, at f['a]z vidh hann ['u]ti; ok thv['i]\nbrauz hann ['i] m['o]ti af [o,]llu afli at fara ['u]t. Gl['a]mr foerdhiz\n['i] aukana, ok knepti hann at s['e]r, er their k['o]mu ['i] anddyrit. Ok\ner Grettir s['e]r, at hann fekk eigi vidh spornat, hefir hann allt eitt\natridhit, at hann hleypr sem hardhast ['i] fang thraelnum ok spyrnir\nb['a]dhum f['o]tum ['i] jardhfastan stein, er stodh ['i] dyrunum. Vidh\nthessu bj['o]z thraellinn eigi; hann hafdhi th['a] togaz vidh at draga\nGretti at s['e]r; ok thv['i] kiknadhi Gl['a]mr ['a] bak aptr, ok rauk\n[o,]fugr ['u]t ['a] dyrnar, sv['a] at herdharnar n['a]mu uppdyrit, ok\nraefrit gekk ['i] sundr, baedhi vidhirnir ok thekjan frerin; fell hann\nsv['a] opinn ok [o,]fugr ['u]t ['o]r h['u]sunum, en Grettir ['a] hann ofan.\nTunglskin var mikit ['u]ti ok gluggathykkn; hratt stundum fyrir, en stundum\ndr['o] fr['a]. N['u] ['i] thv['i], er Gl['a]mr fell, rak sk['y]it fr['a]\ntunglinu, en Gl['a]mr hvesti augun upp ['i] m['o]ti. Ok sv['a], hefir\nGrettir sagt sj['a]lfr, at th['a] eina s['y]n hafi hann s['e]t sv['a], at\nhonum brygdhi vidh. Th['a] sigadhi sv['a] at honum af [o,]llu saman, moedhi\nok thv['i], er hann s['a] at Gl['a]mr gaut s['i]num sj['o]num hardhliga, at\nhann gat eigi brugdhit saxinu, ok l['a] n['a]liga ['i] milli heims ok\nheljar. En thv['i] var meiri ['o]fagnadharkraptr medh Gl['a]mi en flestum\n[o,]dhrum aptrg[o,]ngum[o,]nnum, at hann maelti th['a] ['a] thessa leidh:\n\"Mikit kapp hefir th['u] ['a] lagit, Grettir,\" sagdhi hann, \"at finna mik.\nEn that mun eigi undarligt thykkja, th['o]at th['u] hlj['o]tir ekki mikit\nhapp af m['e]r. En that m['a] ek segja th['e]r, at th['u] hefir n['u]\nfengit helming afls thess ok throska, er th['e]r var aetladhr, ef th['u]\nhefdhir mik ekki fundit. N['u] fae ek that afl eigi af th['e]r tekit, er\nth['u] hefir ['a]dhr hrept; en thv['i] m['a] ek r['a]dha, at th['u] verdhr\naldri sterkari en n['u] ertu, ok ertu th['o] n['o]gu sterkr, ok at thv['i]\nmun m[o,]rgum verdha. Th['u] hefir fraegr ordhit h['e]r til af verkum\nth['i]num; en hedhan af munu falla til th['i]n sektir ok v['i]gaferli, en\nflest [o,]ll verk th['i]n sn['u]az th['e]r til ['o]gaefu ok hamingjuleysis.\nTh['u] munt verdha ['u]tlaegr g[o,]rr, ok hlj['o]ta jafnan ['u]ti at b['u]a\neinn samt. Th['a] legg ek that ['a] vidh thik, at thessi augu s['e] th['e]r\njafnan fyrir sj['o]num, sem ek ber eptir; ok mun th['e]r erfitt thykkja,\neinum at vera; ok that mun th['e]r til daudha draga.\"\n\nOk sem thraellinn hafdhi thetta maelt, th['a] rann af Gretti ['o]megin,\n{156} that sem ['a] honum hafdhi verit. Br['a] hann th['a] saxinu ok hj['o]\nh[o,]fudh af Gl['a]mi ok setti that vidh thj['o] honum. B['o]ndi kom th['a]\n['u]t, ok hafdhi klaez, ['a] medhan Gl['a]mr l['e]t ganga t[o,]luna; en\nhvergi thordhi hann naer at koma, fyrr en Gl['a]mr var fallinn.\nTh['o]rhallr lofadhi gudh fyrir, ok thakkadhi vel Gretti, er hann hafdhi\nunnit thenna ['o]hreina anda. F['o]ru their th['a] til, ok brendu Gl['a]m\nat k[o,]ldum kolum. Eptir that [b['a]ru their [o,]sku hans ['i] eina h['i]t\nok] gr['o]fu thar nidhr, sem s['i]zt v['a]ru fj['a]rhagar edha mannavegir.\nGengu heim eptir that, ok var th['a] mj[o,]k komit at degi. Lagdhiz Grettir\nnidhr, thv['i]at hann var stirdhr mj[o,]k. Th['o]rhallr sendi menn ['a]\nnaestu boei eptir m[o,]nnum; s['y]ndi ok sagdhi, hversu farit hafdhi.\n[O,]llum th['o]tti mikils um vert um thetta verk, theim er heyrdhu. Var\nthat th['a] almaelt, at engi vaeri thv['i]l['i]kr madhr ['a] [o,]llu\nlandinu fyrir afls sakir ok hreysti ok allrar atgervi, sem Grettir\n['A]smundarson.\n\nTh['o]rhallr leysti Gretti vel af gardhi ok gaf honum g['o]dhan hest ok\nklaedhi soemilig, thv['i][at] thau v['a]ru [o,]ll sundr leyst, er hann\nhafdhi ['a]dhr borit. Skildu their medh vin['a]ttu. Reidh Grettir thadhan\n['i] ['A]s ['i] Vatnsdal, ok t['o]k Thorvaldr vidh honum vel ok spurdhi\ninniliga at sameign theira Gl['a]ms; en Grettir segir honum vidhskipti\ntheira, ok kvaz aldri ['i] thv['i]l['i]ka aflraun komit hafa, sv['a] langa\nvidhreign sem their h[o,]fdhu saman ['a]tt.\n\nThorvaldr badh hann hafa sik spakan, \"ok mun th['a] vel duga, en ella mun\nth['e]r slysgjarnt verdha.\"\n\nGrettir kvadh ekki batnat hafa um lyndisbragdhit, ok sagdhiz n['u] miklu\nverr stiltr en ['a]dhr, ok allar m['o]tgerdhir verri thykkja. ['A] thv['i]\nfann hann mikla muni, at hann var ordhinn madhr sv['a] myrkfaelinn, at hann\nthordhi hvergi at fara einn saman, thegar myrkva t['o]k. S['y]ndiz honum\nth['a] hvers kyns skr['i]pi; ok that er haft s['i]dhan fyrir ordhtoeki, at\ntheim lj['a]i Gl['a]mr augna edhr gefi gl['a]ms['y]ni, er mj[o,]k s['y]niz\nannan veg, en er. Grettir reidh heim til Bjargs, er hann hafdhi g[o,]rt\noerendi s['i]n, ok sat heima um vetrinn.\n\n(_b_) _Sandhaugar episode_ (caps. 64-66)\n\nSteinn h['e]t prestr, er bj['o] at Eyjardals['a] ['i] B['a]rdhardal. Hann\nvar b['u]thegn g['o]dhr ok r['i]kr at f['e]. Kjartan h['e]t son hans,\nr[o,]skr madhr ok vel ['a] legg kominn. Thorsteinn hv['i]ti h['e]t madhr,\ner {157} bj['o] at Sandhaugum, sudhr fr['a] Eyjardals['a]. Steinv[o,]r\nh['e]t kona hans, ung ok gladhl['a]t. Thau ['a]ttu b[o,]rn, ok v['a]ru thau\nung ['i] thenna t['i]ma. Thar th['o]tti m[o,]nnum reimt mj[o,]k sakir\ntr[o,]llagangs. That bar til, tveim vetrum fyrr en Grettir kom nordhr ['i]\nsveitir, at Steinv[o,]r h['u]sfreyja at Sandhaugum f['o]r til\nj['o]lat['i]dha til Eyjardals['a]r eptir vana, en b['o]ndi var heima.\nL[o,]gdhuz menn nidhr til svefns um kveldit; ok um n['o]ttina heyrdhu menn\nbrak mikit ['i] sk['a]lann, ok til saengr b['o]nda. Engi thordhi upp at\nstanda at forvitnaz um, thv['i]at thar var f['a]ment mj[o,]k. H['u]sfreyja\nkom heim um morguninn, ok var b['o]ndi horfinn, ok vissi engi, hvat af\nhonum var ordhit. Lidhu sv['a] hin naestu misseri. En annan vetr eptir,\nvildi h['u]sfreyja fara til t['i]dha; badh hon h['u]skarl sinn heima vera.\nHann var tregr til; en badh hana r['a]dha. F['o]r thar allt ['a] s[o,]mu\nleidh, sem fyrr, at h['u]skarl var horfinn. Thetta th['o]tti m[o,]nnum\nundarligt. S['a]u menn th['a] bl['o]dhdrefjar n[o,]kkurar ['i] ['u]tidyrum.\nTh['o]ttuz menn that vita, at ['o]vaettir mundu hafa tekit th['a] b['a]dha.\nThetta fr['e]ttiz v['i]dha um sveitir. Grettir hafdhi spurn af thessu. Ok\nmedh thv['i] at honum var mj[o,]k lagit at koma af reimleikum edha\naptrg[o,]ngum, th['a] gerdhi hann ferdh s['i]na til B['a]rdhardals, ok kom\natfangadag j['o]la til Sandha[u]ga. Hann duldiz ok nefndiz Gestr.\nH['u]sfreyja s['a], at hann var furdhu mikill vexti, en heimaf['o]lk var\nfurdhu hraett vidh hann. Hann beiddiz thar gistingar. H['u]sfreyja kvadh\nhonum mat til reidhu, \"en ['a]byrgz thik sj['a]lfr.\"\n\nHann kvadh sv['a] vera skyldu. \"Mun ek vera heima,\" segir hann, \"en th['u]\nfar til t['i]dha, ef th['u] vilt.\"\n\nHon svarar: \"M['e]r thykkir th['u] hraustr, ef th['u] thorir heima at\nvera.\"\n\n\"Eigi laet ek m['e]r at einu getit,\" sagdhi hann.\n\n\"Illt thykkir m['e]r heima at vera,\" segir hon, \"en ekki komumz ek yfir\n['a]na.\"\n\n\"Ek skal fylgja th['e]r yfir,\" segir Gestr.\n\nS['i]dhan bj['o]z hon til tidha, ok d['o]ttir hennar medh henni, l['i]til\nvexti. Hl['a]ka mikil var ['u]ti, ok ['a]in ['i] leysingum; var ['a] henni\njakaf[o,]r.\n\nTh['a] maelti h['u]sfreyja: \"['O]foert er yfir ['a]na, baedhi m[o,]nnum ok\nhestum.\"\n\n\"V[o,]dh munu ['a] vera,\" kvadh Gestr; \"ok veridh eigi hraeddar.\" {158}\n\n\"Ber th['u] fyrst meyna,\" kvadh h['u]sfreyja, \"hon er l['e]ttari.\"\n\n\"Ekki nenni ek at gera tvaer ferdhir at thessu,\" segir Gestr, \"ok mun ek\nbera thik ['a] handlegg m['e]r.\"\n\nHon signdi sik ok maelti: \"Thetta er ['o]foera; edha hvat gerir th['u]\nth['a] af meyjunni?\"\n\n\"Sj['a] mun ek r['a]dh til thess,\" segir hann; ok greip thaer upp b['a]dhar\nok setti hina yngri ['i] kn['e] m['o]dhur sinnar, ok bar thaer sv['a] ['a]\nvinstra armlegg s['e]r; en hafdhi lausa hina hoegri h[o,]nd ok ['o]dh\nsv['a], ['u]t ['a] vadhit. Eigi thordhu thaer at oepa, sv['a] v['a]ru thaer\nhraeddar. En ['a]in skall thegar upp ['a] brj['o]sti honum. Th['a] rak at\nhonum jaka mikinn; en hann skaut vidh hendi theiri, er laus var, ok hratt\nfr['a] s['e]r. Gerdhi th['a] sv['a] dj['u]pt, at strauminn braut ['a]\n[o,]xlinni. ['O]dh hann sterkliga, thar til er hann kom at bakkanum\n[o,]dhrum megin, ok fleygir theim ['a] land. S['i]dhan sneri hann aptr, ok\nvar th['a] h['a]lfroekkvit, er hann kom heim til Sandhauga; ok kalladhi til\nmatar. Ok er hann var mettr, badh hann heimaf['o]lk fara innar ['i] stofu.\nHann t['o]k th['a] bordh ok lausa vidhu, ok rak um thvera stofuna, ok\ngerdhi b['a]lk mikinn, sv['a] at engi heimamadhr komz fram yfir. Engi\nthordhi ['i] m['o]ti honum at maela, ok ['i] engum skyldi kretta. Gengit\nvar ['i] hlidhvegginn stofunnar inn vidh gaflhladhit; ok thar thverpallr\nhj['a]. Thar lagdhiz Gestr nidhr ok f['o]r ekki af klaedhunum. Lj['o]s\nbrann ['i] stofunni gegnt dyrum. Liggr Gestr sv['a] fram ['a] n['o]ttina.\n\nH['u]sfreyja kom til Eyjardals['a]r til t['i]dha, ok undrudhu menn um\nferdhir hennar yfir ['a]na. Hon sagdhiz eigi vita, hv['a]rt hana hefdhi\nyfir flutt madhr edha tr[o,]ll. Prestr kvadh mann v['i]st vera mundu,\nth['o]at f['a]rra maki s['e]; \"ok l['a]tum hlj['o]tt yfir,\" sagdhi hann;\n\"m['a] vera, at hann s['e] aetladhr til at vinna b['o]t ['a] vandraedhum\nth['i]num.\" Var h['u]sfreyja thar um n['o]ttina.\n\nN['u] er fr['a] Gretti that at segja, at th['a] er dr['o] at midhri\nn['o]tt, heyrdhi hann ['u]t dynur miklar. Thv['i]naest kom inn ['i] stofuna\ntr[o,]llkona mikil. Hon hafdhi ['i] hendi trog, en annarri sk['a]lm, heldr\nmikla. Hon litaz um, er hon kom inn, ok s['a], hvar Gestr l['a], ok\nhlj['o]p at honum, en hann upp ['i] m['o]ti, ok r['e]dhuz ['a] grimmliga ok\ns['o]ttuz lengi ['i] stofunni. Hon var sterkari, en hann f['o]r undan\nkoenliga. En allt that, sem fyrir theim vardh, brutu thau, jafnvel\nthverthilit undan stofunni. Hon dr['o] hann fram yfir dyrnar, ok sv['a]\n['i] anddyrit; thar t['o]k hann fast ['i] m['o]ti. Hon {159} vildi draga\nhann ['u]t ['o]r boenum, en that vardh eigi fyrr en thau leystu fr['a]\nallan ['u]tidyraumb['u]ninginn ok b['a]ru hann ['u]t ['a] herdhum s['e]r.\nThoefdhi hon th['a] ofan til ['a]rinnar ok allt fram at glj['u]frum. Th['a]\nvar Gestr ['a]kafliga m['o]dhr, en th['o] vardh annathv['a]rt at gera: at\nherdha sik, ella mundi hon steypa honum ['i] glj['u]frin. Alla n['o]ttina\ns['o]ttuz thau. Eigi th['o]ttiz hann hafa fengiz vidh thv['i]l['i]kan\n['o]fagnadh fyrir afls sakir. Hon hafdhi haldit honum sv['a] fast at\ns['e]r, at hann m['a]tti hv['a]rigri hendi taka til n[o,]kkurs, ['u]tan\nhann helt um hana midhja k[ett]una. Ok er thau k['o]mu ['a] ['a]rgljufrit,\nbregdhr hann flagdhkonunni til sveiflu. ['I] thv['i] vardh honum laus hin\nhoegri h[o,]ndin. Hann threif th['a] skj['o]tt til saxins, er hann var\ngyrdhr medh, ok bregdhr thv['i]; hoeggr th['a] ['a] [o,]xl tr[o,]llinu,\nsv['a] at af t['o]k h[o,]ndina hoegri, ok sv['a], vardh hann lauss. En hon\nsteyptiz ['i] glj['u]frin ok sv['a] ['i] fossinn. Gestr var th['a] baedhi\nstirdhr ok m['o]dhr, ok l['a] thar lengi ['a] hamrinum. Gekk hann th['a]\nheim, er l['y]sa t['o]k, ok lagdhiz ['i] rekkju. Hann var allr thr['u]tinn\nok bl['a]r.\n\nOk er h['u]sfreyja kom fr['a] t['i]dhum, th['o]tti henni heldr raskat um\nh['y]b['y]li s['i]n. Gekk hon th['a] til Gests ok spurdhi, hvat til hefdhi\nborit, er allt var brotit ok boelt. Hann sagdhi allt, sem farit hafdhi.\nHenni th['o]tti mikils um vert, ok spurdhi, hverr hann var. Hann sagdhi\nth['a] til hit sanna, ok badh soekja prest ok kvaz vildu finna hann. Var ok\nsv['a] g[o,]rt. En er Steinn prestr kom til Sandhauga, vardh hann br['a]tt\nthess v['i]ss, at thar var kominn Grettir ['A]smundarson, er Gestr nefndiz.\nPrestr spurdhi, hvat hann aetladhi af theim m[o,]nnum mundi vera ordhit, er\nthar h[o,]fdhu horfit. Grettir kvaz aetla, at ['i] glj['u]frin mundu their\nhafa horfit. Prestr kvaz eigi kunna at leggja tr['u]nadh ['a] sagnir hans,\nef engi merki maetti til sj['a]. Grettir segir, at s['i]fdhar vissi their\nthat goerr. F['o]r prestr heim. Grettir l['a] ['i] rekkju margar naetr.\nH['u]sfreyja gerdhi vidh hann hardhla vel; ok leidh sv['a] af j['o]lin.\nThetta er s[o,]gn Grettis, at tr[o,]llkonan steypdhiz ['i] glj['u]frin\nvidh, er hon fekk s['a]rit; en B['a]rdhardalsmenn segja, at hana dagadhi\nuppi, th['a] er thau gl['i]mdu, ok spryngi, th['a] er hann hj['o] af henni\nh[o,]ndina, ok standi thar enn ['i] konu l['i]king ['a] bjarginu. Their\ndalb['u]arnir leyndu thar Gretti.\n\nUm vetrinn eptir j['o]l var that einn dag, at Grettir f['o]r til\nEyjardals['a]r. Ok er their Grettir funduz ok prestr, maelti Grettir:\n\"S['e] ek that, prestr,\" segir hann, \"at th['u] leggr l['i]tinn {160}\ntr['u]nadh ['a] sagnir m['i]nar. N['u] vil ek at th['u] farir medh m['e]r\ntil ['a]rinnar, ok sj['a]ir, hver l['i]kendi th['e]r thykkir ['a] vera.\"\n\nPrestr gerdhi sv['a]. En er their k['o]mu til fossins, s['a]u their\nsk['u]ta upp undir bergit; that var meitilberg sv['a] mikit, at hvergi\nm['a]tti upp komaz, ok naer t['i]u fadhma ofan at vatninu. Their h[o,]fdhu\nfesti medh s['e]r.\n\nTh['a] maelti prestr: \"Langt um ['o]foert s['y]niz m['e]r th['e]r nidhr at\nfara.\"\n\nGrettir svarar: \"Foert er v['i]st; en theim mun bezt thar, sem\n['a]gaetismenn eru. Mun ek forvitnaz, hvat ['i] fossinum er, en th['u]\nskalt geyma festar.\"\n\nPrestr badh hann r['a]dha, ok keyrdhi nidhr hael ['a] berginu, ok bar at\ngrj['o]t, [ok sat thar hj['a]].\n\nN['u] er fr['a] Gretti at segja, at hann l['e]t stein ['i] festaraugat ok\nl['e]t sv['a] s['i]ga ofan at vatninu.\n\n\"Hvern veg aetlar th['u] n['u],\" segir prestr, \"at fara?\"\n\n\"Ekki vil ek vera bundinn,\" segir Grettir, \"th['a] er ek kem ['i] fossinn;\nsv['a] bodhar m['e]r hugr um.\"\n\nEptir that bj['o] hann sik til ferdhar, ok var f['a]klaeddr, ok gyrdhi sik\nmedh saxinu, en hafdhi ekki fleiri v['a]pn. S['i]dhan hlj['o]p hann af\nbjarginu ok nidhr ['i] fossinn. S['a] prestr ['i] iljar honum, ok vissi\ns['i]dhan aldri, hvat af honum vardh. Grettir kafadhi undir fossinn, ok var\nthat torvelt, thv['i]at idha var mikil, ok vardh hann allt til grunns at\nkafa, ['a]dhr en hann koemiz upp undir fossinn. Thar var forberg n[o,]kkut,\nok komz hann inn thar upp ['a]. Thar var hellir mikill undir fossinum, ok\nfell ['a]in fram af berginu. Gekk hann th['a] inn ['i] hellinn, ok var thar\neldr mikill ['a] br[o,]ndum. Grettir s['a], at thar sat j[o,]tunn\n[o,]gurliga mikill; hann var hraedhiligr at sj['a]. En er Grettir kom at\nhonum, hlj['o]p j[o,]tunninn upp ok greip flein einn ok hj['o] til thess,\ner kominn var, thv['i]at baedhi m['a]tti h[o,]ggva ok leggja medh [honum].\nTr['e]skapt var ['i]; that k[o,]lludhu menn th['a] heptisax, er thannveg\nvar g[o,]rt. Grettir hj['o] ['a] m['o]ti medh saxinu, ok kom ['a] skaptit,\nsv['a] at ['i] sundr t['o]k. J[o,]tunninn vildi th['a] seilaz ['a] bak\ns['e]r aptr til sverdhs, er thar hekk ['i] hellinum. ['I] thv['i] hj['o]\nGrettir framan ['a] brj['o]stit, sv['a] at n['a]liga t['o]k af alla\nbringspelina ok kvidhinn, sv['a] at idhrin steyptuz ['o]r honum ofan ['i]\n['a]na, ok keyrdhi thau ofan eptir ['a]nni. Ok er prestr sat vidh festina,\ns['a] hann, at slydhrur n[o,]kkurar rak ofan eptir strengnum bl['o]dhugar\n{161} allar. Hann vardh th['a] lauss ['a] velli, ok th['o]ttiz n['u] vita,\nat Grettir mundi daudhr vera. Hlj['o]p hann th['a] fr['a] festarhaldinu ok\nf['o]r heim. Var th['a] komit at kveldi, ok sagdhi prestr v['i]sliga, at\nGrettir vaeri daudhr; ok sagdhi, at mikill skadhi vaeri eptir\nthv['i]l['i]kan mann.\n\nN['u] er fr['a] Gretti at segja; hann l['e]t skamt h[o,]ggva ['i] milli,\nthar til er j[o,]tunninn d['o]. Gekk Grettir th['a] innar eptir hellinum.\nHann kveikti lj['o]s ok kannadhi hellinn. Ekki er fr['a] thv['i] sagt,\nhversu mikit f['e] hann fekk ['i] hellinum; en that aetla menn, at verit\nhafi n[o,]kkut. Dvaldiz honum thar fram ['a] n['o]ttina. Hann fann thar\ntveggja manna bein, ok bar thau ['i] belg einn. Leitadhi hann th['a] ['o]r\nhellinum ok lagdhiz til festarinnar, ok hristi hana, ok aetladhi, at prestr\nmundi thar vera. En er hann vissi, at prestr var heim farinn, vardh hann\nth['a] at handstyrkja upp festina, ok komz hann sv['a] upp ['a] bjargit.\nF['o]r hann th['a] heim til Eyjardals['a]r ok kom ['i] forkirkju belginum\ntheim, sem beinin v['a]ru ['i], ok thar medh r['u]nakefli thv['i], er\nv['i]sur thessar v['a]ru forkunnliga vel ['a] ristnar:\n\n  \"Gekk ek ['i] glj['u]fr et d[o,]kkva\n  gein veltiflug steina,\n  vith hj[o,]rgaethi hr['i]thar\n  hlunns ['u]rsv[o,]lum munni,\n  fast l['a] framm ['a] brj['o]sti\n  flugstraumr ['i] sal naumu\n  heldr kom ['a] herthar sk['a]ldi\n  h[o,]rth fj['o]n Braga kv['o]nar.\"\n\nOk en thessi:\n\n  \"Lj['o]tr kom m['e]r ['i] m['o]ti\n  mellu vinr ['o]r helli;\n  hann fekz, heldr at s[o,]nnu\n  harthfengr, vith mik lengi;\n  hartheggjat l['e]t ek h[o,]ggvit\n  heptisax af skepti;\n  Gangs klauf brj['o]st ok bringu\n  bjartr gunnlogi svarta[298].\"\n\n{162}\n\nThar sagdhi sv['a], at Grettir hafi bein thessi ['o]r hellinum haft. En er\nprestr kom til kirkju um morgininn, fann hann keflit ok that sem fylgdi, ok\nlas r['u]narnar. En Grettir hafdhi farit heim til Sandhauga.\n\nEn th['a] er prestr fann Gretti, spurdhi hann inniliga eptir atburdhum; en\nhann sagdhi alla s[o,]gu um ferdh s['i]na, ok kvadh prest ['o]tr['u]liga\nhafa haldit festinni. Prestr l['e]t that ['a] sannaz. Th['o]ttuz menn that\nvita, at thessar ['o]vaettir mundu valdit hafa mannahv[o,]rfum thar ['i]\ndalnum. Vardh ok aldri mein af aptrg[o,]ngum edha reimleikum thar ['i]\ndalnum s['i]dhan. Th['o]tti Grettir thar g[o,]rt hafa mikla landhreinsan.\nPrestr jardhadhi bein thessi ['i] kirkjugardhi.\n\nTRANSLATION OF EXTRACTS FROM GRETTIS SAGA\n\n    The _Grettis saga_ was first printed in the middle of the eighteenth\n    century, in Iceland (Marc['u]sson, _Nockrer Marg-frooder Sogu-thatter_,\n    1756, pp. 81-163). It was edited by Magn['u]sson and Thordarson,\n    Copenhagen, 1853, with a Danish translation, and again by Boer\n    (_Altnordische Saga-bibliothek_, Halle, 1900). An edition was also\n    printed at Reykjavik in 1900, edited by V. ['A]smundarson.\n\n    There are over forty MSS of the saga: _Cod. Arn. Mag. 551 a_ (quoted in\n    the notes below as A) forms the basis of all three modern editions.\n    Boer has investigated the relationship of the MSS (_Die\n    handschriftliche ueberlieferung der Grettissaga, Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXI,\n    40-60), and has published, in an appendix to his edition, the readings\n    of five of the more important, in so far as he considers that they can\n    be utilized to amend the text supplied by A.\n\n    The reader who consults the editions of both Magn['u]sson and Boer will\n    be struck by the differences in the text, although both are following\n    the same MS. Many of these differences are, of course, due to the fact\n    that the editors are normalizing the spelling, but on different\n    principles: many others, however, are due to the extraordinary\n    difficulty of the MS itself. Mr Sigf['u]s Bloendal, of the Royal\n    Library of Copenhagen, has examined _Cod. Arn. Mag. 551 a_ for me, and\n    he writes:\n\n        \"It is the very worst MS I have ever met with. The writing is\n        small, almost every word is abbreviated, and, worst of all, the\n        writing is in many places effaced, partly by smoke (I suppose the\n        MS needs must have been lying for years in some smoky and damp\n        _badhstofa_) rendering the parchment almost as black as\n        shoe-leather, but still more owing to the use of chemicals, which\n        modern editors have been obliged to use, to make sure of what there\n        really was in the text. By the use of much patience and a lens, one\n        can read it, though, in most places. Unfortunately, this does not\n        apply to the _Gl['a]mur_ episode, a big portion of which belongs to\n        the very worst part of the MS, and the readings of that portion are\n        therefore rather uncertain.\"\n\n    The Icelandic text given above agrees in the main with that in the\n    excellent edition of Boer, to whom, in common with all students of the\n    {163} _Grettis saga_, I am much indebted: but I have frequently adopted\n    in preference a spelling or wording nearer to that of Magn['u]sson. In\n    several of these instances (notably the spelling of the verses\n    attributed to Grettir) I think Prof. Boer would probably himself agree.\n\n    The words or letters placed between square brackets are those which are\n    not to be found in _Cod. Arn. Mag. 551 a_.\n\n    To Mr Bloendal, who has been at the labour of collating with the MS,\n    for my benefit, both the passages given above, my grateful thanks are\n    due.\n\n    There are English translations of the _Grettis saga_ by Morris and E.\n    Magn['u]sson (1869, and in Morris' _Works_, 1911, vol. VII) and by G.\n    A. Hight (_Everyman's Library_, 1914).\n\n    For a discussion of the relationship of the _Grettis saga_ to other\n    stories, see also Boer, _Zur Grettissaga_, in _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXX, 1-71.\n\n(_a_) _Glam episode_ (p. 146 above)\n\nThere was a man called Thorhall, who lived at Thorhall's Farm in\nShadow-dale. Shadow-dale runs up from Water-dale. Thorhall was son of Grim,\nson of Thorhall, son of Frithmund, who settled Shadow-dale. Thorhall's wife\nwas called Guthrun: their son was Grim, and Thurith their daughter--they\nwere grown up.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 147]\n\nThorhall was a wealthy man, and especially in cattle, so that no man had as\nmuch live stock as he. He was not a chief, yet a substantial yeoman. The\nplace was much haunted, and he found it hard to get a shepherd to suit him.\nHe sought counsel of many wise men, what device he should follow, but he\ngot no counsel which was of use to him. Thorhall rode each summer to the\nAll-Thing; he had good horses. That was one summer at the All-Thing, that\nThorhall went to the booth of Skapti Thoroddsson, the Law-man.\n\nSkapti was the wisest of men, and gave good advice if he was asked. There\nwas this difference between Skapti and his father Thorodd: Thorodd had\nsecond sight, and some men called him underhanded; but Skapti gave to every\nman that advice which he believed would avail, if it were kept to: so he\nwas called 'Better than his father.' Thorhall went to the booth of Skapti.\nSkapti greeted Thorhall well, for he knew that he was a prosperous man, and\nasked what news he had.\n\nThorhall said, \"I should like good counsel from thee.\" \"I am little use at\nthat,\" said Skapti. \"But what is thy need?\" {164}\n\nThorhall said, \"It happens so, that it is difficult for me to keep my\nshepherds: they easily get hurt, and some will not serve their time. And\nnow no one will take on the task, who knows what is before him.\"\n\nSkapti answered, \"There must be some evil being about, if men are more\nunwilling to look after thy sheep than those of other folk. Now because\nthou hast sought counsel of me, I will find thee a shepherd, who is named\nGlam, a Swede, from Sylgsdale, who came out to Iceland last summer. He is\ngreat and strong, but not much to everybody's taste.\"\n\nThorhall said that he would not mind that, if he guarded the sheep well.\nSkapti said that if Glam had not the strength and courage to do that, there\nwas no hope of anyone else. Then Thorhall went out; this was when the\nAll-Thing was nearly ending.\n\nThorhall missed two light bay horses, and he went himself to look for\nthem--so it seems that he was not a great man. He went up under Sledge-hill\nand south along the mountain called Armannsfell.\n\nThen he saw where a man came down from Gothashaw, bearing faggots on a\nhorse. They soon met, and Thorhall asked him his name, and he said he was\ncalled Glam. Glam [Sidenote: p. 148] was tall and strange in bearing, with\nblue[299] and glaring eyes, and wolf-grey hair. Thorhall opened his eyes\nwhen he saw him, but yet he discerned that this was he to whom he had been\nsent.\n\n\"What work art thou best fitted for?\" said Thorhall.\n\nGlam said he was well fitted to watch sheep in the winter.\n\n\"Wilt thou watch my sheep?\" said Thorhall. \"Skapti gave thee into my hand.\"\n\n\"You will have least trouble with me in your house if I go my own way, for\nI am hard of temper if I am not pleased,\" said Glam.\n\n\"That will not matter to me,\" said Thorhall, \"and I wish that thou shouldst\ngo to my house.\"\n\n\"That may I well do,\" said Glam, \"but are there any difficulties?\"\n\n{165}\n\n\"It is thought to be haunted,\" said Thorhall.\n\n\"I am not afraid of such phantoms,\" said Glam, \"and it seems to me all the\nless dull.\"\n\n\"Thou wilt need such a spirit,\" said Thorhall, \"and it is better that the\nman there should not be a coward.\"\n\nAfter that they struck their bargain, and Glam was to come at the\nwinter-nights [14th-16th of October]. Then they parted, and Thorhall found\nhis horses where he had just been searching. Thorhall rode home and thanked\nSkapti for his good deed.\n\nSummer passed, and Thorhall heard nothing of his shepherd, and no one knew\nanything of him; but at the time appointed he came to Thorhall's Farm. The\nyeoman greeted him well, but all the others could not abide him, and\nThorhall's wife least of all. Glam undertook the watching of the sheep, and\nit gave him little trouble. He had a great deep voice, and the sheep came\ntogether as soon as he called them. There was a church at Thorhall's Farm,\nbut Glam would not go to it. He would have nothing to do with the service,\nand was godless; he was obstinate and surly and abhorred by all.\n\nNow time went on till it came to Yule eve. Then Glam rose early and called\nfor meat. The yeoman's wife answered, \"That is not the custom of Christian\nmen to eat meat today, because tomorrow is the first day of Yule,\" said\nshe, \"and therefore it is right that we should first fast today.\"\n\nHe answered, \"Ye have many superstitions which I see are good for nothing.\nI do not know that men fare better now [Sidenote: p. 149] than before, when\nthey had nought to do with such things. It seemed to me a better way when\nmen were called heathen; and I want my meat and no tricks.\"\n\nThe yeoman's wife said, \"I know for a certainty that it will fare ill with\nthee today, if thou dost this evil thing.\"\n\nGlam bade her bring the meat at once, else he said it should be worse for\nher. She dared not do otherwise than he willed, and when he had eaten he\nwent out, foul-mouthed.\n\nNow it had gone so with the weather that it was heavy all round, and\nsnow-flakes were falling, and it was blowing loud, and grew much worse as\nthe day went on. The shepherd {166} was heard early in the day, but less\nlater. Then wind began to drive the snow, and towards evening it became a\ntempest. Then men came to the service, and so it went on to nightfall. Glam\ndid not come home. Then there was talk whether search ought not to be made\nfor him, but because there was a tempest and it was pitch dark, no search\nwas attempted. That Yule night he did not come home, and so men waited till\nafter the service [next, i.e. Christmas, morning]. But when it was full\nday, men went to search, and found the sheep scattered in the\nsnow-drifts[300], battered by the tempest, or strayed up into the\nmountains. Then they came on a great space beaten down, high up in the\nvalley. It looked to them as if there had been somewhat violent wrestling\nthere, because the stones had been torn up for a distance around, and the\nearth likewise. They looked closely and saw where Glam lay a little\ndistance away. He was dead, and blue like Hel and swollen like an ox. They\nhad great loathing of him, and their souls shuddered at him. Nevertheless\nthey strove to bring him to the church, but they could get him no further\nthan the edge of a ravine a little below, and they went home leaving\nmatters so, and told the yeoman what had happened. He asked what appeared\nto have been the death of Glam. They said that, from the trodden spot, up\nto a place beneath the rocks high in the valley, they had tracked marks as\nbig as if a cask-bottom had been stamped down, and great drops of blood\nwith them. So men concluded from this, that the evil thing which had been\nthere before must have killed Glam, but Glam must have done it damage which\nhad been enough, in that nought has ever happened since from that evil\nthing.\n\nThe second day of Yule it was again essayed to bring Glam to the church.\n\nBeasts of draught were harnessed, but they could not move him where it was\nlevel ground and not down hill, so they departed, leaving matters so.\n\nThe third day the priest went with them, and they searched [Sidenote: p.\n150] all day, but Glam could not be found. The priest would go no {167}\nmore, but Glam was found when the priest was not in the company. Then they\ngave up trying to carry him to the church, and buried him where he was,\nunder a cairn.\n\nA little later men became aware that Glam was not lying quiet. Great harm\ncame to men from this, so that many fell into a swoon when they saw him,\nand some could not keep their wits. Just after Yule, men thought they saw\nhim at home at the farm. They were exceedingly afraid, and many fled away.\nThereupon Glam took to riding the house-roofs at nights, so that he nearly\nbroke them in. He walked almost night and day. Men hardly dared to go up\ninto the dale, even though they had business enough. Men in that\ncountry-side thought great harm of this.\n\nIn the spring Thorhall got farm-hands together and set up house on his\nland. Then the apparition began to grow less frequent whilst the sun's\ncourse was at its height; and so it went on till midsummer. That summer a\nship came out to Hunawater. On it was a man called Thorgaut. He was an\noutlander by race, big and powerful; he had the strength of two men. He was\nin no man's service, and alone, and he wished to take up some work, since\nhe had no money. Thorhall rode to the ship, and met Thorgaut. He asked him\nif he would work for him. Thorgaut said that might well be, and that he\nwould make no difficulties.\n\n\"But thou must be prepared,\" said Thorhall, \"that it is no place for\nweaklings, by reason of the hauntings which have been going on for a while,\nfor I will not let thee into a trap.\"\n\nThorgaut answered, \"It does not seem to me that I am undone, even though I\nwere to see some little ghosts. It must be no easy matter for others if I\nam frightened, and I will not give up my place for that.\"\n\nSo now they agreed well, and Thorgaut was to watch the sheep when winter\ncame.\n\nNow the summer passed on. Thorgaut took charge of the sheep at the\nwinter-nights. He was well-pleasing to all. Glam ever came home and rode on\nthe roofs. Thorgaut thought it sporting, and said that the thrall would\nhave to come nearer {168} in order to scare him. But Thorhall bade him keep\nquiet: \"It is best that ye should not try your strength together.\" Thorgaut\nsaid, \"Verily, your courage is shaken out of you: I shall not drop down\nwith fear between day and night over such talk.\"\n\nNow things went on through the winter up to Yule-tide. On Yule evening the\nshepherd went out to his sheep. Then [Sidenote: p. 151] the yeoman's wife\nsaid, \"It is to be hoped that now things will not go in the old way.\"\n\nHe answered, \"Be not afraid of that, mistress; something worth telling will\nhave happened if I do not come back.\"\n\nThen he went to his sheep. The weather was cold, and it snowed much.\nThorgaut was wont to come home when it was twilight, but now he did not\ncome at that time. Men came to the service, as was the custom. It seemed to\npeople that things were going as they had before. The yeoman wished to have\nsearch made for the shepherd, but the church-goers excused themselves, and\nsaid they would not risk themselves out in the hands of the trolls by\nnight. And the yeoman did not dare to go, so the search came to nothing.\n\nOn Yule-day, when men had eaten, they went and searched for the shepherd.\nThey went first to Glam's cairn, because men thought that the shepherd's\ndisappearance must have been through his bringing-about. But when they came\nnear the cairn they saw great things, for there they found the shepherd\nwith his neck broken and not a bone in him whole. Then they carried him to\nthe church, and no harm happened to any man from Thorgaut afterwards; but\nGlam began to increase in strength anew. He did so much that all men fled\naway from Thorhall's Farm, except only the yeoman and his wife.\n\nNow the same cattle-herd had been there a long time. Thorhall would not let\nhim go, because of his good-will and good service. He was far gone in age\nand was very unwilling to leave: he saw that everything went to waste which\nthe yeoman had, if no one looked after it. And once after mid-winter it\nhappened one morning that the yeoman's wife went to the byre to milk the\ncows as usual. It was quite light, because no one dared to go out before,\nexcept the cattle-herd: he went {169} out as soon as it dawned. She heard\ngreat cracking in the byre and a hideous bellowing. She ran back, crying\nout, and said she did not know what devilry was going on in the byre.\n\nThe yeoman went out, and came to the cattle, and they were goring each\nother. It seemed to him no good to stay there, and he went further into the\nhay-barn. He saw where the cattle-herd lay, and he had his head in one\nstall and his feet in the next. He lay on his back. The yeoman went to him\nand felt him. He soon found that he was dead, and his back-bone broken in\ntwo; it had been broken over the partition slab.\n\nNow it seemed no longer bearable to Thorhall, and he left his farm with all\nthat he could carry away; but all the live-stock [Sidenote: p. 152] left\nbehind Glam killed. After that he went through all the dale and laid waste\nall the farms up from Tongue. Thorhall spent what was left of the winter\nwith his friends. No man could go up into the dale with horse or hound,\nbecause it was slain forthwith. But when spring came, and the course of the\nsun was highest, the apparitions abated somewhat. Now Thorhall wished to go\nback to his land. It was not easy for him to get servants, but still he set\nup house at Thorhall's Farm.\n\nAll went the same way as before. When autumn came on the hauntings began to\nincrease. The yeoman's daughter was most attacked, and it fared so that she\ndied. Many counsels were taken, but nothing was done. Things seemed to men\nto be looking as if all Water-dale must be laid waste, unless some remedies\ncould be found.\n\n\n\nNow the story must be taken up about Grettir, how he sat at home at Bjarg\nthat autumn, after he had parted from Barthi-of-the-Slayings at Thorey's\nPeak. And when it had almost come to the winter-nights, Grettir rode from\nhome, north over the neck to Willow-dale, and was a guest at Authun's Farm.\nHe was fully reconciled to Authun, and gave him a good axe, and they spake\nof their wish for friendship one with the other. (Authun dwelt long at\nAuthun's Farm, and much goodly offspring had he. Egil was his son, who\nwedded Ulfheith, daughter of Eyjolf Guthmundson; and their son was Eyjolf,\nwho was slain at the All-Thing. He was father of Orm, chaplain to {170}\nBishop Thorlak.) Grettir rode north to Water-dale and came on a visit to\nTongue. At that time Jokul Barthson lived there, Grettir's uncle. Jokul was\na man great and strong and very proud. He was a seafaring man, and very\nover-bearing, yet of great account. He received Grettir well, and Grettir\nwas there three nights.\n\nThere was so much said about the apparitions of Glam that nothing was\nspoken of by men equally with that. Grettir inquired exactly about the\nevents which had happened. Jokul said that nothing more had been spoken\nthan had verily occurred. \"But art thou anxious, kinsman, to go there?\"\n\nGrettir said that that was the truth. Jokul begged him not to do so, \"For\nthat is a great risk of thy luck, and thy kinsmen have much at stake where\nthou art,\" said he, \"for none of the young men seems to us to be equal to\nthee; but ill will come of ill where Glam is, and it is much better to have\nto do with mortal men than with evil creatures like that.\"\n\nGrettir said he was minded to go to Thorhall's Farm and [Sidenote: p. 153]\nsee how things had fared there. Jokul said, \"I see now that it is of no\navail to stop thee, but true it is what men say, that good-luck is one\nthing, and goodliness another.\"\n\n\"Woe is before one man's door when it is come into another's house. Think\nhow it may fare with thee thyself before the end,\" said Grettir.\n\nJokul answered, \"It may be that both of us can see somewhat into the\nfuture, but neither can do aught in the matter.\"\n\nAfter that they parted, and neither was pleased with the other's\nforeboding.\n\n\n\nGrettir rode to Thorhall's Farm, and the yeoman greeted him well. He asked\nwhither Grettir meant to go, but Grettir said he would stay there over the\nnight if the yeoman would have it so. Thorhall said he owed him thanks for\nbeing there, \"But few men find it a profit to stay here for any time. Thou\nmust have heard what the dealings are here, and I would fain that thou\nshouldst have no troubles on my account; but though thou shouldst come\nwhole away, I know for certain that thou {171} wilt lose thy steed, for no\none who comes here keeps his horse whole.\"\n\nGrettir said there were plenty of horses, whatever should become of this\none.\n\nThorhall was glad that Grettir would stay there, and welcomed him\nexceedingly.\n\nGrettir's horse was strongly locked in an out-house. They went to sleep,\nand so the night passed without Glam coming home. Then Thorhall said,\n\"Things have taken a good turn against thy coming, for every night Glam has\nbeen wont to ride the roofs or break up the doors, even as thou canst see.\"\n\nGrettir said, \"Then must one of two things happen. Either he will not long\nhold himself in, or the wonted haunting will cease for more than one night.\nI will stay here another night and see how it goes.\"\n\nThen they went to Grettir's horse, and he had not been attacked. Then\neverything seemed to the yeoman to be going one way. Now Grettir stayed for\nanother night, and the thrall did not come home. Then things seemed to the\nyeoman to be taking a very hopeful turn. He went to look after Grettir's\nhorse. When he came there, the stable was broken into, and the horse\ndragged out to the door, and every bone in him broken asunder.\n\nThorhall told Grettir what had happened, and bade him save his own\nlife--\"For thy death is sure if thou waitest for Glam.\"\n\nGrettir answered, \"The least I must have in exchange for my horse is to see\nthe thrall.\"\n\nThe yeoman said that there was no good in seeing him: [Sidenote: p. 154]\n\"For he is unlike any shape of man; but every hour that thou wilt stay here\nseems good to me.\"\n\nNow the day went on, and when bed-time came Grettir would not put off his\nclothes, but lay down in the seat over against the yeoman's\nsleeping-chamber. He had a shaggy cloak over him, and wrapped one corner of\nit down under his feet, and twisted the other under his head and looked out\nthrough the head-opening. There was a great and strong partition beam in\nfront of the seat, and he put his feet against it. The {172} doorframe was\nall broken away from the outer door, but now boards, fastened together\ncarelessly anyhow, had been tied in front. The panelling which had been in\nfront was all broken away from the hall, both above and below the\ncross-beam; the beds were all torn out of their places, and everything was\nvery wretched[301].\n\nA light burned in the hall during the night: and when a third part of the\nnight was past, Grettir heard a great noise outside. Some creature had\nmounted upon the buildings and was riding upon the hall and beating it with\nits heels, so that it cracked in every rafter. This went on a long time.\nThen the creature came down from the buildings and went to the door. When\nthe door was opened Grettir saw that the thrall had stretched in his head,\nand it seemed to him monstrously great and wonderfully huge. Glam went\nslowly and stretched himself up when he came inside the door. He towered up\nto the roof. He turned and laid his arm upon the cross-beam and glared in\nupon the hall. The yeoman did not let himself be heard, because the noise\nhe heard outside seemed to him enough. Grettir lay quiet and did not move.\n\nGlam saw that a heap lay upon the seat, and he stalked in up the hall and\ngripped the cloak wondrous fast. Grettir pressed his feet against the post\nand gave not at all. Glam pulled a second time much more violently, and the\ncloak did not move. A third time he gripped with both hands so mightily\nthat he pulled Grettir up from the seat, and now the cloak was torn asunder\nbetween them.\n\nGlam gazed at the portion which he held, and wondered much who could have\npulled so hard against him; and at that moment Grettir leapt under his arms\nand grasped him round {173} the middle, and bent his back as mightily as he\ncould, reckoning that Glam would sink to his knees at his attack. But the\nthrall laid such a grip on Grettir's arm that he recoiled at the might of\nit. Then Grettir gave way from one seat to another. The beams[302] started,\nand all that came in their way was broken. [Sidenote: p. 155] Glam wished\nto get out, but Grettir set his feet against any support he could find;\nnevertheless Glam dragged him forward out of the hall. And there they had a\nsore wrestling, in that the thrall meant to drag him right out of the\nbuilding; but ill as it was to have to do with Glam inside, Grettir saw\nthat it would be yet worse without, and so he struggled with all his might\nagainst going out. Glam put forth all his strength, and dragged Grettir\ntowards himself when they came to the porch. And when Grettir saw that he\ncould not resist, then all at once he flung himself against the breast of\nthe thrall, as powerfully as he could, and pressed forward with both his\nfeet against a stone which stood fast in the earth at the entrance. The\nthrall was not ready for this, he had been pulling to drag Grettir towards\nhimself; and thereupon he stumbled on his back out of doors, so that his\nshoulders smote against the cross-piece of the door, and the roof clave\nasunder, both wood and frozen thatch. So Glam fell backwards out of the\nhouse and Grettir on top of him. There was bright moonshine and broken\nclouds without. At times they drifted in front of the moon and at times\naway. Now at the moment when Glam fell, the clouds cleared from before the\nmoon, and Glam rolled up his eyes; and Grettir himself has said that that\nwas the one sight he had seen which struck fear into him. Then such a\nsinking came over Grettir, from his weariness and from that sight of Glam\nrolling his eyes, that he had no strength to draw his knife and lay almost\nbetween life and death.\n\n{174}\n\nBut in this was there more power for evil in Glam than in most other\napparitions, in that he spake thus: \"Much eagerness hast thou shown,\nGrettir,\" said he, \"to meet with me. But no wonder will it seem if thou\nhast no good luck from me. And this can I tell thee, that thou hast now\nachieved one half of the power and might which was fated for thee if thou\nhadst not met with me. Now no power have I to take that might from thee to\nwhich thou hast attained. But in this may I have my way, that thou shalt\nnever become stronger than now thou art, and yet art thou strong enough, as\nmany a one shall find to his cost. Famous hast thou been till now for thy\ndeeds, but from now on shall exiles and manslaughters fall to thy lot, and\nalmost all of thy labours shall turn to ill-luck and unhappiness. Thou\nshalt be outlawed and doomed ever to dwell alone, away from men; and then\nlay I this fate on thee, that these eyes of mine be ever before thy sight,\nand it shall seem grievous unto thee to be alone, and that shall drag thee\nto thy death.\"\n\nAnd when the thrall had said this, the swoon which had [Sidenote: p. 156]\nfallen upon Grettir passed from him. Then he drew his sword and smote off\nGlam's head, and placed it by his thigh.\n\nThen the yeoman came out: he had clad himself whilst Glam was uttering his\ncurse, but he dare in no wise come near before Glam had fallen. Thorhall\npraised God for it, and thanked Grettir well for having vanquished the\nunclean spirit.\n\nThen they set to work and burned Glam to cold cinders. After, they put the\nashes in a skin-bag and buried them as far as possible from the ways of man\nor beast. After that they went home, and by that time it was well on to\nday. Grettir lay down, for he was very stiff. Thorhall sent people to the\nnext farm for men, and showed to them what had happened. To all those who\nheard of it, it seemed a work of great account; and that was then spoken by\nall, that no man in all the land was equal to Grettir Asmundarson for might\nand valour and all prowess. Thorhall sent Grettir from his house with\nhonour, and gave him a good horse and fit clothing; for all the clothes\nwhich he had worn before were torn asunder. They parted great friends.\nGrettir rode thence to Ridge in Water-dale, and Thorvald greeted him well,\nand asked closely as to his meeting {175} with Glam. Grettir told him of\ntheir dealings, and said that never had he had such a trial of strength, so\nlong a struggle had theirs been together.\n\nThorvald bade him keep quiet, \"and then all will be well, otherwise there\nare bound to be troubles for thee.\"\n\nGrettir said that his temper had not bettered, and that he was now more\nunruly than before, and all offences seemed worse to him. And in that he\nfound a great difference, that he had become so afraid of the dark that he\ndid not dare to go anywhere alone after night had fallen. All kinds of\nhorrors appeared to him then. And that has since passed into a proverb,\nthat Glam gives eyes, or gives \"glam-sight\" to those to whom things seem\nquite other than they are. Grettir rode home to Bjarg when he had done his\nerrand, and remained at home during the winter.\n\n(_b_) _Sandhaugar episode_ (p. 156 above)\n\nThere was a priest called Stein who lived at Eyjardals['a] (Isledale River)\nin Barthardal. He was a good husbandman and rich in cattle. His son was\nKjartan, a doughty man and well grown. There was a man called Thorstein the\nWhite who [Sidenote: p. 157] lived at Sandhaugar (Sandheaps), south of\nIsledale river; his wife was called Steinvor, and she was young and merry.\nThey had children, who were young then.\n\nPeople thought the place was much haunted by reason of the visitation of\ntrolls. It happened, two winters before Grettir came North into those\ndistricts, that the good-wife Steinvor at Sandhaugar went to a Christmas\nservice, according to her custom, at Isledale river, but her husband\nremained at home. In the evening men went to bed, and during the night they\nheard a great rummage in the hall, and by the good-man's bed. No one dared\nto get up to look to it, because there were very few men about. The\ngood-wife came home in the morning, but her husband had vanished, and no\none knew what had become of him.\n\nThe next year passed away. But the winter after, the good-wife wished again\nto go to the church-service, and she bade her {176} manservant remain at\nhome. He was unwilling, but said she must have her own way. All went in the\nsame manner as before, and the servant vanished. People thought that\nstrange. They saw some splashes of blood on the outer door, and men thought\nthat evil beings must have taken away both the good-man and the servant.\n\nThe news of this spread wide throughout the country. Grettir heard of it;\nand because it was his fortune to get rid of hauntings and spirit-walkings,\nhe took his way to Barthardal, and came to Sandhaugar on Yule eve. He\ndisguised himself[303], and said his name was Guest. The good-wife saw that\nhe was great of stature; and the farm-folk were much afraid of him. He\nasked for quarters for the night. The good-wife said that he could have\nmeat forthwith, but \"You must look after your own safety.\"\n\nHe said it should be so. \"I will be at home,\" said he, \"and you can go to\nthe service if you will.\"\n\nShe answered, \"You are a brave man, it seems to me, if you dare to remain\nat home.\"\n\n\"I do not care to have things all one way[304],\" said he.\n\n\"It seems ill to me to be at home,\" said she, \"but I cannot get over the\nriver.\"\n\n\"I will see you over,\" said Guest.\n\nThen she got ready to go to the service, and her small daughter with her.\nIt was thawing, the river was in flood, and there were ice-floes in it.\nThen the good-wife said, \"It is impossible for man or horse to get across\nthe river.\"\n\n\"There must be fords in it,\" said Guest, \"do not be afraid.\"\n\n[Sidenote: p. 158]\n\n\"Do you carry the child first,\" said the good-wife, \"she is the lighter.\"\n\n\"I do not care to make two journeys of it,\" said Guest, \"and I will carry\nthee on my arm.\"\n\nShe crossed herself and said, \"That is an impossible way; what will you do\nwith the child?\"\n\n{177}\n\n\"I will see a way for that,\" said he; and then he took them both up, and\nset the child on her mother's knee and so bore them both on his left arm.\nBut he had his right hand free, and thus he waded out into the ford.\n\nThey did not dare to cry out, so much afraid were they. The river washed at\nonce up against his breast; then it tossed a great icefloe against him, but\nhe put out the hand that was free and pushed it from him. Then it grew so\ndeep that the river dashed over his shoulder; but he waded stoutly on,\nuntil he came to the bank on the other side, and threw Steinvor and her\ndaughter on the land.\n\nThen he turned back, and it was half dark when he came to Sandhaugar and\ncalled for meat; and when he had eaten, he bade the farm folk go to the far\nside of the room. Then he took boards and loose timber which he dragged\nacross the room, and made a great barrier so that none of the farm folk\ncould come over it. No one dared to say anything against him or to murmur\nin any wise. The entrance was in the side wall of the chamber by the\ngable-end, and there was a dais there. Guest lay down there, but did not\ntake off his clothes: a light was burning in the room over against the\ndoor: Guest lay there far into the night.\n\n\n\nThe good-wife came to Isledale river to the service, and men wondered how\nshe had crossed the river. She said she did not know whether it was a man\nor a troll who had carried her over. The priest said, \"It must surely be a\nman, although there are few like him. And let us say nothing about it,\"\nsaid he, \"it may be that he is destined to work a remedy for your evils.\"\nThe good-wife remained there through the night.\n\n\n\nNow it is to be told concerning Grettir that when it drew towards midnight\nhe heard great noises outside. Thereupon there came into the room a great\ngiantess. She had in one hand a trough and in the other a short-sword,\nrather a big one. She looked round when she came in, and saw where Guest\nlay, and sprang at him; but he sprang up against her, and they struggled\nfiercely and wrestled for a long time in the room. She was the {178}\nstronger, but he gave way warily; and they broke all that was before them,\nas well as the panelling of the room. She dragged him forward through the\ndoor and so[305] into the porch, and he [Sidenote: p. 159] struggled hard\nagainst her. She wished to drag him out of the house, but that did not\nhappen until they had broken all the fittings of the outer doorway and\nforced them out on their shoulders. Then she dragged him slowly down\ntowards the river and right along to the gorge.\n\nBy that time Guest was exceedingly weary, but yet, one or other it had to\nbe, either he had to gather his strength together, or else she would have\nhurled him down into the gorge. All night they struggled. He thought that\nhe had never grappled with such a devil in the matter of strength. She had\ngot such a grip upon him that he could do nothing with either hand, except\nto hold the witch by the middle; but when they came to the gorge of the\nriver he swung the giantess round, and thereupon got his right hand free.\nThen quickly he gripped his knife that he wore in his girdle and drew it,\nand smote the shoulder of the giantess so that he cut off her right arm. So\nhe got free: but she fell into the gorge, and so into the rapids below.\n\nGuest was then both stiff and tired, and lay long on the rocks; then he\nwent home when it began to grow light, and lay down in bed. He was all\nswollen black and blue.\n\nAnd when the good-wife came from the service, it seemed to her that things\nhad been somewhat disarranged in her house. Then she went to Guest and\nasked him what had happened, that all was broken and destroyed[306]. He\ntold her all that had taken place. She thought it very wonderful, and asked\nwho he was. He told her the truth, and asked her to send for the priest,\nand said he wished to meet him; and so it was done.\n\nThen when Stein the priest came to Sandhaugar, he knew soon that it was\nGrettir Asmundarson who had come there, and who had called himself Guest.\n\nThe priest asked Grettir what he thought must have become of those men who\nhad vanished. Grettir said he thought they {179} must have vanished into\nthe gorge. The priest said that he could not believe Grettir's saying, if\nno signs of it were to be seen. Grettir said that they would know more\naccurately about it later. Then the priest went home. Grettir lay many days\nin bed. The good-wife looked after him well, and so the Christmas-time\npassed.\n\nGrettir's account was that the giantess fell into the gulf when she got her\nwound; but the men of Barthardal say that day came upon her whilst they\nwrestled, and that she burst when he smote her hand off, and that she\nstands there on the cliff yet, a rock in the likeness of a woman[307].\n\nThe dwellers in the dale kept Grettir in hiding there. But after Christmas\ntime, one day that winter, Grettir went to Isledale river. And when Grettir\nand the priest met, Grettir [Sidenote: p. 160] said \"I see, priest, that\nyou place little belief in my words. Now will I that you go with me to the\nriver and see what the likelihood seems to you to be.\"\n\nThe priest did so. But when they came to the waterfall they saw that the\nsides of the gorge hung over[308]: it was a sheer cliff so great that one\ncould in nowise come up, and it was nearly ten fathoms[309] from the top to\nthe water below. They had a rope with them. Then the priest said, \"It seems\nto me quite impossible for thee to get down.\"\n\nGrettir said, \"Assuredly it is possible, but best for those who are men of\nvalour. I will examine what is in the waterfall, and thou shalt watch the\nrope.\"\n\n{180}\n\nThe priest said it should be as he wished, drove a peg into the cliff,\npiled stones against it, and sat by it[310].\n\nNow it must be told concerning Grettir that he knotted a stone into the\nrope, and so let it down to the water.\n\n\"What way,\" said the priest, \"do you mean to go?\"\n\n\"I will not be bound,\" said Grettir, \"when I go into the water, so much my\nmind forebodes me.\"\n\nAfter that he got ready for his exploit, and had little on; he girded\nhimself with his short sword, and had no other weapon.\n\nThen he plunged from the cliff down into the waterfall. The priest saw the\nsoles of his feet, and knew no more what had become of him. Grettir dived\nunder the waterfall, and that was difficult because there was a great eddy,\nand he had to dive right to the bottom before he could come up behind the\nwaterfall. There was a jutting rock and he climbed upon it. There was a\ngreat cave behind the waterfall, and the river fell in front of it from the\nprecipice. He went into the cave, and there was a big fire burning. Grettir\nsaw that there sat a giant of frightful size. He was terrible to look upon:\nbut when Grettir came to him, the giant leapt up and seized a pike, and\nhewed at the new-comer: for with the pike he could both cut and stab. It\nhad a handle of wood: men at that time called a weapon made in such a way a\n_heptisax_. Grettir smote against it with his short sword, and struck the\nhandle so that he cut it asunder. Then the giant tried to reach back for a\nsword which hung behind him in the cave. Thereupon Grettir smote him in the\nbreast, and struck off almost all the lower part of his chest and his\nbelly, so that the entrails gushed out of him down into the river, and were\nswept along the current.\n\nAnd as the priest sat by the rope he saw some lumps, clotted [Sidenote: p.\n161] with blood, carried down stream. Then he became unsteady, and thought\nthat now he knew that Grettir must be dead: and he ran from keeping the\nrope and went home. It was then evening, and the priest said for certain\nthat Grettir was dead, and added that it was a great loss of such a man.\n\nNow the tale must be told concerning Grettir. He let little space go\nbetween his blows till the giant was dead. Then he {181} went further into\nthe cave; he kindled a light and examined it. It is not said how much\nwealth he took in the cave, but men think that there was something. He\nstayed there far into the night. He found there the bones of two men, and\nput them into a bag. Then he left the cave and swam to the rope and shook\nit, for he thought that the priest must be there. But when he knew that the\npriest had gone home, then he had to draw himself up, hand over hand, and\nso he came up on to the cliff.\n\nThen he went home to Isledale river, and came to the church porch, with the\nbag that the bones were in, and with a rune-staff, on which these verses\nwere exceedingly well cut:\n\n  There into gloomy gulf I passed,\n  O'er which from the rock's throat is cast\n  The swirling rush of waters wan,\n  To meet the sword-player feared of man.\n  By giant's hall the strong stream pressed\n  Cold hands against the singer's breast;\n  Huge weight upon him there did hurl\n  The swallower of the changing whirl[311].\n\nAnd this rhyme too:\n\n  The dreadful dweller of the cave\n  Great strokes and many 'gainst me drave;\n  Full hard he had to strive for it,\n  But toiling long he wan no whit;\n  For from its mighty shaft of tree\n  The heft-sax smote I speedily;\n  And dulled the flashing war-flame fair\n  In the black breast that met me there.\n\n[Sidenote: p. 162]\n\nThese verses told also that Grettir had taken these bones out of the cave.\nBut when the priest came to the church in the morning he found the staff,\nand what was with it, and read the runes; but Grettir had gone home to\nSandhaugar.\n\nBut when the priest met Grettir he asked him closely as to what had\nhappened: and Grettir told him all the story of his journey. And he added\nthat the priest had not watched the rope faithfully. The priest said that\nthat was true enough.\n\nMen thought for certain that these monsters must have caused the loss of\nmen there in the dale; and there was never any loss from hauntings or\nspirit-walkings there afterwards.\n\n{182} Grettir was thought to have caused a great purging of the land. The\npriest buried these bones in the churchyard.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nD. EXTRACTS FROM BJARKA R['I]MUR\n\n(_Hr['o]lfs saga Kraka og Bjarkar['i]mur_ udgivne ved F. J['o]nsson,\nKoebenhavn, 1904)\n\n  58. Flestir [o,]mudhu Hetti heldr,\n  hann var ekki ['i] m['a]li sneldr,\n  einn dag f['o]ru their ['u]t af h[o,]ll,\n  sv['o] ekki vissi hirdhin [o,]ll.\n\n  59. Hjalti talar er felmtinn faer,\n  \"f[o,]rum vidh ekki sk['o]gi naer,\n  h['e]r er s['u] ylgr sem etr upp menn,\n  okkr drepr h['u]n b['a]dha senn.\"\n\n  60. Ylgrin hlj['o]p ['u]r einum runn,\n  ['o]gurlig medh gapanda munn,\n  h[o,]rmuligt vardh Hjalta vidhr,\n  ['a] honum skalf baedhi leggr og lidhr.\n\n  61. ['O]taept Bjarki adh henni gengr,\n  ekki dvelr hann vidh thadh lengr,\n  h[o,]ggur sv['o] adh ['i] hamri st['o]dh,\n  hlj['o]p ['u]r henni ferligt bl['o]dh.\n\n  62. \"Kj['o]stu Hjalti um kosti tv['o],\"\n  kappinn B[o,]dhvar taladhi sv['o],\n  \"drekk n['u] bl['o]dh edha drep eg thig h['e]r,\n  dugrinn l['i]z m['e]r engi ['i] th['e]r.\"\n\n  63. Ansar Hjalti af aernum m['o]dh,\n  \"ekki thori eg adh drekka bl['o]dh,\n  n['y]tir flest ef naudhigr skal,\n  n['u] er ekki ['a] betra val.\"\n\n  64. Hjalti gj[o,]rir sem B[o,]dhvar bidhr,\n  adh bl['o]dhi fr['a] eg hann lagdhist nidhr,\n  drekkur s['i]dhan drykki thrj['a],\n  duga mun honum vidh einn adh rj['a].\n                          IV, 58-64.\n\n  {183}\n  4. Hann hefr fengidh hjartadh snjalt\n  af h[o,]rdhum m['o]dhi,\n  fekk hann huginn og aflidh alt\n  af ylgjar bl['o]dhi.\n\n  5. ['I] grindur vandist gr['a]bj[o,]rn einn\n  ['i] gardhinn Hleidhar,\n  var s['a] margur vargrinn beinn\n  og v['i]dha sveidhar.\n\n  6. Bjarka er kent, adh hjardharhunda\n  hafi hann drepna,\n  ekki er h['o]num allvel hent\n  vidh ['y]ta kepna.\n\n  7. Hr['o]lfur b['y]st og hirdh hans [o,]ll\n  adh h['u]na st['y]ri,\n  \"S['a] skal mestr ['i] minni h[o,]ll\n  er maetir d['y]ri.\"\n\n  8. Beljandi hlj['o]p bj[o,]rninn framm\n  ['u]r b['o]li krukku,\n  veifar s['i]num v['o]nda hramm,\n  sv['o] virdhar hrukku.\n\n  9. Hjalti s['e]r og horfir th['a] ['a],\n  er hafin er r['o]ma,\n  hafdhi hann ekki ['i] h[o,]ndum th['a]\n  nema hnefana t['o]ma.\n\n  10. Hr['o]lfur fleygdhi adh Hjalta th['a]\n  theim hildar vendi,\n  kappinn m['o]ti krummu br['a]\n  og kl['o]tidh hendi.\n\n  11. Lagdhi hann s['i]dhan bj[o,]rninn br['a]tt\n  vidh b['o]ginn haegra,\n  bessi fell ['i] br['u]dhar ['a]tt\n  og bar sig laegra.\n\n  12. Vann hann thadh til fraegdha fyst\n  og fleira s['i]dhar,\n  hans var lundin l[o,]ngum byst\n  ['i] leiki gr['i]dhar.\n  {184}\n\n  13. H['e]r medh fekk hann Hjalta nafn\n  hins hjartapr['u]dha,\n  Bjarki var eigi betri en jafn\n  vidh b['y]ti skr['u]dha.\n                          V, 4-13.\n\n  23. Adhals var gladhr afreksmadhr,\n  austur thangadh k['o]mu,\n  fyrdhar their medh fr['a]nan geir\n  flengja thegar til r['o]mu.\n\n  24. ['Y]tar b['y]ta engum fridh,\n  unnu vel til m['a]la,\n  thar fell ['A]li og alt hans lidh\n  ungr ['i] leiki st['a]la.\n\n  25. Hestrinn beztur Hrafn er kendr,\n  hafa their tekidh af ['A]la,\n  Hildisv['i]n er hj['a]lmrinn vendr,\n  hann kaus Bjarki ['i] m['a]la.\n\n  26. [O,]dhling badh th['a] eigi drafl\n  eiga um n[o,]kkur skipti,\n  thadh mun kosta k['o]ngligt afl,\n  hann kappann gripunum svipti.\n\n  27. Ekki th['o]tti B[o,]dhvar betr,\n  ['i] burtu f['o]ru their Hjalti,\n  l['e]tust ['a]dhr en lidhinn er vetr\n  leita adh Fr['o]dha malti.\n\n  28. S['i]dhan r['i]dha seggir heim\n  og s[o,]gdhu k['o]ngi thetta,\n  hann kvedhst mundu handa theim\n  heimta sl['i]kt af l['e]tta.\n                          VIII, 23-28.\n\nTRANSLATION OF EXTRACTS FROM BJARKA R['I]MUR\n\n58. Most [of Rolf's retainers] much tormented Hott [Hjalti]; he was not\ncunning in speech. One day Hjalti and Bothvar went out of the hall, in such\nwise that none of the retainers knew thereof. {185}\n\n59. Hjalti spake in great terror, \"Let us not go near the wood; here is the\nshe-wolf who eats up men; she will kill us both together.\"\n\n60. The she-wolf leapt from a thicket, dread, with gaping jaws. A great\nterror was it to Hjalti, and he trembled in every limb.\n\n61. Without delay or hesitation went Bjarki towards her, and hewed at her\nso that the axe went deep; a monstrous stream of blood gushed from her.\n\n62. \"Choose now, Hjalti, of two things\"--so spake Bothvar the\nchampion--\"Drink now the blood, or I slay thee here; it seems unto me that\nthere is no valour in thee.\"\n\n63. Hjalti replied stoutly enough, \"I cannot bring myself to drink blood;\nbut if I needs must, it avails most [to submit], and now is there no better\nchoice.\"\n\n64. Hjalti did as Bothvar bade: he stooped down to the blood; then drank he\nthree sups: that will suffice him to wrestle with one man.\n\nIV, 58-64.\n\n4. He [Hjalti] has gained good courage and keen spirit; he got strength and\nall valour from the she-wolf's blood.\n\n5. A grey bear visited the folds at Hleithargarth; many such a ravager was\nthere far and wide throughout the country.\n\n6. The blame was laid upon Bjarki, because he had slain the herdsmen's\ndogs; it was not so suited for him to have to strive with men[312].\n\n7. Rolf and all his household prepared to hunt the bear; \"He who faces the\nbeast shall be greatest in my hall.\"\n\n8. Roaring did the bear leap forth from out its den, swinging its evil\nclaws, so that men shrank back.\n\n9. Hjalti saw, he turned and gazed where the battle began; nought had he\nthen in his hands--his empty fists alone.\n\n{186}\n\n10. Rolf tossed then to Hjalti his wand of war [his sword]; the warrior put\nforth his hand towards it, and grasped the pommel.\n\n11. Quickly then he smote the bear in the right shoulder; Bruin fell to the\nearth, and bore himself in more lowly wise.\n\n12. That was the beginning of his exploits: many followed later; his spirit\nwas ever excellent amid the play of battle.\n\n13. Herefrom he got the name of Hjalti the stout-hearted: Bjarki was no\nmore than his equal.\n\nV, 4-13.\n\n23. Joyful was the valiant Athils when they [Bjarki and Rolf's champions]\ncame east to that place [Lake Wener]; troops with flashing spears rode\nquickly forthwith to the battle.\n\n24. No truce gave they to their foes: well they earned their pay; there\nfell Ali and all his host, young in the game of swords.\n\n25. The best of horses, Hrafn by name, they took from Ali; Bjarki chose for\nhis reward the helm Hildisvin.\n\n26. The prince [Athils] bade them have no talk about the business; he\ndeprived the champions[313] of their treasures--that will be a test of his\npower.\n\n27. Ill-pleased was Bothvar: he and Hjalti departed; they declared that\nbefore the winter was gone they would seek for the treasure [the malt of\nFrothi].\n\n28. Then they rode home and told it to the king [Rolf]; he said it was\ntheir business to claim their due outright.\n\nVIII, 23-28.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nE. EXTRACT FROM TH['A]TTR ORMS ST['O]R['O]LFSSONAR\n\n(_Fornmanna S[o,]gur_, Copenhagen, 1827, III. 204 _etc._; _Flateyarb['o]k_,\nChristiania, 1859-68, I. 527 _etc._)\n\n7. Litlu s['i]dharr enn their Ormr ok ['A]sbj[o,]rn h[o,]fdhu skilit,\nf['y]stist ['A]sbj[o,]rn nordhr ['i] Saudheyjar, f['o]r hann vidh 4 menn ok\n20 ['a] skipi, heldr nordhr fyrir Maeri, ok leggr seint dags at Saudhey\n{187} hinni ytri, g['a]nga ['a] land ok reisa tjald, eru thar um\nn['o]ttina, ok verdha vidh ekki varir; um morgininn ['a]rla r['i]s\n['A]sbj[o,]rn upp, klaedhir sik, ok tekr v['o]pn s['i]n, ok gengr upp['a]\nland, en bidhr menn s['i]na b['i]dha s['i]n; en er nokkut sv['a] var lidhit\nfr['a] thv['i], er ['A]sbj[o,]rn hafdhi ['i] brott gengit, verdha their\nvidh that varir, at ketta ['o]grlig var komin ['i] tjaldsdyrnar, hon var\nkolsv[o,]rt at lit ok heldr grimmlig, thv['i]at eldr th['o]tti brenna or\nn[o,]sum hennar ok munni, eigi var hon ok vel eyg; theim br['a] mj[o,]k\nvidh thessa s['y]n, ok urdhu ['o]ttafullir. Ketta hleypr th['a] innar at\ntheim, ok gr['i]pr hvern at [o,]dhrum, ok sv['a] er sagt at suma gleypti\nhon, en suma rifi hon til daudhs medh kl['o]m ok t[o,]nnum, 20 menn drap\nhon thar ['a] l['i]tilli stundu, en 3 kv['o]must ['u]t ok undan ok ['a]\nskip, ok h['e]ldu thegar undan landi; en ['A]sbj[o,]rn gengr thar til, er\nhann kemr at hellinum Br['u]sa, ok snarar thegar inn ['i]; honum vardh\nnokkut dimt fyrir augum, en skuggamikit var ['i] hellinum; hann verdhr eigi\nfyrr var vidh, enn hann er thrifinn ['a]lopt, ok faerdhr nidhr sv['a] hart,\nat ['A]sbirni th['o]tti furdha ['i], verdhr hann thess th['a] varr, at thar\ner kominn Br['u]si j[o,]tun, ok s['y]ndist heldr mikiligr. Br['u]si maelti\nth['a]: th['o] lagdhir th['u] mikit kapp ['a] at saekja h['i]ngat; skaltu\nn['u] ok eyrindi hafa, thv['i]at th['u] skalt h['e]r l['i]fit l['a]ta medh\nsv['a] miklum harmkvaelum, at that skal adhra letja at saekja mik heim medh\n['o]fridhi; fletti hann th['a] ['A]sbj[o,]rn klaedhum, thv['i]at sv['a],\nvar theirra mikill afla munr, at j[o,]tuninn vardh einn at r['a]dha theirra\n['i] milli; b['a]lk mikinn s['a] ['A]sbj[o,]rn standa um thveran hellinn ok\nst['o]rt gat ['a] midhjum b['a]lkinum; j['a]rns['u]la st['o]r st['o]dh\nnokkut sv['a] fyrir framan b['a]lkinn. N['u] skal pr['o]fa that, segir\nBr['u]si, hv['a]rt th['u] ert nokkut hardhari enn adhrir menn. L['i]tit mun\nthat at reyna, segir ['A]sbj[o,]rn....\n\nS['i]dhan l['e]t ['A]sbj[o,]rn l['i]f sitt medh mikilli hreysti ok\ndreingskap.\n\n8. That er at segja at their thr['i]r menn, er undan k['o]must, s['o]ttu\nkn['a]liga r['o]dhr, ok l['e]ttu eigi fyrr enn their k['o]mu at landi,\ns[o,]gdhu thau t['i]dhindi er gerzt h[o,]fdhu ['i] theirra f[o,]rum,\nkv['o]dhust aetla ['A]sbj[o,]rn daudhan, en kunnu ekki fr['a] at segja,\nhversu at hefdhi borizt um hans l['i]fl['a]t; kv['o]mu their s['e]r i skip\nmedh kaupm[o,]nnum, ok fluttust sv['a] sudhr til Danmerkr; spurdhust n['u]\nthessi t['i]dhindi v['i]dha, ok th['o]ttu mikil. Tha var ordhit\nh[o,]fdh['i]ngja skipti ['i] Noregi, Hakon jarl daudhr, en ['O]lafr\nTryggvason ['i] land kominn, ok baudh [o,]llum r['e]tta tr['u]. Ormr\nSt['o]r['o]lfsson spurdhi ['u]t til ['I]slands um {188} farar ok\nl['i]fl['a]t ['A]sbjarnar, er m[o,]nnum th['o]tti sem vera mundi; th['o]tti\nhonum that allmikill skadhi, ok undi eigi lengr ['a] ['I]slandi, ok t['o]k\ns['e]r far ['i] Reydharfirdhi, ok f['o]r thar utan; their kv['o]mu\nnordharliga vidh Noreg, ok sat hann um vetrinn ['i] Thr['a]ndheimi; th['a]\nhafdhi ['O]lafr r['a]dhit 3 vetr Noregi. Um v['o]rit bj['o]st Ormr at fara\ntil Saudheya, their v['o]ru thv['i] naerr margir ['a] skipi, sem their\n['A]sbj[o,]rn h[,]fdhu verit; their l[o,]gdhu at minni Saudhey s['i]dh um\nkveldit, ok tj[o,]ldudhu ['a] landi, ok l['a]gu thar um n['a]ttina....\n\n9. N['u] gengr Ormr thar til er hann kemr at hellinum, s['e]r hann n['u]\nbjargit that st['o]ra, ok leizt ['u]m['a]tuligt nokkurum manni that ['i]\nbrott at faera; th['o] dregr hann ['a] sik gl['o]fana Mengladharnauta, tekr\ns['i]dhan ['a] bjarginu ok faerir that burt or dyrunum, ok thikist Ormr\nth['a] aflraun mesta s['y]nt hafa; hann gekk th['a] inn['i] hellinn, ok\nlagdhi m['a]laj['a]rn ['i] dyrnar, en er hann var inn kominn, s['a] hann\nhvar kettan hlj['o]p medh gapanda ginit. Ormr hafdhi boga ok [o,]rvamaeli,\nlagdhi hann th['a] [o,]r ['a] streing, ok skaut at kettunni thremr [o,]rum,\nen hon hendi allar medh hvoptunum, ok beit ['i] sundr, hefir hon sik th['a]\nat Ormi, ok rekr klaernar framan ['i] f['a]ngit, sv['a] at Ormr kiknar\nvidh, en klaernar gengu ['i] gegnum klaedhin sv['a] at ['i] beini st['o]dh;\nhon aetlar th['a] at b['i]ta ['i] andlit Ormi, finnr hann th['a] at honum\nmun eigi veita, heitir th['a] ['a] sj['a]lfan gudh ok hinn heilaga Petrum\npostula, at g['a]nga til R['o]ms, ef hann ynni kettuna ok Br['u]sa, son\nhennar; s['i]dhan fann Ormr at m['i]nkadhist afl kettunnar, tekr hann\nth['a] annarri hendi um kverkr henni, en annarri um hrygg, ok gengr hana\n['a] bak, ok br['y]tr ['i]sundr ['i] henni hrygginn, ok gengr sv['a] af\nhenni daudhri. Ormr s['a] th['a], hvar b['a]lkr st['o]rr var um thveran\nhellinn; hann gengr th['a] innar at, en er hann kemr thar, s['e]r hann at\nfleinn mikill kemr utar ['i] gegnum b['a]lkinn, hann var baedhi digr ok\nl['a]ngr; Ormr gr['i]pr th['a] ['i] m['o]ti fleininum, ok leggr af ['u]t;\nBr['u]si kippir th['a] at s['e]r fleininum ok var hann fastr sv['a] at\nhvergi gekk; that undradhist Br['u]si, ok gaegdist upp yfir b['a]lkinn, en\ner Ormr s['e]r that, thr['i]fr hann ['i] skeggit ['a] Br['u]sa b['a]dhum\nh[o,]ndum, en Br['u]si bregzt vidh ['i] [o,]dhrum stadh, sviptast their\nth['a] fast um b['a]lkinn. Ormr hafdhi vafit skegginu um h[o,]nd s['e]r, ok\nrykkir til sv['a] fast, at hann r['i]fr af Br['u]sa allan skeggstadhinn,\nh[o,]kuna, kjaptana b['a]dha, v['a]ngafyllurnar upp alt at eyrum, gekk\nh['e]r medh holdit nidhr at beini. Br['u]si l['e]t th['a] {189} s['i]ga\nbr['y]nnar, ok grettist heldr greppiliga. Ormr st[o,]kkr th['a] innar yfir\nb['a]lkinn, gr['i]past their th['a] til ok gl['i]ma lengi, maeddi Br['u]sa\nth['a] fast bl['o]dhr['a]s, tekr hann th['a] heldr at g['a]ngast fyrir,\ngefr Ormr th['a] ['a], ok rekr Br['u]sa at b['a]lkinum ok br['y]tr hann\nthar um ['a] bak aptr. Snemma sagdhi m['e]r that hugr, sagdhi Br['u]si, at\nek munda af th['e]r nokkut erfitt f['a], thegar ek heyrdha th['i]n getit,\nenda er that n['u] fram komit, muntu n['u] vinna skj['o]tt um, ok h[o,]ggva\nh[o,]fudh af m['e]r, en that var satt, at mj[o,]k p['i]nda ek ['A]sbj[o,]rn\npr['u]dha, th['a] er ek rakta or honum alla tharmana, ok gaf hann sik ekki\nvidh, fyrrenn hann d['o]. Illa gerdhir th['u] that, segir Ormr, at p['i]na\nhann sv['a] mj[o,]k jafnr[o,]skvan mann, skaltu ok hafa thess nokkurar\nmenjar. Hann br['a] th['a] saxi ok reist bl['o]dh[o,]rn ['a] baki honum, ok\nskar [o,]ll rifin fr['a] hryggnum, ok dr['o] thar ['u]t l['u]ngun; l['e]t\nBr['u]si sv['a] l['i]f sitt medh litlum dreingskap; s['i]dhan bar Ormr eld\nat, ok brendi upp til [o,]sku baedhi Br['u]sa ok kettuna, ok er hann hafdhi\nthetta starfat, f['o]r hann burt or hellinum medh kistur tvaer fullar af\ngulli ok silfri, en that sem meira var f['e]maett, gaf hann ['i] vald\nMengladhar, ok sv['a] eyna; skildu thau medh mikilli vin['a]ttu, kom Ormr\ntil manna sinna ['i] nefndan t['i]ma, h['e]ldu s['i]dhan til meginlands.\nSat Ormr ['i] Thr['a]ndheimi vetr annan.\n\nTRANSLATION OF EXTRACT FROM TH['A]TTR ORMS ST['O]R['O]LFSSONAR\n\n7.\n\nA little after Orm and Asbiorn had parted, Asbiorn wished to go north to\nSandeyar[314]; he went aboard with twenty-four men, went north past Maeri,\nand landed late in the day at the outermost of the Sandeyar[314]. They\nlanded and pitched a tent, and spent the night there, and met with nothing.\n\nEarly in the morning Asbiorn arose, clothed himself, took his arms, went\ninland, and bade his men wait for him.\n\nBut when some time had passed from Asbiorn's having gone away, they were\naware that a monstrous[315] cat had come to the {190} door of the tent: she\nwas coal-black in colour and very fierce, for it seemed as if fire was\nburning from her nostrils and mouth, and her eyes were nothing fair: they\nwere much startled at this sight, and full of fear. Then the cat leapt\nwithin the tent upon them, and gripped one after the other, and so it is\nsaid that some she swallowed and some she tore to death with claws and\nteeth. Twenty men she killed in a short time, and three escaped aboard\nship, and stood away from the shore.\n\nBut Asbiorn went till he came to the cave of Brusi, and hastened in\nforthwith. It was dim before his eyes, and very shadowy in the cave, and\nbefore he was aware of it, he was caught off his feet, and thrown down so\nviolently that it seemed strange to him. Then was he aware that there was\ncome the giant Brusi, and he seemed to him a great one.\n\nThen said Brusi, \"Thou didst seek with great eagerness to come hither--now\nshalt thou have business, in that thou shalt here leave thy life with so\ngreat torments that that shall stay others from attacking me in my lair.\"\n\nThen he stripped Asbiorn of his clothes, forasmuch as so great was their\ndifference in strength that the giant could do as he wished. Asbiorn saw a\ngreat barrier standing across the cave, and a mighty opening in the midst\nof it; a great iron column stood somewhat in front of the barrier. \"Now it\nmust be tried,\" said Brusi, \"whether thou art somewhat hardier than other\nmen.\" \"Little will that be to test,\" said Asbiorn....\n\n    [Asbiorn then recites ten stanzas, Brusi tormenting him the while. The\n    first stanza is almost identical with No. 50 in the _Grettis saga_.]\n\nThen Asbiorn left his life with great valour and hardihood.\n\n8.\n\nNow it must be told concerning the three men who escaped; they rowed\nstrongly, and stopped not until they came to land. They told the tidings of\nwhat had happened in their journey, and said that they thought that Asbiorn\nwas dead, but that they could not tell how matters had happened concerning\nhis death. They took ship with merchants, and so went south to {191}\nDenmark: now these tidings were spread far and wide, and seemed weighty.\n\nThere had been a change of rulers in Norway: jarl Hakon was dead, and Olaf\nTryggvason come to land: and he proclaimed the true faith to all. Orm\nStorolfson heard, out in Iceland, about the expedition of Asbiorn, and the\ndeath which it seemed to men must have come upon him. It seemed to him a\ngreat loss, and he cared no longer to be in Iceland, and took passage at\nReytharfirth and went abroad. They reached Norway far to the north, and he\nstayed the winter at Thrandheim: Olaf at that time had reigned three years\nin Norway.\n\nIn the spring Orm made ready for his journey to Sandeyar, and there were\nnearly as many in the ship as the company of Asbiorn had been.\n\nThey landed at Little Sandey late in the evening, and pitched a tent on the\nland, and lay there the night....\n\n9.\n\nNow Orm went till he came to the cave. He saw the great rock, and thought\nit was impossible for any man to move it. Then he drew on the gloves that\nMenglath had given him, and grasped the rock and moved it away from the\ndoor; this is reckoned Orm's great feat of strength. Then he went into the\ncave, and thrust his weapon against the door. When he came in, he saw a\ngiantess (she-cat) springing towards him with gaping jaws. Orm had a bow\nand quiver; he put the arrow on the string, and shot thrice at the\ngiantess. But she seized all the arrows in her mouth, and bit them asunder.\nThen she flung herself upon Orm, and thrust her claws into his breast, so\nthat Orm stumbled, and her claws went through his clothes and pierced him\nto the bone. She tried then to bite his face, and Orm found himself in\nstraits: he promised then to God, and the holy apostle Peter, to go to\nRome, if he conquered the giantess and Brusi her son. Then Orm felt the\npower of the giantess diminishing: he placed one hand round her throat, and\nthe other round her back, and bent it till he broke it in two, and so left\nher dead.\n\nThen Orm saw where a great barrier ran across the cave: he went further in,\nand when he came to it he saw a great shaft {192} coming out through the\nbarrier, both long and thick. Orm gripped the shaft and drew it away; Brusi\npulled it towards himself, but it did not yield. Then Brusi wondered, and\npeeped up over the barrier. But when Orm saw that, he gripped Brusi by the\nbeard with both hands, but Brusi pulled away, and so they tugged across the\nbarrier. Orm twisted the beard round his hand, and tugged so violently that\nhe pulled the flesh of Brusi away from the bone--from chin, jaws, cheeks,\nright up to the ears. Brusi knitted his brows and made a hideous face. Then\nOrm leapt in over the barrier, and they grappled and wrestled for a long\ntime. But loss of blood wearied Brusi, and he began to fail in strength.\nOrm pressed on, pushed Brusi to the barrier, and broke his back across it.\n\"Right early did my mind misgive me,\" said Brusi, \"even so soon as I heard\nof thee, that I should have trouble from thee: and now has that come to\npass. But now make quick work, and hew off my head. And true it is that\nmuch did I torture the gallant Asbiorn, in that I tore out all his\nentrails--yet did he not give in, before he died.\" \"Ill didst thou do,\"\nsaid Orm, \"to torture him, so fine a man as he was, and thou shalt have\nsomething in memory thereof.\" Then he drew his knife, and cut the \"blood\neagle\" in the back of Brusi, shore off his ribs and drew out his lungs. So\nBrusi died in cowardly wise. Then Orm took fire, and burned to ashes both\nBrusi and the giantess. And when he had done that, he left the cave, with\ntwo chests full of gold and silver.\n\nAnd all that was most of value he gave to Menglath, and the island\nlikewise. So they parted with great friendship, and Orm came to his men at\nthe time appointed, and then they sailed to the mainland. Orm remained a\nsecond winter at Thrandheim.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nF. A DANISH DRAGON-SLAYING OF THE BEOWULF-TYPE\n\nPaa den Tid, da kong Gram Guldkoelve regierede i Leire, vare der ved Hoffet\nto Ministre, Bessus og Henrik. Og da der paa samme Tid indkom idelige\nklager fra Indbyggerne i Vendsyssel, at et grueligt Udyr, som Boenderne\nkaldte Lindorm, oedelagde baade Mennesker og Kreaturer, gav Bessus det\nRaad, at Kongen skulde sende Henrik did hen, efterdi ingen i det ganske\nRige kunde maale sig med ham in Tapperhed og Mod. Da svarede {193} Henrik,\nat han vel vilde paatage sig dette, dog tilfoeiede han, at han ansaae det\nfor umuligt at slippe fra saadan Kamp med Livet. Og belavede han sig da\nstrax til Reisen, tog roerende Afsked med sin Herre og Konge og sagde\niblandt andet: \"Herre! om jeg ikke kommer tilbage, da soerg for min kone og\nfor mine Boern!\" Da han derefter var kommen over til Vendsyssel, lod han\nsig af Boenderne vise det Sted, hvor Uhyret havde sit Leie, og fik da at\nvide, at Ormen endnu den samme Dag havde vaeret ude af Hulen og borttaget\nen Hyrde og en Oxe, og at den efter Saedvane nu ikke vilde komme ud,\nfoerend om tre Timer, naar den skulde ned til Vandet for at drikke efter\nMaaltidet. Henrik ifoerte sig da sin fulde Rustning, og eftersom Ingen\nvovede at staae ham bi i dette Arbeide, lagde han sig ganske alene ved\nVandet, dog saaledes, at Vinden ikke bar fra ham henimod Dyret. Da udsendte\nhan foerst en vaeldig Piil fra sin Bue, men uagtet den rammede noeie det\nsted, hvortil han havde sigtet, toernede den dog tilbage fra Ormens haarde\nSkael. Herover blev Uhyret saa optaendt af Vrede, at det strax gik henimod\nham, agtende ham kun et ringe Maaltid; men Henrik havde iforveien hos en\nSmed ladet sig gioere en stor Krog med Gjenhold, hvilken han jog ind i\nBeestets aabne Gab, saa at det ikke kunde blive den qvit, ihvormeget det\nend arbeidede, og ihvorvel Jernstangen brast i Henriks Haender. Da slog det\nham med sin vaeldige Hale til Jorden, og skioendt han havde fuldkommen\nJernrustning paa, kradsede det dog med sine forfaerdelige Kloeer saa at\nhan, naesten doedeligt saaret, faldt i Besvimelse. Men da han, efterat\nOrmen i nogen Tid havde haft ham liggende under sin Bug, endelig kom lidt\ntil sin Samling igien, greb han af yderste Evne en Daggert, af hvilke han\nfoerte flere med sig i sit Baelte, og stak Dyret dermed i underlivet, hvor\nSksaellene vare bloedest, saa at det tilsidst maate udpuste sin giftige\nAande, medens han selv laae halv knust under dens Byrde. Da Boenderne i\nVendsyssel som stode i nogen Afstand, under megen Frygt og lidet Haab\nomsider maerkede, at Striden sagtnede, og at begge Parter holdte sig\nrolige, naermede de sig og fandt Hr. Henrik naesten livloes under det\ndraebte Udyr. Og efterat de i nogen Tid havde givet ham god Pleie, vendte\nhan tilbage for at doe hos sin Konge, til hvem han gientagende anbefalede\nsin {194} Slaegt. Fra ham nedstammer Familien Lindenroth, som til Minde om\ndenne vaeldige Strid foerer en Lindorm i sit Vaaben.\n\n_MS_ 222. 4^o. Stamme och Slectebog over den hoeiadelige Familie af\nLindenroth, in _Danmarks Folkesagn_, samlede af J. M. Thiele, 1843, I,\n125-7.\n\nA DANISH DRAGON-SLAYING OF THE BEOWULF-TYPE.\n\n_Translation._\n\nIn the days when King Gram Guldkoelve ruled in Leire, there were two\nministers at court, Bessus and Henry. And at that time constant complaints\ncame to the court from the inhabitants of Vendsyssel, that a dread monster,\nwhich the peasants called a Drake, was destroying both man and beast. So\nBessus gave counsel, that the king should send Henry against the dragon,\nseeing that no one in the whole kingdom was his equal in valour and\ncourage. Henry answered that assuredly he would undertake it; but he added\nthat he thought it impossible to escape from such a struggle with his life.\nAnd he made himself ready forthwith for the expedition, took a touching\nfarewell of his lord and king, and said among other things: \"My lord, if I\ncome not back, care thou for my wife and my children.\"\n\nAfterwards, when he crossed over to Vendsyssel, he caused the peasants to\nshow him the place where the monster had its lair, and learnt how that very\nday the drake had been out of its den, and had carried off a herdsman and\nan ox; how, according to its wont, it would now not come out for three\nhours, when it would want to go down to the water to drink after its meal.\nHenry clothed himself in full armour, and inasmuch as no one dared to stand\nby him in that task, he lay down all alone by the water, but in such wise\nthat the wind did not blow from him toward the monster. First of all he\nsent a mighty arrow from his bow: but, although it exactly hit the spot at\nwhich he had aimed, it darted back from the dragon's hard scales. At this\nthe monster was so maddened, that it attacked him forthwith, reckoning him\nbut a little meal. But Henry had had a mighty barbed crook prepared by a\nsmith beforehand, which he thrust into the beast's open mouth, so that it\ncould {195} not get rid of it, however much it strove, although the iron\nrod broke in Henry's hands. Then it smote him to the ground with its mighty\ntail, and although he was in complete armour, clutched at him with its\ndread claws, so that he fell in a swoon, wounded almost to death. But when\nhe came somewhat to his senses again, after the drake for some time had had\nhim lying under its belly, he rallied his last strength and grasped a\ndagger, of which he carried several with him in his belt, and smote it\ntherewith in the belly, where the scales were weakest. So the monster at\nlast breathed out its poisoned breath, whilst he himself lay half crushed\nunder its weight. When the Vendsyssel peasants, who stood some distance\naway, in great fear and little hope, at last noticed that the battle had\nslackened, and that both combatants were still, they drew near and found\nHenry almost lifeless under the slain monster. And after they for some time\nhad tended him well, he returned to die by his king, to whom he again\ncommended his offspring. From him descends the family Lindenroth, which in\nmemory of this mighty contest carries a drake on its coat of arms.\n\n    This story resembles the dragon fight in _Beowulf_, in that the hero\n    faces the dragon as protector of the land, with forebodings, and after\n    taking farewell; he attacks the dragon in its lair, single-handed; his\n    first attack is frustrated by the dragon's scales; in spite of\n    apparatus specially prepared, he is wounded and stunned by the dragon,\n    but nevertheless smites the dragon in the soft parts and slays him; the\n    watchers draw near when the fight is over. Yet these things merely\n    prove that the two stories are of the same type; there is no evidence\n    that this story is descended from _Beowulf_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nG. THE OLD ENGLISH GENEALOGIES.\n\nI. _THE MERCIAN GENEALOGY_.\n\nOf the Old English Genealogies, the only one which, in its stages _below_\nWoden, immediately concerns the student of _Beowulf_ is the Mercian. This\ncontains three names which also occur in _Beowulf_, though two of them in a\ncorrupt form--Offa, Wermund (Garmund, _Beowulf_), and Eomaer (Geomor,\n_Beowulf_).\n\nThis Mercian pedigree is found in its best form in _MS Cotton Vesp. B. VI_,\nfol. 109 _b_,[316] and in the sister MS at Corpus Christi College,\nCambridge (_C.C.C.C._ 183)[317]. Both these MSS are of {196} the 9th\ncentury. They contain lists of popes and bishops, and pedigrees of kings.\nBy noting where these lists stop, we get a limit for the final compilation\nof the document. It must have been drawn up in its present form between 811\nand 814[318]. But it was obviously compiled from lists already existing,\nand some of them were even at that date old. For the genealogy of the\nMercian kings, from Woden, is not traced directly down to this period\n811-814, but in the first place only as far as Aethelred (reigning\n675-704), son of Penda: that is to say, it stops considerably more than a\ncentury before the date of the document in which it appears. Additional\npedigrees are then appended which show the subsequent stages down to and\nincluding Cenwulf, king of Mercia (reigning 796-821). It is difficult to\naccount for such an arrangement except on the hypothesis that the genealogy\nwas committed to writing in the reign of Aethelred, the monarch with whose\nname it terminates in its first form, and was then brought up to date by\nthe addition of the supplementary names ending with Cenwulf. This is\nconfirmed when we find that precisely the same arrangement holds good for\nthe accompanying Northumbrian pedigree, which terminates with Ecgfrith\n(670-685), the contemporary of Aethelred of Mercia, and is then brought up\nto date by additional names.\n\nGenealogies which draw from the same source as the _Vespasian_ genealogies,\nand show the same peculiarities, are found in the _Historia Brittonum_ (ss.\n57-61). They show, even more emphatically than do the _Vespasian_ lists,\ntraces of having been originally drawn up in the time of Aethelred of\nMercia (675-704) or possibly of his father Penda, and of having then been\nbrought up to date in subsequent revisions[319].\n\nOne such revision must have been made about 796[320]: it is a {197}\nmodification of this revision which is found in the _Historia Brittonum_.\nAnother was that which, as we have seen, must have been made between\n811-814, and in this form is found in _MS Cotton Vespasian B. VI_, _MS\nC.C.C.C._ 183, both of the 9th century, and in the (much later) _MS Cotton\nTiberius B. V_.\n\nThe genealogy up to Penda is also found in the _A.-S. Chronicle_ under the\nyear 626 (accession of Penda).\n\nThis Mercian list, together with the Northumbrian and other pedigrees which\naccompany it, can claim to be the earliest extant English historical\ndocument, having been written down in the 7th century, and recording\nhistoric names which (allowing thirty years for a generation) cannot be\nlater than the 4th century A.D. In most similar pedigrees the earliest\nnames are meaningless to us. But the Mercian pedigree differs from the\nrest, in that we are able from _Beowulf_, _Widsith_, Saxo Grammaticus,\nSweyn Aageson and the _Vitae Offarum_, to attach stories to the names of\nWermund and Offa. How much of these stories is history, and how much\nfiction, it is difficult to say--but, with them, extant English history and\nEnglish poetry and English fiction alike have their beginning.\n\n  MS Cotton Vesp. B. VI.          MS C.C.C.C. 183.\n\n  Aedhilred   Peding           Aedhelred    Pending\n  Penda       Pypbing          Penda        Pybbing\n  Pypba       Crioding         Pybba        Creoding\n  Crioda      Cynewalding      Creoda       Cynewalding\n  Cynewald    Cnebbing         Cynewald     Cnebbing\n  Cnebba      Icling           Cnebba       Icling\n  Icil        Eamering         Icel         Eomaering\n  Eamer       Angengeoting     Eomaer       Angengeoting\n  Angengeot   Offing           Angengiot    Offing\n  Offa        Uaermunding      Offa         Waermunding\n  Uermund     Uihtlaeging      Waermund     Wihtlaeging\n  Uihtlaeg    Wiodhulgeoting   Wihtlaeg     Wiotholgeoting\n  Weodhulgeot Wodning          Weotholgiot  Wodning\n  Woden       Frealafing       Woden        Frealafing\n\n\n\n{198}\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   _Historia Brittonum_[321].         _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle._\n   MS Harl 3859.                   MSS Cotton Tib. A. VI. and B.I.[322]\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n   Penda                           Penda          Pybbing\n   Pubba                           Pybba          Creoding\n                                   Creoda         Cynewalding\n                                   Cynewald       Cnebbing\n                                   Cnebba         Iceling\n                                   Icel           Eomaering\n   Eamer                           Eomaer         Angeltheowing\n   Ongen                           Angeltheow     Offing\n   Offa                            Offa           Waermunding\n   Guerdmund                       Waermund       Wihtlaeging\n   Guithleg                        Wihtlaeg       Wodening\n   Gueagon\n   Guedolgeat\n   [U]Uoden\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nII. _THE STAGES ABOVE WODEN._\n\n(1) _WODEN TO GEAT._\n\nThe stages above Woden are found in two forms: a short list which traces\nthe line from Woden up to Geat: and a longer list which carries the line\nfrom Geat to Sceaf and through Noah to Adam.\n\nThe line from Woden to Geat is found in the _Historia Brittonum_, not with\nthe other genealogies, but in s. 31, where the pedigree of the Kentish\nroyal family is given, when the arrival of Hengest in Britain is recounted.\nNotwithstanding the dispute regarding the origin and date of the _Historia\nBrittonum_, there is a pretty general agreement that this _Woden to Geat_\npedigree is one of the more primitive elements, and is not likely to be\nmuch later than the end of the 7th century[323]. The original nucleus of\nthe _Historia Brittonum_ was revised by {199} Nennius in the 9th century,\nor possibly at the end of the 8th[324]. The earliest MS of the _Historia_,\nthat of Chartres, belongs to the 9th or 10th century--this is fragmentary\nand already interpolated; the received text is based upon _MS Harleian_\n3859, dating from the end of the 11th century[325], or possibly somewhat\nlater.\n\nI give the pedigree in four forms:\n\nA. The critical text of the _Historia Brittonum_ as edited by Th. Mommsen\n(_Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq., Chronica Minora_, III,\nBerolini, 1898, p. 171).\n\nB. _MS Harl._ 3859, upon which Mommsen's text is based, fol. 180.\n\nC. The _Chartres MS._\n\nD. Mommsen's critical text of the later revision, _Nennius interpretatus_,\nwhich he gives parallel to the _Historia Brittonum_.\n\n            A                  B                C                  D\n\n    Hors et Hengist   Hors & Hengist    Cors et Haecgens    Hors et Hengist\n     filii Guictgils   filii Guictgils   filii Guictils     filii Guictgils\n       Guigta               Guitta            Guicta            Guigta\n       Guectha              Guectha           Gueta             Guectha\n       VVoden               VVoden            VVoden            Voden\n       Frealaf              Frealaf           Frelab            Frealaf\n       Fredulf              Fredulf           Freudulf          Fredolf\n       Finn                 Finn              Fran              Finn\n                                                                Frenn\n       Fodepald             Fodepald          Folcpald          Folcvald\n       Geta                 Geta              G[e]uta           Gaeta\n       qui fuit,            qui fuit,         qui sunt [_sic_], Vanli\n       ut aiunt,            ut aiunt,         ut aiunt,         Saxi\n       filius dei           filius dei        filius dei        Negua\n\n_MS Cotton Vespasian B. VI_ (9th century) contains a number of Anglo-Saxon\ngenealogies and other lists revised up to the period 811-14[326]. The\ngenealogy of the kings of Lindsey in this list has the stages from Woden to\nGeat. This genealogy is also found in the sister list in the 9th century MS\nat Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (_MS C.C.C.C._ 183).\n\n{200}\n\nA similar list is to be found in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (entered under\nthe year 547). But there it is appended to the genealogy of the\nNorthumbrian kings. This genealogy has been erased in the oldest MS\n(Parker, end of the 9th century) to make room for later additions, but is\nfound in _MSS Cotton Tiberius A. VI_ and _B. I._\n\n  _Cotton (Vespasian)  _Corpus MS._                 _A.-S. Chronicle_\n       MS._\n  UUoden Frealafing    Woden Frealafing             Woden Freotholafing\n  Frealaf Friodhulfing Frealaf Friothowulsing (sic) Freothelaf Freothulfing\n  Friodhulf Finning    Freothowulf Godwulfing       Frithulf Finning\n  Finn Goduulfing                                   Finn Godulfing\n  Godulf Geoting       Godwulf Geating              Godulf Geating\n\nThe _Fodepald_ or _Folcpald_ who, in the _Historia Brittonum_, appears as\nthe father of Finn, is clearly the _Folcwalda_ who appears as Finn's father\nin _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_. The Old English _w_ ([wynn]) has been mistaken\nfor _p_, just as in _Pinefred_ for _Winefred_ in the _Life of Offa II_. In\nthe _Vespasian MS_ and in other genealogies Godwulf is Finn's father. It\nhas been very generally held that Finn and his father Godwulf are mythical\nheroes, quite distinct from the presumably historic Finn, son of Folcwalda,\nmentioned in _Beowulf_ and _Widsith_: and that by confusion _Folcwald_ came\nto be written instead of _Godwulf_ in the genealogy, as given in the\n_Historia Brittonum_. I doubt whether there is sufficient justification for\nthis distinction between a presumed historic Finn Folcwalding and a\nmythical Finn Godwulfing. Is it not possible that Godwulf was a\ntraditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and\nthat _Folcwalda_[327] was a _title_ which, since it alliterated\nconveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?\n\nIII. _THE STAGES ABOVE WODEN._\n\n(2) _WODEN TO SCEAF._\n\nThe stages above Geat are found in the genealogy of the West-Saxon kings\nonly[328]. This is recorded in the _Chronicle_ {201} under the year 855\n(notice concerning Aethelwulf) and it was probably drawn up at the court of\nthat king. Though it doubtless contains ancient names, it is apparently not\nso ancient as the _Woden-Geat_ list. It became very well known, and is also\nfound in Asser and the _Textus Roffensis_. It was copied by later\nhistorians such as William of Malmesbury, and by the Icelandic\ngenealogists[329].\n\nThe principal versions of this pedigree are given in tabular form below\n(pp. 202-3); omitting the merely second-hand reproductions, such as those\nof Florence of Worcester.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nH. EXTRACT FROM THE CHRONICLE ROLL.\n\nThis roll was drawn up in the reign of Henry VI, and its compiler must have\nhad access to a document now lost.\n\nThere are many copies of the roll extant--the \"Moseley\" Roll at University\nCollege, London (formerly in the Phillipps collection); at Corpus Christi\nCollege, Cambridge (No. 98 A); at Trinity College, Cambridge; and in the\nBiblioth[`e]que Nationale, Paris[330]; and one which recently came into the\nmarket in London.\n\n                                    Steph\n                                      |\n                                   Steldius\n                                      |\n                                   Boerinus\n                                      |\n     -------------------------------------------------------------------\n     |         |      |       |         |      |         |       |     |\nCinrinicius  Gothus Iutus  Wandalus  Gethius Fresus  Suethedus  Dacus Geate\n{202}\n\n\n\nWEST-SAXON GENEALOGY--STAGES ABOVE WODEN\n\n  /------------------------------------------------\\\n  CHRONICLE\n  PARKER MS                  ASSER           TEXTUS ROFFENSIS I\n\n  Woden Fribowalding         Uuoden          Woden\n  Frithuwald Freawining      Frithowald      Frithewold\n  Frealaf Frithuwulfing      Frealaf         Frealaf\n  Frithuwulf Finning         Frithuwulf      Frithewulf\n  Fin Godwulfing             Fingodwulf      Finn\n  Godwulf Geating                            Godwulf\n  Geat Taetwaing             Geata* ...      Geata* ...\n  Taetwa Beawing             Caetuua         Tethwa\n  Beaw Sceldwaing            Beauu           Beaw\n  Sceldwea Heremoding        Sceldwea        Scaldwa\n  Heremod Itermoning         Heremod         Heremod\n  Itermon Hrathraing         Itermod         Iterman\n                             Hathra          Hathra\n                             Huala           Hwala\n                             Beduuig         Bedwig\n  se waes geboren in thaere  Seth            Scyf, se waes in\n    earce Noe etc.           Noe, etc.         dham arken geboran\n                                              [but son\n                                              of Sem, not Noe]\n\n                           * quem Getam     *dhene dha haethena\n                           iamdudum pagani  wuthedon for god\n                           pro deo\n                           venerabantur\n\n                              CHRONICLE\n   ETHELWERD                  MSS COTT. TIB. A. VI [& B. I]\n\n   Uuothen                    Woden Frealafing\n   Frithouuald\n   Frealaf\n   Frithouulf                 Frealaf Fin[n]ing\n   Fin                        Finn Godwulfing [Godulfing]\n   Goduulfe                   Godulf Geat[t]ing\n   Geat                       Geata [Geatt] Taetwaing\n   Tetuua                     Taetwa Beawing\n   Beo                        Beaw Sceldweaing [Scealdwaing]\n   Scyld                      Scyldwa [Scealdwa] Heremoding\n                              Heremod Itermoning\n                              Itermon Hadhraing\n                              Hadhra Hwalaing\n                              Hwala Bedwiging\n                              Bedwig Sceafing, [i]d est filius N['o]e, se\n   Scef. Ipse Scef cum uno      waes geboren on thaere earce N['o]es\n  dromone advectus est in\n     insula oceani quae dicitur Scani, armis circundatus, eratque valde\n     recens puer, et ab incolis illius terrae ignotus; attamen ab eis\n     suscipitur et ut familiarem diligenti animo eum custodierunt et post\n     in regem eligunt; de cuius prosapia ordinem trahit Athulf [i.e.\n     Aethelwulf] rex.\n\n{203}\n\n\n\n\n                                /--------------------------------------\n  Chronicle\n  MS Cott. Tib. B. IV       Textus Roffensis II      MS Cott. Tib. B. V\n\n  Woden Frealafing          Woden Frealafing         Woden Frealafing\n\n  Frealaf Finning           Frealaf Finning          Frealaf Finning\n  Fin Godulfing             Finn Godulfing           Finn Godulfing\n  Godulf Gating             Godulf Eating            Godulf Eating\n  Geat Taetwaing            Eata Tethwafing          Eat Beawing\n  Taetwa Beawing            Tethwa Beawing\n  Beaw Scealdwaing          Beaw Scealdwaging        Beaw Scealdwaging\n  Scealdhwa Heremoding      Scealwa Heremoding       Scealwa Heremoding\n  Heremod Itermoning        Heremod Hermanning       Heremod Itermanning\n  Itermon Hadhrahing        Herman Hathraing         Iterman Hadhraing\n  Hathra                    Hadhra Hwalaing          Hadhra Bedwiging\n  Hwala Beowung             Hwala Bedwining\n  Beowi Sceafing, id est    Beadwig Sceafing         Bedwig Sceafing\n    filius Noe, se waes     Se Scef waes Noes sunu   se Scef waes N['o]es\n        sunu\n    geboren on thaere arce    and he waes innan dhaere and he waes innan\n    Nones ...                 earce geboren            thaere earce geboren\n\n  ----------------------------------\\\n  Langfedhgatal       Flateyarb['o]k\n  Langebek, 1, 3      Christiania, 1860, 1, 27\n\n  Voden               Voden, _er ver_\n    than kollvm ver     _kollum_ Odinn\n    Oden\n  Frealaf             Frilafr, _e.v.k._ Bors\n  Finn                Burri, _e.v.k._ Finn\n  Godvlfi             Godolfr\n  Eat\n\n  Beaf                Beaf, _e.v.k._ Biar\n  Scealdna            Skialldin, _e.v.k._ Skiolld\n  Heremotr            Heremoth, _e.v.k._ Hermod\n  Itermann            Trinaan\n  Athra               Atra\n\n  Bedvig              Beduigg\n  Seskef vel          Seseph\n  Sescef\n\n\n\nWilliam of Malmesbury. Wodenius fuit filius Fridewaldi, Fridewaldus\nFrelafii, Frelafius Finni, Finnus Godulfi, Godulfus Getii, Getius Tetii,\nTetius Beowii, Beowius Sceldii, Sceldius Sceaf. Iste, ut ferunt, in quandam\ninsulam Germaniae Scandzam ... appulsus, navi sine remige, puerulus, posito\nad caput frumenti manipulo, dormiens, ideoque Sceaf nuncupatus, ab\nhominibus regionis illius pro miraculo exceptus et sedulo nutritus, adulta\naetate regnavit in oppido quod tunc Slaswic, nunc vero Haithebi appellatur\n... Sceaf fuit filius Heremodii, Heremodius Stermonii, Stermonius Hadrae,\nHadra Gwalae, Gwala Bedwigii, Bedwegius Strephii; hic, ut dicitur, fuit\nfilius Noae in arca natus. {204}\n\nThe following marginal note occurs:\n\n    Iste Steldius p_r_im_us_ inhabitator Germanie fuit. Que Germania sic\n    dicta erat, quia instar ramor_um_ germina_n_ciu_m_ ab arbore, sic\n    nome_n_ regnaq_ue_ germania nuncupa_n_tur. In nouem filiis diuisa a\n    radice Boerini geminaueru_n_t. Ab istis nouem filiis Boerini\n    descenderu_n_t nouem gentes septentrionalem p_ar_tem inhabitantes, qui\n    quondam regnu_m_ Brita_n_nie inuaseru_n_t et optinueru_n_t, videlicet\n    Saxones, Angli, Iuthi, Daci, Norwagences, Gothi, Wandali, Geathi et\n    Fresi[331].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI. EXTRACT FROM THE LITTLE CHRONICLE OF THE KINGS OF LEIRE\n\n    From the _Annales Lundenses_. These Annals are comparatively late,\n    going up to the year 1307; but the short _Chronicle of the Kings of\n    Leire_, which is incorporated in them, is supposed to date from the\n    latter half of the 12th century. The text is given in Langebek,\n    _Scriptores Rerum Danicarum_, _I_, 224-6 (under the name of _Annales\n    Esromenses_) from _Cod. Arn. Mag._ 841. There is a critical edition by\n    Gertz, _Scriptores Minores historiae Danicae_, Copenhagen, 1917, based\n    upon _Cod. Arn. Mag._ 843. The text given below is mainly that of\n    Langebek, with corrections from Gertz's fine edition. See below, p.\n    216.\n\nErat ergo Dan rex in Dacia[332] per triennium. Anno tandem tertio cognouit\nuxorem suam Daniam, genuitque ex ea filium nomine Ro. Qui post patris\nobitum hereditarie possidebat regnum. Patrem uero suum Dan colle apud\nLethram tumulauit Sialandiae, ubi sedem regni pro eo pater constituit, quam\nipse post eum diuitiis multiplicibus ditauit. Tempore illo ciuitas magna\nerat in medio Sialandiae, ubi adhuc mons desertus est, nomine Hekebiarch,\nubi sita erat ciuitas quae Hoekekoping nuncupata est; ad quam ut mox Ro rex\nuidit, quod mercatores a nauibus in uia currus conducentes multum\nexpenderent, a loco illo ciuitatem amoueri jussit ad portum, ubi tenditur\nIsaefiorth, et circa fontem pulcherrimum domos disponere. Aedificauit ibi\nRo ciuitatem honestam, cui nomen partitiuum imposuit post se et Fontem,\npartem capiens fontis partemque sui, Roskildam Danice uocans, quae hoc\nnomine uoca[bi]tur[333] in aeternum. Uixit autem rex Ro ita pacifice, ut\nnullus ei aciem opponeret, nec ipse usquam expeditionem direxit[334]. Erat\nautem uxor eius {205} fecunda sobole, ex qua genuit duos filios, nomen\nprimi Helhgi et secundi Haldan[335]. Cumque cepissent pueri robore\nconfortari et crescere, obiit pater eorum Ro, et sepultus est tumulo quodam\nLaethrae, post cuius obitum partiti sunt regnum filii, quod in duas partes\ndiuidentes, alter terras, alter mare possidebat. Rexit itaque terras\nHaldanus, et genuit filium nomine Siwardum, cognomine Album, qui patrem\nsuum Haldanum Laethrae tumulauit mortuum. Helgi autem rex erat marinus, et\nmultos ad se traxit malificos, nauali bello bene adeptus diuersas partes,\nquasdam pace, quasdam cum piratica classe[336] petisse perhibetur....\n\n\n\nThe Chronicle then tells how Rolf was born, the son of Helgi and Yrse or\nUrsula: also of the death and burial of Helgi.\n\n\n\nFilius autem eius et Ursulae puer crescebat Rolf et fortitudine uigebat.\nMater uero eius Ursula, uelo uiduitatis deposito, data est regi Suethiae\nAthislo, qui ex ea filiam sibi genuit, Rolf uero ex matre eius sororem\nnomine Skuld. Interea dum haec de rege marino Helgi agerentur, frater eius,\nrex Daciae, mortuus est Haldanus. Post quem[337] rex Sweciae Athisl a Danis\nsuscepit tributum.\n\n\n\nInterea ... confortabatur filius Helgi, Rolff, cognomine Krake. Quem post\nmortem Snyo[338] Dani [in][339] regem assumpserunt. Qui Sialandiae apud\nLethram, sicut antecessores sui, saepissime moratus est. Sororem suam\nnomine Sculd secum habuit, Athisli regis filiam, et suae matris Ursulae, de\nqua superius dictum est; quam fraterno amore dilexit. Cui provinciam\nHornshaeraeth Sialandiae ad pascendas puellas suas in expensam dedit, in\nqua uillam aedificauit, nomine Sculdelef, unde nomen suscepit. Hoc tempore\nerat quidam Comes Scaniae, nomine Hiarwarth, Teotonicus genere, Rolf\ntributarius, qui ad eum procos misit, ut {206} sororem suam Sculd Hiarwardo\ndaret uxorem. Quo nolente, propria ipsius uoluntate puellae clanculo eam\nraptam sociauit sibi. Unde conspirauerunt inter se deliberantes Hiarwart et\nSculd, quomodo Rolf interficeretur, et Hiarwardus superstes regni heres\nefficeretur. Non post multum vero temporis animosus ad uxoris exhortationem\nHiarwart Sialandiam classe petiit. Genero suo Rolff tributum attulisse\nsimulauit. Die quadam dilucescente ad Laethram misit, ut uideret tributum,\nRolff nunciauit. Qui cum uidisset non tributum sed exercitum armatum,\nuallatus est Rolff militibus, et a Hyarwardo interfectus est. Hyarwardum\nautem Syalandenses et Scanienses, qui cum eo erant, in regem assumpserunt.\nQui breui tempore, a mane usque ad primam, regali nomine potitus est. Tunc\nuenit Haky, frater Haghbardi, filius Hamundi; Hyarwardum interfecit et\nDanorum rex effectus est. Quo regnante, uenit quidam nomine Fritleff a\npartibus Septentrionalibus et filiam sibi desponsauit Rolff Crake, ex qua\nfilium nomine Frothe genuit, cognomine Largus.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nK. THE STORY OF OFFA IN SAXO GRAMMATICUS\n\nBook IV, ed. Ascensius, fol. xxxii b; ed. Holder, pp. 106-7.\n\nCui filius Wermundus succedit. Hic prolixis tranquillitatis otiis\nfelicissima temporum quiete decursis, diutinam domesticae pacis constantiam\ninconcussa rerum securitate tractabat. Idem prolis expers iuuentam exegit;\nsenior uero filium Uffonem sero fortunae munere suscitauit, cum nullam ei\nsobolem elapsa tot annorum curricula peperissent. Hic Uffo coaeuos quosque\ncorporis habitu supergressus, adeo hebetis ineptique animi principio\niuuentae existimatus est, ut priuatis ac publicis rebus inutilis uideretur.\nSiquidem ab ineunte aetate nunquam Iusus aut ioci consuetudinem praebuit;\nadeoque humanae delectationis uacuus fuit, ut labiorum continentiam iugi\nsilentio premeret, et seueritatem oris a ridendi prorsus officio\ntemperaret. Uerum ut incunabula stoliditatis opinione referta habuit, ita\npost modum conditionis contemptum claritate mutauit; et quantum inertiae\nspectaculum fuit, tantum prudentiae et fortitudinis exemplum euasit.\n\n{207}\n\nBook IV, ed. Ascensius, fol. xxxiv b; ed. Holder, pp. 113-7.\n\nCumque Wermundus aetatis uitio oculis orbaretur, Saxoniae rex, Daniam duce\nuacuam ratus, ei per legatos mandat, regnum, quod praeter aetatis debitum\nteneat, sibi procurandum committat, ne nimis longa imperii auiditate\npatriam legibus armisque destituat. Qualiter enim regem censeri posse, cui\nsenectus animum, caecitas oculum pari caliginis horrore fuscauerit? Quod si\nabnuat, filiumque habeat, qui cum suo ex prouocatione confligere audeat,\nuictorem regno potiri permittat. Si neutrum probet, armis secum, non\nmonitis agendum cognoscat, ut tandem inuitus praebeat, quod ultroneus\nexhibere contemnat. Ad haec Wermundus, altioribus suspiriis fractus,\nimpudentius se aetatis exprobratione lacerari respondit, quem non ideo huc\ninfelicitatis senectus prouexerit, quod pugnae parcus timidius iuuentam\nexegerit. Nec aptius sibi caecitatis uitium obiectari, quod plerunque talem\naetatis habitum talis iactura consequi soleat, potiusque condolendum\ncalamitati quam insultandum uideatur. Iustius autem Saxoniae regi\nimpatientiae notam afferri posse, quem potius senis fatum operiri, quam\nimperium poscere decuisset, quod aliquanto praestet defuncto succedere,\nquam uiuum spoliare. Se tamen, ne tanquam delirus priscae libertatis\ntitulos externo uideatur mancipare dominio, propria manu prouocationi\npariturum. Ad haec legati, scire se inquiunt, regem suum conserendae cum\ncaeco manus ludibrium perhorrere, quod tam ridiculum decernendi genus\nrubori quam honestati propinquius habeatur. Aptius uero per utriusque\npignus et sanguinem amborum negotio consuli. Ad haec obstupefactis animo\nDanis, subitaque responsi ignorantia perculsis, Uffo, qui forte cum ceteris\naderat, responsionis a patre licentiam flagitabat, subitoque uelut ex muto\nuocalis euasit. Cumque Wermundus, quisnam talem a se loquendi copiam\npostularet, inquireret, ministrique eum ab Uffone rogari dixissent, satis\nesse perhibuit, ut infelicitatis suae uulneribus alienorum fastus\nilluderet, ne etiam a domesticis simili insultationis petulantia uexaretur.\nSed satellitibus Uffonem hunc esse pertinaci affirmatione testantibus,\n\"Liberum ei sit,\" inquit, \"quisquis est, cogitata profari.\" Tum Uffo,\nfrustra ab eorum rege regnum appeti, inquit, quod tam proprii rectoris\nofficio quam {208} fortissimorum procerum armis industriaque niteretur:\npraeterea, nec regi filium nec regno successorem deesse. Sciantque, se non\nsolum regis eorum filium, sed etiam quemcunque ex gentis suae fortissimis\nsecum adsciuerit, simul pugna aggredi constituisse. Quo audito legati\nrisere, uanam dicti animositatem existimantes. Nec mora, condicitur pugnae\nlocus, eidemque stata temporis meta praefigitur. Tantum autem stuporis Uffo\nloquendi ac prouocandi nouitate praesentibus iniecit, ut, utrum uoci eius\nan fiduciae plus admirationis tributum sit, incertum extiterit.\n\nAbeuntibus autem legatis, Wermundus, responsionis auctore laudato, quod\nuirtutis fiduciam non in unius, sed duorum prouocatione statuerit, potius\nse ei, quicunque sit, quam superbo hosti regno cessurum perhibuit.\nUniuersis autem filium eius esse testantibus, qui legatorum fastum fiduciae\nsublimitate contempserit, propius eum accedere iubet: quod oculis nequeat,\nmanibus experturus. Corpore deinde eius curiosius contrectato, cum ex\nartuum granditate lineamentisque filium esse cognosset, fidem assertoribus\nhabere coepit, percontarique eum, cur suauissimum uocis habitum summo\ndissimulationis studio tegendum curauerit, tantoque aetatis spatio sine\nuoce et cunctis loquendi commerciis degere sustinuerit, ut se linguae\nprorsus officio defectum natiuaeque taciturnitatis uitio obsitum credi\npermitteret? Qui respondit, se paterna hactenus defensione contentum, non\nprius uocis officio opus habuisse, quam domesticam prudentiam externa\nloquacitate pressam animaduerteret. Rogatus item ab eo, cur duos quam unum\nprouocare maluit, hunc iccirco dimicationis modum a se exoptatum respondit,\nut Athisli regis oppressio, quae, quod a duobus gesta fuerat, Danis\nopprobrio extabat, unius facinore pensaretur, nouumque uirtutis specimen\nprisca ruboris monumenta conuelleret. Ita antiquae crimen infamiae recentis\nfamae litura respergendum dicebat. Quem Wermundus iustam omnium\naestimationem fecisse testatus, armorum usum, quod eis parum assueuisset,\npraediscere iubet. Quibus Uffo oblatis, magnitudine pectoris angustos\nloricarum nexus explicuit; nec erat ullam reperire, quae eum iusto\ncapacitatis spatio contineret. Maiore siquidem corpore erat, quam ut\nalienis armis uti posset. Ad ultimum, cum paternam quoque {209} loricam\nuiolenta corporis astrictione dissolueret, Wermundus eam a laeuo latere\ndissecari, fibulaque sarciri praecepit, partem, quae clypei praesidio\nmuniatur, ferro patere parui existimans. Sed et gladium, quo tuto uti\npossit, summa ab eo cura conscisci iussit. Oblatis compluribus, Uffo manu\ncapulum stringens, frustatim singulos agitando comminuit; nec erat quisquam\nex eis tanti rigoris gladius, quem non ad primae concussionis motum crebra\npartium fractione dissolueret. Erat autem regi inusitati acuminis gladius,\nSkrep dictus, qui quodlibet obstaculi genus uno ferientis ictu medium\npenetrando diffinderet, nec adeo quicquam praedurum foret, ut adactam eius\naciem remorari potuisset. Quem ne posteris fruendum relinqueret, per summam\nalienae commoditatis inuidiam in profunda defoderat, utilitatem ferri, quod\nfilii incrementis diffideret, ceteris negaturus. Interrogatus autem, an\ndignum Uffonis robore ferrum haberet, habere se dixit, quod, si pridem a se\nterrae traditum recognito locorum habitu reperire potuisset, aptum corporis\neius uiribus exhiberet. In campum deinde perduci se iubens, cum,\ninterrogatis per omnia comitibus, defossionis locum acceptis signorum\nindiciis comperisset, extractum cauo gladium filio porrigit. Quem Uffo\nnimia uetustate fragilem exesumque conspiciens, feriendi diffidentia\npercontatur, an hunc quoque priorum exemplo probare debeat, prius habitum\neius, quam rem ferro geri oporteat, explorandum testatus. Refert Wermundus,\nsi praesens ferrum ab ipso uentilando collideretur, non superesse, quod\nuirium eius habitui responderet. Abstinendum itaque facto, cuius in dubio\nexitus maneat.\n\nIgitur ex pacto pugnae locus expetitur. Hunc fluuius Eidorus ita aquarum\nambitu uallat, ut earum interstitio repugnante, nauigii duntaxat aditus\npateat. Quem Uffone sine comite petente, Saxoniae regis filium insignis\nuiribus athleta consequitur, crebris utrinque turbis alternos riparum\nanfractus spectandi auiditate complentibus. Cunctis igitur huic spectaculo\noculos inferentibus, Wermundus in extrema pontis parte se collocat, si\nfilium uinci contigisset, flumine periturus. Maluit enim sanguinis sui\nruinam comitari, quam patriae interitum plenis doloris sensibus intueri.\nUerum Uffo, geminis iuuenum congressibus lacessitus, gladii diffidentia\namborum ictus umbone {210} uitabat, patientius experiri constituens, quem e\nduobus attentius cauere debuisset, ut hunc saltem uno ferri impulsu\ncontingeret. Quem Wermundus imbecillitatis uitio tantam recipiendorum\nictuum patientiam praestare existimans, paulatim in occiduam pontis oram\nmortis cupiditate se protrahit, si de filio actum foret, fatum precipitio\npetiturus. Tanta sanguinis caritate flagrantem senem fortuna protexit. Uffo\nsiquidem filium regis ad secum auidius decernendum hortatus, claritatem\ngeneris ab ipso conspicuo fortitudinis opere aequari iubet, ne rege ortum\nplebeius comes uirtute praestare uideatur. Athletam deinde, explorandae\neius fortitudinis gratia, ne domini sui terga timidius subsequeretur,\nadmonitum fiduciam a regis filio in se repositam egregiis dimicationis\noperibus pensare praecepit, cuius delectu unicus pugnae comes adscitus\nfuerit. Obtemperantem illum propiusque congredi rubore compulsum, primo\nferri ictu medium dissecat. Quo sono recreatus Wermundus, filii ferrum\naudire se dixit, rogatque, cui potissimum parti ictum inflixerit.\nReferentibus deinde ministris, eum non unam corporis partem, sed totam\nhominis transegisse compagem, abstractum praecipitio corpus ponti\nrestituit, eodem studio lucem expetens, quo fatum optauerat. Tum Uffo,\nreliquum hostem prioris exemplo consumere cupiens, regis filium ad ultionem\ninterfecti pro se satellitis manibus parentationis loco erogandam\nimpensioribus uerbis sollicitat. Quem propius accedere sua adhortatione\ncoactum, infligendi ictus loco curiosius denotato, gladioque, quod tenuem\neius laminam suis imparem uiribus formidaret, in aciem alteram uerso,\npenetrabili corporis sectione transuerberat. Quo audito Wermundus Screp\ngladii sonum secundo suis auribus incessisse perhibuit. Affirmantibus\ndeinde arbitris, utrunque hostem ab eius filio consumptum, nimietate gaudii\nuultum fletu soluit. Ita genas, quas dolor madidare non poterat, laetitia\nrigauit. Saxonibus igitur pudore moestis, pugilumque funus summa cum\nruboris acerbitate ducentibus, Uffonem Dani iocundis excepere tripudiis.\nQuieuit tum Athislanae caedis infamia, Saxonumque obprobriis expirauit.\n\nIta Saxoniae regnum ad Danos translatum, post patrem Uffo regendum\nsuscepit, utriusque imperii procurator effectus, {211} qui ne unum quidem\nrite moderaturus credebatur. Hic a compluribus Olauus est dictus, atque ob\nanimi moderationem Mansueti cognomine donatus. Cuius sequentes actus\nuetustatis uitio solennem fefellere notitiam. Sed credi potest, gloriosos\neorum processus extitisse, quorum tam plena laudis principia fuerint.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nL. FROM SKIOLD TO OFFA IN SWEYN AAGESON\n\nIn Langebek, _Scriptores_, i, 44-7; Gertz, I, 97.\n\nCAP. I.\n\nDe primo Rege Danorum.\n\nSkiold Danis primum didici praefuisse. Et ut eius alludamus uocabulo,\nidcirco tali functus est nomine, quia uniuersos regni terminos regiae\ndefensionis patrocinio affatim egregie tuebatur. A quo primum, modis\nIslandensibus, \"Skioldunger\" sunt reges nuncupati. Qui regni post se\nreliquit haeredes, Frothi uidelicet et Haldanum. Successu temporum\nfratribus super regni ambitione inter se decertantibus, Haldan, fratre suo\ninterempto, regni monarchiam obtinuit. Hic filium, scilicet Helghi, regni\nprocreauit haeredem, qui ob eximiam uirtutum strenuitatem, pyraticam semper\nexercuit. Qui cum uniuersorum circumiacentium regnorum fines maritimos\nclasse pyratica depopulatus, suo subiugasset imperio, \"Rex maris\" est\ncognominatus. Huic in regno successit filius Rolf Kraki, patria virtute\npollens, occisus in Lethra, quae tunc famosissima Regis extitit curia, nunc\nautem Roskildensi uicina ciuitati, inter abiectissima ferme uix colitur\noppida. Post quem regnauit filius eius Roekil cognomento dictus\n\"Slaghenback.\" Cui successit in regno haeres, agilitatis strenuitate\ncognominatus, quem nostro uulgari \"Frothi hin Froekni\" nominabant. Huius\nfilius et haeres regni extitit Wermundus, qui adeo prudentiae pollebat\nuirtute, ut inde nomen consequeretur. Unde et \"Prudens\" dictus est. Hic\nfilium genuit Uffi nomine, qui usque ad tricesimum aetatis suae annum fandi\npossibilitatem cohibuit, propter enormitatem opprobrii, quod tunc temporis\nDanis ingruerat, eo quod in {212} ultionem patris duo Dani in Sueciam\nprofecti, patricidam suum una interemerunt. Nam et tunc temporis\nignominiosum extitit improperium, si solum duo iugularent; praesertim cum\nsoli strenuitati tunc superstitiosa gentilitas operam satagebat impendere.\nPraefatus itaque Wermundus usque ad senium regni sui gubernabat imperium;\nadeo tandem aetate consumptus, ut oculi eius prae senio caligarent. Cuius\ndebilitatis fama cum apud transalpinas[340] partes percrebuisset, elationis\nturgiditate Teotonica intumuit superbia, utpote suis nunquam contenta\nterminis. Hinc furoris sui rabiem in Danos exacuit Imperator, se iam\nDanorum regno conquisito sceptrum nancisci augustius conspicatus.\nDelegantur itaque spiculatores, qui turgidi principis jussa reportent\npraefato Danorum regi, scilicet Wermundo, duarum rerum praefigentes\nelectionem, quarum pars tamen neutra extitit eligenda. Aut enim regnum\njussit Romano resignare imperio, et tributum soluere, aut athletam\ninuestigare, qui cum Imperatoris campione monomachiam committere auderet.\nQuo audito, regis extitit mens consternata; totiusque regni procerum\nlegione corrogata, quid facto opus sit, diligenti inquisitione\npercontabatur. Perplexam se namque regis autumabat autoritas, utpote cui et\nius incumbebat decertandi, et qui regno patrocinari tenebatur. Uultum\ncoecitas obnubilauerat, et regni heres elinguis factus, desidia torpuerat,\nita ut in eo, communi assertione, nulla prorsus species salutis existeret.\nNam ab infantia praefatus Uffo uentris indulgebat ingluuiei, et\nEpicuraeorum more, coquinae et cellario alternum officiose impendebat\nobsequium. Corrogato itaque coetu procerum, totiusque regni placito[341]\ncelebrato, Alamannorum regis ambitionem explicuit, quid in hac optione haud\neligenda facturus sit, indagatione cumulata senior sciscitatur. Et dum\nuniuersorum mens consternaretur angustia, cunctique indulgerent silentio,\npraefatus Uffo in media concione surrexit. Quem cum cohors uniuersa\nconspexisset, satis nequibat admirari, ut quid elinguis uelut orationi\ngestus informaret. Et quia omne rarum dignum nouimus admiratione, omnium in\nse duxit intuitum. Tandem sic orsus coepit: \"Non nos minae moueant\nlacessentium, cum {213} ea Teotonicae turgiditati innata sit conditio, ut\nuerborum ampullositate glorientur, minarumque uentositate pusillanimes et\nimbecilles calleant comminatione consternare. Me etenim unicum et uerum\nregni natura produxit heredem, cui profecto nouistis incumbere, ut\nmonomachiae me discrimini audacter obiiciam, quatenus uel pro regno solus\noccumbam, uel pro patria solus uictoriam obtineam. Ut ergo minarum cassetur\nampullositas, haec Imperatori referant mandata, ut Imperatoris filius et\nheres imperii, cum athleta praestantissimo, mihi soli non formidet\noccurrere.\" Dixit, et haec verba dictauit voce superba. Qui dum orationem\ncomplesset, a collateralibus senior sciscitabatur, cuiusnam haec fuisset\noratio? Cum autem a circumstantibus intellexisset, quod filius suus, prius\nveluti mutus, hunc effudisset sermonem, palpandum eum jussit accersiri. Et\ncum humeros lacertosque, et clunes, suras atque tibias, caeteraque membra\norganica crebro palpasset: \"Talem,\" ait, \"me memini in flore extitisse\niuuentutis.\" Quid multa? Terminus pugnae constituitur et locus. Talique\nresponso percepto, ad propria legati repedabant.\n\nCAP. II.\n\nDe duello Uffonis.\n\nSuperest ergo, ut arma nouo militi congrua corrogentur. Allatisque ensibus,\nquos in regno praestantiores rex poterat inuestigare, Uffo singulos dextra\nuibrans, in partes confregit minutissimas. \"Haeccine arma sunt,\" inquit,\n\"quibus et uitam et regni tuebor honorem?\" Cuius cum pater uiuidam\nexperiretur uirtutem, \"Unicum adhuc,\" ait, \"et regni et uitae nostrae\nsuperest asylum.\" Ad tumulum itaque ducatum postulauit, in quo prius\nmucronem experientissimum occultauerat. Et mox intersigniis per petrarum\nnotas edoctus, gladium jussit effodi praestantissimum. Quem illico dextra\ncorripiens, \"Hic est,\" ait, \"fili, quo numerose triumphaui, et qui mihi\ninfallibile semper tutamen extitit.\" Et haec dicens, eundem filio\ncontradidit. Nec mora; terminus ecce congressioni praefixus arctius {214}\ninstabat. Tandem, confluentibus undique phalangis innumerabilibus, in\nEgdorae fluminis mediamne[342] locus pugnae constituitur: ut ita pugnatores\nab utriusque coetus adminiculo segregati nullius opitulatione fungerentur.\nTeotonicis ergo ultra fluminis ripam in Holsatia considentibus, Danis uero\ncitra amnem dispositis, rex pontis in medio sedem elegit, quatenus, si\nunigenitus occumberet, in fluminis se gurgitem praecipitaret, ne pariter\nnato orbatus et regno cum dolore superstes canos deduceret ad inferos.\nDeinde emissis utrinque pugilibus, in medio amne conuenerunt. Ast ubi miles\nnoster egregius Uffo, duos sibi conspexit occurrere, tanquam leo pectore\nrobusto infremuit, animoque constanti duobus electis audacter se opponere\nnon detrectauit, illo cinctus mucrone, quem patrem supra meminimus\nocculuisse, et alterum dextra strictum gestans. Quos cum primum obuios\nhabuisset, sic singillatim utrumque alloquitur, et quod raro legitur\naccidisse, athleta noster elegantissimus, cuius memoria in aeternum non\ndelebitur, ita aduersarios animabat ad pugnam: \"Si te,\" inquit, \"regni\nnostri stimulat ambitio, ut nostrae opis, potentiaeque, opumque capessere\nuelis opulentias, comminus te clientem decet praecedere, ut et regni tui\nterminos amplifices, et militibus tuis conspicientibus, strenuitatis nomen\nnanciscaris.\" Campionem uero hunc in modum alloquitur: \"Uirtutis tuae\nexperientiam jam locus est propagare, si comminus accesseris, et eam, quam\npridem Alamannis gloriam ostendisti, Danis quoque propalare non cuncteris.\nNunc ergo famam tuae strenuitatis poteris ampliare, et egregiae\nmunificentiae dono ditari, si et dominum praecedas, et clypeo defensionis\neum tuearis. Studeat, quaeso, Teotonicis experta strenuitas variis artis\npugillatoriae modis Danos instruere, ut tandem optata potitus uictoria, cum\ntriumphi ualeas exultatione ad propria remeare.\" Quam quum complesset\nexhortationem, pugilis cassidem toto percussit conamine, ita ut, quo\nferiebat, gladius in duo dissiliret. Cuius fragor per uniuersum intonuit\nexercitum. Unde cohors Teotonicorum exultatione perstrepebat: sed contra\nDani desperationis consternati tristitia, gemebundi murmurabant. Rex uero,\nut audiuit, quod filii ensis dissiliuisset, in margine se pontis jussit\n{215} locari. Uerum Uffo, subito exempto, quo cinctus erat, gladio, pugilis\nillico coxam cruentauit, nec mora, et caput pariter amputauit. Sic ergo\nludus fortunae ad instar lunae uarius, nunc his, nunc illis successibus\nilludebat, et quibus iamiam exultatione fauebat ingenti, eos nouercali mox\nuultu, toruoque conspexit intuitu. Hoc cognito, senior jam confidentius\npriori se jussit sede locari. Nec jam anceps diu extitit uictoria. Siquidem\nUffo ualide instans, ad ripam amnis pepulit haeredem imperii, ibique eum\nhaud difficulter gladio iugulauit. Sicque duorum solus uictor existens,\nDanis irrogatam multis retro temporibus infamiam gloriosa uirtute magnifice\nsatis aboleuit. Atque ita Alamannis cum improperii uerecundia, cassatisque\nminarum ampullositatibus, cum probris ad propria remeantibus, postmodum in\npacis tranquillitate praecluis Uffo regni sui regebat imperium.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nM. NOTE ON THE DANISH CHRONICLES\n\nThe text of Saxo Grammaticus, given above, is based upon the magnificent\nfirst edition printed by Badius Ascensius (Paris, 1514). Even at the time\nwhen this edition was printed, manuscripts of Saxo had become exceedingly\nscarce, and we have now only odd leaves of MS remaining. One fragment,\nhowever, discovered at Angers, and now in the Royal Library at Copenhagen,\ncomes from a MS which had apparently received additions from Saxo himself,\nand therefore affords evidence as to his spelling.\n\nHolder's edition (Strassburg, 1886) whilst following in the main the 1514\ntext of Badius Ascensius, is accordingly revised to comply with the\nspelling of the Copenhagen fragments, and with any other traces of MS\nauthority extant. I doubt the necessity for such revision. If the text were\nextant in MS, one might feel bound to follow the spelling of the MS, as in\nthe case of the old English MSS of the _Vitae Offarum_ below: but seeing\nthat Saxo, with the exception of a few pages, is extant only in a 16th\ncentury printed copy, the spelling of which is almost identical with that\nnow current in Latin text books, it seems a pity to restore conjecturally\nmediaeval spellings likely {216} to worry a student. Accordingly I have\nfollowed the printed text of 1514, modernizing a very few odd spellings,\nand correcting some obvious printers errors[343].\n\nA translation of the first nine books of Saxo by Prof. O. Elton has been\npublished by the Folk-Lore Society (No. XXXIII, 1893).\n\nSaxo completed his history in the early years of the 13th century. His\nelder contemporary, Sweyn Aageson, had already written a _Brief History of\nthe Kings of Denmark_. Sweyn's _History_ must have been completed not long\nafter 1185, to which date belongs the last event he records. The extracts\ngiven from it (pp. 211-15) are taken from Langebek's collection, with\nmodifications of spelling. Langebek follows the first edition (Stephanius,\n1642); the MS used in this edition had been destroyed in 1728. _Cod. Arn.\nMag. 33_, recently printed by Gertz, although very corrupt, is supposed to\ngive the text of Sweyn's _History_ in a form less sophisticated than that\nof the received text (see Gertz, _Scriptores Minores Historiae Danicae_,\n1917, p. 62). The _Little Chronicle of the Kings of Leire_ is probably\nearlier than Sweyn's _History_. Gertz dates it c. 1170, and thinks it was\nwritten by someone connected with the church at Roskilde. It covers only\nthe early traditional history. See above, pp. 17, 204.\n\nFor comparison, the following lists, as given in the roll of kings known as\n_Langfedhgatal_, in the _Little Chronicle_, in Sweyn, and in Saxo may be\nuseful:\n\n                 | _Little_    |             |              |Names as given\n  _Langfedhgatal_|_Chronicle_  |_Sweyn_      |   _Saxo_     | in _Beowulf_\n                 |  Dan        |             |  Dan         |\n                 |             |             | {Humblus     |\n                 |             |             | {Lotherus    | ? = Heremod\n   Skioldr ...   |             |  Skiold     |  Skioldus    | Scyld\n  {217}\n                 |             |             |  Gram        |\n                 |             |             |  Hadingus    |\n                 |             | {Frothi     |  Frotho I    | ?= Beowulf I\n   Halfdan       |             | {Haldanus   | {Haldanus I  | Healfdene\n                 |   Ro        |             | {Roe I       |\n                 |             |             | {Scato       |\n  {Hroar         | {Haldan     |             | {Roe II      | Hrothgar\n  {Helgi         | {Helgi      |  Helghi     | {Helgo       | Halga\n   Rolf Kraki    |  Rolf Krake |  Rolf Kraki |  Roluo Krage | Hrothulf\n                 |  Hiarwarth  |             |  Hiarthuarus | Heoroweard\n                 |             |             |   . . . .    |\n   Hraerekr      |             |  Roekil     |  Roericus    | Hrethric\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nN. THE LIFE OF OFFA I, WITH EXTRACTS FROM THE LIFE OF OFFA II. EDITED FROM\nTWO MSS IN THE COTTONIAN COLLECTION\n\nThe text is given from _MS Cotton Nero D. I_ (quoted in the footnotes as\nA), collated with _MS Claudius E. IV_ (quoted as B). Minor variations of B\nare not usually noted. The two MSS agree closely.\n\nThe _Nero_ MS is the more elaborate of the two, and is adorned with very\nfine drawings. _Claudius_, however, offers occasionally a better text; it\nhas been read by a corrector whose alterations--contrary to what is so\noften the ease in mediaeval MSS--seem to be authoritative.\n\nThe _Lives of the Offas_ were printed by Wats in his edition of Matthew\nParis (1639-40) from MS A. Miss Rickert has printed extracts from the two\nlives, in _Mod. Phil._ II, 14 _etc._, following MS A, \"as Wats sometimes\ntakes liberties with the text.\"\n\nINCIPIT HISTORIA DE OFFA PRIMO Q_U_I STRENUITATE SUA S_IB_I ANGLIE\nMAXIMA_M_ P_AR_TE_M_ S_U_BEG_I_T. CUI SIMILLIM_US_ FUIT S_E_C_UN_D_U_S\nOFFA[344].\n\n[Sidenote: Fol. 2 _a_]\n\nInter occidentalium Anglorum reges illustrissimos, precipua\nco_m_mendac_i_onis laude celebratur Rex Warmundus, ab hiis qui historias\nAngloru_m_ no_n_ solum relatu proferre, set eciam scriptis inserere\nconsueuerant. Is fundator erat cui_us_dam urbis a seip_s_o denominate, que\nlingua Anglicana Warwic, id est curia Warmundi, nuncupatur. Qui usq_ue_ ad\nannos seniles absq_ue_ liberis extitit, pret_er_ unicum filiu_m_; q_ue_m,\nut estimabat, regni sui heredem _et_ successorem puerilis debilitatis\nincomodo labora_n_tem, constituere non ualebat. Licet enim idem unic_us_\nfilius eius, Offa uel Offanus no_m_i_n_e, statura fuisset procer_us_, {218}\ncorpore integer, _et_ elegantissime forme iuuenis existeret, perma_n_sit\nt_ame_n a natiuitate uisu priuatus usq_ue_ ad annu_m_ septimu_m_, mutus\nautem _et_ u_er_ba humana n_on_ proferens usq_ue_ ad annu_m_ etatis sue\ntricesimum. Huius debilitatis incomodum no_n_ solum rex, s_ed_ eciam regni\nproceres, supra q_u_am dici potest moleste sustinuerunt. Cum eni_m_\nimineret p_at_ri etas senilis, _et_ ignoraret diem mortis sue, nesciebat\nq_ue_m alium sibi[345] _con_stitueret heredem _et_ regni successore_m_.\nQuidam au_tem_ p_r_imari_us_ regni, cui nomen Riganus[346], cu_m_ quoda_m_\nsuo co_m_plice Mitunno no_m_i_n_e, ambic_i_osus cu_m_ ambic_i_oso, seductor\ncu_m_ proditore uidens regem decrepitu_m_, _et_ sine spe prolis procreande\nsenio fatiscente_m_, de se p_re_sumens, cepit ad regie dignitatis culmen\naspirare, conte_m_ptis aliis regni primatib_us_, se solum p_re_ cet_er_is\nad h_oc_ dignu_m_ reputando.\n\nIccirco diebus singulis regi molestus nimis, proterue eum aggreditur, ut se\nh_er_edis loco adoptaret. Aliq_u_ando cor regis blande alliciens, interi_m_\naspere minis _et_ terroribus prouocans, persuadere no_n_ cessat regi q_uo_d\noptabat[347]. Suggerebat eciam regi per uiros potentes, _com_plices\ncupiditatis _et_ malicie sue, se regni sui su_m_mu_m_ apice_m_, uiolentia\n_et_ terrorib_us_ et ui extorquere, nisi arbitrio uoluntatis sue rex ip_s_e\npareret, faciendo uirtute_m_ de necessitate. Super h_oc_ itaq_ue et_ aliis\nregni negociis, euocato semel concilio, proteruus ille a rege reprobatus\ndiscessit a curie p_re_sentia, iracundie calore freme_n_s in semetip_s_o,\npro repulsa q_u_am sustinuit.\n\n[Illustration: Riganus (or Aliel) comes before King Warmundus to claim that\nhe should be made King in place of the incompetent Offa\n\n_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 2 a._ ]\n\n{219} [Sidenote: Fol. 2 _b_] Nec mora, accitis m_u_ltis qui cont_r_a regis\ni_m_p_er_ium parte_m_ sua_m_ _con_fouebant, infra paucos dies, copiosum\ni_m_mo infinitu_m_ exc_er_citu_m_ _con_gregauit: _et_ sub spe uictorie\nuirilit_e_r optinende, regem _et_ suos ad hostile p_re_lium prouocauit. Rex\nau_tem_ confectus senio, time_n_s rebellare, declinauit aliquocie_n_s\nimpet_us_ adu_er_sarior_um_. Tandem uero, co_n_uocatis i_n_ unum\np_r_incipib_us_ _et_ magnatib_us_ suis, delib_er_are cep_i_t q_u_o\nf_a_c_t_o opus h_abe_ret. Dum igit_ur_ t_r_actarent i_n_ co_m_mune per\naliq_u_ot dies, secu_m_ deliberantes instantissime nec_es_citatis\narticulu_m_, affuit int_er_ _ser_moci|nantes natus _et_ unigenitus regis,\neo usq_ue_ elinguis _et_ absq_ue_ sermone, s_ed_ aure purgata, singulorum\nuerba discernens. Cum aute_m_ p_at_ris seniu_m_, _et_ se ip_su_m ad regni\nnegocia q_u_asi inutilem _et_ min_us_ efficacem despici _et_ reprobari ab\nom_n_ib_us_ perpenderet, contritus est _et_ humiliatus in semetip_s_o,\nusq_ue_ in lac_r_imarum aduberem profusionem. _Et_ exitus aq_u_arum\ndedux_er_unt oculi eius; _et_ estuabat dolore cordis intrinsecus\namarissimo. Et q_u_a_m_ u_er_bis no_n_ pot_er_at, deo aff_e_c_t_u\nint_r_inseco p_re_cordial_it_er suggerebat, ingemiscens, repone_n_sq_ue_\nlac_r_imabilem q_ue_relam coram ip_s_o, orabat ut a spiritu s_an_c_t_o\nreciperet consolac_i_on_em_, a p_at_re luminu_m_ fortitudinem, _et_ a filio\np_at_ris unigenito sapi_enci_e salutaris donatiuum. In breui igitur,\n_con_t_r_iti cordis uota prospiciens, is, cui nuda _et_ aperta sunt omnia,\nresoluit os adolescentis in u_er_ba discreta _et_ manifeste articulata.\nSicq_ue_ de regni principatu tumide _et_ minaciter contra se _et_ p_at_rem\nsuu_m_ perstrepentes, subito _et_ ex insp_er_ato alloquitur: \"Quid adhuc me\n_et_ p_at_re meo sup_er_stite contra leges _et_ iura uobis uendicatis regni\niudicium enormiter cont_re_ctare: _et_ me excluso, herede geneali, alium\ndegen_er_em facinorosu_m_ _ec_iam in minas _et_ diffiduciac_i_onem\nsup_er_be nimis prorumpente_m_, subrogare ut uos no_n_ immerito iniquitatis\n_et_ prodic_i_onis arguere valeam_us_. Quid, inq_u_am, ext_er_i, q_u_id\nex_tr_anei cont_ra_ nos agere debeant, cu_m_ nos affines _et_ domestici\nn_ost_ri a p_at_ria q_u_am hactenus gen_er_is n_ost_ri successio iure\npossedit hereditario, uelitis expellere?\" Et dum hec Offanus uel Offa (hoc\neni_m_ nomen adolescentulo erat) qui ia_m_ n_un_c primo et_er_no nomine\ncu_m_ b_e_n_e_d[_i_]c[_i_]onis memoria meruit intitulari, ore facundo,\ns_er_mone rethorico, uultu sereno prosequeret_ur_, omniu_m_ audientium plus\nq_u_am dici potest attonitoru_m_ oculos facies _et_ corda in se\nconu_er_tit. Et prosequens inceptum s_er_mone_m_, _con_tinuando r_ati_onem,\nait (intuens ad superna): \"Deum testor, om_ne_sq_ue_ celestis curie\nprimates, quod tanti sceleris _et_ discidii incentores, (n_is_i qui\ncep_er_int titubare, uiriliter eriganter in uirtute_m_ p_r_istinam\nroborati) inde_m_pnes (pro ut desides _et_ formidolosi promerueru_n_t) ac\nimpunitos, no_n_ paciar. Fideles autem, ac strenuos, omni honore\nproseq_u_ar [et] co_n_fouebo.\"\n\nAudito _i_gi_tur_ adolescentis sermone, q_ue_m mutum estimabant vanu_m_\n_et_ inutilem, _con_st_er_nati admodum _et_ conterriti, ab ei_us_ {220}\np_re_sencia discesseru_n_t, q_u_i cont_r_a p_at_rem suu_m_ _et_ ip_su_m,\nmota sedic_i_one, ausu temerario co_n_spirau_er_ant. Rigan_us_ t_ame_n,\nco_n_tumax _et_ superbus, comitante Mittunno cu_m_ aliis complicibus suis,\nqui iam iram in odium _con_u_er_t_er_ant, minas minis recessit cumulando,\nrege_m_q_ue_ delirum cu_m_ filio suo inutili ac vano murione, frontose\ndiffiduciauit. Econt_r_a, naturales ac fideles regis, ipsius minas\nparuipende_n_tes, i_m_mo [Sidenote: Fol. 3 _a_] | uilipendentes,\ninestimabili gaudio perfusi, regis _et_ filii sui pedibus incuruati, sua\nsuor_um_q_ue_ corpora ad uindicandam regis iniuriam exponunt gratanter\nuniu_er_si. Nec mora, rex in sua _et_ filii sui presentia generali edicto\neos qui parti sue fauebant iubet assistere, uolens co_m_muni eor_um_\nconsilio edoceri, q_u_aliter in agendis suis procedere _et_ negocia sua\nexequi habeat conuenienter. Qui super hiis diebus aliquot deliberantes,\ninprimis consulu_n_t regi ut filium suu_m_ morib_us_ _et_ etate ad h_oc_\nmaturu_m_, militari cingulo faciat insigniri: vt ad bellum procedens,\nhostibus suis horrori fieret _et_ formidini. Rex aute_m_ sano et salubri\nco_n_silio suoru_m_ obtemperans, celebri[348] ad hoc co_n_dicto die, cu_m_\nsolle_m_pni _et_ regia pompa, gladio filium suum accinxit; adiunctis\ntirocinio suo strenuis adolescentib_us_ gen_er_osis, quos rex ad dec_us_\n_et_ gloriam filii sui militarib_us_ indui fecit, _et_ honorari.\n\nCum aute_m_ post h_ec_[349], aliq_u_andiu cu_m_ sociis suis decertans,\ninstrumenta tiro Offanus experiretur, omnes eum strenuissimu_m_ _et_\nsingulos sup_er_ante_m_ uehement_er_[350] admirabant_ur_. Rex igit_ur_\nin_de_ maiore_m_ assumens audaciam, _et_ in spem erectus alacriorem,\nco_m_municato cu_m_ suis consilio, co_n_t_r_a hostes regni sui\ninsidiatores, i_m_mo iam manifeste _contr_a regnu_m_ suu_m_ insurgentes,\n_et_ inito c_er_tami_n_e adu_er_santes, resu_m_pto sp_irit_u bellum\ninstaurari p_re_cep_i_t. Potentissim_us_ aut_em_ ille, q_u_i regnu_m_ sibi\nusurpare moliebatur, cu_m_ filiis suis iuuenib_us_ duob_us_, uidelicet\ntironib_us_ strenuissimis Otta _et_ Milione nominatis, ascita quoq_ue_\nno_n_ minima multitudine, n_ich_ilomin_us_ audact_er_ ad rebellandum, se\nsuosq_ue_ p_re_munire cepit, alacer _et_ imp_er_t_er_rit_us_. Et preliandi\ndiem _et_ locum, hinc in_de_ rex _et_ eius emulus det_er_minarunt.\n\nCongregato itaq_ue_ ut_r_obiq_ue_ copiosissimo _et_ formidabili nimis\nexc_er_citu, parati ad congressum, fixerunt tentoria e regione, nichilq_ue_\nint_er_erat nisi fluui_us_ torrens in medio, qui {221} utrumq_ue_\nexc_er_citu_m_ sequestrabat. Et aliq_u_andiu hinc in_de_ meticulosi _et_\nco_n_sternati, rapidi fluminis alueum int_er_positu_m_ (qui uix erat homini\nuel equo t_r_ansmeabil_is_) transire distulerunt. Tela tamen sola, cu_m_\ncrebris co_m_minac_i_onibus _et_ conuiciis, transuolarunt. Tande_m_\nindignatus Offa _et_ egre ferens probrose more dispendia, electis de\nexc_er_citu suo robustiorib_us_ _et_ bello magis strenuis, q_u_os _eciam_\ncredebat fideliores, subitus _et_ improuisus flumen raptim p_er_transiens,\nf_a_c_t_o impetu uehementi[351] _et_ repentino, hostes ei obuiam\noccurre_n_tes, preocupatos t_ame_n circa ripam flum_in_is, plurimos de\nadu_er_sarior_um_ exc_er_citu cont_r_iuit, _et_ i_n_ ore gladii trucidauit.\nPrimosq_ue_ om_ne_s t_r_ibunos _et_ p_r_imicerios potenter dissipauit.\nCu_m_ t_ame_n sui co_m_militones, forte uolentes p_re_scire in Offa\np_re_uio Martis fortuna_m_, segnit_er_ amne_m_ t_r_ansmearent, q_u_i latus\nsuu_m_ tenebantur suffulcire, _et_[352] pocius [Sidenote: Fol. 3 _b_] |\ncircumuallando roborare, et resu_m_pto sp_irit_u uiuidiore, reliquos\nom_ne_s, hinc in_de_ ad modu_m_ nauis uelificantis _et_ equora uelocit_er_\nsulcantis, impetuosissime diuisit, ense t_er_ribilit_er_ fulminante, _et_\nhostiu_m_ cruore sepius inebriato, don_e_c sue om_ne_s acies ad ip_su_m\nillese _et_ inde_m_pnes t_r_ansmear_en_t. Quo cu_m_ p_er_uenirent sui\nco_m_militones, congregati ci_r_ca ip_su_m do_mi_n_u_m suu_m_,\nexc_er_citu_m_ magnu_m_ et fortem co_n_flau_er_unt. Duces aute_m_\n_con_t_r_arii exc_er_citus, sese densis agminib_us_ _et_ consertis aciebus,\nuiolent_er_ opponu_n_t aduentantib_us_. Et congressu inito cruentissimo,\nacclamatu_m_ _est_ utrobiq_ue_ et exhortatu_m_, ut res agatur pro capite,\n_et_ c_er_tamen pro sua _et_ uxoru_m_ suar_um_, _et_ lib_er_or_um_\nsuor_um_, _et_ possessionu_m_ lib_er_ac_i_one, i_n_ea_n_t iustissimu_m_,\nauxilio diuino p_ro_tegente. P_er_strepunt igitur tube cu_m_ lituis, clamor\nexhortantiu_m_, equor_um_ hinnit_us_, morientiu_m_ _et_ uulnerator_um_\ngemitus, fragor lancearum, gladioru_m_ tinnit_us_, ictuu_m_ tumultus, aera\np_er_t_ur_bare uidebant_ur_. Adu_er_sarii tandem Offe legiones deiciunt,\n_et_ i_n_ fugam dissipatas _con_u_er_tunt.\n\nQuod cum videret Offa strenuissim_us_, _et_ ex hostiu_m_ cede cruent_us_,\nhausto sp_irit_u alac_r_iori, in hostes, more leonis _et_ leene sublatis\ncatulis, irruit truculent_er_, gladiu_m_ suu_m_ cruore hostili inebriando.\nQuod cu_m_ uiderent t_r_ucida_n_di, fugitiui _et_ meticulosi pudore\nconfusi, reuersi su_n_t sup_er_ hostes, et ut famam redim_er_ent,\nferociores in obstantes fulminant _et_ debacant_ur_.\n\n{222}\n\nMultoq_ue_ temp_or_e t_r_uculent_er_ nimis dec_er_tatu_m_ est, _et_\nutrobiq_ue_ suspensa est uictoria; tandem p_ost_ multor_um_ ruinam, hostes\nfatigati pedem retulerunt, ut respirarent _et_ pausare_n_t p_ost_\nco_n_flictu_m_.\n\nSimilit_er eciam et_ exc_er_citus Offani. Quod t_ame_n moleste nimis tulit\nOffan_us_, cui_us_ sanguis in ulc_i_one_m_ estuabat, _et_ i_n_defessus\npropugnator cessare erubescebat. Hic casu Offe obuiant duo filii diuitis\nilli_us_, qui regnu_m_ p_at_ris ei_us_ sibi atte_m_ptauit usurpare. Nomen\np_r_imogenito Brutus [sive Hildebrandus][353] _et_ iuniori Sueno. Hii\nprobra _et_ u_er_ba turpia in Offam irreu_er_enter ingesserunt, _et_ iuueni\npudorato i_n_ _con_sp_ec_tu exc_er_cituum, no_n_ min_us_ s_er_monib_us_\nq_u_am armis, molesti extit_er_unt. Offa igit_ur_, mag_is_ lacessitus, _et_\ncalore audacie scintillans, _et_ iracundia us_que_ ad fremitu_m_ succensus,\nin impetu sp_iritu_s sui i_n_ eosde_m_ audact_er_ irruit. Et eor_um_\nalteru_m_, videlic_et_ Brutu_m_, unico gladii ictu percussit, amputatoq_ue_\ngalee cono, craneu_m_ usq_ue_ ad cerebri medulla_m_ p_er_forauit, _et_ i_n_\nmorte singultante_m_ sub eq_u_inis pedib_us_ pot_e_nt_er_ p_re_cipitauit.\nAlteru_m_ u_er_o, qui h_oc_ uiso fugam iniit, repentin_us_ inseq_ue_ns,\nuuln_er_e letali sauciatu_m_, _con_te_m_psit _et_ prostratu_m_. Post\nh_ec_[354] deseuie_n_s in cet_er_os _con_t_r_arii exc_er_citus duces,\ngladi_us_ Offe q_u_icq_u_id obuiam h_ab_uit prost_er_nendo deuorauit,\nexc_er_citu ip_s_i_us_ tali exemplo recenci_us_ i_n_ hostes insurgente,\n_et_ iam gloriosius t_r_iu_m_phante.\n\n[Sidenote: Fol. 4 _a_]\n\nPat_er_, uero, p_re_d_i_c_t_or_um_ iuuenu_m_, pert_er_rit_us_ _et_ dolore\ni_n_t_r_inseco sauciatus, subt_er_fugiens amne_m_ oppositu_m_, nitebat_ur_|\npert_r_ansire: s_ed_ interf_e_c_t_oru_m_ sanguine torre_n_s fluuius, eum\nloricatu_m_ _et_ armor_um_ pond_er_e grauatu_m_ _et_ multipl_icite_r\nfatigatum, cum multis de suo excercitu simili incomodo p_re_peditis, ad ima\nsubm_er_sit, _et_ sine uuln_er_ib_us_, miseras animas exalarunt proditores,\ntoti posteritati sue probra relinq_ue_ntes. Amnis aute_m_ a Rigano ibi\nsubm_er_so sorciebatur uocabulum, _et_ Riganburne, vt f_act_i uiuat\nperpetuo memoria, nuncupat_ur_. [Hiic alio no_m_i_n_e Auene\ndicit_ur_.][355]\n\nReliqui aute_m_ om_ne_s de exc_er_citu Rigani [qui _et_ Aliel\ndicebatur][355] qui sub ducatu Mitunni regebantur, in abissu_m_\ndesperac_i_onis dem_er_si, _et_ timore effeminati, cum eorum duce i_n_\nq_u_o {223} magis Rigan_us_ confidebat, in noctis crepusculo trucidati,\ncu_m_ uictoria gloriosa campu_m_ Offe strenuissimo (i_n_ nulla parte\ncorporis sui deformit_er_ mutilato, nec _eciam_ uel letaliter uel\npericulose uuln_er_ato, licet ea die multis se letiferis opposuiss_et_\np_er_iculis) reliquerunt[356].\n\nSicq_ue_ Offe circa iuuentutis sue primicias, a Domino data est uictoria in\nbello nimis ancipiti, ac cruentissimo, _et_ int_er_ alienigenas uirtutis\n_et_ indust_r_ie sue nomen celebre ipsius uentilatum, _et_ odor longe\nlateq_ue_ bonitatis ac ciuilitatis, n_e_c no_n_ _et_ st_r_enuitatis ei_us_\ncircumfusus, nomen ei_us_ ad sidera subleuauit.\n\nPorro in crastinu_m_ post uictoria_m_, hostiu_m_ spolia int_er_fector_um_\n_et_ fugitiuor_um_ magnifice co_n_te_m_pnens, n_e_c sibi uolens\naliq_u_atenus usurpare, ne q_u_omodolib_et_ auaricie turpit_er_\nredargueretur, militibus suis stipendiariis, _et_ naturalib_us_ suis\nhominib_us_ (p_re_cipue[357] hiis quos nou_er_at indigere) liberalit_er_\ndereliq_u_it. Solos t_ame_n magnates, quos ip_s_emet i_n_ prelio cep_er_at,\nsibi retinuit incarc_er_andos, redime_n_dos, u_e_l iudicialiter puniendos.\nIussitq_ue_ ut int_er_fector_um_ duces _et_ p_r_incipes, quor_um_ fama\ntitulos magnificauit, _et_ p_re_cipue eor_um_ qui in p_re_lio magnifice ac\nfidelit_er_ se habuerant (licet ei[358] adu_er_sarentur) seorsum honorifice\ni_n_tumulare_n_t_u_r, f_a_c_t_is eis obsequiis, cu_m_ lamentac_i_onib_us_.\nExc_er_citus au_tem_ popularis cadau_er_a, in arduo _et_ eminenti loco, ad\npost_er_itatis memoriam, t_r_adi iussit sepulture ignobiliori. Vnde locus\nille hoc no_m_i_n_e Anglico Q_u_almhul[359], a strage uidelicet _et_\nsepultura interfectorum m_er_ito meruit intitulari.\n\nMultor_um_ eciam et magnor_um_ lapidum super eos struem excercitus Offe,\nuoce p_re_conia iussus, congessit eminentem. Totaq_ue_ circumiacens\nplanicies[360] ab ip_s_o cruentissimo c_er_tamine _et_ notabili sepultura\nnomen _et_ titulum indelebilem est sortita, et Blodiweld[361] a sa_n_guine\nint_er_fector_um_ deno_m_i_n_abat_ur_.\n\nDeletis igitur _et_ confusis hostib_us_, Offa cum ingenti t_r_iumpho ac\ntripudio _et_ gloria reu_er_tit_ur_ ad propria. Pater uero Warmu_n_d_us_,\nq_u_i sese recep_er_at in locis tucioribus rei euentu_m_ exp_e_ctans, s_ed_\niam fausto nuncio c_er_tificatus, comperiensq_ue_ _et_ securus de carissimi\nfilii sui uictoria, cu_m_ ingenti leticia ei {224} procedit obuius[362]: et\nin a_m_plexus eius diutissime _com_moratus, _con_ceptu_m_ [Sidenote: Fol. 4\n_b_] | interius de filii sui palma gaudium teg_er_e non uolens set n_e_c\nualens, hui_us_ cum lac_ri_mis exultac_i_onis prorupit in vocem: \"Euge fili\ndulcissime, quo affectu, quaue mentis leticia, laudes tuas prout dignu_m_\nest prosequar? Tu eni_m_ es spes mea _et_ subditor_um_ iubilus ex\ni_n_sp_er_ato _et_ exultac_i_o. In te spes inopinata meis reuixit\ntemporibus; in sinu tuo leticia mea, i_m_mo spes pocius toci_us_ regni est\nreposita. Tu pop_u_li toci_us_ firmamentum, tu pacis _et_ lib_er_tatis mee\nbasis _et_ stabile, deo aspirante, fundamentum. Tibi debetur ruina\nprot_e_rui proditoris illi_us_, q_u_ondam publici hostis n_ost_ri, qui\nregni fastigium quod m_ih_i _et_ de genere meo propagatis iure debetur\nh_er_editario, tam impudent_er_ q_u_am imprudenter, cont_r_a leges _et_ ius\ngentium usurpare moliebatur. S_ed_ uultus d_omi_ni super eu_m_ _et_\nco_m_plices suos facientes mala, ut perderet de terra memoriam eoru_m_,\nDeus ulcionu_m_ Domin_us_ dissipau_i_t consilium ipsius. Ip_su_m q_u_o_que_\nRiganu_m_ in sup_er_bia rigente_m_, _et_ i_m_mite_m_ Mitunnu_m_\n_com_militone_m_ ipsius, cum exc_er_citu eor_um_ proiecit in flumen\nrapacissimu_m_. Descendunt q_u_asi plu_m_bum i_n_ aq_u_is uehem_en_tib_us_;\ndeuorauit gladi_us_ tuus hostes n_ost_ros fulmina_n_s _et_ cruentat_us_,\nhostili sanguine magnifice i_n_ebriatus; non degen_er_ es fili mi genealis,\ns_ed_ pat_r_issans, patrum tuor_um_ uestigia seq_ue_ris magnificorum.\nSepult_us_ i_n_ inf_er_no n_oste_r hostis _et_ adu_er_sarius, fructus\nviarum suaru_m_ condignos iam colligit, quos uiu_us_ promerebatur. Luctum\n_et_ miseriam q_u_am senectuti mee malignus ille inf_er_re disposuerat,\nu_er_sa uice, clementia diuina conuertit in tripudium[363]. Quamobre_m_ in\np_re_senti accipe, quod tuis m_er_itis exigentib_us_ debetur, eciam si\nfilius meus non esses, _et_ si m_ih_i iure h_er_editario non succederes;\necce iam, cedo, _et_ regnu_m_ Anglor_um_ uoluntatis tue arbitrio deinceps\ncommitto; etas enim mea fragilis _et_ iam decrepita, regni ceptrum ulterius\nsustinere no_n_ sufficit. Iccirco te fili desid_er_atissime, uicem meam\nsupplere te co_n_uenit, _et_ corpus meu_m_ senio _con_fectum, donec\nmorientis oculos clauseris, quieti t_r_ad_er_e liberiori, vt a curis _et_\nsecularib_us_ sollicitudinibus, quib_us_ discerpor lib_er_atus, p_re_cibus\nuacem _et_ _con_te_m_plac_i_oni. Armis hucusq_ue_ mat_er_ialib_us_\ndimicaui: restat {225} ut de cet_er_o uita mea q_ue_ sup_er_est, militia\nsit sup_er_ t_er_ram _con_t_r_a hostes sp_irit_uales.\n\n\"Ego u_er_o pro incolumitate tua _et_ regni statu, q_uo_d strenuitati tue,\nO anime mee dimidiu_m_, ia_m_ _com_misi, preces quales mea, sci[t][364]\nsimplicitas _et_ potest i_m_becillitas, Deo fundam indefessas. S_ed_ q_uia_\ntemp_us_ perbreue amodo m_ih_i restat, _et_ corpori meo solum s_upe_rest\nsepulchru_m_, aure_m_ benigna_m_ meis accomoda salutaribus consiliis, _et_\ncor credulu_m_ meis monitis i_n_clina magnificis. Uerum ip_s_os qui\nnobiscum c_ontr_a hostes publicos, Riganu_m_ videlicet _et_ Mitunnu_m_\n[Sidenote: Fol. 5 _a_] | _et_ eor_um_ complices emulos n_ost_ros\nfidelit_er_ steter_un_t, _et_ periculoso discrimini pro nobis se\nopposuer_un_t, p_ate_rno amore t_ib_i co_m_mendo, diligendos, honorandos,\npromouendos. Eos aute_m_ qui dec_r_epite sen_e_ctutis mee membra[365]\ndebilia _con_te_m_ptui h_abe_re ausi s_un_t, asserentes u_er_ba mea _et_\nregalia p_re_cepta e_ss_e sinilia delirame_n_ta, p_re_sumentes tem_er_e\napice regali me priuato te exheredare, susp_e_ctos habe _et_\nco_n_te_m_ptibiles, si qui sint elapsi ab hoc bello, _et_ a tuo gladio\ndeuorante, eciam cu_m_ eor_um_ post_er_itate: ne cu_m_ in ramusculos\nuir_us_ pullulet, a radice aliquid _con_simile t_ib_i gen_er_etur in\nposteru_m_. No_n_ eni_m_ recolo me talem eor_um_ promeruisse, q_u_i me _et_\nte filiu_m_ meu_m_ gratis oderunt, persecuc_i_one_m_. Similit_er_ eos, quos\nd_i_c_t_i proditores pro eo q_uo_d nobis fideliter adhes_er_ant, exulare\ncoeg_er_unt, u_e_l qui impote_n_tes rabiem eor_um_ fugiendo resist_er_e, ad\nhoram declinau_er_unt, cu_m_ omni mansuetudi_n_e studeas reuocare, _et_\nhonores eor_um_ cu_m_ possessionib_us_ ex innata t_ib_i regali\nmunific_e_ntia, graci_us_ ampliare. Laus industrie tue _et_ fame\np_re_conia, _et_ strenuitatis tue titulus, q_ue_ adolesc_e_nciam tuam\ndiuinit_us_ illustraru_n_t, in posterum de te maiora p_ro_m_i_ttu_n_t.\nDesid_er_anti animo sicient_er_ affecto, ip_su_mq_ue_ Deu_m_, qui te\nt_ib_i, sua mera gr_aci_a reddidit _et_ restaurauit, dep_re_cor affectuose,\nvt has iuuentutis tue primicias, h_oc_ i_n_opinato t_r_iumpho subarratas,\nmelior semp_er_ ac splendidior op_er_um gl_ori_a subseq_u_atur. Et procul\ndubio post morte_m_ meam (que non longe abest, iubente D_omi_no) fame tue\nmagnitudo per orbem uniu_er_su_m_ dilatabitur, _et_ felix suscipiet\ninc_r_ementu_m_. Et q_ue_ D_e_o placita sunt, opere felici consumabis,\nq_ue_ diuinitus p_ro_sp_er_abunt_ur_.\"\n\n{226}\n\nHec aute_m_ filius deuotus _et_ mansuet_us_, licet magnific_us_\nt_r_iumphator exaudiss_et_ _et_ intenta aure intellexiss_et_, flexis\ngenib_us_ _et_ iunctis manib_us_, _et_ exundantib_us_ oculis, p_at_ri suo\ngrates[366] rettulit accumulatas. Rex itaq_ue_ per fines Anglie missis\nnunciis expeditissimis, q_u_i ma_n_data regia detuler_un_t, tocius dicionis\nsue conuocat nobilitatem. Que conuocata ex reg_is_ precepto, _et_\npersuasione, Offano filio suo unigenito ligiam fecerunt fidelitatem _et_\nhomagiu_m_ in p_at_ris presencia. Quod _et_ om_ne_s, animo uolenti, i_m_mo\ngaudenti, co_m_munit_er_ perfec_er_unt.\n\nRex igitur q_ue_m pocius prona voluntas, q_u_a_m_ uigor prouexit\ncorporalis, per climata regni sui proficiscitur secur_us_ _et_ letabundus,\nnullo _contr_adicente, u_e_l impediente, ut regni munic_i_o_ne_s _et_\nvarias possessiones, diu per inimicos suos alienatas _et_ iniuste ac\nuiolent_er_ possessas, ad sue dic_i_onis reacciperet iure potestate_m_. Que\no_mn_ia sibi sunt s_i_n_e_ difficultate u_e_l more dispendio restituta.\nStatimq_ue_ p_ate_r filium eoru_m_ possessionib_us_ corporaliter\ninuestiuit; _et_ p_ate_rno contulit aff_e_c_t_u ac gratuito, proc_er_ib_us_\n[Sidenote: Fol. 5 _b_] co_n_gaude_n_|tib_us_ super hoc uniuersis. Post hec\nautem, Rex filio suo Offano erarium suum adaperiens, auru_m_ suu_m_ _et_\nargentu_m_, uasa co_n_cupiscibilia, gemmas, oloserica omnia, sue subdidit\npotestati. Sicq_ue_ subactis _et_ subt_r_actis hostibus[367] cunctis,\naliquandiu per uniu_er_sum regnu_m_ uiguit pax _et_ securitas diu\ndesiderabilis.\n\nRex igitur filii sui prosperitate gauisus, qui _eciam_ diatim de bono i_n_\nmelius gradatim ascendit, aliquo tempore uite sue metas distulit naturales:\niubilus quoq_ue_ in corde senis conceptus languores seniles plurimu_m_\nmitigauit. Tandem Rex plenus dierum, cu_m_ b_e_n_e_dicc_i_one omniu_m_, qui\nip_su_m _eciam_ a remotis[368] partib_us_ p_er_ fama_m_ cognou_er_unt[369],\nnature debita persoluens decessit. Et decedens, filio suo apice_m_ regni\nsui pacatum _et_ quietu_m_ reliquit: Offan_us_ aute_m_ oculos p_at_ris sui\npie claudens, lamentaciones mensurnas cum magnis eiulatibus, lac_r_imis\n_et_ specialib_us_ planctib_us_ (prout moris t_un_c erat principibus\nmagnificis) lugubriter pro tanto funere continuauit. Obsequiisq_ue_ cu_m_\nexequiis, magnifice tam in ecc_lesi_a q_u_am in locis forinsecis conpletis,\napparatu regio _et_ loco celeberrimo _et_ nominatissimo.\n\n{227} regibus _con_digno, videlicet i_n_ eminenc_i_ori ecc_lesi_a penes\nGlou_er_nia_m_ urbem egregiam, eidem exhiberi iubet sepulturam. Offanus\naute_m_ cu_m_ morib_us_ o_mn_ibus foret redimitus, elegans corp_or_e, armis\nstrenuus, munificus _et_ benignus, post obitum p_at_ris sui magnifici\nWarmundi[370], cui_us_ mores tractatus exigit speciales, plenarie\no_mn_iu_m_ p_r_incipum Regni d_omi_nium suscipit, _et_ debitu_m_ cum omni\ndeuoc_i_one, _et_ mera uoluntate, famulatu_m_. Cum igitur cui_us_dam\nsole_m_pnitatis arrid_er_et serenitas, Offanus cu_m_ solle_m_pni t_r_ipudio\no_mn_ib_us_ applaudentibus _et_ faustum omen acclama_n_tibus, Anglie\ndiademate feliciter est i_n_signit_us_.\n\nAdquiescens _i_gi_tur_ senior_um_ co_n_siliis _et_ sapientum\npersuasionib_us_, cepit tocius regni irrep_re_h_e_nsibil_ite_r, immo\nlaudabiliter, habenas[371] modernanter _et_ sapient_er_ gubernare. Sic\nigitur, subactis hostib_us_ regni uniu_er_sis, uiguit pax secura _et_\nfirmata i_n_ finib_us_ Anglor_um_, p_er_ te_m_pora longa; precipue t_ame_n\np_er_ spaciu_m_ temp_or_is qui_n_q_ue_nnale. Erat au_tem_ iam t_r_iginta\nq_u_atuor annos etatis attingens, annis prospere pubescentib_us_.\n\nEt cum Rex, more iuuenili, venatus gr_aci_a per nemora frequent_er_, cu_m_\nsuis ad h_oc_ conuocatis uenatorib_us_ _et_ canibus sagacib_us_, expeditus\nperagrasset, contigit die quada_m_ quod aere turbato, longe a suor_um_\ncat_er_ua semotus, solus p_er_ nemoris opaca penitus ipsoru_m_ locor_um_,\nn_e_cnon _et_ fortune ignar_us_, casu deambulabat. Du_m_ aute_m_ sic per\nignota diu_er_ticula i_n_caucius oberraret, _et_ per inuia, uocem\nlac_r_imabilem _et_ miserabiliter q_ue_rulam haut longe a se audiuit.\nCui_us_ sonitu_m_ secutus, int_er_ densos frutices [Sidenote: Fol. 6 _a_] |\nvirginem singularis forme _et_ regii apparat_us_, s_ed_ decore\nuenustissimam, ex insperato repperit. Rex uero rei euentu_m_ admirans, que\nibi ageret et querele causas, eam blande alloq_ue_ns, cepit sciscitari. Que\nex imo pectoris flebilia t_r_ahens suspiria, regi respondit (neq_u_aq_u_am\nin auctorem s_ed_ in seip_s_am reatum retorquens): \"Peccatis meis\" inquit\n\"exigentib_us_ infortunii hui_us_ calamitas m_ih_i accidit.\" Erat aute_m_\nreguli cui_us_dam filia q_u_i Eboracensibus preerat. Hui_us_\ninco_m_parabilis pulchritudinis singulare_m_ eminentiam p_ate_r admirans,\namatorio demone seductus, cep_i_t ea_m_ incestu libidinoso concupisc_er_e,\n_et_ ad amorem illicitu_m_ sepe sollicitare ipsam puellam, {228} minis,\npollicitis, blanditiis, atq_ue_ mun_er_ibus adolescentule temptans emollire\n_con_stantiam. Illa autem op_er_i nephario nullatenus adquiescens, cum\np_ate_r t_ame_n minas minis exaggeraret[372], _et_ promissa promissis\naccumularet, mun_er_a mun_er_ib_us_ adaugeret, iuxta illud poeticu_m_:\n\nImperium, promissa, preces, confudit in unu_m_:\n\nelegit magis incidere i_n_ manus ho_m_i_n_u_m_, _et_ eciam ferarum\nqualiumcunq_ue_, vel gladii subire sent_e_ntiam, q_u_am D_e_i offensam\nincurrere, p_ro_ tam g_r_aui culpa manifestam. Pater itaq_ue_ ipsam sibi\nparere _con_stanter renuentem, euocatis quibusdam maligne me_n_tis\nhominib_us_ quos ad hoc elegerat, p_re_cepit eam i_n_ desertum solitudinis\nremote duci, u_e_l pocius t_r_ahi, _et_ crudelissima morte\nconde_m_pnata_m_, bestiis i_b_id_em_ d_e_relinq_u_i. Qui cum in locu_m_\nhorroris _et_ vaste solitudinis p_er_uenissent, trahentes eam seductores\nilli, Deo ut creditur inspirante, miserti pulch_r_itudinis[373] illius eam\nibidem sine t_r_ucidac_i_one _et_ me_m_b_r_or_um_ mutilac_i_one, uiuam,\ns_ed_ t_ame_n sine aliquoru_m_ uictualiu_m_ alimento (exceptis talib_us_\nqui de radicibus _et_ frondib_us_ uel h_er_bis colligi, urgente ultima\nfame, possunt) dimiserunt.\n\nCum hac rex aliq_u_andiu habens sermonem, comitem itineris sui illam\nhabuit, don_e_c solitarii cui_us_da_m_ habitac_i_one_m_ reperissent, ubi\nnocte s_upe_rueniente quiescentes pernoctau_er_unt. In c_r_astinu_m_ autem\nsolitarius ille uiarum _et_ semitaru_m_ peritus, regem cu_m_ comite sua\nusq_ue_ ad fines domesticos, _et_ loca regi no_n_ ignota[374] conduxit. Ad\nsuos itaq_ue_ rex rediens, desolate illius q_u_am nup_er_ inuenerat curam\ngerens, familiarib_us_ _et_ domesticis generis sui sub diligenti custodia\nco_m_misit.\n\nPost hec aliq_u_ot annis elapsis, cu_m_ rex celibem age_n_s uitam, mente\ncastus _et_ corpore perseueraret, proceres dic_i_onis sue, no_n_ solum de\ntunc p_re_senti, s_ed_ de fut_ur_o sibi periculo precauentes, _et_\nnimiru_m_ multum solliciti, d_omi_n_u_m suum de uxore ducenda unanimiter\n_con_uenerunt: ne sibi _et_ regno successorem _et_ heredem no_n_ habens,\npost obitum ipsi_us_ iminens p_er_iculum generaret. Etatis eni_m_ iuuenilis\npubertas, moru_m_ maturitas, _et_ urgens regni necessitas, n_e_cno_n_ _et_\nhonoris dignitas, itide_m_ postularu_n_t. [Sidenote: Fol. 6 _b_] | Et cum\nsuper hoc negocio, sepius regem {229} sollicitarentur, _et_ alloquerentur,\nipse multociens ioculando, _et_ talia u_er_ba asserendo int_er_ludia fuisse\nuanitatis, procerum suoru_m_ constantiam dissimulando differendoq_ue_\ndelusit. Quod quidam adu_er_tentes, co_m_municato cu_m_ aliis consilio,\nregem ad nubendu_m_ incuntabiliter urgere ceperunt. Rex uero more optimi\nprincipis, cui_us_ primordia iam bene subarrauerat, nolens uoluntati\nmagnatu_m_ suor_um_ resistere, diu secum de thori socia, libra profunde\nr_ati_onis, studiose cepit deliberare. Cu_m_q_ue_ hoc in mente sua\nsollicicius tractaret, uen_i_t forte i_n_ mente_m_ suam illius iuuencule\nmemoria, q_u_am dudum inter uenandum i_n_uenit uagabundam, solam, feris\n_et_ predonibus miserabiliter expositam: quam ad tuciora ducens,\nfamiliaribus gen_er_is sui co_m_mis_er_at alendam, ac carius custodiendam.\nQue, ut rex audiuit, morib_us_ laudabiliter redimita, decoris existens\nexp_ec_tabilis, omnibus sibi cognitis amabilem exhibuit _et_ laudabilem;\nhec igit_ur_ sola, relictis multis, _eciam_ regalis stematis sibi oblatis,\ncomplacuit; illamq_ue_ solam i_n_ matrimoniu_m_ sibi adoptauit.\n\nCum aute_m_ eam duxisset in uxorem, non int_er_ueniente m_u_lta mora,\nelegantissime forme utriusq_ue_ sexus liberos ex eadem procreauit. Itaq_ue_\ncum p_r_ius e_ss_et rex propria seueritate subditis suis formidabilis,\nmagnates eius, n_e_cnon _et_ populus eius uniu_er_sus, heredum _et_\nsuccessor_um_ apparentia animati, regni robur _et_ leticiam geminar_un_t.\nRex q_u_o_que_ ab uniu_er_sis suis, _et_ no_n_ solum prope positis, i_m_mo\nalienigenis _et_ remotis, extit_i_t honori, uen_er_ac_i_oni, ac\ndilecc_i_oni. Et cu_m_ inter se in Britannia, (q_ue_ tunc temporis in\nplurima regna multiphariam diuisa fuisset) reg_u_li sibi finitimi\nhostilit_er_ se impet_er_ent, solus Rex Offa pace regni sui potitus\nfelicit_er_, se sibiq_ue_ s_u_bditos in pace regebat _et_ lib_er_tate. Unde\n_et_ adiacencium prouinciarum reges ei_us_ mendicabant auxilium, _et_ i_n_\nnecc_ess_itatis articulo, consiliu_m_.\n\nRex itaq_ue_ Northamhi_m_bror_um_, a barbara Scotor_um_ gente, _et eciam_\naliquib_us_ suor_um_, _gr_auit_er_ _et_ usq_ue_ f_er_me ad\nint_er_nec_i_onem percussus, _et_ proprie defensionis auxilio destitutus,\nad Offam regem potentem legatos destinat; _et_ pacificum supplicans, ut\np_re_sidii eius solacio cont_r_a hostes suos roboretur. Tali mediante\n_con_dic_i_one, ut Offe filiam sibi matrimonio copularet, _et_ non se\nproprii regni, _sed_ Offam, primarium ac {230} principem preferr_et_, _et_\nse cu_m_ suis om_n_ib_us_ ip_s_i subiugaret. Nichil itaq_ue_ dotis cum Offe\nfilia rogitauit, hoc sane contentus premio, ut a regni sui finibus barbaros\nillos potenter _et_ frequenter experta fugaret strenuitate.\n\nCum autem legatorum uerba rex Offa succepisset, consilio suorum fretus\n[Sidenote: Fol. 7 _a_] sup|plicantis uoluntati ac precibus adquieuit si\nt_ame_n rex ille pactum huiusmodi, tactis sac_ro_s_an_c_t_is\neuuangeliis[375], _et_ obsidum tradic_i_one, fideliter tenendum\nconfirmaret. Sic igitur Rex Offa, super hiis condic_i_onib_us_ sub c_er_ta\nforma co_n_firmatus, _et_ ad plenum certificatus, in partes illas cu_m_\nequitum numerosa multitudine proficiscitur. Cum autem illuc perueniss_et_,\ntimore eius consternata pars aduersa cessit, fuge presidio se saluando.\nQuam t_ame_n rex Offa audacter prosecutus, non prius destitit fugare\nfugientem, donec eam ex integro contriuisset; s_ed_ nec eo contentus,\nulteri_us_ progreditur, barbaros expugnaturus. Int_er_ea ad patriam suam\nnunciu_m_ i_m_p_er_itu_m_ destinau_i_t, ad primates et precipuos regni sui,\nquib_us_ tocius dic_i_onis sue regimen commendau_er_at, et lit_er_as regii\nsigilli sui munimine co_n_signatas[376], eidem nunc_i_o commisit,\ndeferendas. Q_u_i autem destinatus fuit, iter arripiens u_er_sus Offe\nregnum, ut casu accidit int_er_ eundu_m_, hospitandi gr_aci_a aulam regiam\nintroiuit illi_us_ regis, cuius filiam Offa sibi m_at_rimo_n_io\ncopulau_er_at. Rex au_tem_ ille, cum de statu _et_ causa itineris sui\nsubdole requirendo cognouisset, uultus sui serenitate animi u_er_suciam\nmentitus, specie ten_us_ illum amantissime suscepit: _et_ uelamen sceleris\nsui querens, a conspectu publico sub quodam dilecc_i_onis pretexu, ad regii\nthalami secreta penetralia ip_su_m nuncium nichil sinist_r_i suspicantem\nintroduxit: magnoq_ue_ studio elaborauit, ut ip_su_m, uino estuanti\nmadentem, redderet temulentum, et ip_s_o nuncio uel dormiente uel aliquo\nalio modo ignorante, mandata d_omi_ni sui regis Offe tacit_us_ ac subdolus\napertis _et_ explicatis lit_er_is persc_r_utabatur; cepitq_ue_ perniciose\nimmutare et p_er_uertere sub Offe nomine sigillu_m_ adultera_n_s,\nfallacesq_ue_ _et_ perniciosas literas loco inuentarum occultauit. Forma\nautem adulterinar_um_ [l_ite_rar_um_][377] hec est q_ue_ subscribitur[378]:\n\n{231}\n\n[379]\"Rex Offa, maioribus et p_re_cipuis regni sui, salutis et\nprosperitatis augmentu_m_. Uniu_er_sitati u_est_re notum facio, i_n_\nitin_er_e quod arripui infortunia _et_ adu_er_sa plurima tam michi q_u_am\nsubditis meis accidisse, _et_ maiores excercitus mei, non ignauia propria,\nu_e_l hostium oppugnantium uirtute, set pocius peccatis n_ost_ris iusto Dei\niudicio interisse. Ego autem instantis periculi causam p_er_tracta_n_s,\n_et_ consciencie mee intima perscrutatus, i_n_ memetip_s_o nichil aliud\nconicio altissimo displicere, nisi quod perditam _et_ maleficam illa_m_\nabsq_ue_ meorum consensu uxorem imperito _et_ infelici duxi matrimonio. Ut\nergo de malefica memorata, uoluntati u_est_re ad plenum q_u_a_m_ temere\noffendi satisfiat, asportetur cum lib_er_is ex ea genitis ad loca deserta,\nho_m_i_ni_b_us_ i_n_cognita[380], [Sidenote: Fol. 7 _b_] | feris _et_\nauib_us_ aut siluestribus predonibus frequentata: ubi cum pueris suis\npuerpera, truncata manus et pedes, exemplo pereat inaudito.\"\n\nNuncius autem mane facto, uino quo maduerat digesto, co_m_pos iam sui\neffectus, discessit: et post aliquot dies perueniens ad propria,\nmagnatib_us_ qui regno regis Offe p_re_erant literas do_mi_ni sui sigillo\nsignatas exposuit. In quar_um_ auditu perlecta mandati serie, in stuporem\n_et_ uehementissimam admirac_i_one_m_ uniu_er_si, plus q_u_am dici possit,\nrapiuntur. Et super hiis, aliquot diebus co_m_municato cum magnatibus\nconsilio deliberantes, periculosum ducebant[381] mandatis ac iussionib_us_\nregiis non obtemperare. Misera _i_gi_tur_ seducta, deducta est in\nremotissimu_m_ _et_ i_n_habitabilem locum horroris et uaste solitudinis:\ncu_m_ qua eciam liberi ei_us_ miseri _et_ miserabiles queruli _et_\nuagientes, absq_ue_ mi_sericordi_a, ut cu_m_ ea t_r_ahere_n_t_ur_\noccidendi, iudiciu_m_ acceperu_n_t.\n\nNec mora, memorati apparitores matre_m_ cu_m_ pignorib_us_ suis in\ndes_er_tu_m_ uastissimu_m_ t_r_aheba_n_t. Mat_r_i uero p_ro_pt_er_ ei_us_\nforma_m_ admirabile_m_ p_ar_ce_n_tes, lib_er_os ei_us_, n_e_c forme, n_e_c\nsexui, etati u_e_l _con_dic_i_oni p_ar_c_e_ntes, d_e_truncarunt menbratim,\ni_m_mo poci_us_ frustatim[382] crudeliter in bestialem feritate_m_\nseuientes. Completaq_ue_ tam crudeli sente_n_cia, cruenti apparitores ocius\nreuertunt_ur_. Nec mora, solitarius quidam uitam in omni s_an_c_t_itate,\nuigiliis assiduis, ieiuniis crebris, _et_ continuis {232} or_ati_onib_us_,\nducens heremiticam, circa noctis crepusculum eo p_er_t_r_ansie_n_s,\nmulieris cuiusdam luctus lac_r_imabiles _et_ querelas usq_ue_ ad intima\ncordis _et_ ossuum[383] medullas penetratiuas, quas D_omi_n_u_s ex\nmortuorum corporib_us_ licet lac_er_atis elicuit, audiuit.\nInfantulorumq_ue_ uagitus lugubres nimis cu_m_ doloris ululatibus quasi in\nmaterno sinu audiendo similiter annotauit. Mis_er_icordia autem s_an_c_tus_\nDei motus, usq_ue_ ad lacrimaru_m_ aduberem effusionem, quo ipsa uox\nip_su_m uocabat, Domino ducente peruenit. Et cu_m_ illuc peruenisset, nec\naliud q_u_am corp_or_a humana in frusta detruncata reperisset,\ncognouit[384] in sp_irit_u ip_s_a alicuius innocentis corp_us_, uel\naliquorum i_n_nocentiu_m_ corpuscula extitisse, que tam inhumanam\nsentenciam subierunt. Nec sine martirii palma, ipsos quorum hee fuerunt\nexuuie, ab h_oc_[385] sec_u_lo t_r_ansmigrasse suspicabatur. Auxiliu_m_\nt_ame_n pro D_e_i amore _et_ caritatis intuitu postulatu_m_ non denegans,\nse pro illorum reparac_i_one prostrauit in deuotissima_m_ cum lacrimis\nor_aci_onem, maxime propter uocem celitus emissam, quam profecto\ncognou_i_t[384] p_er_ D_eu_m li_n_g_u_as cadau_er_u_m_ p_ro_tulisse. Piis\n_i_gi_tur_ s_an_c_tu_s _com_mot_us_ uisc_er_ib_us_, igneq_ue_ succe_n_s_us_\ncaritatis, ex cognic_i_one[386] ei_us_, q_u_am, ut ia_m_ d_i_c_tu_m,\ndudu_m_ uiderat, h_ab_uit, f_a_c_tus_ hilarior, pro ipsis [Sidenote: Fol. 8\n_a_] | flexis genib_us_, inundantibus oculis, iunctisq_ue_ palmis orauit,\ndicens: \"D_omi_ne Jesu Ch_rist_e, q_u_i Lazarum quatriduanu_m_ ac fetidum\nresuscitasti, immo qui omniu_m_ n_ostro_r_u_m corpora i_n_ ext_r_emo\nexamine suscitabis, u_est_ram oro mis_er_icordiam, ut non habens ad me\npeccatorem, s_ed_ ad horum innocentum pressuras respectu_m_ piissimu_m_,\ncorpuscula h_ec_ iubeas resuscitari, ad laudem _et_ gloriam tuam i_n_\nse_m_pit_er_nu_m_, vt om_ne_s qui mortis horum causam _et_ forma_m_\naudierint, te glorificent Deum _et_ Dominum mundi Saluatorem.\"\n\nSic igitur s_an_c_tu_s iste, D_omi_ni de fidei sue[387] uirtute i_n_ Domino\npresumens _et_ co_n_fidens, int_er_ orandum, membra p_re_cisa\nrecollige_n_s, _et_ sibi particulas adaptans _et_ coniungens, _et_ i_n_\nq_u_antum potuit redintegrans, in parciu_m_ q_u_amplurimu_m_, set in\nintegritate_m_ pocius delectat_us_, Domino rei consummac_i_onem q_u_i\nmortificat _et_ uiuificat co_m_mendauit. Coniuncta igitur corpora, signo\ncrucis triumphali consignauit. Mira fidei uirtus et {233} efficacia, signo\nc_r_ucis uiuifice et or_ati_onis ac fidei serui D_e_i uirtute, no_n_\nsolu_m_ m_at_ris orbate anim_us_ reparat_ur_, s_ed_ _et_ filior_um_\ncorp_us_cula in pristinu_m_ _et_ integrum nature sunt reformata decorem,\nnecnon _et_ anime mortuor_um_ ad sua pristina domicilia sunt reuerse. Ad\nmansiuncule igitur sue septa (a qua elongatus fuerat, gr_aci_a lignor_um_\nad pulmentaria deq_u_oquenda colligendor_um_) ip_s_e senex: qui prius\ndetruncati fuerant, Domino iubente integ_r_i uiui _et_ alacres sunt\nreuersi, ducem s_an_c_tu_m suum sequentes pedetentim. Ubi more patris,\nip_s_am desolatam cum liberis sibi ip_s_is restitutis, alimentis quibus\npotuit, _et_ q_ue_ ad manum habuit, pie ac misericordit_er_ _con_fouebat.\n\nNesciens _er_go quo migraret regina, cu_m_ suis infantulis intra\nuastissimam heremum cum memorato solitario, diu moram ibidem\nor_ati_onib_us_, uigiliis, ac aliis s_an_c_ti_s operibus eius intenta _et_\niamiam conuenienter informata, _et_ edulio siluestri sustentata,\nco_n_tinuabat. Post duoru_m_ uero mensium curricula, Rex Offa\nuictoriosissimus domu_m_ let_us_ remeauit, spolia deuictorum suis\nmagnatib_us_ regali munificentia gloriose distribuendo; uerunt_ame_n, ne\nlacrime gaudia regis, _et_ eoru_m_ q_u_i cum eo aduen_er_ant,\nmiserabilit_er_ int_er_rump_er_ent, consiliarii regii q_u_e de regina _et_\nlib_er_is ei_us_ accid_er_a_n_t, diu sub silenc_i_o caute dissimulando,\n_et_ causas absencie eius fictas annectendo, _con_celabant. Tandem cu_m_\nrex uehement_er_ admiraretur ubinam regina delituisset, q_ue_ ip_s_i regi\nab ancipiti bello reu_er_tenti occurrisse gaudenter teneretur, _et_ in\noscul_is_ _et_ amplexib_us_ ceteris gaudentius t_r_iumphatore_m_\naduentante_m_ suscepisse, sciscitabatur instanti_us_, _et_ toruius _et_\np_ro_t_er_uius, quid de ip_s_a fieret uel euenisset. Suspicabatur eni_m_\neam morbo detenta_m_, ipsa_m_q_ue_ cu_m_ lib_er_is [Sidenote: Fol. 8 _b_] |\nsuis, regis _et_ aliorum hominu_m_, ut quieti uacaret, frequentiam\ndeclinasse. Tande_m_ cum iratus nullatenus se uelle ampli_us_ ignorare,\ncu_m_ iuramento, q_u_id de uxore sua _et_ lib_er_is euenisset, uultu toruo\nasseruisset, unus ex edituis omnia q_ue_ accid_er_ant, de tirannico ei_us_\nmandato, _et_ mandati plenaria execuc_i_one, seriatim enarrauit.\n\nHiis auditis, risus in luctu_m_, gaudium i_n_ lamenta, iubilus in singultus\nflebilit_er_ conu_er_tuntur, totaq_ue_ regia ululatibus personuit _et_\nmerorib_us_. Lugensq_ue_ rex diu ta_m_ i_m_mane infortuniu_m_, induit se\nsacco cilicino, aspersum cin_er_e, ac multiplicit_er_ {234} deformatum.\nTandem monitu suorum, qui dicebant n_on_ uiror_um_ magnificor_um_ s_ed_\npocius effeminator_um_, dolorem int_er_iecto solacio nolle temperare[388],\ne_ss_e propriu_m_ _et_ _con_suetudine_m_, rex cepit respirare, _et_ dolori\nmodu_m_ imponere. Consilio igitur p_er_itorum, qui nouerant regem\nlibent_er_ i_n_ te_m_pore p_ro_sp_er_o in studio uenatico plurimu_m_\ndelectari, conuocantur uenatores, ut rex spaciaturus uenando, dolorem\nsuu_m_ diminueret _et_ luctu_m_ solacio demulceret. Qui int_er_ uenandum\ndum p_er_ siluaru_m_ abdita, Deo misericordiaru_m_ _et_ toci_us_\nco_n_solac[_i_]onis ducente, felicit_er_ solus per inuia oberrauit, _et_\ntandem ad heremitoriu_m_ memorati h_er_emite directe peruenit, eiusq_ue_\nexiguu_m_ domicilium subintrans, humaniss[_im_]e _et_ cu_m_ su_m_mo gaudio\nreceptus _est_. Et cu_m_ humili residens sedili, membra[389] fatigata\nquieti daret ad horam, recolens qual_ite_r uxore_m_ sua_m_ ibidem quonda_m_\ndiuinitus reperisset, _et_ feliciter educasset, _et_ educatam duxisset i_n_\nuxorem, _et_ q_u_am elegantem ex ea prolem p_ro_tulisset, eruperunt lacrime\ncu_m_ gemitibus, _et_ in querelas lugubres ora resoluens, hospiti suo\nsinistru_m_ de uxore sua q_u_i[390] infausto sidere nup_er_ euen_er_at\nqua_m_ _et_ ip_s_e q_u_onda_m_ viderat, enarrauit. At senex sereno uultu,\nfactus ex intrinsecus concepto gaudio alacrior, consolatus est regem, et in\nuocem exultac_i_o_n_is eminus prorumpens: \"Eia d_omi_ne mi rex, eia, ait;\nuere Deus misericordiar_um_, D_omi_n_u_s, famulos suos quasi p_ate_r filios\nin omni t_r_ibulacione p_ost_ pressuras consolatur, percutit _et_ medetur,\ndeicit ut gloriosius eleuet pregrauatum. Uiuit uxor tua, cum lib_er_is tuis\nin o_mn_i sospitate restauratis: non meis m_er_itis, s_ed_ poci_us_ tuis,\nintegritati, sanitati _et_ leticie pleni_us_ qui trucidabantur\nrestituunt_ur_. Recognosce[391] q_u_anta fecit t_ib_i D_omi_n_u_s, _et_ in\nlaudes et gr_aci_ar_um_ acciones tot_us_ exurge.\" Tunc prosiliens\ns_an_c_tu_s pre gaudio, euocauit reginam, que in int_er_iori diu_er_ticulo,\npueros suos balneo micius m_ate_rno studio _con_fouebat. Que cu_m_ ad regem\nint_r_oisset, uix se [Sidenote: Fol. 9 _a_] | gaudio capiens, pedibus\nmariti sui p_ro_uoluta, in lacrimis exultac_i_onis inundauit. In cuius\namplexus desid_er_atissimos rue_n_s rex, ipsam in maius q_u_am dici possit\ngaudiu_m_ suscepit. Interi_m_ senex, pueros elegantissimos _et_ ex\nabluc_i_one elegantiores, uestit, comit, _et_ p_ate_rno more _et_\naff_e_c_t_u componit, _et_ ad p_re_sentiam p_at_ris _et_ matris\nint_r_oducit. Quos p_ate_r int_r_a {235} b_r_achia suscipiens, _et_ ad\npectus arctiorib_us_ amplexib_us_ applicans, roseis uultib_us_ infantu_m_\noscula i_m_p_r_imit m_u_ltiplicata; quos t_ame_n rore lac_r_imarum, p_re_\nnimia mentis exultac_i_one, madefecit. Et cu_m_ diucius eor_um_ colloquiis\npasceret_ur_, co_n_u_er_sus rex ad senem, ait: \"O p_ate_r s_anct_e, p_ate_r\ndulcissime[392], me_n_tis mee reparator, _et_ gaudii cordis mei\nrestaurator, qua merita u_est_ra, caritatis officia, pietatisq_ue_\nbeneficia, p_ro_seq_u_ar remun_er_ac[_i_]one? Accipe _er_go, licet m_u_lto\nmaiora exigant m_er_ita tua, q_u_icq_u_id erarium meu_m_ ualet effund_er_e;\nme, meos, et mea, tue expono uoluntati.\" At s_anctu_s, \"D_omi_ne mi rex,\nnon decet me peccatore_m_ conu_er_su_m_ ad Do_mi_n_u_m, ad insanias quas\nreliqui falsas respicere. Tu uero pocius pro a_n_i_m_ab_us_ p_at_ris tui\n_et_ matris tue, quib_us_ q_u_andoq_ue_ car_us_ fuera_m_ ac familiaris,\n_et_ tua, _et_ uxoris tue, _et_ lib_er_or_um_ tuor_um_ corporali sanitate,\n_et_ salute sp_irit_uali, regni tui soliditate, _et_ successor_um_ tuor_um_\np_ro_sp_er_itate, Deo gratus, qui tot in te congessit beneficia, cenobium\nquodda_m_ fundare, u_e_l aliquod dirutu_m_ studeas restaurare: in quo digne\n_et_ laudabiliter Deo in perpetuum s_er_uiatur; _et_ tui memoria cu_m_\np_re_cib_us_ ad D_omi_n_u_m fusis, cu_m_ b_e_n_e_diccionib_us_ semp_er_\nrecenter recolatur.\" Et _con_u_er_sus ad reginam, ait, \"Et tu, filia,\nq_u_amuis mulier, no_n_ t_ame_n muliebrit_er_, ad hoc regem accendas _et_\nadmoneas diligenter, filiosq_ue_ tuos instrui facias, ut[393] _et_\nD_omi_n_u_m D_eu_m, qui eos uite reparauit, studeant g_r_atant_er_\nhonorare, _et_ eidem fidelit_er_ famulando fundandi cenobii possessiones\nampliare, _et_ tueri libertates.\"\n\nDesc_e_nsus ad sec_un_d_u_m Offa_m_.\n\nSanctus autem ad cellam reu_er_sus, post paucu_m_ temporis ab i_n_colatu\nh_uiu_s mundi migrauit ad D_omi_n_u_m, m_er_cedem et_er_nam pro labore\ntemporali recepturus. Rex au_tem_, cito monita ipsius salubria da_n_s\nobliuioni _et_ incurie, ex tunc ocio ac paci uacauit: prolemq_ue_ copiosam\nutriusq_ue_ sexus expectabilis pulch_r_itudinis procreauit. Unde semen\nregium a latere _et_ descensu felix suscepit incrementu_m_. Qui co_m_pleto\nvite sue tempore, post etatem bonam q_u_ieuit in pace, _et_ regaliter\nsepultus, appositus _est_ ad patres suos; in eo multu_m_ redarguend_us_,\nquod cenobium[394] uotiuo aff_ect_u repromissu_m_, thesauris parcendo no_n_\nconstruxit. Post {236} uictorias eni_m_ a D_omin_o[395] sibi collatas,\namplexib_us_ _et_ ignauie n_e_cno_n_ auaricie plus equo indulsit.\nP_ro_speritas eni_m_ secularis, animos, licet [Sidenote: Fol. 9 _b_]\nuir|iles, solet frequenter effeminare. Ueru_n_tamen hoc onus humeris filii\nsui moritu_r_us apposuit: qui cum deuota assercione, illud sibi suscepit.\nS_ed_ nec ipse Deo auerso pollicita, prout p_at_ri suo promiserat,\ncompleuit; set filio suo huius uoti obligac_i_onem i_n_ fine uite sue\ndereliquit. Et sic memorati uoti uinculum, sine efficacia complementi de\np_at_re in filium descendens, usq_ue_ ad temp_or_a Pineredi filii Tuinfreth\nsuspendebatur. Quibus pro pena negligentie, tale euenit i_n_fortuniu_m_, ut\nom_ne_s principes, quos Offa magnificus edomuerat, a subiecc_i_one ipsius\nOffe _et_ posteritatis sue procaciter recesseru_n_t, _et_ ip_su_m\nmoriente_m_ despexerunt. Quia ut p_re_d_i_c_tu_m est, ad morte_m_\nu_er_gens, deliciis _et_ senii ualitudine marcuit eneruatus.\n\nDe ortu secundi Offe.\n\nNatus est igitur memorato Tuinfred[o][396] (_et_ qui de stemate regum\nfuit) filius, videlicet Pineredus, usq_ue_ ad annos adolescentie\ni_n_utilis, poplitib_us_ cont_r_actis, qui n_e_c oculor_um_ uel aurium\nplene officio naturali fung_er_et_ur_. Unde p_at_ri suo Tuin_fredo_ _et_\nm_at_ri sue Marcelline, oneri fuit no_n_ honori, _con_fusioni _et_ n_on_\nexultac_i_oni. Et licet unic_us_ eis fuisset, mallent prole caruisse,\nq_u_a_m_ talem habuisse. Uer_un_t_ame_n memorie reducentes euentu_m_ Offe\nmagni, qui in ten_er_a etate penitus erat inutilis, _et_ postea, Deo\npropicio, penit_us_ sibi restitutus, mirabili strenuitate om_ne_s suos\nedomuit adu_er_sarios, _et_ bello p_re_pote_n_s, gloriose multociens de\nmagnis hostib_us_ t_r_iu_m_phauit: spem conceperunt, quod eodem medico\nmedente (Chr_ist_o uidelicet, qui _eciam_ mortuos suscitat, p_ro_piciatus)\nposset similiter uisitari _et_ sibi restitui. Pater igitur ei_us_ _et_\nm_ate_r ip_s_um pueru_m_ inito salubri consilio, i_n_ templo presentaru_n_t\nDomino, votiua deuoc_i_one firmit_er_ promitte_n_tes: \"Ut si ip_su_m Deus\nrestauraret, q_uo_d parentes eius negligenter omiserunt, ip_s_e puer cu_m_\nse facultas offerret fidelit_er_ adimpleret\": videl_icet_ de cenobio[397],\ncui_us_ mencio p_re_libata est, honorifice construendo: uel de diruto\nrestaurando. Et cum h_ec_ tam puer q_u_am p_ate_r _et_ m_ate_r deuotissime\npostularent, exaudita est or_ati_o eorum a Deo, qui se nu_n_q_u_am\ndifficilem exhibet precib_us_ iustis supplicantium, hoc modo.\n\n{237}\n\nQ_u_om_od_o p_ro_sp_er_abat_ur_.\n\nErat in eadem regione (Mercior_um_ uidelic_et_) quidam tirannus, pocius\ndest_r_uens _et_ dissipans regni nobilitatem, q_u_a_m_ rege_n_s, no_m_i_n_e\nBeormredus[398]. Hic gen_er_osos, quos regius sanguis preclaros\n[fecerat][399], usq_ue_ ad int_er_necionem subdole perseq_ue_batur,\nrelegauit, _et_ occulta nece p_er_didit iugulandos. Sciebat eni_m_, q_uo_d\nuniu_er_sis de regno m_er_ito extitit odiosus; et ne aliq_u_is loco ipsius\nsubrogaret_ur_ (_et_ p_re_s_er_tim de sang_u_ine regio propagatus)\nuehementer formidabat. Tetendit insuper laq_ue_os Tuinfredo _et_ uxori\neius, ut ip_s_os de t_er_ra expelleret, u_e_l poci_us_ p_er_d_er_et\nt_r_ucidatos. [Sidenote: Fol. 10 _a_] | Puerum autem Pinefredum[400]\nspreuit, n_e_c ip_su_m querere ad perdendum dignabatur; reputa_n_s eu_m_\ninutilem _et_ ualitudinariu_m_. Fugientes igitur memorat_us_ T_uinfredus_\n_et_ uxor ei_us_ _et_ familia a facie p_er_seq_ue_ntis, sese in locis\ntucioribus receperunt, ne gen_er_ali calu_m_pnie inuolu_er_entur. Quod\ncomp_er_iens Pinefredus adolescens, q_u_asi a g_r_aui so_m_pno\nexpergefactus, erexit se: _et_ co_m_pagib_us_ neruor_um_ laxatis, _et_\nmiraculose prot_e_nsis, sese de longa desidia redarguens, fecit alices,\nb_r_achia, crura, pedes, extendendo. Et aliquocie_n_s oscitans, cum loqui\nconaretur, solutum _est_ uinculum lingue eius, _et_ loquebatur recte,\nu_er_ba proferens ore facundo pro_m_pci_us_ articulata. Quid plura? de\ncont_r_acto, muto, _et_ ceco, fit elegans corpore, eloquens s_er_mone, acie\np_er_spicax oculor_um_. Qui temp_or_e modico in tantam floruit ac uiguit\nstrenuitatem, ut null_us_ in regno M_er_cior_um_, ip_s_i in morib_us_ _et_\nprobitate m_u_ltiplici ualuit co_m_parari, unde ip_s_i Mercii,\ns_e_c_un_d_u_m Offam, _et_ n_on_ Pinefredu_m_, iam no_m_i_n_antes (q_uia_ a\nDeo respectus _et_ electus fuisset, eode_m_ m_od_o quo _et_ rex Offa filius\nregis Warmundi) cep_er_unt ip_s_i quasi D_omi_no uniu_er_salit_er_\nadherere; ip_su_mq_ue_ ia_m_ f_a_c_tu_m milite_m_, _contra_ regem\nBeormredu_m_ _et_ eius insidias, potenter ac prudent_er_ protegere, dantes\nei dextras, _et_ fed_us_ cu_m_ ip_s_o, prestitis iuramentis, ineuntes. Quod\naudiens Beormredus, doluit, _et_ dolens timuit sibi vehement_er_.\nPenituitq_ue_ eu_m_ amarissime, ip_su_m Pinefredum[400] (qui iam Offa\nnominabat_ur_) cum cet_er_is fraudulenter no_n_ int_er_emisse....\n\n{238}\n\n[Sidenote: Fol. 11 _a_]\n\nQualiter Offa rex uxore_m_ dux_er_it.\n\nDiebus itaq_ue_ sub eisde_m_, regnante in Francia Karolo rege magno ac\nuictoriosissimo, queda_m_ puella, facie uenusta, s_ed_ mente nimis\ni_n_honesta, ip_s_i regi co_n_sanguinea, pro quoda_m_ q_u_od pat_r_au_er_at\nc_r_imine flagiciosissimo, addicta est iudicialiter morti ignominiose;\nueru_m_, ob regie dignitatis reuerentiam, igni uel ferro tradenda n_on_\niudicatur, s_ed_ in nauicula armamentis carente, apposito uictu tenui,\nuentis _et_ mari, eor_um_q_ue_ ambiguis casib_us_ exponitur\n_con_de_m_pnata. Que diu uariis[401] p_ro_cellis exagitata, tande_m_\nfortuna trahente, litori Britonu_m_ est appulsa, et cu_m_ in t_er_ra\nsubiecta potestati regis Offe memorata ci_m_ba applicuiss_et_,\nco_n_sp_e_ctui regis p_ro_tin__us__ p_re_sentat_ur_. Int_er_ogata au_tem_\nq_ue_nam e_ss_et, respondens, p_at_ria lingua affi_r_mauit, se Karolo regi\nF_r_ancor_um_ fuisse _con_sa_n_guinitate p_ro_pi_n_q_u_am, Dridamq_ue_\nno_m_i_n_ata_m_, s_ed_ p_er_ tirannide_m_ [Sidenote: Fol. 11 _b_] |\nquor_un_dam ignobiliu_m_ (quor_um_ nuptias ne degeneraret, spreuit) tali\nfuisse disc_r_imini adiudicatam, abortisq_ue_ lac_r_imis addidit dice_n_s,\n\"Deus aute_m_ qui innocentes a laq_ue_is insidia_n_tiu_m_ lib_er_at, me\ncaptiuam ad alas tue p_ro_tec_i_onis, o regum serenissime, felicit_er_\ntransmisit, vt meu_m_ infortuniu_m_, i_n_ auspicium fortunatu_m_\nt_r_ansmutet_ur_, _et_ beatior i_n_ exilio q_u_a_m_ in natali p_at_ria, ab\no_mn_i p_re_dicer post_er_itate.\"\n\nRex au_tem_ u_er_bor_um_ suor_um_ ornatu_m_ _et_ eloq_ue_ntiam, _et_\ncorporis puellaris cultu_m_ _et_ elegantia_m_ considerans[402], motus\npietate, precepit ut ad comitissa_m_ Marcellin[am][403] matre_m_ sua_m_\ntucius duceretur alenda, ac mitius sub tam honeste matrone custodia,\ndon_e_c regiu_m_ mandatu_m_ audiret, co_n_fouenda. Puelle igitur infra\npaucos dies, macie _et_ pallore per alimenta depulsis, rediit decor\npristinus, ita ut mulieru_m_ pulch_er_ima censeretur. S_ed_ cito in u_er_ba\niactantie _et_ elac_i_onis (s_e_c_un_d_u_m p_at_rie sue co_n_suetudine_m_)\nproru_m_pens, d_omi_ne sue comitisse, q_ue_ m_ate_rno aff_e_c_t_u eam\ndulcit_er_ educau_er_at, molesta nimis fuit, ip_s_am procaciter\nconte_m_pnendo. S_ed_ comitissa, pro amore filii sui regis, o_mn_ia\npacienter tolerauit: licet _et_ ip_s_a d_i_c_t_a puella, int_er_ comite_m_\n_et_ comitissam u_er_ba discordie seminasset. Una igitur dieru_m_, cu_m_\nrex ip_s_am causa uisitac_i_onis adiens, u_er_b_is_ _con_solatoriis {239}\nalloq_ue_retur, incidit i_n_ retia amoris illius; erat eni_m_ iam sp_eci_es\nillius co_n_cupiscibilis. Clandestino _i_gi_tur_ ac repentino m_at_rimonio\nip_s_am sibi, i_ncon_sultis p_at_re _et_ m_at_re, n_e_cno_n_ _et_\nmagnatib_us_ suis uniu_er_sis, copulauit. Unde ut_er_q_ue_ parentu_m_,\ndolore ac tedio i_n_ etate senili _con_tabescens, dies uite abreuiando, sue\nmortis horam lugubrit_er_ anticiparu_n_t; sciebant eni_m_ ipsam mulierculam\nfuisse _et_ regalibus amplexibus prorsus indignam; perpendebantq_ue_ iamiam\nueracissime, n_on_ sine causa exilio lacrimabili, ipsam, ut pr_e_d_i_c_tu_m\n_est_, fuisse conde[_m_]pnatam. Cu_m_ aut_em_ annos longeue senectutis\nvixisset[404] comes T_uinfredus_, _et_ p_re_ senectute caligasse_n_t oculi\nei_us_, data filio suo regi b_e_n_e_d_i_c_i_one, nature debita persoluit;\ncui_us_ corpus magnifice, p_ro_ut decuit, tradidit sepulture. Anno\nq_u_o_que_ sub eode_m_ uxor ei_us_ comitissa M_arcellina_, m_ate_r\nuidelic_et_ regis, valedicens filio, ab huius incolatu seculi feliciter\ntra_n_smigrauit....\n\n[Sidenote: Fol. 19_a_]\n\nDe s_anct_o Aelb_er_to[405] cui t_er_cia filia regis Offe t_r_ad_e_nda fuit\nnuptui.\n\nErat quoq_ue_ quida_m_ iuuenis, cui rex Offa regnu_m_ Orientalium\nAnglor_um_, q_uo_d eu_m_ iure sanguinis _con_ti_n_gebat, co_n_cesserat,\nno_m_i_n_e Aelbertus. De cui_us_ virtutibus[406] q_u_ida_m_ u_er_sificator,\nsolitus regu_m_ laudes _et_ gesta describ_er_e, elegant_er_ ait;\n\n  Aelb_er_tus iuuenis fuerat rex, fortis ad arma,\n  Pace pius, pulch_er_ corpore, me_n_te sagax.\n\nCu_m_q_ue_ Hu_m_b_er_t_us_ Archiep_is_c_opus_ Lichefeld_e_nsis, _et_ Vnwona\nEp_is_c_opus_ Legrecestr_en_sis, uiri s_anct_i _et_ discreti, et de nobili\nstirpe M_er_cior_um_ oriundi, speciales essent regis _con_siliarii, _et_\nsemp_er_ q_ue_ honesta era_n_t _et_ iusta atq_ue_ utilia, regi Offe\nsuggessissent, i_n_uidebat eis regina uxor Offe, q_ue_ p_r_ius Drida,\npostea u_er_o Quendrida, id est regina Drida, q_uia_ regi ex insp_er_ato\nnupsit, est app_e_llata: sicut i_n_ p_re_cedentib_us_ pleni_us_\nenarrat_ur_. Mulier auara et subdola, sup_er_biens, eo q_uo_d ex stirpe\nKaroli origine_m_ duxerat, et i_n_exorabili odio uiros memoratos\np_er_seq_ue_batur, tende_n_s eis muscipulas muliebres. Porro cu_m_ ip_s_i\nreges sup_r_ad_i_c_t_os regi Offe in sp_irit_u consilii salubrit_er_\nre_con_ciliassent, _et_ ut eide_m_ regi fed_er_e m_at_rimoniali\nspeciali_us_ _con_iungerent_ur_, dilig_e_nt_er_ _et_ efficacit_er_\np_ro_curassent, ip_s_a mulier f_a_c_t_a eor_um_ {240} nitebat_ur_ i_n_\nirritu_m_ reuocare, n_e_c pot_er_at, quib_us_ acriter inuidebat. Ip_s_as\neni_m_ puellas filias suas, ultramarinis, alienigenis, in regis\nsupplantac_i_one_m_ et regni M_er_c_i_or_um_ p_er_niciem, credidit\nt_r_adidisse marita_n_das. Cui_us_ rei p_re_scii d_i_c_t_i Ep_iscop_i,\nmuliebre co_n_siliu_m_ prudencie repagulis impediebant. Uerum et adhuc\ntercia filia regis Offe i_n_ thalamo regine remansit maritanda, Aelfleda\nno_m_i_n_e. Procurantib_us_ _i_gi_tur_ sup_r_ad_i_c_t_is ep_iscop_is,\ninclinatu_m_ est[407] cor regis ad co_n_sensum, lic_et_ _contr_adic_er_et\nregina, ut _et_[408] h_ec_ regi Aelb_er_to nuptui trad_er_et_ur_: ut _et_\nsic speciali_us_ regi O_ffe_ teneretur i_n_ fidelitate dilec_i_onis\nobligatus. Uocat_us i_gi_tur_ rex Aelb_er_t_us_, a rege O_ffa_, ut filiam\nsua_m_ desponsaret, affuit festiu_us_ [Sidenote: Fol. 19_b_] | et gaudens,\nob honorem sibi a tanto rege oblatum. Cui amicabiliter rex occurrens\naduentanti, recepit ip_su_m in osculo _et_ p_ate_rno amplexu, dicens:\n\"Prospere ueneris fili _et_ gen_er_, ex h_oc_, iuuenis amantissime, te in\nfiliu_m_ adopto specialem.\" S_ed_ h_ec_ postq_u_am eff_er_ate regine\nplenius i_n_notuer_i_t[409], plus accensa est liuore ac furore, dole_n_s\neu_m_ pietatis i_n_ manu[410] regis _et_ suor_um_ fidelium prosperari.\nVide_n_sq_ue_ sue neq_u_icie argumenta minime p_re_ualere, n_e_c hanc\nsalte_m_ t_er_ciam filiam sua_m_, ad uolu_n_tatem suam alic_u_i\nt_r_ansmarino amico suo, i_n_ regni subu_er_sione_m_ (q_uo_d c_er_tissime\nsperauerat) dare nuptui, cu_m_ n_on_ p_re_ualuisset i_n_ d_i_c_t_os\nep_iscop_os h_uius_ rei auctores emin_us_ malignari, i_n_ Aelb_er_tu_m_\nregem uir_us_ sue malicie truculent_er_ euomuit, hoc m_od_o.\n\nFraus mulieb_ri_s c_r_udelissima.\n\nRex hui_us_ rei ignarus tanta_m_ latitasse fraude_m_ n_on_ credebat, i_m_mo\npoci_us_ credebat h_ec_ ip_s_i o_mn_ia placit_ur_a. Cu_m_ igit_ur_ rex\npiissim_us_ ipsa_m_ sup_er_ p_re_missis[411] secreci_us_ co_n_ueniret,\n_con_siliu_m_ q_ue_rens q_u_al_ite_r _et_ q_u_ando forent _com_plenda,\nh_ec_ respondit: \"Ecce t_r_adidit D_eu_s hodie inimicu_m_ tuu_m_, t_ib_i\ncaute, si sapis, t_r_ucidandu_m_, qui sub specie sup_er_ficiali, uenenu_m_\nprodic_i_o_n_is i_n_ te _et_ regnu_m_ tuu_m_ ex_er_cende, neq_u_it_er_, ut\nfertur, occultauit. Et te cupit iam senesc_e_nte_m_, cu_m_ sit iuuenis _et_\nelegans, de regno supplanta_n_do precipitare; _et_ posteru_m_ suor_um_,\ni_m_mo _et_ multoru_m_, ut iactitat, quos regnis _et_ possessionibus\nuiolent_er_ {241} _et_ iniuste spoliasti, iniurias ui_n_dicare. In cui_us_\nrei fidem, michi a meis amicis significatu_m_ est, quod regis Karoli multis\nmun_er_ibus _et_ nu_n_ciis ocultis int_er_meantib_us_, implorat ad h_oc_\npatrociniu_m_: se sponde_n_s ei fore tributariu_m_. Illo igitur, dum se\nt_ib_i fortuna p_re_bet fauorabile_m_, extincto latent_er_, regnu_m_ ei_us_\nin ius tuu_m_ _et_ successor_um_ tuor_um_ t_r_anseat in et_er_nu_m_.\"\n\nCui rex mente nimiu_m_ p_er_turbatus, _et_ de u_er_bis quib_us_ credidit\ni_n_e_ss_e ueraciter falsitate_m_ _et_ fraude_m_, cu_m_ indignacione ipsam\ni_n_crepando, respondit: \"Quasi una d_e_ stultis mulierib_us_ locuta es!\nAbsit a me, absit, tam detestabile f_a_c_tu_m! Quo perpetrato, m_ih_i\nmeisq_ue_ successorib_us_ foret obprobriu_m_ sempit_er_nu_m_, et\np_e_cc_atu_m i_n_ gen_us_ meu_m_ c_um_ g_r_aui uind_i_c_t_a diuci_us_\npropagabile.\" Et hiis d_i_c_t_is, rex iratus ab ea recessit; detestans\nta_n_tos ac tales occultos laq_ue_os in muliere latitasse.\n\nInterea mentis p_er_turbac_i_one paulati_m_ deposita, _et_ hiis ciuilit_er_\ndissimulatis, reges co_n_sederunt ad me_n_sam pransuri: ubi regalib_us_\nesculentis _et_ poculentis refecti, in ti_m_panis, citharis, _et_ choris,\ndiem totu_m_ in i_n_genti gaudio expleu_er_unt. S_ed_ regina malefica,\nint_er_im a ferali p_ro_posito n_on_ recedens, iussit i_n_ dolo thalamu_m_\nmore regio pallis sericis _et_ auleis solle_m_pnit_er_ adornari, i_n_ q_u_o\nrex Aelb_er_tus nocturnu_m_ caperet so_m_pnu_m_; iuxta stratu_m_ quoq_ue_\nregium sedile p_re_parari fecit, cultu nobilissimo ext_r_uctu_m_, _et_\ncortinis undiq_ue_ redimitu_m_. Sub q_u_o _eciam_ fossam p_re_parari fecit\nprofunda_m_, [Sidenote: Fol. 20_a_] | ut nephandu_m_ propositu_m_\nperduc_er_et ad eff_e_c_tu_m.\n\nDe martirio S_an_c_t_i Aelb_er_ti, regis innocentissimi.\n\nRegina uero uultu sereno _con_ceptu_m_ scelus pallians, intrauit i_n_\npalatiu_m_, ut tam regem Offanu_m_ q_u_am rege_m_ Aelb_er_tu_m_\nexhilararet. Et int_er_ iocandu_m_, co_n_u_er_sa ad Aelb_er_tum, n_ih_il\nsinistri[412] suspicantem, ait, \"Fili, ueni uisendi causa puellam t_ib_i\nnuptu copulanda_m_, te i_n_ thalamo meo sicient_er_ exp_e_ctante_m_, ut\ns_er_monib_us_ g_r_atissimis amores subarres profut_ur_os.\" Surge_n_s\n_i_gi_tur_ rex Aelb_er_tus, secut_us_ est regina_m_ i_n_ thalamu_m_\ni_n_grediente_m_: rege Offano remanente, q_u_i nil mali formidabat.\nIngresso _i_gi_tur_ rege Ae_lberto_ cu_m_ regina, exclusi su_n_t om_ne_s\nqui eundem e uestigio seq_ue_bant_ur_ sui co_m_militones. Et cu_m_ puellam\nexp_e_ctasset, ait regina: \"Sede fili du_m_ ueniat aduocata.\"\n\n{242} Et cu_m_ in memorato sedili residisset, cu_m_ ip_s_a sella in fosse\ncorruit profunditate_m_. In q_u_a, subito a lictorib_us_ quos regina no_n_\nprocul abscond_er_at, rex innocens suffocatus expirauit. Na_m_ ilico cu_m_\ncorruisset, proiec_er_unt sup_er_ eu_m_ regina _et_ sui _com_plices\nnepha_n_dissimi puluinaria cu_m_ uestib_us_ _et_ cortinis, ne clamans ab\naliq_u_ib_us_ audiret_ur_. Et sic elegantissimus iuuenis rex _et_ martir\nAe_lbertus_, innoce_n_t_er_ _et_ sine noxa extinctus, accepit corona_m_\nuite, [q_ua_m][413] ad i_n_star Joh_ann_is Bapt_iste_ mulieris laq_ue_is\nirretitus, meruit optinere.\n\nPuella u_er_o regis filia Aelfleda ui_r_guncula uen_us_tissima, cu_m_ h_ec_\naudisset, no_n_ t_antu_m mat_r_is detestata facinora, s_ed_ toci_us_ seculi\npomp_am_ relinq_ue_ns, h_ab_itu_m_ suscep_i_t religio_n_is, u_t_ ui_r_go\nmartiris uestigia seq_ue_ret_ur_. [_P_]orro[414] ad augmentu_m_[415]\nmuliebris tirannidis[416], decollatu_m_ _est_ corp_us_culu_m_ exanime\nq_uia_ adhuc palpitans uidebatur. Clam _i_gi_tur_ delatum est corpus cu_m_\ncapite, usq_ue_ ad partes remociores ad occultandum sub profundo t_er_re,\net dum spiculator c_r_uentus ista ferret, caput obiter amissu_m_ est\nfeliciter: nox eni_m_ erat, _et_ festinabat lictor, _et_ ap_er_to ore\nsacci, caput cecidit euolutu_m_, ignorante h_oc_ portitore. Corpus au_tem_\nab ip_s_o carnifice sine aliquo teste conscio ignobilit_er_ est humatu_m_.\nContigit au_tem_, D_e_o sic disponente, u_t_ quida_m_ cecus eadem via\ng_r_aderetur, baculo semitam p_re_te_m_ptante. Habens au_tem_ caput\nmemoratu_m_ pro pedu_m_ offendiculo, mirabatur q_u_idna_m_ esset: erat\neni_m_ pes ei_us_ irretitus i_n_ cincinnis capitis flauis _et_ prolixis. Et\npalpans c_er_cius cognouit[417] e_ss_e caput hominis decollati. Et datu_m\nest_ ei i_n_ sp_irit_u intelligere, q_uo_d alicui_us_ s_an_c_t_i caput\ne_ss_et, ac iuuenis. Et cu_m_ maduissent man_us_ ei_us_ sanguine, apposuit\n_et_ sang_u_inem faciei sue: _et_ loco ubi q_ua_n_do_q_ue_ oculi ei_us_\nextit_er_ant, et ilico restitutus est ei uisus; et quod habuerat p_ro_\npedum offendiculo, factum est ei felix luminis restitucio. S_ed_ et in\neodem loco q_u_o caput s_an_c_tu_m iacuerat, fons erupit lucidissimus. Quod\ncum celebriter[418] fuerat diuulgatum, comp_er_tu_m_ _est_ hoc fuisse caput\ns_an_c_t_i adolescentis Ae_lberti_, q_ue_m regina i_n_ thalamo neq_u_iter\nfec_i_t sugillari ac decollari. Corp_us_ au_tem_ ubinam locorum\noccultatu_m_ fuerat, penit_us_ ignorat_ur_. H_oc_ cu_m_ _con_staret\nHu_m_b_er_to Archiep_iscop_o, f_act_a capside ex auro _et_ argento, illud\niussit in tesauro recondi p_re_c_i_oso in Ecc_lesi_a Herefordensi.\n\n[Illustration: Drida (Thryth) entraps Albertus (Aethelberht) of East\nAnglia, and causes him to be slain\n\n_From MS Cotton Nero D. I, fol. 19 b._\n\n\n\n   hrathe seothdhan waes\naefter mund-[gh]ripe m[=e]ce [gh]epin[gh]ed.\n(_Beowulf_, ll. 1937-8.) ]\n\n{243}\n\nDe p_re_d_ict_i facinoris ul_ci_one.\n\nCuius tande_m_ detestabilis sceleris a regina perpetrati, ad\nco_m_militonu_m_ b_eat_i re_gis_ _et_ Ma_rti_ris aures cum[419]\np_er_ueniss_et_, fama celeri_us_ ante luce_m_ aurore diei seq_ue_ntis\nclanculo recesserunt, ne de ipsis simile fieret iudiciu_m_ metuentes. Unde\ndolens regina, in thalamo ficta i_n_firmitate decubans, q_u_asi uulpecula\nlatitabat.\n\nRex u_er_o Offa cu_m_ de co_m_misso facinore c_er_titudine_m_\nco_m_perisset, sese lugens, in cenac_u_lo int_er_iori recludens,\npe[_r_][420] tres dies cibum penit_us_ no_n_ gustauit, anima_m_ sua_m_\nlac_r_imis, lamentac_i_o_n_ib_us_, _et_ ieiunio uehement_er_ affligens. Et\nexecrans mulieris impietate_m_, eam iussit om_n_ib_us_ uite sue dieb_us_\ninclusam i_n_ loco remota_m_ secrec_i_ori pecc_at_a sua deplorare, si forte\ns_i_bi celitus collata gr_aci_a, penite_n_do tanti co_m_missi facinoris\nmaculam posset abolere. Rex au_tem_ ip_s_am postea ut sociam lat_er_is in\nlecto suo dormire quasi susp_e_cta_m_ n_on_ p_er_misit[421].\n\nDe morte illi_us_ facinorose regine.\n\nIn loco igitur sibi d_e_putato, co_m_morante regina annis aliq_u_ot,\ninsidiis latronu_m_ preuenta, auro _et_ argento quo multu_m_ habundabat\nspoliata[422], in puteo suo prop_r_io p_re_cipitata, spiritu_m_ exalauit;\niusto d_e_i iudic_i_o sic _con_de_m_pnata, ut sicut regem Aelb_er_tu_m_\ninnocente_m_ in foueam fecit p_re_cipitari, _et_ p_re_cipitatum suffocari,\nsic i_n_ putei profunditate s_u_bm_er_sa, uita_m_ mis_er_a_m_ t_er_minaret.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nO. _WIDSITH_, ll. 18, 24-49\n\n  18. Aetla, w[=e]old H[=u]num, Eormanr[=i]c [GH]otum,\n        *    *    *    *    *    *\n      Th[=e]odr[=i]c w[=e]old Froncum, thyle Rondin[gh]u_m_,\n  25. Breoca Brondin[gh]u_m_, Billin[gh] Wernum.\n      [=O]swine w[=e]old [=E]owum _ond_ [=Y]tum [GH]efwulf,\n  {244}\n      Fin Folcwaldin[gh] Fr[=e]sna cynne.\n      Si[gh]ehere len[gh]est S[=ae]-Denum w[=e]old,\n      Hnaef H[=o]cin[gh]um, Helm Wulfin[gh]u_m_,\n  30. Wald W[=o]in[gh]um, W[=o]d Thyrin[gh]u_m_,\n      S[=ae]ferdh Syc[gh]um, Sw[=e]om On[gh]endth[=e]ow,\n      Sceafthere Ymbrum, Sc[=e]afa Lon[gh]-Beardu_m_,\n      H[=u]n Haetwerum, _ond_ Holen Wrosnum.\n      Hrin[gh]weald waes h[=a]ten Herefarena cyning.\n  35. Offa w[=e]old Ongle, Alew[=i]h Denu_m_:\n      s[=e] waes th[=a]ra manna m[=o]d[gh]ast ealra;\n      n[=o]hwaethre h[=e] ofer Offan eorlscype fremede,\n      ac Offa [gh]esl[=o][gh] [=ae]rest monna\n      cniht wesende cyner[=i]ca m[=ae]st;\n  40. n[=ae]ni[gh] efen-eald him eorlscipe m[=a]ran\n      on [=o]rette [=a]ne sweorde:\n      merce [gh]em[=ae]rde widh Myr[gh]in[gh]u_m_\n      b[=i] F[=i]feldore; h[=e]oldon fordh siththan\n      En[gh]le _ond_ Sw[=ae]fe, sw[=a] hit Offa [gh]esl[=o][gh].\n  45. Hr[=o]thwulf _ond_ Hr[=o]dh[gh][=a]r h[=e]oldon len[gh]est\n      sibbe aetsomne suhtorfaedran,\n      siththan h[=y] forwr[=ae]con w[=i]cin[gh]a cynn\n      _ond_ In[gh]eldes ord forb[=i][gh]dan,\n      forh[=e]owan aet Heorote Headho-Beardna thrym.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{245}\n\nPART III\n\nTHE FIGHT AT FINNSBURG\n\nSECTION I. THE FINNSBURG FRAGMENT\n\nThe _Finnsburg Fragment_ was discovered two centuries ago in the library of\nLambeth Palace by George Hickes. It was written on a single leaf, which was\ntranscribed and published by Hickes: but the leaf is not now to be found.\nThis is to be regretted for reasons other than sentimental, since Hickes'\ntranscript is far from accurate[423].\n\nThe _Fragment_ begins and breaks off in the middle of a line: but possibly\nnot much has been lost at the beginning. For the {246} first lines of the\nfragment, as preserved, reveal a well-loved opening motive--the call to\narms within the hall, as the watcher sees the foes approach. It was with\nsuch a call that the _Bjarkam['a]l_, the poem on the death of Rolf Kraki,\nbegan: \"a good call to work\" as a fighting king-saint thought it[424]. It\nis with a similar summons to business that the _Finnsburg Fragment_ begins.\nThe watchman has warned the king within the hall that he sees lights\napproaching--so much we can gather from the two and a half words which are\npreserved from the watchman's speech, and from the reply made by the\n\"war-young\" king: \"This is not the dawn which is rising, but dire deeds of\nwoe; to arms, my men.\" And the defending warriors take their posts: at the\none door Sigeferth and Eaha: at the other Ordlaf and Guthlaf, and Hengest\nhimself[425].\n\nThen the poet turns to the foes, as they approach for the attack. The text\nas reported by Hickes is difficult: but it seems that Garulf[426] is the\nname of the warrior about to lead the assault on the hall. Another warrior,\nGuthere, whether a friend, kinsman, or retainer[427] we do not know, is\ndissuading him, urging him not to risk so precious a life in the first\nbrunt. But Garulf pays no heed; he challenges the champion on guard: \"Who\nis it who holds the door?\"\n\n\"Sigeferth is my name,\" comes the reply, \"Prince I am of the Secgan: a\nwandering champion known far and wide: many a woe, many a hard fight have I\nendured: from me canst thou have what thou seekest.\"\n\nSo the clash of arms begins: and the first to fall is Garulf, son of\nGuthlaf: and many a good man round him. \"The swords flashed as if all\nFinnsburg were afire.\"\n\n{247}\n\nNever, we are told, was there a better defence than that of the sixty\nchampions within the hall. \"Never did retainers repay the sweet mead better\nthan his bachelors did unto Hnaef. For five days they fought, so that none\nof the men at arms fell: but they held the doors.\" After a few more lines\nthe piece breaks off.\n\nThere are many textual difficulties here. But these, for the most part, do\nnot affect the actual narrative, which is a story of clear and\nstraightforward fighting. It is when we try to fit this narrative into\nrelationship with the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_ that our troubles begin.\nWithin the _Fragment_ itself one difficulty only need at present be\nmentioned. Guthlaf is one of the champions defending the hall. Yet the\nleader of the assault, Garulf, is spoken of as Guthlaf's son. Of course it\nis possible that we have here a tragic incident parallel to the story of\nHildebrand and Hadubrand: father and son may have been separated through\nearlier misadventures, and now find themselves engaged on opposite sides.\nThis would harmonize with the atmosphere of the _Finnsburg_ story, which is\none of slaughter breaking out among men near of kin, so that afterwards an\nuncle and a nephew are burnt on the same pyre. And it has been noted[428]\nthat Garulf rushes to the attack only after he has asked \"Who holds the\ndoor?\" and has learnt that it is Sigeferth: Guthlaf had gone to the\nopposite door. Can Garulf's question mean that he knows his father Guthlaf\nto be inside the hall, and wishes to avoid conflict with him? Possibly; but\nI do not think we can argue much from this double appearance of the name\nGuthlaf. It is possible that the occurrence of Guthlaf as Garulf's father\nis simply a scribal error. For, puzzling as the tradition of _Finnsburg_\neverywhere is, it is peculiarly puzzling in its proper names, which are\nmostly given in forms that seem to have undergone some alteration. And even\nif _G[=u]dhl[=a]fes sunu_ be correctly written, it is possible that the\nGuthlaf who is father of Garulf is not to be identified with the Guthlaf\nwhom Garulf is besieging within the hall[429].\n\n{248}\n\nOne or other of these rather unsatisfactory solutions must unfortunately be\naccepted. For no theory is possible which will save us from admitting that,\naccording to the received text, Guthlaf is fighting on the one side, and a\n\"son of Guthlaf\" on the other.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION II. THE EPISODE IN BEOWULF\n\nFurther details of the story we get in the _Episode_ of _Finnsburg_, as\nrecorded in _Beowulf_ (ll. 1068-1159).\n\nBeowulf is being entertained in the court of the king of the Danes, and the\nking's harper tells the tale of Hengest and Finn. Only the main events are\nenumerated. There are none of the dramatic speeches which we find in the\n_Fragment_. It is evident that the tale has been reduced in scope, in order\nthat it may be fitted into its place as an episode in the longer epic.\n\nThe tone, too, is quite different. Whereas the _Fragment_ is inspired by\nthe lust and joy of battle, the theme of the _Episode_, as told in\n_Beowulf_, is rather the pity of it all; the legacy of mourning and\nvengeance which is left to the survivors:\n\n  For never can true reconcilement grow\n  Where wounds of deadly hate have struck so deep.\n\nIt is on this note that the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_ begins: with the tragic\nfigure of Hildeburh. Hildeburh is closely related to both contending\nparties. She is sister to Hnaef, prince of the \"Half-Danes,\" and she is\nwedded to Finn, king of the Frisians. Whatever may be obscure in the story,\nit is clear that a fight has taken place between the men of Hnaef and those\nof Finn, and that Hnaef has been slain: probably by Finn directly, though\nperhaps by his followers[430]. A son of Finn has also fallen.\n\nWith regard to the peoples concerned there are difficulties. Finn's\nFrisians are presumably the main Frisian race, dwelling in and around the\ndistrict still known as Friesland; for in the Catalogue of Kings in\n_Widsith_ it is said that \"Finn Folcwalding {249} ruled the kin of the\nFrisians[431].\" Hnaef and his people are called Half-Danes, Danes and\nScyldings; Hnaef is therefore presumably related to the Danish royal house.\nBut, in no account which has come down to us of that house, are Hnaef or\nhis father Hoc ever mentioned as kings or princes of Denmark, and their\nconnection with the family of Hrothgar, the great house of Scyldings who\nruled Denmark from the capital of Leire, remains obscure. In _Widsith_, the\npeople ruled over by Hnaef are called \"children of Hoc\" (_H[=o]cingum_),\nand are mentioned immediately after the \"Sea-Danes[432].\"\n\nThen there is a mysterious people called the _Eotens_, upon whom is placed\nthe blame of the struggle: \"Verily Hildeburh had little reason to praise\nthe good faith of the Eotens.\" This is the typical understatement of Old\nEnglish rhetoric: it can only point to deliberate treachery on the part of\nthe Eotens. Our interpretation of the poem will therefore hinge largely\nupon our interpretation of this name. There have been two views as to the\nEotens. The one view holds them to be Hnaef's Danes, and consequently\nplaces on Hnaef the responsibility for the aggression. This theory is, I\nthink, quite wrong, and has been the cause of much confusion: but it has\nbeen held by scholars of great weight[433]. The other view regards the\nEotens as subjects {250} of Finn and foes of Hnaef. This view has been more\ngenerally held, and it is, as I shall try to show, only along these lines\nthat a satisfactory solution can be found.\n\n\n\nThe poet continues of the woes of Hildeburh. \"Guiltless, she lost at the\nwar those whom she loved, child and brother. They fell as was fated,\nwounded by the spear, and a sad lady was she. Not for naught did the\ndaughter of Hoc [i.e. Hildeburh] bewail her fate when morning came, when\nunder the sky she could behold the murderous bale of her kinsfolk....\"\n\nThen the poet turns to the figure of Finn, king of the Frisians. His cause\nfor grief is as deep as that of Hildeburh. For he has lost that body of\nretainers which to a Germanic chief, even as to King Arthur, was dearer\nthan a wife[434]. \"War swept away all the retainers of Finn, except some\nfew.\"\n\nWhat follows is obscure, but as to the general drift there is no doubt.\nAfter the death of their king Hnaef, the besieged Danes are led by Hengest.\nHengest must be Hnaef's retainer, for he is expressly so called\n(_th[=e]odnes thegn_) \"the king's thegn.\" So able is the defence of\nHengest, and so heavy the loss among Finn's men, that Finn has to come to\nterms. Peace is made between Finn and Hengest, and the terms are given\nfully in the _Episode_. Unfortunately, owing to the confusion of pronouns,\nwe soon lose our way amidst the clauses of this treaty, and it becomes\nexceedingly difficult to say who are the people who are alluded to as\n\"they.\" This is peculiarly unlucky because here again the critical word\n_Eotena_ occurs, but amid such a tangle of \"thems\" and \"theys\" that it is\nnot easy to tell from this passage to which side the Eotens belong[435].\n\nBut one thing in the treaty is indisputable. In the midst of these\ncomplicated clauses, it is said of the Danes, the retainers {251} of Hnaef,\nthat they are not to be taunted with a certain fact: or perhaps it may be\nthat they are not, when speaking amongst themselves, to remind each other\nof a certain fact. However that may be, what _is_ clear is the _fact_, the\nmention of which is barred. Nothing is to be said of it, even though \"_they\nwere following the slayer (bana) of their lord, being without a prince,\nsince they were compelled so to do_.\" Here, at least, are two lines about\nthe interpretation of which we can be certain: and I shall therefore return\nto them. We must be careful, however, to remember that the word _bana_,\n\"slayer,\" conveys no idea of fault or criminality. It is a quite neutral\nword, although it has frequently been mistranslated \"murderer,\" and has\nthus helped to encourage the belief that Finn slew Hnaef by treachery. Of\ncourse it conveys no such implication: _bana_ can be applied to one who\nslays another in self-defence: it implies neither the one thing nor the\nother.\n\nThen the poet turns to the funeral of the dead champions, who are burned on\none pyre by the now reconciled foes. The bodies of Hnaef and of the son (or\nsons)[436] of Hildeburh are placed together, uncle and nephew side by side,\nwhilst Hildeburh stands by lamenting.\n\nThen, we are told, the warriors, deprived of their friends, departed to\nFriesland, to their homes and to their high-city.\n\nHengest still continued to dwell for the whole of that winter with Finn,\nand could not return home because of the winter storms. But when spring\ncame and the bosom of the earth became fair, there came also the question\nof Hengest's departure: but he thought more of vengeance than of his\nsea-journey: \"If he might bring about that hostile meeting which he kept in\nhis mind concerning the child (or children) of the Eotens.\" Here again the\nword _Eotena_ is used ambiguously, but, I think, this time not without some\nindication of its meaning. It has indeed been urged that the child or\nchildren of the Eotens are Hnaef, and any other Danes who may have fallen\nwith him, and that when it is said that Hengest keeps them in mind, it is\nmeant that he is remembering his fallen comrades with a view to taking\n{252} vengeance for them. But this would be a queer way of speaking, as\nHengest and his living comrades would on this theory be also themselves\nchildren of the Eotens[437]. We should therefore need the term to be\nfurther defined: \"children of the Eotens _who fell at Finnsburg_.\" It seems\nfar more likely, from the way in which the expression is used here, that\nthe children of the Eotens are the people _upon_ whom Hengest intends to\ntake vengeance.\n\nThen, we are further told, Hunlafing places in the bosom of Hengest a sword\nof which the edges were well known amongst the Eotens. Here again there has\nbeen ambiguity, dispute and doubt. Hunlafing has been even bisected into a\nchief \"Hun,\" and a sword \"Lafing\" which \"Hun\" is supposed to have placed in\nthe bosom of Hengest (or of someone else). Upon this act of \"Hun\" many an\ninterpretation has been placed, and many a theory built. Fortunately it has\nbecome possible, by a series of rather extraordinary discoveries, such as\nwe had little reason to hope for at this time of day, to put Hunlafing\ntogether again. We now know (and this I think should be regarded as outside\nthe region of controversy) that the warrior who put the sword into\nHengest's bosom _was_ Hunlafing. And about Hunlafing we gather, though very\nlittle, yet enough to help us. He is apparently a Dane, the son of Hunlaf,\nand Hunlaf is the brother of the two champions Guthlaf and Ordlaf[438]. Now\nGuthlaf and Ordlaf, as we know from the _Fragment_, were in the hall\ntogether {253} with Hengest: it was \"Guthlaf, Ordlaf and Hengest himself\"\nwho undertook the defence of one of the doors against the assailants.\nGuthlaf and Ordlaf were apparently sons of the king of Denmark. As\nScyldings they would be Hnaef's kinsmen, and accompanied him to his meeting\nwith Finn. Hunlafing, then, is a nephew of two champions who were attacked\nin the hall, and it is possible, though we cannot prove this, that his\nfather Hunlaf was himself also in the hall, and was slain in the\nstruggle[439]. At any rate, when Hunlaf's son places a sword in the bosom\nof Hengest, this can only mean one thing. It means mischief. The placing of\nthe sword, by a prince, in the bosom of another, is a symbol of\nwar-service. It means that Hengest has accepted obligations to a Danish\nlord, a Scylding, a kinsman of the dead Hnaef, and consequently that he\nmeans to break the troth which he has sworn to Finn.\n\nFurther, we are told concerning the sword, that its edges were well known\namongst the Eotens. At first sight this might seem, and to many has seemed,\nan ambiguous phrase, for a sword may be well known amongst either friends\nor foes. The old poets loved nothing better than to dwell upon the\nadornments of a sword, to say how a man, by reason of a fine sword which\nhad been given to him, was honoured amongst his associates at table[440].\nBut if this had been the poet's meaning here, he would surely have dwelt,\nnot upon the edges of the sword, but upon its gold-adorned hilt, or its\njewelled pommel. When he says the _edges_ of the sword were well known\namongst the Eotens, this seems to convey a hostile meaning. We know that\nthe ill-faith of the Eotens was the cause of the trouble. The phrase about\nthe sword seems therefore to mean that Hengest used this sword in order to\ntake vengeance on the Eotens, presumably for their treachery.\n\nThe _Eotenas_, therefore, far from being the men of Hnaef and Hengest, must\nhave been their foes.\n\nThen the poet goes on to tell how \"Dire sword-bale came upon the valiant\nFinn likewise.\" The Danes fell upon Finn at {254} his own home, reddened\nthe floor of his hall with the life-blood of his men, slew him, plundered\nhis town, and led his wife back to her own people.\n\nHere the _Episode_ ends.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION III. MOELLER'S THEORY\n\nNow our first task is to find what is the relation between the events told\nin the _Fragment_ and the events told in the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_. It\ncan, I think, be shown that the events of the _Fragment_ precede the events\nof the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_; that is to say that the fight in the hall,\nof which we are told in the _Fragment_, is the same fight which has taken\nplace before the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_ begins, the fight which has\nresulted in the slaughter over which Hildeburh laments, and which\nnecessitates the great funeral described in the first part of the _Episode_\n(ll. 1108-24).\n\nHow necessary it is to place the _Fragment_ here, before the beginning of\nthe _Episode_, will be best seen, I think, if we examine the theory which\nhas tried to place it elsewhere.\n\nThis is the theory, worked out elaborately and ingeniously by Moeller[441],\na theory which has had considerable vogue, and many of the assumptions of\nwhich have been widely accepted. According to Moeller and his followers,\nthe story ran something like this:\n\n    \"Finn, king of the Frisians, had carried off Hildeburh, daughter of Hoc\n    (1076), probably with her consent. Her father Hoc seems to have pursued\n    the fugitives, and to have been slain in the fight which ensued on his\n    overtaking them. After the lapse of some twenty years, the brothers\n    Hnaef and Hengest, Hoc's sons, were old enough to undertake the duty of\n    avenging their father's death. They make an inroad into Finn's\n    country.\"\n\nUp to this, all is Moeller's hypothesis, unsupported by any evidence,\neither in the _Fragment_ or the _Episode_. It is based, so far as it has\nany real foundation, upon a mythical interpretation of Finn, and upon\nparallels with the Hild-story, the Gudrun-story, and a North Frisian\nfolk-tale[442]. Some of the {255} parallels are striking, but they are not\nsufficient to justify Moeller's reconstruction. The authenticity of large\nportions of the folk-tale is open to doubt[443]: and these portions are\nvital to any parallel with the story of _Finnsburg_; whilst we have no\nright to read into the Finn story details from the Hild or Gudrun stories,\nunless we can show that they are really versions of the same tale: and this\ncannot be shown. Moeller's suppositions as to the events before the\n_Episode_ in _Beowulf_ opens, must therefore be dismissed. Moeller's\nreconstruction then gets into relation with the real story, as narrated in\n_Beowulf_:\n\n    \"A battle takes place in which many warriors, among them Hnaef and a\n    son of Finn (1074, 1079, 1115), are killed. Peace is therefore solemnly\n    concluded, and the slain warriors are burnt (1068-1124).\n\n    As the year is too far advanced for Hengest to return home (ll. 1130\n    ff.), he and those of his men who survive remain for the winter in the\n    Frisian country with Finn. But Hengest's thoughts dwell constantly on\n    the death of his brother Hnaef, and he would gladly welcome any excuse\n    to break the peace which has been sworn by both parties. His\n    ill-concealed desire for revenge is noticed by the Frisians, who\n    anticipate it by themselves taking the initiative and attacking Hengest\n    and his men whilst they are sleeping in the hall. _This is the night\n    attack described in the Fragment._ It would seem that after a brave and\n    desperate resistance Hengest himself falls in this fight[444], but two\n    of his retainers, Guthlaf and Oslaf[444], succeed in cutting their way\n    through their enemies and in escaping to their own land. They return\n    with fresh troops, attack and slay Finn, and carry his queen Hildeburh\n    off with them (1125-1159)[445].\"\n\nNow the difficulties of this theory will, I think, be found to be\ninsuperable. Let us look at some of them.\n\nMoeller's view rests upon his interpretation of the Eotens as the men of\nHnaef[446]. Since the Eotens are the aggressors, he _has_ consequently to\ninvent the opening, which makes Hnaef and Hengest the invaders of Finn's\ncountry: and he _has_ therefore to relegate the _Fragment_ (in which\nHnaef's men are clearly not the attacking party but the attacked) to a\nlater stage in the story. But we have already seen that this interpretation\nof the Eotens as the men of Hnaef is not the natural one.\n\nFurther, the assumption that Hnaef and Hengest are brothers, though still\nfrequently met with[447], is surely not justifiable. {256} There is nothing\nwhich demands any such relationship, and there is much which definitely\nexcludes it. _After Hnaef's death_, Hengest is described as the thegn of\nHnaef: an expression without parallel or explanation, if he was really his\nbrother and successor. Again, we are expressly told in the _Episode_ that\nthe Danish retainers make terms with Finn, _the slayer of their lord, being\nwithout a prince_. How could this be said, if Hengest was now their lord\nand prince? These lines are, as we have seen, one of the few clear and\nindisputable things in the poem. An interpretation which contradicts them\nflatly, by making Hengest the lord of the Danish retainers, seems\nself-condemned.\n\nAgain, in _Beowulf_, the poet dwells upon the blameless sorrows of\nHildeburh. We gather that she wakes up in the morning to find that the\nkinsfolk whom she loves have, during the night, come to blows. \"Innocent,\nshe lost son and brother[448]--a sad lady she.\" Are such expressions\nnatural, if Hildeburh had eloped with Finn, and her father had in\nconsequence been slain by him some twenty years before? If she has taken\nthat calmly, and continued to live happily with Finn, would her equanimity\nbe so seriously disturbed by the slaughter of a brother in addition?\n\nBut these difficulties are nothing compared to the further difficulties\nwhich Moeller's adherents have to face when they proceed to find a place\nfor the night attack as told in the _Fragment_, in the middle of the\n_Episode_ in _Beowulf_, i.e. between lines 1145 and 1146. In the first\nplace we have no right to postulate that such important events could have\nbeen passed over in silence in the summary of the story as given in\n_Beowulf_. For Moeller has to assume that after the reconciliation between\nHengest and Finn, Finn broke his pledges, attacked Hengest by night, slew\nmost of the men who were with him, including perhaps Hengest himself; and\nthat the _Beowulf_-poet nevertheless omitted all reference to these events,\nthough they occur in the midst of the story, and are essential to an\nunderstanding of it.\n\nBut even apart from this initial difficulty, we find that by no process of\nexplaining _can_ we make the night attack narrated {257} in the _Fragment_\nfit in at the point where Moeller places it. In the night attack the men\nare called to arms by a \"war-young king.\" This \"war-young king\" cannot be,\nas Moeller supposes, Hengest, for the simple reason that Hengest, as I have\ntried to show above, far from being the brother of Hnaef, and his successor\nas king, is his servant and thegn. The king can only be Hnaef. But Hnaef\nhas already been slain before the _Episode_ begins: and this makes it\nimpossible to place the _Fragment_ (in which Hnaef appears) in the middle\nof the _Episode_. Further, it is said in the _Fragment_ that never did\nretainers repay a lord better than did his men repay Hnaef. Now these words\nwould only be possible if the retainers were fighting for their lord; that\nis, either defending him alive or avenging him dead. But Moeller's theory\nassumes that we are dealing with a period when the retainers have\ndefinitely left the service of their lord Hnaef, after his death, and have\nentered the service of his slayer, Finn. They have thus dissolved all bonds\nwith their former lord: they have taken Finn's money and become _his_ men.\nIf Finn then turns upon his new retainers and treacherously tries to slay\nthem, it might be said that the retainers defended their own lives stoutly:\nbut it would be far-fetched to say that in doing so they repaid their lord\nHnaef. Their lord, according to Moeller's view, is no longer Hnaef, but\nFinn, who is seeking their lives.\n\nAgainst such difficulties as these it is impossible to make headway, and we\nmust therefore turn to some more possible view of the situation[449].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION IV. BUGGE'S THEORY\n\nLet us therefore examine the second theory, which is more particularly\nassociated with the name of Bugge, though it was the current theory before\nhis time, and has been generally accepted since.\n\nAccording to this view, the _Eotenas_ are the men of Finn, and since upon\nthem is placed the blame for the trouble, it {258} must be Finn that makes\na treacherous attack upon his wife's brother Hnaef, who is his guest in\nFinnsburg[450]. This is the fight of which the _Fragment_ gives us the\nbeginning. Hnaef is slain, and then follow the events as narrated in the\n_Episode_: the treaty which Finn makes with Hengest, the leader of the\nsurvivors: and the ultimate vengeance taken upon Finn by these survivors.\n\nHere I think we are getting nearer to facts, nearer to a view which can\ncommand general acceptance: at any rate, in so far as the fight narrated in\nthe _Fragment_ is placed before the beginning of the _Episode_ in\n_Beowulf_. Positive evidence that this is the right place for the\n_Fragment_ is scanty, yet not altogether lacking. After all, the fight in\nthe _Fragment_ is a night attack, and the fight which precedes the\n_Episode_ in _Beowulf_, as I have tried to show, is a night attack[451].\nBut our reason for putting the _Fragment_ before the commencement of the\n_Episode_ is mainly negative: it lies in the insuperable difficulties which\nmeet us when we try to place it anywhere else.\n\nBut, it will be objected, there are difficulties also in placing the\n_Fragment_ before the _Episode_. Perhaps: but I do not think these\ndifficulties will be found to survive examination.\n\nThe first objection to supposing that the _Fragment_ narrates the same\nfight as precedes the _Episode_ is, that the fight in the _Fragment_ takes\nplace at Finnsburg[452], whilst the fight which precedes the _Episode_\napparently takes place away from Finn's capital: for after the fighting is\nover, the dead burned, and the treaty made, the warriors depart \"to see\nFriesland, their homes, and their high-town (_h[=e]a-burh_)[453].\"\n\n{259}\n\nBut I do not see that this involves us in any difficulty. It is surely\nquite reasonable that Finnsburg--Finn's castle--where the first fight takes\nplace, is not, and was never meant to be, the same as Finn's capital, his\n_h[=e]aburh_, his \"own home.\" After all, when a king's name is given to a\ntown, the presumption is rather that the town is _not_ his capital, but\nsome new settlement built in a newly acquired territory. _[=E]adwinesburh_\nwas not the capital of King Eadwine: it was the stronghold which he held\nagainst the Picts on the outskirts of his realm. Aosta was not the capital\nof Augustus, nor Fort William of William III, nor Harounabad of Haroun al\nRaschid. So here: we know that the chief town of the Frisians was not\nFinnsburg, but Dorestad: \"Dorostates of the Frisians[454].\" The fight may\nhave taken place at some outlying castle built by Finn, and named after him\n_Finnsburg_: then he returned, we are told, to his _h[=e]aburh_: and it is\nhere, _aet his sylfes h[=a]m_, \"in his own home\" (the poet himself seems to\nemphasize a distinction) that destruction in the end comes upon him. There\nis surely no difficulty here.\n\nA second discrepancy has often been indicated. In the _Fragment_ the fight\nlasts five days before any one of the defenders fall: in the _Episode_ (it\nis argued) Hildeburh in the morning finds her brother slain[455]. Even were\nthis so, I do not know that it need trouble us much. In a detail like this,\nwhich {260} does not go to the heart of the story, there might easily be a\ndiscrepancy between two versions[456].\n\nBut the whole difficulty merely arises from reading more into the words of\nthe _Episode_ than the text will warrant. It is not asserted in the\n_Episode_ that Hildeburh found her kinsfolk dead in the morning, but that\nin the morning she found \"murderous bale amid her kinsfolk.\" Hildeburh woke\nup to find a fight in progress: how long it went on, the _Episode_ does not\nsay: but that it was prolonged we gather from ll. 1080-5: and there is no\nreason why the deadly strife which Hildeburh found in the morning might not\nhave lasted five days or more, before it culminated in the death of Hnaef.\n\nThirdly, the commander in the _Fragment_ is called a \"war-young king.\"\nThis, it has been said, is inapplicable to Hnaef, since he is brother of\nHildeburh, who is old enough to have a son slain in the combat.\n\nBut an uncle may be very young. Beowulf speaks of his uncle Hygelac as\nyoung, even though he seems to imply that his own youth is partly\npast[457]. And no advantage, but the reverse, is gained, even in this\npoint, if, following Moeller's hypothesis, and assuming that the fight\nnarrated in the _Fragment_ takes place after the treaty with Finn, we make\nthe \"war-young king\" Hengest. For those who, with Moeller, suppose Hengest\nto be brother of Hnaef, will have to admit the avuncular difficulty in him\nalso.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION V. SOME DIFFICULTIES IN BUGGE'S THEORY\n\nWe may then, I think, accept as certain, that first come the events\nnarrated in the _Fragment_, then those told in the _Episode_ in _Beowulf_.\nBut we are not out of our troubles yet. There are difficulties in Bugge's\nview which have still to be faced.\n\nThe cause of the struggle, according to Bugge and his adherents, is a\ntreacherous attack made by Finn upon his {261} brother-in-law Hnaef.\nAccording to the _Episode_, it is the Eotens who are treacherous; so Eotens\nmust be another name for the Frisians.\n\nThe word occurs three times in the genitive, _Eotena_; once in the dative,\n_Eotenum_: as a common noun it means \"giant,\" \"monster\": earlier in\n_Beowulf_ it is applied to Grendel and to the other misbegotten creatures\ndescended from Cain. But how \"giant\" can be applied to the Frisians, or to\neither of the contending parties in the Finnsburg fight, remains\ninexplicable[458]. _Eotena_ must rather be the name of some tribe. But what\ntribe? The only people of whom we know, possessing a name at all like this,\nare the people who colonized Kent, whom Bede calls Jutes, but whose name\nwould in Anglian be in the genitive _[=E]otna_, but in the dative\n_[=E]otum_, or perhaps occasionally _[=E]otnum_, _[=E]otenum_[459]. Now a\nscribe transliterating a poem from an Anglian dialect into West-Saxon\nshould, of course, have altered these forms into the corresponding\nWest-Saxon forms _[=Y]tena_ and _[=Y]tum_. But nothing would have been more\nlikely than that he would have misunderstood the tribal name as a common\nnoun, and retained the Anglian forms (altering _eotum_ or _eotnum_ into\n_eotenum_) supposing the word to mean \"giants.\" After all, the common noun\n_eotenum_, \"giants,\" was quite as like the tribal name _[=E]otum_, which\nthe scribe presumably had before him, as was the correct West-Saxon form of\nthat name, _[=Y]tum_.\n\nIt is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that the \"Eotens\" are\nJutes: and this is confirmed by three other pieces of evidence, not\nconvincing in themselves, but helpful as subsidiary arguments[460].\n\n{262}\n\n(1) We should gather from _Widsith_ that the Jutes were concerned in the\n_Finnsburg_ business. For in that poem generally (though not always) tribes\nconnected in story are grouped together; and the Jutes and Frisians are so\ncoupled:\n\n                  [=Y]tum [weold] Gefwulf\n  Fin Folcwalding Fr[=e]sna cynne.\n\n(2) There is another passage in _Beowulf_ in which _Eotenas_ is possibly\nused in the sense of \"Jutes.\"\n\nWe have seen above[461] that according to a Scandinavian tradition Lotherus\nwas exiled _in Jutiam_: and Heremod, who has been held to be the\ncounterpart of Lotherus\n\n                  _mid Eotenum_ weardh\n  on f[=e]onda geweald fordh forl[=a]cen.\n\nBut the identification of Lotherus and Heremod is too hypothetical to carry\nthe weight of much argument.\n\n(3) Finn comes into many Old English pedigrees, which have doubtless\nborrowed from one another. But the earliest in which we find him, and the\nonly one in which we find his father Folcwald, is that of the Jutish kings\nof Kent[462]. Here, too, the name Hengest meets us.\n\nThe view that the name \"Eoten\" in the _Finnsburg_ story is a form of the\nword \"Jute\" is, then, one which is very difficult to reject. It is one\nwhich has in the past been held by many scholars and is, I think, held by\nall who have recently expressed any opinion on the subject[463]. But this\nrenders very difficult the assumption of Bugge and his followers that the\nword \"Eoten\" is synonymous with \"Frisian[464].\" For Frisians were not\nJutes. {263} The tribes were closely related; but the two words were not\nsynonymous. The very lines in _Widsith_, which couple Jutes and Frisians\ntogether, as if they were related in story, show that the names were\nregarded as those of distinct tribes. And this evidence from _Widsith_ is\nvery important, because the compiler of that list of names clearly knew the\nstory of Finn and Hnaef.\n\nBut this is not the only difficulty in Bugge's interpretation of the Eotens\nas Frisians. The outbreak of war, we are told, is due to the treachery of\nthe Eotens. This Bugge and his followers interpret as meaning that Finn\nmust have treacherously attacked Hnaef. Yet the poet speaks of \"the\nwarriors of Finn when the sudden danger fell upon them\": _th[=a] h[=i][=e]\nse f[=ae]r begeat_. It is essential to _f[=ae]r_ that it signifies a sudden\nand unexpected attack[465]: and the unexpected attack must have come, not\nupon the assailants but upon the assailed.\n\nYet this difficulty, though it has been emphasized by Moeller[466] and\nother opponents of Bugge's view, is not insuperable[467], and I hope to\nshow below that there is no real difficulty. But it leads us to a problem\nnot so easily surmounted. If Finn made a treacherous attack upon Hnaef, and\nslew him, how did it come that Hengest, and Hnaef's other men, made terms\nwith their murderous host?\n\nIn the primitive heathen days it had been a rule that the retainer must not\nsurvive his vanquished lord[468]. The ferocity of this rule was\nsubsequently softened, and, in point of fact, we _do_ often hear, after\nsome great leader has been slain, of his followers accepting quarter from a\nchivalrous foe, without being {264} therefore regarded as having acted\ndisgracefully[469]. But, if Finn had invited Hnaef and Hnaef's retainers to\nbe his guests, and had fallen upon them by treachery, the action of the\nretainers in coming to terms with Finn, in entering his service, and\nstipulating how much of his pay they shall receive, would be contrary to\nall standards of conduct as understood in the Heroic Age, and would deprive\nHnaef's men of any sympathy the audience might feel for them. But Hnaef's\nmen are not censured: they are in fact treated most sympathetically in the\n_Episode_, and in the _Fragment_, at an earlier point in the story, they\nare enthusiastically applauded[470].\n\nIt is strange enough in any case that Hnaef's retainers should make terms\nwith the slayer of their lord. But it is not merely strange, it is\nabsolutely unintelligible, if we are to suppose that Finn has not merely\nslain Hnaef, but has lured him into his power, and then slain him while a\nguest.\n\nIt is to the credit of Bugge that he felt this difficulty: but his attempt\nto explain it is hardly satisfactory. He fell back upon a parallel between\nthe story of the death of Rolf Kraki and the story of _Finnsburg_. We have\nalready seen that the resemblance is very close between the _Bjarkam['a]l_,\nwhich narrates the death of Rolf, and the opening of the _Finnsburg\nFragment_. The parallel which Bugge invoked comes from the sequel to the\nRolf story[471] which tells how Hiarwarus, the murderer of Rolf Kraki,\nastonished by the devotion of Rolf's retainers, lamented their death, and\nsaid how gladly he would have given quarter to such men, and taken them\ninto his service. Thereupon Wiggo, the one survivor, who had previously\nvowed to avenge his lord, and had concealed himself with that object, came\nforward and offered to accept these terms. Accordingly he placed his hand\nupon the hilt of his new master's drawn sword, as if about to swear fealty\nto him: but instead of swearing, he ran him through.\n\n\"Glorious and ever memorable hero, who valiantly kept his vow,\" says\nSaxo[472]. Whether or no we share the exultation of {265} that excellent if\nsomewhat bloodthirsty ecclesiastic, we must admit that Wiggo's methods were\nsensible and practical. If, singlehanded, he was to keep his vow, and\navenge his lord, he could only hope to do it by some such stratagem.\n\nBugge tries to explain Hengest's action on similar lines: \"He does not\nhesitate to enter the service of Finn in order thereby to carry out his\nrevenge[473].\"\n\nBut the circumstances are entirely different. Wiggo was left alone, the\nonly survivor of Rolf's household, to face a whole army. But Hengest is no\nsingle survivor: he and his fellows have made so good a defence that Finn\ncannot overcome them by conflict on the _medhel-stede_. Not only so, but,\nif we accept the interpretation that almost every critic and editor has put\nupon the passage (ll. 1184-5), Hengest's position is even stronger. Finn\nhas lost almost all his thegns; the usual interpretation puts him at the\nmercy of Hengest: at best it is a draw[474]. If, then, Hengest wants\nvengeance upon Finn, why does he not pursue it? Instead of which, according\nto Bugge, he enters Finn's service in order that he may get an opportunity\nfor revenge.\n\nAnd note, that Wiggo did not swear the oath of fealty to the murderer of\nhis master Rolf: he merely put himself in the posture to do so, and then,\ninstead, ran the tyrant through forthwith. But Hengest _does_ swear the\noath, and _does not_ forthwith slay the tyrant. He spends the winter with\nhim, receives a sword from Hunlafing, after which his name does not occur\nagain. Finn is ultimately slain, but the names which are found in that\nconnection are those of Guthlaf and Oslaf [Ordlaf].\n\nSo Bugge's explanation comes to this: Hengest is fighting with success\nagainst Finn, but he refrains from vengeance: instead, he treacherously\nenters his service in order that he may take an opportunity of vengeance,\nwhich opportunity, however, it is never made clear to us that he takes.\n\nHad Hengest been a man of that kind, he would not have been a hero of Old\nEnglish heroic song.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{266}\n\nSECTION VI. RECENT ELUCIDATIONS. PROF. AYRES' COMMENTS\n\nIt is one of the merits of Bugge's view--one of the proofs of its general\nsoundness--that it admits of successive improvements at the hands of\nsucceeding commentators. No one has done more in this way than has Prof.\nAyres to clear up the story, particularly the latter part of the _Episode_.\nAyres evolves unity out of what had been before \"a rapid-fire of events\nthat hit all around a central tragic situation and do not once touch it.\"\nHengest does not, Ayres thinks, enter the service of Finn with any such\nwell-formed plan of revenge as Bugge had attributed to him. Hengest was in\na difficult situation. It is his mental conflict, \"torn between his oath to\nFinn and his duty to the dead Hnaef,\" which gives unity to all that\nfollows. It is a tragedy of Hengest, hesitating, like Shakespeare's Hamlet,\nover the duty of revenge. Prof. Ayres' statement here is too good to\nsummarize; it must be quoted at length:\n\n    \"How did he feel during that long, blood-stained winter? He naturally\n    thought about home (_eard gemunde_, 1129), but there was no question of\n    sailing then, no need yet of decision while the storm roared outside.\n    By and by spring came round, as it has a way of doing. How did he feel\n    then? Then, like any other Northerner, he wanted to put to sea:\n\n                      fundode wrecca,\n      gist of geardum.\n\n    That is what he would naturally do. He would speak to Finn and be off;\n    in the spring his business was on the sea. That is all right as to\n    Finn, but as to the dead Hnaef it is very like running away; it is\n    postponing vengeance sadly. Will he prove so unpregnant of his cause as\n    that? No; though he would like to go to sea, he thought _rather_ of\n    vengeance, and staid in the hope of managing a successful surprise\n    against Finn and his people:\n\n                            h[=e] t[=o] gyrn-wraece\n      sw[=i]dhor th[=o]hte     thonne t[=o] s[=ae]-l[=a]de,\n      gif h[=e] torn-gem[=o]t     thurht[=e]on mihte,\n      thaet h[=e] Eotena b[=e]arn     inne gemunde.\n\n    All this says clearly that Hengest was thinking things over, whether he\n    should or should not take vengeance upon Finn; it tells us also very\n    clearly, with characteristic anticipation of the outcome of the story,\n    that in the end desire for vengeance carried the day:\n\n      Sw[=a] h[=e] ne-forwyrnde     worold-r[=ae]denne,\n\n    he did not _thus_ prove recreant to his duty. But we have not been told\n    the steps by which Hengest arrived at his decision. That seems {267} to\n    be what we should naturally want to know at this point, and that is\n    precisely what we are about to be told. Occasions gross as earth\n    informed against him[475].\"\n\nThen Ayres goes on to explain the \"egging,\" through the presentation of a\nsword by Hunlafing. This feature of the story is now pretty generally so\nunderstood; but Ayres has an interpretation of the part played by Guthlaf\nand Oslaf, which is new and enlightening.\n\n    \"Hengest's almost blunted purpose was not whetted by Hunlafing alone.\n    The latter's uncles, Gudhlaf and Oslaf [Ordlaf] took occasion to\n    mention to Hengest the fierce attack (the one, presumably, in which\n    Hnaef had fallen); cast up to him all the troubles that had befallen\n    them ever since their disastrous sea-journey to Finnsburg; they had\n    plenty of woes to twit him with:\n\n      sidhdhan grimne gripe     G[=u]dhl[=a]f and [=O]sl[=a]f\n      aefter s[=ae]-s[=i]dhe     sorge m[=ae]ndon,\n      aetwiton w[=e]ana d[=ae]l.\n\n    The effect of all this on Hengest is cumulative. Where he was before in\n    perfect balance, he is now wrought to action by the words of his\n    followers; he can control himself no longer; the balance is destroyed.\n    The restless spirit (Hengest's in the first instance, but it may be\n    thought of as referring to the entire attacking party, now of one mind)\n    could no longer restrain itself within the breast:\n\n                      ne meahte w[=ae]fre m[=o]d\n      forhabban in hredhre.\n\n    Vengeance wins the day[476].\"\n\nBy this interpretation Ayres has, as he claims, \"sharpened some of the\nfeatures\" of the current interpretation of the Finn story. For, as he says,\n\"in some respects the current version was very unsatisfactory; there seemed\nto be little relation between the presentation of the sword to Hengest and\nthe spectacle of Gudhlaf and Oslaf howling their complaints in the face of\nFinn.\"\n\nThat Ayres' interpretation enhances the coherency of the story is beyond\ndispute: that it does so at the cost of putting some strain upon the text\nin one or two places may perhaps be urged[477]. But that in its main lines\nit is correct seems to me certain: the story of Finnsburg is the tragedy of\nHengest--his hesitation and his revenge. Keeping this well in view, many of\nthe difficulties disappear.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{268}\n\nSECTION VII. PROBLEMS STILL OUTSTANDING\n\nMany of the difficulties disappear: but the two big ones remain. Firstly,\nif \"Eoten\" means \"Jute,\" as it is usually agreed that it does, why should\nthe Frisians be called Jutes, seeing that a Frisian is not a Jute?\nSecondly, when Hengest and the other thegns of Hnaef enter the service of\nthe slayer of their lord, they are not blamed for so doing, but rather\nexcused, _th[=a] him sw[=a] gethearfod waes_. Such a situation is unusual;\nbut it becomes incredible if that slayer, whose service they enter, had\nfallen upon and slain their lord by treachery, when his guest.\n\nIt seems to me that neither of these difficulties is really inherent in the\nsituation, but rather accidental, and owing to the way Bugge's theory,\nright enough in its main lines, has been presented both by Bugge and his\nfollowers. For it is not necessary to assume that Frisians _are_ called\n_Eotenas_ or Jutes. All that we are justified in deducing from the text is\nthat Frisians and _Eotenas_ are both under the command of Finn. If we\nsuppose what the text demands, _and no more_, we are at one stroke relieved\nof both our difficulties. Though \"Jute\" can hardly have been synonymous\nwith \"Frisian,\" nothing is more probable, as I shall try to show[478], than\nthat a great Frisian king should have had a tribe of Jutes subject to him,\nor should have had in his pay a band of Jutish mercenaries. Now if the\ntrouble was due to these \"Eotens\"--and we are told that it was[479]--our\nsecond difficulty is also solved. It would be much more natural for Hengest\nto come to terms with Finn, albeit the _bana_ of his lord, if Finn's\nconduct had not been stained by treachery, and if the blame for the\noriginal attack did not rest with him.\n\nAnd, as I have said, there is nothing in the text which justifies us in\nassuming that _Eotenas_ means \"Frisians\" and that therefore _Eotena\ntr[=e]owe_ refers to Finn's breach of faith. It has indeed been argued that\n_Eotenas_ and Frisians are synonymous, {269} because in the terms of peace,\nwhilst it is stipulated that Hengest and his comrades are to have equal\ncontrol with the _Eotena bearn_, it is further stipulated that Finn is to\ngive Hengest's men gifts equal to those which he gives to the _Fr[=e]sena\ncynn_[480]. Here then _Eotena bearn_ and _Fr[=e]sena cynn_ are certainly\nparallel, and are both contrasted with Hengest and his troops. But surely\nthis in no wise proves _Eotena bearn_ and _Fr[=e]sena cynn_ synonymous:\nthey may equally well be different sections of Finn's host, just as in\n_Brunanburh_ the soldiers of Athelstan are spoken of first as _Westseaxe_,\nand then as _Myrce_. Are we to argue that West-Saxons are Mercians? So in\nthe account of Hygelac's fatal expedition[481] the opponents are called\nFranks, Frisians, _H[=u]gas_, _Hetware_. A reader ignorant of the story\nmight suppose these all synonymous terms for one tribe. But we know that\nthey are not: the _Hetware_ were the people immediately attacked--the\nFrankish overlord hastened to the rescue, and was apparently helped by the\nneighbouring Frisians, who although frequently at this date opposed to the\nFranks, would naturally make common cause against the pirate from\noverseas[482].\n\nIt was quite natural that the earlier students of the _Finnsburg Episode_,\nthinking of the two opposing forces as two homogeneous tribes, and finding\nmention of three tribal names, Danes, Eotens and Frisians, should have\nassumed that the Eotens must be exactly synonymous with _either_ Danes _or_\nFrisians. But it is now recognized that the conditions of the time\npostulate not so much tribes as groups of tribes[483]. In the _Fragment_ we\nhave, on the side of the Danes, _Sigeferth_, prince of the _Secgan_. The\n_Secgan_ are not necessarily Danes, because their lord is fighting on the\nDanish side. Neither need the _Eotenas_ be Frisians, because they are\nfighting on the Frisian side.\n\nWe cannot, then, argue that two tribes are identical, because engaged in\nfighting a common foe: still less, because they are {270} mentioned with a\ncertain parallelism[484]. And anyway, it is impossible to find in the use\nof the expression _Eotena bearn_ in l. 1088 any support for the\ninterpretation which makes _Eotena tr[=e]owe_ signify the treachery of Finn\nhimself. For, assuredly, the proviso that Hengest and his fellows are to\nhave half control as against the _Eotena bearn_ does not mean that they are\nto have half control as against Finn himself. For the very next lines make\nit clear that they are to enter Finn's service and become his retainers.\nThat Hengest and his men are to have equal rights with Finn's Jutish\nfollowers (_Eotena bearn_) is reasonable enough: but they obviously have\nnot equal rights with Finn, their lord whom they are now to follow. _Eotena\nbearn_ in l. 1088, then, does _not_ include Finn: how _can_ it then be used\nas an argument that _Eotena tr[=e]owe_ must refer to _Finn's_ faith and his\nbreach of it?\n\nFinn, then, is the _bana_ of Hnaef, but there is nothing in the text which\ncompels us to assume that he is the slayer of his guest.\n\nThe reader may regard my zeal to clear the character of Finn as excessive.\nBut it is always worth while to understand a good old tale. And it is only\nwhen we withdraw our unjust aspersions upon Finn's good faith that the tale\nbecomes intelligible.\n\nThis, I know, has been disputed, and by the scholars whose opinion I most\nrespect.\n\nThe poet tells us that Finn was the _bana_ of Hnaef, so, says Ayres, \"it is\nhard to see how it helps matters[485]\" to argue that Finn was not guilty of\ntreachery. And Lawrence argues in the same way:\n\n    \"How is it possible to shift the blame for the attack from Finn to the\n    Eotenas when Finn is called the _bana_ of Hnaef? It does not matter\n    whether he killed him with his own hands or not; he is clearly held\n    responsible; the lines tell us it was regarded as disgraceful for the\n    {271} Danes to have to follow him, and the revenge at the end falls\n    heavily upon him. The insult and hurt to Danish pride would be very\n    little lessened by the assumption that someone else started the\n    quarrel; and for this assumption, too, the lines give no warrant[486].\"\n\nLet us take these objections in turn. I do not see how the fact that Finn\nis called the _bana_ of Hnaef can prove _anything_ as to \"the blame for the\nattack.\" Of course the older editors may have thought so. Kemble translates\n_bana_ \"slaughterer,\" which implies brutality, and perhaps culpability.\nBosworth-Toller renders _bana_ \"murderer,\" which certainly implies blame\nfor attack. But we know that these are mere mistranslations. Nothing as to\n\"blame for attack\" is implied in the term _bana_: \"_bana_ 'slayer' is a\nperfectly neutral word, and must not be translated by 'murderer,' or any\nword connoting criminality. A man who slays another in self-defence, or in\nrighteous execution of the law, is still his 'bane'[487].\" Everyone admits\nthis to be true: and yet at the same time _bana_ is quoted to prove that\nFinn is to blame; because, for want of a better word, we half-consciously\nrender _bana_ \"murderer\": and \"murderer\" _does_ imply blame. \"Words,\" says\nBacon, \"as a Tartar's bow, do shoot back upon the understanding of the\nwisest.\"\n\nLawrence continues: \"The lines tell us that it was regarded as disgraceful\nfor the Danes to have to follow him.\" But surely this is saying too much.\nThat the Frisians are not to taunt the Danes with following the slayer of\ntheir lord is only one of two possible interpretations of the ll. 1101-3.\nAnd even if we accept this interpretation, it does not follow that the\nDanes are regarded as having done anything with which they can be _justly_\ntaunted. It is part of the settlement between Gunnar and Njal, that Njal's\nsons are not to be taunted: if a man repeats the taunts he shall fall\nunavenged[488]. Surely a man may be touchy about being taunted, without\nbeing regarded as having done anything disgraceful. Indeed, in our case,\nthe poet implies that taunts would _not_ be just, _th[=a] him sw[=a]\ngethearfod waes_. But, as I try to show below, no _thearf_ could have\nexcused the submission of retainers to a foe who had just slain their lord\nby deliberate treachery.\n\n{272}\n\n\"The revenge at the end falls heavily upon Finn.\" It does; as so often\nhappens where the feud is temporarily patched up, it breaks out again, as\nin the stories of Alboin, Ingeld or Bolli. But this does not prove that the\nperson upon whom the revenge ultimately falls heavily had been a\nguest-slayer. The possibility of even temporary reconciliation rather\nimplies the reverse.\n\n\"The insult and hurt to Danish pride would be very little lessened by the\nassumption that someone else [than Finn] started the quarrel; and for this\nassumption, too, the lines give no warrant.\" But they _do_: for they tell\nus that it was due to the bad faith of the Eotens. Commentators may argue,\nif they will, that \"Eotens\" means Finn. But the weight of proof lies on\nthem, and they have not met it, or seriously attempted to meet it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION VIII. THE WEIGHT OF PROOF: THE EOTENS\n\nFinn is surely entitled to be held innocent till he can be proved guilty.\nAnd the argument for his guilt comes to this: the trouble was due to the\nbad faith of the Eotens: \"Eotens\" means \"Jutes\": \"Jutes\" means \"Frisians\":\n\"Frisians\" means \"Finn\": therefore the trouble was due to the treachery of\nFinn.\n\nNow I agree that it is probable that _Eotenas_ means Jutes; and, as I have\nsaid, there is nothing improbable in a Frisian king having had a clan of\nJutes, or a body of Jutish mercenaries, subject to him. But that the\nFrisians as a whole should be called Jutes is, _per se_, exceedingly\nimprobable, and we have no shadow of evidence for it. Lawrence tries to\njustify it by the authority of Siebs:\n\n    \"Siebs, perhaps the foremost authority on Frisian conditions,\n    conjectures that ... the occupation by the Frisians of Jutish territory\n    after the conquest of Britain assisted the confusion between the two\n    names.\"\n\nBut _did_ the Frisians occupy Jutish territory? When we ask what is Siebs'\nauthority for the hypothesis that Frisians occupied Jutish territory, we\nfind it to be this: that because in _Beowulf_ \"Jute\" means \"Frisian,\" some\nsuch event must have taken place to account for this nomenclature[489]. So\nit comes to this: the Frisians must have been called Jutes, because they\noccupied {273} Jutish territory: the Frisians must have occupied Jutish\nterritory because they are called Jutes. I do not think we could have a\nbetter example of what Prof. Tupper calls \"philological legend.\"\n\nSiebs rejects Bede's statement, which places the Jutes in what is now\nJutland: he believes them to have been immediately adjacent to the\nFrisians. For this belief that the Jutes were immediate neighbours of the\nFrisians there is, of course, some support, though not of a very convincing\nkind: but the belief that the Frisians occupied the territory of these\nadjacent Jutes rests, so far as I know, solely upon this identification of\nthe _Eotenas_-Jutes with the Frisians, which it is then in turn used to\nprove.\n\nBut if by Jutes we understand (following Bede) a people dwelling north of\nthe Angles, in or near the peninsula of Jutland, then it is of course true\nthat (at a much later date) a colony of Frisians _did_ occupy territory\nwhich is near Jutland, and which is sometimes included in the name\n\"Jutland.\" But, as I have tried to show above, this \"North Frisian\" colony\nbelongs to a period much later than that of the Finn-story: we have no\nreason whatever to suppose that the Frisians of the Finn story are the\nNorth Frisians of Sylt and the adjoining islands and mainland--the\n_Frisiones qui habitabant Juthlandie_[490].\n\nAnd when we have assumed, without evidence, that, at the period with which\nwe are dealing, Frisians had occupied Jutish territory, we are then further\nasked to assume that, from this settlement in Jutish territory, such\nFrisians came to be called Jutes. Now this is an hypothesis _per se_\nconceivable, but very improbable. Throughout the whole Heroic Age, for a\nthousand years after the time of Tacitus, Germanic tribes were moving, and\noccupying the territory of other people. During this period, how many\ninstances can we find in which a tribe took the name of the people whose\nterritory it occupied? Even where the name of the new home is adopted, the\nold tribal name is _not_ adopted. For instance, the Bavarians occupied the\nterritory of the Celtic Boii, but they did not call themselves Boii, but\nBai(haim)varii, \"the dwellers in the land of the Boii\"--a very {274}\ndifferent thing. In the same way the Jutes who settled in the land of the\nCantii did not call themselves _Kente_, but _Cantware_, \"dwellers in\nCantium.\" Of course, where the old name of a country survives, it does\noften _in the long run_ come to be applied to its new inhabitants; but this\ntakes many ages. It was not till a good thousand years after the English\nhad conquered the land of the Britons, that Englishmen began to speak and\nthink of themselves as \"Britons.\" In feudal or 18th century days all the\nsubjects of the ruler of Britain, Prussia, Austria, may come to be called\nBritish, Prussians, Austrians. But this is no argument for the period with\nwhich we are dealing. The assumption, then, that a body of Frisians, simply\nbecause they inhabited land which had once been inhabited by Jutes, should\nhave called themselves Jutes, is so contrary to all we know of tribal\nnomenclature at this date, that one could only accept it if compelled by\nvery definite evidence to do so. And of such evidence there is no\nscrap[491]. Neither is there a scrap of evidence for the underlying\nhypothesis that any Frisians _were_ settled at this date in Jutish\nterritory.\n\nAnd as if this were not hypothetical enough, a further hypothesis has then\nto be built upon it: viz., that this name \"Jutes,\" belonging to such of the\nFrisians as had settled in Jutish territory, somehow became applicable to\nFrisians as a whole. Now this might conceivably have happened, but only as\na result of certain political events. If the Jutish Frisians had become the\ngoverning element in Frisia, it would be conceivable. But after all, we\nknow something about Frisian history, and I do not {275} think we are at\nliberty to assume any such changes as would have enabled the Frisian\npeople, as a whole, to be called Jutes. How is it that we never get any\nhint anywhere of this Jutish preponderance and Jutish ascendancy?\n\nThe argument that the \"treachery of the Jutes\" means the treachery of Finn,\nKing of the Frisians, has, then, no support at all.\n\n\n\nOne further argument there is, for attributing treason to Finn.\n\nIt has been urged that in other stories a husband entraps and betrays the\nbrother of his wife. But we are not justified in reading pieces of one\nstory into another, unless we believe the two stories to be really\nconnected. The Signy of the _V[o,]lsunga Saga_ has been quoted as a\nparallel to Hildeburh[492]. Signy leaves the home of her father Volsung and\nher brother Sigmund to wed King Siggeir. Siggeir invites the kin of his\nwife to visit him, and then slays Volsung and all his sons, save Sigmund.\nBut it is the difference of the story, rather than its likeness, which is\nstriking. No hint is ever made of any possibility of reconciliation between\nSiggeir and the kin of the men he has slain. The feud admits of no\natonement, and is continued to the utterance. Siggeir's very wife helps her\nbrother Sigmund to his revenge.\n\nHow different from the attitude of Sigmund and Signy is the willingness of\nHengest to come to terms, and the merely passive and elegiac bearing of\nHildeburh! These things do not suggest that we ought to read a King Siggeir\ntreachery into the story of Finn.\n\nAgain, the fact that Atli entices the brother of his wife into his power,\nhas been urged as a parallel. But surely it is rather unfair to erect this\ninto a kind of standard of conduct for the early Germanic brother-in-law,\nand to assume as a matter of course that, because Finn is Hnaef's\nbrother-in-law, therefore he must have sought to betray him. The whole\natmosphere of the Finn-Hnaef story, with its attempted reconciliation, is\nas opposed to that of the story of Atli as it is to the story of Siggeir.\n\n{276}\n\nThe only epithet applied to Finn is _ferhdh-freca_, \"valiant in soul.\"\nThough _freca_ is not necessarily a good word, and is applied to the dragon\nas well as to Beowulf, yet it denotes grim, fierce, almost reckless\ncourage. It does not suggest a traitor who invites his foes to his house,\nand murders them by night.\n\n\n\nI interpret the lines, then, as meaning that the trouble arose from the\nJutes, and, since the context shows that these Jutes were on Finn's side,\nand against the Danes, we must hold them to be a body of Jutes in the\nservice of Finn[493].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION IX. ETHICS OF THE BLOOD FEUD\n\nBut, as we have seen, it is objected that this interpretation of the\nsituation, absolving Finn from any charge of treachery or aggression, does\nnot \"help matters[494].\" Or, as Prof. Lawrence puts it, \"the hurt to Danish\npride [in entering the service of Finn] would be very little lessened by\nthe assumption that someone else [than Finn] started the quarrel.\"\n\nThese objections seem to me to be contrary to the whole spirit of the old\nheroic literature.\n\nI quite admit that there is a stage in primitive society when the act of\nslaying is everything, and the circumstances, or motives, do not count. In\nthe Levitical Law, it is taken for granted that, if a man innocently causes\nthe death of another, as for instance if his axe break, and the axe-head\naccidentally kill his comrade, then the avenger of blood will seek to slay\nthe homicide, just as much as if he had been guilty of treacherous murder.\nTo meet such cases the Cities of Refuge are established, where the homicide\nmay flee till his case can be investigated; but even though found innocent,\nthe homicide may be at once slain by the avenger, should he step outside\nthe City of Refuge. And this \"eye for eye\" vengeance yields slowly: it took\nlong to establish legally in our own country the distinction between murder\nand homicide.\n\n{277}\n\nFor \"The thought of man\" it was held \"shall not be tried: as the devil\nhimself knoweth not the thought of man.\" Nevertheless, even the Germanic\n_wer-gild_ system permits consideration of circumstances: it often happens\nthat no _wer-gild_ is to be paid because the slain man has been unjust, or\nthe aggressor[495], or no _wer-gild_ will be accepted because the slaying\nwas under circumstances making settlement impossible.\n\nDoubtless in Germanic barbarism there was once a stage similar to that\nwhich must have preceded the establishment of the Cities of Refuge in\nIsrael[496]; but that stage had passed before the period with which we are\ndealing; in the Heroic Age the motive _did_ count for a very great deal.\nNot but what there were still the literal people who insisted upon \"an eye\nfor an eye,\" without looking at circumstances; and these people often had\ntheir way; but their view is seldom the one taken by the characters with\nwhom the poet or the saga-man sympathises. These generally hold a more\nmoderate creed. One may almost say that the leading motive in heroic\nliterature is precisely this difference of opinion between the people who\nhold that under any circumstances it is shameful to come to an agreement\nwith the _bana_ of one's lord or friend or kinsman, and the people who are\nwilling _under certain circumstances_ to come to such an agreement.\n\nIt happens not infrequently that after some battle in which a great chief\nhas been killed, his retainers are offered quarter, and accept it; but I do\nnot remember any instance of their doing this if, instead of an open\nbattle, it is a case of a treacherous attack. The two most famous downfalls\nof Northern princes afford typical examples: after the battle of Svold,\nKolbjorn Stallari accepts quarter from Eric, the chivalrous _bani_ of his\nlord Olaf[497]; but Rolf's men refuse quarter after the treacherous murder\nof their lord by Hiarwarus[498].\n\n{278}\n\nThat men, after a fair fight, could take quarter from, or give it to, those\nwho had slain their lord or closest kinsman, is shown by abundant\nreferences in the sagas and histories. For instance, when Eric, after the\nfight with the Jomsvikings, offers quarter to his prisoners, that quarter\nis accepted, even though their leaders, their nearest kin, and their\nfriends have been slain. The first to receive quarter is young Sigurd,\nwhose father Bui has just been killed: yet the writer obviously does not\nthe less sympathize with Sigurd, or with the other Jomsviking survivors,\nand feels the action to be generous on the part of Eric, and in no wise\nbase on the part of the Jomsvikings[499]. But this is natural, because the\nJomsvikings have just been defeated by Eric in fair fight. It would be\nimpossible, if Eric were represented as a traitor, slaying the Jomsvikings\nby a treacherous attack, whilst they were his guests. Is it to be supposed\nthat Sigurd, under such circumstances, would have taken quarter from the\nslayer of Bui his father?\n\nIn the _Laxdaela Saga_, Olaf the Peacock, in exacting vengeance for the\nslaying of his son Kjartan, shows no leniency towards the sons of Osvif, on\nwhom the moral responsibility rests. But he accepts compensation in money\nfrom Bolli, who had been drawn into the feud against his will. Yet Bolli\nwas the actual slayer of Kjartan, and he had taken the responsibility as\nsuch[500]. And Olaf is not held to have lowered himself by accepting a\nmoney payment as atonement from the slayer of his son--on the contrary \"he\nwas considered to have grown in reputation\" from having thus spared Bolli.\nBut after Olaf's death, the feud bursts out again, and revenge in the end\nfalls heavily upon Bolli[501], as it does upon Finn.\n\nOn this question a fairly uniform standard of feeling will be found from\nthe sixth century to the thirteenth. That it _does_ make all the difference\nin composing a feud, whether the slaying from which the feud arises was\ntreacherous or not, can be abundantly proved from many documents, from Paul\nthe Deacon, and possibly earlier, to the Icelandic Sagas. Such composition\nof feuds may or may not be lasting; it may or may {279} not expose to taunt\nthose who make it; but the questions which arise are precisely these: Who\nstarted the quarrel? Was the slaying fair or treacherous? Upon the answer\ndepends the possibility of atonement. There may be some insult and hurt to\na man's pride in accepting atonement, even in cases where the other side\nhas much to say for itself. But if the slaying has been fair, composition\nis felt to be possible, though not without danger of the feud breaking out\nafresh.\n\nProf. Lawrence has suggested that perhaps, in the original version of the\n_Finnsburg_ story, the Danes were reduced to greater straits than is\nrepresented to be the case in the extant _Beowulf Episode_. He thinks that\nit is \"almost incomprehensible\" that Hengest should make terms with Finn,\nif he had really reduced Finn and his thegns to such a degree of\nhelplessness as the words of the _Episode_ state. It seems to me that the\nmatter depends much more upon the treachery or the honesty of Finn. If Finn\nwas guilty of treachery and slaughter of his guests, then it _is_\n\"unintelligible\" that Hengest should spare him: but if Finn was really a\nrespectable character, then the fact that Hengest was making headway\nagainst him is rather a reason why Hengest should be moderate, than\notherwise. To quote the _Laxdaela Saga_ again: though Olaf the Peacock lets\noff Bolli, the _bani_ of his son Kjartan, with a money payment, he makes it\nclear that he is master of the situation, before he shows this mercy.\nParadoxical as it sounds, it was often easier for a man to show moderation\nin pursuing a blood feud, just _because_ he was in a strong position. It is\nso again in the _Saga of Thorstein the White_. But the adversary must be\none who deserves to be treated with moderation.\n\nOf course it is quite possible that Prof. Lawrence is right, and that in\nsome earlier and more correct version the Danes may have been represented\nas so outnumbered by the Frisians that they had no choice except to\nsurrender to Finn, and enter his service, or else to be destroyed. But,\nwhether this be so or no, all parallel incidents in the old literature show\nthat their choice between these evil alternatives will depend upon whether\nFinn, the _bana_ of their lord, slew that lord by deliberate and\npremeditated treachery whilst he was his guest, or whether he {280} was\nembroiled with him through the fault of others, under circumstances which\nwere perfectly honourable. If the latter is the case, then Hnaef's men\n_might_ accept quarter. Their position is comparable with that of Illugi at\nthe end of the _Grettis Saga_[502]. Illugi is a prisoner in the hands of\nthe slayers of Grettir and he charges them with having overcome Grettir,\nwhen already on the point of death from a mortifying wound, which they had\ninflicted on him by sorcery and enchantment. The slayers propose to Illugi\nterms parallel to those made to the retainers of Hnaef. \"I will give thee\nthy life,\" says their leader, \"if thou wilt swear to us an oath not to take\nvengeance on any of those who have been in this business.\"\n\nNow, note the answer of Illugi: \"That might have seemed to me a matter to\nbe discussed, if Grettir had been able to defend himself, and if ye had\novercome him with valour and courage; but now it is not to be looked for\nthat I will save my life by being such a coward as art thou. In a word, no\nman shall be more harmful to thee than I, if I live, _for never can I\nforget how it was that ye have vanquished Grettir_. Much rather, then, do I\nchoose to die.\"\n\nNow of course it would have been an \"insult and hurt\" to the pride of\nIllugi, or of any other decent eleventh century Icelander, to have been\ncompelled to swear an oath not to avenge his brother, even though that\nbrother had been slain in the most chivalrous way possible; and it would\ndoubtless have been a hard matter, even in such a case, for Illugi to have\nkept his oath, had he sworn it. But the treachery of the opponents puts an\noath out of the question, just as it must have done in the case of the\nfollowers of King Cynewulf[503] or of Rolf Kraki, and as it must have done\nin the case of the followers of Hnaef, had the slaying of Hnaef been a\npremeditated act of treachery on the part of Finn.\n\nIn the _Nj['a]ls Saga_, Flosi has to take up the feud for the slain\nHauskuld. Flosi is a moderate and reasonable man, so the first thing he\ndoes is to enquire into the _circumstances_ under which Hauskuld was slain.\nFlosi finds that the circumstances, and the outrageous conduct of the\nslayers, give him no choice {281} but to prosecute the feud. So in the end\nhe burns Njal's hall, and in it the child of Kari.\n\nNow to have burned a man's child to death might well seem a deed impossible\nof atonement. Yet in the end Flosi and Kari are reconciled by a full\natonement, _the father of the slain child actually taking the first\nstep_[504]. And all this is possible because Flosi and Kari recognise that\neach has been trying to play his part with justice and fairness, and that\neach is dragged into the feud through the fault of others. When Flosi has\nsaid of his enemy, \"I would that I were altogether such a man as Kari is,\"\nwe feel that reconciliation is in sight.\n\nVery similar is the reconciliation between Alboin and Thurisind in\nLongobard story, but with this difference, that here it is Alboin who seeks\nreconciliation by going to the hall of the man whose son he has slain, thus\nreversing the parts of Flosi and Kari; and reconciliation is possible--just\nbarely possible.\n\nAgain, when Bothvar comes to the hall of Rolf, and slays one of Rolf's\nretainers, the other retainers naturally claim full vengeance. Rolf insists\nupon investigating the _circumstances_. When he learns that it was his own\nman who gave the provocation, he comes to terms with the slayer.\n\nOf course it was a difficult matter, and one involving a sacrifice of their\npride, for the retainers of Hnaef to come to any composition with the\n_bana_ of their lord; but it is not unthinkable, if the quarrel was started\nby Finn's subordinates without his consent, and if Finn himself fought\nfair. But had the slaying been an act of premeditated treachery on the part\nof Finn, the atonement would, I submit, have been not only difficult but\nimpossible. If the retainers of Hnaef had had such success as our poem\nimplies, then their action under such circumstances is, as Lawrence says,\n\"almost incomprehensible.\" If they did it under compulsion, and fear of\ndeath, then their action would be contrary to all the ties of Germanic\nhonour, and would entirely deprive them of any sympathy the audience might\notherwise have felt for them. Yet it is quite obvious that the retainers of\nHnaef are precisely the people with whom the audience is expected to\nsympathise[505].\n\n{282}\n\nIn any case, the feud was likely enough to break out again as it did in the\ncase of Alboin and Thurisind, and equally in that of Hrothgar and Ingeld.\n\nIndeed, the different versions of the story of the feud between the house\nof Hrothgar and the house of Froda are very much to the point.\n\nMuch the oldest version--probably in its main lines quite historical--is\nthe story as given in _Beowulf_. Froda has been slain by the Danes in\npitched battle. Subsequently Hrothgar, upon whom, as King of the Danes, the\nresponsibility for meeting the feud has devolved, tries to stave it off by\nwedding his daughter Freawaru to Ingeld, son of Froda. The sympathy of the\npoet is obviously with the luckless pair, Ingeld and Freawaru, involved as\nthey are in ancient hatreds which are not of their making. For it is\nforeseen how some old warrior, who cannot forget his loyalty to his former\nking, will stir up the feud afresh.\n\nBut Saxo Grammaticus tells the story differently. Froda (Frotho) is\ntreacherously invited to a banquet, and then slain. By this treachery the\nwhole atmosphere of the story is changed. Ingeld (Ingellus) marries the\ndaughter of his father's slayer, and, for this, the old version reproduced\nby Saxo showers upon him literally scores of phrases of scorn and contempt.\nThe whole interest of the story now centres not in the recreant Ingeld or\nhis wife of treacherous race, but in the old warrior Starkad, whose spirit\nand eloquence is such that he can bring Ingeld to a sense of his \"vast\nsin[506],\" can burst the bonds of his iniquity, and at last compel him to\ntake vengeance for his father.\n\nIn the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_ the story of Froda is still further changed. It\nis a tale not only of treachery but also of slaying of kin. Consequently\nthe idea of any kind of atonement, however temporary, has become\nimpossible; there is no hint of it.\n\nNow the whole atmosphere of the Hengest-story in _Beowulf_ is parallel to\nthat of the _Beowulf_ version of the Ingeld-story: agreement is possible,\nthough it does not prove to be permanent. There is room for much hesitation\nin the minds of Hengest and of Ingeld: they remain the heroes of the story.\nBut if Finn had, as is usually supposed, invited Hnaef to his fort and then\n{283} deliberately slain him by treachery, the whole atmosphere would have\nbeen different. Hengest could not then be the hero, but the foil: the\nexample of a man whose spirit fails at the crisis, who does the utterly\ndisgraceful thing, and enters the service of his lord's treacherous foe.\nThe hero of the story would be some other character--possibly the young\nHunlafing, who, loyal in spite of the treachery and cowardice of his leader\nHengest, yet, remaining steadfast of soul, is able in the end to infuse his\nown courage into the heart of the recreant Hengest, and to inspire all the\nperjured Danish thegns to their final and triumphant revenge on Finn.\n\nBut that is not how the story is presented.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION X. AN ATTEMPT AT RECONSTRUCTION\n\nThe theory, then, which seems to fit in best with what we know of the\nhistoric conditions at the time when the story arose, and which fits in\nbest with such details of the story as we have, is this:\n\nFinn, King of Frisia, has a stronghold, Finnsburg, outside the limits of\nFrisia proper. There several clans and chieftains are assembled[507]:\nHnaef, Finn's brother-in-law, prince of the Hocings, the Eotens, and\nSigeferth, prince of the Secgan; whether Sigeferth has his retinue with him\nor no is not clear.\n\nBut the treachery of the Eotens causes trouble: they have some old feud\nwith Hnaef and his Danes, and attack them by surprise in their hall. There\nis no proof that Finn has any share in this treason. It is therefore quite\nnatural that in the _Episode_--although the treachery of the Eotens is\ncensured--Finn is never blamed; and that in the _Fragment_, Finn has\napparently no share in the attack on the hall, at any rate during those\nfirst five days to which the account in the _Fragment_ is limited.\n\nThe attack is led by Garulf (_Fragment_, l. 20), presumably the prince of\nthe Eotens: and some friend or kinsman is urging Garulf not to hazard so\nprecious a life in the first attack. And {284} here, too, the situation now\nbecomes clearer: if Garulf is the chief of the attacking people, we can\nunderstand one of his kinsmen or friends expostulating thus: but if he is\nmerely one of a number of subordinates despatched by Finn to attack the\nhall, the position would not be so easily understood.\n\nGarulf, however, does not heed the warning, and falls, \"first of all the\ndwellers in that land.\" The _Fragment_ breaks off, but the fight goes on:\nwe can imagine that matters must have proceeded much as in the great attack\nupon the hall in the _Nibelungen lied_[508]. One man after another would be\ndrawn in, by the duty of revenge, and Finn's own men would wake to find a\nbattle in progress. \"The sudden bale (_f[=ae]r_) came upon them.\" Finn's\nson joins in the attack, perhaps in order to avenge some young comrade in\narms; and is slain, possibly by Hnaef. Then Finn _has_ to intervene, and\nHnaef in turn is slain, possibly, though not certainly, by Finn himself.\nBut Hengest, the thegn of Hnaef, puts up so stout a defence, that Finn is\nunable to take a full vengeance upon all the Danes. He offers them terms.\nWhat are Hengest and the thegns to do?\n\nFinn has slain their lord. But they are Finn's guests, and they have slain\nFinn's son in his own house. Finn himself is, I take it, blameless. _It is\nhere that the tragic tension comes in._ We can understand how, even if\nHengest had Finn in his power, he might well have stayed his hand. So peace\nis made, and all is to be forgotten: solemn oaths are sworn. And Finn keeps\nhis promise honestly. He resumes his position of host, making no\ndistinction between Eotens, Frisians and Danes, who are all, for the time\nat least, his followers.\n\nI think we have here a rational explanation of the action of Hengest and\nthe other thegns of Hnaef, in following the slayer of their lord.\n\nThe situation resembles that which takes place when Alboin seeks\nhospitality in the hall of the man whose son he has slain, or when Ingeld\nis reconciled to Hrothgar. Very similar, too, {285} is the temporary\nreconciliation often brought about in an Icelandic feud by the feeling that\nthe other side has something to say for itself, and that both have suffered\ngrievously. The death of Finn's son is a set off against the death of\nHnaef[509]. But, as in the case of Alboin and of Ingeld, or of many an\nIcelandic Saga, the passion for revenge is too deep to be laid to rest\npermanently. This is what makes the figure of Hengest tragic, like the\nfigure of Ingeld: both have plighted their word, but neither can keep it.\n\nThe assembly breaks up. Finn and his men go back to Friesland, and Hengest\naccompanies them: of the other Danish survivors nothing is said for the\nmoment: whatever longings they may have had for revenge, the poet\nconcentrates all for the moment in the figure of Hengest.\n\nHengest spends the winter with Finn, but he cannot quiet his conscience:\nand in the end, he accepts the gift of a sword from a young Danish prince\nHunlafing, who is planning revenge. The uncles of Hunlafing, Guthlaf and\nOslaf [Ordlaf], had been in the hall when it was attacked, and had\nsurvived. It is possible that the young prince's father, Hunlaf, was slain\nthen, and that his son is therefore recognised as having the nominal\nleadership in the operations of vengeance[510]. Hengest, by accepting the\nsword, promises his services in the work of revenge, and makes a great\nslaughter of the treacherous Eotens. Perhaps he so far respects his oath\nthat he leaves the simultaneous attack upon Finn to Guthlaf and Oslaf\n[Ordlaf]. Here we should have an explanation of _swylce_: \"in like\nwise[511]\"; and also an explanation of the omission of Hengest's name from\nthe final act, the slaying of Finn himself. Hengest made the Eotens {286}\nfeel the sharpness of his sword: and in like wise Guthlaf and Oslaf\nconducted their part of the campaign. Of course this is only a guess: but\nit is very much in the manner of the Heroic Age to get out of a difficulty\nby respecting the letter of an oath whilst breaking its spirit--just as\nHogni and Gunnar arrange that the actual slaying of Sigurd shall be done by\nGuttorm, who had not personally sworn the oath, as they had.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION XI. GEFWULF, PRINCE OF THE JUTES\n\nConclusive external evidence in favour of the view just put forward we can\nhardly hope for: for this reason, amongst others, that the names of the\nactors in the Finn tragedy are corrupted and obscured in the different\nversions. Hnaef and Hengest are too well known to be altered: but most of\nthe other names mentioned in the _Fragment_ do not agree with the forms\ngiven in other documents. Sigeferth is the Saeferth of _Widsith_: the\nOrdlaf (correct) of the _Fragment_ is the Oslaf of the _Episode_. The first\nGuthlaf is confirmed by the Guthlaf of the _Episode_: the other names, the\nsecond Guthlaf, Eaha and Guthere, we cannot control from other sources: but\nthey have all, on various grounds, been suspected.\n\nTribal names are equally varied. Sigeferth's people, the Secgan, are called\nSycgan in _Widsith_. And he would be a bold man who would deny (what almost\nall students of the subject hold) that _Eotena, Eotenum_ in the _Episode_\nis yet another scribal error: the copyist had before him the Anglian form,\n_eotna, eotnum_, and miswrote _eotena, eotenum_, when he should have\nwritten the West-Saxon equivalent of the tribal name, _[=Y]tena,\n[=Y]tum_--the name we get in _Widsith_:\n\n              [=Y]tum [weold] Gefwulf\n  Fin Folcwalding Fr[=e]sna cynne.\n\nBut in _Widsith_ names of heroes and tribes are grouped together (often,\nbut not invariably) according as they are related in story. Consequently\nGefwulf is probably (not certainly) a hero of the Finn story. What part\ndoes he play? If, as I have been trying to show, the Jutes are the\naggressors, then, as their chief, Gefwulf would probably be the leader of\nthe attack upon the hall. {287}\n\nThis part, in the _Fragment_, is played by Garulf.\n\n\n\nNow _G[=a]rulf_ is not _Gefwulf_, and I am not going to pretend that it is.\nBut _G[=a]rulf_ is very near _Gefwulf_: and (what is important) more so in\nOld English script than in modern script[512]. It stands to _Gefwulf_ in\nexactly the same relation as _Hereg[=a]r_ to _Heorog[=a]r_ or _Sigeferdh_\nto _S[=ae]ferdh_ or _Ordl[=a]f_ to _[=O]sl[=a]f_: that is to say the\ninitial letter and the second element are identical. And no serious\nstudent, I think, doubts that _Hereg[=a]r_ and _Heorog[=a]r_, or\n_Sigeferdh_ and _S[=ae]ferdh_, or _Ordl[=a]f_ and _[=O]sl[=a]f_ are merely\ncorruptions of one name. And if it be admitted to be probable that\n_Gefwulf_ is miswritten for _G[=a]rulf_, then the theory that Garulf was\nprince of the Jutes, and the original assailant of Hnaef, in addition to\nbeing the only theory which satisfactorily explains the internal evidence\nof the _Fragment_ and the _Episode_, has also powerful external support.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSECTION XII. CONCLUSION\n\nBut, apart from any such confirmation, I think that the theory offers an\nexplanation of the known facts of the case, and that it is the only theory\nyet put forward which does. It enables us to solve many minor difficulties\nthat hardly otherwise admit of solution. But, above all, it gives a tragic\ninterest to the story by making the actions of the two main characters,\nFinn and Hengest, intelligible and human: they are both great chiefs,\nplaced by circumstances in a cruel position. Finn is no longer a\ntreacherous host, plotting the murder of his guests, without even having\nthe courage personally to superintend the dirty work: and Hengest is not\nguilty of the shameful act of entering the service of a king who had slain\nhis lord by treachery when a guest. The tale of _Finnsburg_ becomes one of\ntragic misfortune besetting great heroes--a tale of the same type as the\nstories of Thurisind or Ingeld, of Sigurd or Theodric.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{288}\n\nFRISIA IN THE HEROIC AGE\n\nIt is now generally recognised that loose confederacies of tribes were, at\nthe period with which we are dealing, very common. Lawrence says this\nexpressly: \"The actors in this drama are members of two North Sea tribes,\nor _rather groups of tribes_[513]\"; and again[514]: \"At the time when the\npresent poem was put into shape, we surely have to assume for the Danes and\nFrisians, not compact and unified political units, but groups of tribes\nheld somewhat loosely together, and sometimes known by tribal names.\"\n\nThis seems to me a quite accurate view of the political situation in the\nlater Heroic Age. The independent tribes, as they existed at the time of\nTacitus, tended to coalesce, and from such coalition the nations of modern\nEurope are gradually evolved. In the seventh and eighth centuries a great\nking of Northumbria or Frisia is likely to be king, not of one only, but of\nmany allied tribes. I cannot therefore quite understand why some scholars\nreject so immediately the idea that the Eotens are not necessarily\nFrisians, but rather a tribe in alliance with the Frisians. For if, as they\nadmit, we are dealing not with two compact units, but with two groups of\ntribes, why must we assume, as earlier scholars have done, that _Eotenas_\nmust be synonymous either with Frisians or Danes? That assumption is based\nupon the belief that we _are_ dealing with two compact units. It has no\nother foundation. I can quite understand Kemble and Ettmueller jumping at\nthe conclusion that the Eotens _must_ be identical with the one side or the\nother. But once we have recognised that confederacies of tribes, rather\nthan individual tribes, are to be expected in the period with which we are\ndealing, then surely no such assumption should be made.\n\nI think we shall be helped if we try to get some clear idea of the\nnationalities concerned in the struggle. For to judge by the analogy of\nother contemporary Germanic stories, there probably is some historic basis\nfor the _Finnsburg_ story: and even if the fight is purely fictitious, and\nif Finn Folcwalding never existed, still the Old English poets would\nrepresent the fictitious Frisian king in the light of what they knew of\ncontemporary kings.\n\nNow the Frisians were no insignificant tribe. They were a power,\ncontrolling the coasts of what was then called the \"Frisian Sea[515].\"\nCommerce was in Frisian hands. Archaeological evidence points to a lively\ntrade between the Frisian districts and the coast of Norway[516]. From\nabout the sixth century, when \"Dorostates of the Frisians\" is mentioned by\nthe Geographer of Ravenna (or the source from which he drew) in a manner\nwhich shows it to have been known even in Italy as a place of peculiar\n{289} importance[517], to the ninth century, when it was destroyed by\nrepeated attacks of the Vikings, the Frisian port of Dorestad[518] was one\nof the greatest trade centres of Northern Europe[519]. By the year 700 the\nFrisian power had suffered severely from the constant blows dealt to it by\nthe Frankish Mayors of the Palace. Yet evidence seems to show that even at\nthat date the Frisian king ruled all the coast which intervened between the\nborders of the Franks on the one side and of the Danes on the other[520].\nWhen a zealous missionary demonstrated the powerlessness of the heathen\ngods by baptizing three converts in the sacred spring of Fosetisland, he\nwas carried before the King of Frisia for judgement[521].\n\nAt a later date the \"Danes\" became the controlling power in the North Sea;\nbut in the centuries before the Viking raids began, the Frisians appear to\nhave had it all their own way.\n\nFinn, son of Folcwald, found his way into some English genealogies[522]\njust as the Roman Emperor did into others. This also seems to point to the\nFrisian power having made an impression on the nations around.\n\nWe should expect all this to be reflected in the story of the great Frisian\nking. How then would a seventh or eighth century Englishman regard Finn and\nhis father Folcwalda? Probably as paramount chiefs, holding authority over\nthe tribes of the South and East coast of the North Sea, similar to that\nwhich, for example, a Northumbrian king held over the tribes settled along\nthe British coast. Indeed, the whole story of the Northumbrian kings, as\ngiven in Bede, deserves comparison: the relation with the subordinate\ntribes, the alliances, the feuds, the attempted assassinations, the loyalty\nof the thegns--this is the atmosphere amid which the Finn story grew up in\nEngland, and if we want to understand the story we must begin by getting\nthis point of view.\n\nBut, if this be a correct estimate of tribal conditions at the time the\n_Finnsburg_ story took form, we no longer need far-fetched explanations to\naccount for Finnsburg not being in Friesland. It is natural that it should\nnot be, just as natural as that the contemporary Eadwinesburg should be\noutside the ancient limits of Deira. Nor do we need any far-fetched\nexplanations why the Frisians should be called _Eotenas_. That the King of\nFrisia should have had Jutes under his rule is likely enough. And this is\nall that the words of the _Episode_ demand.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{290}\n\n{291}\n\nPART IV\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nA. A POSTSCRIPT ON MYTHOLOGY IN _BEOWULF_\n\n(1) _Beowulf the Scylding and Beowulf son of Ecgtheow_\n\nIt is now ten years since Prof. Lawrence attacked the mythological theories\nwhich, from the time when they were first enunciated by Kemble and\nelaborated by Muellenhoff, had wielded an authority over _Beowulf_ scholars\nwhich was only very rarely disputed[523].\n\nWhilst in the main I agree with Prof. Lawrence, I believe that there _is_\nan element of truth in the theories of Kemble. It would, indeed, be both\nastonishing and humiliating if we found that a view, accepted for\nthree-quarters of a century by almost every student, had no foundation.\nWhat is really remarkable is, not that Kemble should have carried his\nmythological theory too far, but that, with the limited information at his\ndisposal, he at once saw certain aspects of the truth so clearly.\n\n\n\nThe mythological theories involve three propositions:\n\n(_a_) That some, or all, of the supernatural stories told of Beowulf the\nGeat, son of Ecgtheow (especially the Grendel-struggle and the\ndragon-struggle), were originally told of Beowulf the Dane, son of Scyld,\nwho can be identified with the Beow or Beaw[524] of the genealogies.\n\n{292}\n\n(_b_) That this Beow was an ancient \"god of agriculture and fertility.\"\n\n(_c_) That therefore we can allegorize Grendel and the dragon into\nculture-myths connected with the \"god Beow.\"\n\nNow (_c_) would not necessarily follow, even granting (_a_) and (_b_); for\nthough a hero of story be an ancient god, many of his most popular\nadventures may be later accretion. However, these two propositions (_a_)\nand (_b_) would, together, establish a very strong probability that the\nGrendel-story and the dragon-story were ancient culture-myths, and would\nentitle to a sympathetic hearing those who had such an interpretation of\nthem to offer.\n\n\n\nThat Beow is an ancient \"god of agriculture and fertility,\" I believe to be\nsubstantially true. We shall see that a great deal of evidence, unknown to\nKemble and Muellenhoff, is now forthcoming to show that there _was_ an\nancient belief in a corn-spirit Beow: and this Beow, whom we find in the\ngenealogies as son of Scyld or Sceldwa and descendant of Sceaf, is pretty\nobviously identical with Beowulf, son of Scyld Scefing, in the _Prologue_\nof _Beowulf_.\n\nSo far as the _Prologue_ is concerned, there is, then, almost certainly a\nremote mythological background. But before we can claim that this\nbackground extends to the supernatural adventures attributed to Beowulf,\nson of Ecgtheow, we must prove our proposition (_a_): that these adventures\nwere once told, not of Beowulf, son of Ecgtheow, but of Beowulf or Beow,\nson of Scyld.\n\nWhen it was first suggested, at the very beginning of _Beowulf_-criticism,\nthat Beowulf was identical with the Beow of the genealogies, it had not\nbeen realized that there were in the poem _two_ persons named Beowulf: and\nthus an anonymous scholar in the _Monthly Review_ of 1816[525], not knowing\nthat Beowulf the slayer of Grendel is (at any rate in the poem as it\nstands) distinct from Beowulf, son of Scyld, connected both with Beow, son\nof Scyld, so initiating a theory which, for almost a century, was accepted\nas ascertained fact.\n\n{293}\n\nKemble's identification was probably made independently of the work of this\nearly scholar. Unlike him, Kemble, of course, realized that in our poem\nBeowulf the Dane, son of Scyld, is a person distinct from, is in fact not\nrelated to, Beowulf son of Ecgtheow. But he deliberately identified the\ntwo: he thought that two distinct traditions concerning the same hero had\nbeen amalgamated: in one of these traditions Beowulf may have been\nrepresented as son of Scyld, in the other as son of Ecgtheow, precisely as\nthe hero Gunnar or Gunter is in one tradition son of Gifica (Giuki), in\nanother son of Dankrat.\n\nOf course such duplication as Kemble assumed is conceivable. Kemble might\nhave instanced the way in which one and the same hero reappears in the\npages of Saxo Grammaticus, with somewhat different parentage or\nsurroundings, as if he were a quite different person. The _Lives of the Two\nOffas_ present another parallel: the adventures of the elder Offa have been\ntransferred to the younger, so that, along with much that is historical or\nsemi-historical, we have much in the _Life of Offa II_ that is simply\nborrowed from the story of Offa I. In the same way it is conceivable that\nreminiscences of the mythical adventures of the elder Beowulf (Beow) might\nhave been mingled with the history of the acts of the younger Beowulf, king\nof the Geatas. A guarantee of the intrinsic reasonableness of this theory\nlies in the fact that recently it has been put forward again by Dr Henry\nBradley. But it is not enough that a theory should be conceivable, and be\nsupported by great names. I cannot see that there is any positive evidence\nfor it at all.\n\nThe arguments produced by Kemble are not such as to carry conviction at the\npresent day. The fact that Beowulf the Geat, son of Ecgtheow, \"is\nrepresented throughout as a protecting and redeeming being\" does not\nnecessarily mean that we must look for some god or demigod of the old\nmythology--Frey or Sceaf or Beow--with whom we can identify him. This\ncharacteristic is strongly present in many Old English monarchs and\nmagnates of historic, Christian, times: Oswald or Alfred or Byrhtnoth.\nIndeed, it might with much plausibility be argued that we are to see in\nthis \"protecting\" character {294} of the hero evidence of Christian rather\nthan of heathen influence[526].\n\nNor can we argue anything from the absence of any historic record of a king\nBeowulf of the Geatas; our records are too scanty to admit of argument from\nsilence: and were such argument valid, it would only prove Beowulf\nfictitious, not mythological--no more necessarily an ancient god than Tom\nJones or Mr Pickwick.\n\n\n\nThere remains the argument of Dr Bradley. He points out that\n\n    \"The poem is divided into numbered sections, the length of which was\n    probably determined by the size of the pieces of parchment of which an\n    earlier exemplar consisted. Now the first fifty-two lines, which are\n    concerned with Scyld and his son Beowulf, stand outside this numbering.\n    It may reasonably be inferred that there once existed a written text of\n    the poem that did not include these lines. Their substance, however, is\n    clearly ancient. Many difficulties will be obviated if we may suppose\n    that this passage is the beginning of a different poem, the hero of\n    which was not Beowulf the son of Ecgtheow, but his Danish\n    namesake[527].\"\n\nIn this Bradley sees support for the view that \"there were circulated in\nEngland two rival poetic versions of the story of the encounters with\nsupernatural beings: the one referring them to Beowulf the Dane\" [of this\nthe _Prologue_ to our extant poem would be the only surviving portion,\nwhilst] \"the other (represented by the existing poem) attached them to the\nlegend of the son of Ecgtheow.\"\n\nBut surely many objections have to be met. Firstly, as Dr Bradley admits,\nthe mention of Beowulf the Dane is not confined to the _Prologue_; this\nearlier Beowulf \"is mentioned at the beginning of the first numbered\nsection\" and consequently Dr Bradley has to suppose that \"the opening lines\nof this section have undergone alteration in order to bring them into\nconnection with the prefixed matter.\" And why should we assume that the\n\"passus\" of _Beowulf_ correspond to pieces of {295} parchment of various\nsizes of which an earlier exemplar consisted? These \"passus\" vary in length\nfrom 43 lines to 142, a disproportion by no means extraordinary for the\nsections of one and the same poem, but very awkward for the pages of one\nand the same book, however roughly constructed. One of the \"passus\" is just\ntwice the average length, and 30 lines longer than the one which comes next\nto it in size. Ought we to assume that an artificer would have made his\nbook clumsy by putting in this one disproportionate page, when, by cutting\nit in two, he could have got two pages of just about the size he wanted?\nBesides, the different \"passus\" do not seem to me to show signs of having\nbeen caused by such mechanical reasons as the dimensions of the parchment\nupon which they were written. On the contrary, the 42 places where sections\nbegin and end almost all come where a reader might reasonably be expected\nto pause: 16 at the beginning or end of a speech: 18 others at a point\nwhere the narrative is resumed after some digression or general remark.\nOnly eight remain, and even with these, there is generally some pause in\nthe narrative at the point indicated. In only two instances does a \"passus\"\nend at a flagrantly inappropriate spot; in one of these there is strong\nreason to suppose that the scribe may have caused the trouble by beginning\nwith a capital where he had no business to have done so[528]. Generally,\nthere seems to be some principle governing the division of chapter from\nchapter, even though this be not made as a modern would have made it. But,\nif so, is there anything extraordinary in the first chapter, which deals\nwith events three generations earlier than those of the body of the poem,\nbeing allowed to stand outside the numbering, as a kind of prologue?\n\nThe idea of a preface or prologue was quite familiar in Old English times.\nThe oldest MSS[529] of Bede's _History_ have, at the end of the preface,\n_Explicit praefatio incipiunt capitula_. So we have in one of the two\noldest MSS[530] of the _Pastoral Care_ \"Dhis is seo forespraec.\" On the\nother hand, the prologue or preface might be left without any heading or\ncolophon, and the next {296} chapter begin as No. I. This is the case in\nthe other MS of the _Pastoral Care_[531]. Is there, then, such difficulty\nin the dissertation on the glory of the ancient Danish kings being treated\nas what, in fact, it is: a prologue or preface; and being, as such, simply\nleft outside the numbering?\n\n\n\nStill less can we argue for the identification of our hero, the son of\nEcgtheow, with Frotho, and through him with Beow, from the supposed\nresemblances between the dragon fights of Beowulf and Frotho. Such\nresemblances have been divined by Sievers, but we have seen that it is the\ndissimilarity, not the resemblance, of the two dragon fights which is\nreally noteworthy[532].\n\n\n\nTo prove that Beow was the original antagonist of Grendel there remains,\nthen, only the mention in the charter of a _Grendles mere_ near a\n_B[=e]owan hamm_[533]. Now this was not known to Kemble at the time when he\nformed his theory that the original slayer of Grendel was not Beowulf, but\nBeow. And if the arguments upon which Kemble based his theory had been at\nall substantial, this charter would have afforded really valuable support.\nBut the fact that two names occur near each other in a charter cannot\nconfirm any theory, unless that theory has already a real basis of its own.\n\n(2) _Beow_\n\nTherefore, until some further evidence be discovered, we must regard the\nbelief that the Grendel and the dragon stories were originally myths of\nBeow, as a theory for which sufficient evidence is not forthcoming.\n\nBut note where the theory breaks down. It seems indisputable that Beowulf\nthe Dane, son of Scyld Scefing, is identical with Beo(w) of the\ngenealogies: for Beo(w) is son of Scyld[534] or Sce(a)ldwa[535], who is a\nScefing. But here we must stop. There is, as we have seen, no evidence that\nthe Grendel or dragon adventures were transferred from him to their present\nhero, {297} Beowulf the Geat, son of Ecgtheow. It would, of course, be\nquite possible to accept such transference, and _still_ to reject the\nmythological interpretation of these adventures, just as it would be\npossible to believe that Gawain was originally a sun-hero, whilst rejecting\nthe interpretation as a sun-myth of any particular adventure which could be\nproved to have been once told concerning Gawain. But I do not think we need\neven concede, as Boer[536] and Chadwick[537] do, that adventures have been\ntransferred from Beowulf the Dane to Beowulf the Geat. We have seen that\nthere is no evidence for such transference, however intrinsically likely it\nmay be. Till evidence _is_ forthcoming, it is useless to build upon\nKemble's conjecture that Beowulf the Scylding sank into Beowulf the\nWaegmunding[538].\n\n\n\nBut it is due to Kemble to remember that, while he only put this forward as\na tentative conjecture, what he _was_ certain about was the identity of\nBeowulf the Scylding with Beow, and the divinity of these figures. And here\nall the evidence seems to justify him.\n\n    \"The divinity of the earlier Be['o]wulf,\" Kemble wrote, \"I hold for\n    indisputable.... Beo or Beow is ... in all probability a god of\n    agriculture and fertility.... It strengthens this view of the case that\n    he is the grandson of Sce['a]f, _manipulus frumenti_, with whom he is\n    perhaps in fact identical[539].\"\n\nWhether or no Beow and Sceaf were ever identical, it is certain that Beow\n(grain) the descendant of Sceaf (sheaf) suggests a corn-myth, some survival\nfrom the ancient worship of a corn-spirit.\n\nNow _b[=e]ow_, 'grain, barley,' corresponds to Old Norse _bygg_, just as,\ncorresponding to O.E. _tr[=i]ewe_, we have O.N. _tryggr_, or corresponding\nto O.E. _gl[=e]aw_, O.N. _gl[o,]ggr_. Corresponding to the O.E. proper name\n_B[=e]ow_, we might expect an O.N. name, the first letters in which would\nbe _Bygg(v)-_.\n\nAnd pat he comes, like the catastrophe of the Old Comedy. When Loki strode\ninto the Hall of Aegir, and assailed with clamour and scandal the assembled\ngods and goddesses, there were present, among the major gods, also Byggvir\nand his wife {298} Beyla, the servants of Frey, the god of agriculture and\nfertility. Loki reviles the gods, one after the other: at last he exchanges\nreproaches with Frey. To see his lord so taunted is more than Byggvir can\nendure, and he turns to Loki with the words:\n\n    Know thou, that were my race such as is that of Ingunar-Frey, and if I\n    had so goodly a seat, finer than marrow would I grind thee, thou crow\n    of ill-omen, and pound thee all to pieces[540].\n\nByggvir is evidently no great hero: he draws his ideas from the grinding of\nthe homely hand-mill, with which John Barleycorn has reason to be familiar:\n\n    A miller used him worst of all,\n  For he crushed him between two stones[541].\n\nLoki, who has addressed by name all the other gods, his acquaintances of\nold, professes not to know who is this insignificant being: but his\nreference to the hand-mill shows that in reality he knows quite well:\n\n    What is that little creature that I see, fawning and sneaking and\n    snuffling: ever wilt thou be at the ears of Frey, and chattering at the\n    quern[542].\n\nByggvir replies with a dignity which reminds us of the traditional\ncharacteristics of Sir John Barleycorn, or Allan O'Maut. For:\n\n  Uskie-bae ne'er bure the bell\n  Sae bald as Allan bure himsel[543].\n\n{299} Byggvir adopts the same comic-heroic pose:\n\n    Byggvir am I named, and all gods and men call me hasty; proud am I, by\n    reason that all the children of Odin are drinking ale together[544].\n\nBut any claims Byggvir may make to be a hero are promptly dismissed by\nLoki:\n\n    Hold thou silence, Byggvir, for never canst thou share food justly\n    among men: thou didst hide among the straw of the hall: they could not\n    find thee, when men were fighting[545].\n\nNow the taunts of Loki, though we must hope for the credit of Asgard that\nthey are false, are never pointless. And such jibes as Loki addresses to\nByggvir _would_ be pointless, if applied to one whom we could think of as\nin any way like our Beowulf. Later, Beyla, wife of Byggvir, speaks, and is\nsilenced with the words \"Hold thy peace--wife thou art of Byggvir.\" Byggvir\nmust have been a recognized figure of the old mythology[546], but one\ndiffering from the monster-slaying Beow of Muellenhoff's imagination.\n\n\n\nByggvir is a little creature (_et l['i]tla_), and we have seen above[547]\nthat Scandinavian scholars have thought that they have discovered this old\ngod in the Pekko who \"promoted the growth of barley\" among the Finns in the\nsixteenth century, and who is still worshipped among the Esthonians on the\nopposite side of the gulf as a three year old child; the form _Pekko_ being\nderived, it is supposed, from the primitive Norse form *_Beggwuz_. This is\na corner of a very big subject: the discovery, among the Lapps and Finns,\nof traces of the heathendom of the most {300} ancient Teutonic world, just\nas Thomsen has taught us to find in the Finnish language traces of Teutonic\nwords in their most antique form.\n\nThe Lappish field has proved the most successful hunting ground[548]: among\nthe Finns, apart from the Thunder-god, connection with Norse beliefs is\narguable mainly for a group of gods of fruitfulness[549]. The cult of\nthese, it is suggested, comes from scattered Scandinavian settlers in\nFinland, among whom the Finns dwelt, and from whom they learnt the worship\nof the spirits of the seed and of the spring, just as they learnt more\npractical lessons. First and foremost among these stands Pekko, whom we\nknow to have been especially the god of barley, and whose connection with\nBeow or Byggvir (*_Beggwuz_) is therefore a likely hypothesis enough[550].\nMuch less certain is the connection of Saempsae, the spirit of vegetation,\nwith any Germanic prototype; he may have been a god of the rush-grass[551]\n(Germ. _simse_). Runkoteivas or Rukotivo was certainly the god of rye, and\nthe temptation to derive his name from Old Norse (_rugr-tivorr_, \"rye-god\")\nis great[552]. But we have not evidence for {301} the worship among\nGermanic peoples of such a rye-god, as we have in the case of the\nbarley-god Byggvir-Beow. These shadowy heathen gods, however, do give each\nother a certain measure of mutual support.\n\nAnd, whether or no Pekko be the same as Byggvir, his worship is interesting\nas showing how the spirit of vegetation may be honoured among primitive\nfolk. His worshippers, the Setukese, although nominally members of the\nGreek Orthodox Church, speak their own dialect and often hardly understand\nthat of their Russian priests, but keep their old epic and lyric traditions\nmore than almost any other section of the Finnish-Esthonian race. Pekko,\nwho was honoured among the Finns in the sixteenth century for \"promoting\nthe growth of barley,\" survives among the present-day peasantry around\nPskoff, not only as a spirit to be worshipped, but as an actual idol,\nfashioned out of wax in the form of a child, sometimes of a three year old\nchild. He lives in the corn-bin, but on certain occasions is carried out\ninto the fields. Not everyone can afford the amount of wax necessary for a\nPekko--in fact there is usually only one in a village: he lodges in turn\nwith different members of his circle of worshippers. He holds two moveable\nfeasts, on moonlight nights--one in spring, the other in autumn. The wax\nfigure is brought into a lighted room draped in a sheet, there is feasting,\nwith dancing hand in hand, and singing round Pekko. Then they go out to\ndecide who shall keep Pekko for the next year--his host is entitled to\nspecial blessing and protection. Pekko is carried out into the field,\nespecially to preside over the sowing[553].\n\n\n\nI doubt whether, in spite of the high authorities which support it, we can\nas yet feel at all certain about the identification of Beow and Pekko. But\nI think we can accept with fair certainty the identification of Beow and\nByggvir. And we can at any rate use Pekko as a collateral example of the\nway in which a grain-spirit is regarded. Now in either case we find no\nsupport whatever for the supposition that the activities of {302} Beow, the\nspirit of the barley, could, or would, have been typified under the guise\nof battles such as those which Beowulf the Geat wages against Grendel,\nGrendel's mother, and the dragon. In Beowulf the Geat we find much that\nsuggests the hero of folk-tale, overlaid with much that belongs to him as\nthe hero of an heroic poem, but nothing suggestive of a corn-myth. On the\nother hand, so long as we confine ourselves to Beow and his ancestor Sceaf,\nwe _are_ in touch with this type of myth, however remotely. The way that\nSceaf comes over the sea, as recorded by William of Malmesbury, is\ncharacteristic. That \"Sheaf\" should be, in the language of Muellenhoff,\n\"placed in a boat and committed to the winds and waves in the hope that he\nwill return new-born in the spring\" is exactly what we might expect, from\nthe analogy of harvest customs and myths of the coming of spring.\n\nIn Saetersdale, in Norway, when the ice broke up in the spring, and was\ndriven ashore, the inhabitants used to welcome it by throwing their hats\ninto the air, and shouting \"Welcome, Corn-boat.\" It was a good omen if the\n\"Corn-boats\" were driven high and dry up on the land[554]. The floating of\nthe sheaf on a shield down the Thames at Abingdon[555] reminds us of the\nBulgarian custom, in accordance with which the venerated last sheaf of the\nharvest was floated down the river[556]. But every neighbourhood is not\nprovided with convenient rivers, and in many places the last sheaf is\nmerely drenched with water. This is an essential part of the custom of\n\"crying the neck.\"\n\nThe precise ritual of \"crying the neck\" or \"crying the mare\" was confined\nto the west and south-west of England[557]. But there is no such local\nlimitation about the custom of drenching the {303} last sheaf, or its\nbearers and escort, with water. This has been recorded, among other places,\nat Hitchin in Hertfordshire[558], in Cambridgeshire[559],\nNottinghamshire[560], Pembrokeshire[561], Wigtownshire[562] as well as in\nHolstein[563], Westphalia[564], Prussia[565], Galicia[566], Saxon\nTranssylvania[567], Roumania[568] and perhaps in ancient Phrygia[569].\n\nNow it is true that drenching the last sheaf with water, as a rain charm,\nis by no means the same thing as floating it down the river, in the\nexpectation that it will come again in the spring. But it shows the same\nsense of the continued existence of the corn-spirit. That the _seed_, when\nsown, should be sprinkled with water as a rain charm (as is done in places)\nseems obvious and natural enough. But when the _last sheaf_ of the\npreceding harvest is thus sprinkled, to ensure plenteous rain upon the\ncrops of next year, we detect the same idea of continuity which we find\nexpressed when Sceaf comes to land from over the sea: the spirit embodied\nin the sheaf of last year's harvest returning, and bringing the renewed\npower of vegetation.\n\n\n\nThe voyage of the Abingdonian sheaf on the Thames was conducted upon a\nshield, and it may be that the \"vessel without a rower\" in which \"Sheaf\"\ncame to land was, in the original version, a shield. There would be\nprecedent for this. The shield was known by the puzzling name of \"Ull's\nship\" in Scaldic poetry, presumably because the god Ull used his shield as\na boat. Anyway, Scyld came to be closely connected with Sceaf and Beow. In\nEthelwerd he is son of the former and father of the latter: but in the\n_Chronicle_ genealogies five names intervene between Scyld and Sceaf, and\nthe son of Sceaf is Bedwig, or as he is called in one version, Beowi.\n_Bedwig_ and _Beowi_ are probably derived from _Beowius_, the Latinized\n{304} form of _Beow_. A badly formed _o_ might easily be mistaken for a\n_d_, and indeed _Beowius_ appears in forms much more corrupt. In that case\nit would appear that while some genealogies made Beow the son of Scyld,\nothers made him son of Sceaf, and that the compiler of the pedigree got\nover the difficulty in the usual way, by adding the one version to the\nother[570].\n\nBut all this is very hypothetical; and how and when Scyld came to be\nconnected with Sceaf and with Beow we cannot with any certainty say. At any\nrate we find no trace of such connection in Danish traditions of the\nprimitive King Skjold of the Danes. But we can say, with some certainty,\nthat in Beowulf the Dane, the son of Scyld Scefing, in our poem, we have a\nfigure which is identical with Beow, son of Scyld or of Sceldwa and\ndescendant of Sceaf, in the genealogies, and that this Beow is likely to\nhave been an ancient corn-spirit, parallel to the Scandinavian Byggvir.\nThat amount of mythology probably _does_ underlie the _Prologue_ to\n_Beowulf_, though the author would no doubt have been highly scandalized\nhad he suspected that his pattern of a young prince was only a disguised\nheathen god. But I think that any further attempt to proceed, from this, to\nmythologize the deeds of Beowulf the Great, is pure conjecture, and\nprobably quite fruitless conjecture.\n\nI ought not to conclude this note without reference to the admirable\ndiscussion of this subject by Prof. Bjoerkman in _Englische Studien_[571].\nThis, with the elucidation of other proper names in _Beowulf_, was destined\nto be the last big contribution to knowledge made by that ripe and good\nscholar, whose premature loss we all deplore; and it shows to the full\nthose qualities of wide knowledge and balanced judgment which we have all\nlearnt to admire in him.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nB. GRENDEL\n\nIt may be helpful to examine the places where the name of Grendel occurs in\nEnglish charters.\n\n{305}\n\nA.D. 708. Grant of land at Abbots Morton, near Alcester, co. Worcester, by\nKenred, King of the Mercians, to Evesham (extant in a late copy).\n\n    _[=Ae]rest of grindeles pytt on w[=i]dhimaere; of w[=i]dhimaere on\n    thaet r[=e]ade sl[=o]h ... of dh[=e]re d[=i]ce on thene blace p[=o]l;\n    of th[=a]m p[=o]le aefter long pidele in t[=o] th[=a]m mersce; of\n    th[=a]m mersce th[=a] aeft on grindeles pytt[572]._\n\nThe valley of the Piddle Brook is about a mile wide, with hills rising on\neach side till they reach a height of a couple of hundred feet above the\nbrook. The directions begin in the valley and run \"From Grindel's 'pytt' to\nthe willow-mere; from the willow-mere to the red morass\"; then from the\nmorass the directions take us up the hill and along the lea, where they\ncontinue among the downs till we again make our descent into the valley,\n\"from the ditch to the black pool, from the pool along the Piddle brook to\nthe marsh, and from the marsh back to Grindel's 'pytt.'\" In modern English\na \"pit\" is an artificial hole which is generally dry: but the word is\nsimply Latin _puteus_, \"a well,\" and is used in this sense in the Gospel\ntranslations. Here it is a hole, and we may be sure that, with the\nwillow-mere and the red slough on the one side, and the black pool and the\nmarsh on the other, the hole was full of water.\n\nA.D. 739. Grant of land at Creedy, co. Devon, by Aethelheard, King of\nWessex, to Bishop Forthhere.\n\n    _of doddan hrycge on grendeles pyt; of grendeles pytte on ifigbearo_\n    (ivy-grove)...[573].\n\nThe spot is near the junction of the rivers Exe and Creedy, with Dartmoor\nin the distance. The neighbourhood bears uncanny names, _C[=a]ines aecer,\negesan tr[=e]ow_. If, as has been suggested by Napier and Stevenson, a\ntrace of this pit still survives in the name Pitt farm, the mere must have\nbeen in the uplands, about 600 feet above sea level.\n\n{306}\n\nA.D. 931. Grant of land at Ham in Wiltshire by Athelstan to his thane\nWulfgar. Quoted above, p. 43. It is in this charter that _on B[=e]owan\nhammes hecgan, on Grendles mere_[574] occur. \"Grendel pits or meres\" are in\nmost other cases in low-lying marshy country: but this, like (perhaps) the\npreceding one, is in the uplands--it must have been a lonely mere among the\nhills, under Inkpen Beacon.\n\n_Circa_ A.D. 957. A list of boundaries near Battersea[575].\n\n    _Dhis synd dh[=a] landgem[=ae]re t[=o] Batriceseie. [=Ae]rst at\n    h[=e]gefre; fram h[=e]gefre to gaetenesheale; fram gaeteneshaele to\n    gryndeles syllen; fram gryndeles sylle to russemere; fram ryssemere to\n    baelgenham...._\n\nAll this is low-lying land, just south of the Thames. _H[=e]gefre_ is on\nthe river; _Baelgenham_ is Balham, co. Surrey. \"From Grendel's mire to the\nrushy mere\" harmonizes excellently with what we know of the swampy nature\nof this district in early times.\n\nA.D. 958. Grant of land at Swinford, on the Stour, co. Stafford, by King\nEadred to his thane Burhelm[576].\n\n    _Ondlong baeces widh neothan eostacote; ondlong d[=i]ces in\n    grendels-mere; of grendels-mere in st[=a]nc[=o]fan; of st[=a]nc[=o]fan\n    ondlong d[=u]ne on stiran mere...._\n\nA.D. 972. Confirmation of lands to Pershore Abbey (Worcester) by King\nEdgar[577].\n\n    _of Grindles bece sw[=a] thaet gem[=ae]re ligdh...._\n\nA.D. 972. Extract from an account of the descent of lands belonging to\nWestminster, quoting a grant of King Edgar[578].\n\n    _andlang hagan to grendeles gatan aefter kincges mearce innan\n    braegentan...._\n\nThe property described is near Watling Street, between Edgware, Hendon, and\nthe River Brent. It is a low-lying {307} district almost surrounded by the\nhills of Hampstead, Highgate, Barnet, Mill Hill, Elstree, Bushey Heath and\nHarrow. The bottom of the basin thus formed must have been a swamp[579].\nWhat the \"gate\" may have been it is difficult to say. A foreign scholar has\nsuggested that it may have been a narrow mountain defile or possibly a\ncave[580]: but this suggestion could never have been made by anyone who\nknew the country. The \"gate\" is likely to have been a channel connecting\ntwo meres--or it might have been a narrow piece of land between them--one\nof those _enge [=a]npadhas_ which Grendel and his mother had to tread.\nAnyway, there is nothing exceptional in this use of \"gate\" in connection\nwith a water-spirit. Necker, on the Continent, also had his \"gates.\" Thus\nthere is a \"Neckersgate Mill\" near Brussels, and the name \"Neckersgate\"\nused also to be applied to a group of houses near by, surrounded by\nwater[581].\n\nAll the other places clearly point to a water-spirit: two meres, two pits,\na mire and a beck: for the most part situated in low-lying country which\nmust in Anglo-Saxon times have been swampy. All this harmonizes excellently\nwith the _fenfreodho_ of _Beowulf_ (l. 851). Of course it does not in the\nleast follow that these places were named after the Grendel of our poem. It\nmay well be that there was in England a current belief in a creature\nGrendel, dwelling among the swamps. Von Sydow has compared the Yorkshire\nbelief in Peg Powler, or the Lancashire Jenny Greenteeth. But these aquatic\nmonsters are not exactly parallel; for they abide in the water, and are\ndangerous only to those who attempt to cross it, or at any rate venture too\nnear the bank[582], whilst Grendel and even his mother are capable of\nexcursions of some distance from their fastness amid the fens.\n\n{308}\n\nOf course the mere-haunting Grendel _may_ have been identified only at a\ncomparatively late date with the spirit who struggles with the hero in the\nhouse, and flees below the earth in the folk-tale.\n\nAt any rate belief in a Grendel, haunting mere and fen, is clearly\ndemonstrable for England--at any rate for the south and west of England:\nfor of these place-names two belong to the London district, one to\nWiltshire, one to Devonshire, two to Worcester and one to Stafford. The\nplace-name _Grendele_ in Yorkshire is too doubtful to be of much help.\n(_Domesday Book_, I, 302.) It is the modern village Grindale, four miles\nN.W. of Bridlington. From it, probably, is derived the surname _Grindle,\nGrindall_ (Bardsley).\n\n\n\nAbroad, the nearest parallel is to be found in Transsylvania, where there\nis a _Graendels m[^o]r_ among the Saxons of the Senndorf district, near\nBistritz. The Saxons of Transsylvania are supposed to have emigrated from\nthe neighbourhood of the lower Rhine and the Moselle, and there is a\n_Grindelbach_ in Luxemburg which may possibly be connected with the marsh\ndemon[583].\n\nMost of the German names in _Grindel-_ or _Grendel-_ are connected with\n_grendel_, \"a bar,\" and therefore do not come into consideration here[584]:\nbut the Transsylvanian \"Grendel's marsh[585],\" anyway, reminds us of the\nEnglish \"Grendel's marsh\" or \"mere\" or \"pit.\" Nevertheless, the local story\nwith which the Transsylvanian swamp is connected--that of a peasant who was\nploughing with six oxen and was swallowed up in the earth--is such that it\nrequires considerable ingenuity to see any connection between it and the\n_Beowulf-Grendel_-tale[586].\n\n{309}\n\nThe Anglo-Saxon place-names may throw some light upon the meaning and\netymology of \"Grendel[587].\" The name has generally been derived from\n_grindan_, \"to grind\"; either directly[588], because Grendel grinds the\nbones of those he devours, or indirectly, in the sense of \"tormentor[589].\"\nOthers would connect with O.N. _grindill_, \"storm,\" and perhaps with M.E.\n_gryndel_, \"angry[590].\"\n\nIt has recently been proposed to connect the word with _grund_, \"bottom\":\nfor Grendel lives in the _mere-grund_ or _grund-wong_ and his mother is the\n_grund-wyrgin_. Erik Rooth, who proposes this etymology, compares the\nIcelandic _grandi_, \"a sandbank,\" and the common Low German dialect word\n_grand_, \"coarse sand[591].\" This brings us back to the root \"to grind,\"\nfor _grand_, \"sand\" is simply the product of the grinding of the\nwaves[592]. Indeed the same explanation has been given of the word\n\"ground[593].\"\n\nHowever this may be, the new etymology differs from the old in giving\nGrendel a name derived, not from his grinding or tormenting others, but\nfrom his dwelling at the bottom of the lake or marsh[594]. The name would\nhave a parallel in the Modern English _grindle_, _grundel_, German\n_grundel_[595], a fish haunting the bottom of the water.\n\nThe Old English place-names, associating Grendel as they do with meres and\nswamps, seem rather to support this.\n\nAs to the Devonshire stream _Grendel_ (now the Grindle or Greendale Brook),\nit has been suggested that this name is also {310} connected with the root\n_grand_, \"gravel,\" \"sand.\" But, so far as I have been able to observe,\nthere is no particular suggestion of sand or gravel about this modest\nlittle brook. If we follow the River Clyst from the point where the Grindle\nflows into it, through two miles of marshy land, to the estuary of the Exe,\nwe shall there find plenty. But it is clear from the charter of 963 that\nthe name was then, as now, restricted to the small brook. I cannot tell why\nthe stream should bear the name, or what, if any, is the connection with\nthe monster Grendel. We can only note that the name is again found attached\nto water, and, near the junction with the Clyst, to marshy ground.\n\nAnyone who will hunt Grendel through the shires, first on the 6-in.\nordnance map, and later on foot, will probably have to agree with the Three\nJovial Huntsmen\n\n            This huntin' doesn't pay,\n  But we'n powler't up an' down a bit, an' had a rattlin' day.\n\nBut, if some conclusions, although scanty, can be drawn from place-names in\nwhich the word _grendel_ occurs, nothing can be got from the numerous\nplace-names which have been thought to contain the name _B[=e]ow_. The\nclearest of these is the _on B[=e]owan hammes hecgan_, which occurs in the\nWiltshire charter of 931. But we can learn nothing definite from it: and\nalthough there are other instances of strong and weak forms alternating, we\ncannot even be quite certain that the Beowa here is identical with the Beow\nof the genealogies[596].\n\nThe other cases, many of which occur in _Domesday Book_ are worthless.\nThose which point to a weak form may often be derived from the weak noun\n_b[=e]o_, \"bee\": \"The Anglo-Saxons set great store by their bees, honey and\nwax being indispensables to them[597].\"\n\n_B[=e]as br[=o]c_, _B[=e]as feld_ (_Bewes feld_) occur in charters: but\nhere a connection with _b[=e]aw_, \"horsefly,\" is possible: for parallels,\none has only to consider the long list of places enumerated by Bjoerkman,\nthe names of which are derived from those of beasts, {311} birds, or\ninsects[598]. And in such a word as _B[=e]ol[=e]ah_, even if the first\nelement be _b[=e]ow_, why may it not be the common noun \"barley,\" and not\nthe name of the hero at all?\n\nNo argument can therefore be drawn from such a conjecture as that of Olrik,\nthat _B[=e]as br[=o]c_ refers to the water into which the last sheaf\n(representing Beow) was thrown, in accordance with the harvest custom, and\nin the expectation of the return of the spirit in the coming spring[599].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nC. THE STAGES ABOVE WODEN IN THE WEST-SAXON GENEALOGY\n\nThe problems to which this pedigree gives rise are very numerous, and some\nhave been discussed above. There are four which seem to need further\ndiscussion.\n\n(I) A \"Sceafa\" occurs in _Widsith_ as ruling over the Longobards. Of course\nwe cannot be certain that this hero is identical with the Sceaf of the\ngenealogy. Now there is no one in the long list of historic or\nsemi-historic Longobard kings, ruling after the tribe had left Scandinavia,\nwho bears a name at all similar. It seems therefore reasonable to suppose\nthat Sceafa, if he is a genuine Longobard king at all, belongs to the\nprimitive times when the Longobardi or Winnili dwelt in \"Scadan,\" before\nthe historic or semi-historic times with which our extant list deals. And\nOld English accounts, although making Sceaf an ancestor of the Saxon kings,\nare unanimous in connecting him with Scani or Scandza.\n\nSome scholars[600] have seen a serious difficulty in the weak form\n\"Sceafa,\" as compared with \"Sceaf.\" But we have the exactly parallel cases\nof _Horsa_[601] compared with _Hors_[602], and _Hr[=ae]dla_[603] compared\nwith _Hr[=ae]del_[604], _Hr[=e]dhel_. Parallel, but not quite so certain,\nare _Sceldwa_[605] and _Scyld_[606], _G[=e]ata_[607] and _G[=e]at_[608],\n_B[=e]owa_[609] and _B[=e]aw, B[=e]o(w)_[610].\n\n{312}\n\nI do not think it has ever been doubted that the forms _Hors_ and _Horsa_,\nor _Hr[=e]dhel_ and _Hr[=ae]dla_, relate to one and the same person. Prof.\nChadwick seems to have little or no doubt as to the identity of _Scyld_ and\n_Sceldwa_[611], or _B[=e]o_ and _B[=e]owa_[612]. Why then should the\nidentity of _Sc[=e]af_ and _Sc[=e]afa_ be denied because one form is strong\nand the other weak[613]? We cannot demonstrate the identity of the figure\nin the genealogies with the figure in _Widsith_; but little difficulty is\noccasioned by the weak form.\n\n(II) Secondly, the absence of the name _Sc[=e]af_ from the oldest MS of the\n_Chronicle_ (the _Parker MS_, _C.C.C.C._ 173) has been made the ground for\nsuggesting that when that MS was written (_c._ 892) Sceaf had not yet been\ninvented (Moeller, _Volksepos_, 43; Symons in _Pauls Grdr_. (2), III, 645;\nNapier, as quoted by Clarke, _Sidelights_, 125). But Sceaf, and the other\nnames which are omitted from the _Parker MS_, are found in the other MSS of\nthe _Chronicle_ and the allied pedigrees, which are known to be derived\nindependently from one and the same original. Now, unless the names were\nolder than the _Parker MS_, they could not appear in so many independent\ntranscripts. For, even though these transcripts are individually later,\ntheir _agreement_ takes us back to a period earlier than that of the\n_Parker MS_ itself[614].\n\nAn examination of the different versions of the genealogy, given on pp.\n202-3, above, and of the tree showing the connection between them, on p.\n315, will, I think, make this clear.\n\nThe versions of the pedigree given in the _Parker MS_ of the _Chronicle_,\nin Asser and in _Textus Roffensis I_, all contain the stages _Frithuwald_\nand _Frithuwulf_. Asser and _Roff. I_ are connected by the note about\n_G[=e]ata_: but _Roff. I_ is not derived from that text of Asser which has\ncome down to us, as that {313} text has corrupted _Fin_ and _Godwulf_ into\none name and has substituted _Seth_ for _Sc[=e]af_ [\"Seth, _Saxonice_\nSceaf\": Florence of Worcester]. _Roff. I_ is free from both these\ncorruptions.\n\nEthelwerd is obviously connected with a type of genealogy giving the stages\n_Frithuwald_ and _Frithuwulf_, but differs from all the others in giving no\nstages between _Scyld_ and _Sc[=e]f_.\n\nNone of the other versions contain the names _Frithuwald_ and _Frithuwulf_.\nThey are closely parallel, but fall into groups showing special\npeculiarities.\n\n_MSS Tib. A. VI_ and _Tib. B. I_ of the _Chronicle_ show only trifling\ndifferences of spelling. The MSS belong respectively to about the years\n1000 and 1050, and are both derived from an Abingdon original of about\n977[615].\n\n_MS Cott. Tib. B. IV_ is derived from a copy of the _Chronicle_ sent North\nabout 892[616].\n\n_MS Cott. Tib. B. V_ and _Textus Roffensis II_ are closely connected, but\nneither is derived from the other. For _Roff. II_ preserves _Tethwa_ and\n_Hw[=a]la_, who are lost in _Tib. B. V; Tib. B. V_ preserves _Iterman_, who\nis corrupted in _Roff. II._ Both _Tib. B. V_ and _Roff. II_ carry the\npedigree down to Edgar, mentioning his three sons _[=E]adweard and\n[=E]admund and Aethelred aedhelingas syndon [=E]adg[=a]res suna cyninges_.\nThe original therefore apparently belongs to some date before 970, when\nEdmund died (cf. Stevenson's Asser, 158, note).\n\nCommon features of _MS Cott. Tib. B. V_ and _Roff. II_ are (1) _Eat(a)_ for\n_Geat(a)_, (2) the omission of _d_ from _Scealdwa_, and (3) the expression\n_se Sc[=e]f_, \"this Scef.\" Features (1) and (3) are copied in the Icelandic\npedigrees. _Scealdwa_ is given correctly there, but the Icelandic\ntranscriber could easily have got it from _Scealdwaging_ above. The\nIcelandic was, then, ultimately derived either from _Tib. B. V_ or from a\nversion so closely connected as not to be worth distinguishing.\n\nAccordingly _Cott. Tib. B. V_, _Textus Roffensis II_, _Langfedhgatal_ and\n_Flateyarb['o]k_ form one group, pointing to an archetype _c._ 970.\n\n{314}\n\nThe pedigrees can accordingly be grouped on the system shown on the\nopposite page[617].\n\n(III) Prof. Chadwick, in his _Origin of the English Nation_, draws wide\ndeductions from the fact that the Danes traced the pedigree of their kings\nback to Skjold, whilst the West-Saxons included Sceldwa (Scyld) in their\nroyal pedigree:\n\n    \"Since the Angli and the Danes claimed descent from the same ancestor,\n    there can be no doubt that the bond was believed to be one of\n    blood[618].\"\n\nThis belief, Prof. Chadwick thinks, went back to exceedingly early\ntimes[619], and he regards it as well-founded:\n\n    \"It is true that the Angli of Britain seem never to have included\n    themselves among the Danes, but the reason for this may be that the\n    term _Dene_ (_Danir_) had not come into use as a collective term before\n    the invasion of Britain[620].\"\n\nDoubtless the fact that the name of a Danish king _Scyld_ or _Sceldwa_ is\nfound in a pedigree of West-Saxon kings, as drawn up at a period certainly\nnot later than 892, points to a belief, at that date, in some kind of a\nconnection. But we have still to ask: How close was the connection supposed\nto be? And how old is the belief?\n\nFirstly as to the closeness of the connection. Finn also occurs in the\npedigree--possibly the Frisian king: Sceaf occurs, possibly, though not\ncertainly, a Longobard king. Noah and Adam occur; are we therefore to\nsuppose that the compiler of the _Genealogy_ believed his kings to be of\none blood with the Hebrews? Certainly he did: but only remotely, as common\ndescendants of Noah. And the occurrence of Sceldwa and Sceaf and Finn in\nthe genealogies--granting the identity of these heroes with Skjold of the\nDanes, Sceafa of the Longobards and Finn of the Frisians, might only prove\nthat the genealogist believed in their common (Germanic) race.\n\n{315}\n\n\n                                900           950           1000\n                                 |             |              |\n\n                            | A. Chron                                |\n                           _| Parker MS ______________________________|\n                          / | c. 890-900                              |\n                         /                                    | Asser\n                        /                                     | MS Cott.\n                       /______________________________________| Otho A.XII,\n                      /                        \\              | c. 1000\n                     /                          \\__________________________\n                    /                                         | B. Chron.\n  Transcript of     \\                        ................ | MS Cott.\n  Chronicle from     Copy sent to Abingdon,  : presumed     : | Tib. A. VI,\n  which all          kept there till c. 977__: Abingdon     :/| c. 1000\n  extant                   \\                 : copy, c. 977 :\\\n  MSS are                   \\                :..............: \\____________\n  derived                    \\____________\n                       Copy sent to Ripon\\\n                                          \\\n                                           \\_______________________________\n                                            \\\n                                             \\  | Common original\n                                              \\_| compiled about  _\n                                                | 970              \\\n                                                         \\          \\______\n                                                          \\\n                                                           \\  | Genealogy\n                                                            \\_| MS Cott.\n                                                              | Tib. B. V,_\n                                                              | c. 1000\n\n  .........................................................................\n\n       1050           1100          1125\n         |              |             |\n\n  | W. Chron.\n  | MS Cott, Otho B. XI, 2.\n  | c. 1025\n\n  ___________________________________| Textus Roffensis I,\n                                     | c. 1120\n\n         | C. Chron.\n  _______| MS Cott. Tib. B. I,\n         | c. 1050\n\n         | D. Chron.\n  _______| MS Cott. Tib. B. IV,\n         | c. 1050\n\n  ___________________________________| Textus Roffensis II,\n                                     | c. 1120\n\n  ___________________________________| Icelandic\n                                     | Genealogies\n\n                                    ==>\n\n\n{316}\n\nSecondly, how old is the belief? The Anglian genealogies (Northumbrian,\nMercian and East Anglian), as reproduced in the _Historia Brittonum_ and in\nthe _Vespasian MS_, form part of what is doubtless, as is said above, the\noldest extant English historical document. But in this document _there is\nno mention of Scyld_. Indeed, it contains no pedigree of the West-Saxon\nkings at all. From whatever cause, the West-Saxon genealogy is not extant\nfrom so early a date as are the pedigrees of the Northumbrian, Mercian,\nEast Anglian and Kentish kings[621]. Still, this may well be a mere\naccident, and I am not prepared to dispute that the pedigree which traces\nthe West-Saxon kings to Woden dates back, like the other genealogies\nconnecting Old English kings with Woden, to primitive and heathen times.\nNow the West-Saxon pedigree is found in many forms: some which trace the\nroyal house only to Woden, and some which go beyond Woden and contain a\nlist of names by which Woden is connected with Sceaf, and then with Noah\nand Adam.\n\n(1) The nucleus of the whole pedigree is to be found in the names between\nCynric or Cerdic and Woden. These occur in every version. The pedigree in\nthis, its simplest form, is found twice among the entries in the\n_Chronicle_ which deal with the events of heathen times, under 552 and 597.\nThese names fall into verse:\n\n  [Cynr[=i]c Cerdicing], Cerdic Elesing,\n  Elesa Esling, Esla GiWising,\n  GiWis W[=i]ging, W[=i]g Fr[=e]awining,\n  Fr[=e]awine Fridhug[=a]ring, Fridhug[=a]r Bronding,\n  Brond B[=ae]ldaeging, B[=ae]ldaeg W[=o]dening.\n\nLike the mnemonic lists in _Widsith_, these lines are probably very old.\nTheir object is clearly to connect the founder of the West-Saxon royal\nhouse with Woden. Note, that not only do the names alliterate, but the\nalliteration is perfect. Every line attains double alliteration in the\nfirst half, with one alliterating word only in the second half. The lines\nmust go back to times when lists of royal ancestors, both real and\nimaginary, had to {317} be arranged in correct verse; times when such\nthings were recorded by memory rather than by writing. They are\npre-literary, and were doubtless chanted by retainers of the West-Saxon\nkings in heathen days.\n\n(2) An expanded form of this genealogy occurs in _MSS C.C.C.C._ 183 and\n_Cotton Tib. B. V_. Woden is here furnished with a father Frealaf. We know\nnothing of any Frealaf as father of the All-Father in heathen days, though\nFrealaf is found in this capacity in other genealogies written down in the\nages after the conversion. Frealaf breaks the correct alliterative system.\nIn both MSS the pedigree is brought down to King Ine (688-726): both MSS\nare ultimately, no doubt, derived from a list current in the time of that\nking, that is to say less than a century after the conversion of Wessex.\n\n(3) A further expansion, which Prof. Napier has held on linguistic\ngrounds[622] to have been written down as early as 750, is incorporated in\na genealogical and chronological note regarding the West-Saxon kings, which\nis extant in many MSS[623]. _In its present form_ this genealogical note is\na recension, under Alfred, of a document coming down to the death of his\nfather Aethelwulf. It traces the pedigree of Aethelwulf to Cerdic, but it\nkeeps this district from the rhythmical nucleus, in which it traces Cerdic\nto Woden, and no further.\n\n(4) Then, in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, under the year 855, the pedigree\nis given in its most elaborate form. There the genealogy of Aethelwulf is\ntraced in one unbroken series, not merely through Cerdic to Woden, but from\nWoden through a long line of Woden's ancestors, including Frealaf, Geat,\nSceldwa and Sceaf, to Noah and Adam.\n\nIt has been noted above[624] that none of the _Chronicle_ pedigrees {318}\nstop at Sceaf. The _Chronicle_, in the stages above Woden, recognizes as\nstopping places only Geat (Northumbrian pedigree, anno 547) or Adam\n(West-Saxon pedigree, anno 855).\n\n(5) The Chronicle of Ethelwerd (_c._ 1000) does, however, stop at\nScef[625]. Now it has been argued that Ethelwerd's pedigree is merely\nabbreviated from the pedigree in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ under 855, and\nthat, in making Scef the final stage, and in what he tells us about that\nhero, Ethelwerd is merely adapting what he had read in _Beowulf_ about\nScyld[626]. But this seems hardly possible. Ethelwerd, it is true, borrows\nmost of his facts from the _Chronicle_, from Bede, and other known sources:\nbut there are some passages which show that he had access to a source now\nlost. Ethelwerd was a member of the West-Saxon royal house, and he wrote\nhis Chronicle for a kinswoman, Matilda, in order, as he says, to explain\ntheir common stock and race. They were both descended from Aethelwulf, the\nchronicler being great-great-grandson of Aethelred, and the lady to whom he\ndedicates his work being great-great-granddaughter of Alfred. So he writes\nto tell \"who and whence were their kin, so far as memory adduces, and our\nparents have taught us.\" Accordingly, though he begins his Chronicle with\nthe Creation, the bulk of it is devoted to the deeds of his or Matilda's\nancestors. Is it credible that he would have cut out all the stages in\ntheir common pedigree between Scyld and Scef, that he would have sacrificed\nall the ancestors of Scef, thus severing relations with Noah and Adam, and\nthat he would have attributed to Scef the story which in _Beowulf_ is\nattributed to Scyld, all this simply in order to bring his English pedigree\ninto some harmony with what is told about the Danish pedigree in\n_Beowulf_--a poem of which we have no evidence that he had ever heard?\n\nTo suppose him to have done this, is to make him sacrifice, _without any\nreason_, just that part of the pedigree in the _Chronicle_ under 855 which,\nfrom all we know of Ethelwerd, was most likely to have interested him: that\nwhich connected his race with Noah and Adam. Further, it is to suppose him\nto have reproduced just those stages in the pedigree which on critical\n{319} grounds modern scholars can show to be the oldest, and to have\nmodified or rejected just those which on critical grounds modern scholars\ncan show to be later accretion. When Brandl supposes Ethelwerd to have\nproduced his pedigree by comparing together merely the materials which have\ncome down to us to-day, namely _Beowulf_ and the _Chronicle_, he is, in\nreality, attributing to him the mind and acumen of a modern critic. An\nAnglo-Saxon alderman could only have detected and rejected the additions by\nusing some material which has _not_ come down to us. What more natural than\nthat Ethelwerd, who writes as the historian of the West-Saxon royal family,\nshould have known of a family pedigree which traced the line up to Sceaf\nand his arrival in the boat, and that he should have (rightly) thought this\nto be more authoritative than the pedigree in the _Chronicle_ under the\nyear 855, which had been expanded from it? Prof. Chadwick, it seems to me,\nis here quite justified in holding that Ethelwerd had \"acquired the\ngenealogy from some unknown source, in a more primitive form than that\ncontained in the _Chronicle_[627].\"\n\nBut, because the source of Ethelwerd's pedigree is more primitive than that\ncontained in the _Chronicle_ under the year 855, it does not follow that it\ngoes back to heathen times. Wessex had been converted more than two\ncenturies earlier.\n\n\n\nWe are now in a position to make some estimate of the antiquity of Scyld\nand Sceaf in the West-Saxon pedigree. The nucleus of this pedigree is to be\nfound in the verses connecting Cynric and Cerdic with Woden. (Even as late\nas Aethelwulf and Alfred this nucleus is often kept distinct from the\nlater, more historic stages connecting Cerdic with living men.) Pedigrees\nof other royal houses go to Woden, and many stop there; however, in times\ncomparatively early, but yet Christian, we find Woden provided with five\nancestors: later, Ethelwerd gives him ten: the _Chronicle_ gives him\ntwenty-five. It is evidently a process of accumulation.\n\nNow, if the name of Scyld had occurred in the portion of the pedigree which\ntraces the West-Saxon kings up to Woden, {320} it would possess sufficient\nauthority to form the basis of an argument. But Scyld, like Heremod, Beaw\nand Sceaf, occurs in the fantastic development of the pedigree, by which\nWoden is connected up with Adam and Noah. The fact that these heroes occur\n_above_ Woden makes it almost incredible that their position in the\npedigree can go back to heathen times. Those who believed in Woden as a god\ncan hardly have believed at the same time that he was a descendant of the\nDanish king Scyld. This difficulty Prof. Chadwick admits: \"It is difficult\nto believe that in heathen times Woden was credited with five generations\nof ancestors, as in the _Frealaf-Geat_ list.\" Still less is it credible\nthat he was credited with 25 generations of ancestors, as in the\n_Frealaf-Geat-Sceldwa-Sceaf-Noe-Adam_ list.\n\nThe obvious conclusion seems to me to be that the names above Woden were\nadded in Christian times to the original list, which in heathen times only\nwent back to Woden, and _which is still extant in this form_. A Christian,\nrationalizing Woden as a human magician, would have no difficulty in\nplacing him far down the ages, just as Saxo Grammaticus does[628].\nObviously _Noe-Adam_ must be an addition of Christian times, and the same\nseems to me to apply to all the other names above Woden, which, though\nancient and Germanic, are not therefore ancient and Germanic in the\ncapacity of ancestors of Woden.\n\nAnd even if these extraordinary ancestors of Woden were really believed in\nin heathen times, they cannot have been regarded as the special property of\nany one nation. For it was never claimed that the West-Saxon kings had any\nunique distinction in tracing their ancestry to Woden, such as would give\nthem a special claim upon Woden's forefathers. How then can the ancient\nbelief (if indeed it _were_ an ancient belief) that Woden was descended\nfrom Scyld, King of Denmark, prove that the Anglo-Saxons regarded\n_themselves_ as specially related to the Danes? For any such relationship\nderived through Woden must have been shared by all descendants of the\nAll-Father.\n\nProf. Chadwick avoids this difficulty by supposing that Woden did not\noriginally occur in the pedigree, but is a later {321} insertion[629]. But\nhow can this be so when, of the two forms in which the West-Saxon pedigree\nappears, one (and, so far as our evidence goes, much the older one) traces\nthe kings to Woden _and stops there_. The _object_ of this pedigree is to\nconnect the West-Saxon kings with Woden. The expanded pedigrees, which\ncarry on the line still further, from Woden to Sceldwa, Sceaf and Adam,\nthough very numerous, are all traceable to one, or at most two, sources. It\nis surely not the right method to regard Woden as an interpolation (though\nhe occurs in that portion of the pedigree which is common to all versions,\nsome of which we can probably trace back to primitive times), and to regard\nas the original element Scyld and Sceaf (though they form part of the\ncontinuation of the pedigree found only in, at most, two families of MSS\nwhich we cannot trace back beyond the ninth century).\n\nBesides, there is the strongest external support for Woden in the very\nplace which he occupies in the West-Saxon pedigree. That pedigree is traced\nin all its texts up to one Baldaeg and his father Woden. Those texts which\nfurther give Woden's ancestry make him a descendant of Frealaf--they\ngenerally make Woden son of Frealaf, though some texts insert an\nintermediate Frithuwald.\n\nNow the very ancient Northumbrian pedigree also goes up, by a different\nroute, to \"Beldaeg,\" and gives him Woden for a father. In some versions\n(e.g. the _Historia Brittonum_) the Northumbrian pedigree stops there: in\nothers (e.g. the _Vespasian MS_) Woden has a father Frealaf. How then _can_\nit be argued, contrary to the unanimous evidence of all the dozen or more\nMSS of the West-Saxon pedigree, that _Woden_, standing as he does between\nhis proper father and his proper son, is an interpolation? There is no\nevidence whatsoever to support such an argument, and everything to disprove\nit.\n\nThe fact that Sceaf, Sceldwa and Beaw occur above Woden, that some versions\nof the pedigree stop at Woden, and that in heathen times presumably all\nmust have stopped when they reached the All-Father, seems to me a fatal\nargument--not against the antiquity of the legends of Sceaf, Sceldwa, and\n{322} Beaw, but against the antiquity of these characters in the capacity\n(given to them in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_) of ancestors of the\nWest-Saxon kings, and against the vast deduction concerning the origin of\nthe English nation which Prof. Chadwick draws from this supposed antiquity.\n\n(IV) Precisely the same argument--that Sceaf, Sceldwa and Beaw are found\n_above Woden_ in the pedigree of the English kings, and are not likely to\nhave occupied that place in primitive heathen times, is fatal to the\nattempt to draw from this pedigree any argument that the myths of these\nheroes were specially and exclusively Anglo-Saxon. The argument of\nMuellenhoff and other scholars for an ancient, _purely Anglo-Saxon_\nBeowa-myth[630] falls, therefore, to the ground.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nD. EVIDENCE FOR THE DATE OF _BEOWULF_. THE RELATION OF _BEOWULF_ TO THE\nCLASSICAL EPIC\n\nA few years ago there was a tendency to exaggerate the value of grammatical\nforms in fixing the date of Old English poetry, and attempts were made to\narrange Old English poems in a chronological series, according to the exact\npercentage of \"early\" to \"late\" forms in each. There has now been a natural\nreaction against the assumption that, granting certain forms to be archaic,\nthese would necessarily be found in a percentage diminishing exactly\naccording to the dates of composition of the various poems in which they\noccur. The reaction has now gone to the other extreme, and grammatical\nfacts are in danger of being regarded as not being \"in any way valid or\nhelpful indications of dates[631].\"\n\nSchuecking[632], in an elaborate recent monograph on the date of _Beowulf_,\nrejects the grammatical evidence as valueless, and proceeds to date the\npoem about two centuries later than has usually been held, placing its\ncomposition at the court of some christianized Scandinavian monarch in\nEngland, about 900 A.D.\n\n{323}\n\nBut it surely does not follow that, because grammatical data have been\nmisused, therefore no use can be made of them. And, if _Beowulf_ was\ncomposed about the year 900, from stories current among the Viking\nsettlers, how are we to account for the fact that the proper names in\n_Beowulf_ are given, not in the Scandinavian forms of the Viking age, nor\nin corruptions of such forms, but in the correct English forms which we\nshould expect, according to English sound laws, if the names had been\nbrought over in the sixth century, and handed down traditionally[633]?\n\nFor example, King Hygelac no doubt called himself _Hugilaikaz_. The\n_Chochilaicus_ of Gregory of Tours is a good--if uncouth--shot at\nreproducing this name. The name became, in Norse, _Hugleikr_ and in Danish\n_Huglek_ (_Hugletus_ in Saxo): traditional kings so named are recorded,\nthough it is difficult to find that they have anything in common with the\nKing Hygelac in _Beowulf_[634]. Had the name been introduced into England\nin Viking times, we should expect the Scandinavian form, not\n_Hygel[=a]c_[635].\n\nEven in the rare cases where the character in _Beowulf_ and his\nScandinavian equivalent bear names which are not phonologically identical,\nthe difference does not point to any corruption such as might have arisen\nfrom borrowing in Viking days[636]. We have only to contrast the way in\nwhich the names of Viking chiefs are recorded in the _Anglo-Saxon\nChronicle_, to be convinced that the Scandinavian stories recorded in\n_Beowulf_ are due to contact during the age when Britain was being\nconquered, not during the Viking period three or four centuries later[637].\n\nAnd the arguments from literary and political history, which Schuecking\nadduces to prove his late date, seem to me to point in exactly the opposite\ndirection, and to confirm the orthodox view which would place _Beowulf_\nnearer 700 than 900.\n\n{324}\n\nSchuecking urges that, however highly we estimate the civilizing effect of\nChristianity, it was only in the second half of the seventh century that\nEngland was thoroughly permeated by the new faith. Can we expect already,\nat the beginning of the eighth century, a courtly work, showing, as does\n_Beowulf_, such wonderful examples of tact, modesty, unselfishness and\nmagnanimity? And this at the time when King Ceolwulf was forced by his\nrebellious subjects to take the cowl. For Schuecking[638], following\nHodgkin[639], reminds us how, in the eighth century, out of 15 Northumbrian\nkings, five were dethroned, five murdered; two abdicated, and only three\nheld the crown to their death; and how at the end of the century\nCharlemagne called the Northumbrian Angles \"a perfidious and perverse\nnation, murderers of their lords.\"\n\nBut surely, at the base of all this argument, lies the same assumption\nwhich, as Schuecking rightly holds, vitiates so many of the grammatical\narguments; the assumption that development must necessarily be in steady\nand progressive proportion. We may take Penda as a type of the unreclaimed\nheathen, and Edward the Confessor of the chaste and saintly churchman; but\nAnglo-Saxon history was by no means a development in steady progression, of\ndiminishing percentages of ruffianism and increasing percentages of\nsaintship.\n\nThe knowledge of, and interest in, heathen custom shown in _Beowulf_, such\nas the vivid accounts of cremation, would lead us to place it as near\nheathen times as other data will allow. So much must be granted to the\nargument of Prof. Chadwick[640]. But the Christian tone, so far from\nleading us to place _Beowulf_ late, would _also_ lead us to place it near\nthe time of the conversion. For it is precisely in these times just after\nthe conversion, that we get the most striking instances in all Old English\nhistory of that \"tact, modesty, generosity, and magnanimity\" which\nSchuecking rightly regards as characteristic of _Beowulf_.\n\nKing Oswin (who was slain in 651) was, Bede tells us, handsome, courteous\nof speech and bearing, bountiful both to great {325} and lowly, beloved of\nall men for his qualities of mind and body, so that noblemen came from all\nover England to enter his service--yet of all his endowments gentleness and\nhumility were the chief. We cannot read the description without being\nreminded of the words of the thegns in praise of the dead Beowulf. Indeed,\nI doubt if Beowulf would have carried gentleness to those around him quite\nso far as did Oswin. For Oswin had given to Bishop Aidan an exceptionally\nfine horse--and Aidan gave it to a beggar who asked alms. The king's mild\nsuggestion that a horse of less value would have been good enough for the\nbeggar, and that the bishop needed a good horse for his own use, drew from\nthe saint the stern question \"Is that son of a mare dearer to thee than the\nSon of God?\" The king, who had come from hunting, stood warming himself at\nthe fire, thinking over what had passed; then he suddenly ungirt his sword,\ngave it to his squire, and throwing himself at the feet of the bishop,\npromised never again to grudge anything he might give in his charities.\n\nOf course such conduct was exceptional in seventh century Northumbria--it\nconvinced Aidan that the king was too good to live long, as indeed proved\nto be the case. But it shows that the ideals of courtesy and gentleness\nshown in _Beowulf_ were by no means beyond the possibility of\nattainment--were indeed surpassed by a seventh century king. I do not know\nif they could be so easily paralleled in later Old English times.\n\nAnd what is true from the point of view of morals is true equally from that\nof art and learning. In spite of the misfortunes of Northumbrian kings in\nthe eighth century, the _first third_ of that century was \"the Golden Age\nof Anglo-Saxon England[641].\" And not unnaturally, for it had been preceded\nby half a century during which Northumbria had been free both from internal\nstrife and from invasion. The empire won by Oswiu over Picts and Scots in\nthe North had been lost at the battle of Nectansmere: but that battle had\nbeen followed by the twenty years reign of the learned Aldfrid, whose\nscholarship did not prevent him from nobly retrieving the state of the\nkingdom[642], though he could not recover the lost dominions.\n\n{326}\n\nNow, whatever we may think of _Beowulf_ as poetry, it is remarkable for its\nconscious and deliberate art, and for the tone of civilization which\npervades it. And this half century was distinguished, above any other\nperiod of Old English history, precisely for its art and its civilization.\nFour and a half centuries later, when the works of great Norman master\nbuilders were rising everywhere in the land, the buildings which Bishop\nWilfrid had put up during this first period of conversion were still\nobjects of admiration, even for those who had seen the glories of the great\nRoman basilicas[643].\n\nNor is there anything surprising in the fact that this \"golden age\" was not\nmaintained. On the contrary, it is \"in accordance with the phenomena of\nSaxon history in general, in which seasons of brilliant promise are\nsucceeded by long eras of national eclipse. It is from this point of view\nquite in accordance with natural likelihood that the age of conversion was\none of such stimulus to the artistic powers of the people that a level of\neffort and achievement was reached which subsequent generations were not\nable to maintain. The carved crosses and the coins certainly degenerate in\nartistic value as the centuries pass away, and the fine barbaric gold and\nencrusted work is early in date[644].\"\n\nAlready in the early part of the eighth century signs of decay are to be\nobserved. At the end of his _Ecclesiastical History_, Bede complains that\nthe times are so full of disturbance that one knows not what to say, or\nwhat the end will be. And these fears were justified. A hundred and forty\nyears of turmoil and decay follow, till the civilization of the North and\nthe Midlands was overthrown by the Danes, and York became the uneasy seat\nof a heathen jarl.\n\nHow it should be possible to see in these facts, as contrasted with the\nChristian and civilized tone of _Beowulf_, any argument for late date, I\ncannot see. On the contrary, because of its Christian civilization combined\nwith its still vivid, if perhaps not always quite exact, recollection of\nheathen customs, we should be inclined to put _Beowulf_ in the early\nChristian ages.\n\n{327}\n\nA further argument put forward for this late date is the old one that the\nScandinavian sympathies of _Beowulf_ show it to have been composed for a\nScandinavian court, the court, Schuecking thinks, of one of the princes who\nruled over those portions of England which the Danes had settled[645]. Of\ncourse Schuecking is too sound a scholar to revive at this time of day the\nold fallacy that the Anglo-Saxons ought to have taken no interest in the\ndeeds of any but Anglo-Saxon heroes. But how, he asks, are we to account\nfor such _enthusiasm_ for, such a burning interest in, a people of alien\ndialect and foreign dynasty, such as the Scyldings of Denmark?\n\nThe answer seems to me to be that the enthusiasm of _Beowulf_ is not for\nthe Danish nation as such: on the contrary, _Beowulf_ depicts a situation\nwhich is most humiliating to the Danes. For twelve years they have suffered\nthe depredations of Grendel; Hrothgar and his kin have proved helpless: all\nthe Danes have been unequal to the need. Twice at least this is emphasized\nin the most uncompromising, and indeed insulting, way[646]. The poet's\nenthusiasm is not, then, for the Danish race as such, but for the ideal of\na great court with its body of retainers. Such retainers are not\nnecessarily native born--rather is it the mark of the great court that it\ndraws men from far and wide to enter the service, whether permanently or\ntemporarily, even as Beowulf came from afar to help the aged Hrothgar in\nhis need.\n\nIt is this ideal of personal valour and personal loyalty, rather than of\ntribal patriotism, which pervades _Beowulf_, and which certainly suits the\nknown facts of the seventh and early eighth centuries. The bitterest strife\nin England in the seventh century had been between the two quite new states\nof Northumbria and Mercia, both equally of Anglian race. Both these states\nhad been built up by a combination of smaller units, and not without\nviolating the old local patriotisms of the diverse elements from which they\nhad been formed. At first, at any rate, no such thing as Northumbrian or\nMercian patriotism can have existed. Loyalty was personal, to the king.\nNeither the kingdom nor the _comitatus_ was homogeneous. We have seen {328}\nthat Bede mentions it as a peculiar honour to a Northumbrian prince that\n_from all parts of England_ nobles came to enter his service. We must not\ndemand from the seventh or eighth century our ideals of exclusive\nenthusiasm for the land of one's birth, ideals which make it disreputable\nfor a \"mercenary\" to sell his sword. The ideal is, on the contrary, loyalty\nto a prince whose service a warrior _voluntarily_ enters. And the Danish\ncourt is depicted as a pattern of such loyalty--before the Scyldings began\nto work evil[647], by the treason of Hrothulf.\n\nFurther, the fact that the Danish court at Leire had been a heathen one\nmight be matter for regret, but it would not prevent its being praised by\nan Englishman about 700. For England was then entirely Christian. In the\nprocess of conversion no single Christian had, so far as we know, been\nmartyred. There had been no war of religion. If Penda had fought against\nOswald, it had been as the king of Mercia against the king of Northumbria.\nPenda's allies were Christian, and he showed no antipathy to the new\nfaith[648]. So that at this date there was no reason for men to feel any\ndeep hostility towards a heathendom which had been the faith of their\ngrandfathers, and with which there had never been any embittered conflict.\n\nBut in 900 the position was quite different. For more than a generation the\ncountry had been engaged in a life-and-death struggle between two warring\ncamps, the \"Christian men\" and the \"heathen men.\" The \"heathen men\" were in\nprocess of conversion, but were liable to be ever recruited afresh from\nbeyond the sea. It seems highly unlikely that _Beowulf_ could have been\nwritten at this date, by some English poet, for the court of a converted\nScandinavian prince, with a view perhaps, as Schuecking suggests, to\neducating his children in the English speech. In such a case the one thing\nlikely to be avoided by the English poet, with more than two centuries of\nChristianity behind him, would surely have been the praise of that\nScandinavian heathendom, from which his patron had freed himself, and from\nwhich his children were to be weaned. The martyrdom of S. Edmund might have\nseemed a more appropriate theme[649]. {329} The tolerant attitude towards\nheathen customs, and the almost antiquarian interest in them, very justly,\nas it seems to me, emphasized by Schuecking[650], is surely far more\npossible in A.D. 700 than in A.D. 900. For between those dates heathendom\nhad ceased to be an antiquarian curiosity, and had become an imminent\nperil.\n\nIf those are right who hold that _Beowulf_ is no purely native growth, but\nshows influence of the classical epic, then again it is easier to credit\nsuch influence about the year 700 than 900. At the earlier date we have\nscholars like Aldhelm and Bede, both well acquainted with Virgil, yet both\ninterested in vernacular verse. It has been urged, as a _reductio ad\nabsurdum_ of the view which would connect _Beowulf_ with Virgil, that the\nrelation to the _Odyssey_ is more obvious than that to the _Aeneid_.\nPerhaps, however, some remote and indirect connection even between\n_Beowulf_ and the _Odyssey_ is not altogether unthinkable, about the year\n700. At the end of the seventh century there was a flourishing school of\nGreek learning in England, under Hadrian and the Greek Archbishop Theodore,\nboth \"well read in sacred _and in secular_ literature.\" In 730 their\nscholars were still alive, and, Bede tells us, could speak Greek and Latin\nas correctly as their native tongue. Bede himself knew something about the\n_Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_. Not till eight centuries have passed, and we\nreach Grocyn and Linacre, was it again to be as easy for an Englishman to\nhave a first-hand knowledge of a Greek classic as it was about the year\n700. What scholarship had sunk to by the days of Alfred, we know: and we\nknow that all Alfred's patronage did not produce any scholar whom we can\nthink of as in the least degree comparable to Bede.\n\nSo that from the point of view of its close touch with heathendom, its\ntolerance for heathen customs, its Christian magnanimity and gentleness,\nits conscious art, and its learned tone, all historic and artistic analogy\nwould lead us to place _Beowulf_ in the great age--the age of Bede.\n\n\n\nThis has brought us to another question--more interesting to many than the\nmere question of date. Are we to suppose {330} any direct connection\nbetween the classical and the Old English epic?\n\nAs nations pass through their \"Heroic Age,\" similar social conditions will\nnecessarily be reflected by many similarities in their poetry. In heroic\nlays like _Finnsburg_ or _Hildebrand_ or the Norse poems, phrases and\nsituations may occur which remind us of phrases and situations in the\n_Iliad_, without affording any ground for supposing classical influence\ndirect or indirect.\n\nBut there is much more in _Beowulf_ than mere accidental coincidence of\nphrase or situation.\n\nA simple-minded romancer would have made the _Aeneid_ a biography of Aeneas\nfrom the cradle to the grave. Not so Virgil. The story begins with mention\nof Carthage. Aeneas then comes on the scene. At a banquet he tells to Dido\nhis earlier adventures. Just so _Beowulf_ begins, not with the birth of\nBeowulf and his boyhood, but with Heorot. Beowulf arrives. At the banquet,\nin reply to Unferth, he narrates his earlier adventures. The _Beowulf_-poet\nis not content merely to tell us that there was minstrelsy at the feast,\nbut like Virgil or Homer, he must give an account of what was sung. The\nepic style leads often to almost verbal similarities. Jupiter consoling\nHercules for the loss of the son of his host says:\n\n  stat sua cuique dies, breve et inreparabile tempus\n  omnibus est vitae; sed famam extendere factis\n  hoc virtutis opus[651].\n\nIn the same spirit and almost in the same words does Beowulf console\nHrothgar for the loss of his friend:\n\n  [=U]re [=ae]ghwylc sceal ende geb[=i]dan\n  worolde l[=i]fes; wyrce s[=e] the m[=o]te\n  d[=o]mes [=ae]r d[=e]athe; thaet bith drihtguman\n  unlifgendum aefter s[=e]lest.\n\nOn the other hand, though we are often struck by the likeness in spirit and\nin plan, it must be allowed that there is no tangible or conclusive proof\nof borrowing[652]. But the influence may have been none the less effective\nfor being indirect: nor is {331} it quite certain that the author, had he\nknown his Virgil, would necessarily have left traces of direct borrowing.\nFor the deep Christian feeling, which has given to _Beowulf_ its almost\nprudish propriety and its edifying tone, is manifested by no direct and\ndogmatic reference to Christian personages or doctrines.\n\nI sympathize with Prof. Chadwick's feeling that a man who knew Virgil would\nnot have disguised his knowledge, and would probably have lacked both\ninclination and ability to compose such a poem as _Beowulf_[653]. But does\nnot this feeling rest largely upon the analogy of other races and ages? Is\nit borne out by such known facts as we can gather about this period? The\nreticence of _Beowulf_ with reference to Christianity does not harmonize\nwith one's preconceived ideas; and Bishop Aldhelm gives us an even greater\nsurprise. Let anyone read, or try to read, Aldhelm's _Epistola ad Acircium,\nsive liber de septenario et de metris_. Let him then ask himself \"Is it\npossible that this learned pedant can also have been the author of English\npoems which King Alfred--surely no mean judge--thought best of all he\nknew?\" These poems may of course have been educated and learned in tone.\nBut we have the authority of King Alfred for the fact that Aldhelm used to\nperform at the cross roads as a common minstrel, and that he could hold his\naudiences with such success that they resorted to him again and again[654].\nOnly after he had made himself popular by several performances did he\nattempt to weave edifying matter into his verse. And the popular, secular\npoetry of Aldhelm, his _carmen triviale_, remained current among the common\npeople for centuries. Nor was Aldhelm's classical knowledge of late growth,\nsomething superimposed upon an earlier love of popular poetry, for he had\n{332} studied under Hadrian as a boy[655]. Later we are told that King Ine\nimported two Greek teachers from Athens for the help of Aldhelm and his\nschool[656]; this may be exaggeration.\n\nEverything seems to show that about 700 an atmosphere existed in England\nwhich might easily have led a scholarly Englishman, acquainted with the old\nlays, to have set to work to compose an epic. Even so venerable a person as\nBede, during his last illness, uttered his last teaching not, as we should\nexpect on _a priori_ grounds, in Latin hexameters, but in English metre.\nThe evidence for this is conclusive[657]. But, at a later date, Alcuin\nwould surely have condemned the minstrelsy of Aldhelm[658]. Even King\nAlfred seems to have felt that it needed some apology. It would have\nrendered Aldhelm liable to severe censure under the Laws of King\nEdgar[659]; and Dunstan's biographer indignantly denies the charge brought\nagainst his hero of having learnt the heathen songs of his\nforefathers[660].\n\nThe evidence is not as plentiful as we might wish, but it rather suggests\nthat the chasm between secular poetry and ecclesiastical learning was more\neasily bridged in the first generations after the conversion than was the\ncase later.\n\nBut, however that may be, it assuredly does not give any grounds for\nabandoning the old view, based largely upon grammatical and metrical\nconsiderations, which would make _Beowulf_ a product of the early eighth\ncentury, and substituting for it a theory which would make our poem a\nproduct of mixed Saxon and Danish society in the early tenth century.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n{333}\n\nE. THE \"JUTE-QUESTION\" REOPENED\n\nThe view that the Geatas of _Beowulf_ are the Jutes (Iuti, Iutae) of Bede\n(i.e. the tribe which colonized Kent, the Isle of Wight and Hampshire) has\nbeen held by many eminent scholars. It was dealt with only briefly above\n(pp. 8-9) because I thought the theory was now recognized as being no\nlonger tenable. Lately, however, it has been maintained with conviction and\nability by two Danish scholars, Schuette and Kier. It therefore becomes\nnecessary once more to reopen the question, now that the only elaborate\ndiscussion of it in the English language favours the \"Jute-theory,\"\nespecially as Axel Olrik gave the support of his great name to the view\nthat \"the question is still open[661]\" and that \"the last word has not been\nsaid concerning the nationality of the Geatas[662].\"\n\nAs in most controversies, a number of rather irrelevant side issues have\nbeen introduced[663], so that from mere weariness students are sometimes\ninclined to leave the problem undecided. Yet the interpretation of the\nopening chapters of Scandinavian history turns upon it.\n\nSupporters of the \"Jute-theory\" have seldom approached the subject from the\npoint of view of Old English. Bugge[664] perhaps did so: but the\n\"Jute-theory\" has been held chiefly by students of Scandinavian history,\nliterature or geography, like Fahlbeck[665], Steenstrup[666], Gering[667],\nOlrik[668], Schuette[669] and Kier[670]. But, now that the laws of Old\nEnglish sound-change have been {334} clearly defined, it seldom happens\nthat anyone who approaches the subject primarily as a student of the\nAnglo-Saxon language holds the view that the Geatas are Jutes.\n\nAnd this is naturally so: for, from the point of view of language, the\nquestion is not disputable. The _G[=e]atas_ phonologically are the _Gautar_\n(the modern Goetar of Southern Sweden). It is admitted that the words are\nidentical[671]. And, equally, it is admitted that the word _G[=e]atas_\ncannot be identical with the word _Iuti_, _Iutae_, used by Bede as the name\nof the Jutes who colonized Kent[671]. Bede's _Iuti_, _Iutae_, on the\ncontrary, would correspond to a presumed Old English _*[=I]uti_ or\n_*[=I]utan_[672], current in his time in Northumbria. This in later\nNorthumbrian would become _[=I]ote_, _[=I]otan_ (though the form _[=I]ute_,\n_[=I]utan_ might also survive). The dialect forms which we should expect\n(and which we find in the genitive and dative) corresponding to this would\nbe: Mercian, _[=E]ote_, _[=E]otan_; Late West-Saxon, _[=Y]te_, _[=Y]tan_\n(through an intermediate Early West-Saxon _*[=I]ete_, _*[=I]etan_, which is\nnot recorded).\n\nIf, then, the word _G[=e]atas_ came to supplant the correct form _[=I]ote_,\n_[=I]otan_ (or its Mercian and West-Saxon equivalents _[=E]ote_,\n_[=E]otan_, _[=Y]te_, _[=Y]tan_), this can only have been the result of\nconfusion. Such confusion is, on abstract grounds, conceivable: it is\nalways possible that the name of one tribe may come to be attached to\nanother. \"Scot\" has ceased to mean \"Irishman,\" and has come to mean \"North\nBriton\"; and there is no intrinsic impossibility in the word _G[=e]atas_\nhaving been transferred by Englishmen, from the half-forgotten Gautar, to\nthe Jutes, and having driven out the correct name of the latter, _[=I]ote_,\n_[=I]otan_. For example, there might have been an exiled Geatic family\namong the Jutish invaders, which might have become so prominent as to cause\n{335} the name _G[=e]atas_ to supplant the correct _[=I]ote_, _[=E]ote_,\netc. But, whoever the Geatas may have been, _Beowulf_ is their chief early\nrecord: indeed, almost all we know of their earliest history is derived\nfrom _Beowulf_. In _Beowulf_, therefore, if anywhere, the old names and\ntraditions should be remembered. The word _G[=e]at_ occurs some 50 times in\nthe poem. The poet obviously wishes to use other synonyms, for the sake of\nvariety and alliteration: hence we get _Weder-G[=e]atas_, _Wederas_,\n_S[=ae]-G[=e]atas_, _G[=u]dh-G[=e]atas_. Now, if these Geatas are the\nJutes, how comes it that the poet _never_ calls them such, never speaks of\nthem under the correct tribal name of _[=E]ote_, etc., although this was\nthe current name at the time _Beowulf_ was written, and indeed for\ncenturies later?\n\nFor, demonstrably, the form _[=E]ote_, etc., _was_ recognized as the name\nof the Jutes till at least the twelfth century. Then it died out of current\nspeech, and only Bede's Latin _Iuti_ (and the modern \"Jute\" derived\ntherefrom) remained as terms used by the historians. The evidence is\nconclusive:\n\n(_a_) Bede, writing about the time when _Beowulf_, in its present form, is\nsupposed to have been composed, uses _Iuti_, _Iutae_, corresponding to a\npresumed contemporary Northumbrian _*[=I]uti_, _*[=I]utan_.\n\n(_b_) In the O.E. translation of Bede, made in Mercia perhaps two centuries\nafter Bede's time, we do indeed in one place find \"Geata,\" \"Geatum\" used to\ntranslate \"Iutarum,\" \"Iutis,\" instead of the correctly corresponding\nMercian form \"Eota,\" \"Eotum.\" Only two MSS are extant at this point. But\nsince both agree, and since they belong to different types, it is probable\nthat \"Geata\" here is no mere copyist's error, but is due to the translator\nhimself[673]. But, later, when the translator {336} has to render Bede's\n\"Iutorum,\" he gives, not \"Geata,\" but the correct Mercian \"Eota.\" There can\nbe no possible doubt here, for five MSS are extant at this point, and all\ngive the correct form--four in the Mercian, \"Eota,\" whilst one gives the\nWest-Saxon equivalent, \"Ytena.\"\n\nNow the _G[=e]ata_-passage in the Bede translation is the chief piece of\nevidence which those who would explain the Geatas of _Beowulf_ as \"Jutes\"\ncan call: and it does not, in fact, much help them. What they have to prove\nis that the _Beowulf_-poet could _consistently and invariably_ have used\n_G[=e]atas_ in the place of _[=E]ote_. To produce an instance in which the\ntwo terms are both used by the same translator is very little use, when\nwhat has to be proved is that the one term had already, at a much earlier\nperiod, entirely ousted the other.\n\nAll our other evidence is for the invariable use of the correct form\n_[=I]ote_, _[=I]otan_, etc. in Old English.\n\n(_c_) The passage from Bede was again translated, and inserted into a copy\nof the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, which was sent quite early to one of the\ngreat abbeys of Northumbria[674]. In this, \"Iutis, Iutarum\" is represented\nby the correct Northumbrian equivalent, \"Iutum,\" \"Iotum\"; \"Iutna.\"\n\n(_d_) This Northumbrian Chronicle, or a transcript of it, subsequently came\nSouth, to Canterbury. There, roughly about the year 1100, it was used to\ninterpolate an Early West-Saxon copy of the Chronicle. Surely at\nCanterbury, the capital of the old Jutish kingdom, people must have known\nthe correct form of the Jutish name, whether _G[=e]atas_ or _[=I]ote_. We\nfind the forms \"Iotum,\" \"Iutum\"; \"Iutna.\"\n\n(_e_) Corresponding to this Northumbrian (and Kentish) form _[=I]ote_,\nMercian _[=E]ote_, the Late West-Saxon form should be _[=Y]te_. Now _MS\nCorpus Christi College, Cambridge_, 41, gives us \"the Wessex version of the\nEnglish Bede\" and is written by a scribe who knew the Hampshire\ndistrict[675]. In this MS the \"Eota\" of the Mercian original has been\ntranscribed as \"Ytena,\" \"Eotum\" as \"Ytum,\" showing that the scribe\nunderstood the tribal name and its equivalent correctly. This was about the\n{337} time of the Norman Conquest, but the name continued to be understood\ntill the early twelfth century at least. For Florence of Worcester records\nthat William Rufus was slain _in Noua Foresta quae lingua Anglorum Ytene\nnuncupatur_; and in another place he speaks of the same event as happening\n_in prouincia Jutarum in Noua Foresta_[676], which shows that Florence\nunderstood that \"Ytene\" was _[=Y]tena land_, \"the province of the Jutes.\"\n\n\n\nIt comes, then, to this. The \"Jute-hypothesis\" postulates not only that, at\nthe time _Beowulf_ was composed, _G[=e]atas_ had come to mean \"Jutes,\" but\nalso that it had so completely ousted the correct old name _[=I]uti,\n[=I]ote, [=E]ote, [=Y]te_, that none of the latter terms are ever used in\nthe poem as synonyms for Beowulf's people[677]. Yet all the evidence shows\nthat _[=I]uti_ etc. was the recognized name when Bede wrote, and we have\nevidence at intervals showing that it was so understood till four centuries\nlater. But not only was _[=I]uti_, _[=I]ote_ never superseded in O.E.\ntimes; there is no real evidence that _G[=e]atas_ was ever _generally_ used\nto signify \"Jutes.\" The fact that one translator in one passage (writing\nprobably some two centuries after _Beowulf_ was composed) uses \"Geata,\"\n\"Geatum,\" where he should have used \"Eota,\" \"Eotum,\" does not prove the\nmisnomer to have been general--especially when the same translator\nsubsequently uses the correct form \"Eota.\"\n\nI do not think sufficient importance has been attached to what seems (to\nme) the vital argument against the \"Jute-theory.\" It is not merely that\n_G[=e]atas_ is the exact phonological equivalent of _Gautar_ (Goetar) and\ncannot be equivalent to Bede's _Iuti_. This difficulty may be got over by\nthe assumption that somehow the _Iuti_, or some of them, had adopted the\nname _G[=e]atas_: and we are not in a position to disprove such assumption.\nBut the advocates of the \"Jute-theory\" have further to assume that, at the\ndate when _Beowulf_ was written, the correct name _Iuti_ (Northumbrian\n_[=I]ote_, Mercian _[=E]ote_, West-Saxon _[=Y]te_) must have so passed into\ndisuse that it could not be once used as a {338} synonym for Beowulf's\npeople, by our synonym-hunting poet. And this assumption we _are_ in a\nposition to disprove.\n\n\n\nThe Jute-theory would therefore still be untenable on the ground of the\nname, even though it were laboriously proved that, from the historical and\ngeographical standpoint, there was more to be said for it than had hitherto\nbeen recognized. But even this has not been proved: quite the reverse. As I\nhave tried to show above, historical and geographical considerations,\nthough in themselves not absolutely conclusive, point emphatically to an\nidentification with the Goetar, rather than with the Jutes[678].\n\nThe relations of Beowulf and the Geatas with the kings of Denmark and of\nSweden are the constant topic of the poem. Now the land of the Goetar _was_\nsituated between Denmark and Sweden. But if the Geatas be Jutes, their\nneighbours were the Danes on the east and the Angles on the south; farther\naway, across the Cattegat lay the Goetar, and beyond these the Swedes. If\nthe Geatas be Jutes, why should their immediate neighbours, the Angles,\nnever appear in _Beowulf_ as having any dealings with them? And why, above\nall, should the Goetar never be mentioned, whilst the Swedes, far to the\nnorth, play so large a part? Even if Swedes and Goetar had at this time\nbeen under one king, the Goetar could not have been thus ignored, seeing\nthat, owing to their position, the brunt of the fighting must have fallen\non them[679]. But we know that the Goetar were independent. The strictly\ncontemporary evidence of Procopius shows quite conclusively that they were\none of the strongest of the Scandinavian kingdoms[680]. How then could\nwarfare be carried on for three generations between Jutes and Swedes\nwithout concerning the Goetar, whose territory lay in between?\n\nAgain, in the \"Catalogue of Kings\" in _Widsith_, the Swedes are named with\ntheir famous king Ongentheow. The Jutes (_[=Y]te_) are also mentioned, with\n_their_ king. And their king is {339} not Hrethel, Haethcyn, Hygelac or\nHeardred, but a certain Gefwulf, whose name does not even alliterate with\nthat of any known king of the Geatas[681].\n\nAgain, in the (certainly very early) _Book on Monsters_, Hygelac is\ndescribed as _Huiglaucus qui imperavit Getis_. Now Getis can mean\nGoetar[682], but can hardly mean Jutes.\n\nThe geographical case against the identification of Geatas and Goetar\ndepends upon the assumption that the western sea-coast of the Goetar in\nancient times must have coincided with that of West Gothland\n(Vestra-Goetland) in mediaeval and modern times. Now as this coast consists\nmerely of a small strip south of the river Goetaelv, it is argued that the\nGoetar could not be the maritime Geatas of _Beowulf_, capable of\nundertaking a Viking raid to the mouth of the Rhine. But the assumption\nthat the frontiers of the Goetar about A.D. 500 were the same as they were\na thousand years later, is not only improbable on _a priori_ grounds, but,\nas Schueck has shown[683], can be definitely disproved. Adam of Bremen,\nwriting in the eleventh century, speaks of the river Gothelba (Goetaelv) as\nrunning through the midst of the peoples of the Goetar. And the obvious\nconnection between the name of the river and the name of the people seems\nto make it certain that Adam is right, and that the original Goetar must\nhave dwelt around the river Goetaelv. But, if so, then they were a maritime\nfolk: for the river Goetaelv is merely the outlet which connects Lake Wener\nwith the sea, running a course almost parallel with the shore and nowhere\nvery distant from it[684]. But even when Adam wrote, the {340} Goetar to\nthe north of the river had long been politically subject to Norway[685]:\nand the _Heimskringla_ tells us how this happened.\n\nHarold Fairhair, King of Norway (a contemporary of King Alfred), attacked\nthem: they had staked the river Goetaelv against him, but he moored his\nships to the stakes[686] and harried _on either shore_: he fought far and\nwide in the country, had many battles _on either side of the river_, and\nfinally slew the leader of the Goetar, Hrani Gauzki (the Goetlander). Then\nhe annexed to Norway all the land north of the river and west of Lake\nWener. Thenceforward the Goetaelv was the boundary between Norway and West\nGothland, though the country ultimately became Swedish, as it now is. But\nit is abundantly clear from the _Heimskringla_ that Harold regarded as\nhostile all the territory north of the Goetaelv, and between Lake Wener and\nthe sea[687] (the old R['a]nriki and the modern Bohuslaen).\n\nBut, if so, then the objection that the Goetar are not a sufficiently\nmaritime people becomes untenable. For precisely to this region belong the\nearliest records of maritime warfare to be found in the north of Europe,\npossibly the earliest in Europe. The smooth rocks of Bohuslaen are covered\nwith incised pictures of the Bronze age: and the favourite subject of these\nis ships and naval encounters. About 120 different pictures of ships and\nsea fights are reproduced by one scholar alone[688]. And at the present day\nthis province of Goeteborg and Bohus is the most important centre in Sweden\nboth of fishery and shipping. Indeed, more than one quarter of the total\ntonnage of the modern Swedish mercantile marine comes from this\ncomparatively tiny strip of coast[689].\n\n{341}\n\nIt is surely quite absurd to urge that the men of this coast could not have\nharried the Frisians in the manner in which Hygelac is represented as\ndoing. And surely it is equally absurd to urge that the people of this\ncoast would not have had to fear a return attack from the Frisians, after\nthe downfall of their own kings. The Frisians seem to have been \"the chief\nchannel of communication between the North and West of Europe[690]\" before\nthe rise of the Scandinavian Vikings, and to have been supreme in the North\nSea. The Franks were of course a land power, but the Franks, _when in\nalliance with the Frisians_, were by no means helpless at sea. Gregory of\nTours tells us that they overthrew Hygelac on land, and _then in a sea\nfight annihilated his fleet_. Now the poet says that the Geatas may expect\nwar when the Franks _and Frisians_ hear of Beowulf's fall. The objection\nthat, because they feared the Franks, the Geatas must have been reachable\nby land, depends upon leaving the \"and Frisians\" out of consideration.\n\n\"Now we may look for a time of war\" says the messenger \"when the fall of\nour king is known among the Franks and Frisians\": then he gives a brief\naccount of the raid upon the land of the Frisians and concludes: \"Ever\nsince then has the favour of the Merovingian king been denied us[691].\"\nWhat is there in this to indicate whether the raiders came from Jutland, or\nfrom the coast of the Goetar across the Cattegat, 50 miles further off? The\nmessenger goes on to anticipate hostility from the Swedes[692]. To this, at\nany rate, the Goetar were more exposed than the Jutes. Further, he\nconcludes by anticipating the utter overthrow of the Geatas[693]: and the\npoet expressly tells us that these forebodings were justified[694]. There\nmust therefore be a reference to some famous national catastrophe. Now the\nGoetar _did_ lose their independence, and _were_ incorporated into the\nSwedish kingdom. When did the Jutes suffer any similar downfall at the\nhands of either Frisians, Franks, or Swedes?\n\n\n\nThe other geographical and historical arguments urged in favour of the\nJutes, when carefully scrutinized, are found either {342} equally\nindecisive, or else actually to tell against the \"Jute-theory.\"\nSchuette[695] thinks that the name \"Wederas\" (applied in _Beowulf_ to the\nGeatas) is identical with the name _Eudoses_ (that of a tribe mentioned by\nTacitus, who _may_[696] have dwelt in Jutland). But this is impossible\nphonologically: _Wederas_ is surely a shortened form of _Weder-G[=e]atas_,\n\"the Storm-Geatas.\" Indeed, we have, in favour of the Goetar-theory, the\nfact that the very name of the Wederas survives on the Bohuslaen coast to\nthis day, in the Waeder Oear and the Waeder Fiord.\n\nAdvocates of the \"Jute-theory\" lay great stress upon the fact that Gregory\nof Tours and the _Liber Historiae Francorum_ call Hygelac a Dane[697]:\n_Dani cum rege suo Chochilaico_. Now, when Gregory wrote in the sixth\ncentury, either the Jutes were entirely distinct from, and independent of,\nthe Danes, or they were not. If they were distinct, how do Gregory's words\nhelp the \"Jute-theory\"? He must be simply using \"Dane,\" like the\nAnglo-Saxon historians, for \"Scandinavian.\" But if the Jutes were not\ndistinct from the Danes, then we have an argument against the\n\"Jute-theory.\" For we know from _Beowulf_ that the Geatas _were_ quite\ndistinct from the Danes[698], and quite independent of them[699].\n\nIt is repeatedly urged that the Geatas and Swedes fight _ofer s[=ae]_[700].\nBut _s[=ae]_ can mean a great fresh-water lake, like Lake Wener, just as\nwell as the ocean[701]: and as a matter of fact we know that the decisive\nbattle did take place on Lake Wener, _in stagno Waener, ['a] Vaenis\n['i]si_[702]. Lake Wener is an obvious battle place for Goetar and Swedes.\nThey were separated by the great and almost impassable forests of \"Tived\"\nand \"Kolm[oa]rd,\" and the lake was their simplest way of meeting[703]. But\nit does not equally fit Jutes and Swedes.\n\nIt is repeatedly objected that the Goetar are remote from the\nAnglo-Saxons[704]. Possibly: but remoteness did not prevent {343} the\nAnglo-Saxons from being interested in heroes of the Huns or Goths or\nBurgundians or Longobards, who were much more[705] distant. And the absence\nof any direct connection between the history of the Geatas and the historic\nAnglo-Saxon records, affords a strong presumption that the Geatas _were_ a\nsomewhat alien people. If the people of Beowulf, Hygelac, and Hrethel, were\nthe same people as the Jutes who colonized Kent and Hampshire, why do we\nnever, in the Kentish royal genealogies or elsewhere, find any claim to\nsuch connection? The Mercians did not so forget their connection with the\nold Offa of Angel, although a much greater space of time had intervened.\nThe fact that we have no mention among the ancestors of Beowulf and Hygelac\nof any names which we can connect with the Jutish genealogy affords,\ntherefore, a strong presumption that they belonged to some other tribe.\n\nThe strongest historical argument for the \"Jute-theory\" was that produced\nby Bugge. The _Ynglinga tal_ represents Ottar (who is certainly the Ohthere\nof _Beowulf_) as having fallen in Vendel, and this Vendel was clearly\nunderstood as being the district of that name in North Jutland. The body of\nthis Swedish king was torn asunder by carrion birds, and he was remembered\nas \"the Vendel-crow,\" a mocking nickname which pretty clearly goes back to\nprimitive times. Other ancient authors attributed this name, not to Ottar,\nbut to his father, who can be identified with the Ongentheow of _Beowulf_.\nThis would seem to indicate that the hereditary foes of Ongentheow and the\nSwedish kings of his house were, after all, the Jutes of Vendel.\n\nBut Knut Stjerna has shown that the Vendel from which \"Ottar Vendel-crow\"\ntook his name was probably not the Vendel of Jutland at all, but the place\nof that name north of Uppsala, famous for the splendid grave-finds which\nshow it to have been of peculiar importance during our period[706]. And\nsubsequent research has shown that a huge grave-mound, near this Vendel, is\nmentioned in a record of the seventeenth century as King {344} Ottar's\nmound, and is still popularly known as the mound of Ottar Vendel-crow[707].\nBut, if so, this story of the Vendel-crow, so far from supporting the\n\"Jute-hypothesis,\" tells against it: nothing could be more suitable than\nVendel, north of Uppsala, as the \"last ditch\" to which Ongentheow\nretreated, if we assume his adversaries to have been the Goetar: but it\nwould not suit the Jutes so well.\n\nAn exploration of the mound has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it\n_was_ raised to cover the ashes of Ottar Vendel-crow, the Ohthere of\n_Beowulf_[708]. That Ohthere fell in battle against the Geatas there is\nnothing, in _Beowulf_ or elsewhere, to prove. But the fact that his ashes\nwere laid in mound at Vendel in Sweden makes it unlikely that he fell in\nbattle against the Jutes, and is quite incompatible with what we are told\nin the _Ynglinga saga_ of his body having been torn to pieces by carrion\nfowl on a mound in Vendel in Jutland. It now becomes clear that this story,\nand the tale of the crow of wood made by the Jutlanders in mockery of\nOttar, is a mere invention to account for the name Vendel-crow: the name,\nas so often, has survived, and a new story has grown up to give a reason\nfor the name.\n\nWhat \"Vendel-crow\" originally implied we cannot be quite sure. Apparently\n\"Crow\" or \"Vendel-crow\" is used to this day as a nickname for the\ninhabitants of Swedish Vendel. Ottar may have been so called because he was\nburied (possibly because he lived) in Vendel, not, like other members of\nhis race, his son and his father, at Old Uppsala. But however that may be,\nwhat is clear is that, as the name passed from the Swedes to those\nNorwegian and Icelandic writers who have handed it down {345} to us, Vendel\nof Sweden was naturally misunderstood as the more familiar Vendel of\nJutland. Stjerna's conjecture is confirmed. The Swedish king's nickname,\nfar from pointing to ancient feuds between Jute and Swede, is shown to have\nnothing whatsoever to do with Jutland.\n\n\n\nIt appears, then, that _G[=e]atas_ is phonologically the equivalent of\n\"Goetar,\" but not the equivalent of \"Jutes\"; that what we know of the use\nof the word \"Jutes\" (_[=I]ote_, etc.) in Old English makes it incredible\nthat a poem of the length of _Beowulf_ could be written, concerning their\nheroes and their wars, without even mentioning them by their correct name;\nthat in many respects the geographical and historical evidence fits the\nGoetar, but does _not_ fit the Jutes; that the instances to the contrary,\nin which it is claimed that the geographical and historical evidence fits\nthe Jutes but does not fit the Goetar, are all found on examination to be\neither inconclusive or actually to favour the Goetar.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nF. _BEOWULF_ AND THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS\n\nThe peat-bogs of Schleswig and Denmark have yielded finds of the first\nimportance for English archaeology. These \"moss-finds\" are great\ncollections, chiefly of arms and accoutrements, obviously deposited with\nintention. The first of these great discoveries, that of Thorsbjerg, was\nmade in the heart of ancient Angel: the site of the next, Nydam, also comes\nwithin the area probably occupied by either Angles or Jutes; and most of\nthe rest of the \"moss-finds\" were in the closest neighbourhood of the old\nAnglian home. The period of the oldest deposits, as is shown by the Roman\ncoins found among them, is hardly before the third century A.D., and some\nauthorities would make it considerably later.\n\nAn account of these discoveries will be found in Engelhardt's _Denmark in\nthe Early Iron Age_[709], 1866: a volume which {346} summarizes the results\nof Engelhardt's investigations during the preceding seven years. He had\npublished in Copenhagen _Thorsbjerg Mosefund_, 1863; _Nydam Mosefund_,\n1865. Engelhardt's work at Nydam was interrupted by the war of 1864: the\nfinds had to be ceded to Germany, and the exploration was continued by\nGerman scholars. Engelhardt consoled himself that these \"subsequent\ninvestigations ... do not seem to have been carried on with the necessary\ncare and intelligence,\" and continued his own researches within the\nnarrowed frontiers of Denmark, publishing two monographs on the mosses of\nFuenen: _Kragehul Mosefund_, 1867; _Vimose Fundet_, 1869.\n\nThese deposits, however, obviously belong to a period much earlier than\nthat in which _Beowulf_ was written: indeed most of them certainly belong\nto a period earlier than that in which the historic events described in\n_Beowulf_ occurred; so that, close as is their relation with Anglian\ncivilization, it is with the civilization of the Angles while still on the\ncontinent.\n\n\n\nThe Archaeology of _Beowulf_ has been made the subject of special study by\nKnut Stjerna, in a series of articles which appeared between 1903 and his\npremature death in 1909. A good service has been done to students of\n_Beowulf_ by Dr Clark Hall in collecting and translating Stjerna's\nessays[710]. They are a mine of useful information, and the reproductions\nof articles from Scandinavian grave-finds, with which they are so copiously\nillustrated, are invaluable. The magnificent antiquities from Vendel, now\nin the Stockholm museum, are more particularly laid under\ncontribution[711]. Dr Clark Hall added a most useful \"Index of things\nmentioned in _Beowulf_[712],\" well illustrated. Here again the\nillustrations, with few exceptions, are from Scandinavian finds.\n\n{347}\n\nTwo weighty arguments as to the origin of _Beowulf_ have been based upon\narchaeology. In the first place it has been urged by Dr Clark Hall that:\n\n    \"If the poem is read in the light of the evidence which Stjerna has\n    marshalled in the essays as to the profusion of gold, the prevalence of\n    ring-swords, of boar-helmets, of ring-corslets, and ring-money, it\n    becomes clear how strong the distinctively Scandinavian colouring is,\n    and how comparatively little of the _mise-en-sc[`e]ne_ must be due to\n    the English author[713].\"\n\nEqually, Prof. Klaeber finds in Stjerna's investigations a strong argument\nfor the Scandinavian character of _Beowulf_[714].\n\nNow Stjerna, very rightly and naturally, drew his illustrations of\n_Beowulf_ from those Scandinavian, and especially Swedish, grave-finds\nwhich he knew so well: and very valuable those illustrations are. But it\ndoes not follow, because the one archaeologist who has chosen to devote his\nknowledge so wholeheartedly to the elucidation of _Beowulf_ was a\nScandinavian, using Scandinavian material, that therefore _Beowulf_ is\nScandinavian. This, however, is the inference which Stjerna himself was apt\nto draw, and which is still being drawn from his work. Stjerna speaks of\nour poem as a monument raised by the Geatas to the memory of their\nsaga-renowned king[715], though he allows that certain features of the\npoem, such as the dragon-fight[716], are of Anglo-Saxon origin.\n\nOf course, it must be allowed that accounts such as those of the fighting\nbetween Swedes and Geatas, if they are historical (and they obviously are),\nmust have originated from eyewitnesses of the Scandinavian battles: but I\ndoubt if there is anything in _Beowulf_ so purely Scandinavian as to compel\nus to assume that any line of the story, in the poetical form in which we\nnow have it, was _necessarily_ composed in Scandinavia. Even if it could be\nshown that the conditions depicted in _Beowulf_ can be better illustrated\nfrom the grave-finds of Vendel in Sweden than from English diggings, this\nwould not prove _Beowulf_ Scandinavian. Modern scientific archaeology is\nsurely based on chronology as well as geography. The English finds date\nfrom {348} the period before 650 A.D., and the Vendel finds from the period\nafter. _Beowulf_ might well show similarity rather with contemporary art\nabroad than with the art of earlier generations at home. For intercourse\nwas more general than is always realized. It was not merely trade and\nplunder which spread fashions from nation to nation. There were the\npresents of arms which Tacitus mentions as sent, not only privately, but\nwith public ceremony, from one tribe to another[717]. Similar presentations\nare indicated in _Beowulf_[718]; we find them equally at the court of the\nOstrogothic Theodoric[719]; Charles the Great sent to Offa of Mercia _unum\nbalteum et unum gladium huniscum_[720]; according to the famous story in\nthe _Heimskringla_, Athelstan sent to Harold Fairhair of Norway a sword and\nbelt arrayed with gold and silver; Athelstan gave Harold's son Hakon a\nsword which was the best that ever came to Norway[721]. It is not\nsurprising, then, if we find parallels between English poetry and\nScandinavian grave-finds, both apparently dating from about the year 700\nA.D. But I do not think that there is any _special_ resemblance, though,\nboth in _Beowulf_ and in the Vendel graves, there is a profusion lacking in\nthe case of the simpler Anglo-Saxon tomb-furniture.\n\nLet us examine the five points of special resemblance, alleged by Dr Clark\nHall, on the basis of Stjerna's studies.\n\n\"The profusion of gold.\" Gold is indeed lavishly used in _Beowulf_: the\ngolden treasure found in the dragon's lair was so bulky that it had to be\ntransported by waggon. And, certainly, gold is found in greater profusion\nin Swedish than in English graves: the most casual visitor to the Stockholm\nmuseum must be impressed by the magnificence of the exhibits there. But,\ngranting gold to have been rarer in England than in Sweden, I cannot grant\nStjerna's contention that therefore an English poet could not have\nconceived the idea of a vast gold hoard[722]; or that, even if the poet\ndoes deck his warriors with gold somewhat more sumptuously than was\nactually the case in England, {349} we can draw any argument from it. For,\nif the dragon in _Beowulf_ guards a treasure, so equally does the typical\ndragon of Old English proverbial lore[723]. Beowulf is spoken of as\n_gold-wlanc_, but the typical thegn in _Finnsburg_ is called\n_gold-hladen_[724]. The sword found by Beowulf in the hall of Grendel's\nmother has a golden hilt, but the English proverb had it that \"gold is in\nits place on a man's sword[725].\" Heorot is hung with golden tapestry, but\ngold-inwoven fabric has been unearthed from Saxon graves at Taplow, and\nelsewhere in England[726]. Gold glitters in other poems quite as lavishly\nas in _Beowulf_, sometimes more so. Widsith made a hobby of collecting\ngolden _b[=e]agas_. The subject of _Waldere_ is a fight for treasure. The\nbyrnie of Waldere[727] is adorned with gold: so is that of Holofernes in\n_Judith_[728], so is that of the typical warrior in the _Elene_[729]. Are\nall these poems Scandinavian?\n\n\"The prevalence of ring-swords.\" We know that swords were sometimes fitted\nwith a ring in the hilt[730]. It is not clear whether the object of this\nring was to fasten the hilt by a strap to the wrist, for convenience in\nfighting (as has been the custom with the cavalry sword in modern times) or\nwhether it was used to attach the \"peace bands,\" by which the hilt of the\nsword was sometimes fixed to the scabbard, when only being worn\nceremonially[731]. The word _hring-m[=ae]l_, applied three times to the\nsword in _Beowulf_, has been interpretated as a reference to these\n\"ring-swords,\" though it is quite conceivable that it may refer only to the\ndamascening of the sword with a ringed pattern[732]. Assuming that the\nreference in _Beowulf_ _is_ to a \"ring-sword,\" Stjerna illustrates the\nallusion from seven ring-swords, or fragments of ring-swords, found in\nSweden. But, as Dr Clark Hall himself points out (whilst oddly enough\naccepting this argument {350} as proof of the Scandinavian colouring of\n_Beowulf_) four ring-swords at least have been found in England[733]. And\nthese English swords are _real_ ring-swords; that is to say, the pommel is\nfurnished with a ring, within which another ring moves (in the oldest type\nof sword) quite freely. This freedom of movement seems, however, to be\ngradually restricted, and in one of these English swords the two rings are\nmade in one and the same piece. In the Swedish swords, however, this\nrestriction is carried further, and the two rings are represented by a knob\ngrowing out of a circular base. Another sword of this \"knob\"-type has\nrecently been found in a Frankish tomb[734], and yet another in the\nRhineland[735]. It seems to be agreed among archaeologists that the English\ntype, as found in Kent, is the original, and that the Swedish and\ncontinental \"ring-swords\" are merely imitations, in which the ring has\nbecome conventionalized into a knob[736]. But, if so, how can the mention\nof a ring-sword in _Beowulf_ (if indeed that be the meaning of\n_hring-m[=ae]l_) prove Scandinavian colouring? If it proved anything (which\nit does not) it would tend to prove the reverse, and to locate _Beowulf_ in\nKent, where the true ring-swords have been found.\n\n\"The prevalence of boar-helmets.\" It is true that several representations\nof warriors wearing boar-helmets have been found in Scandinavia. But the\nonly certainly Anglo-Saxon {351} helmet yet found in England has a\nboar-crest[737]; and this is, I believe, the only actual boar-helmet yet\nfound. How then can the boar-helmets of _Beowulf_ show Scandinavian rather\nthan Anglo-Saxon origin?\n\n\"The prevalence of ring-corslets.\" It is true that only one trace of a\nbyrnie, and that apparently not of ring-mail, has so far been found in an\nAnglo-Saxon grave. (We have somewhat more abundant remains from the period\nprior to the migration to England: a peculiarly fine corslet of ring-mail,\nwith remains of some nine others, was found in the moss at Thorsbjerg[738]\nin the midst of the ancient Anglian continental home; and other\nring-corslets have been found in the neighbourhood of Angel, at Vimose[739]\nin Fuenen.) But, for the period when _Beowulf_ must have been composed, the\nring-corslet is almost as rare in Scandinavia as in England[740]; the\nartist, however, seems to be indicating a byrnie upon many of the warriors\ndepicted on the Vendel helm (Grave 14: seventh century). Equally, in\nEngland, warriors are represented on the Franks Casket as wearing the\nbyrnie: also the laws of Ine (688-95) make it clear that the byrnie was by\nno means unknown[741]. Other Old English poems, certainly not Scandinavian,\nmention the ring-byrnie. How then can the mention of it in _Beowulf_ be a\nproof of Scandinavian origin?\n\n\"The prevalence of ring-money.\" Before minted money became current, rings\nwere used everywhere among the Teutonic peoples. Gold rings, _intertwined_\nso as to form a chain, have been found throughout Scandinavia, presumably\nfor use as a medium of exchange. The term _locenra b[=e]aga_ (gen. plu.)\noccurs in _Beowulf_, and this is interpreted by Stjerna as \"rings\n_intertwined or locked_ together[742].\" But _locen_ in _Beowulf_ need not\nhave the meaning of \"intertwined\"; it occurs elsewhere in Old English of a\nsingle jewel, _sincgim locen_[743]. Further, even if _locen_ does mean\n{352} \"intertwined,\" such intertwined rings are not limited to Scandinavia\nproper. They have been found in Schleswig[744]. And almost the very phrase\nin _Beowulf_, _londes ne locenra b[=e]aga_[745], recurs in the _Andreas_.\nThe phrase there may be imitated from _Beowulf_, but, equally, the phrase\nin _Beowulf_ may be imitated from some earlier poem. In fact, it is part of\nthe traditional poetic diction: but its occurrence in the _Andreas_ shows\nthat it cannot be used as an argument of Scandinavian origin.\n\n\n\nWhilst, therefore, accepting with gratitude the numerous illustrations\nwhich Stjerna has drawn from Scandinavian grave-finds, we must be careful\nnot to read a Scandinavian colouring into features of _Beowulf_ which are\nat least as much English as Scandinavian, such as the ring-sword or the\nboar-helmet or the ring-corslet.\n\nThere is, as is noted above, a certain atmosphere of profusion and wealth\nabout some Scandinavian grave-finds, which corresponds much more nearly\nwith the wealthy life depicted in _Beowulf_ than does the comparatively\nmeagre tomb-furniture of England. But we must remember that, after the\nspread of Christianity in the first half of the seventh century, the custom\nof burying articles with the bodies of the dead naturally ceased, or almost\nceased, in England. Scandinavia continued heathen for another four hundred\nyears, and it was during these years that the most magnificent deposits\nwere made. As Stjerna himself points out, \"a steadily increasing luxury in\nthe appointment of graves\" is to be found in Scandinavia in these centuries\nbefore the introduction of Christianity there. When we find in Scandinavia\nthings (complete ships, for example) which we do not find in England, we\nowe this, partly to the nature of the soil in which they were embedded, but\nalso to the continuance of such burial customs after they had died out in\nEngland.\n\n\n\nHelm and byrnie were not necessarily unknown, or even very rare in England,\nsimply because it was not the custom to bury them with the dead. On the\nother hand, the frequent mention of them in _Beowulf_ does not imply that\nthey were common: for {353} _Beowulf_ deals only with the aristocratic\nadherents of a court, and even in _Beowulf_ fine specimens of the helm and\nbyrnie are spoken of as things which a king seeks far and wide to procure\nfor his retainers[746]. We cannot, therefore, argue that there is any\ndiscrepancy. However, if we do so argue, it would merely prove, not that\n_Beowulf_ is Scandinavian as opposed to English, but that it is\ncomparatively late in date. Tacitus emphasizes the fact that spear and\nshield were the Teutonic weapons, that helmet and corslet were hardly\nknown[747]. Pagan graves show that at any rate they were hardly known _as\ntomb-furniture_ in England in the fifth, sixth, and early seventh\ncenturies. The introduction of Christianity, and the intercourse with the\nSouth which it involved, certainly led to the growth of pomp and wealth in\nEngland, till the early eighth century became \"the golden age of\nAnglo-Saxon England.\"\n\nIt might therefore conceivably be argued that _Beowulf_ reflects the\ncomparative abundance of early Christian England, as opposed to the more\nprimitive heathen simplicity; but to argue a Scandinavian origin from the\nprofusion of _Beowulf_ admits of an easy _reductio ad absurdum_. For the\nsame arguments would prove a heathen, Scandinavian origin for the\n_Andreas_, the _Elene_, the _Exodus_, or even for the Franks Casket,\ndespite its Anglo-Saxon inscription and Christian carvings.\n\n\n\nHowever, though the absence of helm and byrnie from Anglo-Saxon graves does\nnot prove that these arms were not used by the living in heathen times, one\nthing it assuredly _does_ prove: that the Anglo-Saxons in heathen times did\nnot sacrifice helm and byrnie recklessly in funeral pomp. And this brings\nus to the second argument as to the origin of _Beowulf_ which has been\nbased on archaeology.\n\nSomething has been said above of this second contention[748]--that the\naccuracy of the account of Beowulf's funeral is confirmed in every point by\narchaeological evidence: that it must {354} therefore have been composed\nwithin living memory of a time when ceremonies of this kind were still\nactually in use in England: and that therefore we cannot date _Beowulf_\nlater than the third or fourth decade of the seventh century.\n\nTo begin with; the pyre in _Beowulf_ is represented as hung with helmets,\nbright byrnies, and shields. Now it is impossible to say exactly how the\nfuneral pyres were equipped in England. But we _do_ know how the buried\nbodies were equipped. And (although inhumation cemeteries are much more\ncommon than cremation cemeteries) all the graves that have been opened have\nso far yielded only one case of a helmet and byrnie being buried with the\nwarrior, and one other very doubtful case of a helmet without the byrnie.\nAbroad, instances are somewhat more common, but still of great rarity. For\nsuch things could ill be spared. Charles the Great forbade the export of\nbyrnies from his dominions. Worn by picked champions fighting in the\nforefront, they might well decide the issue of a battle. In the mounds\nwhere we have reason to think that the great chiefs mentioned in _Beowulf_,\nEadgils or Ohthere, lie buried, any trace of weapons was conspicuously\nabsent among the burnt remains. Nevertheless, the belief that his armour\nwould be useful to the champion in the next life, joined perhaps with a\nfeeling that it was unlucky, or unfair on the part of the survivor to\ndeprive the dead of his personal weapons, led in heathen times to the\noccasional burial of these treasures with the warrior who owned them. The\nfifth century tomb of Childeric I, when discovered twelve centuries later,\nwas found magnificently furnished--the prince had been buried with treasure\nand much equipment[749], sword, scramasax[750], axe, spear. But these were\nhis own. Similarly, piety might have demanded that Beowulf should be burnt\nwith his full equipment. But would the pyre have been hung with helmets and\nbyrnies? Whose? Were the thegns asked to sacrifice theirs, and go naked\ninto the next fight in honour of their lord? If so, what archaeological\nauthority have we for such a custom in England?\n\n{355}\n\nThen the barrow is built, and the vast treasure of the dragon (which\nincluded \"many a helmet[751]\") placed in it. Now there are instances of\narticles which have not passed through the fire being placed in or upon or\naround an urn with the cremated bones[752]. But is there any instance of\nthe thing being done on this scale--of a wholesale burning of helmets and\nbyrnies followed by a burial of huge treasure? If so, one would like to\nknow when, and where. If not, how can it be argued that the account in\n_Beowulf_ is one of which \"the accuracy is confirmed in every point by\narchaeological or contemporary literary evidence?\" Rather we must say, with\nKnut Stjerna, that it is \"too much of a good thing[753].\"\n\n    For the antiquities of Anglo-Saxon England, the student should consult\n    the _Victoria County History_. The two splendid volumes of Professor G.\n    Baldwin Brown on _Saxon Art and Industry in the Pagan Period_[754] at\n    length enable the general reader to get a survey of the essential\n    facts, for which up to now he has had to have recourse to innumerable\n    scattered treatises. _The Archaeology of the Anglo-Saxon Settlements_\n    by Mr E. Thurlow Leeds will also be found helpful.\n\n    Side-lights from the field of Teutonic antiquities in general can be\n    got from Prof. Baldwin Brown's _Arts and Crafts of our Teutonic\n    Forefathers_, 1910, and from Lindenschmit's _Handbuch der deutschen\n    Alterthumskunde, I. Theil: Die Alterthuemer der Merovingischen Zeit_\n    (Braunschweig, 1880-89), a book which is still indispensable. Hoops'\n    _Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde_, Strassburg, 1911-19, 4\n    vols., includes a large number of contributions of the greatest\n    importance to the student of _Beowulf_, both upon archaeological and\n    other subjects. By the completion[755] of this most valuable work, amid\n    heart-breaking difficulties, Prof. Hoops has placed all students under\n    a great obligation.\n\n    Much help can be got from an examination of the antiquities of Teutonic\n    countries other than England. The following books are useful--for\n    Norway: {356} Gustafson (G.), _Norges Oldtid_, 1906; for Denmark:\n    Mueller (S.), _Vor Oldtid_, 1897; for Sweden: Montelius (O.),\n    _Civilization of Sweden in Heathen Times_, 1888, _Kulturgeschichte\n    Schwedens_, 1906; for Schleswig: Mestorf (J.), _Vorgeschichtliche\n    Alterthuemer aus Schleswig_; for the Germanic nations in their\n    wanderings on the outskirts of the Roman Empire: Hampel (J.),\n    _Alterthuemer des fruehen Mittelalters in Ungarn_, 3 Bde, 1905; for\n    Germanic remains in Gaul: Barri[`e]re-Flavy (M. C.), _Les Arts\n    industriels des peuples barbares de la Gaule du V^me au VIII^me\n    si[`e]cle_, 3 tom. 1901.\n\n    Somewhat popular accounts, and now rather out of date, are the two\n    South Kensington handbooks: Worsaae (J. J. A.), _Industrial Arts of\n    Denmark_, 1882, and Hildebrand (H.), _Industrial Arts of Scandinavia_,\n    1883.\n\n_Scandinavian Burial Mounds_\n\nThe three great \"Kings' Mounds\" at Old Uppsala were explored between 1847\nand 1874: cremated remains from them can be seen in the Stockholm Museum.\nAn account of the tunnelling, and of the complicated structure of the\nmounds, was given in 1876 by the Swedish State-Antiquary[756]. From these\nfinds Knut Stjerna dated the oldest of the \"Kings' Mounds\" about 500\nA.D.[757], and the others somewhat later. Now, as we are definitely told\nthat Athils (Eadgils) and the two kings who figure in the list of Swedish\nmonarchs as his grandfather and great-grandfather (Aun and Egil) were \"laid\nin mound\" at Uppsala[758], and as the chronology agrees, it seems only\nreasonable to conclude that the three Kings' Mounds were raised over these\nthree kings[759].\n\nThat Athils' father Ottar (Ohthere) was not regarded as having been buried\nat Uppsala is abundantly clear from the account given of his death, and of\nhis nickname Vendel-crow[760]. A mound near Vendel north of Uppsala is\nknown by his name. Such names are often the result of quite modern\nantiquarian conjecture: but that such is not the case here was proved by\nthe recent discovery that an antiquarian survey (preserved in MS in the\nRoyal Library at Stockholm) dating from 1677, mentions in Vendel \"widh\nHussby, [en] stor jorde hoegh, som heeter Otters hoegen[761].\" An\nexploration of Ottar's mound showed a striking similarity with the Uppsala\nmounds. The structure was the same, a cairn of stones covered over with\nearth; the {357} cremated remains were similar, there were abundant traces\nof burnt animals, a comb, half-spherical draughts with two round holes\nbored in the flat side, above all, there was in neither case any trace of\nweapons. In Ottar's mound a gold Byzantine coin was found, pierced, having\nevidently been used as an ornament. It can be dated 477-8; it is much worn,\nbut such coins seldom remained in the North in use for a century after\ntheir minting[762]. Ottar's mound obviously, then, belongs to the same\nperiod as the Uppsala mounds, and confirms the date attributed by Stjerna\nto the oldest of those mounds, about 500 A.D.\n\n_Weapons_\n\n    For weapons in general see Lehmann (H.), _Ueber die Waffen im\n    angelsaechsischen Beowulfliede_, in _Germania_, XXXI, 486-97; Keller\n    (May L.), _The Anglo-Saxon weapon names treated archaeologically and\n    etymologically_, Heidelberg, 1906 (_Anglistische Forschungen_, XV: cf.\n    Holthausen, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XVIII, 65-9, Binz, _Litteraturblatt_,\n    XXXI, 98-100); ++Wagner (R.), _Die Angriffswaffen der\n    Angelsaechsischen_, Diss., Koenigsberg; and especially Falk (H.),\n    _Altnordische Waffenkunde_, in _Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter,\n    Hist.-Filos. Klasse_, 1914, Kristiania.\n\nTHE SWORD. The sword of the Anglo-Saxon pagan period (from the fifth to the\nseventh century) \"is deficient in quality as a blade, and also ... in the\ncharacter of its hilt[763].\" In this it contrasts with the sword found in\nthe peat-bogs of Schleswig from an earlier period: \"these swords of the\nSchleswig moss-finds are much better weapons[764],\" as well as with the\nlater Viking sword of the ninth or tenth century, which \"is a remarkably\neffective and well-considered implement[765].\" It has been suggested that\nboth the earlier Schleswig swords and the later Viking swords (which bear a\nconsiderable likeness to each other, as against the inferior Anglo-Saxon\nsword) are the product of intercourse with Romanized peoples[766], whilst\nthe typical Anglo-Saxon sword \"may represent an independent Germanic effort\nat sword making[767].\" However this may be, it is noteworthy that nowhere\nin _Beowulf_ do we have any hint of the skill of any sword-smith who is\nregarded as contemporary. A good sword is always \"an old heirloom,\" \"an\nancient treasure[768].\" The sword of Wiglaf, which had belonged to Eanmund,\nor the sword with which Eofor slays Ongentheow, are {358} described by the\nphrase _ealdsweord eotenisc_, as if they were weapons of which the secret\nand origin had been lost--indeed the same phrase is applied to the magic\nsword which Beowulf finds in the hall of Grendel's mother.\n\nThe blade of these ancestral swords was sometimes damascened or adorned\nwith wave-like patterns[769]. The swords of the Schleswig moss-finds are\nalmost all thus adorned with a variegated surface, as often are the later\nViking swords; but those of the Anglo-Saxon graves are _not_. Is it\nfanciful to suggest that the reference to damascening is a tradition coming\ndown from the time of the earlier sword as found in the Nydam moss? A few\nearly swords might have been preserved among the invaders as family\nheirlooms, too precious to be buried with the owner, as the product of the\nlocal weapon-smith was.\n\nSee, for a full discussion of the sword in _Beowulf_, Stjerna, _Hjaelmar\noch svaerd i Beovulf_ (_Studier tillaegnade O. Montelius_, Stockholm, pp.\n99-120 = _Essays_, transl. Clark Hall, pp. 1-32). The standard treatise on\nthe sword, _Den Yngre Jernalders Svaerd_, Bergen, 1889, by A. L. Lorange,\ndeals mainly with a rather later period.\n\nTHE HELMET. The helmet found at Benty Grange in Derbyshire in 1848 is now\nin the Sheffield Museum[770]: little remains except the boar-crest, the\nnose-piece, and the framework of iron ribs radiating from the crown, and\nfixed to a circle of iron surrounding the brow (perhaps the\n_fr[=e]awr[=a]sn_ of _Beowulf_, 1451). Mr Bateman, the discoverer,\ndescribed the helmet as \"coated with narrow plates of horn, running in a\ndiagonal direction from the ribs, so as to form a herring-bone pattern; the\nends were secured by strips of horn, radiating in like manner as the iron\nribs, to which they were riveted at intervals of about an inch and a half:\nall the rivets had ornamented heads of silver on the outside, and on the\nfront rib is a small cross of the same metal. Upon the top or crown of the\nhelmet, is an elongated oval brass plate, upon which stands the figure of\nan animal, carved in iron, now much rusted, but still a very good\nrepresentation of a pig: it has bronze eyes[771].\" Helmets of very similar\nconstruction, but without the boar, have been found on the Continent and in\nScandinavia (Vendel, Grave 14, late seventh century). The continental\nhelmets often {359} stand higher[772] than the Benty Grange or Vendel\nspecimens, being sometimes quite conical (cf. the epithet \"war-steep,\"\n_headho-st[=e]ap_, _Beowulf_). Many of the continental helmets are provided\nwith cheek-protections, and these also appear in the Scandinavian\nrepresentations of warriors on the Torslunda plates and elsewhere. These\nside pieces have become detached from the magnificent Vendel helmet, which\nis often shown in engravings without them[773], but they can be seen in the\nStockholm Museum[774]. If it ever possessed them, the Benty Grange helmet\nhas lost these side pieces. Such cheek-protections are, however,\nrepresented, together with the nose-protection, on the head of one of the\nwarriors depicted on the Franks Casket. In the Vendel helms, the\nnose-pieces were connected under the eyes with the rim of the helmet, so as\nto form a mask[774]; the helmet in _Beowulf_ is frequently spoken of as the\nbattle-mask[775].\n\nBoth helmet and boar-crest were sometimes gold-adorned[776]: the golden\nboar was a symbol of the god Freyr: some magic protective power is still,\nin _Beowulf_[777], felt to adhere to these swine-likenesses, as it was in\nthe days of Tacitus[778].\n\nIn Scandinavia, the Torslunda plates show the helmet with a boar-crest: the\nVendel helmet has representations of warriors whose crests have an animal's\nhead tailing off to a mere rim or roll: this may be the _walu_ or _wala_\nwhich keeps watch over the head in _Beowulf_[779]. The helmet was bound\nfast to the head[780]; exactly how, we do not know.\n\nSee Lehmann (H.), _Bruenne und Helm im ags. Beowulfliede_ (Goettingen\nDiss., Leipzig; cf. Wuelker, _Anglia_, VIII, _Anzeiger_, 167-70; Schulz,\n_Engl. Stud._, IX, 471); Hoops' _Reallexikon_, s.v. _Helm_; Baldwin Brown,\nIII, 194-6; Falk, _Altnord. Waffenkunde_, 155-73; Stjerna, _Hjaelmar och\nsvaerd_, 1907, as above: but the attempt of Stjerna to arrange the helmets\nhe depicts in a {360} chronological series is perilous, and depends on a\ndating of the Benty Grange helmet which is by no means generally accepted.\n\nTHE CORSLET. This in _Beowulf_ is made of rings[781], twisted and\ninterlaced by hand[782]. As stated above, the fragments of the only known\nAnglo-Saxon byrnie were not of this type, but rather intended to have been\nsewn \"upon a doublet of strong cloth[783].\" Byrnies were of various\nlengths, the longer ones reaching to the middle of the thigh (_byrnan\ns[=i]de_, _Beow._ 1291, cf. _loricae longae, s['i]dhar brynjur_).\n\nSee Falk, 179; Baldwin Brown, III. 194.\n\nTHE SPEAR. Spear and shield were the essential Germanic weapons in the days\nof Tacitus, and they are the weapons most commonly found in Old English\ntombs. The spear-shaft has generally decayed, analysis of fragments\nsurviving show that it was frequently of ash[784]. The butt-end of the\nspear was frequently furnished with an iron tip, and the distance of this\nfrom the spear-head, and the size of the socket, show the spear-shaft to\nhave been six or seven feet long, and three-quarters of an inch to one inch\nin diameter.\n\nSee Falk, 66-90; Baldwin Brown, III, 234-41.\n\nTHE SHIELD. Several round shields were preserved on the Gokstad ship, and\nin the deposits of an earlier period at Thorsbjerg and Nydam. These are\nformed of boards fastened together, often only a quarter of an inch thick,\nand not strengthened or braced in any way, bearing out the contemptuous\ndescription of the painted German shield which Tacitus puts into the mouth\nof Germanicus[785]. It was, however, intended that the shield should be\nlight. It was easily pierced, but, by a rapid twist, the foe's sword could\nbe broken or wrenched from his hand. Thus we are told how Gunnar gave his\nshield a twist, as his adversary thrust his sword through it, and so\nsnapped off his sword at the hilt[786]. The shield was held by a bar,\ncrossing a hole some four inches wide cut in the middle. The hand was\nprotected by a hollow conical boss or umbo, fixed to the wood by its brim,\nbut projecting considerably. In England the wood of the shield has always\nperished, but a large number of bosses have been preserved. The boss seems\nto have been called _rond_, a word which is also used for the shield as a\nwhole. In _Beowulf_, 2673, _Gifts of Men_, 65, the meaning \"boss\" suits\n_rond_ best, also in _rand sceal on scylde, faest fingra gebeorh_ (_Cotton.\nGnomic Verses_, 37-8). But the original meaning of _rand_ must have been\nthe circular rim round the edge, and this {361} meaning it retains in\nIcelandic (Falk, 131). The linden wood was sometimes bound with bast,\nwhence _scyld (sceal) gebunden, l[=e]oht linden bord_ (_Exeter Gnomic\nVerses_, 94-5).\n\nSee Falk (126-54); Baldwin Brown, III, 196-204; Pfannkuche (K.), _Der\nSchild bei den Angelsachsen_, Halle Dissertation, 1908.\n\nTHE BOW is a weapon of much less importance in _Beowulf_ than the spear.\nFew traces of the bow have survived from Anglo-Saxon England, though many\nwooden long-bows have been preserved in the moss-finds in a remarkably fine\nstate. They are of yew, some over six feet long, and in at least one\ninstance tipped with horn. The bow entirely of horn was, of course, well\nknown in the East, and in classical antiquity, but I do not think traces of\nany horn-bow have been discovered in the North. It was a difficult weapon\nto manage, as the suitors of Penelope found to their cost. Possibly that is\nwhy Haethcyn is represented as killing his brother Herebeald accidentally\nwith a horn-bow: he could not manage the exotic weapon.\n\nSee Falk, 91-103; Baldwin Brown, III, 241.\n\n_The Hall_\n\nIt may perhaps be the fact that in the church of Sta. Maria de Naranco, in\nthe north of Spain, we have the hall of a Visigothic king driven north by\nthe Mohammedan invasion. But, even if this surmise[787] be correct, the\nstructure of a stone hall of about 750 A.D. gives us little information as\nto the wooden halls of early Anglo-Saxon times. Heorot is clearly built of\ntimber, held together by iron clamps[788]. These halls were oblong, and a\nfamous passage in Bede[789] makes it clear that, at any rate at the time of\nthe Conversion, the hall had a door at both ends, and the fire burnt in the\nmiddle. (The smoke escaped through a hole in the roof, through which\nprobably most of the light came, for windows were few or none.) The\n_Finnsburg Fragment_ also implies two doors. Further indications can be\ndrawn from references to the halls of Norse chiefs. The Scandinavian hall\nwas divided by rows of wooden pillars into a central nave and side aisles.\nThe pillars in the centre were known as the \"high-seat pillars.\" Rows of\nseats ran down the length of the hall on each side. The central position,\nfacing the high-seat pillars and the fire, was the most honourable. The\nplace of honour for the chief guest was opposite: and it is quite clear\nthat in _Beowulf_ also the guest did not sit next his host[790].\n\nOther points we may note about Heorot, are the tapestry with which its\nwalls are draped[791], and the paved and variegated floor[792]. Unlike so\n{362} many later halls, Heorot has a floor little, if anything, raised\nabove the ground: horses can be brought in[793].\n\nIn later times, in Iceland, the arrangement of the hall was changed, and\nthe house consisted of many rooms; but these were formed, not by\npartitioning the hall, but by building several such halls side by side: the\n_stufa_ or hall proper, the _sk['a]li_ or sleeping hall, _etc._\n\nSee M. Heyne, _Ueber die Lage und Construction der Halle Heorot_,\nPaderborn, 1864, where the scanty information about Heorot is collected,\nand supplemented with some information about Anglo-Saxon building. For the\nIcelandic hall see Valtyr Gudhmundsson, _Privatboligen p[oa] Island i\nSagatiden_, Koebenhavn, 1889. This has been summarized, in a more popular\nform, in a chapter on _Den islandske Bolig i Fristatstiden_, contributed by\nGudhmundsson to Rosenberg's _Traek af Livet paa Island i Fristatstiden_,\n1894 (pp. 251-74). Here occurs the picture of an Icelandic hall which has\nbeen so often reproduced--by Olrik, Holthausen, and in\n_Beowulf_-translations. But it is a conjectural picture, and we can by no\nmeans assume all its details for Heorot. Rhamm's colossal work is only for\nthe initiated, but is useful for consultation on special points\n(_Ethnographische Beitraege zur Germanischslawischen Altertumskunde_, von\nK. Rhamm, 1905-8. I. _Die Grosshufen der Nordgermanen_; II. _Urzeitliche\nBauernhoefe_). For various details see Hoops' _Reallexikon_, s.v. _flett_;\nNeckel in _P.B.B._ XLI, 1916, 163-70 (_under edoras_); Meiringer in _I.F._,\nespecially XVIII, 257 (_under eoderas_); Kaufmann in _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXIX,\n282-92.\n\n_Ships_\n\nIn a tumulus near Snape in Suffolk, opened in 1862, there were discovered,\nwith burnt bones and remains thought to be of Anglo-Saxon date, a large\nnumber of rivets which, from the positions in which they were found, seemed\nto give evidence of a boat 48 feet long by over nine feet wide[794]. A\nboat, similar in dimensions, but better preserved, was unearthed near\nBruges in 1899, and the ribs, mast and rudder removed to the Gruuthuuse\nMuseum[795].\n\nThree boats were discovered in the peat-moss at Nydam in Schleswig in 1863,\nby Engelhardt. The most important is the \"Nydam boat,\" clinker-built (i.e.\nwith overlapping planks), of oak, 77 feet [23.5 m.] long, by some 11 [3.4\nm.] broad, with rowlocks for fourteen oars down each side. There was no\ntrace of any mast. Planks and framework had been held together, partly by\niron bolts, and partly by ropes of bast. The boat had fallen to pieces, and\nhad to be laboriously put together in the museum at Flensborg. Another boat\nwas quite fragmentary, but a third boat, of fir, was found tolerably\ncomplete. Then the war of 1864 ended Engelhardt's labours at Nydam.\n\n[Illustration: THE GOKSTAD SHIP]\n\n[Illustration: THE OSEBERG SHIP]\n\n{363}\n\nThe oak-boat was removed to Kiel, where it now is.\n\nThe fir-boat was allowed to decay: many of the pieces of the oak-boat had\nbeen rotten and had of necessity been restored in facsimile, and it is much\nless complete than might be supposed from the numerous reproductions, based\nupon the fine engraving by Magnus Petersen. The rustic with a spade, there\ndepicted as gazing at the boat, is apt to give a wrong impression that it\nwas dug out intact[796].\n\nSuch was, however, actually the case with regard to the ship excavated from\nthe big mound at Gokstad, near Christiania, by Nicolaysen, in 1880. This\nwas fitted both as a rowing and sailing ship; it was 66 feet [20.1 m.] long\non the keel, 78 feet [23.8 m.] from fore to aft and nearly 17 feet [5.1 m.]\nbroad, and was clinker-built, out of a much larger number of oaken planks\nthan the Nydam ship. It had rowlocks for sixteen oars down each side, the\ngunwale was lined with shields, some of them well preserved, which had been\noriginally painted alternately black and yellow. The find owed its\nextraordinary preservation to the blue clay in which it was embedded. Its\ndiscoverer wrote, with pardonable pride: \"Certain it is that we shall not\ndisinter any craft which, in respect of model and workmanship, will\noutrival that of Gokstad[797].\"\n\nYet the prophecy was destined to prove false: for on Aug. 8, 1903, a farmer\ncame into the National Museum at Christiania to tell the curator, Prof.\nGustafson, that he had discovered traces of a boat on his farm at Oseberg.\nGustafson found that the task was too great to be begun so late in the\nyear: the digging out of the ship, and its removal to Christiania, occupied\nfrom just before Midsummer to just before Christmas of 1904. The potter's\nclay in which the ship was buried had preserved it, if possible, better\nthan the Gokstad ship: but the movement of the soft subsoil had squeezed\nand broken both ship and contents. The ship was taken out of the earth in\nnearly two thousand fragments. These were carefully numbered and marked:\neach piece was treated, bent back into its right shape, and the ship was\nput together again plank by plank, as when it was first built. With the\nexception of a piece about half a yard long, five or six little bits let\nin, and one of the beams, the ship as it stands now consists of the\noriginal woodwork. Two-thirds of the rivets are the old ones. Till his\ndeath in 1915 Gustafson was occupied in treating and preparing for\nexhibition first the ship, and then its extraordinarily rich contents: a\nwaggon and sledges beautifully carved, beds, chests, kitchen utensils which\nhad been buried with the princess who had owned them. A full account of the\nfind is only now being published[798].\n\n{364}\n\n    The Oseberg ship is the pleasure boat of a royal lady: clinker-built,\n    of oak, exquisitely carved, intended not for long voyages but for the\n    land-locked waters of the fiord, 70-1/2 feet [21.5 m.] long by some\n    16-1/2 feet [5 m.] broad. There are holes for fifteen oars down each\n    side, and the ship carried mast and sail.\n\n    The upper part of the prow had been destroyed, but sufficient fragments\n    have been found to show that it ended in the head of a snake-like\n    creature, bent round in a coil. This explains the words\n    _hringed-stefna_[799], _hring-naca_[800], _wunden-stefna_[801], used of\n    the ship in _Beowulf_. A similar ringed prow is depicted on an engraved\n    stone from Tjaengvide, now in the National Historical Museum at\n    Stockholm. This is supposed to date from about the year 1000[802].\n\n    The Gokstad and Oseberg ships, together with the ship of Tune, a much\n    less complete specimen (unearthed in 1867, and found like the others on\n    the shore of the Christiania fiord) owe their preservation to the clay,\n    and the skill of Scandinavian antiquaries. Yet they are but three out\n    of thousands of ship- or boat-burials. Schetelig enumerates 552 known\n    instances from Norway alone. Often traces of the iron rivets are all\n    that remain.\n\n    Ships preserved from the Baltic coast of Germany can be seen at\n    Koenigsberg, Danzig and Stettin; they are smaller and apparently later;\n    the best, that of Broesen, was destroyed.\n\n    The seamanship of _Beowulf_ is removed by centuries from that of the (?\n    fourth or fifth century) Nydam boat, which not only has no mast or\n    proper keel, but is so built as to be little suited for sailing. In\n    _Beowulf_ the sea is a \"sail-road,\" the word \"to row\" occurs only in\n    the sense of \"swim,\" sailing is assumed as the means by which Beowulf\n    travels between the land of the Geatas and that of the Danes. Though he\n    voyages with but fourteen companions, the ship is big enough to carry\n    back four horses. How the sail may have been arranged is shown in many\n    inscribed stones of the eighth to the tenth centuries: notably those of\n    Stenkyrka[803], Hoegbro[804], and Tjaengvide[805].\n\n    The Oseberg and Gokstad ships are no doubt later than the composition\n    of _Beowulf_. But it is when looking at the Oseberg ship, especially if\n    we picture the great prow like the neck of a swan ending in a serpent's\n    coil, that we can best understand the words of _Beowulf_\n\n      flota f[=a]m[=i]-heals fugle gel[=i]cost,\n      wunden-stefna,\n\n    well rendered by Earle \"The foamy-necked floater, most like to a\n    bird--the coily-stemmed.\"\n\n{365}\n\nSee Boehmer (G. H.), _Prehistoric Naval Architecture of the North of\nEurope, Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1891_ (now rather out of\ndate); Gudhmundsson (V.), _Nordboernes Skibe i Vikinge- og Sagatiden_,\nKoebenhavn, 1900; [*]Schnepper, _Die Namen der Schiffe u. Schiffsteile im\nAltenglischen_ (Kiel Diss.), 1908; Falk (H.), _Altnordisches Seewesen_\n(_Woerter u. Sachen_, IV, Heidelberg, 1912); Hoops' _Reallexikon_, s.v.\n_Schiff_.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nG. LEIRE BEFORE ROLF KRAKI\n\nThat Leire was the royal town, not merely of Rolf Kraki, but of Rolf's\npredecessors as well, is stated in the _Skjoldunga Saga_, extant in the\nLatin abstract of Arngrim Jonsson: _Scioldus in arce Selandiae Hledro sedes\nposuit, quae et sequentium plurimorum regum regia fuit_ (ed. Olrik,\nKoebenhavn, 1894, p. 23 [105]). Similarly we are told in the _Ynglinga\nSaga_, concerning Gefion, _Hennar fekk Skj[o,]ldr, sonr ['O]dhins; thau\nbjoggu at Hleidhru_ (_Heimskringla_, udgivne ved F. J['o]nsson, Koebenhavn,\nI, 15 [cap. V]).\n\nAbove all, it is clear from the _Annales Lundenses_ that, in the twelfth\ncentury, Dan, Ro (Hrothgar) and Haldan (Healfdene) were traditionally\nconnected with Leire, and three of the grave mounds there were associated\nwith these three kings. See the extract given above, pp. 204-5, and cf. p.\n17.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nH. BEE-WOLF AND BEAR'S SON\n\nThe obvious interpretation of the name _B[=e]owulf_ is that suggested by\nGrimm[806], that it means \"wolf, or foe, of the bee.\" Grimm's suggestion\nwas repeated independently by Skeat[807], and further reasons for the\ninterpretation \"bee-foe\" have been found by Sweet[808] (who had been\nanticipated by Simrock[809] in some of his points), by Cosijn[810],\nSievers[811], von Grienberger[812], Panzer[813] and Bjoerkman[814].\n\nFrom the phonological point of view the etymology is a {366} perfect one,\nbut many of those who were convinced that \"Beowulf\" meant \"bee-foe\" had no\nsatisfactory explanation of \"bee-foe\" to offer[815]. Others, like Bugge,\nwhilst admitting that, so far as the form of the words goes, the etymology\nis satisfactory, rejected \"bee-foe\" because it seemed to them\nmeaningless[816].\n\nYet it is very far from meaningless. \"Bee-foe\" means \"bear.\" The bear has\ngot a name, or nickname, in many northern languages from his habit of\nraiding the hives for honey. The Finnish name for bear is said to be\n\"honey-hand\": he is certainly called \"sweet-foot,\" _soetfot_, in Sweden,\nand the Old Slavonic name, \"honey-eater,\" has come to be accepted in\nRussian, not merely as a nickname, but as the regular term for \"bear.\"\n\nAnd \"bear\" is an excellent name for a hero of story. The O.E. _beorn_,\n\"warrior, hero, prince\" seems originally to have meant simply \"bear.\" The\nbear, says Grimm, \"is regarded, in the belief of the Old Norse, Slavonic,\nFinnish and Lapp peoples, as an exalted and holy being, endowed with human\nunderstanding and the strength of twelve men. He is called 'forest-king,'\n'gold-foot,' 'sweet-foot,' 'honey-hand,' 'honey-paw,' 'honey-eater,' but\nalso 'the great,' 'the old,' 'the old grandsire[817].'\" \"Bee-hunter\" is\nthen a satisfactory explanation of _B[=e]owulf_: while the alternative\nexplanations are none of them satisfactory.\n\nMany scholars have been led off the track by the assumption that Beow and\nBeowulf are to be identified, and that we must therefore assume that the\nfirst element in Beowulf's name is _B[=e]ow_--that we must divide not\n_B[=e]o-wulf_ but _B[=e]ow-ulf_, \"a warrior after the manner of Beow[818].\"\nBut there is no ground {367} for any such assumption. It is true that in\nll. 18, 53, \"Beowulf\" is written where we should have expected \"Beowa.\"\nBut, even if two words of similar sound have been confused, this fact\naffords no reason for supposing that they must necessarily have been in the\nfirst instance connected etymologically. And against the \"warrior of Beow\"\ninterpretation is the fact that the name is recorded in the early\nNorthumbrian _Liber Vitae_ under the form \"Biuuulf[819].\" This name, which\nis that of an early monk of Durham, is presumably the same as that of the\nhero of our poem, though it does not, of course, follow that the bearer of\nit was named with any special reference to the slayer of Grendel. Now\n_Biuuulf_ is correct Northumbrian for \"bee-wolf,\" but the first element in\nthe word cannot stand for _B[=e]ow_[820], unless the {368} affinities and\nforms of that word are quite different from all that the evidence has\nhitherto led us to believe. So much at least seems certain. Besides, we\nhave seen that Byggvir is taunted by Loki precisely with the fact that he\n_is_ no warrior. If we can estimate the characteristics of the O.E. Beow\nfrom those of the Scandinavian Byggvir, the name \"Warrior after the manner\nof Beow\" would be meaningless, if not absurd. Bugge[821], relying upon the\nparallel O.N. form _Bj['o]lfr_[822], which is recorded as the name of one\nof the early settlers in Iceland[823], tried to interpret the word as\n_Boej['o]lfr_ \"the wolf of the farmstead,\" quoting as parallels _Heimulf_,\n_Gardulf_. But _Bj['o]lfr_ itself is best interpreted as \"Bee-wolf[824].\"\nAnd admittedly Bugge's explanation does not suit the O.E. _B[=e]owulf_, and\nnecessitates the assumption that the word in English is a mere meaningless\nborrowing from the Scandinavian: for _B[=e]owulf_ assuredly does not mean\n\"wolf of the farmstead[825].\"\n\nNeither can we take very seriously the explanation of Sarrazin and\nFerguson[826] that _B[=e]owulf_ is an abbreviation of _Beadu-wulf_, \"wolf\nof war.\" Our business is to interpret the name _B[=e]owulf_, or, if we\ncannot, to admit that we cannot; not to substitute some quite distinct name\nfor it, and interpret that. Such theories merely show to what straits we\nmay be reduced, if we reject the obvious etymology of the word.\n\nAnd there are two further considerations, which confirm, almost to a\ncertainty, this obvious interpretation of \"Beowulf\" as \"Bee-wolf\" or\n\"Bear.\" The first is that it agrees excellently with Beowulf's bear-like\nhabit of hugging his adversaries to death--a feature which surely belongs\nto the original kernel of our story, since it is incompatible with the\nchivalrous, {369} weapon-loving trappings in which that story has been\ndressed[827]. The second is that, as I have tried to show, the evidence is\nstrongly in favour of Bjarki and Beowulf being originally the same\nfigure[828]: and Bjarki is certainly a bear-hero[829]. His name signifies\nas much, and in the _Saga of Rolf Kraki_ we are told at length how the\nfather of Bjarki was a prince who had been turned by enchantment into a\nbear[830].\n\n\n\nIf, then, Beowulf is a bear-hero[831], the next step is to enquire whether\nthere is any real likeness between his adventures at Heorot and under the\nmere, and the adventures of the hero of the widely-spread \"Bear's Son\"\nfolk-tale. This investigation has, as we have seen above[832], been carried\nout by Panzer in his monumental work, which marks an epoch in the study of\n_Beowulf_.\n\nPanzer's arguments in favour of such connection would, I think, have been\nstrengthened if he had either quoted textually a number of the more\nimportant and less generally accessible folk-tales, or, since this would\nhave proved cumbersome, if he had at least given abstracts of them. The\nmethod which Panzer follows, is to enumerate over two hundred tales, and\nfrom them to construct a story which is a compound of them all. This is\nobviously a method which is liable to abuse, though I do not say that\nPanzer has abused it. But we must not let a story so constructed usurp in\nour minds the place of the actual recorded folk-tales. Folk-tales, as\nAndrew Lang wrote long ago, \"consist of but few incidents, grouped together\nin a kaleidoscopic variety of arrangements.\" A collection of over two\nhundred cognate tales offers a wide field for the selection therefrom of a\ncomposite story. Further, some geographical discrimination is necessary:\nthese tales are scattered over Europe and Asia, and it is important to keep\nconstantly in mind whether a given type of tale belongs, for example, to\nGreece or to Scandinavia.\n\n{370}\n\nA typical example of the Bear's son tale is _Der Starke Hans_ in\nGrimm[833]. Hans is brought up in a robber's den: but quite apart from any\nof the theories we are now considering, it has long been recognized that\nthis is a mere toning down of the original incredible story, which makes a\nbear's den the nursery of the strong youth[834]. Hans overcomes in an empty\ncastle the foe (a mannikin of magic powers) who has already worsted his\ncomrades Fir-twister and Stone-splitter. He pursues this foe to his hole,\nis let down by his companions in a basket by a rope, slays the foe with his\nclub and rescues a princess. He sends up the princess in the basket; but\nwhen his own turn comes to be pulled up his associates intentionally drop\nthe basket when halfway up. But Hans, suspecting treason, has only sent up\nhis club. He escapes by magic help, takes vengeance on the traitors, and\nweds the princess.\n\nIn another story in Grimm[835], the antagonist whom the hero overcomes, but\ndoes not in this case slay, is called the Earthman, _Dat Erdmaenneken_.\nThis type begins with the disappearance of the princesses, who are to the\northodox number of three; otherwise it does not differ materially from the\nabstract given above. Grimm records four distinct versions, all from\nWestern Germany.\n\nThe versions of this widespread story which are most easily accessible to\nEnglish readers are likely to prejudice such readers against Panzer's view.\nThe two versions in Campbell's _Popular Tales of the West Highlands_[836],\nor the version in Kennedy's _Legendary Fictions of the Irish Celts_[837]\nare not of a kind to remind any unprejudiced reader strongly of _Beowulf_,\nor of the _Grettir_-story either. Indeed, I believe that from countries so\nremote as North Italy or Russia parallels can be found which are closer\nthan any so far quoted from the Celtic portions of the British Isles.\nPossibly more Celtic parallels may be forthcoming in the future: some\nstriking ones at any rate are promised[838].\n\n{371}\n\nSo, too, the story of the \"Great Bird Dan\" (_Fugl Dam_[839]), which is\naccessible to English readers in Dasent's translation[840], is one in which\nthe typical features have been overlaid by a mass of detail.\n\nA much more normal specimen of the \"Bear's son\" story is found, for\nexample, in a folk-tale from Lombardy--the story of _Giovanni dell'\nOrso_[841]. Giovanni is brought up in a bear's den, whither his mother has\nbeen carried off. At five, he has the growth of a man and the strength of a\ngiant. At sixteen, he is able to remove the stone from the door of the den\nand escape, with his mother. Going on his adventures with two comrades, he\ncomes to an empty palace. The comrades are defeated: it becomes the turn of\nGiovanni to be alone. An old man comes in and \"grows, grows till his head\ntouched the roof[842].\" Giovanni mortally wounds the giant, who however\nescapes. They all go in search of him, and find a hole in the ground. His\ncomrades let Giovanni down by a rope. He finds a great hall, full of rich\nclothes and provision of every kind: in a second hall he finds three girls,\neach one more beautiful than the other: in a third hall he finds the giant\nhimself, drawing up his will[843]. Giovanni kills the giant, rescues the\ndamsels, and, in spite of his comrades deserting the rope, he escapes,\npardons them, himself weds the youngest princess and marries his comrades\nto the elder ones.\n\nI cannot find in this version any mention of the hero smiting the giant\nbelow with a magic sword which he finds there, as suggested by Panzer[844].\nBut even without this, the first part of the story has resemblances to\n_Beowulf_, and still more to the _Grettir_-story.\n\nThere are many Slavonic variants. The South Russian story of the Norka[845]\nbegins with the attack of the Norka upon the King's park. The King offers\nhalf his kingdom to whomsoever will destroy the beast. The youngest prince\nof three watches, {372} after the failure of his two elder brothers, chases\nand wounds the monster, who in the end pulls up a stone and disappears into\nthe earth. The prince is let down by his brothers, and, with the help of a\nsword specially given him in the underworld, and a draught of the water of\nstrength, he slays the foe, and wins the princesses. In order to have these\nfor themselves, the elder brothers drop what they suppose to be their\nyoungest brother, as they are drawing him up: but it is only a stone he has\ncautiously tied to the rope in place of himself. The prince's miraculous\nreturn in disguise, his feats, recognition by the youngest princess, the\nexposure of the traitors, and marriage of the hero, all follow in due\ncourse[846].\n\nA closer Russian parallel is that of _Ivashko Medvedko_[847]. \"John\nHoney-eater\" or \"Bear.\" John grows up, not by years, but by hours: nearly\nevery hour he gains an inch in height. At fifteen, there are complaints of\nhis rough play with other village boys, and John Bear has to go out into\nthe world, after his grandfather has provided him with a weapon, an iron\nstaff of immense weight. He meets a champion who is drinking up a river:\n\"Good morning, John Bear, whither art going?\" \"I know not whither; I just\ngo, not knowing where to go.\" \"If so, take me with you.\" The same happens\nwith a second champion whose hobby is to carry mountains on his shoulder,\nand with a third, who plucks up oaks or pushes them into the ground. They\ncome to a revolving house in a dark forest, which at John's word stands\nwith its back door to the forest and its front door to them: all its doors\nand windows open of their own accord. Though the yard is full of poultry,\nthe house is empty. Whilst the three companions go hunting, the\nriver-swallower stays in the house to cook dinner: this done, he washes his\nhead, and sits at the window to comb his locks. Suddenly the earth shakes,\nthen stands still: a stone is lifted, and from under it appears Baba Yaga\ndriving in her mortar with a pestle: behind her comes barking a little dog.\nA short dialogue ensues, and the champion, at her request, gives her food;\nbut the second helping she throws to her dog, and thereupon beats the\nchampion with {373} her pestle till he becomes unconscious; then she cuts a\nstrip of skin from his back, and after eating all the food, vanishes. The\nvictim recovers his senses, ties up his head with a handkerchief, and, when\nhis companions return, apologizes for the ill-success of his cooking: \"He\nhad been nearly suffocated by the fumes of the charcoal, and had had his\nwork cut out to get the room clear.\" Exactly the same happens to the other\nchampions. On the fourth day it is the turn of John Bear, and here again\nthe same formulas are repeated. John does the cooking, washes his head,\nsits down at the window and begins to comb his curly locks. Baba Yaga\nappears with the usual phenomena, and the usual dialogue follows, till she\nbegins to belabour the hero with her pestle. But he wrests it from her,\nbeats her almost to death, cuts three strips from her skin, and imprisons\nher in a closet. When his companions return, they are astonished to find\ndinner ready. After dinner they have a bath, and the companions try not to\nshow their mutilated backs, but at last have to confess. \"Now I see why you\nall suffered from suffocation,\" says John Bear. He goes to the closet,\ntakes the three strips cut from his friends, and reinserts them: they heal\nat once. Then he ties up Baba Yaga by a cord fastened to one foot, and they\nall shoot at the cord in turn. John Bear hits it, and cuts the string in\ntwo; Baba Yaga falls to the earth, but rises, runs to the stone from under\nwhich she had appeared, lifts it, and vanishes. Each of the companions\ntries in turn to lift the stone, but only John can accomplish it, and only\nhe is willing to go down. His comrades let him down by a rope, which\nhowever is too short, and John has to eke it out by the three strips\npreviously cut from the back of Baba Yaga. At the bottom he sees a path,\nfollows it, and reaches a palace where are three beautiful maidens, who\nwelcome him, but warn him against their mother, who is Baba Yaga herself:\n\"She is asleep now, but she keeps at her head a sword. Do not touch it, but\ntake two golden apples lying on a silver tray, wake her gently, and offer\nthem to her. As soon as she begins to eat, seize the sword, and cut her\nhead off at one blow.\" John Bear carries out these instructions, and sends\nup the maidens, two to be wives to his companions, and the youngest to be\nhis own wife. This leaves the third companion wifeless {374} and, in\nindignation, he cuts the rope when the turn comes to pull John up. The hero\nfalls and is badly hurt. [John has forgotten, in this version, to put his\niron club into the basket instead of himself--indeed he has up to now made\nno use of his staff.] In time the hero sees an underground passage, and\nmakes his way out into the white world. Here he finds the youngest maiden,\nwho is tending cattle, after refusing to marry the false companion. John\nBear follows her home, slays his former comrades with his staff, and throws\ntheir bodies on the field for the wild beasts to devour. He then takes his\nsweetheart home to his people, and weds her.\n\nThe abstract given above is from a translation made by one of my students,\nMiss M. Steine, who tells me that she had heard the tale in this form many\ntimes from her old nurse \"when we were being sent to sleep, or sitting\nround her in the evening.\" I have given it at this length because I do not\nknow of any accessible translation into any Western language.\n\nPanzer enumerates two hundred and two variants of the story: and there are\nothers[848]. But there is reason in the criticism that what is important\nfor us is the form the folk-tale may have taken in those countries where we\nmust look for the original home of the _Beowulf_-story[849]. The Mantuan\nfolk-tale may have been carried down to North Italy from Scandinavia by the\nLongobards: who can say? But Panzer's theory must stand or fall by the\nparallels which can be drawn between the _Beowulf-Grettir_-story on the one\nhand, and the folk-tales as they have been collected in the countries where\nthis story is native: the lands, that is to say, adjoining the North Sea.\n\nNow it is precisely here that we do find the most remarkable resemblances:\nin Iceland, the Faroes, Norway, Denmark, Jutland, Schleswig, and the Low\nGerman lands as far as the Scheldt.\n\nAn Icelandic version exists in an unprinted MS at Reykjavik[850] which can\nbe consulted in a German translation[851]. In this {375} version a bear,\nwho is really an enchanted prince, carries off a princess. He resumes his\nhuman form and weds the princess, but must still at times take the bear's\nform. His child, the Bear-boy (Bjarndreingur), is to be kept in the house\nduring the long periods when the enchanted husband is away. But at twelve\nyears old the Bear-boy is too strong and unmanageable, bursts out, and\nslays a bear who turns out to be his father. His mother's heart is broken,\nbut Bear-boy goes on his adventures, and associates with himself three\ncompanions, one of whom is Stein. They build a house in the wood, which is\nattacked by a giant, and, as usual, the companions are unable to withstand\nthe attacks. Bear-boy does so, ties the giant's hands behind his back, and\nfastens him by his beard. But the giant tears himself free. As in\n_Beowulf_, Bear-boy and his companions follow the track by the drops of\nblood, and come to a hole. Stein is let some way down, the other companions\nfurther, but only Bear-boy dares to go to the bottom. There he finds a\nweeping princess, and learns that she, and her two sisters, have been\ncarried off by three giants, one of whom is his former assailant. He slays\nall three, and sends their heads up, together with the maidens and other\ntreasures. But his companions desert the rope, and he has to climb up\nunaided. In the end he weds the youngest princess.\n\nThe story from the Faroe Islands runs thus:\n\nThree brothers lived together and took turns, two to go out fishing, and\none to be at home. For two days, when the two elder brothers were at home,\ncame a giant with a long beard (Skeggjatussi) and ate and drank all the\nfood. Then comes the turn of the despised youngest brother, who is called\nin one version Oeskud['o]lgur--\"the one who sits and rakes in the ashes\"--a\nkind of male Cinderella. This brother routs the giant, either by catching\nhis long beard in a cleft tree-trunk, or by branding him in the nose with a\nhot iron. In either case the mutilated giant escapes down a hole: in one\nversion, after the other brothers come home, they follow him to this hole\nby the track of his blood. The two elder brothers leave the task of\nplunging down to the youngest one, who finds below a girl (in the second\nversion, two kidnapped princesses). He finds also a magic sword hanging\n{376} on the wall, which he is only able to lift when he has drunk a magic\npotion. He then slays the giant, rescues the maiden or maidens, is betrayed\nin the usual way by his brothers: in the one version they deliberately\nrefuse to draw him up: in the other they cut the rope as they are doing so:\nbut he is discreetly sending up only a big stone. The hero is helped out,\nhowever, by a giant, \"Skraeddi Kj['a]lki\" or \"Snerkti risi,\" and in the end\nmarries the princess[852].\n\nIn the Norwegian folk-tale the three adventurers are called respectively\nthe Captain, the Lieutenant and the Soldier. They search for the three\nprincesses, and watch in a castle, where the Captain and Lieutenant are in\nturn worsted by a strange visitor--who in this version is not identical\nwith the troll below ground who guards the princesses[853]. When the turn\nof the Soldier comes, he seizes the intruder (the man, as he is called).\n\n    \"Ah no, Ah no, spare my life,\" said the man, \"and you shall know all.\n    East of the castle is a great sandheap, and down in it a winch, with\n    which you can lower yourself. But if you are afraid, and do not dare to\n    go right down, you only need to pull the bell rope which you will find\n    there, and up you will come again. But if you dare venture so far as to\n    come to the bottom, there stands a flask on a shelf over the door: you\n    must drink what is in it: so will you become so strong that you can\n    strike the head off the troll of the mountain. And by the door there\n    hangs a Troll-sword, which also you must take, for no other steel will\n    bite on his body.\"\n\n    When he had learnt this, he let the man go. When the Captain and the\n    Lieutenant came home, they were not a little surprised to find the\n    Soldier alive. \"How have you escaped a drubbing,\" said they, \"has not\n    the man been {377} here?\" \"Oh yes, he is quite a good fellow, he is,\"\n    said the Soldier, \"I have learnt from him where the princesses are,\"\n    and he told them all. They were glad when they heard that, and when\n    they had eaten, they went all three to the sandheap.\n\nAs usual, the Captain and the Lieutenant do not dare to go to the bottom:\nthe hero accomplishes the adventure, is (as usual) betrayed by his\ncomrades, but is saved because he has put a stone in the basket instead of\nhimself, and in the end is rescued by the interposition of \"Kloeverhans.\"\n\nWhat is the explanation of the \"sandheap\" (_sandhaug_) I do not know. But\none cannot forget that Grettir's adventure in the house, followed by his\nadventure with the troll under the earth, is localized at Sandhaugar. This\nmay be a mere accident; but it is worth noting that in following up the\ntrack indicated by Panzer we come across startling coincidences of this\nkind. As stated above, it can hardly be due to any influence of the\n_Grettis Saga_ upon the folk-tale[854]. The likeness between the two is too\nremote to have suggested a transference of such details from the one story\nto the other.\n\nWe find the story in its normal form in Jutland[855]. The hero, a\nfoundling, is named Bjoernoere (Bear-ears). There is no explanation offered\nof this name, but we know that in other versions of the story, where the\nhero is half bear and half man, his bear nature is shown by his bear's\nears. \"Bear-ears\" comes with his companions to an empty house, worsts the\nfoe (the old man, _den gamle_) who has put his companions to shame, and\nfixes him by his beard in a cloven tree. The foe escapes nevertheless; they\nfollow him to his hole: the companions are afraid, but \"Bear-ears\" is let\ndown, finds the enemy on his bed, and slays him. The rest of the story\nfollows the usual pattern. \"Bear-ears\" rescues and sends up the princesses,\nhis comrades detach the rope, which however is hauling up only the hero's\niron club. He escapes miraculously from his confinement below, and returns\nto marry the youngest princess. In another Danish version, from the South\nof Zealand[856], the hero, \"Strong Hans\" (nothing is said {378} about his\nbear-origin), comes with his companions to a magnificent but empty castle.\nThe old witch worsts his comrades and imprisons them under the trap-door:\nbut Hans beats her and rescues them, though the witch herself escapes. Hans\nis let down, rescues the princesses, is betrayed by his comrades (who,\nthinking to drop him in drawing him up, only drop his iron club), and\nfinally weds the third princess.\n\nA little further South we have three versions of the same tale recorded for\nSchleswig-Holstein[857]. The hero wins his victory below by means of \"a\ngreat iron sword\" (_en grotes ysernes Schwaeert_) which he can only wield\nafter drinking of the magic potion.\n\nFrom Hanover comes the story of Peter Baer[858], which shows all the\nfamiliar features: from the same district came some of Grimm's variants.\nOthers were from the Rhine provinces: but the fullest version of all comes\nfrom the Scheldt, just over the Flemish border. The hero, Jean l'Ourson, is\nrecovered as a child from a bear's den, is despised in his youth[859], but\ngives early proof of his strength. He defends an empty castle _un superbe\nch[^a]teau_, when his companion has failed, strikes off an arm[860] of his\nassailant _Petit-P[`e]re-Bidoux_, chases him to his hole, _un puits vaste\net profond_. He is let down by his companion, but finding the rope too\nshort, plunges, and arrives battered at the bottom. There he perceives _une\nlumi[`e]re qui brillait au bout d'une longue galerie_[861]. At the end of\nthe gallery he sees his former assailant, attended by _une vieille femme\n[`a] cheveux blancs, qui semblait [^a]g['e]e de plus de cent ans_, who is\nsalving his wounded arm. The hero quenches the light (which is a magic one)\nsmites his foe on the head and kills him, and then rekindles the lamp[862].\nHis companion above seeks to rob him of the two princesses he has won, by\ndetaching the rope. Nevertheless, he escapes, weds the good princess, and\npunishes his faithless companion by making him wed the bad one.\n\nThe white-haired old woman is not spoken of as the mother {379} of the foe\nshe is nursing, and it may be doubted whether she is in any way parallel to\nGrendel's mother. The hero does not fight her: indeed it is she who, in the\nend, enables him to escape. Still the parallels between Jean l'Ourson and\nBeowulf are striking enough. Nine distinct features recur, in the same\norder, in the _Beowulf_-story and in this folk-tale. It needs a more robust\nfaith than I possess to attribute this solely to chance.\n\nUnfortunately, this French-Flemish tale is found in a somewhat\nsophisticated collection. Its recorder, as Sainte-Beuve points out in his\nletter introductory to the series[863], uses literary touches which\ndiminish the value of his folk-tales to the student of origins. Any\ncontamination from the _Beowulf_-story or the _Grettir_-story is surely\nimprobable enough in this case: nevertheless, one would have liked the tale\ntaken down verbatim from the lips of some simple-minded narrator as it used\nto be told at Cond['e] on the Scheldt.\n\n\n\nBut if we take together the different versions enumerated above, the result\nis, I think, convincing. Here are eight versions of one folk-tale taken as\nrepresentatives from a much larger number current in the countries in touch\nwith the North Sea: from Iceland, the Faroes, Norway, Jutland, Zealand,\nSchleswig, Hanover, and the Scheldt. The champion is a bear-hero (as\nBeowulf almost certainly is, and as Bjarki quite certainly is); he is\ncalled, in Iceland, _Bjarndreingur_, in Jutland, _Bjoernoere_, in Hanover,\n_Peter Baer_, on the Scheldt _Jean l'Ourson_. Like Beowulf, he is despised\nin his youth (Faroe, Scheldt). In all versions he resists his adversary in\nan empty house or castle, after his comrades have failed. In most versions\nof the folk-tale this is the third attack, as it is in the case of Grettir\nat Sandhaugar and of Bjarki: in _Beowulf_, on the contrary, we gather that\nHeorot has been raided many times. The adversary, though vanquished,\nescapes; in one version after the loss of an arm (Scheldt): they follow his\ntrack to the hole into which he has vanished, sometimes, as in _Beowulf_,\nmarking traces of his blood (Iceland, Faroe, Schleswig). The hero always\nventures down alone, and gets into {380} an underworld of magic, which has\nleft traces of its mysteriousness in _Beowulf_. In one tale (Scheldt) the\nhero sees a magic lamp burning below, just as he sees the fire in _Beowulf_\nor the _Grettis Saga_. He overcomes either his original foe, or new ones,\noften by the use of a magic sword (Faroe, Norway, Schleswig); this sword\nhangs by the door (Norway) or on the wall (Faroe) as in _Beowulf_. After\nslaying his foe, the hero rekindles the magic lamp, in the Scheldt fairy\ntale, just as he kindles a light in the _Grettis Saga_, and as the light\nflashes up in _Beowulf_ after the hero has smitten Grendel's mother. The\nhero is in each case deserted by his companions: a feature which, while it\nis marked in the _Grettis Saga_, can obviously be allowed to survive in\n_Beowulf_ only in a much softened form. The chosen retainers whom Beowulf\nhas taken with him on his journey could not be represented as unfaithful,\nbecause the poet is reserving the episode of the faithless retainers for\nthe death of Beowulf. To have twice represented the escort as cowardly\nwould have made the poem a satire upon the _comitatus_, and would have\nassured it a hostile reception in every hall from Canterbury to Edinburgh.\nBut there is no doubt as to the faithlessness of the comrade Stein in the\n_Grettis Saga_. And in Zealand, one of the faithless companions is called\n_Stenhuggeren_ (the Stone-hewer), in Schleswig _Steenkloewer_, in Hanover\n_Steinspieler_, whilst in Iceland he has the same name, _Stein_, which he\nhas in the _Grettis Saga_.\n\nThe fact that the departure home of the Danes in _Beowulf_ is due to the\nsame cause as that which accounts for the betrayal of his trust by Stein,\nshows that in the original _Beowulf_-story also this feature must have\noccurred, however much it may have become worn down in the existing epic.\n\nI think enough has been said to show that there is a real likeness between\na large number of recorded folk-tales and the _Beowulf-Grettir_ story. The\nparallel is not merely with an artificial, theoretical composite put\ntogether by Panzer. But it becomes equally clear that _Beowulf_ cannot be\nspoken of as a version of these folk-tales. At most it is a version of a\nportion of them. The omission of the princesses in _Beowulf_ and the\n_Grettis Saga_ is fundamental. With the princesses much else falls away.\nThere is no longer any motive for the betrayal of trust {381} by the\nwatchers. The disguise of the hero and his vengeance are now no longer\nnecessary to the tale.\n\n\n\nIt might be argued that there was something about the three princesses\nwhich made them unsatisfactory as subjects of story. It has been thought\nthat in the oldest version the hero married all three: an awkward episode\nwhere a _scop_ had to compose a poem for an audience certainly monogamous\nand most probably Christian. The rather tragic and sombre atmosphere of the\nstories of Beowulf and Grettir fits in better with a version from which the\nprincesses, and the living happily ever afterwards, have been dropped. On\nthe other hand, it might be argued that the folk-tale is composite, and\nthat the source from which the _Beowulf-Grettir_-story drew was a simpler\ntale to which the princesses had not yet been added.\n\nAnd there are additions as well as subtractions. Alike in _Beowulf_ and in\nthe _Grettis Saga_, the fight in the house and the fight below are\nassociated with struggles with monsters of different sex. The association\nof \"The Devil and his Dam\" has only few and remote parallels in the\n\"Bear's-son\" folk-tale.\n\n\n\nBut Panzer has, I think, proved that the struggle of Beowulf in the hall,\nand his plunging down into the deep, is simply an epic glorification of a\nfolk-tale motive.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nI. THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF HYGELAC.\n\nGregory of Tours mentions the defeat of Chochilaicus (Hygelac) as an event\nof the reign of Theudoric. Now Theudoric succeeded his father Chlodoweg,\nwho died 27 Nov. 511. Theudoric died in 534. This, then, gives the extreme\nlimits of time; but as Gregory mentions the event among the first\noccurrences of the reign, the period 512-520 has generally been suggested,\nor in round numbers about 515 or 516.\n\nNevertheless, we cannot attach much importance to the mere order followed\nby Gregory[864]. He may well have had no means of dating the event exactly.\nOf much more importance than the order, is the fact he records, that\nTheudoric did not {382} defeat Chochilaicus in person, but sent his son\nTheudobert to repel the invaders.\n\nNow Theudobert was born before the death of his grandfather Chlodoweg. For\nGregory tells us that Chlodoweg left not only four sons, but a grandson\nTheudobert, _elegantem atque utilem_[865]: _utilem_ cannot mean that, at\nthe time of the death of Chlodoweg, Theudobert was of age to conduct\naffairs of state, for Chlodoweg was only 45 at death[866]. The Merovingians\nwere a precocious race; but if we are to allow Theudobert to have been at\nleast fifteen before being placed in charge of a very important expedition,\nand Chlodoweg to have been at least forty before becoming a grandfather,\nthe defeat of Hygelac cannot be put before 521; and probability would\nfavour a date five or ten years later.\n\nThere is confirmation for this. When Theudobert died, in 548, he left one\nson only, quite a child and still under tutelage[867]; probably therefore\nnot more than twelve or thirteen at most. We know the circumstances of the\nchild's birth. Theudobert had been betrothed by his father Theudoric to a\nLongobardic princess, Wisigardis[868]. In the meantime he fell in love with\nthe lady Deoteria[869], and married her[870]. The Franks were shocked at\nthis fickleness (_valde scandalizabantur_), and Theudobert had ultimately\nto put away Deoteria[871], although they had this young son (_parvulum\nfilium_), who, as we have seen, could hardly have been born before 535, and\npossibly was born years later. Theudobert then married the Longobardic\nprincess, in the seventh year after their betrothal. So it cannot have been\nmuch before 530 that Theudobert's father was first arranging the\nLongobardic match. A king is not likely to have waited to find a wife for a\nson, upon whom his dynasty was to depend, till fifteen years after that son\nwas of age to win a memorable victory[872].\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{383}\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY OF _BEOWULF_ AND _FINNSBURG_\n\n    I remember it was with extreme difficulty that I could bring my master\n    to understand the meaning of the word _opinion_, or how a point could\n    be disputable; because reason taught us to affirm or deny only where we\n    are certain; and beyond our knowledge we cannot do either. So that\n    controversies, wranglings, disputes, and positiveness in false or\n    dubious propositions are evils unknown among the _Houyhnhnms_.... He\n    would laugh that a creature pretending to reason should value itself\n    upon the knowledge of other people's conjectures, and in things, where\n    that knowledge, if it were certain, could be of no use....\n\n    I have often since reflected what destruction such a doctrine would\n    make in the libraries of Europe.\n\n      _Gulliver's Travels._\n\nThe following items are (except in special cases) not included in this\nbibliography:\n\n    (_a_) Articles dealing with single passages in _Beowulf_, or two\n    passages only, in cases where they have already been recorded under the\n    appropriate passage in the footnotes to the text, or in the glossary,\n    of my revision of Wyatt's edition.\n\n    (_b_) Articles dealing with the emendation or interpretation of single\n    passages, in cases where such emendations have been withdrawn by their\n    author himself.\n\n    (_c_) Purely popular paraphrases or summaries.\n\n    (_d_) Purely personal protests (e.g., _P.B.B._ XXI, 436), however well\n    founded, in which no point of scholarship is any longer involved.\n\nBooks dealing with other subjects, but illustrating _Beowulf_, present a\ndifficulty. Such books may have a value for _Beowulf_ students, even though\nthe author may never refer to our poem, and have occasionally been included\nin previous bibliographies. But, unless _Beowulf_ is closely concerned,\nthese books are not usually mentioned below: such enumeration, if carried\nout consistently, would clog a bibliography already all too bulky. Thus,\nSiecke's _Drachenkaempfe_ does not seem to come within the scope of this\nbibliography, because the author is not concerned with Beowulf's dragon.\n\nObviously every general discussion of Old English metre must concern itself\nlargely with _Beowulf_: for such treatises the student is referred to the\nsection _Metrik_ of Brandl's Bibliography (_Pauls Grdr._); and, for Old\nEnglish heroic legend in general, to the Bibliography of my edition of\n_Widsith_.\n\nMany scholars, e.g. Heinzel, have put into their reviews of the books of\nothers, much original work which might well have formed the material for\nindependent articles. Such reviews are noted as \"weighty,\" but it must not\nbe supposed that the reviews not so marked are negligible; unless of some\nvalue to scholarship, reviews are not usually mentioned below.\n\nThe title of any book, article or review which I have not seen and verified\nis denoted by the sign ++. {384}\n\nSUMMARY\n\ns. 1. Periodicals.\n\ns. 2. Bibliographies.\n\ns. 3. The MS and its transcripts.\n\ns. 4. Editions.\n\ns. 5. Concordances, _etc._\n\ns. 6. Translations (including early summaries).\n\ns. 7. Textual criticism and interpretation.\n\ns. 8. Questions of literary history, date and authorship. _Beowulf_ in the\nlight of history, archaeology[873], heroic legend, mythology and folk-lore.\n\ns. 9. Style and Grammar.\n\ns. 10. Metre.\n\ns. 1. PERIODICALS\n\nThe periodicals most frequently quoted are:\n\n_A.f.d.A._ = Anzeiger fuer deutsches Alterthum. Berlin, 1876 _etc._\n\n_A.f.n.F._ = Arkiv foer nordisk Filologi. Christiania, Lund, 1883 _etc._\n_Quoted according to the original numbering._\n\n_Anglia._ Halle, 1878 _etc._\n\n_Archiv_ = Herrigs Archiv fuer das Studium der neueren Sprachen und\nLitteraturen. Elberfeld, Braunschweig, 1846 _etc._ _Quoted according to the\noriginal numbering._\n\n_D.L.Z._ = Deutsche Literatur-Zeitung. Berlin, 1880 _etc._\n\n_Engl. Stud._ = Englische Studien. Heilbronn, Leipzig, 1877 _etc._\n\n_Germania._ Wien, 1856-92.\n\n_I.F._ = Indogermanische Forschungen. Strassburg, 1892 _etc._\n\n_J.(E.)G.Ph._ = Journal of (English and) Germanic Philology. Bloomington,\nUrbana, 1897 _etc._\n\n_Lit. Cbl._ = Literarisches Centralblatt. Leipzig, 1851 _etc._\n\n_Literaturblatt_ fuer germanische und romanische Philologie. Heilbronn,\nLeipzig, 1880 _etc._\n\n_M.L.N._ = Modern Language Notes. Baltimore, 1886 _etc._ _Quoted by the\npage, not the column._\n\n_M.L.R._ = The Modern Language Review. Cambridge, 1906 _etc._\n\n_Mod. Phil._ = Modern Philology. Chicago, 1903 _etc._\n\n_Morsbachs Studien_ zur englischen Philologie. Halle, 1897 _etc._\n\n_P.B.B._ = Beitraege zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache u. Litteratur.\nHalle, 1874 _etc._\n\n_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ = Publications of the Modern Language\nAssociation of America. Baltimore, 1889 _etc._\n\n_Z.f.d.A._ = Zeitschrift fuer deutsches Alterthum. Leipzig, Berlin, 1841\n_etc._\n\n_Z.f.d.Ph._ = Zachers Zeitschrift fuer deutsche Philologie. Halle, 1869\n_etc._\n\n_Z.f.oe.G._ = Zeitschrift fuer die oesterreichischen Gymnasien. Wien, 1850\n_etc._\n\nThe titles of other periodicals are given with sufficient fulness for easy\nidentification.\n\n{385}\n\ns. 2. BIBLIOGRAPHIES\n\nBibliographies have been published from time to time as a supplement to\n_Anglia_; also in the _Jahresbericht ueber...german. Philologie_; by\nGarnett in his _Translation_, 1882 _etc._; and will be found in\n\n    Wuelker's _Grundriss_ (with very useful abstracts), 1885, pp. 245\n    _etc._\n\n    Clark Hall's _Translation_, 1901, 1911.\n\n    Holthausen's _Beowulf_, 1906, 1909, 1913, 1919.\n\n    Brandl's _Englische Literatur_, in _Pauls Grdr._(2), II, 1015-24 (full,\n    but not so reliable as Holthausen's).\n\n    Sedgefield's _Beowulf_, 1910, 1913 (carefully selected).\n\nAn excellent critical bibliography of _Beowulf_-translations up to 1903 is\nthat of Tinker: see under s. 6, _Translations_.\n\ns. 3. THE MS AND ITS TRANSCRIPTS\n\n_Beowulf_ fills ff. 129 (132)_a_ to 198 (201)_b_ of the British Museum MS\n_Cotton Vitellius A. XV._\n\n_Beowulf_ is written in two hands, the first of which goes to l. 1939. This\nhand was identified by Prof. Sedgefield (_Beowulf_, _Introduction_, p. xiv,\nfootnote) with that of the piece immediately preceding _Beowulf_ in the MS,\nand by Mr Kenneth Sisam, in 1916, with that of all three immediately\npreceding pieces: the _Christopher_ fragment, the _Wonders of the East_,\nand the _Letter of Alexander on the Wonders of India_. The pieces preceding\nthese, however (the _Soliloquies of S. Augustine_, the _Gospel of\nNicodemus_, _Salomon and Saturn_), are certainly not in the same hand, and\ntheir connection with the _Beowulf_-MS is simply due to the bookbinder.\n\nFrom l. 1939 to the end, _Beowulf_ is written in a second hand, thicker and\nless elegant than the first. This second hand seems to be clearly identical\nwith that in which the poem of _Judith_, immediately following _Beowulf_,\nis written. This was pointed out by Sievers in 1872 (_Z.f.d.A._ XV, 457),\nand has never, I think, been disputed (cf. Sisam, p. 337; Foerster, p. 31).\nNevertheless the two poems have probably not always formed one book. For\nthe last page of _Beowulf_ was apparently once the last page of the volume,\nto judge from its battered condition, whilst _Judith_ is imperfect at the\nbeginning. And there are trifling differences, e.g. in the frequency of the\nuse of contractions, and the form of the capital H.\n\nThis identity of the scribe of the second portion of _Beowulf_ and the\n_Judith_ scribe, together with the identity (pointed out by Mr Sisam) of\nthe scribe of the first portion of _Beowulf_ and the scribe of the three\npreceding works, is important. A detailed comparison of these texts will\nthrow light upon the characteristics of the scribes.\n\nThat the three preceding works are in the same hand as that of the first\n_Beowulf_ scribe was again announced, independently of Mr Sisam, by Prof.\nMax Foerster, in 1919. Sievers had already in 1871 arrived at the same\nresult (see Foerster, p. 35, note) but had not published it.\n\nIt seems to me in the highest degree improbable that the _Beowulf_-MS has\nlost its ending, as Prof. Foerster thinks (pp. 82, 88). Surely nothing\ncould be better than the conclusion of the poem as it stands in the MS:\nthat the {386} casual loss of a number of leaves could have resulted in so\nsatisfactory a conclusion is, I think, not conceivable. Moreover, the\nscribe has crammed as much material as possible into the last leaf of\n_Beowulf_, making his lines abnormally long, and using contractions in a\nway he does not use them elsewhere. The only reason for this must be to\navoid running over into a new leaf or quire: there could be no motive for\nthis crowded page if the poem had ever run on beyond it.\n\nThere is pretty general agreement that the date of the _Beowulf_-MS is\nabout the year 1000, and that it is somewhat more likely to be before that\ndate than after.\n\nThe _Beowulf_-MS was injured in the great Cottonian fire of 1731, and the\nedges of the parchment have since chipped away owing to the damage then\nsustained. Valuable assistance can therefore be derived from the two\ntranscripts now preserved in the Royal Library of Copenhagen, made in 1787,\nwhen the MS was much less damaged.\n\n    A. Poema anglosaxonicum de rebus gestis Danorum ... fecit exscribi\n    Londini A.D. MDCCLXXXVII Grimus Johannis Thorkelin.\n\n    B. Poema anglosaxonicum de Danorum rebus gestis ... exscripsit Grimus\n    Johannis Thorkelin. Londini MDCCLXXXVII.\n\nThe first description of the _Beowulf_-MS is in 1705 by H. WANLEY\n(_Librorum Septentrionalium ... Catalogus_, pp. 218--19, Oxoniae, forming\nvol. II of Hickes' _Thesaurus_). Two short extracts from the MS are given\nby Wanley. He describes the poem as telling of the wars _quae Beowulfus\nquidam Danus, ex regio Scyldingorum stirpe ortus, gessit contra Sueciae\nregulos_. The text was printed by THORKELIN in 1815, and the MS was\ncollated by CONYBEARE, who in his _Illustrations_ (1826) issued 19 pages of\ncorrections of Thorkelin. These corrections were further corrected by J. M.\nKEMBLE in 1837 (Letter to M. Francisque Michel, in Michel's\n_Biblioth[`e]que Anglo-Saxonne_, pp. 20, 51-8). Meantime Kemble's text had\nbeen issued in 1833, based upon his examination of the MS. The MS was also\nseen by THORPE (in 1830: Thorpe's text was not published till 1855) and by\nGRUNDTVIG (pub. 1861). A further collation was that of E. KOELBING in 1876\n(Zur Be['o]vulf-handschrift, _Archiv_, LVI, 91-118). Koelbing's collation\nproves the superiority of Kemble's text to Grundtvig's. Line for line\ntranscripts of the MS were those of Holder, Wuelker and Zupitza:\n\n    1881 HOLDER, A. Beowulf. Bd. I. Abdruck der Handschrift. Freiburg u.\n    Tuebingen. (++1881, from collation made in 1875.) Reviews: Koelbing,\n    _Engl. Stud._ VII, 488; Kluge, _Literaturblatt_, 1883, 178; Wuelker,\n    _Lit. Cbl._ 1882, 1035-6.\n\n        1882. 2 Aufl.\n\n        1895. 3 Aufl. Reviews: Dieter, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, VI, 260-1;\n        Brandl, _Z.f.d.A._ XL, 90.\n\n    1881 WUELKER, R. P. Beowulf: Text nach der handschrift, in Grein's\n    _Bibliothek_, I, 18-148.\n\n    1882 ZUPITZA, J. Beowulf. Autotypes of the unique Cotton MS. Vitellius\n    A XV; with a transliteration and notes. _Early English Text Society_,\n    London. Reviews: Trautmann, _Anglia_, VII, _Anzeiger_, 41; Koelbing,\n    _Engl. Stud._ VII, 482 _etc._; Varnhagen, _A.f.d.A._ X, 304; Sievers,\n    _Lit. Cbl._ 1884, 124.\n\n{387}\n\nFurther discussion of the MS by\n\n    1890 DAVIDSON, C. Differences between the scribes of Beowulf. _M.L.N._\n    V, 43-4; MCCLUMPHA, C., criticizes the above, _M.L.N._ V, 123; reply by\n    DAVIDSON, _M.L.N._ V, 189-90.\n\n    1910 LAMB, EVELYN H. \"Beowulf\": Hemming of Worcester. _Notes and\n    Queries_, Ser. XI, vol. I, p. 26. (Worthless. An assertion, unsupported\n    by any evidence, that _both_ the hands of the Beowulf MS are those of\n    Hemming of Worcester, who flourished c. 1096.)\n\n    1916 SISAM, K. The Beowulf Manuscript. _M.L.R._ XI, 335-7. (Very\n    important. Gives results of a scrutiny of the other treatises in _MS\n    Vitellius A. XV_ (see above) and shows, among other things, that the\n    Beowulf MS, before reaching the hands of Sir Robert Cotton, was (in\n    1563) in those of Lawrence Nowell, the Elizabethan Anglo-Saxon\n    scholar.)\n\n    1919 FOERSTER, MAX. Die Beowulf-Handschrift, Leipzig, _Berichte der\n    Saechs_. _Akad. der Wissenschaften_, Bd. 71. (An excellent and detailed\n    discussion of the problems of the MS, quite independent of that of Mr\n    Sisam, whose results it confirms.) Review: Schroeder, _Z.f.d.A._ LVIII,\n    85-6.\n\n    1920 RYPINS, S. I. The Beowulf Codex. _Mod. Phil._ XVII, 541-8\n    (promising further treatment of the problems of the MS).\n\nThe MS of Finnsburg has been lost. See above, p. 245.\n\ns. 4. EDITIONS OF BEOWULF AND FINNSBURG\n\n    1705 HICKES, G. Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus. Oxoniae.\n    (Vol. I, 192-3, text of Finnsburg Fragment.)\n\n    1814 CONYBEARE, J. J. The Battle of Finsborough, in Brydges' _British\n    Bibliographer_, vol. IV, pp. 261-7; No. XV (Text, Latin translation,\n    and free verse paraphrase in English: some brief notes).\n\n    1815 THORKELIN, G. J. De Danorum rebus gestis secul. III et IV. Poema\n    Danicum dialecto Anglo-Saxonica. (Copenhagen, with Lat. transl.)\n    Reviews: See s. 7, _Textual Criticism_, 1815, Grundtvig; also _Dansk\n    Litteratur-Tidende_, 1815, 401-32, 437-46, 461-2 (defending Thorkelin\n    against Grundtvig); _Iduna_, vii, 1817, 133-59; _Monthly Review_,\n    LXXXI, 1816, 516-23; ++_Jenaische Literatur-Zeitung_, 1816,\n    _Ergaenzungsblaetter_, 353-65 (summary in Wuelker's _Grundriss_, p.\n    252); Outzen in _Kieler Blaetter_, 1816, see s. 8, below.\n\n    1817 RASK, R. K. Angelsaksisk sproglaere. Stockholm (pp. 163-6 contain\n    Beowulf, ll. 53-114, with commentary).\n\n    1820 Text of Finnsburg, given by GRUNDTVIG in _Bjowulfs Drape,_ pp.\n    xl-xlv.\n\n    1826 Text of Finnsburg, and of large portions of Beowulf, given in\n    CONYBEARE'S _Illustrations_. See s. 5, _Translations_.\n\n    1833 KEMBLE, J. M. Beowulf, the Travellers Song, and the Battle of\n    Finnesburh, edited with a glossary ... and an historical preface.\n    London.\n\n        1835. Second edit.\n\n    1847 SCHALDEMOSE, F. Beo-wulf og Scopes Widsidh ... med Oversaettelse.\n    Kjoebenhavn. (Follows Kemble's text of 1835: Text and transl. of\n    Finnsburg also given, pp. 161-4.) 1851, Reprinted.\n\n    1849 KLIPSTEIN, L. F. Analecta Anglo-Saxonica. New York. (Selections\n    from Beowulf, II, 227-61: Text of Finnsburg, 426-7.)\n\n    1850 ETTMUELLER, L. Engla and Seaxna scopas and b[=o]ceras. Quedlinburg\n    u. Leipzig. (Text of large portions of Beowulf, with Finnsburg, pp.\n    95-131.)\n\n    1855 THORPE, B. The A.S. poems of Beowulf, the scop or gleeman's tale,\n    and Finnesburg, with a literal translation ... Oxford. ++1875,\n    Reprinted.\n\n    {388}\n\n    1857 GREIN, C. W. M. Bibliothek der angelsaechsischen Poesie, I.\n    Goettingen (pp. 255--343, Be['o]vulf, Ueberfall in Finnsburg).\n\n        1861-4. Bd. III, IV. Sprachschatz.\n\n    1861 RIEGER, M. Alt- u. angelsaechsisches Lesebuch. Giessen. (Der Kampf\n    zu Finnsburg, pp. 61-3: aus dem Beovulf, 63-82.)\n\n    1861 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Beowulfes Beorh eller Bjovulfs-Drapen.\n    Kioebenhavn, London. (The Finnsburg Fragment is inserted in the text of\n    Beowulf, after l. 1106.)\n\n    1863 HEYNE, M. Beovulf, mit ausfuehrlichem Glossar. Paderborn. (Anhang:\n    Der Ueberfall in Finnsburg.) Reviews: Grein, _Lit. Cbl._ 1864, 137--8;\n    Holtzmann, _Germania_, VIII, 506-7.\n\n        1868. ++2 Aufl. Review: Rieger, _Z.f.d.Ph._ II, 371-4.\n\n        1873. 3 Aufl. Review: Sievers, _Lit. Cbl._ 1873, 662-3, brief but\n        severe.\n\n        1879. 4 Aufl. [in this, Koelbing's collation of 1876 was utilized;\n        see p. 82]. Reviews: Brenner, _Engl. Stud._ IV, 135-9; Gering,\n        _Z.f.d.Ph._ XII, 122-5.\n\n    1867 GREIN, C. W. M. Beovulf, nebst den Fragmenten Finnsburg u.\n    Valdere. Cassel u. Goettingen.\n\n    1875 ETTMUELLER, L. Carmen de Be['o]vulfi, Gautarum regis, rebus\n    praeclare gestis atque interitu, quale fuerit antequam in manus\n    interpolatoris, monachi Vestsaxonici, inciderat. (Zuerich. University\n    Programme. The additions of the \"interpolator\" being omitted, the\n    edition contains 2896 lines only.) Reviews: Schoenbach, _A.f.d.A._ III,\n    36-46; ++Suchier, _Jenaer Literatur-Zeitung_, XLVII, 1876, 732.\n\n    1876 ARNOLD, T. Beowulf, with a translation, notes and appendix.\n    London. Reviews (unfavourable): Sweet, _Academy_, X, 1876, 588;\n    Wuelker, _Lit. Cbl._ 1877, 665-6, and _Anglia_, I, 177-86.\n\n    1879 WUELKER, R. P. Kleinere angelsaechsische Dichtungen. Halle,\n    Leipzig. (Finnsburg, pp. 6-7.)\n\n    1883 MOELLER, H. Das altenglische Volksepos in der urspruenglichen\n    strophischen Form. I. Abhandlungen. II. Texte. Kiel. (Containing only\n    those parts of the Finn-story and of Beowulf which Moeller regarded as\n    \"genuine,\" in strophic form.) Reviews: Heinzel, _A.f.d.A._ X, 215-33\n    (important); Schoenbach, _Z.f.oe.G._ XXXV, 37-46.\n\n    1883 WUELKER, R. P. Das Beowulfslied, nebst den kleineren epischen ...\n    stuecken. Kassel. (In the second edit. of Grein's _Bibliothek der ags.\n    Poesie._) Review: Koelbing, _Engl. Stud._ VII, 482 _etc._\n\n    1883 HARRISON, J. A. and SHARP, R. Beowulf. Boston, U.S.A. (++1883, on\n    the basis of Heyne's edition; with Finnsburg.) Reviews: York Powell,\n    _Academy_, XXVI, 1884, 220-1; reply by Harrison, 308-9; by York Powell,\n    327; Koelbing, _Engl. Stud._ VII, 482; Bright, _Literaturblatt_, 1884,\n    221--3.\n\n        1892. Third edit.\n\n        1894. Fourth edit. Reviews: Wuelker, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, V, 65-7;\n        Gloede, _Engl. Stud._ XX, 417-18.\n\n    1884 HOLDER, A. Beowulf, II. Berichtigter Text u. Woerterbuch. Freiburg\n    u. Tuebingen. Reviews: York Powell, _Academy_, XXVI, 1884, 220-1;\n    Wuelker, _Lit. Cbl._ 1885, 1008-9; Krueger, _Literaturblatt_, 1884,\n    468-70.\n\n        1899. 2 Aufl. [with suggestions of Kluge and Cosijn]. Reviews:\n        Trautmann, _Anglia, Beiblatt,_ X, 257; Wuelfing, _Engl. Stud._\n        XXIX, 278-9; Holthausen, _Literaturblatt_, 1900, 60-2 (important\n        corrections).\n\n    1888 HEYNE, M. and SOCIN, A. [Fifth edit. of Heyne's text.] Paderborn\n    u. Muenster. Reviews: Koeppel, _Engl. Stud._ XIII, 466-72; Heinzel,\n    _A.f.d.A._ XV, 189-94; Sievers, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXI, 354-65 (very important\n    corrections); Schroeer, _Literaturblatt_, 1889, 170-1.\n\n    {389}\n\n        1898. 6 Aufl. Reviews: Trautmann, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, X, 257;\n        Holthausen, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, X, 265; Sarrazin, _Engl. Stud._\n        XXVIII, 408-10; Jantzen, _Archiv_, CIII, 175-6.\n\n        1903. 7 Aufl. Reviews: Holthausen, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XVIII,\n        193-4; Klaeber, the same, 289-91; Kruisinga, _Engl. Stud._ XXXV,\n        401-2; v. Grienberger, _Z.f.oe.G._ LVI, 744-61 (very full); E.\n        Kock, _A.f.n.F._ XXII, 215 (brief).\n\n    1894 WYATT, A. J. Beowulf, edited with textual footnotes, index of\n    proper names, and glossary. (Text of Finnsburg.) Cambridge. Reviews:\n    Bradley, _Academy_, XLVI, 1894, 69-70; Wuelker, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, V,\n    65-7; Brenner, _Engl. Stud._ XX, 296; Zupitza, _Archiv_, XCIV, 326-9.\n\n        1898. Second edit. Reviews: Trautmann, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, X, 257;\n        Sarrazin, _Engl. Stud._ XXVIII, 407-8.\n\n    1902 KLUGE, F. Angelsaechsisches Lesebuch. 3 Aufl. Halle. (XXX. Der\n    Ueberfall von Finnsburuh, pp. 127-8.)\n\n    1903 TRAUTMANN, M. Finn u. Hildebrand. _Bonner Beitraege_, VII. (Text,\n    translation and comment on the Episode and Fragment.) Reviews: Binz,\n    _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXVII, 529-36; Jantzen, _Die Neueren Sprachen_, XI, 543-8;\n    _Neue philol. Rundschau_, 1903, 619-21 (signed -tz- ? Jantzen). Some\n    additional notes by Trautmann, \"Nachtraegliches zu Finn u. Hildebrand\"\n    appeared in _Bonner Beitraege_, XVII, 122.\n\n    1904 TRAUTMANN, M. Das Beowulflied ... das Finn-Bruchstueck u. die\n    Waldhere-Bruchstuecke. Bearbeiteter Text u. deutsche Uebersetzung.\n    _Bonner Beitraege_, XVI. Reviews: Klaeber, _M.L.N._ XX, 83-7 (weighty);\n    Eckhardt, _Engl. Stud._ XXXVII, 401-3; Schuecking, _Archiv_, CXV,\n    417-21; Barnouw, _Museum_, XIV, 96-8; _Neue philologische Rundschau_ (?\n    by Jantzen), 1905, 549-50.\n\n    1905-6 HOLTHAUSEN, F. Beowulf nebst dem Finnsburg-Bruchstueck. I.\n    Texte. II. Einleitung, Glossar u. Anmerkungen. Heidelberg. Reviews:\n    Lawrence, _J.E.G.Ph._ VII, 125-9; Klaeber, _M.L.N._ XXIV, 94-5;\n    Schuecking, _Engl. Stud._ XXXIX, 94-111 (weighty); Deutschbein,\n    _Archiv_, CXXI, 162-4; v. Grienberger, _Z.f.oe.G._ 1908, LIX, 333-46\n    (giving an elaborate list of etymological parallels); Barnouw,\n    _Museum_, XIV, 169-70; Wuelker, _D.L.Z._ 1906, 285-6; ++Jantzen, _Neue\n    philologische Rundschau_, 1907, 18.\n\n        1908-9. 2 Aufl., nebst den kleineren Denkmaelern der Heldensage,\n        Finnsburg, Waldere, Deor, Widsith, Hildebrand. Reviews: Eichler,\n        _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXI, 129-33; XXII, 161-5; Schuecking, _Engl.\n        Stud._ XLII, 108-11; Brandl, _Archiv_, CXXI, 473, CXXIV, 210; Binz,\n        _Literaturblatt_, XXXII, 1911, 53-5: see also Koeppel, _Anglia,\n        Beiblatt_, XXIII, 297.\n\n        1912-13. 3 Aufl.\n\n        1914-19. 4 Aufl. Reviews: Binz, _Literaturblatt_, XLI, 1920,\n        316-17; Fischer, _Engl. Stud._ LIV, 404-6.\n\n    1908 SCHUECKING, L. L. Beowulf [8th edit. of Heyne's text]. Paderborn.\n    Reviews: Lawrence, _M.L.N._ XXV, 155-7; Klaeber, _Engl. Stud._ XXXIX,\n    425-33 (weighty); Imelmann, _D.L.Z._ 1909, 995 (contains important\n    original contributions); v. Grienberger, _Z.f.oe.G._ LX, 1089; Boer,\n    _Museum_, XVI, 139 (brief).\n\n        1910. 9 Aufl. Reviews: Sedgefield, _Engl. Stud._ XLIII, 267-9; F.\n        Wild, _Z.f.oe.G._ LXIV, 153-5.\n\n        1913. 10 Aufl. Reviews: Klaeber, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXIV, 289-91;\n        _Engl. Stud._ XLIX, 424; ++Degenhart, _Blaetter f.\n        gymnasialschulwesen_, LI, 130; E. A. Kock, _A.f.n.F._ XXXII, 222-3;\n        Holthausen, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XLVIII, 127-31 (weighty).\n\n        1918. 11, 12 Aufl. Reviews: Bjoerkman, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXX,\n        121-2, 180; Fischer, _Engl. Stud._ LIII, 338-9.\n\n    {390}\n\n    1910 SEDGEFIELD, W. J. Beowulf, edited with Introduction, Bibliography,\n    Notes, Glossary and Appendices. Manchester. Reviews: Thomas, _M.L.R._\n    VI, 266-8; Lawrence, _J.E.G.Ph._ X, 633-40; Wild, _Anglia, Beiblatt_,\n    XXIII, 253-60; Klaeber, _Engl. Stud._ XLIV, 119-26; Brandl, _Archiv_,\n    CXXVI, 279.\n\n        1913. Second edit. Reviews: _M.L.R._ IX, 429; Lawrence, _J.E.G.Ph._\n        XIV, 609-13; Klaeber, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXV, 166-8.\n\n    1912 Text of the Finn episode given in MEYER, W., Beitraege zur\n    Geschichte der Eroberung Englands durch die Angelsachsen.\n\n    1914 CHAMBERS, R. W. Beowulf with the Finnsburg Fragment, ed. by A. J.\n    WYATT. New edition, revised. Cambridge. Reviews: Jones, _M.L.R._ XI,\n    230-1: Lawrence, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIV, 609-13; Bright, _M.L.N._ XXXI, 188-9;\n    Schuecking, _Engl. Stud._ LV, 88-100.\n\n    1915 DICKINS, B. Runic and Heroic Poems (Text of Finnsburg with Notes).\n    Cambridge. Review: Mawer, _M.L.R._ XII, 82-4.\n\n    1917 MACKIE, W. L. The Fight at Finnsburg (Introduction, Text and\n    Notes).   _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 250-73.\n\n    1919 SCHUECKING, L. L. Kleines angelsaechsisches Dichterbuch. [Includes\n    Finnsburg Fragment, Finnsburg Episode and \"Beowulf's Return\" (ll.\n    1888-2199).] Reviews: Binz, _Literaturblatt_, XLI, 1920, pp. 315-16;\n    Imelmann, _D.L.Z._ XL, 1919, 423-5; Fischer, _Engl. Stud._ LIV, 1920,\n    302-3.\n\n    1920 Text of Finnsburg Fragment and Episode, with commentary, in\n    IMELMANN'S \"Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie.\"\n\nAn edition of Beowulf by Prof. F. KLAEBER is in the press.\n\ns. 5. CONCORDANCES, etc.\n\n    1896 HOLDER, A. Beowulf, vol. II_b_, Wortschatz. Freiburg. Review:\n    Brandl, _A.f.d.A._ XXIII, 107.\n\n    1911 COOK, A. S. Concordance to Beowulf. Halle. Reviews: Klaeber,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ XI, 277-9; Garnett, _Amer. Jnl. Philol._ XXXIII, 86-7.\n\ns. 6. TRANSLATIONS (INCLUDING EARLY SUMMARIES)\n\n    1881 WUELKER, R. P. Besprechung der Beowulfuebersetzungen, _Anglia_,\n    IV, _Anzeiger_, 69-80.\n\n    1886 GUMMERE, F. B. The translation of Beowulf, and the relations of\n    ancient and modern English verse, _Amer. Jour. of Phil._ VII, 46-78. (A\n    weighty argument for translation into \"the original metre.\")\n\n    1891 GARNETT, J. M. The translation of A.S. poetry, _Pub. Mod. Lang.\n    Assoc. Amer._ VI, 95-105. (Agreeing in the main with Gummere.)\n\n    1897 FRYE, P. H. The translation of Beowulf, _M.L.N._ XII, 79-82.\n    (Advocating blank verse.)\n\n    1898 FULTON, E. On translating A.S. poetry, _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc.\n    Amer._ XIII, 286-96. (Recommending an irregular four-accent line.)\n\n    1903 GARNETT, J. M. Recent translations of O.E. poetry, _Pub. Mod.\n    Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XVIII, 445-58.\n\n    1903 TINKER, C. B. The translations of Beowulf. A critical\n    bibliography. _Yale Studies in English_. New York. Reviews: Klaeber,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ V, 116-8; Binz, _Anglia, Beiblatt,_ XVI, 291-2.\n\n    1909 CHILD, G. C. \"Gummere's Oldest English Epic,\" _M.L.N._ XXIV,\n    253-4. (A criticism advocating prose translation.)\n\n    1910 GUMMERE, F. B. Translation of Old English Verse, _M.L.N._ XXV,\n    61-3. (Advocating alliterative verse.) Reply by CHILD, _M.L.N._ XXV,\n    157-8. See also reviews of Gummere, under year 1909, below.\n\n    {391}\n\n    1918 LEONARD, W. E. Beowulf and the Niebelungen couplet, _Univ. of\n    Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature_, II, 99-152.\n\n\n\n    1805 TURNER, SHARON. History of the manners ... poetry ... and language\n    of the Anglo-Saxons. London. (From p. 398 to p. 408 is a summary, with\n    translations, of Beowulf, Prol.-VIII. Turner was misled as to the\n    subject of the poem, because a leaf had been misplaced in the MS, so\n    that the account of the fighting between Grendel and Beowulf (ll.\n    740-82) occurred immediately after l. 91. The struggle between Beowulf\n    and an (unnamed) adversary being thus made to follow the account of\n    Hrothgar's court at Heorot, Turner was led to suppose that the poem\n    narrated the attempt of Beowulf to avenge _on Hrothgar_ the feud for a\n    homicide he had committed. \"The transition,\" Turner not unreasonably\n    complains, \"is rather violent.\" The correct placing of the shifted leaf\n    is due to Thorkelin.)\n\n    1815 THORKELIN, G. J. [Latin version in his edition, q.v.] The\n    reviewers gave summaries of the poem, with translations of portions of\n    it: English in the _Monthly Review_, LXXXI, 1816, 516-23 (less\n    inaccurate than Turner's summary); Danish in the _Dansk\n    Litteratur-Tidende_, 1815, 401-32, 437-46, and by Grundtvig in the\n    _Nyeste Skilderie_ (see below, s. 7); Swedish in _Iduna_, VII, 1817,\n    133-59.\n\n    1819 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Stykker af Skjoldung-Kvadet eller Bjovulfs\n    Minde, _Dannevirke_, IV, 234-62.\n\n    1820 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Bjowulfs Drape, Kjoebenhavn. (Free rhymed\n    translation of Beowulf: Finnsburg rendered into short lines, unrhymed:\n    Introduction and most important critical notes.) Review: J. Grimm in\n    _Goett. Anzeigen_, 1823 = _Kleinere Schriften_, IV, 178-86. For second\n    edit., see 1865.\n\n    1820 TURNER, SHARON. History of the Anglo-Saxons ... third edit.\n    London. (Vol. III, pp. 325-48, contains a summary, with translations,\n    of the earlier part of the poem, much less inaccurate than that of\n    1805.)\n\n    1826 CONYBEARE, J. J. Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon poetry. London. (Pp.\n    35-136 contain a summary of Beowulf, with blank verse transl. and the\n    corresponding text in A.S. and Latin; pp. 175-82, Finnsburg, text with\n    transl. into Latin and into English verse.)\n\n    1832 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Nordens mythologi. Anden Udgave. Kioebenhavn.\n    (Pp. 571-94 give a summary of the Beowulf-stories. This was, of course,\n    wanting in the first edit. of 1808.)\n\n    1837 KEMBLE, J. M. Translation ... with ... glossary, preface and\n    notes. London. (The \"postscript to the preface\" in which Kemble\n    supplemented and corrected the \"Historical Preface\" to his edition of\n    1833, is the basis of the mythological explanations of Beowulf as an\n    Anglian god, Beowa.)\n\n    1839 LEO, H. [Summary with translation of extracts.] See s. 8, below.\n\n    1840 ETTMUELLER, L. Beowulf, stabreimend uebersetzt, mit Einleitung und\n    Anmerkungen (Finnsburg, pp. 36-8). Zuerich.\n\n    1845 LONGFELLOW, H. W. The Poets and Poetry of Europe. Philadelphia.\n    (Pp. 8-10 contain transl. of extracts from Beowulf.)\n\n    1847 SCHALDEMOSE, F. [Danish transl. of Beowulf and Finnsburg, in his\n    edit., q.v.]\n\n    1849 WACKERBARTH, A. D. Beowulf, translated into English verse. London.\n    (Imitation of Scott's metre.)\n\n    1855 THORPE, B. [In his edit., q.v.]\n\n    1857 UHLAND, L. [Prose transl. of Finnsburg.] _Germania_, II, 354-5.\n\n    {392}\n\n    1857 GREIN, C. W. M. Dichtungen der Angelsachsen, stabreimend\n    uebersetzt. Goettingen. (Vol. I, pp. 222--308, Beowulf, trans. into\n    alliterative verse.)\n\n        1883. 2 Aufl. [Incorporating Grein's manuscript corrections, seen\n        through the press by Wuelker.] Cassel. Review: Krueger, _Engl.\n        Stud._ VIII, 139--42.\n\n    1859 SIMROCK, K. Beowulf uebersetzt u. erlaeutert. Stuttgart u.\n    Augsburg. (Alliterative verse: Finnsburg Fragment inserted after l.\n    1124.)\n\n    1859 SANDRAS, G. S. De carminibus anglo-saxonicis Caedmoni adjudicatis.\n    Paris. (Pp. 8--10 contain extract from Beowulf and Latin transl.)\n\n    1861 HAIGH, D. H. (Prose transl. of Finnsburg.) In _Anglo-Saxon Sagas,_\n    pp. 32--3, q.v.\n\n    1863 HEYNE, M. Beowulf uebersetzt. Paderborn. (Blank verse.) Review:\n    Holtzmann, _Germania_, VIII, 506--7.\n\n        1897--8. 2 Aufl. Paderborn. Reviews: Holthausen, _Archiv_, CIII,\n\n            373--6; Wuelker, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, IX, 1; Jantzen,_ Engl.\n            Stud._ XXV,\n\n            271--3; Loehner, _Z.f.oe.G._ XLIX, 563.\n\n        1915. 3 Aufl. Paderborn.\n\n    1865 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Bjovulfs-Drapen. Anden Udgave.\n\n    1872 VON WOLZOGEN, H. Beovulf aus dem ags. Leipzig. (Verse.)\n\n    1876 ARNOLD, T. [In his edit., q.v.]\n\n    1877 BOTKINE, L. Beowulf traduite en francais. Havre. (Prose: some\n    omissions.) Review: Koerner, _Engl. Stud._ II, 248--51.\n\n    1881 ZINSSER, G. Der Kampf Beowulfs mit Grendel [vv. 1--836] als Probe\n    einer metrischen Uebersetzung. Saarbruecken. Reviews: _Archiv_, LXVIII,\n    446; Krueger, _Engl. Stud_. VII, 370--2.\n\n    1881 LUMSDEN, H. W. Beowulf ... transl. into modern rhymes. London.\n    (Some omissions.) Reviews: _Athenaeum_, April 1881, p. 587; Garnett,\n    _Amer. Jour. of Phil._ II, 355--61; Wuelker, _Anglia_, IV, _Anzeiger_,\n    69--80.\n\n        1883. ++Second edit. Review: York Powell, _Academy_, XXVI, 1884,\n        pp. 220--1.\n\n    1882 SCHUHMANN, G. Beovulf, antichissimo poema epico de' popoli\n    germanici. _Giornale Napoletano di filosofia e lettere_. Anno IV, vol.\n    7, 25--36, 175--190. (A summary only.)\n\n    1882 GARNETT, J. M. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, translated.\n    Boston, U.S.A. Reviews: _Nation_ (New York), No. 919, 1883; Harrison,\n    _Amer. Jour. of Phil._ IV, 84--6, reply by Garnett, 243--6; Schipper,\n    _Anglia_, VI, _Anzeiger_, 120--4; Krueger, _Engl. Stud_. VIII, 133--8,\n    and (second edit.) IX, 151; Bright, _Literaturblatt_, 1883, 386--7.\n\n        1885. Second edit., revised.\n\n        1900. Fourth edit.\n\n    1883 GRION, GIUSTO. Beovulf, poema epico angl[`o]sassone del VII\n    secolo, tradotto e illustrato. In the _Atti della reale Accademia\n    Lucchese_, XXII. (First Italian translation.) Review: Krueger, _Engl.\n    Stud._ IX, 64--77.\n\n    1889 ++WICKBERG, R. Beowulf, en fornengelsk hjaeltedikt oeversatt.\n    Westervik.\n\n        1914. ++Second edit. Upsala. Review: Kock, _A.f.n.F._ XXXII,\n        223--4.\n\n    1892 HALL, JOHN LESSLIE. Beowulf translated. (Verse, with notes.)\n    Boston, U.S.A. Reviews: _M.L.N._ VII, 128, 1892 (brief mention);\n    Miller, _Viking Club Year Book_, I, 91--2; Holthausen, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, IV, 33--6; Gloede, _Engl. Stud._ XIX, 257--60.\n\n        1893. ++Student's edit.\n\n    1892 (1891) EARLE, JOHN. The deeds of Beowulf. Oxford. (Prose\n    translation, somewhat spoilt by its artificial and sometimes grotesque\n    vocabulary; very valuable introduction, with summary of the controversy\n    to date, {393} and notes.) Reviews: _Athenaeum_, 1 Oct. 1892; Koeppel,\n    _Engl. Stud._ XVIII, 93-5 (fair, though rather severe).\n\n    1893 HOFFMANN, P. Be['o]wulf ... aus dem angelsaechsischen uebertragen.\n    Zuellichau. (In the measure of the Nibelungenlied; ind. Finnsburg.)\n    Reviews (mostly unfavourable): Shipley, _M.L.N._ IX, 121-3, 1894;\n    Wuelker, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, V, 67; Wuelker, _Lit. Cbl._ 1894, p. 1930;\n    Gloede, _Engl. Stud._ XIX, 412-5; ++Detter, _Oester. Literaturblatt_,\n    V, 9; ++Marold, _Deut. Literaturblatt_, XXIII, 332.\n\n        1900. ++Second edit. Hannover.\n\n    1895 MORRIS, W. and WYATT, A. J. The Tale of Beowulf. Kelmscott Press,\n    Hammersmith. (Verse: archaic vocabulary.)\n\n        1898. New edit. Review: Hulme, _M.L.N._ XV, 22-6, 1900.\n\n    1896 SIMONS, L. Be['o]wulf ... vertaald in stafrijm en met inleiding en\n    aanteekeningen. Gent (_Koninklijke vlaamsche Academie_). Reviews:\n    Gloede, _Engl. Stud._ XXV, 270-1; Uhlenbeck, _Museum_ (Groningen), V,\n    217-8.\n\n    1898 STEINECK, H. Altenglische Dichtungen (Beowulf, Elene, u.a.) in\n    wortgetreuer Uebersetzung. Leipzig. (Prose, line for line.) Reviews:\n    Binz, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, IX, 220-2; Holthausen, _Archiv_, CIII, 376-8\n    (both very unfavourable).\n\n    1901 HALL, J. R. CLARK. Beowulf and the fight at Finnsburg. A\n    translation into modern English prose. London. Reviews: _Athenaeum_,\n    1901, July, p. 56; _Academy_, LX, 1901, 342; Stedman, _Viking Club Year\n    Book_, III, 72-4; Tinker, _J.E.G.Ph._ IV, 379-81; Holthausen, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XIII, 225-8; Dibelius, _Archiv_, CIX, 403-4; Vietor, _Die\n    neueren Sprachen_, XI, 439; Wuelker, _Lit. Cbl._ 1902, 30-1 (\"sehr zu\n    empfehlen\").\n\n        1911 (q.v.). New edit., with considerable additions.\n\n    1902 TINKER, C. B. Beowulf translated out of the Old English. New York.\n    (Prose.) Reviews: Klaeber, _J.E.G.Ph._ V, 91-3; Holthausen, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XIV, 7.\n\n    1903 ++BJOERKMAN, E. Swedish transl. (prose) of Beowulf, Part II (in\n    Schueck's _Vaerldslitteraturen_, with introd. by Schueck).\n\n    1903-4 TRAUTMANN, M., in his editions, q.v.\n\n    1904 CHILD, C. G. Beowulf and the Finnesburh Fragment translated.\n    London and Boston. Reviews: Grattan, _M.L.R._ III, 303-4 (\"a good prose\n    translation which steers an even course between pseudo-archaisms and\n    modern colloquialisms\"); Miller, _Viking Club Year Book_, I, 91-2;\n    Klaeber, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XVI, 225-7; Brandl, _Archiv_, CXXI, 473.\n\n    1904 ++HANSEN, A. Transl. into Danish of Beowulf, ll. 491-924, _Danske\n    Tidsskrift_.\n\n    1905 VOGT, P. Beowulf ... uebersetzt. Halle. (Text rearranged according\n    to theories of interpolation: Finnsburg Fragment translated, following\n    Moeller's text.) Reviews: Binz, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXI, 289-91;\n    Eichler, _Z.f.oe.G._ LVII, 908-10; Klaeber, _Archiv_, CXVII, 408-10:\n    Jantzen, _Lit. Cbl._ 1906, 257-8.\n\n    1906 GERING, H. Beowulf nebst dem Finnsburg-Bruchstueck uebersetzt.\n    Heidelberg. (Verse.) Reviews: Lawrence, _J.E.G.Ph._ VII, 129-33\n    (\"thoroughly scholarly\"); Jantzen, _Lit. Cbl._ 1907, 64-5; Ries,\n    _A.f.d.A._ XXXIII, 143-7; Binz, _Literaturblatt_, XXXI, 397-8\n    (\"Fliessend und ungezwungen, sinngetreu ...\"); ++Zehme,\n    _Monatsschrift_, XIV, 597-600; v. Grienberger, _Z.f.oe.G._ 1908, LIX,\n    423-8.\n\n        1914. 2 Aufl.\n\n    1907 HUYSHE, W. Beowulf ... translated into ... prose (\"Appendix: The\n    Fight at Finn's burgh\"). London. (\"Translation,\" to quote Clark Hall,\n    \"apparently such as might have been compiled from previous translations\n    by a person ignorant of Ags. Some original mistakes.\") Reviews:\n    _Athenaeum_, 1907, II, 96 (\"Mr Huyshe displays sad ignorance of Old\n    {394} English ... but an assiduous study of the work of his\n    predecessors has preserved him from misrepresenting seriously the\n    general sense of the text\"); _Notes and Queries_, Ser. X, vol. VIII,\n    58; Garnett, _Amer. Jnl. Philol._ XXIX, 344-6; Klaeber, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XIX, 257.\n\n    1909 GUMMERE, F. B. The oldest English Epic. Beowulf, Finnsburg,\n    Waldere, Deor and the German Hildebrand, translated in the original\n    metres. New York. Reviews: _Athenaeum_, 1909, II, 151; Trautmann,\n    _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXXIII, 353-60 (metrical debate); Sedgefield,\n    _Engl. Stud._ XLI, 402-3 (discussing possibility of reproducing in Mod.\n    Eng. the Old Eng. alliterative verse-rhythm); Derocquigny, _Revue\n    Germanique_, VI, 356-7; see also above, p. 390.\n\n    1910 HANSEN, ADOLF. Bjovulf, oversat af A. Hansen, og efter hans doed\n    g[oa]et efter og fuldfoert samt forsynet med en inledning og en\n    oversaettelse af brudstykket om kampen i Finsborg, af Viggo Julius von\n    Holstein Rathlou; udgivet ved Oskar Hansen. Koebenhavn og Kristiania.\n    An account of this translation, by v. Holstein Rathlou, in\n    _Tilskueren_, June, 1910, pp. 557-62; Review: Olrik, _Danske Studier_,\n    1910, 112-13.\n\n    1911 CLARK HALL, J. R. Beowulf and the Finnsburg Fragment. A\n    translation into Modern English Prose. London. Reviews: Mawer, _M.L.R._\n    VI, 542 (\"probably the best working translation that we have, enriched\n    by a valuable introduction and excellent appendices\"); _Academy_, 1911,\n    I, 225-6; Bjoerkman, _Engl. Stud._ XLIV, 127-8; _Archiv_, CXXVI, 492-3;\n    Binz, _Literaturblatt_, XXXII, 232.\n\n    1912 PIERQUIN, H. Le po[`e]me Anglo-Saxon de Beowulf. (An extraordinary\n    piece of work; the version mainly follows Kemble's text, which is\n    reproduced, but with many misprints: Kemble's _Saxons in England_ is\n    translated by way of introduction. The Finnsburg Fragment is included.)\n    Reviews: _Academy_, 1912, II, 509-10 (seems to regard Pierquin as\n    author of _Les Saxons en Angleterre_); Sedgefield, _M.L.R._ VIII,\n    550-2; Klaeber, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXIV, 138-9; Imelmann, _D.L.Z._\n    XXXIV (1913), 1062-3 (very unfavourable); ++Luick, _Mitt. d. inst. f.\n    oesterr. gesch.-forsch._ XXXVI, 401; ++Barat, _Moyen [^A]ge_, XXVI\n    (see. ser. XVII), 298-302.\n\n    1913 KIRTLAN, E. J. The Story of Beowulf. London. (A fair specimen of\n    the less scholarly translations; nicely got up and not exceedingly\n    incorrect.) Reviews: _Athenaeum_, 1914, II, 71; Klaeber, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XXVII, 129-31.\n\n    1914 CLARK HALL, J. R. Beowulf: a metrical translation. Cambridge. (Not\n    so successful as the same writer's prose translation.) Reviews:\n    Sedgefield, _M.L.R._ X, 387-9 (discussing the principles of metrical\n    translation); Klaeber, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVI, 170-2.\n\n    1915 OLIVERO, F. Traduzioni dalla Poesia Anglo-sassone. Bari. (Pp.\n    73-119, extracts from Beowulf.) Review: _M.L.R._ XI, 509.\n\n    1916 ++BENEDETTI, A. La canzone di Beowulf, poema epico anglo-sassone\n    del VI secolo. Versione italiana, con introduzione e note. Palermo.\n\n    1918 LEONARD, W. E. [Specimen, Passus IX, of forthcoming transl., in\n    the measure of the Nibelungenlied.] In _Univ. of Wisconsin Studies_,\n    II, 149-52; see above.\n\n        A translation of Beowulf into the Norwegian \"landsmaal,\" by H.\n        RYTTER, will appear shortly.\n\nPopular paraphrases of Beowulf are not included in the above list. An\naccount will be found in Tinker's _Translations_ of those of E. H. Jones\n(in COX'S _Popular Romances_, 1871); J. Gibb, 1881-4; Waegner-MacDowall,\n1883 _etc._; Miss Z. A. Ragozin, 1898, 1900; A. J. Church, 1898; Miss C. L.\nThomson, 1899, 1904. Mention may also be made of those of ++F. A. Turner,\n1894; H. E. Marshall, 1908; T. Cartwright, 1908; Prof. J. H. Cox, 1910. An\nillustrated summary of {395} the _Beowulf_ story was issued by Mr W. T.\nStead in his penny \"Books for the Bairns.\" The versions of Miss Thomson and\nProf. Cox are both good. The paraphrase in the _Canadian Monthly_, II, 83\n(1872), attributed in several bibliographies to Earle, is assuredly not the\nwork of that scholar: it is an inaccurate version based upon Jones. An\naccount will be found in Tinker of the German paraphrase of Therese Dahn,\n1883 _etc._; mention may also be made of those of J. Arnheim, 1871; ++ F.\nBaessler, sec. edit. 1875 (praised highly by Klaeber in _J.E.G.Ph._ V,\n118).\n\ns. 7. TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION\n\n    1815 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Et Par Ord om det nys udkomne angelsaxiske\n    Digt. _Nyeste Skilderie af Kjoebenhavn_, No. 60 _etc._, cols. 945, 998,\n    1009, 1025, 1045; Nok et Par Ord om Bjovulfs Drape, 1106, 1121, 1139\n    (comment upon Thorkelin's text and translation).\n\n    1815 THORKELIN, G. J. Reply to Grundtvig in _Nyeste Skilderie_, cols.\n    1057, 1073. (There were further articles in the same magazine, but they\n    were purely personal.)\n\n    1820 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Emendations to Thorkelin's text, added to\n    _Bjowulfs Drape_, 267-312.\n\n    1826 CONYBEARE, J. J. Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon poetry. London.\n    (Beowulf and \"Finnsborough,\" pp. 30-182.)\n\n    1859 BOUTERWEK, K. W. Zur Kritik des Beowulfliedes, _Z.f.d.A._ XI,\n    59-113.\n\n    1859 DIETRICH, F. Rettungen, _Z.f.d.A._ XI, 409-20.\n\n    1863 HOLTZMANN, A. Zu Beowulf, _Germania_, VIII, 489-97. (Incl.\n    Finnsburg.)\n\n    1865 GREIN, C. W. M. Zur Textkritik der angelsaechsischen Dichter:\n    Finnsburg, _Germania_, X, 422.\n\n    1868-9 BUGGE, SOPHUS. Spredte iagttagelser vedkommende de oldengelske\n    digte om Be['o]wulf og Waldere; _Tidskrift for Philologi og\n    Paedagogik_, VIII, 40-78 and 287-307 (incl. Finnsburg, 304-5).\n    Important.\n\n    1871 RIEGER, M. Zum Beowulf, _Z.f.d.Ph._ III, 381-416.\n\n    1873 BUGGE, S. Zum Beowulf, _Z.f.d.Ph._ IV, 192-224.\n\n    1880 KOELBING, E. Kleine Beitraege (Beowulf, 168, 169), _Engl. Stud._\n    III, 92 _etc._\n\n    1882 KLUGE, F. Sprachhistorische Miscellen (Beowulf, 63, 1027, 1235,\n    1267), _P.B.B._ VIII, 532-5.\n\n    1882 COSIJN, P. J. Zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ VIII, 568-74.\n\n    1883 SIEVERS, E. Zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ IX, 135-44, 370.\n\n    1883 KLUGE, F. Zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ IX, 187-92.\n\n    1883 KRUEGER, TH. Zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ IX, 571-8.\n\n    1889 MILLER, T. The position of Grendel's arm in Heorot, _Anglia_, XII,\n    396-400.\n\n    1890 JOSEPH, E. Zwei Versversetzungen im Beowulf, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXII,\n    385-97.\n\n    1891 SCHROEER, A. Zur texterklaerung des Beowulf, _Anglia_, XIII,\n    333-48.\n\n    1891-2 COSIJN, P. J. Aanteekeningen op den Beowulf. Leiden.\n    (Important.) Reviews: Luebke, _A.f.d.A._ XIX, 341-2; Holthausen,\n    _Literaturblatt_, 1895, p. 82.\n\n    1892 SIEVERS, E. Zur texterklaerung des Beowulf, _Anglia_, XIV, 133-46.\n\n    1895 BRIGHT, J. W. Notes on the Beowulf (ll. 30, 306, 386-7, 623, 737),\n    _M.L.N._ X, 43-4.\n\n    1899 TRAUTMANN, M. Berichtigungen, Vermutungen und Erklaerungen zum\n    Beowulf (ll. 1-1215). _Bonner Beitraege zur Anglistik_, II, 121-92.\n    Reviews: Binz, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XIV, 358-60; Holthausen,\n    _Literaturblatt_, 1900, 62-4 (important). See Sievers, _P.B.B._ XXVII,\n    572; XXVIII, 271.\n\n    1901 KLAEBER, F. A few Beowulf notes (ll. 459, 847 _etc._, 1206, 3024\n    _etc._, 3171); _M.L.N._ XVI, 14-18.\n\n    {396}\n\n    1902 KLAEBER, F. Zum Beowulf (497-8; 1745-7), _Archiv_, CVIII, 368-70.\n\n    1902 KLAEBER, F. Beowulf's character, _M.L.N._ XVII, 162.\n\n    1903 KRACKOW, O. Zu Beowulf, 1225, 2222, _Archiv_, CXI, 171-2.\n\n    1904 BRYANT, F. E. Beowulf, 62, _M.L.N._ XIX, 121-2.\n\n    1904 ABBOTT, W. C. Hrothulf, _M.L.N._ XIX, 122-5. (Abbott suggests that\n    Hrothulf is the name--missing in whole or part from l. 62--of the\n    husband of the daughter of Healfdene. This suggestion is quite\n    untenable, for many reasons: Hrothulf (Rolf Kraki) is a Dane, and the\n    missing husband is a Swede: but the article led to a long controversy\n    between Bryant and Klaeber; see _M.L.N._ XX, 9-11; XXI, 143, 255; XXII,\n    96, 160. Klaeber is undoubtedly right.)\n\n    1904 KRAPP, G. B. Miscellaneous Notes: _Sc[=u]rheard_; _M.L.N._ XIX,\n    234.\n\n    1904 SIEVERS, E. Zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ XXIX, 305-31. (Criticism of\n    Trautmann's emendations.)\n\n    1904 KOCK, E. A. Interpretations and Emendations of Early English\n    Texts: III (Beowulf), _Anglia_, XXVII, 218-37.\n\n    1904 SIEVERS, E. Zum Beowulf (l. 5, Criticism of Kock), _P.B.B._ XXIX,\n    560-76. Reply by Kock, _Anglia_, XXVIII (1905), 140-2.\n\n    1905 TRAUTMANN, M. Auch zum Beowulf: ein gruss an herren Eduard\n    Sievers, _Bonner Beitraege zur Anglistik_, XVII, 143-74. (Reply to\n    Sievers' criticism of Trautmann's conjectural emendations.) Review:\n    Klaeber, _M.L.N._ XXII, 252.\n\n    1905 SWIGGETT, G. L. Notes on the Finnsburg fragment, _M.L.N._ XX,\n    169-71.\n\n    1905 KLAEBER, F. Notizen zur texterklaerung des Beowulf, _Anglia_,\n    XXVIII, 439-47 (incl. Finnsburg); Zum Beowulf, the same, 448-56.\n\n    1905 KLAEBER, F. Bemerkungen zum Beowulf, _Archiv_, CXV, 178-82. (Incl.\n    Finnsburg.)\n\n    1905 HOLTHAUSEN, F. Beitraege zur Erklaerung des altengl. epos. I, Zum\n    Beowulf; II, Zum Finnsburg-fragment; _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXVII, 113-25.\n\n    1905-6 KLAEBER, F. Studies in the Textual Interpretation of \"Beowulf,\"\n    _Mod. Phil._ III, 235-66, 445-65 (Most important).\n\n    1906 CHILD, C. G. Beowulf, 30, 53, 132 (i.e. 1323), 2957, _M.L.N._ XXI,\n    175-7, 198-200.\n\n    1906 HORN, W. Textkritische Bemerkungen (Beowulf, 69 _etc._), _Anglia_,\n    XXIX, 130-1.\n\n    1906 KLAEBER, F. Notizen zum Beowulf, _Anglia_, XXIX, 378-82.\n\n    1907 KLAEBER, F. Minor Notes on the Beowulf, _J.E.G.Ph._ VI, 190-6.\n\n    1908 TINKER, C. B. Notes on Beowulf, _M.L.N._ XXIII, 239-40.\n\n    1908 KLAEBER, F. Zum Beowulf, _Engl. Stud._ XXXIX, 463-7.\n\n    1909 KLAEBER, F. Textual Notes on Beowulf, _J.E.G.Ph._ VIII, 254-9.\n\n    1910 VON GRIENBERGER, T. Bemerkungen zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ XXXVI,\n    77-101. (Incl. Finnsburg.)\n\n    1910 SIEVERS, E. Gegenbemerkungen zum Beowulf, _P.B.B._ XXXVI, 397-434.\n    (Incl. Finnsburg.)\n\n    1910 SEDGEFIELD, W. J. Notes on \"Beowulf,\" _M.L.R._ V, 286-8.\n\n    1910 TRAUTMANN, M. Beitraege zu einem kuenftigen \"Sprachschatz der\n    altenglischen Dichter,\" _Anglia_, XXXIII, 276-9 (_gedraeg_).\n\n    1911 BLACKBURN, F. A. Note on Beowulf, 1591-1617, _Mod. Phil._ IX,\n    555-66. (Argues that a loose leaf has been misplaced and the order of\n    events thus disturbed.)\n\n    1911 KLAEBER, F. Zur Texterklaerung des Beowulf, vv. 767, 1129,\n    _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXII, 372-4.\n\n    1912 HART, J. M. Beowulf, 168-9, _M.L.N._ XXVII, 198.\n\n    {397}\n\n    1912-14 GREIN, C. W. M. Sprachschatz der angelsaechsischen dichter.\n    Unter mitwirkung von F. Holthausen neu herausgegeben von J. J. Koehler.\n    Heidelberg. Reviews: Trautmann, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXIV, 36-43;\n    Schuecking, _Engl. Stud._ XLIX, 113-5.\n\n    1915 CHAMBERS, R. W. The \"Shifted leaf\" in Beowulf, _M.L.R._ X, 37-41.\n    (Points out that the alleged \"confused order of events\" is that also\n    followed in the Grettis saga.)\n\n    1916 GREEN, A. The opening of the episode of Finn in Beowulf, _Pub.\n    Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXXI, 759-97.\n\n    1916 BRIGHT, J. W. Anglo-Saxon _umbor_ and _seld-guma_, _M.L.N._ XXXI,\n    82-4; Beowulf, 489-90, _M.L.N._ XXXI, 217-23.\n\n    1917 GREEN, A. An episode in Ongentheow's fall, _M.L.R._ XII, 340-3.\n\n    1917 HOLLANDER, L. M. Beowulf, 33, _M.L.N._ XXXII, 246-7. (Suggests the\n    reading _[=i]tig_.)\n\n    1917 HOLTHAUSEN, F. Zu altenglischen Denkmaelern--Beowulf, 1140, _Engl.\n    Stud._ LI, 180.\n\n    1918 HUBBARD, F. G. Beowulf, 1598, 1996, 2026: uses of the impersonal\n    verb _geweorthan_, _J.E.G.Ph._ XVII, 119.\n\n    1918 KOCK, E. A. Interpretations and emendations of early English\n    Texts: IV, Beowulf, _Anglia_, XLII, 99-124. (Important.)\n\n    1918 ++KOCK, E. A. Jubilee Jaunts and Jottings, in the _Lunds univ.\n    [oa]rsskrift_, N. F. avd. I, bd. 14, nr. 26 (_Festskrift vid ...\n    250-[oa]rsjubileum_). Reviews: Holthausen, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXX,\n    1-5; Klaeber, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIX, 409-13.\n\n    1919 MOORE, SAMUEL. Beowulf Notes (Textual), _J.E.G.Ph._ XVIII, 205-16.\n\n    1919 KLAEBER, F. Concerning the functions of O.E. _geweordhan_,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ XVIII, 250-71. (Cf. paper of Prof. Hubbard above, by which\n    this was suggested.)\n\n    1919 KLAEBER, F. Textual notes on \"Beowulf,\" _M.L.N._ XXXIV, 129-34.\n\n    1919 BROWN, CARLETON. Beowulf, 1080-1106, _M.L.N._ XXXIV, 181-3.\n\n    1919 BRETT, CYRIL. Notes on passages of Old and Middle English,\n    _M.L.R._ XIV, 1-9.\n\n    1919-20 KOCK, E. A. Interpretations and emendations of Early English\n    Texts: V (Incl. Beowulf, 2030, 2419-24); VI (Incl. Beowulf 24, 154-6,\n    189-90, 1992-3, 489-90, 581-3, 1745-7, 1820-1, 1931-2, 2164); VII\n    (Incl. Beowulf, 1230, 1404, 1553-6); _Anglia_, XLIII, 303-4; XLIV, 98\n    _etc._, 245 _etc._\n\n    1920 BRYAN W. F. Beowulf Notes (303-6, 532-4, 867-71), _J.E.G.Ph._ XIX,\n    84-5.\n\ns. 8. QUESTIONS OF LITERARY HISTORY, DATE AND AUTHORSHIP: BEOWULF IN THE\nLIGHT OF HISTORY, ARCHAEOLOGY, HEROIC LEGEND, MYTHOLOGY AND FOLKLORE\n\n    See also preceding section.\n\nNo attempt is made here to deal with Old English heroic legend in general:\nnor to enumerate the references to _Beowulf_ in histories of literature.\nProbably the earliest allusion to our poem by a great writer is in Scott's\n_Essay on Romance_ (1824):\n\n    \"The Saxons had, no doubt, Romances, ... and Mr Turner ... has given us\n    the abridgement of one entitled Caedmon, in which the hero, whose\n    adventures are told much after the manner of the ancient Norse Sagas,\n    encounters, defeats and finally slays an evil being called Grendel....\"\n\n    1816 OUTZEN, N. Das ags. Gedicht Beowulf, _Kieler Blaetter_, III,\n    307-27. (See above, p. 4, note.) {398}\n\n    1816 (Review of Thorkelin in) _Monthly Review_, LXXXI, 516-23. (Beowulf\n    identified with Beaw Sceldwaing of the West Saxon genealogy; see above,\n    p. 292.)\n\n    1817 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. _Danne-Virke_, II, 207-89. (Identifies\n    Chochilaicus; see above, p. 4, note.)\n\n    1826 GRIMM, W. Einleitung ueber die Elfen, _Kleinere Schriften_, I,\n    405, esp. p. 467 (extract relating to Grendel's hatred of song). From\n    ++_Irische Elfenmaerchen_.\n\n    1829 GRIMM, W. Die deutsche Heldensage. Goettingen. (Pp. 13-17.\n    Extracts from Beowulf, with translation, relating to Weland, Sigemund,\n    Hama and Eormenric.)\n\n    1836 KEMBLE, J. M. Ueber die Stammtafel der Westsachsen. Muenchen.\n    Review: J. Grimm, _Goettingische gelehrte Anziegen_, 1836, 649-57, =\n    _Kleinere Schriften_, V, 240.\n\n    1836 MONE, F. J. Zur Kritik des Gedichts von Beowulf (in Untersuchungen\n    zur Geschichte der teutschen Heldensage). Quedlinburg u. Leipzig. (Pp.\n    129-36.)\n\n    1839 LEO, H. Be['o]wulf ... nach seinem inhalte, und nach seinen\n    historischen und mythologischen beziehungen betrachtet. Halle.\n\n    1841 DISRAELI, I. Amenities of Literature. London. (Beowulf; the\n    Hero-Life. Vol. I, pp. 80-92.)\n\n    1841 GRUNDTVIG, N. F. S. Bjovulfs Drape, _Brage og Idun_, IV, 481-538.\n    (Discusses the story, with criticism of previous scholars, and\n    especially of Kemble.)\n\n    1843-9 GRIMM, W. Einleitung zur Vorlesung ueber Gudrun [with an\n    abstract of Beowulf]; see _Kleinere Schriften_, IV, 557-60.\n\n    1844 MUELLENHOFF, K. Die deutschen Voelker an Nord- und Ostsee in\n    aeltester Zeit, _Nordalbingische Studien_, I, 111 _etc._\n\n    1845 A brief discussion of Beowulf in _Edinburgh Review_, LXXXII,\n    309-11.\n\n    1845 HAUPT, M. Zum Beowulf, _Z.f.d.A._ V, 10. (Drawing attention to the\n    reference to Hygelac in the _liber de monstris_; see above, p. 4.)\n\n    1848 MUELLENHOFF, K. Die austrasische Dietrichssage, _Z.f.d.A._ VI, 435\n    _etc._\n\n    1849 MUELLENHOFF, K. Sce['a]f u. seine Nachkommen, _Z.f.d.A._ VII,\n    410-19; Der Mythus von Be['o]vulf, _Z.f.d.A._ VII, 419-41.\n\n    1849 GRIMM, J. Ueber das Verbrennen der Leichen, _Abhandl. d. Berl.\n    Akad._, 1849, 191 _etc._ = _Kleinere Schriften_, II, 211-313 (esp.\n    261-4).\n\n    1849 BACHLECHNER, J. Die Merovinge im Beowulf, _Z.f.d.A._ VII, 524-6.\n\n    1851 ZAPPERT, G. Virgil's Fortleben im Mittelalter, _Denkschriften der\n    k. Akad. Wien, Phil.-Hist. Classe_, Bd. II, Abth. 2, pp. 17-70. (Gives\n    numerous parallels between Virgil and \"Beowulf,\" somewhat\n    indiscriminately.)\n\n    1852 BRYNJULFSSON, G. Oldengelsk og Oldnordisk, _Antikuarisk\n    Tidsskrift_, Kjoebenhavn, 1852-4, pp. 81-143. (An important paper which\n    has been unduly overlooked. Brynjulfsson notes the parallel between\n    Beowulf and Bjarki (see above, p. 61) and in other respects anticipates\n    later scholars, e.g., in noting the close relationship between Angles\n    and Danes (p. 143) and less fortunately (pp. 129-31) in identifying the\n    Geatas with the Jutes.)\n\n    1856 BACHLECHNER, J. Eomaer und Heming (Hamlac), _Germania_, I, 297-303\n    and 455-61.\n\n    1856 BOUTERWEK, K. W. Das Beowulflied: Eine Vorlesung; _Germania_, I,\n    385-418.\n\n    1857 UHLAND, L. Sigemund und Sigeferd, _Germania_, II, 344-63 =\n    _Schriften_, VIII, 479 _etc._ (Incl. Finnsburg.)\n\n    {399}\n\n    1858 WEINHOLD, K. Die Riesen des germanischen Mythus, _Sitzungberichte\n    der K. Akad., Wien, Phil-Hist. Classe_, XXVI, 225-306. (Grendel and his\n    mother, p. 255.)\n\n    1859 RIEGER, M. Ingaevonen, Istaevonen, Herminonen, _Z.f.d.A._ XI,\n    177-205.\n\n    1859 MUELLENHOFF, K. Zur Kritik des angelsaechsischen Volksepos, 2,\n    Widsith, _Z.f.d.A._ XI, 275-94.\n\n    1860 MUELLENHOFF, K. Zeugnisse u. Excurse zur deutschen Heldensage,\n    _Z.f.d.A._ XII, 253-386. (_This portion_ of vol. XII was published in\n    1860.)\n\n    1861 HAIGH, D. H. The Anglo-Saxon Sagas. London. (An uncritical attempt\n    to identify the proper names in Beowulf and Finnsburg with sites in\n    England.)\n\n    1862 GREIN, C. W. M. Die historischen Verhaeltnisse des Beowulfliedes,\n    _Eberts Jahrbuch fuer roman. u. engl. Litt._ IV, 260-85. (Incl.\n    Finnsburg.)\n\n    1864 ++SCHULTZE, M. Ueber das Beowulfslied. _Programm der staedtischen\n    Realschule zu Elbing._ (Not seen, but contents, including the mythical\n    interpretations current at the period, noted in _Archiv_, XXXVII, 232.)\n\n    1864 HEYNE, M. Ueber die Lage und Construction der Halle Heorot.\n    Paderborn.\n\n    1868 KOEHLER, A. Germanische Alterthuemer im Be['o]vulf, _Germania_,\n    XIII, 129-58.\n\n    1869 MUELLENHOFF, K. Die innere Geschichte des Beovulfs, _Z.f.d.A._\n    XIV, 193-244. (Reprinted in _Beovulf_, 1889. See above, p. 113 _etc._)\n\n    1870 KOEHLER, A. Die Einleitung des Beovulfliedes. Die beiden Episoden\n    von Heremod, _Z.f.d.Ph._ II, 305-21.\n\n    1875 SCHROEDER, L. Om Bjovulfs Drapen. Koebenhavn. (See above, p. 30.)\n\n    1876 BOTKINE, L. Beowulf. Analyse historique et g['e]ographique. Havre.\n    (Material subsequently incorporated in translation, q.v. s. 6.) Review:\n    Koerner, _Engl. Stud._ I, 495-6.\n\n    1877 SKEAT, W. W. The name \"Beowulf,\" _Academy_, XI (Jan.-June), p.\n    163. (Suggests Beowulf = \"woodpecker\"; see above, pp. 365-6, _note_.)\n\n    1877 TEN BRINK, B. Geschichte der englischen Litteratur. (Beowulf,\n    Finnsburg, pp. 29-40.)\n\n    1877 DEDERICH, H. Historische u. geographische Studien zum ags.\n    Be['o]vulfliede. Koeln. (Incl. Finnsburg.) Reviews: Koerner, _Engl.\n    Stud._ I, 481-95; Muellenhoff, _A.f.d.A._ III, 172-82; ++Suchier,\n    _Jenaer Literatur-Zeitung_, XLVII, 732, 1876.\n\n    1877 HORNBURG, J. Die Composition des Beowulf. _Programm des K. Lyceums\n    in Metz._ Full summary by F. Hummel in _Archiv_, LXII, 231-3. See also\n    under 1884.\n\n    1877 SCHULTZE, M. Alt-heidnisches in der angelsaechsischen Poesie,\n    speciell im Beowulfsliede. Berlin.\n\n    1877 SUCHIER, H. Ueber die Sage von Offa u. Thrydho, _P.B.B._ IV,\n    500-21.\n\n    1878 MUELLER, N. Die Mythen im Be['o]wulf, in ihrem Verhaeltniss zur\n    germanischen Mythologie betrachtet. Dissertation, Heidelberg. Leipzig.\n\n    1879 LAISTNER, L. Nebelsagen. Stuttgart. (See above, p. 46, note.)\n\n    1879 SWEET, H. Old English etymologies: I, _Be['o]hata_, _Engl. Stud._\n    II, 312-14. (See above, p. 365.)\n\n    1880 GERING, H. Der Be['o]wulf u. die islaendische Grettissaga,\n    _Anglia_, III, 74-87. (Important. Gering announced Vigf['u]sson's\n    discovery to a wider circle of readers, with translation of the\n    Sandhaugar episode, and useful comment. The discovery was further\n    announced to American readers by GARNETT in the _American Journal of\n    Philology_, I, 492 (1880), though its importance was there rather\n    understated. See above, p. 54.)\n\n    {400}\n\n    1881 SMITH, C. SPRAGUE. Be['o]wulf Gretti, _New Englander_, XL (N. S.\n    IV), 49-67. (Translation of corresponding passages in Grettis saga and\n    Beowulf.)\n\n    1882 MARCH, F. A. The World of Beowulf, _Proceedings of Amer. Phil.\n    Assoc._ pp. xxi-xxiii.\n\n    1883 ROENNING, F. Beovulfs-kvadet; en literaer-historisk undersoegelse.\n    Koebenhavn. Review: Heinzel, _A.f.d.A._ X, 233-9. (Roenning criticises\n    Muellenhoff's theories of separate lays. His book and Heinzel's review\n    are both important.)\n\n    1883 MERBOT, R. Aesthetische Studien zur Ags. Poesie. Breslau. Reviews:\n    Koch, _Anglia_, VI, _Anzeiger_, 100-3; Kluge, _Engl. Stud._, VIII,\n    480-2.\n\n    1884 EARLE, J. Anglo-Saxon Literature (The dawn of European\n    Literature). London. (Pp. 120-39 deal with Beowulf. Earle holds Beowulf\n    to be \"a genuine growth of that junction in time ... when the heathen\n    tales still kept their traditional interest, and yet the spirit of\n    Christianity had taken full possession of the Saxon mind.\")\n\n    1884 FAHLBECK, P. Beowulfs-kvaedet s[oa]som kaella foer nordisk\n    fornhistoria, _Antikvar. tidskr. foer Sverige_, VIII, 1-87. Review:\n    _Academy_, XXIX, 1886, p. 12. (See above, pp. 8, 333.)\n\n    1884 HARRISON, J. A. Old Teutonic life in Beowulf, _Overland Monthly_,\n    Sec. Ser. vol. IV, 14-24; 152-61.\n\n    1884 HERTZ, W. Beowulf, das aelteste germanische Epos, _Nord und Sued_,\n    XXIX, 229-53.\n\n    1884 HORNBURG, J. Die komposition des Beovulf, _Archiv_, LXXII,\n    333-404. (Rejects Muellenhoff's \"Liedertheorie.\")\n\n    1884 KRUEGER, TH. Zum Beowulfliede. Bromberg. Reviewed favourably by\n    Koelbing, _Engl. Stud._ IX, 150; severely by Kluge, _Literaturblatt_,\n    1884, 428-9. (A useful summary, which had the misfortune to be\n    superseded next year by the publication of Wuelker's _Grundriss_.)\n\n    1884 KRUEGER, TH. UEber Ursprung u. Entwickelung des Beowulfliedes,\n    _Archiv_, LXXI, 129-52.\n\n    1884-5 EARLE, J. Beowulf, in _The Times_, London (Aug. 25, 1884, p. 6\n    (not signed); Oct. 29, 1885, p. 3; Sept. 30, 1885, p. 3. \"The Beowulf\n    itself is a tale of old folk-lore which, in spite of repeated editing,\n    has never quite lost the old crust of its outline.... This discovery,\n    if established, must have the effect of quite excluding the application\n    of the Wolffian hypothesis to our poem.\")\n\n    1885 WUELKER, R. Grundriss zur geschichte der angelsaechsischen\n    Litteratur. Leipzig. 6. Die angelsaechsische Heldendichtung, Beowulf,\n    Finnsburg, 244-315. (An important and useful summary.)\n\n    1885 LEHMANN, H. Bruenne und Helm im angelsaechsischen Beowulfliede.\n    Dissertation, Goettingen. Leipzig. Reviews: Wuelker, _Anglia_, VIII,\n    _Anzeiger_, 167-70; Schulz, _Engl. Stud._ IX, 471.\n\n    1886 SKEAT, W. W. On the signification of the monster Grendel ... with\n    a discussion of ll. 2076-2100. Read before the Cambridge Philological\n    Society. _Journal of Philology_, XV, 120-31. (Not _American Jour. of\n    Phil._, as frequently quoted.)\n\n    1886 SARRAZIN, G. Die Beowulfsage in Daenemark, _Anglia_, IX, 195-9;\n    Beowa und Boethvar, _Anglia_, IX, 200-4; Beowulf und Kynewulf,\n    _Anglia_, IX, 515-50; Der Schauplatz des ersten Beowulfliedes und die\n    Heimat des Dichters, _P.B.B._ XI, 159-83 (see above, p. 101).\n\n    1886 SIEVERS, E. Die Heimat des Beowulfdichters, _P.B.B._ XI, 354-62.\n\n    1886 SARRAZIN, G. Altnordisches im Beowulfliede, _P.B.B._ XI, 528-41.\n    (See above, p. 102.)\n\n    1886 SIEVERS, E. Altnordisches im Beowulf? _P.B.B._ XII, 168-200.\n\n    {401}\n\n    1886 SCHILLING, H. Notes on the Finnsaga, _M.L.N._ I, 89-92; 116-17.\n\n    1886 LEHMANN, H. Ueber die Waffen im angelsaechsischen Beowulfliede,\n    _Germania_, XXXI, 486-97.\n\n    1887 SCHILLING, H. The Finnsburg-fragment and the Finn-episode,\n    _M.L.N._ II, 146-50.\n\n    1887 MORLEY, H. Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, in _English\n    Writers_, vol. I, 276-354. London.\n\n    1887 BUGGE, S. Studien ueber das Beowulfepos, _P.B.B._ XII, 1-112,\n    360-75. Important. (Das Finnsburgfragment, pp. 20-8.)\n\n    1887 ++SCHNEIDER, F. Der Kampf mit Grendels Mutter. _Program des\n    Friedrichs Real-Gymnasiums._ Berlin.\n\n    1888 TEN BRINK, B. Beowulf. Untersuchungen. (_Quellen u. Forschungen_,\n    LXII.) (Important. See above, p. 113.) Strassburg. Reviews: Wuelker,\n    _Anglia_, XI, 319-21 and _Lit. Cbl._ 1889, 251; Moeller, _Engl. Stud._\n    XIII, 247-315 (weighty, containing some good remarks on the\n    Jutes-Geatas); Koeppel, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXIII, 113-22; Heinzel, _A.f.d.A._\n    XV, 153-82 (weighty); Liebermann, _Deut. Zeitschr. f.\n    Geschichtswissenschaft_, II, 1889, 197-9; Kraus, _D.L.Z._ XII, 1891,\n    1605-7, 1846: reply by ten Brink (\"Beowulfkritik und _ABAB_\"), _D.L.Z._\n    1892, 109-12.\n\n    1888 SARRAZIN, G. Beowulf-Studien. Berlin. Reviews: Koeppel, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XIII, 472-80; Sarrazin, Entgegnung, _Engl. Stud._ XIV, 421\n    _etc._, reply by Koeppel, XIV, 427; Sievers, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXI, 366;\n    Dieter, _Archiv_, LXXXIII, 352-3; Heinzel, _A.f.d.A._ XV, 182-9;\n    Wuelker, _Lit. Cbl._ 1889, 315-16; Wuelker, _Anglia_, XI, 536-41.\n    Holthausen, _Literaturblatt_, 1890, 14-16; Liebermann, _Deut. Zeitschr.\n    f. Geschichtswissenschaft_, VI, 1891, 138; Kraus, _D.L.Z._ XII, 1891,\n    pp. 1822-3. (All these reviews express dissent from Sarrazin's main\n    conclusions, though many of them show appreciation of details in his\n    work. See above, p. 101.)\n\n    1888 KITTREDGE, G. L. Zu Beowulf, 107 _etc._, _P.B.B._ XIII, 210\n    (Cain's kin).\n\n    1889 MUELLENHOFF, K. Beovulf (pp. 110-65=_Z.f.d.A._ XIV, 193-244).\n    Berlin. See above, pp. 46-7, 113-15. Reviews: Schirmer, _Anglia_, XII,\n    465-7; Sarrazin, _Engl. Stud._ XVI, 71-85 (important); Wuelker, _Lit.\n    Cbl._ 1890, 58-9; Heinzel, _A.f.d.A._ XVI, 264-75 (important); Koeppel,\n    _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXIII, 110-13; Holthausen, _Literaturblatt_, 1890, 370-3;\n    Liebermann, _Deut. Zeitschr. f. Geschichtswissenschaft_, VI, 1891,\n    135-7; Kraus, _D.L.Z._ XII, 1891, pp. 1820-2; Logeman, _Le Moyen\n    [^A]ge_, III, 266-7 (\"personne ne conteste plus ... que le po[`e]me se\n    composait originairement de plusieurs parties\"). Muellenhoff's book,\n    like that of ten Brink, is based on assumptions generally held at the\n    time, but now not so widely accepted; yet it remains important.\n\n    1889 LAISTNER, L. Das Raetsel der Sphinx. Berlin. (See above, p. 67.)\n\n    1889 LUENING, O. Die Natur ... in der altgermanischen und\n    mittelhochdeutschen Epik. Zuerich. Reviews: Weinhold, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXII,\n    246-7; Golther, _D.L.Z._ 1889, 710-2; Ballerstedt, _A.f.d.A._ XVI,\n    71-4; Fraenkel, _Literaturblatt_, 1890, 439-44.\n\n    1890 ++DESKAU, H. Zum studium des Beowulf. Berichte des freien\n    deutschen Hochstiftes, 1890. Frankfurt.\n\n    1890 ++KLOEPPER, C. Heorot-Hall in the Anglo-Saxon poem of Beowulf.\n    Festschrift fuer K. E. Krause. Rostock.\n\n    1891 JELLINEK, M. H. and KRAUS, C. Die Widersprueche im Beowulf,\n    _Z.f.d.A_, XXXV, 265-81.\n\n    1891 BUGGE, S. and OLRIK, A. Roeveren ved Gr[oa]sten og Beowulf,\n    _Dania_, I, 233-45.\n\n    1891 JELLINEK, M. H. Zum Finnsburgfragment, _P.B.B._ XV, 428-31.\n\n    1892 EARLE, J. The Introduction to his Translation (q.v.) gave a\n    summary of the controversy, with \"a constructive essay.\"\n\n    {402}\n\n    1892 BROOKE, STOPFORD A. History of Early English Literature (Beowulf,\n    pp. 17-131). London. Reviews: McClumpha, _M.L.N._ VIII, 27-9, 1892\n    (attacks in a letter of unnecessary violence); Wuelker, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_ IV, 170-6, 225-33; Gloede, _Engl. Stud._ XXII, 264-70.\n\n    1892 GUMMERE, F. B. Germanic Origins. A study in primitive culture. New\n    York.\n\n    1892 FERGUSON, R. The Anglo-Saxon name Beowulf, _Athenaeum_, June, 1892\n    p. 763. See above, p. 368.\n\n    1892 HAACK, O. Zeugnisse zur altenglischen Heldensage. Kiel.\n\n    1892 ++KRAUS, K. Hrodulf. (P. Moneta, zum 40 jaehr. Dienstjub.) Wien.\n    (p. 4 _etc._)\n\n    1892 OLRIK, A. Er Uffesagnet indvandret fra England? _A.f.n.F._ VIII\n    (N.F. IV), 368-75.\n\n    1892 SARRAZIN, G. Die Abfassungszeit des Beowulfliedes, _Anglia_, XIV,\n    399-415.\n\n    1892 SIEVERS, E. Sceaf in den nordischen Genealogien, _P.B.B._ XVI,\n    361-3.\n\n    1892 KOEGEL, R. Beowulf, _Z.f.d.A._ XXXVII, 268-76. (Etymology of the\n    name.) Discussed by Sievers, _P.B.B._ XVIII, 413. See above, p. 367,\n    footnote.\n\n    1893 WARD, H. L. D. Catalogue of Romances in the British Museum;\n    Beowulf: vol. II, pp. 1-15, 741-3.\n\n    1893 TEN BRINK, B. Altenglische Literatur, _Pauls Grdr._(1), II, I,\n    510-50. (Finnsburg, 545-50.)\n\n    1894 MCNARY, S. J. Beowulf and Arthur as English Ideals, _Poet-Lore_,\n    VI, 529-36.\n\n    1894 ++DETTER, F. Ueber die Headhobarden im Beowulf, _Verhandl. d.\n    Wiener Philologenversammlung_, Mai, 1893. Leipzig, p. 404 _etc._\n    (Argues that the story is not historical, but mythical--_Ragnarok_.)\n\n    1895 SIEVERS, E. Beowulf und Saxo, _Berichte der kgl. saechs.\n    Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften_, XLVII, 175-93. (Important, see above,\n    pp. 90-7.)\n\n    1895 BINZ, G. Zeugnisse zur germanischen sage in England, _P.B.B._ XX,\n    141-223. (A most useful collection, though the significance of many of\n    the names collected is open to dispute.)\n\n    1895 KLUGE, F. Zeugnisse zur germanischen sage in England, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XXI, 446-8.\n\n    1895-6 KLUGE, F. Der Beowulf u. die Hrolfs Saga Kraka, _Engl. Stud._\n    XXII, 144-5.\n\n    1896 Sarrazin, G. Neue Beowulf-studien, _Engl. Stud._ XXIII, 221-67.\n\n    1897 Ker, W. P. Epic and Romance. London. (Beowulf, pp. 182-202.\n    Important. See above, p. 116.) Reviews: Fischer, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, X,\n    133-5; Brandl, _Archiv_, C, 198-200. New edit. 1908.\n\n    1897 BLACKBURN, F. A. The Christian coloring in the Beowulf, _Pub. Mod.\n    Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XII, 205-25. (See above, p. 125.)\n\n    1897 SARRAZIN, G. Die Hirschhalle, _Anglia_, XIX, 368-92; Der\n    Balder-kultus in Lethra, _ibid._ 392-7; Rolf Krake und sein Vetter im\n    Beowulfliede, _Engl. Stud._ XXIV, 144-5. (Important. See above, p. 31.)\n\n    1897 HENNING, R. Sceaf und die westsaechsische Stammtafel, _Z.f.d.A._\n    XLI, 156-69.\n\n    1898 ARNOLD, T. Notes on Beowulf. London. Reviews: Hulme, _M.L.N._ XV,\n    22-6, 1900; Sarrazin, _Engl. Stud._ XXVIII, 410-18; Garnett, _Amer.\n    Jour. of Phil._ XX, 443.\n\n    1898 NIEDNER, F. Die Dioskuren im Beowulf, _Z.f.d.A._ XLII, 229-58.\n\n    1899 COOK, A. S. An Irish Parallel to the Beowulf Story, _Archiv_,\n    CIII, 154-6.\n\n    1899 AXON, W. E. A. A reference to the evil eye in Beowulf, _Trans. of\n    the Royal Soc. of Literature_, London. (Very slight.)\n\n    {403}\n\n    1899 ++FURST, CLYDE. \"Beowulf\" in \"A Group of Old Authors.\"\n    Philadelphia. (Popular.) Review: Child, _M.L.N._ XV, 31-2.\n\n    1900 FOERSTER, MAX. B[^e]owulf-Materialien, zum Gebrauch bei\n    Vorlesungen. Braunschweig. Reviews: Holthausen, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XI,\n    289; Behagel, _Literaturblatt_, 1902, 67 (very brief).\n\n        1908. 2 Aufl.\n\n        1912. 3 Aufl. Review: Wild, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXIV, 166-7.\n\n    1901 POWELL, F. YORK. Beowulf and Watanabe-No-Tsema, _Furnivall\n    Miscellany_, pp. 395-6. Oxford. (A parallel from Japanese legend.)\n\n    1901 LEHMANN, E. Fandens Oldemor, _Dania_, VIII, 179-94. Repeated\n    (\"Teuffels Grossmutter\"), _Archiv f. Religionswiss._ VIII, 411-30. (See\n    above, p. 49, note, and p. 381.)\n\n    1901 ++OTTO, E. Typische Motive in dem weltlichen Epos der\n    Angelsachsen. Berlin. Reviews: Binz, _Engl. Stud._ XXXII, 401-5; Spies,\n    _Archiv_, CXV, 222.\n\n    1901 OHLENBECK, C. C. Het B['e]owulf-epos als geschiedbron,\n    _Tijdschrift voor nederlandsche taal- en letterkunde_, XX (N. R. XII),\n    169-96.\n\n    1902 _Gerould, G. H._ Offa and Labhraidh Maen, _M.L.N._ XVII, 201-3.\n    (An Irish parallel of the story of the dumb young prince.)\n\n    1902 GOUGH, A. B. The Constance-Saga. Berlin. (The \"Thrytho saga,\" pp.\n    53-83.) Reviews: Eckhardt, _Engl. Stud._ XXXII, 110-3; Weyrauch,\n    _Archiv_, CXI, 453.\n\n    1902 BOER, R. C. Die B['e]owulfsage. I. Mythische reconstructionen; II.\n    Historische untersuchung der ueberlieferung; _A.f.n.F._ XIX (N. F. XV),\n    19-88.\n\n    1902 BRANDL, A. Ueber den gegenwaertigen Stand der Beowulf-Forschung,\n    _Archiv_, CVIII, 152-5.\n\n    1903 ANDERSON, L. F. The Anglo-Saxon Scop. (_Univ. of Toronto Studies,\n    Phil. Ser. 1._) Review: Heusler, _A.f.d.A._ XXXI, 113-5.\n\n    1903 OLRIK, A. Danmarks Heltedigtning: I, Rolf Krake og den aeldre\n    Skjoldungraekke. Kobenhavn. (Most important.) Reviews: Heusler,\n    _A.f.d.A._ XXX, 26-36; Golther, _Literaturblatt_, XXVIII, 1907, pp.\n    8-9; Ranisch, _A.f.d.A._ XXI, 276-80. Revised translation 1919 (q.v.).\n\n    1903 ++BOER, R. C. Eene episode uit den Beowulf, _Handelingen van het 3\n    nederl. phil. congres._, p. 84 _etc._\n\n    1903 A Summary of the _Lives of the Offas_, with reproductions of a\n    number of the drawings in _MS Cotton Nero D. I_, in _The Ancestor_, V,\n    99-137.\n\n    1903 HART, J. M. Allotria [on the forms _B[=e]anst[=a]n_, l. 524 and\n    _Thr[=y]dho_, l. 1931], _M.L.N._ XVIII, 117.\n\n    1903 STJERNA, K. Hjaelmar och svaerd i Beovulf, _Studier tillaegnade O.\n    Montelius_, 99-120. Stockholm. See above, pp. 346 _etc._\n\n    1903-4 BOER, R. C. Finnsage und Nibelungen-sage, _Z.f.d.A._ XLVII,\n    125-60.\n\n    1904 RICKERT, E. The O.E. Offa-saga, _Mod. Phil._ II, 29-76 and 321-76.\n    (Important. See above, pp. 34 _etc._)\n\n    1904 HAGEN, S. N. Classical names and stories in Beowulf, _M.L.N._ XIX,\n    65-74 and 156-65. (Very fantastic).\n\n    1904 STJERNA, K. Vendel och Vendelkr[oa]ka, _A.f.n.F._ XXI (N. F.\n    XVII), 71-80. (Most important: see above, pp. 343-5.)\n\n    1904 ++VETTER, F. Beowulf und das altdeutsche Heldenzeitalter in\n    England, _Deutschland_, III, 558-71.\n\n    1905 MOORMAN, F. W. The interpretation of nature in English poetry from\n    Beowulf to Shakespeare. Strassburg. _Quellen u. Forschungen_, 95.\n\n    {404}\n\n    1905 ROUTH, J. E. Two studies on the Ballad Theory of the Beowulf: I.\n    The Origin of the Grendel legend; II. Irrelevant Episodes and\n    Parentheses as features of Anglo-Saxon Poetic Style. Baltimore.\n    Reviews: Eckhardt, _Engl. Stud._ XXXVII, 404-5; Heusler, _A.f.d.A._\n    XXXI, 115-16; Schuecking, _D.L.Z._ 1905, pp. 1908-10.\n\n    1905 HEUSLER, A. Lied und Epos in germanischer Sagendichtung. Dortmund.\n    (See above, p. 116.) Reviews: Kauffmann, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXVIII, 546-8;\n    Seemueller, _A.f.d.A._ XXXIV, 129-35; Meyer, _Archiv_, CXV, 403-4;\n    Helm, _Literaturblatt_, XXVIII, 237-8.\n\n    1905 SCHUECKING, L. L. Beowulfs Rueckkehr. (_Morsbachs Studien_, XXI.)\n    Halle. (Important: see above, pp. 118-20.) Review: Brandl, _Archiv_,\n    CXV, 421-3 (dissenting).\n\n    1905 SCHUECK, H. Studier i Ynglingatal, I-III. Uppsala.\n\n    1905 HANSCOM, E. D. The Feeling for Nature in Old English Poetry,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ V, 439-63.\n\n    1905 SARRAZIN, G. Neue Beowulf Studien, _Engl. Stud._ XXXV, 19-27.\n\n    1905 STJERNA, K. Skoelds haedanfaerd, _Studier tillaegnade H. Schueck_,\n    110-34. Stockholm.\n\n    1905 ++STJERNA, K. Svear och Goetar under folkvandringstiden, _Svenska\n    Foernminnesforeningens Tidskr._ XII, 339-60. (Transl. by Clark Hall in\n    _Essays_. See under 1912.)\n\n    1905-6 RIEGER, M. Zum Kampf in Finnsburg, _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 9-12.\n\n    1905-6 HEUSLER, A. Zur Skioeldungendichtung, _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 57-87.\n\n    1905-6 NECKEL, J. Studien ueber Fr['o]dhi, _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 163-86.\n\n    1905-7 STJERNA, K. Arkeologiska anteckningar till Beovulf, _Kungl.\n    vitterhets akademiens m[oa]nadsblad_ for 1903-5 (1907), pp. 436-51.\n\n    1906 EMERSON, O. F. Legends of Cain, especially in Old and Middle\n    English (see particularly s. VI, \"Cain's Descendants\"), _Pub. Mod.\n    Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXI, 831-929. (Important.)\n\n    1906 SKEMP, A. R. Transformation of scriptural story, motive, and\n    conception in Anglo-Saxon poetry, _Mod. Phil._ IV, 423-70.\n\n    1906 DUFF, J. W. Homer and Beowulf: a literary parallel, _Saga-Book of\n    the Viking Club_. London.\n\n    1906 MORSBACH, L. Zur datierung des Beowulf-epos, _Nachrichten der kgl.\n    Ges. d. Wiss. zu Goettingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse_, pp. 252-77.\n    (Important. See above, pp. 107-12.)\n\n    1906 PFAENDLER, W. Die Vergnuegungen der Angelsachsen, _Anglia_, XXIX,\n    417-526.\n\n    1906 GARLANDA, F. B['e]owulf. Origini, bibliografia, metrica ...\n    significato storico, etico, sociologico. Roma. (Slight.)\n\n    1906 STJERNA, K. Drakskatten i Beovulf, _Fornvaennen_, I, 119-44.\n\n    1907 CHADWICK, H. M. Origin of the English Nation. Cambridge.\n    (Important.) Reviews: Andrews, _M.L.N._ XXIII, 261-2; Chambers,\n    _M.L.R._ IV, 262-6; Schuette, _A.f.n.F._ XXV (N. F. XXI), 310-32 (an\n    elaborate discussion of early Germanic ethnology and geography);\n    Huchon, _Revue Germanique_, III, 625-31.\n\n    1907 CHADWICK, H. M. \"Early National Poetry,\" in _Cambridge History of\n    English Literature_, vol. I, 19-32, 421-3. Important. See above, pp.\n    122-6.\n\n    1907 HART, WALTER MORRIS. Ballad and Epic. Boston: Harvard _Studies and\n    Notes in Philology and Literature_. (Important: see above, p. 116.)\n    Review: _Archiv_, CXIX, 468.\n\n    1907 OLRIK, A. Nordisk Aandsliv i Vikingetid og tidlig Middelalder.\n    Koebenhavn og Kristiania. (Translated into German by W. Ranisch, 1908,\n    as \"Nordisches Geistesleben.\")\n\n    {405}\n\n    1907 SCHUECK, H. Folknamnet Geatas i den fornengelska dikten Beowulf.\n    Uppsala. (Important. See above, pp. 8-10, 333 _etc._) Reviews: Mawer,\n    _M.L.R._ IV, 273; Freeburg, _J.E.G.Ph._ XI, 279-83.\n\n    1907 COOK, A. S. Various notes, _M.L.N._ XXI, 146-7. (Further classical\n    parallels to Beowulf, 1408 ff., in succession to a parallel from Seneca\n    quoted in _M.L.N._ XVII, 209-10.)\n\n    1907 SARRAZIN, G. Zur Chronologie u. Verfasserfrage Ags. Dichtungen,\n    _Engl. Stud._ XXXVIII, 145 _etc._, esp. 170-95 (Das Beowulflied und die\n    aeltere Genesis).\n\n    1907 BRANDL, A. Entstehungsgeschichte des Beowulfepos. A five-line\n    summary of this lecture is given in the _Sitzungsberichte d. k. preuss.\n    Akad. Phil.-Hist. Classe_, p. 615.\n\n    1907 HOLTHAUSEN, F. Zur altenglischen literatur--Zur datierung des\n    Beowulf, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XVIII, 77.\n\n    1907 ++GRUENER, H. Mathei Parisiensis vitae duorum Offarum, in ihrer\n    manuskript- und textgeschichte. Dissertation, Munich. Kaiserslautern.\n\n    1908 BRANDL, A. Geschichte der alteng. Literatur. (Offprint from _Pauls\n    Grdr._(2): Beowulf, pp. 988-1024; Finnsburg, pp. 983-6; an exceedingly\n    useful and discriminating summary.)\n\n    1908 SCHUECKING, L. L. Das Angelsaechsische Totenklagelied, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XXXIX, 1-13.\n\n    1908 WEYHE, H. Koenig Ongentheow's Fall, _Engl. Stud._ XXXIX, 14-39.\n\n    1908 NECKEL, G. Beitraege zur Eddaforschung; Anhang: Die altgermanische\n    heldenklage (pp. 495-6: cf. p. 376). Dortmund.\n\n    1908 KLAEBER, F. Zum Finnsburg Kampfe, _Engl. Stud._ XXXIX, 307-8.\n\n    1908 BJOERKMAN, E. Ueber den Namen der Jueten, _Engl. Stud._ XXXIX,\n    356-61.\n\n    1908 LEVANDER, L. Sagotraditioner om Sveakonungen Adils, _Antikvarisk\n    Tidskrift foer Sverige_, XVIII, 3.\n\n    1908 STJERNA, K. Fasta fornlaemningar i Beovulf, _Antikvarisk Tidskrift\n    foer Sverige_, XVIII, 4.\n\n    1908 GRAU, G. Quellen u. Verwandtschaften der aelteren germanischen\n    Darstellungen des juengsten Gerichtes. Halle. (See esp. pp. 145-56.)\n    Review: Guntermann, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XLI, 401-415.\n\n    1909 SCHUECK, H. Studier i Beowulfsagan. Uppsala. Review: Freeburg,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ XI, 488-97 (a very useful summary).\n\n    1909 LAWRENCE, W. W. Some disputed questions in Beowulf-criticism,\n    _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV, 220-73. (Very important.) Review:\n    Brandl, _Archiv_, CXXIII, 473.\n\n    1909 EHRISMANN, G. Religionsgeschichtliche Beitraege zum germanischen\n    Fruehchristentum, _P.B.B._ XXXV, 209-39.\n\n    1909 BUGGE, S. Die Heimat der Altnordischen Lieder von den Welsungen u.\n    den Nibelungen, II, _P.B.B._ XXXV, 240-71.\n\n    1909 DEUTSCHBEIN, M. Die Sagenhistorischen u. literarischen Grundlagen\n    des Beowulfepos, _Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift_, I, 103-19.\n\n    1910 OLRIK, A. Danmarks Heltedigtning: II, Starkad den gamle og den\n    yngre Skjoldungraekke. Koebenhavn. (Most important.) Reviews: Heusler,\n    _A.f.d.A._ XXXV, 169-83 (important); Ussing, _Danske Studier_, 1910,\n    193-203; Boer, _Museum_, XIX, 1912, 171-4.\n\n    1910 PANZER, F. Studien zur germanischen Sagengeschichte. I. Beowulf.\n    Muenchen. (Most important: see above, pp. 62-8; 365-81. Valuable\n    criticisms and modifications are supplied by the reviews, more\n    particularly perhaps that of von Sydow (_A.f.d.A._ XXXV, 123-31), but\n    also in the elaborate discussions of Heusler (_Engl. Stud._ XLII,\n    289-98), Binz (_Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXIV, 321-37), Brandl (_Archiv_,\n    CXXVI, 231-5), Kahle {406} (_Z.f.d.Ph._ XLIII, 383-94) and the briefer\n    ones of Lawrence (_M.L.N._ XXVII, 57-60) Sedgefield _(M.L.R._ VI,\n    128-31) and Golther (_Neue Jahrbuecher f. das klassische Altertum_,\n    XXV, 610-13).)\n\n    1910 BRADLEY, H. Beowulf, in _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, III, pp.\n    758-61. (Important. See above, pp. 121, 127-8.)\n\n    1910 SCHUECK, H. Sveriges foerkristna konungalaengd. Uppsala.\n\n    1910 CLARK HALL, J. R. A note on Beowulf, 1142-5, _M.L.N._ XXV, 113-14.\n    _(H[=u]nl[=a]fing._)\n\n    1910 SARRAZIN, G. Neue Beowulf-studien, _Engl. Stud._ XLII, 1-37.\n\n    1910 KLAEBER, F. Die aeltere Genesis und der Beowulf, _Engl. Stud._\n    XLII, 321-38.\n\n    1910 HEUSLER, A. Zeitrechnung im Beowulf-epos, _Archiv_, CXXIV, 9-14.\n\n    1910 NECKEL, G. Etwas von germanischer Sagenforschung, _Germ.-Rom.\n    Monatsschrift_, II, 1-14.\n\n    1910 SMITHSON, G. A. The Old English Christian Epic ... in comparison\n    with the Beowulf. Berkeley. _Univ. of California Pub. in Mod. Phil._\n    (See particularly pp. 363-8, 376-90.)\n\n    1911 CLARKE, M. G. Sidelights on Teutonic History. Cambridge. Reviews:\n    Mawer, _M.L.N._ VII, 126-7; Chambers, _Engl. Stud._ XLVIII, 166-8;\n    Fehr, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVI, 19-20; Imelmann, _D.L.Z._ XXXIV, 1913,\n    1062 _etc._\n\n    1911-19 HEUSLER, A. A series of articles in Hoops' _Reallexikon_:\n    Beowulf, Dichtung, Ermenrich, Gautensagen, Heldensage, Hengest,\n    Heremod, Offa, Skj[o,]ldungar, Ynglingar, _etc._ Strassburg.\n    (Important.)\n\n    1911 NECKEL, G. Ragnacharius von Cambrai, _Festschrift zur\n    Jahrhundertfeier der Universitaet zu Breslau = Mitt. d. Schlesischen\n    Gesellschaft fuer Volkskunde_, XIII-XIV, 121-54. (A historical parallel\n    between the treatment of Ragnachar by Chlodowech and that of Hrethric\n    by Hrothulf.)\n\n    1911 SCHOENFELD, M. Worterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und\n    Voelkernamen. Heidelberg. See also Schuette, Noter til Schoenfelds\n    Navnesamling, in _A.f.n.F._ XXXIII, 22-49.\n\n    1911 KLAEBER, F. Aeneis und Beowulf, _Archiv_, CXXVI, 40-8, 339-59.\n    (Important: see above, p. 330.)\n\n    1911 LIEBERMANN, F. Grendel als Personenname, _Archiv_, CXXVI, 180.\n\n    1911-12 KLAEBER, F. Die Christlichen Elemente im Beowulf, _Anglia_,\n    XXXV, 111-36, 249-70, 453-82; XXXVI, 169-99. (Most important:\n    demonstrates the fundamentally Christian character of the poem.)\n\n    1912 CHADWICK, H. Munro. The Heroic Age. Cambridge. (Important: see\n    above, p. 122.) Reviews: Mawer, _M.L.R._ VIII, 207-9; Chambers, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XLVIII, 162-6.\n\n    1912 STJERNA, K. Essays on questions connected with the O.E. poem of\n    Beowulf, transl. and ed. by John R. Clark Hall, (Viking Club),\n    Coventry. (Important: see above, pp. 346 _etc._) Reviews: Klaeber,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ XIII, 167-73, weighty; Mawer, _M.L.N._ VIII, 242-3;\n    _Athenaeum_, 1913, I, 459-60; Brandl, _Archiv_, CXXXII, 238-9;\n    Schuette, _A.f.n.F._ XXXIII, 64-96, elaborate; Olrik, _Nord. Tidskr. f.\n    Filol._ IV, 2. 127; Mogk, _Historische Vierteljahrsschrift_, XVIII,\n    196-7.\n\n    1912 CHAMBERS, R. W. Widsith: a study in Old English heroic legend.\n    Cambridge. Reviews: Mawer, _M.L.R._ VIII, 118-21; Lawrence, _M.L.N._\n    XXVIII, 53-5; Fehr, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVI, 289-95; Jordan, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XLV, 300-2; Berendsohn, _Literaturblatt_, XXXV (1914), 384-6.\n\n    1912 BOER, R. C. Die Altenglische Heldendichtung. I. B['e]owulf. Halle.\n    (Important.) Reviews: ++Jantzen, _Z. f. franzoesischen u. englischen\n    Unterricht_, XIII, 546-7; Berendsohn, _Literaturblatt_, XXXV, 152-4;\n    Dyboski, _Allgemeines Literaturblatt_, XXII, 1913, 497-9; Imelmann,\n    _D.L.Z._ XXXIV, 1913, 1062-6 (weighty criticisms); Barnouw, _Museum_,\n    XXI, 53-8.\n\n    {407}\n\n    1912 VON DER LEYEN, F. Die deutschen Heldensagen (Beowulf, pp. 107-23,\n    345-7). Muenchen.\n\n    1912 MEYER, W. Beitraege zur Geschichte der Eroberung Englands.\n    Dissertation, Halle. (Finn story.)\n\n    1912 LAWRENCE, W. W. The haunted mere in Beowulf. _Pub. Mod. Lang.\n    Assoc. Amer._ XXVII, 208-45. (Important. See above, pp. 52-3.)\n\n    1912 SCHUETTE, G. The Geats of Beowulf, _J.E.G.Ph._ XI, 574-602. (See\n    above, pp. 8, 333 _etc._)\n\n    1912 STEFANOVI[VC], S. Ein beitrag zur angelsaechsischen Offa-sage,\n    _Anglia_, XXXV, 483-525.\n\n    1912 MUCH, R. Grendel, _W[=o]rter u. Sachen_, IV, 170-3. (Deriving\n    _Vendsyssel_, Vandal, and the _Wendle_ of Beowulf from _wandil_--\"a\n    bough, wand.\")\n\n    1912 CHAMBERS, R. W. Six thirteenth century drawings illustrating the\n    story of Offa and of Thryth (Drida) from _MS Cotton Nero D. I._ London,\n    _privately printed_.\n\n    1913 ++FAHLBECK, P. Beowulfskvaedet som kaella foer nordisk\n    fornhistoria. (Stockholm, _N. F. K. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets\n    Akademiens Handlingar_, 13, 3.) Review: Klaeber, _Engl. Stud._ XLVIII,\n    435-7.\n\n    1913 NERMAN, B. Studier oever Svaerges hedna litteratur. Uppsala.\n\n    1913 NERMAN, B. Vilka konungar ligga i Uppsala hoegar? Uppsala.\n\n    1913 LAWRENCE, W. W. The Breca episode in Beowulf (Anniversary papers\n    to G. L. Kittredge). Boston.\n\n    1913 SARRAZIN, G. Von Kaedmon bis Kynewulf. Berlin. Reviews: Dudley,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ XV, 313-17; Berendsohn, _Literaturblatt_, XXXV (1914),\n    386-8; Funke, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXXI, 121-33.\n\n    1913 THOMAS, P. G. Beowulf and Daniel A, _M.L.R._ VIII, 537-9.\n    (Parallels between the two poems.)\n\n    1913 BELDEN, H. M. Onela the Scylfing and Ali the Bold, _M.L.N._\n    XXVIII, 149-53.\n\n    1913 STEDMAN, D. Some points of resemblance between Beowulf and the\n    Grettla (or Grettis Saga). From the _Saga Book of the Viking Club_,\n    London. (It should have been held unnecessary to prove the relationship\n    yet once again.)\n\n    1913 VON SYDOW, C. W. Irisches in Beowulf[874]. (_Verhandlungen der 52\n    Versammlung deutscher Philologen in Marburg_, pp. 177-80.)\n\n    1913 BERENDSOHN, W. A. Drei Schichten dichterischer Gestaltung im\n    Beowulfepos, _Muenchener Museum_, II, i, pp. 1-33.\n\n    1913 DEUTSCHBEIN, M. Beowulf der Gautenkoenig, _Festschrift fuer Lorenz\n    Morsbach_, Halle, pp. 291-7, _Morsbachs Studien_, L. (Very important.\n    Expresses very well, and with full working out of details, the doubts\n    which some of us had already felt as to the historic character of the\n    reign of Beowulf over the Geatas.)\n\n    {408}\n\n    1913 BENARY, W. Zum Beowulf-Grendelsage, _Archiv_, CXXX, 154-5.\n    (Graendelsm[^o]r in Siebenbuergen: see above, p. 308.)\n\n    1913 KLAEBER, F. Das Graendelsm[^o]r--eine Frage, _Archiv_, CXXXI, 427.\n\n    1913 BRATE, E. Betydelsen av ortnamnet Skaelv [cf. Scilfingas], _Namn\n    och Bygd_, I, 102-8.\n\n    1914 MUELLER, J. Das Kulturbild des Beowulfepos. Halle. _Morsbachs\n    Studien_, LIII. Reviews: Klaeber, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVII, 241-4;\n    Brunner, _Archiv_, CXXXVIII, 242-3.\n\n    1914 MOORMAN, F. W. English place-names and Teutonic Sagas, in _Essays\n    and Studies by members of the English Association_, vol. V, pp. 75-103.\n    (Argues that \"Gilling\" and other place-names in Yorkshire, point to an\n    early colony of Scandinavian \"Gautar,\" who may have been instrumental\n    in introducing Scandinavian traditions into England.)\n\n    1914 OLSON, O. L. Beowulf and the Feast of Bricriu, _Mod. Phil._ XI,\n    407-27. (Emphasises the slight character of the parallels noted by\n    Deutschbein.)\n\n    1914 VON SYDOW, C. W. Grendel i anglosaxiska ortnamn, in _Nordiska\n    Ortnamn, hyllningsskrift tillaegnad Adolf Noreen_, Uppsala, pp.\n    160-4=_Namn och Bygd_, II. (Important).\n\n    1915 KIER, CHR. Beowulf, et Bidrag til Nordens Oldhistorie. Koebenhavn.\n    (An elaborate and painstaking study of the historic problems of\n    Beowulf, vitiated throughout by quite unjustifiable assumptions. See\n    above, p. 333 _etc._) Review: Bjoerkmann, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVII,\n    244-6.\n\n    1915 BRADLEY, H. The Numbered Sections in Old English Poetical MSS,\n    _Proc. Brit. Acad._ vol. VII.\n\n    1915 LAWRENCE, W. W. Beowulf and the tragedy of Finnsburg, _Pub. Mod.\n    Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXX, 372-431. (Important. An excellent survey of\n    the Finnsburg problems.)\n\n    1915 VAN SWERINGEN, G. F. The main ... types of men in the Germanic\n    Hero-Sagas, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIV, 212-25.\n\n    1915-19 LINDROTH, H. Aer Sk[oa]ne de gamles Scadinavia? _Namn och\n    Bygd_, III, 1915, 10-28. Lindroth denied that the two words are the\n    same, and was answered by A. Kock (_A.f.n.F._ XXXIV, 1917, 71 _etc._),\n    A. Noreen (in ++_Studier tillegn. E. Tegn['e]r_, 1918) and E. Bjoerkman\n    (\"Scedeland, Scedenig,\" _Namn och Bygd_, VI, 1918, 162-8). Lindroth\n    replied (\"Aero Scadinavia och Sk[oa]ne samma ord,\" _A.f.n.F._ XXXV,\n    1918, 29 _etc._, and \"Skandinavien och Sk[oa]ne,\" _Namn och Bygd_, VI,\n    1918, 104-12) and was answered by Kock (\"Vidare om Sk[oa]ne och\n    Scadinavia,\" _A.f.n.F._ XXXVI, 74-85). Bjoerkman's discussion is the\n    one of chief importance to students of Beowulf.\n\n    1915 KLAEBER, F. Observations on the Finn episode, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIV,\n    544-9.\n\n    1915 ANSCOMBE, A. Beowulf in High-Dutch saga, _Notes and Queries_, Aug.\n    21, 1915, pp. 133-4.\n\n    1915 BERENDSOHN, WALTER A. Die Gelage am Daenenhof zu Ehren Beowulfs,\n    _Muenchener Museum_, III, i, 31-55.\n\n    1915-16 PIZZO, E. Zur frage der aesthetischen einheit des Beowulf,\n    _Anglia_, XXXIX, 1-15. (Sees in Beowulf the uniform expression of the\n    early Anglo-Saxon Christian ideal.)\n\n    1916 OLSON, O. L. The relation of the Hr['o]lfs Saga Kraka and the\n    Bjarkar['i]mur to Beowulf. Chicago. (Olson emphasises that the monster\n    slain by Bjarki in the _Saga_ does not attack the hall, but the cattle\n    outside, and is therefore a different kind of monster from Grendel (p.\n    30). But he does not disprove the general equation of Beowulf and\n    Bjarki: many of the most striking points of resemblance, such as the\n    support given to Eadgils (Athils) against Onela (Ali), lie outside the\n    scope of his study.) Review: Hollander, _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 147-9.\n\n    {409}\n\n    1916 NECKEL, G. Adel und gefolgschaft, _P.B.B._ XLI, 385-436 (esp. pp.\n    410 ff. for social conditions in Beowulf).\n\n    1917 FLOM, G. T. Alliteration and Variation in Old Germanic name\n    giving, _M.L.N._ XXXII, 7-17.\n\n    1917 MEAD, G. W. Widher[gh]yld of Beowulf, 2051, _M.L.N._ XXXII, 435-6.\n    (Suggests, very reasonably, that Widher[gh]yld is the father of the\n    young Heathobard warrior who is stirred to revenge.)\n\n    1917 AYRES, H. M. The tragedy of Hengest in Beowulf, _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI,\n    282-95. (See above, pp. 266-7.)\n\n    1917 AURNER, N. S. An analysis of the interpretations of the Finnsburg\n    documents. (_Univ. of Iowa Monographs: Humanistic Studies_, I, 6.)\n\n    1917 BJOERKMAN, E. Zu ae. _Eote_, _Yte_, usw., daen. _Jyder_, \"Jueten,\"\n    _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVIII, 275-80. (See above, p. 334.)\n\n    1917 ROOTH, E. G. T. Der name Grendel in der Beowulfsage, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XXVIII, 335-40. (Etymologies. Grendel is the \"sandman,\" a\n    man-eating monster of the sea-bottom. With this, compare Panzer's\n    interpretation of Grendel as the \"earthman.\" See above, p. 309.)\n\n    1917 SCHUECKING, L. L. Wann entstand der Beowulf? Glossen, Zweifel und\n    Fragen, _P.B.B._ XLII, 347-410. (Important. See above, pp. 322-32.)\n\n    1917 FOG, REGINALD. Trolden \"Grendel\" i Bjovulf: en hypothese, _Danske\n    Studier_, 1917, 134-40. (Grendel is here interpreted as an infectious\n    disease, prevalent among those who sleep in an ill-ventilated hall in a\n    state of intoxication, but to which Beowulf, whose health has been\n    confirmed by a recent sea-voyage, is not liable. This view is not as\n    new as its author believes it to be, and a letter from von Holstein\n    Rathlau is added, pointing this out. It might further have been pointed\n    out that as early as 1879 Grendel was explained as the malaria. Cf. the\n    theories of Laistner, Koegel and Golther, and see above, p. 46.)\n\n    1917 NEUHAUS, J. Sillende = vetus patria = Angel, _Nordisk Tidsskrift\n    foer Filologi_, IV. Raekke, Bd. V, 125-6; Helges Prinsesse Sv[oa]v[oa]\n    = Eider = den svebiske Flod hos Ptolemaeos, VI, 29-32; Halfdan = Frode\n    = Hadbardernes Konge, hvis Rige forenes med det danske, VI, 78-80;\n    Vestgermanske Navne i dansk Historie og Sprog, 141-4. The inherent\n    difficulty of the subject is enhanced by the obscurity of the writer's\n    style: but much of the argument (e.g. that Halfdan and Frode are\n    identical) is obviously based upon quite reckless conjectures. The\n    question is complicated by political feeling: many of Neuhaus'\n    arguments are repeated in his pamphlet, _Die Frage von Nordschleswig im\n    Lichte der neuesten vorgeschichtlichen Untersuchungen_, Jena, 1919. His\n    theories were vigorously refuted by G. SCHUETTE, \"Urjyske\n    'Vestgermaner,'\" _Nordisk Tidsskrift foer Filologi_, IV. Raekke, Bd.\n    VII, 129 _etc._\n\n    1917 ++FREDBORG. Det foersta [oa]rtalet i Sveriges historia. Ume[oa].\n\n    1917 NERMAN, B. Ynglingasagan i arkeologisk belysning, _Fornvaennen_,\n    1917, 226-61.\n\n    1917 NERMAN, B. Ottar Vendelkr[oa]ka och Ottarshoegen i Vendel,\n    _Upplands Fornminnesfoerenings Tidskrift_, VII, 309-34.\n\n    1917 BJOERKMAN, E. B[=e]owulf och Sveriges Historia, _Nordisk\n    Tidskrift_, 1917, 161-79.\n\n    1917-18 ++VON SYDOW, C. W. Draken som skattevaktare, _Danmarks\n    folkeminder_, XVII, 103 _etc._\n\n    1918 HACKENBERG, E. Die Stammtafeln der angelsaechsischen Koenigreiche,\n    Dissertation, Berlin. (A useful collection.) Reviews: Fischer, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XXXI, 73-4; Ekwall, _Engl. Stud._ LIV, 307-10; Liebemann,\n    _D.L.Z._ 1 March, 1919.\n\n    1918 LAWRENCE, W. W. The dragon and his lair in Beowulf, _Pub. Mod.\n    Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXXIII, 547-83.\n\n    {410}\n\n    1918 BELDEN, H. M. Beowulf 62, once more, _M.L.N._ XXXIII, 123.\n\n    1918 BELDEN, H. M. Scyld Scefing and Huck Finn, _M.L.N._ XXXIII, 315.\n\n    1918 KLAEBER, F. Concerning the relation between Exodus and Beowulf,\n    _M.L.N._ XXXIII, 218-24.\n\n    1918 BJOERKMAN, E. B[=e]ow, B[=e]aw, und B[=e]owulf, _Engl. Stud._ LII,\n    145-93. (Very important. See above, p. 304.)\n\n    1918 BRANDL, A. Die Urstammtafel der Westsachsen und das Beowulf-Epos,\n    _Archiv_, CXXXVII, 6-24. (See above, p. 200, note.)\n\n    1918 BRANDL, A. Die urstammtafel der englischen koenige,\n    _Sitzungsberichte d. k. preuss. Akad., Phil.-Hist. Classe_, p. 5. (Five\n    line summary only published).\n\n    1918 ++BJOERKMAN, E. B[=e]owulf-forskning och mytologi, _Finsk\n    Tidskrift_, 151 _etc._ (Cf. _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXX, 207.)\n\n    1918 BJOERKMAN, E. Skoeldungaaettens mytiska stamfaeder, _Nordisk\n    Tidskrift_, 163 _etc._\n\n    1918 V. UNWERTH, W. Eine schwed. Heldensage als deutsches Volksepos,\n    _A.f.n.F._ XXXV, 113-37. (An attempt to connect the story of Hygelac\n    and Haethcyn with the M.H.G. _Herbort [^u]z Tenelant_.)\n\n    1918 NEUHAUS, J. Om Skjold, _A.f.n.F._ XXXV, 166-72. (A dogmatic\n    assertion of errors in Olrik's arguments in the _Heltedigtning_.)\n\n    1918 CLAUSEN, H. V. Kong Hugleik, _Danske Studier_, 137-49.\n    (Conjectures based upon the assumption Geatas = Jutes.)\n\n    1918 ++LUND University \"Festskrift\" contains NORLIND, Skattsaegner; VON\n    SYDOW, Sigurds strid med Favne.\n\n    1919 OLRIK, A. The heroic legends of Denmark translated ... and revised\n    in collaboration with the author by Lee M. Hollander. New York. (Very\n    important.) Review: Flom, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIX, 284-90.\n\n    1919 BJOERKMAN, E. Bedwig in den westsaechsischen genealogien, _Anglia,\n    Beiblatt_, XXX, 23.\n\n    1919 BJOERKMAN, E. Zu einigen Namen im B[=e]owulf: _Breca_,\n    _Brondingas_, _Wealhth[=e]o(w)_; _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXX, 170-80.\n\n    1919 MOGK, E. Altgermanische Spukgeschichten: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur\n    Erklaerung der Grendelepisode im Beowulf, _Neue Jahrbuecher fuer das\n    klass. altertum ... und deutsche literatur_, XXXIV, 103-17. (Mogk here\n    abandons his older allegorical interpretation of Grendel as the\n    destroying power of the sea, and sees in the Grendel-story a Germanic\n    ghost-tale, poetically adorned.)\n\n    1919 BJOERKMAN, E. Skialf och Skilfing [edited by E. Ekwall, with a\n    note on Bjoerkman's work], _Namn och Bygd_, VII, 163-81.\n\n    1919 LINDERHOLM, E. Vendelshoegens konunganamn i socknens\n    1600-tals-tradition, _Namn och Bygd_, VII, 36-40.\n\n    1919 FOG, R. Bjarkemaals \"Hjalte,\" _Danske Studier_, 1919, 29-35. (With\n    a letter from A. Olrik.)\n\n    1919 SEVERINSEN, P. Kong Hugleiks Doedsaar, _Danske Studier_, 1919, 96.\n\n    1920 IMELMANN, R. Forschungen zur altenglischen Poesie. (IX. Hengest u.\n    Finn; X. _Enge [=a]npadhas, unc[=u]dh gel[=a]d_; XII. _Thr[=y]dho_;\n    XIII. _H[=ae]thenra hyht._) Berlin. (A weighty statement of some\n    original views).\n\n    1920 BJOERKMAN, E. Studien ueber die Eigennamen im Beowulf. Halle.\n    _Morsbachs Studien_, LVIII. (An extremely valuable and discriminating\n    digest. See above, p. 304.)\n\n    1920 BARTO, P. S. The _Schwanritter-Sceaf_ Myth in _Perceval le\n    Gallois_, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIX, 190-200.\n\n    1920 HUBBARD, F. G. The plundering of the Hoard. _Univ. Wisconsin\n    Stud._ 11.\n\n    {411}\n\n    1920 SCHUECKING, L. L. Widhergyld (Beowulf, 2051), _Engl. Stud._ LIII,\n    468-70. (Schuecking, like Mead, but independently, interprets\n    Withergyld as the name of the warrior whose son is being stirred to\n    revenge.)\n\n    1920 BJOERKMAN, E. Haedhcyn und H['a]kon, _Engl. Stud._ LIV, 24-34.\n\n    1920 HOOPS, J. Das Verhuellen des Haupts bei Toten, ein\n    angelsaechsisch-nordischer Brauch (Zu Beowulf, 446, _hafalan\n    h[=y]dan_), _Engl. Stud._ LIV, 19-23.\n\n    1920 NOREEN, A. Yngve, Inge, Inglinge [Ingwine], _Namn och Bygd_, VIII,\n    1-8.\n\n    1920 LA COUR, V. Lejrestudier, _Danske Studier_, 1920, 49-67. (Weighty.\n    Emphasizing the importance of the site of Leire in the sixth century.)\n    A discussion on the date and origin of Beowulf, by LIEBERMANN, is about\n    to appear (_Gott. Gelehrt. Gesellschaft_).\n\ns. 9. STYLE AND GRAMMAR\n\nTitles already given in previous sections are not repeated here. General\ntreatises on O.E. style and grammar are recorded here only if they have a\nspecial and exceptional bearing upon _Beowulf_.\n\n    1873 LICHTENHELD, A. Das schwache adjectiv im ags., _Z.f.d.A._ XVI,\n    325-93. (Important. See above, pp. 105-7.)\n\n    1875 HEINZEL, R. Ueber den Stil der altgermanischen Poesie. Strassburg.\n    (_Quellen u. Forschungen_, X.) (Important and suggestive: led to\n    further studies on the style of Beowulf, such as those of Hoffmann and\n    Bode.) Review: Zimmer, _A.f.d.A._ II, 294-300.\n\n    1877 ++ARNDT, O. Ueber die altgerm. epische Sprache. Paderborn.\n\n    1877 SCHOENBACH, A. [A discussion of words peculiar to sections of\n    Beowulf, added to a review of Ettmueller's Beowulf], _A.f.d.A._ III,\n    36-46. See also Moeller, _Volksepos_, 60 _etc._\n\n    1879 NADER, E. Zur Syntax des B['e]owulf. _Progr. der\n    Staats-Ober-Realschule_, in Bruenn. Review: Bernhardt,\n    _Literaturblatt_, 1880, 439-40 (unfavourable: reply by Nader and answer\n    by Bernhardt, 1881, 119-20).\n\n    1881 ++GUMMERE, F. B. The Anglo-Saxon metaphor. Dissertation, Freiburg.\n\n    1882 SCHEMANN, K. Die Synonyma im Be['o]wulfsliede, mit Ruecksicht auf\n    Composition u. Poetik des Gedichtes. Hagen. Dissertation, Muenster.\n    (Examines the use of noun-synonyms in the different sections of the\n    poem as divided by Muellenhoff, and finds no support for Muellenhoff's\n    theories.) Review: Kluge, _Literaturblatt_, 1883, 62-3.\n\n    1882 ++NADER, E. Der Genitiv im Be['o]wulf. Bruenn. Review: Klinghardt,\n    _Engl. Stud._ VI, 288.\n\n    1882 SCHULZ, F. Die Sprachformen des Hildebrand-Liedes im Beovolf.\n    Koenigsberg.\n\n    1883 NADER, E. Dativ u. Instrumental im Be['o]wulf. Wien. Review:\n    Klinghardt, _Engl. Stud._ VII, 368-70.\n\n    1883 HARRISON, J. A. List of irregular (strong) verbs in B['e]owulf,\n    _Amer. Jour. of Phil._ IV, 462-77.\n\n    1883 HOFFMANN, A. Der bildliche Ausdruck im Be['o]wulf u. in der Edda,\n    _Engl. Stud._ VI, 163-216.\n\n    1886 BODE, W. Die Kenningar in der angelsaechsischen Dichtung.\n    Darmstadt and Leipzig. Reviews: Gummere, _M.L.N._ II, 17-19\n    (important--praises Bode highly); Kluge, _Engl. Stud._ X, 117; Brandl,\n    _D.L.Z._ 1887, 897-8; Bischoff, _Archiv_, LXXIX, 115-6; Meyer,\n    _A.f.d.A._ XIII, 136.\n\n    1886 ++KOEHLER, K. Der syntaktische gebrauch des Infinitivs und\n    Particips im Beowulf. Dissertation, Muenster.\n\n    1886 BANNING, A. Die epischen Formeln im B[^e]owulf. I. Die verbalen\n    synonyma. Dissertation, Marburg.\n\n    {412}\n\n    1887 TOLMAN, A. H. The style of Anglo-Saxon poetry, _Trans. Mod. Lang.\n    Assoc. Amer._ III, 17-47.\n\n    1888-9 NADER, E. Tempus und modus im Beowulf, _Anglia_, X, 542-63; XI,\n    444-99.\n\n    1889 KAIL, J. Ueber die Parallelstellen in der Ags. Poesie, _Anglia_,\n    XII, 21-40. (A _reductio ad absurdum_ of the theories of Sarrazin.\n    Important.)\n\n    1891 DAVIDSON, C. The Phonology of the Stressed Vowels in B['e]owulf,\n    _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ VI, 106-33. Review: Karsten, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XVII, 417-20.\n\n    1892 SONNEFELD, G. Stilistisches und Wortschatz im Be['o]wulf.\n    Dissertation, Strassburg. Wuerzburg.\n\n    1893 TODT, A. Die Wortstellung im Beowulf, _Anglia_, XVI, 226-60.\n\n    1898 KISTENMACHER, R. Die woertlichen Wiederholungen im B[^e]owulf.\n    Dissertation, Greifswald. Reviews: Mead, _J.(E.)G.Ph._ II, 546-7;\n    Kaluza, _Engl. Stud._ XXVII, 121-2 (short but valuable).\n\n    1902 BARNOUW, A. J. Textkritische Untersuchungen nach dem gebrauch des\n    bestimmten Artikels und des schwachen Adjektivs in der altenglischen\n    Poesie. Leiden. (Important, see above, p. 107.) Reviews: Kock, _Engl.\n    Stud._ XXXII, 228-9; Binz, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXXVI, 269-74; Schuecking,\n    _Goettingische gelehrte Anzeigen_, 1905, 730-40.\n\n    1902 HEUSLER, A. Der dialog in der altgermanischen erzaehlenden\n    Dichtung. _Z.f.d.A._ XLVI, 189-284.\n\n    1903 SHIPLEY, G. The genitive case in Anglo-Saxon Poetry. Baltimore.\n    Reviews: Kock, _Engl. Stud._ XXV, 92-5; Mourek, _A.f.d.A._ XXX, 172-4.\n\n    1903 KRACKOW, O. Die Nominalcomposita als Kunstmittel im altenglischen\n    Epos. Dissertation, Berlin. Review: Bjoerkman, _Archiv_, CXVII, 189-90.\n\n    1904 SCHUECKING, L. L. Die Grundzuege der Satzverknuepfung im Beowulf.\n    Pt. I. (_Morsbachs Studien_, XV.) Halle. (Important.) Reviews:\n    Eckhardt, _Engl. Stud._ XXXVII, 396-7; Pogatscher, _D.L.Z._ 1905,\n    922-3; Behagel, _Literaturblatt_, XXVIII, 100-2; Grossmann, _Archiv_,\n    CXVIII, 176-9.\n\n    1904 HAEUSCHKEL, B. Die Technik der Erzaehlung im Beowulfliede.\n    Dissertation, Breslau.\n\n    1905 KRAPP, G. P. The parenthetic exclamation in Old English poetry,\n    _M.L.N._ XX, 33-7.\n\n    1905 SCHEINERT, M. Die Adjektiva im Beowulfepos als Darstellungsmittel,\n    _P.B.B._ XXX, 345-430.\n\n    1906 THOMAS, P. G. Notes on the language of Beowulf, _M.L.R._ I, 202-7.\n    (A short summary of the dialectal forms.)\n\n    1906 BARNOUW, A. J. Nochmals zum ags. Gebrauch des Artikels, _Archiv_,\n    CXVII, 366-7.\n\n    1907 RIES, J. Die Wortstellung im Beowulf. Halle. (An important and\n    exhaustive study by an acknowledged specialist.) Reviews: Binz,\n    _Anglia_, _Beiblatt_, XXII, 65-78 (important); Borst, _Engl. Stud._\n    XLII, 93-101; Delbrueck, _A.f.d.A._ XXXI, 65-76 (important); Reis,\n    _Literaturblatt_, XXVIII, 328-30; _Lit. Cbl._ 1907, p. 1474; Huchon,\n    _Revue germanique_, III, 634-8.\n\n    1908 KRAUEL, H. Der Haken- und Langzeilenstil im Beowulf. Dissertation,\n    Goettingen.\n\n    1908 LORS, A. Aktionsarten des Verbums im Beowulf. Dissertation,\n    Wuerzburg.\n\n    1908 ++MOUREK, E. Zur Syntax des konjunktivs im Beowulf, _Prager\n    deutsche stud._ VIII.\n\n    1909-10 RANKIN, J. W. A study of the Kennings in Ags. poetry,\n    _J.E.G.Ph._ VIII, 357-422; IX, 49-84. (Latin parallels; very\n    important.)\n\n    {413}\n\n    1909 SHEARIN, H. G. The expression of purpose in Old English poetry,\n    _Anglia_, XXXII, 235-52.\n\n    1909 ++RIGGERT, G. Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Infinitivs in der\n    altenglischen Poesie. Dissertation, Kiel.\n\n    1910 RICHTER, C. Chronologische Studien zur angelsaechsischen Literatur\n    auf grund sprachl.-metrischer Kriterien. Halle. (_Morsbachs Studien_,\n    XXXIII.) Reviews: Binz, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXII, 78-80; Imelmann,\n    _D.L.Z._ 1910, 2986-7; Hecht, _Archiv_, CXXX, 430-2.\n\n    1910 WAGNER, R. Die Syntax des Superlativs ... im Beowulf. Berlin.\n    (_Palaestra_, XCI.) Reviews: Schatz, _D.L.Z._ 1910, 2848-9; Kock,\n    _A.f.n.F._ XXVIII, 347-9.\n\n    1910 SCHUCHARDT, R. Die negation im Beowulf. Berlin. (_Berliner\n    Beitraege zur germ. u. roman. Philol._ XXXVIII.)\n\n    1912 BRIGHT, J. W. An Idiom of the Comparative in Anglo-Saxon, _M.L.N._\n    XXVII, 181-3. (Bearing particularly upon Beowulf, 69, 70.)\n\n    1912 EXNER, P. Typische Adverbialbestimmungen in fruehenglischer\n    Poesie. Dissertation, Berlin.\n\n    1912 GRIMM, P. Beitraege zum Pluralgebrauch in der altenglischen\n    Poesie. Dissertation, Halle.\n\n    1913 PAETZEL, W. Die Variationen in der altgermanischen\n    Alliterationspoesie. Berlin. See pp. 73-84 for Beowulf and Finnsburg.\n    (_Palaestra_, XLVIII.) Pt. I. had appeared in 1905 as a Berlin\n    dissertation.\n\ns. 10. METRE\n\nFor bibliography of O.E. metre in general, see _Pauls Grdr._ (2), II,\n1022-4.\n\n    1870 SCHUBERT, H. De Anglosaxonum arte metrica. Dissertatio\n    inauguralis, Berolini.\n\n    1884 SIEVERS, E. Zur rhythmik des germanischen alliterationsverses: I.\n    Vorbemerkungen. Die metrik des Beowulf: II. Sprachliche Ergebnisse,\n    _P.B.B._ X, 209-314 and 451-545. (Most important.)\n\n    1894 KALUZA, M. Studien zum altgermanischen alliterationsvers. I.\n    Kritik der bisherigen theorien. II. Die Metrik des Beowulfliedes.\n    (Important.) Reviews: Martin, _Engl. Stud._ XX, 293-6; Heusler,\n    _A.f.d.A._ XXI, 313-17; Saran, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXVII, 539-43.\n\n    1905 TRAUTMANN, M. Die neuste Beowulfausgabe und die altenglische\n    verslehre, _Bonner Beitraege zur Anglistik_, XVII, 175-91. (A\n    discussion of O.E. metre in view of Holthausen's edition.) Review:\n    Klaeber, _M.L.N._ XXII, 252.\n\n    1908 MORGAN, B. Q. Zur lehre von der alliteration in der\n    westgermanischen dichtung: I. Die tonverhaeltnisse der hebungen im\n    Beowulf: II. Die gekreuzte alliteration; _P.B.B._ XXXIII, 95-181.\n\n    1908 BOHLEN, A. Zusammengehoerige Wortgruppen, getrennt durch Caesur\n    oder Versschluss, in der angelsaechsischen Epik. Dissertation, Berlin.\n    Reviews: Dittes, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XX, 199-202; Kroder, _Engl. Stud._\n    XL, 90.\n\n    1912 TRAUTMANN, M. Zum altenglischen Versbau, _Engl. Stud._ XLIV,\n    303-42.\n\n    1913 SEIFFERT, F. Die Behandlung der Woerter mit auslautenden\n    urspruenglich silbischen Liquiden oder Nasalen und mit\n    Kontraktionsvokalen in der Genesis A und im Beowulf. Dissertation,\n    Halle. (Concludes the dialect of the two poems to be distinct, but\n    finds no evidence on these grounds which is the earlier.)\n\n    1914 FIJN VAN DRAAT, P. The cursus in O.E. poetry, _Anglia_, XXXVIII,\n    377-404.\n\n    1918 LEONARD, W. E. Beowulf and the Niebelungen couplet, in _Univ. of\n    Wisconsin Studies in Language and Literature_, II, 98-152. (Important.\n    Pp. 123-46 advocating the \"four-accent theory.\")\n\n    1920 ++NEUNER, E. Ueber ein- und dreihebige Halbverse in der\n    altenglischen alliterierenden Poesie. Berlin. Review: Bright, _M.L.N._\n    XXXVI, 59-63.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n{414}\n\nINDEX\n\n  Abingdon, sheaf ordeal at, 83-4, 303\n  Adam of Bremen, on the Goetar, 339\n  Aethelbert of East Anglia, 239-43\n  Agnerus, 132-3\n  Alboin and Thurisind, 281, 282, 285\n  Alcester, _Grindeles pytt_ near, 305\n  Alcuin, 22, 332\n  Aldfrid, 325\n  Aldhelm, 331\n  Alfsola, 69\n  Ali, _see_ Onela\n  Aliel, _see_ Riganus\n  _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, Pedigrees in, 72 _etc._, 312 _etc._\n  Archaeology in relation to _Beowulf_, 122 _etc._, 345-65\n  Asbiorn, 186-92\n  Athils, Athislus, _see_ Eadgils\n  Attila, funeral of, compared with that of Beowulf, 124\n  Atuarii, _see_ Hetware\n  Ayres, Prof. H. M., on the _Finnsburg_ story, 266 _etc._\n\n  Baldaeg, 321\n  Baldr, 69\n  _bana_, 270-1\n  Battersea, _Gryndeles sylle_ near, 306\n  \"Bear's-son\" folk-tale, 62 _etc._, 369-81\n  _B[=e]as broc_, _B[=e]as feld_, 310\n  Bede, the Venerable, 326 _etc._\n  Bedwig, 303-4\n  Beow(a), Beaw, 10, 42 _etc._, 87-8, 202-3, 291 _etc._, 296 _etc._\n  Beowi, 303\n  Beowulf the Dane (Beowulf Scyldinga), 41 _etc._, 88, 92 _etc._, 291\n      _etc._\n  Beowulf son of Ecgtheow, king of the Geatas, 10-13;\n    his struggle with Grendel and Grendel's mother, 41 _etc._;\n    with the dragon, 92 _etc._;\n    his funeral rites, 122 _etc._;\n    etymology and meaning of the name, 365-9\n  _Beowulf_, suggested translation from a Scandinavian original, 98-104;\n    dialect, syntax and metre of, 104-12;\n    theories as to the structure of, 112-20;\n    the Christian elements in, 121-8;\n    date of, 122, 322 _etc._, 353 _etc._;\n    possible classical influence upon, 329 _etc._;\n    archaeology of, 345-65;\n    division into fittes or passus, 294 _etc._\n  Biar, 7, 45\n  _Biuuulf_, 367\n  _Bjarkam['a]l_, 26, 264;\n    Saxo's Latin translation quoted, 135-6\n  _Bjarka r['i]mur_, 58, 182-6\n  Bjarki, 9, 12, 54-61, 132-6, 138-46, 182-6\n  Bjarndreingur, 374-5\n  Bjoernoere, 377\n  Blackburn, Prof., on the Christian element in _Beowulf_, 125\n  Blood-feud, in primitive society, 276 _etc._\n  Boar-helmets, 350-1, 358-9\n  Bocus, 26, 135\n  Boerinus, 201\n  Bothvar Bjarki, _see_ Bjarki\n  Bow, the, in _Beowulf_, 361\n  Bradley, Dr Henry, on the Christian elements in _Beowulf_, 127;\n    on Beow and Beowulf the Dane, 293 _etc._;\n    on the passus in _Beowulf_, 294-5\n  Brusi, 187-92\n  Brutus (Hildebrandus), 222\n  Bugge, Sophus, on the _Finnsburg_ story, 257-66\n  Burial mounds, Scandinavian, 356\n  Burials, 122 _etc._, 353-5\n  Byggvir, 45, 297 _etc._\n\n  Cerdic, his ancestry, 316 _etc._\n  Chadwick, Prof. H. M., on the date of _Beowulf_, 122, 353 _etc._\n  Chatuarii, _see_ Hetware\n  Chochilaicus, 2, 3\n  Christianity of _Beowulf_, 121 _etc._, 322 _etc._\n  Cities of Refuge, 276-7\n  Clyst, river, 44, 310\n  Creedy, the, _Grendeles pyt_ near, 305\n  Crying the Neck, 82-3, 302\n  Cynethryth, 37 _etc._\n\n  Dan, king of the Danes, 129, 204\n  Danes, first mentioned soon after A.D. 500, 14;\n    their early kings, 13-31;\n    their early history as recorded in Saxo, 129-37;\n    in the _Little Chronicle of the Kings of Leire_, 204-6;\n    in Sweyn Aageson, 211;\n    their relation to the English, 314 _etc._\n  Date of _Beowulf_, 122, 322 _etc._, 353 _etc._\n  Dialect of _Beowulf_, 104\n  Dorestad, 259, 288-9\n  Dragons, not extinct in 1649, 11 (note);\n    Frotho's dragon, 92 _etc._, 130-1;\n    the Vendsyssel dragon, 192-5\n  Dunstan, 332\n  Drida, 36 _etc._; 238-43; _see also_ Thryth\n\n  Eadgils (Athils, Athislus), 5-8; 184, 186, 356\n  {415}\n  Eaha, 246\n  Eanmund, 5\n  _Edda_ of Snorri, 69\n  Engelhardt, on the Moss-finds, 345 _etc._\n  Eomaer (Eamer), 31, 197-8\n  Eotan, Eote, _see_ Jutes\n  Eotenas, part played by them in the _Finnsburg Episode_, 219 _etc._; 260\n      _etc._; 283 _etc._\n  Eric, jarl, 277, 278\n  Esthonian cult of Pekko, 299 _etc._\n  Ethelwerd, 70 _etc._, 202, 318 _etc._\n\n  Fahlbeck, Pontus, his Jute-theory, 8, 333 _etc._\n  Faroe \"Bear's-son\" tale, 375-6\n  _ferhdh-freca_, 276\n  Fifeldor, 35, _note_\n  Finn, son of Folcwald, 199, 200, 248 _etc._, 253-4, 283 _etc._, 289\n  Finnsburg, the story of, 245-89;\n    site of, 259\n  Florence of Worcester, 8\n  Folcwald(a), 199\n  Frealaf, 321\n  Freawaru, daughter of Hrothgar, 21 _etc._, 282\n  Frisia in the Heroic Age, 288-9\n  Froda (Frothi, Frotho), 21, 24-5, 211, 282\n  Frotho and the dragon, 92-7, 130-1\n  Frowinus, 33-4\n  Funeral rites, _see_ Burials\n\n  Garulf, his part in the _Finnsburg_ story, 246-7; 283 _etc._, 287\n  Gautar, _see_ Geatas\n  Geatas (O.N. Gautar), 2, 8-10, 333-45;\n    their kings, 2-13;\n    boundaries of their territory, 339\n  Gefwulf, 286-7\n  Genealogies, 311 _etc._\n  Giovanni dell' Orso, 371\n  Glam, 48, 147 _etc._, 164 _etc._\n  Godulf, 200\n  Goetar, _see_ Geatas\n  Gokstad ship, 363-4\n  Gold in the Heroic Age, 348 _etc._\n  Gram Guldkoelve, 192, 194\n  Graendels m[^o]r in Transsylvania, 308\n  _grandi_, 309\n  Greek scholarship in Anglo-Saxon times, 329\n  Gregory of Tours, his account of the death of Hygelac, 3-4, 9, 342\n  Grendel, 41 _etc._;\n    occurrence of the name in English charters, 305-6;\n    etymology, 309-10\n  _Grendles mere_, 43-4, 306\n  Grettir Asmundarson, 48 _etc._, 152-62, 169-82\n  _Grettis Saga_, 162;\n    extracts from, 146-62;\n    translation, 162-82;\n    death of Illugi, 280\n  Grimm's story of _Der Starke Hans_, 370\n  Grindale village, 308\n  Grindle or Greendale brook, near Exeter, 44, 309\n  _grundel_, 309\n  Grundtvig, his identification of Chochilaicus, 4\n  Guest (Gestr), _see_ Grettir\n  Gullinhjalti, 141, 146\n  Guthlaf, 246-7, 252, 267, 285\n\n  Haki, 68-9\n  Halga (Helgi, Helgo), 14 _etc._, 132, 205, 211\n  Hall, Dr Clark, on the archaeology of _Beowulf_, 346 _etc._\n  Hall, the, in _Beowulf_, 361\n  Ham, _Grendles mere_ near, 43-4, 306\n  Hamlet (Amlethus), 39;\n    Hengest's hesitation compared to that of Shakespeare's Hamlet, 266\n  Hans, der starke, 370\n  Harold Fairhair and the Gautar, 340\n  Harvest customs, 81 _etc._\n  _h[=e]aburh_, 259 _note_\n  Healfdene (Halfdan, Haldanus), 14 _etc._, 131, 205, 211\n  Heardred, slain by Onela, 5, 13\n  Heathobeardan, 20 _etc._, 244\n  Hendon, \"Grendels gate\" near, 306-7\n  Hengest, 246, 250 _etc._, 284 _etc._\n  Henry (Henrik) slays a dragon, 192-5\n  Heorogar, 14, 287\n  Heorot, 13-20; _see also_ Leire\n  Heoroweard (Hj[o,]rvardhr, Hiarwarus), 14, 15, 29-30, 134-7, 205-6, 277\n  Heremod, 89 _etc._\n  Hermuthruda, 39\n  Heruli, identified by some with the Heathobeardan, 24\n  Hetware (Atuarii), 2-3\n  Hiarthwarus, Hiarwarus, _see_ Heoroweard\n  Hickes, his text of the _Finnsburg Fragment_, 245-6\n  Hildebrandus, another name for Brutus, _q.v._\n  Hildeburh, 248 _etc._\n  Hjalti (Hott), 55 _etc._, 132 _etc._, 138-46, 182-6\n  Hnaef, 247 _etc._, 283 _etc._\n  Hocingas, 249\n  Hott, _see_ Hjalti\n  Hrethric, 25-7, 135 (Roericus), 211 (Roekil)\n  Hrothgar (Hroarr, Roe), 14 _etc._, 132, 204, 244\n  {416}\n  Hrothulf (Rolf Kraki, Roluo), 15, 25-9, 132-7, 139-46, 205-6, 244\n  Hugleikr, 323\n  Huglek, 323\n  Humblus, 129\n  Hunlafing, 252, 267, 283\n  Hygelac, death of, 2-4\n\n  Ialto, _see_ Hjalti\n  Icelandic \"Bear's-son\" tale, 374-5\n  Illugi, _see Grettis Saga_\n  Ingeld, son of Froda, 21 _etc._, 244, 282, 284-5\n  Intercourse between tribes in Heroic Age, 348 _etc._\n  Ivashko Medvedko, 372-4\n\n  Jean l'Ourson, 378-9\n  Jenny Greenteeth, 307\n  Jomsvikings, 278\n  Jovial huntsmen, the Three, their views, 310\n  Jutes, attempt to identify them with the Geatas, 8-10, 333-45;\n    Jutes and _Eotenas_, 261 _etc._, 272 _etc._\n  Jutland, \"Bear's-son\" tale in, 377\n\n  _K['a]lfsv['i]sa_, 7, 45\n  Kemble, his mythological theories, 291 _etc._\n  Keto, 33-4\n  Klaeber, on the Christian element in _Beowulf_, 126\n\n  Lawrence, Prof. W. W., on mythology in _Beowulf_, 43 _etc._, 291 _etc._;\n    on _Finnsburg_, 270 _etc._\n  _Laxdaela Saga_, parallels from, 278-9\n  Leifus, 252, _note_\n  Leire, 16 _etc._, 134, 204, 211, 216, 365;\n    _see also_ Heorot\n  _Leire, Little Chronicle of the Kings of_, extracts from, 204-6\n  Lethra, _see_ Leire\n  _Liber Historiae Francorum_, account of the death of Chochilaicus\n      (Hygelac) in, 3\n  \"Lichtenheld's Test,\" 105 _etc._\n  _Lokasenna_ quoted, 297-9\n  Loki, 297-9\n  Lombard story of the \"Bear's-son,\" 371\n  Longobardi, relation to the Heathobeardan, 23; 311;\n    _see also_ Alboin\n  Lother(us), 89 _etc._, 129\n\n  Malmesbury, William of, _see_ William of Malmesbury\n  Mercian genealogy, 195-8\n  Milio, 220\n  Minstrelsy forbidden to priests, 332\n  Mitunnus, 218 _etc._\n  Moeller, on _Finnsburg_, 254-7\n  _Monsters and Strange Beasts_, account of Hygelac in the _Book of (Liber\n      Monstrorum)_, 4, 339\n  \"Morsbachs Test,\" 107-12\n  Moss-finds, 345 _etc._\n  Muellenhoff's theories on _Beowulf_, 113 _etc._, 292 _etc._\n  Myrgingas, 31-2, 244\n  Mythology in _Beowulf_, 46 _etc._, 291 _etc._\n\n  Neck, _see_ Crying the Neck\n  Neckersgate, 307\n  _Nj['a]ls Saga_, parallels from, 271, 277, 280-1\n  Norka, the, 371-2\n  North Frisians, 249, _note_, 273\n  Northumbrian anarchy in the eighth century, 324\n  Norwegian folk-tale (\"Bear's-son\" type), 376-7\n  Nydam, 345 _etc._\n  Nydam boat, 362-3\n\n  _Odyssey_, parallels with _Beowulf_, 329\n  Offa I, king of Angel, 31-40, 197-8, 206-15, 217-35, 244\n  Offa II, 36 _etc._, 235-43\n  Ohthere, 5, 343 _etc._;\n    _see also_ Ottar Vendel-crow\n  Onela, 5-8, 184-6\n  Ongentheow, 4-5, 8\n  Ordlaf (Oslaf), 246, 252, 267, 285, 287\n  Origin of the English, 314 _etc._\n  Orm Storolfsson, 53, 186-92\n  Oseberg ship, 363-4\n  Oslaf, _see_ Ordlaf\n  Oswin, king, 324 _etc._\n  Oswiu, king, 325\n  Otta, 220\n  Ottar Vendelcrow, his mound, 343-5, 356;\n    _see also_ Ohthere\n\n  Panzer, his derivation of the story of _Beowulf_ from the \"Bear's-son\"\n      folk-tale, 67-8, 369-81\n  passus of _Beowulf_, 294 _etc._\n  Peg o' Nell, 307\n  Peg Powler, 307\n  Pekko, 87, 299 _etc._\n  Pellon-Pecko, _see_ Pekko\n  Peter Baer, 378\n  Pinefredus, _see_ Offa II\n  Procopius, mentions the Goutai (Geatas), 8-9, 338\n\n  Riganus (or Aliel), 218 _etc._\n  Ring-corslets, 351, 360\n  Ring-money, 351-2\n  Ring-swords, 349 _etc._\n  Roe, _see_ Hrothgar\n  {417}\n  Roekil, _see_ Hrethric\n  Roericus, _see_ Hrethric\n  _Rolf Kraki, Saga of_, 16, 55 _etc._;\n    extract from, 138-46;\n    quoted in illustration of the _Finnsburg_ story, 281, 282\n  Rolf Kraki, _see_ Hrothulf\n  Roluo, _see_ Hrothulf\n  Roskilde, 18, 132, 204\n  Runkoteivas, 300\n  Russian variants of the \"Bear's-son\" story, 371-4\n  Ruta, 133\n\n  Saempsae, 84-5, 300\n  _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, see _Rolf Kraki, Saga of_\n  Sandhaugar, 48, 66, 156-62, 175-82\n  Saxo Grammaticus, 16;\n    his story of Starcatherus, 22-3;\n    of Roericus, 26;\n    of Hiarwarus, 30;\n    of Uffo (Offa), 32-3;\n    of Biarco (Bjarki), 57 _etc._;\n    of Skyoldus, 77;\n    of Lotherus, 89 _etc._;\n    of Frotho, 91 _etc._;\n    on cremation, 123;\n    extracts from, 129-37, 206-11;\n    on text of, 215-16; 282\n  Sceaf, 68-86, 200-3, 302 _etc._, 311 _etc._\n  Sceafa, 311\n  Scenery of _Beowulf_, 101\n  Schuecking, Prof.,\n    on the structure of _Beowulf_, 117-20;\n    on the date of _Beowulf_, 322 _etc._\n  Schuette, on the Geatas, 8, 333 _etc._\n  Sculda, 133-4, 204-5\n  Scyld, 68-86, 201-4, 303, 314 _etc._\n  Secgan, 269, 286\n  Setukese, 301\n  Sheaf, _see_ Sceaf\n  Shield, _see_ Scyld\n  Shield, the, in Anglo-Saxon times, 360-1\n  Ships, 362-4\n  Sigeferth, 246-7, 269, 286, 287\n  Sigmund, 91\n  Sigurd Ring, 69\n  Sinfjotli, his foul language, 28\n  Skeggjatussi, 375\n  Skjold (Skyoldus), 71 _etc._, 130, 211\n  _Skjoldunga Saga_,\n    account of Adilsus (Eadgils) in, 7;\n    of Rolf Kraki (Hrothulf), 16 _etc._;\n    quoted, 69, 252 _note_\n  Spear, the, in Anglo-Saxon times, 360\n  Starkad (Starcatherus), 22-3\n  Steenkloewer, Stenhuggeren, 380\n  Stein, 49, 66, 156-62, 175-82, 380\n  Steinspieler, 380\n  Steinv[o,]r, 157-62, 175-82\n  Stjerna, Knut,\n    on the funeral customs of _Beowulf_, 124;\n    on Ottar Vendelcrow, 343-5;\n    on the archaeology of _Beowulf_, 346 _etc._\n  Sueno, 222\n  Svold, battle of, 277\n  Sweden, kings of, 4-8;\n    _see_ Eadgils, Ohthere, Onela, Ongentheow\n  Sweyn Aageson, his account of Uffo (Offa), 33;\n    extract from, 211-15; 216\n  Swinford, _Grendels mere_ near, 306\n  Swords in _Beowulf_ and in Anglo-Saxon grave-finds, 357\n\n  Ten Brink's theories on _Beowulf_, 113 _etc._\n  Theodoric, king of the Franks, 3\n  Thorgaut, 150 _etc._, 167 _etc._\n  Thorhall Grimsson, 146-56, 163-74\n  Thorsbjerg, 345 _etc._\n  Thryth, 37 _etc._, 238-43\n  Tours, Gregory of, _see_ Gregory of Tours\n\n  Uffo, _see_ Offa\n  Ull, 303\n  Unferth, 27-30\n  Ursula, 205\n\n  Vendel finds, 347 _etc._\n  Vendsyssel, dragon of, 192-5\n  Virgil, possible influence of, upon _Beowulf_, 329 _etc._\n  _Vitae duorum Offarum_, 34 _etc._, 217-43\n  _V[o,]lsunga Saga_, parallels from, 275, 286\n\n  Waeder Oear and Waeder Fiord, 342\n  Warmundus, _see_ Wermundus\n  Weak and strong forms of heroic names used alternatively, 311\n  Wealhtheow, her forebodings, 25\n  Weapons in _Beowulf_, 357-61\n  Wederas, name applied to the Geatas, 342\n  Wener, Lake, 9, 342\n  _wer-gild_, 277\n  Wermund, 32 _etc._, 197-8, 206-15, 217-26\n  West-Saxon genealogy, 72 _etc._, 198-201, 311 _etc._\n  _Widsith_,\n    account of the Heathobeardan in, 20 _etc._;\n    of Hrothulf, 25;\n    of Offa, 31;\n    of Sceafa, 80;\n    extract from, 243-4; 286; 338\n  Wiggo, 133-7, 264-5\n  Wigo, 33-4\n  Wijk bij Duurstede, _see_ Dorestad\n  William of Malmesbury, 70 _etc._, 203, 302\n  Woden's ancestors, 311 _etc._\n\n  _Ynglinga tal_ and _Ynglinga Saga_, 5-7, 68-9, 344\n  Yte, _see_ Jutes\n  Ytene, 8, 337\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nNOTES\n\n[1] The exact equivalent to _Hr[=o]dhgar_ is found in O.N., in the form\n_Hr['o]dhgeirr_. The by-form _Hr['o]arr_, which is used of the famous\nDanish king, is due to a number of rather irregular changes, which can\nhowever be paralleled. The Primitive Germanic form of the name would have\nbeen *_Hr[=o]thugaisaz_: for the loss of the _g_ at the beginning of the\nsecond element we may compare _Adhils_ with _[=E]adgils_ (Noreen,\n_Altislaendische Grammatik_, 1903, s. 223); for the loss of _dh_ before _w_\ncompare _Hr['o]lfr_ with _Hr[=o]dhwulf_ (Noreen, s. 222); for the absence\nof _R-_ umlaut in the second syllable, combined with loss of the _g_,\ncompare O.N. _nafarr_ with O.E. _nafug[=a]r_ (Noreen, s. 69).\n\n[2] Corresponding to O.N. _Adhils_ we should expect O.E. _Aedhgils_,\n_Aedhgisl_. The form _[=E]adgils_ may be due to confusion with the famous\nEadgils, king of the Myrgingas, who is mentioned in _Widsith_. The name\ncomes only once in _Beowulf_ (l. 2392) and may owe its form there to a\ncorruption of the scribe. That the O.E. form is corrupt seems more likely\nthan that the O.N. _Adhils_, so well known and so frequently recorded, is a\ncorruption of _Audhgisl_.\n\n[3] It must be remembered that the sound changes of the Germanic dialects\nhave been worked out so minutely that it is nearly always possible to\ndecide quite definitely whether two names do or do not exactly correspond.\nOnly occasionally is dispute possible [e.g. whether _Hrothgar_ is or is not\nphonetically the exact equivalent of _Hroarr_].\n\n[4] See below, pp. 8-10.\n\n[5] _Chochilaicus_, which appears to be the correct form, corresponds to\n_Hygelac_ (in the primitive form _Hugilaikaz_) as _Chlodovechus_ to\n_Hludovicus_.\n\n[6] The passages in _Beowulf_ referring to this expedition are:\n\n1202 _etc._. Frisians (adjoining the Hetware) and Franks mentioned as the\nfoes.\n\n2354 _etc._ Hetware mentioned.\n\n2501 _etc._ Hugas (= Franks) and the Frisian king mentioned.\n\n2914 _etc._ Franks, Frisians, Hugas, Hetware and \"the Merovingian\"\nmentioned.\n\n[7] The identification of Chochilaicus with Hygelac is the most important\ndiscovery ever made in the study of _Beowulf_, and the foundation of our\nbelief in the historic character of its episodes. It is sometimes\nattributed to Grundtvig, sometimes to Outzen. It was first vaguely\nsuggested by Grundtvig (_Nyeste Skilderie af Kjoebenhavn_, 1815, col.\n1030): the importance of the identification was worked out by him fully,\ntwo years later (_Danne-Virke_, II, 285). In the meantime the passage from\nGregory had been quoted by Outzen in his review of Thorkelin's _Beowulf_\n(_Kieler Blaetter_, III, 312). Outzen's reference was obviously made\nindependently, but he failed to detect the real bearing of the passage upon\n_Beowulf_. Credit for the find accordingly belongs solely to Grundtvig.\n\n[8] Ongentheow is mentioned in _Widsith_ (l. 31) as a famous king of the\nSwedes. Many of the kings mentioned in the same list can be proved to be\nhistorical, and the reference in _Widsith_ therefore supports Ongentheow's\nhistoric character, but is far, in itself, from proving it.\n\n[9] Strictly _Anganth['e]r_. See Heusler, _Heldennamen in mehrfacher\nLautgestalt, Z.f.d.A._ LII, 101.\n\n[10] ll. 2382-4.\n\n[11] ll. 2612-9.\n\n[12] Whether it be accuracy or accident, these names Ottar and Athils come\njust at that place in the list of the _Ynglinga tal_ which, when we reckon\nback the generations, we find to correspond to the beginning of the sixth\ncentury. And this is the date when we know from _Beowulf_ that they should\nhave been reigning.\n\n[13] But the accounts are quite inconsistent. Saxo (ed. Holder, pp. 56-7)\nimplies a version in which Athils was deposed, if not slain, by Bothvar\nBjarki, which is quite at variance with other information given by Saxo.\n\n[14] Unless they are among the fragments carried off to the Stockholm\nMuseum. Little of interest was found in these mounds when they were opened:\neverything had been too thoroughly burnt.\n\n[15] See Schueck, _Folknamnet Geatas_, 22 _etc._\n\n[16] See below, p. 98 and Appendix (E); The \"Jute-Question.\"\n\n[17] See below, pp. 45 _etc._\n\n[18] Olrik (_Heltedigtning_, I, 22 _etc._). The Danish house--Healfdene,\nHeorogar, Hrothgar, Halga, Heoroweard, Hrethric, Hrothmund, Hrothulf: the\nSwedish--Ongentheow, Onela, Ohthere, Eanmund, Eadgils: the Geatic--Hrethel,\nHerebeald, Haetheyn, Hygelac, Heardred. The same principle is strongly\nmarked in the Old English pedigrees.\n\n[19] ll. 3018 _etc._\n\n[20] As is done, e.g., by Schueck (_Studier i Beowulf-sagan_, 27).\n\n[21] \"Dragon fights are more frequent, not less frequent, the nearer we\ncome to historic times\": Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 313. The dragon\nsurvived much later in Europe than has been generally recognized. He was\nflying from Mount Pilatus in 1649. (See J. J. Scheuchzer, _Itinera per\nHelvetiae Alpinas regiones_, 1723, III, p. 385.) The same authority quotes\naccounts of dragons authenticated by priests, his own contemporaries, and\nsupplies many bloodcurdling engravings of the same.\n\n[22] Cf. on this point Klaeber in _Anglia_, XXXVI (1912) p. 190.\n\n[23] l. 2382.\n\n[24] l. 2393.\n\n[25] Of course, even if Beowulf's reign over the Geatas is not historic,\nthis does not exclude the possibility of his having _some_ historic\nfoundation.\n\n[26] Attempts at working out the chronology of _Beowulf_ have been made by\nGering (in his translation) and by Heusler (_Archiv_, CXXIV, 9-14). On the\nwhole the chronology of _Beowulf_ is self-consistent, but there are one or\ntwo discrepancies which do not admit of solution.\n\n[27] l. 468.\n\n[28] l. 2161.\n\n[29] _Widsith_, l. 46.\n\n[30] _Beowulf_, l. 2160. Had Hrothulf been a son of Heorogar he could not\nhave been passed over in silence here. Neither can Hrothulf be Hrothgar's\nsister's son: for since the sister married the Swedish king, Hrothulf would\nin that case be a Swedish prince, and presumably would be living at the\nSwedish court, and bearing a name connected by alliteration with those of\nthe Swedish, not the Danish house. Besides, had he been a Swedish prince,\nhe must have been heard of in connection with the dynastic quarrels of the\nSwedish house.\n\n[31] ll. 1163-5.\n\n[32] ll. 1188-91.\n\n[33] ll. 1180 _etc._\n\n[34] Doubts are expressed, for example, in Trap's monumental topographical\nwork (_Kongeriket Danmark_, II, 328, 1898).\n\n[35] For example Sweyn Aageson (c. 1200) had no doubt that the little\nvillage of Leire near Roskilde was identical with the Leire of story: _Rolf\nKraki, occisus in Lethra, qvae tunc famosissima Regis extitit curia, nunc\nautem Roskildensi vicina civitati, inter abjectissima ferme vix colitur\noppida._ Svenonis Aggonis _Historia Regum Daniae_, in Langebek, I, 45.\n\n[36] _Ro ... patrem vero suum Dan colle apud Lethram tumulavit Sialandie\nubi sedem regni pro eo pater constituit, qvam ipse post eum divitiis\nmultiplicibus ditavit._ In the so-called _Annales Esromenses_, in Langebek,\nI, 224. Cf. Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 188, 194. For further evidence, see\nAppendix (G) below.\n\n[37] We must not think of Heorot as an isolated country seat. The Royal\nHall would stand in the middle of the Royal Village, as in the case of the\nhalls of Attila (Priscus in Moeller's _Fragmenta_, IV, 85) or Cynewulf\n(_A.S. Chronicle_, Anno 755).\n\n[38] _Lethram pergitur, quod oppidum, a Roluone constructum eximiisque\nregni opibus illustratum, ceteris confinium prouinciarum urbibus regie\nfundacionis et sedis auctoritate prestabat._ Saxo, Book II (ed. Holder, p.\n58).\n\n[39] _His cognitis Helgo filium Roluonem Lethrica arce conclusit, heredis\nsaluti consulturus_ (p. 52).\n\n[40] _A Roe Roskildia condita memoratur._ Saxo, Book II (ed. Holder, p.\n51). Roe's spring, after being a feature of the town throughout the ages,\nis now (owing perhaps to its sources having been tapped by a neighbouring\nmineral-water factory) represented only by a pump in a market-garden.\n\n[41] I owe this paragraph to information kindly supplied me by Dr Sofus\nLarsen, librarian of the University Library, Copenhagen.\n\n[42] It was once believed that, in prehistoric times, the sea came up to\nLeire also (Forchhammer, Steenstrup and Worsaae: _Undersoegelser i\ngeologisk-antiqvarisk Retning_, Kjoebenhavn, 1851). A most exact scrutiny\nof the geology of the coast-line has proved this to be erroneous. (Danmarks\ngeologiske Undersoegelse I.R. 6. _Beskrivelse til Kaartbladene Kjoebenhavn\nog Roskilde_, af K. Roerdam, Kjoebenhavn, 1899.)\n\n[43] The presence at Leire of early remains makes it tempting to suppose\nthat it may have been from very primitive times a stronghold or sacred\nplace. It is impossible here to examine these conjectures, which would\nconnect Heorot ultimately with the \"sacred place on the isle of the ocean\"\nmentioned by Tacitus. The curious may be referred to Much in _P.B.B._ XVII,\n196-8; Mogk in _Pauls Grdr._ (2) III, 367; Kock in the Swedish _Historisk\nTidskrift_, 1895, 162 _etc._; and particularly to the articles by Sarrazin:\n_Die Hirsch Halle_ in _Anglia_, XIX, 368-91, _Neue Beowulfstudien_ (_Der\nGrendelsee_) in _Engl. Stud._ XLII, 6-15.\n\n[44] This seems to me much more probable than, as Olrik supposes, that\nFroda fell in battle against Healfdene (_Skjoldungasaga_, 162 [80]).\n\n[45] _Saga of Rolf Kraki_, cap. IV.\n\n[46] Olrik wishes to read the whole of this account, not as a prediction in\nthe present future tense, but as a narrative of past events in the historic\npresent. (_Heltedigtning_, I, 16; II, 38.) Considering the rarity of the\nhistoric present idiom in Old English poetry, this seems exceedingly\nunlikely.\n\n[47] ll. 2047-2056.\n\n[48] _Verba dei legantur in sacerdotali convivio; ibi decet lectorem\naudiri, non citharistam, sermones patrum, non carmina gentilium. Quid\nHinieldus cum Christo?_ See Jaff['e]'s _Monumenta Alcuiniana_ (_Bibliotheca\nRer. Germ._ VI), Berlin, 1873, p. 357; _Epistolae_, 81.\n\n[49] Saxo, Book _VI_ (ed. Holder, 205, 212-13).\n\nThe contrast between this lyrical outburst, and the matter-of-fact speech\nin which the old warrior in _Beowulf_ eggs on the younger man, is\nthoroughly characteristic of the difference between Old English and Old\nScandinavian heroic poetry. This difference is very noticeable whenever we\nhave occasion to compare a passage in _Beowulf_ with any parallel passage\nin a Scandinavian poem, and should be carefully pondered by those who still\nbelieve that _Beowulf_ is, in its present form, a translation from the\nScandinavian.\n\n[50] Saxo, Book VIII (ed. Holder, p. 274); _Helga kvitha Hundingsbana_, II,\n19. See also Bugge, _Helge-digtene_, 157.\n\n[51] _Th['a]ttr Thorsteins Skelks_ in _Flateyarb['o]k_ (ed. Vigf['u]sson\nand Unger), I, 416.\n\n[52] Similarly, there is certainly a primitive connection between the names\nof the Geatas (Gautar) and of the Goths: but they are quite distinct\npeoples: we should not be justified in speaking of the Geatas as identical\nwith the Goths.\n\n[53] Muellenhoff (_Beovulf_, 29-32) followed by Much (_P.B.B._ XVII, 201)\nand Heinzel (_A.f.d.A._ XVI, 271). The best account of the Heruli is in\nProcopius (_Bell. Gott._ II, 14, 15).\n\n[54] See also Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 21, 22: Sarrazin in _Engl. Stud._\nXLII, 11: Bugge, _Helgi-digtene_, 151-63; 181: Chambers, _Widsith_, p. 82\n(note), pp. 205-6.\n\n[55] _Saga of Rolf Kraki: Skjoldungasaga._\n\n[56] Best represented in Saxo.\n\n[57] See above, p. 15.\n\n[58] ll. 1180-87.\n\n[59] ll. 1188-91.\n\n[60] ll. 1163-5.\n\n[61] ll. 1017-19.\n\n[62] ll. 45-6.\n\n[63] For a contrary view see Clarke, _Sidelights_, 100.\n\n[64] Saxo has mistaken a title _hnoeggvanbaugi_ for a father's name,\n(_hins_) _hnoeggva Baugs_ \"(son of the) covetous Baug.\"\n\n[65] _Langfedhgatal_ in Langebek, I, 5. The succession given in\n_Langfedhgatal_ is Halfdan, Helgi and Hroar, Rolf, Hraerek: it should, of\ncourse, run Halfdan, Helgi and Hroar, Hraerek, Rolf. Hraerek has been moved\nfrom his proper place in order to clear Rolf of any suspicion of\nusurpation.\n\n[66] l. 1189.\n\n[67] See Olrik, _Episke Love_ in _Danske Studier_, 1908, p. 79. Compare the\nremark of Goethe in _Wilhelm Meister_, as to the necessity of there being\n_both_ a Rosencrantz _and_ a Guildenstern (_Apprenticeship_, Book V, chap.\nV).\n\n[68] ll. 587-9.\n\n[69] ll. 1165-8.\n\n[70] Perhaps such murder of kin was more common among the aristocratic\nhouses than among the bulk of the population (Chadwick, _H.A._ 348). In\nsome great families it almost becomes the rule, producing a state of things\nsimilar to that in present day Afghanistan, where it has become a proverb\nthat a man is \"as great an enemy as a cousin\" (Pennell, _Afghan Frontier_,\n30).\n\n[71] This is proposed by Cosijn (_Aanteekeningen_, 21) and again\nindependently by Lawrence in _M.L.N._ XXV, 157.\n\n[72] ll. 467-9.\n\n[73] ll. 2155-62.\n\n[74] See _Widsith_, ed. Chambers, pp. 92-4.\n\n[75] See Rickert, \"The Old English Offa Saga\" in _Mod. Phil._ II, esp. p.\n75.\n\n[76] The common ascription of the _Lives of the Offas_ to Matthew Paris is\nerroneous: they are somewhat earlier.\n\n[77] The identification of _Fifeldor_ with the Eider has been doubted,\nnotably by Holthausen, though he seems less doubtful in his latest edition\n(third edit. II, 178). The reasons for the identification appear to me the\nfollowing. Place names ending in _dor_ are exceedingly rare. When,\ntherefore, two independent authorities tell us that Offa fought at a place\nnamed _Fifel-dor_ or _Egi-dor_, it appears unlikely that this can be a mere\ncoincidence: it seems more natural to assume that the names are corruptions\nof one original. But further, the connection is not limited to the second\nelement in the name. For the Eider (_Egidora_, _Aegisdyr_) would in O.E. be\n_Egor-dor_: and _Egor-dor_ stands to _Fifel-dor_ precisely as _egor-stream_\n(Boethius, _Metra_, XX, 118) does to _fifel-stream_ (_Metra_, XXVI, 26),\n_\"egor\" and \"fifel\" being interchangeable synonyms_. See note to _Widsith_,\nl. 43 (p. 204). It is objected that the interchange of _fifel_ and _egor_,\nthough frequent in common nouns, would be unusual in the name of a place.\nThe reply is that the Old English scop may not have regarded it as a\nplace-name. He may have substituted _fifel-dor_ for the synonymous\n_egor-dor_, \"the monster gate,\" without realizing that it was the name of a\ndefinite place, just as he would have substituted _fifel-stream_ for\n_egor-stream_, \"the monster stream, the sea,\" if alliteration demanded the\nchange.\n\n[78] _The Deeds of Beowulf_, LXXXV.\n\n[79] See below, pp. 105-12, and Appendix (D) below.\n\n[80] Wihtlaeg appears in Saxo as _Vigletus_ (Book IV, ed. Holder, p. 105).\n\n[81] _Nibelungen Lied_, ed. Piper, 328.\n\n[82] Book IV (ed. Holder, p. 102).\n\n[83] Kemble, _Beowulf_, _Postscript_ IX; followed by Muellenhoff, _etc._\nSo, lately, Chadwick (_H.A._ 126): cf. also Sievers ('Beowulf und Saxo' in\nthe _Berichte d. k. saechs. Gesell. d. Wissenschaften_, 1895, pp. 180-88);\nBradley in _Encyc. Brit._ III, 761; Boer, _Beowulf_, 135. See also Olrik,\n_Danmarks Heltedigtning_, I, 246. For further discussion see below,\nAppendix (A).\n\n[84] _Beo_--_Scyld_--_Scef_ in Ethelwerd: _Beowius_--_Sceldius_--_Sceaf_ in\nWilliam of Malmesbury. But in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ five generations\nintervene between Sceaf and his descendant Scyldwa, father of Beaw.\n\n[85] \"Item there is vii acres lond lying by the high weye toward the\ngrendyll\": _Bury Wills_, ed. S. Tymms (Camden Soc. XLIX, 1850, p. 31).\n\n[86] I should hardly have thought it worth while to revive this old\n\"cesspool\" theory, were it not for the statement of Dr Lawrence that\n\"Miller's argument that the word _grendel_ here is not a proper name at\nall, that it means 'drain,' has never, to my knowledge, been refuted.\"\n(_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV, 253.)\n\nMiller was a scholar whose memory should be reverenced, but the letter to\nthe _Academy_ was evidently written in haste. The only evidence which\nMiller produced for _grendel_ standing alone as a common noun in Old\nEnglish was a charter of 963 (Birch, 1103: vol. III, p. 336): _thanon fordh\neft on grendel: thanon on clyst_: _grendel_ here, he asserted, meant\n\"drain\": and consequently _gryndeles sylle_ and _grendles mere_ in the\nother charters must mean \"cesspool.\" But the locality of this charter of\n963 is known (Clyst St Mary, a few miles east of Exeter), and the two words\nexist there as names of streams to this day--\"thence again along the\nGreendale brook, thence along the river Clyst.\" The Grindle or Greendale\nbrook is no sewer, but a stream some half dozen miles in length which\n\"winds tranquilly through a rich tract of alluvial soil\" (_Journal of the\nArchaeol. Assoc._ XXXIX, 273), past three villages which bear the same\nname, Greendale, Greendale Barton and Higher Greendale, under Greendale\nBridge and over the ford by Greendale Lane, to its junction with the Clyst.\nWhy the existence of this charming stream should be held to justify the\ninterpretation of _Grendel_ or _Gryndel_ as \"drain\" and _grendles mere_ as\n\"cesspool\" has always puzzled me. Were a new Drayton to arise he might, in\na new _Polyolbion_, introduce the nymph complaining of her hard lot at the\nhands of scholars in the Hesperides. I hope, when he next visits England,\nto conduct Dr Lawrence to make his apologies to the lady. Meantime a glance\nat the \"six inch\" ordnance map of Devon suffices to refute Miller's curious\nhypothesis.\n\n[87] It is often asserted that the same Beowa appears as a witness to a\ncharter (Muellenhoff, _Beovulf_, p. 8: Haak, _Zeugnisse zur altenglischen\nHeldensage_, 53). But this rests upon a misprint of Kemble (_C.D.S._ V,\n44). The name is really _Beoba_ (Birch, _Cart. Sax._ I, 212).\n\n[88] _Beaf er ver kollum Biar_, in the descent of Harold Fairhair from\nAdam, in _Flateyarb['o]k_, ed. Vigf['u]sson and Unger, Christiania, 1859,\nI, 27. [The genealogy contains many names obviously taken from a MS of the\nO.E. royal pedigrees, not from oral tradition, as is shown by the\nmiswritings, e.g., _Beaf_ for _Beaw_, owing to mistaking the O.E. _w_ for\n_f_.] \"This is no proof,\" Dr Lawrence urges, \"of popular acquaintance with\nBj['a]r as a Scandinavian figure.\" (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV,\n246.) But how are we to account for the presence of his name among a\nmnemonic list of some of the most famous warriors and their horses--mention\nalong with heroes like Sigurd, Gunnar, Atli, Athils and Ali, unless Bjar\nwas a well-known figure?\n\n[89] _en Bj['a]rr [reidh] Kerti_. _Kortr_, \"short\" (Germ. _Kurz_), if\nindeed we are so to interpret it, is hardly an Icelandic word, and seems\nstrange as the name of a horse. Egilsson (_Lex. Poet._ 1860) suggests\n_kertr_, \"erect,\" \"with head high\" (cf. Kahle in _I.F._ XIV, 164).\n\n[90] See Appendix (A) below.\n\n[91] Muellenhoff derived Beaw from the root _bh[=u]_, \"to be, dwell, grow\":\nBeaw therefore represented settled dwelling and culture. Muellenhoff's\nmythological explanation (_Z.f.d.A._ VII, 419, _etc._, _Beovulf_, 1,\n_etc._) has been largely followed by subsequent scholars, e.g., ten Brink\n(_Pauls Grdr._ II, 533: _Beowulf_, 184), Symons (_Pauls Grdr._ (2), III,\n645-6) and, in general outline, E. H. Meyer (_Mythol. der Germanen_, 1903,\n242).\n\n[92] Uhland in _Germania_, II, 349.\n\n[93] Laistner (_Nebelsagen_, 88, _etc._, 264, _etc._), Koegel (_Z.f.d.A._\nXXXVII, 274: _Geschichte d. deut. Litt._ I, 1, 109), and Golther (_Handbuch\nder germ. Mythologie_, 1895, 173) see in Grendel the demon of combined\nstorm and pestilence.\n\n[94] E. H. Meyer (_Germ. Mythol._ 1891, 299).\n\n[95] Mogk (_Pauls Grdr._ (2), III, 302) regards Grendel as a\n\"water-spirit.\"\n\n[96] Boer (_Ark. f. nord. Filol._ XIX, 19).\n\n[97] This suggestion is made (very tentatively) by Brandl, in _Pauls Grdr._\n(2), II, i, 992.\n\n[98] This view has been enunciated by Wundt in his _Voelkerpsychologie_,\nII, i, 326, _etc._, 382. For a discussion see A. Heusler in _Berliner\nSitzungsberichte_, XXXVII, 1909, pp. 939-945.\n\n[99] Cf. Lawrence in _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV, 265, _etc._, and\nPanzer's \"Beowulf\" throughout.\n\n[100] The tradition of \"the devil and his dam\" resembles that of Grendel\nand his mother in its coupling together the home-keeping female and the\nroving male. See E. Lehmann, \"Fandens Oldemor\" in _Dania_, VIII, 179-194; a\npaper which has been undeservedly neglected in the _Beowulf_\nbibliographies. But the devil beats his dam (cf. _Piers Plowman_, C-text,\nXXI, 284): conduct of which one cannot imagine Grendel guilty. See too\nLehmann in _Arch. f. Religionswiss._ VIII, 411-30: Panzer, _Beowulf_, 130,\n137, _etc._: Klaeber in _Anglia_, XXXVI, 188.\n\n[101] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 1282-7.\n\n[102] There are other coincidences which _may_ be the result of mere\nchance. In each case, before the adventure with the giants, the hero proves\nhis strength by a feat of endurance in the ice-cold water. And, at the end\nof the story, the hero in each case produces, as evidence of his victory, a\ntrophy with a runic inscription: in _Beowulf_ an engraved sword-hilt; in\nthe _Grettis saga_ bones and a \"rune-staff.\"\n\n[103] Vigf['u]sson, _Corp. Poet. Boreale_, II, 502: Bugge, _P.B.B._ XII,\n58.\n\n[104] Boer, for example, believes that _Beowulf_ influenced the _Grettis\nsaga_ (_Grettis saga_, Introduction, xliii); so, tentatively, Olrik\n(_Heltedigtning_, I, 248).\n\n[105] For this argument and the following, cf. Schueck, _Studier i\nBeowulfssagan_, 21.\n\n[106] Even assuming that a MS of _Beowulf_ had found its way to Iceland, it\nwould have been unintelligible. This is shown by the absurd blunders made\nwhen Icelanders borrowed names from the O.E. genealogies.\n\n[107] Cf. Olrik, _A. f. n. F._, VIII (N.F. IV), 368-75; and Chadwick,\n_Origin_, 125-6.\n\n[108] _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXVII, 208 _etc._\n\n[109] _Cotton. Gnomic Verses_, ll. 42-3.\n\n[110] _Fornmannas[o,]gur_, III, 204-228.\n\n[111] Hammershaimb, _Faer[=o]iske Kvoeder_, II, 1855, Nos. 11 and 12.\n\n[112] A. I. Arwidsson, _Svenska Forns[oa]nger_, 1834-42, Nos. 8 and 9.\n\n[113] Boer, _Beowulf_, 177-180.\n\n[114] ll. 1553-6.\n\n[115] l. 455.\n\n[116] The attacks have taken place at Yule for two successive years,\nexactly as in the _Grettis saga_. [In _Beowulf_ it is, of course, \"twelve\nwinters\" (l. 147).] Is this mere accident, or does the _Grettis saga_ here\npreserve the original time limit, which has been exaggerated in _Beowulf_?\nIf so, we have another point of resemblance between the _Saga of Rolf\nKraki_ and the earliest version of the _Beowulf_ story.\n\n[117] _Beowulf_, ll. 801-5.\n\n[118] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 590-606.\n\n[119] _Beowulf_, l. 679.\n\n[120] _Beowulf_, ll. 1508-9, 1524.\n\n[121] It is only in this adventure that Rolf carries the sword\n_Gullinhjalti_. His usual sword, as well known as Arthur's Excalibur, was\n_Skofnungr_. For _Gyldenhilt_, whether descriptive, or proper noun, see\n_Beowulf_, 1677.\n\n[122] Cf. Symons in _Pauls Grdr._ (2), III, 649: Zuege aus dem anglischen\nMythus von B['e]aw-Biar (Biarr oder Bj['a]r?; s. Symons Lieder der Edda, I,\n222) wurden auf den daenischen Sagenhelden (Bodhvarr) Bjarki durch\nAehnlichkeit der Namen veranlasst, uebertragen. Cf. too, Heusler in\n_A.f.d.A._ XXX, 32.\n\n[123] See p. 87 and Appendix (A) below.\n\n[124] _Heltedigtning_, I, 1903, 135-6.\n\n[125] _Beowulf_, 1518.\n\n[126] See Heusler in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 62.\n\n[127] Cf. on this Heusler, _Z.f.d.A._ XLVIII, 64-5.\n\n[128] Cf. _Skjoldunga saga_, cap. XII; and see Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I,\n201-5; _Bjarka r['i]mur_, VIII.\n\n[129] Similarly _Sk['a]ldskaparm['a]l_, 41 (44).\n\n[130] Baerensohn. Jean l'Ours. The name is given to the group because the\nhero is frequently (though by no means always) represented as having been\nbrought up in a bear's den. The story summarized above is a portion of\nPanzer's \"Type A.\" See Appendix (H), below.\n\n[131] ll. 704, 729.\n\n[132] ll. 691-6.\n\n[133] In the _Beowulf_ it was even desirable, as explained above, to go\nfurther, and completely to exculpate the Danish watchers.\n\n[134] From the controversial point of view Panzer has no doubt weakened his\ncase by drawing attention to so many of these, probably accidental,\ncoincidences. It gives the critic material for attack (cf. Boer, _Beowulf_,\n14)\n\n[135] ll. 2183 _etc._\n\n[136] ll. 408-9.\n\n[137] It comes out strongly in the _Bjarki_-story.\n\n[138] It can hardly be argued that Stein is mentioned because he was an\nhistoric character who in some way came into contact with the historic\nGrettir: for in this case his descent would have been given, according to\nthe usual custom in the sagas. (Cf. note to Boer's edition of _Grettis\nsaga_, p. 233.)\n\n[139] P. E. K. Kaalund, _Bidrag til en historisk-topografisk Beskrivelse af\nIsland_, Kjoebenhavn, 1877, II, 151.\n\n[140] The localization in _en stor sandhaug_ is found in a version of the\nstory to which Panzer was unable to get access (see p. 7 of his _Beowulf_,\nNote 2). A copy is to be found in the University Library of Christiania, in\na small book entitled _Nor, en Billedbog for den norske Ungdom_.\nChristiania, 1865. (_Norske Folke-Eventyr ... fortalte af P. C.\nAsbjoernsen_, pp. 65-128.)\n\nThe _sandhaug_ is an extraordinary coincidence, if it _is_ a mere\ncoincidence. It cannot have been imported into the modern folk-tale from\nthe _Grettis saga_, for there is no superficial resemblance between the two\ntales.\n\n[141] Cf. Boer, _Beowulf_, 14.\n\n[142] Yet both Beowulf and Orm are saved by divine help.\n\n[143] Panzer exaggerates the case against his own theory when he quotes\nonly six versions as omitting the princesses (p. 122). Such unanimity as\nthis is hardly to be looked for in a collection of 202 kindred folk-tales.\nIn addition to these six, the princesses are altogether missing, for\nexample, in the versions Panzer numbers 68, 69, 77: they are only faintly\nrepresented in other versions (e.g. 76). Nevertheless the rescue of the\nprincesses may be regarded as the most essential element in the tale.\n\n[144] I cannot agree with Panzer when (p. 319) he suggests the possibility\nof the _Beowulf_ and the _Grettir_-story having been derived independently\nfrom the folk-tale. For the two stories have many features in common which\ndo not belong to the folk-tale: apart from the absence of the princesses we\nhave the _haeft-m[=e]ce_ and the strange conclusion drawn by the watchers\nfrom the blood-stained water.\n\n[145] Ipse Scef cum uno dromone advectus est in insula Oceani, quae dicitur\nScani, armis circundatus, eratque valde recens puer, & ab incolis illius\nterrae ignotus; attamen ab eis suscipitur, & ut familiarem diligenti animo\neum custodierunt, & post in regem eligunt.\n\nEthelwerdus, III, 3, in Savile's _Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedam_,\nFrancofurti, 1601, p. 842.\n\n[146] See Chadwick, _Origin_, 259-60.\n\n[147] Sceldius [fuit filius] Sceaf. Iste, ut ferunt, in quandam insulam\nGermaniae Scandzam, de qua Jordanes, historiographus Gothorum, loquitur,\nappulsus navi sine remige, puerulus, posito ad caput frumenti manipulo,\ndormiens, ideoque Sceaf nuncupatus, ab hominibus regionis illius pro\nmiraculo exceptus et sedulo nutritus: adulta aetate regnavit in oppido quod\ntunc Slaswic, nunc vero Haithebi appellatur. Est autem regio illa Anglia\nvetus dicta....\n\nWilliam of Malmesbury, _De Gestis Regum Anglorum_. Lib. II, s. 116, vol. I,\np. 121, ed. Stubbs, 1887.\n\n[148] Although Saxo Grammaticus has provided some even earlier kings.\n\n[149] Cf. Muellenhoff in _Z.f.d.A._ VII, 413.\n\n[150] In _Gr['i]mnism['a]l_, 54, Odin gives _Gautr_ as one of his names.\n\n[151] See below.\n\n[152] Excluding, of course, the Hebrew names.\n\n[153] _Scyld_ appears as _Scyldwa_, _Sce(a)ldwa_ in the _Chronicle_. The\nforms correspond.\n\n[154] See Part II.\n\n[155] _armis circundatus_.\n\n[156] For a list of the scholars who have dealt with the subject, see\n_Widsith_, p. 119.\n\n[157] _Beovulf_, p. 6 _etc._\n\n[158] _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXIV, 259 _etc._\n\n[159] This objection to the Scyld-theory has been excellently expressed by\nOlrik--at a time, too, when Olrik himself accepted the story as belonging\nto Scyld rather than Sceaf. \"Binz,\" says Olrik, \"rejects William of\nMalmesbury as a source for the Scyld story. But he has not noticed that in\ndoing so he saws across the branch upon which he himself and the other\ninvestigators are sitting. For if William is not a reliable authority, and\neven a more reliable authority than the others, then 'Scyld with the sheaf'\nis left in the air.\" _Heltedigtning_, I, 238-9, note.\n\n[160] The discussion of Skjold by Olrik (_Danmarks Heltedigtning_, I,\n223-271) is perhaps the most helpful of any yet made, especially in\nemphasizing the necessity of differentiating the stages in the story. But\nit must be taken in connection with the very essential modifications made\nby Dr Olrik in his second volume (pp. 249-65, especially pp. 264-5). Dr\nOlrik's earlier interpretation made Scyld the original hero of the story:\n_Scefing_ Olrik interpreted, not as \"with the sheaf,\" but as \"son of Scef.\"\nTo the objection that any knowledge of Scyld's parentage would be\ninconsistent with his unknown origin, Olrik replied by supposing that Scyld\nwas a foundling whose origin, though unknown to the people of the land to\nwhich he came, was well known to the poet. The poet, Dr Olrik thought,\nregarded him as a son of the Langobardic king, Sceafa, a connection which\nwe are to attribute to the Anglo-Saxon love of framing genealogies. But\nthis explanation of Scyld Scefing as a human foundling does not seem to me\nto be borne out by the text of _Beowulf_. \"The child is a poor foundling,\"\nsays Dr Olrik, \"_he suffered distress from the time when he was first found\nas a helpless child_. Only as a grown man did he get compensation for his\nchildhood's adversity\" (p. 228). But this is certainly not the meaning of\n_egsode eorl[as]_. It is \"_He inspired the earl[s] with awe_.\"\n\n[161] See below (App. C) for instances of ancestral names extant both in\nweak and strong forms, like _Scyld_, _Sceldwa_ (the identity of which no\none doubts) or _Sceaf_, _Sceafa_ (the identity of which has been doubted).\n\n[162] \"As for the name _Scyldungas-Skjoeldungar_, we need not hesitate to\nbelieve that this originally meant 'the people' or 'kinsmen of the shield.'\nSimilar appellations are not uncommon, e.g., _Rondingas_, _Helmingas_,\n_Brondingas_ ... probably these names meant either 'the people of _the_\nshield, _the_ helmet,' _etc._, or else the people who used shields,\nhelmets, _etc._, in some special way. In the former case we may compare the\nAncile of the Romans and the Palladion of the Greeks; in either case we may\nnote that occasionally shields have been found in the North which can never\nhave been used except for ceremonial purposes.\" Chadwick, _Origin_, p. 284:\ncf. Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 274.\n\n[163] Sweyn Aageson, _Skiold Danis primum didici praefuisse_, in Langebek,\n_S.R.D._ I, 44.\n\n[164] Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 246; Lawrence, _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc._\nXXIV, 254.\n\n[165] It is odd that Binz, who has recorded so many of these, should have\nargued on the strength of these place-names that the Scyld story is not\nDanish, but an ancient possession of the tribes of the North Sea coast (p.\n150). For Binz also records an immense number of names of heroes of alien\nstock--Danish, Gothic or Burgundian--as occurring in England (_P.B.B._ XX,\n202 _etc._).\n\n[166] _Beovulf_, p. 7.\n\n[167] Chadwick, _Origin_, p. 278.\n\n[168] The scandals about King Edgar (_infamias quas post dicam magis\nresperserunt cantilenae_: see _Gesta Regum Anglorum_, II, s. 148, ed.\nStubbs, vol. I, p. 165); the story of Gunhilda, the daughter of Knut, who,\nmarried to a foreign King with great pomp and rejoicing, _nostro seculo\netiam in triviis cantitata_, was unjustly suspected of unchastity till her\nEnglish page, in vindication of her honour, slew the giant whom her\naccusers had brought forward as their champion (_Gesta_, II, s. 188, ed.\nStubbs, I, pp. 229, 230); the story of King Edward and the shepherdess,\nlearnt from _cantilenis per successiones temporum detritis_ (_Gesta_, II,\ns. 138, ed. Stubbs, I, 155). Macaulay in the _Lays of Ancient Rome_ has\nselected William as a typical example of the historian who draws upon\npopular song. Cf. Freeman's _Historical Essays_.\n\n[169] Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 245.\n\n[170] _Origin_, pp. 279-281.\n\n[171] Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, 1813, I, 443.\n\n[172] Henderson, _Folklore of the Northern Counties_, 87-89.\n\n[173] Hone's _Every Day Book_, 1827, p. 1170.\n\n[174] _The Tamar and the Tavy_, I. 330 (1836).\n\n[175] Raymond, _Two men o' Mendip_, 1899, 259.\n\n[176] Miss M. A. Courtney, _Glossary of West Cornwall_; T. Q. Couch,\n_Glossary of East Cornwall_, s. v. Neck (_Eng. Dial. Soc._ 1880); Jago,\n_Ancient Language of Cornwall_, 1882, s. v. Anek.\n\n[177] _Notes and Queries_, 4th Ser. XII, 491 (1873).\n\n[178] Holland's _Glossary of Chester_ (_Eng. Dial. Soc._), s.v. _Cutting\nthe Neck._\n\n[179] Burne, _Shropshire Folk Lore_, 1883, 371.\n\n[180] \"to cry the Mare.\" Blount, _Glossographia_, 4th edit. 1674, s.v.\n_mare_. Cf. _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser. VI, 286 (1876).\n\n[181] Wright, _Eng. Dial. Dict._, s.v. _neck_.\n\n[182] Frazer, _Spirits of the Corn_, 1912, I, 268. The word was understood\nas = \"neck\" by the peasants, because \"They'm taied up under the chin laike\"\n(_Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser. X, 51). But this may be false etymology.\n\n[183] Wright, _Eng. Dial. Dict._ Cf. _Notes and Queries_, 5th Ser. X, 51.\n\n[184] _Heltedigtning_, II, 252.\n\n[185] The earliest record of the term \"cutting the neck\" seems to be found\nin Randle Holme's _Store House of Armory_, 1688 (II, 73). It may be noted\nthat Holme was a Cheshire man.\n\n[186] Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, Strassburg, 1884, 326 _etc._\n\n[187] Quod dum servi Dei propensius actitarent, inspiratum est eis salubre\nconsilium et (ut pium est credere) divinitus provisum. Die etenim statuto\nmane surgentes monachi sumpserunt scutum rotundum, cui imponebant manipulum\nfrumenti, et super manipulum cereum circumspectae quantitatis et\ngrossitudinis. Quo accenso scutum cum manipulo et cereo, fluvio ecclesiam\npraetercurrenti committunt, paucis in navicula fratribus subsequentibus.\nPraecedebat itaque eos scutum et quasi digito demonstrans possessiones\ndomui Abbendoniae de jure adjacentes nunc huc, nunc illuc divertens; nunc\nin dextra nunc in sinistra parte fiducialiter eos praeibat, usquedum\nveniret ad rivum prope pratum quod Beri vocatur, in quo cereus medium\ncursum Tamisiae miraculose deserens se declinavit et circumdedit pratum\ninter Tamisiam et Gifteleia, quod hieme et multociens aestate ex\nredundatione Tamisiae in modum insulae aqua circumdatur.\n\n_Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon_, ed. Stevenson, 1858, vol. I, p. 89.\n\n[188] Chadwick, _Origin_, 278.\n\n[189] Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, II, 251.\n\n[190] But is this so? \"The word Saempsae (now saempsykka) 'small rush,\n_scirpus silvaticus_, forest rush,' is borrowed from the Germanic family\n(Engl. semse; Germ. simse).\" Olrik, 253. But the Engl. \"semse\" is difficult\nto track.\n\nSee also note by A. Mieler in _Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, X, 43, 1910.\n\n[191] Kaarle Krohn, \"Sampsa Pellervoinen\" in _Finnisch-Ugrische\nForschungen_ IV, 231 _etc._, 1904.\n\n[192] Cf. Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, II, 252 _etc._.\n\n[193] I do not understand why Olrik (_Heltedigtning_, I, 235) declares the\ncoming to land in Scani (Ethelwerd) to be inconsistent with Sceaf as a\nLongobardic king (_Widsith_). For, according to their national historian,\nthe Longobardi came from \"Scadinavia\" [Paul the Deacon, I, 1-7]. It is a\nmore serious difficulty that Paul knows of no Longobardic king with a name\nwhich we can equate with Sceaf.\n\n[194] So, corresponding to O.E. _tr[=i]ewe_ we have Icel. _tryggr_; to O.E.\n_gl[=e]aw_, Icel. _gl[o,]ggr_; O.E. _sc[=u]wa_, Icel. _skugg-_.\n\n[195] Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, II, 1910, pp. 254-5.\n\nAn account of the worship of Pekko will be found in _Finnisch-Ugrische\nForschungen_, VI, 1906, pp. 104-111: _Ueber den Pekokultus bei den\nSetukesen_, by M. J. Eisen. See also Appendix (A) below.\n\nPellon-Pecko is mentioned by Michael Agricola, Bishop of [oA]bo, in his\ntranslation of the Psalter into Finnish, 1551. It is here that we are told\nthat he \"promoted the growth of barley.\"\n\n[196] l. 15.\n\n[197] That Heremod is a Danish king is clear from ll. 1709 _etc._ And as we\nhave all the stages in the Scylding genealogy from Scyld to Hrothgar,\nHeremod must be placed earlier.\n\n[198] Of Grein in _Eberts Jahrbuch_, IV, 264.\n\n[199] A good example of this is supplied by the Assyrian records, which\nmake Jehu a son of Omri--whose family he had destroyed.\n\n[200] This reconstruction is made by Sievers in the _Berichte d. k. saechs.\nGesellschaft der Wissenschaften_, 1895, pp. 180-88.\n\n[201] The god _Herm['o]dhr_ who rides to Hell to carry a message to the\ndead Baldr is here left out of consideration. His connection with the king\n_Herm['o]dhr_ is obscure.\n\n[202] On this see Dederich, _Historische u. geographische Studien_, 214;\nHeinzel in _A.f.d.A._ XV, 161; Chadwick, _Origin_, 148; Chadwick, _Cult of\nOthin_, 51.\n\n[203] Chadwick, _Cult of Othin_, pp. 50, _etc._\n\n[204] _puerulus ... pro miraculo exceptus_ (William of Malmesbury). Cf.\n_Beowulf_, l. 7. In Saxo, Skjold distinguishes himself at the age of\nfifteen.\n\n[205] _omnem Alemannorum gentem tributaria ditione perdomuit._ Cf.\n_Beowulf_, l. 11.\n\n[206] See above, p. 77.\n\n[207] This relationship of Frothi and Skjold is preserved by Sweyn Aageson:\nSkiold Danis primum didici praefuisse.... A quo primum.... Skioldunger sunt\nReges nuncupati. Qui regni post se reliquit haeredes Frothi videlicet &\nHaldanum. Svenonis Aggonis _Hist. Regum Dan._ in Langebek, _S.R.D._ I, 44.\n\nIn Saxo Frotho is not the son, but the great grandson of Skioldus--but this\nis a discrepancy which may be neglected, because it seems clear that the\ndifference is due to Saxo having inserted two names into the line at this\npoint--those of Gram and Hadding. There seems no reason to doubt that\nDanish tradition really represented Frothi as son of Skjold.\n\n[208] Those who accept the identification would regard _Fr['o]dhi_ (O.E.\n_Fr[=o]da_, 'the wise') as a title which has ousted the proper name.\n\n[209] Boer, _Ark. f. nord. filol._, XIX, 67, calls this theory of Sievers\n\"indisputable.\"\n\n[210] Sievers, p. 181.\n\n[211] _Beowulf_, 2405. Cf. 2215, 2281.\n\n[212] So Regin guides Sigurd: Una the Red Cross Knight. The list might be\nindefinitely extended. Similarly with giants: \"Then came to him a\nhusbandman of the country, and told him how there was in the country of\nConstantine, beside Brittany, a great giant\".... _Morte d'Arthur_, Book V,\ncap. V.\n\n[213] _Beowulf_, 895.\n\n[214] l. 2338.\n\n[215] ll. 2570 _etc._\n\n[216] intrepidum mentis habitum retinere memento.\n\n[217] ll. 2663 _etc._\n\n[218] Cf. _Beowulf_, 2705: _forwr[=a]t Wedra helm wyrm on middan_.\n\n[219] Cf. _Cotton. Gnomic verses_, ll. 26-7: _Draca sceal on hl[=ae]we:\nfr[=o]d, fraetwum wlanc._\n\n[220] virusque profundens: _wearp wael-f[=y]re_, 2582.\n\n[221]\n\n  implicitus gyris serpens crebrisque reflexus\n  orbibus et caudae sinuosa volumina ducens\n  multiplicesque agitans spiras.\n\nCf. _Beowulf_, 2567-8, 2569, 2561 (_hring-boga_), 2827 (_w[=o]hbogen_).\n\n[222] _Volosp['a]_, 172-3 in _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_. I, 200.\n\n[223] Cf. on this Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 305-15.\n\n[224] Panzer, _Beowulf_, 313.\n\n[225] A further and more specific parallel between Lotherus and Heremod has\nbeen pointed out by Sarrazin (_Anglia_, XIX, 392). It seems from _Beowulf_\nthat Heremod went into exile (ll. 1714-15), and apparently _mid Eotenum_\n(l. 902) which (in view of the use of the word _Eotena_, _Eotenum_, in the\n_Finnsburg_ episode) very probably means \"among the Jutes.\" A late\nScandinavian document tells us that _Lotherus ... superatus in Jutiam\nprofugit_ (Messenius, _Scondia illustrata_, printed 1700, but written about\n1620).\n\n[226] Pointed out by Panzer. A possible parallel to the old man who hides\nhis treasure is discussed by Bugge and Olrik in _Dania_, I, 233-245\n(1890-92).\n\n[227] Cf. Ettmueller, _Scopas and Boceras_, 1850, p. ix; _Carmen de\nBeovvulfi rebus gestis_, 1875, p. iii.\n\n[228] _P.B.B._ XI, 167-170.\n\n[229] Sarrazin, _Der Schauplatz des ersten Beowulfliedes_ (_P.B.B._ XI, 170\n_etc._); Sievers, _Die Heimat des Beowulfdichters_ (_P.B.B._ XI, 354\n_etc._); Sarrazin, _Altnordisches im Beowulfliede_ (_P.B.B._ XI, 528\n_etc._); Sievers, _Altnordisches im Beowulf?_ (_P.B.B._ XII, 168 _etc._)\n\n[230] _Beovulf-Studien_, 68.\n\n[231] Sarrazin has countered this argument by urging that since the present\nday Swedes and Danes have better manners than the English, they therefore\npresumably had better manners already in the eighth century. I admit the\npremises, but deny the deduction.\n\n[232] Sedgefield, _Beowulf_ (1st ed.), p. 27.\n\n[233] Schueck, _Studier i Beovulfsagan_, 41.\n\n[234] The brief _Fata Apostolorum_ is doubted by Sievers (_Anglia_, XIII,\n24).\n\n[235] Two of these occur twice: _h[=a]tan heolfre_, 1423, 849; _n[=i]owan\nstefne_, 1789, 2594; the rest once only, 141, 561, 963, 977, 1104, 1502,\n1505, 1542, 1746, 2102, 2290, 2347, 2440, 2482, 2492, 2692. See Barnouw,\n51.\n\n[236] 74, 99, 122, 257, 390, 412.\n\n[237] _Christ_, 510.\n\n[238] Lichtenheld omits 2011, _se m[=ae]ra mago Healfdenes_, inserting\ninstead 1474, where the same phrase occurs, but with a vocative force.\n\n[239] 758, 813, 2011, 2587, 2928, 2971, 2977, 3120.\n\n[240] 1199.\n\n[241] 102, 713, 919, 997, 1016, 1448, 1984, 2255, 2264, 2675, 3024, 3028,\n3097.\n\n[242] Saintsbury in _Short History of English Literature_, I. 3.\n\n[243] Morsbach, 270.\n\n[244] Morsbach, 271.\n\n[245] Chadwick, _Heroic Age_, 4.\n\n[246] \"Thus in place of the expression _to widan feore_ we find\noccasionally _widan feore_ in the same sense, and even in _Beowulf_ we meet\nwith _widan feorh_, which is not improbably the oldest form of the phrase.\nBefore the loss of the final _-u_ it [_widan feorhu_] would be a perfectly\nregular half verse, but the operation of this change would render it\nimpossible and necessitate the substitution of a synonymous expression. In\nprinciple, it should be observed, the assumption of such substitutions\nseems to be absolutely necessary, unless we are prepared to deny that any\nold poems or even verses survived the period of apocope.\" Chadwick, _Heroic\nAge_, pp. 46-7.\n\n[247] _Heroic Age_, 46.\n\n[248] Birch, _Cart. Sax._ No. 81. See Morsbach, 260.\n\n[249] The most important examples being _breguntford_ (Birch, _Cart. Sax._\nNo. 115, dating between 693 and 731; perhaps 705): _heffled_ in the life of\nSt Gregory written by a Whitby monk apparently before 713: _-gar_ on the\nBewcastle Column, earlier than the end of the first quarter of the eighth\ncentury and perhaps much earlier: and many names in _ford_ and _feld_ in\nthe Moore MS of Bede's _Ecclesiastical History_ (a MS written about 737).\n\n[250] An English Miscellany presented to Dr Furnivall, 370.\n\n[251] Grienberger, _Anglia_, XXVII, 448.\n\n[252] i.e. _flodu ahof_ might stand for _fl[=o]d u[p] [)a]h[=o]f_, as is\nsuggested by Chadwick, _Heroic Age_, 69.\n\n[253] In the Franks casket _b_ already appears as _f_, and the _n_ of\n_sefu_, \"seven,\" has been lost.\n\n[254] Birch, _Cart. Sax._ No. 45.\n\n[255] Chadwick, _Heroic Age_, 67: \"In personal names we must clearly allow\nfor traditional orthography.\" Morsbach admits this in another connection\n(p. 259).\n\n[256] Luebke's preface to Muellenhoff's _Beovulf_. Both the tendencies\nspecially associated with Muellenhoff's name--the \"mythologizing\" and the\n\"dissecting\"--are due to the influence of Lachmann. It must be frankly\nadmitted that on these subjects Muellenhoff did not begin his studies with\nan open mind.\n\n[257] \"Es ist einfach genug\"--_Beovulf_, 110.\n\n[258] Moeller, _V.E._ 140: cf. Schuecking, _B.R._ 14.\n\n[259] Earle, _Deeds of Beowulf_, xlix (an excellent criticism of\nMuellenhoff).\n\n[260] Heusler, _Lied u. Epos_, 26.\n\n[261] _Epic and Romance_, Chap. II, s. 2.\n\n[262] _Ballad and Epic_, 311-12.\n\n[263] _Beowulfs Rueckkehr_, 1905.\n\n[264] e.g. _Genesis_.\n\n[265] Chap. IV, pp. 29-33.\n\n[266] Chap. V, pp. 34-41.\n\n[267] Chap. VI, cf. esp. p. 50.\n\n[268] In the portion which Schuecking excludes, we twice have _g[=ae]dh_ =\n_g[=a]idh_ (2034, 2055). Elsewhere in the _Return_ we have _d[=o]n_ =\n_d[=o]an_ (2166) whilst _fr[=e]a_ (1934), _Hondsci[=o]_ (2076) need to be\nconsidered.\n\n[269] 2069.\n\n[270] 2093.\n\n[271] _Satzverknuepfung im Beowulf_, 139.\n\n[272] _Th[=y]l[=ae]s_ = \"lest\" (1918); _ac_ in direct question (1990);\n_th[=a]_ occurring unsupported late in the sentence (2192); _forth[=a]m_\n(1957) [see Sievers in _P.B.B._ XXIX, 313]; _sw[=a]_ = \"since,\" \"because\"\n(2184). But Schuecking admits in his edition two other instances of\n_forth[=a]m_ (146 and 2645), so this can hardly count.\n\n[273] _h[=y]rde ic_ as introducing a statement, 62, 2163, 2172; _sidh dhan\n[=ae]rest_, 6, 1947.\n\n[274] A similar use of _th[=a]_, 1078, 1988; cf. 1114, 1125, 2135.\n\n[275] _haebbe_, 1928; _g[=e]ong_, 2019.\n\n[276] _thurfe_, 2495.\n\n[277] Schuecking, Chap. VIII.\n\n[278] Cf. Brandl in Herrigs _Archiv_, CXV, 421 (1905).\n\n[279] e.g. Blackburn in _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XII, 204-225;\nBradley in the _Encyc. Brit._ III, 760; Chadwick, _H.A._ 49; Clarke,\n_Sidelights_, 10.\n\n[280] Chadwick, in _Cambridge History_, I, 30.\n\n[281] We may refer especially to the account of Attila's funeral given by\nJordanes. [Mr Chadwick's note.]\n\n[282] Chadwick in _The Heroic Age_, 53.\n\n[283] It is adopted, e.g., by Clarke, _Sidelights_, 8.\n\n[284] Yet this is very doubtful: see Leeds, _Archaeology_, 27, 74.\n\n[285] Notably in Book VIII (ed. Holder, 264) and Book III (ed. Holder, 74).\n\n[286] 'Fasta fornlaemningar i Beowulf,' in _Ant. Tidskrift foer Sverige_,\nXVIII, 4, 64.\n\n[287] See Schuecking, _Das angelsaechsische Totenklaglied_, in _Engl.\nStud._ XXXIX, 1-13.\n\n[288] Blackburn, in _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ Cf. Hart, _Ballad and\nEpic_, 175.\n\n[289] Clark Hall, xlvii.\n\n[290] Blackburn, as above, p. 126.\n\n[291] Chadwick, in _Cambridge History_, I, 30.\n\n[292] Clark Hall, xlvii. See, to the contrary, Klaeber in _Anglia_, XXXVI,\n196.\n\n[293] This point is fully developed by Brandl, 1002-3. As Brandl points\nout, if we want to find a parallel to the hero Beowulf, saving his people\nfrom their temporal and ghostly foes, we must look, not to the other heroes\nof Old English heroic poetry, such as Waldhere or Hengest, but to Moses in\nthe Old English _Exodus_. [Since this was written the essentially Christian\ncharacter of _Beowulf_ has been further, and I think finally, demonstrated\nby Klaeber, in the last section of his article on _Die Christlichen\nElemente im Beowulf_, in _Anglia_, XXXVI; see especially 194-199.]\n\n[294] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 180 _etc._\n\n[295] Bradley, in _Encyc. Brit._\n\n[296] Bradley, in _Encyc. Brit._ III, 760-1.\n\n[297] Blackburn, 218.\n\n[298] See Finnur J['o]nsson, _Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning_, B. ii.\n473-4.\n\n[299] MS A, followed by Magn['u]sson, makes Glam _bl['a]eygdhr_,\n\"blue-eyed\": Boer reads _gr['a]eygdhr_, considering grey a more uncanny\ncolour.\n\n[300] MS A has _fon^m_ or _fen^m_, it is difficult to tell which.\nMagn['u]sson reads _fenum_, \"morasses.\"\n\n[301] Immediately inside the door of the Icelandic dwelling was the\n_anddyri_ or vestibule. For want of a better word, I translate _anddyri_ by\n\"porch\": but it is a porch inside the building. Opening out of this 'porch'\nwere a number of rooms. Chief among which were the _sk['a]li_ or \"hall,\"\nand the _stufa_ or \"sitting room,\" the latter reached by a passage\n(_g[o,]ng_). These were separated from the \"porch\" by panelling. In the\nstruggle with Glam, Grettir is lying in the hall (_sk['a]li_), but the\npanelling has all been broken away from the great cross-beam to which it\nwas fixed. Grettir consequently sees Glam enter the outer door; Glam turns\nto the _sk['a]li_, and glares down it, leaning over the cross-beam; then\nenters the hall, and the struggle begins. See Gudhmundssen (V.),\n_Privatbolegen p[oa] Island i Sagatiden_, 1889.\n\n[302] The partition beams (_set-stokkar_) stood between the middle of the\n_sk['a]li_ or hall and the planked dais which ran down each side. The\nstrength of the combatants is such that the _stokkar_ give way. Grettir\ngets no footing to withstand Glam till they reach the outer-door. Here\nthere is a stone set in the ground, which apparently gives a better footing\nfor a push than for a pull. So Grettir changes his tactics, gets a purchase\non the stone, and at the same time pushes against Glam's breast, and so\ndashes Glam's head and shoulders against the lintel of the outer-door.\n\n[303] So MS 551 a. Magn['u]sson reads _dvaldist thar_ \"he stayed there.\"\n\n[304] Meaning that an attack by the evil beings would at least break the\nmonotony.\n\n[305] A passage (_g[o,]ng_) had to be traversed between the door of the\nroom (_stufa_) and the porch (_anddyri_).\n\n[306] MSS _baelt_. Boer reads _bolat_ \"hewn down.\"\n\n[307] A night troll, if caught by the sunrise, was supposed to turn into\nstone.\n\n[308] _Sk['u]ta_ may be acc. of the noun _sk['u]ti_, \"overhanging\nprecipice, cave\"; or it may be the verb, \"hang over.\" Grettir and his\ncompanion see that the sides of the ravine are precipitous (_sk['u]ta upp_)\nand so clean-cut (_meitil-berg: meitill_, \"a chisel\") that they give no\nhold to the climber. Hence the need for the rope. The translators all take\n_sk['u]ta_ as acc. of _sk['u]ti_, which is quite possible: but they are\nsurely wrong when they proceed to identify the _sk['u]ti_ with the _hellir_\nbehind the waterfall. For this cave behind the waterfall is introduced in\nthe _saga_ as something which Grettir discovers _after_ he has dived\nbeneath the fall, the fall in front naturally hiding it till then.\n\nThe verb _sk['u]ta_ occurs elsewhere in _Grettis saga_, of the glaciers\noverhanging a valley. Boer's attempt to reconstruct the scene appears to me\nwrong: cf. Ranisch in _A.f.d.A._ XXVIII, 217.\n\n[309] The old editions read _fimm tigir fadhma_ \"fifty fathoms\": but\naccording to Boer's collation the best MS (A) read X, whilst four of the\nfive others collated give XV (_fimt['a]n_). The editors seem dissatisfied\nwith this: yet sixty to ninety feet seems a good enough height for a dive.\n\n[310] _ok sat thar hj['a]_, not in MS A, nor in Boer's edition.\n\n[311] The two poems are given according to the version of William Morris.\n\n[312] On his first arrival at Leire, Bjarki had been attacked by, and had\nslain, the watch-dogs (_R['i]mur_, IV, 41): this naturally brings him now\ninto disfavour, and he has to dispute with men.\n\n[313] Reading _kappana_.\n\n[314] The MSS have either _Sandeyar_ or _Saudeyar_ (_Saudheyar_). But that\n_Sandeyar_ is the correct form is shown by the name Sandoe, which is given\nstill to the island of Dollsey, where Orm's fight is localized (Panzer,\n403).\n\n[315] Literally \"she-cat,\" _ketta_; but the word may mean \"giantess.\" It is\nused in some MSS of the _Grettis saga_ of the giantess who attacks Grettir\nat Sandhaugar.\n\n[316] See Sweet, _Oldest English Texts_, 1885, p. 170.\n\n[317] See _Catalogue of MSS. in the Library of Corpus Christi College,\nCambridge_ by Montague Rhodes James, Camb., 1912, p. 437.\n\n[318] See _Publications of the Palaeographical Society_, 1880, where a\nfacsimile of part of the _Vespasian MS_ is given. (Pt. 10, Plate 165:\nsubsequently Ser. I, Vol. II.)\n\n[319] So Zimmer, _Nennius Vindicatus_, Berlin, 1893, pp. 78 etc., and\nDuchesne (_Revue Celtique_, XV, 196). Duchesne sums up these genealogies as\n\"un recueil constitu['e], vers la fin du VII^e si[`e]cle, dans le royaume\nde Strathcluyd, mais compl['e]t['e] par diverses retouches, dont la\nderni[`e]re est de 796.\"\n\n[320] This is shown by one of the supplementary Mercian pedigrees being\nmade to end, both in the _Vespasian_ genealogy and the _Historia\nBrittonum_, in Ecgfrith, who reigned for a few months in 796. See\nThurneysen (_Z.f.d.Ph._ XXVIII, 101).\n\n[321] Ed. Mommsen, p. 203.\n\n[322] Anno 626: a similar genealogy will be found in these MSS and in the\nParker MS, anno 755 (accession of Offa II).\n\n[323] Zimmer (_Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 84) argues that this _Geta-Woden_\npedigree belongs to a portion of the _Historia Brittonum_ written down A.D.\n685. Thurneysen (_Z.f.d.Ph._ XXVIII, 103-4) dates the section in which it\noccurs 679; Duchesne (_Revue Celtique_, XV, 196) places it more vaguely\nbetween the end of the sixth and the beginning of the eighth century; van\nHamel (_Hoops Reallexikon_ s.v. _Nennius_) between much the same limits,\nand clearly before 705.\n\n[324] Zimmer (p. 275) says A.D. 796; Duchesne (p. 196) A.D. 800; Thurneysen\n(_Zeitschr. f. Celtische Philologie_, I, 166) A.D. 826; Skene (_Four\nAncient Books of Wales_, 1868, I, 38) A.D. 858; van Hamel (p. 304) A.D.\n820-859. See also Chadwick, _Origin_, 38.\n\n[325] Bradshaw, _Investigations among Early Welsh, Breton and Cornish MSS._\nin _Collected Papers_, 466.\n\n[326] See above, p. 196.\n\n[327] Cf. _Bretwalda_.\n\n[328] The genealogies have recently been dealt with by E. Hackenberg, _Die\nStammtafeln der angelsaechsischen Koenigreiche_, Berlin, 1918; and by\nBrandl, (Herrig's _Archiv_, CXXXVII, 1-24). Most of Brandl's derivations\nseem to me to depend upon very perilous conjectures. Thus he derives\n_Sc[=e]fing_ from the Gr.-Lat. _scapha_, \"a skiff\": a word which was not\nadopted into Old English. This seems to be sacrificing all probability to\nthe desire to find a new interpretation: and, even so, it is not quite\nsuccessful. For Riley in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, August, 1857, p. 126,\nsuggested the derivation of the name of Scef from the _schiff_ or _skiff_\nin which he came.\n\n[329] For a list of the Icelandic versions, see Heusler, _Die gelehrte\nUrgeschichte im altislaendischen Schrifttum_, pp. 18-19, in the\n_Abhandlungen d. preuss. Akad._, _Phil. Hist. Klasse_, 1908, Berlin.\n\n[330] The names are given as in the Trinity Roll (T), collated with Corpus\n(C) and Moseley (M). For Paris (P) I follow Kemble's report (_Postscript to\nPreface_, 1837, pp. vii, viii: _Stammtafel der Westsachsen_, pp. 18, 31).\nAll seem to agree in writing _t_ for _c_ in Steph and Steldius, and in\nBoerinus, _obviously, as Kemble pointed out, r is written by error for\n[wynn] = Beowinus_ [or _Beowius_]; Cinrinicius T, Cinrinicus C, Cininicus\nP, Siuruncius M; Suethedus TCP, Suechedius M; Gethius T, Thecius M, Ehecius\nCP; Geate T, Geathe CM, Geathus P.\n\n[331] I follow the spelling of the Moseley roll in this note.\n\n[332] _Dacia_ = \"Denmark\": _Dacia_ and _Dania_ were identified.\n\n[333] _uocabitur_, Gertz; _uocatur_, all MSS.\n\n[334] This account of the peaceful reign of Ro is simply false etymology\nfrom Danish _ro_, \"rest.\"\n\n[335] Note that Ro (Hrothgar), the son of Haldanus (Healfdene), is here\nrepresented as his father. Saxo Grammaticus, combining divergent accounts,\nas he often does, accordingly mentions two Roes--one the brother of\nHaldanus, the other his son. See above, pp. 131-2.\n\n[336] _cum piratica classe_, Langebek; the MSS have _cum pietate_ (!) with\nor without _classe_.\n\n[337] _post quem_, Holder-Egger, Gertz; _postquam_, all MSS.\n\n[338] Snyo: the viceroy whom Athisl had placed over the Danes.\n\n[339] _in_ added by Gertz; omitted in all MSS.\n\n[340] A scribal error for _transalbinas_, \"beyond the Elbe.\"\n\n[341] Assembly.\n\n[342] Island.\n\n[343] I have substituted _u_ for _v_, and have abandoned spellings like\n_theutones_, _thezauro_, _orrifico_, _charitas_, _phas_ (for _fas_),\n_atlethas_, _choercuit_, _iocundum_, _charum_, _foelicissima_, _nanque_,\n_haereditarii_, _exoluere_.\n\nThe actual reading of the 1514 text is abandoned by substituting: p. 130,\nl. 3 _ingeniti_ for _ingenitis_ (1514); p. 132, l. 22, _iacientis_ for\n_iacentis_; p. 134, l. 2, _diutinae_ for _diutiuae_; p. 136, l. 11, _fudit_\nfor _fugit_; p. 136, l. 20, _ut_ for _aut_; p. 137, l. 8, _ammirationi_ for\n_ammirationis_; p. 137, l. 16, _offert_ for _affert_; p. 137, l. 17,\n_Roluoni_ for _Rouolni_; p. 137, l. 27, _ministerio_ for _ministros_; p.\n137, l. 33 _diuturnus_ for _diuturnius_; p. 206, l. 22, _diutinam_ for\n_diutina_; p. 207, l. 3, _ei_ for _eique_; p. 207, l. 5, _destituat_ for\n_deficiat_; p. 209, l. 2, _latere_ for _latera_; p. 209, l. 5, _conscisci_\nfor _concissi_; p. 209, l. 14, _defoderat_ for _defodera_.\n\n[344] _Above this heading_ B _has_ Gesta Offe Regis mercior_um_.\n\n[345] A _repeats_ sibi _after_ constitueret.\n\n[346] Hic Riganus binomin[i]s fuit. Vocabat_ur_ eni_m_ alio nomine Aliel.\nRigan_us_ u_er_o a rigore. Huic erat fili_us_ Hildebrand_us_, miles\nstrenuus, ab ense sic d_i_c_tu_s. Hu_n_c uoluit p_ate_r p_ro_mouere:\n_Contemporary rubric in_ A, _inserted in the middle of the sketch\nrepresenting Riganus demanding the kingdom from Warmundus._\n\n[347] optat, B.\n\n[348] celebri, B; celibri, A.\n\n[349] hoc, B.\n\n[350] ueheement_er_, A.\n\n[351] ueheementi, A.\n\n[352] eciam, B.\n\n[353] _Added in margin in_ A; _not in_ B.\n\n[354] hec _omitted_, B.\n\n[355] _Added in margin in_ A; _not in_ B.\n\n[356] dereliqueru_n_t, B.\n\n[357] precipue _omitted_, B.\n\n[358] ei _omitted_, B.\n\n[359] Qualmhul _vel_ Q_u_almweld _in margin_, A.\n\n[360] planies, A: planicies, _perhaps corrected from_ planies, B.\n\n[361] blodifeld, B.\n\n[362] Gloria t_r_iumphi, _in margin_, A.\n\n[363] tripudium, B; tripuduum, A.\n\n[364] scis, A, B.\n\n[365] menbra, A.\n\n[366] gracias, B.\n\n[367] hosstibus, A.\n\n[368] romotis, A.\n\n[369] co_n_gnou_er_unt, A.\n\n[370] Warmandi, A.\n\n[371] habenas _repeated after_ regni _above in_ A, _but cancelled in_ B.\n\n[372] exaggeret, B.\n\n[373] pulcritudi_ni_s, B; pulch_r_itudini, A.\n\n[374] i_n_gnota, A.\n\n[375] euuangelii, B.\n\n[376] co_n_si_n_gnatas, A.\n\n[377] _from_ B, _written over erasure_.\n\n[378] scrib_itu_r, B.\n\n[379] Ep_isto_la, _in margin_, A.\n\n[380] i_n_co_n_gnita, A.\n\n[381] dicebant, B.\n\n[382] frustratim, A, B.\n\n[383] ossium, B.\n\n[384] co_n_gnouit, A.\n\n[385] hoc _omitted_, B.\n\n[386] co_n_gnic_i_one, A.\n\n[387] sui, A.\n\n[388] obtemp_er_are, B.\n\n[389] menbra, A.\n\n[390] qui, AB; quae, Wats.\n\n[391] reco_n_gnosce, A.\n\n[392] sancte _et_ dulcissime, B.\n\n[393] ut _added above line_, A, B.\n\n[394] scenobium, A; _the _s_i s erased in_ B.\n\n[395] deo, B\n\n[396] tuinfreth, B.\n\n[397] scenobio, A; s _erased_ B.\n\n[398] de tiran_n_ide Beormredi reg_is_ Mercie, B.\n\n[399] fecerat, _wanting in_ A; _added in margin_, B.\n\n[400] Pinefredum, B; Penefredum, A, _but with_ i _above in first case._\n\n[401] uariis _repeated_, A; _second_ variis _cancelled_, B.\n\n[402] considerans, B, _inserted in margin; omitted_, A.\n\n[403] Marcelline, A; Marcell, B.\n\n[404] vixisset, B, _inserted in margin_; _omitted_, A.\n\n[405] Alberto, _etc. passim_, B.\n\n[406] virtutibus, _in margin, later hand,_ A; _in_ B, _over erasure._\n\n[407] est _in margin_, A.\n\n[408] et _omitted_, B.\n\n[409] innotuerunt, B.\n\n[410] in pietatis manu, B.\n\n[411] p_re_missimis, A.\n\n[412] sinistrum, B.\n\n[413] quam _in margin_, A; _over erasure_, B.\n\n[414] _Space for cap. left vacant_, A.\n\n[415] aucmentu_m_, A.\n\n[416] facinoris, B.\n\n[417] co_n_gnouit, A.\n\n[418] celeriter, B.\n\n[419] cum _in_ A _is inserted after_ p_er_ueniss_et_, _instead of before:\nand this was probably the original reading in_ B, _although subsequently\ncorrected._\n\n[420] _per_, B.\n\n[421] _corrected to_ nullaten_us_ dormire quasi suspecta_m_ p_er_misit, B.\n\n[422] Justa Vindicta, A, _in margin_.\n\n[423] Mr Mackie, in an excellent article on the _Fragment_ (_J.E.G.Ph._\nXVI, 251) objects that my criticism of Hickes' accuracy \"is not altogether\njudicial.\" Mackie urges that, since the MS is no longer extant, we cannot\ntell how far the errors are due to Hickes, and how far they already existed\nin the MS from which Hickes copied.\n\nBut we must not forget that there are other transcripts by Hickes, of MSS\nwhich _are_ still extant, and from these we can estimate his accuracy. It\nis no disrespect to the memory of Hickes, a scholar to whom we are all\nindebted, to recognize frankly that his transcripts are not sufficiently\naccurate to make them at all a satisfactory substitute for the original MS.\nHickes' transcript of the _Cottonian Gnomic Verses_ (_Thesaurus_, I, 207)\nshows an average of one error in every four lines: about half these errors\nare mere matters of spelling, the others are serious. Hickes' transcript of\nthe _Calendar_ (_Thesaurus_, I, 203) shows an average of one error in every\nsix lines. When, therefore, we find in the _Finnsburg Fragment_\ninaccuracies of exactly the type which Hickes often commits, it would be\n\"hardly judicial\" to attribute these to the MS which he copied, and to\nattribute to Hickes in this particular instance an accuracy to which he has\nreally no claim.\n\nMr Mackie doubts the legitimacy of emending _Garulf_ to _Garulf[e]_: but\nwe must remember that Hickes (or his printer) was systematically careless\nas to the final _e_: cf. _Calendar_, 15, 23, 41, 141, 144, 171, 210;\n_Gnomic Verses_, 45. Other forms in the _Finnsburg Fragment_ which can be\neasily paralleled by Hickes' miswritings in the _Calendar_ and _Gnomic\nVerses_ are\n\n  Confusion of _u_ and _a_  (_Finn._ 3, 27, perhaps 44) cf. _Gn._ 66.\n     \"      \"  _c_  \"  _e_  (_Finn._ 12) cf. _Cal._ 136, _Gn._ 44.\n     \"      \"  _e_  \"  _ae_ (_Finn._ 41) cf. _Cal._ 44, 73, _Gn._ 44.\n     \"      \"  _e_  \"  _a_  (_Finn._ 22) cf. _Cal._ 74.\n     \"      \"  _eo_ \"  _ea_ (_Finn._ 28) cf. _Cal._ 121.\n     \"      \"  letters involving long down stroke, e.g., _f_, _s_, _r_,\n            _th_, _w_, _p_  (_Finn._ 2, 36) cf. _Cal._ 97, 142, 180, 181,\n                             _Gn._ 9.\n  Addition of _n_ (_Finn._ 22) cf. _Cal._ 161.\n\n[424] _Heimskringla_, chap. 220.\n\n[425] It has been suggested that the phrase \"Hengest himself\" indicates\nthat Hengest is the \"war-young king.\" But surely the expression merely\nmarks Hengest out as a person of special interest. If we _must_ assume that\nhe is one of the people who have been speaking, then it would be just as\nnatural to identify him with the watcher who has warned the king, as with\nthe king himself. The difficulties which prevent us from identifying\nHengest with the king are explained below.\n\n[426] Garulf must be an assailant, since he falls at the beginning of the\nstruggle, whilst we are told that for five days none of the defenders fell.\n\n[427] Very possibly Guthere is uncle of Garulf. For Garulf is said to be\nson of Guthlaf (l. 35) and a _Guth_ere would be likely to be a brother of a\n_Guth_laf. Further, as Klaeber points out (_Engl. Stud._ XXXIX, 307) it is\nthe part of the uncle to protect and advise the nephew.\n\n[428] Koegel, _Geschichte d. deut. Litt._ I, i, 165.\n\n[429] Klaeber (_Engl. Stud._ XXXIX, 308) reminds us that, as there are two\nwarriors named Godric in the _Battle of Maldon_ (l. 325), so there may be\ntwo warriors named Guthlaf here. But to this it might possibly be replied\nthat \"Godric\" was, in England, an exceedingly common name, \"Guthlaf\" an\nexceedingly rare one.\n\n[430] Finn is called the _bana_, \"slayer\" of Hnaef. But this does not\nnecessarily mean that he slew him with his own hand; it would be enough if\nhe were in command of the assailants at the time when Hnaef was slain. Cf.\n_Beowulf_, l. 1968.\n\n[431] The idea that Finn's Frisians are the \"North Frisians\" of Schleswig\nhas been supported by Grein (_Eberts Jahrbuch_, IV, 270) and, following\nhim, by many scholars, including recently Sedgefield (_Beowulf_, p. 258).\nThe difficulties of this view are very many: one only need be emphasized.\nWe first hear of these North Frisians of Schleswig in the 12th century, and\nSaxo Grammaticus tells us expressly that they were a colony from the\ngreater Frisia (Book XIV, ed. Holder, p. 465). At what date this colony was\nfounded we do not know. The latter part of the 9th century has been\nsuggested by Langhans: so has the end of the 11th century by Lauridsen.\nHowever this may be, all the evidence precludes our supposing this North\nFriesland, or, as Saxo calls it, Fresia Minor, to have existed at the date\nto which we must attribute the origin of the Finn story. On this point the\nfollowing should be consulted: Langhans (V.), _Ueber den Ursprung der\nNordfriesen_, Wien, 1879 (most valuable on account of its citation of\ndocuments: the latter part of the book, which consists of an attempt to\nrewrite the Finn story by dismissing as corrupt or spurious many of the\ndata, must not blind us to the value of the earlier portions): Lauridsen,\n_Om Nordfrisernes Indvandring i Soenderjylland, Historisk Tidsskrift_, 6 R,\n4 B. II, 318-67, Kjoebenhavn, 1893: Siebs, _Zur Geschichte der\nEnglisch-Friesischen Sprache_, 1889, 23-6: Chadwick, _Origin_, 94: Much in\n_Hoops Reallexikon_, s.v. _Friesen_; and Bremer in _Pauls Grdr._ (2), III,\n848, where references will be found to earlier essays on the subject.\n\n[432] The theory that Hnaef is a captain of Healfdene is based upon a\nrendering of l. 1064 which is in all probability wrong.\n\n[433] The view that the _Eotenas_ are the men of Hnaef and Hengest has been\nheld by Thorpe (_Beowulf_, pp. 76-7), Ettmueller (_Beowulf_, 1840, p. 108),\nBouterwek (_Germania_, I, 389), Holtzmann (_Germania_, VIII, 492), Moeller\n(_Volksepos_, 94-5), Chadwick (_Origin_, 53), Clarke (_Sidelights_, 184).\n\n[434] \"And therefore, said the King ... much more I am sorrier for my good\nknights' loss, than for the loss of my fair queen. For queens I might have\nenow: but such a fellowship of good knights shall never be together in no\ncompany.\" Malory, _Morte Darthur_, Bk. XX, chap. ix.\n\n[435] The argument of Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 37) that the Eotens here (l.\n1088) must be the Frisians, is inconclusive: but so is Miss Clarke's\nargument that they must be Danes (_Sidelights_, 181), as is shown by\nLawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXX, 395).\n\n[436] I say \"son\" in what follows, without prejudice to the possibility of\nmore than one son having fallen. It in no wise affects the argument.\n\n[437] For example, it might well be said of Achilles, whilst thirsting for\nvengeance upon the Trojans for the death of Patroclus, that \"he could not\nget the children of the Trojans out of his mind.\" But surely it would be\nunintelligible to say that \"he could not get the child of the Achaeans out\nof his mind,\" meaning Patroclus, for \"child of the Achaeans\" is not\nsufficiently distinctive to denote Patroclus. Cf. Boer in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVII,\n134.\n\n[438] In the _Skjoldunga Saga_ [extant in a Latin abstract by Arngrim\nJonsson, ed. Olrik, 1894], cap. IV, mention is made of a king of Denmark\nnamed Leifus who had six sons, three of whom are named Hunleifus, Oddleifus\nand Gunnleifus--corresponding exactly to O.E. _H[=u]nl[=a]f_, _Ordl[=a]f_\nand _G[=u]dhl[=a]f_. That Hunlaf was well known in English story is proved\nby a remarkable passage unearthed by Dr Imelmann from _MS Cotton Vesp. D.\nIV_ (fol. 139 _b_) where Hunlaf is mentioned together with a number of\nother heroes of Old English story--Wugda, Hama, Hrothulf, Hengest, Horsa\n(_Hoc testantur gesta rudolphi et hunlapi, Unwini et Widie, horsi et\nhengisti, Waltef et hame_). See Chadwick, _Origin_, 52: R. Huchon, _Revue\nGermanique_, III, 626: Imelmann, in _D.L.Z._ XXX, 999: April, 1909. This\ndisposes of the translation \"Hun thrust or placed in his bosom Lafing, best\nof swords,\" which was adopted by Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 33), Holder, ten\nBrink and Gering. Hun is mentioned in _Widsith_ (l. 33) and in the\nIcelandic _Thulor_.\n\nThat Guthlaf, Ordlaf and Hunlaf must be connected together had been noted\nby Boer (_Z.f.d.A._ XLVII, 139) before this discovery of Chadwick's\nconfirmed him.\n\n[439] The fragment which tells of the fighting in the hall is so imperfect\nthat there is nothing impossible in the assumption, though it is too\nhazardous to make it.\n\n[440] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 1900 _etc._\n\n[441] _Das Altenglische Volksepos_, 46-99.\n\n[442] C. P. Hansen, _Uald' Soeld'ring tialen_, Moegeltoender, 1858. See\nMoeller, _Volksepos_, 75 _etc._\n\n[443] See Muellenhoff in _A.f.d.A._ VI, 86.\n\n[444] So Moeller, _Volksepos_, 152.\n\n[445] See _Beowulf_, ed. Wyatt, 1894, p. 145.\n\n[446] _Volksepos_, 71 _etc._\n\n[447] e.g., Sedgefield, _Beowulf_, 2nd ed., p. 258. So 1st ed., p. 13\n(_Hoc_ being an obvious misprint).\n\n[448] On the poet's use of plural for singular here, see Osthoff, _I.F._\nXX, 202-7.\n\n[449] I have thought it necessary to give fully the reasons why Moeller's\nview cannot be accepted, because in whole or in part it is still widely\nfollowed in England. Chadwick (_Origin_, 53) still interprets \"Eotens\" as\n\"Danes\"; and Sedgefield (_Beowulf_ (2), p. 258) gives Moeller's view the\nplace of honour.\n\n[450] The treachery of Finn is emphasized, for example, by Bugge (_P.B.B._\nXII, 36), Koegel (_Geschichte d. deut. Litt._ 164), ten Brink (_Pauls\nGrdr._ (1), II, 545), Trautmann (_Finn und Hildebrand,_ 59), Lawrence\n(_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXX, 397, 430), Ayres (_J.E.G.Ph._ XVI,\n290).\n\n[451]\n\n          sythdhan morgen c[=o]m\n  dh[=a] h[=e]o under swegle ges[=e]on meahte, _etc._\n\n[452] l. 36. The swords flash _swylce eal Finnsburuh f[=y]renu w[=ae]re_,\n\"as if all Finnsburg were afire.\" I think we may safely argue from this\nthat the swords are flashing near Finnsburg. It would be just conceivable\nthat the poet's mind travels back from the scene of the battle to Finn's\ndistant home: \"the swords made as great a flash as would have been made had\nFinn's distant capital been aflame\": but this is a weak and forced\ninterpretation, which we have no right to assume, though it may be\nconceivable.\n\n[453] _Beowulf_, ll. 1125-7. I doubt whether it is possible to explain the\ndifficulty away by supposing that \"the warriors departing to see Friesland,\ntheir homes and their head-town\" simply means that Finn's men, \"summoned by\nFinn in preparation for the encounter with the Danes, return to their\nrespective homes in the country,\" and that \"_h[=e]aburh_ is a high sounding\nepic term that should not be pressed.\" This is the explanation offered by\nKlaeber (_J.E.G.Ph._ VI, 193) and endorsed by Lawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang.\nAssoc. Amer._ XXX, 401). But it seems to me taking a liberty with the text\nto interpret _h[=e]aburh_ (singular) as the \"respective homes in the\ncountry\" to which Finn's warriors resort on demobilisation. And the\nstatement of ll. 1125-7, that the warriors departed from the place of\ncombat to see Friesland, seems to necessitate that such place of combat was\nnot in Friesland. Klaeber objects to this (surely obvious) inference: \"If\nwe are to infer [from ll. 1125-7] that Finnsburg lies outside Friesland\nproper, we might as well conclude that _Dyflen_ (Dublin) is not situated in\nIreland according to the _Battle of Brunanburh (gewitan him th[=a]\nNordhmenn ... Dyflen s[=e]can and eft [=I]raland_).\" But how could anyone\ninfer this from the _Brunanburh_ lines? What we _are_ justified in\ninferring, is, surely, that the _site of the battle of Brunanburh_ (from\nwhich the Northmen departed to visit Ireland and Dublin) was not identical\nwith Dublin, and did not lie in Ireland. And by exact parity of reason, we\nare justified in arguing that Finnsburg, the site of the first battle in\nwhich Hnaef fell (from which site the warriors depart to visit Friesland\nand the _h[=e]aburh_) was not identical with the _h[=e]aburh_, and did not\nlie in Friesland. Accordingly the usual view, that Finnsburg is situated\noutside Friesland, seems incontestable. See Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 29-30),\nTrautmann (_Finn und Hildebrand_, 60) and Boer (_Z.f.d.A._ XLVII, 137). Cf.\nAyres (_J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 294).\n\n[454] See below, p. 289.\n\n[455] So Brandl, 984, and Heinzel.\n\n[456] Or just as the attack on the Danes began at night, we might suppose\n(as does Trautmann) that it equally culminated in a night assault five days\nlater. There would be obvious advantage in night fighting when the object\nwas to storm a hall: Flugum['y]rr was burnt by night, and so was the hall\nof Njal. So, too, was the hall of Rolf Kraki. It would be, then, on the\nmorning after this second night assault, that Hildeburh found her kinsfolk\ndead.\n\n[457] _Beowulf_, l. 1831: cf. l. 409.\n\n[458] Leo (_Beowulf_, 1839, 67), Muellenhoff (_Nordalbingische Studien_, I,\n157), Rieger (_Lesebuch; Z.f.d.Ph._ III, 398-401), Dederich (_Studien_,\n1877, 96-7), Heyne (in his fourth edition) and in recent times Holthausen\nhave interpreted _eoten_ as a common noun \"giant,\" \"monster,\" and\nconsequently \"foe\" in general. But they have failed to produce any adequate\njustification for interpreting _eoten_ as \"foe,\" and Holthausen, the modern\nadvocate of this interpretation, has now abandoned it. Grundtvig\n(_Beowulfes Beorh_, 1861, pp. 133 _etc._) and Moeller (_Volksepos_, 97\n_etc._) also interpret \"giant,\" Moeller giving an impossible mythological\nexplanation, which was, at the time, widely followed.\n\n[459] Like _oxnum_, _nefenum_ (cf. Sievers, s. 277, Anm. 1).\n\n[460] I do not attach much importance to the argument which might be drawn\nfrom the statement of Binz (_P.B.B._ XX, 185) that the evidence of proper\nnames shows that in the Hampshire district (which was colonized by Jutes)\nthe legend of _Finnsburg_ was particularly remembered. For on the other\nhand, as Binz points out, similar evidence is markedly lacking for Kent.\nAnd why, indeed, should the Jutes have specially commemorated a legend in\nwhich their part appears not to have been a very creditable one?\n\n[461] p. 97, note 225.\n\n[462] See above, p. 200. Zimmer, _Nennius Vindicatus_, 84, assumes that the\nKentish pedigree borrowed these names from the Bernician: but there is no\nevidence for this.\n\n[463] Among those who have so held are Kemble, Thorpe (_Beowulf_, pp.\n76-7), Ettmueller (_Beowulf_, 1840, p. 23), Bouterwek (_Germania_, I, 389),\nGrein (_Eberts Jahrbuch_, IV, 270), Koehler (_Germania_, XIII, 155), Heyne\n(in first three editions), Holder (_Beowulf_, p. 128), ten Brink (_Pauls\nGrdr_. (1), II, 548), Heinzel (_A.f.d.A._ X. 228), Stevenson (_Asser_,\n1904, p. 169), Schuecking (_Beowulf_, 1913, p. 321), Klaeber (_J.E.G.Ph._\nXIV, 545), Lawrence (_Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXX, 393), Moorman\n(_Essays and Studies_, V, 99), Bjoerkman (_Eigennamen im Beowulf_, 21).\n\nSo too, with some hesitation, Chadwick (_Orgin_, 52-3): with much more\nhesitation, Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 37). Whilst this is passing through the\npress Holthausen has withdrawn his former interpretation _eotena_,\n\"enemies,\" in favour of _Eotena_=_[=E]otna_, \"Jutes\" (_Engl. Stud._ LI,\n180).\n\n[464] _P.B.B._ XII, 37.\n\n[465] The cognate of O.E. _f[=ae]r_ (Mod. Eng. \"fear\") in other Germanic\nlanguages, such as Old Saxon and Old High German, has the meaning of\n\"ambush.\" In the nine places where it occurs in O.E. verse it has always\nthe meaning of a peril which comes upon one suddenly, and is applied, e.g.\nto the Day of Judgement (twice) or some unexpected flood (three times). In\ncompounds _f[=ae]r_ conveys an idea of suddenness: \"_f[=ae]r-d[=e]adh_,\nrepentina mors.\"\n\n[466] _Volksepos_, 69.\n\n[467] It has been surmounted in two ways. (1) By altering _eaferum_ to\n_eaferan_ (a very slight change) and then making _f[=ae]r_ refer to the\n_final_ attack upon Finn, in which he certainly _was_ on the defensive\n(Lawrence, 397 _etc._, Ayres, 284, Trautmann, _BB._ II, Klaeber, _Anglia_,\nXXVIII, 443, Holthausen). (2) By making _h[=i][=e]_ refer to _haeledh\nHealf-Dena_ which follows (Green in _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXXI,\n759-97); but this is forced. See also below, p. 284.\n\n[468] Cf. Tacitus, _Germania_, XIV.\n\n[469] For examples of this see pp. 278-82 below.\n\n[470] _Fragment_, 40-1.\n\n[471] See above, p. 30.\n\n[472] Book II (ed. Holder, p. 67).\n\n[473] _P.B.B._ XII, 34.\n\n[474] For a discussion of the interpretation of the difficult\n_forthringan_, see Carlton Brown in _M.L.N._ XXXIV, 181-3.\n\n[475] _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 291-2.\n\n[476] _Ib._ 293-4.\n\n[477] I wish I could feel convinced, with Ayres, that the person whom\nGuthlaf and Oslaf blame for their woes is Hengest rather than Finn. Such an\ninterpretation renders the story so much more coherent; but if the poet\nreally meant this, he assuredly did not make his meaning quite clear.\n\n[478] See below, pp. 276, 288-9.\n\n[479] Ne h[=u]ru Hildeburh herian thorfte Eotena tr[=e]owe.\n\n[480] Ayres, in _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 286. So Lawrence in a private\ncommunication.\n\n[481] ll. 2910, _etc._\n\n[482] We can construct the situation from such historical information as we\ncan get from Gregory of Tours and other sources. The author of _Beowulf_\nmay not have been clear as to the exact relation of the different tribes.\nWe cannot tell, from the vague way he speaks, how much he knew.\n\n[483] I have argued this at some length below, but I do not think anyone\nwould deny it. Bugge recognized it to be true (_P.B.B._ XII, 29-30) as does\nLawrence (392). See below, pp. 288-9.\n\n[484] We can never argue that words are synonymous because they are\nparallel. Compare Psalm cxiv; in the first verse the parallel words are\nsynonymous, but in the second and third not:\n\n\"When Israel came out of Egypt and the house of Jacob from among the\nstrange people\" [Israel = house of Jacob: Egypt = strange people].\n\n\"Judah was His sanctuary and Israel His dominion.\" [Judah is only one of\nthe tribes of Israel.]\n\n\"The sea saw that and fled: Jordan was driven back.\" [The Red Sea and\nJordan are distinct, though parallel, examples.]\n\n[485] _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 288.\n\n[486] _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXX, 430.\n\n[487] Plummer, _Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel_, II, 47.\n\n[488] _Nj['a]ls Saga_, cap. 45.\n\n[489] _Pauls Grdr._ (2), II, 524.\n\n[490] Helmhold.\n\n[491] I know of only one parallel for such assumed adoption of a name: that\nalso concerns the Jutes. The Angles, says Bede, dwelt between the Saxons\nand Jutes: the Jutes must, then, according to Bede, have dwelt north of the\nAngles, since the Saxons dwelt south. But the people north of the Angles\nare now, and have been from early times, Scandinavian in speech, whilst the\nJutes who settled Kent obviously were not. The best way of harmonizing\nknown linguistic facts with Bede's statement is, then, to assume that\nScandinavians settled in the old continental home of these Jutes and took\nover their name, whilst introducing the Scandinavian speech.\n\nNow many scholars have regarded this as so forced and unlikely an\nexplanation that they reject it, and refuse to believe that the Jutes who\nsettled Kent can have dwelt north of the Angles, in spite of Bede's\nstatement. If we are asked to reject the \"Scandinavian-Jute\" theory, as too\nunlikely on _a priori_ grounds, although it is demanded by the express\nevidence of Bede, it is surely absurd to put forward a precisely similar\ntheory in favour of \"Frisian-Jutes\" upon no evidence at all.\n\n[492] Koegel (164), Lawrence (382).\n\n[493] Bjoerkman (_Eigennamen im Beowulf_, 23) interprets the _Eotenas_ as\nJutist subjects of Finn. This suggestion was made quite independently of\nanything I had written, and confirms me in my belief that it is a\nreasonable interpretation.\n\n[494] Ayres in _J.E.G.Ph._ XVI, 288.\n\n[495] e.g. _Nj['a]ls Saga_, cap. 144: _Laxdaela Saga_, cap. 51.\n\n[496] Of course a primitive stage can be conceived at which homicide is\nregarded as worse than murder. Your brother shoots _A_ intentionally: he\nmust therefore have had good reasons, and you fraternally support him. But\nyou may feel legitimate annoyance if he aims at a stag, and shooting _A_ by\nmere misadventure, involves you in a blood-feud.\n\n[497] _Heimskringla, ['O]l. Tryggv._ K. 111; _Saga Olafs Tryggvasonar_, K.\n70 (_Fornmanna S[o,]gur_, 1835, X.)\n\n[498] Saxo Grammaticus (ed. Holder, p. 67).\n\n[499] _Heimskringla, ['O]l. Tryggv._ K. 41.\n\n[500] _l['y]sti v['i]gi ['a] hendr s['e]r._ _Laxdaela Saga_, cap. 49.\n\n[501] Cap. 55.\n\n[502] Cap. 85.\n\n[503] _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, anno 755.\n\n[504] _Nj['a]ls Saga_, cap. 158.\n\n[505] _Fragment_, ll. 40-1.\n\n[506] p. 213 (ed. Holder).\n\n[507] Finn may perhaps be holding a meeting of chieftains. For similar\nmeetings of chieftains, compare _S[o,]rla th['a]ttr_, cap. 4; _Laxdaela\nSaga_, cap. 12; _Sk['a]ldskaparm['a]l_, cap. 47 (50).\n\n[508] There is assuredly a considerable likeness between the Finn story and\nthe Nibelungen story: this has been noted often enough. It is more open to\ndispute whether the likeness is so great as to justify us in believing that\nthe Nibelungen story is _copied_ from the Finn story, and may therefore\nsafely be used as an indication how gaps in our existing versions of that\nstory may be filled. See Boer in _Z.f.d.A._ XLVII, 125 _etc._\n\n[509] The fact that both sides have suffered about equally facilitates a\nsettlement in the Teutonic feud, just as it does among the Afridis or the\nAlbanians at the present day.\n\n[510] The situation would then be parallel to that in _Laxdaela Saga_, cap.\n60-5, where the boy Thorleik, aged fifteen, is nominally in command of the\nexpedition which avenges his father Bolli, but is only able to accomplish\nhis revenge by enlisting the great warrior Thorgils, who is the real leader\nof the raid.\n\n[511] Bugge (_P.B.B._ XII, 36) interpreted this _swylce_ as meaning that\nsword-bale came upon Finn in like manner as it had previously come upon\nHnaef. But this is to make _swylce_ in l. 1146 refer back to the death of\nHnaef mentioned (72 lines previously) in l. 1074. Moeller (_Volksepos_, 67)\ntries to explain _swylce_ by supposing the passage it introduces to be a\nfragment detached from its context.\n\n[512] f, r, s, th, w, p ([Old English Letters]), all letters involving a\nlong down stroke, are constantly confused. For examples, see above, p. 245,\nand cf. e.g. _Beowulf_, l. 2882 (_fergendra_ for _wergendra_); _Crist_, 12\n(_craestga_ for _craeftga_); _Phoenix_, 15 (_fnaeft_ for _fnaest_); Riddles\nIII (IV), 18 (_thyran_ for _thywan_); XL (XLI), 63 (_thyrre_ for _thyrse_);\nXLII (XLIII), 4 (_speop_ for _sp[=e]ow_), 11 (_waes_ for _thaes_); LVII\n(LVIII), 3 (_rope_ for _r[=o]fe_ or _r[=o]we_), _etc._\n\n[513] p. 392.\n\n[514] p. 431.\n\n[515] _Nennius Interpretatus_, ed. Mommsen (_Chronica Minora_, III, 179, in\n_Mon. Germ. Hist._)\n\n[516] \"De norske oldsager synes at vidne om, at temmelig livlige\nhandelsforbindelser i den aeldre jernalder har fundet sted mellem Norge og\nde sydlige Nordsoekyster.\" Undset, _Fra Norges aeldre Jernalder_ in the\n_Aarboeger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie_, 1880, 89-184, esp. p.\n173. See also Chadwick, _Origin_, 93. I am indebted to Chadwick's note for\nthis reference to Undset.\n\n[517] _Ravennatis anonymi cosmographia_, ed. Pinder et Parthey, Berolini,\n1860, pp. 27, 28 (s. I, 11).\n\n[518] The modern Wijk bij Duurstede, not far from Utrecht, on the Lower\nRhine.\n\n[519] An account of the numerous coins found among the ruins of the old\ntown will be found in the _Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte_, IV\n(1864), pp. 301-303. They testify to its commercial importance.\n\n[520] So Adam of Bremen, following Alcuin. Concerning \"Heiligland\" Adam\nsays: \"Hanc in vita Sancti Willebrordi Fosetisland appellari discimus, quae\nsita est in confinio Danorum et Fresonum.\" Adam of Bremen in Pertz,\n_Scriptores_, VII, 1846, p. 369.\n\n[521] Alcuin's _Life of Willibrord_ in Migne (1851)--Alcuini _Opera_, vol.\nII, 699-702.\n\n[522] See above, pp. 199-200.\n\n[523] It had been disputed by Skeat, Earle, Boer, and others, but never\nwith such strong reasons.\n\n[524] I use below the form \"Beow,\" which I believe to be the correct one.\n\"Beaw\" is the form in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_. But as the name of\nSceldwa, Beaw's father, is there given in a form which is not West-Saxon\n(_sceld_, not _scield_ or _scyld_), it may well be that \"Beaw\" is also the\nAnglian dialect form, if it be not indeed a mere error: and this is\nconfirmed by _Beo_ (Ethelwerd), _Beowius_ (William of Malmesbury),\n_Boerinus_ (for _Beowinus_: Chronicle Roll), perhaps too by _Beowa_\n(Charter of 931) and _Beowi_, (_MS Cott. Tib. B. IV_). For the significance\nof this last, see pp. 303-4, below, and Bjoerkman in _Engl. Stud._ LII,\n171, _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXX, 23.\n\n[525] Vol. LXXXI, p. 517.\n\n[526] It has indeed been so argued by Brandl: \"Beowulf ... ist nur der\nErloeser seines Volkes ... und dankt es schliesslich dem Himmel, in einer\nan den Heiland gemahnenden Weise, dass er die Seinen um den Preis des\neigenen Lebens mit Schaetzen begluecken konnte.\" _Pauls Grdr._ (2), II, l.\n1002.\n\n[527] _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 11th edit., III, 760-1.\n\n[528] l. 2039, where a capital O occurs, but without a section number.\n\n[529] _Moore, Namur, Cotton._\n\n[530] _Cotton Tiberius B. XI._\n\n[531] _Hatton_, 20.\n\n[532] See above, pp. 92-7.\n\n[533] See above, pp. 43-4.\n\n[534] Ethelwerd.\n\n[535] _Chronicle._\n\n[536] Boer, _Beowulf_, 135, 143: _Arkiv f. nord. Filologi_, XIX, 29.\n\n[537] _Heroic Age_, 126.\n\n[538] _Postscript to Preface_, p. ix.\n\n[539] _Postscript_, pp. xi, xiv.\n\n[540] See _Lokasenna_ in _Die Lieder der Edda_, herausg. von Sijmons u.\nGering, I, 134.\n\n                  Byggvir kvath:\n  \"[Veiztu] ef [ek] oethle aettak sem Ingunar-Freyr,\n              ok sv['a] saellekt setr,\n  merge smaera moelthak [th['a]] meinkr[['o],]ko\n              ok lemtha alla ['i] litho.\"\n\n[541] Lines corresponding to these of Burns are found both in the Scotch\nballad recorded by Jamieson, and in the English ballad (Pepys Collection).\nSee Jamieson, _Popular Ballads and Songs_, 1806, II, 241, 256.\n\n[542]\n\n            Loki kvath:\n  \"Hvat's that et l['i]tla, es [ek] that l[o,]ggra s['e]k,\n            ok snapv['i]st snaper?\n  at eyrom Freys mont[u] ae vesa\n            ok und kvernom klaka.\"\n\n[543] Jamieson, II, 239. So Burns: \"John Barleycorn was a hero bold,\" and\nthe ballad\n\n  John Barleycorn is the wightest man\n      That ever throve in land.\n\n[544]\n\n            Byggvir kvath:\n  \"Byggver ek heite, en mik br['a]than kvetha\n            goth [o,]ll ok gumar;\n  thv['i] emk h['e]r hr['o]thogr, at drekka Hr['o]pts meger\n            aller [o,]l saman.\"\n\n[545]\n\n            Loki kvath:\n  \"thege th['u], Byggver! th['u] kunner aldrege\n            deila meth m[o,]nnom mat;\n  [ok] thik ['i] flets strae finna n['e] m[['o],]tto,\n            th['a]s v[['o],]go verar.\"\n\n[546] This follows from the allusive way in which he and his wife are\nintroduced--there must be a background to allusions. If the poet were\ninventing this figure, and had no background of knowledge in his audience\nto appeal to, he must have been more explicit. Cf. Olsen in Christiania\n_Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter_, 1914, II, 2, 107.\n\n[547] p. 87.\n\n[548] See Olrik, \"Nordisk og Lappisk Gudsdyrkelse,\" _Danske Studier_, 1905,\npp. 39-57; \"Tordenguden og hans dreng,\" 1905, pp. 129-46; \"Tordenguden og\nhans dreng i Lappernes myteverden,\" 1906, pp. 65-9; Krohn, \"Lappische\nbeitraege zur germ. mythologie,\" _Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, VI, 1906,\npp. 155-80.\n\n[549] See Axel Olrik in _Festgabe f. Vilh. Thomsen_, 1912 (=\n_Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, XII, 1, p. 40). Olrik refers therein to\nhis earlier paper on the subject in _Danske Studier_, 1911, p. 38, and to a\nforthcoming article in the _Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift_, which\nhas, I think, never appeared. See also K. Krohn in _Goettingische gelehrte\nAnzeigen_, 1912, p. 211. Reviewing Meyer's _Altgermanische\nReligionsgeschichte_, Krohn, after referring to the Teutonic gods of\nagriculture, continues \"Ausser diesen agrikulturellen Gottheiten sind aus\nder finnischen Mythologie mit Huelfe der Linguistik mehrere germanische\nNaturgoetter welche verschiedene Nutzpflanzen vertreten, entdeckt worden:\nder Roggengott Runkoteivas oder Rukotivo, der Gerstengott Pekko (nach\nMagnus Olsen aus urnord. Beggw-, vgl. Byggwir) und ein Gott des\nFuttergrases Saempsae (vgl. Semse od. Simse, 'die Binse').\" See also Krohn,\n\"Germanische Elemente in der finnischen Volksdichtung,\" _Z.f.d.A._ LI,\n1909, pp. 13-22; and Karsten, \"Einige Zeugnisse zur altnordischen\nGoetterverehrung in Finland,\" _Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, XII, 307-16.\n\n[550] As proposed by K. Krohn in a publication of the Finnish Academy at\nHelsingfors which I have not been able to consult, but as to which see\nSetaelae in _Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, XIII, 311, 424. Setaelae\naccepts the derivation from _beggwu-_, rejecting an alternative derivation\nof Pekko from a Finnish root.\n\n[551] This is proposed by J. J. Mikkola in a note appended to the article\nby K. Krohn, \"Sampsa Pellervoinen < Njordr, Freyr?\" in _Finnisch-Ugrische\nForschungen_, IV, 231-48. See also Olrik, \"For[oa]rsmyten hos Finnerne,\" in\n_Danske Studier_, 1907, pp. 62-4.\n\n[552] See note by K. Krohn, _Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, VI, 105.\n\n[553] See above, p. 87, and M. J. Eisen, \"Ueber den Pekokultus bei den\nSetukesen,\" _Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen_, VI, 104-11.\n\n[554] See M. Olsen, _Hedenske Kultminder i Norske Stedsnavne_, Christiania\n_Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter_, II, 2, 1914, pp. 227-8.\n\n[555] See above, p. 84.\n\n[556] Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, 332.\n\n[557] In view of the weight laid upon this custom by Olrik as illustrating\nthe story of Sceaf, it is necessary to note that it seems to be confined to\nparts of England bordering on the \"Celtic fringe.\" See above, pp. 81,\n_etc._ Olrik and Olsen quote it as Kentish (see _Heltedigtning_, II, 252)\nbut this is certainly wrong. Frazer attributes the custom of \"crying the\nmare\" to Hertfordshire and Shropshire (_Spirits of the Corn_, I, 292 =\n_Golden Bough_, 3rd edit., VII, 292). In this he is following Brand's\n_Popular Antiquities_ (1813, I, 443; 1849, II, 24; also Carew Hazlitt,\n1905, I, 157). But Brand's authority is Blount's _Glossographia_, 1674, and\nBlount says _Herefordshire_.\n\n[558] Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, 1849, II, 24.\n\n[559] Frazer in the _Folk-Lore Journal_, VII, 1889, pp. 50, 51; _Adonis,\nAttis and Osiris_, I, 237.\n\n[560] Frazer, _Adonis, Attis and Osiris_, I, 238 (_Golden Bough_, 3rd\nedit.).\n\n[561] Frazer, _Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild_, I, 143-4.\n\n[562] Frazer in the _Folk-Lore Journal_, VII, 1889, pp. 50, 51.\n\n[563] Mannhardt, _Forschungen_, 317.\n\n[564] Frazer, _Spirits of the Corn_, I, 138.\n\n[565] Mannhardt, 323; Fraser, _Adonis_, I, 238.\n\n[566] Mannhardt, 330.\n\n[567] Mannhardt, 24; Frazer, _Adonis_, I, 238.\n\n[568] Frazer, _Adonis_, I, 237.\n\n[569] Frazer, _Spirits of the Corn_, I, 217.\n\n[570] See Bjoerkman in _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXX, 1919, p. 23. In a similar\nway Sceaf appears twice in William of Malmesbury, once as Sceaf and once as\nStrephius.\n\n[571] Vol. LII, p. 145.\n\n[572] _MS Cott. Vesp. B. XXIV_, fol. 32 (Evesham Cartulary). See Birch,\n_Cart. Sax._ I, 176 (No. 120); Kemble, _Cod. Dipl._ III, 376. Kemble prints\n_thaet aeft_ for _th[=a] aeft_ (MS \"[=th] aeft\"). For examples of \"[=th]\"\nfor _th[=a]_, see _Aelfrics Grammatik_, herausg. Zupitza, 1880; 38, 3; 121,\n4; 291, 1.\n\n[573] There are two copies, one of the tenth and one of the eleventh\ncentury, among the Crawford Collection in the Bodleian. See Birch, _Cart.\nSax._ III, ..7 (No. 1331); Napier and Stevenson, _The Crawford Collection_\n(_Anecdota Oxoniensia_), 1895, pp. 1, 3, 50.\n\n[574] _MS Cotton Ch. VIII_, 16. See Birch, _Cart. Sax._ II, 363 (No. 677);\nKemble, _Cod. Dipl._ II, 172.\n\n[575] A nearly contemporary copy: _Westminster Abbey Charters_, III. See\nBirch, _Cart. Sax._ III, 189 (No. 994), and W. B. Sanders, _Ord. Surv.\nFacs._ II, plate III.\n\n[576] A fourteenth to fifteenth century copy preserved at Wells Cathedral\n(_Registr. Album_, f. 289 _b_). See Birch, _Cart. Sax._ III, 223 (No.\n1023).\n\n[577] _MS Cotton Aug. II_, 6. See Birch, _Cart. Sax._ III, 588 (No. 1282).\n\n[578] _Brit. Mus. Stowe Chart._ No. 32. See Birch, _Cart. Sax._ III, 605\n(No. 1290).\n\n[579] Cf. the _Victoria History_, Middlesex, II, p. 1.\n\n[580] \"_Grendeles gate_ har vael snarast varit n[oa]gon naturbildning t.\nex. ett tr[oa]ngt bergpass eller kanske en grotta\": C. W. von Sydow, in an\nexcellent article on _Grendel i anglosaxiska ortnamn_, in _Nordiska\nOrtnamn: Hyllningsskrift tillaegnad A. Noreen_, Upsala, 1914, pp. 160-4.\n\n[581] Pr[`e]s du _Neckersgat molen_, il y avait jadis, ant['e]rieurement\naux guerres de religion, des maisons entour['e]es d'eau et appel['e]es _de\nhoffstede te Neckersgate_: Wauters (A.), _Histoire des Environs de\nBruxelles_, 1852, III, 646.\n\n[582] Peg Powler lived in the Tees, and devoured children who played on the\nbanks, especially on Sundays: Peg o' Nell, in the Ribble, demanded a life\nevery seven years. See Henderson (W.), _Notes on the Folk-Lore of the\nNorthern Counties of England_, 1879 (_Folk-Lore Society_), p. 265.\n\n[583] See Kisch (G.), _Vergleichendes Woerterbuch der siebenbuergischen und\nmoselfraenkischluxemburgischen Mundart, nebst\nsiebenbuergischniederrheinischem Ortsund Familiennamen-verzeichnis_ (vol.\nXXXIII, 1 of the _Archiv des Vereins f. siebenbuerg_. _Landeskunde_, 1905).\n\n[584] See _Grindel_ in Foerstemann (E.), _Altdeutsches Namenbuch_, Dritte\nAufl., herausg. Jellinghaus, II, 1913, and in Fischer (H.), _Schwaebisches\nWoerterbuch_, III, 1911 (nevertheless Rooth legitimately calls attention to\nthe names recorded by Fischer in which _Grindel_ is connected with _bach_,\n_teich_ and _moos_).\n\n[585] There is an account of this by G. Kisch in the _Festgabe zur Feier\nder Einweihung des neuen evang. Gymnasial Buerger- und\nElementar-schulgebaeudes in Besztercze (Bistritz) am 7 Oct. 1911_; a\ndocument which I have not been able to procure.\n\n[586] Such a connection is attempted by W. Benary in Herrig's _Archiv_,\nCXXX, 154. Alternative suggestions, which would exclude any connection with\nthe Grendel of _Beowulf_, are made by Klaeber, in _Archiv_, CXXXI, 427.\n\n[587] A very useful summary of the different etymologies proposed is made\nby Rooth in _Anglia, Beiblatt_, XXVIII (1917), 335-8.\n\n[588] So Skeat, \"On the significance of the monster Grendel,\" _Journal of\nPhilology_, Cambridge, XV (1886), p. 123; Laistner, _Raetsel der Sphinx_,\n1889, p. 23; Holthausen, in his edition.\n\n[589] So Weinhold in the _SB. der k. Akad. Wien, Phil.-Hist. Classe_, XXVI,\n255.\n\n[590] Cf. Gollancz, _Patience_, 1913, Glossary. For _grindill_ as one of\nthe synonyms for \"storm,\" see _Edda Snorra Sturlusonar_, Hafniae, 1852, II,\n486, 569.\n\n[591] This will be found in several of the vocabularies of Low German\ndialects published by the _Verein fuer Niederdeutsche Sprachforschung_.\n\n[592] See _grand_ in Falk and Torp, _Etymologisk Ordbog_, Kristiania,\n1903-6.\n\n[593] See Feist, _Etymol. Woerterbuch der Gotischen Sprache_, Halle, 1909;\n_grunduwaddjus._\n\n[594] With Grendel, thus explained, Rooth would connect the \"Earth man\" of\nthe fairy-tale \"Dat Erdmaenneken\" (see below, p. 370) and the name\n_Sandhaug_, _Sandey_, which clings to the Scandinavian _Grettir-_ and\n_Orm-_stories. We have seen that a _sandhaug_ figures also in one of the\nScandinavian cognates of the folk-tale (see above, p. 67). These\nresemblances may be noted, though it would be perilous to draw deductions\nfrom them.\n\n[595] _Schweizerisches Idiotikon_, II, 1885, p. 776.\n\n[596] See above, pp. 43, _etc._; below, p. 311.\n\n[597] Duignan, _Warwickshire Place Names_, p. 22. Duignan suggests the same\netymology for _Beoshelle_, _beos_ being \"the Norman scribe's idea of the\ngen. plu.\" This, however, is very doubtful.\n\n[598] _Engl. Stud._ LII, 177.\n\n[599] _Heltedigtning_, II, 255. See above, pp. 81-7.\n\n[600] Binz in _P.B.B._ XX, 148; Chadwick, _Origin_, 282. So Clarke,\n_Sidelights_, 128. Cf. Heusler in _A.f.d. A._ XXX, 31.\n\n[601] _A.-S. Chronicle._\n\n[602] _Historia Brittonum._\n\n[603] \"hraedlan\" (gen.), _Beowulf_, 454.\n\n[604] \"hraedles,\" _Beowulf_, 1485.\n\n[605] _A.-S. Chronicle._\n\n[606] _Beowulf_, Ethelwerd.\n\n[607] Geata, Geta, _Historia Brittonum_; Asser; _MS Cott. Tib. A. VI;\nTextus Roffensis_.\n\n[608] _A.-S. Chronicle._\n\n[609] Charter of 931.\n\n[610] _A.-S. Chronicle_, Ethelwerd.\n\n[611] _Origin_, 273.\n\n[612] _Origin_, 282.\n\n[613] Some O.H.G. parallels will be found in _Z.f.d.A._ XII, 260. The weak\nform _G[=e]ata_, Mr Stevenson argues, is due to Asser's attempt to\nreconcile the form _G[=e]at_ with the Latin _Geta_ with which he identifies\nit (Asser, pp. 160-161). See also Chadwick, _Heroic Age_, 124 footnote. Yet\nwe get _G[=e]ata_ in one text of the _Chronicle_, and in other documents.\n\n[614] This is the view taken by Plummer, who does not seem to regard any\nsolution as possible other than that the names are missing from the _Parker\nMS_ by a transcriber's slip (see _Two Saxon Chronicles Parallel_, II, p.\nxciv).\n\n[615] Plummer, II, pp. xxix, xxxi, lxxxix.\n\n[616] Plummer, II, p. lxxi. Note _Beowi_ for _Bedwig_.\n\n[617] This table shows the relationship of the genealogies only, not of the\nwhole MSS, of which the genealogies form but a small part. MS-relationships\nare always liable to fluctuation, as we pass from one part of a MS to\nanother, and for obvious reasons this is peculiarly the case with the\n_Chronicle_ MSS.\n\n[618] _Origin_, 295.\n\n[619] _Origin_, 292.\n\n[620] _Origin_, 296.\n\n[621] The absence of the West-Saxon pedigree may be due to the document\nfrom which the _Historia Brittonum_ and the _Vespasian MS_ derive these\npedigrees having been drawn up in the North: Wessex may have been outside\nthe purview of its compiler; though against this is the fact that it\ncontains the Kentish pedigree. But another quite possible explanation is,\nthat Cerdic, with his odd name, was not of the right royal race, but an\nadventurer, and that it was only later that a pedigree was made up for his\ndescendants, on the analogy of those possessed by the more blue-blooded\nmonarchs of Mercia and Northumbria.\n\n[622] See _M.L.N._ 1897, XII, 110-11.\n\n[623] It is prefixed to the _Parker MS_ of the _Chronicle_, and is found\nalso in the Cambridge MS of the Anglo-Saxon Bede (_Univ. Lib. Kk._ 3. 18)\nprinted in Miller's edition; in _MS Cott. Tib. A. III_, 178 (printed in\nThorpe's _Chronicle_): and in _MS Add._ 34652, printed by Napier in\n_M.L.N._ 1897, XII, 106 _etc._ There are uncollated copies in _MS C.C.C.C._\n383, fol. 107, and according to Liebermann (Herrig's _Archiv_, CIV, 23) in\nthe _Textus Roffensis_, fol. 7 b. There is also a fragment, which does not\nhowever include the portion under consideration, in _MS Add._ 23211 (_Brit.\nMus._) printed in Sweet's _Oldest English Texts_, p. 179. The statement,\nsometimes made, that there is a copy in _MS C.C.C.C._ 41, rests on an error\nof Whelock, who was really referring to the _Parker MS_ of the _Chronicle_\n(_C.C.C.C._ 173).\n\n[624] p. 73.\n\n[625] See above, p. 70.\n\n[626] Brandl in Herrig's _Archiv_, CXXXVII, 12-13.\n\n[627] _Origin_, p. 272.\n\n[628] So Ethelwerd (_Lib._ I) sees in Woden a _rex multitudinis\nBarbarorum_, in error deified. It is the usual point of view, and persists\ndown to Carlyle (_Heroes_).\n\n[629] _Origin_, p. 293.\n\n[630] _Beowulf_, p. 5. For a further examination of this \"Beowa-myth\" see\nAppendix A, above.\n\n[631] Cf. Tupper in _Pub. Mod. Lang. Assoc. Amer._ XXVI, 275.\n\n[632] _P.B.B._ XLII, 347-410. A theory as to the date of _Beowulf_, in some\nrespects similar, was put forward by Mone in 1836: _Untersuchungen zur\nGeschichte der teutschen Heldensage_, p. 132.\n\n[633] See above, p. 103; and Brandl in _Pauls Grdr._ (2) II, 1000, where\nthe argument is excellently stated.\n\n[634] See Olrik, _Sakses Oldhistorie_, 1894, 190-91.\n\n[635] See Bjoerkman, _Eigennamen im Beowulf_, 77.\n\n[636] Sarrazin's attempt to prove such corruption is an entire failure. Cf.\nBrandl in Herrig's _Archiv_, CXXVI, 234; Bjoerkman, _Eigennamen im\nBeowulf_, 58 (_Headho-Beardan_).\n\n[637] A few Geatic adventurers may have taken part in the Anglo-Saxon\ninvasion, as has been argued by Moorman (_Essays and Studies_, V). This is\nlikely enough on _a priori_ grounds, though many of the etymologies of\nplace-names quoted by Moorman in support of his thesis are open to doubt.\n\n[638] _P.B.B._ XLII, 366-7.\n\n[639] _History of England to the Norman Conquest_, I, 245.\n\n[640] _Heroic Age_, 52-6. I have tried to show (Appendix F) that these\naccounts of cremation are not so archaeologically correct as has sometimes\nbeen claimed.\n\n[641] Oman, _England before the Norman Conquest_, 319.\n\n[642] Bede, _Hist. Eccles._ IV, 26.\n\n[643] \"Nunc qui Roma veniunt idem allegant, ut qui Haugustaldensem fabricam\nvident ambitionem Romanam se imaginari jurent.\" William of Malmesbury,\n_Gesta Pontificum_, Rolls Series, p. 255.\n\n[644] Baldwin Brown, _The Arts in Early England_, II, 1903, p. 325.\n\n[645] p. 407.\n\n[646] _Beowulf_, ll. 201, 601-3.\n\n[647] Cf. _Beowulf_, l. 1018.\n\n[648] Bede, _Eccles. Hist._ III, 21.\n\n[649] See Oman, pp. 460, 591, for the honour done to this saint by\nconverted Danes.\n\n[650] p. 393.\n\n[651] _Aeneid_, X, 467-9.\n\n[652] In the two admirable articles by Klaeber (_Archiv_, CCXVI, 40 _etc._,\n399 _etc._) every possible parallel is drawn: the result, to my mind, is\nnot complete conviction.\n\n[653] Chadwick, _Heroic Age_, 74.\n\n[654] \"Litteris itaque ad plenum instructus, nativae quoque linguae non\nnegligebat carmina; adeo ut, teste libro Elfredi, de quo superius dixi,\nnulla umquam aetate par ei fuerit quisquam. Poesim Anglicam posse facere,\ncantum componere, _eadem apposite vel canere vel dicere_. Denique\ncommemorat Elfredus carmen triviale, quod adhuc vulgo cantitatur, Aldelmum\nfecisse, aditiens causam qua probet rationabiliter tantum virum his quae\nvideantur frivola institisse. Populum eo tempore semibarbarum, parum\ndivinis sermonibus intentum, statim, cantatis missis, domos cursitare\nsolitum. Ideo sanctum virum, super pontem qui rura et urbem continuat,\nabeuntibus se opposuisse obicem, quasi artem cantitandi professum. Eo\nplusquam semel facto, plebis favorem et concursum emeritum. Hoc commento\nsensim inter ludicra verbis Scripturarum insertis, cives ad sanitatem\nreduxisse.\" William of Malmesbury, _De gestis pontificum Anglorum_, ed.\nHamilton, _Rolls Series_, 1870, 336.\n\n[655] \"Reverentissimo patri meaeque rudis infantiae venerando praeceptori\nAdriano.\" _Epist._ (Aldhelmi _Opera_, ed. Giles, 1844, p. 330).\n\n[656] Faricius, Life, in Giles' edition of Aldhelm, 1844, p. 357.\n\n[657] Letter of Cuthbert to Cuthwine, describing Bede's last illness. \"Et\nin nostra lingua, hoc est anglica, ut erat doctus in nostris carminibus,\nnonnulla dixit. Nam et tunc Anglico carmine componens, multum compunctus\naiebat, _etc._\" The letter is quoted by Simeon of Durham, ed. Arnold,\n_Rolls Series_, 1882, I, pp. 43-46, and is extant elsewhere, notably in a\nninth century MS at St Gall.\n\n[658] \"quid Hinieldus cum Christo.\"\n\n[659] \"Thaet [=ae]nig pr[=e]ost ne b[=e]o ealuscop, ne on [=ae]nige\nw[=i]san gl[=i]wige, mid him sylfum oththe mid [=o]thrum mannum\"--Thorpe,\n_Ancient Laws and Institutes of England_, 1840, p. 400 (Laws of Edgar, cap.\n58).\n\n[660] \"avitae gentilitatis vanissima didicisse carmina.\" This charge is\ndismissed as \"scabiem mendacii.\" _Vita Sancti Dunstani_, by \"B,\" in\n_Memorials of Dunstan_, ed. Stubbs, _Rolls Series_, 1874, p. 11. Were these\nsongs heroic or magic?\n\n[661] _The Heroic Legends of Denmark_, New York, 1919, p. 32 (footnote).\n\n[662] _Ibid._ p. 39.\n\n[663] Thus, much space has been devoted to discussing whether \"Gotland,\" in\nthe eleventh century Cotton MS of Alfred's Orosius, signifies Jutland. I\nbelieve that it does; but fail to see how it can be argued from this that\nAlfred believed the Jutes to be \"Geatas.\" Old English had no special symbol\nfor the semi-vowel _J_; so, to signify _J[=o]tland_, Alfred would have\nwritten \"Geotland\" (Sievers, _Gram._ ss. 74, 175). Had he meant \"Land of\nthe Geatas\" he would have written \"Geataland\" or \"Geatland.\" Surely\n\"Gotland\" is nearer to \"Geotland\" than to \"Geatland.\"\n\n[664] _P.B.B._ XII, 1-10.\n\n[665] See above, p. 8. Fahlbeck has recently revised and re-stated his\narguments.\n\n[666] _Danmarks Riges Historie_, I, 79 _etc._\n\n[667] _Beowulf_, uebersetzt von H. Gering, 1906, p. vii.\n\n[668] See above, also _Nordisk Aandsliv_, 10, where Olrik speaks of the\nGeatas as \"Jyderne.\" His arguments as presented to the Copenhagen\n_Philologisk-historisk Samfund_ are summarized by Schuette, _J.E.G. Ph._\nXI, 575-6. Clausen also supports the Jute-theory, _Danske Studier_, 1918,\n137-49.\n\n[669] _J.E.G. Ph._ XI, 574-602.\n\n[670] _Beowulf, et Bidrag til Nordens Oldhistorie_ af Chr. Kier,\nKoebenhavn, 1915.\n\n[671] This is admitted by Bugge, _P.B.B._ XII, 6. \"_Ge['a]tas_ ... ist\nsprachlich ein ganz anderer name als altn. _J['o]tar_, _J['u]tar_, bei Beda\n_Jutae_, und nach Beda im _Chron. Sax._ 449 _Jotum_, _Jutna_ ... Die\n_Ge['a]tas_ ... tragen einen namen der sprachlich mit altn. _Gautar_\nidentisch ist.\"\n\n[672] From a presumed Prim. Germ. _*Eutiz_, _*Eutjaniz_. The word in O.E.\nseems to have been declined both as an _i_-stem and an _n_-stem, the\n_n_-stem forms being used more particularly in the gen. plu., just as in\nthe case of the tribal names, _Seaxe_, _Mierce_ (Sievers, s. 264). The\nLatinized forms show the same duplication, the dat. _Euciis_ pointing to an\n_i_-stem, the nom. _Euthio_ to an _n_-stem, plu. _*Eutiones_. For a\ndiscussion of the relation of the O.E. name to the Danish _Jyder_, see\nBjoerkman in _Anglia, Beiblatt,_ XXVIII, 274-80: \"Zu ae. _Eote_, _Yte_,\ndaen. _Jyder_ 'Jueten'.\"\n\n[673] I regard it as simply an _error_ of the translator, possibly because\nhe had before him a text in which Bede's _Iutis_ had been corrupted in this\nplace into _Giotis_, as it is in Ethelwerd: _Cantuarii de Giotis traxerunt\noriginem, Vuhtii quoque_. (Bk. I: other names which Ethelwerd draws from\nBede in this section are equally corrupt.)\n\nBede's text runs: (I, 15) _Aduenerant autem de tribus Germaniae populis\nfortioribus, id est Saxonibus, Anglis, Iutis. De Iutarum origine sunt\nCantuarii et Victuarii_; in the translation: \"Comon hi of thrim folcum dham\nstrangestan Germanie, thaet [is] of Seaxum and of Angle and of Geatum. Of\nGeata fruman syndon Cantware and Wihtsaetan\": (IV, 16) _In proximam Iutorum\nprouinciam translati ... in locum, qui uocatur Ad Lapidem_; \"in tha\nneahmaegdhe, seo is gecegd Eota lond, in sume stowe seo is nemned Aet\nStane\" (Stoneham, near Southampton). _MS C.C.C.C._ 41 reads \"Ytena land\":\nsee below.\n\n[674] _Two Saxon Chronicles_, ed. Plummer, 1899. _Introduction_, pp. lxx,\nlxxi.\n\n[675] _The O.E. version of Bede's Ecclesiastical History_, ed. Miller, II,\nxv, xvi, 1898.\n\n[676] Florentii Wigorn. _Chron._, ed. Thorpe, II, 45; I, 276.\n\n[677] It cannot be said that this is due to textual corruption in our late\ncopy, for the alliteration constantly demands a G-form, not a vowel-form.\n\n[678] See pp. 8, 9 above, ss. 2-7.\n\n[679] Just as, for example, in _Heimskringla: Haraldz saga ins\nh['a]rfagra_, 13-17, the Goetar are constantly mentioned, because the\nkingdom of Sweden is being attacked from their side.\n\n[680] Procopius tells us that there were in Thule (i.e. the Scandinavian\npeninsula) thirteen nations, each under its own king: [Greek: basileis te\neisi kata ethnos hekaston ... hon ethnos hen poluanthropon hoi Gautoi eisi]\n(_Bell. Gott._ ii, 15).\n\n[681] On this alliteration-test, which is very important, see above, pp.\n10-11.\n\n[682] _Geta_ was the recognized Latin synonym for _Gothus_, and is used in\nthis sense in the sixth century, e.g. by Venantius Fortunatus and Jordanes.\nAnd the Goetar are constantly called _Gothi_, e.g. in the formula _rex\nSueorum et Gothorum_ (for the date of this formula see Soederqvist in the\n_Historisk Tidskrift_, 1915: _Aegde Uppsvearne raett att taga och vraeka\nkonung_); or Saxo, Bk. XIII (ed. Holder, p. 420, describing how the _Gothi_\ninvited a candidate to be king, and slew the rival claimant, who was\nsupported by the legally more constitutional suffrages of the Swedes); or\nAdam of Bremen (as quoted below).\n\n[683] _Folknamnet Geatas_, p. 5 _etc._\n\n[684] Speaking of the Goetaelv, Adam says \"Ille oritur in praedictis\nalpibus, perque _medios Gothorum populos_ currit in Oceanum, unde et\nGothelba dicitur.\" Adami Canonici Bremensis, _Gesta Hamm. eccl.\npontificum_, Lib. IV, in Migne, CXLVI, 637. Modern scholars are of the\nopinion that the borrowing has been rather the other way. According to\nNoreen the river Goetaelv (Gautelfr) gets its name as the outflow from Lake\nVaener. (Cf. O.E. _g[=e]otan_, _g[=e]at_, \"pour.\") Goetland (Gautland) is\nthe country around the river, and the Goetar (Gautar) get their name from\nthe country. See Noreen, _V[oa]ra Ortnamn och deras Ursprungliga\nBetydelse_, in _Spridda Studier_, II, 91, 139.\n\n[685] The Scholiast, in his commentary on Adam, records the later state of\nthings, when the Goetar were confined to the south of the river: \"Gothelba\nfluvius a Nordmannis Gothiam separat.\"\n\n[686] _Heimskringla_, cap. 17.\n\n[687] \"Hann [Haraldr] er ['u]ti ['a] herskipum allan vetrinn ok herjar ['a]\nR['a]nr['i]ki\" (cap. 15). \"Haraldr konungr f['o]r v['i]dha um Gautland\nherskildi, ok ['a]tti thar margar orrostur tveim megin elfarinnar....\nS['i]dhan lagdhi Haraldr konungr land alt undir sik fyrir nordhan elfina ok\nfyrir vestan Vaeni\" (cap. 17). _Heimskringla: Haraldz saga ins\nh['a]rfagra_, udgiv. F. J['o]nsson, Koebenhavn, 1893-1900.\n\n[688] Baltzer (L.), _Glyphes des rochers du Bohuslaen, avec une pr['e]face\nde V. Rydberg_, Gothembourg, 1881. See also Baltzer, _N[oa]gra af de\nviktigaste Haellristningarna_, Goeteborg, 1911.\n\n[689] Guinchard, _Sweden: Historical and Statistical Handbook_, 1914, II,\n549.\n\n[690] See Chadwick, _Origin_, 93; _Heroic Age_, 51.\n\n[691] ll. 2910-21. See Schuette, 579, 583.\n\n[692] ll. 2922-3007.\n\n[693] ll. 3018-27.\n\n[694] ll. 3029-30.\n\n[695] pp. 575, 581.\n\n[696] The reason for locating the _Eudoses_ in Jutland is that the name\nhas, very hazardously, been identified with that of the Jutes, _Eutiones_.\nObviously this argument could no longer be used, if the _Eudoses_ were the\n\"Wederas.\"\n\n[697] See e.g. Schuette, 579-80.\n\n[698] _Beowulf_, 1856.\n\n[699] _Beowulf_, 1830 _etc._\n\n[700] _Beowulf_, 2394. See Schuette, 576-9.\n\n[701] _S[=e]o [=e]a th[=ae]r wyrcth micelne s[=ae]._ Orosius, ed. Sweet,\n12, 24.\n\n[702] See above, p. 7.\n\n[703] As Miss Paues, herself a _Geat_, points out to me.\n\n[704] Kier, 39; Schuette, 582, 591 _etc._\n\n[705] See above, pp. 99, 100.\n\n[706] _Vendel och Vendelkr[oa]ka_ in _A.f.n.F._ XXI, 71-80: see _Essays_,\ntrans. Clark Hall, 50-62.\n\n[707] This grave mound is mentioned as \"Kong Ottars Hoeg\" in _Aettartal\nfoer Swea och Goetha Kununga Hus_, by J. Peringskioeld, Stockholm, 1725, p.\n13, and earlier, in 1677, it is mentioned by the same name in some notes of\nan antiquarian survey. That the name \"Vendel-crow\" is now attached to it is\nstated by Dr Almgren. These early references seem conclusive: little weight\ncould, of course, be carried by the modern name alone, since it might\neasily be of learned origin. The mound was opened in 1914-16, and the\ncontents showed it to belong to about 500 to 550 A.D., which agrees\nexcellently with the date of Ohthere. See two articles in _Fornvaennen_ for\n1917: an account of the opening of the mound by S. Lindqvist entitled\n\"Ottarshoegen i Vendel\" (pp. 127-43) and a discussion of early Swedish\nhistory in the light of archaeology, by B. Nerman, \"Ynglingasagan i\narkeologisk belysning\" (esp. pp. 243-6). See also Bjoerkman in _Nordisk\nTidskrift_, Stockholm, 1917, p. 169, and _Eigennamen im Beowulf_, 1920, pp.\n86-99.\n\n[708] See Appendix F: _Beowulf_ and the Archaeologists, esp. p. 356, below.\n\n[709] By the Early Iron Age, Engelhardt meant from 250 to 450 A.D.: but\nmore recent Danish scholars have placed these deposits in the fifth\ncentury, with some overlapping into the preceding and succeeding centuries\n(Mueller, _Vor Oldtid_, 561; Wimmer, _Die Runenschrift_, 301, _etc._). The\nSwedish archaeologists, Knut Stjerna and O. Almgren, agree with Engelhardt,\ndating the finds between about 250 and 450 A.D. (Stjerna's _Essays_, trans.\nClark Hall, p. 149, and _Introduction_, xxxii-iii).\n\n[710] _Essays on questions connected with the O.E. poem of Beowulf_, trans.\nand ed. by John R. Clark Hall, (Viking Club), Coventry. (Reviews by\nKlaeber, _J.E.G.Ph._ XIII, 167-73, weighty; Mawer, _M.L.N._ VIII, 242-3;\n_Athenaeum_, 1913, I, 459-60; _Archiv_, CXXXII, 238-9; Schuette, _A.f.n.F._\nXXXIII, 64-96, elaborate.)\n\n[711] An account of these was given at the time by H. Stolpe, who undertook\nthe excavation. See his _Vendelfyndet_, in the _Antiqvarisk Tidskrift foer\nSverige_, VIII, 1, 1-34, and Hildebrand (H.) in the same, 35-64 (1884).\nStolpe did not live to issue the definitive account of his work,\n_Graffaeltet vid Vendel, beskrifvet af_ H. Stolpe och T. J. Arne,\nStockholm, 1912.\n\n[712] Also added as an Appendix to his _Beowulf_ translation, 1911.\n\n[713] Clark Hall's _Preface_ to Stjerna's _Essays_, p. xx.\n\n[714] _J.E.G.Ph._ XIII, 1914, p. 172.\n\n[715] _Essays_, p. 239: cf. p. 84.\n\n[716] p. 39.\n\n[717] _Germania_, cap. XV.\n\n[718] ll. 378, 470.\n\n[719] Cassiodorus, _Variae_, V, 1.\n\n[720] Walter, _Corpus juris Germanici antiqui_, 1824, II, 125.\n\n[721] _Heimskringla, Haraldz saga_, cap. 38-40.\n\n[722] \"The idea of a gold hoard undoubtedly points to the earlier version\nof the _Beowulf_ poem having originated in Scandinavia. No such 'gold\nperiod' ever existed in Britain.\" _Essays_, p. 147.\n\n[723] _Cottonian Gnomic Verses_, ll. 26-7.\n\n[724] l. 14.\n\n[725] _Exeter Gnomic Verses_, l. 126.\n\n[726] Baldwin Brown, III, 385, IV, 640.\n\n[727] _B._ l. 19.\n\n[728] l. 339.\n\n[729] l. 991.\n\n[730] Cf. Falk, _Altnordische Waffenkunde_, 28.\n\n[731] I would suggest this as the more likely because, if the ring were\ninserted for a practical purpose, it is not easy to see why it later\nsurvived in the form of a mere knob, which is neither useful nor\nornamental. But if it were used to attach the symbolical \"peace bands,\" it\nmay have been retained, in a \"fossilized form,\" with a symbolical meaning.\n\n[732] Most editors indeed do take it in this sense, though recently\nSchuecking has adopted Stjerna's explanation of \"ring-sword.\" In l. 322,\nFalk (27) takes _hring-[=i]ren_ to refer to a \"ring-adorned sword,\" though\nit may well mean a ring-byrnie.\n\n[733] Actually, I believe, more: for two ring-swords were found at\nFaversham, and are now in the British Museum. For an account of one of them\nsee Roach Smith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, 1868, vol. VI, 139. In this\nspecimen both the fixed ring and the ring which moves within it are\ncomplete circles. But in the Gilton sword (_Archaeologia_, XXX, 132) and in\nthe sword discovered at Bifrons (_Archaeologia Cantiana_, X, 312) one of\nthe rings no longer forms a complete circle, and in the sword discovered at\nSarre (_Archaeol. Cant._ VI, 172) the rings are fixed together, and one of\nthem has little resemblance to a ring at all.\n\n[734] At Concevreux. It is described by M. Jules Pilloy in _M['e]moires de\nla Soci['e]t['e] Acad['e]mique de St Quentin_, 4^e S['e]r. tom. XVI, 1913;\nsee esp. pp. 36-7.\n\n[735] See Lindenschmit, \"Germanisches Schwert mit ungewoehnlicher Bildung\ndes Knaufes,\" in _Die Altertuemer unserer heidnischen Vorzeit_, V Bd., V\nHeft, Taf. 30, p. 165, Mainz, 1905.\n\n[736] Salin has no doubt that the Swedish type from Uppland (his figure\n252) is later than even the latest type of English ring-sword (the Sarre\npommel, 251) which is itself later than the Faversham (249) or Bifrons\n(250) pommel. See Salin (B.), _Die Altgermanische Thierornamentik_,\nStockholm, 1904, p. 101. The same conclusion is arrived at by Lindenschmit:\n\"Die urspruengliche Form ist wohl in dem, unter Nr. 249 von Salin\nabgebildeten Schwertknopf aus Kent zu sehen\"; and even more emphatically by\nPilloy, who pronounces the Swedish Vendel sword both on account of its\n\"ring\" and other characteristics, as \"inspir['e]e par un mod[`e]le venu de\ncette contr['e]e [Angleterre].\"\n\n[737] The Benty Grange helmet; see below, p. 358.\n\n[738] Depicted by Clark Hall, Stjerna's _Essays_, p. 258.\n\n[739] Clark Hall's _Beowulf_, p. 227.\n\n[740] \"Von Skandinavien gibt es aus der Voelkerwanderungszeit und\nWikingerepoche keine archaeologischen Anhaltspunkte fuer das Tragen des\nPanzers, weder aus Funden noch aus Darstellungen,\" Max Ebert in Hoops'\n_Reallexikon_, III, 395 (1915-16). But surely this is too sweeping.\nFragments of an iron byrnie, made of small rings fastened together, were\nfound in the Vendel grave 12 (seventh century). See _Graffaeltet vid\nVendel, beskrifvet af_ H. Stolpe och T. J. Arne, pp. 49, 60, plates xl,\nxli, xlii.\n\n[741] 54-I. Liebermann, p. 114.\n\n[742] _Essays_, 34-5.\n\n[743] _Elene_, 264.\n\n[744] Engelhardt, _Denmark in the Early Iron Age_, p. 66.\n\n[745] _Andreas_, 303.\n\n[746] l. 2869.\n\n[747] \"Few have corslets and only one here and there a helmet\" (_Germania_,\n6). In the _Annals_ (II, 14) Tacitus makes Germanicus roundly deny the use\nof either by the Germans: _non loricam Germano, non galeam_.\n\n[748] See above, p. 124.\n\n[749] See Chifflet, J. J., _Anastasis Childerici I ... sive thesaurus\nsepulchralis_, Antverpiae, _Plantin_, 1655.\n\n[750] That _both_ sword and scramasax were buried with Childeric is shown\nby Lindenschmit, _Handbuch_, I, 236-9: see also pp. 68 _etc._\n\n[751] l. 2762-3.\n\n[752] Worsaae, _Nordiske Oldsager_, Kjoebenhavn, 1859; see No. 499; Roach\nSmith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, 1852, II, 164; Montelius, _Antiq. Su['e]d._\n1873, No. 294 (p. 184).\n\n[753] _Essays_, p. 198. See also above, p. 124. Mr Reginald Smith writes to\nme: \"Unburnt objects with cremated burials in prehistoric times (Bronze,\nEarly and late Iron Ages) are the exception, and are probably accidental\nsurvivals from the funeral pyre. In such an interpretation of _Beowulf_ I\nagree with the late Knut Stjerna, who was an archaeologist of much\nexperience.\"\n\n[754] Forming vols. 3 and 4 of _The Arts in Early England_, 1903-15.\n\n[755] It was, however, necessary to leave over for a supplementary volume\nsome of the contributions most interesting from the point of view of the\narchaeology of _Beowulf_: e.g. spatha, speer, schild.\n\n[756] B. E. Hildebrand, _Grafhoegarne vid Gamla Upsala, Kongl. Vitterhets\nHistorie och Antiqvitets Akademiens M[oa]nadsblad_, 1875-7, pp. 250-60.\n\n[757] _Fasta fornlaemningar i Beovulf_, in _Antiqvarisk Tidskrift foer\nSverige_, XVIII, 48-64.\n\n[758] _Heimskringla: Ynglingasaga_, cap. 25, 26, 29.\n\n[759] See B. Nerman, _Vilka konungar ligga i Uppsala hoegar?_ Uppsala,\n1913, and the same scholar's _Ynglingasagan i arkeologisk belysning_, in\n_Fornvaennen_, 1917, 226-61.\n\n[760] _Heimskringla: Ynglingasaga_, cap. 27.\n\n[761] A discovery made by Otto v. Friesen in 1910: see S. Lindqvist in\n_Fornvaennen_, 1917, 129. Two years earlier (1675) \"Utters hoegen i\nWaendell\" is mentioned in connection with an investigation into witchcraft.\nSee Linderholm, _Vendelshoegens konunganamn_, in _Namn och Bygd_, VII,\n1919, 36, 40.\n\n[762] For a preliminary account of the discovery, see _Ottarshoegen i\nVendel_, by S. Lindqvist in _Fornvaennen_, 1917, 127-43, and for discussion\nof the whole subject, B. Nerman, _Ottar Vendelkr[oa]ka och Ottarshoegen i\nVendel_, in _Upplands Fornminnesfoerenings Tidskrift_, VII, 309-34.\n\n[763] Baldwin Brown, III, 216.\n\n[764] 213.\n\n[765] 218.\n\n[766] So Baldwin Brown, III, 213; Lorange, _Den Yngre Jernalders Svaerd_,\nBergen, 1889, passim.\n\n[767] Baldwin Brown, III, 215.\n\n[768] It is somewhat similar in Norse literature, where swords are\nconstantly indicated as either inherited from of old, or coming from\nabroad: cf. Falk, 38-41.\n\n[769] _Beowulf_, 1489, _w[=ae]gsweord_; cf. _Vaegir_ as a sword-name in the\n_Thulur_. In ll. 1521, 1564, 2037, _hringm[=ae]l_ may refer to the ring in\nthe hilt, and terms like _wunden_- are more likely to refer to the\nserpentine ornament of the hilt. This must be the case with _wyrm-f[=a]h_\n(1698) as it is a question of the hilt alone. Stjerna (p. 111 = _Essays_,\n20) and others take _[=a]ter-t[=a]num f[=a]h_ (1459) as referring to the\ndamascened pattern (cf. _eggjar ... eitrdropom innan f['a]thar; Brot af\nSigurdharkvidhu_). It is suggested however by Falk (p. 17) that _t[=a]n_\nhere refers to an edge welded-on: the Icelandic _egg-teinn_.\n\n[770] The only certainly Anglo-Saxon helmet as yet discovered: traces of\nwhat may have been a similar head-piece were found near Cheltenham: Roach\nSmith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, II, 1852, 238.\n\n[771] _Coll. Ant._ II, 1852, 239; Bateman, _Ten Years' Diggings_, 30;\n_Catalogue of the Antiquities preserved in the Museum of Thomas Bateman_,\nBakewell, 1855.\n\n[772] A very good description of these continental \"Spangenhelme\" is given\nin the magnificent work of I. W. Groebbels, _Der Reihengraeberfund von\nGammertingen_, Muenchen, 1905. These helms had long been known from a\nspecimen (place of origin uncertain) in the Hermitage at Petrograd, and\nanother example, that of V['e]zeronce, supposed to have been lost in the\nbattle between Franks and Burgundians in 524. Seven other examples have\nbeen discovered in the last quarter of a century, including those of\nBaldenheim (for which see Henning (R.), _Der helm von Baldenheim und die\nverwandten helme des fruehen mittelalters_, Strassburg, 1907, cf.\nKauffmann, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XL, 464-7) and Gammertingen. They are not purely\nGermanic, and may have been made in Gaul, or among the Ostrogoths in\nRavenna, or further east.\n\n[773] Stjerna, _Essays_, p. 11 = _Studier tillaegnade Oscar Montelius af\nLaerjungar_, 1903, p. 104: Clark Hall, _Beowulf_, 1911, p. 228.\n\n[774] See also _Graffaeltet vid Vendel, beskrifvet af_ H. Stolpe och T. J.\nArne, Stockholm, 1912, pp. 13, 54; Pl. v, xli.\n\n[775] ll. 396, 2049, 2257, 2605; cf. _gr[=i]mhelm_, 334.\n\n[776] 2811, 304, 1111 (cf. Falk, 156).\n\n[777] 1453-4 (cf. Falk, 157-9).\n\n[778] _securum etiam inter hostes praestat._ _Germ._ cap. 45.\n\n[779] 1031 (cf. Falk, 158).\n\n[780] 1630, 2723. Cf. _Exodus_, 174, _gr[=i]mhelm gesp[=e]on cyning\ncinberge_, and _Genesis_, 444. (See Falk, 166.)\n\n[781] Cf. ll. 1503, 1548, 2260, 2754.\n\n[782] Cf. ll. 322, 551, 1443.\n\n[783] Bateman, _Ten Years' Diggings_, 1861, p. 32.\n\n[784] Cf. _Beowulf_, 330, 1772, 2042.\n\n[785] \"ne scuta quidem ferro neruoue firmata, sed ... tenuis et fucatas\ncolore tabulas,\" _Annals_, II, 14; cf. _Germania_, 6, \"scuta tantum\nlectissimis coloribus distinguunt.\"\n\n[786] _Nj['a]ls Saga_, cap. XXX.\n\n[787] It is the guess of A. Haupt, _Die Aelteste Kunst der Germanen_, p.\n213.\n\n[788] ll. 773-5, 998.\n\n[789] _Hist. Eccl._ II, 13. The life of man is compared to the transit of a\nsparrow flying from door to door of the hall where the king sits feasting\nwith his thanes and warriors, with a fire in the midst.\n\n[790] ll. 617-24, 2011-3.\n\n[791] 995.\n\n[792] 725.\n\n[793] 1035 _etc._\n\n[794] _Proc. Soc. Ant., Sec. Ser._ II, 177-82.\n\n[795] Jonckheere (['E].), _L'origine de la C[^o]te de Flandre et le Bateau\nde Bruges_, Bruges, 1903.\n\n[796] Engelhardt (H. C. C.), _Nydam Mosefund_, Kjoebenhavn, 1865.\n\n[797] Nicolaysen (N.), _Langskibet fra Gokstad_, Kristiania, 1882.\n\n[798] _Osebergfundet. Udgit av den Norske Stat, under redaktion av_ A. W.\nBroegger, Hj. Falk, H. Schetelig. Bd. I, Kristiania, 1917.\n\n[799] _Beowulf_, ll. 32, 1131, 1897.\n\n[800] 1862.\n\n[801] 220.\n\n[802] Noreen, _Altschwedische Grammatik_, 1904, p. 499.\n\n[803] All these places are in Gotland. The Stenkyrka stone is reproduced in\nStjerna's _Essays_, transl. Clark Hall, fig. 24.\n\n[804] The same, fig. 27.\n\n[805] Reproduced in Montelius, _Sveriges Historia_, p. 283.\n\n[806] _Deutsche Mythologie_, 3te Ausgabe, 1854, pp. 342, 639.\n\n[807] _Academy_, XI, 1877, p. 163.\n\n[808] _Engl. Stud._ II, 314.\n\n[809] _Beowulf_, p. 177.\n\n[810] _Aanteekeningen op den Beowulf_, 1892, p. 42.\n\n[811] _P.B.B._ XVIII, 413.\n\n[812] _Z.f.oe.G._ LVI, 759.\n\n[813] _Beowulf_, p. 392.\n\n[814] _Engl. Stud._ LII, 191. Among the many who have accepted the\nexplanation \"bee-wolf,\" without giving additional reasons, may be mentioned\nR. Mueller, _Untersuchungen ueber die Namen des Liber Vitae_, 1901, p. 94.\n\n[815] Both Grimm and Skeat suggested the woodpecker, which feeds upon bees\nand their larvae: Grimm appealing to classical mythology, Skeat instancing\nthe bird's courage. But nothing seems forthcoming from Teutonic mythology\nto favour this interpretation. Cosijn, following Sijmons, _Z.f.d.Ph._ XXIV,\n17, thought bees might have been an omen of victory. But there is no\nsatisfactory evidence for this. The term _sigew[=i]f_ applied to the\nswarming bees in the _Charms_ (Cockayne's _Leechdoms_, I, 384) is\ninsufficient.\n\n[816] _Tidskr. f. Philol. og Paedag._ VIII, 289.\n\n[817] _Deutsches Woerterbuch_, 1854, I, 1122.\n\n[818] \"Das compositum Be['o]vulf, wie G[^o]zolf, Irminolf, Reginolf, und\nandre gebildet, zeigt nur einen helden und krieger im geist und sinn oder\nvon der art des Be['o]wa an. Ihm entspricht altn. Bi[^o]lfr.\" (Muellenhoff,\nin _Z.f.d.A._ XII, 284.) But certainly this interpretation is impossible\nfor O.N. _Bi['o]lfr_: \"warrior of Beowa\" would be _*Byggulfr_, which we\nnowhere find. See Bjoerkman in _Engl. Stud._ LII, 191. Muellenhoff at this\ndate, whilst not connecting _B[=e]owulf_ directly with _b[=e]o_, \"bee,\" did\nso connect _B[=e]owa_, whom he interpreted as a bee-god or bee-father. But\nthere is no evidence for this, and the _w_ of _B[=e]owa_ tells emphatically\nagainst it. Muellenhoff subsequently abandoned this explanation.\n\n[819] It is actually written _Biu^uulf_.\n\n[820] _Biu_ in _Biuuulf_ cannot stand for _B[=e]o_ [older _Beu_] because in\nOld Northumbrian _iu_ and _eo_ are rigidly differentiated, as an\nexamination of all the other names in the _Liber Vitae_ shows. As Sievers\npoints out, if _Biuuulf_ is to be derived from _*Beuw (w)ulf_, then it\nwould afford an isolated and inexplicable case of _iu_ for _eo[eu]_, unique\nin the _Liber Vitae_, as in the whole mass of the oldest English texts:\n\"Soll ein zusammenhang mit st. _beuwa-_ stattfinden, so muss man auch\ndiesen stamm fuer einen urspr. s-stamm erklaeren, und unser _biu-_ auf die\nstammform _biuwi(z)-_ nicht auf _beuwa(z)-_ zurueckfuehren.\" (Sievers,\n_P.B.B._ XVIII, 413.) The word however is a neut. _wa_-stem, whether in\nO.E. (_b[=e]ow_), Old Saxon (_b[=e]o_) or Icelandic (_bygg_): see Sievers,\n_Ags. Grammatik_, 3te Aufl. s. 250; Gall['e]e, _Altsaechsische Grammatik_,\n2te Aufl. s. 305; Noreen, _Altislaendische Grammatik_, 3te Aufl. s. 356.\nThe word is extant in Old English only in the Glossaries, in the gen.\nsing., \"handful beouaes,\" _etc._, and in Old Saxon only in the gen. plu.\n_beuuo_. It is thought to have been originally a _wu_-stem, which\nsubsequently, as e.g. in O.E., passed into a _wa_-stem. (See Noreen,\n_A.f.n.F._ I, 166, arguing from the form _begg_ in the Dalecarlian\ndialect.) The presumed Primitive Norse form is _beggwu_, whence the various\nScandinavian forms, Icel. _bygg_, Old Swedish and Old Danish _biug(g)_. See\nHellquist in _A.f.n.F._ VII, 31; von Unwerth, _A.f.n.F._ XXXIII, 331; Binz,\n_P.B.B._ XX, 153; von Helten, _P.B.B._ XXX, 245; Kock, _Umlaut u. Brechung\nim Aschw._ p. 314, in _Lunds Universitets [oa]rsskrift_, Bd. XII. The\nproper name _Byggvir_ is a _ja_-stem, but _B[=e]ow_ cannot have been so\nformed, as a _ja_-stem would give the form _B[=e]owe_. Cosijn\n(_Aanteekeningen_, 42) was accordingly justified in pointing to the form\n_Biuuulf_ as refuting Koegel's attempt to connect _B[=e]owulf_ with\n_B[=e]ow_ through a form _*Bawiwulf_ (_A.f.d.A._ XVIII, 56). Koegel replied\nwith a laboured defence (_Z.f.d.A._ XXXVII, 268): he starts by assuming\nthat _B[=e]ow_ and _B[=e]owulf_ are etymologically connected, which is the\nvery point which has to be proved: he has to admit that, if his etymology\nbe correct, the _Biuuulf_ of the _Liber Vitae_ is not the same form as\n_B[=e]owulf_, which is the very point Cosijn urged as telling against his\netymology: and even so his etymological explanations depend upon stages\nwhich cannot be accepted in the present state of our knowledge (see\nespecially Sievers in _P.B.B._ XVIII, 413; Bjoerkman in _Engl. Stud._ LII,\n150).\n\n[821] _Tidskr. f. Philol og Paedag._ VIII, 289.\n\n[822] First pointed out by Grundtvig in Barfod's _Brage og Idun_, IV, 1841,\np. 500, footnote.\n\n[823] \"Lodmundr hinn gamli het madr enn annarr. Bi['o]lfr fostbrodir hans.\nTheir foru til Islands af Vors af Thvlvnesi\" (Voss in Norway). See\n_Landn['a]mab['o]k_, Koebenhavn, 1900, p. 92.\n\n[824] Noreen, _Altislaendische Grammatik_, 3te Aufl. p. 97. See also Noreen\nin _Festskrift til H. F. Feilberg_, 1911, p. 283. Noreen seems to have no\ndoubt as to the explanation of _Bj['o]lfr_ as _B['y]-olfr_, \"Bee-wolf.\"\n\n[825] Bugge, has, however, been followed by Gering, _Beowulf_, 1906, p.\n100.\n\n[826] Ferguson in the _Athenaeum_, June 1892, p. 763: \"Beadowulf by a\ncommon form of elision (!) would become Beowulf.\" Sarrazin admits \"Freilich\nist das eine ungewoehnliche verkuerzung\" (_Engl. Stud._ XLII, 19). See also\nSarrazin in _Anglia_, V, 200; _Beowulf-Studien_, 33, 77; _Engl. Stud._ XVI,\n79.\n\n[827] This incompatibility comes out very strongly in ll. 2499-2506, where\nBeowulf praises his sword particularly for the services it has _not_ been\nable to render him.\n\n[828] See above, pp. 60-1.\n\n[829] Olrik, _Heltedigtning_, I, 140: F. J['o]nsson, _Hr['o]lfs Saga\nKraka_, 1904, _Inledning_, XX.\n\n[830] _Hr['o]lfs Saga Kraka_, cap. 17-20.\n\n[831] The trait is wanting in the _Grettis saga_: Grettir son of Asmund was\ntoo historical a character for such features to be attributed to him.\n\n[832] See pp. 62-7.\n\n[833] No. 166. Translated as \"Strong Hans.\" (_Grimm's Household Tales,\ntrans. by M. Hunt, with introduction by A. Lang_, 1884.)\n\n[834] As, for example, by Cosquin, _Contes populaires de Lorraine_, I, 7. A\ncomparison of the different versions in which the \"strange theme\" is toned\ndown, in a greater or less degree, seems to make this certain.\n\n[835] No. 91.\n\n[836] Edinburgh, 1860, vol. I, No. XVI, \"The king of Lochlin's three\ndaughters\": vol. III, No. LVIII, \"The rider of Grianaig.\"\n\n[837] London, 1866: p. 43, \"The Three Crowns.\"\n\n[838] Notably by von Sydow.\n\n[839] Asbjoernsen og Moe, _Norske Folkeeventyr_, Christiania, 1852, No. 3.\n\n[840] _Popular Tales from the Norse_ (third edit., Edinburgh, 1888, p.\n382).\n\n[841] Visentini, _Fiabe Mantovane_, 1879, No. 32, 157-161.\n\n[842] \"fino a che col capo tocca le travi.\" Cf. Glam in the _Grettis Saga_.\n\n[843] \"e qui vede il gigante seduto, che detteva il suo testamento.\"\n\n[844] p. 153. This is Panzer's version 97.\n\n[845] \"A fabulous creature, but zoologically the name Norka (from _nora_, a\nhole) belongs to the otter,\" Ralston, _Russian Folk Tales_, p. 73.\n\n[846] Afanasief (A. N.), _Narodnuiya Russkiya Skazki_, Moscow, 1860-63, I,\n6. See Ralston, p. 73.\n\n[847] Afanasief, VIII, No. 6.\n\n[848] For example, \"Shepherd Paul,\" in _The Folk-Tales of the Magyars_, by\nW. H. Jones and L. L. Knopf, _Folk-Lore Society_, 1889, p. 244. The latest\ncollection contains its version, 'The Story of T[=a]ling, the Half-boy' in\n_Persian Tales, written down for the first time and translated_ by D. L. R.\nand E. O. Lorimer, London, 1919.\n\n[849] Cf. von Sydow in _A.f.d.A._ XXXV, 126.\n\n[850] I['o]n Arnason's MSS, No. 536, 4^o.\n\n[851] Rittershaus (A.), _Die Neuislaendischen Volksmaerchen_, Halle, 1902,\nNo. 25.\n\n[852] _Faeroeske Folkesagn og Aeventyr_, ed. by Jakob Jakobsen, 1898-1901,\npp. 241-4 (_Samfund til Udgivelse af gammel Nordisk Litteratur._)\n\n[853] This folk-tale is given in a small book, to be found in the\nChristiania University Library, and no doubt elsewhere in Norway: _Nor, en\nBilledbog for den norske Ungdom_ (Tredie Oplag, Christiania, 1865). _Norske\nFolke-Eventyr og Sagn_, fortalte af P. Chr. Asbjoernsen. A copy of the\nstory, slightly altered, occurs in the _Udvalgte Eventyr og Sagn for\nBoern_, of Knutsen, Bentsen and Johnsson, Christiania, 1877, p. 58 _etc._\n\n[854] pp. 66-7.\n\n[855] Berntsen (K.), _Folke-Aeventyr_, 1873, No. 12, pp. 109-115.\n\n[856] Grundtvig (Sv.), _Gamle Danske Minder_, 1854, No. 34, p. 33: from\nNaestved.\n\n[857] _Hans mit de ysern Stang'_, Muellenhoff, _Sagen, Maerchen u. Lieder_\n... 1845, No. XVI, p. 437.\n\n[858] Colshorn (C. and Th.), _Maerchen u. Sagen_, Hannover, 1854, No. V,\npp. 18-30.\n\n[859] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 2183-8.\n\n[860] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 815 _etc._\n\n[861] Cf. _Beowulf_, ll. 1516-17; cf. _Grettis Saga_, LXVI.\n\n[862] Cf. _Grettis Saga_, LXVI, _hann kveikti lj['o]s_; cf. _Beowulf_,\n1570.\n\n[863] _Contes du roi Cambrinus_, par C. Deulin, Paris, 1874 (I.\n_L'intr['e]pide Gayant_). The story is associated with Gayant, the\ntraditional hero of Douai.\n\n[864] Cf. Schmidt, _Geschichte der deutschen Staemme_, II, 495, 499, _note_\n4.\n\n[865] III, 1.\n\n[866] II, 43.\n\n[867]  [Greek: Pais ... neos en komidei, kai eti hupo paidokomoi\ntithenoumenos], Agathias, I, 4: _parvulus_, Gregory, IV, 6.\n\n[868] Gregory, III, 20.\n\n[869] III, 22.\n\n[870] III, 23.\n\n[871] III, 27.\n\n[872] Many recent historians have expressed doubts as to the conventional\ndate, 515, for Hygelac's death. J. P. Jacobsen, in the Danish translation\nof Gregory (1911) suggested 525-30: following him Severinsen (_Danske\nStudier_, 1919, 96) suggested c. 526, as did Fredborg, _Det foersta\n[oa]rtalet i Sveriges historia_. L. Schmidt (_Geschichte der deutschen\nStaemme_, II, 500, _note_, 1918) suggested c. 528.\n\n[873] Archaeological works bearing less directly upon _Beowulf_ are\nenumerated in _Appendix F_; that enumeration is not repeated here.\n\n[874] Most students nowadays will probably agree with v. Sydow's contention\nthat the struggle of Beowulf, first above ground and then below, is a\nfolk-story, one and indivisible, and that therefore there is no reason for\nattributing the two sections to different authors, as do Boer, Muellenhoff\nand ten Brink. But that the folk-tale is exclusively Celtic remains to be\nproved; v. Sydow's contention that Celtic influence is shown in _Beowulf_\nby the inhospitable shamelessness of Unferth (compare that of Kai) is\nsurely fanciful. Also the statement that the likeness of Bjarki and Beowulf\nis confined to the freeing of the Danish palace from a dangerous monster by\na stranger from abroad, and that \"das sonstige Beiwerk voellig verschieden\nist\" surely cannot be maintained. As argued above (pp. 54-61) there are\nother distinct points of resemblance.\n\nv. Sydow's statement no doubt suffers from the brevity with which it is\nreported, and his forthcoming volume of _Beowulf studien_ will be awaited\nwith interest.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n[Illustration: SOUTHERN SCANDINAVIA IN THE SIXTH CENTURY]\n\n[Illustration: ENGLISH BOAR-HELMET AND RING-SWORDS\n\nI. Benty Grange Helmet (Roach Smith, _Collectanea Antiqua_, II, 238).\n\nII. Pommel of Ring-Sword from Faversham, Kent (_Ibid._, VI, 139).\n\nIII. Pommel of Ring-Sword from Gilton, Kent (_Archaeologia_, XXX, 132). ]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":167519}